Davide's Notes

This is the fourth post on the article The daybreak of the new creation: Christ's resurrection in recent theology by G. Hunsinger (links to post 1, post 2 and post 3). In this note I shall be briefly commenting on some of N.T. Wright ideas.

In particular, there is this statement, taken from Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (RSG), that is especially intriguing:

The only possible reason why early Christianity began and took the shape it did is that the tomb really was empty and that people really did meet Jesus, alive again.

I am not very much at ease with the logic of such a conclusion, nor with the adverb only.

Only aside, it seems to me that, if we take the statement on its own, the logic of the argument is flawed (or, more precisely, the argument does not necessarily conveys a true statement, as in "if A, then certainly B") in the adverb really. Try to substitute "really was empty" with "was believed to be empty", and "really did meet Jesus" with "thought to have met Jesus". Or even with "was said to be empty", and with "reported they had met Jesus", respectively. Why would the argument in these cases be more or less true than in the original formulation? But the validity of the argument rests on its premises and not on its direct logic, one could say - and one can quickly read about these premises for instance in Wrigth's article Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins. (besides RSG, that is.)

Now, the question is, is Resurrection really a foundational motive, or does it point to a "later narratival adaptation of early Christian theology"? - in other words, do we move from resurrection to Christology, or from Christology to resurrection? Can we draw a sharp line between the two? Can we say anything definitive on this?

My point here is that I fail to see a convincing argument to prove (as this seems Wright's intention, looking at the tenor of his statement above - but cmp. instead lines like "I would not pretend to have found an argument that would force a sceptic to admit that Jesus ‘must have’ been raised from the dead", in Jesus Resurrection and Christian Origins) the first hypothesis, compared to the hypothesis that the resurrection account(s) can't be fully traced on a purely historical level, or that it was a later development, for example devised to make sense of the meaning of Jesus' death and/or of the failed expectations of the disciples.

Which one is more probable, from the historian point of view? Here I share Moltmann's view that

Judgements of faith cannot be founded on historical judgements based on probability (Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ, p.214)

Wright maintains that the historical explanation of the Resurrection is the most probable, and apparently he is so convinced of this truth to state that from it the characteristics of Christianity by necessity completely derive. I think that there are valid counter arguments to this position.

For instance, why is it that Mark, i.e. the earliest gospel, does not contain post resurrection narratives? Actually, before Mark was written, we have the testimony of Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-8, speaking of the Resurrection of Christ. This testimony seems to be older than 1 Cor itself ("I handed on to you [...] what I in turn had received"), and there is not much convergence with Mark's account except for the sheer fact that Jesus "was raised": no empty tomb, no mention of women, let alone of the command not to disclose what the witnesses had seen. Let us also note that the post-resurrection events themselves mentioned in 1 Cor can't really be labeled as "narrative", for they are just listed without details pertaining to time, nature, or location. On the other hand, Mark seems to state that there will be at least one post-resurrection appearence, located precisely in Galilee, repeating what was already announced in Mk 14:28 - but he does not recount details of this appearance (as a matter of fact, what Mk 14:28 and Mk 16:7 recount might also be simply a description of the parousia of Christ - believed to be imminent, and to occur in Galilee).

So, assuming that a resurrection story was already circulating before 1 Cor was written, and that it is to this resurrection story that both Mark and Paul refer, what are we to make of the dissimilarities? It looks Paul does not know of the empty tomb (where did Mark get this from then?), nor Mark seems to know of the many post-resurrection events mentioned by Paul; on the other hand, Mark locates the one event he knows in Galilee, while Paul does not provide any detail pertaining to locations. Why is that so?

There's more when we come to examine the Resurrection as told by the other evangelists. Matthew and Luke clearly base their story on Mark, but add a significant number of details. Some of these seem patently to be apologetic in nature (e.g. the guardians in Matthew - which prevents skeptics to say that Jesus' disciples had stolen the body), but what is also interesting are the diverging details between Matthew/Luke and Mark (e.g. in Matthew the women do indeed recount what they had seen), or between Matthew and Luke themselves (e.g. Luke sets the location of the post-resurrection event not in Galilee, but around Jerusalem). Then, John 20-21 seems to combine both traditions, of Galilean and of Jerusalem appearances. Why is that so?

It seems to me that, given this evidence, it is difficult to posit strict historical reliability of the Resurrection accounts. There were clearly editorial changes and additions, due to various reasons: apologetic, doctrinal (cf. the much quoted anti-docetic Luke 24:39ff with the exhortation to touch Jesus' hands and feet), and political. For this last point, cf. for example the insistence of Mark with Galilee, symbol of the Gentile world, and the stress on leadership roles attributed to the original disciples in post-resurrection events, e.g. Jewish Christianity - not present in Mark (more interested in Gentile Christianity), but present in the other gospels. (for more details, including discussions on the significance of the Markan ending [was Mk 16:8 the true ending, etc], see Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, pp.137-51.)

Is the real core then, that is Resurrection itself, historically reliable, leaving aside post-resurrection events, empty tombs, role of women, locations, relaying or not relaying of the event, post-Easter authority issues, etc, i.e. all the elements that is not easy to fit into a coherent and consistent structure? Wright's argument, in the end, is reduced to saying that it was most unlikely that somebody could invent Resurrection as "Jesus raising from the dead", because this - from a strictly historical point of view - would have been too strange. (and if you read this transcript of a BBC Belief programme, featuring an interview with N.T. Wright, you will see that he adopts a parallel line of reasoning to justify the Virgin Birth story.)

But had it been really such a foundational historical event, why would the original sources leave out all-important details about it? Wasn't it to be the climax of the entire story? Why were later gospels (canonical or apocryphal, for the latter cf. the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of the Hebrews) required to "fill-in gaps"? Or, in a less skeptical tone, couldn't Resurrection be intended as a special event, transcending the simple category of history, and of historical validation? I tend to agree with Frei, when he writes that

It is not likely that successive generations of critics will agree on what is probable fact in the Gospel accounts. The criteria for historical reliability in regard to the Gospel story will – in the absence of external corroborations – always rest on shifting grounds (Frei, The Identity of Jesus Christ, p.141).

And with Moule:

The birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church [...] remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself (Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament, p.13)

And it is to Frei, Moule, Moltmann, and in general to what Hunsinger calls the eschatological view, that I intend to turn in my next post on this subject.

This word (in the form Βεελζεβούλ or Βεεζεβούλ) is found 7 times in the NT:

• Mat 10:25  It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.
• Mat 12:24  But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
• Mat 12:27  And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 
• Mar 3:22  And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "by the prince of demons he casts out the demons." 
• Luk 11:15  But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 
• Luk 11:18  And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 
• Luk 11:19  And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 

In practice, note that Mk 3:22-30 = Mt 12:24-32 = Lk 11:15-22 (Lk and Mt adding material - Q or not Q - to the Markan story), so it's actually two distinct occurrences.

The Vulgate renders Βεελζεβούλ as "Beelzebub". It is the same name as Baalzebub. According to 2Kings 1:2, Baalzebub is "the god of Ekron" (Ekron was a Philistine capital); in the context of this verse, for Ahaziah to inquire of Baalzebub is tantamount to deny Yahweh. Literally, Baalzebub is the "Lord of flies", and the LXX renders it as Μυῖα θεός (καὶ ἐπιζητήσατε ἐν τῇ Βααλ μυῖαν θεὸν Ακκαρων), i.e. the "Fly-God" ("Baal the fly").

The change from Baalzebub into Beelzebub shifts the meaning of the word from Fly-God into "Lord of the [heavenly] dwelling" (or "Lord of dung"?). Interesting (although I am not able to verify its accuracy) the suggestion that szebuhl, in Rabbinic language, means not any dwelling, but specifically the Temple. This meaning seems attested by Mt 10:25: master of the Temple is now Beelzebul himself.

Mark has  ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια and similarly Luke has Ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια (articular), while Matthew has ἐν τῷ Βεελζεβοὺλ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων (anarthrous), i.e. Beelzebul would perhaps be the prince of the daemons in the former case, and one of the princes in the latter.

Note the irony in the fact that Mk 3:11 has the "unclean spirits" falling down before Jesus and crying Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, and this immediately in front of 3:22-30, where the scribes "kept saying" that, instead, Jesus Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει. Interesting use of the imperfect in all verbs (both in the acts of the spirits and of the scribes) as to indicate repeated actions. (the spirits kept falling down and recognizing Jesus' divine nature, the scribes kept saying that Jesus was possessed - each one reiterating his own convictions.)

This blog may not be read by many, but to the few that frequent (or used to frequent) it, here's what happened to me in the past couple of months or so. As a matter of fact, although I do not usually delve into personal details in this blog, I believe it is of some importance to say something about what kept me from (among several other things) posting anything here lately.

On May 8, 2006 I had a car accident, and I feel lucky and grateful to be here, and able to post again. Since that date I am laying on a bed with a number of broken bones (now reassembled through surgery), and only recently have I been authorized to sit down (still in bed). Although full recovery will likely need several more months, I am feeling better now, and I hope that doctors will soon give me the go-ahead to try and touch down earth again. Enough of this, but first let me thank the many people who have been helping me throughout this period, my wife, daughter, parents and relatives first, and then all friends, coworkers and [para]medic personnel, who have been so close to me and my family. Thanks.

Back to blogging business, then.

It is not clear yet whether I'll be able to post with any frequency, but here's what I am at during these days of more or less unprecedented reading time, so if anything comes, it will probably be on some of these topics. I am reviewing Greek grammar, and have recently bought Wallace's "Beyond the basics" (formidable) and Aland's "Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum", a book evoking in me the idea of beauty. The goal is obviously to work more on the NT in the original languages (the UoL exam prompting me to do this being indeed "New Testament with Greek Texts"); I read and liked Mark Goodacre's "The Synoptic Problem", and actually I am now busy coloring my synopses to try and study the various hypotheses. Telford's "Theology of the Gospel of Mark" is a book I am focusing on.

Beyond NT exegesis, I am also reviewing systematic theology. For this, I am using McGrath's "Introduction to Theology", a book I bought in 1999 and that I have been reading with pleasure ever since. It is a book that always prompts me to read and do more. Indeed, a couple of books from Moltmann and a couple from Teilhard de Chardin are on order, and it looks like sooner or later I will have to spend some serious time together with Augustine (De Trinitate being a prime candidate). Here are today's notes:

•  Revelation as doctrine: review Lindberg's "Nature of Doctrine" and his criticism of cognitive-propositional and experiential-expressives theories. What relation is there, if any, between his cultural-linguistic approach and the relativistic ideas I am currently reading in Maria Baghramian's "Relativism"? (see, I just can't read one book at a time, not now at least -- the copious time I currently have for reading calls for changes in topics, or my brain melts.)
• Revelation as presence: "For Brunner, divine revelation is necessarily Christocentric". See Emil Brunner's "Truth as Encounter" and Martin Buber's "I and Thou".
• What can be said about the "theological importance of beauty"? Comment e.g. on Jonathan Edwards' aestethic ecstasy in relation with experiential approaches to revelation. (Feuerbach's criticism etc.)
• Read Cicero's "De Natura Deorum". Calvin and the difference between God the Creator and God the Redeemer. "We find everywhere in this world the traces of a revealed God and of a hidden God; revealed enough to strengthen our faith, concealed enough to try our faith." (from Schaff, vol.8, ch.14, 114)
• Read more on the Barth-Brunner debate. Read how Barth comments e.g. Rom 1:19, διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς· ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν.
• Narrative Theology: cf. Auerbach's "Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature". and Robert Alter's "Art of Biblical Narrative". The problem of truth in narrative criticism. (cf. Pannenberg's approach.)

P.S. Had you not done so yet, read Umberto Eco's "Baudolino".

P.P.S. I just realized that several links to other blogs found in the frame on the left are now outdated. I'll try to correct them as soon as possible.