|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Can someone clear this up for me? Where in the OT does it say the Messiah has to be divine? That is not to say, of course, that he doesn't have to be God's anointed one. I would suggest that the Messiah of the Jewish tradition is definitely not divine. Isn't part of the problem that Christians have used the term "Messiah" in a way Jews coming from their religious tradition would not understand?
Is 9:6? Unto us a child is born etc..and his name shall be called ...the mighty God, the everlasting father.
There are alternative views in Judaism
You are aware that that is a dedicated anti-messianic-Jewish site? I understand the reasons for setting such a site up, but it does mean that the agenda is largely driven by the need to refute a certain strain of protestantism.
But the document you link to doesn't seem wildly scholarly. Just to take a few points -
quote:
One difference is that
the Hebrew text, in both versions, utilizes verbs that are conjugated in the past
tense, and which describe a sequence of events that has already taken place, while
the corresponding verbs in KJV translation are conjugated the present and future
tenses, thereby describing events that ar
e contemporary and also still to come.
This makes little sense. It seems to be quoting a modern Hebrew text rather than the Masoretic text which was in Ancient Hebrew. My understanding of that being that he must have imported the assumptions of the modern Hebrew text (which does have tenses) into the way the translators handled the ancient Hebrew text, which is not marked for tense. Tense has to be supplied by the translator according to context.
(Actually, I'm not sure he grasps the use of KJV English either - at the time it was written, the perfect tense could be formed using a range of auxiliary verbs, so "is born" could be either present or past perfect in the passive voice. It achieved its current stability later. There is a lot more of that confusion later on.)
quote:
Another important difference between the KJV and Jewish translations of the first
3
verse is in the list of names/titles. The Jewish translation lists four names/titles,
none of which is modified with a definite article
the
(as in the Hebrew text). The
Christian translation lists five, the first two
of which are split out of the first Hebrew
one and are without a definite article, and each of the last three is capitalized and
has a definite article.
There is no definite article in the name right enough, but the number of attributes thing seems a bit of a stretch - it relies on whether you see "wonderful counsellor" or "wonderful, counsellor". Not exactly something I'd hang my hat on. It strikes me that Mudfrog's interpretation, that this as a unity as a name, is the way to go.
quote:
With the exception of a subtle difference in the respective translations of the second
verse, Isaiah 9:6[7], other differences are,
in general, insignificant with respect to the
context of the passage. Both the Hebrew text and the Jewish translation of this
verse capture the message – the explanation of the series of names/titles from the
previous verse – in one sentence. Yet,
the KJV translators start a new sentence
with Isaiah 9:6[7], which removes the continuity from the previous verse, and then
they break this verse into two separat
e sentences, which results in an abstruse
redirection of the focus in order to support their translation of the previous verse, as
will be demonstrated later.
Hmmm. Chapter and verse boundaries are of course not present in the original. But the MT text at 9:6[7] starts with a reduplication. It seems to me that the decision to start a new verse here is a reasonable way of honouring the device. You could argue that doing a straight run-on is failing to account for the device. But in fact in either case, the decision is somewhat arbitrary.
quote:
Isaiah 9:5-6
is not
a messianic prophecy according to the Jewish perspective.
What???!!! There are all sorts of ancient Talmudic Jewish writings confirming the understanding that this whole passage is messianic. Yes, of course it refers at the top level to Hezekiah, but I can only assume the writer is using the word "prophecy" to mean something like fortune-telling. Which admittedly it gets to look like in certain hands. But it's all about the further unwrapping of God's word and purposes, and uses symbology to do that. "It's like this..." This passage has symbology running through it like a stick of rock.
OK - tl:dr - I gave up at this point.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
You are aware that that is a dedicated anti-messianic-Jewish site?
Yes. I was merely responding to the comments before implying that anyone who read this passage would draw the same conclusions that many christians have.
quote:
My understanding of that being that he must have imported the assumptions of the modern Hebrew text (which does have tenses) into the way the translators handled the ancient Hebrew text, which is not marked for tense. Tense has to be supplied by the translator according to context.
As I read it, the writer of the article was highlighting the inconsistency of approaches with tense etc in the KJV. Your last sentence "according to context" is relevant, because in the context of christian interpretations of the bible there's a risk of an agenda to fit the words to a NT perspective, so instead of writing this as "was born ... is called" there's a revisionist approach that says "is (or even will be in some versions) born, will be called". Massaging the facts to fit the theology.
quote:
It strikes me that Mudfrog's interpretation, that this as a unity as a name, is the way to go.
Indeed - that is another approach taken to understanding this passage that doesn't lead to the view that the messiah is divine (or that the son is the father.)
quote:
There are all sorts of ancient Talmudic Jewish writings confirming the understanding that this whole passage is messianic. Yes, of course it refers at the top level to Hezekiah, but I can only assume the writer is using the word "prophecy" to mean something like fortune-telling. Which admittedly it gets to look like in certain hands. But it's all about the further unwrapping of God's word and purposes, and uses symbology to do that. "It's like this..." This passage has symbology running through it like a stick of rock.
I'd be curious to see some examples of the Jewish writings that view this as messianic and how they account for the claim that it means the messiah is divine.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wow. Guys. Kwesi is of course right. This is about Hezekiah.
I've just closed a loop of cognitive dissonance that I didn't know was there, ploughing back a liberal, postmodern understanding in to the texts.
And so is Mudfrog and Jamat. Right. Even the Jewish Targum concludes that this is Messianic. But it's in the hindsight eye of the beholder, it's incredibly subtle.
The wiki article on the verse is excellent and refers to the scholarship of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford Press) of 2004. There must be older provenance than that.
"Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom
...
This long name is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; ... These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship."
One can link to the long name article from there:
"[The long name] is variously interpreted as
"Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace" (Hertz 1968),
or
"his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (KJV)."
The KJV does not have Hertz' authority.
This STILL looks solely Messianic: Isaiah 9:7(KJV)
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
But again, post-NT Christianity saw it, used it, none of the NT writers.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Goldfish Stew - let me see if I can respond to your points and in doing so draw some conclusions to Kwesi's earlier post that wondered about messianic prophesies that saw the messiah as being God in some way.
quote:
As I read it, the writer of the article was highlighting the inconsistency of approaches with tense etc in the KJV. Your last sentence "according to context" is relevant, because in the context of christian interpretations of the bible there's a risk of an agenda to fit the words to a NT perspective, so instead of writing this as "was born ... is called" there's a revisionist approach that says "is (or even will be in some versions) born, will be called". Massaging the facts to fit the theology.
I don't think that case can be sustained. The act of translation into any modern language - which includes modern Hebrew - requires the translator to use a verb that has a tense. We don't have any verbs unmarked for tense. The thing is that that is as true for the good rabbi as it was for the translators of the KJV. The interesting thing is that the LXX (the oldest translation we have and itself much older than the MT) does in fact use the future tense, and presumably the KJV translators were following that. The question surely then becomes - where did this perfect tense come from?
quote:
I'd be curious to see some examples of the Jewish writings that view this as messianic and how they account for the claim that it means the messiah is divine.
That's two separate things. I was simply refuting the assertion that Jews didn't see the passage as messianic. Maybe he doesn't, but on a historical basis it is demonstrable nonsense.
However, concerning the second point relating to the issue of the messiah being divine. I'm not aware that this passage of Isaiah was used in that way. Though I need to add that I'm posting this from memory and no longer have the books I would need to hand to check.
But my recollection was that the main discussion in the intertestamental period was concerning how the prophecies of a kingly messiah could be reconciled with the prophecies of a priestly messiah. The "divine" messiah was the concern of a minority, but as I recall it, they didn't use this text, but pointed to texts such as Ezekiel 34 where it appears the the prophet speaks of the shepherd being both divine and kingly ("David", though of course this is a metaphor, being post-Davidic)- and psalm 110. Which latter Jesus also did.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Virgin Birth surely, therefore, has everything to do with Christ being God, although, of course, there is no God chromosome.
A few weeks ago I gave a talk to a class of 16 Catholic seminarians. All expecting to become priests, all young men, mostly white Americans.
I asked them if they believed in the virgin birth, and whether seminarians today are taught to accept it as factual. They said yes.
I asked the same about the immaculate conception. They said yes.
I asked them if they believe that the biblical miracles literally happened. They said yes.
I asked them if they were OK that the priesthood is still restricted to men. They said yes.
Of course their teacher was with them, who happened to be a woman.
In any case, there you have it. Even today Catholic seminarians still believe.
And of course Muslims universally accept the virgin birth of Jesus. I hadn't realized that until recently.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
