Jeffrey Gibson

[delete

No Robots

I have provided a link to Daube, who argues that the eating of the Messiah is a fundamental part of the Passover celebration:

In the course of the Jewish Passover eve service, then, whether at the conclusion of the supper (the practice which has carried the day) or at its commencement (as according to some Talmudic practice at least), a piece of unleavened bread is taken as the Messiah by the company. The traditional designation of this fragment is Aphiquoman.--"He That Cometh" / Daube, p. 4.

Well, for one thing, he translates the crucial verb as 'verzehren,' ie. 'to eat,' 'to consume.' As for the rest, well, my German is quite weak. Feel free to look in there for anything to bolster your case.

aa5874

It is your claim that the Gospels syncretised many beliefs including Nazarenes.

You are now contradicting yourself and confirming that the Gospels could not syncretise such a belief, since the only author who mention Nazarene appear to have no idea what a Nazarene was.

And, again, the Gospels make very little differentiation between Pharisees and Saducees, unlike Josephus, only refering to them many times as vipers or hypocrites.

spamandham

Please read more carefully the portions in bold.

If you're trying to make some kind of point, get on with it. If you're simply harping on errors of some kind on my part, I'll just concede whatever makes you happy.

aa5874

I am just challenging any position where I think you have erred.

I am not happy when you concede, I prefer when you defend your position with facts.

spamandham

Everything I have to say on this topic has already been said. I simply don't care if you disagree at this point. You've raised no substantial objection as far as I can tell, but instead are off in the weeds harping on about lack of information about the different Jewish sects in the Gospels.

Can you at least identify the primary source of information regarding 1st century Jewish factions?

Here are four hints:

a) it isn't the Gospels
b) I've already mentioned it in the course of this exchange
c) it's Josephus
d) it isn't the Gospels

I know this is kind of a hard question, but please try.

No Robots

Jeffrey:

It looks to me like you are correct that the use of "devoured" by Hillel in Sanhedrin 99a with regard to the Messiah is meant to connote "destroy the chances for."

Look at Sanhedrin 94a:

R. Tanhum said: Bar Kappara expounded in Sepphoris, Why is every mem in the middle of a word open, whilst this is closed? — The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to appoint Hezekiah as the Messiah, and Sennacherib as Gog and Magog; whereupon the Attribute of Justice said before the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! If Thou didst not make David the Messiah, who uttered so many hymns and psalms before Thee, wilt Thou appoint Hezekiah as such, who did not hymn Thee in spite of all these miracles which Thou wroughtest for him?' Therefore it [sc. the mem] was closed.

So, when the Holy One wanted to make Hezekiah the Messiah, the Angel of Justice reminded Him that Hezekiah had sung no praises. For this reason, the Holy One closes the mem. To close the mem appears to mean to revoke the decision to make Hezekiah the Messiah. Thus when Hillel in Sanhedrin 99a says that the Messiah was devoured, he means that the decision to make Hezekiah the Messiah was revoked, and that no one else will be designated as the Messiah.

This correlation of Sanhedrin 99a with 94a makes perfect sense to me in that both sections speak of Hezekiah in the context of the Messiah. If this correlation is correct, then Dodd (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 100, fn.1) is quite wrong to say that Hillel in 99a is referring to Hezekiah the Zealot rather than Hezekiah the King, who is clearly the person designated in Sanhedrin 94a.

No one that I can find has developed in detail this idea that the devouring of Messiah in Sanhedrin 99a is negative and connected to Sanhedrin 94a. There could be a very illuminating paper in all this.

None of this touches upon my main point, namely, that the image of eating the Messiah is familiar in Judaism. That Hillel intends a negative meaning in correlation with "closing the mem" ie. with revoking the decision to make Hezekiah the Messiah, is immaterial to that main point: an image remains what it is whether it is seen as positive or negative.

spamandham

Is the same sense in which the messiah was 'devoured' in Sanhedrin 99a, also the original purpose of the eucharist?

"Hey guys, remember that you destroyed all chance of me ever coming. This bread and wine is a constant reminder to you not to ever expect a messiah to show up, because you 'devoured' him. But don't sweat it, because the Kingdom of God is already here."

No Robots

Heh. In a way, yeah. Christ eats himself, eats the Messiah, eats Yahweh, and leaves us with nothing but the indelible image of himself, which we must eat unto all eternity.