Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stephan Huller wrote:I can't believe Barker is so fucking dense that she can twist 11Q13 into an expectation for a human Jewish messiah like 'Jesus of Nazareth.' It boggles the mind.

I see no basis for this outburst so you can call me fucking dense too. What you just quoted is Messianic in nature, looking for a messenger of Salvation. Add to that the Suffering Servant passage and you have the makings of a martyr/messiah. It's so simple. Why can't you see that? If people were playing around with Jubilee years related to an 'Anointed One' in Daniel, why in the world wouldn't there be an expectation for a Messiah of some kind around the time of Jesus? Why wouldn't someone inclined to feel 'Anointed', who appears to have a gift of healing, not decide to fulfill the Suffering Servant passage himself--riding into Jerusalem on a donkey to help Israel atone for it's sins by taking on the role of 'sacrificial lamb' during Passover? What seems unlikely given these kinds of passages is the idea the there was no talk or thinking along these lines and that the Jewish messiah was only thought of in terms of a king-warrior. The very fact that SOME Jews bought into the 'new-agy' Messiah concept gives credence to the idea that a Jewish man decided to embody the concept. Not saying that is how what happened but if you are as creative as you say you are, why in the world does this seem so objectionable?

But 11Q13 is clearly about an angel. I guess I should apologize to Ms Barker. Dangerous to forget she's a person. But it's so frustrating. It's like they see something new but can't let go of the past. The Marcionites clearly demonstrate the Jesus religion doesn't have to be about or associated with Jesus being the Davidic messiah. What Davila and Barker are uncovering is the Qumranic expectation of God or an angel coming down from heaven according to some prearranged divine number of years. But they want to fuse that onto something familiar. Why I don't know but they do

Let me be more specific. If you want to find the truth from the blending of 11Q13 and Daniel 9 with 70 CE as the 490 year "the messiah" can't be Jesus. It's dishonest to force "the Christ" into the place of the Melchizedek. The messiah is "cut off" very close to year 490. That can't change

I like what I am reading here--- in some previous posts on this site, I was trying to figure out why Jesus was supposedl crucified in the thirties--- or there abouts. I saw Daniel as a possible catalyst and had heard that there was some evidence that the Dead Sea scroll writers expected the messiah around 26 ad. I am finding your information very helpful!! I have thought all along that either a historical man fancied himself to be the messiah based on when he lived or the religion was developed mythilogically an interjected into this time line for the same basic reasons.

1. if Mark can do it, why can't anyone else? Maybe Mark was drawing on fairly commonly known concepts
2. Daniel also had a 'son of man' in it, coming in the clouds -- like an angel would do, and Mark has Jesus referring to the 'son of man' -as HIMSELF - numerous times. It seems to me a very small stretch to go from an angel to a human being.
3. Melchizedek appeared to be a human being!
4. Timing is everything. Daniel appears to say the 'cut off' occurred AFTER 62 or 69 weeks. 62 weeks of years could have been seen as around the time of Jesus depending on which of the various possibilities for the starting date one chooses
5. The Jews were desperate. The various messiah-claiments -- human beings -- is proof of that. Desperate people full of religious fervor can come up with some very creative things, and with all of the scriptures at their disposal this blending of various ideas later attributed to Jesus may well have been fairly openly discussed during the time of Jesus.

Stephan Huller wrote:Tests? Like what?

The usual sorts of tests applied to hypotheses. Example, predictions. If X then we would expect to find Y.

e.g. if Mark wrote with a chronological scheme in mind we would expect to find some pointer or reference to it in his gospel.