Apikorus

Haran, Eusebius is a classic of course. Wuerthwein is quite the dry taxonomy (typical Teutonic scholarship), but it is useful nonetheless. I especially enjoy the many fine plates in the back containing pictures of different ancient manuscripts. That non-Tiberian vowel pointing is wild, eh?!

I think the most extensive and up-to-date book on lower text criticism of the Hebrew Bible is Emmanuel Tov's "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible". It goes far beyond Wuerthwein. It also is surprisingly readible.

Photocrat

This is quickly becoming tedious. Why don't you tell us why you think that Jesus' claim survived the test of time, while the others (e.g. poor Simeon Bar Koziba, err Kokhba) did not? :]

lpetrich

Because the likes of Simon bar Kokhba led armies against the Roman Empire, and Jesus Christ did not. In fact, JC's followers were shameless rear-end-kissers toward the Empire.

Paul declares in Romans 13 that the "existing authorities" are God-created, as if the Christian God would create a pagan-god-worshipping government like the Roman Empire's.

Also, the Gospels try to blame the Jews for the execution of Jesus Christ and try to let Roman provincial governor Pontius Pilate off the hook by picturing him as pressured to execute JC.

Nomad

My pleasure Apikorus. Like you, it is my hope that new members here will read from the archives and familiarize themselves with many of the arguments already presented by both sides. It certainly saves a lot of time, not to mention band width and cutting and pasting.

This was, indeed your own position, though, of course, Bar Kokhba falls outside of the date range given (a mere 200 year period ending in 100AD). And as for Simon Magus, the only 1st Century text we have for him is the Book of Acts, and given general levels of scepticism on these boards regarding the Bible as evidence, this is a pretty slim reed upon which to build a claim. Appeals to even later 3rd and 4th Century texts will hardly convince a dedicated sceptic, as they are obviously too late to know anything about the historical Simon Magus.

But, I do not wish to rehash this old argument, and refer those interested to the thread, especially <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000800&p=2" target="_blank">page 2</a> of that discussion. Your desire to broaden the definition of the term Messiah was noted then, and is noted again. But the simple claim that there were no clear Jewish Messianic claims from 100BC to 100AD except for Jesus of Nazareth is an historical fact based on the textual evidence available to us today.

Here I would remind you of the date range of the claim, and as we never got even close to "a dozen" even in the other thread, I think we should remain cautious in expanding the definition of a term like Messiah beyond all recognition in common, or even scholarly parlance.

If I may pause here, but what is your motivation for questioning my motives in my arguments, rather than simply addressing those arguments? I have no wish to misrepresent your position, and would appreciate having you extend me the courtesy of acknowledging this fact. If I have, on the other hand, misunderstood your position, then I welcome your efforts to correct that misunderstanding. For my part, I will do the same for you when I feel that you have not understood my arguments.

While I understand that you wish to draw a distinction between these two statements, your recourse to outrageous hyperbole lessens the force of your argument substantially, and often approaches mere propagandizing and playing to the crowd. If you wish to present a nuanced argument (and I certainly would not begrudge you that right), then it would be very helpful if you would not equate Christian claims for Jesus with fringe lunacies like those of David Koresh, or non-existent claims for Richard Nixon, Eddie Murphy, or whomever. Your excessive zeal may generate cheers from the stands, but it would hardly be considered good argumentation in a more serious forum.

For my part, I understand that you wish to challenge the Christian hermeneutic, especially of the OT. This is fine, and fair game so far as I am concerned. An occassional resort to hyperbole is even acceptable, especially if it is offered in a light hearted manner. But when it becomes a regular feature in your over all argument, then it will detract from the discussion. More than anything else, it was this tactic on your part that led me to question your seriousness on this thread.

And yet again I must stop you. Conclusory statements about Jesus' mental state are also not helpful. They may represent your personal feelings and beliefs, but they certainly have no real bearing on the argument here. The fact is that Jesus, His later followers, the authors of the NT, and the Church up to the present day all accept that Jesus is found in the OT prophecies. You reject this idea, and that is obviously your right. But please try to respect the views of your opponents, even if you, yourself do not think very highly of those views, and you will be far more likely to generate useful discussions that may well serve to educate both you and I, and possibly even some others that choose to read our threads.

At a minimum, references like Matthew's to the prophecy of Zechariah shows that early Christians and Jews (at least in the 1st Century AD) accepted this as a reference to a future Messiah. Clearly the presentation had an effect, and produced success in that it lead to an increase in converts to Christianity. On this basis, I would say that the Christian hermeneutic and the exegesis it produced of this, and other passages, deserves some consideration. Perhaps you disagree, but if that is the case, then you need only state your position and conclusions, then discussion ends. In my view, however, I do not think that this would be very useful or interesting.

While I agree with you, as you no doubt know, many sceptics on these boards (and presumably elsewhere) do not. That is another discussion however.

Just to wrap up, if I may, I hope by now you understand why I believe you have both pressed your claim too hard, and trivialized many of your own arguments with excessive zeal and uses of hyperbole. You are free to argue as you wish, of course, but I assure you that methods like this will not tend to produce serious debate or discussion of the issues about which you appear to care a great deal. Obviously you are free to reject the Christian hermeneutic and its apologetics, and to then offer your own. You may even adopt some of the arguments of the rabbis, though I would hope you would also acknowledge their clear apologetic motives, and how it might colour their exegesis of their sacred texts. But if you seek to trivialize the arguments of your opponents, and thereby refuse to grant them the respect of a fair hearing, I do not see how you can hope to engage in a useful dialogue. Quite honestly, under such circumstances I would not see the point of your arguments at all, beyond mere grand standing before a friendly audience.

I hope you would be interested in something more substantial than that, though I leave that choice to you. That said, I would like to leave you with the thoughts of a seemingly very wise scientist:

"This success of my endeavors was due, I believe, to a rule of 'method': that we should always try to clarify and to strengthen our opponent's position as much as possible before criticizing him, if we wish our criticism to be worth while."
(Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific
Discovery (1968), p. 260 n.*5)

My thanks goes to Dr. Bob Schacht for bringing this quotation to my attention. It has given me pause in my own discussions with others.

Be well,

Nomad

James Still

<strong>You [Apikorus] are incapable of a fair discussion. I sincerely hope there is a hell for you to go to.</strong>

Metacrock let's not get carried away here! I refuse to believe that you seriously meant what you said. May I chalk it up to frustration? (If so, thank you.)

<strong>I used to care about people going to heaven, I don't care now.</strong>

I know you are frustrated and many will hold this against you but I'm actually encouraged by this remark. There is much wisdom in it (even if you have yet to fully grasp its implications). It is the fundamentalists and the Neoplatonists who are still beholden to the bizarre notion of a literal heaven "up there." Given this cultural indoctrination (which probably surrounds you at your seminary) it is no wonder that you feel it to be your duty to help the lost find an eternity of everlasting life. However we who share an affinity for liberal theological interpretation understand that heaven is not a literal place, but rather a moral state. For example, Luke's prodigal son realized that he had wronged his family. But how does he express it? He says, "Father I have sinned against heaven and affronted you" (15:18). To sin against heaven is to violate the ethic of the moral requirements that bond us all together. In this sense I believe that we must be true to ourselves first before we can relate morally to others. And while it is not our place to impose morality on others, if we do indeed care about others then we must be the change that we desire to see in the world. My point? Only that a man who speculates about the names written in the Book of Life is a fool. He should really be polishing the mirror of his own soul. So I think it is very healthy for you to discard notions of a literal heaven (if that is indeed what you are doing) and I sincerely hope you do not feel the least bit guilty for this paradigm shift.

Photocrat

... who got fed to lions, among other things ...

Romans 12:20-1 NSRV [the verses right before the chapter you cite; lurkers please note that 'chapters' and 'verses' were not part of the original]

Paul was also executed by them, according to tradition ... Lovely :]

... but didn't fail to mention Jesus being tortured & mocked by the guards, far beyond what was their duty ...

Now then, how about at least mentioning the other fellow? Y'know, Simon Magus? :]

Haran

It's definitely "dry taxonomy", but I need it to better understand all the many confusing markings found in the BHS... I've already discovered some interesting nuggets however, like the changing of names that incorporate Baal in parallel accounts, the Prophets retaining it while in the Writings the names are overwritten (e.g. 1Chr 8:33; 9:39 & 2Sam 2:8).

The plates are great! I'm still trying to recognize some of the letters in the ancient scribal hand, not an easy task.

The supralinear! Babylonian and Palestinian pointing systems seem very strange to me too, but probably because I learned and only knew of the Tiberian. I like that the Babylonian originally used letters for some of the vowels, too bad that practice went away...

Oh yeah! I have Tov's book and am itching to read it, but I figure I'd better get the "Wurthwein" basics under my belt first if I expect to understand his monumental work. I've glanced through it though, and it looks highly informative!

I'll shut up now since I've gotten so far off topic, but I had to say something because I don't often find people who share this particular area of interest...

Haran

Apikorus

Nomad, perhaps it is your fondness for round numbers in the base ten system which inspired your selection of the dates 100 BCE and 100 CE. I view history in a more episodic and contextual way, so I choose my period as Roman Palestine, from Herod the Great (or Pompey, if you like) to the end of the Second Jewish Revolt. And in that period there are three explicit messianic claimants: Jesus of Nazareth, Simon Magus, and Simeon bar Kokhba.

I would include in any list of "messianic figures" names such as Judas son of Hezekiah, Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Judas the Galilean, Jesus of Nazareth, the Samaritan prophet (of Antiquities 18.85-87), Simon Magus, Theudas, "the Egyptian", the anonymous prophet during the governorship of Festus (see Antiquities 20.188), Menahem, Simeon bar Giora, Jonathan the weaver, Lukuas, and Simeon bar Kosiba (bar Kokhba).

I agree there is no need to rehash old arguments. I would encourage interested lurkers to read the old thread.

Jayhawker Soule

I'm saddened by your desperation. I know that it will do no good, but I urge you to review the posts and just consider the possibility that the problem does not rest with me ...

James Still

Earlier I had said that "modern scholarship has indeed reached the consensus that prefigurement is an interpretive and highly-subjective process rather than anything based on sound exegesis."

Nomad replied, "Time to bring out the 'modern scholarship believes' non-sequitor? This is about as bold an appeal to authority as I have seen in quite some time. It is, as with all such appeals, meaningless."

It is not an appeal to authority and you have missed the whole point of modern scholarship. The key word here is "consensus" and within a given discipline's community -- as revealed through its journals, books, and symposia -- whenever that community reaches a consensus on an issue it is extremely important. Bible scholars disagree about resolutions to the Synoptic Problem, thus there is no consensus and no "truth" (in the sense that we have no reliable place to stand and judge the matter). However, bible scholars have reached wide consensus against the prefigurement of the historical Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. You may find this fact meaningless but I assure you it is not.

<strong>Nomad: The assumption in Apikorus' own exegesis is that the Scriptures can have only one meaning. This may be true, but it is an assumption, and conclusory in this case. The simple truth of the matter is that scholarly debates exist because there is considerable debate as to what texts mean, even those that some claim are very plain.</strong>

I don't agree but I also don't want to speak for him. As I was reading his opening posts I got the distinct impression that while there are some instances in which meaning is very narrow there are also numerous instances in which a meaning can vary according to the precepts and philosophies of the rabbinic school's approach to the texts. (Another way to say it is that a given story or passage can be interpreted many different ways.) Are there some interpretations which are more reliable or "correct" than others? Yes, I'm certain that there are and it becomes an issue of history, exegesis, and a mastery of the language. What's important to this discussion is that one of the interpretations, prefigurement of Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures, is less satisfactory and reliable than other interpretations. This is not a result of presupposition; it is a result of careful study.

What would make me change my mind about prefigurement and Jesus? Quite simply, if there were passages within the Hebrew Scripture in which most impartial observers readily agreed were best explained as signifiers of Jesus' ministry. We shouldn't have to play the game where I pore over the Hebrew Scriptures looking for messianic references and then seek to correspond them to the more reliable parts of the NT framework. (Not the parts of the NT in which the author or his redactor seems to be writing messianism into the text.) That we can't do that and given the fact that there is wide disagreement about the issue of prefigurement tells me that it is best to remain skeptical about such claims. And this brings us back full circle to the utility of consensus.

<strong>Nomad wrote: The claim that Matthew and Luke wrote their birth narratives independently of one another is hardly radical. Further, I happen to believe that they did write based on previous sources (though we cannot know if those sources were written or oral regarding the BN). Finally, I do not think that these sources cited Isaiah 7:14 as a proof text, and that this is a Matthean innovation.</strong>

No I agree with most of what you've said here. (My only caveat is that I would not rule out the possibility that Matthew's sources made the connection between the Immanuel of Isaiah and Jesus and that he picked it up from them, although we can't know one way or the other.) I thought you were implying that the virgin birth narrative is history credible because it is corroborated by two independent sources. That's the problem with Internet forums.

<strong>Nomad: The big news would be that Matthew was not the first person to make this connection. And if this is the case, then later Jewish apologetics that intended show that Isaiah 7:14 could NOT possibly be read in this fashion is merely special pleading.</strong>

That is a possibility. However, one problem with your argument is that the first and second generation Christian communities relied upon the Septuagint (and thus the controversial parthenos reading of 7:14). So if there were communities who arrived at the same interpretation independently of one another, it seems more likely that this is due to the Greek text. When Jewish scholars argue that Isaiah cannot be interpreted like that, they mean that the Hebrew does not support it. So it comes down to textual authority and the reliability of the extant manuscripts of Isaiah.

<strong>The question is, did Luke know of Matthew's BN, or vice versa? I do not think it is reasonable to say that they did. Do you?</strong>

I do not think that Matthew or Luke were at all aware of the other's gospel at any point. But it seems certain that they knew of the birth narrative story then circulating in the oral tradition. Matthew took it in one direction, making a connection between the Immanuel and Jesus. Luke took it and ran with it, extending it to John and making he and Jesus cousins.


<strong>...he offers quotes without telling us where he got them. I did not know that you find this to be admirable.</strong>

You are right that would disturb me greatly. I went back to the section in question and did extensive word searches on google.com looking for instances of borrowing. I found none, which means all of those sections are in his own words and were not cut and pasted. Probably when he said he "ripped off" those passages he meant that he copied them from an online bible database like gospelnet.com, which is fine.

<strong>In the more detailed discussion that followed on XTalk...</strong>

I have not commented on this because I don't know what XTalk is or where it is located.