Amlodhi

As I'm sure you already know, spin, the Hebrew term often translated "like a (the) lion" is k'ari. It is assumed here that the intiial "k" (Hebrew qoph) is the attached preposiiton meaning "like, or according to", with the subsequent "ari" meaning "lion, or young lion".

In the term "karu", which you mention from the margin, the "k" (qoph) is not considered to be an attached preposition. In this case the term is considered to be the Qal 3rd person plural of the verb "karah" or, possibly (though I think less likely) derived from the Hebrew term "Kuwr" which indicates dig in the sense of excavating.

As is explained in the links that Haran has provided in his post above, there are 3 Qumran documents in which the term used in this psalm is "Karu" and 7 Nahal Hever documents which use what is believed to be a later spelling of this term, "ka'aru".

The terms used in the LXX (oryxan) and the Vulgate (foderunt) both indicate the sense of "digging, into or through".

All of these terms are then said to argue for a translation to "pierced". This, of course, provides the proper connotation to the original Hebew term for connecting it to the crucifixion. However, I wonder if this isn't a slightly disingenuous choice of terminology.

The original literary, cultural and (to whatever extent) historical context of Ps. 22 concerns a man who is beset and surrounded by (metaphorical) wild dogs. The mental imagery induced is that of a man using his hands (and possibly, feet) to forestall being eviserated and, thus, is being bitten on his extremities. Thus, while teeth can literally "pierce" the hand (or foot), we would not be terribly likely to say that, "the dogs pierced my hands (and feet)". We might though, to evoke the correct imagery, use such terminology as "the dogs were digging into my hands (and feet)" or similarly, "the dogs were gnawing at my hands (and feet)".

With this in mind, the common connotation of the term "karah" (root of "karu"), given even in the most conservative Strong's concordance is:

karah - (properly) to dig; (figuratively) to plot; to bore or open; (and most interestingly) to dig, in the sense of "making a banquet".

Thus, to dig, in the sense of "making a banquet" would be used much as we (at a feast) would use the expression "let's dig in".

Because the alternate term "k'ari" (like a lion) introduces almost incurable problems concerning grammatical structure, I tend to think that the original term was "karu" (as further evidenced in the Qumran and Nahal Hever documents).

Further, I think that the proper connotation of the term "karu" is in the sense of wild dogs "biting or gnawing" at the extremities of their surrounded prey; precisely as the original context would demand.

IOW, I think that the selection of a less common connotation of the term "karu" (i.e. "pierced) which doesn't well fit the original mental imagery or context of the psalm, simply misconstrues the originally intended sense of the term in a bid to make it better align with later exegetical purposes.


Namaste'

Amlodhi

CJD

Spin, why the present tense? The verse can seemingly be rendered (and I paraphrase): "See that young maiden (of marrying age, i.e., a virgin) [over there]? She will become pregnant and bear a son . . . ."

Let's not forget the immediate context. In the very next pericope we see Isaiah "going in" to the prophetess and she becomes pregnant, bearing a son. Who, by the way, will not be old enough to know better at the time when the Assyrians will attack (7:16–17; cf. 8:4).

The ancient would have no such idea; that is hardly the point. And it is a tired one at that.

Regards,

CJD

Amlodhi

Hello CJD,

There is ambiguity here which has never been suitably resolved.

One problem is, and I suspect this is what spin is referring to, that the term "HRH" appears here in the perfect tense. In Hebrew, as a rule, the perfect tense refers to an action as completed or as an action completed prior to a point of reference in past time (an example of the latter would be Gen. 21:1 "And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said ).

Again, as a rule, future tenses are only indicated by either the imperfect form of the verb or, in some cases, when the perfect form is prefixed by the Hebrew letter "vav". Neither of which conditions apply to the term in question.

Additionally, both Baumgartner and Koehler's "Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament" and the "Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon", list the usage of the term "HRH" as it appears in Isaiah chapter 7 as an adjectival as opposed to a verbal form. IOW, their connotation of the term is "pregnant" as opposed to "conceive".

However, there are additional problems. The reference to Isaiah "going unto" the prophetess in chapter 8, is not necessarily following the context of chapter 7 as you have implied.
Chapter 8 begins with the Lord commanding Isaiah to take a roll and write regarding the events which will concern Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This effectively breaks the context between chapters 7 and 8.

Further, that Maher-shalal-hash-baz's name is to be considered a "sign" does not automatically identify him with the child referred to in chapter 7. Assigning signnificant names to people was a popular pastime, especially with Isaiah. Indeed, Isaiah's first child Shear-jashub was named precisely in accordance with this purpose and is certainly not the same child cited in chapter 7.

The existence of Shear-jashub also creates another problem regarding the use of almah vs. betulah in Isaiah 7:14. While it is generally considered that almah refers to a young woman of marriageable age (and thus, presumably, a virgin), it has also been credibly argued that almah can refer to a married woman up until the birth of her first child .

Yet, even if one uses the most expansive definition of almah, the young woman referred to in Isaiah 7:14 could not have been the woman who (as Isaiah's wife) had previously given birth to Isaiah's first child Shear-jashub.

Thus, if the child of Isaiah 7:14 is to be considered Isaiah's, it would need be that Isaiah's first wife had at some time died and Isaiah was now either betrothed or married to the "almah" of Isaiah chapter 7. However, this is nowhere mentioned in scripture.

One final item of interest regards the prophetess of Isaiah chapter 8. For what it's worth, nowhere else in the scripture is the term prophetess used to denote the wife of a prophet. It is, conversely, always used to denote a woman who is a prophet(ess) in her own right.


Namaste'

Amlodhi

spin

The text just says:

H-`LMH

The young girl

HRH

with child

WYLDT BN

and will bear a son

It says, see, the young woman (is) pregnant and she will give birth to a son...

At least the text says that.

Chapter 8 has a different prophecy on the same matter. Before Immanuel is able to know right from wrong disaster will strike, just as before Maher-shalal-hash-baz is old enough to speak disaster will strike. These are two sons with two different names.

Contrarily, this is an important problem. Before one can suggest astandard interpretations of texts, one has to know what the signals are for the ancient reader to allow the desired understanding. If one cannot show a means of perception for the less transparent reading then it can have no value.


spin

Amlodhi

Precisely. And this, I have always felt, is the most important consideration in determining the originally intended connotation of the term almah. IOW, what did Isaiah's contemporary audience understand him to mean by the use of the term?

This effectively rules out the chances that his contemporary audience would have understood him to mean that the woman would give birth to a child and yet still be virgo intactus. Thus, we are left only to decide whether Isaiah was simply referring to a pregnant non-virgin (or at least soon to be) woman or whether there has, in fact, been two miraculous births accomplished by virgins in our history.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Haran

These debates about the translations "virgin" and "pierced" have been around an incredibly long time, so I doubt they will be solved by us...

Here is an interesting tidbit on the "virgin" translation from Irenaeus (late 2nd century AD). Read the whole chapter for a good understanding, but here are some very interesting quotes. The Greek versions of the OT mentioned will be familiar to those who have studied about the Septuagint (LXX).

Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 21:

"God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus: ] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes."

"But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves..."

"Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity...and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared -- for our Lord was bern about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted; -- [since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures"

I've always found this section of Irenaeus very interesting in light of the Bethulah/Almah/Parthenos/Neanis/Virgin/Young Woman debate. Thoughts?

Peter Kirby

Here are a couple other patristic references.

Justin Martyr writes in his _Dialogue with Trypho_ c. A.D. 150
( http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis...-apology2.html ):

---
And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, ' but, ' Behold, the young woman shall conceive,
and bear a son, ' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to
Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the
terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called
Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin;
he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a
golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar
to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if
you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of
having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour
of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell
monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the
Greeks."
---

Origen wrote in _Contra Celsus_ c. A.D. 200
( http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/04161.htm ):

---
God was to be with man. Now it seems to me appropriate to the character of a
Jew to have quoted the prophecy of Isaiah, which says that Immanuel was to be
born of a virgin. This, however, Celsus, who professes to know everything,
has not done, either from ignorance or from an unwillingness (if he had read
it and voluntarily passed it by in silence) to furnish an argument which
might defeat his purpose. And the prediction runs thus: "And the Lord spake
again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in
the depth or in the height above But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will
I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small
thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord
Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son, and shall call His name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with
us." And that it was from intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this
prophecy, is clear to me from this, that although he makes numerous
quotations from the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the star that appeared
at the birth of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no
mention at all of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the
words are not, "Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman," we reply that the
word "Olmah"--which the Septuagint have rendered by "a virgin," and others by
"a young woman"--occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a
"virgin," in the following connection: "If a damsel that is a virgin be
betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
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 humbled his neighbour's wife." And
again: "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force
her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but
unto the damsel ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of death."
---

How are we to evaluate these passages?

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

Thanks, Peter. I had forgotten all the good stuff in Justin Martyr. I suggest others read the entire sections of these works. These out-of-context quotes we have given just don't capture everything.

Something interesting about Justin's quote of Trypho in Peter's post above is that Justin had previously already mentioned what Trypho had to say about the translation supposedly being 'young woman':

Chap. XLIII
"But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, ' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;' and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor to [discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ."

Justin then tries to step through his proofs and end on the Virgin prophecy. Judging by Justin's reaction to Trypho bringing this back up again (as quoted by Peter), it would seem that he felt Trypho to simply be ignoring everything he had argued up to that point:

Chap. LXVII.
"...you will not move me from my fixed design; but I shall always adduce from the words which you think can be brought forward[by you] as proof[of your own views], the demonstration of what I have stated along with the testimony of the Scriptures. You are not, however, acting fairly or truthfully in attempting to undo those things in which there has been constantly agreement between us..."

Chap. LXVIII
"And I said, "Trypho, if the prophecy which Isaiah uttered, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive, ' is said not to the house of David, but to another house of the twelve tribes, perhaps the matter would have some difficulty; but since this prophecy refers to the house of David, Isaiah has explained how that which was spoken by God to David in mystery would take place. But perhaps you are not aware of this, my friends, that there were many sayings written obscurely, or parabolically, or mysteriously, and symbolical actions, which the prophets who lived after the persons who said or did them expounded.""

"Assuredly," said Trypho."

"If therefore, I shall show that this prophecy of Isaiah refers to our Christ, and not to Hezekiah, as you say, shall I not in this matter, too, compel you not to believe your teachers, who venture to assert that the explanation which your seventy elders [reference to the LXX] that were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave, is untrue in certain respects? For some statements in the Scriptures, which appear explicitly to convict them of a foolish and vain opinion, these they venture to assert have not been so written. But other statements, which they fancy they can distort and harmonize with human actions, these, they say, refer not to this Jesus Christ of ours, but to him of whom they are pleased to explain them."


Chap. LXXI
"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders [reference to LXX again] who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you."

Chap.LXXXIV
"But you in these matters venture to pervert the expositions which your elders that were with Ptolemy king of Egypt gave forth, since you assert that the Scripture is not so as they have expounded it, but says, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, ' as if great events were to be inferred if a woman should beget from sexual intercourse: which indeed all young women, with the exception of the barren, do; but even these, God, if He wills, is able to cause[to bear]."

Again, it's hard to do justice to the issues with exerpts...but there are some more thoughts on the Virgin and translational issues from Justin rather than Trypho. Justin very much believed in the "virgin" translation.

ozone cowboy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HerodionRomulus
[B]I've missed that one. Where is it. ........


Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I spoke out of context with the subject. Philippians 3:8 is the verse I had in mind. Look up the word dung in Strongs Concordance. "Skubalon" in made up of 3 words. Dog, dung and an action of movement. You can figure it out from there.

Amaleq13

Can you (or anybody, for that matter) suggest a good source for understanding Justin (specifically the dialogue with Trypho)? By "good", I mean a scholarly treatment that isn't arguing for or against particular religious interpretations but simply trying to determine what he is saying. I have to admit the guy gives me a headache.:banghead:


Thanks in advance.