MESSIAH. 360 MESSIAH. circles. Whether the idea was influenced at the outset by Mazdayasnian thought is doubtful ; in its later develuinneiit it may liavo burrowed some features from the Saoshyant (q.v.). This Per- sian Messiah has no jjolitical character, lie was expected to raise the dead and to renew the world (Yasht, xix. 92 sqq. ). The Messianic idea seems to have had little hold upon the Alexandrian Jews. It is not certain that the translators of Isaiah ix. 5 and Psalm ex. 3 had the Jlessiah in mind; in Numbers xxiv. 7 the Davidic house is meant, and the rendering of Cienesis xlix. 10, 'he is the expeetatiun of the nations,' is not like- ly to be original. It is doubtful whether l/iibyl- line Oracles iii. 46-IJ2, 75-92 belongs to the time of the First Triumvirate and Cleopatra, or to the time of Gall)a. Otho, and Vitellius: in the latter case the "widow' is Kome.and the 'holy ruler' may be none else than the 'immortal God' and 'great king' mentioned in the same connection. The Book of Wisdom contains no allusion to the Messiah. Pliilo declares that the Israelites shall return to Palestine 'led by a divine or more than human apparition' (Dr Exreriitionibiis. iii. 437), and that if the future kingdom of peace shall be disturbed a man will come, according to the promise, to sulxhie the nations, God granting to the pious auxiliaries in psychic power and physi- cal strengtii (De Prwmiis et Parnifs, ii. 421-428). But he seems to have thought of the divine glory and of deliverance through manly qualities rather tluiii through a man. The SJaiionic Enoch knows nothing of a ilessiah. The same silence concern- ing this figure is found in such Palestinian works as Ecclesiastes, written c.30 B.C.; the Axfiumittinn of Moses (i.-vi.), written in the beginning of our era; the Book of Jubilees; and the original Testamenis of the Tireh-e Patriarchs. It is held by many that aside from the Psalter of Solomon there is no unmistakalile reference to the Mes- siah in any literary production that can be dated with certainty as earlier than the time of Jesus. But the description given in tliis work (xvii., xviii.) of the coming king sliows with sufficient clearness that some men in Israel in the first century B.C. looked forward to the appearance of a descendant of David, who would be a con- queror of nations and a righteous ruler and whom they called the Messiah. According to Matthew xxii. I'l, Ifi CMark xii. 13) there was a party of 'the Ilerodians.' Tertillian <leclares that 'the Herodians said Herod was the Clirist' (Prwser. 4.5). It is not improliable that the king who built the most splendid temple .Terusa- lem had ever had and restored the Davidic king- dom, even though it was by the favor of Rome, was thus looked upon as the promised Messiah by his courtiers. .ludali of Gamala in Galilee seems to have been regarded as the Jlessiah by many and undertook an insurrection in A.n, 7. (See .JlPAS OF G.M.ir.F;E.) He was sujiported by Zadok. a disciple of Sliammai. The immediate cause of the rebellion was the census of Quirinius on the accession of Arehelaus. He was put to death, but his followers continued ns a sect (Josephus, llV/r.'!, ii., 118). Jesus of Xazareth was crucified by Pontius Pilate as a political criminal claiming, in de- fiance of the authority of Rome, to hi' 'King of the .Tews.' It is ))elieved by some that he never claimed himself to be the Messiah. The Synoptic Kviiiigelists believed, indeed, that he was the Messiah. But this belief may have been based on his resurrection from the dead. For a time at any rate he avoided assuming any distinctive Messianic title, and on several occasions forbade his disciples to say that he was the Messiali, From their point of view they could ex|ilain this attitude only as a persistent attempt to keep his Jlessiahship a secret. This secret was known to God, who might in due time reveal it, and to tha demons, who were punished for prematurely an- nouncing it, but not to men. The disei]iles seem, however, to have regarded the term 'Son of Man' as a self-designation of Jesus by which he in- tended to hint at his Messianic claims without directly disclosing them. But this belief, it is argiu'd, may have been erroneous, and so in- definite a term as 'man' cannot have been a Messianic title and is not found in Jewish litera- ture as svuh. The life and teaching of Jesus offended all influential parties in the na- tion, while the entluisiasm and indiscretion of his disciples readily furnislied immeiliate excuse for a false accusation. Pilate could scarcely avoid regarding him as a disturber of tlic peace, « and executed liim on the ground of the loose i! charge preferred against him. Similarly there > is no evidence that John the Baptist regarded himself as the Messiah, though his disciples at ' a later time seem to have considered him as such. It is only just, however, to state that from ' the traditional Jewish and Christian standpoint, the Messianic belief was imliedded in Hebrew history and interwoven with the deepest life of the people. The promises which formed and fed it are thouglit to reach back to the earliest Jewish annals and the belief itself is thought to rest uiKui sacred traditions coeval with the origin of the human race. According to this view the Messianic idea was inse|)arably connected with the provision for the redemidion of man after the fall and was gradually unfolded through the history of the chosen people of God. The hope of a Messiah was centred in a single race. With the establishment of the kingdom came at once an enlargement of the conception of the Anointed One's person and work and a narrower limitation of the stock from which he was to spring. One family was selected from the chosen tribe and the 'sceptre' fell to the House of David. With the later development of the kingdom and the idolatrous faithlessness of the jieople came the clearer conception of Messianic teaching. The captivity com])leted the circle of Jlessianic hopes by turning the eyes of the people to the divine glory of the coming king and the universal extent of his kingdom. The son of Daviil aeipiired the wider title of 'the Son of Man' and his kingdom appeared as the last, but mightiest, pf the mon- arch ies of the world. .Veeording to this traditional view the evolu- tion of the Messianic idea may be traced through four distinct epochs, three within the limits of the Hebrew canon and the fourth outside it. The first of these emls with :Moscs. In the protevangelium we have the primal prom- ise. 'The seed of the woman' is to bruise the serpent's head. This promise takes shape in the family of .braham. in whose .seed all the n.Ttions of the earth are to be blessed. Saint Paul argiies in Gal. iii. 10 that the 'seed' is a personal Mes- siah. His characteristics are gi-adiially un- folded in the '.Shiloh' of the dying Jacob (Gen. xlix. lOK in the 'Star' of Bal.nnm (Num. xxiv. 17) and the 'prophet' of Moses (Deut. xviii. 18,
