Support for the Virgin Birth

Since it is the Christmas season, it seems appropriate to tackle a question/challenge that was brought up to me a few weeks ago.

There has been some question in the past about the New Testament's attestation of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is said that Matthew translated Isaiah 7:14, he translated the Hebrew word for "young girl" (almah)more explicitly as virgin (parthenos, in Greek), when the Old Testament text was not saying that.

This challenge is true, at least on the surface. So, does it follow that the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation from the Old Testament and that there was no virgin birth?

Here are a few points in evidence for the validity of the virgin birth, by Dr. Wave Nunnally:

1. The Hebrew word almah can definitely have the nuance of “virgin” because young women were expected to be virgins and because in order to be a “sign”, the young woman MUST be a virgin. Otherwise, it would be a matter of nature taking its normal course and no one would recognize the birth as a sign of anything.

2. The Septuagint or LXX, that is, the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, definitely understood it this way because it uses the more specific Greek term parthenos. It is important at this point in the discussion that it be pointed out that the LXX was a PRE-CHRISTIAN, JEWISH production untainted by NT usage. It is also important that there are no textual variants that would suggest that the original reading was something more generic like gunae, which later Christian scribes were able to subvert. If this was the case, there would be manuscripts that didn’t undergo this subversion that would attest to a more “original” generic reading.

3. When Matthew quotes Isa. 7:14 in 1:23, almost all scholars are agreed that he is NOT quoting from the Septuagint. Rather, this is one of the 12 OT quotes within Matthew that scholars have isolated as coming from the “Testamonia” source, which consists of 12 usually messianically-oriented prophetic texts for which a fresh Greek translation is offered in the text of Matthew. This is significant because now we have not one (the LXX) but TWO sets of ancient authors looking at the same Isaiah text and translating it with parthenos because of the context.

4. Luke makes reference to the same textual tradition in 1:27 and 34. In the first passage, Luke uses the term parthenos to describe Mary’s status; in the second passage, Mary describes herself by the same term. Whether this phenomenon can be described as two independent sources can be debated, but that it is a separate tradition from the Matthean tradition is not a subject for debate. This material is classic “L” (content found only in Luke) material not shared by Matthew or the other two gospel writers for that matter. Thus, it is legitimate to conclude that Luke is yet a third ancient textual witness to the interpretation of almah as parthenos.

5. Whether Matthew is “correct” in his interpretation and application of Isaiah or not is a completely separate issue with respect to the question of the historicity of his report of the virginal conception. Therefore, it is logically acceptable to reject Matthew’s interpretation and application of Isaiah 7:14 and still accept the historicity of his assertion that Mary conceived while still a virgin. All Matthew is doing here is asserting that Mary’s virginal conception took place in such a way that it fulfilled prophecy. Interestingly, Luke makes the same historical assertion WITHOUT reference to Isaiah 7:14, which confirms the feasibility of accepting the historicity of the account without the support of the OT passage.

6. The absence of sexual union is explicit in passages such as Matt. 1:18, 20, 23, 25; Luke 1:27 (x2), 34-35; implicit in 2:5; 3:38. So the case for the virgin birth is certainly made apart from this one "mistranslation."

In conclusion, it is generally accepted that Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, and was interested in making the case that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy. We see this thread throughout Matthew. This is certainly the purpose for referencing the passage in Isaiah, not to "prove the virgin birth." Thus, it is difficult to discredit the virgin birth based on this reference. In addition, Matthew, a first century Palestinian Jew who spoke several languages, including Hebrew and Greek, certainly has a better grasp on how the language was used in the first century than we do. It is a bit arrogant to assume that we can tell Matthew a thing or two about his native tongue.