I am still trying to get clarity about Richard Carrier’s book “On the historicity of Jesus“. Carrier assumes that Paul existed, but how important is that ? Might Jesus and Paul be modeled after the same messianic preacher(s) ? (Simon Magus ?) We may wonder whether Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ – the way – gives more clarity. I already looked at the issue of nazoraios, netzer and notzrim in “The simple mathematics of Jesus” (2012). New is the question now whether it helps to determine Paul.
See the Table on what we have achieved till now. The distinction between the Christian Church and the observers of the Torah (Halakha) in Qumran is obvious. In addition, the earlier exegesis on Original Sin showed that Simon Magus looks like a real heretic. We saw evidence of this in Paul of the Acts and the Gospel according to Mark. But the link Jesus ~ Paul is severed when Jesus would be associated with Qumran. James the Just would be a Qumran-Sadducee similar to a sedentary monk, and Jesus would be a wandering Pharisee preaching in synagogues, but their messages might be the same.
If nazoraios would mean guard, then (a) Qumran could be guardians of the law, in principle open to the masses of the circumcised, and (b) Gnosis could mean guardians to some secret knowledge, available only for the few, but with mass following of those who would not have ears to hear, and (c) Paul would be somewhere inbetween with Gnostic ideas about some celestial saviour but openness to the masses of the goy. A discrete table doesn’t give the spectrum.
|Table on Original Sin||Torah & no Gnosticism||Gnosticism & no Torah|
|Observe the law (Torah)||Qumran (James the Just)||Logically impossible|
|Believe in Jesus (no Torah)||Christian Church (NT with neutralised Torah)||Paul ~ Simon Magus (abolished Torah)|
See the Venn diagram for all combinations. In the exegesis we found that the true situation is that the Torah contains Gnosticism, even though this is denied by Judaism and Christianity. The Table thus only looks at the official positions and neglects the column T & G. Plato and the Romans (no T & no G) are not relevant for this table right now either.
The discussion is put in the Appendix because it is too long for a blog. You would only read that Appendix when you would be surprised by some conclusions.
PM 1. On Plato and the Romans: At a later point we should integrate with the notion that the Old Testament (OT) uses Homer and Plato (Thomas Brodie) and that the New Testament (NT) uses Homer too (Dennis MacDonald). In my own analysis the Bible is based upon astrology with the Zodiac, and by implication this would also hold for Homer and perhaps Gilgamesh. (The multiplication of names for similar people in the NT derives partly from the need to fill the 12 positions in the Zodiac.)
PM 2. We also think about the importance of Jesus for education: to neutralise religious fundamentalism, the pandering of Armageddon, and the idea of a 3rd Temple in Jerusalem and/or Gerizim.
The conclusions from the Appendix and the earlier blog entries are:
- A significant portion of rabbinic Judaism has allocated Jesus to Qumran, claiming that he would not have broken with Judaism and the Torah. Nazoraios would be a confused translation. Jesus would be a netzer (offshoot) and his followers in Qumran the netzarim. Paul would be the apostate, the notzrim, who would be the military guards that keep Judaism contained and captive.
- Rabbinic Judaism has clarified this view internally, but has kept a lower profile on this externally, since the confusion helped keep them safe and the guards off-guard.
- The claim that Jesus would belong to Qumran however is not necessarily proven. The theological allocation may be part of rabbinic Judaism’s strategy to defend themselves. They can say to Christians that Christians misunderstood Jesus and that he belongs to Judaism. In that manner they can win converts, like Yirmeyahu.
- We observed earlier that Judaism doesn’t quite understand the Torah yet. With Greek logic we can determine: (a) there is Original Sin in the Torah but it is denied, (b) there is Gnosticism in the Torah but it is denied.
- Suppose that Jesus had been in Egypt and had some logical training in Alexandria, and arrived at these same observations, and in his view still was with the Torah, but told his deducations to Judaism. When they denied it, then it would be inconsistent for them to hold that Jesus still belonged to Judaism (even though he still did in his own analysis).
- It is rather pretentious of Judaism that they hold that their large Jewish Bible would not contain logical inconsistencies. Rabbinic Judaism uses the Talmud to keep up with the times. The laws of the Torah are interpreted creatively to make them fit new challenges. Fundamentalism has merely different political objectives (and more abuse of cognitive dissonance).
- The example that Jesus didn’t accept divorce while Judaism accepts some rules, might be a reference to Simon Magus and his Helen (Maria Magdalene), and should not be considered as a serious example.
- Yirmeyahu’s claim that his rewritten Gospel according to Matthew would fit the Torah, so that all Jews can become netzarim, makes one wonder what would be the surplus value. How would the offshoot differ from the real stuff ? The problem of James the Just was the malbehaviour of the Temple Sadducees, but there is no Temple now.
- Yirmeyahu’s suggestion that Jesus would be a military leader, and belong to Qumran, suggests that Qumran would lean to a military solution, and that Yirmeyahu himself as netzer also leans to such an approach, while he wants others to join up. We indeed need guards around this.
- We need additional study on the relation of Jesus to Qumran and to Paul.
- There grows a tentative hypothesis however. If Jesus (Saviour) is a mythical concept, then this concept can be used by various factions for their own interpretation. Some in Qumran might merely & peacefully intend observance to the Torah, in opposition against Temple Sadducees who don’t do it properly (with high priests who do not descent from Levi and who accept a king from Rome and not from David). Some in Qumran and elsewhere might desire a military uprising. Simon Magus might wish to keep peace with the Romans and do something about the Temple Sadducees too, but rather something Gnostically. It may be that these are the only factions in 70 AD, and that the true Christian Church only arose in 135 AD with the final touch of turning Simon Magus into a domesticated Paul.
Babylonian god Marduk guards his son, named wisdom (justice & love ?)
Nebuchadnezzar II (c. 623-562 BC) is known for:
“Both the construction of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem‘s temple are ascribed to him. He is featured in the Book of Daniel and is mentioned in several other books of the Bible.
The Akkadian name, Nabû-kudurri-uṣur, means “O god Nabu, preserve/defend my firstborn son”. Nabu, son of the god Marduk, is the Babylonian deity of wisdom. In an inscription, Nebuchadnezzar styles himself as Nabu’s “beloved” and “favourite”. His name has previously been mistakenly interpreted as “O Nabu, defend my kudurru“, in which sense a kudurru is an inscribed stone deed of property. However, when contained in a ruler’s title, kudurru approximates to “firstborn son” or “oldest son”. “ (wikipedia, portal and not source)
The English version of the name derives from the Hebrew Nebhukhadhnetztzar. Wikipedia doesn’t explain how usur and nezzar relate.
Looking at a website for Akkadian we cannot find usur but there is nasiru:
nāṣiru [Army → Military]
1) protective , watch- , defensive , preventive , benevolent (?) , patronizing (?) , affectionate (?) ; 2) (noun) : a guardian / guard , a protector / patron (?) / tutor (?) , a preserver , a keeper ;
Comparison with other Semitic languages :
Syriac : natora ܢܵܛܘܿܪܵܐ “a guard / gardian , keeper “
The upshot of this excursion is a big question mark. An Akkadian root usur would be preserve, protect, and there may be a related root NZR for protect, guard that perhaps links up to Hebrew.
The Netzarim of James the Just: dead since 135 AD but resurrected in our time
There is a remarkable website by Clint Van Nest (1943). He converted to Judaism, moved to Israel, changed his name into YirmᵊyâhꞋu (Jeremiah), converted to the “original teachings of Jesus”, and is now pâ•qidꞋ (overseer, bishop), or the proclaimed first bishop since 135 AD of the Qumran sect of the Netzarim of James the Just.
He is not an academic historian of antiquity. Let me quote a bit more from his presented cv:
“Pâ•qidꞋ YirmᵊyâhꞋu, né Clint Van Nest (1943), descended from his great-x6 grandfather, Pieter Pieterse Van Nest, who immigrated to New Amsterdam—before there was a New York or United States—in 1647, just 27 years after the pilgrims in the Mayflower.
(…) He is a member of Mensa and an American vet of the United States Air Force Air Intelligence Agency (security clearance: Top Secret, Crypto, Codeword), having attended Syracuse University and served in Germany, where he lived for 2½ years (…) earned a B.Sc. in Business Administration (B.S.B.A.), having been offered honors in logic, from the University of Fla. (Gainesville) in 1968 with a major in management and minors in quantitative analysis and economics. He entered the UF Graduate School M.B.A. program but was unable to attend due to personal circumstances. Having obtained his B.S. degree, he worked as a Safety Engineer (becoming a member of A.S.S.E.) for a large insurance company in New England and Toronto, Canada, consulting for some of the largest corporations, in a multitude of diverse industries, in Ontario and Quebec provinces. Moving back to Florida, he worked as Personnel & Safety Director for a trucking (250 drivers, large, 20 yard3 dumptrucks) and construction firm (draglines, dozers, etc.) in Central Florida, reporting directly to the owner.
(…) Yet, Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ requires that every community must have a Beit Din. Inescapably, י--ה had arranged that Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu was the first and only candidate in the legitimate Jewish community since 135 C.E. whom He required by Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ to fill the position of the 16th Pâ•qidꞋ and restore the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Beit Din that the Roman Hellenists had eradicated in 135 C.E.” (netzarim.co.il)
Note that he writes Yahweh (י–ה) with dashes since God’s name must not be pronounced. The name of Jesus must be dashed when it refers to the Son of God, but not when just to a name like Joshua. Think of the scene in Jurassic Park when you would not want to make a sound. Think of the interdiction to worship false gods and display an image of God. Think of iconoclastic Protestants.
“Because we teach and practice the authentic Judaic teachings of Ribi Yehoshua [… Jesus …] —not Displacement Theology—we are the only group who have restored the Netzarim to be accepted in the legitimate Jewish community in Israel—genuinely like Ribi Yehoshua and the original Netzarim. Consequently, the ‘Netzarim Quarter’ is the only web site of legitimate Netzarim / Nazarene Judaism.” (netzarim.co.il glossary)
“Christianity is a Displacement Theology that inherently dangles from the premise that Christ’s “grace” has displaced Tor•âhꞋ, that Christians have displaced ‘natural Jews’ to become the ‘true, spiritual Jews’ of ‘true, spiritual Israel’; i.e. thereby displacing historical Israel and the Jews as the Biblically-recognized servants of י--ה. Christian Displacement Theology includes ALL doctrines that hold that “salvation” has been redirected to Christians or that Tor•âhꞋ-observant Jews without J*esus are lost.” (netzarim.co.il glossary)
If you haven’t read my earlier analysis on the logic of this displacement, check this page.
Apparently there is no wikipedia article on Yirmeyahu yet that might give an overview of the situation (with criticisms and such). There is another website that mentions him, and basically gives the same history about Jesus the neitzer. And as said above: I looked at this “history” before.
The advantage of Yirmeyahu’s website is that it gives Hebrew roots that serve our present purposes. It seems that a few dots can make a difference. However, I have copy-pasted this Hebrew but unfortunately it seems that this does not work properly. If you search in English then you should be able to find the proper passages on his website.
Other people suggest that the Hebrew Bible was originally created in Greek around 270 BC. Spinoza suggests that it reads as a book by one author. Thus it would only later be translated into Hebrew, and it would be somewhat of a problem to regard the Hebrew Bible as an independent source (“oral tradition”). This seems less relevant for the nazoraios around 70 AD.
Three accepted ways in Judaism
Yirmeyahu states on the Halakha:
- The interpretations of the Qum•rânꞋ Kha•sid•imꞋ Bᵊn–Tzâ•doqꞋ Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ [ … Qumran Sadducees …], who called their Oral Law interpretations Ma•as•ëhꞋ [… practice …].
- The interpretations of the Roman-vassal Hellenist Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•layꞋim, who called their Oral Law interpretations—which they codified in an attempt to terminate oral transmission by the other two min•imꞋ—their “Book of Decrees.” [… Temple Sadducees …]
- The interpretations of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ [.. Pharisees …], who called their Oral Law interpretations, the interpretations endorsed by historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa [… Jesus …], Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. [… worship in knesset, houses of assembly, synagogues, shul …]
Yirmeyahu explains that also findings are acceptable that are derived from the Torah by using strict formal (but “discrete”) logic, “(including science)”. I presume that he hasn’t dwelled long on a more elegant or accurate statement. Hellenization in the form of Aristotle’s logic would be acceptable, but other forms of Hellenization could be a problem.
Neitzer as an offshoot that suits the mother tree
Jesus would be acceptable, and be a neitzer. Yirmeyahu gives the following glossary for netzarim (plural of neitzer):
ם" is the masc. plural of נֵצֶר, which, in turn, is related to the Aramaic נִצְרָא—“wicker (woven straw, as from these offshoots – basket, hat, chair, etc.)”. As can be seen from Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu [… Isaiah …] 11.1 and 60.21, inter alia, NeiꞋtzër referred more specifically to the basal-sucker offshoot(s) from the root or trunk of an olive tree—which stood around the mother tree like little sentry-guard(s)—and transplantable young green shoots sprouting from the trunk… used (according to the dictionaries) to weave wicker-baskets.” (not all Hebrew characters properly copied, see netzarim.co.il, glossary) (PM. Yirmeyahu also makes the subtle distinction between internal guarding (care) and external guarding (protect).)
(Neitzer / Netzarim / James the Just) versus (Notzrim / Christians)
There is also a non-accepted offshoot, the Hellenizing Jews, such as the Notzrim:
“No•tzᵊr•imꞋ; confinement or containment guards or keepers—guards or keepers who keep something in, plural); the singular noun is נוֹצֵר, also spelled נֹצֵר, (no•tzeirꞋ), meaning a “sentry,” and the sing. adj. is נוֹצְרִי (no•tzᵊr•iꞋ), from נָצַר (nâ•tzarꞋ; to guard as a sentry). These are also the Hebrew terms—used among Jews—for “Christian(s).” Contrast this term against neiꞋtzër and its cognate, Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ.” (netzarim.co.il, glossary) (Thus: offshoot → sentry → guard)
Thus, the Christians keep the Jews captive.
Note: if the Christians guard the Jews, by keeping them captive, then this would be care and not protection from outside dangers.
Theory of schisms
According to Yirmeyahu there are four relevant dates or periods with schisms with excommunications from accepted Judaism. One in 175-164 BC during the Seleucids (Jason / Jesus), one in 80 AD after the fall of Jerusalem with Paul and his Christians, one in 135 AD when Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, and then the period of Nicaea 325 AD.
“At that time [B.C.E. 2nd century], the prayer was known as the ‘[Bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ] to Him Who humbles the arrogant.’
(…) Ca. 80 C.E., 35 years after the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ kâ•reitꞋ of Paul the Hellenist Apostate, under Rab•ânꞋ Ja•mᵊl•iy•eilꞋ (“Gamliel II”), this malediction was invoked, yet again against the alienated Roman-collaborating Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ who, since the destruction of their Hellenized “Temple” and despite the Roman culpability (blamed on Pᵊrush•imꞋ intransigence, no doubt), increasingly closed ranks with their Hellenist Roman patrons – including, most likely especially, Paul the Hellenist Apostate.
(…) Roman gentiles achieved predominance over the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in 135 C.E., when the Hellenist Roman gentiles drove all of the Jews out of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. Especially thereafter, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ were confused with gentile Christians (probably due in large measure to followers of Paul the Hellenist Apostate) and suspected of collaborating with their Hellenist counterparts: the Roman occupiers.” (netzarim, glossary)
Jo(c)hanan ben Zak(k)ai and a 3rd Temple ?
Johanan ben Zakai (30-90 AD) in 70 AD let himself be smuggled out of Jerusalem in a coffin. He predicted Vespasian that the latter would be ruler, and was rewarded with the freedom to create the rabbinate tradition in Javne. However, JbZ did not say that that Vespasian was the messiah. He neither said that the Torah was invalid since someone not from David would rule Judah. JbZ copied Temple rites except for (major ?) sacrifices and it is said that on his deathbed he wished for the arrival of the true messiah.
“During the siege of Jerusalem in the Great Jewish Revolt, he argued in favour of peace; according to the Talmud, when he found the anger of the besieged populace to be intolerable, he arranged a secret escape from the city inside a coffin, so that he could negotiate with Vespasian (who, at this time, was still just a military commander). Yochanan correctly predicted that Vespasian would become Emperor, [PM: he might have heard about Josephus having made an earlier forecast / TC] and that the temple would soon be destroyed; in return, Vespasian granted Yochanan three wishes: the salvation of Yavne and its sages, the descendants of Rabban Gamliel, who was of the Davidic dynasty, and a physician to treat Rabbi Tzadok, who had fasted for 40 years to stave off the destruction of Jerusalem.
(..) More enigmatic were the Talmud’s record of his last words, which seem to relate to Jewish messianism: “prepare a throne for Hezekiah, the King of Judah, who is coming”” (wikipedia) (Later in 135 AD there was such a proclaimed messiah again.)
Rabbinate Judaism has been able to do without a Temple in Jerusalem. But the Torah would logically force them to wish for a king of David and a priest of Zadok in a Temple in Jerusalem. Unless they adhere to Gerizim.
Yemen, an archive for ancient fundamentalism, allows to recover Jesus
The Charlie Hebdo assassinations reminded of fundamentalism in Yemen. Yirmeyahu also found the Teimanim from Yemen who preserved the ancient Jewish “pristine tradition”.
Yirmeyahu rewrote the Gospel according to Matthew into a proper Judaic version (called NHM, order here). He suggests that the Teimanim provide a clue for some missing pieces to recover the true teachings of Jesus.
16th Pâ•qidꞋ YirmᵊyâhꞋu ha-Tza•diqꞋ [… thus 16th bishop Yirmeyahu the Sadducee or the Righteous … thus meaning himself …] had long recognized a gaping and glaring lacuna: While NHM had demonstrated that the structural framework of the life and teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa [… Jesus …] was Tor•âhꞋ, the Judaic literature had preserved very few clues about his interpretations of Oral Law (and the Christian-redacted, Hellenized Greek literature was apostate and misleading). The Judaic literature tells us primarily that he was a RibꞋi. [… from the period before the Rabbi’s …] Therefore he was a Pᵊrush•iꞋ [… Pharisee ….] and Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT then demonstrates that
- he taught that Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ (rather than the Qum•rânꞋ Ma•as•ëhꞋ [… practice … see Q4 MMT …] or the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ Χειρογραφον τοις Δογμασιν) was the authoritative Oral Law and
- his teachings, recorded in NHM, demonstrate that he was of the school of Beit Hi•leilꞋ. [… Hillel the Elder, deceased 10 AD …]
The lacuna, of course, is that many subsets of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ have subsequently evolved in the various Diaspora countries through assimilation (Ash•kᵊnazꞋi, Sᵊphârâd•iꞋ, Mi•zᵊrakhꞋi, etc.). The lacuna could only be restored authentically by retrieving and adopting the correct–most pristine–version of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ to fill the lacuna! This became his next project.
In 1998, while researching ancient Judaic music, Pâ•qidꞋ YirmᵊyâhꞋu discovered that the one Jewish community least affected and influenced by the outside world since the 1st century C.E., preserving the most pristine tradition of reciting Tor•âhꞋ and the most pristine reflection of 1st century Pᵊrush•iꞋ Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, are the Tei•mân•imꞋ. Pâ•qidꞋ YirmᵊyâhꞋu immediately determined to switch from the Ash•kᵊnazꞋim synagogues where he had been praying and searched for a Beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët Tei•mân•iꞋ, finding Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët Mo•rëshꞋët Âv•otꞋ – Yad Nâ•âm•iꞋ only a block from his home! How wondrously י--ה had worked! Pâ•qidꞋ YirmᵊyâhꞋu immediately applied for membership. After a meeting with their וַעַד during which he straightforwardly explained his positions, just as he had in Florida and to the Chief Rabbi. He was accepted and became a member of the עֲמֻתָּה. He and his family have prayed there regularly until 2012″. (website netzarim.co.il)
Torah tree, Jesus offshoot, and the false Jesus of the Christians
Yirmeyahu presents Jesus as a proper offshoot of Judaism (netzarim), and the apostle Paul as the apostate (notzrim, meaning guard):
The plural, Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, describes his original Pharisee Jewish followers, including the first 12, who were specifically identified in NT by the name Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (…).
The term NeiꞋtzër was displaced by apostate Hellenist Turkish-Jew, Paul‘s Χριστιανος and, later, the telltale terms in the Greek mss. were de-Judaized (Hellenized) by the post-135 CE Christian NT redactors —unsupported by LXX —to Ναζαρηνος
The plural, Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (referring to his followers), was de-Judaized (Hellenized) in the NT to Ναζωραιος (nazoraios) where it is clearly translated as “Nazarenes” in Ma•a•vârꞋ 24:5 (as well as confused, elsewhere, with Nazoraeans / Nazirites).
Thus, while the נְצָרִים continued to live harmoniously among their fellow Pharisee Jews, the נָצְרִים were Hellenist gentiles, outside and alien to the Pharisee Jews and understood by Pharisee Jews as gentile Hellenist sentries of the Hellenist Roman occupiers. (…) the נָצְרִים [… notzrim, Christian …] Church was the most bitter enemy of the נְצָרִים, (netzarim, nowadays led by bishop Yirmeyahu …] whom they loathed as Jews.” (netzarim.co.il, glossary netzarim)
Joshua / Jesus saves militarily and not spiritually
Yirmeyahu has a remarkable lemma in his glossary about Joshua / Jesus (יְהוֹשֻעַ). There is nothing in the Torah that forbids the defence against another country (or the Romans). Jesus’s name (Joshua) would indicate a military saviour (liberator), not a spiritual one:
“Yᵊho•shuꞋa; י--ה [is] national-salvation or military-salvation; contracted to the cognomen יְשוּעַ (YᵊshuꞋa), from the unused root verb יַשַׁע (to deliver nationally or militarily, to save nationally or militarily). This term is never used of the Hellenist (idolatrous) concept of “personal salvation” in the Bible or in Judaism. The verb is used in the hiph•ilꞋ: הוֹשִׁיעַ (ho•shiꞋa; he saved nationally or militarily, delivered nationally or militarily or came to the rescue nationally or militarily). The verb is used in the same sense as its English counterpart was used in the old west: “The calvary will save us”—except for Jews ha-Sheim will save us (nationally and militarily from our enemies). There is no support for the idolatrous “personal salvation” doctrine of Christianity. At the personal level there is, instead, ki•purꞋ—restricted to those who do their utmost to keep Tor•âhꞋ.
The book in Ta•na”khꞋ is named after Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Nun (Hellenized to ‘Joshua’). [… this refers to the Exodus when Joshua entered the Holy Land …]
‘Historical Yᵊho•shuꞋa‘ [… Jesus …] generally refers, by contrast, to the 1st-century human Jew, a pᵊrush•iꞋ RibꞋi, […Pharisee …] named Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ of Nâ•tzᵊr•atꞋ. Notice that even the name explicitly identifies Y–H, not Yᵊho•shuꞋa, as salvation! [… thus Yahweh is the saviour, not Jesus …] See Shᵊm•otꞋ 15.2; Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 12.1-4; 25.9; Yon•âhꞋ 2.10; Tᵊhil•imꞋ 3.9; 13.6; 14.7; 18.51; 21.6; 28.8; 53.7; 62.1-2, 7; 67.1-3; 68.20-21; 70.5-6; 74.12). His Mâ•shiꞋakh [.. .messiah …] is His agent, not the reverse; not the Provider of expiation. By means of the Mâ•shiꞋakh—His Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën–Yo•seiphꞋ Bën– Dâ•widꞋ (Tᵊhil•imꞋ 89:20-53)—י--ה provides expiation. Mâ•shiꞋakh is merely His instrument, symbol or illustration; as were the animal sacrifices.” (netzarim.co.il, glossary)
There is also the word salvation with two “synonyms” ransom and redemption:
שׁוּעָה (Yᵊshu•âhꞋ; salvation) is a fem. noun.
The Judaic meaning of יְשׁוּעָה relates to two associated synonyms:
פָּדָה (pâd•âhꞋ; ransom paid for the release of a living being),
גְאֻלָּה (gᵊul•âhꞋ) “is dependent upon תְּשׁוּבָה (tᵊshuv•âhꞋ) and performance of positive מִצווֹת (Mitz•wotꞋ) [Shab•âtꞋ 118b; Yom•âꞋ 86b; BB 10b; Sanh. 97b]” (“Redemption,” EJ, 14.1-2). Thus, gᵊul•âhꞋ is also dependent upon performance of the Mitz•wâhꞋ of צְדָקָה (tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ). (…) It is connected with family law and reflects the Israelite conception of the importance of preserving the solidarity of the clan.” (netzarim.co.il, glossary)
This reading relates to the legalistic approach of the Torah: if you stick to the law, then you ought to be safe. If you transgress, you pay a fine (ransom, redemption), and that is that. Sin isn’t a legal concept.
However, we established on Original Sin that the Torah implicitly has the notion. Especially in a period with expectations of the End of Time, people would be more sensitive for what would happen to them. Secondly, using Google translate, Hebrew does have words for sin and sacrifice:
We are reminded that Jesus was indicated in early writing also with symbols like IΣ (Iesous Soter), and that perhaps the first story about spiritual salvation was written in Greek, and later translated into Aramaic and Hebrew by a less professional translator. Or, someone is called Carpenter but is a shoe salesman. However, it would be ironic indeed when a teacher of love and forgiveness would have the name Marshall or Sargent.
Judaism and Jesus fit. Judaism (incl. Jesus) and Christianity don’t fit
Yirmeyahu arrives at a logical advice:
“Syncretizing selected elements of the Judaic concept of a Mâ•shiꞋakh with their native pagan mythology, Roman gentiles de-Judaized (Hellenized) ‘historical Yᵊho•shuꞋa‘ to a mythical and counterfeit, antinomian, antithetical man-G-o-d idol:
Ιησους ⇒ transliterated to Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ ⇒ Anglicized to Jesus (cf. Who Are the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ? (WAN) and The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhꞋu (NHM)). These two are mutually exclusive, diametric opposites. You cannot serve two masters. To believe in one necessarily constitutes rejection of the other.” (glossary Yehoshua)
But Yirmeyahu is too fast
This story sounds fairly consistent, but there is also the question why Jews don’t believe in Christ. That Jesus is the Son of God was made official by the Notzrim only in Nicaea in 325 AD. When we strip him of Paul’s meddling, the question is rather why not all Jews are netzarim ?
Rabbi Michael Skoba offers some answers but focused on messianism. On the more practical issue of Torah observence, he says:
“The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!”” (Rabbi Michael Skoba)
In various battles, the Romans attacked on the Sabbath, when observant Jewish warriors could not respond. Thus Jesus’s rejection of this rule would fit his military profile. It is difficult to judge Skoba’s “throughout” though. Some cases might derive from Paul. Apparently, Yirmeyahu was capable of rewriting the Gospel according to Matthew such that it fits the Torah. One wonders in which it differs.
Curiously the rabbi also says that he is waiting for the true messiah – with first everyone believing in the God of Israel and observing the Torah, and subsequently of course an unspecified Armageddon:
“The world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. (…) The Messiah can come any day, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: “Redemption will come today ― if you hearken to His voice.”” (Rabbi Michael Skoba)
And Armageddon it must be, for God’s Kingship will last only a single day. As the rabbi quotes:
“As it says: “God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9)”