ing approaches seem to have become extinct and not to have crossed the
literary abyss that separates Second Temple from rabbinic tradition.
A significant difference of opinion among Second Temple texts regard-
ing the onset of the messianic era itself is carried over into rabbinic texts.
Two trends have always been observable in Jewish messianism: the first
trend, the restorative trend, assumed that the messianic era would consti-
tute a return to the great glories of the ancient Jewish past. A second trend,
the catastrophic or utopian, assumed that the messianic era would usher in
an era of total perfection, one that never had existed before, in which all evil
and suffering would be eradicated. While the restorative approach assumed
that the messianic era could be created by the gradual improvement of the
world, the catastrophic one assumed that a great war, often termed the Day
of the Lord, would lead to the total destruction of the wicked and the onset
of the eschaton. Both of these views existed in Second Temple times, but the
Dead Sea Scrolls particularly emphasize the apocalyptic belief that a great
war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, in which all but the
sectarians would be destroyed, would bring on the messianic era. These two
trends are reflected in rabbinic texts and constitute an aspect of the com-
mon Judaism of the Greco-Roman period that passed, with no literary
framework, into the thought of the rabbis. In the aftermath of the Great Re-
volt (66-73c.e.) and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135c.e.), the rabbis tended
toward more quietist types of messianism. The militant apocalyptic no-
tions, however, resurfaced in amoraic times and were further ignited when
the Byzantine period gave way to the Muslim conquest.
There was also a debate during Second Temple times about the nature
of the messianic age. On the one hand, Jews who awaited a Davidic mes-
siah expected him to restore Jewish national independence and to rebuild
the Temple. On the other hand, those who expected two messiahs and who
believed that the messiah of Aaron would have precedence over the mes-
siah of Israel anticipated the restoration of the Temple to the standards of
holiness and sanctity that it deserved. In the aftermath of two Jewish re-
volts, the rabbis longed for a restoration of the Davidic glories of old, of a
political entity secure and independent. Apparently, in their view this
would ensure the proper rebuilding of the Temple. Yet they did not see the
Temple as the central act in the messianic drama but as only a part of the
process. For this reason, the Aaronide messiah has no parallel in rabbinic
literature. This is the case even though Eleazar the Priest appeared with
Bar Kokhba on coins, conjuring up the messianic pair of thenaki
(“prince”) andkZh 3 n(“priest”).431Early Judaism and Rabbinic JudaismEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:20 PM