Refuting Rabbinic Objections to Christianity & Messianic Prophecies

Refuting Rabbinic Objections by Etian Bar

I read this book as part of a dialogue I am internally constructing between Rabbi Tovia Singer's YouTube episodes and potential respondents. Rabbi Singer is an articulate and knowledgeable defender of the proposition that Christianity is an invented faith that is leading Christians to damnation because of their idolatrous worship of a mere man. Singer has a knack for arguing that Christianity's originators twisted and misrepresented the Jewish scriptures.

A little study will show that Rabbi Singer is erring in refusing to acknowledge that the early Christians, such as St. Paul and the Gospel writers were quoting the Greek version of a non-Masoretic text (aka the “Septuagint) verbatim. Singer refuses to acknowledge the so-called Septuagint as being anything other than a bad translation of the Masoretic text, when in fact (a) the Masoretic text reflects a post-Christian development and (b) the Septuagint (so-called) actually reflects an earlier textual tradition confirmed in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Elsewhere, however, Rabbi Singer scores some points, so I thought I would examine a response to such objections. In this case, the author is an Israeli Messianic Jew named Eitan Bar. Bar categorizes the objections and provides a response, largely from rabbinical sources in the Talmud. His answers are very informative. For example, Rabbi Singer had mentioned Messiah son of Joseph a few times to discount the importance of that “messiah.” Bar's citation of Rabbinical sources indicates that there is far more to the concept - which I was unfamiliar with - than Singer permits.

Bar explains:

“As you could probably guess, Rabbinic Yeshivahs don't exactly teach about Zechariah or his prophecies. Attempts have been made to interpret it in various ways, but the problem for contemporary rabbis is that the Sages of Early Judaism always interpreted Zechariah 12 the same way as today's Messianic Jews: As a prophecy about the Messiah who is to be pierced to death! One of the ancient interpretations in the Talmud explains that the prophecy in Zechariah 12 means that the Messiah, son of Joseph, must die. He is, according to ancient Jewish tradition, the tormented and suffering Messiah. If so, why is it such a surprise when the New Testament attributes this verse to Jesus? ... the Messiah who suffered and died upon the cross for their sins. The Babylonian Talmud says: “One holds that it was for the Messiah the son of Joseph who was killed, as written in Zechariah 12: When they look on me, whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child” (Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 5).

Bar, Eitan. Refuting Rabbinic Objections to Christianity & Messianic Prophecies (p. 34). ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry. Kindle Edition.

Likewise the fraught claim about “alma” and virgin is enlightened by rabbinical commentary as follows:

“The Jewish biblical scholar Dr. Fruchtenbaum writes that the rabbis quote Rashi as someone who interprets the word ‘alma' as a ‘young woman,' and concedes that so does Rashi consider the word in Isaiah 7:14 to refer to a young woman rather than a virgin. However, Fruchtenbaum points out that it's easy to understand why Rashi would take a different position in this particular case: he was involved in polemical debates against Christians, and therefore he took an opposite position to the one which had been accepted up until his time in order to try and disprove Jesus' messiahship. In fact, he took a different position to the one that he himself held in a different case – Rashi didn't always interpret the word ‘alma' as a ‘young woman'. This word also appears in the Song of Songs and in these verses he interpreted ‘alma' as a ‘virgin'. Moreover, Rashi himself indicated that other Jewish scholars producing Biblical commentary in his time also interpreted the word ‘alma' in Isaiah 7:14 as a ‘virgin'. And it is important to note that the ancient Jewish Sages also held the belief that the Messiah wouldn't have a biological father. Here is what they taught – “The redeemer whom I shall raise up from among you, will have no father”
(Genesis Rabbah of Rabbi Moshe haDarshan)

Bar, Eitan. Refuting Rabbinic Objections to Christianity & Messianic Prophecies (pp. 63-64). ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry. Kindle Edition.

Bar makes this argument about the “Septuagint” which is strong, but a useful corrective for those who completely discount that text:

“The Septuagint, was written only 600 years after Hosea, about 1,200 years before the Masoretic translation. An even higher level of grammatical accuracy is contained within the Septuagint because it was penned long before the time of Jesus, meaning it was closer to the original language of Hosea and wasn't theologically influenced by the appearance of Jesus and the New Testament.

Bar, Eitan. Refuting Rabbinic Objections to Christianity & Messianic Prophecies (p. 154). ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry. Kindle Edition.

For me, a drawback with the book is that it does not provide the support for its citations. It would have been useful for him to provide footnotes and identify neutral books that the reader can review to verify his claims. Another drawback is that this book does become polemical toward the end, but that is probably understandable in light of Bar's probable treatment as a traitorous pariah.