Weren't the Gospels inspired?

[RCWarrior821]

My philosophy professor is a Jewish rabbi and he brought up the fact that the prophesy of Christ being born of a virgin was not in the in the Hebrew Bible and that Isaiah 7:14 actually spoke of a “young woman” or “damsel” not a “virgin” and that the translation in the Septuigent was incorrect. How do i refute this point because it implies that the Gospels inspiration isn’t valid because of the mistake.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Greek translation in the 2nd century BC (approx.) translated the word to “virgin”. In the Jewish Scriptures, the word re-translated back to Hebrew (in the 14th century AD?) was “young maiden”, which implied virginity, but not necessarily so.

The point is, Isaiah 7:14 was a “sign” of God’s favor to Judah. A young maiden having a child is not really a big “sign” in my book. Now a virgin having a child? THAT’S a SIGN!!!

What’s ironic is that it was THE JEWS that translated the Greek text to read "virgin". Who are they to cry foul over their own translation?!?

Incidentally, Hebrew was dying out by Jesus’ time, and Greek was the universally accepted language. The Greek translation, the Septuagint, was the most commonly used Scriptures during this time in Judea. Hence, it was quoted the most often in the New Testament (like 85% of the time, give or take a few).

 

[puzzleannie]

we need to avoid reading into the text our anachronistic assumption that young maiden and virgin are not synonymous–in that time and place unlike 21st century pop culture, they were.

 

[Jack_245814]

Doesn’t the fact that that’s the way the septuagint translated it show that that was the way Jews saw it at that time? Or at least some Jews?

Besides, prophets speak in riddles (says so in the Book of Deuteronomy); a baby being born of a young woman doesn’t really mean anything, but when you remember that at that time all young unmarried women were virgins (or stoned to death), the septuagint interpretation seems a little stronger.

 

[NotWorthy]

The way I understood it, the Jews re-translated their Scriptures back into Hebrew around the 14th century. When anything was “fuzzy” in the translation, they immediately went with the translation that “dis-proved” Christian teachings.

 

[Oakleaf]

we need to avoid reading into the text our anachronistic assumption that young maiden and virgin are not synonymous–in that time and place unlike 21st century pop culture, they were.

I think puzzleannie is right on the money. Even some old-fashioned cultures these days think like that. For a women to be past 20 or so and unmarried is considered odd. Moms tell their 19 year old daughters they better watch out or they will become an old maid Notice the expression “old maid,” maid as in “maiden.”

 

[whowantsumadebo]

A few things:

The Greek word “parthenos” does not even necessarily mean ‘virgin’ anymore than does the Hebrew ‘alma.’ They both can mean either ‘young woman’ or ‘virgin.’ But in the Hebrew and Hellenistic cultures of the day, a young woman was fully expected to be a virgin! In fact, that’s been the case in world history until very recently.
Now, Matthew and Luke did not misread the Septuagint Bible and attempt to write-in Jesus as born of a virgin to fit with their understanding of the text. John P. Meier in “A Marginal Jew” and Raymond Brown both agree that Matthew and Lukes’ ‘virgin materials’ are independent of each other and the Isaiah prophecy. Matthew’s tacking-on of Isaiah’s virgin prophecy was probably the last step in his composition of the virgin birth narrative.
Matthew and Luke did not misunderstand a Hebrew word or attempt to invent some kind of virgin birth story. They inherited their information from a long series of oral tradition. The end.

 

[Spirithound]

A few things:

The Greek word “parthenos” does not even necessarily mean ‘virgin’ anymore than does the Hebrew ‘alma.’ They both can mean either ‘young woman’ or ‘virgin.’ But in the Hebrew and Hellenistic cultures of the day, a young woman was fully expected to be a virgin! In fact, that’s been the case in world history until very recently.
Now, Matthew and Luke did not misread the Septuagint Bible and attempt to write-in Jesus as born of a virgin to fit with their understanding of the text. John P. Meier in “A Marginal Jew” and Raymond Brown both agree that Matthew and Lukes’ ‘virgin materials’ are independent of each other and the Isaiah prophecy. Matthew’s tacking-on of Isaiah’s virgin prophecy was probably the last step in his composition of the virgin birth narrative.
Matthew and Luke did not misunderstand a Hebrew word or attempt to invent some kind of virgin birth story. They inherited their information from a long series of oral tradition. The end.

If I may correct a small point, it was at that point a pretty short series of oral tradition

 

[whowantsumadebo]

quote: If I may correct a small point, it was at that point a pretty short series of oral tradition

If 70 odd years is a short time, then ok.

 

[Spirithound]

quote: If I may correct a small point, it was at that point a pretty short series of oral tradition

If 70 odd years is a short time, then ok.

You’re assuming the Gospels were not written by the men to whom we traditionally attribute them. I assume they were.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My philosophy professor is a Jewish rabbi and he brought up the fact that the prophesy of Christ being born of a virgin was not in the in the Hebrew Bible and that Isaiah 7:14 actually spoke of a “young woman” or “damsel” not a “virgin” and that the translation in the Septuigent was incorrect. How do i refute this point because it implies that the Gospels inspiration isn’t valid because of the mistake.

Isaiah is not talking about Jesus, even though Matthew is. What good would being told about someone not to be born for 700 years be to a Jewish king in the 700s BC ? Matthew is using a text which can be applied to Jesus, to speak of Him - especially as it fits his presentation of Jesus as a king very well.​

**Augustus Caesar was given the title “Father of his country”. So was Washington, IIRC. It doesn’t follow the Senate was inspired to prophesy of the first US president, or that they were not concerened with Augustus. Yet this is how Isaiah’s text & its eighth-century oracle is treated - it is drained of all the meaning it had in its own time, & interpreted purely as though Isaiah were anticipating the - vastly different - conditions of Roman Palestine. **

**That however turns Isaiah into something not much different from a fortune-teller with a crystal ball; as though God had no care for His People in the time & place of the Prophet, but was concerned only for an event long after the death of Isaiah & his royal hearer. ****There is no need to disembowel Isaiah’s text in order to leave it usable for Matthew 1.23 - the only excuse for doing so is that the Prophets used to be read as though they were acquainted with the contents of the NT. **

**None of this affects the inspiration of any part of the Bible in the slightest: that Isaiah 7.14 is not in the first instance a prophecy of the Incarnation, but an oracle of salvation & a challenge to have faith during the 720s BC (a very difficult for the kingdom of Judah), does not mean that the verse cannot be used by an Evangelist to speak of Christ; the earlier sense not envisaged by the Prophet, does not exclude the later, “fuller”, sense envisaged by the **
**author/compiler of the gospel **

 

[JMJ_coder]

My philosophy professor is a Jewish rabbi and he brought up the fact that the prophesy of Christ being born of a virgin was not in the in the Hebrew Bible and that Isaiah 7:14 actually spoke of a “young woman” or “damsel” not a “virgin” and that the translation in the Septuigent was incorrect. How do i refute this point because it implies that the Gospels inspiration isn’t valid because of the mistake.

The same word was usually used for both - young maiden and virgin (young maidens were assumed to be virgins).

An easy way to view that verse is this - Isaiah was telling the king to look for a sign. What kind of a sign is a pregnant woman - that happens everyday. But, a pregnant virgin - now that’s a sign!!!