Sunday, September 28, 2014

Hippolytus of Rome (170–235), and Jewish sources on Gaps in Daniel

Hippolytus of Rome (170–235), was the only one of the Early Church Fathers to really write in depth on Eschatology.  He was indisputably Futurist and Premillennial .  But his understanding of the Return of Christ was also what we'd call today Post-Trib.  I'm sorry Pre-Tirbbers but your desire to make it sound like the Church Fathers were pre-trib by taking their quotes on "imminence" out of context simply fails when reading everything they wrote.

I'm not bothered by the Church Fathers being wrong on the Rapture.  Daniel 12 foretells that Knowledge of God's word would increase.  And the Post-Trib error is the unavoidable consequence of replacement theology.  Jesus returning more then once simply makes no sense if you don't understand there are two Covenant peoples he's returning for.  This replacement theology was born out of the Church's reactions to the persecutions they faced from Jews during the Bar-Kochba revolt.  These latter Christians weren't able to follow the example of Stephen.  I said this before in my post on Ephream the Syrian.

Hippolytus like most early Christians believed the Witnesses were Enoch and Elijah.  He believed Rome had to fall first and the 10 Horns were Kingdoms that would arise out of Rome's fall. Those are things I feel he was right on.

He also believed The Antichrist would be a Jew of The Tribe of Dan, and would claim to be The Jewish Messiah.  He may be right on that too.

But he was also a date setter.  He had an understanding of Chronology (partly based on the problematic Septuagint) that told him Jesus was crucified in the 5500th from Creation.  And so he believed the Sabbath Millennium would start in 530 AD.  That he didn't date set within his own life time shows a lack of personal bias.  His date was wrong of course, but admittedly during the time period leading up to that date, the Western Empire had just fallen, and there were Messianic Samaritan and Jewish Revolts in the Holy Land.  If there were people at the time familiar with him, it might have seemed like his predictions were coming to pass.

Among the ideas that critics of Dispensationalism like to accuse of being made up by Darby and others in the 1800s, is the idea of gaps in certain Old Testament Prophecies, particularly Daniel 9 and 11.  And I've seen them abuse quotes from Hippolytus to try and back that up.

However reading his commentary on Daniel shows, that he viewed the first 69 Weeks as ending with Jesus, but that the 70th was yet Future.  And likewise in Daniel 11, he viewed the first 35 verses as being The Hellenistic age, but that verses 36-45 were about a yet future Antichrist.
39. Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every god, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: "And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." As also it was announced to Daniel: "And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed"--that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: "And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days."
The source I copied that from has apparent typos I chose not to correct.  I assume "Test of the week" should mean "rest of the week".

What might surprise one even more is to discover some Rabbinic Jewish sources who agree the 70th Week could be yet future, as well as the last part of Daniel 11.

Britam is a Rabbinic Jewish website that supports it's own unique form of British Israelism, but without any of Christian aspects of the idea.  I don't desire to endorse British Israelism, but the site's commentaries on Daniel 9 and 11 are interesting.
[Daniel 9:27] AND HE SHALL CONFIRM THE COVENANT WITH MANY FOR ONE WEEK: AND IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK HE SHALL CAUSE THE SACRIFICE AND THE OBLATION TO CEASE, AND FOR THE OVERSPREADING OF ABOMINATIONS HE SHALL MAKE IT DESOLATE, EVEN UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION, AND THAT DETERMINED SHALL  BE POURED UPON THE DESOLATE.

These verses are also applicable to future events leading up to the Messianic Age.

And
Until now the account has quite faithfully followed the historical developments that did indeed occur exactly as described. From here on Scripture seems to depart somewhat and enter another future realm.
In effect we may say that this present chapter of Daniel although apparently dedicated to the Maccabee Period and what preceded it in effect is proto-typical. It is referring to the end times and using historical events as a pattern for future end-time prophecy.
They don't see Jesus in the first 69 weeks of course, but that's not the point I'm seeking to prove here.

Update September 2015: I no longer agree with the message of this post.  A I have explained here.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

The Mahdi, The Islamic Antichrist theory

Is becoming increasingly popular in The Church.  Basically with most Christians, if they don't think he'll be the ultimate Western Liberal, they think he'll be an Islamic radical.  ISIS paranoia in the news lately is only propping that up.

I leaned towards it for awhile, but a different way of looking at.  For one I didn't go along with the usual Shiite Twelfth Imam fixation.  I figured he'd mainly claim to be the Sunni Mahdi, and that his war in Daniel 11:44 would be him waging war against the Shiites in Iran.  I also never agreed with many of the popular augments for the Islamic Antichrist view, including as I already discussed The Desire of Women reference.

The first draft of this older post of mine was made back when I still leaned that way, but it's been updated since then.

The main reason I've abandoned the theory isn't any insurmountable technical objections to the arguments for it.  But because of the Logic Chris White explains that it'll be conservative Judeo-Christians the Antichrist mainly seeks to seduce.

Some of the arguments against the view I still consider annoying.  Chris White says, referring to the Wars he fights in Daniel 11:40 "Why does he conquer these Muslim nations if he's a Muslim?".   White's normally pretty smart but that really makes him look stupid.  The Muslims are constantly at war with each other.

One Specific Mahdi prophecy says "The vast majority of people who profess to be Muslim will be so only in name despite their practice of Islamic rites and it will be they who make war with the Mahdi."  The specific figure of Sufyani has been suggested as correlating to the King of The North, ruling parts of both Syria and Iraq.

Also some critics of the theory will insist that either the Gog and Magog war and/or the Psalm 83 War will result in the Islamic world being destroyed and rendered politically insignificant.   First of all, as explained in those earlier posts I linked to, the trendy views of those Prophecies are wrong.    But also some views of Islamic eschatology do say a major catastrophe happens to the Muslim World before the Mahdi arises.

As I explained elsewhere, I do think the emphasis on beheading for those Martyred by The beast is the best argument for an Islamic Antichrist.  As well as against White's view of him posing as a Jewish Messiah.

Thing is I do, still think the Mahdi could be relevant to Prophecy, that a Mahdi claimant will be the Boogeyman the Antichrist presents himself as saving the world from.  And/or the person who gives him his mortal wound.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Hebrew Daniel and Aramaic Daniel

Chapters 1 and 8-12 of The Book of Daniel are written in Hebrew like the rest of The Hebrew Bible.  But Chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic.  Aramaic is also a Semitic language, it uses many seemingly identical words, but they are still distinct.

A difference in focus and subject matter also exists between these two parts of Daniel.  The popular conjecture which I agree with is that Hebrew Daniel is focused on History and Prophecy from a Jewish perspective.  While Aramaic Daniel still has Jews as it's protagonists and presumes the Monotheistic Jewish religious worldview to be true, it is much more then most parts of The Hebrew Bible focused on the Gentile World and it's history.

Chris White expresses skepticism of this way of looking at Daniel.  He thinks it could be true, but his skepticism of the assumption is mostly just based on observing that Gentile nations are still discussed in Hebrew Daniel.

The point is the more rigidly Jerusalem/Judah POV.  4 or 5 different Kingdoms emerged from the dividing of Alexander's Empire.  Why are only two really discussed in most of Daniel 11 (King of the South=Ptolemaic Egypt and the King of The North=Seleucid Syria).  Because they're the two that had Jerusalem in the disputed territory between them.  So even if Daniel 11's description doesn't always seem to mention Judah's role in those wars in the text, rest assured they always had a direct impact on Judah.

The Hebrew Chapters largely revolve around Jerusalem and The Temple.  The Aramaic chapters barely if at all mention Jerusalem's existence, and never The Temple.  The Prophetic parts of Hebrew Daniel always involve The Abomination of Desolation, or things linked to it like the offerings being stopped.  Aramaic Daniel doesn't bring up that subject at all.

The four world Empires theme comes entirely from Aramaic Daniel.  Hebrew Daniel backs up this way of looking at history, but in a way that requires reading between the lines.  It is also only Aramaic Daniel that records Daniel's personal relationships with world leaders.  In Daniel 1 he only gets to know as high up a the chief Eunuch.

It's interesting to look at the agenda of Bible Skeptics when it comes to Daniel.   Any other book they love pointing out reasons to question if the whole Book really had the same Author, like Isaiah.  Here however it's a Book written in different languages but they don't want to do that, why?

Because it's Aramaic Daniel that has all the historical references that they claim are errors, and the three random Greek musical instruments they use as scholarly reasons to back up their late dating.

But it's Hebrew Daniel that has the really detailed specific future Prophecies they want to insist must have been written later.  So it does not suit them to break this book up, though they could make a much stronger case for it then Isaiah.

And arguing the Aramaic is the older part would go greatly against other narratives they promote.  About Hebrew dying out and being supplanted by Aramaic.

Only Hebrew Daniel gives names to Angels.  Michael and Gabriel.

Aramaic Daniel used titles for God and The Messiah unique to it in the entire Canonical Hebrew Bible.

Intertestamental Apocrypha like Enoch began merging ideas from the two parts of Daniel.  And The New Testament draws on Aramaic Daniel as much as it does I feel precisely because of the theme of Gentile inclusion.

"The Ancient of Days" is one such unique title.  I personally feel this title is specific of The First Person of The Trinity, at least somewhat, or used to anyway, I've been rethinking that.  It is also only Daniel 7 that has Son of Man as a Messianic Title.  In other Prophets it's a term for any human being.  In The Gospels this is Jesus favorite title for himself.

Aramaic Daniel does not use the term Messiah, that term was originally specific to the Jewishness of Jesus.

Daniel 7 and 8 are where Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel are most similar to each other.  Both envision Gentile Empires as Beasts, and havie a "Little Horn" as the Villain.  The two Beasts of Daniel 8 equate to the 2nd and 3rd Beasts of Daniel 7.

But what kinds of Animals are used for the beasts reflects the change from a Gentile to Jewish perspective.  In Daniel 8 they're Levitically clean animals (a "Ram" and a Goat), going over Numbers 28-29 shows that both were regularly offered in The Temple on New Moons and Holy Days.  While the three identified animals of Daniel 7 are all unclean, and also carnivorous.  Outside Daniel they are still animals that can be used symbolically, but when contrasted in how Daniel is divided, they reflect 7 being less Levitical then 8 at the very least.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

A theory about the Death of James The Just, The brother of Jesus

According to a passage found in existing manuscripts of Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, (xx.9) "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus, yet before Lucceius Albinus took office (Antiquities 20,9) — which has been dated to 62 A.D.. The High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (Anani Ananus in Latin) took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin (although the correct translation of the Greek synhedion kriton is "a council of judges"), who condemned James "on the charge of breaking the law," then had him executed by stoning. Josephus reports that Hanan's act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder and offended a number of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law," who went as far as meeting Albinus as he entered the province to petition him about the matter. In response, King Agrippa II replaced Ananus with Jesus son of Damneus.

But early Christian tradition (recounted in Hegesippus as related by Eusebius) says James was thrown off the Temple in 66-70 AD.  Simeon becoming the second Bishop of Jerusalem is consistently dated to that time. Later post Constantine Christian historians tried awkwardly to reconcile these accounts.

Also, some skeptics of the Historicity of Jesus insist that "who was called Christ" is a latter addition not in Jospehus's original.  But the majority of legitimate scholars reject that.

However, a poster on IMDB who's username is austenw (who doesn't view The Bible to be inerrant) has an interesting theory that it's the name of James that was added latter.
 it's a matter of Greek grammar; the sentence reads:

    "Ananus ...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was named Christ - James his name - and some others;"

In this quotation, blue = nominative (subject); red = accusative (object), green = genitive (possessive), purple = dative (a difficult one to define, but can be a bit like possessive).

Crucially, the words "his name, James" in the nominative, does not fit into the architecture of the sentence; it could be removed without altering the grammar whatsoever, between the two accusatives "the brother" and "some others".

More importantly, however, the "traditional" theory - that the name James is original and the reference to Jesus is the interpolation - simply can't be correct, because were this to be so, then "James" would have had to have originally been in the accusative, or else he wouldn't have been knit into the architecture of the sentence at all, and the "[was] his name" would have been entirely redundant. This means that the supposed interpolator would have had to go to the trouble of changing a perfectly acceptable accusative case for "James" to the nominative case, and adding "his name", and for no reason whatsoever. Why bother to do this, when he could simply have added the clause "the brother (accusative).. etc", after the name?

However, if "James [was] his name" was originally a marginal note - written in the nominative, playing no grammatical part within the sentence - all makes sense. A later scribe included the marginal note, verbatim, in the only place he could - after the words "the brother of Jesus called Christ" - since nowhere else would have done.
 So basically that would mean it was possibly another Brother of Jesus (not named by Josephus) who was stoned in 62 A.D.  But someone leaving a marginal note later assumed it was the most famous of them.

Two of Jesus half brothers are known to have served as Bishop of Jerusalem. first James from the beginning of the Church until whenever he died. Then Simon from around 69 (Traditions agree he became Bishop just before the Destruction of the Second Temple) till 107 A.D.

We don't know much about Joses or Jude however.  Jude we know had later descendants, two grandchildren who were alive during the reign of Domitian, and Judah Kyriakos who was the last Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem. Though the start of his period as bishop of Jerusalem is not known, Judah is said to have lived beyond the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136), up to about the eleventh year of Antoninus Pius (148 A.D.) though Marcus was appointed bishop of Aelia Capitolina in 135 by the Metropolitan of Caesarea.

Matthew 27:56 refers to some of the Women at the Cross when Jesus was crucified.  "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."  Mark 15:40-161 refers to the same first two women, but the third is simply a woman named Salome, (the only time that name is used in the New Testament).  Luke doesn't name the women at all.  John's Gospel in chapter 19 alone informs us clearly that Mary the Mother of Jesus was there.

Joses is a shortened form of Joseph.  The only other Joseph refereed to as Joses in The Gospels is the half-brother of Jesus (and an ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy).  At face value John's Gospel is the only one that obviously tells us the Mother of Jesus was among those women.  John also seems to tell us she had a Sister.  I think it's possible that Sister, Salome from Mark's account, and the Mother of Zebedee's children are all the same individual.

I think in Matthew and Mark, the Mary mother of James and Joses is the same as the Mother of Jesus, but why is she not refereed to as such?  Maybe because of the events of Matthew 12-13 and Mark 6 the narrative voice ceases to refer to Jesus biological relatives as such after he effectively temporarily disowns them.

Why name only two of her four other Sons?  Who knows, but in Mark later references to clearly the same Woman refer to only one.  James and Joses are the two oldest in the list of Jesus brothers.

As far as the more popular view of making the mother of James and Joses the same as Mary the Wife of Cleophas/Clopas.  Cleophas/Clopas I feel is likely the disciple (probably one of the 70 but not one of the 12) Cleopas from Luke 14, the Road to Emmaus.  He's probably the same generation as the 12.

That view conflicts with making this person the same as the Alpheaus who is the father of the James and Jude among the 12.  Cleopas being a parent of any among the 12 is unlikely.  The tradition making Clopas the brother of Joseph has it's origin among those early fathers seeking to deny the siblings of Jesus were of Mary.

Certain authors devising alternative history theories have sought to say that Joseph of Arimathea was an uncle of Jesus, and one that he was the same person as James the half-brother of Jesus.  Logically it would make more sense if you want to make him a half-brother of Jesus to go with Joses.

Joseph of Arimathea is introduced in essentially the same narrative that deals with the Women at the Cross.  I think it would make sense to use the full name when referring to him and the shortened form when referring to someone else as a relative of him.  The last verse of Mark 15 refers to Mary only as the mother of Joses while finishing the narrative of Joseph of Airmathea arranging the burial of Jesus.

There is also the fact that this responsibility Joseph of Arimathea takes, burying the body, is one that in Jewish Custom belonged to the nearest living relatives.

The only problem with that theory is that the traditional assumption is none of Jesus brothers became Believers till after the Resurrection.  We know none were when John 7 occurs, half a year before the Crucifixion.  That fact refutes any theory reliant on making any of the 12 Disciples the same as any of the people refereed to as his siblings (a strategy used by some both for and against them being children of Mary).

But a lot can change in 6-7 months.

He could have moved from Nazareth to Arimathea (I agree with the theory that NT Arimathea is one of the OT Ramah or Ramaths, or perhaps Ramoth which was in Issachar in 1 Chronicles 6:73 and thus near the traditional site of Nazareth), sometime after their father died. But it's also possible Arimathea was an epithet not meant to identify a city, there is a lot of speculation involved here.

If Joses was Joseph of Airmathea then he was in the Sanhedrin.  Antiquities 20.9 does not explicitly say this half brother of Jesus was a Sanhedrin member, but the over all theme of Josephus in depicting these murders leading up to 70 AD is about people that were prominent but against doing a violent revolution against Rome.

Catholics like to argue the references to these four brothers and unnamed sisters are using the words loosely, referring to cousins or close friends or something.  The Greek words for brother and sister are sometimes used in similar senses, I've seen interesting theories about Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany, but context tells us the difference.

Mark 6 is about contrasting a strict literal definition to one that widens it.  As I said above Jesus effectively disowns His biological family who didn't yet believe in Him, and said His true family are those who believe in Him.

And if the New Testament writers felt this word for brother could apply to a cousin, as is popularly suggested.  Why not use it of John The Baptist, who is more undisputedly then anyone else in The Gospel narrative a cousin of Jesus?  Maybe they'd say he's not a first cousin, he'd be second at the closest.

Another attempt to reconcile this with the perpetual virginity heresy is to say they are sons Joseph had by a different wife.  Because these same people are uncomfortable with acknowledging polygamy still went on in Judaism at this time, they insist a wife who died before he married Mary.  But if Jesus isn't the First-Born Son legally to both parents then He isn't the rightful Heir to David.  Yes a younger son superseding the actual First-Born is a common theme in Scripture, but if Jesus were an example of that the Gospel writers, especially Matthew, would have stressed it.  Those supercedings happen to help show how God doesn't really care about the formalities of The Law.  But Jesus himself had to be a perfect fulfillment of The Law.

The wording in Mark 6 of "the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."  Starts with Mary and doesn't even mention Joseph (who is generally theorized to have died by then).  That tells me these siblings are siblings via being also sons and daughters of that same Mary.

Some will use that James the Brother of Jesus is called an Apostle by Paul in Galatians to prove he's one of the 12.  I already showed why these individuals can't be counted among the 12.  Apostle applied to any eye witness of the Resurrection.  Which is why Paul used it of himself calling himself the last Apostle.  And in Roman 16 identifies as among the Apostles a couple not even mentioned anywhere else in Scripture.

Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph.  "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." This verse isn't just saying he didn't know her before, it also clearly tells us he did know her after.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Sundown tonight is the Feast of Trumpets

We're not in the 70th Week yet since The Temple isn't rebuilt.  So I'm not predicting anything will happen.

But it's an interesting time to pay attention to.

When is the Seventh Trumpet?

I've talked extensively about why I hold a Seventh Trumpet view of the Rapture.  But now I want to address those who see the Rapture and the Parusia in the same parts of Revelation I do, but because they're Post-Trib insist that happens at the end, after numerous things Revelation doesn't describe till latter.

I actually don't want to retread the general arguments about the way Post-Tribbers garble the chronology of Revelation.  I've spoken on them some already.  And others supporting different rapture views do it a lot.

I want to address simply one detail in the Seventh Trumpet account itself they see as insisting it can only be placed at the very end of everything that happens.
"The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."
In Revelation 11:15.  They insist this must mean it's sounded right when The Millennium begins.

What's amusing is these are Premillennial  Futurists making the same basic error Preterists and Amillennials make about various things Jesus said in The Gospels, or the End of Revelation when he says he's coming quickly.

John 12:13 "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out."

No Futurist thinks that actually happened at that time in it's apparent face value assumption.  Satan remains the Prince of This World right now.

While I disagree with a lot of things taught at Nomadic Ministry (like his form of Dual Covenant theology, which influences how he sees certain things in this same chapter).  I will quote what he has to say on this detail.
We start out after the trumpet it sounded and a loud voice proclaims that the world has become the kingdom of our Messiah. It is at this point that God takes over the scene and really starts hammering down the judgment that those who are truly left behind deserve. Before this, I believe, the devil was still being given his dominion to work chaos and discord throughout the world. After this trumpet is sounded God takes the forefront and controls the story from here on out.
 So this one statement certainly does not prove the Post-Trib view.

Post-Tribbers have many points they view as a start over point.  There are no Chapter or Verse divisions in the original text, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the Greek word rendered "and" at the beginning of Revelation 12 demands that that vision is still part of the 7th Trumpet event.  And reading on in Chapter 12 it's clear then that 1260 days at least are still left when the 7th Trumpet is sounded.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Almah means Virgin

Almah is the word translated Virgin in the KJV of Isaiah 7:14.  Bible Skeptics like to assert this is a mis-translation (that had it's origin in the Septuagint).  That it really means "young woman", and that if Isaiah meant Virgin he'd have used Bethulah.

If Isaiah meant only a "young woman" and nothing more, he could have just used the word Na'arah.  At any-rate the typical non Christian view of this prophecy is it's referring to Isaiah or The King's Wife, in which case it should have used a word for Wife.

Almah is the more rarely used word.  That itself suggests it has the more specific meaning.

There is no place where Almah is used that you can prove the woman refereed to is not a Virgin.  With Bethulah it's questionable a couple times it's used.  Like Isaiah 47 using it of symbolic Babylon, in Isaiah 23 as well where Tyre is the Bethulah daughter of Zidon.  But those are poetic rather then literal contexts (they refer to cities and/or their populations, not individuals), so more or less irrelevant to how to generally define the word.

Some will use certain outside The Bible uses of words similar to Bethulah in other Semitic languages like Akkadian or Aramaic to prove it's lack of virginity.  Words in similar languages are similar but still different, and besides those examples they use come from bizarre Pagan myths where words are often used in ways that contradict their proper meaning, or at least bend it.  Regardless there is in fact no proof that Anath was ever viewed as Baal's wife, that's just something people like to infer. Nor to her having children, the reference to her "bearing" a helfer is just referring to her carrying it.

Both are used of Rebekkah in Genesis 24, seemingly as synonyms.  Na'arah is also used of her.

Those who take the apologetic approach of saying it's Bethluah that doesn't always mean virgin (or skeptics trying to argue neither means it, and virginity can only be clearly expressed in the negative), will say that immediately after Rebecca is called a Bethulah it then says she "has not known a man" as proof that Bethulah alone doesn't communicate virginity.  When she's later called an Almah no such explanation is needed.

There are actually many reasons why I feel Genesis 24 is a perfect examples of how The Holy Spirit is often redundant for the sake of emphasis (go over it and be amazed at how much exposition and dialogue is repeated).  Plus, I know many times in English people have said something like "A virgin who has never known a man".

Given the theory I shall develop by the end of this study.  I do think it's possible that many not yet married young women still living in their father's house were assumed to be a Bethulah whether they were one or not, or even sometimes called that out of respect even if they really weren't.  But Almah means something much more specific, and no woman who has had intercourse would ever be mistakenly called an Almah.

I feel like it's logical to conclude that if there is a difference between the two words, that all Almahs are Bethulahs but not necessarily all Bethulah's are Almahs.  But even if the opposite were the case it would still mean most likely that neither have had sex with any man.  They are most certainly not mutually exclusive words.

It is true that neither word has strictly the modern notion of virginity in mind.  But also both definitely presume a lack of sexual experience with men.

It could be used against it meaning Virgin that Almah is not used in Deuteronomy 22, which is perceived as one of the definitive Bible passage on the subject of Virginity.  I will be doing a study on that on my other blog in the future where I'll argue it's not a good idea to define virginity off that chapter.

The fact that the word for virginity comes from Bethulah does suggest that it's the word you use of a virgin if that's the only characteristic you want to communicate.  Being an Almah I think is about more then that but also definitely includes that.

I don't want to retread too much of what other apologetic material on this subject has gone over.  Like "how could just any young woman conceiving be a sign?"

But I will again recommend against using the Septuagint.  There is evidence it was changed by Christians, and at any rate the skeptical argument is frequently that the Septuagint is the origin of the error.  I for one don't believe Matthew was using the Septuagint, he originally wrote in Hebrew.

If you continue to insist the word Almah has no implied lack of sex with men, read Proverbs 30:18-19.
"There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."
In all of these poetic idioms the latter is something the former cannot penetrate.  In fact I've seen people use this passage to build an argument that the word implies as lack of sexual desire for men (A full six on the Kinsey scale Lesbian, a virgin in the sense of virgin as code for Lesbian, or maybe an asexual woman).  My one problem with that is it could lend itself to support the Catholic perpetual virginity argument.  Point is, this verse strongly supports that the word implies lack of sexual intimacy with men.

There is also Elem, a word that is the grammatically masculine form of Almah.  It is used even more rarely, only twice ("young man" in 1 Samuel 20:22 and "stripling" in 1 Samuel 17 56, KJV renderings).  In one it's describing David just after he killed Goliath.  No way to know if these men were truly male virgins, but they do seem to have both been unmarried at the time in question.

People have tried to use Almah's connection to this word to say it means a masculine or androgynous woman in some way.  But this word is rarely used and not even similar to the standard Hebrew words for masculinity.  A Feminine form of Zakar would be the better method to communicate that.  Elem is grammatically masculine and used to describes male individuals, but masculine is not what it means.

The verb root from which both words are derived in Alam, Strongs number 5956.  It means to veil from sight or to hide or conceal.  Symbolically a woman wearing a veil often represents her virginity.  The word is often translated by the KJV as words like secret, hide, hidden, hidest, hideth.  All could speak to the notion that a woman's virginity is something to be kept.  That a virgin has not "known a man".

Maybe the sense of being hidden also fits connecting it to a non hetero-normative sexual orientation?  Maybe Elems and Almahs were both "in the closet" so to speak?

I want to point out a detail I feel is frequently overlooked but very interesting.  Exodus 2 is the Nativity of Moses, a story many Christians see as foreshadowing the Nativity narrative of Matthew.  Or to the skeptics point of view, that Matthew drew inspiration from.

Exodus 2:7-8
Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?"  And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go". And the maid went and called the child's mother.
The word translated "maid" here is Almah in the Hebrew.  And to help you avoid confusion, this is the only time Exodus 2 uses Almah, the words earlier translated maidens and maid are Na'arah and Amah a word for a maidservant/handmaiden.

We know elsewhere in scripture that the name of the sister of Moses and Aaron was Miriam.  So we have here the same controversial word used in Isaiah 7:14 applied to a young girl who's certainly a virgin that shares the same name as the mother of Jesus.

The three out of seven uses of the word that remain, are the only three times it's plural.

Song of Solomon 6:8 is the one verse people might try to use against it meaning virgin, since Almahs are depicted among Solomon's harem.  They are distinct from the queens (malkah) and concubines, while in Kings and Chronicles all 1000 women of Solomon's harem were either princesses (sarah) or concubines.

It's likely that these are either women he's betrothed to but hasn't consummated with yet, as Mary was when she conceived.  And/Or since his Harem was so large, women he's legally married but hasn't gotten around to consummating yet.  Clearly many of Solomon's marriages were purely political in nature and perhaps never meant to be truly consummated at all.  And since he is only known to have had three children (Rehoboam and two daughters in 1 Kings 4) as opposed to both David before and Rehoboam after who we are told fathered a lot.  It could make sense that the majority of his "wives" were actually virgins.

Again, that option could be used by Catholics to support a perpetual virginity argument, but I can refute that on the end of Matthew 1 and the references to Jesus half-siblings alone.  And it does look like Mary and Joseph were formally married before she gave birth showing that Almah could still apply to a married woman for whom the consummation is for some reason being delayed.

Song of Solomon 1:3 seems to demonstrate how uniquely attractive The Beloved is by saying that even the Almahs liked him.  This could be a hyperbolic compliment from the Bride that may not even be literally true.  We are dealing with a poetic book here.

This could fit what I said before about how some have speculated the word could be affiliated with Lesbianism.   There is only one disclaimer I'd give to considering that possibility.

Even if some or many or most Almahs were homosexual, bisexual, polysexual, pansexual, or asexual women, the usage of Almah in key places like Proverbs still tells me that a woman ceases to be an Almah once she's had penetrative potentially reproductive intercourse.  A Woman's sexual orientation however would not change simply because of that.

One more usage of the word remains.  Psalm 68:25.  "The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels."

Psalm 68 is a psalm that is often viewed as looking back on the time just after the Exodus and the beginning of the 40 years in the wilderness.  Exodus 15:20-21 also refers to Timbrels.
And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.  And Miriam answered them, "Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea."
So, we have come back to Miriam, the Sister of Moses.

Josephus says Miriam married Hur, but a Targum says she was the mother of Hur, trying to make her the same person as Ephrath.  Those are later traditions that are rather contrived, going off Scripture alone, Miriam seems to have never married.

Exodus says "all the women" joined in the dancing and the timbrel playing.  Certainly not all the women were Virgins.  But Psalm 68 is being poetic not strictly literal, Miriam is leading this, so it's describing them all in terms that apply to Miriam.

There is also a Hebrew name derived from Almah.  Alamoth, used in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and Psalm 46:1.  Putting a Teth at the end of a word makes it a feminine plural.

In both those verses the KJV translates it as a name, but it seems like maybe that's not how it's actually being used, both are in contexts talking about musicians.  There is certainly nothing to contradict it being affiliated with virginity.

Jeremiah 31:4 refers to a Bethulah dancing with Tabrets (same word translated Timbrels), perhaps showing the two can be synonyms sometimes.  Nahum 2:7 refers to Amahs (Maid servants) using them.

Judges 11:34 also affiliated Timbrel playing with the daughter of Jephthah, who we know was a virgin even though a word for virgin was never applied to her.  Just the word for virginity.

A note about the daughter of Jephthah, Judges 11:37-28 uses Strong number 7464, Reah, the KJV translates it companions and fellows.  The word in Hebrew is specifically feminine, it refers to female friends or companions.

Ancient Israel certainly did not have a status of ceremonial virgins comparable to the Roman Vestal Virgins or Catholic Nuns.  Nor to the Greek ceremonial virgins affiliated with Artemis or Athena.  But I am getting the impression, from the places where Almah is used in plural and affiliated with musicians.  That maybe there was a special Virgin status or community in ancient Israel.

There are some references to women who ministered at the entrance to the Tabernacle like Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22.

A Bethulah is any woman who is a virgin because she hasn't yet married or known a man.  An Almah was someone who's virginity was more apart of her identity.  All Almahs were Bethulahs, but not all Bethulahs were Almahs.  And sometimes the text may not even use Almah if it's referring to an Almah, like possibly with the daughter of Jephthah.

But I don't think an Almah vow was required to be, or even usually expected to be for life.  (Just as the Nazarite vow could be for life but didn't need to be).  Jephthah's daughter however likely became an exception to that because of his rash vow.  I agree with the apologists who argue that she was not sacrificed but merely forfeited her potential to produce an heir for Jephthah.  When someone has no sons only daughters his inheritance could pass through a daughter thanks the law created for The Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7.

Some apocryphal legends like the Protoevangelion of James do allude to Mary holding something like a Temple Virgin status.  That particular work however supports the heretical Perpetual Virginity view.

The only way an Almah could be maybe sometimes not a Bethulah is if in addition to a presumption of virginity Bethulah inferred a young woman still living in her father's house, which seems plausible. While an Almah isn't necessarily but still could be.

The assumption that the meaning of Almah implies youth I find not workable from the break down I already did of it's etymology and usage.  Plus that it is effectively still used of Miriam the sister of Moses when she was over 80.

Many other Christians defending that it means Virgin have argued Almah implies still living in her father's house.  However in addition to being connected to Miriam at a time when her father was certainly long dead.  Song of Solomon applies it to women that are to some extent already in Solomon's Harem.

We feel the need to do this because we keep assuming Mary was still under her father's roof at the Annunciation.  But nothing in Matthew or Luke mentioned her father in the narrative (I do firmly believe however that he is the Heli of Luke 3's genealogy).  While such a thing happening at all was rare, she could have been living on her own.  Maybe her father and mother died already, maybe she was older then we usually assume.  Maybe Almah in part refers to women who even if they eventually did marry wanted to be independent of that obligation.

You may ask "If Almah refers to a special vow or calling, wasn't Miriam awfully young in Exodus 2 to already have such a status?"  Once again, we need to stop always picturing The Ten Commandments when we read Exodus.  We have no idea how old Miriam was.  Moses was newly born and Aaron was 3 years older then Moses.  Miriam seems to be the oldest, and plenty of times a family may wind up having a decade or more between children.  I think it's plausible she could have chosen to become or identify as an Almah at as young as 12.  She is usually estimated to have died 11 months before Moses did at 120, so if she were 12 years older then him, she lived to 131, impressive, but only a year older then Jehoiada.

But also it's the narrative voice calling her an Almah in Exodus 2, so it could have been doing so retroactively.

Is it possible the Almah status appealed to many women who sexually and/or romantically preferred the company of other women to men?  As well as asexual women?  I think that's highly probable, the ancient world didn't define sexual orientation how we do today.  And contrary to popular opinion, The Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

If this theory about what an Almah refers to is true.  It's perhaps notable that there is no proof the word is ever used of any gentile.  The closest we get to a possible example of that is Song of Solomon inferring Almahs were in Solomon's Harem. And that is only because 1 Kings 11 makes it seem like he only married foreign wives.  But 1 Kings 11 is focusing on what it needs to to make it's point.