Names?

[Athetotheist]

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
(Matthew 2:23)

Which prophets?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #10]

If one didn't think the netser or 'humility' options were good ones, it becomes whether it's more reasonable to believe we lost the prophetic text or to believe that Matthew is appealing to something he made up when talking specifically to the type of audience that knows what the prophets have said and not said. To think Matthew did the latter is a ridiculous withholding of the philosophical principal of charity. So, even though it's probably the weakest of the three I mentioned, it's still better than a theory that Matthew just made up a non-existent prophecy and then appealed to it as common knowledge.

The likelihood that he made up a Nazareth prophecy looks a lot stronger in light of other things he wrote.

Matthew seems to use the Jewish Bible as a do-it-yourself prophecy kit. First is the way he butchers Isaiah 7:14, changing the almah ["young woman"] into a "virgin" and removing the verse entirely from the context of the chapter. Next is the invention of a flight to Egypt by which he parachutes into the middle of Hosea 11:1, again ignoring the beginning of the verse and the context of the book. Then there's Jeremiah 31:15, in which Matthew retools text about the Babylonian exile into a foretelling of a massacre in Bethlehem of which there is no historical evidence. (And how would a massacre in Bethlehem raise Rachel's weeping voice in Ramah when Ramah was north of Jerusalem and Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem?)


Prophecies have to be clear and precise. Anything murky enough to be fulfilled by whatever happens to happen doesn't qualify as a prophecy.

And dismissing one's thinking as"hyper-literal" is just a dodge to excuse the failure of something to come about. Are you willing to give up a hyper-literal reading of John 14:6?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #11]

Almah generally means a woman of marriageable age, but that can include the concept of virginity, especially since many of these women would not be married yet and, therefore presumed to be virgins. The Septuagint used the Greek equivalent of ‘virgin’ when translating this word, so this clearly isn’t Matthew just butchering Isaiah 7:14. You are also missing that quoting passages from the Hebrew scriptures bring with it the wider context and themes, such as what culminates in Isaiah 9. If you read the context around Matthew’s quoted passages and what Matthew is doing, there are so many connections with the themes going on.

Hosea 11:1 talks about God calling Israel out of Egypt (told in the Torah) and Matthew presents Jesus as following the same path Israel did, as a way of identifying with Israel and fulfilling the role they were called to. Much of Matthew is modeled on the themes of Israel’s Exodus and everything that meant to the Hebrew people.

Quoting Jeremiah 31:15 is another example of Matthew seeing prophetic fulfillment differently than you. It’s not about proof texts and hyper-literal (which is simply a descriptive term; there isn’t any value judgment in using it, it's about understanding how the author used words) expectations, but of speaking to themes from the Scriptures that speak of God being there for His people (Jer 31:1, 2 etc.). Matthew doesn’t present these fulfillments as arguments for God to the skeptic, but as ways to show how Jesus fit into the story of God told in the Scriptures.

As a side note, texts also aren’t all or nothing. Different elements will be literal, hyper-literal, metaphorical, etc. I wouldn’t call John 14:6 “hyper-literal,” though.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #12]

Almah generally means a woman of marriageable age, but that can include the concept of virginity, especially since many of these women would not be married yet and, therefore presumed to be virgins.

The Hebrew word for "virgin" is betulah, and that's the word used when virginity is specifically referred to.

The Septuagint used the Greek equivalent of ‘virgin’ when translating this word, so this clearly isn’t Matthew just butchering Isaiah 7:14.

The Septuagint also uses the word "parthenos" to refer to Dinah after she is violated by Shechem (Genesis 34:3), at which point she is obviously not a virgin.

You are also missing that quoting passages from the Hebrew scriptures bring with it the wider context and themes, such as what culminates in Isaiah 9. If you read the context around Matthew’s quoted passages and what Matthew is doing, there are so many connections with the themes going on.

Matthew is trying to dress Jesus up as the Jewish Messiah by inserting him into specific episodes of Jewish scripture which he has nothing to do with.

Hosea 11:1 talks about God calling Israel out of Egypt (told in the Torah) and Matthew presents Jesus as following the same path Israel did, as a way of identifying with Israel and fulfilling the role they were called to.

Matthew claims that Jesus was taken into Egypt to fulfill Hosea 11:1.....

"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." (2:15)

.....as if it hadn't been fulfilled in the Exodus. Matthew doesn't have Jesus following any "same path"----he claims that it's specifically about Jesus, when the context of Hosea makes it clear that the "son" being referred to is Israel as a people.

That would explain why Matthew starts quoting Hosea in mid-sentence, omitting the reference to Israel.

Quoting Jeremiah 31:15 is another example of Matthew seeing prophetic fulfillment differently than you. It’s not about proof texts and hyper-literal (which is simply a descriptive term; there isn’t any value judgment in using it, it's about understanding how the author used words) expectations, but of speaking to themes from the Scriptures that speak of God being there for His people (Jer 31:1, 2 etc.). Matthew doesn’t present these fulfillments as arguments for God to the skeptic, but as ways to show how Jesus fit into the story of God told in the Scriptures.

Matthew presents a massacre of children in Bethlehem as a literal historical event, though historical evidence doesn't support it. He may have tried to tie his story to the emotional image of Rachel weeping over the exile, but nothing which happened in Bethlehem would have "fulfilled" that.

As a side note, texts also aren’t all or nothing. Different elements will be literal, hyper-literal, metaphorical, etc. I wouldn’t call John 14:6 “hyper-literal,” though.

Why? Because it says something you want to believe?

If you're going to give a pass to "prophecies" of Jesus' birth as metaphorical, you can't turn around and insist that any "prophecies" of his resurrection would have to be literal.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #13]

It is my understanding that the vav consecutive in Hebrew (used in the Genesis passage) can refer to simultaneous events, where the author uses it to note events all happening at once, so referring to Dinah in one way throughout would make sense, but that doesn’t matter for the point here. The point is that words can have multiple, valid meanings whereas your critique depends upon the words used having exact meanings.

Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 does not imply he didn’t think it had been fulfilled in Exodus unless Matthew was thinking hyper-literally, which you are assuming, not proving. Hosea 11 is talking about how God had called Israel for a special purpose, how they went astray, and how God had compassion time and time again. Matthew presents Jesus as being the faithful Israelite son (which makes Hoses 11:1 fit well for his purposes). Matthew does this kind of thing throughout. Jesus was in exile (Matt 2:13ff) just like Israel was exiled in Egypt. Jesus went through the waters (Matt 3:13ff), like Israel did. Jesus passed the tests in the wilderness (Matt 4:1ff), unlike Israel. And because of that, Matthew presents (Matt 4:12ff) him as the light spoken of in Isaiah 9 (which is what the Isaiah 7:14 quote offered at Jesus’ birth would have already been pointing readers to). Jesus then delivers a talk about the Law (Matt 5ff) like a new Moses on Mt. Sinai. And the theme continues throughout.

Again, you are interpreting texts hyper-literally (which isn’t how ancient Hebrews thought and wrote) without offering support for doing so. Yes, it fits the conclusion you want, but you need to do more than just assume the author was thinking hyper-literally. You are too focused on trying to prooftext your critique, that you aren’t taking proper account of the ancient context.

Now, even moving away from this hyper-literalism, your critique of Herod’s massacre actually happening would still need to be considered. Historically, though, there isn’t evidence that tips the scales for or against this event happening. But if Matthew was simply trying to talk about Jeremiah 31 as a guide to make things up, he wouldn’t have to bring a massacre of children into it, as God tells Rachel that the children will return from the land of the enemy (31:16-17), showing that this was about Israelites being exiled not all killed. Then why would Matthew connect it to a massacre? What makes the most sense is that he believed a massacre happened. Does that mean it did happen? Of course not, but there isn’t historical evidence we can turn here to settle this one, so it’s not a good reason for your case against Christianity. Even assuming Matthew got wrong info here, that wouldn’t show the rest of what he offers was wrong because it isn’t all or nothing with historical sources.

Your critique of me using special pleading must also still be considered. I’m not sure “metaphorical” is the best way to describe my offered understanding of how Matthew uses “prophecies”, as it seems to focus more on connecting with themes than just saying X is literally or metaphorically true, but metaphor is an element to that. There would be literal elements, as well. Matthew clearly thinks Jesus was the literal Messiah who literally came to literally heal people and make things right between us and God, etc. Regardless, I wouldn’t insist that any particular “prophecies” are necessarily literal or metaphorical in your sense; it would depend on the actual details of each particular case. So, it’s not about special pleading, but thinking through things rationally in each case.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #14]

It is my understanding that the vav consecutive in Hebrew (used in the Genesis passage) can refer to simultaneous events, where the author uses it to note events all happening at once, so referring to Dinah in one way throughout would make sense, but that doesn’t matter for the point here. The point is that words can have multiple, valid meanings whereas your critique depends upon the words used having exact meanings.

The word betulah has one meaning, and when that one meaning is implied that's the word used.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of Hebrew text, and a poor translation at that. Perhaps that's why Matthew relied on it in his attempt to make Jesus into the product of a virgin birth.

Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 does not imply he didn’t think it had been fulfilled in Exodus unless Matthew was thinking hyper-literally, which you are assuming, not proving.

Here's Matthew again:

"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

He literally says that it's specifically about Jesus. The text of Hosea makes clear that it's not.

Again, you are interpreting texts hyper-literally (which isn’t how ancient Hebrews thought and wrote) without offering support for doing so. Yes, it fits the conclusion you want, but you need to do more than just assume the author was thinking hyper-literally.

There's no such thing as interpreting text "hyper-literally". There's interpreting it literally or allegorically, and my support for interpreting it literally is that Matthew writes it in a literal sense. He tells his audience that specific alleged events in the early life of Jesus were fulfillments of prophecy, even when the prophecies in question were either about something completely different or simply nonexistent.

Now, even moving away from this hyper-literalism, your critique of Herod’s massacre actually happening would still need to be considered. Historically, though, there isn’t evidence that tips the scales for or against this event happening.

There doesn't have to be evidence that it didn't happen. The burden of proof comes with the claim that it did.

But if Matthew was simply trying to talk about Jeremiah 31 as a guide to make things up, he wouldn’t have to bring a massacre of children into it, as God tells Rachel that the children will return from the land of the enemy (31:16-17), showing that this was about Israelites being exiled not all killed.

.....and showing that it wasn't about children being massacred in Bethlehem. But Matthew says that's what it's about.

Even assuming Matthew got wrong info here, that wouldn’t show the rest of what he offers was wrong because it isn’t all or nothing with historical sources.

It is all-or-nothing with claims of divine inspiration, which the Bible is supposed to exhibit.

I wouldn’t insist that any particular “prophecies” are necessarily literal or metaphorical in your sense; it would depend on the actual details of each particular case. So, it’s not about special pleading, but thinking through things rationally in each case.

In each of Matthew's particular cases, he tries to convince his audience that Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy. He leaves no wiggle room for "themes". He presents details of the alleged prophetic fulfillments as historical events. If it's supposed to be historical, it should be read literally. If it's meant to be read allegorically, it's myth. You can't invoke allegory to make the Christian narrative conveniently unfalsifiable so as not to have to acknowledge its shortcomings.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #15]

Betulah isn’t the only word that can be used when referring to someone who was a virgin, though. And I’ve already shared why I think your interpretation of what it means to fulfill something said by a prophet is too hyper-literal, when they weren’t written or understood that way.

There absolutely are more nuances than just historical events that must be told literally and that metaphor means “myth” (which you probably aren’t using in its technical sense since you are juxtaposing it with historical as though myth means false). You can’t say this shows Christianity has shortcomings without showing your assumptions here are true. Please do that foundational work.

And I haven’t claimed that, using my interpretation of how “prophecy” works in ancient writings like Matthew, means the Christian narrative is true. That’s a separate question. I could be correct in everything I've claimed and Christianity still be false.

As to the burden of proof, it depends on who is making the positive claim. You are making the claim that the lack of evidence for the Bethlehem massacre means that it didn’t happen. If I were arguing that the Bethlehem massacre definitely did happen, then I’d have a burden of proof for that claim as well, but I didn’t argue that. Showing that the evidence leads to being agnostic (at best) about the historicity of the massacre is all that is needed to counter your positive claim.

As to divine inspiration, whether or not it’s “all or nothing” is irrelevant since we weren’t talking about that, but about a question of historicity. You can’t fault me for answering one question as though I was answering a different question. Switching to that question, as I’ve already shared, there isn’t a good reason to think Matthew actually got it wrong, so (on this alone) one should also be agnostic about divine inspiration.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #16]

Betulah isn’t the only word that can be used when referring to someone who was a virgin, though.

Betulah is the only word used to refer to virginity.

Almah, which means "young woman", has a male form----elem ("young man"). It doesn't mean a virginal young man. Almah indicates only age and gender, not sexual experience.

And I’ve already shared why I think your interpretation of what it means to fulfill something said by a prophet is too hyper-literal

And I've already pointed out that something is interpreted either literally or allegorically, not "hyper-literally".

Is it "hyper-literal" to conclude that it's impossible to fulfill something said by a prophet when it wasn't said by any prophet, like that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene?

There absolutely are more nuances than just historical events that must be told literally and that metaphor means “myth” (which you probably aren’t using in its technical sense since you are juxtaposing it with historical as though myth means false). You can’t say this shows Christianity has shortcomings without showing your assumptions here are true. Please do that foundational work.

I use the word "myth" to mean non-literal, and any "nuances" which fall outside a literal reading of the text necessarily fall into that catagory.

And I haven’t claimed that, using my interpretation of how “prophecy” works in ancient writings like Matthew, means the Christian narrative is true. That’s a separate question. I could be correct in everything I've claimed and Christianity still be false.

If Matthew isn't correct in everything he claims, Christianity is definitely false.

As to the burden of proof, it depends on who is making the positive claim. You are making the claim that the lack of evidence for the Bethlehem massacre means that it didn’t happen. If I were arguing that the Bethlehem massacre definitely did happen, then I’d have a burden of proof for that claim as well, but I didn’t argue that. Showing that the evidence leads to being agnostic (at best) about the historicity of the massacre is all that is needed to counter your positive claim.

It isn't about a positive claim that it didn't happen. It's about Matthew's positive claim that it did happen. And even if it happened it had no connection to the end of the Babylonian exile, which is the subject of the text quoted by Matthew.

As to divine inspiration, whether or not it’s “all or nothing” is irrelevant since we weren’t talking about that, but about a question of historicity.

Text which is divinely inspired should exhibit complete historical accuracy.

You can’t fault me for answering one question as though I was answering a different question. Switching to that question, as I’ve already shared, there isn’t a good reason to think Matthew actually got it wrong

You're suggesting that the absence of historical evidence that a massacre took place isn't good reason to assume that it didn't, which is nonsensical.

so (on this alone) one should also be agnostic about divine inspiration.

If one should be agnostic about divine inspiration, then one should be agnostic about 2 Timothy 3:16 and relegate the Bible to the same level as every secular work open to scrutiny, critical analysis and skepticism.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #17]

First, while betulah puts more of an emphasis on the lack of sexual experience, almah would often have social implications of being a virgin; it doesn’t just refer to sexually active young women.

Second, while you pointed out that something is interpreted as either literally or allegorically, you haven’t given any reason for someone else to agree with your classification.

Third, Matthew is claiming the massacre happened, but I wasn’t. I was analyzing your positive claim that it didn’t happen and saying the evidence points to agnosticism instead. Your argument from silence is not a good reason to move off an agnostic position on the matter, especially since we wouldn’t expect there to be much evidence left of a massacre of a small amount of boys (some scholars have estimated it would have been around 20) from a small, unimportant, poor town.

Fourth, agnosticism on the massacre is not a good reason to reject divine inspiration. That doesn’t mean I think one should be agnostic about divine inspiration; that’s a different question with all kinds of arguments for and against that go beyond what we’ve been talking about here.

Fifth, Matthew is quoting a text about God rescuing people from exile, which itself was connecting that back to God rescuing Israel from Egypt, which itself connects back to the beginning stories in Genesis where the human story is presented as us being exiled from our true home with God. The story of the Tanakh is about trying to get back to that. The Christian writings are as well. Matthew’s genealogy highlights 4 key markers (Matt 1:17): Abraham, David, the Babylonian exile, and the Messiah. Matthew’s account is written to Israelites who were under foreign control and invites his readers to see the common theme of exodus/salvation finding its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus as an answer to their situation as well. That’s why quoting Jer 31 fits.

Lastly, I do agree with you that the Bible should be open to the scrutiny, critical analysis, and skepticism that any text is, whether it is divinely inspired or not.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #18]

First, while betulah puts more of an emphasis on the lack of sexual experience, almah would often have social implications of being a virgin; it doesn’t just refer to sexually active young women.

Betulah does just refer to sexually inexperienced young women. That's why betulah is always the word used to refer to a lack of sexual experience in a young woman.

Second, while you pointed out that something is interpreted as either literally or allegorically, you haven’t given any reason for someone else to agree with your classification.

What reason can you give for someone not to agree with my classification?

Third, Matthew is claiming the massacre happened, but I wasn’t. I was analyzing your positive claim that it didn’t happen and saying the evidence points to agnosticism instead. Your argument from silence is not a good reason to move off an agnostic position on the matter, especially since we wouldn’t expect there to be much evidence left of a massacre of a small amount of boys (some scholars have estimated it would have been around 20) from a small, unimportant, poor town.

Part of the evidence of the alleged massacre which doesn't exist is reporting from early historians. The massacre was supposedly ordered by Herod the Great and yet not even the meticulous Josephus gives us anything, even though he related other such activities, commenting that Herod "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies."

Besides----how likely is it that Jesus was taken to Egypt to escape a massacre in Bethlehem when Luke tells us that forty days after his birth he was taken from Bethlehem to Jerusalem and from there back to Nazareth?

Fourth, agnosticism on the massacre is not a good reason to reject divine inspiration.

It's certainly a good reason to question a claim of divine inspiration. If you concede that there may not have been a massacre in Bethlehem, then you concede that the Christian Bible may not be divinely inspired.

Fifth, Matthew is quoting a text about God rescuing people from exile, which itself was connecting that back to God rescuing Israel from Egypt, which itself connects back to the beginning stories in Genesis where the human story is presented as us being exiled from our true home with God.

Matthew is quoting a text about God rescuing people from exile and claiming that it's specifically about children being massacred in Bethlehem. Spin all the loop-de-loops around it you want, that's still what's going on.

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet...."

Matthew is claiming that an alleged massacre in Bethlehem fulfilled a prophecy which (1.) wasn't about Bethlehem and (2.) wasn't about a massacre.

Matthew’s account is written to Israelites who were under foreign control and invites his readers to see the common theme of exodus/salvation finding its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus as an answer to their situation as well. That’s why quoting Jer 31 fits.

Matthew writes his account to Israelites under foreign control and is apparently trying to shoehorn the long-dead Jesus into Jewish prophecy to put a new spin on the concept of the Messiah in the hope that the Jesus movement can be salvaged.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #19]

Betulah does just refer to sexually inexperienced young women. That's why betulah is always the word used to refer to a lack of sexual experience in a young woman.

The discussion here is about almah and almah does not only refer to young women who have had sex, so it's perfectly normal for almah to be used when talking about a virgin. But only that, but sometimes ‘virgin’ is understood to be the meaning as the Jewish scholars show by translating Isaiah 7:14 into Greek as parthenos. So, no, betulah is not the only thing one could use if they wanted to speak of a virgin woman.

Again, that doesn't mean Isaiah 7:14 is about a virgin woman giving birth. It's not in the original context. But the Israelites also understood their prophetic writings to have future fulfillments that went beyond the immediate fulfillments in a more general sense (i.e., they didn't approach them in the same hyper-literal way you and other moderns are want to do). Isaiah 7-9, Jeremiah 31, etc. are instances of that. That is what Matthew often means by saying "it was fulfilled".

This doesn't say anything about whether Matthew was to right to see it how he did, but it does say something about how you are getting your conclusion based on misunderstanding how Matthew and his original audiences saw the prophetic writings. Thus, you are actually strawmanning Matthew and the early Christians.

What reason can you give for someone not to agree with my classification?

You have to support the use of your classifications; others don't have to disprove it.

Part of the evidence of the alleged massacre which doesn't exist is reporting from early historians. The massacre was supposedly ordered by Herod the Great and yet not even the meticulous Josephus gives us anything, even though he related other such activities, commenting that Herod "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies."

Josephus doesn't describe every single thing Herod did. Your summary statement from Josephus shows that. He covers the ones he hasn't detailed by saying Herod did this a lot rather than listing out every single one. He would have shared the most notable ones. The Bethlehem massacre would not have been that notable. This doesn't mean it happened; just that it's not a good reason to reject Matthew as trustworthy.

Besides----how likely is it that Jesus was taken to Egypt to escape a massacre in Bethlehem when Luke tells us that forty days after his birth he was taken from Bethlehem to Jerusalem and from there back to Nazareth?

Again, even if you are correct, this is an argument against divine inspiration, not what we were discussing. I stick with what I originally comment about instead of just constantly moving topics as though they are the same question. That leads to confusion and speaking past each other in so many threads and I try to avoid it.

It's certainly a good reason to question a claim of divine inspiration. If you concede that there may not have been a massacre in Bethlehem, then you concede that the Christian Bible may not be divinely inspired.

Yes, I agree that it's not 100% certain that the massacre happened and it's not 100% certain that the Christian Bible is divinely inspired.

Matthew is quoting a text about God rescuing people from exile and claiming that it's specifically about children being massacred in Bethlehem. Spin all the loop-de-loops around it you want, that's still what's going on.

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet...."

Matthew is claiming that an alleged massacre in Bethlehem fulfilled a prophecy which (1.) wasn't about Bethlehem and (2.) wasn't about a massacre.

If we assume your hyper-literal take, sure, but why do that? Calling it 'spinning a loop-de-loop" is just empty rhetoric; I'm interested in the reasons we hold the beliefs we do. Why isn't Matthew claiming that the massacre in Bethlehem is an example of the same kind of thing that went on back in the exile times? If you would have asked him what Jeremiah 31:15 is about, why wouldn't he talk about both the exile and fulfillment of it by Israel returning from exile as well as how he thought the massacre spoke to the current state of Israelites going through the same kind of thing?

Matthew writes his account to Israelites under foreign control and is apparently trying to shoehorn the long-dead Jesus into Jewish prophecy to put a new spin on the concept of the Messiah in the hope that the Jesus movement can be salvaged.

Perhaps, but certainly not because of what you've shared here, which is due to imposing your modern way of thinking and writing on ancient Jewish ways of thinking and writing.