What do you think?
Rate this book
The Jewish Annotated New Testament
Not yet published
Expected 1 Apr 26Although major New Testament figures--Jesus and Paul, Peter and James, Jesus' mother Mary and Mary Magdalene--were Jews, living in a culture steeped in Jewish history, beliefs, and practices, there has never been an edition of the New Testament that addresses its Jewish background and the culture from which it grew--until now. In The Jewish Annotated New Testament, eminent experts under the general editorship of Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Z. Brettler put these writings back into the context of their original authors and audiences. And they explain how these writings have affected the relations of Jews and Christians over the past two thousand years.
An international team of scholars introduces and annotates the Gospels, Acts, Letters, and Revelation from Jewish perspectives, in the New Revised Standard Version translation. They show how Jewish practices and writings, particularly the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, influenced the New Testament writers. From this perspective, readers gain new insight into the New Testament's meaning and significance. In addition, thirty essays on historical and religious topics--Divine Beings, Jesus in Jewish thought, Parables and Midrash, Mysticism, Jewish Family Life, Messianic Movements, Dead Sea Scrolls, questions of the New Testament and anti-Judaism, and others--bring the Jewish context of the New Testament to the fore, enabling all readers to see these writings both in their original contexts and in the history of interpretation. For readers unfamiliar with Christian language and customs, there are explanations of such matters as the Eucharist, the significance of baptism, and "original sin."
For non-Jewish readers interested in the Jewish roots of Christianity and for Jewish readers who want a New Testament that neither proselytizes for Christianity nor denigrates Judaism, The Jewish Annotated New Testament is an essential volume that places these writings in a context that will enlighten students, professionals, and general readers.
An international team of scholars introduces and annotates the Gospels, Acts, Letters, and Revelation from Jewish perspectives, in the New Revised Standard Version translation. They show how Jewish practices and writings, particularly the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, influenced the New Testament writers. From this perspective, readers gain new insight into the New Testament's meaning and significance. In addition, thirty essays on historical and religious topics--Divine Beings, Jesus in Jewish thought, Parables and Midrash, Mysticism, Jewish Family Life, Messianic Movements, Dead Sea Scrolls, questions of the New Testament and anti-Judaism, and others--bring the Jewish context of the New Testament to the fore, enabling all readers to see these writings both in their original contexts and in the history of interpretation. For readers unfamiliar with Christian language and customs, there are explanations of such matters as the Eucharist, the significance of baptism, and "original sin."
For non-Jewish readers interested in the Jewish roots of Christianity and for Jewish readers who want a New Testament that neither proselytizes for Christianity nor denigrates Judaism, The Jewish Annotated New Testament is an essential volume that places these writings in a context that will enlighten students, professionals, and general readers.
1106 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
550 people are currently reading
1442 people want to read
About the author
Amy-Jill Levine
97 books309 followersAmy-Jill Levine is University Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies and Mary Jane Werthan Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt Divinity School and Department of Jewish Studies. Her books include The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus; Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi; four children's books (with Sandy Sasso); The Gospel of Luke (with Ben Witherington III); and The Jewish Annotated New Testament (co-edited with Marc Z. Brettler). Her most recent books are The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (co-authored with Marc Z. Brettler), Sermon on the Mount: A Beginner's Guide to the Kingdom of Heaven; and The Kingdom of Heaven: 40 Devotionals. In 2019 she became the first Jew to teach New Testament at Rome's Pontifical Biblical Institute. Professor Levine, who has done over 300 programs for churches, clergy groups, and seminaries, has been awarded grants from the Mellon Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the American Council of Learned Societies. Institutions granting her honorary degrees include Christian Theological Seminary and the Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews
May 6, 2015
My project was to read the 30 essays at the back of this NRSV translation. I've had the book since shortly after it came out and remember a review that said the essays alone were worth the price of admission, but how many people read the essays or even the chapter introductions in their bibles? Why is that so hard to do? I haven't read the essays in The Jewish Study Bible, either (although I've burned up the footnotes and about worn out those tissue-paper pages in a few short years). Nor have I read those in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version. The introduction to Matthew's Gospel amazed me, though--the second page--just the fact that it was in there. Which suggests I should check out the others!
Oral is a good way to read these--out loud to a friend or study partner.
Speaking of those three books, here's a discovery I didn't make until I was preparing for this review: Marc Zvi Brettler. He's the co-editor of The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Since I was more focused on the other editor, Amy-Jill Levine, I tended to skip over this other guy. I thought he was the junior editor. I didn't know he was also Jewish--found that out from the editors' preface. Then I happened to be checking something in The New Oxford Annotated--and noticed he's an associated editor of that, as well. Now my curiosity was piqued so I googled him. He won the Jewish Book Award in 2004 for editing The Jewish Study Bible--the very book I'd been wearing out for four or five years. This guy gets around!
His essay is on the NT and its temporal position between the Tanakh (Christian "Old Testament") and rabbinic literature. He says that NT contains over 250 quotes from the OT, around 500 allusions, and many more indirect allusions. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the OT and NT. Much of the discontinuity reflects putting together separate ideas from the OT in new ways, and much more reflects the further development of Jewish literature within the Hellenistic Judaism of the time. For example, he says 2 Maccabees shows the development of the idea of a martyr to the state whose death "has salvific value for fellow Jews...." Both the Tanakh and NT incorporate multiple and contradictory traditions, and both the rabbis and the NT authors interpreted the Tanakh/OT in convoluted and surprising ways. Although the NT is a Christian book for a community that had come to understand itself as separate, the OT and the rabbinic literature are necessary for a full understanding of the NT
This book doesn't include thumbnail sketches on the editors and contributors. Searched again last night and they are not there. Some of them I know of and a lot I don't.
Amy-Jill Levine, the first editor, has been called the rock star of interfaith relations. She's a professor of New Testament at Vanderbilt and she definitely gets around, keeping up a busy lecture schedule all over the country and I guess out of it, too. I first heard her speak in the spring of 2008 at Mercer's McAfee Theological Center where she was the first non-Christian headliner at their annual preaching lectures. She has a gift when it comes to speaking--not that she doesn't work hard at it! Her writing is for me rather dense, like reading reference material. Now, others don't necessarily feel that way. Her most well-known book, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus is much loved. At any rate, her essay here, "Bearing False Witness--Common Errors Made About Early Judaism" hits the high points in a few short pages.
Martin Goodman's entry, "Jewish History, 331 BCE-135 CE" provides a similar service. He's Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford and author of the tome Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, a very detailed and close-up history which I didn't make it all the way through before fast-forwarding to the conclusion. Here we can look at those pesky Hasmoneans and their alliances as one king or priest replaced another--so hard to keep up with! (There's a useful "Chronological Table of Rulers" later in the book that outlines the similarly confusing succession of Roman governors.) Here's a tidbit on the ruthless first Herod ("the Great," the one who reigned until 4 BCE): he undercut the power of the priests so as to curtail their ability to revolt. And he maintained control of the Temple, his main source of support always being Rome. Herod played both ends against the middle, for example, circulating a false genealogy as to his Judahite origins but sacrificing to Jupiter when the politics called for it. Goodman's essay also includes the Jewish wars--the revolt against Rome of 66-70 CE, when the Temple fell, the 115-117 CE Diaspora war, and the second Judean revolt of 132 CE, after which Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem as a Roman colony (Aelia Captitolina) and renamed Judea as Syria Palaestina.
Goodman's predecessor as Oxford Prof. of Jewish Studies was Geza Vermes (pronounced "Vermesh," not "Vermez," as he is Hungarian). Vermes (who died last year) had an interesting life story. His essay here focuses on the stories about other Jewish miracle workers of Second Temple times besides Jesus. Not only the later Christians but also the early Rabbis suppressed the memory of these. The reason for the former may be obvious, but as to the latter, Jewish tradition was going in the direction of human--not miraculous--responsibility for decisions--plus it was necessary to tamp down messianic enthusiasm such as comes from contemplation of miraculous leaders lest further revolts lead to more massacres and devastation.
Another essayist with whom I'm familiar is Lee I. Levine, but only because the author of Covenant of Blood: Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism, on which I did an earlier exhaustive (and exhausting!) review, disagreed with him on whether prayer and rabbis were ensconced in the synagogues of Jesus' time. The stance in the essay is that they were, although somehow it is not just as we would (and do) imagine it, but Lawrence Hoffman put up a good argument otherwise. Hoffman says rabbinical Judaism emerged from fellowship groups, not synagogues, and only later became dominant in them. For example, if rabbis had been in charge of them, would they have had women leaders and gentile benefactors? Hoffman says most of those assumptions about synagogues are arguments from silence. He says those early synagogues were meeting houses--and crash pads and study centers--not yet houses of prayer.
A note on how I study: In these matters I am a student. I don't read the ancient languages, and my education was in psychology, not bible scholarship or theology. So I proceed like an archeologist. I read what each scholar has to offer, and I value their supporting their claims over simply stating that something or other is "clearly" the case or "certainly" true. As I go from one to the next I can see how a scholar's claims fit with the picture I'm building. I also notice whether they answer other scholars with competing theories or simply ignore that there are different opinions. Another issue I'm sensitive to is that a scholar's conclusions can be swayed by his or her religious sensibilities. Admittedly, in the debate about the role of the early synagogue Hoffman had a whole book to make his case, not just a short essay. Also the Hoffman book is older so perhaps new information has come out that I don't know about--but still I thought I was seeing some fudged explanations and assumptions stated as fact. So, at this point I'm still in the Hoffman camp.
Mutual agreement among all these essayists was not a requirement for inclusion.
At the beginning of this review I was talking about the peripatetic editor Marc Brettler, which reminds me of one of the essays on translating the New Testament, since a Jewish editor, or, at least, translator, was involved. The first translation that used "young woman" instead of "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 was burned as heretical in 1952 when it was published (the book, that is; not the translator); perhaps that was also for the related heresy of having included the Jew on the translation committee. The author went on to discuss the tension between scripture as universal message to be spread in every language, on one hand, versus scripture as untouchable sacred text. That tension is more severe in Christianity than in other traditions because of the religion's imperative on breaking the language barrier.
Incidentally, the author of the essay on translation is Naomi Seidman, and "Seidman" is my maiden name. We could be related! I have some major gaps in my genealogy on one side, so far.
Translations that become central and hang around a long time acquire more than a sheen of sanctity in their own right, as happened with the Septuagint, the 2nd century BCE translation of the Hebrew bible into Greek--done for the use of Hellenistic Jews but became the foundation of Christianity. Think, also, of the King James version, so idolized in the U.S. (And, no, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann did not say, "English was good enough for Jesus when he wrote the Bible.")
One more essayist I want to mention is Daniel Boyarin. I think he has the potential be as controversial as Reza Aslan if only he, too, were to get himself raked over the coals on Fox News. Whereas you will hear scholars from Aslan to Ehrman and beyond exclaiming that Jews of the Second Temple period never, ever dreamed of a martyred messiah, Boyarin disagrees, or at least I think he does, from reviews and discussion. In his essay here, "Logos, a Jewish Word: John's Prologue as Midrash," he makes a good case for the midrash aspect but did not convince me of his other point--that the Jews of the period believed--literally--in divine figures linking heaven and earth. I mean, maybe they did, but he didn't persuade me of it. On second thought--for him to become super-controversial, his writing needs to be more compelling.
There are more essays here for the reading--on food and table fellowship, "Ioudaios," Jewish movements and messianic movements of the times, the concept of "neighbor" in Judaism and Christianity, "Paul and Judaism, Philo, Josephus, "Jewish Responses to Believers in Jesus," and more. There are controversial issues and concepts, for example, the possibility that, if it hadn't been for Paul out there on his mission to bring the gentiles into the people of God via faith in (or of) Jesus, then those followers back in the land would have been--and remained--just another Jewish sect, one that happened to believe Jesus' life and death had some significance for them. That's what they considered themselves: Jews (from "Judaizers, Jewish Christians, and Others"). They weren't blaming "the Jews"--not back then.
If only the reasons for wrong understandings were simply intellectual in nature and subject to remedy by education! Well, to the extent that's the case, here's knowledge for the taking.
Oral is a good way to read these--out loud to a friend or study partner.
Speaking of those three books, here's a discovery I didn't make until I was preparing for this review: Marc Zvi Brettler. He's the co-editor of The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Since I was more focused on the other editor, Amy-Jill Levine, I tended to skip over this other guy. I thought he was the junior editor. I didn't know he was also Jewish--found that out from the editors' preface. Then I happened to be checking something in The New Oxford Annotated--and noticed he's an associated editor of that, as well. Now my curiosity was piqued so I googled him. He won the Jewish Book Award in 2004 for editing The Jewish Study Bible--the very book I'd been wearing out for four or five years. This guy gets around!
His essay is on the NT and its temporal position between the Tanakh (Christian "Old Testament") and rabbinic literature. He says that NT contains over 250 quotes from the OT, around 500 allusions, and many more indirect allusions. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the OT and NT. Much of the discontinuity reflects putting together separate ideas from the OT in new ways, and much more reflects the further development of Jewish literature within the Hellenistic Judaism of the time. For example, he says 2 Maccabees shows the development of the idea of a martyr to the state whose death "has salvific value for fellow Jews...." Both the Tanakh and NT incorporate multiple and contradictory traditions, and both the rabbis and the NT authors interpreted the Tanakh/OT in convoluted and surprising ways. Although the NT is a Christian book for a community that had come to understand itself as separate, the OT and the rabbinic literature are necessary for a full understanding of the NT
This book doesn't include thumbnail sketches on the editors and contributors. Searched again last night and they are not there. Some of them I know of and a lot I don't.
Amy-Jill Levine, the first editor, has been called the rock star of interfaith relations. She's a professor of New Testament at Vanderbilt and she definitely gets around, keeping up a busy lecture schedule all over the country and I guess out of it, too. I first heard her speak in the spring of 2008 at Mercer's McAfee Theological Center where she was the first non-Christian headliner at their annual preaching lectures. She has a gift when it comes to speaking--not that she doesn't work hard at it! Her writing is for me rather dense, like reading reference material. Now, others don't necessarily feel that way. Her most well-known book, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus is much loved. At any rate, her essay here, "Bearing False Witness--Common Errors Made About Early Judaism" hits the high points in a few short pages.
Martin Goodman's entry, "Jewish History, 331 BCE-135 CE" provides a similar service. He's Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford and author of the tome Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, a very detailed and close-up history which I didn't make it all the way through before fast-forwarding to the conclusion. Here we can look at those pesky Hasmoneans and their alliances as one king or priest replaced another--so hard to keep up with! (There's a useful "Chronological Table of Rulers" later in the book that outlines the similarly confusing succession of Roman governors.) Here's a tidbit on the ruthless first Herod ("the Great," the one who reigned until 4 BCE): he undercut the power of the priests so as to curtail their ability to revolt. And he maintained control of the Temple, his main source of support always being Rome. Herod played both ends against the middle, for example, circulating a false genealogy as to his Judahite origins but sacrificing to Jupiter when the politics called for it. Goodman's essay also includes the Jewish wars--the revolt against Rome of 66-70 CE, when the Temple fell, the 115-117 CE Diaspora war, and the second Judean revolt of 132 CE, after which Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem as a Roman colony (Aelia Captitolina) and renamed Judea as Syria Palaestina.
Goodman's predecessor as Oxford Prof. of Jewish Studies was Geza Vermes (pronounced "Vermesh," not "Vermez," as he is Hungarian). Vermes (who died last year) had an interesting life story. His essay here focuses on the stories about other Jewish miracle workers of Second Temple times besides Jesus. Not only the later Christians but also the early Rabbis suppressed the memory of these. The reason for the former may be obvious, but as to the latter, Jewish tradition was going in the direction of human--not miraculous--responsibility for decisions--plus it was necessary to tamp down messianic enthusiasm such as comes from contemplation of miraculous leaders lest further revolts lead to more massacres and devastation.
Another essayist with whom I'm familiar is Lee I. Levine, but only because the author of Covenant of Blood: Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism, on which I did an earlier exhaustive (and exhausting!) review, disagreed with him on whether prayer and rabbis were ensconced in the synagogues of Jesus' time. The stance in the essay is that they were, although somehow it is not just as we would (and do) imagine it, but Lawrence Hoffman put up a good argument otherwise. Hoffman says rabbinical Judaism emerged from fellowship groups, not synagogues, and only later became dominant in them. For example, if rabbis had been in charge of them, would they have had women leaders and gentile benefactors? Hoffman says most of those assumptions about synagogues are arguments from silence. He says those early synagogues were meeting houses--and crash pads and study centers--not yet houses of prayer.
A note on how I study: In these matters I am a student. I don't read the ancient languages, and my education was in psychology, not bible scholarship or theology. So I proceed like an archeologist. I read what each scholar has to offer, and I value their supporting their claims over simply stating that something or other is "clearly" the case or "certainly" true. As I go from one to the next I can see how a scholar's claims fit with the picture I'm building. I also notice whether they answer other scholars with competing theories or simply ignore that there are different opinions. Another issue I'm sensitive to is that a scholar's conclusions can be swayed by his or her religious sensibilities. Admittedly, in the debate about the role of the early synagogue Hoffman had a whole book to make his case, not just a short essay. Also the Hoffman book is older so perhaps new information has come out that I don't know about--but still I thought I was seeing some fudged explanations and assumptions stated as fact. So, at this point I'm still in the Hoffman camp.
Mutual agreement among all these essayists was not a requirement for inclusion.
At the beginning of this review I was talking about the peripatetic editor Marc Brettler, which reminds me of one of the essays on translating the New Testament, since a Jewish editor, or, at least, translator, was involved. The first translation that used "young woman" instead of "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 was burned as heretical in 1952 when it was published (the book, that is; not the translator); perhaps that was also for the related heresy of having included the Jew on the translation committee. The author went on to discuss the tension between scripture as universal message to be spread in every language, on one hand, versus scripture as untouchable sacred text. That tension is more severe in Christianity than in other traditions because of the religion's imperative on breaking the language barrier.
Incidentally, the author of the essay on translation is Naomi Seidman, and "Seidman" is my maiden name. We could be related! I have some major gaps in my genealogy on one side, so far.
Translations that become central and hang around a long time acquire more than a sheen of sanctity in their own right, as happened with the Septuagint, the 2nd century BCE translation of the Hebrew bible into Greek--done for the use of Hellenistic Jews but became the foundation of Christianity. Think, also, of the King James version, so idolized in the U.S. (And, no, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann did not say, "English was good enough for Jesus when he wrote the Bible.")
One more essayist I want to mention is Daniel Boyarin. I think he has the potential be as controversial as Reza Aslan if only he, too, were to get himself raked over the coals on Fox News. Whereas you will hear scholars from Aslan to Ehrman and beyond exclaiming that Jews of the Second Temple period never, ever dreamed of a martyred messiah, Boyarin disagrees, or at least I think he does, from reviews and discussion. In his essay here, "Logos, a Jewish Word: John's Prologue as Midrash," he makes a good case for the midrash aspect but did not convince me of his other point--that the Jews of the period believed--literally--in divine figures linking heaven and earth. I mean, maybe they did, but he didn't persuade me of it. On second thought--for him to become super-controversial, his writing needs to be more compelling.
There are more essays here for the reading--on food and table fellowship, "Ioudaios," Jewish movements and messianic movements of the times, the concept of "neighbor" in Judaism and Christianity, "Paul and Judaism, Philo, Josephus, "Jewish Responses to Believers in Jesus," and more. There are controversial issues and concepts, for example, the possibility that, if it hadn't been for Paul out there on his mission to bring the gentiles into the people of God via faith in (or of) Jesus, then those followers back in the land would have been--and remained--just another Jewish sect, one that happened to believe Jesus' life and death had some significance for them. That's what they considered themselves: Jews (from "Judaizers, Jewish Christians, and Others"). They weren't blaming "the Jews"--not back then.
If only the reasons for wrong understandings were simply intellectual in nature and subject to remedy by education! Well, to the extent that's the case, here's knowledge for the taking.
September 3, 2012
As a Jewish person, I was surprised the first time I read the New Testament at just how many of our everyday expressions (wolf in sheep's clothing, the rooster crows, etc..) were derived from it. But this is the version I wish I had read first, because this New Testament explains so much about the parts of Christianity that derive from Judiasm, and about how both religions-and thus much of modern civilization in both the east and west--evolved. Missing: the fluid language of other versions like the King James edition that have helped elevate the reading experience for so many.
April 28, 2014
NRSV translation with great footnotes. i'm a bit biased, seeing as AJ Levine was my professor in New Testament, but I still stand by the importance of this book. It addresses contemporary concerns with Jesus' Jewish context and debunks the common myths associated with such concerns. The additional essays in the back of the book are a wealth of information for further interpretation and responsible engagement with Jewish history. This translation comes with the agenda laid out in full without any apologies. The concerns Levine addresses warrant attention if we are to responsibly depict Jesus in context and use this as a basis for interpretation. This will help us wrestle with the anti-Semitic readings of the Bible and understand what such passages may have indicated in the 1st/2nd century Palestinian world. Overall, another must-read for those intent on biblical studies.
December 7, 2012
A great reference sourse, coming at the Christian Scriptures with a Jewish perspective.
May 25, 2012
This isn't a book you read once, it's a valuable library addition for Judeo-Christian scholars and preachers. It is probably too little to say it is long overdue to have been written, but then again, our culture has only arrived at accepting female biblical scholarship in very recent years. I look forward to more works done by these authors and others like them. I hope to add my own efforts in fact, one of these days, to the scholarly discourse on women's knowledge and insights about scripture.
August 31, 2017
The essays and annotations on the Jewish Annotated New Testament are landmark in Judeo-Christian scholarship. You can feel Marc Zvi Brettler's careful hand on this volume as well as Amy-Jill Levine's and her essay in this, "Bearing False Witness--Common Errors Made About Early Judaism", is a good summary of her understanding of early Judaism and its relationship to Christianity. Martin Goodman's entry "Jewish History, 331 BCE-135 CE" is also topnotch. However, while this is a great scholar's NRSV Bible, like the Jewish Study Bible (Tenakh), I'd imagine it will frustrate people who want to use it for religious purposes as many of the scholars are liberal Jewish believers or non-believers all together. However, this is also the case for many other scholarly NRSV Study Bibles such as Harper's Study Bible and Oxford Annotated.
December 31, 2024
If one wants to engage in serious study of the New Testament and its contexts, this is the edition to read. The title may be a bit misleading: this isn’t a uniform Jewish theological take on the New Testament, but rather an exploration of the rich and multifaceted environment in which the loose assortment of texts, reflecting many different historical and theological perspectives, that would in time become the scripture of an integrated “religion” called Christianity, took shape. The commentary and scholarly essays draw on a plethora of material: the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Talmud, Josephus, the Greco-Roman literary tradition, Philo of Alexandria, Stoic and Platonic philosophy, and the Midrash, among many other extrabiblical writings. The result is a detailed portrait of how the literary forms, conceptual themes, and social consciousness of the New Testament reflected its tumultuous intellectual milieu, and how this milieu went on to inform later Jewish and Christian tradition.
The editorial tone is mindful of faith perspectives, but it is not an apologia for religious doctrines. The New Testament writers disagree with each other on issues of theology, practice, communal identity, and even the chronological facts pertaining to the life of Jesus and the experiences of the early communities established in his name. A reader who needs to find a coherent doctrinal system in perfect accordance with Nicene-Chalcedonian Christianity springing out of “Judaism” in the first century like Athena from the head of Zeus will be challenged by what he finds here. But those who are fascinated by the ambiguities of these profoundly influential writings and their place in the world of late Second Temple and proto-rabbinic Judaism (to drop the scare quotes) will find this an invaluable resource to consult for many years to come.
The editorial tone is mindful of faith perspectives, but it is not an apologia for religious doctrines. The New Testament writers disagree with each other on issues of theology, practice, communal identity, and even the chronological facts pertaining to the life of Jesus and the experiences of the early communities established in his name. A reader who needs to find a coherent doctrinal system in perfect accordance with Nicene-Chalcedonian Christianity springing out of “Judaism” in the first century like Athena from the head of Zeus will be challenged by what he finds here. But those who are fascinated by the ambiguities of these profoundly influential writings and their place in the world of late Second Temple and proto-rabbinic Judaism (to drop the scare quotes) will find this an invaluable resource to consult for many years to come.
October 10, 2019
Save your money.
Each book of the NT (it's the RSV) has running commentary by a contemporary Jewish scholar, with some essays in the back. Seems the only requirement for a commentator was that they were a Jewish scholar of religion or of Jewish studies. Imagine a team of liberal Christian scholars publishing a running commentary on an English translation of the Quran... or on the Soncino English Talmud, for that matter. Full of wrong ideas and horrific anachronisms.
A complete joke.
One of my teachers (an orthodox Jewish scholar of rabbinics) also laughed at this, saying to me in private "The correct approach would be for each of the scholars to provide and defend their own translation of the text first, then to supply their commentary." I fully agree.
Each book of the NT (it's the RSV) has running commentary by a contemporary Jewish scholar, with some essays in the back. Seems the only requirement for a commentator was that they were a Jewish scholar of religion or of Jewish studies. Imagine a team of liberal Christian scholars publishing a running commentary on an English translation of the Quran... or on the Soncino English Talmud, for that matter. Full of wrong ideas and horrific anachronisms.
A complete joke.
One of my teachers (an orthodox Jewish scholar of rabbinics) also laughed at this, saying to me in private "The correct approach would be for each of the scholars to provide and defend their own translation of the text first, then to supply their commentary." I fully agree.
February 22, 2018
The Second Edition was published late last year but I don’t see it on Goodreads. This new edition greatly expands the essays, including several in which Jewish scholars respectfully engage Christian truth-claims, in a manner I haven’t seen done outside of medieval disputations.
April 2, 2024
At first glance, the title of this book may make almost everyone—Christian and Jew alike—sit up and say, "HUH?" The New Testament with Jewish annotations? Yes! And it's brilliant.
Jesus was a practicing Jew, as were his followers. The authors of the books of the New Testament were also Jewish and followed the ancient Jewish customs and laws. Examining the Christian New Testament from a first-century Jewish frame of reference will forever change your understanding of the Gospels and the epistles.
The biblical text is the New Revised Standard Version, while the commentary is edited by Amy-Jill Levine, an Orthodox Jew who is also a New Testament scholar and a professor for Christian seminarians at Vanderbilt University, and Marc Zvi Brettler, an American biblical scholar and a professor of Judaic studies at Duke University. Numerous other scholars contributed to the annotations and articles.
Each book of the New Testament is prefaced with expert commentary explaining how it relates to Judaism of that time and offers guidance for better understanding the scripture. In addition, there are brief sidebar annotations within each book of the New Testament, offering lucid and fascinating explanations of important concepts.
There are also more than 50 essays on a myriad of topics, including "Mary in the Jewish Tradition," "The Historical Jesus," and "The Dead Sea Scrolls." While some of the essays are a bit academic and erudite, the commentaries embedded as sidebars in the biblical readings are always readable and understandable.
I read it cover to cover, but it could also be useful for researching specific parts of the New Testament, much like a reference book.
While I suspect most Jews haven't read the New Testament, this might be an interesting opportunity to do so as there is no Christian religious agenda. Instead, it's a deep examination of the biblical text from a perspective of history and theology and its relationship to Judaism.
Bonus: The commentary on the confounding, confusing, bewildering, and baffling book of Revelation is worth the price of this book alone.
Jesus was a practicing Jew, as were his followers. The authors of the books of the New Testament were also Jewish and followed the ancient Jewish customs and laws. Examining the Christian New Testament from a first-century Jewish frame of reference will forever change your understanding of the Gospels and the epistles.
The biblical text is the New Revised Standard Version, while the commentary is edited by Amy-Jill Levine, an Orthodox Jew who is also a New Testament scholar and a professor for Christian seminarians at Vanderbilt University, and Marc Zvi Brettler, an American biblical scholar and a professor of Judaic studies at Duke University. Numerous other scholars contributed to the annotations and articles.
Each book of the New Testament is prefaced with expert commentary explaining how it relates to Judaism of that time and offers guidance for better understanding the scripture. In addition, there are brief sidebar annotations within each book of the New Testament, offering lucid and fascinating explanations of important concepts.
There are also more than 50 essays on a myriad of topics, including "Mary in the Jewish Tradition," "The Historical Jesus," and "The Dead Sea Scrolls." While some of the essays are a bit academic and erudite, the commentaries embedded as sidebars in the biblical readings are always readable and understandable.
I read it cover to cover, but it could also be useful for researching specific parts of the New Testament, much like a reference book.
While I suspect most Jews haven't read the New Testament, this might be an interesting opportunity to do so as there is no Christian religious agenda. Instead, it's a deep examination of the biblical text from a perspective of history and theology and its relationship to Judaism.
Bonus: The commentary on the confounding, confusing, bewildering, and baffling book of Revelation is worth the price of this book alone.
March 7, 2015
The commentary and articles point out what the authors don't agree with; but do not teach the reader anything, just comment and move on. They specifically note all the "anti-jewish" parts of the NT, but do not offer any interpretation on why they have come to believe that or any arguments for or against.The authors insist upon an "anti-jewish" NT, but other scholars out there insist upon a text that confirms and is in correlation with the OT and judaism. So this is open to interpretation, just as the Bible always is. Some people say it is anti-jewish, some do not, and argue for a later date in Christian history before the church became anti-jewish: that there is nothing in the bible that contradicts judaism. (See Moseley, Young for example). Most of the notes on the text are just commentary, leading me to believe that the reader is supposed to be familiar with, or of the same understanding as the authors; a group of scholars with a background in judaism. It is unclear whether these authors have any faith whatsoever, either jew or gentile. This is not an introductory text.
The one thing I did approve of in this text is that it did provide good, brief historical commentary: but you can find that anywhere.
The one thing I did approve of in this text is that it did provide good, brief historical commentary: but you can find that anywhere.
July 5, 2024
Very good essays. However, the editor and essayists compared the teachings of Jesus and Paul to modern Judaism rather than the diverse Jewish teachings of the first century. Modern Jewish teachings have 2000 years of accumulated wisdom in response to Jesus, Paul, and Christianity. As a result the notes tend to minimize the criticisms made by Jesus and Paul against some of the excesses of the religious environment of the first century.
That said, the essays and notes do provide excellent insights for Christians. These can help remove misunderstandings that Christians have of modern Judaism. Very Good!
That said, the essays and notes do provide excellent insights for Christians. These can help remove misunderstandings that Christians have of modern Judaism. Very Good!
January 13, 2018
The primary text (a translation of a collection of books that have long been in print) is, at different points, confusing, repetitive and self-contradictory. It seems like some important details have been left out. The original writings really could have used an editor.
On the other hand, the annotations and accompanying essays are excellent. They definitely fulfill the volume's promise of placing the primary text in its historical and geographical context, enabling people today--whether Jewish, Christian or something else--to get a better understanding of what the original writers probably meant, and what their readers probably understood.
On the other hand, the annotations and accompanying essays are excellent. They definitely fulfill the volume's promise of placing the primary text in its historical and geographical context, enabling people today--whether Jewish, Christian or something else--to get a better understanding of what the original writers probably meant, and what their readers probably understood.
Want to read
January 8, 2023I am reading this as my primary commentary to my study of the New Testament this year. I will finish the Gospels in the next week.
I find this very useful for its explanations of how JEWS would have understood Jesus' teachings, and the context in which he lived.
If you like this, you might also like "A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica" by John Lightfoot, published 1658. It is available free online. (I read it at BibleStudyTools.com.)
I find this very useful for its explanations of how JEWS would have understood Jesus' teachings, and the context in which he lived.
If you like this, you might also like "A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica" by John Lightfoot, published 1658. It is available free online. (I read it at BibleStudyTools.com.)
September 10, 2022
a delightful, much needed resource.
August 26, 2013
This is an excellent resource to have the on the shelf for any student of the Jewish context of the New Testament.
While I was not impressed with the footnotes contained within the biblical text at all, I did find the essays written by a whole panel of scholars to be most a great representation of the scholarly discussion. The essays focus on the discussion from a literary perspective, focusing on what we have in the wide array of written literature from the Jewish world of the second-temple period and bringing very little perspective from archaeological evidence and a wider historical viewpoint. This was frustrating at times, as I found myself wanting to know what perspectives had been shaped by such findings.
This is also not to say that I liked every essay that I read, as I thought some contributions were presumptive and sloppy. But the content was excellent and the work as a whole represented the conversation very well. A 'must have' for those students of Jewish literature and the New Testament.
While I was not impressed with the footnotes contained within the biblical text at all, I did find the essays written by a whole panel of scholars to be most a great representation of the scholarly discussion. The essays focus on the discussion from a literary perspective, focusing on what we have in the wide array of written literature from the Jewish world of the second-temple period and bringing very little perspective from archaeological evidence and a wider historical viewpoint. This was frustrating at times, as I found myself wanting to know what perspectives had been shaped by such findings.
This is also not to say that I liked every essay that I read, as I thought some contributions were presumptive and sloppy. But the content was excellent and the work as a whole represented the conversation very well. A 'must have' for those students of Jewish literature and the New Testament.
November 9, 2018
Important work opening up texts in really fruitful ways. Sometimes the engagement with the NRSV text makes you want a new translation rather than heavy annotation and glossing, but that's a quibble.
Generous range of essays giving a broad spectrum of opinion and context, not only confronting the way the early church and Christendom got things so badly wrong when it came to Christians and Jews, but also not shying away from the NT texts that stand behind this history. A sobering read in 2018; that so much of this stuff is so current and so urgently needs to be confronted still.
Generous range of essays giving a broad spectrum of opinion and context, not only confronting the way the early church and Christendom got things so badly wrong when it came to Christians and Jews, but also not shying away from the NT texts that stand behind this history. A sobering read in 2018; that so much of this stuff is so current and so urgently needs to be confronted still.
March 26, 2013
A little bit different slant than the usual NT margin notes.
You get the gist although the New Revised Standard Version is not the translation I would have used.
Essays and sidebars give an overview of New Testament times and Jewish thought, although the supplementary material tends to suffer for a lack of editing. Fortunately the Scribes did not rely solely on Spellcheck and call it good.
Handy to have a good Jewish study bible and a Talmud reference in the stack.
You get the gist although the New Revised Standard Version is not the translation I would have used.
Essays and sidebars give an overview of New Testament times and Jewish thought, although the supplementary material tends to suffer for a lack of editing. Fortunately the Scribes did not rely solely on Spellcheck and call it good.
Handy to have a good Jewish study bible and a Talmud reference in the stack.
July 20, 2015
The essays in this volume are superb, and they offered insightful correctives to received Christian assumptions about the NT texts and their Jewish context. The textual commentary itself, however, was rather thin and a little underwhelming. This certainly would not work as a primary or standalone study commentary, but does offer an interesting focus and accessible presentation that are likely not available elsewhere.
January 17, 2018
The text of the scripture is from the NRSV. Amy - Jill Levine edits this work of Jewish scholars who offer commentary on the text. Most of the commentary is like what can be found in a study Bible with contributions from mainline Bible Scholars. The scholarship is sound but not distinctive enough to merit purchasing this text.
Read
December 27, 2015An excellent way to read the NT for non-Christians interested in history an comparative religion. Extensive notes and essays were engaging - though probably half of the annotations are simply cross-references only of use for the serious scholar, the rest are accessible and interesting.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 9, 2022
This is a must have for any preacher. It is heavily footnoted and the articles at the end of the volume are fantastic. It shows you how Jewish theologians and historians read the New Testament and helps you to see what his Jewish listeners heard as Jesus, the rabbi, taught.
October 10, 2023
The relationship between Christianity and Judaism has fascinated me ever since I bolted from the Pentecostalism in which I was raised, and began rebuilding my worldview from the ground up, investigating the bones of religions and philosophies to figure out where the truth was. While listening to Jewish lectures at simpletoremember, I was struck by how very different the Judaism expressed there was from the background of the Gospels, particularly in the role of Satan — who leaps from being a mere accuser of humanity to being the Archfiend, the would-be rival to the Almighty in that blank page between Malachi and Matthew. Over the years, I’ve read various books exploring the eruption of Christianity from first-century Judaism, and have eyed this volume (owned by my several priest friends) covetously for a decade. Now, I’ve finally tackled it and and am happy to report that it’s a worthy resource for understanding the world in which the New Testament came into being, and for appreciating the intertangled evolution of both Judaism and Christianity.
The work is divided into two parts: the New Testament itself, subdivided into the Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation, each with an introductory essay; and then the contextual essays following Revelation. As annotated would indicate, though, there are also in-text comments throughout, spotlighting a custom, a translation, a moment unique to a particular Gospel, etc. These are especially interesting in Revelation, given its fantastic imagery and numerology. These aren’t merely a line or two, though, but often run for several paragraphs –as when the authors analyze the use of “Sanhendrin”, or comment on themes that a particular Gospel is marked by. These comments frequently link to the essays that constitute the bulk of the JANT’s unique content. The essays are substantial, addressing everything from the backgrounds of the New Testament (Jewish life in the first century, the political situation with Rome, the varied manifestations of Jewish thought and belief) to the relationship between Jewish thought & art to the Christian civilization in which most Jews lived within through the 20th century. There are a great multitude of topics within, which would appeal to readers with varying interests. One essay concerns Philo, for instance, a Jewish philosopher whose tripartite view of Deity presaged the Trinity. Some essays would be at home in any study Bible, like the background pieces or the study of how the Jewish and Christian communities came at establishing their respective canons. Interestingly, some of authors often refer to The Old Testament, not because they are Christian but to differentiate the Hebrew scriptures-as-canonized-by-Christians from the Hebrew-scriptures-as-canonized-by-modern-Jews. The Ortho-Catholic tradition includes Jewish texts that are not written in Hebrew, for instance, and which were later dropped by rabbinic Judaism and most Protestants — though most of the latter were just shuffling along in Luther’s footsteps, and he wanted to drop even more of the New Testament than that. Other essays are more concerned with the New Testament within the Jewish tradition — connecting the parables to examples used in midrash interpretation of the law, as well as the way Jews have varied in their approaches to Jesus and Mary over the years: in the medieval era, we can find both insulting nicknames adopted to refer to Jesus, Mary, and Peter while at the same time the use Christian imagery in Jewish art. I wonder if Chaim Potok was aware of that when creating his Asher Lev.
This is a deep book, one that I’ve read slowly over the course of eight months but even still don’t feel as though I’ve done more than broken the surface on. I anticipate returning to it again and again, especially the essays. Although I’ve read into the background of the New Testament before, I still found much of value here, particularly in the book’s general demonstration that first-century Judaism was less a formal, organized Religion and more of a religious culture, with a variety of sects with different emphases — and likewise Christianity, given that the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts are brought in for more context. The Sadducees, for instance, were oriented toward worship and the Temple; the Pharisees were oriented more towards the Torah, and the interpretation and adherence to thereof, and more closely connected to post-Temple rabbi-led Judaism than Temple Judaism. The authors argue that Christianity and Judaism was we know it both emerged from this variety of Jewish thought, and are effectively sister religions — a conviction shared by many Christian authorities today, who regard Judaism as an elder brother.
Again, this is a very worthy book for students of the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity, and in the future I want to try the Jewish Annotated Apocrypha and The Jewish Study Bible, all part of this same series. There are a couple of things I’d quibble with in this (one author attributes the Great Schism to arguments over whether the Eucharist used unleavened bread or not — the biggest issue was papal authority, made most salient during the filoque controversy), but those are minor details.
The work is divided into two parts: the New Testament itself, subdivided into the Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation, each with an introductory essay; and then the contextual essays following Revelation. As annotated would indicate, though, there are also in-text comments throughout, spotlighting a custom, a translation, a moment unique to a particular Gospel, etc. These are especially interesting in Revelation, given its fantastic imagery and numerology. These aren’t merely a line or two, though, but often run for several paragraphs –as when the authors analyze the use of “Sanhendrin”, or comment on themes that a particular Gospel is marked by. These comments frequently link to the essays that constitute the bulk of the JANT’s unique content. The essays are substantial, addressing everything from the backgrounds of the New Testament (Jewish life in the first century, the political situation with Rome, the varied manifestations of Jewish thought and belief) to the relationship between Jewish thought & art to the Christian civilization in which most Jews lived within through the 20th century. There are a great multitude of topics within, which would appeal to readers with varying interests. One essay concerns Philo, for instance, a Jewish philosopher whose tripartite view of Deity presaged the Trinity. Some essays would be at home in any study Bible, like the background pieces or the study of how the Jewish and Christian communities came at establishing their respective canons. Interestingly, some of authors often refer to The Old Testament, not because they are Christian but to differentiate the Hebrew scriptures-as-canonized-by-Christians from the Hebrew-scriptures-as-canonized-by-modern-Jews. The Ortho-Catholic tradition includes Jewish texts that are not written in Hebrew, for instance, and which were later dropped by rabbinic Judaism and most Protestants — though most of the latter were just shuffling along in Luther’s footsteps, and he wanted to drop even more of the New Testament than that. Other essays are more concerned with the New Testament within the Jewish tradition — connecting the parables to examples used in midrash interpretation of the law, as well as the way Jews have varied in their approaches to Jesus and Mary over the years: in the medieval era, we can find both insulting nicknames adopted to refer to Jesus, Mary, and Peter while at the same time the use Christian imagery in Jewish art. I wonder if Chaim Potok was aware of that when creating his Asher Lev.
This is a deep book, one that I’ve read slowly over the course of eight months but even still don’t feel as though I’ve done more than broken the surface on. I anticipate returning to it again and again, especially the essays. Although I’ve read into the background of the New Testament before, I still found much of value here, particularly in the book’s general demonstration that first-century Judaism was less a formal, organized Religion and more of a religious culture, with a variety of sects with different emphases — and likewise Christianity, given that the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts are brought in for more context. The Sadducees, for instance, were oriented toward worship and the Temple; the Pharisees were oriented more towards the Torah, and the interpretation and adherence to thereof, and more closely connected to post-Temple rabbi-led Judaism than Temple Judaism. The authors argue that Christianity and Judaism was we know it both emerged from this variety of Jewish thought, and are effectively sister religions — a conviction shared by many Christian authorities today, who regard Judaism as an elder brother.
Again, this is a very worthy book for students of the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity, and in the future I want to try the Jewish Annotated Apocrypha and The Jewish Study Bible, all part of this same series. There are a couple of things I’d quibble with in this (one author attributes the Great Schism to arguments over whether the Eucharist used unleavened bread or not — the biggest issue was papal authority, made most salient during the filoque controversy), but those are minor details.
October 28, 2020
I mean, I get it, but I'm really not looking for a study Bible whose notes assume that the reader doesn't *actually* believe any of this stuff.
January 11, 2025
The book is of zero use for believers in Jesus because these Jewish "New Testament scholars" are all those who do not believe the truth of the New Testament. They even accuse the New Testament itself of being antisemitic in some places which is beyond the pale for believers in the New Testament as the Word of God. Also, millions of Christians around the world read the New Testament as Scripture and do not come up with antisemitic interpretations. Sometimes, some of these scholars and some others act as if a Christians are automatically antisemitic or Christianity is automatically antisemitic, which is not true. Also, many of their analyses on the date the books of the New Testament were written or why they were written are mere speculation tending towards negativity or casting of aspersions without any evidence.
Having said these, Christians need to be careful not to come up with antisemitic interpretations or anti-Jewish interpretations of the New Testament and be sensitive to Jewish reception. After all, Jesus was a Jew, the apostles were Jews, the first Christians were Jews and remained Jews. Christians can do this without compromising the truth of the scriptures or acting as if the scriptures are a fabrication which is what some of these "New Testament scholars" are advocating.
Having said these, Christians need to be careful not to come up with antisemitic interpretations or anti-Jewish interpretations of the New Testament and be sensitive to Jewish reception. After all, Jesus was a Jew, the apostles were Jews, the first Christians were Jews and remained Jews. Christians can do this without compromising the truth of the scriptures or acting as if the scriptures are a fabrication which is what some of these "New Testament scholars" are advocating.
July 20, 2024
I read John in this one right away, and sure enough every single use of the word Jew was footnoted. I read biblical Greek when I practice, and I've read mostly the RSV with the Greek and German next to me. I'm not thoroughly booked on the NRSV or on this edition. But I posted about this edition once and a Jewish acquaintance claimed it was a fraud. It is not. It is not a messianic Judaism document. Instead, if you want to find the Talmud parallels to the Gospels this book is the place to look. It is a work of serious interfaith dialogue. One editor is Orthodox but grew up in a Catholic neighborhood. It just isn't appropriate to pretend the other side doesn't exist for either party, and this edition is where I think the serious dialogue really begins. Incidentally, there is no Greek word for Jew in the modern sense, but the modern religion was in formation. The ancient world didn't simply conform to all our ready preconceptions. Start stripping them away. I also recommend Jacob Wright's legendary coursera course Bible Prehistory. I think it's a free audit now. Some of us have all been friends since the first run a decade ago. I just invited Jacob to goodreads.
August 24, 2021
This is an excellent source of knowledge that puts the Christian Bible in the context that it was written, contemporaneous with the development of rabbinic Judaism. The early Christians were, like Jesus, Jews and to disregard that is to lose sight of important meanings in the Christian Bible.
For just one example, in Revelations 13:18 it says "This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six."
Hebrew uses letters to represent numbers. Alef א is one, bet ב is two, and so forth. An ancient Jewish tradition called gematria explores the mysteries of letters through numbers. And the “number of the beast,” 666, is the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew letters that spell “Nero Caesar.” Certainly, one reading the text in the 1st or 2nd century would recognize its coded reference, but this annotation and others throughout this volume add a new and invaluable understanding of the text.
For just one example, in Revelations 13:18 it says "This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six."
Hebrew uses letters to represent numbers. Alef א is one, bet ב is two, and so forth. An ancient Jewish tradition called gematria explores the mysteries of letters through numbers. And the “number of the beast,” 666, is the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew letters that spell “Nero Caesar.” Certainly, one reading the text in the 1st or 2nd century would recognize its coded reference, but this annotation and others throughout this volume add a new and invaluable understanding of the text.
September 1, 2023
I just finished this book. I really enjoyed Amy-Jill Levine's other books for her fresh, Jewish perspective on New Testament topics.
Through my previous studies, I was already quite familiar with the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and Jewish cultural aspects of the New Testament. Nonetheless, I learned more Jewish insights from rabbinic and intertestamental sources. I especially appreciated the insights on Jesus, Paul, and other teachers' quotations from the Septuagint and rabbinic practices, customs, and teachings in the first century CE.
My one complaint about the book is one I have about most current Biblical historians: they deny the authorship of most of the New Testament books, claiming they're 'pseudographic' or only using the name of a famous apostle in the title. Thus, they reject the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They also claim that some of Paul's epistles were not written by him.
Through my previous studies, I was already quite familiar with the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and Jewish cultural aspects of the New Testament. Nonetheless, I learned more Jewish insights from rabbinic and intertestamental sources. I especially appreciated the insights on Jesus, Paul, and other teachers' quotations from the Septuagint and rabbinic practices, customs, and teachings in the first century CE.
My one complaint about the book is one I have about most current Biblical historians: they deny the authorship of most of the New Testament books, claiming they're 'pseudographic' or only using the name of a famous apostle in the title. Thus, they reject the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They also claim that some of Paul's epistles were not written by him.
February 18, 2023
This is a regular NRSV New Testament with commentary and essays that seek to reposition the NT back in its correct, but sadly overlooked, Jewish context. Having read every essay in this book, I can safely say this is the best NT commentary I've ever come across. Essential for Christians to properly understand their religion and for Jews to better understand their sister religion. It's completely transformed my understanding of the "Jesus movement" within Judaism that would eventually become Christianity and of Jesus himself as a historical figure.
May 12, 2020
I've read this annotated edition, as well as one without them. The annotations were okay, nothing too profound for me, but maybe someone who's not at all into Judaism could find them even more interesting.
The book itself... This ain't no Injil, but the story of Jesus is pretty good. The deeds of the apostles are okay. The letters by the early Christians are just trash. If they'd dropped those, this would've been a solid four stars. Hardcore scene fans can't afford to not read this, though.
The book itself... This ain't no Injil, but the story of Jesus is pretty good. The deeds of the apostles are okay. The letters by the early Christians are just trash. If they'd dropped those, this would've been a solid four stars. Hardcore scene fans can't afford to not read this, though.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews