[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew

VC vadim_lv at center-tv.net
Wed Jun 9 02:27:07 EDT 2004


Dear Harold,

There is not much left regarding the messiah aside from Isaiah: a doubt
reference or two, depending how you read it, in Psalms (I'm sure you know
that other references are mistranslations), Micha, Zahariah, perhaps. These
opuses weren't taken seriously by Jews before the Pharisees, and even long
after they invented a new meaning. Sure you cannot base a religion on this
more than on Beowulf (not sure about the spelling, sorry).

>But I believe the Servant is the Messiah, even though the word "anointed"
is not used of the Servant by Isaiah.<

But on what basis, then?

Sincerely,

Vadim Cherny

> >  >HH; It is because of the figure who is identified
> >as such in the OT, and the importance he has for
> >all men, not just for the Jews.<
> >This also always remained a puzzle for me. The Tanakh devotes much more
> >space to dozens of other figures, yet so much importance is attached to
> >avdi.
> >And in every or so chapter mentioning the avdi, there is this talk of
> >smiting the foreigners, hardly of universal salvation.
> >Besides, a good case is made by many that the avdi references are
inserted.
> >I mean, I certainly understand this is a matter of belief, and in no way
try
> >to belittle yours. But since this belief is invoked as an additional
axiom
> >in the Tanakhic interpretation, I'd like to know more about this
assumption.
>
> HH: You might want to put a space between somebody else's comment and
> your own. It is hard to read when there is no space in between. My
> comment was an answer to your question about Gentile interest in the
> Messiah, I believe:
>
> >I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted with
the
> >Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why this
title
> is of importance to you.
>
> >  >HH; It is because of the figure who is identified
> >as such in the OT, and the importance he has for
> all men, not just for the Jews.<
>
> HH: So I wasn't just talking about the Servant figure in Isaiah but
> about all the references to the Messiah in the OT.
>
> >  >I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted
with the
> >>Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why this
title
> >>is of importance to you.
> >
> >
> >This is exactly what I'm talking about: the title was not extraordinary,
> >being applied to many people - some of sufficiently low credentials. Why
the
> >same title, implied for the avdi, is taken so seriously?
>
> HH: OT prophecy makes predictions about things to come. Many OT books
> speak of a future ruler of Israel. He is often identified with the
> house of David and described as a king. Both Jewish and Christian
> interpreters have viewed many OT books as speaking of the same future
> figure and have given him the name Messiah. Christianity identifies
> the Servant in Isaiah with that future figure. It is not the
> particular term used of him that is paramount, but the overall
> prophetic description of this person.
>
> >  >  You surely know that it was widely used; Isaiah
> >>allowed even Chaldeans their own moshia (which, according to him, was
not
> >>forthcoming to save them).
> >
> >HH: God called Cyrus His anointed one in the
> >sense that he was going to accomplish God's
> >purposes in a special way. While I don't agree
> >with Liz's theories that God took the kingship
> >away from the house of David and gave it to
> >Cyrus, she makes some good arguments in a
> >published paper that it would possible for Jews
> >to refer to Cyrus as their king. It would have
> >been possible for God to label Cyrus as
> >functioning in the role of His king.
> >
> >So, you accept that wrong translation can serve as a basis for better
> >understanding of the original text?
>
> HH: I don't know what you mean by a wrong translation. "Anointed" is
> correct. Liz applies all the Servant passages to Cyrus. I think that
> is what is incorrect, Liz's interpretation of the Servant. There is a
> distinction between the two figures; the Servant is not Cyrus. But I
> believe the Servant is the Messiah, even though the word "anointed"
> is not used of the Servant by Isaiah. I believe that Cyrus is only a
> type of the Servant, a picture from that age of what the Messiah (the
> Servant) will do in the future.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list