From: mls@cbnewsm.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mary and the Moderns
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:21:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Dec.15.04.05.21.1992.4962@geneva.rutgers.edu> magore@icr2.uwaterloo.ca (Mike Gore) writes:

>	So far in this discussion of the Virgin birth I have not seen
>much talk about the importance of OT prophesy where it was first mentioned 
>that this manner of birth would be a sign to us

Well, by now you probably have seen David Wagner touching this same base.
And I think I *did* allow for this perspective in noting that some of us
*do* place a strong semantic burden on the prophetic character of Isaiah
in this matter.

It is very difficult to respond to this particular aspect of the question
without seeming to belittle other people's views, which (I must protest)
is not my point.  In what follows, I will be describing my *own* reactions
[as I did before!] without any assumption that these are normative.

One conclusion of biblical scholarship that I find *very* hard to get
around is that Isaiah's prophecy in 7:14 --

	"Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth
	to a son.  Let her name him Immanuel."  [_Tanakh_, JPS]

was *misread* by the community represented in Matthew's gospel.  Whether
that has to do with the Greek-speaking community taking the Septuagint
rendering of _almah_ as _parthenos_, and then pushing *that* in a manner
not required by Isaiah's text I don't know, for sure.

There are several possible takes on this:

	o  possibly, Matthew's community *because* of Mary's virginity
	   reread Isaiah, in somewhat the same way that we all reread
	   Isaiah 53 in light of the Passion.

	o  or possibly, a *prior* [mis]understanding of Isaiah made it
	   important in that community to see Jesus as the son of a
	   _parthenos_.

The latter seems more likely to me, but that isn't itself terribly rele-
vant -- God could very well have said to Himself "well, if these people
have managed to misunderstand my prophet, I guess I have to produce for
them a son from a virgin.  OK."

What I am getting at is that *I* don't think that a reading of Isaiah 7
says a damned THING about virgins.  Those who think otherwise are well-
grounded in the apostolic community, so my opinion hardly counts.  But
nonetheless, I have to live with my own intellectual integrity, and I
*will* not prostitute my understanding of Isaiah to pander to a Christian
myth.  In other words, the citation in Matthew 1:23 is evidence of what
Matthew believed about Isaiah's text, but THAT doesn't address the issue.

If anything, a first century reading of Septuagintal Isaiah as specifying
a *virgin* leads me to QUESTION the nativity accounts, rather than to
believe them.  You may chalk that up to my secular critical/historical
training if you will, but it is a matter of some importance to me.  Luke
and Matthew, as far as I can tell, BOTH invent a lot of nice stories in
an attempt to "show" us that Jesus fits prophecy.  That the "fit" is with
a MISUNDERSTOOD prophecy seems to me to call it into question, not to
reinforce THEIR assumptions.

Again, there is NOTHING that would prevent God from "matching" whatever
weird presuppositions His people may have had about what *is* a "sign."
In that context, anything goes.

>I feel other scriptures suggest such prophesy was intended to 
>be important to us.

Well, yes -- but this is *very* tricky!  I mentioned Isaiah 53, which
is for me a sort of test case.  I think it is *mandatory* for Christians
to read this as a reference to Christ -- yet the text does not force
such a reading!  It is more the case that we SEE Christ, and we recognize
Him in Isaiah's text.  Something of the same thing is going on with
respect to 7:14 -- but here I run aground on a Greek notion that seems
to have nothing to do with Isaiah.  And Luke's nativity stories have
models in the Septuagintal material as well -- so I have to consider
the possibility that the authors of these gospels were TRYING to project
THEIR understanding of Christ backwards onto (Septuagintal) OT material.

Again, I will mention that it is the Epiphany, not the Nativity, which
has been taken from the earliest strata of our tradition as marking
the Incarnation.  At the baptism of Jesus, the synoptics all say "A
voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; my favor rests
on you.'"  And in the fourth gospel, "John also declared, 'I saw the
Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove and resting on him.'"

This, and not the "viriginity" of Mary, is what stands as the witness
in *all* our sources.  I will not quarrel, as I have said before, with
any of those who find the viriginity of Mary as some essential sign of
the Incarnation.  But I will condemn them if they EVER use this in a 
way that denies Jesus' humanity.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@panix.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
(please note address)			With your crooked heart."