pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (09/19/83)
Again, another response to Avi Gross--not to "prove" anything--just for
clarification:
[from Avi:]
As usual, I can't really motivate myself to reply to every point Paul makes.
Some may even be valid. I am not totally impressed with his "proofs" that
"Almah" means virgin in some places.
Did I prove to your satisfaction that the Hebrew *bethulah* is not invariably
used to mean "virgin"? I don't think there is any O.T. Hebrew word that
invariably means virgin. That was the point of the first question I asked
in the original article. It seems to me that, considering the usage of the
words *almah* and *bethulah* in the O.T., that almah would even be a better
choice if the intended meaning was "virgin".
[from my last article:]
Let me just quote part of what Nelson's Dictionary says about "almah":
"...That *almah* can mean "virgin" is quite clear in Song of Sol. 6:8:
'There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins
[NASB "maidens"] without number.' Thus all the women in the court are
described. The word *almah* represents those who are eligible for
marriage but are neither wives (queens) nor concubines. ... In
Gen 24:43 the word describes Rebekah, of whom it is said in
Gen. 24:16 that she was a "maiden" with whom no man had had relations.
Solomon wrote that the process of wooing a woman was mysterious to him
(Prov. 30:19). Certainly in that day a man ordinarily wooed one whom he
considered a "virgin". There are several contexts, therefore, in which
the young girl's virginity is expressly in view.
[from Avi:]
I don't make believe I understand the above statements. Where was the word
Almah used? What makes you assume that "in that day" no man would woo only
virgins? Please try to make this point more clearly. I also did not see the
point in the rest of this long paragraph, but see no point in including huge
sections of Pauls article here. People can always use the "p" command (in
vnews) to read Pauls original article.
*Almah* is used in Song of Sol. 6:8 (translated "maidens" in the NASB and RSV).
In this context it means virgins. Also Gen. 24:43 uses *almah* to describe
Rebekah who was definitely a virgin. The word *bethulah* is used to describe
her in Gen. 24:16. But it is used with the qualifying phrase, "whom no man
had known".
As for why men would only woo only virgins in that day, I don't see why not.
Men did not seem to woo prostitutes. Coveting another man's wife was
forbidden. Widows were possibly wooed, but if they had no children it was
the duty of the dead man's brother to marry her (I can't rember what
Scripture says should be done if he had no eligible brothers). But I
don't think Solomon had widows in mind in Prov. 30:19 (where *almah* is also
used).
[from Avi:]
Paul also misunderstood my comment that nobody noticed the VIRGIN BIRTH in
the times of Christ. Yes, I know that you claim that Mary and Joseph
noticed. As we have previously discussed in this group, there is litle (if
any) evidence that supports most early Christian claims that exists outside
of Christian writings (or books that were re-edited by Christians). This
includes the virgin birth and the ressurection. The (other) Jews and the
(non-Christian) Romans did not seem to notice.
It seems to me that anyone noting the virgin birth was likely to also
believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Why is the testimony of such people
to be discounted? Would you expect non-believing Jews to acknowledge the
virgin birth when those who believed were claiming that this was a fulfillment
of Is. 7:14, and thus Jesus is the Messiah? Why should the Romans have
noticed? The event in Bethlehem wasn't exactly broadcast over the whole
Roman empire. How would Mary have proved that she was a virgin when she
concieved, after Jesus was born? I'm sure that those who did not know Mary
personally, or who were not familiar with the prophecy in Isaiah probably
attached no importance to it, thinking it to be a strange rumor. Christ
himself did not get any attention until he was about thirty years old.
[from Avi:]
I mentioned the hypothesis that one of the early Christians mistakenly
translated Almah into Virgos. Paul responded with:
But it was the Jews who made the translation in the first place. I
find it hard to believe that a Jewish scribe would mistakingly
translate "almah" into "virgos" and have such a grave error in such
an important part of Scripture go unnoticed until the time of
Christ. If it was an error it should have stuck out. Saying that a
virgin shall conceive and bear a son is almost as unbelievable as
saying a man shall conceive and bear a son. The greek translation
had a much wider readership than the Hebrew. Yet no one who read it
caught the mistake?
I am afraid that I don't understand -- again. What "Jew" translated the
Bible after Christ died? Are we talking about the same translation? I
believe it was one of the early Christians who did it. I do agree that the
concept of a virgin conceiving is absurd. I bet that people in those days
(who believed in spirits and other supernatural things) did not find it
quite as unbelievable. What does paul mean by the last two sentences.
First of all, I doubt that the Greek translation had a MUCH WIDER
readership (at that time) than the ORIGINAL Jewish one!! In addition, how
do you expect people to have found such a mistake in a book they
considered to be divinely ordained. One did not challenge scripture with
impunity in the early church. In any case, I doubt that the average reader
had any idea about the meaning of the passage in Isaiah. They did not have
the tons of explanations that have been made widely available since that
time.
I was talking about the Septuagint. As you mentioned, Larry Bickford has
made this argument. (I guess the greek in Is. 7:14 is *parthenos*, not
*virgos*). Again I think the importance of Is. 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy
makes the details too important to be considered just poetic (as Avi seems
to regard them). Those scribes who *did* believe in the Messaiah (which
Avi does not) held such detail to be of consequence. If you don't believe
in the Messiah, maybe this whole discussion is pointless.
I do not know of any translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek
that was made by Christians, especially in the first century.
It is my understanding that in the time before Christ copies of the
O.T. writings in Hebrew were rare and valuable. Also, many were not as
literate in Hebrew as they were in Greek. Hence most people read the Greek
Septuagint. My point was that the Septuagint was made hundreds of years
before Christ. Yet in all that time, no one thought to correct the
rendering of "virgin" (parthenos) in Is. 7:14--if it was a mistake.
As I said before, I think most regarded portions of Scripture regarding
the Messiah as important and should not have let an error in them slip by.
I think that the fact that the child was to be called Immanuel (God with
is us) would have attached importance to Is. 7:14 in any reader's mind.
[from Avi]
In any case, I am not really trying to defend the "Jewish" point of view. I
am sure that there are many logical gaps in the many Jewish interpretations
of the Bible. They too used much poetic and allegorical and mystical ....
technique. I honestly find it difficult to take Bible interpretation too
seriously. The recent (seemingly endless) discussions about the validity of
the Books of Mormon (much more recent history) illustrate the difficulty in
being able to prove anything in a way that a majority of people would
accept. I don't claim to have any monopoly on the truth, and resent
people who claim that they do. Did anybody save the discussions we had
on most of these topics in this group? If you do, please mail them to Paul.
I haven't really been following the Mormon debate. But unlike the book of
Mormon, the Old Testament has tremendous archeological support for it.
One respected society devoted to this study is the Biblical Archeology
Society (they publish a journal called Biblical Archeology Review.)
I hope my discussion on this issue hasn't given anyone the impresson that
I claim to have a monopoly on the truth. I do not think accusing someone
of having this claim (I don't believe I am being accused here) is any
justification for dissagreement on the points being discussed. Rather,
it is an issue to be addressed by itself. I don't really intend to
continue this discussion, but I would appreciate anyone mailing me
any additional material that they care to. I am not trying to prove
that *almah* defintely means "virgin", only to disprove the claim that
it cannot mean virgin. (I don't think Avi has actually made this claim)
I do not believe the N.T. is inconsistent in rendering it "virgin". But
to those who don't accept the N.T. there is no "proof" one way or the
other.
Paul Dubuc