Shmuel Silberman
"Therefore the L-rd
will give you a sign. Behold the young woman (almah) is pregnant and will give
birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14)."
For two thousand years
Jews have viewed the Virgin Birth myth as an oddity. The New Testament reading
of Isaiah 7:14 is such a blatant mistranslation and is so wrenched from context
that Jews have assured themselves that they do not need missionaries to
understand their own Bible.
The Jewish rejection of
"virgin birth" is based on at least ten reasons:
1)
Betulah definitely means "virgin" (see Leviticus 21:14- the High
Priest can marry only a virgin; Deuteronomy 22:14- a groom claims he did not
find betulim, signs of virginity, in his bride). Isaiah 7:14 does not use the
word betulah.
2)
Almah, mentioned in Isaiah 7:14, means "young woman." It does not
mean virgin (Proverbs 30:18-20 speaks of an adulterous almah!).
3)
Christian claim support based on the Greek translation. In fact the Greek word
for almah (Parthenos) is used to describe Dinah after she was raped (Genesis
34:2-4)!
4)
Five times does Isaiah say the word betulah, but not in 7:14, which supposedly
speaks of a virgin birth (23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5)!
5)
Context: King Achaz is worried that he will suffer defeat by two foreign kings
(7:2). Isaiah reassures the king that a woman will give birth to Immanuel (the
name means: G-d is with us) . The birth of Immanuel is a "sign" of
G-d's rescue (7:14-17).
Achaz
will not be reassured by a "sign" that Jesus will be born centuries
later. He needs G-d's salvation now.
6)
Ha-almah does not mean a young woman but the young woman: someone known to
Isaiah and Achaz.
7)
Isaiah 7:16 says that Achaz's enemy kings will fall before the son grows up-
not in Jesus' time. This prophecy was fulfilled (II Kings 16:5-9, 15:29-30).
8)
7:16 says that while the son is growing up he will "not know to reject bad
and choose good." How can this refer to a divine being?
9)
7:16 says of the son, "he will eat cream and honey" (enjoy
prosperity-see 7:22). When did Jesus eat cream and honey?
10)
A "sign" must be visible e.g. a rainbow (Genesis 9:13). Mary's
alleged virginity was not visible to anyone. Isaiah 8:18 says that children are
a "sign" for that is visible.
The evidence against the
Christian myth is overwhelming, yet Michael Brown persists in justifying this
myth (see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3 pp.17-32 ). We do not
fault him for offering unconvincing apologetics, for it is a hopeless task.
Brown maintains that both
betulah and almah are ambiguous, so either can be used for virgin or
non-virgin. Therefore usage of almah in 7:14, maintains Brown, is no reason to
reject the virgin birth. This a dim view of the Hebrew language that Isaiah can
use no term to clearly mean virgin when that is supposedly his entire point.
He cites a few verses
that mention betulah although the issue is not virginity per se. Isaiah 23:4
says, "I have never labored, never given birth, never raised young men or
virgins." Ezekiel 9:6 speaks as: "slay to death old man, young man,
virgin, young children and women." The word "virgin" is used,
but the point is "young woman."
On this basis, Brown
argues that betulah does not necessarily mean virgin. This is completely false.
That "virgin" is a Biblical expression for unmarried woman does not
detract from the literal meaning. In Biblical thought unmarried women are
expected to be virgins.
Logically, Brown must at
least show that betulah can mean a non-virgin. Rebecca is described in Genesis
24:16 as, "a betulah, whom no man had known." Brown argues that if betulah
clearly means virgin, the rest of the phrase is superfluous. Even if we
disregard that parallel expressions are common in Scripture, Brown provides no
reason to reject the traditional view that the double expression is meant to
include other types of physical intimacy.
Job pledges "not to
look lustfully at a betulah" (31:1). Brown thinks that since Job has no
way of knowing who is a virgin, he cannot mean virgin. When we reiterate that
virgin is a Biblical convention for unmarried woman, Brown's point is moot.
Isaiah metaphorically
refers to
Finally we come to a
verse where betulah and widowhood are explicitly linked: "Lament- like a
betulah dressed in sackcloth for the husband of her youth (Joel 1:8)."
Here Brown violates a basic rule of interpretation: Scripture in the light
interprets Scipture in the dark. Theoretically this verse could be speaking,
metaphorically, of a betrothed virgin or a consummated woman (in ancient Jewish
culture betrothal and consummation were months apart). Scripture elsewhere
mentions betulah in full clarity and so reveals Joel's intention: a betrothed
virgin.
Even if there would be a
verse where betulah means non-virgin or a verse where almah means virgin,
betulah is certainly a clearer expression of virginity. If Isaiah wanted to
make a point that a birth would be virginal, undoubtedly he would have not have
said almah.
What of the objection
that Isaiah is in context clearly speaking of a woman in his time- centuries
before Mary? Brown claims that there is "no record of fulfillment"
(no verse says "and so Immanuel was born"). In fact, there is no need
for any "record of fulfillment." If Isaiah says he will be born in
the contemporary generation, and he clearly does say this (7:16), Immanuel is
not Jesus.
Let us look at 7:16 in
full: "For before the child will know to refuse evil and choose good, the
land whose two kings you dread shall be deserted." Achaz dreads the two
kings of
The evidence against the
New Testament is so overwhelming that Brown makes a telling concession. He
admits that Immanuel was born in Isaiah's time but claims, like other
missionaries, that 7:16 is a dual prophecy. In other words, there are two
Immanuels: the real Immanuel and Jesus.
This is totally
preposterous. Isaiah gives no indication whatsoever that this is a dual
prophecy (indeed dual prophecy is unbiblical). The story surrounding Immanuel's
conception has no resemblance to the Nativity of Jesus. What two kings suffered
a downfall because of Jesus? Do Christians believe there was a virgin birth in
Isaiah's time, in addition to Jesus?!. This explanation is nothing but a
desperate attempt to hide from an obvious disproof. Dual prophecy is as
baseless as triple or quadruple prophecy.
Finally, the frequency of
virgin births in pagan mythology raises great suspicion that the New Testament
myth is of pagan, not Biblical origin.
Summary: Betulah
definitely means virgin, and Isaiah certainly would have used this word had he
spoken of a virgin birth. Immanuel is obviously born in Isaiah's time, and the
deliverance his name represents (G-d is with us) was predicted to be fulfilled,
and was fulfilled, in those days. Mary has no more to do with Immanuel than
does the mother of Elvis Presley.
Note: some
of the ideas in this essay are taken from Tovia Singer's Let's Get Biblical