What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently
"The editors of The Jewish Annotated New Testament, Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Brettler, explore how Jews and Christians can learn from and understand each other better by exploring how they read many of the same Bible stories through different lens"--
512 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 27, 2020
468 people are currently reading
1806 people want to read
About the author
Amy-Jill Levine
98 books316 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 116 reviews
September 29, 2021
Bible study is more interesting when numerous points of view are considered. This book provides a heavy duty version of offering alternative interpretations—and does with writing based on consummate academic scholarship. The two authors of this book focus in on several Biblical texts which have notorious histories of conflicting interpretations. Then they present those interpretations through Biblical, Christian, and Jewish lenses as elaborated below:
The following is a list of the Biblical texts and issues discussed by this book followed by my comments. My comments are not intended to represent adequate summaries of the book's contents. Some of my comments are a bit flippant.
1. Creation stories in Genesis 1–2
There are two creation stories, the one in Genesis 1 is making order from chaos, Genesis 2 is about humankind. Genesis refers to wind, spirit, or wisdom, and the Gospel of John adds logos. The answer to the question, "Who is ‘us’ in Genesis 1:26?" depends on to whom the question is directed. Historical critics, concerned with the original or early meaning of the Bible, see the divine court in “us,” and so God as taking counsel with the heavenly host. For some Jews, God is in consultation with the Torah. Christians typically see the Trinity. (LINK to Bart Ehrman's discussion of Genesis 1 & 2.)
2. What Christians call “the Fall” in Genesis 3
There are numerous New Testament scriptures that refer to the forced exit from the Garden of Eden which provide the basis for "the teachings concerning original sin, 'fall of man,' the subordination of women, and the restriction of divorce. None of these ideas is explicit in the text of Genesis 2-3; while each is a possible reading, none is a necessary one.”
3. Melchizedek’s role in Genesis 14, Psalm 110, and interpreted in Hebrews.
Melchizedek was a priest-king who lived at the same time as Abraham and Lot. I wasn't familiar with the name, but Hebrews apparently makes a big deal of it which leads to a section in this book titled, "The Problem of Supersessionism in the Epistle to the Hebrews." If you want to know the opinion of the authors of this book regarding supersessionism you can read this
4. Jesus’ interpretation of the law in the Sermon on the Mount
Many Christians think the Sermon on the Mount is antitheses to the Jewish law. It’s actually an extension of the Jewish law that isn’t that different from the understanding of later Rabbinic teachings.
5. Sacrifice and the role of blood in atonement
First century writers didn't need to explain the concept of atonement and how exactly it works because the concept of offering a sacrifice to God or the gods was so endemic in the lives of Pagans, Jews, and first century Christians that no explanation was needed—it was simply assumed that everybody knew and understood. As time passed and it was no longer a part of life theologians began to try to explain it, and in my opinion it still doesn't make sense.
6. The claim in Matthew 1:23 that the virgin birth of Jesus is “to fulfill” Isaiah 7:14
It's apparent that the writer of Matthew was reading the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts. Otherwise he probably wouldn't have referred to "virgin." The virgin birth is mentioned only once in the New Testament, but some Christians have made it a big deal as if it was fundamental to Christian faith.
7. The suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12
The book provides some examples of translation dilemmas. Ancient Hebrew text has consonants only and context indicates which vowels to insert. Isaiah’s meaning is so obscure that translators end up with widely different words and meanings. A servant is frequently mentioned in Isaiah. who is described in many different ways as suffering, but the term “suffering servant” is not used. Isaiah’s depictions of the Servant of the Lord are central to Christianity and referenced in the New Testament. Most Jews are unaware of this image.
8. The “sign of Jonah” cited in Matthew 12:38–40 and Luke 11:29–32
Jonah was the only successful prophet (i.e. target audience changed their ways and repented). A generation later that target audience conquered Israel (Northern Kingdom) leading to the lost ten tribes of Israel. In original context it would have been story about God sparing their worst enemy. For Jews the Book of Jonah is (predominantly) about the power of repentance, and the post-biblical tradition also finds humor. For Christians there’s the “sign of Jonah” which is all about resurrection of Jesus on the third day (i.e. not much humor).
9. Psalm 22 (and other psalms) foretelling Jesus’ “cry of dereliction” on the cross in Matthew and Mark
Here's an example where the psalms which were intended to express human emotion were turned into prophecy.
10. The various references to the “son of man” in Daniel 7:13–14 and in the Gospels.
It's a term whose meaning grew over time. It obviously refers to Jesus in the Gospels. There's disagreement about its meaning in Daniel
_____________
Additional Information:
Here’s a link to a chart on Marc Zvi Brettler’s (coauthor of this book) blog that disproves the widely held stereotype that the God of the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) is an angry God and the God of the New Testament is a loving God.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B...
(1) A historical-critical reading of the text’s “original meaning”I was partly prompted to read this book because of my feelings of discomfort with the way Christians have appropriated Hebrew Scriptures to mean things that the original writer could not have intended. It's an example of proof-texting which I know has in some cases led to crazy conclusions. Since the authors of this book are both Jewish I felt I could trust them to represent the Hebrew position fairly. This book makes clear that all sides in this business of interpreting the Bible are proof-texting, and reputable theologians are not particularly concerned about what the original writer intended.
(2) The appropriation of that text within the New Testament text and often by early Christian writers
(3) The appropriation of the same text by the early rabbinic tradition usually ending with the Mishnah but sometimes extending through the Talmud or even medieval commentators.
The ongoing interpretation of prophetic texts exemplifies the distinction between what a text meant and what the text means. As we shall see throughout this book the two can be quite different. One way to generate the difference is through proof-texting.The above quote from Shakespeare is something with which I agree.
The term “proof-text" and the verb “proof-texting” exemplify Antonio’s “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose” in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.
The following is a list of the Biblical texts and issues discussed by this book followed by my comments. My comments are not intended to represent adequate summaries of the book's contents. Some of my comments are a bit flippant.
1. Creation stories in Genesis 1–2
There are two creation stories, the one in Genesis 1 is making order from chaos, Genesis 2 is about humankind. Genesis refers to wind, spirit, or wisdom, and the Gospel of John adds logos. The answer to the question, "Who is ‘us’ in Genesis 1:26?" depends on to whom the question is directed. Historical critics, concerned with the original or early meaning of the Bible, see the divine court in “us,” and so God as taking counsel with the heavenly host. For some Jews, God is in consultation with the Torah. Christians typically see the Trinity. (LINK to Bart Ehrman's discussion of Genesis 1 & 2.)
2. What Christians call “the Fall” in Genesis 3
There are numerous New Testament scriptures that refer to the forced exit from the Garden of Eden which provide the basis for "the teachings concerning original sin, 'fall of man,' the subordination of women, and the restriction of divorce. None of these ideas is explicit in the text of Genesis 2-3; while each is a possible reading, none is a necessary one.”
3. Melchizedek’s role in Genesis 14, Psalm 110, and interpreted in Hebrews.
Melchizedek was a priest-king who lived at the same time as Abraham and Lot. I wasn't familiar with the name, but Hebrews apparently makes a big deal of it which leads to a section in this book titled, "The Problem of Supersessionism in the Epistle to the Hebrews." If you want to know the opinion of the authors of this book regarding supersessionism you can read this
4. Jesus’ interpretation of the law in the Sermon on the Mount
Many Christians think the Sermon on the Mount is antitheses to the Jewish law. It’s actually an extension of the Jewish law that isn’t that different from the understanding of later Rabbinic teachings.
5. Sacrifice and the role of blood in atonement
First century writers didn't need to explain the concept of atonement and how exactly it works because the concept of offering a sacrifice to God or the gods was so endemic in the lives of Pagans, Jews, and first century Christians that no explanation was needed—it was simply assumed that everybody knew and understood. As time passed and it was no longer a part of life theologians began to try to explain it, and in my opinion it still doesn't make sense.
6. The claim in Matthew 1:23 that the virgin birth of Jesus is “to fulfill” Isaiah 7:14
It's apparent that the writer of Matthew was reading the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts. Otherwise he probably wouldn't have referred to "virgin." The virgin birth is mentioned only once in the New Testament, but some Christians have made it a big deal as if it was fundamental to Christian faith.
7. The suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12
The book provides some examples of translation dilemmas. Ancient Hebrew text has consonants only and context indicates which vowels to insert. Isaiah’s meaning is so obscure that translators end up with widely different words and meanings. A servant is frequently mentioned in Isaiah. who is described in many different ways as suffering, but the term “suffering servant” is not used. Isaiah’s depictions of the Servant of the Lord are central to Christianity and referenced in the New Testament. Most Jews are unaware of this image.
8. The “sign of Jonah” cited in Matthew 12:38–40 and Luke 11:29–32
Jonah was the only successful prophet (i.e. target audience changed their ways and repented). A generation later that target audience conquered Israel (Northern Kingdom) leading to the lost ten tribes of Israel. In original context it would have been story about God sparing their worst enemy. For Jews the Book of Jonah is (predominantly) about the power of repentance, and the post-biblical tradition also finds humor. For Christians there’s the “sign of Jonah” which is all about resurrection of Jesus on the third day (i.e. not much humor).
9. Psalm 22 (and other psalms) foretelling Jesus’ “cry of dereliction” on the cross in Matthew and Mark
Here's an example where the psalms which were intended to express human emotion were turned into prophecy.
10. The various references to the “son of man” in Daniel 7:13–14 and in the Gospels.
It's a term whose meaning grew over time. It obviously refers to Jesus in the Gospels. There's disagreement about its meaning in Daniel
_____________
Additional Information:
Here’s a link to a chart on Marc Zvi Brettler’s (coauthor of this book) blog that disproves the widely held stereotype that the God of the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) is an angry God and the God of the New Testament is a loving God.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B...
November 24, 2020
Christians and Jews share a common sacred text. Jews call it the Tanakh. Christians call it the Old Testament. We read the same stories, but we tend to do so very differently. For Christians, the lens through which we traditionally read it is Jesus. But, what if we remove that lens and read it without reference to Jesus? Does that change one's interpretation?
The Bible With and Without Jesus offers a powerful answer to the question of how two religious communities read the same text. The authors are both Jewish, Amy-Jill Levine, and Marc Zvi Brettler. Levine is best known for her work on the Gospels. In other words, she is a leading Jesus scholar who happens to be Jewish. It is that lens that she brings to the study of the Gospels that has proven to be illuminating to so many of us. Her co-author teaches Jewish Studies, with a focus on the Hebrew Bible at Duke University. Together they provide us with a tour de force look at this sacred text.
In the preface they note that they approach the text from the perspective of "reception history. That is, "the interpretation of these texts by the communities that hold them sacred." They focus their attention on ten passages/themes from the Hebrew Scriptures that figure prominently within the New Testament. As they note, they ask three questions in each of the chapters exploring these passages/themes: First, "what did the text mean in its original context in ancient Israel?" Secondly, "how do the New Testament authors interpret that text?" Finally, "how do post-biblical Jews from the time of Jesus (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls, the first-century historian Josephus, and the first-century philosopher Philo) through the rabbinic and medieval Jewish tradition and later Christian traditions understand those same texts?" (p. xi).
Before they approach these passages and themes, they first address the question of the text itself and how it is interpreted. One of the key elements of this opening piece is a reminder that while we share similar texts, there are significant differences. First and foremost that has to do with the New Testament, which is central to the Christian faith, but not part of the Jewish tradition. While Jews and Christians share the books of the Old Testament/Tanakh, we don't read them the same. In fact, neither faith tradition reads the Hebrew Bible as self-standing, for Christians read through the lens of the New Testament while Jews use post-biblical commentaries to read and interpret these books. The book, as they note, speaks to how these two communities read the text differently. Their point here is not to say one reading is better than the other, but to recognize that this is a contested text. They hope that by the end of the book, we will be able to understand how and why the other community reads the text the way they do (pp. 3-4). As they note in the conclusion to their opening chapter, "at times, Jewish and Christian readings can complement each other; at times, one community adopts a reading that the other might find impossible." (p. 39). One thing I've discovered, largely through reading Levine's works, but not only hers, is that as a Christian interpreter, but I also have much to learn from Jewish interpreters.
The chapters that follow address questions of prophecy and how to read and understand them, noting that for Christians, the New Testament and later interpreters often read prophetic texts as pointing Jesus, while Jews would not read it in the same way. It's appropriate to read Jesus into the text, but not as the only or original reading. From there we move to texts concerning the creation of the world (ch. 3), Adam and Eve (ch. 4), priesthood (focus on Melchizedek) (ch. 5), "eye for an eye" and similar texts (ch. 6), "sacrifice and atonement (ch. 7), a "virgin will conceive" (ch. 8), Suffering Servant of Isaiah (ch. 9), "Sign of Jonah (ch. 10), Psalm 22 and Psalms as prophecy (ch. 11), and "Son of Man." As you can see, they cover a lot of important topics, topics that are central to the Christian faith. But what if you remove Jesus from these conversations. How might they be read?
The goal here is to help readers from both communities understand how and why we read the text the way we do. They encourage Jews to read the New Testament and try to see why Christians might read the text held sacred by Jews as we do. At the same time, they encourage Christians to read the same text through Jewish eyes by reading later Jewish interpretations of the same texts. Having read several books recently by Jewish interpreters, I have been enlightened. They have spoken a great truth that if followed could help build bridges of understandings between communities. I know that it is difficult for Jews to read the New Testament. So much damage has been done to the Jewish community in the name of Jesus, that this might appear to be a betrayal of one's faith. Nevertheless, we need to find ways of hearing each other. . They invite us to let go of the zero-sum way of looking at these texts. Instead, we have "an opportunity to correct certain older readings based in polemic, creating newer ones based on the possibility of mutual respect if not in complete agreement" (p. 422). I know of no better writers to do this than these two authors
These are scholars of note, but they write in a way that is accessible to a more general audience. It does require a certain level of sophistication, but it can be read beneficially by many in the church. For clergy, this is a must-read. it will deepen one's interpretive grid, and help overcome some of the pitfalls that we so easily fall into. As they note in conclusion, "we are stronger when we wrestle, and when we read together" (p. 426). I heartily agree!
The Bible With and Without Jesus offers a powerful answer to the question of how two religious communities read the same text. The authors are both Jewish, Amy-Jill Levine, and Marc Zvi Brettler. Levine is best known for her work on the Gospels. In other words, she is a leading Jesus scholar who happens to be Jewish. It is that lens that she brings to the study of the Gospels that has proven to be illuminating to so many of us. Her co-author teaches Jewish Studies, with a focus on the Hebrew Bible at Duke University. Together they provide us with a tour de force look at this sacred text.
In the preface they note that they approach the text from the perspective of "reception history. That is, "the interpretation of these texts by the communities that hold them sacred." They focus their attention on ten passages/themes from the Hebrew Scriptures that figure prominently within the New Testament. As they note, they ask three questions in each of the chapters exploring these passages/themes: First, "what did the text mean in its original context in ancient Israel?" Secondly, "how do the New Testament authors interpret that text?" Finally, "how do post-biblical Jews from the time of Jesus (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls, the first-century historian Josephus, and the first-century philosopher Philo) through the rabbinic and medieval Jewish tradition and later Christian traditions understand those same texts?" (p. xi).
Before they approach these passages and themes, they first address the question of the text itself and how it is interpreted. One of the key elements of this opening piece is a reminder that while we share similar texts, there are significant differences. First and foremost that has to do with the New Testament, which is central to the Christian faith, but not part of the Jewish tradition. While Jews and Christians share the books of the Old Testament/Tanakh, we don't read them the same. In fact, neither faith tradition reads the Hebrew Bible as self-standing, for Christians read through the lens of the New Testament while Jews use post-biblical commentaries to read and interpret these books. The book, as they note, speaks to how these two communities read the text differently. Their point here is not to say one reading is better than the other, but to recognize that this is a contested text. They hope that by the end of the book, we will be able to understand how and why the other community reads the text the way they do (pp. 3-4). As they note in the conclusion to their opening chapter, "at times, Jewish and Christian readings can complement each other; at times, one community adopts a reading that the other might find impossible." (p. 39). One thing I've discovered, largely through reading Levine's works, but not only hers, is that as a Christian interpreter, but I also have much to learn from Jewish interpreters.
The chapters that follow address questions of prophecy and how to read and understand them, noting that for Christians, the New Testament and later interpreters often read prophetic texts as pointing Jesus, while Jews would not read it in the same way. It's appropriate to read Jesus into the text, but not as the only or original reading. From there we move to texts concerning the creation of the world (ch. 3), Adam and Eve (ch. 4), priesthood (focus on Melchizedek) (ch. 5), "eye for an eye" and similar texts (ch. 6), "sacrifice and atonement (ch. 7), a "virgin will conceive" (ch. 8), Suffering Servant of Isaiah (ch. 9), "Sign of Jonah (ch. 10), Psalm 22 and Psalms as prophecy (ch. 11), and "Son of Man." As you can see, they cover a lot of important topics, topics that are central to the Christian faith. But what if you remove Jesus from these conversations. How might they be read?
The goal here is to help readers from both communities understand how and why we read the text the way we do. They encourage Jews to read the New Testament and try to see why Christians might read the text held sacred by Jews as we do. At the same time, they encourage Christians to read the same text through Jewish eyes by reading later Jewish interpretations of the same texts. Having read several books recently by Jewish interpreters, I have been enlightened. They have spoken a great truth that if followed could help build bridges of understandings between communities. I know that it is difficult for Jews to read the New Testament. So much damage has been done to the Jewish community in the name of Jesus, that this might appear to be a betrayal of one's faith. Nevertheless, we need to find ways of hearing each other. . They invite us to let go of the zero-sum way of looking at these texts. Instead, we have "an opportunity to correct certain older readings based in polemic, creating newer ones based on the possibility of mutual respect if not in complete agreement" (p. 422). I know of no better writers to do this than these two authors
These are scholars of note, but they write in a way that is accessible to a more general audience. It does require a certain level of sophistication, but it can be read beneficially by many in the church. For clergy, this is a must-read. it will deepen one's interpretive grid, and help overcome some of the pitfalls that we so easily fall into. As they note in conclusion, "we are stronger when we wrestle, and when we read together" (p. 426). I heartily agree!
April 4, 2021
There is interesting material in this book. I learned things. In particular, some discussions of how particular Jewish interpretations of Old Testament scriptures may have been reactions to Christian interpretations were new to me.
The authors and I have some different views on the historicity and composition of the Bible, but overall I could overlook that. While I don't think such matters are unimportant, I think to some extent we can choose to learn from and about the whole Bible as we have it regardless of what we think the exact details of how it came together are.
More troubling, as another reviewer has already said, though the authors state (over and over and over) that their goal is to present different Jewish and Christian interpretations without saying which is right, the tone throughout feels like, "This is how Christians misinterpreted texts Jews already had perfectly good explanations for." Which, in and of itself, is an understandable view that I'm sure many people hold, but it's a problem when it so blatantly contradicts what the book claims it set out to do.
And even more fundamentally, I'm bothered by how the authors present all this material with almost no acknowledgement that both Jewish and Christian interpretations were (and, mostly, are) made on the basis of a belief that those scriptures come from a God. A God who is an authority, a God who is perfectly capable of doing more than original authors and/or editors intended, a God who is important to them. Perhaps this is an attempt to be objective. But even if you do not believe this yourself, leaving out this huge, fundamental motivation does not present a fair picture of how any of this came about. Early Christians did not reevaluate everything about their scriptures because they simply decided to; Jesus told them it all pointed to him, and they believed that came from God and they wanted to understand what God was telling them. Jews reacting to this believed these new Christian interpretations dishonored and misrepresented God. This book makes it sound like it all happened in a vacuum of mere human thought, leaving out the whole reason any of it mattered to anybody.
And this comes back to the last point. There was a lot said on understanding and respecting different perspectives. I think that's great; that's why I picked up this book. Jews and Christians can learn much from each other, and both groups as a whole still need to grow in not abusing each other because of their different beliefs. But it only goes so far. Some beliefs truly are mutually exclusive. Saying it's all just interesting different perspectives (except, of course, for some specific things the authors themselves think are truly wrong) only dodges hard questions that deserve consideration from all sides.
The authors and I have some different views on the historicity and composition of the Bible, but overall I could overlook that. While I don't think such matters are unimportant, I think to some extent we can choose to learn from and about the whole Bible as we have it regardless of what we think the exact details of how it came together are.
More troubling, as another reviewer has already said, though the authors state (over and over and over) that their goal is to present different Jewish and Christian interpretations without saying which is right, the tone throughout feels like, "This is how Christians misinterpreted texts Jews already had perfectly good explanations for." Which, in and of itself, is an understandable view that I'm sure many people hold, but it's a problem when it so blatantly contradicts what the book claims it set out to do.
And even more fundamentally, I'm bothered by how the authors present all this material with almost no acknowledgement that both Jewish and Christian interpretations were (and, mostly, are) made on the basis of a belief that those scriptures come from a God. A God who is an authority, a God who is perfectly capable of doing more than original authors and/or editors intended, a God who is important to them. Perhaps this is an attempt to be objective. But even if you do not believe this yourself, leaving out this huge, fundamental motivation does not present a fair picture of how any of this came about. Early Christians did not reevaluate everything about their scriptures because they simply decided to; Jesus told them it all pointed to him, and they believed that came from God and they wanted to understand what God was telling them. Jews reacting to this believed these new Christian interpretations dishonored and misrepresented God. This book makes it sound like it all happened in a vacuum of mere human thought, leaving out the whole reason any of it mattered to anybody.
And this comes back to the last point. There was a lot said on understanding and respecting different perspectives. I think that's great; that's why I picked up this book. Jews and Christians can learn much from each other, and both groups as a whole still need to grow in not abusing each other because of their different beliefs. But it only goes so far. Some beliefs truly are mutually exclusive. Saying it's all just interesting different perspectives (except, of course, for some specific things the authors themselves think are truly wrong) only dodges hard questions that deserve consideration from all sides.
August 15, 2025
3.5 ⭐️ rounded down
December 26, 2020
I really debated on how many stars for this one. It really depends on who you are and your purpose for reading this. If you are a scholar wanting a detailed study of all the possible interpretations of scriptures that jews and Gentiles view differently, this book certainly addresses that thoroughly.
If you are a more casual reader who just wants to know what the different viewpoints are, without all the detailed analyses, well.... that's a problem, because viewpoints change with time periods, and even within Christian traditions, the meanings of certain passages are not necessarily the same. With the jewish viewpoint, do you want what they probably thought at the time, what scholars began to see it as, or what people today might think.... and which people?1
I read the first third of the book word for word, but eventually the detailed analysis got to be too much, and I began scanning for conclusions and overviews. If I were in seminary, this book and a couple of different translations of the Bible would be open and read carefully. But I'm not. I just want to understand my Jewish friends' understanding of their scriptures. Not to argue, but to value them as friends of faith that follow a different path to the truth.
If you are a more casual reader who just wants to know what the different viewpoints are, without all the detailed analyses, well.... that's a problem, because viewpoints change with time periods, and even within Christian traditions, the meanings of certain passages are not necessarily the same. With the jewish viewpoint, do you want what they probably thought at the time, what scholars began to see it as, or what people today might think.... and which people?1
I read the first third of the book word for word, but eventually the detailed analysis got to be too much, and I began scanning for conclusions and overviews. If I were in seminary, this book and a couple of different translations of the Bible would be open and read carefully. But I'm not. I just want to understand my Jewish friends' understanding of their scriptures. Not to argue, but to value them as friends of faith that follow a different path to the truth.
October 5, 2020
This isn't a book to read from cover to cover in one sitting. It is full; an offering of Jewish teaching and Christian teaching. What a labor of love, two authors who want to better relations through Judaism and Christianity. I'd recommend reading a portion when you study certain passages of Scripture. I plan to reference it again and again.
August 13, 2021
When I was a freshman at Syracuse University interested in all things scriptural I shared with an advisor in the Navigator Fellowship that I was interested in getting the Jewish point of view on our scriptures. His response, "They lie."; left me cynical about anything to be gained from his mentoring. Not that I didn't believe Jews would speak from their own context, and that this context would be at odds with the Christian context. At the time I just felt that if you heard from anybody and everybody you should always be ready to take what they have to offer with a grain of salt.
That said, lack of charity in our relations (especially those we disagree with) increases the size of the salt by which our opinions should be judged.
Levine and Brettler have offered us a treasure in this work. In an age when polarization appears to have won the day they offer us another way to practice the faith. If I love a book and you love a book - but we have profoundly different understandings of that book - shouldn't we at least spend some time understanding the differences. Wouldn't such an understanding open us up to a greater appreciation of the book we both love. Or is our faith so fragile that we can't tolerate hearing the differences?
In one of the most important sections which shows up in the concluding pages there is this quote from a contemporary Jewish document:
"Now that the Catholic Church has acknowledged the eternal Covenant between God and Israel, we Jews can acknowledge the ongoing constructive validity of Christianity as our partner in world redemption, without any fear that this will be exploited for missionary purposes."
This comes from a 2015 document: 'To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership Between Jews and Christians.' This document was initially signed by twenty-five Orthodox rabbis, and twice that number subsequently.
That's a world I want to live in. Of course the differences continue - and will continue. Our faithfulness to the scriptures our communities love - will be demonstrated by our mutual observance of the command "to love our neighbor as we love ourselves" .
That said, lack of charity in our relations (especially those we disagree with) increases the size of the salt by which our opinions should be judged.
Levine and Brettler have offered us a treasure in this work. In an age when polarization appears to have won the day they offer us another way to practice the faith. If I love a book and you love a book - but we have profoundly different understandings of that book - shouldn't we at least spend some time understanding the differences. Wouldn't such an understanding open us up to a greater appreciation of the book we both love. Or is our faith so fragile that we can't tolerate hearing the differences?
In one of the most important sections which shows up in the concluding pages there is this quote from a contemporary Jewish document:
"Now that the Catholic Church has acknowledged the eternal Covenant between God and Israel, we Jews can acknowledge the ongoing constructive validity of Christianity as our partner in world redemption, without any fear that this will be exploited for missionary purposes."
This comes from a 2015 document: 'To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership Between Jews and Christians.' This document was initially signed by twenty-five Orthodox rabbis, and twice that number subsequently.
That's a world I want to live in. Of course the differences continue - and will continue. Our faithfulness to the scriptures our communities love - will be demonstrated by our mutual observance of the command "to love our neighbor as we love ourselves" .
January 2, 2021
This was pretty good, I appreciate Levine's modesty, how she says 'likely' and 'possibly' on views that are contested, rather than stating her scholarly position as settled and absolute fact.
Levine considered numerous passages that were central for early Christians and then takes a historical-grammatical look, delving into the scholarly weeds, and of course, the early Christians meaning drawn from the verses is typically not even in the same ballpark as the likely original meaning of the text. She also brought up a number of Jewish interpretations, which quite often were polemics against the Christians' interpretation, and were also equally distant from the likely original intent of the biblical authors.
It is interesting how the Reformation had a part in leading protestants away from the four senses of scripture, towards a literal reading rooted in the grammatical-historical method, and how if this method is honestly employed it utterly undermines most of the New Testament use and understanding of their own bible, since the writers of the Christian bible employed pesher, midrash and allegorical readings of their scriptures and apparently had no interest in the original meaning in the original context of the sacred text.
Levine considered numerous passages that were central for early Christians and then takes a historical-grammatical look, delving into the scholarly weeds, and of course, the early Christians meaning drawn from the verses is typically not even in the same ballpark as the likely original meaning of the text. She also brought up a number of Jewish interpretations, which quite often were polemics against the Christians' interpretation, and were also equally distant from the likely original intent of the biblical authors.
It is interesting how the Reformation had a part in leading protestants away from the four senses of scripture, towards a literal reading rooted in the grammatical-historical method, and how if this method is honestly employed it utterly undermines most of the New Testament use and understanding of their own bible, since the writers of the Christian bible employed pesher, midrash and allegorical readings of their scriptures and apparently had no interest in the original meaning in the original context of the sacred text.
May 25, 2021
I have always enjoyed learning from Amy Jill Levine -- this, her most current book, was a great topic, one in which I have great interest, but it is so thoroughly researched, footnoted and cross referenced that it was hard to follow as an audiobook, and I honestly don't think reading it would have helped much. The title is very accurate and relevant -- Levine tells us that there is no single "Bible", there is no single translation that trumps others and there is certainly no single commentary that is definitive. For Levine, the beauty of the same sacred texts read by both Christian and Jews is that they need not be exclusionary -- one faith's meaning or beliefs need not be superior to nor at the exclusion of the others. This is a wonderful message that ought to be studied together in interfaith dialogues to broaden understanding of the other -- but this particular book is a chore because its so well informed and validated with footnotes and cross references. Levine has added much through her career to bridging Jewish and Christian theologies and texts in ways that support both faiths.
May 21, 2022
3 stars (=this book is good), maybe 3.5
Much of this was interesting, but I was hoping it would be more enlightening. The authors take an irenic tone throughout, rarely pressing for a particular truth amongst the various viewpoints, but this approach often becomes too anodyne to be useful. For instance, when discussing “one like a son of man” in Daniel, they show that Christians believe this refers to the messiah, while some scholars believe it refers to Judah Maccabee, and others say the Jewish people collectively. Others think it’s the angel Michael. The implication seems to be that nobody really knows what it means and the important thing is that we all just get along. This message appears to be the overriding theme of the project.
I should say there is some pretty interesting discussion about Jonah and Melchizedek, and the section on “ an eye for an eye” is insightful.
Much of this was interesting, but I was hoping it would be more enlightening. The authors take an irenic tone throughout, rarely pressing for a particular truth amongst the various viewpoints, but this approach often becomes too anodyne to be useful. For instance, when discussing “one like a son of man” in Daniel, they show that Christians believe this refers to the messiah, while some scholars believe it refers to Judah Maccabee, and others say the Jewish people collectively. Others think it’s the angel Michael. The implication seems to be that nobody really knows what it means and the important thing is that we all just get along. This message appears to be the overriding theme of the project.
I should say there is some pretty interesting discussion about Jonah and Melchizedek, and the section on “ an eye for an eye” is insightful.
November 15, 2020
So this book is really good and definitely made me think. Levine does a great job explaining what she is talking about and breaking down the stories by their different readers/tellers (early Christians, Christians, Jews during the time, Jewish though history) along with the how and why religions have different understandings of each passage. I come from a Christian background so the Christian theology is not very new to me, but the Jewish theology blew me away. This is a horrible/sad thing to admit, but I never realized that there is a huge history of Jewish thought about different passages and Jewish explanation for the stories in the "Old Testament." That was the biggest part of the book for me - Levine quoted from Jewish Rabbis from the middle ages and during the early centuries BCE to explain religious thoughts.
September 9, 2020
As someone who grew up Jewish, but was baptized and confirmed an Episcopalian at the age of 15, I wish I would have had this book as I converted. Though it is a very scholarly book, I was fascinated with every page. Both Christians and Jews will gain a deeper perspective on the bible with this read. I highly recommend.
Note: I am a public librarian reviewing this book from an Advanced Reader Copy provided by the publisher through Edelweiss.
Note: I am a public librarian reviewing this book from an Advanced Reader Copy provided by the publisher through Edelweiss.
June 17, 2021
4.5/5 - great way to approach Scripture
August 26, 2025
A deep and thorough examination of key stories from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and how they have been understood by readers at the time they were written, by Christians when they were used in their "New" Testament, and by Jews later on. They look at Creation, Adam and Eve, Eye for an Eye, Drinking blood, Virgin Birth, Suffering Servant, Jonah and the Fish, Crucifixion, and Son of Man.
The authors try to make multiple readings appropriate, rather than arguing for one over another. It does become clear that there are problems with Christians interpreting them as prophesying things about Jesus. While they don't make this case, it does seem to me that New Testament writers sometimes described Jesus' life in ways to make it fit with things they read in the Hebrew Bible.
The authors try to make multiple readings appropriate, rather than arguing for one over another. It does become clear that there are problems with Christians interpreting them as prophesying things about Jesus. While they don't make this case, it does seem to me that New Testament writers sometimes described Jesus' life in ways to make it fit with things they read in the Hebrew Bible.
February 21, 2021
Like many Jews, I've noticed that Jews and Christians often read the same Biblical texts differently, and even said "Hey, you're reading this wrong!"
Professors Amy-Jill Levine and Mark Zvi Brettler have noticed this gap, too, and here they explore it. Both are Jewish; Professor Levine is a New Testament scholar and professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School; Professor Brettler is at Duke. They do not seek here to convince anyone that the Jewish readings are correct. Rather, they seek to explore the differing meanings and the reasons we read these texts differently. (The only reading they specifically reject is supersessionist or replacement theology, along with an antisemitic reading of Jonah from Martin Luther.)
The book begins with some general principles: How Jews and Christians view the same canon differently, historical context, and methods of textual exegesis. It then moves on to a selection of texts to understand the practical workings. Several main themes emerge. The first is translation. The original texts were not always clear, due to both variant versions and the Bible's lack of vowels. This led to ambiguity. The Jewish Tanach is based on the Masoretic Text. Christian interpretation of the Old Testament has been heavily influenced by the Greek Septuagint. In some cases, such as in Genesis 1, translation choices made in the Septuagint have lead to a different understanding of a passage.
Second, Christians interpret the Bible through references in the New Testament, particularly the Gospels: for example in Jonah. They also view the Old Testament backwards through a lens that accepts Jesus and Christian theology, using it to find proof texts that they believe foretell Jesus.
I was absolutely fascinated. Although I don't know ancient Greek, I am familiar with the Hebrew Tanach, and seeing how different passages were interpreted was extremely enlightening. I knew, for example, that Christians interpret Adam and Even as the origins of original sin, and that they claim Isaiah 53 was a foretelling of Jesus, but not why. I had no idea that there were interpretations of Jonah that linked the story to Jesus.
This would be a great read for both Jews and Christians seeking to understand our differences in Bible interpretation.
Professors Amy-Jill Levine and Mark Zvi Brettler have noticed this gap, too, and here they explore it. Both are Jewish; Professor Levine is a New Testament scholar and professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School; Professor Brettler is at Duke. They do not seek here to convince anyone that the Jewish readings are correct. Rather, they seek to explore the differing meanings and the reasons we read these texts differently. (The only reading they specifically reject is supersessionist or replacement theology, along with an antisemitic reading of Jonah from Martin Luther.)
The book begins with some general principles: How Jews and Christians view the same canon differently, historical context, and methods of textual exegesis. It then moves on to a selection of texts to understand the practical workings. Several main themes emerge. The first is translation. The original texts were not always clear, due to both variant versions and the Bible's lack of vowels. This led to ambiguity. The Jewish Tanach is based on the Masoretic Text. Christian interpretation of the Old Testament has been heavily influenced by the Greek Septuagint. In some cases, such as in Genesis 1, translation choices made in the Septuagint have lead to a different understanding of a passage.
Second, Christians interpret the Bible through references in the New Testament, particularly the Gospels: for example in Jonah. They also view the Old Testament backwards through a lens that accepts Jesus and Christian theology, using it to find proof texts that they believe foretell Jesus.
I was absolutely fascinated. Although I don't know ancient Greek, I am familiar with the Hebrew Tanach, and seeing how different passages were interpreted was extremely enlightening. I knew, for example, that Christians interpret Adam and Even as the origins of original sin, and that they claim Isaiah 53 was a foretelling of Jesus, but not why. I had no idea that there were interpretations of Jonah that linked the story to Jesus.
This would be a great read for both Jews and Christians seeking to understand our differences in Bible interpretation.
August 22, 2021
I am part of a group that is reading the Bible in a year. For some it is the first time they have done this…for others they have been reading the Bible for a while. However, there are many people who have the question as we have been reading the Old Testament: Why don’t Jews read the Bible the same way?
The Bible With and Without Jesus answers some of these questions and then some. This book deals with the development of the Bible and the development of interpretations of the Bible within the Bible and within certain traditions. The goal is not to convince either tradition they are ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ but to answer the question of ‘why’ these readings exist.
This book should be a basic requirement for people in the Church who want to know more about the Bible.
How did Matthew use Isaiah in support of the Virgin Birth? Was such an idea present in the text of Isaiah 7? How did this interpretation come to be? This is just one section in which Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler discuss the development of this text over the course of the years. Jonah and the Whale….and the use of Psalm 22 all of these important parts of Scripture become enlightened as the reader looks at them from both an historical and communal context.
We come to the Bible with different thoughts and different beliefs and different contexts. We import to the text meaning that isn’t there because we want to see it there. When others don’t see what we see, we question how they couldn’t they see something so obvious. We as believers want people to believe the same we do.
The writing can be technical at times and many readers may find themselves slowed down by the endless references to different texts and translations and commentaries. But making your way through this book will be well worth it.
I highly recommend this to all church members or anyone who wants to understand the Bible.
Grade: A+
The Bible With and Without Jesus answers some of these questions and then some. This book deals with the development of the Bible and the development of interpretations of the Bible within the Bible and within certain traditions. The goal is not to convince either tradition they are ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ but to answer the question of ‘why’ these readings exist.
This book should be a basic requirement for people in the Church who want to know more about the Bible.
How did Matthew use Isaiah in support of the Virgin Birth? Was such an idea present in the text of Isaiah 7? How did this interpretation come to be? This is just one section in which Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler discuss the development of this text over the course of the years. Jonah and the Whale….and the use of Psalm 22 all of these important parts of Scripture become enlightened as the reader looks at them from both an historical and communal context.
We come to the Bible with different thoughts and different beliefs and different contexts. We import to the text meaning that isn’t there because we want to see it there. When others don’t see what we see, we question how they couldn’t they see something so obvious. We as believers want people to believe the same we do.
The writing can be technical at times and many readers may find themselves slowed down by the endless references to different texts and translations and commentaries. But making your way through this book will be well worth it.
I highly recommend this to all church members or anyone who wants to understand the Bible.
Grade: A+
February 22, 2024
What a story in the Bible meant is different from what it means now. What it means to Christian readers in the past two thousand years is different from what it did, or could, mean to Jewish readers in the same period. And we are better off if we know all three: what it meant, what it means to Jews, and what it means to Christians--understanding that for each of those three questions, there may be multiple answers!
If that sounds intriguing to you, read this book. I did, and I found that:
* There are some places where I already knew Jewish and Christian views of what the Bible is saying differed (e.g, Adam and Eve, the servant stories in Isaiah, an eye for an eye). The book deepened and broadened my understanding of those differences and how they are both possible ways to read.
*There are other stories, like Jonah, that I knew well, but I had no idea there was a christological way to interpret them, at all.
*Beyond that, there are pieces of the text that are just not important in Jewish thinking (Melchizedek) that apparently mean a lot to certain Christian readers of the Bible. That was (you should pardon the expression) a revelation to me!
Depending on your background tolerance for scholarly debates, you may want to read the first few chapters and the very end of the book, then pick out some stories or Biblical sayings that are familiar to you, and see how the authors' approach makes you see them in new ways.
I would probably enjoy anything that Amy-Jill Levine wrote. She is a deeply committed Jew with a sincere interest in, and deep knowledge about, Jesus and Christianity; also, a serious scholar with a wicked sense of humor. My wife says that if you find scholarly books hard to read, you should watch https://www.amazon.com/Great-Courses-.... I don't know Marc Zvi Brettler's independent work, yet, but I will probably look it up. And I would love to go back to this book again with reading partners from different traditions.
If that sounds intriguing to you, read this book. I did, and I found that:
* There are some places where I already knew Jewish and Christian views of what the Bible is saying differed (e.g, Adam and Eve, the servant stories in Isaiah, an eye for an eye). The book deepened and broadened my understanding of those differences and how they are both possible ways to read.
*There are other stories, like Jonah, that I knew well, but I had no idea there was a christological way to interpret them, at all.
*Beyond that, there are pieces of the text that are just not important in Jewish thinking (Melchizedek) that apparently mean a lot to certain Christian readers of the Bible. That was (you should pardon the expression) a revelation to me!
Depending on your background tolerance for scholarly debates, you may want to read the first few chapters and the very end of the book, then pick out some stories or Biblical sayings that are familiar to you, and see how the authors' approach makes you see them in new ways.
I would probably enjoy anything that Amy-Jill Levine wrote. She is a deeply committed Jew with a sincere interest in, and deep knowledge about, Jesus and Christianity; also, a serious scholar with a wicked sense of humor. My wife says that if you find scholarly books hard to read, you should watch https://www.amazon.com/Great-Courses-.... I don't know Marc Zvi Brettler's independent work, yet, but I will probably look it up. And I would love to go back to this book again with reading partners from different traditions.
November 26, 2025
After re-reading many key books of the Old Testament translated by Jewish scholars of Hebrew -- books which I long ago read in the King James and New International Versions -- it has become clear that the Jewish and Christian views of much of the Bible are dramatically different. For one thing, it's not called the Old Testament in Judaism but the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, for another thing the constituent Books are ordered and organized in a completely different way, and for yet a third thing some of the translations and interpretations thereof are in decisive disagreement. Perhaps the most famous example of a translation difference is Isaiah, where Christians interpret the prophet Isaiah as foretelling the coming of Jesus, and Jews do not. Isaiah prophecies about a young woman giving birth to a boy named Immanuel. The KJV and NIV translate the Hebrew word into English as a virgin, this Slotki and other scholarly translations do not (see the previous book on this Goodreads list). This and other discrepancies are discussed in great detail by the authors of The Bible With and Without Jesus. The authors' stated purpose is to moderate arguments about the meaning of the Tanakh/Old Testament. Besides the case of the young woman/virgin, they discuss the 2 distinct creation stories in Genesis, Jonah's 3-day trip in a big fish, and the multifarious uses of the term "Son of Man". In each case, after the authors apprise the reader of the contrasting Jewish and Christian interpretations, they invariably call on Jews and Christians to acknowledge those differences and tolerate them. Most importantly, the authors present what they think, and apparently what many other scholars think, were the intentions and interpretations of the original Hebrew composers of the Tanakh. Surprisingly, these often differ from post-Temple rabbinical Jewish interpretations as much as they differ from Christian ones, often because the rabbinical apologists were trying to refute their Christian apologist rivals.. To this unreconstructed secularist, the authors' approach is very educational and perhaps provides a decent solution to conflict, but it seems unlikely that the approach will satisfy any partisans firmly wedded to their theological preconceptions.
December 21, 2023
Taking the precious Word of God, stepping outside of the Text and peering from the perspectives of its interpreters leads to divers conclusions. This book presented the Bible from a multifaceted point of view. Though, I do believe there is one coherent interpretation to the Bible, being that which God spoke and intended to convey. (Of course, it’s the struggle to get to that understanding rather than placing your opinion upon the Scriptures.) This book was very interesting showing how many people understand certain portions of Scripture.
I found the supplementary use of the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Pseudepigrapha, DSS, and various translations very interesting! Especially how those respective texts reflected the beliefs of the subjects mentioned of the groups who authored them.
At the very least, it was very interesting to see how so many people treat the Word of God and what happens when it’s treated in such a way.
I found the supplementary use of the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Pseudepigrapha, DSS, and various translations very interesting! Especially how those respective texts reflected the beliefs of the subjects mentioned of the groups who authored them.
At the very least, it was very interesting to see how so many people treat the Word of God and what happens when it’s treated in such a way.
June 7, 2025
Okay.
Ultimately, I liked this book and it is a necessary one.
However, here are my thoughts:
I was very up and down about whether or not I liked the book, but by the end had drawn the conclusion our authors were trying to - discussion is good. Willingness to listen and learn about others, accepting that we can walk beside each other instead of against is good.
I disagreed with most of the generalizations made about Christians in the book. I know not everyone can be pleased, so I don’t know if it’s the vein of Christianity I was raised in or if I’m out of the loop. So, I extend the same grace to generalizations made about Jewish beliefs in the book as well.
The one thing I will not budge on is the chapter on the Son of Man. That title is not ours, it’s not about us, and we need not worry about gender inclusion and calling Him “child of humanity”. If you’re worried about gender inclusivity in the Bible, you’re missing the point.
Ultimately, I liked this book and it is a necessary one.
However, here are my thoughts:
I was very up and down about whether or not I liked the book, but by the end had drawn the conclusion our authors were trying to - discussion is good. Willingness to listen and learn about others, accepting that we can walk beside each other instead of against is good.
I disagreed with most of the generalizations made about Christians in the book. I know not everyone can be pleased, so I don’t know if it’s the vein of Christianity I was raised in or if I’m out of the loop. So, I extend the same grace to generalizations made about Jewish beliefs in the book as well.
The one thing I will not budge on is the chapter on the Son of Man. That title is not ours, it’s not about us, and we need not worry about gender inclusion and calling Him “child of humanity”. If you’re worried about gender inclusivity in the Bible, you’re missing the point.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 14, 2021
The full title provides a good summary of this book: The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently. Scholars Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Brettler explore the similarities and differences between the Jewish and Christian views of the same scriptures. They begin by explaining the various versions and translations of the Jewish scriptures and the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments). Their deep-dive topics include the Genesis creation story, Adam and Eve and the concept of original sin, Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, blood and sacrifice, and the “Son of Man” title. The authors also investigate how the Jewish and Christian interpretations have changed over time.
January 12, 2026
"The Bible With and Without Jesus" shows how Jews and Christians read and interpret the same Biblical stories differently. With chapters walking through the creation, the story of Adam and Eve, Melchizedek, "an eye for an eye" versus "turning the other cheek," sacrifice and atonement, Isaiah, Jonah, the Psalms, and more, we see how New Testament authors re-interpret scripture and how both Jews and Christians developed different understandings of the texts. With respectful appreciation for diversity of thought, yet with grounding in what biblical scholarship tells us the earliest authors and readers likely understood the text to mean, this is a useful primer for anyone interested in better understanding the Bible.
September 26, 2023
An excellent, but challenging study of how Jews and Christians read the same Bible stories differently. Immensely learned, but hard to work through in one reading. I suspect on a second reading it will go up to 5 stars.
July 29, 2022
A decent overview of the differences between Christian and Jewish readings of Tanakh. It selects a handful of verses to illustrate these differences. This books straddles the line between being written for laypeople while also using academic terminology. Though it is still accessible to casual readers, people unfamiliar with Hebrew or academic Bible studies may be a bit confused at points.
May 14, 2021
I’m glad that there are people who understand the nuances of Greek and Hebrew language and grammar as these two do. It’s a fascinating look at parts of Scripture and how they are and have been interpreted differently and used polemically against the other, and therefore raises the possibility of a third way.
July 21, 2025
Not an easy read but very informative. Every serious Christian should read this, especially Evangelicals. What’s in the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh as it should be called, is not at all what you’re taught in Sunday school or from the pulpit. As educational for Jews as for Christians.
January 30, 2021
While I wouldnt follow ALL and Marc Brettler everywhere, this is a wonderful text to go through to complexify simplistic hermeneutical approaches for how Jesus relates to the Jewish scriptures.
March 16, 2021
With the goal of getting Christians and Jews to respect and learn from each other's biblical interpretations, two Jewish scholars address prominent stories and passages from the Old Testament that are quoted in the New Testament as foretelling the coming and significance of Christ and His gospel. Clearly, the two groups read those passages differently - sometimes dramatically so. This book explores those interpretations - and my reading of those differences has deepened my understanding, respect and appreciation for both traditions. How have I as Christian read the Old Testament so often and yet known so little about the meaning it had to the Jews before and at the time of Christ? After two thousand years, we still have much to learn from one another.
February 26, 2023
While more details are below the worst of this book is that the author makes it clear in every chapter that her goal is for everyone to get along and not for anyone to find the truth. She says she advocates for everyone agreeing that interpretations, even ones that contradict each other be considered equally valid. The author believes in no objective truth which is poor for an academic.
Anyways the author may say to accept all interpretations as truth but much of the book is Jewish apologetics, calling the christian views wrong and defending Jewish ones. "The problem here..." Is used more than 50 times in the book and all 50 are used when discussing the christian interpretation. Never once is it used when discussing Jewish interpretation. the reason she puts down christian thought is not because it is proved to be wrong but because calling it right means the Jewish interpretation is wrong and we can't have that.
This push for over inclusivity even produced a rant from the author that Jesus should not have used "Son of man" as a title because it was not gender inclusive enough. If that isn't enough she goes on to say that Christian interpretation "colonizes" Jews and that Jesus "mansplains" too often.
Anyways, at 20 pages in I was so excited but at 60 pages in I was already rather disappointed in the multiple ways the authors contradict themselves. Here are some specific ways:
The authors say that there are many paths to God which does contradict both the OT as Jews being the only chosen people and the NT where Jesus says he is the only way.
In chapter 5, she says Christians must not believe that the promises to Jews will be fulfilled by the church today, yet that is a basic belief of almost all Christian churches she is asking Christians to reject while out the other side of her mouth saying accept one another's beliefs as plausible
She says Christians must admit that the Jewish interpretation of scripture is possible and that Jesus is not God.
Also she attacks the book of Hebrews saying that it "colonizes" Jews and "mansplains" concepts to the Jews. The language is more laughable than the argument.
There are specific sections in the book when the authors present two contradictory interpretations of scripture and instead of taking a reasonable route of saying we should believe it possible to find either plausible, they state we must think both can be true at the same time.....yet they contradict each other.
In short the authors push so hard for religious tolerance they ask individuals to suspend truth in the interest to avoid calling anyone wrong. I would think two academics would hold a higher regard for truth and the pursuit of it but their disregard for what is true probably says more about the state of academia than this book says about the truth of the Bible.
Anyways the author may say to accept all interpretations as truth but much of the book is Jewish apologetics, calling the christian views wrong and defending Jewish ones. "The problem here..." Is used more than 50 times in the book and all 50 are used when discussing the christian interpretation. Never once is it used when discussing Jewish interpretation. the reason she puts down christian thought is not because it is proved to be wrong but because calling it right means the Jewish interpretation is wrong and we can't have that.
This push for over inclusivity even produced a rant from the author that Jesus should not have used "Son of man" as a title because it was not gender inclusive enough. If that isn't enough she goes on to say that Christian interpretation "colonizes" Jews and that Jesus "mansplains" too often.
Anyways, at 20 pages in I was so excited but at 60 pages in I was already rather disappointed in the multiple ways the authors contradict themselves. Here are some specific ways:
The authors say that there are many paths to God which does contradict both the OT as Jews being the only chosen people and the NT where Jesus says he is the only way.
In chapter 5, she says Christians must not believe that the promises to Jews will be fulfilled by the church today, yet that is a basic belief of almost all Christian churches she is asking Christians to reject while out the other side of her mouth saying accept one another's beliefs as plausible
She says Christians must admit that the Jewish interpretation of scripture is possible and that Jesus is not God.
Also she attacks the book of Hebrews saying that it "colonizes" Jews and "mansplains" concepts to the Jews. The language is more laughable than the argument.
There are specific sections in the book when the authors present two contradictory interpretations of scripture and instead of taking a reasonable route of saying we should believe it possible to find either plausible, they state we must think both can be true at the same time.....yet they contradict each other.
In short the authors push so hard for religious tolerance they ask individuals to suspend truth in the interest to avoid calling anyone wrong. I would think two academics would hold a higher regard for truth and the pursuit of it but their disregard for what is true probably says more about the state of academia than this book says about the truth of the Bible.
January 11, 2021
This was a difficult read - not really for the casual reader.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews