Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I posted similar thoughts on the thread about Paul believing Jesus had come as a human being sometime in the past, but decided this perhaps should have its own thread.

The idea is simple. There were two beliefs around the turn of the century 2000 years ago re the Messianic passages of writings considered to be scripture:

First, that some kind of Suffering Servant would come to save the the nation from its sins, based greatly on a liberal interpretation of Isaiah 53, and other passages in Isaiah, and some other places.

Second, that the new Kingdom of God was at hand, which would include the judgement of mankind.

The expectation of the coming Judgement allowed for the creative idea that the Suffering Servant had already come to earth and suffered for the people. It wouldn't make sense to judge and condemn and THEN save, would it? No - Save first, then Judge. But also, this Savior was prophesied to be unrecognized as such: Isaiah 53:1

Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed .. 3. He was despised and forsaken of men

So, if you were Jewish and had concluded that the end judgement was near, then if you also bought into expectation of a Savior Messiah along the lines of a Suffering Servant, then you would be inclined to consider as legitimate the idea that the Savior had already come but that nobody to date had recognized that fact. This IMO increases the likelihood of accepting that a recent crucified man - Jesus - was that Savior, as well as the likelihood of accepting the idea that the Savior had come sometime in the past - details which were revealed through the study of Messianic passages in the OT and other accepted works at the time.

We tend to think in terms of the orthodox view: First a Savior, and only then start thinking about the end of the world. That sequence makes the stakes much higher for believing that a Savior had come or that any given person was that Savior since the requirements would be put on the actions of that Savior. But Jews 2000 years ago were ALREADY thinking about the end of the world being near while trying to make that jive with a whole jumble of Messianic or possibly Messianic passages, so any theory/idea that the Savior had already come would be ripe for acceptance, and with a lower bar for the level of proof normally required. And if their scriptures seemed to say in some places that he already came ('he was despised and forsaken of men'), that may have been all that was needed for some to believe it.

Perhaps not so coincidentally - This is Paul's Jesus: He came in the past, was unrecognized by the world, very little was known about him beyond what was prophesied, he brought salvation to those who believe in his act of salvation, and he will very soon come again to usher in Judgement.

TedM wrote:I posted similar thoughts on the thread about Paul believing Jesus had come as a human being sometime in the past, but decided this perhaps should have its own thread.

The idea is simple. There were two beliefs around the turn of the century 2000 years ago re the Messianic passages of writings considered to be scripture:

First, that some kind of Suffering Servant would come to save the the nation from its sins, based greatly on a liberal interpretation of Isaiah 53, and other passages in Isaiah, and some other places.

Second, that the new Kingdom of God was at hand, which would include the judgement of mankind.

I have often wondered how great a role various calendrical predictions from the scriptures and possibly other sources may have played in fueling eschatological expectations. The two main prophecies, to my mind, would be the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and the 10 weeks of 1 Enoch 91, 93. These predictions can be manipulated to end on various dates, and a lack of synchronized calendars in antiquity could contribute to fudging of those dates. But other predictions were ripe for interpretation based on (for example) signs in the heavens, such as the star prophecy of Numbers 24.17.

It seems to me that fervent expectation surrounding a particular time frame or date, based upon one or more of those prophecies, if disappointed, might lead to the assurance that the prediction did not actually fail, but rather succeeded, but the expected eschatological figure was incognito (and, of course, various scriptures could be trotted out as proof that this anonymity had been part of the plan all along).

I believe we need to reject any binary classification of non-historicist hypotheses (regarding early beliefs, e.g. Paul's beliefs).

When a binary classification is used -- Doherty or Wells, say -- a lot of rhetorical and logical strategies work that fail when there are more options.

We should probably try to keep track of our options.

1. Pre-existent in heaven, not pre-existent in heaven. (2 x)

2. Ever-below-earth, Ever-below-sublunar, Ever-below-heaven, and Never-below-heaven. (4 x)

3. Ever born as a man, ever fully and truly man, ever in the form of a man, never in the form of a man. (4 x)

There are more ways we can cut the salami, but we're already up to 32 different combinations (less if any of these are incompatible with each other).

Some of them have popular advocates.

Doherty: Pre-existent in heaven, never below heaven, never in the form of a man. (Platonic hypothesis)
Wells: Not sure (?), ever-below-sublunar, ever fully and truly man. (I think)

Personally I might guess:

Pre-existent in heaven, ever below earth, and ever in the form of a man.

And there are some more categories based on:

4. When was he ever below heaven (etc.), if he was, if it was defined?

5. Where was he ever on earth, if he was, if it was defined?

6. Did apostles claim appearances related to the resurrection, or did they not?

7. Did anyone claim that he had a Eucharistic type meal with the apostles, or did they not?

8. Where was he killed?

For example, some possible guesses are:

He was recently below heaven, he passed through earth and had some significant non-hidden activity post-resurrection, apostles claimed to see him resurrected, and apostles were claimed to have a Eucharistic type meal with him after the resurrection. He was killed by the prince of the air in an obscure location and buried under the earth. Or, he was killed under the earth when he intruded in the domain of the lord of this world.

There is a multifaceted, varied space of possibilities here. It's tempting to make a guess and beg others to disprove it. It's naturally appealing to want to be "sexy" or to go with what is familiar or to rebel against a perceived fad or whatever it is that motivates someone on a psychological level. But it's really not the way to go about it. We may have to live with ambiguity. And, if we want to answer any of these questions, we'll need careful argument.

TedM wrote:I posted similar thoughts on the thread about Paul believing Jesus had come as a human being sometime in the past, but decided this perhaps should have its own thread.

The idea is simple. There were two beliefs around the turn of the century 2000 years ago re the Messianic passages of writings considered to be scripture:

First, that some kind of Suffering Servant would come to save the the nation from its sins, based greatly on a liberal interpretation of Isaiah 53, and other passages in Isaiah, and some other places.

Second, that the new Kingdom of God was at hand, which would include the judgement of mankind.

The expectation of the coming Judgement allowed for the creative idea that the Suffering Servant had already come to earth and suffered for the people. It wouldn't make sense to judge and condemn and THEN save, would it? No - Save first, then Judge. But also, this Savior was prophesied to be unrecognized as such: Isaiah 53:1

Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed .. 3. He was despised and forsaken of men

-----------------------------



So, if you were Jewish and had concluded that the end judgement was near, then if you also bought into expectation of a Savior Messiah along the lines of a Suffering Servant, then you would be inclined to consider as legitimate the idea that the Savior had already come but that nobody to date had recognized that fact. This IMO increases the likelihood of accepting that a recent crucified man - Jesus - was that Savior, as well as the likelihood of accepting the idea that the Savior had come sometime in the past - details which were revealed through the study of Messianic passages in the OT and other accepted works at the time.

We tend to think in terms of the orthodox view: First a Savior, and only then start thinking about the end of the world. That sequence makes the stakes much higher for believing that a Savior had come or that any given person was that Savior since the requirements would be put on the actions of that Savior. But Jews 2000 years ago were ALREADY thinking about the end of the world being near while trying to make that jive with a whole jumble of Messianic or possibly Messianic passages, so any theory/idea that the Savior had already come would be ripe for acceptance, and with a lower bar for the level of proof normally required. And if their scriptures seemed to say in some places that he already came ('he was despised and forsaken of men'), that may have been all that was needed for some to believe it.

Perhaps not so coincidentally - This is Paul's Jesus: He came in the past, was unrecognized by the world, very little was known about him beyond what was prophesied, he brought salvation to those who believe in his act of salvation, and he will very soon come again to usher in Judgement.

What more could any messianic Jew possibly want, when looking back at history, than a Roman execution of a King and High Priest of the Jews?? Yes, for some Jews, if Antigonus was hung on a stake:

He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.

Yet...... given time, some messianic Jews could well have created a theological/spiritual story re that historical event. Retelling that historical event 70 years later as the gospel crucifixion and salvation story. The one hung on a stake (Cassius Dio) would be accursed and a stumbling block to many Jews. All it needed was for someone like Paul to take the new story, the new interpretation of history as salvation history, to the Gentiles. (And, obviously, having to minimize, as far as possible, Hasmonean history; history with it's zealot type activity against Rome. Jewish/Hasmonean nationalism could not be allowed to hamper the mission to the Gentiles. After all, the new spiritual kingdom had no need for any nationalistic aspirations - neither Jew nor Greek, all are one in Christ.)

------------

If one wants to argue that Cassius Dio has his facts wrong re Antigonus being hung on a stake and scourged - then one needs to answer this question: Why did Josephus not mention this - stating only that Antigonus was beheaded? Did Josephus really not know the historical details? Or did Josephus find reason to ignore this detail of Antigonus' execution. Josephus, in recording the history of Antigonus, had no reason to let his Jewish sensibilities over the Law impact upon his recording of that history. (he recorded other crucifixions). However, if Josephus had recorded details similar to Cassius Dio - that Antigonus was bound to a stake and scourged prior to being slain (by beheading) then the similarity between that historical event and the gospel Roman execution would be in plain view. Sometimes it is what is not said that can be more relevant than what is said....In other words; Josephus's omission of the details of the execution of Antigonus, allows the gospel crucifixion story to, as it were, stand alone, cut free from Hasmonean history.

(Josephus does of course have his story about his friend being taken down from the cross - after the Jewish War. A friend who survived a crucifixion - to die another day.)

=========================
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8018.shtml

''… Romans … hung up alive … killed by gentiles … second half of the 1st century BCE … Roman invasion … Jewish ruler … Roman invasion … executed … Roman invasion … who could this figure alluded to in these texts possibly be?

In what may come to be regarded as one of the more unusual, indeed astonishing, oversights in the history of Qumran scholarship, so far as is known it seems no previous scholar has proposed that Antigonus Mattathias, the last Hasmonean king of Israel, executed by the Romans in 37 BCE, might be the figure underlying the Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk or the doomed ruler of Pesher Nahum. The actual allusion of the figure of these texts, Antigonus Mattathias, remained unseen even though it was always in open view, as obvious as it could be. And in wondering how Antigonus Mattathias was missed in the history of scholarship I include myself, for I too missed this in my 2001 study of Pesher Nahum''.

==============================

Peter Kirby wrote:I believe we need to reject any binary classification of non-historicist hypotheses (regarding early beliefs, e.g. Paul's beliefs).

Yes, and I didn't mean to sound like that's what I am doing here. The main point of this thread is to observe that Apocalyptic expectations - to the degree that they existed - could well have accounted for the acceptance of the idea that someone had come as the expected Savior, whether that was in the distant or recent past, on earth or in the skies, in the flesh or some form of the flesh, etc.

I think without that expectation the stakes are pretty high for getting a lot of people to believe that such a Savior had ever existed, even recently. Those stakes are inversely proportional to the degree of Apocalyptic expectations.

This idea may help answer the question of HOW Christianity actually was able to catch on.

Peter Kirby wrote:Ever-below-earth, Ever-below-sublunar, Ever-below-heaven, and Never-below-heaven. (4 x)

Could you clarify what you mean by "below-sublunar"?

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:Ever-below-earth, Ever-below-sublunar, Ever-below-heaven, and Never-below-heaven. (4 x)

Could you clarify what you mean by "below-sublunar"?

On earth or on earth and below or below earth. In this context, though, it would be categorized as "ever below earth" if either of the latter two held. So, simply, on earth.

Peter Kirby wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:Ever-below-earth, Ever-below-sublunar, Ever-below-heaven, and Never-below-heaven. (4 x)

Could you clarify what you mean by "below-sublunar"?

On earth or on earth and below or below earth. In this context, though, it would be categorized as "ever below earth" if either of the latter two held. So, simply, on earth.

It is just that I was under the impression that the sublunary orb was thought to include everything under the moon, everything changeable and subject to death.

If this is just simple a semantic issue, though, then no worries.

Peter Kirby wrote:Ever-below-earth, Ever-below-sublunar, Ever-below-heaven, and Never-below-heaven. (4 x)

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Could you clarify what you mean by "below-sublunar"?

On earth or on earth and below or below earth. In this context, though, it would be categorized as "ever below earth" if either of the latter two held. So, simply, on earth.

It is just that I was under the impression that the sublunary orb was thought to include everything under the moon, everything changeable and subject to death.

If this is just simple a semantic issue, though, then no worries.

I guess that's in the idea of "sub"-lunar. It may have to be rephrased to "ever on earth."

TedM wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:I believe we need to reject any binary classification of non-historicist hypotheses (regarding early beliefs, e.g. Paul's beliefs).

Yes, and I didn't mean to sound like that's what I am doing here. The main point of this thread is to observe that Apocalyptic expectations - to the degree that they existed - could well have accounted for the acceptance of the idea that someone had come as the expected Savior, whether that was in the distant or recent past, on earth or in the skies, in the flesh or some form of the flesh, etc.

I think without that expectation the stakes are pretty high for getting a lot of people to believe that such a Savior had ever existed, even recently. Those stakes are inversely proportional to the degree of Apocalyptic expectations.

This idea may help answer the question of HOW Christianity actually was able to catch on.

It's a good idea. That reply of mine probably belonged in the previous thread mentioned ('couldn't ... Jesus ... human').