Two new articles by our pal Tim O'Neill

[maryhelena]

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.

Yep, great quote from Yeats.....

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.

Neil, if some people, NT scholars?, believed that a later 'messianic idea' was current during the earlier time of the gospel political time frame - and are now admitting they were wrong in doing so, because, seemingly, they now believe they have no evidence for their assertion. OK. If that is what your comment - the comment I questioned - is all about, then, surely, you could find, within Novenson's book, a quote to this effect.

Such a quote could have settled this issue many posts ago......

[neilgodfrey]

Neil, if some people, NT scholars?, believed that a later 'messianic idea' was current during the earlier time of the gospel political time frame - and are now admitting they were wrong in doing so, because, seemingly, they now believe they have no evidence for their assertion.

Sorry Maryhelena but I simply do not understand this statement. What is it you are saying? How can anyone possibly believe a "later" idea was current in an "earlier" time? That makes no sense as I read it. "Later" means it does not belong to the "earlier" time by definition. I simply don't follow you and you have been brow-beating me over something I have clearly not understood from the beginning. I have never suggested at all at any time that anyone has believed a "later messianic idea" was current during an "earlier time" -- never have I suggested anything like that. Such a sentence makes no sense to me. I think you have misread badly. I simply do not understand what it is you are trying to say or to convince me of.

I have said that there is no evidence for a particular view being held as part of a popular cultural phenemonon at a certain time. If I am wrong then show me the evidence.

OK. If that is what your comment - the comment I questioned - is all about, then, surely, you could find, within Novenson's book, a quote to this effect.

I have never made the comment you seem to think I have. I cannot understand your question. I keep telling you as much and continue to try to explain my point as best I can and you continue to browbeat me over something I simply do not understand.

If you mean, however, that I am simply saying scholars have mistakenly imputed an idea to a time when it did not have widespread traction, then yes, I have shown you Novenson's clear statements to that effect. Did you read the post where I cite three quotations by Novenson (two of them where he is quoting others -- Charlesworth and Green) on page 41 of his book. This comes after my pointing out that Novenson had discussed the messianic idea of popular imagination today (citing Schurer) that scholars have traditionally imputed to the early first century/time of Jesus/Second Temple era. How much clearer can that be? Why all your brow-beating over this? Would you like me to dig out further and fuller quotations by Charlesworth and Green, too?

Such a quote could have settled this issue many posts ago......

Quote about what? Your arguments, your points, are ambiguous and unclear. I have told you I do not understand what you mean several times yet you won't help me. What you seem to be asking me doesn't exist and is not what I have ever claimed about Novenson's views at all.

Or if I read you another way I think I can see that you do understand my point but that you simply deny the words you read in the quotations I have given you from Novenson. The quotations I have given are as clear as can be and I have been pointing to them from the beginning. I wonder if you are reading that post as tendentiously and as carelessly as you are reading my comments here -- do you really enjoy a good kick and punch fight rather than a discussion where we try to understand each other or what?

I really am confused, Maryhelena. You do not seem to understand Novenson's point and I cannot understand why you represent him the way you do. Please do explain to me what you think I am arguing and what your problem is with my point and what it is you are wanting me to explain or answer. I really don't follow you. And please back off the brow-beating here, okay? Turn your Yeats quote around to work both ways.

[maryhelena]

Neil, if some people, NT scholars?, believed that a later 'messianic idea' was current during the earlier time of the gospel political time frame - and are now admitting they were wrong in doing so, because, seemingly, they now believe they have no evidence for their assertion.

Sorry Maryhelena but I simply do not understand this statement. What is it you are saying? How can anyone possibly believe a "later" idea was current in an "earlier" time? That makes no sense as I read it. "Later" means it does not belong to the "earlier" time by definition.

Back to square one.......This is what you wrote and this is what I asked for clarification re Novenson.

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.

I simply don't follow you and you have been brow-beating me over something I have clearly not understood from the beginning. I have never suggested at all at any time that anyone has believed a "later messianic idea" was current during an "earlier time" -- never have I suggested anything like that. Such a sentence makes no sense to me. I think you have misread badly. I simply do not understand what it is you are trying to say or to convince me of.

Brow-beating you? Neil, this really is going to be my final post over this issue.

I have said that there is no evidence for a particular view being held as part of a popular cultural phenemonon at a certain time. If I am wrong then show me the evidence.

OK. If that is what your comment - the comment I questioned - is all about, then, surely, you could find, within Novenson's book, a quote to this effect.

I have never made the comment you seem to think I have. I cannot understand your question. I keep telling you as much and continue to try to explain my point as best I can and you continue to browbeat me over something I simply do not understand.

If you mean, however, that I am simply saying scholars have mistakenly imputed an idea to a time when it did not have widespread traction, then yes, I have shown you Novenson's clear statements to that effect. Did you read the post where I cite three quotations by Novenson (two of them where he is quoting others -- Charlesworth and Green) on page 41 of his book. This comes after my pointing out that Novenson had discussed the messianic idea of popular imagination today (citing Schurer) that scholars have traditionally imputed to the early first century/time of Jesus/Second Temple era. How much clearer can that be? Why all your brow-beating over this? Would you like me to dig out further and fuller quotations by Charlesworth and Green, too?

Such a quote could have settled this issue many posts ago......

Quote about what? Your arguments, your points, are ambiguous and unclear. I have told you I do not understand what you mean several times yet you won't help me. What you seem to be asking me doesn't exist and is not what I have ever claimed about Novenson's views at all.

Or if I read you another way I think I can see that you do understand my point but that you simply deny the words you read in the quotations I have given you from Novenson. The quotations I have given are as clear as can be and I have been pointing to them from the beginning. I wonder if you are reading that post as tendentiously and as carelessly as you are reading my comments here -- do you really enjoy a good kick and punch fight rather than a discussion where we try to understand each other or what?

I really am confused, Maryhelena. You do not seem to understand Novenson's point and I cannot understand why you represent him the way you do. Please do explain to me what you think I am arguing and what your problem is with my point and what it is you are wanting me to explain or answer. I really don't follow you. And please back off the brow-beating here, okay? Turn your Yeats quote around to work both ways.

All you needed to do when I first raised my question, re your above comment, was to show where in his book that Novenson supported the above statement. i.e. where does Novenson, in his book, support the idea that a: ...."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]

All you needed to do when I first raised my question, re your above comment, was to show where in his book that Novenson supported the above statement. i.e. where does Novenson, in his book, support the idea that a: ...."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.

This is a bit much, Maryhelena. I have pointed to the post where it's all set out from the very beginning. If you could not see it there before then I hope you can now that I have directed you to the very specific quotations I took from page 41 there and how they conflict with his earlier discussion of details conveniently outlined by Schurer. If you need more to this effect I can quote you more from Charlesworth, Green, Thompson and some others. It is not a novel idea.