“Easter Is Evil and Other Fables” by JP Holding – book review

File Size: 359 KB Print Length: 63 pages Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc. ASIN: B00GZ6GA84

Easter Is Evil and Other Fables

Having previously reviewed J.P. Holding’s Christmas book, seeBook review: “Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths” by J. P. Holding, I was pleased to see what he had in store this time (see end of this article for a list on his other books). J. P. Holding heads Tekton – Education and Apologetics Ministries and involves himself in apologetics, polemics and much else.

Well, I sure did learn a thing of two about Easter from this book such as that there is such a thing as “Hot cross buns.” I mean, what do I, a Jew, know about such a thing? When I accepted the messiahship of Jesus and experienced my first Easter, I just realized the correlation between the Passover and Easter (listen to the lecture here for details). But now, I guess I got to try some hot buns…but then again, as Holding notes, some claim that, “Hot cross buns are a symbol of the evil of Easter! They come from a pagan practice!”

What to do? What to do!

Form the get go, J. P. Holding notes that he is pulling info from 5 websites as well as books by Murl Edward Glynn, Lew White, Charles Halff and J. R. Terrier.
Yet, a main source for many claims of Paganism in Christianity (funny how so many are concerned about Judaizing but not Paganizing of the church) is Alexander Hislop’s book The Two Babylons. As it turns out, both Holding and myself have run across research demonstrating that the book is problematic (even though I grant that there is some Paganizing in the church, see my article Alexander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons”: Babylon mystery religion). As Holding notes:

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop – this book is a very old one, from the 1800s, and it covers a lot more than just Easter. It’s a long-winded, poorly-researched, highly contrived attempt to trace all manner of religious traditions (especially Catholic ones) to pagan Babylonian religion. A lot of the sources below use Hislop as a source. I tackled a lot of Hislop’s material in a prior e-book titled Jesus Was a Mushroom and Other Lies You Won’t Believe, so if you want more of the skinny on Hislop himself, that’s the place to look. Here, though, we’ll cover his claims about Easter.”

What often happens with such old sources is that at first, they are properly cited (author, titled, year of edition, page number, etc.) but over time the contents of such works find their way into, particularly popular, works that paraphrase statements which then become the sort of thing which “everyone knows”…even if no one know how we all know such things.

As for the issue of Easter in general, Holding seeks to respond to those who make claims such as that “‘Easter’ comes from Ishtar, the name of a pagan goddess!” Well, Ishtar sounds exactly like Easter—if, well, you know, you pronounce them so as to force them to sound exactly alike.
Yet, J. P. goes beyond pronunciation and seeks to determine, historically (and geographically) whether there truly is a correlation between Ishtar and Easter. Likewise, with the claimed correlation between Easter and “the pagan goddess Ostara/Eostre” as well as “Eastre, the Teutonic goddess of spring.”

There is also more than a mere name game as. For example, another claim is that “Easter eggs are linked to ‘Ishtar’s eggs;’ Ishtar had a day that was celebrated with eggs and she was symbolized by the hare.” About this, Holding admits that “Ishtar was a real goddess, and she was in charge of fertility” who was “worshipped a long, long, long time ago, in Babylon and Assyria. We’re talking about the 600s BC here.”

As for Ostara/Eostre, J. P. Holding notes that, “The basis for this claim comes from an explanation by an 8th century Christian historian Bede.”

So, Ishtar was symbolized by the hare and some claim that “The use of rabbits in Easter themes comes from pagan sources! Tammuz was fond of rabbits, and they became sacred in his religion! And Ishtar’s holidays were celebrated with rabbits, too!” In fact, “There’s even a story around that Eastre had a pet rabbit who laid colored eggs.”

Yet, that to which Holding returns time and time again is the question, “but what do serious scholars say about this?” Which is, obviously, an important question as some rely on “popular sources” such as “cookbooks.”

You will also find out what Saturn automobiles, Athena brand goat cheese and…Midas mufflers have to do with this.

Other topics covered are the following claims:

Ezekiel Chapter 8 records a sunrise service! That proves sunrise services are evil!

…the sunrise services came from that fake Christian emperor, Constantine! He was a secret sun worshipper

Eating ham on Easter comes from a pagan practice! [oi vey!]

And in the end, J. P. Holding focuses us to where our focus belongs:

“we need to keep a laser focus on the real ‘reason for the season,’ which is Jesus’ triumphant Resurrection from the dead and His Ascension to Heaven.”

And we leave off with a likewise note from C. S. Lewis:

“There is a stage in a child’s life at which it cannot separate the religious from the merely festal character of Christmas or Easter. I have been told of a very small and very devout boy who was heard murmuring to himself on Easter morning a poem of his own composition which began ‘Chocolate eggs and Jesus risen.’ This seems to me, for his age, both admirable poetry and admirable piety. But of course the time will soon come when such a child can no longer effortlessly and spontaneously enjoy that unity. He will become able to distinguish the spiritual from the ritual and festal aspect of Easter; chocolate eggs will no longer be sacramental.

And once he has distinguished he must put one or the other first. If he puts the spiritual first he can still taste something of Easter in the chocolate eggs; if he puts the eggs first they will soon be no more than any other sweetmeat. They have taken on an independent, and therefore a soon withering, life.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

See our previous reviews of J.P. Holding’s books:
Book review: “Hitler’s Christianity” by James P. Holding

Book review: “Easter Is Evil and Other Fables” by JP Holding

Book review: “Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths” by J. P. Holding

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a list of J.P. Holding’s books:

Easter Is Evil and Other Fables

Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths

Bood Moon Lunacy

Shattering the Christ Myth

Trusting the New Testament

Defending the Resurrection

What In Hell Is Going On?

The Impossible Faith

The Mormon Defenders

Direct Application New Testament

Christian Answers to This Generation’s Questions

The Atonement Contextualized

Know Your Enemy
A response to the Mark Fairley’s “Know Your Enemy” e-book and video series.

Intellitracts
An intelligent alternative to those “other” cartoon tracts.

John N. Oswalt's “The Bible Among the Myths”

The Bible Among the Myths is a book by John N. Oswalt. Referencing this book provides an opportunity to link to various posts about comparisons between Jesus and various characters:

Muhammad and Jesus, part 1 of 10

aa54f345805f1ea46a1a3170886e8f7d-7094206

Jesus & Buddha (this was a corroboration piece between this author and the one introduced below)

The following are provided by Marcus of the very informative blog What Had Happen′ Was…

Jesus & Attis

Jesus & Dionysus

Jesus & Krishna

Jesus & Quetzalcoatl

Jesus & Xolotl

Jesus & Apollonius of Tyana

Jesus & Scipio Africanus

Jesus & Pythia-the Oracle at Delphi

Jesus & Titus Vespatian

The Iliad vs. the Bible

Also see:

Kyle Butt (you may recall that he debated Dan Barker) Reviewing Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ

Eric Lyons, Mythology and the Bible article.

JP Holding, Shattering the Christ Myth article and his book.

Ronald Nash, Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions article.

Hank Hanegraaff, Is Jesus Myth? Answering More Prime Time Fallacies article.

Rational Christianity, Is the story of Jesus’ life based on pagan myths? article.

Jonathan Sarfati, Was Christianity plagiarized from pagan myths? article.

Patrick Zukeran, Pagan Connection: Did Christianity Borrow From the Mystery Religions? article.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

“A man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament texts and of other people’s studies of them, whose literary experience of those texts lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the obvious thing about them.

If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spend on that Gospel…I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this…”

The following is from Amazon.com

Product Description

“The Bible Among the Myths is a sometimes controversial, always engaging corrective to a growing rejection in Western society of the revelation found within the Old Testament regarding a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity.”

From the Back Cover

“Sixty years ago, most biblical scholars maintained that Israel’s religion was unique—that it stood in marked contrast to the faiths of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Nowadays, it is widely argued that Israel’s religion mirrors that of other West Semitic societies. What accounts for this radical change, and what are its implications for our understanding of the Old Testament?

Dr. John N. Oswalt says the root of this new attitude lies in Western society’s hostility to the idea of revelation, which presupposes a reality that transcends the world of the senses, asserting the existence of a realm humans cannot control. While not advocating a “the Bible says it, and I believe it, and that settles it” point of view, Oswalt asserts convincingly that while other ancient literatures all see reality in essentially the same terms, the Bible differs radically on all the main points.

The Bible Among the Myths supplies a necessary corrective to those who reject the Old Testament’s testimony about a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity.”

About the Author

“Dr. John N. Oswalt (PhD, Brandeis University) is Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of numerous articles and several books, including the two-volume commentary on Isaiah in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series and Called to be Holy: A Biblical Perspective.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Footnote

[1] C.S. Lewis, “Originally entitled ‘Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism’, Lewis read this essay at Westcott House, Cambridge, on 11 May 1959. Published under that title in Christian Reflections (1981), it is now in Fern-seed and Elephants (1998).”—from Orthodox Web

Sam Harris – Book Reviews

(and review of his logic, or lack thereof, etc.)

Transcript of an interview with Sam Harris

The End of Faith:

Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

The End of Faith:

Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

Sam Harris’ Big Lie

Atheists Split on How to Not Believe

True Unbelievers: A Sectarian Split Among Atheists

Among the Non-Believers-The Tedium of Dogmatic Atheism

The New Atheism?

The End of Faith-Secularism with the Gloves Off

The End of Faith, by Sam Harris -A Book with Broad Media Exposure

No End of Faith

Michael Brendan Dougherty

Dear Maniacal Rubes

Unbelievable-Religion is Really, Really Bad for You

The End Of Faith

A Fear of the Faithful Who Mean Exactly What They Believe

Non-Believers Can Be Bigoted Too

Is Religion the Problem?

Sam Harris’ Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Imagine There’s No Heaven

“The Lost Tomb of Jesus”, part 3 of 10

Let the Debate Begin_Without Us:
James Cameron stated,

“We’ve done our homework; we’ve made the case; and now it’s time for the debate to begin.”1

However, the producer and director also take a Dan Brownesque retreat from the debate as they state:

James Cameron,
“I’m not a theologist [sic.]. I’m not an archaeologist. I’m a documentary film maker.”2

Simcha Jacobovici,
“I am not a theologian. I didn’t want to take anyone on.”3

Jacobovici also said,
“We’re just reporting the news. We’re not statisticians. We’re not theologians.”4

You may recall how Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, claimed that he had done the historical research and now he would leave it up to the historians to debate the facts. He quickly took his millions of dollars and disappeared from public view (in order to work on his next book about Freemasonry).
There is something important to point out here; something about how the fact/fiction of Dan Brown and James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici function: dan Brown has stated, “How historically accurate is history itself?”5
Think about it: if history is not historically accurate how can he begin his novel The Da Vinci Code with the word “FACT” and claim that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”? Just how does he know that the history upon which he is relying is accurate?
We ought not make the claim of pure subjectivism in history in order to construct a self-fulfilling prophecy by dealing loosely with the facts-on purpose.

tomb3-3126873

Now James Cameron and Smicha Jacobovici are making a charge at a theological, historical, archeological subject while at the same time retreating virtually before the debate begins. At least Jacobovici appeared on a debate forum after the documentary was released. Here I only wanted to note the “Don’t ask me, that’s not my field” preemptions; the “I made the charge but will not debate” mentality.

Atheism and Creation Ministries International, part 1

Having written a little essay about atheism offsite at www.creation.com/atheism I have encountered certain comments that have been made about it and I thought that it may be interesting to consider, and respond, to them.

Let us consider comments posted to Apologetics 315, comments posted to RichardDawkins.net’s forum (who were kind enough to besmirch it), comments posted to Free Republic (who were kind enough to link to it), comments posted to the essay itself and a comment posted to the essay which was followed up on the Arizona Atheist blog.

Apologetics 315
Brian, Apologetics 315’s administrator, put it well when he stated that the comments section to his reference to my essay got weird really fast. Note that I will remove the names/pseudonyms for all comment wherever they were made (except for Brian’s) as they did not comment at Atheism is Dead.

Indeed, it did get weird very quickly as the very first comment stated,

Asking creationists to tell “All About Atheism” is like getting the truth about Christianity from Sufi Muslim. Disappointing post of ad hominem and strawmen links from Apologetics315.

I would imagine that they did not read the essay but commit the ad hominem in presupposing that since I am not an atheist my content is fallacious. I wonder if they would write to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, et al and tell them that “Asking an atheist to tell “All About Theism” is like getting the truth about Christianity from Sufi Muslim”?

Of course, Brian asked the logical question,

Please let us know what the ad hominems and straw men are; and explain how your comment is not an ad hominem itself.

The next comment was even worse than the first, to which it referred,

I’ve not read the pdf [Brian provided a PDF file] yet so really cannot comment, but it looks like [name removed] said it before I did anyway :-)The blog “Atheism is Dead” is a poor place for discussion in my opinion, but maybe it has changed since.

Let us review: they did not read the essay, they recognize that they should not be commenting but they know that the criticism is accurate. This is an argumentum ad gut reactionum.
Atheism is Dead is a fine place for a discussion yet, I personally had to go from responding to everyone on everything to focusing on writing posts and caring for my growing family. Yet, this itself is an ad hominem as they discount the contents of the essay by making a point about the blog to which its author posts.

Again came Brian making sense and everything—how bothersome!

Sure would be nice to hear some engagement with the content instead of prejudicial ad hominem statements. : )

The next comment attempted to provide actual arguments from the actual essay yet, I am afraid that they may have been employing dictionary definitions of logical fallacies while not really knowing how to employ them, as they write:

argumentum ad hominem = “argument against the man”From the article:Christopher Hitchens, … asks the philosophically naïve question,[Dan Barker’s] “reasoning” [why is that in quotes?]

Let us understand that an ad hominem is not merely making a statement about, or to, the hominid. It is making a statement about the hominid while ignoring the hominid’s argument. You could say, “The Christian from Atheism is Dead wrote an essay about atheism, so that essay is a priori discredited” this would be an ad hominem. But if you say “The Christian from Atheism is Dead wrote an essay about atheism, Christianity is poppycock and the blog is a poor place for discussion but I read the essay and it is wrong because…” this is not an ad hominem.

Now, what if Christopher Hitchens asked a philosophically naïve question? Can we not state that it was so? We can if we also respond to the naïvety. His question was “Who created the Creator?” which is indeed naïve (and which I dealt with in the parsed essay On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.).

And what about those quotes? Now this is a good question.Firstly, I should note, for what it is worth, that I did not write that Christopher Hitchens “asks the philosophically naïve question.” This was quoted from the little caption-like boxes that were placed around the essay and authored by I know not who; they are not quotes from the essay (which someone who read the essay would know).

As for Dan Barker, why is it that I quote “reasoning”? Well, some context would have been nice as it answers the question:

With regards to Dan Barker, let us lastly note that he also argues that rape is not absolutely immoral. His “reasoning” involves a hypothetical scenario in which malevolent aliens from outer space attack Earth.

Since in order to justify his particular, and peculiar, take on relative ethics he must remove himself from reality and concoct scenarios involving aliens and rape he is “reasoning.” I wrote quite a bit about this in the parse essay Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs.

The commentator continues:

The article is more about atheist comments not about atheism with compulsory Stalin reference.Mariano runs several hate blogs (ad hominem blogs) against prominent atheists Dawkins, Harris and Barker. Links to those sites are on the front page of atheism_is_dead blog.BTW, have you notice that creation.com always uses agry [sic] face picture of Dawkins. I guess they want him to look bad… [ellipses in original]

I thought that all atheism was is atheists commenting about atheism. Is atheism not in the eye of the beholder? Pop-New Atheists argue that the only thing that atheism is and that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). The superfluity which follows in what the individual atheist then goes on to make of their particular lack is that which “atheism” mostly consists: commenting about their atheism.

I am not certain what is wrong with noting the atheist Joseph Stalin when discussing atheism and the New Atheist tendency of attempting to re-write history as recent as the last century (see my Essays Particular to Nazism and Communism).

I am also not certain how they define “hate” as my blogs are about polemics and we have already seen this person does not seem to understand ad hominems. If they define criticism as “hate” then they must be very hateful. Note that this is a near ad hominem as I may be very hateful indeed but this would not make me a priori wrong.
Another near ad hominem is criticizing the usage of angry Richard Dawkins pictures on the website that hosts the essay. I have actually not ascertained the percentage of angry face photos but one thing is certain, Richard Dawkins does a fine job of looking bad all by himself.

Next the logical dissection continues:

A straw man = “misrepresentation of an opponent’s position”From the article:“atheists define “evil” based on personal preferences. This means that they cannot logically formulate an argument for the problem of evil without first providing an absolute definition of evil.”
No need for “an absolute definition”.

This is actually the entirety of the statement which was commenting on the section creation.com/atheism#problem-of-evil. This is a case of wanting it both, or various, ways: we want to besmirch Christianity for “evil” done in its name, we want to excuse atheism for “evil” done in its name, of course we want to blame God for all “evil” in general but we have no need for an “an absolute definition” of what that “evil” may be.
Yet, if your personal preferences based definition of “evil” conflicts with mine then the only way that you can in any way beyond merely expressing your personal preferences condemn my “evil” without an absolute definition would be to appeal to your personal preferences—and now we are arguing in a circle.

Francis Collins, Barack Obama and the Envious

By now you may have been made aware that Barack Obama has nominated Francis Collins for the position of director of the National Institutes of Health.

A search for “Francis Collins” in Google News returned 270 hits for the past week alone. It is fascinating to read some of the news related articles which cannot seem to help mentioning that he, hold your breath now, believe in the three letter “G” word and is a “C” word that rhymes with “histian.” Many, for some odd, un-contextual and utterly irrelevant reason, mention that Francis Collins was/is a musician and is oft seen looking cool man, cool:

atheismatheistfranciscollinsbarackobamanationalinstitutesofhealthnihscience-8458599

atheismatheistfranciscollinsbarackobamanationalinstitutesofhealthnihscience-2108328

He plays guitar and rides a motorcycle
but I hear that he is also, like, a scientist and stuff

Francis Collins accomplished more in one single project-as the head of the Human Genome Project-than those activist atheists who are questioning his scientific credentials by committing the ad hominem about his faith commitments will in a lifetime or ten. Yet, this is no reason to get all envious about his nomination.

Sam Harris, of course, got into the act which is fascinating considering that Harris has admitted that he is becoming a scientist in order to seek evidence for his particular and peculiar atheism-he is merely seeking soft science confirmation for his preconceived notions.

I wonder what would happen if an atheist or otherwise evolution = God is superfluous at best adherent were to be nominated. Would they be racked? Would they be caricatured to the tune of, “So, you believe that life came into being when lightning struck a swamp! How could this guy be trusted as the head of the National Institutes of Health?”

I even heard a radio show interviewee who referred to Francis Collins as a “creationist” and defined Collins’ creationism as something to the likes of denying that bio-organism’s change. Yet, Francis Collins has his own views on creation and evolution and could not easily be forced into the “Creation scientist” nor “Intelligent Design theorist” mold. In fact, and for example, Jonathan Wells (the black listed biologist) wrote a review of Collins’ book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” which is entitled “Darwin of the Gaps” and takes Collins to task on various points.
My only point in writing this post is not note that it is simply fascinating to note just how vitriolic the “news” is on this point-and I am not even mentioning individual websites and blogs.

Atheism is Dead has previously made reference to Francis Collins in the following posts:

The New Atheists on Francis Collins – Soteriological Chain of Causation

John Horgan and Francis Collins – The Scientist as Believer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, of interest may be, P.Z. Myers: Christianity is Bad; Crimes Against Humanity are Very Very Good

Jewish / Judaism : When Was the Messiah Expected?, part 5 of 7

Encyclopedia Judaica 6:861 & 10:390,

“The Bible has no word for the abstract idea of eschatology. It does however, have a term-‘aharit ha-yamim-that often has eschatological connotations, at least in the broad sense mentioned above, it means literally ‘the end of the days’ i.e., ‘the end of time.’_.Towards the end of the second Temple period, when ominous clouds of complete national catastrophe began to gather, the eschatological note was sounded particularly loudly. Speculations were rife regarding the end of days and hope for a new era to be ushered in by direct divine intervention.

The doctrine of the Messiah and the messianic age, herald by the prophet, was seen as a hope shortly to be realized. Some groups of Jews fled into the desert to await the coming of the Messiah, as it is evidenced by the sect of Qumran (held by most scholars to be identical with the Essenes).”

Hebrew scholars Michael Wise and James Tabor,

“show that because of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy, the Qumran community believed that the Messiah was going to come in the era in which they lived (first century BCE-first century CE). ‘We know the Qumran group was intensely interested in this seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel.
They tried to place themselves within this chronological scheme as they calculated the eschaton. They must have made something out of this Messiah figure who was cut off_The teacher of righteousness, frequently referred to in the Qumran documents, appears to be the Messiah figure of Davidic descent, who is connected by the writers at Qumran specifically with the figure written about in Daniel 9:25.'”1

Midrash Rabbah Genesis XCVII,

“THE SCEPTRE [STAFF] SHALL NOT DEPART FROM JUDAH alludes to the Messiah, son of David, who will chastise the State with a staff.”

Daniel and the Coming Messiah:
Many ancient and modern Rabbis, as well as Jewish scholars in general, apply Daniel’s prophecies to the Messiah the ultimate redeemer, to the end, or calculated, days (a reference to the 70 weeks prophecy).

Babylonian Talmud-Megillah 12a,

“R. Nahman son of R. Hisda gave the following exposition. What is the meaning of the verse, Thus saith the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden [Isa. XLV, 1.]. Now was Cyrus the Messiah? Rather what it means is: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Messiah: I have a complaint on thy behalf against Cyrus [And we translate: ‘God said to his anointed regarding Cyrus.’].”

While in Babylon Daniel the prophet received revelation about the specific time when the Messiah would come, the following quotes reveal various reactions to such a clear revelation, the prophecy either failed or it points to Jesus as being the Messiah.

Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi,

“I have examined and searched all the Holy Scriptures and have not found the time of the coming of Messiah clearly fixed, except in the words of Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel.”2

Rabbi Maimonides wrote,

“Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have barred the calculation of the days of the Messiah’s coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah.” He concludes, “It is a fundamental dogma to believe in the coming of the Messiah, even if he delays. But no one should attempt to guess or fix the time.”3

Gerson D. Cohen,

“The books of Daniel and of other apocalyptists abound with theories as to the exact date of the messianic End. That people took these religious mathematicians seriously is evident from the Rabbinic excoriation of ‘calculators of the end.'”4

Talmud-Nazir 32b, Rabbi Joseph said,

“Had I had been there, I should have said to them: is it not written, the temple of the Lord the temple, of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these, which points to the destruction of the First and Second Temples?
Granted that they [the rabbis of the Second Temple period] knew it would be destroyed, did they know when this would occur? Is it not written, seventy weeks are determined upon the people, and upon the holy city. All the same, did they know on which day?”

Here we see one of many examples of the understanding that the Messiah should have already come:Talmud-Sanhedrin 97a-b,

“The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation,(1) two thousand years the Torah flourished,(2) and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era,(3) but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.(4)

Footnotes: (1) I.e., no Torah. It is a tradition that Abraham was fifty-two years old when he began to convert men to the worship of the true God; from Adam until then, two thousand years elapsed.
(2) I.e., from Abraham’s fifty-second year until one hundred and seventy-two years after the destruction of the second Temple. This does not mean that the Torah should cease thereafter, but is mentioned merely to distinguish it from the next era.
(3) I.e., Messiah will come within that period.
(4) He should have come at the beginning of the last two thousand years; the delay is due to out sins.

According to this particular calculation the Messiah should have come in 142 CE (AD), but He did not do so due to Israel’s sins.

Jewish / Judaism : Jewish View of Jesus

There certainly is not one single Jewish view of Jesus. Rather, there are various: from the respectful and empathetic to the malicious and condemnatory. In this essay we simply provide a sampling a various opinions.

In typical Jewish humor Franz Rosenzweig and David Flusser wrote,

Whether Jesus was the Messiah will be shown when the Messiah comes_I do not think many Jews would object if the messiah when he came again was the Jew Jesus.1

Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer:

Jesus’ ministry on earth coincided with the lives of the early Rabbis known as Pharisees. Jews therefore see Jesus as a historical personality whose work and teachings parallel those of other wonder-working Jewish leaders of the time_

The Romans crucified Jesus just as they tortured Rabbi Akiba to death, because they feared the revolutionary effect of their doctrine of love and justice. But Jews stop short of identifying Jesus as in any way divine. Simply put, Jews do not believe that God had a son or appeared in human form_Jews do not quote Jesus as a model, not because we cannot identify with much that he said, but because his life and death are so intrinsically central to Christianity_

Were we to point to Jesus’ behavior or teachings as our guide in life, we would feel as if we were crossing the boundary from Judaism to Christianity. The Lord’s prayer, for instance, has nothing in it with which Jews would not agree. It is a prayer for the coming of God’s reign, a doctrine taught by every Rabbi of the first and second century. But we would not say the Lord’s prayer, since it is part of Christian liturgy, associated firmly with the bedrock of Christian faith. Similarly, Jesus is known to have preached the Golden Rule. But we do not cite Jesus to the effect that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, even though we agree that we should. Instead, we have our own daily prayer called the Kaddish [KAH-dish], which parallels the Lord’s prayer and was formulated about the same time_

It is always hard to second-guess history, but it is interesting to imagine what would have happened if the life of Jesus had not been appropriated by Christianity. What would have happened if he had been remembered only as the Jew he was, but not as the savior? His life might in that case have been retained by Jewish sources. He might well have remained a Jewish moral hero like the Pharisees of the time, who were much like him. But precisely because Jesus was recognized by Christians as the Christ, he could not be recognized as a Jewish role model by those Jews who did not accept his divinity.2

Lawrence J. Epstein:

To Jews, whatever wonderful teacher and storyteller Jesus may have been, he was just a human, not the son of God (except in the metaphorical sense in which all humans are children of God). In the Jewish view, Jesus cannot save souls; only God can. Jesus did not, in the Jewish view, rise from the dead_.

Jesus is not seen as the messiah. In the Jewish view, the messiah is a human being who will usher in an era of peace. We can tell the messiah by looking at the world and seeing if it is at peace. From the Jewish view, this clearly did not happen when Jesus was on Earth or anytime after his death_

No one who is Jewish, no born Jew and no one who converts to Judaism, can believe in Jesus as the literal son of God or as the Messiah. For the Jewish people, there is no God but God.3

See the post Jewish and Christian? Is Messianic Judaism Possible? for some elucidations of Lawrence Epstein’s misconceptions.

jewishcross-7032384

Alfred J. Kolatch:

Many Jewish scholars believe that Jesus considered himself a prophet only. They reject the contention of Christian scholars that when Jesus used the phrase “Son of Man” in his preaching (first mentioned in Daniel 7:13, where the Aramaic phrase bar enash is used), he was referring to himself as the Messiah.
The phrase “Son of God,” in the Jewish view, is used in the third person, and more likely than not, when Jesus used the phrase he was referring to someone other than himself. Jewish scholars also point to the fact that there is little evidence in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)-the earliest accounts of the life of Jesus-that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah_.

According to the doctrine of incarnation, God transformed himself to human life in the form of Jesus. To Jews, who believe that God is One and unchangeable, this doctrine is unacceptable.4

Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3:

Now there was about this time, Yeshua, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.
He was Mashiach; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of “Christians,” so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

For an elucidation of the controversy over this text please see Paul L. Maier’s Josephus and Jesus

Pinchas Lapide:

In none of the cases where rabbinic literature speaks of such visions did it result in an essential change in the life of the resuscitated or of those who had experienced the visions_

It is different with the disciples of Jesus on that Easter Sunday_

If the defeated and depressed group of disciples overnight could change into a victorious movement of faith, based only on autosuggestion or self-deception-without a fundamental faith experience-then this would be a much greater miracle than the resurrection itself.5

I accept Jesus as a believing Jew who had a central role to play in God’ plan of salvation and in whose name a worldwide church was founded.6

exodus_marc_chagallandjewishjudaismmessianicjudaismmessiahjesustorahtanakhbible-2816095

Jacob Bernadagus:

The Message of Jesus was stated within the context of Jewish thought at the time. His ethics and his faith were within the prophetic tradition; the only point at issue was whether or not he was the expected Messiah, or “son of man.”7

Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver:

The Jews did not reject the God concept of Jesus, for that was Jewish in essence and Jesus derived it from the Torah. “The New Testament adds nothing to the content of the ideas of God which is not already present in the literature and faith of Israel. It is often argued that Jesus held a unique conception of God, by which is usually meant the father hood of God. We have seen, however_that the divine characteristics which the term ‘fatherhood’ denotes are fully evident in the Old Testament.”(1)_

“In what way did the teaching of Jesus differ from that of his contemporaries?” query the editors of The Beginnings of Christianity, and they reply: “Not by teaching anything about God essentially new to Jewish ears. The God of Jesus is the God of the Jews, about whom he says nothing that cannot be paralleled in Jewish literature. Nor was it in his doctrine as to the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus differed markedly from the Jewish teachers.(2)”8

Footnote: (1) Otto J. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament (1949), p. 270
(2) F.J. Foakes Jackson and Krisopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, I, 288-289

As regards Sabbath observance-“that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27)-this did not represent any break with the basic attitude of Pharisaic Judaism. In the second century of the Common Era [C.E. or A.D.], when Sabbath laws had been elaborated much further by the Rabbis and culminated in the thirty-nine chief categories of prohibited work, R. Jonathan b. Joseph (2 c.) employed the almost identical words of the Gospel: “The Sabbath is committed to your hands, not you to its hands [Yoma 85b].”

Both the Gospel and the Rabbis were probably quoting a popular folk saying in vogue among the people. It was an established principle that in the case of danger to human life, in war, in sickness or accident, all the laws of the Sabbath may be suspended. Even when the danger was not clear, the Sabbath law was to be suspended. Quick action in its suspension is praised, delay condemned [J. Yoma 8:5].

Jesus’ controversy with the Pharisees over the charge that his disciples plucked ears of corn unlawfully on the Sabbath day and ate them because they were hungry (Mark 2:23-28) could have involved no real difference of opinion as regards the law. Such action could quite properly be justified under the law on the ground that it was necessary to preserve life.

This is true also of the other Gospel references to the Sabbath. They are rather the reflections of the antinomist controversy, developed in later times by other men, which sought to establish that “the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day’ (Matt. 12:8), that he could abolish the Biblical law of the Sabbath altogether, as well as all other laws, and that ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13).9

yellowcrucifixion-marcchagall-2713723

Julius H. Greenstone:

In the Psalms of Solomon [circa 70 and 40 B.C.E. (B.C.)]_The Messiah is represented as purging Jerusalem of its sins_Though conceived as pure from sin and constantly sustained by God’s holy spirit, he is still taken to be only a temporary ruler.

The author of the Similitudes of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch makes the Messiah almost a supernatural being, gives him titles, which were later applied to Jesus in the New Testament, such as “the anointed,” “the elect one,” “the righteous one,” “the son of man.” It regards him as penetrating the deepest mysteries and possessing the power of reviving the dead, and accords him a place in the immediate presence of God.10

Joseph Klausner:

in his ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew ethical code.11