Ben C Smith

The teaching that there would be a resurrection, by itself, does not fix a misunderstanding that the resurrection would apply to some people but not to others.

I am quite willing to consider that the Johannine resurrection sayings were not originally dominical.

No. I do not have to. I am not the one claiming that the Thessalonians did or should have known Matthew 22.32. My claim was that Matthew 22.32 would not fix the Thessalonian problem.

Have you read the article by Garrow? Have you read his book, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache, to which the article is supplemental? Have you any way to justify this generalization?

And, even if you are correct that there was no historical Jesus (who said those things), that it is obvious is, of course, a grand exaggeration at best.

Ben.

Steven Carr

Why? What is there about Matthew 22 which leads you to conclude that Jesus taught about a general resurrection of believers? And what in the text leads you to believe that to think that Jesus was teaching only about a resurrection of already dead people is a 'misunderstanding'?

Either way, there was clearly no historical Jesus who preached a general resurrection.

All HJ people seem to have is a mountain of speculation about how Thessalonians may have 'misunderstood' Matthew 22 (with not a shred of evidence behind it), while claiming that their own theological conclusions about Matthew 22 are obviously correct.

Take your example that Paul wouldn't have used Matthew 22 even if he had heard about it, because the Thessalonians would just have misunderstood it again. How can you argue with this castle in the air? What evidence is their for it?


Wouldn't Paul have explained the correct meaning, using words to do so if necessary? Of course he would. Paul often explains what things mean.

By Occam's razor, Paul didn't use Matthew 22, because he had never heard of Matthew 22, or anything like it, even though apparently 'crowds' of people had heard it.

That is why Paul never settles the issue of resurrection by appealing to the teachings of the person the Thessalonians worshipped. The person the Thessalonians worshipped had never spoken on the subject.

And why did the Corinthians deny any resurrection of the dead?

Clivedurdle

http://www.didache-garrow.info/dated...larifydate.htm

Is this the reference you could not find?

Maybe the problem is with "Thessalonian misunderstanding". This assumes a clear perspective to misunderstand. What I see is a legitimate objection - isn't resurrection for the elect? - and a response, not to a misunderstanding - but the exposition of a new gospel of resurrection for everyone - but that one was also thread bare because the end of the world wasn't happening and people were still dying when death was meant to be abolished.

Paul did not refer to the gospels or oral traditions because they did not exist - the human jesus had not yet been invented so these later resurrection ideas also did not exist..


I see Garrow as HJ out of habit - he has not thought through the implications of making didache the earliest xian document for an HJ.

Clivedurdle

Why might it be that the earliest xian document looks like an exposition of a religion based on the eucharist, and the eucharist looks to me like a classic alchemic ceremony?

andrewcriddle

Although I'm becoming doubtful about my original suggestion that the Thessalonians distinguished between the general resurrection and the special privileges of Christians, Revelation 20 seems to have a similar sort of idea.

20:4-6 refers to the 1st resurrection which seems to involve mainly Christians who have been killed or at least persecuted for their faith who will share the privileges of those Christians who have survived the Great Tribulation without apostasy.

20:11-15 refers to a second resurrection a thousand years later involving everyone else, at which those whose names are written in the book of life are separated from those who names are not so written.

Within this framework of ideas it would be plausible to think that faithful Christians who die peacefully from natural causes will have to wait for the second resurrection.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Be careful with all the variations of pre milleniarists and whatever! Getting your name in the lambs book of life is the problem, remember all those angels copying down all your thoughts and all this stuff on the internet that you will be judged against!

Ben C Smith

Because in order to (mis)understand that the resurrection will apply only to a certain class of people one must first understand that there is going to be a resurrection. It would be preaching to the choir to respond to that misunderstanding by blankly claiming, yet again, that there will be a resurrection. The readership obviously already knows that.

This is not about Matthew 22 in particular. I am mounting no argument here either for or against its authenticity as a dominical saying. My argument is that it is entirely peripheral to what Paul could have, would have, should have written to the Thessalonians if Garrow and Carlson are correct.

In order to come to such a conclusion you have to point out a dominical resurrection saying that would have fixed the problem Paul was addressing. Without that, you may as well claim that Paul should have referenced the dominical teaching on divorce to answer the Thessalonians.

Garrow does not, AFAIR, say anything about whether the Thessalonians had access to Matthew 22. He thinks that the Thessalonians had access (through Paul) to Didache 16.

It goes without saying that Paul did not deliver the entire New Testament to the Thessalonians on his founding visit. Garrow makes the argument that one of the things Paul did deliver to them was Didache 16. If you wish to argue that he also delivered Matthew 22 to them, make your case.

I do not understand the objection. If Garrow and Carlson are correct (and neither is dealing with the historical Jesus in all of this), then it is instantly obvious to the most casual observer that Matthew 22 would not fix the problem.

I think you are missing a piece of the logical puzzle somewhere in this, but I do not know which piece.

Yes, and that is, according to Garrow and Carlson, exactly what Paul did. He explained the correct meaning of the tradition that he had passed on, namely Didache 16.

I patiently await your explanation of how anything in Matthew 22 would have corrected the Thessalonian problem on the Garrow-Carlson hypothesis.

He does refer to the teaching of the man they worship. He calls it the word of the Lord. That may mean his earthly teachings, or that may mean a divine word from the risen Lord, but he most certainly appeals to what Jesus (in his best judgment) said.

I entered this thread to discuss the Thessalonian problem because I recently read Garrow (and I encourage you to do the same; he is not discussing the historical Jesus). The Corinthian problem is a different animal; the Corinthians were (for whatever reason) disregarding almost everything they were originally taught, whether Pauline or dominical or otherwise.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Sorry, no. The dead link was to an actual online article by Garrow.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

http://www.didache-garrow.info/booki...chapterone.htm

?

Ben C Smith

That link is to a chapter from the book. The article was supplemental. The original link to the article (in .pdf format) was on a weblog entry by Carlson.

Ben.