Celsus

Ok folks,

Any more discussion on the dating/authorship of the OT, Torah, etc. can be followed up in the new thread I've linked above. Any further posts here will be deleted to keep it on topic.

Joel

Peter Kirby

I think that this last sentence shows a difference in approach or intent. I think the key here is not how the NT writers actually used the OT texts, but what the OT writers communicated in the OT texts. As I stated before, the purpose of my exercise was a better understanding of the Hebrew Bible. And why should I be faulted for attempting to carry on dialogue with those who post here in response to me, saying that a certain list provides a "reasonable overview" of the matter? I would have discussed your material if you had indicated some texts that the Hebrew writers intended to be read as messianic prophecies.

best,
Peter Kirby

mark9950

new testament writers try to fit the jesus so that it sounded like he was a messiah of the OT even though he wasnt?

like matthew tried to tell us that herod killed all the first born even though he didnt?

contracycle

I aheve read that "messiah" means "annointed one" ands is applicable to a number of heirarchical roles in the old Judaic church. That the term does not itself denote a supernatural entity. Any thoughts? Confirm or deny?

Peter Kirby

Mark, you're mixing up the tenth plague of Exodus with the massacre of the innocents in Matthew.

If the authors of the New Testament tried to make the life of Jesus conform to those few apparently messianic statements in the Old Testament (and what we think to have been the expectations of most Jews before Jesus), then they did a poor job. The arrival of this Messiah wasn't accompanied with what you would expect at the end of the ages; the Jews were still dispersed, and the enemies of the Jewish people still ruled. Some passages suggest that the writers were aware of this disjunction. For example, in Acts 1:6, the disciples ask the risen Jesus, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" In John 18:36, Jesus says, "My kingdom does not belong to this world." The early Christians spiritualized the Kingdom of God in the presence of the church, and in this way explained to themselves why they didn't see any dramatic physical effects with the arrival of a new age. Those would have to await the Second Coming of the Messiah, a peculiarly Christian doctrine.

best,
Peter Kirby

CJD

My fault. As Celsus pointed out, my reply was little more than an outburst. I do not fault you for responding and refuting those who mistreat the text to serve certain purposes, I merely held your intentions suspect—for no good reason. Errabam, ignoscas me, amabote.

This is as good as any place to start. True, my basic understanding of OT prophecy in this regard is that few OT predictions had a single, specific individual Messiah in mind. And no one expected this person to look anything like the person described in the synoptics and John. The coming anointed one anticipated in the OT was largely a military, non-divine personage. This tension is seen at various times in the NT, which you pointed out in the above post. In order for the apostles to make sense of the coming of the Messiah—without the physical takeover—they began teaching an "already/not yet" eschatalogy. The messiah had already come, along with the spiritual blessings (and a few physical ones), but the ultimate return from exile had not yet occured. Granted, the whole second coming bit is an adaptation to what the apostles believed had taken place, but it is a non sequitur to argue that it is therefore not viable.

This is where my postings on OT prophecy come in. If prophecies are understood as (basically speaking) predictions about what could potentially happen (not what must happen), then adapting is, at it were, the "name of the game." Where I find this argument particularly plausible is found in the way YHWH is portrayed throughout the Tanak. He is complicated, robust, anything but binary. If he is any God at all, his intentions, desires, wills, etc., are far more complicated than we can imagine. Restricting him to this or that way of thinking, based on our experiences alone, does little more than create a god in our own image.

Finally, given this scheme, what, if any, OT texts were intended to be read as messianic?

Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 22:18; 24:7. Peter, you made mention of 22:18 in your other thread mentioned above. As an example, the key phrase of 22:18, v zar a kha ("through the seed of you"), parallels 12:7—l zar a kha ("to the seed of you"). Grammatically, both are collective singular nouns, so "seed" just like the "servant" (mentioned in the prophet Isaiah) could quite possibly go both ways. However, in the case of "seed," a collective offspring understanding is favored if looking solely at the Tanak. See Num. 23:10; 1 Kgs. 4:20; 2 Chron. 1:9—even Acts 3:25. One could argue that ancient Hebrews did anticipate a New Israel—comprised of both Jews and God-fearers—to fulfill this passage collectively, but that would take us beyond the scope of this thread. All this to say that the passages in question do not preclude a both/and understanding of the Hebrews. How can we know this about their beliefs with any certainty?

Next Genesis 49:8–12. At the outset, a few observations are in order. In this passage, Judah is granted by the patriarch the blessing of kingship originally given to the first three patriarchs (Abe, Isaac, Jacob). This is most plainly applied to the royalty that emerges from Judah's lineage prior to the exile. But a basic understanding of the role of the Davidic covenant is essential here. The scepter would never leave this line. Problem is, it did. From the exile onward, we see little if nothing re: Davidic kingship (cf. Zerubbabel, which I take to be the beginning of the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31). I think that from this passage it is clear that the people could expect a perpetual dynasty, which would have clear eschatalogical implications. By its very nature, then, it is messianic, but in no way could have anticipated some guy named Jesus from Nazareth. As far as the "washing his garments in wine" bit goes, what does this figure of speech convey? Simply put, it is an image of incredible prosperity and/or power. If the former, it may mean that wine is as plentiful as scrub water. The parallel "blood of grapes," however, may connote the ruler's violent trampling of enemies (cf. Isa. 63:2–3). Maybe it is a pun for both kinds of laundering. So Hamilton (in Genesis 18–50)): "To his own this one will bring joy and fullness; to those who reject him he brings terror" (662).

The real question in this passage, I think, is what exactly does "Shiloh" mean? A place-name, a reference to tribute, or a reference to a coming Judahite ruler?

Given the length, I will stop here. I know what I have said thus far is not much. But then, I don't think these things are all that clear. Maybe next time I'll focus on those passages that speak more clearly about the messianic expectations of the OT writers/editors.

In closing, I would like to add an aside as one example of how NT writers used OT writings by looking at the short passage Hosea 11:1–2. It clearly speaks, as Peter noted, about the nation of Israel. I wrote on this elsewhere. And I quote:

What I mean here is that no one took this writing of the prophet as a prediction of anything. But what it shows is that Matthew did nothing different than what previous Jewish writers (BCE) constantly did with their sources.

Regards,

CJD

Peter Kirby

CJD,

Thanks for your contribution.

You write, "Granted, the whole second coming bit is an adaptation to what the apostles believed had taken place, but it is a non sequitur to argue that it is therefore not viable." Can you expand on that thought?

If the statements about the future Messiah were made in a conditional way, what were the conditions?

You write, "All this to say that the passages in question do not preclude a both/and understanding of the Hebrews." Does this claim enough? Of course the Hebrews could say multiple things in a passage. The question here is whether they communicated additional items that are not explicit in the passage. That is the allegorical interpretation, that the passage says something "other" than what it appears to say.

You write, "As far as the 'washing his garments in wine' bit goes, what does this figure of speech convey? Simply put, it is an image of incredible prosperity and/or power. If the former, it may mean that wine is as plentiful as scrub water." I recall that it was normal for a fuller to wash garments in urine. Wine could easily be an improvement.

You write, "Maybe next time I'll focus on those passages that speak more clearly about the messianic expectations of the OT writers/editors." I look forward to it.

You write, "But what it shows is that Matthew did nothing different than what previous Jewish writers (BCE) constantly did with their sources." I am not sure that we have an exact parallel of method. Without trying to second-guess you, may I ask which Jewish writers you are thinking of?

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings all,

Actually, this is a very common belief - but there is no evidence of it happening.

The council of Nicea is fairly well-known, we still have the minutes of the meeting (sort of :-) as well as numerous accounts of its dealings - Roger Pearse does an excellent summary of this:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

The council dealt with Arius and the date of Easter,
but
there is no hint of any debate about the books of the bible.

Shortly after the council Constantine DID however apparently order a set of 50 Bibles, some of which may even exist to this day (C.Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) - it is not like our modern Bible, e.g. including Hermas and Barnabas, and excluding G.Mark 16:9-20)


An excellent page on the development of the canon can be found here:
http://www.ntcanon.org/

The first canon which matches ours was in the Festal Epistle (Easter circular) of Athanasius for 367CE.

Iasion

CJD

You write, "Granted, the whole second coming bit is an adaptation to what the apostles believed had taken place, but it is a non sequitur to argue that it is therefore not viable." Can you expand on that thought?

Starting from the premise that nearly all OT prophecies have implicit conditions attached to them (save the one or two where YHWH swears by his own name, etc. But even then . . . ), that they shift and shape accordingly to the events that transpire, the adaptation (the 2nd coming) is something that, from an apostle's point of view (if I can say such a thing) was a necessary point of doctrine given that they were absolutely convinced that Jesus was the coming anointed one. If convinced of this, then they had to make sense of the situation as it transpired. The fullness of the kingdom had yet to come into fruition, while many of the blessings had nonetheless already begun. So, what gives? Ah, it must be that he "desires none to perish," so, "he does not count slowness as is commonly understood . . . ." Also, given the conditional aspects of prophecy, which I think the apostles knew full well, the expected imminent return of X (read=return from exile) was not in the end a failure, but a direct result of a condition not being met, which was, to put it in the old covenantal way of saying things (Jer. 22:8ff.):

"Why then has the health of the daughter
___of my people not been restored? . . .
[because] they are all adulterers,
___a company of treacherous men.
They bend their tongue like a bow;
___falsehood and not truth has grown strong in the land;
for they proceed from evil to evil,
___and they do not know me . . . ."

In other words, just like in Daniel's day, when he saw that the predicted years had passed for Israel's restoration, and, after pleading with YHWH to return his people to the land, he finds not only will God not restore them presently, but the exile will be prolonged sevenfold (cf. Dan. 9) because "we have not entreated the favor of the LORD our God, etc.," so, too, we are denied restoration for lack of repentance. As you may have guessed, Peter, the adaptation cannot be considered implausible from my perspective because it is, first and foremost, biblical (in the textual analysis sense of the word). To put it differently, the whole second-coming bit was necessary, not for the sake of disillusioned followers, but demanded by the conditional nature of predictions and revelations.

If the statements about the future Messiah were made in a conditional way, what were the conditions?

I think that the need for a Messiah was not conditional, but the "how, where, what, when" was entirely conditionally. This topic could constitute an entirely new thread.

You write, "All this to say that the passages in question do not preclude a both/and understanding of the Hebrews." Does this claim enough?

Claim enough for what?

Of course the Hebrews could say multiple things in a passage. The question here is whether they communicated additional items that are not explicit in the passage. That is the allegorical interpretation, that the passage says something "other" than what it appears to say.

This does, of course, get us into hermeneutics a bit. In the original meaning, it is what it is: "a promise to Judah of dominion and royal sovereignty among the tribes" (J. Kselman). I, as you might expect, allow the original meaning to inform what may be called "the Inaugeral meaning." In the Genesis 49 text, for example, the original meaning is stated above. The inaugeral meaning sees Jesus as that ultimate Judahite king, despite the lack of an earthly throne ("my kingdom is not of this world, etc."). There is also a continuational meaning for the Church (the Church is to establish his kingdom—not with the tools of this world, mind you [contra Reconstructionists], but through lives that encapsulate the gospel message) and a consummation-meaning that will finalize the whole thing (i.e., conjoining heaven to earth, etc.). But enough of that. I suppose it all sounds very far-fetched.

You write, "As far as the 'washing his garments in wine' bit goes, what does this figure of speech convey? Simply put, it is an image of incredible prosperity and/or power. If the former, it may mean that wine is as plentiful as scrub water." I recall that it was normal for a fuller to wash garments in urine. Wine could easily be an improvement.

Insofar as "scrub water" = a mixture of urine and water, I am thinking we agree here. * edited to add: I think I see your point. Yes, wine could easily be an improvement; but the emphasis is on the abundance of wine—so much around that there would be no hesitation whatsoever to do the unthinkable with something precious: wash clothes in it. Since water was hard to come by, why wasn't that mentioned instead? I think it was for imagery's sake. Wine is a symbol of prosperity.

You write, "But what it shows is that Matthew did nothing different than what previous Jewish writers (BCE) constantly did with their sources." I am not sure that we have an exact parallel of method. Without trying to second-guess you, may I ask which Jewish writers you are thinking of?

You are most assuredly right about that. I was thinking of the writers/editors of the Tanak.

Thanks for the discourse.

Regards,

CJD

Peter Kirby

CJD, from an atheological point of view, two chief questions I have about all this are: (1) What changed between God and his people that required a change in the concept of the Messiah? (2) How far can you do this kind of adaptation until it's not the same belief?

(1) The necessity of Christ's death is said to be to atone for sin, reconciling men with God through the cross. The only true prerequisite for this concept is the fallen nature of man. But surely this has been the case for centuries before Christ. God would have known all along that his Messiah would come to earth once to die for sin and then again in glory at the end. So what's the point of revealing a false concept to the Hebrews? Why instead is it left to the apostles to work out the new theology from the assumption of the Messianic character of Jesus and fact of the crucifixion? This evolution is easy to explain from a naturalistic viewpoint, and the theological spin on it is ad hoc at best.

(2) Christianity is claimed to be the successor to Judaism by some Christians, a sort of second testament, the law being nailed to the cross. In view of the disregard of the law in Christianity, which is central to Judaism, it is fair to regard it as a new religion, just as much as Islam or Mormonism is to Christianity. But if God is allowed to change his mind on what his true religion is about, then wouldn't this justify the belief in Muhammad or Joseph Smith as a true prophet with a similar rationalization?

Thank you also for providing your thoughts.

best,
Peter Kirby