Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pseudo-Deity · 07-16-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

But prophecies often had double meanings, one comparatively trivial, the other of cosmic significance- otherwise there was no real point in writing them.

Before you said that we only needed to use common sense to deduce the meaning of Isaiah 7:14. Now you are talking about double-meanings with cosmic significance. Sounds anything but straight-forward. Not to sound like a broken record, but it would be helpful if we knew whether pre-Christian Jewish scholars saw a double meaning in Isaiah 7:14, or whether it seemed straight-forward to them.

Clouseau · 07-16-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

But prophecies often had double meanings, one comparatively trivial, the other of cosmic significance- otherwise there was no real point in writing them.

Before you said that we only needed to use common sense to deduce the meaning of Isaiah 7:14. Now you are talking about double-meanings with cosmic significance. Sounds anything but straight-forward. Not to sound like a broken record, but it would be helpful if we knew whether pre-Christian Jewish scholars saw a double meaning in Isaiah 7:14, or whether it seemed straight forward to them.

I don't think that anyone knows the answer to that. A far better question is, did the Jews of Jesus' time dispute the Christian interpretation of the prophecy? Afaik, there was no dispute about any OT prophecy interpretation concerning Jesus, despite the strong interest of Jews in refuting Christianity. The retort of Jews to Paul and co. was to beat them up, a pretty sure admission of defeat.

Pseudo-Deity · 07-16-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity

Before you said that we only needed to use common sense to deduce the meaning of Isaiah 7:14. Now you are talking about double-meanings with cosmic significance. Sounds anything but straight-forward. Not to sound like a broken record, but it would be helpful if we knew whether pre-Christian Jewish scholars saw a double meaning in Isaiah 7:14, or whether it seemed straight forward to them.

I don't think that anyone knows the answer to that.

The fact that the Hebrew Bible existed then establishes that there were literate Jews. It seems highly unlikely that they wouldn't write about interpretations of their religious texts (since most of their lives revolved around them) and it seems plausible to me that at least some of these writings would survive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

A far better question is, did the Jews of Jesus' time dispute the Christian interpretation of the prophecy? Afaik, there was no dispute about any OT prophecy interpretation concerning Jesus, despite the strong interest of Jews in refuting Christianity.

Toto identified a second century Christian Apologist text in which they were debating this very matter with Jews (Justin's Dialogue with Trypho).

RED DAVE · 07-16-2007, 05:33 PM

Lewis Black on interpreting the Old Testament (and other topics). If you have never heard this rant, it is one of the funniest ever done.

http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/.../Lewis%20Black

Quote:

“I should’ve known earlier, about President Bush, but I gave him some rope. A lotta rope, & then he hung all of us with it. I should have known, when I heard him say ‘When it comes to evolution, the jury’s still out.’

What jury, where? The Scopes trial is over. I never thought, during the course of my life, that a president who didn’t believe in evolution would be elected, or at least in the ball park, thought, ummmmm, MAYBE IT’S GOT SOME MERIT. But NO! He believes the earth was created, in seven days. Hoo! Takes my breath away.

And why does he believe that? Because he read it in the Old Testament, which is the book, of my people. The Jewish people. And that book…wasn’t good enough…for you Christians. Was it? No, we’ve got a BETTER book, with ANOTHER character, you’re gonna LOVE HIM! And you called your book NEW, and said OUR book was OLD!

And yet, every Sunday, I turn on the television set. And there’s a priest, or a pastor, reading from mah book. And interpreting it. And, their interpretations, I have to tell you, are usually wrong. It’s not their fault, because it’s not their book.

You never see a rabbi on TV interpreting the New Testament, dooo yew?

If you want, to truly understand, the Old Testament, if there is something you don’t quite get, there are Jooos who walk among yew. And THEY, I promise you this, will take time out their VERY jewy, JEWY day, and interpret for you anything you have trouble understanding, and we will do that, of course, if the price is right.

There is a point here.

Why do you xtians think that you understand the so-called Old Testament better than the Jews who actually wrote it? As I have mentioned elsewhere, we Jews may be widely believed to harbor a number of negative traits, but being stupid is not one of them.

RED DAVE

Clouseau · 07-16-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

I don't think that anyone knows the answer to that.

Quote:

The fact that the Hebrew Bible existed then establishes that there were literate Jews. It seems highly unlikely that they wouldn't write about interpretations of their religious texts (since most of their lives revolved around them) and it seems plausible to me that at least some of these writings would survive.

I don't know of any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

A far better question is, did the Jews of Jesus' time dispute the Christian interpretation of the prophecy? Afaik, there was no dispute about any OT prophecy interpretation concerning Jesus, despite the strong interest of Jews in refuting Christianity.

Quote:

Toto identified a second century Christian Apologist text in which they were debating this very matter with Jews (Justin's Dialogue with Trypho).

I think that it is initial reaction that counts, when there are contemporary witnesses who can 'blow the whistle' on those who are mendacious.

Pseudo-Deity · 07-16-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

I don't know of any.

Quote:

Toto identified a second century Christian Apologist text in which they were debating this very matter with Jews (Justin's Dialogue with Trypho).

I think that it is initial reaction that counts, when there are contemporary witnesses who can 'blow the whistle' on those who are mendacious.

I don't quiet understand what you are talking about.

In any case, I found a translation of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho online. 142 chapters. Anyone know where the virginity debate begins?

Steven Avery · 07-16-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity

So, can anyone quote specific Jewish scholars writing (anywhere between 716BCE-1BCE) about the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 having been fulfilled by Hezekiah?

Hi P-D,

Hopefully you figured out by now that we have no Jewish rabbinical commentaries on Isaiah before the time of Jesus. We do have the Targum Yonathan (very helpful for Isaiah 53 and many Messianic applications, a good start is the Samson Levey book) and the back-looking comments in Talmud and Midrash and early church writers like the Justin/Trypho and Origen/Celsus discussions that all give insight on Jewish interpretations. There likely were multiple views of Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 53 and other verses in the Jewish exegesis of the time. In fact the NT itself is a major window on the Hebraic interpretations, even for seeing how the "suffering servant" was not easy for the apostles of Jesus to accept. The late David Flusser, a real historian, was very strong in using the NT as a window to 1st-century Judaism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity

According to Wikipedia, Hezekiah's reign was either 715 BCE-687 BCE or 716 BCE-687 BCE. Most scholars say that the Book of Isaiah was written around the 7th century BC, so it was a prophecy about the near-future?

Keep in mind that there was some exegesis that looked upon Hezekiah as the Messiah, Hillel was taking that position according to the Talmud. Historic Jewish exegesis can be squirrelly and a bit strange in discussion and application.

For discussions of Isaiah 7:14 I suggest you read the two excellent authors more attuned to the Hebraics that Richard Carrier had missed for years, while he was emphasizing the weaker Christian apologetic authors. Those gentlemen would be Daniel Gruber, author of a small but excellent booklet - "God, the Rabbis and the Virgin Birth" - and also Michael Brown. William Most, RCC, is also notable, surprisingly strong on these issues. He discusses the linkage between the Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 9 prophecies. Also good to check on any such issues is Risto Santala, perhaps there is some material of special interest in this Midrash of the Messiah book which is on the web.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

RED DAVE · 07-16-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

I think that it is initial reaction that counts, when there are contemporary witnesses who can 'blow the whistle' on those who are mendacious.

The initial reaction was quite obvious. Basically, nobody gave a shit. By and larger, Jews still don't.

RED DAVE

Pseudo-Deity · 07-16-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudo-Deity

In any case, I found a translation of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho online. 142 chapters. Anyone know where the virginity debate begins?

Found it. The debate about the virgin is sort of scatterd through the chapters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Chapter 43. He concludes that the law had an end in Christ, who was born of the Virgin.

"As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people's heart, so it was necessary, in accordance with the Father's will, that they should have an end in Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David; in Christ the Son of God, who was proclaimed as about to come to all the world, to be the everlasting law and the everlasting covenant, even as the forementioned prophecies show. And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God's mercy; and all men may equally obtain it. But since the mystery of His birth now demands our attention I shall speak of it. Isaiah then asserted in regard to the generation of Christ, that it could not be declared by man, in words already quoted: 'Who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth: for the transgressions of my people was He led to death.' Isaiah 53:8 The Spirit of prophecy thus affirmed that the generation of Him who was to die, that we sinful men might be healed by His stripes, was such as could not be declared. Furthermore, that the men who believe in Him may possess the knowledge of the manner in which He came into the world, the Spirit of prophecy by the same Isaiah foretold how it would happen thus: 'And the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God, in the depth, or in the height. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And Isaiah said, Hear then, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to contend with men, and how do you contend with the Lord? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, before he knows or prefers the evil, and chooses out the good; for before the child knows good or ill, he rejects evil by choosing out the good. For before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria in presence of the king of Assyria. And the land shall be forsaken, which you shall with difficulty endure in consequence of the presence of its two kings. But God shall bring on you, and on your people, and on the house of your father, days which have not yet come upon you since the day in which Ephraim took away from Judah the king of Assyria.' Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ. But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;' and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavour to discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Chapter 50. It is proved from Isaiah that John is the precursor of Christ.

And Trypho said, "You seem to me to have come out of a great conflict with many persons about all the points we have been searching into, and therefore quite ready to return answers to all questions put to you. Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; and then you will show, [further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin."

I replied, "Give me permission first of all to quote certain passages from the prophecy of Isaiah, which refer to the office of forerunner discharged by John the Baptist and prophet before this our Lord Jesus Christ."

"I grant it," said he.

Then I said, "Isaiah thus foretold John's forerunning: 'And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which He spoke: Let there be peace and righteousness in my days.' Isaiah 39:8 And, 'Encourage the people; you priests, speak to the heart of Jerusalem, and encourage her, because her humiliation is accomplished. Her sin is annulled; for she has received of the Lord's hand double for her sins. A voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the ways of the Lord; make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled up, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough way shall be plain ways; and the glory of the Lord shall be seen, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God: for the Lord has spoken it. A voice of one saying, Cry; and I said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass has withered, and the flower of it has fallen away; but the word of the Lord endures for ever. You that bringest good tidings to Zion, go up to the high mountain; you that bringest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with strength. Lift up, be not afraid; tell the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and [His] arm comes with authority. Behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him. As a shepherd He will tend His flock, and will gather the lambs with [His] arm, and cheer on her that is with young. Who has measured the water with [his] hand, and the heaven with a span, and all the earth with [his] fist? Who has weighed the mountains, and [put] the valleys into a balance? Who has known the mind of the Lord? And who has been His counsellor, and who shall advise Him? Or with whom did He take counsel, and he instructed Him? Or who showed Him judgment? Or who made Him to know the way of understanding? All the nations are reckoned as a drop of a bucket, and as a turning of a balance, and shall be reckoned as spittle. But Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts sufficient for a burnt-offering; and all the nations are considered nothing, and for nothing.'" Isaiah 40:1-17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Chapter 66. He proves from Isaiah that God was born from a virgin.

And I, resuming the discourse where I had left off at a previous stage, when proving that He was born of a virgin, and that His birth of a virgin had been predicted by Isaiah, quoted again the same prophecy. It is as follows 'And the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God, in the depth or in the height. And Ahaz said I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And Isaiah said, Hear then, O house of David; Is it no small thing for you to contend with men? And how do you contend with the Lord? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat; before he knows or prefers the evil he will choose out the good. For before the child knows ill or good, he rejects evil by choosing out the good. For before the child knows how to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus, and the spoil of Samaria, in presence of the king of Assyria. And the land shall be forsaken, which you shall with difficulty endure in consequence of the presence of its two kings. But God shall bring on you, and on your people, and on the house of your father, days which have not yet come upon you since the day in which Ephraim took away from Judah the king of Assyria.'" And I continued: "Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ."

Sauron · 07-16-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

I don't think that anyone knows the answer to that. A far better question is, did the Jews of Jesus' time dispute the Christian interpretation of the prophecy? Afaik, there was no dispute about any OT prophecy interpretation concerning Jesus, despite the strong interest of Jews in refuting Christianity.

1. You've presented no evidence that Jews had a "strong interest" in refuting christianity. You need to show that the Jews would have cared enough about it go to the trouble to directly confront Christians who were twisting OT scripture. Until you do so, your argument is crippled.

2. "As far as you know" there were no disputes? How much of the period writings on this (or similar) topics have you actually read? Oh, and by the way: this claim of yours is dependent upon proving item #1, above. If there were a lack of disputes, it could just as easily be explained by a huge amount of disinterest.

Quote:

The retort of Jews to Paul and co. was to beat them up, a pretty sure admission of defeat.

Nonsense. It's the tactic of a zealot with the iron glove of authority standing behind his actions. It's just easier to resort to clubbing someone when you have the power to do so, than to spend hours arguing with them. Paul's methods reflect an obsession with orthodoxy, not desperation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.