Sadly more and more Muslims seem to take over atheist attacks on the Bible without carefully thinking over if these assumptions and principles of approaching scripture are even acceptable. One such piece is the following from Mr. Farrell Till from the Internet Infidels.

I decided to forward this to Dr. Price while adding my own questions:

And Dr. Price responds: 

Of course Till's challenge is a safe one because he knows that there is 
no OT passage that has those specific statements. Till will demand a 
specific statement in the OT concerning the third day. But this is 
imposing our Western idea of prophecy upon the ancient Jewish 
understanding of it. 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.

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;
(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)
(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)

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. 

The incident of Jonah's three days and three nights in the fish was of 
type (2). 

It involved a typical resurrection, if not a real one, and it occurred 
after 3 days.

Jesus referred to this event in the life of the prophet as a prophetic 
sign of His resurrection (Matt 12:38-42; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). In several 
OT prophecies Messiah's resurrection is declared or implied. When Jesus 
taught His disciples about the resurrection, He brought together several 
prophetic passages to present the whole picture, some of type (1) and 
some of type (2). This composite view of the resurrection satisfies the 
statements "it is written" (Luke 24:47) and "according to Scripture" 
(1 Cor 15:3-4). Nothing in those words demands one specific passage in 
the OT that declares the composite picture. 

It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic 
sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies 
believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of 
prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition.

The above was shared on the Muslim/Christian Dialog list and Adnan Khan again decided to enlist the infidels (the name they give themselves) to debate the issue and so the following responses are giving the arguments. 

Subj:	The Jonah "Analolgy": 
Date:	97-07-12 12:24:26 EDT
From:	jftill@midwest.net (Farrell Till)
To:	errancy@infidels.org
CC:	drjdprice@aol.com

PRICE
It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic 
sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies 
believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of 
prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition.

TILL
Price chides me for the unspeakable crime of demanding reasonable proof
of outlandish claims, but in everything he said in the paragraph above,
one clear message shines through: he can't prove that the resurrection
of the Messiah was prophesied in the OT, but he is going to believe it
anyway. Just who is the intellectually dishonest party in this dispute?

CARR
I agree. Can anybody read Price's paragraph without wincing at the sheer
absurdity of it? Price is virtually stating that for believers, just
about anything will be sufficient, even if they have to their own
special definitions.  


From: DrJDPrice@aol.com
Subject: Till & Jesus

What follows is my first reply to Till.
James D. Price
====================================
Dear Farrell Till:

Thanks for sending me a CC of your discussion with Mr. Carr about 
my statement on the Jonah Analogy. First let me make it clear that 
my discussion of that question was not submitted to you, nor to the 
errancy list. It was a private correspondence with a believer answering 
his query. I don't know how you got hold of it, that doesn't matter.
But it must be evaluated in light of its original recipient and the 
context in which it was submitted. 

 PRICE
 It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic 
 sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies 
 believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of 
 prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition.
 
 TILL
 Price chides me for the unspeakable crime of demanding reasonable proof
 of outlandish claims, but in everything he said in the paragraph above,
 one clear message shines through: he can't prove that the resurrection
 of the Messiah was prophesied in the OT, but he is going to believe it
 anyway. Just who is the intellectually dishonest party in this dispute? 

Price:
A discussion between people who agree on what they accept as authority 
is different than one between people who do not agree on an accepted 
authority. Through a careful evaluation of the evidence, Mr. Katz 
and I agree that Jesus Christ is a valid authority. Therefore, it 
is reasonable for us to agree with Jesus' teaching on OT prophecy. 
I explained to him that you and I do not agree on that authority, 
therefore it is reasonable that we disagree. What is wrong with that 
explanation? 

I gave Mr. Katz evidence that would be satisfactory to him. I understand 
that you demand greater documentation of my statements. Remember that my 
post was not addressed to you, nor is it a part of our debate on the topic 
of fulfilled prophecy. Nevertheless, I will provide documentation when I 
respond to your subsequent uninvited criticism of my statement. 

I did not accuse you of intellectual dishonesty in my post to Mr. Katz, 
nor have I ever made such an accusation. So I do not see any reason 
for your remark about my intellectual honesty. My understanding of 
intellectual dishonesty is a refusal to accept valid, convincing evidence. 
What valid, convincing evidence have I refused to accept in my post to 
Mr. Katz?

 CARR
 I agree. Can anybody read Price's paragraph without wincing at the sheer
 absurdity of it? Price is virtually stating that for believers, just
 about anything will be sufficient, even if they have to their own
 special definitions. 

Price:
Mr. Carr's response consists of blatant ridicule. He had nothing to 
say about the evidence I presented. Reasonable thinkers wince at
such absurd, emotional, fallacious arguments. He has read into my 
statement a generalization that I never made. This is known as the 
fallacy of hasty generalization. My statement related to the specific 
question Mr. Katz asked, and to the specific evidence I presented. 
No more, no less. Come on, Fellows, get real!!

James D. Price

The next two pieces are Mr. Till's response. After that we will list the answer by Dr. Price to them. 

Subj:	Third-Day Prophecy
Date:	97-07-12 23:30:54 EDT
From:	jftill@midwest.net (Farrell Till)
To:	errancy@infidels.org
CC:	drjdprice@aol.com

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
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
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
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
(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.

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
(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
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.  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?  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.

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.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net


Subj:	The Jonah "Analogy"
Date:	97-07-13 01:46:53 EDT
From:	jftill@midwest.net (Farrell Till)
To:	errancy@infidels.org
CC:	drjdprice@aol.com

PRICE
The incident of Jonah's three days and three nights in the fish was of 
type (2).

TILL
Type (2) was the prophecy-by-analogy. 

PRICE
It involved a typical resurrection, if not a real one, and it occurred 
after 3 days.

TILL
No, let's get this correct.  Price SAYS that the story of Jonah typified the
resurrection, but the story itself says absolutely nothing that would
justify this assumption.  The best way to see this is to read the biblical
account of the entire event.

>Jonah 1:15  So they [the crew members of Jonah's ship] picked Jonah up 
>   and threw him into the sea; and the sea ceased from its raging.
>16 Then the men feared Yahweh even more, and they offered a sacrifice 
>   to Yahweh and made vows.
>17 But Yahweh provided a large fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was 
>   in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
>2:1  Then Jonah prayed to Yahweh his God from the belly of the fish,
>2  saying, "I called to Yahweh out of my distress, and he answered me; 
>   out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.
>3  You cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood
>   surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me.
>4  Then I said, 'I am driven away from your sight; how shall I look again
>   upon your holy temple?'
>5  The waters closed in over me; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped
>   around my head
>6  at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed
>   upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the Pit, O Yahweh my God.
>7  As my life was ebbing away, I remembered Yahweh; and my prayer came to
>   you, into your holy temple.
>8  Those who worship vain idols forsake their true loyalty.
>9  But I with the voice of thanksgiving will sacrifice to you; what I have
>   vowed I will pay. Deliverance belongs to Yahweh!"
>10 Then Yahweh spoke to the fish, and it spewed Jonah out upon the dry
>   land.

What is there in this story that justifies Price's claim that this was an
analogical prophecy of the death and resurrection of Jesus?  What is there
in the story that even implies it?  How likely was it that the ancient Jews,
whom Price seems to see as exceptional connoisseurs of unusual prophecies,
read this story and understood it as an analogical prophecy of the death and
resurrection of their Messiah, whom they believed would one day come?  Can
Price cite any examples of ancient Jewish writers who understood the
prophecy in this way?  If so, he needs to cite them.  Otherwise, he is left
with nothing but an arbitrary assertion to support his case.

PRICE
Jesus referred to this event in the life of the prophet as a prophetic sign
of His resurrection (Matt 12:38-42; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32).

TILL
What Price is saying here would require one to believe that the foundation
element of an analogy has to be considered a prophecy, but people make
analogies all of the time without intending to imply that the first element
of the analogy was a prophecy.  If, for example, I analogized the Yahwistic
massacres of the OT and the atrocities of Adolf Hitler, I certainly wouldn't
intend to imply that the OT prophesied the coming of Adolf Hitler.  I would
simply be stating that the OT massacres were in some ways similar to the
atrocities of Hitler.  In Matthew 12:1- 8, Jesus used analogy to defend his
disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath.  He pointed out a similarity in
their actions and an event in David's life when he ate the show bread when
he was hungry.  David was hungry; the disciples were hungry.  David did
something that would normally be wrong in order to satisfy his hunger; the
disciples did something that would normally be wrong in order to satisfy
their hunger.  The statement of Jesus cannot be pressed to mean more than
this, yet Price's logic would require him to claim that David's act of
eating the showbread was a prophecy of the time when the disciples would
pluck grain on the sabbath.  I think even Price would see the absurdity in
such a claim.

In the same way, the statement of Jesus in Matthew 12:38-42 cannot be
construed to be more than a simple statement of similarity.  If Price
intends to make it into more than that, he has the responsibility of
satisfying the first criterion of valid prophecy.  He must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the writer of the Jonah story intended it to be
understood as a prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah on the third
day.  The fact that years after the story was written someone may have used
it in an analogical way could not in any way change the writer's original
intention in telling the story.  So did the writer of Jonah intend this
story to mean what Price claims?  That is what Price must prove.  If he
can't prove it, then his argument fails

PRICE
 In several OT prophecies Messiah's resurrection is declared or implied. 

TILL
It would be nice if Price would cite some of them.

PRICE
When Jesus taught His disciples about the resurrection, He brought together
several prophetic passages to present the whole picture, some of type (1) 
and some of type (2). 

TILL
Several?  Would Price please cite some of those "several" prophetic
passages?  So far he has referred only to the story of Jonah, which fails as
a prophecy unless Price can satisfy the first criterion of valid prophecy.
We'll wait to see if he can do that.
Did the writer of Jonah intend for this story to be a prophecy by analogy of
the Messiah's resurrection?  That's what Price must prove.  If this was not
the writer's intention, then it doesn't matter how many times Jesus or
anyone else may have referred to it long after the fact as having elements
similar to the life of Jesus, because it is a prophet's intention that
determines whether prophecy was meant to be conveyed.

PRICE
This composite view of the resurrection satisfies the statements "it is
written" (Luke 24:47) and "according to Scripture" (1 Cor 15:3-4). Nothing
in those words demands one specific passage in the OT that declares the
composite picture. 

TILL
Isn't it strange that the NT writers labored so hard to prove that Jesus was
the fulfillment of a master plan of salvation that God had decreed before
the foundation of the world, and yet in all of the prophecies that allegedly
referred to the Messiah, not a one of them predicted in specific terms the
most important event in God's plan of redemption?  That silence alone should
be sufficient to give Dr. Price and his biblicist cohorts pause, but, of
course, it won't.  However, one embarrassing fact still stands out.  Jesus
said that it had been written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from
the dead the third day, but neither Dr. Price nor anyone else can cite a
single OT passage that undeniably made this alleged prophecy.  He even
admits that there is no such statement in the OT, so he is forced to resort
to interpretative chicanery to find one.

PRICE
It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic 
sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies 
believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of 
prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition.

TILL
Price chides me for the unspeakable crime of demanding reasonable proof of
outlandish claims, but in everything he said in the paragraph above, one
clear message shines through: he can't prove that the resurrection of the
Messiah was prophesied in the OT, but he is going to believe it anyway.
Just who is the intellectually dishonest party in this dispute?

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net



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
====================================================



From: DrJDPrice@aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:07:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Price's response to Till part 1

File Price-4  Price's response to Till's The Jonah "Analogy" Part One
7/24/97

This response is divided into two parts because of its length.
Part 1 of 2

<< PRICE
The incident of Jonah's three days and three nights in the fish was of 
type (2).

<< TILL
Type (2) was the prophecy-by-analogy. 

<< PRICE
It involved a typical resurrection, if not a real one, and it occurred 
after 3 days.

<< TILL
No, let's get this correct.  Price SAYS that the story of Jonah typified the
resurrection, but the story itself says absolutely nothing that would
justify this assumption.  The best way to see this is to read the biblical
account of the entire event.

<< snip--Till's translation of Jonah 1:15-2:10 >>

<< What is there in this story that justifies Price's claim that this was an
analogical prophecy of the death and resurrection of Jesus?  What is there
in the story that even implies it?  How likely was it that the ancient Jews,
whom Price seems to see as exceptional connoisseurs of unusual prophecies,
read this story and understood it as an analogical prophecy of the death and
resurrection of their Messiah, whom they believed would one day come?  Can
Price cite any examples of ancient Jewish writers who understood the
prophecy in this way?  If so, he needs to cite them.  Otherwise, he is left
with nothing but an arbitrary assertion to support his case. >>

Price 7/24/97
The response involves two components: (1) the event is a type of or a 
real instance of a death and resurrection; (2) the event was an analogous
prophecy.

(1) An examination of the Scripture Mr. Till cited indicates that Jonah
either actually died, or had an unbelievably close call with death. That 
he may have actually died is indicated by the statement: "out of the 
belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice" (2:2). Sheol refers 
sometimes (1) to the grave, or (2) the place of the departed dead. So, 
if Jonah was not actually in Sheol, then one must interpret the statement 
figuratively. The possibility of his actual death is also supported by 
the statement: "I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; 
yet you brought up my life from the Pit" (2:6). The word "Pit" is a synonym 
for Sheol, so if God did not actually bring Jonah's life up from Sheol, 
then one must interpret the statement figuratively. That Jonah know he 
was dying is indicated by the statement: "As my life was ebbing away, 
I remembered Yahweh; and my prayer came to you, into your holy temple" 
(2:7 Till). The passage is translated in other versions as "When my soul 
fainted within me" (KJV,  NKJV, RSV). " This may indicate that he prayed 
just before he died, or subsequent to his death. Common sense tells us 
that anyone who remained in the belly of a large sea creature for three 
days and nights would be expected to have died. If Jonah actually died 
and was brought back to life by God, then the event included an actual 
resurrection. If Jonah merely experienced a near death experience, then 
the incidence is a type of resurrection. So, in either case, a divine 
deliverance from such an experience is a significant event, and can be 
an analogy of death and resurrection. Jesus interpreted it so.

=======================================
Evidence from the Talmud indicates that the ancient Jews regarded Jonah 
to have actually died and consequently to have been resurrected.

Eiruvin 19a
   R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar further stated: Gehenna has three gates; one in
the wilderness, one in the sea and one in Jerusalem. `In the wilderness',
since it is written in Scripture: So they, and all that appertaineth to 
them, went down alive into the pit.42 `In the sea', since it is written 
in Scripture: Out of the belly of the nether world cried I, and Thou 
heardest my voice.43 `In Jerusalem', since it is written in Scripture: 
Saith the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem,44 
and the school of R. Ishmael taught: `Whose fire is in Zion' refers to 
Gehenna, `And His furnace in Jerusalem' refers to the gate of Gehenna.
............................................................

   R. Joshua b. Levi stated: Gehenna has seven names, and they are:
Nether-world,49 Destruction, Pit,50 Tumultuous Pit, Miry Clay, Shadow 
of Death and the Underworld. `Nether-world', since it is written in 
Scripture: Out of the belly of the nether-world cried I, and Thou 
heardest my voice;51 `Destruction', for it is written in Scripture: 
Shall Thy Mercy be declared in the grave? Or thy faithfulness in 
destruction;52 `Pit',50 for it is written in Scripture: For Thou 
wilt not abandon thy soul to the nether-world; neither wilt Thou 
suffer Thy godly one to see the pit;53 `Tumultuous Pit' and `Miry 
Clay', for it is written in Scripture: He brought me up also out 
of the tumultuous pit, out of the miry clay;54 `Shadow of Death', 
for it is written in Scripture: Such as sat in darkness and in 
the shadow of death;55 and the [name of] `Nether-world' is a 
tradition. 

Footnotes: 
(42) Num. XVI, 33, and this happened in the wilderness.
(43) Jonah II, 3, and this was said under the sea.
(44) Isa. XXXI, 9.
...........
(50) Or, `pit of destruction'.
(51) Jonah II, 3.
(52) Ps. LXXXVIII, 12.
(53) Ibid. XVI, 10.
(54) Ibid. XL, 3.
(55) Ibid. CVII, 10.
=========================================

(2) Mr. Till complained that I could not produce a single ancient Jew who 
regarded the Jonah analogy as a prophecy. But he fails to acknowledge that 
Jesus was an ancient Jew who understood the analogy as prophetic, as well 
as all his Jewish disciples. So there were at least some ancient Jews who 
accepted the Jonah analogy. Although no existing ancient records, apart 
from  the NT, seem to have applied  the Jonah resurrection prophetically 
to the Messiah, it is possible that the Jews edited out any such reference 
because of its apologetic value. It is known that the Talmud was revised 
to edit out some references to Jesus of Nazareth. However, another 
resurrection story was applied prophetically. The following citation 
from the Talmud indicates that some ancient rabbis regarded the Ezekiel 
resurrection story (ch. 37) to be an analogous prediction of the 
renaissance of the Jewish people. This is one of many examples of the 
use of analogy for prediction.

=========================
Sanhedrin 92b
  But should we not deduce [the reverse] from the dead whom Ezekiel
resurrected?5 He accepts the view that in the truth [the story of the 
resurrection of the dry bones] was [but] a parable.6 For it was taught:
 R. Eliezer said: The dead whom Ezekiel resurrected stood up, uttered 
song, and [immediately] died. What song did they utter? The Lord slayeth 
in righteousness and reviveth in mercy.7 R. Joshua said: They sang thus, 
The Lord killeth and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and 
bringeth up.8 R. Judah said: It was truth; it was a parable. R. Nehemiah 
said to him: If truth, why a parable; and if a parable, why truth? 
But [say thus]: In the truth there was but a parable.9

Footnotes:
(5) Just as they died again, so will the righteous whom God will 
    resurrect also return to dust.
(6) I.e., a symbol of the revival of the Jewish State.
(7) Cp. I Sam. II, 6.
(8) Ibid.
(9) I.e., their resurrection did in fact take place, and that was a
    foreshadowing of the renaissance of the Jewish people.

Note: all comments enclosed in brackets [] are those of the Talmudic 
editor, not from Price.
==================================

  PRICE
  Jesus referred to this event in the life of the prophet as a prophetic 
  sign of His resurrection (Matt 12:38-42; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32).

  TILL
  What Price is saying here would require one to believe that the foundation
  element of an analogy has to be considered a prophecy, but people make
  analogies all of the time without intending to imply that the first element
  of the analogy was a prophecy.  If, for example, I analogized the Yahwistic
  massacres of the OT and the atrocities of Adolf Hitler, I certainly wouldn't
  intend to imply that the OT prophesied the coming of Adolf Hitler.  I would
  simply be stating that the OT massacres were in some ways similar to the
  atrocities of Hitler.  In Matthew 12:1- 8, Jesus used analogy to defend his
  disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath.  He pointed out a similarity in
  their actions and an event in David's life when he ate the show bread when
  he was hungry.  David was hungry; the disciples were hungry.  David did
  something that would normally be wrong in order to satisfy his hunger; the
  disciples did something that would normally be wrong in order to satisfy
  their hunger.  The statement of Jesus cannot be pressed to mean more than
  this, yet Price's logic would require him to claim that David's act of
  eating the showbread was a prophecy of the time when the disciples would
  pluck grain on the sabbath.  I think even Price would see the absurdity in
  such a claim. 

Price 7/24/97
Of course everyone can see the obvious folly of the uncontrolled use of 
analogy as prophecy. Till likes to argue from the actual to the potential, 
from the reasonable to the ridiculous; but, as I pointed out earlier, this 
is fallacious argumentation; potential abuse does not invalidate sane 
application. I have demonstrated from the actual laws of Jewish 
interpretation and from Talmudic records that the ancient Jews did 
make use of sane prophetic analogy. So it is reasonable to expect 
that Jesus could sanely use the same without being accused of error.

  TILL
  In the same way, the statement of Jesus in Matthew 12:38-42 cannot be
  construed to be more than a simple statement of similarity.  If Price
  intends to make it into more than that, he has the responsibility of
  satisfying the first criterion of valid prophecy.  He must prove beyond
  reasonable doubt that the writer of the Jonah story intended it to be
  understood as a prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah on the third
  day.  The fact that years after the story was written someone may have used
  it in an analogical way could not in any way change the writer's original
  intention in telling the story.  So did the writer of Jonah intend this
  story to mean what Price claims?  That is what Price must prove.  If he
  can't prove it, then his argument fails. 

Price 7/24/97
Again Mr. Till insists that I make a type 2 prophecy into a type 1. This is 
the fallacy of the "slick switch." The author of an analogous passage did  
not need to have intended the passage to be prophetic. Intentional prophecies
are of type 1 in which the prophetic statement is explicit. Jesus frequently
called attention to the Jonah analogy, made specific application of it to His 
own resurrection, and declared it to be a prophetic sign. 

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, 'Teacher, we want
to see a sign from You.' But He answered and said to them, 'An evil and
adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it 
except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three 
nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days 
and three nights in the heart of the earth'" (Matt 12:38-40).

Common sense indicates that He understood the analogy to be prophetic, 
not just a similarity; and this is the most reasonable explanation of why 
He would regard the Scripture to contain a prediction of His resurrection 
on the third day. In fact, His words in verse 40 constitute His own prophecy 
based on the Jonah analogy.

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
====================================================


From: DrJDPrice@aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Price's response to Till part 2


File Price-5  Price's response to Till's The Jonah "Analogy"--Part Two
7/24/97

This response is divided into two parts because of its length.
Part 2 of 2

  PRICE
  In several OT prophecies Messiah's resurrection is declared or implied. 

  TILL
  It would be nice if Price would cite some of them. 

Price 7/24/79
Again I must remind Mr. Till that the above statement was addressed to 
a believer who knows the passages and needs no persuasion. Nevertheless 
I will list a few passages without giving an exhaustive defense of their 
Messianic application.

Psalm 16:9-10
Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; 
my flesh also will dwell securely.
For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; 
nor will you suffer Your Holy One to see corruption.

The Jewish Midrash on verse 9 reads "My glory shall rejoice in King Messiah,
Who in the future shall come forth to me, as it is written in Is. iv.5: 
'upon all the glory a covering.'" This makes it clear that, according to 
some ancient Jews, the Holy One is the Messiah who will not see corruption. 
That is, His body will not decay at death because He will be resurrected. 
The NT writers likewise interpret this passage as prophetic of Messiah's 
resurrection (Acts 2:25-32; 13:35-37).

Isaiah 53:10
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed,
He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.

In 53:8 the Servant of the Lord was cut off from the land of the living. 
In 53:9 He was put into a grave at His death which was for an offering 
of sin (vs. 10). Then, after His death and burial He shall see His seed 
and prolong His days. This clearly implies a resurrection. The Jewish 
Talmud identifies the Servant in this passage as the Messiah as the 
following passage indicates:

===================================
Sanhedrin 98b
   Rab said: The world was created only on David's account .24 Samuel said: 
On Moses account;25 R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is 
his [the Messiah's] name? The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, 
for it is written, until Shiloh come.26 The School of R. Yannai said: 
His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure for ever:27 
e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon.28  The School of R. Haninah maintained: 
His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah.29 
Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, 
Because Menahem [`the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far.30 
The Rabbis said: His name is `the leper scholar,' as it is written,
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem 
him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.31

Footnotes: 
(24) That he might sing hymns and psalms to God.
(25) That he might receive the Torah.
(26) Gen. XLIX, 10.
(27) E.V. `shall be continued'.
(28) Ps. LXXII, 17.
(29) Jer. XVI, 13. Thus each School evinced intense admiration of its 
     teacher in naming the Messiah after him by a play on words.
(30) Lam. I, 16.
(31) Isa. LIII, 4.
==================================

This brief list was given to let Mr. Till know that there are passages 
in the OT that are regarded by Christians and ancient Jews alike as 
Messianic that logically imply His resurrection. I don't have time to 
get into a lengthy debate over these passages. They are not part of 
our debate on the Jeremiah prophecy. I don't expect Mr. Till to accept 
these passage because he is committed to his unproven anti-supernatural 
supposition that prevents him from thinking rationally about prophecy. 
But for reasonable thinkers, the evidence is available and sufficient.

  PRICE
  When Jesus taught His disciples about the resurrection, He brought 
  together several prophetic passages to present the whole picture, 
  some of type (1) and some of type (2). 

  TILL
  Several?  Would Price please cite some of those "several" prophetic
  passages?  So far he has referred only to the story of Jonah, which 
  fails as a prophecy unless Price can satisfy the first criterion of 
  valid prophecy. We'll wait to see if he can do that. >>

I listed 2 above. That is enough to show that the passages exist. The 
verses just before the passage Mr. Till challenged indicate that the 
prophecies came from the Torah (Law), the Prophets, and the Psalms.

"Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while 
I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were 
written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning 
Me."  And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the 
Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was 
necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third 
day" (Luke 24:44-46).

  TILL
  Did the writer of Jonah intend for this story to be a prophecy by analogy of
  the Messiah's resurrection?  That's what Price must prove.  If this was not
  the writer's intention, then it doesn't matter how many times Jesus or
  anyone else may have referred to it long after the fact as having elements
  similar to the life of Jesus, because it is a prophet's intention that
  determines whether prophecy was meant to be conveyed. 

Price 7/24/97
Mr. Till is becoming redundant and still trying his "slick switch" fallacy.
So I will repeat: the author of an analogous passage did not have to 
intend the passage to be a prophecy, otherwise it would by type 1.

  PRICE
  This composite view of the resurrection satisfies the statements "it is
  written" (Luke 24:47) and "according to Scripture" (1 Cor 15:3-4). Nothing
  in those words demands one specific passage in the OT that declares the
  composite picture. 

  TILL
  Isn't it strange that the NT writers labored so hard to prove that Jesus was
  the fulfillment of a master plan of salvation that God had decreed before
  the foundation of the world, and yet in all of the prophecies that allegedly
  referred to the Messiah, not a one of them predicted in specific terms the
  most important event in God's plan of redemption?  That silence alone should
  be sufficient to give Dr. Price and his biblicist cohorts pause, but, of
  course, it won't. 

Price 7/24/97
The prophecies are sufficiently clear and specific for those whose minds 
are not bias by an unproven anti-supernatural presupposition. Far from 
being silent, to those with an open mind the OT Scripture is full of
prophecies of Messiah and God's plan of redemption .

  TILL
  However, one embarrassing fact still stands out.  Jesus
  said that it had been written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from
  the dead the third day, but neither Dr. Price nor anyone else can cite a
  single OT passage that undeniably made this alleged prophecy.  He even
  admits that there is no such statement in the OT, so he is forced to resort
  to interpretative chicanery to find one. 

Price 7/24/97
I have demonstrated that it was written sufficiently clear. Jesus Himself
indicated that the prophecies were written in various places in the Law, 
the Prophets, and the Psalms. Mr. Till violates common sense and 
reasonableness when he insists that the words "it is written" or 
"according to the Scripture" demand one passage containing the prophecy. 

  PRICE
  It is sufficient that the OT as a whole declares it in some prophetic 
  sense. Of course Till will not accept this explanation, but it satisfies 
  believers, that's sufficient. It satisfies the Biblical definition of 
  prophecy, but not Till's skeptical definition.

  TILL
  Price chides me for the unspeakable crime of demanding reasonable proof of
  outlandish claims, but in everything he said in the paragraph above, one
  clear message shines through: he can't prove that the resurrection of the
  Messiah was prophesied in the OT, but he is going to believe it anyway.
  Just who is the intellectually dishonest party in this dispute?


Price 7/24/97
Mr. Till's rejects the reasonable evidence for the prophecies of the
resurrection  of the Messiah, but that does not mean none exists. He 
denies its existence on the unreasonable demand that the prophecies 
must be of type 1 only, and in one passage only. However, the proof 
of a complex proposition comes from the conjunction of several true 
propositions, not one; and it often involves valid inferences. I have 
demonstrated by a common sense example that Till's demand is unreasonable. 
I have demonstrated that the ancient Jews did recognize prophecy by 
analogy, and that it was reasonable for Jesus to see the Jonah analogy 
as prophetic of His death and resurrection.

Mr. Till raised the original question in an attempt to chalk up 
an error in the NT. However, this example can be classified as 
an error only if Mr. Till insists on using a definition of prophecy 
different than the ancient Jews used. In other words, Mr. Till can 
accuse Jesus of erroneously seeing a prophecy of His death, burial,
and resurrection in the OT only if Mr. Till invents a definition of 
prophecy different than that understood by the Jews in Jesus' day. 
However, ancient literature should be understood and interpreted 
according to the cultural mores of the ancient people. Mr. Till 
has violated one of the fundamental laws of hermeneutics by imposing
his own 20th century theories on an ancient culture. Thus, he is 
guilty of erroneously accusing Jesus of an error. After all, Jesus 
knew His own culture better than Till does.

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
====================================================

Bible commentary Index
Answering Islam Home Page