There is a thread about Christ not fulfilling the messianic requirements on CF right now, I am not going to enter into arguing about all allegations, but I wanted to ask a few questions regarding this issue, first I want to start with Isaiah...
St. Matthew says Isaiah 7:14 is a messianic prophecy, they refuse it. Some Christians hold to "double fulfillment" of the verse but I don't think so. I think I want to get deep into why people think LXX translation was in error, Jewish scribes translated "young woman" as virgin. If the virgin gave birth, then double prophecy suggestion do not work because it would have required double virgin births, and the woman at the time of Ahaz is said to be "not" a virgin. And what about Immanuel? Why did St. Matthew link Isaiah 7:14 to Christ's birth and how are the difficulties resolved?
Scrutinizing Isaiah 7:14
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Scrutinizing Isaiah 7:14
by Bushmaster78FS on Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:10 am
-
Bushmaster78FS - Contributing Member
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:06 pm
- Location: Hunter AAF, GA
- Who Is Your Patron Saint?: St. John the Apostle
- When is your Feast Day?: May 8, September 26
Re: Scrutinizing Isaiah 7:14
by Elizabeth-Maria on Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Sorry I did not get back to you earlier, but I was in a fire zone again, which gave me flu like symptoms.
Anyway, I am bumping this in case Theophan has an answer.
Was it resolved at CF? If yes, please let me know what was said. If no, then we will begin the second plan and search the Church Fathers.
Did you look at the Orthodox Study Bible notes?
Anyway, I am bumping this in case Theophan has an answer.
Was it resolved at CF? If yes, please let me know what was said. If no, then we will begin the second plan and search the Church Fathers.
Did you look at the Orthodox Study Bible notes?
In Christ,
Elizabeth-Maria
Elizabeth-Maria
-
Elizabeth-Maria - Site Admin
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:31 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Who Is Your Patron Saint?: Mary the Theotokos
- When is your Feast Day?: Dormition, Aug 15
Re: Scrutinizing Isaiah 7:14
by Theophan on Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:26 am
O yes, the "alma" versus "parthenos" issue.
Alma is Hebrew for young maiden - always, as far as I know as a virgin. Parthenos )Greek) is strictly a virgin and cannot be wiggled out of however far out the arguments may seem.
Interesting that modern Jews claim that alma is the word to use, not requiring parthenos. They claim that the Hebrew is the more accurate, yet they make the same fundamental mistake many protestants do regarding the LXX.
They seem to forget that the LXX was translated by Jews from the best Hebrew manuscripts at least 900 years prior to the Mazorets, from which we get our modern "best manuscripts" in the "original Hebrew." Miraculous interventions laid aside for the moment regarding the translation of the LXX, the LXX represents the most ancient and best Hebrew manuscripts available from a much earlier period. These are facts. Interpreting them may be another matter, but the facts are indisputable and often ignored hoping they will not be noticed. Alma in its earlier and best lexicographical meaning was used as a synonym for parthenos. In case there was any doubt, the translators of the LXX used the Greek parthenos, perhaps providentially to prevent those who should know better from trying to make it say something it never was intended to.
Concerning the issue of double interpretation and the connecting of verses in Matthews Gospel. It has been some years since I have studied these passages in this debth so my exact sources are lacking in my mental footnotes at present. What I can say, is that many of the Church fathers had no problem with the double fulfillment hermeneutic. This is especially seen in regarding the Olivet discourse (MAtthew 24-25). Some of the Fathers, most reliably, that I know of Augustine of Hippo put together a kind of harmony of the Gospels with special attention to "problem passages" and "apparent contradictions." This can be found in the Church Father Series - the Green volumes.
They way I remember it being played out is something like this: Isaiah's prophecy had to have some kind of relevant significance to Ahaz and did in fact have a direct connection to him and the northern kingdom - however, this was a kind of prelude to the fulfillment of the fulfillment so to speak. If a virgin was to give a sign way back then, she would have been impregnated and no longer been a virgin - but she was a virgin when the prophecy was given. This was a temporal sign for a temporal situation. The fulfillment is the ever-virgin who give birth by the seed of the woman by the Father outside of time for all time. In this case, the child is no longer a son of Adam in the sense of the fall but of the second Adam in the incarnation, meaning God becoming man. In a sense, the first fulfillment was in itself a prophetic sign of the true fulfillment for all time.
This covers St. Matthew stitching together passages from two two distinct prophecies, which non of the Apostles had problems doing, which poses some interesting hermeneutical issues for another discussion, especially among protestants.
That is the best I can do off the cuff. Perhaps looking up the passages in the Ancient Christian Commentators series that are now being published would shed more light on this, or revisiting Augustine and Chrysostom in the Church Fathers series. I am sorry I could not have been more help.
Perhaps someone else lurking in the orthopraxis shadows can illumine the question better?
Alma is Hebrew for young maiden - always, as far as I know as a virgin. Parthenos )Greek) is strictly a virgin and cannot be wiggled out of however far out the arguments may seem.
Interesting that modern Jews claim that alma is the word to use, not requiring parthenos. They claim that the Hebrew is the more accurate, yet they make the same fundamental mistake many protestants do regarding the LXX.
They seem to forget that the LXX was translated by Jews from the best Hebrew manuscripts at least 900 years prior to the Mazorets, from which we get our modern "best manuscripts" in the "original Hebrew." Miraculous interventions laid aside for the moment regarding the translation of the LXX, the LXX represents the most ancient and best Hebrew manuscripts available from a much earlier period. These are facts. Interpreting them may be another matter, but the facts are indisputable and often ignored hoping they will not be noticed. Alma in its earlier and best lexicographical meaning was used as a synonym for parthenos. In case there was any doubt, the translators of the LXX used the Greek parthenos, perhaps providentially to prevent those who should know better from trying to make it say something it never was intended to.
Concerning the issue of double interpretation and the connecting of verses in Matthews Gospel. It has been some years since I have studied these passages in this debth so my exact sources are lacking in my mental footnotes at present. What I can say, is that many of the Church fathers had no problem with the double fulfillment hermeneutic. This is especially seen in regarding the Olivet discourse (MAtthew 24-25). Some of the Fathers, most reliably, that I know of Augustine of Hippo put together a kind of harmony of the Gospels with special attention to "problem passages" and "apparent contradictions." This can be found in the Church Father Series - the Green volumes.
They way I remember it being played out is something like this: Isaiah's prophecy had to have some kind of relevant significance to Ahaz and did in fact have a direct connection to him and the northern kingdom - however, this was a kind of prelude to the fulfillment of the fulfillment so to speak. If a virgin was to give a sign way back then, she would have been impregnated and no longer been a virgin - but she was a virgin when the prophecy was given. This was a temporal sign for a temporal situation. The fulfillment is the ever-virgin who give birth by the seed of the woman by the Father outside of time for all time. In this case, the child is no longer a son of Adam in the sense of the fall but of the second Adam in the incarnation, meaning God becoming man. In a sense, the first fulfillment was in itself a prophetic sign of the true fulfillment for all time.
This covers St. Matthew stitching together passages from two two distinct prophecies, which non of the Apostles had problems doing, which poses some interesting hermeneutical issues for another discussion, especially among protestants.
That is the best I can do off the cuff. Perhaps looking up the passages in the Ancient Christian Commentators series that are now being published would shed more light on this, or revisiting Augustine and Chrysostom in the Church Fathers series. I am sorry I could not have been more help.
Perhaps someone else lurking in the orthopraxis shadows can illumine the question better?
-
Theophan - Moderator
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:03 pm
- Location: Southern California
- Who Is Your Patron Saint?: Theophan the Recluse
- When is your Feast Day?: January 6/10
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest