ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"

[james2ko]

That's still doesn't make Mary of David's line. The messianic prophecy implied that the messiah would be of David's direct linage, and Mary is not directly linked (according to the 2 different family trees of Joseph given by 2 different authors).

That's because Luke inserted Joseph's name in the genealogy instead of Mary's. Women were rarely included in Jewish genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to custom by not mentioning her by name:

Luk 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."​

The phrase "the son" preceding Heli is in italics indicating an absence from the original Greek. Notice Christ was only thought to be his son. The parenthetical phrase "as was supposed", denoting uncertainty, could grammatically justify a removal of Joseph's name from the genealogy. Additionally, Joseph's name occurs without the Greek definite article prefixed; but every other name in the series has the article.

This proves Joseph's name was not inclusive in the actual genealogy.Therefore this could read, "Jesus...was son (so it was thought, of Joseph) of Heli". This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or descendant) of Heli, Mary's progenitor, and is consistent with Luke's account of Jesus' conception, which makes clear that Joseph was not his physical father (Luk 1:26-38). Hence making Him a descendant of David!

 

[CMike]

That's still doesn't make Mary of David's line.

The messianic prophecy implied that the messiah would be of David's direct linage, and Mary is not directly linked (according to the 2 different family trees of Joseph given by 2 different authors).

It is possible that Mary was of the priesthood line - so a Levite.

Now, I have said "possible". I am only speculating that Mary is POSSIBLY a Levite, since we don't know for certain, because we don't have a family tree of Mary herself...BUT according to the gospel of Luke, she was a relative of Elizabeth - possibly her aunt, or even great-aunt since Elizabeth was old, while Mary was young when Gabriel came to her.

Mary can not be a Levite because she is a woman.

Tribal linegage goes solely by the father as stated in Numbers Chapter 1.

 

[Levite]

Of course. Especially given that the offspring of a judge and a commoner is Nephilim.

As with Humpty Dumpty, when we force words to mean what we want them to mean, we should at least pay them extra.

As you know, the commentators say that the usage in Bere**** is more like "mighty ones;" and, as several of the commentators opine, Nefilim were so called because they were so fearsomely large and strong that they caused the hearts of those who saw them to sink (nafal) within them.

In any case, given that the entire Torah, and most of the Tanach, is poetry written over hundreds of years in a language extremely prone to richness of multiple meanings in words, it hardly seems fair to complain if the same words are used to mean different things in different places. Rather like expecting clarity and consistency of usage in a compendium of the works of Shakespeare, Pope, Dylan Thomas, and Allen Ginsburg.

 

[Levite]

What do the titles that God calls the Child, mean? When it says Mighty God, is it the word, Elohim?

Names with a pointed or illustrative message are a staple theme in the Prophets. This name, פלא יועץ אל גבור אבי עד שר שלום, means "God the Mighty is a Wondrous Advisor, An Eternal Father, Ruler in Peace" ("God" is this case is translating the name El). A typical reminder, no doubt that a wise ruler is one who holds God in awe and follows the commandments.

Some also say that פלא יועץ is not part of the name, but rather of the prior clause, which would make the name אל גבור אבי עד שר שלום mean "God the Mighty is an Eternal Father, a Peaceful Ruler."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In any case, given that the entire Torah, and most of the Tanach, is poetry written over hundreds of years in a language extremely prone to richness of multiple meanings in words, it hardly seems fair to complain if the same words are used to mean different things in different places.

Nor does it seem fair to stretch credulity and select a meaning solely because it is minimally embarrassing. Thankfully, to the best of my knowledge the JPS, Alter, Fox, and Friedman all prefer a more intellectually honest approach.

 

[Levite]

Nor does it seem fair to stretch credulity and select a meaning solely because it is minimally embarrassing. Thankfully, to the best of my knowledge the JPS, Alter, Fox, and Friedman all prefer a more intellectually honest approach.

If I recall correctly, Fox renders "Nefilim" as "giants," drawing on the same midrash that I referenced above to do so. JPS simply refuses to translate "Nefilim," and leaves it transliterated.

In any case, while both render אלהים as "divine beings" in that verse, JPS notes in the footnotes to Ps. 8:6 that it may also mean "angels" there; and Gesenius, in his lexicon, mentions potential meanings of "kings," "angels," "judges," and so forth, only refuting those meanings with arguments from the NT.

It hardly seems intellectually dishonest to argue for varying metaphorical or idiomatic usages of a word in different places.

 

[Sleeppy]

Names with a pointed or illustrative message are a staple theme in the Prophets. This name, פלא יועץ אל גבור אבי עד שר שלום, means "God the Mighty is a Wondrous Advisor, An Eternal Father, Ruler in Peace" ("God" is this case is translating the name El). A typical reminder, no doubt that a wise ruler is one who holds God in awe and follows the commandments.

Some also say that פלא יועץ is not part of the name, but rather of the prior clause, which would make the name אל גבור אבי עד שר שלום mean "God the Mighty is an Eternal Father, a Peaceful Ruler."

I see. So, God is the Eternal Father mentioned here.

 

[gnostic]

Mary can not be a Levite because she is a woman.

Sorry. What I meant, was that she was possibly a descendant of Aaron, like her relative Elizabeth.

 

[Levite]

I see. So, God is the Eternal Father mentioned here.

Yes. Right.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nor does it seem fair to stretch credulity and select a meaning solely because it is minimally embarrassing. Thankfully, to the best of my knowledge the JPS, Alter, Fox, and Friedman all prefer a more intellectually honest approach.

If I recall correctly, Fox renders "Nefilim" as "giants," drawing on the same midrash that I referenced above to do so. JPS simply refuses to translate "Nefilim," and leaves it transliterated.

That is very nice and very irrelevant. We were addressing the meaning of ...

וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם​

You were very clear about this when you wrote ...

And as for meaning, I am in agreement with commentators like Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi) and Ibn Ezra, who clarify that in this verse, as with many other verses, the word elohim does not mean "God" or "gods," but rather signifies something along the lines of "chieftains" or "judges" (in the sense of a leader, not a jurist), and such individuals may seem like angels.

In this Radak and Ibn Ezra (and, apparently, you) are clearly at odds with JPS, Alter, Fox, and Friedman.

So tell me, why would the union between judges/chieftains and "the daughters of men" produce a [new] race of giants? Were all judges particularly tall? I suspect that you're seeing what you want to see and eagarly embracing the same midrashic 'translation' for which you have criticized ArtScroll in the past.

 

[Levite]

That is very nice and very irrelevant. We were addressing the meaning of ...

וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם​

You were very clear about this when you wrote ...In this Radak and Ibn Ezra (and, apparently, you) are clearly at odds with JPS, Alter, Fox, and Friedman.

So tell me, why would the union between judges/chieftains and "the daughters of men" produce a [new] race of giants? Were all judges particularly tall? I suspect that you're seeing what you want to see and eagarly embracing the same midrashic 'translation' for which you have criticized ArtScroll in the past.

I believe I said

As you know, the commentators say that the usage in Bere**** is more like "mighty ones;"

And I doubt that the attributes of nefilim or anakim or whatever we wish to call them were literal giantism: I assume given the rest of the drash on nefilim I quoted--

...and, as several of the commentators opine, Nefilim were so called because they were so fearsomely large and strong that they caused the hearts of those who saw them to sink (nafal) within them.

--the attributes are striking prowess of some kind. In other words, mighty parents have mighty children.

In any case, what I have criticized ArtScroll for in the past has more to do with midrashic interpolation or anachronistic retrojection in halachic texts, or with using midrash to evasively censor sexuality or other behavior currently seen as troublesome in the frum world from the text.

The first eleven chapters of Bere**** is the purest mythopoetry in the Torah. It's the last place in Tanach I'm likely to be a stickler for pshat. And holding out for excessively surface pshat readings in early Bere**** does no one any favors, IMO: it simply renders the text flat and archaic, and of exceedingly minimal use to nuanced monotheistic theology. Perhaps it makes an interesting archaeological reading, but it is of greatly limited use as living Torah. If we are to read אלהים as "gods," shall we also insist that the world was created in six literal days, that humanity was doomed to lose paradise by a literal talking snake, that woman was literally carved off of man's side?

Perhaps JPS has the more literal rendering of the word, but Radak and Ibn Ezra have useful readings, in that they offer midrashic readings that help this text be read as poetic parables about God the Creator, rather than just another set of gods-and-monsters stories from the Ancient Near East.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps JPS has the more literal rendering of the word, but Radak and Ibn Ezra have useful readings, in that they offer midrashic readings that help this text be read as poetic parables about God the Creator, rather than just another set of gods-and-monsters stories from the Ancient Near East.

I fully agree. It is, indeed, a useful reading.

If we are to read אלהים as "gods," shall we also insist that the world was created in six literal days, ...

No. We should insist that the 'author' meant, and was understood to mean, six literal days.

..., that woman was literally carved off of man's side?

Perhaps it was an effort to explain why man lacks a baculum.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Levite
It says:

א*ני אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם׃ אכן כאדם תמותון וכאחד השרים תפלו׃ קומה אלהים שפטה הארץ כי אתה תנחל בכל הגוים׃

And as for meaning, I am in agreement with commentators like Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi) and Ibn Ezra, who clarify that in this verse, as with many other verses, the word elohim does not mean "God" or "gods," but rather signifies something along the lines of "chieftains" or "judges" (in the sense of a leader, not a jurist), and such individuals may seem like angels. But they are only human, and will die and err. God alone is worthy of ruling the earth, as all nations are His (since, obviously, He created everything).

Of course. Especially given that the offspring of a judge and a commoner is Nephilim.

As with Humpty Dumpty, when we force words to mean what we want them to mean, we should at least pay them extra.

Why not look back in the context for an explanation? I find that Gen.4:26 gives a valid answer to those "sons of GOD", "gara"=to call ,proclaim,etc. "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
Those who were the off-spring of Cain were known as the sons of men.

There are tribes of "Pygmies" today; and since GOD created the DNA system, Why is it improbable that the Giants(remnant) which David and others killed/caused them to be extinct were not of the "in our image?"
Doing wickedly/evil or good isn't limited to size.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find that Gen.4:26 gives a valid answer to those "sons of GOD", "gara"=to call ,proclaim,etc. "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Those who were the off-spring of Cain were known as the sons of men.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[CMike]

I believe I said



And I doubt that the attributes of nefilim or anakim or whatever we wish to call them were literal giantism: I assume given the rest of the drash on nefilim I quoted--



--the attributes are striking prowess of some kind. In other words, mighty parents have mighty children.

In any case, what I have criticized ArtScroll for in the past has more to do with midrashic interpolation or anachronistic retrojection in halachic texts, or with using midrash to evasively censor sexuality or other behavior currently seen as troublesome in the frum world from the text.

The first eleven chapters of Bere**** is the purest mythopoetry in the Torah. It's the last place in Tanach I'm likely to be a stickler for pshat. And holding out for excessively surface pshat readings in early Bere**** does no one any favors, IMO: it simply renders the text flat and archaic, and of exceedingly minimal use to nuanced monotheistic theology. Perhaps it makes an interesting archaeological reading, but it is of greatly limited use as living Torah. If we are to read אלהים as "gods," shall we also insist that the world was created in six literal days, that humanity was doomed to lose paradise by a literal talking snake, that woman was literally carved off of man's side?
t.

Not that it's connected but yes the Torah was meant to be taken literally.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not that it's connected but yes the Torah was meant to be taken literally.

Taking literalism to the extreme, some people say it didn't rain until the flood and that people and animals were vegetarians. For some Christians, they read Mark 16:18 and dance with rattlesnakes and drink poison. So there has to be a point where literal sounding statements can't be taken literally, like the one about plucking your eye out for lusting.

But, to relate it back to the op, I agree with you--Isaiah taken literally doesn't add up to Jesus. Yet, some Christians say they take the Bible literally and still find a way to change the words, change the meaning, and leave off the verses after 7:14 to come up with it being a prophesy about Jesus? What is going on? It's crazy to hear Christians tell you what your Scriptures really mean. I'm sure you've dealt with this all your life, but how can both Jews and Christians look at the same Bible and take a "literal" interpretation of it and go in opposite directions?

Oh, never mind, I just remembered, the NT is to be taken more literal than the "old" covenant. So when Matthew says that a virgin would give birth to God's son, who is really one and the same as The God, then that is to be taken literally regardless of what the Hebrew Scriptures seem to say.

 

[LXX70]

I have scanned most of the posts and didn't see the answer I am going to give you. Matthew picks up the LXX parthenos from Isaiah, which in his day refers to a virgin (the Parthenos in Athens is the temple to the virgin goddess Athena). Everyone seems to want to require Matthew to use the historical critical methodology in his Bible Interpretation. Well, he doesn't, and that's okay. He uses the pesher method here, the same kind of methodology found in 1QpHab, the pesher commentary from the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in Cave 1.

 

[CMike]

Taking literalism to the extreme, some people say it didn't rain until the flood and that people and animals were vegetarians. For some Christians, they read Mark 16:18 and dance with rattlesnakes and drink poison. So there has to be a point where literal sounding statements can't be taken literally, like the one about plucking your eye out for lusting.

But, to relate it back to the op, I agree with you--Isaiah taken literally doesn't add up to Jesus. Yet, some Christians say they take the Bible literally and still find a way to change the words, change the meaning, and leave off the verses after 7:14 to come up with it being a prophesy about Jesus? What is going on? It's crazy to hear Christians tell you what your Scriptures really mean. I'm sure you've dealt with this all your life, but how can both Jews and Christians look at the same Bible and take a "literal" interpretation of it and go in opposite directions?

Oh, never mind, I just remembered, the NT is to be taken more literal than the "old" covenant. So when Matthew says that a virgin would give birth to God's son, who is really one and the same as The God, then that is to be taken literally regardless of what the Hebrew Scriptures seem to say.

What some people say isn't what it's in the Torah.

As far as the christian bible really have no comment.

The Torah was meant to be taken literally.

The virgin issue is about a mistranslation. It actually means a young woman will have a child.

The question really isn't about what is taken literally in this case, it's about mistranslations.

The Torah really isn't free association (I am not saying you said that).

When it can mean anything, then it means nothing.

 

[CMike]

I have scanned most of the posts and didn't see the answer I am going to give you. Matthew picks up the LXX parthenos from Isaiah, which in his day refers to a virgin (the Parthenos in Athens is the temple to the virgin goddess Athena). Everyone seems to want to require Matthew to use the historical critical methodology in his Bible Interpretation. Well, he doesn't, and that's okay. He uses the pesher method here, the same kind of methodology found in 1QpHab, the pesher commentary from the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in Cave 1.

Whatever he is using, he is giving a wrong translation.

 

[LXX70]

Whatever he is using, he is giving a wrong translation.

He is not translating anything. He is using the Greek Old Testament, the scripture used by Hellenistic Jews and Christians of the day. During his time, parthenos meant virgin. He is using an interpretive method common to his time. He reads the Old Testament passage in terms of what is going on in his present day. This is exactly what the Essenes were doing at Qumran during the same milieu. It may be offensive to our rational, but was perfectly acceptable to them.