James 1.1 and 2.1.

[Ben C. Smith]

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?

I guess you will have to explain to me more fully why you think the messianic character of a text, or of all texts, matters to the argument I have made. In my view, I can easily concede messianism all around without in any way suggesting (yet) that any given portion of that text or those texts, is referring to the Messiah.

For example, I can concede that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in general, along with the Testament of Judah in particular, are messianic, but that in no way compromises the observation that it is the Lord God, and not the Messiah, who is coming in the verse I provided. Likewise, then, I can concede for the sake of argument that James is messianic, and that does not mean that the coming in chapter 5 refers to the Messiah.

In other words, asking whether an individual text is messianic or how many texts are messianic is completely peripheral to what I am saying. This applies to pseudo-Philo, as well. I gave that quote because I had stumbled upon it very recently, and it was relevant to your inquiry. It is not, however, very relevant to mine.

[John2]

I took a look at the Testament of Abraham and I see that it too has a Messiah-figure, i.e., the archangel Michael, who is mentioned in Dan. 12:1, which is not surprising since it is conjectured to be a post-OT writing.

Dan 12:1-3:

At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

And Michael is thought by some to be Jesus (as discussed here, for example: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... is-michael).

T. Abraham 1 and 2:

Therefore the Lord God, summoning his archangel Michael, said to him: Go down, chief-captain Michael, to Abraham and speak to him concerning his death, that he may set his affairs in order, for I have blessed him as the stars of heaven, and as the sand by the sea-shore, and he is in abundance of long life and many possessions, and is becoming exceeding rich. Beyond all men, moreover, he is righteous in every goodness, hospitable and loving to the end of his life; but go, archangel Michael, to Abraham, my beloved friend, and announce to him his death and assure him thus: You shall at this time depart from this vain world, and shall quit the body, and go to your own Lord among the good.

And the chief-captain departed from before the face of God, and went down to Abraham ... And behold the chief-captain came to him, and Abraham, seeing the chief-captain Michael coming from afar, like to a very comely warrior, arose and met him as was his custom, meeting and entertaining all strangers. And the chief-captain saluted him and said: Hail, most honored father, righteous soul chosen of God, true son of the heavenly one. Abraham said to the chief-captain: Hail, most honored warrior, bright as the sun and most beautiful above all the sons of men; you are welcome; therefore I beseech your presence, tell me whence the youth of your age has come; teach me, your suppliant, whence and from what army and from what journey your beauty has come hither.

So the author of T. Abraham appears to have known Daniel and been familiar with the idea of the Messiah-figure Michael.

[John2]

guess you will have to explain to me more fully why you think the messianic character of a text, or of all texts, matters to the argument I have made. In my view, I can easily concede messianism all around without in any way suggesting (yet) that any given portion of that text or those texts, is referring to the Messiah.

For example, I can concede that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in general, along with the Testament of Judah in particular, are messianic, but that in no way compromises the observation that it is the Lord God, and not the Messiah, who is coming in the verse I provided. Likewise, then, I can concede for the sake of argument that James is messianic, and that does not mean that the coming in chapter 5 refers to the Messiah.

In other words, asking whether an individual text is messianic or how many texts are messianic is completely peripheral to what I am saying. This applies to pseudo-Philo, as well. I gave that quote because I had stumbled upon it very recently, and it was relevant to your inquiry. It is not, however, very relevant to mine.

Maybe I'm just not appreciating what you are saying. All I'm saying though is that it's hard for me to imagine the author of the Letter of James (or any other post-OT writer) being unaware of an eschatological Messiah-figure since the concept is already in the OT.

[Ben C. Smith]

Maybe I'm just not appreciating what you are saying. All I'm saying though is that it's hard for me to imagine the author of the Letter of James (or any other post-OT writer) being unaware of an eschatological Messiah-figure since the concept is already in the OT.

Okay, but I have already conceded for the sake of argument that the author of James believed in some kind of eschatological Messiah figure. What then? How does this impact who exactly is coming in chapter 5?

If you argue that the coming figure must be the Messiah simply because James believes in a Messiah, then I will pull out those quotations I gave, which point to the Lord God, and not the messiah, as the coming figure, despite whatever messianic beliefs the authors may have held. If messianic beliefs did not prevent them from speaking of the Lord God as the coming one, then why should messianic beliefs have prevented James from doing the same?

If, on the other hand, you have a different argument, I have not seen it yet, or at least not appreciated it.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

Okay, but I have already conceded for the sake of argument that the author of James believed in some kind of eschatological Messiah figure. What then? How does this impact who exactly is coming in chapter 5?

If you argue that the coming figure must be the Messiah simply because James believes in a Messiah, then I will pull out those quotations I gave, which point to the Lord God, and not the messiah, as the coming figure, despite whatever messianic beliefs the authors may have held. If messianic beliefs did not prevent them from speaking of the Lord God as the coming one, then why should messianic beliefs have prevented James from doing the same?

If, on the other hand, you have a different argument, I have not seen it yet, or at least not appreciated it.

I guess since I assume that the author of James believed in a Messiah (which you concede) -and I'm comfortable going further and saying it was Jesus- I can't help but think that the coming of the Lord in 5:7-9 has something to do with a Messiah/Jesus, any more than I can help thinking that it has something to do with the resurrection of the dead. Unless you were a Sadducee (and James does not seem like one to me), such has been more or less "normative" in post-OT Judaism. And I think the same thing about the other passages you've cited, such as from T. Judah or the Testament of Abraham, because as a whole those writings are messianic. So even if James 5:7-9 did not exist, I would still assume that James (and his readers) would have certain things in mind when they visualize "the last days" mentioned in 5:3 (which is the context of James 5), among them being the coming in some manner of some kind of Messiah-figure(s), the resurrection of the dead and "the last judgment."

I gave Zech. 14:1-6 as an example of what I mean by the Messiah being more or less the same as God (at least in Christianity).

A day of the Lord is coming ... On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives ... the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

This chapter only talks about God, not the Messiah, yet 14:4 is arguably alluded to in Mk. 11:1-10 (along with Zech. 9:9), where Jesus refers to himself as "the Lord." So to me it looks like this is how Mark (if not Jesus himself) visualized Zechariah's' reference to "the Lord" standing on the Mount of Olives in 14:4 (and riding a colt in 9:9). Likewise, when the Letter of James refers to the coming of "the Lord" in the last days, I visualize it involving in some manner a Messiah-figure (and the resurrection of the dead, etc.), all the more so if 1:1 and 2:1 are not interpolations and because the author appears to be concerned about Paul (which I know you have an explanation for) and because the letter wound up in a Christian canon (and to me appears to have been known to Hegesippus). It just "smells" Christian (or at least messianic but I think specifically Christian) any way you slice it, to me.

Mk. 11:1-10:

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly’ ” ... When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” “Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

[Ben C. Smith]

I guess since I assume that the author of James believed in a Messiah (which you concede) -and I'm comfortable going further and saying it was Jesus- I can't help but think that the coming of the Lord in 5:7-9 has something to do with a Messiah/Jesus, any more than I can help thinking that it has something to do with the resurrection of the dead. Unless you were a Sadducee (and James does not seem like one to me), such has been more or less "normative" in post-OT Judaism. And I think the same thing about the other passages you've cited, such as from T. Judah or the Testament of Abraham, because as a whole those writings are messianic.

So, to be clear, you are saying that in both of those passages "God" is actually the Messiah?

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.

I gave Zech. 14:1-6 as an example of what I mean by the Messiah being more or less the same as God (at least in Christianity).

A day of the Lord is coming ... On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives ... the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

This chapter only talks about God, not the Messiah, yet 14:4 is arguably alluded to in Mk. 11:1-10 (along with Zech. 9:9), where Jesus refers to himself as "the Lord." So to me it looks like this is how Mark (if not Jesus himself) visualized Zechariah's' reference to "the Lord" standing on the Mount of Olives in 14:4 (and riding a colt in 9:9).

I think of Zechariah as having a coming of God (the Father, if you will: the Lord God), which Christians visualized as a coming of the Messiah (the Son). I would not want to backread Mark (or any other Christian) into Zechariah. Is that what you are doing?

[John2]

Ben wrote:

So, to be clear, you are saying that in both of those passages "God" is actually the Messiah?

Well, I visualize -and imagine that the authors of the Testament of Abraham, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (as a whole) and anyone else writing after the OT, including James, visualized- that the "coming of" God at the End Time involves in some manner a Messiah-figure (and the resurrection of the dead and such).

And:

I think of Zechariah as having a coming of God (the Father, if you will: the Lord God), which Christians visualized as a coming of the Messiah (the Son). I would not want to backread Mark (or any other Christian) into Zechariah. Is that what you are doing?

I don't think that Zechariah necessarily thought that the coming of the Lord = the coming of the Messiah, but by the first century CE this kind of equation seems like normative Judaism to me.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben wrote:

So, to be clear, you are saying that in both of those passages "God" is actually the Messiah?

Well, I visualize -and imagine that the authors of the Testament of Abraham, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (as a whole) and anyone else writing after the OT, including James, visualized- that the "coming of" God at the End Time involves in some manner a Messiah-figure (and the resurrection of the dead and such).

But that is not the question I am asking. My question is whether the figure (called "God") in those verses is the Messiah.

[John2]

My question is whether the figure (called "God") in those verses is the Messiah.

I guess not, if you want to isolate those verses from their context, i.e., not factor in that they are post-OT writings and thus that their authors were presumably aware of the concept of an eschatological Messiah and that one is part of a larger work that is as a whole messianic. The same goes for the Letter of James in that it is a post-OT writing, appears to talk about a Christian faction, and is part of a larger work (or in this case canon) that is messianic (and specifically Christian).

Are you saying that James and his readers would have visualized a Messiah/Jesus-free "coming of" God in the last days?

[Ben C. Smith]

My question is whether the figure (called "God") in those verses is the Messiah.

I guess not, if you want to isolate those verses from their context, i.e., not factor in that they are post-OT writings and thus that their authors were presumably aware of the concept of an eschatological Messiah and that one is part of a larger work that is as a whole messianic. The same goes for the Letter of James in that it is a post-OT writing, appears to talk about a Christian faction, and is part of a larger work (or in this case canon) that is messianic (and specifically Christian).

My position, as you know, is that "God" in those two passages I adduced is not the Messiah. A text is allowed to be acquainted with messianism, and indeed to be messianic itself, and still refer to God as coming at the eschaton.

I suspect that messianism was not as universal as you think it must have been. You are assuming a lot, and I feel that the texts we have available to us may be subject to a selection bias in favor of messianism, simply because most of them were preserved by Christians, not by Jews, and Christians tended to preserve texts which spoke to their own sensibilities. I am not at all suggesting that messianism was rare; I am suggesting that it ought not to be assumed to be well nigh universal.