Robert said
It’s an oft-repeated opinion, but Paul does not really use “Christ” as a name in the modern sense of a last name. It is comparable to Jewish usage of Messiah (without the article) almost as a name but never relinquishing it’s primary sense as a title.Do you have examples of “Messiah” or “messiah” being used on coins? Not the symbol of a messianic star, but the actual term?
the coins have paleo-hebrew inscriptions that translate as messianic king (Aleksander Janneus), (Aleksander Janneus)messianic high priest, messianic prince(Bar Kokchba). That’s all
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
“Messianic” here is not a translation but merely an interpretation of some symbols (eg, a Davidic harp). I would not assume that Davidic symbols are always being used as messianic in the full sense. I thought you were saying there were coins that actually used the word Messiah. Is that not the case?
I used a mental shortcut – interpreting the inscriptions and their meanings are not my work. I don’t think there are coins where the full word messiah is used. It seems to me that interpretations that someone is messianic are based on a letter that is also interpreted as branch of David.
Coins are minted by kings and high priests. The word messiah is also attributed to people outside this circle. The Messiah is Cyrrus the Great. The position of the issuer was emphasized on the coins. With messianic or davidic symbols.
the eight-pointed star covered by the diadem connects the king with the messiah. But this is only an interpretation of the prophecy and symbolism
Jarek said
Robert said
It’s an oft-repeated opinion, but Paul does not really use “Christ” as a name in the modern sense of a last name. It is comparable to Jewish usage of Messiah (without the article) almost as a name but never relinquishing it’s primary sense as a title.
Do you have examples of “Messiah” or “messiah” being used on coins? Not the symbol of a messianic star, but the actual term?
the coins have paleo-hebrew inscriptions that translate as messianic king (Aleksander Janneus), (Aleksander Janneus)messianic high priest, messianic prince(Bar Kokchba). That’s all
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
A Hasmonean king having coins minted with a messianic symbol means?
Robert said
The basic meaning of the word is ‘anointed’ and a king or priest or even a prophet could be spoken of as ‘anointed’. In scripture, Saul or David are called ‘the Lord’s anointed’ many times. Deutero-Isaiah was more of an internationalist in referring to Cyrus as the Lord’s anointed. To the extent that there was an idealized future figure that would restore the Davidic kingdom, especially in an eschatological sense, we can start to think of a Messiah figure, but it’s sometimes difficult to say whether a given text is necessarily referring to a messianic figure or merely an anointed figure. In the Jewish scriptures, I’m not sure there is any clearly ‘messianic’ use of the term. Even in the later writings at Qumran, I think most uses of ‘messiah’ are much better understood in a lower sense of an ‘anointed’ figure. When the text clearly speaks of two messiahs, the Davidic or royal messiah can even be clearly subservient to the priestly figure (eg, 1QSa 2,11). Christians like to read a higher christological meaning into a lot of texts because they obviously understand Jesus to have an extremely high Christology, being God and all, but I like to counter that by speaking of the ‘low christology’ (technically messiology) of so many Jewish texts. There are indeed some texts that have a higher christology (eg, 4Q521) and there are even intimations of a heavenly pre-existent angelic messiah in some quarters, but this is probably a minority view that was perhaps in ascendency only in some apocalyptic circles.
Thanks for that explanation. I needlessly mentioned this messiah, looking for a reason why the original story of Jesus was not met with universal acceptance.
I assumed in this reconstruction that the means of transmitting this original story are through the great festivals in the Temple. This solution provides a variety of traditions developed in parallel in different places
The original story might have been unbelievable to most listeners for a variety of reasons. However, clubs of an enthusiasts are emerging, and let’s see what happens. The clubs, centered around the original story, themselves generate added value and become interesting for the environment themselves. They make the story credible. Here are the people who confirm its meaning. This is the same as with the effectiveness of an invented tradition. If you offer ideas as your own, you will meet with much more skepticism than if you attribute them to some great man from the past and show yourself as an enthusiast, not an author. The credibility of the story grows and your credibility also increases – we trust humble missionaries more than proud authors, apostles.
It was the clubs that became the attraction, Jesus still remains unknown. Further development means supplementing the content. To keep the clubs going. Historical accuracy is not available, so you have to invent something yourself, rewrite it from LXX, match it from other sources. Then such a Ludemann will come up with an idea that 95% of the content was created this way.
Long Live The Club. Thats the new goal. Next will be different. Who is to manage the Club?
This mechanism is universal. The message itself can be as unconvincing as the Marian apparition in Medjugorje. But when your neighbor tells about the journey, about meeting new people, about impressions, the whole thing takes on more value and you see her from a different perspective. New people new ideas new community.
Robert said
Good question. I am no expert in coins, let alone coins of that specific dynasty. But I would first question whether all of the symbols are necessarily messianic, and if so, in what sense. Some of the symbols are merely Davidic. Perhaps the Hasmonen priestly family merely wanted to present themselves as the rightful replacement of the davidic royal lineage. It’s disputed whether or not the Hasmonian priestly line was related to the Zadokite priests of David. It’s usually thought they were not Zadokites, but James Vanderkam has made a good case that they were of the Zadokite line of David’s high priest but perhaps only a different familial branch. At any rate, it would nevertheless have been very important for Levite/Aaronid priest kings such as the Hasmoneans to appropriate Davidic symbols. If indeed there were specifically messianic pretensions in the star symbol or Davidic symbols, perhaps that was merely an expression of their future hope to be the priests that would eventually guide the future royal messiah hoped for, akin to the idea expressed in 1QSa 2,11. Who knows? Hard to say.
Zackly. I haven’t read Vanderkam, but he’s on the list now.
Jarek said
Robert said
The basic meaning of the word is ‘anointed’ and a king or priest or even a prophet could be spoken of as ‘anointed’. In scripture, Saul or David are called ‘the Lord’s anointed’ many times. Deutero-Isaiah was more of an internationalist in referring to Cyrus as the Lord’s anointed. To the extent that there was an idealized future figure that would restore the Davidic kingdom, especially in an eschatological sense, we can start to think of a Messiah figure, but it’s sometimes difficult to say whether a given text is necessarily referring to a messianic figure or merely an anointed figure. In the Jewish scriptures, I’m not sure there is any clearly ‘messianic’ use of the term. Even in the later writings at Qumran, I think most uses of ‘messiah’ are much better understood in a lower sense of an ‘anointed’ figure. When the text clearly speaks of two messiahs, the Davidic or royal messiah can even be clearly subservient to the priestly figure (eg, 1QSa 2,11). Christians like to read a higher christological meaning into a lot of texts because they obviously understand Jesus to have an extremely high Christology, being God and all, but I like to counter that by speaking of the ‘low christology’ (technically messiology) of so many Jewish texts. There are indeed some texts that have a higher christology (eg, 4Q521) and there are even intimations of a heavenly pre-existent angelic messiah in some quarters, but this is probably a minority view that was perhaps in ascendency only in some apocalyptic circles.
Thanks for that explanation. I needlessly mentioned this messiah, looking for a reason why the original story of Jesus was not met with universal acceptance.
I assumed in this reconstruction that the means of transmitting this original story are through the great festivals in the Temple. This solution provides a variety of traditions developed in parallel in different places
The original story might have been unbelievable to most listeners for a variety of reasons. However, clubs of an enthusiasts are emerging, and let’s see what happens. The clubs, centered around the original story, themselves generate added value and become interesting for the environment themselves. They make the story credible. Here are the people who confirm its meaning. This is the same as with the effectiveness of an invented tradition. If you offer ideas as your own, you will meet with much more skepticism than if you attribute them to some great man from the past and show yourself as an enthusiast, not an author. The credibility of the story grows and your credibility also increases – we trust humble missionaries more than proud authors, apostles.
It was the clubs that became the attraction, Jesus still remains unknown. Further development means supplementing the content. To keep the clubs going. Historical accuracy is not available, so you have to invent something yourself, rewrite it from LXX, match it from other sources. Then such a Ludemann will come up with an idea that 95% of the content was created this way.
Long Live The Club. Thats the new goal. Next will be different. Who is to manage the Club?
This mechanism is universal. The message itself can be as unconvincing as the Marian apparition in Medjugorje. But when your neighbor tells about the journey, about meeting new people, about impressions, the whole thing takes on more value and you see her from a different perspective. New people new ideas new community.
You know, you over do it with this stuff, but there are kernels of wisdom in there. A minor scholar, Burton Mack, who past away a few months ago, may be of interest to you. He focused on social group formation and its influence on the development of early Christian writings.
Unfortunately, he may be best known as a BFF of Johnathan Z. Smith, who overshadows him in legacy. I cannot recommend Smith‘s Drudgery Divine highly enough, though that work is not on topic.
Robert said
Burton Mack is excellent in his appreciation of ‘Mark’ as a genuine lierary author, even a ‘scholar’ of sorts, and the negative effects of the gospel genre and its myth of origins. But ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is probably right to point out that Burton himself has his own very imaginative speculative myth of sociological origins as well as an overly simplistic rejection of the importance of apocalypticism.
Trying to build a bridge here, Robert!
Do you mind?!?!
Now, go read Drudgery Divine.
There’s gonna be a pop quiz on Friday.
Aw hell, I’m your huckleberry.
Jonathon Z Smith’s ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is a sustained critique of the hugely influential History of Religions/Comparative Religion School of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Smith examines their implicit agendas. He’s not against the idea of comparisons but attempts to elucidate a basis for a proper comparison.
I first encountered his work in an online article he wrote, ** you do not have permission to see this link ** where he applies his critical methodology against one example of what he considers mistaken comparisons between Christianity and pagan religions. Mention of this article of course gives Richard Carrier the vapors because it undermines his entire mythicist project. (Frankly it’s astonishing to read mythicists quoting James Frazer’s Golden Bough as if it were cutting edge scholarship. But that’s one of the fundamental problems with the mythicists, their willingness to speak across entire fields of expertise without understanding the current state of that expertise.)
Another fruitful aspect of Smith’s work is his critique of the idea of religion itself, showing what a modern concept it actually is. See also the work being done by ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Robert I won’t say drop what you’re doing but I think Smith is going to turn out to be one of the seminal religious historians of the 20th century so you should find the time at some point.
CEJ said
Jarek said
Robert said
The basic meaning of the word is ‘anointed’ and a king or priest or even a prophet could be spoken of as ‘anointed’. In scripture, Saul or David are called ‘the Lord’s anointed’ many times. Deutero-Isaiah was more of an internationalist in referring to Cyrus as the Lord’s anointed. To the extent that there was an idealized future figure that would restore the Davidic kingdom, especially in an eschatological sense, we can start to think of a Messiah figure, but it’s sometimes difficult to say whether a given text is necessarily referring to a messianic figure or merely an anointed figure. In the Jewish scriptures, I’m not sure there is any clearly ‘messianic’ use of the term. Even in the later writings at Qumran, I think most uses of ‘messiah’ are much better understood in a lower sense of an ‘anointed’ figure. When the text clearly speaks of two messiahs, the Davidic or royal messiah can even be clearly subservient to the priestly figure (eg, 1QSa 2,11). Christians like to read a higher christological meaning into a lot of texts because they obviously understand Jesus to have an extremely high Christology, being God and all, but I like to counter that by speaking of the ‘low christology’ (technically messiology) of so many Jewish texts. There are indeed some texts that have a higher christology (eg, 4Q521) and there are even intimations of a heavenly pre-existent angelic messiah in some quarters, but this is probably a minority view that was perhaps in ascendency only in some apocalyptic circles.
Thanks for that explanation. I needlessly mentioned this messiah, looking for a reason why the original story of Jesus was not met with universal acceptance.
I assumed in this reconstruction that the means of transmitting this original story are through the great festivals in the Temple. This solution provides a variety of traditions developed in parallel in different places
The original story might have been unbelievable to most listeners for a variety of reasons. However, clubs of an enthusiasts are emerging, and let’s see what happens. The clubs, centered around the original story, themselves generate added value and become interesting for the environment themselves. They make the story credible. Here are the people who confirm its meaning. This is the same as with the effectiveness of an invented tradition. If you offer ideas as your own, you will meet with much more skepticism than if you attribute them to some great man from the past and show yourself as an enthusiast, not an author. The credibility of the story grows and your credibility also increases – we trust humble missionaries more than proud authors, apostles.
It was the clubs that became the attraction, Jesus still remains unknown. Further development means supplementing the content. To keep the clubs going. Historical accuracy is not available, so you have to invent something yourself, rewrite it from LXX, match it from other sources. Then such a Ludemann will come up with an idea that 95% of the content was created this way.
Long Live The Club. Thats the new goal. Next will be different. Who is to manage the Club?
This mechanism is universal. The message itself can be as unconvincing as the Marian apparition in Medjugorje. But when your neighbor tells about the journey, about meeting new people, about impressions, the whole thing takes on more value and you see her from a different perspective. New people new ideas new community.
You know, you over do it with this stuff, but there are kernels of wisdom in there. A minor scholar, Burton Mack, who past away a few months ago, may be of interest to you. He focused on social group formation and its influence on the development of early Christian writings.
Unfortunately, he may be best known as a BFF of Johnathan Z. Smith, who overshadows him in legacy. I cannot recommend Smith‘s Drudgery Divine highly enough, though that work is not on topic.
Robert said
Burton Mack is excellent in his appreciation of ‘Mark’ as a genuine lierary author, even a ‘scholar’ of sorts, and the negative effects of the gospel genre and its historicizing myth of origins of theological proportions. But ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is probably also right to point out that Burton himself has his own very imaginative speculative myth of sociological origins as well as an overly simplistic rejection of the importance of apocalypticism.
But this can be checked with standard focus groups. You form focus groups with the same structure and, in turn, you can test direct messages, indirect messages with an invented tradition. You can quantify it.
Another way is to analyze the benchmarks. There are quite a few of them.
You collect results, formulate conclusions and you don’t have to toss a coin anymore. Heads or tails. Mack or Collins.
Show me such research in any publication. There would be no discussion between us, because if it were, I would only refer to the analyzes made by your colleagues from other fields. But you don’t have them today.
If this was how Mack approached the problem, then good for him. He showed intuition when searching in this field. It’s a pity he didn’t ask someone if it could be tested. But he was intuitive anyway.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)