I once ran into this guy whose family can prove they are descendants of one of the greatest sages from the Medieval period - Isaac Abarbanel. I just came across his company's site on the internet.
The Abarbanel family is one of the oldest and most distinguished Jewish Iberian families; they trace their origin from the biblical King David. Members of this family lived at Seville, where dwelt its oldest representative, Judah Abravanel
It might have passed most people's notice that as the whole Protestant world begins to celebrate the five hundredth year of the birth of John Calvin, the Jewish community just finished honoring the death of Calvin's nemesis throughout much of his Commentary on Daniel - Isaac Abarbanel.
Abarbanel was very interested in the messiah and as the Jewish Encyclopedia notes he wrote:
the following three works: "Ma'yene ha-Yeshu'ah" (Sources of Salvation), completed Dec. 6, 1496; "Yeshu'ot Meshiḥo" (The Salvation of His Anointed), completed Dec. 20, 1497; and "Mashmia' Yeshu'ah" (Proclaiming Salvation), completed Feb. 26, 1498—all of them devoted to the exposition of the Jewish belief concerning the Messiah and the Messianic age.
The first-named of these is in the form of a commentary upon Daniel, in which he controverts both the Christian exposition and the Jewish rationalism of this book. Curiously enough, in opposition to the Talmud and all later rabbinical tradition, he counts Daniel among the prophets, coinciding therein—but therein only—with the current Christian interpretation. He is impelled to this by the fact that Daniel furnishes the foundation for his Messianic theory. The remainder of his commentary is devoted to an exhaustive and caustic criticism of the Christian exposition.
The second work is probably unique in being an exposition of the doctrine concerning the Messiah according to the traditional testimony of Talmud and Midrash; it is valuable for its exhaustive treatment and clearness of presentation. Of no less importance is his third apologetic work, which contains a collection of all the Messianic passages of the Bible and their interpretations, in the course of which latter Abravanel very frequently attacks the Christian interpretation of these passages. It contains (pp. 32c-34b, ed. Amsterdam) a description of the Messianic age as conceived by the Jewish orthodoxy of the Middle Ages. These apologetic works of Abravanel were widely read by his coreligionists, as is evidenced by their frequent republication, and they contributed undoubtedly to the reassurance of many of his brethren as to a better future for Israel.
The point of course that sandwiched between the 500th anniversary of the death of Abarbanel, the champion of the traditional Jewish notion of Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel (2008) and the 500th anniversary of the birth of Calvin, his violent detractor, I wrote the Real Messiah.
While Abarbanel's commentary on Daniel has not been translated into English, it was widely read in the age and Calvin explicitly references Abaranel's transmission of the original beliefs of the Jews regarding Agrippa by saying:
[Daniel] next adds, The people shall return or be brought back, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and that, too, in the narrow limit of the times. Another argument follows, -- namely, after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be cut off. This the Jews understand of Agrippa, who certainly was cut off when Augustus obtained the empire. In this they seek only something to say; for all sound and sensible readers will be perfectly satisfied that they act without either judgment or shame, and vomit forth whatever comes into their thoughts. They are quite satisfied when they find anything plausible to say. That trifler, Barbinel, of whom I have previously spoken, thinks Agrippa has just as much right to be called a Christ as Cyrus; he allows his defection to the Romans, but states it to have been against his will, as he was still a worshipper of God. Although he was clearly an apostate, yet he treats him as by no means worse than all the rest, and for this reason he wishes him to be called the Christ. But, first of all, we know Agrippa not to have been a legitimate king, and his tyranny was directly contrary to the oracle of Jacob, since the scepter had been snatched away from the tribe of Judah. (Genesis 49:10.) He cannot by any means be called Christ, even though he had surpassed all angels in wisdom, and virtue, and power, and everything else. Here the lawful government of the people is treated, and this will not be found in the person of Agrippa. Hence the Jewish arguments are altogether futile. Next, another statement is added, he shall confirm the treaty with many. The Jews elude the force of this clause very dishonestly, and without the slightest shame. They twist it to Vespasian and Titus. Vespasian had been sent into Syria and the East by Nero. It is perfectly true, that though a wish to avoid a severe slaughter of his soldiers, he tried all conditions of peace, and enticed the Jews by every possible inducement to give themselves up to him, rather than to force him to the last extremity. Truly enough, then, Vespasian exhorted the Jews to peace, and Titus, after his father had passed over to Italy, followed the same policy; but was this confirming the covenant? When the angel of God is treating events of the last importance, and embracing the whole condition of the Church, their explanation is trifling who refer it to the Roman leaders wishing to enter into a treaty with the people. They attempted either to obtain possession of the whole empire of the East by covenant, or else they determined to use the utmost force to capture the city. This explanation, then, is utterly absurd. It is quite clear that the Jews are not only destitute of all reason when they explain this passage of the continual wrath of God, and exclude his favor and reconciliation with the people, but they are utterly dishonest, and utter words without shame, and throw a mist over the passage to darken it. At the same time their vanity is exposed, as they have no pretext for their comments.
I now come to the Ancient Writers. Jerome, as I stated shortly yesterday, recites various opinions. But before I treat them singly, I must answer in few words, the calumny of that impure and obstinate Rabbi Barbinel. To deprive the Christians of all confidence and authority, he objects to their mutual differences; as if differences between men not sufficiently exercised in the Scriptures, could entirely overthrow their truth. Suppose, for instance, that I were to argue against him, the absence of consent among the Jews themselves. If any one is anxious to collect their different opinions, he may exult as a conqueror in this respect, as there is no agreement between the Rabbis. Nay, he does not point out the full extent of the differences which occur among Christians, for I am ready to concede far more than he demands. For that brawler was ignorant of all things, and betrays only petulance and talkativeness. His books are doubtless very plausible among the Jews who seek nothing else. But he takes as authorities with us, Africanus and Nicolaus de Lyra, Burgensis, and a certain teacher named Remond. He is ignorant of the names of Eusebius, [119] Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Apollinaris, Jerome, Augustine, and other similar writers. We here perceive how brazen this prater is, who dares to babble about matters utterly beyond his knowledge. But as I have stated, I allow many differences among Christians. Eusebius himself agrees with the Jews in referring the word "Christ" to the priests, and when the angel speaks of the death of Christ, he thinks the death of Aristobulus, who was slain, is intended here. But this is altogether foolish. He is a Christian, you will say; true, but he fell into ignorance and error. The opinion of Africanus is more to the point, but the time by no means accords with that of Darius the son of Hystaspes, as I shall afterwards show. He errs again on another chapter, by taking the years to be lunar ones, as Lyranus does. Without doubt, this was only a cavil of his; through not finding their own years suit, they thought the whole number might be made up, by using intercalary years together with the 490. For before the year was adjusted to the course of the sun, the ancients were accustomed to reckon twelve lunar months, and afterwards to add another. The whole number of years may be made up according to their imagination, if we add those additional periods to the years here enumerated by the Prophet. But I reject this altogether. Hippolytus also errs in another direction; for he reckons the seven weeks as the time which elapsed between the death and resurrection of Christ, and herein he agrees with the Jews. Apollinaris also is mistaken, for he thinks we must begin at Christ's birth, and then extends the prophecy to the end of the world. Eusebius also, who contends with him in a certain passage, takes the last week for the whole period which must elapse till the end of the world shall arrive. I therefore am ready to acknowledge all these interpretations to be false, and yet I do not allow the truth of God to fail. [Calvin Lecture 50 on Daniel]
Of course I have just shown in a previous post that not only Julius Africanus but Origen too knew of a Jewish history (undoubtedly a version of Josephus very close to the Yosippon) which explicitly referenced Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel but also as the fulfillment of Gen 49.10.
The point is that Protestants act as if Calvin 'won' the debate. But why then does the ancient tradition of the Jewish sages (Gaon through modern examples) which preserves Agrippa as the messiah of Israel actually AGREE with the earliest Church Fathers AGAINST Calvin and Luther?
It is because Calvin and Luther were heretics and the Jewish tradition ACTUALLY PRESERVES A COMMON TRADITION REGARDING THE "REAL MESSIAH" ...
In short, in the period 70 - 100 AD there was no 'Judaism,' there was no 'Christianity' as we now know it (viz. the exclusive religious veneration of Jesus Christ). There was simply a secret Palestinian tradition shared by Jews, Samaritans and proselytes which venerated Mark through his gospel as the true messiah of Israel.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
