Hi Karl,
Sorry for the long post.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:39 am
Here all I’m saying is history. Before some Jews started Christianity (it was started as a branch of Judaism) this verse was not controversial. After Christianity was started, when some Jews insisted that it meant “virgin” in relation to Jesus, only afterward do you have the pushback that it didn’t.
Hi Karl,
Even though it is tempting, I hold myself to not comment about it.
Let's keep these so-called "history-facts" aside.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:39 am
ducky wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:37 amAnd also, how does this verse would create a problem for the Jews. I mean, even if this word was really meant a "virgin" (and it's not) - the text says clearly that this birth will occur soon.
Not necessarily soon. “Soon” is a disputed claim.
My friend, just keep reading the text.
It is said in verse 16 that even before the baby would grow up to be a boy, Judea will be saved from its enemies (Aram and Israel).
So surely, that boy is to be born soon - in a few months (or at most, in nine months).
You cannot disconnect this verse from the rest of Isaiah's words. that's the whole point of that sign.
The sign was given to Ahaz in relation to the threat he's seeing at that moment, and the prophecy relates to that.
And I also read about you seeing בית דוד in this verse as a change of direction. But this בית דוד is the same בית דוד that it is in verse 2 - the present house of Ahaz.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:39 am
This is taking a verse with a strange message, namely that a woman who is unknown sexually meaning that she never has had sexual relations with a man, gets pregnant. Jews of that time were not dumb, they knew that babies came only after sex (unlike the anti-Semitic claims put forward by some modern professors) so that a woman who became pregnant without ever having had sexual relations with a man means that God did something very unusual. Throughout history, there’s only one historical claim that that happened.
I understand what you're saying, and it could've been very nice if that is what the prophecy tells us (as I just wrote).
But let's say that I'm taking your view.
Let's say that I read it as Isaiah gave a sign to Ahaz, and that sign is that a virgin would give birth without being with a man.
Okay...
Now I keep reading... and it is said about the birth of that baby, that he won't even grow up to be a boy before Ahaz will be saved.
So we must see this birth from this virgin occurring soon.
it is related to a specific event.
I mean, no matter how you want to read it - this sign is still a sign for Ahaz and for the threat that he's facing - and what's important here, in this prophecy, is the link between the event and the sign. and the event is told specifically.
So if you want to read it as a virgin giving birth - you still have to read that it happened in Ahaz's time.
Also, If you want to read this sign saying that all the bananas in the land will get straight - you would still have to see it related to Ahaz's time.
And if you want to read this sign as a talking fish - you would still have to see it related to Ahaz's time.
The essential part of Isaiah's words here is the link between the sign and the events to come - as they were told specifically.
So even if I do want to read it as a "virgin", I still cannot see this relate to nothing else than Ahaz's time.
*****
And by the way, a virgin giving birth to a god is also in Egyptian myths, Indian myths, Greek/Roman myths - and you can add this "other one" to the list as well if you want.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:39 am
That strange prophecy was not fulfilled “soon”.
As I said, just keep reading.
The prophecy is not the birth of the baby. It is the removal of the war threat.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:39 am
ducky wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:37 am
What etymology? and what combination?
I already wrote it once, do you want me to repeat myself.
I read that. and it just seems to me as a common etymology.
Think about it that way.
In the bible, there are plenty of cases where the word "virgin" is written. And it always uses the word בתולה.
Both in law contracts and in prose as well.
Not once it is said עלמה for that pure meaning of virgin.
Why is that? can't the bible write at least once עלמה?
Also, look at the word בתולים as the signs/era of virginity vs. עלומים which means Youth.
Also, look at the word עלם which is explained twice in the context as נער - a young man.
I really don't see it means "virgin" - not in the bible, and not in the other Semitic languages.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:39 am
At a time when the laws of sexual purity were strict and punishment harsh, both boys and girls were expected to be virgins until marriage. Hence the terms were synonymous.
If so, and they were synonymous, why is it not found in the laws at all?
When the laws want to say "virgin" it says only בתולה. Why not using its synonym even once?
(And of course, not only in the laws).
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:39 am
The laws as written by Moses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were actually harsher towards males who broke those laws of purity than towards females.
I don't know how it is related, but we don't find בתול (as masculine) at all, and also, the word עלם (masculine) is found in the prose - not related to the laws at all.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the subject.
kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:39 amFrom what I understand, Jason claims people followed grammar rules strictly, no exceptions. I question the “no exceptions”.
Jason claims that the grammars of Gesenius and Weingreen are accurate descriptions of Biblical Hebrew. I disagree. I see those grammars (which is what I was taught in class) are accurate descriptions of medieval Tiberian Hebrew. But that medieval Tiberian Hebrew differs significantly from Biblical Hebrew, especially in its grammar.
I think you and Jason just don't understand each other.
If we would like to read the biblical words in the same way that they were pronounced in biblical time, then you are correct. Because they indeed were pronounced differently.
Even in this post, we saw ילדת as "yoledet" and as "yoladt".
And we said that the "yoledet" is an evolution of "yoladt" (a late evolution).
(And I'll use that word later in this post again).
By the way, in Tov's book, he brings an attempt of another scholar to write a verse in the 1st temple era pronunciation, (and then he brings his own).
And also, in the biblical era itself, there was a "movement" in the language.
**
But I don't think that Jason even went to that point, and I think that this is why you don't understand each other.
What Jason claims (according to what I think), is that Hebrew evolved through times. And the MT vowels (and so are the grammars book) represent one dialect that was common in Israel, since the 2nd temple era or quite after.
Which this dialect is not an invention, but it is how people spoke while the language evolved naturally. And so, he is also correct.
I really think that you two are talking from different points of view.
Grammar is a pattern of how the words act.
And the Tiberian Grammar, for example, is a little different than the Babylonian grammar (and also has one more vowel, for example).
Just another example, In the Babylonian Masora, the prefix W before the letter BWMP was pronounced "wi", and in the Tiberian one, it is "u:"
How come?
This is how the language evolved in those places - just in a different way.
There were a few dialects of Hebrew. You can never find one dialect for Hebrew (and for any language). And also in Biblical times, there was more than one dialect.
So it is a vain thing (and stupid) to try to search for the "right" Hebrew.
Just like the Quran does not represent the "real Arabic", but it represents the dialect of Quraish (the tribe of Muhammad), and there were/are a lot of Arabic dialects, that some of them are not understandable to the others.
And for that matter, just ask an Israeli guy to listen to the biblical reading of the Yemenite Jews (also Israelis), and he won't understand what he hears. But this Yemenite Jews Hebrew is for centuries and centuries, and it is not better and not less than the Sephardic reading. they are both "the right Hebrew".
(The Yemenite Jews followed the Babylonian Masora).
The Bible was written in the southern dialect (of that time). But in the epigraphics, we can see also the northern one.
as the word שת vs. שנה or as בת vs. בית.
Also here, both are "right Hebrew".
What the MT is - is representing a dialect that was for centuries (that, of course, is also an evolution), and also, by its strict vowels, it kept a lot of the old way of pronunciation. Even if the vowels are not the original vowels - we see that this chosen vowel is based on the old forms.
And sometimes, the MT does keep the old way in some specific cases.
Just like in the word ילדת that was raised here before.
Notice how nice it is that the MT chose to use וילדת in the old way of "veyoladt" only in the three cases of the statement:
הנך הרה וילדת בן
It is like a famous prophecy, and so, the MT kept it in the known way. While all the other ילדת was vowel according to the evolved form "yoledet".
So here we see, that the MT intentionally voweled וילדת according to the old form - to keep the "holy" statement more traditional.
Hebrew, like any language, evolved through times, and the Masoretic people didn't saw themselves as the ones to vowel the text according to the time of Moses, But according to how it was evolved in the 2nd temple era or quite after.
There is one thing to claim a mistake here and there, and another thing to disrespect it completely.
Anyway, as I see it, there is room for any suggestion and for any reasonable "grammar" that has a nice consistency.
And it would be nice to see your way - using a verse that doesn't include theology in it - just a simple one, so you can show us your grammar vs. the Hebrew grammar books' grammar.