The MESSIAH before the New Testament (was Where's the Censorhip?)
Catherine LaCugna
>> ... I mean the only way the skeptics can avoid the Daniel prophecies is
to
>> :prodate thebook which give rise to several irreconcilable difficulties
...
.
VIV WROTE:
>... "Messiah" after all merely means "Anointed One" - i.e. a priest,
> prophet or king - it was a common title of the time for acknowledged
> Jewish leaders considered to speak for the people with divine
> blessing - every generation would produce several men addressed by
> others as Messiah. Before the Xian hijacking of the term, Messiah
> meant much the same as Catholics currently mean when they address the
> Pope as "Your Holiness" - a man speaking with (alleged and widely
> accepted) divine authority and blessing but still wholly and only a
> man with no claim to personal divinity.
.
CATHERINE:
Hi Viv - enjoying the hot Christmas weather?
I agree with what you wrote about the term "the Messiah". The term's
secondary meaning, denoting a future eschatological king, DOES NOT APPEAR in
the Old Testament. There is NO prophecy in the Old Testament concerning the
Messiah who will come to establish God's eternal rule. In the words of a
very conservative biblical scholar, GE Ladd: "the simple term 'the Messiah'
does not occur in the OT at all". Not one of the 39 occurrences of
"messiah" in the Hebrew canon refers to an expected figure of the future
whose coming will coincide with the inauguration of an era of salvation.
The assumption by modern day readers of a Messiah-figure in the Old
Testament, which is widely maintained (although on absolutely NO
foundation), is quite wrong. The idea of a Messiah-figure arose long after
the Old Testament was completed.
I'd like to make the following 2 points, for anyone who's interested:
1. 'The Messiah' in it's eschatological sense is not in the OT; and
2. The concept of an eschatological Messiah arose only in the first
century BC (not from first century AD Christians, as you said, Viv)
The two points are a summary of a wide selection of current biblical
scholarship on the subject of "The Messiah".
1 MESSIAH IN THE OT
a). The assumption that the Jews were waiting for a commonly-understood
Messiah is wrong. There was no single discernible role-description for a
Messiah. The Jews did not have a coherent idea of what the Messiah would be
like. One cannot therefore claim that "most Jews were looking for the coming
of the Messiah".
b). The term "messiah" was applied in the OT to a present, political and
religious leader appointed by God. The 'Anointed One', in the OT, denotes
usually a King, also a priest (Lev, Num, Exo), and sometimes a prophet (Ps
105:15, 1 Chr 16:22). These are real people. Most occurrences concern the
Jewish King. Many references concern the
enthronement of actual kings, in the strongly mythological language which is
common to Egyptian enthronement ceremonies. As Yahweh had promised that
David's line would continue, the prophetic references often refer to
expected kings who would restore the Davidic dynasty. Zechariah identifies
Zerrubbabel as such as an expected
"anointed". Both Jeremiah and Zecahariah are concerned with the
restoration of the Davidic dynasty and priestly order. However, the
expectations were NOT of a final Davidic ruler, ruling for all time to come
- but of a continuing Davidic line.
c). The OT contains messianic passages (eg Psa 2, 2 Samuel 7, Isa 7, 9 & 11,
Zech 9, Dan 9:26). But these are not apocalyptic, nor eschatological.
d). The earliest explicit use of the technical term "Messiah/Christ" is in
the FIRST CENTURY BC - in the Psalms of Solomon and the Parables of Enoch.
Jewish Messianology developed out of the crisis of the non-messianic
Maccabean wars of the second century BC, and from the later concerns over
Roman rule. The scriptures were only interpreted with Messianic
connotations by Jews during the 2 centuries before 70AD.
The reason why Jesus did not 'fit' the OT scriptures concerning "the
Messiah" is because THERE ARE NONE! This is the consensus of OT scholarship,
which now includes even the most conservative voices. The idea of a future
Messiah who would bring judgment is developed much later, and even then, not
by all Jewish groups.
I'll leave you with a quote from bible scholar, Brevard Childs: "It HAS
LONG BEEN recognized that the term 'Messiah' in its technical New Testament
sense as the eschatological redeemer of Israel DOES NOT OCCUR in the Old
Testament itself, but only in the post-Old Testament period. Indeed, one of
the important tasks of Old Testament theology
is closely to describe the profile of the Old Testament witness without
fusing it to that of the New Testament." (emphasis added)
2. MESSIAH FROM c100BC
In the century before Jesus, the concept of a future end-times Messiah had
its origins. But what he would DO was widely different between different
Jewish groups. Here are some of the different ideas from Jewish literature
which was contemporary with Jesus,
about the "Messiah".
a). The Messiah's ancestry was described as Davidic in some sources, and he
is also described as God's Son, Enoch & Moses in others.
b). The earliest references to the Messiah have him as a NON-MILITARY figure
(a point completely misunderstood by most fundamentalist Christians, who
tell of "the Jews" who were expecting a military figure. This is a quite
untrue generalisation). Psalms of Solomon
17:21-33 & 4 Ezra 13:4-11 emphasise that the Messiah will not rely on a
sword, horse, or other military weapon - instead, people will be melted by
his WORD. The Messiah's modus operandi is 'sapiential' - driving out the
arrogant oppressive rulers "by the power of his word" (Ps Sol 17:24-25,
35-36). The predominant expectation in the Jewish literature is for the
Messiah to be a defender of Torah (ie "the Law"), not a military or
political leader. The Messiah is not portrayed as reigning from a luxurious
palace, but teaches "in the assemblies" (17:48), as a teacher of Torah.
Only in one book, 2 Baruch (72), is the Messiah portrayed as militant.
c). The Messiah was only assigned a TEMPORARY ROLE in some literature. He
does not reign forever, but plays a part in ushering in a new age. In 4
Ezra 7:28-29 the Messiah is prophesised to appear, to inaugurate the
Messianic period, and then to die (with no further role for the Messiah).
In 4 Ezra 7, the Messiah is simply sandwiched between 2 eras, functionless,
but with God's role in judgment affirmed.
d). The Messiah is the eschatological (ie "end-times") JUDGE in most sources
(eg Ps Sol 17:21-33, 4 Ezra 12:13-30; 2 Bar 40:1-2). However, the Judgment
commences only after the Messiah DIES in 4 Ezra 7:31-44. The Messiah's role
in judgment is limited only to reproaching the Romans with Torah and
denouncing them in the heavenly court (4 Ezra 11-13).
e). The kingdom of the Messiah establishes a PERMANENT and peaceful kingdom
in some literature (eg Ps Sol 17:21-32; 1 Enoch 38 &48-52; 2 Bar 73-74).
But, in 2 Baruch 36-40 and 4 Ezra 7, the kingdom of the Messiah will be
FINITE, before the eschaton (ie before the "end-event").
f). The Messiah is merely HUMAN in 2 Baruch and 4 Era 12:31-34. but, in 4
Ezra 13:13-14:9, he is a "man who arises out of the sea" - a haevenly
figure.
It is still possible that the popular understanding of Jewish sects in the
first century may have coloured the idea of the Messiah more than the
literature. However, it is clear that there are no grounds to show that the
Jews expected one certain conception of a Messiah. In fact, the Messiah was
differently conceived of by different groups,
and quite absent from most groups. The early Dead Sea Scroll literature is
quite non-messianic, and later ideas of two Messiahs (Aaronic and Davidic)
are not very important to the community.
The idea of the "Messiah" was absent from the OT, and still being developed
by Judaisms (including Christianity) during the first century when the NT
was being written.
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
Viv
:HELPU WROTE:
:>> ... I mean the only way the skeptics can avoid the Daniel prophecies is
:to
:>> :prodate thebook which give rise to several irreconcilable difficulties
:...
:.
:
:VIV WROTE:
:>... "Messiah" after all merely means "Anointed One" - i.e. a priest,
:> prophet or king - it was a common title of the time for acknowledged
:> Jewish leaders considered to speak for the people with divine
:> blessing - every generation would produce several men addressed by
:> others as Messiah. Before the Xian hijacking of the term, Messiah
:> meant much the same as Catholics currently mean when they address the
:> Pope as "Your Holiness" - a man speaking with (alleged and widely
:> accepted) divine authority and blessing but still wholly and only a
:> man with no claim to personal divinity.
:.
:
:CATHERINE:
:Hi Viv - enjoying the hot Christmas weather?
VIV
Yes indeed - although it was a bit too hot on Xmas Eve and Xmas Day
itself, yesterday and today have been pleasant - warm and mild at 23C.
[snip]
CATHERINE
:I'd like to make the following 2 points, for anyone who's interested:
:1. 'The Messiah' in it's eschatological sense is not in the OT; and
:2. The concept of an eschatological Messiah arose only in the first
:century BC (not from first century AD Christians, as you said, Viv)
[snip excellent summary of messianic scholarship]
VIV
Thank you for the information you posted, and you were quite right to
pick that nit that somehow got into my post - in future assertions I
shall amend any references to the hijacking of the term Messiah from
"Xian hijacking" to "eschatological hijacking". I had read of that
before, but had forgotten it.
Interestingly, some scholars are now asserting that "Christianity"
actually arose in the 1st century BC and that the 1st century books
and characters contained therein (ie the famous gospels and letters)
were merely the populist culmination of the philosophy of "The Way",
so I guess if I wanted to be combative I could claim to still be
correct. However, I am unsure of the soundness of these most recent
scholarly premises, so I am hardly about to champion them
unreservedly. Still, it is very interesting.
--
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. - H. G. Wells
Catherine LaCugna
> Thank you for the information you posted, and you were quite right to
> pick that nit that somehow got into my post - in future assertions I
> shall amend any references to the hijacking of the term Messiah from
> "Xian hijacking" to "eschatological hijacking". I had read of that
> before, but had forgotten it.
>
> Interestingly, some scholars are now asserting that "Christianity"
> actually arose in the 1st century BC and that the 1st century books
> and characters contained therein (ie the famous gospels and letters)
> were merely the populist culmination of the philosophy of "The Way",
> so I guess if I wanted to be combative I could claim to still be
> correct. However, I am unsure of the soundness of these most recent
> scholarly premises, so I am hardly about to champion them
> unreservedly. Still, it is very interesting.
CATHERINE:
yes - I'm not too sure of the soundness of their theories, either. There's
a lot of bad popular theories about the time of Jesus out there (witnesss
Bab Thierring for one). However, these chaps may be onto something. here's
some info I had on it (from the popular press!)
(I'd prefer that people read my previous post, which is widely held by
scholars. but we must be titillated with the new and bizaare...)
PROPOSING A MESSIAH BEFORE JESUS
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/02/arts/02DEAD.html
December 2, 2000
IDEAS
By EMILY EAKIN
Fifty-three years after the first Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in
caves in the Judean desert and eight years after they became widely
available, bitter arguments are still flaring over these
inscriptions on animal skins that are believed to be the oldest
existing records of the Judeo- Christian heritage.
Experts don't agree on such basic questions as who composed the
scrolls which are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, some just
thumbnail-size scraps too faded to read or exactly when they were
written, let alone their meaning. And scholarly dialogue has often
taken the form of lawsuits and shouting matches.
But even by the standards of this unusually contentious field, two
scholars are provoking particular controversy with an
unconventional theory: Jesus was no original; he was scooped by an
earlier messiah whose words are recorded in the scrolls.
Working independently, Michael O. Wise, a Christian professor at
Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minn., and Israel Knohl, a Jewish
professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem have recently published
books arguing that some of the scroll texts were written by a
suffering, Jesus-like messiah who lived at least 50 years before
Jesus was born.
The two disagree about who this first messiah was as well as about
other particulars. To Mr. Wise, author of "The First Messiah:
Investigating the Savior Before Christ" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999),
the messiah of the scrolls may have been a man named Judah who died
a violent death around 72 B.C. To Mr. Knohl, who wrote "The Messiah
Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls,"
published by the University of California Press in October, he was
most likely an Essene named Menahem who lived a generation later
and was killed by Romans during the social upheaval that followed
King Herod's death in 4 B.C.
"We have in the scrolls evidence of a messiah who has this
combination of suffering and divinity which is typical of Jesus,"
Mr. Knohl said by telephone from his home in Jerusalem. "The whole
approach to the New Testament should be changed because of it."
Indeed, as Mr. Wise and Mr. Knohl conceive it, the first messiah
hypothesis is radically at odds with much New Testament
scholarship. The conventional wisdom at least among most Bible
scholars is that Jesus acquired his distinctive messianic
attributes only after his death as his followers saw in his
crucifixion and resurrection the fulfillment of scriptural
prophecy. In this view, the depiction of Jesus in the Gospels as a
divine redeemer and suffering "son of man" is the result of
posthumous invention by followers who never knew him.
"New Testament scholars claim that the historical Jesus could not
speak this language because it didn't exist in the Judaism of his
day," Mr. Knohl said. "I'm arguing that it's possible Jesus did
think in these terms."
So far, most scholars vigorously disagree. Some go so far as to
dismiss Mr. Knohl's and Mr. Wise's efforts as religiously
motivated: attempts by Mr. Knohl, a Jew, to make Christianity look
more like Judaism and by Mr. Wise, a Christian, to try to make
Judaism look more like Christianity.
Others dismiss the theory as old news, noting that efforts to find
a messiah in the scrolls date back to the time of their discovery.
In the early 1950's, Andr Dupont-Sommer, a French expert, drew
parallels between a figure in the scrolls referred to as the
Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus Christ. Although his
interpretation was later discredited, it was widely read and
influenced such commentators as Edmund Wilson, who, writing in The
New Yorker in 1955, pronounced the scrolls' hiding place in Qumran
"more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity."
Today, most critics say that evidence for a Jesus-like messiah at
Qumran just isn't there. "What has happened here is what I call the
curse of the scrolls," said Lawrence Schiffman, Edelman professor
of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University and the author
of several books on the Dead Sea Scrolls. "Both these people have
made good contributions to the field but now they've lost control
and gone out on limbs. These books are going to get clobbered and
dismissed."
The fact that Mr. Knohl and Mr. Wise have proposed different
historical figures for the first messiah, skeptics say, is proof
that the theory isn't airtight. "Right there, that should give you
a clue that we're really not sure how to read this material," said
Sidnie White Crawford, a professor of classics and women's studies
at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln who has studied the
scrolls.
The 870 scrolls have evoked fascination and controversy since they
were discovered near the Dead Sea in the late 1940's and 1950's.
The writings, which contain the oldest known copies of the Old
Testament, as well as poems and stories about giants and angels,
horoscopes, calendars and even a list of buried treasure, are
generally attributed to the Essenes, a dissident Jewish sect active
between 150 B.C. and A.D. 70. Though nearly all the scrolls have
now been translated and published, much analysis and interpretation
remains to be done. Most experts believe they hold invaluable clues
about the history of Judaism and the origins of Christianity.
Mr. Knohl and Mr. Wise don't agree on which scroll texts are by
the messiah. For the most part, Mr. Knohl relies on a single text,
which he calls "the Self-Glorification Hymn." Written in the first
person, the hymn's speaker claims that he has been "despised" and
"rejected" by men and endured great "evil." At the same time,
however, he compares himself to angels and claims he is the
"beloved of the king" and a "companion of the holy ones." To Mr.
Knohl, these words suggested the combination of suffering and
divinity traditionally thought to be unique to Jesus.
Mr. Wise found similar evidence of a suffering messiah in another
set of hymns, known as the "Thanksgiving Hymns." Also written in
the first person, these hymns are believed by many experts to be
the writings of the founder of the group that produced the scrolls,
a man referred to only as the "Teacher of Righteousness."
Determining their messiahs' historical identities proved more
difficult. The name Menahem, for example, appears nowhere in the
scrolls. Nevertheless, Mr. Knohl argues that this mysterious Essene
whom the first- century historian Jospehus describes as a friend of
King Herod, was the most likely candidate for the Qumran messiah.
Mr. Wise proposed the name Judah based on allusions in the scrolls
to the "House of Judah." In the context of the scrolls, he argues,
this phrase from the Book of Isaiah could designate a political
party or dynasty led by a man named Judah.
Both authors credit the social turbulence of the last century B.C.
which included civil war among Jewish factions in Palestine, the
arrival of the Romans and the death of King Herod followed by a
bloody uprising against Roman rule for creating an atmosphere in
which messianic yearnings could flourish. But in linking the
authors of the scrolls to specific events, Mr. Knohl and Mr. Wise
may have unwittingly opened themselves to further criticism.
When Hanan Eshel, an archaeologist at Bar Ilan University near Tel
Aviv learned about Mr. Knohl's theory, for example, he and a
colleague, Magen Broshi, decided to subject it to scientific
testing. They sent samples of the "Self-Glorification Hymn" scroll
to a lab for carbon 14 dating. The results, Mr. Eshel says, will
appear in a forthcoming issue of the Hebrew journal Tarbiz, placed
the scroll between 168 and 49 B.C. too early for Mr. Knohl's
messiah scenario, which stresses Menahem's friendship with King
Herod.
"The hymn cannot be from the time of Herod," Mr. Eshel said.
"Herod only became king in 37 B.C. The concept of Menahem doesn't
hold."
Both Mr. Knohl and Mr. Wise say they are less wedded to the
identity of the first messiah than to the idea that whoever he
was he left his mark at Qumran. But even on this narrower claim,
they have been accused of misreading texts or ignoring passages
that might contradict their thesis.
John J. Collins, Holmes professor of the Old Testament at Yale
University, says that the Teacher of Righteousness whom Mr. Wise
identifies as the messiah Judah was himself awaiting the arrival of
a messiah. "The teacher expected at least two messiahs in the
future. He was more the forerunner than the fulfillment of
prophecy," Mr. Collins said. "He thought of himself as an unjustly
persecuted person who would be vindicated in the end, but the theme
of divine identity is not there."
As for Mr. Knohl's reading of the "Self- Glorification Hymn," Mr.
Collins said: "We're missing large parts the hymn. It's enigmatic.
Hardly any two people who've written about it agree with each
other. Is the figure who wrote it a messiah? That word isn't used
and it's a word that's in circulation."
In the end, the first messiah theory may not win many converts,
let alone undermine the current interpretation of the New
Testament. "There's just too much we don't know. We only have some
small bits of a very large picture," said Mr. Schiffman, comparing
work on the scrolls to trying to figure out the history of the
United States from a few issues of a couple of newspapers. "The
rest is all speculation."
Regards,
Catherine
"When it's over, I want to say: all my life I was a bride married to
amazement. I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.
When it is over, I don't want to wonder if I have made of my life something
particular, and real. I don't want to find myself sighing and frightened, or
full of argument."
- Mary Oliver 'When Death Comes'
David Christensen
(snipped eschatological v. Christian usurping of the term Messiah
> Interestingly, some scholars are now asserting that "Christianity"
> actually arose in the 1st century BC and that the 1st century books
> and characters contained therein (ie the famous gospels and letters)
> were merely the populist culmination of the philosophy of "The Way",
> so I guess if I wanted to be combative I could claim to still be
> correct. However, I am unsure of the soundness of these most recent
> scholarly premises, so I am hardly about to champion them
> unreservedly. Still, it is very interesting.
Catherine
Yes - I'm not too sure of the soundness of their theories, either.
There's a lot of bad popular theories about the time of Jesus out there
(witnesss Bab Thierring for one).
David C
I am not immune from the tendency. In message 19877 I posted under my
inerrantist handle a far-fetched theory that the Essenes' Teacher of
Righteousness, the Talmud's Jeschu ben Pandira, and the prophet(s)
referred to in Matt 2:23 were all the same person. If you click through,
scroll down to part six at the end.
Catherine
However, these chaps may be onto something. Here's some info I had on it
(from the popular press!)
(I'd prefer that people read my previous post, which is widely held by
scholars. But we must be titillated with the new and bizaare...)
(snipped newspaper article)
David C
I think your previous post is on the right track; the inter-testamental
period was considerably more important in regard to Messianic things
than is usually thought. It is a fascinating period, from the Persian
Release to John the Baptist. Concerning the first intimations, however,
of the expectation, the following proposition may interest you:
The origin of the Messianic expectation
was in the Mystery-Religions.
In the old Egyptian rites the candidate appeared for judgment before
Osiris and forty-two Judges of the Dead. If the soul confesses its sins
and thus reconciles itself with eternal Justice, powers draw near and
speak to it:
You have washed yourself clean in the Lake of the South.
You have rested yourself in the City of the North, which
is in Sekhet Sanhemu (the Field of the Grasshoppers),
where the mariners of Ra wash themselves clean at the
second hour of the night, and at the third hour of the
day. The hearts of the gods are gratified when they have
passed over it, whether it be by night or by day ...
- Egyptian Book of the Dead, ch. 125
The candidate felt his - I use the word 'his' deliberately because as
far as I know there were no female initiates - felt his eternal nature
connected with Osiris, going so far as to call himself Osiris (let Ani
stand for the personal name of deceased).
In due course, the god Osiris began to leave the realm where the
Egyptian initiate had previously met him, began in effect to die. As
time passed, Osiris did leave and the initiates began to wonder if
possibly he might return to them. Hence the public celebration of the
dying and rising ritual.
Moses "was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22).
He knew the rites. He knew also of the idea that Osiris was expected to
return. In leaving the atmosphere of Old Egypt, I allege, the Messianic
expectation entered the desert-religion of Moses and then the OT (but it
was not necessarily prominent nor publicly displayed over the time you
have surveyed).
Outside Egypt things also did not remain constant. Greece had its own
initiation rites and by the time of Solon, the initiates were able to
see through the dying and rising god to the reality underneath. For
instance, at Solon's initiation, says Plato, the Egyptian priest told
him the myth of the Paethon, son of Helios, and his father's horses.
Plato continues:
Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a
declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the
earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth,
which recurs after long intervals ... - Tim. 22 C-D
As the drama unfolds, Plato leads the reader back to the origin of the
world, back to the primordial power out of which everything came into
existence.
The father and maker of all this universe is past finding
out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men
would be impossible. And there is still a question to be
asked about him ... - Tim. 28 C
For the initiates, God is not revealed in the material universe because
he is under a spell. He can only be discerned by one who awakens the
divine within. This is why he cannot be made intelligible to all. It is
revealed in the Timaeus that even to one who draws near to him, he does
not reveal his true nature.
The father made the universe out of the world-body and world-soul,
mixing in harmony and proportion the elements, elements that he himself
brought into being by pouring himself out, and giving up his separate
existence as a result. Thus he produced the world-body.
Now when the Creator had framed the soul according to
his will, he formed within her the corporeal universe,
and brought the two together, and united them centre
to centre. The soul, interfused everywhere from the
centre to the circumference of heaven ...
Stretched out upon the world-body is the world-soul, the divine presence
of the world. It suffers death on the "cross of matter" so that the
world can exist. Plato calls nature the tomb of the divine, not a tomb
in which lies something dead, but the tomb where the eternal lies.
The right way to look at nature is for humanity to rescue the crucified
world-soul, which should rise free from its spell. This can happen in
the soul of an initiate and thus wisdom takes on its proper meaning in a
cosmic setting. Knowledge is the liberation, the resurrection of God.
So, the origin of the Messianic expectation was in the
Mystery-Religions, not only in Israel but Egypt, Greece, Babylon.
(For those who don't know Plato: My outline above of the Socratic view
is not necessarily objective. It was, after all, written by a Christian.
Paul may have received some of his ideas from Greek thought.)
http://www.egroups.com/message/errancyn/19877
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~drokk/BoD/Papyrus_Ani.txt
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html