Views of Messiahship in Antiquity
Views of Messiahship in Antiquity
To understand why Jesus needed to qualify the definition of messiahship, it is important to understand the range of ideas attached to messiahship in his day. Jesus was not the only teacher to dissent from other messianic views, for the range of views was broad. Most of the views would not fit his ministry (just as others’ messianic views would not fit all the messianic paradigms of their contemporaries).
The prophets had foretold an eschatological king and/or dynasty descended from David,66 a theme that continued in early Judaism.67 Because the king was the “anointed one,”68 Jewish people often granted the eschatological anointed king, the king par excellence, the articular title, “the messiah.” “Anointed” (for both royal and nonroyal uses) came into the Septuagint regularly as christos.69
The Gospels provide the impression that Palestinian Jews in general understood the term “messiah” (“anointed one”) and expected his coming. Given the term’s inadequacy in the Diaspora and in later Christian christology (“son of David” christology is far less prominent than wisdom, lord, and other christologies), it seems unlikely that the Gospels would have simply invented this usage.70 Yet our first-century evidence on the issue is disparate; some of it, especially texts directed toward Diaspora audiences, make minimal use of the term. But this lack of use may say more about our sources than about first-century Palestinian Judaism’s messianic expectations.
Josephus’ omission of messianic data is understandable; writing for a Diaspora readership, seeking to minimize Judaism’s revolutionary involvement, he has reason to play down messiahs and popular messianic ideals that could have political implications.71 Josephus may have even toned down David’s revolutionary activity and ancestry for the messiah.72 He elsewhere suppresses Jewish ideas that would present his heritage badly to the Romans and undoubtedly does the same with messiahship, “though certain of the persons whom he describes as brigands and deceivers must really have been messianic pretenders.” 73 Yet the nature of such messiahs varied: not all such messiahs were necessarily associated with militant resistance. If the Samaritan prophet, Theudas, or the Egyptian prophet were messianic figures, they looked to a miraculous divine intervention rather than mere military force to establish God’s reign.74
The failed Bar Kochba revolt of 132-35 CE led to Hadrian’s establishment of pagan Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem. The Romans flayed alive R. Akiba, one of the primary sources for the Mishnaic tradition. It should therefore not surprise us that the earliest rabbinic texts generally preserve a much more cautious approach to messianism, where it has not been suppressed altogether, than later texts that have returned to contemplation on biblical prophecies about the Son of David.75 Such skepticism is reported of R. Johanan ben Zakkai, who survived the destruction of 70 CE: finish what you are doing before going out to greet a Messianic claimant.76 But even in the late second century, rabbis still reportedly hoped for the coming of Messiah.77
A variety of other texts, however, emphasize messianic hopes.78 For example, the fourteenth and fifteenth benedictions of the Amida, probably rooted in the pre-70 period,79 long for the restoration of David’s house.80 Likewise, Psalms of Solomon 17:32, a pre-Christian source, declares hope in the coming king; the context envisions a warrior messiah (17:21-25). A variety of other Jewish sources from this period81 address the Messiah and often connect him with the final judgment.82 Both 4 Ezra 13 and Enoch’s Similitudes suggest a preexistent individual Messiah of some sort who will destroy the wicked.83
The Davidic Messiah was, by any definition of the type, a future ruler ordained by God with political (not merely spiritual) rule.84 Nevertheless, views about this Messiah diverged widely. Qumran’s “Messianic” expectation apparently encompassed two major eschatological anointed figures, a Davidic Messiah and a high priest.85 The Hasmoneans had combined priesthood and kingship in the same persons,86 a combination to which the Zadokite priests who founded the Qumran community strenuously objected.87 Thus this separatist priestly community emphasized an “anointed” priest as well as a king (cf. Zech 4:14; 6:13).88 Other texts less clearly connected with the Essene movement also stress the role of the future priest.89
In the earliest texts associated with the sort of movement we find at Qumran, Levi and Judah probably fulfill a special role because these two tribes constituted most of Israel as the community knew it,90 but only from Judah is a salvific figure mentioned.91 The ruler would come from Judah, not from what the sectarians viewed as the corrupt priestly Hasmonean line.92
After this period, however, scholars divide on the interpretation of the Qumran texts: some contend that they support one Messiah,93 others that they support two Messiahs,94 others that diversity of opinion existed within Qumran or its documents,95 or that different documents portray different stages in the community’s development of eschatological thought.96 1QS 9.11 does conjoin the expectation of a prophet with that of “the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel”; the Damascus Document, however, consistently employs the singular, lending credence to the possibility of diverse views in the texts.97
But the title “anointed” may apply to any figure for a leading office, which diminishes the conflict.98 One “anointed” figure is the rightful high priest (in contrast with the wicked one in the Temple), so only the other anointed figure is the eschatological king.99 Still, the Qumran evidence may suggest diverse approaches to Messianism; the possibly single Messiah of Aaron and Israel in the Damascus Document would imply that at some point Qumran’s greatest expectation was a Levitic rather than a Davidic anointed one.100
The rabbinic idea of two messiahs,101 however, derives from different exegesis and probably arises independently from later circumstances.102 Sufficient Old Testament basis existed to provide midrashic proofs for a suffering Messiah,103 but it is probably only after the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt that the rabbinic tradition of a suffering Messiah (Messiah ben Joseph) in addition to the triumphant warrior Messiah (Messiah ben David) arose.104 (The earlier proposal that the Dead Sea Scrolls envision a slain Messiah105 has been largely rejected.)106
A variety of messianic views thus existed. The view articulated by Jesus’ followers exists within this range in its Jewish environment, but is distinctive, not derived from any one source. This view does fit, however, what we have seen of Jesus’ mission.