Ancient Jewish Sources On Praying To Saints And Angels

For many years now, advocates of prayer to saints and angels have been citing an article by Meir Bar-Ilan that discusses ancient Jewish belief in prayer to sources other than God. You can read that article here. But Bar-Ilan also mentions other ancient Jewish sources who advocated praying only to God. And he says that their belief was earlier and Biblical. For example:

Fulfilled Prophecy As A Down Payment

I've discussed the prophecies of Isaiah in some recent posts. Something that's significant about Isaiah is how it combines so many prophecies that have already been fulfilled and so many that haven't been. And they're often in close proximity.

Isaiah's Greater Servant

I've written a lot over the years about Isaiah's Messianic prophecies. See here on Isaiah 9:1-7 and here on the Servant Songs, for example.

One of the most common objections to a traditional Christian view of the latter, the Servant Songs, is that Israel or a remnant in Israel could be the Servant or is referred to as the Servant elsewhere in Isaiah. Why not interpret the Servant Songs that way? Why think they're about Jesus or have any kind of significant secondary application to him?

One answer is to highlight something in the objection that's being raised. Why refer to Israel or a remnant within Israel? Partly because different Servant passages seem to be referring to different entities. So, the idea that there's one entity the other Servant passages are consistently referring to, and we therefore should assume the passages Christians apply to Jesus are also about that one other entity, is false. A good way of illustrating that fact is to cite the reference to Isaiah as "my [God's] servant" in 20:3 (or the reference to David in that manner in 37:35, etc.). The Servant theme is prominent in Isaiah (which is more evidence for the unity of the book), and it's undeniably applied to at least a few different entities.

I've argued for Jesus' fulfillment of the passages often referred to as the Servant Songs elsewhere, like in the posts linked above. I won't repeat all of the details here, but something I want to highlight is how stark the differences are between the Servant Songs, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the Servant passages immediately surrounding the Servant Songs. Notice the plural "men" in 41:14, the plural "people" in 42:22 and "we" in 42:24, the references to the sinfulness of the Servant in 42:18-25, the same characteristics in 43:8-28, 44:21-23, 45:4-5, etc. In fact, the Servant Songs refer to some other Servant who will redeem the Servant referred to earlier (e.g., 49:5-7), as I've argued in posts like the ones linked earlier.

The title of this post is meant to allude to the concept of the Messiah as David's greater son. Isaiah has a concept of a Servant who's greater than the others.

Is Psalm 22 Messianic?

A common objection to Christian arguments for prophecy fulfillment is that the Old Testament passages don't identify themselves as Messianic. But they wouldn't have to in order to have evidential significance.

Prophecy fulfillment can have evidential value without the prophecy being Messianic, explicitly identifying itself as Messianic, or anything like that. The Messianic nature of a passage can be implicit rather than explicit. And a passage doesn't have to be Messianic to provide evidence for Christianity. Christians consider Jesus the Messiah, but there are many subcategories to the category of Messiah. A prophecy could refer to one of those subcategories without addressing the larger category. And, from a Christian perspective, Jesus is more than the Messiah. So, Messianic prophecy isn't all that's relevant.

With Psalm 22, what we have is a psalm that's attributed to David, but we don't know of anything in David's life that even comes close to fulfilling the passage, and the contents of the psalm are of such a nature that they're highly unlikely to have happened in David's life in some context that's not part of any of our extant records of his life. Then we have the fact that David is often assigned a lot of Messianic significance elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as being an ancestor of the Messiah. And the geographical and chronological influence of the figure in the psalm (verses 27-31) suggests a highly significant and influential individual. That doesn't require a Messianic understanding of the psalm, but a Messianic fulfillment helps make sense of those closing verses. It adds coherence to the psalm. Furthermore, we know that a later figure widely considered the Messiah, Jesus, died in a manner that aligns well with the psalm and was thought to have experienced a deliverance from that death (his resurrection). The themes of death and deliverance from it are prominent elsewhere in material Christians (and others) have argued is Messianic elsewhere in the Old Testament, and the psalm fits well with those passages (as discussed here, for example). For reasons like these, it makes sense to consider the passage Messianic, though implicitly rather than explicitly.

That's a secondary issue, though. The psalm doesn't have to be considered Messianic in order for Jesus' fulfillment of it to be evidentially valuable. Even if you identify the figure in the passage as a highly influential Jewish individual or whatever else other than calling him the Messiah, Jesus' alignment with the passage makes more sense as something supernatural than something natural. That's the primary issue, not whether the psalm should be categorized as Messianic.

If Jesus was born outside Bethlehem, would the ancient sources be so unsupportive of that conclusion?

Critics of the Bethlehem birthplace often act as if they're confident that Jesus wasn't born there or that he was born in Nazareth instead. I've addressed their arguments many times, such as in the posts collected here. The article here argues for the likelihood that the early Christians and their opponents had access to reliable information on Jesus' birthplace and the likelihood that they obtained that information. For a brief overview of the evidence for the Bethlehem birthplace, do a Ctrl F search on "shows" here and go to the last hyphenated section here for information on ancient non-Christian sources. What I want to focus on in this post is something I wrote in a Facebook thread a few years ago. This is about whether evidence was lost or suppressed for a false date Jesus and the early Christians had set for the second coming. The same principles can be applied to the notion that Jesus was born outside Bethlehem, but that the evidence for that birthplace was lost or suppressed:

Abraham In Matthew 1 And The Virgin Birth

One of the problems with the popular claim that the concept of a virgin birth was borrowed from paganism is that it would be so easy for anybody to come up with the idea without doing any borrowing. And pushing the earlier virgin birth claim into paganism just pushes the question back a step. Where did the initial pagan source get the idea? If pagans could come up with it without borrowing, so could Jews, including the early Christians.

The first two verses of Matthew mention Abraham. And verse 2 mentions his begetting of Isaac. That was a miraculous conception, though not a virginal one. Matthew may have begun his genealogy with Abraham because Abraham is the father of the Jewish people. Or he may have started the genealogy with Abraham because of the similarity between the miraculous conception of Isaac and the miraculous conception of Jesus. Or starting with Abraham may have been chosen for both reasons. Whatever the case, the opening two verses of Matthew's gospel illustrate how easily a virgin birth claim could originate without any significant influence from paganism. It's not much of a step from Isaac's miraculous conception to the miraculous conception of Jesus. And the remainder of Matthew's gospel is highly Jewish and anti-pagan.

First-Century Jewish Sources On Jesus In Justin Martyr

Some of my posts in recent months have been discussing Tom Schmidt's new book on Josephus and Jesus. What Schmidt addresses in that book should be supplemented by what Justin Martyr tells us about early Jewish reactions to Christianity, such as Jewish corroboration of the empty tomb. As I discussed in a post several years ago, Justin cites what seems to be a first-century Jewish source (commenting on other first-century Jewish sources). What Justin tells us there and elsewhere corroborates much of what Schmidt argues in his book.

Josephus' Potential Sources On Jesus

What's quoted below is from Tom Schmidt's recent book on Jesus in Josephus. This is an overview of Josephus' potential sources from whom he got his information about Jesus. The cumulative effect is especially significant. How likely is it that somebody would live where Josephus lived, have the parents Josephus had, know the other people Josephus knew, etc., yet not learn anything about Jesus from any of those non-Christian sources or only receive information that was false or unreliable? It seems very likely that Josephus got reliable information about Jesus from multiple non-Christian sources on multiple occasions. Schmidt writes:

Non-Christian Corroboration Of Early Christian Miracles

"In fact, Jewish sources otherwise critical of Jesus repeatedly admit that he did work what we would call ‘miracles’. We see this most strikingly in the ‘Jew of Celsus’ (c.150 ce) who says that Jesus did perform παράδοξα, using the precise word deployed by the TF [Josephus' primary passage about Jesus]. Justin the Martyr further says that Jews believed Jesus worked miracles by magic, and a similar claim is time and again lodged against Jesus by Jewish authorities in the Gospels themselves. The Babylonian Talmud also criticizes Jesus ‘because he practiced sorcery’ (שכישף). And the Jerusalem Talmud states that Jesus’ followers could heal in his name, yet it still cautions faithful Jews not to be persuaded by them. The versions of the Jewish Toledot Yeshu (second–fifth centuries), an early account of Jesus, are highly critical of him, yet records all sorts of miracles that Jesus worked including even raising the dead. Likewise, a second- or third-century Jewish-Christian document, perhaps called the Ascents of James, reports that Jews would accuse Jesus of performing miracles like a sorcerer might do. Pagan sources also spoke similarly, as with the Milesian Apollo, who acknowledged that Jesus did ‘miraculous deeds’ (τερατώδεσιν ἔργοις) and the anti-Christian writer, Porphyry, effectively agrees....Porphyry admits that the apostles did miracles (Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo 81; found in Morin vol. 3.2 p. 80 lines 21–2). Similarly, Arnobius engages with an opponent who alleges that Jesus worked miracles through the knowledge of secret, magical arts or because he was a kind of demigod of old; see respectively Arnobius, Against the Nations 1.43, 53, and 1.48–9." (T.C. Schmidt, Josephus And Jesus [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2025], 74 and n. 85 on 74)

There are other examples that could be cited. Schmidt's book is about Josephus, and he argues that Josephus corroborates Jesus' miracles. I've discussed other examples not mentioned by Schmidt elsewhere, like here and here. Notice the diversity of sources: mainstream Christian, schismatic, heretical, Jewish, and pagan.

Another category that should be taken into account is prophecy fulfillment. It's distinct from what Schmidt is addressing, but is relevant to non-Christian corroboration of early Christian miracles. Many ancient non-Christian sources corroborated facts of history related to Christianity that line up well with Old Testament prophecy: the timing of Jesus' life (in connection with Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy), the Bethlehem birthplace (in connection with Micah 4-5), the penal practices of the Roman empire (crucifixion and various practices associated with it in connection with passages like Psalm 22 and the third Servant Song in Isaiah 50), the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (in connection with Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy), etc. We've discussed such prophecies, their fulfillment, and non-Christian corroboration of the fulfillment, like in the posts gathered here. As with the sort of miracles Schmidt is focused on, the corroboration here comes from a large number and variety of sources, from the first century onward.

The Diversity Of The Empty Tomb Sources

I've argued elsewhere that the empty tomb was affirmed not just by the early Christians, but also by both their early Jewish opponents and their early Gentile opponents. In the post just linked, I argue for Justin Martyr's citation of a first-century Jewish source corroborating the empty tomb, and I discuss some other significant material in Justin. I've also written, here, about the tenacity of the Jewish corroboration, so that it persisted well beyond the time of the apostles and adapted to ongoing circumstances. The original Jewish explanation of the empty tomb, that Jesus' disciples stole the body, made far more sense early on than it did later. So, though some Jews continued to use the explanation that the disciples stole the body, others developed another argument, that a gardener took the body.

Not only are these large groups affirming the empty tomb diverse (Christians, non-Christian Jews, pagans), but there had to be a diversity of individuals within each of these groups. Paul was a former Pharisee and persecutor of Christians, and he would have had a substantial amount of knowledge of what non-Christian Jews knew about and were saying about the empty tomb. James would have had the knowledge of a family member who had close connections to other relatives of Jesus. If Jesus had received some other sort of burial than what the early Christians reported, such as being placed in some kind of family tomb, James would have been in a good position to know it. The Jewish leaders who had spent years working against Jesus and had arranged to have him crucified surely would have monitored what was going on and would have formulated a response to ongoing circumstances. Or think of Pilate's involvement in the events surrounding Jesus' death, including the entombing of the body and what happened immediately thereafter. Pilate not only had an opportunity to shape both Jewish and Gentile non-Christian views on these subjects, but also may have kept a relevant written record of some kind.

Even if one or more sources like the ones just mentioned were apathetic, careless, or some such thing, it's unlikely that all of them were and that they all erred in the same direction. The best explanation for such widespread affirmation of the empty tomb is that the tomb was empty.

The Empty Tomb And Affirmation Of It Didn't Occur In An Apathetic Context

I've sometimes come across people who argue that the early corroboration of the empty tomb by non-Christian sources doesn't have much significance, since they may have corroborated it out of apathy. They uncritically accepted what Christians told them.

One of the problems with that sort of explanation is that the context surrounding Jesus' placement in the tomb isn't one of apathetic opposition to Christianity. How did Jesus' body get in the tomb to begin with? You don't arrange to get somebody crucified, then carry out the crucifixion, then proceed with the sort of persecution of Christians that we see reflected in Paul's life (his initial life as a persecutor and the persecution he experienced later as a Christian) if you're apathetic about that crucified individual and his followers. Apathy doesn't sit well with the crucifixion or other aspects of early Christian history. One way to summarize this point in your thinking is to consider the empty tomb as in the middle of a chronological spectrum. Just before it, you have the crucifixion. Just after it, you have the early persecution of Christians, as illustrated in the life of Saul of Tarsus. It doesn't make much sense to think there was apathy in the middle of the spectrum, surrounded by so much non-apathy on both sides.

Furthermore, it's not as though affirmation of the empty tomb would be the only option for people who were apathetic, lazy, or some such thing. You could just be agnostic (e.g., Matthew 21:27, John 9:29).

The best explanation for why the empty tomb was affirmed by both the early Christians and their early opponents (both Jewish and Gentile opponents, as my article linked above argues) is that the tomb was empty.

Jesus' Fulfillment Of Psalm 22

One For Israel recently produced a video on Psalm 22 that makes a lot of good points. One of the issues that comes up is Jesus' use of the "brothers" language in the resurrection accounts, which probably was influenced by Psalm 22. For more on that issue, see my post here. And here's an overview of Psalm 22 that I wrote several years ago. It covers some issues not addressed in One For Israel's video. And the video covers some material I didn't discuss, so I recommend watching it and reading my two posts linked above. We should keep in mind that, under normal circumstances, a document written several centuries before the closing of the B.C. era shouldn't have been able to anticipate so many details of such unusual penal practices that would be implemented by the Roman empire and the results that would follow from one of its executions, with such close alignment with other prophecies (Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy, Isaiah's Servant Songs, etc.).

Why wasn't early Christian eschatology criticized more?

In my last post, I argued that the earliest opponents of Christianity don't seem to have thought that Jesus and his followers falsely predicted the timing of his second coming. That raises the question of why they didn't make that accusation. Modern critics of Christianity frequently make the accusation that Jesus, Paul, and the early Christians in general set a false date for Jesus' return. Why would there be such a difference between Christianity's earliest opponents and its modern critics?

Enoch In Heaven In Genesis 5:24

Since it's common to question or deny belief in an afterlife in early Judaism, we should keep in mind that an afterlife and significantly related concepts, such as the existence of heaven, are often implied where they're not spelled out (e.g., passages forbidding attempts to contact the dead). An example too seldom discussed is Enoch in Genesis 5:24.

For confirmation that something other than death is being referred to, see the many references to other individuals dying in Genesis 5, in contrast to what's said about Enoch. And notice the emphasis on how Enoch "walked with God", which implies that he would therefore receive favorable treatment. The language of being "taken" is more naturally interpreted as referring to ongoing existence elsewhere rather than ceasing to exist, and ceasing to exist after a shorter lifespan than so many other figures of that era doesn't make sense as a form of favorable treatment. The later taking of Elijah to heaven without dying shows that such a concept was known in ancient Jewish thought. And as far as I know, later accounts of what happened to Enoch suggest that his going to heaven was the most widespread interpretation of the Genesis passage. The text isn't as explicit as we'd like it to be, but an interpretation involving Enoch's going to heaven makes the most sense.

Does the Old Testament anticipate two comings of the Messiah?

Here's a good video by Michael Brown on the subject. I'd add that the Christian understanding of two comings makes more sense of the stone that gradually grows to cover the earth in Daniel 2:35, the figure who already has enemies on earth and is waiting with God in heaven for the subjection of those enemies in Psalm 110:1, and the coming of God in power after having been pierced by his people in Zechariah 12:10.

Support For Christianity From Ancient Non-Christian Sources

A decade ago, I collected some links to many of Triablogue's articles on corroboration of Christianity from ancient non-Christian sources. I recently updated the post. Some links have been added, and some have been changed. I've also revised the text below the links.

How can Jesus see seed in Isaiah 53:10?

Michael Brown just posted a good video on the subject. He's responding to Tovia Singer, and one of the points Brown makes is that Singer not only neglects some points Christians have made about the passage, but also neglects what other Jewish sources have said on these issues. I made the same point in an exchange I had with Singer in one of his YouTube threads last year. (You can find other responses to Singer in our archives.)

For more about the Suffering Servant prophecy and the Servant Songs in general, see here.

Problems With Transubstantiation In The Last Supper's Context

Mike Winger just posted a good video on the subject. And here's a post in which I discuss some other problems with transubstantiation in the earliest Christian contexts. On later sources, see here.

A Response To Tovia Singer On Isaiah 9

He recently posted a video on the subject that's already gotten more than five thousand views and a lot of comments. I've posted a response in the comments thread, in which I address the claim that the verses should be translated with a past tense that undermines Jesus' fulfillment of the passage, the idea that Hezekiah fulfilled it, and some other issues. The replies I've gotten so far aren't of much significance. My web browsers aren't showing my comments after my original post unless I'm logged into my Google account. I don't know why or whether that's normal. But I didn't say a lot in those other comments, since there isn't much to respond to. If you want to read what I wrote in my later comments, you may have to be logged into a Google account.

The Perennial Jewish Corroboration Of Christianity

What's below are some comments from Augustine on Jewish corroboration of Christianity. Notice that he was writing about 1600 years ago and that his comments are applicable to every century of the church's history. We're sometimes told that people didn't have much evidence for Christianity during most of church history, as if people had little evidence for the religion between the earliest years of the history of the church and the modern era. Supposedly, recent developments in fields like archeology and historical scholarship have brought about a major change. Those who lived in the medieval era, for example, allegedly didn't have much evidence to go by. It's true that they had significantly less evidence than we have, but they had more than is often suggested. Augustine is addressing a significant line of evidence for Christianity that's existed throughout church history:

"Indeed, it is a great confirmation of our faith that such important testimony is borne by enemies. The believing Gentiles cannot suppose these testimonies to Christ to be recent forgeries; for they find them in books held sacred for so many ages by those who crucified Christ, and still regarded with the highest veneration by those who every day blaspheme Christ. If the prophecies of Christ were the production of the preachers of Christ, we might suspect their genuineness. But now the preacher expounds the text of the blasphemer. In this way the Most High God orders the blindness of the ungodly for the profit of the saint, in His righteous government bringing good out of evil, that those who by their own choice live wickedly may be, in His just judgment, made the instruments of His will. So, lest those that were to preach Christ to the world should be thought to have forged the prophecies which speak of Christ as to be born, to work miracles, to suffer unjustly, to die, to rise again, to ascend to heaven, to publish the gospel of eternal life among all nations, the unbelief of the Jews has been made of signal benefit to us; so that those who do not receive in their heart for their own good these truths, carry, in their hands for our benefit the writings in which these truths are contained. And the unbelief of the Jews increases rather than lessens the authority of the books, for this blindness is itself foretold. They testify to the truth by their not understanding it. By not understanding the books which predict that they would not understand, they prove these books to be true." (Reply To Faustus The Manichaean, 16:21)