|
|
Post by Nachshon on Nov 28, 2007 7:20:23 GMT -8
I've been debating Isaiah 9 with an Orthodox counter-missionary friend of mine (who happens to be more missionary than I am.  ). Disproving the "past tense" gibberish has been easy, both linguistically and contextually. My question is really regarding aggada. How do you recognize it? I pointed out that a number of rabbinic sources use Isaiah 9 in a Messianic context (Targum Yonatan of Isaiah 9, BaMidbar Rabbah 11:16-20, Perek Shalom pp 101, Midrash Rabba D'varim 1:20, and Pesikta Rabbati piska 46:3). He replied that these are all aggadic. To me these seemed to be very clearly prophetic. How can we distinguish these usages in rabbinic literature? Thanks y'all. Shalom, Nachshon |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Nov 29, 2007 4:59:08 GMT -8
Hi Nachson,
I'm told that if you can look at the moon and see the face of a man, it is very difficult to see the outline of a bunny or the form of a crab. I say them all in a story book that my kids had and so I can identify them easily; but without Dorling-Kinderly I guess the rest of you people are all out of luck.
When you have been taught how to view a piece of Scripture from a particular vantage, just like seeing the man in the moon, it is very difficult to come at it from another perspective. Usually, when two people approach the same Scripture and come away with two different understandings, they usually sit at an impass for a very long time, especially if the agenda of each one is to teach the other.
Yet, there are a couple of reasons that I believe that we are right in our literal understanding of Isaiah 9. First is this question: where does aggada (or allegory) begin in the text and where does it end? Is it simply the short phrase of Isaiah 9:6-7? And if so, what does it mean? Why is it there? It is irresponsible to interpret any passage of Scripture independently. In fact, Rabbi Ishmael teaches that one element of Scripture cannot stand independently in its interpretation but within Scripture one must be able to support one's conclusion. Our interpretation is backed up by Psalm 2:6-12, Psalm 110:1-4, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zechariah 6:12-13, Zechariah 9:9-10 and others.
If we pick out the Scriptures that we find difficult, or that don't support our pre-determined conclusions, we have stopped our journey of seeking to come closer to Adonai and have stopped to rest in our own religiosity. This is not what Judaism is all about. Unto the Jew has been given the oracles of God... that's New Testament. Yet, in his desire to be right in his rejection of the Messiah, he has divorced himself from his own rules of proper biblical interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Dec 1, 2007 6:44:24 GMT -8
The only thing is that he's not saying that the passage is aggadic. He believe it's literal. However, he is saying that these references in Rabbinic literature are aggadic.
|
|
). Disproving the "past tense" gibberish has been easy, both linguistically and contextually.
