James 1.1 and 2.1.

[John2]

One more citation for me to ponder (and there may be some overlap with others above):

Targum Jonathan. When we look at Targum Jonathan, we see that it mentions the ruler of Micah 5, whose origins are from of old, from everlasting, to be the Messiah. This ruler would have to come from Bethlehem and from the tribe of Judah:

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the thousands rooms of Judah, out of you will come for me the Messiah, who will be ruler over Israel, he, whose name was mentioned from the beginning of times, days of the creation."

Midrash Bereshit Rabbaa says about Genesis 1:2 (”… And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”) that already by that point in the creation, God’s Spirit -- the Spirit of the Messiah – was moving. Compare this to Romans 8:9: “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” This clearly points to the divinity of the Messiah and to His eternal existence.

This was "The Spirit of the Messiah," such as has been written in Isa 11:2, "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest on him".

Rashi, as Rabbi Shalomo Yarchi was known, associated Micah 5:2 with the Messiah and wrote that his origin is from ancient times. Rashi also associated the Messiah with the rejected capstone mentioned in Psalm 118. The prophecy came true in the life of Yeshua. He had to have existed before the creation of the Sun:

... He is "the Messiah, the son of David, such as Psalm 118 says, he is the stone, which the builders rejected; and his origin is from ancient times, because before the sun was, his name was Yinnon".

Rabbi David Kimhi. One of the oldest Jewish statements illustrating the eternal nature of the Messiah was made by Rabbi David Kimhi: about the Messiah it will be said that he originates from of old, from everlasting. He is El, or God:

"During the time of the Messiah, is said, that his origin is from of old, from everlasting; Bethlehem means, that he is David, for between David and the king Messiah there is a long time and he is El (God), therefore he is from of old, from everlasting."

Targum. The fact that the Messiah is eternal also appears in Targum’s explanation of Isa 9:6. Targum wrote that the Messiah has existed since ancient times:

His name has existed already since the ancient times..."

Targum also explained the expression, "the Everlasting Father" in this verse: it refers to the eternity of the Messiah:

"The Messiah has existed eternally."

Targum also included another reference to the eternity of the Messiah. In Zec 4:7, referring to the capstone, it is said that the Messiah has existed already from ancient times:

"Like this is exposed the Messiah, because his name has existed from everlasting and he will rule over all kingdoms.”

In the book of Zohar can be found a statement about the existence of the Messiah in the Garden of Eden. He must have already existed in those first moments of mankind and even before:

"Then the Messiah raised his voice and cried, so that the garden of Eden shivered and also all those righteous, who were there, complained and cried with him.”

In Midrash (Midrash Rabbaa De-eicha 1:16) is found a reference to the existence of the Messiah already before the Sun. Here, Psalm 72:17 is explained – which in the original language, in Hebrew, proves his eternal existence. Rashi (Rabbi Shalomo Yarchi), spoke about the same idea of "Yinnon" in connection with the Messiah, and mentioned how He existed already before the Sun:

"...What is the name of the king Messiah (...) Yinnon is his name, such as Psalm 72:17 says; before the sun was, was his name Yinnon.”

http://www.jariiivanainen.net/Messiah_p ... lmud7.html

[John2]

I understand that in the OT the coming of "the Lord" doesn't always refer to a Messiah figure. And I reckon "messianism" evolved in various ways over the course of the development of the OT and during the intertestamental period. But by the first century CE I'm getting the impression that the majority of Jews were visualizing the End Time as involving in some manner or other a Messiah-figure(s) (who may or may not have been pre-existent, divine or an angel or whatever).

A Messiah-figure is found in writings that pre-date and were known to Jewish Christians in the first century CE and also to whoever wrote/collected the DSS (the majority of which are dated to the Herodian era), ranging from the OT down to 1 Enoch. And during the first century CE the vast majority of Jews were caught up (in varying degrees) in the Fourth Philosophy (the Egyptian prophet alone had more followers than all the other Jewish sects combined) which culminated with 66-70 CE war and the main inspiration for it was messianism. And a Messiah-figure(s) is found in the Targums and various rabbinic writings. And everyone seems to apply various OT verses that refer to God or the coming of God to a Messiah-figure. So when I see the Letter of James, which as we have it mentions "the Lord Jesus Christ," talking about the coming of the Lord in the last days, I feel comfortable with the idea that it involves in some manner the coming of Jesus.

And if we reject James 1:1 and 2:1 as interpolations, I would still think that the references to the coming of the Lord in the last days in 5:7-9 involve in some manner a Messiah-figure (particularly given that the letter culminates with a reference to Elijah in 5:17-18).

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, my understanding is that you are on board with the idea that at least Paul thought that Jesus was God. In any event, I am, and doesn't Paul say in 1 Cor. 1:23 only that Jesus being crucified was a stumbling block to Jews and not his divinity? Wouldn't a divine Messiah be more of a stumbling block to Jews than his crucifixion if a divine Messiah was an issue to Jews?

I doubt a divine Messiah was a problem to many Jews (at least). But it not being a problem is not the same thing as it being a reality. In other words, even if I grant that no Jew ever in history had a problem with the Messiah being God in some way, that does not tell us that James (or whoever) certainly thought of the Messiah as divine, much less that James even believed there would be a Messiah at all.

The only data I can go on is what I find in the epistle of James itself. James says that there is only one Judge; he also says that the Judge is right at the door, in a context which suggests that this Judge is the coming Lord; and he also calls the Father "Lord." This set of circumstances creates a very real question in the mind of the reader: who is this Lord who is coming? Is it the Father? Or is it his Son, Jesus Christ? This is a true debate.

If both the Son and the Father can be called Lord with equal felicity in this epistle, then two arguments conflict with each other:

1. The Judge must be the Father; therefore, the coming Lord must be the Father.
2. The advent of the Lord refers to the Son elsewhere in Christian literature; therefore, the coming Lord must be the Son.

The appeal of the suggestion that 1.1 and 2.1 have interpolations is partly that it dissolves this conflict: there is no longer any Son at all in the epistle, and God = the Father = the Lord throughout. Therefore the coming Lord is God (whom Christians would call the Father), just as he is throughout the Hebrew scriptures. This contingency would unproblematically (to my mind) identify the theology of James as something resembling the Jewish tradition that preceded and led to Christianity. The Christians simply took the aspects of a unified God and divided them up between the Father and the Son.

I repeat that I do not necessarily think that this interpretation is any better than yours. But I do not think that it is worse, either, and it should probably therefore be considered.

[pavurcn]

If both the Son and the Father can be called Lord with equal felicity in this epistle, then two arguments conflict with each other:

1. The Judge must be the Father; therefore, the coming Lord must be the Father.
2. The advent of the Lord refers to the Son elsewhere in Christian literature; therefore, the coming Lord must be the Son.

No, if the Father and Son are one, there is no conflict. For the Son to arrive is for the Father to arrive.

Consider these important texts:

Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

John 12: 44-50 4 Then Jesus cried aloud: “Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me. 45 And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. 46 I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in the darkness. 47 I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, 49 for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.”

Malachi 3:1-5 See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap; 3 he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the descendants of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, until they present offerings to the Lord in righteousness.[a] 4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years. 5 Then *I* will draw near to you for judgment; I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

The only data I can go on is what I find in the epistle of James itself. James says that there is only one Judge; he also says that the Judge is right at the door, in a context which suggests that this Judge is the coming Lord; and he also calls the Father "Lord." This set of circumstances creates a very real question in the mind of the reader: who is this Lord who is coming? Is it the Father? Or is it his Son, Jesus Christ? This is a true debate.

If both the Son and the Father can be called Lord with equal felicity in this epistle, then two arguments conflict with each other:

1.The Judge must be the Father; therefore, the coming Lord must be the Father.
2.The advent of the Lord refers to the Son elsewhere in Christian literature; therefore, the coming Lord must be the Son.

The appeal of the suggestion that 1.1 and 2.1 have interpolations is partly that it dissolves this conflict: there is no longer any Son at all in the epistle, and God = the Father = the Lord throughout. Therefore the coming Lord is God (whom Christians would call the Father), just as he is throughout the Hebrew scriptures. This contingency would unproblematically (to my mind) identify the theology of James as something resembling the Jewish tradition that preceded and led to Christianity. The Christians simply took the aspects of a unified God and divided them up between the Father and the Son.

But in the disputed verses (1:1 and 2:1) James also calls Jesus "Lord."

Are there other End Time writings from the first century CE or later that do not expect a Messiah-figure? I reckon that's a tall order, and maybe I'm overlooking something obvious, but if there are others I will take them into consideration.

But doesn't the author of the Letter of James appear to at least know of Paul? Why would they be concerned about Paul if they weren't a Christian?

Regarding James' reference to there being "one Lawgiver and Judge," i.e., God the Father, bearing in mind the letter's resemblances to Matthew, as Jesus says in Mt. 11:27:

My Father has entrusted everything to me. No one truly knows the Son except the Father, and no one truly knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

I think it is as reasonable to suppose that the author of the Letter of James was messianic as it is to suppose that they believed in the resurrection of the dead, if for no other reason than because it is a post-OT, first century CE End Time writing that doesn't appear to be Sadducaic. Take 5:1-6 for example.

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

What is the "misery that is coming on" the rich in the last days if not "the Last Judgment"? And what post-OT, first century CE sect did not believe in the resurrection of the dead at "the Last Judgment"? Only the Sadducees, who Josephus says only appealed to the rich, who are the kind of people James is attacking here. And since everyone else according to Josephus (Pharisees, Essenes, Fourth Philosophers) believed in the resurrection of the dead, it seems reasonable to infer that the Letter of James does too even though it doesn't mention it. Likewise, since everyone else by this time (the DSS/Fourth Philosophy/Targums/rabbinic writings) appears to have believed in some kind of Messiah-figure(s), it seems reasonable to suppose that James did too, and then we wouldn't have to dispose of his two references to Jesus.

Edit: I see pavurcn beat me to Mt. 11:27.

[Ben C. Smith]

But in the disputed verses (1:1 and 2:1) James also calls Jesus "Lord."

Right, which is why regarding these verses as interpolated removes the ambiguity elsewhere in the text.

Are there other End Time writings from the first century CE or later that do not expect a Messiah-figure? I reckon that's a tall order....

It is hard to prove a negative. We would have to find some author explicitly claiming not to believe in a Messiah figure. Just because a text does not mention one does not mean that its author does not believe in one. Fortunately, however, the question is irrelevant. All we have to do is find Jewish texts which describe an advent of God (who is not simultaneously the Messiah), just as we find in the Hebrew scriptures. Then it no longer matters whether the author also believes in the Messiah; the advent can belong to God.

But doesn't the author of the Letter of James appear to at least know of Paul? Why would they be concerned about Paul if they weren't a Christian?

Tackle this objection with a modern analogy and you can see how it falls apart: "Why would evangelical Christians be concerned about the teachings of Brigham Young if they are not Mormons?" Sects are very, very often concerned about the views of subsects. Happens all the time, possibly even more often than not.

I think it is as reasonable to suppose that the author of the Letter of James was messianic....

Thing is, I can grant this fully for the sake of argument, and it still does not tell us whether the coming Lord in James is the messiah. It could still be God (the Father) and not a messianic figure, as in other Jewish texts:

2 Baruch 55.6: 6 And if with the expectation wherewith you do expect the day of the Mighty One you are so overcome, what will you be when you shall come to its advent? [There is an advent for the Messiah in 30.1, but this one is for the Mighty One, who is God throughout the text.]

Testament of Abraham 13.2 (second version): 2 .... For God has said, "I shall not judge you, but every man born of man shall be judged." Therefore he [God] has given to him [Abel] judgment, to judge the world until his great and glorious coming. ....

Testament of Judah 22.2: 2 And among men of another race shall my kingdom be brought to an end, until the salvation of Israel shall come, until the appearing of the God of righteousness, that Jacob [and all the Gentiles] may rest in peace.

(The 2 Baruch one may not count for our purposes, but the other two do.)

In other words, simply supposing or knowing that an author believes in a Messiah figure does not mean that the same author is going to apply any and all final advents to that Messiah figure. He or she can still apply the advent to God instead, exactly as in the Hebrew scriptures.

[John2]

Ben,

I will mull over what you've said. But some things that come to mind regarding the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs are that fragments of some of it were found among the DSS and the DSS are messianic, and at least one of the testaments (Levi 18) mentions a Messiah-figure. Can T. Judah be isolated from the other testaments?

T. Levi 18:

1 And after their punishment shall have come from the Lord, the priesthood shall fail. 2 Then shall the Lord raise up a new priest. And to him all the words of the Lord shall be revealed; And he shall execute a righteous judgement upon the earth for a multitude of days. 3 And his star shall arise in heaven as of a king. Lighting up the light of knowledge as the sun the day, And he shall be magnified in the world. 4 He shall shine forth as the sun on the earth, And shall remove all darkness from under heaven, And there shall be peace in all the earth. 5 The heavens shall exult in his days, And the earth shall be glad, And the clouds shall rejoice, [And the knowledge of the Lord shall be poured forth upon the earth, as the water of the seas; And the angels of the glory of the presence of the Lord shall be glad in him. 6 The heavens shall be opened, And From the temple of glory shall come upon him sanctification, With the Father's voice as from Abraham to Isaac. 7 And the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him, And the spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him [in the water]. 8 For he shall give the majesty of the Lord to His sons in truth for evermore; And there shall none succeed him for all generations for ever. 9 And in his priesthood the Gentiles shall be multiplied in knowledge upon the earth, And enlightened through the grace of the Lord: In his priesthood shall sin come to an end, And the lawless shall cease to do evil. [And the just shall rest in him.] 10 And he shall open the gates of paradise, And shall remove the threatening sword against Adam. 11 And he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life, And the spirit of holiness shall be on them. 12 And Beliar shall be bound by him, And he shall give power to His children to tread upon the evil spirits. 13 And the Lord shall rejoice in His children, And be well pleased in His beloved ones for ever. 14 Then shall Abraham and Isaac and Jacob exult, And I will be glad, And all the saints shall clothe themselves with joy.

I'm not familiar with the Testament of Abraham and will take a look at that.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1007.htm

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben,

I will mull over what you've said. But some things that come to mind regarding the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs are that fragments of some of it were found among the DSS and the DSS are messianic, and at least one of the testaments (Levi 18) mentions a Messiah-figure. Can T. Judah be isolated from the other testaments?

Oh, the Testaments as a whole are certainly messianic. But again, that does not matter. The advent described in that verse I quoted is still of God, not of the Messiah. That is my point. Even if I were to grant that James is messianic, it does not mean that the advent in James is of the Messiah; it can still be of God.

[Ben C. Smith]

Are there other End Time writings from the first century CE or later that do not expect a Messiah-figure?

Frederick J. Murphy writes on page 260 of his commentary on the Biblical Antiquities that pseudo-Philo "has no concept of an eschatological Messiah."

[John2]

Ben wrote:

Oh, the Testaments as a whole are certainly messianic. But again, that does not matter. The advent described in that verse I quoted is still of God, not of the Messiah. That is my point. Even if I were to grant that James is messianic, it does not mean that the advent in James is of the Messiah; it can still be of God.

I big picture the situation this way. Anyone who used the OT was by default messianic. And I think the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs proves this, since they are, as you noted, as a whole messianic. Is there any evidence that T. Judah ever circulated apart from the other testaments? When it comes to the DSS, I gather that fragments of what are thought to be T. Naphtali and T. Levi were found, but I don't know if that means they had circulated as separate writings or if they are fragments from a larger work that had all twelve combined. In any event, in my view to use T. Judah like you do is like citing something similar from the OT. Did anyone by the first century CE only read or accept the parts of the OT that don't mention a Messiah-figure?

And:

Frederick J. Murphy writes on page 260 of his commentary on the Biblical Antiquities that pseudo-Philo "has no concept of an eschatological Messiah."

But Pseudo-Philo is arguably incomplete and stops at the death of Saul. Should we conclude that Pseudo-Philo had no awareness of the rest of the OT? As Wikipedia puts it:

It chronicles biblical history from Adam to the death of Saul with omissions, modifications, and additions to the biblical texts. Many of its additions have parallels in other Jewish traditions.

Some scholars have reasoned that the fact that it ends with the death of Saul implies that there were further parts of the work which are now missing while others believe that it is complete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Philo