spin

I don't have to. You are making the claim that it wasn't. Whatever makes you think that??

You're chasing your tail. Whatever makes you think that btwlh is the preferred word from the text itself?

Why resort to pure misrepresentation? Just because you've got no case doesn't mean you have to sink that low. You still don't seem to understand why the fact that parQenos not necessarily indicating "virgin" is relevant to the issue.

Back to ad hominem. Phlox, you lose again.

More ad hominem. You are the one arguing without evidence. You have no reason to doubt the original text, other than a questionable translation preserved by christians.

Apikorus is welcome to his view, though I don't think the one espoused repesents the significance of the text. The text claims to tell Ahaz of a very distinctly limited timeframe, the time from when a woman now pregnant gives birth to a child till before that child can discern good and evil. The woman is obviously pregnant.

What information would the conjectured reading of "virgin" provide for the prophecy to Ahaz??


spin

Phlox Pyros

Most of the things you bring up, I've already addressed and you still fail to understand. As you acknowledged, much of your incredibly weak counter argument relies on interpretation of the data. We differ on the interpretation, so we will get nowhere other than spouting rhetoric all day which although mildly amusing really wastes my time (though it does not seem to bother you).

There is still one argument that is stronger than all others that no one has mentioned. I can say this because I am not tied down to this theory like some are tied down against it. The biggest problem with apologetics is that those who use them tie themselves down to one position and refuse to see anything else. See, spin doesn't like that I can argue views that might be beneficial to Christian views because he can only argue for those views that go against Christianity. You can't do history like that. You have to be able to do either and not have an agenda.

Since I am not totally committed to my hypothesis as spin implies, I'll present the strongest evidence against the hypothesis later in hopes that maybe someone will figure it out.

kais

And yet, after reading spin's posts, nowhere did I see him asserting that parthenos was equivocal on this point or that it could not have meant virgin, just that it "doesn't only mean 'virgin'' (post #120). Do you disagree? Further, do you believe that a translation of almah as parthenos is less plausible than your proposed scenario?

His analysis is directly responsive to your scenario. If the other instances of bethulah are not semantically comparable to Isa 7:14, how can you use their translation as evidence that there existed a copy of the DSS which differs from the extant text and which was translated to produce the LXX?

The Tov quote doesn't seem to apply to this particular line of argument. It explains why you don't find compelling arguments that the prior text should be necessarily considered authoritative, but it does not address, as an example, Apikorus' argument. To wit: "Given the inaccuracy of the LXX translation of Isaiah, and given the evidence from Qumran, I see no reason to suspect that the Urtext of Isa 7:14 was different than the MT" (post #48).

Yes, I'm aware of your comments on this topic and on others such as IIDB moderation. I do not appreciate being made a foil for your apparent vendetta, particularly given that I've never stated a position on Josephus.

spin

Gosh, that's just so easy to do, isn't it Phlox?

Come back when you show that you've read the text.


spin

Phlox Pyros

Come back when you show that you've read all the relevant texts and understand them.

Phlox Pyros

This thread is my foil, not you. I understand you took offense, but you really shouldn't have because it was just a simple comparison. It is more likely that you took offense because you think I am attacking you, since you are aware of my other comments.

Anyways, you ask some fairly good questions (although I feel like I've answered some of them already). I'll try to get back to your post in the next few days because I have been on here too long already today.

Do you happen to know what the better case against my hypothesis is?

spin

You're still repeating other people. Nothing up that sleave, Bullwinkle.


spin

Phlox Pyros

You're still making stuff up for me to repeat there, Rocky.

kais

You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I did not take offense, rather I hoped to made it clear that I would appreciate it if you would leave references to Josephus out of any replies to me as, given both your intent in and the current environment of this thread, even honestly intended comparisons can provoke harsh responses from others. I would like to avoid further heated discussion if at all possible.

No. I look forward to further explanation with interest.

Apikorus

I'm in Israel (doing science, not bible), so I'm 10 hours out of phase with this debate. It's certainly encouraging to see Godwin's Law being satisfied -- a sure sign that text-critical debate has reached maturity.

The first obligation of any exegete is to read the text closely, and in context. This task is often made more difficult by the presence of redactional activity, and Isaiah 7-8 is no exception. (And of course "in context" also includes the pericope in 2 Kgs 16.)

The unit containing Isa 7:14 begins at 7:10:

And YHWH spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: 'Ask a sign of YHWH your god: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.' But Ahaz said: 'I will not ask, neither will I try YHWH.' And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that you will weary my god also? Therefore the YHWH himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman is [or "shall be"] pregnant, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curds and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you are in horror of shall be forsaken.

Grammatically, as I've pointed out here, we cannot tell whether the pregnancy is in the present or future. However, read in context I must agree with spin that all this seems quite immediate. Starting at the beginning, Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask a sign of YHWH. Ahaz declines, and is accused of 'wearying' (Heb. l)h) both men and YHWH. Isaiah then loses his patience and says "You fool! YHWH himself will show you. You see this pregnant woman here? She will bear a son, whose name will be 'God is with us'. Before that boy reaches the age of moral discernment, the threat from Israel and Damascus will be gone!" Or at least that is a very plausible reconstruction of the monologue, along the lines of what spin suggests.

Again, grammatically it could be that the woman is not yet pregnant. However, this would take some of the oomph out of Isaiah's harangue of Ahaz. If I were directing the movie version, I'd use spin's screenplay.

I also agree with spin that the issue of virginity is orthogonal to the main thrust of this scene. What is important is that YHWH is promising to defend Jerusalem. The woman's pregnancy is the sign (Heb. )wt), and the destruction of Ephraim and Damascus is the fulfillment. If the woman is not already pregnant, the dramatic impact is substantially diminished. Spin's analogy to a "ticking clock" is a good one.

The traditional Christian reading that the sign refers to the birth of Jesus, some 730 years in the future, is of course ludicrous from a historical-critical perspective (as well as problematic vis-a-vis the description of Immanuel in vss. 7:15-16). But within their worldview it may be theologically compelling, and it is hardly news that Christians or Jews should deform the plain sense of the biblical text to suit their religious agenda. The practice of displacing the plain sense is quite old -- the pesharim of the Qumranians are a parade example.

I suspect that the entire passage from 7:10 onward is redactional. Isa 7:1-9 also deals with the Syro-Ephraimite war (during which Ahaz evidently appealed to the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-Pileser III, cf. 2 Kgs 16:7-9), and the time period given in 7:8 is 65 years. Also note that in 7:17ff and 8:7ff we find "prophecy" of the downfall of Assyria. Another tidbit is the appearance of immanu el in 8:8. The uncontextualized appearance of chemah udavash ("curds and honey") in 7:15 is also odd -- so far as I can tell this collocation is unique to Isaiah and context is only provided in 7:22, which does not refer to the child Immanuel.

I'm away from my home university library, so I temporarily don't have access to Sweeney's form-critical analysis of Isa 1-39 (in the FOTL series). About 5 years ago I read his attempts to make sense of the redactional mishmash in Isa 7-8. I think he identifies Isa 8 as Hezekian and Isa 7 as Josianic layers of redaction. I suspect that there was post-exilic redactional activity as well. It is hard to disentangle but I personally suspect Isa 7:10-16 is among the latest strata.

And now, back to Hitler.