CJD

I can add nothing save giving an Xian perspective on some of the sound exegetical methods already posted in this thread (most notably, Apikorus).

Isaiah 8, I think, tells us in the plainest sense possible, that it fulfills the omen of Isaiah 7. Apikorus mentions this already. 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). 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) 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.

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. In the Hebrew (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to read, "See that virgin? She will conceive and bear a son . . . ." Assuming, of course, that she was a virgin at the time of the prophecy and not when Isaiah "went [in]to the prophetess."

Now, one corrective I believe this thread needs is the treatment 1st century Christians receive regarding their hermeneutic and the Tanak. It seems many here think they pulled willy-nilly texts out of context, and smashed them into their preconceived notions of who Jesus was. But I cannot get past one major item: 1) This assumption at once suggests that the person making such a critique knows the Hebrew 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 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. In other words, Jesus was 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. He 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 knew their Hebrew Scriptures better than anyone here.

Regards,

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps, but given Matthew

• 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
• 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
• 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
• 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

it seems to me that your preference for "fill" over "fullfil" is more self-serving than self-evident.

Celsus

Hi CJD,

Just a partial response to some of your comments:
And your perspective is most welcome.
I see no problems with dating that portion of Isaiah there, in fact, I would put the source even earlier (inasmuch as Isaiah was probably dead by 680 BCE, if the writings of his early ministry are from 740-730 BCE). Proto-Isaiah, as I see it, is a Yahwist who calls for repentence and a return to Yahweh, and his stock was greatly enhanced when his fellow Judahites witnessed the destruction of their sometime ally and ethnic brethren in the Northern kingdom. My pet theory is that this is the reason for its eventual survival, even though it is one of the earliest books of the Bible. However, it is not the threat from Babylon, but from Assyria that proto-Isaiah is concerned with. It's also important to remember that the book of Isaiah probably reached its final form only in the 4th century, and hence there is plenty of layers and room for redaction.
Actually, the fact that the 1st Century writings are all in Greek, and quote the Septuagint (at least where divergences exist) is a very good indication that they were not familiar with the more orthodox hermeneutics of the traditional Jews. We also have the fact that they were cut off from access to traditional sources after the Jewish War, and it's a fairly consensus position that this removal of the Jerusalem pillars as a source of authority could have led to divergence. Paul, having preached a looser almost anti-Law position, was probably a greater source of influence than the Jerusalem pillars after this point. And then when we look at the texts, particularly Matthew, we do find that 1st century Christians were pulling off a misguided form of interpretation--which you yourself state given your disdain for Isaiah 7:14 (cf. its prominence in Matthew).
But there is no evidence that these were 1st century Jews making the interpretation, and secondly your critique assumes a homogenous method of hermeneutics. If in fact there were heterogenous hermeneutics, different schools would have argued till the end of time over which was the correct one and which weren't. The Christians were in no position to claim a monopoly on the right interpretation or otherwise. Granted, many atheists today claim they have the correct form and therefore the New Testament interpretation is wrong, but if the position on its accuracy depends on a single word, and the author of Matthew picked a flawed translation in which to base his hermeneutics, then there is no arrogance, simply a recognition that he was wrong in his choice.
Ah, a tricky one eh? Since we don't know for sure what the apostles actually wrote on Isaiah (only what the author of Matthew--who wasn't an apostle--wrote), then I'll have to concede this point to you.
Here's the gist of my understanding: Matthew is written c. 80 CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple. It is written in Greek, for Greek speakers, although with a Jewish slant of interpretative prophecy, and probably impressive to Septuagint-reading gentiles. The Jews and Christians have diverged somewhat on their positions and both claim their authority from the Tanakh. Matthew then quote mines the Tanakh for as many references he can make, and writes his story in accordance with parallels in the Tanakh. That is to say, he knows next to nothing about Christ, so looks for messianic promises and sculpts the story according to OT prophecy, while following a Markan outline. Thus his use of pesharim (clumsy and thus pounced on by the skeptics eager to find simple mistakes), in comparison with DSS and other early Jewish writings, alternately seems forced or just wrong.

With respect to this particular prophecy, did he insert it here to give credence to Jesus according to Hellenistic prestige myths (demigods), or to fit it in with Jewish belief? The very idea of God impregnating a woman has no precedent--it has nothing to do with the messianic concepts held by Jews. Why put it in, unless because of Hellenistic influences? Once we realise that Matthew diverges from Jewish practice, we can see why critiques of his interpretation abound from early Jews themselves, till today's scholars. It is not an a priori decision based on just reading the texts to say that the author of Matthew is not likely to have a proper understanding of the Tanakh.

Joel

Apikorus

CJD, the Hebrew of Isa 7:14 refers to ha`almah, which is "the young woman". Of course, a young woman can be a virgin, but it is not necessarily the case. There are several possibilities here, and the intent of the author will forever be a mystery. Even if ha`almah did refer to a virgin, as you point out (see also Brown, BOTM), the statement might simply mean that a woman who is now a virgin will in the future become pregnant and bear a son -- nothing miraculous about it.

The sort of exegesis proffered by the gospel authors was somewhat emblematic of some Jewish practice at the time. The Qumranians did much the same in their pesharim. (Incidentally, IronMonkey, midrash is much more than "making prophecies come true". Midrashim generally are exegetical or homiletic (though some are halakhic as well) but need not involve prophecy.)

While this sort of exegesis may be somewhat coherent and even compelling to many, it still diverges wildly from the plain sense of the text of the Hebrew Bible. Throughout history, apocalyptic groups have turned to the pages of the Bible and found great resonances with contemporary events. The late Branch Davidian leader changed his name to David Koresh, presumably to establish a link with Isa 45:1, where Koresh (king Cyrus of Persia) is identified as mashiakh (messiah). Is this really so different than contemporaries of Jesus identifying him as Immanuel? Also, the entire hermeneutical scheme can be turned on its ear. See this thread.

CJD

Hey folks, just a few comments . . .

ConsequentAtheist, I just do not buy the notion that the NT writers simply and ignorantly superimposed old prophecies onto the person of Jesus. Male' is not to be understood in such a binary fashion. Not all prophecies are prognostications. Some are non-predictive statements; some are predictive, but historically fulfilled; some are predictive, begun and continuing; and some are predictive, unfulfilled statements. I think I have more than enough warrant for treating the NT writers' hermeutics as I have.

I want to flesh this out more. The Isa. 7:14b fulfillment falls, I believe, under category #2 "predictive, but historically fulfilled." Isaiah 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, not 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 of the Tanak. 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.

I must move on. Celsus, 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. Your assertions also depend on Markan priority, which even if that is the case, and if Mark was written around AD 60, then there was plenty of time for Matthew to be written prior to AD 70. This might open a can of worms, but I am leaving it there. Suffice to say that the whole dating scheme is quite inconclusive.

The gist of my understanding 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), and I agree with the rest of what you say regarding the Jewish slant and the LXX. 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 in the way you describe, then your criticisms stand. But at this point, I beg to differ.

I, of course, disagree with your theological interpretation of Saint Paul, but that is another matter entirely.

Finally, Apikorus, you wrote "even if ha`almah did refer to a virgin, as you point out (see also Brown, BOTM), the statement might simply mean that a woman who is now a virgin will in the future become pregnant and bear a son -- nothing miraculous about it." This was exactly my point. That is why we cannot punt it over the historical context and simply superimpose upon Jesus. And this, as I contended above, is not what Saint Matthew did. Also, I do not think the NT writers' heremeneutic is "emblematic" of the time. Rather, I think it stands out from the typical Jewish forcing of prophecies into their own sectarian understanding (e.g., Qumran). I also must point out again the obvious: of course the NT writers' application often wildly diverges from the plain sense of the Hebrew text. No one anticipated the coming of the Messiah to look this way, nor do (and this is very important) all prophecies require literal fulfillment (see discussion above on the various categories re: male').

Put another way, Saint Matthew's hermeneutic looks like this (using the text at hand as an example):

1) original meaning: Immanuel sign, Isaiah's sons, etc.
2) inaugeration: the sign typology fulfilled robustly by the anti-type, Jesus. yet another son becomes a curse or a blessing.
3) continuation: the kingdom people of God. Will Jesus the sign be a curse or blessing to you?
4) consummation: at that final day, those who trusted in the sign will go one way, while those who rejected him will go another.


Regards,

Apikorus

Since the work of Duhm in the late 19th century it has been conventional to identify three principal Isaianic strands, which, broadly, are: proto-Isaiah (Isa 1-39), deutero-Isaiah (Isa 40-55), and trito-Isaiah (Isa 56-66). While deutero-Isaiah seems to be a coherent unit, based on language, style, and historical focus, "proto-Isaiah" is very difficult to sort through and seems to reflect a mishmash of accreted stuff, the earliest of which might as well be assigned to an 8th century BCE author yeshiyahu ben amotz. Most scholars today also find Josianic elements strewn throughout Isa 1-39.

Celsus

And later additions to proto-Isaiah include ch. 24-27 and 33-39, with 33-35 as exilic and 36-39 as post-Exilic. But for the purposes of discussing Isaiah 7 and 8, I think we all agree that it is authentic proto-Isaiah (and hence dealing with Assyrian concerns)?

Jayhawker Soule

And, if he used the Tanak in the way you describe, it would have been totally unnecessary to devise a 2nd-hand report of a virgin birth "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet". But, then again, this is the same Matthew that found it useful to paint Herod with the brush of Pharoah, replete with infanticide and a reference to Jeremiah, and (mistakenly) to deposit the little bastard in Nazareth "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene", and ...

With all due respect to Saint Matthew, it seems to me that the reference to 7:14 is uniquely Stretch Matthew.

CJD

Yes, for the purposes of this discussion. But I must reiterate the point about its placement in the text as a means to encourage repentance on the part of the Judaites. At the time it was spoken, the concern was Assyria. At the time it was written, the concern was Babylon. In other words, it was the prophet's response to the Assyrian judgment.

Celsus

But this does not fit. If we are relying on the account of Isaiah, then the dating of the events the latest date for the source of the story would be 732 BCE, at the time when the Northern Kingdom had not yet fallen. Babylonian ascent (609-586 BCE) was over a century later, and by that time, the Deuteronomic reform had taken place. I can't see the connection--this is centuries apart.
Hmmm... Christian gentiles were most certainly unfamiliar with the Hebrew text, and arguably, even Diaspora Greek-speaking Jews were as well. It's a non sequitur to assume the author of Matthew was a Diaspora Jew, for that matter. I believe Apikorus gave a nice little summary in the different recensions earlier in this thread. Why do you think there were so many new Hebrew-to-Greek translations in the 2nd century? Why the need?
I too will leave it there, but I disagree that it is inconclusive. Ask Vinnie.
Ok point-by-point:
(1) But we've already agreed that Isaiah 7:14 is not a Messianic prophecy! In other words, Matthew's understanding of the passage involved him turning it into Messianic prophecy, otherwise he fails in the task of showing Jesus to be the promised Messiah.
(2) Now I know there are some people who argue for an Aramaic Matthew, but it's quite clear (to me) that Matthew is writing post-separation of Jews and Christians, and to a primarily Gentile church. Everything about Matthew reeks of Christian superiority to Judaism.
(3) No problems with that interpretation.
(4) How?
(5) I see Matthew as co-opting Jewish traditions to fit Jesus as the promise, but who doesn't essentially care what the Law says.
But to cut your answer short, yes, Matthew did cram the Bible full of force-fit prophecies. There are more than 10 instances in Matthew where it says "this was to fulfill what was spoken by so-and-so prophet." As we have already agreed, the Isaiah fulfillment is at best metaphorical, so what then of the other instances? Is it only because they are not as astoundingly bizarre with such overt pagan parallels that you accept those as literal?

I'm going to have to get my Bible out for my next reply.

Joel