41.  IF YESHUA WAS SO POPULAR AND SO LOVED BY THE COMMON PEOPLE, WHY WAS HE SO DESPISED BY THE TEACHERS?

     He was opposed by the Pharisee sect since his interpretations of the Law (and his more-or-less dispensing with the Pharisees' interpretations of the Oral Law) went contrary to the Pharisees' views. In modern terms, he was of 'another denomination'. (You'll note that none of the sects--Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees--had very much good to say about one another. So it's not to be expected that they would have much good to say about yet another sect, the Nazarenes, either.)

        Too great a leap in logic! Simon haMaccabbee also entered Jerusalem in triumph in just this fashion, and it wasn't Sukkot:

     'It was on the twenty-third day of the second month in the year 171 (Greek dating) that he made his entry, with a chorus of praise and the waving of palm branches, with lutes, cymbals, and zithers, and hymns and songs' (what hymns and songs? perhaps psalms?) 'to celebrate Israel's final riddance of a formidable enemy.'   I Maccabbees 13:51

     Compare this with Luke 13:6-8:

       'Then he told this mashal: 'A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who cared for the vineyard, 'For three years now I have come looking for fruit on this fig treee, and have found none. So cut it down! Why let it use up the soil'
           'Sir,' the man answered, 'let it alone for one more year. . . If it bears fruit next year, then all is well. If not, then cut it down.'

        So the incident with the fig tree is a kind of acted-out message, similar to when Ezekiel made a model of Jerusalem and then burned it (Ez. 4-5).
         Also consider Jeremiah 24:1-8.

     '. . . the L-rd showed me two baskets of figs placed in front of the Temple of the L-rd. One basket had very good figs, like those that ripen early; the other basket had very poor figs, so bad that they could not be eaten. . . '  Essentially,  here the early-ripening figs are said to represent the faithful, while the rest represent the unfaithful.

    Biographies in the ancient world were not like modern biographies. They often grouped together various events in the lives of their protagonists according to theme instead of simply following a strict chronological order, as we would today.  (See Suetonious, for example, in the 'Lives of the Twelve Caesars', and other ancient biographies.) Thus while it would surprise us, in the 20th century, to find that things are not always recounted in strict sequence, it would not necessarily be a surprise to (or even expected by) someone in the first century.
     There is a belief, for example, that the material in Mark's gospel may have been arranged in the order it was to be read during the liturgical year. Thus, it begins with the baptism of Yeshua.  This is  thought to have taken place during the festival of Sukkot. (Sukkot is often linked with baptism in some  early Christian practice and literature, and possibly also in John 7:37-39). And, it is also quite possible that Yeshua was born during Sukkot, so that this again would make it an appropriate place to begin the gospel.
     The material in John, on the other hand, constantly portrays what Yeshua is doing  during the Jewish festivals.   And in Matthew, some of the teaching seems to be organized in a  traditional Jewish manner. For example, some parts of the  Sermon on the Mount may be Yeshua's gemmara on the Oral Torah. He discusses what to do with a disputed garment (simply let the other person have it) and the taking of oaths (do not take them; for the righteous, their word should always be good). Later the Talmuds in Baba Metzia will contain lengthy sections about the same matters.

    After the fall in the Garden, HaShem said (Gen. 3:15), '. . . I will put emnity between you (the serpent) and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.'   Most followers of Yeshua think that this is the first promise of help for Adam and Eve in their fallen condition, that a redeemer--who is a descendant of the woman--will come who will crush the head of the serpent. (Some scholars think that the expression 'heels of the messiah' may derive  partly from this passage.)
     A little later, when Eve gives birth to Cain,  (Gen. 4:1), the usual translation of what she says is, 'I have acquired a man with the help of G-d.' But it is also possible--and perhaps more straightforward--to translate this as  'I have acquired a man, Adonai.' In other words, she thinks that she has given birth to the redeemer already.      Her view of this, of course, would come only from her understanding of what HaShem said in Gen. 3:15, that is, that a redeemer is coming.
     (It might have been more expected for her to say, since she has just lain with Adam, that 'with the help of Adam' I have acquired a man, especially since the  same scripture makes clear that this was not a miraculous birth outside of the normal process.)
    Of course, this all depends upon how one reads the verse. But it certainly can be read this way.

     Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest extant example of the Tanach dated only from about the eleventh century C.E. This single copy  (ultimately kept in a Leningrad/St. Petersburg museum) became the ancestor of all modern versions. (A duplicate was later deposited in Stuttgart.)  This became known as the Massoretic Text (or MT) after the scribes who had edited and copied it.  In some places this text differed from other versions of the Tanach. For example, in the Septuagint, a translation made into Greek during the second and first centuries B.C.E., the book of Jeremiah is of a different length and the material is in a slightly different order. Likewise, the Samaritan version varies to some degree from the Hebrew text. It was impossible to state which version(s) was correct, or to know whether or not errors had crept in during the copying process. Then, in 1948, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and new light was shed on the textual history.
     We now know that there was more than one version of certain books of the Tanach in circulation during the late Second Temple period. Copies of the book of Jeremiah have been found which agree with both the MT and the LXX versions. Other copies of other books have been found which agree in places with the Samaritan version (for example, the Samaritan text states that Jacob went down to Egypt accompanied by 75 persons--the same figure cited by Stephen in Acts 7:14. However, the MT gives this figure as only 70.)
     Scholars now theorize that there were at least three general versions, or 'families' of texts. Our present version (according to these theories) was preserved largely intact among the exiles in Babylonia. A second version, in the meantime, developed among those left behind in Judea. It was this version which came to be used widely in Egypt, and which formed the basis for the LXX. A third version was created by the Samaritans (in which, naturally, Mount Gerazim figured prominently).
     At some point--perhaps after the triumph of the Maccabbees--efforts were set in motion to re-establish the authenic text.  A new influx of returning exiles from the Babylonian communities may have been responsible for this. (The situation might be analygous to one in which a group of Puritans arrive in America with a misprinted King James Bible; and only later, when another influx of immigrants arrive, are the errors corrected.) (For a fuller discussion, see Hershel Shanks, 'Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls', pp. 139ff).
     The process of deciding upon the 'correct' text was apparently only completed sometime during the period between the two Jewish revolts. However, this was also at a time when opposition to the new Nazarene sect was peaking. Thus, the question becomes, is it possible that the decisions as to which texts to accept or reject were influenced in part (and consciously or unconcsciously) by opposition to the new sect?
     We know from history that this has often been alledged. For example, Justin used to state that the original of Psalm 96:10 was, 'The L-rd has become King on the tree.' And that after Ezra 6:22, there was another verse,  'And Ezra said to the people, 'This Pesach is your Savior and your refuge. And if you believe, then it shall come into your hearts, that they shall humiliate him in spite of the signs he has done, and that afterwards we shall hope in him again, and this place shall never be laid desolate, says the L-rd of Hosts. But if you do not believe, and do not hear these words that are spoken of him, you shall be despised of the heathen.'
    Catherine Geever and Margaret and Preston Heinle in their book 'Messianic Prophecies from a Dead Sea Scroll' have shown that the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran reads somewhat differently in certain passages than does the MT text. For example, Isaiah 53:10 reads in our modern text, 'Yet it pleased the L-rd to crush him by disease (usually translated as 'to put him to grief'). . . ' The Great Isaiah Scroll reads, on the other hand, 'Yet the L-rd wanted him crushed, and He pierced him (severely, ie, to death)'. There is no mention of disease.  There are some other differences as well.  Isaiah 52:14 might be read,  'I so annointed him more than anyone else', instead of our modern 'his visage was so marred more than anyone else'.
     In the Talmud there is a story (Shab. 13b; Hag. 13a; Men 35a) about Hananiah ben Hezekiah. 'If it were not for him, the book of Ezekiel might have been hidden away, because many of its words contradict the words of Torah. What did he do? He had three hundred barrels of oil brought to him in a loft (for lamps), and he stayed there until he had reconciled all the contradictions.'
     Edersheim notes that there are different figures given by the rabbinical authorities for the number of verses in scripture, the middle letter of the scripture, the arrangement of the Psalms, and the number of chapters and sections. The total number of verses given (23,199) is different from our modern text by a total of 99. Edersheim states, 'Considering the want of exegetical knowledge and historical conscientiousness, and keeping in view how often the rabbis, for Aggadic purposes, alter letters, and thus change the meaning of words, we may well doubt the satisfactory character of their critical labors. Lastly, as certain omissions were made, and as the Canon underwent repeated revision, it may be that certain portions were added as well as left out, and words changed as well as restored.' (Edersheim, 'Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', appendix V).
    One example of this might be found in Psalm 22, verse 16 (in English language Bibles).  Here the verse is usually translated to read 'they pierced my hands and feet'. The modern Hebrew MT, however, reads 'like a lion my hands and feet'. This makes no sense (as it lacks a verb); and with only the lengthening of the final 'yod' into a 'vav'  in the word 'kari' can be read as 'pierced'. Justin so quotes it in his arguments and  both the LXX and Syriac Peshitta read this way. Aquila, in his translation of the Tanach into Greek, which was made for a specifically Jewish audience, renders this word as  'they disfigure, they dishonor'.  (And this Greek word itself is said to derive from the Greek verbs for 'they bind with fetters, they shackle'.) Had Aquila known of the other reading (i.e., 'like a lion') it is likely he would have preferred this instead of merely searching for another verb. Likewise, the 13th century Yalkut Shimoni (687) translates it this way  (i.e., 'pierced') in a parallel with the story of Esther. Jacob ben Chaim, who edited the Massoretic text in Venice in 1526, stated, 'In some of the most accurate texts, I have found it written (the Kthib) 'karoo' ('pierced') and read  as 'karee' ('like a lion').   The Massora maj. on Numbers 24:9 states that in Psalm 22 the reading (Kthib) was 'karoo' ('pierced'). In some manuscripts the final 'yod' of 'karee' ('like a lion') has a shurek placed beneath it (i.e., three diagonal dots representing the pronunciation of an 'oo' sound). E. W. Bullinger ('Figures of Speach used in the Bible') suggests that the original sentence may  have read something like, 'They tore (kaaru) like a lion (kaari) my hands and feet', thus creating a beautiful assonance. However, the modern MT (more than a thouand years later than the LXX and therefore much after the spread of Christianity) renders this in an incomprehensible manner.
     Some verses quoted in the New Testament, such as in Hebrews 1:6, which cites Deut. 32:43 as saying, 'and let all the angels of G-d worship Him', were not found in any existing versions of Tanach until some scrolls from Qumran were found to contain the same quotation in the same form. (Many other phrases commonly used in the book of Hebrews were also commonly used at Qumran.)  (See Joseph Fitzmeyer, '101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls', pp. 132-133).
     E. W. Bullinger ('Figures of Speach Used in the Bible', appendix E) also notes that the Massorah scribes kept records of certain changes which had been made to the text. These changes--around eighteen (or slightly more), were intended in general to preserve a respect for G-d; they attempted to remove too obvious anthropomorphic references, or phrases in which G-d might be referred to in a derogatory manner. There was never an intention, however, to permanently alter the original text; only, so to speak, to 'build a fence around it', out of reverence.
     For example, in Genesis 28:22, 'But Abraham stood yet before the    L-rd', was altered from 'The 'L-rd stood yet before Abraham'.  II Samuel 16:12 reads, 'It may be that the L-rd will look on my affliction'. The original reads, 'It may be that the L-rd will behold me with His eye.' And so on.
     In addition, C.D. Ginsburg ('The Massorah') lists 134 places where scribes replaced the Divine Name with a substitution, usually 'adonai'. Examples can be found in Gen. 18:3,17,30,32; 19:18; 20:4; Exodus 4:10,13, etc.) These changes were most likely made so that a reader, in reading aloud, should not accidently pronounce the Divine Name.  However, some theological results (probably unintended) developed around certain passages. For example, in the story of Abraham and his three heavenly visitors, the original text makes it even more evident that it is with G-d, Himself, that Abraham is conversing, and not merely an angel. Abraham even addresses him directly, using the Divine Name.
     These changes, then, suggest that even with the best of intentions, the original text may not have been preserved, but might have been altered for reasons of theological preference. Recent discoveries of more early manuscripts in Leningrad/St. Petersburg (more than 2500 which pre-date the year 1100 C.E.) and the possibility of the unearthing of more scrolls in the desert may make it possible in the near future to determine more clearly what the original texts stated.

       Do you know of anyone--ever--who has kept it all?
       Perhaps Torah is only like a doctor's concept of perfect health. None of us has a perfect body; but we do have a perfect standard by which to measure ourselves against. (However, having the standard does not by itself make us healthy.)

     Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstien, Orthodox rabbi from Hungary: 'I will remain among my own nation. I love Messiah, I believe in the New Covenant, but I am not drawn to join Christendom. Just as the prophet Jeremiah. . . chose to remain and lament among the ruins of the holy city with the despised remnant of his own people, so I will remain among my own brethren, as a watchman from within and to plead with them to behold Yeshua the true glory of Israel.'

     Rabbi Dr. T. Tirschtiegel of Breslau:  'Thou dear brother Yeshua, also my brother and my Savior who has at last led me to your Salvation.'

     Rabbi Max Wertheimer, D. D. (Reform):  'In Messiah I have found my only abiding comfort for every sorrow.'

     Rabbi Rudolf Hermann Gurland, from Vilna:  'Yeshua haMashiach is a living, mighty Savior. He can protect me; if he does not, I am willing to suffer, and to die for him.'

    Rabbi Asher Levy (ordained orthodox in Romania; later served in Belgium and Hungary): "I want to confirm that my heart does not condemn me for my new belief, because I feel that I am still a Jew and shall always be a Jew. I have not renounced our inheritance of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Like Paul I can say, 'Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.' "

     Rabbi Chil Slostowski:  'At first I was no more than a secret beleiver. In my inward being I knew that Yeshua was the messiah of Israel and my personal Redeemer but I continued nonetheless to fulfill my tasks and duties as rabbi. Two months I lived like this. . . At last I realized that I could no longer live a double life. . . I had to confess the messiah publically--whatever the consequences might be.'

     Rabbi Leopold Cohn, D.D.; Rabbi Charles Freshman; Rabbi George Benedict; Rabbi Ephraim Ben Joseph Eliakim; Rabbi Henry Bregman, and many, many more could be added to this list.

     But doesn't it appear that Adam was also given some more commands? For example, we see Cain and Abel (Cayin and Hevel) offering sacrifices. So, some sort of instruction must have been given about this--perhaps about the need for a sacrifice. And we see that Cain's offering was rejected--he didn't follow the rules, and his offering was not accepted.  And note that there is a belief that these sacrifices were offered at the sight of the future Temple, on Mount Moriah, and even that 'Adam was created from the place from where he would be granted atonement'. (Bereshith Rabbah 14:8)  So, this system of sacrifices involves all mankind at this point; that is, they are included in it and, through Adam, in the atonement which is to come. Such a system has already been set up, and is all-inclusive, but it will yet need one more ingredient.

    It's probable that some did.  Ben Zoma, for example, was said to have 'lost his senses' and gone mad, and gone 'outside'. (He is perhaps most famous for his proverb, 'Who is wise? He who learns from every man'.)  He is believed to have made (sometimes covert) references to the crucifixion, the Last Supper, Resurrection, Baptism, and Yeshua as G-d come in human form.  'Going mad' would be one way in which such a person would be described. (See Samson H. Levey, 'Best Kept Secret of the Rabbinic Tradition', Judaism 21 (Fall 1972), p. 469; cited in Dr. Michael Schiffman, 'Return of the Remnant', pp. 9-10)
    Rabbi Eleazor ben Hyrcanus, the teacher of Rabbi Akiva, is known to have been familiar with Nazarene doctrines. He was once arrested by the Romans on suspicion of being one of them, but released. On another occassion, when asked by his students about the place of 'a certain person' (i.e., Yeshua) in the world to come, he gave evasive answers (Yoma 66d) R. Eleazor was later excommunicated. It was said that this was because he would not accept a majority decision by the sages. According to the story, even though R. Eleazor's view was supported by   miracles, and a voice from Heaven came to his defense,  he was still overuled, because the sages claimed that they, and they alone, had been given the right to determine halacha. (Some ingredients of this story may have been intended as a rebuff to the  Nazarenes, who could point to the miracles of Yeshua and even to a voice from heaven as proof of his identity and authority.) There may be more to the story of R. Eleazor, then, since these elements of miracle and a bat kol are specifically  included in the account of his excommunication, and the penalty seems very severe.
    Simon the Small, who composed the 'birkhat haMinim', later claimed (only a year later) to be unable to remember the words.  Since anyone who could not remember the words, or who stumbled while speaking it, were to be held suspect, and since the time lapsed was only a year, it is curious that Simon found himself unable to repeat it.
     An apocryphal gospel even asserts that Gamaliel the elder, the teacher of Saul/Paul, later became a Nazarene, though there is no evidence elsewhere to support this view.
      However, given the silence with which the Talmud normally treats those whom it wishes to forget (a la 1984),  it is not impossible that there might have been other sages, as well, whose names have simply been 'blotted out',