Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Irish1975 » Sun May 12, 2019 8:17 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 7:30 pm
Irish1975 wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 8:04 am
]

Well, anyone who knows that I am not Jesus can see that those are two different statements. Saying that Jesus taught that the messiah is not David's son is not tantamount to saying that Jesus (in Mark) is not David's son. Maybe you just don't want to acknowledge a mistake.
Nonsense. If your way out is to suggest that, for Mark, either (A) Jesus is not the messiah or (B) Jesus was mistaken when he said that the messiah was not David's son, then you are simply piling more and more interpretations upon the text, driving home all the more my point that your claims were not in any way "fundamental." The more interpretations you add in support of your condescending statement, the less fundamental it becomes. If I were mistaken here, I would readily admit it, as I did when I acknowledged that I thought you meant "literal descendant of David" when you wrote of the "son of David" (which is, of course, yet another interpretation you lay upon the text). You were condescending to John2 on a topic about which there was no call to be — since John2 has no less right to his interpretation than you do to determine what is "fundamental" to yours — and I called you out on it, because it frankly sucked.
This all started when I objected to John2's equation of messiah with "king of the Jews"...
John2 wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 9:45 am
And Pilate asked Jesus if he was "the King of the Jews" because that is the charge he was condemned for in Mk. 14:61-64, and the Jewish leaders had presumably informed Pilate of this when they handed Jesus over to him:
Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ [aka the Messiah, aka the King of the Jews], the Son of the Blessed One?”
...because that seemed like a (yes) fundamental misreading of gMark; the charge "king of the Jews" does not even appear in 14:61-64. Insofar as we can agree that the title "king of the Jews" denotes a David-like warrior king who would lead a rebellion against Rome, I think John2 and any careful reader of gMark would have to reach the conclusion that, although the messiah, Mark's Jesus is not a warrior king.

By referring to the "David's Son" pericope in Mark 12, I had no intention of stepping on your (apparently indefensible) pet theory that Mark's Jesus might be descended from David. Nor am I interested in your lectures about how I ought to communicate on this forum.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6500
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun May 12, 2019 8:56 am

Irish1975 wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 8:17 am
By referring to the "David's Son" pericope in Mark 12, I had no intention of stepping on your (apparently indefensible) pet theory that Mark's Jesus might be descended from David.
I have no such theory, pet or otherwise. I am undecided on that issue.
Nor am I interested in your lectures about how I ought to communicate on this forum.
Then ignore me. That is your right, and I could not possibly care less if you did.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 2746
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 » Sun May 12, 2019 11:47 am

… that seemed like a (yes) fundamental misreading of gMark; the charge "king of the Jews" does not even appear in 14:61-64. Insofar as we can agree that the title "king of the Jews" denotes a David-like warrior king who would lead a rebellion against Rome, I think John2 and any careful reader of gMark would have to reach the conclusion that, although the messiah, Mark's Jesus is not a warrior king.
I don't think it's a fundamental misreading of Mark to interpret the word Christ as "king of the Jews," since Christ means Messiah, as you understand, and Messiah can certainly be understood as "king of the Jews" in the context of Mark.
The concept of messianism originated in Judaism, and in the Hebrew Bible, a messiah is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil. However, messiahs were not exclusively Jewish, as the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.

In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah is a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and World to come. The Messiah is often referred to as "King Messiah"

While Christianity acknowledges only one ultimate Messiah, Judaism can be said to hold to a concept of multiple messiahs. The two most relevant are the Messiah ben Joseph and the traditional Messiah ben David. Some scholars have argued that the idea of two messiahs, one suffering and the second fulfilling the traditional messianic role, was normative to ancient Judaism, predating Jesus. Jesus would have been viewed by many as one or both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism
And that the "Christ" that Jesus claims to be in Mk. 14:61-62 is eschatological is clear from his statement to the high priest that "you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

And no, Jesus doesn't have to be a "David-like warrior king" to be the "son of man," but the "son of man" is clearly a "king" given what Dan. 7:14 says about him:
And he was given dominion, glory, and kingship, so that every people, nation, and language should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
The same goes for the gentle king in Zech. 9:9-10 that Jesus emulates in Mk. 11:1-10. That king isn't a "David-like warrior king" either but is nevertheless a "king of the Jews" who gains his kingdom with the warrior-like assistance of God:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! See, your King comes to you, righteous and victorious, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of war will be broken. Then he will proclaim peace to the nations; His dominion will extend from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth.
And this king is said to rule over all nations, would include Rome in the context of Mark.

So whether Jesus was a descendent of David or not, or a "David-like warrior king" or not, he certainly saw himself as Daniel's "son of man" and Zechariah's gentle king, and both these figures are said to be rulers of kingdoms "that will never be destroyed" and extend "to the ends of the earth" and over "every people, nation, and language," which would include Rome in the context of Mark.

Don't you think the high priest was aware of this meaning of the "son of man" and Zechariah's king? And I think he also understood that the "son of man" can be interpreted as being divine (as per the two heavenly thrones in Dan. 7:9, cf., "the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power"), which Boyarin argues is underscored by Jesus saying "I am" in response to being asked if he was "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One," since Jesus uses the same words as God's name in LXX Ex. 3:14:
And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am [eigo eimi] has sent me to you.’”


Cf. Mk. 14:61-62:
“Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am” [eigo eimi], said Jesus ...
I think this is really the core of Jesus' messianism in Mark. He's not merely "the Messiah" or a "David-like warrior king" or Zechariah's king, he's divine, i.e., the "son of God" (for which the Roman centurion mocks him in Mk. 15:39). This is why the high priest says in 14:64, "You have heard the blasphemy."

But as I've been saying, it doesn't matter how you define "Messiah" or "king of the Jews," because the end result is the same no matter how you slice it, i.e., Jesus says he will soon (since the high priest will see it, so it will happen during the time of Rome) return as the "son of man ... on the clouds of heaven," and the "son of man" is said to rule an eternal "kingdom" over "every people, nation, and language."

And I assume that the high priest had told Pilate that Jesus had claimed to be "the king of the Jews" because that is essentially what he claimed to be by claiming to be the "son of man" and by riding into Jerusalem on a colt, and this is an expression that Pilate would have more readily understood and appreciated (and served the purpose of killing Jesus) than explaining the "son of man" gobbledygook in the book of Daniel to him, in the same way that Josephus uses the expression "governor of the habitable earth" instead of Messiah.
Show me something built to last.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by DCHindley » Wed May 15, 2019 6:17 am

Isn't interpreting Mark 12:35-37 as denying that Jesus is a descendant of David kind of simplistic?

RSV Mark 12:
35 And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' (Psalm 110 KJV/109 Old Greek)
37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?" And the great throng heard him gladly.

BibleWorks Greek
35 Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν διδάσκων ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ· πῶς λέγουσιν οἱ γραμματεῖς ὅτι ὁ χριστὸς υἱὸς Δαυίδ ἐστιν;
36 αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ εἶπεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ· εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν σου.
37 αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ λέγει αὐτὸν κύριον, καὶ πόθεν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν υἱός; Καὶ [ὁ] πολὺς ὄχλος ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ ἡδέως.

Here's the full passage of Psalm 110:

LXA Psalm 110:
1 A Psalm of David. The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The Lord shall send out a rod of power for thee out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3 With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning.
4 The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.
5 The Lord at thy right hand has dashed in pieces kings in the day of his wrath.
6 He shall judge among the nations, he shall fill up the number of corpses, he shall crush the heads of many on the earth.
7 He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall he lift up the head.

BGT Psalm 109:
1 τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμός εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου
2 ῥάβδον δυνάμεώς σου ἐξαποστελεῖ κύριος ἐκ Σιων καὶ κατακυρίευε ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου
3 μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε
4 ὤμοσεν κύριος καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται σὺ εἶ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδεκ
5 κύριος ἐκ δεξιῶν σου συνέθλασεν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς
6 κρινεῖ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν πληρώσει πτώματα συνθλάσει κεφαλὰς ἐπὶ γῆς πολλῶν
7 ἐκ χειμάρρου ἐν ὁδῷ πίεται διὰ τοῦτο ὑψώσει κεφαλήν

What it looks like to me is Jesus was challenging an interpretation of the Davidic descent of the Anointed (king) needn't be taken literally, but figuratively, with the Priestly Aristocracy carrying that mantle in Jesus' day (this is also Josephus' interpretation). But where does the idea come from that "the Christ is the son of David?" This would be Psalm 45 (KJV).

Brenton's ET of Greek OT (ch:vss per KJV): Psalm 45 (from the perspective of a scribe in David's court):
2 You [king David] are the fairest of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you for ever.
3 Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one, in your glory and majesty!
4 In your majesty ride forth victoriously for the cause of truth and to defend the right; let your right hand teach you dread deeds!
5 Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you.
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

BibleWorks Greet Text (ch:vss per Septuagint): Psalm 44:
3 ὡραῖος κάλλει παρὰ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐξεχύθη χάρις ἐν χείλεσίν σου διὰ τοῦτο εὐλόγησέν σε ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
4 περίζωσαι τὴν ῥομφαίαν σου ἐπὶ τὸν μηρόν σου δυνατέ τῇ ὡραιότητί σου καὶ τῷ κάλλει σου
5 καὶ ἔντεινον καὶ κατευοδοῦ καὶ βασίλευε ἕνεκεν ἀληθείας καὶ πραΰτητος καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ ὁδηγήσει σε θαυμαστῶς ἡ δεξιά σου
6 τὰ βέλη σου ἠκονημένα δυνατέ λαοὶ ὑποκάτω σου πεσοῦνται ἐν καρδίᾳ τῶν ἐχθρῶν τοῦ βασιλέως
7 ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

Jesus alludes to these two Psalms (45 & 110 in KJV) to show that they are speaking of a ruler (typified as king David) who will crush the oppressing nations, as David had done in his days.

DCH

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1295
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Charles Wilson » Wed May 15, 2019 7:13 am

DCHindley wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 6:17 am
What it looks like to me is Jesus was challenging an interpretation of the Davidic descent of the Anointed (king) needn't be taken literally, but figuratively, with the Priestly Aristocracy carrying that mantle in Jesus' day (this is also Josephus' interpretation). But where does the idea come from that "the Christ is the son of David?" This would be Psalm 45 (KJV).
Very fine analysis DCH.

"...with the Priestly Aristocracy carrying that mantle in Jesus' day..." appears to be true but implies much that is hidden. The Corrupt High Priesthood is appointed and acting according to the whims of the Herodians and especially the Romans.

Josephus, Ant..., 17, 9, 1:

"The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest

Who would be of greater piety and purity? Those of the Priesthood as separated from the High Priests. This BTW, goes to the central question of this Thread. The Priests, through Hasmonean Glory have been assigned Settlements in Galilee and the evidence is there on the ground (Leibner, Elizur). Thus, as you state, Priestly Aristocracy is attempting to run the show. The Priesthood goes back to David certainly and the issues of "what" a "Son of David" would be are implied but not stated.

John 11: 46 - 51 (RSV):

[46] but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
[47] So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.
[48] If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."
[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
[51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation...

So the High Priest talks of "expediency" and the expediency is Prophesy. This is the voice of a very cynical High Priest. The "People" want the "Form" of the Priesthood. The High Priests want survival, ostensibly of the Nation but more importantly, their own.

CW

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Irish1975 » Wed May 15, 2019 7:21 am

DCHindley wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 6:17 am
Isn't interpreting Mark 12:35-37 as denying that Jesus is a descendant of David kind of simplistic?
I propose that this conversation redirect to the thread "Is Jesus the Descendant of David in Mark?"
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3609

Post Reply