ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th June 2014, 04:17 AM   #1
chili2
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
Matthew 12:40 an Idiom?

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently try to get around the verse by arguing that it is a common Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" means the tomb) knows of any writing that shows that a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn't have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?

Last edited by chili2; 17th June 2014 at 04:19 AM.
chili2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2014, 04:47 AM   #2
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,191
There's this bit from Daniel. Not sure if it counts...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...12&version=NIV

Quote:
12 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?”

7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2014, 05:07 AM   #3
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by chili2 View Post
I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" means the tomb) knows of any writing that shows that a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn't have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?
You broke my sentence parser.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2014, 05:37 AM   #4
eight bits
Graduate Poster
 
eight bits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
chili2

The earliest author to address the elapsed time between Jesus' death and the earliest revenant-sighting reports is Paul, 1 Corithians 15:4. A "third day" rising is said to be "according to (Jewish) scripture." That seems to be Hosea 6, near the top of the chapter. Hosea's "prophetic" poetry there had nothing specifically to do with Jesus until Paul selected and retrospectively applied these verses to Jesus. Whether that was already being said by Wayists before Paul, we have no way of knowing.

Once Paul wrote down the connection, it became available to all other writers, including Mark and Matthew (whoever they actually were). You mentioned Matthew in particular. He interprets his verses, for example, so that Jesus' mother didn't have sex, and so that Jesus rode two asses into Jerusalem, even though the Jewish source material says no such thing in either case.

Mattie expanded Hosea's reference to a "third day" as Mattie understood it. Exactly why Mattie understood it that way is obviously impossible to recomstruct with much confidence - why would anybody think a pregnant woman never had sex, or that a man would plant his one personal ass onto two beastly asses and go for a ride? Mattie's thought process is nonstandard.

My best guess is this. Paul, after all, had only said that the third day was according to scripture; he didn't actually say which one. That Mattie would then connect the dots to come up with Jonah would fit his "fractured fairytale" mentality. Once Mattie had decided that it was Jonah, then at 2:1 there we find the three days and three nights.

Hope that helps. I understand that this does not answer exactly what you asked, but it is the texts' history. Idiom or not, Hosea and Jonah were available to any wordsmith writing on Jewish subjects.

Last edited by eight bits; 17th June 2014 at 05:41 AM.
eight bits is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2014, 05:55 PM   #5
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by eight bits View Post
Once Paul wrote down the connection, it became available to all other writers, including Mark and Matthew (whoever they actually were). You mentioned Matthew in particular. He interprets his verses, for example, so that Jesus' mother didn't have sex, and so that Jesus rode two asses into Jerusalem, even though the Jewish source material says no such thing in either case.
Aren't these two examples merely arguments that Matthew actually knew little of Jewish culture?

The "virgin" thing is a mistranslation in the Septuagint of isaiah 7:14, which translated the Hebrew "almah" (young woman) with the Greek "parthenos" (virgin).

The "donkey and a colt" comes from Zechariah 9:9, and, AFAIK, such doublets are just Hebrew idiom to reinforce the notion rather than to actually mean two animals. But the Septuagint slavishly translates it literally (though it's no Greek idiom) and Matthew copies it.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2014, 12:39 AM   #6
eight bits
Graduate Poster
 
eight bits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
ddt

Quote:
Aren't these two examples merely arguments that Matthew actually knew little of Jewish culture?
We're in complete agreement about the underlying "prophecies," and the mismatch between what they actually say and what Mattie says they say. I sometimes wonder whether Matthew wasn't supposed to be a satire, the script for a First Century Woody Allen movie.
eight bits is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2014, 12:48 AM   #7
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,958
1st century Poe, eh?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2014, 01:05 AM   #8
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,958
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Aren't these two examples merely arguments that Matthew actually knew little of Jewish culture?

The "donkey and a colt" comes from Zechariah 9:9, and, AFAIK, such doublets are just Hebrew idiom to reinforce the notion rather than to actually mean two animals. But the Septuagint slavishly translates it literally (though it's no Greek idiom) and Matthew copies it.
More literally, "on a donkey, on the son of a donkey". (No really, it's the same "ben", the equivalent of the aramaic "bar", meaning "son".)

Not only, yeah, it's a doublet for emphasis, but the "colt" or "foal" part is... well, not a mis-translation, but it alters the meaning a little. The construct "son of X" (well, actually "son of an X", since lacking an article for something that wasn't a proper name, made it automatically indefinite article) was just a standard fancy way to say X. It doesn't actually draw attention to the lineage or anything. "Son of donkey" would just mean "donkey", same as "son of man" just meant "man", and so on.

For a Hebrew or Aramaic speaker, that piece would pretty much just mean "Your king comes humbly riding on a donkey, yeah, on a donkey."

Matt is not just making two donkeys out of it, but makes sure that one is the son or the other. The very fact that he pays attention to that "son of" construct and actually makes his story include it, makes it very clear indeed that he's working from a translation and doesn't know either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Someone fluent in either wouldn't have even registered that construct as separate. Like if I told you that I talked to my sister-in-law, you'd understand "sister-in-law" as one concept, not go into the legal ramifications because there was the word "law" in there too.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th June 2014 at 01:07 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2014, 03:31 AM   #9
chili2
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
Someone new looking in may know of some writing.
chili2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2014, 04:33 AM   #10
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,050
From this apologetics page:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...10&article=756
The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.”
Also quite a lot on this (TLDR) at this Bible studies page: http://www.bible.ca/d-3-days-and-3-nights.htm#V

Last edited by GDon; 18th June 2014 at 04:35 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2014, 05:12 AM   #11
chili2
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
GDon,

Thanks for the links, but I'm afraid they don't provide any writing from the first century or before which shows a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights being used when it absolutely couldn't have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights.
chili2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2014, 05:22 AM   #12
eight bits
Graduate Poster
 
eight bits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
OP

Quote:
Someone new looking in may know of some writing.
If even some apologists can't come up with anything directly on point

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/crux.cfm

Quote:
If Matthew 12:40 literally means three days and three nights then the crucifixion cannot be on Friday. Some say rather than a literal three days it is an old idiom referring to the two days prior to the day being spoken of. We have found nothing to substantiate this view.
then perhaps asking heathens isn't the most promising search strategy. No matter, discussion of what literature there is will not impede your white knight's arrival. Perhaps GDon has fulfilled your requirements. (TLDR indeed.) Late breaking development: seems not.

While we're waiting, then, I recommend further that whenever there's a question about Matthew, see what Luke did with the same pericope. As your study Bible has no doubt instructed you, the corresponding text is Luke 11:29-32

Quote:
While still more people gathered in the crowd, he said to them, “This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it, except the sign of Jonah.Just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. At the judgment the queen of the south will rise with the men of this generation and she will condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and there is something greater than Solomon here.At the judgment the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because at the preaching of Jonah they repented, and there is something greater than Jonah here.
Here we see the wing of the Holy Spirit, telling us that Luke knew that Mattie was talking bollocks. The Feathered God inspired Luke to drop Mattie's "three days and three nights" gag. Luke does good work, too - you can hardly see the incision scar.

Hope that helps.

Last edited by eight bits; 18th June 2014 at 05:24 AM.
eight bits is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2014, 03:05 AM   #13
chili2
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
Someone new looking in who thinks the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who tries to get around Matthew 12:40 by saying it is using common idiomatic language of the period may know of some writing.
chili2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2014, 05:14 PM   #14
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by chili2 View Post
Someone new looking in who thinks the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who tries to get around Matthew 12:40 by saying it is using common idiomatic language of the period may know of some writing.
Makes me wonder how many other passages might be idiomatic language.

Maybe crucifixion actually meant you were the guest of honor at a wild toga party.

Once the door is open to interpret the words in a special manner the only limit is your imagination.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2014, 05:20 PM   #15
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by chili2 View Post
Someone new looking in who thinks the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who tries to get around Matthew 12:40 by saying it is using common idiomatic language of the period may know of some writing.
I might suggest that you challenge the person making the claim to support it. Their claim; their onus.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2014, 03:56 AM   #16
chili2
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
Slowvehicle,

re: "I might suggest that you challenge the person making the claim to support it."


That's what I've been doing, and so far no one has come up with an example.
chili2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2014, 06:21 AM   #17
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by chili2 View Post
Slowvehicle,

re: "I might suggest that you challenge the person making the claim to support it."

That's what I've been doing, and so far no one has come up with an example.
Your OP:

Originally Posted by chili2 View Post
Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently try to get around the verse by arguing that it is a common Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" means the tomb) knows of any writing that shows that a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn't have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?
If "they" are making the assertion that a few hours of Friday afternoon, Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, and Saturday sunset to early Sunday morning would be"idiomatically" referred to as "three days and three nights"; "they" have the burden of demonstrating the "idiom", in use, that would make it so.

I can count. I understand the traditional "sundown to sundown" reckoning. Friday afternoon to Sunday morning does not comprise three days, much less three days and three nights. It is up to the "they" that say other wise to support their claim.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2014, 07:42 AM   #18
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,777
The big problem, it seems to me, is not the interpretation or whether that is an idiom or not, but the fact that Matthew, reading it literally, then modifies his version of the Jesus story to conform to his interpretation. IOW, the real question is, did Jesus really ride into town on two donkeys, like Matthew said he did? Because if he didn't, then Matthew is caught in a fabrication with the intent to make the Jesus story match (his interpretation of) scripture.

And this is a problem, because it establishes that we can't believe anything Matthew says, particularly when it comes to Jesus fulfilling any old testament scripture. If Matthew says that Jesus did this to fulfill an old testament prophesy, there is no reason to think that he didn't just make up the event. And if he is making stuff up, what else did he make up?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 06:04 AM   #19
chili2
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 24
Perhaps a further wording of the OP may make it more clear:

Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?

1. The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"


2. There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.


3. Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the moment when His spirit left His body).


4. A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.


5. To account for the lack of a 3rd night, some of those mentioned above say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.


6. I wonder if anyone who falls in that group of believers could provide examples to support that belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime and/or no part of the night time could have occurred.
chili2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 06:34 AM   #20
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,069
Excellent thread resurrection. Long three/six days though.

Hallelujah, etc.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 07:19 PM   #21
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,191
Originally Posted by eight bits View Post
chili2

The earliest author to address the elapsed time between Jesus' death and the earliest revenant-sighting reports is Paul, 1 Corithians 15:4. A "third day" rising is said to be "according to (Jewish) scripture." That seems to be Hosea 6, near the top of the chapter. Hosea's "prophetic" poetry there had nothing specifically to do with Jesus until Paul selected and retrospectively applied these verses to Jesus. Whether that was already being said by Wayists before Paul, we have no way of knowing.

Once Paul wrote down the connection, it became available to all other writers, including Mark and Matthew (whoever they actually were). You mentioned Matthew in particular. He interprets his verses, for example, so that Jesus' mother didn't have sex, and so that Jesus rode two asses into Jerusalem, even though the Jewish source material says no such thing in either case.

Mattie expanded Hosea's reference to a "third day" as Mattie understood it. Exactly why Mattie understood it that way is obviously impossible to recomstruct with much confidence - why would anybody think a pregnant woman never had sex, or that a man would plant his one personal ass onto two beastly asses and go for a ride? Mattie's thought process is nonstandard.

My best guess is this. Paul, after all, had only said that the third day was according to scripture; he didn't actually say which one. That Mattie would then connect the dots to come up with Jonah would fit his "fractured fairytale" mentality. Once Mattie had decided that it was Jonah, then at 2:1 there we find the three days and three nights.

Hope that helps. I understand that this does not answer exactly what you asked, but it is the texts' history. Idiom or not, Hosea and Jonah were available to any wordsmith writing on Jewish subjects.
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Aren't these two examples merely arguments that Matthew actually knew little of Jewish culture?

The "virgin" thing is a mistranslation in the Septuagint of isaiah 7:14, which translated the Hebrew "almah" (young woman) with the Greek "parthenos" (virgin).

The "donkey and a colt" comes from Zechariah 9:9, and, AFAIK, such doublets are just Hebrew idiom to reinforce the notion rather than to actually mean two animals. But the Septuagint slavishly translates it literally (though it's no Greek idiom) and Matthew copies it.
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
From this apologetics page:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...10&article=756
The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.”
Also quite a lot on this (TLDR) at this Bible studies page: http://www.bible.ca/d-3-days-and-3-nights.htm#V
Originally Posted by chili2 View Post
Perhaps a further wording of the OP may make it more clear:

Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?

1. The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"


2. There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.


3. Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the moment when His spirit left His body).


4. A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.


5. To account for the lack of a 3rd night, some of those mentioned above say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.


6. I wonder if anyone who falls in that group of believers could provide examples to support that belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime and/or no part of the night time could have occurred.
I doubt you will find anyone on this forum who supports the idea that the "three days and three nights" verse was a common saying in 1st century Judaism.

Other posters have tried to explain the history behind Matthew's gospel and how it manages to mangle Jewish scripture. They also pointed out that Paul's letter to the Corinthians is the earliest known mention of this idea.

Are you hoping that someone will be able to provide you with examples of 1st century Jewish people casually mentioning a messiah being underground for three days and nights?
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 07:33 PM   #22
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,882
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
The "virgin" thing is a mistranslation in the Septuagint of isaiah 7:14, which translated the Hebrew "almah" (young woman) with the Greek "parthenos" (virgin).
It would have been unthinkable for a "young woman" in that time and place to not have been a "virgin".
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 07:53 PM   #23
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,612
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It would have been unthinkable for a "young woman" in that time and place to not have been a "virgin".

It would have been unthinkable in that time and place for a "young woman who is with child and bears a son" to not have been a virgin? Really?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 08:05 PM   #24
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,825
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It would have been unthinkable for a "young woman" in that time and place to not have been a "virgin".
Do you think the "shotgun wedding" is an American invention?.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 08:12 PM   #25
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,882
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
It would have been unthinkable in that time and place for a "young woman who is with child and bears a son" to not have been a virgin? Really?
If she has a child, she is either married to the father, or was raped by him, in which case by law she belonged to him (Deut 22:28-29). In either case, she would no longer be a "young woman" - she would be a "married woman" or a "young mother". Unfortunately I don't know ancient Hebrew to tell you the proper term.

In any case, the Hebrew term for "young woman" should be considered almost (but not quite as there were undoubtedly exceptions) synonymous with "virgin".
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 09:39 PM   #26
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It would have been unthinkable for a "young woman" in that time and place to not have been a "virgin".
The Hebrew word for "young woman" is 'almah' and it means "a young woman of marriageable age". It is an age group, not a state of sexual purity. An "almah" may or may not be a virgin. The word for "virgin" is "b'tulah" and if the sexual status of the young woman must be known the word for "virgin" (b'tulah) or "had not known a man" would be used.

"Almah" is a fem noun. The masc form is "elem" (young man). No one ever suggested or said that an "elem usually means he's a virgin". It is only an age group, just like the fem form, and has nothing to do with sexual experience.

Further, in Isaiah 7:14 it says "Here is" and the word almah has the definite article meaning she was present and known to the writer; "Here is the young woman who is pregnant (present tense).....".

Also, Isaiah used the specific word for virgin (b'tulah) 5 times in other places in the book. If he meant to say the pregnant young woman was a virgin, he would have used the word b'tulah to clarify.
__________________
"Zivan" = "Ziva N" = I am a female, but keep being mistaken as a male on the forum. My mistake for using an "n" instead of "N" on my forum name.

Last edited by Zivan; 10th December 2018 at 09:44 PM.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 10:20 PM   #27
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,882
Sure, it wasn't specified that she was a virgin, but there would be no expectation that she wasn't. Just like you or I wouldn't expect a 13-year old girl not to be a virgin. Again, there's a large part in Deuteronomy 22 which specifies when it is and is not acceptable to have sex with an unmarried woman. Turns out, it's almost never acceptable. In some cases, both the man and the woman would be killed.

Anyway, like I said I don't know Ancient Hebrew, so I defer to the translations of those who do.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:14 PM   #28
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,191
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Sure, it wasn't specified that she was
Quote:
a virgin, but there would be no expectation that she wasn't. Just like you or I wouldn't expect a 13-year old girl not to be a virgin. Again, there's a large part in Deuteronomy 22 which specifies when it is and is not acceptable to have sex with an unmarried woman. Turns out, it's almost never acceptable. In some cases, both the man and the woman would be killed.

Anyway, like I said I don't know Ancient Hebrew, so I defer to the translations of those who do.
Here is an English translation of the whole Isaiah chapter in question:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/ceb/isaiah/7.html
Quote:
1 In the days of Ahaz (Jotham's son and grandson of Judah's King Uzziah), Aram's King Rezin and Israel's King Pekah (Remaliah's son) came up to attack Jerusalem, but they couldn't overpower it. 2 When the house of David was told that Aram had become allies with Ephraim, their hearts and the hearts of their people shook as the trees of a forest shake when there is a wind. 3 But the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the channel of the Upper Pool, by the road to the field where laundry is washed, 4 and say to him, ‘Be careful and stay calm. Don't fear, and don't lose heart over these two pieces of smoking torches, over the burning anger of Rezin, Aram, and Remaliah's son...

...13 Then Isaiah said, "Listen, house of David! Isn't it enough for you to be tiresome for people that you are also tiresome before my God? 14 Therefore, the Lord will give you a sign. The young woman is pregnant and is about to give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel. 15 He will eat butter and honey, and learn to reject evil and choose good. 16 Before the boy learns to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you dread will be abandoned.
It has nothing to do with a Messiah appearing via virgin birth centuries after it was written. Matthew was clutching at straws, but since his audience knew nothing about the old Jewish Prophets, he got away with it for a long time.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:23 PM   #29
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,882
On the other hand, there is also Matthew 1:18-19, which runs thusly in the NIV:

Quote:
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Before they came together, she was found to be pregnant. This passage says neither "virgin" nor "young woman". It specifically states that she was pregnant when Joe married her. That she was pregnant with the child of the Holy Ghost is specified a couple of verses later when Joe dreams about an angel.

Incidentally, Bible Gateway is an excellent resource if you want to compare translations side-by-side.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:41 PM   #30
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,191
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
On the other hand, there is also Matthew 1:18-19, which runs thusly in the NIV:



Before they came together, she was found to be pregnant. This passage says neither "virgin" nor "young woman". It specifically states that she was pregnant when Joe married her. That she was pregnant with the child of the Holy Ghost is specified a couple of verses later when Joe dreams about an angel.

Incidentally, Bible Gateway is an excellent resource if you want to compare translations side-by-side.
There are lots of good sources for this stuff. See also the gospel of Luke:
Quote:
God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a city in Galilee, 27 to a virgin who was engaged to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David's house. The virgin's name was Mary. ...
https://www.biblestudytools.com/ceb/luke/1.html

It's almost as if the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are different stories...
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 11:54 PM   #31
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,882
This is all a little off-track. The conversation was about Mat 12:40.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 02:22 AM   #32
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,958
Err, no. You'll find that even in the Deuteronomy there are such exceptions as if she was raped in the country side, in which case she wouldn't be killed. Plus there were widows, even young ones, etc.

More importantly, "almah" refers to the age, not to her being already married or not. Quite fortunately for the Jesus gang, I guess, because otherwise Mary would fail that by being married to Joseph. In any case, it would be no expectation for someone fitting that word to be a virgin, seein' as most of them would be married.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 03:34 PM   #33
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,882
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Err, no. You'll find that even in the Deuteronomy there are such exceptions as if she was raped in the country side, in which case she wouldn't be killed. Plus there were widows, even young ones, etc.
That's why I said it's almost never acceptable.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
More importantly, "almah" refers to the age, not to her being already married or not. Quite fortunately for the Jesus gang, I guess, because otherwise Mary would fail that by being married to Joseph. In any case, it would be no expectation for someone fitting that word to be a virgin, seein' as most of them would be married.
Yes, usually by the age of about 12. And yes, I'm sure there's a lot of back-justification there to make Jesus fit the previously-established Messiah narrative.

My point is even if the original Ancient Hebrew text didn't explicitly say that she was a virgin, which is not at all conclusively demonstrated, it implies that she was by referring to her as a young unmarried woman, because it would have been extremely unusual for such a person not to be.

Anyway, again I would suggest that we return to the discussion of Mat 12:40, which I found interesting reading and which I don't think we're completely done with.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 07:07 PM   #34
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by chili2 View Post
Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently try to get around the verse by arguing that it is a common Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone (who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" means the tomb) knows of any writing that shows that a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn't have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights?
No, it was not a "Jewish idiom", that is just a Christian apologetic, but it is wrong:

https://theatheistobserver.com/2018/...240-revisited/
__________________
"Zivan" = "Ziva N" = I am a female, but keep being mistaken as a male on the forum. My mistake for using an "n" instead of "N" on my forum name.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 07:40 PM   #35
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yes, usually by the age of about 12. And yes, I'm sure there's a lot of back-justification there to make Jesus fit the previously-established Messiah narrative.
Except that Isaiah 7:14 was never a "previously-established Messiah narrative" until the NT writers decided to mangle it and call it a "Messiah prophecy".

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
My point is even if the original Ancient Hebrew text didn't explicitly say that she was a virgin, which is not at all conclusively demonstrated, it implies that she was by referring to her as a young unmarried woman, because it would have been extremely unusual for such a person not to be.
Are you still referring to Isaiah 7:14?

Once again, "almah" refers to an age group, not marital or sexual state. The only thing Isaiah 7:14 "implies" is that a young woman was pregnant and soon to give birth. Full stop.

And the young pregnant woman was NOT "the sign", which is what Christians think. The sign is two verses later (v16).

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Anyway, again I would suggest that we return to the discussion of Mat 12:40, which I found interesting reading and which I don't think we're completely done with.
This explains Matthew 12:40 (along with the supposed "Jewish idiom") very well:

https://theatheistobserver.com/2018/...240-revisited/
__________________
"Zivan" = "Ziva N" = I am a female, but keep being mistaken as a male on the forum. My mistake for using an "n" instead of "N" on my forum name.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 08:30 PM   #36
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,882
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
Except that Isaiah 7:14 was never a "previously-established Messiah narrative" until the NT writers decided to mangle it and call it a "Messiah prophecy".
Ah, fair enough then. That's the great thing about prophecy - you can make it refer to whatever you want.

Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
Are you still referring to Isaiah 7:14?

Once again, "almah" refers to an age group, not marital or sexual state. The only thing Isaiah 7:14 "implies" is that a young woman was pregnant and soon to give birth. Full stop.
I was unclear. Sorry. I am and always have been referring to Matthew 1. Which, to be clear, was not written in Hebrew but in Greek. That's all my error.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter because it would not be usual, common, or expected for an unmarried woman of that age to be pregnant - ie, not a virgin. It would not be such a terrible misinterpretation to refer to such a person as a virgin if it suited your purposes.

Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
And the young pregnant woman was NOT "the sign", which is what Christians think. The sign is two verses later (v16).
That the abhorred land (Jerusalem?) would be without its two kings before Immanuel was born (actually before he chose good over evil)? I don't know - is that part of the Messiah prophecy? From my reading all it is is saying that Ahaz will conquer Jerusalem after Immanuel. The land of abundant butter and honey that is described later in the chapter reads to me like a prophecy of the Kingdom of Heaven that it is said Jesus will bring. But I'm not an Old Testament scholar and to be honest I find the whole thing rather confusing.

Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
This explains Matthew 12:40 (along with the supposed "Jewish idiom") very well:

https://theatheistobserver.com/2018/...240-revisited/
Unless and until chili2 returns, I guess we don't know whether that explanation is accepted.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 08:33 PM   #37
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,305
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
For a Hebrew or Aramaic speaker, that piece would pretty much just mean "Your king comes humbly riding on a donkey, yeah, on a donkey."
More specifically it would mean "Your king comes in peace." If he rode in on a horse it would mean he was looking for war.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 10:45 PM   #38
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Ah, fair enough then. That's the great thing about prophecy - you can make it refer to whatever you want.
I agree, so true

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I was unclear. Sorry. I am and always have been referring to Matthew 1. Which, to be clear, was not written in Hebrew but in Greek. That's all my error.
Okay, sorry. It was miscommunication from me as well, I was referring to Isaiah 7.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Anyway, it doesn't really matter because it would not be usual, common, or expected for an unmarried woman of that age to be pregnant - ie, not a virgin. It would not be such a terrible misinterpretation to refer to such a person as a virgin if it suited your purposes.
If there was an agenda to decide a young pregnant woman was a virgin, (which the NT writer decided) which makes no sense and has nothing to do with what Isaiah 7 is about.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That the abhorred land (Jerusalem?) would be without its two kings before Immanuel was born (actually before he chose good over evil)?
You need to read from the beginning of the chapter instead of only 14 verses later:

Isaiah 7:1
Quote:
"And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it."
It then continues on talking about the two kings and war in the following verses. Ahaz is told not to worry about the two Kings planning to destroy him and God says he will give a sign. It then says, here is a pregnant young woman who will give birth to a son. Then "the sign" is given in v16

Isaiah 7:16
Quote:
"For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

Then in the book of II Kings the death of the two kings is recorded:

II Kings 15:30
Quote:
"And Hoshea the son of Elah revolted against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and he struck him and slew him, and reigned in his stead"
II Kings 16:5
Quote:
"Then Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war, and they besieged Ahaz, but could not wage war.
II Kings 16:9
Quote:
"And the king of Assyria heeded him, and the king of Assyria went up to Damascus and seized it, and exiled [its inhabitants] to Kir, and he slew Rezin."
The prophecy in Isaiah 7 (which needs to be read in context and not just v14) was about events that happened several centuries before Jesus and was not about The Messiah.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I don't know - is that part of the Messiah prophecy?
Isaiah 7 is definitely not a Messiah prophecy in Judaism, as shown by cf. II Kings.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
From my reading all it is is saying that Ahaz will conquer Jerusalem after Immanuel. The land of abundant butter and honey that is described later in the chapter reads to me like a prophecy of the Kingdom of Heaven that it is said Jesus will bring.
That is a common Christian belief.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
But I'm not an Old Testament scholar and to be honest I find the whole thing rather confusing.
It is very confusing without studying ANE history, language, religions, etc. It made sense for the writers and culture of the times.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Unless and until chili2 returns, I guess we don't know whether that explanation is accepted.
I agree. We do not know what chili2 will accept. I just added the link as an explanation. The link was given to me by an educated, religious person who agreed with the knowledge shown in an atheist site.
__________________
"Zivan" = "Ziva N" = I am a female, but keep being mistaken as a male on the forum. My mistake for using an "n" instead of "N" on my forum name.

Last edited by Zivan; 11th December 2018 at 11:04 PM.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 10:49 PM   #39
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,882
Thanks for the clarification. I don't know as much about the Old Testament prophecies as I really should. They were largely sort of glossed over in church.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 11:50 PM   #40
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72,247
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
You broke my sentence parser.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.