Doctor X

Over on Evolution/Creation Stephen Hawking Dismisses Evolutionary Theory the subject rose about the reliability of the Bible as evidence. I think this an important issue--if creationists can squawk about the "lack of evidence" for evolution, one can examine the evidence for creationism--specifically, the reliability of the text.

Jim claim'd:

In response to my request for evidence, I received:

Have at it!

--J.D.

Bernard Muller

I regard all the details preceding and during the crucifixion as unhistorical. And the gospelers practiced reverse Midrashism, that is having Jesus, then & there, fulfilling any kind of prophecies, or so-called ones from the Psalms (never meant to be prophecies).
The vinegar, the piercing, the allotment of garment, the virgin giving birth, etc. are in that category.
In a rich man's tomb? Where is the reference?
Many prophecies of course were written after the facts, such as Isaiah allegedly predicting Cyrus will allow the reconstruction of the temple. Actually the one who wrote about the prophecy knew the temple was not rebuilt in the times of Cyrus, but only the foundations:
Isaiah 44:28 "[God] says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid"'"

Can you imagine a king (or your city) says "it's OK to do the foundation (and that's it)? Does that make sense?
Some other prophecies look good from the outside, by just skimming on the top. An example is the prophecy of Jeremiah, "interpreted" by "Daniel" to mean 70 years between the destruction of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple. But the prophesied 70 years are about the times between the destruction of Jerusalem and the one of Babylon. Babylon was conquered well before the 70 years but not destroyed, nor its people enslaved, as also prophesied.
More details about some OT prophecies here:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/daniel.shtml
Of course, many prophecies are so vague they can be "interpreted" to mean anything.
The book of Isaiah authenticated by the DSS?
How could that prove 'Isaiah' is not a composite book, with different authors, which got completed sometimes between Cyrus & Darius' reigns?
Of course, because Jesus was given many titles, such as Christ, son of man, King, son of David, many prophecies including those titles can be interpreted as relating to Jesus. But none mentioned "Jesus", or anything like Galilee, Capernaum, Nazareth, son of a Carpenter, son of Mary, to be crucified, etc., etc.

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

In your interpretations you do err my friend. The Psalms were meant to be prophecies and the prophecies in Isaiah are now authenticated due to the scrolls found in a cave a Kumran i.e. the dead sea scrolls . If you read the Isaiah scroll it gives the same prophecy as is found in Isa 53 ( the one you are invalidating concerning being buried in a rich man's tomb.

Jim Larmore

By the way Dr. X, I'm flattered that you started this thread in my honor or dishonor however you guys look at it however my name is Jim Larmore not Latimore, just thought you should know..


The 70 week prophecy in Daniel given to give the exact year of Christ's first advent is taken by almost all Biblical scholars to mean 70 times 7 or 490 years. You see a day in Biblical prophecy is taken as a year. I've studied several Bible commentaries where all faiths and "most" Biblical scholars agree on this. The actual starting date is the date that Artaxerxers made the decree to re-build Jerusalem, I don't have that date right here but I'll get it for later posts, the decree is in the Book of Ezra.

Doctor X

Ah . . . I seem to have suffered the Magnus/Magus syndrome yet again--demonstrating our tendency to "see" an entire word rather than the components.

Probably reminded me of "Latimore" as in "Richard Latimore" the translator. . . .

Could be worse . . . could have seen "Latrine" instead. . . .

I will have to reserve further comment since I wandered into a dangerous area of my system folder and I am busy trying to fix it.

Back to the prophecies. . . .

--J.D.

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
In your interpretations you do err my friend. The Psalms were meant to be prophecies and the prophecies in Isaiah are now authenticated due to the scrolls found in a cave a Kumran i.e. the dead sea scrolls.

What has been authenticated? That the book of Isaiah existed in first century BC?
Sure, and that's it. Very few people doubt that. I never doubted it, Kumran or no Kumran.

If you read the Isaiah scroll it gives the same prophecy as is found in Isa 53 ( the one you are invalidating concerning being buried in a rich man's tomb.)

I was not invalidating it; I was wondering where it was.
Here is my words "In a rich man's tomb? Where is the reference?"

Here is the quote from the KJV:
9 "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth."

It says, "with the wicked". Does that mean Joseph of Arimathea & family were wicked? Where does that show in the gospels?
Does that mean there were already some rich &/or wicked persons in the grave with Jesus? Again, where does that show in the gospels?
BTW, there is no mention of resurrection. This suffering servant is dead for good.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
The actual starting date is the date that Artaxerxers made the decree to re-build Jerusalem, I don't have that date right here but I'll get it for later posts, the decree is in the Book of Ezra.

Humm, I thought that was done by Cyrus, way before that:
Isaiah 44:28 "[God] says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," ..."
Was the prophecy of Isaiah wrong?

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

Bernard,
The prophecy in Isa 53:12 which states "He numbered himself with the transgressors" specifically addresses the fact that He was hung between "2" theives when He was crucified. Isa 53:9 says he made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death. The fulfillment of this is in Matt 27:57.

In answer to your question of joseph and his family being wicked the answer is yes . All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God this is biblical.
Other prophecies you may look up are the prophecy of the place of the messiah's birth found in Micah 5:2 fulfilled in Luke 2:4-7.
The Darkness that fell over the earth at His crucifixtion was prophecied in Amos 8:9 fulfilled in Matt 27:45. The massacre of the innocents was prophecied in Jer.31:15 fulfilled in Matt2:16-18
The money paid to Judas for the Lord's betrayal was thrown on the temple floor but because it was blood money the priest took it and bought a "potters" field to bury poor people, the prophecy was in Zech. 11:13 the fulfilllment was in Matt27:5-7. A forerunner to prepare the way for the messiah was prophecied in Mal3:1 and 4:5 the fulfillment was the ministry of John the Baptist found in all the gospels.

The issue you made about Isaiah being a composite book is valid but personally I don't believe that it was. The reason is the septuigent which is the greek translation of the old testament was completed over 100 years before Christ's birth , there is nothing in the historical record to indicate it was written by more than one writer. Back then they should have seen a difference in style and characterization of the original manuscripts to indicate the duality of the writings . There aren't any of those concerns in the historical record. Another thing is the septuigent is almost identical to the dead sea scrolls manusripts of Isaiah.

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
In answer to your question of Joseph and his family being wicked the answer is yes. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God this is biblical.

How do you know? Luke wrote of that Joseph he was "a good and upright man" (Lk23:50). Do you know any better? How?

As far as the other prophecies, let's say that the gospelers had knowledge of the LXX and were intent to have Christ fulfilling as many prophecies as possible, more so Matthew. See next:

Jim wrote:
The money paid to Judas for the Lord's betrayal was thrown on the temple floor but because it was blood money the priest took it and bought a "potters" field to bury poor people, the prophecy was in Zech. 11:13 the fulfillment was in Matt27:5-7

You do not mention that 'Acts" comes with a different story:
KJV 1:18-19 "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."

So here the prophecy would be unfullfilled & defeated because Judas does not throw the thirty pieces of silver; instead he purchases a field with the money. And that was known by all people in Jerusalem!
We have to wonder where "Matthew" got his story from.

Jim wrote: The reason is the septuagint which is the Greek translation of the old testament was completed over 100 years before Christ's birth , there is nothing in the historical record to indicate it was written by more than one writer.

What does that prove? 'Isaiah' existed in 100 BCE in a form as known to us now? That's not contested by me, in view that the additions happened during the Persian era.
And would you expect the Jews to raise alarm bells about their sacred writings being corrupted? Let's be realistic.
Furthermore, writing in the style of another is not difficult at all, if you have time & put your mind into it.

Best regards, Bernard

DrJim

Jim Larmore:

What do you mean by "the historical record" doesn't have evidence of the composite nature of Isaiah? What record would that be?

How in blazes the existence of the Septuagint LXX prove Isaiah or any other biblical book are not composite texts? It suggests exactly the opposite!

Try looking up the story of the division of the kingdom in I Kings 11-14 in the LXX and compare it to a standard Christian translation (NIV, RSV or whatever, all based on MT). Are they the same?

LXX in Jeremiah is some 10% shorter than MT, and chapters are rearranged. On the other hand, many additions are made to Esther and to Daniel in LXX.

You can find Benton's english translation of LXX here:
LXX

In Isaiah, there are tons of little differences between MT and LXX. Here is one:

In Isa. 53:10 The RSV has:
Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him
to grief;

The verb in the second bit, "to put to grief" carries connotations of illness (Root: het-lamed-he) . Blenkinsopp's Anchor Bible commentary has reads it as "brought sickness upon him", but he puts it in brackets because it is not certain. He then gives the text critical data: The great Isaiah scroll from Qumran, 1QIsa-a has a different verb here (root het-lamed-lamed) in a different grammatical form. Blenkinsopp translates : "and he wounded (or pieced or slew) him". The Syriac version reads "The Lord decided to beat him down and make him suffer". The Vulgate has "The Lord willed to crush him with infirmity", while the LXX in B.'s translation has "The Lord desires to cleanse him from the wound" (kai kurios bouletai katharisai auton apo tes pleges").

So what does the verse say? will God put the servant to grief or cleanse him? How does the LXX help?

This is the historical record: variation in the textual evidence, imprecise transmission and sometimes wholesale rewriting. There is no other relevant "record".

As for your views on the composite origins of the canonical Isaiah, I wonder if you have ever read anything academic about it. Scholars have been proposing multiple authorship for over a century, and the newer redactional schemes are often more complex than the old. Your claim of "no evidence" for shifts in style etc. seems more based on "no research" than on any real engagement with the book of Isaiah!

The most obvious case is this:
How do a few chapters of 2 Kings (most of the story of Hezekiah) end up reappearing as Isaiah 36-39? It is almost word for word (there are some changes)! Someone was collecting a bunch of old oracles to attribute them to Isaiah, and then copied the story of Isaiah and Hezekiah from Kings (a distinct minority of people think the writer of kings copied from Isaiah) Just maybe both quoted a third source. Either way, a composite text is produced somewhere down the line, and its probably Isaiah! It is fully reasonable to suspect that there was additional copying and adpoting and perhaps merging of documents. What of the shifts in perspective from Isa. 1-39 and 40-55, and 56-66?


For a crash course in what biblical scholars are mulling over in regards to Isaiah: check out Bandstra's pages (it is the online supplement to the "Reading the Old Testament" textbook

Bandstra on Isaiah.

I won't ask you to believe what these schoalrs are saying (I don't believe all of it either), but at least be aware of what it takes to conclusively demonstrate they are off-base. They are not theories that can be easily dismissed Appeals to the septuagint are completely useless to accomplish the task.

JRL.