Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:29 am
... one could say that the Sadducees were using Isaiah 26 but not interpreting the verse as a resurrection of the dead. ditto for Daniel 12. Yet this is the best way to interpret these 2 chapters.

It doesn't seem like the best way to me, and the first book that came up on my Google books search explains it to my satisfaction (at least for Isaiah 26 and Ezekiel 37, but it's applicable to Is. 53 and Hos. 6:2 as well).

Isaiah 26 and Ezekiel 37 speak of the restoration of the people as a resurrection of buried bones. But nothing in these verses implies the expectation of a literal resurrection. The metaphor of resurrection is explicitly interpreted as a description of the people when they begin to live again under prophetic influence. Even the stirring phrases in Is. 26:19, which have contributed to the sophisticated doctrine of resurrection in later Judaism, appear to mean more than they do in fact.

Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For thy dew is a dew of light, and on the land of the shades thou shall let it fall.

This has been taken as a literal statement of resurrection. But like the vision of the dry bones in Ezekiel, Isaiah is speaking of the end of spiritual death and actual poverty that the nation was experiencing.The revived bones are part of Isaiah's metaphor for national deliverance (26:15-16):

But thou has increased the nation, O Lord, thou hast increased the nation; thou are glorified; thou hast enlarged all the borders of the land.

In other words, the dwellers in the dust are the symbolically dead in the nation, whom God will cause to revive by prophecy. All of these references were to be creatively reunderstood when the note of resurrection was clearly sounded within the society, in the first and second century CE.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Re ... frontcover



Daniel is another matter (which the author goes on to address), but I think it's fair to assume that this is more or less how the Sadducees (like some later Karaites) understood Is. 26 and similar passages since they didn't believe in resurrection of the dead. And it seems like the plain meaning of Is. 26 (and Is. 53 and Hos. 6:2) to me, in any event.

In addition to my limited internet time, I've somehow been losing some longer responses to you (perhaps because of an issue with my computer or with this website, but it only happens when I'm on this site), so I'm keeping my posts shorter for the time being and will try to address some other things you've said as time allows. I respect and enjoy your knowledge and feedback.
Last edited by John2 on Thu Mar 23, 2023 3:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:29 am
John2 wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:54 pm
And he [Paul] wasn't limited to a line by line commentary of one book of prophecy like the pesharim. All he has to do is say "according to the scriptures" (meaning, according to this or that verse in this or that book), while the pesher writers are "stuck" with commenting line by line on one book.
This is another way of doing Pesher. Maybe Paul did it this way too, outside of his letters. Who knows? But it's obvious that Paul does make Pesher in his letters. And Mark will do the same.

https://academic.oup.com/book/27702/cha ... m=fulltext

Besides, the sectarians of Qumran did not have only one way of making pesharim. We see it for example in the Damascus Document, in the hymn of self-glorification, in 4Q541, in 4Q521, in 11Q13, in the Hodayot : they could use verses of the Bible to make pesharim without necessarily focusing on the whole book of the prophets with a line by line commentary.

I noted this above ("And when the DSS writers aren't bound to commenting line by line on something in 4Q541 or the Hodayot, they describe a figure using Isaiah (or "according to the scriptures") like Paul does for Jesus").

It sounds like we are in agreement about Paul and the DSS doing the same thing, mixing and matching various OT verses out of context and applying them to someone important in an End Time/messianic context. That it is in keeping with mainstream Judaism doesn't mean they aren't "loosely" interpreting these verses. The only difference is that you think Paul is talking about an unhistorical person, and I can appreciate that if you limit yourself to Paul, but even then I don't agree with you, namely because of the "brother" issue and the example of the DSS, since I think the Teacher was a real person (whether he is the "star" or not).
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by Sinouhe »

John2 wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:21 pm
While he doesn't name the books, Josephus says there was a canon of twenty two books in Against Apion 1.8. And while it is speculation as to which books he means, I think all the OT books fit his descriptions well. And if the Sadducees didn't use the same sacred books as other Jews, I think Josephus would have said so (like he says they were opposed to the oral Torah of the Pharisees).


This is speculative. But in this case, one could also imagine that the Sadducees had their own transcriptions of the verses that mention the resurrection (Isaiah 26, Daniel 12). In short, it's all speculation.

All things considered, I'm comfortable with the idea that the Sadducees used the same books as other Jews. And since they didn't believe in resurrection, they presumably interpreted Hos. 6:2 differently than the Pharisees and those reflecting them.

I for one prefer to stick to available sources rather than speculate on what we don't have.
And what we do know is that Paul and the Pharisees believed that Hosea 6:2 was also about the resurrection of the dead. Im sorry but i don't really understand where you want to go with speculating about the Sadducees of whom we know almost nothing and have no written sources from them :confusedsmiley:
Daniel is another matter (which the author goes on to address), but I think it's fair to assume that this is more or less how the Sadducees (like some later Karaites) understood Is. 26 and similar passages since they didn't believe in resurrection of the dead. And it seems like the plain meaning of Is. 26 (and Is. 53 and Hos. 6:2) to me, in any event.
In addition to my limited internet time, I've somehow been losing some longer responses to you (perhaps because of an issue with my computer or with this website, but it only happens when I'm on this site), so I'm keeping my posts shorter for the time being and will try to address some other things you've said as time allows. I respect and enjoy your knowledge and feedback.
No problem, but I find that we are departing of the original subject.
It sounds like we are in agreement about Paul and the DSS doing the same thing, mixing and matching various OT verses out of context and applying them to someone important in an End Time/messianic context. That it is in keeping with mainstream Judaism doesn't mean they aren't "loosely" interpreting these verses. The only difference is that you think Paul is talking about an unhistorical person, and I can appreciate that if you limit yourself to Paul, but even then I don't agree with you, namely because of the "brother" issue and the example of the DSS, since I think the Teacher was a real person (whether he is the "star" or not).
Yes, this is precisely where our opinions differ. I can understand why you think that Jesus is a historical figure. This is the most logical solution if we take into account the Jesus of the gospels and the 2000 years of history that followed. However, I remain convinced that Paul's Jesus is far too ambiguous to deduce that he was a historical figure of the first century CE.
And to solve the enigma of Paul's Jesus with an ambiguous verse like Galatians 1:19 seems to me to be far too light.

We have also not been able to agree on how the Essenes and Paul interpreted the scriptures differently in interpreting the life of the teacher/Jesus, although they use the same method: the Pesher.

I am convinced that Paul uses the scriptures to find the life of Jesus. Exactly what Mark does when he invents anecdotes from the life of Jesus using the scriptures. Whereas the Essenes try by all means to make the scriptures coincide with the history of their community and their teacher, even if it means using verses that have nothing to do, neither in the context nor in their meaning (even symbolic) with the historical events to which the Essenes compare them. This seems to me to be diametrically opposed to what Paul is doing.

On the other hand, when the Essenes speak of eschatological (and therefore non-historical) characters, strangely enough their interpretation of the scriptures is much closer to what Paul does, since they are obviously free: they do not need to make history coincide with the scriptures.

I think that's what Paul is doing too.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Sinouhe wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:41 am
John2 wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:21 pm
While he doesn't name the books, Josephus says there was a canon of twenty two books in Against Apion 1.8. And while it is speculation as to which books he means, I think all the OT books fit his descriptions well. And if the Sadducees didn't use the same sacred books as other Jews, I think Josephus would have said so (like he says they were opposed to the oral Torah of the Pharisees).


This is speculative. But in this case, one could also imagine that the Sadducees had their own transcriptions of the verses that mention the resurrection (Isaiah 26, Daniel 12). In short, it's all speculation.



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).

And while I can't prove that the Sadducees understood these verses this way, or even that they used the same verses, Josephus says that "all Jews" used the same books, 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)?

(1 Cor. 15:12) 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?


I can understand why you think that Jesus is a historical figure. This is the most logical solution if we take into account the Jesus of the gospels and the 2000 years of history that followed.

Right, and that's what I do for sure, take into account other early Christian writings to understand Jesus. If we stick with just Paul, then yes, there's not much to go on, and a case for mythicism can be more effectively argued.

I've gone over the "brother of the Lord" issue, but I'm curious how you see it and why. For example, do you think there was a special group called "the brothers of the Lord" that James but not Peter was a part of, and if so, what do you base that on? I ask not to challenge you, since I think all anyone can do is guess (if you stick with Paul), but just to understand your reasoning.

We have also not been able to agree on how the Essenes and Paul interpreted the scriptures differently in interpreting the life of the teacher/Jesus, although they use the same method: the Pesher.

You seem to have a more precise grasp on this subject than I do, but for me it amounts to Paul and the DSS doing the same thing ("the same method") in different ways, and that seems to be the same thing you're saying. We both see the forest (that they both do pesher) but you see the trees better (the precise ways that they do it and the implications of it).
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by Leucius Charinus »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 7:11 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:11 pmIf so, upon what foundational evidence does the historicity of Paul rely? I just don't see any. Paul is not mentioned by any writer in antiquity outside of the church. Except by Seneca. But nobody wants to go there and for good reason.
Paul is a literary figure as much as Jesus is. Nearly everyone living before 1000 CE exists as literary figures. If you or I are known in any way in a thousand year's time, we will be literary figures reconstructed from our Internet writings.
That's not entirely true. For example rulers who produced coins with their name on the coins are almost certainly guaranteed to have existed in history. The way I see it is that a chronological backbone of history extending back to the 8th century BCE can be reconstructed by numismatic evidence. Ditto for anyone mentioned in all sorts of inscriptions, or on relics of various forms including grave-stones.

We may not mint coins or have a grave-stone but we could carve our name on stone or on a surfboard.
The question is: why does the literary figure exist? That's when we start with assumptions. The foundational evidence for the historicity of Paul relies on those assumptions.
I agree that the evidence for both Jesus and Paul relies on inferences and assumptions.

One of the major problems I have with traditional Christian origins (and thus an HJ) is the lack of "IS XS" (the runes -- nomina sacra -- for Jesus Christ) carved on anything before the 3rd century at the earliest. If we grant that the traditional Jesus Christ story is historical this implies thousands if not millions of Christians existed between the 1st and the early 4th century. Why did any of these followers not simply scratch "now with XS" on a tombstone or a relic? Or "I love XS"? Or "I believe in "IS XS"? It would have been so easy yet we don't see this evidence.

And in terms of "The question: why does the literary figure exist?" we must also ask what is the date of the earliest physical manuscript in which the literary figure appears. We have discussed this earlier. What you and most others refer to as the "earliest texts" are physically represented by manuscripts often a thousand years or more removed from the primary time period in which we are trying to reconstruct an historical or mythical Jesus. We may infer these to be an accurate copy of a copy (---->) of what once was written in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th century. But the inference has no guaranteed truth value.

Some people here -- not all -- think I am merely repeating my own theories whereas what I have been repeating are essential criteria of historical authenticity which are recognised as instrumental in the application of the historical method.

Image

Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26972493

andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by andrewcriddle »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:42 pm ...................................
Some people here -- not all -- think I am merely repeating my own theories whereas what I have been repeating are essential criteria of historical authenticity which are recognised as instrumental in the application of the historical method.

Image

Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26972493

See https://ezinearticles.com/?Jesus-the-Ma ... id=1593610

Andrew Criddle
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by lclapshaw »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 3:35 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 9:42 pm ...................................
Some people here -- not all -- think I am merely repeating my own theories whereas what I have been repeating are essential criteria of historical authenticity which are recognised as instrumental in the application of the historical method.

Image

Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26972493

See https://ezinearticles.com/?Jesus-the-Ma ... id=1593610

Andrew Criddle
The article uses dia chrstou ogoistais when I plainly see dia chrestou on the cup.

From our own David Hindley

At this site the whole inscription can be seen.

It looks to me like the Greek words DIACRHSTOV OGOISTIAS or maybe the reverse OGOISTIAS DIACRHSTOV

DIA ("dia" = through or by-means-of with words in Gentitive/Ablative case, because-of with words in accusative case)

CRHSTON ("ChrEston" = adjective χρηστός, accusative masculine singular -or- vocative neuter singular -or- accusative neuter singular -or- nominative neuter singular = virtuous, good, useful; docile, pleasant, kind. The online articles misspell this, leaving out the H/eta, and they also treat the letter that looks like an "N" as a Roman style "U", making this CRHSTOU = "ChrEstou" which is either the substantive χρήστης, genitive masculine singular = lender, or adjective χρηστός, genitive masculine/neuter singular = virtuous, good, useful; docile, pleasant, kind as above)

or alternatively

DIACRHSTON (possibly "thorougly good/useful")

O (I don't actually see it in the photo, but the masculine singular "ho" = "the" in the nominative case)

GOISTIAS ("goistais" = no regular word, but may be based on GOHS = "goEs" howling-street-magician, but with no forms approximating this spelling).

alternatively:

OGOISTAIS (not a known word, but could be the technical term for a religious association dedicated to the god Osogo or Ogoa, whom Strabo and Pausanias name as a divinity worshipped in Milas, in Caria)

or alternatively

OGOIS (not a known word, but see above regarding the god OGOA)

TAIS ("tais" = article ταῖς, dative feminine plural of the definite article "the")

which of course makes no sense.

I'd propose it is a drinking cup of the "Thoroughly useful association of Ogoa worshippers". Wine, anyone?

How about a cheap giveaway gift cup "Compliments of your creditor, the association of Ogoas worshippers." My mortgage lender likes to send me calendars to ensure I don't forget I owe them $170,000.

DCH

http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearch ... stcount=10

frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearchives/showpost.php?p=6493889&postcount=10

John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by John2 »

Alright, so if we have to stick with Paul and the "brother of the Lord" issue is too ambiguous, the one that sticks out the most to me is 1 Cor. 15:42-49.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

46The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so also are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so also shall we bear the likeness of the heavenly man.


It all hinges on this for me, and I'm just not satisfied with Doherty's take on it (from what I've read of his work that's available online and what others have written about him online and from what he has written in various forums). And I feel like I gave Doherty a fair shake and I respect his awareness of ancient sources and appreciate his perspective even if I don't agree with it. I learned some new things from the experience and who knows, maybe I'll "see the light" someday. And it wouldn't hurt to take a fresh look at it.

His understanding of "man" and "body" and such just hasn't set right with me, but perhaps someone here could give it a shot. For me Paul appears to be saying that Jesus once had a natural body that became a spiritual body when he was resurrected. And my take on "the last Adam" is that Jesus was the last person who was "borne in the likeness of the earthly man" before becoming "a life giving spirit" when he was resurrected.

Jesus was the last earthly person ("the last Adam") before becoming the "first fruits" of the resurrection (the "heavenly man" that Christians will now be like). First comes the natural (with the earthly human part of Jesus being the "last Adam"), then comes the spiritual (with the resurrected Jesus being then first "heavenly man").

I think the "life giving spirit" is said to be "from heaven" because it's a separate, heavenly entity ("Christ") than the human Jesus, but it seems to have become infused into the human Jesus at some point in his earthly life time, to judge from Php. 2:6-8 ("Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man").

I confess I'm not sure how this works exactly (to me it's just a bunch of messianic mumbo jumbo), but for the issue of an historical Jesus, this has to be factored in somehow, and I'm curious to see what others here make of it (whether for or against and HJ).

It's all on this then if the "brother of the Lord" isn't enough and we don't count the gospels or other NT letters. What's the best way to understood these passages in light of the HJ or no HJ question? I'm trying my best to understand this "mumbo jumbo" (which in any case I think of as being Fourth Philosophic crazy talk) and am open to hearing other ideas.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by Sinouhe »

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.

And while I can't prove that the Sadducees understood these verses this way, or even that they used the same verses, Josephus says that "all Jews" used the same books, 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?
I've gone over the "brother of the Lord" issue, but I'm curious how you see it and why. For example, do you think there was a special group called "the brothers of the Lord" that James but not Peter was a part of, and if so, what do you base that on? I ask not to challenge you, since I think all anyone can do is guess (if you stick with Paul), but just to understand your reasoning.
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.

You seem to have a more precise grasp on this subject than I do, but for me it amounts to Paul and the DSS doing the same thing ("the same method") in different ways, and that seems to be the same thing you're saying. We both see the forest (that they both do pesher) but you see the trees better (the precise ways that they do it and the implications of it).
When I read the pesharim in the DSS, I see that the sectarians are trying to make the life of the teacher fit in with what the prophets say. It is often clumsy and far-fetched.
This is not what I see in Paul since the life of Jesus in Paul is the PERFECT reflection of the servant of Isaiah.
This is an important nuance I think.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

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).
Post Reply