Damien the Leper Posted December 27, 2013 Posted December 27, 2013 Can someone explain to me the Messiah of Aaron and Messiah of David difference? I heard this in passing recently in a discussion on Qumran.
Palerider Posted December 27, 2013 Posted December 27, 2013 (edited) Can someone explain to me the Messiah of Aaron and Messiah of David difference? I heard this in passing recently in a discussion on Qumran. Maybe this isn't what you're talking about at all but........ Just as an abridged primer, I would say a more accurate description might be Messiah ben Judah and Messiah ben Joseph. Some from an LDS point of view would assign Joseph Smith the position of Messiah ben Joseph. Personally I would disagree with that assessment. The prophecies of the Old Testament seem to indicate two different types of Messiah. One coming as a humble servant type (having some symbolic similarities with the story of Joseph being sold into Egypt) while the other comes in power and glory. Some old time Rabbinical writers and scribes came up with the prospect of two different Messiahs rather than one Messiah coming two different times, and thus the two Messiah tradition was born. Some Jews hold to it, others (most I believe) do not. I've never heard of a Messiah ben Aaron (unless it might be a reference to John the Baptist who some speculate was associated with the Essenes) but then........there's a lot I've never heard of. Hope this helps. Edited December 27, 2013 by Palerider
Ahab Posted December 27, 2013 Posted December 27, 2013 Can someone explain to me the Messiah of Aaron and Messiah of David difference? I heard this in passing recently in a discussion on Qumran. http://kahana.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Messiahs Interesting idea, but false.
Palerider Posted December 27, 2013 Posted December 27, 2013 (edited) http://kahana.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Messiahs Interesting idea, but false. False on a number of levels. They were looking for a priest within the usual priesthood ranks of Mosaic law which would have pointed them towards Aaron but as a great deal of the letter to the Hebrews points out, Christ is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. And because Ephraim through Joseph had the birthright and therefore, rights to the priesthood, some Rabbis looked to the lineage of Joseph for another Messiah, which was wrong again. As the Original Priesthood Giver, Christ had no need of inheriting the lower priesthood, because His order of priesthood was "without decent" or "without mother or father". Therefore he fulfills all aspects of the Messiahship as Prophet, Priest and King. Edited December 27, 2013 by Palerider
Damien the Leper Posted December 28, 2013 Author Posted December 28, 2013 No, Palerider. This subject has nothing to do with JS. He is irrelevant. I'm speaking of references found in Qumran.
Palerider Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 (edited) No, Palerider. This subject has nothing to do with JS. He is irrelevant. I'm speaking of references found in Qumran. I think you misunderstand. The concept of two messiahs has been in Israel's history for a long, long time. Predating Qumran. Whether it be referring to Aaron or Joseph of old is immaterial. They are different versions of the same line of rabbinical thinking if I'm correct. The LDS made the connection when some of their scholars (Cleon Skousen IIRC) began studying Jewish history and discovered the Messiah ben Joseph aspect of the legend. Then they attempted to retro-fit Joseph Smith into that part. Agreed, Joseph Smith has really nothing to do with your narrow search. I was just throwing that in as an added aspect of Mormon thought on the situation. I think the explanation given regarding the differences between Messiah ben Judah (David) and Messiah ben Aaron (or Joseph) are fairly applicable. Edited December 28, 2013 by Palerider
Robert F. Smith Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 http://kahana.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Messiahs Interesting idea, but false.Allen E. Goldenthal (aka Kahana "Priest") provides some very useful and accurate information there, Ahab. He is a member of the Qaraite community. The Qaraites were the Massoretes who transmitted the normative version of the Hebrew Bible which we have today. They have communities in Israel in Mazliah and Ramleh, and do not intermarry with rabbinic Jews, and they eschew the Talmud. They are the heirs of the Qumran Essenes, with whom they share many legal concepts. At one time, they nearly took over Judaism, but that is a thousand years in the past. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 (edited) Can someone explain to me the Messiah of Aaron and Messiah of David difference? I heard this in passing recently in a discussion on Qumran.There are several Qumran, pseudepigraphic, and rabbinic documents which relate to this matter: The Armenian text of the pseudepigraphic Testament of Benjamin 3:8, has Jacob saying to Joseph, “In you will be fulfilled the heavenly prophecy, which says that the spotless one will be defiled by lawless men and the sinless one will die for the sake of impious men” (re Isa 52-53, in Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I:826); midrash Pesikta Rabbati 36, on the Messiah Ephraim, son of Joseph: “Master of the Universe, with joy in my soul and gladness in my heart I take this suffering upon myself, . . . that not only those who are alive be saved in my days, but also those who are dead” (W. G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati [Yale Univ. Press, 1968], 678-679); Babylonian Talmud Sukka 52a, says that the Messiah ben Joseph will precede the Messiah ben David, and will be killed, re Psalm 21:5 “Life hath he asked of thee, thou gavest it to him”; Sefer Zerubabel re Messiah son of Joseph killed by wicked Armilus and resurrected by the Messiah son of David and the Prophet Elijah (Martha Himmelfarb in D. Stern & M. Mirsky, eds., Rabbinic Folktales [Phila.: JPS, 1990], 67-90); cf. Mark 12:35-37 (Ps 110). See Ada Yardeni, “A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 34/1 (Jan-Feb 2008), 60-61; Israel Knohl, “The Messiah Son of Joseph,” BAR, 34/5 (Sep-Oct 2008), 58-62,78; cf. Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. D. Maisel, S. Mark Taper Foundation Book in Jewish Studies (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000), downloadable as an eBook at www.ebooks.com; Israel knohl, “‘By Three Days, Live’: Messiahs, Resurrection, and Ascent to Heaven in Hazon Gabriel,” Journal of Religion, 88/2 (April 2008), 147-158; G. H. Dix, “The Messiah Ben Joseph,” Journal of Theological Studies, 27 (1926), 130-143. Edited December 28, 2013 by Robert F. Smith 4
Calm Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 You are such a fount of knowledge, Robert, you are constantly amazing me. 2
The Nehor Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 Can someone explain to me the Messiah of Aaron and Messiah of David difference? I heard this in passing recently in a discussion on Qumran. "I am NOT the Messiah!""I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few." 2
volgadon Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 False on a number of levels. They were looking for a priest within the usual priesthood ranks of Mosaic law which would have pointed them towards Aaron but as a great deal of the letter to the Hebrews points out, Christ is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. And because Ephraim through Joseph had the birthright and therefore, rights to the priesthood, some Rabbis looked to the lineage of Joseph for another Messiah, which was wrong again. As the Original Priesthood Giver, Christ had no need of inheriting the lower priesthood, because His order of priesthood was "without decent" or "without mother or father". Therefore he fulfills all aspects of the Messiahship as Prophet, Priest and King. One thing that you need to consider is that the various messianic titles were based more on roles than on lineage. 1
volgadon Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 Allen E. Goldenthal (aka Kahana "Priest") provides some very useful and accurate information there, Ahab. He is a member of the Qaraite community. The Qaraites were the Massoretes who transmitted the normative version of the Hebrew Bible which we have today. They have communities in Israel in Mazliah and Ramleh, and do not intermarry with rabbinic Jews, and they eschew the Talmud. They are the heirs of the Qumran Essenes, with whom they share many legal concepts. At one time, they nearly took over Judaism, but that is a thousand years in the past. A couple of years ago a vastly popular Karaite contender on the Israeli version of American Idol forfeited his spot because he refused to particiapte on a day which fell on a Karaite holiday. There are also some very interesting cases of Eastern European Jewish and Karaite families inter-marrying in the past. 1
volgadon Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 Can someone explain to me the Messiah of Aaron and Messiah of David difference? I heard this in passing recently in a discussion on Qumran. There is some doubt as to whether or not the Qumranic texts have two different individuals in mind (I think they do), but at the very least we can talk of separate roles. The Messiah of David will establish the dominion of God throughout the earth. The Messiah of Aaron will establish the correct interpretation of the Law of Moses, thus allowing it to be lived in full accord with God's design. 2
EllenMaksoud Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 Maybe this isn't what you're talking about at all but........ Just as an abridged primer, I would say a more accurate description might be Messiah ben Judah and Messiah ben Joseph. Some from an LDS point of view would assign Joseph Smith the position of Messiah ben Joseph. Personally I would disagree with that assessment. The prophecies of the Old Testament seem to indicate two different types of Messiah. One coming as a humble servant type (having some symbolic similarities with the story of Joseph being sold into Egypt) while the other comes in power and glory. Some old time Rabbinical writers and scribes came up with the prospect of two different Messiahs rather than one Messiah coming two different times, and thus the two Messiah tradition was born. Some Jews hold to it, others (most I believe) do not. I've never heard of a Messiah ben Aaron (unless it might be a reference to John the Baptist who some speculate was associated with the Essenes) but then........there's a lot I've never heard of. Hope this helps. In Evangelical thought, it is one Messiah, two different visits. First to be murdered on the cross, second to conquer evil and reign triumphant.
Palerider Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 One thing that you need to consider is that the various messianic titles were based more on roles than on lineage. I thought I had allowed for that. Can you give me an example?
Palerider Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 There is some doubt as to whether or not the Qumranic texts have two different individuals in mind (I think they do), but at the very least we can talk of separate roles. The Messiah of David will establish the dominion of God throughout the earth. The Messiah of Aaron will establish the correct interpretation of the Law of Moses, thus allowing it to be lived in full accord with God's design. I see. This would make sense even though the two would be the same individual.
Palerider Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 In Evangelical thought, it is one Messiah, two different visits. First to be murdered on the cross, second to conquer evil and reign triumphant. I think I covered that assuming Evangelical and Mormon thought as well: "rather than one Messiah coming two different times".
volgadon Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 I thought I had allowed for that. Can you give me an example? Well, for instance both R. Isaac Luria and R. Hayim Vital were Jews, claiming descent from Judah, yet considered themselves the Messiah b. Joseph and the Messiah b. David, respectively.
EllenMaksoud Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 There is some doubt as to whether or not the Qumranic texts have two different individuals in mind (I think they do), but at the very least we can talk of separate roles. The Messiah of David will establish the dominion of God throughout the earth. The Messiah of Aaron will establish the correct interpretation of the Law of Moses, thus allowing it to be lived in full accord with God's design.So, are you saying that according to that portion of the Qumranic texts neither individual had yet existed? And, according to some sources about those texts, some of them could have been written as early as 400 BC or as late as 300 AD. Interestingly, Shia Muslims talk about The Mahaddi, who will set order at the instruction of Allah SWT. The more I read about him, he reminds me of the Evangelical "end times" Anti-Christ. 2
Palerider Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 Well, for instance both R. Isaac Luria and R. Hayim Vital were Jews, claiming descent from Judah, yet considered themselves the Messiah b. Joseph and the Messiah b. David, respectively. Got it. Lineage wasn't important, at least to them; it was the role to be played that took presidence. But doesn't that defeat the very language of "ben" meaning "house of"? Or was that just not a critical factor in their thinking?
Stone holm Posted December 30, 2013 Posted December 30, 2013 I had always understood that the title "messiah" applied to a much broader group of individuals, than we normally apply it to in modern Christianity.
Palerider Posted December 30, 2013 Posted December 30, 2013 I had always understood that the title "messiah" applied to a much broader group of individuals, than we normally apply it to in modern Christianity. Never heard that. Not saying it isn't true, just have never encountered it.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2013 Posted December 30, 2013 (edited) I had always understood that the title "messiah" applied to a much broader group of individuals, than we normally apply it to in modern Christianity.Correct. It was applied to both kings and priests, as well as to the eschatological Messiah who was to appear at the End Time. You also hear the term used within Mormonism -- "the Lord's anointed," meaning the LDS Prophet (who is the President of the High Priesthood of God).. The term familiar to us as Messiah comes from post-exilic Hebrew māšîaḥ “anointed one” (Psalm 20:7),[1] which, according to Jacob Milgrom, was borrowed into post-exilic Hebrew from Aramaic (mĕšîḥāʼ), where it is the past paˁil participle (Leviticus 6:15, Psalm 20:7), which would be in Classical Hebrew the paˁul māšûaḥ (mĕšûḥîm “anointed ones” = ordinary priests in Exodus 28:41, 29:21, 30:30, 40:15, Leviticus 7:36, 10:7, Numbers 3:3).[2] That latter would have been the form familiar to Lehi & Nephi.Milgrom comments that “it seems strange that the high priest is both expiator and the expiated, that he officiates for his own sin.”[3] [1] David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 6 vols. (Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), IV:336. [2] Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Anchor Bible 3 (Doubleday, 1991), 400, 518. [3] Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 232 (re Leviticus 4:5). Edited December 30, 2013 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2013 Posted December 30, 2013 So, are you saying that according to that portion of the Qumranic texts neither individual had yet existed? And, according to some sources about those texts, some of them could have been written as early as 400 BC or as late as 300 AD. Interestingly, Shia Muslims talk about The Mahaddi, who will set order at the instruction of Allah SWT. The more I read about him, he reminds me of the Evangelical "end times" Anti-Christ.Have you seen the 1966 film "Khartoum," in which Sir Laurence Olivier played the role of an actual Mahdi at war with the British in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1885. Charlton Heston played the part of his nemesis, General "Chinese" Gordon. A very good film, and Olivier made a very convincing Mahdi. Here is a taste of it, which you can appreciate -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZL_TOV9-m0
volgadon Posted December 30, 2013 Posted December 30, 2013 Have you seen the 1966 film "Khartoum," in which Sir Laurence Olivier played the role of an actual Mahdi at war with the British in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1885. Charlton Heston played the part of his nemesis, General "Chinese" Gordon. A very good film, and Olivier made a very convincing Mahdi. Here is a taste of it, which you can appreciate -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZL_TOV9-m0 That is one of my favourites. I watched it at least a dozen times, about as often as I reread a biography I had of Gordon.
Recommended Posts