|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 17, 2012 13:29:05 GMT
Sankari writes: Many other commentators say it [the Kingdom of God's coming with power] refers to the Transfiguration. I concur with their interpretation. Other commentators doubt the historicity of the Transfiguration. Rather than a historical event, they conclude it is early Christian theology written as history--a common, accepted, and well-understood practice in that ancient world. Doubting is fair enough, but disproving will take a little extra work. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 17, 2012 20:59:12 GMT
You can interpret the words, e.g., "within you," this way, but it sounds too spiritual for a first century Jew and unlikely to be what (or all of what) Jesus and the author of Luke-Acts meant. This raises an interesting question, which Casey addresses, but not entirely satisfactorily in my opinion (so far - but I'm only part way through the book). He criticises the use of the criteria of dissimilarity (i.e. that anything in the stories of Jesus that is paralleled in first century Judaism or early christianity should be doubted as historical), because that effectively cuts Jesus off from his roots, and the church from its founder. So far so good. But he then on occasion uses a reverse criterion that anything which does not fit within first century Judaism should be rejected as historical, which has the effect of reducing Jesus' uniqueness, which he also recognises and knows he needs to preserve. (After all, it's not just anybody who could have the impact Jesus did.) But this leads to him rejecting that Jesus could have said things that no first century Jew would have said, e.g. about his own divinity. Now we have discussed this matter elsewhere on this forum, and I don't wish to re-visit those discussions, but I do think that Casey is using a wrong criterion here. Any historical assessment about Jesus must surely be grounded in first century Judaism, but we may reasonably assume that a figure like Jesus actually did and said things that were revolutionary for that culture. (Whether he actually talked about his divinity is not a question I wish to discuss here, I'm just pointing out that Casey's reasons for rejecting this seem to me to beg the question.) So I think the same with what you say here. If Jesus really was establishing God's kingdom on earth, and if it really was a different sort of kingdom than the Jews expected (i.e. Jesus was building on the past but re-interpreting it), then he would inevitably have to say things that wouldn't sound "right" to first century Jews. So while we still need to assess whether we can believe he said "the kingdom is within you" or not, I don't think your reasons for rejecting it are sound, for me at least. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 17, 2012 22:08:51 GMT
Any historical assessment about Jesus must surely be grounded in first century Judaism, but we may reasonably assume that a figure like Jesus actually did and said things that were revolutionary for that culture. We may, but we still need to prove it. I can't see how a nebulous feel-good 'kingdom of God within you' concept would be relevant, useful or encouraging to the Jews, and I don't even think it's particularly revolutionary. Jesus came to bring salvation and the promise of God's kingdom on Earth. He didn't come to bring post-modern humanism and a warm inner glow. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 18, 2012 7:14:05 GMT
He didn't come to bring post-modern humanism and a warm inner glow. I wouldn't describe "the kingdom of God is within you" in that way, and I do think it is revolutionary. In a Judaism that had developed hundreds of laws to support the Torah, changing the emphasis to attitude rather than observance, as in Matthew 5, was quite a step - and even a step too far for many christians today! And so was suggesting that the Messiah was a suffering servant, and the kingdom would be very different to a return to David's glories. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Dec 19, 2012 5:06:00 GMT
In a Judaism that had developed hundreds of laws to support the Torah, changing the emphasis to attitude rather than observance, as in Matthew 5, was quite a step - and even a step too far for many christians today! This was already well developed in the exilic prophets. It was not revolutionary within Second Temple Period Judaism. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 19, 2012 9:29:26 GMT
I wouldn't describe "the kingdom of God is within you" in that way You might not, but plenty of contemporary theologians characterise it in terms indistinguishable from my tongue-in-cheek description. If Jesus had said the kingdom of God was not going to be a literal reality associated with his Second Advent but would instead be some kind of nebulous spiritual experience, I agree that would have been revolutionary. Not so. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b) identifies the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as the Messiah: The Targum of the Books of the Prophets (1st Century AD) also identifies the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as the Messiah. Jesus did not say the kingdom would be very different to a return to David's glories. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 19, 2012 12:36:35 GMT
plenty of contemporary theologians characterise it in terms indistinguishable from my tongue-in-cheek description. I'm sorry, but I don't always recognise when you are serious and when you are tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps you can tell me seriously what you actually think about the statement in Luke 17:20-21 about the kingdom being "within you" or "among you", and my original statement that Jesus "did and said things that were revolutionary for that culture."? I'm not very knowledgable on these documents, but the section you have quoted comes from a document apparently written several centuries after Jesus, so I cannot see how that is relevant to the discussion. Perhaps you could explain please? You didn't give a quote from the Targums, so I cannot comment. Perhaps you could post that quote please? It sometimes is difficult on forums to keep track of what is being discussed. Let me check. I am saying primarily that while we must understand Jesus within first century Judaism, we cannot confine him to the established views and understandings of that time, or we rob him of uniqueness and revolutionary ideas that led to the formation of a whole new movement, first within Judaism and later apart from it. Rather, we must be willing to allow that he did and said some things that were indeed unique and revolutionary. Do you disagree with that? In support of that view, I suggested that Jesus' teachings and practice on his role in the kingdom of God, the nature of the people who joined that kingdom and the different approach to ethics as seen in Matthew 5, his actions which seem to point to him believing he was the Messiah, but a differently focused Messiah, and his teaching and actions against the temple and the religious leaders, were all not entirely typical of the time, some were quite unusual, and taken together they were quite revolutionary. Do you disagree generally with that? (I am not worried about minor details in what is a very brief outline.) Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 24, 2012 14:33:35 GMT
I'm sorry, but I don't always recognise when you are serious and when you are tongue-in-cheek. I was serious. Jesus was referring to himself; the future ruler of God's kingdom (this ties in with the transfiguration, which offered a vision of the glory he will possess at his second advent). But notice that he still refers to the kingdom as an eschatological event, not a current reality. In Jesus' theology, the kingdom of God had not yet arrived. I believe Jesus did and said a number of things which were revolutionary for that culture, but I don't believe they included a redefinition of God's kingdom and the Jewish Messiah. The Sanhedrin section of the Babylonian Talmud may have been compiled in written form during the Christian era, but it draws on a well established tradition which is confidently dated before Christ. The Sanhedrin tradition itself was operating as early as 57 BC and Jesus himself was prosecuted under its guidelines (admittedly, most of these were breached at the time!) The quote is from Isaiah 52:13-53:5, as follows: No, I don't disagree with that. Jesus must certainly be understood within the framework of his own socio-historical context. While he used language now redolent with Christian connotations, he spoke into the world of 1st Century Second Temple Judaism and it is that world which informs our interpretation of his message and identity (though our use of the Gospels calls for circumspection, as they echo later Christian reflection). Jesus is not easily categorised. He defied a number of social norms, but was not a social revolutionary – he told the Jews to pay their taxes and made no attempt to liberate slaves, emancipate women, replace the Jewish leaders, or overthrow the Romans. He observed the Law of Moses, but offered a new application of its principles while rejecting rabbinical innovations. He was an itinerant rabbi with no formal training, but taught in the synagogues. The diverse nature of Jesus' ministry defies simplistic stereotypes and invites a more exacting analysis. Most of these points are about Jesus' revelation that he was the Messiah, rather than a redefinition of the Messianic concept and the kingdom of God. So although I agree with you tentatively, I urge that we must be careful not to overstate the more 'radical' elements of Jesus' teaching and ministry. We should put our preconceptions aside and remain open to the prospect that his contemporaries knew a man substantially different from the one we hear preached in church. The available data is limited, and we must resist the temptation to over-reach it. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 24, 2012 22:19:27 GMT
Sankari, Thanks for your explanations. I don't feel there is as much difference between us first appeared. I don't feel convinced by your references to the Talmud and Targums, and I still think your characterisation of an alternative view to your own as "some kind of nebulous spiritual experience" is a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation. But I certainly agree with this: We should put our preconceptions aside and remain open to the prospect that his contemporaries knew a man substantially different from the one we hear preached in church. I will post more on this soon, as I am now more than halfway through Casey's book, and have found much of interest (mostly good, occasionally less so). But I think faith leads me to a view somewhere in the middle between conventional christianity and the scholars. I accept the verdict of the historians (not that there's always just one verdict) but I also think one has to decide if one believes in Jesus and his God or not. If not, then Jesus is of historical interest only; if so, then one has to believe that God was smart enough not to send Jesus and then allow his message to be totally misunderstood. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Dec 25, 2012 1:11:19 GMT
But I think faith leads me to a view somewhere in the middle between conventional christianity and the scholars. Hah! That's how I'd describe my own view.  |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 25, 2012 6:19:27 GMT
But I think faith leads me to a view somewhere in the middle between conventional christianity and the scholars. Hah! That's how I'd describe my own view.  |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 10, 2013 16:14:35 GMT
2. Casey's early dating for Mark, which would be very acceptable to me if I could believe it is true, seems to rest on two very doubtful assumptions to me, though I can see how they work for him: - the above assumptions about Jesus' predictions of the coming of the kingdom being not fulfilled, and
- his understanding that the "awful horror" did not occur in the 70CE rebellion, but was threatened by Caligula in 39CE.
These factors are enough for him to say, convincingly to me, that Mark wasn't written after 70CE, but that still leaves a date anywhere from 40-70CE. The early date is based almost solely on the awful horror, and that seems a bit tenuous to me. It seems Casey's point is quite subtle, though. The reason for linking the abomination of desolation with the Caligula Crisis is that a similar phrase (Mk. 13: 14 reads to bdelugma tês erêmôseôs) is used in Daniel 9: 27 in the LXX (both in the original LXX translation and the version of Theodotion) referring to Antiochus Epiphanes setting up a statue of himself in the Temple. (11: 31 TH also uses bdelugma, original LXX uses bdelugma erêmôseôs and in 12: 11 both use more or less the same phrase as in Mark.) I haven't done any lexicographical research on bdelugma (I only looked it up in a concordance of the NT), but the word is quite rare in the NT and the contexts do match better in Casey's scenario. However, I agree with your points on dating (with a caveat). It seems that such a prediction would be made around 39 AD (and unlikely to be made much later), but I don't see why that would have to mean the whole gospel was written then, opposed to simply one source. So I mostly agree with your range, except for that Casey also argues (I think convincingly) that the gospel of Matthew was written before 70. As Matthew used the gospel of Mark as a source, therefore the gospel of Mark had to have been completed quite some time earlier (40 - 60 seems like a reasonable range for the gospel of Mark). |
|
