Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian M. M. Brady [mailto:cbrady AT tulane.edu]

> 
> On 1/30/01 1:07 PM, "Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I think the job description of the biblical messiah
> > (as opposed to the Christian) was based on the job description
> > of Cyrus the Messiah (Isaiah 45:1):
> > he would rebuild YHWH's temple and the city of Jerusalem,
> > he would return the exiles to their land,
> > and apportion their desolate heritage.
> > The disappointment in Cyrus led to the emphasis on the Davidic line.
> > I suggest passages such as Isaiah 11, which emphasize the Davidic
> > line are later, and post-exilic.
> 
> This argument is circular. The only reason for assuming Isa. 11 to be
> post-exilic is because you have already assumed that the 
> "biblical messiah"
> would be modeled upon Cyrus as described in Isa. 45.1.

Actually, I got it from Blenkinsopp's recent commentary on Isaiah 1-39.
He doesn't make use of Cyrus at all.  I think Psalm 89 describes
a pre-exilic notion of a Davidic covenant.  
But I agree! It's hard to keep arguments from becomming circular!

> 
> > Prior to 2nd-Isaiah and Cyrus you have such exilic poems as Psalm
> > 89 which show the extreme disappointment in the promises to David.
> > In these biblical texts I don't see an eschatological Messiah.
> > I think you have to wait for Enoch, which I place later, and which
> > is influenced by Zoroastrianism.
> 
> That may simply be because different and competing views about the nature
> messiah coexisted and found their way into the canon. Certainly various
> views existed in the centuries surrounding the turn of the era, 
> why not inn
> the Bible too? 
> 
> (BTW, in general yes, I agree, an eschatological view of the messiah does
> come later. I guess I am reading your message as offering 
> contrasts between
> Isa. 11 and Ps. 89.)
Yes, Isa. 11 is eschatological. You're right.
Not so Ps. 89, so Isa 11 would be later.

Liz