Clivedurdle

Does earliest use of some words help? Synagogue, pharasee, messiah, saint?

Malachi151

Yeah, when was messiah first used.

spin

And I think that will be "messiah first used" for an eschatological figure rather than for a priestly figure -- for the latter, see Dan 9:25-6 --, as the high priest was the first anointed of the lord, the only one who could enter the holy of holies to be in the presence of god. The high priest was anointed to become high priest, so he was god's anointed.

There is also a figure of the anointed of god, being a Davidic figure. The late work the Psalms of Solomon, circa 45 BCE, seem to deal with such a figure. Of course, Zech 4:14 talks of two messiahs, which would later appear in the DSS as the messiahs of Aaron and Judah (ie priestly and Davidic), this latter probably explaining the former reference to two messiahs.

What is noticeable in Josephus is the lack of use of the term, with the noted exception of the two spurious christian references, as though he purposefully avoided the subject, although his major sources were books from the Hebrew bible which uses the term over 40 times. This should suggest that the subject was a tender one for Josephus. Perhaps he avoided it because it may have been abused by figures during the first Jewish War. There are some signs of popular messianic type figures prior to the war and a descendent of one was a figure in the war. So, Josephus realising the problems in using the term simply didn't.

Yes, a famous rabbi Aqiba used the term messiah for Shimon bar Kochba, but the rabbi was ridiculed for doing so in later rabbinical literature.

The issue becomes too difficult to resolve, for those people such as the Egyptian, Judas the Galilean, and Theudas in the seventy years prior to the first war all had great sway over large groups of people, but posterity has not been kind to them, so, while most believe that they were messianic figures, we have nothing from them to know what the actual terminology was. But there clearly was an eschatological component in the actions of these figures, suggesting what we now understand as messianic figures.


spin

Roger Pearse

Perhaps so. But we could on the other hand consider the history of Greek rule, which ran for a time and then got nasty, which people would recall. Remember that Pompey also profaned the temple.

It must have been obvious to a fair number of people from the time that Archelaus was exiled and a governor installed that one day a revolt would occur, and that Jerusalem would be beseiged.

In Jesus' day we now know that the temple was already running on borrowed time. Is it inconceivable that perceptive men could not see this? (no doubt while hoping that it wouldn't happen).

IMHO, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

groomanl

Hello Spin. I have given a few names of well respected scholars who have preferred an early date for the writing of Acts. So far, in rebuttal of an early date by scholars all I have received in return is that these scholars are unnamed and anonymous.

Are we talking about the laughable “scholarly” type people who participated in the “Jesus Seminar?” Are these so-called scholars people with axes to grind or agendas to promote?

Yes, FF Bruce wrote much of his works over 50 years ago, but even so his writings are considered classics in regards to both scholarly understanding and towards apologetics. It seems that his scholarship has passed the test of time. If something may be considered true, it will still be true regardless of how much time passes. Just because contemporary scholarship may be contemporary does not necessarily make such scholarship better.

You muddy the waters further by implying that the Book of Acts may have multiple (human) authors. On whose scholarship are you basing such a statement?

Malachi151

The dating of these works makes no difference to me. I find it funny that people think the date when a work was written has something to do with its reliability as a "first hand account", which is absurd.

In fact, I argue that the closer these texts are to 0 CE the more they refute the existance of a "real Jesus", not the other way around, becuase they are so clearly and blatanly fictious and based on other myths and texts, and they contradict each other, etc, etc., they have so many elements that declare them as "made up", that the closer they are to the supposed lifetime of Jesus, the more it becomes impossible to believe that the person existed, because if he did we should expect these accounts to be more accurate.

I could more easily believe that a real Jesus died in 33 and that the gospels were written in 100-150 CE in their present and obviously mythical form, but to believe that Jesus died in 33 CE, and Paul wrote about him in 48 CE, but had no meaningful details of him, and that Acts and the gospels were written some 20-40 years later, but they all are clearly not based on reality, but instead on OT texts and Greek myths, and they contradict each other, AND there are no real secular accounts of the person that excluse this nonsense, no, that is too much to believe.

Also, all of the so-called "pagan sources" that mention Jesus were written AFTER the gospels, or at least some of them, so this makes the gospel tradition a source for the so-called pagan sources, which completely undermines them, so I have no problem putting the dates anywhere people want. The earlier the better as far as I am concerned.

It would undercut JM more if the gospels were not written until after 100-120, because then the gospel tradition would not be as likely a source for Tacitus and potentially Josephus, etc., and it would provide a more reasonable expalantion as to why he became so mythologized.

groomanl

Hi Roger. It’s nice to converse with a person who speaks from a similar mind as me. It’s kind of funny that secularists would try to duplicate the same dating system which boldly affirms “In the year of our Lord” to something that is as meaningless as Common Era. From ancient times, the reign of a king was how time was marked. They simply cannot get around the supremacy of the reign of Christ, and our calendar will always reflect that. Yes, I do feel that this should be resisted.

You are so right that such a tactic is but another attempt at the removal of Christianity from public life. It is unbelievable to me how we have become such a God-phobic society.

Also interesting to me is that Jesus bears the title “King of the Jews,” and not “King of the Gentiles.”

Clivedurdle

I am an ex "religionist" (cf "secularist" above).

As I remember - now vaguely - the xian gospel it is something to do with a god sending his only begotten son so that we may all have eternal life. This is meant to be like a rent in the time space continuum when god intervenes clearly for all mankind into a sinful world, and by his sacrifice, death and resurrection defeats sin, death, satan et al.

We even date everything from these events, many people believe armaggedon (sp?) will be soon.

Dali's Christ of St John beautlfully expresses this intervention into human affairs.

There is a tiny problem. Humans are superb at making up stories. Even if there were a Jesus - and I explicitly think there was not - he can only be several permutations on a human - not the full blown co-eternal three in one goobledegook spouted weekly across the planet.

Look, most people on IIDB are destined for hell OK? Kindly do us the favour of listening to the condemned people! This god of love would surely agree you ought to do that, and guess what, the truth will set you free!

Amaleq13

Luke Timothy Johnson denies the basis for dating Acts you have attributed to Blumberg. Do you consider him to qualify as having an "axe" or "agenda" against Christianity?

"It is difficult to fix the date of composition of Acts more precisely than at some point within the Flavian period (A.D. 69-96), possibly about the middle of the period. " (FF Bruce, The Book of Acts, p10-12)

That flatly denies the assertion you attributed to Blumberg.

Roger Pearse

Just a suggestion, in a discussion that has nothing to do with me. Rather than discussing 'authorities' in a medieval manner would it not be more constructive in all this to talk data and evidence? Let the professionals inform us, yes; but not substitute for access to the facts. A lot of people have a lot of issues with what passes for scholarship in NT studies. But no-one can argue with facts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse