"Alma" vs. "betula"?

[Feedmysheep]

I just came across an argument that stated the following:

The word “alma” does not necessarily mean “virgin”, but rather “young woman”. The word “betula” specifically means “virgin”.

Isaiah only uses the word “alma” one time (Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel (DR)), but the word “betula” five times. Thus, had the prophet meant virgin, he would have used “betula”, not “alma”.

This was put forth in the context of Christians consistently altering Jewish scripture to “make them fit” Jesus.

Anyone heard this before? And how to refute it?

FMS

 

[Genesis315]

Quite the opposite is the case actually.

The Septuagint, which the Apostles used has the Greek word for specifically “virgin.” This is also the oldest version of the OT available.

The Hebrew versions we have are from the post-Advent period. So they were produced by Jews who rejected Christ and were trying to suppress His following.

 

[NotWorthy]

It should be noted that the Septuagint was translated by Jews, not Christians.

If anyone altered the text, it was Jews.

But back to the point. What is so “significant” about a young maiden having a baby? How is that a sign?

Now, a “Virgin” having a baby is quite a different story.

 

[NotWorthy]

Quite the opposite is the case actually.

The Septuagint, which the Apostles used has the Greek word for specifically “virgin.” This is also the oldest version of the OT available.

The Hebrew versions we have are from the post-Advent period. So they were produced by Jews who rejected Christ and were trying to suppress His following.

I don’t think anyone disputes that the Pre-Christian Hebrew Scriptures used “young maiden” in the text. I’ve never heard that the Jews “reversed” the text back to young maiden.

 

[mlchance]

I just came across an argument that stated the following:

The word “alma” does not necessarily mean “virgin”, but rather “young woman”. The word “betula” specifically means “virgin”.

Isaiah only uses the word “alma” one time (Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel (DR)), but the word “betula” five times. Thus, had the prophet meant virgin, he would have used “betula”, not “alma”.

This was put forth in the context of Christians consistently altering Jewish scripture to “make them fit” Jesus.

Anyone heard this before? And how to refute it?

The argument rests on a false dilemma. It only stands if there is a necessary difference in both denotation and connotation of the two words. No such necessary difference exists; therefore, the argument has no real weight.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t think anyone disputes that the Pre-Christian Hebrew Scriptures used “young maiden” in the text. I’ve never heard that the Jews “reversed” the text back to young maiden.

Why would the Septuagint translators have used virgin if the word did not actually mean that? We don’t know what it was for sure, but we do know that it was understood as virgin, whatever it was. The fact is, after the Advent of Christ, Jews began claiming it didn’t mean virgin, whatever the word was originally.

I would trust the spiritual discernment of pre-Advent Jews over post-advent Jews, who rejected their Messiah and sought to make sure others did too.

 

[NotWorthy]

Why would the Septuagint translators have used virgin if the word did not actually mean that? We don’t know what it was for sure, but we do know that it was understood as virgin, whatever it was. The fact is, after the Advent of Christ, Jews began claiming it didn’t mean virgin, whatever the word was originally.

I would trust the spiritual discernment of pre-Advent Jews over post-advent Jews, who rejected their Messiah and sought to make sure others did too.

Because a young maiden, back in the Jewish times, was usually (99% of the time) a virgin. One was called a virgin if one was older and still celibate.

So “young maiden” could easily be interpreted as virgin.

And again, as I stated in an earlier post, the fact that a “young maiden” conceives is hard to declare as a “sign”. But a “virgin” conceiving? Now that’s significant!!!

The OP’s original post, that the Hebrew Scriptures depicted a “young maiden” before Christian times is true.

The argument that it was changed to “Virgin” by Christians is false. It was translated to “virgin” by the Greek speaking Jews somewhere between 250BC and 100BC.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi feedmysheep, both words can have the meaning of virgin or young woman depending on the context. Your argument comes from Jews for Judaism and there is a great reply in a series of books called Answering Jewish Objections by by Michael L. Brown. Brown shows that by being selective in Jewish literature one can say that betula only means virgin and that Alma only refers to a young woman. Personally, I think Isaiah 7:14 refers to a young woman who happens to be “with child”. I take it on the authority of Matthew that Mary was a virgin.

There is a specific Hebrew word for “virgin” (betulah), which Isaiah would have used if that were what he meant.

jewsforjudaism.org/web/j4jlibrary/virgin-fallacy.html
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/virgoryw.htm

The second aspect of the critical view that betulah “can only mean virgin,” is in fact, not true. There is a piece of evidence in Joel where we read:

“Make sounds of grief like a virgin [betulah] dressed in haircloth for the husband [ba’al] of her early years.”(BBE Joel 1:8 )

In this passage betulah is being use as a woman who had been married for quite some time and therefor not a virgin. I contacted Rabbi Singer and asked him how he interpreted the use of betulah in this instance, Rabbi Singer writes:

"Betula means a virgin and nothing else. This is a simple matter. Joel 1:8 does not say, nor would any text in the Bible say that the betula who had sexual relations. The fact that the betula has a husband of her youth confused you. I presume that you said to yourself “Ah, this betula has a husband, so she must not be a virgin.” This is an error. The tragedy outlined in this text is the woman who was betrothed to a man but had not shared intimacy with him. In early times, a husband and wife were first betrothed, married but would wait for preparations to be completed - this was often a year period - until their marriage was consummated. Imagine the tragedy of such a virgin who lost her husband."20 (e-mail correspondence 12/21/99)

Rabbi Singer is referring to a betrothed virgin, thus making the lamentation all the more poignant because the marriage had never been consummated. But, the use of ba’al (husband) in this verse, however, seems to imply the opposite. The word ba’al is never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.

Beyond that, I consulted the authoritative Jewish Encyclopedia Judaica to see if Rabbi Singer is on to something here. In the article “Virgin - Virginity,” it says of betulah:

"The biblical betulah, usually rendered ‘virgin,’ is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical state. Cognate Akkadian batultu (masculine, batulu) and Ugaritic btlt refer to ‘an adolescent, nubile, girl.’ That the woman who is so called need not necessarily be a virgo intacta is shown by the graphic account in a Ugaritic myth of the sexual relations of Baal with the goddess Anath, who bears the honorific epithet btlt (Pritchard, Texts, 142).21

I also consulted another important source of information from the Jewish Hebrew-English Dictionary by Reuben Alcalay who defines the word bethulah as a "virgin, young woman, girl, maid."22 Obviously the meaning does not focus exclusively on virginity. So here you have modern scholarly Jewish references that are at odds with Rabbi Singer’s bold assertion.

By way of short summary, these evidences are contrary to what both critics and Christians commonly think. The argument that betulah exclusively meant “virginity” is in fact faulty, and the argument that almah exclusively meant “virginity” is also faulty.

frontline-apologetics.com/virgin_birth_revisited.htm

out of the 50 times betulah is translated in the NJPSV as maiden 31 times.

Basically, appealing to how it is translated elsewhere is a word study fallacy. One must show that from the context of Isaiah 7:14 the hebrew word means “virgin”, from hebrew alone that can not be done.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the firmness of this connection resides in Isaiah’s prophecies, particularly in the association between the son named “God is with us” in 7:14 and the son called “Mighty God” in 9:6. The way that Isaiah associates these two prophecies is by a figurative elongation of the time of Assyrian oppression so that it extends until Messiah’s victory.

journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue1/Articles/linkage_between_isaiah_7.htm

Betulah ‘A Girl of Marriageable Age’
Gordon J. Wenham
Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 22, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1972), pp. 326-348
doi:10.2307/1517231
This article consists of 23 page(s).

 

[porthos11]

The Hebrew versions we have are from the post-Advent period. So they were produced by Jews who rejected Christ and were trying to suppress His following.

And I always demand proof for allegations such as this one. I simply redirect you to the Great Isaiah Scroll, which predates Christ.

 

[porthos11]

It should be noted that the Septuagint was translated by Jews, not Christians.

If anyone altered the text, it was Jews.

But back to the point. What is so “significant” about a young maiden having a baby? How is that a sign?

That’s not the point. The point was that the birth of the child (in the normal manner) would signify the decline of the Israelite-Aramean alliance, and ultimately, the destruction of both northern kingdoms. The sign was in the timing of the birth of Immanuel, and was for the benefit of King Ahaz and the people of Jerusalem.

Now, a “Virgin” having a baby is quite a different story.

Yes, because prophecies can have an initial and ultimate fulfillment.

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s not the point. The point was that the birth of the child (in the normal manner) would signify the decline of the Israelite-Aramean alliance, and ultimately, the destruction of both northern kingdoms. The sign was in the timing of the birth of Immanuel, and was for the benefit of King Ahaz and the people of Jerusalem.

Porthos? Am I nuts, or does this have nothing to do with the thread? I thought the point of the thread was that the OP claimed that Christians changed the word for “young maiden” to “virgin”.

OH!!! Unless your point is, while Ahaz was king, “young maiden” fulfilled the prophecy, and then after the Jews translated it to the Greek “Virgin”, Mary and Jesus fulfilled the prophecy!!! Is that what you’re saying?

 

[porthos11]

OH!!! Unless your point is, while Ahaz was king, “young maiden” fulfilled the prophecy, and then after the Jews translated it to the Greek “Virgin”, Mary and Jesus fulfilled the prophecy!!! Is that what you’re saying?

Basically yes. You asked:

But back to the point. What is so “significant” about a young maiden having a baby? How is that a sign?

The sign is right there in Isaiah itself. It refers to a normal birth, not a miraculous birth, in its original context.

 

[MH84]

I remember reading that there is a opinion that the ‘young maiden’ was the wife of Isaiah himself.

 

[porthos11]

I remember reading that there is a opinion that the ‘young maiden’ was the wife of Isaiah himself.

Or of the king.

 

[NotWorthy]

Or of the king.

Ditto, the king.

 

[porthos11]

Ditto, the king.

Right. Actually, Isaiah’s own son was also a sign for a different purpose, and he had a different name, Mahershalalhashbaz, not Emmanuel.

 

[mlchance]

Yes, because prophecies can have an initial and ultimate fulfillment.

This is an important point often overlooked by many. For example, see Isaiah 22:15-25. This is a prophecy against Shebna as well as about the ultimate downfall of Eliakim. The Church, however, has long recognized these verses as a type of the keys of the Kingdom being given to the Apostle Peter.

God’s Word isn’t necessarily limited to a single meaning, time, or place.

– Mark L. Chance.