The Threshold

Speaking of this era and literature means after the biblical era, post-biblical literature, through the 1st century AD.

Writings from the Second Temple era are the critical threshold for the birth of messianism. There is much critical discussion on this heated topic.

Many scholars state that the roots are biblical but the rise of messianism is not there within the Hebrew Bible. Some argue that what is in the Hebrew Bible is messianism, but this is a reduction of what messianism is in Jewish traditions.

If the roots are biblical, and then the New Testament showcases messianism in full form, whether or not one agrees if that is the particularly rounded and proper form or not... So, either the New Testament is the prototype and the rise of messianism, or, messianism rose in other texts of the time. Which texts?

In the last piece we already entered into the Book of Enoch, which for me was already the most interesting and most relevant messianic textual evidence before or outside the New Testament. 

Translations as Interpretation

We have the Septuagint, a classic Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, from sometime around 150-200 BC. This translation does not interpret what would be considered classic messianic prophecies, such as the “star of Jacob”, in Numbers 24:17, but a later translation into Aramaic, Onkelos, from perhaps the year 200 AD, translates into the text, “the star of Jacob and the messiah…” In other words, Onkelos seems to have the messianic mindset established.

This may not prove anything, but it indicates a symbolic time frame, roughly -200 to the year 200, before and after the New Testament during these years of the 2nd Temple and all its writings and movements, the messianic idea came out.

Ancient Historians

Another point of reference are the great writers of the time: Philon of Alexandria and Josephus. Both wrote volumes. Josephus was a commander in the war against the Romans, and in the middle of the warfare he decided that the Jews really should surrender. He surrendered and tried to convince all of his fellow Jews to surrender as well. 

His efforts were not effective, but after the war he was taken to Rome as an official associate of sorts for the emperor himself, and spent his remaining lifetime writing a grand history of the Jews from biblical times through the war, perhaps thinking that the Jewish legacy was ending. 

Throughout all his writings he does not describe a messianic apocalyptic Davidic redeemer. We would expect him to do so, if we adhere to the New Testament assumptions of messianism being a common worldview at the time, or if we are not adherents of the New Testament and assume that the worldview was common at the time regardless of the New Testament.

It is possible that Josephus intentionally fails to present this idea, out of respect to the Roman emperor, and following the war. Maybe he thought it best to remove such a nationalistic militaristic idea. 

The same is the case of Philon of Alexandria, a wealthy scholarly Egyptian Jew who was famously sent as a delegation to the caesar to request his protection for the Jewish community from antagonists. He produced volumes of philosophical and theological writings.

He wrote of the Jews, the Bible, Judaism as a Platonic religion, and philosophy. Philon even spoke of the ideal age, seemingly close to the messianic age - but he didn't call it that. For Philon there is no messianic figure, no Davidic nor legendary and apocalyptic king at all. His hero is Moses, as a Platonic-like philosopher.

Maccabeans, etc.

We also have the book of Maccabees. Often the Maccabees are spoken of as a messianic movement. But this is also non-messianic, perhaps even anti-messianic. The term messiah is not there. It is a national religious movement, led by a priestly family, there is no David there. 

The Hasmonean kingdom of Israel that followed (167 - 37 BC) was led by the descendants of these priests, not the Davidic line. In other words, it essentially undermines the whole Davidic dynasty and iconism. They utilized biblical and otherwise religious nuances, they even rededicated the Temple, but there is no messianism. Yet scholars and populists speak Maccabees as messianic.

At the same time the Psalms of Solomon reads praises for the Davidic king such as “Lord you chose David to be king over Israel and swore to him about his descendants forever, that his kingdom should not fall before you…” (17:4); nothing we haven’t seen already essentially. But the Psalms of Solomon do come close to suggesting an ideal age with an iconic David figure.

Dead Sea Sects

If you have followed to this point, you have come far and there is just one major bloc of literature to go. Besides Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon, the missing link between messianism and the New Testament is assumed to be in the writings of the Dead Sea sects.

There is a common notion that this is where messianism was birthed, before the New Testament. But to me it is unsuccessful. I reviewed the material several times and have found it less than convincing.

I did not find acute messianism. We found the term, eschatological beliefs and hopes, and allusions to David, but not together in an intentional manner. 

We don’t know exactly who these groups were, how connected they were, when exactly they operated. We can assume there was one lead sect, composed of priests and families, who were rejected or removed themselves from the Temple scene in Jerusalem, for political and religious reasons, in other words - who leads what, and how things were being done, as well as because of material corruption.

These people were busy living their particular religious lifestyle, following their leader, and evidently writing things down. They wrote extensive portions of the Hebrew Bible, along with their sectarian books, that dealt with apocalyptic expectations, prophetic judgment, descriptions of their lifestyle, and more.

It is possible they parted ways with the establishment, preserving their way of righteousness, and later with the Roman advance thought they were preserving the biblical and Israelite way at large, including the Bible itself. 

There was a very strong leader of this sect, perhaps he was considered the great hero, the redeemer, a Messiah. Sometimes in some writings it is not clear if he is being referred to, or if the texts are referring to another figure, a futuristic figure. 

These people have similarities with the Essenes. It is possible they were the Essenes, or an offshoot of them. Like John the Baptist, who seemed somewhat of an Essene, he came from the Judean desert, lived a life of asceticism, and preached judgment at the religious establishment. 

In the variety of texts it is not always clear if a priestly figure is referred to, with or without the term “messiah” or metaphors of anointing which are suggestive enough, or if it is a Davidic figure referred to - especially because these are apparently priestly groups. They also quote Daniel often and identify with the eclectic holy or righteous remnant of sorts there.

In several pieces we find use of terms and phrases of (later considered) messianic biblical prophecies and allusions such as “branch of David” and references to Numbers 24 “Star of Jacob”, the fallen booth of David (Amos 9), Shiloh, and more. The term “messiah” is used, though not always to David but the priestly leader, and not necessarily a futuristic leader, just the priestly leader. Their main and idealized leader was apparently an anointed teacher priest. This is as close as it gets.

This is part of the challenge. It is also, again, part of the difficulty in defining what messianism or the messianic idea is. So after these examples, it is timely to review how scholars claim it should be.

Back to the Discussion

First Enoch and Psalms of Solomon come very close. Often cited are 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, which are also close, but I found less relevant, as they were produced later than the early New Testament writings. 

Many scholars are sure the missing link is the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think this is still reading later ideas back into these texts. Why did scholars do this? Because it takes lots of time for perspectives to change...

I think most of the attention was not focused enough. Scholars were still stuck inside concepts associated with messianism, or arguing inside differences between Judaism and Christianity, instead of the thing itself - messianism.

A scholar could find a piece of writing in this category, suggestive of a special leader, who dies for the sins of many, or a leader who assumes or is presumed to be some manifestation of God Himself. But this is not necessarily messianism itself. Rather, it is a big point in later Christianity, or in the bout between Judaism and Christianity, and who is to say that this is messianism?

It is possible there was messianism previous to the New Testament, but the writers do not write about it, or the evidence was omitted, or otherwise lost.