Talk:Isaiah 7:14

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

Very poorly written article
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)


 * 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)

~ Actually almah is used to refer to someone known to have been deflowered. In proverbs, Solomon talks about things that leave no visible trace and one of them is when a man lays with an almah...~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've tagged the "Hebrew Translation" section because the section is essentially arguing for the Jewish translation of the verse rather than maintaining a Neutral POV.Nimrand 22:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be some mention of the Septuagint rendering of this passage. Before Christianity arose, the Septuagint was widely used and accepted among Jews, yet it uses the unambiguous "parthenos" in this verse. Wesley (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If the article seems to be advocating the traditional Jewish interpretation, bear in mind the possibility that that translation is in fact the most accurate one. But by all means add scholarly evidence for the Christian version. JCSalomon (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no strong opinion on the accuracy of the Jewish interpretation. My point is that the accuracy of that translation/interpretation is clearly disputed, and so the section should provide a balanced presentation of all notable translations/interpretations, along with any arguments for/against such translations and interpretations.  Nimrand (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this article, and found it not only poorly written but misleading readers as to the possible use of the words at issue. I added a little balance and organization.Daniel1212 (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

~ I want to add a quick septuagint comment. There was more than one Septuagint. 1. The one written by Jews is NOT the one used by Christians. We know this because the one written by Jews did not include translations of Isaiah. It only included the Pentateuch. Later Christians translated the rest of the Prophets. The word "parthenos" does not appear to be unambiguous because the Jewish translation of the Septuagint refers to Dinah as a "parthenos" after she has been raped. So, she clearly is not a virgin, but is a "parthenos" in their translation. I can look more on this later and post it here or in the article. ...and if anyone can tell me how to retrieve a lost wikipedia password I can even log in...~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The remaining books of the Tanach were presumably translated in the 2nd century BCE. (see Septuagint). In that time there were no Christians yet. Best regards, 201.76.120.58 (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize I was not logged. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

- Yes, I was surprised at how lacking this page was of the Christian interpretation as well as the reasoning behind it, as if there is no input scholarly or otherwise. From what I can see, when someone makes an edition that gives light to the Christian viewpoint, it gets removed fairly soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhol (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ~ This article in its current form continues to depart from the neutral tone expected in Wikipedia. It seems like a special little tribute to the opinions of Bart Ehrmen, not an encyclopedia entry. Revzack (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Article appears biased
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I think it looks great. It is clearly written and shows a neutral pov. It presents the Jewish side. It presents the Christian side. Excellent work. ~ affinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

~ I don't see the bias. I also think that we should keep in mind, we are discussing what a Jewish prophecy means and the Jews had over 1000 years of tradition and discussion of what it means before someone else suggested an alternative. I think it would make sense to focus on the original discussion and then mention how others see it. Similarly, I would expect a discussion of Christianity to follow some timeline rather than, say focus on the Lutheran interpretation of Christianity and then have each other school of thought have to reflect back to where they stand vis a vis Lutheranism. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I am a bit surprised that, in a neutral article, there should be in the translations section, 6 latter day Jewish bibles used as sources compared to only 2 Christian. In terms of word-count, the current Jewish perspective as presented here is given more weight. Also, whatever about the content, it's not clear that the form of the article is neutral either. I'm not sure why the current Jewish interpretation should be presented first and then the Christian interpretation as one which opposes the current Jewish interpretation. Put differently, does the current Jewish interpretation not likewise oppose the Christian interpretation, and, in any event, why should the whole article be presented as a debate in the first place? In other words, just a simple statement of self-contained positions and then dialogue between the two positions. The very first sentence of the Christian perspectives section seems to embody this form bias: "The Jewish view is often disputed by Christians". It seems more likely to me that Christians generally do not refer (except perhaps in their not so likely/often interactions with Jewish people on this matter) to the current Jewish perspective at all, so why give this pride of place and use "often" as though to raise higher the current Jewish perspective as presented here, a perspective which in any case is a minority view by count of faith membership. As a side note, having so many Jewish friends, I'm surprised that we cannot find more than one perspective from Jewish people on Isaiah 7:14 -- the uniformity strikes me as a little surprising. I could go on, but unfortunately I have to earn a living. Maybe somebody who has more time can fix the form and content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.238.203 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it biased through ignorance, assuming "authors" of Matthew and Luke werent Levite scribes, which they were Shem ben Y&#39;israel (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)

Translation Issues
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)
 * 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)

The article, especially in the opening paragraph, needs to mention that the controversy mainly occurs in the English translation, not in all languages, as stated in. Otherwise, if the editors feel that this is a major issue in most translations, they need to cite other language sources properly. On the least, readers who read this comment must be aware that some/all of this controversy doesn't happen in every Bible translations other than English. Bennylin (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Septuagint portion
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)
 * Please see article Septuagint In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Versions
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)

Deletion
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Seems very balanced until it gets to the "Gospel of Matthew" section
Somehow we go from The Text portion that translates almah as "maiden" and The Book of Isaiah portion that says: "The word almah has no exact equivalent in English: it probably meant a young girl or woman who had not yet borne a child" ---what were those young unmarried women expected to be per the same book(hebrew bible)? Deut 22:13-21 says they were most definitely expected to be virgins and were likely to be stoned if found to be otherwise.

to The Gospel of Matthew portion that says: Scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity, but many conservative American Christians still judge the acceptability of new bible translations by the way they deal with Isaiah 7:14.

---This is then thrown in - "(Senator Joseph McCarthy even accused the new translation of being a communist plot, although not because of Isaiah and the almah)" This has nothing to do with the discussion it seems only to be written to cast further doubt on conservative scholars because... they did something a crazy senator did? Upon reading the actual pages from the linked book it blatantly states that the McCarthy part was for the use of the word "comrades" in the RSV.

It seems to me the writer was doing well but then something changed at "Gospel of Matthew" and the writer began quoting his sources out of context and went from a well written balance to what seems to be one sided representation. Is it possible that we could just link this portion over to the almah wikipage which has a much more extensive and seemingly less biased article written on the word "Almah" and it's uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmatg (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of changing your formatting slightly - indents here create a run-on effect that takes lines off the screen, and the separation line creates in effect a sub-section when it's really just one post.


 * For the meaning of almah, see the half-dozen or so books listed in the bibliography.


 * If you feel the McCarthy reference is irrelevant, you're free to delete it, giving your reason in your edit summary. Our article is, however, clear that McCarthy was not talking about the translation of almah.PiCo (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Somehow we go from The Text portion that translates almah as "maiden" and The Book of Isaiah portion that says: "The word almah has no exact equivalent in English: it probably meant a young girl or woman who had not yet borne a child"
 * ---what were those young unmarried women expected to be per the same book(hebrew bible)? Deut 22:13-21 says they were most definitely expected to be virgins and were likely to be stoned if found to be otherwise.


 * I believe a young woman could be married and pregnant with her first child and still be almah. Such was the case of the almah in Isaiah. She would thus not be in danger of being stoned. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern scholarly consensus on meaning of almah
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Quote for verification
"Mark, for example, understands Jesus to be the Son of God in some sense (Mark 1:11), but when it mentions his family, including his mother, it says nothing about the unusual circumstances of his birth (e.g., Mark 3:31). John actually mentions Joseph and calls him Jesus' father (John 1:45), seeming to assume, therefore, that Jesus was born in a normal way. And Paul, who also thinks of Jesus as the Son of God, says that Jesus was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), but says nothing about the woman being a virgin."

- Bart Ehrman (1999: 96)

Cited by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Quoted from . Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
We seem to be cherry picking a source for this article. Currently it is being inserted The Hebrew word almah...scholars agree that it has nothing to do with literal virginity (Sweeny). Another source indicates, endless debate as to whether or not this implies literal virginity...insufficient evidence...to decide issue, there can be no conclusion (Saldarini).

Rhodes is a source in this article that is also being used. In another work of his, Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses, he states almah in this text should definitely be translated virgin...signifies a young unmarried girl every time it is used in the OT (Page 96).

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)

I am also going to mark this page with a POV tag. I have a feeling the issue is not solved and some of the other wording concerns me. Basileias (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added back a section an editor (PiCo) wanted installed. However, I have removed spelling mistakes, bad grammar, and repetition of information that was in the prior paragraph and put it under Isaiah, which is more appropriate. There is still a lot of duplicate information in this article with multiple meanings of almah covered. So bad. Basileias (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

3 days full protection
Sort it out, take it to WP:NPOV if needed. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

Issues with article
The issue here is the same with the Almah article sometime back. I asked for a third party to intervene and the user TransporterMan did. Here is a history of that dispute. The result out of it was:


 * Almah is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be an unmarried virgin or a married young woman. (Cite Saldarini p.1007). The term occurs nine times in the Hebrew bible.)

User PiCo wants to install a prior definition he attempted in the almah article.

His source for "...has nothing to do with literal virginity..." is Sweeney, Marvin A (1996). Isaiah 1–39: with an introduction to prophetic literature P.161. The portion of Sweeny's book dealing with an area specifically talking about a part of Isaiah. What is really stated is Scholar's agree that Heb. alma understood in the NT as virgin based on LXX parthenos, refers to a woman of childbearing age but has nothing to do whether she is a virgin.

I do not believe Sweeny is specifically saying almah has nothing to do with virginity, but in this context the point is the Davidic line if you see the context in the book. Almah is referring to a young unmarried/married girl. While not directly referencing a virgin, I do not believe Sweeny would claim a complete divorce for those terms. If he does, he contradicts other experts.

The Saldarini sources says Almah, is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be an unmarried virgin or a married young woman. (Cite Saldarini p.1007.) User PiCo agreed to this in the almah article.

Ron Rhodes has a view beyond Saldarini and I do not believe he is a sole authority. However PiCo has also use him as a source.

Other issues with the article, which I would like cleaned up

 * 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 Tone|talk=Prepetition of meanings in this article|date=February 2015, 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 The Complete Guide to Bible Translations, 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)

Discussion

 * Basileias, whether wilfully or not, you are misrepresenting the issue. It's not about the meaning of the word almah, it's about whether Sweeney is a reliable (and therefore quotable) authority when he says that scholars agree the word does not have to do with virginity as such. It's the agreement of scholars that's at issue, not the definition. If you can't focus on this, we can't go any further. PiCo (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:RS/AC is pretty clear. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe this is about Isaiah 7:14. Almah has its own article with a definition defined though academic sources to a consensus on the talk page. I do not think Sweeney's statement is clear enough. I am reading it and getting a different definition. With the current definition of Almah in the Isaiah 7:14 article, other experts have said differently. That may put in question Sweeney's reliability of, scholars agree, if what is in the article is the correct interpretation of Sweeney's statement. We already have sources in the article that say otherwise. Basileias (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to add one very precise talking point, I do not believe the articles statement, The Hebrew word almah means a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child and who may or may not be a virgin; scholars agree that it has nothing to do with literal virginity..., accurately represents Sweeney's statement, Scholar's agree that Heb. alma understood in the NT as virgin based on LXX parthenos, refers to a woman of childbearing age but has nothing to do whether she is a virgin. Virgin and literal virginity is saying something different. Basileias (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Basileias, you're still not focusing on the issue. It's this: Before you started editing the lead of the article said this:
 * The Hebrew word almah means a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child and who may or may not be a virgin; scholars agree that it has nothing to do with literal virginity, but many conservative Christians still judge the acceptability of new Bible translations by the way they deal with Isaiah 7:14.
 * You wanted to amend that sentence to read as follows:
 * Scholars dispute whether almah has to do with literal virginity, but many conservative Christians still judge the acceptability of new Bible translations by the way they deal with Isaiah 7:14.
 * I trust you can see the difference between scholars agreeing over something and scholars disputing over it. And I wish I could make you understand that when Sweeney says "agree", not "dispute", we're not at liberty to alter his words to suit our personal predilections. That's what it's about.PiCo (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (P.s. - I'd support removing the word "literal", as it's not used by Sweeney.) PiCo (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead already alters Sweeney's words in meaning. I think we need to represent Sweeney properly. There is still the difference of virgin vs. virginity. I want to shelve the Scholars dispute portion until we get Sweeney properly represented. Then I can move out into other topics. What is inserted is a partial paraphrase of Sweeney. Basileias (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Sweeney p.161
Ok, I'm creating a new level-3 section for discussing Sweeney p. 161 The link takes you to the page, and the sentence says:
 * "Scholars agree that Heb. almah, understood in the NT as "virgin" based on LXX parthenos, refers to a woman of childbearing age but has nothing to do with whether she is a virgin."

As I've said before, the issue isn't virginity or virgin, but whether Sweeney says that scholars agree. Nevertheless, please go ahead and tell why you think the lead uses this sentence incorrectly. PiCo (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that this is more or less directly addressed to Basileias, but I think Sweeney is completely unambiguous here: "Scholars *agree* that Hebrew alma, understood in the New Testament as "virgin" based on the LXX parthenos, refers to a woman of childbearing age but has nothing to do with whether she is a virgin". In fact, I think the current wording in the article introduces some unnecessary ambiguity to Sweeney's statement, where there is none in the original context. If the editor in question wished to change it to "dispute", I think that's a clearly indefensible position when quoting Sweeney, but I'm prepared to eat my words, if necessary. I can't speak for Basileias. If the issue at hand is as to whether scholars agree (which seems to be the crux here, no?), then we will need more than one reliable source from those highly regarded in an applicable field, who state that they disagree with this statement, either directly or indirectly. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you our Third opinion (3O) person? Basileias (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Re Third Opinion request: Whether or not Quinto intended to respond to the Third Opinion request, his issuance of an opinion serves as a Third Opinion (see my semi-humorous essay on the Third Opinion Paradox for a better explanation). The request made at the Third Opinion page has, therefore, been removed as having been satisfied. Just in passing, I've been invited to participate here in light of my prior effort to do so in a closely related prior dispute. I'm going to keep my eye on this and may — or may not — do so, but I do not care to jump in at this particular point in time. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * One is a person (virgin), the other is a condition (virginity). Since we are removing the literal word, I will shelve that for now.


 * For scholars agree, the Saldarini source (P506) says, There has been endless debate as to whether or not this implies literal virginity, but, as there is insufficient evidence in the Hebrew text to decide the issues, there can be no conclusion.


 * So now what do we do with Sweeney's scholars agree? Basileias (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Quoting you: "Saldarini (P506) says..." That's not Saldarini, it's Margaret Barker - she wrote the Eerdman's entry on Isaiah, Saldarini wrote the entry on Matthew. Barker is riding a particular hobby-horse of hers, which is that Isaiah's almah is Holy Wisdom, the Queen of Heaven, the Virgin Mother. "In Rev. 11:19-12-6 she appears as her true self, the sun deity..." Not many scholars agree on that. It's in Barker's interests to downplay the level of agreement (she needs Isaiah's virgin to be the Virgin Mary/sun deity); nevertheless, all she says is that "there has been endless debate" - what she doesn't say is that this debate was pretty much over by the 1990s. What you need is a source that says scholars currently disagree, or that there is current dispute, and Barker doesn't say that.PiCo (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll go into this in a little more depth.


 * On whether Sweeney says that "scholars agree" on the meaning of Hebrew almah I think we now agree that he does. Therefore we can't change the sentence from "agree" to "dispute", as that would be changing our source's words and meaning.


 * Next question, is Sweeney right? You produced Barker's statement that "there has been endless debate" on the matter, but I point out that Barker is pushing a rather eccentric idea called Temple Theology that doesn't have traction in scholarly circles - she doesn't invalidate Sweeney's statement.


 * I did a search in google scholar using "agree+almah" to see if anyone other than Sweeney says this. They do. In the first 10 results there are 4 that express an opinion of relevance to us, all saying that most/all scholars agree on a meaning of "young woman." A fourth, John N. Oswalt, speaks of an ongoing debate, but his book dates from 1985, before the consensus firmed. You might like to check me on this survey since I did it rather hurriedly.


 * Then I did a search for "dispute+almah" to to see if that threw up scholars who might say that there's an ongoing dispute. In the first 10 results I found one that was relevant, "Onkelos on the Torah: Shemot", by Alexander Sperber, Stanley M. Wagner, and Abraham Berliner, which says that "almah" is "the subject of a considerable theological dispute." This obviously contradicts Sweeney and the rest, but nevertheless, I feel that Sweeney and company are correct to say that there is agreement among scholars, meaning those who study the bible as other than theology, as distinct from the real ongoing confessional dispute among conservative Christians, which I believe is what the Onkelos editors are talking about - "a considerable theological dispute".


 * Those are the results of my brief survey, and the overwhelming impression I get is that Sweeney is not alone in saying that scholars agree on the meaning of "almah". PiCo (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sweeney is not alone in saying that scholars agree. But agree on what might be another question. The Jewish Tanakh Study Bible. All modern scholars, however, agree that the Heb merely denotes a young woman of marriageable, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not. P798. The JPS Study bible is 2004. A broad spectrum from Barker to the a Jewish Study Bible (Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, Michael A. Fishbane) along with others I have submitted, put Sweeney in a position of having an exaggerated statement, that is divorcing almah completely from virgin (if that is what he did and we are assuming). Sweeney appears to divorce almah from virgin, and then claims all scholars agree. So is Sweeney right? Basileias (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is already sourced in the article, and in the opening paragraph; Childs 2001, p. 66. The term almah (maiden) has in the past evoked much controversy, initially because of its translation in Gk by the LXX as parthenos (virgin), and it subsequent role in Matt. 1:23. The noun is derived, not from the root "to be concealed: as suggested already by Jerome, but from a homonym, meaning "to be full of vigor," "to have reached the age of puberty." Thus the noun refers to a female sexually ripe for marriage. The emphasis does not fall on virginity as such and, in this respect, differs from the Hebrew btulah. However, apart from the controversial reference in Prov 30:19, the women in all other references to an almah do actually appear to be virgins.


 * Much more detail than Sweeney. The interesting part for the article is, information from the first paragraph is not found on the page of that source. Basileias (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You're misreading the JSB, it agrees 100% with Sweeney.
 * You're putting too much faith in Barker, she's riding a hobby horse that has zero acceptance among fellow-academics.
 * You're misinterpreting Childs, who puts the controversy in the past.
 * You seem hell-bent on preserving the possibility that Isaiah 7:14 might just be a prophecy of the Virgin Birth, to the extent of misinterpreting all these authors and books.
 * Given all this, I don't see much hope for a good outcome here. PiCo (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All I have done is look to the sources. The JPS does not 100% agree with Sweeney. He divorces almah from virgin. The JPS does not. Sweeney is your only go-to source, which I think you have misinterpreted. You want to know my real felling on the virgin birth? I do not give a shit. Basileias (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The JPS, like Sweeney, divorces almah from virginity. "The emphasis does not fall on virginity as such." You seem to have a very high regard for the Virgin Birth.PiCo (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it did not divorce it. It says ...whether a virgin or not. That is not closing the door like Sweeney may, or may not have. Basileias (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You also missed the point that the opening paragraph is not even sourced correctly. Basileias (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we clarify what we've agreed?
 * (a) Sweeney says scholars are agreed, he does not say there is dispute - right?
 * Yes
 * (b) Granted Sweeney says scholars are agreed, we can't use him to source a statement saying scholars are in disupte;
 * Yes
 * (c) Nor can we say there is a dispute if we don't have a source (and we don't).
 * Maybe. Multiple sources identifying confusion with Almah.
 * Is that ok with you? PiCo (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point, I do not see a way out. For you, it is all about your interpretation of Sweeney. All other sources do not apply, and that is wrong. When the lock on the article is released, I will not change the content, but I will tag it further highlighting its deficiencies. Basileias (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not wedded to Sweeney, we can use another source, what's important is that we have a good reflection of scholarly thinking on the issue of what this verse of Isaiah meant to those for whom it was written (the court of Hezekiah), and how it was interpreted by Matthew, and whether Matthew and those Christians who came after him were right to so interpret it (i.e., as a prophecy of a virgin birth for their messiah). Right now you've agreed to 2 of my 3 points, which is progress. You've also defined your current area of disagreement, which is "multiple sources identifying confusion with almah." I don't quite understand clearly what you mean by that, but I think you mean that, on your reading, multiple reliable sources (JPS etc) hold open the door to a reading of almah as virgin - is that right? PiCo (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, virgin is clearly not the primary meaning, only a few fringe sources claim that, but sources do claim a tie; like saying husband. In most cases, its a man, but a male is not mentioned, most people just assume. Basileias (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait a moment - are you thinking that I'm saying that Sweeney is saying that almah never means virgin? No! Sweeney means that although an almah would, in the course of things, be a virgin, that's not the import of the word. PiCo (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, alright. I am now confused. That would seem to be in opposition to the statement ..."scholars agree that it has nothing to do with literal virginity." Nothing to do says its divorced, at least to me. Basileias (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think Sweeney uses the word "literal" - what would that imply, that other form of virginity exists? - but leave that aside. To my mind Sweeney's statement doesn't exclude that almahs would normally be virgins. What I understand him to be saying is that the word doesn't actually mean virgin - virginity is incidental to almah-ness, which means readiness to marry. Since girls in ancient Israel were betrothed at age 5 or 6 and married at puberty or even before, their chances of being virginal were very high. But it was the Greeks who made a fetish of virginity - they were even more screwed up than the Jews. PiCo (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The real issues are, the article is a mess. The intro is sourced to Childs, and what is written does not match at least the page number supplied. The second paragraph is sourced to Saldarini, Rhodes, and Sweeney. That in itself is a jumbled mess. I will be tagging all that in a few days. Basileias (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been following this discussion, but haven't commented because I had no original insights to add. I agree with statements above that Sweeney qualifies as a reliable source (and this does not appear to be in dispute), and since there don't seem to be any reliable sources that directly contradict it, I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that the article as of now correctly reports the scholarly consensus concerning the meaning of עלמה. Because of the (historical) religious controversy over this, it would seem wise to stay as close to the source as possible, so that there doesn't have to be a debate on the exact wording. The article currently may have issues, but a POV tag would imo be inappropriate if there wasn't some specific content that is identifiably unbalanced.
 * @Pico: Do you have any source for saying that "girls in ancient Israel were betrothed at age 5 or 6"? Geoffrey David Miller in Marriage in the Book of Tobit writes that betrothal probably took place "some time after puberty" (p. 93). Also, Karel van der Toorn suggests a typical marriage age of 16 for Israelite women, as cited here. - Lindert (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Lindert, those are two excellent books, and very interesting. Information like that should perhaps be in the article on history of ancient Israel and Judah, though I don't propose to do it. Thanks. PiCo (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the POV tag is warranted at this time. I have never seen something fought to this kind of standstill over a single source that differs from every other source. Sweeney seems to be the only acceptable source for Almah. His view differs from other reliable sources. Plus, we have multiple definitions for almah in the article. Childs p66: almah…The emphasis does not fall on virginity, Sweeney p161: (at least this is what is in the article) The Hebrew word almah … has nothing to do with literal virginity. That is a bit of a gap. Basileias (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Bringing the sources together
If I proposed this...''Modern scholars agree the immediate meaning of the Hebrew word almah is a young marriageable woman. She may or may not be a virgin.'' This would appear to cover a spectrum of Childs, Sweeney, Barker and the Jewish Study Bible (Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, Michael A. Fishbane). That there could be the 4 citation references. Going beyond the immediate meaning further goes into etymology, which is where subtle differences will be. I think that is outside the scope of this article, and a free internet resource.

In place of,

The Hebrew word almah means a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child and who may or may not be a virgin; scholars agree that it has nothing to do with literal virginity,


 * I think you're misunderstanding Sweeney, he isn't saying that an almah can never be a virgin, but that the primary meaning is something other but allied, namely a young woman who has not yet borne a child (see what he says on page 162: "almah is taken by many to mean a woman who has not yet borne a child.") In other words, most almah will be virgins, but a small proportion will be girls who have recently married and are pregnant with a first child - like the one in Isaiah 7:14


 * I'd rather not use multiple sources, it looks untidy to have strings of numbers in the text and it's not necessary; one reliable source is quite enough to make any point. So may I suggest, since you don't like Sweeney, professor Steve Moyise of the University of Birmingham, who says: "Most scholars agree that its (almah's) general meaning is 'young woman'...". To my mind that agrees with Sweeney - do you feel it also agrees with the others? I'd also be quite happy to use the JPS definition. PiCo (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am fine with your suggestion of using Moyise (have not heard of him before). A professor as a reference is probably better than a study Bible reference. Moyise, while wording it different, clearly is not out of line with the others listed. Do you want to quote Moyise exactly or restate his words?


 * I also might suggest letting this sit for a few days to see if other editors want to contribute approval or disagreement. I will leave that up to you. Basileias (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt that Moyise has sufficient status to be quoted - I'd reserve that for leading experts. Paraphrase, without distorting what he says. Yes, leave for a few days. PiCo (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is what I paraphrased from Moyise, Most scholars agree the immediate meaning of the Hebrew word almah is a young woman, with youth often being the emphasis. She may or may not be a virgin. Feel free to change if you think I missed important details. I kept this to just almah. I did not go into specifics to Isaiah 7:14. Basileias (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd accept that, as it covers the key words/ideas in Moyise and seems to be within the ambit of what other sources say. The article, in my opinion, needs to go beyond just the translation of almah, as the entire context of 7:14 makes clear that the almah giving birth is not the sign that the prophet is talking about (the sign is the symbolic name of the child, and its fulfillment is the ending of the threat from the foreign kings and the preservation of the line of David - the kings were attacking Jerusalem in order to place a non-Davidic king on the throne). All needs to be covered. PiCo (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Table of translations
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)


 * 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)

Verifiable information should not be deleted
"John actually mentions Joseph and calls him Jesus' father (John 1:45), seeming to assume, therefore, that Jesus was born in a normal way. And Paul, who also thinks of Jesus as the Son of God, says that Jesus was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), but says nothing about the woman being a virgin."

- Ehrman (1999: 96)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting statement by Ehrman. Considering he referenced John 1:45. It does not say father, but from the opposite angle, son.


 * Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” NRSV


 * Thanks for that piece of original research, but Bart Ehrman is a professor of New Testament at a major university, he is widely recognized as an authority in this matter and WP:SOURCES and WP:VER are of application. If we still resort to original research, a character from the Gospel of John says that Jesus is the son of Joseph, meaning that Joseph is his father, and we may safely assume that the characters from this gospel are under the editorial control of its anonymous author, since there was no eyewitness testimony involved, just oral traditions and maybe some enigmatic sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Relax. I was just making an observation. However, Ehrman is not widely recognized as an authority. Recognized, but not widely. He interjects a lot of inference and presumptions. Basileias (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ehrman is a reliable source for Wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Taking it to the talk page
So, yeah. What was wrong with my edit again? --Monochrome _ Monitor  18:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

May I restore this? It's sourced and sounds less wishy washy

"The meaning of the Hebrew word almah is a young woman, without any implication of virginity. Oxford Companion to the Bible page 790 The word for "virgin" in Hebrew is "Betulah" (בתולה)http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0020_0_20440.html." --Monochrome _ Monitor  21:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The previous lead was this:
 * (Version 1): Isaiah 7:14 is a verse of the Book of Isaiah addressed to the house of David giving them the sign of Immanuel after king Ahaz refused to ask a sign for himself in verse 12. In Christians Bibles the Hebrew word עלמה almah, meaning "young woman", is usually rendered as "virgin". This translation originated in the Septuagint, which was completed in the late 2nd century BCE, translating almah into Greek as παρθένος (parthenos), which generally means "virgin". The author of the Gospel of Matthew used the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew word almah as the Greek parthenos in support of his concept of the virgin birth of Jesus. (Sourced from Saldarini page 1007)


 * The reversion is this:
 * (Version 2): Isaiah 7:14 is a verse of the Book of Isaiah in which the prophet Isaiah, addressing king Ahaz of Judah, promises the king that God will destroy his enemies; as a sign that his oracle is a true one, Isaiah predicts that a young woman will shortly give birth to a child whose name will be Immanuel, "God is with us", and that the threat from the enemy kings will be ended before the child grows up.[citation needed]


 * Version 1 focuses exclusively on the meaning of the word "almah". We have a separate article for that - Almah. This article isn't about the word itself, but about the context in which is occurs. It therefore needs to explain, in the first line, the story in which it occurs - Isaiah's confrontation with Ahaz at the moment when the House of David is under threat (Ahaz's enemies wanted to replace him with a rival prince who was not even from the House of David). Version 2 does that, although it probably should go further than it does (it doesn't mention the existential threat to the Davidic monarchy).


 * Version 2 goes on to talk about the meaning of "almah" in it's second sentence/paragraph:
 * (Version 2: almah): Most scholars agree the general meaning of the Hebrew word almah is a young woman, with youth often being the emphasis; the young woman may or may not be a virgin.[1] The author of the Gospel of Matthew used the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew word almah as the Greek parthenos (a word that usually implies virginity) in support of his concept of the virgin birth of Jesus.[2] Many conservative Christians still judge the acceptability of new Bible translations by the way they deal with Isaiah 7:14.[3]


 * Each sentence there is separately sourced. The first, sourced from Moise, gives the opinion of "most scholars", and I sincerely hope that Moise does indeed use those words, because it's important that we represent the majority scholarly opinion. The version you want (the one at top, not Saldarini but from the Oxford Companion) doesn't have that. That's a weakness in Wiki-terms, as it leaves the door open for later editors to claim that almah=young woman (not virgin) is controversial or subject to ongoing debate. It's not, of course, but the Oxford source leaves that possibility open, and Moise closes it off. Since Moise and the Oxford are saying the same thing (not surprisingly), Moise is the better source here.


 * To summarise:


 * 1) Version 1 doesn't give a clear description of Isaiah 7:14 - concentrates on the definition of a single word, for which there's a separate article.
 * 2) The Oxford definition of "almah" is pretty well identical with Moise, but fails to say that this is the scholarly consensus/near consensus, which makes Moise preferable. (Incidentally, don't quote books in the form of title - give the authors of articles, article titles, and then book names - the format is at the bottom of the article in the bibliography section).PiCo (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor
Monochrome Monitor installed their edits again. I left a note on their talk page asking to come here. Basileias (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Monochrome Monitor again installed their edits without consulting the talk page over their edits issues.


 * The Jewish Tanakh Study Bible has All modern scholars, however, agree that the Heb merely denotes a young woman of marriageable, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not. P798. It is alongside the Moyise version that is currently cited in the article.


 * Without any implication of virginity is not what Moyise states. There is also the removal of verbiage that is clearly suggested by Rhodes.


 * I believe the jewishvirtuallibrary.org (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) would not qualify as a reliable source for this article WP:RS/AC.
 * Basileias (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a few notes to follow up, transferred from MM's page.
 * Robert Geis, Life of Christ, University Press of America, 2013pp.15-20
 * Jack D. Kilcrease, [https://books.google.it/books?id=SURJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA134

The Self-Donation of God: A Contemporary Lutheran Approach to Christ and His Benefits,] Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013
 * (see the ref to Cyrus Gordon ’s paper ‘Almah in Isaiah 7:14)
 * Almah could be used interchangeably with betulah (Genesis 24:16 - Genesis 24:43, of Rebecca all in a few minutes in which she is in public view.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection & Third Opinion
Due to Monochrome Monitor's editing behavior I have asked for page protection and a third opinion. Basileias (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Just as a comment/suggestion, I feel that the first sentence of any article should define the scope of the article, in as few words as possible. The scope of this article is not the meaning of the word almah, which has its own article; it's the meaning of the entire verse 7:14, and of course the context in which it appears. So, I suggest that the first sentence be something like: "Isaiah 7:14 is verse of the Book of Isaiah in which the prophet Isaiah, speaking to King Ahaz of Judah, having expressed exasperation with the king in 7:13, promises that God will give him a sign: ...." (and then quote the verse as given by Childs in the section further down). Then in the next para say that the word translated here as "maiden" is Hebrew "almah", that it's the subject of some controversy, that it's historically been interpreted by Christians as a prophecy of the Virgin Birth but that scholars believe it has no direct connection with virginity, and that it needs to be set in its context. That might e enough for the lead. As an aside, I wonder if this article should be merged with almah? PiCo (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think most of that would be fine, but I am not sure about merging the articles (feel free to propose it). I am just waiting to see what roles out of this for now with MM. Basileias (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've fully protected the article for one week. This looks like a content dispute, so I chose full protection over semi-protection (and all the editors here are autoconfirmed anyway). The way forward now is for Monochrome Monitor to join both of you here on the talk page, and for you all to work together to find a consensus about what to do. If you can't manage to reach a consensus between yourselves, then going to the dispute resolution noticeboard may be a good plan. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My disagreement is saying "most scholars" etc... I think it would be more beneficial if instead of sourcing scholars we source the definition of the word, it is a real word after all, not a nebulous pictograph or an ancient egyptian heiroglyph. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  13:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any major complaints with the current content, though. I do think we shouldn't air as much of the "conservative Christian" opinion, because much of it is objectively wrong—ie that the septaguint predicted a virgin (it was written after Jesus) or that the word almah never refers to a non-virgin in the Bible. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would you disagree with saying "most scholars"? A core Wikipedia principle - maybe the core principle - is to find out the majority opinion and express it. That's what nopv means - not no point of view, but neutral point of view. We express majority opinion first, minority opinion in proportion to its importance, and fringe opinion not at all. That's frequently difficult - how do we know what's majority or minority? Sometimes we strike likely and a reliable source says "most scholars believe..." When that happens, we use them, even if another source expresses the same idea better but fails to say it's the majority opinion.


 * You say that the conservative evangelical opinion on the meaning of almah is objectively wrong, but nothing is objective on Wikipedia, everything is opinion. Wikipedia is along spiritual exercise in self-abnegation. Which is difficult, as I don't think anyone would edit Wiki if they weren't a rampant egotist. PiCo (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * or deeply masochistic (they are not, of course, incompatible, psychologically:).)

Almah (proposal)
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)
 * For PiCo (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues. (Remove proposal)
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)


 * Completed

Basileias (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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

purpose of article
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)

"By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good"
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)
 * According to Bar and bat mitzvah the ceremonies did not exist until the Middle Ages. Editor2020 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Changing text at whim
I have analyzed your edits: you don't care for WP:RS, you change the text at whim. And, yes, we are biased! We are biased for the mainstream academia and against fundamentalist true believers.

And you're wrong about that being Ehrman's POV: it is the POV every Bible full professor from the Ivy League to state universities. Translating Isaiah 7:14 with virgin is academically speaking WP:FRINGE. So, yeah, we're biased against academically fringe views.

In the mainstream academia, almah "objectively" means young woman. So, your objection is not supported: there is an academically objective translation.

This is the objective truth in this matter: traditional Jews are right about the translation. They are wrong about many other issues, e.g. that Jesus was a prophet of Paganism, not Judaism, but on this issue they are right. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Disregarding theological sources and academic sources that maintain the virgin translation of almah (from its use in the Septuagint) doesnt jive with NPOV. While traditional Jews may very well be right in their translation of Masoretic Tanakh, they may or may not be correct with their translation of the LXX which predates the Masoretic Tanakh by 1200 years. DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, there are two significant issues with this article.


 * 1. The exclusive use of the masoretic text to exclusion of either the Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate (both of which predate the Masoretic). There have been arguments put forth that the masoretic text’s have been altered to obscure certain Messianic prophecies. Im not arguing this is true, but it is a point of contention.


 * 2. The exclusion of biblical scholars, such as Raymond E. Brown.


 * Both of these need to be addressed for the article to conform with WP:NPOV. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That parthenos could mean "virgin", okay, I agree. But almah doesn't. Big difference. You may not state that almah means "virgin".
 * All Christian scholars agree with this, except Bible thumpers.
 * Raymond E. Brown -
 * You did not WP:CITE any WP:RS (meaning mainstream Bible scholarship) that almah means "virgin". So, it fails WP:NOR policy. You have been warned about that.
 * Nor is any WP:RS to that extent already cited inside our article. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, parthenosalways means virgin in koine Greek, no if ands or butts about it. I may state that at one time almah meant virgin if a relaible source indicates it.
 * In the final analysis the word "alma", in ancient biblical Hebrew signified an "adolescent girl who had never known a man" - Christophe Rico Professor of General Linguistics; Semantics, Greek Linguistics; Greek koinè; Greek New Testament; Theory of translation and pedagogy of ancient languages, Dean of Polis Institute
 * I dont know how "fringe" and "mainstream" are defined but Ill look to the noticeboard you left on my talk page. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That source tells about itself that it is WP:FRINGE. Only Bible thumpers would agree with it, and Bible thumpers are fringe by our book.
 * And Ehrman is cited inside that article that parthenos did not always meant "virgin". tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * which is a fringe position .. correct? DarrellWinkler (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehrman is a world-renowned, mainstream Bible professor, the WP:BURDEN that that claim is fringe is upon you, not upon me. We don't take your words at face value. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Parthenos (παρθένος) is the Greek term for "virgin".
 * There is no doubt that we should take the term parthenos to mean 'virgin' whenever it appears in Semitic Koine Greek. - Rico
 * virgin - A Greek English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature
 * Ehrman appears to be a "fringe" viewpoint on the word and doesnt speak Greek to boot. DarrellWinkler (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's your word and the word of a self-declared WP:FRINGE source, against a mainstream full professor having a named chair who studied Greek with Metzger, who was considered the best scholar ever of the Greek of the New Testament.
 * Did it cross your mind that being an expert in Koine Greek and speaking modern Greek language are quite different abilities? I once met an Oxford professor who was in Greece and could recite Homeric poems to the modern Greeks, and they would recognize what they once learned in school. But they don't speak Homer's Greek.
 * Ehrman has declared he learned Italian in order to read advanced scholarly articles in Italian, but when he was in Italy, he could speak no Italian. That's because he learned Italian as if it were a dead language. He had never listened it, he had never spoken it, but he could read advanced Italian. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rico does not look fringe. His views are within the mainstream range probably on the minority side at worst and in the middle ground at best, but he is certainly not fringe. Fringe would be qualified when multiple sources verify that something is fringe. And in general, traditional views are not fringe. They are within the mainstream range of views which go from the traditional to the radical. Usually there is no one side beats all in textual criticism - there is a range of views which fluctuate.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read page 6 of the book in English. It is available from Google Books. Therein Rico makes clear he is a fighter against the academic consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at that page. He reviews the problem in that whole chapter. I don't see any issue since he is reviewing previous studies there. Semantic studies that try to deal with a problem are allowed to provide their own solution to the matter. Attribution would be appropriate to resolve any issues.Ramos1990 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would fall under "Alternative theoretical formulations" which appear to be allowable in Wikipedia. Hes not pseudoscientific and no one is questioning his source or methodology. DarrellWinkler (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rico is the only one who thinks that the matter isn't settled. Mainstream scholars consider it settled. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read the above: Rico is WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia cannot use his book. We make no use of such fringe sources, according to website guideline.

Also discussed at Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 83. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu: A review of that book in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly called it "a significant contribution to a linguistic study of the Hebrew word ʿalmâ". I do not deny the authors are advocating a minority view, but I think theirs is a significant minority view and that it could be mentioned if using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Potatín5 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a significant POV, but outside of the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: Sorry, are you saying that a book from reputable publisher and written by two trained liguistic scholars is "outside of the mainstream academia"? Potatín5 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See The Jesus Dynasty: reputable professor, reputable publisher, yet a WP:FRINGE book. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Point on translation
I think we could go a long way at easing the POV issuses in this article is we either remove the hebrew or add all both the LXX, the Vulgate. Theres not reason to represent one and not the others. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * LXX gets discussed (search the article for parthenos). It is however disingenuous to say that one or another translation is able to change what the word meant in the original language for the speakers of that language. The translator can change the translation, not the ancient Hebrew language. So, no, almah does not mean "virgin" in ancient Hebrew, as far as ancient Hebrew can be known. Stop pushing such fringe POV.
 * You should know that I am amenable to evidence from WP:RS. So, if you find sources from the mainstream Bible scholarship of the past 20 years, I could reassess my take. But your own opinion is not enough, since Wikipedians don't listen to doxa but only to episteme, and WP:FRINGE sources get discarded by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * DarrellWinkler, the issues you cover exist only in your own mind. Have you considered that you too might have a pov? Achar Sva (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw this on the noticeboard. Seems reasonable to include the other translations because these historical documents are interpreting each other in the ancient world. They do this on their own. Scholarly views are a secondary matter and can be its own section. This article is supposed to give context as to how it has been understood through time - form the earliest to the traditional to the modern. Otherwise it is incomplete.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Scholarly views are the primary matter, in fact the only matter. But the article does, in fact, discuss the different languages and their interpretations. If you want to make a change, please suggest something specific. Achar Sva (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Scholarly views are pretty much modern commentary on these ancient issues. But I think that DarrellWinkler is trying to include the historical views and/or historical commentary from the pre-Christian and post-Christian period. This would be a good idea and would shed light as to how the translators of the LXX and Vulgate came up with their translations on this verse. Matthew seemed to have quoted it from the LXX.Ramos1990 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph the meaning of almah is mentioned. In the next phrase of the first paragraph, the parthenos translation is mentioned. So it's not like we would dodge the parthenos translation. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One part of one sentenced does not make a balanced article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE: now it is balanced for WP:DUE. Your POV is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not the feedback from the noticeboard. DarrellWinkler (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * DarrellWinkler, could you be more specific and concrete in the changes you'd like to see? I have lost the plot a bit, though that's my fault.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should either reproduce all three significant early translations: the LXX, the Vulgate and the Hebrew masoretic or remove all originals. The way the article now reads (and please correct me if I am mistaken) we provide the masoretic in the Hebrew script only. This leaves the reader with the impression that this the masoretic is the authoritative base. DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A previous version of the article had an interesting table in it. Not sure what the justification for its removal was:

(Not quite sure how to indent after that!) While I think the translations are certainly worth mentioning, doesn't it make sense to accord the Hebrew some bit of privilege, since it's the language in which the subject verse was composed? That is, the Hebrew is the original, not a translation. There are certainly issues of textual fidelity, etc., but purely as an issue of translation, would you agree with that? Dumuzid (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a great idea! DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but wouldn't that leave us with the Masoretic text as the "authoritative" version, which you seemed to argue against? And please note, I don't mean to be obstreperous, I am honestly trying to figure things out--which can be tough for an old guy well past his studies.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats a good point .. what is the "authoritative" version of the OT? I suppose thats the jist of this talk page section. If we present the MT and provide a translation base on it, is the article endorsing this as the authoritative version and why is it the authoritative version? Sorry if I havent been 100% clear on this.


 * I think the table is a good idea, and can be expanded with other versions but which ones???? There are nearly as many versions of the OT as there are denominations. This seems to be a good summary of the main versions along with translations (on some) DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right! And for me (and I would suggest, most scholars irrespective of faith), the Hebrew version, as represented in the Masoretic text is indeed the authoritative version.  If we accept that the Hebrew Bible was indeed composed in Hebrew (excepting Esther and parts of Daniel) then this is the only non-translation text.  It also has a compelling textual history, not only with regard to Codex Leningradensis, but also, importantly, the general corroboration offered by the Dead Sea Scrolls (notably of the verse at issue).  The most used scholarly edition of the Hebrew Bible, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, starts with the Masoretic text as a baseline (though noting variants).  As such, while I think translations like the LXX offer us some important insight to the reception and understanding of the text, they are secondary, while the Hebrew text is primary.  I hope that makes some kind of sense, and is my reasoning, anyway!  Would be interested to hear your thoughts. Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Its my understanding (not a biblical scholar mind you) that the Masoretic text is the authoritative source for Tanakh and all its versions. For the Catholics, Orthodox (Greek, and Eastern), Syriac, Assyrian Church, Copts, all the Protestant and denominations, and so on .. their versions are primordially based on the LXX and various portions of the apocrypha, depending on denomination. I dont understand how the Masoretic could be considered authoritative for Catholics (for example) the Vulgate was in use for hundreds of prior to the final version of the Masoretic Tanakh or many other Christian denominations whose texts also predate the Masoretic Tanakh. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but in my experience, almost all scholars of every tradition agree that the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, whatever you choose to call it, was composed almost entirely in Hebrew. Thus, Catholic scholars generally think St. Jerome did a pretty good job of translation, but it was a translation nonetheless.  And while the first complete Masoretic text is much later, it is generally accepted that this is the final product of a much older textual tradition -- as I say, for instance in the Dead Sea Scrolls which largely confirm the Masoretic text.  Thus, if we agree that there must have existed a Hebrew original from which the translations were made, then it is a general assumption that Hebrew will be the language closest to the original.  Again, the other translations give us evidence, but the Hebrew is the original.  Thus, no one seriously argues that the original fruit in the Garden of Eden was an apple -- this was, rather, a literary choice by St. Jerome (the well known malam/malum association).  But all traditions would agree that the original merely said "fruit" (p'ri).  Again, it is generally agreed that the Hebrew is primary, and the other traditions are secondary.  Would you agree with me that the Hebrew Bible (with the aforementioned Aramaic exceptions) was composed in Hebrew?  Dumuzid (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, I would certainly hope it was composed in Hebrew! I think one point of contention, and this comes up with the issue regarding the LXX, is languages change. I think its a point made by Rico. People transcribing and in some cases translating documents in vernacular's separated by hundreds of years can make honest mistakes or bring perspectives the original authors didnt intend.


 * I suppose my problem with the article as it currently stands is one POV is being represented to exclusion of all others. This debate has going on since St St. Jerome began his work on this 1600 years ago. While I agree that a lot of recent books and articles come down on one side of the issue, the article ignores nearly two millennium of writings on this and focuses on the latest flavor.


 * You seem to have a good handle on this and I really thank you for helping mediate and navigate here! DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I quite love this stuff, and long ago in a different life, I daresay I knew quite a bit about it. Far less so today!  But your point about transcription/translation is exactly what I am trying (in an ineffective way!) to get at.  While variances are quite plausible within a single language, there is an underlying assumption that variances are less probable and tend to be of less magnitude than variances which occur in translation.  I understand your point about Jerome and the LXX, but that to me is a second-order inquiry; we're talking about interpretation of the text in question.  If we're talking about original meaning, for lack of a better term, we're constrained to use Hebrew as our best evidence.  And while you're right, that the Masoretic text itself is late(ish), it is assumed to be part pf a literary tradition extending all the way back -- as indeed, I believe the first full Vulgate is from the 8th century(ish), but no one doubts that it extends back 400 years or so.  So, for me, again, I think we have to break the question down into two parts: what does the text say, and how has it been interpreted?  Again, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Dumuzid (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is more of an amateur endeavor for me. As a recent (youngish) retiree from law enforcement, I now have some time for this kind of stuff which has always interested me. I think a fair path forward would be to use the current Hebrew (as is in the article), explain the source of this (in no great detail, just enough for the reader to understand the origin and link to the primary article), and provide the various interpretations in the most widely used translations (via something like the table) and provide a reason why these interpretations say what they do both from the perspective of the original translation (if that can be ascertained) and more modern takes. I think this would satisfy everyone and improve this article a great deal. DarrellWinkler (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say your amateur endeavor puts us on very much even footing! And I don't love the table -- of course, if consensus goes against me, so be it.  But I think it sort of overemphasizes modern literary and poetic choices, when really, we're talking about two textual lines: the traditional Christian line, arguably descended from the Septuagint (it should be read "virgin"), and the more progressive Christian/Jewish line (it should say something like "young woman" or "maiden").  Thus, I think a discussion of the Hebrew along with major early witnesses (like the LXX) is the best approach -- when you talk about modern translations, you're talking about echoes of those older texts.  As ever, though, just my opinion, and I am often wrong about things.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 18:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a comment on the side here, if it may help. I'm doubtful, but in any case. Every translation is first of all an interpretation. The tranlsators of the Book of Isaiah into Koine Greek decided to interpret the Hebrew word 'almah' as 'parthenos', i.e. as a "virgin" instead of a "maiden" (which objectively could be a "virgin, but there is no way of knowing this for sure just from the title/word 'almah'). And since the birth of the Christian faith is irrevocably entangled with the Koine Greek translation of the Book of Isaiah, this interpretation also determined the shape of the emerging new faith. In other words, without the Koine Greek translation/interpretation of the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah Christianity would not have the theological basis and shape it has in historical reality. Does this help? Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 18:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree the reason this is so contentious is because of it may have completely changed the way the Gospel of Matthew of originally written. From what I know of this, genealogies of biblical figures have been altered for obvious chronological anomalies that even literalists (as many ancient theologians were) couldn’t square. My own opinion is much of this debate revolves around that. DarrellWinkler (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * DarrellWinkler, I notice that you seem rather confused on a number of technical issues. It's important to know the following:
 * * "Tanakh" is the Hebrew word for the Jewish scriptures;
 * * "Hebrew Bible" is the scholarly term for the Jewish scriptures - it refers to the language of the text;
 * * "Jewish Bible" is a non-scholarly term, but is frequently used as interchangeable with the other two;
 * * "Old Testament" is a Christian term and is usually though not always avoided in scholarly contexts;
 * * The Old Testament and the Tanakh/Jewish Bible/Hebrew Bible are not the same thing - the arrangement of books is different and that arrangement has different theological outcomes (in other words, don't use OT as if it means the same thing as HB);
 * The masoretic text is the authoritative text of the Tanakh/HB/JB.
 * The Catholic OT is based on a Latin translation; the Orthodox is based on the Greek translation; modern Protestant translations are all over the place.Achar Sva (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats my general understanding even if I garble things here or there. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What Achar Sva said is fine: we render how Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants translated the verse. But we also render what scholars of ancient Hebrew say it really means. These are two separate questions: what the word means, and how it got translated. Otherwise we would perform a huge ad populum about the meaning of an ancient word. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "objective truth". This is about representing all significant POV's fairly. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are different translations. The word has only one meaning. Apples and oranges. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)



Use of Blog
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Would these sources do? p40 and  p346-347 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 15:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

÷== The Septuagint's use of the word parthenos ==

The reliable source (Saldarini, 2001) being quoted in the lead states the following, on p. 1007, as correctly referenced: "The Greek translation of the Bible, the LXX, chose the Greek word for virgin (parthenos) to translate the Hebrew and so provided an opportunity for Matthew's interpretation." The IP removing the fact that the Septuagint Greek version of the Isaiah prophecy preceeded Matthew's interpretation goes against the reliable source. If the IP cannot show better sources, their argument is simply WP:OR. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 19:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

New book in bibliography has been reverted
I would like to know why the reference I added was considered FRINGE. The reference is below:

Thanks in advance if anyone can explain why. Best regards, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * See Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 83. Rico's book is basically denialism.


 * Don't take my word for it:

"Both R. and G. are willing to remain unsympathetic with and even to audaciously fly in the face of a nearly universal scholarly consensus that ʿalmâ refers to a young girl."


 * You see, the Bible has to be true, and in order for the Bible to be true, every scholar worth his salt must be exposed as delusional, if not outright Satanic. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As we can read from your own provided reference:
 * "This research is a significant contribution to a linguistic study of the Hebrew word ʿalmâ rendered as parthenos in the LXX of Isa 7:14. R. and G.'s approach to ʿalmâ provides valuable insights into the history of the reception of the meaning of the word..."
 * And quoting your own sentence with the full context:
 * "Christophe Rico and Peter J. Gentry seek to offer a comprehensive treatment of the Hebrew word ʿalmâ and its Greek rendering parthenos in Isa 7:14, a controversial term that has occasioned countless debates and still leaves us with much uncertainty. R. deals primarily with the main part of the biblical book, and G. with the last section of Appendix II. Both R. and G. are willing to remain unsympathetic with and even to audaciously fly in the face of a nearly universal scholarly consensus that ʿalmâ refers to a young girl."
 * Thus, there is no reason not to include this book in the bibliography, since Se-Hoon Jang himself, whom you quoted, considers this book a significant contribution to a linguistic study of the Hebrew word ʿalmâ rendered as parthenos in the LXX of Isa 7: 14.
 * Therefore, I reiterate the request for the book to be restored to the list of bibliographies. Best Regards. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope. WP:ONEWAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Without arguments, you just don't want to concede to citing the book I suggested. Simple negation is not an argument. That's an attitude and it does no credit to the person who employs it. I stop here. Best regards. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record: Jang is listed as "independent scholar". This might suggest he is not that high in the pecking order (not a full professor). Also, Rico is listed as "professor", but without stating that he is a full professor. He also teaches at a language school, instead of a reputable university. Rico's POV arose from biblical inerrancy. Inerrantists produce all sorts of wild arguments in order to prove that the Bible is right and every mainstream Bible scholar is wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record: You were the one who quoted Jang. I just showed that in your own quote the author valued the book. What I didn't see from you was a quote from some renowned WP:CHOPSY scholar showing Rico's book as WP:FRINGE, or something like that. Best regards Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What Jang stated could be true, but, anyway, the point is that a minor scholar applauds another minor scholar in a theologically biased journal. Again: I'm not claiming that it would be false what he stated, just WP:UNDUE does the job.
 * If I would claim that it is false, the WP:BURDEN would be upon me. When I claim that it is UNDUE, the BURDEN is upon you. And it is by far no unreasonable BURDEN. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear tgeorgescu, I think there is a miscommunication here. You cited author Jang as an example that this author disparaged Rico's book as WP:FRINGE. Now you seem to be saying that I use it for book defense. It's not that! I just demonstrated that your reference in order to show that the book was WP:FRINGE didn't work at all. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article says actually both: that the book is either WP:FRINGE or severely WP:UNDUE, and that the author of the review thinks that it is a valuable book. But that is a minor point.
 * The major point is that you have to fulfill the WP:BURDEN of WP:USEBYOTHERS.
 * So, which mainstream Bible scholars have read the book and published something about? How many mainstream Bible scholars have cited Rico's book in their own papers?
 * Please tell: who, when, and where.
 * Otherwise, two conclusions will become apparent: (i) Rico's book is either WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE, and according to WP:ONEWAY and WP:GEVAL we don't list POVs just because those belong to contrarians; (ii) Rico's book has been largely ignored by experts.
 * I mean: Rico was neither hounded, nor chastised for his book; most experts seem to completely ignore it.
 * Sometimes being a contrarian works: it helped Israel Finkelstein build his career. But it did not work for Bryant G. Wood, nor, at the other extreme, for Richard Carrier.
 * The book was published in 2013, in French. And, yup, most Bible scholars read French. See https://www.editionsducerf.fr/librairie/livre/472/mere-de-l-enfant-roi-isaie-7-14-la
 * It was cited in This WP:RS does endorse the mainstream view. Therein Rico's book is barely mentioned, it is only mentioned without discussion in a marginal footnote.
 * I could not find other citations at Google Books (either of the French edition or of the English translation). tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear tgeorgescu, I understand your point of view. So I'll wait if, by chance, some scholar mentions Rico's book favorably. In that case we can see if there is some chance of reconsideration. Otherwise, the article remains as it is, without citing Rico. Best regards, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also cited in a more substantial footnote in tgeorgescu (talk)  15:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I found another book that quotes Rico's book. Series: Ancient Christian Writers 68. Jerome; Thomas P. Scheck (Translator) - Commentary on Isaiah - Including St. Jerome's Translation of Origen's Homilies 1-9 on Isaiah (2015). The quotation is "4/44 For a discussion of Jerome’ exegesis of this passage, see C. Rico, La Mère de l’nfant-Roi.’lmah et parthenos dans l’nivers de la Bible: un point de vue linguistique (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2013). Rico contends that Jerome’ understanding of the linguistic meaning of almah is basically correct, even if the arguments he produces are to be reset within the framework of his time and could not be held today in the same way from a linguistic point of view". I believe the author is not counted as sufficiently erudite by Wikipedia standards, so I just record the fact here. No intentions to include Rico's reference in the article. Best regards, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

What about the publishers "Wipf & Stock Publishers." Are they known as reliable publishers of peer reviewed academic material? I doubt. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 21:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not everything from Wipf & Stock is bad stuff. Bonus: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars/comments/rfsw1l/what_do_scholars_think_about_christophe_rico_and/
 * And judging by https://scholar.google.com Rico's book was seldom cited. According to WP:USEBYOTHERS, that means something. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently wrong about Wipf and Stock. They publish non-fiction books on various topics, and several academic journals as well. Dimadick (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like publishers of trusted Christian religious stuff. The theme befits their ware, it looks like. By no means mainstream academic publishers, I'd say. I'd be more interested in learning the specific qualifications of Rico as a "linguist." But overall, there can be no doubt that the purpose here is just to prove traditional Christian dogma as correct again. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 21:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope יוּבָל. The purpose of my part here is to include a book that brings the counterpoint. Just that. This, in my opinion, is what one should look for when looking for a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Shalom Shalom. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is another book by this publisher that entered the bibliography without problems: Moyise, Steve (2013). Was the Birth of Jesus According to Scripture?. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1621896739. Best regards. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are WP:Canvassing. Doug Weller  talk 15:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't know that sending a one-time invite was prohibited here. I will not repeat the action. On wikipedia-pt invites are only not allowed for multiple users (spam). Best Regards Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you invite everyone involved in a discussion it’s ok, but you can’t be selective. Doug Weller  talk 19:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Point of order. The "consensus" on Rico was that while he not in the majority his views are noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. This claim of tgeorgescu's was essentially him arguing over all the other contributors on both this talk page and the noticeboard. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I kindly ask you to provide evidence for both of your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Both Matthew and Luke?
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)


 * Removed reference to Luke gospel which does not refer to the Isaiah passage. Assambrew (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

My recent rollback
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)

Contradiction
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)