Abstract
Conventional studies of messianism start with definition, either by terminology or by concept, and trace its development from the Hebrew Bible into the Christian and/or rabbinic era, noting variation and ‘absence’, and frequently reaching a goal in identifying the origins and distinctive characteristics of its use within the early Jesus movement. In this important study Novenson offers a vigorous challenge to this procedure with its tendency to reify the concept and to extract it from the texts that testify to it. Instead, he argues for and demonstrates an analysis of the discursive purposes to which the language of Messiah is put, so that the focus is on what words do, in what contexts, and by whom, as well as why and where they are not found useful or appropriate. To this end he starts with a narrow definition determined by the term itself and its translational equivalents, within the framework of its core derivation from the ritual of anointing; in so doing he deliberately parts company from those who would include in ‘messianism’ a cluster of titles and roles, or who would concentrate on the evidence for social movements rather than mere textual presence. On this basis he interrogates some of the central debates in those conventional histories: he undermines the distinction between the ‘non-messianic’ use of the language in the Hebrew Bible and that which follows; rather than identifying different messiahs (priestly, prophetic, Davidic, of Joseph, etc.), he explores what is going on in the advocacy of different criteria for messianic status, such as by descent or by divine appointment; he interrogates texts that do not use the concept of messiah to talk about issues of rule and authority, in particular Philo and Josephus, in order to understand why rather than to declare them evidence of the absence of messianic belief; he rejects historicizing attempts to determine who – whether or not Jesus – was first identified as messiah; and he challenges approaches that set up a sharp distinction between messianism in Judaism and in early Christianity or that trace the early demise of genuinely messianic discourse in Christian thought. His interest throughout in the function of messianic language or discourse is based in how and to what ends the scriptural models and resources are interpreted and applied in different frameworks. This is a programmatic book whose intention would seem to be as much to set out a research agenda as to reach the judgements made in the exploratory chapters noted above. It manages to combine a close engagement with an impressive array of scholarship and its history, exegetical rigour, and attention to a wide range of primary sources, with a clarity of argument and style. Even so, those unfamiliar with the field will find it a demanding read, but also a provocative one, putting yet another nail in the coffin of optimistic claims (and sermons) that ‘Jesus was a different sort of Messiah from the one everyone was expecting’.