spin

Here are the 14 uses of HRH, "with child", which I have found:

Gen 16:11
Gen 38:24,25
Ex 21:22
Jdg 13:5,7
1 Sam 4:19
2 Sam 11:5
Job 3:3, 15:35
Ps 7:14
Isa 7:14
Isa 26:17
Jer 31:8

Almost all of these are translated with a past reference, ie already with child, with the exception of Jdg 13:5 & 7 and Job 15:35 (and this latter is clearly not future). I see no reason why Jdg 13:5 & 7 shouldn't be translated:

You are with child and will bear a son

which seems clear given all the other contexts. The big problem is how to translate 13:3 with its sequence:

WL' YLDT WHRYT WYLDT BN

And that is partially because of the constraint of English and its necessity to specify time.


spin

Amlodhi

Hello CJD,

I'm not sure that's altogether tenable.

Basically, what you are proposing is that Isaiah 7:14, rather than being a prophecy, is a "type" or "foreshadowing" of Christ.

Not only is this contrary to the usual apologistic assertion, but it also seems somewhat unlikely in view of Matthew's statement in chapter 1 verse 22:

That seems reasonably clear. It happened to fulfill the prophetic words of the Lord spoken through the prophet Isaiah.

Yet, even beyond this basically definitive statement that Isaiah 7:14 was taken to be a specific foretelling of Jesus' birth, I also don't see the similarities being as "uncanny" as you previously declared.

If, for the sake of argument, Matthew was fully aware (as you say) of the essentially non-prophetic nature of the birth cited in Isaiah, then he also would have known that Isaiah was not suggesting that a virgin would give birth. Even if one cares to argue that the almah was a virgin at the time of the statement, Matthew would have known that she was definitely not a virgin when she gave birth. Because of Matthew's understanding of this and also because of the apparent understanding of Isaiah's audience, it must have been understood that the intent of Isaiah's words was that an almah would have sexual congress, conceive, and bear a son.

Matthew then, with all of this understanding, would have been using a normal, copulation induced pregnancy and birth as a "foreshadowing" or "type" of a virgin miraculously bearing a child? I don't see the uncanny similarity; almahs were conceiving and bearing sons every day.

As to the child being called Immanuel (with us is God), chapter 8 makes it fairly clear that the term is used in the sense of "God will protect and aid us" rather than any sense of God walking around physically in our midst. Further, if it is contended that Matthew is contorting the term to draw a similarity to Jesus in the sense of Jesus being God (or the Son of God), that raises the question; why Immanuel? Why doesn't he draw the similarity between Jesus and:

Chileab - "like the father"

Hoshea - "salvation"

Abiel - "God is my father"

Bedeiah - "branch of God"

Bariah - "son of God"

or even Isaiah himself - "God's salvation"

Afterall, these names can certainly be seen as a foreshadowing and, again, almahs were conceiving and bearing sons with similar names every day.

The trouble with the "foreshadowing" concept is that it tends to selective validation. Psalm 69 is an interesting case in point. It has been asserted that Psalm 69:21 is a foreshadowing of Christ on the cross:

Which sounds fairly uncanny until one reads verse 5 of the very same psalm:

Thus, if you're going to accept verse 21 as a "foreshadowing" you must be prepared to explain why you discard verse 5 from the very same psalm. Unless, of course, you wish to assert that Jesus was both foolish and sinful.

Again, it's selective validation and there really is no justification for chopping the psalm apart with a pick and choose methodology.

I also see no uncanny similarities between Jesus and Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem or the Babylonian captivity; but I will save that for another post.

What is interesting is that it is reasonably certain that had Ahaz not paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III, Judah would have been overrun in the same campaign that devastated Syria and Israel. As it is, it was not until the subsequent succession of Sennacherib over Assyra that Hezekiah (now king of Judah; Ahaz being dead and gone) refused to pay this tribute which resulted in the devastation of Judah and the siege of Jerusalem.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Amaleq13

I thought this was the literal meaning of the name "Jesus".

Amlodhi

Hi Amaleq13,

Hebrew names often become modified to the point that only an approximate translation can be attempted. Nevertheless, in the Hebrew, the name Isaiah and the name Jesus are very similar:

Isaiah - Yeshayah - Jah saves; Jah has saved; God's salvation.

Jesus - Yeshuwa - shortened form of Yehowshua - Jehovah saves; Jehovah has saved; God's salvation.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

tracer

So ... um, was "Jah" a shortened form of "Jehovah" (Yahweh), or was "Jah" of a completely different word derivation? (Originally a name for a different god altogether, perhaps?)

Amlodhi

Hello tracer,

Yes, it is a shortened form of Yahweh. A good example of the use of this shortened form is:

Psalm 68:4 "Sing praises unto God, sing praises to his name; extol him . . . by his name Jah, and rejoice before him."

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Doctor X

Indeed, there is a "highfalootin'" term for constructing names based on a divine name. "Yah" and others are forms of "YHWH" just as "Israel" is a name with "El."

So . . . "Netanyahu" is such a name . . . it means "YHWH's Net!"

[Ignore him.--Ed.]

--J.D.

Haran

I'm sure that was just a joke, but to straighten it out, "Netanyahu" actually means "gift of Yah" or "gift of God".

Haran

Of course you can make this claim. However, if Judges 13:5 & 7 can be translated as the JPS TaNaKh inter alia has it, then this shows that there is a precedent (at least in the minds of scholars) for the way it has been rendered in many translations of Isaiah 7:14.

So it does not really seem very clear either way, either among modern scholars or apparently ancient ones, if we may judge by the LXX.

I'm still not absolutely sure about the Aramaic Targum (because I'm not so great with Aramaic yet), but I believe the Targum of Isaiah 7:14 may also render HRH as a verb (pael). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I may be.

Here is the Targum for Isaiah 7:14:
עוּלֵימְתָא מְעַדְיָא וּתלִיד בַר
CAL Targum Search


Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I see your point here. Whatever your point, I'm not sure I'd call English the contraining factor. I think the vagueness is usually in the Hebrew verb itself.

Haran

I was able to view it correctly on another machine. I don't understand why the pointings do not appear correctly on my machine in some cases.

This was sort of my point in asking the question. I believe the use of matres lectionis was somewhat haphazard when we go back very far (e.g. the DSS). In other words, as I was pointing out, I think the variation, for instance in the LXX, may have to do with how the ancient translator read the unpointed text.

I definitely see your point and it is a confusing issue.

I would like to know their reasoning for sure. I assume the translation is based on context. However, one can't help but wonder why in Judges 13:5 and not Isaiah 7:14.

One might be able to drum up a few references to parthenos that may vaguely seem to imply something other than virgin, I don't know (Peter? TLG? ). But I'm pretty sure most scholars believe parthenos to be a technical word that fairly strictly indicates virginity.

However, I'm not sure that qal is the only form this verb could be seen as in an unpointed text.

I'm not sure I have much more to add at the moment anyway. It is a confusing issue. The "pulling har out" smiley was just the right thing!