Jesus A "Copycat Savior"?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Nevertheless, too many of the gospel stories have extremely strong links to antecedent stories in Scripture to believe that they were actual events in Jesus' life. ”

ROBYN BANKS
I agree here, too. Which gospel stories are you referring to? I would think of the nativity stories as ones mostly manufactured from OT traditions.

JOE ALWARD

Here are a few examples.

1. The story of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes has as its Old Testament parallel the story of Elisha multiplying the loaves.

2. Walking on water with the inexplicable intention to "pass by" the disciples imitates Yahweh displaying of his glory in passing by Moses.

3. Jesus' betrayal by Judas and his prayer at Gethsemane mirrors event in David's life.

4. The story of Jesus' triumphal entry with TWO animals is transparently a attempt by the originators of this story to have Jesus fulfill what they thought was a foreshadowing event in Scripture involving two animals, when there was actually only one animal.

5. The potter's field story.

A fuller explanation of the antecedence is provided in several articles linked-to on the web page in the signature line below.

[Steven Avery]

Yesterday @ 04:29 PM post located here
Robyn Banks:

The servant is primarily Israel in Isa 53. And there is little evidence of even early Christian NT use of Isa 53 to interpret the life of Jesus.

Robyn

Hi Robyn,

We have one writing that gives a very clear early window on how the Jews looked at Isaiah 53 around the time of Jesus.. the Targum Jonathan, loose interpretative Aramaic translation

"Behold my servant Messiah will prosper"

And the Messiah is the subject throughout, this is clear by watching the singular and plural usages, and how Messiah interrelates to Israel.

Essentially, Messiah is the servant, Israel suffers from her sins, but can look to Messiah for deliverance.

Not the same as the later Chrisian understanding, or the current Jewish one... definitely, though, the Servant is Messiah.

Shalom,
Praxeus
www.messiahresearch.com

[Robyn Banks]

praxeus:
We have one writing that gives a very clear early window on how the Jews looked at Isaiah 53 around the time of Jesus.. the Targum Jonathan, loose interpretative Aramaic translation

"Behold my servant Messiah will prosper"

Actually, we have more than one writing that shows how Jews interpreted the servant of Deutero-Isaiah at the time of Jesus.

Even though Jonathan ben Uzziel lived in the first century BC, some portions of the Targum are in the Talmud assigned to Joseph ben Chija (c AD 300), so the text now extant is presumably the result of an editorial process. The comments cannot reliably be dated before the fourth century AD.

But in any case, I agree that Messianic reinterpretations of Isaiah 53 and other passages in the Tanach began as early as c100 BC. This being so, the fact remains that there is NO eschatological Messiah in the Old Testament itself, whatsoever. The idea of an end-times (eschatological) Messiah is a post-Tanach reinterpretation. All references to 'messiah' ('anointed one') in the Tanach refer to a specific king, priest or prophet, and always within the immediate time-frame of the relevant text. Never to any 'end-times' Davidic figure.

So the Jewish idea of a 'Messiah' is a result of a reinterpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

And the Messianic reinterpretation of Targum Jonathan may be compared with the earliest Jewish interpretation of the servant that we have: that of the LXX. The LXX interpreted the reference to the servant in Isa 42.1 as Jacob-Israel. Furthermore, in Origen's account of discussions with Jews about the identity of the servant, the Jewish opponents maintain that the servant is Israel (Contra Celsum, 1.55). So the Targum Jonathan should be understood as only one opinion within Judaism at this time (if indeed it can be dated to the first century).

praxeus:
And the Messiah is the subject throughout, this is clear by watching the singular and plural usages, and how Messiah interrelates to Israel.

The Targum Jonathan reinterpreted Isa 53 as applying to a Messiah, instead of Israel. But the way Isa 53 was reinterpreted in Targum Jonathan reveals how little attention was paid to the context of Isa 53. For, by "a strange exegetical perversity," although the servant is identified with the Messiah, all the sufferings of the servant are identified with Israel! This alone demonstrates how loose and non-exegetical the rabbinic targumizing was. It is hardly a basis for defending a Messianic reinterpretation of the text. Instead, it is a vivid demonstration of poor interpretation.

The fact remains that Isaiah 53 was written in a time before there was any notion of an eschatological 'Messiah' in Judaism. And, furthermore, when read in context and without reading Isa 53 through NT lens or later Messianic lens, it clearly refers to Israel.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[jpholding]

05-31-2003 @ 09:15 PM post located here
Joseph Alward:



Okay, if you believe that a subtle attack against the movement was employed, then surely the sublety of innuendo would not have been ruled out as inappropriate. The fact that Domitian did not have Josephus write things which would subtly undermine the movement and its miracle stories, even if only in a small way, shows that the miracles stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time and thus not in need of refutation.

Guess what, Doc. Some think Josephus DID do this very thing. When he said, "For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual," he used the word paradoxos, which can mean strange, surprising, or wonderful. But Doc, either way, you still aren't showing why this doesn't lead to the conclusion that the stories were around, but couldn't be refuted -- leaving overall silence the best option.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
But Doc, either way, you still aren't showing why this doesn't lead to the conclusion that the stories were around, but couldn't be refuted -- leaving overall silence the best option.

JOE ALWARD
In my opinion, silence in this scenario would not have been Domitian's best option. If the stories were around and believed by some people, as they evidently were because the movement was allegedly burgeoning, Domitian would have known that they were not believed by everyone. Domitian would have known that if he had remained silent about the stories, those who did not yet believe the stories would wonder why he didn't speak against them, and they might be inclined to wonder whether the stories were true, and this would have made things even worse.

It wouldn't have been necessary for Domitian to PROVE to the non-believers that the stories were false; all he would have had to do is to reassure them by stating that the stories were exaggerated, or fabricated, or based on the fanciful imaginations of the followers of Jesus. Sure, Jesus' followers would probably not have believed Domitian, but no harm would have been done, since they were going to believe in Jesus no matter what Domitian said about him. But, for those who were not inclined to believe the stories, Domitian's silence about them would have given them reason to wonder whether Domitian believed the stories. Since Domitian would have known that this is how some of the non-believers would have interpreted his silence, at the very least he would have had Josephus write that the stories were exaggerations, or fabrications. The fact that Domitian did not do this is good evidence that the stories were not in circulation in the time of Domitian, and thus not in need of refutation.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

In my opinion, silence in this scenario would not have been Domitian's best option. If the stories were around and believed by some people, as they evidently were because the movement was allegedly burgeoning, Domitian would have known that they were not believed by everyone. Domitian would have known that if he had remained silent about the stories, those who did not yet believe the stories would wonder why he didn't speak against them, and they might be inclined to wonder whether the stories were true, and this would have made things even worse.

Hmm, all you're telling me then is that he was danged if he did, and danged if he didn't, and he had to choose between the best dang. But the problem here is that silence was a known method of dishonoring people in this time. You dishonored persons by ignoring them, so if anything Dommy's silence would NOT have caused such an inclination as you suggest, but rather sent the message that this Jesus was a dishonorable person. In fact, Doc, under this social paradigm actually saying outright that the stories were lies (even if they were) would have been WORSE because it would have left an impression that Jesus deserved the honor of that level of attention.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
You dishonored persons by ignoring them, so if anything Dommy's silence would NOT have caused such an inclination as you suggest, but rather sent the message that this Jesus was a dishonorable person. In fact, Doc, under this social paradigm actually saying outright that the stories were lies (even if they were) would have been WORSE because it would have left an impression that Jesus deserved the honor of that level of attention.

JOE ALWARD
It's hard to believe that powerful Romans of that era ignored their enemies, especially if they are behind a movement which was burgeoning and had the potential for threatening their power. As I've noted before, men as powerful as Roman emperors are honor-bound to refute false honor claims, or to have them refuted by others. Not to do so would lead to a proliferation of unchallenged honor claims, and with virtually everyone making honor claims with impunity, the "legitimate" honor claims by emperors would be paled against the background of near-universal honor. The emperor's honor claim would be just one of thousands, and thus essentially without value. Thus, it is unthinkable that Domitian would ignore honor claims made on Jesus' behalf by his followers. There can be almost no doubt that at the very least Domitian would have labeled the miracle stories as false, especially given that the stories attach to Jesus a glory far greater than that which Domitian could attach to himself. If Domitian himself didn't do it, he would have had others, such as Josephus, refute the honor claims. The fact that Domitian did nothing of the kind is strong evidence that the miracle stories were not in circulation in Domitian's time, and therefore not in need of being refuted.

Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no record that the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you describe ever existed during that era, or in any other era. A search of the internet turns up no reference by any writer or historian of that era to the practice you describe, nor have any contemporary writers made reference to this practice. It is possible that my search for evidence of the paradigm you describe overlooked comments by writers or historians of that time, or by contemporary writers. Do you have a particular author in mind who made reference to the practice of dishonoring by silence?

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

It's hard to believe that powerful Romans of that era ignored their enemies

Is it hard to believe they did so in LITERARY terms? I would agree they would not ignore them in practical terms, but when it came to history writing, that's another matter. Consider how attempts were made to erase Akhenaten from the record.

As I've noted before, men as powerful as Roman emperors are honor-bound to refute false honor claims, or to have them refuted by others.

If they can do so, of course.

Not to do so would lead to a proliferation of unchallenged honor claims, and with virtually everyone making honor claims with impunity

But again, what if the claims are true? I know you exclude that as a posssibility, but what if that were so? Also I can't go with you on the claim of impunity -- the mores were too ingrained for that. Plus remember that EVERYONE resented people who made excessive honor claims, because honor was perceived as a "limited good". So there were controls on that kind of thing.

Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no record that the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you describe ever existed during that era, or in any other era.

Doc, I can give you a bibliography on this if you are interested. You won't find this sort of thing on the Internet. It's not something writers would refer to but we see actions of that sort in honor-shame societies even today (such as, if we were in one, I would put on Ignore anyone who I considered unworthy of response).

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
But again, what if the claims are true?

JOE ALWARD
Even if they were true, not everyone would have believed the stories. Domitian would have known that the ones who did not believe the stories would be reassured by statements from the emperor, or from Josephus, that the stories were false. Not stating that the stories were false would lead at least some of these nonbelievers to suspect that perhaps Domitian himself believed them, and this would only make things worse. The doubt that silence would create in the minds of those who disbelieved the stories illustrates what I think is a big problem with your suggestion that there existed at that time the social paradigm within which one fought false honor claims with silence: How would anyone know which was which? Are you silent because you have no defense against the honor claim, or are you silent because you DO have a defense but don't wish to honor that person by mentioning his name? Nobody would be able to tell which was which, and for that reason I think that using silence as a weapon would have been completely impractical, and thus it did not exist in that time. I think that's why I found no reference to this practice on the internet.

JOE ALWARD
Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no record that the dishonoring by silence social paradigm you describe ever existed during that era, or in any other era.

JP HOLDING
Doc, I can give you a bibliography on this if you are interested. You won't find this sort of thing on the Internet. It's not something writers would refer to but we see actions of that sort in honor-shame societies even today (such as, if we were in one, I would put on Ignore anyone who I considered unworthy of response).

JOE ALWARD
Yes, I definitely am interested in seeing if any writer then, or now, believed there was such a social paradigm. You need not present a bibliography. If you have a particular quote in mind, along with the name of the book or article, from either an ancient author, or a current one, that would be sufficient.

[jpholding]

Heya Doc,

Even if they were true, not everyone would have believed the stories. Domitian would have known that the ones who did not believe the stories would be reassured by statements from the emperor, or from Josephus, that the stories were false.

But Doc, if they WERE true, then Dommy sets himself up for a big shamefest if he issues such statements and he's in worse straits than ever. Again, the only way this tightrope could be walked is to say as little as possible.

The doubt that silence would create in the minds of those who disbelieved the stories illustrates what I think is a big problem with your suggestion that there existed at that time the social paradigm within which one fought false honor claims with silence: How would anyone know which was which?

Because in this day, keeping silent was a way to shame your opposition. The relative silence would not have anyone thinking anything but, "Obviously, these people aren't worth any attention."

Are you silent because you have no defense against the honor claim, or are you silent because you DO have a defense but don't wish to honor that person by mentioning his name?

You are silent because you want to leave the impression that your enemies are not worth the time of day. Whether you have a defense or not would not make a difference. But it would be the only option if the claims were true and he didn't want any more publicity on them.

I think that's why I found no reference to this practice on the internet.

I think it's more because not many people have studied deeply into this stuff.


If you have a particular quote in mind, along with the name of the book or article, from either an ancient author, or a current one, that would be sufficient.

No particular quote, no -- it would take a few paragraphs of explanation, which is why I'd rather give you titles, like Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science commentaries and Herzog's Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
I think that's why I found no reference to this practice on the internet.

JP HOLDING
I think it's more because not many people have studied deeply into this stuff.

JOE ALWARD
If not many, then some? Could you give me an example of someone who mentioned the dishonoring by silence social paradigm? Maybe provide a particular quote?

[jpholding]

Doc,

JOE ALWARD
If not many, then some? Could you give me an example of someone who mentioned the dishonoring by silence social paradigm? Maybe provide a particular quote?

One reason I can't is that I don't own the books that speak of this. I'd have to get to the library next week (or maybe this week) and bring it home. That's why I wanted to give you titles.

The most recent example I read of was in Herzog's Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God in which Jesus' accusers, when he healed the man with a withered hand, were said to speak amongst themselves while ignoring Jesus as a sign of rebuffing him.

[Joseph Alward]

JP HOLDING
The most recent example I read of was in Herzog's Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God in which Jesus' accusers, when he healed the man with a withered hand, were said to speak amongst themselves while ignoring Jesus as a sign of rebuffing him.

JOE ALWARD
I would have a few problems with this, if this is all there is. First, I don't know how the commentator could have known that the ones speaking among themselves were not merely trying to keep private their comments. Speaking among themselves is not silence. On what evidence did Herzog's source reach the conclusion that the speaking privately constituted a silence that was meant to dishonor Jesus?

Second, I'm looking for evidence that there existed the social paradigm you mentioned, in which dishonoring by silence was a standard practice. Even if there was clear evidence that the accusers in the story you mention meant for their speaking among themselves somehow to be interpreted as silence meant to dishonor Jesus, that would not show that their behavior was so widespread as to be a social paradigm.

[wienerdog]

Here's a good article on Jesus as a "copycat" savior. It's a critique of a critique.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/fales.html

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Thanks for citing the article by Craig, Wienerdog. I'll quote below the passage which illustrates what I think is a logical failure by Craig. He writes,

"Josephus barely mentions Jesus at all–why would he relate the darkness at noon?"

Maybe he didn't relate the darkness at noon for the same reason he barely mentioned Jesus: Josephus did not know about any of the miracle stories associated with Jesus.