Another Messiah killed by rabbis: Bar-Kokhba (!)

[Giuseppe]

What is surprising about this use of scripture by the rabbis about the Messiah, is that the rabbis use the scripture not in order to prove that a guy is really the Messiah, but at contrary only in order to prove that a guy is NOT the Messiah.

The exact contrary of the use of scripture by our canonical Gospels...

...but surprisingly similar to the use of scripture by Marcion.

Where the formula ''as the scripture do NOT say'' serves exclusively to raise an antithesis between old testament and new testament.

In this sense I am ready to accept that Marcion is more ''Jew'' than the same proto-catholic authors, since he uses the scriptures to deny that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.

[Secret Alias]

All that the rabbinic texts seem to be saying is that person X (in this case bar Kochba) was not the messiah because he didn't have prophetic gifts. Hardly 'Marcionite' in any stretch of the terminology. It was just a story that crept up to explain why the revolt failed - i.e. blame the leader. Clearly a corollary of his lack of prophetic gifts was leading a disastrous revolt wouldn't you say? Hardly controversial. The Roman soliders abusing Jesus is similarly conceived but this in no way supports any relationship between the two. It's like the scene in Trading Places where Eddie Murphy is in the jail cell and the other inmates ridicule his claim about being a big shot pimp when he was crying like a baby when they brought him in. You expect a messiah to have prophetic gifts if he is supposed to be inspired by God.

[Giuseppe]

If it is for this, also the Gospels are mere propaganda, insofar they have to explain why a guy (real or invented) is the Messiah.

But note the singular use of the scripture (Isaiah). It is not ''christian'' only because it is used to deny, and not to claim.

[Giuseppe]

So Markus Vinzent:

First, we have to start with Tertullian who raises the same question as you - why does Marcion use all these OT names (like Jesus, Son of Man ...), and all those OT stories (David, the prophets) to explain that his Jesus has nothing to do with the OT, the prophets, Israel. If his Jesus came out of the blue, why then bother with the Jewish heritage? This question, however, does not get at the bottom of what Marcion was trying to achieve, and reads him through the glasses of Justin and Irenaeus who have developed Marcion's antithesis into a substituting anti-Judaism.

(my bold)

The problem is so clear that it may be reduced to the basic question: why should a dualist like Marcion accept as his own angelic ''Messiah'' a guy who is called ''YHWH-saves'' or ''Son of Man''?


The answer is that Marcion is introducing the portrait of a new God by antithesis to the OT stories.
''Jesus is really the Messiah because the scripture don't predict him'' is equivalent to say that the scripture are useful to derive the image of who really a true Messiah has to be like: the exact opposite of their prophecies.

For example:

While in 1Kings the mother confesses Elija to be a man of God, in Marcion's story there is no word about the mother, instead, it is said that 'all' (which includes the son's mother) were taken by fear. Or in other words: the people do not understand such non-demanding mercy, a God of love.

(my bold)

The same tactic was used by the rabbis about Bar-Kokhba. He was not the Messiah, because the Messiah is a superior being in comparison to him.

Hence to Marcion's Messiah the step is really short: the Gospel Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, because the Jewish Messiah is an inferior being in comparison to him.

The scriptures continue to have authority, but in view of two goals:
1) to describe the real Messiah of the Demiurge
2) describe the difference between this Demiurge and another God.

I don't see how one can deny the fact that by reading the old testament, someone can derive from it the portrait of a better god. It is a natural act, for who has the right feeling. And Marcion was an our precursor in this feeling.

[Giuseppe]

Another manner of seeing the things is the following: assume that Bar-Kokhba defeated really the Romans, made really free Israel and was proclaimed the awaited Messiah of the scriptures by all the rabbis en masse.

Clearly, could someone who until to that moment had believed in a spiritual Messiah, believe that now Bar-Kokhba was just the Christ of the Parousia? Surely there was some Christian who identified the Christ of the Parousia with Bar-Kokhba (see for example the Revelation of Peter, according to the interpretation of some scholars).
But surely, just in virtue of their intrinsic (and for that time already tested) spiritualism, we would have had Christians who would have despised Bar-Kokhba as false Messiah, even if he did win really the Romans !!!

Once you concede that the Christians were able to imagine a better spiritual invisible Messiah (in comparison to an hypothetical victorious earthly Messiah), you cannot prevent them from the conception of a Messiah superior to the same messiah predicted by the scriptures.

And so you can explain Marcion. He was a spiritual genius insofar he had the same our modern sensibility, in reading the old testament.

[Secret Alias]

I've said this time and again, the actual MSS of early Christianity do not have 'Jesus' or 'Joshua' but nomina sacra. There is an interpretation which became widespread that these nomina sacra meant this or that. How the nomina sacra developed and what the original nomen sacrum was is subject to debate. I am very aware of the difficulties that 'Jesus' or 'Joshua' presents for any Christianity which held that Jesus was an angel or a god. But claiming that the name of this god or angel should be read 'literally' or as a phrase is not a good solution for a number of reasons. I happen to be a jackass who walks around telling complete strangers what the etymological origins of their names are. I do not in order to kibitz with people and annoy the people I am with (now my family). But normal people don't treat names like phrases or care what their name means - for instance I don't think all the 'Barbaras' out there want to be known as barbarians. The second problem is that the nomina sacra were present in the earliest manuscripts. This seems certain. Having the names as codes and presenting the names as nomina sacra are antithetical to one another. If you are going to want to invite people to figure out who Jesus is you'd expect that the place where this 'figuring out' takes place is with a manuscript where Jesus can be understood as 'God saves.' This requires 'Jesus' to appear on a page rather than a nomen sacrum IC or IE or whatever. It also argues for a Hebrew text of the gospel which may or may not have existed but if it is argued that such a text existed it also argues that the Marcionites spoke or read Hebrew.

[davidbrainerd]

The Samaritan use of the terminology to mean 'grace' is very interesting too. Isaiah often preserves Samaritanisms (or perhaps better - Isaiah and Samaritan sources preserve older traditions) because of its age (ratson = Divine Favour is calculable for Samaritans by Jubilees and Isa. 61. 1 with its mention of proclaiming liberty etc).

But Isaiah doesn't say anything about smelling. That's commentary on not judging by eyes or ears. The rabbis are actually very lacking in imagination. If not by sight or hearing, must be by smell....can't be by mind reading. Lol.

[Ben C. Smith]

The Samaritan use of the terminology to mean 'grace' is very interesting too. Isaiah often preserves Samaritanisms (or perhaps better - Isaiah and Samaritan sources preserve older traditions) because of its age (ratson = Divine Favour is calculable for Samaritans by Jubilees and Isa. 61. 1 with its mention of proclaiming liberty etc).

But Isaiah doesn't say anything about smelling. That's commentary on not judging by eyes or ears. The rabbis are actually very lacking in imagination. If not by sight or hearing, must be by smell....can't be by mind reading. Lol.

They did have the word והריחו, however, at the beginning of the verse.

[MrMacSon]

In hindsight, of course, few would wish to be associated with a failed campaign, and it is understandable that some would seek ways to distance themselves from such events in the aftermath of failure. Thus, in a late rabbinic text from the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 93b), Bar Kokhba appears before the rabbinic sages and claims to be the messiah, but the rabbis actually find him to be an imposter and have him killed!

Obviously there is no authentic historical recollection regarding Bar Kokhba in this anecdote. Instead, as the Babylonian rabbis looked back at Bar Kokhba, who, from their angle was a false messiah and leader of a failed and misguided revolt, they wrestled with the issue of how one of their greatest rabbinic sages (R. Akiva) had offered his support for this “messianic pretender.”

As a result, the Babylonian sages 'polished their heritage' by claiming that their rabbinic predecessors actually killed Bar Kokhba, thereby putting an end to a revolt they felt uneasy being associated with (Oppenheimer 1984, 156–57).

Could the idea of a Pharisaic Conspiracy against Jesus be derived from a similar rabbinical legend about Bar-Kokhba?

We are said [told?] a lot of times that it was not a blasphemy [for Jesus] to proclaim himself a Messiah.

But in the case of Bar-Kokhba, we see the rabbis declare him guilty of blasphemy, if [so] they kill him!

Therefore, also in this crucial point, Mark can be written only after Bar-Kokhba -

Mark 14:61-65
61 Then the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 Then the high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, “Why do we need other witnesses? 64 You have all heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?”

“Guilty!” they all cried. “He deserves to die!”

65 Then some of them began to spit at him, and they blindfolded him and beat him with their fists. “Prophesy to us,” they jeered. And the guards slapped him as they took him away.

I think your proposition is a reasonable one, Giuseppe, but that passage in the top quote-box is not from this paper -

Jewish Followers of Jesus and the Bar Kokhba Revolt: Re-examining the Christian Sources

and it is not written by Annette Y Reed

.