Archaeologica.org

The longer answer:

Prior to the Persian influence on Judaism, messiah meant simply “anointed one,” someone consecrated to God for an official position or special purpose. Prophets, priests, and kings were anointed in consecration ceremonies, and therefore, were messiahs, serving Yahweh and the community. But Cyrus of Persia was also called a messiah, in the belief that he was chosen or consecrated by Yahweh himself for the special mission of releasing the Jews from Babylon to return to Jerusalem, rebuild the temple, and rededicate themselves to Yahweh. In that sense, the term messiah shifted a little in meaning, toward rescuing or saving the Jewish people. It shifted further in that direction as a result of Persian religious influences on Judaism, until a messianic rescuer/savior movement developed.

The messianic deliverer concept evolved from Jewish exposure to Persian theology, both pre and post Zoroastrian, with a Jewish spin put on it.

Zoroastrianism added a sharper religious duality and tension between good and evil, with humankind participating in the balance by their thoughts, words, and actions. To Jews, this meant greater adherence to Mosaic Law, not just as a sign of Jewish identity, but, following the Persian example, as a promotion of righteousness. In Zoroastrianism, good was the positive force of creation and order, and evil was chaos and destruction. To Jews, evil was following false gods and disobeying Mosaic Law. Zoroastrianism taught that good would triumph over evil in an end times battle. This became the Jewish Armageddon or Gog and Magog. In Zoroastrian end times theology, an agent of Ahura Mazda (the supreme, uncreated first god or Creator), would resurrect the dead in body and soul and unite all of good humanity with Ahura Mazda for eternal life on earth. Instead of the Zoroastrian agent (Saoshyant) of Ahura Mazda, Jews substituted a messiah consecrated by Yahweh as his human right hand man. He would be heads above the all messiahs in Jewish history and contemporary life, equal to or greater than Elijah the prophet in spiritual gifts of healing and working miracles. This messiah would appear as a religious leader and teacher from the line of David during a time of great tribulation to lead the people back to righteousness (faithfulness to Yahweh). Then Yahweh would resurrect the dead and restore a New Jerusalem, temple, and kingdom under messianic rule for eternity on earth for the righteous, which might also include Gentiles who demonstrated good will toward Jews, aided them in the battle for good over evil, or had righteousness in their hearts and deeds, even if they didn’t know and live by Mosaic law.

Actual interpretations of what the Messiah would be like varied from a political leader to a religious one to a military one and combinations of those characteristics. Messianism combined both religious and nationalistic fervor. But ALL of the messianic sects agreed that the messiah would be a mortal human being, not an incarnation of God/Yahweh.

Regardless of when or how monotheism evolved in Jewish society, by the time of Greek and then Roman rule, it was established. Jews couldn’t speak the name of their god, or depict him in pictures or statues. For a human being to claim divine status as god was the most outrageous blasphemy imaginable. Therefore, as history confirms, zealously pious Jews were outraged to rebellion over Greek and Roman rulers putting statues of themselves as gods in Jewish temples. To the pious, and even the less pious, this abomination, combined with the desire for a political identity of their own, constituted the expected tribulations that would lead to the messiah’s appearance. They combed sacred scripture for prophetic promises of a rescuing/saving messiah. Religious preachers sprang up with their own followings, some claiming to be the Messiah himself. Josephus confirms the multiplicity of messiah claimants.

For a better understanding of the mood of the times, put it into a modern context. Consider the reaction recently of pious Muslims - who also can’t depict Allah or Mohammed in pictures or statues - over the cartoon image of him published in Denmark. The reaction was due to much more than the negative way the image was presented. It was also due to the fact that an image of Mohammed was made at all.

Or, look at how fundamentalist Christians in the US (who also combine religion with nationalism) have reacted to removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, the removal of prayer from public schools, the teaching of evolution in science classes, the legalization of abortion, and the Constitutional concept of separation of religion and state. They promote politicians who cater to fundie beliefs in order to expand their political base. They recite and interpret the book of Revelations for prophetic “proof” that the return of Jesus is imminent. On that basis, many were willing to support the Iraqi War, equating modern Iraq with ancient Babylon. They rewrite American history to “prove” that the US was founded as a “Christian nation,” equating the colonial Puritan theocracies in New England with the founding of a secular government 150 years later – secular largely as a consequence of past experience with colonial theocracies and European national religions. (IMO, it’s the absolutism of modern fundie Christians that’s responsible for the political and cultural polarization in the US today.)

I'll have to get back to you next week, jw. I can't type long answers on this shitty little laptop keyboard.

their concept of a messiah

Which is/was?

Roy.

Digit wrote:

their concept of a messiah

Which is/was?

Roy.

Not sure I understand your question, digit. I described an early use of the term "messiah" to mean anointed one - the people consecrated to Yahweh through a ceremony of anointing with oil for the role of prophet, priest, or king.

Then I described how usage of the term changed after the influence on Judaism of Persian rule, to include the idea of a deliverer or savior messiah during an apocalyptic end times period.

So, I mentioned two concepts of the term messiah - a traditional one of anointment for an official role in the community for everyday life, and a later one of a specially chosen deliver during the end times.

Which one are you questioning?

BTW, I see a significant difference between the pious movements in Judaism under Roman rule and the political/religious agenda of modern fundamentalist Christians in the US. Jews under Roman rule had a genuine problem of Romans intruding into the privacy of their temples and imposing an alien (to the Jews) religion on them. Judaism was supposed to be an officially recognized religion in the Roman Empire, so Roman rulers were violating their own agreements with Jews.

Today's fundmentalist Christians have no legitimate complaint that I can see. No one is invading their churches. No one is prohibiting them from worshipping their own way. No one is even forbidding them from praying in public places, e.g. schools. They can pray individually; they just can't lead prayers in the classroom as part of the required class participation. The only thing anyone is prohibiting fundamentalist Christians in the US from doing is imposing their own religion on others and thus denying others the religious freedom that fundamentalist Christians claim they want for themselves.

Not questioning as such jw just checking.
The Christian teaching of Messiah assumes some form of divinity, in Judaism it is a secular title, specifically the assumption of kingship.
The Church adopted the idea and claimed for themselves the right of kingmaking, thus placing themselves higher in the pecking order than mere kings, who now effectively become vassals of the Church, the Pope!

Roy.

Not sure how secular the title would have been in a tribal society, when Israel had judges and kings. Weren't the kings annointed by the prophets? I seem to recall that Samuel anointed both Saul and David.

But, I agree that Christians assumed (invented) the deity of the Messiah, based on non-Jewish religious influences. I didn't get into some of those influences because my post on messianic Jewish sects was already long enough. But Greeks and Romans added their religious views in the concept of an incarnate god in human form. Plus, Romans were also influenced by Persian religion, as a result of earlier contacts of the Greeks, Romans, and Persians in the conquests and expansions of their empires. During the first century BC, when Jewish messianism was developing, a cult of the Persian god, Mithra, had become popular among Romans (in their own adaptation of it) and had spread throughout the empire as far as Britain.

Mithra was a god of truth, contracts, friendship, and fellowship. He was a hero god who slayed the bull that represented the struggles that people face in life, freeing "creative energy" to grow plants and animals from the bull's dead body. He represented spiritual light against spiritual darkness and became a heroic defender of people who fight against evil. Mithra cult rituals included slaying a bull and being washed in its cleansing blood, an expression nearly identical to the Christian one of being washing in the cleansing and saving blood of Jesus. Mithra wore a cap, similar in appearance to the one worn by the Pope. His birthday was December 25. The Roman worship of Mithra was confined to men and had a hierarchy of iniation stages. Those at the top were called "fathers." The head of the cult was based in Rome and also called "father." They had a fellowship ritual of eating bread and drinking wine. They celebrated Sunday as Mithra's day. Even the Trinity concept of Christianity comes from a blend of Roman and Persian influences. The Persian supreme god was the uncreated Creator, Ahura Mazda, prototype of the Christian God the Father component of the Trinity. The Christain Creed starts with a statement of belief in God the Father, creator of all things. Ahura Mazda emanated a positive spiritual energy of good over evil, whose presence could be felt in human beings seeking to do good (Holy Spirit). Mithra's role as defender of people and the idea of a virgin-born Saoshyant who would resurrect the dead blended into Roman dying and resurrecting gods and incarnate gods to become the Son component of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Trinity of Christianity. Even the Magi, shepherds, and eastern star of the Nativity story come from Persia.

Jewish messianism, Greco-Roman human gods, and the Roman cult of the Persian Mithra all merged into an amalgam in the Roman Empire that evolved into Christianity. Judaism became the glue that held it all together, providing continuity into the past as far as the creation and a rationale for the need of a savior god to redeem the people after the fall of Adam and Eve. So, Christians interpreted Jewish prophets as foretelling of an incarnate god in human form - a prophecy that no self-respecting, or God-respecting Jewish prophet would have made.

Weren't the kings annointed by the prophets?

Yes, which is exactly the point, a Messiah is someone who is anointed, ie, a King. Not a divine saviour etc. The Jews were awaitng for a Messiah, a King!
Quite how we got from it meaning a King to meaning a divine being I'm not sure.

So, Christians interpreted Jewish prophets as foretelling of an incarnate god in human form - a prophecy that no self-respecting, or God-respecting Jewish prophet would have made.

That about sums it up. Neither Judaism nor Islam have any concept of a divine child, how the Church managed that, again, I don't know.

Roy.

how the Church managed that, again, I don't know.

Stole it from the pagans.

Minimalist wrote:

how the Church managed that, again, I don't know.

Stole it from the pagans.

They were the pagans. They grafted their pagan beliefs onto Judaism. Then called everyone else pagans.

Quite how we got from it meaning a King to meaning a divine being I'm not sure.

Syncretism is how. When different cultures come in contact with each other, some degree of borrowing from each other and blending usually occurs. Romans borrowed aspects of Judaism and Persian religions and adapted the borrowed portions to their own beliefs, putting their own spin on it for the final product. The Messiah anticipated by Jewish messianic sects during the time of Roman rule wasn't just any king, but a special one, a combination of king and spiritual leader similar to a prophet, who would lead the people through the trying times of Yahweh's resurrection of mankind for a final judgment. Those who were judged worthy would live in a New Jerusalem for eternity under the rule of the Messiah. When you talk of resurrection of the dead, it's easy for non-Jewish cultures who already believe in dying and resurrecting gods and gods in human form, to add a divine attribute to the Messiah that Jews never claimed.

The NT also contains elements of Egyptian religion. Several NT phrases and events are right out of Egyptian mythology, recast in Judea.

Prior to the Persian influence on Judaism,

But was there a "Persian influence" on Judaism? Or, as Davies suggests, was Judaism a Persian concoction which was then strung upon a Canaanite framework?

We have no evidence of monotheism in Judah/Israel prior to the Persian period. At best, we can find some inscriptions which suggest a henotheistic society in which Yahweh was worshipped as the head deity in that one area (and "married" to Asherah, at that.)

The only thing that tells us of the OT story is the OT itself...and that could easily been a later creation which was "backdated" so to speak. The "facts" are that we have no record of any biblical writings prior to the Greek "translation" called the Septuagint c 280 BC. IT contains only the first five books, which indicates that the Greeks were not aware of the rest of it in the early 3d century. Perhaps these later books were not written until the late second century when the Hasmonean kings suddenly had a need for a "glorious" history for themselves? By such time Greek influence in Judah had been replaced.

But was there a "Persian influence" on Judaism? Or, as Davies suggests, was Judaism a Persian concoction which was then strung upon a Canaanite framework?

Does Davies say that Persians concocted Judaism? Or only that Jews wrote the books of the Bible while under Persian rule? I’m not familiar with the details of his hypotheses about Judaism, only his general position that Jewish religious books weren’t written until at least the Persian period, maybe not until Greek rule. Does he claim that no Jewish identity existed until the Persian (or Greek) period? Or that an earlier identity existed but went through changes as a result of cultural and religious borrowings?

Davies is a scholar on the Bible, but I wonder if he has any background in cultural anthropology that would give him insights into how societies disrupted by conquest often remain incompletely assimilated into the conquest society, and attempt to recover and maintain lost portions of their traditions. If he doesn’t have that background himself, I wonder if he’s consulted cultural anthropologists on the subject.

We have no evidence of monotheism in Judah/Israel prior to the Persian period. At best, we can find some inscriptions which suggest a henotheistic society in which Yahweh was worshipped as the head deity in that one area (and "married" to Asherah, at that.)

What evidence of monotheism are you looking for? We also have no evidence of monotheism among Persians, which makes them an unlikely contributor of it to Jews. Zoroastrianism might be considered henotheistic since it emphasized the role of the pre-Zoroastrian creator god, Ahura Mazda, but didn’t eliminate or deny the existence of other gods. Greeks weren’t monotheistic, either.

The only thing that tells us of the OT story is the OT itself...and that could easily been a later creation which was "backdated" so to speak.

I agree that probably most of the OT was backdated to an earlier time, and probably wasn’t written down until after the release from Babylon. But, I also think that there was some historical basis in the backdated stories, founded on traditional legends, possibly even on previous written versions, either in Canaan before captivity, or in Babylon during the exile.

That’s not to say that the old legends, whether oral or written, were accurate historical records. I don’t think they were. But I think that the main themes of them were true, given in allegorical form. I have no religious reasons for suggesting that. I’m not a Bible apologist. I’m basing the suggestion on patterns of religious and cultural developments in the region in ancient times, some of which are documented in records of neighboring civilizations, or can be traced through names, words, and customs embedded in the OT stories.

It looks to me like a local, henotheistic segment of Canaanite population clung to its primary god, with whom it strongly identified even before the exile from Canaan. Then, as outsiders in Bablyon, they resisted assimilation by declaring their henotheistic deity to be their one and only god. Gradually this evolved into a monotheistic declaration of one god, not just superior to all others, but the only true god; all others are not even gods, but human creations. Along with the concrete rituals and ceremonies that defined them as an ethnic/religious group before captivity, they evolved abstract theological foundations for their belief in one god. They preserved their customs by codifying them in written form as sacred religious law. (But, an earlier, pre exile version might have existed.) By the time of the release from Babylon by the Persians, a few influences, e.g. the Babylonian flood story and Persian end times eschatology had crept into their religion, and were added to its ongoing evolution.

For a modern example of how dominant cultural/religious practices can creep into minority ones, I’ve known American Jews who had a Christmas tree so their children would feel less alienated from their peers. Some even called it a Hanukah tree, and rationalized it on the basis that Jesus was, after all, Jewish, and Christianity started as a Jewish messianic sect. And, Hanukah is the Festival of Lights. So, they used lights and general, non-Nativity decorations for it. A sort of ecumenical celebration of the winter solstice.