On the Myth of Old Testament Prophesies
In Isaiah 53 are several verses that describe events attributed to "God's servant." God's servant has suffered and is due its reward.
For a long long time, the idea has been sold to believers that "God's servant" referred to the future Jesus. That is why our student pastor many decades ago taught this to us. But why hasn't it been re taught in the hundreds of sermons I've heard since? These sermons were preached by graduates of Harvard and Princeton seminaries.
According to Bart Ehrman, (Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. 2020) and apparently the seminary professors of the preachers I have experienced in my decades of church attendance, there are two big flaws in the argument. First in the surviving written material by Jews who wrote and edited BCE there is absolutely no reference to a hero who would die and come back to life. The hero was to command armies and free the Jews. Their hero was not to be humiliated by the Romans by being captured and killed. Just the opposite, he was to capture and kill the Romans.
Second, nowhere in the "prophesies" does it say "God's Servant" is the coming messiah. If all the discussion like, Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great and he shall divide the spoil with the strong because he poured himself out to death, and was numbered with the transgressors. Yet he bore the sin of many...(Isaiah 53:11-12), is not reference to the coming Jesus, what in the world did it refer to?
It referred to the nation of Israel. Old Testament writers, according to Ehrman, often referred to Israel as a living and suffering person. Since the writers did not refer to anyone else it seems to Ehrman, and apparently much of the Biblical scholarship community, it refers to the country that will be saved by a great future commander of armies.
"Prophesy" came about by reading into Old Testament writing something that is not there.
Strange you base your premise on such a small basis.
ReplyDeletehelper "Strange you base your premise on such a small basis."
DeleteSmall basis?? And your belief in prophesy -- based on the premise ancient goat herders could predict an event about a specific person thousands of years in advance?? That "basis" is so small it non existent
Only Isaiah? I completely understand the Jewish take on " he was to capture and kill the Romans". If that what they wanted, that's how they understood it in the time of their denial, which is well documented. HOWEVER, the overwhelming content of the TOTALITY of the OT speaks to the KINSMAN REDEEMER, starting in Genesis, and following through to the end. (The Messiah, Jesus The Christ, )
DeleteGoat herders my ass.
Helper-- "HOWEVER, the overwhelming content of the TOTALITY of the OT speaks to the KINSMAN REDEEMER, starting in Genesis..."
ReplyDeleteI read through pages of material about the "Kinsman Redeemer" including passages from Genesis and on. No where does it say the messiah will be one who is captured and killed by the Romans. No where does it say the Kinsman Redeemer will be the messiah.
Oh yes, I read it but failed to understand that even though it NEVER said the Kinsman is the messiah that is what it meant. I'll stick with the facts, thank you.
Helper--I looked up categories of Christianity to find which ones endorsed your view of the "Kinsman Redeemer." In the many thousands of pages of the Catholic Encyclopedia there is nothing, nothing. At least my search entry showed nothing. But Jews for Jesus are really big on it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand your ignorance of the Kinsman Redeemer, a long held Jewish tradition, of being Bought back (redeemer, to redeem, to buy back). Hebraisms and Hebrew history are not your long suit. Sad. But the Redeemer does just that. There are 23 verses that relate to it.
DeleteThe Catholic Encyclopedia need not mention the Kinsman redeemer, as the RCC believes it is now the conduit.
That the Jews for Jesus recognize the kinsman redeemer reveals the Jewish understanding of the tradition going back to Genesis.
Your hyper literalism is blocking your over view/ big picture. Something you so strongly brag against. Oh well, It may work for you -----on occasion, but it also reveals your bias.
Jon; If you are studying the Hebrew Bible, (The Old Testament,) you HAVE to think like a Jew. So put on a yarmulke, and go native. You will then understand narrative, poetry, and metaphor. But you won't. The modern mind alone will miss it. As you have done all along, so don't think you are the rabbi. (teacher).
DeleteHelper "Your hyper literalism is blocking your over view/big picture."
ReplyDeleteThanks, but I'll stick with the facts. If the Jews believed their Messiah was one who would be captured and killed by the Romans they would have said so. They described a different person.
I think you are doing what we used to call in college "back labbing," taking the results and reverse engineering the process. What you call the "big picture" is something you do not understand. The big picture is asking whether it is reasonable that ancient wealthy goat herders could predict specific events that would happen a thousand years later to a specific person. In the "big picture" it is absurd to believe such a thing happened or could happen.
It's been interesting to me to learn your way of escaping the from the box that critical reading of the Bible puts you in and I appreciate your explaining it to readers. With that, we have ended our discussion.