Tory:
You wrote, "Yes, well, Karl sees christian doctrine forcing changes in
the meaning of Hebrew words among native Hebrew speakers, ..." This is
libel, take it back. It is libel because it is a deliberate and
willful broadcast of a falsehood.
I disagree that the reading "young woman" in Isa. vii 14 is
ideologically driven. In fact, I have never heard or read any modern
Hebrew scholar make that claim.
Who and how do you define "modern Hebrew scholar"? Your definition
may be too restricted.
This reading allows for physical virginity.
This is like when talking about an old crone you simply call her a
"mature woman". A mature woman includes any woman from 18 and older,
while crone is a subset of elderly women. Yes, you are technically
correct, but far from accurate.
It is my understanding that there was no problem among Jews with the
understanding of (LMH meaning "virgin" until after the Christian claim
that Jesus was born of such. The belief that Messiah would be born of
a virgin continued among some Jews as late as the 1400s AD (mentioned
in Rafael Patai "The Messiah Texts", I'm citing from memory having
read the book decades ago
I have this book and I've been searching but cannot find where a
belief in a virginal conception and birth of the Jewish Messiah was
maintained in Judaism from ? down to the 15th century. And you must
understand, saying there was "no problem among Jews with the
understanding of (LMH meaning 'virgin' until after the Christian
claim that Jesus was born of such" is unfounded and highly offensive.
It reminds one of a similar libelous claim that Jews altered their
Bible in response to Christian claims.
This inference is libellous.
As for my statement, I will quite willingly take it back if you can
show me pre-Christian Jewish references that state directly that (LMH
cannot mean "virgin", indicating that it is wrong for such a
translation.
The reasons that I and many others claim that (LMH means "virgin" are
both linguistic and ideological:
The reason for reading "young woman" is simply linguistic and does
not exclude your ideology. That's why the reading "young woman" is
nonpartisan.
It is partisan. First because it is too inclusive, Young women who are
virgins are only a subset of young women. not all of them. Secondly,
because it is too inclusive, it can then be used for understandings
that were not intended by the author, understandings that historically
have been driven by ideological considerations.
If you translate almah as "virgin" in Isa. vii 14 you leave no room
for much else.
But isn't that what the author intended? If so, then to water down his
meaning to something, well, meaningless, is not only inaccurate, but
to insist on an inaccurate translation is partisan.
In closing, you jumped into this discussion claiming, "Cow dung. There
is simply no basis for the "generally should connote a virgin" in your
first sentence apart from a particular theology. The commentary does
not take Eigenbegrifflichkeit into account at all, else the
commentators would not have said "but not married" as if almah cannot
be used to describe a married woman, which is totally false." This
statement is not only false, as it denies that there are linguistic
reasons that some of us recognize for the reading of "virgin" for
(LMH, a claim that you are backtracking on now that I show linguistic
reasons for such a rendition, but it leaves no room for a reading of
"virgin" as the correct emphasis of the prophecy by Isaiah. The only
reasons I can see for your statement is partisanship and proselytism.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.