![\"Chaos3\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/04\/Chaos3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Partial view of the Mandelbrot set<\/a>. Step 11 of a zoom sequence: Double-spirals with satellites of second order. Analog to the \u201cseahorses\u201d the double-spirals can be interpreted as a metamorphosis of the \u201cantenna\u201d.\u00a0Created by Wolfgang Beyer<\/a> with the program Ultra Fractal 3<\/i>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons \/\u00a0 Creative Commons<\/a> Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n (7-3-10)<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n See the two previous installments:\u00a0\u00a0Reply to Atheist on \u201cFabricated\u201d OT Messianic Prophecies<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Reply to Atheist on Isaiah 53 & \u201cDishonest\u201d Christians<\/a>. \u00a0To learn more about\u00a0Mitch \/ \u201cProfMTH\u201d<\/a>: an atheist who loves to try<\/em> to shoot down the Bible, see the first paper.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Professor Mitch states at 1:47 \u2013 2:02 of his video and hit piece,\u00a0Jesus Was Not the Messiah \u2014 Part 3 (Crucifixion \u201cProphecies\u201d)<\/a>:<\/p>\n The prophetic portrait Christians present, heavily relies on misquotations, mistranslations, and misapplications of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He starts out (2:01 \u2013 2:35) by mocking differences in stated numbers of messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, with video of three Christian teachers giving counts of \u201cabout 300,\u201d \u201cmore than 300\u201d and \u201cabout 191.\u201d Of course, reasonable men can differ on such things: that in itself is not a controversial notion (I should think, anyway).<\/p>\n What I find amusing, however, is Mitch\u2019s seeming unawareness of ancient and medieval Jewish commentators, who far outdid Christian exegetes in totals of messianic prophecies: by a ratio of about 3 to 2. Alfred Edersheim<\/a> (1825-1889), the great Hebrew-Christian scholar, in his Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah<\/i> (2 vols., 1883, revised eighth edition, 1912, vol. II<\/a>), cited 456 passages in the Old Testament that Jewish commentators had interpreted as messianic (vol. II, Appendix IX: \u201cList of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied in Rabbinic Writings\u201d \/ Talmudic Discussion of the Messiah,\u201d pp. 710-741). He stated on p. 710 (in the freely available Google Reader version<\/a>):<\/p>\n The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount in all to 456, thus distributed: 75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings. . . . The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are: the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and the most ancient Midrashim . . . [and] from the well-known work Yalkut, because, although of comparatively late date, it is really, as its name implies, a collection and selection from more than fifty older and accredited writings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This sort of information doesn\u2019t fit in with Mitch\u2019s goal of \u201cproving\u201d that Christians are arbitrarily and dishonestly misapplying and misquoting alleged messianic passages. Nor does it harmonize very well with his polemics to state that Jewish commentators have long since outdone we miserably dishonest and desperate Christians.<\/p>\n We only cite \u201cabout 300\u201d messianic passages, after all, but the ancient rabbis come up with a whopping 456. Christians can only conjure up a paltry 66% of the texts that the rabbis cite. I guess that proves beyond all doubt that we are dishonest and the rabbis were not. Or else it shows that the whole lot of Christian and Jewish religious fanatics were and are dishonest: in which case, this should be noted, whereas our critic chooses only to go after the supposed dishonesty of Christians and ignore even \u201cworse\u201d manifestations of these alleged shortcomings among the ancient Jewish rabbis.<\/p>\n Mitch then makes the following claim (5:00 \u2013 5:22) concerning the purported messianic passage Zechariah 13:6:<\/p>\n Unless Christian apologists wish to say that Jesus was a deceptive false prophet removed from the land by God, they can\u2019t claim Zechariah 13:6 as a messianic prophecy about Jesus\u2019 crucifixion. Why would Christian apologists misuse a passage like this?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I guess they would do so for the same reason that prominent Jewish commentators used when they applied the passage to the Messiah:<\/p>\n Abraham ibn Ezra<\/i> <\/a>(Spain, 1092-1167) was one of the greatest Jewish scholars. He considered Zechariah 13 messianic (see: The Doctrine of the Messiah in Medieval Jewish Literature<\/i>, Joseph Sarachek, New York: Hermon Press, 1932).<\/p>\n Isaac Abravanel<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(1437-1508; originally from Spain) wrote more about the Messiah than any other Jew before him. He followed the Talmud<\/i> and the Midrash<\/i> in his interpretations, and considered Zechariah 9:9 and chapters 12-13 messianic.<\/p>\n So I suppose we are to conclude that ibn Ezra and Abravanel were too stupid to know that the context was referring to a false prophet and not the Messiah, thus sealing the fate of Zechariah 13:6 as a messianic passage? They, too, couldn\u2019t read or correctly interpret the simplest things, either, as Mitch thinks is the case with Christian apologists?<\/p>\n Or it could be a case of multiple application of a passage: a thing frequently seen in Scripture. One could possibly hold a number of plausible positions on the passage itself. That\u2019s not my immediate concern. My objection is, rather, to Mitch\u2019s hair-trigger, knee-jerk approach in saying that Christians are almost ubiquitously deliberately dishonest (or so one might get an impression from his polemics) when they interpret OT passages messianically.<\/p>\n Mitch then goes after Psalm 22, often used as a messianic passage by Christians. He states (6:20 \u2013 6:33):<\/p>\n Psalm 22 in general, and Psalm 22, verse 16 in particular, is regarded as an apologetic brass ring, even though it\u2019s never cited by any New Testament writer in reference to Jesus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s true that Psalm 22:16 is never directly<\/em> cited, but Psalm 22 is indeed cited by the NT writers and applied to Jesus. Since this is the case, then Psalm 22:16 is applied to Jesus by straightforward logical deduction, since the entire passage is a unity, about one figure. In other words, attribution and application can occur logically, without the necessity of direct quotation. Matthew and Mark both clearly cite Psalm 22:1:<\/p>\n Psalm 22:1<\/strong> My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?<\/p>\n Matthew 27:46<\/strong> And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, \u201cEli, Eli, la\u2019ma sabach-tha\u2019ni?\u201d that is, \u201cMy God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d<\/p>\n Mark 15:34<\/strong> And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, \u201cE\u2019lo-i, E\u2019lo-i, la\u2019ma sabach-tha\u2019ni?\u201d which means, \u201cMy God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here is the most direct citation and attribution of fulfilled prophecy, in regard to Psalm 22:<\/p>\n \nJohn 19:23-24<\/strong> When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; [24] so they said to one another, \u201cLet us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.\u201d This was to fulfil the scripture, \u201cThey parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.\u201d<\/p>\n Psalm 22:18<\/strong> they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Compare very similar passages and likely cross-citations in Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and Luke 23:34. Since this cites Psalm 22:18: a passage that is a mere two verses away from 22;16 and clearly in reference to the same person, again, logically speaking, it follows that the NT writers also<\/em> think that 22:16 applies to Jesus (just as they think 22:1 does as well). Here is yet another citation:<\/p>\n Hebrews 2:11-12<\/strong> For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, [12] saying, \u201cI will proclaim thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee.\u201d<\/p>\n Psalm 22:22<\/strong> I will tell of thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Direct references are made to three passages: 22:1, 18, and 22. In fact, it has been observed that no Psalm is cited more<\/em> frequently than Psalm 22 in the New Testament (seven times: tied with Psalm 110). Mitch admits himself that all these passages are cited, in his Part IV<\/a>\u00a0of this series. But he wants to continue, for some odd reason, to say that it is highly significant that Psalm 22:16 itself is not quoted. And so he asserts (8:54 \u2013 9:09, 9:24-29):<\/p>\n As I noted earlier, not one of the Gospel writers, indeed, none of the New Testament writers cites Psalm 22, verse 16 in reference to Jesus\u2019 crucifixion. Let\u2019s face it. They didn\u2019t set the prophetic selection bar all that high. . . . all of them passed on Psalm 22:16.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He continues on, making an interesting linguistic argument about Psalm 22:16 and whether \u201cpierced\u201d is an acceptable translation of the literal \u201clike a lion\u201d. At least this actually has some degree of force.<\/p>\n I would submit in reply, a contextual<\/em> argument. What does a lion do<\/em> with prey, in the first place? Well, it pierces them with its teeth. What is \u201cthe power of the dog\u201d? What is the danger of a \u201cwide\u201d mouth of a wild animal and \u201chorns of the wild oxen\u201d? Again, biting or gorging and piercing of flesh . . . That is clear enough. The context alludes to piercing of various sorts as well:<\/p>\n [13<\/b>] they open wide their mouths<\/span> at me, [20<\/b>] Deliver my soul from the sword<\/span>, Therefore, following this possible line of argument, \u201cpierce\u201d at Psalm 22:16 would not be merely a Christian interjection designed to provoke images of crucifixion (as he insinuates), but rather, an acceptable rendering of what attacking lions do, with regard to context (Mitch\u2019s argument thus being reduced mostly to a distinction without a difference; i.e., \u201cpiercing\u201d and what lions do with prey not being all that widely different concepts). See other examples of the same Hebrew word (Strong\u2019s word #738<\/a>), referring to a lion:<\/p>\n 1 Samuel 17:37<\/strong> And David said, \u201cThe LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.\u201d<\/p>\n 1 Kings 13:26<\/strong> And when the prophet who had brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, \u201cIt is the man of God, who disobeyed the word of the LORD; therefore the LORD has given him to the <\/b>lion, which has torn him and slain him, according to the word which the LORD spoke to him.\u201d<\/p>\n Psalm 17:12<\/strong> They are like a <\/b>lion eager to tear, as a young lion lurking in ambush.<\/p>\n Ezekiel 22:25<\/strong> . . . like a roaring <\/b>lion tearing the prey . . .<\/p>\n Joel 1:6<\/strong> For a nation has come up against my land, powerful and without number; its teeth are lions\u2019 teeth, and it has the fangs of a lioness.<\/p>\n Micah 5:8<\/strong> . . . like a young <\/b>lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver.<\/p>\n Nahum 2:12<\/strong> The <\/b>lion tore enough for his whelps and strangled prey for his lionesses; he filled his caves with prey and his dens with torn flesh.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n An alternate argument (one that I myself favor, because it is more objective and based on hard manuscript evidence) would be to posit a textual dispute or change of some sort. The Septuagint (c. 150 B.C.) and the Vulgate (c. 400 A.D.) both had \u201cpiercing\u201d and they were translated from Hebrew (the NT writers routinely followed Septuagint Greek readings), leading some scholars to believe that older Hebrew manuscripts had a \u201cpierced\u201d reading. In fact, one such ancient Hebrew manuscript from the Dead Sea area has been translated (5\/6HevPsalms<\/em> Scroll). The textual difference between \u201clike a lion\u201d and \u201cthey pierced\u201d is a single letter.<\/p>\n The above paragraph is a summary of an argument made by Conrad R. Gren, in his superb and fascinating article, \u201cPiercing the Ambiguities of Psalm 22:16 and the Messiah\u2019s Mission\u201d <\/a>(Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/em> 48.2 [2005]: 283-99). I cite pages 287-288, and 294:<\/p>\n The Qumran Psalters do not contain this verse. However, a scroll from the same era found at nearby Nahal Hever known as 5\/6HevPsalms reads, \u201cThey have pierced my hands and my feet\u201d! [Abegg, Flint, Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible<\/em>, 519] Though the documents were found in 1951 or 52, this reading was not discovered until around 1997! Further, it did not appear in print until The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible<\/a><\/em> was published in 1999. The implications are enormous. Here we have a Hebrew text over 1,000 years older than the oldest known copy of the standard Hebrew Masoretic text, which supports the reading found in the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate. No longer can Hebrew scholars claim that the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate are here faulty reflections of the original Hebrew. . . .<\/p>\n We will therefore expect English translations prepared after this scroll\u2019s reading came to press in 1999 to reflect and cite the reading in the Nahal Hever scroll. . . . Future editions of the NRSV, NJB, REB, and NAB may read \u201cpierce,\u201d because they are usually at the forefront of versions that make use of Qumranic readings.<\/p>\n [ . . . ]<\/p>\n The deciphering of the contents of the 5\/6HevPsalms Scroll has changed the tenor of all future discussions of the Hebrew text underlying Ps 22:16. . . . It is one of three Psalms scrolls found outside the Qumran (Dead Sea) area. This scroll is written in a Herodian bookhand dating between ad 50 and 68. Flint believes that the scroll originally contained all 150 psalms known in today\u2019s Bible, but only portions from Psalms 7\u201318, 22\u201325, and 28\u201331 survive today . . .<\/p>\n This scroll\u2019s surviving text relevant to our discussion is found in col. XI, which contains Ps 22:4\u20139, 15\u201321.<\/p>\n [Dave: it appears on p. 519 in the 2002 edition linked above; viewable with the amazon \u201cLook Inside\u201d feature]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Mitch-generated Christian conspiracy to cynically insert \u201cpierced\u201d into the text is a questionable one, in any event, because many major English translations fail to do so (e.g., NAB, JB, NJB, NEB, REB, NRSV, Moffatt, Good News, NCV). But those don\u2019t reflect what is now the oldest known Hebrew manuscript (c. 50-68 A. D.). Other translations do a better job:<\/p>\n
\nlike a ravening and roaring lion<\/span>. . . .<\/p>\n
\nmy life from the power of the dog<\/span>!
\n[21<\/b>] Save me from the mouth of the lion<\/span>,
\nmy afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen<\/span>!<\/p><\/blockquote>\nIn Psalm 57:4, evil men are compared to lions: \u201c. . . their teeth are spears and arrows, their tongues sharp swords.\u201d Psalm 58:6 refers to the \u201cfangs\u201d of lions. Daniel 6:24 states, \u201cthe <\/b>lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces.\u201d<\/div>\n