Juststeve

Toto:

Since Rabbi is an English word it is unlikely that anyone said it in Jesus' day. The function, teaching the law and rendering legal judgments had existed long before the time Jesus was born. What makes you so sure that the Hebrew equivalent of Rabbi was not uttered in Jesus' time.

Don't assume that Rabbis exist only in Rabbinic Judaism. That would be a badge of ignorance.

Steve

Toto

Eh? The English word is "teacher." "Rabbi" is a transliteration of the Hebrew. Not sure what your point is.

Solomon Zeitlin, "The Title Rabbi in the Gospels is Anachronistic" Jewish Quarterly Review 59:2 (Oct 1968) 158.

This is a well accepted idea in the academy.

You mean like not knowing that the term Rabbi in the NT is generally considered to be an anachronism?

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. The condition can be cured.

But this is turning into a weird digression from the main point.

Yes, teachers existed before the time of Rabbinic Judaism. But TedM seems to be trying to claim that Messianic thinking of later Rabbinic Judaism was characteristic of Jesus' time, unless I misunderstand him.

TedM

Ok, I would agree. Now, if someone would post those recent studies that would be helpful. The few quotes we have so far are not enough to be very helpful to do anything but spur the type of speculative questions Neal was able to raise.


Probably some, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that the expectation of a king-Messiah wasn't present and therefore the David descent was also not present when the evidence strongly supports both expectations both before and after the time of Jesus. One writing by a sect with a different twist on the ideas hardly seems applicable to the long-standing concepts that surely the general population was quite familiar with.


I'm not sure that is particularly relevant to this discussion.

Toto

Horsley's book is on google books. The quote where he refers to recent studies is on page 90, and is footnoted at footnotes 4 and 5, which appear to be on p. 132.

Horsley is a reputable academic, so I doubt that he would be making things up, but maybe standards in this field are not what they should be. Feel free to chase down those references.

TedM

I doubt he is making anything up too, but without the references it is unclear whether when he says something is 'clear', the clarity is something others in the field agree with or he is a lone voice blowing in the wind. I'm not making or repeating the claim, so you may certainly chase down those references also.

In any case, I again repeat that it need not be considered relevant to the Bethlehem question. IF opinions were as diverse about the kind of messiah during Jesus' day, then it is possible if not probable that SOME people expected a Bethlehem birth at that time.

aa5874

Well, if all history is ambiguous and speculative as you claim then it is a case of futility for you to attempt to argue about what is possible or probable about the supposed birth of Jesus.

In any event, in gMatthew, it is documented that when Jesus was born in Bethlehem that the Jews did NOT know the supposed Christ was born there.

But, it is most significant to understand that in gMatthew that NEITHER God, the angel, the Wise men, Joseph and Mary told anyone the Christ was born and that he was born in Bethlehem.

In effect, the JEWS would have thought that the so-called Prophecy in Micah 5.2 was STILL not fulfilled for the ENTIRE supposed life of Jesus in gMatthew.

Micah 5:2 - It does NOT matter where the so-called Christ was born or lived in gMatthew because in the Matthean Jesus story the JEWS had NO idea that Christ was born and lived among them.

In gMatthew, the JEWS thought that King Herod had killed the CHRIST when he killed the CHILDREN of Judea.

Matthew 2:16 - gMatthew is about the UNKNOWN Christ.

DCHindley

I think that it is impossible for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem, because Bethlehem Pennsylvania is thousands of miles from the levant. The state of marine travel in that region and era precludes any possibility that the distance could have been traversed by ordinary people.

That Bethlehem Pennsylvania is the "Bethlehem" of the gospels is supported by the fact that many local settlements are known today by town names found in the Bible. Examples are Emmaus, Egypt, Nazareth and the nearby Jordan Creek (modern Pennsylvania Dutch for "River"). Only a "heevahava" would not know the things, this.

That being said, the Latter Day Saints maintain that the books they have received from the angel Moroni show that Jesus did indeed visit North America after his resurrection. Being a human being with flesh and bones, a visit to the country of one's birth after retirement from worldly affairs is a distinct possibility.

However, many might counter by pointing to archaeological data which demonstrates conclusively that no settlement was active in the 1st century CE in the place known today as Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Case closed.

DCH

DCHindley

I can't seem to locate this book, although I can find a couple of interesting web pages that approach the matter from a Jewish perspective:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism

Around the turn of the 20th century, there was a great deal of interest among Christian scholars about Jewish traditions. There can be several such books, but I could not locate one, sorry.

DCH

TedM

I'm not sure if you are referencing my comments, but I did find the author I was searching for. The post, with some quotes, is #29 in this thread. Here are some basic links:


http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen09.htm

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim 1883

TABLE OF CONTENTS: http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/default.htm

Chapter 5: WHAT MESSIAH DID THE JEWS EXPECT? http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book205.htm