Robert said
He’s talking about the allusion to Isaiah 61 found in Luke 7,22-23/Matthew 11,4-6. This is part of a larger Q section (Q 7,18-19.22-28.31-35.
I agree with you about God being the agent of resurrection in the Jewish tradition; but this seems to have changed by the time Paul makes the heavenly Christ into this agent. The later gospel writers even began to make the earthly Jesus into an agent of some of these activities. Another potential modification: whereas in 4Q521 the heavens and earth will ‘listen’ to the anointed one, in the gospels Jesus commands and the heavenly and earthly elements ‘obey’ him. The Hebrew is ambiguous, meaning either ‘hear’ or ‘obey’, but by the time the gospels are written, the sense is clearly ‘obey’ in the nature miracles.
Thank you for your response! I haven’t given much thought to how Jesus “resurrecting” several people fits into the evolving Christology of the Gospels. The resurrections Jesus performs – to me – have always had the flavor of “extreme healings” rather the Resurrections in the sense of the Kingdom. There is no sense that these individuals have been raised to eternal life in the Kingdom. And Jesus generally attributes his power to heal to God and the faith of those participating in the healing. And I think its clear in the Gospels that Jesus is not raised by himself, but by those other elements of God.
That said, of course they are signs of the coming resurrection of Jesus and then the righteous – and that Paul moves his somewhat Magic Jesus ever further to the center is consistent with his overall approach.
Robert said
I don’t quite understand the question. Are you considering the ‘Tabor’s broader point’ to be dissolution vs transformation of dead bodies? Or are you thinking that ‘Tabor’s broader point’ is merely that early messianic beliefs present at Qumran are also present in Mt/Lk? If the latter, that seems indisputable, and was recognized as obvious by others prior to Tabor.
Ah, sorry unclear, the latter. Others had noted the verbatim agreement?
Robert said
It’s pretty clear that Q/Mt/Lk all think of the earthly Jesus (presumably by the power of God) raising dead individuals rather than of an Jewish apocalyptic resurrection of all the dead by God at a final judgment. Thus I think Q/Mt/Lk in their current form all represent at least two steps removed from 4Q521.
Does 4Q521 have the feel that this is the resurrection? I’ve only read it through the prism of Tabor’s work, so it felt like run-of-the-milk raising of the dead rather than resurrection.
Robert said
Yes, if memory serves this was obvious as soon as 4Q451 was published in 1992.
Ah, I had then wrongly understood the paper to be breaking ground on the verbatim agreement.
Robert said
Yes, I think in the original context this was speaking of the general apocalyptic resurrection of dead.
Gotcha. So in this view, the messianic coming would have been reasonably coincident with the resurrection. Yet another reason (on top of the many) to think that the general resurrection was to happen soon.
Richard Bauckham is a vastly superior textual analyst, with far greater command of Greek (even Bart respects his scholarship), and uses his skills precisely for the purpose of making the text conform to his worldviews.
So clearly it’s not a solution to the problem of people seeing the Jesus they want to see.
Q.E.D.
I agree, and that’s what I was taught, by actual historians. I’ve said the same thing, and it’s fine you didn’t notice, but please note that the discussion is textual analysis, and Bauckham is so highly regarded in this area that Oxford University Press tasked him with writing “Jesus: A Very Short Introduction.” And I read it. He’s clearly a great scholar and a good writer. And he’s saying things I find impossible to believe, and so do you. But compared to him, we’re nobodies. My history background, your Greek–it’s laughable to even compare our skills to his. Everybody who ever posted on this forum (other than Bart) is as nothing to him.
And do you really think he wakes up every morning, yawns, has his tea, and says “Let’s make history conform to my ideas once again”?
And say this–all great historians do have ideas of their own. Without that, you don’t have a theme, a road map, a way to make it all come together. Robert Caro’s theme is that people often achieve great power, far more than anyone in their various positions ought to have, by not caring about anything but power–an obsession that stems from him being part of an activist group long ago, and seeing how their dedication, and understanding of the rules, was no match for Robert Moses’ ability to get whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted it. He wants to understand the lines along which power runs, and the people behind it. This kind of focus can both clarify and distort, and there have been many critiques of Caro, but a great historian he remains.
One of Bart Ehrman’s, I’d say, is that Christianity both preserved and distorted the ideas of Jesus, not with malice aforethought, but because Jesus’ most central idea–that God was coming to change the world–was wrong. And as he’s gone forward, he’s tried to put early Christianity into the context of the larger pagan and Jewish world it grew up in. And this is also deeply illuminating, but still–prejudices leak through. Bart is always dealing with the dense of his own religious beliefs (done in by excessive knowledge about them) and I sometimes suspect he’s never stopped looking for something else he could believe in. (Well, that’s hardly unique.) Lately, he seems to be leaning towards a form of secular paganism. (That never really existed in the Roman world.)
Bauckham’s idea is that the gospels, while not 100% factual, and full of seeming contradictions, are still somehow the revealed Word of God. He doesn’t believe they were ghost-written by the Holy Spirit, but are still largely reliable testaments to what happened. He thinks that through his mastery of the material–which is, again, far greater than all but a handful of people on earth (none of whom are on this thread), he can make people believe in the divine Jesus, as well as the human one. He, unlike Bart, has decided to stand his ground against the melancholy long declining roar of the sea of faith, and the more he knows, the more he believes. So for him, knowledge is sometimes used as a tool to block the implications of knowledge.
Tools are only as good, true, and effective–as the people who wield them. But can I ask–what’s your theme? What are you expressing through your amateur scholarship? Which still matters. I’d be the last to say otherwise. I’ve done that myself, though not in this area. But after reading all these posts of yours, I have no idea what you think. And you seem reluctant to make that clear.
Because Bauckham is honest about who he is, what he believes, I can allow for his prejudices–and he knows that. He’s good with that. So for all my differences with him, I do respect him. And you somehow seem to feel you outrank him. At least here. Well, he’s never going to post here. He’s never even going to know ‘here’ exists. Very few real scholars do.
Robert said
godspell said
Because Bauckham is honest about who he is, what he believes, I can allow for his prejudices–and he knows that. He’s good with that. So for all my differences with him, I do respect him. And you somehow seem to feel you outrank him. …
Where in the world do you get such ridiculous ideas about what I supposedly feel? I have never ever felt, thought, said, or imagined that I outrank Richard Bauckham in any way.
My ‘theme’ here is simply that I want to better understand Jesus as an historical figure, what we know of him through what was written about him in the surviving communities that formed around his followers and through what we know about his historical context.
And do you really think he wakes up every morning, yawns, has his tea, and says “Let’s make history conform to my ideas once again”?
No, of course not. You are the one talking about Bauckham. I was merely defending the value of being able to get into the weeds to try and understand something better. I can’t imagine Bauckham would disagree.
Certainly not. Since he knows those weeds better than you, or I, or 99.99999999999999999% of humanity. Everybody would rather fight on the ground they know best.
But history is a humanity, not a science, and there are many elements in it that are not about the weeds. There’s a great danger of not seeing the forest for the weeds.
As there is of inventing a forest, and ignoring the weeds. Balance is the goal. Nobody ever manages it 100%.
New Testament scholars who begin with a prior faith commitment often wind up functioning more as apologists than historians. Would anyone claim that the gospels rely on eyewitness testimony unless they need it to be true to validate their faith commitment? Would anyone spend time providing “evidence” for the historicity of the resurrection unless they already believed in it on other grounds? The paucity of secular historians who’ve converted to Christianity because of their historical enquiries is very revealing.
This is not to say that religious believers can’t be good scholars. But only to the degree they can separate out their historical methodology from their prior faith commitment. Raymond Brown did some justly well regarded work on the nativity stories but he quite properly spends his time analyzing the texts to determine what they might have meant for the people who wrote them. He never makes the mistake of arguing that they really happened or trying to resolve the differences between them.
Everyone has presuppositions and the thoughtful person acknowledges this. But there is a big difference between presupposing you have the skill to interpret a text and believing you already know what it means before you approach it critically.
A scholarly consensus on a biographical sketch of the historical Jesus would be one or two pages.
Many are left wanting more.
I think anyone who has studied this material has engaged in speculation and let presuppositions and bias creep in – often thru a door we left cracked, unlocked and with light on.
Hopefully the difference would be that once someone reaches a PhD in the study of these materials they are aware of this.
Hopefully!
I agree, Stephen, and well put, but it works just as well the other way around. Unbelievers have their own prejudices to allow for, and most particularly those who feel (not without cause) that Christianity has done a lot of harm. That can distort one’s perspective just as much. You have to be able to look honestly at what it is makes you want to write about something. And even then, you’ll often fail to see your motives clearly.
Also, you’re wrong to say that religious believers invariably approach sacred texts believing they know what they mean. That wasn’t true in ancient times–how much of early Christian history was believers arguing over the meaning of those texts, how properly to interpret them, and the arguments could get quite involved (and sometimes led to unfortunate consequences, as we see with Pelagius and many others).
It’s human nature you have to allow for. Our universal desire to impose our will, our concepts, on reality. As true of atheists as anyone else. Not an accusation. A statement of fact.
Also, you’re wrong to say that religious believers invariably approach sacred texts believing they know what they mean.
Where did I say this? You would think the first skill someone who works in a library would pick up is how to read.
I used the word “often”, not “invariably”.
Invariably: adverb: in every case or on every occasion; always
I also wrote This is not to say that religious believers can’t be good scholars.
Are you doing this on purpose or don’t you know that ‘often’ is not a synonym for ‘invariably’?
Anyway, stop misquoting me! If you can’t make your point by responding to what I’m actually saying then ignore me.
And please don’t keep whining about how we’re all amateurs and you’re above us all. I’m here simply because I enjoy it. When I cease to enjoy it I will leave. You obviously don’t enjoy it so why keep punishing us as well as yourself?
ps I apologize to everybody else who might be reading this. But I’ve had to endure this crap way too long. I don’t mind being disagreed with or criticized. I expect it. But I cannot sit quietly while my views, as humble as they might be, are twisted and distorted. Here rant endeth.
Robert said
godspell said
Also, you’re wrong to say that religious believers invariably approach sacred texts believing they know what they mean. That wasn’t true in ancient times–how much of early Christian history was believers arguing over the meaning of those texts, how properly to interpret them, and the arguments could get quite involved (and sometimes led to unfortunate consequences, as we see with Pelagius and many others).
Just because believers argued about the meaning of texts does not mean that those arguing did not approach sacred texts believing they knew what they meant. Actually, doesn’t it imply the opposite? Why bother to argue about the meaning of a text unless you think you know what it means?
You think they were born knowing, or they just received it in a vision when they were baptized/confirmed? 🙄
Obviously Augustine (to name just one) developed his ideas over time, and changed them as he went. And Jesus must have changed his ideas about the meaning of Jewish scripture over time, since he would hardly have been raised to believe as he did. We have clear evidence his family clearly disagreed with him, at least at first (the only one we know came around to believing in him is James).
I agree that believers approach scripture from a standpoint of belief. That’s a bit of a tautology, really. But belief in what? To believe a text is significant is not the same thing as coming to it with a clear and unshakeable conviction as to what its precise significance is, that never changes. It can and does change radically, and out of such changes do religions change, and in some cases give rise to new ones.
And you should know this already.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)