[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #519
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 21 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 519
In this issue:
Scholar??? In what?
Virgin or Young Woman
Gimme
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
"Flames"
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Re: Son of Man
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
test
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
greek list info req.
subscription
Re: Son of Man
UNSUBSCRIBE
LXX/Isa 9:6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ROBERT MONDORE <MONDORER@a1.cs.hscsyr.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 06:03:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Scholar??? In what?
>>>-- [ From: Alan R. Craig * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --
For those of you who may be interested, I thought you might like to see
what a scholar had written about the meaning of this verse in the year
1807. Interestingly, he first translates John 1:1 to read (with his
bracket):
In the beginning was the word,
and the word was with God,
and the word was [a] God. <<<
Frankly, Alan, I find this whole post rather amazing.
This list is for biblical Greek. I find nothing in this
19th century "scholar's" long post that indicates that
he knew even a shred of Greek.
What were his qualifications? How about some background?
Thanks,
Bob
------------------------------
From: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 06:24:20 -0700
Subject: Virgin or Young Woman
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold the
young woman is with child and she will bear a son and shall
call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7.14)
Is this passage correctly translated in the Hebrew bible.
young woman vs virgin.
What is the LXX translation? And does this scripture
prophetically predict the virgin birth or just the naming
of the son.
Christmas without Christ
is just another X-MAS
without the presence of
God.
Daniel
------------------------------
From: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 06:24:52 -0700
Subject: Gimme
Luke 6.30, "Give to every man that
asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask
them not again."
Can anyone shedd some light on this passage...
Please send me 200$...and I will be over to get
some things from your home, say around 7pm tonight.
I am led now to believe that this passage may have not
necessarily been translated correctly.
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 09:38:11 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
On Tue, 20 Dec 1994, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
>
> "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold the
> young woman is with child and she will bear a son and shall
> call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7.14)
>
> Is this passage correctly translated in the Hebrew bible.
> young woman vs virgin.
>
> What is the LXX translation? And does this scripture
> prophetically predict the virgin birth or just the naming
> of the son.
Is this an earnest question or a rhetorical one? I shall take it as the
first.
This is, in fact, an old, old topic. The fact is that the Hebrew text is
properly translated "young woman," and that the word gets translated
PARQENOS, "virgin" in the LXX.
Those facts having been reiterated (I remember having first heard them
discussed when the NT of the RSV first came out somewhere around 1948;
but I'm sure there was discussion of the question long before that), I
will voice my own opinion, which some will share and others will dispute:
On methodological grounds, I do not see prophecy as prediction of events
reported in the NT but as oracular expression of a vision of God's
action--as the prophet envisions it, by which I mean
not-verbally-inspired but filtered through the mind-set and time-place
constrictions to which the prophet him/herself is subject. Interpreters
of events in the NT may read a connection between an OT prophecy and the
NT event and feel that they properly recognize God's action as envisioned
by the prophet of old here having come to fulfilment. But that is saying
something different altogether from a vision by Isaiah of Jerusalem of
the birth of Jesus centuries later. I think most OT prophecies are
oracular visions evoked by current events in which the prophet sees God
acting. I'm sorry to have gone off on a tangent which is perhaps alien to
the direct interpretation of the Greek text of the NT. But the question
wasn't actually raised about the Greek text of the NT, and I thought it
better to tackle it head on rather than evade it.
To continue, the most satisfying account of the passage in question,
Isaiah 7:14 within its own context is that of Martin Buber in _The
Prophetic Faith_ (Harper Torchbook 1960) p. 139: "In the same form of
speech as is used otherwise in Scripture only in direct apostrophe to
announce the birth of a son to a pregnant woman or one about to become
pregnant, here it is announced in the third person that "the young woman"
(almah) has conceived or will quickly become pregnant, and bring forth a
male child. As it is difficult to conjecture that a woman was present,the
reference must be to a young woman just married or about to be married,
well known to the king and so understood by him to be meant by the
indefinite words. From this we find the explanation of this most
controversial verse: if Ahaz, as he hears the word _almah_, knows to whom
it refers (and only then does the sign truly concern him), it can only be
a woman near him, and moreover hardly another than the young queen; we
may even suppose that it was customary in court circles to call her the
_almah_. That Isaiah refers in the name "Immanuel" of his declaration to
Ahaz to the anti-king, opposing to the faithless viceregent of God the
faithful one--this is unmistakable clear from the words "thy land, O
Immanuel" (Is. 8.8) And that the true anointed can only come from the
house of David is clearly expressed in the central part of this Messianic
memoir, in the song about the boy that "is born to us" and especially in
its conclusion v. 7." In short, Buber proposes that the "son" here spoken
of is the child about to be born to the pregnant wife of Ahaz, a child
who will fulfil the expectations Isaiah holds about the anointed king of
David's dynasty carrying out God's will to the fullest. Buber then
understands Isaiah as disappointed in the son that does emerge in this
context, Hezekiah, and that he envisions a more distant heir of David in
the new oracle of Chapter 11. But even there Isaiah is thinking of a
human being in the dynastic descent of David who will fulfill all those
expectations expressed in the coronation psalms about God's anointed.
Sorry for the lengthy post, but I simply wanted to note that the text can
be understood as prophetic without pointing directly to the birth of Jesus.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: David Coomler <davidco@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 08:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
On Tue, 20 Dec 1994, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
>
> "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold the
> young woman is with child and she will bear a son and shall
> call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7.14)
>
> Is this passage correctly translated in the Hebrew bible.
> young woman vs virgin.
>
> What is the LXX translation? And does this scripture
> prophetically predict the virgin birth or just the naming
> of the son.
The Hebrew version uses the term 'almah, meaning a young woman.
It does not inherently specify whether the person of whom it is used is
or is not a "virgin." There is a "male" version of the term as well,
meaning a "youth."
The Greek Septuagint version uses the term parthenos, which later
came to be exclusively understood as meaning "virgin," but there is
evidence to indicate that it was not always understood in so strict a
sense, and that it could in fact mean simply "girl" or "young woman" as
well. In Genesis 34:3 Dinah is referred to as a parthenos even after she
was raped.
In any case, the term parthenos in Isaiah 7:14 came to be
understood as meaning strictly "virgin," which caused the Jew Trypho, in
his dialogue with Justin Martyr, to comment that the Christians were
using the wrong word, that it was "young woman.
It seems clear from the context that Isaiah 7:14
refers to events close in time to the figures involved, not the the
future birth of Jesus, as the Christians later interpreted it. Nor does
it refer to the naming of Jesus, whose name was (obviously) Jesus, not
Immanu-el.
>
> Christmas without Christ
> is just another X-MAS
> without the presence of
> God.
Actually the "X" in Christmas is an abbreviation of Christ, Khristos in
Greek, the first letter of which looks like "X."
David
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 09:37:47 PST
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
> "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold the
> young woman is with child and she will bear a son and shall
> call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7.14)
>
> Is this passage correctly translated in the Hebrew bible.
> young woman vs virgin.
>
> What is the LXX translation? And does this scripture
> prophetically predict the virgin birth or just the naming
> of the son.
>
> Christmas without Christ
> is just another X-MAS
> without the presence of
> God.
>
> Daniel
Well, I know I'll get flamed for this, but I'll go out on a limb
anyway (it's the only place there's no overcrowding). First, I think
that the Hebrew, 'alma, can mean either virgin or young woman, and there
is no particular reason for arguing the latter as opposed to the former
except ideological. Second, the LXX translation uses a word which allows
for either translation. Third, having read the context in Isaiah multiple
times I remain convinced that Mt. is jsutified in seeing the meaning to be
virgin and in taking the passage as predictive because Isaiah promising
Ahaz that a young woman would give birth and that would be a sign (yes,
there's more to the passage, BUT, the birth is part of the sign) is like
telling him the Sun rising tomorrow is a sign. That doesn't portend
anything. It happens all the time. So I think this is definitely one of
those places where the category sensus plenor comes it. There is more to
Isaiah's words than a statement about his immediate context. That, at
least, seems to be the way Matthew handles this and several other passages.
I wouldn't feel comfortable using his exegetical method (my proposed
dissertation would be ripped to shreds) but IMHO Matthew's source
for understanding the Hebrew scriptures revealed this understanding.
That it is not an obvious, in-your-face understanding of the text, I'll
admit.
Ken Litwak
Sybase, Inc.
Emeryville, CA (right next to Bezerkley)
------------------------------
From: Dennis <dennis@lewis.mt.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 11:17:25 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
On Sun, 18 Dec 1994 PESELYG@lynx.apsu.edu wrote:
> Dennis Rardin quoted Isaiah 9:6 for the phrase "the mighty God."
>
> "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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting
> Father, The Prince of Peace." (KJV)
>
> My text of the Septuagint doesn't have anything that corresponds
> to "the mighty God." (This is an edition by Leander van Ess, 1823,
> 3rd ed. 1908.) Isaiah 9:6 reads:
>
> hoti paidion egennEthE hEmi^n, huios kai edothE hEmi^n, hou^ hE
> archE egenEthE ei tou^ Omou autou^, kai kalei^tai to onoma autou^,
> megalEs boulE^s angelos. axO gar eirEnEn epi tous archontas,
> kai hygieian autOi^.
>
> that a child was born to us, and a son was given to us, of whom
> the rule was upon his shoulder, and his name is called, messenger
> of great counsel. For he will bring peace upon the rulers,
> and health to him.
>
>
> Does the Hebrew text include the additional titles that are not
> in the LXX but are translated in the King James Version? Or do
> some MSS of the LXX read differently? (This 1908 edition does not
> have an apparatus criticus.) (The quotation of Isaiah 9:1-2
> in Matthew 4:15-16 differs noticeably from the van Ess text of
> Isaiah 9:1-2: how much variation exists among surviving Greek
> texts of Isaiah 9?)
>
> The main point I'm trying to get at is--how secure is the phrase
> "the mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6? Is it there in the Hebrew?
>
>
> George Pesely
> Austin Peay State University
> peselyg@lynx.apsu.edu
>
The King James and other English translations represent the Hebrew
perfectly well, the phrase "mighty God" renders "El Gibbor," "God the
Mighty One, Mighty God." This is one of those places where the LXX is
paraphrasing. There is no textual variant in this verse in the BHS (the
critical Hebrew OT) regarding the divine names. (By the by, this is 9:5
in the Hebrew; the versification differs in this chapter).
I'd have to check, but it seems I recall that in general the LXX is
simply unreliable in much of Isaiah, and that this is simply one of many
examples of a translation so loose as to be virtually useless for careful
work. But yes, El Gibbor (and the other names as well) are safely there
in the Hebrew.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 12:29:16 -0600 (CST)
Subject: "Flames"
Dear Ken:
No, this is not a flame, just a friendly comment that you really don't
need to shield yourself from anticipated flames from any of us who do not
share your exact viewpoint on any one subject. There are many points of
view represented on the B-Greek list, which is the way it ought to be,
and we respect your point of view and learn things from your input as we
do from others on the list. I admire and appreciate your perseverance in
asserting and arguing for a more conservative stance on some issues than
I find myself able to hold, and your persistence has contributed a good
deal to keeping us from making quick, glib responses to some issues that
seem simple but are, in fact, more complicated than we may realize. You
help to keep us who are less conservative more honest than we would be.
You probably don't consider your recurrent statements, "I'll probably get
flamed for this, but ... " as apologetic at all--in fact, I hope you see
some humor in them. I just wanted to say, I hope you don't feel
threatened in any way when you make a statement that you know others MAY
disagree with.
I wish you and all others on the List Christmas joy!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 12:36:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
On Tue, 20 Dec 1994, Dennis wrote:
> The King James and other English translations represent the Hebrew
> perfectly well, the phrase "mighty God" renders "El Gibbor," "God the
> Mighty One, Mighty God." This is one of those places where the LXX is
> paraphrasing. There is no textual variant in this verse in the BHS (the
> critical Hebrew OT) regarding the divine names. (By the by, this is 9:5
> in the Hebrew; the versification differs in this chapter).
>
> I'd have to check, but it seems I recall that in general the LXX is
> simply unreliable in much of Isaiah, and that this is simply one of many
> examples of a translation so loose as to be virtually useless for careful
> work. But yes, El Gibbor (and the other names as well) are safely there
> in the Hebrew.
I'd like some clarification from those who are more likely to know that I
am, but can we really say that where the LXX differs from Masoretic text
of the Hebrew, it is unreliable? Or do we know which parts of the Hebrew
text are particularly problematic in the LXX version(s)? I thought it was
the case that, since the MT as we have it (except for fragments in the
Qumran texts and the like) is no earlier than 9th c. A.D., the LXX
reading is often a safer indication of what stood "originally" in the
Hebrew text. Would someone who knows clarify this issue (if it's not
something that requires a volume or two, that is! ;-) )?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 13:59:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Son of Man
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad) quotes and comments:
>On Mon, 19 Dec 1994 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:
> (considerable material deleted)
>> It might be of interest to note here that individual Roman emperors
>> used, were referred to, and were addressed by titles like QEOU...KAI
>>SWTHROS.
>> This practice first appeared in the Greek-speaking world among the
>>Ptolemies
>> in Egypt where there was already a longstanding tradition of deification
of
>> the ruler. Moulton & Milligan (s.v. QEOS) cite an inscription in which a
>> votive offering is dedicated in honor of one of the Ptolemaic kings, with
>>the
>> words, *PTOLEMAIOU TOU SWTHROS KAI QEOU.
>>
>> In light of the ascription of such terms as these to the Roman
rulers,
>> we should seriously consider whether these same terms used in 2 Pet. 1:1
>>may
>> represent a statement by the Christian writer to the effect that, although
>> evil men had usurped such titles for themselves, to Christ they could be
>> ascribed truly, as to someone who really merited them.
>You might add Philippians 3.20 HMWN GAR TO POLITEYMA EN OYRANOIS YPARXEI,
>EKS OY KAI SWTHRA APEKDEKHOMEQA KYRION IHSOUN XRISTON, ... as another
>such statement by a Christian writer; here the political nature of the
>language is blatant.
Titus 2:13 also comes to mind as a parallel to 2 Pet. 1:1. If one could
focus the subject enough, it would probably provide material for a monograph.
Now I'm wondering if there is an extant monograph on the interplay of NT
Christology and the title aspects of emperor deification.
David L. Moore
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 11:08:43 PST
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Here's something to contemplate. As Dennis points out, the LXX is
somewhat "free" in its "translation" of Isaiah, more like the Living
Bible than the NASB (my favorite). The text of Isaiah 53:7-8 gets
interesting treatment in the LXX. It makes me wonder if 1st century CE
Jews, who seem to have known and liked the LXX, at least the NT writers,
knew the Hebrew text at all and what they made of the differences. Of
course, I'd also like to know what they made of the kiage sections but
oh well.
Ken Litwak
------------------------------
From: Bengt Odman <nbengtg@aristotle.algonet.se>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:11:11 +0100 (MET)
Subject: test
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 13:49:22 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Carl:
Unless I remember incorrectly, I think the Isaiah scroll found at Qumran
was one of the longest extant mss discovered. Also, unless my memory fails
me, the Masoretic Text and the Qumran Isaiah are remarkably close (except
for vowel markings, of course). In other words, if the LXX is radically
different from the MT in Isaiah 9, then I think that we would be safer in
this case to side with the MT and 1QIs. I'll search for references if
anyone wants them (I'm at work now and responding from memory!).
Regards,
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
------------------------------
From: gonzi@tirica.filo.uba.ar
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 15:56:00 -0300 (ARG)
Subject: greek list info req.
Can anyone tell me e-adresses of other lists devoted to Greek?
Thank you
Gonzalo Diaz, University of Buenos Aires
------------------------------
From: Bengt Odman <nbengtg@aristotle.algonet.se>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 22:01:58 +0100 (MET)
Subject: subscription
SUB NT-GREEK BENGT ODMAN
I tried sending this subscription request to NT-GREEK-REQUEST@&c which did
not work. I hope this does.
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 15:46:19 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Son of Man
On Tue, 20 Dec 1994 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:
> Titus 2:13 also comes to mind as a parallel to 2 Pet. 1:1. If one could
> focus the subject enough, it would probably provide material for a monograph.
> Now I'm wondering if there is an extant monograph on the interplay of NT
> Christology and the title aspects of emperor deification.
I'd be willing to bet on it, and that the title begins with SWTHR. I
don't have resources handy with me at the moment, but Fred Danker was
particularly interested in the political "benefactor" titles in the Roman
empire and the way they were used by Luke.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Reli-Sec@vuw.ac.nz
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 13:13:44 +1300
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
Please unsubscribe
Eve Kawana,
Secretary,
Department of Religious Studies,
Victoria University of Wellington,
P O Box 600,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Tel : +64 4 472 1000
Fax : +64 4 495 5065
E-Mail: Reli-Sec@vuw.ac.nz
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 19:06:32 -0800
Subject: LXX/Isa 9:6
To Ken,
As one who also likes limbs because they're less crowded and
the view is often better, I second Carl Conrad's sentiments
about appreciating your comments and views. In light of
your obvious zeal for the subject, whatever are you doing
working for something called Syborg, instead of in graduate
school? On Isa 9:6, you might find a book by Saul Levin on
Joshua son of Neue (LXX) interesting. Levin includes a
discussion of many divinely-assisted births to women in the
Hebrew Bible. Virgins at temples also frequently were
assisted by deities in becoming pregnant. Samson's mother
was visited by an angel in a field. Sarah wife of Abraham
became pregnant after Yahweh and two of his buddies showed
up at her infertile husband's tent for dinner one night.
I could see the author of Matthew drawing on this genre of
explanation to explain Jesus's birth if, as our sources
seem to indicate, there was some rumor of scandal about his
birth.
To Carl Conrad,
The Dead Sea Scrolls show both LXX and MT text types were in
use and fluid (i.e. not frozen to where scribes could not
emend or correct or in some cases amplify). So the MT
is not inferior to the LXX on chronological grounds.
Sometime after 70 (late first century?) the present MT was
selected from the varying texts and then became frozen as
(Hebrew) scripture which scribes could not alter. This
whole area of HB text types is very interesting and my
understanding is there is no clear answer to whether LXX or
MT is probably closer to the hypothesized autograph
manuscript, but that this must be evaluated case by case.
There is extensive discussion in DSS literature on these
issues. There is an excellent recent book by Pfeiffer on
the biblical manuscripts at Qumran, and there is always
the old but still-good discussion in Frank Cross's _Library
at Qumran_ (title right?) of 1961.
Seasons greetings--
Greg Doudna
Dept of Religious Studies and Phil
Marylhurst College
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #519
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu