The purpose of writing a response?
Not everything the Rabbi says is cut-and-dry. Sometimes what he says borders on outright deception. The purpose of this article is to help you, the reader, see the other side. As is stated in Proverbs:
“The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him”
We will now question what Rabbi Singer says.
Does the Hebrew Word Alma Really Mean “Virgin”?
Question:
Dear Rabbi Singer,
I have listened to your tapes and I have also read a number of your articles on your web site regarding Christ’s virgin birth and you make some very good points. I have discussed this issue with my pastor and although he did remark that he finds your arguments “interesting” he brought up a good argument (I think). He asked that if the Hebrew word alma only meant “young woman” and not “virgin,” why is it that in every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin? I think he has made a good point and will relate your answer to him. I thank you in advance.
I have listened to your tapes and I have also read a number of your articles on your web site regarding Christ’s virgin birth and you make some very good points. I have discussed this issue with my pastor and although he did remark that he finds your arguments “interesting” he brought up a good argument (I think). He asked that if the Hebrew word alma only meant “young woman” and not “virgin,” why is it that in every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin? I think he has made a good point and will relate your answer to him. I thank you in advance.
A curious reader asks the Rabbi a question. A couple of points are in order:
(i) Definition of Almah and understanding Isaiah 7
This article does not go into extended lexical analysis of the meaning of almah. It merely provides a response to Rabbi Singer’s assertions. There are various ways of reading Isaiah 7:14. I will not be going into that either.
(ii) Alternative Reading of Almah in Proverbs
Tovia Singer for the most part seeks to show us that almah could mean someone who has had sexual intercourse, and hence cannot mean virgin. We will be providing a response to this assertion primarily. But given the subject matter, I shall point you to sources which will give you some idea of the issue:
What does “almah” mean?
In short, the strict literal meaning (as I understand it – please see my points in the paragraph below) of almah is: young woman, full of child rearing potential. This is the strict meaning. It is a word that can be used of virgins, but it does not define one’s virginity in and of itself. But if someone used it in relation to a woman, people thinking or understanding her to be a virgin is certainly not out of the question. Hence we have a problem, an issue that we have to grapple with. The issue is not as straight forward as Tovia makes it out.
I myself do not speak Hebrew, and I don’t know if Tovia can speak Hebrew either (by this I mean I don’t know if Tovia Singer was brought up speaking Hebrew as a wee-tot and knows it back to front vs. him learning it from a textbook at college). His accent sounds American-ish, but what would I know? In any case, my analysis of the issue of what almah means is very limited. I can do no better than to direct you, the reader, to perhaps a more authoritative sources:
http://www.ilifetv.com/thinkitthru/OBJmessianic.htm
Answer:
Your pastor’s contention that “every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin” is incorrect. This is not the first time I have come across a Christian who has made this erroneous assertion; and each and every time I hear it I am puzzled as to why these apologists do not do their research before making this claim.
Your pastor’s contention that “every place the word alma appears in the Bible it is always referring to a virgin” is incorrect. This is not the first time I have come across a Christian who has made this erroneous assertion; and each and every time I hear it I am puzzled as to why these apologists do not do their research before making this claim.
The Rabbi continues to slander Jesus and his disciples. If it was so straightforward a matter, then no one would even be making an argument about it. Why would, in Singer’s own words, the “church” hold on to the untenable position that alma means virgin for night “two millennia”, when they have no basis whatsoever in making that claim?
In truth, the issue is more complicated than that what Rabbi Singer makes out. Note what he says above: “I am puzzled as to why these apologists do not do their research before making this claim,” Tovia sounds like someone who doesn’t even understand what the issue is about!
This is especially the case in our modern age where computer technology has made simple word studies so quick and easy to research. I will briefly explain your question for the readers of our website who are unfamiliar with this subject.
For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.” The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”
For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.” The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”
It is not what Tovia is telling you that is questionable, but what he is not telling you that makes him deceptive.
Now Matthew does quote Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” – and this is where Tovia Singer is technically correct. But what Tovia Singer does not tell you is that Matthew is also quoting from the Septuagint.
What is the Septuagint?
The Septuagint, to cut a long story short, is basically a Greek translation of the old testament, the Tanach. Now here’s the kicker: when was it translated? It was translated BEFORE, I’ll say again, BEFORE the supposed virgin birth of Jesus Christ. It was translated by Jewish Hebrew scholars. It was translated by Jews, for Jews. Perhaps I can do no better than to quote what has already been said on the issue, conveniently stated by Rabbi Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky:
“Seventy outstanding Hebrew scholars on the other hand, translated the LXX [i.e. the Septuagint], WITH THE FULL APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION of the High Priest, BEFORE YAHSHUA WAS EVEN BORN. THE LXX WAS FINISHED EVEN BEFORE THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN ERA BEGAN! These 70 Jewish rabbis had no axe to grind, and no agenda either pro or con, as pertaining to Yahshua as Messiah. They translated as 70 Jewish rabbis, with direct recommendation from Israel’s High Priest, and Israel’s Sanhedrin. The High Priest therefore knew and approved the Hebrew original from which the LXX was derived. Then of course, Yahshua Himself approved of the LXX. (*Dr Immanuel Tov Hebrew University Jerusalem “ The Dead Sea Scrolls differ in many details from the MT” Oxford Companion Bible Introduction.).”
The Rabbinic Response
It is here that the Rabbinic Jews seek to attack the Septuagint, arguing that is an unreliable translation etc. etc. and so worth. This article is not going to look at the textual criticism arguments on the Septuagint.
But listen to what Tovia says: he KNOWS that the Septuagint exists, but he willingly omits to mention it to you, the Jew who is asking questions about Jesus. Tovia Singer’s silence on this question speaks volumes. If Tovia Singer has never heard of the Septuagint than he must be convicted of being ignorant. He, as a Rabbi should know about it. Either way, it is problematic. He is either lying/manipulating or deceiving by omission, or he is ignorant. You choose (or provide another explanation). Either way, it does not look that good for Tovia.
“For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.” The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”
The “almah” translated to “virgin” is a Jewish Translation
Dear readers, the translation of “alma” as virgin is rather a very Jewish one. The translation into the Greek unmistakably means virgin (parthenos) [readers, please note that I myself do not speak Greek, I am merely quoting to you what I have read from Koniuchowsky]. It is not only the church’s position, but a position that was endorsed by the Jewish community, one that was endorsed by the 70 Jewish scholars translating the Hebrew bible, and thus, was implicitly endorsed with the blessings of the high priest of Israel.
Dear reader – do you see how Tovia is manipulating you, by making the situation seem fairly straightforward and not complex? That’s why there’s such a big deal about this text, that’s why there is so much drama: The Jewish community themselves translated it as “virgin”! Surely, that has to mean something?
Now, if one still wishes to assail the question, one can attack the authenticity of the authority of the Septuagint, or one can attack it from a textual criticism point of view. Especially because Tovia does not address the issue, I will be doing neither.
The first Gospel quotes this well-known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus.
There is no old “testament proof” according to Rabbi Singer?
If Tovia means that Isaiah 7 is the only part of the old testament used to prove Jesus’ alleged virgin birth then he, so far is I know, is correct. Only Matthew refers back to Isaiah 7.
The stakes are high for Christendom, because if the Hebrew word alma does not mean virgin, Matthew is misquoting the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.
As explained before, Matthew is merely quoting a Jewish scripture, the Septuagint, made by Jews, for Jews, before Christ was even born.
(a) Clarification of the Key Tenet of Christianity
The key tenet of Christianity is that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he died and was resurrected. The virgin birth is more of an interesting quirky fact, or anecdote. Only Matthew and Luke make mention of it, and only Matthew quotes the tanach to suggest that it was alluded to.
(b) Matthew’s Quotations are typological in nature
Also I would like to add that Matthew’s quotes are not like modern day academic citations. His use of quotations are actually quite “loose”, as if he saw something in the tanach that applied to Jesus, and it was something that he could not attribute to mere coincidence. For example, Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 to suggest that God called his son out of Egypt, and he applies this to Jesus. But if one reads the tanach literally, the “son” is referring to Israel and not Jesus (Israel in itself surely cannot be a literal interpretation, it must be metaphoric in some sense). Matthew sees Jesus as the personification of Israel. Tovia Singer clings on to such ‘inconsistencies’ to persuade Jews that the Gospels are false, and that Jesus was not from God.
(c) Matthew’s emphasis is not crystal clear according to some
Some commentators suggest that Matthew may not even want to be emphasizing the virginity aspect of Mary’s conception, but rather the “Immanuel” part.
How accurate is this Christian claim? The place to explore this issue is in the Jewish scriptures. If the Hebrew word alma means virgin then each usage in the Bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at least be ambiguous. The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures seven times. If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.
Tovia seeks to attack Matthew’s use of old testament scripture to prophesy the virgin birth of Christ. A couple of points are in order:
(a) Matthew would know what ‘alma’ means better than Tovia
Firstly, Matthew was a Jew. He would have known what the word “almah” means, having learned the language since the days of his youth. Tovia Singer on the other hand would have probably have had to take a course on Hebrew to learn what “alma” means (a big assumption here – I don’t know anything about Singer’s background), and he would have learned what it means with today’s modern day Rabbinic Judaism’s anti-Christian redefinition of the Hebrew lexicon. Either Matthew was lying or Tovia Singer is plain incorrect. Matthew, being a Jew, and a learned one at that, would have known too much, really, for another definition to be possible.
So now the question becomes: was Matthew lying? But this does not explain the second issue below:
(b) The 70 Jewish scholars who translated the LXX (the Septuagint) would also know better than Tovia
The Septuagint with its 70 Hebrew scholars who translated it, with the blessings of Israel’s high priest, even before Christ was born, said that “alma” means virgin, unmistakably. Matthew quotes from them. And Tovia Singer still wishes to say things like “clearly” alma does not mean virgin? By doing so, Tovia Singer automatically displays his ignorance, or rather, according to my theory, shows off his true colours of deception. Now Tovia will have to attack the LXX via textual criticism or question its authenticity.
One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word alma appears in the Bible is in Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,
There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma]. This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”
In most bibles, Proverbs is delineated in the following way:
18 "There are three things that are too amazing for me,
four that I do not understand:
four that I do not understand:
19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a maiden.
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a maiden.
20 "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'
Verses 18-19 and verse 20 are two separate proverbs
Now in verse 18, the wise man brings us to attention – there are four things which amaze him. The first is the eagle, the second is the snake, the third is a ship and the fourth is they way of a man with a woman. What has the adulteress got to do with this proverb? I would contend that it has absolutely nothing to do with it! The adulteress proverb of verse 20 is simply another proverb totally disassociated with the previous one. The proverbs in verse 18-19 is self contained and different from Proverbs 20. They are two separate proverbs. Rabbi Tovia Singer contends below that they should essentially read together, but I would say they should not. Why not?
(a) There are four items in 18-19, not five
Firstly, the wise men says there are four things that amaze him and lists them: (1) eagles, (2) snakes, (3) ships and (4) – that is, the fourth one, the way of a man with a woman. Four are listed here, not five. The proverb concludes with the mention of the fourth item. If verse 20 was part of the proverb, then five things would be listed.
(b) Verse 20 makes a different point, unrelated to the amazing things of 18-19
Secondly, the proverb of verse 20 makes a different point: and the point is that the adulterer does not see the wrong that she does (of course, adultery can be committed by men also). It has nothing to do with anything amazing, as does the way of a ship on the seas. It is a commentary that the adulteress is so amoral that she does not even see the wrong associated with her sin, and consequently is beyond being able to repent for it.
Those things are truly inexplicable (well, it really depends on how one interprets 18-19). But what is so inexplicable or amazing or wondrous about verse 20? It is a statement of fact of: this is how it is with adulterers, is what Solomon is saying, not a wonder, per se, that it is so. Verse 20 makes a different point to verse 18-19, which is why verse 20 is a completely different proverb. This is one way of looking at it.
(c) Verse 20 Introduces a new Proverb
Verse 20 starts off by saying: “this is the way of an adulteress.” We are now looking forward to finding out about an adulteress, how she thinks, what motivates her and the like etc.. In the end we find out that an adulteress does not even think that what she is doing is wrong. A completely new self contained pithy saying is introduced and concluded. The wise writer creates an expectation, and then delivers. If verse 20 was connected to the previous proverb, there would not be this introduction: “this is the way”.
(d) Verse 20 can be understood independently
We do not need Verses 18-19 to understand verse 20. It is completely self contained. This is all the more reason why verse 20 is different from 18-19. Read it yourself and ask yourself that same question.
Hence I would say that the two proverbs are completely different, and that Tovia Singer is reading them together to imply that in this particular case, “almah” does not mean virgin.
This is not a proof that an alma is a non-virgin. The word alma is not even used in verse 20!
In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea. What do these three things all have in common? They leave no trace. After the eagle has flown across the sky, determining that the eagle had ever flown there is impossible. Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail). After a ship has moved across the sea, the water comes together behind it and there is no way to tell that a ship had ever passed through there. Similarly, King Solomon informs us that once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them.
There is no trace of a man lying with a woman?
So Solomon (according to Rabbin Singer) – the wisest man who ever lived, is of the opinion that “once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them”? You’ve got to be kidding!? There is of course a trace! The most traceable trace of all: a child of the union! This is proof that a man has been with an alma! What more proof do you need? And what is more, this is a lasting proof. It does not disappear over time! These are the wise words of Solomon, according to Tovia Singer! As you can see, once the ship’s waters recede there is no way to tell what path it has been through. But this is nothing like a man taking a woman: there is always the possibility of a child being born, and the union proclaimed for whole world to see by the birth of the child. When David fell with Bathsheba was there a trace? Of course! And this trace was the child born.
Even if there was no child there is still proof. Prosecutors use things like DNA to prove their case. There is always a trace. The only way out is for the people to get rid of the incriminating evidence themselves or to cover it up. This is exactly what David tried to do, when he requested his loyal servant Uriah to sleep with his wife, so that Uriah would think that the child which would be born to Bathsheba would be his and not David’s.
There will always be some sort of way of tracing with fornication and adultery. The most notable way is if a child is born. The second is via DNA. Despite the anachronism, in the time of Solomon, one would still be able to see signs via blood, bodily fluids and the like on bed sheets etc. One does not need an electron spectrometer for the proof to exist. It is there if one looks. But no matter how hard one looks, one will never see the path that an eagle took in flight.
This is very different to all the other examples where the evidence of paths recedes naturally, without active human intervention.
A more probable Interpretation of Proverbs 30:19
This is probably a reference to the whole courting process of a man and a woman, and how mysterious this is. It just happens. One can’t quite put a finger on it. How does a man fall in love with a woman? It just happens. It’s mysterious. That’s my take on it. I need not be right, and there are various ways of reading it. Solomon’s meaning of the proverb was probably more in line with this sort of interpretation, and not the monstrous lies which Tovia Singer puts forward.
Verse 18-19 and 20 are separate proverbs – what other people think
As mentioned before in my explanation, they are separate proverbs. If anything placing them together may be for the purposes of contrast. Or it may just be completely random. But what have other people said on the issue? See below. This was taken from the Thinktank website: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html - it contains an excellent analysis on people like Tovia Singer tacking on verse 20 to verses 18-19.
Therefore, in the following verse (verse 20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman has eaten (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual activity by exclaiming, “I have done no wrong.” The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.
The emphasis is on the adulteress not feeling an scruples, rather than her removing traces of the crime by saying “I have done no wrong”
Firstly, verse 20 is not meant to be read with verse 18-19. Please read above discussion.
Secondly, according to Rabbi Singer, Solomon is emphasizing that the adulterous woman is removing all traces of her sexual sin by wiping her mouth and explaining “I have done no wrong”. But the real point of proverbs 20 is to emphasise how the adulteress doesn’t even see the wrong that she is doing. Read Proverbs 20 again:
20 "This is the way of an adulteress:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.'
Where does it talk about the adulteress removing all traces of her crime? Saying “I have done no wrong” (a statement of someone’s alleged guiltlessness) is very different from someone taking active measure to cover up one’s crime.
The adulteress thinks committing adultery is no different to eating? “I ate an apple,” she says, “so what?” This is probably what Solomon was getting at with the food and eating metaphor – he probably was not trying to say that the adulteress covers up her crime. I mean, adulteresses would be more likely to cover it up if they thought it was wrong, than if they did not.
Furthermore, the word alma is not contained at all in verse 20. It is the adulteress talking and saying “I have done no wrong” not the alma.
The Rabbi says: “The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.” Well I put it to you, the reader, that it is not that clear. Rabbi Singer is attempting to simplify the issue so you can deny the truth of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High God.
In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin.
What would be an English language equivalent to “almah”?
Brilliant Tovia, young woman does not have any bearing on virginity. But “young woman” is not quite like “alma” – it just does not do. The English word that is used, “maiden”, I feel more closely fits the description of “alma”, without of course, the connotations associated with fecundity. Maiden of course, means “young woman” but it has a perhaps secondary meaning of one who is pure, who has not slept with a man.
This is where the expression “old maid” comes from – from an old woman who is not married despite her age. If you’ve watched Cinderella, the invitation given by the Prince is that “every eligible maiden is to attend.” The Prince would more than likely mean that he wants to marry pure, young virgins rather than otherwise. Or in the game of cricket, when one bowls an over where no runs are scored: what is that called? Is that not called a “maiden” over? Why do you suppose it is called a “maiden”? It is because it has not been corrupted by a single run.
If one wants an English equivalent to alma then I think “maiden” would have to be that word. For the most part “maiden” means young woman, but it also means “virgin” as a secondary meaning. If the Isaiah verse had written “maiden” this would probably give us some idea of the issues that we are grappling with.
On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children. Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah1 not alma. Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”
Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer
Footnote:
Click on the footnote to return to the article
1In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word alma only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5).
There is an analysis on this betulah issue made on the Thinktank website, if you would like to have a look at it: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html .
Notes
This article appears on Tovia Singer’s Outreach Judaism website: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm. I will present it verbatim at the bottom of this article, without my interspersed comments. Everything in this article is exactly what Rabbi Tovia Singer has said without deletion and/or addition. For the sake of correcting points, when they are made, my comments are interspersed throughout his article. This necessarily cuts the continuity of his article, and cuts paragraphs short. But one can always read the unchanged verbatim original, at the bottom of this page.
|
