On Sun, 25 Sep 1994, Larry Swain wrote:
> For starters, I am not convinced that Matthew did "misinterpret" a LXX
> version of Is. 7.14. I think that he deliberatly interpreted it.
Could you clarify that, please?
> You are correct in pointing out that in many, perhaps even the majority
> of occurrances, parthenos appears synonymous with neanis, occasionally
> being used to describe a sexual state or marital state. IN short, a
> discussion of the meaning of parthenos will depend on the context. Since
> Genesis 34 was brought up-parthenos is used twice to refer to Dinah-once
> before the rape and once after. I
do not think that "virgin" is the best
> translation for Is. 7.14.
Nor do I.
I do think that it is a necessary translation
> for Mt 1.23 because of the care that Matthew takes in pointing out Mary's
> sexual purity in the eyes of the Law, that Jesus is not Joseph's son but
> Mary's, that at the very least this conception is sanctioned by the
> HS-and imho, ( I read MT 1.1 as referring to Genesis) caused by the HS
> referring us back to Gen 1.2 and 2.7, and that Joseph did not "know" her
> until after Jesus' birth all add up to Matt saying that in Jesus we have
> a virginal conception which fulfills this piece of scripture, which Mt
> would then have probably read as "virgin" rather than just young girl.
Would you say that Matthew's reading "virgin" is the result of linguistic
change--resulting, for example, in Trypho the Jew's comment that the word
in Isaiah 7:14 is not properly _parthenos_ but rather _neanis_? Or would
you say it is a deliberate interpretation to fit a given theological format?