Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Shoshanna Walker wrote:
> 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.
>   

HH: If Jewish sources outside the Tanakh itself seem to have some good 
insight on the Scripture, I am ready to receive it. I read commentaries 
by Jewish scholars. But I don't treat extra-biblical interpretations as 
automatically authoritative. The Bible itself warns against doing this 
because human beings can add to God's word, or take away from it:

Jer. 8:8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the 
LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

HH: Jeremiah addressed the religious leaders of his day, who tried to 
put him to death. Human leadership, even priests and Levites, were 
capable of sin and error. It is God's word that carries the authority, 
and it was given as a revelation from God. That means that I do not 
necessarily have to go through some human body of interpreters, some 
interpretive authority, to obtain the truth. I can go to God's word. Of 
course I should not ignore ancient commentary if it can be helpful in 
understanding God's word, but neither should I assume that it 
automatically has the right interpretation.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard