Gamera

Ask and you shall receive.

The following cites goes into detail about 1st century Jewish epigraphia, pseudographia and other texts that evince Jewish messianic views of the time.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html

Most notable is the repeated reference to the messiah as the "Son of God." Now, if the messiah was considered the Son of God by some messianic Jews that strongly suggests they viewed his birth as somehow miraculous, since generally God doesn't sire children.

Note also that the rabbinical writings that attack the virgin-birth idea may in fact not be attacking the Christian view, but messianic Jewish views of the messiah. You have merely assumed that any anti-virgin birth references refer to Christian notions, whereas as the cite shows, reference upon reference in noncanonical Jewish works conceptualizes the messiah as having some kind of miraculous birth (at least enough to be called uniquely the Son of God).

The Bishop

I meant specifically in Isaiah 7:14, that parthenos was a translation of almah.

I think you and I were talking about different hypotheses. I had been put into a particular camp on the "did 1st CE and before Messianic Jews understand that the Messiah resulted from a virgin birth?". The hypothesis I was talking about simply that Matthew is evidence that messianic Jews required a virgin birth. Not any hypothesis as to how parthenos came to be in LXX, in which argument I have not been participating.

Personally I'm always quite doubtful about any argument - from whichever side - which depends on singleton translations of one word by another. The translators are not robots. In any case, we should go from evidence to hypothesis, not hypothesising about non-existant evidence. On that Christian think tank website, it suggests that the poor quality of the LXX translation of Hebrew may have been due to Messianism infecting the translation process - that the translators were inserting their own Messianic views into the text. This is a hypothesis that, provable or not, attempts to explain the evidence we have. A hypothesis that claims that the word might have been bethulah originally is chasing ghosts, since we don't have any evidence for that, other than parthenos in LXX - which is surely more simply explained by mistranslation.

Again, an argument that the original word in Isaiah (in some texts) could have been bethulah seems to be moving towards some idea that the original of Isaiah was a reflection of virgin birth Messianic hopes. But this has nothing to do with Messianism of however many centuries later that we are discussing the Messianic hopes of Roman-era Jewry. My argument remains that Matthew posits evidence that the Jews of his time considered parthenos significant. Those Messianic hopes need not predate even the end of the Maccabbean kingdom.

Phlox Pyros

After talking with a moderator, I will be leaving the forums.

To quickly respond to Apikorus, who has been on a higher level than most others...in supporting spin, you are supporting an interpretation of the passage. I do not agree with this interpretation of the passage. I am surprised, however, that you did not point out to him that most scholars believe the text of the HB was standardized in the 1st century in spite of his denials, when he knows better.

I began this thread as a fun poke at other's wrong-headed ideas and out of interest in the argument began to realize that it actually has some potential and debated it. Joe came into the thread with usual all-knowing rhetoric about how I can't even look up a lexicon entry. I reported the thread, but the moderators did nothing at all. Even when confronted about it, one of the moderators initially denied that it had even been reported and then promptly stated that rhetorical attacks are ok. Chris, then, proceeded to call the hypothesis moronic, and by implication me in looking into it. But, apparently it is ok to say such stupid and idiotic things here, so why shouldn't I and not be called on it?? Spin is next to come into the mix and spout off his rhetoric in support of ideas that are wrong, and then proceeds to cover up his mistakes by not responding to them.

Had they not acted as they did, I would not have allowed my rhetoric to dip "to the others' level" as well and the thread would not have devolved as it has. Anyone with two eyes and half-a-brain can figure this out. Why the heck am I criticized for dipping to their level when they shouldn't have dipped to that level in the first place without moderators stepping in?? With respect to "Godwin's law", it is a fallacy, and especially so in a case where I was intentionally using rhetoric in sort of a "reverse rhetorical" fashion.

I believe that the rules in this forum are not enforced. I believe that they support those they agree with and reprimand those they disagree with. I believe their moderation stinks, is very unfair and verging on moronic (that is ok to say because it is an attack similar to what Chris used, and I was told that rhetorical attacks are fine - if you don't like the attack where it is, moderators, then move it off to another place again so no one else can see that people are frustrated with the moronic moderation. Feel free to go ahead and actually enforce your rules for a change and ban me too, since I will not be coming back.)

Decent discourse simply will not happen here until and unless the moderation becomes more even handed and halts the moronic rhetoric of Joe, Chris, Spin, Loomis, and some others. People are told not to respond in kind or to ignore, but why should they have to?? They shouldn't if reasonable discourse is expected in this forum.

<off to greener pastures>

spin

Phlox Pyros

Moderators?

This from someone who complains incessantly of apologetics and ad hominem.... :banghead:

spin

It's unfortunate there's no sour grapes emoticon. After splattering smilies through a tide of apparent trolling, Phlox complains about it when I use one, my only one thus far in the thread. But while we're here:



Oh, and

:wave:

JoeWallack

Like A Virgin


...


JW:
I think you are a Truth challenged Advocate for that guy in the Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y" so I don't really give a shit what you think.

You keep whining when people offer you legitimate criticism and than turn around and offer stupid criticism like complaining about me trying to "keep it simple". I obviously know Greek better than you but that's not saying much is it? You start out declaring that "parthenos" means "virgin" and than complain when I present a Lexicon showing it doesn't simply mean "virgin" which is particularly Gauling since that's the Key to the whole issue here. Than you waste time complaining about "Perseus" even though Perseus is the Link, always refers to Liddell and gives its own word choice for the Text. There's also no "ancient Septuagint". This is a Myth. Even According to the Talmud it was only the Torah and the supposed excerpts in the Talmud don't agree to the Greek translations anyway (surprise). There wasn't any "official" Greek translation of Isaiah and it's uncertain what "The Jews" originally used to translate 7:14 as.

What follows is priMarily for the benefit of others here since you seem to be Hopeless:

1) On a background basis Hebrew culture was based on strict sexual morals so a specific word was needed for "virgin" which was "betulah". By contrast, in Greek culture, if you were the Man you could stick your ...ahem, Greek culture lacked the sexual morals of the Hebrew. Hence Greek did not require a word that only meant "virgin".

2) I already presented Liddell which indicated that "virgin" is just one of the meanings of "parthenos". I think I need to show it again:

Perseus

"parthenos , Lacon. parsenos Ar.Lys.1263 (lyr.). hê,

A. maiden, girl, Il.22.127, etc. ; hai athliai p. emai my unhappy girls, S.OT1462, cf. Ar.Eq.1302 ; also gunê parthenos Hes. Th.514 ; p. kora, of the Sphinx, dub. in E.Ph.1730 (lyr.); thugatêr p. X.Cyr.4.6.9 ; of Persephone, E. Hel.1342 (lyr.), cf. S.Fr.804; virgin, opp. gunê, Id.Tr.148, Theoc.27.65.

2. of unmarried women who are not virgins, Il.2.514, Pi.P.3.34, S.Tr.1219, Ar.Nu.530.

3. Parthenos, hê, the Virgin Goddess, as a title of Athena at Athens, Paus.5.11.10, 10.34.8 (hence of an Att. coin bearing her head, E.Fr.675); of Artemis, E.Hipp.17 ; of the Tauric Iphigenia, Hdt.4.103 ; of an unnamed goddess, SIG46.3 (Halic., v B.C.), IG12.108.48,54 (Neapolis in Thrace); hai hierai p., of the Vestal Virgins, D.H.1.69, Plu.2.89e, etc. ; hai Hestiades p. Id.Cic.19; simply, hai p. D.H.2.66.

4. the constellation Virgo, Eudox. ap. Hipparch. 1.2.5, Arat.97, etc.

5. = korê 111, pupil, X.ap.Longin.4.4, Aret. SD1.7.

II. as Adj., maiden, chaste, parthenon psuchên echôn E.Hipp. 1006 , cf. Porph. Marc.33 ; mitrê p. Epigr.Gr.319 : metaph., p. pêgê A.Pers.613 .

III. as masc., parthenos, ho, unmarried man, Apoc.14.4.

IV. p. gê Samian earth (cf. parthenios 111 ), PMag.Berol.2.57."


JW:
The PriMary definition is "maiden, girl". "Virgin" is just one of many meanings. So we know for starters that "parthenos" does not simply mean "virgin". It may or may not depending on Context. In most of the examples above "parthenos" does not mean "virgin". Homer, who was something of a standard for Greek, uses "parthenos" to refer to women who were not virgins by Narrative. Christian Greek translations of the Jewish Bible use "parthenos" for Dinah after she was raped. If PP or someone else wants to Retreat and argue that "parthenos" usually means "virgin" they can start going through Perseus, which has all known uses in the Greek, and start adding up the numbers. I can already tell you though that in most uses the Context is no help and you therefore don't know if "virgin" is indicated or not.

3) From BDAG, the Christian Lexicon:

"παρθ�*νος, ου, ἡ (s. prec. entry; Hom.+, gener. of a young woman of marriageable age, w. or without focus on virginity; s. esp. PKöln VI, 245, 12 and ASP 31, ’91 p. 39) and ὁ (s. reff. in b) in our lit. one who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, virgin, chaste person ⓐ female of marriageable age w. focus on virginity ἡ παρθ�*νος Mt 25:1, 7, 11; 1 Cor 7:25 (FStrobel, NovT 2, ’58, 199–227), 28, 34; Pol 5:3; Hv 4, 2, 1; s 9, 1, 2; 9, 2, 3; 5; 9, 3, 2; 4f; 9, 4, 3; 5f; 8 al.; AcPl Ox 6, 16 (cp. Aa I 241, 15); GJs 13:1. After Is 7:14 (הָעַלְמָה הָרָה; on this ASchulz, BZ 23, ’35, 229–41; WBrownlee, The Mng. of Qumran for the Bible, esp. Is, ’64, 274–81) Mt 1:23 (cp. Menand., Sicyonius 372f παρθ�*νος γ᾽ ἔτι, ἄπειρος ἀνδρός). Of Mary also Lk 1:27ab; GJs 9:1; 10:1; 15:2; 16:1; 19:3; ISm 1:1 and prob. Dg 12:8 (the idea that the spirit of a god could father a child by a woman, specifically a virgin, was not foreign to Egyptian religion: Plut. Numa 62 [4, 6], Mor. 718ab; Philo, Cher. 43–50 [on this ENorden, D. Geburt des Kindes 78–90; ELeach, Genesis as Myth, and Other Essays ’69, 85–112; RBrown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus ’73, 62, esp. n. 104; idem, The Birth of the Messiah ’77, 522f, esp. n. 17]. S. further the lit. on Ἰωσήφ 4 and OBardenhewer, Mariä Verkündigung 1905; EPetersen, Die wunderbare Geburt des Heilandes 1909; HUsener, Das Weihnachtsfest2 1911; ASteinmann, D. jungfräul. Geburt des Herrn3 1926, D. Jungfrauengeburt u. die vergl. Religionsgeschichte 1919; GBox, The Virgin Birth of Jesus 1916; OCrain, The Credibility of the Virgin Birth 1925; JMachen, The Virgin Birth of Christ2 ’32 [on this FKattenbusch, StKr 102, 1930, 454–74]; EWorcester, Studies in the Birth of Our Lord ’32; KSchmidt, D. jungfrl. Geb. J. Chr.: ThBl 14, ’35, 289–97; FSteinmetzer, Empfangen v. Hl. Geist ’38; RBratcher, Bible Translator 9, ’58, 98–125 [Heb., LXX, Mt]; TBoslooper, The Virg. Birth ’62; HvCampenhausen, D. Jungfrauengeburt in d. Theol. d. alten Kirche ’62; JMeier, A Marginal Jew I, ’91, 205–52 [lit.].—RCooke, Did Paul Know the Virg. Birth? 1927; PBotz, D. Jungfrausch. Mariens im NT u. in der nachap. Zeit, diss. Tüb. ’34; DEdwards, The Virg. Birth in History and Faith ’43.—Clemen2 114–21; ENorden, D. Geburt des Kindes2 ’31; MDibelius, Jungfrauensohn u. Krippenkind ’32; HMerklein, Studien zu Jesus und Paulus [WUNT 105] ’98; in gener., RBrown, The Birth of the Messiah ’77, 133–63, esp. 147–49. As a contrast to Dibelius’ Hellenistic emphasis s. OMichel and OBetz, Beih., ZNW 26, ’60, 3–23, on Qumran parallels.). Of the daughters of Philip παρθ�*νοι προφητεύουσαι Ac 21:9. Of virgins who were admitted to the church office of ‘widows’ ISm 13:1 (s. AJülicher, PM 22, 1918, 111f. Differently LZscharnack, Der Dienst der Frau 1902, 105 ff).—On 1 Cor 7:36–38 s. γαμίζω 1 and s. also PKetter, Trierer Theol. Ztschr. 56, ’47, 175–82 (παρθ. often means [virgin] daughter: Apollon. Rhod. 3, 86 παρθ. Αἰήτεω and the scholion on this has the following note: παρθ�*νον ἀντὶ τοῦ θυγατ�*ρα; Lycophron vss. 1141, 1175; Diod. S. 8, 6, 2; 16, 55, 3; 20, 84, 3 [pl. beside υἱοί]. Likewise Theod. Prodr. 1, 293 H. τὴν σὴν παρθ�*νον=‘your virgin daughter’; in 3, 332 τ. ἑαυτοῦ παρθ�*νον refers to one’s ‘sweetheart’; likew. 6, 466, as well as the fact that παρθ. can mean simply ‘girl’ [e.g. Paus. 8, 20, 4]). On Jewish gravestones ‘of age, but not yet married’ CIJ I, 117. RSeeboldt, Spiritual Marriage in the Early Church, CTM 30, ’59, 103–19; 176–86.—In imagery: the Corinthian congregation as παρθ�*νος ἁγνή (ἁγνός a) 2 Cor 11:2 (on this subj. s. FConybeare, Die jungfräul. Kirche u. die jungfräul. Mutter: ARW 8, 1905, 373ff; 9, 1906, 73ff; Cumont3 283, 33).—ἡ τοιαύτη παρθ�*νος AcPl Ox 6, 15f (of Thecla; cp. Aa I 241, 15 ἡ τοιαύτη αἰδὼς τῆς παρθ�*νου). ⓑ male virgin ὁ παρθ�*νος virgin, chaste man (CIG IV, 8784b; JosAs 8:1 uses π. of Joseph; Pel.-Leg. 27, 1 uses it of Abel; Suda of Abel and Melchizedek; Nonnus of the apostle John, who is also called ‘virgo’ in the Monarchian Prologues [Kl. T. 12 1908, p. 13, 13]) Rv 14:4 (on topical relation to 1 En 15:2–7 al., s. DOlson, CBQ 59, ’97, 492–510).—JFord, The Mng. of ‘Virgin’, NTS 12, ’66, 293–99.—B. 90. New Docs 4, 224–27. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


JW:
I'll repeat the PriMary definition:

"s. prec. entry; Hom.+, gener. of a young woman of marriageable age, w. or without focus on virginity"

With or without focus on virginity.

4) Brown writes in "Birth", "The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon gives several instances [understatement] of the secular use of parthenos for women who were not virgins. But the word seems to have become more specialized in later Greek". Within Christian literature "parthenos" aquired a primary meaning of "virgin" because of "Matthew's" use. Almost all extant Greek Jewish Bibles are Christian. It's unclear if Christianity accurately preserved any such Jewish product. Therefore Christian Greek Jewish Bibles generally translated "betulah" as "parthenos" and "almah" as "neanis". But as BDAG says: "in our lit. one who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, virgin". So this isn't necessarily what a Jewish translator would use.

5) "Parthenos" is a more popular word in Greek than "neanis". Therefore it's more likely to be used. Do a count through the Christian Bible of how many times "parthenos" is used versus "neanis". Were all these women virgins?

6) "Neanis" has a primary definition of "youth". It could refer to a young woman just as "parthenos" could refer to a "youth" or "girl".

7) Now, the important part. What does it mean if a Jewish translator used "parthenos" for "almah"?:

A) "Virgin" may have been intended because if "virgin" was intended than "parthenos" would be the only choice.

B) "Virgin" may not have been intended because if "young woman/maiden" was intended than "parthenos" would be a choice.

Therefore, the meaning of "parthenos" in 7:14 is either determined by Context or if context does not determine, the meaning is unclear. There is no Context for 7:14 indicating "Virgin Birth".

8) What than is the best translation of "almah", "young woman" for 7:14?:

A) Parthenos has a primary meaning of "young woman/maiden". Therefore, it is the best choice.

B) Neanis has a sprimary meaning of "youth". Therefore, it is not the best choice.

PP keeps referring to "Rabbinic recensions" that made a change to "neanis". First of all, none of the Jewish converts such as Aquila were Rabbis. The Lexicon evidence indicates that "parthenos" did not have a primary meaning of "virgin" until the Christian era. For a Jew or anyone else to use "parthenos" before the Christian era did not prove that "virgin" was intended. It's uncertain what Jewish translations used before the Christian era since Christians either wrote or at least preserved almost all, if not everything. Assuming Christians accurately preserved Aquila using "neanis" is probably mainly a Reaction to Christians using "parthenos" as meaning "virgin" since "neanis" does not have the meaning of "virgin" within its definition range like "parthenos" does. In other words, using "neanis" is saying that "virgin" was not intended. Jewish writings show no awareness that "parthenos" in 7:14 was ever understood to be "virgin". The entire translation by Aquila was a reaction to Christian Greek translations, not Jewish ones. There probably were no Jewish ones at the time. Origen confirms that the Christian translations were corrupt and that Aquila's was the accurate one.



Joseph

MAGDALENE, n.
An inhabitant of Magdala. Popularly, a woman found out. This definition of the word has the authority of ignorance, Mary of Magdala being another person than the penitent woman mentioned by St. Luke. It has also the official sanction of the governments of Great Britain and the United States. In England the word is pronounced Maudlin, whence maudlin, adjective, unpleasantly sentimental. With their Maudlin for Magdalene, and their Bedlam for Bethlehem, the English may justly boast themselves the greatest of revisers.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

The following continues a discussion that began in another thread.

It is simply irrational to claim that the absence of an alternative explanation provides support to an unsupported assertion. Attempting to shift focus onto any alternate explanation serves only to distract from the lack of evidence for your original assertion.

It is further evidence that you do not understand what constitutes support for your assertion. That the Messiah was called "Son of God" neither requires nor implies a virgin birth.

Unsupported speculation does not constitute support for your assertion. This would be excellent support if the Jewish commentators indicated they were replying to pre-Christian messianic beliefs but they do not so it is not.

That Paul describes the birth of the incarnation of Christ differently from the birth of a mere human neither requires nor implies that the mother was a virgin. Compatibility with belief in a virgin birth does not constitute support for the existence of such a belief. Belief that life exists elsewhere in the universe is compatible with a belief that aliens have visited our planet and abducted people but it should be painfully obvious that it neither requires nor implies the latter is held by all who hold the former.

I've already offered enough detail to establish the claim. Unless one wishes to suggest that the mother is, herself, insane, the notion of a mother considering her son insane for acting like he was the Son of God is clearly incompatible with the notion that she had received an angelic message informing her she would become pregnant by God and, subsequently, became pregnant despite being a virgin.

To recap:

1) Translator choice of a word that carries a somewhat greater connotation of virginity than the apparent original neither requires nor suggests that the translator considered the passage a messianic prophecy of virgin birth. The focus of the passage is on the child. Specifically, the focus is on the age of the child as a marker of the fulfillment of the prediction of the end of the threat of war.

2) Unique descriptions of the birth of the incarnation of a heavenly entity neither require nor suggest that the mother was a virgin at the time of the birth.

3) Late 1st century stories depicting a virgin birth neither require nor suggest that pre-Christian, messianic Jews shared this belief. This holds true even if one of the authors is assumed to have personally known an early Christian thirty years prior and does not even require or suggest that his friend held that belief.

Evidence that neither requires nor suggests that pre-Christian, messianic Jews expected the Messiah to be born of a virgin quite obviously does not constitute support for the assertion.

kais

I agree that spin and Chris and others are, at times, overly direct. Using as evidence a thread which you explicitly started to "[poke fun] at other's [sic] wrong-headed ideas" is disingenuous at best, however. Recognize that the thread's decline started at the point where you made it clear that your intent was not to discuss the topic but to make an unrelated point (post #67) and move on, please. Best of luck to you in all your endeavours.

Apikorus

I urge you and/or the moderator(s) to reconsider. The :devil3: emoticon in your opening post seemed indicative of your awareness that this subject might stir up trouble and inflame passions. Miss Manners says you're not allowed to play the aggrieved party when you get hit in a melee you yourself started. (BTW, if you want to provoke an argument between me and spin, ask when Chronicles was written, or how a toldot unit is identified. Better yet, do it next month, when I'm back from traveling.)

My reading is that the sign in Isa 7:14 is intended in the present or the immediate future. spin insists on the present, and I think this yields a fairly compelling reading for reasons I have given. Given the 65 year time span quoted in vs. 8, the grammatical ambiguity, and the redactional footprints which are all over Isa 7-8, I can't be as sure as spin, but I might just be overly conservative.

Virginity has nothing to do with the matter, I'm quite certain. I'm confident at the 90% level that the Urtext of Isa 7:14 read almah and not betulah. I agree with spin's analysis of almah in the Hebrew Bible. The word betulah in Isaiah is used metaphorically, to describe Israel, or together with bechorim in 23:4, which draws on a common expression used elsewhere in the HB (see here -- you never responded directly to this post, by the way). Even if it could be convincingly demonstrated that the lexical range of almah included "virgin" (instead of merely allowing for it as a subclass of almah), the context of Isa 7:10-16 offers absolutely zero support for identifying the almah as a virgin, and it is laughable to suggest that Isa 7:14 refers to a virgin giving birth. The parallelism of Isa 7:10-16 with Isa 8:3-4 also rules this out.

I have no expertise in Greek, but from what I understand the primary meaning of parthenos is virgin. It is often pointed out that the LXX twice refers to the just-raped Dinah as a parthenos, as a translation of the Hebrew yaldah = "girl" in Gen 34:3,4. Was this sloppy translating, or rather indicative of the lexical range of parthenos? Can someone with more familiarity with contemporary Greek texts other than the LXX answer?

Another reason why I don't think the author of Isa 7:14 intended to connote virginity is the laconic nature of the announcement, haalmah hara v'yoledet ben, using the same grammatical construction as in Gen 16:11 and Jdg 13:5. I can adduce the uses of betulah in the HB in support of this, as follows. In context, betulah always seems to mean "virgin". That is, I can't find an example which would demand a different meaning. However, in two verses, the virginal aspect is emphasized by saying that the betulah in question "had never known a man". One example is the description of Rebekah in Gen 24:16. Elsewhere in this chapter she is referred to as a na'arah (24:14,28) and an almah (24:43), but the explanatory v'ish lo y'da'ah follows/explains betulah. The second example is Jdg 29:12, when 12,000 men were sent to annihilate Yavesh-Gilad:

And this is the thing that you shall do: every man and every woman who has known in bed a man you shall destroy.' And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him; and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.(Jdg 29:11-12)

My point is that when the text wants to emphasize that someone is a virgin -- and we have an admittedly small selection of such verses -- it does so by stating explicitly that she had never "known a man." If the virginity of the almah in Isa 7:14 were the crux of the matter, rather than the ethical maturation of Immanuel, I'd think it likely that the author would have made a similar comment. Certainly one would expect such an emphasis/clarification if the almah gave birth as a virgin, as Christian dogma maintains.

Regarding the stabilization of the consonantal proto-masoretic text, many scholars follow F. M. Cross in dating this to the early second century CE. (Cross cites the Wadi Muraba'at texts as evidence.) Spin knows all this, and I don't see any indication here to the contrary. His reference to Justin/Trypho is certainly relevant, but I don't think one can lean too heavily upon it. (I suspect spin would admit as much if you discussed it with him over a nice single malt.)

Finally, noone here has asked the following question: does Matthew (Mt 1:23) understand Isaiah 7:14 as reference to a virgin birth? Christian tradents exhaustively surveyed the Hebrew Bible, extracting every vaguely messianic odor from it and applying them to Jesus. To the early Christians, Jesus was a "signified without a signifier. The solution to this problem was to apply to him every signifier in the Hebrew Bible -- Davidic king, "Melchizedek" priest, paschal lamb, sin offering, wrestler of Jacob, son of man, son of God, Immanuel, suffering servant, prince of peace, etc. -- even God himself. So it seems possible that Matthew might have seized upon Isa 7:14 not because he thought it prophesied a virgin birth (though this remains a very plausible assumption), but rather because of its prophetic announcement of the child immanuel = "God (is) with us".