Judaism vs Christianity: A Brief & Rational Comparison

Introduction

To adequately comprehend the similarities and differences between the expression phenomena in Judaism and Christianity, a cursory understanding of both the anthropological origins of their beliefs and practices, as well as an understanding of the literary conventions commonly used in both the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) [1] and in the New Testament, is required.  Further, the historical development of both these religions must be taken into account if a thorough understanding of their similarities and differences is to be acquired.  This essay will briefly examine such similarities and differences under the following four sub-headings:

1. Creation
2. The Messiah – Human or Divine
3. Circumcision vs Baptism
4. The End of Days

Creation

Numerous scholars (Smith, 1876; Delitzsch, 1906; Kramer, 1963; Rogerson & Lieu, 2006; Barton & Muddiman, 2001; Levine, 2001) have noted the numerous parallels that exist between the creation myths found in the book of Genesis and the creation myths of the more ancient Babylonians, Chaldeans, Assyrians and Sumerians.  Notwithstanding these parallels – parallels that seem to indicate that the Hebrews adopted their creation myths from their Babylonian captors sometime around the sixth century BCE (exilic period),[2] a number of interesting dissimilarities exist.  As noted by Levine (2001), correctly translated, the Babylonian creation epic begins, ‘When on high’, whilst the Hebrew version begins, ‘When in the beginning’.  This discrepancy highlights a recurring motif within the Tanakh and later within rabbinical Judaism, that motif being, the significance of time, which is perceived to be linear.[3]  Creation for both Judaism and Christianity marks not only the beginning of time but also the descent from purity to impurity – a descent that, in both religions, will transit at the ‘End of Days’.[4]

Given that Christianity was the direct offspring of Judaism and has as part of its foundational Scripture the Hebrew Bible, it’s natural that there be innumerable parallels between the two, yet there are differences – differences that reside predominantly in interpretation. One notable discrepancy lies in the very act of creation itself.  According to Judaism, God brought the universe into existence with a ‘commandment’,[5] whereas in Christianity, this ‘Word’ (Gk. Logos) was conceived upon the Hellenistic (Platonic) concept of the ‘logos’ (cosmic reason),[6] first brought into Judaism by Philo of Alexandria in the first century CE, who interpreted it to mean ‘intermediary divine being’,[7] and it was subsequently employed later on by the anonymous author of John to describe Jesus Christ as the Logos of God.[8]

Already it can be seen that anthropological factors impacted upon both the creation of the creation myth in Genesis, as well as its Christian re-interpretation, with the Sumero-Babylonians laying the foundation for the initial Hebrew creation myth and the Hellenistic military and cultural invasions of Egypt and Israel setting the stage for the Christian re-interpretation of the Hebrew’s creation myth.

Another discrepancy between the interpretations of the creation myth can be found in the emphasis placed on what Christians refer to as the ‘Fall of Man’, found in Genesis 3, and possibly adopted from the earlier Persian myth of Yima.[9]

For Judaism, the Fall isn’t a doctrine, and nowhere in the Tanakh is this event expounded upon.[10]  It is, however, in likeness to Christianity, the charter myth underlying the doctrine of ‘repair’ (Heb. ‘tikkun’)[11] in Judaism and ‘redemption’ and ‘atonement’ in Christianity. In Judaism, ‘tikkun’ is primarily expressed within the obligation to repent (Heb. ‘teshuvah‘),[12] as well as within the performance of ‘Mitzvot’ (good deeds, religious obligations, commandments, etc)[13] and in celebrations such as ‘Yom Kippur’ (Day of Atonement).[14] For Christians on the other hand, the ‘Fall of Man’ is both an etiological myth and a charter myth, explaining not only the existence of sin and suffering but also justifying their belief in Jesus as the redeemer, for without the fall, which Christians believe took place at the commission of the ‘Original Sin’ (Romans 5:12), a doctrine not expressly supported in the Tanakh and therefore absent in Judaism, there would be no need for a redeemer, at least within the Christian theological schema.[15]

The authors of the canonical gospels wove their saviour into the fabric of the Tanakh, which accounts for the many parallels that exist between the New Testament and the Old. They did so, in part, by employing a common Jewish literary convention – a convention that can clearly be seen with a typological exegesis of many of the recurring layers of stories (type scenes) found not only within the Tanakh itself, but between the Tanakh and the New Testament. (See Appendix A)   The juxtaposition between Adam and Eve on the one hand, and Jesus and Mary on the other, is just one example of the typological interplay between the New Testament and the Tanakh.[16]

The Messiah – Human or Divine

The messiah (Heb. ‘mashiach’) in Judaism is a mortal ruler anointed to lead the people of Israel.[17]  Again, the notion of a forthcoming messiah doesn’t appear to have originated within Judaism; instead, it is possibly a concept that made its way into Judaism from Persia in the Second Temple Period (538 BCE ~ 70 CE).[18]

Numerous prophecies throughout the Tanakh foretell of the coming mashiach,[19] yet none of these prophecies envision a ‘Son of God’ in the ‘orthodox’ Christian sense.  The messiah in the Tanakh is not so much a saviour as he is a maintainer, for, none can save except for Yahweh himself.[20]  Further, the Jewish messiah will not come from the seed of God – instead, he will be a mortal, chosen and anointed to defend and maintain Israel until the End of Days.[21]  Amongst the earliest Christians were a group called the Ebionites, who, in likeness to their close theological ancestors and contemporaries, believed their messiah (Jesus) to have been a mere mortal anointed by God.[22]  As Christianity developed, numerous sects quickly evolved and unlike the coherent and uniform picture painted by Eusebius in his ‘Church History’, ante-Nicene Christianity was very diverse, with some Christian sects believing in 365 gods[23] to others, now referred to as proto-Orthodox Christians, believing Jesus to have been the divine incarnation of the Jewish God Yahweh – a belief most clearly reflected in the Gospel of John, which bestows the highest Christology (divinity) upon Jesus out of the four official gospels of the New Testament.[24] It’s no surprise, then, that the expulsion of the Johannine Christians from the Synagogues received special mention in history,[25] as this particular group of Christians possessed arguably the most blasphemous belief concerning their messiah.  According to this group of Christians, Jesus wasn’t merely a mortal saviour, he was Yahweh himself.[26]

The primary Old Testament source for the birth of the Christian messiah is found in the book of Isaiah (7:14), but Judaism, unlike Christianity, has never interpreted this verse in terms of being a messianic prophecy, and for a number of good historical, linguistic and textual reasons. (See Appendix B) Thus, once again, we see that one of the vehicles for discrepancy between the expression phenomena in these two religions who share the same book, is found within the act of interpretation, or reinterpretation.

Circumcision vs Baptism

In Judaism, circumcision is the means by which the individual enters into a ‘covenant’ with both the covenant community and its enigmatic leader, Yahweh.[27] Once again, this practice doesn’t appear to have been original to the Jews, for, as well as many archaeological discoveries in ancient Egypt reveal,[28] the fifth century BCE Greek historian Herodotus informs us that:

‘…this practice (circumcision) can be traced both in Egypt and Ethiopia, to the remotest antiquity, it is not possible to say which first introduced it. The Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine acknowledge that they borrowed it from Egypt.’[29]

Unlike Judaism, in Christianity baptism, generally speaking, is the primary means by which one, whether Jew or Gentile, is able to enter into a ‘relationship’ with the body of Christ (Church),[30] and through this relationship with Jesus Christ, the individual enters into a relationship with the Judeo-Christian God, because, it is believed, only through the Son can one gain access to the Father.[31]  Christians, despite basing their expression phenomena on the Tanakh, reject circumcision as a means by which the individual enters into a covenant with Yahweh,[32] and this rejection is based on the belief that the old covenant has been superseded by the new, which Jesus is believed to have both enunciated and embodied.[33]  As well as the quandary created by Matthew 5:17-20, in which Jesus is alleged to have declared that all of the laws of the Hebrew Bible still apply, the riddle of rooting Christianity in the Tanakh yet rejecting its most sacred practice (circumcision) was highlighted by Trypho in the second century, who, in his dialogue with the Christian apologist Justin Martyr, remarked:

‘But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others (pagans), are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or Sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day?’[34]

Trypho’s comments highlight one of the widest chasms between the Christian expression phenomena and the Jewish, and they also enunciate one of the many apparent contradictions of the Christian religion.

End of Days – Jewish and Christian Eschatology

Notwithstanding the different nature and roles of the forthcoming messiah that exist between Christianity and Judaism, the Jewish and Christian eschatological models have a lot in common. Both propagate the notion of a tumultuous ‘End of Days’ scenario,[35] both herald the advent of a messiah toward the end,[36] both envision a resurrection of the dead and a final judgement,[37] and both eschatological models highlight, and are underscored by, a linear conception of time.

The reason for these similarities is that Christian eschatology arose out of post-exilic Jewish eschatology, and the anthropological roots of post-exilic Jewish eschatology probably lie within the expression phenomena of the more ancient Zoroastrian religion of Iran.[38]

With regards to a possible explanation of why a closed religion like Judaism would allow its expression phenomena to be influenced by outsiders, and specifically, with regards to the possible Zoroastrian origins of many of the doctrines found in post-exilic Judaism, Boyce remarks:

‘Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence.’[39]

Despite the harmony mentioned by Boyce, the distinction between the Persian messiah and the Jewish messiah is worthy of note, for the Persian messiah and the Christian messiah have more in common than the Jewish and Christian messiahs.  In this regard, Davies and Finkelstein say:

‘The Zoroastrians linked their eschatological hopes with belief in a world Saviour, the Saoshyant of the Avesta, who will be born of the prophet’s seed by a virgin mother. He will appear to lead the forces of good in a last conflict with those of evil, and, triumphant, will bring about Fralokereti…the Last Judgement having been enacted, the kingdom of Ahuramazda will be established on an earth…and the expectation has always been that the Saoshyant will appear from the east.’[40]

The Zoroastrian messiah has more in common with the later Christian messiah, and the differences between the Persian messiah and Jewish messiah match those that exist between the Jewish and Christian messiahs.  Why Christians adopted these Iranian messianic and eschatological beliefs is unclear, but some of these motifs were also prevalent amongst the ancient Egyptians and Hellenes – such as virgin mothers, sons of gods and parthenogenesis, for example,[41] thus highlighting the significance of the movements of the great empires (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Greece), which influenced the intersections and divergences between the Jewish and Christian expression phenomena.

Conclusion

Despite being rooted in the Tanakh, Christianity developed in ways that eventually made it incompatible with its parent religion.  These developments, along with the Hebrew sources from which they sprang, can all be explained and understood within the context of the anthropological movements of the great empires that engulfed the region in which these two religions were born.  Had it not been for the Mesopotamians and the Persians, the first chapters of Genesis would not exist in their present form, as these chapters all rely upon the cosmogonies and cosmologies created for them by both their captors, the Babylonians and their liberators, the Persians. Further, if not for the Golden Age of Greece, an age that gave rise to the Socratic and Platonic schools of Greek philosophy, and the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Christian re-figuration of the first act of creation, as well as other Christianized Hellenistic motifs, would be impossible, for without a Platonic logos, there could be no Christian logos.

Finally, the Jewish literary convention of the type scene gave rise to not only the various parallels that exist between the Christian and Jewish expression phenomena and their literary origins, but also, it provided the vehicle for creating some of the divergent qualities of Christianity that are still, as a result of this convention, rooted in Tanakh.

 

 

  

Appendix A – Type Scenes in and between the Tanakh & New Testament

 

A type scene is a literary convention that employs predetermined sets of uniform motifs.[42] This appendix will list just five examples of the many type scenes that exist within and between the Tanakh and the New Testament.  These type scenes not only produce parallels between the expression phenomena in both Judaism and Christianity, but the nuances between various type scenes are also a means by which Christianity has distinguished itself from its parent religion.

1. The Barren Mother[43]

• Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16:1 & 18:11)
• Isaac & Rebekah (Genesis 25:21)
• Jacob & Leah/Rachel (Genesis 29:31 & 30:1)
• Elkanah & Hannah (1 Samuel 1:2 & 5)
• Manoah & his ‘woman’ (Judges 13:2-3)
• Zechariah & Elizabeth (Luke 1:7)

 

2. Promise of a Child[44]

• Abraham & Sarah (Genesis 17:16)
• Isaac & Rebekah (Genesis 25:23)
• Manoah & his ‘woman’ (Judges 13:3, 5 & 7)
• Zechariah & Elizabeth (Luke 1:13)
• Joseph & Mary (Luke 1:31 & Matthew 1:20-21)

3. 40 Years/Days Wandering the Desert/Wilderness

• Israelites (son(s) of god) wander the desert for 40 years after emerging from waters of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds). They are tempted through hunger and many fail that test. (Exodus 14, 16, 16:35)
• Jesus wanders for 40 days in the wilderness after emerging from the River Jordan. Jesus is tempted through hunger and triumphs (Matthew 4:1-4)

 

4. Moses & the Ten Commandments vs Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount

• Moses gives the people of Israel the Ten Commandments, having received them atop Mount Sinai (Exodus 31:18)
• Jesus gives the people of Israel the commandments (Matthew 5-7). See also; Luke 6:17-20, although the anonymous author of Luke sets the Sermon on a plain rather than a mount.

 

5. Elijah & Elisha vs Jesus

Numerous parallels exist between the narratives surrounding both Elijah and Jesus.  The following are four major parallels:

1. Elijah resurrected the son of a Shunnamite (2 Kings 4:33-35).

• Jesus resurrected the daughter of a ruler and Lazarus (Matthew 9:24-25 & John 11:43).

2. Elisha fed a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn (2 Kings 4:42-43).

• Jesus fed 4,000/5,000 people with a few fish and loaves of bread (Matthew 14:15-20; Luke 16 & 17).

3. Elisha made an iron axe head float on water (2 Kings 6:5-7).

• Jesus made himself and Peter float on water (John 6:19 & 20; Matthew 14:25-29).

4. Elisha cured Naaman of leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-14).

• Jesus cured ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19).

 

Appendix B – Isaiah 7:14 & the Virgin-Birth of Christ

 

The Jews have never accepted the messianic status of Jesus for some of the following reasons:

During his earthly sojourn Jesus failed to fulfil the following (prophetic) messianic requirements:

1. He didn’t rebuild the Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. He didn’t gather all the Jews of the diaspora back to Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. His advent didn’t usher in an age of world peace (Isaiah 2:4).
4. He didn’t achieve the absolute acceptance of, and belief in, the Jewish god amongst the inhabitants of the entire planet (Zechariah 14:9).

Aside from these perceived failures, and as mentioned in the body of this essay, the Jewish messiah was never envisaged to be born of the divine seed of the God of Israel, nor was it believed that he would be born of a virgin.

The anonymous author of Matthew took Isaiah 7:14 and applied it as a prophecy of the birth of his messiah, but in so doing, this author erred in a number of regards.

Firstly, correctly translated, Isaiah 7:14 reads:

‘Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.’[45]

Now compare ‘Matthew’s’ rendition of this verse:

‘All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet [Isaiah]: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Immanuel’, which means, ‘God is with us.’’[46]

Note that in ‘Matthew’s’ version the ‘young woman’ (Heb. ‘Almah’)[47] has become a ‘virgin’ (Heb. ‘Bethulah’; Gk. ‘Parthenos’),[48] and the conception of the child has been mistranslated into future tense (‘shall conceive’), as opposed to the original present tense (‘is with child’).  The source of the mistranslation of the term ‘young woman’, appears to have been derived from the Greek Septuagint (Greek version of the Tanakh), which also made the same translation error as ‘Matthew’.[49]

Another problem with ‘Matthew’s’ application of this verse, is that it was originally intended as a prophecy for King Ahaz of Judea (8^th Century BCE), to reassure him that he would not be defeated by the Syrian and Israelite alliance.[50]   There is nothing to suggest, aside from the mistranslated application of the anonymous author of ‘Matthew’, that this prophecy was meant to apply to any other future scenario.

Furthermore, the child’s name was to be Immanuel, not Joshua/Yeshua (Gk. Jesus), and nowhere, other than Matthew’s appropriation of Isaiah’s prophecy, does anyone ever call Jesus, Immanuel.  Various traditions surround the issue of whose child this prophecy was originally intended to refer, with some suggesting it was foretelling the birth of King Ahaz’s child and others suggesting it was intended to apply to Isaiah’s son (Maher-shalal-hash-baz),[51] whom the author of Isaiah addressed once as ‘O Immanuel’.[52]

Finally, the primary reason Jews do not accept this prophecy to be relevant to the birth of Jesus as the messiah, nor any messiah, is that it was never intended as a messianic prophecy.[53] Hence, as was demonstrated in the body of this essay, many of the discrepancies between the expression phenomena of the Jews and the Christians arise from issues of interpretation, re-interpretation and Christian mistranslation.

 End Notes:

1. TaNaKh is a transliterated acronym that stands for Torah (‘Teachings’/’Instruction’/’Law’), Nevi’im (‘The Prophets’) and Ketuvim (‘The Writings’), and it represents the manner in which the Hebrew Bible is divided: Fred Skolnik & Michael Berenbaum, ‘Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 20, To-Wei’, 2^nd, U.S.A, 2007, p. 39.
2. Lester G. Grabbe, ‘An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus’, London, 2010, p. 4.
3. Douglas Pratt, ‘Christianity: Expression Phenomena’ cited in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., 1993, p. 249.
4. The Bible, Daniel 8:1-17, 11:35, 40-45, 12:13; Isaiah 10-12; Mark 13:32; Matthew 24; Luke 21:5-36; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Peter 3, King James Version; Further, see; Maimonides 13 Principles of Faith (Specifically Principles 12 & 13): Rabbi Moses Maimonides, ‘Rambam: 13 Principles of Faith: Principles 6 & 7’, Rabbi Chaim Miller (ed.), New York, 2009, pp. 347-348; Fred Skolnik & Michael Berenbaum, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Dr-Feu, 2^nd’, U.S.A, 2007, pp. 489-501; John Barton & John Muddiman, ‘The Oxford Bible Commentary’, Oxford, 2001, p. 835.
5. The Bible, Genesis 1:3, King James Version.
6. James Adam, ‘The Vitality of Platonism and Other Essays’, Cambridge, 1911, p. 77; Robert Audi, ‘The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2^nd’, Cambridge, 1995, p. 518.
7. Stephen L. Harris, ‘Understanding the Bible’, Mayfield, 1985, pp. 302-310; Margaret Mitchell & Frances M. Young, ‘The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 1, Origins to Constantine’, Cambridge, 2008, p. 127; Robert Audi, ‘The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2^nd’, Cambridge, 1995, p. 451.
8. The Bible, John 1:1-3, King James Version; Stanley E. Porter, ‘Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation’, London, 2007, p. 182.
9. The Persian myth of Yima describes the account of a legendary, if not mythical, early man who was believed to have sinned by encouraging the eating of forbidden meat, and who, ancient Persian literature reports, was subsequently expelled from a paradisiacal garden: Bruce Lincoln, ‘Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice’, Chicago, 1991, pp. 38-39.
10. Paul J. Achtemeier, ‘Harper-Collins Bible Dictionary’, New York, 1996, p. 329.
11. Douglas Pratt, ‘Judaism: Expression Phenomena’ in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., 1993, pp. 236, 238 & 239.
12. Ibid. p. 239.
13. Fred Skolnik & Michael Berenbaum, ‘Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 14, Mel-Nas’, 2^nd, U.S.A, 2007, p. 372.
14. Douglas Pratt, ‘Judaism: Expression Phenomena’ in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., 1993, p. 239.
15. Irenaeus of Lyon (second century CE) was the first Christian theologian to expound upon the doctrine of Original Sin, with Saint Augustine (354-430 CE) later citing St. Irenaeus and interpreting Genesis 3:17-19 as implying that all humans are born into sin as a result of the original/first sin of Adam: St. Irenaeus, ‘Against the Heresies, Book 4’, cited in: Philip Schaff, ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1’, Grand Rapids, MI, 1885, p. 774; St. Augustine, ‘Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, Book 2’, cited in: Philip Schaff, ‘Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 5’, Grand Rapids, MI, 1885, pp. 705-757.
16. Irenaeus proposed this yin and yang styled relationship between Adam & Eve and Jesus & Mary, but specifically between Mary and Eve in book two of his ‘Against the Heresies’, cited in: Philip Schaff, ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1’, Grand Rapids, MI, 1885, pp. 758-759.
17. D. Davies & Louis Finkelstein, ‘The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1: Introduction; The Persian Period’, Cambridge, 1984, pp. 182-183.
18. Dr Paul Carus, ‘The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil From the Earliest Times to the Present Day’, New York, 1900, p. 58; Shaul Shaked, ‘Iranian influence on Judaism : first century B.C.E. to second century C.E’, in: W.D. Davies & Louis Finkelstein, The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1, Cambridge, 2008, p. 301.
19. D. Davies & Louis Finkelstein, ‘The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1: Introduction; The Persian Period’, Cambridge, 1984, p. 183.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid; Lance Byron Richey, ‘Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John’, Washington, D.C, 2006, p. 92.
22. Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew’, Oxford, 2003, p. 101.
23. p. 3; Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)’, New York, 2009, p. 214.
24. Bart D. Ehrman, ‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)’, New York, 2009, pp. 249-250.
25. Lance Byron Richey, ‘Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John’, Washington, D.C, 2006, p. 7; Thomas L. Brodie, ‘The Quest for the Origins of John’s Gospel: A Source-Orientated Approach’, Oxford, 1993, p. 16.
26. Robert Kysar, ‘Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel’, Waco, Texas, 2005, p. 121.
27. The Bible, Genesis 17, King James Version; Douglas Pratt, ‘Judaism: Expression Phenomena’ in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., 1993, p. 232.
28. Margaret R. Bunson, ‘Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt’, New York, 2002, p. 83.
29. Herodotus, ‘Histories, Vol. 1’, (Trans. Rev. William Beloe), London, 1830, p. 238.
30. Douglas Pratt, ‘Christianity: Expression Phenomena’ cited in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., 1993, p. 252.
31. The Bible, John 13:6, King James Version.
32. The Bible, Acts 15; Galatians 5:2-11; Romans 2:29, King James Version.
33. The Bible, Hebrews 8:7-13.
34. Phillip Schaff. ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter (XLVIII)’, Grand Rapids, MI, 1867, pp. 313-314.
35. Fred Skaolnik & Michael Berenbaum, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Dr-Feu, 2^nd’, U.S.A, 2007, p. 496; The Bible, Matthew 24:29-31; Luke 21:23-24; 2 Peter 3:1-18, King James Version.
36. Fred Skaolnik & Michael Berenbaum, Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Dr-Feu, 2^nd’, U.S.A, 2007, p. 496; Douglas Pratt, ‘Christianity: Expression Phenomena’ cited in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., 1993, p. 249.
37. Maimonides 13^th Principle, cited in: Douglas Pratt, ‘Judaism: Expression Phenomena’ in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., 1993, p. 240; Douglas Pratt, ‘Christianity: Expression Phenomena’ cited in:
38. D. Davies & Louis Finkelstein, ‘The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1’, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 321-324.
39. Mary Boyce, ‘Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices’, London, 1979, p. 77.
40. Ibid. p. 301.
41. Mark P.O. Morford & Robert J. Lenardon, ‘Classical Mythology’, Oxford, 2003, p. 208; Reginald E. Witt, ‘Isis in the Ancient World’, Baltimore, 1997, p. 143; Joseph Campbell. ‘The Masks of God, Vol. 2: Oriental Mythology’, London, 1962, p. 98.
42. Benjamin J. M. Johnson, What Type of Son is Samson? Reading Judges 13 as a Biblical Type Scene, ‘Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society’, 53/2 (June 2010), p. 269.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. The Bible, Isaiah, 7:14, NRSV. Note: Compare NRSV to King James Version, which preserves the Greek mistranslation.
46. The Bible, Matthew 1:22-23, King James Version.
47. Paul J. Achtemeier, ‘Harper-Collins Bible Dictionary’, New York, 1996, p. 1194.
48. Ibid.
49. James D. G. Dunn & John W. Rogerson, ‘Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible’, Grand Rapids, MI, 2003, p. 1007.
50. The Bible, 2 Kings 16:5; Isaiah 7:1-25, King James Version.
51. Timothy D. Finlay, ‘The Birth Report Genre in the Hebrew Bible’, Tubingen, 2005, pp. 174, 178.
52. The Bible, Isaiah 8:8, King James Version.
53. Fred Skolnik & Michael Berenbaum, ‘Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 14, Mel-Nas’, 2^nd, U.S.A, 2007, p. 111.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Bibles:

The King James Version

The New Revised Standard Version

Books and Journals:

Achtemeier, Paul J., ‘Harper-Collins Bible Dictionary’, New York, Harper-Collins, 1996.

Adam, James, ‘The Vitality of Platonism and Other Essays’, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1911.

Audi, Robert, ‘The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2^nd Ed.’, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Barton, John & Muddiman, John, ‘The Oxford Bible Commentary’, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001.

Boyce, Mary, ‘Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices’, London, Routledge, 1979.

Brodie, Thomas L., ‘The Quest for the Origins of John’s Gospel: A Source-Orientated Approach’, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993.

Bunson, Margaret R., ‘Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt’, New York, Facts on File, Inc., 2002.

Campbell, Joseph, ‘The Masks of God, Vol. 2: Oriental Mythology’, London, Penguin Books, 1962.

Carus, Paul, ‘The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil From the Earliest

Times to the Present Day’, New York, Kessinger Publisher, 1900.

Davies, W.D. & Finkelstein, Louis, ‘The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1: Introduction; The Persian Period’, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Delitzsch, Friedrich, ‘Bible and Babel: Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion’, Chicago, The Open Court Publishing Company, 1906.

Dunn, James D.G., & Rogerson, John W., ‘Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible’, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2003.

Ehrman, Bart D., ‘Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew’, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.

Ehrman, Bart D., ‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)’, New York, Harper-Collins, 2009.

Finlay, Timothy D., ‘The Birth Report Genre in the Hebrew Bible’, Tubingen, Gregorian Biblical Press, 2005.

Grabbe, Lester G., ‘An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus’, London, T & T Clark International, 2010.

Harris, Stephen L., ‘Understanding the Bible’, Mayfield, McGraw-Hill Education, 1985.

Herodotus, ‘Histories, Vol. 1’, (Trans. Rev. William Beloe), London, Henry Colburn & Richard Bentley, 1830.

Johnson, Benjamin J.M., What Type of Son is Samson? Reading Judges 13 as a Biblical Type Scene, ‘Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society’, 53/2, June, 2010.

Kramer, Samuel Noah, ‘The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character’, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1963.

Kysar, Robert, ‘Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel’, Waco, Texas, Baylor University Press, 2005.

Levine, Amy-Jill, ‘The Old Testament’ (DVD Lecture series), The Teaching Company, 2001.

Lincoln, Bruce, ‘Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology and Practice’, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Maimonides, Moses, ‘Rambam: 13 Principles of Faith: Principles 6 & 7’, Rabbi Chaim Miller (ed.), New York, Kol Menachem, 2009.

Mitchell, Margaret & Young, Frances M., ‘The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 1, Origins to Constantine’, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Morford, Mark P.O. & Lenardon, Robert J., ‘Classical Mythology’, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.

Porter, Stanley E., ‘Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation’, London, Routledge, 2007.

Pratt, Douglas, ‘Christianity: Expression Phenomena’ cited in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., Longman Paul, 1993.

Pratt, Douglas, ‘Judaism: Expression Phenomena’ in: Religion: A First Encounter, Auckland, N.Z., Longman Paul 1993.

Richey, Lance Byron, ‘Roman Imperial Ideology and the Gospel of John’, Washington, D.C, Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2006.

Rogerson, J.W. & Lieu, Judith M., ‘The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies’, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.

Schaff, Philip, ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1’, Grand Rapids, MI, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885.

Schaff, Philip, ‘Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 5’, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1885.

Skolnik, Fred & Berenbaum, Michael, ‘Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 20, To-Wei’, 2^nd Ed., U.S.A, Thomson Gale, 2007.

Skolnik, Fred & Berenbaum, Michael, ‘Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Dr-Feu, 2^nd Ed.’, U.S.A, Thomson Gale, 2007.

Skolnik, Fred & Berenbaum, Michael, ‘Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 14, Mel-Nas’, 2^nd Ed., U.S.A, Thomson Gale, 2007.

Smith, George, ‘The Chaldean Account of Genesis’, New York, Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1876.

Witt, Reginald E., ‘Isis in the Ancient World’, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1997.

 

Advertisement

• Uncategorized