 |
| |
| |
|
|
Average Rating:  out of 3 Reviews
|
Price: $18.00
|
|
Sale: $9.96
|
| |
|
Manufacturer: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
|
|
EAN (European Article Number): 9780802840134
|
|
Number of Items: 1
|
| |
|
|
|
Binding: Paperback
|
|
Author: Joseph A. Fitzmyer
|
|
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
|
|
Dewey Decimal Number: 232.12
|
|
Publication Date: 2007-04-30
|
|
Reading Level: 224
|
|
|
| |
|
Description: Messiah is one of the most popular and most contested terms in Christian reflection, with many often reading the concept back into early Old Testament texts. Joseph Fitzmyer carefully and comprehensively contradicts this misreading, tracing the emergence of messianism to a much later date — the second century B.C. The One Who Is to Come begins with a linguistic discussion of the term messiah, then demonstrates the gradual emergence of the idea of a future, dynasty-continuing David, before finally examining the "anointed one" language in the latest biblical text, Daniel 9. It also examines the use of the term in the Septuagint and extrabiblical Jewish writings, as well as the New Testament, Targums, and the Mishnah. Fitzmyer’s masterful study presents a novel, biblical thesis that will appeal to scholars, students, and all who wish to investigate the complex history of messianism.
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Customer Reviews
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Messianism: History of a Jewish Hope |
Date: 2008-11-22 |
|
| |
Details:
"In the horizon of hope in the 'coming God' we confront Jesus, his mission and history with the ancient messianic question: "Are you the one who is to come?" Thereupon we will discover that the messianic claim of Jesus lies in the prolepsis of his proclamation of the kingdom." Jürgen Moltmann
"From a Christian perspective it is commonly assumed that Jesus was the fulfillment of a deep-rooted Messianic expectation amongst the Jewish people, founded upon God's continued revelation through His prophets. (Heb. 1:1)" Julian Kinkaid
The Messianic Hope:
Kinkaid elaborates, "Consequently, we often find it difficult why Jesus the Messiah was rejected by his people when he was so obviously executed all that the Scriptures said that he would... from a scholastic point of view it is widely debated to what extent a Messianic hope existed, if at all, and subsequently what this comprised of. This is borne out by the fact that 'virtually all of the books on the Old Testament theology say very little at all about such a messianic hope and even when they do, do so in a very guarded and circumscribed way'. According to the linguists, the Hebrew participle mashîah; from which we get the word messiah (to anoint), and therefore simply means 'anointed one'. Since the rite of anointing in Israel was 'merely at symbolic act', designating an individual as having been separated by God to act under the guidance of His Spirit, the term 'anointed' generally applied to those holding the office of priest, prophet and, in particular, king. Interestingly Kae remarks that during the biblical period of Israelite history the individual involved in inaugurating each new phase held all three messianic offices.Thus, owing to the weight of historical experience, he argues for an Israelite expectation that saw the inauguration of a new era by a messianic figure in whom all three offices were combined."
The Rabbinic Messiah:
Dr. Young Kim wrote in a compelling review on this issue, "For the prophets Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, God is the redeemer, and the Messiah-King; a human possessing lofty spiritual qualities, is but the leader of the redeemed people. In Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Malachi, Joel, and Daniel, there is no mortal figure at all, because Yahweh alone is the redeemer. In Amos, Ezekiel and Obadiah, the Davidic dynasty serves as a collective Messiah. Rabbinic literature generally believes in a personal Messiah to come. Rabbi Hillel (3rd century), however, declared: "There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah." Rashi (1040-1105) interpreted this strange remark to mean that Hillel denies belief in a personal Messiah but believes in the coming of the messianic age. All the medieval Jewish thinkers however, affirm their faith in a personal Messiah. While apocalyptic literature emphasizes the supernaturalistic character of the Messiah and his Kingdom, rabbinic authorities often stress the naturalistic aspects. Rabbi Akiba recognized Bar Kochba, the rebel leader in t e disastrous insurrection of 132-135 A.D., as the Messiah even though he was obviously a human being and one who could perform no miracles. Samuel of Babylonia (3rd cent.) taught: "The days of the Messiah do not differ from the present except for the fact that in that age Israel will no longer be in bondage to the kingdoms of the world."
Maimonides' Messiah:
Medieval Judaism refined messianic speculation considerably. For Maimonides, the King Messiah will not be obliged to perform miracles. As for the Biblical marvels predicted for the kingdom, the miracle of the lion laying down with the lamb merely means that the Gentiles will be at peace with Israel. Maimonides also discourages guesswork about the exact time of the messianic appearance. All Jews should do is believe in a general sense the fact of his coming but not bother with details which are unessential. How will the Messiah be recognised? Maimonides answers: "If a king arises of the house of David, meditating in the Torah and performing precepts like his father, David, in accordance with the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, and if he will compel all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and repair its breaches, and if he will wage the wars of the Lord, it can be assumed that he is the Messiah. If he succeeds in rebuilding the Temple and gathering the dispersed ones of Israel, it will then be established beyond doubt that he is the Messiah who will perfect the whole world to serve God together...." Maimonides believed that this view was taught explicitly in the Torah or derived from universally agreed upon rabbinic tradition. From two standpoints the formulation is noteworthy. First, it ignores most of the supernaturalistic wonders of Jewish apocalyptic.
Fitzmyer Magisterial Study:
The most significant part of this scholarly study, for a lay reader, lies within his concise and informative conclusion. "because messianism was a notion that surfaced when it did in world history, its record has been important not only for Judaism, but for Christianity too, which grew out of it and developed its own form of messianism. Being a specific phenomenon that appeared at a given time and place, it was not merely a passing or ephemeral fad, but rather a phenomenon that shaped human history in different ways." His conclusion culminates in a masterful observation, "How different that Jewish Messiah from the Christian Messiah who has already come. He has not only been identified with Jesus of Nazareth, who was crusified as a criminal and rebel, but he bears in human history by the name Jesus Christ (=Jesus the Messiah), both among those who are his followers and among those who are not..."
History of an Idea:
J. Staley of Seattle U. describes the book as a 'valuable updating and expansion' of Mowinckel and Klausner studies, comparing it to recent works like DSS scholar J. Charlesworth editorial collection, The Messiah: Developments in earliest Judaism and Christianity, he sorted as unapologetic, which reflected negatively on few of Amazon reviewers. But one outstanding question he raises is, "what communities Fitzmyer thinks are reflected in his textual study.
Salvation Is from the Jews: The Role of Judaism in Salvation History
Salvation Is from the Jews: Saving Grace in Judaism and Messianic Hope in Christianity (Michael Glazier Books)
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Debunking the prophets using Historical Criticism--A Poor Choice |
Date: 2008-01-08 |
|
| |
|
Details: I don't see where the confusion is. The oracles of the prophets are not true or untrue based on what the Jewish contemporary opinion of them was in those times. A plethora of quotes from the prophets testifies that the people themselves were fundamentally misguided on many levels with regard to their faith; why would the opinions of the various scholars of the Law and religious authorities which the prophets relentlessly excoriate be a window of truth on the prophets' teachings themselves? It isn't important what the Jewish priests and teachers, or for that matter, popular Jewish opinion at the time, believed about prophecy. God did not speak to them. What was important was what God was trying to accomplish through these prophets. As for Fitzmyer's claims, there appears to be no substantiation for them except for people who for their own reasons want to accept them wholesale on their face. It is a matter of faith whether people want to believe the prophecies or not; but to say that Isaiah 53 is a counterfeit messianic prophecy is simply speculation which seems to me unfounded and even appalling. To claim it can't be messianic because there is no suffering servant motif in the previous prophets is perhaps short-sighted. Did Fitzmyer consider that revealing the ministry of the Messiah as suffering servant was perhaps one of the special calls and missions placed on Isaiah's shoulders? It doesn't have to be echoed through all of the Old Testament to be accepted logically as messianic. It only had to be spoken by God through the prophet. The crucial aspect then is faith to believe. Because messianic prophecy may not meet all the guidelines and benchmarks of modern scholars does not mean it is not true. There is a final point. The prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit, but does not the Scripture say that the apostles were too? Then would they not be more trustworthy interpreters of messianic prophecy than Fitzmyer? Was not the Holy Spirit guiding the pen of the apostles when they wrote of these matters? They were not simply writing purely out of sheer human intelligence and in the light of "scholarship". They had received the Holy Spirit in an epiphany of such force and power as we frankly can little comprehend. Is it not presumptuous then to say that these men who were galvanized by the Spirit to make disciples of all nations were then shortsighted and guilty of wishful thinking when it came to interpreting Scripture? If Fitzmyer and the apostles differ when it comes to messianic prophecy, then I am forced to consider as the final criterion where credibility finally lies: to those people who were ordained personally by the Holy Spirit and Christ Himself to preach and teach or to those who simply have degrees. I should be clear--scholars are enormously valuable to the faithful and serve a tremendous purpose in the church, but they ask us to be discerning in our beliefs and therefore I am compelled to bring their plea for discernment back upon the work they present us. Because their interpretations often, especially now in this present time, determine largely how we believe. We must use our intelligence and understand the Scriptures as best as our minds and spirits can manage the task, but this does not mean we are bound to accept the full spectrum of scholars' interpretations in light of the evident foundational truths with which our faith presents us. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Christian Scholarship At its Best |
Date: 2007-10-05 |
|
| |
Details: I was looking for a book that dealt with the problem of Messianic prophecies in the New Testament, and to my surprise it was written by a Catholic scholar! While the author says he imitates "the early 'church usage' in seeing Jesus of Nazareth as 'the Son of Man,' 'the Servant of the Lord,' and even as 'the suffering Messiah,' because New Testament writers have predicated all these titles of him," he nonetheless claims "one cannot foist a later Christian meaning on a passage that was supposed to have a distinctive religious sense in guiding the Jewish people of old." (pp. viii-ix). So when examining every potentially prophetic Messianic passage in the Old Testament, except perhaps for a couple of passages in the book of Daniel (a book which was "finally redacted c.a. 165 BC") Fitzmyer rightly argues that the Christian writers interpreted these passages anachronistically due to hindsight understandings of who they concluded Jesus to be.
For instance, after discussing several of the key "Messianic Psalms," Fitzmyer concludes, "The attempt to interpret these Psalms anachronistically in a `messianic' sense is misguided." According to Fitzmeyer, "Psalm 2 is not `messianic' in any sense." Fitzmyer claims Psalm 110 "could hardly refer to any eschatological ideal in the distant future." There are other gems in this book. Fitzmyer argues that "there is no passage in the book of Isaiah that mentions a `Messiah" in the narrow sense, and all attempts to speak of Isaiah's `messianic prophecies' are still-born." He claims that the Servant Song of Isaiah 53 "has no messianic connotation" per se. His conclusion is this: "The idea of a suffering Messiah...is found nowhere in the Old Testament or in any Jewish literature prior to or contemporaneous with the New Testament. It is a Christian conception that goes beyond the Jewish messianic tradition."
Fitzmyer argues that the Jewish conception of the Messiah was different than what early Christians thought. According to Jewish conceptions, the Messiah was that "of a human kingly figure who was (and is) to bring deliverance, at once political, economic, and spiritual, to the Jewish people, and through them peace, prosperity, and righteousness to all humanity." (p. 182). Fitzmyer believes Jesus was the Messiah, even though he argues against the early Christian claim that there were specific details prophesied of this Messiah in the Old Testament which Jesus fulfilled in his birth, life, death and resurrection.
His scholarship is superior to all others on this topic. I could only wish he drew the proper conclusion that the New Testament writers got it wrong about Jesus. It's so sad that he refuses to come to the conclusion that his scholarship leads him to. This is what I call believing against the evidence, and it's too bad he feels the need to do this because of his faith. Furthermore, if the New Testament writers falsely interpreted Old Testament Messianic prophecy when it came to the specific details of his life, death, and resurrection, why would Fitzmyer believe them when they go on to claim Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? If they are wrong about the prophetic details then he should also question their larger claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
Skeptics will like this book very much, because we WILL draw the proper conclusions from his research, and for that I thank him and highly recommend his book.
JWL of debunkingchristianity at blogspot dot com.
|
| |
|
| |
Similar Products
|
|
|
| |
This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
