HistoricalChristian.Faith

Isaiah 7:14 at Matthew 1:23: a Septuagintal “virgin,” and does Matthew depend on it?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: sound — the catalog's LXX-distinctive tag on this row holds. Matthew 1:23 reproduces the Septuagint's παρθένος (“virgin”) verbatim and rests its proof on it, where the standing Hebrew ʿalmah (“young woman”) and the three later Jewish revisers (νεᾶνις) do not by themselves denote virginity. But the divergence is of a precise kind, and two refinements keep the tag honest: it is an interpretive rendering of an identical Hebrew Vorlage (the consonantal ʿalmah stands unchanged in the Masoretic Text and the Qumran Great Isaiah Scroll), so the Septuagint here glosses the Hebrew rather than preserving an older Hebrew the Masoretes later lost (unlike Hebrews 1:6 or Goliath's height); and the gloss is a defensible pre-Christian Jewish reading (virginity connoted in the word's ordinary use, chosen by the translators c. 150 BC with no Christian motive), not a distortion · the classification is Justin Martyr's ancient point carried into the modern text-critical surveys

Related arguments: the Septuagint's interpretive gloss — see also Psalm 40:6 at Hebrews 10:5 — a Septuagintal “body,” and does the argument depend on it?

See also: this row's translation-question — whether the later reviser's νεᾶνις is malice or method — is weighed on the Aquila-revision argument; the big-picture Septuagint-dependence thesis this row instances is weighed on “did the New Testament authors quote the Septuagint?”; the legend that dramatizes the same proof-text is weighed on the Simeon-the-Just argument. This page adds the piece those three do not carry: the text-form adjudication of the catalog row itself.

The claim

“… the Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ is ‘Bethula’, which is not written here in the present passage: instead, the word used is ‘Alma’, which all except the Septuagint translated as ‘young woman.’… But if a young woman, as the Jews want, and not a virgin, were to give birth, what sign could it be called, since this name refers to age, not integrity?”

— Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 7:14 (c. 408), historicalchristian.faith.¹ Jerome — the champion of the Hebraica veritas, no friend of laundering the Greek over the Hebrew — concedes the underlying textual fact this argument turns on: at Isaiah 7:14 the Septuagint stands alone among the Greek versions in reading “virgin” where every other rendering has “young woman,” and Matthew 1:23 quotes the Septuagint's word. The interpretation this argument serves is the catalog's classification: that Matthew's citation is LXX-distinctive — driven by the Greek text-form, and inseparable from it.

Who advances it

The reading that Matthew's proof stands or falls with the Greek παρθένος is as old as the second-century debate. Justin Martyr already insists to Trypho that the Seventy's “virgin” is the true text and that the Jewish teachers who read “young woman” have emptied the prophecy of its force (Dialogue with Trypho 43, 66–71, 84); Irenaeus names the “young woman” as the work of “Theodotion… and Aquila… both Jewish proselytes” against the Septuagint's “virgin” (Against Heresies III.21.1). What in the Fathers is a charge of tampering is, in the modern text-critical surveys, simply a classification: Archer & Chirichigno place Matthew 1:23 among the quotations that follow the Septuagint where it deviates from the Hebrew, and the standard quotation tables (Kalvesmaki; the loci citati of the Nestle–Aland / UBS Greek New Testament) list it the same way. The claim weighed here is that flat, text-form claim — not the further, disputed question of whether Isaiah himself meant a virginal conception.²

The evidence for

Matthew reproduces the Greek word, and the argument rests on it. Matthew 1:23 quotes “ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἥξει” — “the virgin shall be with child” — which is the Septuagint's rendering of Isaiah 7:14, not a fresh translation of the Hebrew. The word does real work: Matthew has just narrated a conception “of the Holy Ghost” before Joseph “knew” Mary (Matthew 1:18, 1:25), and the fulfilment-formula presents Isaiah as foretelling exactly that. A citation reading νεᾶνις (“young woman”) would not carry the argument — which is why, as Jerome bluntly puts it, on the “young woman” reading there is no sign at all, “since this name refers to age, not integrity.” So the quotation cannot have come from the Hebrew word rendered by its ordinary literal equivalent; it depends on the Septuagint's interpretive choice.¹

The later Greek versions confirm that “virgin” is the Septuagint's distinctive reading. The three second-century Jewish revisers — Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion — all rendered the same Hebrew word νεᾶνις. Jerome, who had the columns of Origen's Hexapla before him, records the split precisely: ʿalmah “all except the Septuagint translated as ‘young woman.’” That unanimity of the revisers against the Seventy is what makes the reading LXX-distinctive in the strict sense: within the Greek tradition, “virgin” is the Septuagint's alone, and Matthew is on the Septuagint's side of the line.³

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The catalog's classification is correct on its own terms. Matthew's proof-text is the Septuagint's Greek, the argument turns on παρθένος, and no literal rendering of the Hebrew word would deliver it. This is a genuine, load-bearing case of the New Testament following the Greek where the Greek diverges from a plain reading of the Hebrew — not an inert agreement, and not a free paraphrase. The row belongs where the seeded catalog put it.

What must be refined, so the tag is not misread.

1. This is a gloss over an identical Hebrew, not an older Hebrew the Greek preserved. The “LXX-distinctive” bucket hides a fork that matters for the wider “which text?” question. In some famous cases — Hebrews 1:6 quoting Deuteronomy 32:43, or Goliath's height — the Greek diverges from the Masoretic Text because it rests on a different Hebrew Vorlage, one the Dead Sea Scrolls have now recovered (so it is Hebrew-over-Hebrew, not Greek-over-Hebrew). Isaiah 7:14 is not that. The consonantal Hebrew here is ʿalmah (עלמה) in the Masoretic Text and identically in the Qumran Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a, c. 125 BC), our oldest complete Hebrew Isaiah — there is no variant Hebrew reading to recover. The whole divergence lives at the level of translation: one Greek team read the unchanged word one way, three later Greek revisers read it another. So the honest sub-tag is LXX-gloss, not older-Hebrew; whoever files this row with Hebrews 1:6 has conflated two different phenomena.³

2. The gloss is defensible, not a distortion — and it is pre-Christian. That the Septuagint interpreted where a flat rendering would read νεᾶνις does not make it a corruption or even an error. ʿalmah denotes a young woman of marriageable age; in its actual Hebrew usage the referent is unmarried and so, by presumption, a virgin — Rebekah is an ʿalmah at the well before her betrothal (Genesis 24:43; called a bethulah “whom no man had known” three verses earlier, v. 16), and the infant Moses' sister is “the ʿalmah” (Exodus 2:8). Virginity is connoted, not denoted, so παρθένος is a live, if maximal, reading of the word, not a mistranslation. Decisively, the choice is pre-Christian: the Greek Isaiah was rendered around the middle of the second century BC by Jewish translators with no stake in a virgin birth, so the reading cannot be a Christian retrojection. Jerome even reports the Punic (Phoenician) cognate carrying the sense “virgin” directly. “LXX-distinctive” therefore means “a distinctively Septuagintal interpretation,” welcomed and pressed by the Church — not a distinctively Septuagintal fabrication. (Whether the reviser who put νεᾶνις back did so out of anti-Christian malice or literalizing method is the separate question weighed on the Aquila-revision argument, which finds for method.)⁴

3. Two further questions are out of scope and must not be folded in. The text-form finding is narrow, and two larger disputes ride alongside it without being settled by it. First, whether Isaiah himself intended a virginal conception — the near-term “sign” to Ahaz of a child born in his own generation, versus a distant messianic prophecy, versus a double fulfilment — is a question of the prophet's authorial intent, not of which text Matthew quoted; even Jerome canvasses (and rejects) the rival Jewish reading that the child was Hezekiah or a son of Isaiah. Second, whether Matthew derived the virgin birth from the Greek Isaiah or already held the tradition and found in the Septuagint its scriptural confirmation is a question of compositional order. Neither bears on the flat classification at issue here: on any of these views, the citation as Matthew gives it reproduces the Septuagint's word and depends on it.⁵

Assessment

Sound. The interpretation this argument serves — that Matthew 1:23 is an LXX-distinctive quotation, its virgin-birth proof driven by and inseparable from the Septuagint's παρθένος — holds. Matthew reproduces the Greek word; the argument turns on it; the three later Greek revisers and a flat rendering of the Hebrew ʿalmah would not supply it. The row is correctly tagged. What the tag must be trusted to mean, and no more, is fixed by two refinements: (a) this is the Septuagint glossing an identical Hebrew word — the consonantal ʿalmah is the same in the Masoretic Text and in the c. 125 BC Great Isaiah Scroll, so unlike Hebrews 1:6 or Goliath's height there is no older Hebrew here for the Greek to have preserved; the divergence is purely one of translation; and (b) the gloss is a defensible, pre-Christian Jewish reading (virginity connoted in the word's ordinary use, chosen c. 150 BC), so “distinctively Septuagintal” names an interpretation the Church pressed, not a fabrication it invented. Kept to that, the classification is a clean instance of the New Testament following the Greek against a literal Hebrew; stretched into “the Greek preserves an older Hebrew here” or “the Hebrew was corrupted,” it overreaches. The separate questions — the translator's motive (see the Aquila-revision argument), Isaiah's own intent, and whether Matthew read the prophecy first or the tradition first — are left where they belong, off this narrow text-form finding.

Sources