Jewish prophecies of Messiah's arrival for circa 1st c. AD

[iskander]

Josephus is a poor choice and the DSS is as quicksand .
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2823&start=50
Momigliano writes On Pagans, Jews and Christians

“It is our task to elucidate more precisely the meaning of Josephus’s twofold blindness about the synagogue and the widespread Jewish and Christian apocalyptic trends of his time...*

[neilgodfrey]

The other difficulty is that he reasons away or ignores the vast amount of direct evidence like I quoted a few pages ago in my photos.

I don't read photos. If I have not addressed any evidence you think to be pertinent then list it here.

How many messianic contenders and messianic rebels and leaders were there in the decades when they had independence and the Hasmoneans were in control? Zero? How about in Ezra's time?

I don't know. Can you tell me who were the "messianic contenders" -- but you can't just say everyone who was a prophetic leader or a professed king was "messianic". That's just making stuff up. You need evidence.

And if you can list or argue for a number of such "messianic contenders", how will that tell us that many people were actually expecting a messiah to appear in their own time?

There were many prophetic leaders who arose, that we know. But I don't believe we have any evidence to inform us that there were widespread hopes that such figures would emerge. They were just taken for granted, presumably, when they did appear. And we have lots of bandit kings -- but they were never considered "messiahs" from the evidence we have.

How many in and near to the 1st c. AD were there? Simon of Perea, Athronges, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, Jesus the Nazarene, Bar Kokhba. Any others? There was Vespasian as a candidate in the eyes of Josephus.

That's not how history works. You can't lump different generations all together to say that they all were representative of a particular time without evidence. Besides, none of the first 4 names you mention are said anywhere to be messianic figures. Some clearly were not. They were prophets or acted the role of prophets. You are just injecting "messiah" into the evidence without warrant.

Six to seven is more than zero, so people in that time period when they were living under Roman rule probably had more hope for Messiah than when they weren't living in that time period.

There is no evidence that Jews under Rome were generally pining for a messianic deliverer. This is all imaginary injection into the data. It comes from Hollywood or the same apologetics that informs Hollywood movies. From what we know of messianic movements the early first century Palestine did not present the conditions for the rise of such a movement. I alluded to that point earlier but it was just ignored.

It gets down to even totally basic math and human psychology.

The maths are a result of adding apples and oranges and saying we have a total of bananas. The human psychology... ah yes ... I presume you are led by the Bible to judge the psychology of all nonbelievers, yes? Well, I would rather ignore the psychology and focus on the evidence. How about less psychology-guessing and more effort at acknowledging the evidence and arguments that are presented and dealing with those.

It's like arguing about whether the Indian people had any greater hope for a leader to bring them from under British rule when they were under British rule than before.

or whether African slaves in America had any greater hope for freedom from slavery when they were in America than when they were living freely in Africa.

This is pointless and misses the entire question being addressed. Of course slaves want freedom. And I have no doubt that the Jews had the same wishes as any other people under Roman rule. But like any other people under Roman rule I also believe most were fatalistic about it. But that is all very different -- very different -- from having a particular type of figure in mind that one expects to appear on the scene "any day now".

[rakovsky]

It's like arguing about whether the Indian people had any greater hope for a leader to bring them from under British rule when they were under British rule than before.

or whether African slaves in America had any greater hope for freedom from slavery when they were in America than when they were living freely in Africa.

This is pointless and misses the entire question being addressed. Of course slaves want freedom. And I have no doubt that the Jews had the same wishes as any other people under Roman rule.


But like any other people under Roman rule I also believe most were fatalistic about it. But that is all very different -- very different -- from having a particular type of figure in mind that one expects to appear on the scene "any day now".

Great. So now we see that Jews had greater hopes for freedom than before, when they weren't under domination.
And unlike those other peoples, who did Jews have as the possible, hoped-for candidate, who the Jews saw in their traditions as supposed to lead them to that freedom, which they now had greater hopes for....?

[rakovsky]

I presume you are led by the Bible to judge the psychology of all nonbelievers, yes?

Led in this case secularly by the Jewish Bible to judge the psychology of the Jewish Bible believers of that time, IE. The Bible saw Messiah as the Jewish king, the "commander of nations".
And also led in your case by your statement "Of course slaves want freedom. And I have no doubt that the Jews had the same wishes as any other people under Roman rule."

There is nothing hard about it for me.

A ton of religious people someplace have a tradition that some prophecied leader like Neil in The Matrix is supposed to free them from foreign domination. Then they actually go under foreign domination, and start wanting to get freed from it. Is their psychology going to be more likely to want their leader to come at that point or will they not have any greater hope about whether he shows up to free them?

Please, I invite you to start your own thread on your hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that if a pack of religious people believe some day a hero is supposed to come and free them from foreigners, then when they actually get conquered by foreigners, they are going to have a greater expectation that he is going to show up to free them from the foreigners than when they are not under any foreigners to get freed from.

For me, this is just basic logic, like whether if there are scattered showers it's more likely I will get wet if I don't have an umbrella than when it's a clear day.

Or imagine that you ask a close relative to come stay with you sometime it's raining. If it rains for a month, you are more likely to expect him to come than when it wasn't raising.

I think if I did a survey of 10,000 1st c. Jewish people living during the rebellions under Rome on the topic of the Messiah, compared their answers to when Jews were not under foreign rule, and it showed that in the 1st c. Jews by a large margin hoped for the Messiah to come more than they did when they weren't under conquest, modern skeptics could still say that the poll respondents just thought that they had greater hopes for the liberating Messiah.

Oh well. I think I need to give it a rest. Interesting issue of logic.
Good night.

[iskander]

Is John 7:14-24 a traditional messianic reading for Christians?

Part II –
http://thetorah.com/sukkot-temple-messi ... ntroversy/
Sukkot: The Historical Association with the Temple and and The Messianic controversy

The Hasmonean period saw a sharp rise in Jewish apocalyptic and messianic literature. By the end of the Second Temple period, more and more Jews believed that they were living on the cusp of the messianic era.[1] Some Jewish leaders made use of their positions to seek opportunities to present themselves in a messianic role.
...
Conclusion
Proclaiming leadership in a particular time and place –the time of the Sukkot holiday and the place of the Temple –was popularly understood in the ancient world as a bold move that linked one with past precedent of glorious
leadership over the Jews. Because opponents of the Pharisaic community such as Alexander Jannaeus and Jesus made the Temple vulnerable by proclaiming leadership there on Sukkot but not adhering to Pharisaic interpretation
of Mosaic law, the rabbis, the Pharisees’ successors, moved the popular frameworks of Messianic time and place – Sukkot and Temple – far into the distant future.

[rakovsky]

Is John 7:14-24 a traditional messianic reading for Christians?

It implies he has some kind of miraculous wisdom or else God gave it to him as a gift:

The Jewsr there were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learnings without having been taught?
...
Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find outv whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

[iskander]

Is John 7:14-24 a traditional messianic reading for Christians?

It implies he has some kind of miraculous wisdom or else God gave it to him as a gift:

The Jewsr there were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learnings without having been taught?
...
Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find outv whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

It is not read as a messianic passage in Christian circles then.

The article considers any claim to the leadership of the Jewish people , when made on Sukkot and in the temple, as being equal to the claim of being the messiah. Hence changes were later introduced by the rabbis, following Alexander and Jesus . to prevent a repeat.
http://thetorah.com/sukkot-temple-messi ... ntroversy/

There is a much later Jewish messiah, but comparisons between them ( Jesus and the other) have been made . Interested?

[rakovsky]

Is John 7:14-24 a traditional messianic reading for Christians?

It implies he has some kind of miraculous wisdom or else God gave it to him as a gift:

The Jewsr there were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learnings without having been taught?
...
Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find outv whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

It is not read as a messianic passage in Christian circles then.

They would read it as Messianic. Jesus got some kind of miraculous Sophia (wisdom) from Hashem, in accordance with being Moshiach. That's the standard reading.

John the Baptist was preparing the way for Messiah, and then Messiah Yeshua shows up with this miraculous wisdom. That's their Christian idea.

[neilgodfrey]

It's like arguing about whether the Indian people had any greater hope for a leader to bring them from under British rule when they were under British rule than before.

or whether African slaves in America had any greater hope for freedom from slavery when they were in America than when they were living freely in Africa.

This is pointless and misses the entire question being addressed. Of course slaves want freedom. And I have no doubt that the Jews had the same wishes as any other people under Roman rule.


But like any other people under Roman rule I also believe most were fatalistic about it. But that is all very different -- very different -- from having a particular type of figure in mind that one expects to appear on the scene "any day now".

Great. So now we see that Jews had greater hopes for freedom than before, when they weren't under domination.

Free peoples do not hope for something they already have. They do not look forward to the imminent arrival of what is already present. But if you are familiar with ancient Roman writings I think you'll find that probably most subject of Rome had a fatalistic acceptance of their fate.

And unlike those other peoples, who did Jews have as the possible, hoped-for candidate, who the Jews saw in their traditions as supposed to lead them to that freedom, which they now had greater hopes for....?

Your question is question-begging. You are assuming that Jews had some "hoped-for candidate" to rescue them. That is the very point I am disputing. There is no evidence that the Jews had any such hope at all.

That is not contradicting the first premise, by the way.

[neilgodfrey]

My hypothesis is that if a pack of religious people believe some day a hero is supposed to come and free them from foreigners, then when they actually get conquered by foreigners, they are going to have a greater expectation that he is going to show up to free them from the foreigners than when they are not under any foreigners to get freed from.

My point is that there is no evidence to support your assumption that Jews generally at any time "believed in a hero to come and rescue them". That's the apologetic myth about Jews and messianism.

I think if I did a survey of 10,000 1st c. Jewish people living during the rebellions under Rome on the topic of the Messiah, compared their answers to when Jews were not under foreign rule, and it showed that in the 1st c. Jews by a large margin hoped for the Messiah to come more than they did when they weren't under conquest, modern skeptics could still say that the poll respondents just thought that they had greater hopes for the liberating Messiah.

Oh well. I think I need to give it a rest. Interesting issue of logic.

You are avoiding the evidence and addressing the historical analysis of it. Substituting your own scenarios of how you believe people did things etc is not how history is done outside apologetic circles.

You have not given any evidence at all for your claim that Jews generally believed or were preoccupied with a belief that a messiah was to come and rescue them. None. I have shown why the DSS do not yield us that belief and why they witness against your psychologizing theories of what people were preoccupied with at that time; ditto for Josephus. You cannot simply ignore all of this and appeal to supposed facts for which we have no support in the extant sources.

That's entirely apologetics. It's not how historical research is done.