A while ago I posted a case for the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation referring to two of the leaders of the second Jewish war, or the Bar Kochba war of 132-135 CE. (Part A, Part B, Part C, Part D). For most of us who have been long immersed in the view that ancient Christianity must always have opposed violent Judean rebels against Rome, the view that the two witnesses could possibly refer to Simon Bar Kochba himself and the high priest at the time must seem outrageous. In partial defence of the possibility of that interpretation I would point to certain divisions among Christians at that time: some were very pro-Judean, pro-Old Testament, pro-Torah, while others appear to have been opposed to any form of “Judaizing” and Torah observance. Christians were not a monolithic identity; but nor were Judeans before the rabbinic era.
A prominent rabbi at the time of the Bar Kochba war was remembered in rabbinic literature as holding views that are strikingly similar to those we associate with Christianity. I refer to a “Son of Man” dispute. Who was the “Son of Man” one reads about in the Book of Daniel?
— As we learn in a baraita [non-Mishnaic tannaitic tradition]: One for him and one for David; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosethe Galilean said to him: Akiva! Until when will you make the Shekhina profane?! Rather. One was for judging and one was for mercy.
— Did he accept it from him, or did he not?
— Come and hear! One for judging and one for mercy, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. (BT Hagiga 14a) (Boyarin 140)
Rabbi Akiva is better known for having entered rabbinic tradition as a contemporary of Bar Kochba and as a leader who (erroneously) proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the Messiah. Another of this rabbi’s “mistaken views” (according to later rabbinic teachings) was his claim that the Book of Daniel’s image of one like the Son of Man amidst clouds of heaven approaching the Ancient of Days pointed to a heavenly Davidic King with a throne beside God’s. That is, Daniel’s image was of David as the Messiah and “Son of Man” who sat at the right hand of God. The same rabbinic tradition quickly disputes Akiva’s view, condemning Akiva for daring to think a man could also be a divine figure. The rabbis left on their record that Akiva eventually changed his mind and was restored to “orthodoxy”.
A modern Jewish scholar, Daniel Boyarim, alerts us to a similar claim being put in the mouth of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark:
The crux is his identification of David, the Messiah, as the “Son of Man” who sits at God’s right hand, thus suggesting not only a divine figure but one who is incarnate in a human being as well. “I am [the Messiah] and you shall see ‘the Son of Man’ sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). Hence, his objector’s taunt: “Until when will you make the Divine Presence profane?! Rabbi Akiva is seemingly also projecting a divine human, Son of Man, who will be the Messiah. His contemporary Rabbi Yose the Galilean (perhaps a more assiduous reader of the Gospels) strenuously objects to Rabbi Akiva’s “dangerous” interpretation and gives the verse a “Modalist” interpretation. Of course, the Talmud itself must record that Rabbi Akiva changed his mind in order for him to remain “orthodox.” (140)
The rabbinic record does not explicitly say that Akiva equated Bar Kochba with the “Son of Man” messiah of Daniel 7. It only tells us that Akiva proclaimed Bar Kochba as the messiah; it elsewhere records that Akiva identified Daniel 7’s heavenly Son of Man figure with a Davidic Messiah.
I find this little datum interesting. Perhaps of related interest, too, that it is a Galilean rabbi (Joseph) who is made to refute Akiva.
See also
https://vridar.org/2018/12/17/early-rabbinic-traditions-that-the-messiah-was-to-suffer-per-isaiah-53/
https://vridar.org/2010/07/30/did-a-davidic-messiah-have-to-be-a-descendant-of-david/
Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
Firstly a question about the witnesses. If Revelations was written during the Bar Kochba war, then was the writer predicting that the rebellion was going to fail? (not that you would need to be a prophet to to know taking on Rome tends to be high risk).
Secondly concerning Rabbi Akiva, do you think that most of the elements of Christianity pre-existed within and across a diverse Judaism before some sort of political split?
I imagine it could explain the diversity of Christianity so early on.
It would appear so. Though it would be rescued by God when he raised up the two witnesses, presumably.
Right now it seems that “Christianity” (it was not called that then) was part of “Judaism” — “Judaism” being a constellation of diverse interpretations and viewpoints. The “monolithic” concept we understand Judaism to be was born at the same time as Christianity split from “Judaism” after the Bar Kochba war. Rabbinic Judaism gathered the most devoutly religious and conservative Jews; the “Christians” who had once had the same kinds of views as Philo (the law being allegorical and spiritual but nonetheless it still should be kept in the letter) broke away removing Jewish identity markers like legalistic practices. (Traditional Jewishness was on the nose throughout the empire by this time.) That’s when Marcion broke out with his Antithesis to the Law/Torah, similar to what other “gnostics” also did. Other Christians believed they had gone too far, and though they rejected the practices of the Torah, they still clung to Jewish Scriptures and Prophets, arguing they were fulfilled now in Christ.
Before ca 135 Christians were part of Judaism, not recognizable for most part (there were exceptions, e.g. Pliny’s letter) and what they actually believed, and the place of Jesus himself, remains an unknown, maybe there were multiple interpretations. The cross (the letter taw -> Greek chi), by the way, appears to have been long used among Jews as a sign of salvation and God and the Messiah before Christianity.
At least it is only from after 135/140 that our first evidence of Christian myths, doctrines, literature bursts on the scene.
Thus are my current thoughts.
Yes, I was drawing that conclusion myself from your recent articles.
I am assuming the main split happens after Bar Kochba, so that would make Revelations pre-split. I note the writer refers to themselves as ‘true Jews’ as opposed to the Jews that are opposing them. So I suppose we have the process beginning but not quite complete.
If Pliny letter is not completely fake, then there must have been a small movement that called themselves ‘Chrestians or Christians’. But perhaps later exiles from Judaism decided to steal or buy their identity?
One idea that occurred to me from passages in some gospels is that the writer seems to want to portray the split as being driven by the orthodoxy. The expulsion from synagogues would suggest an orthodox Judaism trying to assert the correct theology and sanctioning those with these wayward ideas. So while there may have been incentive for Christians to distance themselves from Judaism after Bar Kochba, I wonder if there was also a push factor happening before that as suggested in Revelations also?
I think this is a very interesting line of investigation – it does seem to make a lot of pieces fit.
Neil,
A key element seems missing from the above – and that is the wording of the passage itself. I realize you focus may have been on historical interpretative schemes rather than the passage itself.
However, the Hebrew coph – the Greek ως – are critical markers. This figure is NOT “the son of man” whatever that it/he is – but LIKE a son of man – with the sense seemingly of one of appearance in this apocalyptic vision. I don’t know why we would go further within the context itself.
Additionally, further, in the following interpretive text, this figure clearly seems to simply represent the Jewish adherents – nothing more – as they are provided dominion, etc.
Now as to the gospel authors – and what they do with their respective Jesuses in regarding this passage…well, ha-ha, sky is the limit there…😀. I suspect endless ideological fancy and (d)evolution occurred since the original authors focus in the early 2C BCE…. My focus here is the passage itself.
Yes, Daniel’s heavenly Human image to represent Israel was a counterpart to the Beasts that represented the gentile kingdoms. But the Son of Man became a figure in his own right and not just as the simile with which he originated. There is a case that Daniel turned to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (another image of Jesus) as inspiration for his “one like a son of man”: https://vridar.org/2015/11/12/how-did-daniel-understand-isaiahs-suffering-servant/