Is it "virgin" or "maiden"?

[pprimeau1976]

I have been debating on the MySpace religion forum the proper translation of Isaiah 7:14, which states:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

The Hebrew word used in the Masoretic Text is *almah, *which has been translated in modern Hebrew as “maiden” or “young woman”. The modern Hebrew word for “virgin” is betulah. The Septuagint translated this passage with the word *parthenos *which almost always means “virgin” but can also mean “maiden.”

Instead of debating which translation was more accurate, I began to question which usage was more likely to be prophetic and a when fufilled, likely to be a sign from God.

Consider the following usages of the word almah and ask yourself which is more likely prophetic and which is more likely to be a sign from God?

"A young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel." Any young woman could fufill this if she called her son, Immanuel. She would not be sinning if she were a married young woman. It is unlikely that the Lord would give a sign that any young, married woman could do on her own. So, in my opinion, this translation is OUT.

"A maiden is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel." The word “maiden” implies that the woman is unmarried. Therefore any woman could fufill this if she fornicated (a sin), had a male child, and called him Immanuel. Another case is that the woman could be raped (a sin of the father), had a male child, and called him Immanuel. If we are to use the strict usage of the word “maiden” are we also to believe that God would use the sins of either a fornicator or a rapist in order to fufill a prophesy? Furthermore, any woman who had a male child out of wedlock (whether it was a result of fornication or rape) could fufill this prophesy by calling her son, Immanuel. In my opinion, this translation is OUT.

"A virgin is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel." In this case, the woman is a virgin, therefore no sexual sin needs to be committed in order for this prophesy to become true. Secondly, in order for this prophesy to be fufilled, a miracle would have to occur. So, in essence, this sign would totally be in God’s hands to control. In my opinion, this can be the only translation worthy of being prophetic and is most likely a sign from God because no sin is required to fufill it and no human could fufill it on their own. This translation is IN.

So, is this a logical argument and is it safe to assume that God would not give a sign that was 1) dependant on people sinning or 2) easily fufilled by any young woman who called her son “Immanuel”?

P.S. In the thread, I already stated the fact that the plural of almah, *alamot *is used in Song of Songs 1:3 and has been interpreted by the Jews - including famous rabbis like Rashi (Rabbi Schlomo Itzhaqi) - as “virgins”.

 

[porthos11]

I have been debating on the MySpace religion forum the proper translation of Isaiah 7:14, which states:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

The Hebrew word used in the Masoretic Text is *almah, *which has been translated in modern Hebrew as “maiden” or “young woman”. The modern Hebrew word for “virgin” is betulah. The Septuagint translated this passage with the word *parthenos *which almost always means “virgin” but can also mean “maiden.”

Almah is the superset, betulah is the subset, so to speak.

Instead of debating which translation was more accurate, I began to question which usage was more likely to be prophetic and a when fufilled, likely to be a sign from God.

So, is this a logical argument and is it safe to assume that God would not give a sign that was 1) dependant on people sinning or 2) easily fufilled by any young woman who called her son “Immanuel”?

No, since the sign was actually promised primarily due to the hard-heartedness of King Ahaz, and was promised within a few years of the oracle, essentially signaling the fall of Samaria and Damascus, so yes, the sign in its immediate context was indeed dependent on those two conditions. It was only later that the passages acquired a Messianic interpretation. So if one translates from the Hebrew, “maiden” or “young woman” is accurate.

P.S. In the thread, I already stated the fact that the plural of almah, *alamot *is used in Song of Songs 1:3 and has been interpreted by the Jews - including famous rabbis like Rashi (Rabbi Schlomo Itzhaqi) - as “virgins”.

Much like the LXX, which interpreted ‘almah’ as ‘parthenos.’

 

[pprimeau1976]

"pprimeau1976:

P.S. In the thread, I already stated the fact that the plural of almah, *alamot *is used in Song of Songs 1:3 and has been interpreted by the Jews - including famous rabbis like Rashi (Rabbi Schlomo Itzhaqi) - as “virgins”.

Much like the LXX, which interpreted ‘almah’ as ‘parthenos.’

But these same rabbis mentioned interpreted *alamot *to mean “virgins” in Song of Songs 1:3 but interpreted *almah *in Isaiah 7:14 to mean “maidens”. They were interpreting the Masoretic Texts. So why the discrepency?

 

[porthos11]

But these same rabbis mentioned interpreted *alamot *to mean “virgins” in Song of Songs 1:3 but interpreted *almah *in Isaiah 7:14 to mean “maidens”. They were interpreting the Masoretic Texts. So why the discrepency?

Beats me. That’s just the way it is, just like the scholars who translated the LXX interpreted almah to mean virgin, which made its way into the New Testament.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Christians and Jews have disagreed over whether it should be ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman’ from at least the time of St. Justin Martyr (about A.D. 155), who discusses it in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, including chapters 43, 66, 71, 77, 78, 84.

 

[drafdog]

The Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek rendered the Hebrew word for young maiden as “virgin” in the Greek. The Catholic Church bows to the wisdom of the Jewish scholars who understood the intent of the scripture better than the Gentile Christians would have.

Matthew

 

[pprimeau1976]

OK, So here is another big question. Why do Protestants insist on not using the Septuagint when the Masoretic Text does not even use the word “virgin”? Aren’t they shooting themselves in the foot by not using the Septuagint? Or do they use the Septuagint and accept only the Masoretic Canon?

 

[katy]

It seems to me that both words would intend to refer to the same thing. Unmarried young women were presumed to be virgins even in our society until recently. Hence “maiden name”.

 

[pprimeau1976]

It seems to me that both words would intend to refer to the same thing. Unmarried young women were presumed to be virgins even in our society until recently. Hence “maiden name”.

I know! That’s the reason I asked which translation sounds more like a true prophecy and a sign from God. The only one that fits this criteria would be using the word “virgin”. The only way that could happen is if you had some divine intervention.

 

[NoelFitz]

As the early Church used the LXX perhaps a consideration of the meaning of the word PARTHENOS would be appropriate, as this is the word used in Is 7:14 of the Septuagint.

Strong gives:
3933 παρθένος [parthenos /par•then•os/] n f. Of unknown origin; 14 occurrences; AV translates as “virgin” 14 times. 1 a virgin. 1A a marriageable maiden. 1B a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man. 1C one’s marriageable daughter. 2 a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity. 2A one who has never had intercourse with women.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint gives:
παρθένος,-ου
Gn 24,14.16(bis).43.55 virgin Jgs 19,24; virgin (as adj.) Lv 21,3; young woman Ez 9,6; a girl of marriageable age Gn 24,14.

Thus the meaning of PARTHENOS as virgin, maiden, young woman or a girl of marriageable age, etc. is acceptable.