Is it virgin or "young maiden" in Isa 7:14 ?

[torahgrandma]

What does the forum think?

[cyberlizard]

i actually think this is a strawman distinction... why, becuase it was expected that young unmarried maidens would be virgins....

but that is just my take!


Steve

[ozell]

What does the forum think?

14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel

Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Lk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

The OT says virgin
The NT says virgin

virgin

[stone]

What does the forum think?


depends on your source of information, and your option to choose what you want to believe.

[ChazakEmunah]

You're gonna get different answers depending on a person's perspective.

Traditional Jews will tell you almah means young woman and betulah means virgin.

christians/Messianics will tell you it means virgin. It's all about perspective.

[stone]

Interesting..

This is from the complete jewish bible:

14 Therefore Adonai himself will give you people a sign: the young woman will become pregnant, bear a son and name him 'Immanu El [God is with us].

[stone]

However, the question arises, how is it a sign for a young woman to become pregnant, when this happens everyday?

[simchat_torah]

Using Jewish idioms from the first century we see hints that Mary wasn't a virgin, but rather past the age of child bearing.

Thus, depending on the reader, it could be interpretted one of three ways:
Virgin, young woman, or a woman who was post-menopausal.

[stone]

Using Jewish idioms from the first century we see hints that Mary wasn't a virgin, but rather past the age of child bearing.

Thus, depending on the reader, it could be interpretted one of three ways:
Virgin, young woman, or a woman who was post-menopausal.


Whatever it means, how is it a sign? The only interpretation that would make it a sign from g-d is a virgin becoming pregnant.

[Talmidah]

The pregnancy wasn't the sign anyway. The age of the child when certain things happened was the sign.

[stone]

The pregnancy wasn't the sign anyway. The age of the child when certain things happened was the sign.

That's not what's written.

[Talmidah]

That's not what's written.

Isaiah 7
10. And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying,

11. "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."

12. And Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord."

13. And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?

14. Therefore, the Lord, 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.

15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

[stone]

two kings is a clue here. :thumbsup:

[ChazakEmunah]

Interesting..

This is from the complete jewish bible:

14 Therefore Adonai himself will give you people a sign: the young woman will become pregnant, bear a son and name him 'Immanu El [God is with us].
Interesting. Stern translated it correctly. I didn't know that.

[ChazakEmunah]

Isaiah 7
10. And the Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying,

11. "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God: ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."

12. And Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord."

13. And he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?

14. Therefore, the Lord, 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.

15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.

16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
Yasher Koach!

[ChazakEmunah]

two kings is a clue here. :thumbsup:
You do know that at the time of this prophecy there were 2 Kings who opposed Ahaz right?

[Talmidah]

two kings is a clue here. :thumbsup:

Exactly.

Ahaz was king of Judah. He was distraught because of the threats from King Rezin and King Petah. Hashem sends Isaiah to him to comfort him in the knowledge that his kingdom would not fall. He even tells King Ahaz to name a sign that would confirm that what he was being told was true. He refused. So Hashem himself gave King Ahaz a sign. By the time the child spoken about is of the age to reject the bad and choose the good, those two king will be no threat to King Ahaz's kingdom.

What I wonder is, if this was actually referring to Jesus/Yeshua, how would it be of any comfort or assurance to King Ahaz and his fears of being conquered by those two kings?

[stone]

You do know that at the time of this prophecy there were 2 Kings who opposed Ahaz right?

I meant it in the context that at the time Y-shua lived, there were 2 kings over Israel.

If the prophesy was to be fulfilled in Ahaz time, then who was the messiah?

[simchat_torah]

Whatever it means, how is it a sign? The only interpretation that would make it a sign from g-d is a virgin becoming pregnant.A woman who is past the age of giving birth, becoming pregnant, is definitely a miraculous sign. As well, it was how the prophecy was originally fulfilled physically.

Interesting. Stern translated it correctly. I didn't know that.The "OT" portion of Stern's complete bible wasn't a translation done by himself. It was a translation he found which he in particular enjoyed. He only translated the NT.
While the Old Testament is a paraphrase of the 1917 Jewish Publication Society version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Publication_Society_of_America_Version) of the Tanakh, the New Testament is a fresh translation from the ancient Greek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Jewish_Bible

[stone]

heh, dawns on me i should move this over to debate now.

moving...

[stone]

A woman who is past the age of giving birth, becoming pregnant, is definitely a miraculous sign. As well, it was how the prophecy was originally fulfilled physically.


Are you talking about Sarah?



The "OT" portion of Stern's complete bible wasn't a translation done by himself. It was a translation he found which he in particular enjoyed. He only translated the NT.

Does it mean, since the translation he uses reads yound woman, that it from a Masoretic text?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Jewish_Bible

lxx?

[simchat_torah]

Are you talking about Sarah?And Mary. The way Elizabeth addressed her was more formally the way a woman in first century Judaism would have addressed an older woman. Thus there are hints that Mary was past the age of childbrith.

Considering the original prophecy (Sarah) was literally about a woman who went through post menopause, I don't know why it would be interpretted differently in Mary's case.

Though, as I pointed out, there's validity to all 3 interpretations.

Does it mean, since the translation he uses reads yound woman, that it from a Masoretic text?The Septuagint is never to be used authoritatively. Even the Jews from the first few centuries after it was penned considered it more of a paraphrase than a direct translation (as no "translation" was considered authoritative).

I guess as a note, Stern chose to paraphrase the Jewish Publication Soceity's translation of the Masoratic texts.

But I wasn't really giving a commentary between the MSS and LXX, I was merely stating that Stern didn't translate the OT, but used a paraphrased version of a translation that was already done in the early 1900's.

[ChavaK]

14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel



The OT says virgin


Maybe in your English translation it does- the
Hebrew does not....:wave:

[ChavaK]

Whatever it means, how is it a sign? The only interpretation that would make it a sign from g-d is a virgin becoming pregnant.

But this is even more of a problem....how would
you ever verify if someone is a virgin?

[ChavaK]

If the prophesy was to be fulfilled in Ahaz time, then who was the messiah?

Why do you think this is a messianic prophecy?
:wave:

[ChazakEmunah]

Why do you think this is a messianic prophecy?
:wave:
Exactly. That's just it. Traditional Judaism does not interpret this to be a Messianic prophecy.

[Talmidah]

.

If the prophesy was to be fulfilled in Ahaz time, then who was the messiah?Where does the passage say that it was about a messiah?

[torahgrandma]

[/b]



Maybe in your English translation it does- the
Hebrew does not....:wave:

almah can also mean virgin :wave:

[TheRabbi]

The sign was that before the child was old enough to know right from wrong, The 2 kingdoms that Ahaz feared would be destroyed and no longer threaten Judah.

If you read more than the mistranslated verse, this is abundantly clear.

The question then becomes, how could a child born over 600 years after king Ahaz was dead and gone be a sign to him?

This begs a second question. If this child is Jesus, when exactly was it that he didn't know the difference between good and evil?

The fallacy that back in the good old days, young women were assumed to be virgins is ludicrous. There were just as many prostitutes and strumpets back then as there are now. Let's not try to impose a false virtue on ancient Israel that didn't exist. Anyone who holds that almah means virgin, must contend with the following scripture.

Proverbs 30:18 There are three that are beyond me and a fourth that I do not know: [19] the way of an eagle in the heavens; the way of a snake upon a rock; the way of a ship in the heart of the sea; and the way of a man with an almah. [20] Such is the way of the adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, "I have done no wrong."

It's quite obvious that there are no virgins in this passage.

It's funny that every time Isaiah is clearly speaking of a virgin, he uses the word betulah. Yet our Christian friends would have us believe that he suddenly, in one isolated case, switched to another word which somehow also means virgin. In order to believe this, you have to really want to.

[ozell]

[/b]



Maybe in your English translation it does- the
Hebrew does not....:wave:

Hi Sister,

what about the OT in Chinese translation? or Spanish, or Swahili?

what about us who can't speak or read Hebrew?

can we safely assume that the translators of the OT correctly translated the word virgin.

[TheRabbi]

The Septuagint is never to be used authoritatively.

The prophets, writings andApocrypha of the Septuagint are Christian works and were not translated by Jews at all.

[ozell]

what about this scripture?

Isa9v
6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7: Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
8: The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.

surely these titles cannot fit a man born of man and woman.

It fits what Isaiah said in

Isa7
14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

[TheRabbi]

Those aren't titles, they are names. I personally know people with some of those names. Do you think that a person who names their son Yoel Aviad is calling their child "Lord God the Eternal Father"? You guys should really try to get familiar with the culture that produced your Bible.

[torahgrandma]

Anyone who holds that almah means virgin, must contend with the following scripture.

Proverbs 30:18 There are three that are beyond me and a fourth that I do not know: [19] the way of an eagle in the heavens; the way of a snake upon a rock; the way of a ship in the heart of the sea; and the way of a man with an almah. [20] Such is the way of the adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, "I have done no wrong."

It's quite obvious that there are no virgins in this passage.

It's funny that every time Isaiah is clearly speaking of a virgin, he uses the word betulah. Yet our Christian friends would have us believe that he suddenly, in one isolated case, switched to another word which somehow also means virgin. In order to believe this, you have to really want to.

Anyone who holds that almah means virgin........


Rashi, is probably one of the most respected sages and beloved commentators when it comes to the Hebrew Scriptures. Here is an excerpt from the Art Scroll preface referencing him:

"In the Chumash portion of this work, the translation follows Rashi, the "Father of Commentators"…..

In his commentary on Songs 1:3, Rashi associates almah with virgin in his final comments near the end of the quote. This can be found in the Judaica Press Complete Tanach with commentary by Rashi. The bolding below is how it appears in the online commentary (red bolding by me):

3. Because of the fragrance of your goodly oils, your name is 'oil poured forth.' Therefore, the maidens loved you.
Because of the fragrance of your goodly oils A good name is referred to by the expression, “good oil.”
Because of the fragrance of your goodly oils that those dwelling at the ends of the earth smelled, those who heard of Your good fame when You performed awesome deeds in Egypt.
your name is ‘oil poured forth.’ Your name is [thus] called. It is said about you that you are oil that is constantly being poured forth so that your fragrant scent wafts forth to a distance, for so is the nature of fragrant oil. As long as it is in a sealed bottle, its scent does not carry. If one opens it and pours the oil into another vessel, its scent carries.
Therefore, the maidens loved you Jethro came at the sound of the news and converted; also Rahab the harlot said, (Josh. 2:10f.): “For we have heard how the Lord dried up, etc.,” and thereby, “the Lord your God, He is God in heaven, etc.”
maidens virgins, since the text compares Him to a youth whose beloved holds him dear, and according to the allegory, the maidens are the nations.


Could this comment by Rashi be interpreted that almah could be construed as being synonymous with bethulah in some passages? Bethulah is often times translated as virgin in the Hebrew Scriptures, but not in all cases.

Here is the phrase from Songs 1:3:
alamowt ahavuka עֲלָמֹות אֲהֵבוְּךָ
“virgins/maidens loved you.”

Alamowt [I](plural) is from the same root word found in Isaiah 7:14 which is almah. (H5959)

[ChazakEmunah]

Hi Sister,

what about the OT in Chinese translation? or Spanish, or Swahili?

what about us who can't speak or read Hebrew?
I'm sorry, but the only way that one can really understand the Tanakh is with a knowledge of working Hebrew (ie... you can read, write, and understand it).


can we safely assume that the translators of the OT correctly translated the word virgin.
Nope not at all. It was mentioned earlier that the christian OT is based on the Septuagint that was put together by...... christians. So the only available reliable text is the Masoretic text. The Artscroll Tanakh uses this for their English translation.

[Talmidah]

what about us who can't speak or read Hebrew?

Learn Hebrew?

[TheRabbi]

Could this comment by Rashi be interpreted that almah could be construed as being synonymous with bethulah in some passages? Bethulah is often times translated as virgin in the Hebrew Scriptures, but not in all cases.
Of course it could and that's my point. Almah means young woman, period. Can a young woman be a virgin?, of course. Can a young woman be a prostitute? Absolutely.

Rashi only inserts a comment when he sees something that is not readily apparent in the text. The very fact that he felt a need to tell us that these Almot were virgins is proof that the average reader would not reach this conclusion on his own. So to make things clear, Rashi uses the word Betulot.

Why would Isaiah use an ambiguous term if the whole prophecy hinged on this woman being a virgin? Shouldn't he know that most sane human beings would assume that almah could obviously not mean virgin here since the woman is pregnant (Just as it obviously doesn't mean virgin in Proverbs 30). Why does Isaiah use Betulah every other time he wants to say virgin?

Why does Isaiah go in to the prophetess and conceive a child with her in the very next chapter? Why does Isaiah say that God gave Isaiah and his children as signs symbols in israel? Who is the Immanuel we suddenly see Isaiah speaking to in the very next chapter?

The answers are obvious for anyone reading the text for what it says, and not for what they want it to say.

[ozell]

Learn Hebrew?


why learn hebrew? when the Lord said.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

The Lord scattered Israel to every nation under the sun.


Deut28v

49: The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50: A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:
63: And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
64: And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.


Deut30v
1: And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
2: And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
3: That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.


The Lord said he will speak to Israel in another tongue.

a tongue other that Hebrew.

The majority of the israelites cannot know hebrew

but they must be able to be a nation of preist and a royal preisthood.

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

1Pt 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

so the israelites must know another language other than hebrew?

[TheRabbi]

why learn hebrew? when the Lord said.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
If you don't understand Hebrew, how do you know what the Lord said?

[torahgrandma]

Of course it could and that's my point. Almah means young woman, period. Can a young woman be a virgin?, of course.


Exodus 2
2 And the woman (vatahar ha ishah) conceived and bore a son; and she saw him, that he was beautiful. And she concealed him three months.

Moses mother was obviously not a virgin, because Moses already had a sister, so why wasn’t she called almah also instead of ishah?

Exodus 2
7 Then said his (Moses) sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to you a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for you?
8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her (ha almah), Go. And the girl went and called the child's mother.

Question: Was Moses sister, who was obviously young not a virgin?


Now here is the problem. You are trying to say that almah does not mean virgin in Isaiah 7:14 (as most counter missionaries do also), but as demonstrated above, as can be done in many other passages, you can not definitively prove that from the Hebrew, and that is my point.

[torahgrandma]

Of course it could and that's my point. Almah means young woman, period. Can a young woman be a virgin?, of course.


Exodus 2
2 And the woman (vatahar ha ishah) conceived and bore a son; and she saw him, that he was beautiful. And she concealed him three months.

Moses mother was obviously not a virgin, because Moses already had a sister, so why wasn’t she also called almah instead of ishah?

Exodus 2
7 Then said his (Moses) sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to you a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for you?
8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her (ha almah), Go. And the girl went and called the child's mother.

Question: Was Moses sister, who was obviously young not a virgin?

Now here is the problem. You are trying to say that almah can not mean virgin in Isaiah 7:14 (as the counter missionaries do also), but as demonstrated above, as can be done in many other passages, you can not definitively prove that from the Hebrew, as well as the fact that bethulah is not always a virgin, and that is my point.

[TheRabbi]

I am saying that Almah means young woman.

Moses mother, older woman = Ishah

Moses sister, young woman = Almah

Get it?

[Talmidah]

Exodus 2
2 And the woman (vatahar ha ishah) conceived and bore a son; and she saw him, that he was beautiful. And she concealed him three months.

Moses mother was obviously not a virgin, because Moses already had a sister, so why wasn’t she also called almah instead of ishah?

Exodus 2
7 Then said his (Moses) sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to you a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for you?
8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her (ha almah), Go. And the girl went and called the child's mother.

Question: Was Moses sister, who was obviously young not a virgin?

Now here is the problem. You are trying to say that almah can not mean virgin in Isaiah 7:14 (as the counter missionaries do also), but as demonstrated above, as can be done in many other passages, you can not definitively prove that from the Hebrew, as well as the fact that bethulah is not always a virgin, and that is my point.


Of course an almah can be a virgin. And an almah can be a non-virgin.

Just as any young woman might or might not be a virgin.

[ozell]

If you don't understand Hebrew, how do you know what the Lord said?



the Lord said he will speak to his people in another tongue.

The Lord speaks many languages.

Gen6v
1: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2: And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3: And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4: And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5: And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6: And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7: Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8: So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9: Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

I guess the Lord knows the language of the fish and the fish knows hebrew.

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Jonah 2:10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The prophets, writings andApocrypha of the Septuagint are Christian works and were not translated by Jews at all.


How can that be since the Septuagint was translated more than a century before the time of Christ?

[simchat_torah]

How can that be since the Septuagint was translated more than a century before the time of Christ?You are correct. I think they made a slight mistake. But the fact remains that very few Jews in the first century, aside from the Natzarim (messianics) referred to the Septuagint. Thus it predominantly became associated with Christianity.

[TheRabbi]

I'm absolutely correct in my assertion. Christianity is woefully misled and ignorant about the Septuagint. Anyone who has read the sources and seen the manuscripts knows better. I'll go get the answer I wrote to Ger on this. Be right back.

[TheRabbi]

This is part of a response I wrote to Ger Tzedek concerning the LXX rendering of a certain verse in the Psalms.


The Septuagint rendering is totally irrelevant. Ready? I'm going to drop another bomb. The vast majority of Christians are under the incorrect assumption that the Septuagint is an ancient translation of the Tanach into Greek. The unquestionable fact is that the original Septuagint, translated by 72 Jewish scholars at Alexandria, was a translation of the 5 books of the Torah only!

The prophets, writings and apocrypha of the Septuagint are later, Christian works.

The letter of Aristeas in which the author describes the work King Ptolemy had ordered, states emphatically numerous times that he commisioned a translation of "The law of Israel", "our holy law" etc.

Josephus, in section 3 of the preface to his Antiquities, writes that it was "a translation of our Law and the constitution of our people contained therein, into the Greek tongue."

St. Jerome (Hardly considered a Jewish apologist) in the preface to his book of Hebrew Questions, concurs with Josephus that the Septuagint was a translation of "The law of Moses".

Even modern, fundamentalist Christian scholarship admits this. Christian exegetical scholar, Dr. FF Bruce (hailed as the founder of modern Evangelical theology) in his work, The Books and the Parchments, says "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the LXX, but lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles."

The Talmud aslo in Masechet Megillah, Daf Tet, Amud Alef, tells us "And in addition to this Boraitha it is stated: Said R. Jehudah: The sages allowed to write in Greek only the Pentateuch, but not anything else. And this was also allowed only because of what occurred with Ptolemy the king, as follows: It happened to Ptolemy the king that he took seventy-two elders from Jerusalem, and placed them in seventy-two separate chambers, and did not inform them to what purpose he had brought them. And afterward he entered to each of them, and said to them: Translate me the Torah of Moses from memory. And the Holy One, blessed be He, sent into the heart of each of them a counsel, and they all agreed to have one mind, and changed as follows: Instead of "In the beginning God created the world," they wrote, "God created the world in the beginning"; instead of Gen. i. 26 they wrote, "I will make a man in an image"; instead of Gen. ii. 2 they wrote, "And God finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day"; instead of Gen. v. 2 they wrote, "created him"; instead of Gen. xi. 7 they wrote, "Let me go down"; [xviii. 12]: "And Sarah laughed among her relatives"; instead of xlix. 6, "In their anger they slew an ox, and their self-will lamed a fattened ox." And instead of Ex. iv. 20, "Set them on a porter (man-carrier)"; instead of ibid. xii. 40, "Dwelt in Egypt and in other lands"; and ibid. xxiv. as ibid.,"


Hope this clears thing up

[simchat_torah]

Thanks Rabbi.

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The prophets, writings and apocrypha of the Septuagint are later, Christian works.


Later works? Of course. Nobody disputes that the Pentateuch is the oldest of the Septuagint translations, circa 250 B.C.
Christian works? No. The rest of the LXX was translated over the next two centuries, which would still place them before the time of Christ. To not only place such a late date on the rest of the Greek manuscripts (or even Isaiah), but ascribe Christian, rather than Jewish authorship to them is an extravagant hypothesis which you have simply not provided evidence for.


Even modern, fundamentalist Christian scholarship admits this. Christian exegetical scholar, Dr. FF Bruce (hailed as the founder of modern Evangelical theology) in his work, The Books and the Parchments, says "The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the LXX, but lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles."


After the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish interest in the Septuagint declined, and by the second century completely disappeared. This was partly due to the LXX's association with Christianity, but also because of Jewish migration to the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire. As a result, it was Christians who were left with the task of copying and preserving the Septuagint. It doesn't mean they wrote any of it!

There exist fragments of the Minor Prophets from the LXX that date to the first century B.C, so it is not unreasonable to suppose that Isaiah would be at least that old. Also, the New Testament extensively quotes the Septuagint, so we know that the Septuagint predates the New Testament. The Gospel of Matthew quotes the very verse this thread is discussing, and Paul quotes Isaiah in many of his letters. So if the LXX after the Pentateuch was translated by Christians, it would have to have been the earliest years of the Church. In fact, Christians would have had to have translated the entire remainder of the Tanach into Greek before they produced any literature of their own. With the resources the church had at the time of the apostles, this would have been a miracle comparable to the parting of the Red Sea!


But the fact remains that very few Jews in the first century, aside from the Natzarim (messianics) referred to the Septuagint.


Although I would dispute this, (many Jews at that time spoke Greek as their first language, and I am not aware that there were any other Greek translations) that's not really the point. The point is that if pre-Christian Jewish translators, with no axe to grind either way, translated "almah" as virgin, that indicates that at the time it was understood to be at least the implied meaning of the word.

[muffler dragon]

Of course an almah can be a virgin. And an almah can be a non-virgin.

Just as any young woman might or might not be a virgin.

Too true.

It would be nice if people understood that almah does NOT carry a sexual connotation.

Besides, it's evident that the woman was no longer a virgin since she was Isaiah's wife. And we all know what happens after Jewish wedding ceremonies. ;)

[muffler dragon]

Later works? Of course. Nobody disputes that the Pentateuch is the oldest of the Septuagint translations, circa 250 B.C.
Christian works? No. The rest of the LXX was translated over the next two centuries, which would still place them before the time of Christ. To not only place such a late date on the rest of the Greek manuscripts (or even Isaiah), but ascribe Christian, rather than Jewish authorship to them is an extravagant hypothesis which you have simply not provided evidence for.

FTR, the only thing that was translated by Jews in the Septuagint was the Torah. The Prophets and Writings were translated by "who knows". This is stated by Josephus.

The point is that if pre-Christian Jewish translators, with no axe to grind either way, translated "almah" as virgin, that indicates that at the time it was understood to be at least the implied meaning of the word.

Actually, this is moot since almah has no sexual connotation.

[TheRabbi]

There exist fragments of the Minor Prophets from the LXX that date to the first century B.C, so it is not unreasonable to suppose that Isaiah would be at least that old.

You have no choice but to "suppose". That's my point. Also, could you identify these fragments please? I put forth the effort to list my sources, I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you.


The point is that if pre-Christian Jewish translators, with no axe to grind either way, translated "almah" as virgin, that indicates that at the time it was understood to be at least the implied meaning of the word.


That's amighty big "if". The Church hands me a Greek Isaiah that we can demonstrate was modified many times over the centuries (Origen produced the first standardized version of it in the Hexapla) and you want to attribute it's words to "Pre-Christian Jews". It just doesn't work.

Your contention that parthenos means "virgin" is also incorrect. The Greek word parthenos can mean either a young woman or a virgin; for this reason the Greek word parthenos can be found in the Septuagint referring to someone who is not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4, Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled. The Bible reports that after Shechem had violated her, "his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (LXX: parthenos) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (LXX: parthenos)." Clearly, Dinah was not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos, the very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14.

[GerTzedek]

Your contention that parthenos means "virgin" is also incorrect. The Greek word parthenos can mean either a young woman or a virgin; for this reason the Greek word parthenos can be found in the Septuagint referring to someone who is not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4, Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled. The Bible reports that after Shechem had violated her, "his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (LXX: parthenos) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (LXX: parthenos)." Clearly, Dinah was not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos, the very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14.
Ooohhh rabbi, you ARE a good one to have around. That was choice.

[SoldierOfTheKing]

You have no choice but to "suppose". That's my point.
It's an educated guess. Archeology, like all sciences, can only give us very high probabilities.


Also, could you identify these fragments please? I put forth the effort to list my sources, I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you.


Certainly. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever. (8HevXIIgr) Excavated in at Nahal Hever in 1952 and 1961.

[simchat_torah]

From a couple of online articles I have read, it seems that 8HevXIIgr was most likely penned 50 c.e. I haven't found evidence that it was penned during b.c.e.

[TheRabbi]

The reason that I asked the question was to see what fragments he is reffering to. My next question would be, do these fragments resemble their LXX counterparts or were they fragments of alternate Greek translations of the minor prophets in a different dialect of Greek than the LXX?

[TheRabbi]

And after that, I would ask if the prophets found at Nachal Hever, follow the Septuagint order, or do they follow the order of the Masoretic text?

What are they closer to? Are they closer to the LXX or are they closer to being a Greek rendering of the prophets that almost totally mirrors the MSS?

Remember, this whole discussion was started by my insistance that the Septuagint prophets, writings and apocrypha are later Christian works. It is clear that the nachal Hever fragments are not early Septuagint texts and they do not aid those attempting to put an early date on the Septuagint prophets, writings and apocrypha.

To the best of my knowledge, that leaves us with 3rd century Christian manuscripts.

[TheRabbi]

And the silence is deafening.

[torahgrandma]

Rashi only inserts a comment when he sees something that is not readily apparent in the text. The very fact that he felt a need to tell us that these Almot were virgins is proof that the average reader would not reach this conclusion on his own........


.....The answers are obvious for anyone reading the text for what it says, and not for what they want it to say.


So since the Hebrew says nothing that would give the understanding that these alamowt are "virgins", then how did Rashi arrive at this conclusion? Was it by "direct revelation"? ;)

[simchat_torah]

So... every time almah is used, it necessarily means virgin?


What about Deborah? How is that explained?

[TheRabbi]

99% of what Rashi says is brought from Midrashim which are part of the Oral Torah tradition going back to the time the books were written.

Your reasoning is twisted. If it somehow inferred virgin, Rashi wouldn't have had to point it out. If I'm wrong in my reasoning, we would expect to see Rashi say the same thing in Isaiah 7:14.

If you are going to live by Rashi, you have to die by Rashi, who interprets "the Almah is with child" to be in reference to Isaiah's wife. Who we see is pregant in the next chapter and gives birth to a son. We then see Isaiah declaring that God gave him children as signs for Israel. The plain meaning of the text is very simple and easily understood.

How should I interpret the lack of response on the LXX issue that was so boldly trumpeted in this thread?

[torahgrandma]

99% of what Rashi says is brought from Midrashim which are part of the Oral Torah tradition going back to the time the books were written.

Your reasoning is twisted. If it somehow inferred virgin, Rashi wouldn't have had to point it out. If I'm wrong in my reasoning, we would expect to see Rashi say the same thing in Isaiah 7:14.

If you are going to live by Rashi, you have to die by Rashi, who interprets "the Almah is with child" to be in reference to Isaiah's wife. Who we see is pregant in the next chapter and gives birth to a son. We then see Isaiah declaring that God gave him children as signs for Israel. The plain meaning of the text is very simple and easily understood.



So are you claiming that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the birth of Isaiah's second son ? This would be the case if you are claiming the mother, who is the “prophetess" of Isaiah 8:3 is the almah or “virgin” of Isaiah 7:14, because at the time of the writing of chapter 7, Isaiah had been a prophet for about 17 years and already had one son by this woman.

:cool:

[simchat_torah]

sly.

[muffler dragon]

So are you claiming that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the birth of Isaiah's second son ? This would be the case if you are claiming the mother, who is the “prophetess" of Isaiah 8:3 is the almah or “virgin” of Isaiah 7:14, because at the time of the writing of chapter 7, Isaiah had been a prophet for about 17 years and already had one son by this woman.

:cool:

This would coincide with a couple of other possibilities:

1) That Isaiah's wife had been hidden and then seen. (based on an alternative understanding of almah).
2) Or that she was the one that uttered the prophesy (for the first time).

But this is all secondary considerations to the FACT that the sign dealt with the two kings and NOT the pregnancy nor birth.

[simchat_torah]

reposting for HT:

So... every time almah is used, it necessarily means virgin?


What about Deborah? How is that explained?

[torahgrandma]

So... every time almah is used, it necessarily means virgin?


What about Deborah? How is that explained?

It seems that you like to put words into TG's mouth Simchat. I never said that almah always means virgin, the same as bethulah doesn't always mean virgin. What I am saying, is that the counter mish who adamantly say that it doesn't in Isaiah 7:14 do not know either.

And btw, please stop with the hollow anti-semitic accusations. I was Jewish when you were sitting in the pew of the charismatic church speaking in tongues and praising Jeeeesus. ;)

P.S. You will also notice that Isaiah;s wife did not name her son Immanuel. Another minor detail I guess. ;)

I haven't even gotten to how the sages of the Talmud views the term almah yet. :o

[simchat_torah]

It seems that you like to put words into TG's mouth Simchat. I didn't put words in your mouth HT. I asked a simple question.

There are one of two options:

1) Almah always means virgin.
2) Almah could mean virgin depending upon context.

You denied that Rashi determined this via context, thus indicating that #1 must be true.

So in order to challenge the theory that #1 is true, I asked about Deborah.

I was Jewish when you were sitting in the pew of the charismatic church speaking in tongues and praising Jeeeesus. ;)
lol, more lies. ok, whatever HT.

[muffler dragon]

I didn't put words in your mouth HT. I asked a simple question.

There are one of two options:

1) Almah always means virgin.
2) Almah could mean virgin depending upon context.

You denied that Rashi determined this via context, thus indicating that #1 must be true.

So in order to challenge the theory that #1 is true, I asked about Deborah.

This is unrelated to your discussion with HT/TG, but I wanted to share that I have been told by those fluent in Hebrew that almah has no sexual connotation whatsoever. Therefore, the young lady may be a virgin, but the usage of almah NEVER references it.

[torahgrandma]

There are one of two options:

1) Almah always means virgin.
2) Almah could mean virgin depending upon context.

You denied that Rashi determined this via context, thus indicating that #1 must be true.

.

Almah can mean virgin, but does not always. Bethulah can mean virgin, but does not always. Rashi is a man, and it is this mans opinion that almah means virgin in the specified verse in Songs with no supporting textual evidence.

Once again, it all comes down to belief, but my point is that the countermish have no proof that it does not mean virgin, as the LXX (which I do not endorse) also says. It is the same as the argument over Psalms 22:17 as to whether it says "like a lion" (kariy) or pierced, dug etc (karu) . There is manuscript evidence for both variants.

[simchat_torah]

Almah can mean virgin, but does not always.So, other than context (which you denied), how does one tell when Almah means virgin?

[muffler dragon]

Almah can mean virgin, but does not always.

No, it doesn't.

Almah has NO sexual connotation.

A virgin MAY be called an "almah", but that would have no bearing on her sexual status.

[torahgrandma]

No, it doesn't.

Almah has NO sexual connotation.

A virgin MAY be called an "almah", but that would have no bearing on her sexual status.

Maybe you should argue wirh Rashi how he came up with virgin then.

[simchat_torah]

Maybe you should argue wirh Rashi how he came up with virgin then.Not that I agree with his conclusions (that's the unique thing about Judaism, there is such a wide rainbow of opinions), but his conclusions are based upon context.

[muffler dragon]

Maybe you should argue wirh Rashi how he came up with virgin then.

Maybe you should read the entire portion of what you quoted from Rashi:

maidens virgins, since the text compares Him to a youth whose beloved holds him dear, and according to the allegory, the maidens are the nations.

These AREN'T real women according to Rashi.

Now, getting back to Isaiah 7, this is discussing a REAL woman, in a REAL situation. And the context of the usage almah is a matter of age; not sexual activity.

[torahgrandma]

Not that I agree with his conclusions (that's the unique thing about Judaism, there is such a wide rainbow of opinions), but his conclusions are based upon context.

Since you are someone who self admittedly does not speak Hebrew, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

[simchat_torah]

Since you are someone who self admittedly does not speak Hebrew, how did you arrive at this conclusion?Allow me to correct your statement: I don't speak Hebrew Fluently.

But hey, thanks for playing the troll game! Next quesiton please :)

[TheRabbi]

It is the same as the argument over Psalms 22:17 as to whether it says "like a lion" (kariy) or pierced, dug etc (karu) . There is manuscript evidence for both variants.
Elongated yuds are not uncommon. The problem with the word kaaru is that it does not exist. There is no such word in the Hebrew language.

[torahgrandma]

Allow me to correct your statement: I don't speak Hebrew Fluently.

But hey, thanks for playing the troll game! Next quesiton please :)



from an earlier thread:

Hhahaha, another attempt to distract from the hard questions.

1) No, I'm far from a Kabbalist. Fascinating topics, but no... I'm no where near knowledgeable to be a Kabbalist. I barely read Hebrew as is.
2) How does that have ANYTHING to do with the subject at hand?



http://www.christianforums.com/t5907619-where-did-it-begin.html

So by your own admission you barely READ Hebrew, but now you understand the construct of the language. OK. So can you point out contextually how you arrived at the virgin conclusion from the passage in Songs.

Thank you.

[torahgrandma]

Elongated yuds are not uncommon. The problem with the word kaaru is that it does not exist. There is no such word in the Hebrew language.

You are referencing the elongated yud found in the Nahal Chever mss which is part of the the Dead Sea Scrolls inventory, which is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the karu variant found in some of the manuscripts from the MASORETIC family of texts. As you know the Jewish translations in English (Tenach) are translated from the Masoretic family as well.

As you can see, the counter missionary literature that you guys use does not effectively deal with presenting all of the story. ;)

[torahgrandma]

It appears that you and the "rabbi" are having a hard time addressing the facts Simchat, but at least he is not acting out. Did you not say that you could barely read Hebrew?

P.S. It is shabbos. Should you and the rabbi even be on a computer. Would that be considered frum? I think not.




lo machmir ;)

[MyZz]

You are referencing the elongated yud found in the Nahal Chever mss which is part of the the Dead Sea Scrolls inventory, which is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the karu variant found in some of the manuscripts from the MASORETIC family of texts. As you know the Hebrew bibles (Tenach) are translated from the Masoretic family as well.



I was wondering the same thing.
TheRabbi some of your comments made about the septuagint and now on this matter leads me to wonder about how much reading and research you have done on these subjects.

[simchat_torah]

Should you and the rabbi even be on a computer. Would that be considered frum? I think not.If I were Othrodox and not Conservative, maybe you'd have a valid personal attack here? But since its not part of my halacha or personal observances, then... well... I guess you fail?
Maybe if the Rabbi didn't live in Israel and was on your time table, you'd be able to make your personal attack on his observance valid. But since he's in Israel, his Shabbat is over, and you just made yourself the fool! But no matter...
It appears that you and the "rabbi" are having a hard time addressing the facts SimchatI don't see how calling people anitmissionaries is "sticking to the facts", or how mocking other's personal mitzvot and halachic observances is "addressing the issues". But then, you never were really interested in the topic, were you?



I guess you made more pesonal attacks just because you haven't heard the second round to my tune!

Troll troll troll your posts!
Higher Truth got banned!
Make a new sock account to troll the Jews,
Trolling is your thing.

[torahgrandma]

Ok Simchat, lets get back to the textual facts. Could you please diagram the Hebrew of the passage in Songs to support your assertion that Rashis concept of virgin is contextual..

Thank you

[simchat_torah]

So... you're done trolling for now? NOW you want to "get back to the facts"?

lol, oh the irony.

Tell you what, I don't really have a committment to this topic, and I myself haven't determined the validity of "almah" meaning "virgin". I'm mostly here to watch and occasionally play devil's advocate because I'm quite interested to see who comes out on top in this debate with the most intruiging presentation.

But I noticed you slyly ignored m.d.'s post, and I'd like to see that addressed before I jump headlong into the argument myself:
Maybe you should read the entire portion of what you quoted from Rashi:

maidens virgins, since the text compares Him to a youth whose beloved holds him dear, and according to the allegory, the maidens are the nations.

These AREN'T real women according to Rashi.

Now, getting back to Isaiah 7, this is discussing a REAL woman, in a REAL situation. And the context of the usage almah is a matter of age; not sexual activity.

Muffler's main thrust is that the passage is considered an allegory.
For full context, see post #76.

-Yafet

[torahgrandma]

Tell you what, I don't really have a committment to this topic, and I myself haven't determined the validity of "almah" meaning "virgin". I'm mostly here to watch and occasionally play devil's advocate because I'm quite interested to see who comes out on top in this debate with the most intruiging presentation.



I'll give you a clue. No one comes out on top, because almah can mean virgin, or can not, the same as bethulah.



But I noticed you slyly ignored m.d.'s post, and I'd like to see that addressed before I jump headlong into the argument myself:


Muffler's main thrust is that the passage is considered an allegory.
For full context, see post #76.

-Yafet

First of all, let me be clear...I don't care what Rashi says...on ANY topic. I quoted him, because he interpreted the plural of almah to be virgin. I could go to the Talmud as well, but why bother.

As far as muff man goes, what is there to debate? He can not diagram the Hebrew either, and besides that, if I was to follow "halacha", he isn't Jewish, so should I be discussing Tenach with him? (since this is not the noachide part) :)

And truth be known Simchat, the orthodox in Israel do not consider the conservatives to even be true Jews, and they do not recognize their conversions as valid for aliyah to Israel.

[simchat_torah]

I'll give you a clue. No one comes out on top, because almah can mean virgin, or can not, the same as bethulah.Yup. But the quesiton I've asked time and time again to you is: If you ignore context, how are you supposed to know whether it means virgin or not?

I know the question, you need not repeat it again. The answer is what I'm looking for. One which you have yet to provide. Instead of answering direct questions you want to bring up people's backgrounds, call them names, talk off topic, Et Cetra.

So let me be direct one last time: How do you tell when Almah implird virgin if one ignores the context?
First of all, let me be clear...I don't care what Rashi says...on ANY topic. I quoted him, because he interpreted the plural of almah to be virgin. I could go to the Talmud as well, but why bother.

As far as muff man goes, what is there to debate? He can not diagram the Hebrew either, and besides that, if I was to follow "halacha", he isn't Jewish, so should I be discussing Tenach with him? (since this is not the noachide part) :)
So this is your escape from the debate? I don't get to see the answers to the questions provided to you? Its just one big excuse to get out of actually discussing the issues??? We aren't worthy of your answers, despite the fact that you yourself don't fit the bill either? C'mon, don't slip away that easily! I want to hear when it is appropriate to interpret Almah as Virgin when we are supposed to (according to you) ignore the context?

And truth be known Simchat, the orthodox in Israel do not consider the conservatives to even be true Jews, and they do not recognize their conversions as valid for aliyah to Israel.
atta boy. That's the HT I know. Anything to dodge direct questions; changing the topic is always a good distraction! And adding personal insult to injury is just bonus for you!

[simchat_torah]

I don't care what Rashi says...on ANY topic. I quoted him, because he interpreted the plural of almah to be virgin. So its fair to quote someone out of context if it helps justify your position?

I'm confused...

[TheRabbi]

That Noachide is my brother and neighbor in every way. He can read and interpret the scriptures as well or better than any Jew.

BTW, the orthodox don't decide who makes aliyah. Conservatives can make aliyah anytime they wish. Go ask your local shaliach.

If you can't even get what's going on now, what makes you think you have a clue what was going on 2000 years ago?

[TheRabbi]

You are referencing the elongated yud found in the Nahal Chever mss which is part of the the Dead Sea Scrolls inventory, which is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the karu variant found in some of the manuscripts from the MASORETIC family of texts. As you know the Hebrew bibles (Tenach) are translated from the Masoretic family as well.

As you can see, the counter missionary literature that you guys use does not effectively deal with presenting all of the story.

1. You are still ignoring the fact that your rendering of the text leaves us with a word that does not exist in the Hebrew language.
2. Yes, I was reffering to the elongated yud found in the nachal hever fragments. BUT, I have another bomb to drop on you. Alef, vav, heh and yud are totally interchangeable in Classical Hebrew. Didn't know that did ya? A textual variant can indeed end in the letter vav and still read Ka'ari. The same way that many times in the tanakh, the word Hee/she ends in a vav. We don't read it heev, but hee. Cause us Jews knowed 'nuff to know dem letters is inteechangeable.

BTW, Hebrew bibles aren't "translated" from the MSS, because the MSS is in Hebrew.

[TheRabbi]

So its fair to quote someone out of context if it helps justify your position?

I'm confused...

If it was good enopugh for Paul?

Phillipians 1:18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

[visionary]

OK all please refrain from personal comments on the other posters and stick to topic or this thread will be closed.

[simchat_torah]

If it was good enopugh for Paul?

Phillipians 1:18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
lol, wow Rabbi...

I probably would have argued that Paul was a good hearted (though misguided) Jew up until I read the above.

That one line may have just changed my entire thinking of the man.

Sorry for the Rabbit trail... please continue.

[simchat_torah]

Oh, and Rabbi... I know I am more than welcome to make Aliyah... I just don't want to worry my head off wondering whether my wife will be blown up in a suicide attack each morning. So, for now, I like having the freedom of life (though our liberties are coming up quite short here in America).

Despite the obvious troll, I know where I stand on aliyah. But I do appreciate the defense you brought forth.

thanks,
-Yafet

[visionary]

If it was good enopugh for Paul?

Phillipians 1:18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
It is so true... in the end everyone must decide for themselves.

[simchat_torah]

visionary, I need to buy you a new mod hat! You've been wearing that one for months now!

;)

[simchat_torah]

I've always liked this one:
http://www.halloweenscene.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/14018%20Cat%20in%20Hat%20Mask+Hat.jpg

But it doesn't suit you well...
Especially when policing a thread!

soooo... how about this one?
http://www.psni.police.uk/male_hat_lr.jpg

[TheRabbi]

Oh, and Rabbi... I know I am more than welcome to make Aliyah... I just don't want to worry my head off wondering whether my wife will be blown up in a suicide attack each morning. So, for now, I like having the freedom of life (though our liberties are coming up quite short here in America).

Despite the obvious troll, I know where I stand on aliyah. But I do appreciate the defense you brought forth.

thanks,
-Yafet
Excuses, excuses Yafet. Yeah, I guess it's better to stay in America where nobody gets killed by crazy people, right?:P

[TheRabbi]

double post

[torahgrandma]

1. You are still ignoring the fact that your rendering of the text leaves us with a word that does not exist in the Hebrew language.

Kaaru does not appear in the pointed Hebrew text (Masoretic), however there is the question if the scribes were using a consonant as a semi vowel in the Nahal Chever mss.


2. Yes, I was reffering to the elongated yud found in the nachal hever fragments. BUT, I have another bomb to drop on you. Alef, vav, heh and yud are totally interchangeable in Classical Hebrew. Didn't know that did ya? A textual variant can indeed end in the letter vav and still read Ka'ari. The same way that many times in the tanakh, the word Hee/she ends in a vav. We don't read it heev, but hee. Cause us Jews knowed 'nuff to know dem letters is inteechangeable.

In the Masoretic variants listed in the critical apparatus, we find two:

k'rw - a plural verb form from the Hebrew root kara(h) [H3738] meaning "they dug”

krw - which is also a verb form. (same word as k'rw, less the aleph)

As a matter of fact, these variants are not only listed in the BHS critical apparatus of the Masoretic text, but also listed by Emmanuel Tov (you may have heard of him) in his parallel aligned LXX/Masoretic text.

Now, would you like to discuss how you have to manufacture a verb to make the k’ariy rendering work (make sense) in the structure of the surounding Hebrew contextually?


BTW, Hebrew bibles aren't "translated" from the MSS, because the MSS is in Hebrew.

You know what I meant. JPS, Stone, etc, from Hebrew to English. I went back and changed the statement to make it clearer as not to confuse anyone.

[TheRabbi]

No, I didn't know what you meant as I don't use translations.

The word you would have in the text doesn't exist. I don't know how to put it any plainer. Why don't you make it easy for a simple person like me and bring me another verse that uses the same word?

[torahgrandma]

The word you would have in the text doesn't exist. I don't know how to put it any plainer. Why don't you make it easy for a simple person like me and bring me another verse that uses the same word?

I said in my last post:

Now, would you like to discuss how you have to manufacture a verb to make the k’ariy rendering work (make sense) in the structure of the surounding Hebrew contextually?

Please address my question, and then I will be happy to address yours. ;)

[torahgrandma]

Oh...why wait :)

ka'ari yaday weraglay, 'like a lion my hands and my feet''

Notice that there is no verb action in the literal Hebrew, so one now has to be “added” in order for it to make sense contextually.

Soncino does this in their translation:

For dogs surround me; the assembly of the wicked encircle me; * they seize* my hands and my feet like a lion. (red stars added by me)

JPS 1985 does this:

Dogs surround me; pack of evil ones close in on me; like lions [they maul] my hands and feet.

JPS was honest and put the added verb action in [brackets].

Even more honest is the Judaica press translation, because it is literal:

For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.

For those who do not read Hebrew, they do not realize that in some translations, a verb action (that does not appear in the Hebrew) has been “added” to make the passage make sense contextually when using the ka ari rendering (like a lion). Karu is the plural form of kara which can be translated as “they dig”. This is a variant found in some of the MT mss. My point is, that there is textual evidence for both readings.

[muffler dragon]

Quite telling that the discussion is no longer on the Isaiah passage nor "almah" at all; but instead, an entirely different subject.

[TheRabbi]

I don't have to manufacture a verb because I'm not using a translation. I understand classical Hebrew and I know how the language works. The action is understood in this verse just as it is in many instances throughought almost every chapter of the Bible. The verb is added by translators because the Hebrew sentence must make sense in English. It make sense in Hebrew as is.

Now tell me why you get to invent a word that doesn't exist.

[simchat_torah]

Oh...why wait :)Instead of moving forward with new points, it is always best to address the several "missed" points in the thread before moving onto new ideas. Then, once those are addressed, it is fine by rule of discussion to then introduce new points.

Otherwise it is considered rude & no one will take you seriously. Moreover, it weakens your side of the argument and makes you look incompetent when you can't articulate against your opponents. Compounding the weakness of your argument: your opponent is clearly able to articulate a case against every new point you raise.

So... my advice is to go back... and address your opponents points first, then feel free to introduce new ideas. Until then, it is really nothing more than trolling as you're not actually "participating" in a discussion.

[torahgrandma]

Instead of moving forward with new points, it is always best to address the several "missed" points in the thread before moving onto new ideas. Then, once those are addressed, it is fine by rule of discussion to then introduce new points.

Otherwise it is considered rude & no one will take you seriously. Moreover, it weakens your side of the argument and makes you look incompetent when you can't articulate against your opponents. Compounding the weakness of your argument: your opponent is clearly able to articulate a case against every new point you raise.

So... my advice is to go back... and address your opponents points first, then feel free to introduce new ideas. Until then, it is really nothing more than trolling as you're not actually "participating" in a discussion.

Since you have excluded yourself from the debate Simchat, that now relegates you to the cheerleader capacity, and the rabbi doesn't really need one. Just relax. ;)

[torahgrandma]

I don't have to manufacture a verb because I'm not using a translation. I understand classical Hebrew and I know how the language works. The action is understood in this verse just as it is in many instances throughought almost every chapter of the Bible. The verb is added by translators because the Hebrew sentence must make sense in English. It make sense in Hebrew as is.

Now tell me why you get to invent a word that doesn't exist.

So karu is NOT the plural form of dig "they dig" in the Hebrew language then? Better tell that to all of the native Hebrew speakers in Israel.

If you are saying that this form of the root kara(h) is not in the Hebrew Scriptures anywhere else so it is not a valid word, then you will also have to explain why teshuvah and shekinah are also not "valid" words, because those versions of the root words shuv and shakan can not be found in the Hebrew Scriptures as well.

So if that passage makes such good sense without adding the verb action, then why did Rashi have to comment on it to clarify what it "really" meant? ;)

[GerTzedek]

ST, I hope you aren't holding your breath!

[GerTzedek]

if grandma thinks anti-missionary stuff is going on in this thread, she clearly hasn't had the opportunity to experience REAL anti-missionary stuff.

[GerTzedek]

If it was good enopugh for Paul?

Phillipians 1:18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Rabbi:

If you demand others quote in context, then set the example.

[visionary]

Rabbi:

If you demand others quote in context, then set the example.Be nice...

[torahgrandma]

I don't have to manufacture a verb because I'm not using a translation. I understand classical Hebrew and I know how the language works.

Okay, let’s look at the phrase in Hebrew again:

ka'ari yaday weraglay, 'like a lion my hands and feet''

Is he saying that his hands and feet are like a lion? As you can see, that is as clear as mud.


The action is understood in this verse just as it is in many instances throughought almost every chapter of the Bible.

There is no action in the Hebrew. That is the problem, so one (or two, or three) have to be manufactured.

The verb is added by translators because the Hebrew sentence must make sense in English. It make sense in Hebrew as is.

No verb action, no contextual sense, whether in Hebrew or English. Here is another small problem with your logic. There are roughly 15 million Jews in the world currently. There are roughly 5 million people in the world that can read and speak the Hebrew language. (not all of them Jewish) That leaves a large segment of the Jewish population (2/3 or better) that can not read or speak Hebrew. So I guess it is a good thing that the translators added:

1) “they seized”
2) “they bound”
3) “they mauled”

Now all that is necessary, is to find out which manufactured verb action is the most “accurate” ;)

So now if we can admit that there are textual variants that support both readings, neither of them being very strong, then we can go onto the next fallacy found in the counter missionaries handbook :o

[simchat_torah]

Since you have excluded yourself from the debate Simchat, that now relegates you to the cheerleader capacity, and the rabbi doesn't really need one. I'm not cheerleading, I have sincere interest in seeing the outcome of this debate.... which means I'm going to hold both parties involved accountable.

Its sad that you're really only interested in trolling and not really very interested in the actual debate, because it leaves the Rabbi undefended in his arguments. I would love to have the ideas challenged that are presented.

[TheRabbi]

No, I'm not limiting it to the Bible TG. The word doesn't exist in the Hebrew language. Give me an example of it. I speak more Hebrew than I do English and I have yet to hear this mystery word of yours used even once in all of my years in Israel. All my relatives, neighbors, friends and my own kids that are native speakers, don't have any idea what this word of yours is.

Rashi tells us what Kaari raglai v'yadai means. He doesn't offer kaari raglai v'yadai as a rendering, as that's already plain to see from the text. He explains what it means for the same reason he explains all the other allegorical references to animals surrounding David.

What is this root that you speak of? Spell out the 3 letters of this root word in Hebrew letters, please.

[TheRabbi]

Rabbi:

If you demand others quote in context, then set the example.
Ger,
Here it is as an entire paragraph. I can paste the whole chapter and it doesn't change what he says.

Phillipians 1:15
Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:

16The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

[torahgrandma]

No, I'm not limiting it to the Bible TG. The word doesn't exist in the Hebrew language.

kaaru as found in the proto Masoretic Nahal Chever mss doesn't exist in the Hebrew language....KARU which is the variant found in some of the Masoretic texts does. (plural- they dig)



Give me an example of it. I speak more Hebrew than I do English and I have yet to hear this mystery word of yours used even once in all of my years in Israel. All my relatives, neighbors, friends and my own kids that are native speakers, don't have any idea what this word of yours is.


What is this root that you speak of? Spell out the 3 letters of this root word in Hebrew letters, please.


כּרה

[MyZz]

I really have to agree with Torahgrandma on this one and Therabbi I am so surprised that none of your friends seem to know the word karu. I have just checked with a native israeli speaker a sabra born in israel, who incidentally is not believer in Yeshua and she confirms karu exists.It means they dug and is spelt
כרו kaf resh vav

[torahgrandma]

I really have to agree with Torahgrandma on this one and Therabbi I am so surprised that none of your friends seem to know the word karu. I have just checked with a native israeli speaker a sabra born in israel, who incidentally is not believer in Yeshua and she confirms karu exists.It means they dug and is spelt
כרו kaf resh vav




That is correct.

There are two renderings in the Masoretic texts.. K'ari (like a lion) and karu (they dug)


I rest my case.

[torahgrandma]

Kaaru does not appear in the pointed Hebrew text (Masoretic), however there is the question if the scribes were using a consonant as a semi vowel in the Nahal Chever mss.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls renderings you will find manuscripts where the alef is used for voicing vowels (consonants used as semi vowels). Proto Masoretic Hebrew sometimes has a fuller spelling (plené) than what is found in the pointed Masoretic text. The early scribes sometimes added alephs, as well as other consonants to assist in vocalization, before the vowel pointing system was implemented many centuries later. If you do a letter count on the DSS scroll of Isaiah and compare it with the letter count of the Masoretic Isaiah, you will find a letter difference that is attributed to using consonants as semi vowels.

This is found in the translation notes for the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. (pg 518-519)

“Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic text reads “Like a lion are my hands and feet”, whereas the Septuagint has “They have pierced my hands and feet”. Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6 HevPs), which reads “They have pierced my hands and my feet”.

[torahgrandma]

If you can't even get what's going on now, what makes you think you have a clue what was going on 2000 years ago?

In retrospect, I find the above comment ironic, in light of the fact that you did not know that karu means "they dug" in Hebrew, when a seven year old sabra would surely know.

Atah lo medaber ivrit? ;)

I hope that this is not another simchat sock account like the last "rabbi" account that he had a while back that got exposed. (yeah...I heard about it...everyone here has) :o

[TheRabbi]

I really have to agree with Torahgrandma on this one and Therabbi I am so surprised that none of your friends seem to know the word karu. I have just checked with a native israeli speaker a sabra born in israel, who incidentally is not believer in Yeshua and she confirms karu exists.It means they dug and is spelt
כרו kaf resh vav
You agree with her because you aren't paying attention to the root. I've been trying to get TG to come to this for days now. The root of the word that your friend referenced and TG wants to use is כרה
The plural past tense of this word is כרו.
The word that her version of Psalm 22 would leave us with is כארו.
This word does not exist and she can't come up with another example of it in any Hebrew literature extant today.

The Psalm is discussing David being metaphorically surrounded and threatened by dogs, bulls and lions. Does it make more sense to have a verse in the middle of this that speaks of lions at David's hands and feet or does it make more sense to have him suddenly being crucified?

Does it make sense to have David saying in the next verses "Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs. Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen?

Shouldn't he be asking to be saved from the nails and cross or from the evil men who would pierce his hands and feet? Why is he only asking to be saved from Lions and such?


If we are indeed seeing a prophecy of the crucifixion, why do we see David rejoicing at being saved?
"I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you. "

The text and context of this Psalm would have to be absolutely irrelevant to anyone wishing to "dig at or pierce" this psalm with the crucifixion.

[torahgrandma]

The root of the word that your friend referenced and TG wants to use is כרה
The plural past tense of this word is כרו.
The word that her version of Psalm 22 would leave us with is כארו.
This word does not exist and she can't come up with another example of it in any Hebrew literature extant today.




You are still pointing at the Nahal Chever rendering with the aleph, and saying that it doesn't exist, while ignoring my assertion that karu כרו (they dug) is a variant found in the MASORETIC text.(forget about the DSS)

Please, either re read my earlier posts and focus, or, you can just throw in the tallit, and admit that it can be translated as "like a lion" or also "they dug" according to which text is used in the translation.

[TheRabbi]

קודם כל, ברור כשמש מהפרק שבפנינו שאת לא יכולה להשיג אפילו את
הפשט

אם את חושבת אפילו לשנייה אחת שכדאי לך לשחק איתי משחקים כאלו, אז בואי נתחיל יא מומחית בספות עתיקות

[TheRabbi]

Please, by all means bring me your variant. I've only asked for an example of this word about three times now.

I have to commend you on your exceptional ability to pick out the parts of my posts that you think you can answer and ignore the rest. I guess that's how we got from Isaiah 7:14 to here.

Anyway, let's see that variant. I don't know of it and if you can show it to me, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. What codex is it found in?

[torahgrandma]

Please, by all means bring me your variant. I've only asked for an example of this word about three times now.

And I have only posted it in about every other post.



Anyway, let's see that variant. I don't know of it and if you can show it to me, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. What codex is it found in?

All you need to do is open up the BHS Critical Apparatus of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and look. All of the information that you need to prove the variant is in there. As a matter of fact, all of the variants in all of the texts are listed there. It might be a resource to own if you are going to discuss what is actually in the various Masoretic mss. ;)

[TheRabbi]

You can't produce the citation, can you?

I really don't have emuch of a need for your BHS critical apparatus, as it is known to be unreliable. If you can cite a fragment, I'll go have a look at the fragment itself.

[TheRabbi]

Let's see, first you tell me that the word is not found in Masoretic text, but might be in Nachal Hever
Post #103
Kaaru does not appear in the pointed Hebrew text (Masoretic), however there is the question if the scribes were using a consonant as a semi vowel in the Nahal Chever mss.

Then you turn around and claim that it is indeed found in a Masoretic manuscript.

In the Masoretic variants listed in the critical apparatus, we find two:
k'rw - a plural verb form from the Hebrew root kara(h) [H3738] meaning "they dug”
krw - which is also a verb form. (same word as k'rw, less the aleph)

Notice that you are supposedly citing the BHS critical apparatus, yet your first example is a citation from the Strong's Lexicon. Your second citation is the same word in past tense plural form and neither give any source in any manuscript of the masoretic mss for Psalm 22.

If you got the goods, please bring 'em.

[torahgrandma]

You can't produce the citation, can you?

Haven't I done enough of your work already?



I really don't have much of a need for your BHS critical apparatus, as it is known to be unreliable.

Maybe you should let all of the textual scholars worldwide who use it know that as well.;)



If you can cite a fragment, I'll go have a look at the fragment itself.

So are you saying that karu now means "they dug". and you just want to verify that is what the Hebrew says?

[torahgrandma]

Notice that you are supposedly citing the BHS critical apparatus, yet your first example is a citation from the Strong's Lexicon.

You have been wrong a lot lately it seems. The Hebrew reference number is from the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon of the Hebrew "from the Hebrew root kara(h) [H3738] ", which is additional to the variant information.

[TheRabbi]

You have been wrong a lot lately it seems. The Hebrew reference number is from the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon of the Hebrew "from the Hebrew root kara(h) [H3738] ", which is additional to the variant information.

Then it's the same numbering system that Strong's uses. At any rate, you still haven't given me a manuscript to look at. You can't just say that such and such says. I need to know where it is.


So are you saying that karu now means "they dug".

It always did. That's why I asked you to spell it. כרו means dig. כארו doesn't exist.

Now, can you show me a manuscript of psalm 22 with כרו?

You talk about it an awful lot, but you just can't seem to produce it.

[TheRabbi]

I just checked. It does use the Strong's numbering system. I wonder what else they took from Strong's?????

[torahgrandma]

Then it's the same numbering system that Strong's uses. At any rate, you still haven't given me a manuscript to look at. You can't just say that such and such says. I need to know where it is.


It always did. That's why I asked you to spell it. כרו means dig. כארו doesn't exist.

Now, can you show me a manuscript of psalm 22 with כרו?

You talk about it an awful lot, but you just can't seem to produce it.

Alright...I will give you a little more.

The first variant occurs in seven manuscripts.

The second one occurs in three.

Now go and do your homework. :)

[TheRabbi]

Either show it or stop talking.

[torahgrandma]

http://www.miamihost.net/ims/u/sirhemlock/sirhemlock1/image008.gif

Has everyone seen the gif image of the Nahal Chever Psalms 22 (DSS)? This is the disputed one where the counter missionaries say that the vav is actually an elongated yud. Please notice how short the yud is directly next to it. ;)

[torahgrandma]

Either show it or stop talking.

But this is sooo much fun. :)

Is the suspense making you a little nervous? ;)

[TheRabbi]

Nachal Hever again? It could be an elongated yud or a vav and still say Kaari.

Either way, it's not a masoretic manuscript and you still haven't produced one.

[torahgrandma]

Nachal Hever again? It could be an elongated yud or a vav and still say Kaari.

Either way, it's not a masoretic manuscript and you still haven't produced one.

While you are looking for those variants of "karu" that I pointed out to you, let’s get back to the Nahal Chever image that is said by you to not be a Hebrew word. There is a textual term called matres lectionis, which references consonants being used to represent vowels in unpointed early Hebrew. The consonant letters Yod , Vav, and Aleph were sometimes used to represent the voicing of long vowels. Yod would indicate i or e, and Vav would indicate o or u. Aleph was not as commonly used as a matres lectionis in Hebrew (it was in Aramaic), but it was sometimes used to indicate an “a” vowel. This same “a” sound would now be represented by the nikud kamats, the same vowel that you would find in “karu”.

[TheRabbi]

Matthew seems to love to point out fulfilled prophecies. If this Psalm actually said "they pierced my hands and feet" that would make it the grandaddy of all fullfilled prophecies. We would expect him to say something, no? If it says what Christianity claims, why is it that the New Testament is absolutely silent on such a key verse?

[torahgrandma]

Nachal Hever again? It could be an elongated yud or a vav and still say Kaari.


Not so, because the yud following the vav is part of the next word. :o

[torahgrandma]

Matthew seems to love to point out fulfilled prophecies. If this Psalm actually said "they pierced my hands and feet" that would make it the grandaddy of all fullfilled prophecies. We would expect him to say something, no? If it says what Christianity claims, why is it that the New Testament is absolutely silent on such a key verse?

Why is the Tenach silent on so many things. One would have to know the mind of God to answer that question.

[TheRabbi]

Not so, because the yud following the vav is part of the next word. :o
I'm talking about the vav itself. Vav, heh, yud and aleph are interchangeable in classical Hebrew.

[TheRabbi]

While you are looking for those variants of "karu" that I pointed out to you, let’s get back to the Nahal Chever image that is said by you to not be a Hebrew word. There is a textual term called matres lectionis, which references consonants being used to represent vowels in unpointed early Hebrew. The consonant letters Yod , Vav, and Aleph were sometimes used to represent the voicing of long vowels. Yod would indicate i or e, and Vav would indicate o or u. Aleph was not as commonly used as a matres lectionis in Hebrew (it was in Aramaic), but it was sometimes used to indicate an “a” vowel. This same “a” sound would now be represented by the nikud kamats, the same vowel that you would find in “karu”.

No Maam, I'll be glad to finish up with Nachal Hever when we're done with your Masoretic texts. Either you produce your manuscripts or we stop talking.

[torahgrandma]

No Maam, I'll be glad to finish up with Nachal Hever when we're done with your Masoretic texts. Either you produce your manuscripts or we stop talking.

silly rabbi...threats are for kids

let me know when you find them....they are in plain sight in the apparatus ;)

And both the BHS and the BHK list them in their apparatus. Even if you decide not to look at them it is okay, because I am sure that everyone else that is interested in this discussion will. :)

Here is the simplified version for those who might be interested in an easier read:

Scott, W. R. A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical Apparatus, Masora, Accents, Unusual Letters and Other Markings. Berkeley, CA: Bibal Press, 1987. BS 715 1987 TRIN/WYC. Second edition at SMC, VUEM.

A concise and affordable guide to the abbreviations and apparatus in BHS.

[simchat_torah]

Kaaru does not appear in the pointed Hebrew text (Masoretic), ....

In the Masoretic variants listed in the critical apparatus, we find two:
Sleight of hand.


When asked directly to produce the evidence claimed, the reply was:Now go and do your homework. :)Sleight of hand.
It is shabbos. Should you and the rabbi even be on a computer. Would that be considered frum?Sleight of hand.
Why is the Tenach silent on so many things. One would have to know the mind of God to answer that question.Sleight of hand.

You should be a magician!

[torahgrandma]

Sleight of hand.

Do you...

Sleight of hand.

have...

Sleight of hand.

anything scholarly...

Sleight of hand.

to add?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by stone http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40568922#post40568922)
Interesting..

This is from the complete jewish bible:

14 Therefore Adonai himself will give you people a sign: the young woman will become pregnant, bear a son and name him 'Immanu El [God is with us].


Interesting. Stern translated it correctly. I didn't know that.This Hebrew interlinear translates it as "the damsel", and it appears 3 times in this Hebrew form with the article.

Just click on a Hebrew/Greek word and it will show all instances of that EXACT form of the word. Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

The Damsel/The Maiden
Gene 24:43, Exodus 2:8 Isaiah 7:14

JPS1917 OT) Genesis 24:43 behold, I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden that cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say: Give me, I pray thee, a little water from thy pitcher to drink;

JPS1917 OT) Exodus 2:8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her: 'Go.' And the maiden went and called the child's mother.

JPS1917 OT) Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. {That is, God is with us.}

[TheRabbi]

ST,
TG has given us evidence by providing the Nachal Hever fragment. This fragment shows the wording of Psalm 22 to be כארו instead of כארי.

But unbelievers such yourself and I have claimed that the scribe made a spelling error.

she posted an image that shows us the part of the fragment, the word spelled כארו. But, her image also shows the word that follows it as well. That word is yadai/ידי. The has spelled that word ידיה! Instead of "my hands", he wrote "her hands".

http://www.miamihost.net/ims/u/sirhemlock/sirhemlock1/image008.gif

Looks like the holy ghost might not have inspired him after all.

[torahgrandma]

ST,
The magic doesn't stop there. In her scholarly wisdom, TG has given us evidence of the true Holy Ghost inspired text by providing the Nachal Hever fragment. This fragment shows the true wording of Psalm 22 to be כארו instead of כארי.

But ignorant unbelievers such yourself and I have dared to blasphemously claim that the holy scribe made a spelling error.

With erudition that only a scholar of her caliber can produce, she posted an image that shows us the part of the fragment that displays in all its holy glory, the word spelled כארו. But luckily for the heretics, her image also shows the word that follows it as well. That word is yadai/ידי. The great scribe of all ages has spelled that word ידיה! Instead of "my hands", he wrote "her hands".

http://www.miamihost.net/ims/u/sirhemlock/sirhemlock1/image008.gif

Looks like the holy ghost might not have been resting on his shoulders in the form of a dove and pushing the stylus with its wings after all.

How amusing :) When compared side by side there is absolutely no way that you can deny that the yud looks anything like the vav before it, so now you have set in motion this extremely transparent attempt to obsfucate what is actually written by the scribe. Might want to take a look at the complete passage in the scroll and get back to me.


Obfuscation

Obfuscation is the concealment of meaning in communication, making it confusing and harder to interpret.
Obfuscation may be used for many purposes. Doctors have been accused of using jargon to conceal unpleasant facts from a patient. American author Michael Crichton has claimed that medical writing is a "highly skilled, calculated attempt to confuse the reader". B.F. Skinner, noted psychologist, commented on medical notation as a form of multiple audience control which allows the doctor to communicate to the pharmacist things which might be opposed by the patient if they could understand it. Similarly text-based language, like gyaru-moji and some forms of leet are obfuscated to make them incomprehensible to outsiders.


Let it be noted for the crowd of witnesses, that throughout my dialogue with you, my primary point of discussion has been the variants rendered as "they dug" found in 10 manuscripts of the MASORETIC TEXT, and not the Nahal Chever manuscript. It appears that the "rushing wind" of the "Holy Ghost" has just blown all of your smoke away for all to see. ;)

Did you get a look at those variants yet?

[TheRabbi]

Until you show me the alleged manuscripts you're talking about (or at least identify them), they aren't relevant.

I am however looking at the entire Nachal Hever fragment. It is a small scrap (not a scroll, as you claim). The writing is extremely sloppy. The word reads exactly as I said and this is well known to Christian scholars.

I've removed the image because of possible copywright infringement issues.

[torahgrandma]

Until you show me the alleged manuscripts you're talking about (or at least identify them), they aren't relevant. .

Jacob ben Chayim collated the Hebrew manuscripts that were the foundation of the Biblia Rabbinica, also known as Bomberg’s Rabbinic Bible, which was the Jewish Bible from the middle ages until the late 1800’s. In the notes on the page called Masorah finalis, Jacob ben Chayim, has a comment that there was a ketiv/qere reading in reference to the Psalms 22 passage. C. D. Ginsberg, who is the author of Ginsburg’s Massorah which is still used by Jewish Scholars today, discusses this variant issue in his book about the Masoretic text. This reference can be found on page 969. It should be noted that Ginsberg in his own work has both variants which are “like a lion” and “they tore, pierced.”

Hint for the rabbi:

Kennicott ms 39 has the vav instead of a yud making it karu, and the DeRossi ms 337 has a kethiv/qere reading, which demonstrates both readings (k’ari and karu). There are other Hebrew manuscripts which have kaf resh vav (minus aleph).


It is a small scrap (not a scroll, as you claim).

Let's not attempt to spotlight the minutae, while ignoring the textual issues, okay? BTW, thanks for posting that fragment. It makes the difference between the vav and the yud even more pronounced. ;)

Could you quote one other Jewish scholar who agrees with your position in reference to "her hands" please? And also, please cite where your enhanced image originated from.

[torahgrandma]

I know you must be busy with your duties as a rabbi, (ie: teaching Christians how to eliminate their avodah zara by becoming learned Noachides, etc) so in an effort to free you up from this time consuming discussion, let me advise you how the counter missionaries deal with this Nahal Chever passage. First of all, you must refer to the vav an “elongated” yud, and also state that there is no such word in the Hebrew language. If that fails, and someone points out that the alef can be used to show the voicing for the long vowel “a”, then you reference the fact that these scrolls were genizah, making them defective, so it doesn’t matter what is written in the Hebrew because they are full of scribal errors, and should not be trusted. :)

Now if you can just explain the variants in the Masoretic Text, you will be free from this discussion completely. ;)

Sooooo many Christians...sooooo few Noachides. :o

[TheRabbi]

This is what you claimed to have at first.


In the Masoretic variants listed in the critical apparatus, we find two:
k'rw - a plural verb form from the Hebrew root kara(h) [H3738] meaning "they dug”
krw - which is also a verb form. (same word as k'rw, less the aleph)


Then you claimed to have this:


Let it be noted for the crowd of witnesses, that throughout my dialogue with you, my primary point of discussion has been the variants rendered as "they dug" found in 10 manuscripts of the MASORETIC TEXT, and not the Nahal Chever manuscript.


When pressed to produce, you came up with this:

In the notes on the page called Masorah finalis, Jacob ben Chayim, has a comment that there was a ketiv/qere reading in reference to the Psalms 22 passage.
So what?

C. D. Ginsberg, who is the author of Ginsburg’s Massorah which is still used by Jewish Scholars today, discusses this variant issue in his book about the Masoretic text. This reference can be found on page 969. It should be noted that Ginsberg in his own work has both variants which are “like a lion” and “they tore, pierced.”

Heretical Jew that produced his own Bible to make sure it agreed with the new Testament. Not used by jewish scholars, unless by jewish scholars you mean Christian missionaries.

Hint for the rabbi:

Kennicott ms 39 has the vav instead of a yud making it karu,
Actually it make it Ka'aru. This should be easy to verify if you've seen at least a transcript of this alleged manuscript. If it is Masoretic, you can have a look at the vowelization.

and the DeRossi ms 337 has a kethiv/qere reading, which demonstrates both readings (k’ari and karu).
Same as above.


There are other Hebrew manuscripts which have kaf resh vav (minus aleph).
Ahh you mean the ones you claimed to have in line one of my TG quotes? Yes, those I'd like you to identify. Oh, but you didn't, did you? You just said "There are" manuscripts without identifying them.

I don't believe that any of these manuscripts exist. If they did, they would be shoved in the face of