"Almah" (Isaiah 7:14)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That the Jewish translators chose to specify “virgin” is indicative of the traditions regarding that passage at the time of translation and later. It was understood to mean virgin. And it is a ridiculous claim to go so far as to say “virgin” is a nonsense way to translate it; such claims seem more in response to Christianity and don’t reflect how Jews understood it prior to Christianity. Clearly the most popular and mainstream understanding among the Jewish scholars was virgin.
 
porthos11 said:
No.
Matthew needs to be translated on Matthew’s own merits, as Isaiah is translated on its own.
Click to expand...
Hi,

I see your point, thank you.

However, ultimately, to serve God, don’t we need to somehow convey His (God’s) meaning in the prophet Isaiah? I certainly understand about not overriding Matthew’s translation/canon but at the same time, don’t we believe that Matthew would not intend his canon to override/obscure God’s true meaning in Isaiah?

The letter of the text is the “flesh” (so to speak) but the true meaning is the spirit and Jesus teaches to focus not on the letter but the spirit. So honoring Matthew’s use of the word “parthenos” (which he may very well have intended to mean “young woman” according to his knowledge of Jewish Scriptures) may not actually honor the true spirit of the prophecy which is the ultimate importance I would think.
 
Matthew’s writing is scripture. It’s the word of God. If the choice was to narrow down the translation further to virgin in actual scripture, that’s the appropriate translation.
 
Wesrock said:
If the choice was to narrow down the translation further to virgin in actual scripture
Click to expand...
Yes, but that’s my point. How do we know that it was a choice instead of just a limitation of the Greek language that lacked a better word for “almah”?
 
Coder said:
Yes, but that’s my point. How do we know that it was a choice instead of just a limitation of the Greek language that lacked a better word for “almah”?
Click to expand...
What if all language of the Bible was too limited to accurately reflect God’s intent? Why get hung up on “almah” and not the possibility for every other word of the Bible? It would have been perfectly possible to convey young maiden in koine whether or not it wod have taken more words. You’re not asking of just correcting a translation, though. You’re talking about correcting both Saint Matthew’s and God’s own words. Isaiah isn’t just God’s words, Matthew’s rendering of Isaiah is God’s own words.
 
OK, I think I see what you’re saying: “virgin” is in the acceptable range of meanings of the broader word “almah”, and Matthew under inspiration had the authority to refine it. Thank You.

This understanding may be problematic for Jewish people to whom the Gospel is proposed. Jewish scholars say “You’re claiming that Jesus is the Messiah and was born of a virgin, but our prophecies have nothing about a virgin and not only that, you’re mistranslating Isaiah 7:14, and on top of that Isaiah 7:14 isn’t even a Messianic prophecy.” (paraphrasing of course, but if you read Jewish articles this is very much what they say.).
 
But virgin was perfectly acceptable translation and understanding in Jewish tradition from second century BC (at least) through the first century. The articles you allude to are a reaction to Christianity, but which is more accurate to what actual pre-Christian Jews believed? (Hint: virgin)
 
Coder said:
Hi,

I see your point, thank you.

However, ultimately, to serve God, don’t we need to somehow convey His (God’s) meaning in the prophet Isaiah? I certainly understand about not overriding Matthew’s translation/canon but at the same time, don’t we believe that Matthew would not intend his canon to override/obscure God’s true meaning in Isaiah?

The letter of the text is the “flesh” (so to speak) but the true meaning is the spirit and Jesus teaches to focus not on the letter but the spirit. So honoring Matthew’s use of the word “parthenos” (which he may very well have intended to mean “young woman” according to his knowledge of Jewish Scriptures) may not actually honor the true spirit of the prophecy which is the ultimate importance I would think.
Click to expand...
Matthew did a pretty good job of it. While the immediate prophecy was fulfilled back in the reign of Hezekiah, God in his providence allowed the LXX to be translated as it was, and for Matthew to quote his Scripture from the LXX, clearly telling us that God’s word not only has an immediate fulfillment, but also a fuller meaning in Christ. The “true” and “ultimate” meaning of the passage does not end with the destruction of Israel and Syria; it points to a real fulfillment of what it really means to have God with us (Emmanuel). Only Christ of the fullness of what “Emmanuel” really means.
 
Coder said:
Yes, but that’s my point. How do we know that it was a choice instead of just a limitation of the Greek language that lacked a better word for “almah”?
Click to expand...
See post #9 – by the time they got to Isaiah (assuming they were coordinating and translating the books in order, which is not a fore-drawn conclusion), they had already used two other words for almah.
 
Wesrock said:
But virgin was perfectly acceptable translation and understanding in Jewish tradition from second century BC (at least) through the first century.
Click to expand...
Actually, they basically say:
  1. The Jewish translations only included Moses and not the other Prophets (i.e. not Isaiah).
  2. The Greek translations today are from 2nd and 3rd century and are not from the pre-Christian original Jewish Septuagint translations (of which none exist today).
  3. “parthenos” refers elsewhere in the Scriptures to a young woman who is definitely not a virgin (Dinah) and so “parthenos” doesn’t necessarily mean virgin anyway. (Which I guess would mean we don’t really know if Matthew intended to mean “virgin”?) 🤷
  4. Some English NT translations today, now correct the “misunderstanding” by “correctly” translating it “young woman”.
 
But wouldn’t Matthew’s first century writing which quotes the Septuagint as it existed in the early first century attest to the Greek for virgin being used prior to the second and third century copies we have today?

As for translating Matthew, we should be translating Matthew, not interjecting our own “corrections” to his exact words. That’s not good scholarship, especially when it’s obvious that HE intended to draw out the interpretation of “virgin”.

The fact that Matthew used this and that we use this as scripture makes him authoritative in this choice. If it was simply Isaiah, that would be one thing, but that Christian scripture includes this is definitive, and Jewisj objections to Matthew (which only make sense if you don’t accept it as scripture) are irrelevant.
 
Wesrock said:
But wouldn’t Matthew’s first century writing which quotes the Septuagint as it existed in the early first century attest to the Greek for virgin being used prior to the second and third century copies we have today?
Click to expand...
The implication (by the Jewish author) is that it was changed after Matthew’s original 🤷
Wesrock said:
…we should be translating Matthew, not interjecting our own “corrections” to his exact words. That’s not good scholarship, especially when it’s obvious that HE intended to draw out the interpretation of “virgin”.
Click to expand...
Apparently, his intention isn’t obvious because (as I mentioned) “parthenos” is used elsewhere in the same Greek early translations to refer to a woman who is known not be a virgin (Dinah).
 
Coder said:
The implication (by the Jewish author) is that it was changed after Matthew’s original 🤷

Apparently, his intention isn’t obvious because (as I mentioned) “parthenos” is used elsewhere in the same Greek early translations to refer to a woman who is known not be a virgin (Dinah).
Click to expand...
Given that Matthew uses this in reference to a very explicit virgin birth, yes, his intention is obvious.

As for Dinah, the description very well could have been meant before her rape, even though it was given after. The story could very well just be first summarizing the event, the providing details of what led up to it, with Shechem plotting to take the virgin for his wife, giving instructions for doing so, then defiling her after she was taken.

But Dinah’s situation hardly affects Matthew’s application of the word. For one, the koine of the NT is overall simpler than the Greek used in the OT. But more importantly, Matthew describes the upcoming virgin birth, then uses the koine word traditionally used for “virgin” to prove it. Mary did have a virgin birth. It’s linked to Isaiah using the normal Greek word for virgin. What’s their to question if Matthew is authoritative? Or are you suggesting that Mary did not actually have a virgin birth? That seems like the only angle from which to object to Matthew’s intent here.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”
Click to expand...
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).
Click to expand...
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
Wesrock said:
What’s there to question if Matthew is authoritative? Or are you suggesting that Mary did not actually have a virgin birth? That seems like the only angle from which to object to Matthew’s intent here.
Click to expand...
Well, you have to understand, to a Jewish scholar (or non-Christian) Matthew is a (non-inspired) mistranslation (not to mention the prophecy is not considered messianic). (Sometimes Christians have to remember that belief in the authority of the NT is a matter of religious faith which not all share to begin with [separate topic]). They know/believe that the original revelation from God did not specify “virgin” since the Hebrew means “young woman”.
 
Coder said:
Well, you have to understand, to a Jewish scholar(or non-Christian) Matthew is a mistranslation (not to mention the prophecy is not considered messianic). They know that the original revelation from God did not specify “virgin” (unless ***they
*** mis-scribed God’s words. Do we really want to go there? :))
Click to expand...
Matthew is also God’s revelation, on the same level as Isaiah, and the authority of his Gospel is inherent. If he drew his quote from the LXX, he did so under God’s inspiration. It may not necessarily attest to the accuracy of the LXX itself, but it does give the passage as quoted an authority as part of the Gospel according to Matthew.

We cannot pit Matthew against Isaiah, both being inspired Scripture. We can apply critical principles to both, but never to use one against the other.
 
But we’re not Jewish and don’t believe Matthew is a mistranslation. They are starting with the assumption that Matthew is not scripture. It’s an entirely different starting point. We don’t need to cede the foundation of our beliefs and ignore context to satisfy an external audience. If we’re translating Matthew, we should translate Matthew.

Hell, even in non-religious contexts, I don’t think you could really justify “correcting” Matthew except out of appeasement. It’s what he wrote. Maybe add a footnote on it to explain the situation and any belief he himself was quoting a mistranslation, but don’t change his words to suit someone else’s theological purpose.
 
Coder said:
Not to Jewish people - to them only Isaiah is inspired.
Click to expand...
Not all things are relative. I say this as generally a very liberal guy, but what Jews believe about Matthew is irrelevant here. If you are Catholic or Christian then the logical conclusion is that they’re wrong on this. You can’t be Catholic and then say the canon of scripture is relative and we can’t acknowledge that we have some type of firm knowledge on this matter. We do.
 
Let me preface this by saying I’m not for or against either side in this matter, I just want to bring up this point to see what others think.

From what I’ve heard Paul when referring to Mary in Galatians 4:4 used the term gyne (or gynaikos) which is just a general term for woman. Paul used the word parthenos 6 times between first and second Corinthians, but not when referring the mother of Jesus. It’s no smoking gun by any means, but I do think it’s a bit interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top