The biblical doctrine
of the virgin birth is undoubtedly best known from Matthew 1:23, but many
Christians are also likely aware that Matthew is quoting from Isaiah 7:14, and
some Christians are undoubtedly aware that Matthew’s quotation from Isaiah is
taken from the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX for
short) and not from the Hebrew Masoretic text.
When one consults the Hebrew version, it is discovered that the word
used in Isaiah 7:14 which is translated ‘virgin’ in the LXX can either be
translated ‘young woman’ or ‘virgin’ (and is more often translated ‘young
woman’), and in some modern Christian versions of the Bible (such as the
Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible and the Good News Bible) Isaiah
7:14 actually is translated ‘young woman.’
But like most other
supposedly “new” interpretations of central Christian doctrines, this
interpretation is something that was considered and rejected by the early
church. The first discussion of Jewish
interpretations of Isaiah 7:14 is found in Justin Martyr’s document to survive
from Dialogue with Trypho, he writes,
“since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of
Isaiah it is not said, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ but, ‘Behold, the
young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;’ and [since] you explain the
prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor
to discuss.”[1]
Irenaeus, meanwhile,
also refers to various people who have interpreted Isaiah 7:14 as if it were speaking
of a ‘young woman’ rather than to a ‘virgin’, and, in an extremely important
passage, he refutes this interpretation.
Irenaeus writes the following:
God,
then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of
the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the
Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a
son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both
Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten
by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous
dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which
proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of
the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes
and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much
before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion
that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation
upon these words.”[2]
Translating
the first part of the above passage into simpler English, Irenaeus begins by saying
that two Greek converts to Judaism (by the names of Theodotion of Ephesus and
Aquila of Pontus) argued that Isaiah 7:14 should be understood as ‘Behold a
young woman shall conceive and bring forth a son.” Immediately following that, he mentions that
the Ebionites (those ???) follow this interpretation and add that Joseph (and
not the Holy Spirit) was the biological father of Jesus.
Irenaeus’
argument against this is as good as any argument that could be made by a modern
Christian apologist. He naturally
assumes that the book of Isaiah was actually written by Isaiah and that since
Isaiah lived while Hezekiah was king of Judah, that it was written before the
Jews were taken captive to Babylon and therefore before the Medes and Persians conquered
Babylon. Then, Irenaeus points out that Isaiah
(and the rest of the Old Testament) was translated from Hebrew into Greek by
the Jews themselves long before Christ Jesus was born, and that those Jewish
translators decided that the proper meaning of Isaiah 7:14 was “the virgin
shall conceive.” Irenaeus then concludes
by indicating that God arranged it so that this translation would be made before
the birth of His Son to prevent the Jews from arguing that it really referred
to a ‘young woman’.
Although
Irenaeus did not make this last point, it can also be added that the LXX was in
wide use among first century Jews. In
fact, we have comments that have survived from both Josephus[3]
and Philo[4]
testifying that the LXX translation was regarded with divine accuracy). And, although arguments from silence are
notoriously weak, it can be suggested that since there is not any evidence of
this translation being questioned before the time of Christ, it can be
concluded that it was regarded as the correct translation by Old Testament Jews
until such time as those Jews who rejected Christianity found it necessary to
reinterpret the passage so it could not be used by Christians as support for
the Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Messiah.
[1]Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 43, in Ante-Nicene Fathers ed. by Alexander
Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), I, 216.
[2]Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 21
in Ante-Nicene Fathers ed. by
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), I,
451.
[3]Josephus, Antiquities Book 12, Chapter 2,
Paragraphs 11-14, in The Works of
Josephus translated by William Whiston (:Hendrickson, 1987), pp.
313-315.
[4]Philo, On the Life of Moses, II Chapter V (25) – VIII (46) in The Works of Philo translated by C.D.
Yonge (:Hendrickson, 1993), pp. 493-495.
