Joslin provides an exegetical discussion of Heb 8.1–13 in chapter five. Hebrews 8, of course, has the lengthy reference to Jer 31.31–34 [LXX = 38.31–34] in which YHWH promises a "new covenant" with the houses of Judah and Israel. Throughout Joslin's book this "new covenant" self-evidently implies the passing of the old, Mosaic covenant. The reference to Israel and Judah, then, become somewhat of a problem. Joslin writes,
Though Jeremiah specifically addresses Israel and Judah, it becomes clear that Hebrews sees the prophecy's fulfillment in the eschatological days of the present time, and that it is applicable to more than simply the Jewish nation, though clearly they are not excluded. (186; my emphasis)
The problem I have, I think, begins with the two clauses that Joslin introduces with the concessive conjunction "though." First, Joslin has to find a way to diminish the Jeremianic reference to Israel and Judah. I don't necessarily fault Joslin here; he's writing about Hebrews, not Jeremiah. If Hebrews diminishes the explicitly Israelite/Judahite focus of Jer 31.31–34, Joslin would need to do so as well. I'm not convinced that Hebrews does this, however, but that's another (though related) subject. In fact, now that I look back at Joslin's quote, this seems to be precisely his point: Jeremiah focuses on Israel and Judah; Hebrews, not so much.
But, and second, the second though-phrase has to back-pedal and reserve a place for Israel and Judah within the Jeremianic new covenant. At this point, then, either the author of Hebrews has misread Jeremiah, or Joslin has misread Hebrews. And it isn't simply deference for Hebrews's privileged place within the canon that makes me prefer the latter option. Hebrews invokes a world determined and defined by Hebrew biblical tradition, by the story of Israel's God and his relationship with his covenant people. Indeed, Hebrews takes up and manipulates those traditions and that story in order to achieve certain ends in its own present.
But one thing Hebrews—and the rest of the New Testament, it seems to me—does not do is "reserve" a place for Israel. The texts comprising the New Testament do not regard Israel (and the Jews enveloped within that label) as ancillary to God. Those texts, in different ways but all together, begin with a notion of God's election of Israel and proceed (again, in different ways but all together) to extend that notion to the nations beyond Israel. Any argument that has to include a caveat such as, "though clearly they are not excluded," is already moving in the wrong direction.
Whence comes this analytical anomaly? The self-evident split between Christianity and Judaism in our own world, I think, has distorted our analyses of the NT texts, of Christian origins, and of late Second Temple Judaism in general. Given that the NT texts are Christian texts, and given that Christianity ≠ Judaism, critical analyses have to explain the role Jews play in the symbolic universe(s) built and inhabited by Jesus' followers. As a result, scholarly discourse on Christian origins resembles a horse being led around by its cart, and exegetical work (such as Joslin's) guided by such a wayward horse is equally lost.
To be clear, eventually Christianity would become something other than Judaism, a fact that present religio-political realities make obvious. And even in antiquity, theologians and bishops comfortable wearing the label Christian but who refused the label Jew would have to wrestle with their strange patterns of identification. But the texts of the NT—and the authors thereof—don't seem to have made this distinction. The point in Heb 8.1–13 is clearly not that the Jews were clearly not excluded from the new covenant. This was never in doubt!
4 comments:
Those texts... begin with a notion of God's election of Israel and... extend that notion to the nations beyond Israel. Any argument that has to include a caveat such as, "though clearly they are not excluded," is already moving in the wrong direction.
I think you got it in one (cf. Romans 11). I must confess, however, that you lost me at:
The point in Heb 8.1–13 is clearly not that the Jews were clearly not excluded from the new covenant. This was never in doubt!
Are there too many "clearly not"s in that sentence? 'Cause if you take out the double negative, you get:
The point in Heb 8.1–13 is clearly that the Jews were clearly excluded from the new covenant.
I don't think that was what you wanted to convey, was it? I thought your point was quite the opposite, i.e., any connection we have with the new covenant is because God invited us into the covenant promised through the prophets, particularly Jeremiah, to His chosen people the Jews. Or am I completely missing something here? Little help...!
Indeed, Don; too many clearly nots. I actually wrestled with that sentence quite a while, but I hadn't noticed that I used clearly not twice. Oops.
The double negative, however, was intentional. And despite conventional English usage, I couldn't find a way around it. You're right: I'm not saying, "The point in Heb 8.1–13 is that the Jews were excluded from the new covenant" (I've excised the clearlys as well).
Joslin argues, if I've understood him rightly, that Heb 8.1–13 makes a point about a new covenant with the nations, but the people Israel are not excluded from the new covenant. I'm suggesting that Joslin misses the point. The Jews may indeed have a place in the new covenant, but that's hardly the point of Hebrews 8. Rather, Hebrews 8 starts with the Jews' place and moves toward the reservation of a place for the nations. The Jeremianic "new covenant" is, afterall, with the houses of Israel and Judah.
So I agree with the theological point Joslin makes about the Jews (Hebrews includes them in the new covenant), but I disagree that that's the point of Hebrews 8. The author of Hebrews didn't have to justify Israel's place because that was never in doubt!
I think . . .
The author of Hebrews didn't have to justify Israel's place because that was never in doubt!
I think . . . And exactly so!
Joslin comes to the "correct" conclusion (if I read your redaction correctly), but his assumptions in getting there reveal his theological error. So, if I may be so bold as to rewrite what you think you meant...
The point in Heb 8.1-13 is not that the Jews were not excluded from the covenant. This was clearly never in doubt!...
Although, clearly, Joslin clearly misses the point.
I like that, Don. You haven't been able to avoid the double negative, but you've cleared up my writing.
Of course, since I'm an academic I prefer to keep things a bit opaque. But every now and then I like to tip my hat to the masses and eschew obfuscation.
Post a Comment