CJD

I'm not around much, but here goes . . .

First, it should be noted that at least one pre-Christian source translated ha`almah "virgin," and for the reasons I mentioned previously (see again Haran's statement that it is not a foregone conclusion that almah precludes virginity). The text in question can read as follows: "See that young maiden [of marrying age over there]? She will conceive and bear a son . . . ." It is an omen, and thus speaks of what will be, not what is (the written account itself is, of course, after the fact).

As far as the virgin/maiden thing is concerned, it doesn't make a difference either way, since it wasn't a messianic prophecy to begin with. I am, of course, assuming that the text reads that the young girl in question was a virgin at the time of the prophecy and not when Isaiah "went [in]to the prophetess." Nothing miraculous about that, which leads us to our second point.

As I mentioned previously, this is hardly the point, since the Jews at this time presumably did not interpret this text as the followers of Jesus did. By formulating the challenge in this way, spin assumes the apostles and NT writers employed a rather dreadful hermeneutic.

Did they pull willy-nilly texts out of context, and smash them into their preconceived notions of who Jesus was? But I cannot get past one major item: This assumption at once suggests that the person making such a critique knows the Hebrew and Greek writings better than the 1st century Jew making reference to them. This is brazen snobbery at its best. To be sure, many Xians today assume this lame hermeneutic for the apostles, and kind-of shrug their shoulders, thinking, "Oh well, they said it, so it must be right." How embarrassing. As a result, Isaiah 7 is literally punted over its historical context and lands right on Jesus' head. This, the apostles and writers did not do.

Instead, fully aware of their own history, and the primary fulfillment of Isaiah's words in his own sons, see this as a type more robustly fulfilled in Jesus (see Haran's previous statement about a text having double meanings). In other words, they saw Jesus as the archetypal son who came as either a blessing or a curse. If we keep in mind the "exile/repentance/restoration" theme of all the Prophets (Moses included), then we can better understand how the apostles viewed Jesus in this light. Just like Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, Jesus was the sign, they said. Will you repent to bring about restoration or not? No apostle pretends that Isaiah's words spoken in 680 BC originally had anything to do with the Messiah; but they do see Isaiah's words being "filled" as it were, in the coming of the one who, they believed, was the ultimate Immanuel (or, God with us). I think we ought to temper our assumptions that the apostles are merely representative of lame exegesis, when in fact they were engaging in more responsible exegesis than many of their sectarian peers (e.g., Qumran).

Let's look at the Isa. pericope one more time.

Isaiah 8, I think, tells us in the plainest sense possible, that it fulfills the omen of Isaiah 7. This, in its original meaning was no "messianic" prophecy. It requires ignoring far too much the surrounding context. Simply put, Ahaz fails to trust in God to overcome the Syro-Israelite coalition (chpt. 7), by refusing to ask God for a sign. How does God react? With a sign of doom: the child Immanuel. Immediately following this we see the alluded to son born in the very next chapter. The parallels are clear (8:4, 8, 10, contrary to spin's assertion that they are two different omens). What we have then, is an account of Isaiah's prophecy to Ahaz, since the text was actually written after the fact. The Assyrians do come and plunder everything, right up to the gates of Jerusalem. Whether or not one chooses to trust Isaiah's (or deutero-, or whatever) prediction is just that—a choice.

Why would he write it after the fact? To motivate the Jews to repentance in face of the ensuing judgment (of God) from Babylon. In other words, I think this was written around 680 BC, before the Babylonian exile. It is dischronologized to show that Isaiah's words are not empty, that he indeed comes as an emissary from the heavenly court.

As far as how this relates to its usage by a 1st century Jewish follower of Jesus, I believe the Isa. 7:14b fulfillment falls under a prophetic category described as "predictive, but historically fulfilled." In Isa. 7, the prophet recounts the time when he predicts something that happens historically, i.e., the birth of his son (Isa. 8). But this prediction adumbrates and elevates, until is becomes a typology that Saint Matthew, for example, writes is filled by the anti-type, Jesus. (As an aside, the same thing happens with the royal son prophecies in Isa. It becomes the ideal, an ideal that all the sons of David failed in—Hezekiah, Zerubbabel, et al.—but was ultimately accomplished by Jesus.) This is the approach of the NT writers to the Tanak, as opposed to ripping it from its context and ramming it into a sectarian view of things. Another possibility, other than Saint Matthew was wrong in his choice, is that given my understanding of his hermeneutic, the original prophecy does not require applying it rigidly to any historical context. In other words, he emphasizes the word virgin, not because of his faulty understanding of the Hebrew text or the misuse of the LXX, but because Jesus was actually born of a virgin, thus fully fulfilling the typology laid-out in Isaiah 7.

But does Saint Matthew lose face because Jesus is not the primary reference here? I do not think so, because I am certain he knew better. In other words, I trust his use or reliance on the LXX. Immanuel, we all know, means "God with us (in battle)." The child is called thus to demonstrate how God could have been with Ahaz, but was not. Saint Matthew, I believe, sees Jesus fulfilling this because he is the sign of salvation and likewise rejected, and so becomes a sign of judgment against Israel. Its parallels to the circumstances surrounding the Isaiah text are uncanny, really.

Proto-Isaiah, in my view, is the prophet himself. As such, he undoubtedly spoke the prophecy with an eye on the Assyrian judgment. But at the time of writing, his eye was on the ensuing Babylonian judgment. That was my point about dischronologization. Why do it? To show that the prophet's words were not empty. Assyria did indeed attack as Isaiah warned. He is in effect writing, "My words have been proven true. So, listen to my words, Jerusalem, because the same thing that happened to Israel can happen to you, too."

I am well aware of the LXX quotes in the NT, but it's a non-sequitur to suppose that they were unfamiliar with the Hebrew text. I just think it follows with ancient writings: loose citations, paraphrases, etc. The least of all concerns is pedantic precision.

The gist of my understanding of Matthew's gospel is this: Matthew is written in the late sixties, before the destruction of the Second Temple. It is written in Greek, probably written for Jewish Greek speakers (or God-fearers), which accounts for its Jewish slant. While the Xian Jews and Xian Gentiles did diverge on certain doctrines, I think basically we can infer his purpose for writing as follows: 1) to show that Jesus is the promised Messiah; 2) to chastise his fellow Jews for failing to recognize this Jesus as the one, and exhort them to reconsider; 3) the promised eschatalogical kingdom has already dawned, though in a manner not anticipated; 4) it is a continuing kingdom with both Jews and Gentiles as the priests and kings; 5) this inaugeration is not only a fulfillment of the hopes of the Tanak, but a foretaste of the consummated kingdom when Jesus returns. Why Saint Matthew's hermeneutic is not forced or just plain wrong I think I have dealt with above. To be sure, if he used the Tanak or LXX in the way many assume, then the criticisms stand. But at this point, I beg to differ.

Regards,

CJD

spin

If you only looked at the Hebrew text, you would see that there is no future indication for the young woman being pregnant. You simply don't understand the idea of the time from when a child in the womb of a woman now pregnant till the time it is able to know good from evil. For that time span to be meaningful, the woman must already be pregnant.

The grammar doesn't allow you to read a future.


spin

spin

But that is the whole problem. How it could be interpreted when it was written is an indication of what could be made from the original text (Isa 7:14), ie the range of meanings that the writer could convey. You are ignoring what the text says according to its writer, then noting a later understanding of the text and preferring that later understanding.

If you cannot show how the original text is to be understood in its original context you have nothing to say about the text. Christianizing hermeneutics are no substitute for dealing with the original text.

(And note again in 8:3-4 that God's prophecy comes about Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz after the woman is pregnant.)

spin

Haran

Judging by the translations that have it as an event in the future, apparently there are those who think the grammar does allow it.

Even the ancient Jewish translators appear to have assumed the future tense as the phrase in the Septuagint reads as follows:

... εν γαστρι εξει ...

The Greek verb εξει is future tense, so apparently the ancient Jewish translators were able to read the Hebrew this way as well.

Finally, the very Hebrew adjective in question at Isaiah 7:14, הרה , is used in a future sense in Judges 13:5 & 7:

Jewish Publication Society (JPS) TaNaK (1985)
Judges 13:5:

...For you are going to conceive and bear a son...
... כי הנך הרה וילדת בן ...

Amlodhi

Hello Haran

However, if you're going to use this publication as support it should be noted that this phrase in Judges 13:5 (with pointing) is:

כִי הִנָך הָרָה וְילַדְתְ בֵן (Also should be a dagesh forte modifying the tav)

Now, the comparative phrase in Isaiah 7:14 is:

הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְילֶדֶת בֵן

Yet, this phrase, in your very same reference, reads:

". . . the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son." [Jewish Publication Society (JPS) TaNaKH (1985)]

Both the "Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon", Francis Brown, D.D.,D. Litt., S.R. Driver, D.D. Litt.D. and Charles A. Briggs, D.D.,D.Litt. and "The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament", Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, vol. #1, list the usage of the term "הרה", both in Judges 13:5 and in Isaiah 7:14, as an adjectival consecutive form (to be read as "pregnant"). Again, in contrast, the JPS TaNaKH indicates the verbal form for Judges 13:5 in conflict with the adjectival form for Isaiah 7:14.

Interesting also is that the adjectival usage in the Hebrew is in conflict with the verbal form you have indicated for the Greek.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Haran

When do you believe the texts were pointed?

The vowels never appear in the right places (at least on my screen) with Unicode. The hireq should be under the kaph not the yod, the qamats should be under the he and the resh, etc., etc.. Seems that more standardization is still necessary.

I did find this interesting. This is why I used their version for the other form of the word. Funny, but why was it done this way, especially in light of what you quoted from BDB and HALOT?

What do you expect the translators of the LXX to have seen working from unpointed texts? Why did they use the verbal form if the Hebrew form was adjectival?

I'm curious how the Targum reads here, for completeness sake, if anyone knows.

Amlodhi

Hello Haran,

I agree this can be a problem. On my screen, the hireq is under the kaph and the qamats is under the he and the resh.

Also, of course, the masoretic pointing wasn't fully standardized until c. 11th century. However, this masorah was developed from at least three earlier pointing systems with traditions dating back to c. the 3rd century. And further, this early tradition was brought forward from even earlier traditions termed "matres lectionis" (mothers of reading) in which certain consonants (aleph, he, yod and vav) indicated specific accompanying vowel sounds.

My only purpose in including the diacritical notation was to show that it seems to further confuse the issue. Since the vowel points are apparently not appearing correctly on your screen, I will try to present the example in transliteration:

Many analytical lexicons list "HRH" (with qamats : qamats) as a verbal form (to conceive) and secondarily (based on textual construction) as an adjectival form (pregnant).

Most, however, also list a strictly adjectival form: "HRH" (with qamats : tsere) and also "He-Resh-Yod" (with qamats : hireq).

Thus, it is confusing to me that the "qamats : qamats" form appears in both Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 7:14, and yet the JPS TaNaKH renders the term as a verb in Judges and as an adjective in Isaiah. I cannot discern any contrasting textual construction which would justify this conflicting usage.

I have no explanation.

This could actually be two questions. I have very little study in Greek so I'm unsure as to whether there was any ambiguity in the term "parthenos". Did it, at the time, always indicate strict virginity?

As to the Hebrew, from the matres lectionis tradition of "he" associating with "a" class vowels, I would suspect that HRH would be seen in the "qamats : qamats" form. Verbal with a secondary adjectival usage, but not in a strictly adjectival form.

And yet, as spin has pointed out also, even if HRH is read as a verb, it is definitely in the QAL perfect form which indicates a completed action (i.e. "has conceived"). Future tenses are indicated by the imperfect tense.

At this point, I can only defer to the experts (BDB, HALOT, etc.) and suppose that they must have some reason for listing the adjectival usage for both Judges and Isaiah since this would also closely reflect the "completed action" aspect of the tense if a verbal form were assumed.

Any further input you have will be much appreciated. I'm continuing to study this, but at times it can be very frustrating. (need "pulling hair out" icon)


Namaste'

Amlodhi

mike_decock

-Mike...

Amlodhi

Thanks Mike,

LOL . . . That's exactly what I had in mind.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

CJD

I am willing to agree; however, the fact remains that many others, who, by the way, are far more proficient translators than we, have rendered it otherwise.

By this simple fact alone, a variegated translation is at least remotely possible, and thus we must move on to, namely, a discussion on how the apostles' and NT authors' use of OT prophetic literature was not uninformed and arbitrary.

In order for you to approach this problem in the way you desire, you must first take it up with the Seventy, for they presumably saw their translation to be within the parameters of the Hebrew intent. Keep in mind you are not speaking with an "atomistic" inerrantist. Pedantic precision will not be found among ancient texts; indeed, the very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients.

Isaiah's sons were signs of an omen. St. Matthew believed Jesus to be that same kind of sign—but in an ultimate sense. He is not saying, "See, even Isaiah wrote of him"; rather, he is saying, "In the same way Isaiah's son was a sign of blessing or curse, so, too, is this Jesus. And what is more, he is the final sign."

Now, it is one thing to disagree with Matt's assessment (which would entail showing us why). It is quite another to accuse the NT author of willy-nilly exegesis (this would also entail some proof). I have at least explained a hermeneutical process that the author may have employed, which is far more substantive than the mere sleight of hand offered by you ("Christianizing hermeneutics are no substitute for dealing with the original text.") Blah, blah, blah. Show me that said followers of Jesus did not deal with the original text. Show me that they misunderstood it. Show me that they had no concept of how to read prophetic literature. Show me that they were so blinded by some faith in a nobody named Jesus that they crammed every OT reference they could find down his throat with the intent to legitimize him. Show me that it was not the other way around: that Jesus was indeed everything and more than what they wrote of him. Show me that he specifically was not born of a virgin, or resurrected, or lived Torah perfectly. Now's your chance to deconvert someone.

Regards,

CJD