There are those who doubt that the above verse of Isaiah refers to a virgin.  They claim that the original Hebrew text uses the word “almah” which means “young maiden”.  They continue, by saying that Isaiah in other parts of the book uses the word “bethulah” also, but not in 7:14.  To them, this is clear evidence that Isaiah is not referring to a certain virgin that would give birth to a son, but, that the Septuagint translators when translating the book mistakenly used the word “virgin” when translating the word “almah”.

They also claim that Matthew (1:23) and Luke (1:26, etc.), in their desire to convince that Jesus was indeed the Christ, had purposely written that Jesus was born of a virgin, supposedly to verify Isaiah’s prophecy.

We need to respond to this claim, since this issue was brought up by the extremely cunning Porphyrios during the 3^rd century A.D.

To begin with, let’s examine what Isaiah had said:

Ezekiel 7:14:  “For this, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Emmanuel.”

There are 51 verses in the Old Testament in which the word “bethulah” is used.  It is our conviction that, first of all, the word “bethulah” does not always signify a virgin; secondly, that the word “almah”  at times indeed refers to a virgin, and that –judging by the trends of that era-  the word always meant “virgin”; thirdly, even if the translation had the word “young maiden” instead of “virgin”, or, if Isaiah had indeed implied “a young maiden”, even so, that young woman would have been a virgin.

The fact that the word “bethulah” does not always mean “virgin”, is evident in various verses of the Old Testament.

In Genesis, we note:

Genesis 24: 15,16: 15 And it happened, before he had finished speaking, that behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, came out with her pitcher on her shoulder. 16 Now the young woman was very beautiful to behold, a virgin (bethulah); no man had known her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up.

Genesis 24: 43: 43 behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass that when the virgin (almah)  comes out to draw water, and I say to her, “Please give me a little water from your pitcher to drink”…

In verse 16, Rebecca is referred to as “bethulah”; but that word was obviously not adequate enough to let us know that she was a virgin, thus, the author added the clarification that “no man had known her” to that day.

Whereas, in verse 43, Rebecca is referred to as “almah”, which was obviously an appropriate term for the author of Genesis to show that Rebecca was a virgin.  The author of Genesis did not add any clarification after the word “almah”, that “no man had known Rebecca”, obviously because the word “almah” implies the absence of carnal relations.

There are quite a number of instances where the use of the word “bethulah” is accompanied by the clarification of “not having carnal knowledge”.

In Joel 1:8 we read: 8 Lament like a bride (bethulah) girded with sackcloth, for the husband (ba’al)  of her youth.

We notice here that a bride – in other words, a woman who has had carnal relations – is referred to as “bethulah”.   Normally, if the word “bethulah” signified “virgin”, it would be inappropriate to use it for a married woman, who is mourning for her “virginal” husband, i.e., the husband whom she was married to, a very long time ago (=from the time she was a virgin).

This last point is very important, because some people insist that the “bride” mentioned in the above verse is merely betrothed (and not wed), and therefore has no carnal relations as yet.  However, this mode of expression denotes a very long period of time (hence she cannot still be engaged), as is apparent in the wording of Proverbs 5:18: 18 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth.

Furthermore, the betrothed of a young woman is called “ish” and not “ba’al”, which is always used when referring to a married man, and not one who is betrothed.  The word “bethulah” does not chiefly imply “virgin”; it signifies the young woman who lives in her father’s house.

The word “almah” is used 6 times in the Old Testament (Genesis 24: 43, Exodus 2: 8, Song of Solomon 1: 3 and 6: 8, Isaiah 7: 14, Psalms 86: 25).  In none of these verses is it used to mean “a married woman” (i.e. one who is not a virgin).

But even in the languages of other peoples of the Middle East, the equivalent word to “bethulah” does not necessarily signify “virgin” (in its biological sense).   For example, the Accadian word “batultu” basically denotes an age group.  Only when it is within a special context, does it imply “virgin”.   In the Ugarit texts, the word “btlt” is the usual characterization of Anat, Baal’s wife.  In Aramaic texts, we read of a woman “btwlt” who is in labour.

At any rate, if Isaiah had prophesied that a …non-virgin was to give birth to a son, it would not have been much of a “sign given by God”.   After all, for a non-virgin to give birth to a son is nothing wondrous or unusual; nor is it a miracle sent by God so to speak, since all women that give birth are naturally not virgins.

In other words, it would have been illogical for Isaiah to speak of a non-virgin giving birth to a son, and present it as a miracle.   Even if the word “almah” does not precisely denote “virgin”, but simply “young maiden” – a young woman who is not yet married – Isaiah would still not have referred to a birth by a non-virgin as something miraculous.  All of the young (unmarried) women of that time were virgins.

Saint Basil the Great in his “Interpretation of Isaiah, p. 464, writes of the allegations of the Judeans (and of Porphyrios):

«The Jews are resisting the publication of the Septuagint edition, saying that the word “Virgin” does not agree with the Jewish view, instead it should be “the Young Maiden”,  in that it implies a young woman who is in the prime of her life, and not to a woman who is unfamiliar with wedlock”.

To which, Saint Basil replied:

“It was an omen for something enormous and an exhibition that was not familiar to the common habits of people. Otherwise, why should you wonder, how one of the many women, who lives with a man, becomes the mother of a child?  How then can it also be, for a child born of fleshly desire to be named Emmanuel? (Emmanuel = the Lord is amongst us)  So, if one who is not a virgin had given birth, what would the “sign” be (that was prophesied)? And if that birth was not –according to the many- a truly divine one, then how is the presence of Emmanuel explained?”

Essentially, what Saint Basil is saying is:  where is the miracle, if a married woman became the mother of a child?  And if that was considered the “sign”, in other words the miracle, then, the way it was born must have been unusual.  If it was the usual kind of birth, then it would not have been called a miracle.  If it wasn’t a virgin who was to give birth, then where is the miracle?  Saint Basil also presents us with examples, in Deuteronomy 22: 27 and Kings III 1: 3-4, where virgins are referred to as “maidens”.

Even if Isaiah had used the word “almah” instead of “bethulah”, he still implied the same thing, i.e., that a virgin was to give birth to a son. Otherwise, the prophesying of this miracle (wondrous sign) would not make any sense. The Septuagint translators had very appropriately translated the word “almah” as “virgin”, because that is precisely what Isaiah wanted to stress:  that a woman, who had no carnal relations, was to bear a son. That is what constituted a miracle and a “sign”.

 

By John Tachos

Greek text

Translation by A. N.