Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT nis.za>]

jim west wrote:

>
> (re. Joel 1:8, the bethulah who weeps for the husband of her youth)
>
> Uh huh, which she never had (no pun intended)- making her a virgin still...
>

Only if you've decided ahead of time that bethulah must mean
virgin (no matter what
the context would tell you).  Ordinarily women with husbands
are not virgins.

>
> > Then there is Gen 24:16,
> >where Rebekah is called a bethulah, with the statement added that "no man
> had known
> >her" - perhaps not superfluous information.
>
> Of course not- whats your point?

The point is that the word bethulah by itself may not be
sufficient to indicate
virginity.

> I said that the Hebrew Bible can use
> virgin when it wants to- and your two cases support rather than refute what
> I have said about Is 7.

What you said is that if Isaiah meant "virgin" he would have
used bethulah, but the
fact is you can't make the case that bethulah is any closer
to the meaning of "virgin"
than `almah is.

>
>
> >Reading the context is a good idea - like v. 11 for example "Ask a sign for
> yourself
> >from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."  For
> analogy of a
> >sign "high as heaven" we could note Isaiah 38:7-8 - the shadow going
> backwards on the
> >steps of Ahaz - something totally contrary to nature (like a virginal
> conception).
>
> Well you can see a miracle here if you want to-

Personal preferences aside, what does the context lead you
to expect?  A huge miracle
that functions as a sign of Judah's deliverance.  In your
interpretation there is no
miracle at all.

> I see a declaration that the
> enemies of Judah will soon be eliminated (which might in itself be a miracle
> of sorts)

I would agree with that, but it is the sign that that is
going to happen which is the
big miracle, not the deliverance itself.

> but there is certainly no hint here of a virgin birth-

Can you find a case where `almah is used of a girl who is
not a virgin?  And even if
you could, what do you think would be suggested in the minds
of Isaiah's hearers when
they hear "really big sign" and "pregnant `almah", `almah
being a word that is either
always or almost always used of virgins?

> nor is
> there any reference whatsoever to the birth of Jesus.
>

That depends, of course, on who Immanuel is.

>
> >
> >So if you say the great miracle (something like the sun going backwards) is
> not the
> >conception, what is it?
>
> Are you suggesting that the almah is going to virginally conceive (the
> proper term anyway- and not "virgin birth" which is utterly meaningless)?

"Virginal conception" was the expression I used, while you
used the "utterly
meaningless" expression "virgin birth" (see above).  Anyway,
I don't know why you
think it's meaningless - it's only less precise in
specifying exactly where the
miracle is involved.

>
> If so that means the the boy child she bore before the destruction of
> Judah's enemies was the Messiah!  Born of a virgin!  Jesus, then wasnt the
> first!!!!!!

Only if you assume that the virgin is pregnant now (the
Hebrew doesn't say whether she
is pregnant now or will be pregnant).  Is the birth of
Immanuel recorded in Isaiah?

>
> >Then presumably you can tell us from the book of Isaiah who Immanuel is (or
> can you
> >only tell us who he isn't?).
>
> Sure, some kid born to some woman who lived a long time before Jesus was
> conceived.

"Some kid" who is spoken to in the next chapter as if he's
the head of the nation (as
opposed to Ahaz) - 8:8 - isn't that a bit odd to speak that
way to an unknown person?
If you don't know who Immanuel is, or what the miraculous
sign is, perhaps you should
be a bit less dogmatic about what the fulfillment is or is
not.

>  Anyway, to continue your line here- if the prophecy was to Mary-
> why didnt she name Jesus Immanuel?  The two names arent the same.  She
> messed up in naming him Jesus, or the prophecy was wrong in declaring the
> name.  Either way, using the name alone, you turn out with an unfulfilled
> prophecy dont you. To be charitable one would call it unfulfilled- to be
> mean one would say it was wrong and a lie...  But im not the mean sort.  ;-)
>

The Messiah has quite a few names in Isaiah, Immanuel being
only one of them - it's
not necessarily referring to his given name - could be his
character, in which case
you would have a nice fit with Isaiah 9:6 (which certainly
describes a child who is
literally "God with us"), which would also explain why the
birth resulting from this
miraculous pregnancy is not recorded (i.e. it's recorded
under a different name, in
Isa 9:6).

We could identify a number of questions that need to be
answered to interpret Isa
7:14:
1. What does `almah mean, and who is she?
2. What is the sign, i.e. the evidence of divine
intervention that points to Judah's
deliverance?
3. Who is Immanuel?
4. What is the connection of the sign to the current crisis
facing Judah?

I think you've provided an explanation for only one of these
(#4).  The first
three can be answered in a way that satisfies the
expectation for a really big miracle
by understanding the sign to be a virgin conception of the
Messiah, so to answer the
original question of whoever started this thread, parthenos
is a fine translation of
`almah.  As for #4, certain contextual factors can be read
as indicating a delay in
the birth of the Messiah, while Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz takes
over the chronological
function of indicating when the spoiling of Aram and Israel
will take place.   8:17
(And I will wait for the Lord who is hiding his face from
the house of Jacob; I will
even look eagerly for him) connected with 30:20 (your
Teacher will no longer hide
himself, but your eyes will behold your Teacher) could be
taken as indicating a delay
in the fulfillment of the birth of Immanuel.

John