In a useful study of ancient messianology Jona Lendering identified 19 people who may

have been considered the messiah.(1) He discusses four types of messiahs:

1. The Messiah as military leader

2. The Messiah as sage

3. The Messiah as high-priest

4. The 'prophet like Moses'

The last of these categories is the only one that is identified with a specific historical

character. Four of the messianic claimants identified themselves particularly with

Moses.(2) These are:

1. The Samaritan prophet (36CE) (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87)

2. The Egyptian prophet (~56CE) (Josephus, Jewish War 2.259-263 and Jewish Antiquities

20.169-171; Acts of the apostles 21:38)

3. An anonymous prophet (~59) (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.188)

4. "Moses" of Crete (448). (Socrates, History of the Church 7.38)

Now, all four of these prophets are anonymous. Our source on "Moses" of Crete tells

us only that he "had the impudence to assert that he was Moses", but does not give

his name explicitly. These 4 are the only anonymous messianic claimants. Thus, there

is a rather complete and remarkable correlation between those messianic claimants

who are anonymous and those who took after Moses. This demands an explanation.

I propose that these prophets took not only Moses's identity, but also his name. Luke,

Josephus, and Socrates then chose to leave these prophets anonymous rather than

honor them with the name "Moses".

Richard Bauckham wrote:

"... among some famous biblical names that were not used at all by Palestinian Jews

in this period were Moses, David, and Elijah. This conspicuous avoidance must also

relate to the eschatological hope, in which three eschatological figures were required to

lead the new theocracy: the royal Messiah (the son of David), the eschatological high

priest (the returning Elijah), and the prophet like Moses. It may have been thought that

to use these names for one's own children would be a presumptuous expectation that

these children were actually the expected eschatological deliverers."(3)

T. Derda believes that the name "Moses" was never used by Jews in antiquity,(4) and

M. Williams holds that it was rarely used.(5) In either case, therefore, if the name were

appropriated by prophets it would certainly have been considered a messianic claim. To

use that name for someone would have been to recognize the legitimacy of their

messianic claim. Now, Josephus had a strong dislike for messianism, and Luke and

Socrates recognized only Jesus as the messiah, so it is not surprising that all three

authors would leave as anonymous those messianic claimants who took the name

"Moses" or any similarly presumptuous name.

Bar Kokhbar is another similar character who was denied his name by at least some of

his later opponents.

Both Luke and Josephus do not name the Egyptian prophet and some have cited this

fact as evidence that Luke used the works of Josephus. However, if, as I have

suggested, he had take the name "Moses", it would not be surprising for both authors

to deny him that name.

(1) http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html

(2) Lendering adds John the Baptist to this list, though I do not know why.

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_10.html#Moseslike

(3) Bauckham, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" p77-78.

(4) TOMASZ DERDA, DID THE JEWS USE THE NAME OF MOSES IN ANTIQUITY?

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 115 (1997) 257–260

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1997/115pdf/115257.pdf

TOMASZ DERDA, THE JEWS AND THE NAME OF MOSES IN ANTIQUITY – A

REPLY, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 124 (1999) 210

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1999/124pdf/124210.pdf

(5) MARGARET H. WILLIAMS, JEWISH USE OF MOSES AS A PERSONAL NAME

IN GRAECO-ROMAN ANTIQUITY – A NOTE.

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 118 (1997) 274

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1997/118pdf/118274.pdf

Back to index page