"virgin" in Isaiah

[James Peter]

So, Howie, what proof is there that these 2nd century jewish scholars were not attempting to claim Isaiah for themselves by refuting the term? The 2nd century was the prime moment of tension between judaism and christianity. It figures that their attempt to claim it as literal 'young girl' was a perfect way to refuting Christianity and reclaiming judaism!

I have attempted to ask an Israeli friend for his view, since he is a native hebrew speaker, but so far no reply, and since he hates judaism so much, I doubt he will! But I have found an Israeli forum and I will try there ... however they will probably back up the 2nd century jews. The jews are highly sensitive since their religion is so tiny and vulnerable. They freak out about losing it.

So VIRGIN still stands!! :-) (I haven't figured out where the smilies are yet)

So basically you're going to ignore the view of every scholar (Christian, Jewish and Agnostic/Atheist) alike who is familiar with the Hebrew of Isaiah and instead go on what modern Hebrew colloqualisms exist? Languages evolve. Its like arguing that a word in Shakespeare (or fo that matter the KJV) means X because thats what the word means today. Absurdly flawed method. Even if Isaiah wasn't written in the 8th Century (and I'll concur that it shows signs of several levels of redaction tet last of while could certainly be exilic) it certainly wasn't written in the 20th!

Words fail me. Whatever works for you I guess, just don't expect to convince many people on that basis...

[James Peter]

Actually, the focus of the prophecy is on the things that happen during the lifetime of the child: namely, the fall of the two kings whom Ahaz and his people feared. The child himself is not the sign but the events associated with his childhood.

Regards,
Yonah

Fair point. For the passage to then be able to be applied to Jesus it would then follow that all of those events would need to occur between his conception and early childhood right? It makes the idea of this being a Messianic prediction even less likely, even if we read it as such every Christmas. It does make such a nice messianic description though the way we crib the Isaiah passages together...just a shame it is ripping them out of context.

[Tladatsi]

Thanks everyone, so far. I was hoping that a native Hebrew speaker would tell us. I think Isaiah was written after the exile, not before, ie not 8th century BC as JP suggested.

As someone else pointed out, there are no "native speakers" of Biblical Hebrew. Modern Hebrew is a very different language.

I am leaning towards "virgin" as in "jeune fille" and "jungfrau", because .... Isaiah is full to the brim of Zoroastrian doctrine, ideas, myths, Persian words and motifs. The Zoroastrians had a "myth" that 2 more Saoshynts would be born after Zarathustra, each to a virgin. It is highly likely that this story preceded Isaiah. In Matthew's gospel, it is no coincidence that 3 Magi, ie 3 Zoroastrian priests, go looking for Jesus.

As I noted earlier, the context of Isaiah 7 for almah does not support a miraculous birth of any sort. Elsewhere, when a birth is the result of God's direct intervevnsion (Sarah & Isaac) much attention is brought to this fact. Isaiah mentions the birth and then passes on with every drawing any particular attantion back to it. In the two gospels where a virgin birth is described, at least a chaper is given to the topic. A considerable amount of text is given Sarah and Isaac as well as to Hannah and Samuel. It is hard to imagine that if the author had a divine birth in mind, he would have passed over the topic so quickly and given it so little attention.

So, unless a native hebrew speaker can prove it otherwise, I think Geza Hermes is wrong! Which is rather surprising for a notable scholar.

Just like in German and French, you cannot "prove" which mean the word almah just by looking at the word. It is the context that shows the meaning.

[Narnian]

Thanks for all your replies. This is a bigger thorny issue than I thought. Perhaps .... Isaiah meant young woman, not virgin, and the 'virgin' euphemism was born out of that? We can only really guess <sigh>

Anyway, if it does NOT mean virgin, then there is a whopping big mistake in Allah's "word perfect" directly dictated Koran about Mary <laugh>

Pickthall And she who was chaste, therefor We breathed into her (something) of Our Spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples.

Yusuf Ali And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.

Hilali-Khan And (remember) she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her (shirt or garment) [through Our Ruh Jibrael (Gabriel)] and We made her and her son ['Iesa (Jesus)] a sign for Al-'Alamin (the mankind and jinns).

Shakir And she who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and made her and her son a sign for the nations.

Sher Ali And remember her who guarded her chastity, so WE breathed into her of Our Word and WE made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.

[Howie]

However, Matthew wasn't using the term in this way. Remember that he puts the words, "How can this, since I have not known a man?" into the mouth of Mary and then says that all of this happened to fulfill the word to Isaiah in "the virgin will conceive, etc." By New Testament times, parthenos (παρθένος) seems to have adopted the meaning of "virgin" completely. At least, this is how NT writers used it.

Yonah

I believe that you are quoting a verse from Luke, not Matthew.

[James Peter]

Where is the mistake? I don't see any of those verses you're quoting from the Koran saying that Isaiah was talking about Mary.

Mary could be a Virgin (as Luke and Matthew both say that she was) without Isaiah saying that she would be. The incarnation does not rest upon Isaiah 7. The Koran supports to an extent the Christian version of the incarnation (virgin birth) but ...

Matthew and Luke clearly say that Mary was a virgin. Isaiah 7 isn't talking about Mary at all so is irrelevant to the discussion. The biblical evidence is then heavily slanted in favour of her being a virgin, as is Christian tradition. You can argue that none of the earliest texts show knowledge/support for the doctrine but Matthew and Luke clearly do so if you want to retain anything even resembling a doctrine of the inspiration of the accepted canon... Mary was a virgin.

Why then did Matthew quote Isaiah in this way? Maybe because the doctrine of the virgin birth was common in the early Church and Jews said that no prophet had predicted such a birth and that it was a hellenistic idea/perversion...so Matthew went through all of Scripture and this was the best he could come up with. Yes, that involves seeing Matthew as a man trying to do the job God put before him rather than just a scribe but maybe such an understanding of the biblical authors makes them more worthy of respect and admiration. They were men, inspired by God, doing what they thought was necessary for the sake of the gospel.

[Narnian]

JP, there is a whole chapter in the Koran devoted to Mary and her virginity, and Jesus 'speaks from the cradle' to declare her innocence. This comes from the Arabic Nativity Gospel which is a 6th century apocryphal book, and it was high likely the source of this story. The chapter in the Koran is called Maryam and it is chapter 19. There is no "jeune fille" euphemism in this story - it's plainly about virginity.
http://www.kavalec.com/Quran/19/

[James Peter]

But does the chapter say anything at all about Isaiah 7 prophesying that Jesus' mother would be a virgin? There is nothing inherently wrong with the Koran saying that Mary was a virgin, that can be true even if what we're saying about Isaiah 7 is true.

I mean, the Koran falls to pieces under critical study far more than Scripture does but you seem to be having problems with the basic logic of an argument here...

If Isaiah 7 is not talking about the Messiah then Mary can still be a Virgin, or she can not be a virgin. Either way the truth of Matthew, Luke and Mohammed's claims rest not on Isaiah 7 but on the historical reality of Jesus' birth.

[Narnian]

Hi JP,
I refer to the original thrust of this thread, ie Geza Hermes and his view on the Matthew story that is unmistakably from the Isaiah prophecy;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../19/do1904.xml

"According to the prophet, a child called "Emmanuel" would be born of a virgin. The crucial point here is that Matthew is quoting the Greek translation of Isaiah: "Behold a parthenos [virgin] shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel." But Isaiah wrote in Hebrew, not in Greek, and in the Hebrew Bible, the mother of Emmanuel is not a virgin - the Hebrew for this would be betulah - but a young woman, almah, already pregnant. She is to give birth to a son, Immanu El, meaning "God is with us""

So it goes from Hebrew to Greek to Arabic. Along the way it goes from (possibly a literal 'young woman') to a "jeune fille" to a woman who has "never known a man" and whose "genitals are still chaste" to give some of the 'virgin' expressions in the Koran. We have 1000s of plagiarisms from the NT in the Koran and Hadithes, so there is no reason why this story also wasn't copied.

Any logical fallacies in that? :-)

[James Peter]

I'm not saying that the Koran didn't copy christian stories in circulation at the time it was written. I am going to point out that the idea of Mary being a Perpetual Virgin is older than the Koran though which kind of puts a torpedo in it all...

As for the article as it all...in a few places I disagree with Hermes but in terms of general thrust what he is saying is plausible. For example I'm not convinced that Matthew was written for gentiles...I'd be more inclined as seeing it as being the product of a hellenised Judaism and I'd see a mix of Jewish and Greek influences on the motifs of Matthew's account.

[Tladatsi]

But does the chapter say anything at all about Isaiah 7 prophesying that Jesus' mother would be a virgin? There is nothing inherently wrong with the Koran saying that Mary was a virgin, that can be true even if what we're saying about Isaiah 7 is true.

I mean, the Koran falls to pieces under critical study far more than Scripture does but you seem to be having problems with the basic logic of an argument here...

If Isaiah 7 is not talking about the Messiah then Mary can still be a Virgin, or she can not be a virgin. Either way the truth of Matthew, Luke and Mohammed's claims rest not on Isaiah 7 but on the historical reality of Jesus' birth.

Isaiah 7 is talking about a messiah, if we remember that messiah is merely a synonym for King of Israel, the annointed one. Samuel annointed Saul with olive oil, making Saul King, David was like wise annoited in the same manner. David descendents would have all be eligable to become messiah. Isaiah 7 seems indeed to be referring to one these individuals who will accept God's instruction and bring Israel back to glory. That this massiah should be born to a young woman (almah) is a given, he could not be born to an old woman or a girl. This is why Isaiah mentions this messiah's birth simply in passing. The nature of the birth is unimportant, it is who is born that is important. The author did not mean the reader to understand that the conception or birth of the messiah to be of any particular importance in and of themselves.

Contrast this with the gospel accounts of a miraculous virgin birth, whole chapters are devoted to the topic, getting great attention.

[James Peter]

Isaiah 7 is talking about a messiah, if we remember that messiah is merely a synonym for King of Israel, the annointed one. Samuel annointed Saul with olive oil, making Saul King, David was like wise annoited in the same manner. David descendents would have all be eligable to become messiah. Isaiah 7 seems indeed to be referring to one these individuals who will accept God's instruction and bring Israel back to glory. That this massiah should be born to a young woman (almah) is a given, he could not be born to an old woman or a girl. This is why Isaiah mentions this messiah's birth simply in passing. The nature of the birth is unimportant, it is who is born that is important. The author did not mean the reader to understand that the conception or birth of the messiah to be of any particular importance in and of themselves.

Contrast this with the gospel accounts of a miraculous virgin birth, whole chapters are devoted to the topic, getting great attention.

Ok, I was using Messiah in the sense of an eschatological figure rather than simply an anointed king. Isaiah 7 isn't talking about an eschatological Messiah.

I'm not entirely convinced that it is the birth of a messiah (future king) that is important here, as somebody else already has pointed out. It is the events which will occur while he is still a child and before he is able to do anything himself that are the sign which is given to Ahaz.

[Narnian]

JP, I would be interested in hearing which bits of Hermes article you disagree with and why. I have no strong opinion either way, so would be intererested in hearing a range of ideas.

My only response to Hermes' article so far is "so what"? So what if the nativity story is from a Jewish myth? These are what I call "trimmings" - they are lots of fun and engage the reader on various levels, but they do little to advance the soul.

[Sevivon1913]

but the Bible is not to be read 'naturally' but with the Spirit interpreting. The fact that 'young girl' was used in the context of giving birth would surely have seemed odd in some ways so I dont think you can say 'certainly doesnt make the prediction' So if it is silent it is more in the sense of being inconclusive (ie were they just free to assume a young girl was not a virgin) and needing further information to clarify - this is given in the Gospels

Don't you think that if the main point of Isaiah 7:14 was to predict a virgin birth, the author would have explictely used the word "virgin" (Betulah) and not been so vague with "young woman" (ha almah)?

Besides, do you even have proof that Jesus was born of a virgin, which would ultimately warrant your circular-reasoned exegesis of Isaiah? I didn't think so!

Basically, the Hebrew text is obviously talking about a young woman who is about to give birth. CLEARLY if she was a virgin, Isaiah would have explicitely and unequivocably said so The ambiguity simply proves that the birth was irrelevant (the main point was that by the time the child is grown up, all of King Ahaz's enemies would be defeated; which excludes Jesus, for sure; they were all defeated within 10 years). BTW, it would also be the world's longest pregnancy of all time, seeing as it took half a millenia for the birth!


Sevi


P.S. Narnian: a good site which explains the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 is http://mordochai.tripod.com/immanuel.html

[James Peter]

JP, I would be interested in hearing which bits of Hermes article you disagree with and why. I have no strong opinion either way, so would be intererested in hearing a range of ideas.

My only response to Hermes' article so far is "so what"? So what if the nativity story is from a Jewish myth? These are what I call "trimmings" - they are lots of fun and engage the reader on various levels, but they do little to advance the soul.

Basically his opinion about Matthew as originating with and being written for gentiles who effectively misunderstood earlier Jewish stories as being 'real'. Matthew has too great a concern for the Law for that to be the case in my opinion (of all the gospels it is the one that has Jesus saying the law won't pass away and so on). That really is inexplicable as a purely gentile position. I think I'm right in saying that Matthew also contains a fair few Semitism/LXXisms and that again points to an author who is very familiar with the Jewish Scriptures. Basically I find it hard to say that Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospels, was written by a Gentile!

Most of the other things I question flow out of his assumption that Matthew was written by ignorant gentiles. He also overstresses the Jewishness of the birth narratives, we find parallels to them in greek, roman and ANE sources. Having a 'special birth' was a staple part of the hero myths of many cultures and so the birth narratives could have originated in a hellenistic context as easily as being a misunderstanding of Jewish stories. The way Matthew defends the claims surrounding the birth with questionable use of Scripture does suggest though that the birth narrative he uses is one he 'inherited' rather than created. It is perfectly possible that such stories were in circulation as early as the 60s (although not accepted by all - thus their absence from Paul and Mark) and then in the 80s Luke and Matthew both, drawing on different strands of oral tradition, codified two similar versions. It is, of course, 95% speculation....but it is probably the most plausible explanation of all the evidence.