According to Matthew 27:52-53, right after Jesus died, “The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” I know poking fun at this story is like dissing Paris Hilton. It's just so easy that it's almost dishonorable. Almost.
Besides that fact that people are being raised from the dead, this is a very strange story. Why did they come out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection? Did they find little scrolls in their coffins with messages like “Hey, I apologize if this sounds a bit contrived, but when Jesus yelled, I just felt like someone needed to rise from the dead. I don't actually want you seen in public until Sunday. I apologize for the inconvenience. Signed, Yahweh.”
While I don't understand the motivation behind the newly raised saints' behavior, I'm sure Jesus appreciated the way they didn't steal his thunder by showing up first. If they had rushed the whole process of, you know, trying out their legs again, exploring the countryside anew, telling people they aren't dead, they could have really screwed things up. Imagine what would have happened had they not hung out in their graves for three (meaning two) days. With so many resurrected people running around appearing to many people, by the time we get to Easter morning Jesus would appear to people and they'd be like “Yeah, you used to be dead and now you're not. We know. You aren't the first and if you ask me, I really don't think you'll be the last.” I can just imagine ten of the disciples insisting that Jesus is dead, while Thomas is like “Until I see his corpse with my own eyes, and smell his rotting flesh with my own nose, I will believe that he has been raised from the dead just like everyone else!”
It could have been especially bothersome if only one of the newly raised saints, call him Brian, didn't quite understand what was going on. Suppose Brian came into the Jerusalem on Good Friday. People would naturally conclude that he was the first. They might even assume that because he's first, he must have been the one responsible for all the other resurrections. In reply, someone might still claim that it was really Jesus who raised Brian. “Jesus? Jesus couldn't have done it. He was dead!” You got to admit, as far as the soundness of air-tight alibis go, this one is pretty near the top. Before you knew it, there would be a whole new sect of Judaism venerating the life of Brian and all because of a hapless resurrectees misunderstanding of what a newly raised corpse is supposed to do with oneself.
In a little closer to all seriousness, I'd bet Matthew wanted to write “and coming out of the tombs they entered the holy city.” But the more he thought about it, the more it took away from Jesus' Resurrection, so he just had to add some sort of qualifier to keep Jesus at the head of the story. These do not look like the words of someone accurately recording what actually happened. It can be astounding just how much easier it is to explain how it is that we have a story about a miraculous event than it is to explain the miraculous event itself.
But true or not, I'm rather disappointed that these two little verses are all we get to hear about this amazing event. As Thomas Paine wrote:
“Had it been true, it would have filled up whole chapters of those books, and been the chosen theme and general chorus of all the writers; but instead of this, little and trivial things, and mere prattling conversations of, he said this, and he said that, are often tediously detailed, while this, most important of all, had it been true, is passed off in a slovenly manner by a single dash of the pen, and that by one writer only, and not so much as hinted at by the rest.
“It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew should have told us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what became of them afterward, and who it was that saw them – for he is not hardy enough to say he saw them himself; whether they came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints; or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses; whether they went to their former habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their property, and how they were received; whether they entered ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought actions of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether they remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of preaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and buried themselves.
“Strange, indeed, that an army of saints should return to life, and nobody know who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and that not a word more should be said upon the subject, nor these saints have anything to tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as we are told) had formerly prophesied of these things, they must have had a great deal to say. They could have told us everything and we should have had posthumous prophecies, with notes and commentaries upon the first, a little better at least than we have now. Had it been Moses and Aaron and Joshua and Samuel and David, not an unconverted Jew had remained in all Jerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints of the time then present, everybody would have known them, and they would have out-preached and out-famed all the other apostles. But, instead of this, these saints were made to pop up, like Jonah's gourd in the night, for no purpose at all but to wither in the morning.”
Even if you think that miracles happen all the time, this story still fails to maintain a shred of reasonableness. Left unexplained are why the risen saints waited until Sunday, why Matthew tells us so little about them, why no other Gospel writer mentions it, and why we have no secular record of them. It doesn't explain why Peter didn't point out one of the newly Resurrected saints on Pentecost or use the resurrections many of them had seen as evidence for the resurrection that they didn't see. I would have thought that he would have understood the audience appeal of a dead guy walking around.
But there is an extraordinarily simple theory that explains all of this. It didn't happen. Things like this should be taken into consideration when deciding if Matthew's more famous tale of a resurrection deserves to be taken seriously.
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Matthew, the Colt, and the Donkey
Matthew 21:2-5: “[Jesus said] to them, 'Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them.' This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
'SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, 'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.''”
The first thing to notice is that Matthew is telling us about a colt and donkey, while Zechariah 9:9 mentions a colt and donkey as well. That's probably not a coincidence.
However, Zechariah was actually talking about one animal, not two. The first part of the prophecy shares the surprise that their king would ride a mere donkey rather than a horse. In the second part, the word “even” is adding to this surprise; the extra detail of its age makes it even less majestic.
The authors of Mark, Luke, and John seem to have figured this out, as all three refer to the one animal on which Jesus rode. Mark 11:2-7 and Luke 19:30-35 say it was a colt. John 12:14-15 says Jesus found a “little donkey” and then paraphrases Zechariah 9:9 to say that a donkey's colt was to be ridden. This is a double affirmation, as John used little donkey and donkey's colt interchangeably, and also thought that a paraphrase of Zechariah involving one animal was accurate.
So if Zechariah was talking about one animal, and it's not a coincidence that both he and Matthew mention a colt and donkey, what are the alternatives?
One possibility is that the author of Matthew was intentionally describing Palm Sunday in a way that made Jesus look like a fulfillment of prophecy as much as possible. He wanted people to believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecies, and this was more important to him than limiting the details of his story to things that actually happened. The beginning of Matthew is already sufficient to reveal that convincing people was more important than not saying false things about the OT. Here, I'm suggesting that convincing people was also more important than not saying false things about the events in Jesus' life.
Another possible source of the story is poor reasoning that does not involve intentional deception. Suppose Jesus actually rode on a colt, and an early Christian heard this story. But then they looked at Zechariah, and mistakenly thought that it spoke of two animals. Here's their train of thought: “Zechariah is true, Zechariah prophesied about a colt and a donkey, therefore Jesus' triumphal entry involved both a colt and a donkey.” And so when the story was retold, a second animal was added. With this possibility, the person who made up the detail sincerely believes it to be true, and the author of Matthew need not be the one who misunderstand Zechariah.
This is a concern whenever a prophecy's fulfillment is only reported by people who were already certain that the prophecy was true. The prophecy itself is enough to convince a true believer that its fulfillment occurred. This results in a story that the teller honestly believes, despite that fact that they observed nothing.
'SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, 'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.''”
The first thing to notice is that Matthew is telling us about a colt and donkey, while Zechariah 9:9 mentions a colt and donkey as well. That's probably not a coincidence.
However, Zechariah was actually talking about one animal, not two. The first part of the prophecy shares the surprise that their king would ride a mere donkey rather than a horse. In the second part, the word “even” is adding to this surprise; the extra detail of its age makes it even less majestic.
The authors of Mark, Luke, and John seem to have figured this out, as all three refer to the one animal on which Jesus rode. Mark 11:2-7 and Luke 19:30-35 say it was a colt. John 12:14-15 says Jesus found a “little donkey” and then paraphrases Zechariah 9:9 to say that a donkey's colt was to be ridden. This is a double affirmation, as John used little donkey and donkey's colt interchangeably, and also thought that a paraphrase of Zechariah involving one animal was accurate.
So if Zechariah was talking about one animal, and it's not a coincidence that both he and Matthew mention a colt and donkey, what are the alternatives?
One possibility is that the author of Matthew was intentionally describing Palm Sunday in a way that made Jesus look like a fulfillment of prophecy as much as possible. He wanted people to believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecies, and this was more important to him than limiting the details of his story to things that actually happened. The beginning of Matthew is already sufficient to reveal that convincing people was more important than not saying false things about the OT. Here, I'm suggesting that convincing people was also more important than not saying false things about the events in Jesus' life.
Another possible source of the story is poor reasoning that does not involve intentional deception. Suppose Jesus actually rode on a colt, and an early Christian heard this story. But then they looked at Zechariah, and mistakenly thought that it spoke of two animals. Here's their train of thought: “Zechariah is true, Zechariah prophesied about a colt and a donkey, therefore Jesus' triumphal entry involved both a colt and a donkey.” And so when the story was retold, a second animal was added. With this possibility, the person who made up the detail sincerely believes it to be true, and the author of Matthew need not be the one who misunderstand Zechariah.
This is a concern whenever a prophecy's fulfillment is only reported by people who were already certain that the prophecy was true. The prophecy itself is enough to convince a true believer that its fulfillment occurred. This results in a story that the teller honestly believes, despite that fact that they observed nothing.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Matthew and the OT (one more problem)
In my earlier post I missed the clearest case of an error on the part of Matthew.
Matthew 27:9-10 “Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel;
AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME.'”
The closest thing we have to this is in the OT is Jeremiah 11:12-13 “I said to them, 'If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!' So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the LORD said to me, 'Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.' So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.”
This is quite a loose quotation, and there is no reason to think that that it's a prophesy at all. But it does at least answer the question of what Matthew is talking about. The verses talk about thirty shekels of silver as being the price of the Lord, so it seems that the question of where it comes from is answered.
However, before this problem is declared solved, I should mention that I lied. The OT verses I quoted are not Jeremiah 11:12-13. They are Zechariah 11:12-13.
One proposed solution to other OT quotations that don't line up is the Holy Spirit. Perhaps He was telling Matthew insights into the meaning of the OT that were not necessarily clear in the OT alone. This verse makes it clear that Matthew was just wrong.
Matthew 27:9-10 “Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel;
AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME.'”
The closest thing we have to this is in the OT is Jeremiah 11:12-13 “I said to them, 'If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!' So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the LORD said to me, 'Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.' So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.”
This is quite a loose quotation, and there is no reason to think that that it's a prophesy at all. But it does at least answer the question of what Matthew is talking about. The verses talk about thirty shekels of silver as being the price of the Lord, so it seems that the question of where it comes from is answered.
However, before this problem is declared solved, I should mention that I lied. The OT verses I quoted are not Jeremiah 11:12-13. They are Zechariah 11:12-13.
One proposed solution to other OT quotations that don't line up is the Holy Spirit. Perhaps He was telling Matthew insights into the meaning of the OT that were not necessarily clear in the OT alone. This verse makes it clear that Matthew was just wrong.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Matthew vs. The Old Testament
One defense of Christianity is that it spread even in an environment that was ignorant to Old Testament prophecy.
I will argue that ignorance of the Old Testament makes one more open to Christianity. Of course, I'm not making a universal statement, and I'm not claiming the converse that Christians are ignorant of the OT. I'm evaluating the strength of the case made in the NT that the OT predicted Jesus' life and concluding that it is so bad, that the NT would be more likely to cause someone to accept Jesus if they had never read the OT.
Matt. 1:1-17 (genealogies)
Matthew's genealogies contain gaps when compared to the OT. The apologists answer is that Matthew was being loose with “father of” (compare to “Jesus son of David”) but was instead going for something numerological with the 14-14-14 pattern. That's reasonable so far. But when you count the names, you get 41, not 42 = 14 +14 + 14. And it's not a matter of counting grandfather-father-son as two or three generations – this alternate method of counting would give 40. When the genealogies are supposedly fixed around a numerological point, having the wrong number is quite an error. That's even an embarrassing mistake for a book written by a person without the Holy Spirit.
If you've never read the OT, I Chronicles 3:11-12 in particular, no explanation is needed. “Joram the father of Uzziah;” how complicated could it be? The idea that Matthew is neither inspired, nor particularly good, is a conclusion more true to the text than the one offered by apologists.
I learned about this a couple years ago. Less than a month after, Matthew 1 came up in a missions class I was taking called Perspectives. The missionary was talking about how different cultures view the Bible differently. There was one tribe with which the missionaries were getting nowhere for quite a while. Then one day he read the genealogies of Matthew to the natives. Their reaction was something like, “What? You mean they kept track of every single ancestor for all that time? Jesus was real!” And so the entire tribe converted.
While most of the room was no doubt praising the wisdom of the Holy Spirit for writing the Bible in such a way that all nations could come to believe, my thoughts were far different. What would I do if I was that missionary? Would I tell them that we know for certain that names are missing, and “father of” doesn't really mean “father of”? How long would I wait to translate I Chronicles? My emotions won the day, so I praised God and tried not to think. Emotions fade, but reasons never go away.
Matt. 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US.” (BibleGateway's NASB uses all caps for OT quotation – that's not me shouting.)
is quoting
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”
Picky details: when did Mary, or anyone else, call his name Immanuel? Half the prophecy only happens in quotation of the prophecy. The other half, that the mother will be a virgin, is unclear in Isaiah.
More relevant details: Isaiah 7:16 makes it clear that it's supposed to be fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's listeners. “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.” As the king of Israel and the king of Assyria were dreaded by Judah, it is quite clear that Isaiah 7 is talking about kings in the present, thus events in the not-too-distant future.
Matt. 2:5-6 “They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"”
is (mis)quoting
Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel”
In Micah, it looks like Bethlehem Ephrathah (not to be confused with Bethlehem) is a clan, not a town. Also, it does not say “Messiah,” but “ruler.” What will this ruler do? Micah 5:5-6 answers this question; he will defeat the Assyrians. If Micah 5 is Messianic, it's hard to blame the Jews for expecting the Messiah to be a military leader.
This problem is a double problem (although the second is only a problem if the first is as well.) According to Matthew, when the chief priests and scribes were asked where the King of the Jews would be born, they answered Bethlehem. Thus, Matthew claims that not only can we see the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem when looking back, but we can also see it looking forward. We have copies of Micah, so we know that it could not have been seen looking forward. This not only means Matthew misused Micah, but it also means that the story of the magi looks fictitious for purely biblical reasons, or at least the detail about how they found out that Bethlehem was the destination.
Matt. 2:15 “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."”
is quoting Hosea 11:1, which is talking about Israel's escape from Egypt.
Matt. 2:17-18 “Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
"A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."”
is quoting Jeremiah 31:15, which is describing events that Jeremiah saw.
Matt. 2:23 “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."”
Where? Remember that the point I'm arguing is not merely that the NT is wrong, but also that the NT's case that the OT foresaw the NT is strongest when viewed by someone who hasn't read the OT.
Matt 8:17 “[Jesus' healing of the sick] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."”
is quoting
Isaiah 53:4's: “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried;”
Isaiah 53:4 says he is suffering for us, while Matthew's paraphrase sounds like Jesus is taking away the suffering and no one is suffering in our place. Had Matthew argued that Isaiah 53 foresaw the NT's theology of the significance of the crucification, he would have had a better case. Matthew did not make this case.
Matt. 13:35 “I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD”
misquotes Psalm 78:2 “I will utter dark sayings of old.” Matthew sounds like new revelation, while Psalms sounds like repetition of things known for a long time.
The people who should be most moved by the elucidation of prophecy are the people most familiar with the OT prophecy, the Jews. The Jew mostly reject the NT then and now. Looking at the arguments made by Matthew, it is easy to see why. The people most likely to be convinced by Matthew's claims of prophecy are the people who don't bother to look up the OT verses, and just take Matthew's word for it.
Here, I have heard a couple different Christian answers. Matthew was using either Midrash or Pesher (I don't remember which), a contemporary hermeneutic, and thus Matthew should be interpreted as the original audience would have in light of this hermeneutic. This doesn't answer the objection at all. That's like saying that parts of the Bible were written at a time when people didn't care what was true, thus parts of the Bible express an indifference to the truth. It certainly explains why the Bible looks like a work of man, but it doesn't explain how God fits in. Meanwhile, the alternative view that the Bible is a work of man that is not terribly good is quite consistent with what I see.
The other answer is that the OT was making dual prophecies, or prophecies in situations where the original author didn't know he was prophesying. But should not words be taken to mean what the speaker intended when the intent is clear? Also, the explanation just does not make sense when you look back at what the prophecies actually said. The clearest problem is in Isaiah 7:14-16. The prophecies is not just vague words that fits around multiple situations. They are clear, and clearly not about Jesus. “Two meanings” is a cop-out for not liking the one clear meaning. They could be less clear and still sufficiently clear to be valid proof-texts for major pieces of doctrine.
I will argue that ignorance of the Old Testament makes one more open to Christianity. Of course, I'm not making a universal statement, and I'm not claiming the converse that Christians are ignorant of the OT. I'm evaluating the strength of the case made in the NT that the OT predicted Jesus' life and concluding that it is so bad, that the NT would be more likely to cause someone to accept Jesus if they had never read the OT.
Matt. 1:1-17 (genealogies)
Matthew's genealogies contain gaps when compared to the OT. The apologists answer is that Matthew was being loose with “father of” (compare to “Jesus son of David”) but was instead going for something numerological with the 14-14-14 pattern. That's reasonable so far. But when you count the names, you get 41, not 42 = 14 +14 + 14. And it's not a matter of counting grandfather-father-son as two or three generations – this alternate method of counting would give 40. When the genealogies are supposedly fixed around a numerological point, having the wrong number is quite an error. That's even an embarrassing mistake for a book written by a person without the Holy Spirit.
If you've never read the OT, I Chronicles 3:11-12 in particular, no explanation is needed. “Joram the father of Uzziah;” how complicated could it be? The idea that Matthew is neither inspired, nor particularly good, is a conclusion more true to the text than the one offered by apologists.
I learned about this a couple years ago. Less than a month after, Matthew 1 came up in a missions class I was taking called Perspectives. The missionary was talking about how different cultures view the Bible differently. There was one tribe with which the missionaries were getting nowhere for quite a while. Then one day he read the genealogies of Matthew to the natives. Their reaction was something like, “What? You mean they kept track of every single ancestor for all that time? Jesus was real!” And so the entire tribe converted.
While most of the room was no doubt praising the wisdom of the Holy Spirit for writing the Bible in such a way that all nations could come to believe, my thoughts were far different. What would I do if I was that missionary? Would I tell them that we know for certain that names are missing, and “father of” doesn't really mean “father of”? How long would I wait to translate I Chronicles? My emotions won the day, so I praised God and tried not to think. Emotions fade, but reasons never go away.
Matt. 1:23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US.” (BibleGateway's NASB uses all caps for OT quotation – that's not me shouting.)
is quoting
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”
Picky details: when did Mary, or anyone else, call his name Immanuel? Half the prophecy only happens in quotation of the prophecy. The other half, that the mother will be a virgin, is unclear in Isaiah.
More relevant details: Isaiah 7:16 makes it clear that it's supposed to be fulfilled in the time of Isaiah's listeners. “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.” As the king of Israel and the king of Assyria were dreaded by Judah, it is quite clear that Isaiah 7 is talking about kings in the present, thus events in the not-too-distant future.
Matt. 2:5-6 “They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"”
is (mis)quoting
Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel”
In Micah, it looks like Bethlehem Ephrathah (not to be confused with Bethlehem) is a clan, not a town. Also, it does not say “Messiah,” but “ruler.” What will this ruler do? Micah 5:5-6 answers this question; he will defeat the Assyrians. If Micah 5 is Messianic, it's hard to blame the Jews for expecting the Messiah to be a military leader.
This problem is a double problem (although the second is only a problem if the first is as well.) According to Matthew, when the chief priests and scribes were asked where the King of the Jews would be born, they answered Bethlehem. Thus, Matthew claims that not only can we see the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem when looking back, but we can also see it looking forward. We have copies of Micah, so we know that it could not have been seen looking forward. This not only means Matthew misused Micah, but it also means that the story of the magi looks fictitious for purely biblical reasons, or at least the detail about how they found out that Bethlehem was the destination.
Matt. 2:15 “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."”
is quoting Hosea 11:1, which is talking about Israel's escape from Egypt.
Matt. 2:17-18 “Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
"A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."”
is quoting Jeremiah 31:15, which is describing events that Jeremiah saw.
Matt. 2:23 “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."”
Where? Remember that the point I'm arguing is not merely that the NT is wrong, but also that the NT's case that the OT foresaw the NT is strongest when viewed by someone who hasn't read the OT.
Matt 8:17 “[Jesus' healing of the sick] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."”
is quoting
Isaiah 53:4's: “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried;”
Isaiah 53:4 says he is suffering for us, while Matthew's paraphrase sounds like Jesus is taking away the suffering and no one is suffering in our place. Had Matthew argued that Isaiah 53 foresaw the NT's theology of the significance of the crucification, he would have had a better case. Matthew did not make this case.
Matt. 13:35 “I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD”
misquotes Psalm 78:2 “I will utter dark sayings of old.” Matthew sounds like new revelation, while Psalms sounds like repetition of things known for a long time.
The people who should be most moved by the elucidation of prophecy are the people most familiar with the OT prophecy, the Jews. The Jew mostly reject the NT then and now. Looking at the arguments made by Matthew, it is easy to see why. The people most likely to be convinced by Matthew's claims of prophecy are the people who don't bother to look up the OT verses, and just take Matthew's word for it.
Here, I have heard a couple different Christian answers. Matthew was using either Midrash or Pesher (I don't remember which), a contemporary hermeneutic, and thus Matthew should be interpreted as the original audience would have in light of this hermeneutic. This doesn't answer the objection at all. That's like saying that parts of the Bible were written at a time when people didn't care what was true, thus parts of the Bible express an indifference to the truth. It certainly explains why the Bible looks like a work of man, but it doesn't explain how God fits in. Meanwhile, the alternative view that the Bible is a work of man that is not terribly good is quite consistent with what I see.
The other answer is that the OT was making dual prophecies, or prophecies in situations where the original author didn't know he was prophesying. But should not words be taken to mean what the speaker intended when the intent is clear? Also, the explanation just does not make sense when you look back at what the prophecies actually said. The clearest problem is in Isaiah 7:14-16. The prophecies is not just vague words that fits around multiple situations. They are clear, and clearly not about Jesus. “Two meanings” is a cop-out for not liking the one clear meaning. They could be less clear and still sufficiently clear to be valid proof-texts for major pieces of doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)