In Search Of Good Prophecy book for the Messiah

Eureka!

Not sure this is comprehensive, but I found this among the Topic Guide results it's in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary  logosres:hlmnillbbldict;ref=Page.p_1112

I haven't read this one but it may be worth a look

https://www.logos.com/product/49066/jesus-christ-fulfills-messianic-prophecies 

A good book on the subject that I wish was in Logos is by Gerard Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1990), 1015 pages.

Don't forget the Jewish Resources

Hi Scott,

If I may make a suggestion. I have found that many such resources work backward in a way that is circular and not really helping Christians make better sense of the OT background of the Gospels. It goes like this:

1. Passage is read in the NT and interpreted according to Western Gentile tradition. Example: The use of Joel 2:28-20 in Peter's sermon in Acts 2 = proof that the coming of the Spirit "on all flesh" (understood as all mankind by many) was prophesied and what is more was accompanied by the statement that those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. Checkmark.

2. From Acts 2, readers go back to Joel 2:28-30 and interpret it "Christologically". In this case, it means reading back into the OT passage what was decided about what the NT passage meant without more than superficial engagement of the OT background = Joel 2:28-30 refers to the fact that Pentecost would happen one day. Double-checkmark, everything checks and "confirms" each other.

3. Scholars who look at the OT in relation to the traditional interpretation of how it is used in the NT will often conclude that the NT changed the meaning, gave the passage new meaning or used some interesting technique to make the OT passage to speak about the NT situation.

I have yet to encounter any Christological approach to the OT that does not do that in a significant way. The so-called Christocentric interpretations of the OT are for the most part reshaping the meaning of the OT in light of Christian (not NT, traditional Christian) theology. 

Now books that give you "messianic prophecies" may be a needed shortcut when one does not have the time or skills to do more. But they treat such passages as prooftexts without context. Such approaches do not really engage the Jewish background of the OT nor attempt to really understand how the Christian message located itself in relation to the hopes, expectations, and yes prophetic background of Israel. 

To understand the Messiah in the OT, one has to wrestle with what the prophets were really saying to their contemporaries in the context of their time. They were not speaking and writing to Christians! With that in mind, one can then reverse the hermeneutical approach identified above:

1. Start with Joel 2:28-30. What does it mean in the context of Joel?

2. In light of this, what could Peter have meant when he connected it to Pentecost?

3. What does this tell us about how Pentecost fits in God's foretold larger plan? 

4. If we do find a tension between the NT appropriation and the OT sense, THEN we can try to tease out how the two relate to each other. 

5. In some cases, the NT provides more information and ONLY IN THAT SENSE help us better understand the original sense (i.e., when a prophecy is fulfilled we see more clearly what was meant by it, e.g., Isaiah 53's suffering Servant). 

So my advice would be that even though it is a long road, don't take shortcuts to "finding" Christ in the OT. Study the OT to "get it" and then not only you are likely to have a much better understanding of what the NT is really all about but it will also become clear to you how it relates to the OT.

Randy W. Sims said:

I've always wanted to do a deep study on what the jews believed about the mashiach during OT period

The figure of the Messiah is bound up with the hopes and expectations of Israel in the prophets, so a study of the first needs the second as a context. I could set up a Faithlife group for study and discussion if there is sufficient interest.

Randy W. Sims said:

as well as how that belief may have evolved throughout history to modern day, independent of christian thought

A starting point on the Jewish perspective is the article on "Messiah" in the Jewish Encyclopedia. A bit dated but still representative. If you don't own it in Logos, you can consult for free online.

There is also the article on Messianism in the Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Both of these reference the role of intertestamental literature.

But there is no substitute for just taking the time (even if it is over a long period of time) to read and acquaint oneself with the primary sources. 

Denise said:

Not trying to argue, but you're guessing.

Not trying to contest, but if you are not arguing, how would you describe what it is that you are in fact doing?

Wherever one lands in conclusions, it must start with a proper interaction with the picture that emerges from the OT, then take into consideration other Jewish writings, and only then try to relate these observations to NT usage (incl. the use of Greek translations or paraphrases).

The problem that I have encountered is that popular interpretation starts with surface reading of NT passage, usually interpreted in light of traditional theology and works its way backward with usually superficial engagement of the OT and intertestamental literature. NT scholars engage the OT some (do a fine job at referencing a few OT considerations and scholars) but usually do not go beyond a certain point. NT Wright is one of the rare people I know who tried to think in terms of context and not just proof-texts. The result of superficial engagement is that NT scholars are quick to conclude to NT writers are proof-texting (which may be the case) and manipulating wording to serve their own ends. I am not closed to the possibility (I will go where the evidence leads), but so far have found the arguments wanting. 

A good example of this would be the discussion of Joel 2:28-30 in Acts 2 in the commentary on the use of the OT in the NT. The author gives a general summary of Joel and blabs about the usage of the LXX but in the end says little of value about what Joel was really saying in 2:28-30. There is no interaction for instance with the notion that "the day of YHWH" is not necessarily one singular or eschatological instance in the prophets (incl. Joel that speaks of one threatened upon Judah but that can be averted and one threatened on the nations that won't be averted). As a result, the commentator says nothing much about the centrality of repentance in Joel (returning to YHWH) to escape judgement (i.e., be "saved"). This makes good sense of Peter's answer to "what are we to do?". 

Anyway, I will not go in further detail here because the point is to illustrate not to engage in full discussion of the passages/issues. So, to conclude, I am not sure what you find objectionable in the approach I recommended, but it still seems to be a sound approach.

Not trying to have the last word... of course [;)]

More seriously, I am not indeed trying to have the last word. I think this is an important area of reflection on hermeneutics and the nature of the Scriptures. Even one's notion of the role of the Spirit in writing could have its share of assumptions. 

Serendipitously, In the December update email just sent out for Logos Now members, this book is on sale: (These fourms have ears!)

https://www.logos.com/product/47204/jesus-the-messiah-tracing-the-promises-expectations-and-coming-of-israels-king

Looks promising, though I haven't picked it up yet. I still would like to read from a more jewish perspective. I agree with progressive revelation, but I personally don't feel like I completely understand the issues fully until I understand the original passages in their original jewish context, from a jewish perspective. Not to prove or disprove anything, but to fill my understanding.

Tastings of the TOC below

Snippet of the Introduction

FOUNDATIONS OF OUR APPROACH

Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King offers contextual-canonical, messianic, and christological developments of God’s promise of “messiah” within the larger framework and unfolding of Jewish history in canonical and extra-biblical literature. Naturally, the foundation upon which we build is with what Christians today call “the Old Testament.” The books of “the Old Testament” were part of what was regarded by many Jews in Jesus’ time as the sacred writings of their community. Our appeal to a canonical reading here, however, is distinct from its usual meaning today, which assumes a reading with the New Testament present. Consequently, when the books of the New Testament were being written, a New Testament as a collection of writings did not yet exist. So when someone asks, what Scriptures were read by those who wrote in the first century? The answer would be the Hebrew writings of the Jews. Their canonical and inspired works were the Hebrew Scriptures, what we Christians today call the Old Testament.
So in this book, as a historical matter, the term canonical refers to a reading that uses the sacred books of the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, whether being read in the first century or even during the period when the First Testament was being completed. This is an important distinction to grasp because for us it is here in Hebrew Scriptures that any canonical reading, even in the broader sense used today of both Testaments, starts. In other words, when a person from the first century or earlier saw any of these theologically respected books depicting the promise of Israel and their hope, we will ask this question: how were passages of promise read in light of the whole while at the same time taking into account developments of promise within that First Testament? This is precisely how we will use the term canonical while also recognizing that today the canon Christians acknowledge contains a Second Testament (our New Testament) that completes the messianic picture. Thus, a significant point of our book is to argue how this portrait of messiah presented in both Testaments is gradually unfolded, yielding a more complete canonical portrait.
We must first ask the right questions and then respond to them. How did the First Testament portray the promise of messiah? Was the portrait of the messiah in the individual texts as explicit and clear to the original readers as it became later in the Psalms and the prophets or as a part of Jesus’ work? Or was the full messianic potential of many passages more implicit, especially in the earliest passages, while the full legitimate Messianic meaning of these passages only became more explicit as more elements of this promise was revealed in later passages and subsequent Jewish history, whether from the First Testament or as a result of Jesus’ own revelatory work? Does the First Testament reveal christological clarity at the moment each text was introduced?
Our complete answer to these questions is, yes, eventually a clear portrait emerges, but each inspired text is but a piece of a much larger puzzle where the entire portrait gains clarity as the other inspired pieces are assembled, granting more clarity to what initially was often only implicitly visible within a given literary piece. The promise was in the original wording, as we hope to show, but it also became gradually connected to other texts of promise and pattern as they were revealed reflecting back on the earlier text and giving it more context and clarity. Scripture assembles its doctrine as God inspires human authors to write it. God does not disclose everything at once, especially at the start. Seeing Scripture reveal itself progressively and with more detail and clarity is something the church has consistently affirmed. Thus, we seek to set forth one methodological model for how that progressive unfolding works and to show God’s intentionality behind it. For the sake of illustration, the progress of messianic revelation is like pieces of a puzzle, a messianic puzzle of promise.

THE MESSIANIC PUZZLE

God provided pieces of the messianic puzzle very early in Jewish history. In the book of Genesis, God expressed it as a hope to Abraham, with links to ideas of the seed that go back to Adam, expressed initially in general terms. (For a focused treatment on Genesis 3:15, see the special appendix on this specific text.) That same promise was given specifics in 2 Samuel when God provided assurances to David about his descendants. Unfortunately, these sacred writings (The Old Testament) close with no one on David’s throne due to Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judah in 586 BCE when David’s dynasty is dismantled. Yet the prophets gave glimmers of hope for its restoration (e.g., Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah). This revelation progressed in the early sacred texts as the book of Daniel made clear. One day a human figure (the Son of Man) came with divine authority to establish God’s kingdom and vindicate God’s saints, completing the initial canonical picture of the hope of a deliverance for God’s people (Daniel 2, 7, 9). Who exactly this figure was, where he fit, and how he connected to other pictures of deliverance opened up a discussion along with a host of views in Judaism that through our survey of the extra-biblical Jewish literature we shall show fueled the first century conversation about messianic hope. Unlike those who underestimate or perhaps even reject the significance of Hebrew Scriptures for understanding Jesus the Messiah, our starting point is the Hebrew Scriptures because the sacred writings of the First Testament supply the essential pieces needed for joining and fitting together the scriptural puzzle about Messiah.
During the latter part of the second temple period (circa 100 BCE), people collected, pondered, and pieced together this messianic puzzle. Although some people appear indifferent (e.g., Ben Sirach and Josephus), others reflect on the scriptural puzzle and attempt to fit the pieces together (e.g., Qumran community). Gradually more and more scriptural pieces were linked together, in a variety of configurations, some of which the early Christians used and others which they rejected. The confusion these opinions introduced, as well as some of the helpful connections they saw in the Jewish sacred texts, are part of the early Christian conversation about Messiah and why Jesus handles the category of Messiah with as much care as he does. So by the time of Jesus, key elements were in place to make a unity of it all, something Jesus and the early church presented as a grand fusion of what God had said in Scripture and accomplished in Jesus. Jesus’ teaching, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, therefore, complete the messianic puzzle. Yet having demonstrated that the foundation of our approach begins with the Hebrew Scriptures and thereby considers continuity with the Second Testament we might ask: How does our approach differ from other approaches that also begin with the Old Testament?

Bateman, H. W., IV. (2012). Introduction. In Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King (pp. 20–24). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic.

Francis said:

I cannot determine with certainty from this how broadly the authors intend to locate the Messianic promises within the context of other important themes such as the restoration and redemption of Israel, Zionism, the Kingdom of God, the coming of God (e.g., Isaiah 40), the judgement of Israel and the nations, and eschatological visions such as Daniel 7. I don't think we can make good sense of Messianism within proper attention to how it relates to such themes.

This may prove helpful to you, myself and others

Edit: Zion returns 121 hits in 41 articles

4 EZRA

It may be reasonable to question the legitimate contribution that 4 Ezra makes to our discussion. Composed sometime after the destruction of the temple (70 CE), this apocalyptic text, written by a Jew in Judea, wrestles with why God delivered the Jewish people into the hands of their enemies. Thus unlike our previous documents, 4 Ezra is a post-Herodian text (70–90 CE). The angst about the Jewish situation is not the same as that presented in the Psalms of Solomon and our Dead Sea Scrolls. It is worse. The second temple now stands in ruin.
The nation has experienced unprecedented socio-political and religious turmoil at the hands of the Romans. Although the author provides no explanation as to why God allowed this catastrophe to occur, he finds solace in the fact that there will be final retribution in the afterlife. Yet Reddish points out that “the major focus is not on the judgment, rewards, and punishments in the afterlife but on the final battles between the messiah and the wicked.”
The book opens with a divine call, directed to a man of priestly descent, whose name is Ezra (4 Ezra 1:1–3). After rebuking the Jewish people (1:4–2:32), Ezra turns to the Gentiles (2:33–41) and is privy to a series of seven visions. Three are summarized below.

1. The first opens like a lament over the circumstances of the Jewish people, moves to inquiries about the forthcoming new age, and ends with an assurance that the end of the age is near (3:1–5:20).

2. Ezra begins his second vision by issuing a complaint about God’s abandonment of his chosen people to the Gentiles, but again God assures Ezra that the inauguration of a new age is at hand and he is privy to a list of signs marking the end of the age (5:21–6:34).

3. The lengthy third vision advances among other things God’s creation, the expected messianic kingdom, discussions about the final judgment, the future state of the righteous and the wicked, an exhortation directed to Ezra to stop brooding, and a restatement about the signs that will mark the end of the age (6:35–9:25).

Apocalyptic and Apocalypse
“Apocalyptic” generally speaks of some sort of disclosure of heavenly secrets in a visionary format that are revealed to a seer for the benefit of a religious community that is experiencing suffering and thereby perceives itself as being victimized.
“Apocalypse” generally speaks of a genre that conveys the idea that the world is about to end in a cataclysmic manner, when all wrongs will be righted, and all just people will be resurrected and rewarded in a blessed heavenly existence.

While these first three visions are dialogues between Ezra and the angel Uriel concerning the justice of God, the last of these three visions speaks directly of a future messianic kingdom, one that will be established on earth, ruled over by a Messiah figure, and will endure for four hundred years before eternal judgments begin. Yet the turning point in the book occurs in visions four, five, and six, because the city of Zion finds encouragement in its future restoration, the Messiah’s vanquishing of the Roman Empire, and the long-awaited rise of the son of God is that of a military victory who destroys God’s enemies.

4. Opening with a woman in mourning, the fourth vision describes the woman’s transformation into a glorious city, which is eventually identified to be the heavenly Zion in the day of salvation (9:26–10:59).

5. The fifth vision is an allegory illustrating the future of the Roman Empire, represented by the eagle, which will be punished eventually by God’s messiah (11:1–12:39).

6. In the sixth vision, Ezra sees something like a man coming out of the sea; an innumerable multitude of men come to make war on him, yet he annihilates his enemies with a stream of flaming fire from his mouth (13:1–13).

The last vision is a divine directive about ninety-four books that had been revealed to him.

7. The final vision is one of Ezra being commissioned to make public the twenty-four Hebrew canonical books and the other seventy esoteric books were to be reserved for only the wise (14:1–48).

The third (6:35–9:25), fifth (11:1–12:39), and sixth visions about the messiah and his kingdom are important here. To begin with, the third vision makes explicit mention of the coming of God’s son, the Messiah.

26 For behold, the time will come, when the signs which I have foretold to you will come to pass … 28 for my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. 29 And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. 30 And the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one shall be left. 31 And after seven days the world, which is not awake, shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. 32 And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it … 33 and the Most High shall be reveled upon the seat of judgment … 36 then the pit of torment shall appear, and opposite it shall be the place of rest … (7:26–36, emphasis mine)

As we have seen in previous Dead Sea Scrolls (CD, 1Q28, 4Q161, 4Q266), the Messiah remains as a figure yet to be revealed. Yet when God’s son, the Messiah, comes he will rule for four hundred years and will not experience death until after his four-hundred-year reign, at which point he will die. Thus, God’s son is an extraordinary human personality. 2 Baruch, another pseudepigraphal work written a short time after 4 Ezra, describes this messianic period as a time of plenty (29:4–7; 73:2–74:4). At this point, however, there is no indication that he is a descendant of David. At the close of his four-hundred-year reign, the Most High will sit on his judgment seat, the pit of torment will appear, as well as “the place of rest” (i.e., Kingdom of God; cp. Heb. 4:1–13).
Our next text from 4 Ezra is a portion taken from the fifth vision about an eagle and a lion (11:1–12:39). Whereas the first portion of this vision is presented in an allegorical format (11:1–12:3), the latter portion is a request and an interpretation of that allegory (12:4–39), a snippet of which is presented below.

He said to me, “This is the interpretation of this vision which you have seen: The eagle which you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel.

And as for the lion that you saw rousing up out of the forest and roaring and speaking to the eagle and reproving him for his unrighteousness, and as for all his words that you have heard, this is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David, and will come and speak to the Romans [sic]; he will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will cast up before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he will set them living before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them. But he will deliver in mercy the remnant of my people, … and make them joyful until the end comes … (12:10–11, 31–34; emphasis mine)

Naturally, the entire fifth vision can be likened to Daniel’s vision of the four beasts (Dan. 7:1–14). Here in 4 Ezra, however, the Messiah, symbolized by the lion, destroys the Roman Empire, symbolized by the great eagle. The Messiah, who is from David’s family, not only destroys the Romans, he delivers a remnant of Israel. The Messiah is presented as one whom the Most High has kept until “the end of days” (cp. 4 Ezra 7:28). And though no explicit mention of son occurs, “from the posterity of David” parallels the phrase “son of David” in Psalms of Solomon 17:21 above. In both cases, the Messiah is clearly a human descendant of David.
Our last citation is a portion taken from the sixth vision about a “son of man.” Once again the vision about the son of man (13:1–13) is followed by a request and an interpretation (13:14–58). It is an interpretation of the sixth vision about the man from the sea who is called God’s son (13:32).

This is the interpretation of the vision: As for your seeing a man come up from the heart of the sea, this is he whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation; and he will direct those who are left.

Behold the days are coming when the Most High will deliver those who are on the earth … my son will be revealed, whom you saw as a man coming up from the sea.

He will stand on the top of Mount Zion. And Zion will come and be made manifest to all people, prepared and built, as you saw the mountain carved out without hands. And he, my Son, will reprove the assembled nation for their ungodliness, … and will reproach them to their face with their evil thoughts and with the torments with which they are to be tortured. (selections from 13:25–26, 29, 32, 35–38; emphasis mine)

Although similar to the son of man in Daniel 7:13–14, there are at least two differences. First, in Daniel the son of man has a royal role as ruler over God’s eschatological kingdom. There is no link to David or indication that he is a messiah figure. Yet in 4 Ezra the primary role of the son of man is a military one, which parallels the profile of the Messiah in 4 Ezra 12. Thus it seems “son of man” and “my son the Messiah” are one and the same person, who is a royal warrior as an heir apparent of David. The second difference is that in Daniel the son of man seems to be a heavenly figure, while in 4 Ezra he is clearly human. Thus, 4 Ezra’s reflections are obviously different from 1 Enoch 37–71.
In summary then, 4 Ezra profiles the son, God’s Messiah, son of man, to be a person from David’s family who will come at the end of days as a royal warrior. He will set things right in Israel. He will defeat the Romans, rule over a remnant of Israel, rule over an earthly kingdom for four hundred years, and eventually rule God’s eschatological kingdom.

Summation

The title son with its numerous variations were found in four Dead Sea Scrolls (1Q28a, 4Q174, 4Q246, 4Q369) and three (four if we include 2 Bar.) other texts (Pss. Sol., 1 En., 4 Ezra). The isolated snippets from these texts served to broaden our perspective about second temple Jewish expectations about the Messiah. These passages about a son continue to reveal him to be a descendant of David (1Q28a, 4Q174, 4Q246, Pss. Sol., 4 Ezra) who will appear in the last days (1Q28a, 4Q174, 4 Ezra) as a victorious royal warrior (1Q28a, 4Q174, 4Q246, Pss. Sol., 4 Ezra). Unlike 4Q174 and 4Q369, however, 4 Ezra presents this Davidic descendant dying without heirs. He is the last of David’s family to rule before God’s final judgment. Nevertheless, they all present him as a ruler over a future Israel, and most present him as having a special or unique relationship with God, the Most High (1Q28a, 4Q174, 4Q246, 4Q369). The following chart serves as an overall summary of the elements attributed to this figure across this literature.

PORTRAYALS OF THE SON

OT Sources
Primary References:
2 Samuel 7
Psalm 2
Psalm 89
Daniel 7
Secondary References:
1 Chronicles 17
Jeremiah 33

Dead Sea Scrolls
4Q174 3:1–11
4Q246 2:1–9
1Q28a 2:11–15
4Q369 2:6–12

Pseudepigrapha Reference
Psalms of Solomon 17:21–33
1 Enoch 71
4 Ezra 7:28–29; 11:32, 37, 42; 14:9

Various Elements
The son is a Davidic scion
The son is a human personality
The son is a victorious military leader
The son is a ruler, a sovereign
The son is righteous
The son is a heavenly figure who looks like a man

Various Functions
The son ushers in a new time period
The son reestablishes David’s dynastic rule
The son rules Gentile nations
The son rules with priestly assistance
The son leads military campaigns
The son delivers Israel from the Romans
The son condemns and kills wicked leaders
The son has offspring that succeed him
The son is an interpreter of the Law
The son judges people and angels in the future

Dating of Manuscripts
Late Hasmonean: 75–50 BCE
Psalms of Solomon
Pre-Herodian 50–30 BCE
4Q246 (4QpsDan ar = 4QAramaic Apocalypse)
Early Herodian 30–1 bce
4Q174 (4QFlor = 4QFlorilegium)
1 Enoch 71 (perhaps best placed here)
Late Herodian 30–68 CE
4Q369 (4QPEnosh = 4QPrayer of Enosh)
Post Herodian 68–90 CE
4 Ezra (2 Baruch)
Political Situation: Transition from Hasmonean Rule
Herod (37–4 BCE)
Herod’s Heirs (4 BCE-CE)
Herod’s Grand/Great sons (30–68 CE)

CONCLUSION

The apostle Paul writes, “When the appropriate time had come, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we may be adopted as sons with full rights” (Gal. 4:4). Speaking historically, that appropriate time was during the end of king Herod’s reign. At nearly seventy years of age, Herod was severely sick and ready to die. Many in Jewish leadership, because of their increasing dissatisfaction with Herod’s socio-political agendas, longed for the eschatological Messiah.
As we conclude “Expectations of Israel’s King,” hopefully our historical overview has shown clearly that God sent Jesus into a historical period of time when attitudes about the restoration of David’s dynasty were diverse. Some people had forgotten God’s promise and their beliefs about any restoration were in a state of dormancy, a dormancy that was initially induced when Persia controlled Judea, yet later sanctioned by the Jewish leadership during the early years of Grecian domination. Others, however, were indifferent to the promise. After five hundred years of non-Davidic rule, authors like Ben Sira and Josephus revealed their disbelief in the promise of a forthcoming Davidic scion. David’s dynasty was a past historical event with no future. Still others were zealous for a restoration not only of David’s dynasty but also the kingdom of Israel. Their discontent with the socio-political situations in Israel sparked and inflamed their hearts for a mighty Davidite to come and set things right. Thus when Jesus was born in that little town of Bethlehem, a variety of attitudes about the restoration of David’s dynasty existed among the Jews of Judea.
We focused attention on texts written by people who believed in the restoration of David’s dynasty. The authors referred to this expected Davidite in one of four ways: Messiah, branch, prince, and son and their variations.

VARIOUS REGAL KING REFERENCES

Messiah, Anointed, Anointed One
Branch, Shoot, Root
Prince, Chief, Leader
Son, Son of God, Firstborn, Son of Man

Old Testament Sources
1 Samuel
1 Kings
1 Chronicles
Psalms
Zechariah
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Zechariah
Ezekiel
2 Samuel 7
Psalm 2
Psalm 89
Daniel 7

Dead Sea Scrolls
CD
1Q28
1Q28a
4Q252
4Q266
4Q382
4Q458
4Q521
4Q161
4Q174
4Q252
4Q285
CD
1Q28b
1QM
4Q161
4Q266
4Q285
4Q376
4Q423
4Q496
1Q28a
4Q174
4Q246
4Q369

Pseudepigrapha Sources
Psalms of Solomon
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: T.Judah
Jubilees
Psalms of Solomon 1 Enoch 4 Ezra

Unfortunately, the extra-biblical literature on the subject was limited because it was only after disconcerting socio-political situations of the Hasmoneans that people renewed any hope in God’s restoration of David’s dynasty. This hope resonates clearly in six Dead Sea Scrolls (1Q28, 1Q28a, 1Q28b, 4Q175, 4Q266, 4Q521) composed while the dynastic family of non-Davidic royal priests, the Hasmoneans, was in power (125–75 BCE). Jewish hope escalates in seven other texts (4Q161, 4Q382, 4Q458, Pss. Sol., 1QM, 4Q246, 4Q376) composed when Rome was intruding in Jewish affairs (75–30 BCE), and continues in four other texts (4Q174, 4Q252, 4Q285, 1 En.) composed during Herod’s rule over Judea (30–1 BCE). Thus most of our extra-biblical material that anticipated a regal Messiah figure was written within a period of 125 years (125 BCE and 1 BCE). These are highlighted in the shaded portion of the two charts below.
Furthermore, through the snippets of the texts examined we discovered that the multiple uses of Messiah in the First Testament were mirrored in extra-biblical material. For instance, in isolating the “Messiah” epithet, second temple literature spoke clearly of at least four messianic figures: Messiah prophet, Messiah priest, Messiah king, and heavenly Messiah. Thus a range of competing messianic figures emerged. Nevertheless we focused on an expected royal Messiah. Typically, the individual portraits painted often shared several features: his humanity (lineage), his authority (leadership), and his relationship with God (chosen).

Despite the seemingly nice package presented above, it was also clear that at least one text presents the Messiah as an eschatological heavenly figure who is human-like with characteristics of an angelic being, and who is given divine authority to judge (1 En.; cp. 11QMelch). Thus some of the messianic portraits are consistent, some contradictory, some ambiguous, and at least one totally different.

Bateman IV, H. W. (2012). Anticipations of the One Called Son. In Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King (pp. 316–324). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic.

Also, this book has cool tables that do not copy It just lists. Here's some screenshots of one