----
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
The interpretation of this sentence is among the most disputed in contemporary Scriptural scholarship. “Exegetes are not agreed either as to whether they form a promise or a warning, or who is meant by the child Immanuel.”1 “The sign given to Ahaz has been interpreted a number ways”2 ranging from the view that a son was shortly to be born to the view expressed in the Gospel of Matthew, some seven centuries later, that it was a prophetic prediction of the birth of Christ. Some, however, “think it not impossible that both an early and a more distant fulfillment of the prophecy was included.”3
In this paper, I will (1) provide an an accurate and detailed analysis of the text as found in the Hebrew, noting the exact meaning of key word ālmā (הָעַלְמָה) and discussing the oracle within the greater historical and literary contexts, (2) analyze the pre-Christian translation into the Greek as found in the Septuagint, noting the particular translation of the word ālmā into parthenos (Παρθένος) and the accuracy and tendentiousness of the translation as a whole, (3) describe St. Mattew's quote of the Septuagint to describe the virginal birth of Christ, similarly noting his accuracy and tendentiousness, (4) discuss some scholarly views presenting the conflict between the pure Hebrew interpretation and the eventual Greek interpretation by St. Matthew, and (5) conclude with a synthesis of Isaiah's quote, noting how one might describe the quote, what the quote means to the Jews, and how both the Septuagint and St. Matthew interpreted the quote.
The Hebrew test of Isaiah 7:14 is:
לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּאֵ
The important word here is the word hā-ālmā (הָעַלְמָה) The word ālmā “refers literally to a young woman who might or might not be a virgin.”4 The Hebrew word ālmā, like its Ugaritic equivalent ģlmt, does not simply correspond to the word 'virgin' but signifies a young woman without regards to whether she is married or single.5 That is, the word “is not the technical term for a virgin”6 which would be bĕtûlâ in the Hebrew. More accurately, the term hā, commonly translated as the definite article 'the', means that Isaiah is of not referring to any young woman but the young woman. Thus, Isaiah seems to have a particular woman in mind as the definite article seems to suggest. “A young woman, who either already was or soon would be pregnant [who may or may not be a virgin], would give birth to a son who would be named Immanuel.”7
The overall historical context for Isaiah's prophetic oracle is the Syro-Ephraimite War.8 “At the time of the prophecy, Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel were attacking Judah to force Judah into their alliance against Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria (734-733 B.C.); if King Ahaz refused to enter the alliance, the attacking kings intended to remove Ahaz.”9 Around the year 743 B.C., Syria and Israel had declared war on Judah because of Judah's refusal to join their alliance against Asyria. Thus, King Ahaz appealed to Assyria for help.10 “Through Isaiah, God revealed that the invasion of Judah would be unsuccessful. Neither Rezin nor Pekah possessed the might to accomplish their goals. Within sixty-five years, the deportation policies of Assyria would mean the virtual elimination of Ephraim as a people, and so Isaiah urged Ahaz to 'stand firm' in his faith or he would 'not stand at all' (v9).”11 As a way of encouraging him to accept the advice, Ahaz is invited to ask for a sign. Though he refuses to demand a sign from God, Isaiah tells him anyways that he ought to remain neutral. “Isaiah's call for neutrality went unheeded: Ahaz became a vassal to Assyria (2 Kgs 16:7-9), and as a result foreign religious cults were introduced (2 Kgs 16:10-18).”12 Thus, historically, the prophecy, along with the warning that “before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted. The Lord shall bring upon you and your people and your father's house days worse than any since Ephraim seceded from Judah...”13 was fulfilled, as we read in the second book of Kings. Thus it is clear that the prophecy has as its immediate point of reference the Syro-Ephraimite War.
Literally, there are three scenes which similarly have, as their point of reference, the Syro-Ephraimite War. “The prophet's message is organized around the symbolic names given to his three children.”14 The names are Shear-jashub (meaning "a remnant shall return"), Immanuel (meaning God is with us), and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (meaning "The spoil speeds, the prey hastens." The symbolic name of Shear-jashub assures Ahaz that Israel and Aram's plan against Judah will not succeed. The symbolic name of the second child gives further reassurance to Ahaz in the divine promise of protection to Jerusalem. The symbolic name of yet a third child reaffirms God's promise to Ahaz; that is, that there is a threatening devastation of Israel but an ultimate deliverance of Judah.15
By the third century B.C., there was seen a need to translate the Hebrew texts into Greek. Thus, seventy learned Jewish scholars were assigned the task of translating. In the Septuagint, we find the term hā-ālmā translated as parthenos. The term itself, in the Greek context, is usually translated as either a young girl or, more specifically, virgin. In ancient Greece, Athena never had a consort or lover and thus, also was known as Athena Parthenos, "Virgin Athena". Thus, it seems that the term parthenos carries a stronger notion of virginity, even if not necessarily, than the term hā-ālmā does.
With regards to its accuracy, “Kittel contended that the translator could only have come to the strikingly erroneous translation '...because in the time period and the surroundings of the translator, the conception was prominent that the mother of the 'savior' was a virgin.16'”17 Yet despite the Hellenistic elements, if any, present in the translation, one cannot deny “the fact that the lexicological, historical, and religious interpretations presented, at any rate by the translation of Isaiah, of the Hebrew text, are Jewish both as to form and content.”18 That is to say, it is a fully accurate translation. The translator had, at his disposal, the Greek work neanis (νεᾶνις) which, more broadly, means a young maiden in the sense that ālmā does. Yet, after very careful consideration, the translator chose to use parthenos instead of neanis in this particular instance as a translation of ālmā, despite the use of neanis in five other locations.19 It is accurate for “we are justified in qualifying this Hellenizing influence as relatively weak; the mentality which the translator brought to bear on his work was nourished, it is clear, from predominantly Jewish sources.20 The word neanis is used through the Septuagint so there was the ability to use it; however, the conscious Jewish interpretation translated, and elevated, the word ālmā to parthenos. Thus, there seems to be no reason to assume any sort of tendentiousness with regards to the translation but a deepening of the understanding of the iconic prophecy.
Some seven centuries after Isaiah gave the prophecy and a rough three centuries after the translation into Greek, St. Matthew, in interpreting the Nativity story, interprets Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy fulfilled in the virginal birth of Christ. “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,' which means 'God is with us.'"21 In his Gospel, St. Matthew quotes the Septuagint directly and perfectly. Thus, in this sense, it remains an accurate translation, or reiteration, of the oracle prophesied by Isaiah some seven centuries earlier; it is not tendentious. St. Matthew's use of the quote is to perform one end; to provide a scriptural support for a point with regards to Christ that he has already accepted on faith – that Christ was born of a virgin.22 In the eyes of the Gospel writer, there is an obvious typological, and distinctly tropological (Christological), understanding of the Old Testament text. There is no doubt that “Matthew very likely knew both readings and consciously chose the latter here.”23 Thus, in that sense, it is clear that St. Matthew seems to be straying away from both Isaiah's original intent (as far as Isaiah's had an intent and autonomy of will apart from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost) of the prophecy and the Septuagint's translation of that prophecy; a prophecy “that did not speak of a miraculous birth centuries later”24 but of the imminent birth of Israel only two or three years later. Thus, in this sense, St. Matthew can be seen as tendentious in quoting Isaiah for a purpose that seems to be far removed from the intent originally in Isaiah. Here, St. Matthew is clearly adding a new sense to the scriptural prophecy; one that has a higher tropological fulfillment in Christ.
At the very least, we know that Immanuel was the name for a child whose birth was announced to King Ahaz by the prophet Isaiah. It was a sign. “A sign must be fulfilled within a few years or it ceases to be a sign”25 or it fails to be a sign. That is, the sign was given specifically to Ahaz with the specific historical context in mind – the Syro-Ephraimite War. “However, the sign that is given must have an immediate relevance to the historical context. For example, the deliverance from Syria and Ephraim will occur some little time after the birth of this child...Immanuel's birth is imminent and surely Isaiah's hearers would have understood it in this way. So some commentators have argued that the immediate reference is to the birth of King Hezekiah or Isaiah's second son in 8:1-4.”26 That is, the verse cannot be understood, in its historical contexts, as a prediction of the virginal conception and birth of Christ. Thus, Ibn Ezra, followed by Rashi, argues that “the sign cannot refer to Jesus since it calls for verification in the near future.”27 That is, the prophecy must speak to the eminent birth of Immanuel. On the other hand, Christian scholars argue that they “have misused the translation of 'young woman' by ignoring the messianic implication of the prophecy.”28 Thus there is a tension between the immediate and literal interpretation of the prophecy and the eventual and tropological interpretation of the prophecy. This crisis with regards to the nature of prophecy, I believe, is akin to the various senses of Scripture.
Thus, I propose the following solution – a plurality of meanings. “It can be said that the entire biblical chronology for this period is confused and internally inconsistent, with the result that a conclusion cannot be reached on chronological grounds alone.”29 Yet, we have great reason to believe that Isaiah was speaking directly to Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimite War. On the other hand, it seems as though the “prophecy has an even more far-reaching importance.”30 “The prophecy had immediate meaning to King Ahaz and his question about whether to enter into a foreign alliance. The prophecy of Immanuel also forecast the later scriptural revelation in Matthew.”31 Thus, for it to fulfill its role as a sign of God's power and might for King Ahaz, it had to be fulfilled within a few years of the very utterance of the prophecy by Isaiah. Yet, we must also interpret the prophecy as having its highest fulfillment not in an event of Ahaz's day, but in the birth of Christ which truly affirms 'God is with us.'32 It is Christ and only Christ that truly and utterly fulfills any prophecy, type, or truth in Scripture for he is the true λόγος of God.
Through the historical-critical method, we come to see that the Biblical texts themselves testify to a process of generating new and multiple meanings and appropriations in the course of the life cycle of the same texts.33 This, of course, is up to the end of the Apostolic Age and the eventual canonization of Scripture by the Church. This could explain the Septuagint translator's move in choosing parthenos over neanis in this particular context as legitimately Jewish; that is, a theological elevation in the meaning that, while it may slightly betray the strict literal meaning, narrows in on and further interprets the truth that is God, revealed by God.
Further still, the prophecy must have an immediate fulfillment (else it would fail as a sign) and yet, at the same time, maintain a higher and more transcendental fulfillment which St. Matthew fittingly interprets as God becoming man in the Incarnation of Christ. For this reason, to insist on the prophecy as merely speaking to Isaiah's second son or some immediate fulfillment distorts and betrays the transcendental profundity of the prophecy of 'God with us,' when, literally in the flesh, the Son of God assumes a human nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin and becomes man and dwells amongst us in the mystery of the Incarnation.
1Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972, pg. 100.
2Gilbert Guffin, The Gospel in Isaiah. Nashville: Convention Press, 1968, pg. 64.
3The Gospel in Isaiah, 64.
4The Gospel in Isaiah, 64.
5Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, 101.
6Joseph Jensen & Irwin, William H Irwin. “Isaiah 1-39.” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed. Brown, Raymond E., Fitzmyer, Joseph A., and Murphy, Roland, E. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990. 229-248. ,(6:12-8:8), pg. 235.
7Werner E Lemke. “Immanuel.” In The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. Ed. Achtemeier, Paul, 419. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.pg. 410.
8Bible commentary 1023 – 7.1-8.18
9Scott Hahn, ed. Catholic Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubeday, 2009, pg. 244.
10Lemke “Immanuel,” 410.
11Herbert Wolf. Interpreting Isaiah : The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah. Grand Rapids Mich.: Academie Books, 1985, pg. 90.
12Catholic Bible Dictionary, 397.
13Isaiah 7:17
14Bible commentary 1023 – 7.1-8.18
15Bible commentary 1024 – 7.1-8.18
16My humble attempt at a translation of “weil in der Zeit und der Umgebung des Übersetzers die Vorstellung herrschend war, die Mutter des Erlösers sei eine Jungfrau”
17Isaac Seeligmann. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah a Discussion of its Problems. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1948, pgs. 119-120.
18The Septuagint Version of Isaiah a Discussion of its Problems, 121.
19cf. Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:26; Proverbs 30:19' Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8. For more, see attached sheet.
20The Septuagint Version of Isaiah a Discussion of its Problems, 120.
21Matthew 1:23 - Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Μεθ' ἡμῶν ὁ θεός.
22Lemke “Immanuel,” 410.
23Benedict Viviano, T. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” In The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed. Brown, Raymond E., Fitzmyer, Joseph A., and Murphy, Roland, E. 630-674.,(1:16-2:2), pg. 635.
24Viviano “The Gospel According to Matthew, ” 635.
25Interpreting Isaiah : The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah, 91-92.
26David Peterson, Christ and His People in the Book of Isaiah. Leicester England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003, pg. 57.
27Joseph Blenkinsopp. “Isaiah 1-39.” In The Anchor Bible, Vol. 19. Ed. Albright, William, Freedman, David. New York: Doubleday, 2000, pg. 233.
28Interpreting Isaiah : The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah, 91.
29Blenkinsopp “Isaiah 1-39,” 234.
30Catholic Bible Dictionary, 244.
31Catholic Bible Dictionary, 400.
32The Gospel in Isaiah, 65.
33Blenkinsopp “Isaiah 1-39,” 234.
No comments:
Post a Comment