Questioning the Historicity of Early 1C Popular Messianism

[Peter Kirby]

I guess if my OP has come down to this I have to conclude that there can be no serious discussion of the grounds for the view of a popular messianic expectation among Jews up until the end of the Second Temple era on this forum. I will keep looking, though. Maybe one day I can come here and explain some good evidence we had all overlooked this time round.

But I think it's a fascinating topic. I'm glad for the discussion. Sorry I didn't have more to say - Josephus/Philo have great depth but (as sources for Judaism) offer very little breadth, so it's hard to make any very solid conclusions.

[cienfuegos]

Mr CF

Is this a race card? A Religion" card? I suppose me can't truly understand the transubstantiation if one wasn't raised Catholic. I agree with Neil here, you can't assume an understanding of first century Judaism by extrapolating from modern Judaism.

Obviously you have nothing to add to this conversation or else you would have made a point.

The moment you start appealing to your unique cultural insights, that others cannot replicate because of their lack of said insights, you might as well be appealing to mystical experiences or voices in your head. Today there are differing views of the messiah:

n the modern world, Reform Judaism has long denied that there will be an individual messiah who will carry out the task of perfecting the world. Instead, the movement speaks of a future world in which human efforts, not a divinely sent messenger, will bring about a utopian age. The Reform idea has influenced many non­Orthodox Jews: The oft­noted attraction of Jews to liberal and left­wing political causes probably represents a secular attempt to usher in a messianic age.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ssiah.html

http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm

Reform Jews are the largest single group of modern Judaism in the United States. Your entire argument against Neil rests on assumptions that there is a monolithic Judaism now and that we can extrapolate that back to the first century. This appears to be a flawed assumption that cannot be rescued by appeals to your unique cultural insights.

[John T]

I guess if my OP has come down to this I have to conclude that there can be no serious discussion of the grounds for the view of a popular messianic expectation among Jews up until the end of the Second Temple era on this forum. I will keep looking, though. Maybe one day I can come here and explain some good evidence we had all overlooked this time round.

I can't have a serious discussion on this topic with you Neil. I tried. You use the fallacy of begging the question and when exposed you take personal offense. I cut and paste your O.P. and then you turn around and say it doesn't mean what you meant it to mean. I have heard this argument of yours before from others so I can predict where you want it to go; mythicism.

"Herod who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death.".. The Antiquities of the Jews (118)

The ministry of John the Baptist was a popular movement at the time and the people knew his primary mission was to find the Lamb of God. The remover of sins and the great deliverer of Israel.

"..."We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed)."...John 1:41

The Jewish people had been waiting for this Messiah for over 600 years. Zechariah 9:9-10. Many candidates came and went and around 30 A.D. Jesus was declared the anticipated Messiah by John the Baptist. This is all very much proof of a popular messianic belief/movement among the people but does not mean all the people accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

So, despite all the evidence you still claim there was no such messianic belief and no ancient texts to support such a messianic belief. Well, to believe that is, as you said, flat-earth stuff.

Now of course you will say that is not what you meant. That your view is more scholarly/nuanced than that. But for what ever reason you do not present any credible evidence to the contrary, other than Neilgodfrey says so and no one on this forum seems smart enough to understand it all.

Yeah, I got it!

So, with that I'm done on this thread.

John T

[Stephan Huller]

you start appealing to your unique cultural insights

No my 'cultural insights' extend to anyone who has been intimate with the fucking religion he or she is making theories of. It reminds me of when I began life as a suburban Canadian youth who thought that Jimi Hendrix was part of the black experience. I had never had any intimacy with 'black culture' and so - given the fact that everyone in my neighborhood at that time listened to rock, Jimi was my closest cultural touchstone. But at least I wasn't going on online discussion groups offering my 'thoughts' on 'what it is to be black.'

What is the matter with you people? I've said this a billion times in this forum. Judaism is kind of mathematical in that everything is already assigned for people. You just have to go through the motions of fulfilling your obligations. As a result there can't be that much variation because everyone and everything is basically the same - or at least since the time the Torah was established.

When do you think this book was written? Unless it is a date established AFTER the first century CE then you can be certain that the basic shape of Jewish and Samaritan believers resembled the modern age. Of course there were minute differences. But that is why I ask my enlightened friends to go to Israel if - and I say this with due distain - you are really interested in 'what it is to be Jewish.' Go to Holon (a suburb of Tel Aviv) and go to what used to be called 'Mark town' Neveh Marqe and see how dissimilar Jews and Samaritans are (at least on the surface) even though they only have this one book in common and have spent over two thousand years apart.

[Stephan Huller]

And in case I am not clear enough again I use 'mathematics' in the sense Heidegger employed in his Pre-Socratic lectures.

[Stephan Huller]

I guess if my OP has come down to this I have to conclude that there can be no serious discussion of the grounds for the view of a popular messianic expectation among Jews up until the end of the Second Temple era on this forum. I will keep looking, though. Maybe one day I can come here and explain some good evidence we had all overlooked this time round.

No what you should have said if you were honest would be - if pontificating on whether Judaism today resembles Judaism in antiquity means actually getting 'intimate' with Jews and Judaism then you'd rather not participate. Your interest in positing new theories and 'questions' about Judaism and Christianity increasingly seems limited to 'overturning' assumptions which support a historical Jesus. What kind of a way is that to engage history? Of course it is quite 'normal' in human beings. During the World Cup for instance, we saw the British announcers take a special interest in foreign players playing in England (to take a soccer analogy further). I remember when Germany beat Brazil 7 - 1 those limeys were 'proud' that Oscar scored in the last minute as if it meant that Chelsea and the Premier League were somehow 'made proud' (I guess that applies to Schürrle too).

But come on, is that the only reason you are interested in whether messianism is reflected in the first century CE? Is that why you leap to your conclusions when little evidence (besides 1 QMelk of course) regarding the messiah can be amassed? Similarly there is very little to demonstrate the literary survival of anti-Roman sentiment among the Jews of that period? But is that really surprising? Is it really that surprising given that the Romans systematically destroyed Israelite culture (as the testimony of Abu'l Fath demonstrates). There are other examples of the Roman authorities 'spying' on rabbinic figures of the later period but still does the non existence of revolutionary material associated with a failed revolt demonstrate that it never existed?

I say keep reading the kooky books but don't avoid making friends with Jews and Judaism. If that's off the table I can always tell my Samaritan friend Benny to come visit you the next time he comes to Australia. The alternative again is to avoid making friends with Jews and Judaism and read A LOT of books on normative Judaism. Or again, avoid pontificating on Judaism altogether ...

[Stephan Huller]

And another point should be made to explain the disappearance of messianic literature from the first century. Material from the bar Kochba revolt survives. Why? Because they clearly managed to chase away the Romans for an extended period of time (relatively speaking). Let's liken this to the current ISIS state in Syria and Iraq. If that ISIS state lasts a while they will produce newspapers and other 'above ground' literature reflecting their freedom from foreign authority. But as long as revolution is just a wish it remains 'underground.' Religious expression of these ideals is never published because published expression of revolution leads to severe consequences in repressive states.

Now I can't think of another successful revolution save for the Maccabean revolt and we have plenty of expression from that dynasty. Of course the explicit messianic hope that preceded the rise of Judah have not been preserved. The obvious reason being that those early religious documents were surely an embarrassment to the latter administration. For one IF enthusiastic messianism of the period before the revolt included apocalyptic visions etc they were surely not met and needed to be buried. But also things did not proceed the way the revolutionaries expected. For one Judah died and as such much of the expectation that he was the messiah was also disproved. The list goes on and on.

I can speak also with respect to the secretive traditions of the Frankist Jews in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Where are the documents? How much survives? That's another problem with secretive societies and associations. Their literary production inevitably disappears.

[neilgodfrey]

Yeah, I got it!

So, with that I'm done on this thread.

John T

You never "got it" at all, John. I would have preferred if you attempted to respond to my comment on your previous reply.

I do not deny that some documents describe the belief in the messiah we are all talking about. I do not deny or question the authenticity of those texts. I know they exist. I do not deny that some Jews held such views. They clearly did.

What I have been looking for is something quite different. But you have indicated in your comments that you had a jaundiced view of anything I would say on principle so I am not surprised you have failed every time to grasp what it is I am actually looking for.

[neilgodfrey]

No what you should have said if you were honest would be - if pontificating on whether Judaism today resembles Judaism in antiquity means actually getting 'intimate' with Jews and Judaism then you'd rather not participate.

There is a difference between tribal history (meaning history done tribally with all that that implies, including your filthy innuendo of antisemitism as usual) and history as a scholarly discipline.

[neilgodfrey]

Coincidentally yesterday I was reminded of what Geza Vermes wrote in his "Jesus the Jew" about this question. On page 130 (Fontana/Collins ed) he has a section headed "Messianic expectation". He distinguishes this from "Messianic speculation" in another section.

He writes:

What was the Messianic hope of Israel in the inter-Testamental age? What kind of Redeemer figure was expected?

He then discusses in detail the evidence from the Psalms of Solomon (psalms 17 and 18) and the Prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions -- both Palestinian and Babylonian recensions. He also addresses some of the DSS literature and a passage from Philo.

He concludes:

To conclude, ancient Jewish prayer and Bible interpretation demonstrate unequivocally that if in the inter-Testamental era a man claimed, or was proclaimed, to be 'the Messiah', his listeners would as a matter of course have assumed that he was referring to the Davidic Redeemer and would have expected to find before them a person endowed with the combined talents of soldierly prowess, righteousness and holiness.

Again, notice that his question assumes the popular anticipation of a messianic figure. He only asks for evidence that defines what this messianic figure was like.

Furthermore, he removes from the table alternative (non-military/conquering) views of the messiah by discussing them in a separate section headed "speculation". He fails to explain why he does not take any one of these other messianic views as the default view of what was the popular expectation.

Interestingly the last "speculative" messiah he discusses is the "slain messiah". He writes

The origin of this ideology is totally uncertain, but since there is no evidence of it prior to the second Jewish War, it is reasonable to infer that the tragic fate of Simeon bar Kosiba, killed in AD 135, may have been the cause, or one of the causes, of the elaboration of the image of the slain Messiah. (p. 140)

Against this conclusion we have Carrier's points that:

(1) evidence for the slain messiah idea is found as early as the Book of Daniel and arguably other canonical texts -- drawing iirc significantly on Hengel's work, and

(2) that it is improbable in the extreme to think that Jews in the mid second century would embrace a patently Christian idea of a slain messiah -- implying that the concept preceded Christianity.

Most churches probably have copies of the Lord's Prayer with its call for God's Kingdom to come. Should we infer from the abundance of these texts that Christian nations, or even just Christians, are all eagerly anticipating the messiah to come? Or would we be correct to interpret these texts as ritual prayers and that those who do build them into their every-day hopes in reality are looked upon as sectarians, nutters, one more group of doomsdayers expecting Christ's return is just around the corner?