The Jesus Puzzle Pt 4 The Roots of Resurrection Sept 20
Here is point 4 from Doherty:
4) Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.
Evaluation:
Here is point 4 from Doherty:
4) Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.
Evaluation:
The claim Doherty makes here is that the resurrection comes from Scripture and a supernatural/mythic world alone. The point is to suggest there is nothing physical about these claims, nothing associated with a history of a figure Jesus.
The claim errs at two key points.
(1) The testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is rooted in a Jewish and Chrsitian view about the afterlife which was a hoped for physical resurrection of a real body, which is why Jesus’ death and resurrection can be a first fruits analogy of the hope Paul argues Christians have. In other words, Paul’s claim is "just like Jesus so for us one day." So Jesus MUST be raised physically for our hope to mean anything (vv 17-19). The Jewish roots of this view reaches back into resurrection hope as articulated in 2 Macc 7:9-11, 14:46 as well as texts in 4 Macc. 18:6-23. Ironically I had a post on the importance of this text earlier this year. The 2 Maccabees text makes it clear that the Pharisaical view and those of intertestamental Jews was that one day it would be their physical body that would be restored TO ITS FORMER STATE although in a glorified form.
(2) Not all the perspective of this resurrection event comes from Scripture as point 4 claims. There is a key Christian variation Doherty ignores. It is the idea of a resurrection in the midst of history. In Jewish texts, the resurrrection takes place before the end of history, before the judgment. If this event had been made up simply on Jewish precedent, then one would have expected the preaching to be God will raise up Jesus at the end and then Jesus will lead the judgment. However, this is not the message. There is a Christian "mutation" or variation on the Jewish view. Jesus was raised after three days. He was raised APART from all others within history, not at its end. Something caused those differences. The testimony of our sources is that a resurrection after three days did so. (In fact, one could ask how the three days was so solidified into the tradition if the story was being made up. Why are there not a variety of scenarios in terms of the timing?)
So here are two key factors that raise questions about point 4.
4 Comments
Magnus Nordlund
Redating the New Testament
Dr Bock! What’s your opinion of J A T Robinson’s account on “Redating the New Testament”?
Ive just bought it, and have started to read it and I have to admit: it is quite intriguing.
Sincerely Magnus Nordlund
bock
Redating dlb
Magnus:
It is a fascinating book. My take can be summarized in three points:
(1) It shows the factors that go into dating and how finely balanced those factors are.
(2) Yet the thesis itself has problems especially in my view in the Johannine materials.
(3) It also suggests that efforts to push dates very late (into the early second century in some cases) are problematic.
dlb
Magnus Nordlund
Ad 70-thesis concerning Luke
Thank’s Dr Bock for your clarification and opinion.
What I believe to be Robinson’s strongest point is the silence in the NT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the devastation connected to it.
However, it is rather easy to postulate that Mark and Matthew is writing before for ad 70; but how about Luke?
I do not find Robinsons argument to solid concerning the lukan account especially when Luke (possible) edited/altered the Markan contribution with
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near”. This seems evidently to be vaticinium ex eventu – or doesn’t it?
Dr Bock, what’s your stand on Luke? Pre-70 composition or post-70?
Sincerely
Magnus Nordlund
bock
AD 70 dlb
Magnus:
Not necessarily. All one needs to believe and know is:
(1) that Israel is unfaithful and so is subject to covenantal judgment (Deut 28-32)
(2) that Rome often wins her victories by seige (which was a common strategy).
Thus, the Lucan differences are not an alteration of Jesus’ message in the strict sense but developments of the implications of what Jesus said in that historical context. Such remarks could precede (or come after) AD 70. My own view is that Luke is writing in the late sixties where he is able to see how what Jesus said is in the process of being fulfilled (so not ex eventu).
dlb.