Gamera

Well I think Isa 8:18 militates against your view. First it's somewhat ironic that Heb. 2:13 applies this very verse to Christ. Second, Isaiah's sons all had symbolic names, so they would have been looked at as odd indeed. Third, Isaiah himself was a very odd man -- like most prophets. He walked around naked for three years. You may not find that odd, but I think the bible itself does, or why does God bother to mention it as something worth note.

Finally, and most importantly, we have an hermeneutical disagreement about the levels of meanings of biblical texts. My interpretation doesn't exclude yours at all, since traditional exegesis allows for multiple levels of meanings. A prophesy can apply to the near future and the distant future at the same time. It's terms can have a local signfication and a secondary or tertiary signification. So I don't need to disagree with your interpretation to assert mine. I can say both are intended at different exegetical levels. One being locally prophetic, the other being escatological or messianic.

I think to assert that prophesies have a single meaning goes contrary to the methodology of biblical authors.

Gamera

Well that's not dispositive since the Hebrew bible isn't the only Jewish text and since it may not reflect common names. Like I say, the issue is whether the name is common, and that's a resolvable matter. But not by merely saying it doesn't appear elsewhere in the bible.

Apikorus

The text of Isa 7-8 was presumably written in the late 8th century BCE but redacted in the 7th century and at some time(s) in the postexilic era, perhaps in the 5th century BCE. The Hebrew Bible is the only Hebrew text we have from this period, small documents such as the Lachish letters excepted. The Israelite onomasticon as adduced from the HB is hardly inconsequential: see here.

I can't find Immanuel as a proper name in all of Josephus, though this conclusion is tentative and perhaps spin can be of some assistance in checking. I am unaware of any Iron Age inscriptions bearing the name either. Perhaps spin can check the DSS. Thus far, all evidence points to the fact that (MNW )L was an exceedingly rare name, and quite possibly unique at the time of writing of Isa 7:14.

Apikorus

So what? The New Testament is so late and tendentious as to be useless. Of course the NT authors wanted to link the Hebrew Bible to Jesus.

Indeed, including Immanuel.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with my point. Furthermore, we really don't know much about Isaiah, and it is hypercredulous to assume that he really did wander about naked and barefoot for three years. Surely this, like many other extreme and unusual biblical stories, is exaggeration. At any rate, as I've argued previously, our text in Isa 7-8 is heavily redacted, and Isa 7:14 likely was not written by yeshiaya ben amots, if indeed any such person ever existed.

So are you agreeing with my interpretation or not? Your last post was very squirrely!

By the way, you haven't dealt with the meat of my argument. What is the sign associated with maher-shalal-hash-baz? How do you view the parallel between the MSHB unit in Isa 8:3-4 and the Immanuel unit in Isa 7:10-16? Doesn't the fact that the word ot applies to Immanuel in 7:10 and to Isaiah and his children in 8:18 plausibly suggest that Immanuel is Isaiah's child, and Immanuel's mother is Isaiah's wife?

Who knows, it might even encode a great stock tip for next week?

Look, this sort of argument is, frankly, desperate. To be sure, there are many instances where a skilled biblical author weaves a double meaning into the text. Isa 7:14 has no such apparent aspect. The focus is squarely on the threat to Judah and the actions of Ahaz vis-a-vis Israel, Damascus, and Assyria. The idea that it should be prophetic of the birth of Jesus 730 years in the future is simply ludicrous.

There are tendentious Islamic readings of the New Testament which retroject Mohammed (e.g. as the paraclete in John). If you believe Isaiah wrote about Jesus, you might as well believe John wrote about Mohammed.

Richbee

It doesn't matter, because Mary, the young woman was a VIRGIN.

Next silly post?

spin

There are no tenses in Hebrew. There are aspects, which we often call in English "perfect" and "imperfect". (Future is divined by contextual clues.) When the translator uses "will (give)" in English version of Isa 7:14a, it is a "will" of volition, not future (as in "do you really want to know? I'll tell you...") -- note that Ahaz in v12 says it is not his volition to seek a sign. The speaker indicates that he is in the process of giving a sign. The appeal to a supposed future tense in this case does not reflect the text.

Would you like to try again to explain why HRH should be in this case future despite not indicating a future? Let me add that the form of the word which indicates "give birth" (YLD) is understood to be an active participle which indicates either something happening now, something past, or something about to happen, and we can obviously rule out the first two in the context. Doesn't this suggest to you that the woman is going to bear the child relatively soon? Isn't this consistent with the woman already being pregnant? In fact, if you look at Gen 16:11 you'll find both HRH and YLDT together and there the first is stating that Hagar is already pregnant and that she will bear Ishmael.


spin.

spin

How did you personally check it out to know?

Your comment is irrelevant to the thread, which looks at Isaiah 7:14, not the new testament.


spin

Gamera

Because it isn't obviously messianic, yet the author of Hebrews, who probably knew a thing or two more about Septuagint than you, sees it exactly opposite from you.

This name doesn't seem to be any more symbolic than any other Hebrew name.


The text says he walked around naked for three years. It doesn't matter if it's true. What matter is that's who Isaiah was depicted, and that's odd.

I'm saying your interpretation doesn't rule out the right interpretation, which I posited.

I veiw it as obscure, as is most of the book. But leaving that aside I view it as not incompatible with multiple layers of prophesies.

Which is more likely than pathenos not meaning virgin.

Well, leaving aside the issue of inspiration, the issue is whether the prophesy is messianic, not whether it picked out Jesus. It's deparate for you to not see the difference.

If you believe that Judaism believed in a messiah, no, that's not true.

Gamera

Since there's no indication that sign has already been given, it's fair to call it a future tense expectation.

Given that, and given HNH -- behold, followed by a pregnancy, it's fair to understand that the author meant the pregnancy to be the sign, and hence to be in the future.

Gamera

By the mediaeval period it wasn't considered so unusual.

Immanuel ben Solomon, c.1265–c.1330, Hebrew-Italian poet and scholar, b. Rome. He wrote biblical criticism and, in both Hebrew and Italian, satiric verse and lively stories. His work represents a synthesis of Jewish thought and reflects the spirit of Italian Renaissance. His collected poems were printed (1491) under the title Mahberoth Immanuel [the compositions of Immanuel]. His verse was notorious in his day and later for its satiric and erotic content. He introduced the Italian sonnet form into Hebrew poetry.

But it's true that the name doesn't appear in the talmudic and midrashic literature. Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem, Israel, Vol. 8, p. 1294. So point to you on that.