Jewish prophecies of Messiah's arrival for circa 1st c. AD

[neilgodfrey]

Indeed, Matthew's 1st century messianic interpretation of Micah 5:2, which the gospel attributes to the "chief priests and teachers of the law," is in fact the standard interpretation given in rabbinic sources.

Matthew's narrative makes it clear that far from there being any widespread popular expectation of a messiah to come, the widespread populace was completely mystified by the arrival of the magi. And so was the king. The messianic prophecy only emerged after an ivory towered group of scribes were called upon to mantically decipher the meaning of the event.

[neilgodfrey]

On the relevance of the Similitudes and Qumran as evidence for popular messianic expectations in the early first century -- a section I copy and paste from a larger post at Questioning Claims about Messianic Anticipations among Judeans of the Early First Century:

#8 — Jacob Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987)

Shemaryahu Talmon has a chapter titled “Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters”. Unlike Horsley, Zetterholm and Collins above, Talmon interprets the references to the anointed one or messiah in the scrolls as indicative of a messianic focus, although he speaks about it in relatively generalized terms. There is no suggestion of a group eagerly calculating dates in hopes that the dramatic figure would appear suddenly.

The above survey points up a striking characteristic of the millenarian-messianic idea at Qumran: The expected New Aeon will unfold as an age in which terrestrial-historical experience coalesces with celestial spiritual Utopia. Salvation is viewed as transcendent and imminent at the same time. The New Order to be established by the Anointed is not otherworldly but rather the realization of a divine plan on earth, the consummation of history in history. (p. 131)

A subsequent chapter is by J.H. Charlesworth, “From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology. Some Caveats and Perspectives”, states:

It is pertinent now to ask, as a logical sequence to our first question, “Is is not true that almost all (first-century Palestinian) Jews expected in the near future a Messiah?” The answer is clearly “no.” (p. 250)

As we have stated, the terminus technicus MShYH – “the Messiah,” “the Anointed One,” or “anointed one” – is found in early Jewish literature only in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. But even in these two collections it is not abundant. Of ninety-six significant documents produced by the Qumran Essenes, the Damascus Document, only 11Q Melchizedek, 4Q Patriarchal Blessings, lQSa, and 1QS contain this technical term. The latter document – the Rule of the Community – furthermore, is preserved partially in a fragment from Cave IV; and it does not contain the famous reference to two Messiahs. Of 65 documents in the Pseudepigrapha many are too late for inclusion in our present quest; yet only a small minority of the remaining early Jewish writings contain explicit references to the Messiah. We have presented and discussed each of these, namely the Psalms of Solomon, the Similitudes of Enoch (which are entwined with intricate thoughts about the Messiah and his other titles), 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch (the authors of the latter two have inherited but not really digested a wide range of traditions regarding the Messiah). In many of the Pseudepigrapha, namely Jubilees, the Testament of Moses, Pseudo-Philo, and the Life of Adam and Eve, the term “the Messiah” is surprisingly and conspicuously absent.

Some early Jews did not look for the coming of a Messiah. They contended that God himself would act; he would punish the gentiles. (p. 250)

Charlesworth does express the common apology for Josephus’s silence with respect to messianic movements that argues that he did not like to remind readers that the Jewish hostility towards Rome was inspired by such an interest. On the other hand we need to keep in mind that there is also the positive argument (expressed above — see Horsley) to explain why Josephus described the movements of the 50s (a generation following that of Jesus) as prophetic rather than messianic. I find the argument less than cogent given that Josephus is quite capable of distinguishing between good and bad prophetic movements; furthermore, he does speak about messianic interests and he ties them in with the later part of the first century when outright warfare was under way. This is quite a different set of circumstances from the period of the early part of the first century CE.

[neilgodfrey]

#6 — James Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992)

Chapter 14 is by Richard Horsley, “‘Messianic’ Figures and Movements in First-Century Palestine”:

Is there any reason to believe that the extant literature, which was produced by a tiny fraction of the population who occupied a social position very different from the vast majority, reflected the attitudes and ideas of the whole society? (p. 278)

. . . . .

It is becoming increasingly evident that there was little interest in a Messiah, Davidic or otherwise, let alone a Standard messianic expectation, in the diverse Palestinian Jewish literature of late Second Temple times. It could be that, until we attain a far more precise historical sense of groups and expectations in the Jewish Palestine from which “Christianity” and “Judaism” emerged, we should simply drop the concept “Messiah/messianic” altogether. (p. 295)

[neilgodfrey]

In a review of the most detailed discussions of the idea of the Messiah among Jews of the Second Temple period, The One Who Is to Come by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Jeffrey L. Staley writes:

There is no serious attempt to place messianism within the broader matrix of social history. There is no interaction with, say, Richard Horsley or John Dominic Crossan’s work on social banditry and peasant movements (Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus; The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant). One might then ask of Fitzmyer what communities he thinks are reflected in his textual study. If, as many have suggested, only 5 percent of the ancient Mediterranean population could read and write, then what segment of the population is reflected in Fitzmyer’s analysis? Is his “history of an idea” representative of Jewish belief at large, or does it represent only a small segment of the population? Does Fitzmyer’s study of the “history of an idea” reflect only the elites’ mental peregrinations, which are largely unrelated to the general masses? And what difference, if any, would his answer to this question make to this “history of an idea”?

[neilgodfrey]

On the relevance of the Similitudes and Qumran as evidence for popular messianic expectations in the early first century -- a section I copy and paste from a larger post at Questioning Claims about Messianic Anticipations among Judeans of the Early First Century:

#8 — Jacob Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987)

Shemaryahu Talmon has a chapter titled “Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters”. Unlike Horsley, Zetterholm and Collins above, Talmon interprets the references to the anointed one or messiah in the scrolls as indicative of a messianic focus, although he speaks about it in relatively generalized terms. There is no suggestion of a group eagerly calculating dates in hopes that the dramatic figure would appear suddenly.

The above survey points up a striking characteristic of the millenarian-messianic idea at Qumran: The expected New Aeon will unfold as an age in which terrestrial-historical experience coalesces with celestial spiritual Utopia. Salvation is viewed as transcendent and imminent at the same time. The New Order to be established by the Anointed is not otherworldly but rather the realization of a divine plan on earth, the consummation of history in history. (p. 131)

A subsequent chapter is by J.H. Charlesworth, “From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology. Some Caveats and Perspectives”, states:

It is pertinent now to ask, as a logical sequence to our first question, “Is is not true that almost all (first-century Palestinian) Jews expected in the near future a Messiah?” The answer is clearly “no.” (p. 250)

As we have stated, the terminus technicus MShYH – “the Messiah,” “the Anointed One,” or “anointed one” – is found in early Jewish literature only in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. But even in these two collections it is not abundant. Of ninety-six significant documents produced by the Qumran Essenes, the Damascus Document, only 11Q Melchizedek, 4Q Patriarchal Blessings, lQSa, and 1QS contain this technical term. The latter document – the Rule of the Community – furthermore, is preserved partially in a fragment from Cave IV; and it does not contain the famous reference to two Messiahs. Of 65 documents in the Pseudepigrapha many are too late for inclusion in our present quest; yet only a small minority of the remaining early Jewish writings contain explicit references to the Messiah. We have presented and discussed each of these, namely the Psalms of Solomon, the Similitudes of Enoch (which are entwined with intricate thoughts about the Messiah and his other titles), 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch (the authors of the latter two have inherited but not really digested a wide range of traditions regarding the Messiah). In many of the Pseudepigrapha, namely Jubilees, the Testament of Moses, Pseudo-Philo, and the Life of Adam and Eve, the term “the Messiah” is surprisingly and conspicuously absent.

Some early Jews did not look for the coming of a Messiah. They contended that God himself would act; he would punish the gentiles. (p. 250)

Charlesworth does express the common apology for Josephus’s silence with respect to messianic movements that argues that he did not like to remind readers that the Jewish hostility towards Rome was inspired by such an interest. On the other hand we need to keep in mind that there is also the positive argument (expressed above — see Horsley) to explain why Josephus described the movements of the 50s (a generation following that of Jesus) as prophetic rather than messianic. I find the argument less than cogent given that Josephus is quite capable of distinguishing between good and bad prophetic movements; furthermore, he does speak about messianic interests and he ties them in with the later part of the first century when outright warfare was under way. This is quite a different set of circumstances from the period of the early part of the first century CE.

[neilgodfrey]

See Was the Book of Daniel Really a “Key Messianic Text”?

Further on the Qumran evidence:

#1 — Stanley Porter (ed.), The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2007)
Two chapters are of relevance: “The Messiah in the Qumran Communities” by Al Wolters and “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism” by Loren T. Stuckenbruck.

Neither discusses popular messianic expectations in the Judea of early first century CE. Both discuss the various nuances of what a Messiah meant to various authors but there is no discussion of time-tables or expectations that such figures were eagerly expected to appear at any particular time.

Al Wolters writes

I am struck by a number of points that call for comment. The first is how sparse and ambiguous the evidence is. The Qumran Scrolls speak very little of an eschatological messiah — even of a messianic figure broadly defined — and when they do it is always incidental to other concerns and usually subject to multiple interpretations. In short, it is clear that messianic expectation was not central to the religious worldview of the Qumran sectarians, and what little such expectation there was is hard to pin down. (p. 80)

[rakovsky]

Main relevance I see to Christianity's claims is that if there was an expectation among Judeans of Messiah's arrival in the 1st c., it helps to support the belief, reflected in the Talmud and Maimonides, that there was a prediction in the Tanakh that Messiah would arrive at that time.

Ben quoted the 1st c. writer Josephus about this already:

Josephus, Wars 6.5.4 §312-313:

But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.

Such expectations are not a final proof of the prophecy's meaning, since the oracle is said to be ambiguous.

[iskander]

Main relevance I see to Christianity's claims is that if there was an expectation among Judeans of Messiah's arrival in the 1st c., it helps to support the belief, reflected in the Talmud and Maimonides, that there was a prediction in the Tanakh that Messiah would arrive at that time.

Ben quoted the 1st c. writer Josephus about this already:

Josephus, Wars 6.5.4 §312-313:

But what lifted them up especially toward the war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, as at that time someone from their country should rule the inhabited earth. This they took as belonging to their own house, and many of the wise men were misled in their judgment. But this oracle pointed to the leadership of Vespasian, who was appointed autocrat in Judea.

Such expectations are not a final proof of the prophecy's meaning, since the oracle is said to be ambiguous.

It is silly to argue about the precise year, month, day and hour of the beginning of the messianic expectations. The important thing is not who was certified as true messiah but the appearance of candidates aspiring to the vacant post. Even today in the USA candidates to that job are known.

Context:
Romans 9:4-5, these verses explain the background of the New Testament : the story in the NT is a development of the religion of the Israelites who are sons of God and used to the presence of God in their midst as partner , overseer , maestro and Santa.
From this people by sexual intercourse [ kata sarka , natural descent] a Messiah was born .This Messiah is a precious gift of the one who is above all.
NT verses chosen:
Romans 9:4They are descendants of Israel, chosen to be God's sons; theirs is the glory of the divine presence, theirs the covenants, the law, the temple worship, and the promises.
Romans 9:5 The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all , be blessed forever! Amen.
The Oxford Study Bible
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/shop/books/ref ... 7QodT5QCOg
Romans 9:4-5 makes the existence of a historical claimant to the post of messiah very likely.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Study-B ... 0195290003

Romans 9:4-5 makes the existence of a historical claimant to the post of messiah very likely. Does Romans 9:4-5 still make it so?

In his affidavit, the lead gabbai, Rabbi Zalman Lipskier, wrote that “the real issue in dispute involves conflicting views on how our faith views the passing of the Grand Rebbe Schneerson and whether or not at this time he may be referred to publicly as the Messiah.”

http://forward.com/news/10348/lawsuit-o ... z48jd3YFwM
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2753&start=60

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1578&p=62920#p62920

[neilgodfrey]

The myth of messianic expectations at the time of the early first century ....

I think one area worth considering in this connection is the level of doctrinal continuity between Pharisaeism and Rabbinic Judaism. The latter of course traces its own pedigree through the Pharisees. It is therefore entirely possible, and one might even say probable, that rabbinic messianism found its antecedents in pharisaic messianism. If that was in fact the case, then messianic expectations were conceivably widespread early in the 1st century CE given the level of popular influence the Pharisees reportedly had.

Putting a somewhat finer point on matters: If the standard 1st century dating of most books of the NT as well as certain OT Pseudepigrapha is accurate, then one can say with confidence that 1st century Jewish eschatology (pharisaic or otherwise) influenced later rabbinic eschatology; several eschatological themes show up in both strands of tradition, early and late. Thus, rabbinic eschatology is also conceivably indebted to 1st century messianism in particular. (Indeed, Matthew's 1st century messianic interpretation of Micah 5:2, which the gospel attributes to the "chief priests and teachers of the law," is in fact the standard interpretation given in rabbinic sources.)

I can no longer see the comment I thought I posted in response to this one earlier. Fwiw, it is not "a fact" that rabbinic Judaism descended from the Pharisees. I came across a claim that scholars were increasingly expressing doubts that this was in fact so by Burton Visotzky in "Aphrodite and the Rabbis". I enquired further and have turned up the following:

The first of the articles questioning this identification was Ellis Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources," HUCA 40-1 (1969- 70), 205- 49. He noted Mishna Yadaim 4 where one of the prominent founders of the Rabbinic movement, Yohanan Ben Zakkai, seems to distinguish himself from the Pharisees. Indeed, Rivkin points out that the most common usage of the term Pharisee in rabbinic literature refers to separatists and not the sect Josephus and the NT refer to.

But that point aside, I know of no evidence pointing to the Pharisees as voices of widespread popular messianic expectations in the first century. Can you point me to what I am overlooking?

[neilgodfrey]

On that “ambiguous oracle” cited by Josephus -- is it bedrock support for the picture of widespread popular messianic expectations in the early first century? The following discussion should not be necessary since it obviously pertains to a couple of generations later, but let's see what it has to say about even the late first century. (I have adapted a blog post for the following.)

The Goodman citation:
Goodman, Martin. 2007. “Messianism and Politics in the Land of Israel, 66-135 C.E.” In Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity, 149-157. New York: T. & T. Clark.

That “ambiguous oracle” cited by Josephus
Josephus: War 6.5.4 312-315

But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle also found in their sacred writings, that:

“At about that time, one from their country would become ruler of the habitable world.”

This they took to mean one of their own people, and many of the wise men were misled in their interpretation. This oracle, however, in reality signified the government of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor while in Judea.

Note Goodman’s insight into the context of Josephus’s words:

Josephus introduced this oracle into his history as a way of reassuring his readers that ‘God cares for men’ and had provided signs to enable his people – the Jews – to escape destruction, so that the calamity which had befallen them was due to their own folly. The first oracle he cites was one which predicted that the city and the sanctuary would be taken when the Temple became four-square; the messianic oracle was the second and, so Josephus wrote, more significant – although the alleged basis of this oracle in the writings of the Jews was left as unclear as that of the warning not to make the Temple square, for which the scriptural warrant is wholly obscure.

The importance of this messianic oracle in Josephus’ view as an encouragement to the rebels is not in doubt, but there are good reasons to suspect exaggeration.

Can we be sure of the origin of the “ambiguous oracle” when it is set beside another which certainly came from none of the sacred writings with which we are familiar today? And those reasons for Josephus having an interest in exaggerating the importance of this oracle are? . . .

The ‘correct’ interpretation of the oracle which he provided in this passage was of immense importance both for Vespasian, as evidence of divine approval of his remarkable seizure of supreme power in the Roman world despite his lowly origins, and for Josephus, whose release from captivity in 69 C.E. was owed directly to his alleged prophetic revelation two years before that Vespasian would become emperor. This prophecy was much used by the Flavian dynasty in its search for respectability in the Roman world. (Goodman 2007, p. 152)

Goodman proceeds to detail the propaganda use the Flavian dynasty made of this prophecy as we learn from the historians Suetonius and Tacitus.

We can identify, therefore, very strong reasons for Josephus wanting to exaggerate the importance of the messianic oracle, but that opens up more difficulties for the view that messianic movements were a significant contributing cause of the war. Goodman explains:

Josephus’ motives for stressing the messianic oracle are thus clear enough, so it is all the more striking that he did not refer to the ‘incorrect’ interpretation of the oracle by the rebels either in his narrative of the events leading up to the outbreak of the revolt or in the conduct of the war itself. Mentions of messianism are so absent from this detailed history that some have even suggested that Josephus tried to disguise the extent of Jewish messianic hopes from his Roman readers, a rather implausible notion in light of the prominence he allotted to the ‘ambiguous oracle’ in the passage just cited. Josephus wrote a great deal about ‘pseudo-prophets’. ‘deceivers’, and would-be kings, but nothing about ‘pseudo-messiahs’.

Such reticence is particularly striking in Josephus’ rather full description of two leaders of rebellion who might quite plausibly have presented themselves as messianic figures: Menahem son of Judas (leader of the sicarii in Jerusalem in 66 C.E.) and Simon bar Gioras (commander-in-chief of the Jewish forces in the last phase of the siege of Jerusalem). (p. 153)

Often we come by suggestions that Menahem saw himself as a messianic figure. To depart from Goodman for a moment here is Jona Lendering’s interpretation on the livius.org site:

There is no need to doubt whether Menahem claimed to be the Messiah. He was a warrior, entered Jerusalem dressed as a king, quarreled with the high priest (who may have entertained some doubts about Menahem’s claim), and worshipped God in the Temple. We can be positive that Menahem wanted to be the sole ruler of a restored Israel. There are no indications that his rule was regarded as the inauguration of the end of times, but this was, of course, not necessary.

But, replies Goodman,

But Josephus, who despised him, accused him only of a naked desire for power, and it is hard to see why he would not have included in his polemic some reference to his messianic delusions if they were believed to have been part of his self-presentation.

Elsewhere in the same volume Sean Freyne remarks

Menahem is another example of the long opposition to Herodian rule and those who were seen as its representatives throughout the first century C.E. (Freyne, 2007, p. 39)

Similarly with Simon bar Gioras. He, too, was described as nothing more or less than a military commander. It was only after the Temple had been destroyed that Josephus suggests he behaved rather bizarrely as if presenting himself with some supernatural aura, being driven by hunger to emerge from hiding in the tunnels dressed in white and purple. All very strange, but Josephus is hardly a reliable guide to his motivation, as Goodman reminds us.