Myth of widespread messianic expectations early first C

[MrMacSon]

My problem with this view (no widespread/popular expectations of an ''Anointed'' in I CE) is that the only way to explain the so-called ''CHRESTIANI'' in Tacitus is to see them as followers of CHRESTUS, meaning simply the Jewish CHRIST, at least as a coming anti-Roman vendicative figure (not even a man being really there on the play). This may explain why Pliny wondered about the unexpected pacifism of the Christians (of Jesus called Christ): they were strangely different from the more common messianists. This may explain why the emperor in person was interested about them (via Pliny's letter) and already he realized that there were pacifist 'Messianists'' and riotous ''Messianists''.

Pliny's letter has nothing to do with ''widespread/popular expectations, in the early years of the first century [ie. up to 30 CE], of the appearance of a messiah figure to liberate Judea from Rome".

Whether Tacitus's Annals 15.44 reflects history of that period, or mere stories, is also an issue.

Usually the criticism raised against the identity Christus/Chrestus is that Chrestus was a common name and means ''good'', not ''anointed''. But the irony implicit behind the ''good guy''/''Chrestus'' could well be a caustic reference to the messianists themselves, seen as a apparently ''good'' fragrance whose toxic miasma are propagated throughout the major cities of the empire.

Chrestus could refer to someone or people of any number of allegiances.

[neilgodfrey]

My problem with this view (no widespread/popular expectations of an ''Anointed'' in I CE) is that the only way to explain the so-called ''CHRESTIANI'' in Tacitus is to see them as followers of CHRESTUS, meaning simply the Jewish CHRIST, at least as a coming anti-Roman vendicative figure (not even a man being really there on the play). This may explain why Pliny wondered about the unexpected pacifism of the Christians (of Jesus called Christ): they were strangely different from the more common messianists. This may explain why the emperor in person was interested about them (via Pliny's letter) and already he realized that there were pacifist 'Messianists'' and riotous ''Messianists''.

Usually the criticism raised against the identity Christus/Chrestus is that Chrestus was a common name and means ''good'', not ''anointed''. But the irony implicit behind the ''good guy''/''Chrestus'' could well be a caustic reference to the messianists themselves, seen as a apparently ''good'' fragrance whose toxic miasma are propagated throughout the major cities of the empire.

Shaftesbury called ''enthusiasm'' the religious hate/fanatism: a word apparently good is used to allude a negative fact.

Does not the evidence of Tacitus point to knowledge of movements in the very late first century and early second century, and the beliefs of that late period that may have motivated some Christians and Jews?

[neilgodfrey]

This topic is not about "Jewish prophecies of the messiah's arrival". It is not about the second century Bar Kochba rebellion. Nor is it even about popular beliefs and attitudes at the time of the 66-73 CE Jewish war.

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

But surely it is not difficult for anyone - not even those who dislike the Jews - to see why it is that evidence for hope and expectation that a Jewish king would destroy the Roman Empire and take over the world would not be well represented or as thoroughly represented as other concepts in the Jewish literature that survived from antiquity. I can't fathom what can account for your resistance to this idea especially given the fact that Jews were constantly at war with the Roman state in the period.

The Jews were at war with the Roman state in the early first century??

You argue strongly why we don't have the evidence we would expect if your hypothesis is true. So maybe you are right. But till the lost evidence is found I prefer to tentatively work with a hypothesis which explains the evidence we do have.

The facts are that the Davidic messianic expectation is attested in the Qumran literature - i.e. before the first century CE - and that it also appears in texts dated to the first century CE. Your point of emphasis is the word 'widespread.' In other words it is your contention that SOME Jewish MIGHT HAVE accepted the messiah, the son of David but that this belief wasn't necessarily WIDESPREAD.

Interesting.

Some may indeed. There were many ideas floating around, details of which are now lost. Precious little surviving evidence means we should be more cautious with how we handle it, extrapolate from it, etc, than less cautious.

So I assume you accept that the Jews were more or less constantly engaged in insurgent activity against the Roman state. I also assume that you accept that being Jewish necessarily involved a religious dimension. But - I assume - you contend - that there could be Jewish insurgent activity among a highly religious people and a highly restricted culture (i.e. one where religion governed every aspect of the lives of its members) but that MAYBE, somehow the insurgents were guided by an inspiration which was NOT motivated by scripture.

So how do we arrive at the truth? Well I would start with the fact that Christianity and the Bar Kochba revolt are signs of a sustained interest in the Davidic messiah and that the reason why texts associated with this expectation have not survived out of Christianity because Christianity redefined the Davidic messianic expectation in a way that was compatible with being a productive member of the Roman state. Some other points

I don't know why you are assuming so much as a substitute for engaging with the arguments.

Yes, once again you have explained why on your hypothesis we should not expect to find supporting evidence for it. You might be right. I could probably come up with another hypothesis and also explain why we should not expect to find evidence for it.

I draw your attention to the fact that Marcionism denied any association between Jesus and the Davidic messianic expectation that was current among the Jews. The Marcionites claimed that they represented the original theology of Paul and zealously adhered to that 'original Christian faith.' I find this particular dimension to the problem highly instructive. For while what became orthodoxy embraced and encouraged Jesus the fulfiller of the Jewish Davidic messianic expectation, the Marcionites said that the Jews indeed promoted such a figure but Jesus or Chrestos represented something entirely different.

Why is this significant? I would argue that both the orthodox and the Marcionite traditions attest to a WIDESPREAD - and I stress WIDESPREAD - Jewish Davidic messianic expectation.

Why would Marcionism attest to popular messianic expectations rather than simply widespread doctrine in the "judaisms" of the day -- that is the day of Marcionism -- post Second Temple era.

Justin also attests to this Jewish expectation. . . . Surely this lays to rest any notion that the attestations from the 1st century BCE onward were not marginal but rather a near universal expectation among Jews.

Justin is writing post Bar Kochba when it seems that there was a literal messianic hope in Palestine. Quite a different historical context from early first century.

Now one more point which is worth considering and goes far beyond your limited knowledge of Judaism (other than the kooky books you delve into)

Your condescension and anti-intellectualism are noted.

- there are countless other examples of things Jewish had to know about, had to practice, had to venerate which have been wiped from the historical record. By your logic i.e. if it isn't attested it never existed or wasn't fundamental to first century Judaism - appears entirely laughable and again motivated by hate. For instance:

1. the sabbatcal years. There are no documents which explain the manner in which Jews calculated and venerated the shemittah and Jubillees. The reason is obvious now. Messianic uprisings were timed to correspond with these years. But by your logic they didn't exist. The Jews didn't venerate 'years of favor.' Stupid
2. the person of Moses. Surprisingly little is found in the surviving rabbinic literature about Moses. The Samaritans by contrast obsess about this seminal figure. But in Jewish literature from the early period he is avoided. Why is that? Because obviously Moses was another inspiration for the revolution as the god-Man leader of the community.
3. anything in the way of commentaries on the Torah outside of the Book of Exodus. If you look at the Jewish literature which survives disproportionate attention is shown toward the Prophets and other 'human' books. Indeed the later rabbinic authorities typically cite indiscriminately from all parts of what we would call 'the Old Testament.' However it is clear and logical that in the Second Commonwealth period the Pentateuch held a higher 'holiness.' Indeed the entire temple service was dependent upon it. What accounts for the change? Clearly the destruction of the temple. It must have been difficult to reconcile the holiness of a book which directs Israel toward sacrifices and things that require a tabernacle. Judaism seems to have gotten around this situation by placing undue emphasis on the prophetic writings. But this was just one reaction to the situation after the Jewish War. The point of fact is that once again we have evidence that contemporary history changed Judaism and the practice of the Jewish religion.

I don't have time for such stupidity as this. Back to my real life. Enjoy your continued undermining of yet another Biblical tradition.

Nice for your private little self-indulgent chuckle, but you have forgotten to address the arguments set out in the OP.

[neilgodfrey]

I know that your topic is about Messianic expectations from around 2000 years ago, but I was wondering how anyone would really know what it was then? In order to prove that your topic is impossible to really know, I would like to ask you if there is a widespread Messianic expectation right now among the Jewish people and the Christian people separately? Isn't it subjective because there are different groups all around the world from each religion with different expectations? I hope you will take my question seriously because I think the answer is impossible to pin down for the present, so I doubt you could do it for 2000 years ago.

Kenneth Greifer

I cannot be dogmatic. All hypotheses are necessarily tentative -- especially so in the realm of ancient history.

My concern is that whenever I have checked out an argument/source that is said to support our historical reconstruction of messianic movement early 1C I have not been convinced -- it always looks to me as if the argument is stretched, the evidence is mentally massaged to say something it doesn't or imply something that cannot be tested.

Then we have to take into account the Christian view that has dominated related scholarship for generations. Christianity teaches that the prophets spoke of a messiah to come, and that Jesus was the fulfillment of those prophecies, yet those prophecies were misunderstood to mean a belligerent messiah. It follows that many of us from Sunday School age have been conditioned to read the OT "messianically". This is not the way it was read in the Second Temple era, of course.

Many apologist books have been written claiming that God was preparing the Jews for Christ so that they were all using Daniel or other signs to expect a messiah to come just when Jesus happened along. But that's all Christian doctrine. I think it has influenced even scholarly assumptions -- certainly it has influence popular understanding -- to a large extent.

Then there is the Gospel of Matthew itself that some say reflects the historical messianic hopes at the turn of the century. My own take on Matthew is that first of all it is a late gospel that is creating a new birth narrative for theological purposes and cannot be used as evidence for the historical realities of the time of Herod. Further, it looks to me that even Matthew is trying to work with a knowledge that his narrative is very new -- his Jews do not jump to conclusions that the magi have come to worship the messiah, but they are wondering what the hell is going on. Herod has to consult the .001% intellectual elite to learn that a prophecy can be construed to make it all point to the messiah. That doesn't sound like Matthew is working with a tradition of popular messianism.

Yes, there are messianic hopes alive today among various Christian sects. Some no doubt are still working out time-tables and dates. The popular assumption re early first century Judea, however, is that such messianism was not restricted to a few isolated sects but a dominant cultural/religious/political preoccupation. And this was not because of some isolated preachers forming their own cults, but the result of a certain common belief about their national sacred writings, combined with their subjection to Rome. It is assumed that being under Rome they were always pining for God to send a new David or Gideon to rescue them. That's the Hollywood scenario.

But such a scenario runs against the grain of how peoples generally responded to Roman rule. I don't think Jews were particularly different from anyone else and most accepted Roman domination with a sense of fatalism. (As for the war that broke out in 66 and its causes, that's another topic. The evidence does not necessarily point to long-standing generational tensions reaching an explosive point but rather a series of miscalculations and misadventures suddenly flaring up and catching everyone off-guard -- as so often with too many outbreaks of war.)

[MrMacSon]

So I assume you accept that the Jews were more or less constantly engaged in insurgent activity against the Roman state.

• To say 'more or less constantly' isn't appropriate. One would need to look at each time period or generation.
  
  • Under Tiberius all was quiet
  • Things seemed quiet under Aggripa I (aka Herod Agrippa or Herod)
  • Things were quiet between the 1st and Second Jewish-Roman Wars

I also assume that you accept that being Jewish necessarily involved a religious dimension. But - I assume - you contend - that there could be Jewish insurgent activity among a highly religious people and a highly restricted culture (i.e. one where religion governed every aspect of the lives of its members) but that MAYBE, somehow the insurgents were guided by an inspiration which was NOT motivated by scripture.

• You're being disingenuous seeding the association of insurgency with highly religious people.

So how do we arrive at the truth? Well I would start with the fact that Christianity and the Bar Kochba revolt are signs of a sustained interest in the Davidic messiah, and that the reason why texts associated with this expectation have not survived out of Christianity because Christianity redefined the Davidic messianic expectation in a way that was compatible with being a productive member of the Roman state.

• The bar Kochba revolt is hardly a sign of a sustained interest in the Davidic messiah. The fact that Bar Kochba was called a messiah may be a sign of interests in a messiah, but it doesn't mean he acted to be a messiah. There were other more tangible motivations for his actions.

[neilgodfrey]

• The bar Kochba revolt is hardly a sign of a sustained interest in the Davidic messiah.

That's a significant point. Bar Kochba indicates that a messiah did not have to be literally Davidic at all in the understanding of the day.

[John T]

The Jewish religion was a legal religion within the Roman Empire.

It has been estimated that the population of Jews throughout the entire Roman Empire before the revolt that started in A.D. 66 was about 10%.
http://www.sephardicgen.com/popul.htm

The Pentateuch was not a banned book and the overarching theme and common/public belief of a conquering Jewish messiah (Deuteronomy 18:15) was well known throughout the Mediterranean world for over a thousand years.

Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea from A.D. 26-36, was ever on guard and had license to squash any Jew that had grandiose visions of being the greatly anticipated conquering messiah over the kittims, i.e. Roman Empire.

After the revolt, the Roman empire with the help of Josephus promoted/endorsed the pacifist rabbinic sect over the messianic sect with the goal of convincing the masses that the promise of a conquering Jewish messiah, i.e. star prophecy was misinterpreted.

In short, messianic views were well known among Jew and Gentile alike throughout the Roman Empire, so well known that the Romans started a propaganda program to counteract it.

[neilgodfrey]

the overarching theme and common/public belief of a conquering Jewish messiah (Deuteronomy 18:15) was well known throughout the Mediterranean world for over a thousand years.

My post disputed the evidence used to support this claim. Is there evidence for your claim that I have overlooked?

Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea from A.D. 26-36, was ever on guard and had license to squash any Jew that had grandiose visions of being the greatly anticipated conquering messiah over the kittims, i.e. Roman Empire.

No doubt the Roman governor's job was to be alert to potential rebellion but what evidence is there that Pilate or Rome was conscious of "messianic" upstarts as such? None that I know of. Sure there were the usual bandits and prophetic figures but do you have any evidence that there was any preoccupation with a threat of "messianic" pretenders?

After the revolt, the Roman empire with the help of Josephus promoted/endorsed the pacifist rabbinic sect over the messianic sect with the goal of convincing the masses that the promise of a conquering Jewish messiah, i.e. star prophecy was misinterpreted.

Did you read my post discussing that Josephan passage? You have essentially restated the argument that I argued was baseless. You need to address that criticism.

In short, messianic views were well known among Jew and Gentile alike throughout the Roman Empire, so well known that the Romans started a propaganda program to counteract it.

You seem to have simply ignored the arguments that point to the contrary and supplied no evidence whatever to support the claim that "messianic views were well known among Jew and Gentile alike throughout the Roman Empire" of the early first century CE.

[John T]

@neilgodfrey,

I'm not sure what I missed.

Are you saying there is no evidence of a Jewish population (Synagogue) in the Roman Empire outside of Judea during the 1st century A.D.?

Are you saying Pilate and then later Vespasian had no clue who Moses was to the Jews?

Are you saying Josephus did not write "The Wars of the Jews"?

Are you saying the appendix to the Antiquities was not in response to the Jewish historian, Justus of Tiberias?

Just what am I missing here?

[neilgodfrey]

@neilgodfrey,

I'm not sure what I missed.

Are you saying there is no evidence of a Jewish population (Synagogue) in the Roman Empire outside of Judea during the 1st century A.D.?

No.

Are you saying Pilate and then later Vespasian had no clue who Moses was to the Jews?

No.

re you saying Josephus did not write "The Wars of the Jews"?

No.

Are you saying the appendix to the Antiquities was not in response to the Jewish historian, Justus of Tiberias?

No.

Just what am I missing here?

Read the O.P.

I fail to see the relevance of your "are you saying" points above to anything I have set out there.

Alternatively respond specifically to the points I made to your previous post.