Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Laziness

[Stephan Huller]

I don't know if I have to create a wall of text to defend the idea that the Marcionites knew the Jewish idea about the messiah as a secular monarch/general. Here are a few examples:

So then, since heretical madness was claiming that that Christ had come who had never been previously mentioned, it followed that it had to contend that that Christ was not yet come who had from all time been foretold: and so it was compelled to form an alliance with Jewish error, and from it to build up an argument for itself, on the pretext that the Jews, assured that he who has come was an alien, not only rejected him as a stranger but even put him to death as an opponent, although they would beyond doubt have recognized him and have treated him with all religious devotion if he had been their own. (AM 3.6)

This section appears in Against the Jews as an argument against the Jews but is re-used here against Marcion throughout this section as if Marcion were in fact Jewish:

It is now possible for the heretic to learn, and the Jew as well, what he ought to know already, the reason for the Jew's errors: for from the Jew the heretic has accepted guidance in this discussion, the blind borrowing from the blind, and has fallen into the same ditch. I affirm that two descriptions of Christ, set forth by the prophets, indicated beforehand an equal number of advents: one of them, the first, in humility, when he was to be led like a sheep to sacrifice, and as a lamb before his shearer is voiceless so he opens not his mouth, and not even in form was ... blah, blah, blah (3.7)

This goes on for chapters as we will demonstrate only by the first sentence of each:

Let the heretic now give up borrowing poison from the Jew,— the asp, as they say, from the viper: let him from now on belch forth the slime of his own particular devices, as he maintains that Christ was a phantasm: except that this opinion too will have had other inventors, those so to speak premature and abortive Marcionites whom the apostle John pronounced antichrists, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh,a yet not with the intention of setting up the law of a second god—else for this too they would have been censured but because they
had assumed it incredible that God ... blah, blah

This continues in other books too:

Marcion lays it down that there is one Christ who in the time of Tiberius was revealed by a god formerly unknown, for the salvation of all the nations; and another Christ who is destined by God the Creator to come at some time still future for the reestablishment of the Jewish kingdom. (AM 4.6)

[neilgodfrey]

I don't know if I have to create a wall of text to defend the idea that the Marcionites knew the Jewish idea about the messiah as a secular monarch/general. Here are a few examples:

Is this replying to me? If so, it's not responding to my query. I'm looking for the evidence for your claim about "the" messiah idea in Second Temple Judaism.

[Stephan Huller]

and I also said that there is no direct evidence of the existence of full messianic concept before the last great Jewish revolt. Celsus, Marcion and the second century Church Fathers take it for granted however that the Jewish rejection of Jesus is based on the fact that Jesus did not appear as THE messiah was expected to manifest himself. Hence Jesus was not THE awaited Jewish messiah. Which FWIW is the date many fringe theories place the origins of Christianity. So if someone claims that Christianity was invented after or at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt that's the very same time that we hear distinctly that the Jews were awaiting for an anointed warrior king like David.

[Stephan Huller]

But the evidence is still there in the Qumran literature.

1. 4QPatr 3, which proclaims the coming of Mashiach Ha Sedek, while commenting on Gen. 49:10.
2. 4QFlor. 1.18-19 after alluding to 2 Samuel 7 and the "Scion of David," quotes Ps. 2:1-2.
3. the Cave 4 fragment, which seems to address the son of the king and reads, "He shall be called son of] the [G]reat [God], and by his name shall he be named. He shall be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High. As comets (flash) to the sight, so shall be their kingdom."
4. 1QSam 2.12 which quotes Isa. 11:1-5. In the latter we find the assurance that the Spirit of the Lord will be on the future descendant of David.

Although the number on uses of mashiach are few in the relevant literature, they are sufficient for de Jonge to conclude:

It denotes the special relationship to God of various figures which are expected in God's future. . . . There is clearly a tendency to connect the expression especially with the expected king and it is on the way to becoming a standard expression. Not the person as such, but his calling and function are of importance. (De Jonge, “Use of the Word 'Anointed' in the Time of Jesus,” p. 147)

[Stephan Huller]

With respect to the 'Son of God' concept it is worth noting that Celsus's Jew (a text written some time in the early second century by a Greek speaking Jew) assumes that 'Son of God' was a standard messianic terminology.

[neilgodfrey]

and I also said that there is no direct evidence of the existence of full messianic concept before the last great Jewish revolt. Celsus, Marcion and the second century Church Fathers take it for granted however that the Jewish rejection of Jesus is based on the fact that Jesus did not appear as THE messiah was expected to manifest himself. Hence Jesus was not THE awaited Jewish messiah. Which FWIW is the date many fringe theories place the origins of Christianity. So if someone claims that Christianity was invented after or at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt that's the very same time that we hear distinctly that the Jews were awaiting for an anointed warrior king like David.

You've just hit the central question I have about Second Temple Judaism -- there is NO evidence for "the messiah" concept at that time as you've been speaking about it.

Second century assumptions are something else. To what extent are those assumptions fed by "the messiah" concept of Jews with whom they were familiar in the second century?

There is no evidence that "the messiah" concept of second century Judaism was comparable to "the Judaism" of the Second Temple era. At least none of which I am aware -- I thought you might have something in mind I had overlooked.

If you are going to castigate the rest of us for not knowing anything about Judaism in the Second Temple period then it would be helpful to make clear exactly what evidence does and does not exist for the various claims about it.

(I don't know anything about the fringe theories you are referring to and I'm not interested in them. You seem to make some reference to something like this a few times now when you reply to me -- if you're thinking of something you think I've argued I've no idea what it could be.)

[Stephan Huller]

Well that's not exactly true. I did also mention this:

1. 4QPatr 3, which proclaims the coming of Mashiach Ha Sedek, while commenting on Gen. 49:10.
2. 4QFlor. 1.18-19 after alluding to 2 Samuel 7 and the "Scion of David," quotes Ps. 2:1-2.
3. the Cave 4 fragment, which seems to address the son of the king and reads, "He shall be called son of] the [G]reat [God], and by his name shall he be named. He shall be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High. As comets (flash) to the sight, so shall be their kingdom."
4. 1QSam 2.12 which quotes Isa. 11:1-5. In the latter we find the assurance that the Spirit of the Lord will be on the future descendant of David.

I also mentioned Celsus, Marcion and the early Church Fathers in the second century witnessing the continuation of our understanding into the their age. I think there is enough evidence here to suggest that the familiar Jewish messiah concept existed in the first century BCE.

[Stephan Huller]

And I don't understand why anyone would argue against the obviousness of Christianity developing from Judaism? Please enlighten me to the basis for this understanding given, as I have repeatedly noted here, that the gospel references Biblical passages, names and themes on virtually every page. The fact that there isn't a lot of evidence for the messianic concept in the 1st century BCE surely can't be the basis for 'rejecting' the continued existence from the second century in a form virtually identical with Jewry in the modern age.

Are we to presume that because 2000 years separates us from the 1st century BCE and little has survived from that period that it is 'likely' that the 1st century BCE represents a complete break from 2000 years of the messiah being the central concept in Judaism thereafter? What on earth is the basis for this view? The Jews were still repressed under foreign rulers. Why would it make more sense that the Jewish messiah concept known to Marcion and the term specifically witnessed in Daniel 9:26 would only be dated to the period after the Second Commonwealth?

[neilgodfrey]

Well that's not exactly true. I did also mention this:

1. 4QPatr 3, which proclaims the coming of Mashiach Ha Sedek, while commenting on Gen. 49:10.
2. 4QFlor. 1.18-19 after alluding to 2 Samuel 7 and the "Scion of David," quotes Ps. 2:1-2.
3. the Cave 4 fragment, which seems to address the son of the king and reads, "He shall be called son of] the [G]reat [God], and by his name shall he be named. He shall be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High. As comets (flash) to the sight, so shall be their kingdom."
4. 1QSam 2.12 which quotes Isa. 11:1-5. In the latter we find the assurance that the Spirit of the Lord will be on the future descendant of David.

I also mentioned Celsus, Marcion and the early Church Fathers in the second century witnessing the continuation of our understanding into the their age. I think there is enough evidence here to suggest that the familiar Jewish messiah concept existed in the first century BCE.

The DSS represent the conventional wisdom of Second Temple Judaism? I'm looking for the evidence for "the messiah" concept that is supposed to be "the standard" for Second Temple Judaism. I can find different concepts in different Second Temple era documents. Which ones represent "Second Temple Judaism"? Was there even any widespread interest or commonly understood awareness in "the messiah" concept in Second Temple Judaism? (Assuming the Qumran community does not necessarily represent the entirety of Second Temple Judaism. Besides, what do the DSS fragments actually tell us about "the messiah" belief even among those presumably represented by those texts? -- but this is really a side-question. The real question is "Second Temple Judaism".)

Yes, you continue to say second century evidence is evidence of earlier beliefs in another religion but that's your interpretation, not evidence. How do you know that what they are witnessing to is a "continuation" of a belief from an earlier period in another religion?

(I don't deny that Christianity developed from Judaism, by the way.)

[Stephan Huller]

Well if we don't have a lot of Jewish evidence from the first century CE written in their native tongue we just have to draw a straight line from the DSS to the second century witness of outsiders and then nothing short of a first hand Jewish obsession with the concept after the Talmud. Let's not forget that it wouldn't be surprising that we wouldn't have a lot of evidence in the Roman period given the political significance of the hope of reestablishing a Jewish monarch necessarily against Caesar and the Roman kingdom. The best evidence for porn consumption doesn't come from 'confessions' of actual human beings but monitoring internet traffic (which show the most religious countries consume the most porn). The same results would not be found by merely passing out surveys at mosques in Islamabad. In a similar vein it is not surprising that written testimonies that Jewish religion was always based on the hope of overthrowing Rome and setting up one of their own as king did not survive.