Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:05:12.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Jewish Sign Prophets -A.D. 40–70 Their Intentions and Origin

1. THE JEWISH SIGN PROPHETS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

P. W. Barnett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As we read those parts of Josephus'1 works which coincide with the Apostolic Age (in round figures A.D. 30–70) we encounter a number of references to certain prophetic figures. In the absence of existing descriptive titles we will refer to them as the Jewish Sign Prophets.

Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , October 1981 , pp. 679 - 697
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

[1] Quotations, translations and citations from Josephus are taken from the Loeb Classical Library.

[2] Apart from the references in Josephus there is scanty evidence for the activities of the Jewish Sign Prophets. a. A Theudas is mentioned in Acts 5.36 though it is a matter of debate whether he is one and the same as the Theudas who arose under Cuspius Fadus. b. The Egyptian prophet is referred to in: (i) Acts21.38 (ii) Eusebius, H.E. ii, xxi (where Josephus A.J. is closely followed) (iii) b. Sanh. 67 a (?). c. it is possible that Matthew 24. 11–12, 24–26 refers to the prophets who arose under Felix and Festus. The various ‘source blocks’, taken as a whole, are silent about the activities of the Jewish Sign Prophets: a. Phio makes frequent reference to προφήτης (and cognates) but these relate to the Biblical period and never to contemporary figures. (But cf. De Spec. Leg. iv, 51 where ψενδοπφήγης refers to divination.) b. The classical Graeco-Roman writers make no reference to the Jewish Sign Prophets. c. Patristic authors, except as in b (ii) above, are silent. d. The Mishnah, to our knowledge, contains no reference. e. The rabbinic sources, except as in b (iii) (?) above, so far as we can see, axe silent.

[3] The Samaritan is on the periphery of our study since it is convenient to limit our attention to Palestinian Jews. The weaver Jonathan of Cyrene (B.J. vii, 438) who in A.D. 73 promised ‘signs and apparitions’ (σγμεīα καί φάσματα) in the ‘wilderness’ (έργμς;) is not included in these studies, being outside Palestine.Google Scholar

[4] In general terms these prophets have been discussed in two classes of literature. a. In standard histories of the New Testament period, for example: Guignebert, Ch., The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus (E.T., S. H. Hooke) (London, 1939), pp. 132–3.Google ScholarBruce, F. F., New Testament History (London, 1969), pp. 319–31, passim.Google ScholarSchürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev, and ed. by Vermes, G. and Millar, F.) (Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 455–70,Google Scholarpassim. Safrai, S. and Stern, M. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen, 1974), pp. 360–72,Google Scholarpassim. Smallwood, E. M., The Jews underRomanRule, (Leiden, 1976), pp. 256–92,Google Scholarpassim. b. In articles ormonographs devoted to various themes, for example: Jeremias, J., ‘Mωυςα¯ς’, T.D.N.T. 4, 848–73.Google ScholarYoung, F, ‘Jesus the Prophet’, J.B.L. 68 (1949), 285–99.Google ScholarMowinckel, S., He That Cometh (E.T., G. W. Anderson) (Oxford, 1956), pp. 284–5.Google ScholarFarmer, W. R., Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus (New York, 1956), pp. 116–17.Google ScholarTeeple, H. M., The Mosaic Eschato logical Prophet (Philadelphia, 1957), pp. 63–6.Google ScholarFunk, R. W., ‘The Wilderness’, J.B.L. 78 (1959), 205–14.Google ScholarMeyer, R., ‘irponrc’, T.D.N.T. 6, 812–28.Google ScholarHengel, M., Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961), pp. 235–5 1.Google ScholarMauser, U., Christ in the Wilderness (London, 1963), pp. 56–8.Google ScholarDodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 213–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMartyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York, 1968), p. 85 n. 13.Google ScholarMeeks, W. A., The Prophet-King (Leiden, 1967), pp. 163–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967), pp. 65–145,Google Scholarpassim. Hahn, F., The Titles of Jesus in Christology (E.T., H. Knight and G. Ogg) (London, 1969), pp. 358–9.Google ScholarNicol, W., The Sēmela in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden, 1972), pp. 823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarZeitlin, S., ‘The Origin of the Idea of the Messiah’, Studies in the Early History of Judaism (New York, 1973), vol. ii, pp. 403–5.Google ScholarVermes, G., Jesus the Jew (London, 1973), pp. 98–9.Google ScholarCrone, T., Early Christian Prophecy: A Study of its Origin and Significance (Baltimore, 1973), pp. 131–9.Google Scholar

[5] Op. cit. pp. 403–4.Google Scholar

[6] Op. cit. pp. 285–5. For a contra view see Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 358.Google Scholar

[7] Op. cit. p. 862. See also Brandon, S. G. F., op. cit. p. 100.Google Scholar

[8] See Hahn, F., op. cit. p. 359.Google ScholarMeeks, W. A., op. cit. p. 163.Google ScholarMartyn, J. L., op. cit. p. 85 n. 134.Google Scholar

[9] A.J. xix, 328–330, Acts. 12. 3.Google Scholar

[10] Philo, , Legatio ad Gaium, 349–367.Google Scholar

[11] The sources of this incident (Philo, , Legatio ad Gaium, 184–333;Google ScholarJosephus, , A.J. 18, 261–301,Google ScholarB.J. ii, 185–201)Google Scholar are in conflict as to the sequence. Various authors have attempted to resolve the matter. See Smallwood, E. M., ‘The Chronology of Gaius' Attempt to Desecrate the Temple’, Latomus 16 (1957), 3–17.Google ScholarTcherikover, V. and Fuks, A., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), p. 69 affirm that: ‘had this order been carried out, the entire Jewish population of the Empire would have revolted’.Google Scholar

[12] Philo, , op. cit. 276–333,Google ScholarJosephus, , A.J. 18, 289–301.Google Scholar

[13] A.J. xix, 279–285.Google Scholar The nature of the Isēs Politeias (A.J. xix, 281)Google Scholar is much debated in view of the Letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians, ed. Bell, H. I. (London Papyrus, 1913), lines 75 ff.Google Scholar where the status of Jews appears to be inferior to that of the Alexandrians. For a discussion of this complex question see: Smallwood, E. M., op. cit. pp. 6–14.Google ScholarFeldman, L. H., Josephus, , Jewish Antiquities (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), books 18–20 (L.C.L.), p. 346 n. (b), 344 n. (d) and pp. 583–5 (Appendix Q ‘Select literature on the Citizenship of the Alexandrian Jews and on Claudius’ ‘edict”).Google Scholar

[14] A.J. xix, 286–291.Google Scholar

[15] A.J. xix, 363.Google Scholar

[16] A.J. xviii, 88–90, 121, 123Google Scholarcf., Tacitus, Annals 6, 32.Google Scholar

[17] A.J. xx, 2–4, 13.Google Scholar

[18] A.J. xx, 99.Google Scholar

[19] A.J. ii, 286Google Scholarcf., ii, 302, 332, 336.Google Scholar

[20] B.J. ii, 261.Google Scholar

[21] B.J. vi, 285–287.Google Scholar

[22] A.J. ii, 327Google Scholarcf., Ap. ii, 145, 161.Google Scholar

[23] A.J. iv, 165.Google Scholar

[24] For discussion whether the year of appointment was A.D. 52 or 53 and whether Roman Palestine was divided or not see Schürer, E., op. cit. p. 460 n. (17) and p. 459 n. (15) respectively.Google Scholar

[25] A.J. xx, 162.Google Scholar

[26] Tacitus, , Ann. xii, 54 comments that Felix ‘believed that he could commit all kinds of enormity with impunity’.Google Scholar

[27] For the influence wielded by Jonathan see Smallwood, E. M., ‘High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine’, J.T.S. 13 (1962), 23–5.Google Scholar

[28] Bruce, F. F., New Testament History (London, 1969), p. 327Google Scholar rightly rejects the version that Felix had Jonathan removed (A.J. xx, 162–164)Google Scholar in favour of the view that the plan originated from the sicarii (B.J. ii, 256).Google Scholar

[29] B.J. ii, 270.Google Scholar

[30] Acts 24. 26.Google Scholar

[31] A.J. xx, 206.Google Scholar

[32] Hist. v, 9.Google Scholar

[33] B.J. ii, 252Google Scholarcf., ii, 235.Google Scholar

[34] B.J. ii, 255–257.Google Scholar

[35] B.J. ii, 258.Google Scholar

[36] B.J. ii, 261,Google ScholarA.J. xx, 169.Google Scholar

[37] Acts 21. 38.

[38] Op. cit. p. 460.Google Scholar

[39] A.J. ii, 327.Google Scholar

[40] A.J. ii, 286Google Scholarcf., ii, 327.Google Scholar

[41] A.J. xx, 168.Google Scholar

[42] A.J. ii, 286.Google Scholar

[43] Does περλάγεις, mean ‘circuitous route’ around Jerusalem, as with Joshua's forces?

[44] The date for the arrival of Festus is a matter of debate. See Schürer, E., op. cit. p. 465 n. (42).Google Scholar

[45] Schürer, E., op. cit. p. 467.Google Scholar

[46] Warmington, B. H., Nero: Reality and Legend (London, 1969), pp. 59–62, points out that although there are records of numerous prosecutions of governors between A.D. 54 and 61, there is no record of prosecutions thereafter.Google Scholar

[47] Op. cit. p. 72.Google Scholar

[48] A.J. xx, 183–4Google Scholarcf., B.J ii, 270.Google Scholar

[49] B.J. ii, 270.Google Scholar

[50] A.J. xx, 179–181.Google Scholar

[51] A.J. iii, 64.Google Scholar

[52] Cf., A.J. ii, 327, 345 iv, 42.Google Scholar

[53] B.J. ii, 259;Google ScholarA.J. xx, 188;Google ScholarB.J. vi, 286.Google Scholar

[54] A.J. ii, 276Google Scholarcf., A.J. iii, 219.Google Scholar

[55] B.J. v, 99–105.Google Scholar

[56] B.J. v, 358; vi, 92, 148.Google Scholar

[57] B.J. v, 105;Google ScholarTacitus, , Hist. v, 12.Google Scholar

[58] B.J. vi, 220–235.Google Scholar

[59] B.J. vi, 254–266.Google Scholar On the question of Roman intention to burn the temple, see Neusner, J., From Politics to Piety (Ingleside Cliffs, 1973), pp. 149–50.Google Scholar

[60] B.J. vi, 285,Google ScholarTacitus, , Hist. v. 13.Google Scholar

[61] B.J. vi, 291.Google Scholar

[62] B.J. vi, 295.Google Scholar

[63] B.J. vi, 286.Google Scholar

[64] Cf., B.J. 6, 310.Google Scholar

[65] B.J. vi, 291.Google Scholar

[66] B.J. vi, 313.Google Scholar

[67] B.J. iii, 350–354, iii, 401;Google ScholarSuetonius, , Vesp. 5. 6.Google Scholar

[68] B.J. vi, 313.Google Scholar

[69] B.J. vi, 285Google Scholarcf., vi, 310.Google Scholar

[70] B.J. ii, 259.Google Scholar

[71] See e.g. Smith, M., ‘Zealots and Sicarii. Their Origins and Relation’, H.T.R. 64 (1971), 1–19.Google Scholar

[72] B.J. ii, 258.Google Scholar

[73] See A.J. xviii, 63; xx, 200 both referring to Jesus; though the former reference is questioned by many.Google Scholar

[74] Unnamed ßαοιλείς 4 B.C. (A.J. xvii, 285),Google Scholar Judas Son of Ezekias (A.J. xvii, 271),Google ScholarSimon, (A.J. 17, 273),Google Scholar Athronges (A.J. xvii, 278),Google Scholar Menahem (B.J. ii, 434),Google Scholar Simon bar Gioras (B.J. iv, 510).Google Scholar

[75] On whom see Vermes, G., ‘Hanina ben Dose’, I, J.J.S. 23 (1972), 28–50,Google Scholar ‘Hanina ben Dosa’, II, J.J.S. 24 (1973), 51–64.Google Scholar

[76] A.J. ii, 327.Google Scholar

[77] A.J. x, 28,Google Scholarcf., 2 Kings 20. 8.Google Scholar

[78] E.g. En 9. 11, IV Ezra 4. 36–37.Google Scholar

[79] Thus Licht, J., ‘Taxo, or The Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance’, J.J.S. 12 (1962), 97.Google Scholar

[80] Ass. Moses 9. 7.Google ScholarLk., Cf. 19. 11.Google Scholar

[81] Why should Josephus depict these prophets, who by his descriptions he clearly abhors (γοήτες ψενδοποφηη¯ται etc.), in terms of the typology of Exodus-Conquest which he so evidently reveres? In favour of Josephus' credibility in this matter, it is noted that there were current expectations of a New Mosaic Age and also the coming of the Prophet like Moses (see Barnett, P. W., ‘The Jewish Eschatological Prophets A.D. 40–70 in their Theological and Political Setting’, Unpublished Dissertation, University of London (1977), pp. 47–74). In Josephus' narratives, the consistent failure of these prophets to execute their promised ‘Signs’ is, by implication, proof positive of their γοητεíα.Google Scholar

[82] This, broadly, is the position of Nicol, W., The Sēmeia in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden, 1972). In summing up the debate on miracles precedent to or contemporary with Jesus, Nicol states that: ‘Jesus with his miraculous powers would have been a unique appearance in the Palestine of His time’ (p. 56 n. 2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[83] Referring to Moses but really in reference to Jesus.

[84] Op. cit. p. 77.

[85] Thus Knox, W. L., Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (London, 1944), p. 26 n. 1.Google Scholar See also Sib. Or. v. 256–259.Google Scholar

[86] Acts 2.22,32,3. 13,4. 13, 18, 30,5. 30, 40, 6. 14, 8. 16, 8. 35, 9. 17, 20, 27, 10. 38, 11. 20.

[87] On which see Wilcox, M., The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, 1965), pp. 54–5.Google Scholar

[88] The Quest of the Historical Jesus (E.T., Montgomery, W.) (London, 1911), p. 368. My italics.Google Scholar

[89] Jesus and His Contemporaries (London, 1971), pp. 110–20.Google Scholar

[90] B.J. ii, 433.Google Scholar

[91] B.J. ii, 434, 444, 426–427.Google Scholar

[92] B.J. ii, 427.Google Scholar

[93] The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, 1973), p. 48 n. 31.Google Scholar

[94] ‘RevoltintheDesert?’, N.T.S. 8 (1965), 135–41.Google Scholar

[95] Addition 12; quoted in Thackeray, H. St. J., The Jewish War (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 648–9.Google Scholar

[96] E.g. Jn. 2. 23, 4. 48Google Scholar (cf., v. 45), 6. 26Google Scholar (cf., v. 14–15), 7. 31, 8. 30Google Scholar (but cf., v. 37, 40), 12. 37 and 42–43Google Scholar (cf., 11. 45, 48, 12. 9–11, 17–19)Google Scholar and discussion thereon in Nicol, W., op. cit. pp. 99–102.Google Scholar

[97] (a) Both were followed by (or sought the following of) a multitude. (b) Both positioned themselves on the Mount of Olives overlooking Jerusalem which was in Roman hands. (c) Both worked (or sought to work) a sign(s) by a word (command). (d) Both sought (or were desired to secure) the destruction of the Romans. (e) Both sought to be (or were urged to become) ‘king’. It should not pass unnoticed that in the ‘feeding’ incident recorded in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is hailed as ‘the prophet’ whereupon an attempt is made to force him to become ‘king’ (Jn. 6. 14–15).

[98] Certain editions of the Talmud contain a passage inserted within b. Sanh. 67a in which ben Stada (probably The Egyptian – [ograve;] άναστατώσας (Acts 21. 38) and ben Pandira (i.e. Jesus as in certain Talmudic references – see Klausner, J., Jesus of Nazareth, E.T. (London, 1925), p. 46) are identified: ‘thus they did to Ben Stada … they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Pandira.’Google Scholar