Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] virginity

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
  • Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:37:52 +0300

I think that Kevin's comment is right to the point. The "prophecy" involved is not about the birth of the boy, but about the fact that within a fairly short time God will make the threat posed by the kings of Israel and Aram go away. The message is really, "have faith, life will go on as usual, all will be okay". And as part of the normalcy, I would assume that the 'almah in question was one of the (young) women of the court, whose pregnancy was not to be considered out of the ordinary: "See, that there girl is pregnant and will have a boy...". That considered, I would assume that she would have been married, although if someone WAS to show that the term 'almah always refers to an unmarried young woman (I don't think that this has yet been proven) that would be fine with me as well.

Yigal Levin

----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>

Why? Isn't the point rather that God is in control and Ahaz's concerns are
about to be taken care of within a certain time? I believe the identity of
the young woman was known and she was already pregnant, and therefore the
end point of the prophecy could be calculated fairly precisely. The sign
has to relate to the concern, not be spectacular. Personally, if such a
prophecy as you posit above were given in 1943 when things looked bad in
England - as they did in Judah at the time of the prophecy - I would have
been more than satisfied with the ordinary birth of an ordinary child to an
ordinary young woman *because of what it signified*.

Kevin Riley
_______________________________________________





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page