The following article is from *The Skeptical Review*, 1996 January/February:
by Farrell Till
Just a superficial reading of Dr. Ross's article about the
application of probabilities to biblical prophecy fulfillment is
enough to see that it is just another attempt to shore up a
discredited apologetic argument. Biblical inerrantists have
repeatedly tried to prove the divine origin of the Bible through
various prophecy-fulfillment claims, but the truth is that no one
has ever been able to verify a single example of biblical prophecy
fulfillment. I have read many such attempts, and Dr. Ross's effort
differs only in that it is, in my opinion, not nearly as good as
some I have seen.
What is really ludicrous about Dr. Ross's article is his
arbitrary
probability figures. They are reminiscent of the ridiculous
probability arguments that creationists bandy about to "prove"
that life could not have happened without divine creation. Before
anyone can determine the probability of any event, he must know
all of the factors that would be involved in the occurrence of the
event, and this is where the absurdities begin in most creationist
and prophecy-fulfillment probability arguments. No one knows how
many factors would be involved in the formation of life, and
nobody knows how many factors would be involved in the occurrence
of a specific event years in the future. Yet biblicists constantly
yak about how the probability of such-and-such happening would be
one in so many millions or billions or trillions. It's all too
ridiculous to deserve serious comment, but because so many
fundamentalists use such arguments to impress the gullible, we,
unfortunately, have to comment on their "arguments" from time to
time.
In order to prove--and I mean *prove*, not just
surmise--prophecy
fulfillment, one would have to establish four things: (1) the
claimant of a prophecy fulfillment is properly interpreting
whatever text he is basing his claim on, (2) the prophecy was made
*before* and not after the event that allegedly fulfills the
prophecy, (3) the prophecy was made not just *before* an event but
far enough in advance of it to make educated guesswork impossible,
and (4) the event that allegedly fulfilled the prophecy did in
fact happen. When Dr. Ross's claims of prophecy fulfillment are
examined in terms of these four characteristics of valid prophecy,
we will see that none of his alleged prophecy fulfillments can
pass muster.
In a continuing series of articles, I will examine all thirteen
of
Ross's claims but not necessarily in the order he presented them.
Let's begin, then, with number two: the birth of Jesus in
Bethlehem fulfilled a prophecy about where the Messiah would be
born (Micah 5:2). Ross said that
"(t)he fulfillment of this prophecy is one of the most widely
known and widely celebrated facts in history," but is it? I say
that this prophecy-fulfillment claim fails tests 1 and 4 in the
list above.
Did Micah unquestionably predict that the Messiah would be born
in
the town of Bethlehem? That's what most biblicists believe, but it
is certainly not something that they can prove definitively enough
to claim that they have an unquestionable prophecy fulfillment in
the place of Jesus's birth. To evaluate the claim, let's first
look at the statement that Ross alleges was a prophecy of the
Messiah:
- "But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2 NKJV)
In the context of the passage in which Micah made this
statement,
he was speaking of "many nations [that] have gathered against you
[Israel]" (4:11). In particular, there
seemed to be concern about "the Assyrian com[ing] into our land"
(5:5),
so it makes good sense
to assume that Micah, rather than predicting the coming of a
Messiah in the distant future, was talking about a "ruler" who
would arise to help Israel during the present threat to its
national security. There is serious doubt, then, that Micah even
intended his statement to be a Messianic prophecy beyond the sense
of someone arising to lead Israel through its present crisis.
For the sake of argument, however, let's just assume that Micah
did intend this to be a prophecy of the long-awaited Jewish
Messiah. Even if this were so, there would still be serious
problems to overcome before Ross or anyone could prove that a
birth in the town of Bethlehem fulfilled this prophecy. First, it
is questionable that (Micah 5:2) was even referring
to the *town* of Bethlehem. Several translations suggest that he
meant a tribal clan and not a town. Many people who cite (Micah 5:2) as a case of amazing prophecy fulfillment don't
realize that a person named Bethlehem was an Old Testament
character who had descended from Caleb through Hur, the firstborn
son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chron 2:18; 2:50-52; 4:4)Young's
Analytical Concordance, p. 92, identifies Bethlehem as the
name of this person as well as the name of two different villages.
The NIV translates the relevant part of
Micah 5:2 like this: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though
you are small among the *clans* of Judah...." A clan, of course,
is not a town, so if this translation is accurate, the prophet was
speaking not of a place but a tribal family that would give rise
to a ruler. The RSV, NRSV, NAS, NAB, NEB, REB, the Amplified
Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, and others give similar renditions
that agree that Micah was referring to a family clan rather than a
town.
Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible refers
to the Bethlehem Ephrathah in this passage as something that is
"little to be among the chiefs of Judah," another implication that
the prophet was speaking of a person or clan, but even more
damaging to Matthew's attempt to apply this statement to the town
of Bethlehem is the Septuagint translation of the passage:
- "And thou, Bethlehem, *house of Ephrathah*, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah: yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel "(Brenton Translation).
Three statements in this version are significant. First it was
said that Bethlehem was "few in number to be reckoned among the
thousands of Judah." If this was a reference to the town of
Bethlehem, then indeed it would have been "few in number." *One*
is about as "few" as you can get. Secondly, this Bethlehem was too
few to be "reckoned among the thousands of Judah. The towns in
Judah could not have been reckoned in terms of thousands; the
country was just too small to have "thousands" of towns. The
statement, however, makes sense if interpreted as a reference to
the family clans in Judah. Finally--and this is the clincher--this
Bethlehem was described as the "house of Ephrathah." When we
encounter expressions like "house of David" or "house of Levi" in
the Bible, we immediately recognize them as references to family
clans, not towns or cities, and we should do the same here.
Matthew obviously distorted Micah 5:2 to try to make it a
reference to the town of Bethlehem, and this becomes more apparent
when we consider that Matthew usually quoted the Septuagint
version when he referred to the Old Testament. But he didn't here,
possibly because the Septuagint shows too clearly that Micah 5:2 was referring to a family group or clan.
Again, for the sake of argument, let's just assume that Micah
was
indeed referring to the town of Bethlehem in his famous
"prophecy." Dr. Ross still would not have a verifiable case of
prophecy fulfillment, because neither he nor anyone else can prove
that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem. As noted earlier,
Ross said that "the fulfillment of this prophecy [the birth of the
Messiah in Bethlehem] is one of the most widely known and widely
celebrated facts of history." Now if he had said that the birth of
Jesus in Bethlehem was one of the most widely known and widely
celebrated "claims" or "traditions," I would have no quarrel with
him, but to say that it is a widely known and celebrated "fact of
history" that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is to make an assertion
that cannot be established as fact.
Ross has simply assumed that the New Testament records are
historically accurate; therefore, if they say that Jesus was born
in Bethlehem, it is a historical fact that he was born in
Bethlehem. Unfortunately for his probability argument on this
point, he has no way of proving that Jesus was actually born in
Bethlehem. There are no contemporary documents or records of any
kind to corroborate the New Testament claim that Jesus was born in
Bethlehem. As "The Historicity of Jesus" (The Skeptical Review, Autumn 1995, pg. 1) pointed out,
despite the New Testament claims that Jesus was so popular that
great multitudes followed him and even brought the sick and the
lame to him from as far away as Syria to be cured by his
miraculous powers, no contemporary writers even mentioned the man.
He was known only in the New Testament documents and some
apocryphal writings that even Christianity has rejected. Since the
gospel writers were obviously biased in their zealous attempts to
sell Jesus as the Messiah, how do we know that Matthew and Luke
didn't just say that he was born in Bethlehem in order to give the
appearance that even his birth had fulfilled Old Testament
prophecy? So if Ross wants to talk about probabilities, I could
ask him to calculate what the odds would be that a writer like
"Matthew" could make up details about the birth of Jesus to make
it appear that he had fulfilled prophecy by being born in the town
of Bethlehem. I would say that the odds for that would be about
one in one.
From this point on, I would urge readers to keep in mind that
most
of Ross's arguments assume the historical accuracy of the Bible,
and that is certainly an improper way to argue for prophecy
fulfillment. One would have to be incredibly ignorant of the Bible
not to know that it contains numerous examples of both prophecy
and prophecy-fulfillment claims. So whether the Bible *claims*
prophecy fulfillment is a point not relevant to this debate,
because it certainly does contain such claims. What Dr. Ross must
do to sustain his position is prove that the Bible's many claims
of prophecy-fulfillment are true, and that is something he won't
find as easy as formulating arbitrary probability figures.
In his third example of prophecy-fulfillment, Dr. Ross claims
that
Judas's betrayal of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver was predicted by
Zechariah, a prophet who lived in the 5th century B. C. Of all of
his prophecy-fulfillment claims, this is undoubtedly Dr. Ross's
most disingenuous, because he failed to inform his readers that
the only New Testament claim that prophecy was fulfilled when
Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus was made by
Matthew, and he alleged that the payment fulfilled a prophecy that
was made by Jeremiah, not Zechariah. I have to
wonder why Dr. Ross kept this controversial point from his
readers.
Zechariah did make a reference to 30 pieces of silver, but it
was
clearly not the statement that Matthew in his inimitable way tried
to quote. To see this, we have only to look at the two statements
together:
- Matthew 27:9-10--Then was fulfilled what was spoken by *Jeremiah* the prophet, saying, "*And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced,* whom they of the children of Israel priced, *and gave them for the potter's field, as the LORD directed me"* (Italics inserted as used in the NKJV).
- Zechariah 11:12-13- -Then I said to them, "If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain." So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. Yahweh said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of Yahweh for the potter."
One has to stretch imagination to assume that Matthew was
actually
quoting this passage from Zechariah, but even if he was, Dr. Ross
will have to explain why God's inspired writer said that this was
something Jeremiah had predicted. If Ross wants to think in terms
of probabilities, perhaps he can do a little figuring and let us
know what would be the probability that a writer who was verbally
inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity would attribute to
Jeremiah a prophecy that had really been made by Zechariah. I
would think that the odds against this happening would be so
astronomical that even the universe itself couldn't contain all
the zeroes that would follow the number. So the fact that Matthew
made such an error (as Ross has tacitly admitted by correcting
Matthew's statement) is more than reasonable evidence that he
wasn't divinely inspired. To say the least, the mistake doesn't
give readers much confidence to believe that Matthew knew what he
was talking about when he made this prophecy-fulfillment claim.
Examination of the context in which Zechariah's statement was
made
also shows that it obviously referred to a contemporary situation
rather than an event that would happen five centuries later.
Zechariah was a prophet at the time that the repatriates from
Babylonian captivity were rebuilding Jerusalem under the
leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah. The first half of the book
consists of "visions" that Zechariah had about the restoration of
Jerusalem, but the second half is an apocalyptic, doom-and-gloom/
day-of-the-Lord work, which many scholars believe is a later
redaction to Zechariah's optimistic predictions that Yahweh would
lead his people to restore Jerusalem to its former glory. Whether
this view of the last part of the book is correct or not, the
passage that Dr. Ross alluded to is found in the apocalyptic
section of the book.
In the chapter where reference was made to 30 pieces of silver,
Yahweh had commanded Zechariah to "feed the flock for slaughter,"
because Yahweh would "no longer pity the inhabitants of the land" (Zechariah 11:4-6). In other words,
Yahweh was ticked off at his people again, and so someone was
going to have to pay a price. After a period of feeding the flock,
Zechariah found the work so disagreeable that he quit and demanded
that the leaders pay him wages for his work. The 30 pieces of
silver were weighed out in payment to him, and Yahweh then told
him to throw them "into the house of Yahweh for the potter." The
meaning of the word translated *potter* in this statement is
controversial, and it is translated *treasury* in some versions
(RSV, NRSV, NEB, NAB, GNB, JB, etc.). The context of the passage
suggests that Zechariah was ordered by Yahweh to "feed his flock"
and that the leaders of "the flock" had considered this work worth
only 30 pieces of silver. This price was considered so insulting
that Yahweh ordered Zechariah to throw the money back into the
treasury, apparently as a gesture of contempt, and this is the
passage that Ross sees as a prophecy of Judas's betrayal of Jesus.
Of course, whether Matthew saw it this way or not is debatable,
because he made no reference to Zechariah. At any rate, to see
prophecy in a statement as vague and uncertain as this only shows
how desperate biblicists are for evidence to support their claim
that the Bible was divinely inspired.
Once again, however, let's suppose for the sake of argument
that
Dr. Ross is right and that Zechariah did intend this statement to
be a prophecy that someone would betray the Messiah for 30 pieces
of silver. That would not prove that it was fulfilled by Judas,
because we have only Matthew's word that Judas was paid 30 pieces
of silver to betray Jesus and then afterwards brought the money
back and cast it down in the sanctuary. To argue that this one
account, by a biased disciple of Jesus, is reliable enough that we
can know an Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled is, again, to
assume the complete historical accuracy of the New Testament
documents. At the very least, Dr. Ross will have to produce
contemporary records to corroborate Matthew's account. I don't
think he will be able to do that, although he said in his article
that "Bible writers *and secular historians* both record thirty
pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying
Jesus." Now he may have meant by this that secular historians have
uncritically accepted Matthew's word that this happened and have
recorded it as historical fact, but he won't be able to find any
secular historians who recorded it from nonbibical sources such as
Roman archives or temple records. *It is an unverifiable story,
and that is bad news for Dr. Ross's prophecy-fulfillment claim.*
An unverifiable event simply cannot be considered a fulfillment of
prophecy.
Dr. Ross's fourth claim of prophecy fulfillment alleges that
"King
David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in
words that perfectly depict that mode of execution." Although Ross
didn't specify any specific statements in Psalm 22 that he considered prophetic in terms of describing
the death of Jesus, he undoubtedly meant verses 16 and 18, which
allude to pierced hands and feet and the casting of lots for
garments. The gospels all claim that Jesus was crucified, an act
that would have required the piercing of his hands, and that the
Roman soldiers cast lots for his garments (Mt 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34), but John 19:23-24 specifically said that the casting of lots was
done "that the scripture might be fulfilled that says, `They
divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast
lots.'" Very obviously, then, John was alleging that the casting
of lots for Jesus's garments was a fulfillment of a prophecy in Psalm 22:18.
So is this proof that prophecy was fulfilled when the hands of
Jesus were pierced during his crucifixion and when lots were cast
for his garments? Not at all! To so argue is again to assume the
historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. There are
absolutely no contemporary nonbiblical records of the crucifixion
of Jesus, so to accept as absolute fact everything reported in the
gospels, which flagrantly admit that they were written for
propaganda purposes to further the belief that Jesus was the son
of God John 20:30, is certainly
an uncritical approach to proving a claim as extraordinary as
prophecy fulfillment. The gospel writers all claim that lots were
cast for Jesus's garments, but how do we know that this actually
happened? Dr. Ross can find no nonbiblical contemporary records to
confirm that any such incident as this happened, so to claim a
prophecy fulfillment solely on the basis of what the gospel
accounts say about this is to assume that they are unbiased,
reliable, accurate historical records. This claim completely
ignores the possibility that disciples of Jesus, desperately
wanting the world to believe he was the son of God, could sit down
and write biographies of Jesus that would deliberately try to
leave the impression that certain events happened in his life that
were fulfillments of prophecy. After all, how difficult would it
have been for a writer to see a statement in Psalm 22:18 about lots being cast for the psalmist's garments
and then to put such an incident into the life of the central
character in his book in order to claim prophecy fulfillment?
Again, I would say that the odds that this could happen would be
about one in one. Therefore, Dr. Ross's claim that prophecy was
fulfilled when Roman soldiers cast lots for the garments of Jesus
fails test #4 in our list of rules governing valid prophecy
fulfillment: he cannot prove that this event even happened.
If Jesus was crucified, then quite probably his hands and feet
were pierced, because this was standard procedure during
crucifixion. However, that is no proof that the reference in Psalm 22:16 to pierced hands and feet was a prophecy of the
crucifixion of Jesus. Contextually, there is nothing in this psalm
to indicate that the writer intended the statement to be so
understood. An objective reading of the psalm should be enough for
any reasonable person to see that the writer was referring to
himself and certain abuses that he was suffering at the hands of
his enemies.
"Many bulls have surrounded Me," the psalmist said in verses 12
and 13. "Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me. They gape at Me
with their mouths, like a raging and roaring lion." Was this some
kind of prophecy of the suffering that Jesus would endure or was
it a reference to some personal abuse that the psalmist felt he
was experiencing in his present condition? Not even the overly
imaginative mind of the writer of Matthew in his endless quest for
prophecy fulfillments tried to relate this statement to the life
of Jesus, yet the gospel writers took the reference to pierced
hands and feet just three verses later and exclaimed, "Aha,
prophecy fulfillment!" What is the rationale for distorting the
scriptures so flagrantly? Well, the answer, of course, is obvious:
the gospel writers were desperate to prove that their man Jesus
was the Messiah who had been promised in the Old Testament. Since
there really were no prophecies of a virgin-born, crucified,
resurrected Messiah in the Old Testament, they had to twist and
distort to give the appearance that Jesus was the long-awaited
one.
Absurdity in the claim that the reference to pierced hands and
feet in this psalm was a prophecy about Jesus becomes even more
evident when the obscurity of the statement is considered. A
footnote in many reference Bibles will point out that use of the
word *pierce* in Psalm 22:16 follows the
Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate versions but that the original
word is pointed in the Hebrew Masoretic text to read *lion*, and
despite the loss of an important prophecy-fulfillment text some
English translations recognize the uncertainty of the text. The
REB and NEB, for example, render the statement like this: "Hounds
are all about me; a band of ruffians rings me round, and they have
bound me hand and foot." The GNB says, "A gang of evil men is
around me; like a pack of dogs they close in on me; they tear at
my hands and feet." This translation has a footnote to point out
that the last statement in the Hebrew reads, "Like a lion, they
tear at my hands and feet." Some reference Bibles also have
footnotes to indicate that the latter statement may mean, "They
tie my hands and feet," as the REB and NEB actually translate it.
The point is that the original text is very uncertain in its
meaning, and on the basis of the Septuagint translation of a
controversial word, the gospel writers have twisted this statement
into a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus. What Dr. Ross is
actually claiming, then, is that the odds are 1 in 10^13 that a
controversial, uncertain text in a psalm about the writer's
personal suffering was a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus. It
is just such nonsense as this that biblicists must resort to in
their desperate search for something--*anything*--to support their
irrational belief that the Bible is the "inspired word of God."
The same objections can be applied to Ross's claim that Psalm 34:20 and Zechariah 12:10 were
prophecies of the manner in which Jesus would die. When both
passages are examined in context, it is clear that the writers had
contemporary situations in mind and not events far in the future.
Let's look first at Psalm 34:19-20:
- Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but Yahweh delivers him out of them all. He guards all his bones; not one of them is broken."
The key statement in the text is the final sentence: "Not one
of
them [bones] is broken." The writer of John claimed that when the
Roman soldiers were breaking the legs of the three who had been
crucified, they saw that Jesus was already dead, and so they
didn't break his legs. According to "John," this was done, of
course, "that the scripture should be fulfilled, `*Not one of his
bones shall be broken*.'" This is recognized in most footnoted
Bibles as a reference to Psalm 34:20, so, of course,
this is enough to convince Dr. Ross that we have an amazing
example of prophecy fulfillment.
Let's notice, however, that the statement about no bones being
broken was preceded by an assurance that Yahweh will deliver the
righteous out of all his "many afflictions." So by what rule of
logic would the last part of this text be a prophecy but the first
part wouldn't? I would certainly think that someone "who committed
no sin nor was deceit found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22) would be a "righteous" person, and I would
further think that nailing such a person to a cross would be an
affliction. So if the writer of this psalm was really prophesying
about the Messiah, why wasn't the sinless Jesus delivered from his
affliction as the "prophecy" promised? He wasn't, because nothing
in the context of this passage was intended as a prophecy of a
Messiah's death. It is just another example of desperation to find
something to shore up an untenable belief.
Even if we assume that Psalm 34:20 was intended as
a prophecy, Dr. Ross cannot prove that it was fulfilled in the
death of Jesus, because there is nothing in contemporary records,
including even the other gospel accounts, to corroborate John's
claim that the legs of Jesus were not broken on the cross. As I
have already pointed out, it would have been very simple for a
disciple of Jesus to search the Old Testament for statements like
Psalm 34:20 and then write a biography that intentionally included
events that never happened just to make it appear that (1) vague
statements in the scriptures were actually prophecies, and (2) the
life of Jesus had fulfilled them. So Dr. Ross is actually claiming
in this case that an unverifiable event fulfilled an unverifiable
prophecy.
There is no need to analyze Zechariah 12:10 with the
same detail I have applied to the other alleged prophecies in this
section. When the passage is examined in context, the objective
reader will clearly see that the prophet was apocalyptically
referring to a contemporary situation. In verse 9, for example,
just before the reference to looking upon "me whom they have
pierced," Yahweh declared that he would "destroy all the nations
that come against Jerusalem." At the time of Jesus's crucifixion,
the land of Judah was under foreign domination, and just a few
years later Roman legions devastated the city. Certainly, Yahweh
did not destroy all the the nations that came against Jerusalem at
the time that Jesus was "pierced." How then can any sensible
person consider Zechariah 12:10 to be a
prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus? We are simply seeing
desperation theology at work in a futile attempt to prove the
discredited belief that the Bible is "God's Word."
Dr. Ross's other claims of prophecy-fulfillment will be
examined
in subsequent issues of TSR. If he wishes to reply to
this or any of the other articles, we will publish his response.
No comments:
Post a Comment