Talk:Almah: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:13, 26 October 2010

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

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

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

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.

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.

Missing from article

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? —An gr ^{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). —An gr ^{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? —An gr ^{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. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:52, 25 December 2007 (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

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]

Virgin=

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