Vorkosigan

If you can explain why we should privilege your intepretations over the explanations of those whose books they are, we are all ears.

Evidence that Jewish intepreters think 42:1-6 is messianic?

From the Harper Bible Commentary:

Gerald T. Sheppard writes: "Scholars have, for many years, observed that the latter half of the book addresses the conditions of people in the Babylonian exile; in the times of Isaiah, Assyria alone was a threat and Babylon was viewed as a friendly, historically minor nation (see Isa. 39). Furthermore, on its own terms, the prophet's message in Isaiah 40-55 describes social circumstances in which the audience is positioned in a time after 'former things' have been fulfilled. This fulfillment could have occurred only during the time of the Babylonian exile (see Isa. 40:21; 41:4, 27; 42:9), a fulfillment that provides the basis for the prophet's argument that trustworthy 'new things' can be announced. Among these 'new things,' the prophet states that Cyrus will expedite the restoration of the nation of Israel and its return to the promised land."

In other words, Isaish reflects the conditions of then-current history.

Can you tell us which commentaries you are using?

Well, another explanation, generally advanced by scholars of many backgrounds and creeds, is that the early Christians injected their own understanding of the text. John J. Collins, in Scepter and Star, a first-rate scholarly tome about Messianism before Jesus, writes:

"The view that Isa. 52:13-53:12 was interpreted with reference to a suffering messiah by some Jews before the rise of Christianity is associated above all with Joachim Jeremias. Subsequent scholarship has large moved away from that position and admits that it is difficult to demonstrate either the notion of a suffering servant in Judaism or the influence of Isa 52-3 in the New Testament."

In other words, the wrongful interpretation is yours, and Christianity's (before you declare that Collins is some kind of liberal ant-Christian monster, Google his name ). No evidence exists prior to Christianity that Isa was read that way.

Your reference to 42:1-6 is also interesting, inasmuch as you have incorrectly cut up the text. The actual piece is 42:1-7 and is known among scholars as a "servant song." There are four in Isa, and as Collins notes, these were not grouped together in antiquity. "Consequently," he writes, "allusions to the other 'servant songs' do not necessarily imply the kind of suffering described in Isa 53."

Here is the entire quote:

1 Lo, My servant, I take hold on him, My chosen one -- My soul hath accepted, I have put My Spirit upon him, Judgment to nations he bringeth forth.
2 He doth not cry, nor lift up, Nor cause his voice to be heard, in the street.
3 A bruised reed he breaketh not, And dim flax he quencheth not, To truth he bringeth forth judgment.
4 He doth not become weak nor bruised, Till he setteth judgment in the earth, And for his law isles wait with hope.
5 Thus said God, Jehovah, preparing The heavens, and stretching them out, Spreading out the earth and its productions, Giving breath to the people on it, And spirit to those walking in it.
6 I, Jehovah, did call thee in righteousness, And I lay hold on thy hand, and keep thee, And I give thee for a covenant of a people, And a light of nations.
7 To open the eyes of the blind, To bring forth from prison the bound one, From the house of restraint those sitting in darkness. (YLT)

It can, though, if the term 'servant' is used as a metaphor. Which it clearly is. In reality, in the Aramaic targums on Isa 52-3, the "man of sorrows" is interpreted as the Gentile Kingdoms, and the Gentiles will absorb the transgressions of which Israel is guilty (see Collins). Obviously other people saw countries there, in different ways. In other words, if you bring the interpretative framework to the text instead of letting Isaiah tell you what it is (as the writer did in 49:3), you can see anything here. Which is what you are doing.

Sources, please.

Chief, so far you haven't cited any "actual factual information" either. An actual fact is that there is no evidence Isa 53 had messianic interpretation prior to Christianity. Another actual fact is that in 49:3 Israel is explicitly identified as the Servant, and it is "generally agreed Israel represented by the diasporic remnant which is the Servant of Yahweh..." (See Blekinsopp A History of Prophecy in Israel, cited in Collins) Anything else is simply your interpretation.

Vorkosigan

Chief594

Volk, it is my pleasure to continue in this dialogue as I truly enjoy talking with someone as educated as you obviously are. As for my assumption of your naturalistic viewpoint, I offer my apologies for assuming. That was wrong of me. Although one must admit it was atleast somewhat reasonable based on our conversation and I am very curious what you personally use to determine if there is or is not a god(s). (In fact you claim the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so I’d be interested in your proof) But perhaps another time.

As stated before, I am impressed with your ability to offer so much information on this topic. I don’t know how you manage to have as much time on your hands as you do (perhaps you were lucky enough to win the lottery for all I know) but I simply don’t have the time to refute you point by point. As I read over your answers I found that I have either already answered them or the rebuttal is just as subjective as my original statement. (On a side note you did mention the book of Mormon in your last post. I’d encourage you to look at http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html to see what the Smithsonian thinks of its accuracy.) I simply don’t choose to fill up my post time with Scholars say this and Scholars say that as I’ve come to realize it really doesn’t matter what they say. Scholars come and go, opinions change, new evidence supports this new revelation or that old belief. Phrases like “widely accepted circles.� What does that mean? It’s like a Presidential poll. It changes like the tides. It is irrelevant. It’s kind of like “expert witnesses� in court. Both the defense and prosecution can easily find one to say what they want about the same issue. This is no different.

Looking back over our dialogue of point and counter point I realized something. You have repeatedly quoted that I am reading my views into things or that my views are my own. I would answer yes that is possible. Just to the same extent that you are doing the exact same thing. Phrases you use such as “widely accepted, it clearly is, and first rate� are all subjective. At most you could argue that a majority of Scholars accept it and I could counter argue that 1.2 billion Christians reject it. Either way it doesn’t matter.

I fear that with your excessive quoting of “Scholars� (of which all Scholars are highly contested by their peers [kind of like democrats and republicans, they only like their own kind]) that I don’t have YOUR views on it. I want to know what YOU are thinking. If the average person who had never read a Bible commentary, or had never googled a critical analysis, stopped and read Isaiah 53, what would their most likely understanding of it be? I believe that they would realize it is talking about a man, not a nation. The question here is what makes the most sense? Scholars come and go, at some point we must decide for ourselves.

I believe that we can make any passage say anything we want it to. In fact, both of us have failed to take into consideration the verses and chapters we are quoting from weren’t added until less than a 1000 years ago. It is hard to nit pick certain verses when they weren’t intended to be such.

So where does this leave us? How do we arrive at the truth? I personally believe God provided a solution. 2 Timothy 3:16 states “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.� Therefore I have to make a decision. I personally find it highly arrogant for Scholars today to claim they have found a way to disprove the Bible, or a passage within. In essence what is being said is “I’m smarter than anyone else that lived over the past 2000 years.� Not only is this absurd but it is nothing new. People have been challenging parts of the Bible since the beginning.

Essentially what it comes down to is that when we die we will give an account to God. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I do know that while I may not have a complete understanding of every passage written in the Bible (as I definitely do not). I do know, that it was inspired by God and it good enough for him to keep around for over 2000 years (regardless if I understood it correctly or even agree with it). And more importantly than arguing the nuances of Isaiah referring to a man or nation or whatever, is the issue of what happens. In other words, as an atheist, or naturalist, or agnostic, or whatever else one would claim to be, what would happen IF, and we can make it a hypothetical, but what happens IF they are wrong? And there really is a God, and it turns out he did reveal himself through the person of Jesus Christ in the Bible. What happens then?

This question isn’t meant to be rhetorical, or me preaching at you or as trying to incite a fight. I really would like to know YOUR thoughts, and YOUR reasons. I’m not interested in what a Scholar says, if I wanted to know that, I’d read a book. I’m looking for human dialogue. I look back at the title of this thread being “Why do Christians read the Old Testament.� Therefore I feel the following is remaining consistent with the topic of this thread and the goal of establishing dialogue from differing viewpoints. So I guess my question is, if you stepped back out of your firm belief the Bible is wrong, and just for a second assumed it was true (remember just hypothetically) what would the ramifications of that on your life (both here on earth and eternally) be?

Vorkosigan

Vork... No it was ok....

I am a metaphysical naturalist, a philosophical adherent of evolutionary naturalism (see Ron Giere's Explaining Science). So your assumption was correct.

I have an argument from three vectors, two negative (no evidence for gods, god ideas are incoherent/contradictory) one positive (robust alternative explanation for why people believe).

This is the way things usually are.

I type fast, I know where the info is, and my semester hasn't started here. So I have this week free. No gaurantees about after the 20th, though!

Umm....no. It is not as fuzzy as yours. Is there something subjective about Isa 49:3 ...

He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor." (NIV)

...where Isaiah clearly identifies the servant as Israel? If so, then it is a widely shared subjectivity.

Why would I be interested in this? I know the Book of Mormon is shit. The issue is that your position, which is "if it hasn't been refuted it must be true" makes the Book of Mormon into Gold. The Smithsonian's position, which emphasizes that the BoM has no evidence to support it, is the correct one. When someone makes a claim, and no evidence supports that claim, then it is not regarded as true. Your position reverses this, arguing that everything is true until refuted. But Chief, most things haven't been refuted (cannot be, in fact -- proving a negative is extraordinarily difficult).

Oh, yes it does. This is because unlike ordinary people like you or me, scholar's claims are supported by methodologies. If you want to claim that Isa 53 was intended and regarded as messianic, you will confront the range of scholars who can point out that (a) Isaiah 53 fits its then-current political context and (b) there is no evidence that it was regarded as messianic until Christianity, and they can back up these statements with methodologies and evidence to support their argument. You are not equipped with either.

Very different. For unlike court, we have access to as many scholars as we want, the standards are different, and the evidence is more complex. All you are really saying is "I am too lazy to invest in a good introduction to the OT so that I can understand what I am talking about." And that is a damned shame. You're obviously willing to think and engage. It's a damned shame to simply stop and say "thus far and no farther."

There are two problems with this. First, I back my positions with scholarly support. Second, subjectivity is not a problem for my position, but it is for yours. The fact that your position is entirely subjective destroys it. Remember, I am the one arguing here that your position is entirely subjective. If your position is subjective it is in fact refuted -- there are no objective and clear prophecies of Jesus.

Well, yes it does. First, most Christians are not literalists, so they do not accept that whatever the Bible says is true literally. According to Barna, the conservative Christian research group (www.barna.org, fascinating place to spend a couple of hours), "More than two out of every five adults (44%) believe that when Jesus Christ lived on earth He committed sins.(2004)" Being Christian is a label people use for themselves. It doesn't mean anything, really.

Second, if 1.2 billion people believe something stupid, it is still stupid. The fact is that Matthew constructed his Virgin Birth story off of a translation error in the Septaugint. You can accept or reject that, or you can do the research to prove it wrong (been done, failed). You have simply chosen, again, the path of "thus far and no farther."

Assume that all the scholarly quotes I have given you are what I think. I try to read the scholarship and see what it says. I don't cite people (in arguments) whose position on the argument I don't agree with. If we were in class, I'd give a more rounded view and present all sides, consonant with good didactic ethics, and show why scholarship leans towards Brown's view of the Virgin Birth story. I don't "think" for myself about complex topics like the evolution of Isaiah because that is a pointless and stupid act; for I am unfamiliar with the topic. Instead I consult people who have put the time and effort into understanding it.

Chief -- what average person? A Christian shaped by 2000 years of Christian influence on the west? A Chinese? A Hindu? A Tahitian? There's no "average" person, Chief. My wife is Taiwanese and I live in Taiwan, so I don't have this unquestioned belief that everyone shares my assumptions about the nature of things. They obviously don't.

Second, whatever the average person thinks is not relevant because their readings are unsupported by expertise in the document in question.

And they would be wrong. And what about other people, who looked at that and saw a nation (and not the nations Isa apparently intended!). If they are a minority, are they wrong? Or what?

The scholars came and went on this one. First, Isa 49:3 declares what the metaphor means. Terms are defined so everyone can see.

Now, you can take refuge in your own subjectivity and say "yes, but I think it means XYZ." And that's fine. But you have to realize people aren't going to take that as a very convincing or interesting position. All you do is keep confirming my claim that your prophecies do not exist in the text, but exist in the way you read the text -- in your own subjectivity. "When an average person reads it..." simply confesses that we should consult our own subjectivity. The difference between us is that I consult my own subjectivity only when I shop for food or listen to music; for information about the past I consult the intersubjectivity of the scholarly apparatus.

Sure -- but that's a problem for YOU, not me. After all, my argument is that you are just torturing the scripture to make it say what you want. You seem to be conceding that.

<confused> Are you saying Isa 53 was written around 1000 AD?

Double problem here. First, the grammar of the Greek is unclear (your translation has omitted the key word "which" to get rid of this problem). The Greek actually says "All scripture which is inspired by God is profitable for teaching." The issue for textual exegesis is whether or not to put a comma after "scripture" and after "God". In other words, is 2 Tim saying that scripture is inspired by God, or is he writing without commas, reducing his claim to only that scripture that is actually inspired, and dumping any scripture that is not inspired? Remember, 2 Tim was written prior to the development of the New Testament, so there was no "scripture" as such.

Your second problem is again, definitional. 2 Tim does not define what scripture is. You know what Scripture" is because you have a tradition going back over hundreds of years of debate about what the canon is. The author of 2 Tim did not. So once again, you have put your faith in a passage which has no apparent meaning other than the one you have injected into it. It is you, 2000 years later, who is defining what the word "scripture" means. 2 Tim did not.

A complete misinterpretation. Scholars today have the huge advantages of methods of historical research developed over the last 200 years, as well as the advantage of all the information accumulated over the last 2000 years. Of course they are "smarter" than anyone who lived previously! Think how silly your comment would look if we were discussing engineering or medicine. "Can you believe those arrogant modern engineers and medical researchers who think they know more than the Romans did about cement, or more about medicine than Galen did?

The fact is that modern scholarship is miles ahead of the ancients in many areas of textual interpretation, emendation, and reconstruction.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Then I'll be in hell with Mark Twain and Gandhi and Einstein and Lincoln and Voltaire and Lang Shih-ning and Wang Chung and Simon Bolivar and Shaka Zulu and Emperor Norton and almost everyone else interesting, admirable, or just plain different. But I don't lose sleep over the fear of it, you know.

I did.

None. Listen carefully: even if I knew that the Bible was 100% true and God really did exist, and damned his opponents to Hell for all eternity, I would still never worship it. I do not worship the evils of unlimited power, authority, and control in any of their manifestations, even divine ones. I spent three years in the Taiwan independence movement fighting a police state. If you hand me the proof that the universe is a police state; so be it, then: I am on the side of the dissenters.

Vorkosigan