Phlox Pyros

So, did the prophesy in Isaiah originally speak of a virgin or a young woman? Why? Why not?

Have at it! :devil3:

Phlox Pyros

Sometimes you have to 'goad' a little...

Isaiah originally had virgin or bethulah in Hebrew and this was subsequently translated into Greek as parthenos, which Matthew understood as a prophecy of Mary as the virgin who would give birth.

Spanky

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...prophecy.shtml

Diogenes the Cynic

The original Hebrew says almah ("young woman"), not bethulah. When read in context, it's blindingly obvious that Isaiah 7:14 has no Messianic connotation whatsoever, that the "young woman" is present in the story and is already pregnant and that there is nothing remotely to suggest that she was a virgin.

Phlox Pyros

Nah...no links, please. I know that stuff and so do most others here. I want to know what you think and why.

Phlox Pyros

Firstly, my original statement was just to start things up. I don't necessarily believe what I wrote, but I may argue it a little.

Yes. However, as you know, the ancient Septuagint reads parthenos, or virgin. Before the discovery of the DSS, the Septuagint was the oldest known text of the Hebrew bible, and it read parthenos.

We now have the DSS that read almah, or young woman. However, we also know from the DSS that the text of the Hebrew bible contained textual variations. There currently exists no manuscript that reads bethulah, but in light of the Septuagint's parthenos, one must consider the possibility that it had representation in ancient Hebrew texts now lost to the ravages of time.

Our modern sensibilities will not allow us to believe it could have been a prophecy. However, there is nothing to suggest that Jews absolutely could not have seen this as a prophecy. In fact, the DSS show us that texts that we could not consider prophetical were considered prophecy.

Diogenes the Cynic

It's manifestly not a Messianic prophecy by intent. no matter how you squint, and modern sensibilities have nothing to do with it. That's just a plain reading of the text. The Emmanuel prophecy is predicted to be fulfilled -- and IS fulfilled -- within the story itself. Emmanuel is not the Messiah in the story, he's just a normal kid who's used as a marker of time.

It sounds like you're admitting the oldest Hebrew manuscripts say almah, so I don't know what you're trying to argue. Attempting to argue backwards from the Septuagint to a hypothetical (and now lost) Hebrew variant strikes me as more than a little specious.

Chili

Virgin birth is from above and non virgin birth is from below. Virgin birth leads to resurrection and non virgin birth does not. Both will have a crisis moment but resurrection is needed to make it a comedy.

Take a good look at the role play of Virgilia in Coriolanus as opposed to Valeria to see purity of heart in this detail as opposed to Lady Macbeth who was not a virgin but on the forefront where she did not belong and there became the agony of Macbeth.

I wonder if Bethulah or Almah implies 'without sin.' Mary was and that is what the virginity of Mary is all about. Like, a spiritual hymen?

Phlox Pyros

I'm sure you know that many ancient Jews read their texts allegorically. The text can be fulfilled and still be a prophecy. Again, as witnessed in the DSS, Jews (at least Essenes, if that is who you believe them to have been) wrote commentaries on biblical books as if the events in them were allegory (or prophecy) of the events happening in their own day.

Is it not, therefore, possible for Isaiah 7:14 to have been considered prophetical by some Jews?

If there is a translation that reflects a Hebrew word (ie. bethulah) other than the extant word we have (ie. almah), why would it be specious to postulate another Hebrew reading now lost?

Diogenes the Cynic

1. How the text is interpreted later is irrelevant to how the text was originally intended.
2, There is absolutely no evidence that the Emmanual passages in Isaiah specifically were ever interepreted as Messianic before Matthew, nor is there any evidence that it was intentionally interpreted as referring to a virgin even within the immediate context of the story.
Anything is theoretically possible but there simply isn't any evidence for it in this particular case.
When you say that parthenos reflects the Hebrew word bethulah, you're assuming your own conclusion. You can raise the hypothesis, of course, but that's all you can do. There's nowhere else to go with it and no way to test it. I said it was specious because I see no reason to believe tht parthenos was anything but an imprecise translation of almah. Moreover, turning the woman in the story into a virgin makes no sense within the context of the story, especially since there is no internal indication at all that the verse was supposed to refer to the Messiah and since the prophecy is fulfilled in the same story.