Journal for the Study o f Judaism, Vol. VII, N o.

JEW ISH CHRIST:A N!TY o r CHRtSTIAN JUD A ISM :

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 pbenomenon 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 Christianity throughout the centuries provide the modern scholar with
two variables that cause the term Jewish Christianity to reconfigrate itself much like the image of a kaleidoscope. Now some
)Even by tbe classical mode o 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 phenomena that it too tends more to confuse than to clarify. The collocation o f the
tw o in Jewish Christianity is perhaps even more confusing.

JEW ISH C H R IST IA N ITY OR C H R IST IA N JUDAISM

47

sort of scholarly unanimity must be forthcoming to hold foe kaleidoscope picture in place for a time to allow foe term Jewish Christianity 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 ^enom enon. 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 movement 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 writers purpose for defining something as Jewish Christian im^ariably holds foe clue to the degree
of clarity that writers 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 -n otab ly 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 Cristiannotably D anilou 5), and most recently K lijn 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.
K lijn , 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.
) The Study o f Jewish Christianity , art. cit., p. 426 and p. 431.

48

BRUCE T. M ALINA

3. T e u n d e rsta n d th e h isto ry o f th e C hristian m o v em en t (m en a n d

m o v em en ts in general), w h e re v e r th e full o r p artial acceptance o f
M osaic observances seem to be central, th o se espousing these observances alo n g w ith som e b elief in Jesus o f N az are th are called
Jew ish C hristians n o ta b ly S choeps 7), B ran d o n 8).
4. T o u n d e rsta n d specific C h ristian do cu m en ts (ap o cry p h al
g o sp els, acts, po em s, tracts, etc.), if th e d o cu m e n t betrays M osaic
observances a n d /o r an ti-P au lin ism , it is labelled Jew ish C h ristia n
th u s S t r e c k e r )and v ario u s studies o n th e pseudo-C lem enrines.
5. T o u n d e rsta n d v ario u s archaeo logical artifacts, th o se b earin g
sym bols in som e w ay related to Je w ish C hristian do cu m en ts (above 4)
o r to th e beliefs labelled b y th e classical C hristian h eresiologists as
E b io n ite , E lchasaite, N azo rean , N aaseen, etc., these are called
Jew ish C h ristian a rtifacts; th u s B a g a tti 10), T esta 11).
6. T o u n d e rsta n d tra d itio n a l sites in P alestine, e.g. N a z a re th s
g ro tto , B eth leh em s g ro tto , C alvary, an d th e like, since th e tra d itio n
m u st h ave been h a n d e d o n to th e G en tile C hristians w h o b u ilt th e ir
sanctuaries th ere, th e trad en ts m u st h ave been Jew ish C h ristian s ;
th u s th e v ario u s g u id e b o o k s.
7. T o u n d e rsta n d possibilities in h e re n t in C hristianity to d ay as to
ecum enical dialo g u e w ith Jew s, o r th e status an d creed req u ired
o f h y p o th etical Jew s w h o m ig h t em brace C hristianity in th e fo rm
o f a Je w ish C h ristian ity o nce existing in the p ast is p o stu la te d by
D an ilo u 12), C ava lletti 13), an d see also literatu re o n Jew s fo r
C h rist 14).
8. T o u n d e rsta n d th e C hristian
o f th e p ast w h o
so u g h t to articu late an d d efen d th e ir id eo lo g y w ith a view to d o ctrin al
p u rity , see th e v a rio u s p atro lo g ies.
T h u s th e te rm Je w ish C h ristia n is used b y vario u s m o d e rn
scholars to m ake d istin ctio n s am o n g , an d hence sh ed clarity u p o n ,
v ario u s p h e n o m e n a in th e C h ristian m o v e m e n t fro m th e relatio n al
7) Jewish Christianity, Philadelphia 1969 and his many works cited in this book.
8) The F ail of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, London 1968.
) On the Problem o Jewish Christianity , Appendix I in w . B auer, Orthodoxy
and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, ed. by R. K raft and G. K rodel, Philadelphia
1971, p. 241-285.
*) The Church from the Circumcision^ Jerusalem 1971.
n ) / / Simbolismo dei Giudeo-Cristiani, Jerusalem 1962.
12) A ^ e w V ision o f Christian Origins: Judaeo-Christianity , Cross Currents
18 (1968), p. 172-173.
13) Ebraismo spiritualit cristiana, Rome 1966.
14) E.g.
S0BEL, Hebrew Christianity : The Thirteenth Tribe, ^ e w York 1974.

JEW ISH CH RISTIAN ITY OR C H R IST IA N JUDAISM

49

perspectives of culture, history of thought, geography, archaeology,

'
and historiography. I think it is these relational perspectives 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 like
to 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 C hristian/^ wifo
an adequate ideological configuration of code, creed, cult and community 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. KSTER 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 G N O M A I D IA PH O R O I : the Origin and Nature
o f Diversification in the History o f Early Christianity , H T R 58 (1965), p. 280.

50

BRUCE ] M ALINA

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. O f 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
*) 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.

JEW ISH CH RISTIANITY CR C H R IST IA N JUDAISM

51

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 * and
Jewish Christians 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 abrogation of the traditional Mosaic covenant as an on-going institution
replaced by a superceding new and better (kain diathek) 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-th e views and valuesof 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
(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-going
covenant of Israel has been abrogated by ffie new covenant in
17) For the typology o f 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 dependent upon It.

52

BRUCE j . M ALINA

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 qualitatively 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 mitzwahsystem are still in force. When the Messiah comes in power and
patently ushers in Gods 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-th e 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 speculation 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:

JEW ISH CH RISTIAN ITY OR C H R IST IA N JUDAISM

53

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 ones life stance. Whether history goes
our way or not does not matterhistory serves to prove nothing
about Gods 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 understanding 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 ones 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 Gods 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 something 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 Gods displeasure. 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

54

BRUCE ] . M ALINA

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 Gods Shekinah,
Gods Spirit, Gods 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, Gods 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 observances are crucial since Gods 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 CH R IST IA N ITY OR C H R IST IA N JUDAISM

55

(viii) For Jewish Christians, sinee the Age to Come has dawned,
sinee the days of the Messiah are here, ealendar, feasts and observanees 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 characterize 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
*) See A. CHEN, The Myth of the Jndeo-Christian Tradition N ew York 1.71
This takes a step further the observations made by R . A. K r a f t , In
Search o f 'Jewish Christianity and Its T heology , R S R 60 (1072), p. 91,
against D a n i 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.
)

56

BRUCE j . M ALINA

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 l o u s perspective the Great Church. . . progrssively 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
Churchs 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 Churchs
answer was to accept apocalyptic practice as ideally normative,
and to adopt Roman legalism as practically normativethe 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. , a rt. 77., p. 83; and
H. M a r s h a l l , Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments , N T S 19 (1972/73), p. 271-287.
24) A r t . 7/., p. 172.

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 ,
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 bibliography), 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 writings
conclude 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 (/ and 2 (
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 authors translation. 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. 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, N o. 1


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 resp ective 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 ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e 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 covered by the fair use provisions o f 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 !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.