Talk:Isaiah 7:14

message: This article needs better organization, particularly in the Christian Interpretation section.  Nimrand 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: It only adds to the confusion. Not to mention that "almah" does not simply mean "young woman", but "maiden" or "damsel" and is derived from a root meaning "hidden, secret", which is reminiscent of the Biblical terminology "she knew not a man". The term used explicitly for "young woman" is "na'arah". The bottom line is, "Almah" NEVER refers to a woman who has been married and known for a fact to have been "deflowered". If the Almah has in fact conceived by natural means, it happened on the quiet with someone to whom she may have been engaged, but while still under the protective care of her family.
The article could have used another way of showing that the phrase in question does not automatically imply a virgin birth, but it did not. Rather, it takes on the form of a sectarian polemic. The article is of poor quality, confusing, and lacking in credibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 31 October 2007
:This article is basically the result of extracting content from the article on Immanuel that didn't belong there.  This topic is obviously controversial, so it is likely that some will disagree with it no matter what we do.  But there is serious room for improvement for it as is.  If you can provide sources for the information you just provided and can incorporate it into the article (or at least post the citation here so someone else can), it will no doubt help the article.Nimrand 23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hebrew word na’arah refers to a woman just out of minority, not just any “young woman”. JCSalomon (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poorly written article 

message: I only scanned it but the article appears to put undue weight on the Jewish side of a debate.  It is both longer in lines of text, but also there is a section contradicting the Christian view but no section contradicting the Jewish view. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, then please add more relevant, well-sourced content to those sections that need it. 69.249.104.253 (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If by weight you mean the number of words employed in defense of each stance, you are right. However, the Christian section does nothing else than contradict the Jewish interpretation, therefore all arguments used to reject the Jewish interpretation should be found inside the Christian section. The argument is as this: thesis, antithesis, refutation of the antithesis. In this kind of chiasm, the nucleus is the Christian stance (therefore it gets the emphasis). Again, each reader may have a previous allegiance to one of the religions, so the chance that the article would change deeply-held beliefs is very small. All a true believer would do is take offense at the cunningness of the opposite side and stick to his/her own preconceived notions. Truth hurts, ouch! Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I added a footnote on botulism, since people who think that the Bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth may get dangerous ideas from the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

text: While I don't have a problem with the article either, I think you somewhat miss the point here. You say that the Jews had a long tradition of the meaning of the verse before someone else suggested an alternative. But on the contrary, there is no record of the modern Jewish interpretation predating the Christian scriptures. In fact, the only evidence for any Jewish view before the Christian one, is the Jewish Septuagint translation, which renders  as 'virgin'. So according to the available evidence, early Jews and Christians agreed on the meaning, but Jews changed their minds only after the advent of Christianity. Lindert (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See above; the original Jewish Septuagint only covered the Five Books of Moses; the section you describe is from later Christian versions. --184.99.108.101 (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes it biased through ignorance, assuming "authors" of Matthew and Luke werent Levite scribes, which they were Shem ben Y'israel (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK the consensus is that they were either Gentile or Greek-speaking Jews outside of Ancient Israel. And no, they did not write those books in Hebrew, nor in Aramaic, the books were written in Greek. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Article appears biased

message: Core to this discussion is the translation of the words "ha‘almah" and the syntax.  See http://www.crivoice.org/isa7-14.html  Runsweetride (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I may agree with you that this word should be translated 'the young woman', the fact is that many people disagree with that translation, and this article must record that.  Actually, the belief of some that the translation of 'ha-almah' should be 'virgin' is perhaps the MOST notable thing about this verse. Zad68 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation Issues 

message: The Christian portion describes the Septuagint as having been written by Jews hundreds of years before Jesus. 
Extant evidence, which has convinced scholars (of all persuasions) that today’s LXX is not the original Septuagint, which was a mid-3rd century B.C.E translation into Greek of only the Torah (the Five Books of Moses),
commissioned by King Ptolemy II of Egypt, and which was carried out by 72 of the most learned, bi-lingual Jewish scholars of the time. Rather, the LXX is a Church rendered Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The evidence includes:  Historical accounts (the writings of Josephus and St. Jerome, the Letter of Aristeas); Scriptural items (statements in the Talmud, errors of omission in the LXX); Linguistic data (comparative linguistic analysis of the Greek in the LXX vis-àvis; the Greek spoken in the 3rd century B.C.E)
6 Babylonian Talmud, Tractate HagiGAH, Folios 14b-15a.
7 From Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polem
~affinity~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see article Septuagint  In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Septuagint portion 

message: Whoever built a table of 5 Jewish versions into the article and didn't include at least 2 non-Jewish ones needs to read WP:NPOV and get out more ;). I added KJV and NRSV. The point being that modern versions don't use "virgin" either. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions

message: PiCo has deleted most of the material from this article, which is not acceptable. Much of it was good exegetical discussion of the verse. He has also, again, substituted his liberal view for "consensus". Will other editors compare this article now to how it was before he deleted the material to see if you agree?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the removed stuff was unreferenced or referenced only to what at a glance looked like non-scholarly websites. I don't think much non-original research was lost. Is there anything specific which you think should not have been removed? Huon (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The reality is that Western scholarship is becoming more and more liberal, so that is of course reflected in published material, on which Wikipedia is based. I understand that you would like to see the article present a more balanced view. The way to do so is to contribute to this article yourself. Find e.g. reliable sources that contradict those currently used. I myself often disagree with Pico, but I respect him for listening to other editors. If you disagree, bring up specific points on the talk page, or be bold and try to improve upon the article. More editors working on an article is nearly always a good thing, and can help improve balance. - Lindert (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Lindert. Quark has a deep distrust of my intentions which I thibnk nothing will overcome. But I genuinely believe that the sources I've used are robust and that the article itself is now solidly based and informative, as opposed to didactic. Marvin Sweeney and Brevard Childs are leading scholars, very well regarded in the field, and although of course I'll listen to any sources Quark provides, I do think Childs and Sweeney represent the consensus. (Note also how I've ignored Barker's idea of the almah as the goddess Wisdom - this simply isn't a mainstream idea, so I don't include it, even though Barker is a reputable scholar). PiCo (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: Editoreditorman has been trying to challenge the existing lead regarding the modern scholarly consensus on the meaning of Hebrew almah. His preferred edit is: "However Cyrus H. Gordon argues that the Septuagent pre-Christian Jewish translation "takes 'almah' to mean 'virgin' here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14." [4] "Many Christians have used Isaiah 7:14 as a 'litmus test' to judge new translations"[5] since "there are no examples in the Old Testament where it means anything but a young unmarried girl." [6]
First, please stop edit-warring and talk it out here. The usual way is to edit into the article, and then, if you get reverted, bring it to talk.
Now let's break this down into its constituent parts.
*However Cyrus H. Gordon argues that the Septuagint pre-Christian Jewish translation "takes 'almah' to mean 'virgin' here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. [4]"
This is not relevant - Gordan's article dates from 1954 and so does not represent contemporary scholarly thinking. Sweeney is the authority when we want to talk about scholars agreeing on the meaning of almah.
*"Many Christians have used Isaiah 7:14 as a 'litmus test' to judge new translations"[5] since "there are no examples in the Old Testament where it means anything but a young unmarried girl." [6]
So they have (the source is Rhodes, one of the books from the bibliography), but this is irrelevant - Rhodes is talking about ordinary believers, but our article is about scholarly opinion. In other words, the idea that "there are no examples in the Old Testament where it (almah) means anything but a young unmarried girl" is an idea advanced by conservative Christians, not scholars. PiCo (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Elderly sources should be replaced by modern ones. I'm not sure that "there are no examples in the Old Testament where it (almah) means anything but a young unmarried girl" is entirely limited to conservative Christians, not scholars, since, "may a man with a maid" notwithstanding in the most common Jewish interpretation of the Emmanuel prophecy it isn't fixed that the high priest's daughter has already married Ahaz, she may simply be betrothed. But in any case the way to treat Rhodes is to add "in their view..." Conservative views are notable, even when wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Editoreditorman  has misunderstood Gordon - Gordon was writing to say that almah=virgin was used by the LXXX translators, who were Jews, and therefore it was incorrect to say this was a Christian thing. But in the same article he goes on to say that "almah" means a young woman who has not yet had a child - a concept for which there was no word in Greek, just as there isn't in English. Gordon is saying exactly the same thing Sweeney is saying vis-a-vis the meaning of the word in Hebrew. PiCo (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern scholarly consensus on meaning of almah 

message: Cited by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoted from . Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote for verification 

message: We seem to be cherry picking a source for this article. Currently it is being inserted <I>The Hebrew word almah...scholars agree that it has nothing to do with literal virginity (Sweeny).</I> Another source indicates, <I>endless debate as to whether or not this implies literal virginity...insufficient evidence...to decide issue, there can be no conclusion (Saldarini).</I> 
Rhodes is a source in this article that is also being used. In another work of his, Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses, he states <I>almah in this text should definitely be translated virgin...signifies a young unmarried girl every time it is used in the OT (Page 96).</I>
While I am sure Rhodes is not a final either, the point is consensus among authors is mixed and it should not be reflected that almah has nothing to do with virginity. Basileias (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your edits because your behaviour is simply outrageous. We have a source (Sweeney) who is one of the leading authorities on the prophetic books of the Bible, and you see fit to over-rule him. Ron Rhodes, in whom you set such store, is not an authority at all - he runs something called Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. I'm reporting your clear pov activities and in the meantime asking for this page to be locked. (P.s. - Rhodes is not an authority, but he's an honest man - he says that almah means a young unmarried girl, and it does - but what he misses, and what Sweeney knows, is that it actually means a woman who hasn't yet had a child; the two sets overlap, but not entirely).PiCo (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Basileias: The article is locked for 3 days. Since you're the one complaining about POV, it's up to you to take this to WP:NPOV and set out your case.  You also need to specify just which lines/facts you feel need additional citation, and why. Please advise me when you do this. PiCo (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Sort it out, take it to WP:NPOV if needed. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have been trying on this talk page. PiCo finally has shown up. He knows how to use it. I will try third party help first. If that does not work, then I will take it up further, unless you think we are at that point now. Basileias (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 days full protection 

message: :Multiple meanings of almah keep being re-covered in the article. I count 5 times! Each with their own little twist. That is what I called "so bad." I marked this with a tag <I>Tone|talk=Prepetition of meanings in this article|date=February 2015</I>, it looks like it has been removed. It should have said "repetition."
:And, the article is about Isaiah 7:14. Rehashing Almah and other sidebar issues like the RSV translation I think should be considered carefully whether they belong in the Isaiah 7:14 or their specific article. I moved that section, shortened, to the Isaiah part, but PiCo moved it back to the Mathew section. It is about Isaiah...LoL!! And it is plagiarized almost word for word from Ron Rhodes book <I>The Complete Guide to Bible Translations</I>, which was a reason I removed it sometimes back.
I once brought the opening of the almah meaning in-line with the almah article. PiCo undid that.
I will start by calling for third party. Basileias (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other issues with the article, which I would like cleaned up 

message: Does anyone else feel that the table of translations is in its current form less than useful? Until this edit in 2011 the table only included Jewish translations and was, indeed, part of a lengthy section about Jewish interpretation of this verse. At one time, the Jewish point of view was about all that this article included, but by the time of that edit a substantial amount of Christian information had begun to be added. The edit in question added two Christian Bible translations, KJV and NRSV, to the table and deleted a large chunk of unsourced and poorly-sourced Jewish material which followed it and which was situated between the table and the beginning of the Christian section. (The ESV line was added by an IP editor in this edit in 2012.) Before that, the table was buried among the Jewish material and made some sense as an example of how Jewish sources translate the verse today, but now it just seems like a coatrack and is subject (as it was then, but less so in context) to being criticized for omitting (and/or being pointy in selection of) significant Christian translations (e.g. RSV, NIV, NASB, and all Catholic versions) and for inviting original research by implication, without any background on how and from what point of view those various Christian and Jewish translations came about. It seems to me that it either needs to be removed altogether, which would be my first choice, or be stripped of the Christian entries and moved back up to the end of the Jewish material. As I said above, I'm not particularly interested in becoming involved here, but noticed the chart and thought I'd mention it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd favour deleting the table - I didn't like to do so earlier when I was editing this article as I felt it was something of a hot button, and it might yet prove to be so, but that's my inclination.PiCo (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of translations 

message: I am proposing moving the almah information into the article for almah, that already exists. The intent is to place the removed information on the almah talk page for further review and potential assimilation into the already existing almah article. This is to resolve the issues of multiple dissections of almah in various articles and to tackle the content forking in the Isaiah 7:14 article. This will leave the Isaiah 7:14 article to focus on scholarly views for that passages interpretations rather than dissections of almah, which has its own article. Please leave comments for or against. If views are overwhelmingly against this move, then I have no interest in following through. Basileias (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almah (proposal) 

message: This article is tagged for additional citations and tone from February 2015. I believe those issues are now resolved. I would like to remove them and I plan on doing so soon. If you feel they should not be, please leave a note and I will not remove them. Thank you. Basileias (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has multiple issues. (Remove proposal) 

message: Substituted at 19:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I think what makes this article unsatisfying to me at least is that it should be about Isaiah 7:14.  It is not primarily interested in the virgin birth or in the best translation of almah. 
I think also the Interpretation section needs rewriting.  The "RSV" paragraphs are about controversy, or culture.  Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 would deal with the history of the text, its translation into Greek, its use by Matthew, etc.  The way the Interpretation section is organized now doesn't help understand the history of interpretation.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  purpose of article 

message: I'm guessing that this phrase means "by the time of his bar mitzvah", i.e. by the age of 12.  Is that correct?  If so, the article  should probably say so. Iapetus (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Bar and bat mitzvah the ceremonies did not exist until the Middle Ages. Editor2020 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good" 

message: So I previously took out a statement supported by a single blog. I am not happy with a blog being used to support scholarly claims. If it has not been published in peer reviewed sources, it does not need to be in an article this contentious  --65.94.99.123 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, IP, for bringing this up.  I am conflicted at best about the use of Ehrman's blog, though WP:BLOGS specifically contemplates such usage by subject matter experts.  I lean towards inclusion, I suppose, almost more as a matter of status quo than sheer sourcing, but I would certainly like to hear from others.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to leave a neutrally worded mention at the reliable sources noticeboard as well, simply to invite more views.  Feel free to comment there as well, though it's not necessary.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  if what Ehrman says in his blog is mainstream consensus view, then there should be peer reviewed studies that state just that. If such sources are not found, including blogs is wrong, especially, if we state that this is a mainstream view. We need peer-reviewed sources for that. It doesn't matter how much someone here might like Ehrman. As far as Wikipedia is concerned anything by Ehrman represents his personal musings unless it is found in peer-reviewed sources. --65.94.99.123 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I think WP:BLOGS leaves the door open a bit, but I don't really disagree with your point.  I'd like to see if anyone else decides to chime in.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, read this part from WP:BLOGS, I quote: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." This is what I am saying. If what Ehrman is saying is mainstream consensus, then that will have been published in peer reviewed sources. So let's get them up here. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding sources would be more than welcome.  Until then I'd like to get some input from the broader community -- which may well incline to your favor.  We shall see. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Would these sources do?  p40 and  p346-347 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  I don't love the first, being something of an outsider contribution to the field, but the second, from Gordon Wenham, seems darned good to me.  What do you think, IP (or anyone else)? Dumuzid (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are good, in my view. The first is quoting two reliable Bible lexicons for its argument on p. 40, and the second is an extensive study on the whole issue. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Very much with Warshy here. Though my scholarly days are sadly well behind me, as far as I know, the state of knowledge is indeed that the Pentateuch was translated first, but consensus seems to be that the rest of the Septuagint (including non-canonical texts) was translated in the later 3rd or 2nd century BCE, which would obviously mean they could have been relied upon by Matthew.  IP, if you indeed have a source, I would genuinely love to read it, but without one, this does seem like WP:OR.   Let us know, and cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it is a commonplace in WP:SCHOLARSHIP that Matthew has read the Scripture in Greek, not Hebrew. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Blog 

message: See WP:MEDIUM. tgeorgescu (talk)  23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not RS 

message: Perhaps something of a nitpick here. The article intro states that both the Matthew and Luke gospels used Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy of the virgin birth, however the Luke gospel nowhere mentions the verse nor draws a connection to prophecy. Only the Matthew gospel makes that connection. Perhaps mention of the Luke gospel should be omitted? Or only mentioned as a parenthetical aside, that Luke also claims the virgin birth but without a reference to Isaiah. Assambrew (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed reference to Luke gospel which does not refer to the Isaiah passage. Assambrew (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both Matthew and Luke? 

message: Oct13, my apologies for the recent rollback.  I think your recent changes, especially the section on Catholicism, to be substantive enough to require some kind of discussion before inclusion.  For my money, it's a little too sectarian for a general article--but if there's a consensus otherwise (in this case I would accept yourself and one other person), I will happily stand aside.  Again, sorry for the blunt instrument!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent rollback 

message: When the article has two contradictory claims, one sourced and one unsourced, I know which of those has to go. tgeorgescu (talk)  13:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction