Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yon_saf AT bezeqint.net>]

My posting, if you read it carefully, was not devoted to the meaning of any
specific word, but to the interpretation of the verse IN CONTEXT. So I do
not understand your emphais on the translation or interpretation of the word
'almah, unless you are motivated
Matthew and other early Christians, like their Jewish Rabbinic
contemporaries, were accustomed to interpreting words, phrases, and verses
OUT OF CONTEXT when it suited their theological or other needs or goals.
Once Isaiah 7:14 is read in context, objectively, and not proceeding from a
preconceived belief system , it can be readily seen that the miracle in
question is the rapid downfall of Ahaz's enemies, Pekah ben Ramaliahu of
Ephraim and Retzin of Aram Damascus, which is to occur before an infant
about to be born, or already born, can even learn the difference between
"good" and :"evil", i.e., very soon. If the sign in question is the birth
itself, then the identity of the mother and infant are important, not her
virginity or lack of it.
All of Isaiah's words in this chapter, when read in context, have to do with
the political-military situation obtaining in 735 BCE, or in the near
future. He was speaking to the people of his time, as can be seen by Ahaz's
cynical disdain and the prophet's sharp rebuke. What concerned them all =
king, people and prophet - was how to get out of a tricky wicket, not some
far-off eschatological future. Isaiah's message was that they WOULD get out,
and soon. Ahaz had his doubts.
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Safren
Chairman
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Israel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: virgin: _BETHULAH_ and/or _(ALMAH_


> > The way I see it, the whole problem with this discussion is whether you
wish
> > to view Isaiah 7:14in 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.
> > If the verse is to be viewed in context, which is the only basis for
> > philological - and not Christological - discussion, [snip]
>
> I just don't see how this kind of compartmentalization can be done
> legitimately.  Matthew's use indicates a certain history of
> philological interpretation of the word, and it's doubtful that he made
> up the translation and nuance out of his own head.  There has to
> be some historical and philological reason for using the text in this
> way, and hence the Christological question is going to be an
> integral part of the philological one.  Results obtained by favoring
> one over the other, or narrowing the approach down to one at the
> expense of the other, is only going to produce artificial results and
> isn't really going to tell us much about the language.
>
> That said, the oft-repeated argument about `almah meaning "young
> woman [of marriageable age]" AS OPPOSED to "virgin" seems
> equally artificial to me; wouldn't a "young woman of marriageable
> age" be expected to be a virgin in that culture?
>
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> "No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
> tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
> violated."  C. S. Lewis
>
> ---
> 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.
>
>