Isaiah 7:11 = "mother Of Yahweh"?

[maklelan]

The article is here. Margaret Barker evidently asserts (here, page 3) that Isaiah 7:11 should read "ask for yourself a sign from the mother of Yahweh." I think Heiser is right on. What are your thoughts?

[Rommelator]

What are your thoughts?

As both a Latter-day Saint and a Mopologist, I am not allowed to have thoughts.

I can only think what Thomas S. Monson or a man with even more diabolical and despotic power, Daniel C. Peterson, tells me to think.

Okay, sorry, couldn't help myself.

I find this interesting.

I just skimmed the article quckly, so correct me if I am wrong, but is Heiser saying that there should be different letters in the lacuna of the Great Isaiah Scroll than the ones proposed by Barker and other scholars?

[Bill Hamblin]

The article is here. Margaret Barker evidently asserts (here, page 3) that Isaiah 7:11 should read "ask for yourself a sign from the mother of Yahweh." I think Heiser is right on. What are your thoughts?

I think Heiser is right. (But that doesn't mean Yahweh does not have a mother. )

[William the Conqueror]

I think Heiser is right. (But that doesn't mean Yahweh does not have a mother. )

Then what is the textual or other evidence that Yahweh has a mother?

Incidentally I saw your interview with Maa on YouTube recently. She has an uncanny resemblance to the infamous Ma Barker.

[Cold Steel]

I'd have to see Barker's response. Somehow I don't trust people who tell me before making a response to an argument that the person making it is predisposed to jumping to conclusions. She (Barker) may be, but I'd prefer just the facts of the case without the hearsay.

[jadams_4242]

The article is here. Margaret Barker evidently asserts (here, page 3) that Isaiah 7:11 should read "ask for yourself a sign from the mother of Yahweh." I think Heiser is right on. What are your thoughts?

The very biggest problem i have is that "yahweh" is Jesus, "Eloihim" is God. so its all irrelavent conjecture

[sean0scott]

The very biggest problem i have is that "yahweh" is Jesus, "Eloihim" is God. so its all irrelavent conjecture

Elohim is "Gods"

[maklelan]

The very biggest problem i have is that "yahweh" is Jesus, "Eloihim" is God. so its all irrelavent conjecture

The titles are used interchangeably (and simultaneously) throughout the Old Testament.

[Lachoneus]

The article is here. Margaret Barker evidently asserts (here, page 3) that Isaiah 7:11 should read "ask for yourself a sign from the mother of Yahweh." I think Heiser is right on. What are your thoughts?

I disagree with Heiser's conclusion that "the verse 11 word clearly does not have a right â??legâ? that goes all the way down to the bottom of the line like the other alephs clearly do in the manuscript." I see a number of alephs in the manuscript, including the two alephs in the words underlined in red, in which the right leg does not go "all the way down to the bottom of the line."

[maklelan]

I disagree with Heiser's conclusion that "the verse 11 word clearly does not have a right â??legâ? that goes all the way down to the bottom of the line like the other alephs clearly do in the manuscript." I see a number of alephs in the manuscript, including the two alephs in the words underlined in red, in which the right leg does not go "all the way down to the bottom of the line."

The letter has obviously been gone over a few times with ink to try to make it more clear. This kind of fixing wouldn't have taken place unless the letter looked wrong, and the fixing is in the direction of an ayin. The right leg of an aleph doesn't appear to be part of that fixing. Also, the lower left leg isn't curving. That's a universal part of an aleph. In addition, I did a few searches, and the word mem-ayin-mem appears a grand total of 51 times in the Hebrew Bible, meaning either "with," or "from/of the people" every single time. That word never means "from/of a/the mother." The preposition min does not become inseparable with "mother." The Septuagint translation (made about the same time period) also doesn't have mother in any of the manuscripts. I think Barker can't win this one.

[J Green]

My thoughts:

1) Still looks more like an aleph than an ayin to me. (Although I'm not Heiser, Flint, or Mak -- but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express before.)

2) Heiser's argument is pretty solid. Despite appearances, it's probably an ayin.

3) I, too, would like to hear what Barker thinks.

[TOmNossor]

The very biggest problem i have is that "yahweh" is Jesus, "Eloihim" is God. so its all irrelavent conjecture

The titles are used interchangeably (and simultaneously) throughout the Old Testament.

And if I understand correctly, they were used interchangeablely in 19th century Mormonism too. It was in the early 20th century when LDS began to use Elohim only for the Father and Yahweh only for the Son.

Charity, TOm

[etana]

I haven't read the article yet, but thanks for posting this!

Edit:

Ok, i have read the article. I wish i could have showed this to my 5th grade teacher who compared my handwriting to chicken scratching (if the chicken was blind. With two left feet.).

I think it is an ayin, but the the argument: "The reason it is certain that verse 11 has ע (and so the word is עמ) and not א , is that the verse 11 word clearly does not have a right “leg” that goes all the way down to the bottom of the line like the other alephs clearly do in the manuscript." is not compelling i think. The first aleph on the line (next to the shin with the strange cross stroke) has a similarly proportioned right l"leg"aleph. It would be more epigraphically compelling to point out that the right hand stroke seems connected to the "tail" of the ayin as one would expect. this would be atypical for an aleph of this period (or of this hand from the sample).