Fathers of the World: Essays in Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures (review)

Book Reviews Book Reviews 95 Fathers of the World: Essays in Rabbinic and Patristic Literatures, by Burton L. Visotzky. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 80. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. 205 pp. DM 138.00. Scholars have long been aware that some passages within the contemporaneous literatures of rabbinic Judaism and patristic Christianity show an awareness of the teachings and biblical interpretations of the rival religion. Such parallels are not surprising, since both communities expressed their claims ofbeing the "True Israel" and the sole recipient of full divine revelation through their exegeses of the Hebrew scriptures. Early researchers were particularly concerned to find evidence that specific patristic writers were aware of and made use of rabbinic aggadic midrash.I Recent investigations of rabbinic and patristic interpretations of the same biblical passages, figures, or events have found shared Jewish and Christian interests, detected possible exegetical contacts, and illuminated differences in hermeneutical agendas; scholars have also identified polemical statements that reflect the deep antagonism between a developing church and a rabbinic Judaism on the defensive. Indeed, the central debate between the Jews and Christians of late antiquity over which community possessed exclusive religious truth was bitterly contested in the exegetical writings ofeach group. While Christian texts "against the Jews" are usually obvious, distinguishing rabbinic attacks, satires, or rebuttals ofChristian claims can be more difficult. A number ofthese concerns unite in Burton L. Visotzky's Fathers ofthe World, a collection ofthe author's scholarly essays and book reviews. Concentrating primarily on apparent references to Christian teachings in midrashic texts, Visotzky brings a number ofsophisticated methodological concerns to his highly focused studies. Central to them is his acknowledgment ofthe difficulty ofdating rabbinic midrashim and their contents. While patristic texts were written by single individuals in known times and places, rabbinic midrash collections are redacted compilations of traditions ofvarying ages. Defmitive information as to when and where most of these documents reached their fmal form remains elusive, and there are equal methodological difficulties in accurately dating any oftheir component parts. Many scholars have connected specific rabbinic traditions embedded in redacted collections with the er~ of the sage to whom IPor a broad survey of the field, see Judith R. Baskin, "Rabbinic-Patristic Exegetical Contacts in Late Antiquity: A Bibliographical Reappraisal," in W. S. Green, ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism 5: Studies in Judaism and its Greco-Roman Context (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 53-80. 96 SHOFAR Winter 1998 Vol. 16, No.2 they are attributed, but Visotzky is rightfully cautious in accepting the accuracy of rabbinic attributions in most cases. Noting that chronology and the accurate dating of rabbinic exegetical traditions remains a methodological crux in general, he is, therefore, hesitant to assign any individual tradition a date prior to the fifth century, when he believes the Palestinian midrashim were redacted. Given these provisos, Visotzky is necessarily less interested in fmding exact parallels between a particular church father and a specific rabbinic text (which might have reached its fmal form considerably after that father wrote), than in utilizing apparent parallels to derive an impression of the general intellectual milieu which both Jews and Christians shared, even as they differed radically on issues ofbelief. He fmds that an exploration of the ways in which similar traditions are used and reshaped by rabbinic Judaism and Christian writers can teach a great deal about the distinctive tendencies and concerns of the exegetes and redactors of each community. Thus, Visotzky fmds a crucial commonality between the church fathers and rabbis in the influence of hellenism, which had an impact on the educational practices, rhetorical training, and exegetical methods of both Jews and Christians. He suggests that the common training imparted by a shared hellenistic heritage complicates the probabilities of discovering dependence or influence between rabbinic and patristic writers addressing the same Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, there are also significant divergences between these writings. Visotzky notes that patristic and rabbinic literatures differ radically in their literary genres, their languages (Greek and Latin, mostly, as opposed to Aramaic and Hebrew), and the nature of their authorship and redaction. Most important, the communities that generated these literatures had fundamental disagreements in belief. Given these profound differences in literary form...