Featured Revisiting Isaiah 7:14

The birth of Jesus Christ came about this way: After his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, it was discovered before they came together that she was pregnant from the Holy Spirit. So her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her publicly, decided to divorce her secretly.
But after he had considered these thing, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

See, the virgin will become pregnant
and give birth to a son,
and they will name him Immanuel,​

which is translated “God is with us.”

Matthew 1:18-23 CSB​

I've been spending some quality time in Matthew recently.
There are five fulfillment passages that open his gospel following the genealogy.
Each of them controversial in their own way.

This first one is controversial due to the translation of the text of Isaiah from which it is drawn.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son,
And shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 AV1874)​

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanu-el. (Isaiah 7:14 RSV)​

The common versions are of one mind when translating this verse.

 

The NASB often uses the word, 'maiden' when translating the Hebrew word almah.
I like that! but it has become an archaic word.
Most versions translate almah as 'young woman' (with the exception of the ESV).
Only in this passage is it consistently translated 'virgin', probably due to the abuse previous translations received.

Rob

 

I learned a lot from John H. Walton, he's helped me lay to rest some issues I've carried for decades.

He wrote a paper for JETS in the 1980's, ISA 7:14: WHAT'S IN A NAME? [Link]

...the LXX rendering of 'alma by parthenos has often been considered proof that the meaning "virgin" is valid.14 In response to this it must first of all be pointed out that parthenos itself does not always mean "virgin" in classical Greek, although all of its NT occurrences have that meaning.15 Therefore the LXX is not necessarily betraying an interpretation as virgin by choosing this term. Second, Gleason Archer very convincingly demonstrated in a paper delivered at the ETS national meetings in Dallas in 1983 that the LXX translator of the book of Isaiah consistently showed a tendency to be imprecise in his choice of Greek terms to represent the Hebrew.16 Often a vaguely suitable term was chosen when a much more acceptable and precise term was available. This could well be the explanation of the use of parthenos here. While some may find these explanations of parthenos unsatisfactory, it is illegitimate to use the LXX translation to override clear lexical material in the Hebrew text. Isa 54:4 demonstrates that an 'alma could be married and barren. Certainly an 'alma could also at times be a virgin. At best the LXX would indicate an interpretational preference rather than a linguistic necessity. The upshot of all of this is the conclusion that there is no defensible linguistic logic for suggesting the meaning "virgin" for the Hebrew 'alma. Exegetical methods lead us to the meaning "youth" or adolescent." It is only hermeneutical considerations, or should we say theological considerations, that would demand that the issue bé pushed further than linguistic analysis could support. (p 293)

​

Here's how the each of the Hebrew word almah is translated (when it is translated, ...there are places where it is left untranslated)

Genesis 24:43 ESV virgin, AV virgin NIV young woman, NAS95 maiden, NLT young woman, LEB young woman, CSB young woman

Exodus 2:8 ESV girl AV maid NIV girl NAS95 girl NLT girl LEB girl CSB girl

Psalm 68:25 ESV virgins, AV damsels NIV young women NAS95 maidens NLT young women LEB young women CSB young women

Proverbs 30:19 ESV virgin, AV maid NIV young woman NAS95 maid NLT young woman LEB young woman CSB young woman

Song of Solomon 1:3 ESV virgins, AV virgins NIV young women NAS95 maidens NLT young women LEB young women CSB young women

Song of Solomon 6:8 ESV virgins, AV virgins NIV virgins NAS95 maidens NLT young women LEB maidens CSB young women

Isaiah 7:14 ESV virgin, AV Virgin NIV virgin NAS95 virgin NLT virgin LEB virgin CSB virgin

Rob

 

ad homonem

 

"...it is illegitimate to use the LXX translation to override clear lexical material in the Hebrew text."​

It would be somewhat like saying the text of the KJV overrides the Greek text... sure, some accept that it may but it is 'illegitimate' to do so.

One of Walton's points is that 'almah is an imprecise term, not always associated with a virgin... qualifiers are needed for precise translation.

...and to translate it as virgin in Isaiah would almost preclude a double meaning.​

A virgin birth did not occur in Ahaz' time. That was not the miracle that Isaiah was predicting in Ahaz' time. Isaiah's prediction miracle concerned the timing of the boy-child's birth and life.

Keeping the term imprecise allows the fulfillment in Ahaz' time as well as for the birth of the Messiah.

Rob

 

This is true because the Christian versions that choose to render ‘almah as virgin, also render the following clause in the future tense, “…will conceive and give birth…”.

Walton notes:

Verbless clauses in Hebrew are typically rendered into present or past tenses, the choice to be determined by the tense of the surrounding finite verbs. The only verb that can be called in to help in this context is the active participle, rendered future by the NASB: "and bear a son." In reality, however, the Hebrew participle properly rendered conveys action now in progress or about to begin. This gives the verbless clause a present context.

The results of this grammatical analysis are not new or controversial. The resulting translation, leaving 'alma untranslated for the moment, should be: "Behold, an 'alma is pregnant and is about to bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." (Walton, p 290-291)​

Walton's translation compares favorably to the contemporary Jewish translation, Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (1985)

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. Isaiah 7:14 (Tanakh)​

Rob

 

Hebrew generally uses three-letter words and adds to them to form related words, in Isa 54:4 the words, 'youth' and 'widowhood' are related to 'almah.

It's my suspicion that this verse has caused so much controversy in the past that translators are catering to the public. That and the idea that there is just not a suitable English word to distinguish the term.

The term ‘almāh (“maiden”) has in the past evoked much controversy, initially because of its translation in Greek by the LXX as parthénos (“virgin”), and its subsequent role in Matt. 1:23. The noun is derived, not from the root “to be concealed” as suggested already by Jerome, but from a homonym, meaning “to be full of vigor,” “to have reached the age of puberty.” Thus the noun refers to a female sexually ripe for marriage. The emphasis does not fall on virginity as such and, in this respect, differs from the Hebrew betûlāh. However, apart from the controversial reference in Prov. 30:19, the women in all the other references to an ‘almāh do actually appear to be virgins (e.g., Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:26). It is very unlikely that a married woman would still be referred to as an ‘almāh. In sum, the English translation of the Hebrew by the AV as “virgin” is misleading in too narrowly focusing on virginity rather than on sexual maturity. Conversely, the preferred modern translation of “young woman” (NRSV) is too broad a rendering since it wrongly includes young wives.
Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary, ed. William P. Brown, Carol A. Newsom, and Brent A. Strawn, 1st ed., The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 66.​

There is not dispute that Matthew clearly identifies Jesus' conception as immaculate.

Rob

 

Quote from Rob: "It's my suspicion that this verse has caused so much controversy in the past that translators are catering to the public."

If your statement wasn't an ad homenem, you were stepping on the line.

I've tried to clearly lay out the evidence from which I've drawn a conclusion - rather than attacking a characteristic or attribute and drawn conclusions based on that.

So no, my suspicion was not an ad-hom attack.

Rob