Myth of widespread messianic expectations early first C

[neilgodfrey]

There is nothing in the Psalm [of Solomon] to give us cause to think that it inspired the imaginations of Judeans wholesale ...

Psalm of Solomon 17 is drawing on the language of Isaiah 11 and its depiction of the "stem of Jesse". Perhaps a better question to ask is whether the book of Isaiah inspired the imaginations of Judeans wholesale.

This is all a fascinating question I am continuing to explore. Isaiah appears to have strongly influenced Daniel -- the Son of Man figure may well have been crafted out of the Suffering Servant figure of Isaiah. And Daniel and Isaiah certainly influenced the gospels, especially Mark.

What we find preoccupying "the imaginations of Judeans wholesale" is another question that requires a different kind of evidence, I think.

[neilgodfrey]

Notice the references to "robberies" (i.e., banditry), "murder of our principal men" (i.e., the sicarri), "seditions" (e.g., Theudas and the Egyptian) and factional strife (e.g., Menachem ben Yair). Josephus ties all these elements to "Judas and Saddoc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us and had a great many followers therein, filled our government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of out future miseries by this system of philosophy..."

So while I suppose there are bandits in any time and place, Josephus connects the ones who lived in first century CE Judea to the Fourth Philosophy. And while it's not cut and dried, and I appreciate that we shouldn't just assume it, there is enough there (coupled with the DSS) to give me the impression that by 66 CE, if not sooner, this "system of philosophy" was messianic.

Can we get specific?

Let's set out the DSS passages that we see as relevant. Analyse what they say. What can we validly conclude from them?

Set out what we know about each of the bandits, etc. and what we know of public views.

I have done some of this sort of thing elsewhere and concluded that when we examine each case closely we have no basis for assuming any messianic connection at all.

I think that what leads to our view of popular messianism comes from deductive reasoning where we begin with the belief that that's what the early first century was like and then finding ways to uncritically harmonize the data and use details to uncritically proof-text our assumptions. We see the shapes we expect to see or that we are looking for. The real test, of course, lies in efforts to falsify the thesis, to ask if the data is really what we would expect, to test alternative hypotheses....

[neilgodfrey]

Neil wrote:

If you can't throw it [11Q13] out I still don't see how it can be considered evidence for popular messianism in the sense of anticipating a conquering Davidic king. As Cook et al remind us, the text describes the anointed one as a preaching prophet, an evangelical, not a warrior.

But these are all elements associated with Jesus. Jesus is presented as being an anointed preaching prophet (e.g., Luke 4:18/Is. 61:1-2), a priest of the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5-7), a descendant of David (e.g., Mt. 1:1), and (in my understanding) a conquering warrior (e.g., Mt. 10:34).

I'm not sure I follow you. 11Q13 does not speak of the sort of "anointed one" that is said to be at the centre of messianic expectations. It speaks of a preaching prophet, not a warrior. I don't know how that relates to the question of popular messianic expectations as generally understood by those who speak of them as characteristic of the early first century.

I think we need to separate the gospel narrative about Jesus. The claim I am addressing is that Jesus appeared in a setting where people were expecting a Davidic messiah to appear. We are arguing in a circle or begging the question if we use the gospels/NT to make that case.

Can we really conclude from a couple of texts speaking about a messianic figure that the general populace in the early first century was expecting such a figure to imminently appear? How do we make that connection? -- that's what I find problematic.

[Charles Wilson]

Can we really conclude from a couple of texts speaking about a messianic figure that the general populace in the early first century was expecting such a figure to imminently appear? How do we make that connection? -- that's what I find problematic.

Josephus, Antiquities, 17, 6, 2:

"So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle; alleging, that although they should incur any danger, which might bring them to their deaths, the virtue of the action now proposed to them would appear much more advantageous to them than the pleasures of life; since they would die for the preservation and observation of the law of their fathers; since they would also acquire an everlasting fame and commendation; since they would be both commended by the present generation, and leave an example of life that would never be forgotten to posterity; since that common calamity of dying cannot be avoided by our living so as to escape any such dangers; that therefore it is a right thing for those who are in love with a virtuous conduct, to wait for that fatal hour by such behavior as may carry them out of the world with praise and honor; and that this will alleviate death to a great degree, thus to come at it by the performance of brave actions, which bring us into danger of it; and at the same time to leave that reputation behind them to their children, and to all their relations, whether they be men or women, which will be of great advantage to them afterward..."

No Messianic Expressions here, just before Herod's death. Just old sages convincing young students that it would be great if the younguns' would die for the cause.

Ant..., 18, 2, 2:

"As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea, the following accidents happened. As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the priests to open the temple-gates just after midnight. When, therefore, those gates were first opened, some of the Samaritans came privately into Jerusalem, and threw about dead men's bodies, in the cloisters; on which account the Jews afterward excluded them out of the temple, which they had not used to do at such festivals; and on other accounts also they watched the temple more carefully than they had formerly done..."

This is 12 years later, with Bilgah and Immer covering their Mishmarot Services at Passover again. No Messianix here either.

Neil, this is why we pay you the Big Dollars. Messianism may have infected lots of people (as the search for Heroes always finds) but the History here is gettin' a littah he'p from outside sources, methinks.

CW

[Secret Alias]

Another ignored messianic reference is the sudden appearance of the Song of Songs. Akiba undoubted wrote the poem about the messiah. The idea that the poem is about God having sex with a black woman is something I might make up but let's consider things step by step. Moses in the Jewish Pentateuch at least has a black wife (in the Samaritan text it reads instead 'beautiful'). The figure here is clearly a second Moses. But 'David' later emerges as a second Moses too. Yet I think the expectation for a 'beloved' was originally pinned on a messianic figure and then 'David' was retrojected as a historical figure. In any event, the most important messianic song written likely by Akiba.

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love (דֹּדֶ֖יךָ) is better than wine.

3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love (דֹדֶיךָ) more than wine: the upright love thee.

5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

7 Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?

8 If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents.

9 I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots.

10 Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.

11 We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver.

12 While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.

13 A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved (דּוֹדִי) unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.

14 My beloved (דּוֹדִי) is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi.

15 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes.

16 Behold, thou art fair, my beloved (דוֹדִי), yea, pleasant: also our bed is green.

17 The beams of our house are cedar, and our rafters of fir.

What is also intriguing about the Song of Songs is the manner in which the material - despite being recently composed in the Bar Kochba period - infiltrates the Marcionite community of Edessa. The black woman is now Mary Magdalene and Jesus is the 'beloved.' Difficult to make sense of how this occurred.

[neilgodfrey]

The alternative to a belief in (reasonably) widespread messianic expectation in the early first century seems to be that the Jewish war and fall of Jerusalem generated messianic expectations that were previously lacking; and that these expectations were back projected by later writers into the early first century.

Do we have any positive evidence that the aftermath of the Jewish war encouraged messianic expectations ?

Andrew Criddle

I don't know that we do.

Incidentally, Steve Mason's recent study, A History of the Jewish War A.D. 66-74, addresses the evidence we have for the origins of the war and finds the simplest explanation without any need for messianic motivations at all. But that's another topic.

I don't think we have any explicit evidence for political messianism as such until the time of the Bar Kochba war -- or am I overlooking something?

The Messiah is important in 4 Ezra (i.e. 2 Esdras) and in 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch) both apparently late 1st century CE texts.

(This may not be political messianism in your sense but there is a strong messianic expectation.)

Andrew Criddle

It is certainly a strong messianic interest. Whether they testify to readers eagerly expecting the appearance of the messiah in the near future is another question. These texts remind me of other apocalyptic literature, including the NT Revelation. They give assurance that God is in control despite all the dashed hopes around about and that he will restore everything (usually through a moment of vindictive judgment) in the end.

Whether readers interpreted such texts (and themes like their twelve ages) as pointing to the very end time being right here and now is, in my view, doubtful. Apocalyptic literature appears more in tune with giving hope and assurance that everything is under control rather than stimulating dopamine levels to expect immediate consummation of the end.

[John2]

Neil wrote:

11Q13 does not speak of the sort of "anointed one" that is said to be at the centre of messianic expectations. It speaks of a preaching prophet, not a warrior. I don't know how that relates to the question of popular messianic expectations as generally understood by those who speak of them as characteristic of the early first century.

Aren't you arguing that we don't have enough information to say there was widespread messianic expectation in the first century CE? So how do you know that "11Q13 does not speak of the sort of "anointed one" that is said to be at the centre of messianic expectations"? Who is saying that?

I'm comfortable with multiple elements of the Messiah, like in the case of Jesus. He is presented as being a "preaching prophet" and using Is. 61:1-12, like in 11Q13, and was seen as being like Melchizedek, who is the subject of 11Q13. That Dan. 9:25 or 9:26 is also cited enhances the "messianic" character of 11Q13.

That these are messianic elements is supported by 4QTestimonia (4Q175), which is a short collection of arguably messianic proof texts (even though none of them use the word messiah), half of which are applied to Jesus in later Christian writings. These include the prophet like Moses (Dt. 18:18-19), followed by the Star Prophecy (Num. 24:15-17), then a reference to the Levites (Dt. 33:8-11) and then a reference to Joshua. As Vermes puts it, "The first group consists of two texts from Deuteronomy referring to the prophet similar to Moses; the second is an extract from a prophecy of Balaam abut the Royal Messiah; the third is a blessing of the Levites, and, implicitly, the Priest-Messiah. The last group opens with a verse from Joshua."

So several arguably messianic elements are gathered here (whether they are applicable to one person or not), and the reference to Joshua is interesting because not only does it connect him to these arguably messianic texts, it changes the original context from Jericho to Jerusalem and says that "they [whoever they may have been] have rebuilt [this city and have set up for it] a wall and towers to make of it a stronghold of ungodliness in Israel ... [... They have shed blood] like water upon the ramparts of the daughter of Zion and within the precincts of Jerusalem."

You asked for some specific examples so let's start with the Egyptian, who, as you mentioned, is presented by Josephus as being a prophet and like Joshua in the 60's CE (and is also tied to "robbers," i.e., bandits).

Ant. 20.8.6:

These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them. Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.

And Theudas is also presented as being a prophet and like Joshua (in the 40's CE).

Ant. 20.5.1:

Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.

So both of these elements, being a prophet and like Joshua, are in 4Q175. And in the case of the Egyptian, it is curious that he wanted to make the walls of Jerusalem fall down, since 4Q175 says, "they have rebuilt [this city and have set up for it] a wall and towers to make of it a stronghold of ungodliness in Israel" (Jos. 6:26) and changes the context of it from Jericho to Jerusalem.

And both of these passages from Josephus also illustrate the popularity of these Joshua-like prophets (and in War 2.261-262 the Egyptian is said to have had 30,000 followers, which is three times more than the numbers Josephus gives for the Pharisees and Essenes combined).

So to say that someone could be a prophet like Moses or Joshua but could not also be the Messiah makes me think of 4Q175, where both of these elements are connected to the Star Prophecy.

To get back to 11Q13/Melchizedek and your comment that it "speaks of a preaching prophet, not a warrior," I disagree, since it also says things like, "And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgments of God ... and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of] his [lot]. And all the 'gods [of justice'] will come to his aid [to] attend to the de[struction] of Belial" and that "Your elohim is [Melchizedek, who will save them from] the hand of Belial," which appear right before and after the references to the anointed messenger and Dan. 9:25 or 9:26.

Furthermore, 11Q13, as we have it, begins with a reference to the Jubilee, which is relevant to the timing of messianism. As it says regarding Is. 61:1, "[... Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; f[or he will cast] their [lot] amid the po[rtions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And this will [occur] in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees."

So all of these things -11Q13, 4Q175 and Theudas and the Egyptian- seem messianic to me, even though only 11Q13 uses the word messiah.

[neilgodfrey]

Hi John2 -- it's nice to find someone who can disagree without injecting a load of personal innuendo into their responses.

My difficulties with the argument you present are at several levels.

The argument begins with the assumption that a messianic figure that we find in the gospels (a pastiche of many elements) is the product or result of earlier multi-faceted understandings of a messiah figure that were "in the air", in the background Judean consciousness. Accordingly, the characteristics of the Jesus messiah are searched out in the wider literature likewise assumed to be referencing a messiah figure.

In other words, all the extant sources are interpreted through the gospel figure of the messiah. The sources are assumed to be all leading historically to, or at least to lie behind, the gospel Jesus. Elements in the background literature are interpreted as messianic because they are also applied to Jesus.

I question the validity of this approach.

As with our reading of Paul, it is important to keep aside the gospels; so when interpreting the Second Temple literature (with a view to its potential influence on the gospels) we need to study it in its on right, on its own terms, independently of the gospels.

Further, once we set aside the gospels (they are, after all, written post 70 CE) we need to analyze the sources on their own terms. Josephus is a good example here. Once we set aside gospel expectations and assumptions we find that Josephus is very focused on true and false prophets. He sees himself as a "true prophet", after all. He has much to say about those who falsely aspire to prophet-hood. Read on Josephus's own terms we find he has much to say about false prophets and the figures you mention (Theudas, Egyptian) are some of the false prophets he presents as foils. Nowhere (apart from a single passage relating to Vespasian) does he hint that any of the troublemakers prior to the war were false messiahs. Such an idea runs against the grain of his entire work.

I know many have picked out all the troublemakers Josephus describes and set them up as examples of false messiahs, but they have done so only be wrenching them out of the Josephan context and dumping them in the gospel context. That's what Green complained about (I quoted him at some length on pages 1 and 3 of this thread) -- reading history and the sources as if they all led to the gospel Jesus in some way; or using the gospel Jesus as the lens through which all the sources are interpreted.

Another area of disagreement is the function of apocalyptic literature in the Second Temple period and to some extent beyond. Apocalyptic literature was written to assure readers that everything was under control and that all would be right in the end -- no matter how hopeless the world looked here and now. Reading the accounts of God's intervention or sending a figure from heaven to bestow prosperity and justice had a reassuring function; they were not telling readers to forsake everything right now and rush to the nearest hilltop and wait for the messiah to come down before they had time for breakfast.

And because that's not the way they were read we can understand why there are so relatively few such texts in the larger corpus of Second Temple literature, including the DSS. Apocalypticism or messianism, especially as understood by us, was not a major preoccupation. The texts were there, but they were not the dominant literature and they were reassuring rather than telling people to get off their backsides and go look out for the messiah coming around the corner.

Read on their own terms (and not through gospel Jesus preconceptions) the DSS and Josephus take on a more realistic (I think) picture of the day.

After the war the evangelists saw Jesus as the fulfillment of everything under the sun and applied the whole OT to him. It is a mistake to assume that earlier writers did the same with their messianic figures, to the extent they ever had a messianic figure in mind in the first place.

And one more detail: I find there is very scant evidence for the type of Davidic messianic figure said to be the foil of the gospel Jesus prior to the gospels. Several posts in this thread have pointed to texts like the Psalms of Solomon and 2 Baruch etc -- (inc DSS) -- and one sees there, often enough, someone who is not really like that Jesus-foil, the earthly Davidic deliverer from Rome. That figure (as my Novenson posts demonstrate) was a later development, post Bar Kochba.

[MrMacSon]

Further, once we set aside the gospels (they are, after all, written post 70 CE) we need to analyze the sources on their own terms. Josephus is a good example here. Once we set aside gospel expectations and assumptions we find that Josephus is very focused on true and false prophets. He sees himself as a "true prophet", after all. He has much to say about those who falsely aspire to prophet-hood. Read on Josephus's own terms we find he has much to say about false prophets and the figures you mention (Theudas, Egyptian) are some of the false prophets he presents as foils. Nowhere (apart from a single passage relating to Vespasian) does he hint that any of the troublemakers prior to the war were false messiahs. Such an idea runs against the grain of his entire work.

I know many have picked out all the troublemakers Josephus describes and set them up as examples of false messiahs, but they have done so only be wrenching them out of the Josephan context and dumping them in the gospel context. That's what Green complained about (I quoted him at some length on pages 1 and 3 of this thread) -- reading history and the sources as if they all led to the gospel Jesus in some way; or using the gospel Jesus as the lens through which all the sources are interpreted.

• And those Josephean accounts were published or circulated after they were finished in 75 AD/CE or later.

[MrMacSon]

And one more detail: I find there is very scant evidence for the type of Davidic messianic figure said to be the foil of the gospel Jesus prior to the gospels. Several posts in this thread have pointed to texts like the Psalms of Solomon and 2 Baruch etc -- (inc DSS) -- and one sees there, often enough, someone who is not really like that Jesus-foil, the earthly Davidic deliverer from Rome. That figure (as my Novenson posts demonstrate) was a later development, post Bar Kochba.

A link to those Novenson posts on vridar.org are provided in the Opening Post -

"As significant background reading I can also recommend Matthew Novenson's Christ Among the Messiahs. I have blogged [on vridar] a series on this book. The first two posts in that series address the problem of modern readers bringing their own ideological conceptions of "messiah" into their reading of the Biblical texts. Novenson points out how very often our concepts of the messiah are read into passages that would otherwise have no messianic associations at all. He further points out that our understanding of messiah derives from a period AFTER the Second Temple era and was not, at least according to the evidence we have, part of general Second Temple thinking."
viewtopic.php?p=64275#p64275