I think time has come to reveal the source of the Passion story – and at the same time the source of Christianity.
Look first at Nathan’s prophecy:
2 Samuel 7: But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:
** you do not have permission to see this link **]; your throne will be established forever.’”
This was the Lord’s prophecy. If we read the Books of Kings we see that Solomon was the offspring of David who succeeded him. But everyone can read in the Books of Kings that the Lord rejects Solomon.
1 Kings 11:11: So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.
What had happened? Could the Lord’s prophecy be wrong? Of course not! Something wrong had to have happened down the road. And here comes the Passion story.
Having studied Nathans prophecy the (Christian) scribes read other prophecies, especially Isaiah 53. When they now returned their reading to the Books of Kings they found the answer. The prophecy referred simply not to Solomon but to his brother Adonijah. Adonijah was the suffering servant from Isaiah! Solomon was the rich man!
Adonai means «My Lord». This word occurs in the Masoretic text 315 times by the side of the Tetragram YHWH (310 times preceding and five times succeeding it) and 134 times without it. Originally an appellation of God, the word became a definite title, and when the Tetragram became too holy for utterance Adonai was substituted for it.
David’s son Adonijah had even the name of the Lord!
Now the Passion story “historiced”. The Passion story is actually quite short and begins with 2 Samuel 24 and ends in 1 Kings 2 – only three chapters long.
I summarize it in my next post and provide some comments to the end.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** 2 Samuel 24 Opens with David asked to keep a census of Israel. We find this same story in 1 Chronicles 27: Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”(…)Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by doing this. Now, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”
** you do not have permission to see this link ** 9 The Lord said to Gad, David’s seer, 10 “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’”(…)
** you do not have permission to see this link ** And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** 16 David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** 17 David said to God, “Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I, the shepherd, have sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Lord my God, let your hand fall on me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people.”
Then the angel of the Lord ordered Gad to tell David to go up and build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. 19 So David went up in obedience to the word that Gad had spoken in the name of theLord.
20 While Araunah was threshing wheat, he turned and saw the angel; his four sons who were with him hid themselves. 21 Then David approached, and when Araunah looked and saw him, he left the threshing floor and bowed down before David with his face to the ground.
22 David said to him, “Let me have the site of your threshing floor so I can build an altar to the Lord, that the plague on the people may be stopped. Sell it to me at the full price.”(…)
So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels of gold for the site. 26 David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. He called on the Lord, and the Lord answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.
27 Then the Lord spoke to the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath.
Comment: Here we have a census in Israel. We have an angel comming from Heaven – maybe interpreted as the angel Gabriel? And we have David building an altar.
In the Gospel of Philip, we have this rader strange testimonial:
Philip the apostle said, “Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross.” But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.
In light of 2 Kings 24 this testimonial of Philip make sense.
1 Kings opens with David taking a beautiful young woman to keep him warm. This young woman was Abishag. The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her. She was a virgin.
This is what the The Protoevangelium of James talking about:
And when she(Mary) was twelve years old there was held a council of the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judæa, and the trumpet of theLord sounded, and all ran.
9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the ** you do not have permission to see this link **, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you.
Next, Adonijah becomes king.
While Jesus in the New Testament rides into Jerusalem and making a fuss, in the same manner “rides” Adonijah in to 1 Kings and making a fuss.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** To seal his kingdom, Adonijah now invited all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the royal officials of Judah, 10 but he did not invite Nathan the prophet or Benaiah or the special guard or his brother Solomon.
But while Adonijah and his suporters where eating this «supper», it says:
** you do not have permission to see this link ** Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they were finishing their feast. On hearing the sound of the trumpet, Joab asked, “What’s the meaning of all the noise in the city?”
** you do not have permission to see this link ** 42 Even as he was speaking, Jonathan son of Abiathar the priest arrived. Adonijah said, “Come in. A worthy man like you must be bringing good news.”
** you do not have permission to see this link ** 43 “Not at all!” Jonathan answered. “Our lord King David has made Solomon king. 44 The king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites, and they have put him on the king’s mule, 45 and Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king at Gihon. From there they have gone up cheering, and the city resounds with it. That’s the noise you hear. 46 Moreover, Solomon has taken his seat on the royal throne. 47 Also, the royal officials have come to congratulate our lord King David, saying, ‘May your God make Solomon’s name more famous than yours and his throne greater than yours!’ And the king bowed in worship on his bed 48 and said, ‘Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, who has allowed my eyes to see a successor on my throne today.’”
** you do not have permission to see this link ** 49 At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. 50 But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. 51 Then Solomon was told, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon and is clinging to the horns of the altar.
Adonijah was so scared that he sweated blood, while all his companions was scattered around.
Clinging to the horns of the altar, Adonijah was killed with a spear from Benaiah.
This is the crucifixion. Adonijah was crucifixed together with Joab and Shimei.
Pontius Pilate is Nathan and Bathsheba his wife who had bad dreams. Barabbas is Solomon who the Jews would rather have as king.
I’m sorry if I’ve violated any forum rules Dr. Ehrman. But I have so many thoughts related to this topic that I want to share, and I do not want to be rude.
Who was The Penitent thief on the Cross?
In different Christian traditions different names have been given to the thief: Titus, Dismas, Demas, Dysmas or maybe Didymas.
Didymas Thomas may have been Joab. Why? Well, because Joab dies in the same way as Adonijah dies – like a twin. And because it explains Thomas statement in connection with Lazarus death.
Thomas and Titus may have been two different names for Joab, in different traditions.
moose said
I’m sorry if I’ve violated any forum rules Dr. Ehrman. But I have so many thoughts related to this topic that I want to share, and I do not want to be rude.Who was The Penitent thief on the Cross?
In different Christian traditions different names have been given to the thief: Titus, Dismas, Demas, Dysmas or maybe Didymas.
Didymas Thomas may have been Joab. Why? Well, because Joab dies in the same way as Adonijah dies – like a twin. And because it explains Thomas statement in connection with Lazarus death.
Thomas and Titus may have been two different names for Joab, in different traditions.
Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
Why was not Thomas present when Jesus first appeared?
The theological reason is that Jesus was expected to be the first fruit to be resurrected. If Thomas had been present at the first time Jesus appeared, then Thomas have had to be resurrected before Jesus. This was the theological point “John” wanted to give.
I admittedly did not read all these posts in detail; many are quite long. But from going quickly through them, I am at a loss over whether the point of many of these posts is that these chapters and verses from the Hebrew Scriptures were prophesying Jesus as Christ and his passion or whether these texts were what the New Testament writers used in building their stories of Jesus Christ either because they sincerely believed them to be prophecies or because they were contrivers constructing a new religion.
Its all nonsense I’m afraid. And to claim that Joseph planted trees so he could cut them down later is pure sophistry and even more so to say Jesus was nailed to the cross he made? Its about as unreal as it gets imo.
Its like Christians using isaiah 53 as a prophecy for Jesus as the Messiah. They were clearly talking about a current event, not a future one. Take this verse..
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[** you do not have permission to see this link **] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
It was God will to crush him and cause him to suffer? The word used in the first sentence is ‘was’ the Lord’s will not will be…
What parent or any God would do that to an innocent person, only an evil psychopath?
So just who were Jesus’s offspring as he was unmarried and never had any children or prolong the days of Jesus!
Its the same old story. Using biblical verses taken completely out of context, generally by gentiles not Jews as 99% of all Rabbis will explain what it meant alongside Isaaih 52 as well as the book was written originally without chapters. If we need to explain the OT, ask the Rabbi’s, not Christian Apologetics.
If God was to send a sign of the coming Messiah, why did God make such a poor job of doing that? Unless, the Jews were right all along and as Jesus never fulfilled any of the stuff the Messiah was supposed to do, maybe they have a point?
SBrudney091941 said
I admittedly did not read all these posts in detail; many are quite long. But from going quickly through them, I am at a loss over whether the point of many of these posts is that these chapters and verses from the Hebrew Scriptures were prophesying Jesus as Christ and his passion or whether these texts were what the New Testament writers used in building their stories of Jesus Christ either because they sincerely believed them to be prophecies or because they were contrivers constructing a new religion.
Although I do not think a “historical Jesus” existed, I do not like to be called a mythicist. I think the Jesus figure is based on prophetic writings. As Luke ends his Gospel: He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
This statement from Luke, and others, is something I take seriously. If one reads the Christian writings in this light, it is easy to see that the Gospels are a form of Midrash. Isaiah had spoken of the suffering servant in his prophecies. Who was this figure? I believe that when the scribes studied their writings they found different answers – and therefore we have different traditions.
One group found – and believed – on a Jesus in the flesh. Paul Epistles belonged to this group. They believed in Jesus as the Son of David – Adonijah. It is this group that is often quoted Psalm 118 where it says: The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;
This group believed Adonijah was the cornerstone the builders rejected.
There is much much more to write about this topic, including who Paul and Timothy was. But I have no time or opportunity to do so right now. Instead I end with a quote from Timothy: Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
Hymenaeus and Philetus obviously thought of another David’s son as Messiah – Solomon.
I think this is the core of the conflict between the Jews and the early Christians.
MikeyS said
Its all nonsense I’m afraid. And to claim that Joseph planted trees so he could cut them down later is pure sophistry and even more so to say Jesus was nailed to the cross he made? Its about as unreal as it gets imo.Its like Christians using isaiah 53 as a prophecy for Jesus as the Messiah. They were clearly talking about a current event, not a future one. Take this verse..
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[** you do not have permission to see this link **] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
It was God will to crush him and cause him to suffer? The word used in the first sentence is ‘was’ the Lord’s will not will be…
What parent or any God would do that to an innocent person, only an evil psychopath?
So just who were Jesus’s offspring as he was unmarried and never had any children or prolong the days of Jesus!
Its the same old story. Using biblical verses taken completely out of context, generally by gentiles not Jews as 99% of all Rabbis will explain what it meant alongside Isaaih 52 as well as the book was written originally without chapters. If we need to explain the OT, ask the Rabbi’s, not Christian Apologetics.
If God was to send a sign of the coming Messiah, why did God make such a poor job of doing that? Unless, the Jews were right all along and as Jesus never fulfilled any of the stuff the Messiah was supposed to do, maybe they have a point?
This is a common misconception.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.
If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
moose said
MikeyS said
Its all nonsense I’m afraid. And to claim that Joseph planted trees so he could cut them down later is pure sophistry and even more so to say Jesus was nailed to the cross he made? Its about as unreal as it gets imo.Its like Christians using isaiah 53 as a prophecy for Jesus as the Messiah. They were clearly talking about a current event, not a future one. Take this verse..
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[** you do not have permission to see this link **] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
It was God will to crush him and cause him to suffer? The word used in the first sentence is ‘was’ the Lord’s will not will be…
What parent or any God would do that to an innocent person, only an evil psychopath?
So just who were Jesus’s offspring as he was unmarried and never had any children or prolong the days of Jesus!
Its the same old story. Using biblical verses taken completely out of context, generally by gentiles not Jews as 99% of all Rabbis will explain what it meant alongside Isaaih 52 as well as the book was written originally without chapters. If we need to explain the OT, ask the Rabbi’s, not Christian Apologetics.
If God was to send a sign of the coming Messiah, why did God make such a poor job of doing that? Unless, the Jews were right all along and as Jesus never fulfilled any of the stuff the Messiah was supposed to do, maybe they have a point?
This is a common misconception.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.
If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
There are at least two possibilities:
1. The first Christians faced a difficult historical event and wanted to explain it in the light of scriptural passages.
2. The first Christians made it all up, and searched the Jewish Scripture for building blocks for a plausible story that could sell well within the Jewish culture.
Could you please suggest some criteria that could guide us to select the best solution?
gavriel said
moose said
MikeyS said
Its all nonsense I’m afraid. And to claim that Joseph planted trees so he could cut them down later is pure sophistry and even more so to say Jesus was nailed to the cross he made? Its about as unreal as it gets imo.Its like Christians using isaiah 53 as a prophecy for Jesus as the Messiah. They were clearly talking about a current event, not a future one. Take this verse..
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[** you do not have permission to see this link **] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
It was God will to crush him and cause him to suffer? The word used in the first sentence is ‘was’ the Lord’s will not will be…
What parent or any God would do that to an innocent person, only an evil psychopath?
So just who were Jesus’s offspring as he was unmarried and never had any children or prolong the days of Jesus!
Its the same old story. Using biblical verses taken completely out of context, generally by gentiles not Jews as 99% of all Rabbis will explain what it meant alongside Isaaih 52 as well as the book was written originally without chapters. If we need to explain the OT, ask the Rabbi’s, not Christian Apologetics.
If God was to send a sign of the coming Messiah, why did God make such a poor job of doing that? Unless, the Jews were right all along and as Jesus never fulfilled any of the stuff the Messiah was supposed to do, maybe they have a point?
This is a common misconception.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.
If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
There are at least two possibilities:
1. The first Christians faced a difficult historical event and wanted to explain it in the light of scriptural passages.
2. The first Christians made it all up, and searched the Jewish Scripture for building blocks for a plausible story that could sell well within the Jewish culture.
Could you please suggest some criteria that could guide us to select the best solution?
Filling In The Details:
An argument can reasonably be made on textual grounds that a haggadic midrash on Isaiah 53, Wisdom of Solomon, and Psalm 22 is the basis for the passion narrative. All Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians about the crucifixion is just one line: “Jesus died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Paul may have recorded no narrative details of the crucifixion event because there were no narrative details of the crucifixion at the time he was writing. That is quite possible, because Mark tells us that when Jesus was arrested ALL the disciples “took flight and fled (14:50).” There is no reason for Mark to recount the embarrassing abandonment if it were not true. This would mean Jesus in all probability died alone, without any eyewitnesses. This would, of course, have made the details of the crucifixion impossible to record, since no one witnessed the event. The story also seems fictional because of us being told what Jesus said from the cross, but also what Jesus and the high priest said to each other, and what Jesus and the crowd said to each other (who would have been around to record these conversations?).
The Passion of the Christ in Mark:
Likely the clearest Prophecy about Jesus is the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The only thing is, Isaiah wasn’t making a prophesy aboout Jesus. Mark was doing a haggadic midrash on Isaiah. So, Mark depicts Jesus as one who is despised and rejected, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief. He then describes Jesus as wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. The Servant in Isaiah, like Jesus in Mark, is silent before his accusers. In Isaiah it says of the servant with his stripes we are healed, which Mark turned into the story of the scourging of Jesus. This is, in part, is where atonement theology comes from, but it would be silly to say II Isaiah was talking about atonement. The servant is numbered among the transgressors in Isaiah, so Jesus is crucified between two thieves. The Isaiah servant would make his grave with the rich, So Jesus is buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a person of means.
Then, as Dr. Robert Price says
The substructure for the crucifixion in chapter 15 is, as all recognize, Psalm 22, from which derive all the major details, including the implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24//Psalm 22:16b), the dividing of his garments and casting lots for them (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18), the “wagging heads” of the mockers (Mark 15:20//Psalm 22:7), and of course the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1). Matthew adds another quote, “He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now if he desires him” (Matthew 7:43//Psalm 22:8), as well as a strong allusion (“for he said, ‘I am the son of God’” 27:43b) to Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20, which underlies the whole story anyway (Miller, p. 362), “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life: for if the righteous man is God’s son he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture that we may find out how gentle he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” As for other details, Crossan (p. 198) points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus’ execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus’ legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan, p. 168).
Moose says, “Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel….” You say, Moose, that the Jews might be right about Isaiah. Looking at the rest of what you wrote, I guess you don’t mean that, if they were right, the first Christians were wrong or conversely, that, if what the first Christians believe about the meaning of Isaiah was right, that the Jews were wrong. You’re simply stating how we can find out what the first Christians thought about Isaiah. Do I have this right? The major problem with what you say, in my view, is your assumption that we can know from reading Acts or other New Testament books. As much as I respect Bart Ehrman, it does not follow, as he teaches, that, because some of Jesus’ earliest followers had some sort of post-crucifixion experiences of Jesus and believed he would return, they would have leaped to the conclusion that he was divine and was waiting to return and be a factor in absolving those who believe in him from their sins. It makes much more sense they they would have anticipated that, upon his return, he would fulfill the tasks of the messiah of “power and grandeur” as Bart has so often described the Jewish messiah. Why would rural, uneducated, Galilean Jews leap to such a different and strange view of the role of the messiah. They didn’t believe in human sacrifice. They believed only God, not the messiah, could absolve one from one’s sins. They believed the messiah, in carrying out his duties, if anything, would help absolve the sins of Israel, not of all individuals worldwide. No more than angels or an intelligent designer implies the existence of the biblical God. The evolution of ideas from the aforementioned visions or experiences makes sense in the mind of Paul but not in the minds of more rural, uneducated, Galilean Jews. So I think the most likely scenario is that the first Jewish followers of Jesus, including the Apostles, were not Christians at all and that the oh-so-Christian notions put into the mouths of Jesus and the Apostles by New Testament writers decades later, were reflections of a sect of Judaism gone so far beyond the pale of Judaism that it was becoming very debatable whether it was a sect of Judaism.
Yes, even if Isaiah 53 was about either the suffering servant The Jewish Nation or Jesus/Messiah, it was only a redemption of the Jews themselves and not any other peoples or nations. So its correct to assume that Jesus and his disciples were a sub sect of Judaism who only believed in one God and that forgiveness/atonement only came from God and no other.
Its quite obvious the later followers who were mostly Gentiles certainly by the end of the first century, decided that Jesus died for the whole of mankind as was the message espoused by Paul who claimed that he was chosen by Jesus to preach that message to the Gentiles. But nothing that Jesus said himself ever made that claim, in fact he went out of his way to condemn the non Jews and said he came only to save the lost sheep of Israel. The great commission statement could then not have been said by Jesus but by later vested interests of the Gentile Church Leaders who wanted to expand their power and influence to a greater audience and so we have the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches who are almost 100% non Jewish.
I’m not sure what Jesus meant by saving the ‘Lost sheep of Israel’ as Samaria was part of the 12 tribes at one time and you would have thought these were the ones lost, but no, as we have Jesus in conversation with the Samaritan Women and Samaritans were not treated like human being by the Jews at that time.
As I keep alluding though. For believers to keep reiterating that God would only accept the death of Jesus as an atonement for the whole sins of mankind has to be the biggest flaw of all as that would show God as passing the sins of Adam onto the whole human race, even babies and that would be the most unjust thing of all. I’m not sure that Jesus preached that and gave the example of Zacchaeus where Salvation came that day because of a change of behavior and selfless actions. That was also the message of John the Baptist who just wanted people to do the same and repent of any evil actions committed.
It was that man Paul who really upset the apple cart as Jesus could easily have died in his bed.
Christians should really get back to following the religion that Jesus did and worship God, not the messenger! ie they should be Jews but that circumcision was really a big stumbling block. Yet another barmy ritual that was clearly not the instruction from God but from brain dead ancient tribesmen. You would think that 2bn Jews and Muslims in the 21 century would know better!
john76 said
Filling In The Details:
An argument can reasonably be made on textual grounds that a haggadic midrash on Isaiah 53, Wisdom of Solomon, and Psalm 22 is the basis for the passion narrative. All Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians about the crucifixion is just one line: “Jesus died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Paul may have recorded no narrative details of the crucifixion event because there were no narrative details of the crucifixion at the time he was writing. That is quite possible, because Mark tells us that when Jesus was arrested ALL the disciples “took flight and fled (14:50).” There is no reason for Mark to recount the embarrassing abandonment if it were not true. This would mean Jesus in all probability died alone, without any eyewitnesses. This would, of course, have made the details of the crucifixion impossible to record, since no one witnessed the event. The story also seems fictional because of us being told what Jesus said from the cross, but also what Jesus and the high priest said to each other, and what Jesus and the crowd said to each other (who would have been around to record these conversations?).
The Passion of the Christ in Mark:
Likely the clearest Prophecy about Jesus is the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The only thing is, Isaiah wasn’t making a prophesy aboout Jesus. Mark was doing a haggadic midrash on Isaiah. So, Mark depicts Jesus as one who is despised and rejected, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief. He then describes Jesus as wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. The Servant in Isaiah, like Jesus in Mark, is silent before his accusers. In Isaiah it says of the servant with his stripes we are healed, which Mark turned into the story of the scourging of Jesus. This is, in part, is where atonement theology comes from, but it would be silly to say II Isaiah was talking about atonement. The servant is numbered among the transgressors in Isaiah, so Jesus is crucified between two thieves. The Isaiah servant would make his grave with the rich, So Jesus is buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a person of means.
Then, as Dr. Robert Price says
The substructure for the crucifixion in chapter 15 is, as all recognize, Psalm 22, from which derive all the major details, including the implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24//Psalm 22:16b), the dividing of his garments and casting lots for them (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18), the “wagging heads” of the mockers (Mark 15:20//Psalm 22:7), and of course the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1). Matthew adds another quote, “He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now if he desires him” (Matthew 7:43//Psalm 22:8), as well as a strong allusion (“for he said, ‘I am the son of God’” 27:43b) to Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20, which underlies the whole story anyway (Miller, p. 362), “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life: for if the righteous man is God’s son he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture that we may find out how gentle he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” As for other details, Crossan (p. 198) points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus’ execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus’ legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan, p. 168).
I already know that you claim that Mark contains midrashic elements, i.e. exegesis on non-legal parts of Scripture, which are not historical true. My reaction is that that this could be a theoretic possibility, while another theoretic possibility is that a real historical narrative (basically true) became embellished with scriptural allusions. Did the Gospel writer flesh out a narrative basically from scriptural passages, or did he search for scriptural passages that looks like premonitions of the real events?
Just pointing to possible scriptural passages as “proof” won’t do. Adherents of the opposite view can do exactly the same (and they do!) by saying that the gospel authors inserted the allusions in order to give the gospel message a secure scriptural foundation.
That is why I ask for a set of criteria that can make it possible to tell which is the most likely explanation.
I do not agree that there were no witnesses to the execution: In case it happened it was a public event, intended by the Romans to deter. If we can believe Mark, the execution was witnessed by female disciples, disciples who had nothing to fear. From Paul we know that the twelve soon after became permanently based in Jerusalem, making the “crucified Christ” part of their message (1 Cor 15:1-11). This would would have been pretty hopeless if the event never took place.
I’ve been meaning to post on this so called ‘suffering servant’ and God came down in the man Jesus in order to know what its like to suffer as we humans do etc.
So what did Jesus suffer in his 33 years on this earth? If the Gospels are true it was at most half to one day from his arrest to the crucifixion and as painful and horrible that death was which was no different than tens of thousands of others in a cruel regime of the Roman Empire?
Now compare that with a real suffering person or family.
Children born with cancer or those that develop cancer in their teens and a host of other well known diseases and ailments that curtail and reduce the quality of life for not just a day or even a year but for many years. Motor Neurone disease? TB? There are hundreds. Now what about Alzheimers or Parkinsons disease where you can have many years of a dreadful condition and they have to go into a care home or be looked after by family members? I am looking after my aged MIL now with Alzheimers. Its very debiliating for all concerned. It can go on for years and years as we know.
Did Jesus have to ‘suffer’ like any of these? Did God come down so he could experience such things for himself? So when I used to hear from the pulpit that Jesus ‘suffered’ like no man has ever suffered before and he came down from heaven in order to take our suffering and pain on his shoulders, I think of just two words. Bull shit!
It take real courage to live like so many unfortunate people do and maybe the good do die young but Isaaih 53 knows NOTHING about suffering, nothing! And yet it PLEASED God to see his/their suffering? Utter bull shit my friends. That is a God of evil, not one of love and goodness and charity.
People talk about the great prophieses in the bible don’t they. And yet the greatest ever disaster to befall the Jewish Nation for 6000 years was undoubtably the Holocaust when indeed real suffering and death too place and yet not ONE sentence in the whole bible that points to the time and place when this was to happen. Now would you not think any claim to prophecy from God would have left THAT event out? Even the bondage in Egypt wasn’t as bad as that.
gavriel said
john76 said
Filling In The Details:
An argument can reasonably be made on textual grounds that a haggadic midrash on Isaiah 53, Wisdom of Solomon, and Psalm 22 is the basis for the passion narrative. All Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians about the crucifixion is just one line: “Jesus died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Paul may have recorded no narrative details of the crucifixion event because there were no narrative details of the crucifixion at the time he was writing. That is quite possible, because Mark tells us that when Jesus was arrested ALL the disciples “took flight and fled (14:50).” There is no reason for Mark to recount the embarrassing abandonment if it were not true. This would mean Jesus in all probability died alone, without any eyewitnesses. This would, of course, have made the details of the crucifixion impossible to record, since no one witnessed the event. The story also seems fictional because of us being told what Jesus said from the cross, but also what Jesus and the high priest said to each other, an
gavriel said
moose said
MikeyS said
Its all nonsense I’m afraid. And to claim that Joseph planted trees so he could cut them down later is pure sophistry and even more so to say Jesus was nailed to the cross he made? Its about as unreal as it gets imo.Its like Christians using isaiah 53 as a prophecy for Jesus as the Messiah. They were clearly talking about a current event, not a future one. Take this verse..
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[** you do not have permission to see this link **] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
It was God will to crush him and cause him to suffer? The word used in the first sentence is ‘was’ the Lord’s will not will be…
What parent or any God would do that to an innocent person, only an evil psychopath?
So just who were Jesus’s offspring as he was unmarried and never had any children or prolong the days of Jesus!
Its the same old story. Using biblical verses taken completely out of context, generally by gentiles not Jews as 99% of all Rabbis will explain what it meant alongside Isaaih 52 as well as the book was written originally without chapters. If we need to explain the OT, ask the Rabbi’s, not Christian Apologetics.
If God was to send a sign of the coming Messiah, why did God make such a poor job of doing that? Unless, the Jews were right all along and as Jesus never fulfilled any of the stuff the Messiah was supposed to do, maybe they have a point?
This is a common misconception.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.
If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
There are at least two possibilities:
1. The first Christians faced a difficult historical event and wanted to explain it in the light of scriptural passages.
2. The first Christians made it all up, and searched the Jewish Scripture for building blocks for a plausible story that could sell well within the Jewish culture.
Could you please suggest some criteria that could guide us to select the best solution?
gavriel said
john76 said
Filling In The Details:
An argument can reasonably be made on textual grounds that a haggadic midrash on Isaiah 53, Wisdom of Solomon, and Psalm 22 is the basis for the passion narrative. All Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians about the crucifixion is just one line: “Jesus died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Paul may have recorded no narrative details of the crucifixion event because there were no narrative details of the crucifixion at the time he was writing. That is quite possible, because Mark tells us that when Jesus was arrested ALL the disciples “took flight and fled (14:50).” There is no reason for Mark to recount the embarrassing abandonment if it were not true. This would mean Jesus in all probability died alone, without any eyewitnesses. This would, of course, have made the details of the crucifixion impossible to record, since no one witnessed the event. The story also seems fictional because of us being told what Jesus said from the cross, but also what Jesus and the high priest said to each other, and what Jesus and the crowd said to each other (who would have been around to record these conversations?).
The Passion of the Christ in Mark:
Likely the clearest Prophecy about Jesus is the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The only thing is, Isaiah wasn’t making a prophesy aboout Jesus. Mark was doing a haggadic midrash on Isaiah. So, Mark depicts Jesus as one who is despised and rejected, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief. He then describes Jesus as wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. The Servant in Isaiah, like Jesus in Mark, is silent before his accusers. In Isaiah it says of the servant with his stripes we are healed, which Mark turned into the story of the scourging of Jesus. This is, in part, is where atonement theology comes from, but it would be silly to say II Isaiah was talking about atonement. The servant is numbered among the transgressors in Isaiah, so Jesus is crucified between two thieves. The Isaiah servant would make his grave with the rich, So Jesus is buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a person of means.
Then, as Dr. Robert Price says
The substructure for the crucifixion in chapter 15 is, as all recognize, Psalm 22, from which derive all the major details, including the implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24//Psalm 22:16b), the dividing of his garments and casting lots for them (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18), the “wagging heads” of the mockers (Mark 15:20//Psalm 22:7), and of course the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1). Matthew adds another quote, “He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now if he desires him” (Matthew 7:43//Psalm 22:8), as well as a strong allusion (“for he said, ‘I am the son of God’” 27:43b) to Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20, which underlies the whole story anyway (Miller, p. 362), “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life: for if the righteous man is God’s son he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture that we may find out how gentle he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” As for other details, Crossan (p. 198) points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus’ execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus’ legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan, p. 168).
I already know that you claim that Mark contains midrashic elements, i.e. exegesis on non-legal parts of Scripture, which are not historical true. My reaction is that that this could be a theoretic possibility, while another theoretic possibility is that a real historical narrative (basically true) became embellished with scriptural allusions. Did the Gospel writer flesh out a narrative basically from scriptural passages, or did he search for scriptural passages that looks like premonitions of the real events?
Just pointing to possible scriptural passages as “proof” won’t do. Adherents of the opposite view can do exactly the same (and they do!) by saying that the gospel authors inserted the allusions in order to give the gospel message a secure scriptural foundation.
That is why I ask for a set of criteria that can make it possible to tell which is the most likely explanation.
I do not agree that there were no witnesses to the execution: In case it happened it was a public event, intended by the Romans to deter. If we can believe Mark, the execution was witnessed by female disciples, disciples who had nothing to fear. From Paul we know that the twelve soon after became permanently based in Jerusalem, making the “crucified Christ” part of their message (1 Cor 15:1-11). This would would have been pretty hopeless if the event never took place.
gavriel said
john76 said
Filling In The Details:
An argument can reasonably be made on textual grounds that a haggadic midrash on Isaiah 53, Wisdom of Solomon, and Psalm 22 is the basis for the passion narrative. All Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians about the crucifixion is just one line: “Jesus died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Paul may have recorded no narrative details of the crucifixion event because there were no narrative details of the crucifixion at the time he was writing. That is quite possible, because Mark tells us that when Jesus was arrested ALL the disciples “took flight and fled (14:50).” There is no reason for Mark to recount the embarrassing abandonment if it were not true. This would mean Jesus in all probability died alone, without any eyewitnesses. This would, of course, have made the details of the crucifixion impossible to record, since no one witnessed the event. The story also seems fictional because of us being told what Jesus said from the cross, but also what Jesus and the high priest said to each other, and what Jesus and the crowd said to each other (who would have been around to record these conversations?).
The Passion of the Christ in Mark:
Likely the clearest Prophecy about Jesus is the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The only thing is, Isaiah wasn’t making a prophesy aboout Jesus. Mark was doing a haggadic midrash on Isaiah. So, Mark depicts Jesus as one who is despised and rejected, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief. He then describes Jesus as wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. The Servant in Isaiah, like Jesus in Mark, is silent before his accusers. In Isaiah it says of the servant with his stripes we are healed, which Mark turned into the story of the scourging of Jesus. This is, in part, is where atonement theology comes from, but it would be silly to say II Isaiah was talking about atonement. The servant is numbered among the transgressors in Isaiah, so Jesus is crucified between two thieves. The Isaiah servant would make his grave with the rich, So Jesus is buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a person of means.
Then, as Dr. Robert Price says
The substructure for the crucifixion in chapter 15 is, as all recognize, Psalm 22, from which derive all the major details, including the implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24//Psalm 22:16b), the dividing of his garments and casting lots for them (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18), the “wagging heads” of the mockers (Mark 15:20//Psalm 22:7), and of course the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1). Matthew adds another quote, “He trusts in God. Let God deliver him now if he desires him” (Matthew 7:43//Psalm 22:8), as well as a strong allusion (“for he said, ‘I am the son of God’” 27:43b) to Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20, which underlies the whole story anyway (Miller, p. 362), “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life: for if the righteous man is God’s son he will help him and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture that we may find out how gentle he is and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” As for other details, Crossan (p. 198) points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus’ execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus’ legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan, p. 168).
I already know that you claim that Mark contains midrashic elements, i.e. exegesis on non-legal parts of Scripture, which are not historical true. My reaction is that that this could be a theoretic possibility, while another theoretic possibility is that a real historical narrative (basically true) became embellished with scriptural allusions. Did the Gospel writer flesh out a narrative basically from scriptural passages, or did he search for scriptural passages that looks like premonitions of the real events?
Just pointing to possible scriptural passages as “proof” won’t do. Adherents of the opposite view can do exactly the same (and they do!) by saying that the gospel authors inserted the allusions in order to give the gospel message a secure scriptural foundation.
That is why I ask for a set of criteria that can make it possible to tell which is the most likely explanation.
I do not agree that there were no witnesses to the execution: In case it happened it was a public event, intended by the Romans to deter. If we can believe Mark, the execution was witnessed by female disciples, disciples who had nothing to fear. From Paul we know that the twelve soon after became permanently based in Jerusalem, making the “crucified Christ” part of their message (1 Cor 15:1-11). This would would have been pretty hopeless if the event never took place.
I have no idea how we could come up with such criteria. I guess we would have to remain agnostic about the whole thing. lmao
gavriel said
moose said
MikeyS said
Its all nonsense I’m afraid. And to claim that Joseph planted trees so he could cut them down later is pure sophistry and even more so to say Jesus was nailed to the cross he made? Its about as unreal as it gets imo.Its like Christians using isaiah 53 as a prophecy for Jesus as the Messiah. They were clearly talking about a current event, not a future one. Take this verse..
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[** you do not have permission to see this link **] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
It was God will to crush him and cause him to suffer? The word used in the first sentence is ‘was’ the Lord’s will not will be…
What parent or any God would do that to an innocent person, only an evil psychopath?
So just who were Jesus’s offspring as he was unmarried and never had any children or prolong the days of Jesus!
Its the same old story. Using biblical verses taken completely out of context, generally by gentiles not Jews as 99% of all Rabbis will explain what it meant alongside Isaaih 52 as well as the book was written originally without chapters. If we need to explain the OT, ask the Rabbi’s, not Christian Apologetics.
If God was to send a sign of the coming Messiah, why did God make such a poor job of doing that? Unless, the Jews were right all along and as Jesus never fulfilled any of the stuff the Messiah was supposed to do, maybe they have a point?
This is a common misconception.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.
If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
There are at least two possibilities:
1. The first Christians faced a difficult historical event and wanted to explain it in the light of scriptural passages.
2. The first Christians made it all up, and searched the Jewish Scripture for building blocks for a plausible story that could sell well within the Jewish culture.
Could you please suggest some criteria that could guide us to select the best solution?
I think it is wrong to say that sacred texts are made up or that they are lies. I believe that the early Christians really believed they received revelations after studying the scriptures repeatedly. Perhaps repeated reading and recitation of scriptures combined with ascetic exercises and/or perhaps consumption of stimuli got someone to feel the “spirit”. Maybe this was what they called to receive the Holy Spirit?
Anyway, I think that to ask about criteria in this context is a dead end.
Whoever believes the Bible is the word of God requires no criteria.
Whoever believes the Bible is fiction requires no criteria.
But he who believes that the Bible contains a historic core with more or less legendary development – he relies on criteria to determine what is what!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert