Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Alma, Parthenos, Virgin

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: kdlitwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>
  • To: jim west <jwest AT Highland.Net>
  • Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Alma, Parthenos, Virgin
  • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:50:30 -0700


Actually there are two things to observe here. If the child to be
born and his mother were simply ordinary to the author, why mention them
at all? It would have no significance. Second, almah can mean virgin
and it seems quite problematic to judge what word a writer should/would
have used. We simply do not know what Isaiah had in mind clearly enough
to be able to make that kind of judgment. Arguments about what someone
would or should have said or done are far too speculative I think to
carry weight here in determining the specific referent in the semantic
domain of almah. It is possible that the LXX was corrected for Matthew
but equally possible that Theodotion was changed to disagree with
Matthew or that there are simply multiple Greek translations in which
each translator did what seemed appropriate to him. Since we don't know
the authorial intent of the translator it is impossible to guess what
the translator thought except perhaps that parthenos covered adequately
what the translator thought almah meant. Why is that an unacceptable
solution? That's usually how translations are explained.


Ken Litwak





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page