From: ejk@coral.JPL.NASA.gov (Elya Kapelyan)
Subject: Re: Isaiah 7:14   (Re: Flames, Don Disappointed)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:59:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.160729.27508@engage.pko.dec.com>, pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
|> >In article <1992Jul15.155507.11209@tronsbox.xei.com> moskowit@tronsbox.xei.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:
|> >Arnold writes:
|> >
|> >>The Hebrew word used for "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 can be translated as 
|> >>young girl.  Greek has a more exact translation, parthenos, which means
|> >>nothing but virgin.  An aside point on Isaiah 7:14, it is correctly
|> >>translated as virgin, because of its context, "the Lord Himself will give
|> >>you a sign: Behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son....."
|> >>Now its not much of a sign if a young girl will bear a son.

	There is an error in your translation.  (I don't have Isaiah in front
of me, as I write this so the rest is from memory.)  The Hebrew text does not
say "a virgin..." but rather "this young woman[almah]...".  That is the first
problem with the use of this quote.  The second and far more serious one is
that the quote is violently ripped out of context (which happens to be Isaiah's
reassurance to the king of Judah (whose name escapes me now) that before this
child will reach the age of "distinguishing between good and evil", the
Assyrians will no longer pose a threat to Judah.)  As an aside the particular
quote that you use also ends in "...and she will name him Immanuel (God is with
us)".  Now there is absolutely no way that that can be squared with the name
of Jesus (Joshua). 

|> >This, of course, is the Christian perspective used to bolster their
|> >beliefs.  From the Jewish perspective, the term used ("almah") never
|> >means virgin; it always means "young girl."  And the sign was not in
|> >the bearing of the child.
|> 
|> Actually, many conservative evangelical Christian theologians also
|> recognize that the word 'almah' in Isaiah 7:14 means only "young girl".
|> In fact, this was specifically pointed out by Henry Alford in his
|> 4-volume "New Testament for English Readers", which, though first
|> published over 100 years ago, is still widely respected by many
|> conservative Christian theologians.  Very few serious conservative
|> Christian theologians give any weight to the LXX translation.

	OK, so far so good.
 
|> But then how does Isaiah 7:14 apply to Jesus Christ the Messiah?
|> This is done through what in theology called 'typological fulfillment',
|> in which an event or an immediate fulfillment serves as the TYPE
|> of the future, greater fulfillment.  This is especially true with
|> the messianic prophecies, for, according to the ancient rabbinical
|> writings, the history of Israel would be repeated in the person of
|> Messiah, only in a greater and more spiritual way.  It is precisely
|> with this in mind that Matthew applied the exodus of Israel out of
|> Egypy ("out of Egypt I called my Son") to the personal history of
|> Jesus.  To really understand the 'typological fulfillment' and the
|> role it played in the way NT quoted OT passages, we have to know
|> the ancient Hebrews' view of 'time' and 'history'.  It is well-known
|> to the historians that ancient Hebrews viewed 'time' and 'history'
|> in a cyclical manner, in sharp contrast to the 'linear model' of
|> 'time' and 'history' of the ancient Greeks.  Thus, the historical
|> patterns were to be repeated, from the ancient Hebrew prospective,
|> in the history of Israel, and summed up in the person of Messiah.
|> It is with this prospective in mind that Matthew could associate
|> three historical events -- the slaughter of the innocents, the carrying
|> away of young children to Babylon, and the wailing of Rachel --
|> in one thread.  And it is with this prospective that Matthew applied
|> Isaiah 7:14 to the virgin birth of Jesus.

	Oh, great now we have prototyping in Christianity as well :-).

	On a serious note, you again have made several mistakes here.  The 
first is your comparison between Greek and Hebrew (Jewish) views on history
and time.  It was the Jews and _not_ the Greeks who viewed history as "linear".
Otherwise the idea of Messianic times would make absolutely no sense.  Second,
your explanation of Matthew's views are weak because you assume that (pardon
the pun) he wrote the gospel truth.  While that maybe OK from a religious 
point of view, it falls apart from a historical point of view.  In particular,
you mention the slaughter of the innocents, which is not mentioned in any other
source from that time period, including Josephus who hated Herod and missed no
chance to drag him through the mud.  A more realistic explanation (from a 
historical perspective) is that the early Christians needed all the help they
could get, so they used any quote that could be tied to Jesus, (no matter how
strained) to "prove" his Messiahship.  

	And one final note.  The idea of "virgin birth" makes absolutely no
sense in the Jewish context.  However it makes perfect sense in the Greek 
context, where it was used as a sign of divinity (or close connection to 
divinity).  Among others, Alexander the Great and an Alexandrian sage claimed
virgin birth to bolster their claims.  (Sorry but I do not remember the name
of that sage.  However, you can find a reference to him in Hugh Schonfeld's,
_The Passover Plot_.)
 
|> I cross-post this to soc.culture.jewish, not to seek converts, but
|> to seek their wisdom and inputs.

	Good.
 
|> Regards,
|> -- 
|> For Christ and His Kingdom
|> -- Publius
|> Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.

	Elya Kapelyan