The first part of “New Testament Judaism: A Pre-Rabbinic Formula in the Lord’s Prayer established the thesis of my article. This second portion begins by reiterating the critical points of my topic but encapsulates the intent of all my writing:
Key point: assertion #1: Early rabbinic concepts highlighted in New Testament literature help clarify Christianity’s Judaism.
Key point: assertion #2: A side-by-side comparison of portions of the Jewish prayer, Amidah, which pre-dates Jesus’ Lord’s Prayer, provides a context for Jesus’ statement in the Sermon on the Mount: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others” (Matt. 6:5). Furthermore, a comparison illustrates predominant Father-King principles within the Judaic system and expressed throughout the New Testament.
Key point: assertion #3: Christianity as a Judaism within the broad scope of first-century Judaisms addresses the urgent question of “God with us.” Examples highlight the differing views. Despite the diversity, the New Testament writers worked within the same structures. This point leads to the alternative argument (Part 3).
In this article, which served as my final assignment in my graduate program, I argued against a common ecclesial premise supported by Rosemary Radford Reuther: “Like the Qumran community, Christianity vilified the Judaism outside its converted community as apostate, sinful, worse than the Gentiles, and even the devil. It regarded the others as fallen outside the true covenant and ranked with the enemies of God” (Rosemary Radford Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, 74).
My first impulse is to say, “But ‘Christianity’ is anachronistically applied here because it wasn’t conceived as such in Paul’s time. In other words, for Paul and the apostles, it was a Jewish movement.” However, in academia, one must support assertions. So, my method was to compare the language and themes of Jesus’ “Lord’s Prayer” with the older and very Jewish “Amidah.”
To illustrate, the Amidah and the Lord’s Prayer share similar themes and language, implying an essential relational context. Thus, the Judaism of the New Testament, themes underscored in the Amidah and exemplified in the Lord’s Prayer, provides one hermeneutical resource for first-century teachings and, further, an approach to contemporary theological applications.
Part 2:
The second portion, Gevurot, “Mighty Deeds,” the largest fragment of Qumran’s scroll 4Q521 (2ii+4), perhaps dating to the late 2ce BCE, is significant for the Gospels.1 Accordingly, Gevurot is an essential pre-rabbinic source, dating before Jesus’ time. Also, this fragment reveals concepts commensurate with biblical teachings, illustrating God’s might to deliver His people. Moreover, Amidah’s second portion corresponds to the New Testament’s theme of death and resurrection as it speaks within first-century Pharisaical thought.2
You give life to the dead and have great powers to save. (Gevurot, Amidah).
And do not bring us to a time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one (Lord’s prayer, Matt. 6:13).
Rabbi Joseph Hertz’s Siddur (prayer book), published in 1942, includes themes similar to the Gevurot portion of the Amidah and the Lord’s Prayer: “O lead us not into sin, or transgression.”3 This quote’s significance illustrates theological concepts about God’s might and willingness to save, stemming from pre-rabbinic sources and continuing to present.
The final portion for comparison is the Kedusha, or “Sanctification.” Like the Lord’s Prayer, the Kedusha is prayed aloud daily by the faithful and as a responsive reading. This prayer portion seeks the holiness of God’s kingdom as a present reality, placing greater emphasis on kingship and repeating introductory themes.
We will sanctify Your name on earth as they sanctify it in the highest heavens … we will declare Your greatness, and we will proclaim Your holiness forevermore (Kedusha, Amidah).
Hallowed be Your name…Your kingdom come, Your will be done … For the kingdom and the power and the glory are Yours forever (Lord’s Prayer, Matt. 6:10, 13b added).
God’s sanctified name alludes to His “breaking-in” kingdom amid His covenant people but, eschatologically, over all the nations, resulting in His imminent kingship throughout the earth. Notwithstanding the normative Jewish pillars of monotheism, Torah, and covenantal nomism—a relationship with God precedes obedience,4 urgent questions surrounding the immediacy of “God with Us” differed. For example, the Christ-followers viewed the breaking-in kingdom, the epitome of these prayers, occurring in the Lord Jesus. Conversely, the Fourth Philosophy (Zealots) preferred God’s transcendent rule as “God alone is leader and master.”5 For the Zealots, Jesus held a revolutionary hope.
The conclusion next week will present Rosemary Reuther’s perspective with my rebuttal, rounding out this discussion. I hope you are enjoying this presentation. Please share your thoughts below.
Blessings—
David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran and Apocalypticism, trans. Azzan Yadin, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, n.d.), 66.
Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, A Journey Through Jewish Prayer I: Amidah, n.d., accessed July 15, 2021, https://israelbiblecenter.com/courses/journey-through-jewish-prayer-amidah/.
Joseph Herman Hertz, “The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire,” The Open Siddur Project, last modified 1942, accessed July 15, 2021, https://opensiddur.org/compilations/liturgical/siddurim/kol-bo/seder-tefilot-kol-hashanah-by-rabbi-joseph-herman-hertz-1942-1945/.
Chilton and Neusner, "Introduction," in Judaism in the New Testament: Practices and Beliefs, xv.
William Whiston, trans., "Antiquities of the Jews," in Josephus: The Complete Works (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1998), 573.