Comments on: Isaiah 7, Nativity, and the Theotokos

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:32:27 +0000

Boonton,
Yes, Jewish customs would have made an unconsummated marriage rare … but look at another way. Tradition holds that Joseph was much older than Mary, a young temple orphan (slave?). She is pregnant, you and she both experience Theophany episodes telling this is a miraculous birth. After her delivery her virginity remains intact …. now do you have sex with her or not? Quite possibly “not” looms a distinct conclusion?

Wouldn’t it have been so much easier for the text to simply tell us Joesph was instructed to marry Mary but not have sex with her and he followed that command?

Perhaps, but if that wasn’t true … wouldn’t that make a difference?

Anne,
Have you read Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses?

By: Anne

Anne — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:12:11 +0000

In the past I’ve turned over a few thoughts about methods of interpretation, and I have to say I’m no fan of allegory. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s wholly illegitimate; I would say it’s easily abused.

I also would say that interpreting this text as Messianic is not “allegorical”, so to speak. The Talmud mentions in a couple of places that it was an accepted interpretation method to read everything in the prophets as messianic.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF

By: Boonton

Boonton — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:50:53 +0000

This is just two of the many instances of allegorical instances in which Mary’s virginity (and continued virginity) can be found in the Old Testament.

This may sound crass but wouldn’t an unconsummated marriage be rather exceptional in ancient Jewish culture? Even if Joesph had accepted the angels statement that Mary had not cheated on him, that her pregnancy was not due to her messing around with another man….he would have expected to have sex with her upon marriage. Choosing a marriage without sex would have merited inclusion in that message. That the waters of the Red Sea returned after the crossing and the burning bush wasn’t consumed….well yea I see how there’s an ‘echo’ there but it seems very tenuous. Wouldn’t it have been so much easier for the text to simply tell us Joesph was instructed to marry Mary but not have sex with her and he followed that command?

By: Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament – Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1

Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament – Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:05:21 +0000

[...] post is Isaiah 7, Nativity, and the Theotokos, written by Mark Olson, who speaks from an Orthodox perspective. He discusses quite accurately [...]

By: Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament – Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1 « Participatory Bible Study Blog

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:49:51 +0000

[...] post is Isaiah 7, Nativity, and the Theotokos, written by Mark Olson, who speaks from an Orthodox perspective. He discusses quite accurately [...]

By: Jewish Atheist

Jewish Atheist — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:39:23 +0000

Mark,

LOL, good point on the LXX predating Christianity. Given that, it seems even more unlikely that the Hebrew would have changed from betulah to almah. That would mean that somebody took a prophecy of a virgin birth and changed it to be just about a regular birth. It seems much more likely that parthenos was an imprecise (purposely or not) translation.

One interesting facet of the LXX vs the MT as we find these differences in class discussions as several of us are reading LXX and others MT based OT translation (and one of us, being Greek is reading the LXX in Greek) is that there are quite a number of differences between the two texts.

I find that stuff fascinating. It just kills me that we’ll probably never know for sure what was original. (Man it would be nice to find, say, some evidence of a D or E scroll before it was incorporated into the Bible.)

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:12:17 +0000

JA,
One interesting facet of the LXX vs the MT as we find these differences in class discussions as several of us are reading LXX and others MT based OT translation (and one of us, being Greek is reading the LXX in Greek) is that there are quite a number of differences between the two texts.

Philistine for example, always transliterated in MT translations was translated instead in the LXX. There are also significant differences elsewhere, e.g., David’s Theophany on the threshing floor in Chronicles reads very differently in LXX vs MT.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:06:28 +0000

JA,
The LXX was translated in the 3rd or 4th century BC by 70 (hence the LXX) rabbis at the bequest of Alexandrian (Greek) scholars. It could not be as “a response” to Christianity. One might counter the former direction, in that extant copies of Masoretic text which itself might have moved to “young woman” over “virgin” in a response in the other direction by Jews to Christian use of 7:14.

I believe there is some Dead Sea scroll support for the “separate strand” hypothesis.

By: Jewish Atheist

Jewish Atheist — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:17:32 +0000

The LXX text however both originates much earlier, might have used a separate strand of source text than the MT, and unambiguously uses a Greek term which translates as virgin.

Seems like there are two obvious hypotheses:

1) The LXX is a translation of a separate strand which used the Hebrew word for virgin.
2) The LXX is a mistranslation (non-literal translation) of the Hebrew.

It seems to me that 1 is unlikely because why would the Hebrew change? As a response to Christianity? 2, on the other hand, seems perfectly believable: the translators could have felt that parthenos captured the spirit of the Hebrew word (I’m not conversant in Greek.) E.g., we use “maiden” in English which carries a connotation of virginity, but would seem like a reasonable translation for a word which means “young, single woman.”

If the Hebrew version always had alma rather than betulah, there’s no question that virginity was not an important part of the prophecy. And if the prophecy were really about Mary, you’d think they’d emphasize that part.