60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The Era

[Tod Stites]

This study tool, compiled by way of providing a broad overview and a
clear record, seeks to tap into a sizeable chunk of recent and past
scholarly opinions on the various aspects of Messianic expectation at
the turn of the Common Era. It will hopefully assist the researcher in
assessing a wide spectrum of scholarship in forming more sober and
objective judgments about the various aspects of the topic, in keeping
abreast of various trends and changes in the scholarly world regarding
such issues, as well as opening up new avenues of thought heretofore
unknown or unexplored by the serious student.


Contents
*The Visionary Spirit Of The Age
*Chronology
*Diversity
*Ubiquity
*Application
*The Davidic Messiah
*The Transcendent Messiah






The Visionary Spirit Of The Age

*In the first century the historian Josephus says that what "most elevated" the Jews "in undertaking" the rebellion against Rome in 66
"was an ambiguous oracle found in their sacred writings" which foretold
that "about that time one from their country should become governor
of the habitable earth"(1).
*The war against Rome cost the Jews "their holy house", but just before
it's destruction, Josephus says "chariots and troops of soldiers in their
armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding..
cities"(2).
*These entries of Josephus, together with his accounts of earlier
"prophets" who had appeared in Judea and Samaria between c.35 and
c.60 C.E.(3), promising to show the people various "signs and wonders",
serve to convey something of the apocalyptic spirit which seems to have been circulating in these regions.
*For both Josephus and Tacitus report that the Jews' hopes for liberation grew out of an ambiguous oracle contained in their sacred
writings, which Menahem Stern thinks is either Gen 49:10 or Numb 24:
17, which foretold how one from their country would become ruler of
the world (4).
*Earlier in the first century Philo Judaeus indicates that the same spirit
was present at Alexandria, and that the oracles had foretold that:
"there shall come forth a man..and leading his host to war, will subdue
great and populous nations"(5).
*In 1938 Erwin Goodenough also saw veiled Messianism in Philo's "On
Dreams"(2.9.61-64), which speaks of the "false man of arrogance", a
"superfluous growth", with as yet no "Husbandman" to "prune him away". It is clear (to Goodenough) however, that Philo expects him to
come; Goodenough believed Philo thought that an ideal warrior and
king was to come (6).
*In 1992 Peder Borgen opined that "without using the term 'Messiah',
Philo looks for the Messiah to come in the form of 'a man', who is seen
as a final commander-in-chief and emperor of the Hebrew nation as the head of the nations"(7).
* In the same work James Charlesworth posited an earlier first century
date for the "Biblical Antiquities" of the pseudo-Philo, but found that
despite it's "celebration of David", Messianism is absent from the work
(8).
*The aforementioned proposal of Stern that Numb 24:17 may have been
the text that spawned hopes for liberation among the Jews finds
interesting background in Philo's use of the same passage in making
reference to a future "kingdom"(Vita Mosis 1.290).
*But of course at Qumran the Sons of Light saw the passage as referring
to the Davidic Messiah expected in the last days, as noted by David
Flusser (9).
*All of these aforementioned citations may prompt agreement with the
1963 postulate of Oscar Cullmann that, despite the varied content of
Jewish hopes, the prevailing image of the Messiah in the New Testament period was one of a political nature (10).
*Indeed the Sibylline Oracles, in a section dated to near the end of the
first century B.C.E., foretells that when Rome comes to rule Egypt, as
it did c.30 B.C.E., "the kingdom of the immortal king will show itself.
A holy ruler will come and govern the world in eternity", bringing wrath
upon "the men of Italy"(11).
*Slightly earlier, the Psalms of Solomon foretold of the Messiah gathering a holy people, who have been sanctified by the Lord, and
allowing unrighteousness to dwell among them no more, because they
are all children of God (17.28-30).
*In this vein we should take note of the observation made by Theissen
and Merz (12), that while contemporary apocalyptic books predict that
in the end times all Israel will be "sons of God"(Jubilees 1.24-25):
(Psalms Of Solomon 17.27-30):(1 Enoch 62.11):(Assumption Of Moses
10.3), the Wisdom Literature of the period (Wis 2:18), Palestinian
Jewish sages (Sir 4:10), as well as the Hellenistic Jew Philo ("Confusion
Of Tongues" 143-8):("Special Laws" 1.317f), hold that in the present the
sons of Israel can become sons of God through ethical behavior.In light
of this, it should occasion no surprise if the latter belief turns up in the
Q logia attributed to Jesus (Matt 5:45):(Luke 6:35).
*Now scholars like Lawrence Schiffman and Steve Mason think that such
apocalyptic books were widely read by Judeans in the first century (13), and this suggestion may find support from certain allusions made
by Josephus to ancient oracles and the effect of them on the people of
the Age ("Judean War" 4.6.3.388):(6.2.1.109).
*And while certain biblical texts were interpreted Messianically by the
turn-of-the-era Jews, it is important to stress that "anointed" figures,
who are technically "messiahs", and found in the Hebrew Bible, include
priests, kings and prophets, but none are understood as deliverers of
the end times. This is because it was not until sometime in the third or
second centuries B.C.E. that the term "Messiah" took on an eschatological nuance, according to conclusions reached by Lawrence
Schiffman and James Vander Kam in their monumental "Encyclopedia
Of The Dead Sea Scrolls"(14).
*Thus Joseph Fitzmyer is able to tell us that in the vast majority of cases, the noun "messiah" in the Hebrew Bible refers to a reigning or
past king (15), because "a future successor to the Davidic throne in an
apocalyptic or eschatological context is by definition a Messiah"(16).
*Now W.D. Davies and Dale Allison have interpreted this kind of
information as indicating that while there was no unanimity regarding
a coming "anointed one" among first century Jews, many if not most
could no doubt have intelligibly referred to the central figure of
eschatological expectation as "the Messiah"(16a).
*This may indeed have been so if during the long "years of Persian and
Hellenistic rule the biblical oracles about the Lord's anointed and
promises about the restoration of the (Davidic) dynasty were applied to
a king yet to come", as held by George Nickelsburg (17), and if a
contributing factor was Israel's loss of autonomy and national identity
in the Greco-Roman period, based on the findings of Eric and Carol
Meyers (18).
*In this 1987 study, the Meyerses observe that foreign occupation created the need to communicate with the occupying power through
intermediary bureaucrats, influencing the development of belief in the
role of intermediary visionaries and angels between God and humanity
(18).
*After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. however, rabbinic sages
seem to have prayed that God alone would rule over Israel, without
intermediaries, as noted by James Dunn (19).

Conclusions
*Apocalyptic messianism then seems to have begun and grown up
around a core of political hopes which drew from the Bible it's vision for the future, but soon acquired the potential to extend it's vision
beyond earthly liberation to the embracing of an earthly utopia.

Notes:
1."Judean War" 6.5.4.312
2."Judean War" 6.5.3.298-9
3."Judean War" 2.13.5.261-2
"Judean Antiquities" 18.4.1
"Judean Antiquities" 20.5.1.97
4."Judean Antiquities" 20.8.6.167-70.
Stern in "Josephus, Judaism And Christianity" eds. Feldman and Hata
p.77-8.
5."On Rewards And Punishments" 16.95.Grabbe "Judaic Religion In The
Second Temple Period" p.277-8.
6."The Politics Of Philo Judaeus" pp.24-5,115
7.in "The Messiah: Developments In Earliest Judaism And Christianity"
ed. Charlesworth p.358.
8.in "The Messiah: Developments In Earliest Judaism And Christianity"
ed. Charlesworth p.31.
9."Judaism And The Origin Of Christianity" p.93-4.
10."The Christology Of The New Testament" p.111-2.
11.Lattke in "The Kingdom Of God" ed. Chilton p.80/n47
12."The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.555.
13.Schiffman in "The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years" eds.Schiffman,
Tov and Vander Kam p.550.
Mason "Josephus, Judea And Christian Origins" p.272n103.
14."Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls" vol.1,p.558.
15."The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.76.
16.Collins "The Scepter And The Star" p.175,quoting Fitzmyer.
16a."The Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.2,p.596-7.
17. "Jewish Literature From The Bible To The Mishna" p.242.
18. Anchor Bible vol.25B:intro.:p.58-9.
19. Shemoneh Esreh 11."Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.410.


Chronology

*Now a number of veteran scholars are in accord in the belief that we
have scant evidence for Messianism in Israel from 500 to 200 B.C.E.,
viz. Collins (2010), Dunn (2003), and Fitzmyer (2000):(20).
*After this, Messianism probably emerged not later than 175-150 B.C.E.
according to Fitzmyer (20), and seems to have been in abeyance from
c.550-150 B.C.E. according to Hanson and Horsley (1985), who think
that Messianic fervor seems to have enjoyed something of a revival
during the Hasmonean period (142-63 B.C.E.):(21).Charlesworth (1992)
however thought that Jewish messianology "exploded into the world of
ideas" in the early first century B.C.E. and not before, and that both
the pseudepigrapha and the Qumran scrolls point to the earlier first
century B.C.E. for the earliest literary employment of the term
"Messiah"(22).
*Consistent with these datings are the calculations of Talmon (1992),
based on predictions from Ezekiel (4:4-6):(34:23-28) of 430 years from
the fall of the First Temple (586 B.C.E.) to the coming of a "shepherd"
for Israel, bringing us down to Maccabean times (23).
*Alternate views on this issue include that of Franz Hesse, who thought
Messianic expectation could date from as early as the royal psalms
(Psalm 2,72,101,110,132),of the pre-Exilic period, as well as that of Talmon, who thought diversification of Messianism began in Israel with
the dispersion of the Judeans in 586 B.C.E., accelerated when different groups were impacted differently by Hellenistic and Roman
influence, and by internal trends like apocalypticism and Gnosticism
(24).
*Once Messianism revived, the Hebrew Bible became a good source for
paradigms about the Messiah, according to Collins (25), though the
first literary indication that some were looking anxiously for the Messiah may be the "Psalms Of Solomon"(mid-first century B.C.E.),
allowing some to surmise that "the Messianic movement had it's origins
in the abuse of power and the infringements of Jewish law during the
Hasmonean period (26).
*Thus "the excesses and failure of the Hasmonean ruler..in Jerusalem
led the Qumranites to yearn for the coming of a priestly Messiah",
according to Charlesworth, while Mendels says that evidence has been
presented which suggests that from Hasmonean times onward Jews were reminded of the Davidic dynasty (27).
*Now scholarly dates for the apocalyptic Book Of Jubilees usually fall in
the mid-second century B.C.E./early Hasmonean period (28), and
certainly before the end of the second century B.C.E. (29).A priestly
origin for Jubilees has been posited by Meier, Vander Kam, and others
(30), but it's relevance to our purpose is suggested by it's possibly giving
us our earliest non-biblical allusion to the "kingdom of heaven"(12.19),
as suggested by David Flusser (31).
*James Dunn meanwhile points out that while the Hebrew Bible contains only fourteen references to God as king, or to the kingdom of
God, the Qumran scrolls have yielded over fifty allusions to God as king, and over 25 references to the kingdom of God (32).
*This last observation gives us some idea of how greatly the concept of
the reign of God seems to have grown in sectarian circles during the
last two centuries B.C.E., so that Sean Freyne may be right in suggesting that if Jesus in fact began his ministry by declaring that "the
time is fulfilled"(Mark 1:15), it may indeed have addressed an already
prevalent expectation of God's reign (33).
*In any case, as we round the turn of the era and enter the first century, the common features of Messianism as revealed by Philo and
Josephus, include awareness of the guilt of Israel, expectation of a
single leader, a journey into the wilderness as a prelude, and predictions of the Temple's destruction. And this is the learned opinion
of Louis Feldman (34).

Conclusions
*Surely the Maccabean/Hasmonean watershed is likely to divide an
earlier period characterized by only the faintest Messianic impulses,
and a later period which saw the intensification of Messianism under
the perceived abuses by the Hasmoneans, followed by those of the Herodians, so that by 6 C.E. many Jews preferred to live under direct
Roman rule than to continue living under the Herods (Josephus "Judean
War" 2.6.2.90-92).

Notes:
20.Collins "The Scepter And The Star" pp.35-7,50-1.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.619.
Fitzmyer "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.80n18,81-2.
21."Bandits,Prophets,Messiahs" p.102.
22. in "The Messiah: Developments In Earliest Judaism And Christianity"
ed. Charlesworth p.27,35.
23. in "The Messiah.." ed.Charlesworth p.100
24. Hesse in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.9,p.505.
Talmon in "The Messiah.." p.84.
25. "The Scepter And The Star" p.50-1.
26. Schillebeeckx "Jesus: An Experiment In Christology" p.452-3.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.619.
27. Charlesworth in "The Messiah.." p.24-5.
Mendels in "The Messiah.." p.274.
28. Meier "A Marginal Jew" vol.4,p.241.
Himmelfarb in "Enoch And Qumran Origins" ed. Boccaccini p.130.
Frolich in "Enoch And Qumran Origins" ed. Boccaccini p.144.
29. Grabbe "Judaic Religion In The Second Temple Period" p.63-4.
30. Lange in "Enoch And Qumran Origins" p.33.
31. "Judaism And The Origin Of Christianity" 652-3.
32. "Jesus, Paul And The Gospels" p.15n21-22.
33. "Galilee, Jesus And The Gospels" p.41.
34. "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.487.

Diversity

*If there is one aspect of our topic on which scholars tend to agree, it is the diversity, flexibility, and ill-defined nature of turn-of-the era
Messianism.
*S.Talmon has seen (1992) the controversy between Haggai and Zechariah over whether the Messiah had come as due to the changing
circumstances of Israel's history and society (35).
*If indeed Messianism was a by-product of apocalypticism, it should
occasion no surprise if the former enjoyed the advantage of being quite
flexible. The revised Emil Schurer says that unlike Torah or "halakah",
Messianism could be accepted in quantities great or small, leaving
Messianic hope in a state of flux in the first century (36).
*In 1969 O'Neill quoted George Foote Moore from the 1920s that at the
turn of the era there existed "no orderly messianic doctrine having the
faintest shadow of authority"(37).
*During the same period c.1970 Adam Simon van der Woude observed
that the Qumran expectation was oriented primarily toward God and
the time of salvation which he will inaugurate at the appointed date.
Hence the Messiahs are not sharply sketched as individuals in the Qumran scrolls (38).
*Eduard Lohse thus observed that: "The ideas of Judaism concerning
the future Age of salvation were by no means uniform"(39).
*And so in 1977 C.E.B.Cranfield stressed that "it is important to realize
that there was a great variety of Messianic expectation" in the time of
Jesus (39a).
*In 1984 the view of Louis Feldman was that in the time of Herod the
Great (40-4 B.C.E.), "the concept of the Messiah and his functions was
still very fluid..as we see from the Talmud, the Dead Sea scrolls, and
the pseudepigrapha"(40).
*In 1984 Bruce Chilton noted that the range of usage for the term
"Messiah" is so wide that it seems unwarranted to imagine that a
specific expectation attaches to it (41).
*This was repeated by Charlesworth in 1992:"There is no clear widely
accepted Jewish definition of the Messiah. The references to him are
frustratingly vague and imprecise (42).
*In 1990 Ben Witherington reiterated that in a good deal of the pre-
Christian Jewish literature, the figure of the Messiah is "peculiarly
vague"(43), while in 1991 John P. Meier described turn-of-the-era
Messianism as varied, vague and ill-defined (44).
*In 1992 James Charlesworth pointed out that what is "assumed" but not "researched" is that "Jews in the time of Jesus..had some agreement on the basic functions (the Messiah) would perform" and
that "the complexity of Messianic ideas, the lack of a coherent
messianology among the..pseudepigrapha and among the Dead Sea
scrolls, and the frequent contradictory messianic predictions prohibit
anything approximating coherence in early Jewish messianology"(45).
*At the same time Richard Horsley said that in modern scholarship,
"Messiah" usually refers to a vaguely and generally conceived agent of
final salvation, and that "we can no longer blithely assume that 'the Jews' generally in late Second Temple times thought in a certain way"
(46), while Nils Dahl added that "at the time of Jesus there existed no
normative doctrine of the Messiah"(47).
*And in 1995 Horsley reiterated his view that there was no standard
Jewish expectation of a Messiah or an end-time prophet (48).
*Also in the 1990s Davies and Allison chimed in, in their great work on
the Gospel of Matthew:"one cannot speak of any first century orthodoxy or consensus regarding the nature of life in the Messianic Age or the Age to come", because "the newness of messianism does not
make for logical rigidity or consistency"(49).
*And so it came to be recognized by Theissen and Merz in 1999 that
Jewish and Christian scholars have corrected the notion that there was
a Messianic expectation in Judaism that was central for all.There are
eschatological hopes with but without a Messiah, messianic figures
with or without the title "Messiah", and a great degree of variety in
"Messianic notions"(50).
* The Scroll specialist James J. Collins carried on in this vein in 2005:
"It is characteristic of the apocalyptic literature that the description
of..(messianic) figures is not restricted to fixed formulae but allows for
diversity of expression"(51).
*Focusing more specifically on Qumran, Collins in 2010 stated that even within this single community we see "a network of interlocking
references, where messianic titles and biblical allusions are combined
in different ways"(52).

Conclusions
*In light of Collins' 2005 observation, we might consider whether
apocalypticism and/or eschatology were more of a factor than the
literary record might lead us to believe in how turn-of-the-era
messianism developed. For our scholarly sample certainly seems
united in reporting turn-of-the-era messianism as quite diverse and
thus able to be shaped according to the world view of one's community.

Notes
35.in "The Messiah" p.91-3.
36.Schurer "History Of The Jewish People In The Age Of Jesus Christ"
vol.2,p.496-7.
37. New Testament Studies vol.15,p.156.
38. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.9,p.519.
39. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.8,p.482.
39a.Cranfield "The Gospel Of Mark" p.270.
40. "Josephus And Modern Scholarship" p.298.
41. "A Galilean Rabbi And His Bible" p.177.
42. in "The Messiah" p.31n93.
43. "The Christology Of Jesus" p.92.
44. "A Marginal Jew" vol.1,p.218-9.
45. in "The Messiah.." p.5-6,28.
46. in "The Messiah.." p.276,278.
47. in "The Messiah.." p.389.
48. in "Studying The Historical Jesus" (eds.) Chilton and Evans p.398.
49. "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.3,p.227n39,707.
50. "The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.519.
51. in "Enoch And Qumran Origins" p.62.
52. "The Scepter And The Star" p.73.




Ubiquity

*The question of how common and how widespread Messianism was has
been answered negatively in recent times. But the clear absence of
evidence should be seen in light of two very important observations
made by James Charlesworth and by Theissen and Merz during the 1990s.
*Because of these observations, Eduard Lohse may not have been
completely wrong in 1972 when expressing the view that, generally
speaking, Davidic Messianic expectation "was widely held among the
people"(53).
*In 1992 Charlesworth suggested that most influential thought (in pre-
70 times) was disseminated by oral tradition, so that the lack of
references to a/the Messiah in pre-70 literature does not mean that
popular messianic movements did not exist (54).
*And in 1999 Theissen and Merz pointed out that the Greek "Messias"
(John 1:41) is a transcription of the Aramaic "Meshiha",i.e. from a popular vernacular, not the sacral Hebrew of educated scholars. Thus Messianic expectation is suggested as being more ubiquitous than would appear from the written sources that were controlled by the educated elite which sought to suppress Messianic ferment (55).We might add that the periodic outbursts of "Messianic"-style fervor recorded by Josephus may offer some support to this suggestion. Judging from the violent Roman reaction to these outbursts, they may indeed have been "Messianic".
*In light of these suggestions, it is perhaps understandable if scholars
with the stature of Raymond E. Brown (56) and James D.G. Dunn (57)
in the same period felt "safe in assuming that the expectation of the
Messiah would have been known to most Jews in the intertestamental
period (c.450 B.C.E.-c.50 C.E.),whether or not they shared it"(56), and
that "talk of an expected 'coming of the Messiah' would have been
meaningful to first century Jews and would have represented a major
strand of Jewish eschatological expectations"(57).
*One should probably keep the foregoing opinions in mind when looking
for the literary evidence of ubiquity when it come to Messianic expectation, for there is not much of it.
*The variegated nature of late pre-Christian Messianism does not mean
that Messianism was ubiquitous at that time. It is not even certain that
the term "Messiah" was used in the literature of the period according to Hanson and Horsley in 1985 (58), and the term appears rarely in Jewish literature from 250 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. according to Charlesworth in 1992 (59).
*Charlesworth in 1992 indicated that most Jewish literature dating from before the mid-second century C.E. contains no reference to "a"
or "the" Messiah (60), while Brown in 1994 said that outside of the New
Testament there are less than thirty references to "(the) Christ" in all of Jewish literature from 200 B.C.E. to 100 C.E. (61).
*And when it comes to actual Messianic claimants, John P. Meier
reminds us that, aside from Jesus, there are no other references to any
living Jew as the Christ in all of Jewish history down to 130 C.E. (62).
*We might also take note of the term "Christianoi" in the New Testament (Acts 11:26),which does not distinguish the Christians from
other Messianic sects, suggesting that there were no others.
*In 1992 D.Mendels noted that there is no mention of Messianism in
Josephus, and that it is "not of major importance" in Essene literature
or the pre-Christian pseudepigrapha (63).
*Nils Dahl meanwhile notes that aside from the Psalms of Solomon,
Fourth Ezra, and Second Baruch we have little evidence for the Davidic
Messiah that is contemporary with the New Testament (64).
*Amid such lack of evidence, one might be tempted to follow Burton
Mack, and see the "mythology of the Christ cult" as "understandable
only on the basis of a multi-ethnic cross-cultural movement"(65).
*Now modern notions that "messianic expectation" was important in the
first century continue strong despite warnings from specialists in the
field like Lester Grabbe in 2000, that "while Messianic expectation was
important to some groups, they seem to have been central to few if
any", while "others appear not to have had any sort of belief in a
messianic figure"(66).
*Grabbe notes that the Qumran scrolls do not refer to messianic figures
often, and passages which refer to them are few and unspecific, and
come from a sect whose views may have changed over time, so that it
appears that this sect did not make messianic expectation a major part
of it's eschatological view (67).
*Charlesworth in fact reported in 1992 that "it seems that less than 3%
of the Qumran documents contain the word 'Messiah'"(68).
*Consistent with this, Joseph Fitzmyer in 2000 said that the question of
how widespread the use of the title "Messiah" was among Palestinian
Jews in the last centuries B.C.E. is a question for which we have no firm answer (69).
*James J. Collins basically echoed this sentiment in 2010, that in the end we cannot be sure how widespread messianic expectation was, and
our sources do not permit confidence regarding the beliefs of most Jews (70).
*Recent works by Collins (2010) and Helmut Koester (2007) have in fact
indicated that messianic expectation was not the rule in this period,
that turn-of-the-era Judaism was not necessarily governed by desire
for a king (71), and that while the "royal" Messianic expectation looked
for a Davidic scion, the continuing prophetic criticism of the royal
establishment often rejected claims of the Davidic kingship, with God
remaining the only true king (72).
*Now the absence of evidence for Messianism in terms of Davidic
restoration down to the middle of the second century B.C.E. undermines many of the common assumptions about messianic
expectation. Resistance to foreign power was not enough to call forth
messianism, but rather the failed restoration under the Hasmoneans
led to a renewed interest in the monarchy in the first century B.C.E.
(73).
*Thus we have no evidence for messianic expectation in the second
century B.C.E. before the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty (74), and
Collins thinks that the hopes expressed in contemporary visionary books
as well as the Qumran scrolls did not give way to any popular messianic
movements in the first century B.C.E., but only reflect the hopes of a
literate minority rather than the population as a whole, while claiming
that an emerging recognition is dawning that Christian theology is behind the idea that messianic expectation was ubiquitous and had a
consistent form (75):(cf.Luke 3:15).
*Consistent with this thinking, though in 1992, D.E. Aune thought it
had become increasingly evident that "the conception of the 'Jewish
Messiah' was a synthetic construct which masks the variety of messianic
figures in early Jewish eschatological expectation (76).
*Having reached the year 2010 it is appropriate to make note of the
unique views of Maurice Casey, the Aramaicist, who at that time thought that "it should be clear" that "Messiah" was not a title in the Judaism of Jesus' time, and that by itself was not specific enough to
refer to the Davidic redeemer or any other figure (77).

Notes:
53.Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.8,p.480-2.
54.in "The Messiah: Developments In Earliest Judaism And Christianity"
ed.Charlesworth p.14-5.
55."The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.537-8.
56."Introduction To New Testament Christology" p.160.
57.in "The Messiah.." ed. Charlesworth p.367.
58."Bandits,Prophets,Messiahs" p.90.
59. in "The Messiah.." p.12.
60. in "The Messiah.." p.14.
61. "Introduction To New Testament Christology" pp.73,159
62. "A Marginal Jew" vol.2,p.611-2.
63. in "The Messiah.." p.263.
64. in "The Messiah.." p.388.
65. "Lost Gospel" p.214.
66. "Judaic Religion In The Second Temple Period" p.271.
67. "Judaic Religion In The Second Temple Period" p.274.
68. in "The Messiah.." p.25.
69. "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.105.
70. "The Scepter And The Star" p.18.
71. Collins "The Scepter And The Star" p.5.
72. Koester "Paul And His World" p.94.
73. Collins "The Scepter And The Star" p.50.
74. Collins "The Scepter And The Star" p.107.
75. "The Scepter And The Star" p.3-4,216.
76. in "The Messiah.." p.409.
77. "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.393.

Conclusions
*We can see from these extracts that scholarly opinion is far from
confident that Messianic expectation was widespread at the turn of the era. The only caveat would be the largely unrecorded "people's
history" which passed below the radar screen, emerging periodically in
the outbursts of "Messianic" fervor recorded in the pages of Josephus.


Application

* The work of Jacob Neusner in 1984 helped draw the distinction between "a messiah", appointed for a given task, to be repeated many
times, and THE Messiah, designated to accomplish a single task, never
to be repeated (78).
*But many scholarly voices, like that of Robert L. Webb (1991) have
warned that "it is, strictly speaking, anachronistic to speak of a Messiah
in the Old Testament"(79), for, as Fitzmyer reaffirms, "one can..only
speak of the biblical pre-history of messianism"(80).
*Definitely Messianic/eschatological understanding cannot be presupposed when the Hebrew Bible calls kings "anointed", in the view
of Franz Hesse (81), and in his opinion "one might say that none of the
'Messianic' passages in the Old Testament can be exegeted messianically", since all references are to past or present kings.
*For the hope of the Messiah does not dominate the Old Testament
(OT) according to Gerhard von Rad (82). Rather, faith here is centered
more on the kingship of Jehova.
*Charlesworth too acknowledged (1992) that the term "Messiah" does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. Rather the title "anointed one" denotes prophets, priests or kings (83).
*Thus in 2005 George Nickelsburg considered it debatable whether the
sage Sirach (second century B.C.E.) adhered to Davidic Messianism (84).
*Thus the concordance of James Strong lists "Messiah" only at Dan 9:25-26 (85), and Fitzmyer indicates that the only place in the Hebrew Bible
where the Hebrew "Masiah" has the connotation of an expected/
awaited anointed figure of Davidic descent is at Dan 9:25 (86).
*Theissen and Merz affirm that "all the (OT) evidence for anointed
figures relates not to future redeemer figures but to historical figures
(87),so that the "Hebrew Scriptures do not offer any systematic statement which could serve as a clear guideline in an investigation of
the conceptual content which inheres in the Messiah", according to S.
Talmon (88).
*Fitzmyer in 2000 may clarify further when he indicates that of the 69
uses of the verb "to anoint" in the Hebrew Bible, all applied to priestly
persons or objects or to kings, but never applies to a Messiah in the strict sense of a future or expected anointed figure (89).
*For while some of the passages in the Hebrew Bible were later associated with Messianic figures, such passages take on connotations
which they did not have in the original context (80).
*Indeed Fitzmyer is even more precise after questioning whether certain OT texts should be considered "Messianic" within pre-Christian
Jewish tradition. Some passages "refer to the dynasty that develops as
Davidic, but they must be understood generically, as indicative of a
divine guarantee for the future of the Davidic household", or of
"restorative monarchism". The person mentioned as "anointed" may be
part of the continuation or even restoration of the monarchy of old..
such passages express eschatological hopes but not directly eschatological messianism. Often they refer to persons who have been
"anointed" in the past or were anointed agents whom God has appointed, but they are not "Messiahs", i.e. future or awaited anointed
figures to be raised up by God for the good or salvation of his people
(90).
*These kinds of findings have resulted in the kind of scholarly confidence expressed by Gerd Theissen, that "we cannot speak of THE
Messiah in Judaism, because we encounter very different expectations
concerning the Messiah, which were not at all shared by all Israelites"
(91).
*This position has been reiterated several times over the years.
*In 1974 Edward Schillebeeckx wrote that the Messiah as an eschatological figure belonging to the Davidic dynasty is unknown to the OT (92).
*In 1992 Richard Horsley noted that in neither the Tanak (OT), nor the
other Jewish texts of second and first centuries B.C.E. is the "Messiah"
a figure that could be labeled "eschatological"(93).
*This was echoed by Hanson also in 1992, that "the subsequent
interpretation and reapplication" of traditions derived from the Exile/
early Second Temple period "developed quite independently of their
original meaning and setting"(in reference to various types of messianic
speculation):(94).
*Dunn in 2003 followed suit, pointing out that while variously used in the OT, principally regarding the continuing Davidic line, the term
"Christ" is never used there for an eschatological figure (95).
*In 2005 George Nickelsburg noted that the Hebrew "masiah" is a term
that pre-Exilic texts apply to the reigning monarch of Judah/Israel.
Later it became a designation for a future ruler (96).
*And so in 2010 Collins was able to repeat: an ideal future king, hoped
for in the post-Exilic period, had not borne the title "Messiah" in the
biblical period (97).
*At Qumran, they expected not one Messiah, but two, one priestly, one
royal, duly noted by Brown (98), and Crossan (99). But while certain
passages of Tanak were interpreted Messianically at Qumran (Gen 49:10):(Numb 24:17):(2 Sam 7:12-16):(Psalm 2):(Amos 9:11), as noted
by Theissen and Merz (100), we see a distinct difference at Qumran in
how the term "Messiah" was used compared to that prevailing in the
Hebrew Bible, where there is little evidence for prophets being anointed, in contrast to Qumran, where we here of "anointed ones"
(101), "anointed by (God's) Holy Spirit"(102).
*Indeed by 2000 Qumran had yielded about 30 scrolls which referred to
"anointed" figures, the literal definition of "messiah", but only about
half of these refer to the traditional royal Messiah, with most others
referring to the prophets (103).
*As Schillebeeckx pointed out (104), in the beginning only the king got
anointed, and anointing was rarely given to non-kings, as noted by
Hesse (105). But with the fall of the monarchy, high priests, priests,
and finally prophets were considered "anointed", and Dunn tells us that
anointing was traditionally associated with kings, priests and prophets
(106).
*Thus in 2010 Schiffman noted that the term "anointed" as used in the
Essene Damascus Document had not yet acquired it's later,unequivocal
meaning of "Messiah"(107).
*Finally the egalitarian potential of the term "anointed" is perhaps
evident from two sources at opposite ends of our chronological spectrum. In the Tanak, several passages may refer to all of Israel as
"anointed"(Psalm 28:8):(105:15):(Hab 3:13), though such an interpretation has been open to debate according to both Webb (108)
and Fitzmyer (109), while later rabbinic thinking would see all virtuous
men, especially sages, as "messiahs"(110).

Conclusions
*The semantic range of the term "messiah" is so wide that it seems
unwarranted to imagine that a specific expectation attaches to it, in
the opinion of Bruce Chilton (40). It may be therefore vital to distinguish in accordance with the aforesaid definition given by Neusner
between those "anointed" for a specific task, to be repeated many times, and the one anointed for a single task, never to be repeated (78). Not every "messiah" was the expected savior of Israel.

Notes:
78. "Messiah In Context" p.130.
79. "John The Baptizer And Prophet" p.230.
80. "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.81.
81. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.9,p.504.
82. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.1,p.568.
83. in "The Messiah.." p.11.
84. "Jewish Literature From The Bible To The Mishna" p.62,358n100.
85. Main Concordance p.587.
86. "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" pp.33,80-1,104.
87. "The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.532.
88. in "The Messiah.." p.84.
89. "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.76/n8.
90. "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.59-60.
91. in "The Social Setting Of Jesus And The Gospels" eds. Stegemann,
Malina and Theissen p.230.
92. "Jesus: An Experiment In Christology" p.451.
93. in "The Messiah.." p.277.
94. in "The Messiah.." p.75.
95. "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.618.
96. "Jewish Literature From The Bible To The Mishna" p.345n7.
97. "The Scepter And The Star" p.16-7.
98. "Birth Of The Messiah" p.195.
99. "The Birth Of Christianity" p.461.
100."The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.533.
101.Collins "The Scepter And The Star" p.132-3.
102.Damascus Document 2.13.Flusser "Judaism And The Origin Of
Christianity" p.111n25.
103.Schiffman and Vander Kam "Encyclopedia Of The Dead Sea Scrolls"
vol.1,p.537.
104."Jesus: An Experiment In Christology" p.442
105. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.9,p.504-5.
106. "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.618.
107. "Qumran And Jerusalem" p.271-2.
108. "John The Baptizer And Prophet" p.228.
109. "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.76.
110. Neusner "Messiah In Context" p.70-1.



The Davidic Messiah

*In 1992, as we have seen (41), James Charlesworth wrote that "there is no clear widely-accepted Jewish description of the Messiah".
*But around the turn of the era, according to James J. Collins (2010),
Jewish expectations were not for a generic Messiah but for either a
royal Messiah who would be the "branch of David"(cf.Isa 11:1), or a
priestly "Messiah of Aaron", or a prophet like Moses (cf.Deut 18:15),
with different permutations and combinations possible (111).
*Likewise George Nickelsburg in 2005 believed that interpretations of
Scripture varied during the intertestamental period, and "messianic"
expectations were multiform, with different people having different
expectations (112).
*In 1992 D.Mendels expressed similar thinking, that "we can possibly say
that all groups within Judaism expected messianism in it's biblical form; but they differed in their attitudes towards an actual 'messiah'"
(113).
*Collins says that during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, messianic
expectation seems to have remained relatively tranquil, with Jewish
hopes pinned on a benevolent overlord, even if he was foreign (114).
*But by the turn of the era the variety of Judaism is reflected in a wide
spectrum of beliefs as to who would be God's agent, and the Messiah,
the Son of David, the future king of Israel, is perhaps the best known of
these, based on studies by Nickelsburg and Stone 2009 (115).
* A useful synopsis of the Davidic connection and eschatological
projections is given by Gerhard von Rad (116).
*But in 1974 Simon van der Woude pointed out that c.130 C.E. Simon
bar Cosiba was heralded as the Messiah and supported by the prominent Rabbi Aqiba, despite the claimant's non-Davidic descent,
suggesting that Davidic descent was not necessarily a dogmatic part of the eschatological messianic expectation, and that expectation of the
messianic kingdom determined expectation of the Messiah (117).
*Further information on this topic is given by Davies and Allison (118)
and Nils Dahl (119).
*But as early as 1963 Oscar Cullmann pointed out that the visionary
books of the Age indicate that a political Messiah was not what was
expected in every quarter (120).
*In 1977 C.E.B. Cranfield in fact pointed out that the only known pre-
Christian reference to "Son of David" as a Messianic title is found at
Psalms of Solomon 17.23 (121).
*Surely these observations cast an interesting light on the Christian
tradition that Jesus had questioned whether the Messiah was really the
"son of David"(Mark 12:35-37), a tradition that cannot be lightly dismissed since it appears to run contrary to church doctrine (Rom 1:3-
4).
*In 1991 John P. Meier noted that despite the divine promises to David
(Psalm 2:7), and his progeny (2 Sam 7:14), as found in Tanak, pre-
Christian Messianic expectation was not always equated with Davidic
sonship (122).
*These observations make it logical that Charlesworth in 1992 would
insist that "Early Jewish literature..cannot be mined to produce
anything like a checklist of what the Messiah should do"(123).
*In 2003 Dunn suggested that the "sounder conclusion" is that the militant Christ was but one expression of a diversified hope, but also
the most prominent and widespread of these hopes (124).
*In 2005 Nickelsburg thus writes that it is correct "to emphasize that
hope in a Davidic Messiah was not a staple of Jewish eschatological
hope that must be assumed even when it is not expressed"(125).
*Turning specifically to Qumran and the Essenes, Schiffman in 2010
noted that in the Damascus Document the Messiah of Israel "is not
singled out to be Davidic", and that "neither David nor Davidic descent
plays any role whatsoever" in the messianic expectation of the Qumran
Community Rule (1QS), nor is David mentioned in Qumran's Rule of the
Congregation (126).
*Yet despite such cautionary warnings, that the Davidic form of
messianism was not all-encompassing, we can trace a school of thought
that despite the varied content of Jewish hopes, sees the prevailing
image of the Messiah in the New Testament as one of a political nature
(127), and one which prevailed elsewhere as well.
*In 1988 Davies and Allison were declaring that the dominant though
not exclusive Jewish expectation was that of the Messianic king of
Davidic descent, no doubt reinforced by the shortcomings of the non-
Davidic Hasmoneans (128).
*In 1990 Witherington noted that along with this expectation came
end-time hopes and visions of the enthronement, exaltation, and divine
sonship of the Davidic son, at least at Qumran (129).
*Thus in 1992 Nils Dahl felt able to affirm that "the core concept of 'the
Messiah' was shaped by Scriptural passages that spoke about a descendant of David"(130), while Hamerton-Kelly believed it was the
Davidic ideology that produced the concept of the Messiah (131).
*In 1994 Brown thus declared that the ideal Messianic figure of the Age
was one who would restore the Davidic dynasty and thereby signal the
decisive intervention of God (132).
*In 1999 Theissen and Merz could declare that it was "clear that outside
Qumran the expectation is predominantly one of a royal Messiah"(133).
*Thus according to Dunn in 2003 it was "lively hoped" and "widely thought" that the Davidic Christ was a warrior-king who would destroy
the enemies of Israel (134).
*From 2007 Helmut Koester reminds us that while there may have been
little unanimity regarding the Jewish path to freedom under the Romans, and most kept the peace, revolutionaries or charismatic
"prophets" could rouse the masses at any time (135).
*Thus by 2010 Collins was able to teach that by the late second/early
first century B.C.E., expectation of a Davidic king re-emerges, and
becomes part of the common heritage of Israel by the first century C.E., and that "the concept of the Davidic Messiah as the warrior-king
who would destroy the enemies of Israel and institute an era of
unending peace constitutes the common core of Jewish messianism
around the turn of the era"(136).
*And concerning Qumran in 2010 Schiffman could tell us that attempts
to reconstruct the Rule of Benedictions (1QSb) "assumes a Davidic
Messiah to arise at the end of days"(136a).

Conclusions
*While it may have been "widely thought" that the Davidic warrior-king
would destroy the enemies of Israel, and true that this had become the
"common core" of Jewish messianism around the turn of the era, in the
biblical promises to the Davidic line, there is no mention of "anointing",
so that Davidic Messianism did not eclipse other forms of expectation
regarding anointed saviors. There was still room for hopes of another,
altogether different, type of Messiah, as we shall see presently.


Notes:
111."The Scepter And The Star" p.215-6.
112."Jewish Literature From The Bible To The Mishna" p.122.
113.in "The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism And Christianity"
ed. Charlesworth p.264.
114. "The Scepter And The Star" p.49.
115. "Early Judaism" p.3
116. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.1,p.567.
117. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol. 9,p.523.
118. "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.3,p.252n12.
119. in "The Messiah.." p.385.
120. "The Christology Of The New Testament" p.142.
121. "The Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.345.
122. "A Marginal Jew" vol.2,p.218-9.
123. in "The Messiah.." p.6.
124. "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.622.
125. "Jewish Literature From The Bible To The Mishna" p.268.
126. "Qumran And Jerusalem" p.273.
127. Cullmann "Christology Of The New Testament" p.111-2.
128. "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.1,p.156.
129. "The Christology Of Jesus" p.258.
130. in "The Messiah.." p.384.
131. in "The Messiah.." p.461.
132. "Introduction To New Testament Christology" p.159.
133. "The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.534.
134. "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.621.
135. "From Jesus To The Gospels" p.236.
136a.Schiffman "Qumran And Jerusalem" p.277.


The Transcendent Messiah

*In 1963 Oscar Cullmann opined that the brutal denial of God's promises
to David (2 Sam 7:12-16) prompted hope in their fulfillment being
assigned to the end of days, so that God's kingdom established on earth
became a prerequisite for salvation (137). In this way perhaps we begin to understand the need in some circles for belief in a transcendent, superhuman Messiah.
*In 1964 Gerhard von Rad was believing that foreign origin was probable for utopian concepts and notions of preexistence introduced
into Messianic expectations and which became fused with beliefs about
the Davidic Covenant (Mic 5:1-4):(138).
*In 1965 an important modification to Judaic religion was noted by Heinz Todt for the late Hellenistic period, in the move towards a
radically transcendent concept of the eschatological savior (139).
*Now while a preexistent Messiah is discernible in Tanak according to
the revised Schurer, closer to the turn of the era the Psalms of Solomon
make the Messiah fully human, righteous, learned, holy and sinless, with power derived from the Holy Spirit (140).
*In 1992 the interesting insight that "the utopian superstructure fashioned by the biblical prophets..had formative influence..on all
configurations of Messianic expectation in the late Second Temple
period" was articulated by Talmon (141).
* A mixture of biblical concepts and the political reality of foreign
occupation seems then to have influenced the development of Messianic expectation, so that by the mid-first century B.C.E. the
Messiah of the Psalms of Solomon is fully human and Davidic, but God-
like in his powers, with the future utopian Israel to be completely holy
(142).
*Possibly in the following century, certain portions of the Book of Enoch
were portraying a Messianic "Son of Man" in supernatural terms, a
heavenly figure connected with the "Lord of Spirits"(143).
*This track of evolution of Messianic belief is perhaps brought into sharper focus if Maurice Casey is right in thinking that the original
"First Enoch" was written in Aramaic and that it's "son of man" was simply "a man"(144) subsequently accorded divine powers.
*Thus by 2010 Collins was able to discern that the ideal future king
hoped for in the post-Exilic period gave way at the turn of the era to the emergence of the "doctrinal, prophetic aspects of messianic
expectations" which came to form such an important counterpart to
expectation of the political Messiah, because beyond the goal of
political independence lay the goal of justice and holiness for all Israel
(145).

*Related to the question of the transcendent/supernatural Messiah is
the question of divine sonship, and the title "Son of God", since Rudolf
Bultmann in 1951 defined "son of God" as a title for kings, or for
supernatural beings begotten by God (146).
*Now the works of Jeremias (147), Hooker (148), Lohse (149), and
Cranfield (150), all reflect the long-standing view that there is no
evidence that the title "Son of God" was applied to the Messiah. But
this view has more recently been called into question.
*In 1972 Georg Fohrer pointed out that in the OT kings are called God's
son three times (2 Sam 7:14):(Psalm 2:7):(89:26-27), but that connections with the existing Davidic monarchy rule out any Messianic
interpretation, while ancient Near Eastern ideas about sacral kingship
are likelwise prohibited because physical divine sonship finds no place
in the OT. The divine "sonship" of the Davidic kings was thus a legal not
a physical one. The king of Judah is not God's son by nature and does
not enter the divine sphere with his enthronement. Fohrer saw influence from Egypt combined with the concept of Israel as God's son
as the explanation for the terminology of what became the "messianic"
Psalms (151).
*Also in 1972 Eduard Schweizer pointed out that unlike the Hebrew
Bible, the Septuagint may refer to the divine birth of the Messiah (Psalm 109:3 LXX), as well as God's "begetting" sons (Isa 1:2 LXX):(152).
*By 1978 Arland Jacobson was able to claim that "Evidence for the use
of 'son of God' as a Messianic title in Jewish sources is very scant" (153).
*In 1981 Joseph Fitzmyer wrote that in the intertestamental literature
the term "son(s) of God is used for kings, angelic messengers, the nation of Israel, even upright commoners, but not for the Messiah (154).
*Davies and Allison, although expressing skepticism in 1988 about God
"begetting" the Messiah at 1QSa 2.11-12 from Qumran (155), by 1997
were suggesting that "son of God" may have been primarily if not
exclusively a messianic title (156).
*Schiffman meanwhile had in 1992 corrected any notion that the
Aramaic "Messiah" scroll from Qumran (4Q Mess ar) speaks of the birth
of the Messiah (157).
*In 2000 Fitzmyer was still holding the position that no one could detect use of the son of God title as a Messianic title in pre-Christian
Jewish history (158), and pointed out that despite references to the
"anointed" and the "son", Psalm 2 is not referring to a future Messiah as
Son of God (159).
*In 2003 James Dunn corrected thoughts that the title "Son of God" was
never used as a title for the Messiah in pre-Christian Judaism. The
Qumran scrolls prove otherwise (160).
*In 2010 both Collins (161) and Schiffman (162) affirm that the term
"Son of God" was, or at least could be, at least for some contemporary
Jews, a designation for the Messiah.

Conclusions
*It seems plausible that a purely human Messiah was sufficient for the
hopes of an Israel under foreign occupation, but that when their native
leaders failed them in the wake of the return of autonomy, something
superhuman or supernatural was looked for, at least in some circles.
*For those who trusted native government and assumed the Jews could
rule themselves, a purely human Messiah would suffice (and armed
rebellion was a viable option). But for those who believed there was no
one good left on earth (Psalm 14:3):(Mark 10:18), it was good to wait
quietly for the salvation of the Lord (Lam 3:26).


Notes:
137. "Christology Of The New Testament" p.114.
138. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.1,p.567-8.
139. "The Son Of Man In The Synoptic Tradition" p.22.
140. "A History Of The Jewish People In The Age Of Jesus Christ" vol.2,
p.519.
141. in "The Messiah.." p.82.
142. "A Marginal Jew" vol.2,p.257-8.
143. Webb in "Studying The Historical Jesus" eds. Chilton and Evans
p.197n67.Grabbe "Judaic Religion In The Second Temple Period" p.276.
144. "The Solution To The Son Of Man Problem" p.95-6,114.
145. "The Scepter And The Star" p.16-7,141.
146. "Theology Of The New Testament" vol.1,p.50.
147. "The Parables Of Jesus" p.47.
148. "Jesus And The Servant" p.69.
149. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament vol.8,p.361-2.
150. "Gospel Of Saint Mark" p.55,443.
151. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.8,p.349-51.
152. Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.8,p.355.
153. "Wisdom Christology In Q" p.106n53.
154. Anchor Bible vol.28,p.205-6.
155. "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.1,p.215.
156. "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" vol.3,p.528.
157. in "The Messiah.." p.127.
158. "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.74-5.
159. "The Dead Sea Scrolls And Christian Origins" p.66-7.
160. "Christianity In The Making" vol.1,p.709-10/n15.
161. "The Scepter And The Star" p.184-5.
162. "Qumran And Jerusalem" p.36.

[neilgodfrey]

I suppose a list like this is very impressive if we are looking to follow sizeable numbers of scholars but it does nothing, unless I have missed key elements, to address the assumptions informing the interpretation of the evidence (and extrapolations from those interpretations) itself. I posted in another thread that there is a growing body of scholars (numbers, authority) who have been challenging the conventional wisdom and attempted to zero in on the grounds (methodological, ideological) for their revisionist challenges of the majority taken-for-granted interpretations and historical reconstructions.

I am open to being shown that the arguments and interpretations of the evidence I have presented are faulty, but just producing a long list of citations by authorities simply bypasses the question raised. In fact it simply ignores the challenges and repeats what is in fact being challenged. That's not the way to a productive dialogue. It rather leaves one with the impression the interest is all about winning an argument and scoring a point rather than investigating and seriously engaging with interpretations of evidence and methods of historical reconstruction.

Take the opening citation, for example. Arguments about the interpretation of the key passage in Josephus were dealt with in some detail in previous thread(s) but a list like this simply brushes those arguments aside as if they never existed -- certainly do not need to be engaged or brought back to mind. Rather, what we see here is an avoidance of debate and running from challenges to the conventional wisdom.

I might also repeat a little detail how how the current interest in this question began: I read a lengthy list of scholarly opinions cited in a book by a scholar and took the trouble to check up each citation, only to find each one failing to address the actual grounds for the challenges it was meant to address.

[John2]

Tod Stites,

I've never seen those references by Philo before. I'm having trouble seeing Goodenough's argument regarding the On Dreams passage, but the passage in On Rewards and Punishments seems like a clear reference to the Messiah, or at least to a messianic verse (though I'm not sure what OT verse it is based on, nor am I sure if Philo is interpreting it to mean the Messiah or as an allegory for "an intrepid hardihood of soul, and an irresistible strength of body, either of which things is formidable to the enemy, and if both qualities are united they are completely invincible"), and the reference in On the Life of Moses is clearly based on Num. 24:17 since he is talking about Balak.

On Rewards and Punishments 16.95:

Some will even flee when no one pursues at all except fear, turning their backs towards the enemy, so as to afford a full mark for shooting, so that it will be very easy for the whole army to fall, being slain to a man; for a man will come forth, says the word of God, leading a host and warring furiously, who will subdue great and populous nations, God sending that assistance which is suitable for pious men; and this assistance is an intrepid hardihood of soul, and an irresistible strength of body, either of which things is formidable to the enemy, and if both qualities are united they are completely invincible.

On Dreams 2.9.61-64:

Still, if one were absolutely in need of something else, would not the ivy cup of the agricultural labourer be sufficient? and why should it be requisite to have recourse to the arts of other eminent artists? And what can be the use of providing a countless multitude of gold and silver goblets, it if be not for the gratification of boastful and vain-glorious arrogance, and of vain opinion raising itself to an undue height? Again, when men wear crowns, they are not content with fragrant garlands of laurel, or ivy, or violets, or lilies, or roses, or of any three whatever, or of any flower, neglecting all the gifts of God, which he bestows upon us as the various seasons of the year, but they put golden crowns on their heads, which are a very grievous weight, wearing them in the middle of the crowded marketplace without any shame. And what can we think of such men, but that they are slaves of vain opinion, in spite of their asserting themselves not only to be free, but even to be rulers over many other persons? The day would fail me if I were to go through all the varieties of human life; and yet, why need I dwell on the subject with prolixity? For who is there who has not heard, or who has not seen, such men as these? Who is there who does not associate with, and who is not familiar with them? So that the sacred scripture has very appropriately named "addition" the enemy of simplicity and the companion of pride; for as superfluous shoots do grow on trees, which are a great injury to the genuine useful branches, and which the cultivators destroy and cut out from a prudent foreknowledge of what is necessary: so likewise the life of falsehood and arrogance often grows up by the side of the true life devoid of pride, of which, to this day, no cultivator has been found who has been able to cut away the injurious superfluous growth by the roots.

On the Life of Moses 1.290-291:

A man shall hereafter come forth out of thee who shall rule over many nations, and his kingdom shall increase every day and be raised up to heaven. This people hath God for its guide all the way from Egypt, who leads on their multitude in one line. Therefore they shall devour many nations of their enemies, and they shall take all their fat as far as their very marrow, and shall destroy their enemies with their far-shooting arrows. He shall lie down to rest like a lion, and like a lion's whelp, fearing no one, but showing great contempt for every one, and causing fear to all other nations. Miserable is he who shall stir up and rouse him to anger. Blessed are they that bless thee, and cursed are they that curse thee."

I suppose this doesn't necessarily mean that there was "widespread messianic expectation" in the first century CE, but it shows that at least Philo was aware of the idea of the Messiah, and I assume other scholars of the time would have been as well, and who, like him, would have taught people about it. So it's hard for me to imagine that Jews during the Imperial Roman era were not aware of and motivated by this idea until the 66-70 CE war.

[neilgodfrey]

The Nicene Creed that billions of Christians have at some time professed to believe contains the dogma that God will come to judge the quick and the dead. It does not follow that those billions of Christians have been gripped with apocalyptic fervour on the lookout for signs that that day is near. Some Christians have had "messianic fervour" but we cannot point to establishment dogmas as the reason. They are the tool, not the cause. Historical reconstruction does not work by taking isolated texts of philosophers or scribes -- or even common catechisms -- and somehow imputing them as key motivators and emotional preoccupations of the wider, especially illiterate, public.

[MrMacSon]

Philo On Dreams 1.215: -

For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son. The other is the rational soul, the priest of which is the real true man, the copy of whom, perceptible to the senses, is he who performs his paternal vows and sacrifices, to whom it is enjoined to put on the aforesaid tunic, the representation of the universal heaven, in order that the world may join with the man in offering sacrifice, and that the man may likewise co-operate with the universe.

Philo Confusion of Tongues 62-63: -

“(62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!" {Zech 6:12*} A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.”

• * Zechariah 6:8-13: -

  8 Then he [the angel] called to me, “Look, those going toward the north country have given my Spirit rest in the land of the north.”
  
  9 The word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. 11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Y/Jeshua* [ישו] son of Jozadak [Jehozadak]. 12 Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says:
  

  • ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord 13 It is he who will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he/there will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’

  * Ἰησοῦς = Iesous (Greek; pronounced “Yay-soos”), Jesus (English). Apparently Galileans tended to keep the traditional spelling, 'Yehoshua' יהושוע, but still pronounced ישו

Confusion of Tongues 146: -

"(146) And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel."

[neilgodfrey]

Tod Stites refers to new arguments from Philo. To quote from the work he cites, however, we read something quite different from his own inferences:

*Earlier in the first century Philo Judaeus indicates that the same spirit was present at Alexandria, and that the oracles had foretold that: "there shall come forth a man..and leading his host to war, will subdue great and populous nations"(5).

The citation:

5."On Rewards And Punishments" 16.95. Grabbe "Judaic Religion In The Second Temple Period" p.277-8.

Quoting from pages 277-8

Since Philo read the LXX text carefully and literally but did not know the
Hebrew (cf. Grabbe 1988:63, 233–35), he had to interpret Num. 24:7 as a
reference to a particular man. In Vita Mosis 1.289–91 Philo has simply
interpreted the passage to mean a ruler of some sort (perhaps Moses), but in
this case he makes nothing further of it. Similarly, he introduces Num. 24:7
into Praem. 95 to make a point about a military leader, but again he does not
take the issue further. If he took the “man” of LXX Num. 24:7 as a messianic
figure, why does he give no hint that this is his interpretation? In fact, a
number of rather different suggestions have been made as to whom “man” in
this passage refers in Philo’s thinking: as a reference to God himself (Oegema
1994:118–19; cf. Fischer 1978:201) or to Israel (Mack 1991:35). The
important point is that, having introduced the subject, he drops it even though
he did not need to.

Tobin (1997) has argued that Philo is deliberately opposing much more
radical eschatological views which foresaw the overthrow of the Romans by a
savior figure, as exemplified in such writings as Sibylline Oracles 3 and 5 (cf. also
Hecht 1987:160–61). A messianic savior figure does not fit easily into Philo’s
theological system (as also argued by Fischer, Hecht, and Mack; cf. also Oegema
1994:118, 122).

Ouch.

I have found that whenever anyone tries to hit readers with an avalanche of scholarly references to buttress their claims it often pays to actually check those references. And we see here that Grabbe is actually arguing against the messianic significance of Philo’s passage!

[neilgodfrey]

In the above quotation note that it is conceded that Philo's figure may rather be a reference to God himself. That is often the case in various supposedly messianic texts, including those in the OT. But we have been conditioned to read them messianically. Take a step back and read them "just as they are" -- we may find we have no justification for seeing messiahs under the bed, in the closet, behind the curtain, in all sorts of texts where they are not mentioned . . . .

[neilgodfrey]

*Indeed the Sibylline Oracles, in a section dated to near the end of the
first century B.C.E., foretells that when Rome comes to rule Egypt, as
it did c.30 B.C.E., "the kingdom of the immortal king will show itself.
A holy ruler will come and govern the world in eternity", bringing wrath
upon "the men of Italy"(11).

11.Lattke in "The Kingdom Of God" ed. Chilton p.80/n47

If we check that Lattke reference we find that Lattke explicitly rejects the messianic interpretation of the Sibylline Oracle and points out that the oracle speaks of God himself coming to rule as the king. On the same page, page 80, Lattke writes:

In close textual and substantive connection there is an eschatological promise, which certainly does not relate to the messianic kingdom, as Riessler (1328) or Lanchester (in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha II, 372) maintain, but rather to the coming royal rule of God: “And then he will erect a kingdom for all ages, over all men, he, who once gave the holy law to the pious, to whom he promised to confer the whole earth, and the world and the gates of the blessed and all joys and an immortal spirit and a happy heart.” The Temple will then become once more the centre of worship of God, while everlasting peace will cover the earth. “The prophets (!) of the great God will take away the sword; for they themselves are judges of mortals and just kings. There will also be just riches amohg men; for that is the judgement and the rule (the kingdom) of the great God.” A few lines later there is an oracle about the apocalyptic signs by which the “end of all things on earth” can be recognized. Finally, everyone is again called to make sacrifice to the great king (III.767ff., 796ff, 807). A typically Jewish characteristic is the emphasis on the Torah and the Temple, but this eschatological portrait of God’s rule is surprisingly unrestricted and denationalized.

[neilgodfrey]

*After this, Messianism probably emerged not later than 175-150 B.C.E.
according to Fitzmyer (20), and seems to have been in abeyance from
c.550-150 B.C.E. according to Hanson and Horsley (1985), who think
that Messianic fervor seems to have enjoyed something of a revival
during the Hasmonean period (142-63 B.C.E.):(21).Charlesworth (1992)
however thought that Jewish messianology "exploded into the world of
ideas" in the early first century B.C.E. and not before, and that both
the pseudepigrapha and the Qumran scrolls point to the earlier first
century B.C.E. for the earliest literary employment of the term
"Messiah"(22).

There is nothing here for us to discuss. If all that matters is what scholars concluded then we only need to find the scholars who argue for what we want to be the right answers and leave it at that.

For a discussion to ensue we need to be informed of the reasons each of these scholars came to their conclusions, what were there assumptions and methods, etc. and where and why they disagree with alternative interpretations and approaches to the evidence.

Tod -- are you aware of the arguments that have been ranged against the interpretations of some of the scholars you cite? Would it not be more useful to engage with those arguments rather than simply compile a list of as many authors as you can who agree with you?

[rakovsky]

Neil,

What is your motivation to make a big issue out of this?

You already said that 1st c. Jews living under Roman rule had heightened hopes for national liberation from Rome.

Do you believe that 1st century mainstream Judaism did not include recognition of a concept of a Messiah King Descended from David with apocalyptic connotations and described in the Jewish Bible?

Richard Carrier writes that some 1st-2nd century Jews saw Isaiah 53 to be about "the Christ":

The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, which was originally composed in the 1st century A.D., actually inserts "messiah" right in Isaiah 52:13 ("Behold, my servant, the messiah…"), thus confirming this "servant" was already being interpreted as the messiah by Jews decades before Christianity began. A Targum is an Aramaic translation (or paraphrase or interpretation) of the OT. So really, this is akin to a textual variant for this passage. In other words, some pre-Christian Jews believed their scriptures actually outright said this. Though this same Targum also erased or downplayed the death-and-burial angle in the passage, we already know that content predates the Targum; what the Targum shows is that some Jews saw this passage as about the Christ.

Though we cannot conclusively date this one singular insight to before the rise of Christianity, neither can we conclusively date it after. It certainly occurred sometime in the first or early second century.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011 ... ssiah.html

Carrier talks about the 1st c BC: "we know pre-Christian Jews between 125 and 50 B.C. saw Daniel as predicting the messiah (as the Dead Sea Scrolls prove they did)"
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011 ... ssiah.html