Mayor Quimby is correct. The Talmud relates the story of the creation of the Sept. and it is clear from there that the original translation only included the Pentatuch.
Zev Steinhardt
The prophecy problem is that prophecies are rarely clear or date-specific. This is why someone like Nostradamus gets so much publicity: he makes a comment like, “The sword will not puncture the armor” and wow! that’s, like, all about the votes in Florida that were mispunched, isn’t it!
It’s very easy ex post facto to take verses of Biblical prophetic poetry out of context and interpret them to mean about anything you’d like. The absence of being verbs or punctuation and the common confusions of tenses, singular/plural, word order in ancient Hebrew all add to the general ambiguity of poetic language.
Quick example, the few words of Genesis, literally: In beginning create God(s) the heavens and the earth. Hey, maybe that means there was a being called In-Beginning who created gods, the heavens and the earth! (There is actually a bit of Zohar – Jewish mysticism – that plays games with this wording.)
My favorite is the bit about how two different prophecies (according to Christian interpretation) say that the Messiah will enter Jerusalem on a donkey, or on a mule (IIRC) and there are Medieval paintings that show Jesus entering Jerusalem riding BOTH animals simultaneously!
It’s funny that you mention that verse specifically, C K Dexter Haven in a thread where we mention the Sept. In the Talmud’s story of it’s creation, the rabbis changed the wording in about 12 cases. One of those cases is the verse you mentioned and they changed the wording from B’raishis Bara Elo-him to Elo-him Bara B’raishis specifically because they were afraid people would make exactly the error you pointed out.
Zev Steinhardt
Actually, I think that the word “almah”, which has the meaning of “maiden”- and thus could mean either “virgin” or “young woman”- has a closer connotation in that time to “virgin”. See, altho the Jews made excellent and very accurate copies words tend to change somewhat in meanings. Take the word “nice”- in English- which used to mean “accurate” or “precise”. But now it means namby-pamby good.
And the word “fear”, in the KJV, means more “awe/love respect”, and not “afraid of”. When the Septuagint scholars translated the word “almah” they had a variety of greek words to use. They used “parthenos”- which can only mean “intact virgin”. Now, true, they were several hundred years after Isaiah- but they were a HECK of a lot closer in time than we are now, or the Scholars at Jamnia. Thus, it is likely that “almah” had more of the connotation of “intact virgin” that it does now. Even words in Hebrew change meanings/connatations . I (in jest) used some of my best Biblical Hebrew to “cuss out” an Isreali fellow here on the SDMB- and altho those were pretty strong insults some 2000 years ago, the strongest is now about like calling someone a “poltroon” or “knave”.
Of course- that does not mean that that “almah” was going to nessesarily have a 'virgin birth", or that that this was a Messianic or JC prophecy- it could have simply meant that “see that young virgin? She is going to get married, pregnant, and have a son, and before he is very old, our land will rid of our enemies”.
'Zactly the point, DITWD. Isaiah was simply speaking of a young woman – a person who was not yet mistress of her own household. She may very well have been “married” – “betrothed” in the sense of the day, where a couple took vows, might have sex, but were not yet “marrying” where the marriage service contemplated their setting up housekeeping together. I was once given to understand that the context of “almah” had changed between Isaiah’s day and Matthew’s (or the days of the 70, for that matter) but as another poster pointed out in e-mail, this appears to be one of those urban-legend-style factoids that “everybody knows” but has no basis in fact or expert opinion.
The general thrust, though, is whether the Holy Spirit, knowing what’s in store for Mary some years down the pike, might so move Isaiah that he, writing of what he had spoken for a given 7th century BC circumstance, used terms that sound like they fit an entirely different situation lo those many years later. Of course, the question of whether you believe in the Holy Spirit and in any sort of verbal inspiration or in any sort of typology enters into the picture in a big way there.
Well, actually, Poly, i am pretty sure that Isaiah meant her as a “virgin”, as that is how the Septuagint translated “almah”. Connotations of words do certainly change, and if translators MUCH closer to Isaiahs time were sure that “almah” meant, in this context “parthenos” or “virgin”- they very likely knew what they were doing. However, only a strict & literal interpretation of that verse would have that virgin concieve while STILL a virgin.
I don’t think so. Isaiah knew of the word besulah and he knew of the word almah. Now, there is no question that besulah means virgin. If Isaiah wanted to make it perfectly clear that he meant a virgin, why wouldn’t he use besulah?
Zev Steinhardt
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 01-02-2001 at 08:11 AM]
[nitpick alert]
“Nice” didn’t used to mean “accurate” or “precise”. It used to mean “foolish”. It comes from the Latin nescius which means “ignorant”. According to a reference work that I nicely lent my sister a couple years back, the word became associated with the type of coy behavior used by those deeply in love and eventually gained the meaning that it has today.
I often say “that’s nice” in situations where it would be imprudent to say “that’s stupid”.
[/nitpick alert]
Carry on.
zev- I have heard that the word “besulah” was simply almost never used in the OT, as 'almah" had the same connotation, but in a nicer way. Like in medieval times, “maiden” was oftimes used for “virgin”, even tho it actually meant “unmarried young girl”. However, the point remains that words do shift in connotative meanings. Next, the Septuagint translators were much closer in time to Isaiah, and would have a better idea of his connotations. And they translated 'almah" as “parthenos”. There are other greek words that mean “girl”. But again, even if “besulah” had been used, it could simply mean “See that young maid over there? She has not even known the touch of a man yet, but she will concieve a manchild…”. One would have to be very literal (and Matthew was) to read that even if that maiden is a virgin NOW, she would nessesarily CONCIEVE while still a virgin.
2sense- I wish i had the BIG Oxford, but the small version gives as meanings “4.Fine or subtle 5. fastidious; 6. scupulous.”
For the history of the word Nice see
http://www.word-detective.com/back-q.html#nice
It did originally mean ignorant, but later it did have the meaning of overly precise or fastidious.
A couple of good websites:
Jesus Christ: Liar or Lord.
Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence of Jesus
I recently saw The Mask of Zorro. Now I’ve got this picture of Jesus, with a thick Mexican accent (of course!), swinging from chandeliers, carving a “J” on Pontius Pilate’s cheek, disrobing Mary Magdalene with a few well placed strokes of the rapier, and being chased by the Roman legions while simultaneously riding a donkey and a mule…
Nope.
Take that first site. On its “The Bible: Documented History” page we find the following reference under the heading “Evidence from Non-Jewish Sources”:
Thallus: an Analysis (1999), by Richard Carrier, from the Internet Infidels website, seems to do a pretty thorough job of taking this reference apart:
All in all, the “Thallus” story seems to be remarkably poorly grounded. (And here’s a problem of course: the “Liar or Lord” site tossed off a single-line reference; I’ve quoted three paragraphs refuting it, and that’s just an excerpt from a work of nearly 5,000 words, not counting the bibliography.)
From that same site’s “Evidence from Non-Jewish Sources”, we get:
From The “Testimony” of Mara Bar-Serapion by Farrell Till (also on the Internet Infidels site) we can see that this is at least an overstatement of the evidence (even by the best pro-Christian interpretation of things, the fact remains that the original letter of Mara Bar-Serapion doesn’t actually mention Jesus by name, and may well have not been referring to him at all).
From Jeff Lowder, of the Internet Infidels again, there are again problems here. Basically, Tacitus says “Nero persecuted the Christians, a group of superstitious people whose name comes from their founder, Christus, who was put to death by Pontius Pilate”. The problem is that Tacitus was writing in 115 C.E., about events which took place in 64 C.E. Did he actually know of independent sources for the historicity of Jesus, or was he merely repeating the Christians’ own story of how their religion was founded? (No one questions the existence of people called “Christians” in the 1st and 2nd centuries.) It is, at any rate, at best only evidence for the historicity of Jesus, and hardly evidence for his resurrection, his messiahship, or that he was God Incarnate. Tacitus, after all, says “Christus…was put to death by Pontius Pilate” (my emphasis); he doesn’t say anything about a resurrection (not even “but the silly, superstitious Christians say he rose from the dead”).
Again, see Jeff Lowder of the Internet Infidels. At best this passage would only prove that there were Christians in the Roman Empire, which at some point in history becomes an undeniable fact.
See Lowder’s analysis of this one as well.
Frankly, none of these has anything to do with my original question in this thread anyway. Mainly these are references which could conceivably be used to show the historicity of a person named Jesus; they have nothing to do with proving he was a God-Man or “the Christ” or rose from the dead. The “Thallus” passage is the most sensational, with its suggestion that there is independent confirmation of the world being plunged into darkness upon Jesus’ death; it also appears almost laughably flimsy. They certainly have no bearing on whether or not that passage from Isaiah is a genuine messianic prophecy, or if so if it did or even could have referred to Jesus, or whether or not Isaiah 9:6 (9:5) signifies any early Jewish belief in the concept of the messiah as a “God Incarnate”, whether or not Jesus was or was not the fulfillment of that belief.
That site goes on to discuss the Talmud, which it admits may date from as late as 200, and so doesn’t really have much to say about the historicity of Jesus one way or the other; and Josephus, whose references to Jesus are controversial at best. The Talmud and Josephus references (leaving out the infamous and almost certainly fake/doctored passage in Josephus where he all but acclaims Jesus as the Son of God) at best show Jesus was a real peson. So what? Even most atheists will accept that.
The second site is largely a repeat of the first site.
:Whew:
Say, did you know that the distinguished Egyptian historian Ijustmadehimupius wrote, in the Utterly Credulous Compendium of Gossip, Rumors, and Lies of the Roman Empire, that, according to the now-lost personal diary of Pontius Pilate’s mistress’ hairdresser
(The Library of Alexandria’s Temple of Serapis branch was of course burned to the ground by a Christian mob in 391 C.E.)
There. Now let’s see the Christians spend a few thousand words refuting that.
If the Septuagint was originally just the 5 books of Moses, and the early church later was instrumental in translating the REST of the OT, then why wouldn’t they use a translation of a word that better fits their theology. It’s certain not that uncommon, even more recently. For example, the NIV translation of the bible was done under major influence of the Christian Reformed church, and certain translations and many footnotes are favorable to their own interpretations and doctrines. Even in the dubious sites that nOmega provided (go check out this site for info as well), the “evidence” provided is almost exclusively 70 years after Jesus’ death. And included in that “evidence” is the obviously bogus quote of Flavius Josephus about Jesus which shows that the early church was not beyond deception to get people to believe. Paul even encouarged it.
As for typology Polycarp, do you hold the notion that the variety of dying saviour myths that abounded back in those days was also a type of typology, just not from biblical sources? So a south-american dying savior myth actually pointed to Jesus because God was working through the Pagans to show them the up and coming “truth”? Again, I see it as spin-control for Jesus not returning the third time and fulfilling the actual OT verses concerning the Messiah.
Damn it! I forgot to mention that the site I referenced above also has references to typology and archetypes, but as to how the OT verses foreshadowed Jesus as the enemy of God, not the savior of the world. It’s just an example of how you can take verses and interpret them however you like.
Quimby- the Original Septuagint translation was just the 1st five books- but they went on, later, to translate the rest of the OT, including Isaiah. The process took some 2 centuries. Thus, Isaiah was translated into the Greek long before JC. Matthew, likely could read Greek, & Hebrew (altho spoke Aramaic commonly), also used “parthenos”. Since 10s of thousands of Hebrews could read both Greek & Hebrew, it is unlikely that he was completely mistranslating the word. At worst- the word 'almah" should mean “virgin” (in this context), as a young unmarried girl should be one.
There are 2 mentions of JC in Josephus. One is a long passage, mostly complimentary to Christianity, and is controversial, but not nessesarily bogus. Oxford casts doubts on the passage, but does not wholly discredit it. JC is also mentioned, breifly, as the “brother of James”- when that worthy was executed by the Sanhedrin. No one disputes this passage, AFAIK.
And, certainly, passages like that from Tacticus do not show JC was anything but a executed prophet- but they do show, nearly conclusively, that JC was certainly a real man, who was executed by the Romans. Note- the Romans- who had access to the records- never, AFAIK, disputed the HISTORICAL reality of JC. If He had NOT been executed by Pilate, it would have been simple & crushing to mention, THEN, that “there are no records of this man who you claim to follow”. Doubts as to the historical reality of JC did not arise until much later. The Romans kept good records- ir is too bad so many were destroyed. But, before they were destroyed- thise records cast NO doubt as to the historical reality of JC.
I’m sorry, Daniel, but that’s not quite true. Besulah (together with it’s plural besulos is used over 30 times in the OT. Almah (with it’s plural, Almos is used only nine times.
**
OK. But does “parthenos” really mean virgin. I found in the Septuagint where variations of the word “parthenos” is used in Genesis 34 to describe Dinah after she was raped (and definitely no longer a virgin). I asked if these words (parthenon and parthenou) also meant “virgin” and in this thread the consensus seems to be that this word means virgin. If so, did the authors of the Septuagint really mean virgin?
**
But the bottom line is, Isaiah surely knew of the word besulah (which, in Hebrew, is, and always has been, unambiguously a virgin). If he wanted to make the point that the woman would be a virgin, I contend he would have used that word instead of almah.
Zev Steinhardt
Hey nebuli,
Thanks for the info and thanks for the new bookmark.
The key there is the original septugint, which was completed by 200 BCE. But, wasn’t there at least 3 versions by the time of Iraneus abound 200 CE. I believe by that time, Iraneus alluded to the translation of the word “almah”, which was already being held in dispute. I think if they were argueing about it 200 years after Jesus, we aren’t going to get very far 1800 years after that. There was doubt from almost the very beginning. And damn, I thought we were getting so close :rolleyes:
Well, with statements like it’s “controversial, but not nessesarily bogus” and “casts doubts on the passage, but does not wholly discredit it”, let me reconsider my stance . . .
Are we using non-existant records to prove points here? “Seriously, I had the winning lotto numbers before they went up in that house fire. Don’t believe me, here, ask my friend here, he’ll tell you.”
I’m not doubting the historical personage of Jesus, or whether his mother was a virgin before having some kind of intercourse to conceive him. I’m doubting that the verse in the OP was refering to the Messiah and to Jesus. And I have trouble believing that the early christian church wasn’t a bit “liberal” with it’s rewrites of texts and insertion of statements into other historical documents. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the church was weilding some serious power throughout history.
Of course, a little knowledge can be very harmful, and I’ll admit that my knowledge of all this is bits and pieces here and there. But I am here to fight my own ignorance, not necessarily to attempt to enlighten others. Now if I can only figure out what AFAIK means . . .
zev- you make some good points. Which verse in Gen 34, by the way? In olden days, oftimes, when they wanted to clearly note a young girl as a “virgin”, they would instead use the word “maiden”, even tho it did not nessesarily mean virgin, as it was more polite. Does Isaiah ever use “Besulah”? Honestly, my Biblical Greek is very poor- true, i can sometimes puzzle out a verse, but I rely on other sources- and my source said “parthenos cannot be mistranslated- it mans virgin intactos”. A dictionary agreed with this- but it was not an exaustive dictionary- so i guess it is NOT impossible for “parthenos” to include non-virgins- within MY frame of expertise. If there was a Biblical greek expert around…
Quimby- I beleive that Isaiah, being one of the more important works- was worked on & translated early. Yes, absence of evidence is not nessesarily evidence by itself. BUT, you have the Romans, who were busy persecuting the Christians, and would happily have latched onto anything which would discredit that faith. And the Romans kept excellent records- THUS, I submit, that the Romans certainly would have looked up the relevant records- and if there was no mention of a “Jesus” (or whichever version) being Crucified by Pilate (at the right time, for the right crime)- they certainly would have trumpeted it about. They did not. Thus, altho certainly this absence of evidence is NOT conclusive, in this case it is evidence all by itself.