What were the translators of the LXX thinking in rendering “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14?

Question

Obviously we can not know for certain what they were thinking, but with some knowledge about ancient interpretations of this text and the translation philosophy employed by the LXX, I suspect someone around here has a better idea than I do.

WLC

כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם אֹ֑ות הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמֹ֖ו עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃

LXX

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ·

My understanding is that עלמה has a semantic range that includes "virgin" but is less specific, hence the RSV "young woman." The Greek chosen by the translators of the LXX - παρθένος - however, is more specific to lack of sexual experience.¹ I don't have a better Greek word (suggestions welcome), but I would expect the context would compel the translators to find a different way to express this.

I can think of a few possibilities. I am wondering which is most likely or if there are others I haven’t thought about.

1. They LXX understood their own translation as

   Behold, the virgin [having forsaken her virginity] shall conceive....

   where the bracketed clause is obvious and therefore assumed.

2. They were using a different Hebrew text that contained a Hebrew word whose range lines up more closely with παρθένος.

3. Τhey were intentionally adding a miraculous element of virgin conception to this prophecy.

4. The semantic ranges of these two words were other than what I summarize in the footnote below.

5. They misunderstood עלמה.

6. Something else?

Please note: This question does not ask how many times one believes this prophecy has or has not been fulfilled. While it may be relevant to speculate about what the LXX translators thought about the question, that is as far as I’m interested for the purposes of this question.

---

_{^1. BDAG παρθένος (italics original): “one who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, virgin, chaste person."
HALOT עלמה: “a girl who is able to be married…young woman”}

_{^2. I think the Hebrew may be ambiguous as to whether she is already pregnant. (I have asked another question about this). However, because the Greek is clearly future tense, I don’t think this precludes this understanding of the Greek.}

Answer 1

A note about the flavor of the two major extant text traditions: The LXX was very Messianic in interpretation, in keeping with Jewish tendencies at the time. In contrast, after the events of the first century, Judaism became very anti-Christian to the point of altering interpretations (and even the text at times) where Christians had claimed Scriptural warrant for identifying Jesus as the Messiah.

A note about prophetic fulfillment: It seems that prophecy was always followed by an "immediate", local, partial, fulfillment, which served as an illustration (or "echo") of the ultimate, eschatological fulfillment. (This is sometimes called "double fulfillment".)

A note about prophetic language: Prophecy was always given in the established language of the original audience. Where no words yet existed to describe the predicted outcome, familiar terms were used to try to convey the basic ideas. Often (always?) the prophecy was given in the language of the "first" fulfillment, while having subtle undertones which suggested that a greater fulfillment was yet to come.

The LXX on Isaiah 7:14: The interpreters of the LXX recognized that the initial fulfillment had already taken place, and were looking forward to the ultimate fulfillment. They wanted their readers to see the subtle suggestions of the text that foretold a miraculous birth of an eschatological Messiah. Therefore, they chose a term which would point the reader's attention toward the future, rather than toward the past.

Answer 2

The translation of almah as virgin makes no sense in context.

First, the word almah is a vague term that means a young woman. Betulah is a more specific term for a virgin, especially one whose signs of virginity are still in tact. See Bably. Talmud Yevamot 60b ("והא אמר רבי שמעון 'בתולה' בתולה שלימה משמע" -"and Rabbi Shimon says that the word "betulah" implies a "complete virgin' [as opposed to one who lost her signs of virginity from non-sexual contact, e.g. a stick (see Yevamot 60a)]). Contemporary scholars -- other than conservative Christians -- agree that the greek word parthenos is also a vague term and does not necessarily mean virgin. Rhodes, Ron, The Complete Guide to Bible Translations, (Harvest House Publishers 2009), p. 82; Sweeney, Marvin A., Isaiah 1–39: with an introduction to prophetic literature, (Eerdmans 1996), p. 161.

Second, the context of Isaiah 7:14 is that King Ahaz is surrounded by enemy armies and has lost hope. Isaiah tells him that God will give him a sign that he will nevertheless be victorious -- some almah will give birth and name her son "Emanuel" which means "God is with us." The key to this sign is not "almah" but "Emanuel." Ahaz could never possibly find a new mother who was still a virgin as delivery would wipe out such signs. Moreover, it would be beneath the king to personally inspect the privates of every new mother to seek such proof. And, Isaiah says nothing about Ahaz finding such proof, although it appears that he did survive the situation. And if he had, would we then impute that that baby was the Messiah? We must conclude, therefore, that Isaiah 7:14 has no messianic message at all and that almah has indeed been mistranslated to create a prophetic proof where there was none intended.

Third, as noted in another answer, the Septuagint also translates Dinah as a parthanos --- the same word it uses to translate almah -- after she had been raped. Gen. 34:3.

Based on these elements, let me analyze your questions:

1) They LXX understood their own translation as "Behold, the virgin [having forsaken her virginity] shall conceive...." where the bracketed clause is obvious and therefore assumed.

I don't think they intended parthenos to be understood as "virgin."

2) They were using a different Hebrew text that contained a Hebrew word whose range lines up more closely with παρθένος.

No, the translation of parthenos is equally vague as almah and can apply to a virgin or non-virgin young woman.

3) Τhey were intentionally adding a miraculous element of virgin conception to this prophecy.

Very possible.

4) The semantic ranges of these two words were other than what I summarize in the footnote below.

I can't speak for the Greek, but the Hebrew is correct.

5) They misunderstood עלמה.

Based on the usage of parthenos concerning Dinah and Isaiah, I'd say that they were consistant

6) Something else?

Number 3 makes most sense.

Answer 3

Dinah is called a parthenos in Genesis 34:3 after being raped in Genesis 34:2. Not sure what the LXX translators were thinking there either. They could have easily used the feminine adjective for "young" as a substantive, as in Titus 2:4 where "young wives/women" is translated from tas neas.

Other possible Greek words are korasion and "korē" (e.g. "The young women" in 1 Samuel 9:11 are called ta korasia.)

The translation of the LXX happened over centuries and was done by a mixed bunch of translators, some very skilled in both Hebrew and Greek, others not so much. Perhaps the person who translated Isaiah 7:14 didn't understand the range of meanings of the Hebrew word almah. I have not studied Isaiah in the LXX, but I do know that the translator, or translators, of the Torah, which includes Genesis, did a scrupulous, even overly literal and wooden, translation of the Hebrew to the Greek, so I have no explanation of why poor Dinah is called a virgin (parthenos).

Answer 4

almah is the only Biblical Hebrew word that means virgin. The root of the word means "unknown" which is the Biblical way of saying she did not know nor was known by the opposite gender. It means an innocent young woman.

The Hebrew word bethulah which is normally translated as virgin does not mean what our English or Greek words mean by "virgin". Bethulah means a chaste woman who was a virgin before marriage and was faithful to one husband after marriage. Bethulah is used to refer to a married woman in these verses: Joel 1:8; Es 2:17,19; Deu 22:19. If Isa 7:14 had used the word bethulah, then it would mean a normal proper birth.

There is no verb connecting almah with the adjective pregnant, so it is not specified whether it is future or past. The verb "and is bringing forth" is a participle, which acts as an adjective. The meaning of this unusual deliberate construction is that the almah, while still in the state of being an almah, is pregnant, and while still in the state of being an almah is bringing forth a son. Had a verb been used here "will become pregnant", then it would just mean that the almah would get married and become pregnant.

Answer 5

I'm suggesting the lack of verbs are indicative of an intention to convey a miraculous virgin birth.

The Hebrew text reads:

Isaiah 7:14 (WLC)

לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל׃

Which into English I would translate more or less literally as follows:

Therefore, the Lord himself giveth you a sign: a damsel that hath conceived, and beareth a son: and she calleth his name GOD WITH US.

The lack of any verb (namely תרה she conceives) in the phrase "a with-child damsel, and she bears a son" (lit., sic.) indicates to me that the sign consists in a damsel (or arguably, then, a virgin damsel, which damsels are assumed to be) that is with child (which necessitates a miraculous, unnatural conception without mention of a man (which removes the miraculous nature of the conception). That is to say, the "sign" is "a damsel that conceiveith" (i.e. as separate from the elaboration "she bears [that] son etc." and his identity "God With Us")

If a verb were included, I would conclude or perhaps sympathize with the view which says a known 'young woman' shall conceive. On the other hand, it's absolutely understandable why the Greek has "in belly/womb has" for "[is] with child," and must introduce verbiality to the noun "הרה" (pregnant one).

Then again, I'm not sure if this is a feature of the Hebrew language (i.e. a noun-participle phrase denoting one action, or a noun-noun as equivalent in Hebrew to a noun followed by an adjective which is really a noun).

I submit this to the Hebrew experts here. I'm sorry I don't have something more substantial or authoritative!