Sorry mate, but  most of what you assert in the first para is simply incorrect. I’d love to find a way through that allows you to change your mind without losing face, but I can’t at this point see how to do it except to say that I think more of those who bite the bullet and admit that maybe they were mis- or underinformed than those who keep arguing from an ever smaller fact base when it becomes obvious to onlookers that the evidence is against them …

But what you are not taking into consideration, is that first, we do not know if the NT was ORIGIONALLY written in Greek, or Hebrew, we know that there is a HEBREW Matthew that was recently discovered though.  All we know for sure, is that TODAY, we only have Greek texts to work with concerning the NT, with that Matthew exception.  But you said something about a Greek OT??  Since when?  If there ever was, it was not the text used by the first Christians.  Latin, I believe, was the more commonly used texts, wich after only a couple hundred years, came to include several of our current NT documents, but even so that text for the OT was still based upon the original and available, HEBREW texts.  As far as the OT goes, one way or another, the Hebrew is the only legitimate source, other translations lack the accuracy of thought.

First up, Hebrew Matthew? Can you substantiate that? And can it be shown that if such a document exists, it was [a] original and [b] not itself a translation of a Greek doc and/or [c]  it is not a translation of a (more likely than Hebrew) Aramaic document?

We do know that the NT was written in Koine Greek. Or at least that the documents [that a while later were recognised as what] we now call the new testament were circulated in Greek, as you say. This was for the very good reason that Greek was the common language of the time and area; it would be assumed that everyone could understand it, that’s why it was used for documents meant for use by a mixed audience. Even the Romans used it for day to day business in the eastern mediterranean. Latin was was a relative late comer into the scripture business and NT docs were translated into it, not from it. Anyway, this makes it even more probable that the docs were actually written in Greek. More probable, that is, even given the sheer amount of relatively early manuscripts and fragments and quotes in other early church writings [and some are really early]. Even given the stylistic forms that suggest original words not translated … It’s a cumulative case.

We also know that there had been a commonly used Greek version of the OT for some time by the time of Christ, called the Septuagint [and abbreviated to “LXX” by biblical scholars, archeologists and the like]. This translation was *the* scriptures for hellenised Jews [ie those whose first or second language was Greek] and for ‘Godfearers’ [would-be converts to Judaism, trying to work out whether they really wanted to be circumcised]. It would be fair to say, therefore, that for most early Christians outside of Palestine, and many inside, the Septuagint was THE version of the OT they were familiar with. Given that most Jews actually, by that time, spoke as their ‘mother tongue’ Aramaic and not Hebrew, it is also quite likely that for Palestinian Jews, that reading or hearing the scriptures in Greek would be easier than in Hebrew which was not a language of daily converse for them.

Sorry to rain on your parade in this instance, but that’s the way it is/was.

Okay, next up, para 2.

Second, what that passage says in Matthew, concerning the English word “virgin”, is irrelevent, because it is a QUOTE of an OT passage, that WAS written in Hebrew.  And that word as you said, is Almah, whereas every other time our English versions say “virgin”, (in the OT that is), the Hebrew being translated from is “Bethulah”, except for 1 passage, Genisis 24:43.  That passage in English also says “virgin”, and the Hebrew is also “almah”.  However, in the NIV, that passage does NOT say virgin, in the NIV, Gen.24:43 says MAIDEN in English!!  Is a maiden a virgin?  Sure it is possible, and many maidens WERE, but Mary was still referred to as a maiden after Jesus already had brothers!

You need to read what I wrote more carefully, please.

The point is that it appears that Matthew is not quoting the Hebrew but the Greek translation of the OT (rather as you quote the English NIV translation]. That is to say the wording indicates not an ‘on the hoof’ translation from Hebrew while he wrote but a quote from a Greek translation already in use.

It’s interesting that you should draw attention to the word ‘maiden’ because one of the meanings is ‘a virgin’ (Check it out and recall phrases such as “maidenhead”, ” a maiden aunt” who is presumed not to have sex because unmarried, and in cricket ‘bowl a maiden over’ -metaphorically relying on the unsullied nature of a maiden to designate a no-score over). In fact the English usage kind of paralells, I suspect, the Hebrew in that similar cultural forces were at work, the primary focus of meaning may be a young woman, but in a culture which expected and enforced sexual exclusivity especially in women, it tended to pick up the meaning of ‘virgin’ aswell. That’s what will have influenced the Greek translation [also with strict cultural prohibitions of pre- and extra-marital sex on the part of ‘respectable’ women -which is what most families wanted for their daughters].

To sum up: ‘maiden’ is probably quite a good English parallel (not least because of similar cultural forces impacting the semantic field of the word in the past), and while it encompasses a broader meaning and different primary semantic focus than ‘virgin’ it can reasonably be supposed to normally include it unless modified not to, especially as that approach seems to accord well with the other instances and usages of the word that we have from the OT. Notwithstanding the Hebrew meanings, it is in any case the Greek text that was informing Matthew, and that clearly has ‘parthenos’ which is much more unambiguously to be translated ‘virgin’. Added to which Matthew isn’t proof-texting, but rather searching about for OT parallels to what he is recording of Christ. In other words the event comes first and the text afterwords to underscore the meaning of the event. And that means he is not using the Isaiah 7 text to make a doctrine of the virginal conception but to explain how a virginal conception fits typologically with prior revelation.

Could you elucidate on Mary being called a maiden after Jesus’ brothers were on the scene? That’s a new one on me and would be an interesting issue in this discussion. 

I will leave you to decide whether the case I am making is more or less plausible than what you have written in your third paragraph.

Doctrinally; I have a handful of friends who are otherwise orthodox Christians who are not convinced by the virginal conception on grounds mainly that their understanding of the incarnation does not require it. They have a point. I happen not to agree with their ‘unconviction’ but agree that their reasoning is sound. The lack of this doctrine in their belief system appears to have little effect on the rest of their Christian faith. Clearly it is not as central as you would have us believe, I would suggest.

I’ll leave it at that for now.

 Andii

nouslife.blogspot.com
abbeynous.schtuff.com