Isaiah 7-14

[Kitsune]

I was talking to a Cantor a few months ago about this passage and he stated that it was never meant to state "Virgin" but instead "Young Woman" but was poorly translated into Greek.

It was meant as a prophecy for a king according to him.

I note that even with modern translations of the Christian bible they still use the term "Virgin"

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was talking to a Cantor a few months ago about this passage and he stated that it was never meant to state "Virgin" but instead "Young Woman" but was poorly translated into Greek.

It was meant as a prophecy for a king according to him.

I note that even with modern translations of the Christian bible they still use the term "Virgin"

It is an intentional mistranslation. If you talk to any native speaker of hebrew, they will tell you that in the Hebrew, the word for virgin is Balacha (however it is spelled) and the word which is used in Isaiah is Alma.

There are actually a lot of intentional mistranslations that christians use to prop up their so-called messiah, even though he is completely inconsistent with the actual Messianic prophecies. One of which is that the Messiah will be in complete agreement with The Law, which Jesus was not, that death will end, and that all the Jews will be back in Israel... Now, my friend Max is still living on Phoenix, and have you been to New York lately?

[Kitsune]

It is an intentional mistranslation. If you talk to any native speaker of hebrew, they will tell you that in the Hebrew, the word for virgin is Balacha (however it is spelled) and the word which is used in Isaiah is Alma.

There are actually a lot of intentional mistranslations that christians use to prop up their so-called messiah, even though he is completely inconsistent with the actual Messianic prophecies. One of which is that the Messiah will be in complete agreement with The Law, which Jesus was not, that death will end, and that all the Jews will be back in Israel... Now, my friend Max is still living on Phoenix, and have you been to New York lately?

Is there a list of intentional mistranslations list anywhere that I can find.

Also, have you seen how Christians react to it?

[God Fearing Atheist]

A couple things:

-Alyrium Denryle makes it sound as if Christians were responsible for rendering it as η παρθενος, but this reading is found in the LXX and was used by the First Evangelist almost verbatim.

-The semantic import of עלמה is a bit too broad to be rendered as simply "young woman," and "virgin" too narrow.

-In context, it is a prophey meant for a king (Ahaz). The child in question is probably Hezekiah, the son of Abia.

I'm also curious as to how Alyrium Denryle thinks Jesus was not in "agreement with the Law."

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is an intentional mistranslation. If you talk to any native speaker of hebrew, they will tell you that in the Hebrew, the word for virgin is Balacha (however it is spelled) and the word which is used in Isaiah is Alma.

There are actually a lot of intentional mistranslations that christians use to prop up their so-called messiah, even though he is completely inconsistent with the actual Messianic prophecies. One of which is that the Messiah will be in complete agreement with The Law, which Jesus was not, that death will end, and that all the Jews will be back in Israel... Now, my friend Max is still living on Phoenix, and have you been to New York lately?

Is there a list of intentional mistranslations list anywhere that I can find.

Also, have you seen how Christians react to it?

No... I know a bunch through usage (I tag-team christians with a jewish friend of mine... A gay, German major, Klingon speaking...nerdy nerdy jew)

As for their reaction... priceless.... absolutely priceless denial. They claim that the guy who is reading from a hebrew version of the Tanakh, who is wearing a Kippah, has an inferior grasp of hebrew...

[Omeganian]

It is an intentional mistranslation. If you talk to any native speaker of hebrew, they will tell you that in the Hebrew, the word for virgin is Balacha (however it is spelled) and the word which is used in Isaiah is Alma.

There are actually a lot of intentional mistranslations that christians use to prop up their so-called messiah, even though he is completely inconsistent with the actual Messianic prophecies. One of which is that the Messiah will be in complete agreement with The Law, which Jesus was not, that death will end, and that all the Jews will be back in Israel... Now, my friend Max is still living on Phoenix, and have you been to New York lately?

Is there a list of intentional mistranslations list anywhere that I can find.

Also, have you seen how Christians react to it?

No... I know a bunch through usage (I tag-team christians with a jewish friend of mine... A gay, German major, Klingon speaking...nerdy nerdy jew)

As for their reaction... priceless.... absolutely priceless denial. They claim that the guy who is reading from a hebrew version of the Tanakh, who is wearing a Kippah, has an inferior grasp of hebrew...

The Christian POV is that they have the Truth which helps them understand the Holy Scripture, and the Jews have knowledge of Hebrew, while St. Jerome had both. Of course, it is unclear how much Hebrew Jerome actually knew. One of my university teachers said that he lived in Safed, where people didn't speak Hebrew at the time. They did in Jerusalem. So, he says (perhaps with a bit of exaggeration) he learned Hebrew from some trader, who knew Hebrew on the level needed for business. That's what the Catholics held as the only possible translation for well over a millennium, most of which the name "Vulgate" was meaningless. As for LXX - well, it is well known to be a bad translation, and the Jews consider the day it was made as bad for them as the day the golden calf was.

BTW, there was a medieval text I saw some time ago. A Jew and a Hebrew knowing Christian arguing about Genesis 49:10 (The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.). So, the latter says: look, here are three words, take their first letters (in Hebrew), and you get "Jesus". So the Jew replies: Take the last two words, their first and last letters, What do you get? "Yat'am". "(He) shall deceive them". Take the first word, and the first letter of all the words up to where you see "Jesus". What do you get? "There is no greater defect than...".

P.S. In Hebrew, virgin is Betulah

[Rye]

I'm also curious as to how Alyrium Denryle thinks Jesus was not in "agreement with the Law."

Telling people that the world was going to end in that generation is a pretty notable false prophecy, obviously against jewish law. I'm sure his "kosher don't matter, yo" approach to dietary laws wasn't that well received either.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm also curious as to how Alyrium Denryle thinks Jesus was not in "agreement with the Law."

He worked on the sabbath, encouraged others to do so, did not follow the dietary law, and indeed there are parts of the NT where christians are told to ignore it, where if Jesus were the messiah should not have happened... I can go on...

P.S. In Hebrew, virgin is Betulah

Thanks, I dont actually speak hebrew (I speak german, which is slightly ironic considering this conversation...)

[hongi]

A couple things:

-Alyrium Denryle makes it sound as if Christians were responsible for rendering it as η παρθενος, but this reading is found in the LXX

The Jews who translated the Torah into the Greek only translated the Torah. We don't really know who translated the rest, such as the Prophets and Writings (including Isaiah). May have been Jews, may have been gentiles. In any case, the LXX holds no religious authority for Jews and hasn't for quite some time.

and was used by the First Evangelist almost verbatim.

I presume you mean Matthew 1:23? Frankly, I think he twisted the prophecy so that Jesus could fulfill it.

-The semantic import of עלמה is a bit too broad to be rendered as simply "young woman," and "virgin" too narrow.

It depends largely on the context as you explain below:

-In context, it is a prophey meant for a king (Ahaz). The child in question is probably Hezekiah, the son of Abia.

I'm also curious as to how Alyrium Denryle thinks Jesus was not in "agreement with the Law."

It seems obvious to me that Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a young woman, not a virgin. I can go into more detail if you want.

[Kitsune]

Thanks, I dont actually speak hebrew (I speak german, which is slightly ironic considering this conversation...)

Ever have any interesting discussions on the Heliand?

[God Fearing Atheist]

Telling people that the world was going to end in that generation is a pretty notable false prophecy, obviously against jewish law.

Huh? Jesus didn't accept the Law because he (wrongly) thought the eschaton was about to arrive?

I'm sure his "kosher don't matter, yo" approach to dietary laws wasn't that well received either.

That's a problematic interpretation of (I presume) Mark 7.1-23 for two main contextual reasons: the Marcan Jesus is speaking to the elevation of extrabiblical tradition (...την παραδοσιν των πρεσβυτερων..) over YHWH's commandments, itself couched in the issue of handwashing.

It makes much more sense, IMHO, to read Jesus' objection as a critque of the sort of thing found in b. Berakoth 28a; namely, that one's insides could literally become unclean via a complex chain of impurity contamination transmitted from liquids to hands to food. In other words, it makes more sense as a critique of Pharisaic tradition.

[God Fearing Atheist]

He worked on the sabbath, encouraged others to do so

Did he? What does Sabbath observance actually entail? Pharisees used a legal fiction called the erub, essentially the linking of building or other spaces together into "one big building" to circumvent (entirely in accordance with the Law, in their minds) the prohibition on Sabbath movement (Exod 16.29). m. Erub. 6.1 records Sadduceean opposition. Where Pharisees therefore Sabbath breakers who disregarded the Law, or was this merely an inter-Jewish dispute about proper observance?

The sectarians of the Damascus Document prohibited drawing a fallen animal out of a well (CD 11.13-14), a practice allowed by the Rabbis (b. Sabbath 128b). Where they Sabbath breakers who disregarded the Law?

During the Maccabean revolt, many Jews were slaughtered by the Seleucids while abstaining from warfare on the Sabbath (1 Macc. 2.27-38 ). The Hasmonean warriors, on the other hand, took the position that waging war was both permissable and necessary (1 Macc. 2.40-41). Were they Sabbath breakers who disregarded the Law?

It is in this context of inter-Jewish dispute about proper Sabbath observance, not observance as such, that we should read those debates in the gospels.

I can go on...

Please do.

[God Fearing Atheist]

The Jews who translated the Torah into the Greek only translated the Torah. We don't really know who translated the rest, such as the Prophets and Writings (including Isaiah). May have been Jews, may have been gentiles. In any case, the LXX holds no religious authority for Jews and hasn't for quite some time.

Um, what? There is no doubt that LXX Isaiah is of pre-Christian, Jewish provenance. That it eventually lost it's authority in Jewish communities is perfectly irrelevant.

I presume you mean Matthew 1:23? Frankly, I think he twisted the prophecy so that Jesus could fulfill it.

Well yes, if by "twisted" it you mean "pulled it out of it's context so as it apply it to something the author of First Isaiah had no notion of."

It seems obvious to me that Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a young woman, not a virgin. I can go into more detail if you want.

It is talking about a young woman, but not just any sort of young woman. It is, as I said above, more broad than that; virginity is implicit even as it is not the main thrust.

[Rye]

Huh? Jesus didn't accept the Law because he (wrongly) thought the eschaton was about to arrive?

No, Jesus gave a false prophecy, that was against the law.

That's a problematic interpretation of (I presume) Mark 7.1-23 for two main contextual reasons: the Marcan Jesus is speaking to the elevation of extrabiblical tradition (...την παραδοσιν των πρεσβυτερων..) over YHWH's commandments, itself couched in the issue of handwashing.

It makes much more sense, IMHO, to read Jesus' objection as a critque of the sort of thing found in b. Berakoth 28a; namely, that one's insides could literally become unclean via a complex chain of impurity contamination transmitted from liquids to hands to food. In other words, it makes more sense as a critique of Pharisaic tradition.

It seems to me that he's dissing pharisaical tradition for being a "human tradition" and then mocks the purity codes in regards to eating (and washing hands, etc), since he believes that "defilement" comes from the heart, not transgressing purity laws. In some translations, verse 19 ends with the author noting "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)" which while I suspect is an interpolation from a different author, it's abundantly clear that it's been interpreted that way, to the extent that all but fringe groups of christians throughout most of their history don't go by kosher rules.

[God Fearing Atheist]

No, Jesus gave a false prophecy, that was against the law.

But Jesus did not believe he was giving "false prophecy." Jesus really believed that the god of Israel was about to intervene in the world.

Inasmuch as that is the case, he was not disagreeing with the Law.

It seems to me that he's dissing pharisaical tradition for being a "human tradition" and then mocks the purity codes in regards to eating (and washing hands, etc), since he believes that "defilement" comes from the heart, not transgressing purity laws.

But reading it as an attack on the uncleanness of food per se runs against the entire thrust of the first 13 verses. The entire argument is "look at these Pharisees, they're more into the silly oral traditions of their leaders than they are the commandments of YHWH (as laid out in the Torah)." To then turn around and reject an unambiguous commandment of Torah makes no sense.

It is entirely comprehensible, on the other hand, if we read it as Jesus rejecting the notion that unwashed hands could transmit food impurity and literally render one's insides unclean. It is true to the handwashing context, and equally true to the anti-tradition thrust.

In some translations, verse 19 ends with the author noting "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)" which while I suspect is an interpolation from a different author, it's abundantly clear that it's been interpreted that way, to the extent that all but fringe groups of christians throughout most of their history don't go by kosher rules.

Of course it has been interpreted that way. The growth of gentile non-observance is probably the reason why it was excised by Matthew and Luke, i.e. it could have been misunderstood by their communities as condoning the rejection of deitary laws.

But the question is what Mark intended.

[Rye]

No, Jesus gave a false prophecy, that was against the law.

But Jesus did not believe he was giving "false prophecy."

Surely being you know, false, makes it false prophecy?

Inasmuch as that is the case, he was not disagreeing with the Law.

Since when was the law about false prophets reliant on how seriously you believe your own story rather than making false predictions in the name of God or other gods?

[God Fearing Atheist]

Since the issue was Jesus's agreement with the Law.

[Rye]

Since the issue was Jesus's agreement with the Law.

I must be using the word "agreement" in a different manner to you; I'm saying his actions do not fit i.e. agree with messianic prophecy and OT law. The whole dying thing being an obvious example. The same way you'd say two witness statements are "not in agreement."

[God Fearing Atheist]

I'm saying Jesus was an observant Jew within the bounds of the normative Judaism(s) of his day.

[Cecelia5578]

Well, it was translated in the LXX before Christianity, so if you want to blame someone, blame Hellenistic Jews instead.

[hongi]

The Jews who translated the Torah into the Greek only translated the Torah. We don't really know who translated the rest, such as the Prophets and Writings (including Isaiah). May have been Jews, may have been gentiles. In any case, the LXX holds no religious authority for Jews and hasn't for quite some time.

Um, what? There is no doubt that LXX Isaiah is of pre-Christian, Jewish provenance. That it eventually lost it's authority in Jewish communities is perfectly irrelevant.

The rabbis translated only the Torah into Greek, not the entire Tanakh. AFAIK, all sources attest to this.

I've had some Christians tell me that because the Jewish rabbis translated Isaiah (which isn't true), 'virgin' must have been the original Jewish translation, hence Jews are beholden to accept the prophecy.

It may be true that later Jews translated the rest of the Tanakh, and it may also be true that they translated almah as virgin, but it may equally be true that gentiles mistakenly did it. Of course, a later Jew may have translated almah accurately as a young woman only for later editors to have altered the words. All this is possible, but I'm merely giving an explanation as to why Jews don't accept the LXX as authoritative.

Well yes, if by "twisted" it you mean "pulled it out of it's context so as it apply it to something the author of First Isaiah had no notion of."

Quite.

It is talking about a young woman, but not just any sort of young woman. It is, as I said above, more broad than that; virginity is implicit even as it is not the main thrust.

Well, I disagree that the virgnity of the woman is implicit. The miraculous sign that Ahaz is recieving isn't the birth of a son, but the fact that by the time he knows how to reject good and bad, Ahaz's enemies will be gone. The pregnancy isn't the miracle.

Nor does the word almah give an implicit hint as to the sexuality of the woman, for almah only describes age. An almah is only a young woman, said young woman can be a virgin or a non-virgin, it's not really relevant to the definition.

Well, it was translated in the LXX before Christianity, so if you want to blame someone, blame Hellenistic Jews instead.

I disagree. For example, Jospehus:

Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.

[Cecelia5578]

The Jews who translated the Torah into the Greek only translated the Torah. We don't really know who translated the rest, such as the Prophets and Writings (including Isaiah). May have been Jews, may have been gentiles. In any case, the LXX holds no religious authority for Jews and hasn't for quite some time.

Um, what? There is no doubt that LXX Isaiah is of pre-Christian, Jewish provenance. That it eventually lost it's authority in Jewish communities is perfectly irrelevant.

The rabbis translated only the Torah into Greek, not the entire Tanakh. AFAIK, all sources attest to this.

I've had some Christians tell me that because the Jewish rabbis translated Isaiah (which isn't true), 'virgin' must have been the original Jewish translation, hence Jews are beholden to accept the prophecy.

It may be true that later Jews translated the rest of the Tanakh, and it may also be true that they translated almah as virgin, but it may equally be true that gentiles mistakenly did it. Of course, a later Jew may have translated almah accurately as a young woman only for later editors to have altered the words. All this is possible, but I'm merely giving an explanation as to why Jews don't accept the LXX as authoritative.

Well yes, if by "twisted" it you mean "pulled it out of it's context so as it apply it to something the author of First Isaiah had no notion of."

Quite.

It is talking about a young woman, but not just any sort of young woman. It is, as I said above, more broad than that; virginity is implicit even as it is not the main thrust.

Well, I disagree that the virgnity of the woman is implicit. The miraculous sign that Ahaz is recieving isn't the birth of a son, but the fact that by the time he knows how to reject good and bad, Ahaz's enemies will be gone. The pregnancy isn't the miracle.

Nor does the word almah give an implicit hint as to the sexuality of the woman, for almah only describes age. An almah is only a young woman, said young woman can be a virgin or a non-virgin, it's not really relevant to the definition.

Well, it was translated in the LXX before Christianity, so if you want to blame someone, blame Hellenistic Jews instead.

I disagree. For example, Jospehus:

Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.

So, Christians were the first to translante Isaiah into Greek?? What a novel idea!!!

[God Fearing Atheist]

The rabbis translated only the Torah into Greek, not the entire Tanakh. AFAIK, all sources attest to this.

I've had some Christians tell me that because the Jewish rabbis translated Isaiah (which isn't true), 'virgin' must have been the original Jewish translation, hence Jews are beholden to accept the prophecy.

It may be true that later Jews translated the rest of the Tanakh, and it may also be true that they translated almah as virgin, but it may equally be true that gentiles mistakenly did it. Of course, a later Jew may have translated almah accurately as a young woman only for later editors to have altered the words. All this is possible, but I'm merely giving an explanation as to why Jews don't accept the LXX as authoritative.

1) Let's not be anachronistic here. There were no rabbis in the centuries BCE.

2) While it is certainly true that the the Torah was translated first, LXX Isaiah was translated by Jews in the centuries BCE (scholarly consensus places it in the second, i.e. a century or so later). For more, see e.g. van der Kooij (1981).

Well, I disagree that the virgnity of the woman is implicit. The miraculous sign that Ahaz is recieving isn't the birth of a son, but the fact that by the time he knows how to reject good and bad, Ahaz's enemies will be gone. The pregnancy isn't the miracle.

No one said the pregnancy was a miracle, friend. What I said was that the sense of the word is more than merely "young woman." From e.g. Gen 24.43 and Exod 2.8, Watts (1985) puts it as "the spotless candidate for marriage." That is, a young woman suitable for marriage given the cultural requirements of ancient Jewish society.

[hongi]

So, Christians were the first to translante Isaiah into Greek?? What a novel idea!!!

I was wrong, egregriously so. I got mixed up with my argument that the original translation of the Septuagint carried out by the scholars/sages (not rabbis, thanks for the correction God Fearing Atheist) was simply the Torah. I was wrong about who wrote Isaiah, it must have been the Jews, since the Prophets and Writings were present by the end of the 3rd century BCE. Apologies for those confused by my incorrect argument.

No one said the pregnancy was a miracle, friend. What I said was that the sense of the word is more than merely "young woman." From e.g. Gen 24.43 and Exod 2.8, Watts (1985) puts it as "the spotless candidate for marriage." That is, a young woman suitable for marriage given the cultural requirements of ancient Jewish society.

And thus the woman is a virgin? Well, I really can't argue with that, considering that Jewish society expected a young woman of marriageable age to be a virgin. That doesn't preclude the woman spoken in Isaiah 7:14 still being a non-virginal young woman (though unlikely) but lets say she is.

Not for you in particular, but is it really so hard to believe for some people that a virgin will have sexual intercourse, thus becoming a non-virgin, and concieve?