Three Assumptions

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Three Assumptions

Post by neilgodfrey »

Three assumptions seem to be prevalent here. I am not expecting discussion of this point but am simply wanting to express what I see as limitations in some of the discussions.

First: Messianism.
  • The assumption that there was an essential concept of what a messiah was and that could be found in a range of biblical texts even when those texts did not mention "messiah". (Matthew Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs, is one who challenges this assumption; William Scott Green is another but he challenges the assumption from a starting point that stands opposed to Novenson's.)
  • The assumption that messianism was of significant interest to Second Temple Judean sectarians, and that messianic interests were a significant motivation among various social or sectarian groups, including those in the couple of decades preceding the Jewish War, and that the Jewish War itself was in large part the result of messianic hopes. (Steve Mason disputes the grounds for that last assumption in his latest book on the Jewish War. Other scholars have pointed out the tendency to see messiahs where texts do not mention them at all and where other factors more simply explain the data.)

Second: The Schafer factor.
  • I see this time round that Peter Schafer has a strong standing in some discussions. Nothing wrong with that but as with all scholars we should always try to be aware of their personal interests and biases, especially when their work is grounded in multiple inferences. Is Jesus, and rabbinic interest in the Christian Jesus, really so prevalent throughout rabbinic literature as Schafer suggests? Schafer does sometimes get caught expressing appeals for deeper Christian-Jewish dialogue today and that's certainly a very good thing, but obviously there are risks in such an interest for historical research. Who are Schafer's reviewers and what are they saying?

Third: Oral tradition.
  • The assumption that the evangelists drew upon oral traditions for their sources is so prevalent that it is easy to not recognize that it is only an assumption and not a fact. The fact is that a whole branch of biblical scholarship has been demonstrating that we do not need oral tradition to explain the contents of the gospels. Oral tradition biblical scholars have drawn upon specialist oral historians to find explanations for the gospel material but it has been demonstrated that several times biblical scholars misuse their research, sometimes quoting it out of context, sometimes quoting passages in a way that directly contradict the central arguments of those oral historian researchers. The oral tradition hypothesis originated from a circular assumption that the gospel narratives were historically based. That the grounds for assuming that they were historically based was that it was believed those events had been relayed through oral tradition was forgotten, and the circularity of the hypothesis has been missed.
For what it's worth.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by neilgodfrey »

Related to #1, messiah assumptions, I can add the assumption that there was ever a person or family in Second Temple Judea/Galilee who claimed to be of "Davidic descent", or that anyone in Judea/Galilee recognized any person or family that was of "Davidic descent".

Remember the minimalists, after all. And even if there were once an Iron Age warlord named David of what significance was he to have justified genealogical descent through 1000 years?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:23 pm
Three assumptions seem to be prevalent here. I am not expecting discussion of this point but am simply wanting to express what I see as limitations in some of the discussions.

First: Messianism.
  • The assumption that there was an essential concept of what a messiah was and that could be found in a range of biblical texts even when those texts did not mention "messiah". (Matthew Novenson, Christ Among the Messiahs, is one who challenges this assumption; William Scott Green is another but he challenges the assumption from a starting point that stands opposed to Novenson's.)
  • The assumption that messianism was of significant interest to Second Temple Judean sectarians, and that messianic interests were a significant motivation among various social or sectarian groups, including those in the couple of decades preceding the Jewish War, and that the Jewish War itself was in large part the result of messianic hopes. (Steve Mason disputes the grounds for that last assumption in his latest book on the Jewish War. Other scholars have pointed out the tendency to see messiahs where texts do not mention them at all and where other factors more simply explain the data.)
It think you would do well to clarify what you mean by messianism, and whether if you consider entities that others think were early to mid first century ad/ce messiahs were, by your definition, eg. Judas the Galilean, Theudas, the Egyptian, the Samaritan prophet, etc., and various views accounts of them influenced the gospel writers.

Another angle to consider is if the notion of a prophet is different to notions of or for a messiah.

And characterisations such as Ben's and those in preserved in the contemporaneous Dead Sea Scroll 4Q175 (4QTestimonia), http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 08#p101208
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by neilgodfrey »

The depth of the assumption is evident in your response. Many cannot seem to accept that their interpretation of Josephus and DSS is through assumptions that messianic expectations were extant prior to 70 ce.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by DCHindley »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:26 amThe depth of the assumption is evident in your response. Many cannot seem to accept that their interpretation of Josephus and DSS is through assumptions that messianic expectations were extant prior to 70 ce.
It would probably be good, at this point, to get a more precise definition of "messianism" from you.

Like just about anyone who grew up in the "West" (you Aussies being an offshoot of Western culture), I used to treasure "messianic" talk. Mainly, that there was just one savior figure commonly expected, and that this one, of course, was Jesus.

Now I realize that the term "anointed one" can be applied to anyone formally appointed to a noble task. So priests, and kings, and even foreign kings, can be anointed ones. The thing to reckon with, I suppose, is whether there was a general expectation for a grand Savior figure to inaugurate a blessed future age where longed for rewards come to the holy ones and retribution is rained down upon their heathen enemies.

Personally, my opinion is that realization of an Utopian age applicable to everyone was probably NOT on the minds of Judaeans, or of Gentile proselytes, of the 1st Century CE. I think they were more concerned with, at minimum, establishing an independent Greater Judaean state which was capable of dealing with the Romans and Parthians one on one. That is, in fact, what happened in the late 1st and early 2nd century: everything turned o establishing a political Judaea.

It just did not work out for the Holy people, however defined, as the leaders of the revolt hoped. And from that heap of ashes rose the Phoenix of the proto-orthodox reinterpretation of Jesus from political activist to a divine Savior of mankind, entitled "Christ."

What do you think, Neil. What should we mean when we use the term "messianism?"
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by neilgodfrey »

DCHindley wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:51 pm What do you think, Neil. What should we mean when we use the term "messianism?"
What I think is that I should have been less impatient and taken more time to think of an alternative term to "messianism" for my heading, and not have relied upon my subpoints to attempt the explaining for me.

I meant only the specific sub-points I listed -- several strands of thought where our assumptions about Second Temple era messianic ideas guide our reading of the sources.
DCHindley wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:51 pm I think they were more concerned with, at minimum, establishing an independent Greater Judaean state which was capable of dealing with the Romans and Parthians one on one. That is, in fact, what happened in the late 1st and early 2nd century: everything turned o establishing a political Judaea.
Have you had a look at Steve Mason's A History of the Jewish War: AD 66-74 ? I find the apparent view that Judeans in the late first century were itching to become an independent power capable of holding Rome at bay to be without support and highly unlikely. Perhaps that question might be worth a discussion of its own.
DCHindley wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:51 pm And from that heap of ashes rose the Phoenix of the proto-orthodox reinterpretation of Jesus from political activist to a divine Savior of mankind, entitled "Christ."
Rather than argue the pros and cons of various inferences drawn from the sources I think we are on firmer ground if we apply the methods that are normative for ancient historians. Steve Mason, refreshingly, goes that way in his study.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by neilgodfrey »

[W]e will prefer a scenario that explains the most with the smallest investment of assumption and supposition. This preference for economy is also basic to scientific thinking. Although it is possible that a person with a headache has a brain tumour, physicians cannot send everyone with a headache for expensive scans, because tumours are rare in comparison with other causes of headache. Only when they have ruled out common causes can doctors justify tests for what is rare. In somewhat the same way, although it is possible that all Judaea was charged with messianic fervour through several generations, that Romans harboured a unique and irrational hatred of the Jews over the same period, or that Simon bar Giora was possessed of a frenzied messianic consciousness, we should turn to such possibilities only if there is evidence that does not yield to explanations from more common human experiences.
Mason, Steve. 2016. A History of the Jewish War, A.D. 66-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 70
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by neilgodfrey »

DCHindley wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:51 pm
It would probably be good, at this point, to get a more precise definition of "messianism" from you.

Like just about anyone who grew up in the "West" (you Aussies being an offshoot of Western culture), I used to treasure "messianic" talk. Mainly, that there was just one savior figure commonly expected, and that this one, of course, was Jesus.

. . . .

What do you think, Neil. What should we mean when we use the term "messianism?"
Your words have been tapping away in the back of my head all day so I'll try a little more thorough response.

In the context of my OP I meant nothing more than the subpoints (including the additional subpoint in a follow up comment).

But I take your point: what is meant by the term "messiah" more generally?

Yes, certainly, the term "messiah" and "messiah complex" etc does have a general meaning today of "one to come" to "rescue us from troubles" and usher in a "utopian order". But of course we are most interested in the life and times of ancient Palestine and ancient Judaism more generally (diaspora included) in the Second Temple era and soon afterwards as it pertains to Christian origins and earliest mutations. And here we

The first question to come to mind: did our modern general notion of a messiah figure (as defined above) have a counterpart in those times? If it did, I think it needs to be demonstrated rather than assumed. We cannot apply our modern idea of a messiah figure and retroject it into the thinking of those generations.

I am influenced in part by Mathew Novenson's Christ Among the Messiahs. Novenson argues that the popular notion today of the messiah figure of ancient Judea (a figure to come -- from David, of course -- and trounce the Romans and restore Israel to world dominance) was not the standard view of a messiah in the Second Temple era. In fact he argues that the messiah ("christ") figure of the letters of Paul was very much a comfortable fit within the kaleidoscopic messianic concepts of Second Temple Judaism.

I am also influenced by William Scott Green, Jacob Neusner et al as per Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. We err when we bring our assumptions of what the messiah meant to that generation and read our assumptions into texts where there is no mention of a messiah.

And again, by Thomas L. Thompson -- whose points I think I cited in the OP. Example: the High Priest (Levite) "messiahs" whose deaths liberated those who had fled to refuge cities; King Saul (a Benjaminite) being a "messiah" who also dies in order to make way for the David messiah, and so forth.

In conclusion, I suppose, I think the term "messiah" should be read where we see it spelled out, literally, in the text, and it should be interpreted according to the context of that text. We are on thin ice when we assume passages that make no mention of the term are really about that same term they do not mention. This is especially so when those passages fit our modern assumptions about the meaning of the term messiah.

So we come to Josephus and all those stories of bandits and rebels and prophets (always false prophets) who are interpreted by modern readers as "messianic pretenders". Here is where the gratuitous assumptions of modern readers tend to muddy the waters. Let's assume the various peoples of Palestine and Syrian, Galilee and Samaria and Judea, were essentially like any other peoples of that time and region. Are we not over-reaching when we read into every revolt, every prophet, every bandit king, a "messianic pretension"? I think we are. We often read that Josephus did not mention messianic pretenders for fear of offending his Roman readers. But that rings hollow: Josephus mentioned many classes of persons who had the potential to supposedly offend his Roman audience. And Josephus loved good prophets, and thought of himself as one -- but was quite capable of denigrating "false prophets". He could surely have just as easily got rid of "false messiahs", had they really existed, by the same epithet: "false messiahs".

Then we have messianic figures mentioned in Second Temple literature, including the DSS. I challenge anyone to explain exactly how a mention of a messianic figure in those texts is evidence of popular messianic expectations that inspired a nation to rebel against Rome in the later part of the first century. Intellectual or theological metaphors, speculations, even prophecies, on the part of certain scribal interests, do not ipso facto translate into popular enthusiasms and hopes -- except in the minds of moderns who are looking for evidence of those hopes. After all, such popular hopes would help flesh out traditional or conventional narratives about Jesus.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:20 pm
[W]e will prefer a scenario that explains the most with the smallest investment of assumption and supposition. This preference for economy is also basic to scientific thinking. Although it is possible that a person with a headache has a brain tumour, physicians cannot send everyone with a headache for expensive scans, because tumours are rare in comparison with other causes of headache. Only when they have ruled out common causes can doctors justify tests for what is rare. In somewhat the same way, although it is possible that all Judaea was charged with messianic fervour through several generations, that Romans harboured a unique and irrational hatred of the Jews over the same period, or that Simon bar Giora was possessed of a frenzied messianic consciousness, we should turn to such possibilities only if there is evidence that does not yield to explanations from more common human experiences.
Mason, Steve. 2016. A History of the Jewish War, A.D. 66-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 70
Big fan of Steve Mason here, but the quoted bit conflates "simplicity" (such as avoidance of unfounded fact claims as elements of attempted explanations) with following a priori plausibility in the absence of contrary evidence (such as a population-level emprical observation that only a small proportion of reported headache sufferers also have brain tumors).

Each has its heuristic virtues, of course, but they are not the same thing. That they are two distinct things guts the prescriptive force of the last clause quoted. Clearly not "only if" one of those two applies would turning to such possibilities be warranted. Either one might serve.

I think an affirmative version of the thought might have been that any one of a priori plausibility, direct evidentiary foundation, or overall simplicity of an explanation that depends upon the fact claim is sufficient warrant for inclusion of a fact claim in an admissible explanatory hypothesis. Perhaps that got mangled in expressing it negatively. (Speaking of things that happen often).

Regardless of Mason's intent, that idea about what's admissible is normative elsewhere in scholarship; it's not obvious that it ought not to be within the silo of ancient history.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Three Assumptions

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:29 am
Big fan of Steve Mason here, but the quoted bit conflates "simplicity" (such as avoidance of unfounded fact claims as elements of attempted explanations) with following a priori plausibility in the absence of contrary evidence (such as a population-level emprical observation that only a small proportion of reported headache sufferers also have brain tumors).

Each has its heuristic virtues, of course, but they are not the same thing. That they are two distinct things guts the prescriptive force of the last clause quoted. Clearly not "only if" one of those two applies would turning to such possibilities be warranted. Either one might serve.

I think an affirmative version of the thought might have been that any one of a priori plausibility, direct evidentiary foundation, or overall simplicity of an explanation that depends upon the fact claim is sufficient warrant for inclusion of a fact claim in an admissible explanatory hypothesis. Perhaps that got mangled in expressing it negatively. (Speaking of things that happen often).

Regardless of Mason's intent, that idea about what's admissible is normative elsewhere in scholarship; it's not obvious that it ought not to be within the silo of ancient history.
Sorry, Uncertain Paul, I have to confess to having some difficulty trying to understand exactly what you are arguing. Can you simplify? Perhaps with some specific examples?

Till then, if I have grasped your point (and I really don't think I have) -- if you are suggesting a brain tumor and daily stress ought to have equal billing as potential causes of a headache, I cannot agree. A daily stress explanation is found to be inadequate when it does not cover left-over symptoms or factors. That's when the big guns are called in. But please explain for a simpleton. Thanks.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply