There was indeed a range of opinion over time as to who a “messiah” was (one figure or several? Did it have to be a Jew? Note again, the only individual specifically identified as a messiah was Cyrus, a Persian) - but there was also a lot of commonality within that range.
It isn’t factually and historically the case that a messiah is an incoherent or undefined concept, so that anyone or anything could possibly be a messiah.
The commonality is that the messiah is, was, or is going to be a success - that he will “save” the Jews. The term originally referred to the “anointing” of a person for a task (priest or king): that “task” was saving the people. Hence Cyrus, a king, could be “anointed” for the purpose of saving the Jews from captivity. The proof was in the pudding: Cyrus was anointed because he carried out the task.
The controversy arose when that individual became a longed-for expectation. Was this figure to be a king or priest? Would he save the Jews, or the entire world? Would it usher in the end of days, or just a respite?
Messiah-as-failure, though, isn’t within the original concept.
The Jewish Encyclopedia, for starters. It’s a bit out of date, but I’m not aware of any ancient documents that have come to light recently which would greatly affect this question.
In the time frame of Jesus’s life, there was not absolute uniformity of Jewish expectations about the Messiah, but expectations did fall within a fairly narrow band. All sources for a substantial time before the life of Jesus that mention the Messiah agree that the Messiah will be kingly and power, defeating enemies and reigning on earth.
On some google searching, the best reference I can find is the Wikipedia article on the Criterion of Embarrassment, which asserts that John P Meier’s work A Marginal Jew argues no one would have made up the story of the crucifixion since it was so shameful. There’s one–assuming Wikipedia is accurate in saying Meier said that.
(In searching though I did find this other book tangentially but possibly interestingly relevant by a (conservative evangelical) scholar David Chapman titled Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion which, in the preface, seems to show pretty well that until recently, specifically Jewish perceptions of crucifixion hadn’t really been studied. The rest of the book goes on to try to close that gap in the scholarship, and along the way (according to a review of the book) gives both examples of it being regarded as shameful and examples of it being regarded as a mark of martyrdom.)
Anyway it could be that the idea that this was an embarrassing death for Jesus which “no one would have made up” simply because of the shamefulness of crucifixion is an idea more common among apologists than historians.
Yes, that article I have read. To my recollection it makes no representation as to how complete our understanding is, or as to whether there’s a clear scholarly consensus on what the range of messianic views was – rather, it only explains those things we do know that some Jews said at some time.
I can’t read the thing right now though. Do I recall incorrectly?
You do know, by the way, that you broke a rule on the modification of quotations, correct? And not in a trivial way. You made it look like I was responding to something I was not responding to.
He was actually around at the time of the execution of James the Just. He was part of the Priestly order of Jehoiarib and was known and major force in Jerusalem at that time.
“The earliest record of a Sanhedrin is by Josephus who wrote of a political Sanhedrin convened by the Romans in 57 B.C.E. Hellenistic sources generally depict the Sanhedrin as a political and judicial council headed by the country’s ruler.”
No.The argument was not that Jews would not respect a crucified preacher, but that they would not respect a crucified preacher as the Mashiach. Jews have a fairly robust list of martyers, and to suggest that we would not respect them because of the degrading nature of their death is ignorant, ludicrous, and insulting.
As for Meier, you would do well to actually read the book.
You misses the point. You speak of Josephus being part of some cast and seem to suggest that this is supported by his autobiography. The closest thing to a cast associated with the Sanhedrin was the House of Hillel. Or, to quote Wikipedia …
Yet his Autobiography makes no reference to the Sanhedrin, makes no reference to the Nasi, and makes no reference to Hillel.
So, again, where in this Autobiography is there support you your contention that “He knew the Sanhedrin, was related to them, was part of that caste”?
Ehrman in “Did Jesus Exist” argues that Paul wouldn’t normally have believed Jesus could be the Messiah because of the crucifixion–but the idea isn’t just that the Messiah isn’t supposed to die or be defeated, the idea is that by being crucified, Jesus was put into a state of shame and humiliation.
In summaries of Meiers’ work, I am finding it said that he does in fact argue that Jesus wouldn’t have been believed in because crucifixion is shameful, not just because it disqualified him from messiahship. (Gentile converts would not have cared so deeply, if at all in many cases, about the latter issue. And here I am, to be clear, changing the subject slightly since I’m talking explicitly about greek and roman culture now as well as jewish culture.)
As I said, He was part of the Priestly order of Jehoiarib. I never mentioned Hillel or the Nasi.
You didnt even bother to read his autobiography, then.* " Now, as soon as I was come into Galilee, and had learned this state of things by the information of such as told me of them, I wrote to the sanhedrim at Jerusalem about them, and required their direction what I should do. Their direction was, that I should continue there, and that, if my fellow legates were willing, I should join with them in the care of Galilee. But those my fellow legates, having gotten great riches from those tithes which as priests were their dues, and were given to them, determined to return to their own country. Yet when I desired them to stay so long, that we might first settle the public affairs, they complied with me. So I removed, together with them, from the city of Sepphoris, and came to a certain village called Bethmaus, four furlongs distant from Tiberius; and thence I sent messengers to the senate of Tiberius, and desired that the principal men of the city would come to me: and when they were come, Justus himself being also with them, I told them that I was sent to them by the people of Jerusalem as a legate, together with these other priests, in order to persuade them to demolish that house which Herod the tetrarch had built there, and which had the figures of living creatures in it, although our laws have forbidden us to make any such figures; and I desired that they would give us leave so to do immediately. B
*
Nor have you read my other cites, such as https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10345.html
*overall command given to Josephus by the Sanhedrin, since his account of his operations in Galilee (contained in the Life) is extremely vague, and gives the impression that he conceals more than he reveals. Josephus may have acted on his own responsibility when he sought to supersede John. In any case there is no justification for the theory that Josephus was never sent to Galilee but seized control there against the wishes of the Sanhedrin even before the outbreak of the revolt. In fact Josephus seems to have come to Galilee only after Cestius Gallus’ defeat, which marked the beginning of the revolt.
The position of the Sanhedrin’s envoy was a difficult one, since the local Galilean leaders had no wish to accept a man who had been appointed over them by the central authority in Jerusalem.*
and
Born in Jerusalem into an aristocratic priestly family belonging to the mishmeret of Jehoiarib, through his mother Josephus was related to the Hasmonean dynasty.
Look, I keep giving you cites. You keep disputing my points but have no cites or facts to back up your claims. You are clearly not cognizant of the history of that era and area, and keep refusing to read my cites.
And what does it mean to say that “Jesus wouldn’t have been believed in”?
Finally, why do you refuse to acknowledge that Jews respect, admire, and “believe in” our martyred sages despite their martyrdom? We do not, however, believe in them as the Messiah and we certainly do not promote them as deity.
The very brief one for which he’s cited as an example at the wikipedia article mentioned above, and Carrier’s summary in Proving History.
I don’t know, I put the book away already, but what rides on knowing a definition for this term? Any plausible reading seems fine to me.
Because that has nothing to do with anything we’ve been talking about, and because I have not said anything contradicting it?
Here: I hereby acknowledge that Jews respect, admire, and “believe in” their martyred sages despite their martyrdom while not, at the same time, believing in them as the Messiah or promoting them as deity.
Feel free to hold me to that.
ETA: Like, I’m really confused because the above “acknowledgment” is exactly the view for which I’ve been arguing.. I am saying that others have wrongly argued that jews “would not have believed in” Jesus because of his crucifixion, and I have been arguing that they were wrong to so argue.
