THE RABBINIC TRADITION

It sometimes seems to me that Christian scholars have such difficulty with their own tradition is because they don’t understand the Jewish tradition. One of their greatest mistakes is to assume that the surviving “rabbinic tradition” is simply an extension of Phariseeism. To be sure the Pharisaic influence over the new Jewish orthodoxy was greater than that of their rivals, the Sadducees. Nevertheless the reconstitution of Judaism which took place in the second century did not entirely exclude Sadducean halakhah. The Mishnah collected a wide variety of interpretations of Jewish Law and sometimes favored the rival tradition.

The reason this is important is because it is very apparent that an earlier orthodoxy which accepted Marcus Agrippa as the messiah found its way into the writings of later authorities. As I will make plain here, the accepted interpretation of Daniel 9:24 – 27 was that Agrippa was the mashiach and that the seventy weeks prophesy was eventually fulfilled in of the 4^th of Ab, 70 CE when the temple was destroyed. This point of view would ultimately cause problems for the later orthodoxy. How could the messiah have already come? Why wasn’t the world destroyed and why hasn’t the resurrection of the dead occurred? As we shall see attempts were made to get around these arguments by various means.

The important thing to see is that anointed one in Daniel is said above all to be an anointed leader,נגיד משיח . This is the status that our canonical gospels make Jesus explicitly reject (cf Mark XII: 35-37 and the parallels). What Jesus implicitly claims for himself there is quite different. The early Christian commentators were right in saying the figure in Daniel can’t be Jesus, not only from the chronology, but also fron the use of the term Nagid in Daniel, which belongs to a status rejected by Jesus. Calvin missed the point. I thin people get hypnotised when they see this word משיח because they forget what it means. The condescending tone of Calvin and others is annoying. It is these commentators that are ignorant, not pseudo-Nachmanides or Rashi.

If we were to assemble a list of rabbinic sources for the messiahood of Marcus Agrippa we would necessarily begin in the early second century and move our way down to modern times. This list would represent over fifteen of the most important Jewish authorities as its witnesses including:

1. The anonymous Jewish source for Celsus of Rome (fl. 140 CE.) cites a pre-existent Jewish tradition which identifies “certain Christians and Jews” who believe that the Christ “has already descended upon the earth.” [Origen, Against Celsus 4:2]

2. A tradition incorporated in the Mishnah (mid second century CE.) recalls the events surrounding the destruction of the temple where " the Daily Sacrifices was discontinued, the walls of the city were breached and the Apostle burned the Torah and erected an idol in the Temple [Taanith IV. 6]

3. Seder ‘Olam Rabba (mid second century CE.), which has official standing as the authoritative chronology, has information not in the Mishnah and acknowledges Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel [see Montgomery: Daniel].

4. the Yosippon (second century CE., but the editing is probably late Amoraic) develops the same story but takes Daniel’s mention of the “cutting off” of the messiah to mean Agrippa died at the early stages of the conflict. The tradition is more historically reliable and more authoritative within the Rabbinic tradition than is generally realized.

5. Epiphanius (fourth century CE) declares that the Jews have stubbornly persisted in recognizing “Herod” instead of Jesus as the Christ or the king announced by the prophets. [Panarion 20:2; the same idea appears in Eusebius Eccl 8 and various later Byzantine writers]

6. Jerome (fourth century CE.) identifies contemporary Jews who read Daniel 9:24–27 as if it already relates to “Christ the prince.” [Braverman, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel p. 107 – 9]

7. Rabbi Abaye (fourth century CE.) says that prophecy of the messiah in Daniel 9:24–27 (which is universally agreed to refer to the destruction of the temple) was fulfilled "a long time ago" without explaining who exactly the messiah was [Sanhedrin 98b and 97a]

8. Samuel b. Nahmani (fourth century CE.) declares a curse on “those who calculate the end” from Daniel “[f]or they would say since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he [the messiah] has not come, he will never come.” [Sanhedrin 97b]

9. pseudo-Saadiah Gaon (eleventh century CE.) implicates that Agrippa was the messiah of Dan 9:24-27 and says that the text identifies that “he will strengthen a covenant with the great ones.” [VeDeos ch 8]

10. Rashi (eleventh century CE.) commenting on Daniel 9:26, says this reference to the mashiach points to “Agrippa, the king of Judea, who was ruling at the time of the destruction, will be slain.” [Commentary on Daniel]

• Rashi further develops the historical context of the passage that “Israel should receive their complete retribution in the exile of Titus and his subjugation, in order that their transgressions should terminate, their sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated, in order to bring upon them eternal righteousness and to anoint upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the Ark, the altars, and the holy vessels, which they will bring to them through the king Messiah.” [ibid]

• Rashi says further more that “[t]he monarch who will come” will destroy the Roman armies and their “end will come about by inundation. And his end will be damnation and destruction, for He will inundate the power of his kingdom through the Messiah.” [ibid]

• Rashi refers to a historical situation where the Messiah “will strengthen Titus [through] a covenant with the princes of Israel … He will promise them the strengthening of a covenant and peace for seven[ty] years, but within the seven[ty] years, he will abrogate his covenant. [H]e will abolish sacrifice and meal-offering” … and “[t]hrough a covenant of tranquility, he will destroy them [i.e. the Romans].” [ibid]

• Rashi concludes that the Messiah “will place the dumb one, the pagan deity, which is dumb … [and] the dumb one and the ruling of the abomination will endure until the day that the destruction and extermination decreed upon it [will] befall it, in the days of the king Messiah … and total destruction will descend upon the image of the pagan deity and upon its worshippers.” [ibid]

• Some rabbinic commentators interpret Rashi’s ideas to mean that bar Kochba, the leader of the subsequent revolt against Rome, was Agrippa’s son [Shafranovich, The Halachic Status of the Herodian Dynasty 7]

11. Ibn Ezra (twelfth century CE.) explicitly identifies Agrippa with the messiah of Dan 9:26, as Montgomery notes, citing the Hebrew text of Josephus (vi. c. 30 (s. Shurer 1, 159) who gives a tradition of Agrippa’s martyr-death [Montgomery The International Critical Commentary on Daniel, p. 397]

12. Ibn Daud (twelfth century CE.) insists that Daniel’s messianic prophesies had already been fulfilled and therefore could no longer be applied in the future [Cohen, The Book of Traditions, p. 241]

13. Maimonides (twelfth century CE.) says that previous traditions similarly held that the messiah already came, viz. "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise (rabbis) have barred the calculation of the days of Messiah's coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah." [Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24]

14. Nachmanides (thirteenth century CE.) identifies Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel 9:26, but, as Goldwurm notes, he also “imputes this information to the Sages, [but,] as the editor of [his work] notes, his sources are unknown.” [Goldwurm, Daniel A New Translation with Commentary, p. 264]

• Nachmanides, likely drawing from these ancient sources, argues that, at the time Agrippa was the messiah, Christianity was being formulated as a ‘Roman plot’ to subvert the Jewish religion, saying “[o]ur relationship with Rome and Edom [i.e. Christianity] is similar. We ourselves caused our falling into their hands, since they made a covenant with the Romans, and Agrippa, the last king during the Second Temple, fled to them for help. It was because of the famine that Jerusalem was captured by the Romans, and the exile has greatly prolonged itself over us.” [Commentary on Genesis 47:28]

• Nachmanides takes the passage in the Mishnah (late second century CE.) which refers to the “flattery” shown Agrippa by his contemporaries to be a covert reference to the new Christian doctrine – viz. “this being a reference to the exile in which we were expatriated to Rome because of the journey there of King Agrippa.” [Commentary on Deut 28:36]; Genesis Rabba (late second century CE.) identifies that “flattery,” hanif, is a codeword for “Christian heresy;”

• Nachmanides was put on trial by Catholics for his belief in “another messiah” beside Jesus identified in the Talmud. He was ultimately banished from Spain because of his beliefs. [cf. Wikkuach]

15. Abarbanel (fifteenth century CE.) similarly argued that Agrippa was the messiah of Dan 9:24 – 27 and, as Goldwurm notes, “though admitting he can find no source for [Nachmanides] statement, champions [his] assertion. [Nachmanides’] reputation is assurance enough that he had good sources for his statement though they have been lost to us.” [Goldwurm, Daniel A New Translation with Commentary, p. 264]

• Abarbanel speaks of the idea where "[t]he messiah will have to die in order to purify the generation and he will wait in a spiritual state in heaven until he rises from the dead as it says in the Talmud Sanhedrin 98b." [Yeshuot Moshicho Part 2, topic 2, chapter 1]

• Abarbanel became the touchstone of contemporary European attacks against the widespread Jewish belief in “Agrippa the messiah.” As Calvin notes, “Rabbi Abarbinel, who thinks himself superior to all others, rejects our idea of the spiritual reign of Christ as a foolish imagination. For the kingdom of God, he says, is established under the whole heavens, and is given to the people of the saints. If it is established under heaven, says he, it is earthly, and if earthly, therefore not spiritual.” [Commentary on Daniel Volume 2]

• Calvin identifies him as “[t]hat trifler Abarbanel … who thinks Agrippa has just as much right to be called a Christ” but whom Christians know “cannot by any means be called Christ, even though he had surpassed all angels in wisdom, and virtue, and power, and everything else. Here [the Church] is treated, and this will not be found in the person of Agrippa.” [ibid]

• Calvin is similarly scandalized by the fact that Abarbanel “allows [Agrippa’s] defection to the Romans, but states it to have been against his will, as he was still a worshipper of God. Although he was clearly an apostate, yet he treats him as by no means worse than all the rest, and for this reason he wishes him to be called the Christ.” [ibid]

• Luther notes the German Jews of his day entertained similar ideas writing, “Oh, how ridiculous it seems to these circumcised saints that we accursed Goyim have interpreted and understand this saying thus, especially since we did not consult their rabbis, Talmudists, and Kokhbaites whom they regard as more authoritative than all of Scripture. For they do a far better job of it. This is what they say… ‘And after sixty-two weeks the Messiah (that means King Agrippa) will be killed and will not be’ -- this means, will be no king … [yet] Agrippa was not killed after the sixty-two weeks – in brief, all that they [the Jews] say is a lie.” [On the Jews and Their Lies, Chapter 12]

• Luther again argues against the Jews that “[n]either can one produce a Messiah to whom the statement in Daniel 9 applies other than this Jesus of Nazareth, even if this drives the devil with an his angels and Jews to madness. For we heard before how lame the lies of the Jews regarding King Cyrus and King Agrippa are.” [ibid Chapter19]

16. The Metsudat David (a seventeenth-century commentary from Prague) agrees with the prevalent Jewish interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27 and adds “[w]hen the second temple will be destroyed, the righteous King Messiah will come and rule forever in everlasting.”

17. The messianic claimant Jacob Frank (eighteenth century CE.) seems to give a positive spin to the rabbinic tradition attributed to the sages regarding Christianity as a Roman conspiracy, emphasizing “A nation is about to rebel [against] the nation of the sons of Edom [Rome] with a battle cry as the king presses against the other king. Let them purify themselves and make themselves white [Dan. 12:10] and condemn the guilty. But none of the wicked will understand, only those of real understanding will know [ibid] that anyone who has a spark of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must enter into the holy faith of Edom [i.e. Christianity] and whoever will accept this creed with love will be saved from all of them [the persecutions] and will merit all of the consolations promised in Isaiah and in all the Prophets.” [First Letter of Jacob Frank]

18. Malbim (nineteenth century CE.) writes that “the Roman Empire where practicable will not destroy the nations it conquers; rather it will remold them for Roman exploitation.”