S
Salvatore123
Guest
Here is another take on Isaiah 7:14 - from the Orthodox Study Bible:
“The sign was NOT given to Ahaz, who had doubted the earlier prophecy, but to all the Hebrew people. This messianic prophecy si fulfilled when the virgin Mary gives birth to Christ. The Hebrew word “almah”, “unmarried woman”, designates a “hidden virgin, shut off from the occasional sight of men.” The Greek word used in the LXX is parthenos, which means “virgin”. Immanuel, meaning “God with us”, refers to Christ’s divine nature. Messiah coming as a child refers to His human nature.”
Lastly, one thing that I don’t believe has been raised yet (if it has, I apologize for missing it): in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953 ed), the commentators note several things that I did not catch earlier:
But look carefully at No. 2. I had overlooked it initially, but on a subsquent reading, I remembered how important it was to the Jew to name their children. The child was given his name by his father at the time of the circumcision, when the priest peforming the circumcision would ask the father what he wished the child to be called. In this case, although Joseph would relate the name to the priest performing the circumcision on Jesus, the name had already been chosen by Mary via Gabriel’s conception-announcement to her.
Of course, this makes perfect sense, even though the manner of conception was kept “private” from the townspeople of Bethlehem and Nazareth for fear of ruining Mary’s reputation. No one would have believed at this stage of Christ’s life that he was God’s son, and there was no practical way for anyone (other than God) to demonstrate that Jesus really was the Son of God. Jesus would demonstrate his true parentage, but this came much, much later in his life when he undertook his public ministry.
After all we have discussed so far, I understand how someone could have used the word “almah” strictly in a Hebrew context, where it would have been understood that the word “almah” would have certainly referred to a virgin or one who was presumed to be a virgin, given the mores at the time. Let’s face it - if Mary had been “found out” to be with child with no human father, she would likely have been subject to stoning to death at worse, and certainly banishment at best. But Joseph, because of his dream, was made to know the truth of God’s intervention and that he need not be concerned about the chastity of his wife.
What troubles me, however, is when the translation occurred. We know the Greek translationists intentionally used the word “parthenos”, and that this particular use meant “virgin”. We also know that St. Jerome and those who followed him, namely, all Christians, used the word “virgo”, meaning “virgin”, when rendering the passage into Latin. We know that the DR original used the word “virgin”, and Father Martin - primary translator of the DR - stated in the side notes of this verse: “. . . God inspired the prophet also to foreshow the greater mystery of Christ’s incarnation, his conception, and birth of a Virgin for the redemption of all mankind.”
Let’s now consider WHY and WHO decided to use “almah” with the intention of NEGATING the virgin conception and birth: those who sought to deny the coming of Christ as the Redeemer of man. The only people or group of people who fall into this category are Jews who wanted to discredit Christ. The reasoning is obvious: Christians were using the Jews’ own OT to win converts to Christianity, and they were citing one of the Jews’ greatest prophets to do so. Thus, their dilemma: “How do we discredit the virgin birth, but at the same time, still prove ‘true’ Isaiah?” They took the easiest and most logical way out: they used a word, “almah”, which COULD mean virgin (and in most instances, it would) but it did not necessarily exclude a non-virgin. So, with Isaiah still “intact”, each side could make its arguments.
cont’d
“The sign was NOT given to Ahaz, who had doubted the earlier prophecy, but to all the Hebrew people. This messianic prophecy si fulfilled when the virgin Mary gives birth to Christ. The Hebrew word “almah”, “unmarried woman”, designates a “hidden virgin, shut off from the occasional sight of men.” The Greek word used in the LXX is parthenos, which means “virgin”. Immanuel, meaning “God with us”, refers to Christ’s divine nature. Messiah coming as a child refers to His human nature.”
Lastly, one thing that I don’t believe has been raised yet (if it has, I apologize for missing it): in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953 ed), the commentators note several things that I did not catch earlier:
- “The word [referring to “almah”] never designates a married woman and is sometimes redered parthenos or “virgin” by the LXX.”
- “The imposition of the child’s name by the mother, contrary to custom, confirms the conclusion of a virginal conception.”
But look carefully at No. 2. I had overlooked it initially, but on a subsquent reading, I remembered how important it was to the Jew to name their children. The child was given his name by his father at the time of the circumcision, when the priest peforming the circumcision would ask the father what he wished the child to be called. In this case, although Joseph would relate the name to the priest performing the circumcision on Jesus, the name had already been chosen by Mary via Gabriel’s conception-announcement to her.
Of course, this makes perfect sense, even though the manner of conception was kept “private” from the townspeople of Bethlehem and Nazareth for fear of ruining Mary’s reputation. No one would have believed at this stage of Christ’s life that he was God’s son, and there was no practical way for anyone (other than God) to demonstrate that Jesus really was the Son of God. Jesus would demonstrate his true parentage, but this came much, much later in his life when he undertook his public ministry.
After all we have discussed so far, I understand how someone could have used the word “almah” strictly in a Hebrew context, where it would have been understood that the word “almah” would have certainly referred to a virgin or one who was presumed to be a virgin, given the mores at the time. Let’s face it - if Mary had been “found out” to be with child with no human father, she would likely have been subject to stoning to death at worse, and certainly banishment at best. But Joseph, because of his dream, was made to know the truth of God’s intervention and that he need not be concerned about the chastity of his wife.
What troubles me, however, is when the translation occurred. We know the Greek translationists intentionally used the word “parthenos”, and that this particular use meant “virgin”. We also know that St. Jerome and those who followed him, namely, all Christians, used the word “virgo”, meaning “virgin”, when rendering the passage into Latin. We know that the DR original used the word “virgin”, and Father Martin - primary translator of the DR - stated in the side notes of this verse: “. . . God inspired the prophet also to foreshow the greater mystery of Christ’s incarnation, his conception, and birth of a Virgin for the redemption of all mankind.”
Let’s now consider WHY and WHO decided to use “almah” with the intention of NEGATING the virgin conception and birth: those who sought to deny the coming of Christ as the Redeemer of man. The only people or group of people who fall into this category are Jews who wanted to discredit Christ. The reasoning is obvious: Christians were using the Jews’ own OT to win converts to Christianity, and they were citing one of the Jews’ greatest prophets to do so. Thus, their dilemma: “How do we discredit the virgin birth, but at the same time, still prove ‘true’ Isaiah?” They took the easiest and most logical way out: they used a word, “almah”, which COULD mean virgin (and in most instances, it would) but it did not necessarily exclude a non-virgin. So, with Isaiah still “intact”, each side could make its arguments.
cont’d
