• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

What is interesting is that Jesus offered a single Rabbinic proof, though a good one, and this settles the matter once and for all. In Rabbinic literature, each Rabbi contributed a proof, equally good, yet all of them are disputed by other Rabbis. That is their function, their acuity, and their great pleasure. This merely underlines what we already know: The New Testament was written to an entirely different audience than the Rabbinic literature. The Rabbis were indulging in a daring process of argumentation, a kind of serious play, which is then recorded in the Talmud. The New Testament is validating the charismatic leader and preaching Him as the Savior of the world. The Talmud is for exegetical study; the New Testament is for missionizing.

Liturgy

SYNAGOGUE LITURGY, a vast Midrashic literature, and Jewish mystical literature forcefully profess belief in vivification of the dead, with interesting, different, and even inconsistent characterizations about its meaning. Some may have had doubts about the Scripture on which resurrection depended, but they did not doubt the doctrine itself. The participants in the Talmudic discussions did not feel that they had to give up their critical scrutiny of Scripture because they had inherited a difficult-to-demonstrate doctrine from the Tannaim. After all, they did accept several passages as having demonstrated the vivification of the dead. In any event, they realized that doubt was a significant part of their religious affirmation.

On the other hand, we moderns can never completely overcome the suspicion that the objections are more taking than the proofs, especially when they are based on such clever but obvious misreadings. Some Rabbis may have at least partly understood the irony that we naturally feel in seeing these exegetical exercises. Such is the force of the Rabbinic method. Instead of promulgating divine truths, the text is available for discussion and debate. Once one learns to read the text critically from the paradigm of the Rabbis, one can even deny the doctrine which they seek to defend. The Rabbis were indulging in an early example of “deconstructionism.” Because of the method of scrutinizing every doctrine in this way, modern Jews would certainly deny that Judaism depends on the notion of resurrection in any literal way. And they might even return to the following passage to show how all doctrine must be made subject to our own rational scrutiny.

This irony of deconstruction is peculiarly our own modern perspective, not theirs, for the Rabbis refused to take the method that far. In fact, a glance at the liturgy reveals that life after death is repeatedly valorized in daily prayers. For instance, we have these brave statements of the faith in human, eternal reward:

You are mighty, eternally, O Lord.

You bring the dead to life, mighty to save.

You sustain the living with loving kindness

With great mercy you bring the dead to life again.

You support the fallen, heal the sick, free the captives;

You keep faith with those who sleep in the dust.

Who can compare with Your might, O Lord and King?

You are Master of life, and death, and deliverance.

This passage is part of the great prayer, known simply as Ha-tefilah. The Prayer, which is said standing in every Jewish service, is known as the Amidah, the standing prayer. Since it has roughly 18 paragraphs, it is also known as the Shmoneh Esre (“Eighteen”), the eighteen-part prayer. The passage above is quoted from the weekday version and is known as the Gevurot, God’s mightiness (plural of gevurah, might), after the first statement in the paragraph. It is one of the best-known prayers in Jewish liturgy.16 It praises God for bringing the dead to life, without reference to ethnic identity.

The passage is attributed to various authors. One tradition holds it was composed by the Anshe Knesset Hagedolah, the men of the great assembly. A famous tradition in the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 17b) says that the entire