Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!david
From: david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: the Virgin and Israel
Message-ID: <353@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 16:01:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.353
Posted: Sat Apr 27 16:01:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Apr-85 06:25:45 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 63

Comment on a reply
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Virgin Birth per duke!nlt
Message-ID: <817@bunker.UUCP>

...
...
In the second place, read a few more verses.  Same book, same chapter,
verse 22-25 (NIV):
	All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said
	through the prophet: [23]"The virgin will be with child
	and will give birth to a son, and they will call him
	Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us."
	[24]When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord
	had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.  [25]But
	he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.
	And he gave him the name Jesus.

The quote in v23 is Isaiah 7:14.  Some argue that the word translated
"virgin" in Isaiah (almah) doesn't necessarily mean "virgin," but
would better be translated "young woman" (as in RSV).  However,
Matthew used the Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos), which (so I
have been told; I'm not a linguist) does not have the ambiguity
of the Hebrew "almah."  Quibbles about translation aside, Matthew
goes on to state that "he [Joseph] had no union with her until
she gave birth to a son."  Which, just as the earlier, "before
they came together," supports the doctrine of the virgin birth.
(And, incidentally, seems to do away with the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of Mary.  If I say, "I didn't do X until Y,"
that implies that I *did* do X after Y.)

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	The NT citations, as of Isaiah above, of the OT are
known to be citations of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation
by Jewish scholars before the time of Christ. They themselves
translated the Hebrew 'almah', occuring in Isaiah, as 'parthenos' 
(virgin) despite the fact that it may mean 'young maiden'. Since
this was their translation, not the Christians', it suggests they
attached a 'theological' significance to the passage in Isaiah,
but not the usual 'Christian' one, although these may have been
related in the minds of the Jewish community of Matthew. It is
quite natural for the LXX, as well as Jews of Jesus time, to have
intended 'virgin' to represent the undefiled, beloved Israel of God,
from who would come the Messiah, through the spirit of God.
	How much different this interpretation is from the usual one 
depends on how much Christians would claim the place of 'Israel', while 
displacing the Jews. But then the first 'Christians' were Jews, who 
probably considered themselves to be the true remnant of Israel among
others. My point is that is a Jewish figure of speech, in any case, and
we should not be so sure that the earliest Jewish 'Christians' were any
more literal than the LXX who were definitely orthodox. Of course,
today, in the Catholic Church at least, Mary has come to be exalted to
the ideological 'heavens', as representative of the Church, which may
be liken to the Virgin Israel, from whom comes the spiritual offspring
of Christ.
					David Harwood