That's why they were sad-u-see (page 2)

peacefulpete

funny how we think we know what the Jews believed better than the jews

Those Job passages do not refer to a resurrection teaching, we have simply superimposed the modern ideas upon the words. The Jews and Christian scholars all recognise that the idea was first definatively expressed in Daniel. (2nd century BC) Isaiah was the work of at least 4 authors or schools. The New American and Jerusalem Bibles as well as most others recognise these 4 hands. The first 12 chapters are considered original Isaiah albeit with interpolations. The date for these sections is of course controvertial. Those determined that they contain actual "prophecy" date them as close to but before the events described as possible to sneak them under the wire. Those without these beliefs have asigned them dates after the events. (body of chapts. 1-12, around 700 bc; chapters 13,14,24-27,34-35,40-55, 537-8 bc; chapts 15-23,28-33,36-39 late 6th century bc; chapts 56-66 end of 5th century) The Is. 26: 19 passage has been recognized as a late (2nd century) interpolation.

I will also mention that a while back I posted examples of very early texts that spoke of Baal and his consort as having the ability to restore to life so the issue is not whether the Jews believed such a thing was possible but rather whether they had doctrinalised it. These type of eschatological ideas did not develope until post Babylon.

I edited to correct myself.

NeonMadman

Those Job passages do not refer to a resurrection teaching, we have simply superimposed the modern ideas upon the words.

I'm not sure what oither teaching you could attach to those words. He expects to see God in his flesh, after worms have eaten his body. By what mechanism could this occur except resurrection?

Isaiah was the work of at least 4 authors or schools. The New American and Jerusalem Bibles as well as most others recognise these 4 hands.

You state that as if it's a fact, and not an issue about which there is wide disagreement. The Bibles you cite are both Roman Catholic translations. There are many Protestant scholars who would disagree about there being four sources, though I think most would acknowledge two.

Your remarks about the dating of Isaiah and Daniel reflect the humanistic view that actual prophecy from God could not occur, therefore, any writing that makes clear reference to a historical event must come from a later time period than the event mentioned. It seems to me that since the whole point of the discussion is whether the Bible is divinely inspired, it would be most inappropriate to dismiss the possibility of inspiration out of hand in framing the debate. That is effectively what those who assign "late dates" to these books have done.

peacefulpete

Neon..I have no doubt that their are a hundred theories about isaiah. My comment demonsrates that scholarship does conceed to multiple authors. As you yourself said nearly everyone recognises at least 2. The post was made to you because you suggested that Isaiah and Job refuted the postexilic developement of the resurrection doctrine, and the evidence does not support you. The Job comment was dealt with in my earlier post, as I said the author may have felt his God was capable of doing as other gods claimed to be able to do, yet this does not amount to a doctrine of a mass resurrection in a Messianic era. As I said it is funny how some (christians) insist they know what the jews believed better than the Jews. Science is not conspiring agaisnt Christianity, don't go there.

NeonMadman

The Job comment was dealt with in my earlier post, as I said the author may have felt his God was capable of doing as other gods claimed to be able to do, yet this does not amount to a doctrine of a mass resurrection in a Messianic era.

I don't think that answers the question, though. If Job reasoned in that way, then he at least had a glimmering of belief in a resurrection. More than a glimmering, in fact, since the wording of the quotation under discussion seems to indicate that he had a firm hope. Whether he understood a fully realized doctrine of a "mass resurrection in a Messianic era" is irrelevant. Clearly, he entertained hope of a life beyond this one. The Saducees denied any such hope.

I guess the only point I'm really making is that you can't make a blanket statement that what the Saducees believed (or didn't believe) about a resurrection was in harmony with the scriptures, whereas the Pharisees followed a doctrine that was lifted in toto from pagan religions. That simply isn't the case; there are early foregleams of the resurrection doctrine.

peacefulpete

Neon..foregleams eh. The Rabbinical literature asserts that Job denied the resurrection. This alone would be very strange if in fact this passage so clearly referred to it. The early Talmud also makes clear that the Sadducees refused to accept the developing resurrection doctrine as it was not of Moses. As to the wording of that one passage in Job, the translating may be responsible for it's Pharisidic/christian flavor, or it may be a later interpolation, tho I have not reseached this. Again you are not arguing from a position of strength, the jews both then and now most certainly knew where the resurrection doctrine came from better than us who were trained to place a christian spin on the jewish books..

peacefulpete

The Jewish encyclopedia.com site expounds on the Liturgical does and don'ts about the use of the word "Amen". It was quite superstitious. The Catholic Enyclopedia writes about how the gnostics and jewish mystics used it in their prayers as a powerful incantation. Numerolgy played into this mess also.

peacefulpete

hooberus...I found that the first 5 books contain only 1 reference to angels(Numb.22:22) and this is considered suspect accordng to the Fordham University site. Maybe the Sadducees were right? I also wish to correct my statement earlier that the Saducees did not respect the other books of the OT by the first century, according to that same site they respected it as "inspired" but did not see it as Law or necessarily accurate. I don't know how people do those mental gymnastics but it is alot like many Bible believers today.

jgnat

*warning* fluff answer *warning*

A Christendom children's song:

Refrain:
I just want to be a sheep, baaa, baaa ba ba baaa 2x
I pray the Lord my soul to keep,
I just want to be a sheep, baaa, baaa ba ba baaa

I don't want to be a Pharisee 2x
Because they're not fair, you see!
I just want to be a sheep, baaa, baaa ba ba baaa

Refrain

I don't want to be a Saducee 2x
Because they're so sad, you see!
I just want to be a sheep, baaa, baaa ba ba baaa

Refrain

you were *warned*

peacefulpete

oops I meant to post the stuff about "amen" on my other thread.

That's why they were sad-u-see

Share this