Matthew didn't interpret. He wrote what God inspired him to write.
Again, you just proven to me that you don't know much about either Isaiah or the gospel of Matthew.
If you know anything about the OT Isaiah, it was written in Hebrew, not Greek. And the one that the gospel quoted was based on the Greek translation, the Septuagint, not the Hebrew original.
The Hebrew version say
almah "young woman", not
betulah "virgin". The Greek version say
parthenos "virgin". And the fact that it used the Hebrew word harah "conceived", "pregnant" or "with child" in conjunction with almah it mean the "young woman is with child". The word
harah is the same word used to describe Hagar's pregnancy in Genesis 16:11 -
Genesis 16:11 transliteration said:
hinach harah veyoladet ben vekarat shemo Yishma'el
Even the KJV translation of Genesis 16:11, translate
harah to
"thou art with child...":
Genesis 16:11 KJV said:
Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael...
Hence,
harah means a woman is currently "pregnant".
Almah denoted only a young woman, not whether she is a virgin or not. And
harah indicated she wasn't a virgin.
The gospel used a Greek translation of Isaiah's verse, and that understandable when you consider the gospel itself was written in Greek, not Hebrew. The author don't require to translate from Hebrew to Greek when he quoted the passage.
Matthew didn't interpret. He wrote what God inspired him to write.
Two things that are problematic with this statements:
One. This is just your faith saying that. You don't know if the author wrote that on his own or that God tell him to write it.
The former the is more likely, the later is merely wishful fantasy.
And no real scholar would say such absurd thing without backing up something more than "God told me so".
Two. As I said previously (in past replies), the gospel was written anonymously. No one know who wrote this gospel of "Matthew".
The name "Matthew" was assigned to gospel by someone from the 2nd century CE, as were the other gospels.
If Matthew was indeed the author, plus an apostle, then as an "eyewitness", why write it in the 3rd person view and not 1st person view?
And why wait 40 years or more, to write this gospel?
If Matthew was the author, he could have written this gospel, almost immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection. Or even in 5 years or 10 years. But no, this gospel was written some time between 75 and 95 BCE. This like writing two to 3 generations later.
So no, I don't think Matthew wrote this gospel. And this tell me several things:
- Whoever wrote the gospel wasn't an eyewitness.
- It dependent on earlier sources, like traditions or like an earlier gospel. And the gospel of Matthew seemed to rely on an earlier gospel (some, not all), attributed to Mark (60 - 75 CE).
- The narrative of Mary's pregnancy and Jesus' birth, such as the magi and Herod's order to massacre boys of Bethlehem seemed made up. And let's not forget the story are almost completely different from Luke's version of the birth. In Luke's version there were never in danger or have threats hanging over their heads, and no mention of them leaving Bethlehem for Egypt. But the gospel of Luke has its own flaws and inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
I don't know about you or your background, but can I ask your background on ancient literature?
I am not asking if you can read ancient languages, because I know that your education in that areas would be beyond yours (as well as my capabilities), so I would be satisfied if you have read them in the English translations.
I have range of books, my personal collection, and they include Greek and Latin, Sumerian and Babylonian, Egyptian, Hebrew, Ugaritic and even Hittite literature. Most of them are of religious and mythological themes. The only historical literature are from Greek and Roman authors, but I have the tendencies enjoy ancient myths, legends and folklore because I have always being interested in storytelling. And the other parts are I do some researches for my websites:
- Timeless Myths
- Dark Mirrors of Heaven
I was going to website on Egyptian and Middle Eastern myths, but never got around to publishing it on web server. But I still have notes that I have collected.
My points is that i can recognise literal and metaphors (or allegories or similes), fabrications or inventions, when I see them.
And the part about massacre in Bethlehem (in Matthew) or the host of angels appearing before shepherds (in Luke), do sounds like they were invented, to exaggerate the importance of Jesus' birth.
For instance, the massacre only appeared in the gospel of Matthew, and no where else, and I am not just talking about the omission in the gospel of Luke. I am referring to there being no historical records and archaeological evidences.
Flavius Josephus for instance, wrote extensively about Herod the Great and his family, including his successors. But the massacre?
Nothing...zilch...
And Josephus write plenty about murders, betrayals and scandals about Herod and his family, and yet when it come to the massacre in Bethlehem.
The most likely reason for this, is because it didn't happen.
And Josephus' works were were written roughly around the same time as the two gospels. And Josephus, unlike the gospels authors, had better access to official records than they, because he come from noble or aristocratic family, and even have tie to the temple, before the Roman destroyed in 70 CE. In fact, Josephus got involved in politics and was once fighting against the Romans, before he was captured. He became hostage and later friend of Titus, son of emperor Vespasian; Titus succeeded his father later. So Josephus would have both Roman and Jewish records.
Do I trust Josephus' accounts on Herod? Well, preferred to walk on skeptical side, and say that there might be some exaggerations, but not as exaggerated as that found in the two gospels regarding to Jesus' birth.
