Jesus and Ancient Jewish Background by Dr David Instone-Brewer

- a Visual Sermon by Dr David Instone-Brewer:

'via Blog this'

Historical Reliability of the Bible

- a Visual Sermon by Dr David Instone-Brewer

More texts on Talmadic References to Yeshu

From Bethinking.org:

For more information see

“Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in Sanhedrin 43a” (Jerusalem Perspective, 2011) by Dr David Instone-Brewer
- a detailed discussion of the dating of the different layers in this tradition. (Pre-publication version)

Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Pess, 2007) by Peter Schäfer
- an up-to-date discussion of the historicity of all the censored passages

Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London: Williams & Norgate, 1903; New York, KTAV, 1975) by R. Travers Herford
- a list and analysis of all the censored passages

David Instone-Brewer on Talmudic References to Yeshu, San 43a

David Instone-Brewer « Undeception

Gleaned from a unfamiliar blog, David Instone-Brewer on a Talmudic reference to Jesus and the charges brought against Him. An earlier post of mine on a "Yeshu" in the Talmud.

"It’s interesting to note that in the Gospels there are verses indicating that Pharisaical scribes were recording Jesus.

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=scribes&section=2&translation=nas&oq=scribes&new=1&sr=1

In Matthew 12:22 Jesus heals a blind, deaf and possessed man. In turn the Pharisees accused Jesus of practicing sorcery in the name of Beelzebub the prince of demons in verse 24. So the Gospels seem to confirm the Talmudic view of Yeshu, who to me seems to be Jesus of Nazareth"

Added July 27, 2011: Instone-Brewer's pre-publication.

"Summary:
The Munich Talmud manuscript of at b.San.43a preserves passages censored out of printed editions, including the controversial trial of “Yeshu Notzeri”. Chronological analysis of the layers in this tradition suggests that the oldest words are: “On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and leading Israel astray”. This paper argues that other words were added to this tradition in order to overcome three difficulties: a trial date during a festival; the unbiblical method of execution; and the charge of "sorcery" which implies that Jesus’ miracles were genuine because illusions were not punishable by death."

Instone-Brewer responds in this discussion thread

Instone-Brewer on Abortion

David I-B's sermon on abortion is linked here. Christians are sometimes vexed by the lack of any mention regarding abortion in the NT. David I-B discusses this point by discussing 1st century moral values among the Jews and the Greco-Romans:

"Originally, in rural Greek & Roman society they did “expose” infants
- and some people still did so in the 1st century, but it was difficult in towns
- it was easier to quietly smother the baby at birth and throw out the corpse
- some people did still leave babies on a hillside, leaving them to the ‘gods’
- but in practice this left them to the dogs, and to brothel keepers who sometimes rescued infants as an investment for their business. "

"Jews thought that this Roman custom was barbaric, and they said so
- Philo pulls no punches when he described what actually happened in practice:
“Some of them do the deed with their own hands; with monstrous cruelty and barbarity they stifle and throttle the first breath which the infants draw or throw them into a river or into depths of the sea, after attaching some heavy substance to make them sink more quickly under its weight. Others take them to be exposed in some desert place, hoping, they themselves say, that they may be saved, but leaving them in actual truth to suffer the most distressing fate. For all the beasts that feed on human flesh visit the spot and feast unhindered on the infants; a fine banquet.”(Spec.3.114-5)
- Josephus contrasted Jewish & Roman cultures in Conta Apionem, incl: [2.202]
“The [Mosaic] Law… forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to kill it afterward; and if any woman appears to have done so, she will be a murderer of her child, by killing a living creature and diminishing human kind.”

I-B finds a clue in Acts 15 instructions to new Gentile Christians:

¹⁹ "Therefore it is my ^R897 judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, ²⁰ but that we write to them that they abstain from things ^{R898 F362} contaminated by idols and from fornication ^R899 and from what ^R900 is strangled and from blood.

The bolded item seems curious and out of place. Some translations for pnictos use "strangled meat." So is it another form of dietary restriction?

I-B cues in:

The fourth word, pnictos is very rare but is usually translated “strangle”
- why? because it sounds similar to pnigos and that means “strangle”
- actually, this isn’t too far off, because I later concluded it means “smother”
- but what does it mean in this context? How does it make any sense?

.....

All the other examples of pnictos were used with regard to food
- in particular a certain type of meat called “smothered meat”. What’s that?

.....

but what would the original readers think?
- well, I think they would be confused at first
- it is rather like saying: the four worst sins you can commit are idolatry, fornication, murder and eating Pate de Foie Gras!

Studylight has a translation of pnictos:

suffocate, strangled

1. what is strangled, i.e. an animal deprived of life without the shedding of blood
2. of cooking: our "smothered" as a culinary term

David I-B sums it up here (bold added):

What would they explain? They tell them why “smothering” is so bad
- not the smothering of new-born baby animals, ready for eating
- but the smothering of new-born babies, or killing them any other way

Why did they use this strange rare word for “smothering”
- I think the euphemism “exposed” didn’t contain any negative value
- that’s just the normal thing you do, as a sensible father and good citizen
- instead they wanted to use a word which took away the pretence
- like anti-abortionists talk about murdering babies instead of aborting fetuses
- it may not be the most accurate language, but it conveys the moral truth
- no-one, after hearing these four words explained, would forget the message

The Apostolic Decree told new Gentile believers about a new morality
- they weren’t allowed to sacrifice to idols or eat in pagan temple dining rooms
- they weren’t allowed to have sex with slaves, or prostitutes, male or female
- they weren’t allowed to kill slaves or eat blood (probably both messages)
- and they weren’t allowed to kill babies as a means of birth control

His publication appears in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 52, 2009, 301-321

Also note that the Didache, the 1st century instructions to new Christians prohibits abortions.

Instone-Brewer Responds to the Use of Extra-Biblical Literature for Scriptural Exegesis

A blogger critical of Instone-Brewer's use of history from Josephus, Philo, surviving documents and the Talmud for I-B's books and C-T article quotes John Piper:

Piper comments on the article:

Instone-Brewer’s interpretation is an example (common, it seems, in New Testament studies today) of taking extra-biblical observations and using them to silence the fairly plain meaning of biblical texts.

I-B responds:

Thank you for taking my work so seriously.

The method I use is the same as that used by John Piper who argues that the meaning of porneia is not how it is normally translated in the New Testament, but it means instead ‘pre-marital fornication’. This is based on the work of the Qumran scholar Abel Isaksson. It is similar to the well-established theory of the French scholar Bonsirven which was popularised a few decades ago by the Catholic scholar Murphy O’Connor, who found supporting evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This kind of interpretation is important for Catholic scholars because it means that Jesus did not allow any divorce after marriage has occurred – the same teaching that Piper supports.

It is also the same method by which many scholars show Matthew and Luke were not contradicting each other when one says Mary and Joseph were betrothed, and the other says Joseph planned to divorce her. They solve this by means of extra-biblical rabbinic documents which show that a betrothal could only be ended by a divorce certificate (something which is not recorded anywhere in the Bible).

I employ rabbinic documents and marriage & divorce documents from Jesus’ time to discover how to translate the phrase ‘Any Cause’, which was a legal title for a particular type of divorce in Jesus’ day. Anyone reading Matthew in the first century would recognise that legal phrase, and we have to take this into account when we attempt to understand Jesus’ teaching. People outside the first century understand that phrase differently. Does that mean that their interpretation is correct? Jesus spoke first to his audience in the first century, and we have to hear his words through their ears. It is part of the translation process.

See more at http://www.DivorceRemarriage.com

David Instone-Brewer

Hillel Vs. Shammai Pharisees, What Jesus May Have Said Regarding Polygamy

In the previous post and many before that the debate between two schools of Pharisees, the Hillel and Shammai was discussed. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus appears to side with the Shammai school for 'adultery only' for 'indecency' in Dt 24:1.

The Shammai school endorsed traditional Judaic values, with the Hillels appearing to adopt Greco-Roman influences. Divorce in G-R law was instantaneous and not require any particular reason, much like our modern No-Fault divorces. The 'Any Cause' divorce mentioned in Mt 19:3 and in Josephus, Philo and the Talmud may have been one of those Hillel adaptations.

What about polygamy? The OT does not forbid polygamy, and the Shammais allowed for it. The G-R world did not practice polygamy and the Hillels took that position. It appears that Jesus took the side of the Hillel Pharisees on this argument. In his book and writings David Instone-Brewer discusses the recent findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran. The Essene sect may have inhabited the Qumran caves. The common scriptural argument against polygamy was Gen. 1:27, 2:24, and Lev 18:18. Jesus quotes Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 in Mt 19:4-5. Another blogger does more justice to I-B's exegesis.

It appears that Jesus rebukes the Shammais for polygamy in Mt. 19:4-5 before agreeing with their exegesis for 'indecency' in Dt 24:1 in Mt 19:8-9.

More on Instone-Brewer's Article in Christianity Today

David Instone-Brewer's article "What God Has Joined" Christianity Today's article has generated a lot of discussion. The CT editor, Jeff Neff and I-B himself responded. In the meanwhile David Instone-Brewer has started a blog. And the blogoshere itself is abuzz with the debate between I-B and John Piper. Piper is of the 'divorce (really separation) but no remarriage' school of thought. As I said before I think that Piper's thinking is flawed and thus ends up being overly harsh. As I-B notes in his C-T response:

• John Piper’s own interpretation of the divorce passages is based on the view that porneia (Greek for ‘sexual indecency’) had a different meaning in first century Judaism, when it referred mainly to ‘fornication’ (i.e. sexual sin before marriage). This well-established theory was popularized a few decades ago by the Catholic scholar Murphy O’Connor, who found supporting evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This interpretation is important for Catholic scholars because it means that Jesus did not allow any divorce after marriage has occurred – the same teaching that Piper supports.

This evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls was based on only one passage, a particularly difficult one, in the Damascus Document, which relies on the translation of the word zenut (the Hebrew equivalent of porneia) as "sex before marriage". Since O’Connor put forward this theory, however, other scrolls have been studied (especially the Temple Scroll) and most scholars have concluded that the early interpretations of this passage were mistaken, and that it was actually forbidding polygamy.

This does not mean that John Piper’s non-traditional interpretation of porneia is wrong (it is still a possible interpretation that is waiting for more evidence), but it does mean that we do not now have much evidence that it can be translated this way. In fact, most scholars agree that porneia is a general term for sexual sin, as seen in the New Testament itself. It is used for visiting a prostitute (1 Cor.6.13-15, 18), incest (1 Cor.5.1), general sexual sin by a married person (1 Cor.7.2), use of cultic prostitutes (Rev.2.20-21) and the sin of the ‘whore of Babylon’ (Rev.17.2, 4; 18.3; 19.2) - though the most common meaning is ‘sexual sin in general’ (e.g. Acts 15.20; Eph.5.3; Col.3.5).

The main thrust of I-B argument is that Jesus was questioned on the meaning of ‘indecency’ in Dt. 24:1 and no more in Matthew 19:3 (Link 1, 2, 3).

Matthew 19:3. (NASB) Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”

Note that the Pharisees were testing Him on for his opinion on the law. To the 1^st century Jew that was the OT Law of Moses. The Pharisees were divided into two camps, based on Rabbis Shammai and Hillel. This debate is recorded in the Talmud:

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin 9:10 on the controversy regarding the interpretation of Dt 24:1.

• The School of Shammai said: Let not a man divorce his wife unless he found in her some matter of indecency [immorality] as it is said, “because he has found an indecency about her” [Dt 24:1]. But the School of Hillel say: Even if she spoiled his food, as it says, “because he has found an indecency of something about her” [Dt 24:1].

• It has been taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Does not the text distinctly say 'thing'?⁷ Beth Shammai rejoined: And does it not distinctly say 'unseemliness'? Beth Hillel replied: Had it said only 'unseemliness' without 'thing', I should have concluded that she should be sent away on account of unseemliness, but not of any 'thing'.

The debate was clearly about the interpretation of indecency in Dt. 24:1. The Hillel Pharisees were the proponents of the “Any Cause/Reason/Matter/Thing” divorce. In the 1^st Century AD the Hillel Pharisees were clearly winning that debate as evident from passages in Philo and Josephus on Dt. 24:1.

Philo (20 BC – 50AD) Special Laws 30-31(on Dt 24:1-4):

• If a woman after parting from her husband for any cause whatsoever marries another and then again becomes a widow, whether this second husband is alive or dead, she must not return to her first husband but ally herself with any other man rather than him, because she has broken with the rules that bound her in the past and cast them into oblivion when she chose new love-ties in preference to the old.

Josephus (37AD – 100) Jewish Antiquities 4:253 (on Dt 24:1-4) :

• He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause (25) whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men,) let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband,

· footnote (25) from above: These words of Josephus are very like those of the Pharisees to our Savior upon this very subject, Matthew 19:3

Key Point - Note that Philo and Josephus use the term “Any Cause” as opposed to indecency in their interpretation of Dt. 24:1. This is a clear indication that the Hillel “Any Cause” divorce was the accepted one in 1^st Century Judaism, not the Shammai definition meaning only adultery.

In spite of many blog sites denying so, the ‘Any Cause’ divorce is a 1^st century AD Jewish legal term equivalent to our modern No-Fault divorce. Modern Jewish attitudes on divorce still accept this notion.

In upcoming posts, I’ll explore Instone-Brewer’s thoughts on other grounds for divorce, namely:

• Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
• Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)
• Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)

Instone-Brewer in Christianity Today

Instone-Brewer in Christianity Today

David Instone-Brewer has an article in Christianity Today on divorce and remarriage in the Bible. He cites the Hillel vs. Shammai Pharisaical debate over the meaning of “indecency” in Dt. 24:1 and the correspondence of Paul’s 1 Co 7 with Ex. 21:10-11. Instone-Brewer’s thesis is that the discussion outlined in the most detail in Matthew 19 (as opposed to Luke's, and Mark's) is that was a debate on 'indecency' in Dt 24:1 and not about Ex 21:10-11. Historical references, admittedly, extra-biblical back up Instone-Brewer. So a reasonable interpretation is that the liberal “Any Cause” Hillel divorce (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) was condemned by Jesus and the discussion in Mt 19 was not about Ex 21:10-11. The Talmud, Josephus, and Philo all mention this “Any Cause” divorce (also 1). The Talmud records this debate with Josephus and Philo inserting ‘Any Cause’ in place of ‘indecency’ for their interpretation of Dt 24:1. Modern Jewish opinions towards divorce remain the same, i.e. ‘Any Cause’ (equivalent to the modern No-Fault) for Dt. 24:1 and Ex. 21:10-11 being in place also.

So the question remains what was Jesus’ opinion on Ex. 21:10-11? I side with Instone-Brewer as from all reliable historical references; the Pharisees were questioning Him on Mosaic Law and His opinion of ‘indecency’ in Dt.24:1. The rights of slave-wife of Ex 21:10-11 were always accepted as grounds for divorce then as it is now. John Piper whose teachings I respect disagrees, and offers this criticism. The crux of his argument is with I-B’s interpretation of Ex. 21:10-11 in italics:

1) His claim that Jesus didn’t reject the (ostensible) grounds for divorce in Exodus 21:10-11 is an argument from silence. Jesus never alluded to these verses. And when he did speak about Old Testament grounds for divorce, he rejected them as owing to the hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:5).

I-B does mention this in his writings. Silence can be a vague method of stating an argument. We know that the 1^st century Jews as with the modern ones have accepted grounds for divorce. We know from historical references the debate was over ‘indecency’ in Dt 24:1. Piper also seems to miss the point of Mt 19:8. In the preceding verse the Pharisees asked Jesus as to why “Moses commanded one to give a Certificate of Divorce and to send her away?” There is only one situation where that appears in the Law of Moses, Dt 24:1. That was when the husband found an ‘indecency’ in her.

2) Keil and Deilitzsch have a totally different take on these verses than Instone-Brewer which does not assume that the purchased slave was already married to the purchaser when she is dismissed (Commentaries, Vol. 2, p. 131).

I haven’t read this criticism before. But if read at face value, Ex 21:10-11 seems very straight forward. Enough so that Paul basically re-iterates these values in 1 Co 7.

3) Worst of all, Instone-Brewer infers three grounds for divorce from Exodus 21:10-11, neglect of “food, clothing, and love.” These correspond to “later Jewish and Christian” marriage vows: “love, honor, and keep.” He then concludes—read and weep—“Thus, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce [namely, ‘emotional and physical neglect’].”

This is a valid argument, perhaps Ex. 21 can be abused, I’m sure it is in modern Jewish practices. However, what about cases in which spouses are abandoned? That’s pretty clear cut, yet Piper does not consider this to be valid grounds for divorce. He is of the 'divorce but no remarriage' school of thought.

Piper goes on:

Instone-Brewer’s interpretation is an example (common, it seems, in New Testament studies today) of taking extra-biblical observations and using them to silence the fairly plain meaning of biblical texts. Over against what Instone-Brewer says, Jesus did in fact reject, for his disciples, what Moses commanded (Mark 10:5) or permitted (Matthew 19:8) in Deuteronomy 24:1.

In considering extra-biblical sources one must consider what was Jesus teaching for all in all ages to come or against 1^st century AD customs and practices. This is always a fine line. It’s apparent to me that the Mt 19 debate was solely about Dt. 24:1 and not about Ex 21:10-11. Matthew 19:8 was about forgiveness for the offending wife, even when Moses commanded that a Certificate of Divorce was required for the offence in Dt. 24:1.

Piper again:

My aim here is not to persuade people that this understanding of the exception clause is right. My aim is to say that David Instone-Brewer’s argument is not compelling—neither the argument from the “any-cause divorce” in rabbinic literature, nor the argument from Exodus 21:10-11. It is what I caution my students against. Beware of what looks like scholarly rank-pulling. For example, Brewer says, “I likely read every surviving writing of the rabbis of Jesus’ time.

If we do not understand the mindset of the 1^st century Jew we won’t understand the message of Jesus. The NT was written for that audience, e.g. consider the situation of the tax collector. Ironically, Jesus and Paul’s messages were against easy divorce and is very applicable to the modern day situation of No-Fault divorces. Also, ad hominen attacks do add to the validity of one’s argument.

In that C-T article I-B takes a round of criticism from readers. He mounts a defense of himself in one of his sermons. Most of the reader comments attack Ex 21:10-11 as any source of teaching. This is unfortunate as rabbinical sources have always used Ex 21. What do Christians find objectionable to Ex. 21:10-11? This reinforces the notion that we as Christians should always keeping learning (Hebrews 5:13-14).

Modern Jewish Attitudes Towards Divorce

Jewish views of divorce have remained constant over 2500 years. The website below goes as a far as to equate the ancient “Any Cause” (link 1, 2, 3, 4)) with the modern “No-Fault” divorce.

From Judaism 101:

• Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago.
• Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required.

This is a reference to the “Any Cause” divorce to which the Pharisees questioned Jesus in Matthew 19:3. The interpretation of the Hillel Pharisee was that any infraction is grounds for divorce. The Shammai Pharisee held to the stricter formulation of “sexual immorality” grounds only. This debate was one recorded in the Talmud over the meaning of “indecency” in Dt. 24:1.. Jesus preaches against the “Any Cause” divorce in verse 19 by affirming the Shammai position for sexual immorality only position. The Hillel Pharisees prevailed in post 70AD Judaism after the destruction of the 2^nd Temple, thus the modern position that reflects the “Any Cause” divorce.

• In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.

In the bullet point above, Jesus rejects required divorce by reminding the Pharisees that forgiveness was and is always an option in verse 8 of Mt 19.

• According to the Torah, divorce is accomplished simply by writing a bill of divorce, handing it to the wife, and sending her away. To prevent husbands from divorcing their wives recklessly or without proper consideration, the rabbis created complex rules regarding the process of writing the document, delivery, and acceptance. A competent rabbinical authority should be consulted for any divorce.

That bullet point above is in direct reference to Certificate of Divorce in Dt. 24:1.

The next passage taken from Judaism 101 is in reference to Ex. 21:10-11. In this situation a slave wife is set free in the case of neglect/abandonment.

• a rabbinical court can compel a husband to divorce his wife under certain circumstances: …., when he violates or neglects his marital obligations (food, clothing and sexual intercourse)

Instone-Brewer makes reference to this verse, and further expounds that in 1st century AD many Jews reasoned what is good for the slave wife, is good for the free one, and thus good for the husband. This point was never in debate between the Hillels and Shammais over Dt. 24:1. It is highly unlikely that Jesus was commenting on Ex 21. Further evidence is offered in 1 Corinthians 7, St. Paul makes references to the causes of martial discourse and alludes to Ex 21 in verses 3-5 and 33-34. In verses 10-11 and 15-16 he addresses the issues of abandonment. To the Greco-Roman Corinthians this was a type of "No-Fault" divorce.

The Tax Collector in The Gospels The 1st and 21st Century Contexts

The tax collector earned the scorn of the gentile, common Jew, the Pharisee, and Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus recognizes that the tax collector was a man in need of redemption in Matthew and Luke (another Link). His apostle, Matthew was a tax collector before he sought salvation.

How do we perceive the tax collector in the 21st century? I'm sure there are many Christians working for our IRS. How do they justify the righteousness of working as tax collectors when they are so scorned as sinners in the Gospels? If read without context, the tax collector in modern America is a sinner and should give back half of anything he earned to the poor, and perhaps make severe restitution to others.

Christians working for the IRS should rest easy. The Gospels were written in the 1st Century AD with the Jews and others under the domination of Romans. The Jews suffered under this occupation and tax collectors were part of the Roman apparatus for domination of Judea. In modern America, we have control of the tax collector (in principle) and they are in the service of a government we have elected.

This underscores the importance of reading Scriptures in its historical context. The word of God is made clearer to us when we consider the historical context in which human hands wrote scripture.

*******
Note added Sept. 28 - Wikipedia article on publicans

Roman Divorce-by-Separation

David Instone-Brewer makes frequent reference to the unilateral divorce that Paul was trying to prevent among Christians in 1 Corinthians 7. Instone-Brewer calls it a divorce-by-separation. Unlike the legal term used by the Hillel Pharisees for their form of groundless unilateral or the "Any Cause" (1, 2, 3, 4) divorce, there doesn't seem to be one for Roman law. A chapter from a monograph "Marriage Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome" (1991) describes the historical aspects of Roman divorce in the late Republic, early Principate. Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and how Frequent was it? (pp31-47) by Susan Treggiari describes the process.

pp. 33-34
"If the initiation and continuance of a marriage depended on consent, explicit or implies of both spouses ..., then it follows logically that divorce may be produced by the withdraw of that consent by one of parties, or perhaps we should say, more positively, by the decision of one party not to retain the relation"

p. 36
"No ratification from any outside authority (such as Church or State) was necessary for divorce, any more that it was for marriage."

p.37 top
"Just as documentation of the action of the divorcing spouse was not legally necessary, so receipt of the notice by the husband or wife remained inessential."

p. 37 bottom
"As far as the legal system went, by the time of Cicero it appears that both husbands and wives could divorce each other, unilaterally, without seeking outside ratification."

This is the Greco-Roman unilateral divorce that Instone-Brewer describes in his many works. Paul refers to it in verses 10-16 in 1 Corinthians 7.

A gem from Tektonics

An interesting discussion that touches upon David Instone-Brewer's work:

"After addressing Krueger's second (and now third, fourth) reply to this item, it has become more clear than ever that he follows the usual line of what one reader of this site has called "fundamentalist atheism." In essence, the fundamentalist atheist (or agnostic, or Skeptic; we use the term "atheist" for convenience) is a critic who reads the Bible the same way that a fundamentalist Christian would, as though it were something written yesterday and with them in mind, and that it can be easily understood and commented upon in scholarly detail and authoritatively by any yahoo with decent eyesight. Such, as we have shown in various contexts and with reference to various parties, is simply not the case."

Review of Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Contex

AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW

ISSN 0045-0308
BOOK REVIEW Published in Volume 53, 2005

DAVID INSTONE-BREWER, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Pp. xi+355. $US26.00.
.....
One of the strengths of this book is the close attention paid to primary sources, and the careful and considered approach to their interpretation. For readers who do not have Instone-Brewer’s expertise in either ancient near eastern texts or Rabbinics, this book is especially helpful. Instone-Brewer insists that, to properly understand the New Testament texts relating to divorce (and remarriage), it is essential that they be read “through the eyes of a first century believer.”

.....

He concludes with the strong statement:

The message of the NT is that divorce is allowed but should be avoided whenever possible. Divorce is allowed only on the grounds of broken mar-riage vows, and the decision to divorce can be made only by the injured party … If divorce does happen, remarriage is permitted. All this would be obvious to a first-century believer, but the meaning of the text was obscured at a very early date due to ignorance about the Jewish background after 70 C.E. … The Church should now be humble and admit that a great mistake has been made. Too many generations of husbands and wives have been forced to remain with their abusing or neglectful partners and have not been allowed to divorce even after suffering repeated unfaithfulness.

Instone-Brewer’s book is a tour de force on this subject, and while it will inevitably raise serious questions and some disagreement, his treatment of the texts upon which debate must focus and the competent and judicious way in which he handles them de-serve the most serious attention......[more]

Instone-Brewer's Divorce and Remarriage in 1st and 21st Century

David Instone-Brewer's website at Cambridge University contains the complete text of a book that contrast the understanding of divorce in Jesus' and modern times. An excerpt:

"I have used capital letters at the start of 'Any Matter' and 'Indecency' because, as I will show below, they are actually Jewish technical legal terms. Any Jew in the 1^st century would be familiar with these terms, just as any 21^st century person is familiar with terms like 'no-fault divorce' and 'maintenance'. For example, a 1^st century Jew might think that a 'no-fault divorce' was one where the legal paper-work was error-free, or that 'maintenance' referred to maintaining the singleness of a divorcee. As 21^st century readers, we are likely to suffer just as much misunderstanding, unless we can understand the legal jargon which Jesus is using, in the way that a 1^st century reader would have understood it."

The "Any Matter", "Any Reason" or "Any Cause" divorce was discussed in previous posts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The first century "Any Cause" divorce is very similar to the modern "No-Fault Divorce."

Matthew 19:3 (NASB)

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

A modern version might read:

"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife using the No-Fault method?" Or "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for no fault at all?" What will No-Fault mean 2000 years from now?

David Instone-Brewer on Rudy Giuliani

David Instone-Brewer discusses Rudy Giuliani's multiple marriages and "any cause" divorces on OpinionJournal.com. He equates "any cause" divorce with the modern "no-fault" one.

"There is now a growing scholarly consensus among evangelicals on this issue. Even evangelical professors like Craig Keener of Duke University and William Heth at Taylor University, who have each previously published books with more traditional interpretations, now teach differently. Drawing on my own work, "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" (Eerdmans, 2002), they conclude that Jesus and Paul would have rejected no-fault divorce and that they would have permitted a wronged partner to initiate a divorce based on the Old Testament grounds of adultery or neglect."

Instone-Brewer thinks that Evangelicals will eventually reject Giuliani as a presidential candidate when reasons for his dissolved marriages become clear:

"And political candidates like Mr. Giuliani, whose philandering apparently helped lead to both of his divorces, may fall out of favor with this pool of voters."

Wikipedia on the Hillel vs. Shammai Debate and Jesus

Wikipedia had a surprisingly good description involving the Pharisaical debate regarding divorce and how Jesus may have taken sides, the author indicates that Jesus may have upheld traditional Mosaic Law and thus the side of the Shammais:

• In Matthew 5:31-32,Matthew 19:1-10 and Mark 10:1-5, Jesus came into conflict with the the Pharisees over divorce concerning their well-known controversy between Hillel and ShammaiDeuteronomy 24:1-4--as evidenced in Nashim Gittin 9:10 of the Mishnah. Do Jesus’ answers to the Pharisees also pertain to Christians? The differences in opinions about this usually arise over whether Jesus opposed the Law of Moses or just some of the viewpoints of the Pharisees, and whether Jesus just addressed a Jewish audience or expanded his audience to include Christians, for example "all nations" as in the Great Commission. Also, did the answers of Jesus "in the house" to his disciples expand the rights of women (See Agunah) or did they merely acknowledge that some Jewish women, such as Herodias who divorced Herod Boethus, were being assimilated by other cultures? (See Matthew 14:3-4, Mark 10:10-12.) In other words, did Jesus confine his remarks to the Pharisaical questions, and did he appeal to his own authority by refuting the oral authority of the Pharisees with the formula "You have heard...But I say to you" in Matthew 5:20-48? Expressions used by Jesus such as "you have heard", "it hath been said", "it is written", "have you never read", "keep the commandments", "why do you break the commandments with your traditions?" and "what did Moses Command you?" seem to indicate that Jesus generally respected the Written Laws and sometimes opposed Pharisaical Opinions. (See Matthew 15:1-3, Matthew 4:1-4.) Furthermore, Jesus used disclaimers like those found in Matthew 5:17-20 and Luke 16:16-18 to indicate his endorsement of the Law of Moses. His general respect for the written word and the disclaimers (coupled with the implications of ignoring them such as being "called least in the kingdom of heaven") are strong evidence that Jesus supported the Law and the Prophets. Jesus had a relationship with the Law of Moses while he was alive, but after his death and resurrection he was free to have a relationship with his new bride--the church. (Gal 4:4,Rom 7:1-4,Ephesians 5:29-32.) (See also Judaizers, Jewish Christians, Expounding of the Law (Divorce), Sermon on the Mount (Interpretation), Old Testament (Christian view of the Law), New Covenant.)

'Any Cause' Divorce in Philo and Jesus' "Adulterous Generation"

'Any Cause' Divorce in Philo and Jesus' "Adulterous Generation"

A book "The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament: Case Studies on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the NT" by William Loader quotes Philo on divorce on page 79:

Philo Leg. 30-31:

• If a woman after parting from her husband for any cause whatsoever marries another and then again becomes a widow, whether this second husband is alive or dead, she must not return to her first husband but ally herself with any other man rather than him, because she has broken with the rules that bound her in the past and cast them into oblivion when she chose new love-ties in preference to the old.

The author suggests that Philo meant "something shameful" when he said "for any cause whatsoever". The author seems to have missed the essence of the debate between the Hillel and Shammai Pharisees schools regarding divorce for 'any cause' vs. 'something shameful' or 'unseemly thing'.

In previous posts the 'any cause' (also any matter, any reason) divorce was mentioned by Josephus. It is significant that these two Jewish philosophers/historians only mention 'any cause' divorces. This lends credence to Instone-Brewer's observation that Hillel divorces were the predominant ones.

• In the matter of divorce the Shammaites must have been almost totally cut out of the legal process even before 70 C . E . because their position was so much stricter than the Hillelite one . Almost no one who was wanting a divorce would choose a Shammaite judge when he knew that a Hillelite judge would approve an " any matter " divorce without requiring any evidence . Shammaite judges would require evidence of neglect , unfaithfulness , or infertility . With a court made up of Hillelite judges one could ask for an " any matter " divorce and there would be no need to bring proof of any kind , and so there was no need to

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
David Instone-Brewer. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002). Page 114.

Also from his book:

• Unlike a Shammaite court , the Hillelites did not require any evidence of grounds for divorce ,

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
David Instone-Brewer. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002). Page 113.

Later Instone-Brewer speculates that the Hillel 'any cause' divorce is what Jesus was against and his exception for 'porneia" is a backing of the Shammai school. Also, he suggests that this is what Jesus meant by this "adulterous generation"in Matthew and Mark. Also it is perhaps significant that in the Matthew verses Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees.

What would Jesus think of modern "no-fault" divorces? This form of modern divorce sounds very similar to the 'any matter' divorces or the Greco-Roman 'divorce-by-separation'.

'Any Cause' Divorce

David Werner Amran's 1896 book "Jewish Law of Divorce" is the earliest modern text I am so far able to locate describing the Hillel 'any cause' divorce. It is available for a free download.
Chapter 3 starting on page 32 starts the discussion regarding the Talmudists and Jesus. Very interesting. This book very much adds to Instone-Brewer's thesis in his book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible".

It was written as an investigation into an Episcopal clergyman who remarried after being deserted by his first wife. As I said it is free. I have placed the link above and in the links side bar.

Instone-Brewer IV

I came across a blog "Eternal Perspectives" that discusses David Instone-Brewer's book "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible." It offers an excellent summary of the book. It is covered in four parts (1, 2, 3, 4). In that final post he goes over the four predominant views of divorce and remarriage in Christian circles. Unfortunately he doesn't conclude with his own views.