Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Raymond de Hoop <rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>]

> From: "Christine Bass" <christinebass AT home.com>
> All to say that each person posting has a perspective, and it is through
> this perspective (Jewish, Christian, Atheist, Humanist, Agnostic, etc.) that
> the Hebrew Scriptures are analyzed. There is no one that does not. A
> nothing, a supposedly neutral is still a perspective. To say that one is
> immune to their own perspective in interpreting scripture is a fallacy, a
> form of denial.

It is this kind of argument that is put forward to claim the right to put
forward all kind of arguments based on faith (secular, Jewish, but in this
discussion esp. christian).

Regrettably those who quote from their sources like the NT do not discern
between the different kind of claims such a quotation has.

a) it is a "neutral" one. NT is one source among others (Matthew interpreted
Isaiah as referring to a virgin, but he may err with regard to Isaiah).

b) it is an authorative source with THE correct interpretation (Matthew knew
the meaning of the text: he was inspired and consequently he cannot err).

c) The Hebrew Bible is a foreshadowing of the NT and everything of the HB
has to be read in the light of the NT.



All three arguments have passed in the postings. It goes without saying that
the final claim is out of place in this list because it has a claim which
excludes the religion of many readers of the Hebrew Bible.

The second claim did occur quite often though not expressis verbis. However,
the discussion whether (almah should be "virgin" even in Ugarit, would not
have been such a problem in case Matthew would not have reffered to Isaiah.

The first claim is an argument that can be followed by every one, in that
sense it is an argument that is open to discussion.


Christians --and I consider myself to be one-- may of course put their
arguments forward. However, at the moment that a quotation from their
personal authorative source (NT) should be decisive because it is assumed to
be authorative, they put themselves outside the circle of the open
discussion.

I hope this may clarify some of this discussion,

Regards,

Raymond