Price's Quibbling and Evasion
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:49:29 -0500 (CDT) (00873247769, 199709021849.NAA17868@cdale3.midwest.net)
>YOEL
>I wrote:
>>Did Jesus or did he not open his mouth?
>>
>>Nigas ve hu na'aneh velo yiftaH piv
>>He was oppressed and he was afflicted** and not will he open his
mouth
>>
>>kaseh latevaH yuval
>>like the lamb to the slaughter is brought
>>
>>ukheraHel lifnei gozezeyhah ne'elamah
>>and like a ewe before her shearers is mute
>>
>>velo yiftaH piv
>>and not did he open his mouth
>
>
>yiftaH is literally "will open" (3rd person), but there is good linguistic
>reason why it is translated in past tense. (I began translating literally,
>and this is something that would not be said this way in modern Hebrew, in
>which it would be future tense only) I left the first instance in the
>literal future and translated the second in past. I should have translated
>both equally. So here is the full corrected posting:
>
><Price-Till Exchange snipped>
>
>TILL
>Then is it true that the text does not state that he [the suffering servant]
>did not open his mouth WHEN he was being afflicted?
<< yoel-
yes. I don't see how he can claim that "when" is there. >>
PRICE
The Hebrew conjunctions in this passage are literally "and" in each case.
So from a strictly literal perspective Yoel is correct in saying that "when"
is not there. The word "when" comes from the ASV translation which Mr. Till
praised for its accuracy, being the version he uses regularly.
TILL
When an inerrantist must resort to such quibbling as this, it is evident
that his position is intellectually bankrupt. According to Price's logic,
no one could ever question the translation accuracy of anything in the
version that he uses in teaching, preaching, writing, or debating. I use
the ASV for reasons that I have already stated. It was the version that I
used in 1949 as I began to study the Bible very seriously, and it was the
version that I used when I was a preacher. I still use it in my personal
studies, because it is the version that I am most familiar with. My use of
the ASV, however, does not mean that I don't recognize that there are
translation problems in it. Price seems to use the KJV, so I will ask him a
question. Does he ever appeal to either Hebrew or Greek in his teaching to
show that the KJV probably did not render certain passages correctly? If
not, then he is a very unusual person. If so, then what is his point here
except to quibble over a matter that seriously jeopardizes his position?
Turn about is fair play, so let me dump the problem back into Price's lap.
In an earlier posting, he quoted Isaiah 53:8 from the KJV: "He was taken
from prison and from judgment...." Now since he has quoted the KJV, his own
logic requires him to defend it, so, as I asked him to do once before, what
evidence can he cite from the NT that Jesus was ever in prison? The NT
accounts report that Jesus was taken to the chief priests, from the chief
priests to Pilate, from Pilate to Herod, from Herod back to Pilate, and then
to the crucifixion site, but I don't recall any claim that Jesus was ever
put into prison. So if the suffering servant was Jesus, when was he "taken
from prison"? Price can't argue that the Hebrew text didn't mean prison,
because his logic has made the Hebrew text irrelevant. Let him now defend
the KJV and tell us when Jesus was imprisoned.
PRICE
There are grammatical details in this passage (other than the conjunctions)
that could justify the ASV's rendering.
TILL
Then what are these "grammatical details"?
PRICE
Evidently Yoel is unaware of these more technical aspects of Hebrew grammar.
But that is beside the point for the current discussion. There is no need to
pursue that quibble further.
TILL
Those of us on the Errancy list have seen dozens of postings from Yoel in
which he grammatically analyzed various Hebrew texts. If he is faking his
knowledge of Hebrew, he has done a good job of it. Does Price know that
Yoel grew up in Israel, served in the Israeli army, and taught Hebrew to
European immigrants?
PRICE
In previous posts, Mr. Till has agreed that no matter whether the
conjunctions are translated literally as "and" or as some other English
conjunction, the
sense of the clauses and context indicates that the "oppression" and
"affliction" and "silence" of the Servant were concurrent events. That was
the thrust of my argument. The text speaks only of the Servants silence
when He was oppresses and afflicted, not under the other conditions that
Mr. Till has tried to import into the text.
TILL
Yes, I have agreed to this, but I have also argued that interrogation and
mockery of the type that Jesus was allegedly subjected to would have
constituted oppression in any reasonable person's mind. Price denies that
it was, because he must quibble in order to defend his tenuous position on
Isaiah 53. Furthermore, Price's frequent references to what Jesus endured
as "fulfillment" of this chapter are question begging at its most obvious.
Without any textual evidence at all, he assumes that Jesus was the suffering
servant and then cites what he endured as fulfillment of the "prophecy."
First, he must establish from some kind of evidence within the text of
Isaiah that Isaiah was indeed referring to Jesus in the suffering-servant
passage. He hasn't done that. He has made some brief references to verses
that he thinks are indications that Isaiah was referring to an individual
rather than a nation, but that doesn't prove that Jesus was this individual
being referred to. The fact that some NT writers obviously thought that
this chapter was referring to Jesus proves only that some NT writers thought
that this chapter was referring to Jesus, but what these writers THOUGHT is
only what they thought. In all of the NT references to this chapter, there
were NO attempts made at any time to prove that the text was referring to
Jesus. The NT writers merely asserted that it did, and Price has bought the
assertions without proof.
Some on the list may not know that Dr. Price and I are currently debating
Isaiah's 70-year prophecy in *The Skeptical Review." In my first response
to Price, I listed some widely recognized criteria of valid
prophecy-fulfillment, and Price later said that he found these criteria
"satisfactory." One of these criteria was that the one who is claiming
prophecy-fulfillment must prove--not just assume but prove--that the alleged
prophecy statement meant what the one claiming fulfillment asserts that it
meant. This criterion is really as far as we need to go (although I'm going
to respond to Price's other postings), because it has stopped Price dead in
his tracks. To prove that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53, Price must find
unequivocal evidence that Isaiah was talking about the expected Messiah.
The fact that Price and some NT writers THOUGHT that this was what was meant
doesn't prove that Isaiah himself meant this. So it is time for Price to
show some solid textual evidence from Isaiah that the suffering servant was
intended to be understood as the Messiah. Once that Price has accomplished
that, we can then discuss the issue of whether Jesus, of all the Messianic
claimants in Jewish history, was this Messiah.
I have done a detailed analysis of Isaiah 41-53, which Price hasn't
responded to yet. Perhaps he will, but I haven't seen his response yet.
That analysis showed that when Isaiah used the word "servant," the context
in which it was used always indicated who the servant was. The analysis
also showed that except in two or three cases, when the word was applied to
Isaiah and Eliakim, Isaiah always identified the nation of Israel as the
servant. Yet when we reach Isaiah 52:12, Price suddenly wants to insist
that the "servant" was someone not specifically identified in the text and
not yet referred to in the preceding chapters that discussed the "servant"
at length. He needs to present some real evidence and not just the wishful
thinking of Christians. He has quibbled and evaded long enough.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net