ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"

[CMike]

I think a bigger question is whether Matthew truely knew that almah is a young woman and intentionally mistranslated the word?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I assume he relied upon the LXX. To assume intentional deception strikes me as little more than petty ad hominem.

 

[CMike]

I would think he should have known better.

There seems to be many more convenient mistranslations.

I believe it was intentional.

IMO they knew most people wouldn't know better.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would think he should have known better.

There seems to be many more convenient mistranslations.

Nonsense.

 

[CMike]

I do not concur.

There seems to be a tendency to insert Jesus into numerous Torah passages that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.

It's hard for me to believe that the people who originally did it, didn't know better.

 

[gnostic]

I think a bigger question is whether Matthew truely knew that almah is a young woman and intentionally mistranslated the word?

I assume he relied upon the LXX. To assume intentional deception strikes me as little more than petty ad hominem.

I'd agree that Matthew had most likely used the Septuagint as his source, for all his quotes of the supposed fulfilments of messianic prophecies. So Matthew would have probably known the Greek parthenos and not the Hebrew almah.

BUT STILL...I think that Matthew had taken the verse out-of-context, to have twisted the verse to mean the parthenos to mean "Mary" and Immanuel to mean "Jesus", and for the sign to be a "virgin birth".

Because the sign is more than just a child being born and given a name...for the child played a role as signpost of another event that was meant to reassure Ahaz:

15 He [Immanuel] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child [Immanuel] knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Matthew ignored the role that the child would play in those 3 verses that followed verse 14.

Jesus, very obviously, lived in the wrong period to fulfilled the sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) of Immanuel.

The identity of Immanuel and the almah are revealed in the following chapter to be Maher-shalal-hash-baz and the unnamed prophetess, in 8:3-4.

Immanuel is linked to 3 people, like that of Pekah, Rezin and the King of Assyria, in Isaiah 7:14-17, as do Maher-shalal-hash-baz in 8:4, and Immanuel again at 8:6-8.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There seems to be a tendency to insert Jesus into numerous Torah passages that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.

Very good point to bring up.

I think the passages are not quotes but hyper-links to large swathes of verses. This reference is not only to Isaiah 7:14 but is in general a condemnation of the state of things, taking all of Isaiah chapter 7 and re-prophesying it. At least that is how it seems to me. At the time Rome was oppressing Jews, and so they probably could see themselves as actors in this prophesy though it literally was about wealthy Jews oppressed by Assyria. (Related to this, Jesus prophesies the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:2)). Isaiah 7 seems to be against the wealthy, because all of these terrible things happen to the wealthy and wise people leaving the poor behind unscathed (Isaiah 7:22). This is very much in harmony with Jesus attacks against the leaders of the time and with the letter James who denounces the wealthy and says "You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter."

It probably seems like a gamble, but I really think that this particular passage about a 'Virgin' is actually restating John the Baptist's protests. By alluding to Isaiah 7 and saying that Jesus ministry is a 'Fulfillment', Matthew makes a very scathing denunciation of the ruling class.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's hard for me to believe that the people who originally did it, didn't know better.

Do you believe that those who made reference to Solomon's Shamir knew better?

 

[dantech]

Do you believe that those who made reference to Solomon's Shamir knew better?

By "those", who do you mean?
And by "knew better", I assume you mean to the claims "those" made... Which claims are you referring to?

 

[CMike]

Knew better about what?

Who is they?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By "those", who do you mean?
And by "knew better", I assume you mean to the claims "those" made... Which claims are you referring to?

Knew better about what?

Who is they?

Your right. I was far too vague. Permit me another example ...

Chodesh tov.

You are no doubt aware that this is Rosh Chodesh Av, and that we will be commemorating Tisha B'Av soon. You are probably also aware that the first disaster associated to this date in the Mishna is the scouting report addressed in Numbers 13-14 -- a report and response that punished an entire generation.

But how did the Mishna come to 'know' that this disaster occurred on the 9th of Av? Is this an example of midrashic inference or pious fraud?

I suggest that it was the former. I suggest that the author of Ta'anit 4:16 simply interpreted early text through the lens of strong conviction. I have no reason to believe that the author of gMt was being any less honest. If you do, I'm open to hearing them.

 

[dantech]

Your right. I was far too vague. Permit me another example ...

Chodesh tov.

You are no doubt aware that this is Rosh Chodesh Av, and that we will be commemorating Tisha B'Av soon. You are probably also aware that the first disaster associated to this date in the Mishna is the scouting report addressed in Numbers 13-14 -- a report and response that punished an entire generation.

But how did the Mishna come to 'know' that this disaster occurred on the 9th of Av? Is this an example of midrashic inference or pious fraud?

I suggest that it was the former. I suggest that the author of Ta'anit 4:16 simply interpreted early text through the lens of strong conviction. I have no reason to believe that the author of gMt was being any less honest. If you do, I'm open to hearing them.

Chodesh Tov to you to!

I will need to look for an exact quote, but I do recall something about God saying that because they (the spies) cried for no reason, that this day will be known to us as a day of weeping forever. History has shown that the day during which we should "weep" the most, is during Tisha B'av. But this is pretty vague and useless without a source so I will look for it later and try and provide it to you.

EDIT: In Ta'anit 30 - ותשא כל העדה ויתנו את קולם ויבכו העם בלילה ההוא אמר רבה אמר ר' יוחנן אותו היום ערב תשעה באב היה אמר להם
הקב"ה אתם בכיתם בכיה של חנואני קובע לכם בכיה לדורות

 

[CMike]

Your right. I was far too vague. Permit me another example ...

Chodesh tov.

You are no doubt aware that this is Rosh Chodesh Av, and that we will be commemorating Tisha B'Av soon. You are probably also aware that the first disaster associated to this date in the Mishna is the scouting report addressed in Numbers 13-14 -- a report and response that punished an entire generation.

But how did the Mishna come to 'know' that this disaster occurred on the 9th of Av? Is this an example of midrashic inference or pious fraud?

I suggest that it was the former. I suggest that the author of Ta'anit 4:16 simply interpreted early text through the lens of strong conviction. I have no reason to believe that the author of gMt was being any less honest. If you do, I'm open to hearing them.

How the rabbis came up with the 9 of av for the fasting due the disaster with the spies is much different than trying to insert a foreign god into the Torah.

It is also not comparable to changing the text and passages so they support jesus.

 

[CMike]

Chodesh tov to both of you.

 

[james2ko]

BUT STILL...I think that Matthew had taken the verse out-of-context, to have twisted the verse to mean the parthenos to mean "Mary" and Immanuel to mean "Jesus", and for the sign to be a "virgin birth".

Or perhaps Christ explained to Matthew the meaning of Isaiah's prophecy:

Luk 24:27 Then Jesus took them [His disciples] through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.​

 

[gnostic]

Or perhaps Christ explained to Matthew the meaning of Isaiah's prophecy:

Luk 24:27 Then Jesus took them [His disciples] through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.​

I know that you've quoted this before in the other thread, but it is rather unsatisfactory, and very vague in what scriptures were about him.

Nothing in that verse (Luke 24:27) give any indication on which verses that either Matthew or Luke had quoted that Jesus himself had "explained".

As to Matthew 1:23, it still ignored the whole sign as given by Isaiah (7:14-17). Matthew had only quoted a PARTIAL sign, and the least important part. The important is revealed in verses 15-16.

And in term of context, the sign played a part in all of Isaiah 7 and part of Isaiah 8 (verses 1-18), as well as to 2 King 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-8. Isaiah 7:14 make no sense.

And Isaiah said to Ahaz - hinneh ("behold"), directing the to look at ha'almah "the young woman", who is harah "is pregnant". So this young woman was presently pregnant at the time of Ahaz's trouble with Pekah and Rezin.

Why would Isaiah tell the king to look?

Ahaz certainly can't view Mary to be pregnant some 700 years in the future. So the woman must be pregnant, then and there.

The proper context should be considered, by viewing the sign with the rest of the chapter 7 of Isaiah, not just viewing a single verse, which can be twisted in any way you like.

I do understand the needs of Christians to have a miraculous "virgin birth", but I'd question Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14.

Luke could write anything he like, but without Jesus' actual interpretations of supposed verses from supposed scriptures, and without Luke actually being there when these interpretations were given, I would say that it is nothing more than trying to validate a new religion.

 

[Katzpur]

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether the word in question is translated as "virgin" or "young woman." Mary specifically told the Angel Gabriel that she had not been with a man. If you believe her, then you'll believe she was a virgin. If you don't, you won't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How the rabbis came up with the 9 of av for the fasting due the disaster with the spies is much different ...

But was it deceit or inference?

 

[gnostic]

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether the word in question is translated as "virgin" or "young woman." Mary specifically told the Angel Gabriel that she had not been with a man. If you believe her, then you'll believe she was a virgin. If you don't, you won't.

I'm not questioning either Mary being THE virgin or even that of the virgin birth mythos.

What am I questioning is the validity of Matthew using the verse from the book of Isaiah that say this verse had anything to do with the virgin birth or with virgin or with Mary or with Jesus.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Arguing over Matthew's narrative and Matthew's quote (as given in Matthew 1:23) are not the same things.

This thread is about context of Isaiah 7:14 over Matthew version (Matthew 1:23). The Jewish perspective over the Christian perspective.

I believed that Matthew could have kept the story of Mary's miracle virgin pregnancy and Jesus' birth, without quoting from Isaiah 7:14. If Matthew 1:23 were omitted, then I doubts very much that we would be arguing over this very issue, today.

You may not care about the context of the single verse or how that verse relate to the chapter (Isaiah 7) or the next (contextually), but it matters enough to convince Christians over the centuries in which virgin=Mary & Immanuel=Jesus.

When you read Isaiah 7, without any regards to the NT, do you believe that verse 14 has nothing to do with the rest of chapter (7), including verses 15-17?

And if you believe that Jesus and Mary are indeed Immanuel and the virgin of Isaiah 7 and that Jesus fulfilled the sign, then what of the other 3/4 of the sign? Why would Jesus fulfil only one part of the sign and not the other part of sign?

I don't see how some Christians can accept just one verse and the expense of ignoring the rest of the chapter (which Matthew had done so).

It would be like Jesus telling the disciples one of them would betray him at the Last Supper, but the story omits any action by the betrayer.

You can't fulfil just partial sign and not fulfilling the rest of the sign, just like Jesus can't be betrayed without a betrayer.

One member actually stated that Immanuel had nothing to do with Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and the King of Assyria.

If one part of the sign is a valid, then all of parts of the sign is valid. Don't you think?

The problem is that some would think that a single verse is enough for a prophecy, but I think that's utter BS. Because a single verse can be interpreted in so many different ways, and anyone can twist it beyond the original context.

That's what I think Matthew did when he quoted Isaiah's verse in Matthew 1:23; he had taken the verse out of context.

I am not contesting that Mary was a virgin, but I am questioning Matthew's use of Isaiah's verse, to identify almah as Mary.

 

[CMike]

But was it deceit or inference?

Deceit for what purpose?