Hi James,
"I'll need some clarification on which part you would like more comment or references for further reading."
I was thinking of your comment: "given discoveries of more apocalyptic 2TJ texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century"
This would presumably be damaging to, or be against, full preterism and some partial preterism.
"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."
Could you expand on this comment?
"Did (early) Paul expect a return of Christ in his lifetime? Almost certainly. - Does this equate to "failed prophecy"? Again, no."
I guess it depends where he got that expectation from, or whether he gives a firm prediction himself. If Jesus predicted a near "end" (ignoring preterist conceptions) and Paul was following the error, then it looks like failed prophecy. Another point here, is that if early Paul expected a near end, well did that influence any of his ethical teaching? Because if so, that teaching would then seem discredited.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)
I'm sure you're aware of the end of John. To me, it looks like a very possible attempt to explain away the kind of prediction previously given in the synoptics. It looks like something was expected to happen... but didn't happen.
"I affirm broadly Allison, Ehrman, Schweitzer, Weiss, et al on the Olivet but think this word choice can be unnecessarily inflammatory"
I'm looking at it from the perspective of trying to determine whether or not a religion is likely to be true. So I can't really avoid the category of "failed prophecy". Of course, this is one of the Hebrew Bible's own criteria (Deut. 18) for assessing a supposed prophet, so it seems like a fair standard to apply to Jesus.
But you don't seem to think the term "failed prophecy" is really appropriate in this case, and I have already asked you to expand on that.
"No, I do not off hand, but I'm sure full preterists have found quotes/sources and could provide them here."
I'm not so sure they have anything persuasive.
"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)"
Eusebius applies Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30 to a future 2nd Coming. I would say that, "when He comes in the heavens with power and great glory", is a pretty clear reference to Matthew 24:30.
"We see in part, indeed, now with our own eyes the fulfilment of the holy oracles as to the first Epiphany of our Saviour to man. May it be seen completely as well in His second glorious Advent, when all nations shall see His glory, and when He comes in the heavens with power and great glory."
"For the second Coming shall be glorious, that of which Daniel speaks unfolding and revealing his vision:
9. I saw until the thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days did sit. Thousand thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. 13. And, behold, one as a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came even to the Ancient of Days, 14. and there was given to him rule and honour and a kingdom, and all peoples, tribes, and tongues serve him. His power is an everlasting power, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed."
(Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book VI, Chapter 25 and Book IX, Chapter 17)
Greg
------------------------------
My response:
Hi Greg,
>> I was thinking of your comment: "given discoveries of more apocalyptic Second Temple Judaism (2TJ) texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century". This would presumably be damaging to, or be against, full preterism and some partial preterism.
Absolutely. It's pretty damning. This is not to say former generations were not aware of/versed in many of the 2TJ pseudepigrapha and apocalyptic OT and NT, but the progress in understanding over the last century is comparable to the understanding of Hebrew from the time of the Reformation, when scholarship was practically nil in the ANE languages, to the modern era, with its many correctives and superior translations and lexicons. The scholarship is night and day by contrast.
The wealth of material that has been (in some cases literally) unearthed in the late 19th and 20th century, particularly at Qumran, has opened a huge window to provide us an improved view of the 2TJ period, with 'new' apocalyptic texts from the intertestamental and late 1st century period as well as numerous midrash (put simply, a form of expounding commentary) and pesher (an interpretation of texts often applying them to and seeing/predicting their fulfillment in/upon the recipient community). Obviously, this should set off some bells, as we see a very similar appropriation of OT prophetic texts in the NT, particularly in the pattern of pesher (the scholars still debate continually over which portions of the NT represent which genre).
For some accessible and less expensive texts that start at the ground floor and expand on the major issues, I might recommend for further reading volumes by Collins (e.g. _The Apocalyptic Imagination_ and _Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature_; if you have cash his Hermeneia commentary is worth it, not to mention everything produced by his wife) on the development and common themes to apocalyptic. And Vanderkam (e.g. _The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ and _The Dead Sea Scrolls Today_; also _An Introduction to Early Judaism_ for more on the 1st century CE perspective) on the importance of Qumran for our understanding of 2TJ, the sea in which the NT swims.
>> "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."
>> Could you expand on this comment?
I'm not sure where you stand, Greg (are you a skeptic of Christianity or just of FP?), but I am a Christian, so to call prophecy 'failed' would mean that God's purposes were not accomplished through a given prophet. So I would deny that. Hopefully I address some of this below, at least to your satisfaction. If not, the resources above and in texts like D. Brent Sandy's _Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic_ and G. B. Caird's _The Language and Imagery of the Bible_ would also be helpful.
>> "Did (early) Paul expect a return of Christ in his lifetime? Almost certainly. - Does this equate to "failed prophecy"? Again, no."
>> I guess it depends where he got that expectation from, or whether he gives a firm prediction himself. If Jesus predicted a near "end" (ignoring preterist conceptions) and Paul was following the error, then it looks like failed prophecy. Another point here, is that if early Paul expected a near end, well did that influence any of his ethical teaching? Because if so, that teaching would then seem discredited.
I would say if there was a concrete measurable prediction that did not take place, then that would probably be a strong candidate for a 'failed prophecy'. But we don't have those failures. Instead, we do have firm predictions of Jesus's death. We also have a predictive prophecy of the destruction of the temple (almost surely at the hands of Romans), and we have a typical apocalyptic framing of that event with end-times consummation language that both a) focuses the audience on the importance of the current conflict by elevating the language to the cosmic and age-consummation perspective, and b) it maps these events into the very timeline of the end, inviting the possibility that this may indeed be the culminating time, the very 'last days'. If you are familiar with apocalyptic, from portions of Isaiah, Zechariah, most of Daniel, and non-canonical 2TJ pseudepigrapha, this is all old hack to you.
Part of the purpose of apocalyptic, with it's unnatural, cosmic, and explosive imagery, is to a) get the audience's attention - normally a call to discipline and holiness in the midst of - or before the anticipated - extreme persecution, or b) as a desperate wake up call to a wayward (from covenant faithfulness) community, to get them to focus on the current real and deadly tragedy that is unfolding/present. I think absolutely at a minimum Paul, the author of the Apocalypse, and the author of 2 Peter are caught up in this expectation, and rightfully so, because the crisis in the community is very real, and the apostles and prophets speak and write in order to convict and move their audiences. I am afraid if you apply the judgment you are above, you are applying a 'presentist' perspective, going against the Hebraic familiarity with this genre of literature and speech. It is also contrary to the judgment (or lack thereof) that they would have had (and the early church did pardon without incident) on the apostles, which was very much inline with the 2TJ handling of OT consummation and apocalyptic texts (more on this later).
Scholars agree that in the early epistles Paul truly expected to be alive at the parousia, and everyone of merit acknowledges he died before AD 70, yet even the FP would not say Paul is a false prophet when his convictions and expectations for his own lifespan and the nearness of the parousia are not met. Personal conviction of a Holy Spirit led individual does not rise to the level of concrete prophetic utterance, and such a thing is never suggested.
>> I'm sure you're aware of the end of John. To me, it looks like a very possible attempt to explain away the kind of prediction previously given in the synoptics. It looks like something was expected to happen... but didn't happen.
And I think I could probably concede your point that there is a teaching engagement in John 21, but do not see this as a challenge to my defense of the scripture as infallible in the purposes God has for them, but instead as another corrective to perceptions, like the epistles to the Corinthians or Thessalonians, who heard the good word from Paul but then still managed to get off track and be in need of further correction.
>> I'm looking at it from the perspective of trying to determine whether or not a religion is likely to be true. So I can't really avoid the category of "failed prophecy". Of course, this is one of the Hebrew Bible's own criteria (Deut. 18) for assessing a supposed prophet, so it seems like a fair standard to apply to Jesus.
>> But you don't seem to think the term "failed prophecy" is really appropriate in this case, and I have already asked you to expand on that.
Attempting to apply Deut 18 to apocalyptic would be like calling a parable or metaphorical language 'a lie' or 'untrue' - it's a category mistake. And of course, we have the wealth of later prophets as our witnesses to the effect that Deut. 18 would not have applied to this class (age-consummation, New Heavens New Earth, etc,, language). If it did, Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Daniel, et al would be deemed 'false prophets' because their end-of-the-age/age-transition, and in some cases true apocalyptic, prophetic content did not come to completion in the 'expected' time frame - end of exile, post temple restoration, and end of Antiochene persecution respectively. And scripture even addresses this (an adjustment in expectations) directly in places like Jeremiah 18 in the OT and 2 Peter 3 in the new. (Yes, FP attempts to dismiss both passages, but they are simply subordinating those scriptures to their guiding paradigm, that the consummation and concomitant events had to happen in the 1st century at the fall of Jerusalem.)
>> "No, I do not off hand, but I'm sure full preterists have found quotes/sources and could provide them here."
>> I'm not so sure they have anything persuasive.
Again, there are quotes here and there - you provide one example from Eusebius - but an FP appeal to historic argument would be a construction mined from a few outlying exegetes. I agree with your sentiment.
Thank you, Greg, for a fun correspondence and for your patience. I am very busy and try not to let dealing with FP concerns dominate more than it should, which is hard, so it often will take some time for me to get back to you.
Peace,
James------------------------------
A follow-up post on a point I missed:
I skipped this point (and probably others), my apology.
>> Another point here, is that if early Paul expected a near end, well did that influence any of his ethical teaching? Because if so, that teaching would then seem discredited.
Is 'discredited' the right category? I would instead say that ethical guidelines given in the light of his expectation should be exegeted and applied carefully, as we should do with all of scripture. It is no easy task, and too many pass it off as if it is a simple text approachable by all. But this is impossible, because we cannot (re)live the full context of the NT. There is a cultural translation that must take place, and it takes time and effort to do it justice.
As one simple example to your point: In I Cor 7 Paul encourages the Corinthians (who are being eyed with distrust by the pagans), generally to refrain from marriage, because "the time is short", and "this world in its present form is passing away." (And he has in mind the typical 2TJ apocalyptic understanding of world, as the Gentiles in Corinth would have seen little connection between the cessation of temple sacrifices and their practice of engagement and marriage under current persecution with the probably soon return of the Son of Man.)
Application: For us, the general lesson is that it will be easier to weather persecution and trial when you are not in the process of marrying a spouse. This admonishment could surely endure. Should we perceive ourselves again with our nose up against the age of the impending fullness of the kingdom? I don't think so, but again it does not rob all from the former facet, so maybe we should find another point that is wholly conditioned on the anticipated parousia.
James
No comments:
Post a Comment