david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/27/85)
Comment on a reply
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Virgin Birth per duke!nlt
Message-ID: <817@bunker.UUCP>
...
...
In the second place, read a few more verses. Same book, same chapter,
verse 22-25 (NIV):
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said
through the prophet: [23]"The virgin will be with child
and will give birth to a son, and they will call him
Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us."
[24]When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord
had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. [25]But
he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.
And he gave him the name Jesus.
The quote in v23 is Isaiah 7:14. Some argue that the word translated
"virgin" in Isaiah (almah) doesn't necessarily mean "virgin," but
would better be translated "young woman" (as in RSV). However,
Matthew used the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), which (so I
have been told; I'm not a linguist) does not have the ambiguity
of the Hebrew "almah." Quibbles about translation aside, Matthew
goes on to state that "he [Joseph] had no union with her until
she gave birth to a son." Which, just as the earlier, "before
they came together," supports the doctrine of the virgin birth.
(And, incidentally, seems to do away with the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of Mary. If I say, "I didn't do X until Y,"
that implies that I *did* do X after Y.)
Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
How much different this interpretation is from the usual one
depends on how much Christians would claim the place of 'Israel', while
displacing the Jews. But then the first 'Christians' were Jews, who
probably considered themselves to be the true remnant of Israel among
others. My point is that is a Jewish figure of speech, in any case, and
we should not be so sure that the earliest Jewish 'Christians' were any
more literal than the LXX who were definitely orthodox. Of course,
today, in the Catholic Church at least, Mary has come to be exalted to
the ideological 'heavens', as representative of the Church, which may
be liken to the Virgin Israel, from whom comes the spiritual offspring
of Christ.
David Harwood
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/28/85)
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 For the mouse is a creature of great personal valor. --C. Swift