What do you think?
Rate this book
A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament
"This informative book will augment both Jewish & Christian study of the New Testament, as well as provide a well-rounded introduction to its literary flavor & historical significance for seekers of any faith." Without compromising his Jewish identity or encouraging any traditional Jewish stereotypes of the New Testament, Samuel Sandmel offers an enlightened view of Christian beliefs & encourages us to acknowledge the common humanity we share with people of all religions.
336 pages, Paperback
First published November 30, 1955
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 27, 2017
This book was a fascinating study in why and how to understand the perspective of another -another so different than yourself as to almost defy understanding, or wanting to understand. As a convert to Judaism, I thought I understood Christianity and the Christian point of view regarding Judaism, but I was wrong. I was struck again and again, for instance on page 135, by the fact that from 2000 years ago, and particularly from another point of view, these writings were very moving, and filled a human need. Too bad these writings and those human needs were often mis-used in the ensuing years, to the great loss of many human beings.
27 June, 12017 HE
Shira
27 June, 12017 HE
Shira
April 2, 2008
Although ostensibly written for a Jewish readership, Sandmel's book serves as a decent introduction to the Christian scriptures. It was recommended to us in a two semester "Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures/Christian Scriptures" course taught by the chaplain at Grinnell College, Dennis Haas.
Recently I met the gradson of Sandmel. He, the son of a rabbi, has been a student at Shimer College here in Chicago.
Recently I met the gradson of Sandmel. He, the son of a rabbi, has been a student at Shimer College here in Chicago.
October 17, 2009
In a readable but carefully argued way, Sandmel lays out some key
Christian doctrines and the apparent motivations for various
statements and stories in the New Testament. This research can
certainly be found elsewhere, but the author presents it in a way
that's particularly understandable and relevant to those with a Jewish
background. He has an agenda, however: he emphasizes the influences of
Greek philosophy on Christianity to the point of minimizing its Jewish
roots.
Christian doctrines and the apparent motivations for various
statements and stories in the New Testament. This research can
certainly be found elsewhere, but the author presents it in a way
that's particularly understandable and relevant to those with a Jewish
background. He has an agenda, however: he emphasizes the influences of
Greek philosophy on Christianity to the point of minimizing its Jewish
roots.
October 14, 2026
Rabbi Samuel Sandmel ends his book A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament by writing:
“The New Testament, although it is not ours, is closer to us than any other sacred literature which is not our own. It shares in a legacy which is eternally precious to us. For American Jews it is the Scripture of our neighbors - and happily, of fellow citizens and friends.”
I am a Christian who has liked and admired Jews all of my life. Nevertheless, I have a few criticisms of Rabbi Sandmel’s book.
In Chapter XIV, “The Gospel According to Matthew” Rabbi Sandmel writes:
“Matthew has little regard or respect for Jewish law.”
The Sermon on the Mount is included in the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew: 5:17-19 Jesus says:
“Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”
This reads like a polemic against St. Paul that was added by an editor of the Gospel of St. Matthew. The most serious dispute in early Christianity was over the question: Should Christians obey the Law of Moses?
By arguing that the Law of Moses was not binding for Christians St. Paul made it easier for Christianity to spread among Gentiles who accepted some, but not all of Judaism. Before anesthetics and anesthesia, circumcision was painful and sometimes fatal for men.
In Chapter IV “From Judaism into Christianity,” Professor Sandmel writes, “The Gospels, which discuss the earliest event in the History of Christianity, were written, modern scholarship has determined, in a time much later than Jesus’ own.”
In Chapter XXIII, “Acts of the Apostles,” Professor Sandmel writes, “I believe that Acts was written well after A.D. 115.”
When evaluating the New Testament dating is essential. Professor Sandmel barely mentions the Jewish Uprising that happened from A.D. 66 to 73. That uprising killed as many as one million people. Among them were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus. Written records of that ministry were destroyed. Anything written before A.D. 66 is more accurate than anything written after A.D. 73.
In their books Redating the New Testament and Taking Religion Seriously John. A.T. Robinson, and Charles Murray write that the fact that no description of the Jewish Uprising in the New Testament indicates that virtually all of the New Testament, and certainly the Gospels and Acts, were written before the uprising began. Describing the Uprising would have enabled the authors of the Gospels and Acts to claim that God was punishing the Jews for rejecting their Messiah.
This much of the scholarly consensus of the writing of the New Testament I accept:
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of St. Mark. It was written by John Mark, who was a traveling companion and interpreter for St. Peter.
The Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source, and a more primitive gospel that is called Q. Q consists of sayings and actions of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. I have read two restorations of Q. Q could have been written by one of the twelve disciples when Jesus was still alive.
The Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by St. Luke, who was a traveling companion of St. Paul.
In each of the gospels the reader is reminded that Jesus will be crucified and that he will rise from the dead. In Acts there is no mention that St. Paul will be martyred.
Eusebius lived from A.D. 263 to 339. His book The History of the Church is the second great history of early Christianity after Acts. In is History Eusebius writes that St. Paul and St. Peter were executed in Rome about A.D. 62.
If Acts was written before A.D. 62, that pushes the writing of the Gospel of St. Luke earlier. This in turn pushes the writing of the Gospel of St. Mark, and Q earlier still. Mark, Q, Luke, and Acts were written before the Jewish Uprising of A.D. 66 to 73 were written. Eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus still lived and could be consulted. Written accounts to Jesus’ ministry still existed and could be read.
Modern scholarship acknowledges that most of the Epistles attributed to St. Paul were written by St. Paul, which is to say before A.D. 62. St. Paul reports that he talked to St. Peter, and to St. James, the brother of Jesus. St. Paul wrote little about the life of Jesus. He did write that Jesus rose from the dead, and was seen by as many as 500 people. He wrote this without fear that he would be contradicted.
I am not surprised that Rabbi Sandmel doubted the accuracy of the New Testament. I respectfully disagree with him.
“The New Testament, although it is not ours, is closer to us than any other sacred literature which is not our own. It shares in a legacy which is eternally precious to us. For American Jews it is the Scripture of our neighbors - and happily, of fellow citizens and friends.”
I am a Christian who has liked and admired Jews all of my life. Nevertheless, I have a few criticisms of Rabbi Sandmel’s book.
In Chapter XIV, “The Gospel According to Matthew” Rabbi Sandmel writes:
“Matthew has little regard or respect for Jewish law.”
The Sermon on the Mount is included in the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew: 5:17-19 Jesus says:
“Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”
This reads like a polemic against St. Paul that was added by an editor of the Gospel of St. Matthew. The most serious dispute in early Christianity was over the question: Should Christians obey the Law of Moses?
By arguing that the Law of Moses was not binding for Christians St. Paul made it easier for Christianity to spread among Gentiles who accepted some, but not all of Judaism. Before anesthetics and anesthesia, circumcision was painful and sometimes fatal for men.
In Chapter IV “From Judaism into Christianity,” Professor Sandmel writes, “The Gospels, which discuss the earliest event in the History of Christianity, were written, modern scholarship has determined, in a time much later than Jesus’ own.”
In Chapter XXIII, “Acts of the Apostles,” Professor Sandmel writes, “I believe that Acts was written well after A.D. 115.”
When evaluating the New Testament dating is essential. Professor Sandmel barely mentions the Jewish Uprising that happened from A.D. 66 to 73. That uprising killed as many as one million people. Among them were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus. Written records of that ministry were destroyed. Anything written before A.D. 66 is more accurate than anything written after A.D. 73.
In their books Redating the New Testament and Taking Religion Seriously John. A.T. Robinson, and Charles Murray write that the fact that no description of the Jewish Uprising in the New Testament indicates that virtually all of the New Testament, and certainly the Gospels and Acts, were written before the uprising began. Describing the Uprising would have enabled the authors of the Gospels and Acts to claim that God was punishing the Jews for rejecting their Messiah.
This much of the scholarly consensus of the writing of the New Testament I accept:
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of St. Mark. It was written by John Mark, who was a traveling companion and interpreter for St. Peter.
The Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source, and a more primitive gospel that is called Q. Q consists of sayings and actions of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. I have read two restorations of Q. Q could have been written by one of the twelve disciples when Jesus was still alive.
The Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by St. Luke, who was a traveling companion of St. Paul.
In each of the gospels the reader is reminded that Jesus will be crucified and that he will rise from the dead. In Acts there is no mention that St. Paul will be martyred.
Eusebius lived from A.D. 263 to 339. His book The History of the Church is the second great history of early Christianity after Acts. In is History Eusebius writes that St. Paul and St. Peter were executed in Rome about A.D. 62.
If Acts was written before A.D. 62, that pushes the writing of the Gospel of St. Luke earlier. This in turn pushes the writing of the Gospel of St. Mark, and Q earlier still. Mark, Q, Luke, and Acts were written before the Jewish Uprising of A.D. 66 to 73 were written. Eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus still lived and could be consulted. Written accounts to Jesus’ ministry still existed and could be read.
Modern scholarship acknowledges that most of the Epistles attributed to St. Paul were written by St. Paul, which is to say before A.D. 62. St. Paul reports that he talked to St. Peter, and to St. James, the brother of Jesus. St. Paul wrote little about the life of Jesus. He did write that Jesus rose from the dead, and was seen by as many as 500 people. He wrote this without fear that he would be contradicted.
I am not surprised that Rabbi Sandmel doubted the accuracy of the New Testament. I respectfully disagree with him.
August 23, 2022
An important, worthwhile read. Eminently discussable.
March 24, 2015
This classic from the 1950s was really helpful to me to understand history and times.
August 3, 2015
A Companion to the authors earlier work. From a Jewish point of view, not as academically balanced
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews