My original point was not that the followers of the Teacher of Righteousness randomly mixed OT verses to make pesharim, but that they clumsily or loosely used OT verses to try to interpret the Teacher's life after the fact.John2 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:15 pm Of course! I overlooked that. But the "third day" part is still presumably derived from Hos. 6:2, so it remains an example of Paul playing "fast and loose with the OT" by mixing various passages together regardless of their original context (like the DSS do for the Teacher)
Few examples :
1Q14, fragments 8-10, lines 3-11: 3
1QpHab, columns 7-9, lines 17, 1-13, & 1-12a: 7.17[.... «What are the high places of Judah? Is it not Je]rusa[lem? I will reduce Samaria] 4 [to a country ruin, to a plot of vines» (= Micah 1.5b-6a). ~] Its interpretation concerns the Spreader of the Lie 5 [who has misdirected the] simple. ~ «What are the high places of Judah? 6 [Is it not Jerusalem?» Its interpretation con]cerns the Teacher of Righteousness who 7 [teaches the law to] his [council] and to a[l]l those volunteering to join the chosen of 8 [God, observing the law] in the council of the Community, those who will be saved from the day of 9 [judgment ...] .... [....] 10 [.... «As for what he says, I will reduce Samaria to] a country ruin» (= Micah 1.6) 11 [....] .... [....]
1QpHab, columns 11-12, lines 2b-17 & 1-10: 2b[.... «But the righteous man will live because of their loyalty to him» (= Habakkuk 2.4b).] 8.1 Its interpretation concerns all observing the Law in the House of Judah, whom 2 God will free from the house of judgment on account of their toil and of their loyalty 3 to the Teacher of Righteousness.
8 «For the human blood (spilt) and the violence (done) to the country, the city and all /who dwell/ in it» (= Habakkuk 2.8b). ~ 9 Its interpretation concerns the [Wi]cked Priest, whom, for the wickedness against the Teacher of 10 Righteousness and the members of his council, God delivered into the hands of his enemies to disgrace him 11 with a punishment, to destroy him with bitterness of soul for having acted wickedly 12a against his elect.
4Q163, fragments 4-6, column 1, lines 6-7: 6«Woe to anyone making his companion drunk, spilling out 3 his anger, or even making him drunk to look at their festivals» (= Habakkuk 2.15)! 4 ~ Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest who 5 pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to consume him with the heat 6 of his anger in the place of his banishment.
[.... «And YHWH has cut off from Israel head and tail, reed and ru]sh in one day» (= Isaiah 9.14; refer to verse 15, as well). The old 7 and of radiant face, he is the head; and the prophet, the Teacher of Lies,] he is the tail.
This is quite different from what Paul does, since he does not choose vague verses to try to interpret the life of Jesus, but rather makes certain OT passages a perfect reflection of the life of Jesus. For example, Jesus checks off all the servant boxes in Isaiah 53:
1/ Persecuted
2/ While he is innocent
3/ He accepts his fate to sacrifice himself to save humanity from sin
4/ He is put to death
5/ He is Pierced
6/ Put in the tomb
7/ Resurrected
8/ Exalted to heaven.
All of this is from Isaiah 53 and Jesus checks off all the boxes. We are not on this kind of thing with the Teacher. When we read the Pesharim, we see that their authors interpret the prophets in the light of the Teacher's life. Clumsily.
On the one hand we have the Teacher:
- Whose life is interpreted awkwardly or loosely on the scriptures
- Whom his disciples call the founder of the Qu'mran covenant
- Who taught his disciples
- Who is said to have been persecuted by a wicked priest which gives a historical framework
- And most scholars even attribute to him the authorship of the Hodayot text
And on the other side we have :
- a pre-existent character
- co-agent of creation
- resurrected
- Exalted in Heaven
- who communicates with his apostles through supernatural visions
- and who ticks all the boxes of the servant (Isaiah 53)
This obviously tends to make the teacher more human than Jesus in Paul.
There is no doubt about it.
.Right, but it was a common name, and I approach it from the perspective of viewing James as Jesus' brother, so for me it can also work as a coincidence
It is common to give names, even to mythical characters. The angel Raphael has a name, for example. Hadassah (Esther) has a name. Judith has a name. I don't think that Paul calling his lord by the name of Jesus is a decisive argument.
Stauroó / σταυρόω in the pauline epistles does not necessarily mean crucified in the sense of the Roman practice of the term. Paul never links the crucifixion of Jesus to the Romans. A more appropriate term would be impaled on an upright stake.Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean crucifixion in the original context. It's more ambiguous than that. So this is an example of Paul reading into (or "playing fast and loose with") the OT.
This is obviously similar to the term "pierced" in Isaiah 53:5, which the early Christians must have used to interpret Isaiah 53.
That's what it purports to be and I've thought this for a number years now and I wouldn't call myself a Christian apologist. I've never been a Christian or have any interest in being one and have no religious interest whatsoever in any form of messianism, including that of the Fourth Philosophy, which I view Jesus and his followers as being akin to. To think that a person with (from my view) crazy beliefs existed and wrote an extant letter doesn't mean that their beliefs were true, and in any event, whether or not it's genuine, I think the author of 1 Peter had crazy beliefs, and I assume that isn't the point of view of a Christian apologist.
I didn't make you an apologist but it seems to me that most researchers consider 1 Pierre to be a forgery except for conservative scholars and so Richard Carrier. The latter obviously uses this letter because it is useful for his agenda. Personally, I think it would be better to focus only on Paul rather than on a dubious letter like 1 Peter.