ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"

[Jayhawker Soule]

The basic rule of textual criticism is the older the text, the more reliable.

Rubbish.

The Septuagint version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text version by almost 700 years.

But we have proto-masoretic witnesses from both Qumran and Masada that are clearly contemporaneous with any known LXX witness or possible LXX vorlage. Stop embarrassing yourself.

PS: For those actually interested in the subject, Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible is both authoritative and surprisingly readable.

 

[Nonconformist]

The Meaning Of "Alma" In Isaiah 7:14
George P. Estes, Maplewood, Missouri

(Dear Brother Tant: I have sent several articles to you pointing out the modernism in the Revised Standard Version. I feel that modernism is one of our most deadly foes, and the RSV is still being bought and read by brethren. Some are still even trying to defend it. When the sectarians attacked baptism, we studied and restudied the word. We emphasized the meaning of "baptidzo." Now the attack is by liberals on the Hebrew word "alma" and other words. I feel that this should be carefully considered until the truth prevails. — G.P.E.)
—O—
The man who has made the most thorough and complete study of the word "alma" is Robert Dick Wilson. The following remarks are taken from his article in the Princeton Theological Review, 1926, pp. 308-316.


Mr. Wilson begins by giving the translation of the word "alma" in the passages of the O.T., in which it occurs as follows: Genesis 24:43 (virgin); Exodus 2:8 (maid); Pro. 30:19 (maid); Cant. 6:7 [sic] (virgin); Cant. 1:3 [sic] (virgins); 1 Chro. 15:20 (alamoth); Isaiah 7:14 (virgin); Psalm 46 — heading — (alamoth); Psalm 48:26 (damsels).

Under each verse he gives the translation of "alma" into other languages and versions: Jerome's Latin Vulgate (4th century A. D.); Coptic, Armenian, Pe****to (Syriac); the Targum; into Greek by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (2nd century A. D.); the Greek Septuagint; Arabic and others.

After giving this complete list of how noted Bible scholars translated the word, he gives the root meaning of "alma" which is "hide." Then two O.T. Hebrew words are given which are similar in meaning: "n'ara" (young woman, damsel) and "bethulah" (virgin, maid, maiden).

After a careful study of this material, Dr. Wilson comes to the following conclusion:
1. None of the ancient languages or versions gives any evidence to show that "alma" ever meant a　youngmarried woman.
2. There seems to be no doubt that "bethulah" is the specific and unambiguous word for virgin.
3. A "n'ara" may not have been a virgin. Otherwise it would scarcely have been necessary to define her five times by the word "bethulah" (virgin).
4. An "alma" must have been presumed to be　a　"virgin" since it is never defined by "bethulah."
5. Since the Septuagint version was made in the case of Genesis 280 years B. C. and in the case of Isaiah 200 years B. C., it is to be presumed that their rendering of "alma" by "parthenos" (virgin) in Genesis 24:48 and Isaiah 7:14 was in their minds a justifiable rendering. So far as we have　any　evidence, the citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 is thus justified by the Jewish interpretation up to the time when Matthew was written.
6. Since the Pe****to Syriac version of the Old Testament was probably made by Jews, their rendering of the word "alma" by "bethulah" in Isaiah 7:14 must have been considered proper even　as　late as the second century A. D.
7. Jerome, who studied Hebrew under Jewish rabbis of his time (about 400 A. D.), still thought it possible to render "alma" by "virgo" (virgin) in Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14.
8. Since Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus were all probably renegades from Christianity, and Jewish proselytes, their rendering of "alma" in Isaiah 7:14 by "neanis" (young woman) instead of "parthenos" (virgin) is easily understood.
The rendering "ulemta" of the Targum to Isaiah 7:14 cannot possibly argue in favor of the meaning "young married woman" in view of the following facts:
a) "Alma" in the O.T. never has this meaning anywhere else.
b) "Ulemta" translates not merely "alma" but also "n'ara," "yolda," and "bethulah," none of which means young married woman.
c) "Ulemta" is used of Rebecca when she came to the well and met Eliezer; of Miriam when she was set to watch the infant Moses; of the 400 virgins of Jabesh Gilead (Judges 21:12); of Esther and the other virgins who were selected for the choice of Xerxes as wife.
10. The feminine noun is not found in the Koran; but the masculine is used of the as yet unborn Isaac and John the Baptist, and of Jesus the son of the virgin Mary, of Joseph in the pit and of two young men who are expressly said to have been killed before they reached the age of puberty.
11. All the versions of the Greek "parthenos" (virgin) — Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Harklensian, Syriac, and Arabic — render the word in both Isaiah 7:14 and Matt. 1:23　by　the best word for "virgin" which they possess.
12. The evidence that Mary was a virgin does not after all depend on the meaning of the words "alma" and "parthenos" alone; for it is said, also, of Mary that "she had not known man." This phrase is used in the Old Testament of Rebecca "a virgin that had not known man" (Gen. 24:16); of Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11:39); and of the virgins of Jabesh Gilead (Judges 21:12).
Finally, two conclusions from the evidence seem clear: first, that "alma," so far as known, never meant "young married woman"; and secondly, the presumption in common law and　usage　was, and is, that every "alma" is virgin and virtuous, until and unless it shall be proven that she is not. If Isaiah 7:14 is a prediction of the conception and if the events recorded in Matt. 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38 are true, and the Holy Spirit really overshadowed the virgin Mary, all difficulties are cleared away. The great and only difficulty lies then in disbelief in predictive prophecy and in the almighty power of God; or in the desire to throw discredit upon the divine Sonship of Jesus.
In the third Sura of the Koran, Mohammed represents Mary as saying to the angel: "Lord, how can I have a son when man has not yet touched me?" And the angel said: "Thus God creates what He pleaseth; When He decrees a matter He only says, BE, and it is." Mohammed was a better Theist than many who profess to follow Christ today."
The above represents the conclusion of Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the greatest linguistic and Biblical scholars of all time. To his fine thoughts I add the following: The RSV cannot be right in rendering "alma" by "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14; therefore their rendering of it so was a result of liberalistic and modernistic bias. Let not my brethren be deceived by the modernists and their apologists.

 

[gnostic]

I agree with your post, but I should like to correct one minor item. You should either drop the definite article (ha') above or simply add the word "the" to young woman.

The Hebrew "ha'" = the English "the".

Sorry, fletch. I've added "the".

I just hoped that nonconformist understand my points.

 

[Nonconformist]

Hmm...but if Matthews integrity is on trial...why would you use his work which is already suspect to defend it?

Hello Sir,
Matthew’s 1:23 was the one in question, wasn’t it?

Why doesn't Mark add to it?

?

Also Among the Jews...indicates that the writer of Matthew was themselves not a Jew. Given that the early church was made of Jews...why make that distinction?

Hello Sir,
“indicates that the writer of Matthew was themselves not a Jew.” You are confusing me of this grammar. Kindly please rephrase it again, thanks.


Matthew, Son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), a tax collector, also called Levi (2:14; Luke 5:27), whom Jesus met at the tax office and called to be one of his disciples (Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27).
Levi not a Jew?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hello Sir,
Matthew’s 1:23 was the one in question, wasn’t it?

?

Hello Sir,
“indicates that the writer of Matthew was themselves not a Jew.” You are confusing me of this grammar. Kindly please rephrase it again, thanks.


Matthew, Son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14), a tax collector, also called Levi (2:14; Luke 5:27), whom Jesus met at the tax office and called to be one of his disciples (Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27).
Levi not a Jew?

Matthew is the only one who mentions the Guards being told to lie.

Since we are discussing Matthew and how his usage of the word virgin is incorrect, until it can be shown that Matthew is reliable to use any further writings of matthew would not be credible. Essentially if we can't trust what Matthew says in terms of virgin then it stands that we should also be critical of everything else he says. Given that only Matthew and Luke mention a virgin birth with both Matthew and Luke giving different genealogies, then we have an issue of reliability.

Mark and John do not mention the virgin birth

Mark, Luke and John do not mention the Jews paying off the guards.

Mark ends with the empty tomb.

Matthew was written historically it seems before Luke, with John being written afterwards as the last one.

So it would go in order, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. So While it can be said that Matthew and Luke added to Mark, John detracts those two.

But my point is Matthew says "The Jews tell this story to this day" if he was a Jew, then he wouldn't say "among the jews" we know that the early church fathers still viewed themselves as Jews. Matthews use of "among the jews" implies that whoever was telling the story did not count themselves as a Jew.

 

[Nonconformist]

Rubbish.

But we have proto-masoretic witnesses from both Qumran and Masada that are clearly contemporaneous with any known LXX witness or possible LXX vorlage. Stop embarrassing yourself.

PS: For those actually interested in the subject, Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible is both authoritative and surprisingly readable.

What is the difference between Echad and Yachid?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Rubbish.

But we have proto-masoretic witnesses from both Qumran and Masada that are clearly contemporaneous with any known LXX witness or possible LXX vorlage. Stop embarrassing yourself.

PS: For those actually interested in the subject, Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible is both authoritative and surprisingly readable.

What is the difference between Echad and Yachid?

Nice dance, but this kind of silly avoidance does little to improve your credibility. So, to repeat:

• The legend of 72 Jewish translators is precisely that - a legend.
• The legend pertains to the Torah - not Isaiah.
• Anyone who talks about "the ancient Hebrew text" displays an embarrassing ignorance about the DSS in general and the hypothetical LXX vorlage in particular.
• Your understanding of Isaiah is clearly no better.

 

[Fletch]

8. Since Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus were all probably renegades from Christianity, and Jewish proselytes, their rendering of "alma" in Isaiah 7:14 by "neanis" (young woman) instead of "parthenos" (virgin) is easily understood.

Hi Nonconformist,

Your Christian LXX translates the Hebrew word "almah" five times as the Greek "neanis"* vs only twice as "parthenos".

Your arguments now have no legs to stand on.

Fletch

*Prov 30:19 might be a very similar word which means youth/young female, still checking.

PS The Church's LXX translated the Hebrew naarah as parthenos in Genesis 24:14 along with alma in Genesis 24:43 where the servant was relating what he had said earlier in the day though not verbatim. The LXX is very liberal with the word parthenos since even you must agree that naarah does not mean virgin.

 

[gnostic]

Another issue is: Did any part of this "prophecy" come true in Isaiah's time?

If you are talking about Isaiah’s 7:14, it did not.

So you're saying, nonconformist, that verses 7:15-17 is not part of the prophecy or sign? Is that what you're saying?

Is "he" not Immanuel, in Isaiah 7:15? (see 7:15 verse, below)

He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

And the above quote - Isaiah 7:16 - is the "child" not Immanuel?

If the child in both verses 7:15 & 7:16 not Immanuel, then who is the child?

Why would the child (Immanuel) reached a certain age ("eat curds and honey" (7:15) and "before child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good" (7:16)) and not fulfill the sign "the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted" (7:16)?

If Isaiah 7:14-17 is one (complete) sign of Isaiah, then the sign has to be completed during Isaiah and Ahaz's lifetime, in order to fulfilled this event.

The event is "the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted" (7:16) and with 7:17:

The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

Who is the child in Isaiah 7:15-16, if it isn't Immanuel?

What the verses say in Isaiah 7:16-17, about "two kings" (7:16) and about "Judah" and the "King of Assyria", give us some clues as to when the sign will be fulfilled, and added to the fact that there were two kings attacking Ahaz's kingdom and an Assyrian empire (Isaiah 7:1, Isaiah 8, 2 kings 15:29, 2 kings 16:5-9), then it should be recognized that this 7:14 was never about the messiah of his virgin birth.

If Christians are really interested in the TRUTH, then they should read and understand the WHOLE CHAPTER, instead of ignoring because of Matthew's unsubstantiated claim and presumption that a tiny portion of Isaiah's verse is related to a virgin birth?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If Christians are really interested in the TRUTH, then they should read and understand the WHOLE CHAPTER, ...

It's wrong and unhelpful to generalize. I suspect that many, many informed Christians make a sincere effort to do precisely that. (It would be interesting to see how NICOT handles Isaiah 7.

 

[gnostic]

It's wrong and unhelpful to generalize. I suspect that many, many informed Christians make a sincere effort to do precisely that. (It would be interesting to see how NICOT handles Isaiah 7.

You're right that it is not good to generalize.

Still, I have to yet to see any Christian (here, and outside this forum), not be biased with Isaiah 7:14. Most only see what they want to see in this chapter and this verse.

I understand why they believe in virgin birth, and I used to believe this miracle, and even though I don't believe anymore, I still understand why it is important to them.

But I think they could have kept the virgin birth narrative without the author quoting Isaiah's passage. Using this verse without considering the larger context of the entire chapter, seemed to be more propaganda than anything else.

They see birth of child but they don't see that this child also play a part as a marker of time (Isaiah 7:15-16) that would happen to two hostile kingdoms (Isaiah 7:16-17).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're right that it is not good to generalize.

Still, I have to yet to see any Christian (here, and outside this forum), not be biased with Isaiah 7:14.

And I have yet to meet any intelligent Christian who was. Perhaps you're hanging with the wrong crowd.

Again, does anyone know what NICOT says?

 

[gnostic]

And I have yet to meet any intelligent Christian who was. Perhaps you're hanging with the wrong crowd.

Perhaps I have been around the wrong crowd.

Perhaps I need to find a larger crowd. But how do I distinguish the right crowd from the wrong ones when I am already in the midst of one?

I think I am in the situation where I can't see the forest because of the trees...and some bushes, some possums and this really god****-big pink elephant standing in my way!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But how do I distinguish the right crowd from the wrong ones when I am already in the midst of one?

My God, man, do you really consider an internet forum a crowd? Good grief. Get out in the real world from time to time.

 

[gnostic]

My God, man, do you really consider an internet forum a crowd? Good grief. Get out in the real world from time to time.

Hah! You reading too much into my question.

I have a number of Christian friends (and relatives too), and know their teachings.

For instance, most of them believe in evolution to be real science and they accept the facts the earth and the universe is far older than the calculated estimate of bible, and yet they all blindly accept that Isaiah 7:14 to be about Jesus, and the rest of chapter 7 doesn't matter to them, just like sincerly, nonconformist and muffled do, here in this topic.

Your crowd may be larger than mine, but I based mine on personal experience, people that I actually have interactions with, whether they be personally or on-line.

Of course, there must be Christians who can see that there are more to Isaiah 7:14, but so far, I haven't seen any.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just noticed your stated location. Perhaps that explains it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But why this curious fixation on ha-alma harah?

 

[Nonconformist]

If Christians are really interested in the TRUTH, then they should read and understand the WHOLE CHAPTER, instead of ignoring because of Matthew's unsubstantiated claim and presumption that a tiny portion of Isaiah's verse is related to a virgin birth?

You still do not understand my point, do you?

Try to understand this, timeline is very important to ancient history.

When Matthew wrote the book of Matthew, he quoted Isaiah’s 7:14 from the Septuagint/OG/LXX. It says back then [during Matthew‘s time], and this was before any other translations/interpretations and adulterations of the words of God by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome, and the Talmudist Jews and the Masoretes, known for the MT, in Isaiah’s 7:14 in the Septuagint it says: “parthenos/virgin” and not “neanis/young woman”

IOW, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome, and the Talmudist Jews and the Masoretes, known for the MT, and you and I were not yet present at the time of the Septuagint/OG/LXX and Matthew’s and the other writers of the New Testament.

We simply were not there at that time.

Matthew’s 1:23 quotation of Isaiah’s 7:14 was justified until Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, alter the meaning of it 500 years later.

For example again for the 3rd time, Iranaeus [202 AD] concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin/parthenos that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text, and not the ancient Hebrew text where the Septuagint was based on, was, according to Irenaeus, at that time [100 to 200 AD] interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman/neanis that shall conceive.
According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late, very late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.
Matthew’s 1:25 [remember the timeline] clearly disagree with this heresy, that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.

Mt 1:25 and knew her/Mary not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew wants to make Jesus' virginal conception unambiguous, for he adds that Joseph had no sexual union with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. The "until" clause most naturally means that Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal conjugal relations after Jesus' birth.

The man who has made the most thorough and complete study of the word "alma" is Robert Dick Wilson. The following remarks are taken from his article in the Princeton Theological Review, 1926, pp. 308-316.
5. Since the Septuagint version was made in the case of Genesis 280 years B. C. and in the case of Isaiah 200 years B. C., it is to be presumed that their rendering of "alma" by "parthenos" (virgin) in Genesis 24:48 and Isaiah 7:14 was in their minds a justifiable rendering. So far as we have　any　evidence, the citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 is thus justified by the Jewish interpretation up to the time when Matthew was written.
8. Since Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus were all probably renegades from Christianity, and Jewish proselytes, their rendering of "alma" in Isaiah 7:14 by "neanis" (young woman) instead of "parthenos" (virgin) is easily understood.

My question to you is, why they, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, needed to translate the Septuagint/OG/LXX into another Greek version 500 years later?
Example of that is, from “parthenos/virgin” to “neanis/young woman”

If you, Jayhawker, Fletch, FranklinMichaelV, and CG Didymus can answer this knowledgeably, and not from your own self-willed opinion only, then it would clear all controversies in Isaiah’s 7:14.

Read and Understand:
Your translation/interpretation of Isaiah’s 7:14 “young woman/neanis” by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion came late, very, very, very late by almost 500 years. Do you understand this?

How can you insert words like “young woman/neanis” from the timeframe of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion going backward into the timeframes of the Septuagint/OG/LXX and Matthew’s that happened almost 500 years earlier?

You are going backwards with your translations/interpretations.

Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion altered the word of God, “parthenos/virgin” into “neanis/young woman” to refute the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What is it that you can not understand here?

And you blamed all these things on Christians. Christians did not alter the words of God, the Jews did.

Read the history of the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, or Origen’s Hexapla if you can find it, and even Jerome, and the Talmudist Jews and the Masoretes, known for the MT before you blame Christians.

You bragged those books of yours that you’ve been reading and still can’t find the real truth.

You want to know the truth?

You wouldn’t know what the truth is even if it was staring in front of you.

Can you tell the difference between these two?

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”
"Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God Yahweh is　alone"

Maybe, and just maybe, if you can tell the difference you will see the real truth.

May I remind you again that Christians did not alter anything here.

We simply read the bible especially the New Testament.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion altered the word of God, “parthenos/virgin” into “neanis/young woman” to refute the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rubbish. Worse - irrelevant rubbish.

 

[CG Didymus]

When Matthew wrote the book of Matthew, he quoted Isaiah’s 7:14 from the Septuagint/OG/LXX. It says back then [during Matthew‘s time], and this was before any other translations/interpretations and adulterations of the words of God by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and even Jerome, and the Talmudist Jews and the Masoretes, known for the MT, in Isaiah’s 7:14 in the Septuagint it says: “parthenos/virgin” and not “neanis/young woman”

...Christians did not alter the words of God, the Jews did.

So you're saying the Septuagint is an exact and accurate translation of the original Hebrew text? But I thought it was the first five books were all that was translated into Greek? So by who and when did the rest of the Scriptures get translated? And, why are some modern translations changing "virgin" to "young woman"?

Still, in context, who was the "virgin" in Isaiah's time? Or, are you saying there wasn't a virgin? That is, not until Mary 700 years later? Then, what does the rest of the "sign" have to do with Jesus? The quote is picked out of context isn't it?

Considering people make up religious/spiritual stories all the time, why is this story not made up to try and "prove" Jesus is something special, a virgin-born God/man? Like I asked before, how is this not similar to what the Catholics did with Mary and made her conception "immaculate"?

I assume you are some sort of Protestant surrounded by a lot of Catholics, do they add, subtract or in some way alter Scripture verses to prove their beliefs? Do they take the same verses you belief in and interpret them completely different? Why are they wrong and you right? Even if it's you that is the Catholic, it the same difference. They change things to suit their beliefs. So is there only one way to interpret Scripture? Obviously not.

Do you believe the way Islam interprets Scripture? Probably not. Why? Because of misquotes and taking things out of context by chance? Then, let's go back to Judaism. What do they and what did they believe? Was Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic prophecy? Was the Messiah to be God? Was the Messiah to conquer Satan? Was the Messiah to bring "personal" salvation from sin? Are all non-believers going to be sent to hell? Christianity takes a radical turn from Judaism--as if it was a blend of some Judaism mixed with some Paganism.