Ted Hoffman

Justin Martyr in JUSTIN MARTYR - THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN stated in CHAP. XXXIII.--MANNER OF CHRIST'S BIRTH PREDICTED:

So, besides Matthew, Justin Martyr also treated Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy - any other early apologists/evangelists?

Ted Hoffman

I do not understand the thrust of your argument beyond what the apologists claim. But, about the two immanuels:

here
Another apologist?

Jayhawker Soule

And the point is ... ?

Apikorus

One slightly embarrassing aspect to Isa 7:14 for Christian apologists comes in the verses which directly follow:

Curds and honey he will eat, when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, desolate will be the land of which you are in dread before its two kings. (Isa 7:15-16)

(I've provided a clumsy but fairly literal translation, preserving most word orders.) Note that the same formula which is applied to Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isa 8 - ki b'terem yeida hanaar X = "for before the child knows how to X", where X="cry" - is here applied to Immanuel, with X="refuse evil and choose good". (I seem to recall Marvin Sweeney in his FOTL volume gave priority to Isa 8 and concluded Isa 7 was of later provenance. Proto-Isaiah is a very difficult text to analyze.) At any rate, the point here is that the child Immanuel would for a time not know good from bad. While the NT is famously silent on Jesus' childhood, the notion of a divine being who has not acquired a moral compass is rather odd.

Incidentally, this problem has been recognized by some Christian commentators. Matthew Henry, for example, asserts that Isa 7:14 applies to Immanuel but that Isa 7:15-16 refers to Shear-Yashuv. This solution must be admired for its sheer idiocy. In defense of early Christian interpretation, though, failure to account for the full context of a scriptural passage is quite typical of Jewish midrash.

Hawkingfan

There is still no reason to believe that Immanuel is actually referring to Jesus. If Isaiah had said "his name shall be called Jesus" or if Mary had named her baby Immanuel (with proof that she never heard of the prophecy), then the "prophecy" would have more bearing.

Haran

Not that it helps my case as a Christian any, but you're not applying this to the parthenos/bethulah/neanis/almah issue are you?

I think, at the moment, that the oldest Hebrew Biblical fragments of the DSS have almah and not bethulah. I've actually looked up the picture of the fragments in the DJD series to see for myself.

With the pluriformity of the texts, as you mentioned, there may have been Hebrew texts which read with bethulah. Or, almah may have implied parthenos to those writing the LXX.

I don't think that I would copmletely agree with this statement. Jerome probably used the Hebrew because he felt it to be more original and because the Jews of his time were using the Rabbinic recensions making it hard for him to debate them.

However, Christians only very slowly accepted Jerome's translation, and I believe that the Eastern Orthodox church still uses the LXX today.

I believe those who continued to use it and still continue to use it believe that the LXX was divinely inspired and supersedes the MT and other versions.

I find studies of the differences between the LXX and MT text to be very interesting.

Clarice O'C

Hi!

Isaiah 7:14:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel [God is with us]." NEB

When was Isaiah written? Several hundred years BCE? If so, what meaning would a prediction of a miraculous birth have for Ahaz in 7:14 as a "sign"? Ahaz was way dead.

Best,
Clarice

Clarice O'C

Hello,

Regarding the NT writers using parts of Isaiah as "prophecy," they were fundamentalists just like today's fundamentalists picking out verses to prove their case. Real Jews read Isaiah as talking about the people and nation of Israel. Jews who consider that Isaiah was writing about an individual would be considered 'Jews for Jesus' or 'Messianic Jews' in today's terms.

Best,
Clarice

Haran

Depending on the definition of "real jews" (that might be hard to define in terms of 1st century Judaism), prophecies like those in the NT were pretty common place, I believe. They can be found among the "peshers" in the DSS and in Rabbinic writings. I don't think the prophecies in the NT would have been unusual in 1st century Israel.

Clarice O'C

Hi Haran,

By 'real Jews' I mean like Jews today who don't believe that Jesus was the messiah. BCE ancients were real Jews because Jesus had not yet been written about as having been born leaving them as Jews and not Jewish Christians.

Best,
Clarice