Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dave Washburn wrote:
>
> Forgive me if I belabor this a bit.  I understand what you're saying
> about whether NT interpretation is "authoritative."  However, is it a
> legitimate form of discussion for this list to suggest that the NT
> evidence shows that at least some in first-century Judea
> understood the word to mean "virgin" in its specific sense?  I agree
> that "the NT says it, I believe it, that settles it" is out of line, but I
> honestly haven't seen that done to any real degree so far.  But it
> seems to me that the way the NT uses the HB has implications for
> philology and other related matters.  What are your thoughts?
>
Someone on this list has already said it: It's important for the history of
interpretation, as is Rabbinic Midrash, Qumran Peshers and whatever.
R. Saadiah Gaon, in the 8th century CE, laid the groundwork for comparative
Semitics, and his work is therefore important for the history of
interpretation.
But who would use his commentary today as an authoritative source on Semitic
philology?
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Safren
Chairman
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Israel