Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 11-30-2009, 02:07 PM

Continuing my monologue about the meaning of Almah in Isaiah 7:14

Quote:

Behold, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the almah will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Where almah means something on a continuum between young woman and virgin.

Dinah is used to illustrate that almah does not neccesarily mean virgin.

Quote:

Genesis 34

1 Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. 2 Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her. He took her, lay with her, and aneha her. 3 His soul joined to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the almah, and spoke kindly to the almah.

Assuming this sequence is correct, the bible calls her an almah after she was anehaed. If aneha means raped, she would presumably no longer be a virgin and therefore almah does not mean virgin.

There are a few issues with this, one being that aneha does not clearly mean raped. It means humiliate, degrade, defile, etc.

The Wiki article cited above says:

Quote:

...One contemporary biblical scholar, Alexander Rofé, has suggested that the verb describing Dinah as "defiled" was added at this time also, as elsewhere in the Bible only married or betrothed women are "defiled" by rape; the fact that Genesis 34 is the sole exception suggests that it reflects a "late, postexilic notion that the idolatrous gentiles are impure [and supports] the prohibition of intermarriage and intercourse with them." The anachronistic preoccupation with racial purity indicates a date in the 5th or 4th centuries BC, when the restored Jewish community in Jerusalem was similarly preoccupied with anti-Samaritan polemics.[5] It is not clear that Dinah was actually raped at all in the original story: the narrative is vague about what happened between Shechem and Dinah (the verb translated as "humbled" or "violated" can also mean "to subdue"), and the older version of Genesis 34 may therefore reflect a custom of abduction marriage.[5]

This makes sense, verse 3 is clearly out of tune with verse 2.

Artscroll Interlinear translates almah as maiden here.

neilgodfrey · 11-30-2009, 08:09 PM

If I read in any place that "a virgin will conceive" I would assume that the writer is merely saying that the woman was a virgin at the time of her first sexual encounter.

Nor would I assume that a passage from the eighth or seventh century quoted nine hundred or so years later maintain the same word meanings and social connotations across that time span.

Neil

semiopen · 12-01-2009, 05:33 AM

Thanks Neil, I never thought of it that way.

My hobbyhorse here is that the criticism of the Isaiah translation (where they say that almah should be translated as "young woman") is polemical. The virgin translation is questionable but not clearly wrong.

Your explanation is simple and elegant, the best translation seems to be maiden as found in Artscroll to describe Dinah.

James Brown · 12-01-2009, 07:56 AM

"A virgin will conceive" does not equal "A virgin will give birth.

show_no_mercy · 12-01-2009, 08:02 AM

The virgin/young woman difference is a red-herring to the actual issue. This verse of Isaiah has to do with someone who would be a sign that the southern kingdom would be redeemed from the northern kingdom (Isa. 7:16). There was no northern kingdom of Israel that was about to invade Judah when Jesus was alive.

James Brown · 12-01-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The virgin/young woman difference is a red-herring to the actual issue. This verse of Isaiah has to do with someone who would be a sign that the southern kingdom would be redeemed from the northern kingdom (Isa. 7:16). There was no northern kingdom of Israel that was about to invade Judah when Jesus was alive.

Good point. For Isaiah to be prophesying about Jesus would be like Rick Warren telling President Obama, "Don't worry about North Korea attacking anyone with missiles, for one day, Captain Kirk will save the Earth from Klingons." Not exactly relevant.

Of course, this merely prods evangelicals to declare that Isaiah's prophecy to be a two-fer, both relevant in the present and in the future.

Iskander · 12-01-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

So if we look at Isaiah's dealings with King Ahaz -- the first siege in 734 -- this is described in Isaiah, chapter 7 and 8. Isaiah, who also has children with portentous names (this is a fad I guess among the prophets -- his children's names are: "only a remnant will survive," and "hasten for spoil, hurry for plunder" which indicates the destruction and exile) -- he goes to visit the king. And his advice to the king is: be quiet and do not fear (chapter 7:4). The crisis will pass. 7:9: "If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established." [RSV; see note 1] This is an evocation of Zion theology. God is in the midst of the city. That means the Lord of Hosts is with the people. Isaiah then offers Ahaz a sign of the truth of his prophecy. And that is, namely, that a young woman who has conceived will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. It's Hebrew Immanu el, "God is with us." Immanu = "is with us", El. So this woman who has conceived will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. This is in 7:14. Now, in the New Testament, Matthew, in chapter 1:22-23, takes this verse as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus. This is based on a Greek mistranslation of the word "young woman" as "virgin." The Hebrew term that's used is not in fact the term for virgin, but it was translated into the Greek with a term that can mean virgin. And moreover, the verb that's used in the Hebrew is in the past tense. A woman has already conceived. The birth is pending. It is imminent. This child will be born. God will be with us

.
http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/m...t145_17_110606
Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) with Professor Christine Hayes.Yale
Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible): Lecture 17 Transcript, Yale

Prof Hayes said in her Introduction to the old testament, lecture 17 that: “The Hebrew term that's used [Isaiah 7:14] is not in fact the term for virgin, but it was translated into the Greek with a term that can mean virgin. And moreover, the verb that's used in the Hebrew is in the past tense. A woman has already conceived. The birth is pending. It is imminent. This child will be born. God will be with us”

semiopen · 12-01-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

So if we look at Isaiah's dealings with King Ahaz -- the first siege in 734 -- this is described in Isaiah, chapter 7 and 8. Isaiah, who also has children with portentous names (this is a fad I guess among the prophets -- his children's names are: "only a remnant will survive," and "hasten for spoil, hurry for plunder" which indicates the destruction and exile) -- he goes to visit the king. And his advice to the king is: be quiet and do not fear (chapter 7:4). The crisis will pass. 7:9: "If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established." [RSV; see note 1] This is an evocation of Zion theology. God is in the midst of the city. That means the Lord of Hosts is with the people. Isaiah then offers Ahaz a sign of the truth of his prophecy. And that is, namely, that a young woman who has conceived will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. It's Hebrew Immanu el, "God is with us." Immanu = "is with us", El. So this woman who has conceived will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. This is in 7:14. Now, in the New Testament, Matthew, in chapter 1:22-23, takes this verse as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus. This is based on a Greek mistranslation of the word "young woman" as "virgin." The Hebrew term that's used is not in fact the term for virgin, but it was translated into the Greek with a term that can mean virgin. And moreover, the verb that's used in the Hebrew is in the past tense. A woman has already conceived. The birth is pending. It is imminent. This child will be born. God will be with us

.
http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/m...t145_17_110606
Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) with Professor Christine Hayes.Yale
Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible): Lecture 17 Transcript, Yale

Prof Hayes said in her Introduction to the old testament, lecture 17 that: “The Hebrew term that's used [Isaiah 7:14] is not in fact the term for virgin, but it was translated into the Greek with a term that can mean virgin. And moreover, the verb that's used in the Hebrew is in the past tense. A woman has already conceived. The birth is pending. It is imminent. This child will be born. God will be with us”

I have to disagree with Hayes about the mistranslation. The word she is talking about is almah in Hebrew and this has a connotation of virgin. The word betulah is often suggested as being more on the virgin side, but even this is not clear. There is no word in Hebrew for virgin, and I suspect Hayes tempered her words for the inexperience (introduction) of her audience.

Almah is a link I've posted before.

Quote:

Some scholars contend that debates over the precise meaning of bethulah and almah are misguided because no Hebrew word encapsulates the idea of certain virginity.

The point of my OP here was to reply to the below statement in the Wiki. There I suggested that Dinah may not have been raped (is it ok to say BJ here?), and/or the probablility that the verse with aneha was added after the almah was written.

Quote:

It has also been noted that in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), in Genesis 34:2–4 the Greek word parthenos refers to Dinah after she was raped.[20]. Therefore, that same Greek word as used in Matthew does not always necessarily mean “virgin”, but it can also mean “young woman”.

Regarding the past tense of conceived (and questioning an authority in this area makes me nervous) this is dubious. Tenses in biblical Hebrew are not very clear cut, especially in the context of this verse.

I'm not sure how Prof Hayes would reply to this, but I'm hoping she would let me into her sophomore class.

Iskander · 12-01-2009, 02:13 PM

The Jewish Study Bible also translates Isaiah 7 :14 in the past tense. Perhaps you haven’t noticed,
14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

Professor Hayes makes a clear statement regarding Isaiah 7:14 .She would keep her lecture simple for an introductory class, but she would never lower the quality of her teaching to reach her pupils.
I hope Professor Hayes admits you to her class, I am sure it will vastly improve your understanding.

semiopen · 12-01-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The Jewish Study Bible also translates Isaiah 7 :14 in the past tense. Perhaps you haven’t noticed,
14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

Professor Hayes makes a clear statement regarding Isaiah 7:14 .She would keep her lecture simple for an introductory class, but she would never lower the quality of her teaching to reach her pupils.
I hope Professor Hayes admits you to her class, I am sure it will vastly improve your understanding.

I'm sure my understanding can be improved, perhaps even by someone less esteemed than Prof Hayes, but she is clearly wrong on her Greek digression. The controversy is not with the Greek translation but with the Hebrew word almah. The Greek translation, parthenos, is from everything I've read remarkably accurate. This is usually a given in a discussion of this subject and as I mentioned, I can't imagine how she would respond to a challenge.

Regarding the past tense (and apparently I was correct to be afraid) even the JPS translation is unclear because of the structure of the sentence. The future tense in the verse may be implied by vayoladet, where "va" means "and", "yeled" is "child", and "et" is feminine, presumably indicating the mother. "yo" substituted for "ye" seems to be future tense to me, but my Hebrew grammar is not very good, to say the least.

Despite my linguistic inadequacies, the 14 or so translations of this verse here:

http://bible.cc/isaiah/7-14.htm

all seem to think it is the future tense. Granted these seem to be Christians and therefore somewhat mentally challenged; but it is probably difficult to argue that none of them would be qualified to take Prof Hayes' more advanced classes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-30-2009, 08:09 PM	#2
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	If I read in any place that "a virgin will conceive" I would assume that the writer is merely saying that the woman was a virgin at the time of her first sexual encounter. Nor would I assume that a passage from the eighth or seventh century quoted nine hundred or so years later maintain the same word meanings and social connotations across that time span. Neil

12-01-2009, 05:33 AM	#3
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Thanks Neil, I never thought of it that way. My hobbyhorse here is that the criticism of the Isaiah translation (where they say that almah should be translated as "young woman") is polemical. The virgin translation is questionable but not clearly wrong. Your explanation is simple and elegant, the best translation seems to be maiden as found in Artscroll to describe Dinah.

12-01-2009, 07:56 AM	#4
James Brown Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Texas, U.S. Posts: 5,844	"A virgin will conceive" does not equal "A virgin will give birth.

12-01-2009, 08:02 AM	#5
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	The virgin/young woman difference is a red-herring to the actual issue. This verse of Isaiah has to do with someone who would be a sign that the southern kingdom would be redeemed from the northern kingdom (Isa. 7:16). There was no northern kingdom of Israel that was about to invade Judah when Jesus was alive.

12-01-2009, 02:13 PM	#9
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	The Jewish Study Bible also translates Isaiah 7 :14 in the past tense. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, 14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. Professor Hayes makes a clear statement regarding Isaiah 7:14 .She would keep her lecture simple for an introductory class, but she would never lower the quality of her teaching to reach her pupils. I hope Professor Hayes admits you to her class, I am sure it will vastly improve your understanding.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.