I didn’t look at the site I linked long enough to realize there was anything offensive about it. I was just Googling for the text of the Talmud, and the text there agreed with my secondary source (Taylor). If CMKeller or anyone else has a better source for English Talmud, please link it (I don’t read Hebrew or Aramaic). I apologize for incorrectly identifying it as Mishnah (rather than Talmud). But Taylor notes that the rabbis in question date to 90-130 AD. It is always a question with Talmud whether the quotes from early historical figures are accurate, but if these traditions are reliable, then the debate comes from the same time as the Christian church was rising.
The text goes on (sorry, still quoting from the same site):
That seems pretty clear to me.
Diogenes, I’m suprised by your assertion that there are well-defined “OT criteria for the Messiah”. Modern scholarship has shown that, at the time of Jesus:
- There was no unified vew of the Messiah among Jews,
and - The Messiah was not an important figure for all Jews.
To support (1), note that even the Persian king Cyrus can be called Messiah (Isaiah 45:1: “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus…”)
For (2), we can cite Philo, from whom we have a plethora of writings: he never mentions “Messiah” or “Christ”.