Elijah was from the town of Tishbe in the land of Gilead, one of the Israelite holdings east of the Jordan River.
Ninja’d.
Thank you. My Hebrew is rusty…and my English isn’t that far behind, sometimes. 
The concept of a messiah is a perfect example of a concept that has clearly evolved over time within Judaism.
As is mentioned upthread, originally it simply referred to a great military leader who saves the Jewish people, who is basically pointed out by God - “anointed” - hence, in Isaiah, Cyrus, king of the Persians and founder of their Empire, is referred to as a “messiah”. He’s not Jewish and it doesn’t say he was descended from David - but he ended the “Babylonian Captivity”, restored the Jews to their homeland (well, the ones who were ethnically cleansed and wished to return), and allowed them to worship as they pleased; they were suitably grateful!
It is interesting to read different versions of Isaiah 45:1, for comparison.
The Orthodox Jewish one:
The King James:
The Modern English:
Common to them all is the notion that Cyrus was the “anointed one”, which is the literal meaning of “messiah”.
Of course, later thinkers expanded this initially very simple concept (a military leader, pointed out by God, who saves the Jews - meaning there can be multiple “messiahs”) to the idea that there will be one future “messiah”, a universal savior, chosen by God, who will be of the House of David, and who will be a singular person (that is, only one “messiah”).
The Jewish notion remained that this “messiah” will be a very physical savior who will literally save people, and usher in a universal “golden age”. Originally it was merely a savior of Jews, but gradually the concept expanded to include saving everyone else as well - leading to a literal ‘end of history’, a universal golden age.
This concept was obviously already very well developed by the time Christianity arose, because the Christian religion is essentially an elaboration of it - the savior is now not merely a physical savior, but a spiritual one, saving all of humanity from sin and later returning to usher in an “end of history” (in which the good will be saved, forever, and the bad condemned).
The Jewish and Christian concepts of messiah-dom then developed in parallel.
Modern Judaism of course is not a monolithic thing (two Jews, three opinions, as the saying goes!), but at least one strand of modern Jewish messianism is the concept of “Tikkun Olam” (literally, “to repair the world”):
The idea here is that Jews have a responsibility to perfect their own behavior through performing mitzvot (basically, good deeds and correct actions - judged religiously and ethically) - for the Reform branch I’m most familiar with, through social action - to improve themselves, Jewish society, and society at large. Only then will the messiah arrive.
In short, it is up to us to create the “golden age” and it is our own actions that create the necessary condition for the messiah to “arrive” - rather than the messiah being a military savior who saves us from outside.
Apparently there have been a host of Jewish messiah claimants through the centuries, according to this Wiki article.
It’s severely undermined by the numerous exhortations of jewish mothers about their sons.
I’ve seen a lot of perspectives on Mashiach ben David so far, but I was curious to hear perspectives on Mashiach ben Yoseph. What are the teachings / thoughts / feelings of the Jewish community in regards to the “man of peace”?
If we ignore whether or not he must be a male line descendant, and if we assume that David was real, and a king* who lived some 3,000 odd years ago, then I suspect about half the world population today would be descendant from him.
*especially with many wives/concubines and therefore many, many children.
There is no “Jewish community” response. Some Jews regard him as an itinerant teacher with some good ideas in the tradition of Hillel. Some Jews regard him as an itinerant teacher with some good ideas in the tradition of Hillel, who also had some less good ideas and whose followers went nuts. Some Jews regard him as an itinerant preacher of no particular significance whose followers branched out to become the primary persecutors of Jews.
There is no single view. Jesus plays no significant role, (or no role at all, depending on the source), in Jewish thought. The question is like asking the Christian community’s perspective on Buddha. It would depend on which Christian one asked, from the favorable writings of Thomas Merton to the foaming mouth hatred of Franklin Graham to the “man on the street” who could not identify a single thought expressed by Buddha.
Only on one thing are all Jews agreed - whatever their opinion of Jesus, he wasn’t what the Jews regard as the “messiah”.
Those that disagree on that point are “Christians”. 
(Yes, there exists this group known as “Jews for Jesus”, but Jews pretty well unanimously consider that a Christian movement intent on converting Jews).
It would indeed be a struggle for most average Christians to identify Buddhist principles.
Old old joke - a Russian Jew in the old days was paid a ruble a month to by the community council to stand at the town outskirts to greet the Messiah on his arrival. His friend: “That’s pretty low pay.” The greeter: “Yes, but talk about job security!”
And as noted, it’s talked about but differently in different segments. The Reform Judaism position is feh on an individual Messiah; it’s combined human efforts that will bring out that more utopian age. (Cribbed generously from Telushkin’s wonderful “Jewish Literacy”)
Claims of the Messiah’s imminent arrival (or having arrived) have generally ended badly for Jews.
How many persons, besides Cyrus, does the Torah (or other traditional Jewish texts) refer to as an “anointed one”? Presumably, David and Solomon?
A couple showed up at my Reform Temple, and when the husband told us, there was a silence went over the group, but the service went well. They didn’t yell, “Praise Jesus!” or anything like that.
I think it depends on the circumstance of the family line. In 3000 years you might think Lincoln would have millions of descendants, but there would be exactly as many as there are today- zero. How do we know that at all of his lineage didn’t die out?
One factoid that I’ve heard third-hand (so no cite unfortunately ), is that some ultra-Orthodox Jews opposed the creation of Israel because there was no obvious Mashiach. And especially that modern Israel can’t be legitimate because the Temple has not been rebuilt.
Ah, found one reference
Wiki article
Their “line” is that they are Jews - who just happen to consider that the messiah has already arrived, in the person of Jesus; that it is possible, and preferable, for Jews to continue to be Jews, doing what they already do, just accepting this one additional doctrine …
There you run into definitional problems … the term originally referred to no more than the ritual attending the induction of a king or high priest, by anointing with oil (it is still part of the royal rituals). So every king or high priest is, in a highly technical sense, an “anointed one”.
See for example 1 Samuel 10:1
However, from very early times, it took on a more significant meaning - chosen by God in a more general sense. However, as the ritual of anointing was considered a sign of being “chosen by God”, it is really difficult to disentangle the two.
David was “anointed” as king, but the Bible uses the term in both senses when referring to him:
Over time, the “anointed by God” took on a less literal meaning (i.e., the ritual of making a king or high priest, which demonstrated “God’s choice” of monarch or priest), and came to mean a chosen savior.
It is, however, very difficult to disentangle these two meanings, as you can see from the language …
So to answer the question: many in the Bible are identified as “anointed” - basically every high priest or Jewish king - but not all of these would be considered “saviours” as well. In some cases the “anointing” merely designated status, in others it had a deeper meaning - as can be seen when discussing David. Many of the Jewish kings were bad guys, but were nonetheless “anointed”: Saul was “anointed” but God withdrew his favour from him and his dynasty, in preference to David and his line …
If he was just some average schlub with one wife and a couple kids, that might be a distinct possibility. But he was a king, and probably had lots and lots of children, so the odds are against that. Especially when we compare him to someone like Charlemagne, whom almost everyone in Europe is descended from one way or another.
And if David didn’t have a whole bunch of wives (the Bible is not clear, but it looks like he had several), his son, Solomon, had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Talk about Big Love! And his sons probably had multiple wives, too.
So, if we take the Biblical narrative as historically accurate, it’s unlikely that Kind David’s line died out. Quite the opposite.
The Messiah is a more recent Jewish creation. Primarily from around the end of the Second Temple Period and coincidental (or not so coincidental) to when Jesus of Nazareth was preaching. We see very little written evidence prior to the destruction of the Second Temple mentioning a Messiah, but we do know that there were various claimants during the Roman domination. This seems to imply that it was a laic belief rather than a clerical one. Looking back through the Old Testament, we can definitely see passages that seem to be foreshadowing a Messiah and certainly both Christians and most Jews (excluding Reformed) see those passages today as being Messianic prophecy, but we can’t be too sure that they did back in the day. At least not prior to the Talmudic era (There could be an argument that the Son of God text of the Dead Sea Scrolls could be referring to the Messiah, but it’s debateable. Christians are likely to see it as being more conclusive than it is.) It could be conjectured that the belief in a Messiah was directly the result of Roman rule and the seeming futility of challenging it (although there is a chance that Messianic belief emerged during the time of the Seleucid domination of Judea), thus the need to create a supernatural hope. It’s hard to say what the original Messiah beliefs looked like, but to think that he was a war leader sent by God to free the Jews from the Romans seems pretty likely, but we don’t know that conclusively. It also seems pretty likely that Jesus of Nazareth was not what they were expecting at the time (based on the fact that Jewish Christianity always remained a minority belief and Christians themselves claiming it was so during the time period.) Modern Jewish traditions regarding the Messiah formed in large part due to Christian claims that the Messiah had already come, so it’s very difficult to pin down so it’s very difficult to pin down what we might call ‘pre-Rabbinical Judaism’s’ views on the Messiah. Modern Judaism it’s much easier to say their beliefs, but those beliefs have boiled in the broth of a dominant Christianity, so it’s hard to draw conclusions about Jesus of Nazareth from them.