Toto

Gospel According to Joshua

Efron rejects the mention of Jesus and John the Baptist in Josephus as Christian forgeries. He rejects the references in the Talmud to Jesus - the Jerusalem Talmud speaks only of Jesus as an object of belief, the Babylonian Talmud is later and less reliable, and influenced by the gospels.

Jayhawker Soule

That seems unworthy of respect. Better would be a historian whose mission is to investigate and explicate history.

rlogan

I suppose that is a good point if we take his comment to mean that he began his study of history with this quest.

But I think what he means is that it can be established that "cosmic catastrophe" and "end-of-the-world" messiah-speak isn't a staple of Judaic thought.

It seems Christians are fond of claiming that Jesus was the fulfillment of Hebrew Bible prophesy. So as a historian it is a legitimate "mission" to choose publishing in this area as opposed to some other area.

I think if you re-read the last paragraph that Toto included, you'll see he agrees with you about the historical approach.

Jayhawker Soule

I'm less sure about what he meant than about what he said, which at least raises the specter of selection bias. As for

"that there is no messianism in Judaism before Christianity and no Jewish apocalyptics"

that is not my understanding. I believe, for example, that such attitudes existed among the Qumran Sect.

Gothic_J

Ive been fairly sure he didnt existed. this wouldnt surprise me.

capnkirk

I agree with you ConsequentAtheist. I would add that the origins of Judaic messianism (as well as a concept of an eschaton followed by an apocalyptic age) reach as far back as the Exile and the Hebrews' deliverance from it by a Zoroastrian King (Cyrus), as Zoroastrianism was the Jews' first exposure to these end of time concepts. While some features of messianism were extant in Judaism before this, the role of a messiah grew dramatically to be equal to the conceived scale of the apocalypse.

While Prof. Efron is correct that the period immediately after the return to Zion was filled with high expectations. But, after Alexander conquered Persia and Zion became a Greek vassal state things started to deteriorate. As conditions continued to worsen through subsequent occupations, the need for a messiah again became the focus of Judaic hopes. Understanding that it would take some kind of divine intervention to overthrow someone as strong as the Romans, the messiah would necessarily be helped by YHWH, but in the minds of the oppressed in Palestine, no divinity was attached to the messiah. In Jewish minds, Kings that demanded to be worshipped (because of their divinity) had always been associated with oppression and slavery, so the concept of a divine messiah who would claim the throne of David was not a natural vision for Jews to create. Filled with the Holy Spirit maybe, but divine? No way!

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Attonitus

J. Efron is right, it doesn't exist any proof of absolute use of the word Messiah in the pre-Christian Judaism.

capnkirk

Attonitus,

That statement simply isn't true. King David was called messiah, so was Solomon...and every king of the Davidian dyansty. What you are confusing is the use of the word in its original Hebrew context (simply meaning "annointed") and its very different meaning (a deity) as understood by Xtians. It is only in the latter context that messiah never appears in the OT.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Attonitus

Sorry, but the statement is true, and I'm saying the same thing. I speak of the absolute use of the term Messiah. In the Tanak 'mesiah yhwh' it is used frequently as the King's title, in particular of David and their dynasty, in other passages it is applied to the nation incarnate, but before the Christianity doesn't exist any source where you can sustain that the term Messiah it is applied to a figure that she waits appears in the future.

rlogan

Gosh, C.A. - Quote mining? Tsk Tsk. Could we please see the rest of the quote that explains what he means?

"That is, before the advent of Christianity, there was no idea or motif of a divine messiah and of a cosmic catastrophe and the end of this world in Judaism. Christianity was the first movement that espoused a miraculous messianism and the end of the world."

Now please demonstrate that the Qumran sect expected a divine messiah with an end-of-the-world cosmic catastrophe.

Then you would be dealing with "what he said" instead of an out of context quote mine straw man.

Now because you want to address the straw man, let us re-visit what he said:

"The criterion of these researchers is not objective; that is, it is not derived from the research itself but is an a priori assumption: the criterion of the historical truth is determined beforehand, and on its basis verses or single phrases are chosen and wrenched from the New Testament"

The criticism leveled at this person, using the out of context quote mine - is that he is not objective. That is rather the point of his whole approach! An objective reading of the HB does not produce a Judaic expectation of an end of the world cataclysmic man-god.

capn Kirk, you have stated exactly what Prof. Efron has stated and have offered it as a disagreement with him.