Now while I am trying to put this up at a time when some of you may be studying Daniel, the information in my notes is not necessarily Sunday School material. It represents current opinions in the field of biblical studies — opinions which often do not approximate our own (as LDS) interpretations of the text. Having said that, I hope that there is some information here that is helpful, or that at least serves to communicate the opinions that are out there regarding this biblical text.  This is the material that was presented in class and does not represent my own personal views of the subjects.

As there is a lot of material here, I will have to divide it up between a few posts. This first post will give my notes from Prof. Davila’s lectures on the general overview of the book.

If you want to read these notes on Scribd, see here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44863398/Daniel-Class-Notes-1

___________________________________

There are four critical commentaries that are important to look at:

• Montgomery (ICC): published 1927; best commentary of its time; some arguments are dated; still very useful
• Hartman & Di Lella: Anchor Bible commentary; Hartman died before he finished; good critical commentary; written in 70s; has some eccentricities; lot of discussion about theories of original language
• Goldingay: published 1989; more up-to-date; good discussion of history of interpretation; translation; looks at form, genre, setting; more homiletical commentary;  a bit long-winded;  some idiosyncratic ideas
• Collins: Hermeneia commentary; definitive statement on everything to do with Daniel; extremely detailed commentary; one of best commentaries ever written on a biblical book; published 1993

Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel, transl. Robert C. Hill (Atlanta: SBL, 2006) — an early Christian commentary on Daniel

Overview:

The Book of Daniel is a library — a collection of stories; The Bible is a collection of books, but each book generally is a collection as well.

Modern scholars believe that some editor in the Maccabean period pulled the Book of Daniel together.

There are copies of the Book of Daniel among the Dead Sea Scrolls (these are the earliest known copies). There are a number of “Pseudo-Daniel” texts that mention Daniel — 3 texts.  Many other texts that have connections to Book of Daniel. The “Son of Man” title in the Gospels has some connection to Daniel’s “one like a son of man”.  The Book of Revelation uses Daniel as a structuring element and constantly alludes to it — uses its secret names, etc.

The Book of Daniel was written, in terms of final form, in 167-165 BC.  It was set in the mouth of Daniel during the Babylonian Exile (500s BC).

The purpose of the book: To encourage Jews when they were being persecuted by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). This persecution led to the Maccabean revolt of 167-165 BC.

Structure:

• First half of the book: Narrations about Daniel & his three friends
• Last half: First person accounts by Daniel of his visions and dreams, visitations by angels

History:

The late 7th Century BC marked the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire; the destruction of Nineveh occurred in 612 BC by Medes. The Medes were an Indo-European people who lived in Northwestern Iran – they weren’t really empire builders — they destroyed Nineveh and went home. The Medes were conquered by Cyrus the Persian — but they were closely related peoples in Iran. There was now a power vacuum in the ancient Near East.

The Babylonians took over territory from the Assyrian Empire for the next few generations — this became the Neo-Babylonian Empire (not old Babylonian Empire). Nabo-polasser (625-605 BC), King of Babylon, made a treaty with the Medes and took over Assyrian territories. He turned over the empire to his son Nebuchadnezzar (II) — 605-562 BC — who defeated the state of Judah and destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah in 597 BC, plundered the temple in order to  show that he, as king, and his gods were dominant — and because he needed money. He set up Zedekiah as a puppet ruler. Zedekiah later revolts and Nebuchadnezzar comes back and finishes the job — destroyed Jerusalem and burned down the temple (586/87 BC). The wealthy and educated taken captive to Babylon (10,000 to 15,000 taken) — the poor were left behind.

The Babylonian Exile — 587 – 536 BC  — is the setting of the Book of Daniel. But the book was written centuries after the fact and because of this makes mistakes. It has the order of Babylonian kings wrong.

Historically, Nebuchadnezzar dies and his son Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk, “Man of Marduk”) takes over, rules for two years. Then Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law takes over — Neriglissar. His son Labashi-Marduk (Garment of Marduk), succeeded him while yet a boy, but he was murdered after a couple of months. Nabonidus takes over — a general, no relation to Nebuchadnezzar. He worshiped the moon-god, Sin, instead of Marduk. Nabonidus would go away for years at a time to Teima in south Arabia. During those times, his son Belshazzar ruled as substitute.

Cyrus the Persian defeated the Medes –550 BC — and created the Persian Empire (Achaemenid Empire). He added Asia Minor, Afghanistan, and finally Iraq — and then in 538, he overthrew Babylon. Cyrus was a pretty nice guy compared to the Assyrians and Babylonians — he didn’t use such brutal methods. He was kind to cities that surrendered — he just asked tribute. The Cyrus Cylinder, found in the ruins of Babylon, was a propaganda piece. Cyrus deposed Nabonidus in Babylon. He declared in 536 that any Jews who wanted to go home could go.

Daniel’s history goes from 606-535 BC — to the third year of Cyrus.

The Second Temple Period is from 535 BC (520 temple built) to 70 AD (2nd Temple destroyed).

The last king of the Persian Empire was Darius III. In 356 BC, Alexander was born to Philip of Macedonia — In 336, Philip was assassinated and Alexander inherited the throne. Alexander had been tutored by Aristotle — he became king at age 20. He joined up with Greece; conquered Asia Minor, Syria/Palestine, Egypt (Alexandrias; “Kandahar” = Iskandriya = Alexandria). Alexander came to Iraq and defeated Darius III by the Tigris River; He went on to conquer the Mediterranean coast; Tyre. He was named Pharoah in Egypt — son of God. In 331, he defeated Darius a second time and captured Persia and Babylon. His soldiers married local women — made ties to local people and spread Greek culture. They founded “poleis” — Greek city-states. Alexander claimed to have conquered the “whole world” — actually stopped at India 327/6 BC. He died in Babylonia in 323 — age 33 — under suspicious circumstances. Alexander appears in the Bible — Daniel chapter 8 — he is the “he-goat from the west”.

The Diadokoi –”successors” — of Alexander divided his empire. Ptolemy took charge of Egypt and took control of Palestine — great for economy because of trade routes. Palestine was kept by the Ptolemies until 198 BC.

Seleucus started with Babylonia and spread to Persia and Syria. The Seleucids didn’t do well until Antiochus III (223-187 BC) conquered Palestine in 198 BCE. This led to the Maccabean revolt. Antiochus wanted to make Palestine a polis. In 175,  Onias III (the high priest) was deposed by his brother Jason. Jason set out to Hellenize Jerusalem; he built a gymnasium, etc. In book of Daniel, we see Onias assassinated (Dan. 9); Antiochus IV (called “little horn”) plundered temple and looted part of city. In 167, he outlawed the practice of Judaism (punishable by death penalty), sacrificed a pig on the temple altar and instituted the worship of Zeus in the temple.

The Maccabean revolt was started by a priest named Mattathias — his oldest son was named Judah “the Hammer” (Macabee). After 3 years, freedom of religion was granted to the Jews.

167-164 BCE — this is the context of the writing of Daniel (but considerably older material was used).

—————————————————————————-

Structure of the Book of Daniel:

Chapters 1-6 — stories about Daniel and Friends

Chapters 7-12 — visions

Chapters 1-2:4, 8-12 — written in Hebrew

Chapters 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 — written in Aramaic

No one knows why it is divided this way — was it originally all in Aramaic and then some parts translated to Heb? Why those parts?

Chapter 7 seems to be the central pivot — the last Aramaic section, and the first vision

Chapters 1-6

These are “court tales” — set during the Babylonian exile, in the courts of pagan kings. This is a genre in the Bible — Joseph, Esther (Jewish hero in court of pagan king).

Daniel & his friends are not narrators — the story is told in the 3rd person omniscient. Chapter 4 is narrated by King Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel and friends are mantic sages on whose behalf God works miracles.  Mantic vs. prophetic — mantic initiates the revelation; prophet receives from God whether he wants it or not. Mantic sages engage in divination. Daniel can interpret dreams; read writing on wall — this comes as revelation from God.

In these stories, the hero has to remain true to God in a threatening situation — he is always delivered by God in order to remain faithful to religion.

Setting — the Aramaic folklore of the Persian period; stories gathered by scribes in the Maccabean period.

Chapters 7-12

Apocalypse — or collection of smaller apocalypses — a revelation by an angel/divine being to a human — revelation of heavenly secrets (narrative genre: apocalypse).

There are older themes being used (and perhaps older documents)

Written in first person as Daniel (Daniel is pseudonymous author)

Angels appear to and have dialogue with Daniel

No otherworldly journey precisely (like Enoch) — although chapter 7 seems to present Daniel in heaven talking to an angel.

All these visions have vaticinia ex eventu (prophecies after the fact) — also include reviews of history (especially chapter 11)– history of world from creation, leads up to persecution of Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, then end of world.

The visions are built on the ancient schema of 4 world empires — (in Daniel they are) Babylon, Medes, Persians, Greeks

1970s — John Collins, et al., collected all of the ancient apocalypses they could find — published in Semeia a “master paradigm” for the genre “apocalypse”:

• there are key features: narrative framework, otherworldly mediator (angel), human recipient, revelation of divine secrets (otherworldly realities, future eschatalogical salvation–judgment, afterlife journey)
• some elements are present, some not — some common but not universal
• pseudonymity is nearly universal
• some have reviews of history, otherworldly journeys — some don’t

Daniel is “historical apocalypse with no otherworldly journey” — a rather unusual combination

The development of apocalyptic literature happened generally outside the canon. It’s good to know the Enochic literature to help you understand Daniel.  Genesis 5 — understood to mean that God translated Enoch to heaven. The Book of the Watchers expands on Gen. 6 — the writer of Gen 6 knows the longer story, but doesn’t want to include it, but has to include something because it is well known — the Book of Watchers is the more original story. The Animal Apocalypse is an ex eventu review of history, from the creation of Adam to the Maccabean revolt — the allegory/animal fable is similar to Dan 7 — they are interested in the same series of events — the author of the Animal Apocalypse probably lived at the same time and place, writing at the same time as author of Daniel. The Similitudes of Enoch was written quite a bit later — 1 century CE — it draws extensively on the Book of Daniel, and is one of the first sources we have of the interpretation of Daniel.

4th Book of Ezra — 100 CE — is more or less a contemporary of John (Revelation) — its visions were inspired by the Book of Daniel — another early source for what people thought of the Book of Daniel.

The Book of Revelation and the Gospels draw on Daniel.

What is the relationship between the Book of Daniel and the Akkadian apocalypses of Ancient Mesopotamia? Calling the Akkadian documents “apocalypses” is really an incorrect description — the stories they tell are not mediated by a divine being. They present past events as prophetic predictions–after the fact predictions lead into real future predictions.

Date of Book of Daniel

This is a theologically fraught/controversial issue.  The modern scholarly conclusion: it is clearly from the 2nd century BCE, not from 6th Century BCE.  The book’s claimed setting was first challenged by pagan thinker Porphyry (3rd century CE) – he dated the book correctly to the time of the Maccabean revolt. St Jerome argued against him.

The Book of Daniel does preserve ancient material — but the prophecies and final form are from the Maccabean revolt.

Arguments:

• The book is full of miracles. This is a weak argument –circular reasoning that assumes that miracles don’t happen–miracle stories can be contemporary with events.
• There are detailed, correct predictions of future events — astonishing detail, so it must be written after-the-fact. This is a weak argument — again circular reasoning–there is nothing in the laws of physics that presents information from travelling backwards in time–it would reasonably be possible for someone in the past to know something of the future–the predictions are not impossible.

We can dismiss the above arguments as weak. However, there are other arguments that are more persuasive.

• The stories in the Book of Daniel are not mentioned anywhere before the Maccabean Revolt. –Not overly impressive argument on its own — it is an argument from silence — in the end, a weak argument.
• In the Jewish canon, Daniel is listed among the “writings” instead of the “prophets” –”Writings” is the catch-all category at the end, written after the canon of prophets was closed. –We don’t know when the canon was closed, when the collections were final — also, Daniel is not actually a prophet (he’s a mantic sage), and is never called a prophet–he doesn’t do prophecy — so it is reasonable that he is not included among the prophets.
• The Aramaic of the Book of Daniel looks to be much later than 6th Century BCE. — It’s a late western dialect. Now we recognize that Daniel was written in Imperial Aramaic used by Persians as diplomatic language in their empire, which makes it very difficult to date. There is Aramaic in the Book of Ezra that also looks late, but that could be due to copying over time. While the Aramaic in Daniel is consistent with it being from the Maccabean period, we are not compelled to conclude this. There is a lot of older Persian language in it — but the Persian and Greek words in it would not go back to the Babylonian period.
• Stronger argument: the writer shows vague knowledge of his supposed time period – the text is full of mistakes, anachronisms, things that don’t make sense according to history — There was no deportation of Jews in 606; no Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar (there was one who was a son of Nabonidas, but he is not mentioned); there was no Darius the Mede (there was a Persian king Darius); the use of the word Chaldean is odd– it was an ethnic term, not used for magicians (that is a later, Hellenistic usage). There are various apologetic arguments to explain these away, but they become quite desperate.  There are incongruities (furnace, Lion’s Den law).
• Strongest argument: ex eventu prophecies — there are many examples of fake “historical reviews” — these flow into real future predictions, but these are almost always wrong (see Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11) — predictions of events after the Maccabean revolt all go wrong — the final judgment is to come directly after the Maccabean revolt — all of predictions up to Maccabean revolt are correct, but then when the end time is expected, it doesn’t happen — so we can understand that it was written in Maccabean times.

Is pseudonymity dishonest?

Possibilities:

• The writer wanted to enhance the believability of his writings (this is dishonest and stupid as people will soon catch on)
• There is a humility in this — the writer wanted to give a message, but didn’t want to glorify himself so wrote it in the name of an ancient worthy (still dishonest)
• It was written in the name of someone else because the writer was afraid of persecution (they could have written anonymously without claiming to be an ancient prophet)
• The writers actually had visionary experiences themselves in which they channeled ancient prophets (as a medium — dead person speaks through him) –the writers were mantic sages themselves that involved being possessed by the earlier prophet — the writer is speaking in the name of Daniel — this is Davila’s working hypothesis in analyzing Daniel — this gets rid of the moral problem.

But where did the writer get the idea that there was a Daniel? Ezek. 14:12–20; 28:1-3 — mentions a Daniel: Ch. 14–refers to Noah, Daniel, and Job as great preachers. Ch. 28–Prince of Tyre thinks himself wiser than Daniel (a very wise figure). The problem with relating this to Daniel in the Book of Daniel is that it is an odd context — Daniel was supposed to be a contemporary of Ezekiel, and wouldn’t have been associated with Noah and Job — but we don’t have any stories of an ancient Daniel — the Ugaritic texts have a figure named Dan’el. Nehemiah has Daniel & Three Friends listed as exiled priests. Stories about a Daniel seem to come up in the Persian period, but they don’t really match Book of Daniel. Daniel is called a prophet in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the NT. But Daniel is not a “prophet”, he is a mantic sage and gets revelation through ritual practices.

Sources for Daniel Text

• Masoretic text (Bible)
• Greek translations –Old Greek (Chapters 3,4,5,6 quite different from MT — not many copies because it was embarrassing to early Church because of differences from MT), Theodotion, Papyrus 967 (best source for OG)
• Qumran — 8 highly fragmentary copies of Daniel (all 12 chptrs) — also quoted many times in other texts
  • oldest copy dated to late 2nd century BCE (within 50 years of actual writing of book)
  • close to Masoretic text
• Daniel traditions outside of the MT — Greek translation is larger than MT
  • Prayer of Azariah, Song of Three Young Men, Bel & the Serpent/Dragon, Susanna — likely written in Hebrew/Aramaic, but we only now have Greek versions
  • other stories found among DSS
    • Prayer of Nabonidus (clear parallels to Book of Daniel)
  • other related elements (Book of Giants throne theophany, etc.)

Daniel highly influential in the NT

–expression Son of Man –from Dan. 7, “one like a son of man” who came to throne of Ancient of Days

–Book of Revelation highly dependent on Daniel

400 BCE — Tichonius, a Christian writer, (picked up by Augustine) developed a non-chiliastic view of Book of Daniel (non-millenarian) — eschatological aspects watered down — New Jerusalem is Church on earth at present, not some future place — apocalyptic instructional, not predictive — Christ already rules on earth

Joachim of Fiore — a bit before 1200 BCE — renewed the eschatological perspective — predicted the establishment of two orders of monks

4 Empires idea changed to include the Romans

Protestant reformers — “the Romans” includes the Papacy — John Knox

Modern evangelicals have an eschatological view that relies heavily on Daniel.

I present here my notes from her lecture.  As always, please realize that these are my own notes and do not fully represent the material that Dr Tiemeyer presented. She is publishing a much larger work on this topic (unfortunately I didn’t catch the title).  Please bear with the incomplete nature of these notes.

———————————————–

Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer on Isaiah 40-55

 Challenging the concept that one person wrote Isa. 40-55 during the Exile in Babylon

 –She is arguing that it was written in Judah during Exile

 Do the scholarly claims support a Babylonian setting? She argues that they only presuppose it — nothing necessitates a Babylonian-based author

 Methods: Shemaryahu Talmon’s four principles for comparative studies:

1) priority of biblical parallels over extra-biblical

2) proximity in time and space: contemporary societies should be used for comparisons

3) correspondence of social function: examples in Judah over outside

4) holistic approach vs. atomistic

Examples in biblical texts should be sought before Mesopotamian examples

Barr offers these guidelines for comparisons:

1) sources nearer to the Hebrew Bible in time

2) geographic closeness

3) Semitic sources

———

Because of their conquests of the region, we should expect to find a great degree of Mesopotamian influence over Judah during the time of Exile. Mesopotamian rulers lived in Judah — so it would be natural that we should see their influence there. Judahite scribes and possibly even regular people had a good idea of Mesopotamian religious ideas and practice since 6th-7th Century BCE.

–So there is not a good argument for the Assyrian/Babylonian elements in the Bible to have actually come from those places –such usage would have been known in Judah.

It is possible to detect Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian language) influence in Deutero-Isaiah — however, we would need to see if there are more Akkadian loan-words than are found in other texts.

–Kittel compares 2Isaiah to cuneiform literature (Akkadian) — lists parallels betwn Babylonian texts and 2Isa.

–there are similarities in vocabulary between these texts – but these could be cognates — we should look for inner-biblical parallels first

–we can also find many similarities between Isa. 60-62 and Babylonian texts although scholars wouldn’t claim authorship of these chapters in Babylon

–You didn’t need to be living in Babylon to know name of Cyrus

–Regarding some of the thematic elements in 2Isa: It is more likely that authors were influenced by Book of Exodus rather than Babylonian texts

Most texts in Hebrew Bible have Akkadian influence (not just 2Isa) — Amos has a large number of Akkadian loan words, but no one argues that Amos was in Babylon

–Akkadian was the politically dominant language of the time — it had significant influence on the local languages — it is natural that we find Akkadian elements throughout the Bible.  Language cannot be used to argue for a Babylonian setting — there are no more loan words in 2Isa than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible

–Ezekiel claims to have been written in Babylon, but has less loan words than Isa. or Jeremiah!

–we should note that there are also Ugaritic cognates in 2Isa — Dahood even argued that parts of 2Isa were written in Phoenicia!

–Akkadian was not even the major language during the Neo-Babylonian period — Aramaic was more used

–There would have been no need for the authors of 2Isa to know Akkadian if they were not part of the Babylonian royal court or cult

The presence of Akkadian cognates in the Heb. Bible is not evidence of the author’s presence in Babylon, but that loan words were known in Judah – evidence of Assyrian influence over conquered city-states

–”Self-Predication Formula” (“I am YHWH — the First and the Last”, etc.) — scholars argue that this comes from Babylonian influence — they argue that this is reminiscent of Sumerian hymns learned in Babylon

–again we should give precedence to biblical parallels — the authors likely drew from their own already existing self-presentation formula in their scriptures — maybe it ultimately stems from Sumeria, but can be found in Hebrew prophetic texts — the influence is likely pre-exilic Palestine

– There is no evidence of Assyrian prophetic texts having an influence in Babylon — there must have been earlier interaction between the people of Marduk and people of YHWH

–Isa 40-55 follows the pattern of earlier Isa chapters — We cannot conclude (from the above linguistic arguments cited) that authors must have been residents of Babylon

Another argument is that the passages in 2Isa that refer to religious practices (instructions for making of idols, etc.) are claimed to be related to Babylonian practices. –There are direct references to Babylonian deities

–tendency to worship idols is not novel to the Babylonian period  — you don’t have to be living in Babylon to know about their gods and practices

–all the terms used are attested to elsewhere in the  Heb. Bible — there are no details that would lead us to conclude that authors knew anything beyond what was commonly known

–no local features or local individuals are mentioned — a prophet in Judah would have been able to envision all of this

–Isa 46:1–2 — the picture of Babylonian gods depicted here does not fit the picture of what was going on in Babylon — King Nabonidus was replacing Marduk with moon-god Sin — this is not mentioned in 2Isa

–There is nothing in this material to warrant the conclusion that author of 2Isa was in Babylon — Jews would have known the customs of their conquerors.

The following tidbits come from the Q&A period after her presentation. I did not take note of the questions asked.

— There are many differences between the theology of 2Isa and the theology of Ezekiel — how could they come from contemporaries in the same group in Babylon?

– Evidence for the conflict between those who remained and exilees comes mainly from later texts, not contemporary

–***She says: We should first go to Psalter before we start considering Mesopotamian sources for these things*** (She said this subsequent to my asking if she had considered parallels between 2Isa and the biblical Psalms)

–Flora and fauna mentioned (plus coming of rain) — (e.g. Isa. 41:18–19) — seem to fit Israel/Judah better than Mesopotamia (In response to a question from Prof N.T. Wright) 

—Isa 48:11–12; 52 — talk about return from Babylon — but the majority of such passages in 2Isa talk about return from worldwide diaspora — so not necessarily written from perspective of those in Babylon

– The implications of this study are important. If 2Isa was written in Palestine, this changes a lot about how we understand these chapters and their relationship to other biblical literature written in the same period. If all chapters of Isaiah were written in Palestine, this has implications for our understanding of the unity of the Book of Isaiah as a whole (in response to a question by Allen Jones regarding what this research ultimately means for our understanding of 2Isa)

For those not familiar with N.T. Wright, he is one of today’s most recognized names in New Testament theology and Early Christianity. Educated at Oxford University, he has taught at Oxford in the past and has most recently served as the Bishop of Durham for the Church of England.  He has written numerous books and is a popular speaker — as I can’t do justice to his extensive accomplishments here, see his CV here. For LDS readers, you should note that Prof. Wright was recently quoted by Jeffrey R. Holland at General Conference (April 2008, see here, two-thirds the way to the bottom).

Prof. Wright was (this is my initial impression) poised and well-mannered, as some might expect an Oxford-educated Anglican Bishop to be, and also, at the same time, humorous and down-to-earth. He had a great mastery of the wide range of topics he addressed, was opinionated in his political observations, but also open-minded and refreshing. My notes from his lecture are brief and likely do not come close to capturing the full force and essence of his message. My mind was more fixed on following his rapid pace and various illuminating illustrations rather than on taking notes.  I hope, however, to give some idea of what he was trying to say.  His lecture was entitled:

Kingdom, Power and Truth: God and Caesar Then and Now

The focus of the first part of the lecture was on the conversation between Jesus and Pilate in the Gospel of John 18-19. 

The conversation of Jesus and Pilate relates to our modern public debates.  Christ was representing the Kingdom of God while Pilate represented the Kingdom of this World — the counterfeit, pagan kingdom that temporarily rules in place of God’s Kingdom. The focal points of the conversation are a debate over kingdom (Jn. 18:33–37), power (Jn. 19:10–11), and truth (Jn. 18:37–38). The kingdom, power, and truth of God versus that of the world.

–This conversation should not be seen as foreign to John’s presentation of the theology of the Cross, but should be seen as an essential part of it.  In John 12:31–32, Jesus says:

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world (false rulers/usurpers) be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The prince of this world is the evil power that is behind the “kingdom of this world”, those who are usurping power from the Kingdom of God and the true King.  This is an essential part of the meaning of what Jesus did on the Cross.

In John 16, apparently the victory over the prince of this world and his judgment had already happened in some sense [I would imagine that Jesus was referring to what he was about to do in ch. 17 and beyond]. Jesus says:

…the prince of this world is judged (Jn. 16:11).

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (Jn. 16:33).

In the second part of his lecture, Prof. Wright outlined some of the many public debates and social ills that fill today’s news.

The Papal visit this week is very significant — we should see the Catholic Church as sister church — we have so much more in common than we were previously willing to recognize.  His visit is interesting in that Britain has become a sort of world centre of atheism.  God/religion have largely been pushed out of the public domain.  It has been said for some time that “Downing Street doesn’t do God” (Dowining Street are where the British top gov’t residences/offices are located).

Who is Caesar in today’s western democratic world? Is it the government? Is it the voters? Where does God fit in among the rulers of the kingdom of this world? There are many debates over the place of God in public life.

The main forces that shape today’s debates are:

1. Gnosticism — religion/salvation is an introspective, individual affair — it is a trivial/irrelevant topic in public square — religion doesn’t solve society’s problems, but is a private affair only — for salvation one must turn inside and away from the world and its problems
2. Empire — promotes gnosticism because it is not politically threatening — willing to use power, force, deceit to have its way
3. Postmodernity — debunks myth of modern empire, saying truth claims are merely power claims — truth is what we desire it to be — after giving us the bad news about modernity, postmodernity has no good news to give

Kingdom, Power, and Truth

This third part of the lecture attempts to apply the first part to the second.

The Kingdom of God that Jesus referred to is not just a gnostic, otherworldly essence — it has much to do with this world.  When Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king, Jesus declared that his Kingdom was not from (a better translation than “of”) this world.  It came from outside this world — a higher authority– but was certainly for this world. Anciently, God was understood to be in control of the kingdoms of the world — he delegated power to human rulers. Those who abused this delegated power would be judged and punished. Although not all worldly rulers are just, it is better to have order than chaos, knowing that one day He will put everything right.  Jesus has the authority — exousia – to judge the world and rule in righteousness.

In ancient Judaism, the King of the Jews was also the King of the World.  Jesus was understood by his followers to be the King of the Jews, and so was not just the King of Heaven but also the rightful King over this world. It is interesting that the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of treason against the “prince of this world”, failing to recognize him as the true ruler.  Anyone that claimed to be king was seen to be against Caesar. They swore loyalty to this false ruler — they announced: “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn. 19:15).  The Jews accused him of claiming to be the Son of God, knowing that this epithet was reserved, in the Roman Empire, for Caesar.  While Jesus exemplified his rule by sacrificing himself out of pure love on the cross, Caesar ruled his kingdom by violence.

It is Pilate (representing prince of this world) that finally declares him King of the Jews (and thus true King of the World) by writing the title and having it put over Jesus’ head on the cross (Jn. 19:19–21).

Where does the exousia lie in our society today? Truth is something that happens. We need to be actively engaging in this conversation with the world — the same conversation that Jesus had with Pilate.  Jesus is the true King of the World, not just for our own private lives. Jesus came to bring a new creation, peace, renunciation of violence.  While some, like Stephen Hawkings, would leave God, and especially Jesus, out of the public debate, we must assert that Jesus is relevant to the world’s problems today. 

Again, the preceding summary is from my own notes and do not represent the exact wording nor full message of Prof. N.T. Wright’s lecture.

I won’t quote from or go into the content of his paper, but I wanted to present some of the notes I took from Professor Davila’s remarks after the presentation. He said some interesting things that are helpful for understanding how some Jews, in the couple of centuries leading up to the life of Jesus Christ, thought about the role of the Messiah. My notes are far from a complete and accurate rendering of what Professor Davila said, so please bear with me.

Professor Davila:

Messianism in Second Temple Judaism is a very messy problem because the problem of Jesus is bigger than the problem of messianism when you define Messiah simply as “anointed one” — for the case of Jesus, we also need to look at the early Jewish ideas surrounding divine mediator figures, principal angels, charismatic spiritual leaders, etc.

(See Davila’s article “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (Leiden: Brill,1999) and also his online outline Methodology for Studying Divine Mediators)

The idea of a “messiah” encompasses two ideal figures: the Davidic King and the High Priest. However, these two characters became very complex in Second Temple Judaism:

• The High Priest can be eschatological or celestial
• Davidic king ideal can draw from Past — King David or Melchizedek
• Melchizedek can be both eschatalogical and celestial
• and so on…

For the figure of Melchizedek, there are some background issues that need to be addressed — See Gen. 14 and Psalm 110 — these should be considered when studying 11QMelchizedek (a Dead Sea Scroll)

In Gen. 14, Melchizedek is both a king (of Jerusalem) and a priest who offers sacrifice — he was a human being originally (like Jesus).

In Psalm 110 — a “royal psalm” — the only other reference to Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible — the Davidic king is enthroned at the right hand of God, and made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek — the Davidic king is a Melchizedek priest sitting at the right hand of God (heavenly ascent, although not explicit, can be read into this)

Melchizedek is a human being who was exalted to be a god, which has connections to Jesus.

In a couple of places in 11QMelch, Melchizedek is called a god — for instance, where Psalms 82 and 7 are cited regarding him(Psalm 110 is probably in the background of 11QMelch. as well).

Anciently, both king and priest were anointed — so Melchizedek is anointed on two accounts. He would certainly be considered an “anointed one.”

Matt. 11:2–6 (Luke 7) and Luke 4:18–19 — Jesus identified himself as being the one anointed by the Spirit as mentioned in Isaiah 61 and then Isaiah 35:5–6.

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (Dead Sea Scrolls) are also of interest. They likely refer to Melchizedek as a priestly angelic figure, which reinforces 11QMelch.

Margaret Barker thinks that Jesus was aware of this Melchizedek tradition — the 70 weeks (10 Jubilee periods) mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls is supposed to have ended at the Great Revolt (according to Gospel writers and Josephus) — the 10th Jubilee was supposed to be “the end” — Jesus was aware that at the beginning of the 10th Jubilee, the Messiah was supposed to be active — he saw himself as the Melchizedek figure.

Qumran seemed to believe in messiahs (plural) of Aaron and Israel. [One of the big questions that was discussed in the student paper and in class was whether Jesus fit either or both of these conceptions of the messiah of Aaron -- a priestly, atoning messiah -- or the messiah of Israel -- the conquering Davidic king. The student had concluded, based on his research, that Jesus didn't fully fit either tradition.]

In the pre-exilic period you had the king and a Zadokite priest under him.  In the post-exilic period, the Jews were under Persian overlords, so there was no king — there was a governor, Zerubabbel, and a high priest, Joshua. Zerubabbel was of the line of David, but not allowed to be king. The people began to want to be independent (ca. 520 BC) and shirk Persian control. In the last verses of Haggai, Zerubabbel is the “messiah” — he will be the true king:

Haggai 2:21–23  1 Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;  22 And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.  23 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.

We should note that Haggai seems to be cut short abruptly. Zechariah has similar themes:

Zechariah 6:11–13  11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;  12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:  13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

The instruction is to set crowns (plural) on the high priest Joshua, who appears to be called here “the Branch”. However, it seems more likely that the Branch should have been Zerubbabel (the Davidic king as a tree was an ancient idea), but he was later omitted in the text. Zerubabbel then disappears from history and the governors are never from the line of David again. The High Priest remains as the ruling figure in Jewish society.

The Qumran texts are looking at this history of kings and priests and the early pre-exilic diarchy (king and high priest ruling together), and saying that this is the ideal. There must be two messiahs — one priestly (Aaronic) and the other a Davidic king (depicted as a conquering warrior). The Qumran texts seem to make the priestly Messiah more important. Why?

Interestingly, the Jewish pseudepigrapha don’t generally mention a priestly messiah. Also, the Rabbinic texts don’t have a priestly messiah, only Davidic. There may be many reasons for this. The Dead Sea Scrolls do seem to  have the two messiahs idea.

4Q285 — “they will kill the prince of the congregation” — this used to be taken as “suffering Messiah” text, but now is not generally accepted as such.

4Q174 — the “teacher of law” is called the “star” that comes out of Jacob

The Book of Revelation should not be ignored in this matter. Jesus is not only the priestly, atoning messiah, he is there depicted as an eschatalogical warrior. Mark 13 and parallels paint Jesus as the Son of Man coming as a conquering figure — this is more evidence for Jesus as the Davidic messiah figure as well.

My (brief) thoughts on this subject:

I believe that the Aaronic (priestly) vs. Davidic messiah dichotomy is post-exilic. The pre-exilic “messiah”, who was the Davidic monarch,  was both a priestly figure (connected to atonement) and a royal warrior figure (connected to the battle against the nations). He was associated with the figure of Melchizedek. The conception of the priestly messiah should likely have originally not been connected to Aaron at all (this is a post-exilic invention), but should have been the priest after the order of Melchizedek, as Christ is described in the Epistle to the Hebrews. I think this is where 11QMelch comes into play — Melchizedek, the ancient example of the ideal priest-king, would have embodied both messianic expectations — the priestly and the royal.  The Davidic kings were anointed following the example of Melchizedek — as both priest and king (see Psalm 110).  This is the pattern that we see in Jesus as the Messiah — he would have been considered to be the two conceptions of messiah in one — the atoning High Priest and Davidic King. However, Christians believed that his role as conquering warrior would only be fully accomplished with his Second Coming. The fact that this role was not apparent during his lifetime may be one of the main reasons he was not accepted as the expected Messiah. Furthermore, the fact that he was not an Aaronic high priest, but claimed to be after the ancient (and repudiated) order of Melchizedek, was probably another reason why the Jewish leadership felt so threatened by his claims.

(For more on the background for these politics of the priesthood, see my post here.)

While in the LDS Church we have at least four accounts of the Creation to work with, non-LDS biblical scholars have only two major canonical accounts (not counting allusions in the Psalms, etc.): Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 (which most believe to have been written by two different authors following different theologies). It is significant, therefore, to see the extent of the material that scholars can get out of those two chapters in Genesis.

As the work that Prof. Kaminsky presented to us is not yet published, I will not quote from it. But I do want to briefly outline some of the ideas that were discussed in our seminar and present them as a representative example of what some biblical scholars are saying today about the material we read in Genesis.

1. There is a significant difference between the creation story presented in Gen. 1 and the story in Gen. 2. There are also significant differences between these accounts and the creation material that is found in the book of Psalms, which is more representative of the creation myths found throughout the ancient Near East — the more common myth is that the cosmos was created after the cosmic battle of the gods. The Genesis accounts don’t preserve the more ancient ideas of the rebellion of the gods, the great pre-creation battle, or the struggle of God with chaos/the waters.

2. Although later Jewish and Christian interpreters would read the idea of creation ex-nihilo (out of nothing) into the text, that is not what it actually describes. In Gen. 1, the waters and the land are not created by God, but are put in their proper places by Him. There is a division and ordering of pre-existent materials.

3. Scholars see in the plural language of passages such as Gen. 1:26 a reference to an ancient Hebrew belief in a plurality of gods. Some would describe such passages as having reference to the Divine Council that planned the Creation. Many scholars are now of the belief that the religion of ancient Israel should more correctly be classified as monolatry (worship of one God, while acknowledging other gods) rather than monotheism.

4. Whereas some of the other ancient Near Eastern religious traditions (see Enuma Elish) see humans as having been created to be slaves to the gods, the Genesis account presents the first man and woman as having the potential to become god-like. It is largely recognized that the Serpent who beguiled Eve was, at least in part, telling the truth when he said that eating of the tree would make the human couple like God. When they ate the fruit, they didn’t die, but became like God, knowing good from evil.

These are just a few of the more significant (for my purposes) of the many ideas discussed at the seminar. I am grateful to Prof. Kaminsky for his insightful theological commentary on Genesis and for bringing his ideas all the way here to St Andrews to be discussed in our forum.