Isaiah 7:14: Young woman or Virgin?

[seanD]

Christians have a tendency to read the prophets as quote mines, places to pull prophecies of Jesus. I would suggest things things are a bit more subtle. 1st Cent Jews tended to see the OT as a pattern with which to understand current and future events. That doesn't mean that Isaiah was originally talking about the 1st Cent, but rather that it can be used to illuminate current events. E.g. when John the Baptist was portrayed as a new Elijah, that doesn't mean that OT passages about Elijah were describng 1st Cent events. Rather, Elijah was a pattern that fit John the Baptist.

Something similar is going on here. Isaiah was obviously talking about something in his time. Unless you think there were two virgin births, in its original context it wasn't a virgin birth. But Matthew saw Jesus as fitting Isaiah's description. That was a perfectly legitimate way to use the OT.

I agree with you that Matthew's interpretation methodology legitimizes duel/double prophetic fulfillment, but I think Isaiah 7 is much deeper than that. Matthew looked at that prophecy and then saw how God kept weaving it into history in how the Hellenized Jews interpreted it in the Septuagint. Skeptics believe all those Jewish scholars made a translation error, which is kind of ridiculous to assume, whereas Matthew believed that was the divine hand of God moving through time and making that prophecy more specific.

[tabibito]

I agree with you that Matthew's interpretation methodology legitimizes duel/double prophetic fulfillment, but I think Isaiah 7 is much deeper than that. Matthew looked at that prophecy and then saw how God kept weaving it into history in how the Hellenized Jews interpreted it in the Septuagint. Skeptics believe all those Jewish scholars made a translation error, which is kind of ridiculous to assume, whereas Matthew believed that was the divine hand of God moving through time and making that prophecy more specific.

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child ... If ""a young woman" will be with child and this will be a sign" had been written, a viable argument that the "young woman" was not "a virgin" could be made. The Koine Greek parthenos doesn't give any more certainty than the Hebrew almah - in fact it is even more ambiguous.

[seanD]

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child ... If ""a young woman" will be with child and this will be a sign" had been written, a viable argument that the "young woman" was not "a virgin" could be made. The Koine Greek parthenos doesn't give any more certainty than the Hebrew almah - in fact it is even more ambiguous.

To my understanding, parthenos gives far more certainty of "virgin" than almah, so I'm sure what you mean. In fact, it's where we get the modern word parthenogenesis. I often wonder why God didn't make that passage in Hebrew more specific. As I understand it, though almah doesn't specifically mean virgin, there is no place in the OT that it is a word used to describe a married woman. I think the Greek Jews used that and the fact a married woman giving birth would be nothing out of the ordinary to determine virgin miracle was what was being described.

[tabibito]

To my understanding, parthenos gives far more certainty of "virgin" than almah, so I'm sure what you mean. In fact, it's where we get the modern word parthogenesis. I often wonder why God didn't make that passage in Hebrew more specific. As I understand it, though almah doesn't specifically mean virgin, there is no place in the OT that it is a word used to describe a married woman. I think the Greek Jews used that and the fact a married woman giving birth would be nothing out of the ordinary to determine virgin miracle was what was being described.

I'm told that there is a place where almah is used with reference to a married woman; not that I have been able to find it.

source: BDAG

The term obviously means a “mature young woman” (→ n. 11 ) already in Hom., with ref. to one who is not married (... hence παρθένιος, the son of a maiden, 16, 180); cf. then a παρθένος is not allowed to have a child; and on the other side Soph. Trach., 148 f.: ἕως τις ἀντὶ παρθένου γυνὴ κληθῇ (with her worries about husband and child).In the sense of “maiden” the emphasis, acc. to context, is either on the sex ..., or age ... in contrast to old woman, or both ..., or on status (opp. of widow, ...). The ref. in these instances is in fact USUALLY to virgins, but there is no more stress on this than when we speak of a “girl” or “young woman” (which is in innumerable instances the best rendering).

Elided sections (marked with ...) are references to extra-Biblical sources.

For one thing, the meaning of “virgin” is at issue. In the sphere of Gk. religion παρθένος may simply denote the bloom of youth, the pt. of transition from girl to woman. When used in the narrower sense, the word lays particular stress on virginity by nature, 17 which certainly includes unapproachability, but does not stress physical chastity. When a woman is called “virgin,” however, one has to ask whether the emphasis is on strict virginity (παρθένος and κόρη, e.g., are to a large extent interchangeable terms), 18 i.e., whether a “virgin” mother is called this because the child is conceived without intercourse, or because she was a virgin up to the time of conception, or even because of her youthful bloom.

And all that before the concept of a male being parthenos is considered.

[seanD]

I'm told that there is a place where almah is used with reference to a married woman; not that I have been able to find it.

source: BDAG

The term obviously means a “mature young woman” (→ n. 11 ) already in Hom., with ref. to one who is not married (... hence παρθένιος, the son of a maiden, 16, 180); cf. then a παρθένος is not allowed to have a child; and on the other side Soph. Trach., 148 f.: ἕως τις ἀντὶ παρθένου γυνὴ κληθῇ (with her worries about husband and child).In the sense of “maiden” the emphasis, acc. to context, is either on the sex ..., or age ... in contrast to old woman, or both ..., or on status (opp. of widow, ...). The ref. in these instances is in fact USUALLY to virgins, but there is no more stress on this than when we speak of a “girl” or “young woman” (which is in innumerable instances the best rendering).

Elided sections (marked with ...) are references to extra-Biblical sources.

For one thing, the meaning of “virgin” is at issue. In the sphere of Gk. religion παρθένος may simply denote the bloom of youth, the pt. of transition from girl to woman. When used in the narrower sense, the word lays particular stress on virginity by nature, 17 which certainly includes unapproachability, but does not stress physical chastity. When a woman is called “virgin,” however, one has to ask whether the emphasis is on strict virginity (παρθένος and κόρη, e.g., are to a large extent interchangeable terms), 18 i.e., whether a “virgin” mother is called this because the child is conceived without intercourse, or because she was a virgin up to the time of conception, or even because of her youthful bloom.

And all that before the concept of a male being parthenos is considered.

I've been told differently, so let me know if or when you find that almah passage.

So I'm guessing you deny the virgin birth of Christ and just assume Matthew was ignorant about the Hebrew? Because it seems like you're taking the position skeptics take about it. If that's the case, where do you suppose that tradition in Matthew and Luke came from?

[tabibito]

I've been told differently, so let me know if or when you find that almah passage.

So I'm guessing you deny the virgin birth of Christ and just assume Matthew was ignorant about the Hebrew? Because it seems like you're taking the position skeptics take about it. If that's the case, where do you suppose that tradition in Matthew and Luke came from?

Be kind enough to not jump to conclusions - you guess wrong. The passage leaves no doubt about Mary's virginity despite the ambiguity of parthenos. The content of Isaiah 7:14 likewise leaves no doubt that the pregnancy is a sign from God - which means that almah in that passage does in fact refer to a virgin.

[seanD]

Be kind enough to not jump to conclusions - you guess wrong. The passage leaves no doubt about Mary's virginity despite the ambiguity of parthenos. The content of Isaiah 7:14 likewise leaves no doubt that the pregnancy is a sign from God - which means that almah in that passage does in fact refer to a virgin.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, it's just that I've examined all sides of the argument, and the argument you're raising is very similar to what I've read skeptics argue about the issue. Though I will admit, arguing the "ambiguity" of parthenos is kind of new one I've heard. I didn't think there was any ambiguity about that Greek word.

[tabibito]

I'm not jumping to conclusions, it's just that I've examined all sides of the argument, and the argument you're raising is very similar to what I've read skeptics argue about the issue. Though I will admit, arguing the "ambiguity" of parthenos is kind of new one I've heard. I didn't think there was any ambiguity about that Greek word.

The more thorough lexicons show that there is ambiguity in the word itself. The same kind of ambiguity exists for any number of words e.g. "might" ... does it mean "perhaps" or "strength and power?" Once it is seen in a phrase there is no question about the intended meaning. The simple fact is that nothing is achieved by denying the element of truth in the contrary argument.

[seanD]

The more thorough lexicons show that there is ambiguity in the word itself. The same kind of ambiguity exists for any number of words "might" ... does it mean "perhaps" or "strength and power?" Once it is seen in a phrase there is no question about the intended meaning. The simple fact is that nothing is achieved by denying the element of truth in the contrary argument.

Denying "the element of truth" is bad, but I'm not sure where I denied the element of truth anywhere. I mean, your own source citation seems to affirm the word as virgin, but then making quite a stretch to leave that in doubt, especially when the clear context of the biblical passage was that of "a sign."