See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272857680

The Messiah of the Amidah: A Study in Comparative Messianism

Article  in  Journal of Biblical Literature · October 1998

DOI: 10.2307/3266226

CITATIONS READS
2 796

1 author:

Reuven Kimelmn
Brandeis University
37 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

charity View project

Biblical interpretation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reuven Kimelmn on 20 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Messiah of the Amidah: A Study in Comparative Messianism
Author(s): Reuven Kimelman
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 116, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 313-320
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266226
Accessed: 07-12-2016 17:54 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266226?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
JBL 116/2 (1997) 313-324

CRITICAL NOTES

THE MESSIAH OF THE AMIDAH:

A STUDY IN COMPARATIVE MESSIANISM

In recent studies of ancient messianism the rabbinic "Eighteen Benediction

now called the Amidah, are conspicuously absent.' This is surprising in the light of
vision of national redemption found in blessings 10-15.2 It is unlikely that this overs
is due to the lateness of the text, for although the Mishna and its two commentaries,
Palestinian Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, fail to provide a full text of the Amid
they do discuss its motifs, concluding perorations, structure, and sequence. Admitted
a full text becomes available only in the ninth century in the Order of Prayers by Am
Gaon, known as the Babylonian version, and that of the fragments of the Genizah of
synagogue of Fostat, Cairo, built in 882, known as the Palestinian version. (No sweepin
generalization on which version came first is yet possible.) Nonetheless both versions,
the main, hark back to the first centuries of the Common Era as their structure
motifs pervade early liturgical poetry (piyyutim), whereas their angelology and Q
dushah/Sanctus are linked to Second Temple literature.3 Moreover, as we shall see,
vision of redemption of the Amidah corresponds to what is known from other sou
about the tannaitic perspective that emerged from 70 CE to 200 CE.
Blessings 10-15 commence with the great shofar's blast of freedom, announcin
the ingathering of the exiles (10), and continue with the restoration of divine
through righteous leaders (11), the meting out of appropriate deserts to the righte
and the wicked (12 and 13), the rebuilding of Jerusalem (14), and the return of t
Davidic line (15).4 Since the motifs are all biblical, the distinctive contribution made

1 Neither it nor "the Eighteen Benedictions" is indexed in Judaisms and their Messiahs at t
Turn of the Christian Era (ed. J. Neusner et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198
whereas in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. J. Charleswor
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) it is indexed once without comment.
2 For a reading of the whole Amidah as a redemptive text, see Reuven Kimelman, 'The L
erary Structure of the Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption," in Echoes of Many Texts: Refl
tions on Jewish and Christian Traditions: Essays in Honor of Lou H. Silberman (ed. W. G. Dev
and E. J. Wright; BJS; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977) 171-230.
3 See E. Fleischer, "Studies in the Structural Development of the Piyyutim ha-me'orot v
ha-'ahavah" (in Hebrew), in Simon Halkin Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1975) 367-72; and R. Eli
"From Earthly Temple to Heavenly Shrines: Prayer and Sacred Liturgy in the Hekhalot Litera
and Its Relation to Temple Traditions" (in Hebrew) Tarbiz 64 (1995) 341-80.
4 For these themes, see Emil Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesu
Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (ed. G. Vermes et al.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973-87) 2.526-30.

313

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 314 Journal of Biblical Literature

this liturgy to the idea of national redemption lies in the particular linguistic formula-
tion, in the sequence of events, and in the uncompromising emphasis on divine involve-
ment, all of which converge to make the point that God alone is the redeemer as
opposed to any human redeemer.5
Linguistically, these blessings weave threads of verses from Isaiah, Micah, Zepha-
niah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Malachi, and Psalms into a liturgical tapestry. There is
hardly a word not pronounced by the prophets.6 Therefore, it has been suggested that
by reformulating their prophecies into requests, "it is as if the Deity were reminded of
his promise and asked to fulfill it."7 The eschatological sequence of the Amidah does not
match any antecedent or contemporary scenario.8 It is not dictated by any single biblical
text9 nor paralleled by any other extrabiblical scenario,10 or for that matter any other rab-
binic liturgical formulation of eschatology.11 A comparison with other ancient redemp-
tive scenarios will show how many staples of such scenarios are missing and will
underscore the distinctiveness of the Amidah. Unlike so many other extrabiblical escha-
tological scenarios, the Amidah is free of apocalyptic elements, whether utopian or

5 For the biblical and extrabiblical models, see Moshe Weinfeld, "Mesopotamian Eschato-
logical Prophecies" (in Hebrew), Shenaton, an Annualfor Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Stud-
ies 3 (1978) 263-76.
6 See Ze'ev Yawitz, Siddur Avodat ha-Levavot and Sefer Maqor ha-Berakhot (Jerusalem:
Qiryah Ne'emanah, 1966) 2.74-77; and Eliezer Levy, Torat ha-Tefillah (Tel Aviv: Abraham Zioni,
1962) 115-22. B. Meg. 17b-18a and y. Ber. 2.4, 4d understand the sequencing of the Amidah as a
function of verses from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Psalms.
7 Louis Finkelstein, "The Development of the Amidah," in Contributions to the Scientific
Study of Jewish Liturgy (ed. J. Petuchowski; New York: Ktav, 1970) 104 (reprinted from JQR 16
[1925-26] 1-43,127-70).
8 This is not totally surprising, since postbiblical literature as a whole lacks "any quotations of
the synagogal prayers transmitted by rabbinic traditions" (David Flusser, "Psalms, Hymns, and
Prayer," in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period [ed. M. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1984] 576).
9 The use of Ezek 20:34ff. by Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (ed.
R. Scheindlin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993; translated from ha-Tefillah be-
Yisrael be-Hitpathut ha-Historit [ed. J. Heinemann et al.; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1972]) 30 (Hebrew, p. 26)
to account for the sequence of blessings 10, 11, and 13 fails to correlate their sequences adequately.
A similar failure obtains in the effort of Ben Zion Wachholder, Messianism and Mishnah: Time and
Place in the Early Halakhah (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1978) 27-28.
10 Be it that of Ben Sira, Jubilees, Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Psalms of Solomon, Tobit, the
Jewish Sibyllines, or the Dead Sea Scrolls; see the comprehensive survey in Schiirer, History of the
Jewish People, vol. 2, chap. 29. The Hebrew Ben Sira 51:12ff. is inadequate to account for the
sequence, limited as it is to blessings 7, 10, 14, and 15. Moreover, its absence from the Greek and
Syriac versions casts doubt on whether the Hebrew version is prior to the Amidah; see Arthur Mar-
morstein, "Jesus Sirach 51:12ff.," ZAW 29 (1909) 287-93; and Solomon Zeitlin, '"The Tefillah, the
Shemoneh Esreh: A Historical Study of the First Canonization of the Hebrew Liturgy," JQR 54
(1963-64) 208-49, 241. More important is the fact that no dependency can be established, since
too many of the expressions that parallel the Amidah are also paralleled in the Bible; see Patrick
Skehan and Alexander Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1986) 570.
11 Joseph Heinemann, Studies in Jewish Liturgy (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981)
68-73.

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Critical Notes 315

catastrophic, symptomatic of which is the absence of any reference to the book of

Daniel. Its sobriety verges on the Maimonidean.12 But even Maimonides had to reverse
the order of the Amidah in order to come up with a Messiah who can "restore the king-
dom of David .. ., rebuild the Temple, and gather the dispersed of Israel."13
Blessings 14 and 15, which make mention of David, read as follows:

14. And to Jerusalem, Your city, return in mercy, and dwell in it as You have
spoken; rebuild it forever soon in our days and speedily establish in it the
throne of David. Blessed are You, O Lord, who rebuilds Jerusalem.

15. Speedily cause the sprout of Your servant, David, to flourish and let his
horn be exalted by Your salvation, for we wait for Your salvation daily.
Blessed are You, 0 Lord, who causes the horn of salvation to flourish.14

Note the absence of the term "Messiah,"'5 and the minimal role of the "Sprout of

12 See Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1980) 451 n. 231; and David Hartman, Crisis and Leadership:
Epistles of Maimonides (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985) 171-86.
13 Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 11.1; see Joel L. Kramer, "On Maimonides' Mes-
sianic Posture," in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (ed. I. Twersky; Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) 2.124-26. From a Maimonidean perspective, the blessing on
the rebuilding of Jerusalem preceding that of the sprout of David is especially problematic; see
Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1995) 4.16-17 n. 23.
14 These two blessings are conflated in the Genizah version:
14. Have compassion, O Lord, our God, in Your abundant mercy, on Israel Your
People, and on Jerusalem Your city, and Zion, the abode of Your glory, and upon the
royal seed of David, Your justly annointed. Blessed are You, O Lord, God of David,
Rebuilder of Jerusalem.
See next note.

15 In contrast to the frequency of redemptive motifs in the liturgy, the term n'ri is compara-
tively rare; see Flusser, "The Reflection of Jewish Messianic Beliefs in Early Christianity," 113-14.
Although Menorat Ha-Maor, ed. H. Enelow, 2.133, refers to blessing 15 as rn'rn nrn,, Louis
Ginzberg argued for its post-talmudic provenance (A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud [in
Hebrew] [4 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1941-61] 3.244). The expression n'~
1l7 i p-r 1P ("Messiah, son of David Your servant") appears in the holiday insertion to the Amidah,
ya'aleh ve-yavo (Seder Rav Amram Gaon [ed. D. Goldschmidt; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook,
1971] 86), but is absent in another Genizah version (Ezra Fleischer, Prayer and Prayer Rituals As
Portrayed in the Geniza Documents [in Hebrew] [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988] 96). The expression
nrrnc :np', ':1 :nR nsri ("May He cause His salvation to flourish and bring nigh His messiah")
appears already in the Genizah version of the Kaddish (ibid., 245). Blessing 14 of the Genizah ver-
sion of the Palestinian rescension of the Amidah reads: pl jrt' inn'r n' : mn:9 ("the kingship of
the house of David Your truly annointed"), which is not necessarily messianic. Such is also the case
with regard to its presence in the Haftarah blessing and in the second blessing of the Grace after
meals, independent of their interpolation in their present context; see Finkelstein, "Development
of the Amidah," 135-36.
In the light of the minor role assigned to the Sprout of David in the Amidah, the absence of
the term rnrt is likely intentional unless the Amidah is simply hewing to the idiom of the Bible with
its lack of any eschatological meaning thereof; see Franz Hesse, "chrio, etc.," TDNT 9.501-5; and
Jacob Liver, n'rt, Ensiqlopediyah Miqra'it, 5.508ff. After all, the term itself is absent from most of
the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, from Philo, and from Josephus. It primarily appears in the

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
316 Journal of Biblical Literature

David," despite its pregnant biblical antecedents.16 Of these antecedents, the closest is
that of Zech 3:8, which employs both the term "sprout" (nn:) and the term "servant."
Zechariah, however, prophesies that the "sprout" (6:12) will rebuild the Temple. Even
Jeremiah has the "sprout" reigning and executing justice in the land (Jer 23:5-6;
33:14-16), a function that is in line with its use as a royal title.17
In Qumran, the importance of "the sprout" is just as pronounced. Column 5 of
4QpGena expresses hope for a Davidic messiah based on the everlasting validity of the
Davidic covenant. It equates the Sprout of David with the Prince of the community and
the "just anointed one" to whom is given the "covenant of kingship." 4QSerek Ha-
Milhamah (4Q285) and 4QpIsaa assign him a military role in the eschatological battle;
indeed the latter (4QpIsaa 8:21f.) depicts him ruling over all the nations and judging
them with his sword, whereas 4QFlorilegium 1:13 (4Q174) depicts him saving Israel in a
manner recalling God's role in Deut 20:2-4 and Num 10:9.18 4QFlorilegium 1:11 also
associates him with the expounder of Torah as does the Damascus Document (CD
7:18-21). Whatever their precise messianic overtones, these Qumran texts attest to the
prominence of the epithet "sprout of David."19
As for the Amidah, "the Sprout of David Your servant" appears without any refer-
ence to name or to ruling function.20 He does not teach, determine pedigrees, conduct
wars, resurrect the dead, judge, or mark an age of travail. Appearing only after God has
reassembled the dispersed (blessing 10),21 restored divine rule through righteous lead-

Psalms of Solomon, the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and in the Qumran Dead Sea
Scrolls; see James H. Charlesworth, "From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology: Some
Caveats and Perspectives," in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (ed. J.
Neusner, W. Green, and E. Frerichs; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 225-64, esp.
250.

16 See Yawitz, Siddur, 2:77; Levy, Torat Ha-Tefillah, 122; Jay Baldwin, "$emah as a Technical
Term in the Prophets," VT 14 (1964) 93-97; and David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Chris-
tianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981) 149.
17 See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1985) 472 n. 36; and Moshe Weinfeld, Justice and Righteousness in Israel and the Nations (in
Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985) 35 n. 9.
18 For a comprehensive discussion of this evidence, see Kenneth E. Pomykala, The Davidic
Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significancefor Messianism (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1995) 171-216; and Martin G. Abegg, Jr., "Messianic Hope and 4Q285: A Reassessment,"
JBL 113 (1994) 81-91.
'9For an analysis of the Qumran material that maximizes its messianic significance, see
John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995) 56-68.
20 Even if "servant" serves as a royal designation, it would still underscore the subsidiary role
of this scion of David. In any case, the term is missing from so many of the early versions that little
can be made of its presence; see Finkelstein, "Development of the Amidah," 165; and Yechezkel
Luger, 'The Weekday 'Amidah Based on the Genizah" (Ph.D. thesis; 2 vols.; Bar Ilan University,
Ramat Can, 1992) 1.184.
21 Contrast Gen. Rab. 98:9: "Why does the messianic king come? And what does he come to
do? It is to gather together the exiles of Israel"; and the targumim (Tg. Isa 6:13; 42:1, 7). On the
other hand, Seder Eliahu Zuta (ed. M. Friedmann) 38 n. 21, as the Amidah, locates the ingathering

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Critical Notes 317

ers (blessing 11),22 meted out the appropriate deserts to the righteous and the wicked
(blessings 12 and 13), and rebuilt Jerusalem (blessing 14),23 it is clear that the appear-
ance of the Messiah marks the culmination of the process, not its initiation.
Symptomatic of this subdued role for the Sprout of David is the absence of any
allusion to Isa 11:1-5 as opposed to the Psalms of Solomon 17 with its emphasis on the
son of David who will "rule over Israel ... destroy the unrighteous rulers, purge
Jerusalem ... gather a holy people ... judge the tribes ... not tolerate unrighteousness
... and distribute them upon the land ... and judge the nations," and as opposed to an
apparent fragment of the Qumran War Scroll, 4Q285, or lQRule of the Blessings
(1QSb). There is a similar lack of any allusion to Daniel 7 in contrast to 1 Enoch 51-53,
which has the son of man/elect one sitting on the throne of God's glory, judging the
wicked, and worshiped by the kings and mighty as well as, apparently, all those who
dwell upon the dry ground. Above all, there is no effort to present him as a divine being,
clothed in biblical expressions of God, as do 4 Ezra 13 and the Qumran llQMelchi-
zedek (11Q13).24 Clearly, the "Sprout of David" in the Amidah is neither a priestly mes-
siah, a prophetic messiah, nor a heavenly messiah.
Stranger still is the location of the blessing for the Davidic line. It should have
immediately succeeded the blessing for the restoration of political autonomy (blessing
11) or have been integrated into it. By coming four blessings later, the advent of the
Davidic scion is disjoined from the hope for political autonomy and restoration as if it
were a separate agendum. Even stranger is the paradox of some versions that have both
blessings speak of human agency only to have such agency undermined by a subsequent
reference to divine agency. This counterstatement, as it were, appears in the third stro-
phe of each blessing. In blessing 11 it goes as follows: (1) Restore our judges as in former
times and our counselors as in the beginning. (2) Remove from us sorrow and anguish.
(3) Reign over us You alone [O Lord].25
And in blessing 15 it goes as follows: (1) Cause to flourish the shoot of Your servant
David. (2) May his horn be exalted by Your salvation. (3) For it is to Your salvation that
we have hoped for every day.26 In both cases, what is granted to the human role in the
first strophe is transferred to the divine role in the third.

of the dispersed prior to the appearance of the Messiah. For the general theme of the gathering of
the dispersed, see Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, 2.530.
22 The precise meaning or reference of this blessing is unclear; see Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy,
29-30 (Hebrew, 25-26); Ginzberg, Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, 1.185-86, 3.325-27;
David Flusser, "Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction
Against the Heretics" (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 61 (1992) 333-74, 367-68, with literature in notes; and
the comprehensive treatment of Luger, '"Weekday 'Amidah Based on the Genizah," 1.135-48.
23 For these themes, see Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, 2.526-29.
24 See Michael A. Knibb, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls,"
Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 169-74.
25 Following Mahzor Vitry, R. Simhah ben Samuel, ed. S. Horowitz (Mekize Nirdamim,
1923; reprint, Jerusalem: Alef, 1963) 67. Both the Palestinian Genizah version and that of Mai-
monides (see E. D. Goldschmidt, On Jewish Liturgy [in Hebrew] [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980]
p. 199, line 21) contain the words ::5 nnls, whereas '1: ';r 1rtn is missing from Siddur R.
Saadya Gaon (R. Saadya Gaon, ed. I. Davidson, S. Asaf, and B. Joel [Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim,
1970] 18), and from a version of Seder Rav Amram Gaon, p. 25, but not from others.

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
318 Journal of Biblical Literature

By highlighting near the beginning of the eschatological scenario God's exclusive

rule (blessing 11), the appearance of the Davidic scion (blessing 15) at the end turns out
to be more a manifestation of divine power than an expression of acute messianism.
Indeed, as blessing 11 underscores our hope for divine rule alone27 despite the presence
of biblical-type rulers as in Isa 1:26, so blessing 15 underscores our hope in divine salva-
tion despite the presence of the scion of David. It is thus less a messianic liturgy28 than a
divinely orchestrated redemptive drama on the order of the exodus.
This minimizing of the Davidic role in the Amidah is reminiscent of the minimiz-
ing of the Mosaic role in the Passover Haggadah. By minimizing the role of the human
redeemer, both tannaitic-based narratives of redemption highlight that of the divine.
The Amidah thus corresponds to a tendency of rabbinic literature as well as of
Qumran literature of downplaying the significance of Davidic rule. In Qumran, the
major Rule books subject the Davidic Messiah to priestly authority.9 With regard to the
Mishna, there is not even a mention of a Davidic messiah.30 The Tosepta, for its part,
denies the blessing of David a distinct status by incorporating it into the blessing on the
building of Jerusalem (t. Ber. 3.25). Thus, the Palestinian rescension of the Amidah
lacked, at one time, a separate blessing on David,31 whereas one of its versions of the
Havinenu abridgment makes no mention of David at all either in conjunction with the
rebuilding of Jerusalem or with the restoration of the Temple (y. Ta'an. 2:4, 75c).
Indeed, a Palestinian amora says explicitly that the Temple will be rebuilt before the
appearance of the Davidic monarchy (R. Aha, y. Ma'as. 9. 5.2, 56a), while the explana-
tion for the sequence of blessings 14 and 15 simply states: "Once Jerusalem is built,

26 This strophe is missing from the Genizah version, Maimonides, and the printed version of
Seder Rav Amram Gaon, but is present in manuscript versions.
27 The same emphasis appears in the eschatological vision of the Testament of Moses: "For
God Most High will surge forth, the Eternal One alone. In full view will He come to work
vengeance on the nations" (10:7). The observation of Charlesworth that the emphasis on "the Eter-
nal One alone, is conceivably an antimessianic pronouncement" ("From Jewish Messianology to
Christian Christology," 251) applies as well to the Amidah's formulation, especially in view of the
absence of a supporting biblical verse for this strophe.
28 Cf. Steven S. Schwarzchild, "The Messianic Doctrine in Contemporary Jewish Thought,"
in Great Jewish Ideas (ed. A. Millgram; Washington, DC: B'nai B'rith, 1964) 237-59, 246-47;
idem, "On Jewish Eschatology," in The Human Condition in Jewish and Christian Traditions
(Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1986) 171-211, 197 n. 7; and Ismar Elbogen, "Die Messianische Idee in den
alten jiidischen Gebeten," in Festschrift zu Herman Cohens siebzigsten Geburtstage (Berlin, 1912)
669-79.
29 As noted by John J. Collins, "'He Shall Judge by What His Eyes See': Messianic Authority
in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 157-60. Compare Schiirer, History of the
Jewish People, 2.517-25.
30 See Jacob Neusner, "Mishnah and Messiah," in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn
of the Christian Era, 267; and Lawrence Schiffman, "Neusner's Messiah in Context," JQR 77
(1987) 240-43. With regard to Neusner's position in general, see Craig A. Evans, "Mishna and
Messiah 'In Context': Some Comments on Jacob Neusner's Proposals,"JBL 112 (1993) 267-89.
31 See Shraga Abramson, Inyyanot Be-Sifrut Ha-Geonim (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook,
1974) 150-55; Flusser, "Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the Bene-
diction Against the Heretics," 369 n. 144; and Luger, "Weekday 'Amidah Based on the Genizah,"
1.182-84.

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Critical Notes 319

David comes" (b. Meg. 17b). None of these sources grant the Davidic house any role in
precipitating the redemption.32
The key player, indeed virtually the only player, is God. The motif of God as
redeemer as opposed to a human redeemer appears in the Midrash to underscore the
permanence of divine redemption as opposed to the temporary nature of human
redemption.33 The redemptions of temporal beings are temporary.
In contrast to the transient redemptions of human beings, blessing 14 states that
God's rebuilding of Jerusalem will last forever ('oldm).34 The point is made explicit in
the Midrash: "In the future, I will rebuild her and not destroy her forever (l'coldm)."35
This contrasts starkly with the biblical and sometimes postbiblical ideal of Davidic rule
forever.36 Such a contrast is made all the more poignant by positioning blessing 14 on
Jerusalem immediately before blessing 15 on the Sprout of David. It is clear, therefore,
that God alone is the redeemer and the restorer of Israel's fortunes. In the same vein, R.
Hillel's statement "Israel has no Messiah" was taken by Rashi to mean: "The Holy One,
blessed be He, will reign by Himself and redeem them on His own" (b. Sanh. 99a).37 In
this emphasis on exclusive divine redemption, the vision of the Amidah harks back to
that of the prophets Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel, Malachi, as well as Daniel, and
conforms to that of the Mishna.38 Like the Mishna, the Amidah presents redemption as
a restorative enterprise. Blessing 10 seeks the return of the dispersed, blessing 11 the
restoration of leadership models of yore, blessing 14 the return of God to Jerusalem, and
blessing 15 the restoration of the Davidic line (as blessing 17 seeks the restoration of the
cult to the Temple and the return of the divine presence to Zion).

32 The following overreading of the Davidic role in the Amidah is thus surprising: "[1] Hope
for the restoration of Jerusalem is here tied to the hope that the Davidic dynasty will be revived. [2]
The messianic king will rule from the capital of the renewed Israel; [3] he will bring salvation to his
people by delivering them from their enemies, their Roman overlords" (George Nickelsburg and
Michael Stone, Faith and Piety in Early Judaism: Texts and Documents [Philadelphia: Fortress,
1983] 197). The first assertion reverses the order of events; the second is not made explicitly; and
the third is erroneous.
33 See Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21.3, ed. B. Mandelbaum, p. 320 and parallels, along with Mek., Be-
Shalah, Shir[a]ta 1, ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 118.
34 As opposed to its absence in parallel prayers; see Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Period
of the Tanna'im and Amora'im (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964) 48-51. The use of Coldm in
Isa 35:10 is taken the same way by Pesiq. R. 37, ed. M. Friedmann, p. 164; and Pesiq. Rab Kah., ed.
B. Mandelbaum, 2.470. The emphasis on the eternity of divine rule as opposed to human rule is
reflected also in Dan 7:27.
35 Midr. Tanhuma, Noah 11; ibid., ed. S. Buber, 17. Jer 17:25 already holds out the promise
of the eternity of Jerusalem.
36 As documented by Jonathan Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41A; Garden City, NY: Double-
day, 1983) 240-41.
37 According to Ginzberg (Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, 4.183), it is precisely this
emphasis on God as redeemer that explains the absence of the expression "brings a redeemer" in
the first blessing of the Palestinian version.
38 As in other areas, the claim of a distinctive mishnaic position so often turns out to be a
reflection of its biblical precedent (see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 [AB 3; New York: Double-
day, 1991] 485-87, 1004-9).

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 320 Journal of Biblical Literature

In sum, the Amidah, like the Mishna and the Haggadah, reflects a tannaitic vie
redemption that draws upon both prophetic language and perspective in order to
sent a restorative vision that minimizes human agency while maximizing divine agen

Reuven Kimelman
Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254-9110

39 In the light of the common biblical and Qumranic material, we should resist the tempta-
tion to "explain" the formulation as a reflex of the Bar Kokhba debacle.

This content downloaded from 129.64.99.141 on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:54:51 UTC
View publication stats
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms