What Would a Patripassian Gospel Look Like?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Christ as Stranger - From Patripassianism?

Post by MrMacSon »

davidbrainerd wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:
  • No, but how does their non-belief in resurrection affect their acceptance of Daniel as scripture?)
... the suggestion was put forth that the reason Jesus used the burning bush as his scripture proof for the resurrection, rather than the completely explicit Daniel 12, was they rejected Daniel. Even if the story is not historical --moreso then!-- this holds. Why convolute a passage from the Torah if the Sadducees weren't known (by word of mouth back then) for rejecting Daniel? Only other explanation is Jesus himself or the gospel writer (before later editing) rejected Daniel.
Cheers.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: What Would a Patripassian Gospel Look Like?

Post by davidbrainerd »

John2 wrote:David wrote:
Its obvious that since Saducees didn't believe in the resurrection they didn't accept Daniel as scripture.
Maybe they interpreted Daniel differently. As Nehemia Gordon puts it:
We often hear in ancient literature that the Sadducees denied the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and reward and punishment in the hereafter. Whether this is accurate or not is of little consequence since they arrived at these beliefs based on an honest interpretation of the Bible (even if most Karaites disagree with them on these doctrines).

http://www.karaite-korner.org/history.shtml
As Wikipedia notes:
...a minority in Karaite Judaism do not believe in a final resurrection or after-life, a position also held by the Sadducees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
If we knew as little about these Karaites as we do the Sadducees, would it be more reasonable to assume that they used all of the OT and interpreted Dan. 12:2 differently or that they rejected Daniel? But we know that these Karaites use all of the OT, so we know this isn't an issue about the canon but interpretation of the OT. And this is the situation for all Jews by the first century CE according to Josephus in Against Apion 1.42:
...for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.


So it seems reasonable to me to suppose that like minority Karaites the Sadducees simply interpreted things like Dan. 12:2 differently than the mainstream.
Well Nehemia Gordon is merely an ex-Christian playing Karaite. And one thing Christians are typically unaware of is Daniel is in the Ketuvim not the prophets in Jewish Bibles. Further, there is gradation of inspiration is Judaism, Torah most inspired, prophets a little less, ketuvim a lot less. Daniel being in the ketuvim is a partial rejection in and of itself (as a fundie Christian would see it if he knew any of this) because its a denial of plenary inspiration. Per Jewish terminology Daniel is inspired of "A" holy spirit, i.e. written by a holy man but not a prophet. This is one reason Jews are often shocked Christians are using Psalms as prophecy. Same applies to Daniel, that book is not a book of the prophets to Jews.

But where does this diminishment of Daniel come from? Pharisees obviously put a lot of stock in it, must have viewed it as propeticand infallible. Ah, the official Talmudic view is the result of compromise with the Sadducees who rejected it, they forced the Pharisees to relegate it to the ketuvim.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: What Would a Patripassian Gospel Look Like?

Post by John2 »

David wrote:
Well Nehemia Gordon is merely an ex-Christian playing Karaite. And one thing Christians are typically unaware of is Daniel is in the Ketuvim not the prophets in Jewish Bibles. Further, there is gradation of inspiration is Judaism, Torah most inspired, prophets a little less, ketuvim a lot less. Daniel being in the ketuvim is a partial rejection in and of itself (as a fundie Christian would see it if he knew any of this) because its a denial of plenary inspiration. Per Jewish terminology Daniel is inspired of "A" holy spirit, i.e. written by a holy man but not a prophet. This is one reason Jews are often shocked Christians are using Psalms as prophecy. Same applies to Daniel, that book is not a book of the prophets to Jews.

But where does this diminishment of Daniel come from? Pharisees obviously put a lot of stock in it, must have viewed it as propeticand infallible. Ah, the official Talmudic view is the result of compromise with the Sadducees who rejected it, they forced the Pharisees to relegate it to the ketuvim.
Gordon is not an ex-Christian and is a former Orthodox Jew who was "born to a Jewish family of rabbis" and "has lived in Jerusalem, Israel since making Aliyah in 1993" and "holds a Master's degree in Biblical Studies from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He assisted in the translation of texts contained in The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, was an assistant on the Dead Sea Scrolls Publication project coordinated by Emanuel Tov, and worked as a researcher on the Hebrew University Bible Project under the auspices of Shemaryahu Talmon."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemia_Gordon

Regarding the placement of Daniel in the Writings in Rabbinic Judaism, MacDonald argues in the link I gave above that the earliest reference to Daniel being placed in the Writings appears to be from the mid to late second century CE and that prior to this "the residents of Qumran, the NT writers, Josephus, most early church fathers, and even some rabbinic sages regularly placed Daniel among the prophets."

So what if it was placed in the Writings in Rabbinic Judaism. However you arrange the OT (and Josephus had his own arrangement of five books of Moses, thirteen books of history and four books of songs and wisdom), according to Josephus all of the books were "justly believed to be divine" and all Jews "esteem these books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them."

I think if the Sadducees used only the Torah someone (particularly Rabbinic Jews) would have said so. And the existence of Karaites who do not believe in resurrection proves that it is possible to use Daniel (and the rest of the OT) and not believe in resurrection.

And consider Acts 23:8, which says that the Sadducees also did not believe in angels (which is the only source that says this but let's assume that it's true). By your logic this would mean that the Sadducees rejected the Torah because it mentions angels. But since we know that the Sadducees did observe the Torah, this must mean that they interpreted angels differently than the mainstream. And since Josephus says that all Jews considered the OT to "contain divine doctrines" (and no one says that the Sadducees didn't accept all of the OT), I see their rejection of resurrection in the same light.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Nathan
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: What Would a Patripassian Gospel Look Like?

Post by Nathan »

davidbrainerd wrote:...there is gradation of inspiration is Judaism, Torah most inspired, prophets a little less, ketuvim a lot less. Daniel being in the ketuvim is a partial rejection in and of itself (as a fundie Christian would see it if he knew any of this) because its a denial of plenary inspiration.
The idea of graded inspiration was not fully developed until the Middle Ages, so it would probably be anachronistic to apply that idea to an earlier period, specifically when the Jewish canon was being formalized.

Certainly rabbinic Jews of late antiquity accepted the belief that (to borrow from 2 Timothy) all scripture was inspired by God, even the Writings. Rabbinic literature says things such as: "The Song of Songs ... was said by the holy spirit" (t. Yad. 2:14); "Esther was composed by the holy spirit" (b. Meg. 7a); "The holy spirit rested on [Solomon] and he composed three works: Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes" (Cant. Rabb. 1:1); and "when the spirit of prophecy was upon David" (Targum Pss. to Psalm 14).
davidbrainerd wrote:Per Jewish terminology Daniel is inspired of "A" holy spirit, i.e. written by a holy man but not a prophet.
Traditionally, all Jewish scripture originates with God (i.e., the holy spirit). According to the Talmud, even the Prophets and Writings were revealed to Moses at Sinai (b. Ber. 5a).
davidbrainerd wrote:This is one reason Jews are often shocked Christians are using Psalms as prophecy.
If they're shocked, it's only because they're disconnected from their own religious heritage. Historically speaking, Psalms has been used for prophetic purposes within the context of normative Judaism no less than Christianity. (The Midrash Psalms, for instance, is constantly finding prophetic value in the book.)
davidbrainerd wrote:Same applies to Daniel, that book is not a book of the prophets to Jews.
It's not a book of the Prophets, but it still has had prophetic significance for Jews.

Speaking of the rise of Islam in his Epistle to Yemen, for example, Maimonides would claim: "The event was predicted in the divinely inspired prophecy of Daniel."

Maimonides would go on to mention the false messiah from Andalusia, Ibn Aryeh, noting: "He cited a verse from Daniel to prove that ... a miracle was within the power of the Messiah: 'And behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man ... and there was given him dominion'."
Post Reply