Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>]

Arthur Gershman wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
> > We are at an impasse as to how to define "bible."  Is it Torah, Tanakh, or
> > does it include the so-called New Testament.  Let's decide.
Art, this issue seems immaterial for the purposes of our discussion. I
know that Jewish people do not include the New Testament in their Bible,
and I would never try to force it into their Bible,


but you would force YOUR meaning into OUR bible.  You would always 
say that you don't agree with OUR Bible scholars, you would say that 
because you don't know what they/we know, that means that we forgot 
our knowledge - just because you don't have access to it.  All 
details in Zerubavel are explained fully and are not left to the 
imagination of the reader, but you don't ever "agree" with the 
explanations, if they come from OUR ORAL Torah.

Shoshanna




 even for the
purposes of discussion. But all of us accept Haggai into the Bible, for
we all accept the Jewish Bible as the Bible. Some of us include the New
Testament in their Bible.

My quotation of the Book of Hebrews was not to claim biblical authority
for the interpretation of Haggai 2:7 there, although I do understand it
that way. It was to show Yitzhak that some first century Jews
interpreted it of a futuristic fulfillment and could build arguments
with other people on the basis of that assumed shared understanding.

This conforms with a considerable amount of Jewish writing in Enoch, 4th
Ezra, some Dead Sea Scrolls, and other texts that came to see the
Messiah as an eschatological figure. I believe this understanding is
already present in the Tanakh and is the basis for the later writing. I
accept that Haggai 2:7 is speaking in an eschatological context of
events that come at the end of the age. Haggai 2:7 ties in with 2:23 by
the figure of a world shaking, and 2:23 can speak symbolically of the
Messiah.

Yitzhak argues that a Messianic text in 2:23 would necessarily include
an explanation of the symbology, as in Zechariah. However, if the world
shaking was understood to be eschatological, such an explanation would
not be necessary, since obviously Zerubbabel did not survive that long
and must be seen to represent someone else, the Davidic chosen  leader.

As I said, many details in Zechariah are not explained fully but are
left to the insight of the reader to piece together with other biblical
information. And Zechariah speaks of the Davidic king in terms like the
"branch" (Zech 3:8, 6:12) that are borrowed from earlier prophets (Isa
11:1; Jer 23:5;  Ezek 17:22).

There was a prophetic understanding of an eschatological Messiah, so
Haggai in 2:23 could be  prophetically adding to that stream of
revelation about this figure, who is described in many ways but
especially as a Davidic king.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard



Yours,
Harold Holmyard
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew