Isaiah 7:14

[Anima_Christi]

I have a question concerning the prophecy about the virgin birth of Christ found in Isaiah and quoted by St Matthew (Mt 1:23). Please correct me if this information is incorrect:
In Isaiah 7:14 reads: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”. The Hebrew word Isaiah uses is not bethulah, which means virgin, but almah, which actually means a young woman of marriagable age: hence the RSV translates it as “young woman.” The Septuagint, which presumably St Matthew quoted from, does use the Greek word for “virgin” (parthenos) instead of “young woman.”

Obviously, this raises some interesting questions. Since St. Matthew was inspired by the Holy Ghost in writing his gospel, how could he have quoted a mistranslation and used it as a basis for Mary’s virginity and the miraculous Virgin birth of Christ? And if the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 never actually prophecies a virgin birth in the first place, does this not make the doctrine of Mary’s virginity lose credibility?

 

[porthos11]

I have a question concerning the prophecy about the virgin birth of Christ found in Isaiah and quoted by St Matthew (Mt 1:23). Please correct me if this information is incorrect:
In Isaiah 7:14 reads: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”. The Hebrew word Isaiah uses is not bethulah, which means virgin, but almah, which actually means a young woman of marriagable age: hence the RSV translates it as “young woman.” The Septuagint, which presumably St Matthew quoted from, does use the Greek word for “virgin” (parthenos) instead of “young woman.”

Obviously, this raises some interesting questions. Since St. Matthew was inspired by the Holy Ghost in writing his gospel, how could he have quoted a mistranslation and used it as a basis for Mary’s virginity and the miraculous Virgin birth of Christ? And if the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 never actually prophecies a virgin birth in the first place, does this not make the doctrine of Mary’s virginity lose credibility?

Please refer to the “RSV-CE needs corrections” thread in this same forum. This topic has been intensely argued pro and con both sides of the issue.

As for its reliability, it isn’t a problem even if the Hebrew and Greek don’t precisely match each other. Mark Shea treats this problem well in his book “Making Senses out of Scripture”, and a pertinent excerpt can be found here.

 

[Angelos]

The replacement of the word “young woman” with “virgin” in Matthew by no means effects the sense of that prophecy, nor does it make Matthew’s Gospel lose credibility. In that prophecy, the grammatical construction of the sentence designates a young woman as **the sole agent **of a conception and birth since there’s no reference to a male. This is why Matthew does not hesitate to use the word “virgin” rather than “young woman”, knowing that it is not a particular word, but a particular grammatical structure that determines the association between Isaiah’s prophecy and Jesus’ miraculous conception!

Moreover, it is not true that Mary’s description as a “young woman” denies her virginity or Jesus’ miraculous birth. Actually, Elizabeth addresses Mary as a “woman” in Luke: “Blessed art thou among** women **and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” (1: 42)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have a question concerning the prophecy about the virgin birth of Christ found in Isaiah and quoted by St Matthew (Mt 1:23). Please correct me if this information is incorrect:
In Isaiah 7:14 reads: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”. The Hebrew word Isaiah uses is not bethulah, which means virgin, but almah, which actually means a young woman of marriagable age: hence the RSV translates it as “young woman.” The Septuagint, which presumably St Matthew quoted from, does use the Greek word for “virgin” (parthenos) instead of “young woman.”

Obviously, this raises some interesting questions. Since St. Matthew was inspired by the Holy Ghost in writing his gospel, how could he have quoted a mistranslation and used it as a basis for Mary’s virginity and the miraculous Virgin birth of Christ? And if the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 never actually prophecies a virgin birth in the first place, does this not make the doctrine of Mary’s virginity lose credibility?

I have been told the Jews “revised” passages like this due to Christian claims of Jesus fulfilling such prophecy, they changed it from “virgin” to “young woman”, there is a lot of apologetics out there on this issue, but the main argument used is the fact that in context of a propheycy its not much of a prophecy/miracle for a “young woman” to give birth to a child, it is on the otherhand if it is a “virgin”.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The LXX was translated by the best Hebrew-Greek Scholars in their time and as such one can not say the LXX was a mistranslation.

 

[porthos11]

I have been told the Jews “revised” passages like this due to Christian claims of Jesus fulfilling such prophecy, they changed it from “virgin” to “young woman”, there is a lot of apologetics out there on this issue, but the main argument used is the fact that in context of a propheycy its not much of a prophecy/miracle for a “young woman” to give birth to a child, it is on the otherhand if it is a “virgin”.

As mentioned in the RSV-CE thread, this accusation is baseless and has no merit. The Jews were sticklers for accuracy, and the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts still have the Hebrew term for ‘young woman’.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Does the Masoretic Jewish text differ any from Hebrew texts that were made before Jesus? If so WHY and if so why should EITHER be given preference over what the early Catholic translators such as Jerome thought the text should be?

Accuracy is of prime importance–all I’m saying if that all things are EQUAL and the correct rendering can’t be definitively known then I’ll take Jerome’s view over any Jewish view. I make no apology for that. Should I?

 

[porthos11]

Does the Masoretic Jewish text differ any from Hebrew texts that were made before Jesus? If so WHY and if so why should EITHER be given preference over what the early Catholic translators such as Jerome thought the text should be?

Accuracy is of prime importance–all I’m saying if that all things are EQUAL and the correct rendering can’t be definitively known then I’ll take Jerome’s view over any Jewish view. I make no apology for that. Should I?

We’ve already beaten this to death on the other thread. Again, there is no evidence of any alterations by the Masoretes and the oldest Hebrew manuscripts do not significantly differ from the MT.

 

[mmortal03]

In that prophecy, the grammatical construction of the sentence designates a young woman as **the sole agent **of a conception and birth since there’s no reference to a male. This is why Matthew does not hesitate to use the word “virgin” rather than “young woman”, knowing that it is not a particular word, but a particular grammatical structure that determines the association between Isaiah’s prophecy and Jesus’ miraculous conception!

You are going to have to explain this one further. How does the grammar designate that she is the sole agent of the conception (as far as humans go, I guess)?

Even if it DOES designate that she is the sole agent of the conception and birth, that wouldn’t mean that she would have to be a virgin.

Don’t get me wrong, though, I am not arguing that she wasn’t a virgin.

 

[Angelos]

You are going to have to explain this one further. How does the grammar designate that she is the sole agent of the conception (as far as humans go, I guess)?

Even if it DOES designate that she is the sole agent of the conception and birth, that wouldn’t mean that she would have to be a virgin.

Don’t get me wrong, though, I am not arguing that she wasn’t a virgin.

Hi mmortal03

Here’s my explanation: The prophecy in Isaiah depicts Immanuel’s birth only from that young woman’s perspective and does not mention a male partner that will have marital relations with his wife so that she can conceive and give birth. Compare the sentence structure in the following verses from Genesis with the one in Isaiah 7: 14:

Now the man had **marital relations **with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain (4: 1).

Cain had **marital relations **with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch (4: 17).

And Adam had marital relations with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son. She named him Seth (4: 25).

When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh (5: 6).

“Look, the young woman will conceive and give birth to a son” (Isaiah 7: 14). Apparently, the young woman is the only subject of the sentence with no mention of a marital relation.

As Isaiah the prophet talked to the whole house of David through Ahaz and prophecied a miraculous sign (7: 13), an angel of the Lord spoke to all Israelites through Joseph, who was from the house of David (Matthew 1: 20) and gave the glad tidings of the real Immanuel.

This is how I interpret this prophecy. If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected by a Biblical scholar though.

Blessings to all

 

[porthos11]

Hi mmortal03

Here’s my explanation: The prophecy in Isaiah depicts Immanuel’s birth only from that young woman’s perspective and does not mention a male partner that will have marital relations with his wife so that she can conceive and give birth. Compare the sentence structure in the following verses from Genesis with the one in Isaiah 7: 14:

Which doesn’t hold much given the immediate context of Isaiah. I can’t believe I’m writing this again. Again, the whole of Isaiah 7 is not about a miraculous conception or birth. It’s about a normal birth that will signal the downfall of the Israelite-Syrian alliance threatening Judah. It was only after Jesus’ resurrection that the New Testament writers saw how Jesus curiously fulfilled an oracle remarkably like that in Isaiah 7:14, and just as curiously rendered precisely in the LXX. But at the time this passage was originally written, it was not messianic.

Besides, if we adhere to your logic, we will have to conclude that either (1) Jesus was born in original sin or that (2) David had no earthly father based on this reasoning and Psalm 51.

 

[Angelos]

Which doesn’t hold much given the immediate context of Isaiah. I can’t believe I’m writing this again. Again, the whole of Isaiah 7 is not about a miraculous conception or birth. It’s about a normal birth that will signal the downfall of the Israelite-Syrian alliance threatening Judah. It was only after Jesus’ resurrection that the New Testament writers saw how Jesus curiously fulfilled an oracle remarkably like that in Isaiah 7:14, and just as curiously rendered precisely in the LXX. But at the time this passage was originally written, it was not messianic.

Besides, if we adhere to your logic, we will have to conclude that either (1) Jesus was born in original sin or that (2) David had no earthly father based on this reasoning and Psalm 51.

Let me first remind you: I never insist that the prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14 was written only to predict Messiah’s miraculous birth. Like most other prophecies in the Old Testament, this prediction about Immanuel’s birth was two-dimensional since it foretold both an immediate incident and another one that would occur centuries later. Likewise, the immediate context of the prophecy in Isaiah was related to a political salvation whereas the transcendent context pointed at spiritual salvation from sin.

As for your critique of my logic, your arguments seem to be fallacious. The way I construe the sentence structure in Isaiah has nothing to do with the concept of original sin (maybe I fail to understand your point). Further, Psalm 51 does not make any association between David’s sins and the detailed description of his conception. We know very well that David is Jesse’s son, and David’s deliberate reference to his mother is not based on any prophecy that can be regarded as a sign given by a prophet.

Blessings to all

 

[Psalm45_9]

Here’s a nice little article about the Isaiah 7:14 by This Rock Magazine:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807fea4.asp

 

[Mystophilus]

The LXX was translated by the best Hebrew-Greek Scholars in their time and as such one can not say the LXX was a mistranslation.

With respect, the mere fact that the best did it does not mean that it cannot have been wrong, it just makes it less probable than if others had done it.

 

[Mystophilus]

In that prophecy, the grammatical construction of the sentence designates a young woman as **the sole agent **of a conception and birth since there’s no reference to a male. This is why Matthew does not hesitate to use the word “virgin” rather than “young woman”, knowing that it is not a particular word, but a particular grammatical structure that determines the association between Isaiah’s prophecy and Jesus’ miraculous conception!

Umm, I am not sure which grammatical construction you are going for here: I cannot see how either εν γαστρι 'εξει or τεξεται supports the claim which you make.

For the first, while it is often translated into English as “she will conceive”, it is more literally “she will have in [her] stomach”, i.e., she will be pregnant. This is the state of the mother, and neither says nor needs to say anything about the father.

For the second, the mere fact that no other agent appears with τεξεται does not mean that there was no father. In Luke 1:17, τεκειν is used of Elizabeth giving birth to John, and Zacharias is not in that clause. In John 16:21, τικτηι is used of the generic η γυνη, and again there is no reference to a male.

To claim, then, that is the Middle Voice alone which says that there is no human father is to place a great deal upon one modality, especially when, in James 1:15, επιθυμια τικτει 'αμαρτιαν (‘desire bears sin’), in the Active Voice and without a spouse. We see the lack of differance. Note also that the same author uses a Middle Voice when another agent is present, in 4:4 (Ουκ επ αρτωι μονωι ζησεται 'ο ανθρωπος, αλλ επι παντι 'πηματι εκπορευομενωι δια στοματος θεου), and even more obviously, with the same verb, in 9:18 (επιθες την χειρα σου επ αυτην και ζησεται). Also, were it true that the Middle Voice was indicative of the lack of a spouse, then the Revelation 12 passage regarding the woman who gives birth, often supposed to refer to Mary because everything else correlates, could not refer to her because τικτω is always in the Active there.

In short, εν γαστρι 'εξει does not preclude a father, and neither does τικτω, nor the Middle Voice.

(Please not that I am not discussing the virgin birth here, which is pretty well covered both by παρθενος and Mt 1:25, but merely the Greek sentence.)

 

[Angelos]

Umm, I am not sure which grammatical construction you are going for here: I cannot see how either εν γαστρι 'εξει or τεξεται supports the claim which you make.

For the first, while it is often translated into English as “she will conceive”, it is more literally “she will have in [her] stomach”, i.e., she will be pregnant. This is the state of the mother, and neither says nor needs to say anything about the father.

For the second, the mere fact that no other agent appears with τεξεται does not mean that there was no father. In Luke 1:17, τεκειν is used of Elizabeth giving birth to John, and Zacharias is not in that clause. In John 16:21, τικτηι is used of the generic η γυνη, and again there is no reference to a male.

Hi Mystophilus,

Thank you many times for your enlightening post. I am not an expert on biblical languages, nor can I understand Greek. Your reply was very helpful in this respect.

You might consider me an obstinate guy, but I still have a few questions concerning the linguistic form of the prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14. Since it’s clear as daylight that Isaiah’s prophecy was directly related to Hezekiah’s birth and Ahaz was present with his wife when Isaiah foretold the young woman’s conception and birth, why did Isaiah say “Look the young woman will conceive and bear a son” rather than “Look, your wife is gonna conceive and bear a son”? (More, why was it the young woman, not the King himself, who named the child? This interesting detail might help us in the analysis of this certain prophecy )

I certainly know that there are a few instances where the mother is mentioned as the sole agent of birth in the New Testament. In addition to the examples you highlighted, Jesus attributes John’s birth to his mother alone:“I tell you, among those **born of women **no one is greater than John” (Luke 7: 28). Paul does the same thing when he draws an analogy between Eve and all women in terms of their attitude to men: " For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control" (1 Timothy 2: 13-15).

However, keep in mind that in all these verses what’s being ascribed to women in the first place is birth, but not pregnancy. The promise about John’s birth is given to Zacchariah along with the words emphasizing his marital relation with Elizabeth: " But the angel said to him, ‘Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and **your wife **Elizabeth will bear you a son; you will name him John’" (Luke 1: 13).

I hope you can get my point and comprehend the cause of my stubbornness

Peace & Blessings to all

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

What other thread?

I agree, odds are they got it right.

 

[Mystophilus]

And if the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 never actually prophecies a virgin birth in the first place, does this not make the doctrine of Mary’s virginity lose credibility?

Sometimes, I am slow, but, by the grace of God, I get there eventually.

20 “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21

See also the rest of chapter 22, which has quite a lot to say on the topic.

Thus, on the basis of the Torah, every unmarried woman had to be a virgin, or face the death penalty.

 

[Mystophilus]

Thank you many times for your enlightening post. I am not an expert on biblical languages, nor can I understand Greek. Your reply was very helpful in this respect.

I am glad to have been of service.

You might consider me an obstinate guy, but I still have a few questions concerning the linguistic form of the prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14.

Obstinacy in pursuit of the truth is not a quality that I could ever condemn.

Since it’s clear as daylight that Isaiah’s prophecy was directly related to Hezekiah’s birth and Ahaz was present with his wife when Isaiah foretold the young woman’s conception and birth, why did Isaiah say “Look the young woman will conceive and bear a son” rather than “Look, your wife is gonna conceive and bear a son”? (More, why was it the young woman, not the King himself, who named the child? This interesting detail might help us in the analysis of this certain prophecy )

I do not read Hebrew, and so cannot say much about this, but please note my response to the OP, regarding the Torah. Also, in the Septuagint, it is the person to whom the Lord speaks, i.e., the father, who is to name the child.

I certainly know that there are a few instances where the mother is mentioned as the sole agent of birth in the New Testament…

I think that you may be straying dangerously close to a logical fallacy here. Remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: the lack of mention of a father is not proof of the non-existence of one.

I hope you can get my point and comprehend the cause of my stubbornness

I am sorry, but I am not sure that I do!

I presume, from your earlier post, that you do believe that the text refers to a virgin birth, and I would have to say that the presentation of the Virgin Birth is unequivocal, not only because of the reference to the virgin in Mt 1:23, but also because of the reference to Joseph not ‘knowing’ her before she gave birth to Jesus, in v.25.

 

[Valke2]

I have been told the Jews “revised” passages like this due to Christian claims of Jesus fulfilling such prophecy, they changed it from “virgin” to “young woman”, there is a lot of apologetics out there on this issue, but the main argument used is the fact that in context of a propheycy its not much of a prophecy/miracle for a “young woman” to give birth to a child, it is on the otherhand if it is a “virgin”.

I never heard that. Of course, Jews do not believe Isaiah has anything to do with Jesus whatsoever. I can’t imagine Jews revising passages of our scripture because we didn’t like what it said. Torah is full of unflattering verse. We don’t feel the need to

Moreover, historically, Jew’s downplayed anything that went against christanity out of fear that it would result in violence against us. So it seems highly unlikely that Tanakh would be changed to weaking Christianity.