R. Shmuley Boteach has made the news, once again, with his book Kosher Jesus. I have not yet read the book and cannot offer an opinion on its merit. The idea, though, of a Jesus figure who is acceptable to traditional Jews is hardly new. However, any Jewish Jesus must be a non-Christian Jesus, and therefore any revisionist attempt to construct such an image will be theologically offensive to most Christians.
A “kosher” Jesus is one who would cringe at the most fundamental claims of Christianity, who would lament the very founding of the religion and his central place within it. That is why defenders of Judaism against Christian missionaries are often quick to accept such “Kosher Jesus” claims and why the Disputation literature advances variations on them. Advocating a “Kosher Jesus” is equivalent to defending Judaism and attacking Christianity.
Conceiving a Jewishly acceptable Jesus requires three steps:
- Rejecting the Gospels and subsequent literature as inaccurate but historically useful. By wiping away the authors’ biases, we can discover the historical truth underlying their writings.
- Accepting that there was a historical Jesus, and not merely a useful fiction or amalgamation of people.
- Reinterpreting Talmudic stories of Jesus as polemic or references to other people.
All of these steps have rabbinic precedent. While some Jewish scholars wishing to discredit Jesus have been happy to accept the Gospel narrative, which describes Jesus as acting ostensibly contrary to Jewish law and making claims offensive to Jewish theology, others have advocated different approaches. R. Shimon Duran (Rashbatz), for example, argues that the Gospels are riddled with errors because they were written by ignorant followers who misunderstood and misrepresented Jesus and his teachings. Rashbatz sees Jesus as an essentially traditional, if not particularly learned and occasionally sinful, Jew (Otzar Vikuchim, p. 118ff.).
R. Yechiel of Paris denied that the Jesus of the Talmud was the Jesus of the Gospels. After all, the name was (and remains) common. Others followed suit, and in a separate essay I make the same argument (link). According to this approach, the denunciations of Jesus in the Talmud have nothing to do with the Jesus of Christianity.
As we discussed two years ago when R. Shlomo Riskin stated that Jesus was a devout Jewish teacher, there is no single image of Jesus in Judaism (link). Dr. David Berger, in a sweeping essay on attitudes to Jesus in Medieval Jewish rabbinic literature (“On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic Against Christianity: The Quest for the Historical Jesus” in his Persecution, Polemic, and Dialogue: Essays in Jewish-Christian Relations), described the varying approaches:
Whatever one thinks of the number of Jesuses in antiquity, no one can question the multiplicity of Jesuses in medieval Jewish polemic. Many Jews with no interest at all in history were forced to confront a historical/biographical question that continues to bedevil historians to our own day. Once the issue was joined, it produced a series of analyses that reflect profound differences among varying Jewish centers in different periods…
With the onset of the Rennaissance, as historians began to adopt systematic critical attitudes to history, Jewish scholars treated this and other topics with methodological skepticism. The three steps above became a given, although many rejected step 2 and assume there was no historical Jesus. Most recently, Hyam Maccoby, a Reform historian, published three books (I, II, III) in which he applied radical literary theory to the Gospels. His conclusion was that Jesus was a traditional Jew in the style of the later Bar Kokhba, a Pharisaic rebel who attempted to become a political messiah — a king of a Jewish country — but was discovered and executed by the Romans. In constructing a religion that was politically viable and socially attractive in the Roman empire, Paul rewrote Jesus’ history to incorporate Pagan mythology of salvation and divine incarnation, political passivism and release from religious laws. Maccoby wrote (The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p. 184:
The truth, however, as we have seen, is that Jesus did not found a new religion at all, but simply sought to play an accepted role in the story of an existing religion, Judaism. It was Paul who founded Christianity, and he did so by creating a new story, one sufficiently powerful and gripping to launch a new world religion. In this new story Jesus was given a leading role, but this does not make him the creator of Christianity, any more than Hamlet wrote the plays of Shakespeare. The Jesus of Paul’s story was a fictional character, just as Shakespeare breathed new imaginative life into the bones of the historical figure of Hamlet the Dane.
This Jesus was kosher. He was a devout Jew who played a respected, if failed, role in Jewish life at the time. Like other Jews in that politically tumultuous period, Jesus tried to foment rebellion among his fellow Jews but did not succeed. He was a failed political messiah, not a successful religious Messiah.
The radical literary deconstruction Maccoby uses does not sit well with me as a methodology. The deconstruction of texts in order to discover the historical Jesus seems to me overly speculative. However, I am happy to remain agnostic over whether Jesus ever existed and whether he remained a devout Jew or founded a new religion because he is simply irrelevant to my life. Kosher or non-kosher, Jesus is not someone important to me since the religion founded on his life, whether accurately or not, is not mine.
However, he plays a central role in the religious lives of so many people that I prefer to refrain from speculating, at least publicly, in a way that they may find offensive. I gain nothing other than the alienation of millions of people across the world. R. Boteach’s book may be communally wise or not, depending on its specific message and delivery. However, I find it hard to accept that his book is somehow heretical if, as he states (link), he follows Maccoby’s approach. If his statements accurately represent his book, then he has conducted an attack on Christianity and, like the Disputants who preceded him, provided defense material for Jewish countermissionaries.
(As a matter of side interest, see here for R. Shalom Carmy’s negative evaluation of Maccoby’s approach: link. And see here for a summary of critiques of Maccoby’s view: link.)
The Rambam’s exact words are “Killed by the Beit Din.” Of course, not even the New Testament claims that.
Given the discussion, I cracked open my copy of the above mentioned “The Jewish Annotated New Testament” and see that it has a series of short essays: Jesus in Rabbinic Tradition, Jesus in Medieval Jewish Tradition, Jesus in Modern Jewish Thought and Paul in Modern Jewish Thought. They are partially previewable on Google Books: http://tinyurl.com/76aclza
Nachum: But Yom Kippur does atone for certain personal sins (mizvot lo tasseh she-ein bahen karet) if one has repented. See arba hilukei kapparah.
“I see now that Lubavitcher Rabbi Immanuel Schochet, who strongly defended the dead Messiah idea when it came to his Rebbe, has now banned this new book (http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=40880). Interesting.”
1)I read rabbi Shochet’s letter. It seems more of psak than a ban i.e. he says he was asked a halachic question about the book and responded.
2)Also, what’s with the comments on that site? They’re beyond sycophantic! Is he the new Rebbe or something?
A comprehensive letter refuting and rejecting ‘kosher J’ is now out from Lubavitcher Rabbi Chaim Rapoport (who, like his colleague cited above, strongly attacked those who spoke out against Lubavitchers promoting the late Rebbe as Messiah a number of years back. Evidently they feel that ‘kosher J’ is more of a problem than believing in a resurrected Messiah).
rav yakov emdin wrote a booklet called “Resen Mat’eh” (the title is based on Is. 30,28) in which he posits that Jesus had good intentions but his followers messed up (I hope my summery does it justice). rav yakov emden quotes extensively from the “new testament” throughout (he obviously had great “b’kius” in it). a critical edition was released a few years ago by Leeor Gottleib (doctoral candidate at Hebrew U and popular lecturer at the annual YCT yemei Iyun).
Lawrence Kaplan
There is a rabbinic statement that mittat tzaddikim mekhaperet. I find it hard to imagine that you are not familiar with it.
It is a gemara in Moed Katan 28a, quoted by Rashi in Chumash in Parashas Chukas on the pesukim regarding Miriam’s death.
The Rishonim explain it rationally. The Meiri writes that the death of a tsaddik serves as a rebuke and awakening to repentance. (The idea being that if the Tsaddik is subject to Death, all the more so us regular mortals, and that should cause one to examine one’s deeds and repent.)
Acc. to the Rav Kook Torah website, he gave a similar, but slighlty more positive, interpretation:
“The principal benefit that comes from the death of tzaddikim is the spiritual and moral awakening that takes place after they pass away. When a tzaddik is alive, his acts of kindness and generosity are not always public knowledge. True tzaddikim do not promote themselves. On the contrary, they often take great pains to conceal their virtues and charitable deeds. It is not uncommon that we become aware of their true greatness and nobility of spirit only after they are no longer with us. Only then do we hear reports of their selfless deeds and extraordinary sensitivity, and we are inspired to emulate their ways. In this way, the positive impact of the righteous as inspiring role models increases after their death.”
In either case, this is far from Xtian theology.
If this summary of R. Boteach’s book by R. Chaim Rapoport is accurate, then the book is unacceptable. That’s a big IF, though. I won’t denounce a book I haven’t read.
http://www.chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=25836
Interesting read. On his point #3, R. Rapaport cites MT Hilchot Melachim 11:4 incompletely. He seems to leave off the 2nd part referencing Jesus:
וכל הדברים האלו של ישוע הנוצרי, ושל זה הישמעאלי שעמד אחריו–אינן אלא ליישר דרך למלך המשיח, ולתקן את העולם כולו לעבוד את ה’ ביחד
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/e511.htm
As it happens the online MT in English translation is Chabad’s:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188356/jewish/Chapter-11.htm
“Ultimately, all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite who arose after him will only serve to prepare the way for Mashiach’s coming and the improvement of the entire world, motivating the nations to serve God together”
The Rambam’s phrase in Hilkhot Melakhim “Ve-khol ha-devarim ha-eile shel Yeshua” does NOT mean “all the deeds of Jesus” but “all these matters regarding Jesus.”
Prof. Kaplan: How is Yom Kippur like a dead person?
IH: You know that bit isn’t in the standard printed Rambam. Of course, Chabad twists themselves into knots to try to fit the Rebbe into that.
Two things about the R’ Rappoport piece:
1. It’s telling that he can’t condemn the concept of a second coming (something that contradicts Tanach, Chazal, and all of Jewish tradition) per se; rather he has to point out that Jesus couldn’t have been Mashiach for other reasons. Perhaps this is why Chabad in particular seems so threatened by this book (in addition to the fact that Boteach is “one of them”): Just as was warned, they’ve set up a belief system that is very open to accepting Jesus, provided he is “kashered” enough. Any non-Chabad Jew will simply look at Boteach’s book and say “Nu, so maybe he was frum after all. Doesn’t mean he was Mashiach- after all, he’s dead.” Chabad can’t say that.
2. I fit it also troubling that the greatest sin, in his eyes, is going against the teachings of Lubavitcher rebbes. An old story, but still bad.
In either case, this is far from Xtian theology.
I agree Tal, the Meiri ans Rav Kook are far from christian theology…
Nachum – neither is your (translated quote) of 5:33 pm (1st comment on this page) from earlier in that halacha in my printed Mishneh Torah either. It’s the black bound ירושלים תשל”ג set. I agree with your comments in any case.
Prof. Kaplan – Their idiosyncratic translation was my point, in part.
“Two things about the R’ Rappoport piece:”
One thing about the R’ Rapoport piece. He went into excruciating, slam-dunk detail in his take-down of the Heilman/ Friedman book. For someone who says he read Boteach’s book, this is so general and superficial that one really does wonder.
S: A chasid will spend sleepless nights working on a defense of your rebbe. R. Rapoport made a sufficient case against R. Boteach (if his description is accurate, which I would like to verify myself).
So he puts in more effort defending Chabad (or defending a very narrow view of one rebbe’s life) than defending a major part of identity for every Jew?
It is what it is, but come on, the contrast is fascinating, if not startling.
Jesus was the first Reform Rabbi. Is it not fair to say that? Many of the stories in the new testament depict him finding that the Pharisees had become preoccupied with the letter of the law, rather than its spirit. This was one of (not the only) concerns of early Reformers, no?
Re the earlier Gil/Nachum discussion – seems obvious to me, as Nachum wrote, that the amoraim really didnt know much about Jesus, and just recorded the few hazy things they had heard. The Talmud records everything, including hazy traditions. That is a perfectly accurate statement. I think it only seems disresepctful to you, Gil, because the “daas torah” mindset has begun creeping in on you, leading you to think that the rabbis of the talmud – all 2000 of them, over 500 years + – were always right about everything.
Just to clarify:
a) Rabbi Rapoport’s piece was not intended to be a full review; it was originally a letter written to friends as a condemnation. Indeed his letter itself states that he did not have the time (yet) to give provide a full analysis (and he has told me that he is in two minds as to whether this is even desirable)!
b) In general, just because Rabbi Rapoport wrote a book length review on Heilman (defending his rebbe) does that mean that he is obliged to write the same on every book that he adamantly opposes? There will be many people who will undoubtedly be dealing with Boteach in detail. Rabbi Rapoport merely wanted to make a robust protest and set the tone for others.
c) Note that whilst Rabbi Rapoport spoke sharply against Heilman he never called him a meisis u-madiach or even a rasha. It is clear that Rapoport sees a much greater danger in Boteach!
DF: Jesus was the first Reform Rabbi. Is it not fair to say that?
That assume: 1) he was a rabbi and 2) he denied the binding nature of the law. I’m not sure that either is correct. Certainly Maccoby denied #2.
I think it only seems disresepctful to you, Gil, because the “daas torah” mindset has begun creeping in on you
I’d be interested in your pre-modern sources that support a critical stance to Chazal’s history, like exists regarding science. I don’t believe mine is a new attitude, although I note again that I did not dismiss the other attitude.
Why make it in advance, and why make it in a way that neither proves that he read it or that leaves the contrast as obvious?
I think it was a mistake. Not writing that quick letter and not writing it before the book is even released would have been wiser in mt view.
Presumably he reacted immediately after reading it, in the heat of his passion.
>> I’d be interested in your pre-modern sources that support a critical stance to Chazal’s history, like exists regarding science.
Why the (artificial) distinction between the science and history of Chazal?
Presumably. And that’s why I said it was a mistake.
When I say Jesus was a Reform Rabbi, I mean to say he was a leader of the flock. I dont mean he was a formal “Rabbi” who took bechinos in bosur bicholv, tarubos, and melicha.
And I dont think its necessary to deny the binding nature of law to be a reform rabbi. RABBINIC law, surely, every reform rabbi would tell you is not binding. But some of them would tell you Torah law is. We are speaking of Jesus, who lived before the era of rabbinic law. Jesus, it is clear, thought the Pharisees [= orthodoxy] was too caught up in ritual. In that sense he was Reform.
Why the (artificial) distinction between the science and history of Chazal?
MDJ
I dont think the distinction is necessarily artificial. Our God is much more a God of history than of nature,. Lemaaseh Idont think many, of any rishonim challenge chazal’s history. but I agree the notion that it is disrespctfull to chazal to say their knowledge of church history was lacking is pretty silly.
I odnt know if Jesus was the first Reform rabbi, but the first reform rabbis werre certainly influenced by Jesus and his followers!
Moshe,
That explains why a distinction might be desirable, but not why it is reasonable.
I meant that when people open the door to changes in classical, traditional beliefs, like claiming that a Messiah can come from the dead, can open the door to similar reexaminations, such as ‘kosher J’.
I see this book more in tradition of his previous work aimed at a popular audience, particularly “Kosher Sex”. Sex and Jesus – can you think of any two more non-kosher topics?
“IH: You know that bit isn’t in the standard printed Rambam. Of course, Chabad twists themselves into knots to try to fit the Rebbe into that.”
Not that I agree with them or anything, but I’ve heard meshichistim claim that the Rambam specifically says “killed” as opposed to dying naturally like the Rebbeh.
Shlomo,
What’s not kosher about sex?
Shaul: They do say that indeed. It’s twisting the Rambam, who clearly says “If he does not do X *OR* is killed…” The first half clearly means “died.”
Is it true the book isn’t actually out and no one has read it?
Gil: Does Azaria DeRossi count? In any event, it’s apples and oranges. Science (or “science”) has always been evolving. History made a sudden transition a few centuries ago.
Anonymous: Right, AdR was the first.
Shlomo: “I see this book more in tradition of his previous work aimed at a popular audience, particularly “Kosher Sex”. Sex and Jesus – can you think of any two more non-kosher topics?”
Yes, he knows the meaning of shock value well. He also wrote a book called ‘Kosher Adultery’. I don’t know if a ‘kosher ham’ is in his future, may not be enough on it to make for a book, but who knows.
I will say though, that considering his background, a Lubavitcher BT from Los Angeles and Miami Beach, I am not totally surprised at his antics.
“Shaul: They do say that indeed. It’s twisting the Rambam, who clearly says “If he does not do X *OR* is killed…” The first half clearly means “died.””
Interesting, I hadn’t thought of that. But can’t they still claim he”ll do it eventually? (what with the gemara in sanhedrin about moshiach being like the dead Daniel)
Shaul: See my Kuntres Bikores HaGeulah: http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/bikores/
Wow, looks long! Is there one part that is particularly applicable here?
Thanx
Specifically os tes.
Scratch my last comment- I thought the table of contents were chapters not pages. I printed out the whole thing and plan to read it tonight. Thanx again.
Correction – At the Jerusalem book launch, he said that he was raised religious (but not Lubavitch).
Sorry, Anonymous was me.
Shaul, Rashi gives two explanations of that Gemara. One is what Lubavitch would like. The other is the obvious p’shat. (He will be *like* Daniel if we *compare* him to someone dead.)
Yishayahu clearly says that Mashiach won’t die until he does what he has to. That was always used to say that he *would* die eventually, but it also makes it clear that he has to do what he must *before* he dies.
So, Gil, AdR is “modern”?
nachum- Can you provide the source in Yeshayahu. Or is it in the kuntres?
I’m only really interested in this because I read Dr David Bergers’ book and came away very underwhelmed. He pretty much tries to ignore the pro chabad sources (which he admits to in his respose to David Singer) and instead argues that if we accept messianic chabad we lose our #1 historical anti-missionary argumet- that we don’t accept a dead messiah. That seemed very weak to me, because our problems with X-tiantiy are more about the 3 in 1 trintiy, abrogated old testament, and a god that dies, than the exact nature of who moshiach is anyway. I’m sort of left with the feeling, that if they want to believe he’s moshiach- nu gezunterheit. I think it’s silly, but so is the tooth fairy, and I don’t ostracize tooth fairy-niks. I’m still looking for the exact halachik problem here with what they believe, and I’m intersted to see if R Gil’s kuntres deals with that.
[As an aside, someone seems to have sent in R Gil's post about the weather the readers comments in the FJJ under the name flatbush resident or something like that.]
R’ Gil, if memory serves correctly, the ‘Baal Hamaor’, R’ Zerachia HaLevi, comments on the pronouncement in the first perek of T.B. Rosh Hashana, “Hu Koresh, hu Daryavesh, hu Artachshasta”, i.e. all the ‘good’ Persian emperors were one and the same person. He cites historical evidence that show Cyrus, Darius, and Artxerxes to be individual monarchs with much different life stories and reigns.
Shaul: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. This is outright plagiarism. Second time a yeshivish newspaper did that to me. I just sent them a strongly worded e-mail.
Gil: Why am I shocked but not surprised?
As I suspected, someone e-mailed it to them without any attribution so they published it as an anonymous letter. In my opinion, irresponsible.
Give me a break. Someone emails it anonymously and they don’t put ten sample words in quotes into Google to check?
Or, to put it another way, they don’t constantly Google “Flatbush Jewish Journal” to see how they are doing among the masses?
Puhleez, as they say.
S. We should go easy on Gil. After all, these are the people among whom he chooses to live!