Posted on 05/08/2011 4:01:12 AM PDT by GonzoII
| by | A.P. Staff |
One of the first miracles recorded in the New Testament is the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. According to Matthew 1:22-23, Isaiah prophesied about the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14. However, some in the scholarly community (particularly those within the atheistic and agnostic segments) deny that Isaiah was prophesying about a virgin birth. Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows in three separate translations:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (ASV, emp. added).Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (KJV, emp. added).
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el (RSV, emp. added).
The difficulty with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 lies in the Revised Standard Version’s translation of the verse, which renders the Hebrew word ‘almâ as “young woman.” The American Standard and King James Versions render ‘almâ as “virgin.” If the correct translation of the verse is “ young woman,” then Matthew misquotes and misuses a section of Isaiah. According to Sam Gibson, a former-believer-turned-skeptic and author of the website Cygnus’ Study Debunking the Bible, the Bible cannot be true since, “there is not one prophecy in the Bible that cannot be explained away through rational, chronological, interpretive or other methods without relying on the supernatural” (2001). If Isaiah is not a prophecy at all, then others like Mr. Gibson will fall from Christianity, citing the Bible as unreliable.
Those who are opposed to the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic passage referring to a virgin birth claim that ‘ almâ does not mean “virgin,” and that the word used exclusively for “ virgin” is the Hebrew word betûlâ. Both of these claims, however, are inaccurate. A careful look at the etymological and semantical aspects of these two words actually documents the fact that there is no single-word-meaning for either Hebrew term.
According to John Walton, one of the translations of ‘almâ is “young woman,” but there are certain nuances to the Hebrew term. After examining all occurrences of the word, and looking briefly at its etymology, Walton gave the lexigraphical definition of ‘almâ as “one who has not yet borne a child and as an abstraction refers to the adolescent expectation of motherhood.” In application to Isaiah 7:14, he admitted that virginity seemed to be implied (1997a, 3:415-418). As to the claim that, if Isaiah had meant virgin, he would have used betûlâ, Walton refutes that as well. He says that betûlâ is a “social status indicating that a young girl is under the guardianship of her father, with all the age and sexual inferences that accompany that status” (1997b, 1:783). If the passage was a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus, then betûlâ would not apply since Mary, while not yet married per se to Joseph, was nonetheless no longer under the guardianship of her father.
The Septuagint renders ‘almâ in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which means “a female of marriageable age with focus on virginity” (Danker, 2000, p. 777). Concerning the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew, Dohmen noted:
It is unlikely that the LXX [Septuagint] tried to import the concept of a virgin birth, a familiar idea in many religious traditions, into Isa. 7:14. It is also possible that the unusual translation of the LXX is an attempt to accommodate the meaning of the text as altered by both the redaction and the reception of the original prophetic oracle (2001, 10:160, emp. added).
The translators of the Greek Septuagint rendered ‘almâ as parthenos, which generally means “virgin,” instead of neanis, which generally means “young woman” (Danker, p. 667). Jerome, in his translation of the Bible into Latin, rendered parthenos as virgo, which usually means “virgin” (Dohmen, 10:160). It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint took the thought of the Hebrew passage and translated it into a Greek word for “virgin.” Since they worked about two hundred years before Christ was born, then the translators of the Septuagint could not have been trying to “fit” scripture to a Christian viewpoint, but instead were merely giving the correct translation for the passage. Of the passage in Isaiah 7:14, H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell made the following observations:
The rendering “virgin” has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless ’almah is translated “virgin,” there is no announcement made worth of the grand prelude: “The Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold!” The Hebrew, however, has not “a virgin” but “the virgin” (and so the Septuagint, h parthenos), which points to some special virgin, preeminent above all others (1962, 10:128, emp. in orig., italicized Greek words transliterated from Greek characters in orig.).
The point is well made that Isaiah was emphasizing a special birth, worthy of being considered a sign from God. With that in mind, the logical translation for ‘almâ is “virgin.”
Besides Isaiah 7:14, ‘almâ is used in Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8. In an examination of the passages using the word ‘almâ, H.C. Leupold concluded that it “cannot be denied that such a one is to be classified as a virgin” (1988, 1:156). James Coffman drew an identical conclusion in his Commentary on Isaiah, citing Homer Hailey’s conclusion that the word ‘almâ , as used in the Old Testament, must be referring to a virgin (1990, p. 75). J. Gresham Machen, in his classic book, The Virgin Birth of Christ, indicated that “there is no place among the seven occurrences of ‘almah in the Old Testament where the word is clearly used of a woman who was not a virgin” (1980, p. 288).
In Genesis 24:43, the word ‘almâ refers to Rebekah, who we know from Genesis 24:16 was a virgin (which, incidentally, is designated by the term betûlâ). So here both betûlâ and ‘almâ are used to refer to a virgin girl. In Exodus 2:8, ‘almâ refers to Miriam, the elder sister of Moses. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that his sister was married at that time. In fact, it appears that she was not married and still living at home; therefore, ‘almâ likely is referring to her virgin condition. The Psalm 68:25 reference uses ‘almâ to designate young girls who were playing timbrels in what appears to be a religious parade or ceremony. It is highly unlikely that these girls were not virgins, since it would be uncommon for either a married woman or an unchaste girl to be involved in such a procession. Proverbs 30:19 is a little harder to decipher, but it appears that it is referring to intercourse between a man and a woman. [“There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not: the way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maiden.”] However, it is impossible to ascertain from the verse whether or not the woman was a virgin. From the context of Song of Solomon 1:3 (“Thine oils have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as oil poured forth; therefore do the virgins love thee”), ‘almâ can refer only to a virgin. Song of Solomon 6:8 (“There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number”) also is obviously referring to virgins, as opposed to the queens and concubines who have lost their virginity.
In Matthew 1:18-25, the apostle Matthew provided a divinely inspired commentary, citing Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us’ ” (Matthew 1:22-23, emp. added).
Therefore, the only conclusion that one can draw respecting the available evidence is that the Hebrew word ‘almâ, as used in Isaiah 7:14 and elsewhere in the Bible, is properly rendered “virgin.” The term does not always mean virgin in non-biblical writings, nor do analogous terms of other Semitic languages necessitate this translation. Nevertheless, in biblical usage, the only example that can be found is of a young woman whose virginity is intact. Leupold commented:
The translation “virgin,” therefore, deserves to be moved out of the margin [referring to the marginal translation of ‘almâ as “virgin” that the RSV gives] and into the text; and the translation “young woman” merits no more than marginal status (1988, 1:157).
While correct on certain other translation points, the translators of the RSV made an erroneous judgment in the case of Isaiah 7:14.
REFERENCES
Coffman, James Burton (1990), Commentary on Isaiah (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press).
Danker, Fredrick William (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Dohmen, C. (2001), “‘almâ, ‘elem,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 10:154-163.
Gibson, Sam (2001), “Cygnus’ Study—The Prophecy Challenge,” Cygnus’ Study Debunking the Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.cygnus-study.com/prophecy.shtml.
Leupold, H.C. (1988), Exposition of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Machen, J. Gresham (1980), The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Spence, H.D.M. and Joseph Exell (1962), The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Walton, John (1997a), “‘alûmîm, ‘elem, ‘almâ,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 3:415-419.
Walton, John H. (1997b), “betûlâ,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 1:781-784.
"The translators of the Greek Septuagint rendered ‘almâ as parthenos, which generally means “virgin,” instead of neanis, which generally means “young woman” (Danker, p. 667). Jerome, in his translation of the Bible into Latin, rendered parthenos as virgo, which usually means “virgin” (Dohmen, 10:160). It is interesting that the translators of the Septuagint took the thought of the Hebrew passage and translated it into a Greek word for “virgin.” Since they worked about two hundred years before Christ was born, then the translators of the Septuagint could not have been trying to “fit” scripture to a Christian viewpoint, but instead were merely giving the correct translation for the passage. Of the passage in Isaiah 7:14, H.D.M. Spence and Joseph Exell made the following observations:
The rendering “virgin” has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless ’almah is translated “virgin,” there is no announcement made worth of the grand prelude: “The Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold!” The Hebrew, however, has not “a virgin” but “the virgin” (and so the Septuagint, h parthenos), which points to some special virgin, preeminent above all others (1962, 10:128, emp. in orig., italicized Greek words transliterated from Greek characters in orig.).The point is well made that Isaiah was emphasizing a special birth, worthy of being considered a sign from God. With that in mind, the logical translation for ‘almâ is “virgin.”
Bingo! So we are to believe that the Holy Spirit was telling us: "Check THIS out!: a young women is going to have a son, now THAT'S a sign you can believe in!"/S.
Also, is it just me? or can we not also not logically believe that the Septuagint writers understood the nuance of a Hebrew word better than some modern scholars seeing that they were closer to the source?
"In Matthew 1:18-25, the apostle Matthew provided a divinely inspired commentary, citing Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us’ ” (Matthew 1:22-23, emp. added)."
Here we have it that some modern scholars seem to not believe in divine inspiration i.e., St. Matthew misunderstood Isaias. I think I'll take my Bible study from the Apostle.
"The translation “virgin,” therefore, deserves to be moved out of the margin [referring to the marginal translation of ‘almâ as “virgin” that the RSV gives] and into the text; and the translation “young woman” merits no more than marginal status (1988, 1:157)."
And have that young lady removed from the New American Bible too, please.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Cor 2:14 (ESV)
30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"
Thank you for this, GonzoII. Makes me glad that my Bible is a Douay/Confraternity. ;) Well done, and interesting site.
The workings of the Bible and of God are not a matter for "gotcha's", proof, or disproving (ha!) as twenty-first century man has come to learn of "proof". If it were, we could all just as well be as rocks and unswervingly perform our roles as rocks (reflect and praise our Creator). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).
HF
No problem!
Really really sad that people take so much time to disprove something they cannot. Their efforts are a window into their tormented souls, or they wouldn’t be doing it. The action itself presents evidence that the Holy Spirit has not given up on them. I will pray for them today at mass, just sad.
The rendering “virgin” has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay
hardly
This is yet another reason why the Protestant deification of the Masoretic text is so dangerous; it's a post-Christian redaction, published by Jews who blamed the spread of Christianity for God destroying their temple, and their humiliation at the hands of the Romans.
Besides, how is a young woman becoming pregnant a sign of something so profoundly unique?
What I can’t figure out is, why some people think God couldn’t cause a virgin to become pregnant? I mean we can do that now with a turkey baster for crying out loud. Our in a petri dish.
Plus the bible verse that mc5cents posted, how much clearer can it be made?
In case you don’t realize it, the argument is that the gospel of Luke is a lie, written by people who didn’t understand the Old Testament.
Lotta’ convolutions in arriving at the above. It demonstrates that “where there is a will there is a way.” “Maid” is a word that had a meaning comparable to ‘virgin’ but which has morphed with use to mean ‘domestic servant’.
“Faith” is a word that comes into play with respect to the Bible. If one has even a sliver of Faith or a hope to have Faith then one may, in his questioning, be visited by the Holy Spirit.
Faith absent the illumination of the Holy Spirit is just stupidity. God has not left us stranded on this ‘floating mote’ with no possible sense of His Being.
Both Tertullian and Origen warned in the 2nd century that the Jews of the time were changing their scriptures to water down the prophecies concerning Jesus. These prophecies were perhaps the most successful, and certainly the most widely used apologetic and evangelistic tools of eary Christians. Thus, I share your suspicion of the Masoretic text.
But they were certainly convinced the translation should be "the virgin" if my source is correct:
SEPTUAGINT (BC 285): Isaiah 7:14 hay parthenos - THE VIRGIN
I saw sound logical evidence. The meanings of the words and their use were clearly demonstrated and the drawing of a the conclusion justified.
Actually, St. Jerome did translate “alma” in producing the Vulgate. He was the one who began the Western trend of favoring Hebrew texts over the LXX that the Church had used from the beginning as the Old Covenant Scriptures, which trend in later years the protestants turned into an enthusiasm for recovering the now-unrecoverable ur-text. (I’m not sure he worked with what we now call the Masorete, as the earliest extant manuscript of the Masorete dates to the tenth century A.D.)
I’m even suspicious of the RSV and most more recent translations even in the way they handle the New Testament. The RSV does not follow the Scriptures received by the Church (what Western academic scholars call “the Byzantine Majority Text”), but whatever the translators judge to be the “original” text, and thus mishandles, among other things the account of the healing the man born blind. In the Church’s Scriptures, Christ asks “do you believe in the Son of God?”, in the RSV it’s “do you believe in the Son of Man?” The difference is important, as this is the first sign Christ performed with no parallel among the signs performed by the prophets, and, I think, the only place where Jesus proclaims his divinity to one outside his circle of disciples (other than by addressing the Father as “Father”) Holy Tradition says the man was born without eyes, and that the making of clay was to create eyes for him. Even one discounts this as mere legend, what we now know about the neurophysiology of sight makes the gift of sight to one born blind even with non-functioning eyes at least as much a sign of divinity (hint: it involves instantaneously rewiring the retina and visual cortex which usually take months of seeing in infancy to work properly).
Indeed he did:
Is:7 Ver. 14. Virgin, halma, (Haydock) one secluded from the company of men. Alma in Latin signifies "a holy person," and in Punic "a virgin." The term is never applied to any but "a young virgin." If it meant a young woman, what sort of a sign would this be? (St. Jerome)
Source: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1227.html
You're welcome.
I have our family Douay/Confraternity Bible from the 50s which my dad gave me. It needs rebinding for sure. It's a shame they never did complete the Old Testament translation.
“I saw sound logical evidence. “
My point exactly.
So, you have a sign given for king Ahaz that if it was to be applied to Jesus.....would be worthless for king Ahaz. Jesus doesnt show up for 700 years.
Also, the Jewish scribes translated the Torah only into Greek. It was the Christians who translated the rest, including Isaiah and the apocryphal books.
It G-d would have wanted to make the point that the woman in Isaiah 7 was a virgin, he would have used betulah like he did in Gen 24:16 where Rebekah is called a Maiden and a Virgin.
Also, Isaiah had three sons, whose names reflected G-ds work at the time. His third son was Immanuel. Jesus name in the greek is Joshua, not Immanuel. Many Jewish names contain the name of G-d. NEVER has ANY of these people been considered divine....just because there name contains the name of G-d.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.