Talk:Almah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

orphan thread[edit]

I am Blue Tie. I am working on this page. I have many things to do to it. I have done a great deal of research and I need to put as much as is reasonable here without overloading the page. Not done yet. I believe the Edershiem Quote is misleading.. I have to research that. Here are a few things I am working on right now.


Things to do to Finish this[edit]

Find and add other Definitions for the Bible use of this term.

Research Edersheim Quote:

  • Review Spelling of the Hebrew Names
  • Discuss age range of Almah
  • Discuss meaning of Naari

Add Additional detailed comments about Almah vs Alma (Egyptian word) and how the word may have a different source.


        • -- Hi Blue Tile. I just want to correct, the children of unmarried woman are not illegitimate in Jewish law. They have equal status with other Jews. Illegitimate children are only produced by a forbidden union, such as adultery (married woman with other than her husband), or by incest.

liparoi Liparoi (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



        • -- I wasn't sure how to get to you, Mr. Blue Tie, so I'm dropping this info in here in hopes that you find it. Feel free to read it, and use what you will and then delete this note.

http://www.geocities.com/ffbrosends/On_Isaiah_7_14.htm

Hope this isn't too intrusive

rosends@hotmail.com

Add Table of Bible Translations


Add Talmud Cites if they can be found, particularly Babylonian Talmud.

Provide sourcing or footnotes for the following statements

  • Some authorities believe that almah is derived from alma,
  • some linguists see Almah as derived from the ancient semetic word almah for "girl".
  • The masculine form of almah is elem ("עלם") meaning young man, boy, or lad.
  • The culture in the ancient Near East ascribed value to girls as potential wives and bearers of children
  • so the feminine almah carries a hightened sense of marriagability as well.
  • The plural of almah is alamot ("עלמות").
  • In Roman alphabets almah is optionally spelled with an initial spiritus asper mark (ʽalmah). (Not needed)
  • a confusion regarding the original texts leads some versions to eliminate this passage or translate it with completely different words.
  • some manuscripts provide a different word so the passage says "a man in his youth".

Put in Pronunciation information and perhaps pronunciation sound (.ogg)

Fix the Bible Translations Table (see below)

Wikify as needed.

Check spelling, grammar and improve readability per MS Word.

Request for peer review

Nominate for Good, Great or Featured Status. (Featured unlikely because of obscurity of topic).

Work to be done on Bible Translations Table[edit]

Add following Translations:

  • Septuagint
  • NEB
  • ESV
  • RSV
  • WEB / HNT
  • Jerusalem Bible (Catholic)


Re-cast the Table so that there are sections to it

  • KJV & its Derivatives
  • Jewish Bibles
  • Other Bibles
  • Septuagint

Then remove colors but reconfigure the table to reflect some degree of Translation Families and Dynamic Translation per


Note:There are different types of translation. The most common are: (1) literal; (2) dynamic equivalent; (3) paraphrased; and (4) interpretative. The first is essentially word-for-word, with no modification to help the non-Hebrew speaking person to deal with peculiar Hebrew idioms, etc. With a dynamic equivalent translation, the translator works phrase by phrase, or sentence by sentence, to express the same thought(s), but within English idioms. With a paraphrase, the translator exercises even more freedom in trying to convey the original message, not being concerned with using the key Hebrew words that are in the Hebrew that is being translated. In an interpretative translation, the translator paraphrases the text while also offering plausible substitutes for general terms in the original text.

Link Bible Translations

Rebecca's age[edit]

A commentary in the Soncino Chumash in the beginning of Toldot states > Isaac married Rebecca when she was 3 years old. Can someone clarify > this? Hertz's Chumash doesn't allude to this. The Stone does, but again > without any explanation.

I believe Rashi deals with this point. It works out as follows:-

1. Sarah was 90 when Yitzchok was born.

2. Sarah died at 127 immediately after the Akeidah, so Yitzchok was 37 at the Akeidah.

3. Immediately after Sarah's death Avrohom hears the news of the birth of Rivkah, so she was born when Yitzchok was 37.

4. Yitzchok was 40 when he married Rivkah, so she must have been 3 when they married.

I believe that the Ramban disagrees with Rashi on this.

hree years and one day is the youngest age at which halachah recognizes the possibility (elbeit not probability) of sexual relations for females. Thus, three was the youngest age at which Rivka could have wed Yitzchak.

    • Hi. I am adding some info. There are two midrashim (legends) that discuss it. By one accounting she was 14; by another she was 3. However, relations with a 3 year old are illegal in Jewish Law. (Halachah recognized that it is "possible" at 3 although it is still a crime of rape. The distinction is important because if she were raped, the perpetrator would still be guilty of a crime, but she would not be considered a non-virgin when she got older and wanted to marry, making her a victim yet again.) **

So, they would have waited a long time. In fact, they did not have children until about 20 years after they were married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons I know of for the medrash that asserts that Rivka was at that minimum when she married Yitzchak.

1- The gemara asserts that the avos (forefathers) kept all the mitzvos. This is taken to include, for reasons not clear to be, even dirabbanan's (Rabbinically enacted laws). Yitzchak kissed Rivka when they met, even though this would be in violation of the gezeira (Rabbinic protective law) of negi'ah (touching a member of the opposite gender in a way that might engender romantic feelings). This would not be an issue if she were younger than 3, since there was no need for such a gezeira when sex is impossible. This would indicate that she wasn't three yet when Eliezer brought her to Canaan to marry Yitzchak.

2- After the Akeidah, when Yitzchak was placed on an alter and nearly sacrificed, Yitzchak had many of the same laws as a kohein. A kohein may not marry a woman who had sex out of wedlock, even if it were rape. Someone who converted after age three, or was living as a captive among gentiles after age three, could not be assumed to be marryable by a kohein -- and therefor, neither by Yitzchak. Yitzchak must have then married her at the earliest possible time.

→→She was old enough to bring water, water camels, wear nose rings and decide if she would go and get married. So, the idea that she was 3 years old doesn't make sense. N Jordan (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing from article[edit]

The following should be added to the article:

  • The use of this word in the Hebrew Bible, in regard to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
  • The use of this word as relates to the Hebrew word "besulah." Badagnani (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are both in the article I think--Blue Tie (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of this word in the Hebrew Bible, in regard to Mary, the mother of Jesus." You mean in the Hebrew translation of the New Testament? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks like my CTRL-F search did not find "besulah" because it's actually romanized "bethulah." I didn't know Hebrew had a "th" phoneme. Yes, the term is in Isaiah, I believe, but is claimed by many Christian scholars to be a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus. This should be mentioned, or at least a redirect to another article that mentions this almah/bethulah issue. Badagnani (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberian Hebrew had a "th" sound as an allophone of "t" (probably not a separate phoneme); in Ashkenazic pronunciation it corresponds to "s" and in Sephardic to "t", but when Hebrew words are used in English, "th" is usually used (Beth-El, etc.). It's not just Christian scholars who interpret Isaiah 7:14 as a prediction of the Virgin Birth of Jesus; the Gospel according to Matthew itself specifically quotes that verse (in Greek, using parthenos as had been used in the Seputagint's translation of Isaiah). —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--does any article at WP currently discuss these two terms (almah and bethulah) as regards the supposed virgin birth of Jesus by Mary? Badagnani (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this article did, but did you look at Isaiah 7:14? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, just after I responded. I think the various articles mentioning related subjects should redirect there, and perhaps an article (or disambiguation page) is needed for "bethulah"/"betulah." Badagnani (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote this article because it was listed as an article that needed to be written. I hoped to have a neutral perspective. I think I am able to do so because I do not exactly believe either view -- the traditional Jewish view or the traditional Christian view. At the same time, I do not disbelieve either of those views. I have an ability to hold both of them in respect and honor while not quite believing them. (I can also read a wee bit of Hebrew and a wee bit of Greek). So, I tried to do the concepts justice without being biased one way or the other. I have seen this debate in several other articles and I hated seeing an on-and-on debate that is copied from the internet over the issue. I do not believe wikipedia articles should be like debate blogs. And I tried to word this article that way.
As a result, the article mentions the disputes, describes the issue of bethula and parthenos, but hopefully does not take sides. That is why it ends with the quotes saying that the argument might be nearly irrelevant. That is also why it only summarizes the debate and links to articles on the web that go into more detail.
I would really not want this article to turn into an internet argument blog. I hate that sort of thing on wikipedia. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not clear where "besulah"/"bethulah" should redirect, as relates to the claim that Isaiah predicts the virgin birth of Jesus. It seems already to be discussed to some extent at Isaiah 7:14. Badagnani (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the final paragraph is a reason, it should redirect here. However, I would suggest, rather than re-direct, it should be its own article, if it is suitable to be one. I originally wrote this one because it was requested on the page of articles needing to be written. Maybe Bethulah is there too. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think bethulah really needs its own article. In itself, it's fairly uncontroversial; it's just the Hebrew word for "virgin", and AFAIK nobody disputes that. The controversy is with almah, which apparently usually doesn't mean virgin, but was nevertheless occasionally translated as parthenos in the Septuagint (including at Isaiah 7:14), by Jewish translators, some two hundred years before the Virgin Mary was ever born or thought of. I don't see why "bethulah" even needs a redirect (why would someone search for it at Wikipedia?), but if it does get one, it should redirect here. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • HI. I am commenting on above. 1. Jews did not translate Isaiah's comment as parthenos. The Jewish authored Septuagint contained only the Five Books of Moses, not any of the Prophets like Isaiah. Christians wrote further versions of the Septuagint which also included Prophets. 2. Jews may have used parthenos in translating the Five Books of Moses to refer to Dinah after she is raped and clearly not a virgin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the article in question, the exact meaning of bethulah is weakly disputed - "Some scholars contend that debates over the precise meaning of bethulah and almah are misguided because no Hebrew word encapsulates the idea of certain virginity". That said, there really doesn't seem like there would be much to say about the word other than how it relates to the Almah controversy, so I don't think it merits its own article. As for a redirect, people may and do search Wikipedia for just about anything, and this article seems to be about the most relevant of any available.. Nimrand (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed[edit]

Furthermore, most scholars agree that the Jewish authored version was lost and replaced with a Christian version.--- This needs a citation, or a mark showing it needs a citation. With dead sea scrolls have been shown to suggest that the greek septuagint is actually closer to the original hebrew than the masoretic text we have now.


I'm marking the article NPOV and Disputed as the traditional Jewish understanding of almah does not include a meaning of unmarried, typical Jewish understanding of almah in Isaiah is that it is in fact the prophets wife. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mark this as NPOV and Disputed because as you say, the traditional Jewish understanding of almah does not include the meaning of unmarried, etc... BUT... the article already says the following:
For theological reasons, the meaning and definition of this word (especially the definition of "virgin") can be controversial, particularly when applied to Isaiah 7:14.
Jewish scholars declare that Matthew is in error, that the word almah means young woman (just as the male equivalent elem means young man). It does not denote a virgin or sexual purity but age. Because a different Hebrew word, bethulah ("בתולה"), is most commonly used for virgin even in modern Hebrew, the prophet could not have meant virgin in Isaiah 7:14.


So, the article already addresses those concerns.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting in nonsense about almah implying unmarried, standard Jewish commentaries such as Rashi explain the almah of Isaiah as the prophet's young wife, other commentaries suggest Ahaz's wife, and indeed both almah and its masculine form elem are used in Hebrew for any young adults married or unmarried. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani please read WP:SYN. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the tages but left the ones that seem to be appropriate.--Blue Tie (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggested edit to the introduction of this article, that ‘scholars agree’ (which opens the sentence associated with the second citation) should be replaced with ‘some scholars argue’ has been rejected. It has been rejected on the grounds that it does not meet guidelines for unbiased contributions.

As a first time editor, I might have things wrong, but I fail to see how it is unbiased to point out that ‘scholars agree’ is an unwarranted closed statement, which suggests a total lack of scholarly debate.

The translation of the Hebrew word ‘Almah’ is widely debated. C.H. Gordon, in his article ‘Almah in Isaiah 7:14’ (Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume XXI, issue 2, April 1953, page 106) argues that the translation of the Hebrew word ‘Almah’ as virgin has its basis in Septuagint translation, a translation which in turn is based on writings which dated to circa 1400 B.C.

This is not to say that C.H. Gordon’s view should supersede the author cited for the current page’s second citation; but it demonstrates that the translation of this word is debated. The statement that ‘scholars agree that the word has nothing to do with virginity’ is therefore erroneous. 

Sp67492 (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recent WP:MAINSTREAM Bible WP:SCHOLARSHIP does indeed agree that the word does not imply virginity, and that it does not deny it, either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin[edit]

heroine/hero with a pure heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.213.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death punishment for a girl who lost her virginity, according to the Bible? This is demonstrably false. The Bible provides the death punishment only for a woman who marries a man, and she pretends falsely to be a virgin (otherwise widows could not marry another man). It also provides the death penalty for a betrothed virgin who was not raped on a field. It also obligates the man raping a virgin to marry her. But the Jewish men were allowed to have concubines (lovers), i.e. to have sex with women they were not married to. This means that a virgin could become a lover, instead of a wife, otherwise only widows could become lovers and this is never said inside the Bible. Becoming a lover could happen if a virgin had consensually sex with a man, not being raped meant that he was not obliged to marry her. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it false? You say it yourself, "It also provides the death penalty for a betrothed virgin who was not raped on a field." --Itinerant1 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed false because it does not apply to virgins who are not betrothed. Therefore the claim that all virgins who lost their virginity had to receive the death penalty is false according to this stipulation. Even if the virgin was betrothed, getting raped on a field allows her to go on with her life instead of being killed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't claim that death punishment was coming to any girl who lost her virginity. I said that it was a possibility. --Itinerant1 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Premarital sex not being tolerated? Come on, this is never said inside the whole Bible. How could a man have lovers besides widows? By having sex with virgins (provided they were not betrothed to another man) or with women who lost virginity as concubines of another man. Therefore the Bible allows for sex outside of marriage, and it does not condemn premarital sex. In the future I suggest to read your Bible very attentively instead of making things up. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite wrong. For a woman to lose her virginity before the first marriage is considered "outrageous" and punishable by death: "If no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. " (Deuteronomy 22:20-22) That's the most explicit ban on premarital sex I can imagine without using words "premarital" and "sex".
Your quote is misleading, since in its context it only applies to a woman who gets married and falsely pretends to be a virgin. If she does not get married, there is no punishment. Also, if the woman is a widow, it is highly probable that she is no longer a virgin, but still has the right to marry a man, without having to be virgin for this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only exception is rape: if you rape or seduce a virgin who's not betrothed to another man, you'll be hit by a huge fine (fifty shekels of silver, or five years of craftsman's wages) and forced to marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28, Exodus 22:16).
You're not supposed to have lovers. You're supposed to marry a virgin and she'll only lose virginity after the marriage. (Hence the mention of "the cloth", or the blood-stained bed sheet, in Deuteronomy 22:17). You don't really marry a widow - rather, you take over the duties of your relative who was married to her before you. (Deuteronomy 25, Genesis 38).
Your problem is that you're misinterpreting the word concubine as lover. This not correct. The most common interpretation of the word is some sort of "secondary wife" or "lesser wife", with fewer rights and fewer responsibilities. (See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04557.html) A less common interpretation is that the concubine is basically a female slave. Details are irrelevant here, because a concubine is no longer "under the shielding protection of her family" and therefore she is not almah. --Itinerant1 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are correct, in lack of reliable sources quoted in support of your affirmations, it remains original research, since the Bible is a primary source, and original research cannot be included inside Wikipedia. So, your claims need such quotes in order to be allowed to remain inside the article. I have answered your hasty conclusion by providing information from a reliable source (Guépin, see nl:Jan Pieter Guépin for his Wikipedia article and http://www.schrijversinfo.nl/guepinjp.html for his works, he studied archeology and classic languages and got his doctorate in 1968; he taught compared literature in Leiden and wrote two books about Jesus). The quoted book is a compilation of critical public and academic lectures about the Bible addressed to a nonreligious audience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, I have found a reliable source on this subject. Prof. Coogan is quoted by Time as an expert upon sex in the Bible ([1]), having written an academic book on this subject. He is a distinguished scholar, being the editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible. This solves the label of original research, but I would still like to see reliable sources for the theses added to the article.Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prof. Coogan confirms I was right about men's sexuality: "There is no explicit prohibition in the Old Testament of premarital or extramarital sex by men except for adultery, which meant having sex with another man's wife." Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good source. You can also check "Women's Bible commentary" by Carol Ann Newsom, pages 61-64; and "Mercer dictionary of the Bible" by Watson E. Mills, page 307. (In the first book, there's also a long discussion of the meaning of the term bethulah.) For the purposes of this article, we're interested in women, and all authors agree, there was a prohibition on premarital sex for women. As for men, that's a bit more controversial. Maybe it was not prohibited, it was just difficult to practice (male unmarried youth can't engage in sexual relations with young unmarried females, or with married women, or with any relative, and prostitution seems to be banned, so that leaves widows, divorcees, and possibly slaves.) There's also a line of thought that, in ancient Israel, sexual intercourse was marriage, but it seems to be less supported in literature, and I can't find a comparably good source that says that explicitly. --Itinerant1 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One should not jump from a prohibition of premarital sex for women (Coogan only says "discouraged") to the conclusion that it did not happen. It simply begs the question that the Bible was being applied, when the Bible itself tells us that this was not always the case. The idea of prohibition is provable with Bible quotes, but the real behavior is a matter of historical research. In many books of the Bible there are references to existing prostitutes, e.g. Hosea was advised by God to marry a whore and having children form her. Also, the whore Rahab is considered a saint inside the New Testament (a saint by deeds and a saint by faith). Tamar, an one-time whore, did what she did in order to allow the bloodline to be carried on, this is seen as part of God's salvation plan by Christians. But historians have also other sources, not only the Bible, besides they do not consider the Bible as historically accurate, at least not the whole Bible: you can hardly find today a historian affirming the substantial historicity of the patriarchs or of the settlement, according to Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel by Lester L. Grabbe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Vischer and William F. Beck[edit]

I am not happy with the way an IP removed Vischer and added Beck, but the comments made about Beck in the edit summary by Zad were uncalled for and both have now been restored. Vischer in toto, Beck in a much toned down form. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed the blueletterbible bold subsection heads into reflinks per WP:MOS and replaced with descriptive subtitles. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Heb. almah and reliable sources[edit]

Editoreditorman has recently been drastically revising all articles where the Hebrew word "almah" is germane to conform to his own interpretation that it means or connotes virgin. To support this he keeps referring to the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, published in 2008 by InterVarsity Press, which, according to him, says that "almah" means a young woman past the age of puberty who would be expected to be a virgin. He also says that this proves there's no scholarly consensus on the meaning of the word (that is, that those scholars who say "almah" does not mean "virgin" are merely repersenting a narrow and personal viewpoint on a controversial issue). I'll come to that in a moment. First, I want to state that there is in fact an overwhelming consensus that "almah" does not mean virgin. The next paragraph will discuss this.

Let us begin with Professor Marvin Sweeney. On page 161 of his commentary Isaiah 1-39 (1996), Sweeney says: "Scholars agree that Heb. alma ... refers to a woman of childbearing age but has nothing to do with whether she is a virgin." In other words, Sweeney is saying that there is a consensus. If Editoreditorman disagrees with an authority like Sweeney, he will need very cogent evidence.

Sweeney is backed up by countless further examples. Sandra Gravett and her colleagues in their Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, intended as an entry-level text for tertiary students of the bible, say that "young woman" is the best translation, since "the word carries no reference to sexual experience" (page 72). Brevard Childs, a very highly respected scholar, says that "virgin" is "...misleading in being too narrowly focusing on virginity rather than on sexual maturity.." (page 66 of his Commentary on Isaiah, 2001). I don't think there's any point in multiplying instances: the point is, Sweeney is not arguing a narrow, personal, or sectional view when he says that the word "almah" does not mean what we mean by the English word "virgin."

So what about Editoreditorman's New Interpreter's Dictionary? I must say I'm puzzled by this, as what Editorman describes is so far outside the mainstream. The most probably explanation is that he has misinterpreted what is said. Certainly an almah could be a virgin, but the important thing is that almah refers to a stage in life, not a status of virginity - an almah is simply a young woman about the age of puberty (i.e., marriageable age, at least in ancient Israel). She would be expected to be a virgin until she married. But she would not stop being an almah when she married (it's to do with age, not marital status), and in fact she would remain an almah until the birth of her first child, after which she would be regarded as a mature woman. This is the situation in Isaiah 7:14 - Isaiah meets with king Ahaz, he points at a young girl (almah) in the king's party, and says, "Behold, the almah (in Hebrew, "ha-almah" - this is the wording in Isaiah 7:14, not simply "almah" by itself, which is what would be needed to say "an almah") is with child...".

Anyway, I think Editoreditorman should give us the full context of whatever it is that the New Interpreter's Dictionary says. PiCo (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Beck says different. Basileias (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an exact reference - the book and page number? PiCo (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Does Almah Mean? By William F. Beck, P.4 "I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin." P.7 "...two hundred years before Christ, long before the Jewish bias against Christ, “seventy” Jewish scholars translating for Jews, living twenty- two hundred years closer to almah than we do, translated it with “virgin,” parthenos. Whatever difficulties they may have experienced with the text and its historical setting, they were convinced that almah means “virgin.” This parthenos was kept in their Bible and read there by the Jews for three centuries. Not until 130 A.D., a hundred years after Christ, did they change it. The RSV, which often prefers the Septuagint to the Hebrew text, excluded its rendering from its translation, but on the basis of the Septuagint added “or virgin” in a footnote. When Weigle was asked about this footnote, he said, “We wouldn’t put anything in a footnote that was remote from the truth." Basileias (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrus H. Gordon Journal of Bible & Religion Vol.21 1953. p. 106. "The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin"."
Gordon: what he's saying there is that the choice of virgin/young woman is not faith-based, (that's why he draws attention to the fact that the LXX translators were Jewish). The context of that piece was the publication of the RSV Old Testament the year before (1952). The RSV dropped the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and replaced it with "young woman" or something similar. There was an immediate outcry from conservative Christians in America, who said this was a Jewish translation (they pointed to the presence of Harry Orlinsky, a distinguished Jewish scholar, in the RSV translation team - proof, they said, that the RSV was a Jewish work). So Gordon is saying (in 1953) that there's nothing specifically Jewish about these things - good Jews had chosen "virgin" for the LXX. Gordon then goes on to say that "virgin" is, nevertheless, not the right translation. You can check this yourself - it comes a paragraph or so after the sentence you quote.
Beck is a considerably less eminent scholar than Gordon, and if he were still alive today, would be more than a century old (born 1904, died, I think, about 1966). When Sweeney said "scholars agree" that almah does not mean virgin, I think he meant ones a bit more recent than this. But staying with Beck, he was writing at much the same time as Gordon, and in the same context - the negative reception of the RSV among conservatives. In the 60 or so years since then, things have settled down, and as Sweeney says, scholars now agree on what almah means - a young woman of childbearing age. Mostly an almah would be a virgin, but an almah could be married and pregnant, as the one in Isaiah 7:14 is. When she had her first child, she ceased to be an almah and became a woman. Greek doesn't have that concept, so the LXX translators had to use a word that didn't quite fit - they had no word that did.
Basileias, I take it that you and Editoreditorman are the same person? Please read more widely, especially books that you might disagree with :) PiCo (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your trying to do is force a view and play word games. Virgin is obviously not the direct meaning. The way its being worded is virginity is completely foreign to the term almah and that is not correct. Your twisting up Gordon. Who is more or less eminent is not for us to decide. Just simply cite what they are saying. Sweeny is not the only voice. Basileias (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not know who Editoreditorman is. Since we are play that game are you Editoreditorman? The good faith here kills me. Basileias (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon says what Sweeney says: almah means young woman, not virgin. PiCo (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way its currently worded is virginity is foreign to the term almah, and that is not correct based on ancient translation (LLX for one). Basileias (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The essential point is that the word "almah" covered a concept for which there was no direct equivalent in Greek or English - a young woman who had reached childbearing age (puberty if you like) but had not yet had her first child. That, in Hebrew, was an almah. Almahs would be betrothed (betrothal happened at an extremely early age) and for a brief period they would be married, during which they would be expected to become pregnant. This is the case with the girl in Isaiah 7:14 - from the context of the surrounding verses, it's clear she was an actual girl, present at the meeting between Isaiah and Ahaz, not some as-yet unborn woman several centuries in the future. The tense is present tense: "The almah is with child", not, despite the convention of Christian Old Testaments, future. The sign is not her pregnancy, not even the birth of the child, but the fact that the two enemy kings will be destroyed. Their destruction isn't the prophesy - the prophesy is that God will be with Israel, even during and after the threat of the Syrian and Ephaimite invasion. Please,read the many good modern commentaries on this. PiCo (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Brown writing in The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (1998) (which is searchable and mostly viewable at Amazon with login) says about Isaiah 7:14 at p. 147, "The interpretation of this passage by modern scholars may be summarized under these points: ... The word alma, [diacriticals omitted] used to describe the woman, normally describes a young girl who has reached the age of puberty and is thus marriageable. It puts no stress on her virginity, although de facto, in the light of Israelite ethical and social standards, most girls covered by the range of this term would be virgins." (Emphasis in original.) He then goes on, on p. 148, to say that though the translator of the Septuagint used the Greek word which normally means virgin to translate alma, and "The normal rendering of alma would be neanis, 'young woman'; and it is quire understandable that the post-LXX [i.e. Septuagint] translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion), which are consistently closer to the MT [i.e. Masoretic Text], employed neanis in Isa 7:14." Our article on Brown says, that he "was regarded as occupying the center ground in the field of biblical studies, opposing the literalism found among many fundamentalist Christians while not carrying his conclusions as far as many other scholars." Just thought I'd toss this in... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that about sums it up. There are seven instances of the word almah in the Bible (plus two where it appears as a psalm heading); in six of these it describes a young girl of around puberty who may or may not be a virgin (the exception is the use of the word in the plural in Canticles, where Solomon is described as having alamot along with wives and concubines: possibly they were virgins, but possibly not). The seventh is the almah in Isaiah 7:14, who is already pregnant and so clearly not a virgin. PiCo (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Different scholars have different statements on this. We are to enter what they say, not cherry pick certain ones to say what we want to push. Those on another side are not saying that almah means virgin. They are saying almah may mean virgin used in certain contexts, just like what was translated for the ancient Gks. Basileias (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're not saying that almah means virgin; they're saying that an almah might, even usually, be a virgin. Your argument is like saying that because a Toyota is a car, the word Toyota is Japanese for car. The sign is not the signified. PiCo (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Mean," "Be" it does not matter to me. I do not have an argument in this and my only stake is to see that view is included. Currently, it is not. Basileias (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Mean" vs "be" matters a great deal. What the word almah means is a girl or marriageable age - in our terms, an adolescent girl (in ancient times girls were married at around 12 or 13, and in many traditional societies they still are). In our society, an adolescent girl is usually a virgin, but some adolescents do get married and are pregnant at 14 or 15. We still call them "adolescents". In other words, the meaning is to do with age and social position, and the sexual experience of the actual girl is secondary. PiCo (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to skirt around what is important to you, but I am not so much interested in who is accurate as a scholar. I try and follow to the best of my ability the reliable sources guidelines.
  • Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.
  • ...we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
I believe some of the Evangelical scholars no matter how far right, smart or dumb they are qualifies as a minority view.
Basileias (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evangelical scholars are reliable sources. Gordon Wenham, for example, is very well respected. Our task is to find out what are the majority contemporary opinions among scholars, and what might be majority or minority views. Sweeney does us the service of saying that "scholars agree" on the quoted opinion. I don't take that as meaning that ALL scholars agree on this - Geoffrey Bromiley doesn't, and Brevard Childs seems to qualify his own opinion. But from my own reading, it does seem that Sweeney's statement as a majority view among scholars is born out.
Bromiley is the closest to disputing Sweeney's statement - he says that there's no consensus. I don't know when he wrote that - the book itself has a recent publication date, but since Bromiley has been retired since 1987 (and died in 2009), I suspect it's an old work that's been recycled. PiCo (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an interesting side-note on translations, in modern Egyptian Arabic an almah is a dancing-girl! This might be what the Song of Songs meant by Solomon's wives, concubines and alamot - after all, why would the king want a collection of virgins? PiCo (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I understand a lot of ancient Kings collected virgins, not that they stayed that way long... :-o Basileias (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request: The word Almah does not translate as "virgin" even though sometimes it was translated that way. USchick (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! But there is a great effort here to purge this information from here because some do not like it. "...sometimes it was translated that way." Basileias (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Old Testaments typically translate it..., sources?[edit]

Its being entered as "Christian Old Testaments typically translate it as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl". Need something more than Sweeney. In fact, open up 90% of popular Christian OT and it will be virgin. Basileias (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All statements need reliable sources, and Sweeney is a reliable source. PiCo (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Sweeney has given the impression Christian translators have all used maiden, young woman, damsel or girl" in popular translations (NIV, KJV, ESV, HCSB, Message, NASB, etc.) for Isa 7:14, he just recused himself as a reliable scholar. Basileias (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick look in Sweeney I couldn't find that passage there, so I removed it. PiCo (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I have added the POV tag due to editors ownership of this article, dancing around personal attacks and only trying to get to a consensus after considerable back and forth, and most of all cherry picking of facts and wearing out editors through piles of verbiage. Basileias (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you dislike facts and reading, but they're both probably necessary.
I am sorry you feel the need to insult other editors. Basileias (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tags for the following reasons:
  • Citation needed tag: The citation is there, at the end of the sentence - Sweeney.
  • Verification needed: "Verification" simply means, does the cited source really say what our article says it says? In this case it does (or do you disagree?), so the the tag is redundant.
If you really feel so strongly, all I can suggest is that you take your concerns to the admins noticeboard. Just find an admin, and ask for help - tell them you have a dispute and it needs third party arbitration. PiCo (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Till then, the source verification tag needs to stay. Sources need to be viewable by EVERYONE! Basileias (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but hurry up and get your case before the admins as soon as possible. PiCo (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick word about process. Administrators do not not, and cannot make decisions about content and there is no arbitration system for content at Wikipedia. The way to address a dispute such as this is via dispute resolution (DR), but note that all that DR can do is (a) give you an opinion about matters, if that is appropriate, (b) try to help you come to a compromise on the matter (within Wikipedia policy) and form a consensus between you, or (c) via a request for comments, attract in other editors with a view towards trying to reach a consensus. I note that this has been listed at the Third Opinion project, which is how I came here, though I did so as just a general editor without putting on my DR hat. I'd be happy to offer some comments or try to help, but
  • (i) since I've already joined in here as a general editor it would be inappropriate for me to now put on my DR hat unless both of you are willing for me to do so and
  • (ii) I'd rather not do so unless you'll tell me exactly what the dispute is about, preferably very briefly and illustrated with diffs, so I don't have to go to the trouble to puzzle it out. If you choose to do so, however, please do not say a word about the other editor's motivations, biases, or conduct; here at Wikipedia we discuss edits, not editors, and I will not evaluate or discuss such matters and do not care to see them. (I'm not an administrator, moreover, and can't do anything about it even if I were to listen to it.)
If you feel that I'm not sufficiently neutral to help you, having participated here already, that's entirely reasonable and understandable. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC) PS: The other thing you'll need to give me, if I am to help, is some patience. I generally do not edit much or often at all on weekends and sometimes my real world life is not my own at other times. — TM 16:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe what you just wrote! Please feel welcome to participate. One of my many problems here is editors being made to feel unwelcome and indirect hostility towards opposing views. That is bullshit coming from experienced editors. Please, please by all means participate! Even if you do not agree with me. Please participate. My two principals here are these:
  • Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.
  • ...we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
I believe Beck is a minority view that should be included. I am not advocating that almah is virgin. I do not care about Beck's eminence as a scholar. I do not care if he is the stupidest scholar ever. I want to include that some scholars have different views. Wanting to purge conservative Christian views just because people do not like them violates so many things here.
I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin." P.7 "...two hundred years before Christ, long before the Jewish bias against Christ, “seventy” Jewish scholars translating for Jews, living twenty- two hundred years closer to almah than we do, translated it with “virgin,” parthenos. Whatever difficulties they may have experienced with the text and its historical setting, they were convinced that almah means “virgin.” This parthenos was kept in their Bible and read there by the Jews for three centuries. Not until 130 A.D., a hundred years after Christ, did they change it. The RSV, which often prefers the Septuagint to the Hebrew text, excluded its rendering from its translation, but on the basis of the Septuagint added “or virgin” in a footnote. When Weigle was asked about this footnote, he said, “We wouldn’t put anything in a footnote that was remote from the truth. What Does Almah Mean? By William F. Beck, P.4
Basileias (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basileias, The policy on verifiability states that all content on Wikipedia needs to be traceable to a source. I removed the inline needs verification source after verifying that the source does support the statement that precedes it. There is no requirement that a cited source be available online, so if you are in a place that does not have access to Google Books you may need to go to a library. This does not mean that the tag needs to stay up forever. VQuakr (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It should reference the book then. What I found strange was references to works on google books with the page being cited is missing. Basileias (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you can't see page 161? That can happen with Google Books - for copyright reasons they exclude some pages of books, and the pages vary. I've never been able to figure what the pattern is - some people see some pages, others see others. The book is quite well-known, and if you have access to a university or seminary library the real-life version should be available. Or you could try using a different ISP (if you have a laptop or iPad or other mobile device, just take it to a cafe with free wifi access). PiCo (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was already cited as a book in the bibliography section. I expanded the citation a bit. VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my response to Basileias's comments above, where he states his case in reply to TransporterMan's offer to mediate. (An offer which I am happy to accept). I'll just repeat what I understand to be his complaint, in case I've misunderstood: he wants William Beck's view that almah means "virgin" to be noted as a minority view next to the view from Sweeney that is does not. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, as what I say next is based on that understanding. Beck's views are from a work called What Does Almah Mean? - I can't find when this was published, but certainly before 1965 and I think probably from the mid-1950s, for reasons I'll now go into.

I don't think Beck represents a valid contemporary viewpoint on the meaning of almah. Here's why: Beck's work is about half a century old, and, if I'm right about it dating from the mid-1950s, was written in response to a crisis which has long since passed away. The crisis was the publication of the Revised Standard version of the bible, in 1952. It was a very important publication, because until then the King James Version had been used in most Protestant churches in America, and the RSV was intended to replace it. It caused an uproar. One of the main complaints - possibly the main complaint - was over the fact that the RSV called the almah of Isaiah 7:14 a "young woman" instead of a virgin. The KJV had virgin, and Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and the Gospel of Matthew said that Isaiah 7:14 was a prediction of the virgin birth. Anyway, there was major controversy over this, and I believe Beck's book was written at this time in this context. (You can read about the 1950s controversy in Ron Rhodes' guide to bible translations).

So now let's move on to the early 21st century. Does Beck's view still carry weight? Does anyone - or any significant number of scholars - support him? I believe not. Marvin Sweeney is a leading expert on the prophetic books, and in his 1996 commentary on Isaiah 1-39 he says " scholars agree" that almah does not mean virgin. The commentary is published by Eerdmans - a reputable scholarly publisher - in a series called Forms of Old Testament Literature, which you can read about here - it's obviously intended as a flagship scholarly series, not a place to be rpresenting new theories, or misrepresenting scholarly consensus.

Who else shares that view? Anthony Saldarini (page 1007), writing on the Gospel of Matthew in Eerdmans 2003 one-volume Commentary on the Bible, says that an almah "...is a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child and who may be an unmarried virgin or an unmarried young woman." Again, Eerdmans has a reputation to guard, they aren't going to put out-of-ballpark opinions between their covers.

Or there's Joseph Blenkinsopp (a Jesuit priest as well as a respected biblical scholar), writing the commentary on Isaiah for the New Oxford Annotated Bible (page 988) in 2007, calls the almah "a young woman" without any further argument or comment, as if this is entirely uncontroversial.

So are there any contrary views, today? I typed "almah means virgin" into the search-bar of Google books and this is the first page of results:

  • A Zeal for God Not According to Knowledge - this is by Eric V. Snow, who holds no academic position,and the book itself seems to be self-published. Which is a pity, as it's actually rather good.
  • The Virgin Birth Myth - I don't regard this as a reliable source, though you can form your own opinion - but he says he thinks almah does not mean virgin.
  • Isaiah 1-39 - a compilation of writings from early Church Fathers, who did indeed believe that almah meant virgin, but we're interested more in what contemporary scholars say.
  • College Press NIV Commentary: Isaiah - "While an 'almah can be a virgin, the word by no means automatically implies that state."
  • Vital Biblical Issues: Examining Problem Passages of the Bible - "Many scholars are noncommittal on whether the term signifies a virgin or a married woman." If that's so, I've yet to find them.
  • Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe - The title suggests the book is confessional rather than impartial. I'm unsure whether this is a reliable source - one of the authors is a Professor of Theology at Western Seminary, but I don't know what Western Seminary is. The other author is a pastor.
  • Thru the Bible Vol. 34: The Gospels (Matthew 1-13): The Gospels ... - The author is Vernon McGee. I assume this is J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988), who was "an ordained Presbyterian minister (PCUS) who later pastored an interdenominational church, a Bible teacher, theologian, and was also a radio minister." He's quite certain that almah means virgin. The book is not, however, scholarly, and I don't think McGee would claim it to be - it makes statements, not arguments.
  • Three Perspectives: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim - not a scholarly book; the author simply records interviews with Christian, Jewish and Islamic pastors, rabbis etc.

So, all in all, there seem to be no recognised biblical scholars who hold the view that the word almah actually means virgin - as distinct from an almah, the person, quite often being a virgin. But as Saldarini makes clear and Sweeney and Blenkinsopp repeat, virginity is not central to the meaning. PiCo (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structured discussion[edit]

Okay, let me start with a couple of questions:

  • @Basileias: Is the italicized language in your 06:38, 22 April 2013 post a quote from Beck, or is it something that you are saying and referring to Beck as a source? I'm confused because "What Does Almah Mean? By William F. Beck, P.4" is also italicized.
  • @Both #1: Is there any disagreement here that the prevailing view today is that almah is a term which emphasizes the age and, perhaps, marital status of the girl, not the girl's virginity? In short, is there any disagreement that the prevailing view today is that "young woman" comes closer to the meaning of the term than "virgin"?
  • @Both #2: Is it possible that the underlying dispute here is, rather than the use of a particular source, actually the question of whether to characterize the translation of almah as "virgin" as (a) outdated (which at least implies that it is wrong) or (b) minority (which at least implies that some people still believe it to be correct)?
  • @PiCo: If you believe that the idea that the article should treat the "virgin" translation as outdated and/or wrong, should (and how should) the article take into consideration the fact that there are significant numbers of people, including entire congregations if not denominations (such as these, as an extreme case), who discard the prevailing view?

Please answer independently and do not respond to or comment upon the other editor's answers at this time.

Basileias answers:

  • @Both #1: Is there any disagreement here that the prevailing view today is that almah is a term which emphasizes the age and, perhaps, marital status of the girl, not the girl's virginity? In short, is there any disagreement that the prevailing view today is that "young woman" comes closer to the meaning of the term than "virgin"?
  • Prevailing view for "young woman"? depends. The view can split among certain groups of scholars. As far as what comes closer to the meaning, Sweeney and Beck differ. Beck believes that BCE 2nd century translators translated it as virgin into Greek because that is how they understood it could also mean. He contends that almah does have some ambiguity around its use. Beck also argues there is an anti-Christian bias in scholarship against using virgin in Isaiah 7:14 (I will wager he is just referencing Christian bibles here).
  • It's true that views can split, of course, but the question is whether or not you agree that the "young woman" view is the prevailing view today. Your answer can logically be "I agree", "I do not agree", or "I don't know." Please pick one or say why you believe none of those choices apply. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(later addition) I was thinking that if you had another reason to inquire about what I believe, I will answer. I am not trying at all to avoid a fair process. Basileias (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Both #2: Is it possible that the underlying dispute here is, rather than the use of a particular source, actually the question of whether to characterize the translation of almah as "virgin" as (a) outdated (which at least implies that it is wrong) or (b) minority (which at least implies that some people still believe it to be correct)?
  • If I understood your question correctly (a) yes and (b) yes. Many still believe almah as "virgin" is correct (for Isaiah 7:14).
  • @Basileias: Is the italicized language in your 06:38, 22 April 2013 post a quote from Beck, or is it something that you are saying and referring to Beck as a source? I'm confused because "What Does Almah Mean? By William F. Beck, P.4" is also italicized.
  • Most of that was poorly executed quotes from pages 4 and 7 of an essay. What Does Almah Mean? was written by translator Dr. William F. Beck.

New question for Basileias: PiCo asserts that, "This article is about scholarly understandings of the term, not popular ones." Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why do you disagree?

Answer here:
  • Disagree. By claiming it is only about scholarly understandings here the contribution to the article is limited. No one is supposed to have ownership of the articles. As long as the contributions pass Verifiability generally there should be no reason to deny an editor from adding properly sourced content. Basileias (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PiCo answers:

  • @Both #1: Is there any disagreement here that the prevailing view today is that almah is a term which emphasizes the age and, perhaps, marital status of the girl, not the girl's virginity? In short, is there any disagreement that the prevailing view today is that "young woman" comes closer to the meaning of the term than "virgin"?
  • "Almah" addresses the age and marital status (both) of the girl - see Saldarini, Sweeney and Blenkinsopp, for example (quoted above).
  • @Both #2: Is it possible that the underlying dispute here is, rather than the use of a particular source, actually the question of whether to characterize the translation of almah as "virgin" as (a) outdated (which at least implies that it is wrong) or (b) minority (which at least implies that some people still believe it to be correct)?
  • No. Modern mainstream scholarship doesn't entertain the idea that almah=virgin, therefore it shouldn't be treated at all, beyond the bare mention in the lead already.
  • @PiCo: If you believe that the idea that the article should treat the "virgin" translation as outdated and/or wrong, should (and how should) the article take into consideration the fact that there are significant numbers of people, including entire congregations if not denominations (such as these, as an extreme case), who discard the prevailing view?
  • The fact that congregations still believe that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the virgin birth should be treated in that article and the article virgin birth of Jesus (as it is), not here. This article is about scholarly understandings of the term, not popular ones. PiCo (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New question for PiCo: If modern mainstream scholarship has wholly rejected the "virgin" translation, how is it that Bible versions with a team of Biblical scholars behind them, such as the 2011 revision of the New International Version continue to include the "virgin" translation in Isaiah 7:14? — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer here:
  • The answer might shake your faith in the publishing industry: bibles are major sellers, an average of 5 per household in America (if you find that hard to believe, so do I, but it comes from a Gallup poll), and in America, which is an overwhelmingly evangelical country, bibles that translate almah as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 won't sell. That verse is the litmus test for conservative Christians - they look at it before buying. For scholarship, you have to look at schlarly publications (which bibles aren't), such as commentaries from academics at major educational institutions published by respected publishing houses such as Eerdmans, BRILL, Oxford, etc. PiCo (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PiCo, please answer the three specific questions which I asked, rather than addressing the issue in general. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had, but I've replaced my answer. PiCo (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of housekeeping. I reserve the right to move this discussion to a subpage if this becomes protracted. I also reserve the right to invoke the mediator's rights set out in Wikipedia:MEDIATION#Control_of_mediation if need be (I am not invoking them at this time, but only reserving the right to do so). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status note: I have added two questions for Basileias and one for PiCo, interlined above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I now have a better grip on your positions. A few questions and comments:

@Basileias:

  • You are misunderstanding Wikipedia policy when you say, "As long as the contributions pass Verifiability generally there should be no reason to deny an editor from adding properly sourced content." As noted in footnote 1 to the Verifiability policy, verifiability — i.e. that a source is a reliable source — verifiability is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. There is no presumption that, all else being equal, all material from all reliable sources should be included in an article.
  • You are also misunderstanding Wikipedia's position about scholarly work. The Neutral point of view policy says that Wikipedia has a clear preference for the scholarly point of view: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." That statement should not be read, however, to mean that only commonly accepted mainstream scholarship can be included in an article: note the word "every". Most of that policy is devoted to the topic of what material, and with what balance, should be included in the article
  • I do not mean to imply by the foregoing that I either believe or do not believe that the position you are advancing here cannot be or should not be included in this article, that is yet to be determined. I only mean to avoid unnecessary further discussion based on faulty premises of policy.
  • I have grave doubt that Beck can be used as a reliable source because it does not satisfy the publication requirement: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have looked for a place where the Beck essay was published in a publication with that reputation and cannot find one. Indeed, there is some evidence that it was at least once refused publication in such a publication. That does not mean that the position for which you are advancing Beck cannot be (or can be) included, it only means that a better source than Beck will have to be found for it unless you can find a place where the Beck essay was reliably published.
Responses by Basileias:
  • I accept your assessment. There are other published sources. I found Beck hosted on Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. I hope my short response does not leave this directionless. On the run yesterday and today. Basileias (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PiCo:

  • In saying, "that verse is the litmus test for conservative Christians - they look at it before buying" and in referring me to the Rhodes' Complete Guide you may have illustrated something which is a doubt for me in accepting your thesis of complete scholarly rejection of almah=virgin. In Chapter 5 on the RSV, Rhodes says at pp. 80-81, and in footnote 9 on p.261,

    "Conservative Christians have long believed the virgin birth of Christ is nor only implied in the Old Testament — it is actually predicted there — in Isaiah 7: 14. Many have argued that Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 should be translated 'virgin,' and not merely 'young woman,' since there are no examples in the Old Testament where it means anything but a young unmarried girl. Moreover, the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), which predates the time of Christ, translated the Hebrew word almah with the unambiguous Greek word parthenos, which always means 'virgin.' Hence, the translators of the Greek Old Testament evidently believed this was a prediction of the virgin birth of rhe Messiah. The inspired New Testament text sanctioned the Septuagint translation of almah as 'virgin' when it quoted the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 7:14 to show that this prophecy was fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ (see Matthew 1:23). [In footnote:] Note, however, that many scholars continue to justify the RSV rendering of Isaiah 7:14. They point out that the Hebrew word almah does indeed mean 'young woman,' according to our best Hebrew lexicons. The debate continues."

    (Emphasis added.) The part of Rhodes preceding the footnote only repeats your point: Conservative Christians reason backwards that since Scripture is inspired and inerrant, if not infalliable, that since Matthew says that Isaiah says "virgin" then by God (quite literally) the word that Isaiah used, whatever that word was, meant "virgin" and thus must be translated "virgin." The arguments used to justify that position vary somewhat, but most of them come down to some form of the argument that though the word almah's primary meaning is "young woman" that it is capable of being used to mean "virgin" (though some, as noted by Rhodes, above, believe that almah should be translated as virgin throughout the OT, not just in Isaiah). Though Beck will not serve as a source, as I've pointed out above to Basileias, there are conservative (aka evangelical aka fundamentalist) scholars who still defend the idea that in the translation of at least Isaiah 7:14 almah should be translated as virgin. For example, in the Expositor's Bible Commentary (available in pertinent part for viewing at Amazon with login, though you have to pick up one page of Isaiah from Google Books) both Geoffrey W. Grogan in his commentary on Isaiah (Vol. 6, 2008, pp. 515-518) and D.A. Carson (Vol 9, 2010, pp. 102-106) in his commentary on Matthew both go to some lengths to justify reading Isaiah's almah as virgin, with Carson saying, "In short, there is a presumption in favor of rendering alma [diacriticals omitted] by 'young virgin' or the like in Isaiah 7:14." (Emphasis added.) I do not doubt that others can be found. Why should that position not be reflected in the article? Can an argument not be made that Biblical scholarship is not quite like scientific or medical scholarship, which are entirely science or fact-based, but that mainstream views in Biblical scholarship can be based in part upon theological beliefs such as inspiration and infallibility? Supplement (added at 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)): As another example, J. Alec Motyer in The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (1993, InterVarsity, also viewable at Amazon with login) in discussing 7:14 says at pp. 85:

    "Thus, whenever the context allows a judgment, alma is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. ... There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing 'virgin birth' and which, without linguistic impropriety opens the door to such a meaning."

    (Diacriticals omitted, emphasis added.) In discussing betulah in footnote 4 on p. 84, Motyer makes the rather telling remark (in reference to betulah, not almah), "We note that it is not the word itself but its context which indicates its meaning... [T]he word has no more reference to virginity than the English word 'girl'."
Responses by PiCo:
  • Motyer's comment that context determines meaning is correct: an almah (the person) was normally a virgin, but the word itself does not mean virgin. What this dispute comes down to is Sweeney's comment that almah has nothing to do with virginity. Sweeney meant pretty much the same as what Motyer is saying, and I don't think he meant to imply that all scholars would agree, just that this is the overwhelming majority position. I used Sweeney in the lead because he does us the favour of identifying that majority position. Given his professional position, and his eminence in the field, he's a reliable source on the subject. PiCo (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I would ask that neither of you comment upon the questions and comments which I have addressed to the other editor and that whoever responds second not comment upon the responses of whoever answers first. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PiCo: In light of the fact that Sweeney is, as you note, engaging in a bit of hyperbole, it doesn't seem to me that Sweeney is particularly appropriate to represent the majority position in the lede. I suspect that with very little searching you can find a RS which says that almah=young woman is the majority position without being quite so absolute about it. Would you consider doing that? As an aside, by the way, I challenged you with the fact that the 2001 NIV retained "virgin." On further consideration, I found some interesting f

Fringe book[edit]

See Talk:Isaiah 7:14#Changing text at whim and Talk:Isaiah 7:14#Point on translation. Also discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 83#Isaiah 7:14. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded at Talk:Isaiah 7:14#Changing text at whim. Potatín5 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

The IP from Munich still has to produce a WP:RS for their claims; we cannot change the text of the article at whim. See WP:OR.

I'm not saying they are wrong. However, wikipedically speaking, they are not even wrong.

Inquisitorial histrionics never exempt anyone from WP:CITE WP:RS. The idea that we will cower in fear just because they mentioned the words antichristian bias is inane.

I can say at this article, from the mainstream academic point of view, the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong, same as at other articles I can say that the Jews are wrong and the Christians are right. E.g. the traditional Jewish idea that Jesus was an apostate from Judaism is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical usage section pathetic[edit]

In the first two instances, evidences from an author of "Anatomy of a Cargo Cult," rather than actually providing the verse references and description of how the word is used, we are told, "A servant of Abraham tells his master how he met Rebecca," yet the servant is not even speaking to his master Abraham, but to Laban, the brother of wife-to-be Rebecca. The WP description continues: "He prayed to the Lord that if an almah came to the well and he requested a drink of water from her," without mentioning that the same women, Rebecca, is called a "bethûlâh,"

Next, again without any reference, the WP description states, "Miriam, an almah, is entrusted to watch the baby Moses," but fails to note that the almah was the sister of Moses. Which, consistent with the theme in this article that almah (with priority given to liberal scholars) does not denote a virgin, must mean she is a fornicator, which Rebecca must have also become in the servant's mind, btwn the time she is called "bethûlâh" and then in becomes an almah in explaining his mission.

Next, it lists and in , and "In and the heading to Psalm 46 as using "alamot" without explaining the form.

Then as regards SOS 6:8, the WP description adds that "in verse 6:8 a girl is favorably compared to 60 Queens (wives of the King), 80 Concubines," thereby inferring equivalence, yet the description is one of comparison of glory, that of the temple, and thus the moon and the sun are also invoked, while in the next verse the word translated "undefiled" in the KJV most often denotes being complete, morally innocent, having integrity. Yet she also must be considered a fornicator consistent with the theme in this article that almah does not denote a virgin.

Next, in the WP description, it explains , as "comparing the woman's acts to things the author claims are hard to predict," when contextually it actually describes things that are "wondrous" (like as in  ; 13:19; 1Ch 16:9,12, etc.). It then resorts to the Greek in countering the Hebrew, since the latter concludes with "the way of a man with an almah" being another wondrous thing, but the Greek does not even translate almah as any kind of women, but as youth, in "the way of a man in his youth."

All of which is consist with the overall tenor of this article, which argued that almah "has nothing to do with virginity" citing unnamed scholars, even though almah is never used for anyone who is shown to be otherwise, and is used for one who is called "bethûlâh." And if almah is not used for virgins then it means that the sister of Moses, and the women who was to marry Jacob, as well as all the rest, were fornicators or previously married or victims of rape. Meaning that the exclusion that almah "has nothing to do with virginity" means it may have something to do with immorality or previous marriage.

And yes, I know there is always some bias in such editing, but it is the conclusion that militates against almah as denoting virginity is one that is forced, and not substantiated by its use. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus

(On side note that I also discovered that it seems the Bible previewer extension in Firefox prevents my Bible references from appearing in WP pages as this.) (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bethûlâh in lead[edit]

"there is no instance where it is used for a women (sic!) who is described as not being a virgin, and in Genesis 24:43 is used for the "bethûlâh" Rebecca (Gen 24:16)."

Nonsensical sentence, probably due to careless successive re-edits. Multiple issues:

  1. Almah "is used for ... bethûlâh"? Looks like someone was pushing a point and has thrown editorial care & logic overboard. A. Bethûlâh not explained. B. Not clear if (nor likely that) the Hebrew text uses both terms in succession, or that Rebecca is regularly defined as a bethulah, allowing to claim equivalence between almah and bethulah.
  1. Contradictory. Either 24:16, or 24:43. Now the sentence basically states that "24:43 illustrates 24:16."

Arminden (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Achar Sva argued, almah did not explicitly mean virgin, but it was taken for granted that the nubile girl was a virgin. So, although those edits are awkward, they are not completely wrong. And Moody Press is an extreme position in Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Almah&oldid=1207673562"