Dr. Lydia McGrew's errors in defending the empty tomb

This is my reply to a review article by Christian scholar Dr. Timothy McGrew, entitled

(Guest Post) Was there a guard at Jesus’ tomb?

a guest post by Timothy McGrew

Posted by Lydia McGrew on February 24, 2019 2:33 PM

Skeptical objections to the historicity of the Gospel narratives are numerous. They are also, for the most part, old news.

But not quite as old as the New Testament.
snip

Michael Alter’s book The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry (2015) is certainly long enough to seem imposing, and somewhat to my surprise it has thrown my acquaintance V. J. Torley into a bit of a tailspin. Torley has written a very long, detailed, glowing review of Alter’s book -- a review that is practically a monograph in its own right -- in which he claims that the book is a “bombshell” that “demolishes Christian apologists’ case for the resurrection.”

snip 

Torley rejects the story that there was a guard at the tomb for the following four reasons:

A. It is mentioned only in Matthew’s Gospel, not in the other three.

B. This account fails to explain why the body could not have been stolen on Friday night.

C. We are not told why Pilate would agree to the Jewish leaders’ request. In particular:

1. The request concerned a purely religious matter, and we would not expect Pilate to care much about such things

2. Pilate had just been pressured into ordering Jesus’ crucifixion, and therefore any further request would be unlikely to meet with a favorable reception

D. The Jewish rulers would not have made such a request of Pilate, since a gentile employed by a Jew would not be allowed to work on the Sabbath.

Let us consider these reasons in turn.

First, only Matthew’s Gospel mentions the setting of a guard at Jesus’ tomb. It is not clear how much weight Torley intends this fact to bear by itself. But as the argument from silence in such cases is generally terribly weak, it is hard to see why it should be significant just here. Many of the events of antiquity crop up in only one source.

And unfortunately for you, nobody is intellectually "compelled" to think that trusting the singular uncorroborated source is "reasonable".  When an ancient fact comes to us by way of an uncorroborated singular source, you are a fool to pretend the fact is "established" or that the burden shifts to the skeptic to "disprove" it.

Furthermore, if the empty tomb was the major apologetic used by the apostles as you think, then there is legitimate room for skepticism, to wit, why wouldn't the other gospel authors have found this evidence for the empty tomb worthy of mention?  Peter allegedly refers to the empty tomb (Acts 2:29-32), and if as a conservative you believe Peter's preaching was the basis for Mark's gospel, then why doesn't Mark mention this story of the guards being employed to prevent grave robbers?

The conditions that have to be met for an argument from silence to be strong are rather stringent and are rarely met in historical work. (For details, see my paper “The Argument from Silence,” Acta Analytica 29 (2014), 215-28.)

I overcame that objection:  If your assumption that Peter is the basis for Mark's gospel be correct, then we would not expect Mark to "choose to exclude" the part of Peter's alleged preaching that refers to the empty tomb.  Had Mark known about the guard at the tomb, this would have made the empty tomb seem more miraculous and he wouldn't have likely excluded it.  You are not going to show that skeptics are unreasonable in this, particularly because of the scholarship that is against Peter being a major source of Mark's gospel, and because of the scholarship that views the speeches in Acts as nuggets of historical truth that are laced with the author's own perspective, so that to what degree the speeches in Acts reflect or don't reflect on the alleged apostle being quoted, is impossible to determine with any reasonable degree of certainty.  All we need do as skeptics is show that your own presupposition of Petrine influence over Mark creates a presumption that Mark would both have heard about, and wished to record for posterity, Peter's focus on the reality of the empty tomb, a point Mark would find more forceful in the context of a story of about guards making sure nobody could steal the body.  You lose.

And since it appears the chief scribes insisted Jesus was possessed by a demon and misleading Israel (Matthew 12:24), it is highly unlikely they'd allow somebody they consider a dangerous blasphemer the dignity of a proper burial.  If they seriously feared the disciples might conspire to steal the body from a tomb, they would have recognized that throwing Jesus' dead body to the dogs, as was customary anyway, would make it far more difficult for the disciples to later claim he rose from the dead. 

As Torley has not attempted to argue that the silence of the other evangelists meets the probabilistic challenge laid out there, I will not belabor the point.

Second, Torley objects that the account does not explain why the body could not have been stolen on Friday night. In making this objection, he assumes that the request was made on Saturday morning. For the moment, suppose it was; even so, the objection has little force. There are simply too many plausible ways for the rulers to fail to make the request on Friday. Pilate might have left pointed instructions that he wasn’t to be bothered further that evening. The Jewish leaders might have left someone of their own to keep an eye on the tomb overnight. Failing that, they might still have thought that it would be better than nothing to have a guard set for the remainder of the time period specified.

 Do you allow skeptics to get rid of problems through similarly unsubstantiated speculation?

But it is not even clear from the text that the request was made on Saturday. The Jews reckoned the beginning of the Sabbath with sundown on Friday, so for all the text says, they may have made the request on Friday evening as soon as they ascertained the location of Jesus’ body. In his work The Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, According to the Four Evangelists (London: J. Hatchard and Son, 1827), Johann David Michaelis argues that the language of Matthew, with its peculiar turn of phrase (ἥτις ἐστὶν μετὰ τὴν Παρασκευήν, hardly necessary after Τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον unless something more specific than the generic succession of days is intended) actually indicates that the request was made just past sundown on Friday:

    Literally translated, on the following day, which is after Friday. As it is self-evident that one day must follow another, and it requires no author to tell us this, the meaning is, “on the following day, immediately after the end of Friday,” or in other words, immediately after sunset, with which, according to the custom of the Jews, the day ends, and the sabbath begins. This mode of speaking seems singular in Greek, but in Hebrew, from the same word [ערב] signifying “evening,” “holy evening,” or, as we should say, “vespers,” it becomes more intelligible. The meaning is, that from an apprehension the body might be stolen in the night, they did not wait until the following morning, they went immediately to Pilate that same evening, which now no longer belonged to Friday, but formed part of the sabbath, and requested a guard. [100; cf. the German edition, 83]

I don't see the point, the story says Joseph and whoever might have been with him put Jesus' body in the tomb then sealed the entrance, then left...leaving the reader with the impression that the tomb was left unguarded for a certain amount of time:

 59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.
 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the grave.
 62 Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate,
 63 and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'
 64 "Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."
 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how."
 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone. (Matt. 27:59-28:1 NAU)

 It doesn't matter how small a time-window you try to make between Joseph leaving the tomb and the guards arriving later.  Two followers of Jesus were present at the tomb watching when Jesus was buried therein, so they knew where it was (v. 61), and they would more than likely tell the disciples as long as you insist such women trusted in Jesus.  How much time would be required, at minimum, for the women to tell the disciples where the body was, then for the disciples to arrive, roll away the stone and steal the body?  12 hours?  Obviously not.

Various other New Testament scholars, not all of them conservative (Doddridge, Paulus, Kuinoel, Thorburn) concur in Michaelis’s analysis. Meyer dissents, but without adducing any reasons other than his disagreement with these authorities regarding the meaning of the expression τῇ ἐπαύριον. He does not engage with Michaelis’s point regarding the parallel Hebrew expression [ממחרת ערב השבת] at all.

Hagner says the body was unguarded over Friday night:

The security of tombs was important enough to have become the subject of a Roman imperial edict between 50 b.c. and a.d. 50 (see Metzger). Since this strategy was not formulated until “the next day” (v. 62), the tomb in fact remained unguarded over Friday night. As R. E. Brown (Death of the Messiah, 1309, n. 53) rightly points out, however, the guard would hardly have sealed the tomb without first checking to see if the body was there. If Matthew created this story ex nihilo, however, it is more likely that he would have had the guard posted immediately after the interment (rightly, Carson).

n. note

Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33B: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 863). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Hagner tries to rescue the situation by saying the guards would have likely checked to make sure the body was still there, but my reply is that if we are to believe the guards could be bribed to tell an unbelievbable lie that would have them executed for dereliction of duty (the disciples stole him while we were asleep, Matthew 28:13), they were certainly amenable to being bribed by the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57) to avoid looking in the tomb and falsely report that yes, they confirmed the body was still there before sealing the tomb.

And let's not forget that even Licona thinks the zombie resurrection of 27:52 is apocalyptic imagery, and so this Matthew-author was not beyond mixing fact with fantasy, something he also appears to be doing with the angel and lightning crap in 28:2-3.

The second objection, then, is either very weak (if Michaelis is wrong) or completely misguided (if he is right). This is hardly the sort of reasoning that should lead us to discard a contemporaneous narrative account of a public event.

 Sorry, but I'm already justified to dismiss ANY reported miracle account if it appears to be the work of later editors embellishing what might be something written by the original author.  Especially one from 2,000 years ago, when there is at least a 150 year textually dark period where god-only-knows what changes were being made to the alleged original stories.  You do not get the upper hand here by blindly presuming that skeptics have to refute an ancient embellished account on the merits before they can be reasonable to reject it.

The third objection is that Matthew’s narrative does not tell us why Pilate would acquiesce in the request of the Jewish leaders. On the face of it, this is a very odd way to object to historical evidence. Many narratives recount events without affording us an explanation for them, and sometimes we are left to guess what that explanation might be. So what?

But perhaps this problem is just a matter of wording; perhaps the real objection is that the two considerations Torley mention are supposed to make it unlikely that Pilate would grant a guard at the tomb. Is it so?

The first consideration is that Pilate, as a secular authority dealing exclusively with non-religious matters, would have had no reason to grant a request of this sort -- perhaps also that the Jewish leaders would not have had the temerity to put it to him. But this consideration misses the mark entirely. The matter of Jesus’ death, though of religious importance to the Jewish rulers, had far wider ramifications. An imposture might well raise civil trouble in Jerusalem, particularly as it was swollen at this time with hundreds of thousands (Josephus, Jewish War 2.14.3 (Loeb #280), estimates three million) of Passover pilgrims. Jesus’ popularity with the crowds was well known. Unrest at Passover had led to disastrous results within living memory, notably on the death of Herod the Great, as Josephus describes in his Antiquities 17.9.3 (Loeb #213-18). Preventing civil unrest lay squarely within Pilate’s sphere of responsibility. On this count, the matter is exactly the sort of thing we would expect the Jewish rulers to request of Pilate. It is a mark of authenticity rather than of inauthenticity.

 Not true; if Jesus really was as popular with the crowds as the gospels say, Pilate would have known that Jesus was claiming to be a higher authority than Pilate, and as such Pilate would have likely found tossing Jesus' body to the dogs as a disgrace and deterrent to future-likeminded saviors, a more attractive social policy than allow him the dignity of a decent burial...especially if he had the least bit of concern the disciples would try to steal the body. 

The second consideration is that Pilate, whom the Jewish leadership had (according to the Gospels) maneuvered into having Jesus crucified against his own better judgment, would have been unlikely to grant them a further request. This point deserves close consideration, because it has a significance that has escaped Torley and Alter. According to the Gospel narratives, Pilate did not believe Jesus had done anything worthy of death.

 And that part of the trial transcript is total bullshit, since not only did Jesus make it clear that he was a higher authority than Rome, but that he was the "messiah" whom the Jews expected to free them from foreign occupation, and even after three years of hearing this first hand from the horses' mouth, the disciples still understand him to be a military conqueror (Acts 1:6), and Jesus' answer doesn't deny the legitimacy of their question, but simply says they don't need to know this (v. 7).  You cannot deny that it is reasonable to infer from these passages either that the disciples were unbelievably stupid...or Jesus had taught them for three prior years that yes, he would be freeing the Jews from Roman rule.  Either way, Pilate's allegedly finding Jesus innocent of the charge of blasphemy or sedition rings false....therefore he likely thought Jesus guilty as charged, and would thus find a dishonorable method of corpse disposal that was already in use (using it as carrion) would serve more of the purpose he sought to serve in having Jesus die by crucifixion, which was also dishonoring.

Whatever the case, skeptics cannot be called unreasonable merely because they call Matthew a liar.  That's your problem, Dr. McGrew, your religion requires you to defend just anything and everything these gospel authors say.  That's a requirement of your religious dedication, not a requirement of historiography.

He allowed the Jews to have their way on this matter only because he feared that they would send a twisted version of events to Rome, destabilizing his governorship and perhaps leading to his being recalled in disgrace. For the sake of their argument, Alter and Torley need to grant at least this much authenticity to the Gospel narratives. In a subsequent post, I will return to this point, as it substantially undermines a claim that Torley and others have made in support of the second and third objections.

But the consideration is relevant here only if there is no other reason that Pilate might have felt moved to grant such a request. And even assuming that Pilate was thoroughly unhappy with the Jewish leaders by this time, such a reason lies ready to hand. The theft of a body and proclamation that the individual in question was alive was the sort of scenario a Roman governor under Tiberius could not safely ignore.

Some sixteen years earlier, one Clemens, a slave of Caesar Augustus’s grandson Agrippa Postumus, stole the ashes and bones of his murdered master and spread the rumor that Agrippa had in fact escaped the attempt on his life. As he resembled his dead master in age and physique, he went so far as to impersonate him in some of the towns at twilight. Tiberius, who had become sole emperor after the death of his adopted father Augustus in that very year, feared a conspiracy and had Clemens apprehended, interrogated, and slain in a private part of his palace. (See Tacitus, Annals 2.39-40.)

So this second consideration, as well, turns out not only to pose no problem for the authenticity of the narrative but actually to be a point in its favor. These are the sorts of details that modern critics, even those professing to examine historical matters very minutely, are apt to overlook because they are not intimately familiar with the historical context.

  Which is precisely why denying Joe's request for Jesus' body and requiring it to be used as carrion which was the usual method of corpse-disposal anyway, has greater historical plausibility.  Pilate would have known that following the normal procedure here would more effectively preempt false claims about Jesus' resurrection, than if he allowed the body to be disposed by proper burial in a way that removed it from his custody for a while.

The fourth objection is that the Jewish leaders would not have asked Pilate to set a guard at the tomb, since it was the Sabbath day, and Jewish law would have forbidden them to hire a gentile to do such work on the Sabbath. Yet again, the objection seems to me to be fundamentally misguided, and in two ways. First, even supposing the objection to be fairly stated, there is no guarantee that the Jewish authorities would be particularly scrupulous in the matter of hiring a Roman guard to do their work, as they had already shown their willingness to hold a trial by night in prima facie violation of their own rules.

 But the kangaroo court details provided by Matthew are also unbelievable.  Your argument might impress those who already trust in Matthew's historical reliability, but nobody else.

But as it happens, the text does not bear out the idea that they were hiring anyone.

 Gee, the bible doesn't tell you so?

Rather, they were making a request to Pilate, as the civil governor, that he would secure the tomb with a guard. Nothing in Jewish law as interpreted at the time would prevent them from making such a request.

 But again, it is not likely they'd make such a request, because it isn't likely that Pilate would have found Jesus innocent.  He'd have found Jesus guilty and a major threat to civil order that insisting on crucifixion and using the body as carrion in a common grave would more strongly address the problem.  The whole idea that Jesus was given a decent burial is total bullshit.

And if you think the the creed of 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 goes all the way back to the first Sunday after Jesus was crucified, remember that while Paul was alive, false rumors about him spread like wildfire throughout the Jewish faction of the church.  Acts 21:18-24.  Sorry, Dr. McGrew, but false rumors could easily, and actually did, arise at a very early stage.  And nothing in the NT indicates that the Jewish church ever gave up belief in this "false" rumor about Paul, showing that if a false rumor did take hold, it had a lot of staying power even despite efforts of the people at issue to dispel it.

I conclude that on the first point, Alter’s argument, as summarized by Torley, completely fails to undermine the credibility Matthew’s account of the setting of a guard at the tomb where Jesus had just been buried.

 Wouldn't matter if you were correct, you are falsely assuming that Matthew's account stands as reliable historical evidence unless and until it is refuted on the merits. That's just a fancy way of saying everything in the bible must be presumed true unless skeptics can prove it false.  Sorry, that's not how historiography works.  Especially when the sources are ancient, some of them changed each other's testimony, we don't know how much of it goes back to the original authors and how much is just the embellishment of later authors, etc, etc. If you were being prosecuted in a court of law for murder, on the basis of written testimony that was equally as textually questionable as the gospels, you'd be screaming your head off that this evidence is not sufficient to justify a jury finding you guilty.  You'd also be objecting that the witness's telling supernatural stories makes the testimony inherently implausible.

Indeed, some of the particular considerations raised against that account are actually points that count on the other side, showing a minute consistency with the historical context and recent historical events that have escaped the notice of these critics.

In my subsequent posts, I will examine Torley’s two remaining challenges.

[UPDATE: See the comments thread below for an argument of Torley's on a related point.]

Posted by Lydia McGrew on February 24, 2019 2:33 PM | Del.icio.us | Permalink

Tags: (New Testament)

Comments (20)

Dr. McGrew,

Do you (or anyone else of note) attribute any credence to the idea that Pilate’s “you have a guard. Secure it the best you can.” Was a refusal after all. In other words Pilate was sarcastically reminding the Jews that they should use the Temple guard, which Roman oversight had allowed them to maintain. This is after Morris, I believe.

I’ve always been a fan of the “use your own guard and stop bothering me” hypothesis, if only for it’s fun contrarian elan. Is it completely unsupportable in your view?

Posted by Kevin. Wells | February 24, 2019 5:41 PM

Kevin,

I'm ambivalent about that point. It could be correct. But later, the guards seem to be in particular danger from the Roman authorities, and the Jewish leaders offer to run interference from them. That fact isn't decisive, but it does seem to point in the direction of their being a Roman guard.

Posted by Tim | February 24, 2019 6:30 PM

 But as we learn from other NT texts, the Roman leadership did not find the purely religious concerns of the Jews to be sufficiently important to justify expenditure of Roman resources in adjudicating them.  Gallio is unwilling to become involved in judging a Jew for allegedly violating Jewish laws, Acts 18:12-15.

Whether Pilate cared enough to assist the Jews with guards is a central factor in this dispute, yet you are "ambivalent" about it?  Is that because God's word is so clear and compelling?

A reader has pointed out that Torley has an additional argument, not against the setting of a guard at the tomb but to the story of what happened to the guards in the aftermath of the resurrection. Here is Torley's discussion, appearing after he has quoted John Wenham, in The Easter Enigma, as saying that the account "bristles with improbabilities":

    The aftermath is even more absurd: despite the fact that the penalty for guards falling asleep was crucifixion upside down, the guards agree to spread the totally implausible story that they all fell asleep on Sunday morning, and that none of them woke up while the disciples broke the seal of the tomb, rolled back the stone, and removed the body of Jesus!

    Nevertheless, Wenham is inclined to credit the story of the guard, precisely because it’s so full of obvious holes that he thinks no-one would have made it up in the first place. In reply, Alter suggests (2015, pp. 340-342) that the story was originally created in order to forestall an anti-Christian explanation for the empty tomb: maybe the reason why it was found empty is that Jesus’ body was stolen. To forestall that possibility, someone concocted a fictitious account of the Jewish priests going to Pilate and requesting a guard, in order to quell popular rumors that Jesus would rise from the dead on the third day. But that created a problem: if there were a guard at the tomb, then the women wouldn’t have been able to enter and find it empty. So in the story, the guard had to be gotten out of the way. This was done by inserting a terrifying apparition of an angel just before the women arrived at the tomb, causing the guards to fall into a dead faint, and conveniently providing the women with the opportunity to enter the tomb. And in order to explain why there was no public record of the guard seeing the angel remove the stone, the story of the guards being bribed into silence by the Jewish chief priests was invented. In short: the lameness of the guard story cannot be used to establish its authenticity. The story is an ad hoc creation, designed to forestall a common objection to the empty tomb accounts.

There is certainly something ad hoc going on in Alter's treatment of the matter, but the problem lies in the methodology Alter employs here rather than in the story as told in Matthew's Gospel. Start with a surmise -- "Maybe it didn't really happen." Faced with the fact that there isn't much reason to doubt it, make up a purely hypothetical motivation that someone might have had for inventing such a story: "Maybe Jesus' body really was stolen, and they had to create a cover story for that fact."

 What do you think prosecutors do every day when faced with a guilty Defendant who has provided a facially plausible alibi?  Do they dismiss charges?  No, they try to show that the ablibi is false by comparing it to other established facts and showing the alibi is unlikely to be true.  Call it what you want, but engaging in hypothesis to explain evidence is routine procedure in legal and historical analysis.

Faced with the further problem that this particular cover story is hardly what one would invent to answer to that hypothetical state of affairs and could easily be contradicted by people on the ground in Jerusalem who knew the guards,

See what I mean?  Not even YOU can escape from inventing speculations.

ignore the problem and instead double down on creating hypothetical rationales for other parts of the story. "The guards have to be gotten out of the way so the women can enter ..." Okay, why not just have Jesus' resurrection itself knock them out instead of resorting to the awkward fabrication of their falling asleep?

 Because people who lie often don't do so in a completely efficient and convincing fashion.  When people are determined to lie, they often find themselves being forced to reconcile their story with other known facts, and then at that point, they have to pile one lie on top of another.  After a while, their lie just sounds more and more implausible.

You are also overlooking the fact that Licona admits, that Matthew's authors wasn't beyond mixing fact with fiction.  Why not just have Jesus' resurreciton itself knock them out?  Because that wouldn't give them an opportunity to do what Jewish tale-bearers did in the first century, and accompany the alleged miracle with angelic visitations, that's why.

Simple questions like this suffice to show how specious such reasoning is. What historical narrative, however faithful, could not be dissolved (at least in the imagination of the critic) by the application of such methods?

That's your problem.  Historiography is an art, not a science.  Blame on the stupid god who had more desire for the Hittites and Egyptians to record matters on stone so that today's generations would have access to the actual originals...while he didn't want the Christians to document their "truths" this rigidly.

Torley expresses incredulity that Wenham argues from the improbabilities in the story (conceived as a story) that the best explanation for why it is told is that it was notoriously true. But in fact, this is a well-known pattern of argument that Aristotle discusses in his Rhetoric 2.23.21 (1400a):

    Another line of argument refers to things which are supposed to happen and yet seem incredible. We may argue that people could not have believed them, if they had not been true or nearly true: even that they are the more likely to be true because they are incredible. For the things which men believe are either facts or probabilities: if, therefore, a thing that is believed is improbable and even incredible, it must be true, since it is certainly not believed because it is at all probable or credible.

The other side of that coin is that because all miraculous events involve improbability, they are all true.  That's obvioiusly stupid, so you can only push the "truth stranger than fiction" cop-out so far.

The argument is an inference to the best explanation, so we may properly demur at Aristotle's saying that it must be true.

Then why don't you believe the Catholic miracles?  They are improbable, thus, they are true!

Nevertheless, it is not an unreasonable method of argumentation.

Granted, but that doesn't mean every improbable story is true, nor that you are reasonable to view life that way for yourself.  You forget that in nearly all cases, we reasonably suspect a story to be false precisely because it sounds improbable.  So improbabilities are a sword that cuts both ways.

Compared to the tissue of utterly ungrounded hypotheses that Alter fabricates as an alternative, it seems by far the more sober choice.

Posted by Tim | February 24, 2019 7:09 PM

Drive-by comments on four reasons cited by McGrew why Torley rejects the account of there being a guard at Jesus' tomb

...My brief comments (inferior to McGrew's) are as follows. Any cheekiness in tone is unintentional, just my quick reactions.

A: so what?

B: it would be nice to have everything explained, but we don't get that in ancient documents. How is the fact that not everything the critic wants explained gets explained an argument against an account.
...Posted by Joe Lightfoot | February 24, 2019 8:43 PM

 Yes, the lack of explanation is not infallible proof of falsity, but the lack of explanation is indeed a typical feature of fabricated alibis and stories.  Lack of explanation leaves room for the fact-finder to consider that an explanation inconsistent with the given story, is the actual 'truth'.

Without fail, the one element everybody arguing against the guard at the tomb overlooks is that the tomb was sealed. There is no way in the world a Roman centurion would have assumed the responsibility for that seal without knowing the body of Jesus was in the tomb.

 But the guards were corrupt and accepted a bribe from the Jews to tell a lie that would likely cause them to be executed (sleeping on the job), so the guards were far more likely to be bribed by the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea to just seal what they knew was an empty tomb, but falsely confess later that they confirmed Jesus was in the tomb before they sealed it.

The temple authorities would have known this, and they knew what the Romans would do. They knew the Romans would have to open and enter the tomb, something Jews couldn't do on the Sabbath.

 Well gee, Jews weren't "allowed" to lie either, yet they are found lying all over the place in the NT.  I have no problems with the theory that the Jewish disciples thought stealing Jesus' body was an exceptional situation calling for departures from normative ethics.  After all, they were known supporters of Jesus and thus equally as amenable to being executed for the same offense Jesus was.  They had a strong motive to do something to make it seem like Jesus was the real deal.  At the end of the day, they are no different than the millions of people who embellish or fabricate their own miracle stories.

That explains why they went to Pilate. They wanted that tomb sealed because they didn't know if the body was in there, either. All they knew was that it had been turned over to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both of whom they likely regarded as political enemies, and these two had allegedly interred it. They had to know the body of Jesus was in there prior to the third day in order to prevent a fake resurrection, and this was the only way they could find out.

Simply put,the guard at the tomb had to be Roman, or the tomb could not have been sealed. A Jewish guard could not do that.

 Well gee, Jews also weren't allowed to lie under oath.  Yet the entire Sanhedrin was responsible for the kangaroo court that eventually had Jesus executed.

It's questionable if the Jews could have even posted a guard without violating the Sabbath rules, but it is for certain they could not have moved the stone. But the Romans could, and they would have had to in order to document the tomb's contents. Furthermore, the soldiers who made up this guard probably had no idea who Jesus was, let alone what He looked like.

 You don't have enough evidence to make  reasonable probably judgment on that point one way or the other.  Jesus was allegedly very popular with the crowds.

That explains why the temple authorities tagged along. They would be needed to provide the witnesses who could identify the body.

 But wouldn't "tagging along" constitute "work"?

Again, we know this had to be done because the tomb was sealed. The centurion in charge would not have assumed responsibility for the seal unless he had eyewitness identification of a body he had seen with his own eyes. Seals are nothing to trifle with, even today, but in those days Roman discipline was severe, and no soldier was going to half do his job, and leave himself open to that.

 Except perhaps for the soldiers who were willing to lie in exchange for money, that is, the soldiers who were involved in the alleged sealing of the tomb.

In addition, this explains two other questions that arise from Matthew's account, one of which came up here.

When the tomb was entered by followers of Jesus following the resurrection, the napkin covering the face of Jesus was lying folded by itself, separated from the other grave clothes. We know that the Jewish burial custom of that time was to wrap the head with a cloth, thus covering the face. That would have to be removed in order to identify the body. The point that it was folded, at least to me, implies a military presence. One of the first things a soldier learns is how to handle personal items. Everything must be folded and stored precisely. The Roman soldier was the best trained the world had ever seen up to that time, and the centurion was the best of the best. A duty of this sort wouldn't be handed out lightly, and a guard detail of this importance would have required a centurion. That alone would explain why the face covering was found folded. A well-trained soldier, in my opinion, would not have simply flung the cloth aside. And, being unfamiliar with Jewish burial practices, he would not have bothered rewrapping the head of Jesus, either. His work was done when the identification was made. Thus it would have made no difference when the guard was posted. The body was there or the Romans would not have affixed the seal of the empire, whether on Friday night or Saturday morning.

 Sorry but the whole resurrection narrative rings hollow, and skeptics are hardly under any intellectual obligation to account for every detail of it, as if our failure to explain the folded napkin somehow shows that we secretly know our skepticism is wrong (!?).  How many features of more modern unsolved crimes are you unable to account for?  Does that mean you know the truth and just aren't willing to admit it?

This would also explain why the account appears only in Matthew's gospel. Matthew had been a tax collector. In order to carry out those duties, he had to know how to use seals. He had to transport the monies he collected from Capernaum, where his booth was, probably to Caesarea, where Pilate - the ultimate recipient of Matthew's liabilities - had his headquarters. The only way to do this securely would be by armed guard, with the money properly documented and sealed. So, once Matthew knew the tomb was sealed, he also knew it had been examined and its contents documented. Alone among the apostles, Matthew knew exactly what that seal meant.

 Or Matthew invented the story because he knew about seals.

Once the tomb was closed and sealed, the guard could be posted. Accounts I've read put the number of soldiers at about 16 for this kind of duty, so that they could be stationed in a fan-shaped formation, with at least four at a time awake while the others slept. There was simply no way anybody could have slipped up on the guard and carried off the body. Yet, the empty tomb was never contested.

Argument from silence.  Dr. McGrew will have none of it.

To the contrary, it was confirmed by the enemies of Jesus, ironically through their very efforts to explain it away.

You don't know why the empty tomb isn't attacked by the earliest critics.  I also haven't "contested" the claims of the Heaven's Day cult, but what does that prove?    You also don't know how much literature against Christianity was authored in the 1st century but destroyed at a very early stage.

You also don't know to what degree the "enemies" of Christianity are being fairly or unfairly represented in the gospel texts.  All you are doing is blindly presuming the truth of bible inerrancy and thus preaching to the choir. 

Seals are very simple and very old devices. We can find them in museums today, and depending on who dated them, some are claimed to pre-date the Roman Empire by over 2,000 years. By the time of Rome, and even up to modern times, they were known to be the most effective way to secure the contents of a container. All of Mr. Alter's objections to the story of the guard at the tomb are easily explained.
Posted by Joe Foster | February 25, 2019 1:10 AM

Professional liars know full well that infusing nuggets of historical truth into a false story is a good way to make it sound more convincing.

Alter's general approach is that any natural explanation is more likely than a miraculous one. From this you get 'well maybe this happened . . . .' Regardless of how weak the explanation is. As long as it's natural, right?

Posted by Callum Savage | February 25, 2019 3:20 AM

Yes, just like if you were being prosecuted for murder on the basis of testimony that was held together by supernatural elements, you'd be screaming your head off that the miraculous automatically makes the testimony inherently unreliable.

    Once the tomb was closed and sealed, the guard could be posted.
Posted by Tony | February 25, 2019 7:28 AM

 And a corrupt guard, willing to accept bribes from the highest bidder, could be posted.  Money talks.

Matthew answers this: Publicly they told a lie, and the Jewish authorities told Pilate, "It's okay, don't get them in trouble."

Now, if some became Christians, presumably those guards, would have stopped telling that lie. But by that time nobody was trying to get them in trouble.

Posted by Lydia | February 25, 2019 4:49 PM

So even Lydia, who has no history of mistaking speculation for inerrant truth, of course, is unable to resist the temptation to confuse speculation with truth.

No more needed to happen that that the other writers decided that they didn't want to include the detail about the guards.

 But WHY Mark, Luke and John would not find the guard story compelling, is a legitimate topic to investigate.  Just like you wish to investigate, as a prosecutor, any possible alibi-destroying hypothesis that the man you charged with murder doesn't wish to talk about.

As with the argument from silence in histories, the argument from lack of perfect parallel is extremely weak in general, and here is no stronger. All you can say about Mark and Luke not including it, is that Mark and Luke didn't include it. Whether that was because they didn't know about the event, or didn't feel it important enough to add to their account, or wanted to leave some details vague and ambiguous, we can't discover from inside the texts.
Posted by Tony | February 25, 2019 6:54 PM

 But we can be reasonable to hypothesize that because the guards-at-the-tomb story would make the events of Easter Morning sound more miraculous, they WOULD have mentioned such things, had they known about them, so it's likely they are silent because they didn't know such stories.


Then you have the theological problem of the Holy Spirit allegedly moving Matthew to include the story, and moving Mark and Luke to exclude it, when in fact one intelligent being telling others to give different versions of the same story is a being that sounds dishonest.

Alter is deluding himself if he thinks that his job is done once he has raised doubts about the story of the guard. Firstly, he needs to say whether he thinks the tomb really was empty.

Yeah, and you need to give the specific identity of Jack the Ripper.

If it wasn’t empty then why was there a debate about the reason for the empty tomb?

 Maybe because 1st century Jews believed in physical resurrection, so that by claiming Jesus rose from the dead, the Christians were forced to conjure up stories of an empty tomb?  You know, the way they conjured up stories that Paul was a hypocrite regarding Mosaic law (Acts 21:18-21).

Perhaps Alter thinks that there was no such debate and that Matthew invented the story of the guard in order to refute an accusation of theft which Matthew himself had invented. Does Alter think that is plausible?

Well if Licona is correct in saying Matthew had no trouble mixing fact with imagination in the resurrection narrative, then I don't see anything implausible in the idea of a storyteller getting sufficiently stupid with his invented details that he finally has to resort to supernatural explanations to make the story sound convincing.  That's pretty sad.  If you ever got into a disagreement with anybody and they tried to shore up the problems in their version of events by resorting to supernatural explanations, you know god-damn well you wouldn't believe them.  Apologetics is uselessly and purely academic, it's word-plays and what-if scenarios have no significant connection to how life actually happens and how we can be reasonable to suspect that a logically possible story is likely false.

Perhaps there really was a debate but both sides were mistaken in thinking the tomb was empty. Does Alter think that is plausible? Or perhaps the tomb really was empty. In that case Alter needs to explain why it was empty. Then he needs to explain the rest of the evidence.

All of those issues will need to be addressed even if the story of the guard is discounted. But it still hasn’t been established that the story should be discounted. All that we have seen so far is a weak attempt to cast doubt on the story.

Posted by David Madison | February 26, 2019 5:02 AM

Yeah, but, what if Alter, while in the middle of doing research to fulfill your demand that he answer the other evidence, dies in a car accident, that is, dies as a non-Christian who said "no" to the gospel invitation?  Will he go to hell?  If so, then what should you have said?  That Alter answer other apologetics concerns, or get saved?

"Alter's general approach is that any natural explanation is more likely than a miraculous one. From this you get 'well maybe this happened . . . .' Regardless of how weak the explanation is."

That's one of the things that makes this form of argumentation frustrating. Among those predisposed to doubt the supernatural it all looks very cut-and-dried. But its proponents tend not to see its question-begging aspects because of their prior commitments. It's something like fundamentalism in reverse, and it appears in "liberal" historiography quite often.

Posted by Nice Marmot | February 26, 2019 6:33 AM

 Sorry I'm not seeing how my naturalistic explanation for the empty tomb involves any question-begging fallacy.

    But its proponents tend not to see its question-begging aspects because of their prior commitments.

That's quite true, NM.

In order for them to avoid question-begging, they would have to modify the premise to something along the lines of "all other things being equal, any natural explanation is more likely than a miraculous one". But of course, this is history, not math or physics, and "all other things being equal" doesn't ever happen: real facts on the ground are always different in some respect. It all then comes down to whether the real and different facts are pertinent to the issue, and of course presuming that facts that tend to point in the direction of the miraculous are themselves to be set at naught (or nearly so) is part of the question-begging.
Posted by Tony | February 26, 2019 10:21 AM

 No, you are forgetting how strong the case is for the anonymity of the gospels, and how stupid it is to pretend anonymous testimony can be sufficient to establish "facts".

Thanks for this article. I had taken it that they requested the guard on the Saturday and that this was an indication of the authenticity of the account, because if Matthew was making up the story he would have ensured the guard was on site right from the moment of burial.

Posted by Paul McCauley | February 26, 2019 2:29 P

 Or...Matthew is a story-telling liar, and he doesn't do the most efficient job he can of lying...like millions of other liars.

I've notified Christian Research Institute of James Patrick Holding's sins

Just now I sent a warning message to Christian Research Institute.

They sometimes allow James Patrick Holding to author articles in their CRI Journal.

I find in 2019, what I found in 2015, that CRI needs to be notified that Mr. Holding's libels of me constitute an on-going sin of Mr. Holding that has defined him for 20 years and which he has absolutely zero intention of ever repenting of.  Back when Walter Martin was heading CRI, Holding would have been tossed overboard like chum.  Here's the message:

https://www.equip.org/contact/

February 6, 2019,  1:00 p.m.

One of your occasional CRI Journal authors, James Patrick Holding, is now being sued a third time for libel.

  You can get a copy of the 97-page Complaint at the following blog:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-unconscionable.html

Mr. Holding has been persistently insulting, slandering and libeling everybody he disagrees with for the better part of the last 20 years, in diametric opposition to CRI's own rules prohibiting Christians from insulting others.  See

https://www.equip.org/article/reclaiming-civility-as-a-christian-virtue/

Here is the email I sent to Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg NAMB and other people that are either Holding's spiritual mentors, or have in some way told the world that Mr. Holding is qualified under biblical criteria to hold the office of Christian "teacher":

------begin quote:

Dr. Habermas and all others,

This notification is sent to you in the hope that you will start the Matthew 18 process of formally disassociating yourselves from a so-called Christian "brother" whose sins of slander and reviling have reached pathological heights and appear to know no bounds.

     15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

     16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

     17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.    (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)

If you think James Patrick Holding has the least bit of credibility or honesty, I'll have you know that he has a Patreon account wherein he asks others for money to create YouTube videos

    from   www.tektonics.org/support.php

    "If you're a fan of our TektonTV YouTube videos, you can sign up to support them via Patreon."

    At some point in the past, Mr. Holding obtained a video showing me falling during a bus accident, he photoshopped the video in various ways, he "looped" the part showing me falling, then he replaced the original audio track with a commercial soundtrack so that I get up and fall down about 500 times in the space of this 1-minute loop of video-tape, and I do so while reacting in sync to a childish sound bit of fast-paced music, and Holding deleted everything else in the video that happened about two seconds after I started falling, for no other reason than to cause me emotional distress.

   (link deleted)

    By the way, Holding agreed, when receiving this video via public records request, NOT to put the video to any commercial use.  So since Holding has a Patreon account and begs for money to produce his Tekton TV videos, and since at the time of uploading this video he did not have tax-exempt status, he clearly wanted his viewers to give him money, for profit, to produce or upload such video, even if he never formally asked them for any such thing. Circumstantial evidence is allowed in Court.  So Holding was also violating the law when photoshopping this public record to the delight of his typically retarded followers, in his effort to profit from my tragedy.

    Before that video was posted, I previously complained at another one of Holding's videos mocking that bus accident, that "Holding is gleefully mocking the fact that I was seriously injured on a local bus a while back"

    Holding intentionally overlaid those comments of mine onto the portion of the video that shows me getting up and falling 500 times during the tape "loop" he created.  That is, Holding is horrifically belligerent in his efforts to make fun of my painful accident.

What fool would say Jesus wants his modern-day apologists to engage in conduct like THAT?  Posting videos to YouTube that have been photoshopped and looped so as to make belligerent mockery of another's person's tremendously painful traffic accident? 

What he doesn't show you on the video is that I fell all the way forward to the front of the bus while it was screeching to a halt, I was in severe sciatica pain laying on the floor, I could not move, I had to be lifted by paramedics to an ambulance, Lawyers for the defense refused to answer the question of why the bus didn't stop moving until after it illegally went past the cross-walk, etc, etc.)

Must the ways of modern Christian apologists always be defended regardless of how plainly vicious and unbiblical they are?

Go ahead, ask Holding why it is that he didn't post that video until after I filed my third lawsuit against him.  It's perfectly obvious that he posted that video for no other reason than sheer spite, hatred, hostility, ill-will, and intent to harm me.  Not even the average atheist or unbeliever goes to such lengths to mock another person's tragedy.  A jury would be more than likely to believe Holding's primary motive in posting this video was to harm me in one way or another.  He even ends the video by showing a screenshot of the legal calendar showing I had filed this third lawsuit against him.

And lest you ask, let me answer:  No, Holding has not made the least bit of effort to respond to my settlement offers or otherwise communicate directly with me in the way the courts suggest to try and settle.

FYI:     Attached is my third lawsuit against Mr. Holding, for libel (it was filed before Holding posted aforesaid video) and one can only wonder how long you people will sit in the shadows hoping this Holding-scandal will just blow over, before you finally do what Christians are required to do, and publicly disassociate yourself from this unconscionable scoundrel:

     9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;

     10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.

     11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater,

    OR A REVILER, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.

     12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

     13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.       (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

     3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;

     4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

     5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

     6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 5:3-6 NAU)

     6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,

     7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.

     8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.

     9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,       (Col. 3:6-9 NAU)

Do you think that if Holding continues to violate basic NT ethics until the year 2024, you might start thinking there's a sin problem that requires apologists to do something more than boast that skeptics cannot explain the empty tomb?

The third libel lawsuit is Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, Inc, 6:19-cv-76-Orl-37GJK, Florida Middle District Court.

you can keep track of the case here.   https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26884971/Doscher_v_Apologetics_Afield,_Inc

The "Complaint" is attached to this email, so that you discover why it is that Holding's choice to libel me through the use of dishonestly edited Court records, does not automatically shield him from defamation-liability.  The law imposes conditions on the "fair-report" privilege, and Holding violates every one of them with this video and with the vast majority of the photoshopped court records about me which he has posted elsewhere.

In my book, which I hope to have published before 2021, I'll be arguing that skeptics are reasonable to point to an alleged Christian person's complete apathy toward the NT ethics that require them to make difficult decisions (i.e, Matthew 18, 1st Cor. 5, disassociation from sinful remorseless "brothers") and conclude that such Christians are not genuinely born-again.  There's a reason why most apologists care for little more in Christianity than just making arguments and selling Jesus:  they are just naturally drawn to intellectual challenges.  If they were truly growing in the spirit, then they'd have far less tolerance for spiteful intentional sinners like James Patrick Holding.

At some point, you are reasonable to say that the lack of the fruit of the spirit in a Christian's life (love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness,  meekness, kindness, temperance, indifference) reasonably justifies concluding they aren't really saved to begin with.  You cannot just continue forever making excuses about how sanctification in the Christian is a lifetime process.  

Yes, Christians are sinners.

No, Paul and Jesus didn't forget that fact when they admonished the church to expel the remorseless immoral brother.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

-------endquote

I'm sorry, CRI, but Mr. Holding's sins of slander and libel have gone completely out of control BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO BUSY MARKETING YOUR APOLOGETICS BELLS AND WHISTLES TO THE WORLD AND OTHERWISE SELLING JESUS, TO ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN THE TOUGH DECISION MAKING THAT JESUS AND PAUL REQUIRED WHEN FACED WITH AN OBSTINATELY SINFUL "CHRISTIAN".

Yes, I will be discussing in my book how suspicious it is that the most popular apologetics organizations that allow Holding to be a "teacher", pretend to love Jesus, but do not obey Jesus.  I will be arguing that any naturalistic explanation for your alleged love for Christ is probably a better explanation for your sense of "salvation", than any excuse you can conjure up about how you aren't responsible to discipline Mr. Holding.       

You cannot deny that Holding's sin of slander is great and thus you need to stop allowing this unrepentant sinner, so blind he thinks sin is holy conduct, to continue using your organization to convince the world he is qualified for Christian ministry.  If you don't mind naming names, let's see you get objective and turn the guns on your own CRI journal authors. 

...unless of course CRI has gone liberal?

https://www.equip.org/contact/?__cf_waf_tk__=00002776530080000008838MgHiz5KeSYCp6RMw4YS9lqxINUk

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

 I obtained lots of information from CRI back in the early 1990's, and I've respected them even after I became an atheist, but they appear to be no less afflicted with the sin of apathy toward sinful remorseless brothers, than most other "apologetics" ministries.  Perhaps they will blame Holding's latest sins upon themselves (i.e., if they would have paid attention to the alarm bells I was sounding in 2015 and chastised or disfellowshipped Holding, he probably wouldn't have committed the latest sins of slander and libel that are now the subject of the present and third libel lawsuit against him).

Once again, Holding is apparently literate, but when advised that he has chosen the wrong victim to fuck with, he suddenly forgets how to communicate in English, and goes his merry way, utterly oblivious to the serious problems his slanders create for himself.    Holding is a stupid bastard; I like the idea of having friends follow me on the internet, but I would never seek so much approval from retards that I would descend to the immoral and unlawful depths that he has, just to make sure they keep sending money.

Cold Case Christianity: J. Warner Wallace's proof-texting for messianic prophecy

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity:
The Gift of Christmas Was PredictedWith the Gift of Prophecy
Posted: 21 Dec 2018 01:00 AM PST

As Christmas gift exchanges approach, the gift of Jesus is easily obscured.

 Worldly companies would be less successful if Christians stopped being such shameless consumerists.

But gifted prophets predicted the birth of the Messiah, and these prophesies, like other Old Testament prophecies, testify to the Divine nature of the Bible.

 Dream on.  I refute your attempts to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of any OT prophecy.  The problem is far more complex than your simple-minded proof-texting would indicate.

The New Testament contains two different types of prophetic declarations: the prophecies uttered by Jesus and the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Old Testament prophets declared the coming of a Savior (a Messiah who would save the Jewish people and the entire world from their sin). Here is a brief summary of the prophecies predicting the gift of Jesus:

The Messiah Would Come from the Tribe of Judah

Jacob made this prophetic prediction around 1400 BC.

Genesis 49:10

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Christians believe Jesus will establish an everlasting kingdom in the future. His ancestry is traced back to Jacob’s son, Judah, in Luke 3:23-34 and in Matthew 1:1-16.

 Then you must think Jesus was a drunkard, because drunkenness is one description of the Genesis 49 future Shiloh ruler:

 8 "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father's sons shall bow down to you.
 9 "Judah is a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up?
 10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
 11 "He ties his foal to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, And his robes in the blood of grapes.
 12 "His eyes are dull from wine, And his teeth white from milk.
 13 "Zebulun will dwell at the seashore; And he shall be a haven for ships, And his flank shall be toward Sidon. (Gen. 49:8-13 NAU)

 Evangelical Christian scholar G. J. Wenham on v. 12:

12 “His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk” seems to be a reference to the leader’s beauty (cf. 1 Sam 9:2; 16:12; cf. LXX, Vg, S, Caquot [Sem. 26 (1976) 5–32]), but it could be another reference to the abundance of wine and milk under the coming king. In this case, it would be preferable to translate the lines “His eyes are dark with wine and his teeth white with milk.” Canaan is often described as “flowing with milk and honey” (e.g., Exod 3:8, 17; Num 13:27; Deut 6:3). In an Arabic proverb, being “red with wine” is metaphorical for being very rich. And Isa 7:21–23 reflects on the erstwhile abundance of milk and vineyards. But the suggestion that his eyes will be “dark with wine” might suggest drunkenness as in Prov 23:29, which prompts the Targums to take the eyes and teeth as metaphors for the mountains and valleys of Palestine (e.g., Tg. Onq.).

Wenham, G. J. (2002). Vol. 2: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 16-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 479). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Jesus' beauty? Nope, Christians think other OT predictions of Jesus say he was ugly:

 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. (Isa. 53:2 NAU)

 The abundance of wine and milk under the coming king? 
Whatever the metaphor might mean, it isn't explicit enough to intellectually obligate non-Christians to admit fulfillment in the 1st century.  Jesus probably did a lot of good, but his own family sure didn't think he was increasing the metaphorical wine and milk (Mark 3:21, they thought he was crazy and tried to put a stop to his public ministry,  the interpretation that most conservative Christian inerrantist scholars adopt).

I think the more likely interpretation of Genesis 49:10 is that the speaker in Genesis 49 meant that Judah in the future will get literally drunk very often and enjoy luxury and ease due to being wealthy, traits that fit the context well enough, but traits Jesus did not have (see Luke 9:58, Jesus was apparently homeless).

 That Genesis 49:10 is at best an ambiguity that fights against attempts to understand it with certainty, is clear from the admissions of such a bastion of fundamentalism as Keil and Delitzsch:

Some of the Rabbins supposed our Shiloh to refer to the city. This opinion has met with the approval of most of the expositors, from Teller and Eichhorn to Tuch, who regard the blessing as a vaticinium ex eventu, and deny not only its prophetic character, but for the most part its genuineness. Delitzsch has also decided in its favour, because Shiloh or Shilo is the name of a town in every other passage of the Old Testament; and in 1 Sam. 4:12, where the name is written as an accusative of direction, the words are written exactly as they are here.

Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Vol. 1, Page 254). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Furthermore, the originally intended audience of Genesis 49 would likely have understood "scepter" literally, that is, if it refers to a future ruler, it will be one who literally rules with a literal sceptor the way ancient Judean kings literally did. Jesus did not rule with a literal sceptor, and since other arguments prove that Jesus stayed dead consistently after the crucifixion, Genesis 49:10 is not talking about what Jesus will be like at his second coming.  And preterists are forced to admit that if Jesus made his second coming in the 1st century, then his ruling with a "sceptor" can only be limited to a typological fulfillment of this "prophecy".  

Nothing deflates the power of messianic prophecy quite like "typology".  You may as well say Nahum 2:4 was a prediction of speeding cars with headlights on.  Nobody would give a fuck.  Next?

The Messiah Will Appear After the Jews Return to Israel

Jeremiah uttered this prophecy between 626 BC and 586 BC. It was first fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly ministry and will be fulfilled again in the end times.

Thank you for clarifying that you have no interest in using messianic prophecy to convince skeptics, you are only doing this to help those who already embrace the Christian faith, to believe that it has some intellectual basis.  Clearly the easier of the two possible goals.

Jeremiah 23:3-6

‘I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,’ declares the LORD. ‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.”

 First, the "gathering" of the "flock" would have been understood by Jeremiah's originally intended audience as literal, given that Jeremiah spoke while he and Israel were living under the Babylonian captivity.  So if this is about Jesus, then it is saying Jesus' coming will be attended by a literal gathering of God's flock, likely back to Israel.  That obviously didn't happen in the 1st century, and we can only guess at how many centuries need to pass without fulfillment, before you will agree that your "partial fulfillment" bullshit is nothing but desperate hot air.

Second, "they will no longer be afraid or terrified" would also be taken by the originally intended audience as signifying a literal gathering of the people upon the ending of the captivity.  Yet such comforting didn't happen when Jesus came the first time, and hasn't happened for 2,000 years.  You lose.

Third, the prophecy says "in his days Judah will be saved" and "saved" in its original context would have meant release from captivity, it would not have meant "accept Jesus into your heart and become born again".

Curiously, evangelical Christian scholar P.C. Craigie's comments say nothing about whether this passage is a prediction of Jesus:

Yahweh is about to raise up a new king, either a rightful (=legitimate) descendant of David, or a righteous one. This king will bring the covenant conditions to the people: righteousness and justice. Liberation will come and the people will dwell securely in their own land. This king will be named “Yahweh is our righteousness.”

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 26: Word Biblical Commentary : Jeremiah 1-25.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 331). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

It is also curious that Craigie understands this prophecy to be saying the coming of the predicted ruler will cause the liberation of the people, in the sense that they will dwell securely in their own land.  Jesus did precisely nothing during his lifetime to free Israel from foreign occupation, and Israel hasn't dwelt securely in any land for 2,000 years, and any exceptions were temporary. 

Feel free to tell yourself that Jesus will fulfill the liberation prediction at his second-coming, but be sure you google "preterism" first.  Many Christians believe Jesus' second-coming occurred in the 1st century...a serious problem since, regardless, the Jews were in dispersion  for centuries afterward and have never "dwelt securely" in any landd since.  Unless you think ceaseless wars and civil unrest for 2,000 years constitutes "dwelling securely"?

That's quite sufficient to show that the passage is nowhere near so clear as to intellectually compel an objective person to see Jesus in it.  We have no doubts why many Christian scholars and apologists appeal to "partial fulfillment". They need a nice way to say "Jesus didn't correctly fulfill this prediction". 

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Born in Bethlehem

The prophet Micah predicted this between 750 BC and 686 BC.

Micah 5:2

‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’

To be fair, there is disagreement regarding the translation of Micah 5:2. Some say the reference to ‘Bethlehem’ is simply a reference to the bloodline of King David. Other people say it is a reference to the town of Bethlehem. Jesus meets both criteria; He is a descendant of King David and He was born in Bethlehem.

 What you aren't telling the reader is that Matthew changed the wording to make it sound more like Jesus than it originally did.  Compare:

Micah 5

Matthew 2

1 "Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of troops; They have laid siege against us; With a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek.   2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,  Too little to be among the  clans of Judah,  From you  One will go forth  for Me  to be ruler in Israel.  His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."  3 Therefore He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel.

4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.  5 They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:  6 'AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE  LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU  SHALL COME FORTH  A RULER  WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"  7 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.

 Micah merely says "to be a ruler in Israel", Matthew changes this in a way that conveniently makes the prophecy sound more Christian: "a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel".
 
Christian scholars agree that Matthew changed some of the wording:

This is one of the most familiar pericopes in Micah for Christians. Matthew quoted 5:1 in reference to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt 2:6). However, the OT text is slightly altered in Matthew’s account. Instead of saying, “little to be among the clans of Judah,” Matthew says, “by no means least among the rulers of Judah.” Also Matthew omits “Ephrathah,” and adds, “my people” Judah.

Smith, R. L. (2002). Vol. 32: Word Biblical Commentary : Micah-Malachi.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 44). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Gleason Archer, the doomed king of bible inerrancy, surprisingly admits that Matthew changed the wording:

Commentary

Micah 5:1(2); MT 5:1a hd'Why> ypel.a;B. tAyh.li ry[ic' ht'r'p.a, ~x,l,-tybe hT'a;w>; LXX kai. su,, bhqle,em oi=koj tou/ Efraqa, ovligosto.j (very small) ei= tou/ ei=nai evn cilia,sin Iouda. MT laer'f.yIB. lveAm tAyh.li aceyE yli ^M.mi; LXX evk sou/ moi evxeleu,setai tou/ ei=nai eivj a;rconta (“from thee shall one come forth for/to me in order to become a ruler”). MT ~l'A[ ymeymi ~d,Q,mi wyt'ac'AmW; LXX kai. ai` e;xodoi auvtou/ avpV avrch/j evx h`merw/n aivw/noj. The LXX furnishes a very accurate rendering of the MT. But Mt 2:6 has an entirely independent rendering that provides some challenging deviations: (1) NT kai. su. Bhqle,em, gh/ Iou,da (instead of ht'r'p.a,). Perhaps Ephrathah was taken as an identifier as to which of the two Bethlehems was to be the Messiah's birthplace, whether that of Zebulon to the north (Josh 19:15) up near Nazareth, or the one to the south of Jerusalem. Therefore Matthew, or the advisors of King Herod, saw fit to identify it as Judah, bringing out the implication of Ephrathah, which was the name of the region in which the town was located; (2) NT ouvdamw/j evlaci,sth ei= evn toi/j h`gemo,sin; the LXX states that Bethlehem was very small to be among the 1000-family (or 1000 militiamen) towns of Judah. But Matthew understands from the next clause that if the messianic ruler himself is to come from Bethlehem, then it is—regardless of its size—to be regarded as a town of outstanding importance and glory. So he uses the negative to bring out the implication that it is after all a very important town within the tribe of Judah, despite the modest size of its population. The next change was in the term h`gemo,nej, “rulers,” instead of ~ypil'a] “thousands,” referring to a community that could number 1000 families or even 1000 men at arms. (From this it was but a step to refer to the commander of these troops as a @l,a, varo (prince of 1000), or @l,a, for short, just as the Roman centurio was derived from centurium, or a company of 100 soldiers). But to the Greek reader it may have been more helpful to use a less confusing term than cilia,dej, i.e., h`gemw,n as the commander of 1000 soldiers. While it is true that in the first century h;geww,n was often used of a procurator like Pontius Pilate, it could also refer to the commander of a cohort, for which a more technical equivalent would be cilia,rcwn. But since the term h`genw,n several times is used in the LXX for the Hebrew @WLa; (Gen 36:15; Ex 15:1; 1 Chron 1:50; Psalm 54:14), some have suggested that Matthew may have read yPl.a; as ypeWLa; or ypeLua;. This is certainly a good possibility, for it would involve no consonantal change of the received consonantal text. (E)

 Archer and Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations  in the New Testament
(© 1983 Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, BibleWorks edition © 2005)

Sorry folks, but if you have to change the prophecy's wording to make it fit the "facts", you probably shouldn't be screaming your head off about the "amazing accuracy" of biblical prophecy.  Or you should at least cease doing so when you leave church and go back out into the real world where truth actually matters. 

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Preceded By a Messenger

Isaiah predicted there would be a messenger who would precede the Messiah and proclaim His coming. Isaiah made the prophecy between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 40:3

A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the LORD ; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.”

Christians believe this passage foreshadowed the life of John the Baptist who played an important role in preparing the groundwork for the ministry of Jesus Christ.

 But in the original context, Isaiah 40 wasn't talking about John the Baptist, for several reasons:

1 "Comfort, O comfort My people," says your God.
 2 "Speak kindly to Jerusalem; And call out to her, that her warfare has ended, That her iniquity has been removed, That she has received of the LORD'S hand Double for all her sins."
 3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
 4 "Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain, And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
 5 Then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."
 6 A voice says, "Call out." Then he answered, "What shall I call out?" All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.
 7 The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass.
 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isa. 40:1-8 NAU)

 First, "speak kindly" (v. 1) interprets "a voice is calling" (v. 2) and the two verses make clear this is Isaiah himself addressing Israel's situation there during his lifetime in 700 b.c.

Second, Isaiah is obviously talking to his contemporaries and telling THEM to clear the way for the Lord.

 Curiously, evangelical Christian scholar J. D. W. Watts doesn't even mention future fulfillment or John the Baptist when commenting on the critical verse 3, nor does he mention John the Baptist anywhere in his entire commentary on Isaiah:

Isaiah 40:3 A solo voice calls for monstrous preparation, including a highway. One might expect that this would be for pilgrims returning to Jerusalem or for those who would resettle the land. But the highway does not come to Jerusalem from the northeast or from the north (i.e., from Babylon) or even from the south (i.e., from Egypt), where the Diaspora is located. The wilderness spoken of here is in the southeast, the Arabah. And the one to travel on it is Yahweh, our God. Ezekiel had pictured Yahweh abandoning the city (Ezek 9–11). Now he is returning, using the way that was familiar from Temple traditions of Yahweh coming from Sinai or from Edom (cf. chaps. 34 and 63:1–6) through the Arabah south of the Dead Sea to approach Jerusalem from the east (cf. Comment on 10:27–32). The heart of the announcement, the reason for the messages of good news, is that Yahweh is returning to take up residence in Jerusalem again. This calls for royal preparations.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 80). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

You lose.

The Messiah Would Enter Jerusalem While Riding on a Donkey

Zechariah made this unusual prediction between 520 BC and 518 BC.

Zechariah 9:9

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

As recorded in Luke 19:35-37, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and presented Himself as the Messiah, the King.

 I think Wallace is being dishonest here, for while Luke 19 surely talks about Jesus riding on a donkey, Wallace surely knew that Matthew's version of the story is the one that a) contains a direct quote of this "prophecy" and b) Matthew's version is the one that has convinced many scholars that Matthew did not understand hendiatys, and misunderstood a parallel expression of one donkey, to signify two.  Compare:

Zechariah 9

Matthew 21

7 And I will remove their blood from their mouth And their detestable things from between their teeth. Then they also will be a remnant for our God, And be like a clan in Judah, And Ekron like a Jebusite.  8 But I will camp around My house because of an army, Because of him who passes by and returns; And no oppressor will pass over them anymore, For now I have seen with My eyes.  9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!   Behold, your king is coming to you;  He is just and endowed with salvation,  Humble, and mounted on a donkey,  Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.  10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim And the horse from Jerusalem; And the bow of war will be cut off. And He will speak peace to the nations; And His dominion will be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.

1 When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples,  2 saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me.  3 "If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them."  4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:  5 "SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION,  'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU,  GENTLE,  AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY,  EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.'"  6 The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them,  7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats. (Matt. 21:1-7 NAU)

 First, Matthew 21:3 has Jesus telling others that he has need of "them" (i.e., BOTH the donkey and her colt).  Well wait a minute...Zech. 9:9 wasn't talking about two animals.  It was talking about one, a colt.  The verse says "mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey".  That's not two animals, but one, because of a Hebrew parallelism technique called hendiatys.  Some examples:

Hebrews 11:13 The formulation ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι, “strangers and sojourners,” is a hendiadys, the expression of an idea by two nouns joined by the conjunction “and.” It is equivalent to “sojourning strangers.”

Lane, W. L. (2002). Vol. 47B: Word Biblical Commentary : Hebrews 9-13
. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 357). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

“Made well and live” (σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ) could refer to two distinct ideas (Taylor, 288). Yet since these two verbs render the Aramaic חיה, ḥayâh, some have taken them to be a hendiadys, two expressions for the same thing (Black, Approach, 71, n. 1; Klostermann, 51).

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 296). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Luke 2:4 “house and family,” is probably a hendiadys.

Nolland, J. (2002). Vol. 35A: Word Biblical Commentary : Luke 1:1-9:20.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 104). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Furthermore, under Markan priority, Matthew probably got this story from Mark 11 which says:

1 As they approached Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples,
 2 and said to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here.
 3 "If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' you say, 'The Lord has need of it'; and immediately he will send it back here."
 4 They went away and found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street; and they untied it.
 5 Some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?"
 6 They spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission.
 7 They brought the colt to Jesus and put their coats on it; and He sat on it.
 8 And many spread their coats in the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields.
 9 Those who went in front and those who followed were shouting: "Hosanna! BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!"
 11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking around at everything, He left for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late. (Mk. 11:1-11 NAU)

 In other words, Matthew's likely source were these Markan admissions about a single colt, nothing expressed or implied about a second animal. 

Why then does Mark specify that "the Lord has need of IT" and Matthew specifies "the Lord has need of THEM"?  Most likely because the Matthean author of this part of Matthew mistakenly took Zechariah 9:9 literally, and was ignorant that the OT expression was describing one animal in two ways.  Otherwise, why would Matthew feel compelled to modify the singular to the plural, especially if he thought his Markan source was inerrant?

Sorry, but at best this "prophecy" could have been fulfilled improperly by any messianic pretender by simply obtaining a colt and riding it into Jerusalem.  You lose.  Next?

The Messiah Would Suffer and Be Rejected

Isaiah made this prediction as well, between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:3

He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Some scholars claim Isaiah was referring to Israel as a nation in this passage rather than the Messiah. But, many important, historic Rabbis believed this passage was indeed about the Messiah.

 You need to look at the context first, that's more objective than simply asking how some important Rabbis
 understood it.

Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, one of the great seventeenth-century expositors from Safed, Israel, said ‘Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.”

Ok, since you don't go to the context, I will.  The suffering servant in Isaiah is spoken of in past tense terms which is a rather confused way of predicting the future (!?). Isaiah 53:7 says the servant didn't open his mouth while his executors were slaughtering him, but Jesus obviously does plenty of talking during his execution, John 19:11, Luke 23:28, 34, 43, 46.  Also the Hebrew word for death in Isaiah 53:9 is a plural, so in your quest to show this stuff literally applies to Jesus, be sure you cite the evidence showing that he died several times.

Finally, again curiously, a Christian scholar doesn't even mention Jesus as a possible fulfillment of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, which would hardly be the case if Jesus being the fulfillment had been the least bit "clear": 

This commentary will show that “the sufferer passages” are distinct from “the servant passages” sufferer and the servant are not the same person and that the in the Vision. Israel and the Persian emperor (Cyrus or Darius) are called “the anointed” or “the servant of Yahweh” (See Excursus: Identifying the “Servant of Yahweh”). But the sufferer in 50:4–9 and the dead sufferer in chap. 53 is more likely to be a leader in Jerusalem (perhaps Zerubbabel) who has been executed before the arrival of authorities sent by Darius.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 227). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 later on he specifies:

53:2 He grew up like a plant before him. Pronouns without antecedents appear throughout these verses. The waw consecutive ties this verse closely to v 1. This interpretation understands most of the third person masculine pronouns to refer the “the servant” of 52:13 (Darius). The second pronoun may refer to his patron Cambyses. That is, Darius grew up in the court of Cambyses as an insignificant and unpromising person. A vine from dry ground is figurative language for one of parentage not in line for succession to the throne. No form, no beauty, no attraction imply that Darius was a most unlikely candidate to gain support for his seizure of the throne. We: the speakers are the many, the crowd, of 52:14. They are talking among themselves, not addressing the emperor.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). (id, 230)

 And later:

53:11 The heavenly perspective is accented by Yahweh’s words. The travail of his soul refers to the suffering and death of Zerubbabel. He will see; he will be satisfied. This speaks of Darius. He has a way out of his dilemma if he treats Zerubbabel’s death as atonement for the charge of rebellion. By knowing about him (Zerubbabel), he (Darius) can justify. The death of Zerubbabel provides Darius with a legal way to resolve the issue. My servant refers to Darius, who by this act proves his legitimacy as Yahweh’s servant. He vindicates Jerusalem and its people against the charges brought by the governor and neighboring peoples. He forgives their wrongs. This is presented as Yahweh’s realistic and practical solution to the problem posed in 52:14–15.

(Id, 232)

 Of course, the reader may suggest J.D.W. Watts perhaps wasn't a Christian when he wrote this commentary.  Wrong:  From logos.com:

John D.W. Watts, formerly Professor of Old Testament at Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky and Old Testament editor of the Word Biblical Commentary, well known for his scholarly contributions on the prophetic books.

 See here.

So if even Christian scholars say next to nothing about Jesus' relationship to Isaiah 53, you can hardly consider the non-Christian to be intellectually obligated to view Jesus as the fulfillment of that "prediction".

The Messiah Would Be Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver

Zechariah predicted the betrayal of Jesus when he wrote this prophecy between 520 BC and 518 BC.

Zechariah 11:12-13

I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’–the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

As recorded in Matthew 26:15, Judas was paid 30 silver coins for his betrayal of Jesus. Judas later tossed the money into the Temple (the house of the Lord) and the money was used to buy a potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.

 And responsible Christian scholars tell us the original OT passage wasn't talking about the future:

Although NT writers connect this passage about the thirty pieces of silver paid to the prophet for his unappreciated service as a shepherd to his people to the money Judas received for betraying Jesus, the original passage makes no reference to a future Messiah. S. R. Driver says that the evangelist (Matthew) makes the connection because he “follows the exegetical methods current among the Jews of his time” (cf. Matt 2:15, 18; Driver 259).

Although no strict messianic view should be seen in the original passage, the quality of leadership is its central theme.

Smith, R. L. (2002). Vol. 32: Word Biblical Commentary : Micah-Malachi.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 272). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Fuhr and Yates consider this prophecy fulfillment to be typological, not literal prediction:




see here.

The publisher acknowledges these scholars are Christians with a Christian purpose:

Old Testament scholars Richard Alan Fuhr, Jr. and Gary E. Yates believe that the message of the twelve Minor Prophets is relevant for the church today, and they re-introduce these important books of the Bible to contemporary Christians.  (source)

 Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Silent Before His Accusers

Isaiah predicted this between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:7

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

In the book of Isaiah, chapter 53, Isaiah wrote about a “servant of God”. As recorded in Matthew 27:12-14, Jesus was falsely accused but remained silent and did not protest the accusations. Jesus was crucified by the Romans a short time later.

 This is a non-starter.  Isaiah doesn't say the servant refused to protest the accusations, Isaiah says the sufferer was silent before his accusers the way a lamb is silent before the shearer, but the NT has Jesus saying much to his accusers.  Compare:

Isaiah 53

John 18

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.

33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"  34 Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?"  35 Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?"  36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."  37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

I think this is the part where mouthy apologists suddenly discover who wise Christian scholar Craig Evans was in saying that Jesus probably didn't say most of the things the gospel of John puts in his mouth.  See here.

The Messiah Would Suffer at the Crucifixion

The Psalmist, King David wrote Psalm 22 and repeatedly predicted the events on the cross that would happen centuries later. Here are a few examples:

Psalm 22:1

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?

Psalm 22:7

All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

Psalm 22:8

‘He trusts in the LORD ; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.’

Psalm 22:16

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Psalm 22:17

I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

Psalm 22:18

They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Why did Jesus, while dying on the cross, say ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Those words are actually the first line of Psalm 22, which according to Jewish tradition was written by King David about 1,000 years before Jesus was crucified. There are many parallels between the details in Psalm 22 and the manner in which Jesus died.

 First, the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 shows his own effort to "fulfill" that passage, which means there is no intellectually forceful argument that divine inspiration is the only way this fulfillment could have happened.

Second, Psalm 22:16's "pierce my hands and feet", in context, is referring to the Psalmist's metaphorical complaint that his enemies are chewing him up the way an animal would piece your hands and feet by biting them.

 16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;
 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
 19 But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance.
 20 Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog.
 21 Save me from the lion's mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me. (Ps. 22:16-21 NAU)

Third, responsible Christian scholars translate 22:16 in a way that gets rid of the "pieced" crap that Christians need to link it up Jesus' crucifixion:

For dogs have surrounded me;

     a pack^a of thugs have encompassed me;

     my hands and my feet were exhausted.^b

a 17.a. On the nuance “pack” for עדת, see Dahood, Psalms I, 140.

b 17.b. MT’s כָּאֲרִי (“like a lion”) presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct. One must suppose that incorrect vocalization of the consonantal text occurred, perhaps through association with a marginal gloss at v 14; see note a at v 14 and L. C. Allen, “Cuckoos in the Textual Nest,” JTS 22 (1971) 148–50. It is probably best to read a consonantal text כארו or כרו; see the massive discussion of the manuscript evidence in De-Rossi, IV, 14–20. G’s translation, “they pierced my hands and feet” (ὤρυξαν), may perhaps presuppose a verb כרה, “to dig,” or כור (II), “to pierce, bore” (though the latter verb is dubious). Some scholars have supposed a verb אָרָה (“to pluck, pick clean”), prefixed by כְּ‍; for different approaches to this solution of the problem, see Dahood, “The Verb ĀRĀH, ‘pick clean,’” VT 24 (1974) 370–71, and Tournay, VT 23 (1973) 111–12. Still another solution is the proposal of a verb כרה (V), “to be shrunken, shriveled” (on the basis of Akk. and Syriac), as proposed by Roberts, VT 23 (1973) 247–52. The starting point for the translation which is adopted above is provided by E. J. Kissane (The Book of Psalms, 97–101). He proposes an original text כלו, changed to כרו (noting the occasional interchange of ל and ר), and translates “consumed.” This is basically the position adopted above; on the consonantal interchange, see A. Fitzgerald, “The Interchange of L, N and R in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 97 (1978) 481–88. Thus the verb is a form of כלה (3 plur. perf.); on the nuance “to be exhausted,” for this verb, see BDB, 477.

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 195). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Craigie also makes the "typological" interpretation the most likely when he says the original intent of the Psalm wasn't messianic:

Though the psalm is not messianic in its original sense or setting (though some scholars would interpret vv 28–32 as a messianic relecture: see MartinAchard, art. cit.), it may be interpreted from a NT perspective as a messianic psalm par excellence.

NT New Testament

Craigie, P. C. (2002). Vol. 19: Word Biblical Commentary : Psalms 1-50.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 202). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Wallace continues:

The Messiah Would Be Buried in a Rich Man’s Tomb

In yet another prophecy of Isaiah, made between 701 BC and 681 BC, the prophet predicted the burial of the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:9

He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Seven hundred years after this was written, Jesus was killed with two criminals and buried in a tomb owned by a wealthy man. Jesus was resurrected three days later and eventually ascended into Heaven.

 Maybe so.  But since he was buried in a rich man's tomb, the rich man could also have easily bribed the guards to simply say they found the tomb empty upon arrival...and that particular story would not have subjected them to any punishment, whereas the bribery story Matthew gives (i.e., they were bribed to say they were asleep when the disciples stole the body) not only would subject the guards to severe punishment, but would not make sense anyway, they'd obviously anticipate their boss asking "how could you know who the grave robbers were, if it happened while you were asleep?"  In this case, the historicity of the burial account opens historiographical doors the apologists don't want to open, doors that are more plausible than the bullshit story Matthew gives.  So yes, the disciples stole the body before the guards arrived (if Joe can move a stone in front of the tomb, other men can just as easily move it aside).

It would seem that skeptics are winning the messianic prophecy debate.  Christian Research Institute ('CRI') has always stood for standard Protestant orthodoxy and apologetics, but in one of its articles (attributed to Hank Hanegraaff but more than likely ghost-written for him mostly by actual bible scholars, as was the case with his best-selling books), it specifically denies that Isaiah 7:14 was a literal prediction of Jesus' birth, it rather admits the fulfillment in Jesus is "typological":

As with double-fulfillment, single-fulfillment does violence to the biblical text. Indeed, Isaiah 7:14 does not constitute a direct prediction about the Messiah at all. Though Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin, Isaiah did not predict the virgin birth of Jesus. As we will now see, when Matthew says the virgin birth of Jesus is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, he speaks of typological fulfillment, not predictive fulfillment.

 See here.