Carrier's big gaffe in OHJ
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:08 am
Removed: wrong thread. Now posted on thread about Carrier's OHJ.
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Equally interesting is Justin's explanation of Isa. 8:4, which gives the reason why the prophet should call his son Maher-shalal-hash-baz. 3 ' The verse reads: "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry 'My father' and 'My mother,' the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria." This child, according to Justin, was Christ, and hence the passage is thought to support his doctrine of the incarnation. The fulfilment of the prophecy is found in the visit of the magi to the infant Jesus. These magi came from Arabia, and Damascus is in Arabia. The riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria refer to "the power of the evil demon that dwelt in Damascus." The king of Assyria is Herod, so called "on account of his ungodly and sinful character." When therefore the magi came and worshiped the infant Jesus, in that hour "the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria" were "carried away before the king of Assyria."
Unfortunately for this interpretation, there is no proof that the magi came from Arabia, or that there was a particular evil demon residing in Damascus, or that the magi had ever been subject to a demon either in Damascus or elsewhere, or that the riches of Damascus and spoil of Samaria could mean the power of a demon in Damascus, or that Herod might be spoken of as the king of Assyria. There are yet three passages which Justin regards as proof of
his view. The first is Isa. 7:14, spoken to Ahaz: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel." Justin appropriates this, making the following brief comment in justification: "It is evident to all that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born, save this our Christ." 28 In another connection 29 he says that the
birth of the child would not have been a "sign," had it been natural. But at present this statement would be regarded as having no weight. Scripture does not confine the name "sign" to phenomena of a supernatural character (see, e. g., Luke 2,: 14). Then it is necessary to Justin's argument that the Hebrew should certainly speak of a virgin, but scholars are still divided on the meaning of the word which Justin took in that sense (see, e. g., the margin of the American Revision); and surely on an uncertain text of Scripture we cannot safely build a doctrine. Further, it is equally necessary to Justin's argument that the conception spoken of in Isaiah should clearly belong to the future, but the Hebrew leaves this also in doubt. It is possible to hold that the prophet had in mind a present reality, viz., that the child contemplated had already been conceived, and manifestly in this case the verse does not lend so ready support to Justin's view. Then there is another obvious obstacle in the way of Justin's use of the verse. The prophet gave a sign to Ahaz, but the birth of a child hundreds of years after the death of Ahaz would surely not
have been a sign to him. If then the passage speaks of a sign which Ahaz was to receive, the language can be referred to the birth of Jesus only as foreshadowing it, and so does not discriminate the character of his birth from that birth which was to be in the lifetime of Ahaz. It is possible that the prophet had the Messiah in mind, but, if so, he thought of his coming as an event of the immediate future.
I would counter that this a myth - the Catholic myth of Paul - which was born from the experiences of Irenaeus and systematically falsified into a great number of sources as if they 'prophesied' the coming golden age' (cf. Eusebius) for the Church under Commodus. Paul really becomes a herald for Irenaeus and the Catholic Church, a useful myth. The identification of Damascus as in Arabia is key. The Syro-Phoenicia allusion is a deliberate anachronism.Justin gave an extremely peculiar interpretation to Isa. 8:4 ("he will carry away the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria"): at the moment of Jesus' birth, when the magi (Mt. 2: Iff.) began to follow the star, the power of the evil spirit in Damascus was broken (Justin, Dial. 78.9). Hence the eschatological light encounters the first Gentiles in the region of Damascus, from which for Justin the magi originally came (Justin, Dial. 78.2, 10). Mt. 4:13-16 understands Jesus' ministry in northern Galilee and in the adjoining land of East Jordan as the fulfillment of Isa. 8:23-9:1 (together with Num. 24:17), and thus as an anticipation of the illumination of the Gentiles.22 The apocryphal Jewish-Christian Testament of the Redeemer in Galilee, difficult to date, portrays Paul, in fulfillment of Isa. 8:4, preaching to the Gentiles in the area around Damascus (T. Gal. 44 [PO 9, 215]), and thus one must ask seriously whether this does not reflect an Old Testament-salvific-historical way of thinking of the sort that also affected the apostle himself after his conversion. Jerome, too (Comm. in Is. 9:1 [PL 24, 125]), reports that at least some Jewish Christians viewed Isa. 8:23-9:1 as coming to complete fulfillment in Paul's activity. [Rainer Riesner Paul's Early Period p. 239]