Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kdlitwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>]

There are two large methodological problems with the following:

1.  Don't we all know that arguments from silence are completely invalid?  We 
have no
clue who didn't know about the belief in Jesus' virgin birth.

2.  We don't know, and have no way to know, precisely what the semantic 
domain of
almah was when the LXX translators were working, nor can you determine that 
matthew
introduced this change.  It might be from his source, it might be from the 
resin of
the LXX he was using (it seems clear that at this date, not even the Hebrew 
text was
stabilized, let alone Greek translations).  It is inappropriate to simply 
argue that
Matthew chose patroness for almah because it fit his agenda better.  That 
means that
you are knowledgeable in Matthew's authorial intent and have labeled it 
implicitly as
that of deception since presumably, if patroness is not an appropriate and 
reasonable
rendering, he knew it was not.  Is that your augment?  Upon what do you base 
it?  How
can you determine what parthenos meant in the 1st century AD if you dismiss a 
source,
and how can you know how almah might have been interpreted in the 2nd temple 
period if
you dismiss a potential source?  The way to determine semantic domain is not 
to
bracket out sources you don't like before you start the analysis.

   BTW, Jim, I fail to see the argument you are making about Immanuel or what 
that has
to do with the question of what Isa 7:14 meant in context to its original or 
later
readers.

   I might finally add that the translator of Isaiah in the LXX seems to have 
often
punted  or interpreted.  Perhaps the translator thought that parthenos was 
what ws
meant, on the premise that introducing a prediction that a young woman would 
give
birth is pretty meaningless.  It probably happened in Judah almost daily.  
What of
it?  SO he felt, rightly that this must mean the other, _perfectly valid_ 
meaning of
almah:  virgin.   Why is that not acceptable as a valid option?

Ken

jim west wrote:

> At 01:16 PM 10/29/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Paul doesn't know about it and he died in the mid to late
> >60's.  Matthew and Luke have different variants.  This seems
> >to place the development of the virgin birth sometime between
> >70 and 90 CE in Antioch or Ephesus.  4G, supposedly of Ephesian
> >origin, has no virgin birth...so did Matthew get it from Luke
> >or Luke from Matthew?  Is it possible this was just a Matthean
> >aggaddic midrash gone wild amongst the goyim?
>
> we are now in synoptic list territory...
> the short answer, jack ole' buddy, is that they both got it from Q- who
> portrays jesus as a "great man"...  hmmmmmm.......
>
> best,
>
> jim
>
> >
> >Jack
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Jim West, ThD
> jwest AT highland.net
> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: kdlitwak AT concentric.net
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.