SkepticBoyLee

I was listening to the "Dogma Free America" podcast and the guest, whose name escapes me, made the comment that the Jewish messiah prophecy wasnt the all encompassing, universal belief that it is assumed to have been. He goes on to say that this was less important to Judaism then than what the Christians insist and that to many Jews this wasnt emphesized or even present at all.

Any truth to this?

bacht

sounds right to me, but the pros here can confirm - the Zealots were supposed to have been driven by messianic belief leading up to the first revolt in the 60s - there was messianic excitement during the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s - after the final Roman defeat I think the whole messianic idea went into deep retreat for the Jews - I think they still have it in the rabbinic liturgy but without much emphasis

Iskander

I believe that the messiah is a late development in Judaism .It was the captivity in Babylon which necessitated this mirage.

Despair is a bad council and hope is welcome at almost any price. For the Jews of that period religion was a communal duty and the beneficiaries of good behaviour was the nation , hence the need for the liberator of the captive nation.

No Robots

Not until after the fall of the Maccabean dynasty, when the despotic government of Herod the Great and his family, and the increasing tyranny of the Roman empire had made their condition ever more unbearable, did the Jews seek refuge in the hope of a personal Messiah. They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule, and would establish His own reign of peace and justice in its place. In this way their hopes became gradually centered in the Messiah. As evidence that in the Roman period the Messianic hope had become universal among the Jews may be adduced: (1) Jesus' conviction that he was the Messiah, a conviction inspired in him by the current belief in a Messiah, as is shown by the fact that on his entry into Jerusalem the populace hailed him as such; (2) the testimony of Josephus ("B. J." vi. 5, § 4), Tacitus ("Hist." v. 13), and Suetonius (Vespasian, iv.) regarding the Messianic belief of the Jewish people at that time; (3) the fact that even in Philo's picture of the future, in spite of its moralistic tendency, the Messianic king has a place (comp. "De Præmiis et Pœnis," § 16).--"Messiah". In Jewish Encyclopedia.

Emphasis added.

robto

See Judaisms and Their Messiahs (or via: amazon.co.uk) for complete discussion of this point. There seems to be somewhat of a consensus that there was a wide variety of "Messianic" expectations among Jews around the first century AD. Different Jewish writings show very different expectations. Philo, IIRC, doesn't ever mention the term "Messiah/Christ", so citing him as evidence of messianic belief is pretty inappropriate. Many other writings of the period don't even have a figure that could be called "messianic" by any stretch of the imagination.

Modern Christians have a vested interest in a universal Messianic belief (that Jesus fulfilled); modern Jews have a vested interest in a universal Messianic belief (that will be fulfilled sometime in the future). The evidence suggests otherwise.

Anat

Whenever Jews underwent a major crisis (ie pretty much all the time) the events were interpreted as 'pangs of Messiah'. Messianic movements popped up ever so often, the largest was probably that of the followers of Shabtai Zvi and the most recent was that of the followers of Schneerson. See Messiah claimants.

premjan

Sounds like the equivalent but opposite of the "end of the world" belief of the Christians.

Civil1z@tion

No its just about the same.

Messiah comes, smites all the baddies, good guys live on in happiness forever. The only difference is, the Christians watered-down the expectations for the Messiah's first go-round and said he'd need two trips to get all the smiting and peace-reigning done. Jews don't buy that and are still waiting for aforementioned smiting/peace.

No Robots

Roman historians assert the universality of Messianism, even outside Judaism:

In most [Jews] there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.—Tacitus, Hist. 5,13.

There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world.—Suetonius, Vesp., 4.

neilgodfrey

If these are the only 3 "reasons" for such a widespread belief then I see no reason to accept there was such a widespread belief.

Re (1), does a story about one man implying he was the messiah, and narrating an episode where he was welcomed as such, really suggest that this was "an all encompassing universal belief" of the times?; re (2), what -- precisely! -- is the so-called evidence for same?; re (3), what exactly does the claim that "the Messianic king has a place" have to do with "an all encompassing universal belief" in a "Messianic hope"???


Neil