By Hallvard Hagelia
Ansgar College and Theological Seminary
Any Bible translator knows that Bible translation is a risky business. The Bible is a book many people have a close and often emotional relation to; it speaks to people’s innermost feelings. The Bible is also the basic source for Christian theology. There are some biblical sayings that are very basic for Christian theology.
Isaiah 7:14 is one of these verses that has been held to be of basic significance for the dogma of the virgin birth of Christ through its interpretation in Matthew 1:23.
Norwegian Bible Society has recently published a new translation of the Bible into Norwegian, called Bibel 2011. In general, the new translation has been very well received. It has topped the bestseller lists from its publication in October 2011 through the winter. I was myself a member of the ecumenically compounded translation committee, together with 8-10 others, theologians, and philologists.
The translation committee functioned very well together but faced some challenges; one of them was the translation of the Hebrew term ‘almah Isaiah 7:14. Previously this word has been translated into Norwegian jomfru (virgin). The former translation from the Norwegian Bible Society (1978) also had jomfru, but opinions had been divided; a strong fraction wanted ung kvinne (young lady). After a long process and discussion in our committee, the translation ended up with den unge jenta (the young girl). There also was some public debate about the case, but not as much as could have been expected.
The term ‘almah is on the one side easy to translate, but on the other side, it has some tricky theological implications. The term ‘almah occurs nine times in the Hebrew Bible, five times as object (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Ps 6:1; 68:26; Prov 30:10; Song 1:6; 6:8; Isa 7:14 and 1 Chr 15:20). In HALOT these cases are translated as “marriageable girl,” a “girl who is able to be married” and “young woman,” the latter with reference to Isa 7:14. The point at issue is that the term does not refer explicitly to virginity. To this, some will argue that young ladies at that time were supposed to be virgins until marriage. The term for virgin is the much more frequent betulah, which occurs 50 times in the Hebrew Bible. This term refers exclusively to virgins. So, with this point of departure, the translation “young woman” in Isa 7:14 should seem obvious.
The theological problem comes up because Septuagint translates Isa 7:14 with parthenos, which is the Greek word for virgin. Could it be that the Vorlage for the translation in the Septuagint actually was a Hebrew version with betulah? Or does the Septuagint translator consciously have perceived ‘almah as a virgin because young girls were supposed to be virgins until marriage? Those questions are impossible to answer for certain.
The New Testament citation of Isa 7:14 (Matthew 1:23) has the Greek parthenos, and all translations render it with “virgin” – in whatever languages. Here is the biblical basis for the Christian dogma of Christ born by a virgin. This brings Isa 7:14 into theologically deep water, as the root of the virgin birth dogma. The important question is: can “virgin” in Isa 7:14 be exchanged with “young woman” without serious theological implications?
Why does Matthew render Isa 7:14 with parthenos? For the simple reason that he cites the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Isaiah scroll – there was not yet a canonical Hebrew book called “The Bible.” Matthew cites the Septuagint literally, except for rendering the verb “call” in third person plural instead of the Septuagint’s second person singular. Luke is more indirect or subtle; he calls Mary a parthenos (1:27) but cites Isa 7:14 more as a paraphrase, without mentioning parthenos (1:31).
Normal translation procedure is that a translator translates an original text, which for modern Bible translators usually are Hebrew Bible and Novum Testamentum Greace. The text of the Hebrew Bible is Codex Leningradensis, which was produced around AD 1009 in Jerusalem or Cairo and is now kept in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg. A translator should not deviate from his original text in any case, except if words are unknown or enigmatic or for critical textual reasons. In the case of Isa 7:14, there is no lexical or textual problems. Even though ‘almah does only occur nine times in the Hebrew Bible, there is no problem with it or its meaning. The translator should translate straight forwardly “young woman,” without any dogmatic side glance or considerations of how it is translated by Matthew because Matthew cites the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. In Matthew, the translator should, likewise, translate parthenos with “virgin,” without any regard to Isa 7:14 Hebrew.
Another thing is how important the virgin-young woman question actually is in Isa 7:14. In my opinion, this is a question raised by implication from the virgin birth dogma, as related to Isa 7:14 Septuagint, not by the Hebrew text of Isa 7:14 itself. The point at issue in 7:14 is not whether the lady in question is a virgin or not, but the name of the child she should give birth to, Immanuel. Modern people think that Immanuel was a regular male personal name, like it is in Judeo-Christian tradition today. But nothing indicates that Immanuel was used as a personal male name in biblical times. On the contrary, Immanuel lines up with Shear-jashub (“a remnant shall return”) in Isa 7:3 and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (“the spoil speeds, the prey hastens”) in 8:1. The parallel with Immanuel becomes clearer when written the Hebrew way: Immanu-el (“with us is God”). These “names” were no male names; they were symbolic, indicators of a divine message, part of the prophet’s symbolic language. There are more cases of such symbolic “names” in Hosea 1, another 8th- century prophet. The point at issue in Isa 7:14 is not the question of virgin birth but a divine message of God being with his people at an actual historic crisis.
Any text has to be interpreted according to its textual and historical context. Isaiah 7:14 is part of chapter 7 where the historical background is a political crisis, usually dated to 734-733 BC. The Assyrians advanced westwards and had become a threat to the Arameans of Syria and Damascus and the northern kingdom of Israel, who together sought a military alliance with the southern kingdom of Judah to raise a military force strong enough to face the Assyrians. This situation caused terrible fear in Judah (cf. 7:2), and the somewhat enigmatic aphorism in 7:9b is obviously used as a comforting word to the Judeans. This is the background for the pericope of 7:10-17, where verse 14 is a central part.
According to verse 10, the Lord, obviously through Isaiah, talked to king Ahaz, who was challenged to ask for “a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (verse 11). The king played pious and refused, he would “not put the LORD to the test” (verse 12). Then Isaiah talked to “O house of David,” the dynasty itself, charging it for “weary my God’”– not Ahaz’ God; the king is now considered out of question (verse 13). With this background, Isaiah announces: ‘Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel’ (verse 14). When Ahaz refused to ask God for a “sign,” God would nevertheless give it, and the sign was the child with the symbolic name ‘Immanu-el’, with us is God. This boy would come in place of the divinely refused Ahaz; he would be another king of the House of David, another davidide.
Verse 16 clearly indicates that this child would be born within a short time because he is related to the end of the actual political crisis: “For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.” The historical name of this child is not given. No king with the name of Immanuel occurs in the Davidic dynasty of Jerusalem. The text just announces his appearance, without further historical information, except for relating him to the end or solution of the actual historic crisis. A series of historic figures have been proposed. The best candidate seems to be king Ahaz’s son, king Hezekiah, who followed his father as king of Jerusalem and gets generally a good reputation after his death (cf. 2 kings 18-20), even though this also implies a series of problems which cannot be commented upon here.
What then about Isa 7:14 as a messianic prophecy? Shortly, mediated through Matth 1:23 and Luke 1:31, the Immanuel figure should be read typologically. Matthew and Luke read the Septuagint Isa 7:14 as a prophecy, in reality using Immanuel as a prototype for Jesus as Messiah.
I suppose that most translators, even the Greek translators who went for 'parthenos', have thought that 'young woman' made the passage rather disappointing. If we are going to say 'yw' then the emphasis seems to fall on the definite article, which makes it seem as if the prophecy refers to someone who could be identified by its hearers. Which suggests that someone in the Jerusalem hierarchy was known as 'THE young woman' - the King's senior daughter, maybe.
It must be right that the Evangelists see Immanuel and the salvation of Jerusalem as a prototype of Jesus and the salvation of the world, though they have to disregard the further details such as the destruction of the two kings within a decade or so.
Isn't there also a problem about identifying, for the purposes of the original prophecy, the land envisaged as one land with two kings?
#1 - Martin - 04/22/2012 - 14:39
Since Matthew had the Holy Spirit and God helping him, and the majority of bible scholars do not, whom do you think is correct?
#2 - dr. david tee - 04/23/2012 - 20:50
Anyone with at least a week's worth of biblical study and research under his or her belt will have learned that the Gospel According to Matthew was not written by "Matthew" but is in reality an anonymous third-person narrative, making it even more suspect than hearsay in any legal, philosophical, or even theological sense. Being an anonymous third-person narrative means that none of the things contained therein had to have actually occurred, and it is probably more reasonable to presuppose they did not since nobody knows where the narrative in reality came from, who wrote it, when it was written, where it was written, and the underlying theo-political motive for it being written at all. No wonder they call it "faith" because it sure isn't rational inquiry or the dedicated result of critical thinking.
#3 - C Duckett - 04/26/2012 - 05:38
Excellent article, Dr. Hagelia! Thank you for tackling this most difficult issue!
In my opinion, these words alone should put the matter to rest, inasmuch as it is that the prophesy in question came to pass during the days of Ahaz, for whom it was meant, surely attesting to the fact that God was with Isaiah:
"The point at issue in Isa 7:14 is not the question of a virgin birth but a divine message of God being with his people at an actual historic crisis."
In this respect, the prophesy was fulfilled, in its entirety and during its own time, having NOT so much as hinted at an arrival of a Messiah/Savior to come hundreds of years later - long, long after Ahaz was dead and gone.
Furthermore, even because the word/term "parthenos" doesn't always mean "virgin", (as in the matter of Dinah) but can also mean maid, maiden, young woman, damsel, how are we to ever know what the understanding of the scribe was who wrote it - in the LXX no less, which was the only source Mathew had at the time.
Regarding the Septuagint, I've come to understand, over the years, that a good many Christians don't yet understand that only the first five books of Moses (the Pentateuch) were transcribed by the 72 rabbis into Greek, and not the entire Old Testament, and so, so many yet go about attributing, falsely, the translation of Isaiah 7:14 to the Jewish/Hebrew rabbis who didn't transcribe beyond the book of Deuteronomy. This is most unfortunate.
None the less, in my own understanding, it seems more the "doings" of Mathew that the word "almah" came to be translated "virgin" rather than young woman, maid, maiden of marriageable age, than it is the fault of the translation in the Septuagint, and did not St. Jerome address this matter of "almah" v "bethulah", calling it "a pious lie to the glory of God"?:
"I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah"! (Jerome, Adv. Javianum I, 32; N&PNF, vi, 370.)
Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, N&PNF, vi, 336:
"For who at that time would have believed the Virgin's word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? And would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue, that when Isaiah says, 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,' the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is ALMAH, not BETHULAH"!
And so I sigh yet again.
I believe it merits stating that God does not give us a spirit of confusion, and surely this matter of "almah" has caused much consternation and confusion.
Are we to assume that God wasn't wise or capable enough to provide Isaiah with the proper term? Surely God would have so inspired Isaiah to use the word "bethulah" rather than "almah" had a virgin birth been part of His prophetic plan, which it wasn't, truth be told, and no matter how one twists it.
Simply put, "Look, (at that young woman over there)(she) the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel".
Where in the text is it even implied that centuries later a virgin would conceive and bear the Savior of the world? Sigh. It's just not there.
As for what the name of the child was? Does it really matter what the young woman named her child? Is it not enough that he was and that before he knew to choose good the threat against him and his homeland was gone?
For me, it's enough to allow the words of Isaiah to speak for themselves.
#4 - Carolyn Pendray - 04/26/2012 - 13:03
Even the asumption that gods spirit inspired the bible is just that..asumption. Clearly it is a huge stretch for matthew to "steal" is. 7:14. It is clearly a birth announcement, viable only to the time it was written. Once again the christian church modifies the jewish bible to make itself look magic, mystical.
#5 - Mike - 05/06/2012 - 10:52
Like many Jewish people of the time (Philo is often mentioned in this context) the NT writers on the whole, perhaps unreservedly, treated the Greek text of the ancient scriptures as authoritative. They did not have to modify the Greek text to get to the idea that the virginity of the woman referred to by Isaiah was important: they merely had to accept what they read.
There was no need for Christians to introduce mysticism and mystery into the Jewish literary world which had already produced I Enoch and Sibylline Oracle III.
I don't know how anyone could think that Jerome admitted that the 'virgin' interpretation was a lie. He says nothing of the sort, but claims that a special Hebrew word that supports the Christian interpretation was used. Not that his arguments would be widely accepted now. I think it's very difficult, for instance, to find a convincing Christian exposition of the destruction of the two kings.
There is no easy and obvious interpretation of the Isaiah oracle, which may perhaps have experienced a lot of editing before the first century, but I still think that we should pay much closer attention to the definite article and what it implies. And of course it should not be assumed that Isaiah, even if he did attribute virginity to THE young woman at the time he spoke, expected her to remain a virgin at the time when she did what virgins don't do, ie conceive.
#6 - Martin - 05/07/2012 - 00:30
What evidence is there in Isaiah 7:14-16 that the boy would be another king of the house of David, another Davidide? As pointed out, 'No king with the name of Immanuel occurs in the Davidic dynasty of Jerusalem.' And the eminent Jewish commentators Ibn Ezra and Rashi did not find this to be a necessary conclusion.
#7 - Clifford Durousseau - 02/13/2017 - 15:43