Two new articles by our pal Tim O'Neill

[JoeWallack]

next to Israel having a policy of genocide and the Palestinians not having one (even though it's everywhere from their Charter to their classrooms)

you are a supporter of israelis who do lebensraum in palestine?

You are a supporter of palestinians who murder innocent women and children?

[neilgodfrey]

Hi Maryhelena,

"Retrojected" was my own term to describe our anachronistic application of the "messianic idea". I'm not suggesting that there weren't political-military hopefuls during the war or rebels and bandits who carved our "mini-kingdoms" before then, or others who perhaps fancied themselves latter-day Joshuas at some point before that war.

I am pointing to arguments like those of Green and Novenson to draw attention to the fact that we have no evidence that the "messianic idea" of an anticipated liberating king was part of the common cultural consciousness of that time. The evidence for what we can call this "messianic idea" only appears later. Much scholarly effort has gone into explaining the lack of evidence for what many assume must have existed, but maybe there is a simpler reason for the silence in the evidence. (Novenson and others analyse the "messiah language" and texts used as the support of the messianic ideas -- if you read them in full you will see no contradiction here. Again, it is easy to assume a reference to a "messianic text" by a scholar today or a late rabbinic text is evidence for a cultural phenomenon in the early first century.)

The story of Jesus itself contains some evidence, I think, as I have pointed out before, that there was no such popular messianic notion in the early first century. The Gospel of Matthew's Nativity story says everyone was mystified by the arrival of the magi and their stated purpose. Herod had to make enquiries among an intellectual elite to make sense of what their visit was all about. That's just a narrative, but it does suggest that the author had no awareness of any historical popular anticipation that would have understood what the magi were talking about.

I am not suggesting that "the Jews" forgot about their hope for a messianic ruler. I am suggesting that there is no evidence that "the Jews" ever did have a common popular "hope" for a conquering and liberating "messiah" figure in the Second Temple era.

I don't understand your last sentence. No-one is talking about "pure imagination" and I don't see the direct relevance of my point for the Christ Myth versus historical Jesus argument.

[neilgodfrey]

We have precious little evidence -- i.e. none -- that there was any distinctive "messianic idea"/"notion of messiah" at all among the various philosophies/schools of Judaism in the supposed time of Jesus. There is no evidence that Paul took an existing "messianic idea"/"notion of messiah" and modified it -- least of all into a pagan saviour.

JW:
I know Paul has relatively low credibility but one of his major themes is that his Messiah Gospel was not expected by traditional Judaism. He makes this explicit:

1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;

Your argument does nothing to prove that there was a "messianic idea" prior to Paul. You are interpreting Paul through an anachronism.

[JoeWallack]

We have precious little evidence -- i.e. none -- that there was any distinctive "messianic idea"/"notion of messiah" at all among the various philosophies/schools of Judaism in the supposed time of Jesus. There is no evidence that Paul took an existing "messianic idea"/"notion of messiah" and modified it -- least of all into a pagan saviour.

JW:
I know Paul has relatively low credibility but one of his major themes is that his Messiah Gospel was not expected by traditional Judaism. He makes this explicit:

1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;

Your argument does nothing to prove that there was a "messianic idea" prior to Paul. You are interpreting Paul through an anachronism.

JW:
There is no -- I repeat, no -- cannibalism in the Christian Theology. And when I say none, I mean that there is a certain amount.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[neilgodfrey]

There is no -- I repeat, no -- cannibalism in the Christian Theology. And when I say none, I mean that there is a certain amount.

Is that meant to be an argument? What on earth are you talking about?

[maryhelena]

Hi Maryhelena,

"Retrojected" was my own term to describe our anachronistic application of the "messianic idea". I'm not suggesting that there weren't political-military hopefuls during the war or rebels and bandits who carved our "mini-kingdoms" before then, or others who perhaps fancied themselves latter-day Joshuas at some point before that war.

Ah, but Neil, you used 'retrojected' in connection with Novenson's book. From the two reviews I referenced, no mention is made of Novenson suggesting anything like what you are inferring.

Neil: We do have a quite distinctive "messianic idea" from later Judaism and Christianity that has long been retrojected back to this period. One of several studies stressing this point is outlined by Matthew Novenson in Christ Among the Messiahs.

Where did Novenson suggest what you are suggesting - that later ideas of Judaism and Christianity were retrojected back into the 'supposed time of Jesus".

I am pointing to arguments like those of Green and Novenson to draw attention to the fact that we have no evidence that the "messianic idea" of an anticipated liberating king was part of the common cultural consciousness of that time.

Evidence? Neil, it's part of Jewish culture heritage! Evidence? The gospel story! A nation under occupation and the people forget about their own scriptures and its hope for "an indigenous ruler for the Jewish people". I'm Irish, Neil, and I can tell you that for the 300 or so years that Ireland was occupied by the British that the Irish never gave up hope of freeing Ireland from British rule. Never.

The evidence for what we can call this "messianic idea" only appears later. Much scholarly effort has gone into explaining the lack of evidence for what many assume must have existed, but maybe there is a simpler reason for the silence in the evidence. (Novenson and others analyse the "messiah language" and texts used as the support of the messianic ideas -- if you read them in full you will see no contradiction here. Again, it is easy to assume a reference to a "messianic text" by a scholar today or a late rabbinic text is evidence for a cultural phenomenon in the early first century.)

Neil, don't get tied up with word play. What's the use of 'messiah language' if it has nothing to speak about? What was the gospel Jesus doing when he says give back to Caesar what is Caesar' but give back to god what belongs to god? That is 'messiah language', placed by the gospel writers in the time of Pilate.

So then, give back to Caesar what is his, and give back to God what belongs to God. That is the zealot argument in its simplest, most concise form. And it seems to be enough for the authorities in Jerusalem to immediately label Jesus as lestes. A bandit. A zealot.

Aslan, Reza (2013-08-08). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1538-1540). Saqi. Kindle Edition.

Consider Larry Hurtado:

The Messianic Jesus in Paul’s Christology

Another creative feature of Novenson’s study is his emphasis that Paul’s use of messianic language should be seen as a “case study” in ancient Jewish messianic expressions. Many scholars have portrayed Paul’s Christological thought as a flat contrast with, or negation of, Jewish messianism. But, as Novenson argues, this seems to rest upon an over-simplified picture of Jewish messianic hopes that does not do justice to its diversity. Moreover, in light of Paul’s firm efforts to continue to be identified as Jewish, and his view of his gentile mission as securing “the obedience of the nations” to the biblical God and his Christ, Paul’s Christology is better seen as a particular (and distinctive) version in the diversity of ancient Jewish messianism.

But I also readily grant that Novenson’s case is a marked advance on anything previous, and in my view is now the starting point for any further consideration of how Paul’s Christology relates to ancient Jewish messianism.

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/ ... ristology/

The story of Jesus itself contains some evidence, I think, as I have pointed out before, that there was no such popular messianic notion in the early first century.

And Reze Aslan' book Zealot is riding high on the charts.......

The Gospel of Matthew's Nativity story says everyone was mystified by the arrival of the magi and their stated purpose. Herod had to make enquiries among an intellectual elite to make sense of what their visit was all about. That's just a narrative, but it does suggest that the author had no awareness of any historical popular anticipation that would have understood what the magi were talking about.

No, Neil, all it suggests is that the author knew nothing at all about what was in Herod's mind and made up his story.

I am not suggesting that "the Jews" forgot about their hope for a messianic ruler. I am suggesting that there is no evidence that "the Jews" ever did have a common popular "hope" for a conquering and liberating "messiah" figure in the Second Temple era.

And is there evidence to the contrary - that the Jews never had such a hope in the Second temple era?

I don't understand your last sentence. No-one is talking about "pure imagination" and I don't see the direct relevance of my point for the Christ Myth versus historical Jesus argument.

The direct relevance of the messiah idea, the messiah language, to the Christ Myth verse historical Jesus argument is very simple. The Christ Myth position works from Pauline speculation to the gospel story. As such, any messianic idea, any messianic language, in the political time frame of the gospel story becomes
problematic. Why? Because it compromises the top down Christ Myth position. If there was messianic language current in the gospel political time frame - then the prospect arises that that political messianic language gave rise to that gospel story. i.e. the gospel story did not come from a celestial Pauline messiah/christ figure.

"The core of the gospel story involves a political messiah figure - a political messiah figure that gets executed by Roman agents. Sure, so the story goes, this figure gets resurrected and Pauline christology has a field day. Turn this story around, as some ahistoricsts/mythicists are wont to do - and one creates a story of ones own imagination; a story devoid from the political reality the gospel story is intent upon demonstrating. Pure imagination is not able to counter the arguments of the Jesus historicists."

'Pure imagination' relates to turning around the NT story so that it reads back to front - and thinking such a re-write of the NT story is going to move forward the historicist verse ahistoricist debate.

[neilgodfrey]

Hi Maryhelena,

"Retrojected" was my own term to describe our anachronistic application of the "messianic idea". I'm not suggesting that there weren't political-military hopefuls during the war or rebels and bandits who carved our "mini-kingdoms" before then, or others who perhaps fancied themselves latter-day Joshuas at some point before that war.

Ah, but Neil, you used 'retrojected' in connection with Novenson's book. From the two reviews I referenced, no mention is made of Novenson suggesting anything like what you are inferring.

Neil: We do have a quite distinctive "messianic idea" from later Judaism and Christianity that has long been retrojected back to this period. One of several studies stressing this point is outlined by Matthew Novenson in Christ Among the Messiahs.

Where did Novenson suggest what you are suggesting - that later ideas of Judaism and Christianity were retrojected back into the 'supposed time of Jesus".

I am pointing to arguments like those of Green and Novenson to draw attention to the fact that we have no evidence that the "messianic idea" of an anticipated liberating king was part of the common cultural consciousness of that time.

Evidence? Neil, it's part of Jewish culture heritage! Evidence? The gospel story! A nation under occupation and the people forget about their own scriptures and its hope for "an indigenous ruler for the Jewish people". I'm Irish, Neil, and I can tell you that for the 300 or so years that Ireland was occupied by the British that the Irish never gave up hope of freeing Ireland from British rule. Never.

I have pointed to a series in which I outlined Novenson's argument chapter by chapter. Even Larry Hurtado -- colleague and friend of Novenson -- found no fault with it. I doni't believe I have misrepresented Novenson in any way. If so, you will have to show me more than a line from a review article. The particular post I linked to shows exactly the details of the later messianic idea contrasted with Second Temple writings.

The evidence is that there is no evidence for the messianic idea of a liberating king being part of popular imagination or literary culture in the Second Temple period. You say it's part of the Jewish cultural heritage. But I suggest your evidence for that dates from the second century and later.

I'm sure the Irish never gave up hope of being free from Britain. I'm sure most ancient peoples -- including the population of Palestine -- would have loved to have been free from Roman rule, too. But none of that is evidence for a popular anticipation or hope or expectation throughout the Second Temple era of a Messiah to come and do all this.

[maryhelena]

Hi Maryhelena,

"Retrojected" was my own term to describe our anachronistic application of the "messianic idea". I'm not suggesting that there weren't political-military hopefuls during the war or rebels and bandits who carved our "mini-kingdoms" before then, or others who perhaps fancied themselves latter-day Joshuas at some point before that war.

Ah, but Neil, you used 'retrojected' in connection with Novenson's book. From the two reviews I referenced, no mention is made of Novenson suggesting anything like what you are inferring.

Neil: We do have a quite distinctive "messianic idea" from later Judaism and Christianity that has long been retrojected back to this period. One of several studies stressing this point is outlined by Matthew Novenson in Christ Among the Messiahs.

Where did Novenson suggest what you are suggesting - that later ideas of Judaism and Christianity were retrojected back into the 'supposed time of Jesus".

I am pointing to arguments like those of Green and Novenson to draw attention to the fact that we have no evidence that the "messianic idea" of an anticipated liberating king was part of the common cultural consciousness of that time.

Evidence? Neil, it's part of Jewish culture heritage! Evidence? The gospel story! A nation under occupation and the people forget about their own scriptures and its hope for "an indigenous ruler for the Jewish people". I'm Irish, Neil, and I can tell you that for the 300 or so years that Ireland was occupied by the British that the Irish never gave up hope of freeing Ireland from British rule. Never.

I have pointed to a series in which I outlined Novenson's argument chapter by chapter. Even Larry Hurtado -- colleague and friend of Novenson -- found no fault with it. I doni't believe I have misrepresented Novenson in any way. If so, you will have to show me more than a line from a review article. The particular post I linked to shows exactly the details of the later messianic idea contrasted with Second Temple writings.

The evidence is that there is no evidence for the messianic idea of a liberating king being part of popular imagination or literary culture in the Second Temple period. You say it's part of the Jewish cultural heritage. But I suggest your evidence for that dates from the second century and later.

I'm sure the Irish never gave up hope of being free from Britain. I'm sure most ancient peoples -- including the population of Palestine -- would have loved to have been free from Roman rule, too. But none of that is evidence for a popular anticipation or hope or expectation throughout the Second Temple era of a Messiah to come and do all this.

Neil, I asked you for the reference where Novenson inferred or suggested that a later 'messianic idea" was
retrojected back to an earlier period.

"Neil: We do have a quite distinctive "messianic idea" from later Judaism and Christianity that has long been retrojected back to this period. One of several studies stressing this point is outlined by Matthew Novenson in Christ Among the Messiahs."

You did say that 'retrojected' was your word - I'm asking where in Novenson's book did you get that idea from?

And yes it's important - as I mentioned above. It's only an attempt to uphold a Pauline Christ Myth top down, reverse NT story, that necessitates a lack of 'messianic language' in the gospel time frame.

Are you really suggesting that Novenson and Hurtado are denying any 'messianic language' in the gospel time frame?

[neilgodfrey]

Are you really suggesting that Novenson and Hurtado are denying any 'messianic language' in the gospel time frame?

I gave you the link to my detailed notes and quotations from Novenson. I can't be any clearer than what was said there.

I'm not not sure how you are interpreting my point or what exactly you think I am claiming. Of course the gospels speak of Jesus as a Christ/Messiah, and of his "second coming" etc to rule. I'm not denying anything like that if that's what you're thinking.

[spin]

For me to address your initial question would require me to write a tome to first of all clear the detritus of misconceptions, false assumptions, stereotypes and anachronistic thinking that loaded your original question.

That is—cutting through the rhetoric—you won't answer. OK.