اشعياء 7

Was She, or Was She not "A Virgin"?

Her OB/GYN Would Have Known!

by

MESSIAH TRUTH

1. I.            Introduction
   

The verse Isaiah 7:14 is one of the most popular items in the portfolio of Christian apologists and missionaries. Commonly referred to as the "Virgin Birth proof text", this passage is cited as evidence from the "Old Testament" that the birth of Jesus of a virgin (Mary), as described in the New Testament, is foretold by the Prophet Isaiah. The efforts by Christian apologists and missionaries to deceive Jewish people into accepting and believing the doctrine of the "Virgin Birth", a foundational doctrine in Christian theology but irrelevant to traditional Judaism, require a thorough exposition of this verse.

The detailed study of Isaiah 7:14 presented in this essay is divided into two main parts. In the first part (Section II), the relevant texts, translations of the original Hebrew text, summaries of the Christian and Jewish perspectives, and linguistic expansions of the Hebrew text are presented. In the second part (Section III), the most common claims made by Christian apologists and missionaries are presented along with the respective Jewish responses that refute them.

2. II.            Texts, Translations, Perspectives, and Linguistic Analysis
   

1. A.     The Hebrew Text of Isaiah 7:14 and Related Texts

Table II.A -1 shows side-by-side English renditions and the Hebrew text of the verse Isaiah 7:14, as well as the verse Matthew 1:23 in the New Testament. Matthew 1:23 is included since it contains the alleged quote of Isaiah 7:14 as part of the narrative that describes the conception and birth of Jesus. The King James Version (KJV) translations also include the footnoted cross-references to each other. [The references from the New American Standard Bible (NASB). The corresponding passages quoted below the table are from the KJV.] Several words, to be revisited in the analysis, are highlighted in the Hebrew text, along with their respective translated expressions in the English texts.

Table II.A-1 – The Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 and other relevant texts

KJV Translation from Greek New Testament	King James Version Translation	Jewish Translation from the Hebrew	Hebrew Text
Matthew 1:23	Isaiah 7:14
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,”(1) which being interpreted is, “God with us.”	Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.(2)	Therefore the L-rd Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanuel.

(1) Isaiah 7:14 (2) Matthew 1:23

A review of the three translations reveals significant differences between the Jewish translation and both KJV renditions. These differences will be addressed as part of the analysis that follows.

2. B.    A Survey of English Translations of Isaiah 7:14

The following sections contain a collection of English translations of Isaiah 7:14 from various sources. These translations are grouped in a specific manner that will facilitate the analysis.

1. 1.      Jewish Translations
   

Renditions of Isaiah 7:14 from five Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible, including respective footnotes, are shown in Table II.B.1-1.

Table II.B.1-1 – Isaiah 7:14 as rendered by Jewish sources

Source	Translation
ArtScroll Tanach (Stone Edition; AST)*	Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel.
The Jerusalem Bible (Koren Publishing; JBK)	Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and shall call his name ‘Immanu-el’.
JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH (JPS)**	Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. [g]
Judaica Press Tanach (JPT)***	Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Soncino Press Tanach (SPT)	Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-El.

* AST Commentary: Either Isaiah’s (RASHI) or Ahaz’ (RADAQ) young wife will bear a son

and, through prophetic inspiration, will give him the name Immanuel, which means “God is

With Us.” thus in effect prophesying that Judah will be saved from the threat of Rezin and

Pekah.

** JPS Footnote: [g] Meaning “with us is God.”

*** JPT commentary is detailed, and it is summarized in the AST

2. 2.      Christian Translations: Category I
   

Category I comprises translations of Isaiah 7:14 from five Christian Bibles in which the renditions of the noun (almah) are generally consistent with Jewish versions. This collection of Christian translations, including respective footnotes, is shown in Table II.B.2-1.

Table II.B.2-1 – Isaiah 7:14 as rendered by Christian sources – Category I

Source	Translation
Bible in Basic English (BBE)	For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.
New English Bible (NEB)	Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel.
New English Translation Bible (NET)*	For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign.22 Look, this23 young woman24 is about to conceive25 and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him26 Immanuel.27
New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic; NJB)	The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel
Revised Standard Version (American; RSV)	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.

* The translator's notes (tn) in the NET Bible are informative:

22tn (7:14) The Hebrew term úåà, (ot) “sign,” can refer to a miraculous event (see v. 11),

but it does not carry this sense inherently. Elsewhere in Isaiah the word usually refers

to a natural occurrence or an object/person vested with special significance (see 8:18;

19:20; 20:3; 37:30; 55:13; 66:19). Only in 38:7-8, 22 does it refer to a miraculous

deed that involves suspending or overriding natural laws. The sign outlined in vv. 14-

17 involves God’s providential control over events and their timing, but not necessarily

miraculous intervention.

23tn (7:14) Heb “the young woman.” The Hebrew article has been rendered as a

demonstrative pronoun (“this”) in the translation to bring out its force. It is very likely

that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s

interview with Ahaz. Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second

plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine

singular verb form (“you will name”) later in the verse is best explained if addressed to

a woman who is present.

24tn (7:14) Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in

connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest

Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place

over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the

doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here,

äîìò, (‘almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does

not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the

corresponding masculine noun, íìò (‘elem), “young man”; cf. 1 Sam.17:56; 20:22).

The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins.

The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be

translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of

Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century B.C., however,

rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word  (parthenos),

which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also

appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning

of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term

 (parthenos) clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has

taken place.

25tn (7:14) Elsewhere the adjective äøä (harah), when used predicatively, refers to a past

pregnancy (from the narrator’s perspective, 1 Sam 4:19), to a present condition (Gen

16:11; 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5), and to a conception that is about to occur in the near

future (Judg 13:5, 7). (There is some uncertainty about the interpretation of Judg 13:5,

7, however. See the notes to those verses.) In Isa 7:14 one could translate, “the

young woman is pregnant.” In this case the woman is probably a member of the royal

family. Another option, the one chosen in the translation above, takes the adjective in

an imminent future sense, “the young woman is about to conceive.” In this case the

woman could be a member of the royal family, or, more likely, the prophetess with

whom Isaiah has sexual relations shortly after this (see 8:3).

26tn (7:14) Heb “and you will call his name.” The words “young lady” are supplied in the

translation to clarify the identity of the addressee. The verb is normally taken as an

archaic third feminine singular form here, and translated, “she will call.” However the

form, úàø÷ (qarat) is more naturally understood as second feminine singular, in which

case the words would be addressed to the young woman mentioned just before this.

In the three other occurrences of the third feminine singular perfect of àø÷ì (liqro), “to

call,” the form used is äàø÷ (qar’ah; see Gen 29:35; 30:26; 1 Chr 4:9). (A third

feminine singular perfect úàø÷ does appear in Deut 31:29 and Jer 44:23, but the verb

here is the homonym àø÷ì, “to meet, encounter.”) The form úàø÷ (from àø÷ì, “to call”)

appears in three other passages (Gen 16:11; Isa 60:18; Jer 3:4 [Qere]) and in each

case is second feminine singular.

27tn (7:14) The name means, “God [is] with us.”

1. 3.      Christian Translations: Category II
   

Category II comprises translations of Isaiah 7:14 from five Christian Bibles in which the renditions of the noun (almah) are generally inconsistent with Jewish versions. This collection of Christian translations, including respective footnotes, is shown in Table II.B.3-1.

Table II.B.3-1 – Isaiah 7:14 as rendered by Christian sources – Category II

Source	Translation
American Standard Version (ASV)	Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Darby	Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.
King James Version (KJV)	Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
New International Version (NIV)*	Therefore the Lord himself will give you[1] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and[2] will call him Immanuel[3].
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)	Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,

* NIV footnotes:

[1] The Hebrew is plural.

[2] Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls and he or and they

[3] Immanuel means God with us.

3. 4.      Comparisons of the Treatment of Key Hebrew Vocabulary
   

1. a.      Jewish Translations
   

The Jewish translations are consistent in correctly rendering the term (ha'almah) [where the definite article (ha-) is used with the noun (almah)] as the young woman or the maiden, preserving the definite article in their renditions. This indicates that the reference by Isaiah was to a specific young woman known to both him, the speaker, and to King Ahaz, the one being addressed.

The Jewish translations are generally consistent in their renditions of the tense of the conjugated verb (harah) in this verse, though four of the five sources quoted in Table II.B.1-1 render the conjugated verb in the present tense as is with child (already pregnant), the ArtScroll Tanach has it in the future tense as shall become pregnant. However, this is not a significant issue here, since a verb conjugated in the perfect tense, which is the case here with (harah), can also be understood as describing an imminent action, something that is about to occur, in the near future. Some Jewish Sages use this aspect of the perfect tense in their commentary (e.g., RASHI), and even the noted German grammarian and Christian theologian, H. W. F. Gesenius (1786-1842) makes note of such applications^1[1].

2. b.     Christian Translations
   

The Christian translations are generally inconsistent in their renditions of the term (ha'almah) – some use the correct terminology for the noun itself, i.e., young woman or maiden, others use virgin; and some preserve the definite article, the, while others change it to the indefinite article, a. In general, most modern Christian translators (generally, represented by Category I) have rendered the noun (almah) correctly.

The Christian translations are generally inconsistent in their renditions of the tense of the conjugated verb (harah) in this verse – some use the proper tense, while others treat the conception as an event that will take place in the (distant) future.

3. c.      Jewish Translations Compared with Christian Translations
   

Such comparison is not meaningful due to the diversity within each set of translations. In general, most modern Christian translations are closer to the correct Jewish translations, i.e., those that render the noun (ha'almah) as the young woman or the maiden, and (harah) as is with child. Older Christian translations generally use virgin, a term that would have required the Hebrew term for a virgin, (b^etulah), without the definite article, to be in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14.

1. C.    The Christian Perspective on Isaiah 7:14
   

The Christian perspective on Isaiah 7:14 is based on the following passage in the New Testament, where the conception and birth of Jesus are described:

Matthew 1:20-23(KJV) - (20) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (22) Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, (23) “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.”

The relationship between this passage and the verse in Isaiah is established by the author in v. 23, which bears some resemblance to many Christian renditions of Isaiah 7:14. The author of the Gospel of Matthew states in v. 22 that the very next verse is the fulfillment of a prophecy, namely, that Jesus (‘the Lord’) will be born of a virgin, and that the name Immanuel (‘G-d with us’) indicates that he is indeed ‘the Lord’.

The Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 rests on the claim that it is a prophetic foretelling of the "Virgin Birth", the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus. Consequently, this verse in the Hebrew Bible is a foundational element of the Christian doctrine of the "Virgin Birth".

3. D.    The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14
   

The seventh chapter in the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah. Around the year 732 B.C.E., the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the Northern Kingdom of Israel, led by King Peqah, and the Kingdom of Syria (Aram), led by King R^etsin. These two armies had besieged Jerusalem. Isaiah records that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. G-d sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – G-d would protect him and his kingdom and that their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.

It is clear from the narrative in this chapter, that Isaiah’s declaration (Is 7:14-16) was a prophecy about the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies from the north. The verses Isaiah 7:15-16 state that, by the time this child (whose imminent birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14) reaches the age of maturity (“… he knows to reject bad and choose good …”), the kings of the two enemy nations will be gone, in fact, they will be killed. Two Biblical passages, 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9, confirm that this prophecy was contemporaneously fulfilled when these two kings were assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the name of the child in Isaiah 7:14, Immanu'el, is a sign which points to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their otherwise certain demise at the hands of these two enemies. Clearly, Isaiah 7:14 is a near-term prophecy that is part of an historic narrative, and which was fulfilled in the immediate time frame, not some seven-and-a-half centuries in the future.

3. E.     Linguistic Expansions of the Hebrew Text of Isaiah 7:14
   

The highlighted words in Table II.A-1, terms about which there exist major disagreements between Christian translations and interpretations and the Jewish translations and interpretations, are now examined more closely

1. 1.      (ot)
   

The various applications of the noun in the Hebrew Bible are shown in Table II.E.1-1.

Table II.E.1-1 – Applications of in the Hebrew Bible

	Transliteration (Pronunciation)	Meaning	#	Reference	Comments
	ot (ought)	a visible sign, a signal	32	Isaiah 38:22
		an exemplary model, a marvelous deed	36	Isaiah 44:25
		an example	9	Isaiah 19:20
		a sign to determine times of festivals	1	Genesis 1:14	The luminaries in the sky
		an insignia	1	Numbers 2:2	The tribal banners
		Total	79

The significant attribute in all applications of (ot) is that each represents a physically perceptible mark or signal, i.e., each is audible, or visible, or can otherwise be sensed – none is hidden or imperceptible.

2. 2.      (ha'almah)
   

The seven applications of the noun in the Hebrew Bible are shown in Table II.E.2-1.

Table II.E.2-1 – Applications of in the Hebrew Bible

	Transliteration (Pronunciation)	Meaning	#	Reference	Comments
	ha'almah (ha-al-MAH)	the young woman	3	Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Isaiah 7:14	The noun always signifies a young woman of marriageable age.
	bealmah (be-al-MAH)	with a young woman	1	Proverbs 30:19
	alamot (ah-la-MOT)	young women	2	Psalms 68:26; Song of Songs 1:3	Plural of
	va'alamot (va-ah-la-MOT)	and young women	1	Song of Songs 6:8
		Total	7

The noun (almah) has a corresponding masculine noun, (elem), a young man (of marriageable age), which has two applications in the Hebrew Bible: (ha’alem), the young man, at 1 Samuel 17:56, and (la’elem), to the young man, at 1 Samuel 20:22.

A related term found in the Hebrew Bible is (alumim), youth, young manhood, young womanhood, which appears in various conjugations at, Isaiah 54:4; Psalms 89:46, 90:8; Job 20:11, 33:25.

A common application of (almah) in Modern Hebrew is in the formal introduction of a young woman, i.e., “… ”, meaning, "Miss … ".

The salient point concerning these terms is that their common thread is youth, which associates these terms with a specific age group rather than with a state of sexual purity (i.e., virginity).

3. 3.      (harah)
   

The term (harah) appears in the Hebrew Bible on 54 occasions, in various conjugations, and it functions as both a verb and a noun. Table II.E.3-1 shows the various applications.

Table II.E.3-1 – Applications of the term (harah) in the Hebrew Bible

	Transliteration (Pronunciation)	Type	Meaning	#	Reference	Comments
	harah (ha-RAH)	verb	being pregnant	40	e.g., Genesis 4:1; Isaiah 7:14	Most common
			scheming, planning, a thought that spawns in one's mind	6	Isaiah 26:18, 33:11, 59:4,13; Psalms 7:15; Job 15:35	Metaphoric applications of the verb in a "masculine gender"
			[a male] fetus being formed	1	Job 3:3	Passive application
		noun	a pregnant female	7	Exodus 21:22; 2 Kings 8:12, 15:16; Isaiah 26:17; Jeremiah 31:7; Amos 1:13	A female that has conceived but has not yet given birth
			Total	54

As shown, the verb and noun are identically spelled. The only way to distinguish the verb (harah) (when conjugated in the 2^nd- or 3^rd-person, singular, feminine, present tense) from the noun (harah) is via context.

A related synonymous noun for a female who is pregnant is found at Hosea 14:1. Other related nouns, that describe a woman's state of pregnancy, are found at Genesis 3:16 and Hosea 9:11. However, these are not immediately relevant to the present discussion of the verb (harah) in Isaiah 7:14.

The significant aspect of the discussion concerning the verb (harah), in Isaiah 7:14 is the context of its tense conjugation. According to Hebrew grammar, this is in the perfect tense which is synonymous with the present tense. According to some Jewish Sages, the perfect tense may also describe an imminent event, an event that is about to occur.

4. 4.      (v^eyoledet)
   

The verb (yalad) appears (in various conjugations) 468 times in the Hebrew Bible, and it generally refers to giving birth to offspring. In most instances, the reference is to a female giving birth. The genealogies in the Hebrew Bible, all of which list males, usually have the verb appear in the active hiph’il stem to show the chain of who fathered whom. There are also a few related meanings, but these are inconsequential to this particular study. Table II.E.4-1 shows the verb forms from the Hebrew Bible that most closely resemble the term that appears in Isaiah 7:14.

Table II.E.4-1 – Applications of in the Hebrew Bible

Term	Transliteration (Pronunciation)	Meaning	#	Reference	Remarks
	veyoledet (ve-yo-LE-det)	and she will give birth [to]…	2	Isaiah 7:14; Jeremiah 31:7
	veyoladet (ve-yo-LA-det)	and you will give birth [to]…	3	Genesis 16:11; Judges 13:5,7	A slight variation reflecting a change from 3rd-person to 2nd-person conjugation
		Total	5

As can be seen from both terms, (v^eyoledet) and (v^eyoladt), each contains the preposition (and), and the verb is conjugated in the future tense; clearly, birth occurs at the end of pregnancy.

5. 5.      (v^eqarat)
   

The verb (qara) appears (in various conjugations) 738 times in the Hebrew Bible. This verb is applied in several contexts, the most prominent of which are, [to] call (as in summon someone), [to] announce, [to] read, [to] name, as well as in several variations of these that are not important here. Table II.E.5-1 shows the verb forms from the Hebrew Bible that most closely resemble the term that appears in Isaiah 7:14.

Table II.E.5-1 – Applications of in the Hebrew Bible^2[2]

Term	Transliteration (Pronunciation)	Meaning	#	Reference	Remarks
	veqarat (ve-qa-RAT)	and you [or, she] shall name	3	Genesis 16:11; Isaiah 7:14, 60:18	The actual conjugation is in the 2nd-person, singular, feminine gender. Yet, this is commonly translated as if it were conjugated in the 3rd-person, singular, feminine gender.
		Total	3

The similarity between (v^eqarat) and (v^eyoledet) is that both verbs are combined with the preposition (and) and are in the future tense. The difference is that, without the (and), the verb (qarat) is actually conjugated in the 2^nd-person, singular, feminine, past tense, [you] named. In Hebrew grammar, the preposition (and), at times, will function as the conversive-vav (vav is also the sixth letter in the Hebrew alphabet), known in Hebrew as (vav-ha'hipuch). The net effect is that, in addition to functioning as the preposition and, it also reverses the tense of the verb – if the verb is in the past tense, it converts it to the future tense, and vice versa. The context of a Biblical passage determines when this "reversion" occurs.

6. 6.      (Immanu’el)
   

The name (Immanu’el) appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, at Isaiah 7:14, 8:8. This name is also applied once, at Isaiah 8:10, as a two-word phrase, (immanu El), to highlight the fact that the name (Immanu’el) has a particular significance (see Is 8:18), via the phrase (ki immanu El), for G-d is with us.

3. F.     Comparing Two Similar Verses
   

As another perspective on the Hebrew linguistics used in Isaiah 7:14, it is instructive to compare it with the verse Genesis 16:11, since the two verses share several terms and have a similar grammatical structure. These two verses are shown in Table II.F-1.

Table II.F-1 – Comparing Isaiah 7:14 with Genesis 16:11

A Jewish Translation from the Hebrew	Hebrew Text
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the L-rd Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
Genesis 16:11
And the angel of the L-rd said to her: “Behold, you are with child, and [you] shall bear a son, and [you] shall call his name Ishmael; because the L-rd has noted your hardship.

In each of these two verses, three corresponding phrases are highlighted. There is no disagreement among the various translations on the second phrase, "and … shall bear a son", which involves the similar expressions (v^eyoledet) in Isaiah 7:14 and (v^eyoladt) in Genesis 16:11, and which were discussed in Section II.E.4. This is also the case with the third phrase, "and … shall call his name Ishmael", which includes the expression (v^eqarat) discussed in Section II.E.5.

The renditions of the verb (harah) in the first phrase, however, show significant variation among the different translations. One of the keys here is the Hebrew term (hinnei), commonly translated as behold. When this term appears in a sentence, an object is expected to follow, as in Isaiah 7:14, where (hinnei) is followed by (ha'almah), Behold, the young woman. In Genesis 16:11, there is the Hebrew term (hinnach), which is the conjugation of (hinnei) in the 2^nd-person, singular, feminine gender, so that the object is already included in it, and it is translated as, Behold, you. In both cases, and whenever the term (hinnei), in any of its conjugated forms, is used in the Hebrew Bible with reference to people, the implication is that a specific person or a particular group of persons is being addressed or referred to. In both verses here, a certain female is being spoken of (Isaiah 7:14) or spoken to (Genesis 16:11), and each is said to be pregnant, (harah). Table II.F-2 shows the renditions of the verb (harah) in both Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 16:11 by the 15 sources from which Isaiah 7:14 was quoted in Sections II.B.1, II.B.2, and II.B.3.

Table II.F-2 – Comparison of (harah) in Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 16:11

Source	Rendition of (harah) in Isaiah 7:14	Rendition of (harah) in Genesis 16:11	Present Tense	Future Tense
AST	… will become pregnant	… will conceive		**
JBK	… is with child	… art with child	
JPS	… is with child	… are with child	
JPT	… is with child	… will conceive		*
SPT	… is with child	… are with child	
BBE	… is with child	… are with child	
NEB	… is with child	… are with child	
NET	… is about to conceive	… are now pregnant		**
NJB	… is with child	… have conceived	
RSV	… shall conceive	… are with child		***
ASV	… shall conceive	… art with child		***
Darby	… shall conceive	… art with child		***
KJV	… shall conceive	… art with child		***
NIV	… will be with child	… are now with child		***
YLT	… is conceiving	… art conceiving	

* - Per some Jewish Sages, this signifies the imminent future, an event about to occur.

** - This modern Christian translation follows the style of some Jewish Sages.

*** - Per Christian theology, this signifies the distant future, some 730 years in the future.

Given that, with respect to the time frame in question, the variations within the group of Jewish renditions of (harah) are inconsequential, it may be concluded that the Jewish sources are consistent in their renditions of both cases. With the exception of the RSV, this is also the case with the group of five "modern" Christian sources – they are consistent with the Jewish translations of this conjugated verb. On the other hand, with the exception of the YLT, the group of "older" Christian sources show a Christological bias in their rendition of (harah) in Isaiah 7:14. The RSV also displays this bias, whereas the YLT does not.

Source: http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

Part 2…….

Was She, or Was She not "A Virgin"?

Her OB/GYN Would Have Known!

Part 2: The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14

by

Messiah truth

I.            Common Christian Apologetics Concerning Isaiah 7:14, and Their Refutation

Over the past 19 centuries, Christian apologists have been busy fashioning defenses (hence the term "apologist") for their interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, a verse allegedly quoted by the author of the Gospel of Matthew in Matthew 1:23.  Many Christian-Jewish debates took place, often by coercion, in which various claims were made by the Christian side and countered by the Jewish side.  For every Jewish response that refuted a Christian claim, new apologetics were developed to prove the validity of the fulfillment in Jesus of Isaiah's prophecy and to try to invalidate the Jewish perspective.  This was very popular in medieval times, and it has regained popularity in our times as part of the aggressive campaign by various Hebrew-Christian and evangelical missionary organizations to convert Jews to Christianity.

In this segment, some of the common Christian claims are explored and, in each case, the respective Jewish refutations are presented.

A.     Claim:  (almah) means "virgin", therefore, this prophecy foretells the miraculous birth of Jesus.

1.      Straightforward  Usage of  (almah)

      The Christian apologetic argument is that  (almah) implicitly indicates virginity of the female in question.  This is based on the contention that the noun refers to a female who is a virgin in every other instance where this term or one of its other forms is applied in the Hebrew Bible.

      The Jewish response is based on the general understanding that the noun  (almah) represents an age group and not a state of sexual purity.  As noted earlier, the term  (almah) means a young woman of marriageable age, i.e. of child-bearing age [the male equivalent of which is  (elem)], irrelevant of the status of her sexual experience, i.e., whether or not the young woman is a virgin is not at issue, as its usage in the Hebrew Bible suggests.  For example, when one would say in English, "A young woman went to the store.", nothing in this sentence contains any information about her virginity – it is a non sequitur.  When the term  (almah) is used in a sentence in spoken Hebrew, or in a verse in Biblical Hebrew, there is no implicit reference to the young woman’s virginity.  Those who are fluent in the Hebrew language knows this.  Other more accurate vocabulary was available to Isaiah had he desired to specifically refer here to a virgin - the Hebrew term  (b^etulah) means a virgin.

The noun  (almah) appears in various forms (singular, plural) in the Hebrew Bible seven times (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Is 7:14; Ps 68:26; Pr 30:19; SoS 1:3, 6:8).  In fact, the Prophet applied the word  (b^etulah) on five occasions throughout his writings (Is 23:4,12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5).  A closer look at the remaining six instances of  (almah) in the Hebrew Bible helps demonstrate the correct meaning of this term.

a.      Genesis 24:43

Genesis 24:43 – Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the young woman [ (ha'almah)] comes forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I beg you, a little water from your water jar to drink;

This is a reference to Rebecca.  When Abraham’s servant saw her and later related the story, all he could possibly determine (from her appearance) is that she was a beautiful young female, he obviously could not have known whether or not she was a virgin, since he did not know her marital status.  Moreover, if  (almah) had meant "virgin", why would the Torah be redundant and explicitly refer to Rebecca as  (b^etulah), a virgin, in Genesis 24:16?

b.     Exodus 2:8

Exodus 2:8 – And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go.  And the young woman [ (ha'almah)] went and called the child’s mother.

Here the reference is to Miriam, the older sister of Aaron and Moses, though nothing more is known about her at this point.  There is no other information given in this or any other passage within the Hebrew Bible that could help determine whether Miriam was a virgin in the scene described in Exodus 2:8.

c.      Psalms 68:26

Psalms 68:26 – The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were young women [ (alamot)] beating tambourines.

There is absolutely no way to determine from the context whether any or all of those tambourine-playing young women were virgins.  To assume that all were virgins is a rather bold leap of faith.  To simply conclude that none of them were married, given the fact that Jewish women often displayed their joy in dance and by playing musical instruments when rejoicing at a wedding or when welcoming their husbands from the battlefront (e.g., Exod 15:20;1 Sam 18:6), would be a position that is difficult to defend.

d.     Proverbs 30:19

Proverbs 30:18-19 – (18) There are three things which are too wonderful for me, indeed, four which I know not; (19) The way of a vulture in the sky; the way of a serpent on a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a [virile] man [ (gever)] with a young woman [ (b^ealmah)].

The only time that "… the way of a [virile] man with a young woman ..." does not leave a trace (i.e., a broken hymen) is if the hymen of the  (almah) were already not intact.

e.      Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8

Song of Songs 1:3 – Your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is oil poured out, therefore maidens [ (alamot)] love you.

The  (alamot), young women, loved King Solomon!  Could they have been among his many concubines or wives?

Song of Songs 6:8 – There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and maidens [ (va’alamot)] without number.

60 wives, 80 concubines, and countless  (alamot) were listed as being among King Solomon’s lovers.

Of the above listed six applications, only the first one is about a young woman, Rebecca, who is also explicitly identified as a virgin.  There is no indication in any of the other five cases that the females were virgins.

2.      Another Proposal for the Use of  (almah) and not  (b^etulah)

      Christian apologists and missionaries counter and claim that Isaiah used the term  (almah) to avoid any misunderstanding by the reader that he may have intended to metaphorically refer to a nation and still maintain the core concept of virginity; an argument based on four cases where Isaiah uses the term  (b^etulah) in this manner (Is 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5).  The claim is that, in these four applications, on three occasions the reference is metaphorical to a nation, and on the fourth occasion, it is used as a pattern argument for the nation.  It is further claimed that this pattern was also utilized by the Prophet Jeremiah on seven occasions.

      The Jewish response identifies and addresses the flaws in this line of reasoning.  First, Isaiah actually uses the term  (b^etulah) on five (not four) occasions, with the one left out by the Christian apologists and missionaries being Isaiah 23:4.  Isaiah 23:4 together with Isaiah 62:5 constitute an effective counter-argument, since these leave no doubt that the Prophet knew very well how to apply the term:

Isaiah 23:4 - Be you ashamed, O Sidon; for the sea has spoken, even the strength of the sea, saying, I labored not, nor brought forth children, nor did I nourish up young men, nor brought up virgins [ (b^etulot)].

Isaiah 62:5 - For as a young man marries a virgin [ (b^etulah)], so shall your sons marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your G-d rejoice over you.

Second, the appeal to Jeremiah’s use of  (b^etulah) on seven occasions to support some alleged pattern is inappropriate, since he applied this term a total of 15 times in his two books the (Jeremiah and Lamentations).  Clearly, he used it more often to speak specifically of a female who was a virgin than as a metaphorical reference to a nation.

Third, the comparison between Isaiah and only Jeremiah is inherently biased.  Would it not be more appropriate to study the usage of the term in the entire Hebrew Bible?  The term  (b^etulah) appears in the Hebrew Bible 50 times – 9 times in the Pentateuch and 41 times in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.  Such a study would leave no doubt that  (b^etulah) is the correct term to use when referring to a virgin.

B.    Claim:  This is a "dual fulfillment" foretelling the miraculous birth of Jesus

      The Christian apologetic and missionary argument is that, given the obvious problem created by the context of Isaiah 7:14 vis-à-vis  Matthew’s claim that the verse foretells the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, the solution is that Isaiah 7:14 has to be a "dual prophecy", a prophecy that was fulfilled twice.  The claim is that Isaiah’s words to King Ahaz had two separate and distinct applications.  Christian apologists and missionaries will concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy was addressed to King Ahaz and his crisis at hand.  The child, Immanuel, was born contemporaneously, and the "first leg" of this "dual prophecy" was fulfilled in the eighth century B.C.E.  They insist, however, that there was a "second leg" of this "dual prophecy", and that it applies to the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus at the turn of the Era.  With this elaborate explanation, they maintain that the apparent use of Isaiah 7:14 in the Gospel of Matthew is entirely appropriate.  In short, it is claimed that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time at the dawn of the Christian era.

      The Jewish response identifies and addresses the problems created by this explanation.  For starters, the notion of a "dual prophecy" is unbiblical, and it appears to have been crafted in order to explain away a serious theological problem:  No hint or evidence of a second fulfillment exists anywhere in this chapter or elsewhere in the Book of Isaiah.

Moreover, if, as claimed, the word  (ha'almah) means "a virgin" and Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, then who was the first virgin that conceived in King Ahaz’s time?  Were there two virgin births?  In other words, if Christian apologists and missionaries claim that the "Virgin Birth", allegedly prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, was fulfilled twice, then who was that first virgin about to give birth to a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.?  Bearing in mind the claim that the word  (ha'almah) can only mean "a virgin", does this not imply that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive, remain a virgin, and give birth to a male child?  Think about that!

Furthermore, if it is claimed that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy", how could Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad Immanu’el?

Isaiah 7:14-16 – (14) Therefore the L-rd, of His own, shall give you a sign, “Behold the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanu’el.  (15) Cream and honey he [Immanu'el] shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; (16) for, when the lad [Immanu'el] does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

If Isaiah’s words are the substance of a "dual prophecy", answers to the following questions need to be provided by the claimants: 

         At what age did baby Jesus mature?

         What are the implications that Jesus sinned up to this age?

         Which two kingdoms were abandoned during the lifetime of Jesus?

         How could the Kingdom of Israel be dreaded during the first century C.E., when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the eighth century B.C.E.?

         Where is the account of Jesus eating cream and honey recorded?

Does any of this make sense?  From the Jewish perspective, it does not, and from the Christian point of view, it is indefensible.  It appears that the argument of a "dual prophecy" was born out of desperation.

      Christian apologists and missionaries counter and attempt to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of "dual prophecy" by claiming that, in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed King Ahaz both in the singular "you" and in the plural "you".  [Unlike the English language, the Hebrew language has separate pronouns for singular and plural.]  They claim that, at times, Isaiah addressed King Ahaz alone, and in other places in this chapter, he addressed the House of David.  Therefore, they conclude that, whenever the prophet addressed the House of David, or spoke in the plural "you", he was addressing the future Davidic dynasty (i.e., Jesus, the claimed heir to it, some seven centuries later).  On the other hand, whenever Isaiah addressed King Ahaz, or spoke in the singular "you", he was addressing the immediate crisis facing King Ahaz, created by the two kingdoms that were poised to defeat him.  They argue that in using Hebrew word  (lachem), [plural] you, in Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah addresses the future House of David and, thereby, points to the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, which was associated with the House of David, not with King Ahaz and military crisis he was facing.

      The Jewish response to this claim is that, in this chapter, it is clearly demonstrated that both the House of David and King Ahaz were threatened by the situation, not just King Ahaz himself.  Every reference to the House of David and the plural "you", which was addressed to the entire Davidic House, referred only to the military crisis described herein.  In fact, in the second verse of this chapter, Isaiah relates that both, King Ahaz and the House of David, were informed of the crisis created by the two warring kingdoms.  This verse goes on to declare that both his heart [ (l^evavo)] (of King Ahaz – singular)] and the heart of his nation [ (u’l^evav ammo)] (of Judah/the House of David – plural) were trembling with fear.  Not only King Ahaz alone was terrified of these two hostile armies, the entire House of David was scared as well.

Isaiah delivered the message in this fashion, by repeatedly addressing King Ahaz as the House of David and in the plural "you" throughout this chapter, for a reason.  King Ahaz was a wicked king and, as such, was personally undeserving of G-d’s merciful intervention.  Nevertheless, King Ahaz was spared through the merit of the House of David.  The two kingdoms intended to conquer Jerusalem in order to undermine the throne of David (Is 7:6).  G-d promised King David that his dynasty would be preserved regardless of the worthiness of the king on the throne (2 Sam 7:12-16).  King Ahaz was saved by G-d in the merit of the House of David, not through his own worthiness.

C.    Claim:  Biblical Hebrew has no tenses

      Christian apologists and missionaries argue that tenses do not exist in Biblical Hebrew (though they admit that Modern Hebrew has tenses).  They insist that both medieval and modern grammarians recognize that Biblical Hebrew is an “aspectual” language rather than a language with tenses.  This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as past, present, or future, depending on the context and various grammatical cues.  Some of the Jewish sources being quoted as examples (all are single sentences or portions of a sentence, possibly taken out of context) are RADAQ (R’ David Qimhi; 12^th/13^th century), R’ Isaac Ben Yedaiah (13^th century), David Altschuler (commentator; 18^th century), Nahum Sarna (commentator; contemporary).  Also quoted are passages from Gesenius’ (1786-1842) Hebrew Grammar, and from an unnamed author’s An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax – the former by a Christian theologian and grammarian, and the latter likely to be by a non-Jewish author, and it is likely that neither was a Hebrew speaker.

      This is a complex issue.  The Jewish perspective is that, though there are instances where the proper tense must be inferred from context, the three perfect tenses and even imperfect tenses are generally present in the Hebrew Bible.  The imperfect tenses are achieved with the seven verb stems - pa’al [qal], niph’al, pi’el, pu’al, hitpa’el, hiph’il, hoph’al, in the Hebrew grammar.  This is a very difficult grammatical framework for most, if not all, non-Hebrew speakers to comprehend.

At issue is the term  (harah) in Isaiah 7:14.  As was previously explained (see Sec. II.E.3),  (harah) can be either a noun, meaning a pregnant female, or a verb, meaning, [I] am/[you] are/[she] is pregnant, i.e., conjugated in the 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd-person, singular, feminine, present tense.

Among the 40 applications of the verb  (harah) in the context of being pregnant, there are eight instances of the verb conjugated in the 3^rd-person, singular, feminine, present tense, and these are shown in Table III.C-1.

Table III.C-1 – Comparing Jewish and KJV renditions of the verb  (harah)

Reference	Correct Translation	KJV Translation	Remarks
Genesis 16:11	[you] are pregnant, or [you] are with child	thou art with child	The phrase  (hinnach harah) is used here.
Genesis 38:24	[she] is pregnant, or [she] is with child	[she] is with child
Genesis 38:25	[I] am pregnant, or [I] am with child	am [I] with child
Judges 13:5(1)(2)	[you] are pregnant, or [you] are with child	thou shalt conceive	The phrase  (hinnach harah) is used here.
Judges 13:7(1)(2)	[you] are pregnant, or [you] are with child	thou shalt conceive	The phrase  (hinnach harah) is used here.
1 Samuel 4:19	[Phineas' wife] was pregnant, or [Phineas' wife] was with child	[Phinehas' wife] was with child
2 Samuel 11:5	[I] am pregnant, or [I] am with child	[I] am with child
Isaiah 7:14	[the young woman] is pregnant, or [the young woman] is with child	[a virgin] shall conceive	The phrase  []  (hinnei [ha'almah] harah) is used here

(1) In Judges 13:5,7,  (harah) is in the present tense – the woman is told that she is already pregnant.  In v. 4 the angel tells the woman (Samson’s mother to be) to stay away from alcoholic beverages and unclean foods because (v. 5) she is carrying a child that she will give birth to…  Similarly, in v. 7, the woman relates the story to her husband, Mano’ah, quoting what the angel told her. (Interestingly, most Jewish translations show the future tense here.)

(2) The translator's note (tn) from NET Bible on Judges 13:5,7 is interesting:

tn (13:5,7) Another option is to translate, “you are already pregnant and will have a son.”  The earlier reference to her being infertile (v. 3) suggests that her conception is still future, but it is possible that the earlier statement only reflects her perspective (as far as she is concerned, she is infertile).  According to this interpretation, in v. 5 the angel reveals the truth to her—actually she has recently conceived and is now pregnant.  (See the translation in R. G. Boling, Judges, 217.)  Usage favors this interpretation.  The predicate adjective äøä (harah), “[be/become] pregnant”) elsewhere has a past (1 Sam 4:19) or present (Gen 16:11; 38:25; 2 Sam 11:5) translation value.  (The usage in Isa 7:14 is debated, but a present translation is definitely possible there.)  A final, but less likely possibility, is that she miraculously conceived during the angel’s speech, sometime between his statements recorded in vv. 3 and 5.

It is also worthwhile to examine the Hebrew term  (hinnach) that precedes the verb  (harah) in Judges 13:5,7.  It was already shown that the expression  (hinnach harah) appears in Gen 16:11, where it is typically translated (e.g., KJV) as Behold, thou art with child – in the present tense, which is correct.  The term , which is the conjugation of  (hinnei) in the 2^nd-person, singular, female, present tense, meaning behold, you are…, is used in the Hebrew Bible on seven occasions, at Genesis 16:11, Judges 13:5,7, Song of Songs 1:15(x2), 4:1(x2).  The applications in Judges 13:5,7 were already discussed above.  Here are the remaining five cases as rendered in KJV:

Genesis 16:11(KJV) – And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child [ (hinnach harah)] and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

Song of Songs 1:15(KJV) – Behold, thou art fair [ (hinnach yaffah)], my love; behold, thou art fair [ (hinnach yaffah)]; thou hast doves' eyes.

Song of Songs 4:1(KJV) - Behold, thou art fair [ (hinnach yaffah)], my love; behold, thou art fair [ (hinnach yaffah)]; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

Note how the verb that follows each behold, thou art,  (hinnach), is correctly cast in the present tense.  Contrast these cases with the way the KJV translators treat the same construct in Judges 13:5,7.

Considering the other flaws in the KJV translation of Isaiah 7:14 and the Christological significance of this verse, the rendition of the verb  (harah) as being in the (distant) future tense cannot be credible. 

Finally, it is interesting to note that the 3^rd-person, singular, feminine, future tense conjugation of the verb  (harah), which is  (tahar), is never found in the Hebrew Bible to be applied as such.  Instead, on all 28 occasions in which this particular conjugation is used, it is combined with the conversive-vav,  (va'tahar), thereby changing the tense from future to past to make it and she became pregnant.

D.    Claim:   (b^etulah) is not exclusive to "a virgin" in the Hebrew Bible

      Christian apologists and missionaries argue that, although the term  (b^etulah) can be used specifically to denote "a virgin" (e.g., Lev 21:3,14; Ezek 44:22), it generally is non-specific in this area (e.g., Deut 32.25; Ps 148:12; 2 Chron 36.17).  Moreover, they point to passages where it is claimed to specifically refer to women who are not virgins (e.g., Joel 1:8; Est 2:17; Ezek 23:3).  The following interpretations are offered for these instances.

In Joel 1:8, a  (b^etulah) is called upon to lament over the death of her husband.  The word used for husband in this verse is  (ba'al), a term they claim is never used of a bridegroom, only of a "full husband".  In other words, the  (b^etulah) in this passage cannot be a virgin since she was married.

In Esther 2:17, the girls are called  (b^etulot) after spending a night with the king.

In the parable of Ezekiel 23:3, the  (b^etulah) breasts of the sisters, Aholah and Aholibah, were being handled in harlotry, leaving the impression that the notion of "a virgin" is quite removed.

      The Jewish response to the claims in Esther 2:17 and Ezekiel 23:3 is rather straightforward, and utilizes both the Hebrew language and the context of the passages.  The response to the claim made with regard to Joel 1:8 is more involved, though it is effective and conclusive.

To counter the apologetic claim about Esther 2:17 one must examine all the applications of the term  (b^etulah) in the Scroll of Esther.  The word is used four times, in Esther 2:2,3,17,19.  The application of  (b^etulah) in Esther 2:2,3 is not in question - it clearly refers to "a virgin".  The first case in question, then, is the following:

Esther 2:17 - The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she found more favor and kindness before him than all the other virgins [ (b^etulot)]; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen in place of Vashti.

Nowhere in Esther 2:17 is it stated that those other "virgins" had already spent a night with the king.  Being "a virgin" was the pre-requisite for being placed in the king’s harem.  From that point on, it was merely a beauty contest.  The Jewish tradition was that a woman would remain "a virgin" for up to one year following her betrothal.  There is no reason to assume, nor is there any indication in the entire text of the Scroll of Esther, that Esther spent a night with the king before he named her and she became the queen.  In fact, Esther 2:20 reinforces this conclusion: 

Esther 2:19-20 – (19) And when the virgins [ (b^etulot)] were gathered together the second time, and Mordechai sat at the king’s gate, (20) Esther still told nothing of her kindred or her people as Mordechai had instructed her; for Esther continued to obey Mordechai, just as when she was reared by him.” 

Clearly, utilizing Esther 2:17 to support the claim that  (b^etulah) can be used to refer to a woman who is not a virgin is an error by those who do not know nor understand the Hebrew language, the Hebrew Bible, nor Jewish customs and traditions.  Finally, Esther 2:19 speaks of a second roundup of new virgins for the king’s harem.  Nothing in the text indicates these women were "recycled virgins" who had already spent a night with the king.

Ezekiel 23:3 is another example that demonstrates both a flawed contextual interpretation and a lack of knowledge and understanding of the Hebrew language and the Hebrew Bible by Christian apologists an missionaries:

Ezekiel 23:3 – They indulged in promiscuity in Egypt; they were promiscuous in their youth.  There their bosoms were pressed and there their breasts of their virginity [ (dadei b^etuleihen)] were squeezed.

The nation is likened to prostitutes whose infidelity earns them the contempt of all, including their paramours.  Israel’s two branches, Judah and Ephraim [also often referred to as Israel], began as a united nation in Egypt.  But even while still in Egypt, they were promiscuous, as described with this metaphor, i.e., they picked up the idolatrous practices of Egypt.  Later, the two branches, Judah and Ephraim, each followed the idolatrous ways of its neighbors and fell away from obeying the Torah's Commandments.  Note, however, that in all three places in this chapter where the graphic description of squeezing the sisters’ breasts of their virginity [ (dadei b^etuleihen)] is depicted, it mentions that it was done in their youth, i.e., their first sexual experiences (until that point they were indeed virgins) occurred in Egypt, which is where they "lost their virginity", metaphorically speaking.  In other words, the expression  (dadei b^etuleihen), breasts of their virginity, refers to their youth just prior to losing their innocence.  Moreover, it must also be noted here that the noun  (b^etulah), is not used in this verse.  Rather, the noun  (b^etulim), hymen (the sign of virginity), is used – a noun that appears ten times in the Hebrew Bible in various forms.  This, once again, demonstrates the lack of familiarity with the Hebrew language by the Christian apologists and missionaries.  Following that first experience, the notion of virginity is far removed and, as one reads on in Ezekiel, the term is no longer used beyond that first time in reference to Aholibah, and then once more, in Ezekiel 23:8, in reference to her sister Aholah’s youth.

The last case, Joel 1:8, is the most difficult and sophisticated example:

Joel 1:8 - Lament/wail as a virgin [ (ki’v'tulah)] girded with a sackcloth [mourning] for the husband of [or, man of] her youth [ (al ba’al n^eure’ha)].

In the translation above, the expression "man of" is shown in addition to the common expression "husband of" in order to demonstrate a specific application, unique to this verse in the entire Hebrew Bible but appropriate in this instance.  The expression "man of" serves an almost generic purpose here, because those who are not familiar with the old Jewish customs may easily be fooled by the Hebrew noun  (ba’al), which normally means husband.  In this case, the noun appears in a possessive construct, which gives it the meanings, husband of … or owner of ….^[1]  The claim that the word for husband,  (ba’al), is never used of a "betrothed bridegroom", only of a "full husband", is simply not true.

According to the ancient custom, the Jewish marriage process consisted of two separate events.  The first event was  (erusin), a betrothal (a term that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, but is a later derivative of the Biblical root verb  (eras), [to] betroth), which is when the couple became "engaged".  Betrothal could last for a period of up to one year, during which time the man generally got himself established in a position that would enable him to support his wife and future family.  During this time, the couple did not cohabitate.  At the end of the betrothal period came  (nissu'in), the actual marriage (a term that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, but is a later derivative of the Biblical root verb  (nassa), [to] marry), took place, which is when the marriage was consummated by way of the first sanctioned sexual contact.  The  (b^etulah), virgin, in Joel 1:8 is grieving for her man who died (for some unknown reason) before their marriage was consummated.  This man was the "husband-to-be" who had the claim to, i.e., who was the owner of … [ (ba’al)] her virginity, had he lived.  In other words, he owned the right to (take) her virginity [remember these were Biblical times!].  To attach a dual meaning of "a non-virgin" to  (b^etulah) from this verse is simply an act of desperation, and it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of both the Hebrew language and Jewish tradition.

The salient point of Joel 1:8 is that the “…virgin lamenting for the husband of her youth…” is a "married virgin" (a betrothed woman who has never been with a man sexually) whose betrothed husband (from her youth) died (for some unknown reason) before the marriage was consummated with the  (nissu'in), i.e., before she had sexual relations with him.

Where would a "married virgin", such as the one in Joel 1:8, be in her youth [ (bin^eureiha)]?  The answer is found in the following passages:

Numbers 30:4,17 – (4) And if a woman makes a vow to the L-rd, or imposes a prohibition [upon herself] while in her father's house, in her youth [ (bin^eureiha)],

(17) These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses regarding a man and his wife; between a father and his daughter, in her youth [ (bin^eureiha)], while in her father's house.

A "married virgin", such as the one in Joel 1:8, would be found in her father's house in her youth!  Support for this paradigm is found in several places in the Hebrew Bible:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - (23) If a girl who is a virgin [ (v^etulah)] is betrothed [ (m^eorasah)] to a husband [ (iysh)], and a man [ (iysh)] finds her in the city, and lies with her; (24) Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the girl, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man [ (ha’iysh)], because he has humbled his neighbor’s wife [ (eishet re’eihu)]; so you shall put away evil from among you.

Note in the above passage that the "fiancée" of the betrothed virgin is referred to as "a husband" [Deut 22:23; one of the meanings of  (iysh)], and that she is referred to as her fiancée’s "wife" [Deut 22:24; one of the meanings of  (ishah)].  From this passage it is clear that the  (b^etulah) in Joel 1:8 is "a virgin" in the strictest sense of the word, i.e., a betrothed woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a man.

Christian apologists and missionaries have argued with this interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:23-24 on the basis that the translations of  (iysh) and  (ishah) are subjective, even though the context is clear.  This argument can also be defeated by quoting this passage from the KJV, the widely used Christian translation, to eliminate any claims of bias by Jewish translators:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24(KJV) - (23) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; (24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

The following analysis demonstrates an alternate way to argue, from Scripture, the validity of the Jewish claim (that the  (b^etulah) in Joel 1:8 is, indeed, "a virgin".  It is not even necessary to go outside of this chapter (Joel 1) to demonstrate the correct context, since it is part of the metaphorical description of the prophecy of the devastating plague of locusts.

When the chapter is read carefully and the descriptions in the verses around Joel 1:8 are analyzed, the following will be observed:

         In Joel 1:5, The drunks will not get to taste the fine wine:

Joel 1:5 - Awake, you drunkards, and weep; and howl, all you drinkers of wine, because of the new wine, for it is cut off from your mouth.

         In Joel 1:7, the vine and fig tree that were planted and have grown will not yield the fruits:

Joel 1:7 - He has laid my vine waste, and splintered my fig tree; he has made it clean bare, and thrown it down; its branches are made white.

         In Joel 1:10, the grain, wine, and oil will not be consumed:

Joel 1:10 - The field is wasted, the land mourns; for the grain is wasted; the new wine is dried up, the oil languishes.

         Joel 1:11 structurally parallels Joel 1:8, but expressed as a metaphor:

Joel 1:11 - Be ashamed, O plowmen; wail, O vine dressers – over wheat and over barley, for the harvest of the field has been lost; the wine has dried up and the fig tree has been devastated; the pomegranate tree as well as the date tree and the apple tree – all the trees of the field – have dried up, for rejoicing has dried up from among the sons of man. 

Note how the "second phase" of the process, in this case, the harvesting of the fruit, which follows the planting and metaphorically represents the consummation of a marriage, will not be realized.  This is an amazing parallel to the lamenting virgin whose betrothed husband,  (ba’al n^eure’ha, the husband of her youth), had died before their marriage was consummated.  Scripture validates itself right here!

Two additional examples of parallel metaphoric passages help demonstrate the validity of this interpretation of Joel 1:8 and its robustness:

Deuteronomy 20:6-7 – (6) And who is the man [ (ha’iysh)] that has planted a vineyard, and has not used the fruit thereof? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man use the fruit thereof.  (7) And who is the man [ (ha’iysh)] who has betrothed [ (eras)] a wife [ (ishah)], and has not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.

Deuteronomy 28:30-31 – (30) You shall betroth [ (t^eares)] a wife [ (ishah)], and another man shall lie with her; you shall build a house, and you shall not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, and shall not gather its grapes.  (31) Your ox shall be slain before your eyes, and you shall not eat of it; your ass shall be violently taken away from before your face, and shall not be restored to you; your sheep shall be given to your enemies, and you shall have none to rescue them.

The structure of the Joel 1 passages clearly parallels the two-phase Jewish marriage custom, a paradigm that is supported by similar passages from elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.  The Prophet Joel indicates in this way that his application of the noun  (b^etulah) in Joel 1:8 means exactly what it always (i.e., exclusively!) means in Hebrew (both Biblical and Modern) – "a virgin", a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a man.

E.     Other Claims

There are still many other Christian apologetic and missionary arguments that attempt to defend the use of Isaiah 7:14 as a "proof text" for the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus.  Some of these are summarized below.

1.      Limiting the Power of the Creator?

      A persistent Christian apologist and missionary may attempt to challenge the Jewish perspective by claiming that, in ruling out the possibility that the female in Isaiah 7:14 was a virgin who conceived and remained a virgin (virgo intacta), one places limitations on what G-d can do.

      According to the Sages of the Talmud, it is possible for a woman to conceive with her virginity remaining intact, though it can occur only through a normal act of intercourse. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Hagigah, Folios 14b-15a.)

Jewish polemicists of the medieval period, who feared the retributions that could result from open discussion of this subject, did not attack the doctrine of the "Virgin Birth" directly.  Rather, they used philosophical arguments to reject the idea that G-d could incarnate by impregnating a virgin and fathering an offspring who was G-d Himself.  The noted Jewish polemicist and geographer, Rabbi Abraham Farissol (1452-1528) wrote (Taken from Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages, Daniel J. Lasker,, p. 153, KTAV Publishing (1977) :

We cannot deny the possibility that God, may He be blessed,, could create a creation in a virgin, even one whom no man has known, For He created everything out of nothing.  Rather, we deny that there was a need for incarnation.

In other words, it is not a question of whether G-d is able to do this; rather, at issue is the need for self-incarnation, given that it would, in effect destroy the accepted perspective on G-d, which excludes His incarnation.

2.      Concerning the Rendition of  (ha'almah) in the Septuagint (LXX)

      Christian apologists and missionaries argue that the LXX renders the Hebrew term  (ha'almah) as ^{}parthenos) in Greek, which means "a virgin".  Surely, they argue, the Rabbis who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek would know how to correctly translate this term.

      The Jewish response is based on evidence available today, which has convinced scholars (of all persuasions) that the LXX is a Church-rendered Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.  It is not the original Septuagint, which was a 3^rd century B.C.E translation into Greek of only the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), commissioned by King Ptolemy II of Egypt, and which was carried out by 72 of the most learned, bi-lingual Jewish scholars of the time.  The evidence includes:

         Historical accounts (the writings of Josephus and St. Jerome, the Letter of Aristeas)

         Scriptural items (statements in the Talmud, errors of omission in the LXX)

         Linguistic data (comparative linguistic analysis of the Greek in the LXX vis-à-vis the Greek spoken in the 3^rd century B.C.E)

         Inconsistencies in the way the Greek word ^{}parthenos) is translated in the KJV (e.g., at Gen 24:43 it is rendered "the virgin", while at Gen 38:24 it is rendered "the maid", so that it does not exclusively mean "a virgin")

         The Church-rendered LXX defeats the standard Christian argument as well.  The claim is that, in Isaiah 7:14,  (almah) is translated into Greek as ^{}parthenos), which, it is claimed, means "a virgin".  Yet, the LXX is not consistent in its transation of this noun.  The LXX renditions of all seven instances of  (almah) in all seven instances in the Hebrew Bible are shown in Table III.E.1-1.

Table III.E.1-1 – LXX renderings of  (almah)

Reference	Greek Translation in LXX(1)
Genesis 24:43; Isaiah 7:14	 (parthenos)
Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:26 [67:26 in LXX] Proverbs 30:19; Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8	 (neanis)

(1) Noun shown in "root" form, i.e., singular and without prepositions

         According to the Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, the noun  (parthenos) may have any of the following meanings:  "a maid", "a maiden", "a virgin", "a girl".  The noun  (neanis) is shown in the same source to have any of the following meanings: "a young woman", "a girl", "a maiden".  The application in the Church-rendered LXX of two distinctly different terms to the Hebrew noun  (almah), rules out a definitive proof that this term exclusively means "a virgin".  [The LXX rendition of the masculine counter-part of  (almah), namely,  (elem), is (neaniskos), which, according to the Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, has the following meanings: "a youth", "a young man".  Clearly, there is no positive indication of virginity in any of these terms.

         According to the LXX, Genesis 34:3 also defeats the claim that  (parthenos) is used exclusively for "a virgin".  Dinah, who was raped by Sh^echem, is referred to as a  (parthenos) after being raped, which is contrary to the claim on the exclusivity of  (parthenos) for idenfying "a virgin".

3.      Relevance of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) Cognate Languages

      This Christian apologetic and missionary argument utilizes the terminology found in several of the ANE Cognate Languages (Akkadian, Egyptian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, and others) to conclude that  (almah) is just as acceptable as, and probably even more accurate than  (b^etulah), for conveying the idea that a young female is "a virgin".  For example, a published note by the late Professor Cyrus H. Gordon (Cyrus H. Gordon, 'Almah in Isaiah 7:14, Journal of Bible and Religion, p. 106, Vol. XXI, No. 2 (April 1953) on the use of  (almah) in Isaiah 7:14, is often cited to support this claim.

      The Jewish response identifies several reasons why references to these extra-Biblical sources have no place here.

Christian apologists and missionaries typically adhere to religious fundamentalism, which generally includes the notion of sola scriptura, Latin for by scripture alone, the idea of singular authority of scripture.  In other words, scripture (the Bible) is the only infallible rule to be used for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.  Yet, in order to defend their interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, apologists and missionaries are prepared to reach outside the bounds of their Bible and rely on the ANE languages of pagans.  They cannot have it both ways!

While Judaism rejects the concept of sola scriptura, in the case of Isaiah 7:14, since it is a topic from within the Hebrew Bible, there is no need to go outside the Hebrew Bible in order to demonstrate the validity of the Jewish position.  Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a powerful analytical tool for supporting the Jewish interpretation against the claims made by Christian apologists and missionaries.

Most people are not experts in ANE languages, the required information is not always readily available, and, in addition, an enormous amount of research is usually necessary.  In the case of Professor Gordon's published note, the sources, i.e., the Ugaritic material and related commentary by the noted linguist and archaeologist were located, obtained, and analyzed.  An analysis of Professor Gordon’s comments on an Ugaritic poem ², shows that:

         The Christian analysis quotes only a small portion of the analysis by Professor Gordon.  When the entire published note is taken in its proper context, together with the text of the poem in question, the claimed inference is, at best, a stretch of the true meaning.

         Given Isaiah’s stance against idolatry, the use by the Prophet of terminology from a language and poem that represent an idolatrous culture is highly doubtful.

II.            Summary

The analysis of Isaiah 7:14 presented in this essay demonstrates, both grammatically and contextually, that no valid connection can be established between the Christian doctrine of the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus and Isaiah 7:14, and how Christian apologetic and missionary claims concerning this so-called "proof text" from the Hebrew Bible are effectively countered and refuted.

The claim that Isaiah 7:14 is the so-called "proof text" of the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus is merely and attempt to retrofit Christology into the Hebrew Bible.  This verse is part of an historical event, described in detail in the seventh chapter in the Book of Isaiah, something that has already occurred and cannot apply to an event claimed to have taken place some seven and one half centuries later.

Footnotes

1: In general, and there are numerous examples of this in the Hebrew Bible, when the noun  (ba’al) appears in a possessive construct, the full expression may take on various meanings, depending on what the other component is.

2: See Exposing A Missionary Deception - http://www.messiahtruth.com/exposed.html.  [A side note: In a private communication to a third party, Professor Gordon voiced his dismay at how Christian apologists and missionaries were misapplying his published note on the subject, and he confirmed that their conclusions are erroneous.]

Source: http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa714b.html

The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (2003)

By

Richard Carrier

In March 23 of 2003 I received the following question by email. I was encouraged to publish my answer online, since it would be of help to many others faced with the same question.[1] Some of my advice is applicable to many other questions of a similar nature, exemplifying the utility of the Secular Web Library as a research resource. The question went as follows:

Hello Mr. Carrier. I have a question about the Immanuel Prophecy (Isaiah 7:14). Did the Prophet Isaiah say that a "virgin" or a "young woman" would conceive? According to Tim Callahan in his book Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? (cf. pp. 115-16), the Hebrew word almah, "meaning a young woman of marriageable age, was translated into Greek in the Septuagint as parthenos or 'virgin.' Had the Hebrew meant to say virgin it would have used bethulah, which means specifically a virgin." Yet according to I. J. Mikulski, a Catholic priest, Isaiah "used the word almah that can be translated 'young woman' as a synonym for 'virgin.' In fact," he says, "there is no instance in the Hebrew Sacred Writings (our Old Testament) where almah means a young woman who is not a virgin." Mikulski says "Old Testament writers understood that and chose their words accordingly. Matthew also understood that, of course, when he quoted Isaiah's word in Greek." Thus, "He used the word parthenos that has the precise meaning 'virgin'. That's the word used in the Greek Septuagint version of the Sacred Writings (Old Testament) translated about 250 B.C. by Jewish scholars for the Greek-speaking Jewish community in Egypt. So," according to Mikulski, "nearly three centuries before Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, nearly three centuries before anyone had reason to question Catholic doctrine, the meaning of Isaiah's words almah-parthenos-virgin was clear." Between Callahan and Mikulski, who is right?

This is a very old debate. Callahan's argument, for example, was long ago made by the infamous infidels Joseph Wheless and Joseph McCabe, whose writings are made available in the Secular Web Historical Library.[2] But their writings and methods are much out of date. We have several better discussions of the issue in the Secular Web Modern Library, which demonstrate that Callahan is not making anything up. For instance, the Hebrews did have a word that more clearly meant virgin: bethulah. So the choice of almah does count against Mikulski, with regard to the original Hebrew text of the bible. For three more modern analyses of the whole question of this virgin birth prophecy, see the relevant essays by James Still, Jim Lippard, and Farrell Till.[3]

However, it is important to point out first that the debate might be moot anyway. For the two options presented by Callahan and Mikulski do not exhaust all the possibilities, since Isaiah can be interpreted non-supernaturally even if he did mean virgin. After all, is it really unusual for a virgin to conceive? Say, on her wedding night? True, then she isn't a virgin anymore. But she was until she conceived (literally, not at that very moment, but the Bible is rarely so precise). Since conception does not always occur the first time it would still be significant to say that a virgin conceived, meaning only that she conceived the first time she was with a man. In fact, this is the very conclusion reached by the renowned Catholic scholar and nativity expert Raymond Brown (whose own analysis of this question I will discuss further below).[4]

But that aside, in sum, the truth is more likely with Callahan. Here are the various reasons why:

1. The Textual Tradition is not Iron Clad

Mikulski has his history just a bit wrong, and the ground is shakier than he implies. First, the Septuagint translated around 250 B.C. was originally just the Torah. The book of Isaiah wasn't in it. The translation of Isaiah into Greek was added to the Septuagint a century or so later (as with other OT books, including several that were not accepted into the Christian OT canon).[5] So Mikulski is wrong to assert that the translation to parthenos predates Matthew by three centuries (it probably predates Matthew by no more than one or two centuries, possibly less). Nor can Mikulski know that all Jewish scholars agreed on how Isaiah should be translated. We don't know who added the extant translation of Isaiah to the Septuagint, or when, or where, or for what Jewish sect.

We also can't be sure parthenos was the original reading. We have other pieces of the Septuagint among the Dead Sea Scrolls with variant readings not found in extant manuscripts of those same books. Since these are only small pieces, the fact that they contain otherwise unknown variants means there were probably variant readings for numerous other verses that are no longer attested in surviving manuscripts of the Septuagint. In other words, when Matthew wrote, not all copies of the Septuagint said the same thing. So alterations for sectarian reasons could have taken place between the first translation of Isaiah and Matthew's reading of it. Since we don't have any pre-Christian manuscripts with this verse in Greek, we can't know for certain how common a reading parthenos was.

So, for example, if Matthew was relying on copies of Isaiah produced by Essenes, the Essenes could have altered the text for their own stylistic or sectarian reasons. Since Christians essentially chose which versions of the Septuagint would be preserved to the present day, we may have lost others that had different readings, and therefore we can't be sure all Jewish scholars before Matthew were in agreement on whether parthenos was the most appropriate term.[6] We already know that Matthew took his verb from one of two variant readings for this verse.[7] So how many other variants were there that are now lost?

Of course, we can't even be sure of the underlying Hebrew or Aramaic for the same reason. We know numerous variants existed in the Hebrew and Aramaic already in Matthew's time, and many more remain today. So the argument cuts both ways. But the overall point remains: discussion of what words were where is always an uncertain business. This is aptly demonstrated by professor of Biblical History and Archaeology Gerald Larue here on the Secular Web.[8] Although this is, overall, a relatively minor point, it is significant enough to consider, contrary to Mikulski's argument, that Jewish sectarianism could lie behind parthenos rather than unanimous Jewish agreement, and that the parthenos reading might have been a more recent development before Matthew's time than Mikulski imagines.

2. The Greek Is Not So Definite

The Greek word parthenos carries a basic meaning of 'girl', hence it denotes 'virgin' only by implication. And in fact this word could also be used to refer to non-virgin women who weren't married. Homer so uses it, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek would know of this word's versatile and indefinite meaning.[9] So the Jewish translators need not have had virginity in mind, but youth. Still, this word carried a strong connotation of virginity, and there were Greek words that didn't carry that connotation (like neanis). And Mikulski is right to point out that the choice to go with parthenos was made, presumably, by Jews. Even so, we can't know what was in the mind of the scribe who chose that word. It is possible the Jewish translator of Isaiah wasn't taking sides on whether 'virgin' was meant but was using a word that could mean either, and that only later did Christians take it as definitely meaning 'virgin'.

Besides all that, the argument Mikulski uses works against him just as forcefully: for if the choice of parthenos over neanis by the Greek translator implies virginity, then the choice of almah over bethulah by the original author (presumably Isaiah--or, according to Christian belief, God Himself, speaking through his prophet) implies nonvirginity. Thus, even if some Jewish translator (speaking a Hebrew that is three hundred years newer than Isaiah's) took this passage to be about a virgin, this does not make it any more likely that this passage originally meant a virgin. For contrary to Mikulski's argument, a mistake by a Jew is still a mistake.

3. Evidence of OT Usage Is Uncertain in This Case

I am also skeptical of Mikulski's usage argument. Being an experienced translator who has worked with five languages, I can confidently say it has always been nearly impossible to identify the exact parameters of denotation for every instance of a word in a surviving corpus. I'll bet we have dozens if not hundreds of occasions where almah is used, in and out of the OT, where we can't know if the denoted girl was a virgin or not. There is no way to make this determination in most cases of its use even within the OT.[10] Thus, we cannot assert too confidently that it never referred to nonvirgins. Many of the uses of the word even in the OT could refer to nonvirgins. We can't pretend to know for sure.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the frequency of such an alternate usage would be too low for us to count on there being clear, extant examples. It would have been unusual for "a young woman of marriageable age" not to be a virgin. Fornication, even being raped in some cases, was a death penalty offense.[11] So not many such girls lived long enough to be called anything, much less almah. Divorce was also not generally an option for a woman. Only her husband could send her away, and only for sexual infidelity. By law, a man could not divorce a woman who was a virgin on their wedding night. Hence a woman's father was expected to keep the bloody honeymoon sheets and show them to the whole community as proof of her virginity in order to block a divorce.[12] Women most often died before their husbands, and usually in labor: the mortality rate was probably around 10% for each birth. So young widows were rare, and virginal widows must have been incredibly rare (although not impossible: a husband who died before he made it to the bed would leave a girl a virgin and a widow). At any rate, a young nonvirgin, whether slut, whore, rape victim, divorcee, or widow, could have been called "a young woman of marriageable age," hence almah. We just don't know of many examples, so we don't know if the word would have been used or refused in which cases.

So even if we find almah referring in some definite cases to actual virgins, it doesn't follow that this was the only correct use of the word. It may have applied to any young unmarried girl, or to any young girl who married as a virgin. Nonvirgin young women would have been so rare that we're unlikely to have many examples of them being referred to. Hence we can't say what word would have been used for them. Yet it may have been almah, since it seems there was no better word to use. We can't be sure it wasn't. Moreover, the fact that the Hebrews saw a need to coin a word more definitely meaning 'virgin' (bethulah) implies that almah did not definitely mean virgin.

4. Where Is the Proper Method?

Both scholars seem to be deploying bad methodology. Callahan, like McKinsey,[13] doesn't really tell readers how he knows what he knows. Nor does Mikulski. I personally happen to know that the argument comes from ancient Jewish polemics against Christianity. But I would expect Callahan to tell his readers that, identifying where the argument first appeared, and where else it has been argued that a reader can get more information from.

For example, the fact that this is one of the earliest Jewish polemics against Christianity adds a great deal of weight to Callahan's argument against Mikulski. If even ancient Jews agreed with Callahan on the meaning of the Hebrew word, then that pretty much refutes Mikulski, who is a decidedly inferior expert--not being a native speaker of ancient Hebrew, much less a lifetime Hebrew scholar, like the rabbis of old (who were devoted to mastering and debating the Jewish meaning of what is unmistakably a Jewish book). Still, I want to know what the ancient Christian commentaries on the NT and Isaiah passages had to say about this, and what the Jewish Midrashic literature on Isaiah had to say. Neither Callahan nor Mikulski even seem to be interested in that.

5. Competent Authority Goes against Mikulski

They also should have consulted current scholarly commentaries in print. The best on this issue is Raymond Brown's Birth of the Messiah. Like Mikulski, Brown is a devout Catholic. But he is an objective scholar, usually fair to all parties in any debate, and always erudite and cautious. He is internationally recognized as a leading, if not the leading expert on the Christian nativity accounts.

So I pulled him off my shelf and looked up the passage in question. And lo and behold, Brown tells us, with citations and quotations, that Callahan's argument appeared first in a 2nd century Christian apologetic work: Justin's Dialogue with Trypho (also known as Dialogue with a Jew). This proves, against Mikulski, that even ancient Jews didn't believe almah meant only virgin, for Christians had to defend their reading of 'virgin' against Jewish critics, from the very earliest times (cf. Larue, above, for more on this point). Brown also relates some of the colorful history of the debate, like that fundamentalists once burned copies of the RSV translation of the OT because it had "young woman" in Isaiah, and Catholic bishops compelled Catholic translators of the NAB translation to go against their better judgment and put 'virgin' there. Thus Brown observes that many modern translations are the victim of ideological censorship (a common problem, and a main reason why if you haven't read the Bible in the original languages, then you haven't really read it).[14]

All in all, Brown's detailed analysis only confirms Callahan's point, not Mikulski's. For instance, as Brown explains, Justin knew that Jews understood Isaiah to be referring to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, and thus the Christians were "reinterpreting" a prophecy that had already been fulfilled. Brown also cites important scholarship on the meaning of almah and other details, making him an essential reference on this, if you want to explore the matter further. He surveys additional points and concludes that "Isa. 7:14 does not refer to a virginal conception in the distant future" but to "the imminent birth of a child, probably Davidic, but naturally conceived" (§ 5B2, i.e. p. 148). Since this comes from a renowned authority who is Catholic (and thus going against his biases), this conclusion carries special weight here.

To look at the question from a typical messianic Jew's perspective, I always consult my copy of David Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary (1992). Stern is a messianic Jew who also believes Jesus was the messiah, and was virgin born. Consequently, he defends Mikulski's position. But if you read Stern against Brown you will readily see that Stern's analysis is off base and a bit naive and misleading.[15] For instance, he argues that since almah implied a good reputation, which required virginity, it thus entailed virginity. But this does not address widows (who had a good reputation even if not virgins), nor is implication the same as entailment. Stern is also not cognizant of the opinion of myself and Brown that within the natural ambiguity of the text in question virgins of good reputation can naturally conceive--not just in the sense that they can conceive on their wedding night (which is certainly a possible meaning of the Isaiah passage), but also, as Brown points out, in the sense that a man might in the future take as a bride someone who is now a virgin. On that reading, "a virgin will conceive" in the sense that someone who is now a virgin, at the time Isaiah spoke, would at some point marry and have a child (possibly even conceiving the moment she loses her virginity). Certainly that would be considered a fulfillment of the prophecy.

Footnotes:

[1] This essay was subsequently revised in February of 2007, with an expansion of section 1, new and reorganized endnotes, and numerous minor changes throughout.

[2] Joseph Wheless, Forgery In Christianity (Chapter 2) and Joseph McCabe, The Story Of Religious Controversy (Chapter 14), both written in the early 20th century.

[3] James Still, "The Virgin Birth and Childhood Mysteries of Jesus"; Jim Lippard, "The Fabulous Prophecies Of The Messiah"; Farrell Till, "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled." Jewish apologists also have detailed rebuttals online at the Messiah Truth website: Does Isaiah 7:14 Foretell the Messiah? and Isaiah and His Sons.

[4] Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New ed., 1999).

[5] This is explicitly stated by Josephus, Philo, and other ancient witnesses (cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 12.1-322 and Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.5.25-2.8.48), and implicitly confirmed by internal evidence. For details see "Septuagint" in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (ODCC), 3rd ed. (1997), pp.1483-84; as well as Joel Kalvesmaki, "The History of the Septuagint and its Terminology" (2005) and the relevant sections of "Bible Translations" in the Jewish Encyclopedia Online. The ODCC puts it succinctly: "internal evidence indicates that the LXX was really the work of a number of translators...that not all of it was translated at Alexandria, and that the work of translation extended over a considerable period." See also the detailed discussion by Jennifer Dines, "The Septuagint: Some Current Research (2005).

[6] The fact that the Septuagint text survives to us primarily through Christian custody creates an additional problem that I will only mention in this endnote: we can't be entirely certain that parthenos was not a Christian alteration of the Septuagint, instead of the original word chosen by the Jewish translators. We have enough fragments of other ancient translations of the OT to know that neanis was used more regularly in Isaiah 7:14, even in many cases by Christian translators. Although Justin's "Jew" concedes that parthenos was in the Septuagint that he knew, this is still a Christian author putting words in a Jew's mouth. So this is not proof that parthenos in Isaiah was not in fact a later Christian interpolation, seeking to normalize the text to Matthew's. However, I have not studied the evidence on this question enough to pronounce a conclusion. I only note this as something scholars need to consider more carefully before assuming anything one way or the other.

[7] See textual note for Isaiah 7.14. And see Brown's discussion in § 5B3 of Birth of the Messiah.

[8] Actually using the virgin controversy as an example: Chapter 32 - Texts, Manuscripts and Translations in Old Testament Life and Literature. Larue erroneously says Isaiah used bethulah. He must be confusing this with almah. His point is otherwise correct.

[9] Cf. Iliad 2.514. Also: Pindar, Pythian Odes 3.34; Sophocles, Trachiniae 1219; Aristophanes, Nubes 530. I'm not aware of any evidence that Koinê usage differed from Classical or Attic in allowing this connotation.

[10] There are only seven instances of its use that I know of: Gen. 24:43, Ex. 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8, and of course Isaiah 7:14. In none of these is "virgin" a required reading, except perhaps in the Song of Solomon 6:8, yet even there it's unclear what category of attendant is meant (it might only have designated young female servants who did not perform sexual services).

[11] Deuteronomy 22:20-21. Even if a girl is raped, she merits the death penalty if she was engaged and no one heard her scream: Deut. 22:23-24. A virgin who is not engaged and then raped, even if she doesn't scream, is not executed, but compelled to marry her rapist (and her father gets paid for his daughter's sexual services): Deut. 22:28-29.

[12] Deut. 22:13-19 (where only cognates of bethulah indicate virginity) and Deut. 24:1-4.

[13] C. Dennis McKinsey, in The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, discusses the virgin birth prophecy briefly on p. 159.

[14] For the curious: most Bible translations simply have "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. But there are exceptions: e.g. The Message Bible has "a girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant," which implies Brown's interpretation; the NLT offers "young woman" as a variant reading in a note; and the CEV translates it as "virgin" but then explains in a note the whole story of why this does "not imply a virgin birth."

[15] See "How Do Missionaries Paint the Virgin Birth Into the Mouth of Rashi?" on the Outreach Judaism site. However, though typical, Stern is not the best advocate. Other messianic Jews make a more thoughtful case than Stern, which is fair enough to consider. If you want to explore the best contemporary Jewish arguments in favor of a virgin birth (and test them against the general points I have made), see the relevant material in Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus III: Messianic Prophecy Objections (2003) and Daniel Gruber's article "Modern Rabbis and the Virgin Birth of Messiah."

Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html

The Haftorah and Isaiah 53: Are the Jews Hiding Something?

By Out Reach Judaism

Question:
One of the methods you used in your tape series to refute missionary claims is to point out the context of the prophecy.  For example, you point out that the seventh chapter of Isaiah cannot be a prophecy about Jesus' virgin birth because it suggests that the prophecy was to have been fulfilled in Ahaz's lifetime, some 700 years before Jesus. 
Still, maybe this is a "double prophecy," a prophecy about a boy to be born in the days of Ahaz and also a prophecy to the birth of Jesus.  The context is only for the first application of this double prophecy.  Rabbi, do you have any comments?

Answer:

When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's claim that Isaiah is referring to Jesus' virgin birth, they often argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy.  In order to fully understand what missionaries mean by a dual prophecy, let me first explain why the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's use of this verse as a proof-text of his virgin-birth story.

It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah.  The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin."  This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin."  It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity.  Most modern Christian Bibles 1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman."  Let's now examine the context of Isaiah 7:14.

The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah.  In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria.  These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem.  The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear.  Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand -- the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.  In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read, 

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it.  It was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.  The Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field, and you shall say to him, 'Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.  Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: "Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us."  So said the Lord God, "Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . . ." ' "  The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."  Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord."  Then he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well?  Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.  Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later.  If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later?  Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried.  Such a sign would make no sense.

Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two
warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed.  We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these
two kings were suddenly assassinated.  With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth.  Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.

This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in.  Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem
of Matthew's complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah's words to Ahaz had two different applications.  They concede that the first application of Isaiah's prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis.  That child that was born contemporaneously and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.

Missionaries insist, however, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus' virgin birth less than 2,000 years ago.
With this elaborate explanation, missionaries maintain that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate.  In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E.  Problem solved.  Or is it?

The troubles created by this explanation are manifold.  To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible.  Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment. 2 The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.

Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the word ha'almah means a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz's time?  Were there two virgin births?  That is to say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.?  Bear in mind that these missionaries insist that the word ha'almah can only mean virgin.  Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child?

Furthermore, if they claim the seventh chapter of Isaiah is a dual prophecy, how does Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad?  Remember, Isaiah 7:14-16 reads,

Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign, "Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.  Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

If Isaiah's words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature?  Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?  Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.?  When did Jesus eat cream and honey?  Does any of this make any sense?  It doesn't because this argument of a dual prophecy was born out of the desperation of Christian missionaries and essentially makes a mockery out of the Book of Isaiah.

Best wishes for a happy Chanukah.

Very truly yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnotes:

Click on the footnotes to return to the article

1: Most modern Christian translators have corrected Matthew's mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 and correctly translate the Hebrew
word "almah" as a "young woman."  (see below)

    Christian Translations of Isaiah 7:14

Revised Standard Version Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.  Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.	Revised English Bible Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel.
New English Bible Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel.	New Revised Standard Version 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.
The Message of the Bible He will give you a sign.  A young woman shall bear a son who shall truly represent the hopes we have inherited from the days of David.  His very name, "God-is-with-us," shall express the secret of his power.	New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Jehovah Witnesses) Therefore Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look!  The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel.
Good News Bible Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him "Immanuel."	The Jerusalem Bible:  Readers Edition The Lord himself, therefore, will give you a sign.  It is this: The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.
The Bible: A New Translation An omen you shall have, and that from the Eternal himself.  There is a young woman with child, who shall bear a son and call his name "Immanuel" (God is with us).	The Bible: An American Translation Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold!  A young woman is with child, and is about to bear a son; and she will call him "God is with us."
The International Critical Commentary Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.  Behold, a damsel is with child, and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.	The New Jerusalem Bible The Lord will give you a sign in any case.  It is this: The young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.
The Layman's Bible Commentary In reply, Isaiah says that the Lord will provide a sign.  It will be a most unusual and remarkable event.  A young woman shall bear a son and name him "Immanuel," meaning "God is with us."	World Biblical Commentary Therefore my Lord himself will give you (pl) a sign.  Behold, the woman shall conceive and bearing a son -- she shall call his name "Immanuel."
The Bible in Basic English For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel.

2: I once heard a missionary try to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of a dual prophecy by claiming that in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed himself to King Ahaz in both the singular "you" and the plural "you."  (Although in the English language no such distinction exists, in the Hebrew language "you" can be expressed in both the singular and the plural.)  He went on to explain that at times the prophet addressed Ahaz alone, and in other places in this chapter, the prophet addressed the House of David.  He concluded, therefore, that whenever the prophet addressed the House of David or spoke in the plural "you," he was addressing the future virgin birth of Jesus seven centuries later.  On the other hand, whenever the prophet addressed Ahaz or spoke in the singular "you," he was addressing the immediate crisis regarding Ahaz and the two kingdoms who were poised to defeat him.  In Isaiah 7:14, he argued, the Hebrew word "la'chem" is a plural "you" and it therefore was addressing the future virgin birth of Jesus which was associated with the House of David, not Ahaz and his immediate military crisis.

I replied to him that this chapter quite clearly declares that it was both the House of David and Ahaz who were threatened by the immediate crisis, not just Ahaz alone.  Every reference to the House of David and plural "you" which was addressed to the entire Davidic House referred only to the military crisis described in this chapter.  In fact, in the second verse in this chapter, Isaiah relates that both Ahaz and the House of David were informed of the immediate crisis of the two warring kingdoms.  This verse, therefore, goes on to say, that both his heart (Ahaz -- singular) and the heart of the people (the House of David -- plural) trembled with fear.  It was not Ahaz alone who was terrified of these two hostile armies, but the entire House of David as well.

The reason that the prophet saw fit to repeatedly address Ahaz as the House of David and in the plural "you" throughout this chapter was because Ahaz was a wicked king and as such was personally undeserving of God's merciful intervention.  Nevertheless, the Almighty did save Ahaz through the merit of the House of David.

The reason these two kingdoms laid siege to Jerusalem was to undermine the throne of David (verse six).  In II Samuel 7:12-16 the Almighty had promised King David that the House of David -- his dynasty -- would be preserved regardless of the worthiness of the king.  Ahaz was rescued by God in the merit of the House of David not through his own worthiness.  The prophet delivers this message by addressing Ahaz both as the House of David and in the plural "you."

Source: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/virgin.html

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Return to Refuting Alleged Old Testament Prophecies Pointing to Jesus

Return to Homepage

1^[1] Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (as edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch; translated by A. E. Cowley; Second Edition), pp. 312-313, Section 106n(b), Oxford University Press (1910).

2^[2] There is one instance of the form , you called, i.e., 2^nd-person, singular, feminine, past tense conjugation, without the conversive-vav, at Jeremiah 3:4, which is not included in the table since it is in the past tense. Moreover, there is another instance of the form , which appears at Deuteronomy 31:29, but it derives from a root verb that is a homonym of with a different meaning, [to] encounter/meet, and is not included in the table. There is also an instance of the form , i.e., without the conversive-vav, of this homonym root verb, which appears at Jeremiah 44:23.