Abstract
In most scholarship, the term ‘Messiah’ is used to describe a divinely appointed figure who will come at the end of days. In contrast, in the Bible the term חישמ, ‘anointed’, is reserved for a person anointed with oil who holds a high office. This clear-cut distinction has led many scholars to search for the origin of the figure of the Messiah in Second Temple Judaism. This article argues that the origin of the former understanding of the term ‘Messiah’ is found already in biblical anointment narratives. In the historical books of the Bible that narrate the monarchic period (Samuel–Kings), only those who were not eligible for kingship by birth were anointed—some of them by divine decree. When anointing is performed in compliance with divine ordinance, as is the case with Saul, David, and Jehu, it has a soteriological facet.
‘Messiah’ is a misleading translation of Hebrew חישמ. As a qātîl noun from the root חשמ, the Hebrew term indicates a person anointed with oil who holds a high office; 1 only in Postbiblical Hebrew does it become a technical term for ‘a divinely appointed, and anointed, supernatural man: the Messiah’. 2 John Collins summarizes the prevalent understanding of the word's early use and meaning, namely that all kings were termed חישמ:
To say that a king was חישמ, in the period of the monarchy, was no more significant than to say that he was enthroned. If the Bible neglects to mention that a given king was enthroned, we do not conclude that he was not. Neither should we conclude that the epithet חישמ was not applicable to any king to whom it is not explicitly applied in the Bible. 3
Even those who do trace the idea of a divinely appointed, supernatural messiah to Scripture do not see him personified in ‘the anointed’ and anointment type-scenes set in the monarchic period (discussed below), but rather in other, eschatologically flavored, biblical passages. 4 This article will show that the term חישמ already in an early period indicated a special type of king, that not all ancient Israelite and Judean kings were anointed, and that the later usage of חישמ to refer to a divinely appointed messiah is a plausible extension of this usage.
The preexilic historical books of the Bible (Joshua–Kings) recount only seven individuals who were anointed: Saul, David, Absalom, Solomon, Jehu, Joash, and Jehoahaz. All seven kings founded royal dynasties or were anointed in order to seize power from the reigning monarch. Rabbinic literature was already acquainted with the concept of anointment as a foundational act:
They anoint kings only on account of civil strife. Why did they anoint Solomon? Because of the strife of Adonijah. And Jehu? Because of Joram. And Joash? Because of Athaliah. And Jehoahaz? Because of Jehoiakim, his brother, who was two years older than he. A king requires anointing, [but] a son of a king does not require anointing. (t. Sanh. 4.11) 5
The Tosefta enumerates four of the kings who were anointed and records the names of their rival claimants to the throne. Saul and David are glaring omissions. However, the last sentence seems to elucidate their anointing as well, implying that a first king requires anointing and only his sons do not require anointing. This explanation was amplified and elaborated in Jewish tradition, 6 though scholarly literature has accorded it scant treatment. 7 The first section of the present study will proffer a brief survey of the kings who were anointed due to ‘dissension’ (Absalom, Solomon, Joash, and Jehoahaz). However, examination of the seven narratives of anointing yields an additional insight, namely that when anointing is performed in compliance with divine ordinance, as is the case with Saul, David, and Jehu, it has a soteriological facet: God decrees that certain individuals be anointed not only for the purpose of kingship but also as national redeemers. This aspect of anointing will be discussed in the second part of the article. 8
A brief survey of the few modern scholars who were acquainted with the sages’ exegesis demonstrates that they did not discern the soteriological quality of the biblical חישמ. 9 Moshe Elat explains that anointing in biblical times was intended to ‘reinforce the legitimacy of the new king's standing’. 10 But it is precisely this two-fold nature, the combination of foundation of a dynasty and deliverance from enemies, that illuminates clearly the relationship between the biblical ‘anointed’ and subsequent developments in the character of the messiah. The view of the messiah as the final savior who will operate against governing empires guided by political evil and moral–religious corruption has roots in the Bible, which reserved anointment for unique historical circumstances. Therefore, the epithet חישמ, rather than other scriptural terms such as nagîd (e.g. 1 Sam. 10.1), 11 ro'eh (e.g. Ezek. 34.23; Zech. 11.16), melek, and even naśî (Ezek. 44—48), came to be associated with the final savior. 12 In the last section of this paper I demonstrate the articulation of the dual-faceted biblical conception of anointment in two postexilic biblical works, namely Deutero-Isaiah and the book of Daniel. 13
The Irregular as ‘Anointed’: Anointment through Human Initiative
The anointments addressed in this section were performed when there already existed a reigning sovereign or a legal candidate and the self-proclaimed enthronement of the ‘anointed’ defied the existing order. The Bible records the people of Israel's remorse in the wake of Absalom's rebellion and death:
All the people throughout the tribes of Israel were arguing: Some said, ‘The king saved us from the hands of our enemies, and he delivered us from the hands of the Philistines; and just now he had to flee the country because of Absalom. But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, has died in battle; why then do you sit idle instead of escorting the king back?’ (2 Sam. 19.10–11) 14
This brief passage succinctly encapsulates the fledgling kingdom's predicament: faced with rebellion, King David had departed the country, and Absalom, who sought kingship even while his father still reigned, used anointment by the people of Israel, among other measures, to attain his goal. 15
The second case is that of Joash, king of Judah. After Ahaziah's death at the hands of Jehu, his mother, Athaliah, massacred all potential successors. Ahaziah's son, Joash, was spared through the resourcefulness of his aunt, who hid him in the temple (2 Kgs 11.3). In the seventh year, Jehoiada, the high priest, spearheaded a revolt that culminated in the anointment of Joash: ‘[Jehoiada] then brought out the king's son, and placed upon him the crown and the insignia. They anointed him and proclaimed him king; they clapped their hands and shouted, “Long live the king”’ (2 Kgs 11.12). Though Joash is depicted as the king's son, the reigning monarch was in fact Athaliah: ‘While Athaliah reigned over the land’ (2 Kgs 11.3). 16 The crowning ceremony was necessary to invalidate Athaliah's sovereignty. 17 The Bible neglects to tell us precisely who anointed Joash, though the text (2 Kgs 11.12) segues from the singular (‘brought out’, ‘placed’), referring to Jehoiadah, to the plural (‘they anointed…and proclaimed him king’, ‘they clapped…and shouted’). Apparently, the anointment and the investiture were performed by the public or an agent representing the public and were perceived as acts by the populace, 18 as in the case of Absalom and Jehoahaz.
Following Josiah's death at Megiddo, the Bible relates that ‘his servants conveyed his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem, and they buried him in his tomb. Then the people of the land (‘am hā’āre⋅) took Jehoahaz; they anointed him and made him king in place of his father’ (2 Kgs 23.30). Though Jehoahaz was Josiah's son, he was not his natural heir. Jehoahaz was 23 years old when he was anointed king, and he reigned for three months (2 Kgs 23.31). After Pharaoh captured him and transported him to Egypt, Jehoiakim, then 25 years old (2 Kgs 23.36), was enthroned as king. 19 Jehoiakim, then, was the eldest son and the appropriate royal successor. Anointment by the public or a public agent— the ‘am hā’āre⋅ 20 —was therefore a weighty ceremonial act that was necessary to divert the kingship from Jehoiakim, the proper heir.
Solomon's anointment occurred under similar circumstances (1 Kgs 1.32–40). Though David had promised the monarchy to Bathsheba's son, Solomon was not the first in line to the throne according to the order of succession. A significant faction that included Joab the son of Zeruiah and Abiathar the priest supported Adonijah (1 Kgs 1.7). Solomon's anointment functioned to divert the monarchy to the candidate of David's choice, notwithstanding the fact that Adonijah's claim probably had been superior. 21 It is also conceivable that the anointment was designed not only to refute challengers’ contentions but also to facilitate Solomon's reign despite the fact that David was still alive. 22
The ‘Anointed’ as Deliverer: Anointment by Divine Ordinance
Saul, David, and Jehu were anointed by prophets in fulfillment of divine decrees. In each of these cases, anointment was performed to enthrone a king who was not naturally suited for kingship. However, it had further significance as well. The background to Saul's anointment is the people's shaken confidence in the judges’ leadership and the confrontations with neighboring nations. The Bible presents Saul's anointment as a response to these two needs:
Now the day before Saul came, the Lord had revealed the following to Samuel: ‘At this time tomorrow, I will send a man to you from the territory of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him ruler of My people Israel. He will deliver My people from the hands of the Philistines; for I have taken note of My people, their outcry has come to Me.’ (1 Sam. 9.15–16)
Since the royal title did not devolve upon Saul through inheritance, anointment was crucial to install him as king. Additionally, he was charged with a mission: ‘deliver My people from the hands of the Philistines’, 23 According to Birch, these verses comprise a ‘call narrative’ in the style of the type-scenes depicting the appointments of Moses and Gideon, who were called to extricate the people from difficult historical situations. 24 Indeed, the inaugural action of Saul's organized army was to engage Philistine forces (1 Sam. 13–14) in fulfillment of this mission. 25 When Saul failed to conduct the preparations for battle with the Philistines as commanded by God, he forfeited the monarchy (1 Sam. 13.13–14). 26 The role of the ‘anointed’ as savior is further manifested in the war against Amalek: ‘Samuel said to Saul, I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over His people Israel. Therefore, listen to the Lord's command. Thus said the Lord of Hosts: I am exacting the penalty for what Amalek did to Israel’ (1 Sam. 15.1–2). When Saul fails to execute his duty as instructed, he forfeits the monarchy. 27
Of the eleven references throughout the Bible to ‘the Lord's anointed’ (’ה חישמ), nine relate to Saul (1 Sam. 24.6 [x2], 10; 26.9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1.14, 16). According to Mowinckel, the term ‘the Lord's anointed’ conveys the sanctity of the king, who was divinely selected as the Lord's emissary: ‘Being anointed he is tabu and sacrosanct. It is sacrilege and a capital offence to lay hands on him.’ 28 Mettinger maintains that divine anointment constitutes a covenant between God and his ‘anointed’, who operates as God's vassal. In this view, the term ‘the Lord's anointed’ not only denotes sanctity but also includes reciprocal commitments. God undertakes to assist and protect ‘His anointed’ while the ‘anointed’ is committed to executing the divine decree. 29 All nine references to Saul as ‘the Lord's anointed’ relate to the prohibition against harming him. 30 This indicates that David's cohort believed that Saul's defiance of the divine command had abrogated his covenant with God and had left him defenseless: ‘David's men said to him, “This is the day of which the Lord said to you, I will deliver your enemy into your hands…” He [= David] said to his men, ‘The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my lord—the Lord's anointed—that I should raise my hand against him; for he is the Lord's anointed”’ (1 Sam. 24.4–6; see also 1 Sam. 26.8). David's repetition of the designation ‘the Lord's anointed’ underscores his conviction that God's covenant with Saul was intact (1 Sam. 26.10). 31
The anointment of Saul has a double meaning: it transforms a commoner into a king and makes him a deliverer of his people from their enemies as per divine instruction. The anointment instituted a covenant between Saul and God, which, as articulated by the term ‘the Lord's anointed’, accorded Saul special divine protection alongside the obligations that he undertook. Neglect of these obligations eventually resulted in the abrogation of the covenant and the conferral of the monarchy on another candidate.
The Anointment of Jehu
Jehu was anointed king of Israel by one of the disciples of the prophets, as per Elisha's directive (2 Kgs 9.1–3). Earlier, however, the Lord had imparted his desire to anoint Jehu as king to the prophet Elijah (1 Kgs 19.16). The affinities and divergences between the Lord's instructions to Elijah and the actions of Elisha and the prophets’ disciples are numerous and well known. 32 Of interest to us is the biblical narrator's inclination to present the ascension of Jehu to the throne as the outcome of prophetic activity. 33 According to David Lamb, the fact that Jehu's anointment involved three generations of prophets (Elijah [1 Kgs 19.16], Elisha [2 Kgs 9.1–3], and the prophet's disciple [2 Kgs 9.6]) was intended to underscore his status as God's chosen. 34 The Bible provides a number of objectives for Jehu's investiture. Elijah prophesied that Jehu was destined to participate in the slaying of the Baal worshipers (1 Kgs 19.17–18). Elisha's disciple commands Jehu to strike the house of Ahab and to avenge the deaths of the servants of God and his prophets at the hands of Jezebel (2 Kgs 9.7), thus reprising Elijah's oracle to Ahab (1 Kgs 21.21–24). Though the calling elaborated to Jehu by the prophet's disciple (2 Kgs 9.7–10) is widely viewed as a Deuteronomistic interpolation, 35 it is well grounded in the depiction of Jehu's actions: vengeance against the house of Ahab (2 Kgs 9.25–26) and the annihilation of the prophets of Baal (2 Kgs 10.16, 18–28). The religious nature of Jehu's appointment is heightened by the fact that although he reigned 28 years, the Bible notes only his actions against Ahab and the prophets of Baal and does not allude to any further political or military exploits. 36 To summarize, the anointing of Jehu, in line with the other anointments, was designed to bestow royal charisma on an ineligible monarchial candidate. His divinely ordained anointment by the prophets bequeathed him the role of deliverer of Israel from Ahab's religiously and morally corrupt regime.
The Anointment of David
David is anointed three times. The first anointment, by the prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 16.13), takes place in a family setting. After Saul's death, David is anointed by his tribe (2 Sam. 2.4) and sometime thereafter by the remainder of the tribes of Israel (2 Sam. 5.3). For our purposes, the question of the chronological order of the traditions and whether and by whom David was anointed is not of interest. 37 After Saul's death, David was in Hebron, the tribe of Judah's principal city, where he was anointed by his tribesmen: ‘The men of Judah came and there they anointed David king over the House of Judah’ (2 Sam. 2.4). David was not Saul's natural successor, and therefore a ceremony was required that would endow him with royal status. His anointment represented more than the expropriation of the crown from Saul's line: it was the initial founding of a monarchic dynasty for the tribe of Judah. David's anointment by the remainder of the tribes of Israel should be viewed similarly: ‘All the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a pact with them in Hebron before the Lord. And they anointed David king over Israel’ (2 Sam. 5.3). In this case, too, the fact that the lawful king over Israel was Saul's son Ish-bosheth (2 Sam. 2.10) necessitated David's anointment. As observed earlier, in the case of foundational anointments, the populace or its representatives anointed the new king.
David's anointment by Samuel recalls the anointments of Saul and Jehu: all were anointed by prophets fulfilling divine decrees. Yet unlike the other two anointments, David's does not seem to be distinguished by any defined political mission, either when God commands Samuel to anoint David (1 Sam. 16.1) or when Samuel performs the anointing ceremony (1 Sam. 16.13). Samuel's muteness is deafening in view of his prolific activity in the context of Saul's anointment. The difference between the two anointments derives from then identical assignment. The initial impetus for anointing David was Saul's failure to comply with divine instructions to deliver the people. Thus, since David's anointment primarily signified the supplanting of Saul, there was no need to reprise the objective of the anointment and to reiterate Israel's pressing need for deliverance. 38 This insight is inherent in Josephus's account of David's anointment:
Then, in the sight of David, he (Samuel) took oil and anointed Mm and spoke low into his ear, explaining that God had chosen him to be king… [H]e would subdue the Philistines and victorious and triumphant over all nations with whom he might wage war, he would in his lifetime attain glorious fame and bequeath it to his posterity. (Josephus, Ant. 6.165 [Thackeray, LCL]) 39
In essence, this conception is already present in the Bible itself. When Abner attempts to convince the people to transfer then allegiance to David, he says: ‘For the Lord has said concerning David: “I will deliver My people Israel from the hands of the Philistines and all its other enemies through My servant David”’ (2 Sam. 3.18). 40 The elders of Israel give a slightly different iteration of this explanation when they arrive at Hebron to anoint David as king: ‘Long before now, when Saul was king over us, it was you who led Israel in war; and the Lord said to you: You shall shepherd My people Israel; you shall be ruler (nagîd) of Israel’ (2 Sam. 5.2). The elders of Israel specify David's explicitly military role as a general in war. The comparison with Saul culminates with their remark that God had commanded David to be the ruler (nagîd) of Israel, just as Samuel had instructed Saul (1 Sam 10.1). 41
Anointing in Postexilic Biblical Books
The biblical narratives of the monarchic period that portray anointments prior to the destruction of the First Temple clearly evoke the dual nature of biblical anointment. It is depicted both as an act that establishes and sanctions a new dynastic line or a candidate for kingship eschewed by prevailing custom and also as a soteriological act designed to deliver the people from its adversaries or from a corrupt and unworthy regime. In what follows, we will see this dual nature manifested in postexilic biblical descriptions as well. First, however, it is essential to explicate the absence of anointment where it would be expected.
Was Jeroboam Anointed?
As stated above, biblical tradition clearly regards anointment as a foundational act of establishment. David Lamb rejects this view, asserting that were this true, anointment ought to have been recorded in regard to a number of other kings as well. 42 The most striking such omission (though not mentioned by Lamb) is Jeroboam. Like Saul, David, and Jehu, Jeroboam is advised of his investiture by a prophet. Ahijah the Shilonite informs him in the name of God: ‘But you have been chosen by Me; reign wherever you wish, and you shall be king over Israel’ (1 Kgs 11.37). Later, he is even termed ‘a ruler (nagîd) over My people Israel’ (1 Kgs 14.7). The affinity between these verses and the Lord's words to Saul and David is plainly discernible. Saul is anointed to be a nagîd (1 Sam. 10.1), while David is anointed as ‘king over Israel’ (2 Sam. 5.3). Despite the analogous articulations of investiture as they pertain to Saul, David, and Jeroboam, anointment does not feature in Jeroboam's case.
However, the absence of anointment in Jeroboam's case makes perfect sense in light of our proposed understanding of the process. A prophet will anoint a candidate for the monarchy when deliverance is required, be it of a national–military (Saul, David) or a religious–moral (Jehu) nature. Jeroboam was not intended to deliver the people of Israel in any manner whatsoever, and therefore, the prophet had no reason to conduct an anointment ceremony. However, anointment as a foundational act might indeed have been performed by a public body. According to the Bible, ‘When all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent messengers and summoned him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel’ (1 Kgs 12.20). Based on biblical accounts of other kings (David, Joash), this would have been the most natural place to record Jeroboam's anointment, yet it is not mentioned. Scholars treat this verse in different ways: some avow its ancient Israelite provenance, while others view it as a later interpolation. 43 Regardless of one's view on this matter, there is no doubt that the story of Jeroboam's ascent to the throne underwent an in-depth Deuteronomistic reworking that hinders recovery of the early tradition. 44 It is certain that for the Judean kingdom, the story of the split was a supremely momentous nadir and that Jeroboam son of Nebat was its arch-villain—the antithesis of King David. 45 Thus, even had Jeroboam indeed been anointed (as is reasonable to assume), 46 and even had this event been recorded in an early Israelite source, it would have been entirely implausible for the Deuteronomistic redactor to retain it. 47 Anointment was designed to sanction kings whose reign was contested: the redactors of the book of Kings who negated Jeroboam's regime and blamed him for the splitting of the kingdom certainly had no incentive to report any action that might lend him and his dynasty legitimacy. In this context, it is noteworthy that anointment is not mentioned in reference to any of the kings of Israel. 48 The anointment of Jehu is thus the exception that proves the rule. All of Jehu's activities and the assorted biblical elucidations of his anointment pertain to the religious realm, while almost nothing is related of his actions as king of Israel.
Apparently, a conception of the nature of the messiah that coalesced in the redaction layers of the Bible prompted the excision of anointment scenes in places where they ought to have been expected. Nevertheless, as the anointments of Saul and Jehu corroborate, anointment was not yet perceived as a sacrament unique to the House of David. It can also be plausibly demonstrated that while the twofold conception of anointment—as an act of foundation and as the execution of a divine directive—strikes even deeper roots in later biblical works, it is not the exclusive prerogative of the Davidic dynasty.
Cyrus as Messiah
Chapter 45 of Isaiah relates: ‘Thus said the Lord to Cyrus, His anointed one (וחישמ)—whose right hand He has grasped, treading down nations before him, ungirding the loins of kings, opening doors before him and letting no gate stay shut’ (Isa. 45.1). 49 Cyrus is the divinely appointed messiah. 50 The Lord promises Cyrus that he will divest other kings of then royal insignia, ‘ungirding the loins of kings’, meaning that Cyrus will subjugate these kings and rule over then kingdoms. 51 This aligns with the construal of anointment as an act of enthronement in defiance of a reigning king. The prophet is also concerned with the soteriological aspect of Cyrus, which concludes the oracle: ‘He shall rebuild My city and let My exiled people go’ (Isa. 45.13). 52 Cyrus has a defined mission: to rebuild Jerusalem, the Lord's city, and to return the Lord's people from exile. The prophet's designation of Cyrus as חישמ perfectly embodies the epithet's twofold significance: foundation and deliverance.
The Messiah in the Book of Daniel
The book of Daniel uses the term חישמ in much the same way: ‘From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the [time of the] anointed (חישמ) leader (nagîd) is seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress’ (Dan. 9.25). The construction māšîaḤ—nagîd is an apparent allusion to Samuel's declaration to Saul: ‘The Lord herewith anoints you ruler (nagîd) over His own people’ (1 Sam. 10.1). Whatever the precise meaning of the term nagîd here, it clearly connotes a degree of authority to rule. 53 The pairing of the epithet nagîd with the term חישמ in the book of Daniel suggests a figure of governing authority. 54 This conveys the regime-founding aspect of the חישמ. From Daniel's post-destruction, exilic perspective, the regime requires reestablishment and therefore a חישמ. The anointed's additional task is ‘to restore and rebuild Jerusalem’. Daniel introduces his prayer with a portrait of twin calamities: Jerusalem in ruins (Dan. 9.2) and the Lord's people in exile (Dan. 9.7). The anointed's divinely ordained mission is in fact identical to that of Cyrus: to return the people from exile and to rebuild Jerusalem. 55 This has led a number of exegetes to identify Cyrus as Daniel's Messiah. 56 For our purposes, it is noteworthy that two separate authors who operated after the destruction of the First Temple saw as inherent in the term חישמ the basic dual significance ascribed to the epithet by the historical works of the Bible that depict the First Temple period. 57
In these two works, the term ‘anointed’ is detached from the act of anointment. It functions as a noun connoting a ruler and leader who executes divine will. The abstraction of the term from a concrete action (anointment) is the first phase in the transformation of ‘anointed’ (חשמנ) into ‘messiah’ (חישמ). Joseph Fitzmyer remarked that the book of Daniel's messiah is the first allusion to a figure destined to arrive at a future time. All other scriptural ‘anointeds’, by contrast, were historical figures who were acknowledged as such only after their actual anointment. 58 Nonetheless, it is important to note that even Daniel's ‘anointed’ is not an eschatological figure. The anointed is destined to disappear (Dan. 9.26), while the final redemption will be occasioned not by man but rather by the archangel Michael (Dan. 12.1). 59
This elucidation of the biblical ‘anointed’ explains its centrality to eschatological conceptions that took shape in later periods. The more conspicuous the political dimension of end-time prophecies, the greater the need for a leadership figure to execute the divine design. 60 This figure is destined to wrest power from current rulers and establish his government. 61 Thus, the defining characteristic of the messiah as the founder of a new regime is emphasized. End-time prophecies also anticipate the crumbling of the political system that will instigate the termination of oppression and herald the redemption according to divine will. In this manner, the messiah realizes his role as divinely ordained deliverer. At the same time, the idea, already present in the Bible, that the divinely selected messiah entered a covenant with the Lord and thus merited special protection was added to the developing notion of the messianic persona as an ultimate figure, ‘divinely appointed to perform saving acts’, as per Charlesworth's definition of messianism. 62
Conclusions
“The Lord's anointed’ and the act of anointment are referenced scores of times in the Bible, yet many scholars still date the advent of the messiah idea in Judaism to the height of the Second Temple period. In this article, I undertook to demonstrate that depictions attributed to the monarchic period evoke the unique characteristics of anointment that shaped the messianic persona of later periods. Probably many and maybe even all biblical kings were anointed, yet the Bible recorded only seven anointments. The kings who are anointed according to the Bible—whether by human initiative or by divine instruction—are individuals who were not eligible by birth for kingship. By this the Deuteronomistic editor shaped the anointment as primarily a foundational act that inaugurates a new dynasty (Saul, David, Jehu) or the expropriation of power from the lawful ruler (Absalom, Solomon, Joash, and Jehoahaz). Anointment by divine decree has a soteriological aspect that relates to the deliverance of the people from a foreign power (Saul, David) or from a religiously and morally corrupt regime (Jehu). Scenes involving wildly diverse individuals as far as their actions and their appraisal by the biblical narrative are concerned militate against the notion of an ideal messianic figure. At most, there exists a clear conception of the political and religious circumstances that mandate anointment. This conception was assimilated into unequivocally postexilic works such as Isaiah's oracle to Cyrus and the book of Daniel. These books do not yet articulate the messianic expectation—the anticipation of a future, divinely selected savior—as necessarily intertwined with the Davidic dynasty. These findings call for a reexamination of the meaning of the term חישמ in additional Second Temple era texts—including canonical texts, such as Chronicles, and apocryphal texts, such as the Qumran scrolls—and investigation into the extent to which, if at all, these texts internalize and accept biblical anointment as articulated in Deutero-Isaiah and Daniel.
Footnotes
1.
For the ancient Near Eastern background, see Thomas L. Thompson, ‘The Messiah Epithet in the Hebrew Bible’, SJOT 15 (2001), pp. 57–82; but see also the reservations of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 5–6 and n. 13.
2.
James H. Charlesworth, ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects’, in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Early Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 3–35 (4).
3.
John J. Collins, ‘Jesus Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema (eds.), Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), pp. 100–19 (110). This view goes back to Sigmund Mowinckel's classic essay He that Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (trans. G.W. Anderson; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2005), pp. 5–7.
4.
A staunch adherent to this view is Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah (trans. William F. Stinespring; New York: Macmillan, 1955). For more recent supporters, see the review in Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (WUNT, 1.207; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp. 209–30. See also the methodological justification proposed by Daniel I. Block, ‘My Servant David: Ancient Israel's Vision of the Messiah’, in Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), Israel's Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), pp. 17–56 (23–26).
5.
The Tosefta (trans. Jacob Neusner; 6 vols.; New York: Ktav, 1981), IV, p. 210.
6.
See especially the Talmudic discussion in b. Hor. 11b–12a, which prompted Maimonides's ruling: ‘A king who is the son of a king is not anointed, except if there had been dissension or a war in which case he is anointed in order to dispel the controversy. Therefore Solomon was anointed on account of Adonijah, and Joash on account of Athaliah, and Jehoahaz was anointed on account of his brother Jehoiakim’ (Maimonides, Hilkôt Melakîm 1.12).
7.
Jacob Liver, The House of David: From the Fall of the Kingdom of Judah to the Fall of the Second Commonwealth and After (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1959 [Hebrew]), pp. 52–53, does view anointment as an integral aspect of all enthronement ceremonies, though he concedes, in alignment with the Tosefta, that only when special significance pertains to the act of enthronement, such as when dynasties are founded or in the face of competing claims to the throne, is it explicitly referenced in the Bible. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (AB, 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988), p. 106, 291, offer a precis of the sages’ tradition with no further elaboration. David T. Lamb, Righteous Jehu and his Evil Heirs: The Deuteronomist's Negative Perspective on Dynastic Succession (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 51–52, discusses Cogan and Tadmor's approach but refutes it. For a rebuttal of his critique, see below, n. 42.
8.
The question of the historicity of the biblical books referenced in the following discussion, especially with respect to Saul, David, and Solomon, is a topic of intense controversy. The present study does not address this question, since its subject is the meaning of anointment as evinced by the biblical literature, and it does not purport to draw conclusions regarding the actual enthronement ceremonies.
9.
See above, n. 7.
10.
Moshe Elat, Samuel and the Foundation of Kingship in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998 [Hebrew]), p. 95. Joseph Naveh, ‘Epigraphic Miscellanea’, IEJ 52 (2002), pp. 240–41, also cites the Tosefta but maintains that aside from the anointment type-scenes, the occasions in which the Bible explicitly records that a particular agent enthroned (ךילמה in the hiphil pattern) an individual as king must also be taken into account. In his view, the verbs mšḤ and mlk (in the hiphil pattern) both occur ‘in the Hebrew Bible in those instances in which the king ascending the throne is not the legitimate heir or in which there is dissension concerning the throne’ (p. 241). The problem with his theory is that anointment is mentioned in reference to only seven individuals (Saul, David, Absalom, Jehu, Solomon, Joash, and Jehoahaz), while the verb ךילמה appears in relation to an additional nine kings (Abimelech [Judg. 9.6], Rehoboam [1 Kgs 12.1], Jeroboam [see below], Abijah [2 Chr. 11.23; see n. 42], Omri [1 Kgs 16.16], Tibni son of Ginath [1 Kgs 16.21], Josiah [2 Kgs 21.24], Jehoiakim [2 Kgs 23.34], and Zedekiah [2 Kgs 24.17]).
11.
Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1976), pp. 151–84. For diverse approaches to this concept, see the review in Tomoo Ishida, History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel: Studies in Biblical Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 57–67.
12.
Daniel I. Block, ‘Bringing Back David: Ezekiel's Messianic Hope’, in Philip E. Satterthwaite et al. (eds.), The Lord's Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), pp. 167–88.
13.
In this article I will not discuss references to metaphorical, priestly, and prophetic anointments. Therefore, I will not address anointment imagery in Psalms, which merits its own discussion. It is noteworthy that most of these allusions are vague and not directed at specific personalities. The only divinely anointed personality referenced in Psalms is David (Ps. 89.21). Priestly anointing is famously related in the context of the consecration of the Tabernacle (Lev. 8.12), but no priest was anointed in any other biblical texts except Zadok in 1 Chron. 29.22 (cf. Daniel Fleming, ‘The Biblical Tradition of Anointing Priests’, JBL 117 [1998], pp. 401–14). The only prophetic anointment is the decree to anoint Elisha (1 Kgs 19.16). Some also surmise this from the correspondence in the verse ‘Do not touch My anointed ones; do not harm My prophets’ (Ps. 105.15). In these cases, anointment is not actualized, except in the metaphorical sense, to connote appointment (Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism [STDJ, 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007], pp. 88–90).
14.
All translations from the Bible are from the New JPS translation (Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985]).
15.
Albert A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC, 11; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989), p. 236, deduces from this a break in David's reign that warranted reinvestiture. On Absalom's surreptitious anointment ceremony, see Ishida, History and Historical Writing, pp. 75–77.
16.
Some argue that from the Bible's perspective, Athaliah's reign was not lawful (John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary [OTL; London: SCM Press, 1970], p. 569). However, the fact that her six-year reign was effectively unchallenged is ample evidence of social validation (Hennie J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East [OTS, 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003], p. 368; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, p. 134).
17.
Joash's enthronement ceremony was somewhat complex. It included several components, all of which were requisite as a counterweight against Athaliah's unlawful sovereignty (Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash [JSOTSup, 209; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], pp. 69–73).
18.
Mettinger, King and Messiah, p. 190, 193; Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, pp. 39–40. 2 Chronicles credits Jehoiada and his sons with the anointment (2 Chron. 23.11). This is, without a doubt, an exegetical interpolation inserted by someone who viewed anointment as a priestly function (Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], p. 327. Cf. Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary [OTL; London: SCM Press, 1993], pp. 833–34).
19.
Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, pp. 302–303; Gray, I & II Kings, p. 748.
20.
Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, p. 291. On the populace as a political entity, see the discussion and summary in Luke Emehiele Ijezieh, The Interpretation of the Hebrew Word םע (People) in Samuel–Kings (Bern: Peter Lang, 2007), pp. 210–31. John Tracy Thames, ‘A New Discussion of the Meaning of the Phrase ‘am hā’āre⋅ in the Hebrew Bible’, JBL 130 (201 l), pp. 109–25, argues that the phrase refers to ‘everyone’ and not to any specific group.
21.
According to 2 Sam. 3.3, Adonijah was David's fourth son, preceded by Amnon, Chileab, and Absalom. Amnon and Absalom were dead. Chileab's fate is unknown; it is possible that he was also dead and that therefore Adonijah considered himself the rightful heir. See Isaac Kalimi, ‘The Rise of Solomon in the Ancient Israelite Historiography’, in Joseph Verheyden (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 7–44 (11–13).
22.
Solomon is portrayed as king immediately following his anointment, even before David's death (1 Kgs 1.46, 51, 53), most probably alluding to a period of co-regency. See E. Ball, ‘The Co-regency of David and Solomon (1 Kings 1)’, VT 27 (1977), pp. 268–79. Chronicles proffers a very different depiction of Solomon's anointment. I plan, G-d willing, to prepare a separate study that will deal with the anointment in Chronicles.
23.
When Samuel actually anoints Saul (1 Sam. 10:1), he does not divulge instructions to deliver the people from the hands of the Philistines, though the LXX version determines Saul's role as ϰαὶ σὺ σώσεις αὐτὸν ἐϰ χειρὸς ἐ χθρῶν αὐτοῦ ϰυϰλόθεν, thus preserving his role as deliverer, as stressed by Brace C. Birch, ‘The Development of the Tradition on the Anointing of Saul in I Sam 9:1–10:16’, JBL 90 (1971), pp. 55–68 (62); Mettinger, King and Messiah, pp. 66–67.
24.
Birch, ‘The Development’, pp. 61–65.
25.
David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (AOTC, 8; Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), pp. 151–53.
26.
P. Kyle McCarter, 1 Samuel (AB, 8; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), p. 228; Shemaryahu Talmon, ‘The Concepts of MāšîaḤ and Messianism in Early Judaism’, in Charlesworth (ed), The Messiah, pp. 79–115 (90).
27.
Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, p. 172; S.J. Antony F. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL, 7; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 151–52.
28.
Mowinckel, He That Cometh, p. 65.
29.
Mettinger, King and Messiah, p. 230. God's obligation to assist and protect ‘the Lord's anointed’ is manifest in many psalms (e.g., Pss. 20.7; 28.8; 105.5). Mark W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 89–92, claims that anointment transforms the anointed from a human to a sort of partner of the divine.
30.
It should be emphasized that this epithet is not unique to Saul but rather relates to the question of the vulnerability of the anointed. The two remaining references also relate to injury: Shimei son of Gera's cursing of David (2 Sam. 19.22) and the fall of the king of Judah during the destruction (Lam. 4.20).
31.
Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, pp. 257–59. On the relationship between 1 Sam. 24 and 1 Sam. 26, see Steven L. McKenzie, ‘Elaborated Evidence for the Priority of 1 Samuel 26’, JBL 129 (2010), pp. 437–44.
32.
Mordechai Cogan, I Kings (AB, 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 457 notes the main differences and ascribes them to divergent traditions. Jonathan M. Robker, The Jehu Revolution: A Royal Tradition of the Northern Kingdom and Its Ramifications (BZAW, 435; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2012), pp. 35–58, credits the Deuteronomistic redactor with the incorporation of the Elijah tradition into the Jehu story.
33.
Two layers are generally discerned in the Jehu story: the original layer, attributed to prophetic circles in the kingdom of Israel, was embellished by a Deuteronomistic redactional layer. See the overview in Lissa M. Wray Beal, The Deuteronomist's Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10) (LHBOTS, 478; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 30–38.
34.
Lamb, Righteous Jehu, pp. 52–56.
35.
See recently Robker's reconstruction in The Jehu Revolution, p. 39.
36.
Lamb, Righteous Jehu, pp. 110–29.
37.
Since Leonhard Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT, 42; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926), p. 133, it has been widely held that the anointments by the tribe of Judah (2 Sam. 2.4) and by Israel (2 Sam. 5.3) belong to the ‘History of David's Rise’ tradition, which should be distinguished from the later story of Samuel as anointer (1 Sam. 16.1–13). The question of how much later this story was written remains open, see Sung-Hee Yoon, The Question of the Beginning and the Ending of the So-Called History of David's Rise: A Methodological Reflection and Its Implications (BZAW 462; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2014), pp. 150–53.
38.
The affinity between the story of Samuel's anointment of Saul (1 Sam. 9.1–10.16) and his anointment of David (1 Sam. 16.1–13) is suggested by Jakob H. Grønbæk, Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1. Sam. 15–2. Sam. 5): Tradition und Komposition (Copenhagen: Prostant Apud Munksgaard, 1971), pp. 68–76. Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 38–40, asserts that the stories of Saul and David are sequels that explain why David was chosen to supplant Saul and elucidate his success where Saul failed.
39.
Christopher Begg, ‘Samuel's Anointing of David in Josephus and Pseudo-Philo’, Revista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 32 (1996), pp. 491–529, attributes this addition to the embellished nature of Josephus's rewriting of the biblical narrative (pp. 505–10) rather than to a different textual witness of the Bible.
40.
Many maintain that the reference to the Philistines should be ascribed to a later redaction that purported to equate David's calling with Saul's (1 Sam. 9.16). Mettinger, King and Messiah, p. 44, ascribes the verse to HDR, while others, by contrast, perceive it as the work of the Deuteronomistic redactor. For the latter view, see, e.g., P. Kyle McCarter, 2 Samuel (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), p. 118, which presents additional literature, and Antony F. Campbell, 2 Samuel (FOTL, 8; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 45–46.
41.
Ishida, History and. Historical Writing, p. 63, views all references to David as nagîd (1 Sam. 25.30; 2 Sam. 5.2; 6.21; 7.8) as refutations of Saul's claim to the same role. However, some scholars view the absence of an emphatically soteriological calling in David's anointment as an articulation of the peculiarity of David and Ms dynasty. While others were anointed to fulfill a specific role, David was anointed to head an eternal dynasty. This approach views the seminal difference between Saul and David as embedded in what transpired immediately after the anointment. Regarding David, it says: ‘Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of Ms brothers; and the spirit of the Lord gripped David from that day on’ (1 Sam. 16.13). Anointment is closely linked to the divine spirit coming upon David. In the case of Saul, however, there is a lacuna between anointment and the divine spirit's coming upon Saul, which occurs only after Saul joins the ‘band of prophets’ (1 Sam. 10.6). Some deduce from this that the divine spirit was perpetually immanent within David, whereas its encounters with Saul were sporadic. They view this as an initial intimation of the uniqueness of David's monarchy and its eternal nature (Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, p. 184; A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 201l], pp. 186–87). Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC, 10; Waco, TX: Word Books, 2nd edn, 2008), p. 162, notes these discrepancies but attributes them to the historiographical history. See also the reservations in David T. Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), p. 423. However, if David's anointment is indeed essentially different from the other anointments, then it is surprising that in Nathan's oracle (2 Sam. 7.5–17), which affirms the eternity of the House of David, anointment is not mentioned. This incongruity is heightened by the fact that according to Nathan's oracle, God took David ‘to be ruler (nagîd) of My people in Israel’ (2 Sam. 7.8), while in the case of Saul the term ‘ruler of My people’ appears synchronously with the verb stem mšḤ (1 Sam. 9.16). In this context, it is worth noting that, according to a number of scholars, Nathan's oracle is one of the only chapters that invokes the messianic idea, at least in its nascent phase (see the reviews in Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, p. 210; Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come, pp. 33–35; and especially Block, ‘My Servant David’, pp. 39–49). If this is the case, then why is the word חישמ absent specifically from this particular chapter? To the best of my knowledge, Mettinger, King and Messiah, p. 194, is the only scholar who addresses this question explicitly, yet he proposes no answer. In any event, most scholars believe that this chapter, even if not wholly the work of the Deuteronomistic redactor, attests to his extensive handiwork throughout (see recently Sergi Omer, ‘The Composition of Nathan's Oracle to David [2 Samuel 7.1–17] as a Reflection of Royal Judahite Ideology’, JBL 129 [2010], pp. 261–79 [], who ascribes 2 Sam. 7.8 to the Deuteronomistic layer [pp. 270–71]). The absence of anointment from Nathan's oracle evokes the fact that at the very least, the act of anointment, in and of itself, is not linked to the promise of the eternity of the House of David, even according to the Deuteronomistic redaction. On the other hand, Samuel's silence during David's anointment is satisfactorily explained as a literary motif that articulates Samuel's anxiety regarding news of the anointment being leaked to Saul and perhaps even as attestation to Samuel's concealed displeasure (Auld, I & II Samuel, p. 186).
42.
Lamb, Righteous Jehu, pp. 51–52 n. 175, enumerates an additional five kings regarding whom anointment is omitted despite their not having been the natural successors to the throne. Scrutiny of these five cases actually bolsters the main thrust of the Tosefta's assertion (see above). Abijah inherits the throne from Rehoboam, though he is not the eldest son. Chronicles is aware of this problem and therefore it explicitly notes Rehoboam's preference for Abijah over all his sons (2 Chron. 11.21–22). Furthermore, it relates that Rehoboam bestowed inheritances on all his sons (2 Chron. 11.23) so that they effectively ceded any claims to the throne (Japhet, I & II Chronicles, pp. 671–72). Jeroham, son of Ahab, is his father's second son, though we are informed explicitly that Ahaziah, the son who inherited the throne from Ahab, died heirless (2 Kgs 1.17). Moreover, that anointment is not referenced in regard to any of the kings of Israel (see below). Jehoahaz/Ahaziah is the youngest son of Jehoram, king of Judah, yet all his brothers had been killed (2 Chron. 21.17) (Liver, The House of David, p. 52 n. 14). Jehoiakim is not the son of Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, the previous king, yet bear in mind that Jehoahaz's installment was controversial, since Jehoiakim was Josiah's eldest son, as discussed above. The last king of Judah, Zedekiah, was also not the son of the previous king, Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, but rather his uncle (2 Kgs 24.17). Yet Jehoiachin and his family were exiled to Babylonia (2 Kgs 24.15), and therefore Zedekiah remained the sole legitimate heir to the throne of Judah. The assertion in 2 Chron. 35.10 that Zedekiah was Jehoiachin's brother is inadmissible (Japhet, I & II Chronicles, pp. 1067–68).
43.
For an extensive discussion of this issue, see Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. I. The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM, 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 216–20, and his conclusion that this verse is not part of the original narrative.
44.
The Deuteronomistic reworking of the stray of Jeroboam's ascent was already discerned by Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. and ed. D.J.A. Clines et al.; JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1991), pp. 107–109. See especially the discussion in Steven L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup, 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 29–58.
45.
Carl D. Evans, ‘Naram-Sin and Jeroboam: The Archetypal Unheilsherrscher in Mesopotamian and Biblical Historiography’, in William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue (eds.), Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 97–125. For a review of the contrasts between David and Jeroboam, see recently Mark Leuchter, ‘Jeroboam the Ephratite’, JBL 125 (2006), pp. 51–53.
46.
To the best of my knowledge, Mettinger, King and Messiah, pp. 193–94, is the only scholar who maintains that Jeroboam merited anointment but that anointment was not practiced in the north during Jeroboam's lifetime (pp. 195, 197).
47.
This possibility is already suggested by Mettinger, King and Messiah, p. 193.
48.
This was already discerned by Jewish tradition: ‘The kings of the House of David were anointed: the kings of Israel were not anointed’ (b. Hor. 11b [trans. I. Epstein, Soncino Babylonian Talmud]). According to Israel Knohl, Ps. 45 is a hymn for the marriage of a northern (Israelite) king to a Tyrian princess (Ps. 45.13). The hymn mentions the anointing of the king by God (Ps. 45.9). Indeed, Judaean and Israelite kings were probably anointed, as attested by this psalm, but the ceremonies were not mentioned in the deuteronomistic parts of the Bible. (I thank Professor Knohl for this comment.)
49.
Allusions to Cyrus in Isaiah were an important factor in the dating of chs. 40–66 to the Persian period, and according to all modern scholars, they represent the terminus a quo, as noted by Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (ed. Peter Machinist; trans. Margaret Kohl; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), p. 30. This dating, along with the prevailing premise of the chapters’ composition in Babylonia, suggest a possible affinity between the originating milieus of the Deuteronomistic history and Deutero-Isaiah. Indeed, Deuteronomistic theology and language permeate the latter composition, as recently demonstrated by Shalom M. Paul, ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic influences on Deutero-Isaiah’, in Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams (eds.), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), pp. 219–27.
50.
The question of Cyrus as a possible messiah has obviously inspired great interest—particularly the question of whether he was destined to replace the House of David. See the extensive discussion in Randall Heskett, Messianism Within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah (LHBOTS, 456; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 15–37.
51.
Jan L. Koole, Isaiah. Part III, vol. 1, Isaiah 40–48 (trans. Anthony P. Runia; HCOT; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), p. 433.
52.
Rainer Albertz, ‘Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1–52.12) in 521 BCE’, JSOT27 (2003), pp. 371–83 (378–79), claims that these verses allude to Darius rather than to Cyrus. Even if Albertz's essential premise is correct, these verses—like the other oracles among which they appear—lend the impression that they discuss Cyrus exclusively. See Ehud Ben Zvi, ‘Isaiah, a Memorable Prophet: Why was Isaiah so Memorable in the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Periods? Some Observations’, in Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 365–83 (377–78 n. 39).
53.
See supra n. 11.
54.
Research suggests a number of possible identities: Cyrus, Zerubbabel, Joshua son of Jehozadak, and even Nehemiah, as suggested recently by Michael Segal, ‘The Chronological Conception of the Persian Period in Daniel 9’, Journal of Ancient Judaism 2 (2011), pp. 283–303. For an overview of the various proposals, see pp. 295–96, n. 37. Tim Meadowcroft, ‘Exploring the Dismal Swamp: The Identity of the Anointed One in Daniel 9:24–27’, JBL 120 (2001), pp. 429–49, posits a dissenting opinion and suggests an aggregate body, though he, too, concedes that the activity concerns building Jerusalem and the Temple.
55.
This is emphasized in Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come, p. 62.
56.
See the review in Segal, ‘The Chronological Conception’, p. 295 n. 37.
57.
Another messiah figures later in Daniel: ‘And after those sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will disappear and vanish’ (Dan. 9.26). Many scholars posit Onias III, murdered in 171 BCE, as the messiah alluded to by this verse (John J. Collins, Daniel [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], p. 356). In any event, if indeed the allusion is to a different messiah, it lacks the characteristics of biblical messianism. Meadowcroft, ‘Exploring the Dismal Swamp’, pp. 444–46, however, notes correctly that from a literary standpoint, the messiah of v. 26 and the māšîaḤ-nagîd of v. 25 are apparently identical. In view of this, he eschews the identification of Daniel's ‘messiah’ with a specific personality and rather regards the term as an appellation for a group connected with Jerusalem and the Temple, from its establishment to its destruction. For our purposes, this exegesis supports the view that the messianic figure continued to be seen as founder and deliverer.
58.
Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come, p. 62.
59.
John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 2010), p. 45.
60.
The theory developed by Gerbern S. Oegema, The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba Revolt (JSPSup, 27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), emphasizes the direct affinity between the political constellation and the development and rise of messianic anticipation. See especially Ms conclusions in pp. 304–306. Also noteworthy is Collins's argument in The Scepter, pp. 52–60, that the fullest expression of messianism is manifest in the Psalms of Solomon (Pss. Sol. 17–18), which were composed in connection with the Roman conquest. Oegema, The Anointed, pp. 55–67, identifies the period prior to the Hasmonean Revolt as the backdrop to messianism, as does Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come, pp. 62–63. Here, too, the political context is quintessential: a gentile king who harms the people and the temple. See also the review of research in Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, pp. 279–90.
61.
Collins, The Scepter, pp. 79–109, is particularly noteworthy in this context. He highlights the resistance to the Hasmonean dynasty that gave rise to messianic anticipation of the coming of a messiah-king from Israelite and not priestly descent. This is also the conclusion of Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, pp. 265–76.
62.
Charlesworth, ‘From Messianology to Christology’, p. 4.