Vatican Says Jews' Wait For Messiah Is Validated by Old Testament

VATICAN CITY, Jan. 17 — The Vatican has issued what some Jewish scholars are calling an important document that explicitly says, "The Jewish wait for the Messiah is not in vain."

The scholarly work, effectively a rejection of and apology for the way some Christians have viewed the Old Testament, was signed by the pope's theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The document says Jews and Christians in fact share the wait for the Messiah, though Jews are waiting for the first coming, and Christians for the second.

"The difference consists in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the same traits of that Jesus who has already come," wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

At least one Jewish scholar said the new document is a marked departure from "Dominus Iesus," a study of the redemptive role of Jesus that was released last year in Cardinal Ratzinger's name and that fanned disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.

The new document also says Catholics must regard the Old Testament as "retaining all of its value, not just as literature, but its moral value," said Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the pope's spokesman. "You cannot say, `Now that Jesus has come, it becomes a second-rate document.' "

"The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament," he went on, "and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right."

Asked whether that could be taken to mean that the Messiah may or may not have come, Dr. Navarro- Valls said no. "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew," he said.

The document, the result of years of work by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, goes on to apologize for the fact that certain New Testament passages that criticize the Pharisees, for example, had been used to justify anti-Semitism.

Everything in the report is now considered part of official church doctrine, Dr. Navarro-Valls said.

The Rev. Albert Vanhoye, a Jesuit scholar who worked on the commission, said the project sees Scripture as a link between Christians and Jews, and the New Testament as a continuation of the Old, though divergent in obvious ways.

A number of Jewish scholars and leaders said they were pleased but stunned and would have to take some time to digest fully the complicated, 210-page study, published in French and Italian.

"This is something altogether new, especially compared with the earlier document from Ratzinger that was so controversial," said Rabbi Alberto Piattelli, a professor and leader of the Jewish community in Rome.

"This latest declaration is a step forward" in closing the wounds opened by that earlier document, Rabbi Piattelli said. "It recognizes the value of the Jewish position regarding the wait for the Messiah, changes the whole exegesis of biblical studies and restores our biblical passages to their original meaning. I was surprised."

Prof. Michael R. Marrus, dean of graduate studies at the University of Toronto, who specializes in the history of the Holocaust, was also complimentary. Professor Marrus was among the Jewish members of a panel studying the Vatican's role in the Holocaust, but the group was disbanded after disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.

"This is important," he said, "and all the more so because it comes from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is not considered the most liberal spokesman for the church. It represents real and remarkable progress on the Catholic-Jewish front," even as the dispute over the Catholic Church's wartime history seems to be hardening, he added.

At least initially, the only voices of dissent were on the Catholic side, where some traditionalists said they felt the church under Pope John Paul II had done altogether too much apologizing already.

Vittorio Messori, a Catholic writer and commentator, said he respects the pope but "his apologies leave me perplexed."

"He's inspired and has his reasons," Mr. Messori said, "but what's dangerous in these apologies is that he seems to say the church itself has been wrong in its teaching," rather than just some within the church.

The oddest thing about the document from the Jewish perspective is that it was so quietly released. It has been in bookstores here since November, but as a small book titled "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible," it drew no notice until the Italian news agency ANSA printed a small report on it Wednesday.

Tullia Zevi, a longtime Jewish community leader and commentator here, said: "The widespread opinion on the document is that it's trying to question the validity of past attitudes of the church, and seems an attempt to move us closer to together. So why was such an important document kept secret?"

One possibility, she said, was that the church was trying to avoid criticism within its own ranks.

Vatican officials, however, say it was not announced because it was seen mainly as a theological study intended for other theologians.

The Vatican is governed by tradition and habit, and is thus quite able to keep silent about even important new policies. In December, for example, word emerged without fanfare of new rules on the treatment of priests accused of pedophilia.

Andrea Riccardi, the founder of the Sant'Egidio Community, a left- leaning Catholic group with a history of mediating international conflicts and promoting religious dialogue, said he was most impressed by the depth of the new document.

"This should be reassuring" to Jews, he said, "especially because these last years have not been easy."

He said the document in no way backtracks from "Dominus Iesus" ("The Lord Jesus"), but does represent a significant shift.

"In the past, we've talked about an ancient, common heritage," he said. "But now, for the first time, we're talking about our future waiting for the Messiah and the end of time."

Somewhere in history there could be and probably is a decree from Ezra or the elders or the Jewish governor of Judea around 453BC authorizing the building of Jerusalem with the funds left over from Artaxerxes' 458 BC decree.

Actually, this is in fact the content of Artaxerxes 1st decree...see Ezra 7:14 "14 You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand"

I construe "in your hand" to mean 'up to you', 'under your control', 'as you see fit'...similar to what we mean when we say Cyrus (for example) came to be king over Babylon 'by his own hand'.

I'm also leery of relying on extra-biblical 'decrees' to make God's case.

Regarding a crucifixion year of 31 AD, one of the key pivot points in any timeline will be was crucifixion on a thursday (john) or friday (synoptics) and in what years did Passover fall on Thursday or Friday.

Of what significance is "The astrological chart showing that the Sun was in Virgo moon under the feet on Sept 11"? That word 'astrological' gives me pause.

Meant to also add, regarding the construction of a timeline of the 69 weeks, that it was to the coming of an anointed one, not to their cutting off, though it followed. I think the timeline pivots on either a birth or an anointing/baptism.

The intellectual steps we ought to pursue are:
1) establish a timeline that fits the pivotal points (decree, anointing), as these are explicitly dated events.
2) establish additional best-fit timepoints for birth, ministry, crucifixion, as these are undated, but implied.

As soon as I finished writing the previous post, the following came to mind.:

Daniel is 9:25 says that from the commandment to the Messiah Prince will be 49 + 62 septads. He doesn't say that is measured to the date that he is cut off, but only to his coming. Measuring from 458 BC, assuming a 3 BC birthdate, 483 years brings us to 26 AD which is Jesus' 30th birthday when he could legally assume the office of Messiah. The 483 years is measured from the date of the commandment [458BC] to his "coming" or 30th birthday [26AD].

Now Daniel in the following verse [26] says that after 62 septads [434 years] he will be "cut off". These 434 years appear to be measured from the words that precede it: "the wall and streets shall be built". In other words, 434 years from the completion of the wall and the streets. The wall took only 52 days but the streets probably could not be completed until after the buildings were finished. If it took until 404 BC to complete the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which is more than likely, then the 62 septads measured from there would take us to 31 AD and the date of the "cutting off" of the Messiah.

Perhaps then, the 458 BC date is correct taking us in 483 years to the 30th birthday of Jesus in 26 AD [the coming of the Messiah the Prince], and the 404 BC is the date when the building of Jerusalem was finished, with the Messiah who had come then being cut off 434 years later [31 AD].

This could be the correct interpretation and the reconciling of Daniel with historically-accepted dates and existing documentation.

Godspeed WK was rebuiltit may have first numbers are to his coming, the second

The word "astrological" gives me pause as well, but John's description of the Woman who gives birth in Revelation as being in the heavens is, according to one of your links, that astrological sign of Virgo which was over Jerusalem from August 15 to October 1 of 3 BC -- for what it is worth.

The 483 years measured from 458 probably takes us to Jesus' 30th [at 26 AD] not his baptism which probably came later in his 30th year which would have been into 27 AD. It may have been just before his 31st birthday.

458 BC -- 404 BC -- 3 BC -- 26AD -- 27AD -- 31 AD. These could be the right numbers.

I see you're trying to find some significance to the 1st 7 weeks, which ought to be significant, given the way it was stated.

However, if you agree with the timeline I layed out, the two endpoints cannot be budged more than a year at either end, or the math fails (or you're forced to reconstrue the decree or the anointing). Artaxerxes 1st decree to Ezra in 458 is one endpoint, and the 'coming' of an Anointed Prince 483 years later is the other. At the other (2nd) endpoint, an anointing or coming must be reasonably construed. A mere birthday I don't think would suffice, nor would crucifixion (a cutting off).

So Christ's baptism seems the 2nd endpoint.

All else of significance about '7 weeks' needs to be layed out within those endpoints. But unlike the 70th week, you can't separate the two periods. They must be contiguous, else they won't add up to 483 years because then one endpoint will be off. So while I see what you're trying to achieve with the 404 BC, I think mathematically it should be 458-49 = 409 BC, or less obvious would be to reverse the sequence as 62 weeks + 7weeks would imply 458 - 434 = 24 BC...but scripturally I have to dispute that interpretation.

You might try searching for events in 411-407 BC range, and if you find one then try to confirm any significance against scripture, then try to re-confirm or refine the estimation of the date to more like 409 BC...assuming it isn't reliably fixed.

A number of Jewish scholars and leaders said they were pleased but stunned and would have to take some time to digest fully the complicated, 210-page study, published in French and Italian.

The oddest thing about the document from the Jewish perspective is that it was so quietly released. It has been in bookstores here since November, but as a small book titled "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible," it drew no notice until the Italian news agency ANSA printed a small report on it Wednesday.

Help, please?

I have been searching for this book "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible," but can not find it. I find many news reports about but can't find it available for sale, nor online.

Could someone knowledgeable in obtaining Vatican publications point me to where it's available in English, ideally online, else as hardcopy for purchase?

I'm somewhat guessing at your interest and background, and I apologize for my presumptions. Perhaps you could ping someone else on my behalf?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.