1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt might be correct (I don't know Hebrew, so I can't say for sure) - but irrelevant anyway.
Is Nemesio's analysis of the Hebrew text incorrect?
If the Jewish translators of the Hebrew to the Greek Septuaguint did not interpret the word for "maiden" to mean "virgin" rather than just "young woman" - then the latter is the word/term they would've used in the LXX. The wording of the LXX itself tells us something about how the Jews of the period understood their scriptures.
Originally posted by lucifershammerPerhaps those Jews didn't understand them properly--traditions do tatter with time. In any case, you can hardly talk about Jesus fulfilling ancient prophecy if the meaning of the text shifted shortly before his arrival on the world stage.
The wording of the LXX itself tells us something about how the Jews of the period understood their scriptures.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe meaning of the text did not shift "suddenly" prior to Jesus - the Septuaguint has been around since about 200 BC.
Perhaps those Jews didn't understand them properly--traditions do tatter with time. In any case, you can hardly talk about Jesus fulfilling ancient prophecy if the meaning of the text shifted shortly before his arrival on the world stage.
Also, the most reasonable hypothesis is that the Jewish translators came upon the term, saw there were two possible translations to the Greek, and chose whatever word best expressed the way in which Jewish society understood the term at the time. So, in effect, the meaning of the text (i.e. virgin instead of maiden) had to be part of the Jewish oral tradition for about three centuries prior to the birth of Christ.
Originally posted by NemesioThis is interesting, Nemesio, but rather hard to conceive of, sorry about the pun.
There is no mention of 'seed of a woman.' You are imparting a meaning that is
not there. Such a meaning would be in contradiction to the seed-vessel relationship
which was the 'science' of the times and is iterated several times in the Bible.
Nemesio
You are saying that according to the understanding of people 2,000 years ago, that every child was the offspring (genetically speaking, you understand) of only the father?
How can that be?
Say we go back 2,000 years, and observe a woman with a ridiculously big nose, who marries some sensitive chap who can look past such things, sorry again about the pun.
When the children arrived with big hooters, are you saying people didn't draw the logical conclusion?
It seems common sense to me.
Plus, have people not been breeding animals for far longer than that? I know the Greeks bred horses (actually a friend of mine is writing a doctorate on that subject, if I am not mistaken), and as Plato mentions it, for example, as something which had been going on for a long time before his Republic, it was not a new idea at all. And Plato was also very aware of the joint genetic responsibility of the sexes.
Ok, Plato was not Jewish, but can it be that the people of the Holy Lands were so illogical? Are you sure about what you claim? Can you back it up with any evidence?
Cheers,
sjeg
Originally posted by sjegMohammed had some interesting theories on how a child derives its characteristics from its parents.
This is interesting, Nemesio, but rather hard to conceive of, sorry about the pun.
You are saying that according to the understanding of people 2,000 years ago, that every child was the offspring (genetically speaking, you understand) of only the father?
How can that be?
Say we go back 2,000 years, and observe a woman with a ridiculously big nose, who ...[text shortened]... l? Are you sure about what you claim? Can you back it up with any evidence?
Cheers,
sjeg
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIs Nemesio's analysis of the Hebrew text incorrect?
Is Nemesio's analysis of the Hebrew text incorrect?
No, I think it’s correct. There are at least (I’ve only done a cursory search) three words in Hebrew bearing on this question:
(1) b’tulah, which can mean a chaste maiden, a virgin or a bride.
(2) na’ara, which means girl or maid (apparently younger than almah, below).
(3) almah, which means maiden, young woman or young marriageable woman. It is this latter term that is used in Isaiah 7:14—
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” This is the NRSV translation; KJV translates both words as “virgin,” and appears to translate na’ara as “damsel.”
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerAlso, the most reasonable hypothesis is that the Jewish translators came upon the term, saw there were two possible translations to the Greek, and chose whatever word best expressed the way in which Jewish society understood the term at the time. So, in effect, the meaning of the text (i.e. virgin instead of maiden) had to be part of the Jewish oral tradition for about three centuries prior to the birth of Christ.
The meaning of the text did not shift "suddenly" prior to Jesus - the Septuaguint has been around since about 200 BC.
Also, the most reasonable hypothesis is that the Jewish translators came upon the term, saw there were two possible translations to the Greek, and chose whatever word best expressed the way in which Jewish society understood the t ...[text shortened]... to be part of the Jewish oral tradition for about three centuries prior to the birth of Christ.
I disagree with this on several grounds—
(1) I’m just a stubborn Hebrew “chauvinist.”
(2) The Jewish translators had to know that any single-word translation from the Hebrew into another language was going to be inaccurate to some degree. There is a statement in the Talmud, attributed to a second-century sage, Rabbi Yehudah: “One who translates a verse literally [i.e., single-word to single-word] is a liar; one who adds to it is a blasphemer.”* This does not mean the rabbis condemned all translation; it is simply a warning of the perils. Even the Targum of Onkelos, a translation into Aramaic, is thought of as a “commentary.”
(3) They were translating for a Jewish audience that had lost their facility with Hebrew; but in that context, the words could be explained in terms of their underlying Hebrew meanings. (What I am trying to get at is: without the cultural background of the Greek language, including Greek myth, the Jewish audience and users of the Septuagint may not have assumed that parthenos meant a biological virgin.) Just as we today look back at the original languages to get a handle on English translations, the rabbis of Greek-speaking Jewish groups may well have explained the underlying Jewish understanding of the term.
Let me give a contemporary example: In the Jewish Publication Society (JPS, 1985) translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, they follow other English translations in rendering the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) as “LORD.” Now, many Christians may not know the background for that (I did not until adulthood; it was not part of my catechism or Christian education generally). But a Jew, reading the JPS, is going to know that what is really there is the unpronounceable name of God, for which Adonai was substituted (actually, the vowel-points for Adonai, inserted into YHVH to “cue” the reader). (In my Orthodox translation of the Tanach, Hashem is substituted for YHVH.)
(4) Similarly, the Torah scrolls were not read in Greek, but in Hebrew. There was, for religious Jews, not a total divorce from the Hebrew—I think of some Jewish kids today who have said that the only Hebrew they really knew was the portion they learned to read/recite from the scroll at their bar/bat mitzvah. Their prayer book (siddur) may be in English, or both Hebrew and English, but you still read from the Torah scrolls in Hebrew.
(5) Off the top of my head, I’m sure I have not come across any reference to virgin birth(s) in the Jewish oral tradition. (I cannot speak to the apopcryphal/deuterocanonical texts).
(6) I’m just a stubborn Hebrew “chauvinist.”
Now, I do think that (especially in the case of Matthew) one can treat the whole thing as a “midrash” on the Hebrew scriptures. Remember, that for Jewish authors, midrash is a perfectly legitimate method. Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner argued that the Matthean Gospel was a classic example of a midrashic type. In other words, these writers employed the method of midrash to construct their new understanding and ground it in the Hebrew Scriptures (perhaps consulting the LXX in the process). If they were doing midrash (and the early Church Fathers, too, I think, were not unfamiliar with midrash), they were not doing strict exegesis, as we tend to understand the term today; midrash** certainly seems to involve “endogesis” as well.
* Quoted by Daniel Matt in his “Translator’s Introduction” to the Pritzker Edition Zohar.
** “midrash” (small m) refers to method; “Midrash” (capital M) refers to a specific body of literature.
LATE EDIT: Re the “two possible translations to the Greek”—
parthenos can apparently mean unmarrried girl, maiden, or young woman, as well as virgin.
thugatera can mean female, daughter, woman, female descendant, female inhabitant.
I am relying on my BibleWorks morphology/dictionaries and Langenscheidt’s Hebrew/English and Greek/English dictionaries.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo, which was the true Word of God: the original text, or the later oral tradition?
Also, the most reasonable hypothesis is that the Jewish translators came upon the term, saw there were two possible translations to the Greek, and chose whatever word best expressed the way in which Jewish society understood the term at the time. So, in effect, the meaning of the text (i.e. virgin instead of maiden) had to be part of the Jewish oral tradition for about three centuries prior to the birth of Christ.
Originally posted by Nemesio15 And I will put enmity
Offspring does not imply that the woman has any seed. The woman's
offspring is the product of the man's seed grown in her vessel. Fruit
of the woman's womb is grown from the seed planted by man.
The seed-vessel was the science of the times of whom? Adam? Moses?
Um. The Jewish authors of the various books of the Bible.
Nemesio[/b]
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."
a. Or seed
I think you may want to re-think your stance on 'implications' and the like. 3:15 is directed at the serpent. Next comes the indictment on the woman, then the man. We can get into the exact Hebrew text, if you wish.
Here, in this translation, the serpent is cursed with the seed of the woman, her offspring will be the serpent's undoing. EVERYWHERE else in the Scriptures, a man is introduced by his relation to his father. Begat, begat, begat. But here, a Man is introduced by His relation to His mother. Curious.
So you are asserting that the science of Moses' time was this seed-vessel phenomenon? Somehow, someone forgot to tell Moses about the up-to-date stuff when he sat down to write the beginnings.