60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The Era

[Bernard Muller]

Some text mentioning a Messiah from David's lineage, dated probably 1st century BC:
Psalms of Solomon 17 (written around 55B.C.E. and extrapolated from Isa11:1-10):
"21 See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you, O God.
22 Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction;
23 In wisdom and in righteousness to drive out the sinners from the inheritance; to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter's jar;
24 To shatter all their substance with an iron rod; to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth;
25 At his warning the nations will flee from his presence; and he will condemn sinners by the thoughts of their hearts.
26 He will gather a holy people, whom he will lead in righteousness; and he will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God.
27 He will not tolerate unrighteousness [even] to pause among them, and any person who knows wickedness will not live with them. For he shall know them, that they are all children of their God.
28 He will distribute them upon the land according to their tribes; the alien and the foreigner will no longer live near them.
29 He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. ...
30 And he will have gentile nations serving him under his yoke, and he will glorify the Lord in [a place] prominent [above] the whole earth. And he will purge Jerusalem [and make it] holy as it was from the beginning,
31 [For] nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, to bring as gifts her children who had been driven out, and to see the glory of the Lord with which God has glorified her.
32 And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for he shall be holy, and their king shall be the Lord Messiah."
and
4Q252 frag. 1, col. 5, (interpreting Ge49:10)
"A sovereign shall not be removed from the tribe of Judah. Whenever Israel rules there shall not fail to be a descendent of David on the throne. For the staff is the covenant of kingship, the clans of Israel are the feet, until the Messiah of Righteousness comes, the branch of David. For to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of kingship over his people for all everlasting generations..."

PS: more could be extracted from the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' texts:
- 1QS 9-11 featuring a prophet and the priestly (Aaronic) & royal (Davidic) anointed ones.
- 4QFlor 1:11: the Scion of David will arise at the end of days (4QpISa).

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Some text mentioning a Messiaih from David's lineage, dated probably 1st century BC:
Psalms of Solomon 17 (written around 55B.C.E. and extrapolated from Isa11:1-10):

We have depicted a messiah king who rules or overcomes enemies of god by the word of his mouth. That doesn't sound like he's out there slashing soldier flesh till the blood rises up to the bridles of his charger. It sounds like we are reading metaphor. I read something similar in Hebrews. So we have a messiah who rules by the word. Sounds like a scribal type of messiah.

And it is God who sets him on his throne at the right time. Nations flee at his "warning" -- not before his blood-stained sword.

But that aside, what is there about that psalm that would prompt anyone to expect such a figure to appear within the first generation of the first century Palestine? More than that, what evidence do we have that this psalm in general, or these particular verses in particular, were a topic of discussion, interest, excitement, anticipation among the wider populace of the time?

Further, what might we expect to find in the evidence (such as Josephus, Tacitus, Paul, the gospels....) if those verses were indeed at the forefront of the wider community's minds, inspiring them to expect the appearance of this figure "any day now"?

[neilgodfrey]

It is worth taking the time to read the entire 17th Psalm of Solomon.

We find that God will restore a native king over Israel after a foreigner came in (likely Pompey) as punishment for the sins of earlier upstart kings (likely the Hasmoneans). There had been great suffering in Israel but all that was the direct consequence of sin and oppression. Not from the sword of the messiah.

The Davidic messiah will be raised by God to rule Israel and the foreign occupiers will flee at this new king's warning and godly and wise words. No sinner shall stand before him, least of all Israelite sinners.

But the messiah is nowhere said to go out conquering any other nations. Rather, the gentile nations come to him, to his kingdom, just like in Isaiah and Micah. They'll do obeisance to him as they (e.g. Queen of Sheba) did to Solomon -- all coming with gifts to hear his wisdom and see his glory.

In fact this messiah will not be a military man at all like David but will emulate the kingship of Deuteronomy -- no accrual of fabulous earthly riches, no great military. None of those things will be necessary because God will be his wisdom and glory and power.

He rebukes sinners with his "mighty word", not with his "mighty sword".

He rules by the holy spirit and righteousness, not by a military budget and resources.

He will be a Davidic messiah just as Solomon was a son of David -- a man of peace and great wisdom.

And there is no time-frame with any of this. All of this is to happen "at the time God sees fit".

If we were not already looking for and expecting/needing to find evidence of a popular messianic fervour in the early first century would anyone really point to this psalm as evidence for such a historical situation?

[neilgodfrey]

Coincidentally Philip Long in his Reading Acts blog writes the following:

In New Testament studies it is somewhat commonplace to say the Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting a messiah who was a military leader or a Davidic king. In popular preaching this is usually stated without any sort of evidence.

Indeed.

Philip goes on to say, however, that there is "some reason to think that some Jews" in the first century had this view of the messiah, but he does not indicate if he is thinking of early first century or the war period -- or both -- and he does not spell out what that reason is, though we can guess he's thinking (misguidedly in my opinion) of Josephus, DSS and Tacitus.

What is interesting is his main thought about the possibility that the Gospel of Mark is modelling Jesus on Judas Maccabee. Noting that when Jesus is said to be "going up" to Jerusalem an unusual verb suggesting the leading of a military expedition is used:

The verb (προάγω) appears in a very important Second Temple text in 2 Maccabees 10:1, Judas Maccabees and his followers up to Jerusalem to recover the Temple after Antiochus had desecrated it. But the writer of 2 Maccabees says it was the Lord himself who was leading them up to the temple

It's an interesting possibility, though I don't think we can at this stage say anything more than that.

[MrMacSon]

Coincidentally Philip Long in his Reading Acts blog writes the following:

In New Testament studies it is somewhat commonplace to say the Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting a messiah who was a military leader or a Davidic king. In popular preaching this is usually stated without any sort of evidence.

Indeed. Philip goes on to say, however, that there is "some reason to think that some Jews" in the first century had this view of the messiah, but he does not indicate if he is thinking of early first century or the war period -- or both -- and he does not spell out what that reason is, though we can guess he's thinking (misguidedly in my opinion) of Josephus, DSS and Tacitus.

What is interesting is his main thought about the possibility that the Gospel of Mark is modelling Jesus on Judas Maccabee. Noting that when Jesus is said to be "going up" to Jerusalem an unusual verb suggesting the leading of a military expedition is used...

It's also possible that the expectation of a messiah who was a military leader gradually increased over time using both recent (1st century events) and distant-past scenarios (such as the Maccabee revolt) as points of reference.

Even though the Flavians -particularly Vespasian & his son Titus- were Romans who overcame the Jews, the then mid-late 1st C. generation of Jews could have taken on auras or memes attributed to them, and there were also 1st century Jewish heroes to revere stories about.

See my previous post on the previous webpage about Garet Robinson's paper Evaluating the Healing Miracles of Vespasian and Jesus which somewhat correlates accounts of Vespasian to the Gospel of Mark accounts of Jesus.

.

[Bernard Muller]

Lk 3:15 "As the people were in expectation, and all men questioned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he were the Christ,"
That seems odd, even against the grain, for "Luke" to declare that about John the Baptist. Therefore I think that comment is likely true, more so by looking at what Josephus (and the gospels authors) wrote about JtB, especially, as I showed on my web site, when the JtB episode came right after the first event of Pilate's rule, as narrated by Josephus:
http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

I think the belief of a new world order to come to benefit greatly the Jews, with of without a human Messiah, was a dormant belief/hope, which was awakened every time there were significant earthly events (most of the time bad) affecting the Jews.

For example, that's the case for the book of Daniel, after the forays in Jerusalem by Antiochus IV, with the ensuing massacres: http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

It seems extremely odd to me to question the idea that there was a strong expectation of the coming of God's kingdom and a possible Messiah at the turn of the era.

The common sense argument is very strong.

We have dozens of obvious Messianic passages. And we have hundreds of less-obvious yet still deemed by the Jews of the time to be Messianic. I forget the Jewish Scholars name but around 100 years ago one compiled a huge encyclopedic work showing the evidence of this.

We have the timing argument from Daniel.

And, we have the Roman oppression - those prophecies seem to always gain steam in direct proportion to the oppression of the people.

Lastly, we have the rise of Christianity, and the very intense and fast practice of applying OT passages to either this human being Jesus, or some figure they created to conform with such expectations. And, we have the evidence that this Messianic religion started among the Jewish people.

IF there was very little Messianic Expectation among the Jewish people of that day, then something truly extraordinary must have happened in order to just suddenly decide that all of those things that didn't mean much to them suddenly took on enormous meaning - resulting in either the adoption or creation of a Messiah figure.

Which makes more (common) sense: lots of groundwork enabling the formation of a new religion, or a sudden formation with little prior basis?

[neilgodfrey]

It seems extremely odd to me to question the idea that there was a strong expectation of the coming of God's kingdom and a possible Messiah at the turn of the era.

The common sense argument is very strong.

We have dozens of obvious Messianic passages. And we have hundreds of less-obvious yet still deemed by the Jews of the time to be Messianic. I forget the Jewish Scholars name but around 100 years ago one compiled a huge encyclopedic work showing the evidence of this.

Yes, the messianic interpretations of these passages were a later development. There is little evidence of that interpretation applied to those passages in the Second Temple era. "Common sense" indeed is strong here. It has been culturally ingrained into Western thinking that Christ was deemed the fulfilment of the Scriptures and the Jews failed to recognise him accordingly as their hoped for messiah. But that is Christian ideology and is not supported by historical evidence.

We have the timing argument from Daniel.

Again, this is an argument that subsequent generations have imputed into the Second Temple era. There is no evidence that anyone was calculating times of the messianic arrival around the early first century from Daniel. Later writers started with the Gospel of Luke and worked backwards to try to fit a Daniel chronology, but we have no reason to think anyone was doing that in the first century.

And, we have the Roman oppression - those prophecies seem to always gain steam in direct proportion to the oppression of the people.

Interestingly the Romans are seen as God's instrument to punish the wicked Hasmoneans in Psalm of Solomon 17, the messianic psalm. Jews were not the only people under Roman occupation and there is no reason to think they responded any differently to their masters from any other people.

Lastly, we have the rise of Christianity, and the very intense and fast practice of applying OT passages to either this human being Jesus, or some figure they created to conform with such expectations. And, we have the evidence that this Messianic religion started among the Jewish people.

Exactly. The notion of messianic expectations was a Christian doctrinal invention. To make their Christ credible they had to present him as the fulfilment of the OT scriptures. The OT was said to point to Christ and this was all fabricated as an effort to expropriate the Scriptures from the Jews.

IF there was very little Messianic Expectation among the Jewish people of that day, then something truly extraordinary must have happened in order to just suddenly decide that all of those things that didn't mean much to them suddenly took on enormous meaning - resulting in either the adoption or creation of a Messiah figure.

Like what things?

Which makes more (common) sense: lots of groundwork enabling the formation of a new religion, or a sudden formation with little prior basis?

There was plenty of "groundwork" for Christianity. It grew out of Judaism. Just look at Paul's Christ. There is no need to resort to popular messianic explanations to explain Paul and his churches. Quite the contrary, I suggest.

[Peter Kirby]

Word games. Reading with malicious intent. Twisting and distorting. Evading the question raised and misreading replies. Typical Christian apologist. Another Ken Ham who has no idea how to carry on an honest intellectual discussion here.

You even made SPIN, the rather anti-Christian moderator go away.

"SPIN" is not a moderator here, I do not believe. Diogenes the Cynic recently stated that he was a moderator here, and I did find his listed as "Global Moderator". As far as I know, Peter is the Board Owner, Administrator and Moderator in Chief, but he is also a graduate student, so he has said "goodbye" to any free time. To be honest, I don't see Diogenes the Cynic too much.

DCH

All correct, except that I'm graduating this spring with a BA in Mathematics and will be starting as a software engineer. I'm in the middle of receiving offers to work at companies brought to you by the letters "A" and "G." (Leaning towards the i-Stuff right now...)

(But, for my age, I should be a grad student... very understandable mistake... )

[andrewcriddle]

It is worth taking the time to read the entire 17th Psalm of Solomon.

We find that God will restore a native king over Israel after a foreigner came in (likely Pompey) as punishment for the sins of earlier upstart kings (likely the Hasmoneans). There had been great suffering in Israel but all that was the direct consequence of sin and oppression. Not from the sword of the messiah.

The Davidic messiah will be raised by God to rule Israel and the foreign occupiers will flee at this new king's warning and godly and wise words. No sinner shall stand before him, least of all Israelite sinners.

But the messiah is nowhere said to go out conquering any other nations. Rather, the gentile nations come to him, to his kingdom, just like in Isaiah and Micah. They'll do obeisance to him as they (e.g. Queen of Sheba) did to Solomon -- all coming with gifts to hear his wisdom and see his glory.

In fact this messiah will not be a military man at all like David but will emulate the kingship of Deuteronomy -- no accrual of fabulous earthly riches, no great military. None of those things will be necessary because God will be his wisdom and glory and power.

He rebukes sinners with his "mighty word", not with his "mighty sword".

He rules by the holy spirit and righteousness, not by a military budget and resources.

He will be a Davidic messiah just as Solomon was a son of David -- a man of peace and great wisdom.

And there is no time-frame with any of this. All of this is to happen "at the time God sees fit".

If we were not already looking for and expecting/needing to find evidence of a popular messianic fervour in the early first century would anyone really point to this psalm as evidence for such a historical situation?

I agree that the 17th Psalm of Solomon represents a specific group at a specific time and is not necessarily evidence of widespread anything.

However it does clearly refer to a Davidic Messiah who will deliver the Jewish people. If this does not count as evidence of Davidic messianic expectation by the writer I am not sure what would.

Andrew Criddle