Resurrected but not the Messiah?

Over the weekend I read The Resurrection of Jesus: a Jewish perspective by the late Professor Pinchas Lapide. Its a short read and certainly one I would recommend.

In this book, Pinchas Lapide, who was an Orthodox Jew, argues in favour of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. Ill leave the book to explain how he does it but it basically comes down to there being no better explanation for the response of the Disciples after Jesus’ death and the movement that was raised up. Significantly he sees their willingness to die for this message.

He sees this as a thoroughly Jewish response and does not believe they made it up or were hallucinating, but that actually something took place. Being a historian, he does not say it certainly happened, but that it probably happened as it accounts best for their reaction and that any other explanation simply fails to explain how they came to be proclaiming this message and were giving their lives for it.

Whats interesting is that he does not believe this makes Jesus the awaited Messiah of Israel. He does not go very much into this but in his epilogue he simply states that the resurrection, though an act of God, does not lead him to being the Messiah.

I think this is fascinating and I dont really get how he can maintain this. Granted that Jesus was not the only one to be raised but he was the only to be raised and never died again, right? I do think he mentions that people being taken up into heaven are also no novelty to the history of Israel but I still dont quite get how he is able to detach these two things.

Paula Fredriksen also mentions that the resurrection as perceived* by the apostles was not taken as a sign for his Messiahship, she writes:

Why, finally, did these apostles see Jesus as the messiah? Not because of his resurrection. That event signaled, rather, the nearness of the End, since at the End the dead (or perhaps only the righteous dead) were to be raised. It thus confirmed Jesus’ message [of the nearness of the End], and consequently his status as messenger. But nowehere did Judaism anticipate a dying and rising messiah; and the apostles, like Paul after them (Rom 1:3-4), would have no reason to infer from his resurrection that Jesus was the messiah. (From Jesus to Christ, 2000, p. 141)

I personally havent encountered this line of thought before, anyone familiar with this?

*do note that she does not hold like Pinchas Lapide that it probably happened but consistently writes about “their experiences”

History vs. Theology

I have been thinking lately about the relationship between history and theology.

As most of you I have been raised in an environment where it was taken for granted that the Bible recounted history and that bad history inevitably led to bad religion or “if the history is wrong, the theology cant be right”.

This was the standard by which I would judge religions around me and I would think of history as support for my own faith.

When I got in touch with more critical research, things started to change. That which I always  took for granted, I suddenly found myself questioning. And I wound up realizing that actually history wasnt that supportive of my theological views after all.

Dale Allison, who I greatly admire for his sincerity, has a chapter in his The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus dealing with this problem, entitled “How Much History Does Theology Require?”. In it he relates my problems and says the answer to the question is that “it depends on one’s presuppositions, one’s worldview, one’s theology, and so on.” (39) Which he admits is a disappointing answer.

He notes that some texts that we know are unhistorical, like Genesis 1, “are still capable of producing theological and religious meaning.” (ibid.) He also cites as an example an argument in the Talmud (b. Bava Batra 15a) between the Sages z”l about the historicity of Job, where one Rabbi says Job existed and the other one says it was simply a parable (the Rambam also says it is fictional), showing that seeing some texts as unhistorical isnt restricted to our age.

And that this does not need to lead to dismissal. In fact in Allison’s opinion

“this would be to confuse the historical task with the theological task. The status and function of a canonical text within the church are not the same as the status and function of that text within the academy. As a historian, I am all for tearing up the surface of the Gospels and doing the messy work of excavating them for history. As a churchgoer, however, I believe that the Gospels should be preached and interpreted as they stand, as canonical literature. I am persuaded that, for most theological purposes we should treat the Gospels the same way as we treat Genesis; we should use them first of all not to reconstruct the past but to construe our world theologically. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John  are, for the churches, theological texts before they are historical texts.” (43)

And to the claim that we owe our allegiance to history he responds:

“Nothing compels us  to concur with the fundamentalists in inisting – along with, ironically, anti-ecclesiastical polemicists – that, if Jesus and Peter did not literally walk upon the waves, then Matt. 14:22-23 signifies nothing. Such a pettifogging hermeneutical move is unsophisticated and unimaginative, and we should reject it. The texts remain what they have always been, regardless of current views as to the history behind them. Modern historical methods may help us interpret our texts, but they should not depose them” (44-45).

I tend to agree with this and am reminded of how Dunn in his The Living Word responded to the idea of the slippery slope and how the faith of some seems to be like a seamless robe, where to cast doubt on one part is to doubt the whole.

Still Im having difficulties with what Allison suggests because he seems to assume acceptance of the NT documents or Hebrew Bible for that matter, which although for me and many Christians and Jews this may be the case, for an outsider this is hard to swallow. As the question is first and foremost “why should I accept these as Scripture?” and the traditional answer that it is because of history just doesnt work (because much of history is not very supportive).

To say then that these texts have always been accepted and that it wasnt so much something intrinsic to the text as it was the community’s recognition is even harder to swallow, as we in our post-modern age are certainly not going to blindly trust some community’s recognition.

Any ideas out there?

Divine Intermediaries I

I a short series of posts, I think three or maximum four, I would like to take a look at intermediaries and will do so mainly on basis of Dunn’s Christology in the Making, chapter 5 and maybe 6 as well.

The reason I would like to do this is because sometimes I read statements on blogs that seem to convey the idea that 2nd Temple Judaism, diverse as it was, held to the idea of distinct divine beings/intermediaries and some even go as far as to assert that it entertained a divine messiah.

These statements are often made without any references to primary sources or even some form of scholary support, hence I think it would be profitable to blog about it and perhaps through interaction we could see whether this talk is warranted. Needless to say a blog is a limited form of learning, and should not be substituted for actually taking time to read books about it and the relevant sources itself.

The Desire for Historical Precedence

It seems to be common for people to fight about who is the legitimate heir of a particular chain of tradition. This is the case of many denominations that all claim to have gone back to the ‘true’, ‘biblical’, ‘apostolic’ teaching and of even whole religions who claim to have Abraham as their father.

I wonder where this desire comes from, and am thinking it has to do with legitimacy. For example I myself live in some kind of middle position between Judaism and Christianity and as I am one of the few in my direct surroundings to do this feel a bit of an outcast at times and like it lacks legitimacy.

So for me to read about an inscription found close to the modern town of Geyre (ancient: Afrodisias) indicating the presence of God-fearers in the Synagogue, is thus very exciting. Since it shows that there were non-Jews before me that desired to take upon themselves certain parts of the Torah without converting. Also when reading about Dynamic Monarchists, or Adoptionists, who seem to have been quite close to my thoughts about Christology, somehow makes me feel that Im not completely crazy

This is of course inherently tied to the fact that revelation demands a certain consistency and united line of thought, and is in this sense a benchmark for all later ideas and opinions. But even if I find my reading to be closest to the plain meaning or intention, the fact that there were others that preceded me in this reading, makes me feel like it is more legitimate. While actually they may have been wrong too:)

You Make It Evil

Whenever one talks about God as the Creator of this world and the presence of evil both within us as well as around us, the following objection can arise:

If God is the Creator and is a perfectly good being why did he implant within us an inclination to good and to evil. Some will immediately resort to the Fall and explain that it was not God who put it in us, but that evil is only the result of the Fall, but for this post, I’d like to focus on the idea that we have both of these inclinations and that they belong to the creation of God.

The Midrash Tanchuma, which can be seen as a collection of homilies or creative intepretations of the Torah, has the following story to relate:

Why did He [God] create the evil inclination?… You say that [if] it is evil, who can make it good? Said the Holy One Blessed Be He: “you make it evil!” Why? A child of five, six, seven, eight and nine years old does not sin, but [only] from the age of ten onwards, and from that time the evil inclination is strengthened. And if you say, “there is no man that can guard himself?” Said the Holy One Blessed Be He: “you made it evil!” Why? As a child you did not sin, and when you grew up you sinned. [1]

The reply in this story illustrates that the evil inclination is present in us from birth but only is strengthened and put to evil use when we grow up.

Another midrash has the following to relate:

[...] but were it not for the evil inclination, man would not build a house and would not marry a woman and would not reproduce and would not deal in business. [2]

This shows that some think of the evil inclination as devotion to self as opposed to devotion to God or God’s purposes which would be the good inclination.

In a book Im reading that sets forth a debate between Theism and Naturalism there is also a discussion about devotion to self and devotion to God:

If we are to choose to devote ourselves to God, there must be an attractive alternative and that such an alternative is in fact available: Devotion to self surely seems attractive to all of us. And this is the sort of thing we ought to expect if a perfectly good God exist… I am not suggesting that God must create us with desires to do terrible things, e.g., innate desires to maim, torture, and kill. But we do seem to be born with strong, innate desires to serve our own interests-such desires are manifest very early in life. (You can visit any local preschool if you want to test this claim empirically!) I would not say that a strong desire to serve one’s own interests is evil, but I would say that such a desires clearly provides temptations to do wrong. [3]

While he first seems to indicate that there is a fundamental choice between devotion to God on the one hand and on the other hand devotion to self (or something else), in saying that serving one’s own interest need not be evil at all times he seems to suggest that there is a combination possible. And this agrees with what was said above, that being self-interested is at times necessary and good.

For example the fact that Im studying at university, this is devotion to self but, hopefully, this will be used constructively in the life of my future family and to further God’s purposes. Hence the evil inclination does not need to lead to wicked and evil things though surely it can and is used for that purpose.

For those of you who are familiar with the Jewish prayer book you probably know the following request:

attach us to the Good inclination and to good deeds, and compel our evil inclination to be subservient to You; [4]

Thus the evil inclination/devotion to self (or others) is not evil in and of itself but can in fact be used for good, there is just a temptation for it to take over the primary role of the good inclination (devotion to God). This prayer serves as a reminder that balance is needed and that God does not tempt us beyond what we can bear.

———————————————

[1] Midrash Tanchuma Bereishit 7

ואם תאמר למה ברא יצר הרע שכתוב בו כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו (בראשית ח) אתה אומר שהוא רע מי יוכל לעשותו טוב אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אתה עושה אותו רע למה תינוק בן חמש בן שש ושבע ושמנה ותשעה אינם חוטאים אלא מבן עשר ואילך ואז הוא מגדל יצר הרע, ואם תאמר אין אדם יכול לשמור את עצמו, אמר הקב”ה אתה עשית אותו רע למה תינוק היית ולא חטאת, נתגדלת וחטאת

[2]Midrash Rabbah Bereishit 9:7

אלא שאלולי יצר הרע לא בנה אדם בית ולא נשא אשה ולא הוליד ולא נשא ונתן

[3] C.S. Layman, Letters to Doubting Thomas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 181-182

[4] Artscroll Siddur, p. 79

Greetings from ….

As some of you may have realized I was away for a while, and send you my greetings from:

-Istanbul-

Quote on the NT

From oral to written; from Aramaic to Greek; from the End of time to the middle of time; from Jewish to Gentile; from the Galilee and Judea to the Empire.

-Paula Fredriksen

On Order and Ranking

I am having this interesting discussion overhere about how to read certain passages found in the Apologists that seem, at least to me, to indicate some form of subordination. Seth of Judeoxian chipped in, James McGrath was gracious enough to offer his thoughts, Nick Norelli, and my good friend Geert of Messianic613 too.

As usual my blog receives more hits when topics like this are discussed and Im genuinely interested what other people’s thoughts are out there (hint: comment if you havent done so already:P).

At any rate I have now arrived at Tertullian, whose called the father of Latin Christianity and expresses an interesting albeit difficult array of thought.

But I have found a passage that may be one explanation for how to read the numbers:

For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are προβολαί, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God.

Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word—the Father and His Son—two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated. Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. (Adv. Prax. 4)

His analogy seems to relate the order of things coming into existence; root-tree-fruit. So maybe we can see in this a move that is more closer towards Nicea? Ranking seems not really to be the point here, though of course in that the latter is contingent on the former, there is some form of ranking. I think Im beginning to understand also why the concept of eternal generation was so important as Geert indicated in his comment.

In any case I find it highly interesting and a pity these things are not taught in church, I dont mean so much the actual doctrine but the development. In my opinion many Christians simply recite these creeds without having a clue what happened behind those creeds, what the basis was for including certain words and lines etc.

Bo: Mezuzot?

While reading this weeks portion I came across a Rashi that made me wonder about the halacha for affixing mezuzot.

The verse that Rashi commented on was Ex 12:7

They shall take some of its blood and place it on two doorposts and on the lintel upon the houses in which they will eat it

Rashi comments:

UPON THE HOUSES IN WHICH THEY WILL EAT IT – But not upon the lintel and doorposts of a house [used for storing] straw, or a stable in which people do not live.

Though the commandment of affixing mezuzot is not related in this part, when reading the portion in Hebrew for the first time, I associated doorposts with mezuzah, that is: the case with parchment as its simply the same word.

And perhaps there is more than a linguistic connection between these?

At any rate what I was wondering is whether a mezuzah should also be affixed to doorposts of areas that are not inhabited as in basements and storage houses.

From what Ive read there is a debate about it and one side argues that it is not required as those places are not designed for living in (dwelling), while the other side holds that these require mezuzot as well (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 11:16). This effectively means that if one does decide to do so, the blessing should not be recited.

I personally have a kosher mezuzah on my doorpost and did recite a blessing over it while affixing it. The blessing goes like this:

Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe Who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to affix a mezuzah

I enjoyed doing it and everyday when coming home and seeing the mezuzah I thank God for bringing me home and protecting me.

But there is a problem… the problem is that in this blessing it says, “Who commanded us”, where us refers to the Jewish people and hence not to me.

Halachically its simply problematic that I have a mezuzah on my doorpost and perhaps even more that its a kosher one. But I simply refuse to take it off I just like it and it serves as a great reminder to God and His commandments.

There is another sign commandment, the mitzvah of Tefillin. During the time that I was convinced the Torah’s commandments were equally mandatory for me as for the Jewish people, I was waking up every morning putting on tefillin (to the horror of my parents!) but I gave this up after some time when I decided that the mitzvah was not for me but for the Jewish people (and admittedly it was hard every morning waking up like that!).

Still I miss it, I mean it did have something beautiful, praying with a Tallit, Tefillin, and probably to be fully consistent I should take off the mezuzah as well and pray “God of the Fathers” instead of “God of our Fathers”, but I dont really feel like doing this, as at the end of the day while it may be intellectually more consistent, the desire within my heart to bond and commune with God in the way that I feel comfortable with I think is also very – if not more – important.

Are these difficulties recognizable to you? And if so, how do you deal with them?

Toldot Yeshua HaMashiach III

Its been a few weeks but here is the third point of R. Lichtenstein in his rebuttal of Toldot Yeshu:

3) Furthermore its related that Yeshua when he was a youth passed before the Sanhedrin with his head uncovered and one of the Sanhedrin said “he is a bastard”, and the second said “he is a bastard and a ben ha-niddah” (son of a woman that conceived during her menstrual period) etc.

Here we will see explained what was taken from the story in masechet kallah and was related to Yeshua, and even as a child I have heard from great Rabbi’s when in tractate kallah they hinted to that man etc.

And this is the manner of speaking there:

Once the old men were sitting at the gate and there passed before them two babies, one with his head covered and one with an uncovered head, regarding that one with the uncovered head said Rabbi Eliezer that it was a bastard and Rabbi Yehoshua said a ben ha-niddah and Rabbi Akiva said [it was] a bastard and a ben ha-niddah etc. (Woe! How many bastards were there in Israel at that time [if all] that walk with uncovered heads [are considered to be bastards]!!)

And its related there that Rabbi Akiva went and asked the mother of the baby: “of what nature do you confess your son” [to be, whereupon she replied] “when I was in the bridal chamber I was [in the state of] niddah, and my husband was separated from me and my husband’s best-man came on me and it was from him that I have this son and he is a mamzer and a ben ha-niddah etc.

And now my dear reader [judge] between what is before you, that the baby in the days of Rabbi Akiva can [not] be Yeshua HaNotzri as he lived way before the destruction of the Second Temple, and Rabbi Eliezer spoke with Jacob of Kfar Sakanya his disciple like it is related in the Talmud, as will be shown below, and this foolish sinner mixes up words without knowledge of anything, and the one who wrote a book named “תם ומועד” felt this lie and let go of this story.

The translation wasnt very hard this time, or so it seemed to me. I only had problems with that last paragraph, especially והכותב ספר תם ומועד הרגיש בשקר הזה והשמיט הספור הזה, I searched quite a bit what תם ומועד could mean but didnt manage to find something that would fit the sentence. But perhaps one of you has the missing key and can make this sentence work

I found it amusing to read R. Lichtenstein saying:

Woe! How many bastards were there in Israel at that time [if all] that walk with uncovered heads [are considered to be bastards]!!

And it makes me wonder about his internal struggles as while he may have felt free enough to utter such a remark, I doubt whether he felt the same freedom when it came to the halacha that was developed by these very same Sages.

But then he may just have had a different attitude to aggadah as opposed to halacha, which is not uncommon (see e.g. Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Torah for several places where he rejects the aggadah for what seems to him to be the plain meaning).

Adapted Creed of Nicea

Yesterday morning I was in a church where they recite the creed of Nicea while standing and as I didnt want to draw attention I stood as well and tried to recite the creed to the extent that I felt comfortable with it. The sentences with a line through it indicate the parts I skipped.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Are there any parts in this creed that you have difficulty with?

Updated my ‘About’ page

My ‘About‘ page was due for revision and so I made some changes to it.

Be sure to check it out and let me know what you think of it

Anything you find unclear or missing?

Subordination?

As I indicated before Ive slowly started to read more about the formation of Christian doctrines with the help of among other sources, J.N.D Kelly. His book is quite densely written and as such I only read two pages a day, to get a good grip on what he’s relating.

Ive now come to the section that deals with the Apologists and their understanding of the relationship of the Logos to the Godhead. And what strikes me is the distinction that seems to be made between the Father as the Supreme God and the Logos as a “second God”, who is worshipped “in secondary rank” (1 Apol. 13 as quoted on p. 101).

According to Kelly it would be a mistake to read subordination into this, but I dont really get what else you could read into this?

Indeed a statement like “we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all” (ibid.) seems to indicate some form of subordination?

In another book Im reading by Hans Küng about the Catholic Church its related that with the insertion of homo-ousios into the creed by Constantine, “any opinion was rejected that held the Son in any regard lower than the Father (‘the’ God), like it generally had been taught by Origen and other early theologians” (p. 57).

Is Hans Küng off-mark in drawing this conclusion or is perhaps Kelly trying to harmonize the Apologists with the conclusions of the council of Nicea. Or is perhaps something else going on?

Anyone an idea?

The Other Side

In my last post I wrote about some of the darker parts of Christian history but today I read in the news that a person who can fairly be characterized as a the greater lights of Christian history, passed away: Miep Gies.

For those of you who dont know her, she helped hide Jews during the Second World War, most famously Anne Frank, whose diary she preserved.

She has been awarded the title “Righteous Gentile” (or “Righteous of the Nations”) by the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem and has been a cause of inspiration for millions of people.

May her memory be for a blessing

Jodenster

Jodenster is Dutch for Jewish star, referring to the yellow patch that was put on the Jews by the Nazi’s

But for those who think this was a novel practice, it wasnt. The yellow patch perhaps, but putting signs to mark out Jews from non-Jews was not a new phenomenon.

I know of one precedent in history which was the order of Pope Innocent III in 1215 to the Jews that they should be wearing distinctive clothes that would mark them out but apparently today is a day that is commemorated by some Jews for another moment in history that Jews were ordered to wear some kind of sign, marking them out:

The external decoration of synagogues was prohibited by Frederick III. on Oct. 12, 1366; in consequence of this law old synagogues that had already been decorated were pulled down. The wearing of a special badge was ordered by the same monarch on Dec. 25, 1369. The badge consisted of a piece of red material, not smaller than the largest royal seal; men were required to wear it under the chin, and women on the breast.¹

I really cringe when reading these things and wonder what this has to do with the religion Im part of, and at times even makes me wonder whether I want to be part of a religion that has this kind of history.

Its easy to say, they werent true Christians, which is most probably true, but this does not take away the fact that they were part of the greater Christian community, especially in the case of Pope Innocent III.

Anyways may this be a day we remember what the Jewish nation suffered at the hands of some of our ancestors and humble us in our approach to them.
——————————————————-
¹“Sicily“, JewishEncyclopedia.com