The Messiah..born of a virgin...

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son,
and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is,
God with us.

Greetings ! I just skimmed this thread, and I just want to add a few thoughts and pointers.

#1 - the anti-mish argument that betulah=virgin is refuted by Talmud and midrash Hebraics. This is one of those examples where the modern anti-mish movement tries to use a darkness cover over their own historical understandings

#2 - almah as virgin in Isaiah 7:14 is a contextual (the verse does call for something unusual, a sign) and well as vocabulary definition. Often a word has semantic range, depending on the context. Thus, we may not be able to point to a single word in Bible Hebrew that unequivocally, always, definitely means only virgin. Such as word may not exist, yet almah will be the best for a single-word equivalent.

#3 - The small book by Daniel Gruber, God, the Rabbis and the Virgin Birth, is helpful in these discussions. Messianic writers can, on some topics, do some good research. Michael Brown is also occasionally helpful on Messianic prophecy topics and had a written debate years back with Gerald Sigal that was published in Messianic Times that was quite interesting.

#4 - Also the Finnish author Risto Santala. He is quoted in an errancy wiki as referencing the :

highly valued Hebrew encyclopedia of Even Shushan says the term almah "denotes a maiden or a young woman, especially before marriage". Since virginity was the condition of marriability, any girl called almah would naturally be understood to be a virgin.

Risto may have other references of note.

#5 There is an important element, often overlooked, of the connection between Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6 as the same child, strongly supporting the supernatural aspect of the prophecy. One of the writers who emphasized this aspect, quite nicely, is an rcc author William Most. Notice above how strongly that connection is embedded right in Matthew 2:23.

=============

Hope that helps. To me, there really is not much to debate here, it is clear that virgin is proper, however I understand that it is a fascinating topic to study.

Now, I am interested in the "why" issue, for which I recommend Arthur Custance.

One could also raise the issue of why there is a lack in the Hebraics (Targum, Talmud, Midrash, Rabbinics) of referencing supporting the virgin birth of Messiah in comparison to those writings referencing e.g. the Messiah as the suffering servant. That is one of those "it is as it is" issues. If some one asked whether the Hebrews of 1st century Israel expected the Messiah to be virgin born, the answer would probably have to be "unclear, uncertain, mixed", as the Matthew prophecy reference, while strong evidence, could be midrash (in the postive sense of the word) rather than directly based on an existing reference.

Similarly the parthenos translation in the Greek OT, while good evidence, can be overstated as well. e.g. Parthenos has its own semantic range and we do not have a Greek OT Isaiah actually dated before Jesus. So we are largely going by Justin Martyr to Trypho and Origen to Celsus for detail analysis. Again, good evidence, not perfect and fool-proof.

Shalom,
Steven Avery