Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

One claim, however seemed contrived. Holding says that Herod Agrippa II was alive at the time of the writing of the Book of Acts and if Luke had made things up about Herod Agrippa I, then number II would have arrested him and everyone would have known what Luke had said was fraudulent. I see a lot of Christian assumptions in this statement. Here is what we do know:

1. We have no proof who wrote the Book of Acts, only educated guesses and a lot of assumptions.
2. Most scholars believe that the two volume work of the Gospel of Luke/Book of Acts was written in the 80's or 90's.
3. Most scholars believe that Herod Agrippa II died in the early 90's.

So if the anonymous author of Acts wrote this book in 98 AD and Herod Agrippa died in 93 AD, Herod Agrippa would NOT have read this book and therefore could not have refuted its claims.

And, even if the Book of Acts was written in the 80's, how soon was it in circulation in Palestine for Herod Agrippa II to read?? Maybe it was written in Rome and copies did not arrive to Palestine until the second century! We just don't know.

This is why I call the entire orthodox/conservative Christian belief system a house of cards: There are SO many assumptions about so many claims that if only a couple of these assumptions are incorrect, the entire belief system collapses.

Your last sentence here is a remarkably apt description of your argument here.

Why do most scholars believe that Luke was written so late? The starting assumption is that there is no such thing as prophecy; since the destruction of Jerusalem is "predicted," the gospels must have been written after AD 70. But Luke got the "prediction" from reading Mark's gospel, so factor in some time for Mark's gospel to get to wherever Luke was. My New Oxford Annotated Bible (hardly a bastion of conservative thought) thinks it's rather likely that the early tradition of Lukan authorship is correct (and dates it to sometime in the last third of the first century).

[tabibito]

Imagine if a group of UFO experts in the United States makes this announcement to the news media:

These experts recently came across four anonymous books that detail the statements of a few hundred people in rural Japan who claimed to have seen little green space aliens, over a one month period of time in 1972; odd creatures with long, thin antennas sprouting out of their tiny heads, who claimed to be from the planet Mars.

These experts assert that no Japanese person would ever believe in green, antennae-sporting, space aliens unless they had actually seen them, so the fact that some Japanese DID believe this story, is proof that the story is true.

What is wrong with this reasoning?

Answer: We know that the overwhelming majority of Japanese people in the 1970's and today do not believe in little green Martians with antennae, therefore, the fact that a small group of mostly rural Japanese do believe this claim, while the overwhelming majority of Japanese remain unconvinced of the veracity of this story even though SOME Japanese do believe it, demonstrates that "no Japanese person would believe this claim unless it is true" is an inaccurate generalization.

Likewise, the claim that "no Jew would believe in a resurrection if they had not actually seen it" fails because the majority of first century Jews did NOT believe this story, even though they were aware that a small group of Jews did.

Just because a small group of people in a particular society chooses to believe a very odd, shameful, never-heard-of-before belief is not proof that the belief is true. It is only proof that human beings are prone to believe almost anything given the right circumstances.

That is actually a sensible argument.

However, what happens when the society in question actually does believe the matter in question does generally believe that the stated claims are a possibility? In such cases, people would tend to shy away from belief, without actually venturing into disbelief. Most would simply sit on the sidelines and let the protagonists for each side slug it out.

[William]

That is actually a sensible argument.

However, what happens when the society in question actually does believe the matter in question does generally believe that the stated claims are a possibility? In such cases, people would tend to shy away from belief, without actually venturing into disbelief. Most would simply sit on the sidelines and let the protagonists for each side slug it out.

can you elaborate more?

[William]

That is actually a sensible argument.

However, what happens when the society in question actually does believe the matter in question does generally believe that the stated claims are a possibility? In such cases, people would tend to shy away from belief, without actually venturing into disbelief. Most would simply sit on the sidelines and let the protagonists for each side slug it out.

I am still trying to think this through. Are you saying that most the people in the 1st century Palestine area believed Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, but just decided to "act" like they didn't believe it?

[William]

Your last sentence here is a remarkably apt description of your argument here.

Why do most scholars believe that Luke was written so late? The starting assumption is that there is no such thing as prophecy; since the destruction of Jerusalem is "predicted," the gospels must have been written after AD 70. But Luke got the "prediction" from reading Mark's gospel, so factor in some time for Mark's gospel to get to wherever Luke was. My New Oxford Annotated Bible (hardly a bastion of conservative thought) thinks it's rather likely that the early tradition of Lukan authorship is correct (and dates it to sometime in the last third of the first century).

just another reason that preserved originals would have been helpful.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick, many of our points have been based on what we think people will or won't do.

No. They're based on what scholars in the field of honor-shame studies in relation to the NT think.

---------------

You think that no one would join the Christians because it would have been shameful. I disagree because I think there were several positive aspects including belief in a risen and returning messiah, eternal rewards and the honor gained by giving to each other.

No. I think people would need overwhelming evidence to join them. Everyone was watching their honor back then closely. You were always on guard because anyone you met might steal your honor and honor is a limited good. Having nice beliefs wouldn't matter if one did not think those nice beliefs were true. You'd been exchanging the honor of society as a whole for the honor of a little shameful group. That makes no sense. It's like winning the powerball jackpot and using all of the money to buy raffle tickets to win a $100 prize.

You think that Paul would not lie and jeopardize his honor. I think that he could have lied in this instance because he needed to gain credibility among the in-group so that his teachings would be taken seriously.

Paul was keeping credibility. His claim in 1 Cor. 9 implies that it was already known he was an apostle. Telling a lie when it could be falsified easily enough would risk him any honor that he had left. No reason to think Paul would do that. I don't know any historian of the text who thinks Paul was lying in 1 Cor. 15.

You think that the creed in 1 Cor. 15 is an accurate account of early appearances while I think it could be based on a ranking of importance.

I don't think I ever said it was accurate as in a chronological account. In fact, I happen to think women were the first eyewitnesses but they were left out due to their testimony not being credible.

You think that the appearance to 500 people is not an exaggeration, but I think it could be.

Show it then. Besides, in the Jewish system, 500 would be superfluous. A matter could be settled on 2 or 3 witnesses.

You think that everyone who had an appearance would have gone and checked his grave, while I think they may have had no idea where his body was because he was buried privately by the Romans or the Jewish authorities in a common grave/tomb along with many other criminals.

Do you have any evidence of this?

You think that without an empty grave everyone would think Jesus' angel was visiting.

No. I don't. I think an empty grave by itself would mean the grave was empty.

I think there could have been enough of a combination of realistic dreams (ADCs) and real life "sightings" that the hopeful disciples would have believed Jesus was alive again and that as the messiah he would be coming again to play a key role in the ushering in of the Kingdom of God.

---------------
Yeah. Got any evidence of this? Do you have any other movement in the ancient world where this happened?

Now you want to bring a deity into the picture to say that it raised Jesus from the dead and all I'm saying is, hold up a second, before we go to that extreme and try to assume we know what a deity will or won't do, can't we admit that there is a possibility this can all be explained by natural human tendencies?

Of course. I'm just waiting to see it done.

Humans lie, they see things, they believe in bizarre things, they change their minds, they buck the system and go against the flow of society, they hope for something better, they get swept up in a movement, they exaggerate stories, they die for causes they believe in and they preach to others with the honest belief that they are speaking on behalf of God.

Do you want to demonstrate this all took place? That suddenly agonistic people became individualistic?

I propose we set aside our different opinions on how humans may or may not behave for a moment and approach another topic that (I think) we both agree on. It is my hope that you can see where I'm coming from and that, at least in this instance, might be as skeptical as I am about the claims people make. I am going to assume that we both believe that reincarnation is not something that happens. If this is a false assumption then I will have to try and think of something else. But if, like me, you doubt that human souls become recycled and reused in new bodies, let's examine this together. I propose you read some of the accounts on this page and then tell me which one you found the most compelling. Here is the account that impressed me the most (I read about ten of them): Am I My Sister? by Melinda (Mar. 2004). Here is my question: Do you think Melinda is a reincarnation of her sister or do you think there could be a natural explanation for this account? I will give my opinion after you share yours and if you'd like to share an account that you found compelling I will share my thoughts on that as well. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

For the sake of argument, we'll assume the account is true and no, due to my philosophical ideas on what a soul is, I don't think that she is possibly her sister. I also have some problems with reincarnation from a philosophical point of view and if Christianity is true, then reincarnation is false. Still, the data has to be explained. If I can't find a natural explanation, I am quite open to demonic activity, especially when the occult is involved.

[Apologiaphoenix]

sorry, I was gone awhile and then coming back realized I had missed this and wanted to reply to it, if that's alright.

I was wondering where you were.

lol, maybe. But reading it for what it says, it still looks like he's saying he rode on both, while the other gospels only cite one donkey, per the "prophecy." And Matthew also credits for Jeremiah for something Zechariah says. These don't make him a idiot necessarily, just a man who lived in a much different time with much less resources.

The latter one is something quite simple to explain. When two prophecies from two prophets were cited, it was the greater prophet that was given the honor. With the former, if you have two possible interpretations and one does not make the writer look like an idiot, you go with the one that does not make the writer look like an idiot until you have evidence otherwise. That's called the principle of charity.

The prophecy is in chapter 7, but the fulfillment is in chapter 8. "Young Woman" was the word used, and while at that time it may have carried the connotation of "virgin" for unmarried women, it never carried such a connotation with pregnant women. It seems like if Isaiah wanted to convey "virgin" he would have specifically said "virgin" especially belaboring the pointing to make sure there was no misunderstanding as virgins have never given birth before.

I agree. Isaiah 7 was fulfilled in chapter 8. However, when Matthew uses that, that does not mean this is what Isaiah specifically had in mind. What he is doing is a sort of reenactment, which would be common and honorable. It's noteworthy that I don't know of any works about the Messiah that cited Isaiah 7 and the Greek word in the LXX is in fact Parthenos, which refers to a virgin definitely. Also, a virgin birth would in fact be a problem because that would mean something had to be explained in a Jewish culture, such as Jesus being illegitimate.

But also, it was given to King Ahaz as a sign for an event happening at that time, so a sign that wouldnt occur for another 700 years isnt much of a sign right then. And then we get to chapter 8 and low and behold, and young woman gives birth and has a son, just as foretold in the previous chapter.

No problem whatsoever.

I am not so sure that the birth stories are so easily dismissed or summed up. When you actually try to much them all together in one story, it becomes very difficult. And sandals arent the biggest of the discrepancies, but they are obvious ones and ones that I remember without having to look back through the entire bible.

There is no dismissal. There is simply a stating of fact. One of the starting problems with the position is that people assume everything happened at once. How many nativities do we see with the shepherds there with the wise men? Wouldn't have happened that way.

I realize there are many who do not think the bible must be error free to be from God, but I also know that there are those who, and I come from such a background. To me, the errors, any errors, present problems. The bible is a book of claims by men, who only claim to have had special insights or interactions with God, and who only claim to speak for God, and thus only claim that God said this or that, or did that or this. If certain details contradict or just wrong, then why I should believe the grander claims that i cannot verify?

Here's the problem. Try doing this with any claim of ancient history. Say that you will not believe any ancient writer when you see an error or something that contradicts. You will walk away believing nothing. I am not asking you to treat the Bible as Inerrant or even the Word of God. I am asking you to treat it like any other ancient document.

So sandals may seem small, but they're a detail. and wouldnt you prefer to be able to say, "no, there is no such error or contradiction?" But you cannot, because it is clearly there. It may not bother you, but it, and the others, bother me.

I think this could help. http://christianthinktank.com/nostaff.html

I first took this as a dig, but think that it may just indicate more of a communication error between the both of us. Keep in mind that we are commenting in very brief threads and posts. If we able to sit face to face, we could more effectively explain ourselves and ask clarification of the other.

No. It was not a dig. With Gary, I've come to expect lowly opposition and such and claims that have no basis whatsoever and show no wrestling with the evidence. You're different and I expect better from you.

I dont know what of this has been a strawman or should be beneath me. These are things that stand out to me. If you're not bothered by them, that's fine, even though I dont understand how you see can see contradictions and think all is well.

Because my position does not hang on Inerrancy.

And much of the Resurrection "evidence" comes from these gospels. You rely on the scholars, but most of their opinions derive from these gospels, which contain other errors.

This is false. Much of the resurrection evidence comes from the creed in 1 Cor. 15. I don't think the Gospels were written to convince people of the resurrection really.

Let me say that i am certain you have read more scholars than I have. But we come at this differently. I was raised and did believe that the bible was God's perfect message to man. So when I began to see issues that I could no longer explain away or ignore with a straight face, I began looking at science and history first. I consulted the scriptures and compared them with the expert finding in science and archaeology or history. So when I found internal discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible itself, then found scientific problems, and then historical and archaeological problems, i consulted the scholars some, though not exhaustive. Some scholars are for and some are against.

And what I wonder is for instance with science, why think the ancients were interested in scientific terminology. Let's use two examples. For one thing, we're told about insects with four legs. These people were eating insects regularly and you know what? They could count. So what is going on? Jumping legs were not counted as legs. We might say that's ridiculous, but that's our modern standard.

How about how the bat is listed as a bird. We look at modern taxonomy and think the writer got it wrong. Bats are mammals. That works until you realize the word used for a bird simply refers to a winged creature. Bats were included under creatures with wings.

I dont think I've made any strawmen, but if I have, i'd like you to point them out to me, as i certainly do not want to be guilty of that.

Okay. Two straw men.

but we are discussing a man, who was born to a never had sex before virgin, so that he could teach us all, although he never wrote anything down, and then die for us as a sacrifice atonement in order to save us from the hell he created for us, but wants us to believe in him although he has made himself invisible and as much like an imaginary being as he could, and he then came back to life after 3 days and flew into heaven...

The idea of save us from a Hell He created for us and made Himself invisible and as much like an imaginary being etc. The language throughout this is entirely derogatory. For one thing, Hell is not created for men but for the devil and His angels. Second, this assumes that we are on the innocent side when in fact, most all of us, even non-theists, know we do things that are wrong regularly. That's the claim. We're not innocent. As for invisible, I think in fact God has given excellent evidence of His existence. I happen to favor the five ways of Aquinas personally.

You believe the universe had a creator, but make a leap to assume it was the Bible's God, and then that that God wants to deliver us a message, wanted to save us from anything, and wanted to sacrifice his son (while hating human sacrifice) all because the human authors of the bible claimed it so.

This is also a straw man. I am not a fideist. I do not leap. Leap would be saying "Okay. There's a God, therefore I'm going to be a Christian!" That's a leap. I do not do that. I make a case for why I think the Christian revelation is the true one. As for the sacrifice, you know the Son gave Himself up. Right? I also don't believe just because the human authors claim. I do so because I have indeed read those scholars for years and I think the case against the Bible is very weak.

The "shame culture" just isnt as sound of an argument. The cultural mind may describe the majority of a population, but it never stands as absolute for every single person.

Okay. Give some hard evidence of an individualist back then.

The early Christians were a minority, so "shame culture" just doesnt stand as any prove or evidence for me. I still think that people of anytime, even if they lived in a shame culture, still related to unfairness and empathy and vengeance. I suspect that the story of Christ was told similarly then as it is now, as in jesus was wrongly executed, and allowed himself the brutal and shameful death in order to save all of mankind, out of love.

And let's suppose some people thought that way. What would they say then? The exact thing you're saying now. "That's a nice story." They would have no reason to believe the story because they liked it.

The scholars speak on the writings of the time to reach a conclusion regarding the culture. SO those educated sorts who wrote of their culture were also the ones the lowly and poor initial despised. but here again, we may just disagree, but that doesnt mean either you or i are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

No they don't. They use that partially, but they also study honor-shame cultures today. Most of the world still thinks this way so its pretty easy to do.

and early we had discussed Hindu idols drinking milk. Couldnt the scholars of hindu idols agree that the gods really drank milk?

Sure. They could. I could even say that having an idol drink milk actually would not be a problem to my viewpoint.

Even when we can explain the miracle with natural laws and physical explanations, couldnt the hindu idol disciples just claim, "our gods are gods of nature and physics, so it's reasonable to conclude they use those laws to conduct their miracles?

Sure. So let's go with it. A Hindu idol drinks milk. What follows?

They could also say, "that despite all odds, these hindu gods are still here, with a strong following..."

Hinduism has been around for thousands of years, even longer than Judaism, and we know of no significant opposition to it during its formation time, which we frankly know little about. When it becomes established, then the honor-shame argument no longer applies.

It just seems like all the defenses for Christianity can be used to defend anything or any religion.

Feel free to try.

So, is the Resurrection believable? It is to you but isnt to me, so the answer, it seems is, "yes and no."

What's really keeping you away from it right now? What is the major objection? Let's deal with that first and then move on.

[William]

No. They're based on what scholars in the field of honor-shame studies in relation to the NT think.

---------------


No. I think people would need overwhelming evidence to join them. Everyone was watching their honor back then closely. You were always on guard because anyone you met might steal your honor and honor is a limited good. Having nice beliefs wouldn't matter if one did not think those nice beliefs were true. You'd been exchanging the honor of society as a whole for the honor of a little shameful group. That makes no sense. It's like winning the powerball jackpot and using all of the money to buy raffle tickets to win a $100 prize.

was being poor honorable or dishonorable? Was being a Jew in old Israel, while being ruled by Gentiles, Honorable or dishonorable? Is it not possible for many of that time to have already felt like they were judged as being shameful by their oppressors? Is it not possible for the Jews to be bittger over this and also view the Gentiles as dirty and haughty?

Isn't it possible that the early believers were already part of a shameful group before Jesus was Crucified? And pride, pride often makes people dig in their heels rather than admit they were wrong, no?

This doesnt prove or disprove anything, but I think it highlights that a "shame/honor society" neither proves or is evidence for the Resurrection being true.

Show it then. Besides, in the Jewish system, 500 would be superfluous. A matter could be settled on 2 or 3 witnesses.

show that the 500 were real witnesses. give their names. Who are they? it's essentially the same with any claim and someone saying, "Look, everyone knows this," or "hundreds of others saw it too." Without names or more detail, a random number isn't proof, but another claim to be verified.

To say, "well the people Paul talked to would have known and exposed him as liar back then," is weak. First, Paul defended allegations of being a liar, so he was called a liar. two, people today don't verify half the stuff they hear and we have the internet/ information always at the ready, so why would the uneducated masses 2000 years ago be better?

but even if Paul was right about the 500, it cant be verified as he gave no detail other than a number. and why 500? was it exactly 500? exactly 500 people were around to witness this event? was it one event or several? 500 exactly? or was that numbered rounded? did the holy spirit not recall the exact number? And if it was rounded, was it not then possible to be overly embellished? If the number wasn't exact, then could the sighting have also not been exact?

"Paul, you're a liar."

Paul: "no, nuh-uh, 500 people saw it too."

I just have a hard time with this and would from any book regarding any claim.

Do you want to demonstrate this all took place? That suddenly agonistic people became individualistic?

well, they were agnostic regarding certain things, but they were very superstitious and had been exposed to a number of religions and myths, right? and I mean, can anyone demonstrate that a dead man actually came back to life and flew away? so far we have one claim of a nameless 500 witnesses, and an empty tomb, a man named Jesus, and an honor/shame society.

[William]

The latter one is something quite simple to explain. When two prophecies from two prophets were cited, it was the greater prophet that was given the honor. With the former, if you have two possible interpretations and one does not make the writer look like an idiot, you go with the one that does not make the writer look like an idiot until you have evidence otherwise. That's called the principle of charity. .

I can get there, but where did Jeremiah say anything like that?

[Gary]

Your last sentence here is a remarkably apt description of your argument here.

Why do most scholars believe that Luke was written so late? The starting assumption is that there is no such thing as prophecy; since the destruction of Jerusalem is "predicted," the gospels must have been written after AD 70. But Luke got the "prediction" from reading Mark's gospel, so factor in some time for Mark's gospel to get to wherever Luke was. My New Oxford Annotated Bible (hardly a bastion of conservative thought) thinks it's rather likely that the early tradition of Lukan authorship is correct (and dates it to sometime in the last third of the first century).

This is very typical of conservative Christians: They use the "majority scholarly opinion" when it benefits them and discount it when it doesn't. So we should all believe in a empty tomb because the majority of scholars believe it, but we should not believe the late dating of Luke because the majority of scholars are biased.

As I said, "a house of cards".

[William]

No. It was not a dig. With Gary, I've come to expect lowly opposition and such and claims that have no basis whatsoever and show no wrestling with the evidence. You're different and I expect better from you.



Because my position does not hang on Inerrancy.

I was trying to show how errors in the text made me suspect of issues that cannot be verified in anyway. Again, if what i can check and verify is shown to be suspect, then buy into the large claims regarding things I cannot check and verify? I think it's okay if we disagree, but I still think position makes sense, whether you view it that way or not.

So I wasnt necessarily trying to school you or correct you, but share how I view it. I dont think that's low or anything that one should be above.

[Gary]

That is actually a sensible argument.

However, what happens when the society in question actually does believe the matter in question does generally believe that the stated claims are a possibility? In such cases, people would tend to shy away from belief, without actually venturing into disbelief. Most would simply sit on the sidelines and let the protagonists for each side slug it out.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, but bottom line: the conversion of a few uneducated Jewish peasants was NOT enough to convince the majority of first century Jews that the Christian crucified/resurrected messiah story was true. The Honor-Shame argument fails. If it were correct, we should have seen mass numbers of Jews converting for the reason that, "No Jew would convert to this shameful belief unless it is true, and some Jews are believing, so I should too."

Nope, the overwhelming majority of first century Jews saw this small number of Jews convert to this shameful belief and said, "Their nuts."

The Honor-Shame argument fails.

[Apologiaphoenix]

was being poor honorable or dishonorable? Was being a Jew in old Israel, while being ruled by Gentiles, Honorable or dishonorable? Is it not possible for many of that time to have already felt like they were judged as being shameful by their oppressors? Is it not possible for the Jews to be bittger over this and also view the Gentiles as dirty and haughty?

The poor were dishonored so what would that mean? They would hold on to their honor all the tighter. Crucifixion was sending a message to the poor especially and the non-elite. Crucified victims were not set up as an example for the elite. Roman Citizens would not need to worry about the cross for instance. You want to say things are possible, but give some evidence that this was going on.

Isn't it possible that the early believers were already part of a shameful group before Jesus was Crucified? And pride, pride often makes people dig in their heels rather than admit they were wrong, no?

This is why I have pointed to those who were of high honor status like the wealthy and middle class who became Christians. Those are the people I want to ask about.

This doesnt prove or disprove anything, but I think it highlights that a "shame/honor society" neither proves or is evidence for the Resurrection being true.

By itself, no. In conjunction with what we know, it presents a lot of evidence.

show that the 500 were real witnesses. give their names. Who are they? it's essentially the same with any claim and someone saying, "Look, everyone knows this," or "hundreds of others saw it too." Without names or more detail, a random number isn't proof, but another claim to be verified.

The five hundred would have been known easily enough. Just go to Jerusalem and ask to speak to the people who were there and saw the events. Privacy wasn't a reality back then after all. Also, with Bauckham's hypothesis the names in the Gospels would be the names of the people who would be eyewitnesses.

Unless you want to say the 500 are just totally made-up. I don't know of scholars who take that position.

To say, "well the people Paul talked to would have known and exposed him as liar back then," is weak. First, Paul defended allegations of being a liar, so he was called a liar. two, people today don't verify half the stuff they hear and we have the internet/ information always at the ready, so why would the uneducated masses 2000 years ago be better?

This is quite frankly derogatory towards the ancient people as if to say they were uneducated so they wouldn't check the claims. The internet actually makes it worse. You know how many claims I see being shared on Facebook by people who are the "educated" that are totally bogus? They don't have any support whatsoever and they're treated as common knowledge. As for allegations of Paul being a liar, feel free to give the specific ones. Second, if they were true, why add more fuel to the fire, especially in his lynchpin argument?

but even if Paul was right about the 500, it cant be verified as he gave no detail other than a number. and why 500? was it exactly 500? exactly 500 people were around to witness this event? was it one event or several? 500 exactly? or was that numbered rounded? did the holy spirit not recall the exact number? And if it was rounded, was it not then possible to be overly embellished? If the number wasn't exact, then could the sighting have also not been exact?

ROunded of course. You know what other numbers are rounded like this? Most every other number in ancient history.

"Paul, you're a liar."

Paul: "no, nuh-uh, 500 people saw it too."

I just have a hard time with this and would from any book regarding any claim.

If I was told an event was false and then told 500 other people saw it, that would look like good evidence to consider it.

As for the claim about Jeremiah...

Although this narrative contains prior tradition (cf. Acts 1:18–19), Matthew has clearly reworked it to emphasize a point found in this form in neither Markan nor Johannine traditions. Judas’s end (27:3–10) is full of Matthean vocabulary, following the liberty he could take in putting an oral tradition into writing (cf. Van Tilborg 1972b: 83–84).
Although Matthew does not create the story, he may fill in its gaps on the basis of biblical prophecy (Hill 1972: 348). Matthew quotes Zechariah 11:13 as if yoṣer (“potter”) could be read ʾoṣer (“treasury”), revocalizing to provide a new interpretation, as we know later Jewish interpreters often did (Longenecker 1975: 150; cf. Burkitt 1907: 125; Lindars 1961: 118). If the priests prevented the money from making it to the “treasury,” Scripture would be fulfilled when it reached the “potter”; “One way or another the prophetic Scriptures must reach fulfillment” (Gundry 1982: 556; cf. Mt 5:18). In its original context (with which Matthew appears familiar), the prophecy referred to how cheaply (at the price of a slave) Israel had valued their shepherd, the prophet (or perhaps God himself), and how he would therefore give them a foolish shepherd so that they might learn by contrast how benevolent the prophet (or God) had been to them (Zech 11:4–17; cf. 13:7–9; Edgar 1958: 50).
By appealing to “Jeremiah” rather than to Zechariah, however, Matthew makes clear that he intends his biblically literate audience to link an analogous passage in Jeremiah (32:6–14) and to interpret them together (as in the gezerah shewah of Mk 1:2–3, which Matthew recognizes and modifies in Mt 3:3). In so doing, Matthew reapplies Zechariah’s prophecy with a message of Israel’s coming restoration in Jeremiah. Matthew may well allude to Jeremiah 18–19 (regarding the potter; cf. Meier 1980: 339; Gundry 1982: 556; Upton 1982) as well; in this case he evokes a prophecy of the impending destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 19:10–13; Mt 27:25)


Keener, C. S. (2009). The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (p. 657). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

well, they were agnostic regarding certain things, but they were very superstitious and had been exposed to a number of religions and myths, right? and I mean, can anyone demonstrate that a dead man actually came back to life and flew away? so far we have one claim of a nameless 500 witnesses, and an empty tomb, a man named Jesus, and an honor/shame society.

Being superstitious, even if they were, does not mean gullible people who will believe anything, especially a claim like that. So what do we have? We have an empty tomb, appearances of a crucified man fully alive after death, seen by multiple witnesses, and this being believed by people in the society who had the most to lose if they believed it.

Feel free to explain the data.

[William]

I agree. Isaiah 7 was fulfilled in chapter 8. However, when Matthew uses that, that does not mean this is what Isaiah specifically had in mind. What he is doing is a sort of reenactment, which would be common and honorable. It's noteworthy that I don't know of any works about the Messiah that cited Isaiah 7 and the Greek word in the LXX is in fact Parthenos, which refers to a virgin definitely. Also, a virgin birth would in fact be a problem because that would mean something had to be explained in a Jewish culture, such as Jesus being illegitimate.

right. That's my point. Isaiah wasnt prophesying about Jesus. matthew borrowed it, being swayed by the poor greek translation, as he tried to make sense of Jesus' Death. He was looking for answers studying his scripture to see where he went wrong and stumbled across that verse and someone concluded that Mary was a virgin.

"well that's conjecture."

some of it is. People tend to look for ways to explain what they have before them. I see the Hebrew say "young woman" within a context that points to local events 700 years before Christ. I see Matthew reading a mistranslated in the greek and then suggest it was a prophecy of jesus, even though it doesnt fit into Isaiah;s context. You make assumptions and form conjectures as to how it works out as stated, i do the same trying to see if there's a nonsupernatural explanation - so if we both do that, and others do that, i suspect Matthew did the same.

[Apologiaphoenix]

right. That's my point. Isaiah wasnt prophesying about Jesus. matthew borrowed it, being swayed by the poor greek translation, as he tried to make sense of Jesus' Death. He was looking for answers studying his scripture to see where he went wrong and stumbled across that verse and someone concluded that Mary was a virgin.

Upon what grounds is the LXX a poor Greek translation? Is there any reason to think Matthew was someone uneducated who did not know the language. He was certainly a highly educated man. As for his use of Scripture, it would have been right in line with groups like Qumran. Qumran did not have to think the prophets were talking about them, but that they were living in times that matched that of the prophets. The situations were similar enough.

"well that's conjecture."

some of it is. People tend to look for ways to explain what they have before them. I see the Hebrew say "young woman" within a context that points to local events 700 years before Christ. I see Matthew reading a mistranslated in the greek and then suggest it was a prophecy of jesus, even though it doesnt fit into Isaiah;s context. You make assumptions and form conjectures as to how it works out as stated, i do the same trying to see if there's a nonsupernatural explanation - so if we both do that, and others do that, i suspect Matthew did the same.

Are you familiar with the Pesher style of interpretation or the work of people like Longenecker on the use of the OT in the period of the apostles?