avi@pegasus.UUCP (09/02/83)
This is a response to just one statement by Paul in a ~460 line article.
I will first quote a quote that Paul was responding to, then Paul's statement,
and then my comments:
[Author not known to me]
"The Jewish religion and Christian have argued about the phrase in
the Old Testament predicting the savior would be born of a virgin (the
Rabbis translating it as young woman). Young woman implies Virgin more
or less, depending on your point of view."
[Pauls response]
"At the time of Christ, "virgin" seemed to be the accepted translation.
It seems to me that the motivation to reconsider this translation may
have been composed largely from the Jews' rejection of Jesus as the
Messiah. It wasn't an issue until the Christ was born of a virgin.
I have no problems with "young woman" being used here because it does
not exclude the young woman being a virgin. But its use as an
alternate to "virgin" raises some questions in my mind.
1) Are there distinct O.T. Hebrew words for "virgin" and "young woman"
(who is not a virgin)?
2) If Isaiah meant "young married woman", what is the significance of
even mentioning the conception? It seems superfluous to prophecy.
Aren't all men born of a woman? Why even mention that she was
young?"
[ME]
Paul (obviously) does not know Hebrew. The passage being referred to is
(roughly - I have only read it in the original Hebrew):
A "young woman" shall be with child, and she shall call his name
Emanu-El ("with-us-is-the-lord").
The word used is "Almah" which means YOUNG woman. There is a separate word
"Bethulah" (hard to really spell in English) that invariably is used to
describe a "virgin".
Paul seems to imply that the Jews "covered up" after Christ was born of a
virgin (which I deny) by changing the meaning of the word Almah. BULL!!!
Where does he get his information about "Virgin" being the accepted meaning
during the time of Christ? I think Paul is the one trying to cover up by
rationalizing about things.
As far as I can gather, nobody noticed any such thing as the "VIRGIN BIRTH"
while Christ was alive. Many people (including myself) believe that the
virginity of Mary was rationalized after the fact because of this passage in
Issaiah. (sp) The early Christians were reading a translation of the Bible into
Greek that mistakenly translated Almah into "virgos". I have always been
puzzled about the very concept of Mary being a virgin. She was married to
Joseph and was supposed to have had other children. Did god divorce her?
As far as Paul's questions are concerned, I believe I answered the first. The
second question is relatively superfluous. CONCEPTION was NOT mentioned. The
sentence merely says that a young woman (as compared to an old woman) shall
have a child AND you can infer that this child will be the Messiah. Much of the
so-called prophecy in the Bible is just rambling talk and prose/poetry. Trying
to attach much significance to why the author said things is not always
fruitful. How would you suggest that he say it? Should he have said:
"The Messiah will exist"
and leave out any other details?
I have known many "young women" who were not virgins -- including a 12 year old
who came to me for a checkup of her and her 9 month old daughter. I have also
met many "old women" who were virgins. If Paul insists on a "reason" for
mentioning "young woman", here is a stab at an explanation. Let us assume that
the "young woman" represents the Jews and the child represents the "Messiah"
(although not necessarily Jesus - according to non-christians). The YOUNG part
could be used to represent the rejuvenation of the Jews caused by the arrival
of the Messiah.
Enough flaming for now. I thought we discussed this topic to death months ago.
DISCLAIMER: I do not really believe that the sentence in Issaiah really means
anything whatsoever. I do not particularly believe in the Messiah (either
version). I do hate generalizations that are not based on facts. If you have
any comments or corrections to my statements, please do NOT send them to
/dev/null. My machine throws it away. Posting it or sending me mail works
better.
--
===Avi E. Gross~~AT&T Information Systems Labs~~pegasus!avi~~(201) 576-3063pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (09/14/83)
This is a response to Avi Gross' response to the following from my last
article. This is a side issue, but I thought it could be persued a
little further (The biblical passage in question is Isaiah 7:14):
[from my last article:]
"At the time of Christ, "virgin" seemed to be the accepted translation.
It seems to me that the motivation to reconsider this translation may
have been composed largely from the Jews' rejection of Jesus as the
Messiah. It wasn't an issue until the Christ was born of a virgin.
I have no problems with "young woman" being used here because it does
not exclude the young woman being a virgin. But its use as an
alternate to "virgin" raises some questions in my mind.
1) Are there distinct O.T. Hebrew words for "virgin" and "young woman"
(who is not a virgin)?
2) If Isaiah meant "young married woman", what is the significance of
even mentioning the conception? It seems superfluous to prophecy.
Aren't all men born of a woman? Why even mention that she was
young?"
[from Avi:]
Paul (obviously) does not know Hebrew. The passage being referred to is
(roughly - I have only read it in the original Hebrew):
A "young woman" shall be with child, and she shall call his name
Emanu-El ("with-us-is-the-lord").
The word used is "Almah" which means YOUNG woman. There is a separate word
"Bethulah" (hard to really spell in English) that invariably is used to
describe a "virgin".
You are right in that I am no Hebrew scholar. I must rely on a condordance
and a Hebrew dictionary. I did my own word study on the words "almah" and
"bethulah".
It seems to me that "bethulah" is *not* invariably used to describe a virgin,
as you say. It definitely means "virgin" in some passages, but its use is
not restricted to that. Consider the following:
[from Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament:]
"...In several passages the word [bethulah] merely means a grown-up girl
or a "maiden"; it identifies her age and marital status. The prophets
who denounce Israel for playing the harlot also call her the *bethulah*
of Yahweh, or the *bethulah* (daughter) of Israel (Jer. 31:4, 21).
The other nations are also called *bethuloth*: Isa. 23:12--Zidon;
Isa. 47:1--Babylon; Jer. 46:11--Egypt. These nations are hardly being
commended for their purity! In Ugaritic literature the word is frequently
used of the goddess Anat, the sister of Baal and hardly a virgin.
What was true of her and figuratively of these nations (including
Israel) was that she was a vigorous young woman at the height of her
powers and not married. Thus *bethulah* is often used in parallelism
with the Hebrew *bachur*, which signifies a young man, regardless of his
virginity, who is at the height of his powers (Deut. 32:25). In such
contexts virility and not virginity is in view. Because of this ambiguity
Moses described Rebekah as a young girl (*na'arah*) who was 'very fair
to look upon, a virgin [*bethulah*], neither had any man known her'
(Gen. 24:16--the first occurrence of the word)...."
[from Avi:]
Paul seems to imply that the Jews "covered up" after Christ was born of a
virgin (which I deny) by changing the meaning of the word Almah. BULL!!!
I did not mean to imply any cover up. Only that the Jews seem to exclude
the possibility of "almah" also meaning "virgin". It can mean "virgin" or
"young woman".
Where does he get his information about "Virgin" being the accepted meaning
during the time of Christ? I think Paul is the one trying to cover up by
rationalizing about things.
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" [*bethulah*, see above - PMD] 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.
Thus *almah* appears to be used more of the concept "virgin" than
that of "maiden", yet always of a woman who had not born a child. This
makes it an ideal word to be used in Isa. 7:14, since the word *bethulah*
emphasizes virility more that virginity (although it it used with both
emphases, too). The reader of Isa. 7:14 in the days preceeding the birth
of Jesus would read that a "virgin who is a maiden" would conceive a
child. This was a possible, but irregular, use of the word since the
word can refer merely to the unmarried status of the one so described.
The child immediately in view was the son of the prophet an his wife
(cf. Isa. 8:3) who served as a sign to Ahaz that his enemies would be
defeated by God. On the other hand, the reader of that day must
have been extremely uncomfortable with this use of the word, sonce its
primary connotation is "virgin" rather than "maiden". Thus the clear
translation of the Greek in Matt. 1:23 whereby this word is rendered
"virgin" satisfies its fullest implication. Therefore, there was no
embarrassment to Isaiah when his wife conceived a son by him, since
the word *alemah* allowed for this. Neither is there any embarrassment
in Matthew's understanding of the word."
[from Avi:]
As far as I can gather, nobody noticed any such thing as the "VIRGIN BIRTH"
while Christ was alive.
It would seem to me that Mary and Joseph would have noticed it. :-)
Mary could have lied to the Gospel writers, I suppose.
Many people (including myself) believe that the
virginity of Mary was rationalized after the fact because of this passage in
Issaiah. (sp) The early Christians were reading a translation of the
Bible into Greek that mistakenly translated Almah into "virgos".
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 have always been
puzzled about the very concept of Mary being a virgin. She was married to
Joseph and was supposed to have had other children. Did god divorce her?
According to the Gospel, the conception was before Mary's marriage to Joseph.
When Joseph found she was already pregnant, he wanted to divorce her quietly.
But God told him (through an angel) that the conception was miraculous and
not to be afraid to take her as wife, explaining who the child was. I do
not think that a miraculous conception implies a marriage between God and
Mary.
As far as Paul's questions are concerned, I believe I answered the first.
The second question is relatively superfluous. CONCEPTION was NOT
mentioned. The sentence merely says that a young woman (as compared to
an old woman) shall have a child AND you can infer that this child will
be the Messiah. Much of the so-called prophecy in the Bible is just
rambling talk and prose/poetry. Trying to attach much significance to
why the author said things is not always fruitful. How would you suggest
that he say it? Should he have said:
"The Messiah will exist"
and leave out any other details?
The prhase "be with child" (as you read it) implies conception. The RSV
says "a young woman [or virgin] shall conceive and bear a son ...".
The point of of my second question was not what Isaiah actually said but
why he said it at all. Why did Isaiah have to mention the fact that the
Messiah would be born of a woman? You may think that messianic prophecy
is rambling talk, but I do not think that either the prophets themselves or
Jews in genreral regarded it as such. Details are important here.
Enough flaming for now. I thought we discussed this topic to death
months ago.
I guess I wasn't around then. I'm sorry if this is going over old ground.
Paul Dubuc