Francesca Stavrakopoulou was interviewed on BBC Radio 5 live about a variety of things related to the Christmas story: “Hebrew expert: ‘Virgin Birth a Mistranslation’”. One of those things is Matthew 1:23′s use of Isaiah 7:14 to argue that Jesus’ “virgin birth” was foretold by the prophet. She argues that since the Hebrew עלמה means “young woman”, unlike the LXX’s παρθένος, which means “virgin”, that the whole concept is based on a “mistranslation”.
T. Michael Law contest this claim, arguing that παρθένος is used in the LXX of Genesis to describe “young woman”, not necessarily “virgin”, and therefore it is an acceptable translation. You can read his response here: “Was the Virgin Birth a ‘mistranslation’?”
Somehow Mark Goodacre was able to produce a podcast in response already. I haven’t listened to it yet, but his podcast are always good: NT Pod 64: Is the Virgin Birth based on a Mistranslation?
Enjoy!
__________
December 20, 2012 at 10:43 am
I’m confused.
Does parthenon in Matthew mean ‘young woman’, as in the verse he copied from the LXX?
December 20, 2012 at 10:50 am
In Law’s post he does argue that parthenos is used in LXX Genesis with the meaning of “young woman”, therefore the claim that parthenos is a mistranslation of almah is incorrect. But that doesn’t mean that Matthew means “young woman” because in the context of Matthew he is arguing for a virgin birth and since parthenos has the semantic range that allows for virgin that is why Matthew uses Isaiah 7:14.
December 20, 2012 at 10:54 am
Got it!
Matthew knew that ‘parthenon’ is used in LXX Genesis with the meaning of “young woman”, and used the same word to mean ‘virgin’.
December 20, 2012 at 11:12 am
I presume Matthew’s familiarity with Genesis LXX. The word can mean “young woman” or “virgin”, which is why Stavrakopoulou misspoke when she said it was a mistranslation of the Hebrew, because it can mean “young woman”.
December 20, 2012 at 11:12 am
FWIW, I listened to Goodacre’s podcast, and it is worth the time. He provides further, useful insights.
December 20, 2012 at 11:30 am
If Law argues parthenos means maiden – he doesn’t know his Etymology.
Parthenos was the daughter Apollo and Chrysothemis. Parthenos killed herself while still a virgin. Because of the tragedy of her death Apollo created the constellation ‘Virgo’ im memory of her. We call the constellation ‘Virgin’ but her name to the Greeks was Parthenos.
To call someone parthenos in Greek was to call them a virgin idiomatically (by allusion), not ‘young woman’. So the argument is unfounded (that parthenos means ‘young woman’). This doesn’t prove almah was intended to mean virgin in Hebrew, but it certainly proves the translators of the LXX interpreted it that way.
December 20, 2012 at 11:33 am
I hope (1) you’ve read Law’s article before making this comment and (2) that you realize that Law is one of the foremost up-and-coming scholars on the LXX. What he has said is that parthenos is used in Genesis LXX to describe a young woman who is not a virgin; therefore, there is precedent for this use.
December 20, 2012 at 11:52 am
Brian, I confess guilt. I haven’t (yet) read his article – but because you call me to account, offer the promise to read it in its entirety, before offering further comments in this thread. That said, whether I have no not, refute Law’s claim through etymological evidence which may or may not be covered under his expertise.
One’s credentials (or lack of them) have absolutely no bearing on truth or falsity of one’s statements (argumentum ad verecundiam).I have no doubt he is an up-and-coming scholar on the LXX, imminently more qualified to be respected as an expert. Still, lack of qualifications on my part do not make what I said untrue, just as an abundance of qualifications on his part does not make his position true.
December 20, 2012 at 11:57 am
Nevertheless, credentials should be respected. If I had a lump under my flesh I wouldn’t wave off a doctor rambling about his fallibility in light of his credentials. I would respect his credentials, ask for his assistance, and if I continued to disagree seek a second opinion.
As regards etymology we should see that words evolve. Even if the word has a particular root it is not restricted to that root. If a word’s use morphs over time, and we can observe that evolution, that we can’t denounce people for using the word in a new way. If the word parthenos at its root evoked the image of a virgin, but it evolved over time to a broader definition (in this case exemplified in Genesis LXX), then we have observed the broader definition.
For example, I can say “Andrew is a cool guy.” I imagine the etymology of this word does not allow for “neat” or “impressive”, but no one would demand that I must have been referring to your temperature.
December 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Origen dealt with this against Celsus (cf. book 1, ch 34). I think it’s interesting to hear her talk about Hebrew as though it’s superior to Greek, and as though it’s a logical consequence for her that the Hebrew “says something different” than the Greek (a “something” that bolsters her presumption). I don’t mean at all to sound harsh, only that I was a little puzzled by that type of thinking. So I was glad to hear Drs Law and Goodacre address her logic that presumes such a “mistranslation.” Thanks for the links!
December 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Indeed, there were quite a few unstated presumptions in here answer(s) that bothered me. Of course, the interviewers ate from her hand, but what should we expect? I think Law and Goodacre point out where she says this in absolute terms that might be a tad more flexible that she allows.
December 20, 2012 at 1:08 pm
3 other considerations about interpreting Isaiah 7:14 in pre Christ Jewish culture:
1) The “mistranslation” charge is fundamentalist/literalist in scope. There are ANE OT Hebrew examples where almah can mean virgin and bethulah not mean virgin. IMO, context is critical moreso than arguing how folks 3000 years ago used the 2 terms technically as if we can always know. We don’t, we have a clue is all. They didn’t even write in the same Hebrew alphabet we have today.
2) ANE Jewish culture had a “divine intervention , miraculously created unqiue birth” tradition with Issac’s conception and birth and since the restoration of Israel and Messiah were to come via Issac, it is easy to see why the LXX Jewish translators chose virgin/parthenos there since they were dealing with a “sign” from Yahweh relating to a special birth announcement.
3) The term rendered in English as “a sign” in LXX is probably the same term John used repeatedly in his Gospel account, “semeion”. Divine Miracle in other words.
IF the Hebrew term has the same connotation, all the more reason to think the almah having this child is a virgin, a normal young maiden PG by sex having a kid was everyday stuff,not a Divine “sign”.
Contextually and tradition factored in, the choice of parthenos/virgin makes sense in the BC to a Jew. It makes a lot more now since the Gospel writer appropriated this prediction to Jesus as the virgin born Emmanuel Isaiah foresaw. At least to me it does.
December 20, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Brian, as promised I’ve listened to Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s clip and read Timothy Michael Law’s response.
First, with respect to your response about believing a doctor, I didn’t say ‘experts’ couldn’t provide sound evidence, using sound logic; rather I said the truth of any argument (even ones presented by ‘experts’) stand according to their own merit, independent of the person making the argument. That one is an expert has no influence on the frequency one says truth things.
It is the evidence AND the logic that should be considered when assessing the truth of the argument. If you had a lump under your flesh and your doctor said it was harmless, it isn’t your doctor’s credentials that make it harmless or not. Waving off a doctor’s rambling about fallibility, despite their credentials – is absolutely valid if that same ‘expert’ frequently presented false conclusions using fallacious logic. As we can see from the Pharisees, being an expert means only that one has more ‘chance’ of leading others to false conclusions, rather than having a greater chance of being correct. (Therefore, it poses the danger bystanders fail to become fully convinced in their own minds instead deferring judgement to the opinions of the ‘experts’ because they’re experts).
With respect to Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s comments – she was asked if Jesus had brothers and if he was eldest. She asserted that Jesus must NOT have been the eldest of the family because he was unmarried! What? How does that follow? That’s a great example of the informal fallacy of accident (faulty generalization, or ‘a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid’). If that is how she reasons about Jesus, using fallacious logic, she hardly needs to be refuted expert or no.
However, I agree with Timothy Michael Law’s conclusion that the translation of parthenos was not erroneous, however I don’t accept his preposition that it too meant ‘young girl’. I still hold it means ‘virgin’, and thus reveals something about how the translators of LXX saw the Isaiah quote . Law’s example of parthenos for Rebekah doesn’t disprove the ‘virgin’ meaning or establish his preposition as true. The verses in which parthenos have been used for Rebekah were before she was married – she was still a virgin, and likely just having come of age. Outside of biblical translation parthenos means virgin.
That said, I’m motivated to look at all of the instance of parthenos in the LXX to see if it is ever applied to a non-virgin.
December 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm
I don’t know that Law is saying that the translator of Isaiah 7:14 meant “young woman” or “virgin”, but merely that parthenos has a broad enough semantic range to mean either “young woman” or “virgin”, as evidence by how it is used to describe a young woman who is not a virgin in Genesis LXX, so Stavrakopoulou’s statement that it is a “mistranslation” is misguided because it has the ability to to include the idea of “young woman” like almah.
December 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm
I agree. I believe in either case it’s something closer to the English word ‘girl’. The implication it means ‘virgin’ is just that – implication, though strongly so.
Russian has a similar word ‘девушка’, which doesn’t guarantee the virginity of the subject, but in common usage contrasts with ‘дама’ or ‘жена’ and therefore carries the implication.
This is how I see the Hebrew.
December 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm
I don’t know Russian, but something like “young girl” or “maiden” in English seems to be somewhat analogous.
December 20, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Actually according to Jerome Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and the quotes followed the Hebrew not the greek. It was also been attested that the Hebrew Matthew was without a birth account. The source of the birth accounts for both Matthew and Luke was the gospel of James which probably Justin used when he translated and interpreted Matthew into greek form. He also had in his possession a gospel that was brought to Rome by Marcion which also was without a birth account.Justin believed in Greek mythology where Gods conceived in mortal women
December 20, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Interesting theories.
Pingback: The Virginity of Mary and Hermeneutics « Cryptotheology
December 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm
What might help clear it up is to take into consideration Matthew’s account of Mary being pregnant before the consummation of the marriage, and the angel telling Joseph not to put her away, because that which is conceived in Mary is “of the Holy Ghost”. With that in mind, what do you think Matthew would say if asked about his use of the word “parthenos” ? It seems like Matthew’s meaning would lean towards “virgin”. And if not, the point is moot, since Matthew’s account of the story clearly defines Mary as being a virgin, since she was conceived by the Holy Ghost, which would trump the debate over the meaning of the word, IMO.
December 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm
To Brian Leport,
Brian, the more I look at this, the more I think I might not be understanding what the issue is here, and I have spoken too soon and presumptuously.
Is the issue over Matthew’s use of the word “parthenos” ?
Or is the issue about the meaning of the word “almah” , whether it can be taken to mean “virgin” as well as “young woman ?
December 21, 2012 at 3:36 pm
The primary issue is over whether or not the LXX used a word with a broad enough semantic range to gloss the Hebrew correctly. In other words can parthenos mean “young woman” like almah or is parthenos restricted to the meaning “virgin” making it a possible mistranslation of almah.