Secret Alias wrote:This topic is not about "Jewish prophecies of the messiah's arrival". It is not about the second century Bar Kochba rebellion. Nor is it even about popular beliefs and attitudes at the time of the 66-73 CE Jewish war.
It is about the historical evidence we have or don't have (that is the question) for:
widespread/popular expectations
of the appearance of a messiah figure to liberate Judea from Rome
in the early years of the first century, let's say up to around year 30 CE
But surely it is not difficult for anyone - not even those who dislike the Jews - to see why it is that evidence for hope and expectation that a Jewish king would destroy the Roman Empire and take over the world would not be well represented or as thoroughly represented as other concepts in the Jewish literature that survived from antiquity. I can't fathom what can account for your resistance to this idea especially given the fact that Jews were constantly at war with the Roman state in the period.
The Jews were at war with the Roman state in the early first century??
You argue strongly why we don't have the evidence we would expect if your hypothesis is true. So maybe you are right. But till the lost evidence is found I prefer to tentatively work with a hypothesis which explains the evidence we do have.
Secret Alias wrote:The facts are that the Davidic messianic expectation is attested in the Qumran literature - i.e. before the first century CE - and that it also appears in texts dated to the first century CE. Your point of emphasis is the word 'widespread.' In other words it is your contention that SOME Jewish MIGHT HAVE accepted the messiah, the son of David but that this belief wasn't necessarily WIDESPREAD.
Interesting.
Some may indeed. There were many ideas floating around, details of which are now lost. Precious little surviving evidence means we should be more cautious with how we handle it, extrapolate from it, etc, than less cautious.
Secret Alias wrote:So I assume you accept that the Jews were more or less constantly engaged in insurgent activity against the Roman state. I also assume that you accept that being Jewish necessarily involved a religious dimension. But - I assume - you contend - that there could be Jewish insurgent activity among a highly religious people and a highly restricted culture (i.e. one where religion governed every aspect of the lives of its members) but that MAYBE, somehow the insurgents were guided by an inspiration which was NOT motivated by scripture.
So how do we arrive at the truth? Well I would start with the fact that Christianity and the Bar Kochba revolt are signs of a sustained interest in the Davidic messiah and that the reason why texts associated with this expectation have not survived out of Christianity because Christianity redefined the Davidic messianic expectation in a way that was compatible with being a productive member of the Roman state. Some other points
I don't know why you are assuming so much as a substitute for engaging with the arguments.
Yes, once again you have explained why on your hypothesis we should not expect to find supporting evidence for it. You might be right. I could probably come up with another hypothesis and also explain why we should not expect to find evidence for it.
Secret Alias wrote:I draw your attention to the fact that Marcionism denied any association between Jesus and the Davidic messianic expectation that was current among the Jews. The Marcionites claimed that they represented the original theology of Paul and zealously adhered to that 'original Christian faith.' I find this particular dimension to the problem highly instructive. For while what became orthodoxy embraced and encouraged Jesus the fulfiller of the Jewish Davidic messianic expectation, the Marcionites said that the Jews indeed promoted such a figure but Jesus or Chrestos represented something entirely different.
Why is this significant? I would argue that both the orthodox and the Marcionite traditions attest to a WIDESPREAD - and I stress WIDESPREAD - Jewish Davidic messianic expectation.
Why would Marcionism attest to popular messianic expectations rather than simply widespread doctrine in the "judaisms" of the day -- that is the day of Marcionism -- post Second Temple era.
Secret Alias wrote:Justin also attests to this Jewish expectation. . . . Surely this lays to rest any notion that the attestations from the 1st century BCE onward were not marginal but rather a near universal expectation among Jews.
Justin is writing post Bar Kochba when it seems that there was a literal messianic hope in Palestine. Quite a different historical context from early first century.
Secret Alias wrote:Now one more point which is worth considering and goes far beyond your limited knowledge of Judaism (other than the kooky books you delve into)
Your condescension and anti-intellectualism are noted.
Secret Alias wrote:- there are countless other examples of things Jewish had to know about, had to practice, had to venerate which have been wiped from the historical record. By your logic i.e. if it isn't attested it never existed or wasn't fundamental to first century Judaism - appears entirely laughable and again motivated by hate. For instance:
1. the sabbatcal years. There are no documents which explain the manner in which Jews calculated and venerated the shemittah and Jubillees. The reason is obvious now. Messianic uprisings were timed to correspond with these years. But by your logic they didn't exist. The Jews didn't venerate 'years of favor.' Stupid
2. the person of Moses. Surprisingly little is found in the surviving rabbinic literature about Moses. The Samaritans by contrast obsess about this seminal figure. But in Jewish literature from the early period he is avoided. Why is that? Because obviously Moses was another inspiration for the revolution as the god-Man leader of the community.
3. anything in the way of commentaries on the Torah outside of the Book of Exodus. If you look at the Jewish literature which survives disproportionate attention is shown toward the Prophets and other 'human' books. Indeed the later rabbinic authorities typically cite indiscriminately from all parts of what we would call 'the Old Testament.' However it is clear and logical that in the Second Commonwealth period the Pentateuch held a higher 'holiness.' Indeed the entire temple service was dependent upon it. What accounts for the change? Clearly the destruction of the temple. It must have been difficult to reconcile the holiness of a book which directs Israel toward sacrifices and things that require a tabernacle. Judaism seems to have gotten around this situation by placing undue emphasis on the prophetic writings. But this was just one reaction to the situation after the Jewish War. The point of fact is that once again we have evidence that contemporary history changed Judaism and the practice of the Jewish religion.
I don't have time for such stupidity as this. Back to my real life. Enjoy your continued undermining of yet another Biblical tradition.
Nice for your private little self-indulgent chuckle, but you have forgotten to address the arguments set out in the OP.