Understanding the Jews and Christian Messianic Beliefs

[robert j]

Kris wrote,

Well, I think the whole messiah business could be a crock, concocted and believed by both the Jews and Christians. I am just trying to figure out what the Jewish viewpoint may have actually been versus what the Christians thought.

The Jewish viewpoint? If we go from the time of the Roman-Jewish war and extend back a century or two, we have no “Jewish viewpoint”, only viewpoints.

Those we would consider “Jewish”, whether by ethnicity or religion, held a very wide range of beliefs.

Certainly there may be some overlaps in the groups mentioned here, but just to name a few ---

If we just take the standard sources, there were Zealots, Sicarii, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. We have the Dead Sea Scroll documents from a radical sect --- and the Therapeutae of Philo --- and those who produced the wisdom literature and the Enochian literature --- and Alexandrian Jews with a strong allegorical bent like Philo --- and Babylonian groups --- and many other diverse Diaspora communities that often attracted Gentile converts and with archaeological evidence of incorporating pagan motifs into their more traditional Jewish symbols.

It would be entirely expected to find a variety of messianic beliefs among some of these groups based on scriptural Midrash.

robert j.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Charlie,

I think you've raised the great scape-goating question. Why and How did the Christians who were zealous for war against Rome before the wars suddenly make a 180 degree turn and place the blame for the war on the Herodian leadership who had opposed the war?
The exact same thing happened after World War I in Germany. The nationalists were zealous for the war and by and large most Jews and socialists were against the war. When the war was lost, the nationalists did not admit that they had made a catastrophic mistake. Instead, they doubled down and blamed the Jews and socialists who had not supported the war for the defeat in the war, although thousands of Jews and socialists had fought bravely in the German army and had lost their lives.
Christian zealots had guaranteed victory in the war (see Revelation). They had guaranteed that God would send his angel Jesus from the heavens and save Israel from the Romans. After all, they had read the prophecies in the holy scriptures. How could they be wrong? So it was back to the Holy scriptures to reinforce their new Messiah story. Yes, they had been right and God had sent his Messiah. Only the Herodian Jews didn't believe and didn't support him, and in fact betrayed him to the Romans.
What is shifting is the myths, not history. The Messianic Jews - the early Christians - were the zealots who supported the war. After the war they hypocritically blamed the Herodian-Jewish leadership for the defeat and the terrible bloodshed that they themselves had produced. The Jesus dream-myth was their way of shifting the blame and revising history.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I am just trying to figure out what the Jewish viewpoint may have actually been versus what the Christians thought.

Kris, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I do not think you will ever be able to answer that. Another way of looking at this is to ask, "When did the first "Christian" appear?" I'm already in a fist fight with someone, and I mean right now! Before I even ask "When did the first Christian appear?", there are people looking for me. I can't possibly tell you what the "Jewish Viewpoint" was because they had everything stolen from them with many of them killed. We know that Titus allowed certain Jews to live and transform their Messianic Judaism into a non-threatening Rabbinic Judaism. I believe that this is the meaning of the discussion in Acts 5:

Acts 5: 34 - 39 (RSV):
[34] But a Pharisee in the council named Gama'li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while.
[35] And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men.
[36] For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
[37] After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
[38] So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;
[39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"

Already, there are people trying to get their "Reply" uploaded.

I do know that "Even down to the present day..." (Hi Jay!), there are Jewish Scholars who are not sure of how far to take an argument. Hyam Maccoby, a GREAT Scholar, thought that "Paul" was real. An adventurer, a liar, a cheat, a creator of a New Religion, but REAL. Alive in the 40s real. 'N that cannot be.

So, take your learning seriously, expect to find some appalling responses (Let the reader note this) and have some fun.

CW

[Charles Wilson]

Christian zealots had guaranteed victory in the war (see Revelation).

Thank you, Jay.

In regards to guaranteeing Victory, Revelation has these curious verses:

Revelation 9: 13 - 15 (RSV):

[13] Then the sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar before God,
[14] saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphra'tes."
[15] So the four angels were released, who had been held ready for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, to kill a third of mankind.

Who are the four angels bound at the great river Euphrates? It is generally accepted that these angels are protecting that great Empire not discussed very much - the Parthians.
These are some bad hombres if they can kill one third of humanity!

"How could we possibly lose?!??"

CW

[Steven Donnelly]

Greetings,

The following is my contribution in response to the original post. Hopefully you'll pardon my interruption if this message is landing in the middle of a sub-topic.

דף צז,ב גמרא רבי נתן אומר מקרא זה נוקב ויורד עד תהום (חבקוק ב) כי עוד חזון למועד ויפח לקץ ולא יכזב אם יתמהמה חכה לו כי בא יבא לא יאחר לא כרבותינו שהיו דורשין (דנייאל ז) עד עידן עידנין ופלג עידן

ולא כר' שמלאי שהיה דורש (תהילים פ) האכלתם לחם דמעה ותשקמו בדמעות שליש ולא כרבי עקיבא שהיה דורש (חגיי ב) עוד אחת מעט היא ואני מרעיש את השמים ואת הארץ אלא מלכות ראשון שבעים שנה מלכות שניה חמשים ושתים ומלכות בן כוזיבא שתי שנים ומחצה

מאי ויפח לקץ ולא יכזב א"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן תיפח עצמן של מחשבי קיצין שהיו אומרים כיון שהגיע את הקץ ולא בא שוב אינו בא אלא חכה לו שנאמר אם יתמהמה חכה לו

“R. Nathan said, ‘This text digs and goes down until the deep—(Habakkuk 2): For the vision is yet for an appointed time and testifies to the end, and it will not lie. If it will delay, wait for it. For it will indeed come and not tarry.’ Not as our great ones who interpreted (Daniel 7): ‘until a time, times, and half a time’”. . .

“What is to be made of ‘and it testifies to the end, and it will not lie?’ R. Shmuel bar Nahmani said [according to] R. Jonathan, ‘May the bones of the one who calculates the end be swollen. For they said that the established time of the end is reached, and he has not come—he will never come. But wait for it/him, as it says, if it will delay, wait for it.’”

Note: The untranslated text (smaller print between the two translated segments) closes by addressing ‘Bar Kochva’. The Aramaic of this name literally translates to “son of the star”—pivoting on a citation lifted from Num. 24:17. The name itself was a promotional pseudonym as it represents an altered version of the name Bar Kosiba.

As mentioned within my only other post on this forum (I’m new here), both the original name and later nickname were eventually replaced by the dishonorable title ‘Bar Koziba’ (i.e. “son of the liar”; Aram. כזבא). Within b. Sanhedrin 97b the Talmudist appears to play with negative press associated with the name, particularly as relates to Hab. 2:3. That is, the segment ends by citing the verb meaning to “lie” (Heb. יכזב) as the final word in a lemma drawn from Hab. 2:3.

Perhaps this Talmudic text aims to acquit R. Akiva of his error by poking fun at his blunder of publicly endorsing Bar Kosiba as the “son of the star” (cf. Balaam’s final oracle of Num. 24:17). B. San. 97b notes that “the reign of Ben Koziba (בן כוזיבא observe the use of Hebrew for “son”—presumably for emphasis—“son of the liar”) [lasted] two and a half years.” The two-and-a-half years are contrasted with the much longer reigns of the Hasmoneans and Herodians, neither of whom were necessarily looked upon with favor by the rabbinate.

Interestingly, the Numbers prophecy features the same time reference as that assigned by Jacob’s poetic/prophetic blessings that he conferred upon his sons as recorded in Gen. 49:1ff. That is, both poetic oracles anticipate events slated to take place during “the end of days” (Heb. אחרית הימים; cf. Num. 24:14; also cf. Deut. 4:30; 31:29). There is plenty to explore in the relationship between these two poems.

Both prophecies anticipate the arrival of a royal figure (cf. Gen. 49:8-12; Num. 24:7-9, 17ff). The notoriety of the individual in focus appears to achieve global recognition (Gen. 49:10-"to him shall be the obedience/gathering of the peoples/nations"; Num. 24:7-"his seed shall be in many waters, and his king will be higher than Agag, and his kingdom will be lifted up"; 24:18-19-"Edom will be a possession, Seir his enemies will be a possession". . . "And one from Jacob will have dominion"). One notes that the focus is upon one from Jacob (Gen. 49:1 "And Jacob called together his sons"; Num. 24:17 "a star will rise from Jacob"; v. 19 "one from Jacob will have dominion"), and that an intertextual relationship exists between the two poems (cf. Gen. 49:9 as closely represented by Num. 24:9).

As concerns the Jewish view of Gen. 49:8-12, I think that the Targums unanimously refer to the expected individual as a royal messiah. Interpretations of Shilo are myriad, though it might be safe to presume that Ezekiel's understanding (I think he was Jewish ) of the particular word/phrase in question is reflected in Ezek. 21:27 (Heb. v. 32 עַד-בֹּא אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ הַמִּשְׁפָּט וּנְתַתִּיו)--"until he will come to whom it belongs, and I will give it to him." The phrase "asher lo" dispatches identical meaning to "shilo" if understood as a 3rd masc. singular possessive. Further, Ezekiel is referring to challenges to the royal line (Judah) and how, despite the difficulties encountered, the throne will be preserved for its rightful owner in due time. Both Gen. 49:10 and Ezek. 21 include the phrase "until he will come" by also employing a similar phrase.

Hopefully this helps.

Gratefully,
Steven D.

p.s. Thank you for extending the welcome mat, Mr. Kirby!

[John2]

Steven Donnelly wrote:

"...the Hasmoneans and Herodians, neither of whom were necessarily looked upon with favor by the rabbinate."

My comment is going to be off topic, so if it needs to be placed in a new thread then that is fine. This is my second comment here, so I'm not certain of the protocol for commenting on something that is mentioned within a larger topic.

While I agree that that the rabbis did not look upon the Hasmoneans with favor, I'm wondering what gives you the impression that the rabbis felt the same way about the Herodians. This is not to suggest that I know there aren't sources that indicate this, only that I am aware of some sources that indicate otherwise, such as M. Sotah 7.8:

"King Agrippas stood and received [the Torah] and read standing, for which act the Sages praised him. When he reached, 'You may not put a foreigner over you' [Dt. 17:15], his eyes ran with tears [because on his father's side he was not of Jewish descent]. They said to him, 'Fear not Agrippas, you are our brother! You are our brother! You are our brother!'"

And Josephus Ant. 15.1.1:

"Herod had now the government of Judea put into his hands ... [and] Pollio the Pharisee, and Sameas, a disciple of his, were honored by him above all the rest, for when Jerusalem was beseiged, they advised the citizens to recieve Herod, for which advise they were well requited."

The NT also presents the Pharisees as being friendly with the Herodians:

"Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herdodians how they might kill Jesus" (Mk. 3:6).

"Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians" (Mk. 12:3).

Paul was a Pharisee when he persecuted the church (Gal. 1:13-14; Php. 3:5), and sent greetings to someone named Herodion (Rom. 16:11), and, for what it may be worth, Acts 13:1 says:

"Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers ... [and] Manean, who had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul."

If there are sources that indicate that things were otherwise, Iwould appreciate any references you can give for them. I am genuinely curious and keeping an open mind.

[robert j]

Hi John2,

John2 wrote,

Paul was a Pharisee when he persecuted the church (Gal. 1:13-14; Php. 3:5) ...

Paul, in his authentic letters, never actually said that he was a Pharisee --- he only said, “... as to the law a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5).

I think too may investigators see Paul in light of the fictions of Acts, where Paul is identified as a student of the famous Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6).

What did it mean to be a Pharisee in the mid-first century?

I think Paul's statement in Philippians better fits the mode also found with Josephus ----

“Being now in my nineteenth year I began to involve myself in city life, deferring to the philosophical school of the Pharisees … “ (Josephus, Life).

Josephus didn't claim to be a Pharisee, but only said he choose to follow their philosophy.

Detailed information from the first century on the Pharisees is sparse, especially if one appropriately discounts the tales in the NT Gospels and the later Acts.

Pharisaic leaders likely endured extensive Pharisaic education and initiation, but many others, like the young Paul and Josephus, probably just preferred the Pharisaic oral traditions and on-going interpretation of the Mosaic laws and followed, to varying degrees, the Pharisaic standards for tithing and table rituals. Would that make them Pharisees? Hard to know absent knowledge of first-century protocols on the subject.

robert j.

[Mental flatliner]

Paul, in his authentic letters, never actually said that he was a Pharisee --- he only said, “... as to the law a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5).

Paul was a student of the legendary Gamaliel. He was certainly a pharisee.

You don't have the authority to declare which of Paul's letters are authentic and which aren't, nor to discount other historical sources such as the gospels and Acts.

[robert j]

Dear Mental,

I have no interest in debating with you --- our basic assumptions are way too far apart. Nor would I have any interest in disabusing you of your faith.

robert j.

[John2]

Robert J,

Regarding your statement:

"Pharisaic leaders likely endured extensive Pharisaic education and initiation, but many others, like the young Paul and Josephus, probably just preferred the Pharisaic oral traditions and on-going interpretation of the Mosaic laws and followed, to varying degrees, the Pharisaic standards for tithing and table rituals. Would that make them Pharisees? Hard to know absent knowledge of first-century protocols on the subject. "

I get the impression that Paul and Josephus were Pharisees. Let's consider Paul first.

While Paul only applies the word "Pharisee" to himself in Php. 3:5 ("in regard to the law, a Pharisee"), and perhaps this may only mean that he "just preferred the Pharisaic oral traditions" (etc.), in Gal. 1:14 he says he was "advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers."

"The traditions of my fathers" is arguably a reference to the Pharisaic oral traditions (and more than just just preferring them, he says he was "extremely zealous for them").

When describing the Pharisees in Ant. 13.10.6, not only does Josephus say that they "delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses," but also that the Sadducees "reject them, and say that we ... are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers."

If Acts it not historically accurate, its author at least thought that Paul was a Pharisee (23:6, 26:5) and associates this expression with the Pharisees: "I studied under Gamaliel [a Pharisee, Acts 5:34] and was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (22:3).

Even one of the tractates of the Mishnah is called "our fathers":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirkei_Avot

Concerning Alexandra Salome, who was influenced by the Pharisees, Josephus says that "she restored again those practices which the Pharisees had introduced, according to the traditions of their forefathers, and which her father-in-law, Hyrcanus, had abrogated" (Ant. 13.16.2).

One of the issues Josephus had with the Fourth Philosphy (which he says in Ant. 18.1.6 otherwise "agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions" and whose founder was a Pharisee) was that they had "altered the customs of our fathers" (Ant. 18.1.1).

Mark 7:5 says "The Pharisees and the teachers of the law asked Jesus, 'Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?'"

So not all Jews observed the "traditions of our fathers" that Paul says was he had been "extremely zealous for." So to me, since he talked and walked like a Pharisee, he was more likely than not a Pharisee.

I see your objection to Josephus being a Pharisee in a similar light. Since he was writing for Romans, he presents all the Jewish sects as philosphies. And in Life 2 he says, "I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us ... I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all ... So when I had accomplished my desires, I ... began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees."

So not only was he well acquainted with the Pharisees, when he officiated as a priest in the temple he says "I abode among the high priests and the chief of the Pharisees" (Life 5). And again, one of his issues with the Fourth Philosophy was that they had altered "the customs of our fathers" (Ant. 18.1.1). So he also at least walked and talked like a Pharisee.

[robert j]

Hi John2,

You make some good points. I did leave it an open question, but I'm still not convinced that we have enough evidence to conclude that Paul (or Josephus) would have been considered “Pharisees” among their own people just because they once preferred to follow some Pharisaic practices and beliefs.

Again, I'm not sure what standards, requirements, protocols or whatever were applied in those days for one to qualify for the title of Pharisee --- did one have to complete the Pharisaic education, apprenticeship and official initiation --- or was just being zealous for the beliefs enough? (perhaps a review of Nuesner's, First Century Judaism in Crisis, or similar work, may help)

A couple of other points. Paul's claim that he was, “... advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people … “ (Gal 1:14) is no great shakes. Paul was obviously well educated (and in his letters never claimed it was an education at the feet of Gamaliel). My point is that most people of the times had little more than a modest formal education (or less), so of course Paul would have been advanced in Judaism, Greek, Hebrew, mathematics, history, etc. compared to many of his people his own age.

Paul had a motive here, a very good reason to claim his previous zealous attitude for Jewish traditions. His statement set the stage for his comment about how he, as a zealous Jew, had once harassed believers in the Christ (Gal 1:22-23). In the context of the letter to the Galatians in which Paul's primary concern was to restore his authority in face of some that were encouraging his Gentile congregation to adopt Jewish practices, especially circumcision --- the point Paul was making to the Galatians is this --- I, a zealous Jew, once harassed believers in the Christ, but I was wrong then just as those harassing you are wrong now.

In my interpretations of Paul, I believe he rarely said less, was rarely modest about his accomplishments --- but rather tended to exaggeration, especially when defending his authority.

robert j.