فريق اللاهوت الدفاعي

الوسم: Psalms

  • بدايات الشعر المسيحي – بحث آبائي تاريخي موسع

    بدايات الشعر المسيحي – بحث آبائي تاريخي موسع

    بدايات الشعر المسيحي – بحث آبائي تاريخي موسع

    بدايات الشعر المسيحي - بحث تاريخي موسع
    بدايات الشعر المسيحي – بحث تاريخي موسع

    بدايات الشعر المسيحي – بحث آبائي تاريخي موسع

    1 – الترانيم المسيحية الأولى

    كانت الترانيم واحدة من أهم عناصر العبادة المسيحية منذ بدايتها، فقد لعبت المزامير وتراتيل العهد القديم في الترجمة السبعينية دوراً هاماً في الليتورجيا المسيحية المبكرة. ولكن المسيحيين أيضاً قد صاغوا منذ وقت مبكر تراتيل مماثلة من تأليفهم، فيذكر بولس الرسول في (كو 3: 16) المزامير والتسابيح والأغاني الروحية.

    ويحتوي العهد الجديد على عدد من هذه التراتيل، منها على سبيل المثال: تسبحة “تعظم نفسي الرب” (لو 1: 46)؛ وتسبحة “مبارك الرب إله إسرائيل” (لو 1: 68)؛ وتسبحة “المجد لله في الأعالي” (لو 2: 14)؛ وتسبحة “الآن تطلق عبدك بسلام” (لو 2: 29)، تلك التي لا تزال مستخدمه في عبادة الكنيسة.

    وكذلك يتكلم سفر رؤيا يوحنا اللاهوتي عن “ترنيمة جديدة” (رؤ 5: 9) يرنمها الأبرار في تمجيد الحمل، ومن الممكن هنا أن يكون الكاتب قد استوحى هذا من العبادة الكنسية في زمانه، فإن كان هذا صحيحاً، فهو إذن يمثل العبادة السماوية باعتبارها صدى العبادة الليتورجية هنا على الأرض.

    وبالإضافة إلى هذه “الترنيمة الجديدة” هناك عدة تراتيل قصيرة في هذا السفر تعطينا فكرة عن طبيعة التراتيل المسيحية المبكرة ومحتواها (رؤ 1: 4-7، 8-11…إلخ). وبالطبع لم تكن هذه التراتيل تنتمي إلى ما يعتبره اليونانيون شعراً، حيث إنها لا تتبع وزناً شعرياً منتظماً. ولقد كُتبت تلك الترانيم بلغة احتفالية فخيمة وجُمل متوازية، لكنها مع ذلك كانت نثرية.

    إلا أنه في القرن الثاني الميلادي، قام الغنوسيون، الذين كانوا على اتصال بالأدب الهيليني، بتأليف عدد ضخم من التراتيل الموزونة شعرياً لينشروا عقائدهم الخاصة. ونجد الكثير من تلك التراتيل في أسفار أعمال الرسل الأبوكريفية، نذكر منها على سبيل المثال الترتيلتين اللتين ذكرناهما من قبل: ترتيلة “النفس” التي وردت في “أعمال توما” والترتيلة التي رتلها المسيح مع رسله في “أعمال يوحنا”، أما أفضل مثال على هذه التراتيل الغنوسية فهي ترتيلة جماعة “الناسيين” (The Naassenes) التي سجلها هيبوليتوس في (Philos. 5: 10: 2).

    ولم تكن مجرد محض صدفة أن يقوم كليمندس السكندري، الذي حاول التوفيق بين المسيحية والثقافة اليونانية وناضل في سبيل غنوسية[1] صحيحة، بتأليف ترتيلة موزونة تكريماً للمسيح. ويمكننا أن نجد تلك الترتيلة الموجهة إلى المسيح المخلص في خاتمة كتابه “المربي”، كليمندس يمجد المسيح هنا باعتباره: “ملك القديسين، كلمة الآب القدير، الرب الأعلى، رأس الحكمة ورئيسها، المعزي من كل حزن، ملك كل زمان ومكان، يسوع، مخلص جنسنا”. (ANF 11: 296).

    وتعود ترتيلة المساء الشهيرة “أيها النور البهي” التي لا تزال مستخدمة في الخدمة المسائية، وليتورجية “القداسات السابق تقديسها”[2] بالكنيسة اليونانية، إلى القرن الثاني الميلادي: “أيها النور البهي، الذي للمجد المقدس الذي للآب الأبدي، يا يسوع المسيح، ها بعد أن بلغنا وقت غروب الشمس، ونظرنا أنوار المساء، نمجد الآب والابن، وروح الله القدوس، ينبغي علينا أن نمجدك، في كل الأوقات بترانيم مقدسة، يا ابن الله معطي الحياة لهذا يمجدك العالم”. (ANF 2: 298).

    وفي عام 1922م عُثر في “أوكسيرنخوس”[3] (Oxyrhynchos) على شذرة تحتوي على ترتيلة مسيحية والعلامات الموسيقية الخاصة بها (Oxyrh. Pap. Vol. XV. no. 1786). ويبدو أن تلك الترتيلة تعود إلى نهاية القرن الثالث الميلادي، ولم يبق منها إلا كلمات قليلة هي: “لا يجدر بكل مخلوقات الله المجيدة أن تبقى صامتة وأن تغلبها النجوم اللامعة…. ينبغي على مياه الجداول ذات الحفيف أن تمجد الآب والابن والروح القدس”.

    ويذكر يوسابيوس القيصري في كتابه “تاريخ الكنيسة” (7: 30: 10) أن بولس الساموساطي[4] قد اتهم بأنه قد أبطل التراتيل الموجهة ليسوع المسيح بحجة أنها حديثة وأن مؤلفيها رحال حديثون. وقد كانت هناك تراتيل أكثر وأكثر تُرتل حتى في المنازل لكي تحل محل التراتيل الموجهة إلى الآلهة الوثنية. وهكذا لعبت التراتيل دوراً مهماً ليس فقط في تطور الليتورجيا المسيحية، ولكن أيضاً في تطعيم الثقافة المحيطة بأفكار مسيحية.

     

    2 – أناشيد سليمان

    تعد هذه الأناشيد أهم اكتشاف في مجال الأدب المسيحي المبكر منذ اكتشاف الديداخي. ولقد عثر عليها “ريندل هاريس” (Rendel Harres) أثناء بحثه في مخطوطة سريانية عام 1905م. وبالرغم من أنها قد نشرت منذ وقت طويل (عام 1909)، إلا أنها منذ ذلك الحين لم تستطع كل المحاولات التي بُذلت تحديد هويتها بدقة.

    صحيح أن بعض هذه الأناشيد الإثنين والأربعين تُفصح عن أفكار غنوسية[5]؛ إلا أنه لا يمكننا أن نصفها، ونحن متأكدون تماماً، بأنها “كتاب التراتيل الخاص بالجماعة الغنوسية”، حيث أنها تفتقد إلى الثنائية الغنوسية[6]. أما الأمر الذي يصعب الدفاع عنه بالأكثر، فهي الفكرة القائلة بأن هذه الأناشيد في شكلها الأصلي هي يهودية صرفة ولكن هناك شخصاً مسيحياً قد ألحق بها الكثير من الإضافات حوالي عام 100م. ولقد أعطى – المؤمنون بهذه الفكرة – سببين لاعتبار أناشيد سليمان أناشيد يهودية:

    1. في المخطوطة التي لدينا، وجدت هذه الأناشيد في تجاور مع “مزامير سليمان” (Psalms of Solomon) التي تعج قطعاً بالأفكار اليهودية.
    2. البرهان الثاني لغوي، فمؤلف “أناشيد سليمان” يستخدم أسلوباً مميزاً يذكرنا بقوة بالعهد القديم؛ فالجمل المتوازية، والأمثال، والرموز مُستخدمة بكثرة. لكن هذه الصفات يمكنها أن تفسر بسهولة على أساس الحقيقة القائلة بأنه من الواضح أن المؤلف قصد أن يقلد أسلوب المزامير ولغتها.

    أما وحدة الأسلوب الأدبي التي تُظهرها تلك الأناشيد فهي برهان قاطع ضد أي فرضية بأنها ذات أصل يهودي مع إضافات مسيحية؛ إذ لا بد أن تكون من عمل مؤلف واحد بالرغم من أننا نجهل هويته. ولقد رُفضت الفكرة التي ترجح بارديصان كمؤلف، كذلك لا يمكننا أن ننسب تلك الأناشيد لإفراهاط الفارسي[7] أو إفرام السرياني[8]؛ هذا بالإضافة إلى أن التلميحات الكثيرة إلى عقيدة المعمودية وطقوسها لا يمكننا بسهولة أن تثبت أنها كانت ترانيم للمعمدين.

    وكذلك لا توجد أسباب مقنعة تجعلنا نفترض أن تلك الأناشيد تعود إلى أصل مونتاني، فهي على الأرجح تُعبر حقيقة عن إيمان المسيحية الشرقية وآمالها. وهذا لا ينفي احتمالية أن تكون العناصر الأسطورية والفلسفة اليونانية قد أثرت على المؤلف إلى حد ما. وهناك إشارات قوية تدل على أن هذه الأناشيد قد كُتبت في القرن الثاني الميلادي، في النصف الأول منه على الأرجح، ولغتها الأصلية هي بالتأكيد اليونانية، لا العبرية ولا الآرامية، ولا السريانية.

    وقد اكتشف “بوركيت” (Burkitt) مخطوطة أخرى لهذه الأناشيد تعود إلى القرن العاشر الميلادي ضمن المجموعة النيترية (Nitrian Collection) الموجودة بالمتحف البريطاني (Add. 14538). وتحتوي هذه الوثيقة على قدر من تلك الأناشيد أقل من الموجود بالمخطوطة التي نشرها “رينديل هاريس”، فهي تحتوي على أناشيد سليمان بداية من النشيد (17: 7) إلى النهاية. ولقد كان كل ما نعرفه عن أناشيد سليمان حتى العام 1909، هو التالي:

    1. يقتبس لاكتانتيوس[9] في (Instit IV. 123) اقتباساً واحداً منها هو (نشيد 19، 6).
    2. ذكر في النص المنحول باسم أثناسيوس “Synopsis Sacrae Scrpturae” ملخص الكتاب المقدس، وهو عبارة عن قائمة بالأسفار المقدسة تعود للقرن السادس الميلادي مع سرد لأسفار العهد القديم القانونية، وفيها نقرأ التالي: “هناك أيضاً أسفار أخرى تنتمي للعهد القديم، وهي لا تعتبر قانونية ولكنها تُقرأ للموعوظين…. المكابيين… مزامير سليمان وتراتيله…. (قصة) سوسنة”.
    3. كذلك هناك قائمة بالأسفار الكتابية في العمل المعنون بـ “The Stichometry” لمؤلفه “نيكيفوروس” (Nicephorous)، تعود في شكلها الحالي إلى حوالي عام 850م، ونجد “أناشيد سليمان” واردة بها على نحو مماثل.
    4. تستشهد المقالة الغنوسية “Pistis Sophia”[10] بالنص الكامل لخمسة من هذه الأناشيد. ويبدو أن الترجمة القبطية التي نجدها لهذا العمل، والترجمة السريانية التي نجدها في مخطوطة هاريس وبوركيت، تعتمدان على النص اليوناني الأصلي الذي فُقد.

     

    محتوى أناشيد سليمان

    تتسم هذه الأناشيد بالروح الصوفة السامية ويبدو أنها متأثرة بإنجيل القديس يوحنا. ومعظمها يحتوي على تسابيح عامة موجهة لله بلا أي وجود لأفكار لاهوتية أو جدلية. ومع ذلك، يحتوي بعضها على موضوعات عقائدية، مثل التجسد، النزول إلى الجحيم، وامتيازات النعمة الإلهية. فعلى سبيل المثال؛ يصف النشيد السابع التجسد: “مثل اندفاع الغضب على الاثم، هكذا يكون أيضاً اندفاع الفرح نحو المحبوب، إنه يأتي بثماره بلا أي عائق: إن فرحي هو الرب واندفاعي هو نحوه، هذا الطريق الذي أسلكه هو بلا عيب، لأن لي معيناً، هو الرب، لقد عرفني بنفسه بلا أي حفيظة وببساطته؛

    إن لطفه جعل عظمته تتضع، لقد أصبح مثلي، حتى أقبله، لقد حسب كمثيل لي، حتى ألبسه، ولم أرتعد حينما رأيته، لأنه كان كريماً نحوي، لقد أصبح في مثل طبيعتي لكي أعرفه، وفي مثل شكلي، لكي لا أرتد عنه، أبو المعرفة هو كلمة المعرفة، إنه من خلق الحكمة، هو أحكم من خلائقه، وهو من خلقني، عندما لم أكن بعد، وعرف ما الذي علي أن أفعله، حينما أتيت إلى وجود لهذا رثى لحالي، في نعمته الغنية، ومنحني أن أطلب منه، وأن أنال – نصيباً – من ذبيحته، لأنه هو غير الفاسد، ملء الدهور وأبوها”.

    والنشيد رقم 19 عبارة عن ترنيمة تمجد الحبل العذراوي وبالضبط كما في سفر “صعود إشعياء”[11] (XI. 14)، يشدد المزمور على أن الحبل العذراوي كان بلا ألم، وذلك في مقابلة واضحة مع حبل حواء: “لقد أمسك رحم العذراء به، وحبلت وولدت، وأصبحت العذراء أماً بمراحم عظيمة، تمخضت فولدت ابناً بلا ألم، وهذا لم يحدث من فراغ، ولم تطلب قابلة لأنه هو من ساعدها لتلد. لقد ولدت كان لو كانت رجلاً، بإرادتها الخاصة، ولدته جهاراً، ونالته بقوة عظيمة وأحبته في خلاص، وحرسته في لطف، وبينته في عظمة هليلويا.”

    ويرنم النشيد رقم 12 عن اللوجوس: “لقد ملأني بكلمات الحق، حتى أبشر بالحق نفسه، ومثل فيضان الماء فاض الحق من فمي، فأظهرت شفتاي ثماره، لقد جعل معرفته تفيض بداخلي، لأن فم الرب هو “الكلمة” الحقيقي، وباب ضيائه، وقد أعطاه (الآب) العلي إلى عوالمه، تلك التي تفسر جماله، وتكرر التسبيح له، وتعترف بمشورته، وتُبشر بأفكاره، وتهذب خدامه، فَرقَّة “الكلمة” لا يمكن أن توصف، فكمثل نطقه هكذا رقته وسرعته في الاستجابة، وامتداده ليس له نهاية أو حد، وهو لا يفشل أبداً بل يبقى قائماً على الدوام.

    وسر تنازله يعسر فهمه، وطريقه تحيطه الغيوم. وكما أن عمله لا ينقطع فهكذا آخرته تدوم. وهو النور وفجر الفكر، وبه تتكلم العوالم مع بعضها البعض، [تكلموا] في “الكلمة” هؤلاء الذين كانوا صامتين، ومنه خرج الحب والتناغم. وكلم الواحد منهم الآخر فيما يخصهم، ونطق بما أعطاهم “الكلمة”، وعرفوا ذاك الذي صنعهم، بسبب أنهم كانوا متناغمين، لأن فم العلي قد تكلم إليهم، وبواسطته أسرع التفسير إليهم، لأن مكان سكنى “الكلمة” هو الإنسان، وحقه هو المحبة، مباركون هم هؤلاء الذين بواسطته فهموا كل شيء، وعرفوا الرب في حقه. هليلويا”.

    ويعطي النشيد رقم 28 وصفاً شعرياً لآلام المسيح يذكرنا في بعض المواضع بلغة الكتاب المقدس: “لقد تعجب مني هؤلاء الذي نظروني، لأن كنت مضطهداً وظنوا إني قد ابتُلعت، لأني قد بدوت لهم كواحد من الهالكين، وقد صار لي ضيقي خلاصاً، لقد صرت محل استهجانهم، لأنه لم يكن في حسد، ولأني صنعت الخير لكل إنسان، صرت مكروهاً واكتنفوني كمثل كلاب غاضبة، تهاجم سيدها بجهل.

    ففكرهم فاسد وفهمهم مُنحرف، لكني كنت أحمل المياه في يدي اليمنى واحتملت مرارتهم بحلاوتي، سعوا إلى موتي لكنهم لم يجدوه، لأني كنت أقدم مما تصل إليه ذاكرتهم، باطلاً ألقوا علي قرعة باطلاً طلب هؤلاء الذين كانوا خلفي، أن يدمروا ذكرى ذاك الذي كان قبلهم، لأنه لا شيء يتقدم على فكر العلي، وقلبه يسمو على كل حكمة. هليلويا”

    ويدور النشيد رقم 42 عن موضوع قيامة المسيح والانتصار الذي أحرزه في الجحيم. ولقد كانت صرخات الأرواح التي في العالم السفلي إلى المخلص ليخلصهم من الموت والظلمة، تلك التي جاء ذكرها في نهاية النشيد، ملفتة للنظر على نحو خاص. “لقد بسطت يدي واقتربت من ربي، لأن بسط يدي هو علامته التي نصبها في طريق الصديق، أصبحت بلا اعتبار عند هؤلاء الذين لم يتمسكوا بي، وسأبقى مع هؤلاء الذين يحبونني، كل مضطهدي قد ماتوا، وطلبني هؤلاء الذين وضعوا رجاءهم فيّ لأني حي، لقد قمت وها أنا معهم.

    وسأتكلم بأفواههم، لأنهم قد نبذوا هؤلاء الذين اضطهدوهم، وحملتهم نير محبتي، ومثل ذراع العريس على العروس، هكذا كان نيري على هؤلاء الذين يعرفونني، ومثل الفراش المبسوط في بيت العريس والعروس، هكذا أيضاً حبي [مبسوط] على المؤمنين بي، ولم أُرفض رغم أني قد حُسبت كذلك، لم أهلك رغم أنهم دبروا هذا ضدي، لقد نظرني الجحيم وصار يائساً، ولقد لفظني الموت والكثيرون معي، لقد كنت له مراً وحنظلاً، فنزلت معه إلى أعمق أعماقه.

    وأفلت رجلي ورأسي، لأنه لم يقدر أن يتحمل وجهي، وجمعت جماعة من الرجال الأحياء من بين رجاله الأموات، وتكلمت معهم بشفاه حية، لأن كلمتي ليس باطلة، وقد هرع إلي هؤلاء الذين ماتوا، وصرخوا قائلين: يا ابن الله ارحمنا، واصنع معنا حسب لطفك وافتدينا من قيود الظلمة، وافتح لنا الباب الذي من خلاله نأتي إليك اسمح لنا أيضاً أن نخلص معك، فسمعت صوتهم، وختمت باسمي على رؤوسهم، لأنهم رجال أحرار وهم لي. هليلويا.”

     

    3 – النبؤات المسيحية السيبلية

    كان هناك تحت الاسم الخيالي “سيبل” (Sibyl) أربعة عشر كتاباً من الشعر التعليمي المكتوب بطريقة السداسيات، كُتبت معظمها في القرن الثاني الميلادي. وكان مؤلفو هذه الكتب مسيحيين شرقيين استخدموا الكتابات اليهودية كمادة رئيسية، حيث تبنى اليهود الهيلينيون[12] منذ وقت مبكر كالقرن الثاني قبل الميلاد، فكرة “السيبلة” أو “العرافة” الوثنية، وذلك بهدف الدعاية للديانة اليهودية في الدوائر الوثنية.

    ومن الممكن أن يكون هؤلاء اليهود قد أدخلوا نبوات وثنية مثل “أقوال عرافة إيريثريا”[13] (Sayings of the Sibyl of Erythraea) إلى كتابتهم. وقد قادت هذه الرغبة نفسها في الدعاية للمسيحية الكتاب المسيحيين ليكتبوا تلك النبوات السيبلية التي ترجع للقرن الثاني الميلادي.

    والعمل في شكله الحالي عبارة عن تجميع لخليط من المواد الوثنية، واليهودية، والمسيحية ذات السمات التاريخية والسياسية والدينية. ويعود الكتاب السادس والسابع وأجزاء كبيرة من الكتاب الثامن إلى أصل مسيحي صرف؛ ومن المرجح أيضاً أن يكون الأمر نفسه صحيحاً بالنسبة للكتاب الثالث عشر والكتاب الرابع عشر. كما يبدو أن الكتب الأول والثاني والخامس تعود إلى أصول يهودية، لكنها تحتوي على إضافات مسيحية، ولم يُكتشف الكتابان التاسع والعاشر حتى الآن.

    وقد اكتشف الكاردينال (A. Mai) الكتابين الحادي عشر والرابع عشر عام 1817م. ويحتوي الكتاب السادس على ترنيمة تكريم للمسيح، وقد وردت بها نبوات عن المعجزات المذكورة في الأناجيل القانونية وكأنها ستحدث في المستقبل، وفي النهاية تُعلن الترنيمة عن صعود صليب المخلص إلى السماء. ويتنبأ الكتاب السابع – المكون من 162 عدداً – بالنوائب والمصائب ضد الأمم والمدن الوثنية ويعطي صورة عن النهاية للزمن برمته.

    ومحتوى الكتاب الثامن إسخاتولوجي (أخروي) ويمتلئ الجزء الأول منه – من العدد 1 إلى 216 – بالكراهية واللعنات الموجهة ضد مدينة روما، كما أنه يشير إلى هادريان (الإمبراطور) وخلفائه الثلاثة: بيوس (Pius)، ولوسيوس فيروس (Lucius Verus)، وماركوس (Marcus). وهذا يثبت أنه ولا بد من أن هذا الجزء قد كُتب قبل عام 180م، بواسطة كاتب يهودي على الأرجح.

    أما باقي الكتاب فذو طابع مسيحي، ويمكننا أن نجد هنا الشعار الشهير [14] – يسوع المسيح ابن الله المخلص – الذي يشير إليه كل من قسطنطين (Ad Coetum Sanctorum: 18) وأغسطينوس (De Civ. Dei. 18: 23). وبعد الوصف الإسخاتولوجي، تأتي فقرات تتكلم عن طبيعة الله والمسيح، والميلاد العذراوي، وعبادة المسيحين.

    ويبدو أن المسيحيين قد استخدموا “العرافة السيبلية” تلك في وقت مبكر كالقرن الثاني الميلادي، لأن كيلسوس (Celsus)، في حوالي عام 177-178م، تكبد الكثير من المشقة ليبين أن المسيحيين قد دسوا في هذه النبوات ما ليس منها[15]، ويرفض لاكتانتيوس الذي عاش في القرن الرابع الميلادي هذه الفكرة، وهو يقتبس بعضاً من أقوال الكتاب المسيحيين باعتباره من نبوءات عرافة إيريثريا، ويضعها على قدم المساواة مع أقوال أنبياء العهد القديم.

    وقد كانت لهذه النبوءات السيبلية مكانة كبيرة في القرون الوسطى، فتأثر بها لاهوتيون مثل توما الأكويني (Thomas Aquinas)، وشعراء مثل دانتي وكالديرون (Calderon)، كما ان فنانين مثل رافايل (Raffael) ومايكل أنجلو (Michael Angelo) فنان كنيسة سيستين[16] قد استوحوا محتوياتها في فنهم. وقد استشهدت الترتيلة المعروفة باسم (Dies Irae) بالأقوال السيبلية جنباً إلى جنب مع أقوال النبي داود، وذلك في معرض وصفها ليوم الدينونة.

     

    4 – أقوال سيكستوس

    إن ما يُعرف “بأقوال سيكستوس” هي مجموعة من الجمل الأخلاقية الوثنية والقوانين الحياتية المنسوبة إلى الفيلسوف الفيثاغورثي سيكستوس (Sextus)، وقد قام كاتب مسيحي (من الإسكندرية؟) بتنقيحها في القرن الثاني الميلادي.

    وكان أوريجينوس هو أول من ذكر هذه الأقوال، ففي كتابه “ضد كيلسوس” (8: 30) ويذكر: “قول جميل مذكور في كتابات سيكستوس معروف لمعظم المسيحيين هو “إن أكل لحوم الحيوانات أمر لا يستحق الالتفات إليه؛ ولكن اجتنابه أكثر اتفاقاً مع العقل”.

    ولقد ترجم روفينوس 451 قولاً من هذه الأقوال من هذه الأقوال من اليونانية إلى اللاتينية. ويقول روفينوس في مقدمة ترجمته اللاتينية إن الفيلسوف الفيثاغورثي سيكستوس هو نفسه الأسقف الروماني والشهيد سكيستوس الثاني (257-258م) وذلك بلا أي دليل يؤكد قوله هذا، ولكن جيروم قد أبدى اعتراضه بشدة على هذا الخطأ الفادح[17].

    وكان للأفكار الأفلاطونية الخاصة بالتقنية والاستنارة والتأليه وكذلك المفهوم الأفلاطوني عن الله، تأثيرها على غالبية تلك الأقوال، فكان هناك نصح بالاعتدال في الطعام والشراب والنوم؛ والزواج ليس بمستحب. والحقيقة أن الكثير من تلك الأقوال يذكرنا بفلسفة الحياة عند كليمندس، ومن المحتمل أن يكون هو المؤلف المسيحي الذي قام بمراجعة تلك الأقوال.

    5 – الشعر المسيحي على شواهد القبور

    استخدم الشعر المسيحي أيضاً منذ وقت مبكر في نقوش شواهد القبور، ولدينا منها مميزتان بسبب قدمهما وأهميتهما.

    نقش أبيركيوس

    إن نقس قبر “أبيركيوس” هو سيد النقوش المسيحية المبكرة قاطبة، ولقد اكتشف العالم الأثري راماسي (W. Ramasay)، من جامعة “أبردين” (Aberdeen) باستكتلندا، شذرتين من هذا النقش عام 1883م، وذلك بالقرب من مدينة “هيرابوليس” بمقاطعة “فيرجيا سالتوتاريس”، وهما الآن في متحف “لاتيران” (Lateran Museum).

    وكان راماسي قد اكتشف نقوش قبر “ألكسندر” المسيحية، التي ترجع لحوالي عام 216م، قبل عام واحد من اكتشافه لنقوش أبيركيوس، ولم تكن هذه سوى تقليد لنقوش أبريكوس. وبمساعدة نقوش قبر ألكسندر، وسيرة أبيركيوس اليونانية التي ترجع للقرن الرابع والتي نشرها (Boissonade) عام 1838م، أصبح من الممكن استعادة النص الكامل للنقش.

    ويتكون النقش من 22 بيتاً من الشعر المقفى، و20 سداسية. أما بالنسبة لمحتواه، فهو عبارة عن ملخص لحياة أبيركيوس وأعماله. وقد كُتب النص في نهاية القرن الثاني الميلادي، بالتأكيد قبل عام 216م؛ وهو التاريخ الذي كتبت فيه نقوش قبر ألكسندر. أما كاتب هذا النقش فهو أبيركيوس أسقف هيرابوليس، وقد كتبه وهو في الثانية والسبعين من عمره، ولقد كانت أعظم أحداث حياته هو سفره إلى مدينة روما، تلك الرحلة التي يحكي لنا عنها في نقشه.

    وقد كُتب النقش بأسلوب صوفي رمزي، بحسب ما تقتضي قواعد السرية، وذلك بهدف إخفاء طبيعتها المسيحية عن أعين غير المسيحيين. ولقد كان أسلوب هذه النقوش الرمزي سبباً في الخلاف الحاد الذي تبع اكتشاف هذا الأثر، فقد حاول عدة علماء، مثل (G. Ficker) و(A. Dieterich)، أن يثبتوا أن أبيركيوس لم يكن مسيحياً، بل عابداً للإلهية الفيريجية “سيبيل”[18] (Cybele)، أما (A. Garnack) فقد لقبه بـ “الجامع بين مختلف الديانات”، وبالرغم من ذلك، استطاع (De Rossi) و(Duchesne) و(Cumont) و(Dolger) و(Abel) أن يثبتوا أن كلاً من محتوى هذا النقش ولغته تثبت بلا أي شك أنه يعود إلى أصل مسيحي.

    وترجمة النص هي كالتالي:

    “1. قمت أنا، مواطن المدينة العظيمة، ببناء هذا القبر؛ 2. في حياتي، حتى يكون لجسدي هنا مكان لراحته؛ 3. أبيركيوس هو اسمي، وأنا تلميذ للراعي الطاهر؛ 4. إنه يطعم قطعانه من الخراف على الجبال والسهول؛ 5. إنه هو من يمتلك عيوناً عظيمة تراقب جميع الجوانب؛ 6. لقد علّمني… الكتابات الصحيحة؛ 7. لقد أرسلني إلى روما لأنظر المملكة؛ 8. ولأرى ملكة ذات معطف ذهبي وحذاء ذهبي؛ 9. هناك رأيت قوماً يحملون ختماً جليلاً؛ 10. ورأيت سهل سوريا والمدن كلها حتى نصيبين؛ 11. بعد أن عبرت نهر الفرات، وكل مكان لي فيه رفقاء؛ 12.

    واصطحبت بولس كمرافق، يقودنا الإيمان في كل مكان؛ 13. ووضعت أمامي كطعام، السمكة التي من النبع؛ 14. إنها قوية وطاهرة؛ تلك (السمكة) التي أمسكت بها العذراء التي بلا عيب؛ 15. وأعطيتها للأصدقاء ليأكلوا منها دائماً؛ 16. وبعد أن أحضرت نبيذاً حلواً وقدمت كأساً ممزوجة مع خبز؛ 17. أمرت أنا أبيركيوس أن تُنقش هذه الكلمات بينما أنا واقف على مقربة؛ 18. في الحقيقة، لقد كنت في الثانية والسبعين من عمري؛ 19. ليصلي من أجل أبيركيوس كل من يفهم ويصدق هذا؛ 21. وإذا فعل أحد هذا، عليه أن يدفع لخزينة الدولة الرومانية مائتي قطعة ذهبية؛ 22. وأن يدفع لمدينتي الحبيبة هيرابوليس ألف قطعة ذهبية”.

    والأهمية اللاهوتية لهذا النص بادية الوضوح، فالنقش يُعد أقدم شاهد حجري يذكر الإفخارسيتا. كما أن الراعي الطاهر الذي يدعو أبيركيوس نفسه هنا تلميذاً له هو المسيح، وقد أرسله إلى روما ليرى الكنيسة “الملكة ذات المعطف الذهبي والحذاء الذهبي” والمسيحيين “الشعب ذو الختم الجليل”، وقد كان مصطلح “ختم” كإشارة إلى المعمودية، مشهوراً في القرن الثاني الميلادي.

    ويلقي أبيركيوس، أثناء رحلته إلى روما، بشركاء له في الإيمان يقدمون له الإفخارستيا تحت الشكلين: الخبز والخمر. والسمكة القوية والطاهرة التي من النبع هي المسيح، والذي يدل عليه الشعار كما أن العذراء التي بلا عيب التي أمسكت بالسمكة حسب لغة ذلك العصر، هي العذراء مريم التي حبلت بالمخلص.

    نقش بيكتوريوس

    وجد نقش “بيكتوريوس” (Pectorius) عام 1830م في سبع شذرات بمقبرة مسيحية قديمة ليست بعيدة عن مدينة (Autun) بجنوب فرنسا. وقد كان الكاردينال (J. P. Pitra) هو أول من نشره، وأرجعه مع (G. B. De Rossi) إلى بداية القرن الثاني الميلادي، وذلك في حين ظن (E. Le Blant) و(J. Wilpwert) أنه يعود إلى نهاية القرن الثالث الميلادي، فتكوينه وشكل الحروف المكتوب بها يشير إلى الفترة ما بين 350-400م، لكن الأسلوب الإنشائي الذي كتب به يشبه بالضبط الأسلوب الإنشائي الذي كتب به نقش أبيركيوس من نهاية القرن الثاني الميلادي.

    والنقش عبارة عن قصيدة شعرية جميلة مكونة من ثلاثة دوابيت وخمس سداسيات، وقد ارتبطت الأبيات الخمسة الأولى منها معاً بواسطة الشعار أما بالنسبة لمحتوى القصيدة، فهي مكونة من قسمين: القسم الأول يضم الأبيات من الأول إلى السابع، وهو ذو طابع تعليمي ويخاطب القارئ. تُسمى المعمودية فيه “نبع الماء الإلهي الخالد”، ويُشار إلى الإفخارستيا هنا باعتبارها “الطعام الحلو كالعسل الذي لمخلص القديسين”.

    كما أن الطقس المسيحي القديم الخاص بتناول الإفخارستيا باليد يُفسر كلمات القصيدة القائلة: “حاملاً السمكة في يديل”، ويُلقب المسيح هنا بـ “النور – الذي ينير – للموتى”. أما القسم الثاني، والذي يضم آخر أربعة أبيات، فهو شخصي أكثر، فهنا يصلي بيكتوريوس من أجل والدته، ويسأل أبوية الراحلين وإخوته أن يذكروه “في سلام السمكة”. ومن الممكن جداً أن يكون القسم الأول مقتبس من قصيدة شعرية أقدم بكثير، وهذا سيفسر سبب تشابه لغة هذا النقش مع لغة نقش أبيركيوس.

    أما نص النقش فهو كما يلي: “انت الابن الإلهي للسمكة السماوية، احفظ روحك طاهرة بين الفانين، لأنك قد نلت ما هو خالد، نبع الماء الإلهي، يا صديقي، أنعش روحك بماء الحكمة الغنية الذي ينبع أبداً. خذ من مخلص القديسين طعاماً حلواً كالعسل، كل بفرح وشهية، حاملاً السمكة في يديك، أصلي أن تُمنح السمكة، والرب، والمخلص طعاماً لك لترقد أمي في سلام، لذا أصلي إليك يا من هو النور الذي ينير للموتى يا أبي أشانديوس، حبيب قلبي مع أمي الحلوة وإخوتي، اذكروا بيكتوريوس خاصتكم في سلام السمكة”.

     

    [1] كلمة “غنوسية” هنا لا تعني الهرطقة الغنوسية ولكنها تأتي بمعناها اللغوي أي “المعرفة” الصحيحة. (المراجع)

    [2] هي خدمة تناول القداسات التي تم تقديسها وتكريسها في قداس سابق عند الكنيسة البيزنطية، لأن هناك بعض الأيام المحددة يرون أنه لا يجب ليتورجيا أن يتم فيها إقامة قداس. ) (المرجع).

    [3] تقع آثار هذه المدينة غرب مجرى نهر النيل، على مسافة نحو مائة وستين كيلو متراً من جنوب غرب القاهرة بمصر العليا، على قناة يوسف المعروفة باسم (بحر يوسف) بالقرب من مدينة البهنسا الحالية. انظر الآب بولا ساويرس، التاريخ الرهباني في أواخر القرن الرابع الميلادي، مركز باناريون للتراث الآبائي، 2013م، ص 106، 217. (المراحع).

    [4] أصبح أسقفاً لأنطاكية سنة 260م عن طريق المكر والدهاء، لم يكن له استقامة الفكر والإيمان. ادعى بولس الساموساطي بأن العذراء ولدت يسوع الإنسان ثم حل عليه كلمة الله عند ولادته فصار إلهاً وعند آلامه فارقه كلمة الله. ونادى بأن يسوع المسيح أقنومين، وهو يمثل ابنين لله، أحدهما بالطبيعة (كلمة الله) والآخر بالتبني (يسوع).

    وأنكر بولس الساموساطي أقنومية شخص اللوغوس وشخص الروح القدس في الثالوث القدوس إنما هما مجرد قوى من قوى الله مثل قوى العقل والفكر بالنسبة للإنسان. وبسبب انحرافاته الإيمانية عقد له مجمع في أنطاكية سنة 268م أو 269م وحكم بإدانته. (المراجع).

    [5] انظر نشيد 19 ونشيد 35.

    [6] انظر نشيد 7: 20؛ 16: 10.

    [7] ولد في أواخر القرن الثالث أو بداية القرن الرابع الميلادي ببلاد فارس، وكان والداه من سلالة المجوس عبدة الأوثان، أما هو فمنذ صبوته لم يسترح لفكر آبائه وحياتهم المملوءة بالرجاسات. والتقى وهو في سن الرشد ببعض المسيحيين، وتلامس مع محبتهم ووداعتهم وعفتهم فسألهم عن إيمانهم، فتحدثوا معه عن محبة الله الفائقة وعمله الخلاصي فقبل الإيمان بفرح شديد واعتمد ودعي يعقوب إما في عماده أو رهبنته أو سيامته أسقفاً، مما سبب خلطاً بينه وبين يعقوب من نصيبين المتوفى سنة 338م.

    ورأى أفراهاط أن يترك بلده ويذهب إلى أديسا (الرها) فيما بين النهرين ليتشدد بإيمان المسيحيين هناك. وإذ كان يميل لحياة الوحدة سكن في مكان قريب من المدينة، يمارس حياة العبادة النسكية، ففاحت فيه رائحة المسيح الذكية وجاء الكثيرون يسترشدون به ويطلبون صلواته. وبعد فترة ذهب إلى أنطاكية وقاوم الأريوسية. ويبدو أنه كان اسقفاً، كما يظهر من حديثه الذي وجهه إلى الرعاة (مقال 14)، وعرضه للإيمان في مقالاته كما كان يفعل الأساقفة في ذلك الحين.

    وقد عاصر بعض الاضطهادات الشديدة في عصر أنثيموس والي أنطاكية،و الملك فالنس، وتنيح عام 345م، وتعيد له الكنيسة اليونانية في 29 يناير، والكنيسة اللاتينية في 7 أبريل (انظر القمص تادرس يعقوب ملطي، القديس أفرهاط، كنيسة الشهيد العظيم مار جرجس باسبورتنج، 2003). (المراجع)

    [8] ولد حوالي عام 306م في مدينة نصيبين إحدى مدن بلاد ما بين النهرين من أبوين مسيحيين. وقد التصق بالقديس مار يعقوب أسقف نصيبين، ويقال إنه صحبه معه في مجمع نيقية عام 325م. وبعد موت مار يعقوب بقي مار إفرام ملتصقاً بثلاثة الأساقفة خلفائه على الكرسي، ربما كرئيس للمدرسة التابعة للكرسي. وقد تظاهر بالجنون في بعض الأوقات ليهرب من الأسقفية حينما حاول القديس باسيليوس سيامته أسقفاً على أحد أقاليم ابيارشيته.

    وكانت دموعه لم تجف قط حعى حسبها القديس غريغوريوس أسقف نيصص ظاهرة طبيعية كما لا يتوقف التنفس في حياة الإنسان. وكانت محبته الفائقة للفقراء وحنوه وشبعه الروحي يعطي لشخصيته جاذبية عجيبة، حتى قال القديس غريغوريوس النيصي عنه إنه شابه الملائكة الذين بلا جسم مادي وبلا هم في حياتهم! وقد أغنى المكتبة المسيحية بكتاباته المنظومة شعراً وأيضاً المنثورة، وهي لا تقل عن ثلاثة ملايين من الأسطر، ضمت شرحاً للأسفار المقدسة كلها، وموضوعات الجدل الديني، وبعض مقالات ورسائل مع ميامر وتسابيح، وقد فقد بعضها. (المراجع).

    [9] تحدث جيروم في كتابه “مشاهير الرجال”، وذكر أن أفريقيا لم تكن فقط مهد تدريبه في علوم البلاغة، بل كانت أيضاً مكان ميلاد أول أعماله – والتي فقدت – وهي “الوليمة” والتي كتبها عندما كان شاباً صغيراً. وله أيضاً عدة كتابات منها (صنعة الله، والمخلص، والمضطهدون، القوانين الإلهية، غضب الله….). (المراجع).

    [10] مخطوط غنوسي وجد خارج مجموعة نجع حمادي يرجع تاريخه للقرن الرابع الميلادي، وهو يتضمن مجموعة من الحوارات بين المسيح وتلاميذه من الرجال والنساء. (المراجع)

    [11] هذا سفر من الأسفار المنحولة نتج عن مزج ثلاثة كتب معاً وهي: (1) استشهاد إشعياء وهو من أصل يهودي ويرجح أنه كتب باللغة الآرامية في القرن الأول قبل الميلاد. (2) وصية حزقيا. (3) رؤيا إشعياء. وهذان الأخيران يرجعان إلى أصل مسيحي وقد كتبا باللغة اليونانية في القرن الثاني للميلاد. والسفر بأكمله موجود الآن في الترجمة الحبشية وتوجد كذلك أجزاء منه في اللغة اليونانية واللاتينية. (المراجع)

    [12] اليهودية الهيلينية هي شكل من أشكال اليهودية التي ظهرت بعد العودة من السبي. وقد جمعت اليهودية الهلينية التقليد الديني اليهودي مع عناصر من الثقافة اليونانية، وقد كانت الإسكندرية وأنطاكية المركزين الرئيسين لليهودية الهيلينية، وكذلك أيضاً وجدت اليهودية الهيلينية في أورشليم أثناء فترة الهيكل الثاني، حيث كان هناك صراع بين “اليهود الهلينين” الصدوقيين و”اليهود التقليديين” الفريسيين.

    وقد أثرت الهلينية على الإيمان اليهودي ولا سيما على طائفة الصدوقيين، فمثلاً نجد أنهم لا يؤمنون بالقيامة ولا يؤمنون بالعهد القديم كله فالتوراة هي فقط الكتاب المعتمد لديهم. وتعتبر الترجمة السبعينية لنصوص العهد القديم العبرانية والآرامية إلى اللغة اليونانية هي أبرز إنتاج ظهر نتيجة الاتصال بين يهودية الهيكل الثاني والثقافة اليونانية. وقد بدأ انحصار اليهودية الهيلينية في القرن الثاني الميلادي لأسباب ظلت إلى الوقت الحالي غير مفهومة بالكامل، وربما لأنها أخيراً قد تم تهميشها، أو امتصاصها جزئياً. (المراجع).

    [13] هي أقوال عرافة إيريترية كانت تعيش في بلدة إيونيا مقابل إقليم خيوس، وتنبأت بأن اليونانيين سينهزمون الطرواديين وسيدمرون مدينة طروادة، وتنبأت أيضاً بأن هيرودس سيكتب أشعاره. (المراجع)

    [14] ترد كلمة هنا عند كوستن في هذا النص، في حين لا ترد في نصوص أخرى.

    [15] انظر كتاب العلامة أوريجانوس في الرد على كيلسوس (فصل 7: 53).

    [16] هي أكبر كنيسة موجودة في الفاتيكان. وتشتهر الكنيسة بمعمارها الفريد، وتشهر بلوحاتها الجدارية التي رسمت بأيدي فنانين عصر النهضة. (المراجع)

    [17] Comm. In. Ez. Ad 18: 5ff., Comm. In. Jr. ad 22: 24ff., Ep. 133, ad Ctesiph., 3.

    [18] سيبيل هي إلهة الطبيعة والخصب. ولأنها كانت راعية الجبال والحصون، لذلك كان تاجها مصمماً على شكل سور مدينة. وكانت عبادة سيبيل يقودها كهنة خصيان يطلق عليهم اسم “الكوريبانتيون” Corybantes، وقد كان هؤلاء يقودون عبدة سيبيل في طقوس ماجنة مصحوبة بصرخات وموسيقا محمومة من آلات موسيقية مثل المزمار والطبل والصنوج. (المراجع)

    بدايات الشعر المسيحي – بحث آبائي تاريخي موسع

  • Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection [Free PDF]

    Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection [Free PDF]

    Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection [Free PDF]

    Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection [Free PDF]
    Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection [Free PDF]

    Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection [Free PDF]

    Edited by Emanuel Tov (Hebrew University, Jerusalem), Kipp Davis (Trinity Western University), Robert Duke (Azusa Pacific University)

    This volume contains thirteen previously unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, twelve Hebrew Bible fragments and one non-biblical fragment, presented with the full scholarly apparatus and advanced reconstruction techniques. The books from the Hebrew Bible are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, Micah, Psalms, Daniel, and Nehemiah. The latter is an especially important addition to known material. The non-biblical fragment probably represents a new copy of 4QInstruction.

    The work on these fragments was conducted under the auspices of the Museum of the Bible Scholars Initiative, whose mission is to publish research conducted collaboratively by scholar-mentors and students. The ultimate goal is to provide students with the opportunity to develop as scholars under the guidance of their scholar-mentors.

    click here to download

    Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection [Free PDF]

  • Psalm 110 does not say the Messiah is Lord.

    Psalm 110 does not say the Messiah is Lord.

    Psalm 110 does not say the Messiah is Lord

     

    Also, the psalm is not written by David about the Messiah. Our traditions indicate it may have been written by Eliezer about his master, Abraham, and then added to the collection of the Psalms by David many years later. Or David wrote it for the Levites to recite about him (or a court poet wrote it about David). This much is sure: It does not teach that the Messiah is God!

    Psalm 110 is an important Messianic psalm pointing to the highly exalted status of the Messiah (to the right hand of God!) and to his priestly and royal nature. For these reasons, it is quoted frequently in the New Testament with reference to Yeshua. Yeshua even quotes it himself, pointing out how the Messiah was greater than David, since David called him “my lord.” However, you are mistaken in thinking that the New Testament (or Christian translations of the Hebrew Bible) makes the claim that the opening verse of this psalm means that Jesus is Lord (Yahweh).

    According to anti-missionary rabbi Tovia Singer,

    Psalm 110 represents one of the New Testament’s most stunning, yet clever mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures. Moreover, the confusion created by the Christianization of this verse was further perpetuated and promulgated by numerous Christian translators of the Bible as well.…

    The story of the church’s tampering with Psalm 110 is so old that it begins in the Christian canon itself.265

    These are startling claims indeed. On what basis does Singer make such serious charges? On the basis of Yeshua’s use of this psalm to point to his own exalted status, and on the basis of subsequent Christian translations that allegedly perpetuate this misunderstanding of the text.What is startling is not the wrongness of the “Christian” interpretation but the wrongness of Singer’s arguments, in particular his claim that the New Testament’s usage of this psalm represents one of its “most stunning, yet clever mistranslations of the Jewish scriptures.”266 This claim is absolutely without foundation.

    Let’s take a look at the words of Jesus himself as recorded by one of his disciples:

    While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the [Messiah]? Whose son is he?”

    “The son of David,” they replied.

    He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

    “ ‘The Lord said to my Lord:

    “Sit at my right hand

    until I put your enemies

    under your feet.” ’

    If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

    Matthew 22:41–46

    Rabbi Singer is confident that this event not only reflects a wrong interpretation of the text but that it never even took place:

    Although the above conversation could never have occurred, I am certain this narrative has been replayed over and over again in the imagination of countless Christians for nearly 1,900 years.

    It’s an inspiring story to the Christian believer. Jesus really showed those Pharisees how little they knew! Yet, this is precisely why this story could never have transpired. No Jew who had even a superficial knowledge of the Jewish scriptures would have ever found Jesus’ argument compelling, let alone a conversation stopper. The depth of knowledge that the Pharisees possessed of Tanach was astounding.267

    Notice carefully Singer’s words: “No Jew who had even a superficial knowledge of the Jewish scriptures would have ever found Jesus’ argument compelling, let alone a conversation stopper.” To the contrary, it is because Jesus knew that his hearers were so familiar with the Scriptures that he raised this compelling argument. Of course, they had no answer. You see, some of the earliest Rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 110 understood the psalm to be speaking of the Messiah, and if David in fact wrote the psalm, then Yeshua’s question is well taken: If the Messiah is merely David’s son—and it was universally agreed that the Messiah was the son of David—how can David call him his lord?

    “But that’s the whole problem,” you object. “The Christian translations claim that the Messiah is Lord—meaning God himself—whereas the Hebrew Bible says no such thing.” This, in fact, is another of Rabbi Singer’s points, and he argues that the second “Lord” in the text “never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is only used for the profane, never the sacred.”268

    But where did Jesus say “Lord” was referring to God? He simply stated that the text indicated David called the Messiah his lord—which is exactly what Singer claims that laʾdoni means: “The correct translation… is ‘to my master’ or ‘to my lord.’ ”269 Precisely. That was Yeshua’s whole point.

    Unfortunately, Singer has gotten his information completely wrong, failing to read correctly the Christian translation he cites and completely ignoring well-known Jewish translation customs. Simply stated, a tradition developed among the Jewish people that the Hebrew name for God, yhwh, was too sacred to pronounce.270 Thus, whenever a Jew would read this name in the Bible, he would not say Yahweh (which is the most likely original pronunciation; the more common Jehovah is not correct). Rather, he would say, ʾadonai, meaning “Lord.”271 Thus, the opening verse of Psalm 110 would have been recited out loud as “ʾadonay (or ʾadonai) said to ʾadoni” (ʾadoni meaning “my lord” or “my Lord”).272

    When Jesus quoted this verse to the Pharisees, this would have been the way he said it, referring to Yahweh as ʾadonai. There were no tricks here, no sleight of hand, no cover-up, no deception, no mistranslation. Just a straightforward recitation of the Hebrew text. No one would have thought that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh, since his hearers certainly knew the text by heart as well, and since they distinctly heard two different words for Lord and lord: ʾadonai, meaning Yahweh, and ʾadoni, meaning “my Lord” or “my lord.”273 And that was Jesus’ whole point: How can the Messiah be merely a son of David if David calls him his lord?274 He must not only be David’s son; he must also be greater than David.

    How then does Singer claim that the New Testament and later Christian translations of Psalm 110 are guilty of intentional mistranslation? It is simply because (1) he has not handled the Christian translations fairly, and (2) he has not realized how the very first Jewish translation of the Tanakh into Greek rendered Psalm 110:1.

    Using the King James Version as an example, we see that Psalm 110:1 was rendered: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Virtually all modern Christian translations follow a similar translation pattern, rendering the opening Hebrew word yhwh as “Lord” and then rendering the second Hebrew word ʾadoni as “my Lord” or “my lord.” As we have seen, the custom of translating the Hebrew yhwh as “Lord” goes back to Jewish practice, not Christian practice. And just as Jewish readers distinguished between ʾadonai and ʾadon (meaning Yahweh, as opposed to any lord or the Lord), so also Christian translations into English distinguished between Lord (Hebrew, yhwh) and Lord (Hebrew, ʾadon). This is also the custom most commonly followed by Jewish translations of the Bible into English: Whenever yhwh occurs in the original text, it is written as Lord (all uppercase).

    In keeping with this practice, Christian translations (and many Jewish translations as well) distinguish between yhwh and ʾadoni in Psalm 110:1 by rendering these words as Lord and my Lord (or my lord). Amazingly, Singer claims that the NASB (a twentieth-century Christian translation that also renders Psalm 110:1 with Lord and Lord) fails to distinguish between the two words, inviting the readers to “look at the first word ‘Lord’ in the verse. Now look at the second word ‘Lord’ (they are only three words apart). Did you notice any difference between them? You didn’t because the Christian translator carefully masked what it actually says in the text of the original Hebrew.” Thus, he claims, “the two English words in the NASB translation are carefully made to appear identical, in the original Hebrew text they are entirely different.”275 Absolutely not! These two words are not the same, as you would immediately see even at first glance: The first is all uppercase letters (you’ll find this in just about any Christian translation); the second is lowercase after the initial capital L.

    Rabbi Singer, however, takes serious issue with the fact that many Christian versions translate the second ʾadon (ʾadoni, representing the noun followed by the first-person pronominal suffix) as “my Lord” instead of “my lord,” arguing that every single time ʾadoni is found in the Tanakh, it is speaking of a human being, not God (who would always be referred to as ʾadonai rather than ʾadoni). He states:

    The Hebrew word adonee [a phonetic spelling of adoni] never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is only used for the profane, never the sacred. That is to say, God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. There are many words reserved for God in the Bible; adonee, however, is not one of them.276

    There are at least three problems with his argument: First, he is incorrect in stating that “my lord” is reserved “for the profane, never the sacred.” Just look in Joshua 5:14, where Joshua addresses the angel of the Lord as “my lord” (ʾadoni). Yet this divine messenger is so holy that Joshua is commanded to remove the shoes from his feet because he is standing on holy ground, just as Moses was commanded when the angel of the Lord—representing Yahweh himself—appeared to him (Exod. 3:1–6). This is hardly a “profane” rather than “sacred” usage! Similar examples can be found in Judges 6:13 and Zechariah 1:9, among other places. In each of these, angels are addressed as “my lord,” and in some of these cases, the angels bear the divine presence. Second, Singer’s whole argument hinges on the Masoretic vocalization, which did not reach its final form until the Middle Ages. As every student of Hebrew knows, biblical Hebrew was written with consonants and “vowel letters” only; the vowel signs were added hundreds of years later. Yet both ʾadonai (used only for Yahweh) and ʾadoni (used for men and angels, as we just noted) are spelled identically in Hebrew, consisting of the four consonants ʾ-d-n-y. How then can Rabbi Singer make such a dogmatic statement about the differences between these two forms in the Bible? His argument stands only if we accept the absolute authority of the Masoretic vocalization, which in some cases follows the original writing by almost two thousand years.277 Third, it is not really important whether we translate with “my Lord” or “my lord,” since Yeshua’s whole argument was simply that David called the Messiah “lord,” meaning that the Messiah had to be more than David’s son. While many Christian translations do render ʾadoni as “my Lord” in Psalm 110:1, they are careful to distinguish between the first Lord (i.e., Lord) and the second.

    “But,” you say, “I understand that the New Testament is written in Greek. Are you telling me that the writers of the New Testament followed Jewish practice and spelled the two words differently? That was not the custom in Greek, and therefore readers of the Gospels would be misled into thinking that the two ‘Lords’ were the same person, both referring to God.”

    That’s a good observation. But once again, this is not a “Christian” problem but rather a “Jewish” problem dating back to the Septuagint, which was completed more than two hundred years before the writing of the New Testament. The New Testament only follows the practice of the Jewish Septuagint. It is the Greek Septuagint that first rendered yhwh with the Greek word kyrios, “Lord” or “lord.” Thus, Psalm 110:1 is rendered by the Septuagint as, “The kyrios said to my kyrios,”278 and the writers of the New Testament—themselves almost all Jews—merely quoted the Jewish translation of their day into Greek. It’s that simple!279

    To review: (1) When Jesus quoted this verse in Hebrew, he would have said, neʾum ʾadonai laʾadoni. He would not have spoken the name Yahweh, but he would have distinguished between the Lord God and David’s Lord/lord. (The same would apply to Aramaic if Yeshua quoted the verse in a Targumic form.) (2) Christian translations of Psalm 110:1 into English also distinguish between Yahweh and David’s Lord/lord, representing the former with Lord and the latter with Lord/lord. (3) The Septuagint, not the New Testament, was the first example of a translation in which yhwh and ʾadon were both translated with kyrios. From this we can see that Singer’s charges are totally erroneous and without any support in the text. We need not trouble ourselves with this for another moment.

    The real questions that deserve attention are, Is this really a Messianic psalm, and, Was Yeshua correct in referring it to himself? Let’s look at the whole psalm as rendered in the NIV:

    Of David. A psalm.

    The Lord says to my Lord:

    “Sit at my right hand

    until I make your enemies

    a footstool for your feet.”

    The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion;

    you will rule in the midst of your enemies.

    Your troops will be willing

    on your day of battle.

    Arrayed in holy majesty,

    from the womb of the dawn

    you will receive the dew of your youth.

    The Lord has sworn

    and will not change his mind:

    “You are a priest forever,

    in the order of Melchizedek.”

    The Lord is at your right hand;

    he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.

    He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead

    and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.

    He will drink from a brook beside the way;

    therefore he will lift up his head.

    Psalm 110

    It is clear that this is a royal psalm, spoken to a Judean king about his promised worldwide reign. But what is meant by “Of David. A psalm.”? We know that these opening words (called the superscription) are not necessarily part of the original text. But we also know that Jewish readers in Yeshua’s day accepted this as a psalm of David. What then does this mean? Was the psalm written by David or for David (or for the Davidic king)?

    An ancient Jewish interpretation, as fascinating as it is far-fetched, claims that this psalm was originally written by Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, and that David added this psalm to his collection centuries later. According to this view, the psalm was written after Abraham returned from his victorious battle with the four kings of the plain (see Genesis 14) and Melchizedek, king of Salem (Jerusalem) came out to meet him. As written in Genesis 14:19–20, Melchizedek, the priest-king of Jerusalem, greeted Abraham (still called Abram at that time) with the words: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Abraham then gave a tithe of the spoils to Melchizedek, a definite sign of honor and respect (Gen. 14:20a).

    Surprisingly, some of the ancient rabbis had a problem with Melchizedek’s greeting, saying that God was displeased with Melchizedek since he blessed Abram before he blessed the Lord, as a result of which the priesthood was taken from Melchizedek and given to Abram (meaning to his descendants; see b. Nedarim 32b). This is how Psalm 110:4 is explained: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.’ ” There is little, however, to commend this interpretation and several serious objections that can be raised against it: (1) As Ibn Ezra notes, after giving due regard to the ancient midrash just cited, it is quite difficult to explain the reference to Zion in verse 2 (“The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion”) with reference to Abraham. Zion is the city of David!280 (2) Abraham himself was not called a priest by the Lord, even if the priesthood ultimately came through the tribe of his great-grandson Levi. (3) Abraham was not a royal figure in the Torah, nor was he primarily a triumphant ruler; yet that is what Psalm 110 explicitly describes and promises. (4) There is not a shred of evidence to support the midrashic interpretation. It is simply a creative reading of the text, apparently inspired by the reference to Melchizedek in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, the only two times his name appears in the Hebrew Bible. (5) Even some midrashic evidence is against this interpretation, since elsewhere it is said that Abraham sits at the left hand of God, while it is the Messiah who sits at the Lord’s right hand.281

    Some scholars have even argued that the interpretation of this psalm with reference to Abraham is a direct reaction to Christian interpretations that pointed to the Messiah.282 This is certainly possible, although it is far from certain. But the extreme unlikelihood of the Abrahamic interpretation is beyond dispute.

    A much more likely view is that a court poet wrote this psalm for David, perhaps when he moved his throne to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5–6).283 Thus, speaking prophetically, this poet declared that Yahweh said to his lord (David), “Sit at my right hand.…” And, as we learned previously (vol. 1, 2.1), David served as a prototype of the priestly king, a Messianic figure who himself was both priest and king. The fact that David ruled out of Jerusalem would associate him with Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem (= Jerusalem) spoken of in Genesis 14.

    There are, however, serious problems with this view as well: (1) Was David actually called a priest by the Lord? It is one thing to say that David was a priestly king; it is another thing to say that he was called “a priest forever” by God himself. Clearly, David was not.284 (2) When was David told to sit at God’s right hand until his enemies were made a footstool for his feet? It is true that the Lord granted David victory over his enemies while he was alive. But this psalm presents a call from God to sit at his right hand (i.e., by his heavenly throne) until all of David’s enemies were defeated. When did this happen? (3) The closing verses of this psalm seem to indicate that the king spoken of here would have a worldwide reign. This cannot apply to David.285

    Not surprisingly, a number of the ancient rabbis applied this psalm to the Messiah,286 and it is this Messianic interpretation that is actually presupposed by Jesus in the New Testament. As Franz Delitzsch rightly observed:

    … if those who were interrogated [meaning the Pharisees and other Jewish teachers] had been able to reply that David does not there speak of the future Messiah, but puts into the mouth of the people words concerning himself, or … concerning the Davidic king in a general way, then the question would lack the background of cogency as an argument. Since, however, the prophetico-Messianic character of the Psalm was acknowledged at that time (even as the later synagogue, in spite of the dilemma into which this Psalm brought it in opposition to the church, has never been able entirely to avoid this confession), the conclusion to be drawn from this Psalm must have been felt by the Pharisees themselves, that the Messiah, because the Son of David and Lord at the same time, was of human and at the same time of superhuman nature; that it was therefore in accordance with Scripture if this Jesus, who represented Himself to be the predicted Christ [Messiah], should as such profess to be the Son of God and of divine nature.287

    Simply stated, if the most common interpretation of the day did not understand this psalm to speak of the Messiah, then any of the Jewish leaders with whom Yeshua spoke could have simply said, “But this doesn’t speak of the Messiah! It speaks of David.” The fact that no such reply was given indicates just how widely the psalm was understood to be Messianic.

    “But you’re not being fair,” you say. “You’re basing everything on the New Testament account. How do we know that it is true?”

    First, the very nature of Jesus’ question points to the widespread Messianic understanding of the psalm. After all, Matthew (whom we cited above) wrote his book of good news (= Gospel) to his own Jewish people, many of whom were thoroughly versed in the Scriptures, and if Jesus’ point had no relevance at all—if, indeed, it was as ludicrous and impossible as Rabbi Singer claims—then Matthew (not to mention Mark and Luke) would not have put the wool over anyone’s eyes. Rather, the question posed by Yeshua would be like someone asking, “Do you believe that President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of one man or part of a larger conspiracy?” The fact of his assassination is not in dispute, only the details. In the same way, the fact of the Messianic interpretation of the psalm was not in dispute, only the specific meaning of the verses. Second, despite the fact that the New Testament refers to Psalm 110 more than any other portion of Scripture in the Hebrew Bible, Talmudic rabbis still interpreted the psalm messianically. In other words (as noted above by Delitzsch), since followers of Jesus were so quick to point to Psalm 110 with reference to him as Messiah, it would only be natural to think that the later rabbis would not interpret this psalm as Messianic. And yet they did, with frequency. There can be no doubt, then, that this Messianic interpretation was not only ancient; it was also natural. Third, as far as we can tell, for a first-century Jewish reader “A psalm of David” would most naturally be taken to mean “A psalm written by David” unless there were good reasons to interpret it as a psalm written for David. This would mean that David wrote this psalm about the Messianic King rather than about himself.288 Fourth, even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm.

    These observations, coupled with the reasons listed above, argue for the Messianic interpretation of Psalm 110. At the least, such an interpretation makes very good sense, and therefore the New Testament writers were not out of line in frequently citing this psalm with reference to Jesus.289

    In support of this Messianic interpretation we can also point to the comments on Daniel 7:13 attributed to the influential medieval Jewish leader, Rabbi Sa‘adiah Gaon. Explaining the words “And behold, [coming] with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man,” he stated, “This is Messiah our righteousness,” contrasting this description with the Messianic prophecy found in Zechariah 9:9, where it is written that the Messiah will come meek and lowly, riding on a donkey.290 He interpreted the clouds of heaven to mean the host of heavenly angels, noting that this is the glorious splendor that the Creator will grant to the Messiah. And how does Gaon explain the end of verse 13, where it is stated that they will bring the Messiah to the Ancient of Days (a title for the Lord)? He simply quotes the opening line of Psalm 110, “The utterance of the Lord to my lord, ‘Sit at My right hand’ ” (translated literally). He got that exactly right!

    There is one final point to be made, and it is extremely significant. We noted in vol. 1, 2.1, that two thousand years ago, many Jews were looking for two Messiahs, one priestly and one royal. This is reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the references to the Messiahs of Aaron and David. It is also reflected in what is called the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, a writing of great importance in the ancient Jewish world. Reference is made there to a Messiah from the tribe of Judah and a Messiah from the tribe of Levi. The concept of a priestly and royal Messiah came directly from the Hebrew Scriptures, but it was misunderstood by the Jewish teachers in Yeshua’s day. Some of these teachers were expecting two Messianic figures, one priestly and one royal, whereas the Tanakh only spoke of one Messianic figure, descended from David, who was both priestly (in function) and royal (in function and lineage).

    After Yeshua’s death and resurrection, his first followers, all of them Jews, began to understand his priestly role, and an important letter to these Jewish believers (called the Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament) speaks of his priestly work at length (see above, 4.1). They understood that the divine son of David was, like David, a royal priest. Perhaps it was in reaction to this that Rabbinic literature, which postdates the writing of the New Testament, makes virtually no reference to the Messiah’s priestly role. That’s right: In literally millions of words of teaching and instruction, thousands of which discuss the Messiah, there is not a single reference to the priestly Messiah. Yet the scriptural hints—really, they are more than hints—were totally clear. In the person of the Messiah, identified as “the Branch” in the Tanakh, priest and king would be combined as one.

    Along with Psalm 110, Zechariah 3–6 provides the clearest references to this, and some of the Rabbinic comments to these passages are striking, especially when you consider that the obvious deduction was not made, namely, if these passages are Messianic in content, then the Messiah should be both a priest and king. Let’s focus in on Zechariah 3:8, “Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch.” The Targum renders this closing phrase as, “Behold I bring my servant the Messiah.” The Branch—understood to be the Branch of David—is the Messiah.

    Abraham Ibn Ezra provides an interesting interpretation on the identity of the Branch:

    He is Zerubbabel, as it is said, “His name is branch” [Zech. 6:12], and the end of the passage proves it, [stating] “before Zerubbabel” [Zech. 4:7]. And many interpreters say that this branch is the Messiah, and he is called Zerubbabel because he is from his seed, as in, “and David my servant will be their prince forever” [Ezek. 37:25]. And I too can interpret this homiletically [derek derash], for tsemach [branch] by Gematria [i.e., numerically interpreted] equals Menachem, that is, Ben Ammiel [in the Talmud, Menachem Ben Ammiel is a name for the Messiah; see b. Sanhedrin 99b, and notes of Ibn Ezra that the numeric values for the Hebrew words branch and Menachem are identical, both equal to 138].291

    One question, however, was not adequately addressed in this interpretation: Why was Joshua the high priest, along with his companions, singled out immediately before reference was made to the Branch? Why not single out Zerubbabel, the Davidic governor, rather than single out the high priest? Many interpreters believe that Zechariah 4:14 points to Zerubbabel and Joshua as the two anointed ones who will serve in this world, but no reference is made to the Branch in this passage. Zechariah 6:9–15, however, is explicit: Joshua the high priest is to be crowned—remember that only kings were crowned—and it is he who symbolizes the Branch: “Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch [once again, the Targum calls him the Messiah], and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord’ ” (Zech. 6:11–12).292 So, it is Joshua, not Zerubbabel, who is called the Branch, a high priest, wearing the crown, representing the Davidic Messiah.293

    Why then did both Rashi and Ibn Ezra state that the Branch here was actually Zerubbabel? It was because they missed the priestly role of the Messiah.294 Otherwise, the passage is perfectly clear: Joshua the high priest, not Zerubbabel the governor, is identified with the Branch. In fact, the text is so clear that some liberal interpreters actually believe that the text was changed and that it originally referred to Zerubbabel being crowned, not Joshua.295 This, however, is similar to the claim of the PLO in 2002 when the Israeli forces discovered documents directly linking Yasser Arafat to terrorist activities: PLO officials claimed that the documents were forged! There is no forgery here, nor has the text been altered: It is the high priest Joshua, crowned and sitting on a throne, who is symbolic of the Branch, thus emphasizing the priestly role of the Messiah—making atonement for Israel and the nations—who is elsewhere known in the Scriptures as the royal son of David.

    What makes this all the more interesting is that this man Joshua is normally known by a shortened name in the Tanakh, just as someone named Michael could be called Mike. And what is that shortened name? Yeshua! And so, the one and only man directly singled out in the Bible as a symbol of the Messiah was called Yeshua. The Lord knew exactly what he was doing when he laid this all out in advance, giving enough clues along the way that, once discovered, the evidence would be indisputable. Is the picture becoming clearer to you?296

    [1]

    265 Singer, ;

    266 Rabbi Singer also claims that “the original Hebrew text was masked” in Christian translations, ibid.

    267 Ibid.

    268 Singer, as posted on his web site (see n. 265, above).

    269 Ibid.

    270 This (yhwh) is the so-called tetragrammaton, which occurs more than six thousand times in the Tanakh.

    271 Literally, “my lords”; see vol. 2, 2.1.

    272 The Hebrew is literally, “The utterance of YHWH to my lord.”

    273 If Jesus quoted the verse in Aramaic, he could well have said marya (meaning Yahweh) said to mari (“my lord/Lord”), following the exact same custom as in Hebrew. The Targum to Psalm 110 is more paraphrastic and expansive.

    274 Although anti-missionaries strenuously object to the translation of ʾadoni in Psalm 110:1 as “my Lord” instead of “my lord,” this matter is actually of no importance at all in Yeshua’s argument. He is simply stressing that David, the greatest king in Israel’s history, calls the Messiah his lord.

    275 Singer, as posted on his web site (see n. 265, above). Oddly enough, Rabbi Singer later reverses himself on this point, noting that “the King James Version and a few other Bibles still render the second ‘Lord’ as if it were sacred; however, they translate the first ‘Lord’ in upper case. This is a helpful hint to the keen observer that there is a distinction between them. Of course, it’s up to the curious Bible student to then look up the second ‘Lord’ in a Hebrew Bible. Only such a deliberate and thorough investigation would uncover how the text was doctored.” Needless to say, any biblical scholar—Jewish or Christian—could not countenance the possibility of intentionally mistranslating a text or “doctoring” it to hide its true meaning. Rather, different translations arise from different translational convictions.

    276 Singer, ibid.

    277 Genesis 18 provides the classic example of interpretive issues arising because of the varying Masoretic vocalizations for the two words ʾadonai (with the short vowel patah, which could mean “my lords”) and ʾadoni (with the long vowel qametz, which refers to Yahweh), both of which are spelled with the identical consonants (see vol. 2, 3.1). Interestingly, ʾadonai (with qametz) in Judg. 6:15 is rendered with “my lord” in the LXX (kyrie mou) as opposed to simply Lord (kyrie, as it is usually rendered with reference to Yahweh), a rendering possibly reinforced by Judg. 6:13, with ʾadoni. This, then, could point to a change in the Masoretic vocalization of ʾadoni.

    278 To repeat, there is no such ambiguity in English translations, since the English custom for more than five hundred years has been to render yhwh with Lord (all uppercase) and ʾadon with lord or Lord.

    279 Once again, Rabbi Singer completely misses this point, claiming that it was the New Testament that started this translation custom: “If we look at the original Greek of Matthew 22:44 we find the same doctoring of the text in later Christian translations of the Book of Psalms. When Matthew has Jesus quote Psalm 110:1 to the Pharisees, the identical Greek word kyrios (pronounced koo-re-os) is used both times the word ‘Lord’ appears in Matthew 22:44” (as posted on his web site [see n. 265, above]).

    280 Rashi’s explanation here, following the midrash, is weak (namely, that “from Zion” means that Melchizedek came from Zion/Jerusalem with bread and wine for Abram and his men when they returned from battle).

    281 Cf. Midrash Tehillim (Psalms) 18:29.

    282 Cf. Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: C. H. Beck, 1922–1961), Vol. 4/1:452–465; see also David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973).

    283 According to Ibn Ezra, it was written when David’s men swore to him, “You will not go out with us in battle.”

    284 Both Ibn Ezra and Radak claim that priest here simply means “servant,” pointing to 2 Samuel 8:18, where David’s sons are called “priests.” This strained interpretation (see vol. 1, 2.1), provides eloquent testimony to the difficulties presented by this verse when it is applied to David rather than the Messiah.

    285 According to D. A. Carson, “Psalm 110 uses language so reckless and extravagant (“forever,” v. 4; the mysterious Melchizedek reference, v. 4; the scope of the king’s victory, v. 6) that one must either say the psalm is using hyperbole or that it points beyond David. That is exactly the sort of argument Peter uses in Acts 2:25–31 concerning another Davidic psalm (Ps 16),” “Matthew,” EBC, 8:467.

    286 Although some rabbinic commentaries dispute that David wrote this about the Messiah, other rabbinic sources (e.g., Midrash Tehillim 2:9; 18:29) follow the Messianic interpretation, indicating that they had no trouble with David calling the Messiah “lord” (this interpretation was so common that it is presupposed by the New Testament). There are also rabbinic traditions that speak of the Messiah’s preexistence and his heavenly dialogs with God, indicating again that he was not merely a physical descendant of David. Cf. Patai, Messiah Texts, 17–22.

    287 Delitzsch, Psalms, 1664–65.

    288 Very farfetched is the view of Nachmanides (in his classic Barcelona debate of 1263), followed recently by Tovia Singer, namely, that David wrote this psalm for his court poets to recite about him. This not only sounds strange, it could well be called egotistical. Still, Singer argues, “King David composed Psalm 110 for liturgical recitation by the Levites in the Temple years after his death. Therefore, the Levites would read this lyric, The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] ‘Sit thou at my right hand… .’ For the church, however, the Psalmist’s original intent was superseded by its interest in Christianizing this verse. Thus, the opening verse in Psalm 110 was altered in order to paint Jesus into the Jewish scriptures,” <http://www.outreachjudaism.org/psalm110.html>

    289 Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:468, makes a good point for the historicity of the New Testament interpretation: “Even the fact that Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 was susceptible to an interpretation denying that the Messiah must be of Davidic descent argues strongly for the authenticity of this exegesis of the psalm, for it is unlikely that Christians would have placed this psalm on Jesus’ lips when his Davidic sonship is taught throughout the NT (in addition to Matthew, cf. Mark 10:47–48; 11:10; Luke 1:32; 18:38–39; Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 3:7; 5:5; 22:16). Jesus’ question (v. 45) is not a denial of Messiah’s Davidic sonship but a demand for recognizing how Scripture itself teaches that Messiah is more than David’s son.”

    290 For more on this, including the Talmudic explanation for these two apparently contradictory descriptions, see vol. 1, 2.1. The answer, of course, is that the prophecies are not either/or, but both/and. The Messiah first came riding on a donkey; he will return in the clouds of heaven.

    291 Remember that Zerubbabel was of Davidic descent.

    292 According to Kenneth L. Barker, “Zechariah,” EBC, 7:639–40, this is Messianically applied in the Targum, the Jerusalem Talmud, and the Midrash.

    293 Cf. the insightful comments of Barker (ibid., 7:638–39) on Zechariah 6:9–10: “The position of this actual ceremony after the eight visions is significant. The fourth and fifth visions, at the center of the series, were concerned with the high priest and the civil governor in the Davidic line. Zechariah here linked the message of those two visions to the messianic King-Priest. In the fourth vision (chap. 3), Joshua was priest; here (v. 13) the Branch was to officiate as priest. In the fifth vision (chap. 4), Zerubbabel was the governing civil official; here (v. 13) the Branch was to rule the government. In 4:9 Zerubbabel was to complete the rebuilding of the temple; here (v. 12) the Branch would build the temple. In 4:14 Zerubbabel and Joshua represented two separate offices; here the Branch was to hold both offices (v. 13). Thus restored Israel is seen in the future under the glorious reign of the messianic King Priest. The passage is typical-prophetical. Joshua served as a type of the Messiah, but at certain points the language transcends the experience of the type and becomes more directly prophetical of the antitype.”

    294 Commenting on Zechariah 6:12, Rashi states, “And some interpret [the passage] with reference to King Messiah, but all the content speaks [only] of the Second Temple.”

    295 Cf. Barker, “Zechariah,”EBC, 7:639, “Some interpreters argue that the original reading at the end of the verse was ‘Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel’ instead of ‘Joshua son of Jehozadak.’ But Eichrodt ([Theology of the Old Testament] 2:343, n.1) rightly considers ‘that the interpretation of this passage in terms of Zerubbabel, which can only be secured at the cost of hazardous conjecture, is mistaken and that a reference to a hoped-for messianic ruler after Zerubbabel’s disappearance is more in accordance with the evidence.’ Furthermore, no Hebrew MSS or ancient versions have the Zerubbabel reading.”

    296 There are a number of relevant articles in John Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

    [1]Brown, M. L. (2003). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 3: Messianic prophecy objections (133). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

    Psalm 110 does not say the Messiah is Lord

  • Some of the so-called Messianic prophecies in the Psalms actually speak of the psalmist’s sin and folly. How can you apply this to Jesus?

    Some of the so-called Messianic prophecies in the Psalms actually speak of the psalmist’s sin and folly. How can you apply this to Jesus?

    Some of the so-called Messianic prophecies in the Psalms actually speak of the psalmist’s sin and folly. How can you apply this to Jesus?

    No one tries to apply every verse in each “prophetic” psalm to the Messiah. Rather, there is a simple principle behind the Messianic interpretation of these important psalms: As it was with David, so it is with the Messiah. In other words, there are striking parallels between the life of King David and the life of King Messiah, and it is these parallels that are highlighted in the New Testament’s quotation of certain psalms. For example, just as David was betrayed by one of his closest friends, so also the Messiah was betrayed by one of his closest friends, as noted by Jesus himself (see Psalm 41 and John 13:18). But it is obvious that the details of the betrayal don’t have to be the same (e.g., David was betrayed by Ahithopel, Jesus was betrayed by Judas; David’s betrayal led to his temporary exile, Yeshua’s betrayal led to his death).

    If you are familiar at all with the Talmud and the Midrash, you will know that the rabbis applied all kinds of obscure verses to the Messiah and to the Messianic era, often taking them totally out of context (for a representative sampling, see below, 4.34). For the most part, these Jewish sages clearly were not looking at an entire portion of Scripture—a whole psalm or chapter—when they cited the verses in question. Rather, what got their attention was a word association, or an association of ideas, or an even more distant link connecting the given verse or phrase with the Messiah. This was quite common in Rabbinic interpretation during the first thousand years of this era, but it was not limited to the Rabbinic writings, especially two thousand years ago. At that time it was common in other, non-Rabbinic Jewish circles to cite verses atomistically (i.e., without relation to the larger context). This is especially common in the Talmudic and midrashic writings, and while the New Testament authors sometimes engage in this practice, for the most part their method was more sober and systematic than this. It should not surprise us, then, if the New Testament sometimes applies just one relevant verse from a larger context that is not relevant. This was normal Jewish interpretation for the day.253

    At other times, there were specific principles that fueled the New Testament citations of passages from the Tanakh: As it was with David (or, more broadly, with the righteous psalmist), so it was with the Messiah. That explains why the New Testament can cite Psalm 41:9[10] with reference to Jesus (“Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me”), when several verses earlier the psalmist had exclaimed, “O Lord, have mercy on me; heal me, for I have sinned against you” (v. 4[5]).

    Anti-missionaries will point to this and say, “Either the New Testament quoted a psalm that cannot apply to Jesus or else Jesus must have sinned!” Not at all. Instead, we must remember that there were certain events in the life of David that stood out above the others, such as his betrayal by a close friend or his being hunted and treated like a criminal. When these striking events occurred again in the life of Yeshua, he was quick to point out these parallels (see, e.g., Matt. 21:33–42, quoting Ps. 118:22–33). In this very tangible sense, “the scripture was fulfilled” (e.g., John 19:36–37).

    When you consider that David was the prototype of the Messiah, and the Tanakh was both the record of the past and the witness of the future, it is quite fitting that such an interpretative method was used, making us remember how wonderfully the Messiah’s life was laid out in advance in the Scriptures. Once he came to earth and died and then rose from the dead, opening the eyes of his followers to the truth of the biblical prophecies (Luke 24:44–45), it became very clear that (1) the Tanakh laid out the details of the Messiah’s coming, both in history and in prophecy, and (2) Jesus was the promised Messiah.

    Let me close this discussion with a personal anecdote. In the early 1990s, I was teaching a course on Messianic prophecy in Maryland and an Orthodox rabbi from Israel, who had come to faith in Yeshua a few years earlier, sat in on the class one day. It was amazing to hear him explain how passage after passage in the Tanakh applied to Yeshua—including verses that I would never have thought of applying to him. I can still remember him sitting there, with his Hebrew Bible in hand, raising his hand enthusiastically and saying in Hebrew, “In my opinion, this is Yeshua.” Yes, it seemed he found Jesus everywhere in the Tanakh. This was because his Rabbinic upbringing led him to find references to Torah everywhere in the Tanakh—I literally mean everywhere—and now that he understood that Jesus was the Messiah, he began to find references to him everywhere in the text.254

    In comparison with this rabbi’s passionate but unscientific approach to the Scriptures, the interpretation of the New Testament writers makes a lot of sense.

    [1]

    253 See the references cited above, n. 70; note also the Romans commentary of Shulam and LeCornu, cited below, n. 356.

    254 For a typical example, see, conveniently, the footnotes to the Stone edition of Proverbs 5, following Rashi’s commentary.

    [1]Brown, M. L. (2003). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 3: Messianic prophecy objections (127). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

  • How Can One God Be Three?

    How Can One God Be Three?

    How Can One God Be Three?

    Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God said, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, / Nor are your ways My ways … / For as the heavens are higher than the earth, / So are My ways higher than your ways, / And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8–9). God is infinite, man is finite, so there are mysteries about God that man cannot fully understand. One of these mysteries is the Trinity, the tri-personality of God. According to Christian orthodoxy, God is one God in essence, power, and authority, and also eternally exists as three distinct co-equal persons. These three persons are the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that Christians believe in three gods (polytheism). Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God who exists in three distinct persons, and all three share the exact same divine nature or essence.

    Understanding this fully is beyond human comprehension and has no human parallels, although various analogies have been offered. One of these analogies is the three physical states of water. Water is not only a liquid but also a solid (ice) and a gas (vapor), yet its chemical composition (substance) never changes in all three forms (two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen—H2O). Although such analogies help us visualize the concept of the Trinity, they all fall short in some way. In the case of the water analogy, although the molecule H2O can be liquid, solid, or gas, it is never all three at one time. The Trinity, on the other hand, is all three persons as one God.

    The word Trinity is not used in Scripture, but it has been adopted by theologians to summarize the biblical concept of God. Difficult as it is to understand, the Bible explicitly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, and it deserves to be explained as clearly as possible, especially to non-Christians who find the concept a stumbling-block to belief. So let’s dig into this topic by addressing four key questions.

    IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IRRATIONAL?

    The doctrine of the Trinity is certainly a mystery but that doesn’t mean it’s irrational. The concept cannot be known by human reason apart from divine revelation, and, as we’ll soon see, the Bible definitely supports the idea of the Trinity. But for now, I want to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity, although beyond human comprehension, is nevertheless rational. Our acceptance of it is congruous with how we respond to other data about the known world.

    There are many things about the universe we don’t understand today and yet accept at face value simply because of the preponderance of evidence supporting their existence. The scientific method demands that empirical evidence be accepted whether or not science understands why it exists or how it operates. The scientific method does not require that all data be explained before it is accepted.

    Contemporary physics, for instance, has discovered an apparent paradox in the nature of light. Depending on what kind of test one applies (both of them “equally sound”), light appears as either undulatory (wave-like) or corpuscular (particle-like). This is a problem. Light particles have mass, while light waves do not. How can light have mass and not have it, apparently at the same time? Scientists can’t yet explain this phenomenon, but neither do they reject one form of light in favor of the other, nor do they reject that light exists at all. Instead, they accept what they’ve found based on the evidence and press on.

    Like physicists, we are no more able to explain the mechanics of the Trinity than they can explain the apparent paradox in the nature of light. In both cases, the evidence is clear that each exists and harbors mystery. So we must simply accept the facts and move on. Just because we cannot explain the Trinity, how it can exist, or how it operates does not mean that the doctrine must be rejected, so long as sufficient evidence exists for its reality. So let’s now explore this evidence.

    HOW DOES THE BIBLE PRESENT THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY?

    THE OLD TESTAMENT

    Although the doctrine of the Trinity is fully revealed in the New Testament, its roots can be found in the Old Testament.

    In several places, God refers to Himself in plural terms. For example, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image’” (Gen. 1:26; see 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8).

    The Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament as being divine. Isaiah 9:6 states that the Messiah will be called “Mighty God,” a term applied in the Old Testament specifically to Yahweh (see Mic. 5:2).

    Isaiah 48:16 refers to all three members of the Godhead: “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God [Father] has sent Me [Jesus], and His Spirit [the Holy Spirit]” (nasv).

    The Old Testament also makes numerous references to the Holy Spirit in contexts conveying His deity (Gen. 1:2; Neh. 9:20; Ps. 139:7; Isa. 63:10–14).

    THE NEW TESTAMENT

    The New Testament provides the most extensive and clear material on the Trinity. Here are just a few of the texts that mention all three members of the Godhead and imply their co-equal status.

    •     Matthew 28:19, the baptismal formula: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name [not ‘names’] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

    •     Matthew 3:16, at the baptism of Christ in the Jordan: “And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit [Holy Spirit] of God [Father] descending as a dove, and coming upon Him [Jesus]” (nasv).

    •     Luke 1:35, the prophetic announcement to Mary of Jesus’ birth: “And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest [Father] will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God [Jesus].’”

    •     The trinitarian formula is also found in 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and 1 Corinthians 12:4–6.

    DIGGING DEEPER

    To explain the doctrine of the Trinity, I will take an inductive (scientific) approach. By this I mean I will accumulate general facts in Scripture that lead to a specific conclusion—that the nature of God is triune. The argument will go like this:

    1. The Bible teaches that God is one (monotheism) and that He possesses certain attributes that only God can have.

    2. Yet when we study the attributes of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that all three possess the identical attributes of deity.

    3. Thus we can conclude that there is one God eternally existing as three distinct persons.

    God Is One (Monotheism)

    The Hebrew Shema of the Old Testament is “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (Deut. 6:4; see Isa. 43:10; 44:6; 46:9). Some people have argued that this passage actually refutes the concept of the triune nature of God because it states that God is one. But the Hebrew word for “one” in this text is echod, which carries the meaning of unity in plurality. It is the same word used to describe Adam and Eve becoming “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Scripture is not affirming that Adam and Eve literally become one person upon marriage. Rather, they are distinct persons who unite in a permanent relationship.

    The New Testament confirms the teaching of the Old: “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19, nasv; see 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:4–6).

    God Has a Certain Nature

    Both the Old and New Testaments list the attributes of God. We won’t consider all of them here, but what follows are some of the clearest expressions of what constitutes deity.

    •     God is omnipresent (present everywhere at once): Psalm 139:7–10; Jeremiah 23:23–24.

    •     God is omniscient (possesses infinite knowledge): Psalms 139:1–4; 147:4–5; Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20.

    •     God is omnipotent (all-powerful): Psalm 139:13–18; Jeremiah 32:17; Matthew 19:26.

    The Father Is God

    To the Jews, who do not accept the Trinity, God is Yahweh. In the Old Testament, Yahweh is to the Hebrews what Father is in the New Testament and to Christians. The attributes of God (Yahweh) listed above are the same for Yahweh and Father because both names apply to the one God. Although the concept of God as Father is not as explicit in the Old Testament as it is in the New, nevertheless, it has its roots in the Old (see Pss. 89:26; 68:5; 103:13; Prov. 3:12).

    In the New Testament, the concept of the Father as a distinct person in the Godhead becomes clear (Mark 14:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:17). God is viewed as Father over creation (Acts 17:24–29), the nation of Israel (Rom. 9:4; see Exod. 4:22), the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 3:17), and all who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior (Gal. 3:26).

    The Son Is God

    Like the Father, Jesus possesses the attributes of God. He is omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; 28:20). He is also omniscient: He knows people’s thoughts (Matt. 12:25), their secrets (John 4:29), the future (Matt. 24:24–25), indeed all things (John 16:30; 21:17). His omnipotence is also taught. He has all power over creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16), death (John 5:25–29; 6:39), nature (Mark 4:41; Matt. 21:19), demons (Mark 5:11–15), and diseases (Luke 4:38–41).

    In addition to these characteristics, Jesus exhibits other attributes that the Bible acknowledges as belonging only to God. For example, He preexisted with the Father from all eternity (John 1:1–2), accepted worship (Matt. 14:33), forgave sins (Matt. 9:2), and was sinless (John 8:46).

    The Holy Spirit Is God

    The Holy Spirit is also omnipresent (Ps. 139:7–10), omniscient (1 Cor. 2:10), and omnipotent (Luke 1:35; Job 33:4).

    Like Jesus, the Holy Spirit exhibits other divine attributes that the Bible ascribes to God. For instance, He was involved in creation (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30), inspired the authorship of the Bible (2 Pet. 1:21), raised people from the dead (Rom. 8:11), and is called God (Acts 5:3–4).

    The upshot of all this is that God is triune. In a formal argument, we can put it this way:

    Major Premise:

    Only God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

    Minor Premise:

    The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

    Conclusion:

    Therefore, God is triune as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    THE TRINITY

    2014-08-23_22-13-47

    HOW DOES JESUS TEACH THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY?

    In the Bible, Jesus claims to be God and then demonstrates this claim by displaying the attributes of God and by raising Himself from the dead. So what Jesus has to say about God must be true. And Jesus clearly teaches that God is triune.

    Jesus Is Equal with the Father and Holy Spirit

    In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells His followers to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” He uses the singular word name but associates it with three persons. The implication is that the one God is eternally three co-equal persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Jesus Is One with the Father

    In John 14:7 and 9, Jesus identifies Himself with the Father by saying to His disciples, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him … He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (see John 5:18). Jesus is not claiming to be the Father; rather, He is saying that He is one with the Father in essence.

    Jesus Is One with the Holy Spirit

    Continuing in John 14, Jesus tells His disciples that, after He is gone, He will send them “another Helper” who will be with them forever and will indwell them (vv. 16–17). The “Helper” is the Holy Spirit. The trinitarian implication lies with the word another. The apostle John, as he wrote this passage, could have chosen one of two Greek words for another. Heteros denotes “another of a different kind,” while allos denotes “another of the same kind as myself.” The word chosen by John was allos, clearly linking Jesus in substance with the Holy Spirit, just as He is linked in substance with the Father in verses 7 and 9. In other words, the coming Holy Spirit will be a different person than Jesus, but He will be the same with Him in divine essence just as Jesus and the Father are different persons but one in their essential nature. Thus, in this passage, Jesus teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.

    So far we have seen that the authors of Scripture and Jesus Christ teach the triune nature of God. Therefore, the only way the doctrine of the Trinity can be rejected is if one refuses to accept the biblical evidence. Some groups, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, do this by reinterpreting and altering Scripture. Others, such as the Unitarians (who claim that Jesus is just a man), arbitrarily and without any evidence deny anything supernatural or miraculous in the Bible. Both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unitarians are guilty of the very same thing of which they accuse Christians—irrationality. They refuse to accept the evidence for the Trinity regardless of how legitimate it is. This is unscientific and irrational. If one approaches Scripture without bias, he will clearly discover what the church has maintained for centuries: God is triune—one God in essence but eternally existing in three persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    A COMMON OBJECTION

    Perhaps you’ve wondered or heard someone say, “If Jesus is one in essence with the Father, an equal member of the triune Godhead, why does He say, ‘the Father is greater than I’” (John 14:28)? This question actually moves away from the doctrine of the Trinity and launches us into the doctrine of the incarnation, the process whereby Jesus, as the eternal Son of God, came to earth as man. Nevertheless, because this question is frequently raised as an objection, it needs to be answered.

    Numerous passages in Scripture teach that Jesus, although fully God, is also fully man (John 1:14; Rom. 8:3; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). However, Philippians 2:5–8 states that, in the process of taking on humanity, Jesus did not give up any of His divine attributes. Rather, He gave up His divine glory (see John 17:5) and voluntarily chose to withhold or restrain the full use of His divine attributes. There are numerous instances in Scripture where Jesus, although in human form, exhibits the attributes of deity. If Jesus had surrendered any of His divine attributes when He came to earth, He would not have been fully God and thus could not have revealed the Father as He claimed to do (John 14:7, 9).

    The key to understanding passages such as John 14:28 is that Jesus, like the Father and the Holy Spirit, has a particular position in the triune Godhead. Jesus is called the Son of God, not as an expression of physical birth, but as an expression of His position in relationship to the Father and Holy Spirit. This in no way distracts from His equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit or with His membership in the Godhead. As man, Jesus submits to the Father and acts in accordance to the Father’s will (see John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28). So when we read passages such as Mark 14:36 where Jesus submits to the Father’s will, His submission has nothing to do with His divine essence, power, or authority, only with His position as the Incarnate Son.

    Perhaps an illustration will help to explain this. Three people decide to pool their money equally and start a corporation. Each are equal owners of the corporation, but one owner becomes president, another vice-president, and the third secretary/treasurer. Each are completely equal so far as ownership, yet each has his own particular function to perform within the corporation. The president is the corporate head, and the vice-president and secretary/treasurer are submissive to his authority and carry out his bidding.

    So when Jesus the God-man submits to the Father’s will or states that the Father is greater than He or that certain facts are known only by the Father (e.g., Matt. 24:36), it does not mean that He is less than the other members of the Godhead but that in His incarnate state He did and knew only that which was according to the Father’s will. The Father did not will that Jesus have certain knowledge while in human form. Because Jesus voluntarily restrained the full use of His divine attributes, He was submissive to the Father’s will.

    Why did Jesus choose to hold back from fully using His divine powers? For our sake. God willed that Jesus feel the full weight of man’s sin and its consequences. Because Jesus was fully man, He could fulfill the requirements of an acceptable sacrifice for our sins. Only a man could die for the sins of mankind. Only a sinless man could be an acceptable sacrifice to God. And it is only because Jesus is an equal member of the triune Godhead, and thus fully God, that He was able to raise Himself from the dead after dying on the cross and thereby guarantee our eternal life.

    When all the evidence is accounted for and the verdict read, the Bible clearly teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal members of the Godhead, yet one in essence, power, and authority. All three are one God. Were this not the case, if the Trinity were not a reality, there would be no Christianity.

    [1]

     

     

    [1]Story, D. (1997). Defending your faith. Originally published: Nashville : T. Nelson, c1992. (99). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

  • The Rabbinic Messiah By: Rev. Tom Huckel

    The Rabbinic Messiah By: Rev. Tom Huckel

     
     The Rabbinic Messiah

     
    The Rabbinic Messiah
    The Rabbinic Messiah

     

     
    Braude, William G. The Midrash on Psalms. Two Volumes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.
    Braude, William G. and Israel J. Kapstein. Pəsiqtâ də-Raḇ Kahănâ. 2nd ed., Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1978.
    Danby, Herbert, D.D. The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933; reprint, Thetford, Norfolk: Lowe and Brydone Printers Limited, 1980.
    Epstein, Rabbi Dr. I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud. 4th ed., London: The Soncino Press, 1978.
    Freedman, Rabbi Dr. H., B.A., Ph.D. Midrash Rabbah. trans. by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman B.A., Ph.D. and Maurice Simon, M.A., 3rd ed., New York: The Soncino Press, 1983.
    Hammer, Reuven. Sifre A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
    Klausner, Joseph, Ph.D. The Messianic Idea in Israel. trans. by W. F. Stinespring, Ph.D., New York: The Macmillan Company, 1955.
    Landman, Leo. Messianism in the Talmudic Era. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1979.
    Levertoff, Rev. Paul P. Midrash Sifre on Numbers. London: The Macmillan Co., 1926.
    Levey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974.
    Neusner, Jacob Messiah in Context. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
    Visotzky, Burton L. The Midrash on Proverbs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
     
    Introduction
     
    Rabbinic Messiah is a collection of traditional Jewish Messianic belief quotes, as proclamated by the Rabbis down through the centuries. The quotes are taken from the most commonly used Jewish literature resources. These Messianic belief statements are arranged in canonical order, i.e. according to the traditional Canon of the Christian Bible. Since this is simply a collection of the quotes themselves with very little commentary by the author (only where he felt it was needed), this work then can be a helpful reference tool that can be useful to both Jewish and Christian scholars alike.
    The author intends to add additional references in the future. He also hopes to compile a summarized portrait of the Jewish Messiah and the Messianic Era by gathering these texts into a unified picture.
    I trust that you will find this tool a help in your Bible and Messianic studies.
     
    Rev. Tom Huckel,
    Director of Hananeel House
    PO Box 11527
    Philadelphia, Pa. 19116-0527

    [gview file=”http://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/The-Rabbinic-Messiah.pdf” save=”0″]