The Jewish Annotated New Testament (149 page)

Another example of a nonviolent prophetic figure executed by political authorities is John the Baptist. According to Josephus, John

had exhorted the Jews to join in baptism, practicing virtue and treating their fellows with righteousness and God with piety. For he said in this way indeed baptism would be acceptable to God, not by using it to gain pardon for some sins, but for the purification of the body, since the soul had already been thoroughly cleansed by righteousness. (
Ant
. 18.116–117)

In this view, baptism was a ritual of purification (see e.g., Lev 15; 16.4) that signified but did not effect forgiveness. The forgiveness of God followed from the cleansing of the inner life by the practice of virtue. But Josephus’s benign portrait of John as a teacher of ethics, like his description of the Essenes and the other Jewish movements, is meant to appeal to an educated Roman audience. More historically probable is the Gospels’ version of a prophetic Elijah figure demanding that Israel repent before the imminent judgment. Together with repentance, John’s distinctive rite of baptism, with which he is most prominently identified (there were no people called in antiquity “Simon the Baptist” or “Martha the Baptist”), is apparently essential for the forgiveness of sins and protection from divine punishment.

Like several of the other prophets Josephus mentions, John attracted a following in the wilderness where he performed an action that would help bring deliverance. The fact that he had disciples, some of whom remained loyal to him, suggests that he was the founder of a movement composed of those who had undergone the rite, though not necessarily of an organized community.

According to Josephus (
Ant
. 18.118–19), Herod Antipas executed John because he feared that John’s influence over the people might lead to sedition. The Gospel accounts state that John was executed for denouncing Herod’s marriage to his brother’s wife (Mt 13.4–6; Mk 6.17–18). The two motivations do not necessarily conflict.

The Gospels show John subordinating himself to Jesus. Historically, this is unlikely, given that John baptized Jesus and that John’s followers remained loyal to him after Jesus appeared on the scene (cf. Mk 2.18; Acts 19.3). Had John thought Jesus to be the Messiah, he would not have retained his own disciples. The connection of John to Elijah also suggests that John was not, historically, Jesus’ forerunner. In the Tanakh, Elijah’s role is to prepare Israel for “the great and terrible day of the LORD” (Mal 4.5 [Heb 3.23]), not to announce another agent of God.

Josephus mentions several individuals who make predictions but who do not have followers (cf.
J.W
. 2.112–113; 6.300–309;
Ant
. 15.373–79; 17.345–48). Chief among these is the historian himself. Although he never directly calls himself a prophet, Josephus presents himself as having a prophetic mission and as being a divinely guided interpreter of the ancient prophets. He was convinced that he, like Jeremiah, understood that God decreed the destruction of the Temple for the people’s sins and that those who claimed to be prophets promising security for God’s people and Temple were offering false hopes. Josephus also insists that he recognized, through divine inspiration, that God chose Vespasian to rule the world (
J.W
. 3.351–54, 400–402; cf. Suetonius,
Vesp
. 4.5; 5.6; Tacitus,
Hist
., 5.13.2).

Royal Figures

From the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE to the second revolt against the Romans in 132–135 CE, a number of popular figures with substantial followings presented themselves as Jewish kings.

As part of his description of the political instability following Herod’s death, Josephus mentions in succession three individuals, each of whom claimed kingship. Judas, the son of Ezechias, attacked the royal palace at Sepphoris, captured arms and possessions, and proceeded to plunder the wealth of the countryside in his zeal for “royal rank” (see Acts 5.37). Herod’s slave Simon of Perea, noted for his size and strength, “dared to put on the diadem,” and with his followers pillaged the royal palace in Jericho and “many other royal residences in many parts of the country.” Finally, Athronges, a shepherd, like Simon “distinguished by great stature and feats of strength,” ruled as a king, setting up a council and putting each of his four brothers, also known for their size and acts of valor, in charge of a band of fighters. Their targets were both Romans and Herodian troops (
J.W
. 2.56–65;
Ant
. 17.271–84).

For Josephus, these are all “brigands” who had neither the character nor the background to claim royal status. Yet behind Josephus’s negative portrait may be the continuation of a biblical tradition of charismatic leaders such as the judges, Saul, and especially David, men who reach power through their physical stature and bravery and who act against political oppressors. Since David is the most prominent example of this type and since Josephus’s account suggests the figures had some Davidic features (e.g., shepherd turned guerilla fighter), it is possible these charismatic figures identified with David, and that their supporters accepted that identification.

According to Josephus, two of the leaders of the First Revolt also claimed royal honors. At the beginning of the war, Menahem, the leader of the Sicarii, raided Masada to capture weapons, then entered Jerusalem “like a king,” and became a leader of the insurrection (
J.W
. 2.433–34). Soon thereafter, he was attacked in the Temple, where he had gone to worship “arrayed in royal garments.” He was subsequently tortured and killed by the supporters of the Temple captain Eleazar, one of the revolt’s first leaders, and the son of the high priest Ananias whom Menahem’s men had murdered (
J.W
. 2.443–48).

A religious background to Menahem’s royal claims can be inferred from the report that his father Judas the Galilean had called for a revolt sixty years before. Judas declared that agreeing to a census, the Roman assessment of Jewish property, meant rejecting God as sole master (see Ex 30.12; 2 Sam 24) and that the people could expect divine help if they rebelled (
J.W
. 2.118, 443;
Ant
. 18.4, 23; cf. Lk 2.1–5; Acts 5.37).

Of all the warriors claiming kingship mentioned by Josephus, the most important was Simon bar Giora. A hero in the earlier stages of the war, he left Jerusalem as others took charge of the revolt, gathered a large force with which he returned to the city, and established himself as the leader of the Jewish rebels. His execution at the climax of the Roman victory celebration indicates that the Romans regarded him as the most prominent enemy general (
J.W
. 7.153–54). His royal self-understanding can be seen in his dramatic surrender: from the site where the Temple stood, he emerged dressed in white tunics and a purple mantle (
J.W
. 7.29–31).

The names of the leaders are among the few details recorded for the extensive Jewish revolts that swept through Cyrenaica, Egypt, and Cyprus in 115–117 CE during the reign of the emperor Trajan and that resulted in the annihilation of the well-established Jewish communities of these regions. The Roman historian Cassius Dio says that a certain Andreas led the revolt in Cyrenaica and Egypt and Artemion in Cyprus (68.32). Eusebius gives the name of the leader of the revolt in Cyrenaica and Egypt as Lukuas to whom he ascribes the title king (
Hist. eccl
. 4.2). The extent of the revolt and the number of Jews participating in it, the attacks on Greek and Egyptian religious sites, and the title king, all raise the possibility that the leader(s) were viewed as agents of God.

According to rabbinic tradition, Akiva ben Joseph (ca. 50–135 CE), the most prominent rabbi of his generation, declared Simon bar Kosiba, the leader of the second revolt against the Romans in 132–135 CE, to be the Messiah (
y. Ta’an
. 4.8;
Lam. Rab
. 2.5). Rabbinic comments on bar Kosiba, however, are generally hostile, exemplified by the usual reference to him as Bar Koziba (“liar”) and by Rabbi Yo
ḥ
anan ben Torta’s retort to Akiva: “Grass will grow between your cheeks and he [the messiah] still will not have come.” An association of bar Kosiba with Num 24.17 (“A star [Heb
kokhav
] shall go forth out of Jacob”), said to have been made by R. Akiva, gave rise to the nickname Bar Kochba (“son of a star”), which is also found in the Christian writer Justin (
1 Apol
. 1.31.6), who wrote shortly after the conclusion of the revolt.

Letters unearthed in 1960 establish that his actual name was Simon bar Kosiba and that he bore the title Nasi’ of Israel, a word that can mean “leader” or “prince” but that refers to the future Davidic king in the latter part of Ezekiel (e.g., 34.23–24) and is associated with a Davidic messiah in several passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 5; 4Q285; 4QpIsa
^a
). The letters, though brief and fragmentary, present a person projecting great authority, who enforces strict military discipline, dispenses justice, and is extremely concerned about religious observance, even in the midst of difficult circumstances. Coins struck by the rebels with the image of the Temple, and some with the name “Eleazar the Priest,” suggest that one of the goals of the revolt was capturing Jerusalem and rebuilding the Temple. Although the rebels inflicted heavy casualties on the Roman army, the war ended with a decisive defeat at Bethar. Jews were allowed to set foot in Jerusalem, refounded and renamed Aelia Capitolina, only on the ninth of Av to mourn the destruction of the Temple.

Among all these royal figures, there is no explicit claim to Davidic ancestry. The nature of the evidence and the short-lived and unsuccessful character of these movements also prevent us from getting any specific sense of the sort of world they hoped would replace the present age.

Priests

For much of the Second Temple period, the high priest served as the political as well as religious leader of the Jewish community in Judea. It is not surprising then that an ideal future might feature an ideal high priest who would serve in a purified Temple; one example of such a priest is Eleazar, associated with Simon bar Kosiba.

The best-documented group that viewed the ideal high priest as the most authoritative figure in the new age is the community reflected in documents from among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the first-century CE, they looked back on their idealized priestly founder and leader, the Teacher of Righteousness (second or first century BCE), who transmitted inspired interpretations of the Torah and Prophets that formed the basis for their theology and practice (1QpHab 7). They also looked to an idealized future priest, sometimes designated “Messiah of Aaron” (1QS 9; CD 12, 14, and 19), who would stand at the head of the Children of Light in their final battle against the Children of Darkness (1QM 15) and would have precedence in the community council of the messianic age (1QSa 2). The scrolls also suggest an important place for a future prophet and a future warrior king, the Messiah of Israel (1QS 9.11), also called “Branch of David” [Heb
tzema
ḥ
david
; see esp. Jer 23.5; 33.15] and “Prince of the Congregation,” [
nesi ha-edah
] but these are subordinated to the priestly leader, who is perhaps to be identified with the future “Interpreter of the Torah.” (See “The Dead Sea Scrolls,” p.
569
.)

RABBINIC TRADITIONS

The vast corpus of rabbinic literature from the late second century CE and beyond does not offer a consistent or systematic presentation of messianic ideas. Many of the themes found in the apocalyptic writings are also found in rabbinic texts and in the liturgy transmitted and shaped by the rabbis. For example, the daily
Amidah
prayer (
Shemoneh Esreh
or “Eighteen Benedictions”), composed in the first centuries CE and still recited today, includes praise of God who resurrects the dead and brings a redeemer to the descendants of the patriarchs. It also contains petitions for the return of the dispersed exiles to the land of Israel, restoration of judges and counselors, rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple, restoration of the Temple service, and the establishment of the throne of David. The fifteenth blessing specifically mentions: “May you swiftly cause the sprout of David your servant to flourish, and may his horn be raised through your deliverance” (cf. Isa 11.1 and Jer 33.15).

A number of traditions shared with earlier apocalyptic texts are found in rabbinic literature: final battles against the nations of the world and against Gog and Magog (e.g.,
m. Ed
. 2.10;
b. Shabb
. 118b; cf. 1QM 11.16;
Sib. Or
. 3.319–349; Rev 20.8–9), eschatological timetables culminating in the coming of the Messiah (e.g.,
b. Sanh
. 97a; cf.
2 Bar
. 26–30), travails leading up to the messianic age (e.g.,
m. Sot
. 9.15;
Mek., Vayassa
5 [end];
b. Sanh
. 98b; cf.
4 Ezra
6.17–28;
2 Bar
. 70.2–8; Mk 13.8), spectacular prosperity during it (e.g.,
b. Ketub
. 111b; cf.
2 Bar
. 29), and a distinction in some texts between the “Days of the Messiah” and a subsequent eternal Age to Come (Heb
‘olam ha-ba’
) (e.g.
b. Sanh
. 99a; cf.
4 Ezra
7.29–33; Rev 20–22).