Paul’s Messiah

[robert j]

Paul’s Christ was not a warrior-king anointed by god to restore the glory of the kingdom --- nor a priestly figure anointed by god to restore an earthly domain that would be pleasing to god for the people of Israel --- nor a human liberator destined to throw-off the yoke of foreign domination from the Jewish homelands.

Paul’s Christ was a cosmic salvific figure. A spirit destined to appear on a cloud similar to the one like a son-of man in Daniel (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Daniel 7:13). According to Paul, his Christ was coming in the very near future --- in the end --- to gather the living and the dead believers and sweep them to heaven to join all-in-all with god. (1Corinthians 15:22-28).

Who needs an earthly priest or a warrior-liberator when those in Christ will soon be whooshed-off to heaven?

Paul’s Christ humbled himself and died for the sake of mankind.

“… he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death …” (Philippians 2:8)

“… Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures …” (1 Corinthians 15:3)

"… And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? … This one bears our sins and suffers pain for us … he was wounded because of our acts of lawlessness … by his bruise we were healed … and the Lord gave him over to our sins … like a sheep he was led to the slaughter … and he bore the sins of many, and because of their sins he was given over." (Isaiah, chapter 53, NETS).

To play the oft-dangerous name game, one might speculate on Paul’s choice. In his extant letters, Paul used the moniker, Jesus Christ. Likely Jesus/Joshua did refer, as generally suggested, to some form of “salvation”. And “Christ/Christos” was likely meant as “one anointed”. So Paul’s intended meaning may have been “anointed savior” and "the anointed".

I think that Paul promoted a pre-existent cosmic spirit, now the heavenly spirit Jesus Christ, that had assumed the form of a man (Philippians 2:7) and suffered and died at the hands of ancient Jews in the distant past --- a mystery recently revealed by means of fresh and creative readings of the Jewish scriptures (as briefly described in the misplaced and often mistranslated doxology of Romans 16:25-27).

Paul’s Christ was the lord (Greek: kyrios), a sovereign, the heavenly ruler and master. It was the author of Mark that brought Paul’s cosmic spirit down to earth as he created his tale and placed the events in recent times in the Galilee and Judea.

“… who do you say that I am? Peter answered him, "You are the Christ” (Mark 8:29).

The messianic label became even more specific in John with the use of the Greek transliteration “messias” in John 1:41 and 4:25. The tales in both Mark and John are generally considered to have been written primarily for Gentile audiences.

In the very wide and diverse world of second-temple Judaism, there were precedents of those suffering or dying for their own salvation and for the benefit of a people or nation --- in both the Jewish scriptures and the Apocrypha. Here are a couple of examples in addition to the important passages from Isaiah chapter 53 cited above.

Neil Gillman argues that the following well-known passage in Daniel was intended as reassurance that those “pious Jews” that had “been martyred precisely because they were loyal to God and Torah” in the tumultuous events and persecutions of the author’s time had not died in vain (The Death of Death, 1997, pp. 86-89).

“And many of the ones sleeping in the dust of the earth shall arise, some into eternal life and others unto reproach and eternal shame” (Daniel 12:2, LXX).

In 2 and 4 Maccabees, the martyred brothers brought redemption to the nation in the 2nd-century BC revolt. The consensus dating for 4 Maccabees is from the turn of the Common Era (or earlier) to sometime prior to the destruction of the temple. And 4 Maccabees is dependent upon an earlier 2 Maccabees (or a non-extant document on which 2 Maccabees was dependent). The legends and thoughts in these documents were contemporary with the development of early Christian thought.

Mysticism, soteriology, eschatology, and messianic expectations are often intertwined. Paul’s mystical sharing with his Christ --- and the salvation provided by the belief in his Christ spirit when the end comes and that spirit descends and sweeps the faithful to heaven --- differs significantly from the traditional view held by many today of Jewish expectations of a human messiah.

In a world where the Jewish people were awash in Hellenistic influences, their homelands dominated by foreigners, and no priestly or warrior liberators had successfully restored the Israel of God --- someone found a spiritual salvation in the sacred scrolls. But ironically, the widest trail left from the spread of this "good news" was among the Gentiles.

robert j.

[neilgodfrey]

The Jesus Christ of Paul was not a messiah in the general sense of the word as applied to pre-exilic or second-temple Judaism. Paul’s Christ was not a warrior-king anointed by god to restore the glory of the kingdom --- nor a priestly figure anointed by god to restore an earthly domain that would be pleasing to god for the people of Israel --- nor a human liberator destined to throw-off the yoke of foreign domination from the Jewish homelands.

Matthew Novenson, a colleague of Larry Hurtado at the University of Edinburgh, argues to the contrary: Paul's messiah was all part and parcel of the range of messianic concepts of Second Temple Judaism.

Novenson concludes:

At the present time, scholarly scholarly opinion on χριστός in Paul is an ironic position. While most of the major monographs, commentaries, and theologies of Paul now follow Davies and Sanders in reading Paul in primarily "Jewish" rather than "Hellenistic" terms, on the question of the meaning of χριστός they nevertheless perpetuate the old religionsgeschichtliche thesis that Paul is revising, transcending, or otherwise moving beyond the messianic faith of the earliest Jesus movement. (p. 32, my emphasis)

So for all the diversity of the Christological theses abounding, they all share one point in common:

Whatever Paul's Christology is, it is not messianic.

Behind the diversity of opinions, however, rests one common presupposition:

Pauline interpreters think they know what messiah Christology would look like, and they are certain that Paul's Christology does not look like that.

It is this point that Novenson tackles in his book. He continues by way of introduction:

This is actually very curious, however, since the last sixty years in Jewish studies have witnessed a dramatic breakdown in consensus about what messiah Christology would look like and indeed whether it existed at all in the first century C.E.

As a result, the two subfields of research are like ships passing in the night.

When scholars of early Judaism have cast about for any instances of the word "messiah" in Hellenistic and Roman period literature find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means "Christ," not "messiah."

It is an open question, however, what "messiah" itself means. (pp. 32-33, my formatting)

The modern concept that there was "a general sense" of a messiah as a "warrior king" etc throughout either pre-exilic or Second Temple Judaism is arguably without foundation (e.g. Green, Thompson). Novenson adds his voice to the suggestion that this was the common understanding of messiah is actually a retrojection of subsequent, rabbinic era, views.

[toejam]

^Josephus (War 6.5.4) says that many Jews believed in an oracle that one from their country should become ruler of the habitable Earth, and that such an oracle had deceived many in their determination. He says this oracle was the motivator of many of the conflicts. That Josephus believed (or saved his skin by saying) the oracle was fulfilled by Vespasian gives us more reason to think the oracle in question was of a powerful ruler with military command.

[MrMacSon]

^Josephus (War 6.5.4) says that many Jews believed in an oracle that one from their country should become ruler of the habitable Earth, and that such an oracle had deceived many in their determination. He says this oracle was the motivator of many of the conflicts. That Josephus believed (or saved his skin by saying) the oracle was fulfilled by Vespasian gives us more reason to think the oracle in question was of a powerful ruler with military command.

Interesting points; though it would be a perceived oracle who, it was perceived, would be 'a powerful ruler' ??

This comment by Neil is interesting too (I think I got the implication right with the changes??)-

Novenson adds his voice to the suggestion that, this was [what has become] the common understanding of messiah, is actually a retrojection of subsequent, rabbinic era, views.

[MrMacSon]

.
It is this point that Novenson tackles in his book. He continues by way of introduction:

This is actually very curious, however, since the last sixty years in Jewish studies have witnessed a dramatic breakdown in consensus about what messiah Christology would look like and indeed whether it existed at all in the first century C.E.

As a result, the two subfields of research are like ships passing in the night.

When scholars of early Judaism have cast about for any instances of the word "messiah" in Hellenistic and Roman period literature find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means "Christ," not "messiah."

It is an open question, however, what "messiah" itself means. (pp. 32-33, my formatting)

I disagree with Novenson. I think the issue is what the meaning of χριστός is, and its root word - χριω (rub on, anoint), and their variants; such as χρηϲτοϲ (see below)

I think robertj makes a relevant point with -

... And “Christ/Christos” was likely meant as “one anointed”, or as some have suggested, it may have been originally “Chrestos” meaning “one who is good”. So Paul’s intended meaning may have been “anointed savior” or “good savior”.

These were terms that had usage as adjectives for describing

• * High-Priest Rulers (χριϲτοϲ, Greek / Christus (Christos), Latin) and
  * slaves (χρηϲτοϲ, Greek / Chrestus, Latin),

and as nouns; especially χριϲτοϲ, Greek / Christus (Christos), Latin

Stephan Huller has made the point in posts in recent weeks that there was a separate Hebrew word משיח Mashiach (approximate pronunciation), and the Aramaic Meshiach (approximate pronunciation), and definite Meshicha (approximate pronunciation)

Aside from this, there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word “Messiah”. This is an ARTIFICIAL word only existing in late modern English. There is the Hebrew word משיח Mashiach (approximate pronunciation) and the Aramaic Meshiach (approximate pronunciation) and definite Meshicha (approximate pronunciation) and the Greek phonetic transcription Messias (where the 's' is a Greek suffix).

A source of confusion is that the Aramaic and Greek forms also render the Hebrew Kohen Mashuach, an anointed High Priest. Another source of confusion is that although the word Mashiach = Christos in the Psalms usually refers to any earthly temporal king, in some places it refers to a heavenly figure known from Canaanite mythology and from contemporary writings about Melchizedek, seen as manifestation of a heavenly figure. (King of Salem = King of Peace. Melchizedek means King of Righteousness, as in the Christmas carol “Hark the Heavenly Angels Sing”, which says “Hail the King of Righteousness”. The phrase in the carol is a conscious translation of Melchizedek [Malki-tsedek in modern transcription]). A further difficulty is that some occurrences of Mashiach = Christos have both the earthly and the heavenly meanings.

It was the Marcionite understanding that Jesus NEVER EVER ONCE used the term Mashiach = Christos = Anointed for himself. This was because THE Messiah, i.e. well known Jewish salvic figure, i.e. the one like David was understood to be someone else.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 105#p19105

.

[neilgodfrey]

I disagree with Novenson. I think the issue is what the meaning of χριστός is, and its root word - χριω (rub on, anoint), and their variants;. . .

It is the meaning of the word for Second Temple Judaism and for Paul that Novenson's book addresses.

I don't "disagree" with Novenson and I don't "agree" with him either. I am not nearly well enough acquainted with all the studies to have a decisive view either way. I can lean towards certain arguments but am always conscious that I might (and probably will) change some of my thinking the more I learn and read. In other words I think there's too much amateur dogmatism here.

[outhouse]

I think there's too much amateur dogmatism here.

Agreed.

One note not addressed.

Did Aramaic Judaism have a different definition of Messiah, VS that of Hellenistic Judaism? it would be insane to think they were one in the same.

All sects would have had different interpretations, based on geographic location.

I would think this is a perfect reason why Paul perverted the Messianic mythology so badly compared to say what an Aramaic Jew would have done.
I don't think Jesus was even viewed a Messiah by anyone while alive. I feel it was mythological growth in Hellenism all through the Diaspora.

To real Jews, in martyrdom mythology, he was a failed Messiah.

[MrMacSon]

I disagree with Novenson. I think the issue is what the meaning of χριστός is, and its root word - χριω (rub on, anoint), and their variants;. . .

It is the meaning of the word for Second Temple Judaism and for Paul that Novenson's book addresses.

I guess I need to read it to put that quote in context, though I'd hope he addresses all the options of ' ... what "messiah" itself means' and provides some insights.

[MrMacSon]

Matthew Novenson, a colleague of Larry Hurtado at the University of Edinburgh, argues to the contrary: Paul's messiah was all part and parcel of the range of messianic concepts of Second Temple Judaism.

Novenson concludes:

At the present time, scholarly scholarly opinion on χριστός in Paul is an ironic position. While most of the major monographs, commentaries, and theologies of Paul now follow Davies and Sanders in reading Paul in primarily "Jewish" rather than "Hellenistic" terms, on the question of the meaning of χριστός they nevertheless perpetuate the old religionsgeschichtliche thesis that Paul is revising, transcending, or otherwise moving beyond the messianic faith of the earliest Jesus movement. (p. 32, my emphasis)

OK so Novenson mainly looks at Paul.

Definitions and Concepts

Novenson limits his study of Paul’s understanding of χριστός to the seven letters generally accepted as authentic: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.

He speaks of “messiah texts” and “messiah language” as distinct from “messianism”. Thus his argument addresses the meaning of messiah language in our texts, what the term itself meant, and not the real or hypothetical existence of social movements anticipating a messiah.

http://vridar.org/2012/06/15/christ-amo ... hs-part-1/

Neil looks at others' views of Paul eg.

Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860)
Baur wrote:

[Paul] saw in the death of Christ the purification of the Messianic idea from all the sensuous elements which cleaved to it in Judaism, and its elevation to the truly spiritual consciousness where Christ comes to be recognised as . . . the absolute principle of the spiritual life.

That is, for Baur, Paul was purging the concept of the Jewish Messiah from all of its Jewish trappings of an earthly religion and transforming it into an entirely spiritual concept as the focus of a new religion opposed to Judaism. Paul in effect was said to “liberate” Christianity from Judaism by turning the Jewish “Messiah” idea into a “higher” and more spiritual concept, “Christ”.
Baur based his view on what he regarded as only four genuine Pauline epistles: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans. These four epistles, moreover, contained interpolations expressing what Baur considered an anti-Pauline view of Christ.

I think it would be good to look beyond Paul; especially before Paul, as a foundation; as comparison.

Add: such as is discussed by Kapyong here http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 552#p20552
.

[MattMorales]

Whether or not there was single idea of a warrior messiah, let us not forget the early belief that Christ, in his second coming, would fulfill that function. The eschatology of 1 Corinthians and numerous references to the Son of Man in Mark shed light on a belief that the messiah would come down directly from heaven. Also see the function of Melchizedek in 11Q13.