Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 pm**

Having had discussions with you before at this forum I know how everything for you goes back to arguments you've heard or fought with evangelicals. But I am not an evangelical. I am just saying that the sense here in 1 Maccabees is that of an eternal kingship associated with David. I don't see how you get around that. David's authority is argued to last forever.

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:20 pm**

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:35 pm We have no evidence that anyone in the Second Temple era claimed to be descended from David. Given the claims made by many readers of Josephus about so-called messianic figures in the lead up to 70 that is surely a significant fact.

You keep referring to - or implying you are referring to - people of the first century claiming (or not claiming) themselves to be messiahs or descendants of David. There is little if any evidence of anyone having done that.

The issue is whether people - leaders - were described as such.

When I asked you about that - about accounts about or descriptions of messianic claims earlier in this thread -

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:17 am It think you would do well to clarify what you mean by messianism, and whether if you consider entities that others think were early to mid first century ad/ce messiahs were, by your definition, eg. Judas the Galilean, Theudas, the Egyptian, the Samaritan prophet, etc., and various views accounts of them influenced the gospel writers.

Another angle to consider is if the notion of a prophet is different to notions of or for a messiah.

And characterisations such as Ben's and those in preserved in the contemporaneous Dead Sea Scroll 4Q175 (4QTestimonia), http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 08#p101208

- ie. "entities that others [thought] were early to mid first century ad/ce messiahs", you gave an oblique if not dismissive answer, thus, -

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:26 am The depth of the assumption is evident in your response. Many cannot seem to accept that their interpretation of Josephus and DSS is through assumptions that messianic expectations were extant prior to 70 ce.

I assure you I did not and do not have "assumptions that messianic expectations 'were extant' prior to 70 ce".

The issue for me is whether there were accounts that described people is such ways, and it appears that Josephus did with Theudas, at least, -

a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Antiquities 20.97-98

Moreover, I do not think it is appropriate to use your definition or application of messiah as you provided in a following post, culminating in, -

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:01 am In conclusion, I suppose, I think the term "messiah" should be read where we see it spelled out, literally, in the text, and it should be interpreted according to the context of that text. We are on thin ice when we assume passages that make no mention of the term are really about that same term they do not mention. This is especially so when those passages fit our modern assumptions about the meaning of the term messiah.

- for discourses about messiahs.

I think this is pertinent, -

.
The Hebrew word mâšîah means "anointed one" and can indicate Jewish priests, prophets, and kings. During the sixth century BCE, the exiled Jews in Babylonia started to hope for a special Anointed One who was to bring them home and, in this sense, restore Israel ...

In the early first century BCE, the Jews were again suffering from repression, and the old prophecies became relevant again. Some people were looking forward to a military leader who would defeat the Seleucid or Roman enemies and establish an independent Jewish kingdom. Others stated that the Messiah was a charismatic teacher who would give the correct interpretation of Mosaic law. A third theory identified the Messiah with [a]/the Son of Man who would judge mankind. Jesus of Nazareth was considered a Messiah; a century later, Simon bar Kochba. The idea of an eschatological king has been present in Judaism ever since.

Messianism is related with, but should be distinguished from, eschatology, i.e., the idea that history is approaching a turning point and that the universe will return to its Paradisiacal origin. Both eschatology and messianism can be expressed in apocalypses, texts in which some kind of supernatural truth is revealed.

Overview of articles on "Messiah"

Roots of the concept

From "Anointed One" to "Restorer of Israel"

Reinventing messianism: The Hasmonaeans
Type #1: The Messiah as military leader
Type #2: The Messiah as sage
Type #3: The Messiah as high-priest
Type #4: The "prophet like Moses"
Literary motifs: Balaam's prophecy
Literary motifs: The "son of"-titles
Literary motifs: Other titles
Combination: The two Messiahs of Qumran
Combination: Messianic expectations
Dating the Messiah
Catastrophic messianism?
The eschatological king
From Messiah to Christ

https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/
.

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:33 pm**

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:47 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:34 pm But we'd be restricted to using fairly contemporary literature in that case.
Indeed. That's what historians do. That's how they work. At least if they are serious professionals. Too many biblical scholars seem to feel that rigorous standards are too limiting.

Fair enough. I'd be interested to see what an assumption-free version of history based on fairly contemporary literature by professional historians would look like when it comes to Christianity's origin. (I think you do a good job of this on Vridar, by the way.)

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:39 pm**

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:20 pm
The issue for me is whether there were accounts that described people is such ways, and it appears that Josephus did with Theudas, at least, -

a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Antiquities 20.97-98

Comment: Theudas certainly claimed to be the Messiah1. The main argument is that one of the messianic prophecies foretold that the Messiah and his followers were to his stay in the wilderness. Theudas' claim to be able to divide the river is a clear allusion to Joshua 3.14-17, which has everything to do with the redemption of Israel. Another argument is that the author of the Acts of the apostles mentions Theudas in a messianic context [Acts 5.36]. https://www.livius.org/articles/religio ... 9-theudas/

1 well, is portrayed by Josephus to have been a messiah claimant - told followers he was a prophet ... would/could divide a river ...

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:44 pm**

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:39 pm
Comment: Theudas certainly claimed to be the Messiah1. The main argument is that one of the messianic prophecies foretold that the Messiah and his followers were to his stay in the wilderness. Theudas' claim to be able to divide the river is a clear allusion to Joshua 3.14-17, which has everything to do with the redemption of Israel. Another argument is that the author of the Acts of the apostles mentions Theudas in a messianic context [Acts 5.36]. https://www.livius.org/articles/religio ... 9-theudas/

1 well, is portrayed by Josephus to have been a messiah claimant - told them he was a prophet ... would/could divide a river ...

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:20 pmMoreover, I do not think it is appropriate to use your definition or application of messiah....

What is your own working definition of the term Messiah?

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:49 pm**

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:44 pm What is your own working definition of the term Messiah?

I don't think I've ever had one. Which is why I was and am keen to hear Neil's and others', such as your's.

(I'm beginning to think it may not be any easy thing to do in a concise way)

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:52 pm**

Livius's discussions might be a good place to start ...

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:53 pm**

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 pm Having had discussions with you before at this forum I know how everything for you goes back to arguments you've heard or fought with evangelicals. But I am not an evangelical. I am just saying that the sense here in 1 Maccabees is that of an eternal kingship associated with David. I don't see how you get around that. David's authority is argued to last forever.

I suspect that the term "eternal kingship" implied either a future promise ("biblical" promises are sometimes expressed in the past or present tense to stress the certainty of their future fulfilment) and/or a heavenly throne. The Hasmoneans never claimed descent from David according to our sources. (I find it incredible that such a claim would not have been abundantly covered in the Second Temple literature (including Josephus).)

An argument for the heavenly throne: Mosca, Paul G. 1986. “Once Again the Heavenly Witness of Ps 89:38.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1): 27–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3261108.

An argument for a promise of a Davidic messiah to come: Segal, Alan F. 2002. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism. Brill. pp. 47ff (I have outlined this argument to some extent on my blog. In Segal's discussion the future fulfilment was thought by some to refer to the time of Bar Kochba. But even here the Davidic throne is argued to have been in heaven waiting for its time to be planted on earth again.)

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:06 pm**

.
Reinventing the Future

As a response to the Jews' disappointment with the Hasmonaeans, messianism relived. The vague concept of an anointed Davidic prince who would come to restore Israel, was a perfect answer to the situation - especially since nobody knew what kind of restoration was to take place: political independence or an end to the Greek cultural influence? The concept was vague and therefore served to unite the Jews.

The following texts were more or less waiting to be discovered:

Psalms 2 and 20 show us an idealized king, a "son of God", who will defend truth, humility and righteousness by defeating the enemies of Judah. Psalm 110 adds that this king will be "a priest for ever" and will judge the nations.

The prophet Micah describes a king from the house of David who will restore Israel in a big struggle with Assyria. This king will be born in Bethlehem.

The prophet known as Second Isaiah predicted an "anointed one" who was to free the Jews from exile and to restore their Temple. He was to inaugurate an age of peace and righteousness.

From the early first century BCE on, these texts were read and reread from a contemporary perspective. They were regarded as texts announcing the coming of a leader who was to defeat the Seleucid enemy. Other biblical texts seemed to fit the same picture, and one of these was the prophecy of Balaam [article provides this link, but maybe meant this one(?)]. To the best of our knowledge, these lines had never been considered messianic, but from now on, the star and the scepter were to become the Messiah's trademark. We will discuss them below.

Things are complex because messianism is close to another literary genre that is just as speculative: eschatology. Eschatological texts describe the events at the end of times, when God will personally come to restore order in the world. Most texts, like the book of Daniel and 1 Enoch, assume a special revelation that enables the author to speak with some authority about the heavenly world and the Last Judgment.

In these "revealing" or "apocalyptic" texts, much is written in code form. For example, in the book of Daniel - written in 165 BCE - we read about a many-horned beast with iron teeth, which turns out to be Alexander the Great. Antiochus IV is described as one of these horns, one that has eyes and a mouth that speaks boastful words, and takes away the daily offering from the temple (Daniel 7.7-8 and 8.11). Because these images are so strange, they can easily be interpreted in various ways.

Many scholars have treated eschatology and messianism as similar literary genres. There is much to be said for this point of view. In many messianic texts, we read about a beautiful new future world, which will originate after a great change - sometimes a war - in the course of history. Israel will be restored. These elements can also be found in eschatological texts.

On the other hand, there are striking differences. The Messiah merely restores Israel, but in eschatological texts the main actor is God Himself, who puts an end to time and history. It should also be noted that only a few eschatological texts mention of the Messiah. Apocalypticism and messianism are therefore related, sometimes overlapping genres that must be treated separately.

The overlap makes it very difficult to keep focus. However, there are four things that all Messiahs have in common:

Because the Messiah is anointed, he is either a king, a prophet or a priest.
The Messiah is a royal person. He is usually called "son of David" or "prince" (nasi).
The Messiah will restore Israel.
The Messiah is a human being, but has a very important place in God's salvation plan.

This final point is, of course, one of the points where messianism and christology do not agree, as we will discuss below.

There were many different messianologies and it is not easy to see what types of Messiah were recognized. A factor that makes it even more difficult is that many texts are fragmentary and open to more than one interpretation. Other texts seem to allude to the Messiah but do not mention him, which creates many complications. For example, (almost) every Messiah is the son of David, but is a text about the son of David also a text about the Messiah?

We must be careful, and the best thing to do is: accept only texts that do actually mention the Messiah. This means that texts using motifs like "the son of man" or "branch", or describing the Last Judgment, the new world, new Jerusalem, or new Temple must be kept out of our discussion until later. The motif of the "star and the scepter" (i.e., the prophecy of Balaam), on the other hand, can be accepted as messianic (see below).

It is also preferable to accept only texts that were written between Antiochus' persecution and the end of Judaism as a political force (after the revolt of Bar Kochba) - in other words, we focus on texts that can be dated between 170 BCE and 140 CE. Having made this selection, modern scholars distinguish four types:

The Messiah as military leader
The Messiah as sage
The Messiah as high-priest
The "prophet like Moses"

https://www.livius.org/articles/religio ... smonaeans/

Posted: **Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:12 pm**

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:20 pm
The issue for me is whether there were accounts that described people is such ways, and it appears that Josephus did with Theudas, at least, -

a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Antiquities 20.97-98

Yet there is nothing in that passage that gives us any reason to think that Theudas claimed to be the messiah or that anyone talking about Theudas claimed he was. Josephus talks of many false prophets but never of false messiahs.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:20 pm I think this is pertinent, -

.
The Hebrew word mâšîah means "anointed one" and can indicate Jewish priests, prophets, and kings. During the sixth century BCE, the exiled Jews in Babylonia started to hope for a special Anointed One who was to bring them home and, in this sense, restore Israel ...

What evidence supports this assertion? I know of none.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:20 pm
.In the early first century BCE, the Jews were again suffering from repression, and the old prophecies became relevant again. Some people were looking forward to a military leader who would defeat the Seleucid or Roman enemies and establish an independent Jewish kingdom. . . .

Again, these are very common assertions. But they are all built on assumptions rather than evidence. There is no evidence to support any of these claims.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:20 pm
. Others stated that the Messiah was a charismatic teacher who would give the correct interpretation of Mosaic law. A third theory identified the Messiah with [a]/the Son of Man who would judge mankind. . . . .

There were a few writings about messianic figures but that's a long way from being evidence for popular anticipations. The Gospel of Matthew, by the way, seems to acknowledge that there were no such anticipations extant in the time of Jesus when it tells us that the people had no idea why the magi arrived and Herod had to send for the ivory tower intellectuals to come up with an explanation.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:20 pm
.

Overview of articles on "Messiah"

Roots of the concept
Anointment

The Messianic Psalms

The Prophets

Josiah and Cyrus

Zerubbabel

From "Anointed One" to "Restorer of Israel"
Reinventing messianism: The Hasmonaeans

Type #1: The Messiah as military leader

Type #2: The Messiah as sage

Type #3: The Messiah as high-priest

Type #4: The "prophet like Moses"

Literary motifs: Balaam's prophecy

Literary motifs: The "son of"-titles

Literary motifs: Other titles

Combination: The two Messiahs of Qumran

Combination: Messianic expectations

Dating the Messiah

Catastrophic messianism?

The eschatological king

From Messiah to Christ
https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/
.

The livius.org site has some incredibly valuable resources, but its author is something on an apologist when it comes to studies of Christianity. Look for his sources for each assertion he makes.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions

Re: Three Assumptions