Bill

Let us not forget this one fact: the only version of Josephus we have available to us today is the one that was rather obviously butchered by the Christians so as to conform with the Christian view of "truth." Josephus would not have used the word "Christos" with respect to ANY of the Jews he discusses in his writings. After all, Josephus had used the Star Prophecy on Vespasian (gaining for himself adoption into the Imperial family, no less), so Josephus would hardly have called any other man "Christos."

Instead, we are forced to remove the obviously Christian interpolation of "Christos" from the works of Josephus in the two places where it appears (both referring, not coincidently, to Jesus). Once that is accomplished, that places Jesus on a par with all of the other prophets, charletans, and similar failures among the Jews, none of whom managed to significantly oppose the Romans (at least, not before the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century).

Thus, the Christian is left with one of two choices: either 1) admit that Jesus was not the Messiah, and had no real claim to that title in any case; or 2) admit that these other men (like Judas the Galilean, the Egyptian, and Bar Kochba) had at least an equal claim to the title "Messiah," and that (more likely than not) some substantial number of Jews of their day actually referred to each of them as the "Messiah."

But when the only surviving "primary source material" (and Josephus isn't really a "primary" source in any real sense, anyway) is a set of writings that has obviously been (at least, to some degree) altered by the Christians, it is not going to advance a debate very far for a Christian to claim that, because evidence injurious to their claim is absent from said material, the claim is disproven. The standards of evidence do not operate in that fashion. You do not win evidentiary hearings by pre-cooking the evidence to suit your claims.

== Bill

Peter Kirby

What Nomad has discovered is a valid point: outside of the two passages in which Josephus is supposed to have mentioned Jesus, Josephus nowhere uses the title "Messiah" in any of his writings. Perhaps he never used it at all. Scholars have deduced that Josephus had a purpose in covering up the messianic or apocalyptic aspect of certain Jewish leaders in order to portray Judaism in a pro-Roman way.

There is one passage in which can be explained on the hypothesis that there were (other) people in the first century who claimed the title of Messiah.

"Any number will come attempting to impersonate me. 'I am he', they will claim, and will lead many astray...If anyone tells you at that time, 'Look, the Messiah is here!' 'Look, he is there!' - do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear performing signs and wonders to mislead, if it were possible, even the chosen." (Mark 13: 6, 21-22)

While no names are named, it makes sense that there were some people who were believed to be the Messiah and that the author has this in mind.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

Nomad

We seem to be going in circles here, so I will try to wrap it up from my end, and continue to follow the thread in case anyone produces any actual evidence.

Bill first:

Bill is now claiming the sources are corrupted by Christian interpolation and are useless. Interestingly, he continues to hold to the view that there were plenty of messiah claimants in the absense of any actual evidence, taking that absense as proof that the Christians must have "cooked the evidence". As I have no idea how to disprove such an accusation, I will leave Bill to his beliefs and faith.

For offa: I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I simply do not understand your point of view. Anyone who calls Richard Carrier a fundie has me completely lost. Your claims that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were real people is not a problem from my point of view, but I do not follow your lines of reasoning to call them the authors of their works. Since I already date John independently of the Synoptics, I do not have a problem dating it either earlier or later than these works, but do not know how to prove the issue conclusively. Finally, for your theory that Jesus somehow managed to survive the cross, please forgive me, but I just do not see how you can credibly argue this from the available evidence.

Finally, Apikorus:

This is simply false. Moses parted the sea, and was not the Messiah. Joshua's priests did the same thing with the Jordan River, and he was not the Messiah. Prophet does not equal Messiah, and that is as plain as I can make it. The followers of Jesus understood the distinction, as did His enemies, and from all of the evidence we happen to have available to us from all sources, the messianic claims attached to Him are unique to the period in question 100BC to 100AD. Given this fact, the point of this thread is mute. It is not hard to figure out the messiahs, because there was only one, and anachronistic readings into the sources, and efforts to make them say what they do not say cannot change that truth.

I have already covered off Kosiba/Kokhba, and admitted that he was claimed to be the messiah during his lifetime. The problem is that he is over a century after Jesus, and I have specifically asked for individuals that lived within 100 years of Jesus' life. I think that you would agree that even the least knowledgeable of history will be able to distinguish between people that lived more than 100 years apart.

Again, what do we have in Palestine from this 200 year time period? Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, the Annointed One. Perhaps this is not all that important, but getting the sceptics to admit this simple truth is all that I am asking for here.

Yes, I know all of this. And from what I can tell, virtually any claim, no matter how solid, could be disputed on some grounds. Yet this only makes the issue all the more puzzling. Given that anyone theoretically COULD have claimed messiahship, even as he may not have met even ONE of the qualifying conditions (as some Jews say is the case with Jesus) we should expect to find plenty of false claimants. Yet, for a minimum of 200 years we have only one.

You do not appear to find this odd. Perhaps it is not. And if you do not wonder at it, that is fine. At the same time, if we can simply have the untrue claim that there were lots of messiahs running around Palestine at this time, then I would be content. Failing that, I will ask for actual evidence of who might have been put forward as a possible rival messiah to Jesus.

I suppose the last alternative is to simply claim that later Christians erased all of the evidence, removing the need to prove one's case, and allowing one to live in one's faith.

Yes I am hung up on the term messiah because this thread started on the premise that there were plenty of people claiming to be the one. After checking the actual sources, I have found that the truth of the matter is that there was only one who lived between 100BC and 100AD, and yes, this did surprise me. I am left to wonder why other sceptics have not confessed their own surprise here.

Could you offer a quotation with supporting documents please? Something that shows a varient interpretation of Josephus or some other source? I am seriously interested in this point, and would like a straight forward answer if there is one. At that point, as I have said before, I will acknowledge that Ray Brown was in error. And if there are no such sources, then a simple admission as such would suffice.

Why? The title of messiah was know at the time of Jesus (obviously). It was known to Josephus, and he knew what it meant. It was known to Tacitus and the Romans before ben Kosiba showed up on the scene. Yet it was attached to one man that we know of in a period of 200 years.

Since I am not asking only for those that claimed to be the messiah themselves, but also those for whom the claim was made by others, this point is not relevant. Perhaps we should be paranoid, and think that Christians managed to wipe out every possible reference ever made for anyone except Jesus. I certainly cannot prove that this did not happen. After all, how could one even try to do this? At the same time, I would not have to wonder about how these same sceptics would react if we did encounter a number of references to various false messiahs by the NT or early Fathers, were such documents ever to be found. It does seem to be a case in which the determined sceptic can claim victory regardless.

For myself, I ask a simple question. My assumption at this point is that my answer to that question is the correct one. Jesus of Nazareth is the only person to have lived in Palestine between the years 100BC and 100AD who was called the Messiah.

Thank you again for your response Apikorus. I did hear what you had to say. It is my hope that you and some others heard me as well.

“Since the “Messiah” issue will appear in the discussion to follow, some fictions need to be laid to rest. One encounters the affirmation that there were many would-be messiahs in Palestine at this time. In fact, there is no evidence that any Jew claimed or was said to be the Messiah before Jesus of Nazareth (or until a century after his death). Thus one must offer an explanation for the unanimity attested in the NT that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah).”
(R. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, [Doubleday: New York, 1996], pg. 820, n. 6)

The claim is made. It is easy to disprove (especially if Bill’s premise in this thread is true). Now all we need is the evidence to prove him wrong, claims that a conspiracy of Christians stretching back 2000 years or more covered up the claims of all others, or an admission that Brown is right. At the same time, I will not ask those who admit that Brown is right to answer his final point.

Peace,

Nomad

P.S. As for the question “did Jesus Himself claim to be the Messiah?”, Brown cites further reading from M. de Jong, Jesus, the Servant Messiah; J.D.G. Dunn, The Messiah; P. Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth-Christ of Faith; N.T. Wright, Who Was Jesus?. I would add to this list Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus. Of course, this is a separate debate. I merely wanted to point out that respected scholars do accept that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah Himself, as some here have questioned whether or not He did do this. If others are interested in such a discussion, I am familiar with the arguments both pro and con, and I am willing to pursue it.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Nomad

Hello Peter

You posted before I had, so I will respond quickly to your points as well.

I have heard this argument as well. At the same time, I do not know how to prove or disprove the claim that Josephus was secretly trying to cover up messianic claims by his people. Do you? Bill seems content to say that Christianity censored out all such references, and his hypothesis does appear to be immune to any possible test.

This is a very good point Peter, but given that we have no names, and the premise of the thread is that we moderns cannot tell Jesus from so many other messiahs, this absense of names should make our job a lot easier.

Personally, I think this passage may have been directed against false Messiahs who came after Jesus. It could also be used as an argument that Jesus did actually see Himself as the Messiah, and He was talking in traditional apocalyptic language common to Jewish writings of this time, warning His followers not to be mislead by anyone else. In any event, given the absense of names, it certainly does not require anyone to acquire a program to keep up with all of the messiahs running around. We still have only one that has a name.

Nomad

Apikorus

Nomad, I think you are lacking a sufficiently nuanced understanding of the term "messiah". In the Hebrew Bible there simply is no coherent description of what messiahship entails. The literal translation of mashiach is "anointed" (with oil), and we both agree that this is one thing that Jesus was not. (Nor, curiously, was Jesus patrilineally descended from David, according to Christian legend.) The term mashiach appears as a noun only 38 times in the entire Hebrew Bible: twice it applies to the patriarchs, once to Koresh (Cyrus), six times to the high priest, and 29 times to a king of Israel (Saul, David, or a future Davidide). So what exactly does it mean to be mashiach?

In order to answer this question, one must consider the context of late 2nd Temple Judaism. And therein the concept of mashiach was pluriform. Passages in the Hebrew Bible were exegeted beyond their plain sense in order to impose messianic interpretations. Some verses naturally lent themselves to such interpretation, since they look forward to a redeeming "righteous branch" of David. However in almost all cases (e.g. Jer 23:5-6, Isa 11, etc.) the term mashiach is absent from the text. One crucial thread running through the Hebrew Bible is that of a royal and priestly dyarchy. This is most apparent in Zechariah, for example, who speaks of the two beni yitzhar ("sons of oil"), very likely referring to the pair of Zerubabbel (royal) and Joshua son of Jozadak (priestly). Jeremiah also emphasizes the permanence of both Davidic kingdom and Levitical priesthood. This recapitulates an old theme in fact, since Moses and Aaron themselves represent such a dyarchy. This is developed further in the sectarian writings of the Qumranians, which posit a dual messiahship - one of Aharon and one of Israel. (Dual messiahship also mitigates against a fusion of king and priest, as in the case of the Hasmoneans, whom the Qumranians detested.) Thus it is quite naive to assume that Moses (or his successor Joshua) is a purely "prophetic" figure with no messianic connotations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Besides, as Collins discusses, there was a "prophetic messiah" genre; the distinction between navi and mashiach was blurred. Indeed, the Deuteronomic promise of a "prophet like Moses" was often interpreted in a messianic context (e.g. at Qumran Deut 18 was exegeted together with other "messianic" prophecies, such as the Balaam oracle). What could be more "like Moses" than parting the waters and leading Israel into the wilderness, exactly as Theudas planned?

So coming back to our question, what, beyond the peshat of "anointed", did the term mashiach come to connote? Looking to various passages from the Hebrew Bible which were exegeted messianically, there are several common themes. Perhaps the strongest such theme is that of a redeemer who would lead in battle and revive the Davidic kingdom. Another theme is that of the suffering or even dying messiah. However there were other models afoot as well, some of which were only loosely rooted in the Hebrew Bible. For example, the future redeemer of Israel need not even be Jewish, as suggested in the third Sybilline Oracle (note echoes from deutero-Isaiah here). In all cases, the figure was seen as one intimately involved with the redemption and restoration of Israel.

The military qualities of the future redeemer are emphasized in several sources. In the Psalms of Solomon, the future "son of David" is "to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from gentiles" (17:22). In the Targum pseudo-Yonatan to Gen 49:11, the "king messiah" has "girded his loins and gone down to battle" and he "reddens the mountains with the blood of the slain".

I think one must be rather obtuse to deny that a figure such as e.g. Simon bar Giora, who started leading a band of guerrillas but rose to be followed as a king with 40,000 followers (armed men excepted!) invites comparisons with David, whose trajectory followed rather similar lines. Furthermore, bar Giora coins bore the inscription "redemption of Zion" (now who is it who is supposed to redeem Zion???)

So the evidence you ask for lies in Josephus' description of various individuals, together with an understanding of the broad context of late 2nd Temple messianism as adduced from contemporary texts. I think it is naive to deny the strong messianic connotations of the actions of these individuals. Did they or did their followers verbally or in writing claim messiah status? We have no evidence for this. But nor do I believe that Jesus claimed messiah status for himself. What was most remarkable about Jesus was the persistence and growth of his movement after his death. As I said earlier, NT authors adopted a comprehensive and rather embarrassingly incoherent array of signifiers to describe Jesus: "the" messiah, paschal sacrifice, prince of peace, Davidic ruler, Immanuel, high priest, "Melchizedek" priest, prophet like Moses, suffering servant, son of God, son of Man, word of God, God himself. It is this overwhelming abundance of signifiers which renders Jesus unique. In addition, Jesus' messiahship was rather anomalous owing to his pacifism (though his crucifixion as "king of the Jews" resonates with the "king messiah" paradigm). I'm certainly not attempting to reduce Jesus to the point where he is comparable with these other, lesser known figures.

Peter's observation that Mark 13:6,21-22 (and Matt 24:5) has Jesus warning that others would arrogate the title of "the christ" is rather strong evidence against Brown's position. Given that Mark probably wrote in the aftermath of the Jewish War, the warning seems likely to be a vaticinia ex eventu.

One could also cite another passage from Josephus, who largely blames the outbreak of the war with Rome on misguided messianic expectations and aspirations:

"What more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil." (War 6:312-313)

Hence Josephus clearly associates the many violent uprisings with messianic fervor - the misguided belief that one had been ordained by the scriptures themselves to assume a role of power and authority.

Again, I strongly recommend you pick up a copy of John Collins' The Scepter and the Star. Collins presents a nuanced view of Jewish messianism around the turn of the era, identifying four "messianic paradigms": king, priest, prophet, and divine/heavenly. At times these distinctions would blur, as in the expectation of the (priestly and prophetic) eschatological teacher at Qumran. He goes on to cite various examples of each, including Theudas and the Egyptian in the "prophetic messiah" group. Collins also finds ample reason to consider Jesus as unique among all contemporary aspirants.

Finally, bar Kokhba is marginally within 100 years of Jesus. (Bar Kokhba's revolt probably began in 132 CE after Hadrian proscribed ritual circumcision, and Jesus probably died in 33 CE.)

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

godfry n. glad

Originally posted by Nomad:


LOL! Too funny godfry. I understand why you would like to quarrel with (and also spread unsubstantiated innuendos about) the leading NT scholar of the late 20th Century, but his statement is clear and easily refuted from sources, if you have them. (BTW, agenda's have nothing to do with factual claims. They are either true or not true based on the evidence).

-----

godfry:

I have no desire to quarrel with a dead man and Rev. Brown exited this mortal coil three years back. I'm not particularly familiar with Reverend Raymond Brown's work, other than what Reverend Robert P. Meier has utilized in his excellent work, _The Marginal Jew_, so I'm not particularly conversant on his opinions. But it is no innuendo to state the truth, that both men have been or are priests of the Roman Catholic church. Raymond Brown was a member of the Roman Catholic S.S. and, as such, spent a great deal of time training young men for the priesthood. He rose quite high in the church bureaucracy and served on the Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity (1968--73).

Keeping all this in mind, both Raymond Brown was and Robert P. Meier is a priest, both unquestionably dedicated to the church and committed to the Nicean Creed prior to their becoming historians. Thus, they entered their historical studies convinced in the belief that Jesus actually lived, taught and was executed during the reign of Pontius Pilate and was resurrected...hardly what I would call an unbiased perspective.

This is not to denigrate their work, as both, evidently, were/are extremely diligent and exacting scholars (as I will personally atest for Rev. Meier), but their confessional commitments need to be kept clearly in view when considering their opinions, particularly with regards to anything which could possibly hinge upon their commitment to creed, such as the historicity of Jesus.

----

There were no Messianic claimants from Palestine from 100BC to 100AD with the exception of Jesus.

----

godfry:

You know, I actually agree with you, but with some minor changes in language. Here's my restatement:

Josephus admits to no Messianic claimants from Palestine from 100BC to 100AD.

See my arguments earlier in this thread.
-----

All you have to do is prove that this is not true and I will accept your finding.

Thank you for the information, if you can find it.

Nomad

-----

You know, Nomad, I don't give a flying fig as to what you will or will not accept.
Horsley and Hanson's thesis is their thesis and they are the best to explain it in detail, which they have. Others here have suggested that you attempt reading the arguments presented by their proponents, rather than others who may or may not have an understanding of the full implications.
Horsley and Hanson's thesis is not necessarily mine and I feel no compulsion to present a butchered version of it here when you can read the whole thing yourself.

Besides, I don't think your opinion has any weight because you are an untrustworthy prevaricator and a twister of the truth.
Your interlocutors on this thread have attempted to reason with you, yet you remain obdurate in your ignorance. This is not new behavior for you and I suspect that it will continue unabated so long as anyone with whom you happen to personally disagree deigns to even correspond with you. Ergo, I would recommend that regular posters with any desire to carry on a civilized exchange not respond to your posts.

godfry

P.S. - And thank you, Apikorus, for your recommendation. I have placed an order for Collins' book. I shall enjoy it at my leisure.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]

Photocrat

This logical fallacy is called "poisoning the well." In order to make your claim logical, you cannot use a person's status to imply things about their arguements.

To demonstrate, your own fallacy can be used (just as illogically!) against you--as in "you only say such things because you are an ignorant skeptic!"

You must either accept that statment, which falsifies your own, or reject it, in which case you recognize it as false. Since either way it rejects your fallacy, it is a tautology to say that your claim is illogical, since it cannot be held without contradicting itself.

The point? Stick to the evidence if you want to prove things!

*We now return to your regularly scheduled arguement.*

Iconoclast

Please Photocrat, surely you cannot be suggesting that Roman Catholi priests are not, perhaps a wee bit biased?

Poisoning the well is one thing, recognizing possible biases and taking them into account is quite another.

Apikorus

Raymond Brown was one of the greatest New Testament scholars of all time. I think it is cheap to challenge any element of his scholarship solely on the basis of his confessional stance.

I don't think it inappropriate to be suspicious of authors who write on subjects which arouse great personal passions and which play a major role in their very worldview. For example, a Marxist historian who writes about the history of communism, or someone with fascist sympathies, like David Irving, who writes about Nazi Germany, must be approached with a degree of suspicion. What insulates someone like Brown somewhat from these suspicions is his reputation as a first magnitude scholar. I'm intrinsically far more suspicious of arguments put forward by an apologist with an agenda such as William Lane Craig than I am of a giant like Raymond Brown.

Still, on this matter I disagree with Brown's statement. Or, better, I think it is not adequately contextualized.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

James Still

The problem Nomad is that you seem to be begging the question for the meaning of mashiach (Anointed; Christ) as someone who conforms to the person of Jesus. But the Jewish understanding of Anointed suggests a kingly figure who at minimum was to have assumed the throne of David here on Earth. Jesus did not do this and thus he was not considered to be the messiah by his fellow Judeans. It took an ad hoc reinterpretation in the post-Easter situation to make the death of Jesus something that could be reconciled with messianic expectations. I'm curious to know how you get around this very real problem which seems to weaken the case for Jesus as Anointed.