I didn’t say they expected him to be God incarnate, i said they expected him to be divine.
The angel Michael was not God. He wasn’t a man either. Same idea.
The term actually underwent an remarkable evolution–an evolution that culminated with Christianity and the pre-eminent Logos. See Marcus J. Borg, Jesus at 2000, ch.11 and Hershel Shanks Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ch. 5. It’s a complicated phrase that had many different meanings, at many different times.
For example, in Exodus (4.22), all Israel is God’s child. Yet later, only David is–it became more specific, evidencing a more specific relationship.
Incidentally, 4Q246 is quoted by Luke in the anunciation–it’s the source he uses to support the virgin birth. Clearly all Jews didn’t share your understanding.
No. That’s the belief evidenced in, for example, the War Scroll, where the war is won by the hand of God himself. It’s not the belief in the psalms of Solomon, it’s not the belief in 4Q521, it’s not the belief in 11QMelch.
No, Son of Man as used in Ezekiel refers to a human being. The Son of Man in 1Enoch is a divine being, drawing from the Son of Man depicted in Daniel.
Read Enoch, don’t just tell me I’m wrong. It’s a fascinating text that I promise will heighten your understanding of Christianity.
Incidentally, the book of Simillitudes may be a later interpolation, and thus not terribly useful for assessing the millieu Christianity came from, as it would then be as much of a product of that millieu as Christianity is. Tough call–Milik argues, based on its absence in the version found at Qumran, that the Book of Simillitudes did not originally exist in Enoch. Charlesworth argues quite the contrary. I haven’t decided which I favor just yet.
Read 11QMelchizedek. He’s 1) definitely a heavenly figure, 2) Definitely equated with the Messiah and 3) Definitely a redeemer. Nobody said anything about redeemers of sins.
To further your understanding of the Melchizedekian Messiah–probably the most complex of the Messianic expectations, I’d suggest following 11QMelch up with the Gnostic text “Melchizedek,” and then–after you see the varying interpretations of Melchizedek, re-read the Epistle to the Hebrews. The epistle makes a lot more sense when it’s read with that background.
They did not call him God, they called him divine–he became like an angel when the new covenant was revealed to him. It’s a theme expanded on numerous times throughout the Hoyadot.
You obviously haven’t read the scrolls, so I’m gonna head this one off early–I don’t have the time to provide you with a good introduction to them. I’d suggest Vermes’ translation and commentary, as well as that of Wise, Abegg and Cook. For probably the best, though a little too conservative at times, introduction to the issues raised, see the the Shanks book I referenced above. I wrote a review of it somewhere or other, which was supposed to be published on www.bookreviews.org, except that bastard Evans published his review before me. Take a look at the Evans review, anyway, which says more or less the same thing I did, and if you’d like I can find mine as well. I was a little more critical, and apparently found an error that Evans had missed.
There’s a diference between calling yourself God and calling yourself divine. You’re moving the goalposts.
I disagree with Crossan based on the scholarship of Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, E P Sanders, John P Meier, Raymond E Brown, Dale C. Allison, Twelftree, Gibson, Vermes, Charlesworth. . .the list goes on. Pick any you feel comfortable debating, I’m good with any of them, though I don’t agree with all of them on every point either.
Crossan advocates a non-apocalyptic Jesus. The majority of scholarship, in fact, disagrees, though it’s a marginal majority at best. It’s among the most hotly debated subjects in the field.
If you’d like to discuss whether or not Crossan and the Jesus Seminar’s conclusions from the “Common Sayings Tradition” (their primary argument for the non-apocalyptic Jesus) are correct, feel free to start another thread, I’ll certainly participate.
If you’d like to tell me what I do or do not understand, I’ll probably just pack this one in. I’ve got considerable academic weight behind my arguments–Flint and Evans, for example, have discussed what I’ve said regarding Messianism at Qumran at length–so have Vanderkaam, Murphy-O’Connor, Davilla, Eshel and Vermes, to name but a few. I’ve already provided you two sources regarding the term “son of God” and the evolution of that phrase.
That you haven’t heard it before doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about. Such presumptions will cost us both the benefit of discussion. A thinly guised ad hominem is still an ad hominem.
I’m aware of that. They do so based primarily on the argument I suggested.
Raymond E. Brown, in his Introduction to the New Testament, in fact claims that the majority of scholars date it to the late sixties–67 seems to be the most common date taken. I’m not sure that it’s a majority, but there are bunches.
Christianity never took off among the Jews–it’s the reason Mark has the “Messianic Secret.” People were wondering why the Jews didn’t recognize jesus was the Messiah, Mark decided that they didn’t recognize him, because he wouldn’t let them see–“Tell no one what you have seen” being something of a mantra.
Besides, I’ve always been something of a Renan sort of guy, perhaps “Essenism that survived” overstates it a little, but “from the same vein of thought” is pretty secure ground. The Essenes had no problem condemning “all Israel,” despite the fact that they were, from any perspective but their own, a part of “all Israel.” Marks’ treatment of the Jews isn’t much different–he already views his group as distinct from them.
Regards.