Apikorus

Generally it has been later interpreters, attempting to shoehorn biblical "prophecy" into their own theological and historical framework, who assert and indeed rely upon this alleged obscurity. The fact is that most of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible were speaking about their own times or the immediate future. Indeed, the historical-critical method affords us the opportunity to overcome the confusion which a naive reading elicits. In the case of Isa 7:10-16, for example, an understanding of the context (the Syro-Ephraimite war), parallel texts (2 Kgs 16), philology, etc. goes a long way to clearing up any potential confusion. We might not know with absolute certainty, at this distant 2700 year remove from the writing of the text, all the details, such as who was ha-almah. But we can distinguish plausible reconstructions (Isaiah's wife) from ludicrous ones (Jesus' mother).

It is you who has the tin ear. More aptly, your Jesus glasses are obscuring the plain sense of the text. The child Immanuel is significant only (a) for his highly unusual (indeed unique) and symbolic name, and (b) as a marker of time. He serves no other apparent function in the Hebrew Bible. 800 years later, Christians imposed an artificial and ahistorical meaning on this text, in which Immanuel became Jesus (who is artificially called Immanuel in the New Testament only so as to retroject him into Isa 7:14).

You are right about one thing and one thing only -- there is salvation. And that salvation comes from Yahweh. You would have to be utterly obtuse to miss this in reading Isa 7.

Gamera

Again, you're making a back formation. We happen to know who Jesus' mother is, and Isaiah did not. But a messianic prophesy doesn't need to elicit the life of Mary to make a prophesy about the birth of the messiah. This passage appears in structure to be messianic. Whether it is ludicrous to apply it to Mary because you reject the messianic nature of Jesus' birth is simply a separate issue as to whether the prophesy is intended messianically and even escatologically. It sure seems to have that structure.

Actually my Christianity doesn't depend on the slightest on prophesy literature in the OT. My reading of the NT is that this tact was intended for Jewish converts of the first century for whom the messiah meant something. Not being a concept in my background, the gospel message doesn't rely on it for me.

Having said that, your hermeneutic that meanings are "imposed" on the text is hopelessly naive. Your reconstruction of a purported Hebrew meaning is nothing more than another constructed meaning (unless your claiming you're really a 7th century Hebrew, which I doubt). A scholarly reconstruction of a 7th century prophesy is on its fact NOT that prophesy and not what it meant to the audience. It's as if you are unaware of the entire post-structural movement as applied to historicity and texts.

My point being every interpretation is an imposition, and all of history is simply texts. You seem to want to valorize a particular imposition (yours) based on a putative history which you claim is outside of texts, when in fact history is simply other texts with other interpretations. The history-text dichotomy is hopeless naive.

Ah, you've got the one true meaning of the text based on your reading of other texts that have a one true meaning which you discerned. It's a perfect circle.

Gamera

How about giving a date? "In six months a child will be born named Immanual. That's the sign, Ahaz. Heed it."

Simple as pie.

Gamera

Well, the author says God will give a sign. He says behold, here it comes. And then he mentions a pregancy. I'm sorry a common sense reading is contrary to your claim.

First, even if the young woman were known to the author, that doesn't rule out a secondary, messianic meaning.

Second, I would conclude that opposite about the definite article. Hence:

Isaiah 55:13 - Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall be to the LORD for a memorial, for an everlasting sign which shall not be cut off."

Clearly this doesn't refer to a particular thorn or cypress, but is trying to make a point that some thorn and cypress or other will do what I say will happen. I hope you're not arguing that Isaiah is pointing at a thorn and cypress, like you claim he was with his wife.


Third, and most importantly, this reading simply ignores the purpose of prophesy literature (and I notice that a lot of philological readings of the bible -- such as Nahigian's -- make the mistake of treating the text not for what it is: literature with literatry tropes included). Why the heck is Isaiah giving this prophesy to Ahaz? He's a bad king in deparate circumstances who isn't looking for a sign (he state's he doesn't want to test God, out of false piety or cynicism, you decide). But God goes out of his way to give him a prophesy anyway that involved the destruction of Assyria and some very obscure passages about bees and curds. OK, what's the point? Is it to calm Ahaz (why?), to dissaude him from an alliance with Assyria (why not just tell him not to, message from God), or is it like most prophesy literature -- to test the listener as to willingness to accept the real meaning of the prophesy and so discern his character? It must be the latter because that's what prophesy literature almost always does, and that's why it's almost always obscure and riddle-like. I mean God could have just said, Ahaz, here's my prophesy -- you're going to win so don't go with the Assyrians! But he didn't. And why? Because the prophesy ultimately isn't about Ahaz's conflict with the bad guys, but larger issues about Judae/Israel, Ahaz' relationship to God, and yes, salvation through a messiah.

And of course Ahaz chose to ignore the sign (he didn't get it) and went with Assyria.

By the way, that suggests your scenario of the obvious meaning of the sign wasn't so obvious to Ahaz. He didn't get it. Or at least he rejected it.

Finally, can you tell us whatever happened to Immanuel in the story? What's his role after the prophesy is given. Hint: a big null set. Consider the implications of that.

Apikorus

You are free to assume that Isaiah was prophetically discussing events 730 years in the future, just as Muslims are free to find Mohammed prefigured in the New Testament. It is a common conceit to find justification of one's own faith traditions in sacred texts.

You descend into relativist nonsense by insisting that all history is subjective, implying that one interpretation is as plausible as another. Of what matter is proficiency in Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Egyptian, Akkadian, etc., familiarity with ancient texts from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Ugarit, knowledge ANE archaeology, of historical geography, of Qumran, etc., when ultimately all this is just one big "perfect circle"?

The point, of course, is that the context provided by the historical-critical method arises from disparate, independent analyses, whereas the religious interpretation (Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) is often slaved to or colored by confessional stance. As an example, you insist that your Christianity "doesn't depend on the slightest on prophesy literature in the OT," yet your objective in this thread has clearly been to defend elements of the traditional Christian reading of Isaiah: to you, the almah must be a virgin, and the birth must be miraculous.

Since you apparently have no skills in Hebrew, this doesn't mean much to me.

We've been through this before. The sign is the birth and the naming. The pregnancy is in the present.

Salvation 730 years in the future? How utterly compelling. I'm shocked that Ahaz didn't fall to the ground on the spot and start praying to baby Jesus.

Gawd, you really have no familiarity with the central themes of the Hebrew Bible at all, do you?

What ever happened to Immanuel? For that matter, what ever happened to Shear Yashuv or to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz? They don't teach you this in Sunday School, but from careful application of the historical-critical method we can begin to fill in the pieces. Eventually all three wound up as wards of the state and were placed in the Home for Neglected Children of Naked and Barefoot Prophets. In the late 8th century BCE, they took up piano, guitar, and drums, respectively and teamed up with Cheftzibah (vocals) in a lounge group called shalosh chatulim v'kelev (= "three cats and a dog"). According to some unreleased ostraca from Arad, they were in high demand until Manasseh, disapproving of his mother performing indecent lyrics, had them all executed. (You continue to miss the point of the text by asking such questions.)

Gamera

It is naive to talk about "history" as if it were a nontextual matter. History is what is recorded in texts. So what you call "relativistic nonsense" merely rebuts the ridiculous claim that history is accessible outside of texts and thus outside of interpretation. No serious modern historian believes that.

Now, we can evaluate texts for what they are -- e.g., a forgery, a political document meant to promote Greater Greece, or an attempt at a factual rendition of what was heard by witnesses. Nothing wrong with that. But to claim that history is some factual "event" over here and texts are something about history over there, and you have the godlike perspective to discern the two is hopeless anachronistic. It's as if you never read Foucault and his impact on historical research.

Gamera

You continue to think that a prophesy has "one point."

So Immanuel rears his head again in the next chapter. What does this mean (since you've figured out what Isaiah is saying and find no obscurities in any of it.) Love to hear the one true meaning.

Isa: 9. and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Imman'u-el." 9 Be broken, you peoples, and be dismayed; give ear, all you far countries; gird yourselves and be dismayed; gird yourselves and be dismayed. 10 Take counsel together, but it will come to nought; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us.

Gamera

Exactly, so why mention it. The prophesy could have more easily just said, expect a kid in about 6 months, named Immanuel. That's the sign (which won't come to frution until he's 7 years old, so don't wait up Ahaz, you got plenty of time to worry about Syria)

No, I'm not. There are different kinds of salvation. Some immediate, some soteriological. The bible certainly marks the difference, and certainly valorizes one over the other again and again. I'm surprised you haven't notice. No doubt too eager looking for jokes.

Ah, now your looking for themes (a literary device) and not philology. I'm happy to stick with the themes, since prophesy literature is utterly other than what you have characterized it as, and I doubt you have the background in literary studies to know that.

Apikorus

Well, you see, Isaiah's wife was naturally svelte, and she wasn't showing much at the time.

I've already explained this: here. The reference is not to the child Immanuel, although certainly the repetition of this message is significant, since it reinforces the prophecy. At any rate, here's another example where you are handicapped by reading bad English translations (which render immanu el as a name, "Immanuel"), while reading in the original Hebrew provides a much better perspective.

I realize that this may make your head explode, but if Isa 7:10-16 is redactional, the mentions of immanu el in Isa 8:8,10 might have been written before the unit describing the birth of Immanuel. Think about that one, eh!

Apikorus

LOL! In fact I presume almost none of the details in Isa 7-8 are historical. As I said, I think the Immanuel pericope is redactional -- composed during Josianic times and probably edited in the postexilic era.

BTW Foucault and postmodernism have been somewhat of a flop in biblical studies. See e.g. W. Dever, "What did the Biblical Writers Know, and When did they Know it? (or via: amazon.co.uk)"