Let me begin by stating up front that I do not think that the Prophet Isaiah intended anything like a virgin birth when he states “Behold, the young woman will be with child and bear a son…” in 7.14
(הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן). Neither do I think the first evangelist (Mt. 1.22-23) misused this passage when he wrote “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son…” (Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν). The LXX translator already made the decision at one point to choose a more narrow semantic range for his interpretation of הָעַלְמָ֗ה as ἡ παρθένος. So the evangelist did have a text that provided him with Scriptural “support” for his interpretation of the story of the virgin birth.
As an aside this is something I find interesting. There does not seem to be any indication that the Jews of this era expected a virgin-born Messiah. At least none of which I am aware. I know some detractors from the story of the virgin birth note that there are stories of gods being born from virgins, but I don’t think the stand-alone Christology of the First Gospel is as emphatic about Jesus’ divine characteristics as it is his messianic qualifications. If this is so it would seem that there may have very well been an event that made the evangelist search the Scriptures for some evidence that this was foreseen by the prophets rather than the way it is often presented as the evangelist thought this passage from the Book of Isaiah said something about a virgin-born Messiah and/or deity so the evangelist had to construct a story about Jesus to make it appear as if he fulfilled this prophecy. The immediate context of Is. 7.14 does not demand a virgin-born anyone.
In the original narrative הָעַלְמָ֗ה may or may not have referred to a virgin. What is more important is that there is a certain woman in view who maybe would conceive a son for Ahaz or maybe from Isaiah (it is hard to tell: though 8.3 does have Isaiah fathering a son through a prophetess the child is named Maher-shalal-hash-baz or “swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” which seems to have a different tone than Emmanuel meaning “God with us”). In this context what is important is that the child’s birth signifies a clock is ticking toward judgment upon the kings of Israel and Aram.
The evangelist does note this context, as I wrote yesterday, and I think he applies the judgment of kings to the judgment of Herod. This still does not seem to be a sufficient cause for creating a virgin birth narrative. Rather, it seems to me that there was an event that was told as a virgin birth narrative in the early church that forced the evangelist back to the prophets and he made the connection between the LXX translation and Herod’s death as some sort of “fillfullment” (as Bryan E. Beyer wrote in his book Encountering the Book of Isaiah, p. 74).
It seems to me very straightforward that the young woman’s status as a virgin or not a virgin is a secondary issue lost to history. The Prophet foresaw an immediate sign tied into immediate events related specifically to Judah and their King, Ahaz. Nevertheless, I think this makes the use in Mt. 1.23 all that much more dramatic. Since the evangelist had no internal reason to see Is. 7.14 as applied to Messiah (even with the LXX translation, I do not see any good reason to read this as a messianic text in and of itself), it seems that there is good reason to suppose an external reason.
Now, I know virgin births do not happen. Also, I know resurrections do not happen. That does not mean a virgin birth and a resurrection did not happen! I do not have any problem with the doctrine of the virgin birth as I examine how the evangelist read this text and applied it. Rather, I think it serves as good reason for me to assume that something like a virgin birth occurred which led people to seek for a sign from Scripture that God had foretold such an awkward event!
See also: My post examining another connection between Is. 7.14 and Mt. 1.23 here.
the archives near Emmaus 
Simply put the Virgin Birth or Conception of Jesus of Nazareth is a revelation and doctrine of the NT Church. First given to Mary the Mother of the Lord, and to Joseph. Mary being the first “believer” and herself the place and vessel of this grand Incarnation! “Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.” (Lk. 1:45)
With the angels and the multitude of the heavenly host, let us praise God, saying: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men.” (Lk. 2: 13-14) 🙂
I think there could be more to the LXX. Jewish tradition then held on to the view that the LXX was inspired too. Of course the LXX was set aside by the jews after 70 AD. Some people claim it was a response to Christianity’s use of the LXX. The virgin birth was a big reason. Also the intertestamental books spoke of ressurection, another thing the Jews did not like. So what do you think of the idea that the LXX could be inspired? It does put us protestants in a bind. But i see no better way to explain the expectation of a virgin birth.
@ Fr. Robert: I think we agree in principle. I am not asking this question to determine whether or not the virgin birth occurred. I am asking why the first evangelist felt obligated to find a passage of Scripture that may have hinted toward such an event. It seems to me that the virgin birth is a given for the first evangelist.
@ Sam: That is an interesting proposal. I know the Orthodox understand the LXX to function as their Old Testament and it does seem that many early Christians understood the LXX to be of greater value than most Christians today. I don’t know if I can say that the LXX, as a whole, is inspired. I do think it altogether possible that the Spirit had a part in the translation of various passages that would allow early Christians to read their Scriptures through a messianic lens, but that is a complicated subject in and of itself.
Brian, amen indeed! But behind the Gospels, and all the NT Letters, and finally “Canon” is the Church of God! Without the Church we know and have nothing!
This is true. It is the people of God who have been entrusted with the Scriptures and the gospel that emerges from the Scriptures.
“… there was an event that was told as a virgin birth narrative in the early church that forced the evangelist back to the prophets…”
John 8:41b could be taken to be an oblique reference to Jesus being “illegitimate.” If that is so, perhaps even Jesus’ opponents are aware of his alleged parentage but don’t believe it.
@MF: Maybe, but that is not immediately apparent. The context refers to Abrahamic decent.
It is in the context of Abrahamic descent, but the claim that “we are not illegitimate children” might have a double meaning (one of John’s specialties), as if to say, “We, unlike you, are not illegitimate. Oh yes, we’ve heard your mama wasn’t married when you were conceived. We know about you.” Not a sure thing, but possible.
@MF: It is possible, but again, not immediately apparent. The Prologue of the gospel could support the doctrine of a virgin birth, but we cannot speak much further than that. Johannine scholars may disagree, but I do not think we find support for or against the virgin birth alone (though a canonical reading may be something altogether different).
It is very refreshing to find someone that has took the time to read this story in context. But trying to create a reason why Matthew misquoted this passage after hearing it read many times is ignoring the historical evidence of the first few centuries of Christianity. The hebrew was what was read in the synagogues so forcing a greek reading would of been a very unlikely act. This is not the only verses his misquotes or doesnt understand. This shows the Matthew that we now have is a redacted version by someone who was far removed from the 1st century. I believe it was Jerome that states Matthew was at first written in hebrew and the quotes followed the hebrew OT not the greek translation. So why ignore the evidence?