Rick Sumner

<big snip because it was largely semantic on both parts>

More than one man was deified in Judaism. The Teacher of Righteousness in 4Q431 and 4Q427 fr.7, Melchizedek was, and so on.

Ascribing a specific set of Messianic prophecies is a problem. I'll outline below.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

On the contrary, it clearly wasn't rejected, at least not by everyone.

The doctrine of hating your enemies appears nowhere in all of Jewish literature, outside of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nowhere. Why would I view the contrary in Matt.5.43 as an attempt to deceive rather than a polemic against Qumranic doctrine?

And here we run into problems, because you'd like to paint all of Judaism with one brush. Messianic expectation was diverse--would he be a high priest? A Davidic warrior? Cosmic redeemer a la Melchizedek? Grand miracle worker?

There are, of course, many other examples. Jesus is quite clearly a *Jewish* Messiah.

I've read Daniel. I hadly view it as the be-all-end-all of first century Messianic expectation, which is where you're running into problems.

So an incorrect assessment of first century Messianism, a little bit of circumstance fortuitous to your case, and you're good to go? Looks questionable to me.

Again, you understate the complexity of first century Messianism.

And, once again, you decree by fiat that Isaiah or Daniel's Messiah are the *only* Messiah. This is incorrect.

Regards,
Rick

[Ed. for spelling]

Koyaanisqatsi

False. Not a single human being was ever equated with God in Judaism, which is the point. The Jewish god is, of course, metaphorically the ideal man, but never "a" man. His messengers were, perhaps, likened unto gods, but they were never God incarnate in the manner of the triune God of christianity.

God was (and is) inviolate and supreme. A man or messenger may be likened unto a god but at no point is a man or messenger God. Or so the contradictory mythology goes. No man hast seen his face and all that shite, eventhough this is contradicted in various ways.

The point is that the Jewish god is ultimate; anything else is penultimate (at best).

No need to. One need only trace back the quotes the authors of the NT have Jesus invoke. Remember what this is all about.

Read the OT. It's rife with it.

Non-Jews don't count. Remember what we're talking about here.

Nor does it need to be a doctrine. Enemies are hated axiomatically; that's why they're "enemies." Judaism is a dogma of god's chosen people and how their suffering will be purged by god's messengers and their enemies (god's enemies) will be destroyed by god. If you weren't Jewish, then you were an enemy of god and will therefore be dealt with by god.

Jews were to concern themselves with being Jewish; God will deal with everyone else (and the non-annointed Jews).

The "messiah" of Daniel/Isaiah's purpose on earth is to slaughter the enemies of god's chosen people; i.e., the enemies of god. If you weren't Jewish, then you were an enemy of god (and even if you were Jewish, there were still problems).

If there were such a Sermon on the Mount, then it would be to instruct all of the Jewish people to get their shit together and start annointing the righteous before the shit storm begins as Daniel prophesies and Jesus quotes:

And skip the boring details to the end of the "vision" in Daniel 13:

Two others...standing on the waters of the flood brought forth by the "messiah" at the end of the sixety nine weeks time.

Got that? Refer back to Daniel 9 if you need clarification.

You do the math.

He would be the one the NT authors have Jesus invoke in Mark (Isaiah) and Matthew (Daniel); the two the authors of the Jesus passion narratives predominantly invoke in order to legitimize claims of OT messianic prophecy.

Here's the one supporting Daniel, since that's the one I've been focusing on:

Notice the quote (in bold) and where it's from and what it references and how that reference is incorrectly applied.

I could not, of course, find this in the Old Testament, nor could I find any reference to it from the authors of the NT, which is the point. Where in the NT do the authors have Jesus invoke this as testimony to him being prophesied by the OT prophets?

Again, remember what we're talking about here. What matters is who the authors of the NT have Jesus quoting in support of him being prophesied.

Same argument applies.

No, he is not. The authors of the NT (particularly Mark and Matthew) have Jesus invoking, primarily, Daniel and Isaiah as the two prophets who prophesy his coming and the events of his coming, so it is to these two prophets that our attention should be focused in order to see whether or not Jesus fulfills their visions, yes?

If I say, "I am the messiah prophesied by Isaiah," then you shouldn't look to the Psalms of Solomon, yes?

Because you don't "view it as the be-all-end-all?" No offense, but who cares what you do or do not consider to be relevant first century Messianic expectation? You're missing the point (and, indirectly, proving it). The author of Matthew has Jesus quoting Daniel in support of the claim of Jesus' messiah-hood; the author of Mark has Jesus invoke Isaiah as the prophet who foresaw (allegedly) Jesus' arrival.

Neither Daniel nor Isaiah prophesy Jesus in any way. Their picture of the "messiah" (and you're right, it's not just one) is radically different from the life and events of Jesus, yet these are the two primary sources the authors have Jesus invoke.

Perhaps if you stopped building these strawmen so high, you'd be able to see over them and get to the point I'm making, then?

No, I correctly detail what Daniel (and Isaiah, to a much lesser extent) allegedly prophesied. I can do the same deconstruction with Isaiah if you wish, but you can read it yourself and compare and contrast it with the quotes from Mark that invoke it, too.

Remember what I'm arguing? That the NT mythology was concocted by Romans intent on subverting Judaism as a psy-ops mission in tandem with their military progrom and how they got their sources screwed up? How Mark has Jesus inovke Isaiah as his prophet and Matthew has Jesus invoke Daniel as his prophet and how neither apply to the life and events of Jesus?

In other words, how they got it wrong?

And once again you miss the argument entirely. I certainly hope this isn't intentional misdirection on your part. I have little to no tolerance for such sidetrack attempts. Just so you know.

The only thing that matters to my argument (theory, really) is what the authors of the NT have Jesus invoke as testimony to his messianic claims and how incorrect they were to apply those prophets to Jesus' life and times.

If Jesus actually were the Jewish "messiah," he either would not have invoked Daniel/Isaiah to support that claim or he would have invoked Daniel/Isaiah and then fulfilled their prophecies. He does neither. He invokes their prophecies, applies them to himself and his existence and purpose on earth (or rather, the authors do) and then does not fulfill those prophecies in any way. So, as you point out, since there were other prophecies that more closely resemble (in an extremely generalized sense) Jesus' life, why invoke two prophets as your primary substantiation only to then not fulfill anything they prophesied?

What Jewish messiah would do such a thing?

Rick Sumner

This is untrue. 11QMelch v.4-6 replaces God's actions with those of Melchizedek. Explicitly--Melchizedek replaces God.

On a similar note, The Self-Glorification hymn deifies the Teacher of Righteousness:

Deification was not alien to Judaism.

Those weren't the only Messianic concepts that gave rise to Christianity.

No, what matters are what Messianic concepts can be linked to the Christian concept of Jesus as the Messiah, explicitly or implicitly.

This was in regards to 4Q521, and the same argument certainly does *not* apply, as 4Q521 is quoted in the NT--it provides Jesus' answer to John the Baptist.(Mt.11.15//Lk.7.22) The key to indicating relative dependence is, of course, "raising the dead", which appears nowhere else.


If I say "I am the Messiah of scripture" then you shouldn't relegate yourself to looking in only one place for that concept, yes?

Which would indicate that the picture of the Messiah in Daniel and Isaiah was the one most expected--the one that needed to be sold most. It's clearly not the one that led to the belief of the earliest Christians, Paul doesn't see Jesus in that light. The Epistle to the Hebrews attests to the diversity of Messianic expectation that led to Christianity--it's message is essentially "Got a Messianic expectation? Here's how Jesus fulfilled it."

<snip long discourse on your argument>

You've missed *my* point. Your argument is based on misconceptions of intricacies that made up first century Messianism at large, and a dubious attempt to extract Christianity from that context. You'd have us believe that the Jewish world outlined in the NT is the only Jewish world that existed, and the only Jewish world that could have given rise to Christianity. This is nonsense.

Regards,
Rick

Bill

I can't really devote the necessary time to this thread that I would wish to do, but I'm somewhat disappointed that (according to my quick scan of this topic) nobody has mentioned the key figure in any search for the Historical Jesus: James.

Since it must be conceded that any Historical Jesus was dead at the time that Paul had his little "incident" on the road to Damascus (however one wishes to interpret that "incident"), then the only source of information about the Historical Jesus that Paul himself could obtain would be from James and the followers of James (see, e.g., Galatians 1:18-20, where Paul admits visiting Peter to "get information from him").

We all must admit that the leads to the Historical Jesus are mightly slim. And, while it seems clear that the synoptic gospels might all be derived from Homeric myth, even that cannot be used to conclusively prove the absence of an Historical Jesus figure.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: when Paul and Peter and James were meeting and discussing the character that we now refer to as Jesus Christ, who was it that James and Peter had in mind as the historical person in those discussions? The epistles of James and Peter would seem to have not been written by the actual persons we are asking about here (at least, that would be my assertion; I'm not going to divert this thread into a defense of that point). So, I don't believe that we have many clues outside of the admittedly genuine writings of Paul himself.

It is generally conceded that James and Peter lived in Jerusalem among the Essene Jews. In his monumental work James the Brother of Jesus, Robert Eisenman sets forth a lengthy and detailed case to the effect that James was actually the leader of the Essene Jews (Eisenman goes so far as to assert that James is an "opposition High Priest" with access into the Holy of Holies in the Temple). All of this leads to the idea that the Qumran documents ought to give us a pretty good picture as to the mindset of James and Peter when they were discussing matters with Paul.

This all then leads us up to The First Messiah : Investigating the Savior Before Jesus by noted Qumran scholar Michael Wise. Can it be that, when James and Peter and Paul were discussing this savior figure they were actually discussing the savior figure that Wise has uncovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls? I frankly believe that this is more than possible; in fact, I believe it is the best fit for all of the available evidence. That figure was a messianic savior who would be revered among the Essene Jews, among whom James was surely himself some sort of a revered leader. While it remains possible that a second messianic savior figure could have been discussed in those conversations between James and Peter and Paul, I personally find it to be doubtful that a second such figure exists (or else there would be more evidence than we have for such a figure). I frankly do believe that Wise has identified the actual Historical Jesus, although he is quite careful to not allege that specific fact in his book.

== Bill

Rick Sumner

Not having read the book, I can't offer any specific comment, except to note that I am inherently skeptical of long lists of parallels, and the bits and pieces of MacDonald's book I've seen quoted here and on other E-lists epitomize why--parallels range from genuine to grasping, with no indication given that we are moving to more speculative territory. This can at best be described as deceptive.

"Generally conceded that they lived in Jerusalem among the Essene Jews" meaning what, exactly? Simply that there were Essenes in Jerusalem? You're inclusion of Eisenman's work in the paragraph seems to indicate more.

Eisenman's identification of NT characters with characters in the DSS necessitates a late dating of 1QpHap (among others). A point, incidentally, that both the review on the SecWeb and that of Robert Price on the JHC fail to observe--a fairly serious caveat to be neglecting to mention.

He defends his late dating on nothing but fiat, with unreferenced, unsupported claims about the accuracy of C-14, and the stance of geologists on the matter. If so many geologists stood by Eisenman in his assertions regarding the inaccuracy of radiocarbon tests on the DSS, it's puzzling that he cites precisely zero. Perhaps we should let the readers determine for themselves:

http://www.radiocarbon.org/Journal/v37n1/jull.pdf

It's puzzling that Eisenman would request the C-14 tests, and then decide C-14 wasn't very reliable anyway. One must wonder if he would hold that position if they had agreed with him--the fact that he requested it in the first place strongly indicates that he wouldn't.

Eisenman's suggestion that James is the ToR, and Paul the Man of the Lie is simply false.

Yet you conclude that this is the position he holds? You're either missing the point of his book, or carrying it forth on your own. The essence of the book is that the ToR served as a model for later Messianic figures.

For what it's worth, I was unimpressed with Wise's book as well. After openly admitting that we have little biographical information, he goes on to provide great gobs of it--much of it based on nothing more than personal decree. His identification of Judah as the ToR is tentative at best, and in my opinion, unpersuasive. Not to say that Judah isn't the man--he may well be--just to say that Wise doesn't make the case very well.

Regards,
Rick

Bill

Well, please read Richard Carrier's review. This is well within Richard's area of professional expertise (Richard is working on his dissertation for a PhD in ancient history, particularly focused on the Greco-Roman civilization). Richard states in that review that he, too, began as a skeptic but then found the arguments to be quite convincing. I don't know enough to have an opinion of my own, but I do know enough to trust Richard's opinion. Much like today, where Jerusalem is divided into an Arab portion, a Christian portion, and a Jewish portion, in the time of the Second Temple, Jerusalem was divided into various sections, one of which was the Essene section of Jerusalem.

While the Biblical Archeology Review isn't in a great state of repute these days (after the fiasco over the "bonebox of James"), THIS ARTICLE describing the Essene Gate and the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem doesn't seem to raise any alarm bells in my mind other than the fact that the author is a monk (see also his question-and-answer session).

HERE are some Christian musings about the flight to Pella, which the author alleges began through the Essene Gate, in part because the early Christians were living among the Essenes. (And, if James is, in fact, an Essene leader, as Eisenman suggests, this makes all the more sense.)

It is interesting to read the old 1911 article about the Essenes on THIS page, which asserts that the Essenes are an ancient monkish group of Jews. For a contrary view about the Essenes, you might wish to read THIS POST. And, you will be pleased to note, I made no effort to defend those particular speculations of Eisenman's. I would never suggest, however, that because he crawled out on one limb and sawed it off behind himself, that everything else he writes about is total bunk. One should measure one's skepticisms. Well, again, I don't claim that James was the Teacher of Righteousness, so I don't have the problems that Eisenman does. So, in that sense, I guess you can say that I'm drawing my own conclusions out of the writings of Eisenman and others.

My assertion of the Teacher of Righteousness as appearing sometime around 90 BCE would not contradict much of anything that is known to be true. And a ToR appearing in that time frame would be reasonably positioned to be a model for later messianic figures, including Jesus Christ. Well, OK, I'm not enough of a scholar to call Wise wrong. But, given the obvious problems with Eisenman's thesis about when the ToR lived, I do believe a date of around that same time (i.e., my preferred date of "sometime around 90 BCE") would draw together a heck of a lot of otherwise-loose ends. Not persuasive, perhaps, but still very intriguing (at least, to me).

== Bill

Koyaanisqatsi

But is not God. Having a messenger of god perform god's wishes is not the same as claiming that the messenger is God.

Well, you and I must have a different definition of what it means to "deify" someone, since the hymn quite clearly delineates that this teacher is among the holy and "beloved of the King, a companion of the holy ones." His glorification is thus a comparison between himself and the other holy ones, but it is clear that god (the King) is ultimate and supreme and that he is subordinate to him (just not subordinate to the other "angels" that he reckoned with).

But blasphemy was a crime punishable by death.

So you claim. They are, however, the primary ones used by the authors of the NT in establishing the Jesus myth, which is, once again, my point.

Well, this is quickly degenerating into a "no, it's this" pointlessness and since it's my theory, I'll just take my ball and go home.

What matters to my theory is how messianic concepts were so poorly applied by the makers of the Jesus mythology and how that contributes to the notion that the Jesus myth of the passion narratives was (or was not) of Roman manufacture. It is the co-opting of misconstrued messianic concepts that concerns me; not whether or not the messiah of Jewish mythology was debated or discussed in various incarnations prior to the Jesus cult.

I don't question the existence of a Jesus cult prior to the invention of the passsion narratives. To my theory, there are two distinctly separate constructs going on; one in which a small, splinter cult who followed the anti-orthodoxy sayings of a Rabbi named Jesus, who, if he had been crucified by the Romans would have been tried and convicted of seditionist acts and one in which an occupying force attempted to use the indigenous belief structures to subvert them as par for the course of occupying a region.

That the attempt failed, but nonetheless found root in largely non-Jewish circles would be a tertiary adjunct to the purpose of creating the passion narrative mythology (and its subsequent misuse and poorly applied messianic prophecy in support of that mythology; i.e., the prophets quoted most frequently in support of Jesus' messiah claims).

And the key to indicating relative dependence on Daniel in Matthew is to directly quote him by name; the reference being to the events that are to coincide with Daniel's vision of the end times; of what is to happen when the messiah comes. By having Jesus quote Daniel by name, the author of Matthew is directly stating that Jesus is the messiah prophesied by Daniel; a gross contradiction of Daniel that would be nearly impossible to make if the Jesus mythology is supposed to be a fulfillment of that prophecy.

When that quote is subsequently clarified as to which particular scriptures and which particular prophets (Isaiah and Daniel, primarily), then one should look at those particular prophecies, yes?

Accept that they aren't reconcilable to the life of Jesus and the manner in which they are used as primary support for Jesus' claims betrays, IMO, the fraud being perpetrated.

As you have argued, there are many other models of what the Jewish messiah is supposed to be, yet the authors of the NT passion myth specifically qualify who the primary prophets are, getting them wrong in both instances. Neither Isaish nor Daniel prophesied anything like Jesus' life or events.

They got them dead wrong, thus lending strong credence to my contention that they came not from an organic extension of reformist Judaism, but from outside the Jewish faith looking in (and poorly at that). Again, the question that concerns me is not whether or not Jewish theologians were debating in what form the messiah will come; the question is why the authors of the Jesus myth chose primary prophets to substantiate their claims who do no such thing in even the most cursory readings.

And how does Paul begin Hebrews?

And whom does his Son primarily invoke to substantiate his claims of Messiah-hoodness and the events of his life that fulfill particular messianic prophecy? Isaiah and Daniel (if Mark and Matthew are to be trusted).

Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of my theory.

Then it's a good thing I've done nothing of the kind.

Rick Sumner

You'd have done well to have read the passage--Melchizedek brings liberty to the captives, cf Is.61.1.

To deify someone is to make them into a god. Are we in agreement?


Blaspheme occurred if, and only if, the sacred name of God was uttered (cf.San.7.6, 1QS 6.28-7.1) Deification has nothing to do with it.

No, they are the primary ones quoted in later narratives surrounding Jesus. That doesn't mean they are the primary ones that established Jesus' Messiahship. The establishment of Jesus' Messiahship must be understood in the context of first century Judaism, not in the limited context of the gospels. Which, despite your lengthy diatribe, is exactly what you are trying to do.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

MacDonald has garnered at least as much, if not more, criticism as he has support. I hesitate to trust anyone without reading the book myself. I'll do so, eventually.

I know, I was curious if you were implying a stronger "living among" than that. From below, it appears you were.

I didn't condemn his entire work. I condemned his identification with James as the Teacher of Righteousness, and Paul as the Man of the Lie.

This *does* call much of his work into question, however. His reconstruction of James' life, and indeed the notion you outline below of James being a leader in the Essene community, is based on dubious parallels between the narratives of James' life, and that of the ToR. Knock those parallels off--which doubtlessly needs to be done in light of C-14--and his entire narrative of James' life runs into very serious problems.

Then who do you claim James was, and how do you draw this from Eisenman?

90 BCE is pretty late, presuming the ToR was the founder of the community, but you're right, not horrendously so.

I have no doubt that the ToR served as a model--in the sense Wise indicates (despite my general distaste for his book, he *did* have a valid point here); Messianic expectations and first century Eschatology were influenced by the scroll authors. Greatly. They *are* in essence, Christianity before Christ.

Regards,
Rick

Koyaanisqatsi

And Moses freed the slaves. Does that make Moses God?

So long as you take particular note of the qualifier "a" god and not "the" god, sure.

Or if a Jew claimed to be god; hence the whole trial nonsense in the NT (yet another concept the NT authors got wrong about the tenets of Judaism).

Agreed. Likening someone to a god has nothing to do with claiming someone is God.

Which is what I'm concerned with.

Then take it up with Jesus. He's the one that allegedly quoted them in direct support of his messianic claims.

So you claim.

No, not "despite" it. It is exactly what I am doing based on the direct quotes and claims used allegedly by Jesus to substantiate his own messiah-hoodlichkeitismus.

Once again and for auld lang syne, whether or not first century Jewish theologians (reformed or orthodox) were debating what form their Messiah would take has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how the creation of the passion myth wrongly ascribes Daniel's and Isaiah's visions to substantiate Jesus' claims.

Jesus was not and could not have been the "messiah" prophesied by either Daniel or Isaiah, yet these are the two primary substantiating sources the authors of the gospels have Jesus quoting to legitimize his (their) claims. It is to these authors and what they got wrong about Judaic messianic prophecy in this manner that my theory seeks to address.

Your only input has been to say, in essence, that it is irrelevant who the authors of Jesus' words have Jesus state are the substantiating prophets of his coming, which is one hundred percent incorrect in regard to my theory of Roman co-option and subsequent creation of the Jesus myth as a (failed) attempt to subvert Judaism.

That the authors of the passion myth wrongly ascribe Isaiah's and Daniel's prophesies to the life and events of Jesus is one of the primary issues of my theory, whether you agree or not.

We're talking about two distinctly different constructs.