Hi James, thanks for taking the time to reply.
Firstly, as it seems, I understand "partial preterist" in a different way to yourself. My preferred definition is that a partial preterist is someone who thinks that Matthew 24:30-31 was fulfilled in the first century, as do NT Wright and RT France. (But of course still look for a future 2nd Coming.)
If someone thinks, e.g., that the "great tribulation" was fulfilled in the first century, but Matthew 24:30-31 is still future, then I wouldn't personally regard it as "partial preterism". If such a thing is partial preterism, then I don't see why even self-professed dispensationalist "futurists" wouldn't qualify as partial preterists, because they can believe in *some* first century fulfillment, (e.g. Luke 21:20-24).
"there were many who argued for a pre-70 AD composition and some even a Jerusalem-centric (the city, not the spiritual people) judgment, but this view is almost non-existent among modern scholars given discoveries of more apocalyptic 2TJ texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century."
This is interesting to me. Could you expand a little? Could you recommend any books which cover this?
"While scholarly advocates of this position can be counted on one hand, this is a legitimate minority view given the quality advocates, particularly Caird."
As a skeptic I would say:
(a) Even Christians will find it far-fetched and implausible to separate those verses from "2nd Coming" material like 1 Thess 4.
(b) There is an obvious reason why they could be reaching for "far-fetched" explanations here: they think the scriptural evidence places the event in the first century, and Christians may not like the idea of failed prophecy. I believe Dale C. Allison points out that the behaviour of Wright etc. could be seen as falling into a well-known pattern of what happens when prophecies fail.
Do you know of any church fathers, or early Christian literature, which clearly teaches that Matthew 24:29-31 was fulfilled in the first century as Wright and France suggest?
Greg
------------------------------
And my response:
Greg,
I'll try to respond to your points. Thank you for a cordial conversation.
>> Firstly, as it seems, I understand "partial preterist" in a different way to yourself. My preferred definition is that a partial preterist is someone who thinks that Matthew 24:30-31 was fulfilled in the first century, as do NT Wright and RT France. (But of course still look for a future 2nd Coming.)
You can define your terms how you like in this conversational context, Greg, so that's fine with me. I was attempting to provide a fuller context. For instance, 'preteristic' interpretation has normally been applied categorically as a hermeneutic to Revelation (less so now with Wright's prominence and discussion of his more unique interpretation) and not to the Olivet. But in this (full preterist) context (pretcosmos), expanding this to other texts was natural.
>> If someone thinks, e.g., that the "great tribulation" was fulfilled in the first century, but Matthew 24:30-31 is still future, then I wouldn't personally regard it as "partial preterism". If such a thing is partial preterism, then I don't see why even self-professed dispensationalist "futurists" wouldn't qualify as partial preterists, because they can believe in *some* first century fulfillment, (e.g. Luke 21:20-24).
That was my point, that almost everyone _is_ a partial preterist. But if we want to narrow that term, I am fine with that. An illustration of the 'problem' is that many might narrow "partial preterism" to refer to just the views of a small Reformed band (formerly) involved in a theonomic and Reconstructionist apologetic, which demanded a pre-70AD composition of the Apocalypse, when most preteristic commentaries on Revelation refer to Rome as the target of fulfillment and a later date of composition, and in this sense France and Caird would not be "partial preterists", though they are by your definition above.
Again, not an issue for our discussion, just an attempt to explain my effort in differentiating the flavors of preterists. In times past, and in some far corners of modern dispensational and other thought, there were/are actual full futurists in regards to the primary texts. In fact, as you will note when reading the commentaries (as per Allison (ICC), who you have had interaction with and I commend), some (even 'a number' of) scholars believe the Olivet was crafted after AD 70, and thus looked forward to a rebuilt temple (not uncommon to later 1st century Jewish hope and not unanticipated by Christians until the total crushing of the 2nd revolt).
>> "there were many who argued for a pre-70 AD composition and some even a Jerusalem-centric (the city, not the spiritual people) judgment, but this view is almost non-existent among modern scholars given discoveries of more apocalyptic 2TJ texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century."
>> This is interesting to me. Could you expand a little? Could you recommend any books which cover this?
I'll admit that my quoted statement above is overly packed, so I'll need some clarification on which part you would like more comment or references for further reading. (For example, if it is the first point on 19th century pre-AD 70/early authorship, I would point to Hort, Lightfoot, Westcott, Schaff, Zahn, et al). :)
>> "While scholarly advocates of this position can be counted on one hand, this is a legitimate minority view given the quality advocates, particularly Caird."
>> As a skeptic I would say:
>> (a) Even Christians will find it far-fetched and implausible to separate those verses from "2nd Coming" material like 1 Thess 4.
Correct (assuming you mean "Christian scholars" and that the common use of apocalyptic framing is intended to point to a complete(d) transition of the ages and the concomitant events: resurrection, final judgment, new heavens and new earth, etc.). Thus almost all of modern scholarship (and I am gleaning from them) agree that this is the context. An extended defense could be offered here, but you appear on board this this conclusion. :)
>> (b) There is an obvious reason why they could be reaching for "far-fetched" explanations here: they think the scriptural evidence places the event in the first century, and Christians may not like the idea of failed prophecy. I believe Dale C. Allison points out that the behaviour of Wright etc. could be seen as falling into a well-known pattern of what happens when prophecies fail.
Yes, the resurgence in preterist interest, particularly in the "emergent movement", probably points more to the apologetic advantage of brushing under the table some exegetical difficulties. However, the likes of Caird and France could hardly be maligned as motivated by an apologetic bias on the Olivet, which is laden with numerous exegetical difficulties/challenges. I would recommend reading the likes of Beasley-Murray's _Jesus and the Last Days_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1573833517) which provides a lengthy survey of the interpretation of the Olivet and Mark 13 particularly, followed by his commentary, invaluable for understanding the exegetical and redactional challenges inherent in the discourse.
This does not mean that scholarly consensus has not basically settled (it has; one may refer to the list provided before), but the door will never be closed all the way because of an inability to get back to the exact original spoken discourse (a difficulty given the synoptic disparities, etc.). I think Wright is wrong, and now the likes of consensus defenders Allison and Adams have had to spend time reminding people why he's wrong (again, probably because of the attractiveness of the apologetic simplicity of adapting the partial preterist (your definition) approach as you surmise). But I do not think the same charge could/should be levied against the scholarly defenders themselves, at least at this point (again France and Wright are following their mentor Caird's scholarship who followed an even earlier tradition and argument that dates back a few centuries).
And "failed prophecy" is a bit loaded (this is a quibble), as it belies a lack of contact with the purpose and modus operandi of apocalyptic and an inflation of expectation/anticipation to some kind of measurable prophetic.
- Did the apostles and maybe Jesus as recorded in the synoptic gospels expect the consummation to follow the destruction of Jerusalem? Probably (again, the Olivet (and related) redaction is fragmented, so ironclad determinations of this sort are difficult if not impossible; I would point to targeted work by Ehrman and Allison in support).
- Did (early) Paul expect a return of Christ in his lifetime? Almost certainly.
- Does this equate to "failed prophecy"? Again, no. Expectations not met, probably, but even by Paul's later life (let's assume Pauline authorship of the disputed epistles for now, shall we?), the apocalyptic expectation is toned down considerably. And a couple of centuries after Christ, the church is hardly struggling with a shift in expectations from the early and apostolic church.
This is not to disagree with your point, but register my Christian perspective on the same data and the usage of "failed". (I affirm broadly Allison, Ehrman, Schweitzer, Weiss, et al on the Olivet but think this word choice can be unnecessarily inflammatory.)
>> Do you know of any church fathers, or early Christian literature, which clearly teaches that Matthew 24:29-31 was fulfilled in the first century as Wright and France suggest?
No, I do not off hand, but I'm sure full preterists have found quotes/sources and could provide them here. Eusebius, for instance, in the late 3rd and 4th centuries claimed past fulfillment of some apocalyptic NT texts, but I have not checked his commentary on the Olivet(s). Full preterists here would be happy I am sure to provide quotes to backup early support for this position, but as you probably are already aware, these positions were in the very small minority, were varied, and I do not think any of them can definitively be dated to before the middle of the 3rd century (if that early; I'm very open to correction). Frost's _Misplaced Hope_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0964138824) is probably the most thorough treatment from full preterists concerning the writings of the early church. I'll leave it to full preterists to provide specific quotes on the latter Olivet from the Fathers.
One could also poll France's extensive commentaries (Matthew (NICNT) and Mark (NIGTC)) for support. He vigorously defends his position and I've just not had time to refer to them for this quick note.
Thanks, Greg, for the discussion. I am sorry if I have missed or skipped anything. Please let me know and I will try to address what I can as I am able.
James
No comments:
Post a Comment