panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
from:
http://www.apologetics.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/3/t/000450.html
?
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by jdlongmire]
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by jdlongmire]
http://www.apologetics.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/3/t/000450.html
Mathetes - a user on Apologetics.com said:I wrote my master's thesis on this very issue, after reading three books written by Jewish authors as handbooks for Jews who were trying to be converted by Christian missionaries.
And I concluded that these Jewish authors were right. In almost every case (there were a couple passages in which I disagreed with their conclusions), it is illegitimate to view these Tanakh passages as predictive prophecies of the Messiah.
In fact, after concluding this, I came close to converting to Judaism!!! However, I decided to do some research into first century Jewish hermeneutical practices, and found (what I believe to be) a solid alternative.
Matthew (and the rest) were not utilizing these Tanakh passages as predictive prophecy, but rather were using pesher exegesis. This was a common practice in the first century, primarily found in the Aramaic targums (if my memory serves me correctly). Instead of predictive prophecy (which states: "this passage is fulfilled in that historical event"), pesher exegesis states: "this passages is similar to that historical event."
It stemmed from the belief that God worked consistently throughout history; that one could see his fingerprints in various unrelated actions, in the way things happen in similar fashions.
Therefore, what was Matthew doing in the infancy narrative? He was not, contrary to many Christian scholars, claiming that the Tanakh PREDICTED specific elements which prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Rather, Matthew was arguing that events in the early life of Jesus were SIMILAR to that of events in the lives of previous messiahs.
Why? Most scholars believe that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience. He thus needed to demonstrate that a guy who just died on a cross as a convicted criminal COULD actually be the long-awaited messiah. Not an easy task, to say the least! His "proofs" are going to be in the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. In the first two chapters, he is simply setting the stage to demonstrate that Jesus COULD have been the Messiah ... for events in his early life parallel that of previous messiahs.
For example, Matthew makes parallels to Hezekiah (Matt 1:23), to being born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:5), to Moses (Matt 2:15), to the people of Israel being cast into captivity (Matt 2:18), and possibly to Samson (Matt 2:23).
He makes 15-20 other similar references throughout his gospel, including to David (Matt 27:46).
If we understand the PURPOSE of Matthew, through the eyes of a first century scholar as opposed to a twenty-first century scholar, Matthew's line of argumentation becomes far clearer, In my humble opinion.
?
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by jdlongmire]
[Edited on 2-7-2005 by jdlongmire]