|
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,265
|
JESUS THE [NON-CHRISTIAN] JEW.
JESUS THE [NON-CHRISTIAN] JEW.
This account portrays Jesus certainly as a Jew, and certainly nothing like any Christian as per the Gospels. Like many normal Jews, he had positive and negative characteristics; looked, dressed and performed normal Jewish observances; and declared nothing in Jewish law can be changed ['fullfilled' away]. Basically, this account appears, at the very least, based on a legitimate different view of actual prevailing Jewish premises and of its history, without the agenda of willful negations, politics or propaganda.
Quote:
JESUS OF NAZARETH. (print this article)
Jewish Encylopedia.com
By : Joseph Jacobs Kaufmann Kohler Richard Gottheil Samuel Krauss
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—In History:
Sources of Life.
Influence of John the Baptist.
His Belief in Demonology.
Jewish Characteristics.
Attitude Toward the Law.
Tone of Authority.
No New Organization, Contemplated.
Jesus in Jerusalem.
In the Temple.
The Test of the Tribute.
The Last Supper.
The Crucifixion.
—In Theology:
Legends Concerning His Birth.
As Healer and Wonder-Worker.
As Helper of the Poor and Forsaken.
Man of the People; Not a Reformer.
The Kingdom of God.
His Death.
The Resurrection.
—In Jewish Legend:
Birth of Jesus.
Sojourn in Egypt.
Jesus as Magician.
The Disciples of Jesus.
The Doctrines of Jesus.
Trial and Death of Jesus.
The Resurrection.
Karaites and Samaritans.
Antichrist Legends.
—In History:
Founder of Christianity; born at Nazareth about 2 B.C. (according to Luke iii. 23); executed at Jerusalem 14th of Nisan, 3789 (March or April, 29 C.E.). His life, though indirectly of so critical a character, had very little direct influence on the course of Jewish history or thought. In contemporary Jewish literature his career is referred to only in the (interpolated) passage of Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 3, § 3, while the references in the Talmud are for the most part as legendary as those in the apocryphal gospels, though in an opposite direction (see Jesus in Jewish Legend). Under these circumstances it is not necessary in this place to do more than to give a sketch of the main historical events in the public career of Jesus, with an attempt to ascertain his personal relations to contemporary Judaism; for the theological superstructure based upon his life and death, and certain mythological conceptions associated with them, see Jew. Encyc. iv. 50a, s.v. Christianity.
Sources of Life.
In the New Testament there are four "Gospels" professing to deal with the life of Jesus independently; but it is now almost universally agreed that the first three of these, known by the names of "Matthew," "Mark," and "Luke," are interdependent, corresponding to the various forms of contemporary Baraitot, while the fourth, the Gospel of John, is what the Germans call a "Tendenz-Roman," practically a work of religious imagination intended to modify opinion in a certain direction. The supernatural claims made on behalf of Jesus are based almost exclusively on statements of the fourth Gospel. Of the first three or synoptic Gospels the consensus of contemporary opinion regards that of Mark as the earliest and as being the main source of the historic statements of the other two. This Gospel will, therefore, be used in the following account almost exclusively, references to chapter and verse, when the name of the Gospel is not given, being to this source. Beside the original of the Gospel of Mark, there was another source used in common by both Matthew and Luke, namely the "logia," or detached sayings, of Matthew and Luke; and besides these two documents the apocryphal "Gospel According to the Hebrews" has preserved, in the opinion of the critics, a few statements of Jesus which often throw vivid light upon his motives and opinions. Much industry and ingenuity have been devoted by A. Resch to the collection of extracanonical statements of Jesus, known as "agrapha" (Leipsic, 1889).
The earliest of all these sources, the original of Mark's Gospel, contains references which show that it was written shortly before or soon after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70; in other words, forty years after the death of Jesus. Like the other Gospels, it was originally written in Greek, whereas the sayings of Jesus were uttered in Aramaic. It is therefore impossible to lay much stress upon the perfect accuracy of the records of events and statements written down forty years after they occurred or were made, and then in a language other than that in which such statements were originally uttered (even the Lord's Prayer was retained in variant versions; comp. Matt. vi. 10-13; Luke xi. 2-4); yet it is upon this slender basis that some of the most stupendous claims have been raised. For the processes by which the traditions as to the life of Jesus were converted into proofs of his super-natural character, see Jew. Encyc. iv. 51-52, s.v. Christianity. Many incidents were actually invented (especially in Matthew) "in order that there might be fulfilled" in him prophecies relating to aMessiah of a character quite other than that of which Jesus either claimed or was represented by his disciples to be.
Yet the supernatural in the life of Jesus according to the Gospels is restricted to the smallest dimensions, consisting mainly of incidents and characteristics intended to support these prophecies and the dogmatic positions of Christianity. This applies especially to the story of the virgin-birth, a legend which is common to almost all folk-heroes as indicating their superiority to the rest of their people (see E. S. Hartland, "Legend of Perseus," vol. i.). Combined with this is the inconsistent claim of Davidic descent through Joseph, two discrepant pedigrees being given (Matt. i., Luke iii.).
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels is the utter silence about its earlier phases. He was one of a rather large family, having four brothers, Jacob, Jose, Simon, Judah, besides sisters. It is known that he earned his living by his father's trade, that of a carpenter; according to Justin Martyr, plows and yokes made by Jesus were still in existence at his (Justin's) time, about the year 120 ("Dial. cum Tryph." § 88). It is doubtful whether he received any definite intellectual training, the great system of Jewish education not being carried into effect till after the destruction of Jerusalem (see Education). It is probable, however, that he could read; he was certainly acquainted, either by reading or by oral instruction, with much of the Old Testament; and his mode of argumentation often resembles that of the contemporary rabbis, implying that he had frequented their society. In defending his infringement of the Sabbath he seems to have confused Abiathar with Ahimelech (ii. 25; comp. I Sam. xxi. 1), if this is not merely a copyist's blunder. It would appear from his interviews with the scribe (xii. 29-31; comp. Luke x. 27) and with the rich young man (x. 19) that he was acquainted with the Didache in its Jewish form, accepting its teachings as summing up the whole of Jewish doctrine. Only a single incident of his early days is recorded: his behavior about the time of his bar miẓwah (or confirmation) in the Temple (Luke ii. 41-52). It is strange that so masterful a character showed no signs of its exceptional qualities before the turning-point of Jesus' career.
Influence of John the Baptist.
The crisis in Jesus' life came with John the Baptist's preaching of repentance and of the nearness of the kingdom of God. At first Jesus refused to submit to baptism by John. According to a well-authenticated tradition of the "Gospel According to the Hebrews," he asked wherein he had sinned that it was necessary for him to be baptized by John. Nevertheless the sight of the marked influence exercised by the latter evidently made a profound impression on the character of Jesus: he probably then experienced for the first time the power of a great personality upon crowds of people.
It is at this moment of his life that Christian legend places what is known as the temptation, information concerning which, from the very nature of the case, could have been communicated only by Jesus himself. In the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" account this is given in the form: "My mother, the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me up to the great Mount Tabor" (which was in the neighborhood of his home). As Jerome remarks (on Isa. xl. 9), the form of this saying implies a Hebrew (or rather Aramaic) original ("Ruḥa Ḳaddisha"); and for this reason, among others, the saying may be regarded as a genuine one. It is significant as implying two things: (1) the belief of Jesus in a special divine origin of his spirit, and (2) a tendency to ecstatic abstraction. This tendency is found in other great leaders of men, like Socrates, Mohammed, and Napoleon, being accompanied in their cases by hallucinations; auditory in the first case (the "demon" of Socrates), and visual in the last two (Mohammed's dove and Napoleon's star). These periods of ecstasy would tend to confirm in Oriental minds the impression that the subject of them was inspired (comp. the original meaning of "nabi"; see Prophet), and would add to the attractive force of a magnetic personality.
In Jesus' family and among his neighbors the effect seems to have been different. His own people regarded him even as being out of his mind (iii. 21), and they do not appear to have been associated with him or with the Christian movement until after his death. Jesus himself seems to have been greatly incensed at this (comp. vi. 4), refusing to recognize any special relationship even to his mother (iii. 33; comp. John ii. 4), and declaring that spiritual relationship exceeded a natural one (iii. 35). He felt perforce driven out into public activity; and the feverish excitement of the succeeding epoch-making ten months implies a tension of spirit which must have confirmed the impression of inspiration. On the whole subject see O. Holtzman, "War Jesus Ekstatiker?" (Leipsic, 1902), who agrees that there must have been abnormal mental processes involved in the utterances and behavior of Jesus.
His Belief in Demonology.
Instead, however, of remaining in the wilderness like John, or like the Essenes, with whose tendencies his own show some affinity, he returned to his native district and sought out those whom he wished to influence. Incidentally he developed a remarkable power of healing; one sick of a fever (i. 29-34), a leper (i. 40-45), a paralytic (ii. 1-12), and an epileptic (ix. 15-29) being severally cured by him. But his activity in this regard was devoted especially to "casting out demons," i.e., according to the folkmedicine of the time, healing nervous and mental diseases. It would appear that Jesus shared in the current belief of the Jews in the noumenal existence of demons or evil spirits; and most of his miraculous cures consisted in casting them out, which he did with "the finger of God" (Luke xi. 20), or with "the Spirit of God" (Matt. xii. 28). It would seem also that he regarded diseases like fever to be due to the existence of demons (Luke iv. 39). One of the chief functions transmitted to his disciples was the "power over unclean spirits, to cast them out" (Matt. x. 1), and his superiority to his followers was shown by his casting out demons which they had failed to expel (ix. 14-29). As regards the miracle in which Jesus cast out a demon or several demons whose name was "Legion" into some Gadarene swine (v. 1-21), it has recently been ingeniously suggested by T. Reinach that the name "Legion" given to the spirits was due to the popular confusion between the Tenth Legion (the sole Roman garrison of Palestine between the years 70 and 135) and the wild boar which appeared as the insignia on its standard ("R. E. J." xlvii. 177). From this it would seem that the legend arose, at any rate in its present form, after the destruction of Jerusalem, at which time alone the confusion between the title "legion" and the insignia could have occurred. For a full account of the subject see F. C. Conybeare in "J. Q. R." viii. 587-588, and compare Demonology.
It is difficult to estimate what amount of truth exists in the accounts of these cures, recorded about forty years after their occurrence; but doubtless the mental excitement due to the influence of Jesus was often efficacious in at least partial or temporary cures of mental illnesses. This would tend to confirm the impression, both among those who witnessed the cures and among his disciples, of his possession of supernatural powers. He himself occasionally deprecated the exaggeration to which such cures naturally led. Thus in the case of Jairus' daughter (v. 35-43) he expressly declared: "She is not dead, but sleepeth" (39). Notwithstanding this, her resuscitation was regarded as a miracle.
In essentials Jesus' teaching was that of John the Baptist, and it laid emphasis on two points: (1) repentance, and (2) the near approach of the kingdom of God. One other point is noted by Christian theologians as part of his essential teaching, namely, insistence upon the fatherhood of God. This is such a commonplace in the Jewish liturgy and in Jewish thought that it is scarcely necessary to point out its essentially Jewish character (see Father). As regards repentance, its specifically Jewish note has been recently emphasized by C. G. Montefiore ("J. Q. R." Jan., 1904), who points out that Christianity lays less stress upon this side of religious life than Judaism; so that in this direction Jesus was certainly more Jewish than Christian.
As regards the notion of the "kingdom of heaven," the title itself ("malkut shamayim") is specifically Jewish; and the content of the concept is equally so (see Kingdom of God). Jesus seems to have shared in the belief of his contemporaries that some world-catastrophe was at hand in which this kingdom would be reinstated on the ruins of a fallen world (ix. 1; comp. xiii. 35-37 and Matt. x. 23).
Jewish Characteristics.
Almost at the beginning of his evangelical career Jesus differentiated himself from John the Baptist in two directions: (1) comparative neglect of the Mosaic or rabbinic law; and (2) personal attitude toward infractions of it. In many ways his attitude was specifically Jewish, even in directions which are usually regarded as signs of Judaic narrowness. Jesus appears to have preached regularly in the synagogue, which would not have been possible if his doctrines had been recognized as being essentially different from the current Pharisaic beliefs. In his preaching he adopted the popular method of "mashal," or Parable, of which about thirty-one examples are instanced in the synoptic Gospels, forming indeed the larger portion of his recorded teachings. It is obvious that such a method is liable to misunderstanding; and it is difficult in all cases to reconcile the various views that seem to underlie the parables. One of these parables deserves special mention here, as it has obviously been changed, for dogmatic reasons, so as to have an anti-Jewish application. There is little doubt that J. Halevy is right ("R. E. J." iv. 249-255) in suggesting that in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke x. 17-37) the original contrast was between the priest, the Levite, and the ordinary Israelite—representing the three great classes into which Jews then and now were and are divided. The point of the parable is against the sacerdotal class, whose members indeed brought about the death of Jesus. Later, "Israelite" or "Jew" was changed into "Samaritan," which introduces an element of inconsistency, since no Samaritan would have been found on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem (ib. 30).
While the aim of Jesus was to redeem those who had strayed from the beaten path of morality, he yet restricted his attention and that of his followers to the lost sons of Israel (vii. 24). He particularly forbade his disciples to seek heathens and Samaritans (x. 5), and for the same reason at first refused to heal the Syrophenician woman (vii. 24). His choice of twelve apostles had distinct reference to the tribes of Israel (iii. 13-16). He regarded dogs and swine as unholy (Matt. vii. 6). His special prayer is merely a shortened form of the third, fifth, sixth, ninth, and fifteenth of the Eighteen Benedictions (see Lord's Prayer). Jesus wore the Ẓiẓit (Matt. ix. 20); he went out of his way to pay the Temple tax of two drachmas (ib. xvii. 24-27); and his disciples offered sacrifice (ib. v. 23-24). In the Sermon on the Mount he expressly declared that he had come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it (ib. v. 17, quoted in Shab. 116b), and that not a jot or tittle of the Law should ever pass away (ib. v. 18; comp. Luke xvi. 17). It would even appear that later tradition regarded him as scrupulous in keeping the whole Law (comp. John viii. 46).
Attitude Toward the Law.
Yet in several particulars Jesus declined to follow the directions of the Law, at least as it was interpreted by the Rabbis. Where John's followers fasted, he refused to do so (ii. 18). He permitted his followers to gather corn on the Sabbath (ii. 23-28), and himself healed on that day (iii. 1-6), though the stricter rabbis allowed only the saving of life to excuse the slightest curtailment of the Sabbath rest (Shab. xxii. 6). In minor points, such as the ablution after meals (vii. 2), he showed a freedom from traditional custom which implied a break with the stricter rule of the more rigorous adherents of the Law at that time. His attitude toward the Law is perhaps best expressed in an incident which, though recorded in only one manuscript of the Gospel of Luke (vi. 4, in the Codex Bezæ), bears internal signs of genuineness. He is there reported to have met a man laboring onthe Sabbath-day—a sin deserving of death by stoning, according to the Mosaic law. Jesus said to the man: "Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, accursed art thou, and a transgressor of the Law." According to this, the Law should be obeyed unless a higher principle intervenes.
While claiming not to infringe or curtail the Law, Jesus directed his followers to pay more attention to the intention and motive with which any act was done than to the deed itself. This was by no means a novelty in Jewish religious development: the Prophets and Rabbis had continuously and consistently insisted upon the inner motive with which pious deeds should be performed, as the well-known passages in Isa. i. and Micah vi. sufficiently indicate. Jesus contended that the application of this principle was practically equivalent to a revolution in spiritual life; and he laid stress upon the contrast between the old Law and the new one, especially in his Sermon on the Mount. In making these pretensions he was following a tendency which at the period of his career was especially marked in the Hasidæans and Essenes, though they associated it with views as to external purity and seclusion from the world, which differentiated them from Jesus. He does not appear, however, to have contended that the new spirit would involve any particular change in the application of the Law. He appears to have suggested that marriages should be made permanent, and that divorce should not be allowed (x. 2-12). In the Talmud it is even asserted that he threatened to change the old law of primogeniture into one by which sons and daughters should inherit alike (Shab. 116a); but there is no evidence for this utterance in Christian sources. Apart from these points, no change in the Law was indicated by Jesus; indeed, he insisted that the Jewish multitude whom he addressed should do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded, even though they should not act as the Scribes acted (Matt. xxiii. 3). Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity.
It is, however, exaggerated to regard these variations from current practises as exceptionally abnormal at the beginning of the first century. The existence of a whole class of 'Am ha-Areẓ, whom Jesus may be taken to represent, shows that the rigor of the Law had not yet spread throughout the people. It is stated (iii. 7) that, owing to the opposition aroused by his action on the Sabbath, Jesus was obliged to flee into heathen parts with some of his followers, including two or three women who had attached themselves to his circle. This does not seem at all probable, and is indeed contradicted by the Gospel accounts, which describe him, even after his seeming break with the rigid requirements of the traditional law, as lodging and feasting with the Pharisees (Luke xiv.), the very class that would have objected to his behavior.
Tone of Authority.
Nothing in all this insistence upon the spirit of the Law rather than upon the halakic development of it was necessarily or essentially anti-Jewish; but the tone adopted in recommending these variations was altogether novel in Jewish experience. The Prophets spoke with confidence in the truth of their message, but expressly on the ground that they were declaring the word of the Lord. Jesus adopted equal confidence; but he emphasized his own authority apart from any vicarious or deputed power from on high. Yet in doing so he did not—at any rate publicly—ever lay claim to any authority as attaching to his position as Messiah. Indeed, the sole evidence in later times of any such claim seems to be based upon the statement of Peter, and was intimately connected with the personal demand of that apostle to be the head of the organization established by or in the name of Jesus. It is expressly stated (Matt. xvi. 20) that the disciples were admonished not to make public the claim, if it ever was made. Peter's own pretensions to succession in the leadership appear to be based upon a half-humorous paronomasia made by Jesus, which finds a parallel in rabbinic literature (Matt. xvi. 18; comp. Yalḳ., Num. 766).
Indeed, the most striking characteristics of the utterances of Jesus, regarded as a personality, were the tone of authority adopted by him and the claim that spiritual peace and salvation were to be found in the mere acceptance of his leadership. Passages like: "Take my yoke upon you . . . and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matt. xi. 29); "whosoever shall lose his life for my sake . . . shall save it" (viii. 35); "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matt. xxv. 40), indicate an assumption of power which is certainly unique in Jewish history, and indeed accounts for much of modern Jewish antipathy to Jesus, so far as it exists. On the other hand, there is little in any of these utterances to show that they were meant by the speaker to apply to anything more than personal relations with him; and it might well be that in his experience he found that spiritual relief was often afforded by simple human trust in his good-will and power of direction.
This, however, raises the question whether Jesus regarded himself as in any sense a Messiah or spiritual ruler; and there is singularly little evidence in the synoptic Gospels to carry out this claim. These assert only that the claim was made to some of the disciples, and then under a distinct pledge of secrecy. In the public utterances of Jesus there is absolutely no trace of the claim (except possibly in the use of the expression "Son of Man"). Yet it would almost appear that in one sense of the word Jesus regarded himself as fulfilling some of the prophecies which were taken among contemporary Jews as applying to the Messiah. It is doubtful whether it was later tradition or his own statements that identified him with the servant of Yhwh represented in Isa. liii.; but there appears to be no evidence of any Jewish conception of a Messiah suffering through and for his people, though there possibly was a conception of one suffering together with his people (see Messiah). Jesus himself never used the term "Messiah." He chose for specific title "Son of Man," which may possibly have been connectedin his mind with the reference in Dan. vii. 13, but which, according to modern theologians, means simply man in general. In his own mind, too, this may have had some reference to his repudiation by his family. In other words, Jesus regarded himself as typically human, and claimed authority and regard in that aspect. He certainly disclaimed any application to himself of the ordinary conception of the Messiah, the Davidic descent of whom he argues against (xii. 35-57) entirely in the Talmudic manner.
More
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...J&search=JESUS
|
|
02-27-2009, 04:50 PM
