That's a small part of what we say every Sunday in church. It's a small line from the Creed that unites all Christians in our time.
But was Jesus really born of Mary who was a virgin? Was there really a virgin birth? Was it foretold by the prophet Isaiah?
I'll begin with a little story.
Bart Ehrman wanted to serve God and he went to Moody Bible Institute. He then went to Wheaton College and on to Princeton. At Princeton, he studied Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, etc in order to be able to read every single writing of the early Christians in the first few centuries in their original tongue. He's possibly the only human to have done that. He lost his faith as a result. Today, he argues very effectively why the Bible is totally unreliable.
Bart Ehrman was a student under Metzger while at Princeton. Metzger was a great Bible scholar and was the chap who translated the Bible in the Revised Standard Version or the RSV which is commonly used today. In Christianity Today, there was a tribute to Metzger who died in February 2007.
Someone told Metzger that Christian fundamentalists were burning copies of the RSV on church lawns because of his translation of Isaiah 7:14. Why would anyone burn the RSV, you may ask? Isaiah 7:14 in the NIV reads: 14 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 word translated "virgin" in most of our translations is "almah" which simply means "maiden" or "young woman" in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "betulah" and not "almah". So Metzger, when working on the RSV, decided to be faithful to the Bible and he translated almah as "young woman". This caused an uproar among fundamentalists.
You may ask, "What's the big deal? So what if the Isaiah prophecy mentions young woman? God is sovereign and he can still have Jesus born of a virgin whether Isaiah prophesied it or not. This should not affect the Christian tenet of faith at all.
The problem comes with Matthew's gospel. In Matthew 1:22, 23, we read: 22All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us.
You see, Matthew's Gospel gave the story of the miraculous birth of Jesus. He went into some length on this. He then explains that all these things took place in order to fulfil a prophecy which comes from Isaiah 7:14. But why would Matthew misunderstand Isaiah 7:14? I have shown earlier that Matthew is not very good with Hebrew writings and in an earlier post, I have shown that he had Jesus riding on two donkeys just to fulfil a non-existent prophecy which only existed in his non-Hebrew mind. Scholars tell us that the Gospels are all anonymous and the church attributed each of the four gospels to an evangelist at a much later date. Presumably, Matthew is not the tax gatherer many people think he is. He was probably a non-Palestine Christian convert who did not know Hebrew. That makes a lot of sense because many early Christians had to depend on the Septuagint (which is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek) when they wanted to read the Old Testament.
Bart Ehrman was a student under Metzger while at Princeton. Metzger was a great Bible scholar and was the chap who translated the Bible in the Revised Standard Version or the RSV which is commonly used today. In Christianity Today, there was a tribute to Metzger who died in February 2007.
Someone told Metzger that Christian fundamentalists were burning copies of the RSV on church lawns because of his translation of Isaiah 7:14. Why would anyone burn the RSV, you may ask? Isaiah 7:14 in the NIV reads: 14 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 word translated "virgin" in most of our translations is "almah" which simply means "maiden" or "young woman" in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "betulah" and not "almah". So Metzger, when working on the RSV, decided to be faithful to the Bible and he translated almah as "young woman". This caused an uproar among fundamentalists.
You may ask, "What's the big deal? So what if the Isaiah prophecy mentions young woman? God is sovereign and he can still have Jesus born of a virgin whether Isaiah prophesied it or not. This should not affect the Christian tenet of faith at all.
The problem comes with Matthew's gospel. In Matthew 1:22, 23, we read: 22All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us.
You see, Matthew's Gospel gave the story of the miraculous birth of Jesus. He went into some length on this. He then explains that all these things took place in order to fulfil a prophecy which comes from Isaiah 7:14. But why would Matthew misunderstand Isaiah 7:14? I have shown earlier that Matthew is not very good with Hebrew writings and in an earlier post, I have shown that he had Jesus riding on two donkeys just to fulfil a non-existent prophecy which only existed in his non-Hebrew mind. Scholars tell us that the Gospels are all anonymous and the church attributed each of the four gospels to an evangelist at a much later date. Presumably, Matthew is not the tax gatherer many people think he is. He was probably a non-Palestine Christian convert who did not know Hebrew. That makes a lot of sense because many early Christians had to depend on the Septuagint (which is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek) when they wanted to read the Old Testament.
In the Septuagint, the word for “almah” in Isaiah was wrongly translated "parthenos" which means virgin in Greek. If the Jewish tax-gatherer Matthew actually wrote Matthew, he should have known enough of his Hebrew Bible not to make such a blunder. He would have read the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek. To misunderstand a prophecy and to think that virginity is a prerequisite in the prophecy and to cook up facts about Jesus so that people will think there is fulfillment of a non-existent prophecy is quite a serious thing to do.
As an aside, most of the references to the Old Testament by the gospel writers are taken from the Septuagint. Again this is one argument for a non-Jewish author for each of the gospels, particularly the Synoptic gospels. I'll deal with John separately in another post. In fact, I’ll probably deal with each of the gospels separately in different posts.
As an aside, most of the references to the Old Testament by the gospel writers are taken from the Septuagint. Again this is one argument for a non-Jewish author for each of the gospels, particularly the Synoptic gospels. I'll deal with John separately in another post. In fact, I’ll probably deal with each of the gospels separately in different posts.
Before I go on, it should be noted that John's Gospel makes no mention of the virgin birth. John had ample opportunity to talk about it - he was always into Jesus as divine and the idea of a virgin birth would have been up his alley. Neither was the virgin birth mentioned in any of the epistles.
I have read many attempts by Christians to say that "almah" actually means "virgin". They also say that "almah" is always used to mean virgin in the Old Testament. I hope these people are genuinely mistaken and they are not dishonestly attempting to justify scriptures. Let's look into this more carefully.
Naturally, a "young woman" is usually a virgin or so she should be. But I'm saying that "young woman" is a description of the age of the person and her gender and nothing else. For a prophecy to include an element of virginity (which is an astounding prophecy because no pregnant woman is a virgin), surely it would be highly negligent to just say "young woman" and hope people will infer that virginity is meant. This is particularly so when there is a perfectly good word for a virgin, ie "betulah".
Next, Isaiah in his entire writing used the word "almah" only once in Isaiah 7:14. However, he used the word "betulah" 5 separate times so he couldn't have been ignorant of the word. We can’t accuse Isaiah of having an inadequate Hebrew vocabulary. He used "betulah" in 23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5.
Since Isaiah only used "almah" once, we can gain guidance into how "almah" may be used elsewhere in the Old Testament. I have to clarify one essential point. As I have said, a young woman may be a virgin and frequently she is so but the idea of virginity cannot be inferred into the prophecy if "almah" is used. One huge error a Christian sometimes makes is to show examples where “almah” is used to refer to virgins. Nobody is disputing the fact that most young women in those days in Palestine were virgins. It does not mean anything if you can show a thousand examples of an almah who is in fact a virgin because the two are not inconsistent. But on the other hand, if I am able to show just one example in which "almah" is used on a non-virgin, that would end all argument on this issue.
I have read many attempts by Christians to say that "almah" actually means "virgin". They also say that "almah" is always used to mean virgin in the Old Testament. I hope these people are genuinely mistaken and they are not dishonestly attempting to justify scriptures. Let's look into this more carefully.
Naturally, a "young woman" is usually a virgin or so she should be. But I'm saying that "young woman" is a description of the age of the person and her gender and nothing else. For a prophecy to include an element of virginity (which is an astounding prophecy because no pregnant woman is a virgin), surely it would be highly negligent to just say "young woman" and hope people will infer that virginity is meant. This is particularly so when there is a perfectly good word for a virgin, ie "betulah".
Next, Isaiah in his entire writing used the word "almah" only once in Isaiah 7:14. However, he used the word "betulah" 5 separate times so he couldn't have been ignorant of the word. We can’t accuse Isaiah of having an inadequate Hebrew vocabulary. He used "betulah" in 23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5.
Since Isaiah only used "almah" once, we can gain guidance into how "almah" may be used elsewhere in the Old Testament. I have to clarify one essential point. As I have said, a young woman may be a virgin and frequently she is so but the idea of virginity cannot be inferred into the prophecy if "almah" is used. One huge error a Christian sometimes makes is to show examples where “almah” is used to refer to virgins. Nobody is disputing the fact that most young women in those days in Palestine were virgins. It does not mean anything if you can show a thousand examples of an almah who is in fact a virgin because the two are not inconsistent. But on the other hand, if I am able to show just one example in which "almah" is used on a non-virgin, that would end all argument on this issue.
I’m sorry I have to belabour this point because in my experience, many people have difficulty grappling with this mentally. Some people seem to think that if they can show a hundred examples where “almah” refers to someone who is in fact a virgin, it doesn’t matter if someone else can show merely one example where “almah” is used on a non-virgin. But it does matter.
I’ll give an example so as to put a final nail in the coffin of this confusion. For example you tell me that the word “girl” means someone who is a virgin. And you are able to show me a million examples in literature that use the word “girl” to refer to someone who is in fact a virgin. All I have to do is to show you one instance of the word “girl” being used in the context where she’s not a virgin and you are sunk. Yes, a “girl” may very well be a virgin but the idea of virginity is not an essential component in the word “girl”.
And yes, there is one example from Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads:
18 "There are three things that are too amazing for me,
four that I do not understand:
19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a maiden (ie almah).
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a maiden (ie almah).
20 "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'
This almah is FAR from being a virgin!
I will end with a nice story - the same story I alluded to at the start of this post.
Metzger, when he was told that fundamentalist Christians were burning his RSV on church lawns because he translated Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" instead of "virgin", he said, "We've come a long way since Tyndale. They now burn the translation and not the translator".
What a great man!!! When I read that, I wasn't sure whether to laugh at his joke or to cry over the passing of such a great biblical scholar and Bible translator who just wanted to be faithful and correct in his translation even if to the rest of the world, truth isn’t really important.
"If the Jewish tax-gatherer Matthew actually wrote Matthew, he should have known enough of his Hebrew Bible not to make such a blunder. He would have read the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek."
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 7:14 controversy
Main article: Isaiah 7:14
From the earliest days of Christianity, Jewish critics have argued that Christians were mistaken in their reading of almah in Isaiah 7:14.[16] Because the author of Matthew 1:23, believed that Jesus was born of a virgin, he quoted Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son" as a proof-text for the divine origin of Jesus. Jewish scholars declare that Matthew is in error, that the word almah means young woman (just as the male equivalent elem means young man). It does not denote a virgin or sexual purity but age. Because a different Hebrew word, bethulah ("בתולה"), is most commonly used for virgin even in modern Hebrew, the prophet could not have meant virgin in Isaiah 7:14.
Many Christian apologists respond that throughout the Old Testament, in every other instance where a girl is described as almah, she is a girl who has never known a man carnally or had intercourse. Moreover, the word bethulah is sometimes used to describe women who are arguably not virgins (Joel 1.8 and Esther 2:8-17), and in at least two cases (Genesis 24: 16 and Judges 21: 12), an additional phrase in the text explains that that the bethulah has "not known a man." Thus, they argue, almah refers to virgins more consistently than does bethulah. Most importantly, the Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means "virgin"[17].
Some scholars contend that debates over the precise meaning of bethulah and almah are misguided because no Hebrew word encapsulates the idea of certain virginity.[18] Martin Luther also argued that the debate was irrelevant, not because the words do not clearly mean virgin, but because almah and bethulah were functional synonyms.[19]
It has also been noted that in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), in Genesis 34:2–4 the Greek word parthenos refers to Dinah after she was raped.[20][21] Therefore, that same Greek word as used in Matthew does not always necessarily mean “virgin”, but it can also mean “young woman”.
Thanks Jeff, for your comment. I can summarise your comment into three points which I will deal with separately.
ReplyDelete1. You mentioned in the last paragraph that "parthenos" does not always mean virgin. This does not concern me because I'm not interested in the exact meaning of "parthenos" as used in the Septuagint. The issue is whether the Isaiah prophecy included VIRGINITY on the part of the woman giving birth. My argument is it does not. My argument is the concept of virginity arose out of a mistranslation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Septuagint.
2. You stated that "almah" always means "virgin" when used in the Old Testament. That is not correct. My blog entry clearly shows an instance when "almah" is used to describe a prostitute in Proverbs. You also said that "bethulah" may be used in a context that does not indicate virginity and in instances where the Bible wanted to make a woman's virginity clear, the verses had included the words "who has not known a man". Again, it does not matter if bethulah is used loosely in some instances. What is important is that if virginity is to be made clear, there are words which the Bible have used to leave no ambiguity about the matter. First, I do not agree that "bethulah" has been used to signify a non-virgin. The examples you picked are idiomatically problematic. For example, in Joel 1:8, there is a reference to her not having had sexual relationship for a very long time since her husband died in her youth. Secondly, even if you are right on the use of "bethulah", I agree with you that there are ways that a woman's virginity can be, and in the case of the Old Testament, has been frequently spelt out by using additional words such as "who has known no man". The fact is this was not done in Isaiah. Even if both "almah" and "bethulah" mean young woman alone, it does not affect my argument. Whenever virginity is important, the Bible has always clearly spelt it out. The fact that Isaiah used the word "young woman" without specifying her virginity. Hence to insist on Mary's virginity is to add on to the prophecy as Matthew has done.
3. You said that the Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars, implying that they would know what they are translating. But Bible scholars today are very clear about the egregious blunders contained in the Septuagint. No serious scholar will have the guts to say that the Septuagint was accurately translated. He would be committing academic suicide. The errors in translation are so numerous that even the early church was aware of this. There were segments in the early church (the Greek Orthodox still holds to this today) that decided that the Septuagint was inspired by God separately from the Old Testament. This is because the Septuagint was better crafted to support Christian theology. Even FF Bruce says that in his Canon of Scripture.
In conclusion, you have not shown that even a tiny whit of what I've said in my blog is inaccurate. The fact is St Matthew was still wrong in imputing virginity in Isaiah's prophecy. And I have not even gone into Isaiah's prophecy to show that it clearly refers to a man who would come at a time way before Jesus' time. In short, Isaiah's prophecy if used to point to Jesus would be an anachronism that is too shocking for words. It's like prophesying that Beowulf would be written in the 21st century.
I have no problem with apocryphal texts having both a current and future impact or application. Doesn't it become problematic to use a text you believe to be inaccurate, to prove your point? If a text isn't reliable how can we use it to prove or disprove anything? :)
ReplyDeleteIt was not my intent to prove or disprove, but to offer an alternative understanding which have rejected, so be it.
To me the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Arguments about religion are all chasing after the wind.
Here is something that has strengthened my faith- I have a United Bible Society Greek New Testament. In it, there is recorded every document that was accessed and the location of these documents, that were used to construct the book. There are hundreds of full and partial Greek texts cited, and hundreds of Church Father writings, and all of the Latin texts and where they currently reside. ALL of these were used to construct the book. The book on each page, has each verse that is in doubt and it gives the degree of doubt based on specific criteria outlined in the beginning of the book. A is for high reliability, and if a text has high reliability it is not given any designation. B means there is some doubt, and C means its in there but has a high degree of doubt.
This is forensic study of the Gospel. It allows you or me to decide for ourselves what the text says if we choose to study it using sound methodology- But the interesting thing is that none of the doubtful texts change doctrine significantly.
I am NOT a Biblical theologian- I have constructed my theology seeking the agreement or harmony of four key components-
1. the Text
2. Reason and Intellect
3. Church traditions- the Fathers of the Faith
4. Personal experience with the effect of GOD as I understand HIM on my life.
This has been found by me to be a complete method of finding truth. Paul seems to look at text and use reason. You seem to use text, reason and tradition to a degree. But you both fail to use the fourth. But they all four are in concert.
Just observing and inviting you both to try something new- possible synergy that might affect how and what you think.
An unreliable text can of course be used to question the credibility of the text and the collection of texts as a whole. In this case, St Matthew is shown to be unreliable. This will serve to prove to a believer that the Bible as a whole can't be the word of God.
ReplyDeleteYou also spoke about experiences and their importance to you. In my 19 April entry in this blog, I have addressed this issue adequately. Experiences are totally unreliable as evidence of God's existence.