DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
due to a spiritualizing in Philo’s mind of the Zion of the prophets. The coming era will be signal- ized by the tameness of wild beasts (de Premiis et Penis, 15 ft.); by the saints’ bloodless victory in battle [‘ Then, says the prophecy (Nu 24’, LXX), aman who goes to battle and makes war shall go forth and subdue great and populous nations, God Himself sending help to His saints’ (id. 16)]; by the blessing of physical health and strength (17- 18); and by that of wealth and prosperity (20). Athough there is here no express mention of a personal Messiah, the latter is nevertheless clearly indicated in the warrior who subdues great nations. The use of such language, alien as it is to Philo’s general point of view, is a proof of the prevalence of the Messianic idea in his time. It is more after his manner to lay stress upon the liberating power of virtue, and this he contrives to do, without, how- ever, altogether excluding the activity of the Logos as a fundamental factor in the future salvation.
The Hellenistic sympathies of Josephus are ap- parent in his treatment of the Messianic idea. He studiously ignores it. Only in two passages of his writings does it find the faintest expression. In recording Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchad- nezzar’s dream he declines to explain the meaning of the stone which was cut out of the mountain and destroyed the image (Dn 2), on the ground that as a historian he is not concerned with the future (Ant. x. x. 4). Again, in remarking upon the fulfilment of several of Balaam’s predictions, he takes no account of the Messianic prophecy in Nu 2422, but merely adds: ‘ One may easily guess that the rest will have their completion in due time’ (Ant. Iv. vi. 5). No further evidence is required to show that in his presentation of Jewish history the Messianic prophecies of the OT are deliberately ignored. When he says of Jesus, ‘This is the Christ’ (Ané. xvii. iu. 3), all he means to convey is that He was popularly re- garded as the Jewish Messiah. Certainly, the words do not contain the confession of his own faith. That he had personally abandoned (if in- deed he ever understood) the Messianic hope is clear from his declaration to his fellow-countrymen at the siege of Jerusalem that Rome was invincible, and that God had now given the dominion to Italy (BJ V. ix. 3), as well as from his impudent trans- ference of it to the rule of Vespasian (BJ VI. v. 4).
After the Exile the doctrine of the Messianic expectation appears to have assumed two very different forms—one in Palestine, and the other in Egypt. The increased clearness of the pro- phetic Nocbiiate had been accompanied in Palestine by an increased departure from the true under- standing of the scriptural position. In the pre- vailing popular conception the religious character of the Messiah was overlooked. Men either thought of him as a temporal prince, or lost sight of the personal element altogether in their anticipation of a temporal kingdom. ‘The theocratic views of the people made it impossible for them to separate the thought of the Messiah from that of a victori- ous earthly king, and caused them to cling to the political idea till it was finally extinguished in the ashes of the Holy City.’* In Egypt the doctrine had a different history. If the notion of a Messianic ruler did not cease to be popularly contemplated, no place at all was given to a visi le Messiah in the Jewish - Alexandrian philosophy. Where Philo does introduce the figure of the Messianic king, this is done purely as a concession to the popular sentiment, and not because it falls in with his ethical view. The conception of the Alexandrian philosophers was wholly ideal, and exclusive of personal Messianic activity. The Law and wis-
* See the author’s From the Emile to the Advent (Clark’s Handbook Series), p. 175.
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
301
dom were all the Messiah they wished. No other view would square with their philosophical system, which did not favour the concrete and visible side of things. This was the opposite extreme of the development in Palestine, and it is not improbable that what yet remained of true Messianic hope in the latter country was due to the tenacity with which their brethren in Egypt clung to the mys- tical conception of the Messianic deliverance.
7. Peculiarities of the later Messianic hope.— From the situation as broadly reflected in Pales- tine and in Egypt it is clear that the hope of a bright future, which formed an integral part of the religious consciousness of Israel, assumed various aspects in different minds and at different periods of the national development. Particularly note- worthy are some well-marked points of contrast between the older and the later Messianic hope. These have been well stated by Schiirer (HJP 1. ii. p. 129 ff.), whom we here follow. (1) Upon the whole, the former contemplated nothing more than the advent of better times, when a purified nation under a wise and just Davidic king should occupy a place of power and influence, and enjoy all the blessings of peace and prosperity. (2) While the former was almost entirely national, the latter growingly assumed an individual character. Every pious Jew would share in the glory of the future kingdom, and for this end the righteous dead would be raised to life again. (3) The former did not go beyond the circle of earthly circumstances, whereas the latter conceives the future salvation as transcending the sphere of the present. (4) In later times, and in the hands of the scribes, the Messianic hope assumed a more scholastic _ form than in the earlier prophetic days. ‘The poetic image was stiffened into dogma’ in a way not possible so long as the Messianic expectation was a living reality. While this characterization is broadly true, it is to be remembered that ‘even in later times the old hope of a glorious future for the nation maintained the supremacy. . This forms, even in the later view of the future, the determin- ing ground-plan of the picture. And just as upon this foundation the characteristic peculiarities of the later view have stronger or weaker influence, and produce this or that alteration, is the old image now more now less, now in one way now in another, specially modified and supplemented ’ (AJP i. ii. p. 135).