Jesus is not the messiah...

[Guest]

Hi, Steve,

Thank you again for your dialogue. I too am benefitting from this conversation. You are making me think and research carefully -- if not yet perfectly!

Now if the translators were Christians you could claim they were biased but these are hebrew scholars and experts in this field yet they must believe based on their understanding of the context that this redeemer is not God since they always capitalize his titles.

I must admit from the outset that I am not familiar with the Stone edition. However, my highly limited acquaintance with Artscroll (the publisher) and a brief excursion online has made me suspect that the edition is rooted in traditional/rabbinic thought. As such, the edition may be scholarly, but the scholasticism brought to bear may be rabbinic scholasticism (with its own interpretive quirks), and not what most academicians would consider biblical scholarship.

Now, I acknowledge that such a statement sounds a bit hoity-toity, but the two scholarly traditions are not equivalent. Biblical scholarship is concerned with understanding the text vis-a-vis its immediate context(s). Rabbinic scholarship, on the other hand, is concerned about engaging the text as part of an ongoing faith tradition. My own bias, as a historian, is to favor the priority of the original context. Only after the text has been understood in its native setting is it appropriate to use it as a barometer for further thought.

It was interesting to find in the pages reproduced online that the Stone volume's index cross-references "Messiah" with "Redeemer" and the very passage in Isaiah 59! So the perspective of the edition is manifest. However, religious Jews can be just as excited about Messiah as Christians are, and from my perspective as a biblical academician, people in both camps can do pious violence to the text.

...in Isaiah 59.20 it continues "and those of Jacob who repent" , i've always understood Jacob to be another name for all of Israel.

You raise a great point. I had a similar concern, and thought I had found a passage to resolve it. However, looking at it again, I think that I was quite likely wrong. I truly appreciate your bringing this to my attention. In this light, Isaiah 59:20 is quite arguably referring to both southerners and northerners.

As such, I should have appealed to the chronology to resolve the tension, rather than to the audience. If the prophecy were from the latter half or so of Isaiah's career, then it would not have God moving from redemptive spirit to wrath, but from wrath to redemption.

Re Job referring to a redeemer , i think when the opinions of his buddies are given it's obvious but in this case "I KNOW my redeemer lives" is more then opinion. IMO the story is an allegory inspired by God to give us much valuable information about many things therefore Job speaking under inspiration would not say "I KNOW" unless God inspired him to say that.

I can appreciate your point.

For my own opinion, I would not consider the book to be perfectly inspired, and so I would not take any of Job's points as necessarily reliable, even if the writer agreed with what the character was saying. But I'm not sure that Job's attitude toward God is always entirely healthy in the book. Two commentators I have looked at have even construed the redeemer to be an avenger who takes Job's condition out on God!

I should admit that I'm not entirely sure what the upshot of 19:25 is, and I'm unsure that the redeemer in this passage couldn't refer to God. But my lack of regard for the character and indeed for the book discourages me from expending a lot of effort on trying to exegete the passage. I hope that you will tolerate my indolence in this department.

I admit that my perspective in seeing an intercessor is influenced by the NT because of the fact Jesus did appear and execute his ministry , he clearly believed he was the Messiah and he clearly believed he needed to voluntarily die for our sins and many people did believe he rose from the dead.

Naturally, we both come into dialogue with our respective influences. These can be assets as well as hindrances at times, for both of us. My own influences lead me to distinguish between what the historical Jesus believed and the portrayals of the New Testament. The New Testament is primary evidence for what people believed about Jesus, but only secondary evidence for what Jesus believed about himself.

Thank you again for your posting, Steve. I am truly gratified that this dialogue is helping both of us learn and discover more.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Christopher,

Thank you for your response. Today has been a good day for me learning things, thanks to you and Steve .

I appreciate your providing the account of the miraculous fire at the tabernacle. This is a key piece of evidence for my coming to understand the issue at hand.

From the references you have given from Leviticus and II Chronicles, I can appreciate how you have come to your perspective on the fire. If you don't mind my foisting the research off on you, is there a parallel account for the inauguration of the Second Temple ministry?

If I may shift from the specific fire issue for a moment, it seems that the second temple ministry may have been technically deficient in some respect. If I am not mistaken, the Second Temple lacked the ark of the covenant, at least by some time in the first century BCE. It seems like this would have been an obstacle to fulfilling the rite of the Day of Atonement (q.v., Leviticus 16). But if the ritual of this temple was ineffective because of such a deficiency, the New Testament does not report that this kept Jesus from recommending its ministry, or his disciples from doing likewise (Matthew 21:13 // Mark 11:17 // Luke 19:46; cf. Matthew 8:4; Acts 21:23-26).

It is a fair theological question -- whether a commandment that cannot be wholly fulfilled should be fulfilled insofar as possible, or left aside so that it isn't inadequately performed. I would shy from a universal answer, and defer instead on a case-by-case basis to seeking the will of God. To return to the fire issue, then, even though it is not an explicit commandment, and thus is somewhat of a secondary concern, I would see the matter as worthy of weighing out in prayer -- as part of the tremendous investment of submissive prayer that would be necessary for attempting such a serious act as re-establishing the sanctuary. If God required heavenly fire, then he would provide it.

On your later point, thank you for clarifying your point on the "make-shift" comment. I can appreciate your view here as well, and as you have articulated it it is not offensive.

Some of the ritual commanded in the Torah is dependent upon the construct of the tabernacle, and so the significance of the construction reaches beyond its own self. As far as I am aware, the Torah does not comment upon what to do if the appointed implements should become lost or destroyed. The matter is open to some argument. Again, one must seek the will of God. But I am unaware of any explicit reason why the sanctuary could not be re-established, inasmuch as the Torah does not forbid such a reconstitution. The tablets with the Ten Words were replaced after Moses broke them, and in somewhat lesser form, for Moses carved them and not God. If these tablets of commandments could be replaced, why not the implements for carrying out the terms of commandments? Things are replaceable. But God desired that his people should carry out the ritual which he commanded, and at least some of the sanctuary ritual was commanded to occur "forever" (q.v., Exodus 27:21).

As for the efficacy of the sacrifices -- this would only be tangentially related to the rightness or wrongness of the reconstitution itself. The key dynamic for the efficacy of a sacrifice is the heart of the offerer, and if the offerer sacrificed with the purest of intentions in their heart, their sacrifice would be efficacious. Torah sacrifice is ritual, not magic; the heart in action yields results, not the formulae themselves.

On a couple of other points -- modern Judaism is not a sacrificial religion, by and large. Judaism has coped so well and so long without the sanctuary ministry, that I suspect many many Jews really do not want the complication (or in this modern world, embarassment!) of a reconstituted sanctuary. But other Jews look forward to its re-establishment, and some have even embarked upon the process, preparing implements, etc.

On your final point -- "the source (man or God) of ordination" -- to some extent, the source has already been God, since he laid out the original paradigms, and then based other commandments upon their use. On the other hand, a mature relationship is two-way. Reconstituting the sanctuary does not depend upon God's ordination; rather, it depends only upon God's lack of objection. God allows and respects human initiative insofar as it does not violate his own will.

I hope you will pardon my leaving off with what I have posted so far. The hour is getting late for me. I will be happy to expand or clarify or respond further if you wish.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet,

This thread has been an interesting read and somewhat informative.
I appreciate that this thread has been both polite and humble from all involved.

If you don't mind my intrusion, I have a question.
In your post, on 6/21 at 10:35 pm, to Steve you made the following statement:

My own influences lead me to distinguish between what the historical Jesus believed and the portrayals of the New Testament. The New Testament is primary evidence for what people believed about Jesus, but only secondary evidence for what Jesus believed about himself.

Without getting into much detail, would you mind unpacking this statement? What are your reasons for believing this? Is it your belief that the Gospels portray Jesus in ways that he never intended?

Thanks.

[Guest]

Hello,

Thank you for your posting.

In the first place, I would say that my distinction between the historical Jesus and the portrayals of him in the New Testament is simply careful scholarship. The same general principle should be extended to the Hebrew bible as well.

If we wish to know who Solomon was, for example, we find that our evidence includes historical narratives and a handful of books that have been attributed to Solomon. Conservatively speaking, we must begin by saying that the historical narratives reflect how the agencies behind them wanted us to know Solomon. Thus, I Kings' portrayal of Solomon is indicative not directly of Solomon, but rather of what the writer(s) of I Kings wanted their audience to know about Solomon. Who Solomon actually was has come to us through the filter of the writer(s) of I Kings. Even if this filter has been scrupulous, and has not invented material or included legend to improve the story (not a given in ancient historiography), the simple act of selecting some material about Solomon and not including other material can result in a nuanced and somewhat inaccurate portrayal.

As for the books attributed to Solomon, it must be asked whether the evidence for these attributions is credible on the one hand, and whether subsequent redaction of the text has not nuanced the evidence on the other.

All of which is to say that evidence only proves what evidence proves, and that further conclusions must be extrapolated carefully.

Thus the material in the New Testament -- none of it being written by Jesus himself -- bears direct evidence of what early Christian writers thought about Jesus. Some of these writers never met the historical Jesus and sat under his teaching, but at best had some manner of mystical experience. Such should be taken into account, although I recognize that many Christians will be offended at questioning the mystical experience of their predecessors.

Beyond this, when one takes each of the writers of the New Testament and examines their work first individually, and then in comparison with each other, it becomes apparent that different writers had different agendas in producing their work, and these agendas influenced their portrayals of Jesus. At best, these portrayals were selective and nuanced; at worst, these portrayals may have been somewhat fabricated or legendary.

The gospels provide excellent case studies. When the three Synoptics are compared with John, it quickly becomes apparent that John's portrayal is quite different. In fact, John's portrayal is so different in content and character that it raises the question of historical veracity.

For the three Synoptics themselves, it is apparent that the portrayal of Jesus has been nuanced differently amongst them. One excellent example of this is in the parallel accounts of Matthew 9:14-17 // Mark 2:18-22 // Luke 5:33-39. In the first part of the account, Matthew nuances the basic statement of Mark that the bridal party does not fast, and injects that they cannot mourn. For his part, Luke sharpens the comments found in Matthew and Mark by having the accusers complain about the disciples eating and drinking, and by having Jesus say that you cannot make the bridal party fast; this adjustment plays more pointedly to the concern for externally-forced pious/dietary behavior found in the Pauline ministry.

In the illustration of the patch, both Matthew and Mark have Jesus speak of unshrunk cloth and the practical rupture that can take place between the seasoned and the unseasoned. Matthew omits Mark's description of the two cloths as old and new, perhaps to soften the distinction for his Jewish audience. Luke, on the other hand, has Jesus tell a "parable" with two garments, one old and one new; the new one is damaged for the sake of the old, and the spliced product does not match. This version adds a new element into the mix, as there are now two garments to be concerned for, rather than just one. One suspects a theological motive here.

In the illustration of the wineskins, Matthew augments Mark with the observation that "both are preserved"; depending upon how one understands the referents of "both," this may more pointedly value both the new and the old, which would befit Matthew's conservative Jewish perspective (cf. Matthew 13:52). Luke emphasizes that new wine must be put into new wineskins; he also adds a tag that those drinking the old don't want the new, which introduces more of a contrast and value judgment to the narrative.

Overall, Mark's version addresses a matter of practical incompatibility in pious behavior; Matthew's version softens the portrayal of incompatibility in a way relevant to his audience; and Luke's version accentuates or articulates the incompatibility in a way relevant to his background.

And so we can see that the gospel portrayals are at best nuanced, and apparently in ways that suit their respective faith experiences. This is very natural, but it suggests the importantance of distinguishing between how the gospels portray Jesus and how he understood himself.

Thank you again for your posting.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet,

Thanks for your explanation.

A couple of thoughts:

Conservatively speaking, we must begin by saying that the historical narratives reflect how the agencies behind them wanted us to know Solomon. Thus, I Kings' portrayal of Solomon is indicative not directly of Solomon, but rather of what the writer(s) of I Kings wanted their audience to know about Solomon. Who Solomon actually was has come to us through the filter of the writer(s) of I Kings. Even if this filter has been scrupulous, and has not invented material or included legend to improve the story (not a given in ancient historiography), the simple act of selecting some material about Solomon and not including other material can result in a nuanced and somewhat inaccurate portrayal.

...

Overall, Mark's version addresses a matter of practical incompatibility in pious behavior; Matthew's version softens the portrayal of incompatibility in a way relevant to his audience; and Luke's version accentuates or articulates the incompatibility in a way relevant to his background.

And so we can see that the gospel portrayals are at best nuanced, and apparently in ways that suit their respective faith experiences. This is very natural, but it suggests the importantance of distinguishing between how the gospels portray Jesus and how he understood himself.

It is my assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the above statement in bold summarizes why you believe that the historical Jesus wasn't represented accurately in the Gospels.

While this theory is possible, your approach to these historical documents and their authors seems to be "guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty." What evidence is there that would show that the authors of the Gospels didn't accurately portray the Jesus of history? The authors have been shown to be 100% reliable in resolved archeological conflicts thus far; why would they be mistaken (at best) or purposefully deceitful (at worst) regarding what Jesus said and did?

Also, in a court of law in the USA, nuances in statements between witnesses for an event are assumed to provide a greater picture and are considered accurate unless there is evidence to the contrary. Why apply a different standard here? Therefore, having 4 recorded histories of Jesus provides a greater picture of Jesus rather than an accurate and provides for cross-checking as you have done.

Finally, believing that the Gospel's misrepresented the historical Jesus would assume that we have another more reliable source of the life of Jesus with which to compare. I'm not aware of one.

Another question for you:
What of the empty tomb?

Thanks for the discourse,
Dave.

[Guest]

The gospels provide excellent case studies. When the three Synoptics are compared with John, it quickly becomes apparent that John's portrayal is quite different. In fact, John's portrayal is so different in content and character that it raises the question of historical veracity.


Hi Emmet, Thank you for your previous responses, i found it a blessing. I just would like to give a general response to your points. IMO the gospels are generally complimentary and should be checked against each other to get a fuller picture. However before any information is thought to be insincere or mistaken it s/b considered whether the veracity of one statement cancels out the truthfulness of another. If one angel is said to be at the tomb and another said two angels were at the tomb can both be true? Certainly it's quite possible and not even difficult if the reader is willing to give the writer the benefit of the doubt. After all if the accounts in the gospels were identical the skeptics would claim they were copied from each other therefore true eye-witnesses would have some variations in their accounts. And it's true that they wrote to different audiences and tailored their accounts somewhat but that does'nt mean they were insincere. And it's true John's gospel is very different but it's through John's eyes and it's how he viewed Christ and he was honest enough to say that he wrote it "so that you may believe."

[_Steve]

Hi Emmet,

Whenever I read a treatment of evidence like that in your last post, I am impressed again by a fact that seems very peculiar to me. That is, how some people are simply prone to doubt (that is, to call certain witnesses liars without any actual evidence against their veracity), while others are more charitable. As I said to another correspondent here, previously, a similar a priori skepticism toward all other historical records, or even toward reports from contemporary witnesses to current events, would leave us no more enlightened than those who have no access to books at all.

The evidence you presented against the historicity of the gospel accounts (and I am sure that there is much more of the same kind where that came from) is so innocuous as to perplex an open minded fellow, like myself, as to how a brilliant intellectual, like yourself, can possibly consider it to comprise anything like a case for your point. If your point is only that the gospel records are nuanced, and tailored to make certain emphases to their respective audiences, one hardly needs evidence to prove that. It has been well-known in conservative Christian scholarship since the earliest centuries. However, the point you seemed to intend to make was that there is reason to differentiate between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of the gospel records. Toward this conclusion, I feel, you have presented nothing in the way of evidence.

Obviously, a man disposed to believe will believe against all damaging evidence. Similarly, a man committed to doubt will find no evidence sufficient to unseat his settled skepticism. My position is one of limited skepticism. I do not believe all that I am told, but I consider most people to be telling the truth, unless 1) I know them to be dishonest folks, 2) they have more to gain by perpetrating a deception than by telling the truth, or 3) what they are saying is plain stupid or intrinsically implausible. In the absense of such damning factors, I take most witnesses to be honest, and reliable to the degree of their competence to testify.

Actually, I am sure that you also take the same approach on almost everything except your assessment of the gospels. Those who consistently take such a distrustful approach are called "paranoid," and live in caves in North Idaho. Why some people single out the gospels (or the Bible in general) as the focus for exceptional skepticism is what I cannot understand. The records of scripture have, again and again, been proven to be accurate on the very points upon which skeptics had previously criticized their veracity. The authors, in many cases, not only gained no earthly advantage through their testimonies, but also often were tortured and killed for holding to them. The empty tomb of Jesus (mentioned above by schoel) still is best explained by the resurrection of Christ, despite the plethora of alternative, implausible theories that have historically been floated.

I am not a person who believes anything against the best evidence. But I have never seen why anyone, if unprejudiced, would look at the evidence for the gospels through such jaded spectacles as to believe the vacuous (in my judgment) arguments that are so frequently brought against them.

Having said all that, I really do appreciate the general tone and intelligence of your correspondence here. I would enjoy seeing you again sometime, whenever possible.

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

Thank you for the thorough reply to my question. And, it is a quite reasonable one from the perspective of your world view I might add.

you wrote:

From the references you have given from Leviticus and II Chronicles, I can appreciate how you have come to your perspective on the fire. If you don't mind my foisting the research off on you, is there a parallel account for the inauguration of the Second Temple ministry?

I'm not aware of any, but I wouldn't rule it out either based merely on silence. However, I don't have anything else to add from the OT on this point and I really don't want to press the issue. You've answered my question adequately and I can't argue with you based on the Hebrew bible alone.

As always, I guess it really all comes down to a question of the reliability of the claims of the gospels about Jesus. And it appears that the thread is heading in that direction, so I'll step aside for now since you and Steve will most certainly pass the limits of my knowledge in this discussion.

I have greatly enjoyed the dialogue though.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

Hello, everyone,

Thank you for your interest and your flurry of responses! I will try to attend to each one in turn, but I hope you will pardon me if it takes a few days to get to everyone. I have to work Friday, and the Sabbath is coming, so I have a few preemptive commitments.

I would like to mention that I have felt some concern about the trajectory of dialogue, and I have feared that I am to blame for it, at least in part. I consider it valuable to spend time and energy in helping people develop a more charitable and/or fair appreciation for Jewish faith and perspectives.

Because I need to act responsibly, I would appreciate it if you all would help me avoid the role of being an aggressor in our dialogue. I am more comfortable being a commentator for a faith perspective that is minimally represented in this forum. This will most likely result in differences of opinion, and perhaps even healthy wrestling over points of thought. But I fear that there will be negative results if I degenerate into a controversial role. I would truly appreciate your letting me know if I am betraying my investment into our conversation.

Thank you for your interest and your ongoing kindness,
Emmet

[Guest]

I would like to mention that I have felt some concern about the trajectory of dialogue, and I have feared that I am to blame for it, at least in part. I consider it valuable to spend time and energy in helping people develop a more charitable and/or fair appreciation for Jewish faith and perspectives.

Because I need to act responsibly, I would appreciate it if you all would help me avoid the role of being an aggressor in our dialogue. I am more comfortable being a commentator for a faith perspective that is minimally represented in this forum. This will most likely result in differences of opinion, and perhaps even healthy wrestling over points of thought. But I fear that there will be negative results if I degenerate into a controversial role. I would truly appreciate your letting me know if I am betraying my investment into our conversation.

Emmet,

We've been considering expelling you from the forum because you don't believe like we do.
Anathema! Anathema!

Just kidding!


In all honestly, I have not viewed your posts as aggressive. Your tone has been polite and respectful, which creates the kind of discussion that we are aiming for here.

You made the following statement, related to why you practice Judaism in contrast to Christianity:

My own influences lead me to distinguish between what the historical Jesus believed and the portrayals of the New Testament. The New Testament is primary evidence for what people believed about Jesus, but only secondary evidence for what Jesus believed about himself.

Many on this forum, including myself, would be curious as to why you make such a claim considering they believe the opposite. Personally, I'm always interested in the reasons behind such a belief as my quest for the truth has led me to the opposite conclusion thus far.
The dialogue produced from that statement has been neither hostile nor rude, but as far as I can tell, an exchange of viewpoints and requests for evidences.

Your goal to provide insights into "Jewish faith perspectives" is welcome here. However, all public assertions made on this forum are open to discussion to help us all grow in our understanding of the Bible. I believe this would be what you referred to as "...healthy wrestling over points of thought."

Controversy, disagreement and discussion are always welcome here so long as they are within the framework of civility, open-mindedness and the willingness to provide the reasons to support the assertions made. This is why many of us participate in this forum.

Colossians 4:6
6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

All this to say that you needn't worry.

Steve Gregg - If I've assumed something regarding the forum that isn't true, please provide correction and I apologize in advance.

In Christ,
Dave