Many will come in my name.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by John2 »

Neil wrote:
...who are those coming in "his name" and saying "I am" around 70 or whatever time Mark was actually writing?
I've come to see Mark as being genuine, i.e., a writing by a follower of Peter like Papias says, so in my view I take this to be a genuine saying of Jesus, or at least and one that fits a pre-70 CE context, and that it refers to the kind of people Josephus mentions in War 2.13.4:
These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
FJVermeiren
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:48 am
Contact:

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by FJVermeiren »

One more little stage on the Flavian trail.

Isn’t it remarkable that an identical healing miracle is ascribed to Vespasian and to Jesus? Both messianic figures are reported to have healed a blind man. As the story in GJohn 9:1-12 is more elaborate it gives the impression to be based on the report of Vespasian’s healing act in Alexandria.

------Vespasian (Tacitus Histories IV:81)------ --------------------- Jesus (GJohn 9:1-12)--------------------
A blind man A man blind from birth
Spittle on the cheek and eyes Spittle on the ground to make clay and anoint the eyes
Hesitating, asking advice of physicians Acting independently
Healing on the scene Sending to the pool of Siloam and returning

John makes the story more spectacular (no doubt about the man’s eyesight like in Tacitus’s story, he is blind from birth) and more complex (the spittle procedure, the sending and returning), with a more confident actor (Vespasian asks advice, Jesus is acting independently). John’s explicit aim seems to be to outdo the miraculous healing act ascribed to Vespasian: Jesus is the winner of this miracle worker competition.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates.
James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance p. 139
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by neilgodfrey »

FJVermeiren wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:29 pm One more little stage on the Flavian trail.

Isn’t it remarkable that an identical healing miracle is ascribed to Vespasian and to Jesus? Both messianic figures are reported to have healed a blind man.
The question to ask, I suspect, may be how such stories spread and when they were first heard by readers and composers of the earliest gospels.

Vespasian stood out as initiating a major propaganda campaign to justify his rise to power. (He needed to justify his position given his non-aristocratic origins.) It is in that context, after his becoming emperor, yes?, that we expect to hear of oracles and prophets having declared beforehand that he was the one chosen by the gods to rule. Miracles were even said to be performed through his humbly carried divine powers. As you point out, we do have to wonder if the evangelists were at times responding the the claims of Vespasian's healing stories; .... and even to prophecies that had foretold his rise.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by John2 »

FJVermeiren wrote:
Isn’t it remarkable that an identical healing miracle is ascribed to Vespasian and to Jesus? Both messianic figures are reported to have healed a blind man.
One of my all-time favorite Christian origins websites discusses this and other miracles here:
... in the ancient world supernatural doings—miracles—weren't rare. Miracles were just how the world worked. You can't explain Jesus' miracles until you understand that ... For us miracles are exceptional; they need explanation. For the ancients, miracles were just how the world worked ... Trying to explain how common miracles were in ancient culture is like trying to explain how stinking big the ocean is: naming wet places doesn't get the idea across. You run out of patience before you run out of ocean. It's like that with pagan miracles—there were too stinking many to count. Miracles were everywhere.

http://pocm.info/pagan_ideas_miracles.html
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

In his article about the synoptic apocalypse (Matthew 24 = Mark 13), Detering argues that both it and the gospels themselves date to after the days of Simon bar Kokhba. By far his best set of arguments derives both from the passages I have posted on this thread ("many will come in my name") and from the passage I posted on another thread earlier today ("they will deliver you up" to persecution):

Hermann Detering, "The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 par.): A Document From the Time of Bar Kochba," JHC 7/2, pages 189-191:

With reference to Bar Kochba, there is a word-for-word parallel in rabbinical literature to the claim of the false messiah transmitted by Matthew (24:5): “I am the Christ.” In Sanh. 93b one reads: (i) “Bar Koziba reigned for two and a half years. He said to the rabbis, ‘I am the Messiah.’ They said to him, ‘It is written of the Messiah that he has a reliable sense for what is right. We wish to see whether this man has such a sense.’ Once they saw that he did not have it, they killed him.” (ii) In the Seder ha-Qabbalah of Abraham Ibn David, from the 12th century: “In their days a man with the name stood up and claimed that he was the Messiah, the son of David.” With regard to Mt 24:23, cf. y Taan 4:8 fol. 68: (iii) “Rabbi Aquiva said [namely] when he saw Bar Kozeba, ‘This is the king Messiah!’”

Even if the historical value of any given source may be questioned, one must observe that there is no other figure in Jewish history of the first and second century regarding whom one can say with more certainty than for Bar Kochba that he appeared on the scene with messianic pretensions. There can hardly be any doubt that Bar Kochba expressed messianic ambitions, probably even in the first-person “I” style. The relationship to Mt 24:5, therefore, could hardly be more clear cut. In light of the fact that Bar Kochba is the only messianic pretender in Jewish history of the first and second centuries for whom claims can be documented which have word-for-word parallels in the Gospels, it is incomprehensible how this figure as well as the events of 130-135 have remained totally disregarded by historical-critical exegesis of the SynApoc. The explanation can only be that the interpretation of the SynApoc on the basis of the dating of Mark and Matthew in the second half of the first century functions as an axiom, which itself is still maintained even if the text can be reconciled with the historical events of the first century only with great difficulty (i.e., by positing redactional insertions).

The false messiahs in Matthew and Mark are referred to as pseudochristoi (Mt 24:24/par). In Apoc. Pet. 2 as well there is a reference to “deceitful Christs.” “These deceitful men are not Christ.” The concept of the pseudo-Christ (from pseudos = deceitful) still reflects the fact that according to later Jewish tradition Bar Kockba was a Bar Koziba, a “Liar’s son.”

The assumption that at the time the SynApoc was written and the author referred to the pseudo-messiah he had primarily a specific person in view, namely Bar Kochba, would also explain the singular in Mt 24:23: “Then if someone (tis) says to you, ‘Lo, here is the messiah!’.” Similarly, just as when the SynApoc was written everyone would have first thought of a specific pseudomessiah, Bar Kochba, so also with the reference to a single (tis) false prophet everyone would think of that person who proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the Messiah (= Christ), namely, Rabbi Akiba.

.... Matt 24:24/par speaks of being misled by signs and wonders of the false Christ. Such “signs and wonders” are also mentioned in traditions concerning Bar Kochba. According to Jerome, Bar Kochba performed “deceitful wonders,” e.g., spewing fire from his mouth (cf. 2 Thess 2:8; Isa 11:4b; Ezra 13:10, 27). There were also rumors of his enormous physical strength. Item (6): Not only can a connection be established between Bar Kochba as the “pseudo-Christ” probably referred to in Mt 24:24 and the “signs and wonders” (Mt 24:24/par), there also seems to be a connection between the persecution referred in Mt 24:9 and Bar Kochba’s persecution of Christians. For Theißen and others there is finally no inner connection between the themes of being deceived and being persecuted. The two themes appear alongside one another with no inter-relationship. Their connection immediately becomes clear, however, as soon as one recognizes that the deceiver and false Christ (Mt 24:24) is also the persecutor (Mt 24:9) and that this person is obviously none other than Bar Kochba.

Could these passages date from as late as Hadrian? On the one hand, it is a great point that we have attested from various sources for Simon bar Kokhba and no other that he himself claimed, "I am the Messiah/Christ," and that others, like Rabbi Akiva, claimed of him, "He is the Messiah/Christ," pretty much in the exact words posited in the synoptic parallels. On the other hand, the synoptic parallels say that "many" will claim this, and the Son of the Star is not "many," so we find ourselves having to allow that Christians may well have interpreted prophets like Theudas or royal claimants like Simon ben Giora as Messiah figures (whether those figures made those claims for themselves or not), the same as we would if we were to date these passages to earlier than Hadrian's Judean campaign. Simon bar Kokhba can be one of the many, but only one of the many. Nevertheless, the exact verbal parallel is exciting, is it not? Does anything prevent us from taking advantage of it in our interpretation and dating of these passages?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by neilgodfrey »

The evidence for R. Akiva declaring Bar Kokhba to be the Messiah is not rock solid. See Novenson, M. V. (2009). Why Does R. Akiba Acclaim Bar Kokhba as Messiah? Journal for the Study of Judaism, 40(4), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1163/004722109X12499530635251 and the several citations in the same article. Also O’Neill, J. C. (2000). The Mocking of Bar Kokhba and of Jesus. Journal for the Study of Judaism, 31(1–4), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1163/157006300X00035

That's not to say the good rabbi wasn't misled but we'd have be be brave or foolish to bet our houses on it being a bedrock "historical fact". Beware the pitfalls of the "connecting the dots" method of historical research. ;-)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:33 pm In his article about the synoptic apocalypse (Matthew 24 = Mark 13), Detering argues that both it and the gospels themselves date to after the days of Simon bar Kokhba. By far his best set of arguments derives both from the passages I have posted on this thread ("many will come in my name") and from the passage I posted on another thread earlier today ("they will deliver you up" to persecution):

Hermann Detering, "The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13 par.): A Document From the Time of Bar Kochba," JHC 7/2, pages 189-191: With reference to Bar Kochba, there is a word-for-word parallel in rabbinical literature to the claim of the false messiah transmitted by Matthew (24:5): “I am the Christ.” In Sanh. 93b one reads: (i) “Bar Koziba reigned for two and a half years. He said to the rabbis, ‘I am the Messiah.’ They said to him, ‘It is written of the Messiah that he has a reliable sense for what is right. We wish to see whether this man has such a sense.’ Once they saw that he did not have it, they killed him.” (ii) In the Seder ha-Qabbalah of Abraham Ibn David, from the 12th century: “In their days a man with the name stood up and claimed that he was the Messiah, the son of David.” With regard to Mt 24:23, cf. y Taan 4:8 fol. 68: (iii) “Rabbi Aquiva said [namely] when he saw Bar Kozeba, ‘This is the king Messiah!’”

Even if the historical value of any given source may be questioned, one must observe that there is no other figure in Jewish history of the first and second century regarding whom one can say with more certainty than for Bar Kochba that he appeared on the scene with messianic pretensions. There can hardly be any doubt that Bar Kochba expressed messianic ambitions, probably even in the first-person “I” style. The relationship to Mt 24:5, therefore, could hardly be more clear cut. In light of the fact that Bar Kochba is the only messianic pretender in Jewish history of the first and second centuries for whom claims can be documented which have word-for-word parallels in the Gospels, it is incomprehensible how this figure as well as the events of 130-135 have remained totally disregarded by historical-critical exegesis of the SynApoc. The explanation can only be that the interpretation of the SynApoc on the basis of the dating of Mark and Matthew in the second half of the first century functions as an axiom, which itself is still maintained even if the text can be reconciled with the historical events of the first century only with great difficulty (i.e., by positing redactional insertions).

The false messiahs in Matthew and Mark are referred to as pseudochristoi (Mt 24:24/par). In Apoc. Pet. 2 as well there is a reference to “deceitful Christs.” “These deceitful men are not Christ.” The concept of the pseudo-Christ (from pseudos = deceitful) still reflects the fact that according to later Jewish tradition Bar Kockba was a Bar Koziba, a “Liar’s son.”

The assumption that at the time the SynApoc was written and the author referred to the pseudo-messiah he had primarily a specific person in view, namely Bar Kochba, would also explain the singular in Mt 24:23: “Then if someone (tis) says to you, ‘Lo, here is the messiah!’.” Similarly, just as when the SynApoc was written everyone would have first thought of a specific pseudomessiah, Bar Kochba, so also with the reference to a single (tis) false prophet everyone would think of that person who proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the Messiah (= Christ), namely, Rabbi Akiba.

.... Matt 24:24/par speaks of being misled by signs and wonders of the false Christ. Such “signs and wonders” are also mentioned in traditions concerning Bar Kochba. According to Jerome, Bar Kochba performed “deceitful wonders,” e.g., spewing fire from his mouth (cf. 2 Thess 2:8; Isa 11:4b; Ezra 13:10, 27). There were also rumors of his enormous physical strength. Item (6): Not only can a connection be established between Bar Kochba as the “pseudo-Christ” probably referred to in Mt 24:24 and the “signs and wonders” (Mt 24:24/par), there also seems to be a connection between the persecution referred in Mt 24:9 and Bar Kochba’s persecution of Christians. For Theißen and others there is finally no inner connection between the themes of being deceived and being persecuted. The two themes appear alongside one another with no inter-relationship. Their connection immediately becomes clear, however, as soon as one recognizes that the deceiver and false Christ (Mt 24:24) is also the persecutor (Mt 24:9) and that this person is obviously none other than Bar Kochba.

Could these passages date from as late as Hadrian? On the one hand, it is a great point that we have attested from various sources for Simon bar Kokhba and no other that he himself claimed, "I am the Messiah/Christ," and that others, like Rabbi Akiva, claimed of him, "He is the Messiah/Christ," pretty much in the exact words posited in the synoptic parallels. On the other hand, the synoptic parallels say that "many" will claim this, and the Son of the Star is not "many," so we find ourselves having to allow that Christians may well have interpreted prophets like Theudas or royal claimants like Simon ben Giora as Messiah figures (whether those figures made those claims for themselves or not), the same as we would if we were to date these passages to earlier than Hadrian's Judean campaign. Simon bar Kokhba can be one of the many, but only one of the many. Nevertheless, the exact verbal parallel is exciting, is it not? Does anything prevent us from taking advantage of it in our interpretation and dating of these passages?
The wording of the claims about Bar Kochba in Jewish sources is certainly later than the Gospels. Even if Bar Kochba claimed to be the Messiah (highly probable), and was recognised as Messiah by Akiva (unclear), they presumably did not use the phrases reported in the Jewish sources. Hence the exact verbal parallel with Mark is probably not relevant.

Also I doubt if the historical Bar Kochba claimed to work miracles. The Christian tradition that he did (first found in the Apocalypse of Peter) is probably an application to Bar Kochba of an earlier tradition found in Mark 13/Matthew 24.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:36 amThe wording of the claims about Bar Kochba in Jewish sources is certainly later than the Gospels. Even if Bar Kochba claimed to be the Messiah (highly probable), and was recognised as Messiah by Akiva (unclear), they presumably did not use the phrases reported in the Jewish sources.
That is a good point. Something to consider.
Also I doubt if the historical Bar Kochba claimed to work miracles. The Christian tradition that he did (first found in the Apocalypse of Peter) is probably an application to Bar Kochba of an earlier tradition found in Mark 13/Matthew 24.
I had the same thought about the miracles.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:36 amEven if Bar Kochba claimed to be the Messiah (highly probable), and was recognised as Messiah by Akiva (unclear), they presumably did not use the phrases reported in the Jewish sources. Hence the exact verbal parallel with Mark is probably not relevant.
Akiva is purely an extra here, correct? Even if he made no such claims about our boy Simon, it stands to reason that there were people (besides Simon himself) who did, does it not? I doubt his followers and supporters were risking life and limb for him and none of them agreed with his claim; he was a rebel leader, not some lonely loon in a padded room.

The main link which Detering offers is that, by our best evidence, the title of Messiah was attached to Simon bar Kokhba, whereas it is harder to tell whether this was the case with, say, Simon ben Giora. I am still sifting through our evidence for Simon bar Kokhba, though, and if you have anything to add on that thread please do.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Many will come in my name.

Post by Giuseppe »

If we assume that the suetonian "impulsore Chresto" was really an "impulsore Christo", then we have someone who claimed that the "Christ" was (coming?) in Rome under Claudius. Mark may allude to the evidence of messianic apocalypticism among the Christians in Rome as itself a sign of the his messianic apocalypticism. Even more so if the Suetonius's "Chrestus" is the same entity considered by Tacitus as founder of the Chrestiani. Since this would mean that the same messianic apocalypticism was still active in Rome under Nero.

This would place Mark more solidly in the 70 CE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply