Virgin Birth Revisited

By Mark McFall

A little over a year ago I wrote an article entitled "The Virgin Birth" which ran as the lead article in the very first issue of "IN THE WORD" (October-November 1999). When I originally wrote that article I was only accustomed to the arguments as presented by Christian apologists and I wrote from that perspective. A month after that article appeared I joined what is called the XTIANITY mailing list, where daily the historic Christian faith is under-fire by well-informed critics. A frequent topic and target in that forum is the virgin birth of Christ, and it is in this forum where I had the privilege of getting hands on experience with those who vigorously oppose the historic Christian faith.

This article is the result of things that I have learned in the critical arena with special emphasis on common misconceptions made by both apologists and critics in the Matthew - Isaiah connection. One of the best things about reading what the skeptics think is that it helps us to think things through, to say things better, and perhaps teach our brothers and sisters in a more proper way.¹

Predictive - Or Not To Be Predictive

Many Christian apologists use Isaiah 7:14 as a predictive prophecy to prove that the Bible makes supernatural predictions centuries in advance. However, critics following the interpretation of many Bible scholars say verse 16 in the context of Isaiah refers to the birth of Isaiah’s own child (see footnote²) shortly before the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. Isaiah writes:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. (Isaiah 7:14-16, NASB)

In contemplating the critical view of the Isaian context, Christian apologist Norman Geisler writes:

"If so, this is not a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus and, it has no apologetic value."³

Is Geisler correct? Or is there another viable alternative interpretation? We shall proceed to explore such possibilities.

English Translations Of Almah

The texts which indicate that almah can be translated as maid[en] or girl are found in six out of the seven occurrences of the word. The New American Standard Version of the Bible (considered the most literal of all translations⁴), translates almah in these occurrences as:

Gen. 24:43 "maiden," Ex. 2:8 "girl," Ps. 68:26 "maidens," Prov. 30:19 "maid," Sol. 1:3 "maidens," Sol. 6:8 "maidens."

Then, here at Isaiah 7:14, the passage reads:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." (NAS Isaiah 7:14)

The immediate problem that the critic sees, is that in this passage the word "virgin" translated from the Hebrew word almah does not mean "virgin." The critic will usually cite the Revised Standard Version of the Bible to make their point:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman [almah] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (RSV)

This translation is further collaborated by the James Moffatt Bible, the Jewish Publication Society Bible, and the Koren Jerusalem Bible (etc..) which also renders almah as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. The critics assertion is further backed up by reputable lexicons like the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. Biblical scholar Gesenius writes of the meaning of almah:

"a youthful spouse recently married...the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys..."⁵

This definition of almah is by far the majority scholarly definition (see footnote⁶). In response to this, Norman Geisler in his magnum opus The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, writes:

"There is difficulty with the claim that almah refers to someone who is married. Not once does the Old Testament use ‘almah’ to refer to a married person."⁷

This same line of defense is given by Christian apologist Gleason Archer in his well known book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, he writes:

"Yet it is also true that in the seven occurrences of almah in the singular throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the word never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste."⁸

As there are difficulties "with the claim that almah refers to someone who is married" (Geisler/Archer), there are also difficulties with the claim that almah refers only to a virgin. The critics usually cite Proverbs 30:19 in response to apologist claims. Kenneth E. Nahigian of the Secular Web is one such critic, he writes in his article "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy?:"

"...one verse does seem to use 'almah in reference to a nonvirgin. This is Proverbs 30:19, which listed four things too marvelous to understand: the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man with a maiden ( 'almah). To say the least, "the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20, NAB). It seems odd that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace."⁹

It is interesting that Geisler cites Proverbs 30:19 as "among texts using almah to refer to a virgin"¹⁰ with no mention of the problems surrounding this interpretation or the current scholarship that puts this into question. The HarperCollins Bible Commentary says of Proverbs 30:19:

"The saying about the mysterious ‘ways’ (Prov. 30:18-19) may refer to lack of visible means of propulsion or movement that leaves no trace, with ‘the way of a man with a fertile woman’ as a reference to either procreation or sexual attraction generally."¹¹

Besides Proverbs 30:19, there is a very closely related Hebrew word alamoth (plural form of almah; see Archer’s quote which mentions the singular form) which accrues in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and Psalm 46:1, so close is this alamoth to almah that Gesenuis in his Hebrew Lexicon lists them under the same definition. The "context" according to Gesenuis suggests that this word also does not "suit" the definition of virginity.¹² Apologist Norman Geisler explains the critical view:

"Some critics use 1 Chronicles 15:20 and Psalm 46 as examples of ‘alma’ (or alamoth) referring to a married person. In Psalm 46 it is simply part of the title of the Psalm, ‘A Song for Alamoth.’ Nothing in the title or psalm text helps us understand what Alamoth means, let alone whether it refers to a married person. It may be a musical notation, as one for the young women’s choir to sing, or it could refer to some kind of musical accompaniment. The reference in 1 Chronicles 15:20 is similar. Music is being sung ‘with strings according to Alamoth." Whatever this may mean, it does not prove that alma means a married woman."¹³

Geisler makes an interesting point in his response, he says: "Whatever this may mean." I think, given the lack of information available on almah, and the questions of its use in 1 Chronicles 15:20, Psalms 46:1, and its highly controversial use in Proverbs 30:19, it would be more proper to just avoid the assertion that almah never means a "married woman" in every case. It is best to just deal with each almah in its own context.

Peter Kirby owner of XTIANITY mailing list (dominated by critics) thinks if Christians translate almah as virgin in Isaiah 7:14, then, they should have good reason to do so. He writes:

"Many Christians cite the alleged fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 in Jesus as evidence for the truth of Christianity. For this to be a cogent argument, they would have to show that the verse not only *could* be rendered "virgin" but *must* or *should* be so translated."¹⁴

Given the context in Isaiah with which we have to work with - almah gives no such mandatory meaning. According to biblical historian John Meier:

"The word almah is capable of being used of a woman up until the time she bears her first child. All the text need mean in Isaiah is that a young woman of marriageable age will soon conceive and bear a son. The woman may indeed be a virgin at the moment the prophecy is uttered. But that is not the point of the text, nor is there the slightest idea that she will remain a virgin when she conceives and bears the child."¹⁵

In other words, the Hebrew text refers simply to a woman called an almah, a young woman of marriageable age,¹⁶ who would soon loose her virginity in the conception of her son. If this interpretation is correct by Meier (a highly respected authority in biblical scholarship), this would preclude any reference to Christ’s birth. But did Matthew quote Isaiah 7:14 for that purpose anyway? Stay tuned!

Common Fallacies

One common fallacy among critics of the virgin birth is that there is another more specific word known as betulah that Isaiah should have used if he was predicting the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. According to the common critical view - betulah "exclusively meant" virgin. Peter Kirby writes:

"Bethulah exclusively meant virgin, indeed it was "the most common word used," but the allegedly inspired author of Isaiah chose to use almah..."¹⁷

This assertion is echoed by the Jewish scholar Rabbi Tovia Singer of Out Reach Judaism. He writes:

"Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah not alma. Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean ‘virgin."¹⁸

There are two aspects that need to be addressed here...

Aspect # 1

The negative tones of these critics suggest that if Isaiah had meant to predict Jesus Christ’s virgin birth seven hundred years earlier, he would have needed to use the Hebrew word betulah. But if Isaiah had chosen betulah, then the virgin birth conception would have also applied to the prophecy given to Ahaz three years later. Isaiah chose precisely the only word that could have applied to his prophecy for the almah (young woman) who was of virginity - who would then lose her virginity in the conception of her son. The sign that would follow that birth would be a child named Immanuel void of the attributes that accompany its meaning - but nevertheless a clear sign that God had spoken to them and that He was with them. Christ Jesus, centuries down the road did fit the meaning of that name (God with us) by the essence of who He claimed to be, and by His works.

So precise was Isaiah’s use of the word almah, that even critics such as Peter Kirby (see his underlined quote above) and Rabbi Singer acknowledge its unique usage, Rabbi Singer writes:

"In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word alma only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5)."¹⁹

Obviously Isaiah was aware of the significance of betulah and chose not to employ the word because it was not meant for Ahaz, and this is exactly were the misconception of the critics reside. In other words, their misconception is that Isaiah needed (but did not) to incorporate betulah into 7:14 to be a predictive prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. But was it a predictive prophecy for the virgin birth in the first place, or a predictive prophecy for something else?

If we accept Isaiah’s own word almah and define it as a "young woman" - then we may most accurately identify the meaning intended in the context of Isaiah. This is because nothing found before or after Isaiah 7:14 gives the impression of a woman who has not had intercourse. Then from there we can move on to what Matthew wrote in his own context (discussed later).

Aspect # 2

The second aspect of the critical view that betulah "can only mean virgin," is in fact, not true. There is a piece of evidence in Joel where we read:

 "Make sounds of grief like a virgin [betulah] dressed in haircloth for the husband [ba'al] of her early years."(BBE Joel 1:8 )

In this passage betulah is being use as a woman who had been married for quite some time and therefor not a virgin. I contacted Rabbi Singer and asked him how he interpreted the use of betulah in this instance, Rabbi Singer writes:

"Betula means a virgin and nothing else. This is a simple matter. Joel 1:8 does not say, nor would any text in the Bible say that the betula who had sexual relations. The fact that the betula has a husband of her youth confused you. I presume that you said to yourself "Ah, this betula has a husband, so she must not be a virgin." This is an error. The tragedy outlined in this text is the woman who was betrothed to a man but had not shared intimacy with him. In early times, a husband and wife were first betrothed, married but would wait for preparations to be completed - this was often a year period - until their marriage was consummated. Imagine the tragedy of such a virgin who lost her husband."²⁰ (e-mail correspondence 12/21/99)

Rabbi Singer is referring to a betrothed virgin, thus making the lamentation all the more poignant because the marriage had never been consummated. But, the use of ba'al (husband) in this verse, however, seems to imply the opposite. The word ba'al is never used in the Jewish Scriptures of the betrothed state, but only of a married man.

Beyond that, I consulted the authoritative Jewish Encyclopedia Judaica to see if Rabbi Singer is on to something here. In the article "Virgin - Virginity," it says of betulah:

"The biblical betulah, usually rendered 'virgin,' is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical state. Cognate Akkadian batultu (masculine, batulu) and Ugaritic btlt refer to 'an adolescent, nubile, girl.' That the woman who is so called need not necessarily be a virgo intacta is shown by the graphic account in a Ugaritic myth of the sexual relations of Baal with the goddess Anath, who bears the honorific epithet btlt (Pritchard, Texts, 142).²¹

I also consulted another important source of information from the Jewish Hebrew-English Dictionary by Reuben Alcalay who defines the word bethulah as a "virgin, young woman, girl, maid."²² Obviously the meaning does not focus exclusively on virginity. So here you have modern scholarly Jewish references that are at odds with Rabbi Singer’s bold assertion.

By way of short summary, these evidences are contrary to what both critics and Christians commonly think. The argument that betulah exclusively meant "virginity" is in fact faulty, and the argument that almah exclusively meant "virginity" is also faulty.

The Greek Translation of the Hebrew

The common Bible of the day when Jesus lived was that of the Septuagint, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was the Bible from which most of the New Testament writers quoted from, and Matthew was no exception. The translation process was done by that of the Jews, in which there were 70 translators. The short form of the name Septuagint (which means 70) is that of the "LXX," from this point on I will be referring to it as such.

It is in this LXX translation that Matthew gives a word for word quote in kione Greek. It is the assertion of the critic that Matthew cited a faulty translation and thus constitutes a mistake on Matthew's quotation as well as its use by the LXX translators in Isaiah 7:14. ²⁴   The reason that critics arrive at such a solution is because unlike the Hebrew word almah which seems to have a rather loose meaning, they believe that the Greek translation parthenos conveys the idea of exclusively meaning
"Virgin". But is this true? What makes this more confusing is that this strict view of parthenos is accepted by both Christians and critics. In fact, so convinced were the early Christians that parthenos only meant virgin, that they also convinced their critics. The Jew's in turn, introduced several newer Greek versions (Aquila, Theodotion, Lucien, and Symmachus) of the Old Testament where parthenos was all together dropped from the text and replace with neanis (young) in Isaiah 7:14. ²⁵  This view of parthenos in the strict sense of the meaning is why critics consider it a misquote of the Hebrew almah which does not carry the same sense. Most critics do not think that Matthew intentionally made an error because he was only following the Greek translation of the Hebrew.  They say it is only because he quoted a faulty translation (LXX) which used parthenos - that puts up a question mark. In essence, because both the majority of skeptics and Christians are under the impression that parthenos carries the exclusive idea of "virgin" there is a hostile collaboration of a type of ignorant straw man. What I mean is this: Christians are all too happy to accept this definition of parthenos because it confirms their convictions of Christ's virgin birth.  The critic will hold the Christian to his firm belief of the significance of parthenos and proceed to show him his misconceptions of the Hebrew word almah. But, in reality parthenos carries no such strict meaning.

The most glaring scriptural example of this wider meaning is its use of Dinah after she has been raped:

"And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force. 3 And he was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl [parthenos] and spoke tenderly to her [parthenos]." (NAS Genesis 34:2 )

Biblical historian Dr. Paul Meier says of this:

"Hence the Greek form of Isa 7:14 may have carried exactly the same sense as did the Hebrew original. We have no firm proof that Hellenistic Jew before the time of Jesus understood the Septuagint text in terms of a virginal conception."

The sense of parthenos in ancient Greek was often "girl" or "young woman;" such a woman was indeed usually a virgin, but there was no special emphasis on that.²⁷ (See the appendix on "Parthenos").   Based on this reasoning I think it is plausible that both almah and parthenos are interchangeable without losing or gaining any type meaning derived from them leaving the LXX translation correct. Remember we have shown scripturaly that both almah and parthenos can mean both a non-virgin and a virgin in their own contexts.

It seems that the translators of almah - that have translated it "virgin" (Isaiah 7:14, NASB), have probably been influenced by their own translation of "virgin" from parthenos (1:23, NASB), a meaning that may be an over-emphasis of Matthew’s original intent in bringing Isaiah 7:14 into his own context.

Context, Immanuel and Conclusion

At this point, we are faced with a very important question. When Matthew makes reference to Isaiah 7:14 did he intend to give a prophecy fulfillment for the virgin birth of Christ, or a prophecy fulfillment for a boy named Immanuel?

As mentioned earlier, many (if not most) biblical scholars believe that Isaiah 7:14 was not a predictive prophecy for the virgin birth. To accept that it does seems to stretch the principles of literary biblical exegetes in connecting Isaiah (7:14) with Matthew (1:23) for the sole purpose of the virgin birth. The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary states the situation concisely:

"It is clear, however, that in its own eighth-century B.C. context, Isa. 7:14 did not speak of the miraculous birth of Jesus centuries later. Neither the virginity of the woman, nor the miraculous birth of the child received any special emphasis."²⁸

So clear is it, that even supporters of the predicted virgin birth fulfillment are forced to admit that the two Gospels were not dependent on Isaiah 7:14, biblical scholar Spiros Zodhiates writes:

"The inspired, historical record of the virgin birth of our Lord does not depend upon Isaiah 7:14. That event was narrated by Matthew and Luke and was an integral part of their accounts. The fact of the virgin birth of Christ is completely independent of the O.T. passage. If Matthew had never quoted the Septuagint’s translation of Isaiah 7:14, we believe that Jesus would still have been born of the virgin Mary."²⁹

Zodhiates seems to be on to something here that he has not pursued as an interpretation or position. I believe that this default position is in fact a solid position. Let me explain...

In this study we have seen the problems that plague the meanings of almah, parthenos, and betulah in modern thinking on both sides of the issues. There must be a better understanding than basing the whole prophetic fulfillment of the virgin conception of Christ on the LXX translation of the Hebrew almah (LXX: parthenos) used in Isaiah 7:14. I believe that the better interpretation is in the context of both Matthew (1:18-23) and Luke’s (1:26-38) Gospels alone - independent of Isaiah’s (7:14) alleged prophecy for the specific purpose of a virgin birth. The Gospel accounts paint a clearer picture of the virgin birth, with phrases like:

"before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (Mat 1:18), "do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Mat. 1:20), "and did not know her [sexually] until she gave birth to a Son" (Mat. 1:25), "And Mary said to the angel ‘How can this be, since I know not a man’ [sexually] (Luk. 1:34).

In all of these verses, not once is parthenos used.³⁰ The quote in Matthew 1:23 has no such phraseology, but simply uses one common word parthenos that accrues 79 times in the LXX and the New Testament, with various meanings (the most significant of them in Gen. 34:3 after Dinah had been raped). The emphasis of Matthew taking the quote out of Isaiah would seem to be for the purpose of tying in the prophesied meaning of the name "Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14, Matt.1:23) into his own virgin birth story. Why do I say this? Because in Isaiah 7:14 there is no warrant in context or phraseology that would imply virginity, it simply says:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman [Heb. almah; Lxx parthenos] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Revised Standard Version)

Now look closely at how Matthew quotes it:

"All this happened in fulfillment of what the Lord said through the prophet, "The maiden [parthenos] will be pregnant and will have a son, And they will name him Immanuel - a word which means ‘God with us.’" (The New Testament, An American Translation by Edgar J. Goodspeed. Another translation that follows this type of translation, is "The Bible" by James Moffatt).

What is different about Matthew’s quote? There is extra emphasis on the meaning "Immanuel - a word which means ‘God with us.’" The prophetic fulfillment was in the meaning of the name "Immanuel," a fact that has been over looked. Critics are quick to point out that Jesus is never called "Immanuel," but Matthew seems to be emphasizing the meaning in the name and applying it to Christ in his narrative. Matthew interprets "Immanuel" to mean "God with us," and John seems to be aware of its implications by writing: "And the Word [Jesus] became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory..." (John 1:14). The confirmations of Christ’s deity are replete through-out the New Testament in His adult life. The meaning "God with us" set’s the tone for that in the virgin birth conception recorded by the writer of Matthew roughly thirty-five years after Jesus death. Jesus’ testimony and deeds probably seemed to fit the predictive prophecy given by Isaiah for a boy that would later be looked at as "God with us" (Matt. 1:23). The inherent characteristics of such a meaning seems to be applied to Jesus else where in the New Testament (John 1:1-3, John 1:14, John 20:28, Col. 2:9, etc...).

The noted biblical historian John Meier after considering all the data on the historicity of the virgin birth, stated:

"The end result of this survey must remain meager and disappointing to both defenders and opponents of the doctrine of the virginal conception."(31)

Here, Meier has identified the error in focus that Christians have jumped into in observation of Matthew 1:23. Christians want to support the testimony of the Gospel writers by using Isaiah 7:14 as an evidence of the virginity of Mary - that somehow the OT demonstrates that the Christ was foretold to be born of a virgin. However, what we should realize after a full examination of Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, is that belief in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is a matter of faith based on the testimony of the two gospel writers who have gained our trust. Those who view Matthew’s reference to Isaiah 7:14 as evidence of the virginity of Mary are looking in the wrong place for evidential support, and have misunderstood Matthew’s intention by referring to the OT passage. Christians are called to accept the testimony of the gospel writers - not just Matthew, but in Luke we find that it was an angel that said to Mary:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)

No evidence of any kind can possibly confirm this unique event, it is truly a matter of faith which is the "assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1).

After the final analysis, everything considered in this article should bring one’s understanding of Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 into sharper focus. The Christian focus has often been on the condition of the woman giving birth. Over-zealous evangelists want to focus on that aspect and make it appear to be a rather astounding example of an Old Testament prediction of the Christ in the virginity of His mother. But what is demonstrated here is that kind of approach is off-target. It appears most reasonable that Matthew’s concern is that the son born to Mary is in fulfillment of the name "Immanuel." Matthew, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, draws us back to Isaiah and shows us that Jesus fulfills in a more direct sense what it means to have "God with us." Matthew’s point identifies by reference who Jesus is and what He will do. The son born in Isaiah’s day was a sign, for Ahaz and the people of Judah, that God was with them, and that God would save them in their circumstance.   Matthew draws upon that instance for his context - that in Jesus, "God is with us," and God is going to save through Him.  Matthew introduced the comparison in 1:21 by quoting the angel who said, "She will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." He then completes the point in 1:23 by identifying this event of Jesus birth as a most meaningful and significant fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

------End-----

Appendix - Immanuel

In the Masoretic text "Immanuel" is written as two words "i'manu - el" literally meaning "with us-God." In every occurrence of the word in the Qumran text it is written as one word "I'manuel" (including 7:14; 8:8 and 8:10) indicating accepting the phrase as a proper name. Including Isaiah 8:10 which is translated "God is with us" by all texts but is recognized as a name rather than a phrase by Qumran.

================

Appendix - Parthenos

Parthenos Used Outside Of The Biblical Text

(In the following English translations, the word translated as "maiden" or
"girl" is "parthenos.")

Homer
Iliad, Book II, l. 514ff.:

And they that dwelt in Aspledon and Orchomenus of the Minyae were led by Ascalaphus and Ialmenus, sons of Ares, whom, in the palace of Actor, son of Azeus, Astyoche, the honoured maiden (parthenos), conceived of mighty Ares, when she had entered into her upper chamber; [515] for he lay with her in secret. And with these were ranged thirty hollow ships.
-----------------------------------
Pindar

Pythian 3
For Hieron of Syracuse, Horse Race:

[Antistrophe 2, ll. 32 ff.]
Knowing even then of her sleeping with Ischys, son of Elatus, and of her lawless deceit, he sent his sister, raging with irresistible force, to Lacereia, since the girl (parthenos) lived by the banks of Lake Boebias. [35] A contrary fortune turned her to evil and overcame her. And many neighbors shared her fate and perished with her; fire leaps from a single spark on a mountain, and destroys a great forest.
-------------------------------------
Sophocles

Trachiniae (ed. Sir Richard Jebb), l. 1219:
Heracles: Do you know, then, the maiden (parthenos), daughter of Eurytus? (That is, Iole, who is not a virgin.)
----------------------------------
Aristophanes, Clouds (ed. Jeffrey Henderson), l. 519:

I was still a girl, not yet allowed to have a child, so I exposed my child, and another girl (parthenos) picked it up for me, and you made sure that it was reared and educated generously.
-----------------------------------

Return to Article

===========

Footnotes:

1. Helpful comment from Brian Lawson.

2. The women and the son "Imannuel" of Isaiah 7:14 is a matter of speculation of who they belonged to. For those interested in the two running theories, see Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, 159 - 71, his view is that the woman is "a wife of Ahaz, whose son (perhaps Hezekiah) would represent the future of the Davidic dynasty." See also Clements, Isaiah, pg. 1-39, 85-88, Clements identifies the child as the prophet’s son. (Footnote in the JBL (Fall 2000), pg. 510)

Note: Some have suggested it was Ahaz's son, Hezekiah, the most prominent person of the period. However, he is disqualified from being the child since "when Ahaz ascended the throne, Hezekiah had already attained his ninth year"(Isaac Troki, Faith Strengthened, KTAV Publ. House, New York: 1970, p. 105.)

3. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pg. 760.

4. Bruce A. Ware (Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky). Cited on the back cover of the Updated New American Standard Bible.

5. H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. pg. 634.

6. For those interested in arguing that almah means virgin, you can consult the Jewish Hebrew concordance of Mandelkern. He gives as the meaning of the Hebrew word almah: "puella nubilis, virgo matura" (Solomon Mandelkern, Konkordantziah laTanach or Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae, Tel Aviv, 1978, p. 881). The translation of puella nubilis is marriageable child; the translation of virgo matura is mature virgin. We see that this dictionary gives as meaning a marriageable child, (of which it is expected in Israel that she is virgin); and it also gives as express meaning a virgin of mature age.

7. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pg. 760.

8. Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pg. 268.

9. Kenneth E. Nahigian, article: "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy?" ( http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2virgi93.html ).

10. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pg. 760.

11. HarperCollins Bible Commentary: ( http://www.sbl-site2.org/cgi-bin/SBL/loadTOC.php3?proverbs_toc.html   ).

12. H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. pg. 634.

13. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pg. 760.

14. Peter Kirby, article: Almah in Isaiah 7:14, Peter Kirby comments that: "I removed the almah article [from the web] for reasons unrelated -- it was poorly formatted, but moreover someone had commented to me that the matter was a piddling affair, to which I had to agree. (Xtianity list 3/17/01).

15. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, pg. 243 (footnote).

16. Ibid, pg. 222.

17. Peter Kirby, article: Almah in Isaiah 7:14,Peter Kirby comments that: "I removed the almah article [from the web] for reasons unrelated -- it was poorly formatted, but moreover someone had commented to me that the matter was a piddling affair, to which I had to agree. (Xtianity list 3/17/01).

18. Rabbi Singer’s article can be found here:   http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

19. Rabbi Singer’s article (footnote) can be found here: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

20. Rabbi Tovia Singer, e-mail correspondence on 12/21/99.

21. Encyclopedia Judaica, article "Virgin,Virginity." Pritchard, Texts, pg. 142.

22. Reuben Alcalay, Hebrew-English Dictionary.

23. Footnote and citation amended.

24. Rev. G.R. Gaudreau, The Virgin Birth of Jesus? Not On Your Life! Rev. Gaudreau assertion is very common amongst critics, he writes: "The translators of the LXX used the Greek word "parthenon", but this was a mistake." ( http://members.nbci.com/grgaud/ap_virginbirth.html   )

25. James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 2, pg. 546. Also see, H.W.F. Gesenius, Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. pg. 634.

26.  Ammended reference and quote. (7/02/03)

27. See G. Delling, "parthenos," TDNT 5 (1968) 827.  

28. Harper's Bible Dictionary (Paul J, Achtemeier, gen. ed., 1985), page 419).

29. Spiros Zodhiates, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible - Lexical Aids to the Old Testament, pg. 1759.

30. It should be noticed that Luke 1:27 uses parthenos, but it is in the general sense and does not necessarily reflect the condition of her sexual history. It is not til Luke 1:34 that the writer introduces her virginity. In this case, we can know by context the virginity of the "parthenos", and not by the nature of the word itself.

31. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking The Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, Pg. 222.

 

Look for some of these reference books at  https://www.christianbook.com home of CBD, Christian Book Distributors.

---