Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew
  • Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:31:16 -0500

Dear Vadim,

>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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page