Myth of widespread messianic expectations early first C

[arnoldo]

What does that passage tell us about messianic movements?

It does not speak of a messiah. Certainly not a political-military deliverer.

It tells us nothing about public awareness of or interest in the passage at any time in history even if it were interpreted messianically in some sense.

Perhaps none wrote as concisely concerning messianic expectations as Vernard Eller in his book War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation. In it, he writes about someone who will be the opposite of a political-military deliverer. . who will practice reverse fighting, if you will. Quite fittingly, the preview of his book in google books is in reverse.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VOtKA ... ng&f=false

You are aware, are you not, of the mainstream scholarship arguing against the notion that there ever was an early first C popular messianism in Palestine?

Can you give some outline of the argument and evidence addressed by Eller? I don't think you are going to simply ask us to buy and read a book without some discussion of its points?

Added later:
Just checked a blurb. Are you a Christian apologist? If so, you might like to read the exchange I had on this question with another apologist in the Jewish Texts and History forum.

I'm not a Christian apologist, just a Christian.

[spin]

Florilegium or Midrash on the Last Days (4Q174) Speaks of the last days as predicted in the book of Isaiah and the book of Daniel the Prophet.

A Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521) Speaks of the coming messiah.

The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek (IIQ13) Speaks of the Day of Atonement taking place at the tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for.

So, it appears there were plenty of sources for the general population to believe that during the 1st century the long anticipated Messiah would arrive to clear out the Romans and cleanse the Temple.

No, you have cited three writings from how many DSS fragments do we have? That's not "plenty of sources". It is three out of a barrel of about 350.

Such arithmetic is not a convincing general response. The text you are counting evince a wide range of purposes, from liturgies to quasi-history, from religious reverie to legal constraints of association, the bulk of Jewish religious literature (Hebrew bible), a good range of "pseudepigraphical" literature. The 350 is a red herring. Significant documents such as CD, 1QSa & 1QSb deal with messianism. This attempt at reduction by numbers doesn't work.

None of those sources speaks of the (early) first century CE. None gives us any hint of excited anticipation that the messiah was about to arrive on the scene and deliver them.

What native Judean literature of a theological nature do we have to speak of the early first century CE?

None gives us any reason to think they preoccupied the minds of the general population.

This is an argument from silence. It works like this: although there is significant literature on the subject of messianism in the 1st c. BCE (including DSS & Ps. of Solomon) and a messianic war was waged in the 2nd c. CE (Simeon ben Kosibah, known punningly as bar Kochba = "son of the star" from a constructed messianic prophecy in Numbers 24:17 also used in the DSS), in between there is nothing that speaks of messianism, so we can't assume there was any messianism in the (early ) 1st c. CE.

Add to this Josephus who has avoided the word christ except of course when talking about Jesus ), Josephus who redirected (messianic) prophecy to Vespasian... true he did not call it messianic, but it is hard to escape, when he talks of an "ambiguous oracle" found in sacred scripture regarding one from Judea who would become ruler of the world.(BJ 6.312) This oracle seems once again related to Num 24:17 with its reference to "out of Israel" as the source of the messianic figure. Josephus says that it is this oracle which incited the Jews to war. If, as it seems to me, Josephus is talking around what is known to be messianic prophecy from the 1st c. BCE, then he attributes much of the impetus of the war to misguided messianic fervor of a widespread nature, which is right on the trajectory to Simeon "bar Kochba", the star of Num 24:17.

[maryhelena]

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak-that prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:18-20

What does that passage tell us about messianic movements?

I thought the OP was about.....

It is about the historical evidence we have or don't have (that is the question) for:

widespread/popular expectations

of the appearance of a messiah figure to liberate Judea from Rome

in the early years of the first century, let's say up to around year 30 CE.

Popular expectations are one thing - ''messianic movements'' - are something else altogether. Thus, finding no ''messianic movements' in the early first century does not equate to there being no popular expectation of a messiah type figure during that time frame. Messianic hopes, ideals, are part and parcel of OT Jewish thought - to assume that those living in the early first century were immune to their cultural heritage is, methinks, not only a mistake but takes away a valuable avenue for research into early christian origins.

[neilgodfrey]

Florilegium or Midrash on the Last Days (4Q174) Speaks of the last days as predicted in the book of Isaiah and the book of Daniel the Prophet.

A Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521) Speaks of the coming messiah.

The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek (IIQ13) Speaks of the Day of Atonement taking place at the tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for.

So, it appears there were plenty of sources for the general population to believe that during the 1st century the long anticipated Messiah would arrive to clear out the Romans and cleanse the Temple.

No, you have cited three writings from how many DSS fragments do we have? That's not "plenty of sources". It is three out of a barrel of about 350.

Such arithmetic is not a convincing general response. The text you are counting evince a wide range of purposes, from liturgies to quasi-history, from religious reverie to legal constraints of association, the bulk of Jewish religious literature (Hebrew bible), a good range of "pseudepigraphical" literature. The 350 is a red herring. Significant documents such as CD, 1QSa & 1QSb deal with messianism. This attempt at reduction by numbers doesn't work.

I was waiting for this sort of response. I have set out my argument in the OP. The list was an attempt to correct an impression that too often seems to be conveyed --- that the fragments indicate a community preoccupied with messianism.

None of those sources speaks of the (early) first century CE. None gives us any hint of excited anticipation that the messiah was about to arrive on the scene and deliver them.

What native Judean literature of a theological nature do we have to speak of the early first century CE?

What I was trying to say was that the messianic texts do not speak of expectations of a messiah to turn up in the early first century roundabouts. That is what my overall argument is about -- the evidence for popular messianism at the turn of the first century.

None gives us any reason to think they preoccupied the minds of the general population.

This is an argument from silence. It works like this: although there is significant literature on the subject of messianism in the 1st c. BCE (including DSS & Ps. of Solomon) and a messianic war was waged in the 2nd c. CE (Simeon ben Kosibah, known punningly as bar Kochba = "son of the star" from a constructed messianic prophecy in Numbers 24:17 also used in the DSS), in between there is nothing that speaks of messianism, so we can't assume there was any messianism in the (early ) 1st c. CE.

It is indeed an argument from silence. I am saying we have no evidence for something so I don't conclude something exists. That's a valid argument from silence. Always a valid argument, I suggest.

That does not mean that something did not exist, of course. But we can't assume it did exist in the face of the silence.

I am not sure if you are suggesting we disagree or not. Or are you just having a different take on the logic of the argument? You have essentially repeated my OP argument if I understand you correctly. Except that I don't know how you define "significant" in relation to "literature on the subject of messianism" -- or how such literature might be construed as evidence for popular messianism.

Add to this Josephus who has avoided the word christ except of course when talking about Jesus ), Josephus who redirected (messianic) prophecy to Vespasian... true he did not call it messianic, but it is hard to escape, when he talks of an "ambiguous oracle" found in sacred scripture regarding one from Judea who would become ruler of the world.(BJ 6.312) This oracle seems once again related to Num 24:17 with its reference to "out of Israel" as the source of the messianic figure. Josephus says that it is this oracle which incited the Jews to war. If, as it seems to me, Josephus is talking around what is known to be messianic prophecy from the 1st c. BCE, then he attributes much of the impetus of the war to misguided messianic fervor of a widespread nature, which is right on the trajectory to Simeon "bar Kochba", the star of Num 24:17.

As I think I pointed out in the OP, the context of Josephus's "ambiguous oracle" is a non-canonical source. We simply do not know where it came from. It is debatable whether it is related to Numbers 24:17. Further, if Josephus knew of messianic hopes we would expect him to excoriate related pretenders as much as he excoriates false prophets etc --- I don't buy that line about him wanting to avoid the word so not to offend his Roman audience. The ambiguous prophecy and Josephus's making so much of it at the point he does is explained well by both his and Vespasian's self-interest.

[neilgodfrey]

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak-that prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:18-20

What does that passage tell us about messianic movements?

I thought the OP was about.....

It is about the historical evidence we have or don't have (that is the question) for:

widespread/popular expectations

of the appearance of a messiah figure to liberate Judea from Rome

in the early years of the first century, let's say up to around year 30 CE.

Popular expectations are one thing - ''messianic movements'' - are something else altogether. Thus, finding no ''messianic movements' in the early first century does not equate to there being no popular expectation of a messiah type figure during that time frame. Messianic hopes, ideals, are part and parcel of OT Jewish thought - to assume that those living in the early first century were immune to their cultural heritage is, methinks, not only a mistake but takes away a valuable avenue for research into early christian origins.

Okay, I rephrase the question.

What does that quotation tell us about widespread Judean messianic hopes at the turn of the first century?

But the theory goes that such an expectation did erupt in a number of messianic movements following messianic pretenders in the first century.

[neilgodfrey]

What does that passage tell us about messianic movements?

It does not speak of a messiah. Certainly not a political-military deliverer.

It tells us nothing about public awareness of or interest in the passage at any time in history even if it were interpreted messianically in some sense.

Perhaps none wrote as concisely concerning messianic expectations as Vernard Eller in his book War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation. In it, he writes about someone who will be the opposite of a political-military deliverer. . who will practice reverse fighting, if you will. Quite fittingly, the preview of his book in google books is in reverse.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VOtKA ... ng&f=false

You are aware, are you not, of the mainstream scholarship arguing against the notion that there ever was an early first C popular messianism in Palestine?

Can you give some outline of the argument and evidence addressed by Eller? I don't think you are going to simply ask us to buy and read a book without some discussion of its points?

Added later:
Just checked a blurb. Are you a Christian apologist? If so, you might like to read the exchange I had on this question with another apologist in the Jewish Texts and History forum.[/quote]
I'm not a Christian apologist, just a Christian.[/quote]

[maryhelena]

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak-that prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:18-20

What does that passage tell us about messianic movements?

I thought the OP was about.....

It is about the historical evidence we have or don't have (that is the question) for:

widespread/popular expectations

of the appearance of a messiah figure to liberate Judea from Rome

in the early years of the first century, let's say up to around year 30 CE.

Popular expectations are one thing - ''messianic movements'' - are something else altogether. Thus, finding no ''messianic movements' in the early first century does not equate to there being no popular expectation of a messiah type figure during that time frame. Messianic hopes, ideals, are part and parcel of OT Jewish thought - to assume that those living in the early first century were immune to their cultural heritage is, methinks, not only a mistake but takes away a valuable avenue for research into early christian origins.

Okay, I rephrase the question.

What does that quotation tell us about widespread Judean messianic hopes at the turn of the first century?

It indicates that messianic expectations would be a constant element in OT Jewish thought. To rule out the early first century as though this time period was immune to this cultural heritage is shortsighted.

But the theory goes that such an expectation did erupt in a number of messianic movements following messianic pretenders in the first century.

And the evidence for this theory is?

[neilgodfrey]

What does that passage tell us about messianic movements?

It does not speak of a messiah. Certainly not a political-military deliverer.

It tells us nothing about public awareness of or interest in the passage at any time in history even if it were interpreted messianically in some sense.

Perhaps none wrote as concisely concerning messianic expectations as Vernard Eller in his book War and Peace: From Genesis to Revelation. In it, he writes about someone who will be the opposite of a political-military deliverer. . who will practice reverse fighting, if you will. Quite fittingly, the preview of his book in google books is in reverse.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VOtKA ... ng&f=false

You are aware, are you not, of the mainstream scholarship arguing against the notion that there ever was an early first C popular messianism in Palestine?

Can you give some outline of the argument and evidence addressed by Eller? I don't think you are going to simply ask us to buy and read a book without some discussion of its points?

Added later:
Just checked a blurb. Are you a Christian apologist? If so, you might like to read the exchange I had on this question with another apologist in the Jewish Texts and History forum.

I'm not a Christian apologist, just a Christian.

But not a historian? A historian would not, I trust, rely upon a single verse in the Pentateuch as a source for social-cultural attitudes among Judeans in the Roman era.

[neilgodfrey]

Often someone cites a text from the scriptures, whether canonical or noncanonical, as if that establishes the view that there was a common Judean messianic expectation at the turn of the first century.

But in fact there is no logical connection between the two. A scripture is a scripture is a scripture. It tells us nothing about cultural expectations among a wide cross section of the illiterate population at any particular time.

It may tell us something about an interest of a scribe who copied or shelved the text. But it won't even tell us what that scribe thought about the passage or how he related it, if he did at all, to his daily life or political/social views as expressed in his daily life.

And if we keep in mind that those texts were preserved through different eras, different places, then it becomes even more problematic to assume that certain groups of people responded to them, assimilated them, acted on them, etc in a certain way at one time in history that was not found at all other times and places.

If there were indeed a widespread Judean anticipation of a messiah to come around the time Jesus in fact came, then we can ask what we might expect to find in the surviving literary evidence. I think if we do that then what we find in the very few DSS fragments and Psalm of Solomon does not cut it. Nor does what we find in Josephus cut it. And I'm not just talking about the gross numbers of such texts, but their contents as well. What do they say? And how does that text inform us -- if at all -- about the general illiterate populace at a particular time in history?

[spin]

I have set out my argument in the OP. The list was an attempt to correct an impression that too often seems to be conveyed --- that the fragments indicate a community preoccupied with messianism.

It behooves me to pay more attention to OPs.

None of those sources speaks of the (early) first century CE. None gives us any hint of excited anticipation that the messiah was about to arrive on the scene and deliver them.

What native Judean literature of a theological nature do we have to speak of the early first century CE?

What I was trying to say was that the messianic texts do not speak of expectations of a messiah to turn up in the early first century roundabouts. That is what my overall argument is about -- the evidence for popular messianism at the turn of the first century.

My guess is that we are dealing with a modern conjecture based on Daniel's 70 weeks, starting with Jesus and working backwards to make it fit with the usual text manipulation.

None gives us any reason to think they preoccupied the minds of the general population.

This is an argument from silence. It works like this: although there is significant literature on the subject of messianism in the 1st c. BCE (including DSS & Ps. of Solomon) and a messianic war was waged in the 2nd c. CE (Simeon ben Kosibah, known punningly as bar Kochba = "son of the star" from a constructed messianic prophecy in Numbers 24:17 also used in the DSS), in between there is nothing that speaks of messianism, so we can't assume there was any messianism in the (early ) 1st c. CE.

It is indeed an argument from silence. I am saying we have no evidence for something so I don't conclude something exists. That's a valid argument from silence. Always a valid argument, I suggest.

That does not mean that something did not exist, of course. But we can't assume it did exist in the face of the silence.

I was pointing out a continuum of messianic speculation from the 1st c. BCE to the 2nd c. CE. Unless you are referring specifically to the looney-tunes christian stuff about the messianic appearance in the early 1st c., I see no reason you would assert no messianic speculation in the 1st c.

I am not sure if you are suggesting we disagree or not. Or are you just having a different take on the logic of the argument? You have essentially repeated my OP argument if I understand you correctly. Except that I don't know how you define "significant" in relation to "literature on the subject of messianism" -- or how such literature might be construed as evidence for popular messianism.

Literature of the period belonged to communities. Scribes worked for people who paid them. For there to be texts with explicit information about messianism, there needs to be communities behind them. We have signs of at least two communities supporting messianism, that behind 1QS and behind Psalms of Solomon.

Add to this Josephus who has avoided the word christ except of course when talking about Jesus ), Josephus who redirected (messianic) prophecy to Vespasian... true he did not call it messianic, but it is hard to escape, when he talks of an "ambiguous oracle" found in sacred scripture regarding one from Judea who would become ruler of the world.(BJ 6.312) This oracle seems once again related to Num 24:17 with its reference to "out of Israel" as the source of the messianic figure. Josephus says that it is this oracle which incited the Jews to war. If, as it seems to me, Josephus is talking around what is known to be messianic prophecy from the 1st c. BCE, then he attributes much of the impetus of the war to misguided messianic fervor of a widespread nature, which is right on the trajectory to Simeon "bar Kochba", the star of Num 24:17.

As I think I pointed out in the OP, the context of Josephus's "ambiguous oracle" is a non-canonical source. We simply do not know where it came from. It is debatable whether it is related to Numbers 24:17. Further, if Josephus knew of messianic hopes we would expect him to excoriate related pretenders as much as he excoriates false prophets etc --- I don't buy that line about him wanting to avoid the word so not to offend his Roman audience. The ambiguous prophecy and Josephus's making so much of it at the point he does is explained well by both his and Vespasian's self-interest.

It's fine for some to try to explain away Josephus's statements regarding the "prophecy" of the king who would come out of Israel, which appears to be a reference to the "messianic" Num 24:17 (you know, "a star will come out of Jacob and a sceptre out of Israel", that phrase behind DSS speculation and behind the name "bar Kochba"), asserting that Josephus had reasons to misrepresent the account through self-interest. That's a nice theory and conveniently unfalsifiable. However, what Josephus says cannot just be handwaved away. The prophetic indication of the ruler coming out of Israel fits well in the trajectory from DSS to bar Kochba. It seems to me that you are left saying that you don't believe Josephus when he says that (messianic) speculation was involved in motivating Jewish action in the war.