Christian
translators of passages in the Hebrew Bible whose importance for New Testament
messianic interpretation is paramount often feel compelled to translate in
accordance with said interpretation. I have discussed an example of this in my
post on Zech 9:9.
Isa 7:14 is
probably the most controversial example of the problem. To be sure, Matt
1:22-23’s take on this passage is not necessarily innovative vis-à-vis pre-occurring
exegetical trends. OG Isaiah, a translation two centuries old by the time
Matthew wrote his gospel and quoted from it, may have already interpreted Isa
7:14 in terms of an expectation that the ideal king who would usher in a new
era, the messiah promised to the Jewish people, would be born of a virgin.
These were matters of great moment. It would not be especially surprising if
the translation reflected an expectation of this kind. Scholars are divided on
the issue.
In any case, the
underlying Hebrew of Isa 7:14 bears no hint of a virgin birth. A review of
recent commentaries, including those written by Catholics and evangelicals,
reveals a consensus on this point. Two examples may illustrate.
7,14-15
“La joven” es, en el contexto histórico,
la esposa del rey. El niño es
Ezequias, que asegura la continuidad de la dinastia. . . . La tradición judía ha interpretado “virgen”;
así aparece en la
versión griega (parthenos)
y así pasa a la
tradición
cristiana, que aplica la frase a Maria (Mt 1, 23).
(Luis
Alonso Schökel,
ed., Biblia del Peregrino. Antiguo Testamento. Poesía. Edición de Estudio. Tomo II
(“con las debida licencias de la Conferencia Episcopal Española”; Estella: Verbo
Divino, 2005 [1997] 77).
Matthew
(1:22-23) finds in the LXX rendition of 7:14 a coincidental convergence of this
sentence in Scripture with the events he is recounting and interprets it as
prophecy and fulfillment. He quotes the LXX almost verbatim, with only the
variation καλέσουσιν,
“they will call,” for καλέσεις, “you [sg.] will call.” The translation ἠ παρθένος, “the virgin,” suits
Matthew’s intention perfectly. If one supposes a divine intention in this
connection, part of God’s work was done through the Greek translator.
(John
D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (WBC 24; Nashville: Nelson, 2005 [1984] 140-41).
The consensus is
that Isa 7:14 in the Hebrew refers to a non-virgin birth in the days of Ahaz. How
shall one then translate? NAB (Catholic) and NIV (evangelical) both translate -
“directly from the Hebrew” - in terms of the virgin birth. Now that’s
what I call chutzpah.
What I will now
say is irrelevant to the issue at hand. But it will matter to a lot of people
who might otherwise be convinced that this post is written by someone incapable
of imagining a miracle-working God. As it is, I am a joyful believer in the
virgin birth of Mary’s son. I believe that Mary’s son was God’s answer to the
prayers of her people who expected a Messiah to come and secure the fulfillment
of all the promises found in the Law, the Prophets, and David.
As a general
rule, when God answers prayer, God accommodates the answer to our needs and
expectations. Simultaneously, the answer transcends our expectations. That
seems to be the way things go throughout the trajectory of the life and death of
the son of Mary. The circumstances of the birth of Mary’s son both accommodated
and transcended the expectations of those who in that day awaited the Coming
One.
It does not
follow, however, that Isaiah predicted that the Messiah would be born of a
virgin. It only follows that Christians who read Isa 7:14 in the authorized
Greek translation of the day, and in Jerome’s Vulgate thereafter, with its
triumphant ecco virgo, would have naturally and inevitably thought so.
I have a modest
proposal. In a case like Isaiah 7:14, instead of translating the Hebrew
inaccurately, translate it as it stands. NJB, NRSV, and NJPSV so translate.
When the day arrives in which a widely used evangelical translation renders likewise,
it will merely have caught up with conclusions a host of evangelical scholars
have already reached. My own translation goes like this: ‘Look, this young
woman is pregnant and will bear a son whom she will call Emmanuel.’ The details
of the sign Yahweh gives to Ahaz follow. They apply of course to the situation
of Ahaz. That need not and has not stopped interpreters of later generations
from seeking to understand how the passage in question might be fulfilled in
their day.
There is no
shame in admitting that a distinction must be made between the text per se and
later interpretation of it. Gerhard Ebeling somewhere tells the story of
confessing Christians under Hitler and in the midst of a terribly destructive
war reading Isaiah 13 and knowing that the text spoke of Hitler and what was
happening. It does, even though it doesn’t. It’s important to be nimble enough
intellectually to affirm both propositions.
For a printable version of this post, go here.
Comments