Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 04-27-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If you could point out exactly where Carrier does make the claim that the Targum does "establish the existence of pre-Christian Jewish belief in the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah, or as an individual person", I would appreciate it.

In fact, you have just strawmanned my post, as I specifically said:

Carrier is presenting the Targum as specific evidence to support his claim that some Jews were already reading Isaiah messianically prior to the emergence of Christianity.

Christ simply means annointed. So, yes, one could simply read the statement without applying an anachronism.

I think you are being disingenuous. Carrier's point comes out loud and clear.
The targum of Jonathan is an important piece of evidence (together with Daniel 9) that at least some Jews would have had text ground to expect the coming Messiah to be suffering and dying before triumph. But the targum clearly shows that the servant (who is now Messiah) is despised because of his military triumph. So when Carrier acknowledges that the targum does not in fact argue for a suffering servant he is taking the piece of evidence out of the context into which he himself has placed it. If the targum does not equate messiah with suffering and death, why to mention it at all ? That some Jews saw the Isaian Servant as conquering Messiah does not make other Jews who saw him as suffering iniquities ipso facto see him as Messiah also. I am not excluding that possibility but this connection needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed.

Best,
Jiri

No Jiri. The Targum merely shows that some Jews were prepared to read Isaiah messianically prior to the emergence of Christianity.

This does not mean that those same, specific Jews who attached the messiah concept to this Targum later decided that their messiah would now suffer.

It does mean that attaching a messiah to Isaiah is actually evidenced to have happened prior to Christianity among some Jews. That is all.

The larger case, for the dying messiah, is based on the sum of the evidence, not on the individual pieces of evidence in a vaccuum.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-27-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

No Jiri. The Targum merely shows that some Jews were prepared to read Isaiah messianically prior to the emergence of Christianity.

What do you mean by "messianically" if you don't mean the Davidic Messiah? How are you defining the word "messianic?"

I do not agree at all that the Targum of Jonathan takes a messianic view of Isaiah. It simply attaches the word "anointed" to a poetic personification of Israel. Not every use of the word "anointed" is messianic in the Davidic sense.

dog-on · 04-27-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

No Jiri. The Targum merely shows that some Jews were prepared to read Isaiah messianically prior to the emergence of Christianity.

What do you mean by "messianically" if you don't mean the Davidic Messiah? How are you defining the word "messianic?"

I do not agree at all that the Targum of Jonathan takes a messianic view of Isaiah. It simply attaches the word "anointed" to a poetic personification of Israel. Not every use of the word "anointed" is messianic in the Davidic sense.

You are the one trying to force a specific Davidic sense onto this, something I continuously repeat is not the case.

How about this. What specifically do you mean when you use the phrase Davidic Messiah?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-27-2012, 11:54 AM

Put most simply, the Davidic Messiah is the literal genetic heir to the throne of David. A direct, patrilineal descendant of David who would drive out Israel's enemies and restore the Davidic kingdom. That's the definition of the Jewish Messiah. "THE Messiah," "THE Christ." That's what the word "messianic" refers to. It refers to the Davidic heir, the conquering king who would liberate Israel, not just anyone who is called "anointed." that word, in itself, is not necessarily "messianic."

I think there is a problem inherent in the fact that "anointed" has mundane meanings as well as Davidic. I would submit that no case for mythicism can be built by projecting Davidic interpretations onto mundane usages of the word "anointed," without showing some kind of support aside from the per se use of the word.

aa5874 · 04-27-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

....The point is: there ARE mythicists out there who are conspiracy theorists, and the analogy to Creationists and Holocaust deniers is apt. But Ehrman is wrong to use the analogy, because those mythicists who are NOT conspiracy theorists will think that Ehrman believes all mythicists are like that, which is clearly not true.

We know that there are HJers out there who are CONSPIRACY theorists so the very same Analogies to Creationists and Holocaust deniers is completely reasonable to be applied to HJers.

Whether Ehrman is wrong or right to use the Analogy--there are HJers who are Conspiracy Theorists.

HJers BELIEVE the Bible is history. Creationists BELIEVE the very same thing.

Ehrman BELIEVES THE BIBLE contains the history of a character described as the Son of a Holy Ghost.

Gakuseidon BELIEVES THE BIBLE CONTAINS the history of a character described as the Son of a Holy Ghost.

Creationist BELIEVE the Myth character ADAM was a real man.

Ehrman and Gakuseidon BELIEVE the Myth character Jesus was human.

Gakuseidon and Ehrman are Analogous to Creationists and Conspiracy Theorists without any reasonable doubt.

ADAM had NO human father in the Bible but Creationists BELIEVE ADAM was human without a shred of credible evidence.

Jesus had NO human father in the Bible but Gakuseidon and Ehrman BELIEVE Jesus was human without a shred of evidence.

Gakuseidon and Ehrman are ANALAGOUS to CREATIONISTS and Conspiracy Theorists.

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

04-27-2012, 11:54 AM	#124
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Put most simply, the Davidic Messiah is the literal genetic heir to the throne of David. A direct, patrilineal descendant of David who would drive out Israel's enemies and restore the Davidic kingdom. That's the definition of the Jewish Messiah. "THE Messiah," "THE Christ." That's what the word "messianic" refers to. It refers to the Davidic heir, the conquering king who would liberate Israel, not just anyone who is called "anointed." that word, in itself, is not necessarily "messianic." I think there is a problem inherent in the fact that "anointed" has mundane meanings as well as Davidic. I would submit that no case for mythicism can be built by projecting Davidic interpretations onto mundane usages of the word "anointed," without showing some kind of support aside from the per se use of the word.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.