Amaleq13

That is my impression as well and, since the expressed beliefs of a Christian writing in the last two decades of the 1st century tell us nothing about the beliefs of messianic Jews over fifty years before, it really does nothing to support Gamera's original assertion.

I would be interested in any evidence of such a belief among pre-Christian, messianic Jews.

Chris Weimer

Who has been claiming that parthenos doesn't mean virgin? That was the whole argument that Phlox Pyros brought up. And "almah" means "virgin" about as much as "man" can mean "father". Men can be fathers, but you wouldn't suspect all men to be so. Almah can mean virgin, but you wouldn't expect all of them to be so.

But no one was arguing about what the translators believed - they were arguing about what is original. What the translators believed is almost irrelevant to the crucial part of the discussion.

Chris Weimer

You still haven't dealt with the fact that you've used fallacious arguments to come to your faulty conclusion. Vale.

spin

(lmh

There can be little doubt as to the significance of the word (lmh, the word translated as parQenos in Isa 7:14. Although the word is relatively infrequent in the Hebrew bible, we find that in Aramaic there is a verb (lm which means "to be strong", a meaning attested to by Jastrow with regard to rabbinical literature. We also note that in Palmyran there is a plural form of this root meaning "harlots".

What we find in biblical Hebrew is a term relating to young people who have reached sexual maturity. When in Ps 68:25, we find young women (lmwt playing timbrels in public, we are clearly not dealing with virgins. Pr 30:19 talks of "the way young men gbr with young women (lmwt, with overt sexual significance.

When in Job 33:25 the writer talks of restoring a man "to the days of his youth" ymy (lmy, this is not to childhood, but to the beginning of his strength, just as in Ps 89:45(6) where we find someone's days of youth ymy (lmy being shortened; the previous verse talks of having his throne cast down, so we are clearly dealing with an adult.

Isaiah 7:14

The difference between the terms (lmh and btwlh is clear. (lmh deals with a girl who has reached her strength or sexual potential. This is appropriate for Isa 7:14, which is about a pregnant young women whose child will not have reached the age of discernment when the prophecy is fulfilled.

The prophecy is quite definitely located in history, tied to the reign on Ahaz, so the pregnancy is not in some yet unlocated future, but already the case to give urgency to the prophecy. As the subject deals with pregnancy and birth the term (lmh is the obvious choice, whereas btwlh makes no sense in the context, even if one tries to argue that the pregnancy is not as the text indicates already the case. The virginity of the woman is not an issue, but that her child will not reach the age of discernment when the prophecy is fulfilled is, and that prophecy specifically relates to Ahaz.

At the same time it's not strange that christians never actually look at the context of the verse perennially taken out of context to support the pagan notion of virginal birth, as it is clear from the passage that the child certainly goes through a period in which it is unable to discern between good and evil. Now this would imply if this were a prophecy regarding Jesus, that he would go through a period of not being able to discern between good and evil. Some god, eh?

Obviously the theological drum-beating in this thread is post hoc apologetics of the puniest level. Arguing, while a certainly dated form of the Hebrew text from Qumran is clear in its use of (lmh in the text, that it actually must have been btwlh because of the choice of parQenos by a translator not known for accuracy is pathetic in its lack of substance.

Trypho


When Justin Martyr dealt with Trypho the Ephesian Jew (Dialogue with Trypho 67), Trypho knew what Isa 7:14 actually said, complaining that the text didn't say that it was a virgin, but a young woman, telling him he should be ashamed of making this virgin assertion as it puts Justin's Jesus on a par with Greek myths. Justin was unable to respond, but tried to persuade Trypho by other means. Trypho knew what the text actually said in circa 150 CE and rebuked Justin for his silliness. As the earliest form of the text, the Qumran Hebrew supports Trypho, it should be evident that it is correct, both because of its antiquity and the aptness of the term's significance in the context. It's just a shame that theologically biased people are prepared to go to extreme lengths of self-delusion so as not to face the simple reality of the text.

Trypho was right, virgin birth is the stuff of myths. Besides that, as he said, it's simply not in the text.


spin

Phlox Pyros

*sigh* whatever...

Phlox Pyros

Since everyone seems to be indulging in calling this theory apologetics, I shall do the same. I think that those who seek to preserve the original text in spite of the many acknowledged variations before the 1st century A.D. are engaging in apologetics. Whatever...

If one can do the same thing with Josephus in spite of the lack of evidence and not call it apologetics, then one is being extremely hypocritical.

Only in rhetoric is it "pathetic". In actual fact, it is quite strong.

It is amazing how apologists cannot acknowledge that the underlying Hebrew text before the 1st century A.D. existed in different forms and instead argue to preserve the text, while in nearly every other portion of text, they argue for interpolation, harmonization, and expansion of all sorts.

It is amazing how apologists ignore the fact that parthenos is an inaccurate translation of almah, a hapax legomenon in Isaiah, and also refuse to note the multiple uses of bethulah, all making almah the most unlikely (recalling that it is also rare in the HB) Hebrew word underlying the greek parthenos.

See, I can use flowery rhetoric and accusations as well. How about dealing with the facts. Believe it or not, it is fine to acknowledge that a decent case is made but that you happen to disagree. Like that is going to happen with all the apologists around here though.

Why is Justin Martyr and Trypho irrelevant? Because they are after the standardization of the Hebrew from which the LXX was translated, not to mention that even Trypho knew that almah should have been translated neanis. He also knew of the Rabinic recensions that had already been composed with the likely intent of polemics against Christianity. That was an extremely poor example to use in a rebuttal.

No one, to this point, has presented a brief, coherent, and inclusive rebuttal to the points that have been made. I could make a better case against this argument, myself, but I don't want to do that just yet, because I am enjoying watching the apologetic rhetoric fly. After all, it just can't (and I mean can't!) be even remotely possible that virgin could have been the actual word used in Isaiah 7:14! That would make Christians half-right!! Can't have that, now, can we??? Scholarship will never get anywhere with apologists like those who act as if anything ever written by a Christian was an interpolation or some such nonsense. Pooh... :notworthy:

Phlox Pyros

Just one other brief note. I believe that the text of Jeremiah may have been mentioned before, and how it is shorter in the LXX than in the MT. Interestingly, Hebrew manuscripts were found amongst the DSS that contain a shorter reading.

The plain and simple fact is that there very well could yet be undiscovered MSS that contain the reading bethulah in Isaiah 7:14, especially since it is more consistent with the translators style and provides a better understanding of the one place that parthenos was used inaccurately in Isaiah.

RUmike

Even if the original Hebrew explicitly indicated that a virgin would give birth, wouldn't it have simply meant that a woman who was then a virgin (at the time the prophecy was spoken), would give birth later? Obviously the early Christians twisted this passage and mutilated it to say what they wanted.

Phlox Pyros

Very possibly. This is why all the apologetics labels are such nonsense. If one makes an argument that favors something Christian, one is branded an apologist. This labeling and absurdity borders on hate.

Why does everything have to be "twisted" and "mutilated"? The early Christians were as sincere in their beliefs about these texts as were the Essenes at Qumran (threw that one in there for spin), yet no one talks of how they "twisted" and "mutilated" their scriptures. This kind of thing is bias and borders on hate talk against Christians. It is eerily similar to the sort of rhetoric that Hitler used against Jews. {I'm not saying that you are intentionally using it this way - though I have my doubts about others - it is just that this kind of language and those kinds of thoughts spread like the mind virus that they are.}

spin

It would be nice if you indulged in reading what the Hebrew text is about in its context. This would save you the bother of continuing in your errors. The text is plain. A young woman will give birth. Referring to a virgin here is silly. Trypho pointed it out to Justin.

Phlox has bloody-mindedly missed the fact that parQenos doesn't only mean "virgin". He's just crapping on for the sound of it. I know it and he knows it.

I'm waiting for you to pass the plate around.

Because you don't like what Trypho shows about the state of the Hebrew text.

Try to make sense. Trypho is a witness to the state of the Hebrew text at the time and Justin has no response, just as you have no response.

You simply have no points. You make no attempt to understand the term which you make the crux of the issue. It shows how misguided your tilting is. You are banking on the fact that a translator chose one word instead of another, a word that doesn't only mean what you want it to mean. You are hoping that you can understand why the translator of the verse used that word and not another. That's called necromancy.

It wouldn't make much sense now would it? I mean a pregnant young woman being called a virgin. Be rational. Read the text in its context. Being a virgin has nothing to do with the prophecy: being pregnant is. Giving birth to a child should tell you that virginity has nothing to do with the text. You are just too busy falling your commitments.

Why don't you flog something else which is more promising, or at least less obviously erroneous (as Trypho aptly indicates)? The Hebrew is clear and prior. The translation that you prefer is notoriously inaccurate and worse, undatable.

A god that doesn't know good or evil... what a joke.


spin