DiscussMormonism.com

The early Christians' scripture was the Septuagint - the Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament. In that translation, Isaiah speaks of a virgin giving birth. The early Christians used that to construct a history of Jesus that they felt would make his birth seem like a foretold event. The only problem: "virgin" is a mistranslation, and should read "young woman." Opa!

Joseph Smith famously entertained many celestial visitors. Two of these visitors were Elijah and Elias, prophets of the Bible. The only problem is Elijah and Elias were the same person, Elias being the Greek version of Elijah. Opa!

Opa! Indeed. Well, many new ideas are the result of what Harold Bloom calls "misprision."

Buffalo wrote:Joseph Smith famously entertained many celestial visitors. Two of these visitors were Elijah and Elias, prophets of the Bible. The only problem is Elijah and Elias were the same person, Elias being the Greek version of Elijah. Opa!

Except that Jesus said John the Baptist was Elias too.

(cue dramatic revelation music)

Wow, what a relief to all the Christians out there who stew and worry about how a virgin could have a baby. She was really just a young woman who had premarital sex. That is MUCH easier to explain to the critic.

Hey, wait a second... If Mormon doctrine says Heavenly Father inseminated Mary by natural means, why would they call her a virgin anyway?

The Nehor wrote:Except that Jesus said John the Baptist was Elias too.

(cue dramatic revelation music)

Yeah, Jesus had pretty crappy Greek.

The Nehor wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Joseph Smith famously entertained many celestial visitors. Two of these visitors were Elijah and Elias, prophets of the Bible. The only problem is Elijah and Elias were the same person, Elias being the Greek version of Elijah. Opa!

Except that Jesus said John the Baptist was Elias too.

(cue dramatic revelation music)

Reincarnation is great! They're still the same guy. If they were two different OT-era prophets with the same name they'd be Elijah and Elijah.

zeezrom wrote:Wow, what a relief to all the Christians out there who stew and worry about how a virgin could have a baby. She was really just a young woman who had premarital sex. That is MUCH easier to explain to the critic.

Hey, wait a second... If Mormon doctrine says Heavenly Father inseminated Mary by natural means, why would they call her a virgin anyway?

Since Mormon doctrine doesn't say that we can safely ignore your hypothetical question.

Buffalo wrote:Reincarnation is great! They're still the same guy. If they were two different OT-era prophets with the same name they'd be Elijah and Elijah.

But since we're speaking English and both Elijah and Elias have made it into our (and Joseph Smith's) language, why not use both to distinguish between the two?

Buffalo wrote:The early Christians' scripture was the Septuagint - the Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament. In that translation, Isaiah speaks of a virgin giving birth. The early Christians used that to construct a history of Jesus that they felt would make his birth seem like a foretold event. The only problem: "virgin" is a mistranslation, and should read "young woman." Opa!

Meh. There's a lot of literature on this. Since the Septuagint is slightly older than the Hebrew texts we have, how do we know it doesn't preserve an older text?

And even if it doesn't, how do we know that early Christians invented the virgin birth basing it on the passage? What if Matthew, as was his habit, just found an Old Testament text to serve as a prophecy for something that was already common Christian knowledge?

Buffalo wrote:The early Christians' scripture was the Septuagint - the Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament. In that translation, Isaiah speaks of a virgin giving birth. The early Christians used that to construct a history of Jesus that they felt would make his birth seem like a foretold event. The only problem: "virgin" is a mistranslation, and should read "young woman." Opa!

Much more relevant, Buffalo, is the semantic domain of Hebrew 'almâ. LXX is relevant only after that preliminary investigation. And it's just not the case that, in Old Testament, Heb. 'almâ necessarily excludes the meaning "virgin"; rather, in some places, it seems to demand it. So, while popular, the LXX mistranslation criticism is not particularly compelling.

Far more interesting and problematic is that New Testament implicitly assumes a dual prophetic fulfillment of Is. 7.14. That's something worth spilling ink over.

c