Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MattMorales wrote:Whether or not there was single idea of a warrior messiah, let us not forget the early belief that Christ, in his second coming, would fulfill that function. The eschatology of 1 Corinthians...

A few references would be nice. As is, the claim seems without basis.

MattMorales wrote:...and numerous references to the Son of Man in Mark shed light on a belief that the messiah would come down directly from heaven.

You don't know when Mark was written, though obviously it was written after the Jewish war given the parable of the wicked tenants in Mk 12. It's hard to claim that Mark represented "early belief".

The writer was obviously confused about the Daniel source which doesn't talk about the son of man coming down from heaven, but about one like a son of man (ie looking human) going up to heaven. This points to another of those retrofit justifications of Jesus being the guy. Paul knows nothing of the strange notion.

MattMorales wrote:Also see the function of Melchizedek in 11Q13.

The function of Melkizedek is a priestly one and in the DSS the priests are related to the angels who minister in the heavenly temple. The connection between the first section regarding Melkizedek and the second (starting end of col 2 line14) is not clear as there is no mention of Melkizedek. This is a fragment without context so we don't know how Melkizedek fits or if the second section deals with him at all. Lacunae can depend on the whims of the translators. Melkizedek may be the high priest figure found in 1QSa who has the first portion of the first fruits while the messiah of Israel goes next.

spin wrote:It's hard to claim that Mark represented "early belief".

I would only argue some earlier beliefs, in context.


Do you doubt Gmark is a compilation?

outhouse wrote:

spin wrote:It's hard to claim that Mark represented "early belief".

I would only argue some earlier beliefs, in context.

Do you doubt Gmark is a compilation?

The Pauline corpus is our earliest christian literary tradition. At that time the weird shit was only in the head of the writer, belief in supernatural beings and acts of divine salvation. How much water under the bridge before we get stories of a verisimilous faith-healing savior walking and talking poured onto gospel pages??

Would someone please confirm that there are actually statements by Paul about a second coming or coming again or variants.

spin wrote:

MattMorales wrote:Whether or not there was single idea of a warrior messiah, let us not forget the early belief that Christ, in his second coming, would fulfill that function. The eschatology of 1 Corinthians...

A few references would be nice. As is, the claim seems without basis.

Sure. Although, I am not sure exactly what I am trying to prove. The OP is not completely incorrect that Paul somewhat evolves the concept of messiah, but it seems from the numerous texts we have that ideas about the messiah were fairly fluid. What does seem clear is that there were parties who linked the messianic age to the eschaton. Paul does not explicitly liken Christ to a warrior, but Christ is set to appear at the end of days, when the worldly authorities will be overthrown and all of mankind judged. See 1 Corinthians 15:21-28 taking special note of verses 24-25. Thus, we are not just talking about spiritual salvation, but the end of days when worldly powers will be upheaved and God will impose his direct reign. "All" will be subjected to him.

spin wrote:

MattMorales wrote:...and numerous references to the Son of Man in Mark shed light on a belief that the messiah would come down directly from heaven.

You don't know when Mark was written, though obviously it was written after the Jewish war given the parable of the wicked tenants in Mk 12. It's hard to claim that Mark represented "early belief".

The writer was obviously confused about the Daniel source which doesn't talk about the son of man coming down from heaven, but about one like a son of man (ie looking human) going up to heaven. This points to another of those retrofit justifications of Jesus being the guy. Paul knows nothing of the strange notion.

The OP cites a passage from 1 Thessalonians which does depict Jesus as similar to Daniel's Son of Man descending from the sky, with the elect riding a cloud up to heaven. Regardless of whether Christian sources misused Daniel, the belief is there. I would not be hasty to pin anything in Mark back to a HJ either, but Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet is a leading theory for a reason. Paul (as I cited) exhibits a similar eschatology. Mark's "Little Apocalypse" could not date much after 70CE, since it is at that point that the predictions start to go south (the city was reduced to rubble, but the "abomination of desolation" was never erected) and Mark already shows embarrassment that the parousia had not arrived on schedule. Of course, I am not saying Jesus himself preached a heavenly messiah, but it's possible his disciples adapted this mindset after his death, and they had enough scriptural materials to justify it in their minds.

spin wrote:

MattMorales wrote:Also see the function of Melchizedek in 11Q13.

The function of Melkizedek is a priestly one and in the DSS the priests are related to the angels who minister in the heavenly temple. The connection between the first section regarding Melkizedek and the second (starting end of col 2 line14) is not clear as there is no mention of Melkizedek. This is a fragment without context so we don't know how Melkizedek fits or if the second section deals with him at all. Lacunae can depend on the whims of the translators. Melkizedek may be the high priest figure found in 1QSa who has the first portion of the first fruits while the messiah of Israel goes next.

"13 Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the vengenance required by Go[d`s] statutes.
Also, he will deliver all the captives from the power of Belial, and from the power of all the spirits destined to him."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls/11Q13

Is there something I'm missing in this translation? It seems Melchizedek functions as more than simply a high priest here. More of an angelic warrior priest perhaps.

spin wrote:

outhouse wrote:

spin wrote:It's hard to claim that Mark represented "early belief".

I would only argue some earlier beliefs, in context.

Do you doubt Gmark is a compilation?

The Pauline corpus is our earliest christian literary tradition.

So what? Not the price of tea in China is it?

Our earliest traditions states there were other teachers and literature out there.

Paul joined a movement in progress. He started nothing.

Gmark is a compilation of traditions some oral some written.

At that time the weird shit was only in the head of the writer, belief in supernatural beings and acts of divine salvation.

Common for thousands of years. And was not invented by the sources we have now.

How much water under the bridge before we get stories of a verisimilous faith-healing savior walking and talking poured onto gospel pages??

Right after he was murdered by Romans at Passover, and people found importance in his martyrdom due to what was perceived as a selfless act.


The Hellenistic split from Judaism was long overdue. This martyrdom was the perfect catalyst, added with the fall of the temple equaling the final divorce verdict found in the gospels.