Response to Apollos

Islamispeace -

Your citing of Trypho only proves that the Hosea 11 passage was not addressed. It leaves you therefore with an argument from silence not a refutation of my argument."

No, it shows that the reason it was not addressed was because there was nothing to address.  It shows that the Gospel of Matthew is alone, even in early Christian theology, in trying to establish a link between Hosea 11 and the Messiah's alleged return from Egypt.

Justin Martyr specifically mentions the exodus to Egypt and Herod's plot.  But, he clearly did not see that as having any link, whether literal or allegorical, with Hosea 11.

Reply by Apollos:

That is your assertion but it is as I said, an argument from silence. Justin Martyr did not repeat or quote a number of things in his writings but that does not mean he rejected them. That would be foolish to conclude that. If you were to show that he actually repudiated the appeal to Hosea 11, that would be evidence on your side but you don�t have that at all.

Furthermore, you completely ignored the point I made about how Trypho, a Jew, makes no mention of any allegorical meanings in Isaiah!  According to his religious opinion, which I think has more weight than Christian opinions regarding the Old Testament, the verses in Isaiah were always interpreted as applying to Hezekiah.  Therefore, the argument that there was some allegorical meaning is mute. 

Reply by Apollos:

I am not ignoring this. But you seem to think it profound that a Jew who rejects Jesus as Messiah would reject TANACH prophecies that Jesus� followers applied to Him. It is an after the fact explanation that is every bit as biased as the Jews you dismiss because they accepted Jesus as Messiah. Since Trypho is a couple hundred years after Targum Jonathan and it shows a different Jewish opinion than Trypho on Isaiah 7:14, you have proven how Jewish opinion changed after Jesus came.

 

"I think you are missing my initial challenge to your comments on Matthew and Hosea. I said and continue to say that the different views Jews took when studying Torah includes patterns, allegories, analogies, etc. Therefore when you presume that Matthew intended �fulfillment� to be the literal prediction-fulfillment of Hosea 11, you are missing the Jewish context. Even if Matthew was wrong in appealing to Hosea 11 as he did, he would have to be wrong on the dual or pattern aspect he intended. For the reader to do as you initially did � thinking he was appealing to the literal (Peshat) meaning of the passage � that is wrong."

You have failed to prove that he was doing anything else!  He certainly doesn't say how he established a link between the two stories.  All you have been saying that is he "could" have been doing that!  Your entire position is based on conjecture.  Matthew "could have..." or "probably was..." are not good arguments.  On the other hand, I have shown you why I think my premise is right and that Matthew was wrong in his interpretation.  Your response to my points has been to ignore the information presented.

Reply by Apollos:

I have shown � and you agreed - that everything in the Torah should be studied as if it could have 3 or 4 levels of meaning. Therefore when I see that Matthew�s appeal to Hosea 11 does not make sense according to the Peshat perspective, it is not just conjecture to conclude that he is referring to one of the other levels of meaning. Since allegory and analogy are part of the other orthodox levels of meaning  any passage can have, and this passage makes perfect sense as an allegory or analogy to Jesus being in Egypt and then being called out, I see no reason to question anything about the passage. Your premise is that Matthew doesn�t have anti-Jesus Jewish agreement on his statement so he must be wrong, no matter what level of meaning he is referring to. Yours is a totally subjective criteria and objection.

 

"You claim that I am changing my argument but it is you who have changed yours. You initially claimed Matthew was referring to a literal prediction-fulfillment of Hosea 11. I gave you reasons why this is a na�ve and incorrect reading of Matthew based on Jewish perspectives. You then admit that analogies, metaphors, types, etc. are valid ways Jews have and continue to interpret Torah but you argue that Matthew was not justified in interpreting Hosea 11 this way. Your argument has changed so my response has changed."

I don't think my argument has changed.  My initial argument was that from the Jewish perspective, Matthew's appeal to Hosea was wrong.  I showed you the Jewish perspective to prove that I was right.  I did not contend your claim that Jews can and do interpret the text in allegorical ways, because that is irrelevant.  I have no reason to contend that.  What I posited was that Jews do not interpret Hosea 11 in an allegorical way. 

 

Reply by Apollos:

You contend that anti-Jesus Jews do not interpret Hosea 11 this way. So what?

 

To support that position, I showed you a modern Jewish perspective, and when you asked for it, the ancient Jewish perspective as well. 

 

Reply by Apollos:

Your �ancient� example is still after Jesus came and as part of what you have referenced, you have shown that it differs with earlier pre-Jesus Targum.

 

Yet you, although not surprisingly, rejected the evidence presented and claimed that the Christian interpretation is just as good, hence your presentation of 100% Christian material.  Not once have you presented Jewish literature to support your position, even though ironically you have been going on and on about the importance of looking at the Jewish perspective! 

 

Reply by Apollos:

Excuse me � I referenced a Targum on Hosea and Isaiah. I referenced the orthodox Jewish approach to Torah study. After you objected to my quoting Christian Jews, I limited my argument to Jewish statements and logical conclusions. When I first recommended you consider the Jewish perspective, it was in relation to understanding what Matthew meant by the word �fulfillment� as he references a passage from TANACH. It was not to say that we need to consider the current Jewish opinion about the New Testament. That would make as much sense as someone saying you should consider the Bahai opinion of the Quran before deciding what it means.

 

If you want to contend that there was more than one way that Jews interpreted the text of Hosea 11, then you must prove that.  Just saying "well, I have shown that Jews read the text in other ways other than Peshat" is not a valid argument.

Reply by Apollos:

You are again making the faulty conclusion that no Jew � even one who was a disciple of Jesus � could express a new interpretation of a passage in TANACH. This is contrary to logic and the history of Judaism. I think it is likely that no one considered Hosea 11 as referring to the Messiah until after Jesus came. It was then that Matthew - and possibly others � said: �Hey, when we consider the details of Jesus life, there are some passages from TANACH that now seem like they have an allusion to, a foreshadow of, or a hint to what Jesus ultimately did. I�m going to call attention to these passages when I tell people about Him.�

 

"I did not say � as you assert � that other writer�s confirm Matthew�s interpretation of Hosea 11. I said clearly: �that we have 3 or 4 other writers who say the same thing about Jesus giving Matthew this authority�. That is an important factor if Matthew is presenting something unique."

Well, that is the problem isn't it?  I am merely concerned with why Matthew claimed that Hosea 11 prophesied about the Messiah.  When you brought up the other Gospel writers, I responded appropriately that none of them mentions anything similar.  No Magi, no plot from Herod, no warning to Joseph and Mary, no exodus to Egypt and hence no return from Egypt.  Put that all together, and there is no appeal to Hosea 11.  That was my point.  I am not concerned with their other claims regarding Jesus, because that is not the topic of this thread.  If you want to discuss that, please open another thread.  Otherwise, your appeal to the other Gospel writers is nothing more than a red herring.

Reply by Apollos:

No � this is more of you wanting to dictate a subjective and arbitrary criteria that limits my response to only the people you want to accept as valid. You are also tipping your hand when you say such things. Earlier you dismissed Paul�s comments because he was just another Christian who should be expected to agree with Matthew. Now you want to say that because other Gospel writers did not repeat what Matthew wrote, his statements must be dubious. For you, if they agree, it must be collusion. If they differ it must be a contradiction. There is no way to accommodate your criteria is there?

 

 

"I admit that without appealing to Matthew�s authority or information from Jesus, it is not likely that one can confirm that his interpretation of Hosea 11 is correct. But neither can one refute his claim."

I just did refute his claim!  I have done it several times!  I showed that his interpretation was in complete contradiction to the traditional Jewish interpretation!  If that is not evidence, then I don't know what is! 

 

Reply by Apollos:

As mentioned earlier, you did not. You proved that Trypho and later Jews had a different opinion than Matthew or the earlier Targums.

 

"To do that we would have to have contrary Jewish views from his time and we would have to know that those contrary views were the correct ones. You haven�t provided any evidence of this and I don�t see how anyone could."

If you ignore the evidence, then of course I haven't provided any evidence.  I showed you a 2nd century Jewish opinion and a modern one as well.  Both, ironically, agree with each other.  What more do you want? 

 

Reply by Apollos:

I told you early on � Pre-Jesus statements.

 

"You apparently think this is an important issue but I do not."

Well, of course I do.  If we are supposed to base our salvation on this person's claims, and we are shown that this person has made a completely contradictory claim to history, then would it make sense to follow this person?  Of course not. 

Reply by Apollos:

We are supposed to base our salvation on trusting Jesus as our savior. Matthew is not the only one to describe Him for us. And you made quite a leap from your claim that Matthew did not reference Hosea 11 correctly to Matthew making �a completely contradictory claim to history�. If you had proof that Jesus didn�t go to Egypt for a short time, then you would be able to chip away at the reliability of Matthew�s history but your argument has only bolstered Matthew�s credibility on this point. For in your scenario, Matthew was so interested in finding some �prophecy� Jesus could fulfill that he picked a ridiculous one and then concocted a series of events to fit the fulfillment. Never mind that his readers would know what Herod did during this time, what Jesus� mother Mary was telling people about Jesus� early years, or whether a massacre of children had occurred. If Matthew was lying about these events, the �fulfillment� aspect would be the least of his worries. People would have rejected his writing and we would find writings that proudly proclaimed the fiction he was trying to describe.

 

 

"The reason is � I view Matthew�s writing as a solid historical account about Jesus. It could have errors in it like the one you claim and it would still be a good historical account of Jesus."

If it did have errors in it, and it certainly does, than it is not worth following.  Moreover, if it does have errors, then out the window goes the claim that the writer was "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, because why woudl the Holy Spirit give the writer false information?

Reply by Apollos:

You have not shown that it has an error in it � just a contradiction in interpretation with anti-Jesus Jews. As for the �inspired� claim, there are many Christians who accept Matthew as good history without his writing being �inspired�. I for one don�t know if Matthew or any of the NT is �inspired� in the way the TANACH is. But that doesn�t mean the content is less reliable or authoritative. We have the written testimony of the disciples of Jesus concerning what He said and did and what he meant by these actions and words. This trumps what the enemies of Jesus said, believed or later concocted to reject Him.

 

 

"In fact, whatever Matthew intended by appealing to Hosea 11, we can conclude that Jesus must have been in <ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN w:st="on">Egypt</ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN> as a young child."

You can conclude that, but I and many others don't.  I think the story was concocted to give credence to the claim that Jesus was God's son.  There is no historical evidence that anything of the sort claimed by Matthew ever happened; no evidence of a massacre of children 2 and younger and no evidence of wise men from the East meeting with Herod to find and worship the Messiah.

Reply by Apollos:

So we have Matthew slapping together a ridiculous fiction with sloppy references to TANACH and yet somehow contemporary Jews not only forgot to object to this, many actually swallowed it. Your reasoning is also self-stultifying as you say he concocted all of this to give credence to the claim that Jesus was God�s son. If the verse in Hosea 11 wasn�t understood as being an analogy or foreshadow of the Messiah, it makes no sense to apply it to Jesus � unless it relates to some details of Jesus� life that others knew about. If Matthew is willing to lie about Jesus� life to �fulfill� Hosea 11, it makes no sense to create such an elaborate detailed series of events that others would know the truth about. He could have simply had Jesus visit a relative in Egypt and skipped over all the Herod, Magi, massacre, etc.

 

There are a number NT historical claims that were not corroborated until later and the interim silence does not reflect contrary evidence. It is just another fallacious argument from silence.

 

"If Matthew was concocting �prophecies� it wouldn�t be about fictitious events in Jesus life, would it? It would be about well known events that he was trying to legitimize."

Why not?  Stories have a tendency to get around quickly and become legends in a short amount of time.  How do you think the pagan myths took hold?  They were fictitious events right?  Or did Zeus actually impregnate Semele, as claimed by Greek mythology?  Or did Vespasian actually heal two Romans with the power of Serapis, as claimed by Tacitus? 

Reply by Apollos:

False analogies. Your examples are not analogous to the well-known public events that Matthew refers to. Pagan myths don�t claim to have historical roots but always occur �long long ago in a place far away� or in the presence of people who no longer live to confirm or refute the mythical events.

 

"So every odd or questionable reference Matthew makes to TANACH is a strong indication that the corresponding event in Jesus� life was an actual historical one. Even if Jesus did not fulfill any of the prophecies Matthew attributes to Him, we can have confidence that Matthew is telling us what Jesus really did and said. And the things Jesus said and did are very important."

 

 

islamispeace wrote: [QUOTE=believer]Matthew is simply quoting the very frst verse and nothing else.  [/QUOTE\ Let me repeat.  The verse refers to Israel and not the Messiah!  In context, the verse is linked with the rest of Hosea 11.  Matthew had not business quoting one verse and discarding the rest!

Matthew is completely justified in referencing one verse or even part of a verse in a larger passage. Peter did it, Paul did it and Jesus did it. In Luke 4:17-19, Jesus stopped quoting Isaiah in the middle of a sentence, closed the book and said that this part of Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled that day. The people were amazed that someone would do this because not finishing a passage or sentence was never done by the Rabbis. But Jesus showed here and elsewhere that the proper way of interpreting a passage was not always the obvious simple way they were accustomed to. God is the one who inspired the original Scripture and He is the one who determines how it is to be interpreted. If Jesus was from God and if He instructed and authorized His disciples to interpret certain passages His way, who are you to object?

Addendum to my last response:

Apollos, let us talk about the Targum.  I have been unable to find the books of Hosea in the Targum, but I did do some research on the Psalms of David.  Once again, I looked at the Gospel of Matthew.  I wanted to see if all your claims about the Targum are valid.  So, I checked Matthew 22:41-44, where he quotes Jesus (pbuh):

"⁴¹While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, ⁴²"What do you think about the Christ[d]? Whose son is he?"
      "The son of David," they replied.

 ⁴³He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
 ⁴⁴" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
      "Sit at my right hand
   until I put your enemies
      under your feet." '[e] ⁴⁵If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" ⁴⁶No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions."1

Now, this is supposedly a reference to Psalm 110:1.  According to the literal translation of the Psalm, the reading is simply:

"¹ The LORD says to my Lord:
       "Sit at my right hand
       until I make your enemies
       a footstool for your feet.""2

Very vague, and no mention of the Messiah.  But, let's look at what the Targums say:

"Psalm 110

1.     Composed by David, a psalm. The Lord said in his decree to make me [meaning David] lord of all Israel, but he said to me, �Wait still for Saul of the tribe of Benjamin to die, for one reign must not encroach on another;[5] and afterwards I will make your enemies a prop for your feet.� Another Targum: The Lord spoke by his decree to give me the dominion in exchange for sitting in study of Torah. �Wait at my right hand until I make your enemies a prop for your feet.� Another Targum: The Lord said in his decree to appoint me ruler over Israel, but the Lord said to me, �Wait for Saul of the tribe of Benjamin to pass away from the world; and afterwards you will inherit the kingship, and I will make your enemies a prop for your feet.�

2.     The Lord will send from Zion the rod of your strength, and you will rule in the midst of your enemies.

3.     Your people are those of the house of Israel who devote themselves to the Torah; you will be helped in the day of your making battle with them; in the glories of holiness the mercies of God will hasten to you like the descent of dew; your offspring dwell securely.

4.     The Lord has sworn[6] and will not turn aside, that you are appointed leader in the age to come, because of the merit that you were a righteous king.

5.     The presence of the Lord is at your right hand; he struck down kings on the day of his anger.

6.     He was appointed judge over the Gentiles; the earth is full of the bodies of the slain wicked; he smote the heads of kings on the earth, very many. 

7.     He will receive instruction from the mouth of the prophet on the way; because of this, he will lift up his head."3

Interpret for me please what this all means.

Edited by islamispeace - 29 May 2009 at 5:08pm

Apollos,

Now you are making me laugh.  The hostility in your words is blatantly obvious, but it does not bother me at all, because I have come to expect this from some Christians when they can't answer questions raised against their religion.  They go off on tangents or resort to ad hominem attacks against the questioner. 

"I will answer your objections to Jesus� comments about Psalm 22 and then I will ask that you set forth the criteria that you use in your �studies�. It is obvious to me that you do not use the same criteria or approach on all history but just the history you don�t like."

The criteria I use are those that are required for historical study.  I rely on primary sources to investigate the historical claims made by people.  What "criteria" am I to use, in your mind?  I simply took your advice.  You told me to look at the Targum, because they are apparently more accurate, and so after I responded to your last post, I decided to look further into the Targum.  I found a Targum version of the Psalms and I remember that the Gospel of Matthew had quoted a verse in Psalm as a reference to the Messiah, Psalm 110:1.  Since the main topic of our debate was the Gospel of Matthew and its many strange claims, I thought it was worthwhile to see if there is any truth in your claim about the Targums.  And lo and behold, there isn't! 

"When Jesus asserted that Psalm 22: 41 was a reference to the Messiah, the Jews did not answer the challenge as some now do because they knew it referred to the Messiah. If they believed �my Lord� was Saul or David talking about himself in the third person, etc. they would have had an answer for Jesus rather than silence.'"

Psalm 22:41?  There is no such verse! 

Your entire premise is based on Matthew's claims.  Once again, in your desperation, you resort to circular reasoning.  You told me to look at the Targums!  Right?  I did and what did I find?  I found that your claims were incorrect and now as before you try to do an about-face.  The Targums say very clearly that David was talking about himself.  If you want to question the Targums now, well, that's your choice, but the fact remains that you made a premature claim, without doing the research (only copying material from like-minded websites), and in the end you looked silly.

"I have not studied the various Targum quotes you reference but even if they are pre-Jesus, you have shown that there is not a consensus in the Targums and the differences are exclusive. All three can�t be correct so at least two are incorrect."

Well, maybe you should study them first before making silly posts and questioning your opponent's "criteria".  How interesting it is that before, the Targums were so much more authentic (you brought them up when they suit your purpose---sound familiar?), but now, when your argument lies shattered, you forsake them! 

The point of all this is to expose the holes in your arguments.  Either the Targums are reliable or they are not.  Notice that I have not made any claims about the Targums.  It was you who brought them up and I am simply putting your claims to the test.  And everytime I do, they fail miserably.

"You apparently think any Jewish interpretation is superior to Jesus� interpretation and I presume exactly the opposite. The Messiah is certainly more qualified to explain which statements from the TANACH describe Him than those trying to understand what God�s prophets said.""

Need I remind you that it was you, not me, who was harping about how one should look at the Targums when trying to interpret the text.  It seems that when the Targums suit your purpose, you cling to them like an infant clings to it mother, but when they don't agree with you, you throw mud at them.  You recommended the Targums as the appropriate Jewish source to better understand the the claims made in the Gospel of Matthew.  But, now, oh no it's what Jesus said that is better.  The Targums are worthless now to you, it seems. 

"Even Jews after Jesus agree that �my Lord� in Psalm 110 is a reference to the Messiah. There are Midrash and other commentaries I cold quote but I don�t see a need for this. Even today I have only heard Jews object to the idea that the �adonai� of Psalm 110 being a reference to the deity of the Messiah. In arguing that it only means �master� in the passage, they acknowledge that it still refers to the Messiah."

So, now we are on the Midrash?  Before, it was all Targums.  Targums this, Targums that�but now, they are worthless.  Picking and choosing are we, Apollos?

 

By all means, quote the commentaries.  Stop beating around the bush.  Your argument is useless as I used the very criteria that you wanted.  You wanted the Targums and I have given them to you.

"I can see that you have an endless collection of objections to New Testament references to TANACH."

Well, only as many as can be found in the New Testament!

"I surmise that you don�t agree with ancient or modern Jews but you want to quote their objections when it is convenient and quote the objections of atheists when that suits you."

I surmise that when you are cornered, you start questioning my motives.  If my motives are wrong and my methodology for study is wrong, then surely you can prove me wrong.  Thus far, all you have been doing is changing your argument or attacking my "criteria". 

My feelings about the theology of the Jews are quite clear.  I feel that they have to a certain extent corrupted the divine revelation, but so have the Christians and it does not surprise me that neither can agree with each other.  Even then, the Jews have preserved at least the monotheistic message, which the Christians have not, so it does not surprise me that the verses which Christians cling to do not live up to their apparent  miraculous nature.  That is because the Jews never considered the Messiah to be divine.  I agree with the Jews here.  The point is that whether the Jewish texts are right or not, I am simply using the criteria stated by the New Testament writers to test their claims.  They were the ones who made the claims that Hosea 11 had a prophecy, or that Psalm 110 was talking about the Messiah.  When I looked at those texts, I saw nothing resembling what was claimed.  Whether those texts are right or wrong is not relevant.  What is relevant is whether what the Christian writers claimed about these texts is true or not.  As I have shown, they are not.

 

What �atheist� objections are you talking about?  I haven�t used any atheist sources, so stop making asinine allegations.  If there is any truth in your claims, why are you having such a hard time refuting the arguments presented?  Why is there no consistency in your response?  Are the Targums reliable or are they not?  Which Jewish interpretation is correct?  Where are the Midrash commentaries which prove your point?  Why is it that every Jewish opinion presented thus far contradicts your claims, when it wa you who was harping about how it's important to look at all this from the Jewish perspective?

 

�You seem to argue that God�s messengers are disqualified if they say something new or corrective but that would imply that there was no need for a message from God  in the first place and I think you do believe God sends messengers.�

 

New?  No.  Corrective?  Possibly.  The messengers never brought anything new.  The message was the same.  They may have been sent to correct false beliefs, but then there would have to be some evidence that the truth was corrupted.  The past scriptures mention nothing even remotely resembling the Christian beliefs.  No trinity.  No son of God coming to die for everyone�s sins.  No God in flesh on earth.  These are all new inventions, falsely attributed to the true messengers of God.  Prove me wrong, if you are doubtful.

 

�The only thing I am sure of is your presumption that the writers of the NT can�t be telling the truth.�

 

Of course, but that is based on research.  I looked into the claims of the New Testament authors, and I have seen that more often than not, they were wrong in their claims.  I have also seen that the New Testament is not supported by third party sources, nor is it preserved.  We have nothing to verify the claims made in the New Testament.  We don�t have Jesus� words.  We have the words of people who claimed to be his disciples, and yet not a single manuscript exists of these accounts from the 1^st century. 

 

But what do my �presumptions� matter?  If they are so wrong, why are you having such trouble answering them? 

 

�This isn�t a conclusion for you but a starting premise. Otherwise you would give these writers � as we do all writers � the benefit of the doubt when it comes to puzzles or questions in what they say.�

 

Nothing but a smoke-screen.  If you did this, then you would give equal credence to the very Jewish sources which contradict you.  But, hypocritically, you criticize me for my �presumptions� but you can�t seem to realize that you are the one who has already decided what to except and what not to expect. 

 

�So my question for you is � what is your criteria for assessing the validity of NT statements and how do you apply that criteria to the Quran or Hadiths? If you don�t have a consistent criteria you would be a hypocrite and phony that no one should take seriously. If you have a criteria that you employ with all history including Islam, I would like to know what it is. It does not appear to be anything I have seen from scholars of history but I would like to understand what it is.�

 

I look at the primary sources, if any, from the time in question.  So, for claims made in the Bible about the 1^st century, I look at the primary sources from the 1st century.  The same goes for the Quran.  The Quran makes historical statements which have been verified from third party sources.  For instance, it refers to the Year of the Elephant, the year the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was born, and how an army tried to attack the Kaaba but was repelled when God sent a flock of birds to defend it.  This event is confirmed by an account written by an Arabian, Nufail bin Habeeb, who witnessed the event.  Therefore, even non-Muslim sources support the Quran here.  These are the criteria I use.

 

Don�t worry about what others think.  You can�t speak for them.  Speak for yourself.

Edited by islamispeace - 31 May 2009 at 1:43pm