RE: [XTalk] 4Q521 was (Re: Messiah in spite of himself)
- Brian Trafford wrote:
But I do not see Luke drawing his language from 4Q521, but, rather,
from previously known texts like Mark and Isaiah.
There is one more instances cited in 4Q521 that warrants discussion.
Luke 13:11-13 Jesus healing the woman who had been bent over double for
Only Luke performs this miracle. In 4Q521 we read: He who liberates the
captives, restores sight to the blind,
straightens the b[ent]. Coincidence or dependence! Certainly not in Isaiah
Brian Trafford wrote:
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 thread started because Rikk disputed my statement about the signs of
the Messian being performed by Jesus. Rikk E. Watts wrote: "An interesting
idea. On the other hand, I am not aware of any explicit expectation of the
Messiah performing miracles¹ although in some sources there is the idea
that signs and wonders might attend his coming, though apparently not
performed by him. BUT I¹d be very interested if you have some documentation
of a messianic expectation along these lines."
You wrote: "Actually there was near universal expectation that the Messianic
Age would include a general resurrection of *all* of the dead."
Luke's statement in Lk. 14:14 is more accurate: 'the resurrection of the
righteous.' Although we know what the Pharisees and Saduccees believed, we
have no indication what the masses believed. The 'marginal status of
immortality and resurrection'in the belief structure of first century
Judaism is more accurate as stated by Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New
Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection, (New York 1984), 62. See also
H.C.C. Cavallin, Life After Death: Paul's Argument for the Resurrection of
the Dead in 1 Cor. 15, (1974). The best that can be said is whatever belief
is expressed by 4Q521, it represents only the belief of the community that
created the writing. It does not demonstrate the belief of the entire
society. This is no evidence to support such an assertion. I do agree that
Jesus did fulfill part of this expectation, but in an unexpected way. I also
agree that after the fact, the expectations were rewritten by the search for
proof from prophecy texts and to what would happen in the future.
You dispute my statement: "Luke envisions Jesus to be a Messiah but modeled
after Moses, Elijah and Elisha." You state that: 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).
Did David raises anyone from the dead, heal a man full of leprosy, heal the
woman who had been bent over double for eighteen years; heal the man with
dropsy; or heal/restore the ear of the servant of the High Priest? Are
there any passages alluding to any act performed by David or anything said
by David. The role model is Moses, Elijah and Elisha. That does not preclude
Luke from claiming that Jesus is given the throne of David. David was a
violent person; there is no indication in Luke that Jesus is violent. And
this throne of David is in heaven, not on earth.
The central kingdom message was that the kingdom of Jesus was not of this
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.
You and I agree that Luke does not present Jesus as the HP.
Luke's portrayal of Jesus
is as the Davidic Messiah, both in GLuke, and in Acts.
No, not portrayal.
You commented on my statement: .The Lucan Jesus rejected not only Peter's
>vision of the messiah but also the vision of the Qumran communityYou stated: You would have to assume (a) that Mark represents Peter's view,
>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.
No to all three. Peter's vision of the messiah is premised upon the use of
The sword is seized and the ear of the servant of the High Priest is cuts
off. Luke rejects this violent vision of the role of the messiah. Only the
Lucan Jesus heals the servant of the HP by healing the ear.
Furthermore you misconstrue the purpose of any reference to David. Only a
Jew would listen to an argument based on the fulfillment of the promises to
David through Jesus the Messiah. The Jewish expectation for a coming Davidic
King was particularly prominent among Palestinian Jews; it was less so among
Jews in the Diaspora. Jesus' royal Davidic status would not impress a
Gentile. Consequently this argument was directed to Palestinian Jews but the
presentation is in the nature of a hook to grab the attention of the first
Luke does not create the impression that Jesus will be like any earthly king
or that that he will lead an army as did King David. He rides a donkey and
the people do not shout Hosanna. Rather Luke direct his audience to the
examples of Elijah and Elisha Lk 4:26-27 and in Lk 9:35 alluded to the LXX
version of Deuteronomy 18:15 "listen to him" and is part of Luke's claim
that Jesus is "a prophet like Moses." Neither Matthew nor Mark have this
language or includes these examples.
I do not accept that Mark was presenting Jesus' anointing as
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.
No the statement represents a thorough analysis of Mark by Roger David Aus,
The Wicked Tenants and Gethsemane (Atlanta 1996), 112.
Richard H. Anderson
- 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.