Jewish Messiah versus Christian Messiah
J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)
>> Jewish Scriptures, especially those prophets like Isaiah who promise
>> the coming of the Messiah who would also be a "light to the Gentiles".
>> Yes, the Messiah has come, He is Jesus, and all who accept Him have eternal
>> life and are following a genuine faith based on ALL the Scriptures.
>> David E. Lindsay
>
> the Jewish Messiah is to be judged by his actions and not by who he is.
> Jesus did not provide for national redemption to Jews. National redemption
> was the action the Jews were looking for very badly at the time of Christ;
> this he did not deliver. What Jews wanted in the first century A.D. is
> a messiah that would free them from Roman oppression. A task Jesus did not
> accomplish. Since Jesus did not redeem the Jews from the Romans, he was
> not qualified as a Jewish Messiah then (and now). [Y. Hoshen]
Furthermore: In case anyone is interested, Lindsay's remarks
regarding prophesies of Isaiah are also complete bunk. Christian
theology has depended on demonstrably biased translations and
interpretations of a number of the Prophets to claim that, e.g.,
it was prophesized that a savior would be born to a virgin. These
are the subject of technical and ancient disagreements between
the Christians and the Jews. Such things are never addressed in
attempts to improve relationships between the two religions for
obvious reasons. --J. Abeles
Charles Hedrick
> ... Christian theology has depended on demonstrably biased
> translations and interpretations of a number of the Prophets to claim
> that, e.g., it was prophesized that a savior would be born to a
> virgin. These are the subject of technical and ancient disagreements
> between the Christians and the Jews. Such things are never addressed
> in attempts to improve relationships between the two religions for
> obvious reasons. --J. Abeles
There are still plenty of things separating Christians and Jews. But
Biblical scholarship is not one of them. During the last century or
so, Biblical scholarship has undergone major changes. It is now
trying to be a scientific discipline, with objective criteria
controlling its judgements. Of course there are limits to how far
this can succeed, but I think it has done remarkably well. I believe
you will find that there will be few cases where there will be any
difference of opinion over the original meaning of a passage based
upon whether the interpreter is Christian or Jewish. By and large,
Christians and Jews are well integrated in the Biblical scholarly
community. The relevant professional societies and scholarly journals
contain both. New Christian Bible translations generally include at
least one Jewish scholar on the translation team, to protect against
inadvertent bias.
In reference to Is 7:14, which in the King James says "a virgin shall
conceive". What translations are you looking at? I hope you do not
consider the King James version to represent the state of the art in
Christian scholarship! I would consider the current "official"
Protestant translations to be the Revised Standard Version, which is
sponsored by the National Council of Churches in the USA, the New
English Bible, which is sponsored by a variety of denominations in the
UK, and the Today's English Version (or Good News Bible), which was
done by the American Bible Society. The Today's English Version
probably comes the closest to representing the concensus of the
current scholarly community. (The Revised Standard is now a bit
dated, and its original charter required it to keep the words from the
King James where it could. The New English Bible has a tendency to do
completely off the wall things now and then.) All three of these
translations use "young woman" in place of "virgin" in this case, and
in general try to find the best translation of the OT, independent of
its use in the NT.
Of course there is going to be some level at which Christians and Jews
do disagree. Few religious people are content to leave the Bible as a
subject of scholarly study. Once we know everything possible about
the historical context, we still need to appropriate the passage into
our spiritual life. Obviously this step is going to be somewhat
different for Christians and Jews. In the OT, there is a tendency for
Christians to apply passages to Jesus even when the original author no
doubt did not intend them that way. For example, consider the
Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah. I think we may all agree that
the original author did not have Jesus in mind here. Probably he
meant them to refer to the nation of Israel as a whole, though it is
certainly possible that some sort of messianic figure was meant.
Nevertheless, Jesus used these passages to help understand his own
role. I think this is legitimate. He saw himself as taking all of
Israel's suffering on himself. So I can see how he could appropriate
to himself passages that apply to Israel's suffering and the salvation
that it brings. Similarly, it is perfectly appropriate for Christians
to apply these sections from Isaiah to Jesus. Similar things can be
said of Psalm 22, which Jesus quoted from the cross, and many other
parts of the OT. Jewish midrash, not to mention more far-out things
such as kabbalah, also did this sort of reinterpretation. However I
think we have to realize that this is a reappropriation of the
original, and keep this carefully separate from our scholarly attempts
to recover the meaning of the original author. In general, I believe
that modern Biblical scholarship does this. This means that it is
probably a mistake for Christians to say that the OT "proves" that
Jesus is the Messiah. The OT certainly has plenty of material that we
can apply in retrospect to Christ. Christians find that faith in
Christ brings new meaning to much of the OT. But I think we need to
realize that this happens in retrospect, once we have come to accept
Jesus' role. There is nothing in the OT that is going to prove to
someone that Jesus in the Messiah, unless he already has some reason
to believe it. Only the Gospels are going to provide that reason.
So much for the good news. Now for the bad news. The above views do
not by any means represent a Christian concensus. A very large number
of Christians are what I call "fundamentalist", though that may not be
the best term. They believe that the Bible is without error, that God
is directly responsible for its content (though most fundamentalists
allow for a real human role in writing it), and that all portions of
it are in total agreement. They may find the distinction between
original meaning and Christian reappropriation to be offensive. At
the very least, they will consider the the Holy Spirit had the
Christian interpretation in mind from the beginning, even if the human
author did not. They will certainly have a tendency to want the OT
and the NT to be consistent. I should not overstate this.
Fundamenalist scholars are competent and honest scholars. They do not
intentionally change the text. But where there is any sign of
ambiguity in the OT, they will tend to construe it in a way that is
consistent with the NT. There is some ambiguity in the word
translated "virgin" or "young woman" in Is 7:14. So translations done
by fundamentalists will have "virgin" here. A Jew will no doubt
regard this sort of thing as creating bias. (So do I.) Generally
fundamentalist translations are quite clear in declaring their
principles. E.g. the preface to the NIV says "... the translators
were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of
the Bible as God's Word in written form." This clearly announces this
as a fundamentalist translation. (The critical word is
"infallibility". Almost all Christians are committed to the authority
of Scripture in one sense or other.)
So in summary, my answer to your comment is that you are not seeing a
disagreement between Christians and Jews over what the Bible says.
Rather, you are seeing a disagreement between fundamentalist
Christians and those who take a more "liberal" view of what it means
to say that the Bible is inspired by God. This may or may not make
you feel better about the situation, but at least I thought you'd like
to know what it is.
PS: the original mistranslation in Is 7:14 was done by a Jewish
translator. When the NT quotes the OT, it often quotes the
Septuagint, which was the common Greek translation at the time. Since
the NT was written in Greek, this seems to make sense. The Septuagint
was a Jewish translation. (How could it be otherwise? There were no
Christians when it was done.) The Septuagint has "virgin" in Is 7:14.
This is how it got into the NT in the first place. There are a number
of other cases in the NT where disagreements between the NT and the
Hebrew OT turn out to be caused by the Septuagint.
Randy Stimpson
>In reference to Is 7:14, which in the King James says "a virgin shall
>conceive". What translations are you looking at? I hope you do not
>consider the King James version to represent the state of the art in
>Christian scholarship! I would consider the current "official"
>Protestant translations to be the Revised Standard Version, which is
>sponsored by the National Council of Churches in the USA, the New
>English Bible, which is sponsored by a variety of denominations in the
>UK, and the Today's English Version (or Good News Bible), which was
>done by the American Bible Society. The Today's English Version
>probably comes the closest to representing the concensus of the
>current scholarly community. (The Revised Standard is now a bit
>dated, and its original charter required it to keep the words from the
>King James where it could. The New English Bible has a tendency to do
>completely off the wall things now and then.) All three of these
>translations use "young woman" in place of "virgin" in this case, and
>in general try to find the best translation of the OT, independent of
>its use in the NT.
>There is some ambiguity in the word
>translated "virgin" or "young woman" in Is 7:14. So translations done
>by fundamentalists will have "virgin" here. A Jew will no doubt
>regard this sort of thing as creating bias. (So do I.) Generally
>fundamentalist translations are quite clear in declaring their
>principles. E.g. the preface to the NIV says "... the translators
>were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of
>the Bible as God's Word in written form." This clearly announces this
>as a fundamentalist translation. (The critical word is
>"infallibility". Almost all Christians are committed to the authority
>of Scripture in one sense or other.)
My understanding is that "virgin" and "young women" are both fair translations
of the Hebrew word in question. It is also my understanding that the word is
used only to denote a woman who is not married. This does not mean that the
woman is necessarily a virgin, nor does it necessarily imply that the woman
is young.
Context should also be considered when chosing an appropriate word for the
translation. In the context king Ahaz was permitted to pettition God for a
miraculous sign. Now what would be so miraculous about an young or unmarried
woman bearing a child ?
Randy Stimpson