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.
So your unstated but obvious conclusion is that Jesus was a mad man. Got it. Have you ever spent any time reading C.S. Lewis? You might, might, learn a thing or two about Christianity.
Thats what you got out of my post? That is a stretch.
Have you ever spent any time reading C.S. Lewis?
I have read the Screwtape letters and Mere Christianity.
Both good books but based, like all of Christianity, on mistranslantions and eisegetic renderings of the Hebrew.
I think blasater1960 is Jewish. He is not going to believe that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. His presenting a case for a different understanding of OT verses that we take as prophesying the birth of Jesus and presenting a different understanding does not tell us what he personally believes about Jesus. It simply is a defense of the Jewish understanding of those verses and why they (to them) do not show Jesus is the messiah.
He may think Jesus was a liar, he may think he was a lunatic. But that is for him to say and not for us to presume.
Your conclusions stamp Jesus a mad man because of what Jesus said of Himself. You not only deny what He said of Himself, you pose your position as so refutational that only a mad man would not dump the pretense you assume for the founding of Christianity. If you were familiar with Lewis, you would know that he posed the issue as one reading of Him can make only one of two choices: He was Whom He said He was, or he was a mad man on the level of claiming he was a fried egg.
Today is not my first or even fifth reading of balaster’s railings. We’ve had a Christian Rabbi of FR refute him and he refuses to acknowledge his own errors.
I don’t know the background and I still think we should not presume somebody else’s meaning. There is no such thing as a Christian Rabbi. Christianity and Judaism are two different religions.
“Christian Rabbi?” ... no such thing...
You know, if the man hadn’t healed the sick by touching them, if he hadn’t given sight to the blind by applying his saliva and mud, if he hadn’t walked on water, if he hadn’t come back after being brutally executed, if he hadn’t calmed storms with a word, if he hadn’t raised the dead, if many dead had not come out of their graves when he died on that cross, if there wasn’t eye-witness accounts for all the above, I’d say you might have a point.
When you look at Jesus's criticisms of the phariseess and the sribes, he points to hypocrisy as a big issue. This is very much like the prophets, very much like Amos, Obadiah etc. His teachings are much like the minor prophets.
The problem is that Jesus did not write one book by his own hand. So all we have is other men writing about what he said. The problem is that a lot of the NT contradicts, mistranslates and invents messianic passages from the OT. Whos fault is that...Jesus's? Or the men who wrote the NT? Since Jesus didnt write a word of it...I blame the authors of the NT. What did Jesus really believe of himself? We will never know. He wrote nothing.
All I know is that the NT is riddled with error both in eisegesis and theology.
The original Jewish christians neither believed in virgin birth nor in the divinity of Jesus.
Your messianic pastor has never refuted any of my arguments. He is no Rabbi.
Yes they did.
C.S. Lewis’ argument does have its place. But it is not the only Christian apologetic available to Christians. I don’t believe he was even trying to use it against the Jewish understanding of Jesus but against secularists who tried to make the claim that Jesus was only a good man.
Exactly right. The best Christian for Christian-Jewish polemics I would say is Michael Brown. I have read most of his stuff too. No matter though, even he fails (IMHO) to make the case because even he can not make a square hole round...and he trys very hard.
A four-legged stool is very stable. Take away a leg and space the remaining ones evenly and the stool is still stable.
The three legs that support Christianity are 1. The Virgin birth (because it says that God, not Joseph, is Jesus’ father), 2. The crucifixion (because that solved the sin problem for every individual who wants it solved) and 3. the resurrection (proving He was God and prototyping every believer’s coming resurrection and qualifcation for eternal life).
These three are what is necessary for real Christianity, and they are proved by the fact that The Word Of God says they are so.
God’s enemies try to take His Word apart and remove key elements, because they are destructive to Satan’s kingdom.
While you may argue the merits of this on other points - the presence of the scroll of Isaiah (from which the passage in question is present) predates the Christian era by several centuries and if virtually identical to the Masoretic text that is 1000 years older. So on this point, the issue is moot.
Even Luther, Zwingli and Calvin believed in the Virgin birth and that Mary was a perpetual virgin!
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
[Why I Am Catholic]: Because of the Protestant Reformers Beliefs On Mary
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Mary: Virgin and Ever Virgin
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Protestant Reformers on the Virgin Mary
Zwingli’s’ Mariology: On Mary “Full of Grace”
To what are you referring?
The questionability of the Masoritic text.
DSS great scroll of Isaiah is dated about 200 BC and is virtually identical to the oldest masoritic text a 1000 years younger.
Since the discussion is the prophetic verse from Isaiah, and your comments regarding the questionable later ‘altering’ of the masoritic, my point is that at least in the case of Isaiah, that hasn’t happened.
Would such a masoretic text of Isaiah contain vowel markings? The masoretic text of the Pentateuch should, as it was recited aloud in a formal setting. But why would Isaiah contain vowel markings?
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.