From: rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mary and the Moderns
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:09:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Dec.15.04.10.43.1992.5071@geneva.rutgers.edu>, wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:
> 
> There is a big difference between the RC doctrine of
> transubstantiation and the Virgin birth.  Transubstantiation
> is not taught in Scripture--"real presence" definitely is.
> Likewise the Virgin birth is explicitly stated in Scripture--as
> a fulfillment of a prophecy, Isaiah 7:14.  You can certainly
> debate the transation and interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, but
> Matthew's gospel is very clear and unambiguous in stating the
> virgin birth and on the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.  Luke also
> states the virgin birth explicity.  So one very important reason
> for believing the virgin birth is that it is a clear teaching of
> Scripture.

[MUCHO  DELETO]

I heard Bishop Spong on the radio the other night.  OFM will surely
stop me if he's heard this too many times....

His point (along with many other sources including scholars of
Protestant, Jewish, and RC background) is that Matt gospel account
is based on the Septuagint translation of the Is 7:14 word in
Hebrew ALMAH into the Greek word PARTHENOS.  In the Hebrew ALMAH
has no direct indication of virginity, but is rendered in the
sense of young woman.  PARTHENOS on the other hand is translated
as virgin in the technical sense.  Jews often point out that if
Isaiah meant virgin, he would have used the term B'TULLAH in Hebrew
which is, indeed, the technical term virgin.  

So Spong et al. concludes that Matt based his Virgin Birth account
on a mistranslation of the Hebrew into the Greek of the Septuagint
that Matt quotes.

He offered many other items in the discussion which argued both
textually and culturally against the VB.  Too many of the callers
reacted emotionally rather than give any pause at all to what he
had to say...

> David H. Wagner


Bobby - akgua!rjb

[Actually I'm coming to the view that Mat. didn't make a mistake.  Of
course the original OT context is not that of virgin birth.  Isaiah is
speaking of a son who is to be born shortly, i.e. in his time, not the
1st Cent.  Unless you think that was a virgin birth too, the original
meaning of Is 7:14 can't have been a virgin birth.  But Christians
often see events through the OT.  I think the use of the term
"prophecy" tends to be misleading, because it gives the impression
that the original writing was simply a prediction of something in the
future.  In fact, I think the NT authors use the OT in a somewhat more
subtle fashion.  Probably "typology" is a better word than "prophecy".
OT events are seen as patterns.  For those who believe that the Holy
Spirit is behind the OT, we can see God as intending both uses.  I
that it's quite appropriate to see the birth of Jesus as a sign of
dramatic events that God is about to bring about, just as the birth in
Is 7:14 was.  My guess is that Mat. understood very well that the
original context of Is 7:14 had nothing to do with a virgin birth.
But he may have believed that the Greek translation had by the
providence of God an applicability to Jesus that was if anything more
fitting than the original context.  Remember the legend of how the
translation was produced -- it was almost a miracle in itself.  It's
easy to imagine Matthew believing that "parthenos" in Is 7:14, while
appearing at first to be a mistranslation, was actually placed into
the translation as part of God's plan.  He may even have been right...
--clh]