Beginning of St Matthews Gospel

[patrick457]

What an interesting claim. At what point(s) in time, following the exiles, would you identify the existing structure as a ‘theocracy’?

First of all, let’s look at what ‘theocracy’ means here. Josephus is the first person to ever use the term, and this is what he meant by it (Against Apion 2.17, 22-23):

Now there are innumerable differences in the particular customs and laws that are among all mankind, which a man may briefly reduce under the following heads: Some legislators have permitted their governments to be under monarchies, others put them under oligarchies, and others under a republican form; but our legislator had no regard to any of these forms, but he ordained our government to be what, by a strained expression, may be termed a Theocracy, by ascribing the authority and the power to God, and by persuading all the people to have a regard to him, as the author of all the good things that were enjoyed either in common by all mankind, or by each one in particular, and of all that they themselves obtained by praying to him in their greatest difficulties. He informed them that it was impossible to escape God’s observation, even in any of our outward actions, or in any of our inward thoughts. Moreover, he represented God as unbegotten, and immutable, through all eternity, superior to all mortal conceptions in pulchritude; and, though known to us by his power, yet unknown to us as to his essence. I do not now explain how these notions of God are the sentiments of the wisest among the Grecians, and how they were taught them upon the principles that he afforded them. However, they testify, with great assurance, that these notions are just, and agreeable to the nature of God, and to his majesty; for Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and Plato, and the Stoic philosophers that succeeded them, and almost all the rest, are of the same sentiments, and had the same notions of the nature of God; yet durst not these men disclose those true notions to more than a few, because the body of the people were prejudiced with other opinions beforehand. But our legislator, who made his actions agree to his laws, did not only prevail with those that were his contemporaries to agree with these his notions, but so firmly imprinted this faith in God upon all their posterity, that it never could be removed. The reason why the constitution of this legislation was ever better directed to the utility of all than other legislations were, is this, that Moses did not make religion a part of virtue, but he saw and he ordained other virtues to be parts of religion; I mean justice, and fortitude, and temperance, and a universal agreement of the members of the community with one another; for all our actions and studies, and all our words, [in Moses’s settlement,] have a reference to piety towards God; for he hath left none of these in suspense, or undetermined. For there are two ways of coining at any sort of learning and a moral conduct of life; the one is by instruction in words, the other by practical exercises. Now other lawgivers have separated these two ways in their opinions, and choosing one of those ways of instruction, or that which best pleased every one of them, neglected the other. Thus did the Lacedemonians and the Cretians teach by practical exercises, but not by words; while the Athenians, and almost all the other Grecians, made laws about what was to be done, or left undone, but had no regard to the exercising them thereto in practice.

…] But while we are ourselves persuaded that our law was made agreeably to the will of God, it would be impious for us not to observe the same; for what is there in it that any body would change? and what can be invented that is better? or what can we take out of other people’s laws that will exceed it? Perhaps some would have the entire settlement of our government altered. And where shall we find a better or more righteous constitution than ours, while this makes us esteem God to be the Governor of the universe, and permits the priests in general to be the administrators of the principal affairs, and withal intrusts the government over the other priests to the chief high priest himself? which priests our legislator, at their first appointment, did not advance to that dignity for their riches, or any abundance of other possessions, or any plenty they had as the gifts of fortune; but he intrusted the principal management of Divine worship to those that exceeded others in an ability to persuade men, and in prudence of conduct. These men had the main care of the law and of the other parts of the people’s conduct committed to them; for they were the priests who were ordained to be the inspectors of all, and the judges in doubtful cases, and the punishers of those that were condemned to suffer punishment.

 

[patrick457]

What form of government then can be more holy than this? what more worthy kind of worship can be paid to God than we pay, where the entire body of the people are prepared for religion, where an extraordinary degree of care is required in the priests, and where the whole polity is so ordered as if it were a certain religious solemnity? For what things foreigners, when they solemnize such festivals, are not able to observe for a few days’ time, and call them Mysteries and Sacred Ceremonies, we observe with great pleasure and an unshaken resolution during our whole lives. What are the things then that we are commanded or forbidden? They are simple, and easily known. The first command is concerning God, and affirms that God contains all things, and is a Being every way perfect and happy, self-sufficient, and supplying all other beings; the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things. He is manifest in his works and benefits, and more conspicuous than any other being whatsoever; but as to his form and magnitude, he is most obscure. All materials, let them be ever so costly, are unworthy to compose an image for him, and all arts are unartful to express the notion we ought to have of him. We can neither see nor think of any thing like him, nor is it agreeable to piety to form a resemblance of him. We see his works, the light, the heaven, the earth, the sun and the moon, the waters, the generations of animals, the productions of fruits. These things hath God made, not with hands, nor with labor, nor as wanting the assistance of any to cooperate with him; but as his will resolved they should be made and be good also, they were made and became good immediately. All men ought to follow this Being, and to worship him in the exercise of virtue; for this way of worship of God is the most holy of all others.

Josephus attributes this ‘theocratic’ system of priestly rule to Moses himself: for him, God is the integrating symbol, but Moses is the organizer and the priests are the managers, who also act as “inspectors” and “punishers” despite their depolitization.

E.P. Sanders explains it better than I could.

During the forty-five or so weeks of each year that the Roman knight and his troops were not in Jerusalem, who policed the city and who was responsible for local government? The high priest, assisted by other aristocrats, many of whom were also priests. Police duties were the responsibility of the high priest’s guards. The high priest during Jesus’ adulthood was the very successful Joseph Caiphas, who held office for seventeen years, longer than any other high priest of the Roman period.

Why would Rome decide to govern this difficult area through the local priesthood? Actually, the priests were not their first choice; they preferred a strongman, like Herod, but, in the absence of such, they fell back on the region’s own tradition: rule by the aristocracy, especially the priestly aristocracy.

For over 400 years, from the late 6th or early 5th century BCE to 37 BCE, when Herod conquered Jerusalem, the Jews in Palestine had been governed by a priestly aristocracy. The biblical stories of Saul, David, Solomon, and their successors are so well known that we think of Israel as usually being a monarchy. That is an error, probably caused by the simple fact that our Bible contains many more books that reflect the period of the monarchy than the subsequent period, when priests ruled Jerusalem and Judea under a remote and usually non-interfering empire-successively Persia, Alexander the Great, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Seleucid Syria. About as many years had passed under high priestly rule as under monarchical rule, and the priestly years were very recent. First-century Jews in Palestine had before them only two historical models of government: monarchy and priestly aristocratic oligarchy. Many, many Jews preferred the aristocracy to a monarchy, since kings tended to be dictators. Many Palestinian Jews disliked both of the two recent royal families, the Hasmoneans and the Herodians. Most of the high priests had been more collegial rulers than Herod and Archelaus, and most Jews also knew that the priests would interfere with even fewer aspects of their culture than had Herod and Archelaus. Consequently, a lot of Jews preferred the new arrangement in Jerusalem and Judea. There was a remote empire, represented on Palestinian soil by one Roman of rank (supported by a handful of troops). [53: After Herod and Archelaus, “the constitution became an aristocracy, and the high priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation” (*Antiq. 20.251). See also Josephus’ description of Jewish government after Pompey’s conquest: With Hyrcanus as high priest, and the appointment of five regional councils, “the people were removed from monarchic rule and lived under an aristocracy” (Antiq. 14.91, War 1.170). Aristocracy as a form of government was opposite the despotic rule of one man, especially a king (cf., the revolt against Claudius, War 2.205). In one passage, Josephus calls this government, which he himself very much preferred, a “theocracy,” rule by God (Apion 2.165)–since the head of the government was the high priest, and most of the other aristocrats were priests.]

• E.P. Sanders, Jesus in Historical Context

 

[patrick457]

Agreed. But the prevailing views held that the person (persons?) that was to come as messiah would be an authority of some type (military, kingly, priestly/prophetic) – and a military leader or king or priest who allowed the temple to be destroyed… well, that wouldn’t have fit any of the common expectations…

Sources, please?

If we look at other sources, there is a confusing array of ideas as to what the messiah/s is/are supposed to do. There is certainly an idea that the messiah rules on earth either as a king-priest or warrior-judge (though at the same time, God is also described to be ultimately the one who rules the earth); for example Psalms of Solomon 17.23-35. If we look at the Qumran texts, we see that in some documents, the sectarians await “the prophet” (cf. Deuteronomy 18:15) and the “messiah (or messiahs) of Aaron and Israel.” (1QS 9.10-11; 4Q175; CD 12.23-13.2; 14.18f. 19:10, 33-20.1) When they are identified as separate individuals, the ‘priestly’ messiah of Aaron takes precedence over the ‘lay’ messiah of Israel: at the eschatological banquet, the messiah of Aaron is the first who would lay his hands on the bread, followed by the messiah of Israel (1QSa [1Q28a] 2.18ff). We can also this same idea in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, where again two messianic figures (this time connected with Levi and Judah) appear; the priestly messiah of Levi is here also superior to the one of Judah, and is the one who will bring deliverance after the wicked priests are punished (Testament of Levi 18). In these texts, only the priestly messiah has any real authority; the other seems to never do anything important at all. Meanwhile, 4Q174 (4QFlorilegium 11) and 4Q252 (Pesher on Genesis) envision a “shoot of David,” aka the “messiah of righteousness” to appear in Zion alongside a (or the) “teacher of the Torah.” In CD 7.18f the “teacher of the Torah” is identified with the “star of Jacob” (Numbers 24:17); there he is accompanied by “the Prince of the Congregation,” who is identified with the “scepter of Israel” and is there the one who will execute the judgment. 11Q13 has the angelic Melchizedek being the agent of salvation and the eschatological judge, using Psalm 7:78 and 82:1 to prove his point. The author seizes on the fact that the word 'elohim by this time can also be used for angels, and so is able to explain how the passage refers not to the 'Elohim Himself, but to an 'elohim, Melchizedek. Now curiously, in the document known as The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (aka the War Scroll), which describes an eschatological battle between the “sons of light” (members of the community) and the “sons of darkness” (everyone else), there is no trace of a messianic figure (even a Davidic one). Priests give the orders and sound the signals, an army comprising of members of the twelve tribes of Israel march around, legions of angels come down from heaven to fight, and “the great hand of God shall be lifted up against Belial and against all the forces of his dominion” somewhat like a literal deus ex machina (pun intended). But no messiah. It seems that that the messiah(s) are not a major part of the sectarian eschatology, though they are indeed there in the background - at least, they don’t refer to him (or them) often.

In 1 Enoch the title “messiah” does not come up often (it appears only twice, in the Book of Parables, chs. 37-71). More important are the titles “Elect One” and - less important - “Son of Man,” who in chapter 71 (v. 14-17) is identified with Enoch himself. In 4 Ezra (aka 2 Esdras) 7:28, we have a scenario where the messiah “shall be revealed to those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years,” at the end of which he and everyone else dies and the world reverts back to its primeval state for seven days. At the end of the seven days the eschatological resurrection will then occur. Meanwhile, the messiah does not die in 2 Baruch; instead, “when the time of the presence of the messiah on earth has run its course,” he will “return in glory” (presumably to heaven), at which point the dead will be raised.