a few times I have seen you make this comment
godspell said
Jesus was figuring stuff out as he went along. Just like the rest of us.
if there is any instance where this appears to be the case it may well be Mark 12:18
for all I/we know maybe he never preached on the “resurrection” before he was asked this tricky question,
I like the way you put this
Hngerhman said
. . while not irrelevant, the question here is not how prevalent the view is in the overall gen pop, but did the subject of the gospels hold to it.
Bart claims that the view of the resurrection was dominant during Jesus life
as stated above, I am skeptical of that
I tried asking Dr Tabor the specifically how common this view was and got the rather non-committal answer
I think the views in late 2nd Temple Judaisms regarding the “age to come” are varied and contradictory.
So putting aside the resurrection, is there any reason to think marriage would be obsolete in the Kingdom?
tompicard said
a few times I have seen you make this commentif there is any instance where this appears to be the case it may well be Mark 12:18
for all I/we know maybe he never preached on the “resurrection” before he was asked this tricky question,
Just remember something–if we had not only everything ever written about him (as originally written), combined with exhausive oral histories from everyone who ever knew him, plus his personal memoirs (like the ones Augustus wrote, that were somehow lost)–there would still be blank spaces. Any human life is far too complicated to fully document. Most of his life we know nothing about at all, and that was probably true for his disciples as well. For all intents and purposes, he springs into existence when John baptizes him. But he was alive and learning for three decades before that happened. And for several years after.
What I object to, from theists and atheists alike, is the dehumanization of Jesus. Making him into either more or less than he really was. Ultimately, for the same reason. To control him. To make him say what you want him to say. But he still speaks more clearly than any of them.
So putting aside the resurrection, is there any reason to think marriage would be obsolete in the Kingdom?
There are gestures at the same or related themes elsewhere in the gospels (couple below), but none that I’m aware of that are fully dispositive in the manner of defeating an argument from moderate skepticism. If there are, I hope others can help/correct me.
“but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.”
Luke 20:35 NRSV
** you do not have permission to see this link **
That one, however, doesn’t meet your proposed criterion, as the passage is conditioned on resurrection.
Attempting to not fight the hypothetical:
“His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.””
Matthew 19:10-12 NRSV
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Is this one historical? I do not know. And even if it is, does it explicitly say no marriage? No, it uses conversational implication and metaphor – so one could find wriggle room there, even if this saying actually rolled off Jesus’s lips.
I’m very tempted to pull Paul into the fray as circumstantial evidence, given his interaction with the Jerusalem community – but I think that might well muddy the water more than clarify it.
So, without appealing to resurrection, I’m not sure one (at the least, I) could make the case that Jesus definitely thought marriage was obsolete in the Kingdom. But, that said, do I think holding resurrection aside is the best methodological choice to make given all the context clues we have? I personally do not. Can I make the case so persuasively that it is the wrong choice to make that it would be silly to make it? I cannot do that either.
I would love to know more about whether you think the skeptical take here is the most probable, beyond plausible/possible. Is it an evidentiary argument, an aesthetic one, both, neither? You often see things at different angles than I do, and every time we engage on those differences it’s always thoughtful and rich – for me at least, and I learn something from it.
This conversation is one of the many examples of why I enjoy the give and take of ideas on this forum. We have a collection of intelligent, thoughtful and sincere folks looking to share views and test their own – some more the former, some more the latter. Divergence in perspectives, in beliefs, in backgrounds, in knowledge is what makes amicable dialectic work best.
Robert, do you read the things in each age in Mark 10:30 as the following?
- This age = material things & human relations;
- Age to come = eternal life;
- Things in this age ≠ Things in age to come
That’s how I read it (the English syntax of the NRSV). That the age to come is not to include the material things & human relations.
godspell said
What I object to, from theists and atheists alike, is the dehumanization of Jesus. Making him into either more or less than he really was. Ultimately, for the same reason. To control him. To make him say what you want him to say. But he still speaks more clearly than any of them.
Ok , is that just a general comment? or are you referring to some one in particular in this thread, I dont get that impression at all in this thread at least, if so and you are referring to me I would like you to let me how I am doing that.
Robert said
Yes, with respect to this age (‘olam hazeh). As for ‘the age to come’ (‘olam haba’), it’s really hard to say for Jesus. It could be the Kingdom of God here on earth or the resurrection or both (that seems to be Paul’s view). It could even be those who are already beginning to live as if the kingdom is already here, ‘though that may be less likely. Likewise in Judaism there is a fair amount of ambiguity regarding ‘the age to come’–does it start the messianic age or does it come afterwards? Above my pay-grade. Too many possibilities to clearly decide. And, as you know, I’m not particularly good at (and not inclined to try) pushing strings.
As an unreformed, unrepentant string-pusher, I’ll keep the futility alive for just a moment more… Ha. Please bear with me a second.
Rather than a positive definition of ‘the age to come’ (‘olam haba’) or the precise nature of the concept of eternal life in 1st century Judaism, does the Greek syntax work like the English syntax, in that the primary reading of the content of ‘the age to come’ would limit it to (a) ‘eternal life’, and NOT include (b) material things & human relations? Or does it allow a more expansive range, potentially picking up some/all those things in (b) inside term (a)’s ambiguity?
Thanks for the patience – if the Greek’s primary reading has the English’s primary reading (the limiting sense, not the expansive sense), it would be an interesting conclusion.
Hngerhman said
So putting aside the resurrection, is there any reason to think marriage would be obsolete in the Kingdom?
do I think holding resurrection aside is the best methodological choice to make given all the context clues we have? I personally do not.
I would love to know more about whether you think the skeptical take here is the most probable, beyond plausible/possible. Is it an evidentiary argument, an aesthetic one, both, neither?
I will start with aesthetic, I have eluded to this before and been called anachronistic
so “resurrection” is really “rising up”
the question to me boils down to from where? and to where?
I think the popular view is from “grave” to “earth”.
my aesthetic tells me that from “sheol” to “heaven” is just as likely
(grave to earth carrying too much unnecessary baggage)
Robert said
Don’t worry about it, Tom, that’s part of an long-standing feud godspell has with Stephen and other atheists.
yes i kind of understood that, maybe I should have been very explicit rather than my usually incomprehensible attempts at subtleness to be blunt i meant
————-
Godspell, if you will do me a favor,
please continue to contribute your valuable insights to the topic of this thread, but please engage in your feuds elsewhere.
you might find that to be beneficial to yourself as well as all others concerned
Robert said
The Greek is the same as the English. One will receive eternal life in the age to come. However, there is ‘something’ more that will allow for differentiation such that many who are first will be last, and the last will be first. Ironically, that ‘something’ then may be in inverse proportion to the ‘something’ we possess now.
Excellent – thank you. That tracks directionally with the other context clues about what the gospel authors (and Paul) seem to think.
Each time I read it, the first/last inversion here continues to strike me as a non sequitur within the passage. Like Mark received a bundle of traditions and was looking for a place to park it. But, I am not the 1st century author writing a groundbreaking thinkpiece about the most amazing person I’d ever heard of, either – so perhaps it’s just my coddled, modern tastes.
tompicard said
I will start with aesthetic, I have eluded to this before and been called anachronistic
so “resurrection” is really “rising up”
the question to me boils down to from where? and to where?
I think the popular view is from “grave” to “earth”.
my aesthetic tells me that from “sheol” to “heaven” is just as likely
(grave to earth carrying too much unnecessary baggage)
This is very very interesting – thank you. I will need to chew on it for a bit. Right now my thoughts are a bit of a jumble.
To help disentangle one metaphysical knot I do see, dimly: do you view grave and Sheol to be mutually exclusive – not just as “locations” in themselves but also as loci of personhood post-death? If they are separate locations (and not just synonyms), can a person’s bones be in a grave but the person (whatever it is that instantiates personhood) simultaneously be in Sheol?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)