John2 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:54 pm
But Hosea uses the imagery of being raised up in the context of the fall and restoration of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is not about resurrection of the dead and an End Time Messiah figure. That Hos. 6:2 is interpreted that way in Rabbinic writings doesn't change this. They are only reflecting earlier Pharisaic views (as was Paul and other Christians and Fourth Philosophers).
I really don't agree. First the context is not important in a PESHER.
Secondly, the fact that Hosea 6:2 was interpreted as a verse about the resurrection of the dead in the rabbinic writings shows that PAUL did not invent anything since he most likely took over an earlier tradition concerning Hosea.
And it shows that he was not the only one to interpret this verse in this way. So Paul did not use Hosea 6:2 loosely since according to the interpretation of his time, Hosea was understood to refer to the resurrection of the bodies after 3 days. This is what Paul applies to the letter for Jesus.
But Sadducees used Hosea too, and as noted in the NT and Josephus, "the Sadducees ... say there is no resurrection."
Speculation. We have no Sadducean texts. We don't know if they used the Book of Hosea. The Jewish canon was not established in the days of the Sadducees.
And we know even less how they interpreted Hosea 6:2. On the other hand, we know how the rabbis interpreted Hosea 6:2 : in the same way as Paul
With such speculation, 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.
Hosea may use the imagery of resurrection, but he is talking about the fall and restoration of Israel and Judah in the 700's BCE and not an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead. So for me Paul/Christians/the Pharisees/Rabbinic Judaism/Fourth Philosophers are all playing loosely with the OT here.
This is what we call PESHER, Midrash. You may think that they are not respectful of the scriptures, but it is very interesting in order to understand how the NT was born. Once again we see that Paul is deeply rooted in the Judaism of his time.
But Paul is taking Is. 53 and Hos. 6:2 out of context by combining passages that aren't about an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead and applying them to an End Time Messiah figure and resurrection of the dead, in accordance with his time
Once again, context is of little importance in the interpretation of scripture that was practiced in Second Temple Judaism.
And since the majority of the Jews saw Isaiah's servant as the Messiah, this is very helpful in understanding how Paul conceived his theology. He did so by taking up the ideas of the Judaism of his time. Not by twisting the scriptures in an innovative and isolated way as some think.
And he 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.
But even with this limitation there is some contextual sense about the interpretations in the pesharim. Habakkuk isn't talking about the Romans, but he's talking about people who were like the Romans, in that they "march through the breadth of the earth to take possession of dwellings which are not their own" and "Therefore their sword is ever drawn to massacre nations mercilessly," and it doesn't seem like a stretch to apply these verses to the Romans
So changing the context of the book of Habakuk by replacing the Chaldeans to Romans doesn't bother you. And when the author of the Habakkuk pesher uses the context of the kingdom of Judah in the 7th century BC to interpret the persecution of the teacher in the 1st century AD, it's faithful to the scriptures.
On the other hand, when Paul takes a verse from Hosea that was interpreted by the Jews as being a verse about the resurrection of the dead, that bothers you because it is not respectful of the context.
That's a wonderful double standard
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. 4Q541 speaks of a future figure and Paul speaks of a past figure, but the Hodayot could be by and/or about the Teacher. In all cases there is a Suffering Servant figure described "according to the scriptures" in an End Time messianic context.
The Hodayot do not present a context of end times. It is a book that most scholars believe was written by the teacher of Righteousness. To explain his persecutions, not to describe the end times and the Messianic times.
Contrary to 4Q541 which presents a messianic figure based essentially on the servant of Isaiah. And not only chapter 53.
Hultgren notes some here (footnote 45 on pages 100-101) and I've seen two or three others I don't recall offhand.
Most scholars translate the verse in the future tense. And the majority believe that it refers to the coming Messiah and not to dead teacher of righteousness or the teacher redividus.
You can speculate that the sect believed their teacher had been resurrected and/or would return to earth in the near future. But that will remain speculation.