Continued from Chapter 18i
Who could say with certainty that she was a virgin following her child’s conception or at his birth?11 A virgin being with child would not be an outstanding sign?
The sign is a message imparted by the name of the male child, that is, Immanuel — “God with us,” born to the young woman, and the events that subsequently followed his birth.
In the New Testament, everyone assumed Joseph was the father of Jesus (Luke 3:23) and Jesus is never called Immanuel. The birth of the child, Jesus, did not give hope to his contemporaries, as did the birth of Immanuel to Isaiah’s contemporaries. Matthew and Luke in their respective versions of the birth annunciation relate a direct command that Mary’s child be called Jesus, not Immanuel (Matthew 1:21 to Joseph; Luke 1:31 to Mary). It is not the alleged events surrounding Jesus conception or birth that gives hope and comfort to Christians but the alleged events surrounding his death.
Isaiah 7:14 states that on divine command the young woman “shall call his name Immanuel”; 1 Chronicles 22:9 records the Lord’s declaration to David, regarding his son “for his name shall be Solomon.” Matthew merely gives his own rendering of Isaiah’s words. It is he alone who connects Isaiah 7:14 to the newborn Jesus. The divine naming of the child lmmanuel in Isaiah’s time was part of a unique revelatory sign. Matthew’s connection of the name Immanuel with Mary’s child is based on imitation not divine decree. Such names as Immanuel, “God is with us” (Isaiah 7:14), and “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the ruler of peace” (Isaiah 9:5) do not refer to God incarnate any more than the name Elihu, “My God is He” (Job 32:1; 1 Samuel 1:1; 1 Chronicles 12:21, 26:7, 27:18), refers to anyone but an ordinary human being.
It is a common fallacy among Christians to explain the name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14, see also Isaiah 8:8) as if it predicted that God would dwell on earth in a thoroughly human body. This claim is derived from Matthew’s misuse of the statement in Isaiah 8:10 that ‘immanu ’el, “God [is] with us.” It is erroneously assumed that verse 14 foretells of a miraculous conception followed by a virgin birth of a person who is to be a god in a tangible human form. God’s dwelling among His people is signalized in the name Shechaniah, “God dwells [among us]” (see Ezra 8:3; 1 Chronicles 3:21, 22).
Who more than Mary and Joseph should have remembered the “miraculous” events surrounding the birth of Jesus?
According to Luke, Mary finds Jesus in the Temple teaching the teachers (Luke 2:42-50). She scolds him for causing so much trouble, whereupon he replies with the enigmatic questions: “Why is it that you were looking for me? Did you not know that I must be concerned with the affairs of my Father?” Luke’s Gospel adds: “And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.” Mary does not understand; Joseph does not understand. If Mary and Joseph were both visited by angels before their son’s birth, how is it that they are so completely surprised only twelve years later? Does not Mary remember that Jesus was supernaturally conceived in a way never experienced by any other creature?12 If a virgin conception took place would it not carry for Mary some implications as to who Jesus was?
The virgin conception of Jesus myth was unknown to the earliest Christian communities. The use by Matthew of Isaiah 7:14, but not by Luke, shows the use of the biblical text is an afterthought, an attempt to give biblical credence to the virgin conception and subsequent birth narrative. Isaiah 7:14 is simply not the impetus for a supposed virgin birth story explaining God’s incarnate intervention in human affairs. As described in Matthew, the alleged virgin conception is a miraculous fulfillment of a non-existent prophecy. Isaiah’s words have nothing to do with the conception of Jesus whatsoever. Matthew wanted to give biblical fortification to his virgin conception process contention. He did it by referring to the Septuagint’s rendering, not the Hebrew text. Matthew 1:24 shows either a lack of understanding of the Greek translator’s motivation for rendering ‘almah as parthenos, or a deliberate misuse of the Septuagint. In any case, the evangelist may claim a virgin conception for Jesus, but the origin of his contention lies somewhere else than in either the Hebrew biblical text or the Greek Septuagint text. All said, in addition to not referring to a “virgin,” Isaiah’s sign occurs in a historically specific context (Isaiah 7:1). Isaiah is simply not talking about what Matthew says Isaiah is talking about, but rather, about an event in Isaiah’s own time. The misapplication in Matthew 1:23 of the Septuagint’s interpretative rendering of Isaiah 7:14 does not give anyone the right to force upon the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 the meaning found in Matthew’s text. Simply stated the crucial word in Hebrew, ‘almah, means one thing while parthenos in the Septuagint means another. Matthew’s claim of a virgin conception constitutes a miraculous misconception.
11 Verification of Mary’s post-natal virginity is claimed in the Christian Apocrypha. Dating from about 150-200, the Proto-Gospel (Protevangelium) of James is perhaps the earliest of the apocryphal infancy gospels. In the Proto-Gospel of James, Joseph calls for a midwife to assist in Jesus’ delivery, telling her, “Mary is betroth to me; but she conceived of the Holy Spirit.” As the midwife approaches Mary, she exclaims: “My soul is magnified today, for my eyes have seen wonderful things; for salvation is born to Israel.” But when the first midwife informs a second midwife, Salome, that “a virgin has brought forth,” Salome is not convinced: “As the Lord my God lives unless I put (forward) my finger and test her condition, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.” Salome refuses to believe that a virgin has given birth unless she can test Mary’s condition with her finger and find her still a virgin. It is only after performing this gynecological examination of Mary that Salome believes. Salome’s role is that of a witness of the virgin birth. This story underscores a basic problem in the Christian claim that a virgin conception and birth took place. Apparently, first century of the Common Era Jews did not know that ‘almah is supposed to be understood to mean a virgin. (See Proto-Gospel of James 19:1-20; 3 in J.K. Elliott, trans., The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.) Apparently, the story of Salome (reminiscent of Thomas’ skepticism recorded in John 20:25) was known to the philosopher and theologian Clement of Alexandria (active c. 190-215). He wrote that “[Mary], after she had delivered Jesus was examined and found to be a virgin.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis VII, c.16)
12 See Baas Van Iersel, “The Finding of Jesus in the Temple: Some Observations on the Original Form of Luke ii 41-51a,” Novum Testamentum 4 (1960), pp. 161-173.
Continued