Posted on 05/08/2011 4:01:12 AM PDT by GonzoII
Would such a masoretic text of Isaiah contain vowel markings? The masoretic text of the Pentateuch should, as it was recited aloud in a formal setting. But why would Isaiah contain vowel markings?
You tell me? Are vowel markings essential to the accurate transmission of the text - or mearly an adaptation to assist the translation because of separation from the language caused in part to the diaspora?
DSS Isaiah contains similar vowel marks. Quram scribes added some semi-vowels to the text, mostly the use of yod, waw, and “he”.
Since the written hebrew is comprised of consonants, some means throughout the written history some means of informing the reader what vowels to use had to be devised.
Bottom line is vowel markings mean little to the translation - just a aid for translation.
makes sense, unless you know your anthropology.
A young woman refers to an unmarried girl of marriage age.
In Israel, like in today’s Muslim world,she was not allowed to be sexually active. If she became pregnant she’d be killed. Hence an “young girl” refers to a virgin.
The Greek women were less chaste, hence the ones who translated it used the Greek word for virgin. (the translators were Jewish Scholars in Alexandria, an Egyptian city with lots of easy going Greeks and Egyptian women living there).
I do find it interesting and noteworthy that the Dead Sea Scrolls’ Isaiah uses Almah; My point was that the Septuagint predates the birth of Christ, and it was the scripture that had been fulfilled. Looking to the Jews for the proper scripture wording is senseless.
I had read at length how the Septuagint is 85% closer to the DSS than the Masoretic Text, but it appears that Q1 is closer to the MT. However, did not “Almah” also have the connotation of being unmarried? Is the connotation not strong enough that the notion of a pregnant “Almah” would be scandalous?
Interesting.
my point - no change from the MT.
My point was that the Septuagint predates the birth of Christ, and it was the scripture that had been fulfilled. Looking to the Jews for the proper scripture wording is senseless.
That is a sad exergesis. The LXX use of virgin provides insight as to the intent of the use of Almah and its context - the intent of the passage. Looking to the Jews for proper 'wording' makes no sense in your statement. The LXX was written by Jews as well.
However, did not “Almah” also have the connotation of being unmarried? Is the connotation not strong enough that the notion of a pregnant “Almah” would be scandalous?
Again, LXX provides illumination on the understanding of the use of Almah in pre-Christ Judaism. The both work together supporting the Gospel story of Jesus' conception.
>> That is a sad exergesis. The LXX use of virgin provides insight as to the intent of the use of Almah and its context - the intent of the passage. Looking to the Jews for proper ‘wording’ makes no sense in your statement. The LXX was written by Jews as well. <<
Come on, don’t give me a hard time. I meant modern (or at least post-Christian Jews.)
Again, there is nothing in my previous post that indicated or suggested that I placed 'modern' jewish interpretation of the usage. The unsubstantiated bias against jewish sources is not justified in this instance.
Not what I meant. When *I* discounted the notion of deferring to Jews to settle the content of scripture, *I* had meant those Jews who had rejected Christ, not the Hebrews who wrote the bible; I absolutely acknowledge that it was Jews who translated the Septuagint. Heck, you seem to be so much in combat mode that you didn’t even realize I was acknowledging your point on the DSS being closer to the MT than the LXX!
A few points.
A) The Rabbi's only translated the 5 books of Moses in the Septuagint. The rest was done over time by Christian translators.
B) The word HaAlmah, the young woman does not say anything about her sexual status. She may or may not be a virgin. Alma only occurs 7 times in the Hebrew bible. It is translated as virgin 4 times in the KJV, only 1 time in the NASB. 0 times in the Hebrew english bible (Judaica Press Tanach) Isaiah uses the word virgin, betulah 5 times. Notice the usage here.
Isaiah 23:4 - Be you ashamed, O Sidon; for the sea has spoken, even the strength of the sea, saying, I labored not, nor brought forth children, nor did I nourish up young men, nor brought up virgins [ (betulot)].
Isaiah 62:5 - For as a young man marries a virgin [ (betulah)], so shall your sons marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your G-d rejoice over you.
It is clear that when Isaiah WANTS to identify a womans sexual state...he knows which word to use...betulah.
Also note that when CHristians point to Genesis 24:43 to show that Rebekah a ha'alma was a virgin, they neglect to point out that her sexual status is actually stated in Genesis 24:16 where she is called a maiden and a virgin...betulah....not alma.
Betulah appears 50 times in the Hebrew bible. The vast majority of occurances is specifically calling out the sexual state of a woman or women. So taken on the whole, Isaiah 7:14 is clear. A young woman ....not virgin.
C) If the woman in Isaiah 7:14 was a pregnant virgin, she would be breaking the law of Torah.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24(KJV) - (23) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; (24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
So if she was bethrothed (like Mary) and became pregnant she is guilty of this command. If a god made her pregnant, he would be violating his own law. G-d is NOT going to take a mans financee and make her pregnant (sex or no-sex). That is fornication and adultery. G-d does not break His own Torah and engage directly or indirectly in making a human woman pregnant.
D) The key part of the prophecy was not the birth of the child. It is the age of the child. By the time the child reached a certain age, specific things would occur and King Ahaz would know what to do. A prophecy of a virgin birth 700 years in the future IS NOT A SIGN and would be useless to King Ahaz.
E)Jesus greek name was not Immanuel (Note that in Isaiah it specifically says in the Hebrew...She will call him Immanuel) Mary named him Joshua which is Ἰησοῦς in the greek. Check your concordance. And many Hebrew names contain the name of G-d, so it does not refer to "G-d with us" than any other name with G-d in it. There have been many Immanuels and none of them were divine.
Since the child Immanuel was born at the time when G-d would deliver King Ahaz from the two evil Kings...G-d was in fact "with them". Just like the names of Isaiahs two sons at the time played a prophetic part of the events at that time. So did Immanuels name indicate that G-d was with them then...at that time...in the past. It was a prophecy already fulfilled and had nothing to do with an event 700 years in the future.
>> A) The Rabbi’s only translated the 5 books of Moses in the Septuagint. The rest was done over time by Christian translators. <<
The 70 rabbis may not have translated the entire septuagint for Ptolemy; as a whole, however, it is certainly a pre-Christian work.
>> B) The word HaAlmah, the young woman does not say anything about her sexual status. <<
In each case, however, it refers to an UNMARRIED woman. If the unmarried woman is not a virgin, then she is a fornicator. Do you mean to suggest that the liberation of Israel would come from fornication? See Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8 where “almah” is contrasted with married women.
You’ll notice that when Deuteronomy 22:23 wants to refer to a woman who is NOT single, the word “na ‘arah” is used.
>> C) If the woman in Isaiah 7:14 was a pregnant virgin, she would be breaking the law of Torah. <<
... “if a man find her in the city and lie with her,” that is. There is nothing in the bible against a virgin being pregnant.
D) The key part of the prophecy was not the birth of the child. It is the age of the child. By the time the child reached a certain age, specific things would occur and King Ahaz would know what to do. A prophecy of a virgin birth 700 years in the future IS NOT A SIGN and would be useless to King Ahaz.
No, not to King Ahaz. But then you’re presuming your argument.
>> E)Jesus greek name was not Immanuel (Note that in Isaiah it specifically says in the Hebrew...She will call him Immanuel) Mary named him Joshua which is in the greek. Check your concordance. And many Hebrew names contain the name of G-d, so it does not refer to “G-d with us” than any other name with G-d in it. There have been many Immanuels and none of them were divine. <<
Jesus’ name was Jesus, not Emmanuel! I never noticed that! (/sarc)
What is your proof? There are no existing LXX manuscripts of the major prophets that are prechristian.
In each case, however, it refers to an UNMARRIED woman. If the unmarried woman is not a virgin, then she is a fornicator. Do you mean to suggest that the liberation of Israel would come from fornication? See Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8 where “almah” is contrasted with married women.
We are not told that the woman in Isaiah 7 is unmarried. A young woman can be married or unmarried, a virgin or not a virgin. In the Song of Songs, the young women are in fact married to Solomon. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 cuncubines, so only a portion of them are listed in the Song of Songs. The only case where the sexual status is known is Rebekah because in Gen 24:16 she is called a virgin betulah.
You’ll notice that when Deuteronomy 22:23 wants to refer to a woman who is NOT single, the word “na ‘arah” is used.
Not true. Do a word study on na'arah. It does not indicate whether or not she is single.
... “if a man find her in the city and lie with her,” that is. There is nothing in the bible against a virgin being pregnant.
If the woman is bethrothed to another...there ABSOLUTELY IS something wrong with a virgin being made pregnant...from another man or whatever! Again...G-d doesnt violate His own Torah comandments. He isnt going to knock-up a woman that is bethored to a man. Non-sexually or otherwise. G-d would certainly know He would be putting the woman in great jeapordy since His own law forbids it and the woman would be stoned. G-d would do that? G-d forbid!
No, not to King Ahaz. But then you’re presuming your argument.
Presuming my argument? No...it is called the p'shat or plain meaning of the text. It can easily be determined by looking at chapters 7-10 what the events were...and what the sign was that Ahaz was told to look for...
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin(Young Woman) will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
There is your sign...The age of the boy. They will be in times of plenty (curds and honey) and before he knows right from wrong...the two Kings would get wacked. BTW, did Jesus being god, have to learn right from wrong? If he was god in the flesh he would always know right from wrong.
How would Ahaz know of a virgin birth anyway? Did he get a note from a doctor? And if there were 2 virgin births, one during the time of Ahaz and another 700 years later, doesnt that mean that Jesus virgin birth was not the first? And why was there no record either written or in the talmud about this original virgin birth that occurred in Ahaz's time?
This is all an eisegetic rendering of the Hebrew text that can not be supported in truth.
>> Not true. Do a word study on na’arah. It does not indicate whether or not she is single. <<
That’s my point. Na’arah is the word which simply means a young woman. Almah is the word to suggest she is marriageable.
>> What is your proof? There are no existing LXX manuscripts of the major prophets that are prechristian. <<
What’s YOUR proof? The DSS agree with the LXX over the MT 85% of the time, Isaiah notwithstanding.
>> We are not told that the woman in Isaiah 7 is unmarried. <<
Yeah, we are. Almah doesn’t necessarily mean “virgin” but it does mean, “maiden (i.e., marriageble woman).” If you’ll deny that, there’s no point having any discussion, because then anything can mean anything.
>> There is your sign...The age of the boy. They will be in times of plenty (curds and honey) and before he knows right from wrong...the two Kings would get wacked. <<
What boy? Just any child of any woman? How is that a sign? Before he reaches the age of reason? Is he born now? Or was he to be expected twenty years later? See, this is the way of prophecy: Something happens in the near time to establish the authority of the prophet. But there’s always a hidden meaning in something which doesn’t quite make sense... Like did David really mean he would never see the grave? You can brush it away if you choose: he must’ve meant he wouldn’t see the grave any time soon.
>> If the woman is bethrothed to another...there ABSOLUTELY IS something wrong with a virgin being made pregnant...from another man or whatever! Again...G-d doesnt violate His own Torah comandments. <<
Funny, you keep saying that it’s His own commendment, but the commandment you cite simply doesn’t say what you assume it to mean. There’s nothing that says a woman shall not become pregnant while betrothed.
That wasnt your point before...you said it refered to a woman who is not single.
You said You’ll notice that when Deuteronomy 22:23 wants to refer to a woman who is NOT single, the word “na ‘arah” is used.
You are changing your story. Betulah is a when the G-d is specifically referring to a virgin. Na'arah is a very young woman...Almah is a young woman who could also be married. Like the Song of Songs reference you made...you were basically saying that Solomon was fornicating...if you assert that the Alma's were not married to him. So Alma's CAN be married.
What’s YOUR proof? The DSS agree with the LXX over the MT 85% of the time, Isaiah notwithstanding.
Talmud- Megillah 9A ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’.1 This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy,2 as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate3 for me the Torah of Moses your master.4 G-d then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him....
Flavius Josephus....I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue. Now Eleazar the high priest, one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.
There are many other proofs. But the burden of proof is upon you
before the end of 100 AD for many many centuries...Judaism existed in the belief the G-d does not become a hypostatic union by taking on humanity into the godhead. Christianity deviated. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you who changed and tampered with the original message.
>> We are not told that the woman in Isaiah 7 is unmarried. << Yeah, we are. Almah doesn’t necessarily mean “virgin” but it does mean, “maiden (i.e., marriageble woman).”
I agree that a almah is of marriageble age...that is not a question. It says nothing however of her marital status or her sexual status. For example, if I say, "I just saw a young woman in the grocery store" What did I convey? Is she married or single?....we dont know...could be either. Is she a virgin?...we dont know...could be either!
If I called her a na'arah...we could safely say that she is a virgin...because we know she is very young.
If I call her a betulah...I have some knowlege of her sexual state...she is a virgin.
What boy? Just any child of any woman? How is that a sign? Before he reaches the age of reason? Is he born now? Or was he to be expected twenty years later?
What boy? Immanuel...so named by his mother in Isaiah 7 and before he reaches the age of knowing right before wrong...the 2 kings were dispatched. We have confirmation of this in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated.
Rabbi Singer puts it this way: It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. We see, in II Kings chapters 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.
Funny, you keep saying that it’s His own commendment, but the commandment you cite simply doesn’t say what you assume it to mean. There’s nothing that says a woman shall not become pregnant while betrothed.
Huh? You must be kidding...She cant have sex while bethrothed but she can become pregnant by another person? Getting pregnant whether by sex or immaculate conception is the same thing. It is an intimate act being performed apart from the husband and is illegitimate. G-d can not take liberties with another mans wife. That is immoral. G-d is not immoral.
>> That wasnt your point before...you said it refered to a woman who is not single. <<
In the specific usage I cited, it meant a specific woman who wasn’t single.
>> You are changing your story. Betulah is a when the G-d is specifically referring to a virgin. Na’arah is a very young woman...Almah is a young woman who could also be married. Like the Song of Songs reference you made...you were basically saying that Solomon was fornicating.. <<
Read Song of Solomon again...
Chapter 1 is a wedding night. She’s about to lose her Betulah-tude.
Tell me, you whom I love,
where you graze your flock
and where you rest your sheep at midday.
Why should I be like a veiled woman
beside the flocks of your friends?
...We will make you earrings of gold,
studded with silver.
>> But the burden of proof is on *you* <<
Yes it is. That’s why Christ died and rose again, because what God was demonstrating was so shocking. But, of course, I had only been referring to the origin of the Septuagint. And again, I had stated outright that the Septuagint may not have been complete with Ptolemy’s decreed translation, so you need not recite for me the arguments that it wasn’t. But you do have to explain how it is that within a few years of Christ’s death, his apostles could convince Greek Jews of the authenticity of a translation made only after his death. Yes, by the time Paul is out and about, he is authoritatively using the Septuagint to win arguments with Greek Jews; those countrymen of his whom he laments will not hear him are those in Israel: the early Christian churches were considerably composed of diasporic Jews.
>> I agree that a almah is of marriageble age...that is not a question. It says nothing however of her marital status or her sexual status. For example, if I say, “I just saw a young woman in the grocery store” What did I convey? Is she married or single?....we dont know...could be either. Is she a virgin?...we dont know...could be either! <<
Ah, but of course, if a Jewish (or Irish or Italian...) mother tells her son, “I saw a nice young woman in the grocery store,” we know exactly what her purpose is, don’t we? Of course, the mother may only be guessing that she’s single. But in the ancient culture, if you could tell she was young, you could tell she was single. So why would she only say she was young, when what really matters is that she was marriageable? No, the mother wouldn’t know she was a “betulah”; that’s why they had to inspect the bedsheets. But she would know she was an “Almah.”
>> If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense. <<
And what sign is Isaiah offering Ahaz, in your interpretation? Truly, Isaiah *IS* telling Ahaz that he will win the battle, but to what purpose? Ahaz was a wicked king who forsook God. And Israel’s respite was both brief and horrifyingly ended. No, Isaiah was ensuring his prophecy would be remembered, so it’s deeper, more significant meaning could be understood.
>> Huh? You must be kidding...She cant have sex while bethrothed but she can become pregnant by another person? Getting pregnant whether by sex or immaculate conception is the same thing. It is an intimate act being performed apart from the husband and is illegitimate. G-d can not take liberties with another mans wife. That is immoral. G-d is not immoral. <<
You write as if Christians believe that God and Mary had a sensual thing together, like the Mormons believe. Joseph wasn’t alienated by Mary’s conception, like a jilter lover, he was brought closer to God, which is the real longing people seek through intimacy with each other. If I love God, I do not love my wife less, I love her more. My wife’s body and soul belong to God, and I trust Him to do with her — and I — as he pleases, because I know that there is nothing impure, selfish, covetous, exploitative in Him.
If another man were to have sex with my wife, I should want to kill him, for exploiting her, and turning her against me. That is why one reason God commands against fornication and adultery. But what complaint have I against God if she loves Him, and through that love for Him learns how to love me better?
Honestly, usually I enjoy a good theological debate or discussion with Jews, since I usually learn much. But you write as if you are very shallow, like many of us Christians: more exercised in apologetics than love for God.
no, the Torah was translated around 300 BC and the other books gradually added over the next two centuries.
Matthew was preaching to Jewish Christians in the diaspora who would probably not know Hebrew (and would speak either Aramaic or Greek), and used this quote by Isaiah to prove Jesus was Lord. They would be familiar with the prophecy.
If you believe God has anything to do with the Bible, then he is in charge, so one might suggest that he “inspired” the Rabbis to translate it into the Greek word for Virgin. If you think God doesn’t bother to interfere with such things, then who cares what it says?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.