Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> > 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.
>   

HH: I was talking about first century Jews. If that is too much for you, 
sorry.

> > 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.

HH: We are not rich enough in ancient source material to have a 
squeamish appetite about what we will look at. An ancient source is an 
ancient source. Of course Hebrews is later than Haggai, but a lot closer 
than we are and in the stream of ancient traditional interpretation. The 
writer simply assumes his readers will accept that his interpretation 
was what the Book of Haggai means. He builds his message on what seems 
the commonly understood meaning of the verse. It does not prove this was 
the only interpretation, but it seems to show a common interpretation.

>   The book of Zechariah shows that symbolism in prophecies does not go 
> unnoticed, without explicitly pointing it out and then an interpretation 
> provided.

HH: The Book of Isaiah leaves many symbolic passages unexplained. There 
are numerous unexplained symbolic passages in Zechariah.
>   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.

HH: It is no innovation but occurs earlier in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It 
occurs in Amos and Hosea. It occurs in Isaiah.
>   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?

HH: Of course it has to be Davidic kings that serve as Davidic kings. 
Cyrus won't do. He can be anointed, but not Davidic. The uniqueness of 
Zerubbabel was that he was the Davidic heir. Haggai emphasizes his 
lineage in 2:23 by mentioning his father Shealtiel, who was the direct 
descendant of the last king of the regular line (before foreign 
appointments):

1Chr. 3:17 The descendants of Jehoiachin the captive: Shealtiel his son,

HH: Haggai states that Zerubbabel was chosen, which seems to allude to 
his Davidic status as well.

>   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.
>   

HH: Would Moses and Joshua have disagreed about fundamental realities, 
or Joshua and Caleb, or Jonathan and David?

Yours,
Harold Holmyard