The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus

Informative, well written.

The Author is a Lecturer in New Testament at Vanderbilt. I have made notes as I have read through the book, and later tried to organise them into "themes or ideas".• A number of times she will make a statement such as: "Christians believe that Jesus was raised" – notice the difference. Not "Jesus was raised", but "Christians believe that Jesus was raised". Her Jewish faith makes it impossible to take the New Testament's claims about Jesus seriously. As such, she must dismiss or ignore much of what the New Testament says in order to maintain her own pre-conceived idea (i.e. "bias").o She says that Christians need to read the New Testament with an understanding of how a Jew would read it, and try to understand how a committed Jew would see some statements as "anti-Jewish". If only she had applied the same principle to her own book. She does not read the New Testament as a Christian would read it, but only as a Jew would. What she writes is therefore insulting to a committed Christian, as well as being offensive, aggravating, and immensely upsetting. In other words, in many ways, this book is "anti-Christian".• Throughout she complains about how "The Jews" have become a stereotype. How all Jews have been lumped into the same basket. And, yet, she does the same things to Christians.o She often talks about what "pastors, preachers, and priests" do, as if we all do the same thing.o She often talks about "the church" and its views, when, in fact, my part of the church has never shared that view (and hasn't even heard of some of them).o She will talk about "Christians" as if we are monolithic, but we are not.• Interestingly, her biggest complaints are about the two extremes: "liberals" and the "neo-Nazis". Surprisingly she has nothing bad to say about independent, fundamental, Bible Believing Baptists. This may be because this group (i.e. "us" – sort of) do not hold the negative stereotypes she states.• Throughout it is not "The Jewish Jesus" that is the problem. The real problem is Jesus the Messiah, the fulfilment of Jewish hopes.o Like Neusner, ("A Rabbi Talks with Jesus") she stumbles over Jesus. Not the "Jewish Jesus", but Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels, Acts, and Letters. In fact, she often rejects what an author will say because it is "anti-Jewish", or "as a Jew, Jesus couldn't/didn't/wouldn't say/do that."o The only "true words of Jesus" are those that fit her anti "Jesus the Messiah" agenda. Everything else is a later interpolation or addition.o She overlooks that Jesus talked about his coming "at the end of the age", and assumes that the church "made this up" when Jesus didn't come back soon. Of course, she never mentions these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 13:39-40, 49), and even if she did, based upon other statements, I suspect that she would say that these were "invented by the church" rather than being "the true words of Jesus".o And then there is her argument that the words of Jesus, taken out of their historical context and placed into a "Christian" book makes them not Jewish but Christian, and therefore his polemic becomes (or can be used as) "anti-Jewish". But are the words of the prophets then "anti-Egyptian; anti-Babylonian; anti-Assyrian". Well, in a way they are, but only in the historical context of the day. If we keep the "anti-" within its own setting, then the NT is not "anti-Jewish", but reflects the genuine historical situations, arguments, and debates that Jesus and the church in Acts encountered.• She clearly doesn't like Paul and, especially, his arguments in Galatians, but does in Romans which are more "pastoral" (but she totally ignores Romans 1-8 which shows Jews are also sinners in need of salvation through faith in Jesus). Her very "selectivity" is not only offensive, but aggravating!o She assumes Paul lies about Peter in Galatians to get his own way. In other words, Paul may have "rebuked Peter publicly", but Paul lost the argument. But he isn't telling the Galatians this because it destroys his point.o "Luke says things against the Pharisees to make them look bad", but "Jesus didn't really mean that".o Luke, being a friend and companion of Paul, simply follows Paul's agenda (in spite of his stated aim of "declaring truth").• And, of course, her suggestion that both synagogue and church end up in the same location is a denial of the claims of Jesus to be the only way to the Father. But, then, she couldn't say otherwise while remaining faithful to her own beliefs, any more than I could say that both "end up in the same place" and be faithful to Jesus.• And it is strange that, although the Mishnah and Talmud are written later than the Gospels, she treats them with absolute respect (i.e. "Rabbi so-and-so said"), but when it comes to the Gospels and the words of Jesus, it is often "whether Jesus really said this or not", or "Luke added this statement". In other words, she demands respect for her tradition, but refuses to give it to mine.o And it is this inconsistency, this demanding from others what she will not give, and condemning in others what she herself does, which does more to undermine her argument than anything else. Neusner, at least, seems to give the Gospels, and Christians, some respect. Levine, for all her ability at teaching and being an Apologist for Judaism, does not show that same respect.There are, of course, many good points in this book. And it is a good book for people to read. However, it is not necessary to accept either her argument or her conclusions, for she is just as biased as she claims Christians are.

This is a very curious book. From the title one might think it is about understanding Jesus better in his Jewish context, but this is not the case. Most of the book is about raising one's awareness about things in Christianity that either have been or can be "spun" to be anti-Jewish. Lots of terrible things have been done or said about Jews in the name of Christ, who was a Jew. She gives good examples of bad theology where some try to map Jesus and his conflicts with the Jewish authorities to modern situations using a good/bad simplistic and erroneous mapping, in effect making God into our image, as Voltaire quipped.There is no question she is intelligent, witty, and working for a way to have interfaith dialog that respects the other.It does seem that she would prefer that Christians not celebrate Passover, preferring to keep their faith on their own "railroad track" to use a metaphor she uses. She makes one minor reference to Messianic Jews in the book, which did not even find its way into the index; but this would seem to be a large area of overlap between being Jewish and being a believer in Jesus, which she would apparently prefer not to explore, rather each should keep to their own "track" hoping at the end of time everyone will find the tracks meeting.Another point she tries repeatedly to make is that it was entirely reasonable for Jews back then and today to reject Jesus as being Messiah. So there is certainly some Jewish apologetic being done, perhaps this should be expected. What was NOT expected was that she misunderstands some ways that Jesus can be understood in his Jewish context, perhaps she does not know them, but then the title becomes very ironic.She quotes Mark 7:19b (Thus he declared all foods clean.) but uses the common interpretation that this means one can eat anything, specifically pork. But this verse cannot mean that in Jewish context, as the whole pericope is discussing washing one's hands not clean and unclean foods; also any food to a Jew would mean it was kosher. In other words, do not make the mistake of reading "food" in the verse as meaning your food, it means Jesus' food, which to a Jew would be kosher and only kosher.She also quotes the "divorce and remarriage is adultery" verses but crucially neglects to point out the context of the debate between Hillel and Shammai over the "any matter" divorce that means these verses in Jewish context do not mean what they might seem to mean outside of 1st century Jewish context, as pointed out by David Instone-Brewer. Putting them in 1st century Jewish context means Jesus agreed with Shammai.So I was disappointed in that she continues to perpetuate some common but unfortunate misunderstandings about Jesus, how ironic. If you wish to misunderstand Jesus less, I recommend reading some Messianic Jews and Hebraic Roots of Christianity scholars.

You can skip to Chapter 7 for the helpful suggestions and less argument. If you love arguments, you will love this book.Ms. Levine’s point is, I think, that the Christian church needs to remember that Jesus was Jewish - and operated from a place of deep belief and respect for the Jewish faith and tradition. He was not breaking with Jewish tradition by respecting women and healing on the sabbath.Unfortunately this book is written in an exhausting, argumentative style with run-on sentences. The chapters drone on and on.I would have found it helpful for Ms. Levine to include a chapter that presented the main beliefs of the Jewish faith and how that is similar to or different from Christianity. I felt as if I were mining for gold in this dense and sometimes confusing book, asking myself what point she was attempting to make.

The book is for someone who wants to understand better the true connection between Judaism and Christianity, written by an extraordinary academic

This is a tiny book for a massive amount of money, much cheaper elsewhere

Amazing and extremely enlightening

At last: a well written, balanced, fair & sensible assessment.Every priest, pastor, rabbi & seminarian should be given a copy.

There is a danger when one has knowledge to assume one also has understanding and I fear the author of this work has made that mistake. She is clearly well informed on the subject of Jewish traditions and the content of the New Testament, but her understanding of its meaning is sadly lacking.It is hard to write about someone one does not believe in and so her task was uphill from the start. To write a book about a person, when you either do not believe he existed, or do not believe he is who he says he is, is going to demand that you agree with statements and premises with which you are at odds. I am not convinced many can do this with impunity.I would not recommend this work to either Christian nor Jew as I feel it cannot do justice to the subject. If the writer were both from a Jewish background and believed what the NT said, it would be a different matter, but as it is, as a Biblical teacher, I, sadly, feel the author has fallen short of her goal.