Two new articles by our pal Tim O'Neill

[pakeha]

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.

It's not a different matter as far as I can see, beowolf.
You responded to my comment on TON's piece at Strange Notions and in my original post in this thead I quoted TON's view on Tacitus' sources

Reports from the provinces to the Senate were published in the Acta Diurna and we know Tacitus had access to and utilised archives of those documents. We don't know if the execution of some Galilean troublemaker at Passover was significant enough to warrant a mention or if Tacitus used any such report. I'm just noting the possibility. Incidentally, Richard Carrier has repeatedly claimed that any such records would have been destroyed in the Great Fire and so Tacitus couldn't have used them, which shows that Carrier, for all his bluster, isn't as well read in the sources as he thinks he is.
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheis ... 1423215482

Since we're here, wasn't Judaea directly under Imperial governance, rather than that of the Senate?


Is it very reasonable to think Tacitus had access to Acta Diurna that pre-dated the fires of 64, 70 and 84?
Or that any such document would mention an individual crucifixion in an Imperial province?

If I sound like I'm returning again and again to the same point, it's because I'm trying to understand why TON has taken this stance on the subject of Tacitus' sources for the Christian presence in Rome at the time of the Great Fire.
As far as I can see the first official Roman mention of Christians is Nerva's edict of 98.
ETA
And not even there, correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[beowulf]

I'm trying to understand why TON ...

I understand that .


Your findings could be very helpful to the understanding of Tacitus .Please, persevere with your efforts until you succeed.

[pakeha]

I'm trying to understand why TON ...

I understand that .


Your findings could be very helpful to the understanding of Tacitus .Please, persevere with your efforts until you succeed.

Thanks for the encouragement, Beowolf; Tacitus is a fascinating person and well worth learning about.
Still, those three fires pretty well put paid to learning more about his sources dating from before 84.

By the way, did you know that contrary to what we read, some examples of Acta Diurna have survived to our day?

[beowulf]

I'm trying to understand why TON ...

I understand that .


Your findings could be very helpful to the understanding of Tacitus .Please, persevere with your efforts until you succeed.

Thanks for the encouragement, Beowolf; Tacitus is a fascinating person and well worth learning about.
Still, those three fires pretty well put paid to learning more about his sources dating from before 84.

By the way, did you know that contrary to what we read, some examples of Acta Diurna have survived to our day?

My final post on this subject.
Tacitus is thought to have been 8 or 9 years old in 64 . The Great Fire must have been a very important event in the life of Rome: the suspects investigated and the culpable talked about and written about for years . The Acta Diurna was also a daily newspaper in another format. Tacitus had the whole of a living Rome as his source for events that had taken place during his childhood .
A great part of the writings of Tacitus have not survived and that is a great pity. Ronald Syme is a very good starting point for Tacitus

[MrMacSon]

Back to Tim O'Neill's piece.

His first point is this:

1. "There are no contemporary accounts or mentions of Jesus. There should be, so clearly no Jesus existed."

Which mythicists is Tim O'Neill referring to here? Who makes this argument?

That's my main query.

O'Neill's first point, in Part 1, is an appeal to 'authority' via appeal to 'tradition of authority'

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

He then 'poisons-the-well' against mythicism with some bold-assertions.


Re

• 1. "There are no contemporary accounts or mentions of Jesus. There should be, so clearly no Jesus existed."

O'Neill argues with the red-herring fallacy about lack of references to many other ppl at the time.

• 3. "The earliest Christian traditions make no mention of a historical Jesus and clearly worshipped a purely heavenly, mythic-style being. There are no references to an earthly Jesus in any of the earliest New Testament texts, the letters of Paul."

In the subsequent discussion, O'Neill assumes the Pauline letters are authentic to the 1st C; he fails to consider they may have been altered later.


Re

we have late first century stories that all claim there was an early first century person who lived within living memory and then make a series of claims about him. If there was no such person, the Mythicist does need to explain how the stories about his existence arose and took the form they do. And they need to do so in a way that accounts for the evidence better than the parsimonious idea that this was believed because there was such a person.

We all realise ppl in generations after the stories were circulated believed those stories, just as ppl today believe the narratives of Ron L Hubbard written 2-3 generations ago ...

It is likely that "the stories about his existence arose and took the form they do" b/c of 'cumulative elaboration' over many generations, culminating in their consolidation in the early 4th C, and even later

[maryhelena]

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".

Neil, I did not ask what you thought about 'widespread cultural expectations'. I asked about whether or not you are denying 'any' messianic language during the political time frame of the gospel story. Your reply above is answering your own question not my question! Your 'yes' does not relate to what I asked. Your 'yes' relates to a proposition that I did not make. My question still stands.

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

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.

If Paul refashioned 'the existing idea', the idea, re Novenson: "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)" and if that is not a problem for a certain version of mythicism then I don't know what could be! If Paul 'refashioned the existing idea' - re Novenson - then, Neil, the gospel Jesus story had no need for Paul...i.e. that pre-Paul view of Jewish messianism was enough for any pre-Paul Jew to write the gospel Jesus story.

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.

I quoted you Josephus! Let me repeat that quote:

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.

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, you are not responding to what I'm asking of you......You have not provided in your blog post, nor in posts to this thread, where in Novenson's book does he support your premise that:

"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."

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.

So, Neil, if there was, re Doherty, "a popular messianic exception at that time' why do you need your idea of a later messianic idea 'retrojected' back? What purpose does a 'retrojected' messianic idea accomplish? And to boot - you have not provided a source from Novenson supporting your assertion.

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?

Neil, I quoted you Josephus re messianic expectation prior to 70 c.e......and I also suggested that people do not give up hoping to free themselves from an occupying force. Jews living under Roman occupation in 1st century Palestine and you want evidence that there was no 'popular expectation' for a messianic leader? Seems to me such a position runs contrary to the reality of the political situation. Hope springs eternal - even in the face of the might of Rome. How, when and where, that hope for a messianic leader would find an outlet - that's another issue entirely. But to deny, because one has no evidence for a 'popular expectation', during the gospel time-frame - seems, to me, a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

- 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.

Neil, it's not the word 'messiah' that is relevant - it's what that word is referencing that is important. And that is, re Novenson: ..."the promise, either in oracular or in visionary form, of an indigenous ruler for the Jewish people.". And yes, that 'promise' was given substance on one occasion under Roman rule. A Jewish leader did manage, for three short years, 40 - 37 b.c.e., to free Judea from Roman control - and paid with his life for doing so. Yes, a short-lived 'promise - enough though to keep hope alive.

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"

Neil, I quoted Josephus....see above.

Relevance for the 'Pauline Christ Myth theory'? The relevance is: The gospel Jesus story does not need the Pauline epistles. The gospel Jesus story stands on it's very own Jewish feet:

Novenson: 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.”

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.

Perhaps, Neil, re-read the above quote.

Neil, this exchange is not productive. My initial request was for you to support your position that Novenson supports a 'retrojected' 'messianic idea' . You have not done so.

"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."

If you don't have Novenson to support your assertion about a 'retrojected' 'messianic idea' - OK - just say this is your own idea - and we can then move on....

[pakeha]

[ . . .]
My final post on this subject.
Tacitus is thought to have been 8 or 9 years old in 64 . The Great Fire must have been a very important event in the life of Rome: the suspects investigated and the culpable talked about and written about for years . The Acta Diurna was also a daily newspaper in another format. Tacitus had the whole of a living Rome as his source for events that had taken place during his childhood .
A great part of the writings of Tacitus have not survived and that is a great pity. Ronald Syme is a very good starting point for Tacitus

You'd think so, that the Great Fire would have been seared into the living memory of the contemporary Romans, wouldn't you.
At least, until you learn there was another terrible fire in 69 and yet another in 80.
I have the impression the Great Fire was hardly a unique event.
On the other hand, I've wondered about Pliny the Elder's reference to it.

I've saved your link to Ronald Syme's work.
Thanks again.

[neilgodfrey]

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

I still don’t know what you mean by “any” messianic language during the political time frame of the gospel. Do you mean language that was later interpreted as messianic by scholars or do you mean references to “messiahs” explicitly?

If Paul refashioned 'the existing idea', the idea, re Novenson: "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)" and if that is not a problem for a certain version of mythicism then I don't know what could be! If Paul 'refashioned the existing idea' - re Novenson - then, Neil, the gospel Jesus story had no need for Paul...i.e. that pre-Paul view of Jewish messianism was enough for any pre-Paul Jew to write the gospel Jesus story.

You seem to be taking quotations from Novenson out of context and weaving them into an argument he does not make. I have outlined Novenson’s argument pretty comprehensively and don’t recognize it in what you are piecing together here.

Again, our interests seem quite separate. I am not interested in what might or might not pose a problem for any particular brand of mythicism. I’m not arguing for or against any form of mythicism – that’s not my point at all.

I quoted you Josephus! Let me repeat that quote:

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.

.

Why do you keep quoting Josephus? I don’t understand what this has to do with my point. I have said repeatedly and repeatedly that my argument is about popular expectations/on orthodox “messianic idea” prior to the Jewish War. Besides, there are various interpretations of what Josephus was referring to, anyway. But my whole point has been that before the War there is no evidence of popular expectations for the realization of a messianic idea.

If you have questions about something else then please try to understand what my own argument is. I may not be interested in mythicism arguments or otherwise or other questions. They are not my concern in this discussion.

Neil, you are not responding to what I'm asking of you......You have not provided in your blog post, nor in posts to this thread, where in Novenson's book does he support your premise that:

"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."

Sorry Maryhelena, but I have tried to point out several times that I don’t understand your question and I have attempted to clarify my point, and I cannot be any clearer that I believe my post answers what I truly believed to be your question. Perhaps you are asking something else I don’t understand.

My point is, to repeat once again, that I believe the idea of a conquering liberating messiah to come – that is, what is generally considered “the” messianic idea of the Jews, was something that took traction in Jewish culture AFTER the Second Temple era. The concept of “messiah” in the early to mid first century was virtually non-existent in the popular consciousness (at least there is no evidence for it of which I am aware). If I am wrong then show me the evidence. But I am NOT denying that there were political hopefuls who would have loved to see the Romans leave. But they were not known as “messiahs” nor were they seen as fulfilling hopes of “messiahs”.

Can I be any clearer? What does this have to do with mythicism? I simply don’t see its relevance to that question.

So, Neil, if there was, re Doherty, "a popular messianic exception at that time' why do you need your idea of a later messianic idea 'retrojected' back? What purpose does a 'retrojected' messianic idea accomplish? And to boot - you have not provided a source from Novenson supporting your assertion.

Again I don’t understand you, sorry. I don’t “need” my idea for anything. I am simply trying to point out that we have no evidence for a popular assumption in the discussion. If we had evidence otherwise then I would go with that. I don’t “need” any idea anachronistically placed in the early first century. I am simply saying that that’s what seems to be happening in the discussion. If I’m wrong then simply show me the evidence to the contrary.

Neil, I quoted you Josephus re messianic expectation prior to 70 c.e......and I also suggested that people do not give up hoping to free themselves from an occupying force. . . . .

And I have told you I fully agree with you. I have said, repeatedly now, that yes, I agree that people liked the idea of getting rid of the Romans. I have explained all that so why do you repeat this as if it is something I don’t grasp or that somehow contradicts my point?

Jews living under Roman occupation in 1st century Palestine and you want evidence that there was no 'popular expectation' for a messianic leader? Seems to me such a position runs contrary to the reality of the political situation. Hope springs eternal - even in the face of the might of Rome. How, when and where, that hope for a messianic leader would find an outlet - that's another issue entirely. But to deny, because one has no evidence for a 'popular expectation', during the gospel time-frame - seems, to me, a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You have missed my point entirely. Sorry, Maryhelena, but you have missed it entirely. This shows how ingrained our popular assumptions about Jews and messianic hopes are. My point is this: People can have hopes for liberation from occupiers without actually believing in the office of a “messiah” to fulfil those hopes. They can hope in a king or leader of any title, and I believe the Jews here were no different from other peoples of the time.
Like in the times of the Maccabees, they could place hopes in kings or would-be kings without thinking of any of those leaders as “The Messiah”. The “messiah” idea is what I am talking about. Not the political hopes of people.

Neil, it's not the word 'messiah' that is relevant - it's what that word is referencing that is important. And that is, re Novenson: ..."the promise, either in oracular or in visionary form, of an indigenous ruler for the Jewish people.". And yes, that 'promise' was given substance on one occasion under Roman rule. A Jewish leader did manage, for three short years, 40 - 37 b.c.e., to free Judea from Roman control - and paid with his life for doing so. Yes, a short-lived 'promise - enough though to keep hope alive.

We are talking past each other. We are talking about the Christ idea. The origin of the Christ idea. Why was Jesus seen as the Messiah? What is the origin of CHRISTianity/”MESSIAHianity”. At least I am talking about the “messianic idea”. That’s what Novenson and Green are talking about, too.

If you don't have Novenson to support your assertion about a 'retrojected' 'messianic idea' - OK - just say this is your own idea - and we can then move on....

I have read Novenson in depth and written in some detail on his ideas. I think I am justified in saying you are missing the points when you pick up specific quotations I have made from his work and use them to argue in a way that is not part of his thesis. I find it disappointing that you would so forcefully say I am the one who is misusing his work when you have indicated to me that you have not even read his book.

But Novenson is not the only one – certainly other scholars have likewise pointed out that we have no evidence for the popular assumption I am talking about.

All you have to do is point to the evidence to show me I’m wrong. But please keep in mind that I am not denying political hopes of liberation and my argument is indeed all about the significance of the term “messiah” so it is not kosher for you to suggest that it is irrelevant. If you think it is then we are simply arguing on quite different air-waves and are not engaging with each other’s point at all.

[maryhelena]

Neil, this exchange is going around the houses. Why? Because you are not answering the question I asked you in my first post. I'm not going to pursue this matter any further. Instead of giving me a straight answer you continue to evade the question I asked. I'm going to re-post my original post and leave this discussion as it has obviously run it's course and the question I raised will not be answered,

What we see in the Pauline religion is a redefinition of the notion of the messiah, transforming it into a pagan savior. . . . .

The notion of what a messiah for the Jews was -- from my way of looking at it -- was potentially variable. . . .

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. (We would, moreover, expect signs of effort to justify such a process had he done so; besides, his Christ concept is closer to a Logos concept shared by Stoics and many Jewish philosophies (Sophia) than a "pagan savior".)

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. (Key points outlined here.)

Neil, I had a look at your link but I did not find you used the word 'retrojected' in that article. I also checked out Novenson's book on amazon view and google book view. Both sources show no use of 'retrojected' in Novenson's book.

Has Novenson used some other term to say what you infer above: i.e. that "We do have a quite distinctive "messianic idea" from later Judaism and Christianity that has long been retrojected back to this period.

Quotes below from two online reviews of Novenson's book:

Reviewed by Joshua Garroway (Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles)
Published on H-Judaic (January, 2013)

Paul’s Jewish Messiah

Rarely can the thesis of a monograph be stated in a mere five words. Yet Matthew V. Novenson does not oversimplify by distilling his argument down to the bald claim that “Christos in Paul means ‘messiah’” (p. 3). This simple thesis is nevertheless bold and controversial because it challenges the commonly held view that Paul uses Christos as a (meaningless) name, not as a (meaningful) title. According to Novenson, Paul does not use Christos as a name or as a title but as a Hellenistic honorific, comparable to Augustus, Epiphanes, Soter, or Maccabee. As such, Christos means “messiah.”

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=36151

Nijay K. Gupta
Eastern University
St. Davids, Pennsylvania

In the second main chapter of the book Novenson engages in the convoluted problem
regarding how many scholars presume or argue that, so diverse was the perspective on
the messiah in the first century, that the word Christos is indeterminate and nearly
meaningless. While scholars of a few generations ago once referred to a kind of
“messianic idea” within common Judaism, most scholars today are extremely skeptical of
this concept. Without wanting to turn the clock back to a “messianic idea” mentality,
Novenson argues, quite reasonably, that just because there was no “messianic idea,” it can
hardly be the case that “messiah language” was devoid of meaning altogether.

Novenson appeals to “messiah language” in early Judaism as a “socio-linguistic
phenomenon” whereby “competent members of a linguistic community” could engage in
discussions of the messiah with some sense of shared meaning.

In any case, given the overwhelming number of times Paul
engages with the same “messianic texts” that we find other Jews citing (especially passages
associated with David), it becomes increasingly clear that, while Paul was making radical
claims about Jesus, he does seem to be entering into the same conversational stream that
Novenson calls “messiah language in ancient Judaism.

Indeed, when all the historical and literary pieces are assembled properly, Paul’s Christ language fits quite comfortably as a sensible, albeit creative, instance of “messiah language” in early Judaism.

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/8495_9527.pdf

I can see nothing in these two reviews that indicate that Novenson is presenting a case for Pauline messiah ideas being retrojected back to the "supposed time of Jesus".

Surely, your quote, on your linked webpage, from Nevenson, rules out the necessity for such a process:

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)

If this was so, that Jewish people had a core, a basic, reading of their scriptures in common - re an indigenous ruler - then why would one want to deny such a reality in the "supposed time of Jesus" ?.

Are you really suggesting that in the "supposed time of Jesus" that the Jews forgot about, or did not care about, their hope for an indigenous ruler. And this in a time of Roman occupation. The Jews did not need Pauline ideas to enlighten them re their own scriptural interpretations regarding an 'indigenous ruler'. Paul needed the Jewish scriptures for his spiritual/celestial messiah figure. However, Paul's messiah figure is not dressed in the political imagery of a Jewish messiah figure. Paul has dressed his messiah figure with Logos imagery. Paul looks for a spiritual, an intellectual, messiah figure not a Jewish political messiah figure. That does not mean that Paul's messiah figure negates any Jewish political messiah figure. Both types of messiah figures are relevant for the NT story.

Neil, the bottom line here is that the gospel Jesus (of whatever variant - where historical or ahistorical or a composite figure) was executed as a political messiah figure. The gospel Jesus was executed as a King of the Jews. 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.


viewtopic.php?p=13464#p13464

==========================================================================================

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

I still don’t know what you mean by “any” messianic language during the political time frame of the gospel. Do you mean language that was later interpreted as messianic by scholars or do you mean references to “messiahs” explicitly?

If Paul refashioned 'the existing idea', the idea, re Novenson: "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)" and if that is not a problem for a certain version of mythicism then I don't know what could be! If Paul 'refashioned the existing idea' - re Novenson - then, Neil, the gospel Jesus story had no need for Paul...i.e. that pre-Paul view of Jewish messianism was enough for any pre-Paul Jew to write the gospel Jesus story.

You seem to be taking quotations from Novenson out of context and weaving them into an argument he does not make. I have outlined Novenson’s argument pretty comprehensively and don’t recognize it in what you are piecing together here.

Again, our interests seem quite separate. I am not interested in what might or might not pose a problem for any particular brand of mythicism. I’m not arguing for or against any form of mythicism – that’s not my point at all.

I quoted you Josephus! Let me repeat that quote:

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.

.

Why do you keep quoting Josephus? I don’t understand what this has to do with my point. I have said repeatedly and repeatedly that my argument is about popular expectations/on orthodox “messianic idea” prior to the Jewish War. Besides, there are various interpretations of what Josephus was referring to, anyway. But my whole point has been that before the War there is no evidence of popular expectations for the realization of a messianic idea.

If you have questions about something else then please try to understand what my own argument is. I may not be interested in mythicism arguments or otherwise or other questions. They are not my concern in this discussion.

Neil, you are not responding to what I'm asking of you......You have not provided in your blog post, nor in posts to this thread, where in Novenson's book does he support your premise that:

"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."

Sorry Maryhelena, but I have tried to point out several times that I don’t understand your question and I have attempted to clarify my point, and I cannot be any clearer that I believe my post answers what I truly believed to be your question. Perhaps you are asking something else I don’t understand.

My point is, to repeat once again, that I believe the idea of a conquering liberating messiah to come – that is, what is generally considered “the” messianic idea of the Jews, was something that took traction in Jewish culture AFTER the Second Temple era. The concept of “messiah” in the early to mid first century was virtually non-existent in the popular consciousness (at least there is no evidence for it of which I am aware). If I am wrong then show me the evidence. But I am NOT denying that there were political hopefuls who would have loved to see the Romans leave. But they were not known as “messiahs” nor were they seen as fulfilling hopes of “messiahs”.

Can I be any clearer? What does this have to do with mythicism? I simply don’t see its relevance to that question.

So, Neil, if there was, re Doherty, "a popular messianic exception at that time' why do you need your idea of a later messianic idea 'retrojected' back? What purpose does a 'retrojected' messianic idea accomplish? And to boot - you have not provided a source from Novenson supporting your assertion.

Again I don’t understand you, sorry. I don’t “need” my idea for anything. I am simply trying to point out that we have no evidence for a popular assumption in the discussion. If we had evidence otherwise then I would go with that. I don’t “need” any idea anachronistically placed in the early first century. I am simply saying that that’s what seems to be happening in the discussion. If I’m wrong then simply show me the evidence to the contrary.

Neil, I quoted you Josephus re messianic expectation prior to 70 c.e......and I also suggested that people do not give up hoping to free themselves from an occupying force. . . . .

And I have told you I fully agree with you. I have said, repeatedly now, that yes, I agree that people liked the idea of getting rid of the Romans. I have explained all that so why do you repeat this as if it is something I don’t grasp or that somehow contradicts my point?

Jews living under Roman occupation in 1st century Palestine and you want evidence that there was no 'popular expectation' for a messianic leader? Seems to me such a position runs contrary to the reality of the political situation. Hope springs eternal - even in the face of the might of Rome. How, when and where, that hope for a messianic leader would find an outlet - that's another issue entirely. But to deny, because one has no evidence for a 'popular expectation', during the gospel time-frame - seems, to me, a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You have missed my point entirely. Sorry, Maryhelena, but you have missed it entirely. This shows how ingrained our popular assumptions about Jews and messianic hopes are. My point is this: People can have hopes for liberation from occupiers without actually believing in the office of a “messiah” to fulfil those hopes. They can hope in a king or leader of any title, and I believe the Jews here were no different from other peoples of the time.
Like in the times of the Maccabees, they could place hopes in kings or would-be kings without thinking of any of those leaders as “The Messiah”. The “messiah” idea is what I am talking about. Not the political hopes of people.

Neil, it's not the word 'messiah' that is relevant - it's what that word is referencing that is important. And that is, re Novenson: ..."the promise, either in oracular or in visionary form, of an indigenous ruler for the Jewish people.". And yes, that 'promise' was given substance on one occasion under Roman rule. A Jewish leader did manage, for three short years, 40 - 37 b.c.e., to free Judea from Roman control - and paid with his life for doing so. Yes, a short-lived 'promise - enough though to keep hope alive.

We are talking past each other. We are talking about the Christ idea. The origin of the Christ idea. Why was Jesus seen as the Messiah? What is the origin of CHRISTianity/”MESSIAHianity”. At least I am talking about the “messianic idea”. That’s what Novenson and Green are talking about, too.

If you don't have Novenson to support your assertion about a 'retrojected' 'messianic idea' - OK - just say this is your own idea - and we can then move on....

I have read Novenson in depth and written in some detail on his ideas. I think I am justified in saying you are missing the points when you pick up specific quotations I have made from his work and use them to argue in a way that is not part of his thesis. I find it disappointing that you would so forcefully say I am the one who is misusing his work when you have indicated to me that you have not even read his book.

But Novenson is not the only one – certainly other scholars have likewise pointed out that we have no evidence for the popular assumption I am talking about.

All you have to do is point to the evidence to show me I’m wrong. But please keep in mind that I am not denying political hopes of liberation and my argument is indeed all about the significance of the term “messiah” so it is not kosher for you to suggest that it is irrelevant. If you think it is then we are simply arguing on quite different air-waves and are not engaging with each other’s point at all.

[neilgodfrey]

Maryhelena, if you read my response you will know I am certainly not trying to avoid answering your question. I have explained why I do not understand your question and have answered as far as I do understand to the best I can in all sincerity. Instead of brow-beating me how about trying to accept that and clarify for me the point I have told you I don't understand and why. From my perspective I do feel I have bent over backwards to try to be courteous and understanding of your view and to try to remove what I think are misunderstandings between us. I really don't understand your response now or why you seem to be refusing to help me understand your point when I have told you what and why I do not understand your criticism or question. Presumably you believe you have said enough and assume I am being deliberately stubborn. I assure you I am not. Are you reading my posts to try to figure out what the difference is between us or are you looking for something I don't know how to give any more clearly than I have already? Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.