MESSIAH
i.e.
miraculously.
The
capital
would
be
at
Jerusalem,
which
would
be
purged
from
all
heathen,
and
his
sub-jects
would
be
righteous
Jews,
'
sons
of
God.'
7.
The
hterature
of
later
Pharisaism
became
very
strongly
apocalyptic,
but
the
figure
of
a
personal
Messiah
is
not
always
present.
In
the
Assumption
of
Moses
there
is
no
personal
Messiah
mentioned,
and
God
is
said
to
be
the
sole
punisher
of
the
Gentiles.
The
suffer-ings
of
the
faithful
are
treated
as
an
incentive
to
faith
in
the
Kingdom
of
God.
The
concrete
king
of
the
hostile
kingdom
should
be
overcome.
The
enemies
of
God
were
to
be
punished
in
Gehenna,
and
a
glorious
dispensation
for
united
Israel
was
to
dawn.
In
Slavonic
Snoch,
hkewise,
there
is
no
mention
of
the
Messiah
or
of
the
resurrection,
although
the
latter
is
doubtless
involved
in
the
doctrine
of
the
millennium,
which
this
book
sets
forth.
It
would
appear
that
both
in
the
Assumption
of
Moses
and
in
Slavonic
Enoch
the
central
figure
is
God,
'the
deliverer
of
His
people
and
judge
of
His
enemies,
rather
than
the
Messiah.
In
the
Apocalypse
of
Baruch
and
in
Second
Esdras,
however,
transcendentalism
reaches
its
final
form
under
the
influence
of
the
tragedy
of
the
fall
of
Jerusalem.
These
two
books
are
very
probably
the
different
forms
of
cycles
of
apocalyptic
hopes
that
prevailed
among
the
pious
Jews.
In
one
cycle
a
Messiah
would
slay
those
who
had
in
any
way
injured
the
Jewish
people,
and
make
a
Jerusalem
already
prepared
in
heaven
his
capital.
In
the
other
cycle
there
is
no
such
glory
in
store
for
Israel,
but
there
will
be
an
end
of
corruptible
things,
and
the
establishment
of
a
new
world-age
in
which
the
dead
shall
be
raised
under
the
command
of
the
Messiah.
In
Second
Esdras
the
Christ
is
conceived
of
as
pre-existent,
raised
from
the
sea
in
company
with
Enoch,
Moses,
and
EUjah;
and
is
addressed
by
God
as
'my
Son.'
He
destroys
the
enemies
of
Israel
without
war,
with
fire
that
proceeds
from
his
mouth.
The
ten
tribes
of
Israel
return
with
their
brethren
to
live
in
the
New
Jerusalem
which
had
come
down
from
heaven.
Then
the
Messiah
and
all
mankind
die,
remaining
dead
for
an
entire
'week';
after
that
come
a
general
resur-rection
and
judgment,
and
the
fixing
of
the
destinies
of
eternity.
God,
however,
rather
than
the
Messiah,
is
to
be
judge.
In
these
later
apocalypses
the
Christ
plays
a
large
r61e,
but
is
manifestly
to
be
subordinated
to
God.
III.
The
Messiah
of
popular
expectation
in
NT
times.
—
Over
against
this
Messiah
of
Pharisaic
hterature,
so
clearly
increasingly
superhuman
in
character,
must
be
placed
the
Messianic
hope
of
the
people
at
large.
It
is
difficult
to
discover
this
in
detail,
for
the
reason
that
it
found
its
way
into
hterature
only
as
a
hope
that
had
been
rejected
by
the
writers.
Yet
it
is
possible
in
some
passages
of
Josephus
to
trace
its
rise
and
its
tragic
outcome.
The
Messianic
spirit
is
undoubtedly
to
be
seen
in
the
succession
of
so-called
'robbers'
that
dis-turbed
the
reigns
of
Herod
i.
and
his
successors;
as
well
as
in
the
conspiracies
under
'the
ten
men'
(Ant.
XV.
viii.
3,
4)
and
the
Rabbis
Judas
and
Matthias
(Ant.
XVII.
vi.
2,
4).
With
the
death
of
Herod,
however,
the
Messianic
movement
among
the
masses
gathered
head-way,
particularly
after
the
erection
of
Judsa
into
a
procuratorial
province
(a.d.
6).
Judas
of
Gamala
and
a
Pharisee
named
Zaduc
organized
a
fourth
sect
co-ordinate
with
the
Pharisees,
Sadducees,
and
Essenes,
and
incited
the
people
to
revolt,
because
of
the
census
then
established.
There
is
no
evidence,
however,
that
this
new
sect,
which
is
clearly
that
of
the
Zealots,
had
any
distinct
hope
of
a
superhuman
Messiah.
According
to
Josephus
(Ant.
xvin.
i.
l,
6),
they
said
God
was
to
be
their
only
ruler
and
lord.
To
this
new
party
Josephus
attributes
in
large
degree
the
fall
of
the
Jewish
State.
Messianic
movements
are
also
to
be
seen
in
the
attempted
revolt
of
the
prophet
Theudas,
in
robbers
like
Eleazar,
in
the
Sicarii
(or
Assassins),
and
in
'the
Egyptian,'
with
whom
St.
Paul
was
momentarily
identified
by
MESSIAH
the
chief
captain
(Ac
2158).
Besides
these
were
bands
of
fanatics
Uke
those
mysterious
men
mentioned
by
Josephus
(,BJ
ii.
i.
2,
3).
All
these
movements
co-operated
to
bring
about
the
destruction
of
the
Jewish
State,
for
the
revolt
of
66
must
be
regarded
as
distinctly
Messianic
—
a
fact
perceived
by
Josephus
in
the
import-ant
passage
BJ
vi.
v.
4,
where
it
is
said:
'
What
most
stirred
them
up
to
war
was
the
ambiguous
oracle
that
was
found
also
in
their
sacred
writings
[doubtless
Daniel
;
cf.
Ant.
X.
X.
4]
that
about
that
time
one
from
their
country
should
become
ruler
of
the
world.'
It
is
greatly
to
be
regretted
that
this
Messianic
hope
of
the
people
has
not
left
larger
traces
of
itself.
It
is,
however,
not
difficult
to
see
in
it
the
more
political
and
concrete
hopes
which
the
Pharisees
expressed
in
terms
of
the
apocalypse.
The
Zealots,
hke
the
Pharisees,
expected
the
new
Kingdom
to
be
established
by
God
or
His
representative
the
Messiah,
but,
unlike
the
Pharisees,
they
were
not
content
to
await
the
Divine
action.
They
preferred
rather
to
precipitate
deUverance
by
pohtical
revolt.
The
fact
that
the
Messiah
is
not
prominent
in
such
hopes
does
not
imply
that
such
a
person
was
unexpected.
A
leader
would
certainly
be
involved
in
any
revolt,
but
such
a
leader
would
not
necessarily
be
superhuman.
Yet
it
would
be
unsafe
to
say
that
the
Messiah
whom
the
people
expected,
any
more
than
he
whom
the
Pharisees
awaited,
would
be
without
Divine
appointment
and
inspiration.
He
might
not
be,
strictly
speaking,
supernatural,
but
he
would
certainly
be
given
the
Divine
Spirit
and
power
to
bring
dehverance
which,
without
the
aid
of
God,
would
be
clearly
impossible.
The
chief
difference
between
the
Messianic
hope
of
the
Pharisees
and
that
of
the
Zealots
and
people
was
probably
the
lack
in
the
latter
of
the
eschatological,
transcendental
element,
such
as
the
resurrection
from
the
dead
and
the
heavenly
Jerusalem,
which
was
so
important
in
the
hope
of
the
Pharisees.
How
thoroughly
social
and
pohtical
this
f
olk-Messianism
became
is
to
be
seen
in
the
various
abortive
attempts
to
establish,
during
the
revolt
of
66,
a
peasant
republic,
as
well
as
in
the
destruction
of
evidence
of
indebtedness
and
the
massacre
of
the
aristocrats.
The
Pharisaic
expectation
would
never
have
led
to
violence,
but
rather
involved
the
patient
waiting
of
the
faithful
for
the
time
set
by
Jehovah.
IV.
The
Messiah
of
the
Samaritans.
—
It
would
be
exceedingly
helpful,
particularly
for
an
understanding
of
Ju
4i-<2,
if
we
knew
the
Samaritan
Messianic
hope
with
some
precision.
Unfortunately,
there
is
no
litera-ture
dating
from
the
time
of
Christ
which
sets
this
forth.
So
far,
however,
as
it
can
be
recovered
from
later
sources,
and
particularly
from
the
present
high
priest
of
the
Samaritans,
it
would
seem
that
the
ex-pectation
did
not
include
the
Davidic
King
of
Judaism,
but
centred
rather
about
the
prophecy
of
Dt
18''
of
the
prophet
God
was
to
raise
up
Uke
unto
Moses.
This
prophet,
according
to
the
Samaritan
belief,
was
to
be
'the
Converter,'
who
would
bring
moral
and
rehgious
truth
to
Ught.
At
the
same
time,
they
believed
that
the
Gentiles
would
be
subjected
to
him,
would
believe
in
him
and
the
holy
Law,
and
in
the
sanctuary
of
Mt.
Gerizim.
There
seems
to
have
been
no
exjrectation
of
miraculous
powers
to
be
exercised
by
the
prophet;
but
concerning
this,
as
in
fact
about
other
particulars
of
the
Samaritan
hope,
no
statement
can
be
made
with
absolute
certainty.
V.
The
Messiah
of
Rabblnism.
—
Subsequent
to
the
destruction
of
Jerusalem,
Pharisaism
developed
rapidly
into
its
final
stage
of
Rabbinism.
The
two
tendencies
which
are
so
marked
in
Pharisaism
—
one
towards
strict
legaUsm,
the
other
towards
Messianicidealism
—
were
then
codified
and
systematically
elaborated.
The
develop-ment
of
the
Messianic
expectation,
however,
was
to
some
extent
shaped
by
the
need
of
combating
the
Messianic
interpretations
of
Christianity.
Traces
of
this
influence
are
undoubtedly
to
be
found
in
the
Targum
on
Is
S3,
