Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-27-2012, 06:56 AM

The Targum doesn't show that, though. Just because it used the word "annointed" doesn't mean it's referring to the Davidic Messiah. In fact, the "anointed servant" in this Targum is still Israel, not the Davidic heir.

This is similar to what Carrier did with the reference to the assassinated high priest, Onias, as "Messiah" in Daniel. All High Priests were Messiahs, as were all kings. It designated a person who had been "chosen" by God. calling "my servant, Israel," "Anointed," is just a way of say Israel was chosen.

This Targum does not establish the existence of pre-Christian Jewish belief in the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah, or as an individual person at all. It's still just talking about Israel.

The word "Messiah" is not unique or special. There are lots of Messiahs. Every use of the word is not a reference to the Davidic Messiah. We are conditioned to think that is a unique or extraordinary title, but it isn't.

dog-on · 04-27-2012, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The Targum doesn't show that, though. Just because it used the word "annointed" doesn't mean it's referring to the Davidic Messiah. In fact, the "anointed servant" in this Targum is still Israel, not the Davidic heir.

This is similar to what Carrier did with the reference to the assassinated high priest, Onias, as "Messiah" in Daniel. All High Priests were Messiahs, as were all kings. It designated a person who had been "chosen" by God. calling "my servant, Israel," "Anointed," is just a way of say Israel was chosen.

This Targum does not establish the existence of pre-Christian Jewish belief in the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah, or as an individual person at all. It's still just talking about Israel.

The word "Messiah" is not unique or special. There are lots of Messiahs. Every use of the word is not a reference to the Davidic Messiah. We are conditioned to think that is a unique or extraordinary title, but it isn't.

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

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.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-27-2012, 07:40 AM

What else does "reading it messianically" mean, but reading it as referring to the Davidic Messiah? What other meaning of "messianic" is there? If Carrier is not saying that pre-Christian Jews ever interpreted the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah, then what is his point

dog-on · 04-27-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What else does "reading it messianically" mean, but reading it as referring to the Davidic Messiah? What other meaning of "messianic" is there? If Carrier is not saying that pre-Christian Jews ever interpreted the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah, then what is his point

Here is exatly what Carrier says about this:

Quote:

The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, which was originally composed in the 1st century A.D., actually inserts "messiah" right in Isaiah 52:13 ("Behold, my servant, the messiah…"), thus confirming this "servant" was already being interpreted as the messiah by Jews decades before Christianity began. A Targum is an Aramaic translation of the OT. So really, this is a textual variant for this passage. In other words, some pre-Christian Jews believed their scriptures actually outright said this. [Though this same Targum also erased the death-and-burial angle from the passage, we already know that content predates the Targum; what the Targum shows is that some Jews saw this passage as about the Christ]

So, go ahead and point out exactly where he makes the claim that you claim he is making.

In fact, he simply does not.

Secondly, your argument is akin to those who discount abiogenesis due to the astronomical odds of ONE molecule becomming self-replicating, while ignoring the fact that there were billions of molecules in the puddle...

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-27-2012, 07:57 AM

His claim that "some Jews saw this passage as about the Christ" is an assertion that they saw it as being about the Davidic Messiah. There is no other way to read that statement.

And if he is NOT saying they saw this figure as the Davidic Messiah, then what is his point? How does an offhand Aramaic commentary calling Israel itself "anointed" have any relevance to the Christ myth?

dog-on · 04-27-2012, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

His claim that "some Jews saw this passage as about the Christ" is an assertion that they saw it as being about the Davidic Messiah. There is no other way to read that statement.

And if he is NOT saying they saw this figure as the Davidic Messiah, then what is his point? How does an offhand Aramaic commentary calling Israel itself "anointed" have any relevance to the Christ myth?

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

And to the point of relevance to the Christ Myth, again, please point out where Carrier makes this specific claim? You are simply reading this into his blog post.

In fact, in his comments section, Carrier specifically says the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

This blog post takes no position on that and makes no argument either way. It is solely about this one fact, which can fit both mythicist and historicist hypotheses of the origins of Christianity. Indeed, in isolation, one could use what I establish here to argue in favor of historicity, since the other Jesus Christs were historical (Jesus is then just another historical figure posing as the Joshuan Messiah and trying to get himself killed). But one cannot argue from isolated items of evidence. A conclusion must come from a survey of all the evidence together.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-27-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

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

I didn't say it was anachronistic (the LXX calls others "Christ" as well, including Cyrus the Great), I was saying that Carrier is plainly connecting this use of the word "Messiah" in the Targum Jonathan to the Davidic Messiah of the Christ myth (there is no other "THE Christ"). And if he isn't, then there is no reason to cite it.

Quote:

And to the point of relevance to the Christ Myth, again, please point out where Carrier makes this specific claim? You are simply reading this into his blog post

In fact, in his comments section, Carrier specifically says the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

This blog post takes no position on that and makes no argument either way. It is solely about this one fact, which can fit both mythicist and historicist hypotheses of the origins of Christianity. Indeed, in isolation, one could use what I establish here to argue in favor of historicity, since the other Jesus Christs were historical (Jesus is then just another historical figure posing as the Joshuan Messiah and trying to get himself killed). But one cannot argue from isolated items of evidence. A conclusion must come from a survey of all the evidence together.

If Carrier is not claiming that the Targum identifies the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah then it cannot fit into any Christ myth theory.

dog-on · 04-27-2012, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

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

I didn't say it was anachronistic, I was saying that Carrier is plainly connecting this use of the word "Messiah" to the Davidic Messiah of the Christ myth (there is no other "THE Christ").

You didn't say it was anachronistic, I did.

Quote:

And to the point of relevance to the Christ Myth, again, please point out where Carrier makes this specific claim? You are simply reading this into his blog post

In fact, in his comments section, Carrier specifically says the following:

If Carrier is not claiming that the Targum identifies the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah then it cannot fit into any Christ myth theory.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-27-2012, 08:31 AM

I know the feeling.

Solo · 04-27-2012, 09:18 AM

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

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

04-27-2012, 06:56 AM	#111
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The Targum doesn't show that, though. Just because it used the word "annointed" doesn't mean it's referring to the Davidic Messiah. In fact, the "anointed servant" in this Targum is still Israel, not the Davidic heir. This is similar to what Carrier did with the reference to the assassinated high priest, Onias, as "Messiah" in Daniel. All High Priests were Messiahs, as were all kings. It designated a person who had been "chosen" by God. calling "my servant, Israel," "Anointed," is just a way of say Israel was chosen. This Targum does not establish the existence of pre-Christian Jewish belief in the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah, or as an individual person at all. It's still just talking about Israel. The word "Messiah" is not unique or special. There are lots of Messiahs. Every use of the word is not a reference to the Davidic Messiah. We are conditioned to think that is a unique or extraordinary title, but it isn't.

04-27-2012, 07:40 AM	#113
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	What else does "reading it messianically" mean, but reading it as referring to the Davidic Messiah? What other meaning of "messianic" is there? If Carrier is not saying that pre-Christian Jews ever interpreted the suffering servant as the Davidic Messiah, then what is his point

04-27-2012, 07:57 AM	#115
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	His claim that "some Jews saw this passage as about the Christ" is an assertion that they saw it as being about the Davidic Messiah. There is no other way to read that statement. And if he is NOT saying they saw this figure as the Davidic Messiah, then what is his point? How does an offhand Aramaic commentary calling Israel itself "anointed" have any relevance to the Christ myth?

04-27-2012, 08:31 AM	#119
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I know the feeling.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.