No Virgin Birth Prophecy

[epr1993]

I’m reading a book (Rapture by David Currie) that mentions the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. He argues that, “An event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is, we should consider the entire historical context of the events to gain a fuller understanding.” Isaiah 7:14 is a double prophecy.

The first prophecy is fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3-4 where a child is born who signaled Jerusalem’s salvation from Damascus and Ephraem. Not all of God’s people were saved though. Ephraem, which had rejected the Davidic line of kings, is now known as the ten lost tribes of Israel. Almah (young woman) must be used because of this initial prophecy and since is can be used to mean virgin it does not disqualify the second.

After this was fulfilled, the Jewish teachers began to teach that this prophecy had a future fulfillment as well: “the birth of a son via a young woman that signals the coming salvation of God’s faithful remnant and the destruction of the faithless majority”. They also stated that “the young woman of the still-future fulfillment would actually be a virgin. This is evident in the word parthenos] that Jewish translators used to render this verse into Greek in the Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14. By the time of Christ, this passage from Isaiah was understood to be a Messianic prophecy, and the Gospels reference it as such. When Matthew uses this prophecy of Isaiah in Matthew 1:23, he points to more than just the virgin birth. He includes in his view the entire series of events surrounding Isaiah’s time. These events included the salvation of the believing remnant and the destruction of the unbelieving majority that occurred much later than the actual birth of the child.” p 60-62

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

“After this was fulfilled, the Jewish teachers began to teach that this prophecy had a future fulfillment as well”

ah, which rabbis taught this? Only Jesus that I know of.

Do you know of any others?

 

[Della]

“After this was fulfilled, the Jewish teachers began to teach that this prophecy had a future fulfillment as well”

ah, which rabbis taught this? Only Jesus that I know of.

Do you know of any others?

Actually, we have evidence of this from the way the Pharisees and Scribes kept asking Jesus for a “sign.” They knew that certain passages referred to the coming Messiah, which is what they were looking for in Jesus. Matthew is telling us that he did indeed fulfill these prophecies, but not as the leaders of his day were expecting. They had concentrated mostly on the kingly fulfillments, which we can see in the disciples asking when the kingdom on earth was to start. It’s only to be expected that an occupied country would be looking more to a king coming to them than a suffering servant. Anyway, throughout the Gospels there are scattered incidents in which Jesus is said to fulfill some prophecy even though the OT event had already taken place. Everyone was looking forward to a future fulfillment. The idea must have been taught by the rabbis or that wouldn’t have been the case.

 

[Gnosis]

Just because the Pharisees asked for a sign does not imply that they viewed the passage in Isaiah as a “double prophecy”.

 

[SFH]

Gnosis:

When the author of Matthew was writing his Gospel, he was using a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, that mistranslated the word young woman (almah) to be parthenos (which most often means virgin). He read the so called prophecy in Isaiah as “The virgin will be with child”

If we look at the book of Isaiah in Hebrew, the passage reads that the “young woman (almah) will be with child”. If Isaiah had meant virgin (as a young woman can be a virgin) he would have used the word “bethula” which is the Hebrew word ALWAYS used in reference to virginity.

Thus Matthew based the entire story of the virgin birth on a mistranslation (that almah=parthenos).

It is my understanding that many people believe the virgin birth story to have been non-literal. But how does this affect Catholic notions of Mary and her “ever virginity”?

I’m afraid your observation is hardly news to Catholics. St. Justin Martyr in his “Dialogue with Trypho” acknowledges that the Jews translate Isaias as “young woman” and interpret the prophecy as a reference to Ezechias, but argues that Isaias must have meant “virgin” and could not have referred to Ezechias. (Keep in mind that St. Justin Martyr lived between 110 and 165 A.D.)

Certainly, a large number of devout Jews before the advent of Christ believed that the word “almah” implicitly meant a virgin. For example, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek known as the Septuagint uses the Greek word for “virgin” instead of “young woman” to translate “almah.”

In the context of Isaias, it would be quite remarkable if the passage just meant “young woman.” Remember that Isaias had encouraged Achaz to ask for “a sign.” What kind of sign would it be to have a “young woman” give birth to a child? Young women give birth to children all the time. In a similar passage in Isaias 38 and 4 Kings 20, Ezechias asks for a sign that he will recover from his illness. Isaias gives him two choices: the shadow on the sundial can go back ten degrees or forward ten degrees. Ezechias points out that there wouldn’t be anything special about the shadow going forward ten degrees (i.e., it wouldn’t be a sign) so God causes the shadow to go back by ten degrees. In the context of Isaias, a “sign” is something out of the ordinary. A sterile woman giving birth or a virgin giving birth would be out of the ordinary; a “young woman” giving birth would not.

But keep in mind that many of the prophecies in the Old Testament have both an imperfect fulfillment and a perfect fulfillment. In other words, the prophecy might have an immediate and imperfect fulfillment in the birth of Ezechias by a “young woman,” but the full meaning of the prophecy and the promised sign would not be realized until the birth of Christ (i.e., the perfect fulfillment). Similarly, the passage through the Red Sea has a historical basis in fact and an immediate meaning, but the full meaning of the passage through the Red Sea is not apparent until the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism. Nothing hinders God from giving multiple meanings to a prophecy or historical event.

The Septuagint translation is a powerful witness to the fact that the Jewish people interpreted Isaias prophecy to have an additional meaning beyond the immediate reference to Ezechias–one day a virgin would give birth to a son. And so it came to pass in the fullness of time. Deo gratias.

 

[Della]

Gnosis:

Just because the Pharisees asked for a sign does not imply that they viewed the passage in Isaiah as a “double prophecy”.

That’s true, but it isn’t important what the Pharisees thought of double prophecy only what the Apostles, who had walked with Christ and learned from him for 3 years, thought of it. After all, Jesus came to fulfill the OT. It’s hardly surprising that his Incarnation would bring a new interpretive vision to it, as well.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

It’s arbitrary to argue the Bible refers to a “young woman” (almah) who is not a virgin.

Where does the Bible support fornication?

If the Bible does not, and the Bible only approves sex for marriage, then there is no argument here.

An ishshah (wife) is not a virgin, but an almah is: that’s the proper biblical cultural context.

This is why the LXX says virgin in greek: the jewish translator had this idea crystal-clear.

Clear enough to write “parthenos”.

The Isaiah prophecy is a “good thing”; since it can’t be “a good thing” for a non-married young woman to * not be* a virgin in the Bible, then there is no argument here.

Anyway, hysterical-criticism can say *almost anything * about whatever issue.

If you really isolate each and every biblical word and apply all the different & potential meanings to it (by disregarding Tradition), then you might end with a completely different Bible.

This is why we are not “Sola Scriptura” religion: we believe that the original Authors & translators who lived in the very same culture know best (the LXX translators).

The LXX understood the Isaiah verse as referring to a virgin, so that’s pretty much the end of it.

 

[JohnAnthony]

Simeon the Elder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Simeon the Elder (also Simeon the Righteous, Simeon the God-Receiver, or Holy Simeon) is the “just and devout” man of Jerusalem who, according to Luke 2:25-35, met the Virgin Mary and Jesus as they entered the Temple to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses on the fortieth day from Jesus’ birth. On taking Jesus into his arms he uttered the prayer Nunc dimittis which is still used liturgically in Christian churches, and gave a prophecy alluding to the crucifixion.

According to a tradition in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Simeon had been one of the seventy-two translators of the Septuagint. As he hesitated over the translation of Isaiah 7:14 (“Behold, a virgin shall conceive…”), an angel appeared to him and told him that he would not die until he had see the Christ born of a virgin. This would make him well over two hundred years old at the time of the meeting described in Luke, and therefore miraculously longeval.

Luke 2:25 And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Luke 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

He is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic traditions. His feast day is February 3.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi LC, a site you might like is latinvulgate.com/

Jewish Scholars believe that Jerome got it wrong concerning Isaiah 7:14 “virgin” translation because, they read the Isaiah text to be speaking of a woman who is already with child and therefore married.

I believe in the virgin birth only because Matthew believes it to be so. But, in honest scholarship, I must agree that the Jewish reading is a strong possiblity.

 

[Latin_Catholic_1]

Dear Mr. Marsh:

If the woman is pregnant, she must be not a virgin indeed… but remember logic fails when it comes to the Bible.

The very same verse is talking about a true sign from the Lord, and that usually means a miracle in the Bible.

So, the facts are:

The original hebrew says “almah” which means “young woman” and the word implies the young woman is a virgin of course. Many other places in the Bible where the same word appears have it as in “a virgin”.

The LXX jewish translators traduced the hebrew “almah” to the greek “parthenos”, which unequivocally means virgin.

Let’s keep in mind the LXX happened before any christian-jewish controversy.

We must take the LXX opinion about the verse well above that of Jamnia, since the Jamnia Council was a direct reaction against Christianity (so it is a fact they were quite biased against anything that meant foundation-of-Christianity or Christianity-is-true).

Now: Does “a virgin having a child” sound like a true sign from God? A miracle?

I believe it does.

The LXX translators who lived in the very same culture Isaiah lived did in fact think that was the miraculous sign, and that’s a just a fact.

The bottomline is: the original hebrew word may mean one thing or another; the LXX version clears things up in favor of the meaning of “virgin” that is in perfect context with the mention of it as a “miraculous sign”.

I’m sorry, but what kind of “miraculous sign” would be a “normal birth”???

I know every birth is a miracle but… you know what I mean.

Now: a virgin birth ?

That’s a sign from God, if you ask me ! (and if you ask the unbiased LXX translators as well).