Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.

Moderator: andrewcriddle

User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Ken Olson »

rgprice wrote: Thu Feb 15, 2024 4:40 pm One thing to keep in mind was the Roman incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah. The orthodox view was that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy. As such, this voided the Jewish expectation of a future messiah. Since Jesus was the Messiah, this should put an end to Jewish expectations of any coming warrior king to lead them on any more rebellions.
What evidence do we have that gentile (non-Jewish, non-Christian) Romans understood (1) Jewish Messianism and (2) Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah (or Christos) foretold in the Scriptures or Israel, well enough to make this connection?

Best,

Ken
rgprice
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by rgprice »

@Ken Good point about 1 Corinthians 15. But it is interesting how distinctive that passage is in relation to the hundreds of mentions Christ in the Paulines.

As for Roman Christians understanding Jewish messianism, I would think that the events of the Second Jewish-Roman War would have made this pretty clear.

From First Apology:
They are also in the possession of all Jews throughout the world; but they, though they read, do not understand what is said, but count us foes and enemies; and, like yourselves, they kill and punish us whenever they have the power, as you can well believe. For in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy. In these books, then, of the prophets we found Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin, growing up to man's estate, and healing every disease and every sickness, and raising the dead, and being hated, and unrecognised, and crucified, and dying, and rising again, and ascending into heaven, and being, and being called, the Son of God. We find it also predicted that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things, and that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe in Him. And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose.


Moses then, who was the first of the prophets, spoke in these very words: The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the nations, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape. Genesis 49:10 It is yours to make accurate inquiry, and ascertain up to whose time the Jews had a lawgiver and king of their own. Up to the time of Jesus Christ, who taught us, and interpreted the prophecies which were not yet understood, [they had a lawgiver] as was foretold by the holy and divine Spirit of prophecy through Moses, that a ruler would not fail the Jews until He should come for whom the kingdom was reserved (for Judah was the forefather of the Jews, from whom also they have their name of Jews); and after He (i.e., Christ) appeared, you began to rule the Jews, and gained possession of all their territory. And the prophecy, He shall be the expectation of the nations, signified that there would be some of all nations who should look for Him to come again. And this indeed you can see for yourselves, and be convinced of by fact. For of all races of men there are some who look for Him who was crucified in Judæa, and after whose crucifixion the land was straightway surrendered to you as spoil of war. And the prophecy, binding His foal to the vine, and washing His robe in the blood of the grape, was a significant symbol of the things that were to happen to Christ, and of what He was to do. For the foal of an ass stood bound to a vine at the entrance of a village, and He ordered His acquaintances to bring it to Him then; and when it was brought, He mounted and sat upon it, and entered Jerusalem, where was the vast temple of the Jews which was afterwards destroyed by you. And after this He was crucified, that the rest of the prophecy might be fulfilled. For this washing His robe in the blood of the grape was predictive of the passion He was to endure, cleansing by His blood those who believe in Him. For what is called by the Divine Spirit through the prophet His robe, are those men who believe in Him in whom abides the seed of God, the Word. And what is spoken of as the blood of the grape, signifies that He who should appear would have blood, though not of the seed of man, but of the power of God. And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man. For as man did not make the blood of the vine, but God, so it was hereby intimated that the blood should not be of human seed, but of divine power, as we have said above. And Isaiah, another prophet, foretelling the same things in other words, spoke thus: A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a flower shall spring from the root of Jesse; and His arm shall the nations trust. Isaiah 11:1 And a star of light has arisen, and a flower has sprung from the root of Jesse — this Christ. For by the power of God He was conceived by a virgin of the seed of Jacob, who was the father of Judah, who, as we have shown, was the father of the Jews; and Jesse was His forefather according to the oracle, and He was the son of Jacob and Judah according to lineal descent.


For the Jews having the prophecies, and being always in expectation of the Christ to come, did not recognize Him; and not only so, but even treated Him shamefully. But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him, and gave them the prophecies, were filled with joy and faith, and cast away their idols, and dedicated themselves to the Unbegotten God through Christ.

From Dialogue with Trypho:

For thus, so far as you are concerned, I shall be found in all respects innocent, if I strive earnestly to persuade you by bringing forward demonstrations. But if you remain hard-hearted, or weak in [forming] a resolution, on account of death, which is the lot of the Christians, and are unwilling to assent to the truth, you shall appear as the authors of your own [evils]. And you deceive yourselves while you fancy that, because you are the seed of Abraham after the flesh, therefore you shall fully inherit the good things announced to be bestowed by God through Christ. For no one, not even of them, has anything to look for, but only those who in mind are assimilated to the faith of Abraham, and who have recognised all the mysteries: for I say, that some injunctions were laid on you in reference to the worship of God and practice of righteousness; but some injunctions and acts were likewise mentioned in reference to the mystery of Christ, on account of the hardness of your people's hearts. And that this is so, God makes known in Ezekiel, [when] He said concerning it: 'If Noah and Jacob and Daniel should beg either sons or daughters, the request would not be granted them.' Ezekiel 14:20 And in Isaiah, of the very same matter He spoke thus: 'The Lord God said, they shall both go forth and look on the members [of the bodies] of the men that have transgressed. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be a gazing-stock to all flesh.' Isaiah 66:24 So that it becomes you to eradicate this hope from your souls, and hasten to know in what way forgiveness of sins, and a hope of inheriting the promised good things, shall be yours. But there is no other [way] than this— to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives.


For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ].

This goes on for some time talking about proofs that Jesus is the Christ the Jews were expecting.

Trypho: All the words of the prophecy you repeat, sir, are ambiguous, and have no force in proving what you wish to prove.

Justin: If the prophets had not ceased, so that there were no more in your nation, Trypho, after this John, it is evident that what I say in reference to Jesus Christ might be regarded perhaps as ambiguous. But if John came first calling on men to repent, and Christ, while [John] still sat by the river Jordan, having come, put an end to his prophesying and baptizing, and preached also Himself, saying that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and that He must suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, and would appear again in Jerusalem, and would again eat and drink with His disciples; and foretold that in the interval between His [first and second] advent, as I previously said, priests and false prophets would arise in His name, which things do actually appear; then how can they be ambiguous, when you may be persuaded by the facts? Moreover, He referred to the fact that there would be no longer in your nation any prophet, and to the fact that men recognised how that the New Testament, which God formerly announced [His intention of] promulgating, was then present, i.e., Christ Himself; and in the following terms: 'The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist; from that time the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. And if you can receive it, he is Elijah, who was to come. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.'

Actually much of Trypho dals with how Jesus fulfilled prophecies which the Jews misunderstand and have misapplied, it just goes on and on.

As for the Romans, the Romans were deeply obsessed with prophecy. Their culture was more obsessed with prophecy than just about any culture in history. Their whole government was organized around prophecy, and prophecy was central to the administration of the Senate. In fact every Senator was a "prophet", an augur who was instructed in the auspices.

A common belief of Greeks, Romans, and many other Mediterranean cultures, was that unfulfilled prophecies may yet come true, but that once a prophecy had been fulfilled then that was the end of it. Unfulfilled prophecies were often seen as a looming danger, but once it was identified that a prophecy had been fulfilled then there was relief, as of course many prophecies were prophecies of doom.

Are there more explicit statements of Romans in the 2nd or 3rd century saying that the Jews should stop looking for their messiah because he has already come? I'm not sure. I haven't explicitly gone looking for these, but I would certainly be interested to know if there are.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Ken Olson »

rgprice wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 8:54 am @Ken Good point about 1 Corinthians 15. But it is interesting how distinctive that passage is in relation to the hundreds of mentions Christ in the Paulines.

As for Roman Christians understanding Jewish messianism, I would think that the events of the Second Jewish-Roman War would have made this pretty clear.

[Snipped]

Actually much of Trypho dals with how Jesus fulfilled prophecies which the Jews misunderstand and have misapplied, it just goes on and on.
I was not asking about the beliefs of Christians or Jews regarding each other. What I asked was:

Ken: What evidence do we have that gentile (non-Jewish, non-Christian) Romans understood (1) Jewish Messianism and (2) Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah (or Christos) foretold in the Scriptures or Israel, well enough to make this connection?

rgprice: As for the Romans, the Romans were deeply obsessed with prophecy. Their culture was more obsessed with prophecy than just about any culture in history. Their whole government was organized around prophecy, and prophecy was central to the administration of the Senate. In fact every Senator was a "prophet", an augur who was instructed in the auspices.

A common belief of Greeks, Romans, and many other Mediterranean cultures, was that unfulfilled prophecies may yet come true, but that once a prophecy had been fulfilled then that was the end of it. Unfulfilled prophecies were often seen as a looming danger, but once it was identified that a prophecy had been fulfilled then there was relief, as of course many prophecies were prophecies of doom.
This addresses how the Romans viewed their own beliefs, not those of Jews or Christians.
Are there more explicit statements of Romans in the 2nd or 3rd century saying that the Jews should stop looking for their messiah because he has already come? I'm not sure. I haven't explicitly gone looking for these, but I would certainly be interested to know if there are.
Right. This is the question I was asking. It would seem your theory that the Romans had an incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah depends on first establishing that the Romans did have a decent knowledge of Jewish and Christian messianism.

Best,

Ken
rgprice
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by rgprice »

Right. This is the question I was asking. It would seem your theory that the Romans had an incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah depends on first establishing that the Romans did have a decent knowledge of Jewish and Christian messianism.
But you're acting as if Christians weren't Romans. Romans and Christians weren't separate groups. Virtually all Christians were Romans.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Ken Olson »

rgprice wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 2:59 pm
Right. This is the question I was asking. It would seem your theory that the Romans had an incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah depends on first establishing that the Romans did have a decent knowledge of Jewish and Christian messianism.
But you're acting as if Christians weren't Romans. Romans and Christians weren't separate groups. Virtually all Christians were Romans.
No, I definitely was not. What I asked in the post in which I asked the original question and then repeated in the post to which you responded was this:

What evidence do we have that gentile (non-Jewish, non-Christian) Romans understood (1) Jewish Messianism and (2) Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah (or Christos) foretold in the Scriptures or Israel, well enough to make this connection?

I was asking about those Romans who were neither Jews nor Christians. Basic logic: all herring are fish, but not all fish are herring.

Or were you claiming only that Christian Romans had had the incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah? That seems tautological.

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Sat Feb 17, 2024 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by GakuseiDon »

I don't think the pagans before Christianity became mainstream, if they thought about Christianity at all, didn't care one way or the other about the role of Jesus in Christianity. So whether Jesus was the Christ, or was the Christ-to-come, wasn't a concern. They were critical about the Christian view that the whole world was coming to an end, and that they would rise with fleshly bodies, positions at odds with the philosophical thoughts of the time.

One of my favorite pieces of ancient writings is the Octavius by Minicuis Felix. The author, a Christian, describes a debate between a pagan (Caecilius) and a Christian (Octavius). Roughly the first half is made up of Caecilius's criticisms of Christianity. While the author is Christian, I think he is representing actual criticisms against Christianity of his time. In it, there is no mention of the role of Christ, but only the idea that Christians believed the world was coming to an end:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... avius.html

But the Christians, moreover, what wonders, what monstrosities do they feign!--that he who is their God, whom they can neither show nor behold, inquires diligently into the character of all, the acts of all, and, in fine, into their words and secret thoughts; that he runs about everywhere, and is everywhere present: they make him out to be troublesome, restless, even shamelessly inquisitive, since he is present at everything that is done, wanders in and out in all places, although, being occupied with the whole, he cannot give attention to particulars, nor can he be sufficient for the whole while he is busied with particulars. What! because they threaten conflagration to the whole world, and to the universe itself, with all its stars, are they meditating its destruction?--as if either the eternal order constituted by the divine laws of nature would be disturbed, or the league of all the elements would be broken up, and the heavenly structure dissolved, and that fabric in which it is contained and bound together would be overthrown.

"And, not content with this wild opinion, they add to it and associate with it old women's fables: they say that they will rise again after death, and ashes, and dust; and with I know not what confidence, they believe by turns in one another's lies: you would think that they had already lived again. It is a double evil and a twofold madness to denounce destruction to the heaven and the stars, which we leave just as we find them, and to promise eternity to ourselves, who are dead and extinct--who, as we are born, so also perish! It is for this cause, doubtless, also that they execrate our funeral piles, and condemn our burials by fire, as if every body, even although it be withdrawn from the flames, were not, nevertheless, resolved into the earth by lapse of years and ages, and as if it mattered not whether wild beasts tore the body to pieces, or seas consumed it, or the ground covered it, or the flames carried it away; since for the carcases every mode of sepulture is a penalty if they feel it; if they feel it not, in the very quickness of their destruction there is relief. Deceived by this error, they promise to themselves, as being good, a blessed and perpetual life after their death; to others, as being unrighteous, eternal punishment. Many things occur to me to say in addition, if the limits of my discourse did not hasten me. I have already shown, and take no more pains to prove, that they themselves are unrighteous; although, even if I should allow them to be righteous, yet your agreement also concurs with the opinions of many, that guilt and innocence are attributed by fate. For whatever we do, as some ascribe it to fate, so you refer it to God: thus it is according to your sect to believe that men will, not of their own accord, but as elected to will.

Therefore you feign an iniquitous judge, who punishes in men, not their will, but their destiny. Yet I should be glad to be informed whether or no you rise again with bodies; and if so, with what bodies--whether with the same or with renewed bodies? Without a body? Then, as far as I know, there will neither be mind, nor soul, nor life. With the same body? But this has already been previously destroyed. With another body? Then it is a new man who is born, not the former one restored; and yet so long a time has passed away, innumerable ages have flowed by, and what single individual has returned from the dead either by the fate of Protesilaus, with permission to sojourn even for a few hours, or that we might believe it for an example? All such figments of an unhealthy belief, and vain sources of comfort, with which deceiving poets have trifled in the sweetness of their verse, have been disgracefully remoulded by you, believing undoubtingly on your God.

It's a fascinating text that is well worth a read, since it includes Octavius's responses to Caecilius's criticisms.
rgprice
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by rgprice »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 3:11 pm
rgprice wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 2:59 pm
Right. This is the question I was asking. It would seem your theory that the Romans had an incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah depends on first establishing that the Romans did have a decent knowledge of Jewish and Christian messianism.
But you're acting as if Christians weren't Romans. Romans and Christians weren't separate groups. Virtually all Christians were Romans.
No, I definitely was not. What I asked in the post in which I asked the original question and then repeated in the post to which you responded was this:

What evidence do we have that gentile (non-Jewish, non-Christian) Romans understood (1) Jewish Messianism and (2) Christian claims that Jesus was the Messiah (or Christos) foretold in the Scriptures or Israel, well enough to make this connection?

I was asking about those Romans who were neither Jews nor Christians. Basic logic: all herring are fish, but not all fish are herring.

Or were you claiming only that Christian Romans had had the incentive to see Jesus as the Messiah? That seems tautological.

Best,

Ken
I'm saying that people like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr were culturally incentivized to see Jesus as "the Messiah" because it meant that the Jewish search for "their messiah" was no longer valid.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by Ken Olson »

rgprice wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 3:46 pm I'm saying that people like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr were culturally incentivized to see Jesus as "the Messiah" because it meant that the Jewish search for "their messiah" was no longer valid.
Ah! That's much clearer. Still, I think you've reversed the sequence here. It would seem more likely that they converted to Christianity for other reasons and that this entailed the belief that the Jews were awaiting the coming of the Messiah in vain rather than they accepted Jesus as the Messiah in order to convince themselves (or Jews?) that the Messiah had already come and there was no reason to await another Messiah.

Best,

Ken
rgprice
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by rgprice »

I'm saying that when Christian scholars were interpreting who Jesus was, seeing him as "the Messiah" was culturally reassuring because such an interpretation validated their views of the Jews, by showing the Jews, whom had been at in conflict with the Romans led by "a Messiah" were wrong.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark

Post by StephenGoranson »

OK, that's your view. But how many ancient persons, and when, shared that odd, multi-suppositional view?
Post Reply