Yeshayahu/Isaiah 7:14

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Add Reply

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

tyolilums

Yeshayahu/Isaiah 7:14

Lead

[-]

Posts: 537

(10/23/09 09:28:45)

Tags : None

First, I agree with the Jewish translation and understanding of the subject verse. From the Hebrew, I can see where it says something close to the following: "Therefore the L-rd will, Himself, give you a sign: Here (behold)! The young woman is pregnant and she's going to give birth to a son; and you (directed to the woman) will name him Imanu'el." I will say I wonder about the verb 'qarat' being the you (feminine) and not the you masculine - which would mean the scribe left off a kamatz. If it were masculine, this would indicate one of the men standing there. But that's not important and I don't intend to question or insult the Hebrew text given.

Two, I think a stronger argument in debating this verse is context and the issue of whether anything in it is messianic, concerns the Son of David, or a Mashiach. But everyone narrows in on the one verse which sometimes makes discussing context difficult.

I think it's important to discuss the mistranslation of the verb/adjective 'harah' and should be stressed over the issue of 'virgin or young woman'. People naturally tend to gravitate to the virgin debate and are blindsided with the verb issue. They have to ignore that one because there isn't much written about that and no one knows Hebrew to argue it. From my experience when I bring it up they paste material about the virgin issue. It's all about the virgin or not a virgin.

All the Christian bibles appear to use a future tense verb (she will conceive). In the Preface to the NIV it says "for the OT (you can interpret that as only text) the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest editions of Bibila Hebraica, was used throughout …..Sometimes a variant Hebrew reading in the margin of the Masoretic text was followed instead of the text itself…..The translators also consulted the more important (yeah I know what you are thinking) early versions - the Septuagint; and lists a bunch more.

So, my question, finally….

1. Does anyone here know Greek enough to know if the verbs in those texts are actually future tense for this word or are they mistranslating even what they are working from? I don't think I can take on Greek. Hebrew is difficult enough. Is this an intentional mistranslation or a result of using potentially corrupted translations? And is there any discussion concerning variants among Christian texts for a specific verse like this? In other words, how would I go about seeing how many variants there are in Hebrew manuscripts concerning this verse and how many in those Christians rely on? It all seems kind of hopeless to figure out. I keep reminding myself that it may not be worth the time to figure this out when you consider the context issue. If you know it's not meant to be taken as a future prophesy then why bother. Sometimes I get bogged down in side issues. But I don't know. I've been accused by some as ever learning never coming to the truth. I hate to say I feel like that may be true to some extent.

As an aside, I've been trying to sort through understanding the Masoretic vs Septuagint discussions. I've read some of the papers referenced on this site in other threads. Some of those discussions about variants among similar texts and comparing texts are over my head, right now. So, if anyone knows of a good book which discusses the whole issue (OBJECTIVELY) at a level non scholars can understand, let me know.

Yirmeyahu

[-]

Posts: 1

(10/28/09 23:30:14)

"1. Does anyone here know Greek enough to know if the verbs in those texts are actually future tense for this word or are they mistranslating even what they are working from?"

I do not, but an online translation gives the following, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel" (http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Esaias/index.htm)

Likewise the current Septuagint text is identical to that found in the Greek Matthew (though I doubt that really surprises anyone):

7:14 δια τουτο δωσει κυριος αυτος υμιν σημειον ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ (http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_007.htm)

All in all, I think the context is a much stronger argument against the Christian understanding that the tense used by the prophet. Likewise I think that the underwhelming evidence for interpreting almah as virgin (especially in light of the Aramaic cognate used in the Syriac versions) is more relevant.

Yirmeyahu
teshuvashaminim.com

ProfBenTziyyon

[-]

Posts: 2559

(10/29/09 03:01:05)

The first word of the prophet's statement in Y'shayahu 7:14, הִנֵּה hinnéh, is the word that is usually translated as "Behold!" or "See!" This word is frequently used by the Prophets to introduce a prophetic declaration of major significance, but it is also used in common speech in the sense of "there is/are" for pointing something out − there is an example of this usage in B'réshιt 22:7, where Yitz'ḥak says to his father הִנֵּ֤ה הָאֵשׁ֙ וְהָ֣עֵצִ֔ים וְאַיֵּ֥ה הַשֶּׂ֖ה לְעֹלָֽה׃ "there are the fire and wood, but where is the young animal [Hebrew, 'seh'] for the olah-sacrifice?". The word hinnéh can also be used in a third sense, as an exclamation of astonishment rather like the contemporary English interjection "wow!", as for example in M'lachim Beit 2:11 וַיְּהִ֗י הֵ֣מָּה הֹֽלְכִ֤ים הָלוֹךְ֙ וְדַבֵּ֔ר וְהִנֵּ֤ה רֶֽכֶב־אֵשׁ֙ וְס֣וּסֵי אֵ֔שׁ וַיַּפְרִ֖דוּ בֵּ֣ין שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם "...and as they [Éliyyahu & Elisha] continued walking along and chatting, wow! [suddenly] there was a fiery carriage with fiery horses which separated the two of them...."

I will leave the next word (הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah) untranslated, save for noting that the prefix ha- (which is normally the definite article "the") is being used here with poetic licence in the sense of the demonstrative pronoun "that", lending emphasis to "that al'mah over there", i.e. the "al'mah" the prophet was pointing to as he spoke.

The next two words, הָרָה harah and וְיֹלֶֽדֶת v'yoledet, are the critical words from the point of view of translating the verse correctly. There can be no argument about the meaning of the second of these: וְיֹלֶֽדֶת v'yoledet (the fourth word in the prophet's statement): yoledet is the feminine singular present participle of the root ילד (to give birth), and means "[she] is giving birth".... in fact, the prophet probably meant "she is about to give birth [at any moment]", and used the present participle just to indicate immediacy. The word after v'yoledet, i.e. בֵּן bén, simply means "a son"; it's a direct object in Hebrew because the root ילד is transitive, unlike the English verb "to give birth" which is intransitive and takes an indirect object (so that the English construction is "giving birth to a son").

The meaning of the next word, הָרָה harah, is probably the most contentious issue in the entire Scriptures: it is so important to christians that it means "she will conceive" that they are pathologically incapable of even considering the possibility that it doesn't. The pseudo-septuagint actually translates it as ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει (en gastri exei) "[she] will be pregnant" which, in fact, refers to being in the state of pregnancy rather than to the act of conceiving, and the "King James's Per-Version" rendering in Y'shayahu 7:14 ("shall conceive") is both inaccurate and misleading; in Mattai 1:23, KJPV translates exactly the same Greek words ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει (en gastri exei) as shall be with child, i.e. will be (as opposed to will become) pregnant. I am going to discuss the grammar of the word הָרָה harah in detail, because the entire christian "virgin birth" myth hangs upon its precise meaning.

In fact, הָרָה harah can be both a verb AND an adjective. There certainly is a Hebrew root הרה − this verb is normally used only in relation to females, when it is intransitive and means to conceive; it is transitive when used in relation to a male subject and the sense is to impregnate. This application of the same verb to male and female in different senses is not unusual in Hebrew; the verb ילד, "to give birth", is used of males (and often misleadingly translated using the English verb beget) even though the male takes no part in the actual birth process. The verb הרה is similarly applied to both males and females; but never, in the case of a female, in the transitive sense of "to conceive a baby". It is transitive in the rare instances in the Scriptures (which are all poetic metaphors) where it is applied to a male, because the male is actually doing something when he impregnates a female, i.e. physically putting his zera (semen) into her body; but when a female conceives (becomes pregnant), this is something happening inside her body that is beyond her control and in most cases she doesn't even know it has happened until some time later.

The verb הרה belongs to the ל"ה class of irregular verbs, that is to say those verbs whose third radical is the letter ה (hé). It is conjugated as follows in the past tense of the simple ("kal") paradigm:

הָרִֽיתִי	*hariti*	I impregnated (if spoken by a male) I conceived (if spoken by a female)
הָרִֽיתָ	*harita*	you impregnated (to a male)
הָרִית	*harit*	you conceived (to a female)
הָרָה	*harah*	he impregnated
הָרָֽתָה	*haratah*	she conceived

It will be seen that there does exist an inflection הָרָה harah of the root הרה.... but it's the past tense, 3rd person masculine form and means "he impregnated" (or "he made pregnant")! It occurs in T'hillim 7:15 (with the וָו הַהִפּוּךְ or "inverting vav" reversing the tense from the past into the future), a poetic metaphor that is difficult to translate satisfactorily because of the dual application of the Hebrew verb to both male and female in two different senses − something like "he seeds mischief and gives birth to lies". A variant of the 3rd person masculine form harah, namely הָרֹה haroh, occurs in Iyyov 15:35, another poetic metaphor "he seeds trouble and gives birth to iniquity....", and the same variant is also to be found in Y'shayahu 59:4 but with the anomalous spelling הָרוֹ haro, "he seeds injustice and gives birth to wickedness".

Apart from these three instances of the 3rd person masc. form, the past tense of the kal paradigm of the root הרה is used in the Scriptures in very few other places. The first person form הָרִֽיתִי hariti occurs just once, in B'midbar 11:12; the 2nd person fem. form הָרִית harit (again with the וָו הַהִפּוּךְ or "inverting vav" reversing the tense from the past into the future) also occurs just once, in Shoftim 13:3; and the 3rd person fem. form הָרָֽתָה haratah occurs in B'réshιt 16:4 and again in 16:5. The 2nd person masc. form הָרִֽיתָ harita ("you [masc.] impregnated") is not found in the Scriptures at all.

But הָרָה harah can also be an adjective (meaning "pregnant"). This word looks identical to the verb הָרָה harah and can only be distinguished from it by examining the grammatical context − there are many examples of exactly the same situation in English, e.g. the word "separate" can be either a verb (to divide into parts) or an adjective (describing something that exists, or is regarded, as a unit by itself) and the two can only be distinguished by examining the grammatical context, and the same is true of "refuse" which can be either a verb (to say "No!") or a noun (garbage, trash). It is a source of astonishment to me that so many English-speaking christians have such a problem understanding that the same word in Hebrew can be both a verb and an adjective, with identical spelling, and that which part of speech a particular instance of the word is can only be determined by examining the grammatical context − when precisely the same phenomenon occurs in their own language!

The adjective הָרָה harah occurs a further ten times in the Scriptures, in addition to Y'shayahu 7:14....

B'réshιt 16:11 − "....you are pregnant [הִנָּךְ הָרָה hinnach harah] and are about to give birth to a son...."
B'réshιt 38:24 − "....your daughter-in-law Tamar... is pregnant [הִנֵּה הָרָה hinnéh harah] as a result of prostitution...."
B'réshιt 38:25 − "....I'm pregnant [אָנֹכִי הָרָה anochi harah] by the man these things belong to...."
Sh'mot 21:22 − "....if men are fighting and they collide with a pregnant woman [אִשָּׁה הָרָה ishah harah]...."
Shoftim 13:5 − "....you are pregnant [הִנָּךְ הָרָה hinnach harah] and giving birth to a son...."
Shoftim 13:7 − "....you are pregnant [הִנָּךְ הָרָה hinnach harah] and giving birth to a son...."
Shmuel Alef 4:19 − "....his daughter-in-law, Pinḥas's wife, was pregnant and about to give birth [הָרָה לָלַת harah lalat]...."
Shmuel Beit 11:5 − "....I'm pregnant [הָרָה אָנֹֽכִי harah anochi]...."
Y'shayahu 7:14 − "....see that pregnant girl [הָעַלְמָה הָרָה ha-al'mah harah] over there...."
Y'shayahu 26:17 − "....like a pregnant (woman) [כְּמוֹ הָרָה k'mo harah] who is approaching her time to give birth...."
Yirm'yahu 31:7 − "....a pregnant (woman) together with one who is actually giving birth [הָרָה וְיֹלֶֽדֶת harah v'yoledet]...."

Can הָרָה harah possibly be a verb in any of these 11 verses? No, it can't, because הָרָה harah is a masculine form of the root הרה, and the subject is a woman in all 11 instances − and it's the third person masc. form, he impregated. If the word were a verb, the inflection would have to be הָרִֽיתִי hariti (1st person, "I have conceived") in cases 3, 8; in cases 1, 5, 6 it would have to be הָרִית harit (2nd person feminine, "you [fem.] have conceived"); and in cases 2, 7 the inflection would have to be הָרָֽתָה haratah (3rd person feminine, "she has/had conceived"). Any attempt to translate harah as part of the verb "to conceive" in cases 4, 9, 10, 11 would be forced and contrived; it cannot be anything but an adjective in cases 4 & 9, and an adjectival noun ("a pregnant [woman]") in cases 10 & 11.

The three words הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה hinnéh ha-al'mah harah in Y'shayahu 7:14 can therefore ONLY be translated as "Look at that pregnant al'mah...."

http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

Last Edited By: ProfBenTziyyon 12/10/09 18:49:02. Edited 1 times.

Yirmeyahu

Friendly Fire

[-]

Posts: 2

(10/29/09 23:53:22)

Professor, your grasp of Hebrew Grammar is without a doubt beyond mine, and I certainly see merit to your point but I have a few thoughts: 1. The passuk's parallel in 8:3 certainly uses this shoresh as a verb, no? 2. I simply fail to see how arguing the tense is helpful when discussing a prophetic vision. While it may be difficult, I don't think that such a rendition renders Mathew's spin on this verse impossible. Prophecy does have a tendency to blur the distinction between past, present and future. Yirmeyahu teshuvashaminim.com

tyolilums

[-]

Posts: 543

(10/30/09 07:23:26)

I appreciate the responses. I'm still researching this when I have time. I did find a thesis done specifically on textual variants of Isaiah 7:14 in the MT, DSS, and LXX.

According to what I've read so far, the LXX does use a Greek word that can be either future tense or a dative singular feminine form of a noun. Not sure exactly what that means.

If you compare the LXX translations that coincide with all the places in the MT where 'hara' is used, they are inconsistent in how they translate it. It says there are two instances of it being identical to the Hebrew, such as in Genesis 16:11 where it is second person present. Sometimes it is a third person present verb. One makes it a present participle, one 1st person present.. The final remark about that is that it appears the LXX translations used present tense translations for this word every where except in the Isaiah 7:14 verse where it is has a future tense verb. I think Prof Uri showed the inconsistency in how they translate this word too in his paper.

If you point this out, people will say you can't compare to the Hebrew (based on the MT) we have today. The LXX worked from the 'real' Hebrew which doesn't exist anymore and may have been different from the MT.

However, the DSS appears to have the same word as the MT. So I think that is a good indication the word that even the LXX translated from is hara.

I understand why Christians have to have it future tense, especially when the have it quoted in their NT as future tense prophesy relating to Jesus. Reading about textual variants is interesting. And come to find out, some translators ignored the actual text opting for notes written in the margins.

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 12877

(10/30/09 08:25:25)

Moderator

Ty, the LXX of Isaiah 7:14 (translated by persons unknown and maintained by persons unknown) uses the word parthenos (and parthenon) to describe Dinah after she was raped.

Genesis 34:3(in Hebrew)
וַתִּדְבַּק נַפְשׁוֹ בְּדִינָה בַּת-יַעֲקֹב וַיֶּאֱהַב אֶת-הַנַּעֲרָ וַיְדַבֵּר עַל-לֵב הַנַּעֲרָ

LXX Genesis 34:3 (in Greek)
και προσεσχεν τη ψυχη Δινας της θυγατρος Ιακωβ και ηγαπησεν την παρθενον και ελαλησεν κατα την διανοιαν της παρθενου αυτη

The previous line says: "She was seen by Shechem, son of the chief of the region, Chamor the Hivite. He seduced her, slept with her, and [then] raped her."

I can't answer your question about future tense, but it is obvious in Genesis 34 that both parthenos and parthenon were used to describe Dinah who was alive at that time and had been raped (ergo was not a virgin).

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

Yirmeyahu

Friendly Fire II

[-]

Posts: 4

(10/30/09 16:07:24)

Pathenos clearly means virgin in NT Greek, so I don't see why we should put in the effort to persuade people that it didn't mean that when the LXX was translated when we can demonstrate by the context that almah does not mean virgin. Yirmeyahu teshuvashaminim.com/isaiah714.html

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 12880

(10/30/09 16:12:23)

Moderator

Not so. Originally parthenos did not mean virgin, it has simply come to mean that over time. Parthenos originally meant young woman.

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

ProfBenTziyyon

[-]

Posts: 2562

(10/31/09 15:01:47)

Yirmeyahu wrote:
1. The passuk's parallel in 8:3 certainly uses this shoresh as a verb, no?

Y'shayahu 8:3 does use the root הרה, but the form used in that verse is וַתַּֽהַר which can only be a verb.

I would, however, question your claimed "parallel" between 7:14 and 8:3. While it is undeniable that some of the classical Hebrew commentators identify the child symbolically named מַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז Mahér-shalal-ḥash-baz ("plundering − speed! looting − hurry!") that the prophet refers to in 8:3-4 with the child Immanu'él of 7:14-16, the connection between the two children is tenuous. The only textual link between them is the mother of the Immanu'él child "prophesying" when giving him the prophetic name Immanu'él, and the prophet referring to Mahér-shalal-ḥash-baz's mother as הַנְּבִיאָה ha-n'viyyah ("the prophetess") in 8:3 (although he probably meant "prophet's wife" rather than that she actually was blessed with the gift of prophecy herself). Furthermore, although the two prophecies are superficially similar, in 7:14-16 he foretells the deaths of R'tzin and Pekaḥ, while in 8:3-4 he predicts the overthrow of the Aramean capital Damascus and the northern Hebrew kingdom's capital, Shom'ron ("Samaria") − and although R'tzin was killed when Tiglath-Pileser III sacked Damascus, Shom'ron wasn't overrun until 18 years later. If Immanu'él and Mahér-shalal-ḥash-baz were really the same child, it becomes impossible to reconcile Y'shayahu's prediction that

"before the child knows how to call out 'Daddy' or 'Mummy', the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Shom'ron will have been carried off before the Assyrian king" (Y'shayahu 8:4).

It is far more likely that the two references are to two completely different children, and that Mahér-shalal-ḥash-baz was born many years after the Immanu'él episode, shortly before Shom'ron was overrun by the Assyrians.

Yirmeyahu wrote:
2. I simply fail to see how arguing the tense is helpful when discussing a prophetic vision. While it may be difficult, I don't think that such a rendition renders Mathew's spin on this verse impossible. Prophecy does have a tendency to blur the distinction between past, present and future.

But I am not just "arguing the tense"; the word הָרָה harah in 7:14 can't be a verb and can only be an adjective − and, as such, it doesn't even have a tense.

tyolilums wrote:
I appreciate the responses. I'm still researching this when I have time. I did find a thesis done specifically on textual variants of Isaiah 7:14 in the MT, DSS, and LXX.

It has already been explained to you ad nauseum why the textual variations that exist between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudo-septuagint on the one hand, and the true Hebrew (or "Masoretic") Text on the other hand, are irrelevant and cannot be considered as indicating anything of value.

tyolilums wrote:
According to what I've read so far, the LXX does use a Greek word that can be either future tense or a dative singular feminine form of a noun. Not sure exactly what that means.

The dative case of a Latin or Greek noun corresponds to the English forms "to [the noun]" or "for [the noun]".

tyolilums wrote:
If you compare the LXX translations that coincide with all the places in the MT where 'hara' is used, they are inconsistent in how they translate it....

Did you read my Post #2? In that post I examined every instance in the Scriptures of the word הָרָה harah and showed why in the majority of cases it can only be an adjective.

tyolilums wrote:
If you point this out, people will say you can't compare to the Hebrew (based on the MT) we have today. The LXX worked from the 'real' Hebrew which doesn't exist anymore and may have been different from the MT....

"People" can SAY whatever they like, but insofar as nobody even knows WHO translated the "LXX", ot WHEN, much less what Hebrew text they were working from, it's all just so much hot air.

http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

Last Edited By: ProfBenTziyyon 12/09/09 18:33:57. Edited 2 times.

Gavriel

[-]

Posts: 56

(12/02/09 12:42:15)

Yirmeyahu wrote:
Pathenos clearly means virgin in NT Greek, so I don't see why we should put in the effort to persuade people that it didn't mean that when the LXX was translated when we can demonstrate by the context that almah does not mean virgin. Yirmeyahu teshuvashaminim.com/isaiah714.html

According to the NIDOTTE it clearly does not:

John Walton, NIDOTTE 3.415-19, here 418. The LXXX renders the word as parthenos, which also indicates sexual maturity but not sexual experience or its lack.
Citation found in: Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis, p. 82-83

Also here you can see it meant maiden, someone betrothed to be married. Nothing about being a virgin or not.

Aad2

[-]

Posts: 96

(12/09/09 15:19:22)

Mordochai says:
I am going to discuss the grammar of the word harah in detail, because the entire christian "virgin birth" myth hangs upon its precise meaning.

Mordochai, I'm often impressed by your posts because of the content and because of the make-up/beauty.

Still:
I don't see why the "entire christian "virgin birth" myth hangs upon" the precise meaning of 'harah'.
The given that Mary was a virgin is not taken from the Isaiah-text but from the context of the birth story itself: see Mt.1:18, 20, 25 and Luke 1:34, 35. The verses Mt.1: 22, 23 refer to the words of the Lord (Is.7:14): behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. This socalled prooftext is injected by Matthew here to enlighten what was going on in the birth of this child: he would fill to the full and complete the promise of God to be with the House of Judah ('Immanuel'); (it is not the prediction of Isaiah of the birth of a future child with the name Immanuel some 750 years later; in general christians do not read it this way).

The meaning of Immanuel intrigues me: Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, he does not believe God (he does not want to honor God) and then God gives a sign and that is a boy with the name Immanuel, son of the prophet. The children of Isaiah were signs and symbols in Israel:
""a rest will be saved",
"God is with us" (Immanuel), and
"haste to plunder and prey"

In Is.8:8 the word Immanuel, as it seems to me, is used to point to the House of Judah in general.

In the eyes/ears of Ahaz: what is the sign? What point is there for Ahaz that there is walking a boy with the name Immanuel?

Aad

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 13002

(12/09/09 16:11:19)

Moderator

Aad2 wrote:

I don't see why the "entire chrstian "virgin birth" myth hangs upon" the precise meaning of 'harah'.

It is because the Greek Text itself claims that Jsus' "virgin" birth is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

"All this took place to fulfill what the L-rd had said through the prophet: ²³"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" Matthew 1:22

The prophet referenced is Isaiah and the prophecy is Isaiah 7:14. Virgin births are not spoken of in the T'nach and the idea is pagan. The religions of ancient Rome and many virgin birth gods. The second century Chrstian, Justin Martyr wrote:

"He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus (a pagan god)." [Justin Martyr, First Apology, 22]

The fat that you don't think "in general chrstians do not read it this way" is immaterial. The GT makes it clear that the "virgin" birth hangs on the mistranslation of hara in Isaiah 7:14, as Mordochai explained.

The prophecy for Ahaz was not that a child would be born (an every day occurence), but that before the baby was old enough to know good from evil the two kings whom Ahaz feared would be destroyed. The child in question? Immanu'el ("G-d is with us" -- as in "G-d is with us in our battle against these two kingdoms").

Therefore, HaShem, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (Isaiah 7:14-16)

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

UriYosef

[-]

Posts: 2117

(12/09/09 16:48:13)

Director of Education

Sophiee1 wrote:
The prophecy for Ahaz was not that a child would be born (an every day occurence), but that before the baby was old enough to know good from evil the two kings whom Ahaz feared would be destroyed. The child in question? Immanu'el ("G-d is with us" -- as in "G-d is with us in our battle against these two kingdoms").

Therefore, HaShem, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (Isaiah 7:14-16)

And, unlike the concocted "virgin birth" fairy tale myth, the above prophecy was contemporanously fulfilled:

II Kings 15:30(JPT) - And Hoshe'a the son of Elah revolted against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and he struck him and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.

II Kings 16:9(JPT) - And the king of Assyria heeded him, and the king of Assyria went up to Damascus and seized it, and exiled [its inhabitants] to Kir, and he slew Rezin.

Note, contemporaneously fulfilled - a real sign, unlike the "virgin birth" fairy tale myth that is alleged to have been fulfilled 7¼ centuries later and of no use to King Ahaz, who would be long dead and gone.

UriYosef

Our raison d'Ãªtre:

WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a)

The fruits of our effort:

The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!

ProfBenTziyyon

[-]

Posts: 2706

(12/09/09 19:51:54)

Sophie, when a post is addressed directly and explicitly to me, by name, it isn't very polite of you to jump in with both feet and reply to it just because you, as a Moderator, get to see it before I do.

Aad2 wrote:
Mordochai, I'm often impressed by your posts because of the content and because of the make-up/beauty.

I am not sure what you mean by "the make-up/beauty".

Aad2 wrote:
The given that Mary was a virgin is not taken from the Isaiah-text but from the context of the birth story itself....

I wrote that "the entire christian 'virgin birth' myth hangs upon the precise meaning of the word הָרָה harah (a statement that I stand by) because that word doesn't have the meaning that christians have always pretended it has. הָרָה harah does not mean "she will conceive" and so the quotation cited by the writer of "Matthew" − which is never for one moment questioned by christians − is a deception. The prophet Y'shayahu never said that anyone was "going to conceive" and, consequently, the author of "Matthew" was lying when he wrote (1:22, NIPV) "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet...."

Aad2 wrote:
The verses Mt.1: 22, 23 refer to the words of the Lord (Is.7:14): behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

However, as just stated, "the Lord" never actually said that − and, anyway, the prophecy doesn't even fit your story: because "Mary" didn't name her son Immanu'él; in fact she never named him at all; according to your own book of "Matthew" (1:25), her husband named her son as he had been told to by an "angel" that he had supposedly dreamt about.

Aad2 wrote:
This socalled prooftext is injected by Matthew here to enlighten what was going on in the birth of this child: he would fill to the full and complete the promise of God to be with the House of Judah ('Immanuel')....

You haven't read the whole of the prophecy, Aad, and have fallen into the trap set for you by the writer of "Matthew". The promise was not that the child Immanu'él was going to be born, but that Aḥaz's two aggressive neighbours (the Syrian king רְצִין R'tzin and פֶּֽקַח בֶּן רְמַלְיָהוּ Pekaḥ ben R'malyahu, king of Yisraél) would be gone, and no longer a threat to him, before he (i.e. the child) had learned "to refuse 'bad' [food] and to choose 'good' [food]" (Y'shayahu 7:16).

Aad2 wrote:
(it is not the prediction of Isaiah of the birth of a future child with the name Immanuel some 750 years later; in general christians do not read it this way)

I regret having to disabuse you of this misapprehension, Aad, but the overwhelming majority of christians do read it that way.

Aad2 wrote:
The meaning of Immanuel intrigues me: Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, he does not believe God (he does not want to honor God) and then God gives a sign and that is a boy with the name Immanuel, son of the prophet.

There is nothing in the text to indicate that the Immanu'él child was a son of Y'shayahu.

Aad2 wrote:
The children of Isaiah were signs and symbols in Israel: "a rest will be saved", "God is with us" (Immanuel), and "haste to plunder and prey"

"A rest will be saved"??? I never knew that Y'shayahu had a son called תִּוָּשַׁע מְנוּחָה Tivvasha M'nuḥah! If that's an attempt at translating שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב Sh'ar Yashuv (mentioned in Y'shayahu 7:3), the words mean "a remnant will return" and are an oblique reference to Y'shayahu 10:21 and 22.

As for מַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז Mahér Shalal Ḥash Baz ("plundering − speed! looting − hurry!"), I dealt with this symbolic name in detail at Post #8 above.

Aad2 wrote:
In Is.8:8 the word Immanuel, as it seems to me, is used to point to the House of Judah in general.

The 11th century French Jewish commentator Rashi comments on Y'shayahu 8:8

עִמָּֽנוּאֵל − הוּא שֵֽׁבֶט יְהוּדָה שֶׁהִבְטִיחוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִהְיוֹת עִמָּם בִּימֵי חִזְקִיָּהוּ, כְּדִבְרֵי הַנְּבִיאָה שֶׁקָּרְאָה שֵׁם בְּנָהּ "עִמָּֽנוּאֵל"׃
Immanu'él − this refers to the tribe of Y'hudah, whom God promised to be with during the days of Ḥizkiyyahu, in the words of the prophetess who named her son "God is with us".

As a matter of fact, the term עִמָּֽנוּ אֵל occurs for a third time in 8:10, but there it is separated into two words and is not a name but the statement "God is with us":

עֻ֥צוּ עֵצָה וְתֻפָ֑ר דַּבְּר֤וּ דָבָר֙ וְלֹ֣א יָק֔וּם כִּ֥י עִמָּ֖נוּ אֵֽל׃
"Take advice and it will be thwarted; utter a command and it will not happen, because God is with us!"

Aad2 wrote:
In the eyes/ears of Ahaz: what is the sign? What point is there for Ahaz that there is walking a boy with the name Immanuel?

Aḥaz's "sign" consisted of three separate but related statements which were all about the baby boy called Immanu'él....

1. a pregnant girl, whom the prophet pointed out as he spoke, was close to giving birth, and was going to name her child Immanu'él [verse 14, second half];

2. the child was going to be fed only on soured cream and honey, which would teach him to "refuse bad" and "choose good" [verse 15]; and

3. even before the child had learned to "refuse bad" and "choose good", both the kings that Aḥaz "dreaded" (R'tzin and Pekaḥ who, as recorded in M'lachim Beit 16:5 and Y'shayahu 7:1, had formed an alliance not long before this and together mounted an abortive attack against Aḥaz's capital, Y'rushalayim) were both going to be gone [verse 16].

This did actually happen, but the fulfilment is not recorded in the book of Y'shayahu; you have to go to M'lachim to find that: Pekaḥ was assassinated by Hoshé'a ben Élah in the 4th year of Aḥaz's reign (M'lachim Beit 15:30) − the text actually reads "Yotam's 20th year", but Yotam (Ahaz's father) only reigned for 16 years (M'lachim Beit 15:33), so the year that would have been his 20th was in fact his son Ahaz's 4th − and R'tzin was killed by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III when he ransacked the Syrian capital, Damascus, soon afterwards (M'lachim Beit 16:9).

http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

Last Edited By: ProfBenTziyyon 12/10/09 14:17:33. Edited 2 times.

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 13003

(12/10/09 07:31:47)

Moderator

ProfBenTziyyon wrote:

Sophie, when a post is addressed directly and explicitly to me, by name, it isn't very polite of you to jump in with both feet and reply to it just because you, as a Moderator, get to see it before I do.

Mordochai, this is a moderated forum, thus posts are not released until they have been reviewed by a moderator. Moderators are free to comment on any posts since this IS a moderated forum, therefore you may feel it "isn't polite" for a moderator to respond, but it is actually part of how the forum is structured.

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

ProfBenTziyyon

[-]

Posts: 2707

(12/10/09 11:28:16)

Sophie, I am aware of the significance and operation of "moderation", but it would still be polite for you to leave messages addressed directly and explicitly to me, by name, for me to reply to. You have to release them, but there is nothing forcing you to respond to them.

http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

mvguy2000

Clarification on Isaiah 7:14

[-]

Posts: 54

(12/10/09 17:58:02)

My Artscroll Stone Tanach says in Isaiah 7:14: "...Behold, the maiden WILL bcome pregnant... From all I've read here and elsewhere is that she is already pregnant. Obviously in context this is not even the sign to Ahaz, but it seems the English translation in Artscroll misses the point?

UriYosef

[-]

Posts: 2119

(12/10/09 18:27:20)

Director of Education

mvguy2000 wrote:
My Artscroll Stone Tanach says in Isaiah 7:14: "...Behold, the maiden WILL bcome pregnant... From all I've read here and elsewhere is that she is already pregnant. Obviously in context this is not even the sign to Ahaz, but it seems the English translation in Artscroll misses the point?

Yes, to the casual reader, the ArtScroll Stone Edition misses the point. When you dig a little deeper, you will find that Rashi says it is in the future (actually, the imminent future - the reference is to Isaiah's wife who will soon become pregnant). This is the problem that I have with the ArtScroll Stone Edition; it relies too much on Rashi's commentary and is, therefore, more interpretive than literal.

UriYosef

Our raison d'Ãªtre:

WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a)

The fruits of our effort:

The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!

ProfBenTziyyon

[-]

Posts: 2711

(12/10/09 18:37:21)

No translation is ever perfect and the ArtScroll translation − however excellent it may be in general − is in error in Y'shayahu 7:14 because it slavishly follows Rashi who, in this case, is incorrect. As I proved in post #2, the word הָרָה harah cannot possibly be a verb in this verse and, in fact, represents the adjective pregnant.

http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 13006

(12/10/09 18:43:45)

Moderator

Especially true with the Psalms in Artscroll. I do like the Artscroll BECAUSE it is interpretive, but as a result it can lead people astray. This is why we repeatedly say that "no translation is perfect"!

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

SearchinMyRoots

[-]

Posts: 628

(12/11/09 11:05:45)

Just out of curiosity, what does the Koren Jerusalem Bible say? I don't have it with me at the moment.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Yeshayahu/Isaiah 7:14

Yeshayahu/Isaiah 7:14

Quick Reply