Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research
Encyclopedia
The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research is a consortium of Jewish and Christian scholars that study the Synoptic Gospels
in light of the historic, linguistic and cultural milieu of Jesus
. The beginnings of the collegial relationships that formed the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research can be traced back to a Jewish scholar and a Christian
scholar, respectively David Flusser
and Robert L. Lindsey in the 1960s. For the past 50 years, ‘Christian scholars fluent in Hebrew and living in the land of Israel have collaborated with Jewish scholars to examine Jesus’ sayings from a Judaic and Hebraic perspective’.
The first two assumptions are perhaps not shared by the majority of New Testament
scholars, but are neither considered to be fringe positions. Today, the common view is that Jesus and His milieu spoke Aramaic
, however that Hebrew was spoken and even important is not unique to the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. Many more New Testament Scholars worldwide have increasingly affirmed the importance of Jewish culture for the understanding of Jesus. John P. Meier is exemplary of this significant trend when he poignantly criticizes scholarship in the twentieth century that has paid lip service to the 'Jewish Jesus' but has not really fleshed this out, stating that if we do not have a halachic
Jesus, we don't have an historical Jesus.
The third assumption of the Jerusalem School basically seems to be concerned with not holding to an assumed-default position of Markan priority. It is especially the third assumption in more individually pronounced forms that has invited a response of the academic community. Some scholars have perceived the Jerusalem School as a group that holds to Lukan Priority. But this perception is incomplete since it is only Robert Lindsey and David Bivin who have argued strongly for Lukan priority. The third methodological assumption of the Jerusalem School is much broader and open, without any one theory being affirmed:
Many scholars affirm Semitic quality of the Synoptic Gospel material as indicative of earlier material, but how to determine Semitic quality has been hotly debated. Recently this subject of a Hebrew Gospel and Semitic material has been discussed by James R. Edwards (although with somewhat differing results than Jerusalem School members). The most extensive Jerusalem School publication on Semitic material and types of Semitic interference can be found in an extended essay and appendix (critical notes) in Jesus' Last Week (Leiden: Brill, 2006).
and Roy B. Blizzard Jr. which was reviewed by Michael L. Brown. The book itself is not published by the Jerusalem School, and only one of the co-authors is of the Jerusalem School. Yet, Brown not only questioned the work of individual school member David Bivin and co-author Roy Blizzard Jr., but by association also the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research as a whole. Yet, even in his criticism of reconstructing a Hebrew Gospel (of which many Jerusalem School members are skeptical of as well), he affirms three significant points, which dovetail with the methodology—the three assumptions—of the Jerusalem School:
Since the Jerusalem School has not devoted itself primarily to the hypothetical work of REtranslation and reconstruction, the latter criticism is muted. (The Jerusalem School has never attempted to translate the Greek texts into proto-Mishnaic Hebrew in order to thereby declare it to be the reconstructed original Hebrew Gospel. See Lindsey's 'A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark for a translation of Mark' - which is a translation of Mark, not a reconstruction of a supposed original Gospel.)
Jesus' Last Week
The recent combined effort of Jerusalem School members in Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels - Volume One, a work clearly catered toward the academic community has received positive reviews, for example by Nina L. Collins in the journal Novum Testamentum. She closed her review by stating that:
Other reactions have also been positive, as exemplified by Robert L. Webb's review in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus:
A mixed review found the overall discussion in the volume to be "stimulating, even provocative from the perspective of current critical Synoptic studies." However, the review contained also some concerns:
Synoptic Gospels
The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes exactly the same wording. This degree of parallelism in content, narrative arrangement, language, and sentence structures can only be...
in light of the historic, linguistic and cultural milieu of Jesus
Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth , commonly referred to as Jesus Christ or simply as Jesus or Christ, is the central figure of Christianity...
. The beginnings of the collegial relationships that formed the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research can be traced back to a Jewish scholar and a Christian
Christian
A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament...
scholar, respectively David Flusser
David Flusser
David Flusser was a professor of Early Christianity and Judaism of the Second Temple Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.- Biography :...
and Robert L. Lindsey in the 1960s. For the past 50 years, ‘Christian scholars fluent in Hebrew and living in the land of Israel have collaborated with Jewish scholars to examine Jesus’ sayings from a Judaic and Hebraic perspective’.
Viewpoints
The consortium's own website states three assumptions, shared by its members, namely, "1) the importance of Hebrew language, 2) the relevance of Jewish culture", and 3) the significance of Semitisms underneath sections of the Synoptic Gospels that in turn often yield results to the interconnection (of dependence) between the Synoptic Gospels. (These three assumptions, and not one synoptic theory, are the shared presuppositions of Jerusalem School members.)The first two assumptions are perhaps not shared by the majority of New Testament
New Testament
The New Testament is the second major division of the Christian biblical canon, the first such division being the much longer Old Testament....
scholars, but are neither considered to be fringe positions. Today, the common view is that Jesus and His milieu spoke Aramaic
Aramaic of Jesus
It is generally agreed that the historical Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic, perhaps along with some Hebrew and Greek . The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum, where Jesus lived, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities, although Greek was widely spoken in the major cities of the Eastern Mediterranean...
, however that Hebrew was spoken and even important is not unique to the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. Many more New Testament Scholars worldwide have increasingly affirmed the importance of Jewish culture for the understanding of Jesus. John P. Meier is exemplary of this significant trend when he poignantly criticizes scholarship in the twentieth century that has paid lip service to the 'Jewish Jesus' but has not really fleshed this out, stating that if we do not have a halachic
Halakha
Halakha — also transliterated Halocho , or Halacha — is the collective body of Jewish law, including biblical law and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions.Judaism classically draws no distinction in its laws between religious and ostensibly non-religious life; Jewish...
Jesus, we don't have an historical Jesus.
The third assumption of the Jerusalem School basically seems to be concerned with not holding to an assumed-default position of Markan priority. It is especially the third assumption in more individually pronounced forms that has invited a response of the academic community. Some scholars have perceived the Jerusalem School as a group that holds to Lukan Priority. But this perception is incomplete since it is only Robert Lindsey and David Bivin who have argued strongly for Lukan priority. The third methodological assumption of the Jerusalem School is much broader and open, without any one theory being affirmed:
Many scholars affirm Semitic quality of the Synoptic Gospel material as indicative of earlier material, but how to determine Semitic quality has been hotly debated. Recently this subject of a Hebrew Gospel and Semitic material has been discussed by James R. Edwards (although with somewhat differing results than Jerusalem School members). The most extensive Jerusalem School publication on Semitic material and types of Semitic interference can be found in an extended essay and appendix (critical notes) in Jesus' Last Week (Leiden: Brill, 2006).
Publications
Apart from extensive individual publications of the school's members that often reflect the Jerusalem School's approach (some of which are footnoted here), some members have bundled some of their efforts in a joint effort. This combined effort from members of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research resulted in the book, Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels — Volume One, edited by R. Steven Notley, Marc Turnage, and Brian Becker. and here are the contents.Reactions and criticism
Both affirmation and strong criticism has come because of a lay-oriented co-authored book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David BivinDavid Bivin
David Bivin is a biblical scholar, member of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research and author of New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context...
and Roy B. Blizzard Jr. which was reviewed by Michael L. Brown. The book itself is not published by the Jerusalem School, and only one of the co-authors is of the Jerusalem School. Yet, Brown not only questioned the work of individual school member David Bivin and co-author Roy Blizzard Jr., but by association also the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research as a whole. Yet, even in his criticism of reconstructing a Hebrew Gospel (of which many Jerusalem School members are skeptical of as well), he affirms three significant points, which dovetail with the methodology—the three assumptions—of the Jerusalem School:
Since the Jerusalem School has not devoted itself primarily to the hypothetical work of REtranslation and reconstruction, the latter criticism is muted. (The Jerusalem School has never attempted to translate the Greek texts into proto-Mishnaic Hebrew in order to thereby declare it to be the reconstructed original Hebrew Gospel. See Lindsey's 'A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark for a translation of Mark' - which is a translation of Mark, not a reconstruction of a supposed original Gospel.)
Jesus' Last Week
The recent combined effort of Jerusalem School members in Jesus' Last Week: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels - Volume One, a work clearly catered toward the academic community has received positive reviews, for example by Nina L. Collins in the journal Novum Testamentum. She closed her review by stating that:
Other reactions have also been positive, as exemplified by Robert L. Webb's review in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus:
A mixed review found the overall discussion in the volume to be "stimulating, even provocative from the perspective of current critical Synoptic studies." However, the review contained also some concerns: