Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 12-15-2006, 04:57 PM

Hey spin,

I'd like you to know that I think the first and fourth points are damning, absolutely damning, for the passage. I am treating them separately because they are the good arguments, not in order to knock them over in sequence. I endorse them.

I am interested in your other three (unless you insist on enumerating them as two only):

a. the relationship is put before the person
b. the qualifier is unknown and not recently mentioned,
c. the qualifier itself is qualified

Can you expand on your argument concerning these?

Note that my original point was only against (a), which is one of the five arguments you make.

--
Peter Kirby

God Fearing Atheist · 12-15-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Hmmm. I wish I had that quote saying that there is no example of this, but I've misplaced it somewhere along the years. It might have been Raymond Brown.

"If we take at face value later rabbinic references, they tell us that Rabbi Aqiba hailed Simon ben Kosiba as the Messiah (AD 130), but before him in these centuries there seems to be no identifiable Jew hailed as the kingly messiah other than Jesus of Nazareth." - Brown, Death of the Messiah, pg. 475

He says the same sort of the thing in note 219 on page 159 of An Introduction to New Testament Christology:

"Nevertheless, before the Jewish revolutionary leader Simon bar Cochba (ben Kosibah) in AD 130, who may have been identified as the messiah by Rabbi Aqiba, we know of no historical Jew who ever claimed to be the messiah or was called the messiah except Jesus of Nazareth"

Malachi151 · 12-15-2006, 08:50 PM

But why this term "the messiah"?

See the Jewish Encyclopedia on anointing:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...=1559&letter=A

Quote:

The first Biblical instance of Anointing as a sign of consecration—the pouring of oil by Jacob upon the stone of Beth-el —offered a problem to later speculative rabbis as to the source whence Jacob obtained the oil in that lonely spot. The reply was made by them that it must have "streamed down from heaven in quantity just sufficient for the purpose" (Gen. R. lxix., Pirḳe R. El. xxxv.). The oil of holy ointment prepared by Moses in the wilderness (Ex. xxx. 23 et seq.) had many miraculous qualities: it was never absorbed by the many spices mixed therewith; its twelve logs (1.68 gallons) were sufficient for the anointment of all the kings and high priests of Israelitish history, and will be in use in the Messianic time to come. During the reign of Josiah this oil was hidden away simultaneously with the holy ark, to reappear in the Messianic time (Hor. 11b et seq.; Sifra, Milluim, 1).

As to the mode of anointment, an old rabbinical tradition relates (Hor. 12a, Ker. 5b) that "the kings were anointed in the form of a crown; that is, all around the head; and the high priests in the form of a Greek Chi (χ). In other words, in anointing the priests the oil was poured first upon the head and then upon the eyebrows (see Rashi, and "'Aruk," s.v. ; and, as against Kohut's dissertation, compare Plato, "Timæus," chap. xxxvi., referred to by Justin Martyr, "First Apology," lx.: "He impressed the soul as an unction in the form of the letter χ (chiasma) upon the universe." It is not unlikely that, owing to their opposition to the Christian cross, the Jewish interpreters adopted the kaph form instead of the χ—the original tav of Ezek. ix. 4.

Rules Governing Anointment.

The rule is stated that every priest, whether the son of a high priest or not, had to be anointed. The son of a king was, however, exempt, except for special reasons, as in the case of Joash, because of Athaliah (II Kings, xi. 12); Solomon, because of Adonijah (I Kings, i. 39); and Jehu, because of Joram's claims (II Kings, ix. 1 et seq.); or of Jehoahaz, because Jehoiakim was two years his senior (II Kings, xxiii. 30). This rule was, however, modified, as indicated by the statement that David and Solomon were anointed from the horn (I Sam. xvi. 13; I Kings, i. 39) and Saul and Jehu from the cruse—pak (I Sam. x. 1; II Kings, ix. 3: the A. V. has "vial" and "box" in these respective passages). Another rule is mentioned, according to which the kings of the house of Israel were not anointed with the sacred oil at all. In their cases pure balsam was used instead; nor could the last reigning kings of Judah have been anointed with the sacred oil of consecration, since Josiah is said to have hidden it away (see Hor. 11b; Yer. So�*ah, viii. 22c; Yer. Hor. iii. 4c). Rabbinical tradition distinguishes also between the regular high priest and the priest anointed for the special purpose of leading in war—mashuaḥ milḥamah (So�*ah, viii. 1; Yoma, 72b, 73a). According to tradition (see Josippon, xx.; Chronicle of Jerahmeel, xci. 3; compare I Macc. iii. 55), Judas Maccabeus was anointed as priest for the war before he proclaimed the words prescribed in Deut. xx. 1-9.

Anointing stands for greatness (Sifre, Num. 117; Yer. Bik. ii. 64d): consequently, "Touch not mine anointed" signifies "my great ones." All the vessels of the tabernacle, also, were consecrated with the sacred oil for all time to come (Num. R. xii.).

I also wonder about this because Jesus son of Damneus was high priest shortly before or during the war. I know he was high priest some time in the 60s.

Clivedurdle · 12-16-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

But Josephus is recorded as using the term only in 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

--
Peter Kirby

I agree! Please expand your point! My point is tat the term messiah is also used all over the place and we have assumed that annointed one is a specific referrant when it is probably a title of a high priest wo probably was a Chanel predecessor! I feel we are going around in circles. Would someone kindly demolish the view that Christ, Messiah etc are about annonting and it is a later xian view that this relates to Jesus. Chinese Whispers!

I am arguing Josephus used the term christ rarely not because of a reaction to xians but because war priests were rare!

Peter Kirby · 12-16-2006, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

My point is that the term messiah is also used all over the place

It isn't.

--
Peter Kirby

Clivedurdle · 12-16-2006, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

It isn't.

--
Peter Kirby

Quote:

The term appears in English and most European languages owing to the Greek usage of it in the New Testament as a description for Jesus. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, it was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew Mashiach (Messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed". While many Christian writers claim that this term implied a match to the criteria of being anointed that Jewish tradition had given to their predicted future saviour, some argue that there is no "saviour" concept, as suggested in Christianity, in the Jewish tradition. The "anointed" one more closely means 'high priest', 'leader', or even 'ruler'.

The Greek term is cognate with Chrism, meaning perfumed oil; in fact Christ in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil, and is thus a literal and accurate translation of Messiah. The Greek term is thought to derive from the Proto-Indo-European root of ghrei-, which in Germanic languages, such as English, mutated into gris- and grim-. Hence the English words grisly, grim, grime, and grease, are thought to be cognate with Christ, though these terms came to have a negative connotation, where the Greek word had a positive connotation. In French, the Greek term, in ordinary usage, mutated first to cresme and then to creme, due to the loss of certain 's' usages in French, which was loaned into English as cream. The word was used by extension in Hellenic and Jewish contexts to refer to the office, role or status of the person, not to their actually having oil on their body, as a strict reading of the etymology might imply.

We are going in circles! What is the problem with the above, and its continuing points that grime grease cream are all related?

Clivedurdle · 12-16-2006, 02:02 AM

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html

I would also query what is going on here. We assume because of our modern use of xian that there is a relationship with the modern religion, but is that correct? What if they were followers of jewish war high priests?

Malachi151 · 12-16-2006, 05:47 AM

One problem that we have with this is that we are dealing here with English translations. This is certainly one of the times where knowing the original language is essential, but we have a further problem in that we also need searchable versions of texts, and I would argue that we shouldn't be limiting ourselves to Josephus. We also need to look at Justus of Tiberias and other midrash, etc.

Here we have the list of high priests:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...y/priests.html

This says that James was killed in 62, which puts Jesus son of Damneus into the high priesthood at this time, I'm not sure how long he was there.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html

Apparently Phanias, son of Samuel was appointed high priest during the war.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ta...=HIGH%20PRIEST

The google preview of a restricted article states that Jesus son of Damneus was only high priest from 62-62, when he was then replaces by Jesus son of Gamaliel, so looks like he wasn't high priest during the war.

Still, doesn't mean that he couldn't have been called anointed.

We also have this Jesus to deal with:

http://members.aol.com/Fljosephus/warChronology3.htm

"Jesus son of high priest Sapphas and Eleazar son of high priest Neus [or "of Ananias"]. The existing governor of Idumaea, Niger the Peraean, who had been prominent in the action against Cestius, ordered to obey them." - who was a commander in the war.

So, here we have a Jesus who was son of a high priest and a war commander.

We also have the problem here of timing, similar to the issue with the Christus quote from Tacitus. Josephus is writing in the 90s. Does he say that Jesus was called "christos" at the time of this event, or is that just a term that by the 90s had been associated with his name, which could have been endeared to him at any time during or after the event in question?

From what I can see Jesus son of Damneus was deposed as high priest for political reasons when Agrippa II ascended the throne, perhaps he was liked by the people, but Agrippa II wanted him out for personal/political reasons, thus there was public support for him, hence him being called anointed?

There is so little information on the web that its hard for me to tell anything, but its possible I would think.

There are basically two options here:

1) This is an interpolation, which seems to be the route that most critics of this passage take.

2) This is authentic, but its using the word in a way that doesn't mean "Jesus Christ" of the gospels, but rather it is calling Jesus son of Damneus anointed.

Option 3 of course is that its talking about Jesus Christ of the gospels, but this seems utterly unlikely due to the fact that this would be the only real mention of that Jesus is all of Josephus' works and he gives no clarification of who he is or what "the Christ" means, and the fact that if we are to take everything else into account, that Jesus was actually little known and wouldn't have been useful as a reference. If that is the Jesus he is talking about, he's just tossed in out of the blue.

I'd like to know what Justus of Tiberias has to say about this, if anything, but I can't find his works on-line.

spin · 12-16-2006, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Hey spin,

I'd like you to know that I think the first and fourth points are damning, absolutely damning, for the passage. I am treating them separately because they are the good arguments, not in order to knock them over in sequence. I endorse them.

I am interested in your other three (unless you insist on enumerating them as two only):

a. the relationship is put before the person
b. the qualifier is unknown and not recently mentioned,
c. the qualifier itself is qualified

If I had not made it clear, #b involves a fronted qualifier. If the person was recently mentioned or famous, then fronting often happens.

Here's some evidence:

Brother of

As a rough indicator of the brother issue, here is some data from the last four books of AJ:

Code:

Bk 17 son of 14, brother of 3
Bk 18 son of 19, brother of 4
Bk 19 son of  9, brother of 2
Bk 20 son of 25, brother of 6

Now let's look at the brother of references:

Bk 17 : 3

17.4.1 Thendion, the brother of the mother of Antipater, the king's son
17.9.4 Ptolemy the brother of Nicolaus, one that had been Herod's most honored friend
17.13.4 Alexander, the son of Herod, and brother of Archelaus (secondary)

Two are contortions to link the person to the king, the other is a secondary use of "brother of".

Bk 18 : 4 (3 secondary qualifiers from the Herodian genealogy, plus...)

18.9.5 Anileus, the brother of Asineus (introduced in 18.9.1 as brothers)

Bk 19 : 2

19.1.1 Caius ... call[ed] himself the brother of Jupiter
19.2.5 Caius ... grandson of the brother of Tiberius

Obviously, neither reference is to a Jew.

Bk 20 : 6

20.1.3 Herod also, the brother of the deceased Agrippa, who was in possession of the royal authority over Chalchis, petitioned Claudius Caesar
20.5.3 also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life
20.7.1 So Claudius sent Felix, the brother of Pallas
20.8.1 Her father was Germanicus, the brother of Caesar
20.9.1 the brother of Jesus, called christ, named James
20.10.1 Aaron the brother of Moses

So, three are not Jewish, two brothers of King Agrippa, and Moses.

The most exceptional case in all these uses of "brother of" (o tou ... adelfon, if you must) is that in 20.9.1, as it is a bolt from the blue, unforeshadowed, no important person as brother. The rest are either not Jewish and therefore not relevant, or are famous or recently mentioned people.

Son of

Back to the data,

Code:

Bk 17 son of 14, 0 before the subject
Bk 18 son of 19, 0 before the subject
Bk 19 son of  9, 0 before the subject
Bk 20 son of 25, 1 before the subject

20.9.1
the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus.

Ananus the elder was yet another famous person, because he had sired so many high priests.

It should be clear that the track record for fronting of the familial qualifier is rather poor. The use of "brother of" is infrequent. And of the fronted familial qualifiers, these are almost all either recently mentioned or famous.

spin

Clivedurdle · 12-16-2006, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Note that God refers to Cyrus as "My annointed," which is pretty amazing, and also implies the manner in which Cyrus will conquer Babylon (damming the river) and Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, whose loins were, in fact, loosed (Dan. 5:6).

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-b...;f=15;t=000918

Would a reasonable translation be that God called Cyrus my Christ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-15-2006, 04:57 PM	#31
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Hey spin, I'd like you to know that I think the first and fourth points are damning, absolutely damning, for the passage. I am treating them separately because they are the good arguments, not in order to knock them over in sequence. I endorse them. I am interested in your other three (unless you insist on enumerating them as two only): a. the relationship is put before the person b. the qualifier is unknown and not recently mentioned, c. the qualifier itself is qualified Can you expand on your argument concerning these? Note that my original point was only against (a), which is one of the five arguments you make. -- Peter Kirby

12-16-2006, 02:02 AM	#37
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html I would also query what is going on here. We assume because of our modern use of xian that there is a relationship with the modern religion, but is that correct? What if they were followers of jewish war high priests?

12-16-2006, 05:47 AM	#38
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	One problem that we have with this is that we are dealing here with English translations. This is certainly one of the times where knowing the original language is essential, but we have a further problem in that we also need searchable versions of texts, and I would argue that we shouldn't be limiting ourselves to Josephus. We also need to look at Justus of Tiberias and other midrash, etc. Here we have the list of high priests: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...y/priests.html This says that James was killed in 62, which puts Jesus son of Damneus into the high priesthood at this time, I'm not sure how long he was there. http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html Apparently Phanias, son of Samuel was appointed high priest during the war. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ta...=HIGH%20PRIEST The google preview of a restricted article states that Jesus son of Damneus was only high priest from 62-62, when he was then replaces by Jesus son of Gamaliel, so looks like he wasn't high priest during the war. Still, doesn't mean that he couldn't have been called anointed. We also have this Jesus to deal with: http://members.aol.com/Fljosephus/warChronology3.htm "Jesus son of high priest Sapphas and Eleazar son of high priest Neus [or "of Ananias"]. The existing governor of Idumaea, Niger the Peraean, who had been prominent in the action against Cestius, ordered to obey them." - who was a commander in the war. So, here we have a Jesus who was son of a high priest and a war commander. We also have the problem here of timing, similar to the issue with the Christus quote from Tacitus. Josephus is writing in the 90s. Does he say that Jesus was called "christos" at the time of this event, or is that just a term that by the 90s had been associated with his name, which could have been endeared to him at any time during or after the event in question? From what I can see Jesus son of Damneus was deposed as high priest for political reasons when Agrippa II ascended the throne, perhaps he was liked by the people, but Agrippa II wanted him out for personal/political reasons, thus there was public support for him, hence him being called anointed? There is so little information on the web that its hard for me to tell anything, but its possible I would think. There are basically two options here: 1) This is an interpolation, which seems to be the route that most critics of this passage take. 2) This is authentic, but its using the word in a way that doesn't mean "Jesus Christ" of the gospels, but rather it is calling Jesus son of Damneus anointed. Option 3 of course is that its talking about Jesus Christ of the gospels, but this seems utterly unlikely due to the fact that this would be the only real mention of that Jesus is all of Josephus' works and he gives no clarification of who he is or what "the Christ" means, and the fact that if we are to take everything else into account, that Jesus was actually little known and wouldn't have been useful as a reference. If that is the Jesus he is talking about, he's just tossed in out of the blue. I'd like to know what Justus of Tiberias has to say about this, if anything, but I can't find his works on-line.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.