Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il>]

As I wrote in my original posting, "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."
My position is unchanged.
Sincerely,

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


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Wagner" <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>
To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:14 PM
Subject: RE: virgin: _BETHULAH_ and/or _(ALMAH_


> > -----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
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>
>