Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dan Wagner <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan D. safren [mailto:yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 04:17
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: virgin: _BETHULAH_ and/or _(ALMAH_
> 
> 
> A slight revision to my previous posting:
> 
>      The way I see it, the whole problem with this discussion 
> is whether you
> wish to view Isaiah 7:14 in its context or use it as a Christological
> prophecy.
>      If the verse is to be viewed as a Christological 
> prophecy, then I have
> nothing to add to this discussion, so please leave me out.

OK, i'll say nothing about Christology here, except ...


>      If the verse is to be viewed in context, which is the 
> only basis for
> philological - and not Christological - discussion,

... except that you should recognize that Christology (Messiahism) is an
important component of Biblical Hebrew thought. They cannot be divorced.
Nevertheless, i will keep to philology for the remainder of this post.


> then the 
> whole idea
> behind it is that some woman will very soon give birth, or 
> has already given
> birth,  to some child, and before that child is even old 
> enough to know the
> difference between good and evil, Aram Damascus and Smaria 
> will be carried
> away into exile by Assyria.
>      THAT is the miraculous event expected by the prophet, 

This might have been possible, except that *the* miracle is to be that _)OT_
*itself* in context of verse 11: "Ask for yourself a sign [_)OT_] from the
Yahweh your God--one deep as Sheol or high as the heights." Of course Ahaz
refuses to ask, so God appoints a miraculous "sign" on His own initiative,
and of His own choice, instead. But the miracle is still the sign itself,
not something ancillary to that sign. And that sign is identified in verse
14 as the _(ALMAH_'s pregnancy and bearing of a son. A virgin giving birth
would certainly qualify as a "sign" that is "deep as Sheol or high as the
heights."


> and for this
> reason the child to be born, or already born, is to be named, 
> or renamed,
> "God is With Us.

No, the child is named "God-With-Us" because the child's birth *is* the
miraculous sign. In other words, this child is not your normal, every-day
child, but something special: thus a special name. Every-day children are
born all the time, and in no way constitute any kind of sign, much less a
miraculous one.

> And in view of the political-military 
> situation obtaining
> at that moment, it must have really ben seen as a deus ex machina.
>      In other words, this is a prophecy of impending salvation for the
> sore-pressed House of David and Kingdom of Judah, delivered 
> around 735 BCE,
> and borne out by the conquests of Tiglath-Pileser III.

I think the immediate divine interaction was only a transient glimpse of the
ultimate salvation that was intended by Isaiah. Isaiah was going from the
small issue of national politics to something much greater and far-reaching
in verse 14. Ahaz didn't receive the ultimate blessing of that sign here, or
really anything good of much importance. In fact, verse 9 had just made it
clear that if Ahaz did not believe--which in fact he did not--then judgment
(not salvation) would come to him ("you will not be left standing").

> Seen 
> that way, it
> doesn't really matter, for the purposes of understanding the 
> implications of
> the prophecy, whether 'almah means virgin, young woman, or 
> whatever,

Even if your interpretation of the miracle as being uniquely the divine
intervention on the international-political scene were correct, the meaning
of _(ALMAH_ is still something we ought to come to grips with in our
interpretation of the passage; you can't just dismiss it as trivia. And if,
in fact, it means "virgin" (which view i maintain) then it further removes
the apparent substantiality of your interpretation here.

> though,
> from a logical point of view alone, it would appear that some married
> woman - whoever she is - is being referred to. Married women 
> are generally
> not virgins, as far as I know.

Logically? Only from the perspective of a certain worldview, but not at all
necessary from Isaiah's theistic worldview where miraculous signs actually
happen, or at least where you must admit that he claims to have been an
eye-witness of some of them (cf. Isa. 38:6-8 where the *miraculous* "sign"
is the going backwards of the sundial to confirm promised divine
intervention by deliverance from Assyria--an extremely parallel account by
Isaiah which i think needs serious consideration). And if the miracle is the
sign-birth itself rather than some ancillary event, then regardless of
whether the prophecy ever came true or not, Isaiah intended to communicate
the idea of a birth inexplicable by "logic."

Dan Wagner

> 
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan D. Safren
> Chairman
> Dept. of Biblical Studies
> Beit Berl College
> 44905 Israel