Three-day resurrection may predate Christ

Sapien

Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection

A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

...

"This should shake our basic view of Christianity," he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. "Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."

philologos

So a tablet says that it speaks of a Messiah who will rise three days after his resurrection? That could be seen as prophesy as opposed to something that challenges the Christian perception of the Messiah.

Sapien

Jakkass wrote: »

So a tablet says that it speaks of a Messiah who will rise three days after his resurrection? That could be seen as prophesy as opposed to something that challenges the Christian perception of the Messiah.

I believe it has been interpreted as speaking of the resurrection of a specific messiah - one Simon - who had already, at the time of writing, been killed.

Slav

Not sure why the three-day resurrection should cause "a quite stir" in biblical and archaeological circles. I guess it's something to do with journalism rather then archaeology or theology: perhaps the authors of the sensation did not have a chance to familiarise themselves with the Jewish canon. Hosea 6:1-2 for instance...

setanta59

His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin.
He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds.
He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.
He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony.
He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him.
He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory.
His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.



Read the list above. You think it's about Jesus, right?
Well yes and no.
The list above is written about Osiris (aka Dionysus) a pagan god whose myth predates Jesus. the ancients believed Osiris-Dionysus to be God made flesh, the savior and "Son of God."
This Osiris/Dionysus god was known by several other names, in various cultures in the mediteranian area. In Israel was he simply known as Jesus? Or did the cult of Jesus and Osiris/Dionysus merge into one myth over the years?

The Jesus Mysteries, a book by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, is a good place to start if you are interested in reading (with an open mind) more on this subject.

robindch

Sapien wrote: »

Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection

But does it stir debate amongst biblical and archaeological scholars in the wider world? In my experience, elements of christian belief, or of strong parallels to it, which are shown to have existed before the time of Jesus Christ are taken to be "prefigurations" of christian belief, rather than sources of christian belief. I'm not aware of any which have stirred much serious debate within religious circles.

btw, Simon the Messiah sounds like a fun guy -- taking his place up there beside Shane the Evangelist and Jack the Baptist.

Sapien

setanta59 wrote: »

Osiris (aka Dionysus)

Oh dear God. I think I prefer Christian nutjobs to butchers of ancient mythology. At least they take their myths seriously.

I'm not aware of any which have stirred much serious debate within religious circles.

Religious circles may feature many levels of debate-mitigating mechanisms, but we should extend every opportunity to consider facts, shouldn't we?

robindch

Sapien wrote: »

we should extend every opportunity to consider facts, shouldn't we?

Indeed! But I suspect that even if this were shown to be a fully-genuine, virtually-perfect, pre-existing version of certain elements of the Jesus narrative, the tranquility of the majority -- hell, 99% and more! -- of religious believers would remain undisturbed.

PDN

The article seems to say that the newly discovered tablet does not actually mention anyone named Simon, but that it is the 'interpretation' of one scholar that is who is referred to when it speaks of 'The Prince of Princes'. Hmmm.

Another interesting point in the article:

He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.

This, if it were true, would actually blow a bit of a hole in the reasoning of those who try to put a late date to the Four Gospels. This could add weight to those scholars who posit early dates for the Gospels. Interesting. Thanks for posting this, Sapien.

Fanny Cradock

setanta59 wrote: »

His father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin.
He is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before three shepherds.
He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism.
He miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony.
He rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him.
He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.
After his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory.
His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days.
His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.



Read the list above. You think it's about Jesus, right?
Well yes and no.
The list above is written about Osiris (aka Dionysus) a pagan god whose myth predates Jesus. the ancients believed Osiris-Dionysus to be God made flesh, the savior and "Son of God."
This Osiris/Dionysus god was known by several other names, in various cultures in the mediteranian area. In Israel was he simply known as Jesus? Or did the cult of Jesus and Osiris/Dionysus merge into one myth over the years?

The Jesus Mysteries, a book by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, is a good place to start if you are interested in reading (with an open mind) more on this subject.

This topic has been discussed here on numerous occasions before. If you have an open mind, and you are interested in hearing refutations to your position, then do a search under the keyword Horus on this forum.

Just a few points:

*There are many versions of the legend of Osiris. It can therefore be quite difficult to find consistent information. However, even amongst the various confusing versions I've encountered, I'm unable to find the specifics of Osiris' birthplace other than Plutarch who states that he was born in Thebes. Regarding your claims about a birthplace in a cave/ 'cowshed' (I assume you mean a manger), I have only encountered these in copycat websites which relate a cave/manger to the birthplace of Horus, the posthumously conceived son of Osiris. As Horus was born in a papyrus swamp, these claims seem far fetched.

*I have never encountered a date for Osiris birth, certainly not one that is as specific as the 25th December. I'd be interested if you could provide some supporting links. Even if you do find such corroborating information, setanta59, you must consider the fact that nowhere in the Bible is December the 25th mentioned as being the birth date of Christ. Indeed, no date is mentioned for his birth at all. The 25th of December was later chosen as a convention and is, as such, completely ex-biblical.

*Osiris didn't die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Instead, he is tricked by his brother Set into lying in a sarcophagus whereby his brother and 73 accomplices seal him inside (possibly poring metal over the coffin to seal the cracks) and throw him into the Nile. I wonder if this is where the term 'sealing his fate' originated from?

So, whatever spin you put on it, the death of Osiris boils down to a story of murder for Set's gain, not the sacrificial death we associate with Jesus. Osiris' body is later dismembered into 14 pieces by Set. There is no resurrection from hell for Osiris after 3 days - I have never encountered a time frame between his death, dismemberment and his temporary reanimation (which leads to the conception of Horus).*


::Edit::
*Maybe Plutarch has something to say about that.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

This, if it were true, would actually blow a bit of a hole in the reasoning of those who try to put a late date to the Four Gospels. This could add weight to those scholars who posit early dates for the Gospels. Interesting. Thanks for posting this, Sapien.

I had thought that the main support for a later dating of the Gospels was due to references to historical events such as the fall of the Temple by Mark and how the later writing of the Gospels fits with what was happening in mainstream Judaism at the time, as the Mishnah began to be compiled around 70 AD in an effort to preserve traditions during the cataclysmic period.

As for the stone perhaps being a prediction of Jesus, it doesn't really fit because in this instance the person in question was commanded by Gabriel to resurrect on the third day, it doesn't make much sense for an angel to command God to do anything. Also the Qumram community predicted two Messiahs to come, not one. They expected God to send a warrior king and priest and they would remove the Hellenic influence on Judaism, they certainly didn't predict God to come himself and for him to pretty much gut Judaism and replace it with a Greco-Roman flavoured belief system.

Sapien

PDN wrote: »

This, if it were true, would actually blow a bit of a hole in the reasoning of those who try to put a late date to the Four Gospels. This could add weight to those scholars who posit early dates for the Gospels. Interesting. Thanks for posting this, Sapien.

How early a date would you be comfortable with? This tablet is dated to before the supposed birth of Jesus.

ShoulderChip

the sun is at its lowest point on december 21st it stays at same point for 3 days then rises again on december 25th.
that is why pagans celebrated the sun god on this day.

PDN

Sapien wrote: »

How early a date would you be comfortable with? This tablet is dated to before the supposed birth of Jesus.

I think you missed my point somewhat.

Liberal theologians have traditionally ascribed late dates for the Gospels based on their prior presuppositions.

For example, they believe it is impossible for anyone to accurately predict future events. Therefore, since the Gospels record words of Jesus that appear to predict the destruction of Jerusalem (which occurred in 70AD) then they must have been written or edited after 70AD. Then, in a wonderful example of circular reasoning, they argue that the Gospels are untrustworthy because of their late dates.

Another one of these presuppositions has been that the concept of a suffering Messiah dying and rising from the dead after three days was unknown at an early date and so the Gospels must therefore be dated later. The tablet, if it is genuine, would explode that particular theory.

BTW, I don't share the presuppositions of those who posit a late date and find the arguments of John AT Robinson (himself a hopelessly liberal theologian) quite convincing for early dating of the Gospels.

Sapien

PDN wrote: »

I think you missed my point somewhat.

Liberal theologians have traditionally ascribed late dates for the Gospels based on their prior presuppositions.

No, no, I understood your point. I'm simply interested in how invested you are in the traditional dating of the birth of Jesus. If this artifact turns out to be genuine you will be forced to declare it prophecy, accept a resurrection motif in the first century BC or push the nativity back a few decades.

PDN wrote: »

Therefore, since the Gospels record words of Jesus that appear to predict the destruction of Jerusalem (which occurred in 70AD) then they must have been written or edited after 70AD. Then, in a wonderful example of circular reasoning, they argue that the Gospels are untrustworthy because of their late dates.

That's not actually circular reasoning. It's one conclusion you don't like leading to another conclusion you don't like.

PDN wrote: »

Another one of these presuppositions has been that the concept of a suffering Messiah dying and rising from the dead after three days was unknown at an early date and so the Gospels must therefore be dated later. The tablet, if it is genuine, would explode that particular theory.

Not the theory, though perhaps that line of reasoning in support of that theory. Again, early record of three day resurrection might be good for you, but this seems to me to be too early. No?

philologos

I still don't see how this a challenge to the Christian perception of Messiah? In Hosea 6:2 as Slav has mentioned it says:

Hosea 6:2 wrote:

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

This was written hundreds of years before Christ. How is that an issue.

Perhaps it is only from the limited information we recieve in the article that I think this, a translation would be helpful in time.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

I still don't see how this a challenge to the Christian perception of Messiah? In Hosea 6:2 as Slav has mentioned it says:

This was written hundreds of years before Christ. How is that an issue.

Perhaps it is only from the limited information we recieve in the article that I think this, a translation would be helpful in time.

I assume that the challenge is that Christians believed that Judaism was only expecting a powerful Messiah and that a suffering, dying and resurrected Messiah wasn't even considered as a possibility, here we have a Jewish community who seem to have had a leader who they considered to be the Messiah and who died and was resurrected, thus showing that the Jesus story wasn't quite as unique and original as Christians had thought.

philologos

I thought it was writing foretelling the Messiahs arrival, not actually documenting a particular Messiah.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought it was writing foretelling the Messiahs arrival, not actually documenting a particular Messiah.

It is hard to tell from the article exactly what the tablet said but from my reading of it it seems to suggest that the tablet was referring to an event which had already happened. None of the scholars seemed to consider it a possible future prohecy which was fulfilled by Jesus (mind you they are Jewish scholars so that isn't surprising).

philologos

See, before any coherent and proper discussion can take place on it a translation will be needed. Mind you there are quite a few Jewish Messiah claimants and there are two Simons there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianic_claimants

Interestingly Jesus is the only one who is reported to have been born in Bethlehem of Judea as in the prophesy in Micah 5:2

Micah 5:2 wrote:

But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah,
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.

Pompey Magnus

'In three days, you shall live'

By Israel Knohl



The first mention of the "slain Messiah" called Mashiah ben Yosef (Messiah Son of Joseph) is in the Talmud (Sukkah 52a). In my book "The Messiah Before Jesus" (University of California Press, 2000), I argue that the story of this slain messiah is based on historical fact. I believe it is connected to the Jewish revolt in the Land of Israel following the death of King Herod in 4 B.C.E. This Jewish insurrection was brutally suppressed by the armies of Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus, and the messianic leaders of the revolt were killed. These events set the slain Messiah Son of Joseph tradition into motion and paved the way for the emergence of the concept of "catastrophic messianism." Interpretations of biblical text helped to shape the belief that the death of the messiah was a necessary and indivisible component of salvation. My conclusion, based on apocalyptic writings dating to this period, was that certain groups believed the messiah would die, be resurrected in three days, and ascend to heaven (see "The Messiah Before Jesus," 27-42).

Ada Yardeni and Binyamin Elitzur recently published the text of a fascinating text they call "Hazon Gabriel" or the Gabriel Revelation (Cathedra magazine, vol. 123). This text, engraved in stone, conveys the apocalyptic vision of the Archangel Gabriel. Yardeni and Elitzur date it by its linguistic features and the shape of the letters to the end of the first century B.C.E.

In lines 16-17 of the text, God addresses David as follows: "Avdi David bakesh min lifnei Efraim" ("My servant David, ask Ephraim"). In the Bible, Ephraim is the son of Joseph. This sets up an equivalence between David and Ephraim and the Talmudic "Mashiah ben David" and "Messiah Son of Joseph," and confirms my theory that the Messiah Son of Joseph was already a known figure at the end of the first century B.C.E.

Although Yardeni and Elitzur offer a fine reading of the text, in my opinion one of the most important words has not been properly deciphered. Line 80 begins with the phrase "Leshloshet yamin" ("In three days"), followed by another word that the editors could not read. Then comes the phrase "Ani Gavriel" ("I, Gabriel"). I believe that this "illegible" word is actually legible. It is the word "hayeh" (live), and that Gabriel the Archangel is giving orders to someone: "Leshloshet yamin hayeh" ("In three days, you shall live"). In other words, in three days, you shall return to life (compare "bedamaiyikh ha'ee" - translated as "in thy blood live" - in Ezekiel 16:6). The word "haye" (live) is written here with alef. Similar orthography appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example in the Isaiah scroll, where the word "yakeh" (30:31) is written with an alef after the yod.

This is followed by traces of two more words. The letters are not easy to make out, but the first word seems to begin with a gimmel and vav. The next word is not clear either. The letter lamed is quite legible, and the letter before it seems to be an ayin. I believe the sentence can be reconstructed as follows: "Leshloshet yamin hayeh, ani Gavriel, gozer alekha" ("In three days, live, I, Gabriel, command you"). The archangel is ordering someone to rise from the dead within three days. To whom is he speaking?

Who is the 'prince of princes'?

The answer appears in the following line, Line 81: "Sar hasarin" ("Prince of Princes"). The sentence reads: "Leshloshet yamin khayeh, ani Gavriel, gozer alekha, sar hasarin" (In three days, I, Gabriel, command you, prince of princes." Who is the "prince of princes"? The primary biblical source for the Gabriel Revelation is the narrative in the Book of Daniel (8:15-26), in which the Archangel Gabriel reveals himself to Daniel for the first time. Gabriel describes a "king of fierce countenance." This king "shall destroy them that are mighty and the people of the saints... he shall also stand up against the prince of princes" (Daniel 8:24-25).

The author of the Gabriel Revelation seems to be interpreting the biblical narrative as follows: An evil king arises and virtually destroys the Jewish people, the "people of the saints." He even manages to overcome and slay their leader, the "prince of princes." This is the leader who will be resurrected in three days.

Was the prince of princes a historical figure? I believe he was. The key to identifying him lies in the phrase "arubot tzurim," which comes after the reference to the prince of princes. In the Bible and Talmud, the word "aruba" means a narrow opening or slit. "Tzurim" are rocks (the word appears here in an unvocalized form, without theletter vav). "Arubot tzurim" would thus be a crevice. The death of the prince of princes is somehow associated with a rocky crevice.

The Gabriel Revelation, as we have said, has been dated, on the basis of linguistics and orthography, to the end of the first century BCE. The circumstances surrounding the discovery of the inscription are unknown. All we are told by the editors is that it may have been discovered in Transjordan. This leads us to Transjordan in the late first century BCE. Do we know of any Jewish leader or king who was killed here in antiquity and whose death has some sort of connection to a rocky gorge?

The revolt in 4 BCE was a bid for freedom. The rebels sought to throw off the yoke of the Herodian monarchy, which enjoyed the support of the Romans. The insurrection, which began in Jerusalem and spread throughout the country, had several leaders. A study of both Jewish and Roman sources shows that the most prominent of them was Simon, who operated from Transjordan. Simon declared himself king, wore a crown, and was perceived as king by his followers, who hung messianic hopes on him.

This is how the first century Jewish historian Josephus describes Simon's death in battle: "Simon himself, endeavoring to escape up a steep ravine, was intercepted by Gratus [a commander in Herod's army], who struck the fugitive from the side with a blow on the neck, which severed his head from his body." With its reference to a rocky crevice and the prince of princes, the text seems to be alluding to the death of Simon, the rebel leader who was crowned king, in a narrow gorge in Transjordan.

Chariot to heaven

But the Gabriel Revelation also mentions other deaths. In Line 57, we find the phrase "dam tvuhey yerushalayim" ("the blood of the slain of Jerusalem"). Line 67 reads: "Baser lo al dam zu hamerkava shelahen" ("Tell him about the blood. This is their merkava [heavenly chariot]"). The message being conveyed is that the blood of those who were killed will become their "chariot" to heaven.

Hovering in the background, of course, is the story of Elijah's ascent to heaven: "Behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire... and Elijah went up in a whirlwind into heaven" (II Kings 2:11).

Simon, the prince of princes, was the messianic leader of a group active in Transjordan. The Gabriel Revelation appears, therefore, to have been written by his followers, and reflects an attempt to cope with the failure of the revolt and the death of their leader, recalling verses from the Book of Daniel that incorporate the words of the archangel.

The "king of fierce countenance" is identified as the Roman emperor Augustus, whose army brutally suppressed the revolt. Simon, the rebel leader anointed king, is identified as the prince of princes. The slaying of Simon by the supporters of the evil king is perceived as a fulfillment of Gabriel's vision. After all, Gabriel prophesied that the king of fierce countenance would defeat the prince of princes. "But he shall be broken without hand," the verse continues. The implication is that with the death of the messianic leader, their troubles are coming to an end: The fall of the enemy and salvation are near. "Leshloshet yamin tayda ki-nishbar hara melifnay hatzedek" ("In three days you will know that evil will be defeated by justice"), we read in lines 19-21.

If the Gabriel Revelation dates to the end of the first century BCE, as we have stated, then during this period, which was close in time to the birth of Jesus, there were people who believed that the death of the messiah was an integral part of the salvation process. It became an article of faith that the slain messianic leader would be resurrected within three days, and rise to heaven in a chariot.

The Gabriel Revelation thus confirms my thesis that the belief in a salin and resurrected messiah existed prior to the messianic activity of Jesus. The publication of this text is extraordinarily important. It is a discovery that calls for a complete reassessment of all previous scholarship on the subject of messianism, Jewish and Christian alike.

Israel Knohl is Yehezkel Kaufmann Professor of Biblical Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a senior research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute.

Knohl here argues that the idea of a suffering Messiah originated from the Jewish uprising in 4 BC, which saw the messianic leaders executed. He points out that a Messiah son of Joseph was aleady a known figure at the end of the 1st Century BC.

The tablet was written in Transjordan around the end of the 1st Century BC. and describes a messianic leader who was in some way associated with a "rocky crevice", and it points out that he was killed. Simon was a messianic leader, killed by Herod's army in a narrow rocky gorge in Transjordon at the end of the 1t Century BC. The timings, the locations, and the stories all fit the conclusion that the tablets were referring to Simon.

Knohl concludes that the tablet was written by followers of Simon in the aftermath of their defeat and the death of their crowned Messiah. They believed that his death was fulfilment of the prophecy of Gabriel, that his death would play an important role in the salvation of the righteous, and that after three days Simon had been resurrected and ascended into Heaven on a chariot.

That said this story really does hinge on the correct identification of the almost illegible word "hayeh" (live).

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly Jesus is the only one who is reported to have been born in Bethlehem of Judea as in the prophesy in Micah 5:2

Of course a more skeptical mind would wonder if Jesus "of Nazareth" was really born in Bethlehem at all and whether perhaps Matthew and Luke both understood the importance of the Micah passage and so placed him in Bethlehem intentionally, Matthew saying that Jesus' family lived in Bethlehem and moved to Nazareth after Jesus' birth while Luke saying the family lived in Nazareth then travelled the unlikely journey to Bethlehem to take part in a census.

Slav

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I assume that the challenge is that Christians believed that Judaism was only expecting a powerful Messiah and that a suffering, dying and resurrected Messiah wasn't even considered as a possibility

Christians never believed that. To see it one doesn't need to dig out some tablets as there is a much easier way: read Bible. Isaiah 53 would be particularly good. There are other places as well, like Zechariah not to mention many Psalms.

a leader who they considered to be the Messiah and who died and was resurrected

It's quite unlikely for the mainstream Judaism to call someone a Messiah who died but did not save Israel, resurrected all the dead up to Adam, etc. The fact of his own resurrection would not make any difference.

Pompey Magnus

Slav wrote: »

Christians never believed that. To see it one doesn't need to dig out some tablets as there is a much easier way: read Bible. Isaiah 53 would be particularly good.

Jews believe that Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant, refers to the nation of Israel, not a Messiah. They also seem to believe that the Christian version of the text is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew to better fit with the Christian interpretation.

Slav

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Jews believe that Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant, refers to the nation of Israel, not a Messiah.

I don't understand you. You're saying: look, there is a tablet that tell us about a messiah who suffered and died and resurrected and that's something Christians think that Judaism never had. I'm telling you that there are so many places in the Bible that Christians understand as a concept of suffering and resurrecting Messiah with strong Judaic roots. Even if Jews were to believe that Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Messiah (as you suggesting) what difference would it make on the Christian view of this book? I just don't see your logic.

Ok, that was the Christian part, now back to Judaism. Stating that the idea of a suffering Messiah was unknown to Judaism until that tablet was found is a complete nonsense. As you know there are no strict dogmas in Judaism on what is Messiah, how should he look like, etc. so it's all open to interpretations. As you also know Christianity is very unlikely to be invented by St Paul but was born within Judaism and it was Judaism in the very beginning. See it as a sect that claimed they found the Messiah. So the concept of the suffering Messiah was born within Judaism and even if you think that there was a misunderstanding of certain prophecies then that was a Judaic "misunderstanding".

They also seem to believe that the Christian version of the text is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew to better fit with the Christian interpretation.

I think you'd agree the argument that Christians falsified their translations of Isaiah, Zechariah, half of the Psalms and many other Old Testament books is rather weak one. However if you don't trust Christians you can find suffering Messiah in Jewish sources as well including Talmud and even that new found tablet.

The whole story with that tablet seems like someone's trying to make a big buzz out of nothing with their finding. If it's genuine it's certainly an interesting artifact but not a sensation. Though with a little help of the media and ignorance of the readers they can make it look like one and therefore make a name for themselves.

philologos

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Jews believe that Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant, refers to the nation of Israel, not a Messiah. They also seem to believe that the Christian version of the text is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew to better fit with the Christian interpretation.

Interestingly I've read something that comes exactly opposite to that.

Lee Strobel - Case for Faith (page 132) wrote:

"And of course Isaiah 53:2-12 has perhaps the most amazing predictions about Christ in the entire Old Testament. It foretells twelve aspects of his passion that were all fulfilled - he would be rejected, be a man of sorrow, live a life of suffering, be despised by others, carry our sorrow, be smitten and afflicted by God, be pierced for our transgressions, be wounded for our sins, would suffer like a lamb, would die with the wicked, would be sinless and would pray for others".
I spoke up. "Wait a second", I said. "If you talk to a rabbi, he'll tell you that passage refers symbolically to Israel, not to the Messiah". Geisler shook his head. "In Old Testament times the Jewish rabbis did consider this to be a prophesy concerning the Messiah. That's the opinion that's really relevant," he said.
"Only later after Christians pointed out this was actually referring to Jesus, did they begin saying it was really about the suffering of the Jewish nation. But clearly that's wrong. Isaiah customarily refers to the Jewish people in the first person pluiral, like "our" or "we", but he always refers to the Messiah in the third person singular, like "he" and "him" - and that's what he did in Isaiah 53. Plus anyone who reads it for themselves will readily see it's referring to Jesus. Maybe that's why it's usually skipped over in synagogues these days."

Surely that presents a challenge to that view?

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly I've read something that comes exactly opposite to that.

Surely that presents a challenge to that view?

Isaiah 52:10: "he will see his offspring and prolong his days"

Ah yes, perfectly fitting with Jesus. So Isaiah was referring to someone who would live a long life and have children, just like Jesus...oh wait, Jesus died young and childless.

As for the Jews originally viewing this as a Messiah prophecy until Christians started to use it, it is an interesting theory but I'd like to see where he gets his evidence from before making my mind up on it.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Isaiah 52:10: "he will see his offspring and prolong his days"

Ah yes, perfectly fitting with Jesus. So Isaiah was referring to someone who would live a long life and have children, just like Jesus...oh wait, Jesus died young and childless.

In the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53 there is no possessive pronominal suffix. Therefore a literal translation would read, "He shall see seed, He will prolong days".

The New Testament tells us that all who belong to Christ are the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29). This seed will live for all Eternity with the Messiah - a perfect fulfillment of Isaiah 53.

As for the Jews originally viewing this as a Messiah prophecy until Christians started to use it, it is an interesting theory but I'd like to see where he gets his evidence from before making my mind up on it.

From St. Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53

wikipedia wrote:

Despite objections in modern Judaism to the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53, some ancient rabbinic and Talmudic sources have shown the opposite view. The concept of a suffering messiah, Messiah ben Joseph, has been a part of Judaism since before the Christian era. The Old Testament paraphrase of Targum Jonathan begins in 52:13 with the words, "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper," assigning the passage's interpretation to a suffering messiah. The ancient Babylonian Talmud asks, "Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘The Messiah - what is his name?’… And our Rabbis said, ‘the pale one… is his name,’ as it is written ‘Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows - yet we considered him stricken by G~d, smitten by him and afflicted.’"[5] This perspective on the passage has been influential in Jewish exegesis until as recently as th 16th century, when Rabbi Moshe Alshich said of the passage, "I may remark then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves shall adhere to the same view."[6] Influential Jewish commentator Rashi was among the first to reject any messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53, instead assigning the subject to the suffering of the Jewish people.[7]

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

In the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53 there is no possessive pronominal suffix. Therefore a literal translation would read, "He shall see seed, He will prolong days".

The New Testament tells us that all who belong to Christ are the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29). This seed will live for all Eternity with the Messiah - a perfect fulfillment of Isaiah 53.

Galatians may say that Christians are the descendents of Abrahan, but the thing is that they aren't really. I mean if you start saying Christians come from the seed of Abraham then you really just render the phrase meaningless. It may suit Christian theology to use this interpretation but it pretty much destroys the original meaning of God's promise to Abraham.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Galatians may say that Christians are the descendents of Abrahan, but the thing is that they aren't really. I mean if you start saying Christians come from the seed of Abraham then you really just render the phrase meaningless. It may suit Christian theology to use this interpretation but it pretty much destroys the original meaning of God's promise to Abraham.

Nonsense! The promise to Abraham stands good no matter how the idea is developed in the New Testament. Abraham had many descendants, his descendants became a mighty nation (more than one of them, actually) and through one of his descendants (Jesus Christ) all the nations of the earth were blessed.

How on earth does the expanding of the promise to include the Gentiles destroy any of that?

philologos

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Galatians may say that Christians are the descendents of Abrahan, but the thing is that they aren't really. I mean if you start saying Christians come from the seed of Abraham then you really just render the phrase meaningless. It may suit Christian theology to use this interpretation but it pretty much destroys the original meaning of God's promise to Abraham.

Galatians don't say it. It was Paul writing to the Galatians, in which he would also explain his own Judaism before coming to accept the faith of Jesus Christ, and as a minister to the Gentiles to explain their role in God's grand plan of existence.

Galatians 1:13 wrote:

You have heard no doubt of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God, and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors

Paul speaks as one of the descendants of Abraham, and he also speaks as a witness of the blessing of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. Seems like the promise to Abraham is very much relevant.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense! The promise to Abraham stands good no matter how the idea is developed in the New Testament. Abraham had many descendants, his descendants became a mighty nation (more than one of them, actually) and through one of his descendants (Jesus Christ) all the nations of the earth were blessed.

How on earth does the expanding of the promise to include the Gentiles destroy any of that?

What I am saying is that nowhere does God mention to Abraham that when he says "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven" it will actually turn out that the vast majority of his supposed "descendants" will actually not be related to him at all.

Perhaps I am just old fashioned in that I like to use words to mean what they were intended to mean. To me at least, the Christian claim to be descendants of Abraham makes about as much sense as saying that my kitchen sink is descended from Abraham, because they and it clearly aren't.

Flamed Diving

ShoulderChip wrote: »

the sun is at its lowest point on december 21st it stays at same point for 3 days then rises again on december 25th.
that is why pagans celebrated the sun god on this day.

Oh just F-off with this Zeitgeist crap. Internet-loon rubbish.

santing

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

... To me at least, the Christian claim to be descendants of Abraham makes about as much sense as saying that my kitchen sink is descended from Abraham, because they and it clearly aren't.

I agree, I cannot become a descendand of Abraham, unless I can trace my lineage back to him.

For the Christian, we received new life in Christ. My old life is finished, Christ has become my life.

"For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. "
(Col 3:3-4, ESV)

"But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. "
(Gal 3:25-29, ESV)

philologos

We are the adoptive descendants of Abraham, and grafted onto the tree of Israel by faith.
The first idea is featured in Galatians, the second in the letter to the Romans. Makes perfect sense to me anyway. Christ was the blessing from Abraham's descendants to the Gentiles. When the quote in Genesis 12 says the following:

Genesis 12:3 wrote:

I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

It's very well explained. Just curious, is this really an intellectual difficulty you are having with the verses, or do you want this Biblical view to be false? It seems to be the latter.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

It's very well explained. Just curious, is this really an intellectual difficulty you are having with the verses, or do you want this Biblical view to be false? It seems to be the latter.

My problem with it is just how obviously desperate it is. The Old Testament clearly was a book aimed solely for the Hebrew people with no interest in the Gentiles, along comes St Paul who is trying to convert the Gentiles to his new religion and so, out of thin air, completely takes passages of the Old Testament out of context to fit in with his Hellenic theology.

It is very easy to make prophecies appear to come true when you basically change the meaning of the words to fit or else pull random explanations out of thin air.

Face it, Abraham had no interest in Gentiles, the rest of the Old Testament prophets had no interest in Gentiles, Jesus had no interest in Gentiles, the Jerusalem Church (which was made up of Jesus' family and followers) had no interest in Gentiles. The only person with an interest in converting the Gentiles was Paul and he did this by inventing a makeshift Greek / Jewish hybrid theology.

Prophecies either do exactly what they say on the tin or else they aren't real prophecies. You can't start changing the rules after the event in order to make things fit. Whatever your relationship to Abraham is you are not descended from him.

philologos

Depeche_Mode wrote:

the rest of the Old Testament prophets had no interest in Gentiles

I disagree.

Isaiah 56:3-8 wrote:

Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’;
and do not let the eunuch say,
‘I am just a dry tree.’
For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
and hold fast my covenant—
these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.
Thus says the Lord God,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather others to them
besides those already gathered.

Leviticus 19:34 wrote:

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Also Elisha and Naaman (2 Kings 5), Ruth the Moabite, it's certainly not true that prophets were not concerned with non-Jews.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Prophecies either do exactly what they say on the tin or else they aren't real prophecies. You can't start changing the rules after the event in order to make things fit. Whatever your relationship to Abraham is you are not descended from him.

It fits in perfectly with it. The blessing to the Gentiles was that Christ would bring the Gospel to lands far away from Israel. It isn't changing the rules either, again, I think it's more that you want it not to seem coherent rather than it not being.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Face it, Abraham had no interest in Gentiles, the rest of the Old Testament prophets had no interest in Gentiles, Jesus had no interest in Gentiles, the Jerusalem Church (which was made up of Jesus' family and followers) had no interest in Gentiles. The only person with an interest in converting the Gentiles was Paul and he did this by inventing a makeshift Greek / Jewish hybrid theology.

Prophecies either do exactly what they say on the tin or else they aren't real prophecies. You can't start changing the rules after the event in order to make things fit. Whatever your relationship to Abraham is you are not descended from him.

Really?

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (God speaking to Abraham – Genesis 12:3)


Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!" (1 Chronicles 16:30-31)

I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. (Psalm 2:7-8)

All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations. (Psalm 22:27-28 - the same Psalm Jesus quoted from the Cross.)

I will perpetuate your memory through all generations; therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever. (Psalm 45:17)

You answer us with awesome deeds of righteousness, O God our Savior, the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas, (Psalm 65:5)

May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine upon us, that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations. May the peoples praise you, O God; may all the peoples praise you. May the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you rule the peoples justly and guide the nations of the earth. May the peoples praise you, O God; may all the peoples praise you. Then the land will yield its harvest, and God, our God, will bless us. God will bless us, and all the ends of the earth will fear him. (Psalm 67:1-7)

Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth, sing praise to the Lord, (Psalm 68:32)

May his name endure forever; may it continue as long as the sun. All nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed. (Psalm 72:17)

All the nations you have made will come and worship before you, O Lord; they will bring glory to your name. (Psalm 86:19)

Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples. For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens. Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and glory are in his sanctuary. Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. (Psalm 96:3-7)

So the name of the LORD will be declared in Zion and his praise in Jerusalem when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the LORD. (Psalm 102:21-22)

From the rising of the sun to the place where it sets, the name of the LORD is to be praised. The LORD is exalted over all the nations, his glory above the heavens. (Psalm 113:3-4)

Praise the LORD, all you nations; extol him, all you peoples. (Psalm 117:1)

May all the kings of the earth praise you, O LORD, when they hear the words of your mouth. (Psalm 138:4)

In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. (Isaiah 2:2)

They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11:9)

In that day you will say: "Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted. (Isaiah 12:4)

So will it be on the earth and among the nations, as when an olive tree is beaten, or as when gleanings are left after the grape harvest. They raise their voices, they shout for joy; from the west they acclaim the LORD's majesty. Therefore in the east give glory to the LORD; exalt the name of the LORD, the God of Israel, in the islands of the sea. (Isaiah 24:13-15)

"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. (Isaiah 42:6-7)

Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:22)

It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth. (Isaiah 49:6)

The LORD will lay bare his holy arm in the sight of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God. (Isaiah 52:10)

Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations. (Isaiah 56:7)

Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. (Isaiah 60:3)

At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the LORD, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the LORD. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts. (Jeremiah 3:17)

O LORD, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in time of distress, to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, "Our fathers possessed nothing but false gods, worthless idols that did them no good. (Jeremiah 16:19)

Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes. (Ezek 36:23)

Hear, O peoples, all of you, listen, O earth and all who are in it, that the Sovereign LORD may witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple. (Micah 1:2)

Many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” (Micah 4:2)

The LORD will be awesome to them when he destroys all the gods of the land. The nations on every shore will worship him, every one in its own land. (Zephaniah 2:11)

Then will I purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him shoulder to shoulder. (Zephaniah 3:9)

Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you. (Zechariah 2:11)

This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Many peoples and the inhabitants of many cities will yet come, and the inhabitants of one city will go to another and say, 'Let us go at once to entreat the LORD and seek the LORD Almighty. I myself am going.' And many peoples and powerful nations will come to Jerusalem to seek the LORD Almighty and to entreat him." This is what the LORD Almighty says: "In those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, 'Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you/” (Zechariah 8:20-23)

:rolleyes:

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Oh just F-off with this Zeitgeist crap. Internet-loon rubbish.

Please read the charter, particularly the bit about swearing or facsimiles thereof. Normally it would earn you an infraction, or a warning at minimum, but this time I'll let it slide. Why? Because I'm fed up with the Zeitgeist internet-loon rubbish as well.

Slav

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The Old Testament clearly was a book aimed solely for the Hebrew people

It is aimed to Jews and this is not an ethnic but the religious group. In Judaism there is no such thing as first-class Jews (actual Abraham descendants) and second-class Jews (those of different ethnic origins). All are equal and all are Abraham seed.

So Christianity did not really invent anything here. It's just an old tradition of Judaism