Zealot - The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

population was particularly
     literate. Scholars estimate that between 95 and 97 percent of the Jewish peasantry
     at the time of Jesus could neither read nor write. On that point see Crossan,
Historical Jesus
, 24–26.
    On Nazareth as the place of Jesus’s birth, see John P. Meier,
A Marginal Jew
, vol. 1, 277–78; E. P. Sanders,
The Historical Figure of Jesus
(New York: Penguin, 1993); and John Dominic Crossan,
Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
(New York: HarperOne, 1995), 18–23.
    For more on messianic views at the time of Jesus, see Gershom Scholem,
The Messianic Idea in Judaism
(New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 1–36. Scholem outlines two distinct messianic trends
     within early Judaism: the restorative and the utopian. Restorative messianism seeks
     a return to an ideal condition in the glorified past; in other words, it considers
     the improvement of the present era to be directly linked to the glories of the past.
     But while the restorative pole finds its hope in the past, it is nevertheless directly
     concerned with the desire of an even better future that will bring about “a state
     of things which has never yet existed.” Related to the restorative pole is utopian
     messianism. More apocalyptic in character, utopian messianism seeks catastrophic change
     with the coming of the messiah: that is, the annihilation of the present world and
     the initiation of a messianic age. Restorative messianism can be seen in the kingly
     traditions that look to the Davidic ideal—it seeks to establish a kingdom in the present
     time—while the utopian messianism is associated with the priestly figure found in
     the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. Of course, neither of these messianic trends existed
     independently of the other. On the contrary, both poles existed in some form in nearly
     every messianic group. Indeed, it was the tension between these two messianic trends
     that created the varying character of the messiah in Judaism. For more on Jewish messianism,
     see studies by Richard Horsley, including “Messianic Figures and Movements in First-Century
     Palestine,”
The Messiah
, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 295; “Popular Messianic
     Movements Around the Time of Jesus,”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
46 (1984): 447–95; and “ ‘Like One of the Prophets of Old’: Two Types of Popular
     Prophets at the Time of Jesus,”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
47 (1985): 435–63. All three of Horsley’s studies have been vital in my examination
     of messianic ideas around the time of Jesus. I also recommend the relevant entry in
The Anchor Bible Dictionary
, ed. D. N. Freedman et al. (New York: Doubleday, 1992); and
The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion
, ed. J. Werblowsky et al. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966).
    It would seem that the Qumran community did indeed await two different messiahs. The
     Community Rule suggests this in 9:12 when it speaks of thecoming of “the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.” Clearly a differentiation
     is being made between the kingly and priestly messianic figures. This notion is further
     developed in the Rule of the Congregation. In this scroll a banquet is described in
     the “last days” in which the messiah of Israel sits in a subordinate position to the
     priest of the congregation. While the text does not use the word “messiah” to refer
     to the priest, his superior position at the table indicates his eschatological power.
     These texts have led scholars to deduce that the Qumran community believed in the
     coming of a kingly messiah and a priestly messiah, with the latter dominating over
     the former. See James Charlesworth, “From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology;
     Some Caveats and Perspectives,”
Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era
, ed. Jacob Neusner et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 225–64.
    It should be noted that nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is the messiah explicitly
     termed the physical descendant of David, i.e., “Son of David.” But the imagery associated
     with the messiah and the fact that it is thought that his chief task is to reestablish
     David’s kingdom permanently linked messianic aspirations to Davidic lineage. This
     is in large part due to the so-called Davidic covenant, based on the prophet Nathan’s
     prophecy: “Your [David’s] house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before
     me; your throne shall be