Questioning the Historicity of Early 1C Popular Messianism

[neilgodfrey]

(I don't see the relevance of discussions relating to a Jewish religious "slave" mentality etc to the question.)

I don't understand this alleged lack of evidence! Are people arguing Jubilee does not exist? That Judaism was - and is - very rule bound, that some forms of Islam also reflect this? . . . .

Messiahs are part of the package! It is a Heath Robinson contraption, but it has a God, and some form of Moses - let my people go. Aren't messiahs really variants of the idea of prophets, probably with armies? What are all the arguments in Kings etc about having a King about?

I can see evidence for the idea of Jubilees in the Second Temple Literature. I don't know, however, if there is any evidence that shows that "nationally" all the Jews actually practiced the release of debts and slaves etc every 50 years.

I can see evidence for various concepts of a "messiah" in the Second Temple Literature and in the works that became the Jewish Scriptures. I can't see any evidence that any particular one of these concepts was part of the collective cultural and identity consciousness of the Jews up to the mid first century and that, in addition, there was a general cultural feature of the Jews anticipating or longing for such a figure in the near-ish future.

[neilgodfrey]

He like some on this board assume that there is a default 'position' which everything goes back to - in this case that everyone in antiquity 'rebelled' in the same way. But this is studying history with a sledgehammer.

No, it's not. It's a reasonable default position to begin with, that is, that one section of humanity behaves much the way any other section of humanity behaves. Now of course there are cultural and historical differences but they need to be demonstrated on a case by case basis.

We can't just will a subject 'dead' in order to help us stuff it and put it on a mantelpiece. The facts are that EVERYTHING in the lives of Jews of antiquity was regulated by God via a priesthood.

This needs to be demonstrated by evidence -- that is, evidence of the motivations actions by groups and individuals.

But should we assume that this rebellion was 'just another Imperial rebellion' - a plain and simple power grab. No.

This is an oversimplification of the point I have tried to make. Reasons for popular rebellions are rarely simple and singular. And they are probably never "a plain and simple power grab". Human beings are a bit more complex than that.

As aforementioned certain expectations about a specifically Jewish rebellion stand. For instance mention is made in Josephus of (a) heavenly portents (b) scriptural 'predictions' and most importantly (c) 70 CE the year of the destruction was a jubilee. So even with the lack of evidence we can still see the signs that messianic expectation must also have been at play here.

Ancient and medieval historians generally waxed eloquent about all the heavenly portents before any major catastrophe. There's no evidence that Josephus was making messianic allusions. The scriptural prediction anecdote tells us nothing about messianic expectations at any time prior to the war. The jubilee year and presumed messianic overtones is our speculation but not evidence of popular expectations of a conquering messiah to come prior to the war. We need evidence to confirm the latter. Hypotheses can only remain hypotheses until tested.

Who the messiah was of the first revolt against Rome was we can't say for certain. Nor can we be absolutely certain that the Jews even knew who that messiah would be. Perhaps they were waiting to see him manifest on the battlefield. I don't know. But to argue that it wasn't present in a period leading up to a Jubilee with 'signs in the heavens' and with the Jewish cultural mindset the way it is seems rather incredible. Everything in the life of a Jew is regulated by God - even rebellion against the state.

This seems to be a rather monolithic view of Jews that needs to be supported by evidence. I think the evidence testifies to abundant diversity of "Judaisms" in the Second Temple era.

I am not arguing that the messianic expectation "wasn't present" etc. My argument is that we can't assume it was present without evidence. Arguments that extrapolate from evidence for other things are not the same thing. They are hypotheses that need to be tested, as I said before.

[neilgodfrey]

And in the modern era, look at the manner in which Jewish theologians wrestled with the creation of the state of Israel WITHOUT the appearance of the messiah.

How can we extrapolate from modern day Jewish theologians to Second Temple popular beliefs and attitudes?

[neilgodfrey]

But just to begin with the assumption that 'Jews' weren't 'special' - that Christians 'weren't special' etc and assume that they were so bland that everything in their history proceeded the same as other cultures so wherever 'characteristically' Jewish or Christian things can't be proved they mustn't have existed is just parodied 'disinterest.'

Rubbish. To treat all peoples as part and parcel of our common humanity is "parodied disinterest" in peoples????

Of course there are cultural and historical differences -- differences for which we have direct and tangible evidence -- that make us all interesting, but what also makes us all interesting is how much the same we all are behind these differences.

But if we rely upon "characteristics" for which we have no evidence then we are generally thought to be committing errors of stereotypes or racial prejudice, positive or negative.

[Stephan Huller]

The text Clive is looking for is 11QMelch

[Stephan Huller]

On the question of extrapolation, what you fail to grasp time and again is that the Israelite religion regulates every aspect of the life of an adherent. As such these "lines of inquiry" are stupid. Jews and Samaritans have little freedom and it would have been even less free in antiquity. You fail to grasp what Judaism is. I won't say that's because you have no Jewish friends (because that will set you off). it's because you are too bookish. It's nice to read and read and read but it's all theoretical and ultimately distracting from what is. Go to a synagogue, go to a Sabbath dinner, visit Israel if what you really want is knowledge about Judaism. If you won't or can't then stop pretending you are interested. This is silly.

[Stephan Huller]

And with respect to differences between cultures. My son brought a book home today on tennis (because my wife used to be quite good at it). We played soccer today and he happened to mention that New Zealanders are quite good at rugby for some reason. It got me to think again how many sports were invented by the British. Why is that? I told him because they like rules. That's just their 'thing.' Soccer couldn't have got started and spread the way it did without the British being its ambassadors. Even if the South Americans had come up with the idea they'd be cheating and fouling each other. No one would want to play. But the British with their rule loving nature were ambassadors for this sport because people found it curious and ultimately desirable to imitate the British 'idealism.' I've been reading a lot of books on the history of soccer with first hand accounts of foreigners who observed these crazy people kicking a ball in an organized fashion.

The Jews were very similar in a way with regards to a book. It made them unique like the British were unique in the late eighteenth century. Your desire to make their ordinary and bland - and 'not special' - is contradicted by ancient observers. The Jews were strange but ultimately deemed an attractive race 'intellectually' at least because of their adherence to rules.

[John T]

@Neilgodfrey,

In your O.P. you agreed with a so-called expert [William Scott Green] and you emphasized: "These arguments [for a messiah], which are representative of a type, appear to suggest that the best way to learn about the messiah in ancient Judaism is to study texts in which there is none. . . .

You are claiming that there are no (read none) ancient texts supporting a popular belief of a messiah. That is demonstratively false and I gave you several examples of it.

Which in turn you defaulted to using the fallacy of "argument from personal incredulity" mix in with a dose of ad hominem attacks, as well as other fallacies.

With that, I see no further point in trying to help/correct you on this topic.
Still, good luck in convincing others.

John T

[John T]

The text Clive is looking for is 11QMelch

Is this it?

"...And the Day of Atonement is the end of the tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for."...IIQ13, The Hevenly Prince Melchizedek.

[Peter Kirby]

But the British with their rule loving nature were ambassadors for this sport because people found it curious and ultimately desirable to imitate the British 'idealism.' I've been reading a lot of books on the history of soccer with first hand accounts of foreigners who observed these crazy people kicking a ball in an organized fashion.

The Jews were very similar in a way with regards to a book. It made them unique like the British were unique in the late eighteenth century. Your desire to make their ordinary and bland - and 'not special' - is contradicted by ancient observers. The Jews were strange but ultimately deemed an attractive race 'intellectually' at least because of their adherence to rules.

Good insight.