Peter Kirby

Proof is not to be had at this stage of the game. We will have to make due with reasonable deduction. There is at least one case in which we can cross-check the treatment of Josephus with another account: that of John the Baptist. As explained by John P. Meier, Josephus appears to have dressed up the fuming apocalyptic prophet (as depicted in Q and Mark) as a moralist in philosophical garb. This one example is enough to establish a hermeneutic of suspicion whenever Josephus deals with the matters of apocalyptic expectations (and, by extension, messianic expectations, which go hand in hand with apocalyptic).

I did not write to defend the humurous suggestion that a program was required to sort out the Messiahs. I did write to cast suspicion on the claim by Brown that there were no other persons who claimed to be the Messiah in the first century. This text mitigates against such a claim.

But fear not; I have found a name! In the Clementine Homilies (Homily II, Chapter XXII), Aquila says of Simon Magus, "And sometimes intimating that he [Simon Magus] is the Christ, he styles himself the Standing One." While this is not a first century text, it is a reference to a first century person who claimed the title of Christ.

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

godfry n. glad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Photocrat:
[QB]

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.

- - - - - -
godfry:

Call it what you will. I prefer to call it "pointing out impurities in the well."
What we have here is an appeal to authority and my response was to question the authority. In this case, we have a poster who has, in the context of a disagreement over the validity of claims about the nature of Jesus, the reputed founder of Christianity, cited a source who is, by profession, a priest of the Roman Catholic church. As such, this priest, before he was educated as an historian and before he did his research and writing, had taken vows, one of which was to uphold the Nicene Creed. This Nicene Creed, in part, states,

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,and his kingdom will have no end."

Roman Catholic priests take this as the holy truth. It is their confession and their profession. Thus, any Roman Catholic priest entering the study of the historicity of Jesus does so with an ardent and heavily inculcated belief in the historicity of Jesus as an a priori "fact". This needs to kept in mind even when reading the works of eminent historians of unquestionable scholarly credentials.

- - - - - - - -
Photocrat:

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!"

- - - - - - - - - -
godfry:

Aside from the fact that you have no other information than what I've posted here and thus have no real knowledge of any a priori beliefs I may have brought to the table, I'd say, "Well, if that's what you choose to believe, fine. Keep it in mind as we discuss whatever topic it is we're discussing."

- - - - - - -
Photocrat:

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.

- - - - - - - -
godfry:

I needn't "accept" it at all. I can dispute it, if I wished, or ignore it entirely as irrelevant to the discussion. However, what I have stated about both Rev. Brown and Rev. Meier is neither untrue nor irrelevant to our topic, which is the authority to declaim on the historicity of Jesus.

- - - - - - - - -
Photocrat:

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

- - - - - - - - -

godfry:

Excuse me? I had Raymond Brown's credentials rubbed in my face. If my interlocuter chooses to flaunt authority, I have every right to question that authority.
Secondly, in my estimation, there is no "proof" in historical research, only more probable or less probable, based upon credible evidence.

godfry



[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]

godfry n. glad

Photocrat:

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.

- - - - - - - -

godfry:

Well, I suppose anyone can call me what they wish. If they wish to think me ignorant, more's the pity. I have not called anyone here ignorant, nor slandered them. I have pointed out a salient fact which gives me pause. When I ponder that knowledge, I give it due consideration as I read the judgements upon the evidence as they see it.

I actually admire Father Meier's attention to detail and appreciate the manner in which he exposes his thought processes, even though I disagree with some of his conclusions. And those foootnoootes...yes! I consider Father Meier's work to be quite impressive and, if that work has been, in large part, supported and augmented by Father Brown, as I understand it to be, then I will extend my admiration. But that does not mean I need to think as they do, believe as they do, or arrive at the same conclusions they do.

But none of that changes that either committed their lives to the Roman Catholic Church and the whole of its dogma, most likely from their birth. They made it their profession, as well as a confession. I would think that they would take pride in that truth.

Bring it to the table, but bring it all...

As for calling me a skeptic...thanks, I guess.

The more I read, the more I understand Al Schweitzer....


godfry n. glad

"...and you want to talk about logic and Jesus in the same post?"

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]

godfry n. glad

Every now and then, I run across a inquiry that picques my interest, as did the one I'll submit here.

The original poster's name has been attached. I'd like to hear responses to his questions, because they're questions neither of us seem to have found satisfactory answers for....

Re: Davidic Messianism query

> What is the evidence for the Jews of Palestine (or the Diaspora as
well for that matter) hoping for a *Davidic* Messiah -- i.e.
> a Messiah born of the royal line of David -- to show up and fix up
their national plight for them? I am thinking in particular
> of the first century c.e., but am happy to broaden this query to
embrace a century either side of that. (I know Josephus mentions
> a few messianic hopefuls but I don't recall them having any Davidic
associations.)
>
> What is the evidence that Jews during this period (100 bce to 200
bce) had any awareness of any such thing as a contemporary
> family or descendent of the royal line of David? For example, did
Josephus anywhere happen to mention anybody he knew of who was
> descended or linked in any genetic way to the Davidic family of OT
stories?
>
> My questions arise from the possibility that the whole story of
David and Solomon was a creation inspired more by political and
> theological needs of the Persian and Hellenistic eras than by any
quest to chronicle a factual past. Is there any reason to
> believe that in the first century (plus and minus a century) anyone
actually knew of a real family line of David?
>
> Neil Godfrey

I've agreed to repost to the other Godfrey.

Apikorus? Anyone?

godfry

James Still

Apikorus is definitely more knowledgeable than me on the Hebrew Scriptures but I'll weigh in nonetheless on a few general issues.

There is no evidence, even well into the post-exilic period, that the Jews expected anything other than a renewed "new world order" (to borrow a phrase) in which God ushered in a paradise on Earth. True the king and the high priests were anointed with oil and called "messiahs" because they were believed to be chosen by God to rule over the people. But this distinctly secularized understanding should not be confused with the eschatological messiah figure expected during Jesus' life.

But in Amos 9:11 there is a vision of God raising up "the tabernacle of David" and in Hosea 3:5 "shall the children of Israel return, and seek once more the Lord their God, and David their king." Ezekiel preaches a Davidic line of rulers as well. However, the restoration of God's Imperial Rule in these sources was not thought to be due to a single dynamic individual. That is, the messianic expectation was not in a man but rather in the collective, either of the people in general or the house of David in particular.

But as we know something happens to bring about a messianic expectation in which a single ruler acts as a catalyst to usher in God's Imperial Rule. And the rule would directly follow the messiah's ascension to the throne of David -- it was (and still is) inconceivable to the Jews to think that the messiah would die, go away for a few millenia, and then leisurely return at some distant time to assume the throne. Incontrovertably, the messiah was to assume the throne and dramatically usher in the Imperial Rule of God, which would come crashing into the present order and issue a new dispensation of a golden age to come.

So when did the expectation of a single man who was the messiah begin? That's pretty sketchy and I'm not as familiar with the primary sources as I'd like to be. Clearly the Apocalypses produced in the second century BCE had a lot to do with it. Also, the Persian influence from the Exile helped it along (the Persians believed in a warrior king who would reign for a thousand years after defeating the forces of evil). Certainly the Roman occupation had a great deal to do with messianic expectations in Jesus' day. Here was a situation in which God's promise of delivering his people from evil and providing for them was in direct conflict with the cruelty that existed all around them. This engendered a hope that a figure, descended from David, would rise up against the Romans and restore Israel once again.

Nomad

I keep getting the feeling that we are like two ships that pass in the night, yet never meet Apikorus. Let me try this again one more time, and hopefully we will meet with more success.

I think you are completely missing my point Apikorus, and perhaps it is because I have not yet been clear enough.

1. I already know all of the reasons why Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

2. I am equally aware of the plethora of definitions and Scriptural interpretations offered by various groups (Christian and non-Christian) that supposedly pointed to a Messiah.

3. I understand that one could claim to be the Messiah based on a number of conditions.

4. I already got your point that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah Himself. This is a separate discussion, as I am not looking only for self proclaimed Messiahs, but also those for whom the claim was made by others.

As a final note, I think that Raymond Brown was equally aware of these facts (as well as your arguments that Jesus did not see Himself as the Messiah) when he made his statement.

My point remains very simple:

Given that one could claim to be the Messiah, or could be called the Messiah, on the basis of so many criteria, it is astonishing that prior to Jesus, there are no claimants, and for over a hundred years after Him, there are none we can point to with any certainty. Your continued argument that one must be more nuanced, and try and discern the truth by "reading between the lines" as it were is interesting, but irrelevant.

Prior to Josephus writing his works, we have numerous Christian documents circulating. Further, we already have two full blown persecutions of the Christians (c. 64AD by Nero, mid-80's by Domitian) recorded by the Romans themselves. So clearly the concept of a Messiah, or Annointed One of God was known to them, and to the Jews, and to Josephus. Yet, from all of these sources, we do not have any that tell us that ANYONE besides Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah. Finally, you have yet to address my points as to why I do not find Josephus' singular (and unique) reference to Jesus as "the one called the Christ" to be extraordinary or probable interpolation by a Christian redactor. On this basis I am left to wonder at your refusal to simply concede the point. We do not have a record of any individual who was called the Messiah from the period in question, with the exception of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is not a subtle point Apikorus. And I do not think that the admission that Brown is correct is all that big of a deal. The failure of a single sceptic to concede the point is interesting however.

Like I said, I already got this point previously, and it is not relevant. In fact, given that anyone could have probably claimed messiaship and figured out how to do so from Hebrew Scripture makes this failure all the more intriguing. Surely you are not going to argue that no one else, besides the Christians, had the wit to do this.

I hope you see by now my point Apikorus. If we grant all that you have said above, then it is not a big leap to ask why NONE of the individuals that COULD have called themselves Messiah, did so. To me it is an obvious question.

Do you subscribe to Bill's "big Christian conspiracy to cover up the truth" theory? And if not, how do you account for the clear absence of even one 1st century reference (besides Jesus) to an actual messiah? Were the Jews simply too oblique to do this (excepting the Jewish Christians of course, since they could not call Jesus the Messiah enough times apparently)?

As a Zealot and self proclaimed "King" of Jerusalem it is entirely possible that Simon thought of himself as the Messiah. At the same time, why not just say so? Was the title unknown to him or his followers? I find this hard to believe given the fact that Christians had been using it for several decades by this point, and the Essenes even longer.

I do not know why he and other potential claimants never called themselves the (or "a") messiah, but the point remains that they didn't. Given all of the very good reasons you have offered as to how they could have done this, I find the silence quite astonishing. Perhaps Simon was modest?

Actually, I am not denying anything, except that we can know that these men (or their followers) thought of themselves as the Messiah. Perhaps they lacked to boldness or wit to do this. Perhaps their claims were subtle and nuanced, so as not to alarm the Romans (though in the case of bar Giora I doubt it). Perhaps Josephus was just covering for them, or all of his works had been carefully edited to remove this rather mundane point.

I honestly do not know.

Perhaps you could tell me why only Jesus' followers felt the need to be explicit, when all of the other messianic pretenders supposedly preferred subtlety and nuance to bold proclamations.

Agreed. This was my point. I am impressed by the amount of traffic it has generated.

And one more time I will restate that this is not relevant to the discussion. I will accept claims made by others as evidence.

Perhaps. At the same time, Brown obviously knew about the warning when he made his simple statement of fact. In the absence of names, we just do not know if this is merely a cryptic apocalyptic warning, or something Jesus or Mark felt was necessary.

Interestingly, Luke does not feel the need to offer this same type of warning (he merely warns us that others will come claiming to be from Jesus Himself, Luke 21), nor does John warn us against false messiahs in his Gospel. Paul never brings it up, nor do any other Canons, except for Revelation, and then only in relation to the End Times. John’s epistles might be read as such (regarding the anti-christs), but this is not certain. So taking the NT as evidence, we have only one clear messianic claimant, and not even a hint of apologetic need to combat the claims of any others.

This is an interesting theory, but at the same time, Josephus also blames the destruction of Rome on the unjust execution of James, the brother of Jesus, so we cannot know for certain how strongly Josephus believed that any ACTUAL claimants to the Messiahship had appeared in the 1st Century. As we have seen, taking his writings, there is only one mentioned, and if you dispute this one (of Jesus), then there were none.

Thank you again for the recommendation Apikorus. To be honest, the question has been largely peripheral for me, as I am only interested in seeing if Brown did not know what he was talking about. I have understood your reasons for disagreeing with him, but at the same time, it does appear that on a basic level, he was right.

After Jesus, the only clear claimant for Messiah is Simon ben Kosiba of the 2nd Century. Given that Bill's belief expressed in the opening post is one I have encountered pretty regularly, I find this fact to be interesting.

Thank you again for your thoughts.

Nomad

James Still

Well remember that in Jesus' day the Anointed One was considered to be someone who would directly usher in the Imperial Rule of God. Because of the strong eschatological overtone built into this messianic expectation, there would be no mystery or guesswork: you'd know who the Anointed was because his actions would be decisive and backed by God. The reason we have many messianic pretenders (as documented by Horsley and Hanson) but no actual Anointed, to include Jesus, is because none of these figures fulfilled the prophecies and messianic expectations of the day. There was no decisive Imperial Rule, quite the opposite the Romans devastated Judaea a few decades after Jesus' death. Thus, it should surprise none of us that there was no actual Anointed One. If you are a Jew then you're still waiting for him to appear. If you are a Christian, then you've accepted the radical and ad hoc redefinition of the messianic expectation crafted in the post-Easter situation of the early Church.

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: James Still ]

HelenM

Well, in the end, looking at the big picture, Christians are still waiting too, aren't they?

And just how far have they come from Jewish theology anyway?

They came to believe more in grace, maybe, than orthodox Jews...well - uh - I think non-believers in general do a lot better on showing one another grace than Christians...

They believe that through the Holy Spirit they can do good and they are forgiven...

Non-believers believe that they can do good if they make up their mind to it...and by being more gracious about themselves and others, there is forgiveness....

In the end, what's the difference?

Jews are waiting, Christians are waiting...Jews, Christians and every other human, aren't we all doing our best...?

Well maybe not all the time

But from any realistic viewpoint how far ahead are Christians than anyone else?

What has it changed, that they believe their Messiah was here once?

I am not speaking theologically but realistically...

Ever gone to a church and watched 'Christians'...are they much different than anyone else...?

Are they friendlier? Are they happier?

Do you think "wow - they are REALLY DIFFERENT - what is it?" and then their answer is "my Messiah has come"?

It all seems quite a pretense to me. Not a total pretense but a lot of it seems more and more of a fake, an empty game, going through the motions...but is anything really different?

Where's the substance???

Sorry if this wasn't entirely relevant, to you...it kind of is to me because if He came, then...wow...there should be no mistaking that as James says...isn't that true?

love
helen

Apikorus

Nomad, you seem to frame the current debate in terms of the following dichotomy:[list=a][*] From the time of Herod the Great through the second Jewish revolt, many messianic figures arose and fell in Palestine. (Implication: Jesus was not unique.)
[*] From the time of Herod the Great through the second Jewish revolt, Jesus and bar Kokhba were the only figures for whom there exist documented claims to the title mashiach/christos. (Implication: Jesus was rather unique.)[/list=a]

I think that both of these statements are defensible, but neither conveys a nuanced understanding of the historical period in question. The subject of Jewish messianism during the Hellenistic and Roman periods is sufficiently complex that it cannot be summarized in a single sentence. John Collins, whom I consider the leading expert in this field, wrote an entire book on the subject.

Incidentally, it seems from Peter's last post that we must add a third name to the pair in claim B, namely that of the gnostic Simon Magus. As I'm not at all well-read on the subject of Christian heresiology, I wonder whether the list might still be incomplete. I presume Peter will inform us should he find more such names. I did find one more related reference, in The Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, where Paul is quoted as telling Nero, "For there were before us false Christs, like Simon, false apostles, and false prophets..." Hence the memory of these many "false Christs" is reflected in later Christian writings.

We may safely conclude from both the New Testament (Mk 13:6,21-22 and Mt par.) and Josephus (War 6:312-313) that there were indeed many individuals, particularly during the time of the Jewish War, who viewed themselves as fulfilling biblical prophecy (so Josephus) and/or arrogated the title christos (so Mark). We also know from Josephus of several figures who performed actions which strongly resonated with several established messianic themes. As Collins expertly argues, there were several messianic paradigms afoot during this period, as evidenced by passages in the Hebrew Bible, the pseudepigrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not every future redeemer is identified in the literature with the title "messiah". This is true of the Hebrew Bible itself (e.g. Isa 11, which has often been exegeted messianically, does not once use the word mashiach). Thus the significance of the title itself is subordinate to the associated actions of any messianic figure. By a "messianic figure" I mean an individual whose claims or actions resonate strongly with images of a future redeemer known from religious literature. By this criterion, Jesus and bar Kokhba certainly were not the only messianic figures of the period.

Despite the fact that a very strong case can be made that Theudas, the Egyptian, Menahem, Simon bar Giora, and others were messianic figures (though not all of the same messianic paradigm), it is abundantly clear that Jesus dwarfs all such figures - bar Kokhba as well - in that to him was associated a great confluence of religious signifiers. In addition, the movement which bore his name survived his death and was phenomenally successful - within centuries it dominated much of the world.

Finally, I do not think it the least bit "astonishing" that we have only three named recorded claims of messiahship during the period in question. You assume that Theudas et al. did not arrogate such status, but this is an argument from silence. Arguments from silence are not worthless, but in this case I don't find yours compelling, for the many reasons I have stated.

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

James Still

Off topic or not Helen I've always appreciated your candor and ability to share your emotions in writing. Your point is well taken. None of us enjoy a monopoly on the truth and we're all searching for an ethic, an aesthetic, some way to make sense of our situation. This is what connects us to Jesus and to every spiritual leader I think. We're all in this thing together and every one of us wants to craft some way of living in harmony with the cosmos. I think we've come a long way from the supersitions of old but we've got a long way yet to go.