Jayrok

Yes, I agree it is cast into the style of the formula the gospel writer presented. Does that mean the author had the correct interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures? The Jesus and JTB conversation would be from the point of view of the writer. Or do you think that conversation is actual recorded history?

I suggest that early chrisians did view the messiah in this way. It is them who have presented Jesus as leaping out of the Hebrew scriptures, which is something the Jews didn't see, except for Paul of course.

We can see how the Jewish disciples were treated in Mark (first gospel?). They didn't have a clue even after Jesus explained his teachings to them. They didn't act like Jesus was a messiah who was destined to die for the sins of Israel (much less of all mankind). When Jesus said he must be handed over and killed, they said "No, surely it will not happen!" That is an indication that the run of the mill Jew didn't view the messiah as a dying savior.

This is very likely the point the author of Mark was going for. The Jews didn't "get it". It is the "new faith" that properly interprets scripture that the messiah was to come and die for the sins of all. The disciples were clueless, but the important "figures" that were key to the story knew exactly what was going on (that is, Jesus and John the Baptist). Therefore, the Jews of the day were clueless, but the new faithful followers of Jesus (the true heirs to the promise) understood just fine. Hell, even the centurian (gentile) at the cross "got it" when the disciples didn't. The latter scattered while the former claimed he (Jesus) was surely the son of God. This was Mark's point.

So, did the contemporaries of the time of Jesus view the messiah as one who is supposed to die for sins? I would say some, at least those that were alive during the time of the writing of the gospels. The Pharisees? Likely not.

Jayrok

It is ok, I suppose, when you can pick and choose which passages apply to Jesus and which do not. Like in the Psalms where the subject (David) is asking God to utterly destroy his enemies and blot their names from the book of life. Jesus could never utter such a thing.

jakejonesiv

Hi spin,

Not to be presumptuos, but maybe you do not understand. The 130's (Bar Kotchba) were actually the third rebellion of the Jews against the Romans.

I was reffering to the the second rebellion (Eusebius, EH 4.2.1-5 and Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 68.32.1-3) of the Jews which started in Cyrenaica and spread across northern Africa against Trajan (115-117 CE). I think it was shortly after this time (120's CE) that the Gnostic Jews of Alexandria turned from Yahweh because of his seemingly utter inability to to protect his religion and his people from destruction by other nations (AH 1.24.4.). And in his place, they espoused a new savior, Christ.

The first full blown Gnostic teachers (Basilides, Valentinius, Carpocrates and Epiphanes) appeared in Alexandria at this time. At this place and time I propose that the Basilideans wrote urMark.

Jake

spin

Well, of course, I didn't understand.

No presumption. We were working under different nomenclature. Try this Wikilink to the Second Jewish Revolt to see where you end up. The diaspora rebellion is not something I think of as a revolt, but it is certainly the second Jewish ruckus. It's just that it was not in Judea, but spread across the empire. I know what you're referring to now.

TedM

That is all reasonable, as is your take on Isaiah 61. It may be that Christians were the first to see a Savior style Messiah in scriptures, but the DSS manuscript I quoted suggests that there was a pre-Christian community, which was Jewish, that got there first. It seems unlikely that they would have taken a Messianic-age passage that they was first attributable to Israel (Isaiah 61), and then attribute it to "The Lord", as spin says, when that passage begins with mentioning the Messiah, and then the Christians attributed it to the Messiah. Spin says the mention of the Messiah is 'incidental' and that the text says that healing, preaching, etc.. was attributable to "The Lord". Not Israel, which is what the OT text says, and not the Messiah, which is what the early Christians said. I find that sequence to be doubtful because why would a group transition from "the Anointed" to "The Lord"? It seems backwards. It seems much more reasonable to go from Anointed=Israel in a Messianic age passage straight to Anointed=Messiah/Savior.

IF that sequence is correct, and it almost certainly is, then there is strong support for the idea of a Messiah/Savior existing in Jewish culture at the time of Jesus. The new emphasis on resurrection would have opened up new interpretation of a Messiah claimant who was killed, especially if it happened during Passover. That is, there is support for the idea that the original Christians were influenced by Jews of a certain persuasion/sect. Qumran is only 15 miles from Jerusalem. This argues against a strictly Gentile creation of Christianity far away from Judea, as some here like to think was the case.

To address your points more directly, those who didn't 'get' it mostly likely WERE the majority. The community at Qumran did not necessarily reflect the mainstream thinking, and may well have been considered to be a 'fringe', radical movement.

spin

You seem to have confused two distinct texts. I cited the relevant part of 4Q521 (not Isa 61) regarding the healing etc. by the lord. Here I'll repeat it:

[t2]And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He...]
For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor[/t2]
As the Qumran text refers to the messiah only at the beginning, it is hard to justify the christianizing of Tabor. I said very little about Isa 61, though I will say now you are confusing people who have been anointed with the messiah. High priests and kings, and perhaps others, were anointed. That doesn't make them messiahs, nor do all mentions of anointing lead people to see messianic prophecies. While I understand the principle of KISS, there is a point when you begin to oversimplify and you, TedM, reached that point long ago.

aa5874

We know that the Jews expected Messianic rulers based on Hebrew Scripture.

We also know exactly when the Jews expected them.

It was around the time of the Jewish War against the Romans c 66-70 CE.

[Josephus' "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 It is documented that the Jews did consider or believe that Hebrew Scripture contain prediction of a Jewish Messianic ruler.

Abd this is Trypho the Jew claiming that Jews expect Christ to come.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

TedM

Here's the chain:

Isaiah 61 was written.
Isaiah 61 was about a future period of peace, etc. (Messianic Age).
Isaiah 61 references the Anointed as helping to usher in that peace.
The Anointed may have been referencing Israel the nation. The Anointed clearly was NOT referring to God Himself or "the Lord".

4Q521 was written
4Q521 references a Messianic age (beginning line)
4Q521 references Isaiah 61
4Q521 refers to the "Lord" as helping to usher in that peace

Christianity appears
Luke has Jesus introduce himself as fulfillment of the 4Q521 passage, NOT just Isaiah 61 (since Isaiah says nothing about the dead being raised)

Which is more reasonable?:
1. The writers of the 4Q521, despite mentioning the Messiah in the first part of a Messianic passage did not think HE was the one to heal, preach to the poor, etc, and decided in fact that the "Anointed" in Isaiah, who clearly wasn't God, WAS God.

2. The writers of 4Q521 saw the healing, preaching to the poor, etc.. as something the Messiah would do in the Messianic age, and the Christians quoted from the same passage to show fulfillment by Jesus.

I'm in a rush, so can't find better words at the moment, but to me it appears that 4Q521 likely saw Isaiah 61 as a Messianic reference and the Messiah they mention was the one who liberates the captives, heals, preaches, etc.., and that this is the reason why Luke quoted from it as fulfillment in Jesus.

rlogan

I've read Spin's "Latinisms" blog entry, so for the moment let's just suppose we take it for granted that there is a Latin first-language writer who is composing in Greek. So he mixes up the order of things the same way an English speaker would do in Spanish or vice-versa. spin would like to place us in Rome on that basis.

tanya has made the counterpoint that the Latinisms can mean Latin background without meaning Rome as the place of authorship. The simplest proposition is the author moves from Rome to Alexandria, and once there writes in Greek because that is the language you would market the piece in.

But it leads me to wonder if these Gnostic teachers have this kind of Latin background. If I am not mistaken, official correspondence between Rome and Alexandria would have been in Latin. Or, at least that is what Pliny was doing up in Bithynia. But that would not result in the kind of Latinisms spin is talking about. Is there deeper Latin roots than this?

Or have we asked the same question spin has for Egyptian - are there Afroasiatic language "tells" in the Greek of Mark? That one would be for spin.

spin

I don't care about your chain. You attributed the wrong thing to me. My comment was specific. Please don't try to weasel here. I would prefer that you don't misrepresent me.

This is pure bullshit. You know nothing about whether the writer of Luke was even aware of 4Q521. There are similarities between Lk 7:22 and 4Q521 1.12, but sufficient differences to suggest that they were both tapping into common speculation. And to quote Dietmar Neufeld, "And When That One Comes: Aspects of Johannine Messianism", in Eschatology, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (or via: amazon.co.uk), Eerdmans: 1997, p.131, referring approvingly to the opinion John J. Collins:

[T2]The lack of royal messianic vocabulary in reference to the Messiah of 4Q521 suggests to Collins that the Messiah in this text is to be understood as an anointed eschatological prophet, either Elijah or a prophet like Elijah, not a royal Messiah.[/T2]
Qumran often featured a dual messiahship.

As I demonstrated, the text, ie 4Q521, does not say what the messiah would do. If you don't believe me, demonstrate with the text of 4Q521 exactly where it says what the messiah would do. Otherwise stop the stupid claims.

You are making things up for apologetic motives.