The Jewish Jesus

How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other

Peter Schäfer

• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780691160955, 9780691153902
• eBook ISBN: 9781400842285
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: History of Christianity

How the rise of Christianity profoundly influenced the development of Judaism in late antiquity

In late antiquity, as Christianity emerged from Judaism, it was not only the new religion that was being influenced by the old. The rise and revolutionary challenge of Christianity also had a profound influence on rabbinic Judaism, which was itself just emerging and, like Christianity, trying to shape its own identity. In The Jewish Jesus, Peter Schäfer reveals the crucial ways in which various Jewish heresies, including Christianity, affected the development of rabbinic Judaism. He even shows that some of the ideas that the rabbis appropriated from Christianity were actually reappropriated Jewish ideas. The result is a demonstration of the deep mutual influence between the sister religions, one that calls into question hard and fast distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy, and even Judaism and Christianity, during the first centuries CE.

1

Different Names of God

EVEN IF ONE RUNS ONLY A CURSORY CHECK OF THE BIBLE (in the original as well as in translations), it becomes immediately obvious that it uses several names and not just a single appellation to designate God. The two most common names are the tetragrammaton YHWH and Elohim. Whereas the former has notoriously resisted not only its translation but also its proper pronunciation, the latter is grammatically a plural and literally means “gods.” The rabbis of the talmudic period solved the problem of these two names by assigning them to two attributes of God—the one (YHWH) to the divine attribute of mercy (rahamim) and the other (Elohim) to the attribute of God’s justice (din)—clearly aiming at preserving and maintaining the unity of the one and only God.¹ For modern, post-Enlightenment scholarship the two names served as the main indicator of what in German is called Quellenscheidung and as verification of two major layers in the text of the Pentateuch, the “Yahwist” and the “Elohist.”²

Much as the rabbis were not bothered by various layers of the biblical text but took its unity for granted—an assessment that was shared by most people in antiquity, their affiliation with divergent religious and social groups notwithstanding—their ingenious solution of assigning the two major names of God to two different attributes did not meet with general approval. On the contrary, the fact that in the Hebrew Bible God is assigned different names apparently gave rise to speculation about the nature of God and allowed certain people to question the ideal of the one and only God.

OFFERINGS

I begin my survey with a midrash that addresses the question of offerings presented to God in the Hebrew Bible: which name of God, among the various options, is used when the Bible refers to offerings? The midrash is tannaitic, that is, relatively early, preserved in Sifre Numbers and in Sifra:

[The other lamb you shall offer at twilight, preparing the same meal offering and libation as in the morning]—an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord (YHWH) (Num. 28:8). . . .

Shim‘on b. Azzai says: Come and see: In all the offerings [mentioned] in the Torah, it is not said regarding them either “God” (Elohim) or “your God” (Elohekha) or “Shaddai” or “(of) Hosts” (tzeva’ot) but “YH,” the singular/special name (shem ha-meyuhad), so as not to give the heretics (minim) an occasion to rebel (lirdot).³

Judging from the names of the rabbis to which this tradition is attributed—Shim‘on b. Azzai, a tanna of the second generation and a contemporary of R. Aqiva; and R. Yose, a tanna of the third generation and student of R. Aqiva—this text leads us into the first half of the second century C.E. Its meaning is quite straightforward: although the Bible uses several names for God (Elohim, Shaddai, Hosts, YHWH), when it comes to offerings, it confines itself to the tetragrammaton YHWH. This name is explicitly called shem ha-meyuhad, which means the singular or special name of God, that is, the name reserved for the one and only Jewish God (alluding to the YHWH ehad in Deut. 6:4). Moreover, since the name YHWH is also grammatically singular, it is the perfect counterpart to the names Elohim and Hosts, which are grammatically plural.⁴ Hence, in deliberately using the name YHWH, the Bible seeks to avoid leaving its readers with the impression that offerings were made to a plurality of gods.

The addressees of this tradition are unspecified heretics (with the exception of the Bavli parallel, which speaks of ba‘al din—literally a “legal adversary”), and their reaction is labeled in both Sifre and Sifra as “rebellion” (in the Bavli as lahaloq—“to object, to oppose, to utter a different opinion,” a term that is also used for rabbinic disputes). From this terminology it would seem that the midrashim have some kind of open apostasy from the (rabbinically defined) Jewish religion in mind, whereas the Bavli conceives a legal dispute—within the realm of the Jewish tradition or with some “outsider.” This leaves us with a wide range of possibilities among which, of course, “Gnostics,” “Christians,” and “pagans” are the usual suspects. Bacher saw here a barb directed against the Gnostics, who allegedly claimed that the laws concerning offerings were given by the demiurge, the secondary creator God (called by the names Elohim, Shaddai, and Hosts), not by the good and superior God, and that our rabbis, in referring to YHWH, wished to argue that YHWH was indeed that superior God deserving of offerings.⁵ This is quite a far-fetched interpretation. With almost the same right one could claim that the names Elohim, Shaddai, and Hosts imply a triad and hence refer to the Christian trinity, which the rabbis counter with YHWH as the name for the one and only (Jewish) God.

Neither of these options makes much sense. The only conspicuous element in the statement that might serve as a clue for its context is the fact that it explicitly refers to “all the offerings mentioned in the Torah,” that is, it is specifically concerned with sacrifices. Offering sacrifices to an extensive pantheon of deities was not only an issue in the biblical framework but also in connection with the daily life of the rabbis in the Greco-Roman world. So one can easily imagine certain Jews or Greek/Roman neighbors of the Jews suggesting to the rabbis that, since the Bible uses different names for God and even certain names in the plural, it would be acceptable or even logical to offer sacrifices to a variety of gods. The rabbis’ answer to this imposition is unambiguous: in using only the name YHWH for offerings, the Bible makes clear that we Jews worship only one God and not a plurality of deities.

CREATION

The rabbis were well aware of the philological crux implied in the plural form of Elohim as God’s name (as opposed to the singular YHWH). A large number of midrashim address this problem, in particular midrashim dealing with the exegesis of Genesis, since the name Elohim appears in the very first verse of the Bible (“In the beginning God [Elohim] created . . .”). A case in point is the midrash in Bereshit Rabba:

R. Yitzhaq commenced with: “The beginning (rosh) of your word is truth; and all your righteous ordinance(s) endure⁶ forever” (Ps. 119:160).

Said R. Yitzhaq: From the very commencement of the world’s creation, “The beginning of your word is truth” (Ps. ibid.). [Thus:] “In the beginning God (Elohim) created” (Gen. 1:1) [corroborates the statement:] “The Lord God (YHWH Elohim) is truth” (Jer. 10:10). Therefore: “And all your righteous ordinance endures forever” (Ps. ibid.).

For, in regard to every single decree which you promulgate concerning your creatures, they affirm the righteousness of your judgment and accept it with faith. And no person can dispute (haluqah) and maintain that two powers (shetei rashuyyot) gave the Torah or two powers created the world. For “And the Gods spoke (wa-yedabberu Elohim)” is not written here, but: “And God spoke (wa-yedabber Elohim) all these words” (Ex. 20:1). “In the beginning the gods created (bar’u)” is not written here, but: “In the beginning God created (bara).”⁷

This midrash is a Petiha, transmitted in the name of R. Yitzhaq (presumably R. Yitzhaq b. Nappaha, the late third-/early fourth-century Palestinian amora of the third generation and student of R. Yohanan b. Nappaha, who taught in Tiberias and Caesarea), which explains Genesis 1:1 through Psalms 119:160. In opening his Torah with “in the beginning” (bereshit), R. Yitzhaq argues, God has made clear that, from the very beginning, he, God himself, speaks truth; that is, the divinity declares that it is the one and only God who created the world. The biblical verse Jeremiah 10:10, which contains both names for God (YHWH and Elohim), reveals the “truth” that both names refer to the same God. Moreover, God’s righteous ordinances endure “forever” (le- ‘olam), that is, from the beginning of the creation of the world until the present time as well as “for the (whole) world” (le-‘olam),⁸ that is, for all of God’s creatures. Temporally and spatially, everybody is included and expected to accept his righteous ordinances: the midrash speaks explicitly of God’s “creatures” (beriyyot) and not just of “Israel.”⁹ In particular, no creature is allowed to deviate from the basic truth that there is only one God and that this one and the same God created the world and bestowed the Torah. Despite the plural of Elohim, the midrash concludes, the verb attached to it is always in the singular—for example, “God spoke” (sing.) in Exodus 20:1 instead of “gods spoke” (pl.), and “God created” (sing.) in our Seder verse Genesis 1:1 instead of “gods created” (pl.).

The heresy that deviates from the basic truth of the one and only God is called the heresy of the “two powers”—a heresy which maintains that neither a sole God nor a multiplicity of gods are responsible for the creation and the revelation of the Torah but precisely two divine powers. This midrash is relatively late, and there are other and earlier midrashim referring to the heresy of “two powers,” which will be discussed in due course. What becomes clear from this context, however, is the fact that the heresy must concern creation in particular, with the revelation of the Torah being a secondary amplification. It presumes that two divine powers—that is, two deities—were responsible for the creation of the world. Whether these deities were equal or whether one of them was subordinate to the other is not entirely clear, although the way the midrash is formulated suggests that they are regarded as equal. If this assumption is correct, a reference to one of the gnostic systems as the alleged heresy seems to be less likely, since all the gnostic systems presuppose a strict separation between a supreme (hidden and unattainable) God and an inferior (even evil) creator god—the Demiurge. Hence, a “two powers” heresy in the sense of a dualistic (gnostic) theology would not appear to be the most obvious option, as has often been proposed.¹⁰ The more likely option, therefore, is a “binitarian” theology, according to which two more or less equal deities are held jointly responsible for the creation of the world. What this precisely means cannot be determined from our present midrash alone—it is presupposed here rather than explained—and needs to be discussed in view of the full rabbinic evidence.

R. SIMLAI’S COLLECTION OF DANGEROUS BIBLE VERSES

A midrash preserved in Bereshit Rabba and in the Yerushalmi presents a comprehensive collection of dangerous questions relating to God’s names as they appear in certain biblical verses. It is cast in the form of a debate between R. Simlai and the heretics, with R. Simlai’s students present, these demanding a better answer than the one the rabbi has given to the heretics. Beginning with the well-known problem of Genesis 1, discussed above, it continues with an exegesis of Genesis 1:26 and 27 in which—unfortunately for the standard rabbinic argument—the plural of Elohim is coupled with a verb that is likewise in the plural:

The heretics (minim) asked R. Simlai: “How many gods created the world?”

He said to them: “I and you must inquire of the first days, for it is written: ‘Ask now the former days [which were before you,] since God created (bara Elohim) man upon the earth’ (Deut. 4:32). It is not written here: ‘since they [the gods] created (bar’u),’¹¹ but ‘since he [God] created (bara).’”¹²

They asked him a second time and said to him: “Why is it written: ‘In the beginning God [Elohim in the plural] created’ (Gen. 1:1)?”

He answered: “‘The gods created (bar’u)’¹³ is not written here, but ‘God created (bara).’”¹⁴

R. Simlai said: “In every passage where you find a point (apparently) supporting the heretics (minin),¹⁵ you find the refutation at its side.”

They asked him again and said to him: “Why is it written: ‘[And God (Elohim) said:] Let us make (na‘aśeh)¹⁶ a man in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26)?”

He answered them: “Read what follows—‘and the gods created (wa-yivre’u Elohim)¹⁷ man in their image’ is not written (in the Bible), but ‘and God created (wa-yivra Elohim)¹⁸ man in his image’ (Gen. 1:27).”

When they left, his disciples said to him: “Rabbi, them you have dismissed with a reed, but what will you answer to us?”

He said to them: “In the past Adam was created from dust, and Eve was created from Adam, but henceforth: ‘in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26). Neither man without woman nor woman without man, and neither of them without the Shekhinah.”¹⁹

R. Simlai was a second-generation Palestinian amora of the late third/early fourth century, who spent most of his time in Lydda and Sepphoris; he was a student of R. Yohanan (b. Nappaha), who flourished in Sepphoris, Tiberias, and (later) in Caesarea.²⁰ Again, the Bible-verses battle that he fights with the heretics focuses on creation. Its starting point is two almost classical verses (Deut. 4:32 and Gen. 1:1) in which the name of God in the plural is combined with a verb in the singular, taken as proof by the rabbis that Elohim refers to one God and not a plurality of gods. It is from this that R. Simlai concludes there are many more such pseudo-problematic cases in the Bible, and he adds a comprehensive list that moves to another example from Genesis—that exceptional case in which “Elohim” is indeed coupled with a verb in the plural (Gen. 1:26: “let us make man, in our image and our likeness”), running counter to the main rabbinical argument that the plural of Elohim is always matched with a verb in the singular.

This answer to the heretics is augmented with an additional discourse among the rabbi and his students,²¹ another rabbinic pattern, which obviously seeks to demonstrate that the “real” questions emerge only in the internal setting of the rabbinic academies and not among “rabbis” and “heretics.” But the answer to his students in this particular case is odd. It shifts the emphas...

Table of contents

• Cover
• The Jewish Jesus
• Copyright
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. Different Names of God
• 2. The Young and the Old God
• 3. God and David
• 4. God and Metatron
• 5. Has God a Father, a Son, or a Brother?
• 6. The Angels
• 7. Adam
• 8. The Birth of the Messiah, or Why Did Baby Messiah Disappear?
• 9. The Suffering Messiah Ephraim
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index