Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-12-2010, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Let's start with the fact that the text of Zech. 6:9-15 is corrupt. The original (cf. 6:9, lOb, lla-bcc; 12a, 13, 15a) deals with the command to crown Zerubbabel, which Zechariah is to do as a symbolic action (cf. Robinson-Horst, op. cit., 236)

As I see it there are clearly two figures in the passage from Zechariah, and Tsemach is NOT the High Priest. The vision that is seen is the messianic king enthroned and ruling with the High Priest.

Here is the Hebrew of verses 12b-13. “Behold a man whose name is sprout [or growth bud: tsemaḥ]. From being static [literally from under himself] he will sprout [yitsmaḥ] and will build the Temple of the Lord. He will build the Temple of the Lord and will take on royal majesty [hod]. He will sit and rule on his throne, and the Priest will be on his throne, and there will be concord between them”. Here is the Greek translation (conveniently but improperly called the Septuagint, LXX). The Greek of the Minor Prophets is an interpretative translation, without being arbitrary. “Behold the man whose name is Dawn [anatolê]; over the horizon [hypokatôthen, literally up from under] he will dawn [anatelei], and build the house of the Lord. And he will take on nobility [or prowess: Greek aretê], and sit and rule upon his throne; and there will be a Priest on his right hand, and there shall be concord between them”.

Here is what the Targum has for verses 12 and 13. “And you shall say … “Behold a man whose name is Meshiḥa [the Anointed]. He will be revealed. He will become great [not “will be great”] and will build the Temple of the Lord. He will build the Temple of the Lord and will bloom. He will sit and rule on his throne. [The blooming is not the first event]. The High Priest will be on his throne. The King of Peace will be between them”.

I would suggest that my interpretation is the one which followed in the period.

We aren't really talking to each other. You can say that the text is corrupt, but that's not quite accurate (unless you'd like to say corruption involves any change). It has been changed, deliberately. Zerubbabel has been removed from it, leaving the reading that the crowns are both placed on the head of Jeshua. There is some sort of coup here that takes Zerubbabel out of the picture and leaves two crowns on the one head -- and that's no simple corruption, but a post hoc reflection of the change from dual messiahs to a species of theocracy.

The change itself is ad hoc because Zerubbabel remains in earlier contexts of Zechariah. Be that as it may, Jeshua is the only person left in the crowning ceremony in the text we have. It follows then that it is Jeshua who has by default become the one who bears the royal crown and sits on the throne. That's what the text now says.

I have no trouble in seeing that Zerubbabel is lurking behind the narrative: putting two crowns on Jeshua's head even raises a smile (though I'm sure someone could mock up a headdress that could carry two crowns unbeknownst to the text). But the text has been waylaid. How do you think that happened and why was it let remain that way?

spin

stephan huller · 12-12-2010, 03:36 PM

But the rabbinic interpretation necessarily excludes Jeshua as the high priest can't be the royal messiah. Indeed the earlier statement makes it obvious that the branch is someone other than Jeshua:

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your fellows that sit before you; for they are men that are a sign; for behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. 9For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua

And ibn Ezra makes it explicit:

He is Zerubbabel, as it is said, “His name is branch” [Zech. 6:12], and the end of the passage proves it, [stating] “before Zerubbabel” [Zech. 4:7]. And many interpreters say that this branch is the Messiah, and he is called Zerubbabel because he is from his seed, as in, “and David my servant will be their prince forever” [Ezek. 37:25]. And I too can interpret this homiletically [derek derash], for tsemach [branch] by Gematria [i.e., numerically interpreted] equals Menachem, that is, Ben Ammiel [in the Talmud Menachem Ben Ammiel is a name for the Messiah (b. Sanhedrin 99b)

I think you always argue for what the right interpretation SHOULD BE from the original Hebrew and I argue for the answer from the surviving traditions. The dominant tradition that stretches throughout the rabbinic literature is that tsemach is the royal messiah. Indeed he is a 'little one' who will grow into the messiah like David.

maryhelena · 12-12-2010, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But the rabbinic interpretation necessarily excludes Jeshua as the high priest can't be the royal messiah. Indeed the earlier statement makes it obvious that the branch is someone other than Jeshua:

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your fellows that sit before you; for they are men that are a sign; for behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. 9For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua

And ibn Ezra makes it explicit:

He is Zerubbabel, as it is said, “His name is branch” [Zech. 6:12], and the end of the passage proves it, [stating] “before Zerubbabel” [Zech. 4:7]. And many interpreters say that this branch is the Messiah, and he is called Zerubbabel because he is from his seed, as in, “and David my servant will be their prince forever” [Ezek. 37:25]. And I too can interpret this homiletically [derek derash], for tsemach [branch] by Gematria [i.e., numerically interpreted] equals Menachem, that is, Ben Ammiel [in the Talmud Menachem Ben Ammiel is a name for the Messiah (b. Sanhedrin 99b)

I think you always argue for what the right interpretation SHOULD BE from the original Hebrew and I argue for the answer from the surviving traditions. The dominant tradition that stretches throughout the rabbinic literature is that tsemach is the royal messiah. Indeed he is a 'little one' who will grow into the messiah like David.

Interesting observation here, Stephan, re traditional interpretations vs interpretation of the original Hebrew words. Obviously, either position is not without its limitations. Words are themselves very often inadequate vehicles for expressing ones ideas or thoughts. Reading between the lines - which is often what traditional interpretations attempt to do - can easily be a very subjective process - as well as being constrained by past traditions. So where does all that leave us? Methinks it's back to the cold realities of what can be historically established - without which any interpretation, either a purely language based interpretation or one based upon traditional insights - is nothing more than blowing in the wind...

spin · 12-12-2010, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But the rabbinic interpretation necessarily excludes Jeshua as the high priest can't be the royal messiah.

Situations change, as has clearly happened here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Indeed the earlier statement makes it obvious that the branch is someone other than Jeshua:

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your fellows that sit before you; for they are men that are a sign; for behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. 9For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua

As I noted there are still dual messiahs in 4:14, so obviously Jeshua's role hadn't change at that stage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And ibn Ezra makes it explicit:

He is Zerubbabel, as it is said, “His name is branch” [Zech. 6:12], and the end of the passage proves it, [stating] “before Zerubbabel” [Zech. 4:7]. And many interpreters say that this branch is the Messiah, and he is called Zerubbabel because he is from his seed, as in, “and David my servant will be their prince forever” [Ezek. 37:25]. And I too can interpret this homiletically [derek derash], for tsemach [branch] by Gematria [i.e., numerically interpreted] equals Menachem, that is, Ben Ammiel [in the Talmud Menachem Ben Ammiel is a name for the Messiah (b. Sanhedrin 99b)

And how does ibn Ezra know this? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think you always argue for what the right interpretation SHOULD BE from the original Hebrew and I argue for the answer from the surviving traditions.

I guess that means that I have evidence and you have post hoc whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The dominant tradition that stretches throughout the rabbinic literature is that tsemach is the royal messiah. Indeed he is a 'little one' who will grow into the messiah like David.

There is no way to test the value of the tradition. Traditions only have value to those who uphold the tradition.

spin

stephan huller · 12-12-2010, 10:51 PM

I'm sure that ibn Ezra. Maimonides and the rest based part of their interpretation on the Targum and the rest on an oral tradition which ultimately shaped that reading.

spin · 12-12-2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I'm sure that ibn Ezra. Maimonides and the rest based part of their interpretation on the Targum and the rest on an oral tradition which ultimately shaped that reading.

So how do you test that oral tradition?

spin

stephan huller · 12-13-2010, 09:58 AM

I am not arguing that your understanding is unworkable. I am only saying that since the Targum established an interpretation of the text which seems to have dominated the literature. The idea that Jeshua is called 'the sprout' has difficulties, though. Again if the reference to 'the ninth vision' is on the throne and this is supposed to reference Zech 6:9f then its interpretation as a 'vision' implies that it is something which happened AFTER the age of Zerubbabel and is more in keeping with the Philonic understanding of the material (Philo sees it as foreseeing the appearance of a divine god-man).

Again, I never put this argument in a paper because it has difficulties. I happen to believe that 'the ninth vision' is there and that it explains the core 'vision' of the gospel - i.e. Jesus βαπτίζω St. Mark with his glory and thus making the perfect man. I think these develop from Philo's repeated reference to the passage but these things can't be proved and belong outside of any serious academic discussion. At least for now, until I find something to support it.

JCR · 12-13-2010, 11:58 AM

I've done some further research online. While some websites claim that the Hebrew name for Spica was Tsemach, I cannot find any substantiation for the claim. In "Star Names, Their Lore and Meaning" (1889), Richard Hinckley Allen (citing Thomas Hyde) states that the Hebrew name for Spica was Shibboleth, meaning "ear of wheat".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2010, 03:36 PM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But the rabbinic interpretation necessarily excludes Jeshua as the high priest can't be the royal messiah. Indeed the earlier statement makes it obvious that the branch is someone other than Jeshua: Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your fellows that sit before you; for they are men that are a sign; for behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. 9For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua And ibn Ezra makes it explicit: He is Zerubbabel, as it is said, “His name is branch” [Zech. 6:12], and the end of the passage proves it, [stating] “before Zerubbabel” [Zech. 4:7]. And many interpreters say that this branch is the Messiah, and he is called Zerubbabel because he is from his seed, as in, “and David my servant will be their prince forever” [Ezek. 37:25]. And I too can interpret this homiletically [derek derash], for tsemach [branch] by Gematria [i.e., numerically interpreted] equals Menachem, that is, Ben Ammiel [in the Talmud Menachem Ben Ammiel is a name for the Messiah (b. Sanhedrin 99b) I think you always argue for what the right interpretation SHOULD BE from the original Hebrew and I argue for the answer from the surviving traditions. The dominant tradition that stretches throughout the rabbinic literature is that tsemach is the royal messiah. Indeed he is a 'little one' who will grow into the messiah like David.

12-12-2010, 10:51 PM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I'm sure that ibn Ezra. Maimonides and the rest based part of their interpretation on the Targum and the rest on an oral tradition which ultimately shaped that reading.

12-13-2010, 09:58 AM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am not arguing that your understanding is unworkable. I am only saying that since the Targum established an interpretation of the text which seems to have dominated the literature. The idea that Jeshua is called 'the sprout' has difficulties, though. Again if the reference to 'the ninth vision' is on the throne and this is supposed to reference Zech 6:9f then its interpretation as a 'vision' implies that it is something which happened AFTER the age of Zerubbabel and is more in keeping with the Philonic understanding of the material (Philo sees it as foreseeing the appearance of a divine god-man). Again, I never put this argument in a paper because it has difficulties. I happen to believe that 'the ninth vision' is there and that it explains the core 'vision' of the gospel - i.e. Jesus βαπτίζω St. Mark with his glory and thus making the perfect man. I think these develop from Philo's repeated reference to the passage but these things can't be proved and belong outside of any serious academic discussion. At least for now, until I find something to support it.

12-13-2010, 11:58 AM	#18
JCR New Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2	I've done some further research online. While some websites claim that the Hebrew name for Spica was Tsemach, I cannot find any substantiation for the claim. In "Star Names, Their Lore and Meaning" (1889), Richard Hinckley Allen (citing Thomas Hyde) states that the Hebrew name for Spica was Shibboleth, meaning "ear of wheat".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.