[XTalk] 4Q521 was (Re: Messiah in spite of himself)
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Richard H. Anderson"
>But you omitted this key phrase from 5Q521: and revive the deadI did not omit the reference to the raising of the dead, as it is in
>And Jesus answers:
>Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind
>receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf
>hear, the dead are raised up. . . .
my original post.
But I do not see Luke drawing his language from 4Q521, but, rather,
from previously known texts like Mark and Isaiah. As for Luke's
reference to the raising of the dead, I consider this to an
apologetic on his part, as there was a near univeral expectation
that the Messianic Age would include a general resurrection of *all*
of the dead (cf. Daniel 12:2 and other interetestimonial evidence).
This is how I read 4Q521, as it is obviously referring to the dawn
of the Messianic Age as well. But Luke knows that there has been no
such universal resurrection, so he uses the evidence of the raising
of Jairus' daughter, and the widows son as evidence that this
Messianic expectation has been fulfilled, along with the other
expectations we find in Isaiah. In other words, he changes the
expectation from a general resurrection of everyone, to a more
specific case of the Messiah (Jesus) raising certain people from the
dead, and thereby seeks to recast the debate over the fulfillment of
>Isaiah 61:1 says nothing about this anointed one raising the dead.See above. The expectation for the Messianic Age was that all of
>5Q521 is a document predating or contemporary with the writing of
>the gospels. Only Luke follow the quote from Isaiah 61 with a
>mention that Elijah raised the son of the widow and follows up by
>reporting that Jesus raised the son of a widow from Nain. This
>event is not reported by any of the other gospel writers. Is
>reviving the dead a sign of the Messiah? I think so.
the dead would be raised, and 4Q521 is consistent with this belief.
Luke, on the other hand, wishes to argue that it is not a general
resurrection, but only specific raisings of the dead by the Messiah
that are to be expected. Matthew makes a similar argument, albeit
in a different way, having "many tombs open, and the dead come out"
when Jesus dies on the cross. Both Matt and Luke are aware of the
difficulty here. No general resurrection has taken place, and this
is a big part of why Jesus' Messianic claims have been rejected by
the Jews. So they argue that while a general resurrection will take
place at some point in the future (the Second Coming), Jesus *did*
fulfill this part of the expectation, but in an unexpected way.
(Just a point of clarification, but we are talking about 4Q521?)
>Did Luke gets this from Mark? No. I think it is fair to say thatBut we already see from Luke's infancy narrative that John the
>5Q521 is evidence that raising the dead was one of key expectations
>of the Messianic Age in the community that produced 5Q521. Only
>Luke makes the connection and does so by linking Jesus to Elijah
>who raised the son of the widow. The linkage to Elijah is
>significant because Judaism taught that it will be Elijah the
>Prophet who announces the heralding of the messianic era.
Baptist is the one who is Elijah (Luke 1:17, confirmed by John being
the one who prepares in the way for the coming of the Messiah in
Luke 3:2-20, a role assigned to Elijah in Messianic expectations).
Jesus' resurrection of the widow's son is, indeed, connected to the
same miracle being performed by Elijah, but this does not mean that
Luke thinks that Jesus is a High Priest. Luke's portrayal of Jesus
is as the Davidic Messiah, both in GLuke, and in Acts.
>You see no awareness by Luke of the DSS. I note you did notYou would have to assume (a) that Mark represents Peter's view, (b)
>dispute my statement that The Lucan Jesus rejected not only Peter's
>vision of the messiah but also the vision of the Qumran community
>of a priestly messiah.
that Luke knows that it represents Peter's view, and (c) that Luke
is actually rejecting that view as presented in Mark. The first two
are uncertain, and (c) is incorrect in my view. Luke does present
Jesus as the Davidic Messiah even more strongly than does Mark. As
for him rejecting the Essene expectation of a priestly messiah, I do
not see evidence that he even knew of such an expection, and even if
he does, he simply ignores it. In other words, he argues for a
Davidic kingly Messiah, but shows no awareness of, nor concern for,
any kind of competing priestly messianic expectation.
>You state that "As for Luke rejecting the Qumran view of theI am uncertain what you are saying here. The DSS present a general
>Messiah, I would need more evidence that he even knew of their
>works" but you fail to explain in the words of Rikk this "Something
>inspired them to read this and other texts in a strikingly
resurrection as being a part of their Messianic expectations. This
is not unexpected, but, rather, is typical of such beliefs for this
time. But what does this have to do with my arguments?
>I also note you did not comment on these statements: "In Mark, anI do not accept that Mark was presenting Jesus' anointing as
>unknown woman poured anointing oil onto Jesus' head. Aus says this
>event took place to represent Jesus as the High Priest. Thus it is
>significant that the head of Jesus is not anointed in Luke. Luke
>tells the story of the woman who poured oil on the feet of Jesus
>during his Galilean ministry. The High Priestly imagery is missing
>from this account."
representative of him being seen as a High Priest largely because I
do not see any evidence that Mark himself thought that Jesus was a
High Priest. The statement above appears to simply beg the question.
I am afraid that I am misunderstanding you again Richard. Luke
thinks that Jesus is the kingly Messiah, so of course he is not
going to present High Priest type imagery. But Mark believes that
Jesus is a kingly Messiah as well, so what is the argument here
>Or these statements: "I believe someone on the list stated theJesus' anointing, so far as any takes place anywhere, is by John the
>messiah has to be publicly anointed.
>In Luke the people do not shout 'hosanna' as they do in Matt, Mark
>and John during the procession into Jerusalem. In Luke there is no
>public anointment by the people."
Baptist, and none of the Gospels present any kind of "anointing by
the people" taking place during the procession into Jerusalem. I am
not even certain what you mean by "public anointment by the people."
>Nor did you comment on: "Luke envisions Jesus to be aBut Luke does not envision Jesus as being modeled after Moses,
>Messiah but modeled after Moses, Elijah and Elisha."
Elijah and Elisha. Luke specifically tells us that Jesus will be
given the throne of David (1:32-33), from whom he is descended.
Likewise in Acts, Luke confirms that Jesus is king sitting on
David's throne (Acts 2:30).
Calgary, AB, Canada
- Dear Listers,
I had indicated two weeks ago that I would submit my own response to
responses of others re the thread "Messiah in spite of himself" in an
article which Jeffrey Gibson has offered to upload to the Xtalk articles
page. With the demand of other matters, it has taken far longer than I had
envisioned to complete the article. And with the holidays at hand, it
looks like I cannot get this article out until after the first of the year.
I plan in the article not only to deal with matters related to the "Messiah"
thread but also to incorporate in it issues related to the "4Q521" thread
and the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" thread, which I had introduced.
Happy holidays to you all.