Two new articles by our pal Tim O'Neill

[Hawthorne]

Except that there was a period when Jesus preached to those in the underworld.

That isn't quite what I am saying. My point is that to Christians the reality of Jesus never included a point where they thought they worshiped a dead messiah. I am not saying that they don't believe he was crucified and died, then rose from the dead. Christians worshiped a Risen Jesus, a Jesus that sometime in the past had preached in the underworld. This Risen Jesus was never a dead messiah to the people who worshiped him.

[maryhelena]

<snip>

It's from this post-Temple period onwards that we find our first signs of a uniform messianic idea being a characteristic of an emerging orthodoxy of "Jewish" belief.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the gospel Jesus story. The gospel story has no need for any "uniform messianic idea" of the post-Temple period: Novenson, quoting, John Gager:

Within this timeframe, I take both Jewish and Christian messiah texts as evidence of conventions of ancient messiah language. Following many recent interpreters, I avoid as anachronistic the distinction between Judaism and Christianity in the mid-first century C.E. What is more, I take it that messiah texts are not exempted from this methodological rule. As John Gager has rightly commented, “The figures of Jesus and his early followers fall completely within the bounds of first-century Jewish messianism. . . . The presence of the term christos in a first-century text, even attached to one put to death by his enemies, does not place that figure outside or even at the periphery of messianic Judaism.”

Novenson, Matthew V.. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Page 10). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

The gospel story, a story set around the 15th year of Tiberius, does fall, re Gager, and supported by Novenson, "completely within the bounds of first-century Jewish messianism".

The bottom line here is that long before the NT Paul put pen to paper - messianic Judaism would have been able to create a Jesus story on its own.

And the NT Paul aside - what was the Josephan writer doing when applying the Joseph in Egypt story to Agrippa I? Josephus even going as far as to have Agrippa I rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem.

Josephus on the pre-70 c.e. period.

Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.4

But what most inspired them to undertake this war was an ambiguous oracle also found in their sacred writings, that someone from their country would become ruler of the world about that time. The Jews took this prediction as applying to themselves and many of the wise men were wrong in their estimate of it, for it denoted the rule of Vespasian, who was in Judea when appointed as emperor.

Pre-70 c.e. - and Jewish messianic language was in full swing....Any 'uniform' post-temple messianic ideas would have missed the boat as far as the gospel Jesus story is concerned. There was enough scope within pre-70 c.e. messianic Judaism for the gospel Jesus story to be created. And that is were the gospel writers placed their Jesus story, pre-70 c.e. No need for any retrojected post 70 c.e. messianic ideas - however, 'uniform' these ideas might be.

[neilgodfrey]

There seems to be a limit re embedding 3 quotes in a reply.

maryhelena: So, are you denying any 'messianic language' during the political time frame in which that gospel story is set?

Neil:I already said that the gospel story speaks of a messiah. Of course it does. So i don't understand what you are asking here.

maryhelena: My comment was not dealing with the content of the gospel story. My comment read 'during the political time frame in which the gospel story is set'? That is something quite different. My question still stands.

Are you denying any 'messianic language' during the political time frame in which the gospel story is set?

Yes, I don't know of any evidence that there was a popular or widespread cultural expectation throughout the Second Temple period of a messiah to come to politically liberate the Jews from their conquerors. But I am not saying there were no political hopefuls in that period. I am denying they tapped in to any popular expectation of "the messiah".

maryhelena: The only reason that a 'retrojected' 'messianic idea' has any value, whatsoever, is that it allows the top down Pauline Christ Myth a safe landing i.e. there really was no 'messianic language' in the gospel political time frame until the NT writers set down their Pauline Christ figure in that gospel political time frame. If there was 'messianic language' during that gospel political time frame - then that political 'messianic language' could have produced the gospel story all on its own without the Pauline christology.

Neil: Again you've lost me, sorry. I don't know what you mean by a "retrojected messianic idea" having "value".

maryhelena: Something has value if it is meaningful to those who uphold that something. In this case the idea of a 'retrojected messianic idea' has meaning for some people. Otherwise, why uphold such a premise?

Neil: What sort of value and to whom? I don't see what it has to do with mythicism or a "safe landing" for any "Pauline Christ Myth".

maryhelena: I outlined that in the above post.

I still don't understand where you are coming from, sorry. I don't see what my statement has to do with the mythicism question. It's quite irrelevant as far as I can see. I can't see how it helps advance either the mythicist or 'historicist' view of Jesus. If it's not true, then Paul refashioned the existing idea. No problem for mythicism.

Neil: I'm talking about a certain anacrhonistic messianic idea. I'm not sure exactly why you are referring instead to "messianic language" here.

maryhelena: Yes, however, you have not identified what this anacrhonistic messianic idea is that you are talking about or why it was deemed necessary to retroject this messianic idea to the political time frame in which the gospel story is set.

Neil: Of course Paul and the gospels have "messianic language" of some sort. But I don't understand what your difficulty is with my proposition or what it has to do with mythicism vs "historicism".

maryhelena: The 'difficulty' is that any proposed retrojected messianic language/idea to the political time frame of the gospel story is questionable re motive for doing so.

Or there can be unconscious reasons, too -- simply the unquestioned data we take for granted from our cultural background. The common understanding today of the traditional Jewish idea of the messiah -- and this is found especially in Christian circles -- is that there was a widespread hope among the Jews for a coming Messiah to liberate them from the Romans. I am saying that we have no evidence for this historical claim. The first time we have evidence for it is in the post Temple period.

maryhelena: OK, Neil, I'll drop this now. Your not able to provide a reference from Novenson's book to support your premise that a "distinctive "messianic idea" from later Judaism and Christianity" has been a 'retrojected' back to an earlier time period. Why would Jesus historicists need such a 'retrojected' idea anyway....It's only the proponents of a Pauline Christ Myth, a Christ Myth that preceded the gospel story, that need this 'retrojected' idea. Methinks, Neil, you have a vested interest in this messiah debate.


Neil: My whole blog post is showing where Novenson argues for that so I reject your assertion that I don't provide a reference. I provide a whole post of references. I am not going to copy and paste my post into here.

maryhelena: The blog post you referenced does not support what you said, in a post to this forum, that Novenson supports your 'retrojected' idea. ie. you posted:

"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."

maryhelena: I'll ask you again. What in Novenson's book supports the idea that a "messianic idea from later Judaism and Christianity....(has)..been retrojected back".....to the gospel political time frame?

Unless we are talking about completely different posts I have to differ. The post sets out clearly what the common assumption about the messiah was in the time of the Jesus story and then proceeds to show that there is no evidence for this assumption.

Neil: What does any of this have to do with "Jesus historicists"? What does it have to do with "proponents of the Pauline Christ Myth"? What is my vested interest? What do I have to lose if I am wrong? It would help if you spell out exactly what you see is my vested interest and how the arguments of Green, Novenson, and others fit into it.

maryhelena: It has everything to do with the Pauline Christ Myth theory:

Jesus originated as a myth derived from Middle Platonism with some influence from Jewish mysticism,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myt ... rl_Doherty

That theory is compromised if the political time frame in which the gospel story is set was a political time frame in which 'messianic language' was part of the cultural landscape. i.e. such a landscape of 'messianic language' had within itself the potential to give rise to the gospel Jesus story. Such a cultural landscape did not need any Pauline myth derived from Middle Platonism in order to generate, create, a gospel Jesus story.

As far as I am aware Doherty embraces the common assumption that there was a popular messianic expectation at that time so I don't see how my opposing that assumption necessarily makes his theory any more or less likely. But you keep talking about "messianic language". I am not sure what you mean by that, exactly. But arguing Doherty's thesis is a separate question, surely. The important thing is to establish exactly what we have evidence for and what we lack evidence for.

Neil: Novenson, I believe, is a quite conservative Christian. Hurtado even more so and Hurtado is persuaded by Novenson. Does that mean I have a vested interest in the arguments of conservative Christians?

maryhelena: By upholding this idea of a retrojected messianic idea you are supporting, by default if you like, the Christ Myth theory.

So Novenson and Hurtado support mythicism by default, too? The Christ Myth theory does not stand or fall on this at all. Nor does "the Historical Jesus". It simply changes the possible range of explanations for either.

Even if, for the sake of argument, you could identify a specific messianic idea and that this specific messianic idea was retrojected into the gospel political time frame (something you have not done)

I have said repeatedly that the messianic idea is the expectation of a coming Messiah to conquer enemies and liberate the Jews. I have said that repeatedly so many times now. How much more specific can I be? I am saying that I know of no evidence that this was a popular expectation in the Second Temple era. Is not that specific enough?

- that would not overshadow, override or negate, the cultural landscape that was already there. A cultural landscape that upheld, as Novenson wrote:

What this latter set of scriptures have in common is not the word “messiah” but rather the promise, either in oracular or in visionary form, of an indigenous ruler for the Jewish people. (p. 58)

That, Neil, is the cultural landscape that had within it its own potential to create the Jesus gospel story.

No, it's not. Just read the passage you quoted. Novenson is talking about a sub-set of scriptures. He is not talking about a cultural phenomenon that has an eager anticipation of a coming liberating messiah. He is even explaining that those scriptures make no reference to a "messiah" -- that is clear even from the sentence you quote.

The Pauline Myth theory is secondary to the primary focus of the gospel Jesus story; that primary focus being a political cultural focus. The Pauline Christ Myth theory, as it now stands, is heading for the museum of cultural curiosities....Rather than further the search for early christian origins it has hamstrung such a search - as is evidenced by its reluctance to face the impact of what Novenson is saying: "...an indigenous ruler of the Jewish people" is the common source of messianic ideas or messianic language. And that, Neil, is the Achilles heel of the Pauline Christ Myth theory. And that is why you are finding it necessary to retroject into the gospel political time frame a later messianic idea. The Pauline Christ myth theory cannot deal with what Novenson is saying: Messianic language was part and parcel of the Jewish cultural landscape - whatever the specific time period.

I think you have missed the point of what I am trying to suggest. You say, "..an indigenous ruler of the Jewish people" is the common source of messianic ideas or messianic language" -- If you have evidence to show that this was a common messianic idea in the Second Temple period then show it. I know of none. But I am NOT saying that some people didn't want to rebel or get rid of the Romans. I simply don't see the relevance of any of this to the "Pauline Christ Myth theory"

Where does Novenson say that Messianic language was part and parcel of the Jewish cultural landscape - whatever the specific time period? You have just quoted a passage where he is saying that there was NO link in certain scriptures between a prophesied ruler and a "messiah". Those scriptures took on the messianic link post 70 according to the evidence we have, as far as I can see.

[neilgodfrey]

Novenson, quoting, John Gager:

Within this timeframe, I take both Jewish and Christian messiah texts as evidence of conventions of ancient messiah language. Following many recent interpreters, I avoid as anachronistic the distinction between Judaism and Christianity in the mid-first century C.E. What is more, I take it that messiah texts are not exempted from this methodological rule. As John Gager has rightly commented, “The figures of Jesus and his early followers fall completely within the bounds of first-century Jewish messianism. . . . The presence of the term christos in a first-century text, even attached to one put to death by his enemies, does not place that figure outside or even at the periphery of messianic Judaism.”

Novenson, Matthew V.. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Page 10). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

The gospel story, a story set around the 15th year of Tiberius, does fall, re Gager, and supported by Novenson, "completely within the bounds of first-century Jewish messianism".

The bottom line here is that long before the NT Paul put pen to paper - messianic Judaism would have been able to create a Jesus story on its own.

And the NT Paul aside - what was the Josephan writer doing when applying the Joseph in Egypt story to Agrippa I? Josephus even going as far as to have Agrippa I rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. . . . .

If you read the full context of this quotation -- or just read the quotation itself with care -- you will see that what Novenson is arguing is that the way Paul conceptualized the Messiah, the Christ, is part and parcel of the full spectrum of messianic ideas in the mid-first century CE. He is arguing that Paul's concept was not alien or radical or the black swan in Jewish messianic concepts at this time. Even a christ put to death by his enemies is not something that lives at "the periphery of messianic Judaism".

To become oversimplistic for a moment for the sake of stressing the point I'm trying to make here, Novenson would have answered tim or spin's (I often confuse them) question affirmatively: Jews would have accepted and indeed did accept a "dead messiah".

[neilgodfrey]

An idle moment has found me so I thought i'd spell out in detail the reason I found myself perplexed and unable to answer spin's question. Here's his question:

Remembering the apocalyptic nature of the messiah and the reaction to Aqiba's claim that Simeon bar Kokhba was the messiah was "Grass will grow on your cheeks and still the Son of David does not come!" (Palestinian Talmud, Ta`anit 4.5), how do you think the majority of Jews would have reacted to the notion of a dead messiah?

Remembering the apocalyptic nature of the messiah: Paul's "crucified Christ" is also arguably an apocalyptic phenomenon. And significant references to the word "messiah" in the Jewish literature and scriptures do not invest the concept with apocalypticism. So when the question begins calling on me to "remember" something and then proceeds to tell me that what I should remember is as far as I am aware highly ambiguous and perhaps not even real then I immediately wonder why the question is asking me to remember just one of an array of interpretations.

and the reaction to Aqiba's claim that Simeon bar Kokhba was the messiah was "Grass will grow on your cheeks and still the Son of David does not come!" (Palestinian Talmud, Ta`anit 4.5) Immediately I wonder what this has to do with the Second Temple era. The concept of messiah evidently took shape towards what we think of it today only after the Second Temple period.

Furthermore, what is the relationship between Aqiba's words and the majority opinion of Jews at any period? Aqiba elsewhere in the rabbinical texts is said to hold "heretical" views, or at least "wrong" ideas that needed correcting by other rabbis. Aqiba is kept in the company of the "orthodox" only because he changed his mind in another debate that also overlapped with Christian beliefs.

how do you think the majority of Jews would have reacted : Palestinian Jews? Diaspora Jews? Other? Were the majority of Jews a body of orthodox views on a messianic idea in the Second Temple era? Intellectual Jews? Lay Jews? Political Jews? You mention Aqiba -- so do you mean second century Jews? Or were we talking about the early/mid first century Jews? Do you assume that nothing had changed with respect to the notion of "messiah" in the popular consciousness or among an elite group or what over that time?

to the notion of a dead messiah?: Given the various "schools" of Jews in the Second Temple era, and the fact that among these were those who acknowledged the atoning and salvific power of blood of matyrs and of "the beloved son" (a first born theoretically destined for sacrifice), and given the notion of the liberating power of the death of a messianic (anointed) high priest in the Torah, and the several references to dead messiahs in the OT (high priest, Saul, Daniel's text), and the Second Temple notion of a close nexus between blood and salvation, and the broadly applicable concept of "messiah" itself as found in the scriptures and other writings of the Second Temple period, . . . I imagine some and perhaps even a good many would not have been offended by the idea of a messiah dying (temporarily presumably?) as part of his mission statement.

But the expression "dead messiah" is a loaded one that strikes me as quite misrepresentative of what any and all Christians ever preached.

P.S. It is not valid to take late (second or third century) rabbinic claims to represent what had always been "the orthodoxy" even in Second Temple times as "fact" unless we have supporting evidence that overturns the evidence we do have that contradicts that late claim.

P.P.S.
What would be the significance of "a majority of Jews" as opposed to "a minority of Jews" accepting some sort of belief in a messiah whose job role including dying? If we answer "majority" on the assumption that there was an orthodoxy that allowed for this at the time and among the people in question, then we would have an amazing problem. We might be left wondering why Judaism did not itself as a whole evolve into Christianity. So the question itself is a bit bizarre given this specific qualification. All we would need for Christianity to develop from Judaism according to all the assumptions that I think are implicit in the question (and that I do not accept for reasons stated above) is for a minority of Jews to accept a view that became the rump of a breakaway group that appealed to gentiles, too. (But I don't accept the simplistic view of this scenario -- my answer is hypothetical and contingent.)

[pakeha]

Keeping in mind those three devastating conflagrations I don't quite see why it's a reasonable assumption to think Tacitus had access to any possible Acta Diurna which may and I repeat MAY have possibly mentioned any particular crucifixion in Jerusalem during Pontius Plate's governorship, beowolf.

Do we have any reason to think individual crucifixions were ever mentioned in dispatches to the Emperor?
Or that an individual execution would have been mentioned in an Acta Diurna?

Tacitus ,


Tacitus (Oxford University Press academic monograph reprints) [Hardcover]
Ronald Syme (Author)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tacitus-Univers ... 0198143273

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLnT ... cta+diurna
5 pages matching acta diurna in this book
Page 120

Thanks for the links, beowolf.
As for the second link, yes there are five mentions of Acta Diurna in the book. I can't see that any of them are relevant to our discussion, though.
Perhaps you could explain why they are?

In any case, do we have any reason to think Jesus' crucifixion was mentioned in an Acta Diurna?
Or in any Roman document whatsoever?

[beowulf]

Keeping in mind those three devastating conflagrations I don't quite see why it's a reasonable assumption to think Tacitus had access to any possible Acta Diurna which may and I repeat MAY have possibly mentioned any particular crucifixion in Jerusalem during Pontius Plate's governorship, beowolf.

Do we have any reason to think individual crucifixions were ever mentioned in dispatches to the Emperor?
Or that an individual execution would have been mentioned in an Acta Diurna?

Tacitus ,


Tacitus (Oxford University Press academic monograph reprints) [Hardcover]
Ronald Syme (Author)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tacitus-Univers ... 0198143273

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OLnT ... cta+diurna
5 pages matching acta diurna in this book
Page 120

Thanks for the links, beowolf.
As for the second link, yes there are five mentions of Acta Diurna in the book. I can't see that any of them are relevant to our discussion, though.
Perhaps you could explain why they are?

In any case, do we have any reason to think Jesus' crucifixion was mentioned in an Acta Diurna?
Or in any Roman document whatsoever?

That is a different matter.
That Tacitus could have made use of information no longer available to us , such as the Acta Diurna, is a very reasonable assumption.
What Tacitus may have learned and from where , that will remain forever unknown.

[stevencarrwork]

That is a different matter.
That Tacitus could have made use of information no longer available to us , such as the Acta Diurna, is a very reasonable assumption.
What Tacitus may have learned and from where , that will remain forever unknown.

Tim O'Neill is pretty certain that there were no contemporary writings about Jesus, and scorns people who think there should be.

So why would Tacitus scratch around trying to find out if somebody called 'Jesus' (a very common name) had been crucified, when even Christians could not tell you which year this was supposed to have happened in?

It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack , and O'Neill scoffs at the very idea that there even was a needle for Tacitus to find.

[beowulf]

That is a different matter.
That Tacitus could have made use of information no longer available to us , such as the Acta Diurna, is a very reasonable assumption.
What Tacitus may have learned and from where , that will remain forever unknown.

Tim O'Neill is pretty certain that there were no contemporary writings about Jesus, and scorns people who think there should be.

So why would Tacitus scratch around trying to find out if somebody called 'Jesus' (a very common name) had been crucified, when even Christians could not tell you which year this was supposed to have happened in?

It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack , and O'Neill scoffs at the very idea that there even was a needle for Tacitus to find.

I haven't read anything that Mr O'Neill may have written., nor have I read what his adversaries may have written.
My interest is limited to Tacitus and ends with him

[neilgodfrey]

That Tacitus could have made use of information no longer available to us , such as the Acta Diurna, is a very reasonable assumption.
What Tacitus may have learned and from where , that will remain forever unknown.

Our guesses and assumptions can be better informed if we track down classicist studies on Tacitus, his biases, his sources. What may seem reasonable and very plausible for a modern historian may turn out to be quite unlikely if we understand Tacitus a bit better quite apart from the Jesus/Christianity question.