Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 03-23-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Bart Ehrman actually addresses this in his book - not the pesher directly, but Carrier's identification of the Messiah in Daniel.

Quote:

Basically, Ehrman is saying it doesn't matter if a pesher identifies the suffering servant with the 'anointed one' in Daniel 9, because that particular "messiah" was not THE Messiah, but a high priest who had been murdered. Not every use of the word 'anointed' necessarily refers to THE ANOINTED. Sometimes "the man upstairs" is just a man upstairs. This is one of those cases.

First of all, it's strange that Ehrman makes much of the fact that this passage is actually a historical person, Onias the third, of course Carrier knows and accepts that.

The point is that here in Daniel we have a passage that talks about a/the messiah being executed.

Add to that the Targum he points out that inserts "messiah" into Isa 52.

And add to that the DSS document that talks about the (in this case coming!) messiah in relation to Dan 9 and Isa 61.

So the fact is that we have evidence of people thinking about a dying messiah.

I think that the important thing here is not what the author meant, but how later readers would interpret it, so when Ehrman says: " In other words, 9:25 not only is not talking about a future messiah,....", who cares? Is that really how an 1st century jew would read it?

hjalti · 03-23-2012, 04:17 PM

And one observation, let's assume that there was a historical Jesus:

Why isn't it more likely that he got his "messiah" title, because they saw a connection beteen his sufferings and death on the one hand, and these passages that talk about a/the messiah suffering and dying?

Why think that they first thought of him as "the returning king who was going to overthrow the Romans" (do we see any hint of that in Paul?), and only later added the connections to his sufferings?

aa5874 · 03-23-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

.... But only a few years later (or less), Hellenized Jews (Greek speaking) in Jerusalem held on Jesus as the future King, by declaring him not dead after all, but saved in heaven, with the help of the scriptures. They thought he would come back soon, at the advent of the Kingdom of God on earth (as a typical Messiah). "Crucified' was only a non-fatal accident for them, more like a shame, causing a pause and wait. Sacrifice for atonement of sins will come much later (~ 52-55) and was not universally adopted at first.
That's according to my studies.

Again, all we get are INVENTIONS and NO evidence.

There is NO evidence, NO source of antiquity that supports a REAL Messiah, a King of the Jews, a Messianic ruler named Jesus.

Simon barCochba was considered a REAL Messianic ruler.

Jesus the crucified Messiah was INDEED an INVENTION to explain the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

.

Vorkosigan · 03-23-2012, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Carrier’s argument becomes more interesting when he appeals to a passage in chapter 9 of the book of Daniel...Verse 26 then indicates that sixty-two weeks of years later an “anointed one” shall be “cut off and shall have nothing.” Carrier argues strenuously that this shows that the author of Daniel expected that the messiah (the “anointed one”) had to be killed (“cut off”). It is an interesting interpretation but highly idiosyncratic. You won’t find it in commentaries on Daniel written by critical Hebrew Bible scholars (those who are not fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals), and for some good reasons. To begin with, the anointed prince of verse 26 is obviously not the same as the anointed one mentioned in verse 25. Are they both princes, that is, traditional messianic figures? It is important to recall that the term anointed one was sometimes used as a technical term to refer to the future ruler of Israel. But it was not always used that way. Sometimes it simply referred to a king (Solomon) or a high priest or anyone who went through an anointing ceremony. That is, it was not only a technical term but also a common term. It is striking in this passage that the figure in verse 26 is not called a prince or “the” anointed one—that is, the messiah. And so, in one of the definitive commentaries written on Daniel, by Louis Hartman, a leading scholar of the Hebrew Bible (Carrier does not claim to be one; I don’t know offhand if he knows Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages in which the book was written), we read about verse 25: Although in the preexilic period [the period in Israel before the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE—four hundred or more years before Daniel was written] the Hebrew term masiah, the “anointed one,” was used almost exclusively of kings, at least in the postexilic period [after the people returned to the land years later] the high priest received a solemn anointing with sacred oil on entering his office…. It seems much more likely, therefore, that the “anointed leader” of 9:25 refers to the high priest, Joshua ben Josadak.15 In other words, 9:25 not only is not talking about a future messiah, it is talking about a figure from the history of Israel whom we already know about: the priest Joshua described elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see, for example, Zechariah 6:11). Verse 26 is referring to someone who lived centuries later, but it too is not referring to a future messiah. As Hartman has argued—along with many, many other Hebrew Bible scholars—the reference to “an” (not “the”) anointed one in 9:26 “almost certainly” refers to another figure known from Jewish history, the high priest Onias III, who was deposed from being the high priest and murdered in 171 BCE, several years before the famous Maccabean revolt broke out, an event recounted in 2 Maccabees 4:1–38.16 The two who are called “anointed” are not future messiahs. They are both high priests who, in that role, were anointed. And they both lived in the past. Most important of all, this passage was never, so far as we know, interpreted messianically by Jews prior to the advent of Christianity. In other words, there were no Jews in the early 30s who would have resonated with the idea of a suffering messiah based on Daniel 9:26. No one thought that this is what the passage was about.

It's remarkable how bad this is.

It is an interesting interpretation but highly idiosyncratic. You won’t find it in commentaries on Daniel written by critical Hebrew Bible scholars (those who are not fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals), and for some good reasons.

There are some scholars who think that but they are not "critical." In fact, Ehrman misses a crucial sociological point -- that the biased scholars are much closer to the way early Christians thought than the "critical" scholars.

As for Onias III -- who protected the vessels from the temple and appeared to his followers after death -- Maccabees is a living presence in GMark.

Finally, it is extremely clever rhetorically to argue that "No one thought that this is what the passage was about." It simply makes the possibility that early Christians did disappear without actual exploration of early Christian belief. But the idiosyncratic use of Isaiah by early Christians should set off alarm bells that those folks did not read the scriptures the way everyone else did.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 03-23-2012, 05:39 PM

Further, the "nobody would invent a crucified messiah" argument is essentially an argument from incredulity, and we know how much those are worth.

Bernard Muller · 03-23-2012, 05:40 PM

to aa,

Quote:

a REAL Messiah, a King of the Jews, a Messianic ruler named Jesus.

I said "future", after he comes back (which he never did!).

Bernard Muller · 03-23-2012, 06:10 PM

Quote:

It seems much more likely, therefore, that the “anointed leader” of 9:25 refers to the high priest, Joshua ben Josadak.15 In other words, 9:25 not only is not talking about a future messiah, it is talking about a figure from the history of Israel whom we already know about: the priest Joshua described elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see, for example, Zechariah 6:11). Verse 26 is referring to someone who lived centuries later, but it too is not referring to a future messiah.

I studied 'Daniel' a lot and I am certain that "the anointed prince" of Dan9:5 is Jason, formely named Jesus, the successor of Onias III.

From my website http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html :

Quote:

Jason was the last one of the quasi-dynastic Zadokite succession of high priests (so "prince" can be justified, more so because Jason had considerable power & influence in Jerusalem -- 2Macc.4). Also, Jewish priests were anointed (with oil) at inauguration (Ex40:15, Lev8:12, Nu35:25).
Jason is described as being very much Hellenized (2Macc.4:7-17), but also is our author Daniel-2 ("Prince of Princes", the demigod, etc.). While Antiochus was in Egypt for the second time, Jason came back to Jerusalem:
2Macc.5:5-7a "When a false rumor arose that Antiochus was dead, Jason took no fewer than a thousand men and suddenly made an assault on the city. ... at last the city was being taken, Menelaus [a non-Zadokite Jew who "usurped" the high priesthood from Jason in 171] took refuge in the citadel. ... He did not, however, gain control of the government;"

Jason is my preferred option (more so because of the next verse: see later). That would explain the ambivalence in Da9:25-26: Daniel-2 might have considered him the legitimate high priest, but because of the atrocities Jason committed after he took Jerusalem:
2Macc.5:6: "But Jason kept relentlessly slaughtering his compatriots, not realizing that success at the cost of one's kindred is the greatest misfortune, but imagining that he was setting up trophies of victory over enemies and not over compatriots."
our author did not want to be too obvious.

And 9:6 refers to the same Jason.

Quote:

9:26 And after the sixty-two 'sevens' [sixty-nine 'sevens' after the decree], the Anointed One [or "anointed one"]
[definitively Jason here, who had been anointed as high priest]

` will be cut off and will have nothing.
[Jason eventually lost his support because of his ruthlessness and fled:
2Macc.5:7b-8a "in the end he got only disgrace from his conspiracy, and fled again into the country of the Ammonites. Finally he met a miserable end. Accused before Aretas the ruler of the Arabs, fleeing from city to city, pursued by everyone, ..."

Notes:
a) The Hebrew word for "cut off" ('karath') has many meanings, including "separate(d)"/"banish(ed)", from:
Ge17:14 "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."
up to:
Mal2:11b-12a "... He has married the daughter of a foreign god. May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob the man who does this ..."
Remark: Jesus was not "cut off" (as beheaded) on the cross!

b) Many critical scholars think Jason was not meant as the one being "cut off", but instead Onias III. But this Onias was killed in 171/170, three to two years before Antiochus IV started Greek animal sacrifices on the Temple mount ("the abomination of desolation"), rather than part of one year (from the end of the sixty-nine seven to the mist of the seventy seven).

c) Here is a comment from the NET Bible on the same verse (9:26):
"The expression "have nothing" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the "anointed one" at the time of his “cutting off.”"
With Jason, that makes a lot of sense. No more mystery!

d) The KJV (and some other bibles) has a very misleading translation for "and will have nothing". Again let's look at a comment from the NET Bible:
"The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting a vicarious death [as a sacrifice for others], cannot be defended."
as obviously admitted (by default) here in the "Blue Letter Bible"]

That's it folks. Yes, I know, Christians had/have another interpretation. I agree.

Vorkosigan · 03-23-2012, 08:54 PM

Bernard, that's very interesting information & argument. I've noticed how this history appears in Mark in distorted ways. How do you see the sixty-two/69 sevens relating to Jason/Jesus?

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-23-2012, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Bart Ehrman actually addresses this in his book - not the pesher directly, but Carrier's identification of the Messiah in Daniel.

Quote:

Basically, Ehrman is saying it doesn't matter if a pesher identifies the suffering servant with the 'anointed one' in Daniel 9, because that particular "messiah" was not THE Messiah, but a high priest who had been murdered. Not every use of the word 'anointed' necessarily refers to THE ANOINTED. Sometimes "the man upstairs" is just a man upstairs. This is one of those cases.

First of all, it's strange that Ehrman makes much of the fact that this passage is actually a historical person, Onias the third, of course Carrier knows and accepts that.

The point is that here in Daniel we have a passage that talks about a/the messiah being executed.

Add to that the Targum he points out that inserts "messiah" into Isa 52.

And add to that the DSS document that talks about the (in this case coming!) messiah in relation to Dan 9 and Isa 61.

So the fact is that we have evidence of people thinking about a dying messiah.

I think that the important thing here is not what the author meant, but how later readers would interpret it, so when Ehrman says: " In other words, 9:25 not only is not talking about a future messiah,....", who cares? Is that really how an 1st century jew would read it?

Yes, that's exactly how they did read it. It's not like the text didn't tell them. They knew the difference between when the Bible was talking about a past Messiah and when it was talking about the coming Messiah. Isaiah calls Cyrus the Great a Messiah. no one ever got confused about it.

Plus there is no evidence that the "Anointed" referenced in Daniel 9:26 was ever taken to refer to a future Messiah prior to Christianity.

The DSS Pesher identifies a specific historical person with a non-Messianic metaphor in Isaiah.

It's not enough just to try to say that it has not been proven dispositively that no Jew ever though the future messiah was going to suffer or be crucified (technically that's true). The case for mythicism only becomes compelling if some kind of positive evidence can be produced that they did, and Richard Carrier (as much as I like and appreciate a lot of what he writes) does not make a case that the pesher in question refers to future Messianic beliefs.

aa5874 · 03-23-2012, 09:25 PM

We have stories of a Crucified Messiah in the Canon and it is claimed that "no-one would invent a crucified Messiah".

We have non-apologetic Jewish writings that basically covers the 1st century from Philo and Josephus.

It is a rather simply matter to examine Philo and Josephus for a Crucified Messiah.

There is NO Crucified Messiah in those writings.

There is NO Crucified Messiah called Jesus Christ in those writings.

The Crucified Messiah in the NT was INVENTED.

It is FALSE that no-one would invent a Crucified Messiah.

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

03-23-2012, 04:17 PM	#32
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	And one observation, let's assume that there was a historical Jesus: Why isn't it more likely that he got his "messiah" title, because they saw a connection beteen his sufferings and death on the one hand, and these passages that talk about a/the messiah suffering and dying? Why think that they first thought of him as "the returning king who was going to overthrow the Romans" (do we see any hint of that in Paul?), and only later added the connections to his sufferings?

03-23-2012, 05:39 PM	#35
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Further, the "nobody would invent a crucified messiah" argument is essentially an argument from incredulity, and we know how much those are worth.

03-23-2012, 08:54 PM	#38
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Bernard, that's very interesting information & argument. I've noticed how this history appears in Mark in distorted ways. How do you see the sixty-two/69 sevens relating to Jason/Jesus? Vorkosigan

03-23-2012, 09:25 PM	#40
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	We have stories of a Crucified Messiah in the Canon and it is claimed that "no-one would invent a crucified Messiah". We have non-apologetic Jewish writings that basically covers the 1st century from Philo and Josephus. It is a rather simply matter to examine Philo and Josephus for a Crucified Messiah. There is NO Crucified Messiah in those writings. There is NO Crucified Messiah called Jesus Christ in those writings. The Crucified Messiah in the NT was INVENTED. It is FALSE that no-one would invent a Crucified Messiah.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.