Posted 08 November 2004 - 08:40 AM
Christiannonet, thanks for the offline correspondence. Allow me to reply to the answer you received:
[quote] As for the specifics of the response to my presentation, let me begin by quoting Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context, pages 267-268:
[quote]Thus, Vespasian could be regarded in the East as a ruler who usurped messianic expectations and legitimated himself through prophets and miracles. It made no difference that he himself was a modest man. As a usurper, he had to rely on loud and vigorous propaganda. The warning against pseudo-messiahs in Mk 13:21-22 could have been formulated against the background of such a "propaganda campaign" for the victorious new emperor, who created peace by subduing the Jews and whose legitimacy was supported by signs and wonders....
The future expectations expressed in Mk. 13.14ff. can thus be located with ease in the circumstances around 70 C.E.[/quote]
Theissen, a liberal scholar, is arguing (as quite a few other liberal scholars do) that Mark 13.22 is a vaticinium ex eventu, a prophecy made after the fact, and then placed fictitiously on the lips of Jesus some 40 years earlier. This is a clue that perhaps the author of your snippet (to which I cannot at present gain direct access, as I am not a member of that board) has missed something crucial in the argument. When secular scholars begin positing vaticinia ex eventu, it is because they have difficulty imagining such a thing being predicted years in advance; it is not that the match is not tight enough, but rather that it is suspiciously too tight (for those who do not believe in the possibility of predictive prophecy).[/quote]
Whether or not liberal scholars believe Mark 13:22 to be vaticinium ex eventu is irrelevant to me. I'm very aware that many liberal scholars believe the entire Olivet prophecy to be vaticinium ex eventu, but that doesn't have any effect on my argument.
Since I believe that the parts of the prophecy concerning false Christs were fulfilled both prior to and after AD 70, then I'm entirely willing to understand why liberal scholars believe that the prophecy was vaticinium ex eventu - it is too accurate for their comfort levels.
Perhaps the person who wrote this didn't realise that I actually believe that the parts of the prophecy concerning false Christs were fulfilled both prior to and after AD 70. I just don't believe that Vespasian is an example of its fulfillment.
Why choose Vespasian of all people, when we have both Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts of its fulfillment which are far more convincing? Well there is a reason why some Praeterists select Vespasian as their preferred fulfillment, but we'll get to that later.
[quote]Now on to the specific comments (all emphases mine):
[quote]The article about Vespasian makes some very bad mistakes. For example, whilst is is correct that some Jews may have considered Vespasian to be the fulfillment of Daniel 9, it is totally incorrect in assuming that they thought he was the Messiah of Daniel 9.[/quote]
My post nowhere assumes that anybody thought of Vespasian as the messiah. Since my argument depends on the comparison of two different passages, it was actually virtually impossible to merely assume any connection. I had to at least present the passages in tandem. And I did more than that.[/quote]
The passages were presented in tandem, but neither of them stated explicitly what was actually claimed. An assumption was made that conflating the two passages leads to the conclusion which was being defended.
[quote][quote]It says this:
[quote]But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.[/quote]
But this says nothing of the Messiah, nor that the Jews were interpreting this 'ambiguous oracle' as referring to Messiah.[/quote]
I am uncertain from what perspective the author is writing here, Ken. Does this person (A) dispute that Daniel 9.24-27 is messianic, or (B) dispute that the oracle mentioned in Wars 6.312-313 is Daniel 9.24-27? Or both?[/quote]
I do not dispute that Daniel 9:24-27 is Messianic. What I am pointing out is that Josephus does not actually interpret Vespasian as the Messiah prophesied in Daniel 9. Rather, he is attempting to re-interpret the prophecy so that it does not refer to the Messiah any more.
What this passage does do is claim that this 'ambiguous oracle' had been misinterpreted by the Jews as referring to one of their own who would rule the inhabited earth.
It 'corrects' this interpretation by claiming that the oracle was in fact fulfilled by Vespasian ruling over Judea.
What Josephus is saying is that the individual in the prophecy is not the Messiah of the Jews who would rule over the inhabited world (and restore the Jewish land from Roman rule), but a Roman emperor who would rule over Judea. It does not identify Vespasian as the Messiah, nor does it interpret him as ruling over the inhabited world (which was the expectation the Jews had of the Messiah).
This is simply Josephus back interpreting prophecy in order to reconcile his fellow Jews to their new conqueror. He leads them away from a Messianic intepretation of the text, to an interpretation of it which understands it as a prophecy of a victorious Roman ruler conquering Judea.
There is nothing whatever here about any Messianic application to Vespasian. Josephus is simply abandoning the traditional Messianic interpretation, and recasting it as a prediction of Vespasian's success. It's a way of dampening the Messianic fervour of the age, and reconciling the Jews to the new emperor.
[quote][quote]And when Vespasian came along, they did not identify him as Messisah. Far to the contrary - they seem to be more afraid that he was the destroyer who makes desolate, which is precisely why they were afraid:
[quote]Which things a few drew upon with dread; in most there was a persuasion that there was contained in the ancient books of the priests that it would be at that very time that the Orient would grow strong and rulers of Judea would come into possession of the world. These ambiguous things had predicted Vespasian and Titus, but the common folk by their habit of human desire had interpreted such magnificence of fate of themselves, nor were converted to the truth even by disasters.[/quote]
No sign whatever that people thought Vespasian was going to be the Messiah.[/quote]
Look very carefully, Ken, at how this author has shifted the points of the argument.
First, who are the they in that first sentence? Jews at large? I am not arguing that all Jews everywhere, or even most Jews, or even more than a handful of Jews (or even more than one!) believed that Vespasian was the anointed one predicted in Daniel 9.24-27. Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22 nowhere insists that all Jews everywhere, or even most Jews, or even more than a handful of Jews must actually believe in the false christs. All that the text requires is that a messianic claim be made of somebody who works wonders. The last phrase of that verse, προς το αποπλαναν, ει δυνατον, τους εκλεκτους, does not imply that anybody (elect or otherwise) is actually deceived. It is just προς with the infinitive, an ordinary NT expression of purpose (not result!).
In this case, of course, we do happen to know of at least one Jew who was deceived: Josephus. But that is gravy.[/quote]
If you look more closely at what I wrote, as well as what Jospehus wrote, you will see that no one was attempting to represent Vespasian as the Messiah - not even Josephus. That's the point.
But on this:
[quote]Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22 nowhere insists that all Jews everywhere, or even most Jews, or even more than a handful of Jews must actually believe in the false christs. All that the text requires is that a messianic claim be made of somebody who works wonders.[/quote]
Let's read the text:
[quote]Matthew 24:
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.[/quote]
[quote]Mark 13:
6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and they will mislead many.
21 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe him.
22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the elect.[/quote]
[quote]Luke 21:
8 He said, “Watch out that you are not misled. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them! [/quote]
The common message of all of these passages is that the attempted deception will be deliberate (not accidental), intentional (not reluctant), and will in fact deceive people.
[quote]Second, the author of this response says that Jews were afraid that Vespasian was the destroyer. That may well be. However, the text that he (or she?) cites does not exactly say that. In context, the fear is of the portents in Tacitus, Histories 5.13.1:
[quote]There came forth prodigies, which this race, addicted to superstition, though against religiosities, does not have a law to propitiate either by sacrifices or by vows. There were seen in heaven forces rushing together, a reddening of arms, and the temple lit up by a fire coming down from the clouds. The doors of the shrine were suddenly opened, and a voice, greater than that of a human, was heard to say that the gods were departing. Simultaneously there was the unnatural movement of a departure.
Which things a few drew upon with dread; in most there was a persuasion that there was contained in the ancient letters of the priests that it would be at that very time that the Orient would grow strong....[/quote]
Our author from that other board has the generic they being afraid, and afraid (precisely) of Vespasian. The text itself, however, states explicitly that only a few (pauci) were afraid, and they were afraid of the portents (the doors of the temple opening of their own accord and so forth), and what they might mean for the fate of Jerusalem. But the many (pluribus) were not afraid.[/quote]
I can take or leave this, since it doesn't affect my argument. In fact what the passage says here is that most weren't afraid of the portents, and viewed them positively, as signs of the imminent fulfillment of prophecies regarding the restoration of Israel.
My point is that whilst we can find plenty of people who were afraid of Vespasian, we can't find any who believed that he was the Messiah, or who even tried to tell others that he was the Messiah - not even Josephus.
All we can find is people who were afraid of Vespasian, and Josephus who was not afraid, and who was trying to tell them that a prophecy they had always regarded as a prediction of the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of his kingdom in all the inhabited earth, actually referred merely to the successful conquest of a Roman emperor over Judea.
Let's move on:
[quote]That said, I do not doubt that many, or at least some, Jews were afraid of Vespasian. But such a point is indifferent to my argument. All that we need to fulfill Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22 is a messianic claim for a wonder-worker. This is the crucial point that the author has missed. He seems to assume that a fulfillment requires a majority of Jews to actually be deceived by this false wonder-working messiah, a supposition that he is reading into the text, not out of it.[/quote]
Firstly, we need a lot more than 'a Messianic claim for a wonder-worker' in the manner which is ambiguously stated here (which could mean a claim made by a wonder worker, or a claim made by someone else regarding another person who was supposed to work wonders).
Secondly, I do not assume in any way that the fulfillment of these passages requires a majority of the Jews to be actually deceived by any false wonder working Messiah (although Christ does say that many would be decieved).
[quote][quote]The alleged wonders which Vespasian is supposed to have worked are equally weak:
[quote]Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them, and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel.
At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would anyhow succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases. About the same time, at Tegea in Arcadia, by the direction of some soothsayers, several vessels of ancient workmanship were dug out of a consecrated place, on which there was an effigy resembling Vespasian.[/quote]
Firstly we only have Suetonius' word for this (no other record of these events exists).[/quote]
It is, of course, the case that we very often have no other record than Suetonius, or than Tacitus, or than Josephus, for events. If the author wishes to argue that Suetonius is mistaken here, let us hear it.[/quote]
If the attempt is being made to bring forward a historical event in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of a prophecy, then the historical event in question needs to be substantiated beyond question. The onus is always on the claimant of the event to provide the requiste evidence.
A single passage in Suetonius, written years after Vespasian had died (Suetonius was only born around 69 AD, and wouldn't have been writing until possibly 20 years later), corroborated by no other detail, does not constitute verification of the event.
I don't have to claim that Suetonius was mistaken. All I have to do is request the evidence which proves that his account is accurate.
[quote][quote]Secondly, the very fact that Vespasian 'could scarely believe that the thing would anyhow succeed' makes it very clear that he was not doing this out of a desire to prove himself the Messiah - or even that he had any supernatural power.[/quote]
Again, our verse does not in any way require that the messianic idea originate with the false messiah himself. Our author is simply assuming such to be the case.[/quote]
Let's look at the relevant verses again:
[quote]Matthew 24:
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.[/quote]
[quote]Mark 13:
6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and they will mislead many.
21 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe him.
22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the elect.[/quote]
[quote]Luke 21:
8 He said, “Watch out that you are not misled. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them! [/quote]
The common message of all of these passages is that the attempted deception will be deliberate (not accidental), intentional (not reluctant), and will in fact deceive people.
Even if we confine ourselves simply to Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:21-22, we find that the false Messiahs and false prophets specifically perform signs and wonders to deceive - that is their aim in performing them.
[quote](Besides, the reaction that Vespasian has toward Josephus indicates plainly enough that he has bought into the prediction.)[/quote]
There is nothing in Vespasian's alleged reaction which demonstrates that he considered himself to be the Messiah of the Jews, regardless of whether or not he considered himself to be the fulfillment of Daniel 9.
[quote]Josephus has painted Vespasian in messianic colors. That is all that the Olivet prediction requires.[/quote]
No, Josephus has done no such thing. On the contrary, he has re-interpreted a passage traditionally understood as Messianic, and applied it to a Roman emperor.
Not only that, but we find no miracles, wonders and signs attributed by Josephus to Vespasian, nothing whatever from Josephus suggesting that Vespasian was doing the work of the Messiah, or was exercising the supernatural powers which the false Messiah's of Christ's warning would claim.
Isn't it telling that the only source provided for Vespasian's alleged wonderworking was not Josephus but Suetonius? Wouldn't you think that if these events had really occurred - or even if the rumours of them were extant in Josephus' day - that Josephus would employ them in his efforts to convince people that Vespasian was performing the work of Messiah? Or wouldn't he at least make up some of his own?
But he does not. And the reason why he does not is that he is not attempting to present Vespasian as the Messiah, even though he is presenting him as the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27.
[quote][quote]Thirdly, miracles and wonders had been ascribed to Roman emperors before, this was nothing new.[/quote]
This is quite true. Irrelevant to the argument on either side, but true indeed.[/quote]
It's not quite irrelevant, because these miracles and wonders are not recorded by Suetonius in the context of proving that Vespasian was the Messiah. He doesn't record them as evidence that Vespasian was the Messiah (well of course he wouldn't, he was a Roman), but even more tellingly he doesn't record them as evidence that anyone else thought Vespasian was the Messiah either.
This would have been perfect material for Josephus to use, but it's entirely absent from Josephus. Indeed, Josephus fails to record any evidence whatever that Vespasian is the Messiah - and instead attempts to recast a prophecy traditionally understood as Messianic, in a completely new and non-Messianic light.
[quote][quote]The argument ends rather pathetically with this...:[/quote]
Pathetically? Must we resort to put-downs? I wrote what I wrote in the spirit of pursuit and common study. If I am mistaken, I certainly hope that the one who points out my mistake would do so in the same spirit.[/quote]
I didn't mean this to be a personal putdown, and I'm sorry if it was taken in that way. I should be more careful in future. But it seemed to me to be a very weak way of concluding was was obviously intended to be a very strong argument.
Ending one's argument with a conclusion which is twice qualified doesn't make the argument appear convincing. Rather, it identifies very clearly the fact that even the author is aware of its limitations.
[quote][quote][quote]Vespasian was, then, a (reluctant) false christ who (reluctantly) worked wonders.[/quote]
Christ's words do not describe any reluctant false Christs, who reluctantly work wonders - quite the opposite.[/quote]
The main point of contention, I think. Our author thinks that the words of Christ on Olivet insist on a gung-ho attitude for our false christ. Here is the verse again, Matthew 24.24 = Mark 13.22:
For there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and they shall give great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Is there anything in this verse that gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the deceivers?[/quote]
Let's look at the relevant verses again:
[quote]Matthew 24:
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.[/quote]
[quote]Mark 13:
6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and they will mislead many.
21 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe him.
22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the elect.[/quote]
[quote]Luke 21:
8 He said, “Watch out that you are not misled. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them! [/quote]
The common message of all of these passages is that the attempted deception will be deliberate (not accidental), intentional (not reluctant), and will in fact deceive people.
Even if we confine ourselves simply to Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:21-22, we find that the false Messiahs and false prophets specifically perform signs and wonders to deceive - that is their aim in performing them.
Moving on:
[quote][quote]And as we have seen, Vespasian never presented himself, nor thought of himself, as Christ.[/quote]
Josephus presented him, and thought of him, as the christ from Daniel 9.24-27.[/quote]
Josephus presented him and thought of him as the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27, but did not either present him or think of him as the Messiah. He reintepreted the prophecy radically.
[quote]Josephus applied a false messianic claim to Vespasian, and Vespasian bought it.[/quote]
There is no evidence either that Josephus applied a false Messianic claim to Vespasian, or that Vespasian thought himself to be the Messiah.
[quote]And so did Tacitus (later on). They were convinced that the messianic prophecy of Daniel 9.24-27 applied to Vespasian.[/quote]
There is no evidence that Tacitus considered Vespasian to be the Messianic fulfillment of a passage of the Hebrew Bible which neither of them had probably even read. All that Tacitus does is identify (to borrow some of your words), 'his awareness of this Josephan identification of Vespasian' as the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27.
There is no evidence whatever that either Josephus, Vespasian, Tacitus, or Suetonius (to throw him into the mix), identified Vespasian as the Messiah of the Jews. As I have demonstrated, Josephus was re-interpreting the Messianic passage in a radical manner, and departing completely from a Messianic application.
[quote][quote]Josephus says:
[quote]A few years afterwards, under the reign of Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judea, impostors of this stamp were so frequent that some were taken and killed almost every day.
Antiquities, 20.8.4-5[/quote][/quote]
Yes, it certainly sounds as if there was quite a lot of false prophets or false christs in that time period. See Matthew 24.5 = Mark 13.6 = Luke 21.8.
Is it possible, by the way, that our author has simply confused these last verses with the verses that I was actually addressing? Matthew 24.5 and its parallels do speak of self-conscious messianic claimants, the kind that proclaim openly: I am the one, the kind that our modest emperor Vespasian does not seem to have been. But these verses, which belong to the beginnings of the birth pangs (Matthew 24.8 = Mark 13.8b), when the end is not yet immediate (Luke 21.9), do not say that these particular christs will perform miracles. It is only during the great tribulation (Matthew 24.21-22 = Mark 13.19-20) that our texts mention false christs who work wonders... but they do not state that these false christs will necessarily be self-conscious christs.
If the author that you cited did in fact confuse these verses, that would go a long way toward explaining the tack that he took in his argument.[/quote]
One more time:
[quote]Matthew 24:
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.[/quote]
[quote]Mark 13:
6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and they will mislead many.
21 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe him.
22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the elect.[/quote]
[quote]Luke 21:
8 He said, “Watch out that you are not misled. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them! [/quote]
The common message of all of these passages is that the attempted deception will be deliberate (not accidental), intentional (not reluctant), and will in fact deceive people.
Even if we confine ourselves simply to Matthew 24:24 and Mark 13:21-22, we find that the false Messiahs and false prophets specifically perform signs and wonders to deceive - that is their aim in performing them.
Help
MultiQuote
