Three Assumptions

[GakuseiDon]

Related to #1, messiah assumptions, I can add the assumption that there was ever a person or family in Second Temple Judea/Galilee who claimed to be of "Davidic descent", or that anyone in Judea/Galilee recognized any person or family that was of "Davidic descent".

Do you mean, messianic contenders claiming to be of Davidic descent, or people generally? Because there were important people who had been thought to be of Davidic descent from that period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder
Hillel the Great, died 10 CE in Jerusalem was a Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. "According to the Talmud, he descended from the Tribe of Benjamin on his father's side, and from the family of David on his mother's side."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_ben_Gamliel
Simeon ben Gamliel, c. 10 BCE – 70 CE, was a Tanna sage and leader of the Jewish people. He served as President of the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem during the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt, succeeding his father in the same office after his father's death in 52 CE and just before the destruction of the Second Temple. "He was a direct descendant of King David and the great-grandson of Hillel the Elder", according to the Talmud.

Remember the minimalists, after all. And even if there were once an Iron Age warlord named David of what significance was he to have justified genealogical descent through 1000 years?

Paul called himself "the seed of Benjamin". There were Levites at that time as well. They seemed to have taken an interest in their origins. Whether their claims were accurate or not I don't know, but those claims seemed to have been made.

Josephus noted that there were Jews who prophecized about the future using the Hebrew Scriptures. It might not have led to a ground swell of enthusiasm for a Davidic messiah leading up to the Jewish revolt, but if someone thought to have been descended from David came along, it would have been justification for messianic claims based in their scriptures.

And of course, a messianic contender's origin of Davidic descendent -- either historical or celestial -- would have been a natural development if that expectation was 'in the air' (if you'll forgive the pun) already. Dr Carrier proposes that the celestial Christ came from a Cosmic Sperm Bank containing David's seed, in order to fulfil scriptural expectations about a Davidic messiah. If that is the case, Carrier seems to be suggesting that there were expectations for a Davidic messiah (otherwise, why is David's sperm being stored in the Cosmic Sperm Bank in the first place?)

[Secret Alias]

It is also worth noting that Abu'l Fath the fourteenth century Samaritan chronicler who had access to good sources from a much earlier period preserves a story that Commodus - as part of his punishment of the Samaritan people - destroyed the scrolls of the priestly toledot. It was a tactic to delegitimize the priesthood and perhaps to establish new lines of authority. As such, it would stand to reason that by 180 CE there were still authoritative Samaritan toledot scrolls. To that end, similar scrolls must have existed in Jerusalem until the destruction of the temple for priests. Could such scrolls have existed for descendants of David? I don't know.

[Ben C. Smith]

It is also worth noting that Abu'l Fath the fourteenth century Samaritan chronicler who had access to good sources from a much earlier period preserves a story that Commodus - as part of his punishment of the Samaritan people - destroyed the scrolls of the priestly toledot. It was a tactic to delegitimize the priesthood and perhaps to establish new lines of authority. As such, it would stand to reason that by 180 CE there were still authoritative Samaritan toledot scrolls. To that end, similar scrolls must have existed in Jerusalem until the destruction of the temple for priests. Could such scrolls have existed for descendants of David? I don't know.

The claim for such scrolls and/or other kinds of genealogical records is certainly made:

Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 4.2: 2 .... Said R. Levi, “A scroll listing genealogies they found in Jerusalem, and in it were written the following: ‘Hillel derives from David; Ben Jesep from Assaf; Ben Sisit Hakkeset from Abner; Ben Qobisin from Ahab; Ben Kalba Sabua from Caleb; R. Yannai from Eli; Ben Yehud from Sepphoris; R. Hiyya the Elder from the children of Shephatiah son of Abital (2 Samuel 3.4); R. Yosé ben R. Halapta from the children of Jonadab ben Rechab; R. Nehemiah from Nehemiah the Tirshathite.’” ....

Jerusalem Talmud, Kelaim 9.3: 3 .... Rabbi was very humble and he said, “Whatever anyone tells me to do shall I do, except for what the elders of Batera did in behalf of my forefather, for they gave up their position and appointed him in their place [the reference being to Bathyrans’ giving way before Hillel and making him patriarch]. If the exilarch, R. Huna, should come here, I should seat him above me, because he comes from the tribe of Judah, while I come from the tribe of Benjamin, because he derives from the male line, and I from the female line.”

Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 62b: 62b .... It is related further that Rabbi Judah the Prince arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. Rabbi Judah the Prince said, "Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualification in these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place?" They sat and looked into the families’ ancestry and found that Rabbi Judah the Prince was descended from Shefatya ben Avital, the wife of David, whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother. ....

Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 56a: 56a .... Rab observed, "Rabbi, who is descended from David, seeks to defend him, and expounds in David's favor." ....

Paul is said to have been a Benjamite (Romans 11.1; Philippians 3.5). The prophetess Anna is said to be of the tribe of Asher (Luke 2.36). Judith is said to be of the tribe of Simeon (Judith 8.1 Vulgate; 9.2). According to the letter of Aristeas, the translators numbered 72 because there were six from each of the twelve tribes. So individual tribal claims seem to have been in style.

The matter of Davidic descent is a bit confusing, however, replete with various statement which are not always easy to harmonize:

Yitzhak Buxbaum, The Life and Teachings of Hillel, page 11: His lineage was unclear to the rabbis, who at one point ask, "What was Hillel's ancestry?" The best answer that could be provided was that given by Rabbi Levi (c. 300 c.E.) who reported that "a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem and in it was written: 'Hillel was descended From [King] David.'" Rabbi Levi lived long after Hillel. We do not know when or where the scroll was found, nor what credence to give it. It seems that Hillel himself had some interest in genealogy, as the Talmud reports that "Hillel taught: Among those who went up [to Israel] from Babylonia [with Ezra], there were ten genealogical classes." It is not inconceivable, then, that he had an interest also in his own origins and knew that he was descended from David. Of course, it could be that a glorious lineage was somewhat naturally and spontaneously generated for Hillel, who was the founder of a dynasty of Jewish leaders. On the other hand, someone as great as Hillel does not necessarily spring up out of the ground like a mushroom. A cultural "product" such as he is likely to have been the result of generations of development and refinement in families of the most intensely religious people. Although many Jews are not aware of it, such family lines of religious aristocracy exist even today among the Jewish people, and more than a few Jewish families can trace their lineage back to King David.

Yitzhak Buxbaum, The Life and Teachings of Hillel, page 304: Ketubot 62b says that Rabbi Judah the Prince (second century c.E.), a descendant of Hillel, was from the tribe of Benjamin on his father's side and from King David (of the tribe of Judah) on his mother's side, from Shefatiah, David's son by his wife Avital. However, the same genealogical scroll that states Hillel was from David states that it was Rabbi Hiyya the Great (not Rabbi Judah) who was descended from Shefatiah (Genesis Rabbah 98:8 and y. Tannit 4:2,68a). In Genesis Rabbah 33:3 and Kelaim 9:3 Rabbi Judah, who was the Nasi, the leader of the Jewish community in the Land of Israel, admits that the lineage of Rabbi Huna, the exilarch, the leader of the Jewish community in Babylonia, is superior to his own: "he [Rabbi Huna] is descended from Judah, while I am from Benjamin; he is descended [from King David] on the male side, while I am so descended only on the female side." See also Tosefot on Sanhedrin 5a. Commentators regularly transfer Rabbi Judah's statement about his lineage to Hillel, saying that Hillel was from the tribe of Benjamin on his father's side and from Judah and King David, from Shefatiah, on his mother's side (Isaac Weiss, Dor Dor v'Dorshav [Jerusalem: Ziv, 1904], p. 146; Joseph Klausner, Historiah Yisraelit, vol. 3 [Tel Aviv: Yahadut v'Enoshiyut, 1924] p. 101; Aaron Hyman, Tannaim v'Amoraim [Jerusalem: Kirya Ne'emana, 1964], p. 363). The genealogical scroll said Hillel was from David, and Rabbi Judah's comment about his ancestry comes right after a remark he makes about his "ancestor Hillel." So he might be referring to Hillel's father and mother. However, when he says he descends from David on his mother's side, he would more likely be referring to his own mother, not to Hillel's. Although there is possibly some connection with Hillel, it is unclear.

Davidic claims seem to have been made from antiquity through the medieval period and into the Renaissance and beyond. Some modern Jews apparently still make such claims.

[Secret Alias]

The Abarbanel clan of Portugal made the claim that they were of Davidic descent.

[Secret Alias]

I think it also forms part of the Hegesippus chronicle - i.e. that various Jerusalem bishops were hunted down because of their Davidic status.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think it also forms part of the Hegesippus chronicle - i.e. that various Jerusalem bishops were hunted down because of their Davidic status.

Yes:

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.11.1-3.12[.1]: 11.1 After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. 2 They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. 12[.1] He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.19[.1]-3.20.8: 19[.1] But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Savior according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words: 20.1 "Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh. 2 Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. 3 And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them. 4 And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. 5 Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. 6 And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. 7 Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. 8 But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan." These things are related by Hegesippus.

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.32.3-4: 3 But there is nothing like hearing the historian [Hegesippus] himself, who writes as follows: "Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor." 4 And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.

Not only that, but the rabbinic claim to have found a genealogical scroll is similar to Africanus' claim concerning the desposyni:

Eusebius, History of the Church 1.7.13-14: 13 But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae. 14 A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the Book of Days as faithfully as possible.

[Secret Alias]

But Eusebius's claims don't seem to match reality. Herod clearly married Mariamne the Hasmonean because of her Davidic links (note to remember for this conversation - Hasmonean lineage = Davidic lineage so yes there must have been ways of tracking Davidic ancestry). But clearly that the rabbinic sources have stupid stories about Herod having sex with her corpse or her preserved body in honey seems - like Eusebius - to deny that Herod WAS INDEED interested in Davidic ancestry IN A POSITIVE WAY. In other words, his children by Mariamne (Agrippa) had Davidic ancestry.

[Secret Alias]

In other words, Herod managed to secure Davidic ancestry for his children but this was denied - by a variety of methodologies - by later religious minds.

[Giuseppe]

If the Davidic messianism was so diffuse as it seems that you say in this thread, why was this logion preserved without apparent embarrassment, despite of the presumed Pauline belief that Jesus was davidic (Romans 1:3, if original)?

If David called the Messiah his Lord, how can the Messiah be his son?"

(Mark 12:37)

The options are two:

• Romans 1:3 is an interpolation

• Mark is not very pauline, after all.

But if we assume the interpolation of Romans 1:3, how can the davidic messianism, even if diffuse, be relevant for what concerns the early Christian belief about the Messiah?

I ask only to understand, since my personal belief is already that Mark 12:37 is merely a clue of Marcionite priority on Mark (without that I am staked on Mcn as first gospel).

[Ben C. Smith]

If the Davidic messianism was so diffuse as it seems that you say in this thread....

Who is the "you" in your question?

But, at any rate, it is at this very juncture that these conversations often break down, with one party arguing that the phenomenon existed and the other arguing that it was not very common, which may actually be an agreement between the two parties, yet neither seems to notice, and both go on arguing as if they are speaking to each other when, in fact, they are speaking to phantoms of each other.