tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post603509893954130347..comments2019-08-06T18:27:53.396-07:00Comments on alternate readings: John 20:28 ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου - Why two articles?C. Stirling Bartholomewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-14099489142525837182011-01-04T14:12:40.772-08:002011-01-04T14:12:40.772-08:00Mike,
I was able pull up Fitzmyer's article i...Mike,<br /><br />I was able pull up Fitzmyer's article in google books with the search string "the thread which apparently runs". A page or two are missing but most of the article, text and translation are there.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-61251752988945077392011-01-04T13:49:07.100-08:002011-01-04T13:49:07.100-08:00Mike,
RE: 11Q13 where Melchizedek John 20:28
I h...Mike,<br /><br />RE: 11Q13 where Melchizedek John 20:28<br /><br />I have spent some time reviewing the literature on 11QMelchizedek and Melchizedek. Two sources which might be of value to you are the DDD 2nd. ed. article on Melchizedek J. Relling pp. 560-563 and JEROME H. NEYREY, SJ. "I SAID: YOU ARE GODS": PSALM 82:6 AND JOHN 10 which can be found here http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.htm. <br /><br />I not convinced that 11Q13 is relevant to John 20:28. To deal with this we would have to get embroiled in the lexical semantics of Elohim which is outside of my field. It has been discussed ad nauseum on the b-hebrew forum. You might be able to pull some of that up from the archives with google. <br /><br />A brief quote with regard to 11QMelch from J. Relling is pertinent: "The many lacunae make a conclusive interpretation virtually impossible." In other words, if you get down to actually working with the text while ignoring all the nonsense that has been made of it, you find there is less there than meets the eye. You should look at Fitzmyer's translation and commentary if you can find it. Fitzmyer's takes a very cautious and sane approach to dealing with DSS texts and New Testament. The popular literature on 11QMelch is aimed at the same audience who read Elaine Pagels on Gnosticism. I haven't looked at Vermes translation, but I have a copy of M. Wise, M. Abegg & E. Cook which makes 11QMelch easy reading by filling in all lacunae with their speculations about how the text should read. This is not the way to read a text like this, you need to confront it in the raw with all the holes in MS. <br /> <br />There is a principle at work here. In biblical studies the volume of the speculative verbiage is inversely and exponentially related to the quantity and quality of the hard data, i.e. the textual evidence. As the textual evidence approaches zero the speculative verbiage approaches infinity. You can see this at work in the literature on Judas and Mary Magdalene.<br /><br />Thank you for your comments.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-59808492800937760362011-01-03T15:00:32.091-08:002011-01-03T15:00:32.091-08:00Mike,
I am working on a post about angelology and...Mike,<br /><br />I am working on a post about angelology and christology. Not anything definitive, just a place to talk about it. Bauckham, Hurtado, Dunn have talked about it. Dunn's treatment is very subtle and detailed. But it makes more sense to me now than it did a decade ago when I picked up his Christology in the Making, a 30 year old book.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-36509387852387637362011-01-03T09:19:55.288-08:002011-01-03T09:19:55.288-08:00I think 11Q13 is causing all this "buzz"...I think 11Q13 is causing all this "buzz" because it provides a reason for some people to deny the deity of Christ or at least see Christ as another exalted angel similar to Melchizedek. Arians and Socinians have definitely picked up on this, since they see it as supporting their theology that exalted angles can be what they are without actually being YHWH. <br /><br />As far as books, pretty much any modern work on Christology and monotheism will cover this text. Bauckham has a lengthy discussion of it in "Jesus and the God of Israel." Hurtado does as well in "Lord Jesus Christ." And i'm willing to bet that McGrath and Dunn do too. <br /><br />The difficulty is in seeing this text as the norm by which all 2nd temple Jews would have identified Jesus with when he came on the scene. But even so, divine agents did not receive cultic devotion and worship. That fact alone breaks the parallel right in half. <br /><br />Nonetheless, it is a very interesting text that I don't think can be avoided in serious Christological scholarship today.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-83000952134098184182011-01-02T21:47:14.170-08:002011-01-02T21:47:14.170-08:00Mike,
This guy seems to be talking about your top...Mike,<br /><br />This guy seems to be talking about your topic<br />http://antiquitopia.blogspot.com/2009/06/bauckhams-jesus-and-god-of-israel_03.html<br /><br />He is very critical of R. Bauckham, some of his criticism about of evidence I suspect I would agree with. Bauckham and also Dunn dump mountains of citations on you but don't do any exegesis of them to prove their point.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-86978936983530038062011-01-02T20:42:55.406-08:002011-01-02T20:42:55.406-08:00Mike,
Melchizedekology is a rather specialized f...Mike, <br /><br />Melchizedekology is a rather specialized filed and the 11Q13 a.k.a 11QMelchizedek is a small fragmented text a large portion of which is made up of quotations from and or allusions to Ps82, Isa52, 61... . I did some googleing on this and discovered there is quite a "buzz" going on out there in the wasteland (a.k.a. WWW) about 11Q13 Melchizedek and Christology. I even manged to download an article (chapter from a recent book) by L. Hurdtado which I am looking at now. I will be first to admit that I have little understanding of why this hadfull of scraps called 11Q13 is worth all this discussion. <br /><br />My impression is that Melchizedek has a lot more to do with Hebrews than it does the GspJohn. My not-a-mentor from the last 60s and early 70s was very preoccupied with Melchizedek. He is still alive, talked to him just a week ago at a memorial service. I would be tempted to ask him about this if I hadn't alienated by beating up (blogging) on his infamous son-in-law, whose name is known to millions of gen-x and wannabes.<br /><br />I am interested in your ideas about this. Is there something I should read about it, some author, book title, page number. I am not too old to learn and Melchizedekology has a mysterious esoteric aspect to it that i find appealing.C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-56241021651600695822011-01-02T15:25:45.032-08:002011-01-02T15:25:45.032-08:00@Stirling,
I'm reading from the DSS translati...@Stirling,<br /><br />I'm reading from the DSS translation by Vermes where it says, "And your Elohim is [Melchizedek, who will save them from] the hand of Belial." And yes, its an allusion from Is. 52:7 and applies a text about YHWH to Melchizedek.<br /><br />Its a text that some would use in arguing the point I made above in suggesting that John 20:28 doesn't prove Christ's deity anymore than in prove Melchizedek's. <br /><br />Of course, I disagree, but i'd like to get your take on it :-)Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-66395956256496492202011-01-02T15:01:36.226-08:002011-01-02T15:01:36.226-08:00Mike,
11Q13 2:23 [ -- ]vmsft[y] ’l kh’sr khtwv ‘l...Mike,<br /><br />11Q13 2:23 [ -- ]vmsft[y] ’l kh’sr khtwv ‘lyw[ ’wmr ltzy]wn mlkh ’lwhykh. [tzy]wn h[y’h<br /><br />Well J.Fitzmyer[1] appears to read this an allusion to Isa 52:7 mlkh ’lhykh. What secondary sources are you finding mentioned in? <br /><br /><br /><br />[1]The Semitic Background of the New Testament 1971 pp.250,266C. Stirling Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03571440237755902925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34223021.post-64640730420786174312011-01-02T12:20:30.636-08:002011-01-02T12:20:30.636-08:00Would you view John 20:28 as an inclusion of Jesus...Would you view John 20:28 as an inclusion of Jesus into the unique identity in light of texts like 11Q13 where Melchizedek is identified as "your God?" In other words, do you see any parallel between the two texts and whether the early Christians would have viewed Jesus as "their god" in a similar way as another exalted angel was referred to as "their god?"Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.com