Sinouhe wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:04 am
John2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:30 pm
I'm not a big fan of Daniel so I set that aside for a moment, figuring it might be tricky. But after taking another look at ch. 12, I see it the same way as Is. 26 and other OT resurrection passages (and am not alone in that).
It is impossible to prove that the Sadducees interpreted this verse differently, but it is possible to prove that the Pahrisians and Christians interpreted it in the same way :
Sanhedrin 92a:5
The Gemara returns to the topic of the source for
resurrection in the Torah. Rava says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Let Reuben live and not die, in that his men become few” (Deuteronomy 33:6). This is interpreted: “Let Reuben live” in this world “and not die” in the World-to-Come.
Ravina says that resurrection is derived from here: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting disgrace”
(Daniel 12:2). Rav Ashi says proof is derived from here: “But go you your way until the end be; and you shall rest, and arise to your lot at the end of days” (Daniel 12:13).
Paul obviously had the same interpretation of Daniel 12:2 since 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is based on Daniel 12:1-3.
But this is because Paul was once a Pharisee and Christianity (in my view) was a faction of Fourth Philosophic Judaism, which Josephus says "agree[s] in all other things with the Pharisaic notions."
I can't prove the Sadducees used exactly the same OT, but Josephus says all Jews used the same sacred books and Sadducees say they used the "holy scriptures" in M. Yad. 4:6:
The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands.
I'm unaware of any Pharisaic or Rabbinic complaints against the Sadducees for using a different version of the "holy scriptures". And since it's possible to interpret Dan. 12 (and Is. 26 and such) in the sense of a national restoration, as noted here (on pg. 22, in summary of arguments made by others on pgs. 9-17), I'm inclined to think this is what the Sadducees did.
Even though the majority of scholars agree that the author of the book of Daniel has a physical resurrection in view, there are those who continue to support the national resurrection. Usually they refer to the similarity of the language of Dan 12:2 with that of Isa 26:12-19 and Ezek 37. They also argue that the figure of awaking in the Old Testament is always used in a moral and not a literal sense.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/ ... sertations
I can't prove that the Sadducees understood Dan. 12 this way or even that they
used it, but it seems better to me to suppose that they did (since it's fairly easy to do) rather than that they used a different OT (which to my knowledge no one says).
... and even some Christians did not believe in resurrection. Do you think these Christians used a different OT than Paul, or did they interpret the same OT differently (perhaps according to what strikes me as the plain meaning)?
To which first century Christians are you referring?
The ones Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15:12-19:
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" ... For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.
This gives me the impression that there were some Christians that did not believe in resurrection and had a "hope in Christ ... for this life alone," which to me means there was (or was thought to be) a "this life" Jesus (perhaps the "Jesus other than the Jesus we preached" in 2 Cor. 11:4).
My take is that Paul just doesn't care about the "this life" Jesus. And the way he describes resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:44 ("It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body") gives me the impression that Jesus once had a "natural body,," as does Rom. 5:17 ("For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through
the one man, Jesus Christ!").
I think the Christians were a hierarchical sect. There were the apostles, the brothers of the lord and the ordinary Christians. And above all, all Christians were brothers and sisters of Christ (Romans 8:29). To see biological brothers in Galatians and 1 Corinthians 9:5 therefore seems to me illogical.
I suppose that could be the case, but it seems strange that James but not Peter would be a brother of the Lord and an apostle and a pillar. Why would Peter have been an apostle and a pillar but not a "brother of the Lord"? It seems simpler to me to suppose that James and Peter were apostles and pillars and James was Jesus' brother.
And in the big picture, for me the question of Jesus' historical existence is cleared up when we add 1 Peter and Mark (which I take to have been written by a follower of Peter, as per Papias) and Matthew (the only gospels said to have been known to Papias) and Hegesippus (who I think is a great source for early Christianity).