My priest wrong about Isaiah 7:14?

[Gamera]

Today, my priest said the following about the first reading: “The original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 says that a ‘young woman’ will conceive, not a ‘virgin’. When the Scripture was translated into Greek, they changed it to make it say ‘virgin’.”

Huh? I thought the original Hebrew word ‘almah’ was the only Hebrew word for both a ‘young woman’ and for a ‘virgin’ — there was no separate word for virgin because in ancient times it was assumed that any unmarried woman was a virgin (!). How is that a “change?” If the same word could be interpreted as either ‘young woman’ or ‘virgin’, how does the translation into Greek as “parthenos” (virgin) constitute a “change”?

I felt like asking the priest after Mass, but I do that often enough, and one has to choose one’s battles. Plus I wasn’t sure I was right.

 

[Fidelis]

Here are a long answer and a short answer, both from* Catholic Answers *(never underestimate the value of the “Search” feature).

First the short answer:

Q: A friend of mine contends that the Bible nowhere makes the prophecy that Mary would be a virgin, only that she would be a young girl. He says that’s what it means in the original Hebrew. Is he correct?

A: The controversy surrounds the translation of Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” This Old Testament prophecy is quoted in the gospel of Matthew (Matt. 1:23) and specifically applied to the virginal conception of Christ.

Christians have always cherished this prophecy of Isaiah and its miraculous fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. Likewise, non-believers have attacked this prophecy in an attempt to discredit Christ and his Church; the attack is a weak one that is easily refuted.

The Hebrew word translated as virgin, almah, can also be translated as “young woman” but as Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon notes “there is no instance where it can be proved that almah designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

Additional evidence that the correct translation is “virgin” is supplied by the Septuagint version of the Bible, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made several centuries before Christ. It was translated by Jewish scholars for use by Greek-speaking Jews, mainly in Alexandria.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew almah into Greek as parthenos. This Greek term has the precise meaning of “virgin.” So several centuries before the birth of Christ, before there was any reason to attack his Church, the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 was clear: almah = parthenos = virgin.
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601qq.asp

The longer answer can be found here:

The Witness of Isaiah 7:14
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807fea4.asp

 

[Eileen_T]

Haydocy’s Commentary says the same

*Virgin, halma, *one secluded from the company of men. Alma in Latin signifies “a holy person,” and in Punic “a virgin.” The term is never applied to any but “a young virgin.” If it meant a young woman, what sort of a sign would this be? (St. Jerome)

 

[Gamera]

Thank you both!

Here are a long answer and a short answer, both from *Catholic Answers *(never underestimate the value of the “Search” feature).

I used the “Search” feature. Neither of those entries came up. All I got were articles about Mary’s perpetual virginity. I always “Search” before posting a question.

 

[Fidelis]

I used the “Search” feature. Neither of those entries came up. All I got were articles about Mary’s perpetual virginity. I always “Search” before posting a question.

What I did was to go to the main CA page and type in “almah” in the search box there. Those were the two entries that came up.

 

[reggieM]

The Haydock Bible is a great resource.

Your priest was taken in by an incorrect translation. Sadly, it does happen at times.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

One notes that Matthew 1;23 translates it as virgin. I would suggest that Matthew, and his contemporaries who read his text, knew Hebrew at least as well as today’s scholars.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Haydocy’s Commentary says the same

that Haydock note:

*Virgin, halma, *one secluded from the company of men. Alma in Latin signifies “a holy person,” and in Punic “a virgin.” The term is never applied to any but “a young virgin.” If it meant a young woman, what sort of a sign would this be? (St. Jerome)

It could very well be an oth, (= “sign”) in its context in Isaiah 7. Isaiah is not talking about events far in the future, but about the immediate political situation for Ahaz king of Judah & for Judah itself. In that context, no reference to a virgin is necessary - because the BVM is not the almah immediately in view; she was not alive when Isaiah spoke to Ahaz. Besides, the word for virgin in Hebrew is betulah - not alma. (Cf. “Bethulia”, “Virgin-place”, in the Book of Judith.)

What’s happened is that the LXX (= Septuagint) translators in the second century BC translated alma into Greek as parthenos, which is the Greek word used in Matt. 1.23. The LXX translation of Isaiah is rather loose, which may have helped parthenos to aquire the sense of the word betulah; so as to mean - by the time Matt. 1.23 was composed - both “young girl” & “virgin”.

As for the fulfilment noticed in Matt. 1.23 - there is one: the Christian application of the text to Jesus & Mary does not rub out or deny or destroy the OT meaning, but leaves it unharmed - & goes beyond it, to full-fill it. All that Isaiah meant in his historical context remains as it was - the words of his oracle go beyond the oth he was referring to (which may have been a reference to the birth of Hezekiah son of Ahaz; there are several possibilities), to find their completest realisation in the birth of Jesus, Who is a far greater Saviour than Isaiah or Ahaz could have expected. The enemy of Judah in Isaiah 7 is Assyria - & Jesus overcomes a greater enemy than Assyria; He overcomes death itself.

So the priest is perfectly correct.

Hope that helps

 

[Fidelis]

As for the fulfilment noticed in Matt. 1.23 - there is one: the Christian application of the text to Jesus & Mary does not rub out or deny or destroy the OT meaning, but leaves it unharmed - & goes beyond it, to full-fill it. All that Isaiah meant in his historical context remains as it was - the words of his oracle go beyond the oth he was referring to (which may have been a reference to the birth of Hezekiah son of Ahaz; there are several possibilities), to find their completest realisation in the birth of Jesus, Who is a far greater Saviour than Isaiah or Ahaz could have expected. The enemy of Judah in Isaiah 7 is Assyria - & Jesus overcomes a greater enemy than Assyria; He overcomes death itself.

So the priest is perfectly correct.

Not perfectly. He would have been more helpful, however, if he had added your paragraph above.

 

[reggieM]

Isaiah is not talking about events far in the future, but about the immediate political situation for Ahaz king of Judah & for Judah itself.

This is not how St. Matthew views it though. If the term does not mean “virgin” then it cannot be applied as a sign for the future.

In that context, no reference to a virgin is necessary - because the BVM is not the almah immediately in view; she was not alive when Isaiah spoke to Ahaz.

If there is no reference to virgin, then Matthew would be misinterpreting the text and it would be incorrect to say that it was “fulfilled” in the birth of Christ.

As for the fulfilment noticed in Matt. 1.23 - there is one: the Christian application of the text to Jesus & Mary does not rub out or deny or destroy the OT meaning

The application of the text (which was done by St. Matthew and not the translators, since he saw a sign to be fulfilled) would be adding something to the OT meaning that wasn’t there (if the “young woman” translation is correct).

[it] goes beyond it, to full-fill it.

“Goes beyond” in this case, would mean to “add something to it that wasn’t there in Isaiah’s meaning”.

All that Isaiah meant in his historical context remains as it was - the words of his oracle go beyond the oth he was referring to (which may have been a reference to the birth of Hezekiah son of Ahaz; there are several possibilities),

Again, if Isaiah was only speaking of the near term, then this wasn’t an “oracle” of the kind that St. Matthew refers to.

to find their completest realisation in the birth of Jesus, Who is a far greater Saviour than Isaiah or Ahaz could have expected.

It may be true that Isaiah’s prophecy was not a complete vision of the birth of Christ in the future as well as a perfect understanding of the nature of the Savior. But that is quite different than saying Isaiah’s words had nothing to do with the birth of Christ and all of that meaning was added later – by actually changing the text through an incorrect translation.

That is not a “fulfillment” of a prophecy but the creation of one from scant evidence and then misapplication through manipulation of the text.

For myself, I will accept St. Jerome’s comment that if the term didn’t mean “virgin” then there wouldn’t be a sign there to speak of. Why bother saying that “a young woman” will give birth? It’s a meaningless piece of data in the prophecy.

One would not expect St. Matthew to feature that verse so prominently either if all it meant was that a young woman was going to give birth.

Obviously, the priest in question did not explain any of this and simply opened up a controversy that we can be sure that he could not answer himself.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The hebrew word can be translated as “young woman” or “virgin” – context determines its meaning. Those translations that go with “young woman” do so, because the hebrew has her already pregrant in Isaiah 7-10 as a unit. The best case for “virgin” I seen is in Brown’s books Answering Jewish Objections. And, it is NOT an assumption that if one is a young woman, she is a virgin – there was a moral problem in this area both in Isaiah’s and in Jesus’ time. The so-called young woman means virgin assumption is the ideal, not the reality.

Personally, I go with the virgin birth, simply because Matthew says so. Note: the greek word can also mean “young woman”, it is the context that makes “virgin” correct in matthew.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Gamera,

All modern translations give “young woman”, because modern translations, encouraged by the Holy See, try to give us the meaning that the text would have had for those first hearing it. The Septuagint gives us gives us an interpretation that evolved among certain Jews over time. This interpretation is confirmed by its use in the New Testament, but it is not a correct translation of the Hebrew text.

Verbum

PS A young woman CAN be a virgin.

 

[Fidelis]

All modern translations give “young woman”, because modern translations, encouraged by the Holy See, try to give us the meaning that the text would have had for those first hearing it.

Just out of curiosity, to which modern English translations are you referrring that rendered this passage as a result of encouragement by the Holy See to convey the original meanings?

 

[Manfred]

So the priest is perfectly correct.

Bull! Stop defending yet another “shock-jock” of a priest! Imagine that poor congregation that had to listen to this drivel at Christmas time no less!

A young woman conceiving and bearing a son is not at all out of the ordinary, as, as St Jerome suggests. how is that a “sign”? But for a virgin this is nothing short of a miracle.

Even the RSV-CE, which has “young woman” in the text, includes “virgin” in the footnote.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Manfred, there are two virgin births? one in Isaiah and one in matthew?

 

[Contarini]

This is not how St. Matthew views it though. If the term does not mean “virgin” then it cannot be applied as a sign for the future.

Why not?

If there is no reference to virgin, then Matthew would be misinterpreting the text

No, just giving it a new layer of meaning.

and it would be incorrect to say that it was “fulfilled” in the birth of Christ.

Matthew’s idea of “fulfillment” is consistently wild and woolly. Note the claim at the end of chap. 2 that the OT predicts Jesus being called a Nazarene.

The application of the text (which was done by St. Matthew and not the translators, since he saw a sign to be fulfilled) would be adding something to the OT meaning that wasn’t there (if the “young woman” translation is correct).

NT interpreters of the OT do this all the time. The Protestant maxim “the text cannot mean what it never meant” is balderdash. Sorry that we seem to have messed you guys up as well as ourselves.

“Goes beyond” in this case, would mean to “add something to it that wasn’t there in Isaiah’s meaning”.

Yes. Consistently with the way the New Testament interprets the Old from Matthew to Revelation.

For myself, I will accept St. Jerome’s comment that if the term didn’t mean “virgin” then there wouldn’t be a sign there to speak of. Why bother saying that “a young woman” will give birth? It’s a meaningless piece of data in the prophecy.

Then why is there no evidence–not one shred–that any Jews interpreted the text as referring to a virgin birth before St. Matthew, or that any Jews since the time of Christ have expected a Messiah (other than Jesus) to be born of a virgin?

And in response to the OP, there is another perfectly good word for virgin–bethulah. There is also another word for young woman–na’ara. Hebrew vocabulary is not as impoverished as you seem to think.

Edwin

 

[Della]

The whole argument over the word “virgin” or “young woman” means little, IMHO. Matthew wanted to tell us something beyond Mary’s virginity. He was telling us that Jesus is the fulfillment of the sign Isaiah gave to Ahaz. And the clue to it’s importance isn’t in verse 14 but in verse 11:

Is. 7:11 “Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”

Here is the Messianic sign. What else besides the Incarnation of God could be as “deep as Sheol or as high as heaven?” This tells us that the virgin of the sign is no ordinary young woman and the sign is no ordinary prophecy, but has a meaning beyond the time of Ahaz and his immediate descendant.

 

[reggieM]

Here is St. Jerome’s commentary:

Jerome, in Isa 7:14; Since it is introduced in the Prophet by the words, (p. 53) “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign,” it ought to be something new and wonderful. But if it be, as the Jews will have it, a young woman, or a girl shall bring forth, and not a virgin, what wonder is this, since these are words signifying age and not purity?
Indeed the Hebrew word signifying “Virgin” (Bethula) is not used in this place, but instead the word, ‘Halma,’ (ed. note, a: , &c.] which except the LXX all render ‘girl.’ But the word, ‘Halma,’ has a twofold meaning; it signifies both ‘girl,’ and ‘hidden;’ therefore ‘Halma’ denotes not only ‘maiden’ or ‘virgin,’ but ‘hidden,’ ‘secret;’ that is, one never exposed to the gaze of men, but kept under close custody by her parents.
In the Punic tongue also, which is said to be derived from Hebrew sources, a virgin is properly called ‘Halma.’ In our tongue also ‘Halma’ means holy; and the Hebrews use words of nearly all languages; and as far as my memory will serve me, I do not think I ever met with Halma used of a married woman, but of her that is a virgin, and such that she be not merely a virgin, but in the age of youth; for it is possible for an old woman to be a maid. But this was a virgin in years of youth, or at least a virgin, and not a child too young for marriage.
For that which Matthew the Evangelist says, “Shall have in her womb,” the Prophet who is foretelling something future, writes, “shall receive.” The Evangelist, not foretelling the future but describing the past, changes “shall receive,” into “shall have;” but he who has, cannot after receive that he has. He says, “Lo, a Virgin shall have in her womb, and shall bear a Son.”
Leo, Serm. 23, 1: The conception was by the Holy Spirit within the womb of the Virgin; who, as she conceived in perfect chastity, in like manner brought forth her Son.

 

[reggieM]

Then why is there no evidence–not one shred–that any Jews interpreted the text as referring to a virgin birth before St. Matthew, or that any Jews since the time of Christ have expected a Messiah (other than Jesus) to be born of a virgin?

First, this assumes that we know what all of the Jews saw in that text. The reason we might be missing some key evidence is due to the effect of the passage of time and texts and teachings lost in history.

But it could also be that the meaning of the word was hidden to them, as St. Jerome points out. That only with the miraculous birth did the passage reveal its hidden meaning.

It’s far more a sign if it is a virgin giving birth. This is clear in the way St. Matthew highlights that text.

 

[reggieM]

What else besides the Incarnation of God could be as “deep as Sheol or as high as heaven?” This tells us that the virgin of the sign is no ordinary young woman and the sign is no ordinary prophecy, but has a meaning beyond the time of Ahaz and his immediate descendant

I agree that the sign must be far beyond the more immediate matters at hand for Isaiah.