Exposing A Missionary Deception

 

 

I.            Introduction

 

The resources available on the World-Wide-Web are almost boundless, which can be both a good thing as well as bad thing.  It is good because of the potential educational value that may be derived from these resources.  It is bad because of the potential adverse impact that false as well as insidious information taken from the Internet may have on its users and/or those at whom it is being directed.

 

Pertinent to ongoing work in counter-missionary education is the presence of a plethora of evangelical Christian missionary websites filled with Christian apologetics.  One popular source of Christian apologetics is the Jews for Jesus website[1], which other missionary websites use as a resource and proliferate the misinformation that is so anathematic to the teachings of the Hebrew Bible.

 

In this essay, one such missionary apologetic tract, Does almah mean young woman or virgin?[2], is analyzed and exposed as a collection of deceptive misinformation created by its author.  The fact that this tract appears on the Jews for Jesus website implicates this evangelical Christian missionary organization as a perpetrator and promoter of deception.

 

II.            Exposing The Missionary Deception

 

Each part of this missionary apologetic tract is now examined for its accuracy. 

 

1. The Introductory Material

 

In the introductory paragraph, the author points out that one of the commonly used arguments against the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the use of Isaiah 7:14 as a supporting "proof text", is that the Hebrew word  (almah) does not mean a virgin, and that Jews do not believe in a Virgin Birth.  The author then makes the following statement:

 

Archaeological findings show that the Hebrew word "almah" refers to a virgin. The possibility of a virgin birth is upheld by open-minded Jewish sages and scholars, even those who are not believers in Jesus.

 

This statement, although followed by what the author claims to be "evidence" to support it, is untrue, as the following analysis demonstrates.

 

The heading for each of the following sub-sections identifies an Exhibit # and the respective element from the author's "evidentiary supporting material".

 

2. Exhibit #1 – A published note by Professor Cyrus H. Gordon

 

U      The Christian Apologetic Missionary Claim:  The "archaeological findings" cited in the tract are drawn from a technical note[3] published by the late Cyrus H. Gordon, who is described by the author as "a leading Jewish scholar".  The author quotes the following two portions from Professor Gordon's note[4]:

 

"The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true.  The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes 'almah to mean "virgin" here.  Accordingly the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14."

 

"...From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities.  It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son....The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14.  However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew 'almah "young woman"; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah "virgin."  Therefore, the New Testament rendering of 'almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet."

 

Y      Refuting the Missionary Claim:  Is this claim true?  One striking item right at the beginning of the apologetic tract is the characterizationtion of Cyrus H. Gordon as "a leading Jewish scholar" (boldface added for emphasis).  Professor Gordon was an archaeologist, historian, and linguist of world renown, who also happened to be of Jewish heritage, albeit, he was a secular Jew.  Using the author's terminology, one can say that both Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan were "leading Jewish scholars", though certainly not "leading Judaic scholars".  Both were physicists who happened to be of Jewish heritage.  Is it plausible to conjecture that the author refers to Professor Gordon as "a leading Jewish scholar" in order to give readers the (false) impression that he is a "Judaic scholar"?  Is it then also plausible that, under this guise, the author lifts certain "suitable" segments out of Professor Gordon's technical note in order to support his claims?  This technical note indicates that, in fact, the contrary may be true, with the information contained in it actually having no validity regarding the theological aspects of this subject.  A superficial reading of the material being quoted from the technical note in the apologetic tract could lead the reader to believe that Professor Gordon supports the Christian claim that the Hebrew word  (almah) means a virgin.

 

A thorough investigation of the "evidence" shows this claim is weak, if not false.  Reproduced below is the entire note by Professor Gordon, where the portions quoted in the tract are shown in highlighted bold font for emphasis:

 

‘Almah in Isaiah 7:14

 

cyrus h. gordon*

 

Ever since the publication of the Revised Standard Version there has been a storm of debate over the translation of ‘almah in Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” instead of the King James “virgin.”  The commonly held view that “virgin” is Christian, whereas “young woman” is Jewish, is not quite true.  The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes ‘almah to mean “virgin” here.  Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14.

 

* Professor of Assyriology and Egyptology, Dropsie College

 

The aim of this note is rather to call attention to a source that has not yet been brought into the discussion.  From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities.  It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son.  (For the translation, see my “Ugaritic Literature”, Rome, 1949, pp. 63-64.)  The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14.  However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew ‘almah “young woman”; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah “virgin.”  Therefore, the New Testament rendering of ‘almah as “virgin” for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.

 

The first thing to note is that the portions quoted by the author of the tract help promote the standard missionary agenda.  Not quoted are the remarks in the second paragraph concerning the "learned explanations", by Hebraists, of the Hebrew terms  (b^etulah) and  (almah).

 

Secondly, certain technical elements in Professor Gordon’s note require further elaboration and explanation.  One item concerns Professor Gordon's rather surprising reference to the Septuagint, considering his credentials as linguist and archaeologist.  A common misperception prevails about the Septuagint.  Today's Septuagint (LXX, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible!) used by Christians is a Church-translated document that is not the Original Septuagint.  One of several pieces of evidence in support of this statement is the fact that the LXX contains errors that learned Jewish scholars would not make, particularly when one considers the size of the team that produced the translation.  The Original Septuagint was a translation of the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) into (Koiné) Greek by 72 learned bi-lingual Jewish scholars (Rabbis).  The work took place in Alexandria, Egypt, in the mid-third century B.C.E.  The well-known Letter of Aristeas[5] describes this entire project as having been commissioned by King Ptolemy II Philadelphius of Alexandria.  Josephus states in his Preface to the Antiquities of the Jews, Section 3[6], that the translation was "of our law" (i.e., the Mosaic Law), and the details on the entire event appear later, in Book XII, Chapter 2, Sections1-4.  St. Jerome, an early Christian Church father, in the Preface to his Book of Hebrew Questions[7], affirms Josephus' statement that the Original Septuagint was a translation of only the Five Books of Moses.  The Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Megilah, Folio 9a,b) records 15 phrases which the Jewish scholars translated in a unique fashion, and which deviate from the (later) Masoretic text, yet only two of these appear in the Christian LXX[8].  Lastly, a linguistic analysis of the Greek used in the LXX translation, which includes Prophets and Writings, indicates that it is not the Koiné Greek that was prevalent in the mid-third century B.C.E., but a more modern dialect.  Thus, the Septuagint to which Professor Gordon refers cannot be the original Jewish translation.  It is most likely the Christian translation, which contains well-known mistranslated verses as well as errors, and in which the order of books follows the Christian, not the Jewish, canon.  It is quite likely that, as a secular Jew, not a Judaic scholar, Professor Gordon was not particularly concerned with the theological aspects regarding the Septuagint, and perhaps unaware of the information that proves the LXX is not the Original Septuagint.

 

Another technical issue in Professor Gordon’s note concerns the statement that the inscribed Ugaritic clay tablet, said to be from around 1400 B.C.E., is pre-Mosaic.  It is, as he states, pre-Isaianic.  The consensus among scholars (Jewish and Gentile) is that the Mosaic era dates to around 1400-1300 B.C.E.  Given that standard tools for absolute dating available at the time of the discovery of these tablets (late 1940’s and early 1950’s) were not even accurate to ±100 years, it is rather surprising to see such a definitive statement about the date of this tablet.

 

Consider next the Ugaritic poem[9] inscribed on the clay tablet, to which Professor Gordon refers in his technical note.  Professor Gordon's introductory comments and his translations of the relevant ten lines (the poem contains 50 lines) are shown below.  The [brackets] indicate missing, blank, or illegible spaces on the original clay tablet, some of which was redacted by Professor Gordon as indicated:

 

Chapter IV

 

THE WEDDING OF NIKKAL AND THE MOON

 

The bard opens with the declaration that he sings of the dramatis personae: the bride Nikkal[10], the groom Yarih = the Moon, and Hrhb the King of Summer who acts as intermediary to arrange the match.  The time is a fitting one: when the Sun goes down and the Moon rises.  The wedding is indicated because the bride-to-be is destined to bear a son.  The Ktrt are informed of the situation for they are to celebrate joyous occasions like marriages in song.  The intermediary is instructed to procure the bride for whom Yarih is ready to pay a price of a thousand shekels of silver, even a myriad of gold, plus gems of lapis – lazuli.  The prospective groom also promises to be a good husband, and cultivate his beloved, even as a farmer transforms a field into a fertile vineyard.  The intermediary suggests a couple of other goddesses who could be obtained as brides without difficulties, but Yarih is steadfast in his desire to wed Nikkal.  The wedding is performed by the weighing of the marriage price by the bride's family.  The bard sings to the bride, who is to be illuminated by the light of her groom.

After a scribal line across the tablet, the text concludes with the poet's singing of the Ktrt descending among the flowers to Ltpn, the head of the pantheon.  Then the bard mentions the counting of the dowry and trousseaux.

 

77:1   I sing of Nikkal-and-Ib [               ]

      Hrhb, King of Summer

      Hrhb, Estival King

      When the Sun sets

      The Moon rises

      - - [             ]

77:5   A virg[in] will give birth [              ]

      [To the K]trt

      Daughters of shouting

      [Swallows].

      Lo a maid will bear a s[on[11]         ]

      answers/sees lo for his love she is [               ]

      [           ]for her flesh, my blood [             ]

77:10 And wine like/and one wed [              ]

 

This is an interesting poem, which speaks of the marriage of two pagan gods.  Though lines 77:5 and 77:7 say what Professor Gordon described in his note, significant grammatical, contextual, and theological problems arise in a comparison with the common renderings of Isaiah 7:14 in Christian Bibles: 

 

X     The problem of tenses:  In Isaiah 7:14,  (ha'almah), the young woman, is already with child, i.e., it is rendered in the present tense.  The Hebrew term  (harah) refers to a woman who is already pregnant, and it is used in this manner consistently in the Hebrew Bible.  In the poem, the future tense is used.

 

X     The problem of identification:  In Isaiah 7:14, the term  (ha'almah) is used, i.e.,  (almah) with the definite article  (ha-), the, which identifies a specific female who was known to both Isaiah and King Ahaz.  In the poem, the definite article is absent in both instances, and the general article, a, is used instead of the definite article, the, thereby removing the specific identification, something that bears similarity to the Christian renditions of Isaiah 7:14 and, of course, to the "quote" of the prophet in Matthew 1:23.

 

X     The problem of interchangeability of terms:  The statement by Prof. Gordon, "… in 77:7 she [the bride] is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew ‘almah “young woman”; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah “virgin.”", does not necessarily imply the interchangeability of the two terms.  Similar situations are found in Genesis.  Rebecca is referred to as  (ha'na'ara), the young girl and  (b^etulah), a virgin, in Genesis 24:16; and later on in the same chapter, she is referred to as  (ha'almah), the young woman, in Genesis 24:43, and  (ha'ishah), the woman, in Genesis 24:39,44.  Does this mean that the respective pairs or all these terms are interchangeable?  The answer is NO!

 

X     The problem of usage of terms by Isaiah:  This is a dual problem -

 

Ö   Why would Isaiah use the ambiguous Ugaritic style only at Isaiah 7:14?  He had other, more accurate, vocabulary at his disposal had he desired to specifically refer to a virgin; after all, he used the word  (b^etulah), a virgin, five times throughout his Book (see Is 23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5). 

Ö   Why would Isaiah, the Prophet who spoke out so vehemently against idolatry (see, e.g., Is 19:7-8; 41:18-26; 44:9-20; 46:1-7; 57:3-14; 65:1-7), use ambiguous language from an old pagan source (if it was even known to him) in a prophecy that had to be very precise?  Like the other prophets of his era, Isaiah railed against idolatry and, according to tradition, as soon as Manasseh, the notorious idolater, succeeded to the throne, he had Isaiah murdered.

 

Considering the above information, it appears that the author of the tract misused the material in Professor Gordon’s technical note by quoting from it out of context.  This makes the relevance of the technical note to the actual prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 questionable at best. 

 

Though Professor Gordon was widely recognized and well respected as a secular linguist and archaeologist, his credentials and skills as a Judaic theological scholar are non-existent as indicated by the absence of any relevant published research.  This is also confirmed in the short biographical sketch of him in the Encyclopedia Judaica, where he is described as a Semitic scholar, as well as from the fact that this particular technical note is not cited in any other known publication (Jewish or Christian) on Isaiah 7:14, except in the tract under discussion.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim concerning Professor Gordon's note on Isaiah 7:14 lacks both integrity and validity.

 

Conclusion on Exhibit #1:  The claim that archaeological findings support  (almah) to mean "a virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is false.

 

3. Exhibit #2 – Rabbi Abraham Farissol on the possibility of a virgin birth

 

U      The Christian Apologetic Missionary Claim:  The author of the tract states that, "Jewish sages have sometimes had something to say about the possibility of a virgin birth".  The first citation offered is a quote attributed to Rabbi Abraham Farissol, a noted medieval Jewish Sage:

 

We cannot deny the possibility that God, may He be blessed, could create in a virgin, even one whom no man has known, for He created everything out of nothing.

--quoted by Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (New York: KTAV/ADL, 1977), p. 153.

 

Y      Refuting the Missionary Claim:  Rabbi Abraham Farissol (1452-1528) was a Jewish Sage, polemicist, and geographer, who hailed from Ferrara, Italy.

 

Is the above quote an accurate representation of the context of Rabbi Abraham Farissol's words?  Whenever someone claims to be quoting from the works of Jewish Sages and scholars material that would appear to defend Christian doctrines, it is incumbent upon the reader to investigate the validity of such quotes.  The relevant discussion appears at the beginning of Chapter Seven, a chapter titled “Virgin Birth”, in Daniel J. Lasker's book, Jewish Philosphical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages.  Reproduced below are the first few paragraphs of this chapter (p. 153).  The passage quoted by the author of the tract is shown in highlighted bold font for emphasis:

 

CHAPTER SEVEN   Virgin Birth

 

The Christian dogma of virgin birth teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin, i.e., a virgo intacta, her entire life, before, during, and after the birth of her son.  “The Christian belief is that Mary’s virginity was never broken, neither at the time of the birth [in partu] nor before [ante partum], nor after [post partum].”⁽¹⁾  The Jewish polemicists challenged this assertion on all three points.

 

The doctrine of the virgin conception was not attacked per se.  The possibility that a woman might conceive with her virginity intact, though by means of normal fertilization, is an occurrence which is conceded in the Talmud.⁽²⁾  Nevertheless, the Jewish polemicists rejected the notion that God[sic] could become incarnate by impregnating a virgin and fathering an offspring who was, according to Christian doctrine, God Himself.  Hence, the Jewish thinkers rarely offered arguments against the doctrine of Mary’s virginity ante partum without reference to incarnation.  Abraham Farissol expressed it this way:

 

We cannot deny the possibility that God, may He be blessed,, could create a creation in a virgin, even one whom no man has known, For He created everything out of nothing.  Rather, we deny that there was a need for incarnation.⁽³⁾

 

The denial of incarnation was sufficient justification for rejection of the doctrine of Mary’s virgin conception of Jesus.

 

According to the context of the entire passage, Rabbi Abraham Farissol said something much more significant than the author of the tract is trying to convey to the readers, which is evident from the portion he left out of the quote.  The context in which this quote is presented by Professor Lasker is stated immediately following the quoted portion:

 

The denial of incarnation was sufficient justification for rejection of the doctrine of Mary’s virgin conception of Jesus.

 

Professor Lasker concludes Chapter Seven (pp. 158-9) with this statement:

 

There were not many Jewish philosophical arguments against the Christian doctrine of virgin birth.  After they cited the obvious philosophical contradictions between virgin birth and the impossibility of the interpenetrability of bodies, and rebutted the images of virgin birth adduced from nature, the polemicists employed no further rational arguments.  As Isaac Lupis stated: “What more can I add in order to refute this strange belief since it has absolutely no support, neither from reason nor from the intellect.”⁽⁷¹⁾ The dogma of virgin birth, then, was one more Christian belief which the Jewish polemicists regarded as irrational; they attempted to demonstrate that irrationality through the use of philosophical arguments.

 

The last sentence is shown in highlighted bold font for emphasis.  This should be sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the reference in the tract to Professor Lasker’s quote of Rabbi Abraham Farissol's remarks cannot be used to support the notion of a virgin birth being foretold by Isaiah, and that the application of  (almah) in Isaiah 7:14 means "a virgin". 

 

The author of the tract lifted out-of-context a portion that could serve his/her purpose, thereby deceiving the readers.

 

Conclusion on Exhibit #2:  The claim that Rabbi Abraham Farissol supported the notion of a virgin birth is false.

 

[For future reference:  Take note of the first two sentences in the second paragraph of Chapter Seven above; these will be discussed in Sec. II.E below.]

 

4. Exhibit #3 – The author of a medieval Jewish polemic work writes on the possibility of a virgin birth

 

U      The Christian Apologetic Missionary Claim:  The next citation offered by the author of the tract as evidence that Jewish Sages supported the possibility of a virgin birth is the following quote from the author of a well-known medieval Jewish work of polemics:

 

Granted that the prophet said that a virgin would give birth to a son. So what? There is, after all, no doubt that the Lord's hand is not incapable of fulfilling his will and desire, and that he is a ruler who can do whatever he wishes...."

--David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996, © 1979), p. 103.

 

Y      Refuting the Missionary Claim:  Is this an accurate quotation?  The Nizzahon Vetus, or Old Book of Polemic, is an exceptionally comprehensive example of medieval Jewish polemic against Christianity.  Written by an anonymous Northern European Jew in the late 13^th or early 14^th century, C.E., it refutes the Christological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and subjects the New Testament and Christian dogma to a rigorous critique. 

 

Reproduced below, starting from the beginning, is approximately half of the relevant section from David Berger's book, THE JEWISH CHRISTIAN DEBATE IN THE HIGH MIDDLE AGES - A critical edition of the NIZZAHON VETUS, (pp. 102-104), with the portion quoted by the author of the tract placed in highlighted bold font for emphasis:

 

[86] The ‘almah, Immanuel, and the prophetess (Isa. 7, 8)

 

The heretics also say that “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son” [Isa. 7:14] was said about Mary, who was a virgin and bore a son, for otherwise this would not constitute a novelty or a sign.  “And shall call his name Immanuel” [ibid.], for when he is born God[sic] will be with us; i.e., he will be God.  “And I came unto the prophetess” [Isa. 8:3] – that is Mary.  “Come together, O people, and you shall be broken in pieces….Take counsel together, and it shall come to naught…” [Isa. 8:9-10] – there are the Jews who took counsel together to kill him.

 

Now listen men of understanding, and see how confused their words are and how they contradict the words of the living God.  The book of Isaiah is, after all, in our possession, and it testifies that these verses are not written together but are found in two or three different places; moreover, it testifies further that Isaiah prophesied concerning two sons, one named Immanuel and another named Maher Shalal Hash Baz.

 

Now, if you would prefer to answer briefly, then tell him:  Granted that the prophet said that a virgin would give birth to a son.  So what?  There is, after all, no doubt that the Lord's hand is not incapable of fulfilling his will and desire, and that he is a ruler who can do whatever he wishes, but still how do you know that this virgin is Mary?  Where do you find her name or that of her son so that you may know?  I could say, rather, that this refers to another virgin or that it will happen in the future.  And if your view is based on the name Immanuel, i.e., God is with us, this is no proof, for you could make the same claim of divinity regarding Ishmael the son of Hagar if you use this sort of reasoning.  There too the angel told her, “Behold you are with child and shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Ishmael” [Gen. 16:11], and you can interpret that name as follows: Everyone will listen to him because he is God.  Similarly, it says of Hannah, “And she called his name Samuel” [1 Sam. 1:20], a name that can be explained as “His name is God.”  If he will then say that Hagar and Hannah were not virgins while Mary was, this would contradict Solomon, who said, ”There is no new thing under the sun… that which has been is that which shall be” [Eccles. 1:9].  Moreover, where do we find that the prophets warned us concerning his Torah and the belief in his divinity as we were warned at Sinai by Moses, as it is written, “I am the Lord your God… you shall have no other gods beside me” [Exod 20:2-3]?  Thus, one can understand that your words have no substance and that these prophecies do not deal with divinity.

 

Moreover, you can defeat him and respond with true and proper words by telling him:  According to you that Isaiah said, “Behold, a young woman conceives” and the entire passage concerning Mary and her son, come and examine the language of the verse and let your ears hear what comes out of your mouth.  With regard to the verse, “Behold, a young woman conceives (harah),” you cannot explain harah except as a reference to the past, i.e., that she has already conceived, while Mary had not yet conceived and would not do so for another thousand years.  According to you, then, why does it say harah?  It should have said tahar which would have been a reference to the future.  Moreover, see what it says soon after: “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken of both her kings” [Isa. 7:16].  Now, if he was God, what is the meaning of “before the child shall know etc.”?  Why, he should have known and understood the difference between good and evil from the day of his birth if God was within him.  Indeed, with regard to your statement that he eventually performed wonders so that people would believe that he was God, what could have been a greater sign than distinguishing between good and evil as soon as he came out of his mother’s womb and remaining without food and drink?  Then, people would have believed in him.  As it is, however the fact that we saw nothing in him during his youth to distinguish him from other infants leads us to disbelieve those wonders performed in his adulthood and to conclude that he performed them through magic in the manner of charmers, diviners, and observers of times.  Moreover, where do these verses indicate that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to her son?  After all, ‘almah in Hebrew does not necessarily denote a virgin; virgo means young woman.

 

As is evident from the title item [86], "The ‘almah, Immanuel, and the prophetess (Isa. 7, 8)", and from its content, it is a refutation of the claim by Christians concerning the use of almah for a virgin.  The passage quoted by the author of the tract is the opening statement in a counter argument to refute the Virgin Birth – take note of what was not quoted!  Though, the quoted segment itself, without the surrounding text, appears to support the missionary apologetic claim, it is obvious, after reading the entire passage, that the Nizzahon Vetus is not a friendly opus to Christian dogma, especially when such dogma attempts to base itself on passages from within the Hebrew Bible.

 

The author of the tract has once again lifted out-of-context a segment that served his/her purpose, and has thereby deceived the readers.

 

Conclusion on Exhibit #3:  The claim that the author of the Nizzahon Vetus supports the notion of a virgin birth is false.

 

5. Exhibit #4 – Rabbi Dr. Adam Kamesar on the possibility of a virgin birth

 

U      The Christian Apologetic Missionary Claim:  The next citation offered by the author of the tract as evidence that Jewish Sages supported the possibility of a virgin birth is the following quote from the contemporary scholar Rabbi Dr. Adam Kamesar:

 

The doctrine of the virgin conception was not attacked per se.  The possibility that a woman might conceive with her virginity intact, though by means of normal fertilization, is an occurrence which is conceded in the Talmud.

--Adam Kamesar, "The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century," Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., vol. 41 part 1 (April 1990), p. 51.

 

Y      Refuting the Missionary Claim:  Did Rabbi Dr. Adam Kamesar, who has been the Director of the School of Graduate Studies, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, OH (the Rabbinical seminary of Reform Judaism.) really write this?

 

At the end of Sec. II.C above, the reader was advised to take note of the first two sentences in the second paragraph of the portion of Chapter Seven in Professor Lasker's book.  Here are those two sentences again:

 

The doctrine of the virgin conception was not attacked per se.  The possibility that a woman might conceive with her virginity intact, though by means of normal fertilization, is an occurrence which is conceded in the Talmud.

 

A comparison of this passage with the quote that is attributed to Rabbi Dr. Kamesar by the author of the tract, shows they are identical!

 

Rabbi Dr. Kamesar is, indeed, a contemporary Jewish/Judaic scholar noted for his research on St. Jerome.  The cited paper[12] is a thorough research effort on early Christian responses to Jewish challenges to the Christian translation of  (almah) in Isaiah 7:14.  Rabbi Dr. Kamesar's article contains material from his doctoral dissertation submitted at Oxford University in 1987, and it presents an in-depth analysis of the early apologetics on this subject.  However, the quote attributed to Rabbi Dr. Kamesar is not contained therein.  As can be seen, it is actually taken from Professor Lasker’s book.

 

This is a blatant misrepresentation by the author of the tract, who knowingly lifted a "suitable" portion of a passage from one author and attributed it to a different author.  Did the author of the tract assume that no one will bother to validate the references.  Once again, the unsuspecting reader has been deceived.

 

Conclusion on Exhibit #4:  The claim that Rabbi Dr. Adam Kamesar supports the notion of a virgin birth is a blatant lie!

 

6. Exhibit #5 – Professor Suzanne Daniel on the Septuagint as a Jewish document

 

U      The Christian Apologetic Missionary Claim:  Attempting to convince readers that Professor Gordon's reference to the Septuagint lends credence to the claim that it is a Jewish document, the author of the tract states:

 

The Septuagint is the translation into Greek of the Hebrew Scriptures, made for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt.  This is the version that translated "almah" as "parthenos," which nearly always means "virgin."  Some have discounted its value, claiming that except for the Torah, the Septuagint is a Gentile Christian translation. However, that is not the view of most scholars.

 

To support the claim that "… that is not the view of most scholars.", the author quotes the following portions from a scholarly article about the Greek Septuagint as evidence:

 

Suzanne Daniel, Associate Professor of Judeo-Hellenistic Literature, Hebrew University, Jerusalem:

 

On the Torah portion of the Septuagint:

 

It is assumed that the project was initiated by the Greek-speaking Jewish community itself, which needed a version of the Pentateuch for worship and instruction.

 

On the Prophets and the Writings portions of the Seputuagint:

 

It is...generally held that the versions of the Former and Latter Prophets must be placed before the end of the third century B.C.E., and that at least some of the Hagiographa were already translated at the beginning of the second century B.C.E., since the prologue to the Greek Ben-Sira (132 B.C.E.) refers to an already existing version of "the Law, the Prophets, and the other writings." It is therefore accepted that a complete version of the Hebrew Bible existed at least at the beginning of the first century C.E.

 

--"Bible," section "Greek: The Septuagint", Encyclopedia Judaica.

 

Y      Refuting the Missionary Claim:  Is this claim accurate?  Before the quoted segments are analyzed, another erroneous statement needs to be corrected.  The author of the tract states the following:

 

"Some have discounted its value, claiming that except for the Torah, the Septuagint is a Gentile Christian translation."

 

This is not an accurate statement about the Jewish objections.  The Jewish objections about the Septuagint being an authorized Jewish translation into Greek of the entire Hebrew Bible are based on the following:

 

X     Historical evidence that shows the Original Septuagint is an authorized Greek translation of only the Torah.

 

X     Evidence found within today's LXX (Septuagint), such as factual errors, missing information, and a dialect that is inconsistent with the Koiné Greek spoken in the third century B.C.E.. 

 

Today's LXX (Septuagint) is a Church-rendered document in its entirety.  Though the evidence is ample and convincing, it is not presented in this essay since the focus here is the material contained in the tract on  (almah).  The relevant portion of the article on the Greek Septuagint by Professor Daniel is reproduced below[13], with the quoted portions shown in highlighted bold font for emphasis.

 

Origin and History.  It is widely accepted that what the Letter of Aristeas relates about an official translation of the Pentateuch, made in Alexandria at the beginning of the third century B.C.E., may be taken as valid.  However, it is assumed that the project was initiated by the Greek-speaking Jewish community itself, which needed a version of the Pentateuch for worship and instruction.  This version, which was undoubtedly a collective undertaking, perhaps based on previous written or oral attempts, was hailed with enthusiasm by the community.  It was followed by translations of the other books of the Hebrew Bible.  According to Thackeray, the liturgical needs of the Alexandrian Jews led to a gradual translation of the Latter Prophets, followed by that of the Former Prophets, during the second century, while the books of the Hagiographa were translated separately in the first century B.C.E. or later.  However, it is more generally held that the versions of the Former and Latter Prophets must be placed before the end of the third century B.C.E., and that at least some of the Hagiographa were already translated at the beginning of the second century B.C.E., since the prologue to the Greek Ben-Sira (132 B.C.E.) refers to an already existing version of the "the Law, the Prophets, and the other writings."  It is therefore accepted that a complex version of the Hebrew Bible existed at least at the beginning of the first century C.E.  All or nearly all of it was of Egyptian origin, but as each component emerged, it was disseminated throughout the Hellenistic Diaspora and Palestine.  There must have been considerable confusion in its transmission, due to the normal scribal corruptions and a growing incomprehension of the intentions of the translators, who had used a rather flexible technique and had not worked on a standard original.  The resulting deviations were all the more disconcerting when the Hebrew canon was definitely fixed.  This may explain the dissatisfaction of the Jews for the Septuagint, an attitude which was doubtless aggravated by the enthusiastic use of it by the Christians.  As a result, new versions were made in the course of the second century by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus (see below).

A short time later Origen became alarmed at the state of the Greek text of the Bible: the latter not only differed considerably from the Hebrew text of the Jews, which he believed to be the original one, but it appeared in a wide range of forms in the manuscripts current among the Christians.  His purpose in producing his enormous work known as the Hexapla (“the sixfold,” completed in 245 C.E.) was to reconstitute and standardize the “genuine” text of the Septuagint, essential both to sound exegesis and effective apologetics.  The Hexapla consisted of six parallel columns, the first – the standard Hebrew text, the second – the same transcribed in Greek characters, the third, fourth, and sixth – the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion respectively; the critical text of the Septuagint compiled by Origen made up the fifth column.  It was often recopied separately and enjoyed wide circulation in Palestine.  However, it did not become preeminent throughout the Christian world, since, at the end of the fourth century, Jerome referred to the existence of two other recensions, one Egyptian by Hesychius, and the other made in Asia Minor by Lucian.  The existence of these three versions might in itself afford a sufficient explanation of the many discrepancies displayed by the Septuagint manuscripts.

 

The context of the material surrounding the quoted passages does not support the missionary claims.  Upon reading the entire article, the repeated use of the term Alexandrian version (i.e., Original Septuagint) is noteworthy, and this should be contrasted against the claims made in the tract, that the entire Hebrew Bible was part of the original translation.  Unlike the impression that the author of the tract intends to project to the readers, Professor Daniel's article makes it abundantly clear that she does not support the notion that the Original Septuagint (Alexandrian version) was a Greek translation of the entire Hebrew Bible.  Rather, that it consisted of a Greek translation of only the Pentateuch, as also noted by both Josephus and St. Jerome, as well as in the Letter of Aristeas, as pointed out by Professor Daniel.

 

Conclusion on Exhibit #5:  The claim that the Septuagint mentioned by Professor Gordon is a Jewish document is false.

 

III.            Summary

 

The analysis of the missionary apologetic tract, "Does almah mean young woman or virgin?", presented in this essay demonstrates the following:

 

¤     Deception is the primary tool of the Christian missionary to the Jews.

 

¤     The deceivers are counting on their readers' not to verify that.

 

Ÿ         sources are quoted accurately and within proper context

Ÿ         cited sources are real and not bogus.

 

¤     The deceivers often give the false impression that they know the Hebrew language.

 

¤     The deceivers knowingly violate the Biblical commandments against bearing false witness (Exod 20:13, Deut 5:17).

 

¤     Those who use deception to further their agenda cannot be trusted.

 

Those who rely on tracts such as "Does almah mean young woman or virgin?", put themselves at a great risk of being deceived.  Each claim made by Christian apologists and missionaries must be validated and must not b "taken of faith" just because it may sound plausible.  Ask yourself: Is that which must be defended with deception worth defending at all?  You decide!

Appendix – Complete Article by Professor Suzanne Daniel[14]

 

Author:  Suzanne Daniel, Associate Professor of Judeo-Hellenistic Literature,

Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Source:  Encyclopedia Judaica; Section – Bible; Volume 4B, pp. 851-855, Keter Publishing House Ltd. (1971)

 

Greek: The Septuagint.  Name and Description.  The Greek version of the Bible known as the Septuagint (Interpretatio septuaginta seniorum, i.e., “translation of the seventy elders”) probably owes its name to a story related in the Letter of Aristeas, according to which 72 scholars, summoned from Jerusalem by Ptolemy II Philadelphius, achieved a perfect Greek translation of the Pentateuch, which was deposited in the Alexandrian library.  This story was embellished with time until the 72 interpreters were credited with the translation of the entire Hebrew Bible.  It was maintained that although each of them had worked independently, their finished versions were identical and, moreover, superior to the original as a result of divine inspiration.

Together with the New Testament, the Septuagint constituted the Bible of the Christian church, and it still is the Bible of the Greek Orthodox Church.  The number of extant manuscripts is therefore considerable.  Over 30 uncials, dating from the fourth to the ninth century, and about 350 cursives, ranging from the ninth to the fifteenth century, are in existence.  They have been supplemented by recently discovered papyri fragments, which generally date from the second to the ninth century: a few of them date back to the second century B.C.E., and a number of fragments from the Qumran caves also bear witness to the pre-Christian Septuagint (see Dead Sea Scrolls).

The Old Testament contains a translation of all the books of the Hebrew canon.  Some of them have different titles, some have discrepancies in the order of the chapters (especially Jeremiah), and others have additional sections (Esther, Jeremiah, Daniel).  It also embodies the deuterocanonical books of the Catholic Church (Judith, Tobit, I and II Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben-Sira, I Baruch) and a few other Apocryphal books (I Esdras, III and IV Maccabees, the Odes, and the Psalms of Solomon).  The sequence is based on a literary classification: law, history, poetry, prophecy.

Origin and History.  It is widely accepted that what the Letter of Aristeas relates about an official translation of the Pentateuch, made in Alexandria at the beginning of the third century B.C.E., may be taken as valid.  However, it is assumed that the project was initiated by the Greek-speaking Jewish community itself, which needed a version of the Pentateuch for worship and instruction.  This version, which was undoubtedly a collective undertaking, perhaps based on previous written or oral attempts, was hailed with enthusiasm by the community.  It was followed by translations of the other books of the Hebrew Bible.  According to Thackeray, the liturgical needs of the Alexandrian Jews led to a gradual translation of the Latter Prophets, followed by that of the Former Prophets, during the second century, while the books of the Hagiographa were translated separately in the first century B.C.E. or later.  However, it is more generally held that the versions of the Former and Latter Prophets must be placed before the end of the third century B.C.E., and that at least some of the Hagiographa were already translated at the beginning of the second century B.C.E., since the prologue to the Greek Ben-Sira (132 B.C.E.) refers to an already existing version of the "the Law, the Prophets, and the other writings."  It is therefore accepted that a complex version of the Hebrew Bible existed at least at the beginning of the first century C.E.  All or nearly all of it was of Egyptian origin, but as each component emerged, it was disseminated throughout the Hellenistic Diaspora and Palestine.  There must have been considerable confusion in its transmission, due to the normal scribal corruptions and a growing incomprehension of the intentions of the translators, who had used a rather flexible technique and had not worked on a standard original.  The resulting deviations were all the more disconcerting when the Hebrew canon was definitely fixed.  This may explain the dissatisfaction of the Jews for the Septuagint, an attitude which was doubtless aggravated by the enthusiastic use of it by the Christians.  As a result, new versions were made in the course of the second century by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus (see below).

A short time later Origen became alarmed at the state of the Greek text of the Bible: the latter not only differed considerably from the Hebrew text of the Jews, which he believed to be the original one, but it appeared in a wide range of forms in the manuscripts current among the Christians.  His purpose in producing his enormous work known as the Hexapla (“the sixfold,” completed in 245 C.E.) was to reconstitute and standardize the “genuine” text of the Septuagint, essential both to sound exegesis and effective apologetics.  The Hexapla consisted of six parallel columns, the first – the standard Hebrew text, the second – the same transcribed in Greek characters, the third, fourth, and sixth – the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion respectively; the critical text of the Septuagint compiled by Origen made up the fifth column.  It was often recopied separately and enjoyed wide circulation in Palestine.  However, it did not become preeminent throughout the Christian world, since, at the end of the fourth century, Jerome referred to the existence of two other recensions, one Egyptian by Hesychius, and the other made in Asia Minor by Lucian.  The existence of these three versions might in itself afford a sufficient explanation of the many discrepancies displayed by the Septuagint manuscripts.

The Proto-Septuagint.  The authentic text of the Alexandrian version must be sought at a period before the vicissitudes of this long history.  Despite the alternative theory of “the Greek Targum” held by P. Kahle, who aimed to prove that such a version never existed, the consensus of opinion continues to favor the Proto-Septuagint, whose text should be reconstitutable from a critical study of the sources.  This is, moreover, the assumption on which the two great modern editions of the Septuagint are based, although their fundamental principles differ.  The Cambridge Septuagint, containing the Pentateuch and the historical books (9 vols., 1906-1940), presents the text of the Codex B or Vaticanus (the gaps in which are filled from the Alexandrimus (A), and the Sinaiticus (S)): it includes an immense critical apparatus based on the collation of the uncials and a large number of the cursives, and using data from the versions derived from the Septuagint (in particular the Vetus Latina, and the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Syro-Hexaplaric versions), together with the quotations of Philo, Josephus, and the Church Fathers.  The Goettingen Septuagint claims to provide a restored original text, although it generally comes back to B as the best source.  It includes with this text a vast critical apparatus in which the sources are grouped as far as possible in families.

The Importance of the Septuagint.  Long venerated by the Catholic Church as much if not more than the Hebrew text, the Septuagint has also enjoyed the favor of critical exegetes, who saw it as precious evidence of a Hebrew text far older than the oldest extant manuscripts.  However, the more favorable opinion of the masoretic text which prevails today, and a fuller understanding of the problems inherent in the traditional Greek text have led scholars to believe that the possible use of the Septuagint in retrieving the original Hebrew text can only lie in the future.  It is realized that only when a reliable text of the Proto-Septuagint has been constructed, and the language, technique, and actual intentions of its authors are better understood, will it be possible to reconstitute the original Hebrew text used with sufficient credibility so that it can be compared with the extant text.

It is therefore clear that, though still associated with biblical studies, contemporary research on the Septuagint has acquired an undoubted autonomy.  Moreover, apart from the prestige of its antiquity and the influence it exercised throughout the centuries, the Alexandrian version is of great value in itself.  It is one of the most extensive collections of texts in Hellenistic Koiné.  Although its style is distinctly influenced as a whole by the Hebrew, the language is genuinely Greek, as has been shown by a comparison with contemporary source.  As it has the twofold advantage of dealing with matters which are much more varied than the papyrological documents, and of not being subject to the limitation of traditional styles, as the literary works of the period, it may claim to represent a precious relic of the living language of Ptolemic Egypt.

As the first attempt to translate the Bible into another tongue, the Greek Pentateuch is also worthy of close attention.  The translation is strikingly faithful, even adapting to the dimensions of the original and attempting to reproduce the order, as well as the number of words and the nature and construction of clauses in a sentence.  Yet it is not servile to the original.  Not only is the syntax of the Greek respected and its resources judiciously exploited, but the vocabulary also is used with remarkable independence.  Far from seeking to show the etymology of Hebrew terms, the translators do not hesitate to give a word a different Greek equivalent according to the context, and to make the same Greek term serve for two or more Hebrew words.  This plasticity of vocabulary enabled the translators to avoid paraphrase, and greatly contributed to the continuous but infinitely unobtrusive commentary, which they offered in their desire to eliminate the obscurities and reduce the apparent contradictions in the text, while emphasizing the whole range of intentions.  This technique, which might be called targumic inasmuch as its objectives are essentially didactic, is constantly found, although in differing degrees, in most of the books which succeeded the Alexandrian Bible.  However, in some, and particularly in the Hagiographa, two new tendencies emerge.  The extreme freedom of the version of Proverbs, for example, contrasts with the literalism of that of Ecclesiastes or Song of Songs.  Despite this evolution to two opposite trends in the philosophy of translation, it must be noted that the stylistic tradition established by the Greek Pentateuch remained remarkably strong, and that the influence of its vocabulary, in particular, is still felt even in the rival versions of the second century C.E.

With its general desire to explain the Hebrew text, the Alexandrian version offers enlightening interpretations in many places.  In this first monument of Jewish exegesis, at a particularly important period in the religious history of Israel, it is not unusual to find interpretations similar to those offered by rabbinical sources.  Z. Frankel drew attention to these convergencies in the last century, and if their study were pursued it would undoubtedly throw fuller light on the extent of the spiritual links between the Egyptian Diaspora and the religious center of Palestine.

Minor Greek Versions.  The Greek translations of the second century are known essentially from annotations to certain Septuagint manuscripts and from patristic quotations, in particular those of Jerome, who still had access to the Hexapla and had willingly used it for guidance when he produced his own translation, the Vulgate.  To these fragments (last edited by F. Field in 1875) must be added a few more recent discoveries: 150 verses of the Psalms in the five last columns of the Hexapla and a few fragments of Kings and Psalms according to Aquila.  The Theodotion version of Daniel is given by practically all of the Septuagint manuscripts with the exception of the Alexandrian.

The patristic and rabbinical sources agree in regarding Aquila as a proselyte, and this fact, together with the similarity of their names, has suggested that Aquila and the targumist Onkelos were the same person.  Aquila’s version, which was probably made in Palestine at the beginning of the second century, was highly rated by the Jewish communities, and a novella of the emperor Justinian authorizing its use for synagogal reading bears witness to its vitality as late as the sixth century.  Aquila strove to keep as close as possible to the letter of the Hebrew text, reproducing even the etymology of words and the wording of idioms.  Some of his devices, such as his frequent use of syn to render the particle et, could also reflect the influence of the exegesis of R. Akiva, whose disciple he is said to have been.  As this demand for strict literalism is already noticeable in the Alexandrian version of certain Hagiographa, Aquila’s version might be considered to be a result of a long process, rather than an entirely new enterprise.

Theodotion, whose name likewise recalls that of a targumist, Jonathan, probably flourished toward the end of the second century.  He was a Diaspora Jew who may have been a Christian for some time before returning to his original faith.  He apparently concerned himself mainly with revising the Septuagint, in order to bring it nearest to the standard Hebrew text, harmonize its renderings, and eliminate the midrashic elements.  A noteworthy feature of his work is the use of transliterations.  Recent research suggests that Theodotion may have used an earlier version (Ur-Theodotion).

Symmachus, whom the Church Fathers make either a Samaritan converted to Judaism or a Christian, must have come still later.  He must be assumed to have been at least of Jewish origin or training, in order to explain the influence which contemporary rabbinical exegesis clearly had over him.  He seems to have been guided eclectically by the previous versions, although he adopted a personal technique.  He carefully avoided literalism and made skillful use of the resources of the Greek language, resorting frequently to idiomatic renderings.

Mention must finally be made of the existence of three other anonymous versions, called respectively, the Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, in reference to the place they occupied in the Tetrapla (“the fourfold,” an abridged edition of the Hexapla without the first two columns).  Only tiny fragments testify to their existence, but recent theories regarding predecessors of Aquila and Theodotion have drawn greater attention to them.

Bibliography:  H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1914²); R. Ottley, A Handbook to the Septuagint (1920); H. St. John Thackeray, Some Aspects of the Greek Old Testament (1927); H. H. Rowley, in: JQR, 33 (1942/43), 497-9; H. M. Orlinsky, in: H. R. Willoughby (ed.), The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow (1947), 144-61; idem, The Septuagint, the Oldest Translation of the Bible (1949); idem, in: JBL, 78 (1959), 26-33; G. Gerleman, Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament (1948); E. J. Bickerman, in: A. Marx Jubilee Volume (1950), 149-78; B. J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions (1951), 101-87; F. F. Bruce, in: The Bible Translator, 4 (1953), 129-35; L. H. Brockington, in: ZAW, 66 (1954), 80-86; F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (1958⁴), 52-79, 89-97; P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (1959²), 209-64; idem, in: JBL, 79 (1960), 111-8; J. Ziegler, Die Septuaginta, Erbe und Auftrag (1962); S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (1968).

[Su.D.]