The Temporal Horizon of the Immanuel Oracle

[kwrandolph]

Karl,
Do you know of any commentary that agrees with your explanation that the young man will marry (will husband) a woman (non-virgin) with "husband" meaning he will be a husband to a woman in an ongoing way? I have a feeling that this explanation is unique to you. It seems like every translation and commentary says that a young man will marry a virgin. Have you ever read this explanation anywhere or is this just your own opinion?

I don’t have access to many commentaries, therefore I don’t read them. Further, I don’t have time to read them. Reading for me is slow and difficult because I have dyslexia. Do you know of any time where a woman’s בעל referring to a single man was anything other than her husband? I don’t know of any examples.

Karl W, Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,
Do you know of any commentary that agrees with your explanation that the young man will marry (will husband) a woman (non-virgin) with "husband" meaning he will be a husband to a woman in an ongoing way? I have a feeling that this explanation is unique to you. It seems like every translation and commentary says that a young man will marry a virgin. Have you ever read this explanation anywhere or is this just your own opinion?

I don’t have access to many commentaries, therefore I don’t read them. Further, I don’t have time to read them. Reading for me is slow and difficult because I have dyslexia. Do you know of any time where a woman’s בעל referring to a single man was anything other than her husband? I don’t know of any examples.

Karl W, Randolph.

Karl,
I have noticed that people say that the word "baal" is never used for a fiance in the Hebrew Bible, except maybe Joel 1:8, but if you look up betrothed women in the Hebrew Bible, there are maybe two quotes (Leviticus 19:20 and Deuteronomy 22:23) that mention the husband of a betrothed woman, and both times, it could mean "a man" and not just "a husband." I don't think you can say that "baal" can't mean a fiance or a husband.

Leviticus 19:20 ויקרא
19:20וְ֠אִישׁ כִּֽי־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת־אִשָּׁ֜ה שִׁכְבַת־זֶ֗רַע וְהִ֤וא שִׁפְחָה֙ נֶחֱרֶ֣פֶת לְאִ֔ישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה֙ לֹ֣א נִפְדָּ֔תָה א֥וֹ חֻפְשָׁ֖ה לֹ֣א נִתַּן־לָ֑הּ בִּקֹּ֧רֶת תִּהְיֶ֛ה לֹ֥א יוּמְת֖וּ כִּי־לֹ֥א חֻפָּֽשָׁה׃

Deuteronomy 22:23 דברים
22:23כִּ֤י יִהְיֶה֙ נער נַעֲרָ֣ה בְתוּלָ֔ה מְאֹרָשָׂ֖ה לְאִ֑ישׁ וּמְצָאָ֥הּ אִ֛ישׁ בָּעִ֖יר וְשָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּֽהּ׃

I think you decide word meanings with very little evidence. For example, Isaiah 62:5, you say the verb "to marry" is "to husband" in an ongoing way a woman (betula) because you don't seem to believe that sometimes betula does mean virgin, and in this case, Isaiah 62:5 could show that the verb בעל could mean "to marry." Isaiah 62:5 could actually be seen as evidence that the verb does not always mean "to husband" in an ongoing way.

Do you ever accept betula as virgin when it is used without saying "that did not know a man"? For example, Leviticus 21:13-14.

Leviticus 21:13 - 14 ויקרא
21:13וְה֕וּא אִשָּׁ֥ה בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ יִקָּֽח׃ 14אַלְמָנָ֤ה וּגְרוּשָׁה֙ וַחֲלָלָ֣ה זֹנָ֔ה אֶת־אֵ֖לֶּה לֹ֣א יִקָּ֑ח כִּ֛י אִם־בְּתוּלָ֥ה מֵעַמָּ֖יו יִקַּ֥ח אִשָּֽׁה׃

[kwrandolph]

Karl,
I have noticed that people say that the word "baal" is never used for a fiance in the Hebrew Bible, except maybe Joel 1:8, but if you look up betrothed women in the Hebrew Bible, there are maybe two quotes (Leviticus 19:20 and Deuteronomy 22:23) that mention the husband of a betrothed woman, and both times, it could mean "a man" and not just "a husband." I don't think you can say that "baal" can't mean a fiance or a husband.

Leviticus 19:20 ויקרא
19:20וְ֠אִישׁ כִּֽי־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת־אִשָּׁ֜ה שִׁכְבַת־זֶ֗רַע וְהִ֤וא שִׁפְחָה֙ נֶחֱרֶ֣פֶת לְאִ֔ישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה֙ לֹ֣א נִפְדָּ֔תָה א֥וֹ חֻפְשָׁ֖ה לֹ֣א נִתַּן־לָ֑הּ בִּקֹּ֧רֶת תִּהְיֶ֛ה לֹ֥א יוּמְת֖וּ כִּי־לֹ֥א חֻפָּֽשָׁה׃

Deuteronomy 22:23 דברים
22:23כִּ֤י יִהְיֶה֙ נער נַעֲרָ֣ה בְתוּלָ֔ה מְאֹרָשָׂ֖ה לְאִ֑ישׁ וּמְצָאָ֥הּ אִ֛ישׁ בָּעִ֖יר וְשָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּֽהּ׃

Did you not notice that in both verses, the fiancé is called an איש?

I think you decide word meanings with very little evidence.

Kenneth, you are grasping at straws, because you have no evidence.

Every time בעל, verb, and noun and adjective derivatives, is used in the marriage context, it refers to husband. I see no reason to change the meaning of the word to fit a philosophically determined definition of a different word.

For example, Isaiah 62:5, you say the verb "to marry" is "to husband" in an ongoing way a woman (betula) because you don't seem to believe that sometimes betula does mean virgin, and in this case, Isaiah 62:5 could show that the verb בעל could mean "to marry." Isaiah 62:5 could actually be seen as evidence that the verb does not always mean "to husband" in an ongoing way.

Here I use a word that is well defined in usage to determine the meaning of another word that is used in context with that well defined word. You are trying to insist on the opposite.

Do you ever accept betula as virgin when it is used without saying "that did not know a man"? For example, Leviticus 21:13-14.

Leviticus 21:13 - 14 ויקרא
21:13וְה֕וּא אִשָּׁ֥ה בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ יִקָּֽח׃ 14אַלְמָנָ֤ה וּגְרוּשָׁה֙ וַחֲלָלָ֣ה זֹנָ֔ה אֶת־אֵ֖לֶּה לֹ֣א יִקָּ֑ח כִּ֛י אִם־בְּתוּלָ֥ה מֵעַמָּ֖יו יִקַּ֥ח אִשָּֽׁה׃

I’ve already said this, now you ask me to repeat myself. In that society, at that time, under normal circumstances, it was expected that a young woman before marriage was a virgin. But we have two verses that say that a young, marriageable woman 1) was already married and 2) was already a widow. Therefore the term “young, marriageable woman” בתולה cannot be the technical term for “virgin”.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

To be consistent, then you’ll have to admit that the evidence from translations, including the LXX, Vulgate, etc., is that כארי in Psalm 22:17 is a typo, that the real word should be כארו.

Karl W. Randolph.

I’d actually say three things on that: (1) It’s entirely possible that the translator read the yod as a vav and translated it that way; (2) There may have been texts in which it was simply the reading; (3) The Septuagint may be colored by Christian tradition, since Christians are the keepers of the Septuagint. We don’t know what the earliest version of the Septuagint read in this text.

[Jason Hare]

I also mentioned Joel 1:8 where בתחלה refers to a young widow.

Is it impossible for a young woman to become engaged and for her betrothed to die before they consummate the marriage?

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,
About Joel 1:8. If you decide that the word בעל means "husband" based on a bunch of quotes, that makes sense to me. Usually, the word "man" also means "husband", but because you have many examples of that, so you can say that it means "husband" too. When it comes to the word "fiance" and you only have two quotes that mention a betrothed (an engaged) woman and a man, that might not be enough proof to decide what words were used in a language thousands of years ago. I think that the other words have more evidence that they meant "husband", but there is very little evidence for the word "fiance." The word "man" in those two quotes doesn't really have to mean "husband" in either one. They can both mean "a man." (Leviticus 19:20 and Deuteronomy 22:23)

What happens if the only example of the word בעל used to mean "fiance" is in Joel 1:8? If a word is used a certain way only once in the Hebrew Bible, does that mean it can't mean that? Not every word is used ten times in every possible meaning. Theoretically, the word could mean "fiance" in this quote, but you are satisfied based on two quotes with the word "man" instead. I think that you could interpret Joel 1:8 as meaning "fiance" based on what it says, if you assume that betula means "virgin" there. You have decided that the word does not mean "virgin" there because the other word must mean "husband", but that is an assumption. If you assume it means "fiance", then betula can mean "virgin" there. I don't think any linguist would say based on two quotes that the word בעל was never used to mean "fiance" thousands of years ago.

You decide the meanings of rarely used words like almah and baal as if there are many quotes with them, so you can be sure of all of their uses. A person could argue that Isaiah 7:14 is an example of almah used for a non-virgin because she is pregnant at the time. There are no other examples of this rarely used word used this way, so does that mean this can't be the one and only example of the word used this way? Somehow, people want at least two examples of every use of every word, but that is not realistic, if you are analyzing a bunch of ancient books. That would be like reading a long book written in English and using that book to understand all of the possible meanings of every English word, as if every word was used in all of it's possible meanings in that book more than once. I have never studied linguistics, but I would not decide word meanings with so few examples of the words used different ways.

[kwrandolph]

To be consistent, then you’ll have to admit that the evidence from translations, including the LXX, Vulgate, etc., is that כארי in Psalm 22:17 is a typo, that the real word should be כארו.

Karl W. Randolph.

I’d actually say three things on that: (1) It’s entirely possible that the translator read the yod as a vav and translated it that way; (2) There may have been texts in which it was simply the reading; (3) The Septuagint may be colored by Christian tradition, since Christians are the keepers of the Septuagint. We don’t know what the earliest version of the Septuagint read in this text.

I looked carefully at the Nahal Hever scrap, and where the Leningradensis has as a yod, is clearly a waw on that scrap. I’ve been told that there are a few other MMS with that reading, but to my frustration, those who told me that never told me the identity of those MMS.

Incidentally, the Nahal Hever scrap in verse 18 has a yod on a word where Leningradensis has a waw. The waw make no grammatical sense on that word.

Your point three may be correct, which is one reason I don’t accept the LXX as evidence in these discussions.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

I also mentioned Joel 1:8 where בתחלה refers to a young widow.

Is it impossible for a young woman to become engaged and for her betrothed to die before they consummate the marriage?

Look at the verses that Kenneth brought up. In those verses, the fiancé was called an איש before marriage.

You’re grasping at straws.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

To be consistent, then you’ll have to admit that the evidence from translations, including the LXX, Vulgate, etc., is that כארי in Psalm 22:17 is a typo, that the real word should be כארו.

Karl W. Randolph.

I’d actually say three things on that: (1) It’s entirely possible that the translator read the yod as a vav and translated it that way; (2) There may have been texts in which it was simply the reading; (3) The Septuagint may be colored by Christian tradition, since Christians are the keepers of the Septuagint. We don’t know what the earliest version of the Septuagint read in this text.

I looked carefully at the Nahal Hever scrap, and where the Leningradensis has as a yod, is clearly a waw on that scrap. I’ve been told that there are a few other MMS with that reading, but to my frustration, those who told me that never told me the identity of those MMS.

Incidentally, the Nahal Hever scrap in verse 18 has a yod on a word where Leningradensis has a waw. The waw make no grammatical sense on that word.

Your point three may be correct, which is one reason I don’t accept the LXX as evidence in these discussions.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,
I have read that scholars say that at the time that fragment was written, the letters yod and vav were almost identical. JSTOR lets you read 100 free articles a month now, if you sign up. There is an article by Walter Bouzard, Jr. called "The Date of the Psalms Scroll from the Cave of the Letters (5/6 HebPs) Reconsidered." It discusses this on page 324.

[Jason Hare]

Look at the verses that Kenneth brought up. In those verses, the fiancé was called an איש before marriage.

You’re grasping at straws.

Karl W. Randolph.

Asking a question is not grasping at anything.