Matthias Henze, Mind the Gap: How the Jewish Writings Between the Old and New Testament Help Us Understand Jesus, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2017. 235pp. $60.
---
Matthias Henze (Rice University) has written this very accessible introduction to Second Temple literature in order to help readers of the New Testament be mindful of the gap between the Old and New Testaments. It is very much an introduction, as there is not a single footnote (or endnote), although there is appendix listing suggestions for further reading. As such, then, this book cannot be the only thing one reads on the topic, but the approach is a useful primer.
As is appropriate for the readership, it is not a long book, and is divided unequally into two halves. The first is a brief but broad introduction to the Old Testament and the literature which was familiar to ancient readers, in particular the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, 1 Enoch and 2 Baruch/4 Ezra (this last one was the subject of scholarly work he co-authored). The reason for introducing us to these is clear: Jesus "is concerned about messianic expectations, he expels demons, he expounds the Torah in conversation with the Pharisees, he preaches about the end of time, he looks forward to the resurrection of the dead, and he discusses life after death with the Sadducees." (p34) These topics are familiar to us from the Gospels, but there is scant to no cognisance of these in the Old Testament. To understand where these topics—familiar to the Jews of Jesus' time—have come from, the Old Testament will be of limited value.
Rather than the "four hundred years of silence", as it is often declared in churches, the three or so centuries before the writing of the New Testament was a fertile time, where scriptural interpretation took place and new literary genres were created, such as "the Tales of the Diaspora (Daniel 1-6; Esther) and the apocalypse (Daniel 7-12; 1 Enoch; 2 Baruch; 4 Ezra)." (p50) This viewpoint is an important one, well known in academia, but almost never discussed in churches. Rather, in part due to the Greek and Protestant ordering of Bibles, the Old Testament is shown as finishing with the last words of Malachi, followed by centuries of silence, and then Jesus arriving right on cue. Henze attributes this false view not just to the ordering of Bibles, but also to the prejudiced term Spätjudentum (late Judaism). In his estimation, this term implies that Judaism was on its last legs, and, had Jesus not arrived, would have died out. In contrast, Henze's purpose is to show the "vibrancy and show its unique significance in the history of Judaism." (50)
The far larger second half of the book (at three times the length) hones in on four topics which are central in the Gospels but seem to come out of nowhere from a reading only of the Old Testament. They are messianism, demons, the law and eschatology. In each chapter the topic as encountered in the Gospels is sketched, what Old Testament background there is is described, but also its insufficiency for understanding the Gospels; thirdly the appropriate second temple literature is detailed, and finally he describes the fuller picture arrived at after this survey.
The first chapter of the second half is entitled "Jesus, the Messiah of Israel," where Henze works through Psalm 2, Isaiah 11 and Daniel 7. His argument is that there is no actual expectation of a future messiah in these passages; it is only the Second Temple literature which repurposed these passages to express the hope in a future messiah. His argument is a subtle one, and perhaps not the best chapter to begin this second half of the book with. His point is that while these passages could be speaking of a future messiah, they weren't explicitly thought of doing so until this later period. To this he adds Psalm 146 and Isaiah 61 to show that, in the first instance, the blessings are not associated with a messiah at all, and in the second, that the servant is no longer understood generally or in a preterist way, but in a future messianic way. This then explains how Jesus quoting Isaiah in the synagogue in Luke 4 completed the expectations of the crowd, rather than introducing a completely new understanding of Isaiah's servant. For me, this is an exegetical hypothesis about what it might for the crowds to be "amazed" (Lk 4:22) rather than an open-and-shut case. Yes, there was a heightened expectation of a future messiah in this period, but the amazement of the crowd could just as easily be due to the interpretation as to his self-identifying, but this is a case Henze needs to argue, not just state.
He then moves on to discuss the phrase "Son of God" and the "Son of the Most High," and this was a much more productive discussion. The expectations we are aware of from Qumran and the expectations from Luke 1:26-35, both use the same vocabulary and explain where the language comes from, which we would otherwise be ignorant of from just the Old Testament. He explains that "there is nothing arbitrary about Luke's choice of words and that his characterisation of Jesus is carefully chosen to answer the Jewish messianic expectations of his time." (81)
The second chapter, "In a World of Demons and Unclean Spirits," has a difficult task: explaining the origin of demons, and their corollary, exorcism. His first point is that the unclean spirits we meet in the New Testament have no background in the Old Testament. There are evil spirits and lying spirits, but they seem to be doing something very different and rather than being against God, are sent by God. Henze then proceeds to lead us through Genesis 6:1-4 (MT), then Genesis 6:1-4 (LXX), then the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch) and the book of Jubilees, in order to explain the state of affairs we encounter in the New Testament. With another Qumran text (4Q510 I, 1-9) he shows us their hope that God will scatter them, and also gives us language used in Ephesians 5:8 and 1 Thessalonians 5:5 to describe oneself as "the sons of light" in contradistinction to the evil spirits who cause havoc in the world. I found this chapter much more convincing and genuinely useful for understanding the origin of the world-view that caused people to come to Jesus for cleansing. It is easy to dismiss the link between Judaism and the world of evil spirits, but this chapter explains that there is indeed a link, albeit via several texts, which, together, make clear how it all fits together.
The third chapter of the second half moves on the vexed topic of the place of the law, with the question, "Did Jesus Abolish the Law of Moses?" His target here is antinomianism and the mischaracterisation of the Pharisees, so he understandably wants to establish what understanding of the law was actually held during the New Testament era. In essence Henze wants to demonstrate the development of "Torah as law" to "Torah as wisdom." I was expecting a little more from this chapter, but he had more or less proved his argument from Psalm 1 and 119, which made the other material more or less redundant. There was one Qumran scroll, 4QBeatitudes, which, when coupled with Sirach, showed how the concept of Torah as wisdom was fairly well understood at that time. In summary, the logic is that for Josiah Torah was a legal code, for Ezra Torah was divine teaching, for Ben Sira Torah was wisdom, and for Paul that wisdom was Jesus. So far, so good.
But at this point Henze seemed to get a little distracted. Although we know the golden rule from Leviticus (19:18), for some reason Henze seemed to think we needed proof that the golden rule was not a new thing, and therefore quotes Rabbi Hillel's non-malfeasance (do no harm) to show that Jesus fitted squarely within Judaism. This was unnecessary - even a misstep - but the reason became clearer when moving on to Paul and Romans 9-11. Again, this chapter is supposed to be about showing how the New Testament treatment of the Law fits within its context as elucidated from this gap-filling literature of which he is an expert. But instead, His argument descends into a comical exposition of universalism - not because there is no argument to be made - people are welcome to do so - but because this is a non-academic book, which does not interact with scholarship, and is supposed to be about something else. In the end, this chapter ends up being an apology for a two-paths model of salvation, Torah as wisdom for the Jew, and Torah as Jesus for the Gentile. This is all the more surprising as he even quotes the sectarian Damascus Document and refers to 4QMMT, both of which he explains as pushing the argument that they alone understand the law correctly and represent God's chosen people. To then argue for a two-paths salvation model seems incredibly anachronistic. He returns to this point in the epilogue, again quoting Romans 11, advocating people get involved in interfaith movements. It was an odd note to end the book on, and on reading one cannot help the feeling that this says more about him as a German living in America who is trying to come to grips with the Holocaust (which he mentions on the first and the third-last pages) and anti-Semitism, than it does about the documents he is purportedly trying to educate his reader about.
The final thematic chapter examines perhaps the most important missing link between the Old and New Testaments, "The Resurrection of the Dead and Life in the Company of Angels." Henze traces the thread which is seen in Isaiah and Ezekiel, speaking of national "resurrection", and places Daniel in a Second Temple context which is willing to speak more confidently of the resurrection of individuals. The views reflected in the words of Herod (John, whom I beheaded, has been raised, Mark 6:16) and Martha (I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day, John 11:24) are placed in a context which includes Daniel from within the Bible, 2 Maccabees from the Apocrypha. The Psalms of Solomon show a hope for some form of life and judgement after death, while 1 Enoch 51 and 4 Ezra (late 1st century AD texts) link the resurrection for the righteous with the coming of "my Chosen One," who will appear after the resurrection to rule and judge. While those texts would make good conversation partners for Revelation and 1 Thessalonians, the next text, 2 Baruch, is selected to engage with 1 Corinthians 15, as the continuity between bodies now and resurrected bodies is discussed in these texts composed perhaps within 20 years of each other. Snippets of Qumran texts are mentioned to show a diversity of opinions which existed and discussions which were occurring about the realities of resurrection and who might expect to be resurrected and what the resurrected life would look like.
This chapter probably offered the deepest dive into texts many are unfamiliar with. Although there are numerous hints in the Old Testament that resurrection is within God's power, these texts show how the belief moved from possibility to expectation. I did however feel there were a few missteps in this chapter. 1 Enoch 104 (p159) did not seem to be saying what Henze said it said, which was resurrection hope, although it seemed to be more a welcome into heaven. And when discussing Herod and Lazarus, he said, "Neither of these two passages ... is about Jesus," (p150), which is a remarkable statement. Perhaps one could argue that for the Herod/John the Baptist incident, although Mark's intent was more than just updating political goings-on. But the application of this comment to John 11 is simply wrong - it is all about Jesus, who deliberately delays coming (Henze thinks it took four days to hear and travel, p149) in order to reveal the glory of God (John 11:4). Henze's approach seems a little reductionistic, as if John 11 is there to illustrate first century AD Jewish views about resurrection. All that being said, this chapter was a gateway into this topic, and would be a great starting point for finding those Second Temple texts which illuminate the development of the understanding of resurrection.
In the epilogue Henze answers three controversial statements he commonly has to defend, namely, that Jesus was not a Christian (he was a Jew), that these texts were important and familiar to the writers of the New Testament (who mostly quoted the Old Testament), and that the Bible is part of a literary world which helps us understand the New Testament. The discussion around these questions is the most rhetorically powerful part of this book, although presumably also the most practised. He makes a point that the unearthing of the ancient Near East was a powerful time for Old Testament studies, and has reshaped the way we understand and evaluate much of the Old Testament. It is thus important that we let these texts do the same for the study of the New Testament; that we bring the Dead Sea Scrolls and Apocrypha and other texts into conversation with the texts which comprise the New Testament.
For the price-point of this book ($60AUD at time of this review, for 200 pages plus a suggested reading list, glossary and two indices), one would expect a more serious work. Yet there are no footnotes, no interaction with differing opinions, and discussions of a topic are limited to two or three texts. This book reads as a series of introductory lectures but is priced at a point which implies a more rigorous book, which will disappoint readers (such as myself) who hoped for a little more value for money. If it were not the middle of a pandemic at time of writing, I would recommend students borrow it from the library, but for those interested in something more rigorous they will have to look elsewhere. Nonetheless it was mostly enjoyable to read, so it functions well as an introduction to the topic, but beyond that it will leave people wanting something a little more meaty. Perhaps George Athas's forthcoming Bridging the Testaments will be more helpful in this regard.
Two small notes:
- Typographical errors: the word "of" is missing on p143, the word "had" is duplicated on p175, and there is an "s" missing from the "Index of Ancient Text [sic]" (p229).
- The lack of footnotes, endnotes, or bibliography, is paralleled with the absence of appropriate citations. Although translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are cited in text (with a name only, but no date or publication), nowhere is the biblical translation appropriately cited (normally this would be noted in the front matter with appropriate copyright information). At one point, at one of the quotations of Sirach, the NRSV translation is mentioned, which appears to be the translation used throughout, but that was the exception rather than the rule.
