It is striking, indeed, that great swaths of Jewish
literature, not only rabbinic but also earlier apocalyptic, wisdom, and halakic texts,
get on quite well without any hint of a messiah figure, or indeed of future hope at
all. There are methodological problems, though, with the notion of weighing the
importance of an idea, whether by counting instances of a word or otherwise. We
do better to speak not about the importance of messiah language but rather about
its meaning, that is, the particular things that it signifies. What the sparse distribution of the concept in the extant literature shows us is that a messiah figure was
not a subject of extensive, concerted literary reflection in Judaism at the turn of the
era. It does not follow, however, that the words xy#m/χριστός do not themselves
signify anything. Quite the contrary. The fact that the references are diffuse across
literary corpora rather than highly concentrated is strong evidence that the words
do signify a recognizable collection of concepts and are not simply the private language of a sectarian group. One did not have to be a disciple of the Enochic traditions, or a Qumran covenanter, or a follower of Jesus to know what was meant when messiah language was used in Jewish antiquity. All one needed was a familiarity
with the Hebrew or Greek Bible, especially with a pool of passages associated with Davidic royal ideology.
Of course, the question of the extent and the degree of popular messianic
expectation—how many Jews were expecting a messiah, and how earnestly the
expectation was felt—is another matter altogether. On such questions we are at
present largely ignorant, and it is possible that we will always be. But this is no disaster; it is simply a feature of the nature of the sources. The fundamental error,
which is disappointingly widespread in scholarship, is the assumption that to talk
about what messiah texts mean we need to know the religious and political hopes
of the general populace. The coherence and distribution of popular messianic hope
are fascinating historical questions, but it is almost entirely irrelevant to the question of whether messiah words have meaning.
........
We began this study with a historical and interdisciplinary plea to reopen the
question of Paul’s relation to early Jewish messianic phenomena. We showed that,
despite scholarly ignorance of the degree and extent of popular messianic expectation, there certainly did exist linguistic conventions in Hellenistic- and Roman - period Jewish literature whereby some writers used biblical messiah language to refer to a recognizable set of ideas. We showed that within this set was one idea, suggested by Psalm 18 (= Psalm 17 LXX) and Isaiah 11 and attested by the Roman historians of the First Revolt, of a Jewish king who would not only reclaim the land of Israel but also rule over the pagan nations. Finally, we showed that Paul was one of a number of Jews (some of whom were Christian, others not) for whom this particular messiah tradition provided an answer to the Gentile question: The Gentiles
are to be neither converted nor destroyed; rather they share in the blessedness of
the age to come by virtue of their obedience to the Davidic king of Israel. This is the
view attested in Paul’s reading of Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:12.
Granted, late antique Christianity became a majority-Gentile movement
standing over against Judaism, but this dynamic was not yet at work in the career
of the apostle to the Gentiles. To paraphrase Schweitzer, Paul himself did not demessianize a hitherto-messianic Jesus movement; he simply brought about the state
of affairs in which such a thing could happen. With Scholem, it is right to think
of Paul as a Nathan of Gaza figure—not a messiah himself, but accessory to a messiah. With respect to the state of the disciplines, this suggests that Jewish studies
has failed to take advantage of a rich source for the study of Roman-period messianism, while Pauline research has ventured too far afield in search of Paul’s rationale for the Gentile mission. In fact, these two quintessentially Pauline features, the proclamation of a χριστός and the mission to the Gentiles, turn out to interpret one another; Paul feels himself compelled to bring Gentiles into the ἐκκλησία of
God because he believes that Jesus is the root of Jesse, the son of David, the χριστός
who rises to rule the Gentiles.
my bolding
Forthcoming book by Matthew Novenson.
The Grammar of Messianism: An Ancient Jewish Political Idiom and Its Users
It is striking, indeed, that great swaths of Jewish literature, not only rabbinic but also earlier apocalyptic, wisdom, and halakic texts, get on quite well without any hint of a messiah figure, or indeed of future hope at all. There are methodological problems, though, with the notion of weighing the importance of an idea, whether by counting instances of a word or otherwise. We do better to speak not about the importance of messiah language but rather about its meaning, that is, the particular things that it signifies. What the sparse distribution of the concept in the extant literature shows us is that a messiah figure was not a subject of extensive, concerted literary reflection in Judaism at the turn of the era. It does not follow, however, that the words xy#m/χριστός do not themselves signify anything. Quite the contrary. The fact that the references are diffuse across literary corpora rather than highly concentrated is strong evidence that the words do signify a recognizable collection of concepts and are not simply the private language of a sectarian group. One did not have to be a disciple of the Enochic traditions, or a Qumran covenanter, or a follower of Jesus to know what was meant when messiah language was used in Jewish antiquity. All one needed was a familiarity with the Hebrew or Greek Bible, especially with a pool of passages associated with Davidic royal ideology.
Of course, the question of the extent and the degree of popular messianic expectation —how many Jews were expecting a messiah, and how earnestly the expectation was felt— is another matter altogether. On such questions we are at present largely ignorant, and it is possible that we will always be. But this is no disaster; it is simply a feature of the nature of the sources. The fundamental error, which is disappointingly widespread in scholarship, is the assumption that to talk about what messiah texts mean we need to know the religious and political hopes of the general populace. The coherence and distribution of popular messianic hope are fascinating historical questions, but it is almost entirely irrelevant to the question of whether messiah words have meaning.
........
We began this study with a historical and interdisciplinary plea to reopen the question of Paul’s relation to early Jewish messianic phenomena. We showed that, despite scholarly ignorance of the degree and extent of popular messianic expectation, there certainly did exist linguistic conventions in Hellenistic- and Roman - period Jewish literature whereby some writers used biblical messiah language to refer to a recognizable set of ideas. We showed that within this set was one idea, suggested by Psalm 18 (= Psalm 17 LXX) and Isaiah 11 and attested by the Roman historians of the First Revolt, of a Jewish king who would not only reclaim the land of Israel but also rule over the pagan nations. Finally, we showed that Paul was one of a number of Jews (some of whom were Christian, others not) for whom this particular messiah tradition provided an answer to the Gentile question: The Gentiles are to be neither converted nor destroyed; rather they share in the blessedness of the age to come by virtue of their obedience to the Davidic king of Israel. This is the view attested in Paul’s reading of Isa 11:10 in Rom 15:12.
Granted, late antique Christianity became a majority-Gentile movement standing over against Judaism, but this dynamic was not yet at work in the career of the apostle to the Gentiles. To paraphrase Schweitzer, Paul himself did not demessianize a hitherto-messianic Jesus movement; he simply brought about the state of affairs in which such a thing could happen. With Scholem, it is right to think of Paul as a Nathan of Gaza figure—not a messiah himself, but accessory to a messiah. With respect to the state of the disciplines, this suggests that Jewish studies has failed to take advantage of a rich source for the study of Roman-period messianism, while Pauline research has ventured too far afield in search of Paul’s rationale for the Gentile mission. In fact, these two quintessentially Pauline features, the proclamation of a χριστός and the mission to the Gentiles, turn out to interpret one another; Paul feels himself compelled to bring Gentiles into the ἐκκλησία of God because he believes that Jesus is the root of Jesse, the son of David, the χριστός who rises to rule the Gentiles.
Like the anonymous Jews mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, Paul believed that
in his own time a man from the East was rising to rule the whole world; unlike
those anonymous Jews, Paul believed that God had enlisted him to recruit pagan
subjects for this Jewish king.
(my bold)
This remembers the Christ par excellence coming from East, the Christ hailed ANATOLE by Philo : Joshua of Zechariah.
The messiah was understood to come from East=Anatole or from ‘rising sun.’ It is interesting to note that the idea that the name IESOUS was attached to a heavenly being is also established in the pre-Christian writings of Philo.
The implication is that ''Jesus'' means the same thing as ''Christ'': the two terms are completely interchangeable therefore no wonder that Paul uses ''Jesus Christ'' as titular name.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Read on their own terms (and not through gospel Jesus preconceptions) the DSS and Josephus take on a more realistic (I think) picture of the day.
I was familiar with the DSS and Josephus before the NT, so I tend to see Jesus through those lenses. I'll take a look at Novenson, Horsley and Goodman though. I like to look at things from every angle and appreciate your point of view.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Like the anonymous Jews mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, Paul believed that
in his own time a man from the East was rising to rule the whole world; unlike
those anonymous Jews, Paul believed that God had enlisted him to recruit pagan
subjects for this Jewish king.
(my bold)
This remembers the Christ par excellence coming from East, the Christ hailed ANATOLE by Philo : Joshua of Zechariah.
The messiah was understood to come from East=Anatole or from ‘rising sun.’ It is interesting to note that the idea that the name IESOUS was attached to a heavenly being is also established in the pre-Christian writings of Philo.
The implication is that ''Jesus'' means the same thing as ''Christ'': the two terms are completely interchangeable therefore no wonder that Paul uses ''Jesus Christ'' as titular name.
This is an interpretation of Philo made by Richard Carrier, it is not something Philo actually says.
Surely the link "East"/Messiah is another "coincidence" that is to be added among the other "coincidences" listed by Carrier between the Philo's view of the Logos (if the latter is really allegorized by the guy hailed ANATOLE in Zechariah, according to Philo) and the Jewish-Christian conception of Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Like the anonymous Jews mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, Paul believed that
in his own time a man from the East was rising to rule the whole world; unlike
those anonymous Jews, Paul believed that God had enlisted him to recruit pagan
subjects for this Jewish king.
(my bold)
Is that a quotation from Novenson? What is the article exactly?
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
spin wrote:
I'd just like to get out of this rehashing of secondary sources to find out what your claims are fundamentally based on.
Stop flapping around.
When you ask me what I mean by messianism, it is irrelevant what you want to talk a bout in the thread. It might not be what you want to talk about, so why ask the question?
Stop playing little dictator. You might be better off not asking questions that you don't want to hear the answers for. Your topic is not about messianism per se at all, so asking me what I mean by messianism is irrelevant to your topic.
By an act of god.
Fervent believers are good at midrash.
You'll note that what you are describing is quite like the one like a son of man in Dan 7 who doesn't do anything, yet the enemies of Israel are vanquished
The delivery mechanism for how ordinary people learned about the contents of literary works is of no interest to you in this thread, when you are trying to separate ordinary people from the content of books. This was why you were trying to confound communities with schools and taking about elites. Can you concentrate?
Do you think synagogues functioned differently in the first century??
Be good, Neil. I talked about communities having texts, you know, the community behind the unique DSS and the community behind the PsSol. You attempted to obfuscate the fact by talking of scribal elites, a notion that has no currency in the era we are dealing with and blurring communities with (scribal) schools.
Ass covering rhetoric won't change the fact that you are avoiding issues that relate to your topic, which I understand to partly deal with the possibility of widespread belief in a messiah. Different communities demonstrating belief in a messiah points to some notion of widespread.
I have already demonstrated that you are not concentrating.
I like irony as well as the next person, but this is a bit thick.
Not dealing with your own subject is an interesting approach. Not dealing with the upshot of what you say is just evasion.
Baby and bathwater moment. Forget you ever tried to say anything about scribes and blurring it with communities so as to belittle the notion of communities thus allowing you to ignore evidence for some sense of widespread awareness of messianism. You don't seem to want to know about it.
etc etc etc
Why do discussions with you always end up with you carrying on like this spin? Is civil discourse beyond you if your long-term assumptions are being questioned?
Why on earth did you even jump in to this discussion without bothering to read the OP in the first place?
What a time-waster you turn out to be.
Continue with your silly games of pretending I say things I don't or don't say things I do, and that your non sequiturs are the centre of the entire enterprise etc -- anything that helps an ageing mind feel good about scoring points.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Like the anonymous Jews mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, Paul believed that
in his own time a man from the East was rising to rule the whole world; unlike
those anonymous Jews, Paul believed that God had enlisted him to recruit pagan
subjects for this Jewish king.
(my bold)
Is that a quotation from Novenson? What is the article exactly?
Like the anonymous Jews mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, Paul believed that in his own time a man from the East was rising to rule the whole world; unlike those anonymous Jews, Paul believed that God had enlisted him to recruit pagan subjects for this Jewish king.
(my bold)
neilgodfrey wrote:
Is that a quotation from Novenson? What is the article exactly?
372 . . . . .Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 2 (2009)
... in the LXX itself, the ὑπακοὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν stands in a particular thematic connection with the rule of the χριστός κυρίου; the Gentiles obey the Lord’s anointed.59 Second, the confluence of these several texts in Romans 15 is evidence that Paul’s understanding of his commission to bring about the ὑπακοὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν (Rom 15:18; cf. 1:5; 16:26) is dependent on his conviction that Jesus is the χριστός spoken of in the biblical oracles.60 Perhaps, then, Pauline interpreters have ventured too far afield in search of the rationale for Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. If Paul makes more mention of a χριστός than does any other ancient Jewish author, as he in fact does, and if he zealously labors to bring pagans into this χριστός movement and to train them in its ways, as he in fact does, then perhaps the former phenomenon itself explains the latter.
In light of Paul’s overwhelming preoccupation with the χριστός whom he preaches, this interpretation practically suggests itself. But by ignoring or suppressing messianic overtones in Pauline χριστός language, interpreters have made the rationale for the Gentile mission a problem in Pauline theology. We should not be surprised to find that the several models of Jewish universalism on offer do not seem to fit Paul. If we allow Paul’s χριστός to have its lexical sense, even if only in those passages in which that sense is patently clear, then the problem dissolves. Like the anonymous Jews mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius, Paul believed that in his own time a man from the East was rising to rule the whole world; unlike those anonymous Jews, Paul believed that God had enlisted him to recruit pagan subjects for this Jewish king.61
59 Here, too, we need not think of this as “messianizing translation” on the part of the LXX translator; it may simply be a reflection of the royal ideology of [the] Tanakh itself; see the methodological warnings of Michael A. Knibb, “The Septuagint and Messianism: Problems and Issues,” in The Septuagint and Messianism (ed. Michael A. Knibb; BETL 195; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 3–20.
60 Of course, the question of precisely in what Paul understands the ὑπακοὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν to consist is a matter for further investigation. Paul’s own expansion of the phrase, ὑπακοὴνπίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles” (Rom 1:5; cf.16:26) undoubtedly points toward an answer. It is possible that Paul’s conception of the ὑπακοὴτῶν ἐθνῶν has been influenced by what he knows of [Christ] and of the [Christ] movement prior to his (viz., Paul’s) initiation thereto. In any case, a facile classification of Paul under “spiritual” rather than “political” messianic traditions is certainly not a helpful way forward.
61 Pace Robert Jewett, the parallel phrase in the textually questionable concluding doxology (ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη [16:26]), so far from being supersessionist, is consistent with this motif; see Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:Fortress, 2007), 997–1011.
Previously, there was this (last line of p. 363 to 3/4 of p. 364) --
In the early second century c.e., too, Tacitus witnesses to the perception that Jewish messianic convictions are universal in scope.
“The majority firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings [antiquis sacerdotum litteris] contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world [profectique Iudaea rerum poterentur]” (Tacitus, Hist. 5.13).32
At about the same time Suetonius, who probably shares a source with Tacitus, reports,
“There had spread all over the Orient an old and established belief [vetus et constans opinio], that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world [Iudaea profecti rerum potirentur]. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted” (Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5).33
These passages are of course well known among students of the First Revolt, but their particular relevance to the Gentile question has not been adequately recognized. According to this exegetical tradition, which is known not only to Josephus but also to pagan historians, the messiah not only restores the fortunes of Israel but brings the whole οἰκουμένη under his rule. This constitutes one possible answer to the Gentile question in the context of Roman rule, a particularly messianic answer.
32 Following the text and translation of Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931).
33 Following the text and translation of J. C. Rolfe (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914; repr., 1979). It seems most likely that Tacitus and Suetonius had in common a source who was not Josephus; see the discussion of Eduard Norden, “Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie,” Neue Jahrbücher für klassische Altertum 31(1913): 636–66.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
