Jack the Bodiless

Why was it ever regarded as a Messianic prophecy in the first place, given that it's so obviously a sign to King Ahaz that "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8)?

keyser_soze

Shhh!!!!

We enjoy christians using it, it's easy to refute, and they're so desperate for some validation of their superstitious bent that they need SOMETHING....anything....who are we to do more than insinuate the ridiculousness of the proposition. If they think too much on it, they will dump it all together and find something else. After all, they've been working at this for a millenia, and all they can come up with as "proof" is a bunch of stuff that is invalidated in minutes with a little reading...In case you didn't notice, they keep using it despite all the reasons not to, it's the ninth inning and we're ahead by a dozen runs, let them keep their pitcher...he sucks. Easy win!

Ted Hoffman

Immanuel?
Yeah it can be argued that the author in Magus55 link just asserts his argument rather than formulate it.
Because in any case both Immanuel and Jesus are names.

Ted Hoffman

But are we in agreement that Xsians (both the realy and the modern ones) use Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy?

Jayhawker Soule

Oy veh! :banghead:

Jayhawker Soule

I will readily agree that the really naive and the really apathetic and the really dishonest Christians use Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy. So?

Celsus

Did you read Richard Carrier's essay? Because it says, quoting Fr Raymond Brown:
Does that answer your question?

Bobzammel

What's interesting is that the word "Immanuel" is used twice again in the text.

8:5-10
Yahweh spoke to me again: Because these people have refused the waters of Shiloh that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah, therefore the Lord is Bringing up against them the mighty flood waters of the river, the King of Assyria and all his glory, it will rise above his channels and overflow all its banks. It will sweep into Judah as a flood, and pouring over, it will reach up to the neck, and it's outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O El is with us(Immanuel)
Band together, you peoples, and be dismayed! Listen, all you foreign countries, gird yourselves and be dismayed, gird yourselves and be dismayed! Take counsel together, but it shall be brought to nothing! Speak a word, but it will not stand! For El is with us (Immanuel)

Some apologists have argued that Jesus's phrase: "I AM with you" means Immanuel. In fact, in Hebrew such a phrase would mean Immanuiah("Yahweh/The Lord is with us"), not Immanuel, if Jesus intends to use I AM(Yahweh). Also there's still the thread about the Mother naming the child, not anyone else. Immanuel is not as unique in Jewish names--a lot of names end with El(Which is often translated as "God" in most bibles)...Samuel, Ezekiel, Israel....
Some people have often stated Immanuel means "Son of God"...which is also incorrect. That would be something like Bariah.

Celsus

IronMonkey,

You may also want to consider the translation known as the version of Aquila written c.130 CE, under the tutelage of Rabbi Akiba. It is considered a Jewish reaction to the Septuagint with a translation that keeps extremely close to the original Hebrew, and largely incomprehensible in Greek unless one understood Hebrew. It survives mostly because it was one of the versions in Origen's Hexapla. Most of it, unfortunately, has not survived (nor has the Hexapla for that matter). While I don't know if we have Isaiah 7:14 in Aquila's version, it's quite clear that Jews and Christians were already branching significantly enough for traditional Jews to consider the Septuagint unreliable.

Incidentally, here's the passage from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ch.68):

• And Trypho said, "How then does the Word say to David, that out of his loins God shall take to Himself a Son, and shall establish His kingdom, and shall set Him on the throne of His glory?"
  
  And I said, "Trypho, if the prophecy which Isaiah uttered, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' is said not to the house of David, but to another house of the twelve tribes, perhaps the matter would have some difficulty; but since this prophecy refers to the house of David, Isaiah has explained how that which was spoken by God to David in mystery would take place. But perhaps you are not aware of this, my friends, that there were many sayings written obscurely, or parabolically, or mysteriously, and symbolical actions, which the prophets who lived after the persons who said or did them expounded." "Assuredly," said Trypho.
  
  "If therefore, I shall show that this prophecy of Isaiah refers to our Christ, and not to Hezekiah, as you say, shall I not in this matter, too, compel you not to believe your teachers, who venture to assert that the explanation which your seventy elders that were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave, is untrue in certain respects? For some statements in the Scriptures, which appear explicitly to convict them of a foolish and vain opinion, these they venture to assert have not been so written. But other statements, which they fancy they can distort and harmonize with human actions, these, they say, refer not to this Jesus Christ of ours, but to him of whom they are pleased to explain them. Thus, for instance, they have taught you that this Scripture which we are now discussing refers to Hezekiah, in which, as I promised, I shall show they are wrong. And since they are compelled, they agree that some Scriptures which we mention to them, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and[to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ, but they venture to assert that this man is not Christ. But they admit that He will come to suffer, and to reign, and to be worshipped, and to be God; and this opinion I shall in like manner show to be ridiculous and silly. But since I am pressed to answer first to what was said by you in jest, I shall make answer to it, and shall afterwards give replies to what follows.

Notice the immediate chapter after this is titled: CHAPTER LXIX--THE DEVIL, SINCE HE EMULATES THE TRUTH, HAS INVENTED FABLES ABOUT BACCHUS, HERCULES, AND SCULAPIUS. Diabolical mimicry. Here's some good material on Aquila: Transmission of the Septuagint Text.

Joel

Apikorus

(Note to Bobzammel: "baryah" would be Aramaic. The Hebrew equivalent would be "b'nayah" (e.g. Ezra 10:25) or "b'nayaho" (e.g. 2 Sam 8:18, 1 Kings 2:30). Names which include a divine element (e.g. daniel, yonatan, etc.) are called "theophoric".)

Regarding Isa 7:14, the use of "parthenos" in the LXX was very likely of Jewish origin. We know from the prologue of Sirach that by the late second century BCE that Greek translations of the Torah, prophetic books, and other sacred texts (likely referring to the "writings", or Hebrew ketuvim) were extant:

For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.

As we have learned from the biblical scrolls from Qumran, the text of the Hebrew Bible was pluriform during the late Second Temple period. It now seems certain that the Hebrew exemplar from which the LXX was translated - a thoroughly Jewish, pre-Christian text popular in the Alexandrian Jewish community - differed in many respects from the "proto-masoretic" text which eventually came to be adopted by the rabbis, and which, as adduced from the Wadi Muraba'at scrolls, achieved consonantal stability by the time of bar Kokhba (ca. 135 CE). We know this because at Qumran we have many examples of pre-Christian Hebrew biblical fragments which agree with the LXX over the MT. In many cases, the differences between the LXX and MT are vast: the LXX of Jeremiah is about 2700 words, or 13%, shorter than the MT. There are also significant differences between LXX and MT in the books of Daniel, Samuel, and even parts of Exodus.

One problem with the LXX, though, was that its rapid spread mitigated against its stability. Numerous versions proliferated. Palestinian Jewish scholars knowledgeable in Greek recognized the many differences between the Greek text and their proto-masoretic Hebrew text, and accordingly revised the Greek, resulting in the "rabbinic recensions" of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. These recensions were collected, along with the LXX, the original Hebrew, and a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew in Origen's hexapla, fragments of which are extant today. Incidentally, according to Raymond Brown (Birth of the Messiah) all three rabbinic recensions correct parthenos to neanis in Isa 7:14.

Regarding Isaiah, it has long been recognized that the Greek translations of the books of the Hebrew Bible are of varying quality. This is likely because they were done by different people. Frank Moore Cross, in The Ancient Library of Qumran, comments on how the LXX of Isaiah is among the poorest translations of all the books.

Summary: almost all the differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and Masoretic Text (MT) of the Hebrew Bible can be accounted for by supposing that the LXX was witness to a different Hebrew exemplar. (According to Cross's theory of local text types, the LXX is emblematic of the "Egyptian text type" while the MT reflects the "Babylonian text type". A third major family, the "Palestinian text type" is represented by the Samaritan Pentateuch. Some major scholars, like Emmanuel Tov, do not adhere to Cross's tripartite characterization, and instead see a more continuous pluriformity of texts during the period in question.) There are, to be sure, some Christian interpolations in the earliest extant LXX codices (~ 5th century), but these are rather minor in comparison.

If I have more time later I will write more specifically on Isa 7:14.

Just noticed I cross-posted with Celsus. He too remarks on the rabbinic recensions. Eventually the instability of the LXX proved to be enough of an embarrassment to the Christians that it was abandoned in favor of the Hebrew. Jerome, ca. 400 CE, translated the Vulgate of his "Old Testament" directly from the Hebrew, and Christian OTs have since then, with few exceptions, been based on the Hebrew. As a result, there are minor differences between the NT and OT in Christian bibles. For example, according to Acts 7:14 Jacob went down to Egypt with 75 souls. But Gen 46:27 and Exod 1:5 say only 70. The LXX says 75, as does the Hebrew Qumran fragment 4QExod^a.