Haran

Naughty? Why was I "naughty"? Can we leave this kind of rheotoric out. Things have been going better without it. Perhaps you did not understand what I was saying. I'm not even sure what you're referring to.

I was attempting to explain this very thing to you, because I did not understand why you were including the whole male thing... The word in the verses we are addressing is, as you say and I previously said, in the feminine form and not the male form. So, why are you listing that the word can be used for males? I don't understand this line of thought. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the text.

Ok. I don't think I said that N`R necessarily implied "virginity", however.

The Septuagint translates, in this verse, both forms of N`R and BTWLH as parthenos. It seems to show to me that the translators believed both N`R and BTWLH to be almost interchangeable since the word parthenos was used in both cases. So, you have a parthenos who was a parthenos.

I don't think you can go where you're trying to go by tying N`R exclusively to parthenos, anyway. In fact, I think in the cases where you do, there is probably another reason the word was translated as parthenos rather than neanis, such as virginity being in the context somewhere as in the examples you've given.

I'm not sure you understood then. N`RH is translated as neanis in that verse not as parthenos. And in fact, parthenia, was used to technically indicate virginity. The verse you gave was quite good proof that parthenos means virgin.

I'm not really seeing any indications that parthenos meant anything other than a young woman of marrying age who was a virgin.

M. Hoz

I KNOW hebrew.
"Betulah" means young girl.
"Ne'ara" means the same.
"Almah" means EXACTLY the same too.

The only difference-in today's hebrew,
"Betulah" means Virgin because there's
no other word.

The translations you're using-they're *.





*A word I'll not use.:boohoo:

spin

You often find N`R in the masculine form being translated as feminine. It doesn't have the feminine ending -H in those cases. Is that clear? Look for example at the verse already cited or Deut 22:28

KY YMC' Y$ N`R BTWLH...

If a man finds a maiden a virgin...

You wrote

What I was trying to say is that you are not looking at the examples, for they had N`R indicating a young woman as well. They do not have the feminine -H ending. You were being naughty, by not looking at the texts. The original example, Gen 24:16, at least in my software, uses N`R, not N`RH (which only starts to be used in Judges).

You say that I don't think I said that N`R necessarily implied "virginity" and we can agree on that. But then you say:

The end result in Greek doesn't make much sense, but then neither do I think your explanation does either. Would you really think that a clause like "the young girl was a virgin" indicates that "young girl" in this case should be equated to "virgin", ie the virgin was a virgin? (It should have been sufficient to say "She (or Rebekah) was a virgin.") It is more likely to me that the translator put parQenos for N`R before reading BTWLH which he subsequently translated as parQenos in proceeding through the sentence, for I think had he taken notice of both N`R and BTWLH he would have used a different noun for N`R to make the distinction the original Hebrew does (such as pais in Deut 22:28, which makes the same distinction). Looks like hack translating (and I've seen a lot of it in my time).


spin

Haran

That's quite an assumption though, because if you were to look at your BHS, there is a qamats under the resh (indicating feminine) and a small circle over the word that tells you to look at the Masorah parva (Mp - small Masorah). There, you will find the Qere which indicates N(RH. I'm not sure if your software reflects this, but Bibleworks 6.0 indicates the same thing as well as providing a nice little note that indicates the word is feminine.

If you want to argue against the vowels, that would mean going to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Perhaps it is only N(R in the DSS, but I'd have to go to the library to find out. At that time, it very well may have only been N(R or "youth" for both and context was the determinator. I'm not sure. This may very well be true since it appears to be a perpetual Qere.

This explanation would require that the scribe knew he made a mistake and did not make any effort at all to correct it and no one spotted it. Rahlf's shows no textual variants here. I would expect them if it seemed an odd translation to others. Although I'm not honestly thrilled with the explanation I gave, I'm not sure I can buy this one either.

As I stated earlier, it is possible that there are a few instances where parthenos simply means "young woman", but from most contexts it seems it has something to do with virginity. The examples you've given are unfortunately vague enough to me that they are not very convincing. Anyway, you appear to accept the fact that in the preponderance of cases it is the technical word for virgin and virginity.

It's hard for me to stand here today and say that translators who were writing in current languages did a hack job. It seems like a safe assumption to me that they knew the languages much more intimately than we do today.

I'm curious how you have you seen a lot of hack translating in your time? What do you do? Or do you just mean in your spare time reading Greek and Hebrew?

Haran

Since you appear to be from Israel, I'm sure you do know modern Hebrew. Are you familiar with the semantic changes that have taken place in your native language over the past 2000 years? If so, then please join the discussion in a more constructive fashion.

Amlodhi

Hi Haran,

I took a look at Fred Miller's site from your link. I know you said that you weren't ready to get into this part of the verse yet, so don't feel obligated to make a response. However, since you posted the link for me to read in response to my previous post, here are a couple of my thoughts pertaining to the relevant section.


לָכֵן יִתֵן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶמ אוֹת הִנֵה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְילֶדֶת בֵן וְקָרָאת שְמוֹ עִמָנוּ אֵל


Translated: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Personally, I think the logic here is a bit convoluted. Basically, Mr. Miller is saying that because the sentence begins with the statement that God "shall give" (future) a sign, the almah must also conceive "in the future". But this logic is inapplicable if the term "HRH" is, as has been demonstrated, a QAL perfect verb (has conceived) used in an adjectival sense (is pregnant). In this case, (and it is the case), it is not the conception that is considered to be the "sign" but, rather, the birth of a male child.

[As a side note: Neither, actually is the child himself the "sign", but rather, the name of the child. IOW, the child was to be a living reminder to (Judah) viz. Ahaz, concerning God's words spoken through Isaiah.]

A comparative example of the structure can be seen in Isaiah 38:7-8; "And this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord . . .Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backwards . . ."

Here we have the same type of construction. Note that the shadow "has gone down" (completed/past action). Thus here, we have "God will give a sign" > the shadow "has gone down" > he "will bring it again"; in the same structure as "God will give a sign" > she "has conceived" > she "will bear a son".

Thus, there is nothing in this sentence that prevents the term HRH from being interpreted as an already completed action in precisely the way its conjugation would require. What this sentence is actually saying is: "God will give you (Judah) viz. Ahaz, a sign, and this sign shall be that this pregnant woman will bear a son and his name will be significant in that he will be a living testament to God's warning that Judah will be devastated (but Jerusalem not destroyed) because Ahaz failed to trust in Israel's God."

Concerning 1QIsa(a) [the dead sea Isaiah scroll], Mr. Miller says:

In my estimation, a comparison of the structure of the initial "vav" in this term with the structure of the other "vav"s and "yod"s in the surrounding text in this portion of the scroll leaves little doubt that it is a "vav" rather than a "yod" being used here. Even though some of the "vav"s don't always extend completely down, the "yod"s made by this scribal hand are distinctive in that they resemble a sharply cornered, upside-down English letter "v", in contrast to the far more curving "hook" shape at the top of the "vav"s. Thus, I don't think that the imperfect tense is in use here.

I have a problem with the first sentence. Unless I'm missing something, the Masoretic has the conjunction (cj) + "qar'at" rather than cj + "qar'atha". The other two conjugations I agree with, i.e., the 1QIsa(a) scroll's use of "ve-qar'a" = cj + 3rd masc. sing. and the Masoretic "ve-qar'at" = cj + 3rd fem. sing. or 2nd fem. singular.

The point I had made in an earlier post was that in the unpointed Hebrew, there could be no distinction made between "qar'at" and "qar'atha" other than that implied by context. With this in mind, we need to look at the various possibilities:

The 1QIsa(a) scroll's use of "ve-qar'a" cj + 3rd masc. sing. (and he shall call) seems to make little sense. Who would Isaiah have been referring to? I don't know why this scribe would use this form of the term, but I can't put much confidence in it; if for no other reason than because the 1QIsa(a) scroll doesn't appear to be the most carefully written document one could wish for.

Also, the 2nd pers. fem. sing. form would imply that Isaiah had suddenly switched from speaking to Ahaz and was now speaking directly to the almah. Further, even if this could be argued it is merely superfluous because the 3rd pers. fem. would indicate that the almah would be "naming" the child equally as well. Thus, it would do just as well to suppose that Isaiah continued speaking to Ahaz and to consider only the conjugations of 3rd pers. fem. sing. (she) and 2nd pers. masc. singular.

Which leaves us with the Masoretic verbal conjugations "ve-qar'at" vs. "ve-qar'atha". As already mentioned, in the unpointed Hebrew, this choice is reduced to a single term, i.e. "ve-qar'at" with the conjugation to be decided only from context. But context can depend on presupposition; does Isaiah mean to say to Ahaz that "she" (the almah) will call . .etc., or is he saying to Ahaz that "thou" will call . . etc.

The post-Christian Masoretic pointed form וְקָרָאת conspicuously omits the vowel indicator under the final "ת" of this term. This would indicate the vocalization of "ve-qar'at" and thus indicate the 3rd pers. sing. form "she will call". There are no grammatical problems with this and it fits well with post-Christian context. But, note, that while this does not specify Ahaz as the father of the child, it does not exclude him either.

But, again, simply because the Christian context surrounding this term required that the final vowel indicator be omitted, doesn't mean that it wasn't present "vocally" in the original unpointed Hebrew and within the original context. Thus, in the original unpointed Hebrew, there is absolutely nothing (grammatically) which would prevent this term from being וְקָרָאתָ ("ve-qar'atha") and, as such, indicating the 2nd pers. masc. "You shall call . . etc." Here again, we must rely on textual tradition. As previously mentioned, this tradition does exist in the form of the writings of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion who do translate this term as, "thou" (Ahaz) will call his name . .etc. More importantly, the LXX also translates this term in the 2nd pers. masc., again, as "thou" (Ahaz) will call his name . . etc.

Thus, the Masoretic vowel pointing tradition, which may be influenced by post-Gospel tradition, translates "she will call . .". Aq., Symm, and Theo., who translate "thou (Ahaz) will call . . ." may also be influenced by post-Gospel tradition, albeit to the opposite purpose. However, unless apologists wish to abandon the LXX as a pre-Gospel attestation to almah as "parthenos", then it cannot be ignored that the LXX translation of "Thou (Ahaz) will call his name . .", is a pre-Gospel attestation that the original tradition held Ahaz to be the child's father.

Thanks for the link, Haran . . great fun.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

oldstudent

As a student for a few years, this post is quite stimulating. It is unfortunate that this type of discussion does not happen more often on discussion boards 'web-wide'. Unfortunately the discussions usually lead to foolish posts filled with ad hominum attacks.
The most difficult thing about reading this post was the differing terminology used for stems, inflections and so forth. Have I missed the discussion on wiyyiqitol already?

Jim

Amlodhi

Hello oldstudent,

Welcome to the forum, hope you stick around and give us the benefit of your knowledge.

I agree that individual preferences regarding terminology and transliteration can be confusing. I really don't know an easy solution. Your transliteration: "wiyyiqitol" for instance; it took me a moment to realize that you intended what I would transliterate as "vayiqtol".

Nevertheless, it is interesting to me that you bring up this consideration. Are you seeking to discuss verbal aspect in general terms, or in the context of Isaiah 7:14?

I would very much welcome any input you may have on this because I don't actually see a vav consecutive construction in Isaiah 7:14. Am I missing something?

Again, welcome to the forum and I look forward to your response.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

spin

Actually the sign is, before the child, carried by the young woman, will be able to tell the difference between good and evil, the two lands (Syria and Samaria) will be laid waste. The following sign is a parallel, before the already born child can speak enough to say mother or father, Syria and Samaria will be "carried off" by the Assyrians. The cirth of the child in itself is not a sign at all.

The child is a measure of time before the event. The sign is that combination of time and subsequent event. As such it is of a different construct from Isa 38:7-8.


spin

spin

I personally have seen "wayyiqtol" as the means of referring to the form. "vayiqtol" more tells where you learnt your Hebrew! It's based on the modern rabbinical approach which sees all WAWs as /v/, but tis is modern. You can see it in Hebrew names and with the transliteration of Hebrew names into Greek. The name Gamul contains a WAW and the relationship between the liquid sound WAW and the vowel /u/ is well-known (just as the relationship between the liquid YOD and the vowel /i/). The name "Joseph" on the James ossuary is written YWSP.

You would I think certainly transliterate all non-initial BETs as a /v/ and PEs as /f/. This is the rabbinical method of transliteration. I think it tends to slightly hide the underlying consonantal structure.


spin