Two new articles by our pal Tim O'Neill

[neilgodfrey]

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.

Not answer with a few words a trap question laden with innuendo and false assumptions? Correct. I won't. Nor will you respond to any of my requests for you to justify the assumptions in your question. Impasse. But please be civil about it, spin

[maryhelena]

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.

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

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.

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: 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."

[neilgodfrey]

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

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.

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.

Again you've lost me, sorry. I don't know what you mean by a "retrojected messianic idea" having "value". 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". I'm talking about a certain anacrhonistic messianic idea. I'm not sure exactly why you are referring instead to "messianic language" here. 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".

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Hawthorne]

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.

Not answer with a few words a trap question laden with innuendo and false assumptions? Correct. I won't. Nor will you respond to any of my requests for you to justify the assumptions in your question. Impasse. But please be civil about it, spin

Yes. One assumption is that there was ever a time that Christians thought Jesus was dead. Paul's Jesus is Risen. There is no evidence outside of the Gospels that any Christian ever believed that Jesus was dead period. Jesus, to Christians, was Risen. No Christian has ever worshiped a dead messiah.

[Stephan Huller]

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

[neilgodfrey]

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.

Not answer with a few words a trap question laden with innuendo and false assumptions? Correct. I won't. Nor will you respond to any of my requests for you to justify the assumptions in your question. Impasse. But please be civil about it, spin

Yes. One assumption is that there was ever a time that Christians thought Jesus was dead. Paul's Jesus is Risen. There is no evidence outside of the Gospels that any Christian ever believed that Jesus was dead period. Jesus, to Christians, was Risen. No Christian has ever worshiped a dead messiah.

Exactly. Death was the means used by the Christ to conquer the ruling powers including Death himself -- according to some Christian schools, or one of them at least. Others interpreted death in the Maccabean martyr sense whereby the blood of martyrs -- like the blood of Isaac according to some Second Temple schools -- covered the sins of the "nation". There were indeed Jewish schools of the Second Temple era who saw sacrificial blood -- that is, the blood of a martyr -- as having salvific/atoning powers. Other schools did not preach a crucified Christ at all but an all-conquering one from heaven (e.g. Revelation). Or if we accept Q we can infer that some saw Jesus as no more than a great teacher whose death had no theological significance at all.

The use of the term "Jews" is also problematic. It could be used in a polemical and theological sense to label those who were outsiders (or insiders) and not according to our ethnic understanding. There was no Jewish orthodoxy with a set of messianic beliefs that was "the standard" for the nation in the Second Temple period -- at least there is no evidence for this and the evidence we do have suggests otherwise. To refer to "Jews" at this time and place as if they had some orthodox idea of any sort about a "messiah/anointed one" is an anachronism.

There is evidence of major changes in what constituted "Jews" from the second century on. Josephus could write of various religious philosophies among those in Judea and speak with some respect and acceptance of all (though maybe not the fourth one). Some scholars have interpreted this description of Jewish factions as "philosophies" as a bit of over-reach by Josephus who strives in vain to compare the Jews with the Greeks. But no -- Jewish studies are taking a different turn lately and seeing this description as most apt: the Jews were indeed part and parcel of the Hellenistic culture and had their own "philosophical" schools as did the Greeks. Early Christian sects were probably among these.

The point is that by the end of the second century all or most of these sects, (e.g. the Sadducees) were synonymous with heretics, outcasts, exiles with whom the orthodox must avoid contact. 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.

[neilgodfrey]

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.

I also have a comment. His opening paragraph is surely condescending to his readers:

This seems a good argument to many, since modern people tend to leave behind them a lot of evidence they existed (birth certificates, financial documents, school records, etc.) and prominent modern people have their lives documented by the media almost daily. So it sounds suspicious to people that there are no contemporary records at all detailing or even mentioning Jesus. . . . So while this seems like a good argument, a better knowledge of the ancient world and the nature of our evidence and sources shows that it's actually extremely weak.

Do "many" people really think that way? Do any mythicists attempt to suggest anything like this? I would have thought many lay people would not expect "birth certificates, school records" or anything comparable to be surviving from ancient times. Tim here makes it sound as if the question is entirely about an unimportant nobody. This is surely all straw man stuff with little respect for the intelligence of lay readers.

[stevencarrwork]

Back to Tim O'Neill's piece.

I also have a comment. His opening paragraph is surely condescending to his readers:

This seems a good argument to many, since modern people tend to leave behind them a lot of evidence they existed (birth certificates, financial documents, school records, etc.) and prominent modern people have their lives documented by the media almost daily. So it sounds suspicious to people that there are no contemporary records at all detailing or even mentioning Jesus. . . . So while this seems like a good argument, a better knowledge of the ancient world and the nature of our evidence and sources shows that it's actually extremely weak.

So does TON think the crucifixion of Jesus would have been written about by contemporaries for Tacitus to find in the Acta Diurna?

[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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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) - 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. 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.

Neil: What do I have to lose if I am wrong?

maryhelena: Depends on how much time and effort (or financial resources) that you put into backing the wrong horse.....

[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