david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/28/85)
Reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: the Virgin and Israel Message-ID: <5269@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: 28 Apr 85 03:59:16 GMT Date-Received: 28 Apr 85 03:26:06 GMT References: <353@cvl.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 26 In article <353@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > The NT citations, as of Isaiah above, of the OT are >known to be citations of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation >by Jewish scholars before the time of Christ. They themselves >translated the Hebrew 'almah', occuring in Isaiah, as 'parthenos' >(virgin) despite the fact that it may mean 'young maiden'. Since >this was their translation, not the Christians', it suggests they >attached a 'theological' significance to the passage in Isaiah, >but not the usual 'Christian' one, although these may have been >related in the minds of the Jewish community of Matthew. It is >quite natural for the LXX, as well as Jews of Jesus time, to have >intended 'virgin' to represent the undefiled, beloved Israel of God, >from who would come the Messiah, through the spirit of God. All this may be true, but it represents an argument FOR Matthew citing that LXX text, not evidence about the Virgin Birth itself. If you removed the reference to that birth from the NT, there is still considerable NT text which directly states this doctrine. For example, elsewhere in the same passage, it states that Joseph wanted to end the engagement, because his bride-to-be was pregnant. The appearance of the angel mentioned in verse 24 was in fact to tell Joseph that everything was OK, by DIRECTLY STATING the doctrine. The facts of the engagement are corroborated in the Lukan version. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm not arguing against its use in Gospel accounts: I am simply suggesting why it was included -- for its Jewish theological significance. You remember that Isaiah also wrote this at the time of a real birth, still there was a traditionally (Messianic) prophetic significance. (Prophets frequently extrapolated from events in their lives, eg Hosea,...) I agree that Matthew saw the fulfilment of this prophecy -- but primarily he saw the fulfillment of the spiritual significance, not of the literal. Frankly, to me, it does not make any difference whether the physical birth of Christ was any more miraculous than any other, the question is whether Jesus was born of God, with an existential and historical significance that is unique. By the way, it is sometimes said, as Paul said, that the sons of God were conceived by God from the womb. He even says that all creation is groaning until the time when the sons of God are revealed. My point is that we should appreciate the spiritual significance of these accounts -- since that is the reason they were included. Finally, as I have mentioned before, if the Virgin Birth as a material event were so important, why is it that Paul, the first great theologian as well as evangelist, writing before the Gospels themselves, never refers to the virgin birth; beside this, neither does Mark, the earliest Gospel and presumably a Petrine account, refer to this material event; and neither does John, the last of the accounts, the one which emphasizes the figurative aspect of the Gospel. (By the way, Paul also does not refer to Jesus as the Only Son of God, but calls him the firstborn (the prototype if you will).) I don't deny that Matthew (and Luke) have descriptions which make the event seem material -- but they also are very different accounts, with differing events that have clearly theological significance, eg the account of the star-gazers (magi) who bring their gifts to honor the Messiah is obviously eternal (It is said in Hebrews, and elsewhere in the NT, citing Psalms, that God descends among men, taking them with their gifts, for his purposes, like Paul was taken 'captive' on the road to Damascus.) It may very well be that Mary and Joseph were made aware in the beginning that this child was unusual.