"A Beam in the Eye" - How the Talmud Tractate Arachin is Influenced by Matthew 7

I learned quickly in my first course on classical Rabbinic literature that issues of dating the texts are problematic, unavoidable, but ultimately marginalized. Consider this in light of New Testament criticism in which the average age of the four gospels can be traced with a fair amount of certainty to within a 20 year to 30 year window after the actual events. Attempts at dating the tractates in the Talmud are simply not a project of Jewish scholarship. And given how many various individuals  redacted the Talmud with the addition of gemara, such efforts seem pointless.






So while an orthodox Jew would like to think that the Talmud would not borrow from the New Testament (and an ultra-Orthodox Jew might suppose this is because the Oral Tradition goes back to Moses), there are surely overlaps that are not only questionable, but at times, strangely duplicative.


Let's take a famous passage from the New Testament, which most Christians know by heart, and has been used, misused, and abused, throughout the religion's interpretative history:

Matthew 7:2-4

For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?

Now compare this with


Tractate Arachin 16b:

It was taught in a Baraitha [a commentary]: Rabbi Tarfon said, I wonder whether there is any one in this generation who accepts reproof , for if one says to him: Remove the mote from between your eyes, he would answer: Remove the beam from between your eyes! Rabbi Eleazer ben Azariah said: I wonder if there is one in this generation who knows how to reprove! Rabbi Johanan ben Nuri said: I call heaven and earth to witness for myself that often was Akiba punished through me because I used to complain against him before our Rabban, Gamaliel Beribbi, and all the more he showered love upon me, to make true what has been said: Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee, reprove a wise man and he will love thee.





In all fairness, when I first studied this with my Rabbi professor, he did not seem to know Matthew 7:2-4 existed in the New Testament and how it was comparative similar to the Talmud. This is perhaps one reason certain Jews are averse to historical criticism and in favor of zakhor (a charge leveled by those like Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi); namely, because when the Talmud is forced into critical self-reflection, it breaks apart. Without the guidance of historical staging, tractates regularly reflect earlier trends, even as there is no method of validation, and in this case, the earlier influence is the New Testament.


It is interesting that the baraitha is unnamed and that it seems to be an editorial tradition, intentionally vague to avoid the question "where was it taught?" that might come as a result of the question that would inevitably arise had the passage began "it was taught..." Perhaps the anonymous writer thought that the Matthew 7 pericope was part of the Jewish oral tradition and simply did not realize he was blending traditions. This is not new. Maimonides regularly forgot his own sources and would recall vague language similarly. The oral tradition is of course extraordinarily important in any event, so it is possible that earlier influences, in this case Christian, congealed with Jewish Talmudic thought. In fact, I think it is a correct assumption, given the amount of overlap found in the Talmud.

Matthew’s “Do Not Give What is Holy to Dogs” and the Talmudic Interpretation/Response

Here is an interesting passage that helps you see the way the Talmud appropriates two popular gospel periscope and makes them its own by creating its own unique story. In the first instance, Jesus provides a rather general teaching. 

Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)


In a second passage, a sort of reversal of theme, Jesus begins by denying a Canaanite woman healing, but through her persistence, she is able to convince Jesus and he relents again. Either Jesus is surprised by the “faith” expressed by the outsider or Jesus knows (though perhaps not through divine precognition) that this woman will press him, and so tests her by denying her what she wants until he no longer can relent.

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”“Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. (Matthew 15:25)

Now read this Talmudic version. This comes from tractate Baba Bathra 8a. I will reproduce the passage in total. The writer draws a distinction between two kinds of people. This time, however, notice it is not about the righteous and the unrighteous, but the learned and the uneducated.  Those who follow the textual tradition of Rabbinic Judaism are the learned. Those who do not are the uneducated. What is interesting is that the outcome is just as ironic as the gospel version's outcome.  

Rabbi once opened his storehouse in a year of scarcity, proclaiming: Let those enter who have studied the Scripture, or the Mishnah, or the Gemara, or the Halachah, or the Aggada; there is no admission, however, for the ignorant. R. Jonathan b. Amram pushed his way in and said, ‘Master, give me food.’ He said to him, ‘My son, have you learnt the Scripture?’ He replied, ‘No.’ ‘Have you learnt the Mishnah?’ ‘No.’ ‘If so,’ he said, ‘then how can I give you food?’ He said to him, ‘Feed me as the dog and the raven are fed.’ So he gave him some food. After he went away, Rabbi’s conscience smote him and he said: Woe is me that I have given my bread to a man without learning! R. Simeon son of Rabbi ventured to say to him: Perhaps it is Jonathan b. Amram your pupil, who all his life has made it a principle not to derive material benefit from the honour paid to the Torah. Inquiries were made and it was found that it was so; whereupon Rabbi said: All may now enter. Rabbi [in first refusing admission to the unlearned] was acting in accordance with his own dictum. For Rabbi said: It is the unlearned who bring misfortune on the world.


The Torah, just like Jesus, is recast as a means of making salvation available for all people. Just as faith in Jesus is a way to salvation regardless of the abhorrence of one's upbringing, background, or knowledge, so the Torah demonstrates the same power. All who accept it's authority and respect its place in the community, regardless of their understanding, can now by such an attitude enter into the salvation it promises. And Jonathan b. Amram is seen to have accepted a principle of respect for the Torah in the same way the Canaanite woman was thought to have put into practice a principle of faith.

Peace and Violence in the Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

My first book entitled Peace and Violence in the Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: An Analysis of Method has finally been published! While the journey from writing to publishing took longer than expected (about four years), primarily because I had so many other academic ventures going on, I'm glad I found the time to get this done.

My approach is unique because I take Bonhoeffer's words seriously. When Bonhoeffer writes from Tegel Prison towards the end of his life that his thinking never changed on important matters of theology, I believe him. And the point of my book is to get past the narrative that has him moving from violence to peace and then from peace to violence. Bonhoeffer's consistency lies in the measured approach of his Christological ethic. But to understand his ethic is to understand his rejection of social ethics, including those that derive from biblical interpretations.

I was happy that Reinhard Krauss, an institution in Bonhoeffer scholarship and translator on the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Werkes Series that was translated over many years into English, agreed to read my book and then write the forward.

I hope my blog readers take the opportunity to purchase a copy and read this book. I think it will provide an appreciation for a man who under the most extraordinary circumstances remained true to his intellectual grid.