Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Of the passages that you list not one is associated with the word messiah

The Samaritans do not accept the figure of the anointed one. Nevertheless they understand that the Pentateuch is associated with a secret figure who is 'like Moses' who is to come. Hard to argue with that minimalist understanding. The Pentateuch clearly foreshadows 'one who is to come' who is like Moses. Not necessarily a warrior figure. But a leader nonetheless.

The likely reason Judah had a different expectation is that it was associated with נַחְשׁ֥וֹן

Secret Alias wrote:

Of the passages that you list not one is associated with the word messiah

The Samaritans do not accept the figure of the anointed one. Nevertheless they understand that the Pentateuch is associated with a secret figure who is 'like Moses' who is to come. Hard to argue with that minimalist understanding. The Pentateuch clearly foreshadows 'one who is to come' who is like Moses. Not necessarily a warrior figure. But a leader nonetheless.

I have no disagreement with obvious facts like the prophecy in Deuteronomy of one "like Moses" to come, etc. Nor with Samaritan writings. My questions relate to all the baggage that seems to me to be gratuitously (as in merely assumed, lacking supporting evidence) attached to such passages.

If a word is nowhere associated with David in passages used to make a case then we need to justify how we use those passages to make a case related to that missing word. Not saying it cannot be done. I think in some cases it might be done. But I am questioning the easy assumptions we bring to the way we use such passages to support our theories.

So the next question to resolve is: On what evidence do we believe that these verses were interpreted by Second Temple sects etc as having messianic associations and significance?

The Psalms of Solomon, ch. 7 and some DSS scrolls viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2932&start=50#p65126

How do we determine what a "messianic age" or "messianic person" meant to any group in the Second Temple era? Was there even such a concept as "messianic age" in the Second Temple era? Do we automatically lump every text that speaks of an ideal future as being understood as messianic by groups in the Second Temple era?

I think it meant different things to different groups at various times. The so-called Messianic age (as the advent of an utopic domain for the Jews) also was thought to come without any Messiah.
In Daniel last part, Archangel Michael will bring about resurrections and eternal life. No Messiah here.
I also think there was not much of any Messianic or Apocalyptic expectations when things were going not too bad for the Jews, that is from the building of the second temple, and afterwards under the benevolent and loose rule of the Persians and the Hellenist kings, with the exception of Antiochus IV (whose looting of Jerusalem and ensuing massacres gave us 'Daniel'), up to the Roman arrival in Jerusalem, taking advantage of the late Hasmoneans corruption and in-fighting (that gave us the Psalms of Solomon ch. 7).
At this time, the failure of the Hasmoneans (also with the later Parthian invasion), made some Jews wished for another David, or one of his descendant, from the Davidian dynasty relatively successful in Judah for centuries, to usher better days for the Jews, under rulers of their own.
Then the Herodian kings (non-Jews) came, then the Romans directly. More reasons for wishing an utopic Kingdom under a Davidian king, with God's power to kick out the invaders and keep them outside (as in some verses in the OT). But that does not mean that wishful thinking was general and/or intense among the Jewish population, but only ready to kick in at some appropriate occasion.
Paul had Jesus as from David but that happened in his last epistle (Romans) and I think he reluctantly borrowed that notion from the earliest Jewish Christians (before the divine conception was invented).

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

So the next question to resolve is: On what evidence do we believe that these verses were interpreted by Second Temple sects etc as having messianic associations and significance?

The Psalms of Solomon, ch. 7 and some DSS scrolls viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2932&start=50#p65126

I guess my reply to your earlier post that you linked to here can be safely ignored. Replies that take an alternative perspective and interpretation are not relevant, it seems.

But again, you are just proof texting. We know the texts. We know the DSS and PsSol 17. We know their Davidic and messianic imagery. But my question was asking how we know the particular passages you cited earlier were interpreted messianically. I guess one can simply point to any prophetic passage with David in it and declare it to be messianic and in the minds of anyone else who wrote about a messianic David. But given that there are alternative possible explanations and interpretations I'd like to see arguments based on evidence, not just assumption.

Now what do you think of the Isaiah 55:1-5 passage? Did that have no significance for Jews? Or did they somehow just quietly ignore that one because it was too embarrassing to contemplate?

Bernard Muller wrote: I think it meant . . . .

I also think . . . .

. . . . More reasons for wishing an utopic Kingdom under a Davidian king. . . .

. . . . I think he . . . .

None of the points "thought" and none of "the reasons" given actually cite any evidence that pertains directly to the question. They are all conjecture about what events and passages might have meant to various people.

If a word is nowhere associated with David in passages used to make a case then we need to justify how we use those passages to make a case related to that missing word. Not saying it cannot be done.

OK but you accept that the Pentateuch and therefore 'Israelite religion' was centered around the revealing of a leader who was to come and act in the capacity or role of Moses in the Biblical narrative. You accept that this was a universal assumption across all 'Israelite cultures' (Samaritan, Jewish etc). What's there left to argue about? The term 'mashiach'? Of course that's a term from Daniel. Samaritans did have 'messianic-inspired' uprisings without having the term 'messiah.' Not sure what we are arguing about. There is no mention of the judgment of the dead in the Pentateuch either. I forget which is the third. Three things not explicitly mentioned in scripture which are of fundamental importance to 'orthodoxy' - the messiah, judgement of the dead and ...

The pre-existent messiah born of a woman ...

Micah 5
1.And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore
Rashi
from you shall emerge for Me: the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118:22): “The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.”
and his origin is from of old: “Before the sun his name is Yinnon” (Ps. 72:17


2.Therefore, He shall deliver them until the time a woman in confinement gives birth. And the rest of his brothers shall return upon the children of Israel
Rashi
Therefore, He shall deliver them until the time a woman in confinement gives birth: He shall deliver them into the hands of their enemies until the coming of the time that Zion has felt the pangs of labor and borne her children; Zion, which is now seized by the pangs of labor, is now called a woman in confinement. [I.e., now the labor pains will cease and the redempyion will come about.] But our Sages state that from here we deduce that the son of David will not come until the wicked kingdom spreads over the entire world for nine months (Yoma 10b, Sanh. 98b). But, according to its simple meaning, this is the structure as I explained.
...
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true

Secret Alias wrote: OK but you accept that the Pentateuch and therefore 'Israelite religion' was centered around the revealing of a leader who was to come and act in the capacity or role of Moses in the Biblical narrative. You accept that this was a universal assumption across all 'Israelite cultures' (Samaritan, Jewish etc).

No.

iskander wrote:The pre-existent messiah born of a woman ...

Micah 5
1.And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore
Rashi
from you shall emerge for Me: the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118:22): “The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.”
and his origin is from of old: “Before the sun his name is Yinnon” (Ps. 72:17


2.Therefore, He shall deliver them until the time a woman in confinement gives birth. And the rest of his brothers shall return upon the children of Israel
Rashi
Therefore, He shall deliver them until the time a woman in confinement gives birth: He shall deliver them into the hands of their enemies until the coming of the time that Zion has felt the pangs of labor and borne her children; Zion, which is now seized by the pangs of labor, is now called a woman in confinement. [I.e., now the labor pains will cease and the redempyion will come about.] But our Sages state that from here we deduce that the son of David will not come until the wicked kingdom spreads over the entire world for nine months (Yoma 10b, Sanh. 98b). But, according to its simple meaning, this is the structure as I explained.
...
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true

Second Temple Jews did not follow the Rashi commentary.