Question:
About the Virgin Birth, I’ve heard that the specific Greek word used to describe Mary was mistranslated into "virgin" when it actually didn`t imply anything about virgin-status, but was simply "young girl." Then when the Gentiles got a hold of it, they layered their Roman pantheon understanding of gods impregnating mortal women onto the mistranslation and the church has run with it ever since. Is that how it happened?
Answer:
Well, it`s not actually the Greek that was the problem word, but the Hebrew. You see, Matthew records that the birth of Jesus by a virgin was in fulfillment of the passage in Isaiah 7:14 where he says: “…the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel — `God is with us.`” NLT
So the first question is really if Isaiah has been mistranslated – as you can see most translations still render the Hebrew as “virgin”. The Hebrew word used by Isaiah is “Almah”. And it is often translated "young woman". However, for the Hebrews, the word would have almost always been synonymous with "virgin", since it essentially means, "girl". But the virginity is not explicit in the word, it`s implicit.
It’s not like this translation dilemma is a big secret or a “bible conspiracy”. The RSV (in the 1920’s) translated Isa 7:14 with "young woman" not “virgin” – the first translation to do so. It was roundly criticized by Fundamentalists and earned the nickname "Revised Standard Perversion" for this one word. Most modern translations (like the NLT) include “young woman” as an alternate translation in the footnotes.
So which is the best translation here? And if Isaiah means “young woman" does this somehow mean that Matthew has taken him out of context? There are good reasons for Almah to continue to be translated as “virgin” in this context which are not contingent on our knowledge of Matthew use of this verse to refer to Mary. Such as?
The simplest solution is simply that Isaiah has in mind the virgin conception of Christ. In 9:6 we know Isaiah sees the Christ coming as a child. Many prophesies have immediate and future fulfillments, but this is one that has no immediate fulfillment. The argument you heard is that Isaiah must be using “young woman” to refer to the immediate context – which weakens the power of Matthew using it later to refer to Mary. This argument further states that Isaiah follows up the sign of a virgin/young woman conceiving Immanuel by saying “But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.” (vs 17) – a clear reference to the current situation, not something far in the future.
The answer to this objection is that Isaiah has in mind two children. The first referred to in 7:14 is the miracle baby, Immanuel, born of a virgin. The second refers to Isaiah’s OWN SON, Shear-Jashub, who we are told explicitly was taken with him into this conference with Ahab (7:3). To paraphrase 7:14-16 then: Here’s God’s sign that these two kings will fall – God will cause a virgin to give birth to a child who will mark God’s coming to us! And if you need another sign, before this child that I hold in my arms (Shear-Jashub) reaches the age of accountability, these kings will be dead.
Another solution, less strong, allows us to see some immediate fulfillment for 7:14 while also seeing it still as a reference to a virgin. It may refer to a woman who IS currently a virgin - Isaiah`s betrothed. In this view, Emmanuel is the child that will be born to Isaiah and the Prophetess whom he will marry shortly (8:3). Thus he’s using the term “virgin” incidentally here to refer to his fiancé, not to underscore a virgin birth. In fact, 8:3 would suggest that Isaiah explicitly is listed as the child’s father – and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz would be the same child predicted to be born in 7:14. Isaiah`s “sign” to Ahaz then, is not a prediction of how a virgin miraculously gets pregnant, but about how a child is predicted to be born BEFORE that child was even conceived (thus while his wife was still a virgin) and how his birth will coincide with the fall of two feared kings.
Against this view is the fact that Isaiah already has a son and thus we may assume, also a wife who would no longer be a virgin, obviously. Since no mention is made of Shear-Jashub’s mother, we may speculate that she is dead, or that Isaiah took another wife (admittedly rare but not unheard of in the priestly/prophetic community).
Now, you might think it’s no great trick to prophesy that a virgin will conceive and give birth if you follow up this prediction by sleeping with her! True. But again, the emphasis in this view is that the term “virgin” is not central, but incidental to the “sign”. What is central to the sign is the timing of the child’s birth and growth and his prophetic name (Maharshalelhashbaz) relative to two events explicitly predicted: the fall of two kings and the rise of Assyria. (8:4) And the real “great trick” then is how God would use a term incidental to Isaiah and 700 years later turn that same term and make it CENTRAL to his plan for Christ’s birth.
Either way, “young woman” is not demanded and “virgin” has good support.
Now, when Matthew (1:23) picks up this prophecy and sees in it a larger fulfillment in Jesus birth, he translates the Hebrew "Almah" into the Greek word "Parthenos" which also can mean young woman, but more explicitly refers to a woman who hasn`t had sexual intercourse.
So that leaves us with two issues... should Matthew have translated Isaiah`s word into "virgin"? And two, did this tradition come late in church history in response to Roman/Greek influence in the church?
About the first, the answer is yes, it was entirely consistent with the original Hebrew word to read it as "virgin". And this gives us pause at the wonder of fulfilled prophecy, if we presume that Isaiah didn`t even have in mind a virgin birth. Secondly: for this to be attributed to Greek pagan influence, we would have to find either that the original author was somehow influenced by Greek religion OR that someone influenced by Greek religion corrupted Matthew`s text later. Neither is very plausible.
Matthew in fact, is the most Jewish of all the Gospel writers. He loves the O.T., quotes it freely and often, and he is clearly writing to Jews to convince them that Jesus is their long awaited Christ. The LAST thing his Jewish readers want to hear is that the story of Jesus sounds just like Gentile myths about gods impregnating women. So why include his virgin birth? Because it happened, is the only reason I can figure. AND, Matthew finds that God presaged this historical fact (and so many other wonderful things about Jesus) in the O.T. - the source of authority for his Jewish audience.
Matthew doesn`t show any signs of Hellenistic leanings in his gospel... he`s Monotheistic, Jewish through and through. And let`s face it, the way the virgin birth is described is fundamentally different than the visions of Greek mythology. Zeus comes to human women by force and literally has intercourse with them (because the Greek gods were corporeal). This thing Matthew is reporting is entirely different... Matt 1:18, it`s a sort of "overshadowing" influence of the Holy Spirit, non-corporeal for sure.
The only possible way to assume this narrative is due to Greek corruption from later editors is if we find evidence of it in the extant manuscripts. We need to see at least SOME manuscripts of Matthew without the virgin birth narrative - and those should be the earliest. Yet we do not.
As with all the New Testament then, this story stands alongside all others as dating to middle 1st century - well within the lifetimes of still living eye witnesses. And the fact that Luke picks up the SAME story of virgin birth, but with a completely different eye (IE he wasn`t just parroting Matthew or his source, he got it from another source - many say Mary herself!) shows that this tradition was already strong in the early church by 50-70 AD. IE not inserted later through Greek influence.
