Sadly more and more Muslims seem to take over atheist attacks on the Bible without carefully thinking over if these assumptions and principles of approaching scripture are even acceptable. One such piece is the following from Mr. Farrell Till from the Internet Infidels.
This prophecy will very likely come up later if Dr. Price decides to participate in a debate on prophecy fulfillment, but for now, I want to call his attention to what Luke alleged that Jesus told his disciples the night of his resurrection: "Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:47). The apostle Paul also alleged that the scriptures had spoken of the Messiah's resurrection on the third day: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried and he has been raised on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). So here are two New Testament statements, one of them allegedly made by Jesus himself, that the scriptures (which would have had to have been the Old Testament) had spoken of the Christ's resurrection ON THE THIRD DAY. I now issue a challenge to Dr. Price. I defy him to find any Old Testament passage that ever prophesied that the Messiah would be resurrected on the third day. (Farrell Till)
I decided to forward this to Dr. Price while adding my own questions:
Any ideas? One that satisfies you, even if it wouldn't ever satisfy a Farrell Till?
And Dr. Price responds:
Of course Till's challenge is a safe one because he knows that there is no OT passage that has those specific statements. Till will demand a specific statement in the OT concerning the third day. But this is imposing our Western idea of prophecy upon the ancient Jewish understanding of it. Till tried to trap me into debating that prophecy rather than one of my own choice. I did not fall for his trap, but chose one that is much easier to defend. A study of how Jesus and the NT authors interpreted prophecy indicates that to the Jewish interpreters there were at three levels of prophetic statements: (1) direct, specific statements like we Westerners expect; (2) prophecy by analogy--acts of Israel or God that typify the Messiah; for example--"Out of Egypt I called My Son" (Hos 11:1; Matt 2:15) (3) prophecy by similarity--ancient events that are prophetically similar to later events; for example--"A voice was heard in Ramah, ..." (Jer 31:15; Matt 2:18) The question is: How did the ancient Jews understand the term "prophecy," not how do we Westerners think it should be interpreted. All three types were regarded by the ancient Jews as prophecy, so that is the proper way of interpreting the Scripture. The incident of Jonah's three days and three nights in the fish was of type (2). It involved a typical resurrection, if not a real one, and it occurred after 3 days. Jesus referred to this event in the life of the prophet as a prophetic sign of His resurrection (Matt 12:38-42; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). In several OT prophecies Messiah's resurrection is declared or implied. When Jesus taught His disciples about the resurrection, He brought together several prophetic passages to present the whole picture, some of type (1) and some of type (2). This composite view of the resurrection satisfies the statements "it is written" (Luke 24:47) and "according to Scripture" (1 Cor 15:3-4). Nothing in those words demands one specific passage in the OT that declares the composite picture. It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition.
The above was shared on the Muslim/Christian Dialog list and Adnan Khan again decided to enlist the infidels (the name they give themselves) to debate the issue and so the following responses are giving the arguments.
Subj: The Jonah "Analolgy": Date: 97-07-12 12:24:26 EDT From: jftill@midwest.net (Farrell Till) To: errancy@infidels.org CC: drjdprice@aol.com PRICE It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition. TILL Price chides me for the unspeakable crime of demanding reasonable proof of outlandish claims, but in everything he said in the paragraph above, one clear message shines through: he can't prove that the resurrection of the Messiah was prophesied in the OT, but he is going to believe it anyway. Just who is the intellectually dishonest party in this dispute? CARR I agree. Can anybody read Price's paragraph without wincing at the sheer absurdity of it? Price is virtually stating that for believers, just about anything will be sufficient, even if they have to their own special definitions.
From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Subject: Till & Jesus What follows is my first reply to Till. James D. Price ==================================== Dear Farrell Till: Thanks for sending me a CC of your discussion with Mr. Carr about my statement on the Jonah Analogy. First let me make it clear that my discussion of that question was not submitted to you, nor to the errancy list. It was a private correspondence with a believer answering his query. I don't know how you got hold of it, that doesn't matter. But it must be evaluated in light of its original recipient and the context in which it was submitted. PRICE It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition. TILL Price chides me for the unspeakable crime of demanding reasonable proof of outlandish claims, but in everything he said in the paragraph above, one clear message shines through: he can't prove that the resurrection of the Messiah was prophesied in the OT, but he is going to believe it anyway. Just who is the intellectually dishonest party in this dispute? Price: A discussion between people who agree on what they accept as authority is different than one between people who do not agree on an accepted authority. Through a careful evaluation of the evidence, Mr. Katz and I agree that Jesus Christ is a valid authority. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to agree with Jesus' teaching on OT prophecy. I explained to him that you and I do not agree on that authority, therefore it is reasonable that we disagree. What is wrong with that explanation? I gave Mr. Katz evidence that would be satisfactory to him. I understand that you demand greater documentation of my statements. Remember that my post was not addressed to you, nor is it a part of our debate on the topic of fulfilled prophecy. Nevertheless, I will provide documentation when I respond to your subsequent uninvited criticism of my statement. I did not accuse you of intellectual dishonesty in my post to Mr. Katz, nor have I ever made such an accusation. So I do not see any reason for your remark about my intellectual honesty. My understanding of intellectual dishonesty is a refusal to accept valid, convincing evidence. What valid, convincing evidence have I refused to accept in my post to Mr. Katz? CARR I agree. Can anybody read Price's paragraph without wincing at the sheer absurdity of it? Price is virtually stating that for believers, just about anything will be sufficient, even if they have to their own special definitions. Price: Mr. Carr's response consists of blatant ridicule. He had nothing to say about the evidence I presented. Reasonable thinkers wince at such absurd, emotional, fallacious arguments. He has read into my statement a generalization that I never made. This is known as the fallacy of hasty generalization. My statement related to the specific question Mr. Katz asked, and to the specific evidence I presented. No more, no less. Come on, Fellows, get real!! James D. Price
The next two pieces are Mr. Till's response. After that we will list the answer by Dr. Price to them.
Subj: Third-Day Prophecy Date: 97-07-12 23:30:54 EDT From: jftill@midwest.net (Farrell Till) To: errancy@infidels.org CC: drjdprice@aol.com TILL This prophecy will very likely come up later if Dr. Price decides to participate in a debate on prophecy fulfillment, but for now, I want to call his attention to what Luke alleged that Jesus told his disciples the night of his resurrection: "Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:47). The apostle Paul also alleged that the scriptures had spoken of the Messiah's resurrection on the third day: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried and he has been raised on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). So here are two New Testament statements, one of them allegedly made by Jesus himself, that the scriptures (which would have had to have been the Old Testament) had spoken of the Christ's resurrection ON THE THIRD DAY. I now issue a challenge to Dr. Price. I defy him to find any Old Testament passage that ever prophesied that the Messiah would be resurrected on the third day. KATZ So, I did forward it to Dr. Price adding my own questions: I have seen this question before and I have been looking around in my commentaries and it is quite meager. Well, the "rising" is in several passages [Isaiah 53, and the Psalm that Peter quotes on the Pentecost sermon] but the three is not really ... the only thing that Jesus himself connects it back to explicitely is the like Jonah was three days in the fish ,.... thing. So, if one accepts prophecy based on typology and/or midrashic interpretations one might be able to make a case from that. But it is certainly not the way modern exegesis goes. Any ideas? One that satisfies you, even if it wouldn't ever satisfy a Farrell Till? PRICE Of course Till's challenge is a safe one because he knows that there is no OT passage that has those specific statements. TILL Of course, I know that there is no OT passage that has those specific statements, so I'm glad to see Dr. Price's admission that there is no such statement in the OT. Now he must explain why there is no such statement, because in the passage from Luke quoted above, Jesus allegedly said that it had been written that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead the third day. If there is no OT passage with those specific statements, then why did Christ say that there was? PRICE Till will demand a specific statement in the OT concerning the third day. TILL Why shouldn't I demand it? If Jesus said that it had been written that the Christ would rise from the dead the third day, isn't that reason enough to expect the specific statement? If there is no such specific statement, then on what grounds could Jesus or anyone else claim that such had been written? PRICE But this is imposing our Western idea of prophecy upon the ancient Jewish understanding of it. TILL Ah, yes, here we go again. Those who are following my debate in *The Skeptical Review* with Dr. Price know that this is a familiar dodge that he resorts to when he cannot produce textual evidence to support his case. When the chronology of Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy (which Price is defending) didn't quite work out, Price contended that 70 was just a "round number" and that the actual time of the captivity was close enough to 70 to be "sufficient for the facts" ("Prophecy of Seventy Years of Servitude to Babylon," TSR, March/April 1997, p. 3). To get a number even close to 70, Dr. Price had to resort to all kinds of verbal gyrations, some of which depended on the claim that Near Eastern methods of calculating regnal years were different from our western methods. (I have blasted that one out of the water, as TSR readers will see as soon as the July/August issue is in their hands.) Knowing that a contextual analysis of Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy would reveal several points that by no stretch of imagination were ever fulfilled, Dr. Price contended that these parts of the prophecy were merely a "figurative elaboration of God's judgment of Judah and the surrounding nations," which should "not be interpreted beyond the reasonable way Jeremiah's ancient readers would have understood it" (Ibid.). So constant crying about trying to impose Western ideas on the interpretation of biblical prophecies is just ploy to circumvent obvious deficiencies in the prophecy-fulfillment claims of biblicists like Dr. Price. What he needs to do is explain to us why one is "imposing [a] Western idea of prophecy," when one merely demands to see (in this case) an OT prophecy statement that says exactly what Jesus said that it did. PRICE Till tried to trap me into debating that prophecy rather than one of my own choice. I did not fall for his trap, but chose one that is much easier to defend. TILL This is a damaging statement for a biblical inerrantist to make. All I did was to challenge Dr. Price to defend the statement that Jesus made and show TSR readers that the OT does indeed say (as Jesus alleged) that the Christ would rise from the dead on the third day. Since Dr. Price acknowledges that agreeing to defend this prophecy claim would have caught him in a trap, he must be admitting that it would be foolish for anyone to try to defend what Jesus Christ himself allegedly said was in the OT. PRICE A study of how Jesus and the NT authors interpreted prophecy indicates that to the Jewish interpreters there were at three levels of prophetic statements: (1) direct, specific statements like we Westerners expect; TILL We Westerners are downright devious, aren't we? My goodness, we expect a prophecy statement to be clear, concise, and direct. We all deserve to fry in hell for such audacity. PRICE (2) prophecy by analogy--acts of Israel or God that typify the Messiah; for example--"Out of Egypt I called My Son" (Hos 11:1; Matt 2:15) TILL Price's example begs a question that he needs to prove, but what else is new? He is assuming that when "Matthew" claimed that Joseph's return from Egypt with his family fulfilled Hosea 11:1, the claim alone is undeniable evidence that Hosea in referring to Yahweh's deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt made also an analogical reference to Joseph's return from Egypt with the child Jesus. But what is Price's evidence that this is so? What did he cite to establish that Hosea undeniably intended the statement to have this double meaning? Price cited exactly nothing in support of his claim. He simply made the assertion and expected us to accept it. Hence, he has proven nothing, since question begging in argumentation proves nothing. In our debate in TSR, I listed five criteria of valid prophecy fulfillment, and in Price's second article, he stated that these criteria were "satisfactory" (May/June 1977, p. 2). The first of these criteria is that a proponent of prophecy fulfillment must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the original prophecy statement meant exactly what the proponent of fulfillment claims that it meant. Hence, for Price's prophecy-by-analogy argument to prevail, he will have to establish beyond doubt that the OT statements he cites as analogical prophecies meant exactly what he is claiming. In the case of his example from Hosea 11:1 (cited above), he will have to establish that the prophet Hosea meant for it to have an analogical reference to Jesus Christ. Obviously, Price did not do that, and he cannot do it. We will see later that he has the same problem with the Jonah story, which he cites as the prophecy-by-analogy that the Messiah would rise from the dead on the third day. PRICE (3) prophecy by similarity--ancient events that are prophetically similar to later events; for example--"A voice was heard in Ramah, ..." (Jer 31:15; Matt 2:18) TILL Everything I have said above applies to this too. Price begs a question that he needs to prove. In this case, did Jeremiah intend for his statement in 31:15, made in obvious reference to the Babylonian captives, to refer also to Herod's massacre of the children in and around Bethlehem as "Matthew" claimed? All that we have is Matthew's mere word that this was the case, but without further evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim, Price cannot satisfy the first criterion of valid prophecy fulfillment. He cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremiah intended for his statement to have any reference to the children of Bethlehem. Heck, he can't even prove that Herod's massacre ever even happened. Secular history was strangely silent about this horrible massacre, which suspiciously seems to be just another version of the "dangerous-child" myth that had wide circulation in other cultures prior to the time of Jesus. PRICE The question is: How did the ancient Jews understand the term "prophecy," not how do we Westerners think it should be interpreted. All three types were regarded by the ancient Jews as prophecy, so that is the proper way of interpreting the Scripture. TILL Notice again that Price is begging another question: "All three types were regarded by the ancient Jews as prophecy." What is his evidence of this? His evidence is conspicuously absent. For the sake of argument, let's just assume that his statement is correct. How would that prove that Hosea 11:1 was intended as a prophecy-by-analogy of an event in the life of Jesus? How would that prove that Jeremiah 31:15 was intended as a reference to the children of Bethlehem? Is Dr. Price so dense that he cannot see that these prophetic methods would allow anyone to claim that just about any event imaginable was prophesied in the OT? Psalm 69 contains various statements that were lifted out of context by NT writers and applied to certain events in the life of Jesus. These are too numerous to discuss individually, so I will leave it to readers to go through the psalm with a reference Bible to check the various misapplications of statements made by a psalmist who was obviously crying out in distress about his own circumstances in life. To show the absurdity of the way that NT writers found prophecies of Jesus (now being defended by Price), let's look at verse 2 in this psalm: "I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me." If I should claim that this was a prophecy of the severe flooding that was experienced last spring in North Dakota, Price would summarily dismiss the claim, yet he accepts claims of prophecy fulfillment just as absurd that NT writers based on other statements in this psalm. Verse 4, for example, says, "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head," and "John" claimed in 15:25 that this was fulfilled by the people who had rejected Jesus: "But this comes to pass that the word may be fulfilled that is written in the law, 'They hated me without a cause.'" Just look how easy it is to find prophecies and their fulfillments. Anyone using the methods of NT writers (and now Dr. Price) could do it. At this point, Price introduced the story of Jonah as a prophecy-by-analogy that foretold the Messiah's resurrection on the third day. To keep the postings reasonably short, I will respond to the Jonah part separately. Farrell Till Skepticism, Inc. jftill@midwest.net
Subj: The Jonah "Analogy" Date: 97-07-13 01:46:53 EDT From: jftill@midwest.net (Farrell Till) To: errancy@infidels.org CC: drjdprice@aol.com PRICE The incident of Jonah's three days and three nights in the fish was of type (2). TILL Type (2) was the prophecy-by-analogy. PRICE It involved a typical resurrection, if not a real one, and it occurred after 3 days. TILL No, let's get this correct. Price SAYS that the story of Jonah typified the resurrection, but the story itself says absolutely nothing that would justify this assumption. The best way to see this is to read the biblical account of the entire event. >Jonah 1:15 So they [the crew members of Jonah's ship] picked Jonah up > and threw him into the sea; and the sea ceased from its raging. >16 Then the men feared Yahweh even more, and they offered a sacrifice > to Yahweh and made vows. >17 But Yahweh provided a large fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was > in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. >2:1 Then Jonah prayed to Yahweh his God from the belly of the fish, >2 saying, "I called to Yahweh out of my distress, and he answered me; > out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice. >3 You cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood > surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me. >4 Then I said, 'I am driven away from your sight; how shall I look again > upon your holy temple?' >5 The waters closed in over me; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped > around my head >6 at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed > upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the Pit, O Yahweh my God. >7 As my life was ebbing away, I remembered Yahweh; and my prayer came to > you, into your holy temple. >8 Those who worship vain idols forsake their true loyalty. >9 But I with the voice of thanksgiving will sacrifice to you; what I have > vowed I will pay. Deliverance belongs to Yahweh!" >10 Then Yahweh spoke to the fish, and it spewed Jonah out upon the dry > land. What is there in this story that justifies Price's claim that this was an analogical prophecy of the death and resurrection of Jesus? What is there in the story that even implies it? How likely was it that the ancient Jews, whom Price seems to see as exceptional connoisseurs of unusual prophecies, read this story and understood it as an analogical prophecy of the death and resurrection of their Messiah, whom they believed would one day come? Can Price cite any examples of ancient Jewish writers who understood the prophecy in this way? If so, he needs to cite them. Otherwise, he is left with nothing but an arbitrary assertion to support his case. PRICE Jesus referred to this event in the life of the prophet as a prophetic sign of His resurrection (Matt 12:38-42; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). TILL What Price is saying here would require one to believe that the foundation element of an analogy has to be considered a prophecy, but people make analogies all of the time without intending to imply that the first element of the analogy was a prophecy. If, for example, I analogized the Yahwistic massacres of the OT and the atrocities of Adolf Hitler, I certainly wouldn't intend to imply that the OT prophesied the coming of Adolf Hitler. I would simply be stating that the OT massacres were in some ways similar to the atrocities of Hitler. In Matthew 12:1- 8, Jesus used analogy to defend his disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath. He pointed out a similarity in their actions and an event in David's life when he ate the show bread when he was hungry. David was hungry; the disciples were hungry. David did something that would normally be wrong in order to satisfy his hunger; the disciples did something that would normally be wrong in order to satisfy their hunger. The statement of Jesus cannot be pressed to mean more than this, yet Price's logic would require him to claim that David's act of eating the showbread was a prophecy of the time when the disciples would pluck grain on the sabbath. I think even Price would see the absurdity in such a claim. In the same way, the statement of Jesus in Matthew 12:38-42 cannot be construed to be more than a simple statement of similarity. If Price intends to make it into more than that, he has the responsibility of satisfying the first criterion of valid prophecy. He must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the writer of the Jonah story intended it to be understood as a prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day. The fact that years after the story was written someone may have used it in an analogical way could not in any way change the writer's original intention in telling the story. So did the writer of Jonah intend this story to mean what Price claims? That is what Price must prove. If he can't prove it, then his argument fails PRICE In several OT prophecies Messiah's resurrection is declared or implied. TILL It would be nice if Price would cite some of them. PRICE When Jesus taught His disciples about the resurrection, He brought together several prophetic passages to present the whole picture, some of type (1) and some of type (2). TILL Several? Would Price please cite some of those "several" prophetic passages? So far he has referred only to the story of Jonah, which fails as a prophecy unless Price can satisfy the first criterion of valid prophecy. We'll wait to see if he can do that. Did the writer of Jonah intend for this story to be a prophecy by analogy of the Messiah's resurrection? That's what Price must prove. If this was not the writer's intention, then it doesn't matter how many times Jesus or anyone else may have referred to it long after the fact as having elements similar to the life of Jesus, because it is a prophet's intention that determines whether prophecy was meant to be conveyed. PRICE This composite view of the resurrection satisfies the statements "it is written" (Luke 24:47) and "according to Scripture" (1 Cor 15:3-4). Nothing in those words demands one specific passage in the OT that declares the composite picture. TILL Isn't it strange that the NT writers labored so hard to prove that Jesus was the fulfillment of a master plan of salvation that God had decreed before the foundation of the world, and yet in all of the prophecies that allegedly referred to the Messiah, not a one of them predicted in specific terms the most important event in God's plan of redemption? That silence alone should be sufficient to give Dr. Price and his biblicist cohorts pause, but, of course, it won't. However, one embarrassing fact still stands out. Jesus said that it had been written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, but neither Dr. Price nor anyone else can cite a single OT passage that undeniably made this alleged prophecy. He even admits that there is no such statement in the OT, so he is forced to resort to interpretative chicanery to find one. PRICE It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition. TILL Price chides me for the unspeakable crime of demanding reasonable proof of outlandish claims, but in everything he said in the paragraph above, one clear message shines through: he can't prove that the resurrection of the Messiah was prophesied in the OT, but he is going to believe it anyway. Just who is the intellectually dishonest party in this dispute? Farrell Till Skepticism, Inc. jftill@midwest.net
From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 21:03:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Price & the Jonah Analogy File Price03 on the 3rd Day Prophecy 7/21/97 TILL This prophecy will very likely come up later if Dr. Price decides to participate in a debate on prophecy fulfillment, but for now, I want to call his attention to what Luke alleged that Jesus told his disciples the night of his resurrection: "Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:47). The apostle Paul also alleged that the scriptures had spoken of the Messiah's resurrection on the third day: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried and he has been raised on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). So here are two New Testament statements, one of them allegedly made by Jesus himself, that the scriptures (which would have had to have been the Old Testament) had spoken of the Christ's resurrection ON THE THIRD DAY. I now issue a challenge to Dr. Price. I defy him to find any Old Testament passage that ever prophesied that the Messiah would be resurrected on the third day. KATZ So, I did forward it to Dr. Price adding my own questions: I have seen this question before and I have been looking around in my commentaries and it is quite meager. Well, the "rising" is in several passages [Isaiah 53, and the Psalm that Peter quotes on the Pentecost sermon] but the three is not really ... the only thing that Jesus himself connects it back to explicitely is the like Jonah was three days in the fish ,.... thing. So, if one accepts prophecy based on typology and/or midrashic interpretations one might be able to make a case from that. But it is certainly not the way modern exegesis goes. Any ideas? One that satisfies you, even if it wouldn't ever satisfy a Farrell Till? PRICE Of course Till's challenge is a safe one because he knows that there is no OT passage that has those specific statements. TILL Of course, I know that there is no OT passage that has those specific statements, so I'm glad to see Dr. Price's admission that there is no such statement in the OT. Now he must explain why there is no such statement, because in the passage from Luke quoted above, Jesus allegedly said that it had been written that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead the third day. If there is no OT passage with those specific statements, then why did Christ say that there was? PRICE Till will demand a specific statement in the OT concerning the third day. TILL Why shouldn't I demand it? If Jesus said that it had been written that the Christ would rise from the dead the third day, isn't that reason enough to expect the specific statement? If there is no such specific statement, then on what grounds could Jesus or anyone else claim that such had been written? Price 7/21 Because such a demand is unreasonable and beyond the ordinary rules for interpreting ancient documents. Suppose Jesus had said "On Mount Sinai Moses received the Ten Commandments from God who wrote them in Hebrew with His own finger on two tablets of stone, according to the Scripture." Now this specific statement is not contained in the OT in only one passage, but no one would deny that the Scripture records those details, and that the statement is an accurate representation of what the Scripture says about that incident. Parts of the statement come from one passage, parts from another, and the detail about the Hebrew language comes from another by analogy, as follows: "And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18). "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone" (Deuteronomy 4:13). "Then Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah said to the Rabshakeh, 'Please speak to your servants in the Aramaic language, for we understand it; and do not speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people who are on the wall'" (Isaiah 36:11). The use of analogy is justified in this case, because common sense expects that because the Israelites often were referred to as Hebrews, and the Bible indicates that their language was Hebrew, God would have given the commandments in Hebrew. Now only a radical skeptic like Till would deny that the hypothetical statement of Jesus was not "according to Scripture" just because it is not an exact quotation of one specific passage. Such demands indeed are unreasonable, and are evidence of prejudice against the text. This is not picking and choosing statements from anywhere to support a make-believe theory; it is correct historical research. So if Jesus had actually made a statement like that, it would be wrong to demand an exact quotation to support it, and it would be wrong to deny that it is according to Scripture or that "it is written." The same thing is true regarding Jesus' statement about His resurrection. PRICE But this is imposing our Western idea of prophecy upon the ancient Jewish understanding of it. TILL Ah, yes, here we go again. Those who are following my debate in *The Skeptical Review* with Dr. Price know that this is a familiar dodge that he resorts to when he cannot produce textual evidence to support his case. When the chronology of Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy (which Price is defending) didn't quite work out, Price contended that 70 was just a "round number" and that the actual time of the captivity was close enough to 70 to be "sufficient for the facts" ("Prophecy of Seventy Years of Servitude to Babylon," TSR, March/April 1997, p. 3). To get a number even close to 70, Dr. Price had to resort to all kinds of verbal gyrations, some of which depended on the claim that Near Eastern methods of calculating regnal years were different from our western methods. (I have blasted that one out of the water, as TSR readers will see as soon as the July/August issue is in their hands.) Knowing that a contextual analysis of Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy would reveal several points that by no stretch of imagination were ever fulfilled, Dr. Price contended that these parts of the prophecy were merely a "figurative elaboration of God's judgment of Judah and the surrounding nations," which should "not be interpreted beyond the reasonable way Jeremiah's ancient readers would have understood it" (Ibid.). So constant crying about trying to impose Western ideas on the interpretation of biblical prophecies is just ploy to circumvent obvious deficiencies in the prophecy-fulfillment claims of biblicists like Dr. Price. What he needs to do is explain to us why one is "imposing [a] Western idea of prophecy," when one merely demands to see (in this case) an OT prophecy statement that says exactly what Jesus said that it did. Price 7/21 At this point I must again remind Mr. Till that this statement was not submitted to him as part of our debate on fulfilled prophecy, nor to him at all; but it was made to a believer who did not need documentation of the principle to which I referred. My statements should be interpreted and evaluated in light of the original recipient and the intended purpose of the communication. That is true of all communication whether modern or ancient. Evidently Mr. Till does not believe in that practice; and apparently he does not know the difference between a "dodge" and a legitimate rule of hermeneutics. Common sense and the laws of historical research demand that an ancient document be understood according to the culture of the ancient people involved. That is not a ploy but an appeal to sound reasoning. Twentieth century interpreters have no right to impose their modern Western cultural expectations on ancient literature, whether the topic is science, philosophy, law, or prophecy. When one is discussing the views of ancient Jews (such as Jesus) on what constitutes a prophecy in the OT, then he is obligated to consider their understanding of that topic, not his own Western view. When Jesus said "thus it is written," He must have had a culturally accepted reason for saying so. Otherwise his contemporaries would have challenged His claim. His methods of interpreting Scripture were sometimes not understood immediately by His critics, but time after time He overwhelmed them by using their own hermeneutical principles to make an undisputed point. Now Mr. Till implies that I have just invented a rule to meet the exigency of the moment. But the use of analogy and parallel passages was an acceptable method of interpretation in that day. Mr. Till should know this already; if not, he has failed to do his homework; and if he does, he is trying to hoodwink the readers of his list. So just in case he really doesn't know, here is the documentation. The ancient Jews had 32 rules for interpreting Scripture. These were first collected and published by the 2nd century Rabbi, Eliezer Ben-Jose the Galilean. The 7th rule declares that inferences may be made from analogy and parallel passages. [source: "Halakic and Haggadic Rules of Interpretation," The McClintock-Strong Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, eds. John McClintock & James Strong (Harper & Bros, 1876; reprint, Baker, 1969), 6:243-46.] Just in case Mr. Till thinks that I have also invented rules about Babylonian chronology, let him do his homework before he embarrasses himself there also. PRICE Till tried to trap me into debating that prophecy rather than one of my own choice. I did not fall for his trap, but chose one that is much easier to defend. TILL This is a damaging statement for a biblical inerrantist to make. All I did was to challenge Dr. Price to defend the statement that Jesus made and show TSR readers that the OT does indeed say (as Jesus alleged) that the Christ would rise from the dead on the third day. Since Dr. Price acknowledges that agreeing to defend this prophecy claim would have caught him in a trap, he must be admitting that it would be foolish for anyone to try to defend what Jesus Christ himself allegedly said was in the OT. Price 7:21 Mr. Till likes to twist my words. All I intended was that defending that challenge would be more difficult because Till and I would not be able to agree on what constitutes a legitimate prophecy. Why debate a topic over which the participants cannot initially agree on a fundamental definition. This present discussion is evidence that I was right. By choosing the Jeremiah prophecy, at least Till and I can agree that Jeremiah's words are a prophecy--a specific statement that foretells a specific event. He does not question that the statement is an alleged prophecy. What he questions is its authorship and date. PRICE A study of how Jesus and the NT authors interpreted prophecy indicates that to the Jewish interpreters there were at three levels of prophetic statements: (1) direct, specific statements like we Westerners expect; TILL We Westerners are downright devious, aren't we? My goodness, we expect a prophecy statement to be clear, concise, and direct. We all deserve to fry in hell for such audacity. Price 7/21 When all else fails, use ridicule. That is why I chose not to debate this prophecy with Till. It's not that Westerners have no understanding of prophecy. This happens to be that part of the ancient understanding of prophecy upon which moderns and ancients agree. Notice that I said "we Westerners." Yet here is a place where Till heaps on ridicule, as though I think this is not a valid part of the definition--the very part of the definition upon which he and I can agree. Ridiculous isn't it? PRICE (2) prophecy by analogy--acts of Israel or God that typify the Messiah; for example--"Out of Egypt I called My Son" (Hos 11:1; Matt 2:15) TILL Price's example begs a question that he needs to prove, but what else is new? He is assuming that when "Matthew" claimed that Joseph's return from Egypt with his family fulfilled Hosea 11:1, the claim alone is undeniable evidence that Hosea in referring to Yahweh's deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt made also an analogical reference to Joseph's return from Egypt with the child Jesus. But what is Price's evidence that this is so? What did he cite to establish that Hosea undeniably intended the statement to have this double meaning? Price cited exactly nothing in support of his claim. He simply made the assertion and expected us to accept it. Hence, he has proven nothing, since question begging in argumentation proves nothing. Price 7/21 Perhaps if I were in a debate I might have to prove the validity of the principle. But I was not in a debate, but merely answering a question for a believer. I was not trying to prove anything, so I was not begging any question. I was citing an example of the use of the principle of interpretation by analogy--a principle that is recognized as one accepted means of interpreting Scripture among the ancient Jews, a principle that I documented above. The fact that Matthew (an ancient Jew in tune with his culture) cited this analogous passage with higher Messianic implications indicates that he (Matthew) knew the principle and used it. Numerous examples could be cited illustrating this type of Messianic interpretation of passages like this, not just in the NT, but also in ancient Jewish literature. Obviously Mr. Till does not agree that analogy can function as prophecy, because it does not constitute a specific statement about a future event. He is right in that an analogy cannot be rigorously proven to be a prophecy. That's why I will not debate the prophetic validity of analogy. But the above remarks by Till indicate that he does not understand the principle of analogy. This principle does not assume that the original author intended, or even knew, that his statement had higher Messianic implications; it assumes that the Spirit of God who inspired the prophet intended there to be an analogous prophetic relationship between the one event and the other. However, that was not my assumption, but that of the ancient Jews who formulated the rule. Important analogous events were recognized by them as having prophetic significance. Mr. Till, by his very words above, wants to impose the criterion for prophecies of type 1 onto prophecies of type 2 (and 3). That's because he does not recognize type 2 (or 3) prophecies as possible prophecies. From his 20th century Western view, they are not legitimate. But it is not what Mr. Till regards as prophecy that is pertinent in this discussion, but what the ancient Jews regarded as prophecy. After all, we are evaluating the statements of ancient Jews (Jesus and Paul), not those of a 20th century atheist. If analogy was a legitimate means of prophecy to first century Jews and Christians, and if the Jonah analogy is a valid analogy of resurrection, then the statements of Jesus and Paul are true, not false. Mr. Till can claim that they are false only by imposing his different definition of prophecy. So it amounts to a matter of definition of terms rather than truth or error. That's a neat way to find errors in the Bible, invent new definitions. TILL In our debate in TSR, I listed five criteria of valid prophecy fulfillment, and in Price's second article, he stated that these criteria were "satisfactory" (May/June 1977, p. 2). The first of these criteria is that a proponent of prophecy fulfillment must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the original prophecy statement meant exactly what the proponent of fulfillment claims that it meant. Hence, for Price's prophecy-by-analogy argument to prevail, he will have to establish beyond doubt that the OT statements he cites as analogical prophecies meant exactly what he is claiming. In the case of his example from Hosea 11:1 (cited above), he will have to establish that the prophet Hosea meant for it to have an analogical reference to Jesus Christ. Obviously, Price did not do that, and he cannot do it. We will see later that he has the same problem with the Jonah story, which he cites as the prophecy-by-analogy that the Messiah would rise from the dead on the third day. >> Price 7/21 I agreed to accept Mr. Till's narrow rigid definition of prophecy for the sake of debate. I used the Jeremiah prophecy because it does indeed contain an unambiguous prediction of a future event. Again I must remind Mr. Till that I was not debating him over the validity of this prophecy. I was answering a question for a believer. Mr. Till can argue with the valid historical records that clearly delineate the hermeneutical principles of the ancient Jews. That's his business. Let him deny all the facts he wishes. The truth still remains: the ancient Jews used analogy and parallel passages in their identification and interpretation of prophecy. That is the pertinent information related to the question: How did Jesus understand that the OT Scriptures foretold His resurrection on the third day? PRICE (3) prophecy by similarity--ancient events that are prophetically similar to later events; for example--"A voice was heard in Ramah, ..." (Jer 31:15; Matt 2:18) TILL Everything I have said above applies to this too. Price begs a question that he needs to prove. In this case, did Jeremiah intend for his statement in 31:15, made in obvious reference to the Babylonian captives, to refer also to Herod's massacre of the children in and around Bethlehem as "Matthew" claimed? All that we have is Matthew's mere word that this was the case, but without further evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim, Price cannot satisfy the first criterion of valid prophecy fulfillment. He cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremiah intended for his statement to have any reference to the children of Bethlehem. Heck, he can't even prove that Herod's massacre ever even happened. Secular history was strangely silent about this horrible massacre, which suspiciously seems to be just another version of the "dangerous-child" myth that had wide circulation in other cultures prior to the time of Jesus. Price 7/21 Everything I have said above applies to this too. An example of how the ancient Jews used the principle of similarity in interpreting prophecy needs no proof. Matthew believed that the massacre occurred and that there was a prophetic similarity in the passage cited. Since I am not debating Till on the validity of this type of prophecy, I do not need to prove the historicity of the events. Of course Till's denial of historicity lacks proof also, so his face is dirty with the mud he is slinging at me. PRICE The question is: How did the ancient Jews understand the term "prophecy," not how do we Westerners think it should be interpreted. All three types were regarded by the ancient Jews as prophecy, so that is the proper way of interpreting the Scripture. TILL Notice again that Price is begging another question: "All three types were regarded by the ancient Jews as prophecy." What is his evidence of this? His evidence is conspicuously absent. Price 7/21 Mr. Till conveniently overlooks the fact that Jesus and His disciples were ancient Jews and that they knew the Messianic expectation of their contemporary culture. When they made Messianic applications to certain passages of Scripture, much of it was based on rabbinical interpretations found in the Septuagint, the Targums, and the oral traditions of the elders. Many of these can be documented in existing sources. My believing questioner did not need the evidence, but it is available if Mr. Till wants to do the homework. TILL For the sake of argument, let's just assume that his statement is correct. How would that prove that Hosea 11:1 was intended as a prophecy-by-analogy of an event in the life of Jesus? How would that prove that Jeremiah 31:15 was intended as a reference to the children of Bethlehem? Is Dr. Price so dense that he cannot see that these prophetic methods would allow anyone to claim that just about any event imaginable was prophesied in the OT? Price 7/21 When all else fails, use ridicule. I am not debating the validity of prophetic analogy. Of course, unrestrained analogy could be misused. But the NT does not "claim that just about any event imaginable was prophesied in the OT." So why resort to ridiculous extremes. The possibility of abuse does not invalidate a legitimate principle, it only requires the use of safeguards. Unrestrained skepticism can be misused, and we see good examples of it in this discussion. TILL Psalm 69 contains various statements that were lifted out of context by NT writers and applied to certain events in the life of Jesus. These are too numerous to discuss individually, so I will leave it to readers to go through the psalm with a reference Bible to check the various misapplications of statements made by a psalmist who was obviously crying out in distress about his own circumstances in life. To show the absurdity of the way that NT writers found prophecies of Jesus (now being defended by Price), let's look at verse 2 in this psalm: "I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me." If I should claim that this was a prophecy of the severe flooding that was experienced last spring in North Dakota, Price would summarily dismiss the claim, yet he accepts claims of prophecy fulfillment just as absurd that NT writers based on other statements in this psalm. Verse 4, for example, says, "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head," and "John" claimed in 15:25 that this was fulfilled by the people who had rejected Jesus: "But this comes to pass that the word may be fulfilled that is written in the law, 'They hated me without a cause.'" Just look how easy it is to find prophecies and their fulfillments. Anyone using the methods of NT writers (and now Dr. Price) could do it. Price 7/21 Prophecy by analogy does not lift anything out of context. It is no accident that many of the events in this Psalm are prophetically analogous to events in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. It is vain to discuss prophecy by analogy with Till. His narrow definition restrains his range of vision. Before one can accept prophecy by analogy, he first must be convinced of the validity of type 1 prophecy. Our debate on Jeremiah's prophecy deals with type 1. It is a foregone conclusion that he will reject that prophecy regardless of how valid and convincing the evidence may be. He has made an irreversible commitment to an unprovable anti-supernatural presupposition. But at least the evidence is being presented and discussed. TILL At this point, Price introduced the story of Jonah as a prophecy-by-analogy that foretold the Messiah's resurrection on the third day. To keep the postings reasonably short, I will respond to the Jonah part separately. Price 7/21 One can already predict what his response will be. He will insist that the prophecy is not legitimate unless it is of class 1, not in those words but with that result. James D. Price ==================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ====================================================
From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Price's response to Till part 1 File Price-4 Price's response to Till's The Jonah "Analogy" Part One 7/24/97 This response is divided into two parts because of its length. Part 1 of 2 << PRICE The incident of Jonah's three days and three nights in the fish was of type (2). << TILL Type (2) was the prophecy-by-analogy. << PRICE It involved a typical resurrection, if not a real one, and it occurred after 3 days. << TILL No, let's get this correct. Price SAYS that the story of Jonah typified the resurrection, but the story itself says absolutely nothing that would justify this assumption. The best way to see this is to read the biblical account of the entire event. << snip--Till's translation of Jonah 1:15-2:10 >> << What is there in this story that justifies Price's claim that this was an analogical prophecy of the death and resurrection of Jesus? What is there in the story that even implies it? How likely was it that the ancient Jews, whom Price seems to see as exceptional connoisseurs of unusual prophecies, read this story and understood it as an analogical prophecy of the death and resurrection of their Messiah, whom they believed would one day come? Can Price cite any examples of ancient Jewish writers who understood the prophecy in this way? If so, he needs to cite them. Otherwise, he is left with nothing but an arbitrary assertion to support his case. >> Price 7/24/97 The response involves two components: (1) the event is a type of or a real instance of a death and resurrection; (2) the event was an analogous prophecy. (1) An examination of the Scripture Mr. Till cited indicates that Jonah either actually died, or had an unbelievably close call with death. That he may have actually died is indicated by the statement: "out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice" (2:2). Sheol refers sometimes (1) to the grave, or (2) the place of the departed dead. So, if Jonah was not actually in Sheol, then one must interpret the statement figuratively. The possibility of his actual death is also supported by the statement: "I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the Pit" (2:6). The word "Pit" is a synonym for Sheol, so if God did not actually bring Jonah's life up from Sheol, then one must interpret the statement figuratively. That Jonah know he was dying is indicated by the statement: "As my life was ebbing away, I remembered Yahweh; and my prayer came to you, into your holy temple" (2:7 Till). The passage is translated in other versions as "When my soul fainted within me" (KJV, NKJV, RSV). " This may indicate that he prayed just before he died, or subsequent to his death. Common sense tells us that anyone who remained in the belly of a large sea creature for three days and nights would be expected to have died. If Jonah actually died and was brought back to life by God, then the event included an actual resurrection. If Jonah merely experienced a near death experience, then the incidence is a type of resurrection. So, in either case, a divine deliverance from such an experience is a significant event, and can be an analogy of death and resurrection. Jesus interpreted it so. ======================================= Evidence from the Talmud indicates that the ancient Jews regarded Jonah to have actually died and consequently to have been resurrected. Eiruvin 19a R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar further stated: Gehenna has three gates; one in the wilderness, one in the sea and one in Jerusalem. `In the wilderness', since it is written in Scripture: So they, and all that appertaineth to them, went down alive into the pit.42 `In the sea', since it is written in Scripture: Out of the belly of the nether world cried I, and Thou heardest my voice.43 `In Jerusalem', since it is written in Scripture: Saith the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem,44 and the school of R. Ishmael taught: `Whose fire is in Zion' refers to Gehenna, `And His furnace in Jerusalem' refers to the gate of Gehenna. ............................................................ R. Joshua b. Levi stated: Gehenna has seven names, and they are: Nether-world,49 Destruction, Pit,50 Tumultuous Pit, Miry Clay, Shadow of Death and the Underworld. `Nether-world', since it is written in Scripture: Out of the belly of the nether-world cried I, and Thou heardest my voice;51 `Destruction', for it is written in Scripture: Shall Thy Mercy be declared in the grave? Or thy faithfulness in destruction;52 `Pit',50 for it is written in Scripture: For Thou wilt not abandon thy soul to the nether-world; neither wilt Thou suffer Thy godly one to see the pit;53 `Tumultuous Pit' and `Miry Clay', for it is written in Scripture: He brought me up also out of the tumultuous pit, out of the miry clay;54 `Shadow of Death', for it is written in Scripture: Such as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death;55 and the [name of] `Nether-world' is a tradition. Footnotes: (42) Num. XVI, 33, and this happened in the wilderness. (43) Jonah II, 3, and this was said under the sea. (44) Isa. XXXI, 9. ........... (50) Or, `pit of destruction'. (51) Jonah II, 3. (52) Ps. LXXXVIII, 12. (53) Ibid. XVI, 10. (54) Ibid. XL, 3. (55) Ibid. CVII, 10. ========================================= (2) Mr. Till complained that I could not produce a single ancient Jew who regarded the Jonah analogy as a prophecy. But he fails to acknowledge that Jesus was an ancient Jew who understood the analogy as prophetic, as well as all his Jewish disciples. So there were at least some ancient Jews who accepted the Jonah analogy. Although no existing ancient records, apart from the NT, seem to have applied the Jonah resurrection prophetically to the Messiah, it is possible that the Jews edited out any such reference because of its apologetic value. It is known that the Talmud was revised to edit out some references to Jesus of Nazareth. However, another resurrection story was applied prophetically. The following citation from the Talmud indicates that some ancient rabbis regarded the Ezekiel resurrection story (ch. 37) to be an analogous prediction of the renaissance of the Jewish people. This is one of many examples of the use of analogy for prediction. ========================= Sanhedrin 92b But should we not deduce [the reverse] from the dead whom Ezekiel resurrected?5 He accepts the view that in the truth [the story of the resurrection of the dry bones] was [but] a parable.6 For it was taught: R. Eliezer said: The dead whom Ezekiel resurrected stood up, uttered song, and [immediately] died. What song did they utter? The Lord slayeth in righteousness and reviveth in mercy.7 R. Joshua said: They sang thus, The Lord killeth and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.8 R. Judah said: It was truth; it was a parable. R. Nehemiah said to him: If truth, why a parable; and if a parable, why truth? But [say thus]: In the truth there was but a parable.9 Footnotes: (5) Just as they died again, so will the righteous whom God will resurrect also return to dust. (6) I.e., a symbol of the revival of the Jewish State. (7) Cp. I Sam. II, 6. (8) Ibid. (9) I.e., their resurrection did in fact take place, and that was a foreshadowing of the renaissance of the Jewish people. Note: all comments enclosed in brackets [] are those of the Talmudic editor, not from Price. ================================== PRICE Jesus referred to this event in the life of the prophet as a prophetic sign of His resurrection (Matt 12:38-42; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). TILL What Price is saying here would require one to believe that the foundation element of an analogy has to be considered a prophecy, but people make analogies all of the time without intending to imply that the first element of the analogy was a prophecy. If, for example, I analogized the Yahwistic massacres of the OT and the atrocities of Adolf Hitler, I certainly wouldn't intend to imply that the OT prophesied the coming of Adolf Hitler. I would simply be stating that the OT massacres were in some ways similar to the atrocities of Hitler. In Matthew 12:1- 8, Jesus used analogy to defend his disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath. He pointed out a similarity in their actions and an event in David's life when he ate the show bread when he was hungry. David was hungry; the disciples were hungry. David did something that would normally be wrong in order to satisfy his hunger; the disciples did something that would normally be wrong in order to satisfy their hunger. The statement of Jesus cannot be pressed to mean more than this, yet Price's logic would require him to claim that David's act of eating the showbread was a prophecy of the time when the disciples would pluck grain on the sabbath. I think even Price would see the absurdity in such a claim. Price 7/24/97 Of course everyone can see the obvious folly of the uncontrolled use of analogy as prophecy. Till likes to argue from the actual to the potential, from the reasonable to the ridiculous; but, as I pointed out earlier, this is fallacious argumentation; potential abuse does not invalidate sane application. I have demonstrated from the actual laws of Jewish interpretation and from Talmudic records that the ancient Jews did make use of sane prophetic analogy. So it is reasonable to expect that Jesus could sanely use the same without being accused of error. TILL In the same way, the statement of Jesus in Matthew 12:38-42 cannot be construed to be more than a simple statement of similarity. If Price intends to make it into more than that, he has the responsibility of satisfying the first criterion of valid prophecy. He must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the writer of the Jonah story intended it to be understood as a prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day. The fact that years after the story was written someone may have used it in an analogical way could not in any way change the writer's original intention in telling the story. So did the writer of Jonah intend this story to mean what Price claims? That is what Price must prove. If he can't prove it, then his argument fails. Price 7/24/97 Again Mr. Till insists that I make a type 2 prophecy into a type 1. This is the fallacy of the "slick switch." The author of an analogous passage did not need to have intended the passage to be prophetic. Intentional prophecies are of type 1 in which the prophetic statement is explicit. Jesus frequently called attention to the Jonah analogy, made specific application of it to His own resurrection, and declared it to be a prophetic sign. "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, 'Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.' But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth'" (Matt 12:38-40). Common sense indicates that He understood the analogy to be prophetic, not just a similarity; and this is the most reasonable explanation of why He would regard the Scripture to contain a prediction of His resurrection on the third day. In fact, His words in verse 40 constitute His own prophecy based on the Jonah analogy. James D. Price ==================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ====================================================
From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Price's response to Till part 2 File Price-5 Price's response to Till's The Jonah "Analogy"--Part Two 7/24/97 This response is divided into two parts because of its length. Part 2 of 2 PRICE In several OT prophecies Messiah's resurrection is declared or implied. TILL It would be nice if Price would cite some of them. Price 7/24/79 Again I must remind Mr. Till that the above statement was addressed to a believer who knows the passages and needs no persuasion. Nevertheless I will list a few passages without giving an exhaustive defense of their Messianic application. Psalm 16:9-10 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; my flesh also will dwell securely. For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; nor will you suffer Your Holy One to see corruption. The Jewish Midrash on verse 9 reads "My glory shall rejoice in King Messiah, Who in the future shall come forth to me, as it is written in Is. iv.5: 'upon all the glory a covering.'" This makes it clear that, according to some ancient Jews, the Holy One is the Messiah who will not see corruption. That is, His body will not decay at death because He will be resurrected. The NT writers likewise interpret this passage as prophetic of Messiah's resurrection (Acts 2:25-32; 13:35-37). Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. In 53:8 the Servant of the Lord was cut off from the land of the living. In 53:9 He was put into a grave at His death which was for an offering of sin (vs. 10). Then, after His death and burial He shall see His seed and prolong His days. This clearly implies a resurrection. The Jewish Talmud identifies the Servant in this passage as the Messiah as the following passage indicates: =================================== Sanhedrin 98b Rab said: The world was created only on David's account .24 Samuel said: On Moses account;25 R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah's] name? The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come.26 The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure for ever:27 e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon.28 The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah.29 Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem [`the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far.30 The Rabbis said: His name is `the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.31 Footnotes: (24) That he might sing hymns and psalms to God. (25) That he might receive the Torah. (26) Gen. XLIX, 10. (27) E.V. `shall be continued'. (28) Ps. LXXII, 17. (29) Jer. XVI, 13. Thus each School evinced intense admiration of its teacher in naming the Messiah after him by a play on words. (30) Lam. I, 16. (31) Isa. LIII, 4. ================================== This brief list was given to let Mr. Till know that there are passages in the OT that are regarded by Christians and ancient Jews alike as Messianic that logically imply His resurrection. I don't have time to get into a lengthy debate over these passages. They are not part of our debate on the Jeremiah prophecy. I don't expect Mr. Till to accept these passage because he is committed to his unproven anti-supernatural supposition that prevents him from thinking rationally about prophecy. But for reasonable thinkers, the evidence is available and sufficient. PRICE When Jesus taught His disciples about the resurrection, He brought together several prophetic passages to present the whole picture, some of type (1) and some of type (2). TILL Several? Would Price please cite some of those "several" prophetic passages? So far he has referred only to the story of Jonah, which fails as a prophecy unless Price can satisfy the first criterion of valid prophecy. We'll wait to see if he can do that. >> I listed 2 above. That is enough to show that the passages exist. The verses just before the passage Mr. Till challenged indicate that the prophecies came from the Torah (Law), the Prophets, and the Psalms. "Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:44-46). TILL Did the writer of Jonah intend for this story to be a prophecy by analogy of the Messiah's resurrection? That's what Price must prove. If this was not the writer's intention, then it doesn't matter how many times Jesus or anyone else may have referred to it long after the fact as having elements similar to the life of Jesus, because it is a prophet's intention that determines whether prophecy was meant to be conveyed. Price 7/24/97 Mr. Till is becoming redundant and still trying his "slick switch" fallacy. So I will repeat: the author of an analogous passage did not have to intend the passage to be a prophecy, otherwise it would by type 1. PRICE This composite view of the resurrection satisfies the statements "it is written" (Luke 24:47) and "according to Scripture" (1 Cor 15:3-4). Nothing in those words demands one specific passage in the OT that declares the composite picture. TILL Isn't it strange that the NT writers labored so hard to prove that Jesus was the fulfillment of a master plan of salvation that God had decreed before the foundation of the world, and yet in all of the prophecies that allegedly referred to the Messiah, not a one of them predicted in specific terms the most important event in God's plan of redemption? That silence alone should be sufficient to give Dr. Price and his biblicist cohorts pause, but, of course, it won't. Price 7/24/97 The prophecies are sufficiently clear and specific for those whose minds are not bias by an unproven anti-supernatural presupposition. Far from being silent, to those with an open mind the OT Scripture is full of prophecies of Messiah and God's plan of redemption . TILL However, one embarrassing fact still stands out. Jesus said that it had been written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, but neither Dr. Price nor anyone else can cite a single OT passage that undeniably made this alleged prophecy. He even admits that there is no such statement in the OT, so he is forced to resort to interpretative chicanery to find one. Price 7/24/97 I have demonstrated that it was written sufficiently clear. Jesus Himself indicated that the prophecies were written in various places in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Mr. Till violates common sense and reasonableness when he insists that the words "it is written" or "according to the Scripture" demand one passage containing the prophecy. PRICE It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition. TILL Price chides me for the unspeakable crime of demanding reasonable proof of outlandish claims, but in everything he said in the paragraph above, one clear message shines through: he can't prove that the resurrection of the Messiah was prophesied in the OT, but he is going to believe it anyway. Just who is the intellectually dishonest party in this dispute? Price 7/24/97 Mr. Till's rejects the reasonable evidence for the prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah, but that does not mean none exists. He denies its existence on the unreasonable demand that the prophecies must be of type 1 only, and in one passage only. However, the proof of a complex proposition comes from the conjunction of several true propositions, not one; and it often involves valid inferences. I have demonstrated by a common sense example that Till's demand is unreasonable. I have demonstrated that the ancient Jews did recognize prophecy by analogy, and that it was reasonable for Jesus to see the Jonah analogy as prophetic of His death and resurrection. Mr. Till raised the original question in an attempt to chalk up an error in the NT. However, this example can be classified as an error only if Mr. Till insists on using a definition of prophecy different than the ancient Jews used. In other words, Mr. Till can accuse Jesus of erroneously seeing a prophecy of His death, burial, and resurrection in the OT only if Mr. Till invents a definition of prophecy different than that understood by the Jews in Jesus' day. However, ancient literature should be understood and interpreted according to the cultural mores of the ancient people. Mr. Till has violated one of the fundamental laws of hermeneutics by imposing his own 20th century theories on an ancient culture. Thus, he is guilty of erroneously accusing Jesus of an error. After all, Jesus knew His own culture better than Till does. James D. Price ==================================================== James D. Price, Ph.D. Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 e-mail drjdprice@aol.com ====================================================
Bible commentary Index
Answering Islam Home Page