So, let’s talk about Jesus. It’s not a topic that comes up when Jews talk. Jesus does not feature in Judaism – not at all. But as many of us are asked by our Christian friends and colleagues what we ‘really think’ about him, let’s clarify: Jesus occupies the same place in Judaism, as Mohammed does in Christianity. In other words: you could go to every synagogue on Earth, and I guarantee, you will never hear Jesus mentioned.
Many people find this strange; after all, millions of Christians proclaim Jesus as their ‘messiah’ and ‘saviour’. Why on earth don’t Jews themselves attach any importance to this vital, most famous, and above all Jewish historical figure?
Well, let’s consider the context:
Back when Jesus was busy gallivanting around Judea, declaring himself as ‘messiah’, the Jews were living under Roman oppression. And it was rough. The Romans had a nasty habit of crucifying people – mainly Jews. Sometimes up to 100 Jews in a single day.
And as at other tough times in Jewish history, the Jews longed for their maschiach. They knew full well he could be right there, in their midst. After all, the Torah makes it clear: the Jewish maschiach is a normal, mortal man – he’s not ‘divine’ and he doesn’t have supernatural powers. In short: he wouldn’t look any different from any other Jewish man.
So where was he?
Numerous young Jewish blokes believed themselves to be the maschiach. They too sauntered around Jerusalem, their faithful believers scuttling after them and hanging on every word. There was nothing unique about Jesus, he was one of many. Contrary to the way he’s portrayed, Jesus was *not* some ancient David Beckham of the middle east, known and adored by all.
Indeed, the vast majority of Jews had no awareness of Jesus. It was only ever a tiny sect of Jews that followed him.
Christianity claims that Jesus fulfilled various messianic prophecies. They point to the ‘old testament’ in a bid to ‘prove’ this. There’s just one problem – the OT is not the Jewish bible. It never has been. Think about it logically: why would Judaism define its own scriptures as ‘old’?
The OT is a Christian text.
It is a Church-approved, mistranslated version of the actual Jewish bible, the Tanakh. No Jew reads nor studies the OT.
So when Jews and Christians discuss the ‘Jewish bible’ they are usually referring to two entirely different texts. Christians assume, for the most part, that the OT is ‘jewish’. Jews then have to break the news that in fact, it is not anything to do with Judiasm.
And since, for the most part, Jews read the Tanakh in the original Hebrew, we are bemused when some Christians state that we are somehow ‘misinterpreting’ it, when we explain to them that no, Jesus does not appear in the Tanakh.
Christianity ignores something else when it insists that Jews have ‘rejected’ Jesus and ‘missed’ their own messiah.
They ignore that the very idea of ‘messiah’ originated with Judaism. The messianic prophecies and description of the Maschiach were written in Hebrew, by Jews, for Jews.
It seems logical to conclude that the people who first described the messiah, the people who studied the Hebrew scriptures, the people who read the messianic prophecies in Hebrew, were sufficiently intelligent to identify their own messiah.
But no. Christianity says not. On the contrary, the Christian bible calls Jews ‘ignorant’ and ‘blinded’ for their refusal to name Jesus as messiah.
And historically, Christianity has always gone a step further. It has suggested that Jews managed, bizarrely, to misunderstand the Jewish bible!
One of the most well known examples of this is when Isaiah – according to Christianity – describes a ‘virgin birth’. A clear reference to Mary and Jesus, insist Christians. A clear prophecy concerning the birth of Jesus. A clear example of Jews misinterpreting their own bible.
But the Hebrew says something entirely different.
Isaiah uses the word ‘almah’. This means ‘young woman’. It has *always* meant ‘young woman’. It has never meant ‘virgin’.
If Isaiah had wanted to say ‘virgin’ he would have used an entirely different Hebrew word: ‘betulah’.
Happily, the traditional Christian stance on this seems to be softening. Recently, a few Christian bibles have been amended and brought into line with the original Hebrew. Here they are:
Recent altered Christian Translations of Isaiah 7:14
Revised Standard Version: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Revised English Bible
Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel.
New English Bible
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel.
New Revised Standard Version:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures(Jehovah Witnesses)
Therefore Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel.
Good News Bible:
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him “Immanuel.”
The Jerusalem Bible: Readers Edition
The Lord himself, therefore, will give you a sign. It is this: The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.
The Bible: A New Translation
An omen you shall have, and that from the Eternal himself. There is a young woman with child, who shall bear a son and call his name “Immanuel” (G-d is with us).
The Bible: An American Translation:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold! A young woman is with child, and is about to bear a son; and she will call him “G-d is with us.”
The International Critical Commentary:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a damsel is with child, and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.
The New Jerusalem Bible:
The Lord will give you a sign in any case. It is this: The young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary:
In reply, Isaiah says that the Lord will provide a sign. It will be a most unusual and remarkable event. A young woman shall bear a son and name him “Immanuel,” meaning “God is with us.”
World Biblical Commentary:
Therefore my Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the woman shall conceive and bearing a son — she shall call his name “Immanuel.”
The Bible in Basic English:
For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.
Thus many Christian authorities now admit that there is nothing about a ‘virgin birth’ in Isaiah – or indeed anywhere else in the Tanakh. Why would there be? The idea is totally alien to Judaism.
The Jewish G-d never, ever takes human form – and certainly doesn’t pop in to planet earth to impregnate a Nice Jewish Girl…!
Above all, though, Jesus did not fulfill any of the Jewish messianic prophecies.
The Jewish Maschiach must:
usher in world peace
unite all Jews in Israel
bring Torah to all the nations
rebuild the temple
REJECT doing miracles
redeem Israel, and the world
be from King David’s line
create G-d’s kingdom, here on earth.
Now, did Jesus fulfill anyof these before he died?
Answer: No. Not a single one.
Conclusion: Jesus was not – indeed could not have been – the Jewish maschiach.
So, what do Jews think about Jesus?
Well, there’s no official line on him. Some Jews probably doubt he ever existed at all – remember, Jesus is not mentioned by any contemporary writers of his own time.
Many Jews regard Jesus as a young, charismatic preacher who sought to reform Judaism – but who never intended to ‘start’ a new faith. Jesus taught basic Judaism. ‘Love Thy Neighbour’appears first in the holy Jewish text, the Torah. Yet he did apparently break the Jewish shabbat, which no truly observant Jew would do. And if he claimed to be ‘god’ that also violates Torah. Yet more reasons which prove he was not our maschiach.
Most Jews, though, don’t think about Jesus at all. He simply is not relevant to Judaism.
In short, then, Jesus was just a Nice Jewish Boy. And let’s face it – if ever he should somehow return, he’d head straight for the nearest synagogue…:)
But we totally respect that our Christian friends believe in and worship Jesus as their messiah and indeed, as being divine. Judaism and Christianity both have so much to offer – we may differ in ideology, but we share similar ideals.
4 thoughts on “Jesus – A Nice Jewish Boy?”
There is only one mighty one who is to be worshiped, also by the gentile. Christianity is a pagan religion and is not the truth. Judaism in unique. I do not encourage people to practise other religions. All I can say is lern more about Judaism because Judaism and the Tanakh has the right answers.
Reports suggest there are moves to canonise Pope Pius XII, and if so there will be renewed debate on the Vatican’s relations with Fascism and Nazism.
Therefore you migh find the article – The Vatican and Fascism: Remembering the 1929 Lateran Accords – posted on the wallsofjericho website of interest.
Thanks so much T CROSTHWAITE for your interesting comments and the links – greatly appreciated 🙂
Although I’m not familiar with the whole of the Christian bible, I am aware that Matthew in particular mis-quotes the original Hebrew scriptures, and as you rightly note, this leads to several problems.
I shall follow your links with great interest!
The argument about whether Jesus was conceived by a virgin is usually predicated on the assumption that Matthew and Luke said this was so.
But is this the case, or has Jewish idiom been twisted to fit the mentality of the Greek interpreters of the Bible?
The interpretations theologians give to the birth narratives run into problems at every instance: Matthew supposedly did not quote Isaiah’s prophecy, but a translation which says something different to the original; supposedly the NT has 2 genealogies of Joseph (who is irrelevant) and none of Jesus; a ridiculous interpretation is given to Mary’s question; it is claimed the angel’s assurance confirms a virgin birth in Mary’s case, but not in Elizabeth’s case; certain expressions common to many are given an unique interpretation where they applied to Jesus; and so on.
You may find these articles on virgin birth of interest and share some common ground with your own comments –
and, similarly the debate on TheologyWeb:
Forum — General Theistics 101
Thread — Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?