Questioning the Historicity of Early 1C Popular Messianism

[DCHindley]

FWIW,

There is a lengthy section of the revised English translation of E Schürer's Jewish People that deals with popular messianic ideas and where to find them expressed.

Volume II:

§ 29. Messianism ......... 488

I. Relation to the Older Messianic Hope . . . 492

II. Historical Survey ....... 497

III. Systematic Presentation ..... 514

1. The final Ordeal and Confusion . . . 514

2. Elijah as Precursor ...... 515

3. The Coming of the Messiah .... 517

4. The Last Assault of the Hostile Powers . . 525

5. Destruction of Hostile Powers .... 526

6. The Renewal of Jerusalem .... 529

7. The Gathering of the Dispersed . . . 530

8. The Kingdom of Glory in the Holy Land . . 531

9. The Renewal of the World .... 537

10. A General Resurrection ..... 539

11. The Last Judgement. Eternal Bliss and Damnation ........ 544

Appendix A. The Suffering Messiah ..... 547

Appendix B. The Qumran Messiahs and Messianism . . 550

I think it was in the Historical Survey above where there were excerpts from inter-testamental literature to document the variety and progression of messianic ideas. The usual idea involves a future rule over the entire earth, but the duration (400 yrs, 1,000 yrs, etc) and kind of rule (iron handed over the other nations, a cooperative venture where other nations voluntarily submit - perhaps with a bit of "persuasion" - etc), how it will be established (God's angels swooping in, human rulers usher it in by force, etc) and who will rule over it (royal prince, high priest, both, or God himself) as one can see, are variously represented.

DCH (watching the news from France, and frustrated by the news station reports providing an almost complete lack of background info on what has been happening to date, so you can't tell whether the scene you are watching is related to which event - the assault on the newspaper and execution of cartoonists and policepersons on Thursday with subsequent shootouts with police and subsequent holing up in an unrelated print shop, or the assault on a kosher supermarket). We never used to have that problem here in the US with reporting by someone like Walter Cronkite. Nowadays, news anchors get all tongue twisted. When 9/11 attack happened, I watched one station's anchor blather on as the towers, one by one, crumbled to the ground. No one bothered to interrupt him to say "Dan, the tower is falling down!"

[ficino]

Here is the latter half of the table of the article:


DCH

Thanks, David. I reply on the Rev. 13:8 thread.

[neilgodfrey]

My point simply is - there are only so many ways to interpret the Torah and all the living, distinct traditions which interpret the Torah include understanding it to refer to a redeeming figure variously described as 'the anointed (one), the returning (one) and Theodore who functions as a king. I don't think it is possible to interpret the Torah any other way (i.e. to have a religion developed from the text) given that Moses predicts the appearance of one like him.

This sidesteps my question. We all know the passages. We all know that there were a wide variety of interpretations of them (not just one as you seem to think) in the Second Temple era. We know Judaism was very diverse (much more so, it seems, to what you appear to be implying).

But none of that tells us about the mood or hope of a particular generation in history.

We can assume that "the masses" of a particular generation were all thoroughly indoctrinated into a certain knowledge and interpretation of certain scriptures and we can imagine lots of reasons to justify this assumption but it will still only be an assumption. We will not have evidence for the claim.

Every culture, I suppose, likes to see itself mirrored or evolving in the past. It gives us roots. But we need to have some method to ensure we are not just doing a Rorschach test on the past.

The sort of Judaism you seem to be talking about can trace its origins to, say, the fourth century CE at least, and it's a fascinating study to explore what factors went into its creation.

We have been told how HJ scholars find a Jesus in their own image. It is easy for us see a biblical past in the image of some of the "Judaisms" known to us today. But we can't take the statements of anyone at face value to verify that this is a true picture of the biblical and Second Temple past. We DO listen to and understand the meaning of every statement -- oral or written -- but we need to stand back and assess that evidence in the light of a larger perspective. What are the origins of those beliefs, those interpretations, about the past? What do we know of how such beliefs originate? What is the evidence?

[neilgodfrey]

And my point was - not that I have access to 'absolute truth' - but that I have greater intimacy with these forms and from that intimate contact I can say that the Torah curbs or limits individual expression and variation to a great degree. There aren't many ways to play tic tac toe (assuming both parties are trying to win). There aren't that many ways to interpret the Law at the macroscopic level.

You have contact with the present beliefs and cultures. A scholarly approach to understanding these is to first listen and understand them well, and secondly to place them in the broader context of historical evidence, anthropology, psychology, etc. Historians are "not stenographers" who repeat the beliefs about the past of their subjects.

[neilgodfrey]

FWIW,

There is a lengthy section of the revised English translation of E Schürer's Jewish People that deals with popular messianic ideas and where to find them expressed.

Volume II:

§ 29. Messianism ......... 488

Thanks for this.

In the Historical Survey there we read this:

But did this hope remain constantly alive among the people? In its general form as it affected the future for the nation, messianic expectation did not die with the disappearance of prophecy. In the last pre- Christian centuries, and especially in the first century A.D., it became once more very lively, as the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Josephus and the Gospels show so decisively. But in addition to manifesting itself as an expectation of final national prosperity, it expressed in particular the hope of a Messiah, or of several messianic figures. This will become clear in the following pages where the historical development of messianism will be outlined, followed by a systematic survey of messianic concepts.

The Pseudepigrapha
Qumran
Josephus
Gospels

I have to some extent I think the last three have been addressed here. I need to refresh my memory of the details of the Pseudepigrapha for this theme.

[outhouse]

This sidesteps my question. We all know the passages. We all know that there were a wide variety of interpretations of them (not just one as you seem to think) in the Second Temple era. We know Judaism was very diverse (much more so, it seems, to what you appear to be implying).

But none of that tells us about the mood or hope of a particular generation in history.

We can assume that "the masses" of a particular generation were all thoroughly indoctrinated into a certain knowledge and interpretation of certain scriptures and we can imagine lots of reasons to justify this assumption but it will still only be an assumption. We will not have evidence for the claim.

Every culture, I suppose, likes to see itself mirrored or evolving in the past. It gives us roots. But we need to have some method to ensure we are not just doing a Rorschach test on the past.

The sort of Judaism you seem to be talking about can trace its origins to, say, the fourth century CE at least, and it's a fascinating study to explore what factors went into its creation.

We have been told how HJ scholars find a Jesus in their own image. It is easy for us see a biblical past in the image of some of the "Judaisms" known to us today. But we can't take the statements of anyone at face value to verify that this is a true picture of the biblical and Second Temple past. We DO listen to and understand the meaning of every statement -- oral or written -- but we need to stand back and assess that evidence in the light of a larger perspective.

Very well said.


Multi cultural and diverse belief and interpretation, is almost an understatement during this period.

Judaism so perverted by Hellenism, most do not understand the depth of diversity here.

What do we know of how such beliefs originate?

Some more then others. More then most know though. Cultural and social anthropology are your guides here.

[neilgodfrey]

Judaism so perverted by Hellenism, most do not understand the depth of diversity here.

Daniel Boyarin remarks, iirc in Border Lines, that most scholars of ancient Judaism nowadays see Judaism as another form of Hellenism.

[neilgodfrey]

What do we know of how such beliefs originate?

Some more then others. More then most know though. Cultural and social anthropology are your guides here.

Anthropologists can (and do) study the myths of those cultures and explore their meanings. We at least have direct access to those myths.

But it is surely fallacious to apply any model -- anthropological, economic, social -- upon a setting that is imagined from a narrative construct alone as if it were documentation of historical realities.

[Peter Kirby]

Except for what reason tells anyone whose listening about the Torah limiting cultural variation when I see three different cultures which had nothing to do with each other for two thousand plus years basically all look the same (save for innovation in the particulars within the monolithic similarities). I am sorry you can twist this around all you like, it confirms what logic tells you when you read the Torah - it ain't giving people much choice about how to live their lives or what they can believe.

And my point was - not that I have access to 'absolute truth' - but that I have greater intimacy with these forms and from that intimate contact I can say that the Torah curbs or limits individual expression and variation to a great degree. There aren't many ways to play tic tac toe (assuming both parties are trying to win). There aren't that many ways to interpret the Law at the macroscopic level.

In the context of first century messianism, I would find it incredibly surprising if we were ever to find a tradition that took seriously the Torah and did not understand it to 'encourage' or predict a God-appointed king. No, I wouldn't just 'find it surprising' I would seriously question how they could possibly ignore Moses's explicit words to this effect (Deut 18:18). Moses is the king, prophet and priest as Philo readily recognizes. So is the one who is like him.

As I said I will let you to continue approaching the problem of first century messianism without any intimacy or familiarity with the living language, customs or traditions of Judaism.

I'm not terribly interested in making any claims about the subject right now. And I'm not saying anything one way or another about the legitimacy of your extrapolation. What I am saying is that the relevant evidence regarding the past is available to the public. What I am saying is that to consider yourself privileged in the conversation about the past comes comes across as both invalid and arrogant.

[neilgodfrey]

Stephan -- you appear to fear that I am failing to acknowledge your and your cultural group's view of their past and that I am committing a sin of "descriptive reduction" as described here:

Descriptive reduction is the failure to identify an emotion, practice, or experience under the description by which the subject identifies it. This is indeed unacceptable. (Proudfoot 1985: 196; emphasis original)

I understand that you think I am failing to recognize the historical claims of your cultural group as being true despite the very good reasons you set out to argue that its beliefs about its past are indeed true. And/or you fear I am failing to recognize that your personal experience confirms for you that certain historical truths about your cultural group, and your belief that this experience is unchallengeable and that anyone who shares it genuinely must, if honest with themselves, share the same beliefs about its historical past.

What a historian should do, in your view, is acknowledge the reality of what you are describing and experiencing as well as accept the beliefs about the historical past that necessarily come with that experience.

My view is that for a historian to do what you are asking would make her a mere stenographer, a recorder of the tradition, a chronicler.

Here is another kind of reductionism that I think the historian should practice. Unfortunately not everyone likes having this form of reductionist study applied to them. It exposes their common humanity.

Explanatory reduction consists in offering an explanation of an experience in terms that are not those of the subject and that might not meet with his approval. This is perfectly justifiable and is, in fact, normal procedure. The explanandum is set in a new context, whether that be one of covering laws and initial conditions, narrative structure, or some other explanatory model. The terms of explanation need not be familiar or acceptable to the subject. Historians offer explanations of past events by employing such concepts as socialization, ideology, means of production, and feudal economy. Seldom can these concepts be ascribed to the people whose behavior is the object of the historian’s study. But that poses no problem. The explanation stands or falls according to how well it can account for all the available evidence. (Proudfoot 1985: 197)

These quotes are from Stephen Young's "Protective Strategies".

Failure to distinguish between these two kinds of reduction leads to the claim that any account of religious [or cultural, ethnic, tribal] emotions, practices, or experience must be restricted to the perspective of the subject and must employ terms, beliefs, and judgments that would meet with his approval. This claim derives its plausibility from examples of descriptive reduction but is then extended to preclude explanatory reduction. When so extended, it becomes a protective strategy. The subject’s identifying description becomes normative for the purposes of explanation, and inquiry is blocked to insure that the subject’s own explanation of his experience is not contested … (Proudfoot 1985: 197–98)

It seems to me you are protesting against the legitimacy of a historian to question your interpretation and experience and to study it in a context and through frameworks that do not directly support your own perceptions.

I'm reminded of my cult years. With much flimsier evidence we saw our own group's history traced right back to the early church -- we saw enough in common among the Ebionites, Cathars, Waldensians, Anabaptists, Millerites .... to assure us that our intense group experiences and practices had a "royal" heritage back to the apostles. Other scholarly studies of these groups, we "knew", were outsiders and failed to understand what only we ourselves knew and experienced.

The analogy is not perfect, of course. But I think the general idea (hopefully not too obscure) is valid.

Finally,

Standard academic methodologies do not analytically privilege self-claims for other fields of inquiry. For example, linguists do not assume that speakers’ folk notions about how languages work provide the exclusive way to study how languages work. Neither do political scientists and historians methodologically commit to studying politics and politicians “on their own terms,” if that means being constrained by politicians’ claims and narratives when it comes to analyzing their historical and political situations; their opponents; how economic, social, and demographic conditions came about in relation to their and their opponents’ policies; and so on.