Dubourg's intuition: the early Christians claimed that the Messiah was Jesus, and NOT that the Jesus was the Messiah

[Aleph One]

In the early Christian midrash, the speculation on “Messiah-Christ” / MŜYĤ chronologically precedes the discovery of “Jesus-Joshua”. This is proven by a number of New Testament verses and, above all, by the absence of Jesus (midrashized Joshua) in several early Christian monuments.

This is a little off course from the direction this thread has taken, but does Dubourg give any sources/examples of the early sans-jesus christian monuments? I tried to investigate but google seems particular crap for this purpose thanks to tourism and devotional results. Thanks!

[Giuseppe]

Odes of Solomon, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas (where the Jesus mentioned is Joshua).

In addition, the strange silence about Jesus's life in Paul.

About the latter point, Dubourg has a midrashical solution, too. I have to read still his commentary on Paul (i.e. the second part of his book).

[mlinssen]

Odes of Solomon, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas (where the Jesus mentioned is Joshua).

In addition, the strange silence about Jesus's life in Paul.

About the latter point, Dubourg has a midrashical solution, too. I have to read still his commentary on Paul (i.e. the second part of his book).

Jesus mentioned in the Odes?
Really?

Where please, pray tell

[neilgodfrey]

Odes of Solomon, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas (where the Jesus mentioned is Joshua).

In addition, the strange silence about Jesus's life in Paul.

About the latter point, Dubourg has a midrashical solution, too. I have to read still his commentary on Paul (i.e. the second part of his book).

Also Gospel of Peter and a few of the "Fathers" (Diognetus and Minucius Felix, iirc)

[Giuseppe]

Odes of Solomon, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas (where the Jesus mentioned is Joshua).

In addition, the strange silence about Jesus's life in Paul.

About the latter point, Dubourg has a midrashical solution, too. I have to read still his commentary on Paul (i.e. the second part of his book).

Jesus mentioned in the Odes?
Really?

Where please, pray tell

At contrary, the partial list given above is about texts not mentioning Jesus.

[maryhelena]

N takes Josephus's statement that Jews were inspired to rebel against Rome because of "an ambiguous oracle" that a world ruler was to emerge from Judea and makes the sweeping conclusion that here Josephus is attributing to every "bandit-king", "tyrant" and "grasper of kingship" a belief that they were the fulfilment of Scripture.

They were religiously motivated bandits. (p. 143)

I suspect N is "over-reading" Josephus's words.

Josephus has given no indication that any of the rebels were motivated by religion. In every case he states or infers or leaves room for readers to understand entirely mundane reasons for their actions. They were no different in their motivations from rebels in any other ethnic and political conflict. The claim about the ambiguous oracle is limited to Josephus's attempt to impress his Roman conquerors -- as conquered people have been want to do throughout history. The conquered come out and obsequiously bow to their conqueror that he is the chosen one according to divine destiny, etc. The prophecy is not about a Jewish messiah ruling from Jerusalem. It is about a world conqueror. And the source of the prophecy is unclear. The reason that prophecy became so famous was because it was seized upon by Vespasian and his sons and magnified throughout the empire to bolster the authority of this newly upstart non-aristocratic family to be the rulers of the world. The Flavian propaganda machine even made the crushing of a provincial revolt to be as great a historic moment as the conquering of new territory and expansion of the Roman empire. Propaganda was a Flavian thing -- excelling all previous efforts.

When Josephus refers to "bandits" and "graspers of kingship" there is no reason that I can see to think that he is translating "messiahs" into Greek for his Greco-Roman audiences.

Had Josephus given us a single hint that he was doing so -- as he did when he compared Pharisees with Stoics -- N would have a point. But N has tendentiously read Josephus's "ambiguous oracle" against its context and in defiance of its details and contrary to the explanations he has already given for the emergence over the decades prior of "bandits" and "bandit-kings".

I take it then that you would reject the idea of Greg Doudna posted on your blog:

In this reading two major Jewish Revolt leaders in Jerusalem, John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora, appear in Christian texts and legend respectively as the post-70 Johannine-Christianity John of Asia Minor, and Simon Peter, in Christian texts post-70. A third Revolt leader, Jesus ben Sapphat, a warlord in Galilee aligned with John, becomes the historical Jesus, well known to Josephus who tells in Vita of entering into secret league with Jesus and tells stories about Jesus in Galilee.

https://vridar.org/2020/12/10/another-p ... ent-124943

A rebel leader, Jesus ben Sapphat, according to Greg Doudna, becomes the historical Jesus i.e. a Messiah figure.

Greg Doudna's comment on an article by Richard Carrier.

"The Gospels are the only definite source for a historical Jesus we have (everything else either derives from them or is too ambiguous to determine the question)", have you considered and excluded the possibility that Jesus ben Sapphat active in the 60s ce of Josephus became understood to be Jesus Christ?

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/comment ... mment-1011

Do you think that Greg Doudna is wrong in his theory that a rebel leader during the Roman Jewish war is a Christ figure - a Messiah figure ?

Keep in mind that Novenson does not support the idea of a 'widespread' messianic expectations. In other words: Counting heads democracy style has no relevance to the 'truth' or accuracy of how an ancient oracle is interpreted. The interpretation Josephus gives is just that - his interpretation - others may differ. Josephus 'says so' or Josephus 'does not say so' are not a conducive avenue towards a critical historical inquiry.

Novenson: Not that all or even most Jews at the time were looking for the coming of a messiah in this way; the scholarly preoccupation with determining how many Jews were so inclined, I argue in the book, was always a mistake. Messianism was important for the people for whom it was important, and that is enough.

https://syndicate.network/symposia/bibl ... essianism/

[neilgodfrey]

I take it then that you would reject the idea of Greg Doudna posted on your blog:

. . . .

Do you think that Greg Doudna is wrong in his theory that a rebel leader during the Roman Jewish war is a Christ figure - a Messiah figure ?

Keep in mind that Novenson does not support the idea of a 'widespread' messianic expectations. In other words: Counting heads democracy style has no relevance to the 'truth' or accuracy of how an ancient oracle is interpreted. The interpretation Josephus gives is just that - his interpretation - others may differ. Josephus 'says so' or Josephus 'does not say so' are not a conducive avenue towards a critical historical inquiry.

Novenson: Not that all or even most Jews at the time were looking for the coming of a messiah in this way; the scholarly preoccupation with determining how many Jews were so inclined, I argue in the book, was always a mistake. Messianism was important for the people for whom it was important, and that is enough.

https://syndicate.network/symposia/bibl ... essianism/

I have posted and asked people to post many ideas I myself do not embrace. That's because I am not dogmatic about any hypothesis and remain open to new ideas and re-examining my own views all the time. What I think now about many things is not what I thought some years ago. I cringe whenever someone asks me for my viewpoint on something because I know what I think now might not be what I think in the future. If I think an idea is worth sharing more widely for consideration, even if I do not go along with it myself, I will discuss it or ask someone else to post about it. I have posted such a diverse range of views on Vridar that it would be impossible for me to agree with all of them anyway.

My blog is about sharing ideas and critiques of ideas. The point is to open up new ways of thinking about certain questions. I thought that was pretty clear from the "what is vridar" and the "profile" pages.

Novenson certainly says in his book that it was messianic expectations among the Judeans that inspired rebels throughout from the death of Herod the Great to the Jewish War with Rome and that led to the war with Rome. If he wants to also say that only a minority of Judeans were so inspired or of that mind-set without actually saying it, I will leave that for him and others to decide. But I do notice the words "in this way" tagged on there -- so I would have to re-read Fredriksen to know exactly what "in this way" actually refers to.

[maryhelena]

I take it then that you would reject the idea of Greg Doudna posted on your blog:

. . . .

Do you think that Greg Doudna is wrong in his theory that a rebel leader during the Roman Jewish war is a Christ figure - a Messiah figure ?

Keep in mind that Novenson does not support the idea of a 'widespread' messianic expectations. In other words: Counting heads democracy style has no relevance to the 'truth' or accuracy of how an ancient oracle is interpreted. The interpretation Josephus gives is just that - his interpretation - others may differ. Josephus 'says so' or Josephus 'does not say so' are not a conducive avenue towards a critical historical inquiry.

Novenson: Not that all or even most Jews at the time were looking for the coming of a messiah in this way; the scholarly preoccupation with determining how many Jews were so inclined, I argue in the book, was always a mistake. Messianism was important for the people for whom it was important, and that is enough.

https://syndicate.network/symposia/bibl ... essianism/

I have posted and asked people to post many ideas I myself do not embrace. That's because I am not dogmatic about any hypothesis and remain open to new ideas and re-examining my own views all the time. What I think now about many things is not what I thought some years ago. I cringe whenever someone asks me for my viewpoint on something because I know what I think now might not be what I think in the future. If I think an idea is worth sharing more widely for consideration, even if I do not go along with it myself, I will discuss it or ask someone else to post about it. I have posted such a diverse range of views on Vridar that it would be impossible for me to agree with all of them anyway.

My blog is about sharing ideas and critiques of ideas. The point is to open up new ways of thinking about certain questions. I thought that was pretty clear from the "what is vridar" and the "profile" pages.

Novenson certainly says in his book that it was messianic expectations among the Judeans that inspired rebels throughout from the death of Herod the Great to the Jewish War with Rome and that led to the war with Rome. If he wants to also say that only a minority of Judeans were so inspired or of that mind-set without actually saying it, I will leave that for him and others to decide. But I do notice the words "in this way" tagged on there -- so I would have to re-read Fredriksen to know exactly what "in this way" actually refers to.

Novenson: Not that all or even most Jews at the time were looking for the coming of a messiah in this way; the scholarly preoccupation with determining how many Jews were so inclined, I argue in the book, was always a mistake. Messianism was important for the people for whom it was important, and that is enough.

https://syndicate.network/symposia/bibl ... essianism/

That quote is Novenson's position - he does not hold the view of 'widespread' messianic expectations. That leaves open theories like that of Greg Doudna - theories that suggest that messaniasm ''was important for the people for whom it was important'', and that, says Novenson, is ''enough''

Goodness - counting heads is not something Novenson is doing - and is not something anyone interested in how ancient oracles were interpreted should be doing.....

''My blog is about sharing ideas and critiques of ideas'' It's noted that you did not offer a critique of Greg Doudna's idea of a rebel leader being viewed as a messiah figure in the 60s.....

[neilgodfrey]

Novenson: Not that all or even most Jews at the time were looking for the coming of a messiah in this way; the scholarly preoccupation with determining how many Jews were so inclined, I argue in the book, was always a mistake. Messianism was important for the people for whom it was important, and that is enough.

https://syndicate.network/symposia/bibl ... essianism/

That quote is Novenson's position - he does not hold the view of 'widespread' messianic expectations.

No, N says "in that way". I said I do not know what that means exactly until I read more about F's idea that he is addressing. I am really not interested enough to follow it up, but I do try to be careful with noting what words are used or not used.

That leaves open theories like that of Greg Doudna - theories that suggest that messaniasm ''was important for the people for whom it was important'', and that, says Novenson, is ''enough''

I'm quite happy for others to discuss that idea. It is not one I have followed up and have no immediate interest in doing so. That's just my personal view. I'd like to read more about it but I have other commitments at the moment.

Goodness - counting heads is not something Novenson is doing - and is not something anyone interested in how ancient oracles were interpreted should be doing.....

What's with this "Goodness"? I don't know what your point is, sorry.

It's noted that you did not offer a critique of Greg Doudna's idea of a rebel leader being viewed as a messiah figure in the 60s.....

Well I'm glad you noted it. I have always been open about it. Look how I word many posts about this or that book. I do try to be clear when I am speaking in my own voice and views as opposed to sharing what the author has said.

I do expect readers to make up their own minds about whatever is written there -- whether by me, Tim or anyone else.

For me to offer a critique I would have to first of all be interested enough personally in the question to study it. Greg knows we have different takes on several things. I have a quite different approach to studying Christian origins from Greg.

Is that a problem? I hope not. Isn't it better to have a range of views on the blog for anyone interested?

ETA: I know a good many readers are interested in the Jesus idea that Greg discusses -- it has been discussed here, I believe, though through its original author's publication. I have an entirely different approach and view of Christian origins. I trust that's not a problem with anyone.

[neilgodfrey]

Novenson: Not that all or even most Jews at the time were looking for the coming of a messiah in this way; the scholarly preoccupation with determining how many Jews were so inclined, I argue in the book, was always a mistake. Messianism was important for the people for whom it was important, and that is enough.

https://syndicate.network/symposia/bibl ... essianism/

That quote is Novenson's position - he does not hold the view of 'widespread' messianic expectations.

I have just checked again. I fear you have overlooked Novenson's little qualifier at the end of his sentence ... "in this way".

What way? This way:

“Jesus’s followers were not the only Roman-era Jews consulting ancient prophecies in order to understand the signs of the times, the better to learn when the messiah would, finally, be on his way.” -- Fredriksen's point that N is addressing above

I think it would be hard to disagree with that. Most Judeans were illiterate for a start. And I never at any time imagined that the hypothesis of general or widespread messianic expectations entailed that "most Jews were discussing or enquiring about this or that prophecy". That's not the way the hypothesis has been presented anywhere that I can think of off-hand. Sure, some were, but most? But N certainly suggests enough had the expectation to bring their entire "nation" into a war with Rome. That's a lot, surely.