This writer appreciates creative satire as much as anyone, but well-informed creative satire is much more appreciated. An article I was asked to look at entitled "New Ancient Document Found" -- authored John Tvedtnes of the Mormon research organization FARMS, as a response to a work entitled The Mormon Puzzle -- -- fits the former category barely and the latter category not at all.

Written as a letter from a mid-first century rabbi to his fellow Jews (somewhat in the manner of my fictional futurist Phonias J. Futz), it is a warning to Jews to watch out for the Christians and how they foul up things so much. Clever, but not clever enough. Funny, but for the errors mixed in with the viables. In several cases the author has undoubtedly accurately captured what would have been Jewish responses (by some Jews, at least) to Christianity in the first century -- the NT tells us as much. But he has also made rather a lot of mistakes in his effort which detracts from the force of his presentation.

The item beings thusly, with an introduction from the "actual" author:

I recently discovered a mid-first century document, 'Solving the Christian Puzzle,' written by Rabbi Yohanan bar Alcalai, and have taken the liberty of translating it from the original Hebrew.

I have a minor nitpick: Any mid-first century rabbi would be familiar with Hebrew, but any sort of letter distributed to the masses (as we shall see this letter would suppose to be) would not be written in Hebrew at all, but in the language of the common people of the time -- Aramaic. Hebrew was a sort of "special" language reserved for high-level religious work (like the OT!). Moving on:

You've probably had Christians come around to your door, wanting to engage you in 'discussion' about their faith. And maybe, as a good Jew, you've let them in the door. They seem to be nice young men, well-dressed, well-mannered. They may even speak Hebrew or Aramaic, and they may carry the Bible under their arms, but don't be deceived -- they are NOT Jewish. Christianity is an insidious cult that seeks to tear real adherents of Judaism away from Moses and the Bible.

We have to laugh indeed -- at the anachronisms in this paragraph. The image of ancient Christians going door-to-door like Mormons may reflect a certain degree of truth (and is part of the intended satire against The Mormon Puzzle; although evangelism in public squares was a more likely tactic), but the rest is marred by error: There is no may about the speaking of Aramaic; converted Jews of the time would speak Aramaic definitely and Hebrew possibly (if they were educated enough), so one can hardly suppose that a first-century rabbi would use this as some kind of "be on your guard" sign.

The second great anachronism is this bit about the Bible under the arms. The word "Bible" wasn't known at this period in any sense, not even from a "Hebrew" original. "Torah" might come close. But even then, no one walked around with a Torah under their arms because the modern invention of the book was just starting to get a leg up. Right now, it was all scrolls, and those were NOT used as carry-ons by missionaries, who relied rather on the oral tradition, especially since over 90 percent of the population was illiterate. Scrolls were the exclusive province of the studious who could afford them (like Paul). They would not serve as a "be on your guard" sign as though they were some common recognition point.

In the next paragraph our author touches upon the idea of Christ "dying for sins" supposedly contradicting elements of the OT law like Deut. 24:16 and Lev. 20:19-20. We have covered these verses in other places and will not repeat the arguments here, though I personally found it surprising that Tvedtnes would find fault here.

The paragraph following is one of several (and the only one we will feature) that quotes OT writings to the effect that the OT covenant was permanent, and there is no room for the NT covenant. For example, cited and quoted are Exodus 29:36, 38; 30:10; 40:15, and Gen. 17:10-14 -- in spite of the fact that the verse divisions as yet did not exist! At any rate, such argument fails to take into account some very basic principles of ancient covenantal language and law. The extreme language of commitment presumed that the tenets of the covenant would be kept by all parties, and the OT covenant of course included sanctions that would occur for violations -- including sanctions that would put a stop to sacrifices by destroying the Jewish sacred places (later, the Temple). The question then becomes one of whether Christians are right in saying that the old covenant has been superseded -- and that alone of this set is a genuine argument from the first century.

Ironically, the founder of the Christian Church was conceived out of wedlock, which under the law of Moses disqualifies him from participating in religious functions (Deuteronomy 23:2). The Christians' own scriptures acknowledge that Jesus was a winebibber (Matthew 11:19). The Bible warns us, saying, "a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophecy unto thee of wine and strong drink" (Micah 2:11) The false prophet Jesus, who also claimed divine prerogatives, was tried and found guilty of high crimes and executed by crucifixion. And yet some people are gullible enough to believe that he was sent by God!

Of the three polemics, only the last about crucifixion represents an assuredly genuine argument used in the first century -- as Paul's letters themselves hint to us. The first may be authentic enough -- we know that the charge of being born out of wedlock was levelled against Jesus in later centuries, but whether it was around in the first century is a toss-up. The middle argument is likewise a "maybe" -- it is apparent that this was a Pharasaic argument levelled against Jesus; and a use of Micah 2:11 may even fit the bill. The verse goes on to say, "he shall even be the prophet of this people" -- a sarcastic reference to how wicked the people of Israel had become, in that they would let anyone become a prophet, even a drunkard. The rabbinic exegete might well have said that Christians exemplified the new, wicked Israel.

The next two paragraphs hinge upon the argument that prophecy ceased with Malachi -- a belief that was indeed held by some Jewish teachers, but not all; this reflects a possibly authentic hinge point, though the question would then be whether there might be any further revelation. Our fictional rabbi is made to cite Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 as proving that God ordered that no words were to be added to "his word", but of course that's the very point at issue -- is this a case of men adding words, or God? (And of course, this merely begs the question with regards to Mormonism; but of course we would not take this in isolation -- there's plenty of work yet for us to do!)

The Christians say that they have the priesthood, by which they claim to perform ordinances and miracles. The Bible makes it clear that the priesthood is restricted to the tribe of Levi, and God curses anyone else who tries to officiate in priesthood functions (2 Chronicles 26:18-19).

This argument is unlikely to have appeared in the first century, since it would have divested many who served in the first-century Temple (including high priests) of their duties! Even so, the main hinge is whether there is indeed a new covenant with new "priests".

As for the supposed Christian "miracles", it is clear that they do not follow the biblical pattern. Their founder is said to have healed people by telling them their sins were forgiven, while some people were supposedly healed by touching his garment...This practice of magical rites is confirmed in another Christian scripture, Acts 19:12, which says people can be healed by being touched with handkerchiefs or aprons touched by someone who has healing powers...

This rabbi doesn't remember his OT very well! The OT has someone brought back to life after touching the bones of a dead prophet (2 Kings 13:21), another brought back to life by having a prophet lay on top of him (2 Kings 4), healings effected by looking at a bronze snake (Numbers 21)...what is the "biblical pattern" for miracles, how is it established, and how thereafter is it violated?

In his "sermon on the mount," the founder of the Christian Church openly spoke out against Bible teachings that had been revealed from heaven...he changed the sixth commandment from "thou shalt not kill" to "whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21-2)...

This and some examples following commit the same basic error of not recognizing the nature and purpose of ancient law codes that we have explained elsewhere. Matthew 5:21-2 and so on are in no way changes to the ancient law, but interpretations of those laws. In this regard Jesus is doing nothing different than the rabbinical expositors or modern commentators -- only his interpretation, we argue, has a lot more claw to it! Other examples beg the question of whether some new revelation might not be at hand, and another takes Matthew 5:29-30's "pluck out your eye" directive as a piece of literal advice and refers to it as "depravity"! A first-century rabbi would recognize this for the intended hyperbole that it is -- since his own teaching would be just as "depraved".

A small paragraph follows mimicking the typical "Jesus as Zealot" position held today -- an item that may indeed have been authentic polemic, since Jesus was indeed executed on a charge of sedition, but very unlikely since the "real" Zealots would have been too obviously more radical and not in the mold of Jesus enough to invite a comparison. Finally, a charge is made that Christians redefine Jewish terms like "sacrifice" to refer not to Temple sacrifices, but to that of Jesus -- true enough, but what proof is there that Christians did not clearly indicate their differing use of the same word? Other than that, the same charge is also made of another word: "...Christians use the term 'salvation' to mean resurrection and going to heaven to live with God." The Jews did, too -- this was a point of agreement.

In closing -- while our writer has indeed produced a work that mirrors some of the authentic or possibly-authentic polemical thrusts of early Judaism against Christianity, his pseudo-case is marred by errors that substantially reduce its effectiveness. Phonias Futz would not have this work ascribed to him -- nor would any true first-century rabbi.