MSH says:
July 25, 2011 at 10:09 PM
This reply shows that you are really assuming certain trajectories that are wrong-headed. Ill try to explain.
Brief version: The Jews of the first century had a mental mosaic of what messiah would be like and do not a list of verses for him to fulfill. There are actually very few overt prophecies in the OT that need or anticipate a messianic fulfillment. Rather than asking does this guy fulfill all these passages / prophecies? they were asking does he look like he fits the picture? Consequently, to evaluate THEIR expectations on a list of verses WE (modern scholars, Bible-believing Christians, etc.) have delineated just isnt going about the exercise the way they would have and so it is unfair and the results will invariably be skewered.
Longer version:
Asking if the NT authors were correct in their use of the OT has two points of incoherence. I therefore see your criticism and simplistic proof-texting of many Christians in this regard in the same light.
1. NT authors werent thinking about 1:1 correspondences with so-called messianic prophecy. There are actually very few prophecies (or even passages) in the OT that even use the word messiah. And NONE of them are of the variety of the messiah will say or do XYZ when he gets here. As a result, its sophistry to criticize the NT authors on that basis. Theyd look at you like you didnt know what they (or you) were doing. They just werent doing what you assume they were trying to do. You criticize them for failing at something they werent attempting to do. How is that methodologically sound?
Lest readers misunderstand, I am not saying you are along in this mistaken trajectory. Its news to Christians and pastors, too. Ill repeat my statement above: There are actually very few prophecies (or even passages) in the OT that even use the word messiah. And NONE of them are of the variety of the messiah will say or do XYZ when he gets here. Dont believe me? Below is a link to a PDF that shows the search results for all the occurrences of Hebrew mashiach (anointed one; messiah) in the OT. Read through them. Theres nothing there that says when messiah comes he will do / say XYZ. The proof is in the pudding. And so your criticism is quite misguided (but effective against people who dont know better).
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/lemmamashiachmessiahinOT.pdf
So, in view of all this, how did Jews have a messianic expectation with so few references to an eschatological messiah? As I noted above in the brief version, while they didnt have a list of verses, they had a mosaic of expectations as to what their messiah would be like and what they presumed he was supposed to do. Some of these are fairly specific e.g., they expected messiah to be from the line of David, of the tribe of Judah, born in Bethlehem but not because any verse that has the word messiah in its says these things. It was primarily because of the (in order) the covenant with David (2 Sam 7, Psalm 89), the use of royal motifs and terms in relation to Judah (Gen 49:10; Micah 5:2). These OT passages form parts of a picture (a mosaic); they are not in and of themselves terribly specific. Even Micah 5:2 could have spoken of any ruler of Israel there is nothing in the text that says it ONLY applies to an eschatological messiah. But you, John, would over-read passages like that and press them as though they are more specific than they are (and youd be in Christian company many Christians I presume would be disturbed at what I just said Micah 5:2 need not apply to the messiah but Im just letting that text be as non-specific as it is).
2. This mosaic approach to OT messianism means that the rules of interpretive engagement in the first century often dont conform to modern constructs like the grammatical historical method (born as it was of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Why? Because were smart and they were dumb? Thats basically your argument. But the truth is much more simple and less egotistical. Its because the first century Jew was thinking analogically, not as though Text A produces Interpretation A (i.e., as though we must tell that the former gave birth to the latter). The ancients were thinking in terms of patterns, motifs and other hooks that would reveal connections (a mosaic or network, not a single, linear 1:1 thought correspondence). In other words, a first century Jew looking at his Old Testament and, hearing your (our modern believers) interpretive strategy and would either say youre dense or your method sucks (in Aramaic or Hebrew, of course).
Now, how do I know Im right in saying the above? Two short examples. First, there is Zerubbabel. He didnt fulfill any direct messianic statement, but to Jews of his day, the second temple period, he looked like a candidate worthy of consideration. Why? Because he fit certain expectations that had nothing to do with proof-texting specific messianic statements (of which there are few). Zerubbabel was in the line of David and he was the political leader of the Jews returning from exile (their sin was pardoned)
to restore the nation of Israel (the kingdom). He was governor of Judah, so he could have fit Micah 5:2. Notice back to the text here that verse actually doesnt say that the ruler from Judah had to be *born* in Bethlehem; rather, he had to come forth from that town. What does that mean? You could probably justify a lot of associations with Bethlehem to feel like a candidate fit the picture. My point here is that Zerubbabel was not disqualified from looking like a messianic candidate because he was born in Babylon, not Bethlehem, since Micah 5:2 never mentions birth as a requirement (but to be sure, a birth there would create a firm association). But I dont imagine you or the sources you cite ever noticed that. And its not because you arent smart (you obviously are); its because you have accepted a caricatured expectation of messianism, brought with you in your flight from Christianity.
Anyway, what Im trying to get to is this. To judge the NT authors by standards foreign to them is wrong-headed. To understand how the NT use of the OT is coherent you have to see the nodes of the conceptual network / the pieces of the mosaic. You have to understand how THEY were thinking (not how you wish they were thinking, or how you could have thought better, in your mind at least). The NT mosaic for messiah is composed of motifs, technical terms, concepts, symbols, etc. that derive from ancient Near Eastern concepts of royalty, kingship, priesthood, shepherding, warfare, hierarchy, etc. as opposed to listing proof-texts. If it was as easy as proof-texting, the disciples could have just looked things up. Instead, they relied on 20/20 hindsight. As time went by, what Jesus did and said *reminded* them of aspects of the mosaic, the network.
The above is why your challenge was and is pointless. It is misguided because youve spent too much time shooting at a caricature, thinking youre hitting something and scoring. Youre not. (But Im sure youve buried lots of lay people and preachers whose view of all this is just as simplistic as your own).