Diogenes the Cynic

The phrase "Son of God" was an honorific for kings, not a literal implication of divine descendancy.

Apikorus

Boqer tov, chaverim!

I'd already thought this through and was wondering if anyone would make this point. Isa 62:5 is a simile, which is pretty darned close to a metaphor! As in the purely metaphorical cases, the identification "Israel = virgin" is what is pursued.

The notion that the LXX of Isa 7:14 is in fact accurately translated from its Hebrew Vorlage is hardly impossible. Given the apparent lexical range of parthenos and the rarity of almah in the Hebrew Bible (and especially Isaiah itself), I wouldn't bet the farm that your suggestion is wrong. However, I still think likeliest explanation for parthenos in the LXX is inaccurate translation, or that parthenos doesn't mean "virgin" in this context.

What I feel more strongly about is the exegesis of Isa 7:10ff. The sign (Heb. )wt) here is the pregnancy and the prophecy is the fall of Ephraim and Damascus on a time scale measured by the ethical maturation of the child Immanuel. The issue of the woman's virginity is orthogonal to the main thrust of Isaiah's harangue of Ahaz. Certainly if spin's "ticking clock" analogy is followed, virginity is ruled out. The possibility that the author might have intended a meaning, "Behold! The virgin will (in the proximate future, and via normal means) conceive and shall bear a child..." remains a remote possibility, I suppose, but what is the point of identifying the woman as a virgin? It is a detail which detracts from the core of the message, in my view. The Christian reading, that Isaiah is speaking of a virginal birth, compasses a concept so incredible that it completely displaces the emphasis on the war, and hence is untenable, at least from a literary and historical-critical perspective.

By the way, you do have the option of simply ignoring posts and posters you find annoying or irrelevant. I do it all the time.

spin

Hacking through the usual Phlox invective, we eventually come to something on topic:
This fact is quite useless for you. The term is well enough understood, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread. Complaining that it is rare won't buy you anything. Deal with its significance, from the Hebrew bible, from cognates in related languages and from rabbinical usage. Refusal to do so, makes your case empty.

( )

I refer you back to my post #114, which you apparently didn't read the first time, otherwise you wouldn't make the above comment. You let your overburdening bias rip with your response: "<snip - irrelevant to the point>". It was so irrelevant that you are now confused about the word (LMH.

To say that it is a hapax legomenon in Isaiah simply means that it is used only once in Isaiah. It carries none of the usual connotations of hapax legomenon because it does occur elsewhere in the Hebrew bible, as do related forms; the word is also used in rabbinical literature, so there is no problem in understanding the term. This call of hapax legomenon is a red herring.

That's what the Hebrew text has; that's what the Qumran versions have; that's what Trypho knew. Your preference of parQenos as "virgin" against (LMH as "'ripe' young woman", has little currency against the Hebrew text, given the fact that parQenos doesn't only translate BTWLH, but also N(R "young person" (Gen 24:14, 34:3) and (LMH (Gen 24:43), and there is no reason to believe that the use of parQenos by the translator was either any different from these usages or that the translator gave the word anywhere near the amount of thought that apologists do.

(In Sophocles's Trachiniae Hercules tells Hyllos to take the virgin of Eurytos to wife, virgin, although Hercules has already lain with her, as he states immediately after his instruction to Hyllos. The significance of parQenos, while predominantly indicating "virgin", can plainly include women not virgin.)

On what initial grounds would you accept something that is not evinced in the text when the text shows no sign of having been disturbed and when the thing doesn't relate to the context?

Obviously there has been no casual scribal intervention on the text. There is no similarity between (LMH and BTWLH. There is no nearby use in the text of one to influence the scribe with the other word. With the Hebrew text, copyist scribes rarely take further initiative. After texts were copied they were checked by another scribe and amendments were written in. This at least is the case seen from the Qumran texts. One would have to assume, if (LMH was not original, that it was used either for clarity or for ideological purposes. I don't think a scribe would have used (LMH because BTWLH was in any way obscure, so we are left with ideological purposes, which seem to impact on christianity, yet the Great Isaiah text was written in the 1st c. BCE, so the use of (LMH doesn't reflect ideological intervention. We are left with no good reason for someone inserting (LMH for BTWLH. As the earliest text has (LMH and there is no apparent reason to consider it as secondary from the Hebrew text, we should consider the possibility that the Greek parQenos may have been used less precisely than it usually was and, as I have shown that it can be used so, I see no tangible reason for you to posit the unsupported christian position here.

Oh, and if I don't see you later, good afternoon, good evening and good night.


spin

Phlox Pyros

Yes, I read it, it just was not compelling to me. Supposed cognates in Aramaic that mean "strong" and in Palmyran meaning "harlot" seem a stretch, but you could go a long way in convincing me by actually posting a source for this claim. Even so, you still did not do what I asked in providing sources other than the Hebrew Bible from which to understand the word. The fact is that in every case but in Genesis, the word is translated into Greek as parthenos. You make a big deal of the few places where parthenos is used to translate something other than bethulah, but it appears that in the majority of its uses, parthenos translates bethulah.

So what? These were separate books translated at different times, as you are likely fond of pointing out when the point suits you. The fact that it is a hapax legomenon in Isaiah could very well be significant.

If it can be used of Josephus, then it can be used here, or else there is hypocrisy. Rabbinic literature is too late to understand the word almah for what I am trying to discuss.

The LXX, as I have mentioned, and the fact that Isaiah consistently uses parthenos to translate bethulah. There is no textual evidence as you point out, but again and again, I point to the textual diversity during the period in which the LXX would have been translated.

Oh, I'll hang around, I guess until the moderators decide to enforce their rules. Naw...just a little longer though...

Phlox Pyros

Hmm...I'm not sure I see this as a similie. Either way, I still do not see the significance of saying that these are metaphors. If the word means virgin in the metaphor, why does it not mean virgin elsewhere? Sorry, this point is just not getting through my admittedly thick head.

I do not disagree.

Well put. This is how I better appreciate things being worded. Disagreement with my hypothesis is one thing. Calling it moronic, as some do, is another.

Other points taken into consideration.

I know. I just don't understand why I or anyone else should have to if this place is being moderated for better discussions. Unfortunately, people buy into rhetoric which is why I dislike it so. Rhetoric is meant to sway people and, sadly, it does in spite of fact. Either way, this is why I am so strongly considering leaving soon because I feel the need to spend more time dealing with the rhetoric than the facts. There are other places where this is not as necessary.

Julian

[MOD]
Everybody needs to chill. A lot. There are a number of posts here that are editable. And not just by one poster. Please, tone down the hostility, the sniping and the ad homs or this thread will be locked. This is getting most tiresome.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

Gamera

This is what I don't get. What is significant about a young lady getting pregnant? It happens everyday. It can't act as a sign.

Either the sign is something other than the pregnancy or the pregnancy is miraculous and hence a sign. I think grammatically the latter seems more likely.

Gamera

Maybe, maybe not. But applied to the messiah in literature very likely known to Christians provides a possible origin of the virgin birth narrative, even if Christian Jews simply misread or reinterpretated the Son of God trope, or even if it was simply in the air in messianic circles and hence available for appropriation.

Gamera

On the contrary, the doctrine of res ipse loquitur applies. On its fact the locution, Son of God suggests a miraculous birth. If you have evidence to contrary usage, fine, but short of that the thing speaks for itself.

Gamera

Because King David wasn't purported to be the messiah, whereas messianic literature is talking about the very messiah messianic Jews were looking for. But it might help if you gave the reference regarding David so we could examine the context.