• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scriptural literacy

I wondered if a discussion of the Lot story would be discussed here after the circus in the other thread. I had hoped to talk about the repeat in Judges, but Ichneumonwasp beat me to one of the points. I think the repeat in Judges is a bit of an etiology story as well, what with the description of the concubine being divided into twelve parts and distributed amongst the various tribes.

The Judges tale seems to actual be reminding the tribes that they need a king. Judges chapter 19 starts with "In those days, when there was no king in Israel..." then move to the end after the horrible rape and you have:


"When he had entered his house, he took a knife, and grasping his concubine he cut her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. Then he commanded the men whom he sent, saying, "Thus shall you say to all the Israelites, "Has such a thing ever happened since the day that the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt until this day? Consider it, take counsel, and speak out.' "(Judges 19:29-30)

So I see the telling of the tale in Judges to remind the tribes that they need a king. This is what happens when there are no agreed upon rules of society. No ruler equals no rules. The bluntness of the tale seems to drive the point home.
 
Thanks, man.

I've been meaning to ask you and Hok -- have you guys come to any conclusions about who you think Jesus was? I keep vacillating between the idea that he was an apocalypticist and that the apocalyptic message was only added later. I think I could even see John the Baptist being added later by Mark as a way to tie Jesus to the Essene apocalyptic movement (if John was Essene) sort of through Paul's influence, since Paul's message was clearly apocalyptic.

But wasn't John also mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas? I don't remember much of Thomas since I've never spent a lot of time with it.

I think I may be more confused now than in the past over just who or what Jesus was. I'm still a big Ehrman fan, but I find myself more drawn to John Dominic Crossan's portrayal. I just don't know, though.


I will start this off saying that I really haven't read much by Crossan, just a few things that have come up in context of this thread. The last few months have been spent devling more deeply into Jewish history, to get a better context for much of the bible.

To answer your question, I believe that pretty much all Jews in and around Jerusalem at that time were apocalyptic, although it meant something quite different at the time. Today, there seems to be popular conflation between a Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom on Earth. I don't think that was the case back then. I strongly believe that John the Baptist, and Jesus as well, were preparing for the Kingdom on Earth. Later Christians, seeing that the Kingdom on Earth was further away each day, particularly with Jesus' death, skipped directly to the Kingdom of Heaven.

As part of another debate going on, I just re-read the epistle of James a bit more carefully. I think it is possible to compare and contrast this to the sayings of Jesus in the synoptic gospels to see this transition. There seems to be an emphasis on people going up to meet the Father rather than the Father coming down to earth (whether in the form of Jesus, or something else entirely). The very end of Mark's gospel, the bit believed to have been tacked on at a later point, seems to support this transition.

There I go again, developing wacky theories regarding the early church. Maybe I really should look into serious theological research and cash in on the recent popularity of books speculating wildly on the development of Christianity. :D
 
That makes a lot of sense. You and Greediguts both tend to agree that an apocalyptic message was central; and I think we all agree that the original message was about the Kingdom of God.

It's hard to be sure what was going on. Paul, in his first letter that we have, seems to imply not a kindom on earth but a movement to heaven -- 1st Thessalonians has the passage that fundies interpret as a reference to the rapture. There certainly seems to be some sort of tension between kingdom on earth and kingdom of heaven talk in the sources, just as there is tension between Jewish and gentile Christian. I wish it was easier to piece out what was there first. It seems to me that we have to make too many assumptions to get a foothold anywhere.

Example -- Crossan seems to think that the gospel of Peter (or the message in it, which is termed the 'cross gospel') came first and the other gospels followed. This is based on the assumption that any change in the story of the trial and crucifixion would move toward cleaning up the narrative. Peter has only Jesus' enemies present at the trial and crucifixion while the later gospels include more friendly faces eventually. I don't know about you guys, but I think that's a big assumption to make.
 
Have either of you read much from/about Philo? I had seen him mentioned a couple of times in passing, the latest in a general Jewish history text. Seeing the parallels between him and the gospel of John, I decided to read a bit more. Then some more. And even more.

I am starting to see a whole bunch of parallels between his writings and the gnostic gospels and apocrypha (particularly the gospel of Judas) and wanted your opinions. I had known about the connection with John, but it is hard to read John now without going "Aha!" almost every other line. I swear that half of what is credited to Jesus in John is Philo.

Maybe I just need to ease off a bit on the caffeine...

ETA: This post was partially inspired by the back and forth with JoeTheJuggler in the second page of this thread.
 
Example -- Crossan seems to think that the gospel of Peter (or the message in it, which is termed the 'cross gospel') came first and the other gospels followed. This is based on the assumption that any change in the story of the trial and crucifixion would move toward cleaning up the narrative. Peter has only Jesus' enemies present at the trial and crucifixion while the later gospels include more friendly faces eventually. I don't know about you guys, but I think that's a big assumption to make.

This made me go back and really go over the stories of the arrest/trial of Jesus.

I honestly don’t think the arrest/trial as written in any of the Gospels make much sense.

What crime had Jesus committed that the Sanhedrin would have had jurisdiction over? Saying he was the Messiah? Others had made the same claim, yet were not brought before the Sanhedrin. When the Pharisees would question Jesus’ actions or question his interpretation of the law, Jesus’ replies always silenced them. It would not appear that any of these actions meant he should have been executed.

The big one is the cleansing of the Temple. What if it wasn’t every moneychanger or trader but a select few that Jesus had a problem with? The common area of the Temple would look like a bazaar - people hawking their goods and trying to earn a living. Among these quite likely would have been traders ripping people off, moneychangers cheating people in exchanging currency, con-artists and frauds. Maybe his “den of thieves” comments were directed at certain sellers.

If they weren’t and Jesus actually drove out ALL of the dealers and moneychangers (which I think would require a bit of help – I mean, the Temple area would be packed right before a major holiday) then why would the Romans not just arrest him right there and then. The Romans would have been nervous during the festivals that a large gathering of Jews could turn into open revolt. Pilate, according to Josephus, would not hesitate to commit acts of great violence against the Jews, so I would tend to think the Romans were ready and ordered to keep the peace by whatever means necessary. A large disturbance, like somebody turning over tables and driving out the moneychangers with a whip, might cause the Romans to stop in and put an end to it.

A small disturbance, say 1 or 2 moneylenders being accused of fraud could be handled “in-house”. The Temple police could deal with the situation. But this would require a trial. They would have been accused of a crime and Jesus would have been expected to supply witnesses who could support his claim. Of course, this doesn’t happen.

What if the reason Jesus actually appeared before the high priest was because he wanted to talk Jesus out of going around saying he was the Messiah?

This was an occupied territory. The native population was very unhappy with Roman rule. Would they really want to see one of their own crucified by the Romans if they could prevent it? What if the high priest was worried that by Jesus claiming to be the Messiah (which again, for them was an anointed human, who would unite Israel and get rid of Roman rule) the Romans would hear of his claims, put him on trial before Pilate, and then ultimately execute him?

“Look Jesus, you could very well be the Messiah. If God has anointed you nothing on earth can stop this from happening, but well, let’s be honest. You’re not the first to claim this and Pilate seems to never take this type of news well. Plus we got a lot of tourists in town for Passover and ya know how the Romans can go overboard when keeping the peace…so, um basically, could you just keep the whole “Son of God” under wraps until at least after the festival. No sense in giving the Romans any excuse right? There’s a good chap…”

I don’t see any major difference in the Gospel of Peter’s trial/execution stories to make me think it came first. In fact, in Peter, ALL of the Jews of the city wail about how they have sinned and God is going to destroy their town (plus, it is stated that Jesus felt no pain when he was crucified…?). I would think that the greater the blame/guilt placed on “the Jews” in the story would show that the text was written later on in history.

Have either of you read much from/about Philo? I had seen him mentioned a couple of times in passing, the latest in a general Jewish history text. Seeing the parallels between him and the gospel of John, I decided to read a bit more. Then some more. And even more.

I am starting to see a whole bunch of parallels between his writings and the gnostic gospels and apocrypha (particularly the gospel of Judas) and wanted your opinions. I had known about the connection with John, but it is hard to read John now without going "Aha!" almost every other line. I swear that half of what is credited to Jesus in John is Philo.

Maybe I just need to ease off a bit on the caffeine...

ETA: This post was partially inspired by the back and forth with JoeTheJuggler in the second page of this thread.

Nope. I haven't read Philo but I will be sure to read him now. Sounds intriguing!

BTW Hokulele - Did ya see? We are sooo close to seeing our movie idea happen...:D
 
This made me go back and really go over the stories of the arrest/trial of Jesus.

I honestly don’t think the arrest/trial as written in any of the Gospels make much sense.


Aren't there questions about the timing of this as well? Wouldn't the Sanhedrin be a bit, um, busy around Passover?

Nope. I haven't read Philo but I will be sure to read him now. Sounds intriguing!


I would be interested in anyone's input.

BTW Hokulele - Did ya see? We are sooo close to seeing our movie idea happen...:D


:D:D

Someone call Johnny Depp!

Actually, that book sounds like fun. Darn it, why can't my reading list ever get shorter?
 
Sorry, Hok, didn't respond right away. I've only read bits and pieces of Philo, as he is referred to (as you noted) as a possible precursor for ideas in John.



This made me go back and really go over the stories of the arrest/trial of Jesus.

I honestly don’t think the arrest/trial as written in any of the Gospels make much sense.

What crime had Jesus committed that the Sanhedrin would have had jurisdiction over? Saying he was the Messiah? Others had made the same claim, yet were not brought before the Sanhedrin. When the Pharisees would question Jesus’ actions or question his interpretation of the law, Jesus’ replies always silenced them. It would not appear that any of these actions meant he should have been executed.

The big one is the cleansing of the Temple. What if it wasn’t every moneychanger or trader but a select few that Jesus had a problem with? The common area of the Temple would look like a bazaar - people hawking their goods and trying to earn a living. Among these quite likely would have been traders ripping people off, moneychangers cheating people in exchanging currency, con-artists and frauds. Maybe his “den of thieves” comments were directed at certain sellers.

If they weren’t and Jesus actually drove out ALL of the dealers and moneychangers (which I think would require a bit of help – I mean, the Temple area would be packed right before a major holiday) then why would the Romans not just arrest him right there and then. The Romans would have been nervous during the festivals that a large gathering of Jews could turn into open revolt. Pilate, according to Josephus, would not hesitate to commit acts of great violence against the Jews, so I would tend to think the Romans were ready and ordered to keep the peace by whatever means necessary. A large disturbance, like somebody turning over tables and driving out the moneychangers with a whip, might cause the Romans to stop in and put an end to it.

A small disturbance, say 1 or 2 moneylenders being accused of fraud could be handled “in-house”. The Temple police could deal with the situation. But this would require a trial. They would have been accused of a crime and Jesus would have been expected to supply witnesses who could support his claim. Of course, this doesn’t happen.

What if the reason Jesus actually appeared before the high priest was because he wanted to talk Jesus out of going around saying he was the Messiah?

This was an occupied territory. The native population was very unhappy with Roman rule. Would they really want to see one of their own crucified by the Romans if they could prevent it? What if the high priest was worried that by Jesus claiming to be the Messiah (which again, for them was an anointed human, who would unite Israel and get rid of Roman rule) the Romans would hear of his claims, put him on trial before Pilate, and then ultimately execute him?

“Look Jesus, you could very well be the Messiah. If God has anointed you nothing on earth can stop this from happening, but well, let’s be honest. You’re not the first to claim this and Pilate seems to never take this type of news well. Plus we got a lot of tourists in town for Passover and ya know how the Romans can go overboard when keeping the peace…so, um basically, could you just keep the whole “Son of God” under wraps until at least after the festival. No sense in giving the Romans any excuse right? There’s a good chap…”

I don’t see any major difference in the Gospel of Peter’s trial/execution stories to make me think it came first. In fact, in Peter, ALL of the Jews of the city wail about how they have sinned and God is going to destroy their town (plus, it is stated that Jesus felt no pain when he was crucified…?). I would think that the greater the blame/guilt placed on “the Jews” in the story would show that the text was written later on in history.


Yeah, agreed. I really don't see where Crossan gets it either, but he must have some reason (I think one of the ideas is that the Jews claiming guilt was a later addition to Peter; but that has to be pure speculation on his part). I haven't read his account of it -- just got the idea from the Stanford lectures which I think are good in some respects but poor in others (one of the poor bits being the discussion of Paul I brought up earlier).

Definitely agreed about the trial. One suggestion that I think makes sense about why he was "convicted" by claiming to be the Messiah (which shouldn't have bothered the Sanhedrin at all) is that this was a reflection of what the community in Rome was going through. The idea is that they felt they were being persecuted because of "Kingdom talk", so that is why Mark (who some postulate to have been a gentile in the Roman community) has Jesus killed for enacting a ritual destruction of the Temple and engaging in kingdom talk.

The Romans probably did kill him because of "kingdom talk", but the Jews wouldn't have cared.

As for the scourging of the Temple, if the Sanhedrin had got ahold of him, they probably would have put him in a cell or pirated him out of Jerusalem. That was not a killing offense.

The real "killing offense" would have been what Jesus says in John, which is why they keep picking up stones.
 
The real "killing offense" would have been what Jesus says in John, which is why they keep picking up stones.

But even if he said those statements about being one with God and existing before Abraham, there would have to be a trial. He would be brought before the court and witnesses would be called. If some people in a crowd began to stone Jesus they would be prosecuted for murder ("and if any one wilfully kills him before conviction, a charge of murder will lie against such perpetrator (Tosef., B. . ix. 15; Sifre, Num. 161- taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia - look under "Mode of Judgment"). Also, was it really blasphemy? Here is the definition from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I'm not sure what he says exactly fits the bill. Jesus would have to have some "divine authority", otherwise who would listen to him? It seems to me that any religious teacher or priest would express this to a degree. Granted, most would not say "...before Abraham was, I am." but even so, Jesus does not say God's "true" name, so why stone him?

I also now find the whole part of Pilate offering to release Jesus or Barabbas to be almost laughable. Offering to release someone who seems to basically be a Jewish guerrilla fighter (also responsible for a murder being committed - Mark 15:7, Luke 23:19) does not sound like something a Roman governor would be apt to do (how would you explain THAT to the emperor, hmm?). Also, why only the choice of Barabbas? Jesus was crucified with 2 other criminals, why don't they get a shot at freedom?:boggled:
 
But even if he said those statements about being one with God and existing before Abraham, there would have to be a trial. He would be brought before the court and witnesses would be called. If some people in a crowd began to stone Jesus they would be prosecuted for murder ("and if any one wilfully kills him before conviction, a charge of murder will lie against such perpetrator (Tosef., B. . ix. 15; Sifre, Num. 161- taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia - look under "Mode of Judgment"). Also, was it really blasphemy? Here is the definition from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I'm not sure what he says exactly fits the bill. Jesus would have to have some "divine authority", otherwise who would listen to him? It seems to me that any religious teacher or priest would express this to a degree. Granted, most would not say "...before Abraham was, I am." but even so, Jesus does not say God's "true" name, so why stone him?

I also now find the whole part of Pilate offering to release Jesus or Barabbas to be almost laughable. Offering to release someone who seems to basically be a Jewish guerrilla fighter (also responsible for a murder being committed - Mark 15:7, Luke 23:19) does not sound like something a Roman governor would be apt to do (how would you explain THAT to the emperor, hmm?). Also, why only the choice of Barabbas? Jesus was crucified with 2 other criminals, why don't they get a shot at freedom?:boggled:


Yes, right. I was merely commenting on the type of offense that Jews would have considered blasphemy. Claiming to be the Messiah would not be blasphemy in and of itself. It probably was considered for later Christians to claim it of Jesus after his execution though.

It was not using the tetragramaton that they would have found offensive, since technically he didn't do that (he got close, though, by claiming "I am", but this was in Greek), but by claiming equality with God. He has divine authority in the other gospels. He does not claim to be a pre-existent entity in any other gospel than John.
 
I think I may also have figured out one of the other things that bothered me earlier -- about what Paul's original message must have been to the Thessalonians.

He probably gave them the party line on resurrection, which differs from our current view. Instead of everyone being resurrected, wasn't the Jewish belief that the especially pious and martyrs would enjoy the general resurrection?

The folks in Thessalonika must have heard that the martyrs would be resurrected and when Jesus came back they would also meet Jesus on his imminent return, so they worried about their loved ones who had died but who were not martyrs.

So Paul created a new category -- those who die in Christ will also resurrect. I wonder if this is where he started to think in terms of faith alone being necessary?
 
I think I may also have figured out one of the other things that bothered me earlier -- about what Paul's original message must have been to the Thessalonians.

He probably gave them the party line on resurrection, which differs from our current view. Instead of everyone being resurrected, wasn't the Jewish belief that the especially pious and martyrs would enjoy the general resurrection?

The folks in Thessalonika must have heard that the martyrs would be resurrected and when Jesus came back they would also meet Jesus on his imminent return, so they worried about their loved ones who had died but who were not martyrs.

So Paul created a new category -- those who die in Christ will also resurrect. I wonder if this is where he started to think in terms of faith alone being necessary?

Well, I think some of it comes down to how much of the party line Paul was still following. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul basically accuses the Jews of killing Jesus and the prophets. Not to mention how the Jews have prevented Paul from preaching to Gentiles and how they ran him out of town ( verses 14-16 - Scholars are pretty much in agreement that 1 Thessalonians is Paul's earliest letter and that these lines about the "Jews" were not later additions).

Looking at the verses regarding the general resurrection (1 Thess 4:13-18) one verse now makes me pause as I read it.

"For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died." (1 Thess. 4:15 - bolding mine)

Unless there was a much, much earlier text or oral tradition stating what Jesus taught regarding a general resurrection, Paul is basically saying "I'm the one who is saying this, but I'm an agent of God so it must be true." How much was what he took from others and how much was just Paul and his wacky visions?

I still think Paul mentioned some form of general resurrection when he first preached, but his main concern was always right "NOW". Get ready, Jesus is coming! Look busy! Don't be out fornicating, getting drunk, etc. etc., start living the way we will be living when Jesus returns! As questions arose, Paul probably realized he needed to think about a grander theory of how it would all come about, so he expounded on his previous story (or to quote Monty Python's The Life of Brian "He's making it up as he goes along!").

BTW - Have you read The First Paul by Crossan and Borg? They feel he was a Jewish Christ Mystic. He was a radical (they feel the letter to Philemon is Paul making his case for physical/social equality (no slaves) along with spiritual/theological equality) and that by referring to Jesus as Son of God and Lord and Savior, Paul was intentionally challenging Roman imperial theology.
 
Well, I think some of it comes down to how much of the party line Paul was still following. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul basically accuses the Jews of killing Jesus and the prophets. Not to mention how the Jews have prevented Paul from preaching to Gentiles and how they ran him out of town ( verses 14-16 - Scholars are pretty much in agreement that 1 Thessalonians is Paul's earliest letter and that these lines about the "Jews" were not later additions).

Looking at the verses regarding the general resurrection (1 Thess 4:13-18) one verse now makes me pause as I read it.

"For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died." (1 Thess. 4:15 - bolding mine)

Unless there was a much, much earlier text or oral tradition stating what Jesus taught regarding a general resurrection, Paul is basically saying "I'm the one who is saying this, but I'm an agent of God so it must be true." How much was what he took from others and how much was just Paul and his wacky visions?

I still think Paul mentioned some form of general resurrection when he first preached, but his main concern was always right "NOW". Get ready, Jesus is coming! Look busy! Don't be out fornicating, getting drunk, etc. etc., start living the way we will be living when Jesus returns! As questions arose, Paul probably realized he needed to think about a grander theory of how it would all come about, so he expounded on his previous story (or to quote Monty Python's The Life of Brian "He's making it up as he goes along!").

BTW - Have you read The First Paul by Crossan and Borg? They feel he was a Jewish Christ Mystic. He was a radical (they feel the letter to Philemon is Paul making his case for physical/social equality (no slaves) along with spiritual/theological equality) and that by referring to Jesus as Son of God and Lord and Savior, Paul was intentionally challenging Roman imperial theology.

No, I haven't read "The First Paul". Great, now I have more to read.

But the general resurrection, if by that we mean that everyone would be resurrected, doesn't make sense to me -- if that is what he preached. Because if he preached that everyone would be resurrected, why would the Thessalonians even ask the question, "What about cousin Harry who just died?" It seems to me that it would be obvious that cousin Harry would be covered in such a general resurrection.

I still think he must have meant something along the lines of the martyrs get to come alive and anyone who believes in Jesus. That would at least make sense (at least to me) of why he wrote the letter.

His blame of "the Jews" fits in the self-criticism within Judaism that some folks just aren't pious enough and they killed the prophets. I don't think it means that he gave up on Judaism.
 
No, I haven't read "The First Paul". Great, now I have more to read.

But the general resurrection, if by that we mean that everyone would be resurrected, doesn't make sense to me -- if that is what he preached. Because if he preached that everyone would be resurrected, why would the Thessalonians even ask the question, "What about cousin Harry who just died?" It seems to me that it would be obvious that cousin Harry would be covered in such a general resurrection.

I still think he must have meant something along the lines of the martyrs get to come alive and anyone who believes in Jesus. That would at least make sense (at least to me) of why he wrote the letter.

His blame of "the Jews" fits in the self-criticism within Judaism that some folks just aren't pious enough and they killed the prophets. I don't think it means that he gave up on Judaism.

My apologies, I don't think I'm explaining my ideas that well. Let me try again...

Judging by the letter, Paul came to town, began working so he could support himself, and preached the Word. He never mentions going to the synagogue to preach (so these people were probably Gentiles) and he probably "witnessed" while he worked. If he used language like “Jesus is coming back! Glory to God! When He returns, He will gather up all who believe and they shall enter the Kingdom of God! Praise Jesus, our Savior!" I could see new believers, who, like Paul, were expecting Jesus at any minute, becoming confused when some of the new recruits died before Jesus showed up. Did they miss out? Jesus hadn't shown up yet and now Uncle Dave is dead. So does that mean he won't be participating in Christ's return? Paul had to reassure them that this was not the case. He would gather up all who believed (alive and dead) and they would all take part in the parousia. I meant "general resurrection" as it being implied but never seriously discussed in great detail. I think Paul was always talking and emphasizing the return of Jesus much more than saying "believe and you get eternal life". As this was a group of Gentiles I would assume they didn't know any Jewish traditions regarding resurrection (unless as you stated Paul told them), but might have views from Pagan/Greek sources?

I don't think Paul "gave up" on Judaism, but there would have to be a major shift in what he thought it was. Jewish traditions always seemed to play a very small part in Paul's teachings. Also, how much of Paul's Judaism was a Hellenized version? Jewish scholars have argued that he shows no knowledge of the original Hebrew scripture as whatever he quotes comes from the Greek. They have also argued that Hellenistic texts like the Book of Wisdom and the works of Philo (there he is again Hokulele!) make up the majority of his eschatological and theological ideas.

Doing some more research I find that the word being translated as "Jews" in this letter could actually be translated as the "Judeans". The original word is Ioudaioi. The Jerusalem group of Jews persecuted them, not all Jews. So either way I don't think it was self-criticism, but by using this language Paul helps to create a stereotype of the "other group" and then in turn builds up and seperates his group. Kind of like building a social identity for his community...
 
So, do you think he created the idea of general resurrection from this and used the "first fruits" terminology in Corinthians as a result of his way of solving this problem in Thessalonians?

I assumed that Paul was a relatively straight-forward Jewish apocalypticist who thought Jesus' resurrection meant that the general resurrection was coming. And general resurrection, in the Jewish context, meant a resurrection of the martyrs and especially good people (at least that was my understanding of it) but certainly not everyone. If that was his mindset, and it looks like it by the time he wrote 1Corinthians, why would he leave out the whole idea of resurrection in explaining who Jesus was and why his resurrection meant something?

He does seem to push the idea of eternal life for those who accept Jesus a bit in 1Corinthians as well.

I could have this completely backwards, though.
 
So, do you think he created the idea of general resurrection from this and used the "first fruits" terminology in Corinthians as a result of his way of solving this problem in Thessalonians?

I assumed that Paul was a relatively straight-forward Jewish apocalypticist who thought Jesus' resurrection meant that the general resurrection was coming. And general resurrection, in the Jewish context, meant a resurrection of the martyrs and especially good people (at least that was my understanding of it) but certainly not everyone. If that was his mindset, and it looks like it by the time he wrote 1Corinthians, why would he leave out the whole idea of resurrection in explaining who Jesus was and why his resurrection meant something?

He does seem to push the idea of eternal life for those who accept Jesus a bit in 1Corinthians as well.

I could have this completely backwards, though.

Ichneumonwasp, the more I have started reading about resurrection ideas among the Jews the more questions I have. Rabbinical traditions talk of a general resurrection, others talk of resurrection only for the Israelites, other say only for the just, and then there were those who proposed you had to die in the Holy Land or no resurrection for you! This is not taking into account those that felt it was a bodily resurrection compared to those who thought it was a spiritual resurrection. Also, there is some questions regarding whether the idea was part of the Messianic redemption of Israel, or whether it was to usher in the last judgment.

Paul's thoughts definitely seem to fall under the Hellenized ideas of resurrection though...

Ack! I need to read more...
 
I've been busy with work and haven't been able to read as much as I would like, but in tearing through different texts (trying to get a better handle on the Apostle Paul and Jewish ideas regarding resurrection) I came across a paragraph taken from the Slavonic text of Josephus' Jewish War. This version contains a much longer passage regarding Jesus and his trial which does not appear in the Greek (which is the version everyone is familiar with).

"At that time also a man came forward - if it is fitting to call him a man. His nature as well as his form were a man's, but his showing forth was more than that of a man. His works were godly and he wrought wonder deeds, amazing and full of power. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man, but in view of the nature he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel. And all that he wrought through some kind of invisible power, he wrought by word and command. Some said of him: Our first lawgiver has risen from the dead and shows forth many cures and arts. But others supposed that he was sent by God. He opposed himself in much to the law, and did not observe the Sabbath according to ancestral custom. Yet he did nothing reprehensible nor any crime, but by word solely he effected everything. And many from the folk followed him and recieved his teachings; and many souls began to waver, supposing that through him the Jewish tribe would be freed from Roman hands. It was his custom often to walk outside the city, preferably on the Mount of Olives; it was there that he dispensed his cures to the people. And there gathered around him a hundred and fifty servants. When they saw his power, and that he accomplished everything by word of mouth, they urged him that he should enter the city, massacre the Roman soldiers and Pilate, and rule over them. But he scorned it. Later, the leaders of the Jews obtained knowledge thereof and they convened with the high priest and said: We are powerless and too weak to withstand the Romans, like a bow that is bent. Let us tell Pilate what we have heard, and we shall have no trouble; if he should hear it from others, our goods may be confiscated, we may ourselves be beheaded, and our children may be exiled. So they went and informed Pilate. He sent his men, who killed many of the people, and they brought this miracleworker before him. He interrogated him, and he found that he did good not evil, that he was no revolutionary, and that he did not aspire to royal power; and he discharged him. For he had healed his wife who had been dying. He went to his accustomed place and wrought the accumstomed works. And as an ever increasing number of people gathered around him, he won great reputation among them all. The teachers of the law were envenomed with envy, and they gave thirty talents to Pilate that he should kill him. Pilate took the money and gave them permission to carry their purpose into effect themselves. They seized him and crucified him, notwithstanding the laws of their ancestors."

Of course, most believe this to be added by a later hand. Whoever the author was, I found it interesting that Pilate (not Judas) receives the silver. It makes me wonder...(I now have "Stairway to Heaven" in my head:)) how familiar the true author was with any of the written Gospel stories or if they were trying to create a new "history" of Jesus. It seems quite obvious that the author was hell-bent on showing the Jewish leaders as responsible for Jesus' execution. They not only call for his death, but actually pay Pilate and then carry out the act themselves. Notice also that in this tradition Jesus healed Pilate's wife. (Pilate's wife was also featured in the Acts of Pilate - she had dreams about Jesus and wanted her husband to have nothing to do with him.)

Okay...back to reading. Just wanted to share.:)
 

Back
Top Bottom