From the Vault: Messiah in the Making, Part 1

Here’s a oldie from a few months back…

______________________

In this first installment of the series, “Messiah in the Making: The Development of the Eschatological Deliverer in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism,” I would like to lay out the ground rules and basic starting points for what I consider to be a proper approach to sounding the Hebrew Bible and the literature for early Judaism as we know it for a “messiah” figure. I realize that some of these points will need to be demonstrated with evidence. Don’t you worry, I’ll be giving you the evidence you so desperately need in due course.

1. Because of the claims that Christianity makes about Jesus, and the application by the NT of certain Hebrew Bible texts to him, the study of Jewish messianism easily falls prey to anachronism. To guard against this, we must approach these texts as though for the first time, trying to hear only what they are actually saying and nothing more. To this end…

2. What is needed is an approach to the Hebrew Bible that sets each potentially messianic text firmly in its original context, only moving beyond that context when there is substantial warrant to do so. This approach will include a careful investigation of both the immediate, literary context, genre, and sociopolitical and cultural contexts. Holding doggedly to this will help us see that there is an important distinction to be maintained between anointed ones  (משחים) and a eschatological anointed deliverers (משחים).

3. Despite the claims of some (Fitzmyer for example), we must not hold too rigid a line when it comes to the title משח. Eschatological deliverers in early Judaism were denoted by a variety epithets, and these appellations were frequently used in an interchangeable manner (cf. 1 Enoch 37-71; Luke 22:67-71).

4. There is no monolithic messianic conception at any point in early Judaism. While many conceptions utilize the same key texts in the Hebrew Bible, the configuration of these texts (and the inclusion/omission of others) varied from sect to sect within the larger umbrella of Judaism.

5. Any claim by Christian tradition that this or that passage in the Hebrew Bible is messianic must answer for itself if we have no evidence that ancient Judaism prior to (or contemporaneous with) Jesus itself understood the passage as messianic.

6. We must be careful not to draw too firm a boundary about the Hebrew Bible, excluding the literature of early Judaism (e.g. 1 Enoch 37-71; Psalms of Solomon; etc.). Doing so will exclude some of the most important evidence we have for understanding messianic conceptions of the first century CE.

Next time, we’ll begin by taking a look at what makes a messiah a messiah.

Please feel free to register your comments! I’d love to know who’s reading this.

(See original comments here.)

Wow! Has it really been that long?

Funny, isn’t it, how time flies? I’ve been quite busy as of late, thus I think a may pull up a few posts from the vault that I posted before many of you, my most glorious readers, came around.

I’ll be back up to ramming speed sometime, though I’m not sure when…

Best Commentaries on Daniel???

I am in a pinch for time, and so I appeal to you, my ever intelligent readers, to help me with some research. I’m working on the well-worn Daniel 7. What are the resources that I simply MUST consult? I already have Collins’ Hermeneia volume. What else?

Darwin-mania!

You simply must check out this video linked by James McGrath. By doing so, you’ll get caught up on the latest crazy antics of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron AND get a biting (and fair) criticism of their new project.

Review of Biblical Literature (19 September 2009)

There are plenty of goodies in this installment. So let your eyes fall down the page and enjoy! One of our own even has a review in this issue! Congrats Jim! Well done.

____________________

L. Stephanie Cobb
Dying to Be Men: Gender and Language in Early Christian Martyr Texts
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6862
Reviewed by Jan Willem van Henten

J. Edward Crowley and Paul L. Danove
The Rhetoric of Characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus’ Disciples in the Gospel of Mark
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4991
Reviewed by Seán P. Kealy

Ellen F. Davis
Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6922
Reviewed by Philip F. Esler

F. Gerald Downing
God with Everything: The Divine in the Discourse of the First Christian Century
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6676
Reviewed by Michael Lakey

Lori Anne Ferrell
The Bible and the People
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6947
Reviewed by Seán P. Kealy

Joseph A. Fitzmyer
A Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6885
Reviewed by Shayna Sheinfeld

William H. Jennings
Storms over Genesis: Biblical Battleground in America’s Wars of Religion
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6155
Reviewed by Michael D. Matlock

Julie Kelso
O Mother, Where Art Thou? An Irigarayan Reading of the Book of Chronicles
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6854
Reviewed by Susanne Scholz

Matthew J. Marohl
Faithfulness and the Purpose of Hebrews: A Social Identity Approach
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6586
Reviewed by Renate Viveen Hood

Alexander I. Negrov
Biblical Interpretation in the Russian Orthodox Church: A Historical and Hermeneutical Perspective
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6866
Reviewed by Peter Penner

Etienne Nodet
The Historical Jesus? Necessity and Limits of an Inquiry
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6670
Reviewed by James West

Julia M. O’Brien
Challenging Prophetic Metaphor: Theology and Ideology in the Prophets
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6847
Reviewed by Bo H. Lim

Mikeal C. Parsons
Acts
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6963
Reviewed by I. Howard Marshall

Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan
Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6984
Reviewed by Jan G. van der Watt

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ed.
Theological Interpretation of the New Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6967
Reviewed by Erik Heen

Mark Goodacre’s Live “Office Hours” are up!

If you, like me, missed Mark Goodacre’s Live “Office Hours” this afternoon, then you’re in for a treat. Ustream has posted the archive up for your view pleasure. Check it out! While I haven’t finished the video, it’s first on my schedule for tomorrow morning. Fun times!

I think the concept of online “office hours” is a great idea, and I’m glad to see Duke exploiting this concept in the area of religious studies. I have seen similar ideas pop up at, for example, Fuller. Daniel Kirk did something similar. It’s great to see mainstream scholarship getting a voice in our culture.

Fundamentalism is a Two-Edged Sword

There is once again another buzz around the blogosphere, coming from “Forbidden” regions. April has been arguing that there must remain a bifurcation between faith and critical scholarship (see here and here). I realize that this is a gross over simplification of her argument, but given that has admittedly groped for words I trust I will be forgiven.

Regular readers will know that I am not one who sees his purpose as “apologetic” or “theological,” or even “confessional.” Of course, I do consider myself a Christian, but I do my best to keep that theological belief in the existence of God and the significance of Jesus from impugning on my scholarly work. But I suspect that people like me (at least as I have described myself) are not the ones April has in mind. (April, do correct me if I’m wrong about that.) My suspicion is that she has in mind those fundamentalists whose cherished theological certitude is the very lens through which, and the impetus behind, the work they put forth. I imagine that April has fundamentalists in her sights.

And yet fundamentalism does not only rear its ugly head in theological circles. The same penchant for certainty that governs theologically motivated scholars also governs those whose motivation is a supposedly purely disinterested approach to the text of the Hebrew Bible and the documents that are later dubbed the New Testament. While I have no problem with someone, for example, rejecting the virgin birth on historical grounds, to do so a priori reflects the exact same sort of bias that would suggest that it’s a priori true (i.e. the Bible says, I believe it, that settles it).

The problem before us is somewhat akin to a fish swimming in the ocean, fishing about without even the slightest clue that it is soaking wet. When people are so entrenched in any given ideology (whatever the perspective) the result is a glaring blind spot to his or her own presuppositions. Even worse, sometimes those presuppositions are solidified into rules of engagement. Both sides do this, both those who are more secular in their approach and those who are more confessional in their approach.

It should therefore be no surprise that scholarship has tended to be divided into two poles: the “conservatives” (i.e. “Christian”) and “liberals” (i.e. secular). What is needed is an approach that admits presuppositions (all of them), then tries to allow for them as best that it can. This goes for those who are Christian and those who are not. If we are really after an unbiased reading of the text, then BOTH sides need to play be those rules.

See also Doug’s and Mark’s response.

You really should check out NT Pod

I have only recently started listening in on Mark Goodacre’s NT Pod, and I have say that they are delightful. Naturally, their already high quality is enhanced by Mark’s brilliant English accent. I’m so jealous!

Here’s his latest: NT Pod Episode 13: Mary Magdalene: The First Woman Apostle (mp3)

Listen in and listen often! (You can even subscribe via iTunes!)

Also, while I’m already praising Mark’s work, you really should check out his post on the problem with the label, “Confessional Scholarship,” particularly when it is played against “historical-critical scholarship.”

Live Chat with Mark Goodacre

Many have already mentioned that Mark Goodacre will be hosting online “office hours” day after tomorrow. Here’s a message from Meg McKee that I received this morning: (thanks, Meg!)

Mark Goodacre at NT Blog has agreed to hold live, online “office hours” this Friday, Sept. 18, at noon EDT on Duke’s Ustream page: http://www.ustream.tv/dukeuniversity. Professor Goodacre will be giving his take on “the New Testament in the news” — and responding to questions from anyone who submits them online.

To submit a question, in advance or during the webcast, email live@duke.edu , tweet with the tag #dukelive, or post a comment on this Facebook page – http://apps.facebook.com/dukeuniversitylive/.

I hope you will consider watching the webcast and participating. If you are interested in sharing this event, you can also embed the live video of the event using the embed codes on the Ustream site here: http://www.ustream.tv/dukeuniversity.

For more info, see the Duke News story at http://news.duke.edu/2009/09/goodacre.html.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Aramaic Authors say the darndest things!

From Frederick E. Greenspahn, An Introduction to Aramaic, Corrected Second Edition (2007): 65

מַן מִתְנַדֵּב לְמֶעְבַּד נְוָלוּ עַל אַרְעָא