Battle over what could be earliest Christian texts

[Digit]

Messiah is used in the Hebrew Bible to describe priests and kings, who were traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil as described in Exodus 30:22-25. For example, Cyrus the Great, the king of Persia, though not a Hebrew, is referred to as "God's anointed" (messiah). In later Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, messiah refers to a leader anointed by God, and in some cases, a future King of Israel, physically descended from the Davidic line, who will rule the people of a united tribes of Israel[2] and herald the Messianic Age[3] of global peace. In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a Son of God.

Depends on how early your ECFs were, till Constantine, European Christians did not see Jesus as divine and were not especially anti semitic. AS only arose, post Constantine, when Rome needed a scape goat, as Christianised Romans were never gonna accept that they had killed the Son of God!

In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a Son of God

.

Nor in Islam, nor in first generation European, ie, pre Constantinian Christianity.

In later Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, messiah refers to a leader anointed by God, and in some cases, a future King of Israel, physically descended from the Davidic line, who will rule the people of a united tribes of Israel[2] and herald the Messianic Age[3] of global peace.

Thus Min there is no requirement for physical anointment.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Yes but would a pharisaic Jew like Josephus who was also a member of a priestly family have used the term in that context?

Remember that according to xtian writings:

The anointing of Jesus is an event reported by each of the Canonical gospels, in which a woman pours the entire contents of an alabastron of very expensive perfume over the head (according to Mark and Matthew) or feet (according to John and Luke) of Jesus.

A woman pouring the oil? In that time and place?? I suspect the Jews would have been highly insulted by the symbolism. It's almost a caricature of Jewish practice.

[Digit]

Yes but would a pharisaic Jew like Josephus who was also a member of a priestly family have used the term in that context?

Who knows?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I submit he would not. He was what he was ( in addition to being a Quisling )but he had no use for rebels as often expressed in his writings.

[Digit]

I submit he would not.

You may well be correct. But I would point out that a number of 'False Messiahs' have come an gone, basically they only had to claim that they were anointed of God and the true Messiah.
Who anointed them, also why was Jesus accepted as the Mesiah by some without apparently being anointed in the 'proper' manner?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

http://www.livescience.com/13657-exclus ... fakes.html

Early Christian Lead Codices Now Called Fakes

Not exactly "news."

[Minimalist]

I submit he would not.

You may well be correct. But I would point out that a number of 'False Messiahs' have come an gone, basically they only had to claim that they were anointed of God and the true Messiah.
Who anointed them, also why was Jesus accepted as the Mesiah by some without apparently being anointed in the 'proper' manner?

Roy.

But did Josephus refer to any of them as Christos? My recollection is that he called them rebels and troublemakers and applauded the Romans who killed them.


Your second question is even easier. It was done by xtians who did not care for or understand Jewish traditions.