Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 11/15/06, Harold Holmyard wrote:

> >   Probably not the Hebrew Bible, because you later
> > quote Hebrews on the one hand, and suggest that my doubting the sources
> > of the book of Ezra is a theological position.
>
> HH: Doubting is a theological issue. Quoting the Book of Hebrews shows
> that some Israelites of the first century believed Haggai meant a
> certain thing. They're two thousand years closer to the reality than we
> are.

Here you go again, assuming as fact that the passage you quote in the book
of Hebrews is an accurate representation of first century Jewish thought.  
When
I confronted you with the fact that this assumption appears based in
Christian theology, and that those who do not hold Christian theological 
belief
will need to see that various claims that together make up the assumption are
in fact historically accurate, you wrote:

> >   To put the point further, the book of Hebrews may be in your
> > theological view, a 1st century book allowing us to see the views of the 
> Jews
> > at that time.  But for me, it is just a book, and you'd have to show me that
> > it was composed in the 1st century, that it was representative of the views 
> of
> > Jews, and that the particular passage you are quoting is original to that 
> book
> > and are not a later addition by, just for example, 3rd century Christians.s

> HH: I don't have to show you anything. And really, the impulse to find
> the truth must come from you. Seek and you will find. But if you insist
> on others proving everything for you, you may not find much.

Well, perhaps my impulse to not find out the truth of the books that make up
the Christian bible can be forgiven.  What appears unexcusable is the fine 
line
that separates the above statement of yours regarding the Christian Bible from
proselytizing.

As such, I see no point to continue this thread.  However, let me end on a
positive note.  I think the following piece of exchange was positive,
so even though
I find it necessary to end this conversation, I will take a moment to
comment on
this bit:

> >   It is akin to a political
> > commentator writing an analysis and probable forecast regarding the 
> President
> > of the United States, and yet when years later some particulars of that 
> forecast
> > don't seem to you to have taken place, you'd conclude that the commentator
> > was speaking symbolically of some period thousands of years later and using
> > the President only symbolically.

> HH: You could look at things that way, but there is a strong current of
> such prophecies throughout the Bible, and particularly in the
> contemporaneous Book of Zechariah. They point forward to a Davidic ruler
> in the future.

Bringing in the book of Zechariah is actually good.  It contrasts with
your policy
so far of attempting to bring in late second temple period evidence (including
the example from Hebrews which you claim to be from this period) with its
much more advanced eschatology and messianic concepts.  The book of
Zechariah shows that symbolism in prophecies does not go unnoticed, without
explicitly pointing it out and then an interpretation provided.  What
is unclear is
whether Zechariah's mention of David in Zechariah 12-13 is commonly accepted
or if it is an innovation -- the first step towards the Davidic
Messiah of late second
Temple period times.  After the Davidic kings of the First Temple period were
interrupted, who was to continue the kingship in the reconstruction?  Was it
necessarily the Davidic kings?  How do we know? If Cyrus counted as an
"Anointed", maybe other lineages were acceptable.  So the mention of David by
Zechariah is good, but its occurence in one particular prophecy only
of Zechariah
might suggest that it is indeed an innovation, one not necessarily shared by
Haggai.

Yitzhak Sapir