3

Do Jews believe in Armilus (The Jewish Anti-Messiah).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armilus

374483593
  • 57
  • 3
  • 2
    http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/40460/4682 highly related – Baby Seal Oct 30 '16 at 18:48
  • 1
    I've never heard of it, and I've heard of a lot of things. I would say 98% of world Jewry have never heard of such a figure. Of the 2% that have, 50% wouldn't believe in it, and the other 50% who would believe in it would be written off for doing so. – Aaron Oct 30 '16 at 17:37

1 Answers1

8

This article provides a good synopsis of Armilus in Jewish thought.

Targum Jonathan, Saadia Gaon, and Ben Ish Chai (page 23) all mention him as a personality in messianic times. Another possible source for him is in Sefer Zerubabel, an apocryphal text that if authentic would be the earliest source for Armilus.

Per the aforementioned accounts, Armilus will slay the Josephite Messiah and then be slain by the Davidic Messiah.

So it appears that Armilus is present in some Jewish writings, and thus in Jewish belief, however obscure.

Baby Seal
  • 8,240
  • 35
  • 78
  • 2
    It should be noted, however, that while some Jews do indeed reference him, canonical texts do not, so it is the belief of some Jews, but not necessarily a Jewish belief; i.e. a belief inherent to, and thus universally held in Judaism. – mevaqesh Oct 30 '16 at 21:48
  • The article cited is also incorrect. The earliest source mentioning Armilus is Sefer Zerubavel ben Shaltiel. This text records the prophecy of Zerubavel. Armilus is supposed to be a Jew. He is a political figure in the land of Israel during the days of Moshiach. The language of the prophecy is highly allegorical in regard to his conception and birth. FWIW, the Vilna Gaon said the decree that Moshiach ben Yosef would be murdered by Armilus had been nullified due to the prayers of the Tzaddikim. – Yaacov Deane Oct 30 '16 at 23:22
  • @BabySeal Yonatan ben Uziel was a student of Hillel HaZaken. They were both living during the second Temple. Zerubavel ben Shaltiel was actually Nechemiah ben Pedayah ben Shaltiel ben Yechaniah who was also called Nechemiah ben Chachaliah ben Shaltiel ben Yechaniah (see Sanhedrin 37b). Yechaniah was told by Yirmiyahu HaNavi prior to the destruction of the the first Temple that he would have no sons. Zerubavel was born prior to the return from Bavel and the building of the second Temple. He preceded Yonatan ben Uziel. – Yaacov Deane Oct 31 '16 at 13:55
  • @BabySeal One last point to emphasize is that the slaying of Armilus by Moshiach ben David is not in a normal way. As Rashi, Radak, Ibn Ezra and Metzudat David to Isaiah 11:4 clarify, Moshiach accomplishes this through his prayer, not with any kind of physical confrontation. Moshiach's prayer concerning Armilus will be accepted by HaShem. – Yaacov Deane Oct 31 '16 at 16:42
  • 3
    @YaacovDeane, that midrash is apocryphal. On what basis do you attribute it to Zerubabel? the name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Zerubbabel. We have no tradition about it whatsoever. Ibn Ezra criticizes it for being unreliable. It wrongly predicts the coming of the Messiah. We do have a tradition about YBU's targum. That is why I mentioned it. – Baby Seal Oct 31 '16 at 16:47
  • I have the sefer and it is available for purchase easily today. It states very clearly in the actual text at the beginning of the sefer who composed it. The comment you are quoting from Ibn Ezra is not that Sefer Zerubavel is illegitimate. His comment is aimed at the idea of applying that sefer as a general teaching to all generations like those prophetic books which were included in the Tanach. Ibn Ezra's generation was not the generation of Moshiach. Sefer Zerubavel is only relevant to the actual generation of Moshiach. It was intended specifically for our generation. – Yaacov Deane Oct 31 '16 at 17:03
  • In Ibn Ezra's day, there were some who were trying to bring about the final redemption early, meaning 'Achisheina'. Ibn Ezra was saying that they could not rely upon Sefer Zerubavel for support because it was not relevant to their time. – Yaacov Deane Oct 31 '16 at 17:06
  • 3
    @YaacovDeane a document making a claim about itself is suspect. May be ask a question about its authenticity? There are a lot of medieval midrashim that are "signed" by Tanaaim that are just not authentic. If it has been endorsed by any rabbis that were its contemporaries or by tradition, I will include it. – Baby Seal Oct 31 '16 at 17:55
  • @BabySeal If you would like to see a fairly detailed discussion about both Zerubavel ben Shaltiel and Sefer Zerubavel, you might enjoy the following link. It's not the last word, but it will give you a deeper background about how the sefer was known very early 500-600 CE. http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=3902 – Yaacov Deane Oct 31 '16 at 18:55
  • @YaacovDeane Note that the information in that link contradicts your claim that it was authored by Zerubavel, or even that it is that old. Rather its says: והוא מתייחס לאירועים היסטוריים בתולדות עם ישראל מן המאה ה-6 וראשית המאה ה-7. לדברי יוסף דן – mevaqesh Oct 31 '16 at 19:03
  • @mevaqesh Like I said above, it's not the last word. It's just talking about earliest appearances of a manuscript that we know of. The earliest appearance of the Torah in manuscript that we know of is from Qumran. But it is quite a bit earlier according to Jewish tradition (meaning from Moshe Rabbeinu). In context, a manuscript from 6th century is early. – Yaacov Deane Oct 31 '16 at 19:12
  • And for what it's worth, Yosef Dan, the one quoted, is another of the secular Israeli scholars of Jewish mysticism. If he is at odds with traditional Jewish teaching, you should proceed with caution in accepting his analysis. According to his Wikipedia bio, he was a student of Gershom Scholem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Dan – Yaacov Deane Oct 31 '16 at 19:22