Doctor William Lane Craig and the Jewish rabbis

William Lane Craig represents one of the most sophisticated modern Christian philosophers defending faith through analytic philosophy, while Orthodox and Karaite Judaism both approach theology with a radically different set of assumptions.

Let’s break this into parts for clarity:

---

🧠 1. William Lane Craig’s Strongest Arguments for Christianity

William Lane Craig is known for combining philosophical reasoning, cosmology, and historical apologetics. Here are some of his strongest and most discussed arguments:

A. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Core idea:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

The universe began to exist;

Therefore, the universe has a cause — and that cause is God.

Craig modernized this argument (originally Islamic in origin) by using Big Bang cosmology and metaphysics of time.

He argues the universe is not eternal, so it must have been created by a timeless, spaceless, personal being — whom he identifies as the God of Christianity.

Philosophical basis: He often uses the impossibility of an infinite regress of past events (drawing from al-Ghazālī’s medieval reasoning).

Modern support: He appeals to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem in cosmology, which suggests the universe had a beginning.

---

B. The Fine-Tuning Argument

Craig argues that the fundamental constants of physics (like gravity, electromagnetic force, etc.) are so precisely balanced that the odds of life-permitting conditions by chance are astronomically low — suggesting intelligent design.

> “The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. It is not due to necessity or chance. Therefore, it is due to design.”

This doesn’t prove Christianity specifically, but it underpins theism broadly, which Craig then connects to the Christian God through the Resurrection argument.

---

C. The Moral Argument

Craig claims:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

He emphasizes that moral realism (the belief that some actions are truly right or wrong, independent of human opinion) requires a transcendent moral lawgiver.

He often debates atheists like Sam Harris on this topic.

---

D. The Historical Resurrection Argument

Craig’s historical apologetics focus on the resurrection of Jesus as the foundation of Christianity.

He uses what he calls the “minimal facts” approach:

Jesus died by crucifixion.

His tomb was found empty.

His disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.

The early Christian movement exploded under persecution.

Craig argues that the best explanation for these facts is that Jesus truly rose from the dead.

---

✡️ 2. Orthodox Jewish Responses

Orthodox Judaism rejects the premises of Christian theology entirely, even if it may agree with some philosophical aspects of Craig’s theism. Their responses differ depending on the argument:

A. On the Kalam and Creation

Orthodox rabbis agree that the universe was created ex nihilo (from nothing) — this aligns with Genesis 1 and with medieval Jewish philosophers like Maimonides and Saadia Gaon.

However, they reject Craig’s conclusion that this creator is the Trinitarian God of Christianity.

They would argue:

The Torah reveals a strictly singular God, not a triune one.

God’s nature and will cannot be deduced through logic alone; they are known through revelation to Israel.

So, while they respect the logic, they say Craig’s identification of that cause with the Christian God lacks Jewish theological foundation.

---

B. On Fine-Tuning

Most Orthodox thinkers would not object to the idea that the universe seems designed — in fact, Jewish theology often affirms divine design.

But they would again say:

> “Yes, there is a Creator — but this Creator gave His Torah to Israel, and that is where divine revelation lies, not in the Gospel.”

So, fine-tuning supports theism, but not Christianity specifically.

---

C. On the Moral Argument

Orthodox Judaism already grounds morality in the Torah and divine command — not in philosophical reasoning.

While Craig argues that morality needs God, the rabbis would agree but say:

> “True morality is found through Torah, not through philosophical speculation or later Christian doctrine.”

They might critique Craig’s use of Greek philosophy to define God’s moral nature instead of Torah revelation.

---

D. On the Resurrection

Here is where Orthodox Judaism (and especially Karaite Judaism) strongly diverge.

Orthodox view: They believe in resurrection of the dead in the Messianic Age, but not that Jesus was resurrected as Messiah.

They point out that the messianic prophecies (universal peace, end of exile, rebuilding of the Temple) were not fulfilled by Jesus.

Textual critique: Rabbis argue that the Gospel accounts are not reliable as historical documents in the same sense that Craig assumes.

They view resurrection claims as theological expressions rather than objective history.

---

🕎 3. Karaite Jewish Responses

Karaite Jews (who reject the Oral Torah and rabbinic authority) still hold to a strict monotheism even more rigid than the Orthodox position.

They would agree with the cosmological and fine-tuning reasoning as proofs for a Creator.

But they would firmly reject the idea that God has a son or that He became incarnate.

They interpret Scripture literally — so “Son of God” or “Messiah” can never mean divine incarnation.

A Karaite scholar might respond to Craig like this:

> “Your logic may show that God exists, but it cannot overturn the plain text of the Torah: ‘The LORD is one’ (Deut. 6:4). The God of Israel is not three persons.”

They would also reject the Trinitarian interpretation of prophecy that Craig uses (like Isaiah 53), arguing those verses refer to Israel or a prophetic figure — not to Jesus.

---

⚖️ 4. Summary Table

Argument Craig’s Claim Orthodox Response Karaite Response

Kalam Cosmological The universe’s cause is the Christian God Agrees God created, rejects Trinity Agrees God created, rejects Trinity

Fine-Tuning Points to design by God Agrees, but identifies with Torah’s God Agrees, but identifies with singular YHWH

Moral Argument Objective morals need God Morals come from Torah, not philosophy Same — Torah is the only authority

Resurrection Historical evidence for Jesus’ divinity Rejects Jesus as Messiah; texts unreliable Rejects divinity & Christian readings of prophecy

Dealing with Isiah 44v6 and the One God only view

 

Short answer up front: You can’t “disprove” a verse theologically for believers, but from a historical-critical viewpoint there is strong, widely-accepted evidence that Isaiah 44:6 (and similar late prophetic proclamations of absolute, sole divinity) reflect a later monotheistic theology and do not describe how the earliest Israelites actually conceived the divine realm. Archaeological and textual evidence from Canaan and Ugarit, plus internal biblical traces (e.g., Deut 32; Ps 82), show an earlier West-Semitic religious landscape in which “El / Elyon” and a divine council existed and where Yahweh appears in texts as connected with—sometimes distinguished from—El/Elyon. Below I give the main lines of evidence, expert quotations, and reliable sources so you can judge for yourself.

---

1) The relevant claim in Isaiah 44:6 and what it does

Isa 44:6: “I am the first and I am the last; and there is no god besides me.”
Scholars read this as late, polemical monotheistic language—a theological assertion aimed at affirming Yahweh’s exclusive status after centuries of religious struggle and exile, not necessarily a report about earlier Israelite religious practice. OUP Academic+1

Expert paraphrase: “Isaiah 40–55 bears witness to an incipient/explicit monotheism developed in late exilic/post-exilic contexts.” Brill

---

2) Ugaritic/Canaanite evidence: El, Elyon, a pantheon and the divine council

Texts from Ugarit (c. 14th–12th c. BCE) reveal a West-Semitic pantheon in which El is the head god, Elyon (the “Most High”) is an epithet/title in that milieu, and a divine council of gods (“sons of El”) presides over nations. Many biblical names and concepts (El, Elyon, ‘divine council’) have clear parallels here. That shows Israelite religion emerged in a context where multiple divine figures were commonly conceived. Wikipedia+1

Quote (summary of scholarly consensus): “The Ugaritic material shows El as the head of a pantheon; many Old Testament divine-council motifs fit this background.” Quartz Hill School of Theology

---

3) Biblical traces that preserve an earlier, non-exclusive divine worldview

A number of biblical passages preserve older material that scholars read as vestiges of henotheism/functional polytheism:

·         Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (Dead Sea / Septuagint variants): early readings imply Elyon “divided the nations” among divine sons, and Yahweh received Israel as his portion—language consistent with a pantheon where Yahweh is one national god among others. (This verse is widely discussed as evidence of an earlier “divine council” theology.) Reddit+1

·         Psalm 82: a scene of the “divine council” where God judges the gods—this implies a belief in other divine beings judged by the Most High. Scholars argue this is a holdover of earlier divine-council imagery in Israel. Scholars Crossing+1

Michael Heiser (summarizing the evidence): “Scripture contains vestiges of a divine council worldview in which Yahweh operates amid other heavenly beings.” Scholars Crossing

---

4) How El / Elyon and Yahweh were related (two scholarly models)

Scholars offer two common reconstructions:

1.      Identification/Merge model — over time the attributes and titles of El/Elyon were absorbed into Yahweh, so Elic titles (El, Elyon, Shaddai) become names/titles of Yahweh in Israel’s religion. The biblical literature shows names/titles of El being applied to Yahweh. OUP Academic+1

2.      Henotheistic origins model — originally a pantheon: El (Elyon) head, with sons (national gods) including a god called Yahweh who eventually becomes the national god of Israel; later religious reformers and prophets fused or subordinated the others to Yahweh and promoted exclusive monotheism. Deut 32 and Psalm 82 are often read in this light. Scholars Crossing+1

Either way, the historical point is the same: Isaiah 44:6’s absolute claim is a later theological development, not a mirror of the earliest Israelite religious imagination. Brill

---

5) Selected expert quotations (short, representative)

·         Mark S. Smith (leading Ugaritic/Israelite religion scholar):

“The biblical deity of Israel shows strong continuity with and adaptation of older Canaanite deity-concepts (El, Elyon, divine council).” Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1

·         From a Cambridge/Oxford survey of the rise of monotheism:

“Verses declaring ‘YHWH is one’ become the scriptural foundation on which later thinkers base a theology of God’s unity and transcendence.” (i.e., the unity language is a theological development). Cambridge University Press & Assessment

·         On Deut 32 / divine-council language:

“At various sites Yahweh was incorporated into the older figure of El … the biblical record preserves traces of this merging.” OUP Academic

·         On Isaiah 40–55 specifically:

“Isaiah 40–55 is often understood as a work bearing witness clearly and unambiguously to an incipient monotheism” (showing it is theological proclamation in its context). Brill

---

6) What this means for the claim that Isaiah 44:6 is historically false

·         Historically (descriptive claim about ancient Israelite beliefs): The weight of textual and archaeological evidence shows that earlier Israelite religion contained ideas and language consistent with a pantheon / divine council, and that Yahweh’s sole-divine status was not uncontested or fully formed in the earliest layers. In that sense, Isaiah 44:6 does not describe the early religion—it reflects a later doctrinal claim that developed after these older ideas. Quartz Hill School of Theology+1

·         Theologically (normative claim about God’s nature): Isaiah 44:6 remains a religious/theological assertion. Historical evidence can show it was formulated in a particular historical/theological context, but whether the verse is “true” in a faith sense is a separate question outside historical method. OUP Academic

---

7) Key sources you can read next (accessible, scholarly)

·         Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God (Harper & Row / Princeton 1990/2002) — foundational on El, Ugarit, and the shaping of Israelite Yahwism. Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1

·         Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (popular but referenced academic work) and his articles on Yahweh & El (useful introductions to the divine-council literature). Scholars Crossing

·         Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society (Princeton, 2001) — for how Israelite religion developed in historical context. OUP Academic

·         Brill / Cambridge essays on Isaiah 40–55 and the evolution of monotheism (for scholarly treatments of the verse’s theological context). Brill+1

---

Short conclusion

If your goal is to show that Isaiah 44:6 does not reflect earlier Israelite polytheistic contexts, the evidence and mainstream scholarship support that claim strongly: Isaiah 44:6 is best read as a later, polemical proclamation of exclusive monotheism, composed in a milieu that was replying to older expressions of a divine council and many-gods background. If your goal is to “disprove” the verse for readers of faith, historical criticism can undermine the claim that this language describes the earliest religion, but it cannot by itself settle theological truth claims.

 

Rabbinic Resistance and Roman Endorsement: How Jewish Opposition Met Imperial Power in the Rise of Christianity

 

Introduction

From the earliest years of the Christian movement, rabbinic authorities viewed it not as a harmless offshoot of Judaism but as a theological and communal threat. Their objections were rooted in deeply held convictions about monotheism, scripture, and identity. Yet despite their consistent resistance, the rabbis found themselves powerless to prevent Christianity’s meteoric rise—largely because the Roman Empire, shifting from persecution to patronage, provided Christianity with unprecedented political and cultural power. This essay explores why the rabbis opposed Christianity, what their opposition entailed, and how Roman endorsement ultimately made their struggle unwinnable.

---

1. The Rabbinic Response: A Defence of Monotheism and Tradition

Early rabbinic leaders encountered the followers of Jesus within their own synagogues and towns. To them, the claim that Jesus was divine directly violated the core principle of Jewish faith—the absolute oneness of God.

As the Cambridge History of Judaism notes:

“It is more likely that Christology was at the center of the conflict … claims for the person of Jesus would contest existing theological understandings and make claims for the centrality of Jesus … which challenged, if they did not altogether transcend, the boundaries of first-century Palestinian Judaism.”
(Cambridge University Press, 2017, vol. 4, p. 278)

Rabbinic writings reflect this conviction. A third-century sage, Rabbi Abbahu, commenting on Isaiah 44:6, said:

“‘I am the first,’ for I have no father; ‘and I am the last,’ for I have no son; ‘and beside Me there is no God,’ for I have no brother.”
(MyJewishLearning.com, “Jewish Views on Christianity”)

Such statements directly countered the Christian language of “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit.” For the rabbis, Christianity blurred the strict monotheism that defined Jewish self-understanding since Sinai.

Moreover, Christians’ growing outreach among Jews—offering baptism, new interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, and messianic claims—threatened to erode rabbinic authority. Rabbi Jacob Neusner famously wrote:

“Christianity was not a ‘different religion’ for the rabbis; it was a heresy from within, a challenge from those who claimed to share the same God and scriptures.”
(Jacob Neusner, “Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine,” 1987, p. 15)

---

2. Why the Rabbis Opposed Christianity

The rabbis’ opposition was grounded in several valid theological and communal reasons:

1.      The Divinity of Jesus – A core violation of the Jewish Shema (“The Lord is One”), as Adiel Schremer explains:

“The Christological claim to divinity stood in direct tension with rabbinic conceptions of God’s unity and transcendence.”
(Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2010)

2.      Scriptural Re-Interpretation – Christians read Hebrew prophecies as pointing to Jesus, which the rabbis saw as distortions of Torah.

3.      Halakhic Divergence – Jewish law forbade idolatry and intermarriage with those who worshipped any being besides God. By the second century, the rabbis prohibited close social and marital ties with Christians.

“In the eyes of the rabbis … Christians were now a separate religion and a separate people. Marriage with them was prohibited.”
(Biblical Archaeology Review, “The Jewish–Christian Schism,” 2020)

4.      Communal Preservation – Following the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), the rabbis were rebuilding Jewish life around Torah study and law. The emergence of a rival movement claiming Jewish legitimacy posed a direct threat to that project.

Thus, their resistance was not simply polemical—it was a matter of survival.

---

3. Rome’s Role: How Power Tilted the Scales

While rabbis argued from conviction, Rome acted from power. Initially, Christians suffered persecution under Roman rule. But within three centuries, the tide had turned dramatically.

The turning point came with Emperor Constantine’s conversion and the Edict of Milan (313 CE), granting Christians freedom of worship. By 380 CE, Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

As the World History Encyclopedia notes:

“In 381 CE, Theodosius I issued an edict that made Christianity the only legitimate religion in the Roman Empire.”
(worldhistory.org/article/1785)

With imperial backing, Christianity gained access to state infrastructure, education, and legal privilege—advantages no Jewish community could match.

Meanwhile, Jewish self-rule had been destroyed, and the Sanhedrin—the traditional center of authority—had vanished. The rabbis could debate and define, but they could not legislate for nations.

Historian Paula Fredriksen summarizes the asymmetry:

“While rabbis wrote laws for communities, bishops wrote laws for empires.”
(Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews, Yale University Press, 2018)

---

4. Powerless but Not Silent: The Rabbinic Strategy

Unable to counter Roman power directly, the rabbis turned inward. Their weapon was scholarship. Through the Mishnah and later the Talmud, they codified a Judaism independent of Temple or empire. This internal consolidation became the enduring source of Jewish survival.

As historian Seth Schwartz observes:

“The rabbis created a Judaism that could live without political power, because they understood they would not regain it.”
(Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 BCE to 640 CE, Princeton University Press, 2001)

In Babylonian academies far from Rome’s reach, rabbinic teachers refined the boundaries of Jewish identity, often defining themselves in contrast to Christians. Their debates about “minim” (heretics) and “Nozrim” (Nazarenes) reveal this subtle resistance—spiritual and intellectual rather than military or political.

---

5. The Legacy: Two Faiths, Two Worlds

By the fifth century, Christianity had become the moral and political foundation of the Roman world, while Judaism survived as a dispersed religious minority. The rabbis’ fears had been realized: the faith they saw as heretical had become the dominant religion of civilization.

Yet their opposition was not in vain. Their insistence on ethical monotheism, scriptural fidelity, and communal independence ensured that Judaism remained distinct and resilient even under Christian empire.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once reflected:

“Had the rabbis not resisted the powerful temptation to conform, Judaism might have disappeared into the triumph of Rome. Their refusal to yield gave the world its oldest continuous moral tradition.”
(Jonathan Sacks, Covenant & Conversation: Deuteronomy, 2019)

---

Conclusion

The story of rabbinic opposition to Christianity is not one of stubborn intolerance but of spiritual defense against theological and political pressures. The rabbis resisted Christianity for coherent reasons: to protect monotheism, preserve the Torah, and safeguard Jewish survival. Yet against the machinery of Rome, they could not prevail in worldly influence.

Rome crowned Christianity as the faith of empire; the rabbis crowned Torah as the faith of endurance. History vindicated both as forces that reshaped the world—one by power, the other by principle.

---

Select Sources

·         Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 4: “The Rabbinic Response to Christianity.”

·         Jacob Neusner, Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine (1987).

·         Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2010).

·         Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews (Yale University Press, 2018).

·         Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society (Princeton University Press, 2001).

·         MyJewishLearning.com: “Jewish Views on Christianity.”

·         World History Encyclopedia: “The Separation of Christianity from Judaism.”

·         Biblical Archaeology Review: “The Jewish–Christian Schism.”

 

Rabbis, Romans and the Rise of Christianity: Jewish-Rabbinic Opposition and Roman Enablement in the First Four Centuries

 

1. Rabbinic Opposition to Early Christianity

From the start, the rabbinic leadership viewed the emerging Christian movement not simply as another Jewish sect but increasingly as a theological and communal challenge.

A) Early Rabbinic Attitudes

·         According to one summary:

“In its very earliest days, Christianity was seen by the Jewish teachers as a Jewish heresy; … But when Christianity spread and became a world religion … it became a rival religion to Judaism.” My Jewish Learning

·         On early rabbinic literature:

“The first Jewish texts clearly referring to Jesus … a much more extensive reaction to Christian traditions is found in the Babylonian Talmud … where in a non-Christian environment rabbis felt less restrained in their polemical reaction to Christian traditions.” Brill+1

·         On doctrinal/theological conflict:

“It is more likely that Christology was at the center of the conflict… claims for the person of Jesus … would contest existing theological understandings and make claims for the centrality of Jesus … which challenged, if they did not altogether transcend, the boundaries of first-century Palestinian Judaism.” Cambridge University Press & Assessment

B) Specific Rabbinic Statements

·         The website MyJewishLearning provides an exemplar:

“Typical is the comment of the late third-century Palestinian teacher, Rabbi Abbahu, on the verse (Isaiah 44:6): ‘I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.’ … “‘I am the first,’ for I have no father; ‘and I am the last,’ for I have no son, ‘and beside Me there is no God,’ for I have no brother.” My Jewish Learning
This is generally regarded as a rabbinic critique of Christian Christology (i.e., the idea of Jesus as Son of God) and a defence of Jewish monotheism.

·         From academic literature:

“Likewise … the rabbis seemed not only fully aligned with Gospel traditions … they also took for granted that Jesus had proclaimed himself divine; accordingly, any Jew worshiping him was compromising monotheism.” Boston College
And:
“They [rabbinic authors] denounced Jesus himself for having attempted to ‘entice and lead Israel astray,’ i.e., into apostasy and idolatry.” Boston College

C) Reasons for Rabbinic Opposition

Some of the valid reasons the rabbis opposed or distanced themselves from Christianity include:

·         The claim of divinity of Jesus (or of “Son of God”) conflicted with the rabbinic affirmation of absolute monotheism. Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1

·         A new movement drawing away Jews into a competing identity, thereby challenging rabbinic authority or Jewish communal cohesion. JC Relations+1

·         Halakhic or communal concerns: e.g., separation of Jews from Christian-followers (once they became Gentile-dominated) and avoidance of associations that might blur identity. For example: “In the eyes of the rabbis … Christians were a separate religion and a separate people. Marriage with them was now prohibited.” Biblical Archaeology Society

·         The fear of assimilation or ideological diffusion: rabbinic sources warn against giving Christian converts or followers of Jesus the chance to preach among Jews. JC Relations+1

Thus, from the rabbinic perspective, the Christian movement posed theological, legal, communal and identity-challenges.

---

2. Rabbinic Limitations and Roman Empowerment of Christianity

While the rabbis consistently opposed many Christian claims, their practical power to stop the spread of Christianity was constrained—while the Roman empire gradually shifted to support the new religion, giving it institutional advantage.

A) Roman Shift in Relationship to Christianity

·         As one historian puts it:

“The Roman government modified its view [of Christians] … Christians were now regarded as a separate group.” Reddit

·         From the World History Encyclopedia:

“In 381 CE, Theodosius I issued an edict that made Christianity the only legitimate religion in the Roman Empire.” worldhistory.org

·         Also:

“Even the Bishop of Jerusalem was now gentile … The lack of Jewish status of the group as a whole led the Rabbis to disqualify them as a whole.” Biblical Archaeology Society

B) Consequence for the Rabbis’ Ability to Counter Christianity

·         Because Christianity became institutionalized under Roman support, the rabbis had far less state-power backing them in this conflict. They operated largely within the Jewish community and lacked the ability to curtail the external growth of Christianity.

·         The partitioning: As the Christian Church developed its own identity (distinct from Judaism), the rabbis found themselves defending Jewish identity and law rather than engaging in outreach to Christians. This narrowing of focus reduced their leverage over the Christian movement.

C) Summary of the Dynamic

·         On one side: rabbis resisting Christian theological and communal encroachment, trying to maintain Jewish halakhic and communal integrity.

·         On the other side: a rapidly growing Christian movement, increasingly backed by Roman imperial power and eventually becoming the dominant religion of the Roman world.

·         The asymmetry in power meant that while the rabbis could articulate objections and maintain community boundaries, they could do little to stop the spread of Christianity or the shift of empire toward it.

---

3. Some Expert Quotes and Scholarly Framing

Here are several additional quotes from the literature:

·         Adiel Schremer in Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity:

“Christian belief and rabbinic faith” — The chapter examines how the early Christian claims (e.g., Jesus as divine) posed a fundamental challenge to rabbinic theology. OUP Academic

·         From The Cambridge History of Judaism, chapter “The rabbinic response to Christianity”:

“It is sometimes supposed that halachic non-conformity on the part of Christians was the primary cause of friction … In view of the wide diversity of halachic practice … this is hardly an adequate explanation … It is more likely that Christology was at the center of the conflict.” Cambridge University Press & Assessment

·         From the JCRelations article:

“While the early rabbinic scholars showed a kind of indifferent tolerance towards ‘Gentile Christians,’ they advised their people to avoid close contact with the Jewish followers of Jesus.” JC Relations

These show that the scholarly consensus places theological and identity issues (rather than strictly ritual/halakhic conflict) at the heart of the rabbis’ opposition, and that the institutional shift of Christianity under Rome changed the stakes.

---

4. Caveats and Nuances

·         It is important not to oversimplify: The rabbis did not uniformly or immediately engage in polemics; the difference between Jewish Christians and gentile Christians, the varying regional contexts (Palestine, Babylonia), and the gradual evolution over decades matter. Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1

·         The question of rabbinic “powerlessness” is relative: Rabbis had strong influence within Jewish communities but limited influence over imperial or Christian institutional developments.

·         Some rabbis in the medieval period developed more nuanced approaches toward Christianity (for example concerning trade, legal status) which show that the dynamic was not static. Medievalists.net+1

·         The narrative that the rabbis were simply “opposed from the start and powerless” should be qualified: they were opposed on theological and communal grounds, and while they lacked the institutional backing that Christianity eventually enjoyed, they were effective within their own sphere of Jewish life.

---

5. Conclusion

The rabbis of early and late antiquity confronted the rise of Christianity as both a theological and communal challenge. They opposed Christian claims of Jesus’ divinity, defended Jewish monotheism, and sought to maintain Jewish communal boundaries. However, the larger sweep of Roman imperial politics—favoring Christianity and eventually establishing it as the empire’s official religion—shifted the balance of power. The rabbis could delineate and defend Jewish identity, but they lacked the ability to halt the growth and institutionalisation of Christianity within the Roman world.

The Late-Origin of the Decalogue: Rethinking the Date and Context of the Ten Commandments

Christian tradition holds that the Ten Commandments (the “Decalogue”) were delivered by Moses around 1400 BC or thereabouts. Yet many biblical scholars argue that the evidence points to a much later origin. Below is further sources and expert commentary, followed by expanded background material.

---

Christian tradition places the Ten Commandments in the age of Moses, roughly 1400 BC (give or take a century). However, biblical scholarship views this as highly unlikely.

1. The archaeological and epigraphic record offers little to no evidence of a distinct Israelite community, in the sense portrayed in the Exodus narrative, prior to around 1200 BC.

2. At the supposed time of Moses, Hebrew writing (in the form used later in the Israelite tradition) either did not yet exist or was extremely limited in use.

3. Archaeological study and historical records do not substantiate a large-scale enslavement of Israelites in Egypt, a dramatic mass exodus, followed by a swift military conquest of Canaan during the era traditionally assigned to Joshua, Caleb and Moses.

4. Within the Hebrew Bible itself there are three distinct versions of the Decalogue (for example in Exodus 20; Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 5), which suggests the text was not the fixed early-Sinai revelation that tradition assumes. 

If the Ten Commandments were not composed circa 1400 BC, when were they written? According to recent research (notably by Yonatan Adler), the wider observance of laws associated with the Torah (including prohibitions on graven images or certain dietary laws) only became evident in Judea by the mid-second century BC, under the Hasmonean era. 

Adler’s method, for instance, looks at when practices such as ritual purity (immersions, chalk vessels), avoidance of figurative imagery, and dietary habits begin to show up reliably in the material record of Judean society. He argues that such elements do not become widespread until the second century BC. 

In short: rather than a Mosaic revelation in the Late Bronze Age, key elements of what we think of as Yahwistic legal-religious practice may have been constructed or at least institutionalised in the Hellenistic/Hasmonean period (ca 2nd century BC). Adler’s book gives a careful survey of the evidence. 

---

Expert Quotes

“The archaeological evidence for observance of the laws of the Torah in the daily lives of ordinary Judeans seems to situate the origins of Judaism around the middle of the second century BCE.” — Yonatan Adler (as summarised) 

“Scholars have proposed a range of dates and contexts for the origins of the Decalogue.” — Summary from Wikipedia on the Ten Commandments, noting scholarly options for the date of its composition. 

---

Background on Yonatan Adler

Yonatan Adler is Associate Professor in Archaeology at Ariel University (Israel), and heads its Institute of Archaeology. 

His research focuses on the origins of Judaism as a lived practice, especially ritual purity, law, and the material culture of Judea. 

In his recent work The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological‑Historical Reappraisal (Yale University Press, 2022) he asks: When did the ancestors of today’s Jews first come to know about the regulations of the Torah, regard them as authoritative law, and put them into daily practice? 

Adler ends up arguing that though the textual tradition of the Torah may have begun earlier, the widespread societal adoption of these laws in Judea only really emerges after the Persian period, into the Hellenistic era (i.e., mid-2nd century BC). 

---

Why Scholars Consider a “Late Origin” for the Decalogue

Here are several interlocking reasons:

1. Three Versions in the Biblical Text

As noted above, the Decalogue appears in at least three different places (Exodus 20; Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 5), with variant wording and emphases. The presence of multiple versions suggests the text was fluid and subject to revision, not a pristine Sinai revelation fixed circa 1400 BC. 

2. Lack of Early Material Evidence for Torah-Law Observance

Archaeological indicators of explicit Torah-law observance (immersion pools, chalk vessels indicating ritual purity, prohibition of figurative art, dietary restrictions) are weak or absent for much of the First Temple, Babylonian and early Second Temple periods, but become clearer in the Hasmonean era. This suggests the normative “Torah way of life” only solidified relatively late. 

3. Challenges of Historical Context

The traditional dating of the Decalogue (in the Late Bronze Age) bumps against historical-archaeological problems: the absence of conclusive evidence for a mass exodus from Egypt, no clear evidence of Hebrew writing of the required sophistication around 1400 BC, and limited evidence for a large Israelite polity at that time. These factors make some scholars sceptical of the traditional date. (See, e.g., survey discussions.) 

4. Literary and Comparative Issues

Some scholars view the Decalogue as part of a broader ancient Near Eastern treaty form or legal typology, and date its composition to a later editorial context (even exilic or post-exilic). For example, in The Ten Commandments: A Short History of an Ancient Text, scholar Michael D. Coogan places the text in one of three possible dating schemes: early, monarchic, or post-exilic. 

---

Implications

If the Decalogue and Torah-law observance were institutionalised later than tradition holds (say, 3rd–2nd century BC rather than 15th century BC), several implications follow:

The narrative of Sinai as a single, foundational moment needs to be reconsidered in light of the data.

The relevance of Moses as the law-giver may be more symbolic/literary than historical (or at least, the form of “Mosaic” law as we have it may reflect later developments).

The idea that the Ten Commandments are the unaltered, divinely given core of Israelite religion becomes harder to sustain without nuance.

For Christian tradition, the moral authority of the Decalogue remains, but its historical-critical background invites reflection on how the text came to be, when and why it was solidified in the Jewish community.

Demons and spirits in Bible, OT view vs NT view

This a deep and fascinating topic — the idea of demons and spirits (Hebrew: shedim, ruḥot, malakhim ra‘im, etc.) develops quite a bit from the Tanakh (Old Testament) to the New Testament, and Jewish interpretations (Orthodox, Karaite, and rabbinic) differ significantly. Let’s break it down clearly:

---

🕎 1. Old Testament / Tanakh View

In the Hebrew Bible, “demons” and “spirits” are not a major focus, and what we would call “demons” today are mostly vague or symbolic.

✡ Key Points:

No explicit Satanic kingdom: There’s no figure ruling a realm of demons. Satan (הַשָּׂטָן, ha-satan) is a title, meaning “the accuser” or “adversary,” often acting under God’s permission (see Job 1–2, Zechariah 3:1–2).

Spirits are under divine control: God sends both good and evil spirits.

1 Samuel 16:14–16 — “an evil spirit from the LORD tormented Saul.”

1 Kings 22:19–23 — a “lying spirit” sent by God to deceive Ahab’s prophets.

“Demons” (Shedim) — appear in a few places, mostly in late writings:

Deuteronomy 32:17: “They sacrificed to demons (shedim), not to God.”

Psalm 106:37: “They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.”

These passages reflect idolatrous spirits, not independent devils.

Ghosts / spirits of the dead (Ob / Rephaim):

1 Samuel 28: Saul consults the witch of Endor to summon Samuel’s spirit.

Isaiah 8:19: condemns consulting “the dead on behalf of the living.”

📖 In summary: The Hebrew Bible sees “demons” as idolatrous beings or malevolent spirits, but all under God’s authority — no dualistic war between God and Satan exists.

---

✝ 2. New Testament View

By the time of the New Testament, Jewish and Greco-Roman ideas about spirits had evolved.

✝ Key Points:

Demonic possession becomes central:

Jesus and the apostles frequently cast out demons (daimonia).

Mark 1:34: “He drove out many demons.”

Luke 8:30: the “Legion” of demons.

Demons as fallen angels or evil spirits opposed to God:

This concept is influenced by Second Temple literature (e.g., Book of Enoch, Jubilees) that developed between the Testaments.

Matthew 12:24: “Beelzebub, the prince of demons.”

Luke 10:18: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”

Dualism appears: Satan leads a host of rebellious spirits, opposing God’s kingdom and afflicting humans.

Deliverance (exorcism) becomes a sign of divine power.

📖 In summary: The NT sees demons as active evil beings, fallen from God’s service and seeking to corrupt or possess people — a more cosmic conflict between good and evil.

---

🕍 3. Orthodox Jewish View (Rabbinic Tradition)

Rabbinic Judaism (Talmudic and later Orthodox thought) expands the concept of spirits but keeps them firmly under God’s sovereignty.

✡ Key Beliefs:

Shedim (demons) exist — created by God, often during the twilight of the sixth day of creation (Pirkei Avot 5:6).

They are incomplete beings: invisible like angels but physical enough to eat and reproduce (Talmud, Chagigah 16a).

Lilith — a female night demon (mentioned in Isaiah 34:14, developed in Talmud and Alphabet of Ben Sira).

Evil spirits can harm people who neglect Torah, blessings, or ritual purity.

Protection: Mezuzah, Torah study, and mitzvot repel them.

Satan / Yetzer Hara: the “evil inclination” is often identified with the same spiritual adversary; he tests rather than destroys.

🕯 Orthodox stance today: Most regard demons as possible but not central — symbolic of temptation or evil forces, while others treat them as real unseen beings.

---

📜 4. Karaite Jewish View

Karaite Jews reject rabbinic oral tradition, relying only on the written Tanakh.

🕎 Their position:

No Talmudic mythology: Karaites generally deny the existence of literal demons or spirits outside what is plainly written.

Shedim = idols / false gods: In Deut 32:17, Karaites interpret “shedim” as pagan deities, not supernatural entities.

No Lilith, no fallen angels: These come from extra-biblical and rabbinic texts they reject.

Satan: a role or title (“the accuser”), not an independent enemy of God.

📖 In summary: Karaites see “demons” and “evil spirits” as metaphors for false beliefs, corruption, or divine punishment — not real beings opposing God.

---

⚖️ Comparison Summary

View Source Nature of Demons/Spirits Relation to God

Old Testament / Tanakh Hebrew Bible Evil spirits or idols Under God’s control

New Testament Gospels, Acts, Epistles Fallen angels, active evil beings Opposed to God

Orthodox Judaism Talmud, Midrash Real but limited beings; created by God Subordinate to God

Karaite Judaism Scripture only Idols or metaphors, not literal beings No independent existence.

The Androgynous Adam: Biblical Roots of the Gender Spectrum

For centuries, the creation story in Genesis has inspired countless debates about human identity, gender, and divine purpose. Today, as society grows more aware of the diversity of gender experiences — including transgender and nonbinary identities — some theologians and readers are re-examining the earliest chapters of Genesis to ask: What if the Bible’s first human already contained both male and female within one being?

Understanding Transgender Identity

The word transgender refers to a person whose gender identity — their deep internal sense of being male, female, both, neither, or somewhere in between — differs from the sex assigned at birth.

It’s about who you are, not who you’re attracted to.

Many transgender individuals express their identity through social changes (name, pronouns, or appearance), and some through medical steps such as hormone therapy or surgery. But not all do — what unites them is the understanding that gender is a spectrum, not a strict binary.

Adam: Created Male and Female

The book of Genesis 1:27 declares:

> “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Some ancient Jewish commentators — and a number of modern theologians — have noted something remarkable here. If Adam was created first, yet already described as “male and female,” this could imply that Adam initially embodied both aspects of humanity in one being — a kind of original androgyny.

When we turn to Genesis 2, we read that God formed Eve from one of Adam’s “ribs.” However, the Hebrew word “tsela” is translated “rib” only twice in the Bible, but “side” nineteen times elsewhere (see Strong’s Concordance). Many scholars therefore suggest that God did not merely remove a bone, but divided Adam’s side, separating the feminine and masculine aspects to create two distinct beings.

As theologian Phyllis Trible and other scholars of Genesis note, this reading supports the idea that “the original human was a whole being — later differentiated into male and female.”

Seth in the Image of Adam — Not God

Later, in Genesis 5:3, we read:

> “Adam fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.”

This subtle shift is significant. Whereas Adam was created in the image of God, Seth — and by extension, all humanity after him — is said to be in the image of Adam. Some interpreters take this to mean that humanity no longer perfectly reflected its original, unified state. The human image had changed — not just spiritually, but possibly even in its physical and psychological balance.

From this perspective, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that Adam and Eve each carried remnants of both male and female traits, hormonally and emotionally. Their descendants, therefore, might express these traits along a continuum — what we now call the gender spectrum.

Faith, Identity, and the Spectrum of Creation

While traditional theology maintains the binary view of male and female, others see Genesis as describing a far more dynamic creation — one that contains diversity, fluidity, and balance. The original Adam may have represented the full range of human potential before being divided, symbolizing the unity of opposites found throughout nature and spirit.

This interpretation doesn’t negate the sacredness of gender; rather, it celebrates all people as reflections of the divine image, each expressing unique aspects of God’s creative design.

Modern understanding of gender diversity — including transgender and nonbinary experiences — may therefore not oppose the biblical story, but rather echo its deeper truth: that humanity is vast, multifaceted, and wondrously made.

As theologian and psychologist Karl Jung once observed, “Each man carries within him the eternal image of woman; each woman carries within her the eternal image of man.”

Perhaps Genesis was telling us that from the very beginning.

---

Read more thoughtful reflections at:

🌐 justicepretorius.blogspot.com

🌐 justicepretoriuscom.wordpress.com

Support the author at: buymeacoffee.com/JusticePretorius