What evidence is there that Bar Kochba was a 'self-proposed' messianic figure ?rakovsky wrote:
Bar Kohba is a well known self-proposed Messianic figure from the early/mid 2nd c. and was able to get a very large following, so he must have been tapping into widespread sentiments.
You will have to provide more detail to explain how Bar Kochba (or more specifically a certain passage in the Talmud that has two rabbis offering in hindsight contrary views of Bar Kochba) can be used as evidence for popular messianic expectations in early first century Palestine.rakovsky wrote:
Bar Kohba is a well known self-proposed Messianic figure from the early/mid 2nd c. and was able to get a very large following, so he must have been tapping into widespread sentiments.
What Green is saying here is that scholars have seized on any text — from any Jewish-linked source — that might be interpreted as “messianic”, and artificially imposed on this “evidence” . . .It is standard practice to classify Jewish messianism as national, ethnic, political and material, and to mark Christian messianism as universal, cosmopolitan, ethical and spiritual. That Jewish anticipation of the messiah’s arrival was unusually keen in first century Palestine and constituted the mise en scène for the emergence of Christianity is a virtual axiom of western history. . . . .(p.1) . . . .
In harmony with these suppositions, most scholarship on the messiah has postulated for both Judaism and its Israelite precursor(s) a single, uniform religious pattern in which messianic belief was both decisive and generative. Consequently, scholarly work on the topic has tended to be neither analytical nor interpretive, but crudely historical. The major studies have sought to trace the development and transformations of putative messianic belief through an incredible and nearly comprehensive array of ancient literary sources — from its alleged genesis in the Hebrew Bible through the New Testament, rabbinic literature, and beyond — as if all these writings were segments of a linear continuum and were properly comparable. (p.2)
And then there is TLT:. . . a chronological string of supposed messianic references into a plot for a story whose ending is already known; it is a kind of sophisticated proof-texting. (p. 2) . . . .
The primacy of “the messiah” as a subject of academic study derives not from ancient Jewish preoccupation, but from early Christian word-choice, theology, and apologetics. Early Christians, and particularly the earliest Christian writers, had to establish a discourse that made Jesus’ career reasonable, his unexpected death believable, and their audacious commitment and new collective life plausible. The New Testament’s gingerly application of multiple titles to Jesus suggests a crisis of classification, the dilemma of a signified without a signifier. (p. 4) . . . .
. . . New Testament authors, particularly of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, made the Hebrew scriptures into a harbinger of his career, suffering, and death. The “promise-fulfillment” motif, which casts Jesus as a foreseen figure, is perhaps the major achievement of New Testament apologetics. . . . That nearly half of those statements [in Matthew’s gospel] are not predictions, but the prophets’ comments about Israel’s past or their own present, suggests that the fulfillment formulas and their attached verses are strategic devices, the results of post facto choice, rather than remnants of an exegetical heritage. (pp. 4-5) . . . .
The model limned by an apologetic use of scripture was accepted by later scholarship as a literary fact and a historical reality, not only of scripture itself, but also of Israelite and Jewish religion. To preserve the model against the challenge of a textual record incongruent to it, scholars have been forced to resort to evasive argument. (p. 6) . . . .
These arguments [for a general Jewish expectation of the advent of a Messiah around the time of Jesus] . . . appear to suggest that the best way to learn about the messiah in ancient Judaism is to study texts in which there is none. (Green in Judaisms and Their Messiahs . . . (p. 6) (Judaisms and Their Messiahs)
The metaphor of the messiah . . . is used neither as a direct reference to any contemporary, historical king nor to any known historical expectations before Bar Kochba (c. 135 CE). (Messiah Myth, Thompson, p.291; SJOT, 15.1 2001, p.58.)
For early first century CE?? No.rakovsky wrote:Neil, I am not sure you have already read the info I already posted in this thread, but I don't have any major doubt that there was widespread Jewish expectation of a Messiah coming in the 1st c. AD and around that time. There is just so much evidence and reasons for it.
1. Roman and Jewish commentors historically from that time noted it.
And the evidence for this interpretation infusing widespread anticipation is?rakovsky wrote:2. Daniel 9 is a prophecy pointing to c. 50 BC to 50 AD for the apocalyptic era.
And the evidence for this interpretation infusing widespread anticipation is?rakovsky wrote:3. Numerous passages in Talmud, along with Maimonides and others see in Daniel 9 the prophecy of the circa 1st c. apocalypse / Messianic arrival
What evidence do you have that this was in fact so?rakovsky wrote:4. Rome's repression of Judea would naturally lead people into Messianism. People want to overthrow Rome. Messiah is the leader who could overthrow the oppressors. See eg. Zech 12 about the battles. This stuff was interpreted Messianically.
I know of no evidence for messianic claimants from the early first century CE. What messianic fervour is expressed in Acts? Have you looked at my many posts that I linked to detailing the rebuttal of these views?rakovsky wrote:5. Numerous examples of Messiah figures and claimants from that era with major movements, like Jesus and Bar Kohba and others. Even more are mentioned in the passage of Acts, not to mention the warnings about anti-Christs and false Messiahs in the Bible (NT and OT)
"Naturally tapping into big expectations"? Why do you think these expectations were part of a mass emotive viewpoint a century prior to Bar Kochba?rakovsky wrote:6. Successful growth of Christianity and Bar Kohba's movement. They were naturally tapping into big expectations.
What does this have to do with early first century?rakovsky wrote:7. Destruction of the Temple would really set off people's apocalyptic mentality. Imagine if the Al Aqsa mosque got run down today the effect it would have on the Muslim world.
So this is historical record despite the midrashic pastiche from which it was originally constructed? What evidence is there to support the historicity of this account? This is the beginning of the Christian apologetics that created the myth of early first century popular messianic expectations.rakovsky wrote:8. John the Baptist preparing the way and getting a following and teaching about the one who would come after him.
Evidence that these interpretations fueled popular Palestinian messianic expectations in the early first century?rakovsky wrote:9. Numerology and chiliasm about the millenial periods with c. 1st c. being about the advent of the Messianic period, as discussed earlier in the thread.
And the evidence for anticipatory messianic appearance in the early 1st C BC is?rakovsky wrote:10. I don't believe that Jews were no more anticipatory of Messiah's arrival in the 1st c. BC than they were, say, in 1000 AD or 1500 AD. Jesus and Bar Kohba are two of the most famous Messianic claimants and both came in that era.
How does this support the argument that there was a popular messianic expectation in the early first century?rakovsky wrote:11. I think they had better records of David's genealogy back in those days, didn't they? It makes it harder to be a Messianic Davidic claimant nowadays after the records were lost or burnt by the Romans, although some Jews today still have claims of Davidic lineague.
I know of no Roman historian "noting" a widespread Palestinian/Jewish expectation of a messiah to come in the early first century.rakovsky wrote:There is nothing strange or unlikely in the idea that there was alot of Messianic expectation in the 1st c. as the Roman historians noted. For me to believe the reverse, I would end up having to go through and debunk each of those reasons, along with the general impressions I get about the apocalyptic mentality of alot of Judeans from the NT.
It has already been observed, that the religious concord of the world was principally supported by the implicit assent and reverence which the nations of antiquity expressed for their respective traditions and ceremonies. It might therefore be expected, that they would unite with indignation against any sect or people which should separate itself from the communion of mankind, and claiming the exclusive possession of divine knowledge, should disdain every form of worship, except its own, as impious and idolatrous.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/732/732- ... k2H_4_0001Without repeating what has already been mentioned of the reverence of the Roman princes and governors for the temple of Jerusalem, we shall only observe, that the destruction of the temple and city was accompanied and followed by every circumstance that could exasperate the minds of the conquerors, and authorize religious persecution by the most specious arguments of political justice and the public safety. From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; 1 and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind. 2 The enthusiasm of the Jews was supported by the opinion, that it was unlawful for them to pay taxes to an idolatrous master; and by the flattering promise which they derived from their ancient oracles, that a conquering Messiah would soon arise, destined to break their fetters, and to invest the favorites of heaven with the empire of the earth. It was by announcing himself as their long-expected deliverer, and by calling on all the descendants of Abraham to assert the hope of Israel, that the famous Barchochebas collected a formidable army, with which he resisted during two years the power of the emperor Hadrian. 3
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 93b) provides late/problematic evidence:MrMacSon wrote:What evidence is there that Bar Kochba was a 'self-proposed' messianic figure ?
The claim is reiterated by still later Jewish authors, such as the 12th century Andalusian, Abraham ibn Daud, in his Book of Tradition 3.40:Bar Koziba ruled two-and-a-half years. He said to the rabbis: "I am the Messiah."
In [Rabbi Akiba's] days a certain man by the name of Koziba arose, claiming to be the Messiah the son of David.
It is very dubious that Bar Kochba ever held control of Jerusalem. (There is no clear evidence that he did and holding Jerusalem against a Roman army would have been very difficult given the demolition of its walls.)MrMacSon wrote:What evidence is there that Bar Kochba was a 'self-proposed' messianic figure ?rakovsky wrote:
Bar Kohba is a well known self-proposed Messianic figure from the early/mid 2nd c. and was able to get a very large following, so he must have been tapping into widespread sentiments.
He got a large following b/c he led a 3yr Revolt/War that included taking control of Jerusalem for a large part of of those 3 yrs -ie. he did more than 'tap into sentiments'.
Andrew CriddleI see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near.
A star will come out of Jacob;
a scepter will rise out of Israel.
He will crush the foreheads of Moab,
the skulls of all the people of Sheth
