The following passages in the Book of Daniel are some of Christian’s favorites to prophecy the coming of Jesus. By using a few mistranslations and misplaced punctuation, they end up with a very clever and amazing attempt to place Jesus in the Hebrew Bible.
These are the quotes from the New Testament:
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon the holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation of iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and sixty two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times. And after sixty two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off, but not for himself, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolation’s are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even unto the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Daniel 9:24-27
The Christian interpretation showing all the mathematics follow:
The Artaxerxes of Nehemiah 2:1 rose to power in 465 BCE, and so, according to Nehemiah 2:1, the commandment to restore Jerusalem began 20 years later, i.e., 445 BCE.
Now, since they claim that a Biblical year had 360 days, they multiply 360 by 483 (69 weeks equals 69 periods of seven years--69 X 7 = 483 years). This equals 173,880 days.
To change from Biblical years to our solar years, they divide 173,880 days by 365 1/4; this equals 476 years. Add 476 years to 445 BCE and you will get 31 CE.
Actually, they add a few days, and it ends up around 32 CE, which is just when they claim that Jesus was crucified. Thus, Daniel 9:25, according to the Christians when discussing the Messiah, is referring to Jesus; saying that he will be "cut off” i.e., crucified.
Sounds reasonable, but is it accurate? There are really many difficulties (errors) with this interpretation, which is why Jews were never impressed with it. The first problem is that the Christians mistranslated the main verse (25). The way Christians read it is that after seven weeks and sixty two weeks, the Messiah will come; i.e., after 69 weeks. The obvious question is why didn't Daniel simply write 69 weeks, instead of writing 7 plus 62. The answer is that they mistranslated the verse. If you translate it correctly, that question disappears. Here is the correct translation.
Know and discern that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for sixty two weeks shall it be built again with streets and moats, but in troublesome times. Note the main difference―not that it will take 69 weeks before the Messiah will come, but rather a mere 7 weeks. If you study this in the original Hebrew, this should be quite clear. Thus, the translation by itself answers the above question of why not simply write 69, instead of 7 plus 62.
According to the correct translation, the anointed one will come after 7 weeks; the city will remain built for 62 weeks, and after the 62 weeks, (verse 26) it will be destroyed. The Christian translation cannot explain why Daniel had to mention the first seven weeks, and in fact, it is a mistranslation. Thus, if they show you their version of the Bible, open the
original and show them the difference.
Another major difficulty is that according to the simple, untwisted translation of verse 26, two events were to occur after the 62 weeks—the anointed one would be cut off, and the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. As you know, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, which is 38 years after the death of Jesus―more than five "weeks" off. There is no
acceptable answer for these missing five weeks according to the Christian interpretation.
Another difficulty is that the Jewish year is not really 360 days long. While the months are based on the lunar patterns, the years must coincide with the solar system. Simply study the Jewish calendar. You will see that since the solar year exceeds the lunar year by around 11 days, there will be an extra month added around every three years. Thus 445 BCE plus 483 years (69 X 7) ends up 38 CE, and by then everyone admits that Jesus was already dead.
Another difficulty is that Christians, for lack of a better answer, claim that the 70th week will take place when Jesus returns in his second coming as a king. The problem was caused because Daniel mentioned a total of 70 weeks, and then he specified 7 plus 62, leaving one remaining. The Christians say that the first 69 weeks were consecutive, then there is at least a 1,900 year gap, and sooner or later the 70th week will occur. This is obviously a very forced explanation, born of desperation. Remember, Christian apologetics is a thriving industry.
There is one other important point that should be reviewed. On examining the other books of the Bible, it becomes quite apparent that Daniel is referring to Cyrus, of Persia, and not Jesus. In Jeremiah 25:11-12, the word of God clearly states that the Babylonian exile will last for only 70 years. In Ezra 1: 1, it says that "Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom...saying...Whosoever there is among you of all His people, let him go to Jerusalem, and build the house of the Lord..." In Isaiah 45:1, it says, "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed (messiah/moshiach), to Cyrus..." Thus, Isaiah, in the name of God, calls Cyrus an anointed one, and Ezra discusses how Cyrus fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah. Since Daniel lived after Isaiah and Jeremiah, but before the period of Ezra, it is most reasonable and probable to affirm that the anointed one that he referred to in Daniel 9:25 is Cyrus, and not Jesus.
The reason why a Christian would have difficulty understanding this is because the compiler of the King James Bible was shrewd and deceptive. In the original Hebrew, both Daniel 9:25 and Isaiah 45:1 use the exact same word―"moshiach." However, in the Christian version of the Old Testament the word," moshiach," is translated in Isaiah 45:1 as "anointed" whereas in Daniel 9:25, the same Hebrew word is translated as "the Messiah." (the correct translation of "Moshiach" is "an anointed one.") This deceptive translating makes it virtually impossible for the innocent reader who does not know Hebrew to discern the truth.
In addition, the compiler of the Christian Bible did another clever maneuver. The Christian Bible arranges the sequence of the various books of the Bible in a peculiar manner: the Pentateuch, Samuel, Chronicles, then Ezra, and then Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and then Daniel. (In the Jewish Bible, Ezra follows all of the above.) The reason for placing Ezra in the Christian Bible before Isaiah, and before Psalms, Proverbs, etc., even though Ezra lived long after those books were written is presumably to fool the reader of the Christian Bible. Had the reader read Ezra immediately after Daniel, which is the correct chronological location, the reader would immediately recognize that Ezra 1:1 and Daniel 9:25 refer to Cyrus, and not Jesus
O what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! [Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, A Tale of Flodden Field (1855), xvii]
DANIEL AND THE ANOINTED ONE
Hugh Fogelman
FOUR stories come out of Daniel Chapter 9 as told in the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible (which is much different than the King James Version of the Christian Bible:
FIRST ― Daniel was prophesying about the period before the destruction of the Second Temple when he wrote; “Seventy septets have been decreed upon your people and upon your holy city to terminate transgressions (9:24). The Sages say it is a phrase referring to seventy times seven years, or 490 years, referring to the seventy years of exile that passed from the “Destruction of the First Temple” until this vision, and the entire 430-year period of the “Second Temple” (Rashi).
SECOND ― Daniel 9:25-27 reads; “And you should know and comprehend: From the emergence of the word to return and build Jerusalem until an anointed prince will be seven weeks; and for sixty two weeks it will be rebuilt, street and moat, but in troubled times. And after the sixty two weeks an anointed one will be cut off and will be no more, the people of the prince who comes will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, but his end shall come like a flood. Until the end of a war, desolation is decreed! He will strengthen a covenant with the great ones one week; and for half of the week he will abolish the sacrifice and offering, and upon soaring heights will the mute abominations be, until extermination as decreed will pour down upon the abomination.” Please pay particular attention to the semicolon between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks.
However, in the King James Version of the Hebrew Bible, Daniel 9:25 says:
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. (NOTICE: there is no semicolon, just a comma – WHY?)
I wonder who tampered with the KJV? The original 1611 edition of the KJV correctly separates the seven weeks from the 62 weeks WITH A SEMICOLON.
The current KJV, however, deceptively compresses these two time periods into one. By revising the KJV and altering the punctuation they completely changed the message of the angel Gabriel’s prophecy. (This is nothing new in Christian writings). By combining “seven weeks” with “62 weeks” into ONE period of 69 weeks, Christian translators advance the idea in the mind of their readers that there is one messiah (anointed ones) spoken, instead of the correct message of TWO. All Jewish kings, priests, judges and anyone who rules were “anointed.”
THIRD ― Isaiah 44:28 & 45:1-3; Ezra 1:1-3 and 11 Chronicles 36:21-23 all tell us how this anointed one is by name ― Cyrus, the messiah, who did indeed start to rebuild the Second Temple. This fact can never be disputed. Until 1885, however, the KJV correctly translated this verse so as to reflect the two anointed ones spoken of by the angel. The first anointed ruler (Cyrus) who arises after “seven weeks” and a second one who is anointed and removed after a subsequent “62 weeks,” or 434 years―the High Priest.
The sages say the “septets” refer to full seven-year periods. The prince of this verse is Cyrus, who gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. He ascended to the throne fifty-two years (seven full septets plus three years) after the exile had begun. From then until the second destruction of Jerusalem was 438 years, or sixty-two septets and four years (Rashi).
FOURTH ― The Talmud and Roman historians say Vitellius, governor of Syria, removed both Pilate and Caiaphas from office in around year 36 CE. Caiaphas was the Jewish High Priest, a Sadducees, the anointed one could have been the one Daniel wrote about, saying, “Then after the sixty-two septets (weeks), the anointed one will be cut off and will exist no longer,”and by him being removed from office, he was indeed “cut off” and his Priesthood “existed no longer.”
The Sages explain that Daniel could also have been talking about “the anointed one” being Agrippa, the last Jewish king, at the end of the Second Temple Era. After his death, the prince of this verse, the Roman Titus, would command the destruction of the Second Temple, which we all know will not be rebuilt until after the War of Gog and Magog, in Messianic times. Daniel 9:26 (Rashi)
FINALLY and most important, Jesus never qualified to be the Jewish messiah according to what the book Christianity holds as being AUTHORITY, the Hebrew Bible. So, whether or not Jesus was the anointed one spoken by Daniel is not important or even the issue. Why not? Because Jesus was NEVER anointed according to Jewish Biblical standards of how a king is anointed, and Jesus never came from the tribe of Judah, and was not from David’s son Solomon, as the prophets claimed from whom the messiah will come. So to Judaism and the Hebrew B ible, this is all irreverent.
Daniel 9:25-27
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.’
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
So, whenever some Christian evangelist claims he can show something from Daniel, ask him why the New Testament KJV translates “moshiach” 37 places in the Jewish bible as "anointed," (that is the proper translation); but in Daniel the KJV does not translate moshiach at all. Instead it transliterates it to messiah, with the “capital M.”
Why does the Christian bible change Daniel’s message from an anointed one to THE MESSIAH (HaMoshiach)? Does Christianity have to change the SOURCE Bible in order for their religion to be true?
Showing posts with label Torah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Torah. Show all posts
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Articles of Faith Judaism
Judaism can not be credited with the possession of Articles of Faith. Many attempts have indeed been made at systematizing and reducing to a fixed phraseology and sequence the contents of the Jewish religion. But these have always lacked the one essential element: authoritative sanction on the part of a supreme ecclesiastical body. And for this reason they have not been recognized as final or regarded as of universally binding force. Though to a certain extent incorporated in the liturgy and utilized for purposes of instruction, these formulations of the cardinal tenets of Judaism carried no greater weight than that imparted to them by the fame and scholarship of their respective authors. None of them had a character analogous to that given in the Church to its three great formulas (the socalled Apostles' Creed, the Nicene or Constantopolitan, and the Athanasian), or even to the Kalimat AsShahadat of the Mohammedans. The recital of this "Kalimah" is the first of the five pillars of practical religion in Islam, and one converted to Islam must repeat it verbatim; so that among the conditions required of every believer with reference to confession is the duty to repeat it aloud at least once in a lifetime. None of the many summaries from the pens of Jewish philosophers and rabbis has been invested with similar importance and prominence. The reasons for this relative absence of official and obligatory creeds are easily ascertained.
No Need for Creeds in Judaism
The remark of Leibnitz, in his preface to the "Essais de Theodicee," that the nations which filled the earth before the establishment of Christianity had ceremonies of devotion, sacrifices, libations, and a priesthood, but that they had no Articles of Faith and no dogmatic theology, applies with slight modification to the Jews. Originally race-or perhaps it is more correct to say nationality-and religion were coextensive. Birth, not profession, admitted to the religionational fellowship. As long as internal dissension or external attack did not necessitate for purposes of defense the formulation of the peculiar and differentiating doctrines, the thought of paragraphing and fixing the contents of the religious consciousness could not insinuate itself into the mind of even the most faithful. Missionary or proselytizing religions are driven to the definite declaration of their teachings. The admission of the neophyte hinges upon the profession and the acceptance of his part of the belief, and that t here may be no uncertainty about what is essential and what nonessential, it is incumbent on the proper authorities to determine and promulgate the cardinal tenets in a form that will facilitate repetition and memorizing. And the same necessity arises wh en the Church or religious fellowship is torn by internal heresies. Under the necessity of combating heresies of various degrees of perilousness and of stubborn insistence, the Church and Islam, were forced to define and officially limit their respective theological concepts. Both of these provocations to creedbuilding were less intense in Judaism. The proselytizing zeal, though during certain periods more active than at others, was, on the whole, neutralized, partly by inherent disinclination and part ly by force of circumstances. Righteousness, according to Jewish belief, was not conditioned of the acceptance of the Jewish religion. And the righteous among the nations that carried into practise the seven fundamental laws of the covenant with Noah and his descendants were declared to be participants in the felicity of the hereafter. This interpretation of the status of nonJews precluded the development of a missionary attitude. Moreover, the regulations for the reception of proselytes, as developed in course of time, prove the eminently practical, that is, the noncreedal character of Judaism. Compliance with certain rites baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice is the test of the wouldbe convert's faith. He is instructed in the details of the legal practise that manifests the Jew's religiosity, while the profession of faith demanded is limited to the acknowledgement of the unity of God and the rejection of idolatry (Yorei De'ah, Germ, 268, 2). Judah haLevi ("Cuzari," i. 115) puts the whole mat ter very strikingly when he says:
"We are not putting on an equality with us a person entering our religion through confession alone [Arabic original, bikalamati=by word]. We require deeds, including in that term selfrestraint, purity, study of the Law, circumcision, and the performance of other duties demanded by the Torah."
For the preparation of the convert, therefore, no other method of instruction was employed than for the training of one born a Jew. The aim of teaching was to convey a knowledge of the Law, obedience to which manifested the acceptance of the underlying religious principles; namely, the existence of God and the holiness of Israel as the people of his covenant.
The controversy whether Judaism demands belief in dogma or inculcates obedience to practical laws alone, as enlisted many competent scholars. Moses Mendelssohn, in his "Jerusalem," defended the nondogmatic nature of Judaism, while Low, among others, (see his "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 3152, 433 et seq. 1871) took the opposite side. Low made it clear that the Mendelssohnian theory had been carried beyond its legitimate bounds. The meaning of the word for faithful and belief in Hebrew [emunah] had undoubtedly been strained too far to substantiate the Mendelssohnian thesis. Underlying the practise of the Law was assuredly the recognition of certain fundamental and decisive religious principles culminating in the belief in God and revelation, and likewise in the doctrine of retributive divine justice.
Evolution of Judaism
The modern critical view of the development of the Pentateuch within the evolution of Israel's monotheism confirms this theory. The controversy of the Prophets hinges on the adoption by the people of Israel of the religion of YHWH, that excluded from the outset idolatry, or certainly the recognition of any other deity than YHWH as the legitimate Lord of Israel; that, in its progressive evolution, associated YHWH the concepts of holiness, justice, and righteousness; and that which culminated in the teaching of God's spirituality and universality. The historical books of the Bible, as recast in accordance with these latter religious ideas evince the force of a strong and clearly apprehended conviction concerning the providential purpose in the destinies of earth's inhabitants, and more especially in the guidance of Israel.
Discussions and Dogmatism Disfavored
The Psalms and Wisdom books manifest the predominance, of definite religious beliefs. To say that Judaism is a barren legalistic convention, as Mendelssohn avers, is an unmistakable exaggeration. The modicum of truth in his theory is that throughout Biblical Judaism, as in fact throughout all later phases of Jewish religious thinking and practise, this doctrinal element remains always in solution. It is not crystallized into fixed phraseology or rigid dogma. And, moreover, the ethical and practical implications of the religion are never obscured. This is evidenced by the Biblical passages that, in the opinion of many, partake of the nature of Articles of Faith, or are of great value as showing what, in the opinion of their respective authors, constitutes the essence of religion. Among these the most noteworthy are Deut. vi. 4; Isa., xlv. 57; Micah vi. 8; Ps. xv.; Isa. i. 16, 17; xxxiii. 15.
Whatever controversies may have agitated Israel during the centuries of the Prophets and the earlier postexilic period, they were not of a kind to induce the defining of Articles of Faith counteract the influences of heretical teaching. Dogmatic influences manifest themselves only after the Maccabean struggle for independence. But even these differences were not farreaching enough to overcome the inherent aversion to dogmatic fixation of principles; for, with the Jews, acceptance of principles was not so much a matter of theoretical assent as of practical conduct. Though Josephus would have the divisions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees hinge on the formal acceptance or rejection of certain points of doctrine such as Providence, resurrection of the body, which for the Pharisees, was identical with future retribution it is the consensus of opinion among modern scholars that the differences between these two parties were rooted in their respective political programs, and implied in their respectively national and antinational attitudes, rather than in their philosophical or religious dogmas.
If the words of Sirach (iii. 2023) are to be taken as a criterion, the intensely pious of his days did not incline to speculations of what was beyond their powers to comprehend. They were content to perform their, religious duties in simplicity of faith. The Mishnah (Hag. 11. 1) indorsed this view of Sirach, and in some degree, discountenanced theosophy and dogmatism. Among the recorded discussions in the schools of the Rabbis, dogmatic problems commanded only a very inferior degree of attention ('Er. 13b: controversy concerning the, value of human life; Hag. 12a: concerning the order of Creation). Nevertheless, in the earliest Mishnah is found the citation of Abtalion against heresy and unbelief (Ab. i. 11 [12]); and many a Baraita betrays the prevalence of religious differences (Ber. 12b; 'Ab. Zarah 17a). These controversies have left their impress upon the prayerbook and the liturgy. This is shown by the prominence given to the Shema'; to the Messianic predictions in the ShemonehEsreh (the "Eighteen Benedictions"), which emphasized the belief in the Resurrection; and, finally, to the prominence given to the Decalogue though the latter was again omitted in order to counteract the belief that it alone had been revealed (Tamid v. 1; Yer. Ber. 6b; Bab. Ber. 12a). These expressions of belief are held to have originated in the desire to give definite utterance and impressiveness to the corresponding doctrines that were either rejected or attenuated by some of the heretical schools. But while the se portions of the daily liturgy are expressive of the doctrinal contents of the regnant party in the synagogue, they were not cast into the form of catalogued Articles of Faith.
The first to make the attempt to formulate them was Philo of Alexandria. The influence of Greek thought induced among the Jews of Egypt the reflective mood. Discussion was undoubtedly active on the unsettled points of speculative be lief; and such discussion led, as it nearly always does, to a stricter definition of the doctrines. In his work "De Mundi Opificio," lxi., Philo enumerates five articles as embracing the chief tenets of Mosaism:
1. God is and rules;
2. God is one
3. The world was created;
4. Creation is one;
5. God's providence rules Creation.
But among the Tannaim and Amoraim this example of Philo found no followers, though many of their number were drawn into controversies with both Jews and nonJews, and had to fortify their faith against the attacks of contemporaneous philosophy as well as against rising Christianity. Only in a general way the Mishnah Sanh. xi. 1 excludes from the world to come the Epicureans and those who deny belief in resurrection or in the divine origin of the Torah. R. Akiba would also regard as heretical the readers o f Sefarim Hetsonim-certain extraneous writings (Apocrypha or Gospels)-and such persons that would heal through whispered formulas of magic. Abba Saul designated as under suspicion of infidelity those that pronounce the ineffable name of the Deity. By implication, the contrary doctrine and attitude may thus be regarded as having been proclaimed as orthodox. On the other hand, Akiba himself declares that the command to love one's neighbor the fundamental the principle of the Law; while Ben Asa i assigns this distinction to the Biblical verse, "This is the book of the generations of man " (Gen. v. i.; Gen. R. xxiv). The definition of Hillel the Elder in his interview with a wouldbe convert (Shab. 31a), embodies in the golden rule the one fundamental article of faith. A teacher of the third Christian century, R. Simlai, traces the development of Jewish religious principles from Moses with his 613 commands of prohibition and injunction, through David, who, according to this rabbi, enumerates eleven; through Isaiah, with six; Micah, with three; to Habakkuk who simply but impressively sums up all religious faith in the single phrase, "The pious lives in his faith" (Mak., toward end). As the Halakhah enjoins that one should prefer death to an act of idolatry, incest, unchastity, or murder, the inference is plain that the corresponding positive principles were held to be fundamental articles of Judaism.
The Decalogue as a Summary
From Philo down to late medieval and even modern writers, the Decalogue has been held to be in some way a summary of both the articles of the true faith and the duties derived from that faith. According to the Alexandrian philosopher the order of the Ten Words is not accidental. They divide readily into two groups: the first five summarizing man's relations to the Deity; the other five specifying man's duties to his fellows. Ibn Ezra virtually adopts this view. He interprets the contents of the Decalogue, not merely in their legalritual bearing but as expressive of ethicoreligious principles. But this view can be traced to other traditions. In Yer. Ber. 6b the Shema' is declared to be only an epitome of the Decalogue. That in the poetry of the synagogal ritual this thought often dominates is well known. No less a thinker than Saadia Gaon composed a liturgical production of this character (see AZHAROT) and R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mayence enriched the pray erbook with a piyyut in which the six hundred and thirteen commands are rubricated in the order of and in connection with the Decalogue. The theory that the Decalogue was the foundation of Judaism, its article of faith, was advocated Isaac Abravanel (see his Commentary on Ex. xx. 1); and in recent years by Isaac M. Wise of Cincinnati in his "Catechism" and other writings.
The only confession of faith, however, which, though not so denominated, has found universal acceptance, forms a part of the daily liturgy, contained in all Jewish prayerbooks. ln its original form it read somewhat as follows:
"True and established is this word for us forever. True it is that Thou art our God as Thou wast the God of our fathers; our King as [Thou wast] the King of our fathers; our Redeemer and the Redeemer of our fathers; our Creator and the Rock of our salvation; our Deliverer and Savior from eternity is Thy name, and there is no God besides Thee."
This statement dates probably from the days of the Hasmoneans (see Landshuth, in "Hegyon Leb").
Saadia's, Judah haLevi's and Bahya's Creed
In the stricter sense of the term, specifications in connected sequence, and rational analysis of Articles of Faith, did not find favor with the teachers and the faithful before the Arabic period. The polemics with the Karaites on the one hand, and, on the other, the necessity of defending their religion against the attacks of the philosophies current among both Mohammedans and Jews, induced the leading thinkers to define and formulate their beliefs. Saadia's "Emunot weDeot" is in reality one long ex position of the main tenets of the faithful. The plan of the book discloses a systematization of the different religious doctrines that, in the estimation of the author, constitute the sum total of his faith. They are, in the order of their treatment by him, the following:
1. The world is created;
2. God is one and incorporeal;
3. belief in revelation (including the divine origin of tradition;
4. man is called to righteousness and endowed with all necessary qualities of mind and soul to avoid sin;
5. belief in reward and punishment;
6. the soul is created pure; after death it leaves the body;
7. belief in resurrection;
8. Messianic expectation, retribution, and final judgment.
Judah haLevi endeavored, in his "Cuzari," to determine the fundamentals of Judaism on another basis. He rejects all appeal to speculative reason, repudiating the method of the Motekallamin. The miracles and traditions are, in their natural character, both the source and the evidence of the true faith. With them Judaism stands and falls. The book of Bahya ibn Pakuda ("Hobot haLebabot"), while remarkable, as it is, for endeavoring to give religion its true setting as a spiritual force, contributed nothing of note to the exposition of the fundamental articles. It goes without saying that the unity of God, His government of the world, the possibilities of leading a divine life-which were never forfeited by man-are expounded as essentials of Judaism.
Ibn Daud and Hananel ben Hushiel
More interesting on this point is the work of R. Abraham ibn Daud (1120) entitled "Emnah Ramah" (The High Faithful). In the second division of his treatise he discourses on the principles of faith and the Law. These principles are:
The existence of God;
His Unity;
His spirituality;
His other attributes;
His power as manifested in His works;
His providence.
Less well known is the scheme of an African rabbi, Hananel b. Hushiel, about a century earlier, according to whom Judaism's fundamental articles number four:
Belief in God;
belief in prophecy;
belief in a future state;
belief in the advent of the Messiah.
The Thirteen Articles of Maimonides
The most widely spread and popular of all creeds is that of Maimonides, embracing the thirteen articles. Why he chose this particular number has been a subject of much discussion. Some have seen in the number a reference to the thirteen attributes of God. Probably no meaning attaches to the choice of the number. His articles are:
1. The existence of God;
2. His unity;
3. His spirituality;
4. His eternity;
5. God alone the object of worship;
6. Revelation through his prophets;
7. the preeminence of Moses among the Prophets;
8. God's law given on Mount Sinai;
9. the immutability of the Torah as God's Law;
10. God's foreknowledge of men's actions;
11. retribution;
12. the coming of the Messiah;
13. Resurrection.
This creed Maimonides wrote while still a very young man; it forms a part of his Mishnah Commentary, but he never referred to it in his later works (See S/ Adler, "Tenets of Faith and Their Authority in the Talmud," in his "Kobez 'al Yad," p. 92, where Yad haHazakah, Issure Biah, xiv, 2, is referred to as proof that Maimonides in his advanced age regarded as fundamental of the faith only the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry). It did not meet universal acceptance; but, as its phraseology is succinct, it has passed into the prayerbook, and is therefore familiar to almost all Jews of the Orthodox school. The successors of Maimonides, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century-Nahmanides , Abba Mari ben Moses, Simon ben Zemah, Duran, Albo, Isaac Arama, and Joseph Jaabez-reduced his thirteen articles to three:
Belief in
God;
in Creation (or revelation); and in
providence (or retribution).
Others, like Crescas and David ben Samuel Estella, spoke of seven fundamental articles, laying stress on freewill. On the other hand, David ben YomTob ibn Bilia, in his "Yesodot ha Maskil" (Fundamentals of the Thinking Man), adds to the thirteen of Maimonides thirteen of his own-a number which a contemporary of Albo (see "'Ikkarim," iii.) also chose for his fundamentals; while Jedaiah Penini, in the last chapter of his "Behinat haDat," enumerated no less than thirtyfive cardinal principles (see Low, "Judische Dogmen," in his "Gesammelte Werke," i. 156 et seq.; and Schechter, "Dogmas of Judaism," in "Studies of Judaism," pp. 147181).
In the fourteenth century Asher ben Jehiel of Toledo raised his voice against the Maimonidean Articles of Faith, declaring them to be only temporary, and suggested that another be added to recognize that the Exile is a punishment for the sins of Israel . Isaac Abravanel, his "Rosh Amanah," took the same attitude towards Maimonides' creed. While defending Maimonides against Hasdai and Albo, he refused to accept dogmatic articles for Judaism, holding, with all the cabalists, that the 613 commandments of t he Law are all tantamount to Articles of Faith.
In liturgical poetry the Articles of Faith as evolved by philosophical speculation met with metrical presentation. The most noted of such metrical and rimed elaborations are the "Adon 'Olam," by an anonymous writer now used as an introduction to the morning services (by the Sephardim as the conclusion of the musaf or "additional" service), and of comparatively recent date; and the other known as the "Yigdal," according to Luzzatto, by R. Daniel b. Judah Dayyan.
Modern Catechisms
The modern catechisms abound in formulated Articles of Faith. These are generally intended to be recited by the candidates for confirmation, or to be used for the reception of proselytes (See Dr. Einhorn's "'Olat Tamid"). The Central Conference of America n Rabbis, in devising a formula for the admission of proselytes, elaborated a set of Articles of Faith. These modern schemes have not met with general favor their authors being in almost all cases the only ones that have had recourse to them in practise. The points of agreement in these recent productions consist in
the affirmation of the unity of God;
the election of Israel as the priest people;
the Messianic destiny of all humanity.
The declaration of principles by the Pittsburgh Conference (1885) is to be classed, perhaps, with the many attempts to fix in a succinct enumeration the main principles of the modern Jewish religious consciousness.
The Karaites are not behind the Rabbinites in the elaboration of Articles of Faith. The oldest instances of the existence of such articles among them are found in the famous word by Judah ben Elijah Hadassi, "Eshkol haKofer." In the order there given these are the articles of the Karaite:
1. God is the Creator of all created beings;
2. He is premundane and has no peer or associate;
3. the whole universe is created;
4. God called Moses and the other Prophets of the Biblical canon;
5. the Law of Moses alone is true;
6. to know the language of the Bible is a religious duty;
7. the Temple at Jerusalem is the palace of the world's ruler;
8. belief in Resurrection contemporaneous with the advent of the Messiah;
9. final judgment;
10. retribution.
The number ten here is not accidental. It is keeping with the scheme of the Decalogue. Judah Hadassi acknowledges that he had predecessors in this line, and mentions some of the works on which he bases his enumeration. The most succinct cataloguing of the Karaite faith in articles is that by Elijah Bashyatzi (died about 1490). His articles vary but little from those by Hadassi, but they are put with greater philosophical precision (see Jost, "Geschichte des Judenthums," ii. 331).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schlesinger, German translation of 'Ikkarim (especially introduction and annotations), xvixliii. 620 et seq., 640 et seq.; Low, Gesammelte Werke, i. 3152, 133176; Jost, Gesh. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten; Hamburger, Realencyclopadie, s.v. Dogmen; Rappoport, Biography of Hananel; Schechter, The Dogmas of Judaism, in Studies in Judaism, pp 147181; J. Aub. Ueber die GlaubensSymbole der Mosaischen Religion; Frankel's Zeitschrift fur die Religiosen Interessen des Judenthums, 1845, 409, 449; Creizenach, Grundlehren des Israelitischen Glaubens, in Geiger's Wissensch. Zeitschrift fur Jud. Theologie, i. 39 et seq., ii. 6 8, 255
No Need for Creeds in Judaism
The remark of Leibnitz, in his preface to the "Essais de Theodicee," that the nations which filled the earth before the establishment of Christianity had ceremonies of devotion, sacrifices, libations, and a priesthood, but that they had no Articles of Faith and no dogmatic theology, applies with slight modification to the Jews. Originally race-or perhaps it is more correct to say nationality-and religion were coextensive. Birth, not profession, admitted to the religionational fellowship. As long as internal dissension or external attack did not necessitate for purposes of defense the formulation of the peculiar and differentiating doctrines, the thought of paragraphing and fixing the contents of the religious consciousness could not insinuate itself into the mind of even the most faithful. Missionary or proselytizing religions are driven to the definite declaration of their teachings. The admission of the neophyte hinges upon the profession and the acceptance of his part of the belief, and that t here may be no uncertainty about what is essential and what nonessential, it is incumbent on the proper authorities to determine and promulgate the cardinal tenets in a form that will facilitate repetition and memorizing. And the same necessity arises wh en the Church or religious fellowship is torn by internal heresies. Under the necessity of combating heresies of various degrees of perilousness and of stubborn insistence, the Church and Islam, were forced to define and officially limit their respective theological concepts. Both of these provocations to creedbuilding were less intense in Judaism. The proselytizing zeal, though during certain periods more active than at others, was, on the whole, neutralized, partly by inherent disinclination and part ly by force of circumstances. Righteousness, according to Jewish belief, was not conditioned of the acceptance of the Jewish religion. And the righteous among the nations that carried into practise the seven fundamental laws of the covenant with Noah and his descendants were declared to be participants in the felicity of the hereafter. This interpretation of the status of nonJews precluded the development of a missionary attitude. Moreover, the regulations for the reception of proselytes, as developed in course of time, prove the eminently practical, that is, the noncreedal character of Judaism. Compliance with certain rites baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice is the test of the wouldbe convert's faith. He is instructed in the details of the legal practise that manifests the Jew's religiosity, while the profession of faith demanded is limited to the acknowledgement of the unity of God and the rejection of idolatry (Yorei De'ah, Germ, 268, 2). Judah haLevi ("Cuzari," i. 115) puts the whole mat ter very strikingly when he says:
"We are not putting on an equality with us a person entering our religion through confession alone [Arabic original, bikalamati=by word]. We require deeds, including in that term selfrestraint, purity, study of the Law, circumcision, and the performance of other duties demanded by the Torah."
For the preparation of the convert, therefore, no other method of instruction was employed than for the training of one born a Jew. The aim of teaching was to convey a knowledge of the Law, obedience to which manifested the acceptance of the underlying religious principles; namely, the existence of God and the holiness of Israel as the people of his covenant.
The controversy whether Judaism demands belief in dogma or inculcates obedience to practical laws alone, as enlisted many competent scholars. Moses Mendelssohn, in his "Jerusalem," defended the nondogmatic nature of Judaism, while Low, among others, (see his "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 3152, 433 et seq. 1871) took the opposite side. Low made it clear that the Mendelssohnian theory had been carried beyond its legitimate bounds. The meaning of the word for faithful and belief in Hebrew [emunah] had undoubtedly been strained too far to substantiate the Mendelssohnian thesis. Underlying the practise of the Law was assuredly the recognition of certain fundamental and decisive religious principles culminating in the belief in God and revelation, and likewise in the doctrine of retributive divine justice.
Evolution of Judaism
The modern critical view of the development of the Pentateuch within the evolution of Israel's monotheism confirms this theory. The controversy of the Prophets hinges on the adoption by the people of Israel of the religion of YHWH, that excluded from the outset idolatry, or certainly the recognition of any other deity than YHWH as the legitimate Lord of Israel; that, in its progressive evolution, associated YHWH the concepts of holiness, justice, and righteousness; and that which culminated in the teaching of God's spirituality and universality. The historical books of the Bible, as recast in accordance with these latter religious ideas evince the force of a strong and clearly apprehended conviction concerning the providential purpose in the destinies of earth's inhabitants, and more especially in the guidance of Israel.
Discussions and Dogmatism Disfavored
The Psalms and Wisdom books manifest the predominance, of definite religious beliefs. To say that Judaism is a barren legalistic convention, as Mendelssohn avers, is an unmistakable exaggeration. The modicum of truth in his theory is that throughout Biblical Judaism, as in fact throughout all later phases of Jewish religious thinking and practise, this doctrinal element remains always in solution. It is not crystallized into fixed phraseology or rigid dogma. And, moreover, the ethical and practical implications of the religion are never obscured. This is evidenced by the Biblical passages that, in the opinion of many, partake of the nature of Articles of Faith, or are of great value as showing what, in the opinion of their respective authors, constitutes the essence of religion. Among these the most noteworthy are Deut. vi. 4; Isa., xlv. 57; Micah vi. 8; Ps. xv.; Isa. i. 16, 17; xxxiii. 15.
Whatever controversies may have agitated Israel during the centuries of the Prophets and the earlier postexilic period, they were not of a kind to induce the defining of Articles of Faith counteract the influences of heretical teaching. Dogmatic influences manifest themselves only after the Maccabean struggle for independence. But even these differences were not farreaching enough to overcome the inherent aversion to dogmatic fixation of principles; for, with the Jews, acceptance of principles was not so much a matter of theoretical assent as of practical conduct. Though Josephus would have the divisions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees hinge on the formal acceptance or rejection of certain points of doctrine such as Providence, resurrection of the body, which for the Pharisees, was identical with future retribution it is the consensus of opinion among modern scholars that the differences between these two parties were rooted in their respective political programs, and implied in their respectively national and antinational attitudes, rather than in their philosophical or religious dogmas.
If the words of Sirach (iii. 2023) are to be taken as a criterion, the intensely pious of his days did not incline to speculations of what was beyond their powers to comprehend. They were content to perform their, religious duties in simplicity of faith. The Mishnah (Hag. 11. 1) indorsed this view of Sirach, and in some degree, discountenanced theosophy and dogmatism. Among the recorded discussions in the schools of the Rabbis, dogmatic problems commanded only a very inferior degree of attention ('Er. 13b: controversy concerning the, value of human life; Hag. 12a: concerning the order of Creation). Nevertheless, in the earliest Mishnah is found the citation of Abtalion against heresy and unbelief (Ab. i. 11 [12]); and many a Baraita betrays the prevalence of religious differences (Ber. 12b; 'Ab. Zarah 17a). These controversies have left their impress upon the prayerbook and the liturgy. This is shown by the prominence given to the Shema'; to the Messianic predictions in the ShemonehEsreh (the "Eighteen Benedictions"), which emphasized the belief in the Resurrection; and, finally, to the prominence given to the Decalogue though the latter was again omitted in order to counteract the belief that it alone had been revealed (Tamid v. 1; Yer. Ber. 6b; Bab. Ber. 12a). These expressions of belief are held to have originated in the desire to give definite utterance and impressiveness to the corresponding doctrines that were either rejected or attenuated by some of the heretical schools. But while the se portions of the daily liturgy are expressive of the doctrinal contents of the regnant party in the synagogue, they were not cast into the form of catalogued Articles of Faith.
The first to make the attempt to formulate them was Philo of Alexandria. The influence of Greek thought induced among the Jews of Egypt the reflective mood. Discussion was undoubtedly active on the unsettled points of speculative be lief; and such discussion led, as it nearly always does, to a stricter definition of the doctrines. In his work "De Mundi Opificio," lxi., Philo enumerates five articles as embracing the chief tenets of Mosaism:
1. God is and rules;
2. God is one
3. The world was created;
4. Creation is one;
5. God's providence rules Creation.
But among the Tannaim and Amoraim this example of Philo found no followers, though many of their number were drawn into controversies with both Jews and nonJews, and had to fortify their faith against the attacks of contemporaneous philosophy as well as against rising Christianity. Only in a general way the Mishnah Sanh. xi. 1 excludes from the world to come the Epicureans and those who deny belief in resurrection or in the divine origin of the Torah. R. Akiba would also regard as heretical the readers o f Sefarim Hetsonim-certain extraneous writings (Apocrypha or Gospels)-and such persons that would heal through whispered formulas of magic. Abba Saul designated as under suspicion of infidelity those that pronounce the ineffable name of the Deity. By implication, the contrary doctrine and attitude may thus be regarded as having been proclaimed as orthodox. On the other hand, Akiba himself declares that the command to love one's neighbor the fundamental the principle of the Law; while Ben Asa i assigns this distinction to the Biblical verse, "This is the book of the generations of man " (Gen. v. i.; Gen. R. xxiv). The definition of Hillel the Elder in his interview with a wouldbe convert (Shab. 31a), embodies in the golden rule the one fundamental article of faith. A teacher of the third Christian century, R. Simlai, traces the development of Jewish religious principles from Moses with his 613 commands of prohibition and injunction, through David, who, according to this rabbi, enumerates eleven; through Isaiah, with six; Micah, with three; to Habakkuk who simply but impressively sums up all religious faith in the single phrase, "The pious lives in his faith" (Mak., toward end). As the Halakhah enjoins that one should prefer death to an act of idolatry, incest, unchastity, or murder, the inference is plain that the corresponding positive principles were held to be fundamental articles of Judaism.
The Decalogue as a Summary
From Philo down to late medieval and even modern writers, the Decalogue has been held to be in some way a summary of both the articles of the true faith and the duties derived from that faith. According to the Alexandrian philosopher the order of the Ten Words is not accidental. They divide readily into two groups: the first five summarizing man's relations to the Deity; the other five specifying man's duties to his fellows. Ibn Ezra virtually adopts this view. He interprets the contents of the Decalogue, not merely in their legalritual bearing but as expressive of ethicoreligious principles. But this view can be traced to other traditions. In Yer. Ber. 6b the Shema' is declared to be only an epitome of the Decalogue. That in the poetry of the synagogal ritual this thought often dominates is well known. No less a thinker than Saadia Gaon composed a liturgical production of this character (see AZHAROT) and R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mayence enriched the pray erbook with a piyyut in which the six hundred and thirteen commands are rubricated in the order of and in connection with the Decalogue. The theory that the Decalogue was the foundation of Judaism, its article of faith, was advocated Isaac Abravanel (see his Commentary on Ex. xx. 1); and in recent years by Isaac M. Wise of Cincinnati in his "Catechism" and other writings.
The only confession of faith, however, which, though not so denominated, has found universal acceptance, forms a part of the daily liturgy, contained in all Jewish prayerbooks. ln its original form it read somewhat as follows:
"True and established is this word for us forever. True it is that Thou art our God as Thou wast the God of our fathers; our King as [Thou wast] the King of our fathers; our Redeemer and the Redeemer of our fathers; our Creator and the Rock of our salvation; our Deliverer and Savior from eternity is Thy name, and there is no God besides Thee."
This statement dates probably from the days of the Hasmoneans (see Landshuth, in "Hegyon Leb").
Saadia's, Judah haLevi's and Bahya's Creed
In the stricter sense of the term, specifications in connected sequence, and rational analysis of Articles of Faith, did not find favor with the teachers and the faithful before the Arabic period. The polemics with the Karaites on the one hand, and, on the other, the necessity of defending their religion against the attacks of the philosophies current among both Mohammedans and Jews, induced the leading thinkers to define and formulate their beliefs. Saadia's "Emunot weDeot" is in reality one long ex position of the main tenets of the faithful. The plan of the book discloses a systematization of the different religious doctrines that, in the estimation of the author, constitute the sum total of his faith. They are, in the order of their treatment by him, the following:
1. The world is created;
2. God is one and incorporeal;
3. belief in revelation (including the divine origin of tradition;
4. man is called to righteousness and endowed with all necessary qualities of mind and soul to avoid sin;
5. belief in reward and punishment;
6. the soul is created pure; after death it leaves the body;
7. belief in resurrection;
8. Messianic expectation, retribution, and final judgment.
Judah haLevi endeavored, in his "Cuzari," to determine the fundamentals of Judaism on another basis. He rejects all appeal to speculative reason, repudiating the method of the Motekallamin. The miracles and traditions are, in their natural character, both the source and the evidence of the true faith. With them Judaism stands and falls. The book of Bahya ibn Pakuda ("Hobot haLebabot"), while remarkable, as it is, for endeavoring to give religion its true setting as a spiritual force, contributed nothing of note to the exposition of the fundamental articles. It goes without saying that the unity of God, His government of the world, the possibilities of leading a divine life-which were never forfeited by man-are expounded as essentials of Judaism.
Ibn Daud and Hananel ben Hushiel
More interesting on this point is the work of R. Abraham ibn Daud (1120) entitled "Emnah Ramah" (The High Faithful). In the second division of his treatise he discourses on the principles of faith and the Law. These principles are:
The existence of God;
His Unity;
His spirituality;
His other attributes;
His power as manifested in His works;
His providence.
Less well known is the scheme of an African rabbi, Hananel b. Hushiel, about a century earlier, according to whom Judaism's fundamental articles number four:
Belief in God;
belief in prophecy;
belief in a future state;
belief in the advent of the Messiah.
The Thirteen Articles of Maimonides
The most widely spread and popular of all creeds is that of Maimonides, embracing the thirteen articles. Why he chose this particular number has been a subject of much discussion. Some have seen in the number a reference to the thirteen attributes of God. Probably no meaning attaches to the choice of the number. His articles are:
1. The existence of God;
2. His unity;
3. His spirituality;
4. His eternity;
5. God alone the object of worship;
6. Revelation through his prophets;
7. the preeminence of Moses among the Prophets;
8. God's law given on Mount Sinai;
9. the immutability of the Torah as God's Law;
10. God's foreknowledge of men's actions;
11. retribution;
12. the coming of the Messiah;
13. Resurrection.
This creed Maimonides wrote while still a very young man; it forms a part of his Mishnah Commentary, but he never referred to it in his later works (See S/ Adler, "Tenets of Faith and Their Authority in the Talmud," in his "Kobez 'al Yad," p. 92, where Yad haHazakah, Issure Biah, xiv, 2, is referred to as proof that Maimonides in his advanced age regarded as fundamental of the faith only the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry). It did not meet universal acceptance; but, as its phraseology is succinct, it has passed into the prayerbook, and is therefore familiar to almost all Jews of the Orthodox school. The successors of Maimonides, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century-Nahmanides , Abba Mari ben Moses, Simon ben Zemah, Duran, Albo, Isaac Arama, and Joseph Jaabez-reduced his thirteen articles to three:
Belief in
God;
in Creation (or revelation); and in
providence (or retribution).
Others, like Crescas and David ben Samuel Estella, spoke of seven fundamental articles, laying stress on freewill. On the other hand, David ben YomTob ibn Bilia, in his "Yesodot ha Maskil" (Fundamentals of the Thinking Man), adds to the thirteen of Maimonides thirteen of his own-a number which a contemporary of Albo (see "'Ikkarim," iii.) also chose for his fundamentals; while Jedaiah Penini, in the last chapter of his "Behinat haDat," enumerated no less than thirtyfive cardinal principles (see Low, "Judische Dogmen," in his "Gesammelte Werke," i. 156 et seq.; and Schechter, "Dogmas of Judaism," in "Studies of Judaism," pp. 147181).
In the fourteenth century Asher ben Jehiel of Toledo raised his voice against the Maimonidean Articles of Faith, declaring them to be only temporary, and suggested that another be added to recognize that the Exile is a punishment for the sins of Israel . Isaac Abravanel, his "Rosh Amanah," took the same attitude towards Maimonides' creed. While defending Maimonides against Hasdai and Albo, he refused to accept dogmatic articles for Judaism, holding, with all the cabalists, that the 613 commandments of t he Law are all tantamount to Articles of Faith.
In liturgical poetry the Articles of Faith as evolved by philosophical speculation met with metrical presentation. The most noted of such metrical and rimed elaborations are the "Adon 'Olam," by an anonymous writer now used as an introduction to the morning services (by the Sephardim as the conclusion of the musaf or "additional" service), and of comparatively recent date; and the other known as the "Yigdal," according to Luzzatto, by R. Daniel b. Judah Dayyan.
Modern Catechisms
The modern catechisms abound in formulated Articles of Faith. These are generally intended to be recited by the candidates for confirmation, or to be used for the reception of proselytes (See Dr. Einhorn's "'Olat Tamid"). The Central Conference of America n Rabbis, in devising a formula for the admission of proselytes, elaborated a set of Articles of Faith. These modern schemes have not met with general favor their authors being in almost all cases the only ones that have had recourse to them in practise. The points of agreement in these recent productions consist in
the affirmation of the unity of God;
the election of Israel as the priest people;
the Messianic destiny of all humanity.
The declaration of principles by the Pittsburgh Conference (1885) is to be classed, perhaps, with the many attempts to fix in a succinct enumeration the main principles of the modern Jewish religious consciousness.
The Karaites are not behind the Rabbinites in the elaboration of Articles of Faith. The oldest instances of the existence of such articles among them are found in the famous word by Judah ben Elijah Hadassi, "Eshkol haKofer." In the order there given these are the articles of the Karaite:
1. God is the Creator of all created beings;
2. He is premundane and has no peer or associate;
3. the whole universe is created;
4. God called Moses and the other Prophets of the Biblical canon;
5. the Law of Moses alone is true;
6. to know the language of the Bible is a religious duty;
7. the Temple at Jerusalem is the palace of the world's ruler;
8. belief in Resurrection contemporaneous with the advent of the Messiah;
9. final judgment;
10. retribution.
The number ten here is not accidental. It is keeping with the scheme of the Decalogue. Judah Hadassi acknowledges that he had predecessors in this line, and mentions some of the works on which he bases his enumeration. The most succinct cataloguing of the Karaite faith in articles is that by Elijah Bashyatzi (died about 1490). His articles vary but little from those by Hadassi, but they are put with greater philosophical precision (see Jost, "Geschichte des Judenthums," ii. 331).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schlesinger, German translation of 'Ikkarim (especially introduction and annotations), xvixliii. 620 et seq., 640 et seq.; Low, Gesammelte Werke, i. 3152, 133176; Jost, Gesh. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten; Hamburger, Realencyclopadie, s.v. Dogmen; Rappoport, Biography of Hananel; Schechter, The Dogmas of Judaism, in Studies in Judaism, pp 147181; J. Aub. Ueber die GlaubensSymbole der Mosaischen Religion; Frankel's Zeitschrift fur die Religiosen Interessen des Judenthums, 1845, 409, 449; Creizenach, Grundlehren des Israelitischen Glaubens, in Geiger's Wissensch. Zeitschrift fur Jud. Theologie, i. 39 et seq., ii. 6 8, 255
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
WHY DON'T JEWS BELIEVE IN JESUS?
For 2,000 years, Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?
It is important to understand why Jews don't believe in Jesus. The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position. The more data that's available, the better-informed choices people can make about their spiritual path.
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
At the end of this article, we will examine these additional topics:
5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6) Jews and Gentiles
7) Bringing the Messiah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH
A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!
C. TORAH OBSERVANCE
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. CRUCIFIXION
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."
C. SUFFERING SERVANT
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION
Of the 15,000 religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.
Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
See "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai" for further reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) CHRISTIANITY CONTRADICTS JEWISH THEOLOGY
The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination.
A. GOD AS THREE?
The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God's One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.
In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry -- one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert.
B. MAN AS GOD?
Roman Catholics believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
Maimonides devotes most of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
C. INTERMEDIARY FOR PRAYER?
The Catholic belief is that prayer must be directed through an intermediary -- i.e. confessing one's sins to a priest. Jesus himself is an intermediary, as Jesus said: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: "You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME," meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)
D. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD
Catholic doctrine often treats the physical world as an evil to be avoided. Mary, the holiest woman, is portrayed as a virgin. Priests and nuns are celibate. And monasteries are in remote, secluded locations.
By contrast, Judaism believes that God created the physical world not to frustrate us, but for our pleasure. Jewish spirituality comes through grappling with the mundane world in a way that uplifts and elevates. Sex in the proper context is one of the holiest acts we can perform.
The Talmud says if a person has the opportunity to taste a new fruit and refuses to do so, he will have to account for that in the World to Come. Jewish rabbinical schools teach how to live amidst the bustle of commercial activity. Jews don't retreat from life, we elevate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) JEWS AND GENTILES
Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. King Solomon asked God to heed the prayers of non-Jews who come to the Holy Temple (Kings I 8:41-43). The prophet Isaiah refers to the Temple as a "House for all nations."
The Temple service during Sukkot featured 70 bull offerings, corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. The Talmud says that if the Romans would have realized how much benefit they were getting from the Temple, they'd never have destroyed it.
Jews have never actively sought converts to Judaism because the Torah prescribes a righteous path for gentiles to follow, known as the "Seven Laws of Noah." Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these basic moral laws earns a proper place in heaven.
For further study of the Seven Laws of Noah, see:
Bnei Noah of Fort Worthhttp://www.fastlane.net/~bneinoah/
Path of the Righteous Gentilehttp://www.chabad.org/gopher/outlook/7laws/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) BRINGING THE MESSIAH
Maimonides states that the popularity of Christianity (and Islam) is part of God's plan to spread the ideals of Torah throughout the world. This moves society closer to a perfected state of morality and toward a greater understanding of God. All this is in preparation for the Messianic age.
Indeed, the world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. War and pollution threaten our planet; ego and confusion erode family life. To the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions a Jew is asked on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"
How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.
Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.
The Messiah can come at any moment, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."
It is important to understand why Jews don't believe in Jesus. The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position. The more data that's available, the better-informed choices people can make about their spiritual path.
Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
At the end of this article, we will examine these additional topics:
5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6) Jews and Gentiles
7) Bringing the Messiah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH
A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!
C. TORAH OBSERVANCE
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. CRUCIFIXION
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."
C. SUFFERING SERVANT
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION
Of the 15,000 religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.
Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
See "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai" for further reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) CHRISTIANITY CONTRADICTS JEWISH THEOLOGY
The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination.
A. GOD AS THREE?
The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God's One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.
In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry -- one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert.
B. MAN AS GOD?
Roman Catholics believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
Maimonides devotes most of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
C. INTERMEDIARY FOR PRAYER?
The Catholic belief is that prayer must be directed through an intermediary -- i.e. confessing one's sins to a priest. Jesus himself is an intermediary, as Jesus said: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: "You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME," meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)
D. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD
Catholic doctrine often treats the physical world as an evil to be avoided. Mary, the holiest woman, is portrayed as a virgin. Priests and nuns are celibate. And monasteries are in remote, secluded locations.
By contrast, Judaism believes that God created the physical world not to frustrate us, but for our pleasure. Jewish spirituality comes through grappling with the mundane world in a way that uplifts and elevates. Sex in the proper context is one of the holiest acts we can perform.
The Talmud says if a person has the opportunity to taste a new fruit and refuses to do so, he will have to account for that in the World to Come. Jewish rabbinical schools teach how to live amidst the bustle of commercial activity. Jews don't retreat from life, we elevate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) JEWS AND GENTILES
Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. King Solomon asked God to heed the prayers of non-Jews who come to the Holy Temple (Kings I 8:41-43). The prophet Isaiah refers to the Temple as a "House for all nations."
The Temple service during Sukkot featured 70 bull offerings, corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. The Talmud says that if the Romans would have realized how much benefit they were getting from the Temple, they'd never have destroyed it.
Jews have never actively sought converts to Judaism because the Torah prescribes a righteous path for gentiles to follow, known as the "Seven Laws of Noah." Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these basic moral laws earns a proper place in heaven.
For further study of the Seven Laws of Noah, see:
Bnei Noah of Fort Worthhttp://www.fastlane.net/~bneinoah/
Path of the Righteous Gentilehttp://www.chabad.org/gopher/outlook/7laws/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) BRINGING THE MESSIAH
Maimonides states that the popularity of Christianity (and Islam) is part of God's plan to spread the ideals of Torah throughout the world. This moves society closer to a perfected state of morality and toward a greater understanding of God. All this is in preparation for the Messianic age.
Indeed, the world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. War and pollution threaten our planet; ego and confusion erode family life. To the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions a Jew is asked on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"
How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.
Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.
The Messiah can come at any moment, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."
Errors in the Christian Text
#1
Modern Bible scholarship is in broad agreement that Mark was the first Gospel written yet Matthew is always listed first in Christian Bibles. My claimed error is that because "Mark" was written first it should be presented first in the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible implies that "Mark" and "Matthew" are the testimony of witnesses. Readers can see and the Church has always taught that there is dependence between the two. Common sense and legal procedure require that the testimony which was either relied on to some extent or even just available to another witness be presented first as this is what readers or jurys will assume if not told otherwise. The problem this would create for Christianity with "Mark" being first is why is there no mention of the "virgin birth", any description of a transition from Jesus to the subsequent Church or post resurrection sightings or communications? The Church has always explained that because "Matthew" was written first "Mark" didn't need to cover these topics.
#2
The first Gospel listed in Christian Bibles, Matthew, was written anonymously. The title
"Matthew" was added by the Church long after the Gospel was written.
#3
Christians have added chapter designations to the Bible which were not used by the original authors.
#4
Matthew 1:(KJV)
"4 And Aram begat Aminadab"
According to I Chronicles 2:10 it was Ram that begat Aminadab, not Aram. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. (so presumably the KJV is correctly translating Matthew's error). The NIV has changed "Aram" to "Ram" correcting Matthew's error. The LXX states that Aram begat Aminadab so it's likely that Matthew made his error by simply copying from the LXX as he apparently was not fluent in Hebrew and so could not check the original Hebrew language. Some Bible scholars do theorize that the LXX was changed in some places to conform to the Gospels and that this is one of those instances. In any case Matthew's apparent use of "Aram" does not agree with any known Hebrew text and in the absence of any evidence that the Hebrew use of "Ram" was the result of any change would be an error by Matthew.
#5
Matthew 1:(KJV)
“5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab”
The only Rachab mentioned in the Tanakh was the Rachab of the Conquest who lived about two hundred years before Boaz. Every significant Church Father who commented on Matthew 1:5 assumed that Matthew was referring to the Rachab of the Conquest.
#6
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“7…Abia begat Asa; :8 And Asa begat Josaphat”
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph” instead of “Asa” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph”. Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating “Asaph” were unknown to the translators of the KJV.
#7
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah so Matthew has omitted Ahaziah from his genealogy.
#8
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash so Matthew has also omitted Joash from his genealogy.
#9
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash who begat Amaziah so Matthew has also omitted Amaziah from his genealogy.
#10
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“10…Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias”
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Amos” instead of “Amon” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:10 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Amos”. Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating “Amos” were unknown to the translators of the KJV.
#11
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:”
According to I Chronicles 3:15 (JPS), Josiah (Josias in KJV) begat Jehoiakim who begat Jeconiah (Jechonias in KJV) so Matthew has omitted Jehoiakim from his genealogy.
#12
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:”
According to the Tanakh Jechonias only had one brother.
#13
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim”
According to the Tanakh (JPS), I Chronicles, 3:19-20, Abiud was not one of the eight children of Zerubbabel (“Zorobabel” in KJV).
#14
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations”
Matthew has omitted four generations from his genealogy between David and the Babylonian exile. Even without them he still has fifteen chronological names.
#15
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“17…and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.”
Almost 600 years separate the birth of Shealtiel from the birth of Jesus resulting in an average of 46 years per generation. This average is contradicted by all known averages for this period outside of Matthew. Luke’s average would be 27 years and Josephus’ average would be 25 years.
#16
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:”
The Greek word for birth here, “genesis” is exactly the same Greek word used in Matthew 1:1, “a record of the genealogy” and has a wide range of meaning such as “birth”, “creation” and “genealogy”. Church Fathers generally used the Greek word “gennesis”, which has a more limited meaning of “birth” to describe the nativity. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that the same author would have used the exact same Greek word in Matthew 1:1 and 1:18 to describe a genealogy and a birth. The genealogy and birth stories are probably from two different sources.
#17
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:”
Most extant manuscripts have this wording but a few don’t have “Jesus”. The name is omitted in Irenaeus’ reference to 1:18. The position of “Jesus” in the sentence varies in Greek manuscripts which is often the sign of a scribal addition. There is no other uncontested instance of an article preceding “Jesus Christ” in the Christian Bible. Thus it is likely that “Jesus” is a scribal addition to Matthew 1:18.
#18
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18… she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
Literally, the Greek reads “having in the womb” and not “with child”. In any case, there is no definite article, “the”, in front of “Holy Ghost” in almost all Greek manuscripts. The best translation would be “found to be pregnant through Holy Spirit”. Christian translators have provided the “the” in English translations (found to be with child of the Holy Spirit) in order to support their belief that the Holy Spirit is a separate person.
#19
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18..When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband,”
Mary has gone from engaged to married after a mere thirteen words, a record that would stand until Liz Taylor two thousand years later.
#20
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.”
The word that KJV has translated as “privily” is normally translated as “quietly”. Under Jewish law at the time Joseph would have had to deliver a writ of repudiation before two witnesses so it would have been tough to keep it “quiet” unless the witnesses Joseph had in mind were the blind and mute men of Chapter 9.
#21
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“20… fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife”
The literal translation of the Greek is, “do not be afraid to take Mary your wife” which is an incomplete sentence making the meaning ambiguous. Does it mean take as in sexually, take as in accept or take as in bring home? Most of the main Christian Bibles have added words in their translations to give the appearance of a complete sentence (the relatively newer RSV being the exception):
NIV “do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife”
NASB “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife”
RSV “do not fear to take Mary your wife”
Darby “fear not to take to [thee] Mary, thy wife”
YLT “thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife”
WE “do not fear to take Mary to be your wife”
#22
Matthew 1: (KJV)
20…”for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Same error as #18. There is no “the” before “Holy Ghost” in the Greek. Of the major translations only Darby acknowledges this, “for that which is begotten in her is of [the] Holy Spirit”.
#23
Matthew 1: (KJV)
20…”for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
In the Greek “spirit”(ghost) comes before “holy” and is separated by the verb “to be”. A literal translation is “for that which is conceived in her from spirit is holy”.
No mention of this in the major Christian translations. Again, Christian translators are creating support for their idea of the holy ghost as a separate person in their translations.
#24
Matthew 1: (KJV)
21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
False prophecy. Everyone agrees that for two thousand years most Jews have died not believing in Jesus and therefore, according to Christian theology, were not saved from their sins.
#25
Matthew 1: (KJV)
22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
If you’re trying to make a list of 1001 errors in the Christian Bible then Matthew 1:22-23
is, as Banta said to Jerry Seinfeld, “Gold, Jerry! Gold!”. The “prophecy fulfillment” of sentences 22 and 23 is out of place as the fulfillment happens in the following sentences 24 and 25. Joseph is just dreaming in sentences 20 and 21 and wakes up from this dream in sentence 24. It’s likely that sentences 22 and 23 were later additions to the original text. Since the time of Irenaeus Christian commentators have “explained” that the formula citation was spoken by the angel of sentence 21.
#26
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child,”
It’s undisputed that the Hebrew text has the definite article “the” instead of “a” before “young woman” (KJV’s “virgin”). A slim majority of major Christian translations now have “the” here instead of “a”. The use of the definite article “the” means that the woman in question was known to the speaker of the prophecy, Isaiah, and could not be referring to someone who lived about 700 years later.
#27
Matthew 1: (KJV)
22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin”
Matthew 1:23 uses the Greek word “parthenos” which has a primary meaning of “virgin”. The Hebrew word from Isaiah 7:14 that Matthew is referring to is “almah” which has a primary meaning of “young woman” according to all Jewish Bible scholars, virtually all Hebrew/English dictionaries, most Christian Bible scholars and the majority of modern Christian Bible translations. The Greek word “neanis” has a primary meaning of “young woman”. When the RSV first translated Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” it was burned in several parts of the country by Christian fundamentalists. On a humorous note, even though the Catholic translators of the NAB had decided to translate Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman”, the American Bishops voted to use “virgin” instead. I guess they thought “it was the Christian thing to do.”
#28
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child”
In the Hebrew, the verb for “shall be with child”, “harah”, is in the present tense. The proper translation of Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew should be, “Look, the young woman is with child”.
#29
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel”
The phrase above, “they shall call”, in the Hebrew is in the third person feminine form and should be translated, “she will call”. It’s likely that “Matthew” intentionally changed the phrase because in verse 21 Joseph was instructed to “call his name Jesus”.
#30
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
The phrase “call his name”, which Matthew has translated from the Tanakh is a Semitic expression meaning to name. The phrase “call his name” would be redundant in Greek or English as one would say either, “call him” or “name him”. As the phrase in Hebrew refers to an actual name and not a description of someone Matthew has presented a false prophecy as no one ever called Jesus by the name “Emmanuel”.
#31
Matthew 2: (KJV)
5 …”for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,”
The Greek would translate literally as “And thou Bethlehem, land of Juda.”. That would be like saying “And thou Chicago, land of Midwest”. According to my third grade Greek teacher, Mrs. Soukoupoopalis, that’s bad grammar in Greek, Chicago or anywhere else. Codex Bezae and the Old Latin changed the phrase to “Bethlehem of the land of Judea”.
#32
Matthew 2: (KJV)
5 …”for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,”
In addition to bad grammar in the Greek virtually all translations of the Micah verse that “Matthew” is referring to say “Bethlehem Ephratah” such as KJV:
Micah 5:2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah”
So Matthew has chopped off “Ephratah” from the words of the Prophet.
#33
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6…”art not the least among the princes of Juda”
Instead of “art not the least” the Masoretic text says “small to be”. Even the Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say, “are too small to be”. “Matthew” has changed the quote in the Tanakh to avoid any description of Bethlehem as insignificant.
#34
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6…”art not the least among the princes of Juda”
Instead of “princes” the Masoretic text says “clans” (literally, “thousands”). Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say “thousands”. The consonants of the Hebrew word (lpy) can mean “clans” or “rulers” so Matthew could have chosen to ignore the Hebrew tradition of “clans” even though it was accepted by the early Christians. In any case, using “princes” creates an error in Matthew’s sentence structure because after deleting “Ephratah” in the first part of the sentence he is then referring to a city, Bethlehem, and not a clan, Bethlehem-Ephratah, so saying a city “is not least among princes of Juda” makes no sense.
#35
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6… “for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”
The Masoretic text and Christian Greek translations of Micah say, “for out of thee shall come forth for me a ruler”. “Matthew” has omitted “for me”, apparently so as not to give the appearance that Jesus is ruling on behalf of anyone else. Notice that KJV (also NKJV) has capitalized “governor” even though the original Hebrew of Micah gives no indication that this ruler would be divine. I’m not calling this an error because KJV is the only major translation which capitalizes “governor” (or “ruler”).
#36
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6… “for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”
The Masoretic text says, “from you there will come forth for me one who is to be a ruler in Israel”. (Early Christian Greek translations generally say, “”a leader of Israel”). “Matthew” has changed the prophecy of a leader of the country Israel to a leader of the people Israel. At the time that “Matthew” wrote he likely realized that Jesus was never a ruler or leader of the country Israel.
#37
Matthew 2: (KJV)
9 “When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.”
By modern, astrological standards such an event would be impossible (the location of a star identifying the location of an individual house.) But claiming an error here based solely on modern standards would reflect an anti-supernatural bias. However, according to Matthew, this star moved from the East to Jerusalem, then south to Bethlehem and then stopped over Bethlehem. There were non-Christian astrologers around this time who recorded all unusual astrological phenomena and none of them mention this event which easily would have been the most unusual they would have reported.
#38
Matthew 2: (KJV)
15 … “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
“Matthew” is referring to Hosea 11:1 (JPS):
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.”
Hosea chapter 11 is referring to the history of Israel and is not a prophecy. Hosea 11:2 (JPS):
“The more they called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed unto the Baalim, and offered to graven images. 3 And I, I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. 4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently.”
Christian Greek translations of Hosea 11:1 generally acknowledge the plural subject of Israel by translating: “Out of Egypt have I summoned his children”.
#39
Matthew 2: (KJV)
15 … “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
As the KGB agent said to Clint Eastwood in the classic movie, “Firefox”, “Your papers, they are not in order.” “Matthew” gives a prophecy fulfillment claim that Jesus was called out of Egypt in verse 15. But up to verse 15 Jesus is still in Egypt. Jesus doesn’t leave Egypt until verse 21.
#40
Matthew 2: (KJV)
16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”
In his excitement to report this dastardly deed “Matthew” neglects to tell us exactly WHAT was sent forth by Herod. Some translations fill in obvious choices such as “orders” and “men”. A careless omission by Matthew and also a grammatical error.
#41
Matthew 2: (KJV)
16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”
No historian writing close to this time mentions any such massacre. The author of Luke doesn’t mention it either. Josephus thoroughly documented the brutal deeds of Herod during Herod’s final years yet makes no mention of this incident which easily would have been Herod’s worst. Christian apologists estimate that there would not have been much more than 20 such murders of baby males in Bethlehem by Herod based on assumed population and birth rates thereby arguing that such a low number may have escaped Josephus’ attention. Even 20 murders of babies would have been Herod’s worst act. The apologists ignore that the text also says “and the regions all around it” (in all the coasts thereof). The early Church assumed that according to Matthew thousands of male babies were killed in the “massacre”.
#42
Matthew 2: (KJV)
17 “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”
The real tragedy here is that I can only count this quote as one error. The context of the quote above in Jeremiah is that Rachel is mourning for the captivity of the ten northern tribes in general and the tribe of Ephraim (the main northern tribe) specifically. Rachel was the mother of Joseph who was the father of Ephraim. She is not mourning for anyone’s death or for the tribe of Judah which was a southern tribe and not in captivity at the time that Jeremiah wrote the above.
#43
Matthew 2: (KJV)
19 “But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.”
The above states “THEY are dead” but the antecedent is Herod (singular). The excerpt
“for they are dead which sought the young child's life” is almost the exact same wording from Christian Greek translations of Exodus 4:19. Apparently it was more important for the author of Matthew here to try and recreate exact wording from the Tanakh than it was to write a grammatically correct narrative.
#44
Matthew 2: (KJV)
22 “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod”
“Reign” implies that Archelaus was the King but Josephus and extant coins indicate that Archelaus was an ethnarch and not a king.
#45
Matthew 2: (KJV)
23 “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
This prophecy fulfillment claim is unique in that Christian Bible scholars generally agree that there is no such prophecy in the Tanakh. Christian apologists are reduced to guessing what the author of Matthew meant.
#46
Matthew 3: (KJV)
1 “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
After 2,000 years I think it’s safe to say that this was a false prophecy.
#47
Matthew 3: (KJV)
3 “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
The quote from Isaiah in the Masoretic text is: (JPS 1985)
3 “A voice rings out: Clear in the desert A road for the LORD! Level in the wilderness A highway for our God!”
The author of Matthew has quoted word for word from the LXX of Isaiah 40:3 (surprise)
except for substituting the usual reference to Yahweh with a personal pronoun normally used to refer to Jesus. The context of Isaiah before and after chapter 40 indicates that Isaiah was referring to the Babylonian exile and subsequent return.
So other than changing the general wording of Isaiah chapter 40, specifically changing the reference to the coming of Jesus instead of Yahweh and ignoring the context of the author’s work, “Matthew” has made a perfect match.
#48
Matthew 3: (KJV)
10 “And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
False prophecy. I realize it doesn’t rain much in the desert but surely the axe head would have rusted off after 2,000 years. On the other hand, maybe it would take 2,000 years to chop down a tree using only an axe handle.
#49
Matthew 3: (KJV)
11…”he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”
In the Greek there is no “the” before “Holy Ghost”. Of the major translations, only Darby acknowledges this. Once again Christian translators are projecting their pre-conceived (pun intended) belief that “the” Holy Ghost is a separate, definite person of God. Simon says “Holy Ghost”. Holy Ghost. “The Holy Ghost”. The Holy Ghost. Uh, uh, Simon didn’t say.
#50
Matthew 3: (KJV)
14 “But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.”
The Greek word that “Matthew” uses for “fulfill” is generally the same word used by Matthew to claim fulfillment of prophecies from the Tanakh. There is no prophecy in the Tanakh that the Messiah would be baptized in a river. As far as performing a commandment from the Tanakh there is no commandment requiring baptism in a river as a general type of atoning or purification ritual. A related question is, “who baptized John with water?”
#51
Matthew 3: (KJV)
16 “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:”
The author of Matthew likely copied the story of Jesus’ baptism either from “Mark” or from the same source Mark used. This is the related sentence in Mark:
Mark 1: (KJV)
9… “and was baptized of John in Jordan.10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened”
Mark indicates that immediately after Jesus came out of the water the heavens opened. In the Greek Matthew’s sentence structure has joined the adverb “straightway” with the verb “went up” so he is saying that immediately after the baptism Jesus came out of the water. Generally, coming out of the water would signal the end of the baptism. Why would anyone stay in the water after the baptism? Maybe to go swimming or take a bath?
#52
Matthew 3: (KJV)
16… “and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him”
In the Greek there is no “the” before “Spirit”. Apparently, whenever Matthew does not say “the” spirit of God/holy spirit Christian translations say “the” spirit of God/holy spirit.
#53
Matthew 4: (KJV)
8 “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;”
It would not be possible to see all the kingdoms of the world of a spherical world no matter how high the mountain was. Apparently the author, like most people of his time, mistakenly believed that the earth was flat.
#54
Matthew 4: (KJV)
12 “Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.”
Misquote. “Matthew’s” translation doesn’t agree with the Masoretic text or Greek translations of the Tanakh. Isaiah 8: (JPS 1917)
“23… Now the former hath lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations.
9.1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”
Isaiah Chapter 8, JPS translation, is referring to the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. The “former” and “latter” of 8:23 refers to the Assyrians and Samarians:
7:1 “And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.”
All of Isaiah, chapter 8(JPS), is written in prose. Isaiah chapter 9(JPS), starts out being written in synonymous parallelism poetry:
“The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light;
they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
Thou hast multiplied the nation,
Thou hast increased their joy;
they joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest,
as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.”
Even though Isaiah 8:23 and 9:1 of JPS refer to different subjects and have different writing styles Christian translations have combined them into the start of Chapter 9 because of Matthew’s misquote which attempted to combine them into evidence of prophecy fulfillment.
#55
Matthew 4: (KJV)
17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
False prophecy.
#56
Matthew 5: (KJV)
31 “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
The author of “Matthew” previously had Jesus say:
5:18 (KJV) “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Regarding acceptable causes for divorce the Law of Deuteronomy states the following:
24:1 (JPS) “When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife, and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled;”
So Jesus stated that he would not change the Law but he did change the Law regarding acceptable causes for divorce.
#57
Matthew 5: (KJV)
33 “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:”
Contradicted by Deuteronomy 6:13 (JPS)
“Thou shalt fear HaShem thy G-d; and Him shalt thou serve, and by His name shalt thou swear.”
#58
Matthew 5: (KJV)
38 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”
Contradicted by Deuteronomy 19:18 (JPS)
“and the magistrates shall make a thorough investigation. If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst. Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
#59
Matthew 6: (KJV)
1 “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.”
Contradicted by Matthew 5: (KJV)
16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
#60
Matthew 8: (KJV)
1 “When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”
Regarding a mountain near Jerusalem (shew thyself to the priest) I think “Matthew” is making a mountain out of a mohel. Anyway, Jesus tells the man not to tell anyone in order to keep the healing secret but someone has forgotten about the “great multitude” which was following Jesus in the previous connected sentence.
#61
Matthew 8: (KJV)
16 “When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”
Here’s the quote from Isaiah Chapter 53: (JPS)
4 “Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted.”
“Matthew’s” quote of Isaiah 53:4 doesn’t agree with the Masoretic text and doesn’t even agree with Christian translations of 53:4. Isaiah 53:4 states that the subject would bear the diseases while the story by Matthew only says that Jesus made other people’s diseases go away.
#62
Matthew 8: (KJV)
21 “And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.”
Deuteronomy 5: (JPS)
16 “Honour thy father and thy mother”
The Tanakh has several verses indicating that lack of a timely burial is an insult so Jesus has contradicted one of the ten commandments here.
#63
Matthew 8: (KJV)
26 “And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes,”
The text implies that Jesus has just reached the other side of the lake and Gergesenes was on the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee. The problem is that Gergesenes is almost certainly not the name of the city originally identified here by the author of “Matthew”. Mark (who Matthew and Luke both probably copied from) and Luke both identify the city as Gerasa which was 33 miles from the Sea Of Galilee. Matthew, knowing that Gerasa was too far away, likely changed the name of the town to Gadara which was six miles from the lake. Matthew 8:28 of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus say the town was Gadara. Origen was the first Church Father who recognized that neither Gerasa or Gadara was next to the lake. Let’s see how our friendly Christian translators have handled this:
New International Version (NIV)
When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes,
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes
NIV formatted (NT only) (NIV-IBS)
When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes
Darby Translation (DARBY)
And there met him, when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes,
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
And he having come to the other side, to the region of the Gergesenes,
Worldwide English (NT only) (WE)
Jesus came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarene people.
New King James Version (NKJV)
When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes,
The Church of the Middle Ages changed Matthew 8:28 to “Gergesenes” from “Gadara” recognizing that Gadara was not on the lake. A majority of modern Christian Bible translations now recognize that “Matthew” probably originally used “Gadara” in 8:28 indicating that the author was not overly familiar with the geography of Israel.
Modern Bible scholarship is in broad agreement that Mark was the first Gospel written yet Matthew is always listed first in Christian Bibles. My claimed error is that because "Mark" was written first it should be presented first in the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible implies that "Mark" and "Matthew" are the testimony of witnesses. Readers can see and the Church has always taught that there is dependence between the two. Common sense and legal procedure require that the testimony which was either relied on to some extent or even just available to another witness be presented first as this is what readers or jurys will assume if not told otherwise. The problem this would create for Christianity with "Mark" being first is why is there no mention of the "virgin birth", any description of a transition from Jesus to the subsequent Church or post resurrection sightings or communications? The Church has always explained that because "Matthew" was written first "Mark" didn't need to cover these topics.
#2
The first Gospel listed in Christian Bibles, Matthew, was written anonymously. The title
"Matthew" was added by the Church long after the Gospel was written.
#3
Christians have added chapter designations to the Bible which were not used by the original authors.
#4
Matthew 1:(KJV)
"4 And Aram begat Aminadab"
According to I Chronicles 2:10 it was Ram that begat Aminadab, not Aram. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. (so presumably the KJV is correctly translating Matthew's error). The NIV has changed "Aram" to "Ram" correcting Matthew's error. The LXX states that Aram begat Aminadab so it's likely that Matthew made his error by simply copying from the LXX as he apparently was not fluent in Hebrew and so could not check the original Hebrew language. Some Bible scholars do theorize that the LXX was changed in some places to conform to the Gospels and that this is one of those instances. In any case Matthew's apparent use of "Aram" does not agree with any known Hebrew text and in the absence of any evidence that the Hebrew use of "Ram" was the result of any change would be an error by Matthew.
#5
Matthew 1:(KJV)
“5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab”
The only Rachab mentioned in the Tanakh was the Rachab of the Conquest who lived about two hundred years before Boaz. Every significant Church Father who commented on Matthew 1:5 assumed that Matthew was referring to the Rachab of the Conquest.
#6
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“7…Abia begat Asa; :8 And Asa begat Josaphat”
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph” instead of “Asa” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph”. Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating “Asaph” were unknown to the translators of the KJV.
#7
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah so Matthew has omitted Ahaziah from his genealogy.
#8
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash so Matthew has also omitted Joash from his genealogy.
#9
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“8…Joram begat Ozias”
According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash who begat Amaziah so Matthew has also omitted Amaziah from his genealogy.
#10
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“10…Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias”
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Amos” instead of “Amon” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:10 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Amos”. Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating “Amos” were unknown to the translators of the KJV.
#11
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:”
According to I Chronicles 3:15 (JPS), Josiah (Josias in KJV) begat Jehoiakim who begat Jeconiah (Jechonias in KJV) so Matthew has omitted Jehoiakim from his genealogy.
#12
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:”
According to the Tanakh Jechonias only had one brother.
#13
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim”
According to the Tanakh (JPS), I Chronicles, 3:19-20, Abiud was not one of the eight children of Zerubbabel (“Zorobabel” in KJV).
#14
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations”
Matthew has omitted four generations from his genealogy between David and the Babylonian exile. Even without them he still has fifteen chronological names.
#15
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“17…and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.”
Almost 600 years separate the birth of Shealtiel from the birth of Jesus resulting in an average of 46 years per generation. This average is contradicted by all known averages for this period outside of Matthew. Luke’s average would be 27 years and Josephus’ average would be 25 years.
#16
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:”
The Greek word for birth here, “genesis” is exactly the same Greek word used in Matthew 1:1, “a record of the genealogy” and has a wide range of meaning such as “birth”, “creation” and “genealogy”. Church Fathers generally used the Greek word “gennesis”, which has a more limited meaning of “birth” to describe the nativity. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that the same author would have used the exact same Greek word in Matthew 1:1 and 1:18 to describe a genealogy and a birth. The genealogy and birth stories are probably from two different sources.
#17
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:”
Most extant manuscripts have this wording but a few don’t have “Jesus”. The name is omitted in Irenaeus’ reference to 1:18. The position of “Jesus” in the sentence varies in Greek manuscripts which is often the sign of a scribal addition. There is no other uncontested instance of an article preceding “Jesus Christ” in the Christian Bible. Thus it is likely that “Jesus” is a scribal addition to Matthew 1:18.
#18
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18… she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
Literally, the Greek reads “having in the womb” and not “with child”. In any case, there is no definite article, “the”, in front of “Holy Ghost” in almost all Greek manuscripts. The best translation would be “found to be pregnant through Holy Spirit”. Christian translators have provided the “the” in English translations (found to be with child of the Holy Spirit) in order to support their belief that the Holy Spirit is a separate person.
#19
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“18..When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband,”
Mary has gone from engaged to married after a mere thirteen words, a record that would stand until Liz Taylor two thousand years later.
#20
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.”
The word that KJV has translated as “privily” is normally translated as “quietly”. Under Jewish law at the time Joseph would have had to deliver a writ of repudiation before two witnesses so it would have been tough to keep it “quiet” unless the witnesses Joseph had in mind were the blind and mute men of Chapter 9.
#21
Matthew 1: (KJV)
“20… fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife”
The literal translation of the Greek is, “do not be afraid to take Mary your wife” which is an incomplete sentence making the meaning ambiguous. Does it mean take as in sexually, take as in accept or take as in bring home? Most of the main Christian Bibles have added words in their translations to give the appearance of a complete sentence (the relatively newer RSV being the exception):
NIV “do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife”
NASB “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife”
RSV “do not fear to take Mary your wife”
Darby “fear not to take to [thee] Mary, thy wife”
YLT “thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife”
WE “do not fear to take Mary to be your wife”
#22
Matthew 1: (KJV)
20…”for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Same error as #18. There is no “the” before “Holy Ghost” in the Greek. Of the major translations only Darby acknowledges this, “for that which is begotten in her is of [the] Holy Spirit”.
#23
Matthew 1: (KJV)
20…”for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
In the Greek “spirit”(ghost) comes before “holy” and is separated by the verb “to be”. A literal translation is “for that which is conceived in her from spirit is holy”.
No mention of this in the major Christian translations. Again, Christian translators are creating support for their idea of the holy ghost as a separate person in their translations.
#24
Matthew 1: (KJV)
21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
False prophecy. Everyone agrees that for two thousand years most Jews have died not believing in Jesus and therefore, according to Christian theology, were not saved from their sins.
#25
Matthew 1: (KJV)
22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
If you’re trying to make a list of 1001 errors in the Christian Bible then Matthew 1:22-23
is, as Banta said to Jerry Seinfeld, “Gold, Jerry! Gold!”. The “prophecy fulfillment” of sentences 22 and 23 is out of place as the fulfillment happens in the following sentences 24 and 25. Joseph is just dreaming in sentences 20 and 21 and wakes up from this dream in sentence 24. It’s likely that sentences 22 and 23 were later additions to the original text. Since the time of Irenaeus Christian commentators have “explained” that the formula citation was spoken by the angel of sentence 21.
#26
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child,”
It’s undisputed that the Hebrew text has the definite article “the” instead of “a” before “young woman” (KJV’s “virgin”). A slim majority of major Christian translations now have “the” here instead of “a”. The use of the definite article “the” means that the woman in question was known to the speaker of the prophecy, Isaiah, and could not be referring to someone who lived about 700 years later.
#27
Matthew 1: (KJV)
22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin”
Matthew 1:23 uses the Greek word “parthenos” which has a primary meaning of “virgin”. The Hebrew word from Isaiah 7:14 that Matthew is referring to is “almah” which has a primary meaning of “young woman” according to all Jewish Bible scholars, virtually all Hebrew/English dictionaries, most Christian Bible scholars and the majority of modern Christian Bible translations. The Greek word “neanis” has a primary meaning of “young woman”. When the RSV first translated Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” it was burned in several parts of the country by Christian fundamentalists. On a humorous note, even though the Catholic translators of the NAB had decided to translate Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman”, the American Bishops voted to use “virgin” instead. I guess they thought “it was the Christian thing to do.”
#28
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child”
In the Hebrew, the verb for “shall be with child”, “harah”, is in the present tense. The proper translation of Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew should be, “Look, the young woman is with child”.
#29
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel”
The phrase above, “they shall call”, in the Hebrew is in the third person feminine form and should be translated, “she will call”. It’s likely that “Matthew” intentionally changed the phrase because in verse 21 Joseph was instructed to “call his name Jesus”.
#30
Matthew 1: (KJV)
23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
The phrase “call his name”, which Matthew has translated from the Tanakh is a Semitic expression meaning to name. The phrase “call his name” would be redundant in Greek or English as one would say either, “call him” or “name him”. As the phrase in Hebrew refers to an actual name and not a description of someone Matthew has presented a false prophecy as no one ever called Jesus by the name “Emmanuel”.
#31
Matthew 2: (KJV)
5 …”for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,”
The Greek would translate literally as “And thou Bethlehem, land of Juda.”. That would be like saying “And thou Chicago, land of Midwest”. According to my third grade Greek teacher, Mrs. Soukoupoopalis, that’s bad grammar in Greek, Chicago or anywhere else. Codex Bezae and the Old Latin changed the phrase to “Bethlehem of the land of Judea”.
#32
Matthew 2: (KJV)
5 …”for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,”
In addition to bad grammar in the Greek virtually all translations of the Micah verse that “Matthew” is referring to say “Bethlehem Ephratah” such as KJV:
Micah 5:2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah”
So Matthew has chopped off “Ephratah” from the words of the Prophet.
#33
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6…”art not the least among the princes of Juda”
Instead of “art not the least” the Masoretic text says “small to be”. Even the Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say, “are too small to be”. “Matthew” has changed the quote in the Tanakh to avoid any description of Bethlehem as insignificant.
#34
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6…”art not the least among the princes of Juda”
Instead of “princes” the Masoretic text says “clans” (literally, “thousands”). Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say “thousands”. The consonants of the Hebrew word (lpy) can mean “clans” or “rulers” so Matthew could have chosen to ignore the Hebrew tradition of “clans” even though it was accepted by the early Christians. In any case, using “princes” creates an error in Matthew’s sentence structure because after deleting “Ephratah” in the first part of the sentence he is then referring to a city, Bethlehem, and not a clan, Bethlehem-Ephratah, so saying a city “is not least among princes of Juda” makes no sense.
#35
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6… “for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”
The Masoretic text and Christian Greek translations of Micah say, “for out of thee shall come forth for me a ruler”. “Matthew” has omitted “for me”, apparently so as not to give the appearance that Jesus is ruling on behalf of anyone else. Notice that KJV (also NKJV) has capitalized “governor” even though the original Hebrew of Micah gives no indication that this ruler would be divine. I’m not calling this an error because KJV is the only major translation which capitalizes “governor” (or “ruler”).
#36
Matthew 2: (KJV)
6… “for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”
The Masoretic text says, “from you there will come forth for me one who is to be a ruler in Israel”. (Early Christian Greek translations generally say, “”a leader of Israel”). “Matthew” has changed the prophecy of a leader of the country Israel to a leader of the people Israel. At the time that “Matthew” wrote he likely realized that Jesus was never a ruler or leader of the country Israel.
#37
Matthew 2: (KJV)
9 “When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.”
By modern, astrological standards such an event would be impossible (the location of a star identifying the location of an individual house.) But claiming an error here based solely on modern standards would reflect an anti-supernatural bias. However, according to Matthew, this star moved from the East to Jerusalem, then south to Bethlehem and then stopped over Bethlehem. There were non-Christian astrologers around this time who recorded all unusual astrological phenomena and none of them mention this event which easily would have been the most unusual they would have reported.
#38
Matthew 2: (KJV)
15 … “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
“Matthew” is referring to Hosea 11:1 (JPS):
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.”
Hosea chapter 11 is referring to the history of Israel and is not a prophecy. Hosea 11:2 (JPS):
“The more they called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed unto the Baalim, and offered to graven images. 3 And I, I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. 4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently.”
Christian Greek translations of Hosea 11:1 generally acknowledge the plural subject of Israel by translating: “Out of Egypt have I summoned his children”.
#39
Matthew 2: (KJV)
15 … “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
As the KGB agent said to Clint Eastwood in the classic movie, “Firefox”, “Your papers, they are not in order.” “Matthew” gives a prophecy fulfillment claim that Jesus was called out of Egypt in verse 15. But up to verse 15 Jesus is still in Egypt. Jesus doesn’t leave Egypt until verse 21.
#40
Matthew 2: (KJV)
16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”
In his excitement to report this dastardly deed “Matthew” neglects to tell us exactly WHAT was sent forth by Herod. Some translations fill in obvious choices such as “orders” and “men”. A careless omission by Matthew and also a grammatical error.
#41
Matthew 2: (KJV)
16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under”
No historian writing close to this time mentions any such massacre. The author of Luke doesn’t mention it either. Josephus thoroughly documented the brutal deeds of Herod during Herod’s final years yet makes no mention of this incident which easily would have been Herod’s worst. Christian apologists estimate that there would not have been much more than 20 such murders of baby males in Bethlehem by Herod based on assumed population and birth rates thereby arguing that such a low number may have escaped Josephus’ attention. Even 20 murders of babies would have been Herod’s worst act. The apologists ignore that the text also says “and the regions all around it” (in all the coasts thereof). The early Church assumed that according to Matthew thousands of male babies were killed in the “massacre”.
#42
Matthew 2: (KJV)
17 “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”
The real tragedy here is that I can only count this quote as one error. The context of the quote above in Jeremiah is that Rachel is mourning for the captivity of the ten northern tribes in general and the tribe of Ephraim (the main northern tribe) specifically. Rachel was the mother of Joseph who was the father of Ephraim. She is not mourning for anyone’s death or for the tribe of Judah which was a southern tribe and not in captivity at the time that Jeremiah wrote the above.
#43
Matthew 2: (KJV)
19 “But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.”
The above states “THEY are dead” but the antecedent is Herod (singular). The excerpt
“for they are dead which sought the young child's life” is almost the exact same wording from Christian Greek translations of Exodus 4:19. Apparently it was more important for the author of Matthew here to try and recreate exact wording from the Tanakh than it was to write a grammatically correct narrative.
#44
Matthew 2: (KJV)
22 “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod”
“Reign” implies that Archelaus was the King but Josephus and extant coins indicate that Archelaus was an ethnarch and not a king.
#45
Matthew 2: (KJV)
23 “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
This prophecy fulfillment claim is unique in that Christian Bible scholars generally agree that there is no such prophecy in the Tanakh. Christian apologists are reduced to guessing what the author of Matthew meant.
#46
Matthew 3: (KJV)
1 “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
After 2,000 years I think it’s safe to say that this was a false prophecy.
#47
Matthew 3: (KJV)
3 “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
The quote from Isaiah in the Masoretic text is: (JPS 1985)
3 “A voice rings out: Clear in the desert A road for the LORD! Level in the wilderness A highway for our God!”
The author of Matthew has quoted word for word from the LXX of Isaiah 40:3 (surprise)
except for substituting the usual reference to Yahweh with a personal pronoun normally used to refer to Jesus. The context of Isaiah before and after chapter 40 indicates that Isaiah was referring to the Babylonian exile and subsequent return.
So other than changing the general wording of Isaiah chapter 40, specifically changing the reference to the coming of Jesus instead of Yahweh and ignoring the context of the author’s work, “Matthew” has made a perfect match.
#48
Matthew 3: (KJV)
10 “And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
False prophecy. I realize it doesn’t rain much in the desert but surely the axe head would have rusted off after 2,000 years. On the other hand, maybe it would take 2,000 years to chop down a tree using only an axe handle.
#49
Matthew 3: (KJV)
11…”he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”
In the Greek there is no “the” before “Holy Ghost”. Of the major translations, only Darby acknowledges this. Once again Christian translators are projecting their pre-conceived (pun intended) belief that “the” Holy Ghost is a separate, definite person of God. Simon says “Holy Ghost”. Holy Ghost. “The Holy Ghost”. The Holy Ghost. Uh, uh, Simon didn’t say.
#50
Matthew 3: (KJV)
14 “But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.”
The Greek word that “Matthew” uses for “fulfill” is generally the same word used by Matthew to claim fulfillment of prophecies from the Tanakh. There is no prophecy in the Tanakh that the Messiah would be baptized in a river. As far as performing a commandment from the Tanakh there is no commandment requiring baptism in a river as a general type of atoning or purification ritual. A related question is, “who baptized John with water?”
#51
Matthew 3: (KJV)
16 “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:”
The author of Matthew likely copied the story of Jesus’ baptism either from “Mark” or from the same source Mark used. This is the related sentence in Mark:
Mark 1: (KJV)
9… “and was baptized of John in Jordan.10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened”
Mark indicates that immediately after Jesus came out of the water the heavens opened. In the Greek Matthew’s sentence structure has joined the adverb “straightway” with the verb “went up” so he is saying that immediately after the baptism Jesus came out of the water. Generally, coming out of the water would signal the end of the baptism. Why would anyone stay in the water after the baptism? Maybe to go swimming or take a bath?
#52
Matthew 3: (KJV)
16… “and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him”
In the Greek there is no “the” before “Spirit”. Apparently, whenever Matthew does not say “the” spirit of God/holy spirit Christian translations say “the” spirit of God/holy spirit.
#53
Matthew 4: (KJV)
8 “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;”
It would not be possible to see all the kingdoms of the world of a spherical world no matter how high the mountain was. Apparently the author, like most people of his time, mistakenly believed that the earth was flat.
#54
Matthew 4: (KJV)
12 “Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.”
Misquote. “Matthew’s” translation doesn’t agree with the Masoretic text or Greek translations of the Tanakh. Isaiah 8: (JPS 1917)
“23… Now the former hath lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations.
9.1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”
Isaiah Chapter 8, JPS translation, is referring to the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. The “former” and “latter” of 8:23 refers to the Assyrians and Samarians:
7:1 “And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim.”
All of Isaiah, chapter 8(JPS), is written in prose. Isaiah chapter 9(JPS), starts out being written in synonymous parallelism poetry:
“The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light;
they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
Thou hast multiplied the nation,
Thou hast increased their joy;
they joy before Thee according to the joy in harvest,
as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.”
Even though Isaiah 8:23 and 9:1 of JPS refer to different subjects and have different writing styles Christian translations have combined them into the start of Chapter 9 because of Matthew’s misquote which attempted to combine them into evidence of prophecy fulfillment.
#55
Matthew 4: (KJV)
17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
False prophecy.
#56
Matthew 5: (KJV)
31 “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
The author of “Matthew” previously had Jesus say:
5:18 (KJV) “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Regarding acceptable causes for divorce the Law of Deuteronomy states the following:
24:1 (JPS) “When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife, and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled;”
So Jesus stated that he would not change the Law but he did change the Law regarding acceptable causes for divorce.
#57
Matthew 5: (KJV)
33 “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:”
Contradicted by Deuteronomy 6:13 (JPS)
“Thou shalt fear HaShem thy G-d; and Him shalt thou serve, and by His name shalt thou swear.”
#58
Matthew 5: (KJV)
38 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”
Contradicted by Deuteronomy 19:18 (JPS)
“and the magistrates shall make a thorough investigation. If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst. Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
#59
Matthew 6: (KJV)
1 “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.”
Contradicted by Matthew 5: (KJV)
16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
#60
Matthew 8: (KJV)
1 “When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”
Regarding a mountain near Jerusalem (shew thyself to the priest) I think “Matthew” is making a mountain out of a mohel. Anyway, Jesus tells the man not to tell anyone in order to keep the healing secret but someone has forgotten about the “great multitude” which was following Jesus in the previous connected sentence.
#61
Matthew 8: (KJV)
16 “When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”
Here’s the quote from Isaiah Chapter 53: (JPS)
4 “Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted.”
“Matthew’s” quote of Isaiah 53:4 doesn’t agree with the Masoretic text and doesn’t even agree with Christian translations of 53:4. Isaiah 53:4 states that the subject would bear the diseases while the story by Matthew only says that Jesus made other people’s diseases go away.
#62
Matthew 8: (KJV)
21 “And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.”
Deuteronomy 5: (JPS)
16 “Honour thy father and thy mother”
The Tanakh has several verses indicating that lack of a timely burial is an insult so Jesus has contradicted one of the ten commandments here.
#63
Matthew 8: (KJV)
26 “And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes,”
The text implies that Jesus has just reached the other side of the lake and Gergesenes was on the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee. The problem is that Gergesenes is almost certainly not the name of the city originally identified here by the author of “Matthew”. Mark (who Matthew and Luke both probably copied from) and Luke both identify the city as Gerasa which was 33 miles from the Sea Of Galilee. Matthew, knowing that Gerasa was too far away, likely changed the name of the town to Gadara which was six miles from the lake. Matthew 8:28 of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus say the town was Gadara. Origen was the first Church Father who recognized that neither Gerasa or Gadara was next to the lake. Let’s see how our friendly Christian translators have handled this:
New International Version (NIV)
When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes,
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes
NIV formatted (NT only) (NIV-IBS)
When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes
Darby Translation (DARBY)
And there met him, when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes,
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
And he having come to the other side, to the region of the Gergesenes,
Worldwide English (NT only) (WE)
Jesus came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gadarene people.
New King James Version (NKJV)
When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes,
The Church of the Middle Ages changed Matthew 8:28 to “Gergesenes” from “Gadara” recognizing that Gadara was not on the lake. A majority of modern Christian Bible translations now recognize that “Matthew” probably originally used “Gadara” in 8:28 indicating that the author was not overly familiar with the geography of Israel.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Jewish Position on Jesus
The first thing you have to recognize whenever you are discussing the Jewish position on Jesus is that it is the Christians who must prove their case, not the Jews. The Jewish religion existed for thousands of years before Christianity, and Christianity accepts the truth of the Torah and other Jewish Scriptures as Divinely revealed truth. As such, there is no need to enter into any debate regarding the truth of Judaism per se when dealing with Christians. However, Christians maintain that their god, Jesus, came to the world and annulled the laws of the Torah, replacing them with a "New Covenant" that demands belief in Jesus. This is an extraordinary and untenable claim on several grounds:
The claim that a human being is actually God, or part of God, is clearly a very serious claim. Most of us, if presented with such a claim, would reject it out of hand as an utter absurdity, even bordering on madness. Yet, Christianity claims that Jesus, a human being, is God. Obviously they have to prove this before we should be expected to accept it. But what do they actually offer us as proof? A few miracle tales written by his disciples. Yet, despite the rather dramatic claims made by these few followers, we find little or no mention of Jesus in any of the historical sources from the period he supposedly lived in. Every religious movement makes such claims about its founder, yet obviously they cannot all be true. Why should we pick the stories of Jesus over the stories of Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other such legendary figure?
(Just as an aside, some may respond that the same accusation could be leveled at Judaism. However, this is incorrect. Judaism, alone among all religions, is based upon events that happened in the presence of hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses, primarily the Exodus and the Sinai Revelation. These events, which are the foundation stones of Judaism, were witnessed by the entire Jewish people and qualify as objective historical events. No other religion claims to have had similar experiences, because such claims would be obviously false. The Jews, however, can make this claim because these events really happened (as any Christian or Muslim will agree).)
The idea that God would take physical form (as in the physical form of Jesus) is clearly repugnant to the Bible, as we see from Deuteronomy 4:15-16 and innumerable other places. It is this concept which is the basis of the prohibition against idolatry, one of the worst sins. If we would accept the premise that God could or would take physical form, then any form of idolatry could be justified by its followers as legitimate and the prohibition against idolatry would be meaningless.
The Torah, which Christians believe to be God's word, states in several places that the laws of the Torah are eternal. See, for example, Deuteronomy 4:2, 29:13-14 (KJV 14-15), and 29:28 (KJV 29:29). In particular, see Deuteronomy 13:1-6 (KJV 12:32-13:5) where we are taught that we are not permitted to add to or detract from God's laws, and that if a prophet arises who teaches us to worship a new god we may not listen to him, even if he performs miracles. Yet, Christians believe that Jesus declared himself to be God, and that the laws of the Torah are no longer binding. How can Christianity claim to accept the Torah (the "Old" Testament) while rejecting its most basic principle?
Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah which the Torah tells will someday come. Yet, contrary to the claims of Christianity, Jesus never fulfilled any of these prophecies. Briefly, these are:
He will return all Jews to the service of God in all its details.
He will rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
He will gather in the dispersed Jews to the land of Israel.
He will bring the entire world to serve God in unity.
Clearly, Jesus did not accomplish any of these things. In the past I have encountered Christians who have argued that Jesus has not failed to fulfill these conditions since he will fulfill them at the time of the "Second Coming". This is a meaningless argument. As the conditions clearly have not been fulfilled, there is no reason to assume he is the Messiah simply because some of his followers say he will do so at some undetermined point in the future. I could as easily make the same argument for myself, I will fulfill the conditions in the future so believe I am the Messiah now.
Even if we would reduce the claim for the legitimacy of Jesus from that of deity to that of a prophet, we would still be faced with a serious problem. The Torah lays out clear guidelines for determining who is a prophet. Jesus never qualified according to these rules, particularly since one of these laws is that a prophet cannot claim to abrogate God's laws and Jesus sought to do just this. It is for this reason that Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides, one of the greatest leaders of the Jewish people, applied to Jesus the verse in Daniel 7:25, "He will speak words against the Most High, and he will wear down the saints of the Most High, attempting to change the seasons and the Law" (Igeres Teiman).
For all these reasons, and others as well, Judaism cannot accept the claims of Christianity. As these opinions are all firmly based in the Bible, which Christians claim to believe in, it is upon them to prove beyond a doubt that their god is a true god and not simply an idol. They have never done this because it cannot be done. Jesus was clearly not God, not the Messiah, and not a prophet.
Nevertheless, the opinion of most historical scholars, including religious Jews, is that Jesus was an actual historical personage though he may not have lived at the time the New Testament claims. In any event, whether he ever lived is very secondary, the tales told of him in the New Testament are almost certainly all fictional and are completely unsupported by any other historical text from that period.
The claim that a human being is actually God, or part of God, is clearly a very serious claim. Most of us, if presented with such a claim, would reject it out of hand as an utter absurdity, even bordering on madness. Yet, Christianity claims that Jesus, a human being, is God. Obviously they have to prove this before we should be expected to accept it. But what do they actually offer us as proof? A few miracle tales written by his disciples. Yet, despite the rather dramatic claims made by these few followers, we find little or no mention of Jesus in any of the historical sources from the period he supposedly lived in. Every religious movement makes such claims about its founder, yet obviously they cannot all be true. Why should we pick the stories of Jesus over the stories of Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other such legendary figure?
(Just as an aside, some may respond that the same accusation could be leveled at Judaism. However, this is incorrect. Judaism, alone among all religions, is based upon events that happened in the presence of hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses, primarily the Exodus and the Sinai Revelation. These events, which are the foundation stones of Judaism, were witnessed by the entire Jewish people and qualify as objective historical events. No other religion claims to have had similar experiences, because such claims would be obviously false. The Jews, however, can make this claim because these events really happened (as any Christian or Muslim will agree).)
The idea that God would take physical form (as in the physical form of Jesus) is clearly repugnant to the Bible, as we see from Deuteronomy 4:15-16 and innumerable other places. It is this concept which is the basis of the prohibition against idolatry, one of the worst sins. If we would accept the premise that God could or would take physical form, then any form of idolatry could be justified by its followers as legitimate and the prohibition against idolatry would be meaningless.
The Torah, which Christians believe to be God's word, states in several places that the laws of the Torah are eternal. See, for example, Deuteronomy 4:2, 29:13-14 (KJV 14-15), and 29:28 (KJV 29:29). In particular, see Deuteronomy 13:1-6 (KJV 12:32-13:5) where we are taught that we are not permitted to add to or detract from God's laws, and that if a prophet arises who teaches us to worship a new god we may not listen to him, even if he performs miracles. Yet, Christians believe that Jesus declared himself to be God, and that the laws of the Torah are no longer binding. How can Christianity claim to accept the Torah (the "Old" Testament) while rejecting its most basic principle?
Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah which the Torah tells will someday come. Yet, contrary to the claims of Christianity, Jesus never fulfilled any of these prophecies. Briefly, these are:
He will return all Jews to the service of God in all its details.
He will rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
He will gather in the dispersed Jews to the land of Israel.
He will bring the entire world to serve God in unity.
Clearly, Jesus did not accomplish any of these things. In the past I have encountered Christians who have argued that Jesus has not failed to fulfill these conditions since he will fulfill them at the time of the "Second Coming". This is a meaningless argument. As the conditions clearly have not been fulfilled, there is no reason to assume he is the Messiah simply because some of his followers say he will do so at some undetermined point in the future. I could as easily make the same argument for myself, I will fulfill the conditions in the future so believe I am the Messiah now.
Even if we would reduce the claim for the legitimacy of Jesus from that of deity to that of a prophet, we would still be faced with a serious problem. The Torah lays out clear guidelines for determining who is a prophet. Jesus never qualified according to these rules, particularly since one of these laws is that a prophet cannot claim to abrogate God's laws and Jesus sought to do just this. It is for this reason that Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides, one of the greatest leaders of the Jewish people, applied to Jesus the verse in Daniel 7:25, "He will speak words against the Most High, and he will wear down the saints of the Most High, attempting to change the seasons and the Law" (Igeres Teiman).
For all these reasons, and others as well, Judaism cannot accept the claims of Christianity. As these opinions are all firmly based in the Bible, which Christians claim to believe in, it is upon them to prove beyond a doubt that their god is a true god and not simply an idol. They have never done this because it cannot be done. Jesus was clearly not God, not the Messiah, and not a prophet.
Nevertheless, the opinion of most historical scholars, including religious Jews, is that Jesus was an actual historical personage though he may not have lived at the time the New Testament claims. In any event, whether he ever lived is very secondary, the tales told of him in the New Testament are almost certainly all fictional and are completely unsupported by any other historical text from that period.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!
Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!
The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:
Too strange to be a coincidence!
According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus.But hold on a minute: in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Hebrew means ‘Son of the Father’!Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable.
Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning.
Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.
Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.
Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."– Josephus, Wars 6.3.
Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.
Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.
Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.
Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.
But was there a crucified Jesus?
Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.
But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?
The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.
Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built
It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).
What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.
The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.
Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:
Too strange to be a coincidence!
According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus.But hold on a minute: in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Hebrew means ‘Son of the Father’!Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable.
Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning.
Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.
Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.
Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."– Josephus, Wars 6.3.
Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.
Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.
Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.
Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.
But was there a crucified Jesus?
Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.
But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?
The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.
Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built
It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).
What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
