Response to...

"The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah"

Part II - The Isaiah 7.14 passage... [update: Mar 30/2K--"is the tense of the verb in Is 7.14 really PRESENT, instead of FUTURE?"] [ Major Update/draft of the linguistic data: Jan/2002]

Birth Prophecies
There are a number of alleged messianic prophecies about Jesus' birth: prophecies about the location, manner, and time of his birth, about his genealogy, and about events which were to occur at the time of his birth. Probably the most famous of these prophecies is the prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin.

"controversial"--YES!; "famous"--Maybe. I personally think the Bethlehem one is more 'famous' because the Pharisees try to use it AGAINST Jesus in the gospel of John. Just my opinion, though.

Before we get too far into this, let me first comment on the significance of this prophecy for the Christian belief-system, and then for its significance in 'apologetic' endeavors.

I accepted this passage as being Messianic initially on the testimony of Matthew. I consider him to be a MUCH BETTER JUDGE of the prophetic 'status' of an OT passage than I, due to his cultural continuity with the OT, his closeness to the 'sources' of that understanding, his special 'status' in Jesus' establishment of the early church--that of an major recorder, and his superior knowledge of the languages (relative to mine). If he understands 'almah' as 'virgin', I am not sure I have a better base of data from which to 'argue him down'.

Without his remarks on Is 7.14, I am not sure that I would have seen a very close connection between the virgin birth of Jesus and the Immanuel passage. (As I will show later, this 'lack of perception' on my part would probably have been INCORRECT, due to the exegetical clues in the passage itself.). Many evangelical (even conservative evangelical) scholars do NOT see a "close" connection, but neither do they see that as (a) critical; or (b) Matthew's intent. Opinions are divided on this passage, and I hope to show both sides of the understanding.

So, WITHIN the Christian worldview (which for me is validated by other means than the fulfilled prophecy of Is 7.14!!!!), I accept the messianic status of the passage on reasonable grounds, relative to my paradigm community.

Now, OUTSIDE the Christian worldview, in perhaps the realm of apologetic discussions, Isaiah 7.14 is NOT A PASSAGE I would adduce to PROVE either the supernaturalness of the Bible (from fulfilled prophecy) NOR the messiahship of Jesus. The data it gives us is too easily 'suspended' on the basis of general exegetical considerations, some of which Jim will articulate below. To at least my Western mind, the connection does 'jump out at me' like perhaps Micah 5. 2 or Zech 11. So, although I will interact with Jim on this passage (for I DO think the data is AGAINST his grounds for dismissal of it), I do NOT want to give the impression that I consider this passage a STRONG ARGUMENT for Christian claims.

The gospels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-35) both claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, but only Matthew (1:23) appeals to the Hebrew scriptures as an explanation for why this should be the case. The verse appealed to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."

Actually, Matthew doesn't supply a very causal 'why' in this passage, just as many of his other OT citations are more 'loose' than 'tight'. Matthew's reference to "all this" (totou de holon) has a wider reach than just to the conception: his narrative starts after Mary has become pregnant, and ends with the declaration that "He will save His people from their sins". The 'all this' seems to refer to the group of events (conception, prophecy, announcement) rather than just the conception. Even the verse citation might have NOTHING to do with the virginity aspect, but only with the 'Immanuel' aspect.

Of course, we need to discuss this further, but we should note already that Matthew may not be focusing on the virginity aspect at all. He might be only interested in the 'God with us' part (perhaps indicated by his translating that specific word).

In fact, in the Luke account, the virginity of Mary is only a 'oddity' for Luke the Physician--the passage focuses on the Davidic heritage and Ruling Sonship (messianic themes, present in our Isaiah passage). His emphasis is on the identify of the son--as the promised messiah--as Matthew too seems to be focused on the Divine Visitation aspect.

So, although most discussion on this topic/passage focuses here on the 'virginity' aspect of the prophecy, this might be out-of-synch with what Matthew was all about.

 

There are a number of difficulties with this passage. As many have noted, the Hebrew word translated as "virgin" in this verse is "almah," which is more accurately translated simply as "young woman." The Hebrew word "bethulah" means "virgin." In the book of Isaiah, "bethulah" appears four times (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5), so its author was aware of the word. In the New American Standard translation of the Bible, all other appearances of "almah" are translated simply as "girl," "maid," or "maiden" (viz: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8). Thus the claimed fulfillment adds a biologically impossible condition which is not even present in the original prophecy.[2]

Here we get into the first issue.
 

This is not as obvious as it seems (although Jim's overall position is not really dependent on it); nor does the significance of the passage diminish if Jim is correct linguistically. As I mentioned earlier, there are evangelical scholars on both sides (or rather, all sides--since there are a number of options on this one!) of the question.

Let me start first by giving the opinion of the excellent OT/Tanaach scholar John Walton (in NIDOTTE) who takes a less-traditional view (i.e. the virginity aspect of the word is not important), even though the lexical data is supportive of the 'alma as virgin' position:

"We conclude, then, that applied to a female, the term [almah] refers to one who has not yet borne a child and as an abstraction refers to the adolescent expectation of motherhood. This would be captured in Eng. by a combination of the terms “nubility” and “fertility”—a woman so described is full of childbearing potential. When applied to a male it [elem] describes a virile young man, (or, more neutrally, “a strapping young man”) and as an abstraction refers to youthful virility. None of the overlapping near synonyms refer as explicitly to childbearing interests and status. The passage that is least compliant with this profile is Exod 2:8, for neither this nor any other specific nuance serves any purpose to the narrator.

 

 "The most significant theological issues surrounding this term center on its use in Isa 7:14. The citation of this verse in Matt 1:23 and the nature of the doctrinal affirmation at stake have greatly hindered objective lexical analysis through the centuries. It must be immediately recognized that though Matthew cites Isa 7:14 in support of the virgin birth of Christ, he does not depend on the meaning of hm;l][' to establish that doctrine. Likewise parqevno" , as with hm;l][', does not refer specifically to a virgin.

 

 "It is evident that the primary meaning of the word has to do with sexual maturity and, by extension, the age of the young woman, not with sexual experience or the lack of it. That the word may be used of a virgin is evident: it is not used, however, to define her virginity, but to define her capacity for marriage. So . . . it may also refer to a married young woman (until the birth of her first child) (Bratcher, 98).

 

"That the G parqevno"  used by Matthew and by the LXX in Isa 7:14 can mean virgin and that an hm;l][' can be a virgin are sufficient for the fulfillment to be identified. The OT need not anticipate in its prophecy every specific element that finds fulfillment in the NT. One only needs to analyze Matthew's quotations of the OT in 2:15, 18, 23 to confirm the loose association that is often sufficient for the identification of fulfillment to be made…The fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in the time of Ahaz concerned the birth of an individual who may not have had a recognizable role to play in the events of his time, but whose name represented the hope of deliverance. That hope was realized in a fuller way in the coming of Jesus, born of a virgin, God with us in incarnate form. This is in every sense a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, but that does not require that Isaiah anticipated the nature of the fulfillment.

 

"Consequently, our lexical study need not be hampered by theological mandates. We are not obliged to find the meaning “virgin” in the lexical profile of hm;l][' in order to justify the NT or our theological creeds.

 

Under this understanding of Matthew's use of Isaiah 7.14, we could understand Is 7.14 in the way set forth in the conservative, evangelical EBCOT:

"Interpretation 5 above seems the most promising. An unmarried young woman within the royal house would shortly marry and conceive. Her son would be called Immanuel ("God is with us"), probably in ignorance of the prophecy (which may have been given in the presence only of Ahaz) and possibly even as a presumptuous gesture to give the support of a complacent piety to the king's pro-Assyrian policy. Before the child is old enough to eat the characteristic food of the Land of Promise in its solid form (and so, if this is meant, well before the age of moral discretion), the Assyrians would lay waste the lands of Aram and Israel, which they did in 733-732 B.C., only a year or two after the prophecy was given.

 

"The "sign" of the child, therefore, constitutes an indication that the all-sovereign and all-knowing God has the situation completely in hand, and it rebukes the king's lack of faith in him. It is true that the instrument of this devastation was to be Assyria, the very power Ahaz was courting instead of relying wholly on God. But in fact the events of 733-732 not only heralded the downfall in 722 of Samaria--the capital city of the northern kingdom that was a large part of the domain of the house of David in its earlier days--but within a generation led to the devastation of Judah itself (cf. 1:7).

 

"The prophecy was given to the house of David and not simply to Ahaz ("you" in v. 14 is plural). In the fullness of time, the messianic Child would be born of that house. He was to be a symbol of God's salvation of his people, not simply from physical foes like Rezin and Pekah, but ultimately from sin (cf. Matt 1:21). He represents the final purpose of God in his person as well as his work. For he is, in fullness of meaning, God with us; and his mother was a virgin at the time of her conception and not simply, as in the case of the earlier royal mother, at the time of the prophecy. Matthew's concept of fulfillment is very wide-ranging and flexible and embraces many different kinds of correspondence between an OT passage and a NT event (cf. G.W. Grogan, "The New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament," Tyndale Bulletin 18 [1967]:54-59).

"It is characteristic of Isaiah to introduce a messianic theme at a somewhat general level before spelling it out in unambiguously messianic terms (cf. comments at 4:2 and 42:1). This interpretation, therefore enables us to see the passage as part of a wider pattern in the book. So, we are contending, Isaiah predicted the coming of a boy who would be a sign from God to his contemporaries and who would foreshadow Christ, in whom the terms of the prophecy--abstracted from its historical situation--would be fulfilled in fullest measure. In terms of his heavenly origin and his destiny of suffering, death, and burial, as well as his exaltation to the highest place, where he fills the whole universe (Eph 4:9-10); the ultimate fulfillment in Christ of the sign given to Ahaz embraces in principle the whole range of options presented to that king (Isa 7:11). It is noteworthy that Matthew's next OT quotation (Matt 2:5-6) comes from a prophecy of Isaiah's contemporary Micah. This contains mysterious hints of preexistence, makes reference to the child's mother (Mic 5:2-3), gives Bethlehem as the place of birth, and stresses its insignificance, thus providing a possible spiritual link with the Midian-Gideon theme (cf. comment at 9:4).

Personally, I find this explanation reasonable and very supportable, but I suspect that the link might be 'tighter' than that. So, I will try to 'defend' the traditional understanding first, and then see where we end up. But, even if I can 'defend' the traditional view, that would not necessarily mean that Matthew depended on the connection--he might still have just seen the 'looser' connection described by the scholars above.

There are three words involved in this equation: bethulah (Heb), Almah (Heb), and parthenos (Gk), and we will start by looking at the lexical data for these.

So, as for the traditional view:

Bethulah is often connected with 'virginity' in the lexicons, but TWOT points out that this is now questionable:

"Virgin, maid, maiden; probably from an unused verb baµtal “to separate.” Although Hebrew lexicons and modern translations generally translate beátuÆlaÆ as “virgin,” G. J. Wenham (“Betulah ‘A Girl of Marriageable Age,’ ” VT 22:326–48) and Tsevat (TDOT II, p. 338–43) contest this as the general meaning but prefer “a young (marriageable) maiden.” But whereas Wenham does not concede the meaning “virgin” in any text, Tsevat allows this meaning in three out of its fifty–one occurrences (Lev 21:13f; Deut 22:19; Ezk 44:22). In any case, a strong case can be presented that beátuÆlaÆ is not a technical term for virgo intacta in the ot, a conclusion that has important bearing on the meaning of >almaÆ in Isa 7:14.

 

First the data from the ANE cognate languages...

Bethulah

From [TWOT]:

The Cognate Languages. A study of the word in the cognate language sustains C. H. Gordon’s contention that beátuÆlaÆ in the near eastern languages by itself does not mean virgo intacta (JBR 21:240–41).

The Egyptian word especially parallel to our Hebrew word is h\wnt. While the word may denote “girl,” “virgin,” it can also denote a young marriageable woman, or a young woman who has had sexual relations. Thus the word is used in the Pyramid Texts of the king’s protectress who is explicitly called his mother, and of Isis, of whom it is said in a sarcophagus oracle that she is mysteriously pregnant. Tsevat concluded: “It can be stated that h\wnt is not used to denote biological virginity, but rather youthful vigor and potential motherhood” (P. 339).

The Akkadian cognate, batultu, denotes “primarily an age group: only in specific contexts … does it assume the connotation ‘virgin’ ” (CAD II:174). J. J. Finkelstein (“Sex Offences in Sumerian Laws,” JAOS 86:355:72) and B. Landsberger “Jungfräulichkeit: Ein Beitrag zum ‘Thema Beilager und Eheschliessung’ ” in Symbolae juridicae … M. David … edid. J. A. Ankum … , II (Leiden, 1968, pp. 41–105) have underscored in independent studies that the word is normally best understood as “young (unmarried) girl.” In fact, there is no one word for “virgin” in Sumerian or Akkadian; that concept is expressed negatively by “who is not deflowered.”

In Ugaritic btlt is a frequent epithet for Anat, Baal’s wife, who repeatedly has sexual intercourse (cf. A. van Selms, Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature, London, 1954, pp. 69, 109). [Tanknote: the promiscuity of Anat has been called into question recently…]

In a Shiite tradition, Fatima, though the mother of Hasan and Hussein along with other children, bears the title batuµl (C. Virolleaud, Le Theatre Persan, Paris, 1950, p. 37). And in an Aramaic text from Nippur, Montgomery interprets the phrase, btwlt “travailing and not bearing,” to denote a hapless wife suffering from miscarriages and other female complaints (Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, Philadelphia, 1913, p. 131).

Tsevat concluded that the word “does not mean ‘virgin’ in any language exclusively (Aram.), mainly (Heb.), or generally (Akk. [and Ugar.?])” (p. 340).

 

From [HAL]:

"Jewish Aramaic. at;l]WtB] virgin :: adly alw albjm yd ˜b who is in labour and does not give birth (Montgomery Inc. Texts. 13, 9); masc. Syriac. chaste, Mandean. bachelor; Syriac. denom. pa. to violate; Arabic. batuµl sacred virgin; Ugaritic. btlt epithet of >Anat, also n.m. (UTGl. 540); Akkadian. batuµlu young man, fem. virgin (in marriage contracts Meissner Bab. Ass. 1:402, cf. Driver-M. Ass. Laws 518): usually still secluded from married life."

 

From [NIDOTTE]:

"ANE Akk. m. batlu, young man; f. batultu, adolescent, nubile girl (CAD, B, 173a; in neo-Babylonian marriage contracts the word takes on the more specialized connotation of virgin, ibid, 174a.); Ugar. btlt, used most often as an epithet of Anat, the wife of Baal; Aram. at;l]WtB], young girl. More specifically, “In an Aramaic text from Nippur, a spell by a barren wife seeking children, there occurs the phrase, adly alw albjmyd atlwtB, ‘a “virgin” travailing and not bearing’” (Wenham, 326-27). It is Wenham's conclusion that the cognate occurrences consistently refer to a girl of marriageable age (326-29).

 

[Comment: A couple of these references are to 'sacral' virginity, which might not be virgo intacta in any sense, but we are not sure. We do know that some Sumerian 'sacral virgins' used 'alternate forms of intercourse' to avoid getting pregnant, so the terms MIGHT still be applicable, physiologically. But this is not central to the case here--there are plenty of 'ordinary' uses of the term, applying to ordinary pagan people, to demonstrate that bethulah's cognates meant something other than 'virginity' per se.]

 

Now let's turn to the use of Bethulah in the OT...

From [TWOT]:

OT usage. Whether beátuÆlaÆ is used in a general sense, “young woman” or a more particular sense “virgin” cannot be decided for Ex 22:16f [H 15f.]; Deut 22:28–29; Lev 21:2–3; etc. But in Lev 21:13–14 and Ezk 44:22 where beátuÆlaÆ is contrasted with various classes of women who have had sexual experience, it seems probable that the concept of “virgin” is in view.

Wenham’s argument that qualifying clauses of beátuÆlaÆ, such as “that has had no husband” (Lev 21:2–3) or “whom no man had known” (Gen 24:16; Jud 21:12), are pointless if the word means “virgin” is less than convincing, for it cannot be decided whether these are non-restrictive or restrictive clauses, cf. II Sam 14:5 for a somewhat similar repetition.

But Wenham does call into question the conclusion that our word must mean “virgin” in Deut 22:13–21 because he offers a plausible interpretation assuming the general meaning of “nubile adolescence.” In the first place, beátuÆléÆm “tokens of virginity” (vv. 14, 15, 17, 18) is morphologically the regular form for abstract nouns in biblical Hebrew designating age groups (cf. neá>uÆréÆm “youth” zeáquÆnéÆm “old age”). Moreover, according to him, the “tokens of virginity” called for by the elders are not the sheets of the wedding night but garments stained by blood during her last period, and by producing these the girl’s parents could refute the jealous husband’s complaint that his wife was with child by another man while she was still in her father’s house. Finally, he argued that this interpretation admirably suits the sentence that if such tokens could not be produced she should be stoned to death “because she wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house” (Deut 22:21). Thus the “tokens” served as a test, proving that she was not pregnant when she was married. If she was not pregnant, she was presumed to be a virgin. If this interpretation of beátuÆléÆm is correct then this would further sustain the thesis that beátuÆlaÆ is a “girl of marriageable age,” since the onset of menstruation would be the clearest sign that she had attained that age.

Since Wenham has presented a strong case that the interpretation test is not one of virginity but chastity, one must concede that beátuÆléÆm or beátuÆlaÆ does not clearly speak of virginity in this disputed text.

In eight places our word beátuÆlaÆ is contrasted to or combined with the Hebrew word for young man (Deut 32:25; II Chr 36:17; Ps 148:12; Isa 62:5; Jer 51:22; Lam 1:18; 2:21; Zech 9:17). In these places the phrases signify no more than young men and women. In Ezk 9:6 it (in plural) refers to girls together with little children and women who will be killed because of Israel’s wickedness.

But in Joel 1:8, where the beátuÆlaÆ is called upon to lament the death of her ba>al “husband,” it probably does not mean “virgin” for elsewhere ba>al is the regular word for “husband” and its usual translation by “bridegroom” in the versions is otherwise unattested. Likewise in Est 2:17 the beátuÆloµt who spent a night with King Ahasuerus are not virgins, unless it is a “shorthand” for “those who had been virgins.” In a parable Ezekiel speaks of Oholah and Oholibah playing the harlot and their beátuÆléÆm breasts being handled (23:3). Here too the notion of virginity would be inaccurate. Finally in Job 31:1 even the neb translated our word by “girl” because it would not be sinful for Job to look on a virgin. Unless it is an epithet for a Canaanite goddess it probably designates a young married woman (cf. vv. 8ff).

Like Greek parthenos, Latin virgo and German Jungfrau, beátuÆlaÆ originally meant “young marriageable woman” but since she was normally a virgin it was not difficult for this meaning to become attached to the word. This more technical meaning is a later development in Hebrew and Aramaic and is clearly its meaning by the Christian era. When the change took place is not clear.

What is clear is that one cannot argue that if Isaiah (7:14) in his famous oracle to Ahaz had intended a virgin he could have used beátuÆlaÆ as a more precise term than >almaÆ.

"beátuÆlaÆ is used in a number of figurative expressions referring to cities or countries as young women: Zion (Isa 37:22); Babylon (Isa 47:1); Israel (Jer 18:13) etc. Cf. the frequent expression “the daughter of Zion.”
 

From [HAL]:

"1. grown-up girl without any sexual experience with men Gn 2416, who has no husband Lv 213 Ju 1212 (:: widow and repudiated wife Lv 2114 Ezk 4422); hl;Wtb] r;[}n"  Dt 2223.28 1K 12 Est 23, pl. 22; rWjB;  :: hl;WtB]  Dt 3225 Jr 313 5122 Ezk 96 2C 3617, pl. Is 234 Am 813 Zech 917 (gloss) Ps 7863 14812 Lam 118 221; hl;Wtb] hT;Pi  Ex 2215, tl¿WtB]h' rh'mo  2216, hl;WtB] l['B;  Is 625: h;yr,W[nÒ l['B'  Jl 18 (married at a young age?); ˜B]h' yTiBi  my virgin daughter Ju 1924; ® 2S 132.18 Jr 232 Ps 4515 (virgins as a bride’s companions) Jb 311 Lam 14 210 511 Est 217.19; —2. personification (® tB'  3): laer;c]yI tl'WtB]  the virgin Israel (not: the virgin of Israel) Dt 2219 Jr 1813 314.21 Am 52; ÷/Yxi tB' ˜B]  the virgin daughter Zion 2K 1921 / Is 3722 Lam 213; with ÷/dyxi  Is 2312, with lb,B;  471, with µyIr'x]mi  Jr 4611, with hd;WhyÒ  Lam 115, with yMi[' Jr 1417.

 

From Louw-Nida:

"virgin, i.e., a mature young woman that has never had sexual intercourse, and under the authority and protection of the father (Ge 24:16; Ex 22:15[EB 16]; Est 2:2)…young women, i.e., a class of young female, though the class may be virgins, the focus is on the youth group (Dt 32:25; Ps 148:12; Jer 31:13; Am 8:13), cf. also 1436…unit: tB' hl;WtB]...dear one, one cared for, loved one, formally, virgin daughter, a young woman who is loved by the father, with the associated meaning of being pure, innocent, and under the protection and care of the father (2Ki 19:21(2xs); Isa 23:12; 37:22, 22; 47:1, 1; Jer 46:11; La 1:15; 2:10, 13(2xs) 
 

From [NIDOTTE]:

 

hl;WtB] ( b^etûlâ), girl under the guardianship of her father (H1435); µyliWtB] ( b^etûlîm), adolescence (H1436).

 
"Turning to the OT material, Wenham maintains that the lexical profile is identical to that of the cognates. One of the principal arguments supporting this conclusion is the fact that in their respective legal materials, Assyr. and Heb. law share nearly identical formulations of certain laws each using this cognate. If the laws are the same and the cognates are used, Wenham argues that the meanings of the cognates must be the same (330). Additional reasons he lists are as follows:

 

  1. In Esther hl;WtB] is applied to the new members of the harem both before and after they have spent their night with the king (Esth 2:17-19).

 

  2. rWjB; (young man) and hl;WtB] often occur as a fixed pair, and the former shows no evidence of referring to sexual status.

 

  3. In Joel 1:8 the hl;WtB] has a l['B&', presumably a husband.

 

  4. Job 31:1 is much more easily understood if the hl;WtB] he is referring to is married; otherwise it would be difficult to understand why this would be an offense in a polygamous society.

 

 "On the other hand, 2 Sam 13:18 speaks of Tamar tearing the garment indicative of her hl;WtB] status after she had been raped by Amnon. If, as argued by Wenham, this is nothing more than tearing one's clothing in grief, the text would not have needed to go into detail concerning the significance of the garment. Rather, it is likely that Amnon's act has caused her to lose her status as a hl;WtB]. Even so, however, that does not mean that hl;WtB] means virgin.

 

 

From [BDB] (abridged):

 "virgin — one living apart in her father’s house as a virgin; hlwtb hr[n a virgin damsel; personification of nations.

 

From [WBC] (on Gen 24.16):

 

"of 'marriageable age' (the term hlwtb denotes a girl’s age range, approximately a teenager, rather than her virginity; see G. J. Wenham, “Betulah,” VT 22 [1972] 326–48; ISBE 4:989–90). Her virgin status is affirmed by the next remark, lit. “whom no man had known.” It may well be that her virgin status was obvious from her dress, but it could be that the reader is again being vouchsafed information that was not so immediately obvious to the servant (cf. v 15). 

 

From [NBD, s.v. "Immanuel"]:

"Why did Isaiah designate her by this particular word ÔalmaÆ ? It is sometimes said that had he wished to teach a virgin birth there was a good word at his disposal, namely, b^et_uÆlaÆ. But an examination of the usage of the latter word in OT reveals that it was very unsatisfactory, in that it would have been ambiguous. The word b^et_uÆlaÆ may designate a virgin, but when it does the explanatory phrase ‘and a man had not known her’ is often added (cf. Gn.24:16). The word may also designate a betrothed virgin (cf. Dt.22:23ff.). In this latter case the virgin is known as the wife (ÕisûsûaÆ ) of the man, and he as her husband (Õisû). But the word b^et_uÆlaÆ may also indicate a married woman (Joel 1:8). On the basis of this latter passage a tradition arose among the Jews in which the word could clearly refer to a married woman. [TankNote: later Jewish tradition made this word into 'non-menstruating', applying even to menopausal women--cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, pp.218ff] Had Isaiah employed this word, therefore, it would not have been clear what type of woman he had in mind, whether virgin or married. Other Heb. words which were at his disposal would not be satisfactory. Had he wished to designate the mother as a young woman he would most likely have employed the common term naÔ^araÆ (‘girl’). In using the word ÔalmaÆ, however, Isaiah employs the one word which is never applied (either in the Bible or in the other Near Eastern sources) to anyone but an unmarried woman. This unmarried woman might have been immoral, in which case the birth could hardly have been a sign. We are left then with the conclusion that the mother was a good woman and yet unmarried; in other words, the birth was supernatural. It is the presence of this word ÔalmaÆ which makes an application of the passage to some local birth difficult, if not impossible.

 

From [ISBE],

"Bƒt_uÆlaÆ  The RSV most frequently translate bƒt_uÆlaÆ “virgin,” but sometimes it prefers “maiden” (e.g., Ps. 78:63; 148:12); rarely the NEB translates it “girl” (e.g., Jer. 2:32; 31:13; 51:22). None of these translations is really accurate. “Girl” is too general, as it covers any female from birth to adulthood. “Virgin” implies that the female in question is sexually chaste. In bilblical society sexual chastity would certainly be assumed of a woman who was not married; but a bƒt_uÆlaÆ could be married, so this suggests that another English term is required. Closest in semantic range to bƒt_uÆlaÆ is Eng. “maiden,” although this term is archaic. Bƒt_uÆlaÆ denotes a girl of marriageable age, one who has recently passed puberty and is therefore at the height of her strength and beauty. An approximate English equivalent would be a “girl in her teens,” although this definition is probably overly chronological and may well suggest connotations of psychological and other problems that are not present in the Hebrew term…That the right meaning of bƒt_uÆlaÆ is “girl of marriageable age” rather than “virgin” is demonstrated by several considerations. First, this is the likeliest meaning of similar words in other Semitic languages. Akk batultu means “adolescent, nubile girl.” In Ugaritic Baal’s wife is called btlt. An Aramaic text speaks of a btwlt× in labor…Second, in Hebrew poetry bƒt_uÆloÆt_ often stand in parallel with “young men” (bah\uÆréÆm) as opposed to young children on the one hand and the elderly on the other (Dt. 32:25; Isa. 23:4; 1:18; 2:21). This suggests that the distinction of age is primary here…Third, Joel 1:8 (“Lament like a bƒt_uÆlaÆ … for the husband of her youth”) shows the inappropriateness of rendering bƒt_uÆlaÆ as “virgin.” The bƒt_uÆlaÆ is young widowed wife, not merely a fiancée as English versions misleadingly suggest by translating ba<al here as “bridegroom” instead of “husband,” its normal meaning…Finally, the reference to bƒt_uÆlaÆ in the legal texts (e.g., Ex. 22:16f [MT 15f]) make just as much sense rendered “marriageable girl” as “virgin.” Of course, in biblical society girls married young and premarital sex was viewed with contempt, so girls were expected to be virgins when they married; but that is not what bƒt_uÆlaÆ refers to. It indicates age and eligibility for marriage. Similarly, when cities (e.g., Jerusalem, Isa. 37:22; Babylon, 47:1) or nations (e.g., Egypt, Jer. 46:11) are apostrophized as “virgin daughter of …” the allusion is to their beauty, strength, and maybe their fecundity, not their purity.

 

From [ABD]:

"The writers of the OT use the word in a variety of situations. From significant passages, one sees that the word’s meaning is not that of the modern English word, one who has not experienced sexual intercourse. The Hebrew word is usually qualified by a phrase such as “who has never known a man” (e.g., Gen 24:16, Num 31:18) when the word is used specifically to mean what the word “virgin” means today. The Hebrew word designates a young woman who has not yet married, although in Joel 1:8 it seems to refer to a woman who has already had a husband. In later legal terminology, the Bible’s usage approaches the modern use. One can compare that development to the gradual specialization of the German word  “Jungfrau” from “young woman” to “virgin.”…This lack of a word for the condition suggests that physical virginity held no special role in ancient Israel. Israel, indeed, shares a linguistic phenomenon with other ancient languages, as put by C. Gordon (UT, 378): “There is no word in the Near Eastern languages that by itself means  virgo intacta.” The word frequently simply suggests “youth.” One can see this emphasis on youth when the word is paired with the word for young man (baµh\uÆr), about 12 times.

 

Motyer summarizes:

"bethulah occurs fifty times in the Old Testament. Of these, twelve are metaphorical (e.g. Is. 37:22) and, therefore, their evidential value is patchy. Many could refer to the plight of any young woman, whatever her status, violated in war. Fourteen other cases are non-committal, mainly where bethulah is linked with 'young men' (always bahur) in the general sense of 'young people' (e.g. Dt. 32:25; Am. 8:13). The largest group (twenty-one cases) virtually certainly refer to 'virgins' (Ex. 22:16< 15> 17<16>; Lv. 21:3, 14; Dt. 22:19, 23, 28; Jdg. 19:14; 2 Sa. 13:2, 18; 1 Ki. 1:2; Est. 2:2-3, 17, 19; Ps. 78:63; Is. 23:4; 62:5; Je. 2:32; Ezk. 44:22; Joel 1:8). We note that it is not the word itself but its context which indicates its meaning. According to G. J. Wenharn (Bethulah: 'A girl of marriageable age', VT, 22 (1972), 325-348), the word has no more reference to virginity than the English word 'girl'. His survey of Akkadian and Ugaritic cognates supports this conclusion. 'It is not until the Christian era that there is clear evidence that bethulah had become a technical term for "virgin" . . . it is not easy to know when this semantic shift took place.' In the three remaining references (Gn. 24:16; Lv. 21:3; Jdg. 11:39) it is clear that without a descriptive clause added bethulah does not convey a precise meaning." [Isaiah, at 7.14]

 

Now, the data up to this point about bethulah indicates that virginity is not an implication from the word, with the core meaning of the word being that the woman still lived under her father's sponsorship, roof, and legal authority. In that day and age, this would sometimes imply virginity (with the concomitant notions of respectability and chastity), but it would not have been the main focus of the word at all. Modern scholars tend to accept the arguments of Wenham and Tsevat, and see bethulah as referring to a 'girl of marriageable age, living in the household of her father'.

The two main passages that are generally used to "prove" that virginity is NOT the core concept (or even an implication from the word) are Gen 24.16 and Joel 1.8.

 

Gen 24.15-16 reads thus: "Before he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder. She was the daughter of Bethuel son of Milcah, who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor.  16 The girl (na'ar) was very beautiful, a virgin (bethulah); no man had ever lain with her."

 

Commentators normally point out that the clause "no man had ever lain with her" strongly argues that bethulah cannot mean 'virgin' in itself or it would NOT need such qualification. [The same situation can be seen in Judg 21.12: "They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women (bethulah) who had never slept with a man"] They also point out that she is called almah in verse 43, without the qualification of "not having slept with a man"…

 

The 'redundancy argument' is pretty strong, but not invincible--we do have an occasional redundancy usage, as noted by Hamilton [NICOT]:

 

"One argument against taking bethulah as virgo intacta is that such an understanding makes the following expression (No man had known her) redundant. But this is not necessarily the case, for the Hebrew Bible provides other instances of redundant or idem per idem constructions. Thus Job 24:21 refers to "the sterile female who does not bear children." One would think that 'the sterile female' would be sufficient. Of course sterile women do not bear children. Cf. also Isa. 54:1, "Sing, barren one, who did not bear." Or 2 Sam. 14:5, "I am a widow and my husband is dead." ..A clearer indication that bethulah does not necessarily mean "virgin," as we use that word today, comes from verses like Joel 1:8, in which a bethulah mourns 'the husband of her youth'. Looking again then at the two phrases in v.16, I suggest that bethulah designates Rebekah as a marriageable woman. The following sentence, No man had known her, specifies her premarital virginity."

Let me point out here, however, that Hamilton's cautions about the 'redundancy issue' need to be considered, but also that the examples he gives are in context of hyperbolic, dramatic speech, in which redundancies are 'piled up' for emotive power. In these types of speech, redundancy is expected, in contrast to 'flat narrative' like we have in Genesis 24 and Judg 21. So, I think his cautions would need to be looked at more closely, before they should 'soften' our conclusion.

In his comments, though, he referred to the 'clearer indication' in Joel 1:8,

Wail like a virgin (bethulah) girded with sackcloth, For the husband (ba'al) of her youth.

All commentators understand ba'al to refer to a husband (or pre-marriage 'bridegroom'), but some understand this to refer to the period of betrothal, in which the woman was still 'virginal'. The word bethulah could presumably be understood this way, but the other words in the verse seem to suggest otherwise:

 

"However, Joel 1:8 seems to be an exception to the absolute virginity of the bethulah. This verse refers to the desolation of Israel. “Lament like a virgin [bethulah] girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.” Some view this verse  in the context of the betrothal period as in the case of Mary and Joseph before they were legally married (Matt 1:18–19). They hold that the woman was called a bethulah because she had not yet had sexual relations, and her “husband” (bridegroom) died before the marriage had actually been consummated. However, the problem with interpreting this Hebrew word in Joel 1:8 as a betrothed but unmarried virgin is that the expression “husband of her youth” is an expression of longevity. It is parallel to the phrase “wife of thy youth” in Proverbs 5:18 and Isaiah 54:6 which can be translated, “a wife you have had since your youth.” The Septuagint reflects the idea of actual marriage rather than just betrothal by translating bethulah in Joel 1:8 as numphe ("bride, married woman") instead of parthenos ("virgin"). Furthermore the use of ba'al in the passage seems to require that an actual marriage rather than a mere betrothal had taken place. In Deuteronomy 22:23 the husband of a betrothed woman is called an ish  (cf. Judg 19:27), but the husband of the married woman in that same passage is called a ba'al (verse 22).. The word ba'al  is never used in the Old Testament of the betrothed state. It always refers to a married man when describing the relationship between a man and a woman [Genesis 20:3; Exodus 21:3, 22; Deuteronomy 24:1–4; 2 Samuel 11:26; Esther 1:20; Proverbs 12:4; 31:11, 23, 28 ; Hosea 2:18.]." [Niessen, "The virginity of the Almah in Isaiah 7.14",  BibSac—V137 #546—Apr 80—146]

 

But why is she called 'bethulah' then? Probably to highlight the return to living in her father's house…younger widows (without sons) would often return to their father's house, for reasons of economic survival. The Bethulah word in the prophecy would therefore be highlighting the severity of the coming judgment and the destitution of its wake.

Bethulah, then, looks to be a word denoting a marriageable woman, living in the household/authority of her father.

This might even fit the possible Anat references, btw:

"Epithetical usage. Epithets, by their very nature, must be considered in isolation from the rest of the semantic field. Epithets tend to represent frozen forms and may, as such, fail to offer a reliable guide to the current usage of the word. Additionally they may be applied in an honorary, idealist, or even patronizing spirit. The Canaanite goddess Anat is most frequently given the epithet btlt in the Ugar. texts. Though she is the consort of Baal, she is also his sister and so is still technically within the household of her father, El. She is a goddess of war, whose bloodshed is wanton but whose sexual conduct is not addressed in the literature. Anat is poorly attested in the literature. For more information see A. Kapelrud, The Violent Goddess: Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts (1969), and U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath (1971)…There are allusions to the beauty and fertility of Anat, but no preserved text clearly depicts her as giving birth to offspring. However, Anat can be viewed as a fertility goddess in this sense: she is Baal's partner, zealous for his cause, aiding him, and by her defeat of Mot, enables Baal to come back to life (W. A. Maier III, “Anath,” ABD 1:226). Consequently, the Ugar. epithets cannot serve to inform the details of our study. [NIDOTTE, bethulah; but also note that we have iconographic images showing her having sex with Baal.]

[This meaning of bethulah, by the way, would explain why there is no 'male version' of this word form in Hebrew (but there is in some of the cognates, btw--e.g. Akkadian). With alma, there is a masculine elem form, since they are words dealing more with non-social or biological characteristics. With sons (ben, bene); there are daughters (beth, benoth). But bethulah is a social word, denoting a woman still living in her father's house. Is there a corresponding Hebrew 'social' word for young men, still living in the father's house? Yes, bachur, and these are connected 12 times in the OT/Tannach. Isaiah, for example, uses the bachur/bethulah pair in this way in 23.4 and 62.5, so he was well aware of the usage of bethulah.]

Interestingly, this also might help clear up a strange ambiguity over the related term rendered in many English bibles as 'evidence/proof of virginity' (Deut 22.13ff):

ISBE gives the background and understanding:

"Tokens of Virginity (Bƒt_uÆléÆm)  The phrase “tokens of virginity” (NEB “proofs of virginity”) occurs five times in Dt. 22:13–21; . The RSV translates the same Hebrew word (Bƒt_uÆléÆm, an abstract plural of bƒt_uÆlaÆ) three time “virginity” (Lev. 21:13; Jdg. 11:37f) and twice “virgin breasts” (Ezk. 23:3, 8). Its use in Deuteronomy gives the clearest clue to its exact meaning…A brief summary of the context in Dt. 22:13–21; is necessary. A newly wed man claims that his wife has been unfaithful to him. Commentators have usually supposed that premarital intercourse is being alleged. V. 21 makes it clear that the charge is unfaithfulness by a betrothed woman while she was still living with her parents before her wedding. Unfaithfulness at this stage was considered adultery and warranted the death penalty (cf. vv 23f). In proof of the charge of unfaithfulness, the husband claims that he has found no “tokens of virginity” in his wife. The young woman’s parents then produce the tokens if they can. Their production disproves the charge and leads to the husband being whipped and having to pay crippling damages. But if the parents fail to produce the tokens, the young woman is executed…Often commentators have supposed these tokens to be the blood-stained sheet of the wedding night. But such an explanation is inadequate. Not only would blood stains on this sheet be a poor proof of virginity, but if this were the garment in question, the husband would surely know whether his father-in-law had it. More likely bƒt_uÆléÆm should be translated “evidence of menstruation.” Thus the husband is claiming that his new wife was already pregnant when he married her. He has found in her no “evidence of menstruation” (v 14). So her parents try to produce a garment stained with blood from her last menstrual cycle before her marriage. On this view bƒt_uÆléÆm means “(tokens of) nubility” rather than “(tokens of) virginity.” The root bƒt_uÆlaÆ/bƒt_uÆléÆm again indicates primarily a girl’s age rather that her chastity." [ISBE]

The New Bible Commentary points out that it is more likely the proof of recent menstruation:

"The proof of her virginity may be the blood-stained sheet from the marriage-bed on the night of the consummation, or alternatively a sheet which showed evidence of recent menstruation and, therefore, that the woman was not pregnant at the time of marriage. The latter is more likely to be available to the parents to produce.

One writer (Wenham) argued convincingly that since a derivative of bethulah was used here (alternately translated 'virginity' or 'adolescence'), it would be much more probable that the 'garment' (not 'sheet', btw) was the last menstrual cloth from the betrothal period, kept while under the father's guardianship (the basic meaning of bethulah). This makes perfect sense, since this would be evidence under the control of the father-in-law and NOT in the hands of the would-be-character-assassin. This also would account for why the crime is said to be 'against her father's house'. This, of course, further ties this world to the father, and only obliquely, to 'proof of non-pregnancy':

"But Wenham does call into question the conclusion that our word must mean “virgin” in Deut 22:13–21 because he offers a plausible interpretation assuming the general meaning of “nubile adolescence.” In the first place, beátuÆléÆm “tokens of virginity” (vv. 14, 15, 17, 18) is morphologically the regular form for abstract nouns in biblical Hebrew designating age groups (cf. neá>uÆréÆm “youth” zeáquÆnéÆm “old age”). Moreover, according to him, the “tokens of virginity” called for by the elders are not the sheets of the wedding night but garments stained by blood during her last period, and by producing these the girl’s parents could refute the jealous husband’s complaint that his wife was with child by another man while she was still in her father’s house. Finally, he argued that this interpretation admirably suits the sentence that if such tokens could not be produced she should be stoned to death “because she wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house” (Deut 22:21). Thus the “tokens” served as a test, proving that she was not pregnant when she was married. If she was not pregnant, she was presumed to be a virgin. If this interpretation of beátuÆléÆm is correct then this would further sustain the thesis that beátuÆlaÆ is a “girl of marriageable age,” since the onset of menstruation would be the clearest sign that she had attained that age. [TWOT]

 

 

 

In short, it is incorrect to say that "bethulah" is the word that would have been used, if 'virginity' was a major issue of the passage. It generally means 'young woman, living in the household of her father' (with OR without virginity)…

………………………..

Now, let's turn to the word Isaiah used...almah...

The linguistic data is fairly straightforward. This word, in contradistinction to bethulah, is NEVER used of a non-virgin (either in the OT or in ordinary cognate usage). It STILL GENERALLY means 'young woman' but always includes the notion of virginity and non-marriage.

Let's dredge up a little data on this one, too:

"The rarity of its usage makes determining its meaning very difficult. The masculine <elem occurs only twice and is translated, “lad,” “stripling,” or “youth.” This may suggest that ÕalmaÆ is another term denoting a girl of a particular age — but of what age is uncertain. In Ex. 2:8 the girl could be younger than a teenager, but in Gen. 24:43 Rebekah is already of marriageable age (cf. v. 16 [bƒt_uÆlaÆ]). In no case is it clear that an <almaÆ is married: indeed, Cant. 6:8 contrasts the king’s wives (“queens” and “concubines”) with the “maidens [Ô‡laµmoÆt_] without number.”. So possibly <almaÆ means “virgin,” since all unmarried girls in Israel were expected to be chaste. Often it has been argued that since bƒt_uÆlaÆ denotes “virgin,” <almaÆ cannot have this technical sense. But if bƒt_uÆlaÆ means “teenage, nubile girl,” then it is not impossible that <almaÆ means “virgin.”…It would certainly help the discussion if the meaning of <almaÆ were clearer. Unfortunately, the evidence is too meagre to be decisive. It is not certain what differentiates <almaÆ from other Hebrew terms for younger females. Elsewhere <almaÆ is never used for girls who are definitely married (Prov. 30:19 is equivocal), so this may weigh against interpretations that suppose that Isaiah was thinking of the king’s wife of his own wife. But the lexical evidence is not strong enough to rule out such possibilities. Certainly Isaiah’s use of <almaÆ contributes to making this a striking and mysterious prophecy. [ISBE]

"Third, the term >almaÆh is never used in the OT of a married woman, but does refer to a sexually mature woman. There are no texts in the OT where >almaÆh clearly means one who is sexually active, but it is possible that Song of Solomon 6:8 (cf. Prov 30:19) implies this. It would appear then that >almaÆh normally, if not always, implies a virgin, though the term does not focus on that attribute. Fourth, several of the Greek translations of the OT (i.e., Aq, Sym, Theod) translate >almaÆh with neanis;  however, the LXX clearly translates it with parthenos. It is probably correct to say that if >almaÆh did not normally have overtones of virginity, it is difficult if not impossible to see why the translators of the LXX used parthenos as the Greek equivalent. [NT:DictJG, s.v. "Birth of Jesus"]

 

"The Hebrew text says almah (“the virgin”) suggesting that a definite woman is in view. The Hebrew word almah is used seven or nine times in the Old Testament (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14; Ps. 68:26 [1 Chron. 15:20 and the heading of Ps. 46 are uncertain]) and is the only Hebrew word which without qualification means a mature young woman of marriageable age, but unmarried and presumably a virgin. In Song of Sol. 6:8 the word stands in contrast with queens and concubines, and in Prov. 30:19 “the way of a man with an almah” contrasts the infatuation of youthful love with the infatuation of an adulterous woman (v. 20). Some have suggested that the word bethulah would more accurately suggest a virgin, but this term sometimes requires a qualification such as “neither had man known her” so that it cannot merit serious consideration as a quasi-technical term for virgo intacta  [The Emmaus Journal—V8 #1—Sum 99— David J. MacLeod]

"The translation virgin (alma) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only 'young woman' and that the technical word for 'virgin' is bethulah.' Of the nine occurrences of 'alma' those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the "alamoth ' contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, `alma is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, 'so far as may be ascertained, 'alma was 'never used of a married woman'.  [Motyer, Isaiah]

 

"SamP. aµóléµma: fem. of µl,[,; MHeb. DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 164); Ug. gùlmt (Gordon Textbook §19:1969; Aistleitner 2150; Fisher Parallels 1: p. 46ff no. 36) girl, parallel with at_t (Fisher Parallels 1: p. 133 no. 86), also the name of a goddess (W. Herrmann BZAW 106 (1968):7), cf. A. vSelms Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature (1954):108ff; Ph. html[, Pun. alma (Jerome see Schroeder 174¹; Harris Gr. 133; Friedrich Phön. Gramm.² §229; Jean-H. Dictionnaire 214); htmyl[ Sam. (Ben-H. 2:549b) and EgArm., Nab. Palm (also tml[; Jean-H. Dictionnaire 214); CPArm. atymylw[, Syr. >laymtaµ; Arb. gùulaµmat :: Gerleman ZAW 91 (1979):338-49 ® t/ml;[} (H.M. W