A Judaeo-Christian-Muslim concept refers to the three main monotheistic religions, commonly known as the Abrahamic Religions. Formal exchanges between the three religions, modeled on the decades-old Jewish-Christian interfaith dialogue groups, became common in American cities following the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords.

The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek has argued that the term Judeo-Muslim to describe the Middle Eastern culture against the Western Christian culture would be more appropriate in these days, claiming as well a reduced influence from the Jewish culture on the Western world due to the historical persecution and exclusion of the Jewish minority. There is also a different perspective on Jewish contributions and influence.

Usage has shifted again, according to Hartmann et al., since 2001 and the September 11 attacks, with the mainstream media using the term less, in order to characterize America as multicultural. The study finds the term now most likely to be used by liberals in connection with discussions of Muslim and Islamic inclusion in America, and renewed debate about the separation of church and state.

Use of term in United States law: In the legal case of Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state legislature could constitutionally have a paid chaplain to conduct legislative prayers “in the Judeo–Christian tradition.” In Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court’s holding in the Marsh case permitting legislative bodies to conduct prayer in the “Chesterfield County could constitutionally exclude Cynthia Simpson, a Wiccan priestess, from leading its legislative prayers, because her faith was not “in the Judeo–Christian tradition.” Chesterfield County’s Board included Jewish, Christian, and Muslim clergy in its invited list.

It is used more by conservative thinkers and journalists, who use it to discuss the Islamic threat to America, the dangers of multiculturalism, and moral decay in a materialist, secular age. Dennis Prager, author of popular books on Judaism and antisemitism, Nine Questions People ask about Judaism (with Joseph Telushkin) and Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism, and radio commentator, has published an on-going 19-part series explaining and promoting the concept of Judeo–Christian culture, running for three years from 2005 to 2008, reflecting the interest of this concept to his listeners.

Judeo–Christian generally refers to a set of beliefs and ethics held in common by Judaism and Christianity. The Judeo-Chrisitan “term” is under assault by an amoral and materialistic culture that desperately needs its teachings. America has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values. Along with the belief in liberty as opposed to the European belief in equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social conformity, Judeo–Christian values are what distinguish America from all other countries. Prominent champions of the term also identify it with the historic Pilgrim–Puritan Protestant tradition.

The earliest uses of the term are cited by the Oxford English Dictionary of the terms “Judeo–Christian” and “Judeo–Christianity” date to 1899 and 1910 respectively. Both terms appeared in discussions of theories of the emergence of Christianity, and with a different sense than the one common today. “Judeo–Christianity” here referred to the early Christian church, whose members were Jewish converts and still considered themselves part of the Jewish community.

The term became particularly associated with the conservative right in American politics, promoting a “Judeo–Christian values” agenda in the so-called culture wars, a usage which surged in the 1990s. Hot topic issues in the battles over the Judeo–Christian tradition include, in a typical example, the right to display the following documents in Kentucky schools, after they were banned by a federal judge in May 2000 as “conveying a very specific governmental endorsement of religion”:

• an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, which reads, “All men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
• the preamble to the Constitution of Kentucky, which states, “We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
• the national motto, “In God we trust”
• a page from the congressional record of Wednesday, February 2, 1983, Vol. 129, No. 8, which declares 1983 as the “Year of the Bible” and lists the Ten Commandments
  a proclamation by President Ronald Reagan marking 1983 the “Year of the Bible”
• a proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln designating April 30, 1863, a “National Day of Prayer and Humiliation”
  an excerpt from President Lincoln’s “Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible,” which reads, “The Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man.”
• The Mayflower Compact, in which the colony’s founders invoke “the name of God” and explain that their journey was taken, among other reasons, “for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith.”
• An earlier German use of the term “Judeo-Christian” in a decidedly negative sense, contrasting with the one prevalent in the twentieth century can be found in the late writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who emphasized what he saw as neglected aspects of continuity between the Jewish world view and that of Christianity. The expression appears in The Antichrist: Curse on Christianity, published in 1895 and written several years earlier; a fuller development of Nietzsche’s argument can be found in a prior work, On the Genealogy of Morality.

The present meaning was for the first time used on 27 July 1939 with the phrase “The Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals” in the New English Weekly. The term gained much greater currency particularly in the political sphere from the 1920s and 1930s, promoted by liberal groups which evolved into the National Conference of Christians and Jews, to fight antisemitism by expressing a more inclusive idea of the United States of America than the previously dominant rhetoric of the nation as a specifically Christian Protestant country.

 By 1952 President-Elect Dwight Eisenhower was speaking of the “Judeo–Christian concept” being the “deeply religious faith” on which “our sense of government is founded”.

The Jewish conservative columnist Dennis Prager, wrote: “The concept of Judeo–Christian values does not rest on a claim that the two religions are identical. It promotes the concept there is a shared intersection of values based on the Hebrew Bible brought into our culture by the founding generations of Biblically-oriented Protestants, that is fundamental to American history, cultural identity, and institutions.”

Liberal secularists reject the use of “Judeo–Christian” as a code-word for a particular kind of Christian America, with scant regard to modern Jewish, Catholic or more liberal Christian traditions.

Supporters of the Judeo–Christian concept point to the Christian claim that Christianity is the heir to Biblical Judaism, and that the whole logic of Christianity as a religion is that it exists (only) as a religion built upon Judaism. Two major views of the relationship exist, namely Supersessionism and Dual-covenant theology. In addition, although the order of the books in the Protestant Old Testament (excluding the Biblical apocrypha) and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) differ, the books are the same.

The majority of the Bible is, in fact, Jewish scripture, and it is used as moral and spiritual teaching material throughout the Christian world. The prophets, patriarchs, and heroes of the Jewish scripture are also known in Christianity, which uses the Jewish text as the basis for its understanding of historic Judeo–Christian figures such as Abraham and Moses. As a result, a vast chunk of Jewish and Christian teachings are based on a common sacred Hebrew text.

In the American context, historians use the term Judeo–Christian to refer to the influence of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament on Protestant thought and values, most especially the Puritan, Presbyterian and Evangelical heritage. Some early colonists saw themselves as heirs to the Hebrew Bible, and its teachings on liberty, responsibility, hard work, ethics, justice, equality, a sense of choseness and an ethical mission to the world, which have become key components of the American character, what is called the “American Creed.”

These ideas from the Hebrew Bible, brought into American history by Protestants, are seen as underpinning the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Other authors are interested in tracing the religious beliefs of America’s founding fathers, emphasizing both Jewish and Christian influence in their personal beliefs and how this was translated into the creation of American institutions and character.

The interest of the concept Judeo–Christian is not theology but on actual culture and history as it evolved in America. These authors discern a melding of Jewish thought into Protestant teachings which added onto the heritage of English history and common law, as well as Enlightenment thinking resulted in the birth of American democracy.

Judeo–Christian concept in interfaith relations: Promoting the concept of America as a Judeo–Christian nation became a political program in the 1920s, in response to the growth of antisemitism in America. The rise of Hitler in the 1930s led concerned Protestants, Catholics and Jews to take active steps to increase understanding and tolerance.

In this effort, precurors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews created teams consisting of a priest, a rabbi and a minister, to run programs across the country, and fashion a more pluralistic America, no longer defined as a Christian land, but ‘one nurtured by three ennobling traditions: Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism.” “The phrase ‘Judeo–Christian’ entered the contemporary lexicon as the standard liberal term for the idea that Western values rest on a religious consensus that included Jews.

Law professor Stephen M. Feldman identifies talk of Judeo–Christian tradition as supersessionism: “Once one recognizes that Christianity has historically engendered antisemitism, then this so-called tradition appears as dangerous Christian dogma (at least from a Jewish perspective). For Christians, the concept of a Judeo–Christian tradition comfortably suggests that Judaism progresses into Christianity,  that Judaism is somehow completed in Christianity. The concept of a Judeo–Christian tradition flows from the Christian theology of supersession, whereby the Christian covenant (or Testament) with God supersedes the Jewish one. Christianity, according to this myth, reforms and replaces Judaism. The myth therefore implies, first, that Judaism needs reformation and replacement, and second, that modern Judaism remains merely as a “relic”. Most importantly the myth of the Judeo–Christian tradition insidiously obscures the real and significant differences between Judaism and Christianity.”

Through soul-searching in the aftermath of the Holocaust, “there was a revolution in Christian theology in America (producing) the shift in Christian attitudes toward the Jewish people since Constantine converted the Roman Empire.”

The rise of Christian Zionism that is religiously motivated Christian interest and support for the state of Israel, along with a growth of philo-semitism has increased interest among American Evangelicals in Judaism.The scriptural basis for this new positive attitude towards Jews among Evangelicals is Genesis 12:3, in which God promises that He will bless those who bless Abraham and his descendants, and curse those who curse them.

Other factors in the new philo-semitism include gratitude to the Jews for contributing to the theological foundations of Christianity, and for being the source of the prophets and Jesus; remorse for the Church’s history of anti-Semitism; and fear that God will judge the nations at the end of time on the basis of how they treated the Jewish people. Moreover, for evangelicals Israel is God’s prophetic clock, “irrefutable” proof that prophecy is true and is coming to pass in their lifetime. Great numbers of Christian pilgrims visit Israel, especially in times of trouble for the Jewish state, to offer moral support, and return with an even greater sense of a shared Judeo–Christian heritage.

Public awareness of a shared Judeo-Chrisitan belief system has increased since the 1990s due to a great deal of interest in the life of the historical Jesus, stressing his Jewishness, throught “New Age” religions as Jewish Christians. The “New Age” Christian religion’s literature explores differences and commonalities between Jesus’ teachings, Christianity and Judaism.

In the 1930s, in the face of worldwide antisemitic efforts to stigmatize and destroy Judaism, influential Christians and Jews in America labored to uphold it, pushing Judaism from the margins of American religious life towards its very center. During World War II, Jewish chaplains worked with Catholic priests and Protestant ministers to promote goodwill, addressing servicemen who, in many cases ‘had never seen, much less heard a Rabbi speak before. At funerals for the unknown soldier, rabbis stood alongside the other chaplains and recited prayers in Hebrew.

In a much publicized wartime tragedy, the sinking of the USS Dorchester, the ship’s multi-faith chaplains gave up their lifebelts to evacuating seamen and stood together ‘arm in arm in prayer’ as the ship went down. A 1948 postage stamp commemorated their heroism with the words: ‘interfaith in action.” In the 1950s, “a spiritual and cultural revival washed over American Jewry” in response to the trauma of the Holocaust. American Jews became more confident to be identified as different.

Two notable books addressed the relations between contemporary Judaism and Christianity, Abba Hillel Silver’s Where Judaism Differs and Leo Baeck’s Judaism and Christianity, both motivated by an impulse to clarify Judaism’s distinctiveness “in a world where the term Judeo–Christian had obscured critical differences between the two faiths.” Reacting against the blurring of theological distinctions, Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits wrote that “Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism”. Novelist and theologian Arthur A. Cohen, in The Myth of the Judeo–Christian Tradition, questioned the theological validity of the Judeo–Christian concept and suggested that it was essentially an invention of American politics, while Jacob Neusner, in Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition writes “The two faiths stand for different people talking about different things to different people”.

Judeo–Christian concept in American history: Nineteenth century historians wrote extensively on the United States of America having a distinctively Protestant character in its outlook and founding political philosophy. It is only since the 1950s that the term “Judeo–Christian” has been applied to it, reflecting the growing use of that term in American political life. By some the term is used casually, simply as a commonplace term, or as an inclusive synonym for the religious. Others, including for example Prager, argue the term is appropriate in its own right, capturing a distinctively Old Testament dimension (though not necessarily that of Judaism) in the Puritan character of early American Protestantism.

The notion of a distinctive religious basis for American democracy and culture was first described and popularized by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1840’s, in his influential book, Democracy in America. In Chapter Two, De Tocqueville describes America’s unique religious heritage from the Puritans. His analysis showed the Puritans as providing the foundational values of America, based on their strong Hebrew Bible view of the world, which included fighting for earthly political justice, an emphasis on laws and education, and a belief in the chosenness of the Jews which the Puritans identified with, giving them a sense of moral mission in founding America.

As de Tocqueville observed, the Puritan’s Biblical outlook gave America a moral dimension which the Old World lacked. De Tocqueville believed these Biblical values led to America’s unique institutions of religious tolerance, public education, egalitarianism, and democracy. The principles of New England now extend their influence beyond its limits, over the whole American world. The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hil. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories.

Nathaniel Morton, the historian of the first years of the settlement, thus opens his subject: “we may not hide from our children, showing to the generations to come the praises of the Lord; that especially the seed of Abraham his servant, and the children of Jacob his chosen ( Psalm cv. 5, 6 ), may remember his marvellous works in the beginning.“

“The general principles which are the groundwork of modern constitutions, principles were all recognized and established by the laws of New England: the intervention of the people in public affairs, the free voting of taxes, the responsibility of the agents of power, personal liberty, and trial by jury were all positively established without discussion. In the bosom of this obscure democracy the following fine definition of liberty: ” There is a twofold liberty, natural and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good.”

“The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts: The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions, among men themselves. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard not only of your goods, but of your lives, if need be.” I have said enough to put the character of Anglo-American civilization in its true light. It is the result ( and this should be constantly kept in mind) of two distinct elements, which in other places have been in frequent disagreement, but which the Americans have succeeded in incorporating to some extent one with the other and combining admirably. I allude to the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.”

———————

This concept of America’s unique Bible-driven historical and cultural identity was developed by historians as they studied the first centuries of America’s history, from the Pilgrims through Abraham Lincoln. The statements and institutions of the founding generation that have been preserved are numerous, and they explicitly describe many of their Biblical motivations and goals, their interest in Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible, their use of Jewish and Christian images and ideas.

In the words of patriot Benjamin Rush, “The Old Testament is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind.” James Witherspoon, president of Princeton, teacher of James Madison, and later a member of the Continental Congress, and one of the most influential thinksers in the colonies, joined the cause of the Revolution with a widely publicized sermon based on Psalm 76, identifying the American colonists with the people of Israel. Of fifty-five printed texts from the Revolutionary period, thirty-three took texts from the Hebrew Bible. Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, referred to God twice in Hebrew terms, and Congress added two more: Lawgiver, Creator, Judge and Providence.

These Judeo–Christian values were especially important at the key foundational moments of the settling of America, the War for Independence and the Civil War.

Perry Miller of Harvard University, wrote in 1956, “Puritanism may be described empirically as that point of view, that code of values, carried to New England by the first settlers. …the New Englanders established Puritanism- for better or worse-as one of the continuous factors in American life and thought. It has played so dominant a role…all across the continent…these qualities have persisted even though the original creed is lost. Without an understanding of Puritanism …there is no understanding of America.”

This view about American history and culture has been questioned in recent decades by multiculturalists. In 2007, one prominent multiculturist professor, Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences and Howard R. Lamar Professor of American History, Yale University, published a book on religion in colonial America which, according to the reviews, explodes the myth that “the piety of the Pilgrims typified early American religion,” corrects the image of “colonial America as a type of grey, monolithic, uniformity”, is critical of the Puritans, and adulatory towards third-world contributions: “Butler explores the failure of John Winthrop’s goal to achieve Puritan perfection, the controversy over Anne Hutchinson’s tenacious faith, the evangelizing stamina of ex-slave and Methodist preacher Absalom Jones, and the spiritual resilience of the Catawba Indians.” In Becoming America: The Revolution before 1776, Butler argues against a “Europeanized” or predominantly British identity of colonial America, and underlines contributions by Ibo, Ashanti, Yoruba, Catawba and Leni-Lenape.

Michael Novak, a specialist in the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, argues that the promotion of multiculturalism, moral relativism, and secularism among academics results in academic censorship that affects information and analysis supporting the Judeo–Christian heritage.

Editor’s Note: This article is taken from Outreach Judaism [outreachjudaism.org/like-a-lion.html] which responds directly to the issues raised by missionaries and cults. And further Responds to Jews For Jesus

Question: Dear Rabbi Singer

I am a Lutheran living in Switzerland and have been reading your web page with interest. I admire your commitment to your faith, yet I am perplexed as to why you so assuredly reject Jesus Christ as your messiah. He came not only for the gentiles, but for the Jews as well. He was born to a Jewish mother and came to the Jewish people.

Because you are a rabbi, I am particularly perplexed as to why you have not willingly accepted Christ. You surely have read the 22nd Psalm which most clearly speaks of our Lord’s crucifixion. Read verse 16. It states, “Dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked has enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.” Of whom does the prophet speak other than our Lord? This Old Testament prophecy could only be foretelling Jesus’ unique death on the cross. What greater proof is needed that Jesus died for the sins of mankind than this chapter which was written a thousand years before Jesus walked this earth?

I know that the Jews have been maligned and persecuted by so-called Christians. This has certainly left a bad taste in the mouths of the Jewish people against Christ; but certainly you must know, rabbi, that these were not real Christians, for a believer in Christ must love the Jew, for his Savior is a Jew.

Many Jewish people accuse Christians of anti-Semitism, and one can understand from where this bias is coming; for the Jews have been persecuted by those who claim to be Christian, but they are not. The true Christian loves the Jewish people.

Answer:

Yours is certainly one of the more surprising letters that I have received in recent memory. There is nothing about your question that is unusual or uncommon; it is rather the denomination with which you identify that makes your letter so perplexing.

How odd that as a Lutheran you would proclaim that the tormentors of the Jews “were not real Christians,” yet you apparently are not embarrassed to identify yourself with a denomination that is called after, and founded on, the teachings of Martin Luther. Among all the church fathers and reformers, there was no mouth more vile, no lips that uttered more vulgar curses against the children of Israel than this founder of the Reformation whom you apparently revere. Even the anti-Semitism of the New Testament and the church fathers pales in comparison to the invectives launched by Luther’s impious tongue during his lifetime.

You so loudly proclaim that those “so-called Christians” who “maligned and persecuted” the Jewish people “were not real Christians.” Do you believe that Luther should be counted among those who are not real Christians? Have you not read his odious volume entitled “Of the Jews and Their Lies”? If you are familiar with this and other indecent works of Luther, do you also believe that this German reformer lost his salvation because his maniacal hate for the Jew prevented him from being an upstanding member of Christendom? If this is in fact what you believe, why would you belong to a church that boasts his unblessed name?

These questions do not apply to you and your co-denominationalists alone. Every member of the Protestant church and every Christian who looks to the reformers as God’s vessels must wonder aloud whether God would use men who regard the Jewish people with utter contempt to protest against the Roman Catholic Church; for none of the other leaders of the reformation held the Jewish people in esteem either. Martin Bucer’s lack of affection for the Jews is almost legendary and, although Calvin’s epithets against the Jews are less plentiful than Luther’s abundant invectives, this disparity is likely explained by the fact that Calvin came into contact with very few Jews during his lifetime, if any at all. Although the Swiss reformer lived where Jews were not permitted to reside, his words were no less disturbing than those of Martin Luther.

Although evangelicals repeatedly declare that true believing Christians love the Jewish people, the annals of history clearly do not support this slogan. With few exceptions, the tormentors of the Jewish people emerged out of the fundamentalist genre of Christianity. Remarkably, denominations that evangelical Christians regard as heretical, such as Mormonism or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, do not have a strong history of anti-Semitism. Liberal-leaning Christian denominations such as the Unitarian and Methodist churches also have for the most part resisted this teaching of contempt that is so well ensconced in Christendom’s shameful history.

The pattern of hate that has for so long gripped the imagination of the true believer cannot be attributed to coincidence or to a remarkable quirk of history. The accounts in the New Testament — the most cherished book of the devout Christian — already display the animus of the early church toward the Jews in portraying them as the people of the devil: cunning, traitorous, corrupt, deceitful, and conspiring. In essence, whatever it is that humanity abhors, that is precisely how the Jews are depicted in the Christian Bible. Without rest, post-canonical Christian literature continued to perpetuate this dark image of the Jew. There can be little doubt as to why Christians believe of the Jews what common sense would forbid them to believe of anyone else. To some extent, Luther and his countless followers who eagerly embraced his twisted message were together willing victims of a body of literature that scandalized, smeared, and ultimately condemned the children of Israel to an unimaginable history.

Moreover, in an effort to distance Christians from a compelling Jewish message, the founders and defenders of Christianity methodically altered selected texts from the Jewish scriptures. This rewriting of Tanach was not done arbitrarily or subtly. The church quite deliberately tampered with the words of the Jewish scriptures in order to bolster their most startling claim which is: The Old Testament foretold of no messiah other than Jesus of Nazareth. With this goal in mind, missionaries manipulated, misquoted, mistranslated, and even fabricated verses in Tanach in order to make Jesus’ life fit traditional Jewish messianic parameters and to make traditional Jewish messianic parameters fit the life of Jesus.

Bear in mind, the Jewish scriptures were written in Hebrew, not in seventeenth century King James English. What has made Christian believers so vulnerable to Bible tampering is the almost unimaginable reality that only a very tiny group of them can read their Bible in its original language. As you and countless other Christians earnestly study the authorized version of the Bible, there is a blinding yet prevailing assumption that what you are reading is the inerrant word of God. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

The King James Version and numerous other Christian Bible translations were meticulously altered in order to produce a message that would sustain and advance church theology and exegeses. This aggressive rewriting of biblical texts has had a remarkable impact on Christians throughout the world who unhesitatingly embrace these twisted translations. As a result, Christians earnestly wonder, just as you have, why the Jews, who are the bearers and protectors of the divine oracles of God, have not willingly accepted Jesus as their messiah.

What evangelicals fail to understand, however, is that the passionate resistance of the Jew to the teachings of Christianity has little to do with the Church’s bad manners and everything to do with the Church’s contrived and therefore implausible message. This conclusion, however, is nearly impossible for Christians to accept without bringing injury to their own faith and worldview.

Remember, in Christian theology the Jews are not just another worldly tribe whose beliefs conflict with the teachings of the church. Quite the contrary, the religion of Christianity readily concedes that the Jews were God’s “firstborn” — the people who were chosen to receive and protect the divine oracles of God. The spiritual principles of such a priestly nation cannot be dismissed lightly. As a result, Christendom sought to systematically undermine the vision and trustworthiness of the Jewish people. It isn’t difficult to understand how polemical literature against the Jews became a common feature in church writings. By declaring that the Jew rejects the claims of the church as a result of Christian anti-Semitism, as you insist, or the Jew’s spiritual blindness, evangelicals spare themselves the festering anguish that self searching and self doubt invariably create.

To understand the extent and the manner in which the church tampered with the Jewish scriptures, let’s examine the verse that you insist “proves” that Jesus is the messiah. Psalm 22:16 in the King James Version (KJV) reads,
Dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.

It isn’t difficult to understand why Christians are so confident that this verse contains a clear reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. Of whom, missionaries ask, other than Jesus, could the Psalmist be speaking? To which other individual in history, whose hands and feet were pierced, could the Bible be referring?

Apparently, you were so impressed by this argument that you wondered how a rabbi like myself could miss this obvious reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. Paradoxically, well-educated Jews are utterly repelled by the manner in which the church rendered the words of Psalm 22:17……[FN -1]..

Although in a Jewish Bible this verse appears as Psalm 22:17, in a Christian Bible it appears as 22:16. So as not to create confusion, I refer to this controversial verse as Psalm 22:17 throughout this article.

To understand how Christian translators rewrote the words of King David, let’s examine the original Hebrew words of this verse with a proper translation.

Dogs have encompassed me. A company of evildoers has enclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

Notice that when the original words of the Psalmist are read, any allusion to a crucifixion disappears. The insertion of the word “pierced” into the last clause of this verse is a not-too-ingenious Christian interpolation that was created by deliberately mistranslating the Hebrew word kaari as “pierced.” The word kaari, however, does not mean “pierced,” it means “like a lion.” The end of Psalm 22:17, therefore, properly reads “like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.” Had King David wished to write the word “pierced,” he would never use the Hebrew word kaari. Instead, he would have written either daqar or ratza, which are common Hebrew words in the Jewish scriptures. Needless to say, the phrase “they pierced my hands and my feet” is a Christian contrivance that appears nowhere in the Jewish scriptures.

Bear in mind, this stunning mistranslation in the 22nd Psalm did not occur because Christian translators were unaware of the correct meaning of this Hebrew word. Clearly, this was not the case. The word kaari can be found in a number of other places in the Jewish scriptures. Yet predictably, the same Christian translators who rendered kaari as “pierced” in Psalm 22 correctly translated it “like a lion” in all other places in the Hebrew Bible where this word appears.

For example, the word kaari is also found in Isaiah 38:13. In the immediate context of this verse Hezekiah, the king of Judah, is singing a song for deliverance from his grave illness. In the midst of his supplication he exclaims in Hebrew Notice that the last word in this phrase (moving from right to left) is the same Hebrew word kaari that appears in Psalm 22:17. In this Isaiah text, the King James Version correctly translates these words “I reckoned till morning that, as a lion . . . .” As I mentioned above, Psalm 22:17 is the only place in all of the Jewish scriptures that any Christian Bible translates kaari as “pierced.”

It must be noted that the authors of the New Testament were not responsible for inserting the word “pierced” into the text of Psalm 22:17. This verse was undoubtedly tampered with years after the Christian canon was completed. Bear in mind, during the latter half of the first century, when the New Testament writers were compiling their Greek manuscripts, Psalm 22:17 was still in pristine condition; thus, when the authors of the New Testament read this verse, they found nothing in the phrase “like a lion they are at my hands and my feet” that would advance their teachings. As a result, Psalm 22:17 is never quoted in the New Testament. Missionaries, who insist that the Christian translation of this verse reflects the original words of King David, must wonder why there was not one New Testament author who deemed this supposed allusion to the crucifixion worthy of being mentioned in his writings.

The Bible tampering that has occurred in this verse becomes especially obvious with only a cursory reading of the entire 22nd Psalm. Throughout this chapter, King David is using an animal motif to describe his enemies. His poignant references to the “dog” and “lion” are, therefore, not foreign to this author. In fact, David repeatedly makes reference to the “dog” and “lion” both before and after Psalm 22:17. For the Psalmist, these menacing beasts symbolize his bitter foes who continuously sought to destroy him. This metaphor, therefore, sets the stage for the moving theme of this chapter. Although David’s predicament at times seems hopeless, this faithful king of the Jewish people relied on God for his deliverance. As the Psalmist eagerly looks to God for deliverance from his adversaries, he conveys the timeless message that it is the Almighty alone who can save man in times of tribulation. Let’s examine a number of verses in this chapter that surround Psalm 22:17 as they appear in the King James Version.

Psalm 22:12-13 (KJV):

Many bulls have compassed me; strong bulls of Bashan have beset me around. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravenous and a roaring lion.

Psalm 22:20-21 (KJV): Deliver my soul from the sword, my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion’s mouth; for thou hast heard me from horns of the wild oxen.

As mentioned above, it is obvious when reading this larger section of the 22nd Psalm that King David is using an animal motif — most commonly lions — as an animated literary device, in order to describe his pursuers and tormentors. This striking style is pervasive in this section of the Bible. In fact, each and every time the word “lion” appears in the Book of Psalms, King David is referring to a metaphoric lion, rather than a literal animal.

For example, in the 17th Psalm King David appeals to the Almighty to rescue him from the hands of his enemies, the “lion.” Bear in mind, an examination of the 17th Psalm is of great relevance to our study because in many respects Psalm 17 and 22 are identical, both with regard to their literary motif and driving theme. In the 17th Psalm, King David is looking for deliverance from his adversaries as in Psalm 22. In Psalm 17:8-12, the Psalmist pleads with God for deliverance from the “lion,” as he cries out,

Hide me under the shadow of Your wings, from the wicked who oppress me, from my deadly enemies, who compass me about. They are enclosed in their own fat; with their mouths they speak proudly. They have now compassed us in our steps; they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth, like a lion that is greedy of his prey, and as it were a young lion lurking in secret places.

Again, in Psalm 35:17, in a similar supplication, King David entreats the Almighty for salvation from “lions” as he exclaims,

Lord, how long wilt thou look on? Rescue my soul from their destruction, my darling from the lions.

Moreover, missionaries are confronted with another remarkable problem as they seek to project the words of this Psalm into a first century crucifixion story. In the simplest terms, this text that Christians eagerly quote is not a prophecy, nor does it speak of any future event. This entire Psalm, as well as the celebrated Psalm that follows it, contains a dramatic monologue in which King David cried out to God from the depths of his personal pain, anguish, and longing as he remained a fugitive from his enemies. Accordingly, the stirring monologue in this chapter is all in the first person. The author himself is crying out to God, and there is no doubt who the faithful speaker is in this Psalm; the very first verse in this chapter explicitly identifies this person as King David.

Trinitarian Christians are further confronted with another staggering problem. The opening verses of this Psalm clearly make little sense in the mouth of a god/man. In the beginning of this chapter the author wonders aloud,

My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent.

Why would Jesus, whom Trinitarians insist is God, complain that “God is so far from helping me?” How could God, the first Person of the Trinity, not hear the cries of God, the second Person of the Trinity? To whom is this supposed “God” complaining? Finally, why would God be complaining to God altogether? The speaker here is moaning that God is not listening to him day and night, and in the verses that follow, questions his feelings of abandonment when enumerating the times when God did listen and intervene for his ancestors. How can God not understand his own predicament? Who are God’s ancestors? Applying the words of Psalm 22 to Christendom’s Jesus challenges even the most fertile imagination and places an enormous strain on church teachings.

The question that naturally comes to mind is: Why did the King James Version correctly translate the Hebrew word kaari in Isaiah 38:13 as “like a lion,” yet incorrectly translate this same word as “pierced” in Psalm 22:17? These Christian translators were clearly aware of the correct meaning of the word kaari, as evidenced by their translation of Isaiah 38:13. Why then did they specifically target Psalm 22 for such Bible tampering?

To grasp what is behind this church revision of the 22nd Psalm, it is essential to be aware of the central role this chapter plays in traditional Christian teachings. Church fathers have always cherished Psalm 22 as a chapter that supposedly describes in vivid detail the agony of the passion narratives and provides the script for Jesus’ crucifixion. Segments of this Psalm are quoted extensively in the New Testament as a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy of the crucifixion. The most notable quote from Psalm 22 appears in the first two Gospels and is found in the chapter’s opening verses, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” Matthew and Mark place this desperate monologue in the mouth of the crucified Jesus as his last dying words…[FN 2].. These two Gospels resourcefully use Psalm 22 as one of many palettes from which to paint the brutal picture of a tormented crucified savior. All of the Gospels …[FN -3]…. similarly use Psalm 22:19 (22:18 in a Christian Bible) in their crucifixion narratives, and Hebrews 2:12 quotes Psalm 22:23 to explain why the messiah had to suffer for humanity.

Psalm 22 has, therefore, always been a vital text to the church and was used repeatedly in order to retroject the life of Jesus back into the “Old Testament.” In so doing, missionaries sought to lend credibility to their claim that Jesus is the messiah as was foreordained by the ancient Jewish prophets. For Christendom, the Psalmist’s original intent was superseded by their interest in applying this entire chapter to Jesus’ passion, no matter how extensive the revisions would be. The church, therefore, did not hesitate to tamper with the words of the 22nd Psalm so that its verses would reflect and sustain its Christian message. Isaiah 38:13, on the other hand, possesses no Christological value to the church and was neither quoted nor used by the church fathers to propagate their teachings. The church, therefore, had no need to mistranslate it, and thus it was left intact.

Interestingly, the stunning mistranslation in this chapter did not escape the notice of the missionary world. In fact, this controversy has attracted quite a bit of attention from Christians dedicated to Jewish evangelism. For example, Moshe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus, advances a rather inventive response to this controversy over the appearance of the word “pierced” in Christian translations of Psalm 22. In his widely distributed book, Y’shua, Rosen readily concedes that the Hebrew word kaari does mean “like a lion,” and not “pierced”; yet it is on this very point where he makes his argument.

He suggests that although the word “pierced” does not exist in the Hebrew Masoretic text, it is possible that a scribe may have inadvertently changed the word “pierced” into “like a lion” by modifying one small Hebrew letter. In his own words he writes,

We can probably best understand what happened when we realize that, in Hebrew, the phrase “they have pierced” is kaaru while “like a lion” is kaari. The words are identical except that “pierced” ends with the Hebrew letter vav and “lion” with a yod. Vav and yod are similar in form, and a scribe might easily have changed the text by inscribing a yod and failing to attach a vertical descending line so that it would become a vav……[FN -4]

While Rosen’s proposition is quoted frequently by missionaries, it contains numerous remarkable flaws. Transforming kaari into kaaru by changing the letters kaf, alef, raish, yod , which means “like a lion,” into kaf, alef, raish, vav ,does not create the Hebrew word for “pierced,” as Rosen suggests. In fact, kaaru doesn’t mean anything. In other words, this word kaaru does not exist in the Hebrew language; it’s little more than Semitic gibberish. Rosen’s claim that some anonymous scribe may have inadvertently changed kaaru into kaari is wholly unfounded and completely untenable.

In order to concoct a word that resembles kaaru, one would not only have to change the letter yod into a vav, but the letter alef would have to be removed altogether. This alteration would create the three-letter word karu, spelled caf, raish, vav. Karu, however, doesn’t mean “pierced” either. It means to “excavate” or “dig.” As mentioned above, the words used in Tanach for “pierce” or “stab” are daqar or ratza, never karu.

Rosen is not the only church apologist to use scribes and rabbis of antiquity to defend the Christian translation of Psalm 22. In fact, missionaries more frequently refer to the Septuagint to justify the manner in which Christian Bible translators render Psalm 22:17. They argue that the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the entire Old Testament was completed by 72 rabbis more than 200 years before the Christian century, renders the last phrase of Psalm 22:17 “they pierced my hands and my feet.” From this they conclude that even the rabbis who lived before the first century believed that the last clause of this verse reads “pierced” rather than “like a lion.”

Evangelicals are typically quite fond of this response because it enables them to circumvent the often-troubling original Masoretic Hebrew Bible. This notion may seem strange at first glance; yet, although Christians typically begin their assault on Judaism by swearing allegiance to the Hebrew scriptures, more often than not, they will renounce this vow in order to rescue their dubious proof-texts.

Furthermore, and this is quite secondary, although Christians will rarely state this openly, the church has always had a more favorable view of Jews and rabbis who lived prior to the first century than those who lived after it. The translators of the Septuagint are of course pre-Christian, and are, therefore, held in higher regard in the eyes of the church than those Jews who rejected the claims attributed to Jesus.

Despite the overwhelming popularity of the contention that the Greek translation of 72 rabbis supports the use of the word “pierced” in Psalm 22:17, this explanation is completely without merit. It is universally conceded and beyond any question that the rabbis who created the original Septuagint only translated the Five Books of Moses and nothing more. This undisputed point is well attested to by the Letter of Aristeas..[FN -5].. the Talmud,[FN -6] Josephus,[FN-7] the church fathers,[FN-8] and numerous other critical sources. In other words, these ancient 72 rabbis did not translate the Book of Psalms. The Book of Psalms belongs to the third section of the Jewish scriptures called the Ketuvim, the Writings. This is an entirely different segment of Tanach from the Torah, which was the only section translated by the 72 rabbis. In essence, this missionary argument is predicated on a fabrication.

Moreover, and this is merely an aside, even the current Septuagint covering the Five Books of Moses is an almost complete corruption of the original Greek translation that was compiled by the 72 rabbis more than 2,200 years ago for King Ptolemy II of Egypt.[FN-9] This fact is well known to us because the Talmud [FN-10] records how these 72 translators distinctly rendered 15 phrases of the Torah in their translation. Of these 15 unique translations, only two of them are currently extant.[FN-11] Extrapolating from this, we can safely conclude that the vast bulk of the current Septuagint even of the Torah is unrelated to the translation of the original 72 Jewish translators.

The Septuagint that is currently in our hands — especially the sections that are of the Prophets and Writings — is a Christian work, amended and edited exclusively by Christian hands. There is therefore little wonder that the Septuagint is esteemed in Christendom alone. In fact, in the Greek Orthodox Church, the Septuagint is regarded as Sacred Scripture. (I have addressed the subject of the Septuagint more thoroughly in a previous article entitled “A Christian Defends Matthew by Insisting That the Author of the First Gospel Used the Septuagint in His Quote of Isaiah to Support the Virgin Birth.”

Although Christendom is predisposed to a reverence for scripture written in Greek, the children of Israel regard only the Hebrew Bible given to us by our prophets as holy and authoritative. It is these sacred texts that we diligently pore over day and night. No translation of the Bible, no matter how widely used by churches and academicians, holds any influence over our people. Do not think in your heart that the Jewish people have missed the stirring messianic message contained in Tanach or we somehow do not understand our own Bible. It is our nation which is ordained to protect the integrity of these holy scriptures, our people who brought these sacred oracles to the world’s nations, and it is our people to whom these promises were addressed.

I remain very sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnotes:

Footnotes from the article

1. Although in a Jewish Bible this verse appears as Psalm 22:17, in a Christian Bible it appears as 22:16. So as not to create confusion, I refer to this controversial verse as Psalm 22:17 throughout this article.

2. In the book of Luke, Jesus’ last dying words are, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ last words are “It is finished.”

3.Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24.

4. Rosen, Moishe. Y’shua. Chicago: Moody, 1982, p. 45-46.

5. This Letter of Aristeas (2nd-3rd century B.C.E.), written by a Hellenistic Jew, describes the events leading up to and surrounding the writing of the original Septuagint. There is considerable disagreement as to the date when this was written.

6. Tractate Megillah, 9a.

7. Josephus, preface to Antiquities of the Jews, Sec 3. For Josephus’ detailed description of events surrounding the original authorship of the Septuagint, see Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, XII, ii, 1-4.

8. For example, St. Jerome, in his preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions, addresses this issue and concedes that, “Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the seventy translators, reports them as translating only the Five Books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest.” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Peabody: Hendrickson, Volume 6. P. 87.

9. Ptolemy II, also known as “Philadelphus,” reigned from 283 to 245 B.C.E.

10. Tractate Megillah, 9a-9b.

11. Of these 15 phrases which appeared in the original Septuagint (Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 2:2; 5:2; 11:7; 18:12; 49:6; Exodus 4:20; 12:40; 24:5; 24:11; Leviticus 11:6; Numbers 16:15; Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3), only Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 12:40 are found in the current Septuagint.

One Jewish understanding of the messiah is based on the writings of Maimonides, (also known as Rambam). His views on the messiah are discussed in his Mishneh Torah, his 14 volume compendium of Jewish law, in the section Hilkhot Melakhim Umilchamoteihem, chapters 11 & 12. Maimonides writes:

“The anointed king is destined to stand up and restore the Davidic Kingdom to its antiquity, to the first sovereignty. He will build the Temple in Jerusalem and gather the strayed ones of Israel together. All laws will return in his days as they were before: Sacrificial offerings are offered and the Sabbatical years and Jubilees are kept, according to all its precepts that are mentioned in the Torah. Whoever does not believe in him, or whoever does not wait for his coming, not only does he defy the other prophets, but also the Torah and Moses our teacher. For the Torah testifies about him, thus: “And the Lord Your God will return your returned ones and will show you mercy and will return and gather you… If your strayed one shall be at the edge of Heaven… And He shall bring you” etc.(Deuteronomy 30:3-5).”

“These words that are explicitly stated in the Torah, encompass and include all the words spoken by all the prophets. In the section of Torah referring to Bala’am, too, it is stated, and there he prophesied about the two anointed ones: The first anointed one is David, who saved Israel from all their oppressors; and the last anointed one will stand up from among his descendants and saves Israel in the end. This is what he says (Numbers 24:17-18): “I see him but not now” – this is David; “I behold him but not near” – this is the anointed king. “A star has shot forth from Jacob” – this is David; “And a brand will rise up from Israel” – this is the anointed king. “And he will smash the edges of Moab” – This is David, as it states: “…And he struck Moab and measured them by rope” (II Samuel 8:2); “And he will uproot all Children of Seth” – this is the anointed king, of whom it is stated: “And his reign shall be from sea to sea” (Zechariah 9:10). “And Edom shall be possessed” – this is David, thus: “And Edom became David’s as slaves etc.” (II Samuel 8:6); “And Se’ir shall be possessed by its enemy” – this is the anointed king, thus: “And saviors shall go up Mount Zion to judge Mount Esau, and the Kingdom shall be the Lord’s” (Obadiah 1:21).”

“And by the Towns of Refuge it states: “And if the Lord your God will widen up your territory… you shall add on for you another three towns” etc. (Deuteronomy 19:8-9). Now this thing never happened; and the Holy One does not command in vain. But as for the words of the prophets, this matter needs no proof, as all their books are full with this issue.”

“Do not imagine that the anointed king must perform miracles and signs and create new things in the world or resurrect the dead and so on. The matter is not so: For Rabbi Akiva was a great scholar of the sages of the Mishnah, and he was the assistant-warrior of the king Bar Kokhba, and claimed that he was the anointed king. He and all the Sages of his generation deemed him the anointed king, until he was killed by sins; only since he was killed, they knew that he was not. The Sages asked him neither a miracle nor a sign…”

“And if a king shall arise from among the House of David, studying Torah and indulging in commandments like his father David, according to the written and oral Torah, and he will impel all of Israel to follow it and to strengthen breaches in its observance, and will fight Hashem’s [God's] wars, this one is to be treated as if he were the anointed one. If he succeeded and built a Holy Temple in its proper place and gathered the disperesed ones of Israel together, this is indeed the anointed one for certain, and he will mend the entire world to worship the Lord together, as it is stated: “For then I shall turn for the nations a clear tongue, to call all in the Name of the Lord and to worship Him with one shoulder (Zephaniah 3:9).”

“But if he did not succeed to this degree, or if he was killed, it becomes known that he is not this one of whom the Torah had promised us, and he is indeed like all proper and wholesome kings of the House of David who died. The Holy One, Blessed Be He, only set him up to try the public by him, thus: “Some of the wise men will stumble in clarifying these words, and in elucidating and interpreting when the time of the end will be, for it is not yet the designated time.” (Daniel 11:35).”