Journal for the Study o f Judaism, Vol. VII, No. I

JEWISH CHRIST:AN!TY o r CHRtSTIAN JUDAISM: TOWARD A HYPOTHETICAL· DEFINITION

BY

BRUCE MALINA

Omabay Nebraska, U .S.A .

The label, “Jewish Christianity”, seems to be a rubber bag term, applied to a host of phenomena yet saying nothing with any elarity about the phenomena that would warrant this specific label 1). Obviously authors intend to speak of a specific phenomenon when they write of “Jewish Christianity.” The purpose for such a label derives from the general perception of the characteristic features of the phenomenon that cause the observer to differentiate it from similar and dissimilar contemporary phenomena, so that the given and newly labeled phenomenon warrants distinction. Presumably the use of such a label implies the presence of a configuration of features outlining the physiognomy of the purported new pbe- nomenon that serves as criterion for ؛udging the similarities and differences in the crowd of perceptions in which the phenomenon stands to have it stand out from the crowd. Since all Christianity is Jewish in some way (although not all Judaism is Christian in some way), the label “Jewish Christianity” seems rather inade؟ uate, to say the least.

Perhaps the basic difficulty with the label is that both Judaism and Christianity have led chameleon existences throughout the course of history. The changing perspectives of Judaism and/or Christianity as they appear throughout the centuries along with the changing perspectives of the observers of Judaism and/or Chris- tianity throughout the centuries provide the modern scholar with two variables that cause the term “Jewish Christianity” to recon- figúrate itself much like the image of a kaleidoscope. Now some

Even by tbe classical mode o (ل f d ^ it io n -a c c o r d in g to genus and specific difference— the term proves awkward and unwieldy. The genus, “ Christianity”, can be used o f so many and varied phenomena that it is useless for clarity; and the specific difference, “Jewish” , is equally applicable to so many different phenom- ena that it too tends more to confuse than to clarify. The collocation o f the two in “Jewish Christianity’ is perhaps even more confusing.

JEW ISH CHRISTIANITY OR CHRISTIAN JUDAISM 47

sort of scholarly unanimity must be forthcoming to hold foe kaleido- scope picture in place for a time to allow foe term “Jewish Christi- anity” to make some static sense.

In other words, the two variables that cause confusion in the use of foe term “Jewish Christianity” are foe relational perspective of foe observer of foe phenomenon and the time frame chosen by the observer in which to view foe ^enomenon. The relational perspective chosen to view the phenomenon may make previous definitions obscure, hence inoperative, e.g. types of literature in a given century, types of artifacts from a given century, sources of analogies for theological expression at a gfoen time, and the like. Further, foe historical time frame chosen to view a historical move- ment may likewise make previous descriptions anachronistic, hence inoperative, e.g. Judaism in foe first cent., Christianity in the second cent., and both in the light of foe twentieth cent.

After surveying foe literature on “Jewish Christianity” 2), I have come to the conclusion that foe writer’s purpose for defining some- thing as “Jewish Christian” im^ariably holds foe clue to the degree of clarity that writer’s definition will yield to another observer. And unless foe various and sundry definitions of multiple observers with their own purposes come more or less to some sort of agreement on foe features of the phenomenon in question, foere wifi never be either unanimity or clarity in foe definitions proposed. I have been able to unearth the following motivations for labeling certain phenomena as “Jewish Christian” :

1. To understand New Testament literature (literary forms, patterns and analogies) some scholars have labelled foe analogies, literary forms and symbols deriving from 1st century Judaism and used by Christians as Jewish ^ris^an-notably Munck 3), writers on Matthew 4), and the like.

2. To understand Christian theology (thought patterns, symbols and analogies) some scholars have labelled foe analogies and symbols deriving from lst-2nd century Judaism and Semitic cultures in general as Jewish Cristian—notably D aniélou 5), and most recently Klijn 6).

2) See my “Jewish Christianity: A Select Bihliography” , Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 6 (1973), p. 60-65; and the recent survey article by A. F. j . Klijn , “The Study o f Jewish Christianity”, N T S 20 (1973/74), p. 419-431.

3) “Jewish Christianity in Fost-Apostolic Times” , N T S 6 (1959/60), p. 103-116.4) E.g. K . S t e n d a h l , The SchoolofSt. Matthew, Philadelphia 1969 ؛ G. B o r n k a m m

et al., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, Philadelphia 1963 and the like.5) The Theology of Jewish Christianity, Chicago 1964, p. 7-11.٠) “ The Study o f Jewish Christianity” , art. cit., p. 426 and p. 431.

BRUCE T. MALINA48

3. T e understand the h isto ry o f the C hristian m ovem ent (m en and m ovem ents in general), w herever the full o r partial acceptance o f M osaic observances seem to be central, those espousing these ob- servances along w ith som e belief in Jesus o f N azareth are called Jew ish C hristians— notably Schoeps 7), Brandon 8).

4. T o understand specific C hristian docum ents (apocryphal gospels, acts, poem s, tracts, etc.), if the docum ent betrays M osaic observances and /o r anti-Paulinism , i t is labelled Jew ish C hristian ؛thus S t r e c k e r and various studies on (و the pseudo-C lem enrines.

5. T o understand various archaeological artifacts, those bearing sym bols in som e w ay related to Jew ish C hristian docum ents (above 4) o r to the beliefs labelled by the classical C hristian heresiologists as E bion ite , Elchasaite, N azorean, N aaseen, etc., these are called ،،Jew ish C hristian” artifacts; thus Bagatti 10), T esta 11).

6. T o understand “ trad itiona l” sites in Palestine, e.g. N azare th ’s g ro tto , B ethlehem ’s g ro tto , Calvary, and the like, since the trad ition m ust have been handed on to the G entile Christians w ho b u ilt their sanctuaries there, the tradents m ust have been “ Jew ish C hristians” ; thus the various guide books.

7. T o understand possibilities inheren t in Christianity today as to ecum enical dialogue w ith Jew s, o r the status and creed required o f hypothetical Jew s w ho m igh t em brace C hristianity in the form o f a “ Jew ish C hristianity” once existing in the past is postu la ted by D aniélou 12), Cavalletti 13), and see also literature on “ Jew s for C hrist” 14).

8. T o understand the Christian ’ o f the past w ho sough t to articulate and defend the ir ideology w ith a view to doctrinal purity , see the various patro logies.

T hus th e term “ Jew ish C hristian” is used by various m odern scholars to m ake d istinctions am ong, and hence shed clarity upon , various phenom ena in the C hristian m ovem ent fro m the relational

7) Jewish Christianity, Philadelphia 1969 and his many works cited in this book.8) The Fail of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, London 1968.٠) “On the Problem o£ Jewish Christianity”, Appendix I in w . Bauer, Orthodoxy

and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, ed. by R. K raft and G. K rodel, Philadelphia 1971, p. 241-285.

*٠) The Church from the Circumcision ̂ Jerusalem 1971.n ) / / Simbolismo dei Giudeo-Cristiani, Jerusalem 1962.12) “A ^ ew Vision o f Christian Origins: Judaeo-Christianity”, Cross Currents

18 (1968), p. 172-173.13) Ebraismo ء spiritualità cristiana, Rome 1966.14) E.g. S0BEL, Hebrew Christianity : The Thirteenth Tribe, ^ ew York 1974.

JEW ISH CHRISTIANITY OR CHRISTIAN JUDAISM 49

perspectives of culture, history of thought, geography, archaeology, ' and historiography. I think it is these relational perspec-

tives of various observers and the frequent inompatibility of these perspectives that lead to the intellectual malaise and complaints surrounding the term “Jewish Christianity”.

However the fact that so many scholars use the term would indicate that they do intend to articulate their perception of an ideology in their area of study that is distinctive. By “ideology” here I mean the views and values produced by any social group to legitimate and reinforce their present order of tilings and protect that order against competing groups. As far as we know all social groups tend to produce ideologies, and these ideologies are expressed in cultures or sub-cultures. If there ever was a distinct “Jewish Christian” phenomenon, then historical indicators of specihc groups should yield a specific and distinct “Jewish Christian” ideology.

Hypothetically, what would a “Jewish Christian” ideology entail to set it off from Judaism on the one hand, and Christianity on the other? The purpose of this paper is to draw up and set forth such a * ideology. However for this purpose, I should liketo rearrange the terminology to bring it in line with the oft quoted and well taken critique of so many relative to the ambiguity of the label “Jewish Christianity” 15). Since all Christianity, especially the ideological Christianity of the nascent Christian movement, is to some extent Jewish, I reserve the term “Jewish Christianity” for the historically perceived orthodox Christianity that undergirds the ideology of foe emergent Great Church. And since after the year 70 A.D., the main form of Judaism to emerge was rabbinic, Pharisaic Judaism, I refer to this form of Jewish ideology with foe label “Judaism”. In fois cognitive orientation, now, the question I ask is how can I remain a faithful Jew and still accept Jesus as Messiah. The result would be a hypothetical definition of a Christian/^ wifo an adequate ideological configuration of code, creed, cult and com- munity that would be s^cifically distinct from a Jewish Christian, i.e. a Christian who espouses those forms of Judaism necessary for his own Christian heritage, to keep that heritage in tact and in line with foe accepted Christian tradition.

15) E .g. H. KÖSTER writes: . . a label sueh as, for example, ‘Jewis^Christians’is misleading in so far as everyone o f tbe first generation o f Christianity was a Jewish-Christian anyway’’, in “GNOM AI DIAPHOROI : the Origin and Nature o f Diversification in the History o f Early Christianity” , H T R 58 (1965), p. 280.

BRUCE ]٠ MALINA50

In other words, the outeome of this proeedure should reveal a hidden tertium quid between the Judaism of the post 70 A.D. world and the Christianity of the Great Church. Presumably the reason why the label “Jewish Christian” is so inadequate is that it often serves to point to a phenomenon better called “Christian Judaism”. The method involved in drawing up this hypothetical ideology is a kind of triangulation. Of each normative perceptual cue and value the question is asked: “What implicit assumption might this percept category or value derive from, so that it can be considered neither Jewish nor Christian” ? When enough material has been covered with this question, the answers will be found to point in a common direction. The new ideology emerges from the point where the lines of answers intersect 16).

By way of anticipation, I should like to define my hypothetical labels and then describe some of the ideological features of the definition. Whether the “Christian Jewish” ideology did in fact exist as drawn up here is a question for further investigation. That ft must have existed seems more than obvious from the indications of the various scholars uncomfortable with “Jewish Christianity”. A table is appended at the end of the article for purposes of a synoptic survey of the configuration that emerges.

Christian Judaism in a first century context is a phase of the Christian movement comprised of Jews (by birth or conversion) who accept Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah to come. For the Christian Jew messianic practice (halaka, mitzwoth) stands in abeyance until the coming of Jesus as Messiah in power. The life and deeds of Jesus belong and are understood within the framework of the one on-going covenant begun with Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob, and receiving its definitive and normative form with Moses. In this sense, perhaps most of the pre-70 A.D. Jerusalem “Christian” community along with those adhering to this perspective subsequently are Christian Jews. To what extent would a Christian Jew be a Jewish Christian?

Jewish Christianity in a first century context is a phase of the Christian movement comprised of Jews and Gentiles who accept Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah who came, who begin the messianic period already now with messianic practices in force already now, and who view Jesus as having instigated a new covenant superceding the

*٠) This method derives from anthropology؛ see G. M. F o s t e r , “ Feasant Society and the Image o f Limited G ood” , American Anthropologist 67 (1965), p. 294-295.

51JEW ISH CHRISTIANITY CR CHRISTIAN JUDAISM

variDus covenants of old, both Noachlc as well as Istaelitc. In this sense, all ChTlstianity is Jewish Christianity.

The so-called council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was called to deal with the ؟ uestion of social intercourse between Christian دمهءر * and Jewish Christians٠ The outcome of the council was to set forth practical directives (halaka) as to permissible and im perm issible behavior patterns. The underlyin§ problem, however, was not touched upon, for at bottom behavior patterns rest upon ideologies, and by the time of the Jerusalem council there seems to have been no articulated ideology to warrant the new permissible behavior. To allow for the new permissible behavior, ideologically the abro- gation of the traditional Mosaic covenant as an on-going institution replaced by a superceding new and better (kainë diathekë) covenant is presupposed. Further, messianic practices (new halaka, new mitzwoth) must be presupposed as now in force, whatever one might think of messianic theory (hence the various N. T. Christologies with insistance upon more or less uniform practice).

What then would be some of the features of a Christian Judaism that would form the ideology-the views and values—of a Christian Judaism that could readily stand side by side with Pharisaic Judaism and even readily win converts from that movement as Acts attests? The following features would seem to be basic to such a Christian Judaism, and taken together would form the typical Gestalt of such a movement within or without “official” Judaism 17) and “official” Christianity آلل ت

(1) Christian Judaism is based upon the belief in one and only one on-going covenant bettveen God and his people begun with Abraham, elaborated and signihcantly renewed with Moses and ffie Exodus generation and still in force as the covenant. What Jesus did was renew this covenant; his blood is the blood of this selfsame covenant, and those who share in this covenant form a relationship with the selfsame God of the Fathers.

(i) A Jewish Christian ideology would insist that the one on-goingcovenant of Israel has been abrogated by ffie new covenant in

17) For the typology of “official” Judaism, I am endebted to ffie penettating and coneise report o f R. R u e t h e r , “The Pharisees in First-Century Judaism” , The Ecumenist II (N ov.-D ee. 1972), p. 1-7.

18) By “official” Christianity I mean the ideology o f ffie emerging Great Church which allowed for the N .T. canon and the theologies and practice depend- ent upon It.

BRUCE j . MALINA52

Jesus’ blood. As a result, being in Israel is no longer sufficient; one must get into Christ. In Christ Jesus, all things are not simply renewed, but made new, a new start, something new and qualita- tively different and better begins wiffi Jesus the Christ. The new chosen people begin wiffi the new covenant; the previous chosen people are now evidently rejected.

(2) For Christian Judaism, messianic practices are in abeyance until Jesus comes as Messiah in power. coming as son of God, as son of Man, as True Frophet, as True Suffering Servant, in no way exhausts or even coincides with what it means to be Messiah; after all the Age to Come has not come; people still die, evil is still to be found. Hence the covenant demands that are to mold ffie people of God till the Messiah comes am still in force. The requirements o£ Torah, especially as understood in the framework of the “mitzwah- system” are still in force. When the Messiah comes in power and patently ushers in God’s rule, then the Age to Come will have come.

(ii) Jewish Christian theology views Jesus as marking either the dawning of the Messianic Age (“Days of ffie Messiah”) or as ushering in the Age to Come in a way hitherto unimagined. Jesus is in fact Messiah wiffi power, hence messianic practices are now in force: sins are forgiven now, ffie spirit is upon all flesh now, the Torah is basically abrogated now. The norm for conduct (halaka) now is to be led by ffie spirit. In this area, ffie Jewish Christian problem (and new covenanters’ problem in general) is which sp irit-the spirit of God revealed in Christ or the Spirit of “this world” (i.e. enthusiasm not deriving from being in Christ).

3. For Christian Jews, since messianic practice is still in abeyance, apocalyptic theory serves as no basis for living. Apocalyptic specula- tion is tolerated and as a theoretical construct, may offer hope or satisfy curiosity, but in no way is apocalyptic speculation to serve as an ideological framework for a way of life.

(hi) Jewish Christian theology looks to apocalyptic theory as an ideological framework for its new way of life in Christ. After all, apocalyptic does offer concrete directives relative to what would happen when the Age to Come would dawn and how people would live in that age. With ffie dawning of that age in Jesus as Messiah wiffi power, apocalyptic practice is now in force:

53JEW ISH CHRISTIANITY OR CHRISTIAN JUDAISM

judgment has taken plaee, there is a new chosen people in special relation to God, this people is the recipient of the manifold blessings spelled out in apocalyptic, etc.

4. Since in Christian Judaism apocalyptic theory does not serve as basis for living, for halaka, then apocalyptic interpretation of history is of no use to legitimate one’s life stance. Whether history goes our way or not does not matter—history serves to prove nothing about God’s current plans for men. Basically life is to be viewed ahistorically. Future hope and concrete present experience may be e؟ ually mixed with an idealized past to serve as framework for under- standing the present since time really does not matter in “this Age”.

(iv) Jewish Christian theology accepts the speculative historical emphasis of apocalyptic as normative for one’s living. The proof that the Age to Come has come lies in history; history does in fact prove that history is going our way, that God is on our side. This is crucial since it bolsters our new way of life with evidence of God’s present concern on our behalf.

5. Still in the area of the historical, for Christian Judaism since Jesus the Messiah has not really come as messiahs should, and since there is no Age to Come yet, then any emphasis or interest in some- thing like a realized eschatology is out of the question. Jesus as Messiah in no way marks the presence of the eschatological future in our present. The future has not yet dawned in any respect, except that we now know that Jesus will be the Messiah to come.

(v) Jewish Christian theology rests upon the belief that Jesus is in fact the Messiah who has come, who has power, and who will come again with fullness of power. Since he has come, Jesus the Messiah in some way does mark the presence of the eschatological future in our present; hence elements of a realized eschatology are inevitable.

6. For Christian Judaism, the loss of the Holy Land, the Temple and the Jewish sacrificial system are not insufferable; and by no stretch of the imagination is this loss an indication of God’s dis- pleasure. After all, prayer, almsgiving and works of kindness served to substitute for sacrifice already in the days of the Temple. The traditions of the Fathers and the teachings of Jesus are sufficient for pleasing God. Land, Temple and sacrifice were taken from Israel

BRUCE ] . MALINA54

by God precisely because of too much belief in messiahs, because people sought to live apocalyptic practice in place of the traditions of the Fathers and the words of Jesus, in short because people were unfaithful to the one on-going covenant renewed by Jesus, Yet all is not lost, for wherever two or three are gathered in the name of Jesus and the Torah, in synagogue or at home, there God’s Shekinah, God’s Spirit, God’s chosen Messiah Jesus, are to be found.

(vi) Jewish Christian theology legitimates the loss of Temple, land and sacrifice on the basis of no belief in the Messiah Jesus. God took these from Israel because Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah. As a result, God’s presence is no longer confined to his land or his Temple built by human hands, but God is present in all lands, especially in the community of his chosen ones by means of his Spirit.

7. For Christian Jews, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus mark the end of his historical presence until God chooses to send him as Messiah with power. Cosmic speculation, typical of apocalyptic, is tolerated to answer the basic question as to where Jesus is now, and what does he do for us now till he comes again to begin the Age to Come. Cosmic speculation thus serves more to satisfy curiosity, to flesh out a cosmology, to outfit an ideology, than to serve as basis and norm for present conduct.

(vii) For Jewish Christianity, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus are data serving to prove and explain how Jesus is presently Lord of the universe, how he now rules the cosmos. These data answer the questions: where is Jesus and what does he do for us now in this phase of the messianic period. The answers to these questions serve as norm, as criterion for behavior in the present age.

8. For Christian Jews, synagogue services coupled with the prophetic symbol of the Last Supper celebrated on 14th Nisan are basic to worship; after all they are prescribed by the tradition of the Fathers and the command of Jesus. Traditional prayers are the proper approach to God. The traditional calendar, feasts and ob- servances are crucial since God’s one on-going covenant is still in force, and it is these observances that please the one true God who revealed them to men.

JEW ISH CHRISTIANITY OR CHRISTIAN JUDAISM 55

(viii) For Jewish Christians, sinee the Age to Come has dawned, sinee the days of the Messiah are here, ealendar, feasts and observ- anees are not only not binding, but are basically hindrances to pleasing God. Times and seasons are a thing of the past. What counts is obeying Jesus the Messiah by allowing his spirit to work: new psalms, new hymns, new spiritual songs at worship. This selfsame spirit will impart new knowledge (theology) to articulate the ideology underlying the new chosen people.

These then would be some of the basic features that might charac- terize a Christian Judaism, a form of Christianity that could take up its rightful place alongside normative post-70 A.D. Judaism and not be read out of the synagogue of the Fathers. Such a Christian Judaism would rightly belong within the mainstream of a supposed Judaeo-Christian tradition underlying Western culture and history. That such a Judaeo-Chrisrian tradition does in fact not exist is another question 19).

Thus if one were to characterize the three ideologies I have labelled Rabbinic Judaism, Christian Judaism and Jewish Christianity one might say that all three depend essentially on apocalyptic in the formation of a self-image. The first two reject any and all practical applications of apocalyptic theory, the last wholeheartedly accepts both apocalyptic theory and practice. All three offer statements dealing with the secrets of the heavenly world, angelology, gnosis and theologies of history. The basic difference is the normative quality or functional nature of these statements for conduct 20).

D a n i e l o u ’s prior definition 21) of Jewish Christianity has been rightly rejected by M u n c k , S t r e c k e r and others as being simply too unwieldy and covering all of early Christianity in fact. His last published definition runs as follows: Jewish Christianity is “a Christianity whose theological, liturgical and ascetic structures are borrowed from the Jewish milieu within which Christianity itself appeared” 22). Since the Jewish milieu in which Christianity appeared was Jewish, Semitic, Hellenistic, Iranian, etc., then all Christianity perhaps until the time of Constantine was Jewish Christian to some

*٠) See A. C©HEN, The Myth of the Jndeo-Christian Traditionء New York 1.71و؛٠ ) This takes a step further the observations made by R . A. K r a f t , ،،In

Search o f 'Jewish Christianity’ and Its ،Theology’ ” , RSR 60 (1072), p. 91, against D a n i é l o u .

21) The Theology of Jewish Christianity, op. cit., p. 9.22) "A N ew Vision o f Christian Origins: Judaeo-Christianity”, art. cit., p. 171.

BRUCE j . MALINA56

extent, but Hellenistic Christian, Iranian Christian etc. as well 23). Further, since many data £rom post-70 A.D. Falestine do not tally well with the Jewish Christianity evidenced in the N.T. writings and the developing ideologies based upon them, I suggest that they would fit in well with the hypothetical Christian Judaism sketched out above.

Finally, in D a n i é l o u ’s perspective “the Great Church. . . progrès- sively freed itself from its Jewish attachments” 24). This seems a rather confused way of describing what in fact happened. More in line with the underlying ideologies, we might say that the Great Church progressively devoted itself to apocalyptic theory as basis for conduct and coupled this unworkable approach with a Roman, legalistic framework to make the approach workable. The Great Church’s problem seems to have been how to accept apocalyptic practice and still survive in the workaday world so much like “This Age”. The answer of Rabbinic Judaism and Christian Judaism as well was to reject apocalyptic practice altogether. The Great Church’s answer was to accept apocalyptic practice as ideally normative, and to adopt Roman legalism as practically normative—the result being two classes of Christians: the professionally religious with apocalyptic practice as norm, and the rest of the Christian body with a “Christianized” Roman legalism as norm.

23) See K r a f t , “In Search o f ‘Jewish Christianity’ etc.” , art. ،77., p. 83; and H. M a r s h a l l , “Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Com- ments” , N T S 19 (1972/73), p. 271-287.

24) A r t .p. 172 ,.ء/7 .

REVIEW OF BOOKS

Books and articles (including those written in modern Hehrew), received hy the secretary of this Journal, will be reviewed as soon as possible. Authors who want to make sure that their work on Judaism in Antiquity will be currently reported on in these reviews are kindly requested to send an off-print (or a photo copy) of their papers to the secretary of tbe editorial board. In the present fascicle the reviews written by Dr. B. J 0 NGEL1NG and the secretary of the Journal are indicated by the initials of their surnames.

Savas A g o u r i d e s , τ α ΑΠΟΚΡΥΦΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΑΙΑΣ ΔΙΑ Θ Η Κ Η Σ vol. 1, Athens 1973, 581 pp., n.p. (This volume is the first volume of a series which aims at providing the Greek speaking public with originals and translations of Jewish writings from tbe so-called intertestamental period. The present volume gives a general introduction (with biblio- graphy), texts and/or translations of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, I Enoch and the Epistle of Aristeas (together with

' and bibliography). Short notes on each of these writingsconclude the volume.

In the case of Jubilees the author gives his Greek translation. Eor the Testaments he prints the text of the MS Athos Koutloumous 39 ( = e) plus variants of the Athos Laura MSS 1132-148 and 1403-K116 ( آ/ and م2)م The wisdom of this decision can be questioned, but readers interested in the Testaments find here in a handy form material that in past editions of the Testaments (and in the forthcoming editio maior) is usually relegated to foe notes. For I Enoch we find the text of the existing Greek fragments accompanied by a translation made by the editor, or the author’s trans- lation. Aristeas is given according to A. P e l e e t ie r ’s edition of 1962, to which at the bottom of each page a new translation is added).

M. ΟΕ J 0 NGE

Aramaic Texts from Oumran with Translations and Annotations by B. J 0 NGEL1NG, c. j. L a b u s c h a g n e , a . s. v a n DER W 0 UDE (Semitic Study Series, New Series IV), Volume I, E. j. Brill, Leiden 1976, X+131 pp., paper /28,— (The volume has been written in order to provide students with a relatively cheap and handy tool for the study of the major Aramaic documents from Qumran published so far. It may furthermore prove to be useful to scholars who are not specialists in the field of Dead Sea Scrolls studies. The volume contains the text of 11Q tg Job, IQ Genesis A^cryphon and 4Q Prayer of Nabonidus with an English translation (on foe opposite pages) and short notes dealing with grammatical questions, problems of transcription and emendation of foe text, geographical items, references to biblical, intertestamental and rabbinic literature etc. The publication is meant to be a counterpart to Eduard L o h s e ’s well-known

Journal for the Study o f Judaism, Vol. VII, No. 1

آلمآورلم؛

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥۴ ajourna! typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, tbe author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use آس covered by the fair use provisions of tbe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initia؛ funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.