.....................
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
====================================================