aa5874

It is my view, based on Daniel 9, that the belief and expectation of the Messiah, interprteted Christ, was originated by the Jews. This expectation by the Jews of the prophesied Messiah, interpreted as Christ, was expected, based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius, sometime around the the Jewish War at around 70 CE.

Now, once it is understood that, at around 70 CE, Jews expected the Messiah, and further once it is taken into consideration that Jews become highly agitated and extremely violent to the Romans whenever they believe that the prophesied time approaches for the installation of their Messiah, then it is almost certain that there was no character called Jesus the Messiah. This Jesus did not agitate a single Jew to fight the Romans.

The Jews expected the Messiah, interpreted Christ, on at least two recorded time in history, at around 70 CE and around 130 CE, both times the Jews engaged the Romans in large scale wars that lasted for years.

Jesus of the NT fought no war with the Romans, he was telling Jews to turn the other cheek, to bless those who hated them, and to pay taxes to the Romans.

Jesus of the NT is just propaganda. This Jesus was the anti-Christ of the Jews fabricated to deter the Jews from their belief and expectation of their Messiah, interpreted Christ, as found in Daniel 9, who would lead the Jews to eventually destroy the Romans.

bacht

Yes, the NT Jesus seems to be an anti-messiah in terms of the traditional Jewish expectation. It's possible that some Jews followed such a heavenly redeemer, but Christianity was a gentile phenomenon by the mid 2nd C.

aa5874

Anything maybe possible, but what information or source can confirm or support the possibilty that Jews followed a heavenly Jesus at around or after the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius when the very Jesus was executed for blasphemy?

Based on Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius the Jews actually fought the Romans trying to install a physical Messiah as found in their sacred scriptures.

And, the heavenly Jesus, as found in the NT and church writings, was an erroneous interpretation of Hebrew scripture not known to have been believed, propagated or taught by any Jew or Jewish teacher.

Based on Justin Martyr, the Jews, as represented by Trypho, had no expectation or belief in a heavenly Jesus based on Isaiah 7.14. The prediction in Isaiah 7.14 belonged to Hezekiah according to Trypho the Jew and was already fulfilled hundreds of years before the supposed heavenly Jesus.

. Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" 43 See www.earlychristianwritings.com

In effect, Isaiah 7.14 was closed, finalised and obsolete. Isaiah 7.14 was already accomplished.

So up to the middle of the 2nd century, there is no indication that Jews taught, believed, or followed a heavenly Jesus based on Isaiah 7.14.

The possibility that Jews followed an heavenly Jesus during the reign of Tiberius is unsupported.

DCHindley

Aa,

Could you be more specific here? I believe it was only Christians who saw the "annointed ones" of Dan 9 as predictive of Jesus. Modern critics see these as references to Onias III (a high priest) or to Menelaus (a "bad" high priest).

DCH

bacht

I'm just leaving the door open to the possibility. I was thinking of the period leading up to Pliny's correspondence with the emperor, and the reports of a Hebrew gospel possibly underlying Matthew addressed to people like the Ebionites. The Q material suggests a fusion of Greek Cynicism and OT Wisdom, I'm not sure how much weight to put on this.

Another scenario could've been a complete re-interpretation of the LXX by non-Jews, which would be plausible enough after bar-Kochba, and might have started any time after the 3rd C bce.

ynquirer

Truth to be told, it is very difficult to follow your argument. For, on the one side, you say that Josephus had Vespasian – a Roman, I think – to be the messiah, while, on the other, you also say that Jesus could not possibly be the messiah, as based on Josephus, because Jesus did not agitate a single Jew to fight the Romans. Could you fix a coherent position?

aa5874

My position is clear.

If Jesus was a Jew and called Christ, then there should be some indication by well-known writers like Josephus that there was a person called Jesus who was the Messiah at around 33 CE, and that this Messiah led a revolt against the Romans. However, there is no such information from Josephus, he only wrote that there were Jews that expected a Jewish ruler, as found in their sacred scriptures, sometime during the Fall of the Temple or around 70 CE and that the Jews were in error to believe that the Messiah or ruler was to be a Jew when he was Vespasian.

Josephus wrote the history of the Jews, starting at Genesis and ending at around 92 CE, now if Jesus was called the Messiah, a significant prophesied figure expected by the Jews at around 33 CE, then Josephus was likely to write about Jesus.

Josephus did not.

There was no Jesus called the Christ based on Josephus' writings.

ynquirer

Of course, you can say that, for Josephus, Vespasian was the messiah. Yet, the truth is that nowhere does Josephus call Vespasian a messiah. And for a good reason. In the Books of Moses a messiah is a high priest of Aaron’s offspring. In the Historical Books a messiah is a king of David’s offspring. Only in Isaiah Cyrus the Persian king, a gentile and a foreign conqueror of the Holy Land, is called a messiah. For a couple of good reasons, as well: Cyrus freed the Jews from their Babylonian captivity and helped rebuild the Temple, previously destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

Calling Vespasian was a different thing than calling Cyrus a messiah, therefore. The parallel for Vespasian is stronger with Nebuchadnezzar than with Cyrus, since Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the First Temple while the war started by Vespasian was conducive to the destruction of the Second Temple. (Nebuchadnezzar is also implied to be a messiah in Daniel.) Furthermore, the full parallel has Vespasian and Titus – the actual destroyer of the Temple – equal Nebuchadnezzar, or 1 Vespasian + 1 Titus = 1 Nebuchadnezzar.

Accordingly, Titus is shown to be endowed with the same capacity to work wonderful things as Nebuchadnezzar:

If Vespasian is assumed to be a messiah according to Josephus, so must Titus be.

Therefore, both Vespasian and Titus were God’s “gracious instruments” to chastise the Jews to the destruction of the Temple; so unforgiveable were their sins, according to Josephus. No military leader, however able and skilful, could have changed that fate. Thus, no military leader could be a messiah except a foreign one, by no means a Jew. A Jewish messiah could exist on the strict condition not to be a military leader, but a defeatist – like Josephus himself.

And, certainly, God would not have been entirely just shouldn’t He have sent in the Jewish messiah a “wise man” to preach submission to the Romans – a messiah that said, for instance, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.” This envoy must be capable to work “wonderful things,” since such capacity is the mark of every messiah, whether a Jew or gentile. And such a messiah, or in Greek language “the Christ,” could have resurrected after three days, as much as Elijah resurrected some people. (Resurrection so was conceived of as being an extreme miracle done by the power of God to show the Jews the extreme importance of the message carried by the envoy.)

Jesus (not necessarily the Son of God, as Josephus was not a Christian proper) was by and large such a kind of messiah. As the Jews refused to listen and even lobbied Pilate to crucify Jesus, the destruction of the Temple was an appropriate punishment.

Tristan Scott

You've alluded to this twice. I think Josephus has the 70 war starting because of Gentiles causing some blasphemy and the Roman garrison in the city in which it takes place does nothing to either stop it or punish it. Then things escalate and get out of hand, some soldiers are killed then Jews are killed, next thing you know: war. Ironic, because according to Josephus, Jews were enjoying an elevated status, especially in Rome. Nero lets Claudius' edict against the Jews expire, and many citizens are dabbling in the monotheistic ideals of Judaism, including evidently, Poppaea Sabina, Nero's wife whom Josephus claims helps some of his Jewish pals.

It may be good at this time to go back a few years to the 40s and look at Claudius' edict against the Jews. This was an event that was covered in Acts (18.2), but also confirmed later in Seutonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars. According to Seutoniu's account the Jews were expelled from Rome because of the instigations of the Christians. (It appears that Seutonius use of the word Chrestus may lead one to believe that he thought Christ was actually in Rome in the 40s, but it also could have meant that he was using the word incorrectly, or that it was his understanding that the leader of the movement was still alive at the time.)


Again, Seutonius does not use the name Jesus, but I certainly don't conclude that the fact that Roman writers refer to the figure as Christ and not Jesus means that there was no Jesus.

aa5874

This is Josephus in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 See www.earlyjewishwritings.com

So, again it can be seen that when the Jews expected to install a Messiah as found in their sacred writings, they engage in warfare against the Romans or whoever have oppressed them.

There are no extant records internal or external of the Church writings where the Jews expected to install a character called Jesus as a Messiah at around 33 CE ,and further there is no mention by Josephus of any oracles, based on sacred writings, that placed the Messiah at 33 CE.

And it is more alarming when it is noticed that Josephus did not mention that there were Jews who worshipped a man called Jesus as the son of God with the ability to forgive sins before or after the Fall of the Temple.

So, you must admit then, based on your own explanation. that if Suetonius had written any other name, whether Chrestus or Christus, that he may have been using the word incorrectly or that Chrestus or Christus was still alive at that time.

Now, it is certain that even if Suetonius mentioned Jesus, that the mere mention of the name Jesus did NOT guaranteee his existence.

Suetonius mentioned Venus, but Venus was a mythical god-like entity.
Homer mentioned Achilles but Achilles was mythology, an offspring of a sea-goddess.


The fact that the name Jesus is not mentioned gives MORE weight to the theory that there was no Jesus.

Surely if Suetonius had mentioned Jesus, then apologetics might have claimed that Jesus did exist based on Suetonius.