Contested Translations

The previous lessons in this module dealt with differences in the text: places where the Masoretic Text, the scrolls and the Septuagint read different words. This lesson deals with something else. At Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 2:12 and Genesis 1:2, the Hebrew consonants are not seriously disputed. What is disputed is what they mean, and so how to put them into English. That is the same kind of decision the Koine Greek lesson Why Translations Differ explored for the New Testament, where it called it a difference of word.

These three verses also carry theological weight, which is why the arguments over them are often heated. The virginal conception of Christ, the deity of the messianic king, and the presence of the Spirit at creation are all doctrines Christians care about deeply. It is easy to feel that admitting a translation question puts the doctrine at risk, and equally easy, from the other side, to feel that the doctrine has been read into the Hebrew. This lesson will do neither. It will set out the evidence, give each reading at full strength, and then say what does and does not depend on the answer.

Here is a rule that will serve you in all three cases. A doctrine that the church has held from scripture as a whole rarely rests on one contested word, and the honest way to defend it is to show the whole of the evidence, not to deny that the word is contested.

Here is the verse in the Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC): הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן (hinneh ha'almah harah veyoledet ben), behold, the almah pregnant and bearing a son. The noun is עַלְמָה (almah) with the article, the almah. The word הָרָה (harah) is parsed by the Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible, a free morphology of the WLC, as an adjective, pregnant, and וְיֹלֶדֶת (veyoledet) as a Qal participle, bearing. Hebrew has no verb to be in this kind of sentence, so the time has to be read from context: the almah is pregnant, or will be pregnant. The same construction is said to Hagar in Genesis 16:11, where the BSB renders 'you have conceived', because she already had, and to the wife of Manoah in Judges 13:5, where it renders 'you will conceive', because she had not. Then comes וְקָרָאת (veqarat, and she will call) his name Immanuel. The BSB footnote notes that the Great Isaiah Scroll has a different form, he will call or his name will be called, and that the Septuagint has you will call.

The noun almah comes seven times in the Old Testament, and the inquiry had you list them: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalm 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8, and Isaiah 7:14, with a related musical term in the heading of Psalm 46 and in 1 Chronicles 15:20 whose meaning is uncertain. It refers to a young woman of an age to marry. The other word, בְּתוּלָה (betulah), is often called the precise word for virgin, but it is less precise than that claim suggests: Genesis 24:16 calls Rebekah a betulah and then adds that no man had known her, and Joel 1:8 speaks of a betulah mourning the husband of her youth. Gordon Wenham argued in an article in Vetus Testamentum in 1972 that betulah itself means a girl of marriageable age. The New Testament Survey lessons A Greek New Testament and The Birth Narratives have already said that neither word settles the question alone.

The Jewish translators of the Septuagint, in the centuries before Christ, rendered almah in Isaiah 7:14 with παρθένος (parthenos), the usual Greek word for a virgin, and Matthew 1:23 quotes that Greek form: 'Behold, the virgin will be with child.' In the second century AD, the new Jewish Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion rendered it instead with νεᾶνις (neanis, young woman). The argument is already visible in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, written around the middle of that century, where Justin's Jewish partner in debate insists that the verse speaks of a young woman and refers to Hezekiah, and Justin insists that it speaks of a virgin and refers to Christ. The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi took the young woman to be the prophet's own wife.

Three readings of the verse have able defenders today. The first is that Isaiah 7:14 is a direct prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ and of nothing else. Its defenders, among them E. J. Young and J. Alec Motyer in their commentaries on Isaiah, argue that almah is never used in the Old Testament of a married woman, and that the word naturally implies an unmarried girl, and so a virgin, in that culture; that the Septuagint, a Jewish translation made before there was any Christian interest in the verse, understood it so; that Ahaz had been offered a sign as deep as Sheol or high as heaven (7:11), so the sign should be extraordinary, and a natural birth is no sign at all; that the sign is addressed to the house of David, not to Ahaz alone (7:13), and so can reach beyond his lifetime; and that the Immanuel of 7:14 is the one whose land is Judah in 8:8 and who in 9:6 is called Mighty God. Matthew, on this reading, is not adapting Isaiah but announcing the fulfilment of what Isaiah foretold.

The second reading is that the sign was fulfilled in Isaiah's own day and that Matthew finds in it a fuller meaning in Christ. Its defenders, including many Jewish interpreters and a good number of Christian ones, among them the evangelical Old Testament scholar John Walton in a 1987 article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, argue that almah means a young woman without specifying virginity; that 7:16 ties the sign to a time frame within the lifetime of Ahaz, since before the boy knows right from wrong the two threatening kings will be gone, which happened when Assyria destroyed Damascus in 732 BC; that Isaiah 8:3-4 presents a child born to the prophet with a closely parallel time frame; and that Matthew's formula 'to fulfill' (1:22) is used elsewhere of texts that had an original meaning in their own time, such as Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. Christian scholars holding this view affirm the virginal conception, on the basis of Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:34, which state it plainly in their own words.

The third reading combines elements of both. It is argued, for example, by the New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg in a 2002 article in Trinity Journal on double fulfillment in Matthew. Its defenders claim it is the only reading that takes every verse in the passage at face value: 7:16 really does tie the sign to the lifetime of Ahaz, and 9:6 really does name a child no ordinary birth could produce, so a reading that drops either one is choosing which evidence to hear. They hold that the sign had a real meaning for Ahaz, a child whose growing up would mark the end of the threat, but that the child's name and the titles of 9:6 and 11:1-2 point beyond any child of Ahaz's day, so that Isaiah's prophecy as a whole, read across chapters 7 to 11, looks to a king only God could give. On this reading, the word almah leaves room for Matthew's parthenos without requiring it, and the virgin birth is the fullest fulfilment of a sign that already had a first horizon in the eighth century.

What is settled? The Hebrew word is almah; it refers to a young woman of marriageable age; it is never clearly used of a married woman in the Old Testament; the Septuagint, before Christ, rendered it parthenos; and Matthew and Luke state the virginal conception independently of the Hebrew word. What is not settled is whether almah by itself means virgin, and whether Isaiah's sign had a fulfilment in his own day before its fulfilment in Christ. The BSB prints 'the virgin' and footnotes 'Or young woman', so that a reader of the page can see both. A preacher should be able to do the same.

Psalm 2 is a royal psalm. The nations rage against the LORD and his Anointed (2:1-2); the LORD has installed his King on Zion (2:6); he says to the king 'You are My Son' (2:7); and the kings of the earth are told to be wise and serve the LORD with fear (2:10-11). Then comes the line the BSB renders 'Kiss the Son'. In the WLC it is נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר (nashshequ-var). The verb נַשְּׁקוּ (nashshequ) is a Piel imperative masculine plural of נשׁק (nashaq, to kiss), addressed to the kings. The second word is בַּר (bar), here pronounced var because of the vowel before it. The consonants are not in dispute. What is in dispute is which bar this is.

The first reading is 'Kiss the Son', the reading of the KJV, the BSB and many others. Its defenders point out that bar is the ordinary Aramaic word for son, and that it is used in Hebrew too, in Proverbs 31:2, three times: 'What shall I say, O my son?' The psalm has just spoken of the king as God's Son in 2:7, so a reference to the Son in 2:12 fits the logic of the poem. Kissing was a sign of homage to a king, as Samuel kissed Saul at his anointing (1 Samuel 10:1), and of worship, as the faithful in 1 Kings 19:18 had not kissed Baal. Why the Aramaic word, when 2:7 used the Hebrew ben? Several reasons have been offered: the line is addressed to foreign kings, for whom Aramaic was the international language; the Hebrew ben before the next word pen, lest, would make an ugly jingle; and poets vary their vocabulary. The New Testament reads Psalm 2 of Christ (Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5), and 'Kiss the Son' carries that reading straight into the words of the psalm.

The second reading takes bar as the Hebrew adjective or adverb meaning pure or sincere, the bar of 'a pure heart' in Psalm 24:4: kiss sincerely, or do homage in purity. Jerome, in his translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew, rendered it in this sense, worship purely, though he knew the son reading and discussed both. The Jewish Publication Society's modern translation renders the line with a similar sense of homage in good faith. Its defenders argue that the Aramaic word for son would be unexpected in a Hebrew psalm whose own word for son, in 2:7, is ben, and that a reference to sincere submission fits the command to serve the LORD with fear in 2:11.

The third reading is a conjecture. Some scholars, finding both the Aramaic word and the adverb awkward, proposed rearranging the consonants at the end of 2:11 and the beginning of 2:12 to give a line meaning, with trembling kiss his feet. The RSV of 1952 adopted that reconstruction, and the NRSV keeps it. Its defenders argue that it gives a clear picture of a vassal's homage and removes the oddity of an Aramaic word. Its critics, including most who hold either of the other readings, point out that no Hebrew manuscript reads it, and that it rewrites the text to solve a difficulty that the other readings solve without changing a letter.

The ancient translations add their own testimony. The Septuagint renders the line δράξασθε παιδείας (draxasthe paideias), lay hold of instruction, which probably reflects an attempt to make sense of a difficult phrase rather than a different Hebrew text. So the evidence is mixed in every direction. The safe statement is this: the Hebrew consonants say nashshequ bar; those who read son find it the most natural sense in a psalm that has just called the king God's Son, and those who read purely, or emend the text, find the Aramaic word out of place in a Hebrew psalm. Careful translators stand on each side. The messianic reading of Psalm 2 does not depend on this verse, since 2:7 says 'You are My Son' in plain Hebrew, and the New Testament quotes that verse, not 2:12.

The WLC reads וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם (veruach elohim merachefet al-pene hammayim), and the ruach of God was hovering over the face of the waters. The noun רוּחַ (ruach) means wind, breath or spirit, and the context has to decide which. The verb מְרַחֶפֶת (merachefet) is a Piel participle feminine singular of רחף (r-ch-f), agreeing with ruach, which is usually feminine. That verb is rare: it comes in Deuteronomy 32:11, of an eagle that hovers over its young, and in a different stem in Jeremiah 23:9, where the prophet's bones tremble.

The first reading is 'the Spirit of God', the reading of the KJV, the BSB and most English translations. Its defenders point out that elohim in Genesis 1 always means God, so ruach elohim is most naturally the Spirit of God, as in Exodus 31:3, where Bezalel is filled with the Spirit of God, and Genesis 41:38. The verb in Deuteronomy 32:11 pictures a living, caring presence over what it protects, which suits a personal Spirit better than a gust of air. And the Old Testament elsewhere links God's Spirit with creation and life: Job 33:4, 'The Spirit of God has made me', and Psalm 104:30, 'When You send Your Spirit, they are created.' The Christian doctrine of the Spirit's work in creation does not rest on this verse alone, but this reading sees the doctrine's first light here.

The second reading is a wind from God, the reading of the NRSV and of the newer Jewish Publication Society translation. Its defenders point out that ruach means wind in many places, and that verse 2 is describing the condition of the world before God speaks: formless, empty, dark, and water everywhere. A wind over the waters belongs naturally in that picture. They point above all to Genesis 8:1, which deliberately echoes the creation account: God makes a ruach pass over the earth, the BSB's 'wind', and the waters subside, as the world is made again after the flood. On this view the wind is God's, sent by him, and his creative work begins with it, but the verse does not yet speak of the Spirit as later scripture does.

The third reading is 'a mighty wind' or 'an awesome wind', taking elohim as a way of expressing a superlative, as it may in a few places in Hebrew. Rachel's 'great struggles' in Genesis 30:8 are literally wrestlings of God, and Nineveh's 'exceedingly great city' in Jonah 3:3 is literally great to God. Its defenders argue that this fits the picture of chaos in the verse. Its critics answer that elohim occurs dozens of times in Genesis 1 and everywhere else in the chapter means God, so it would be strange for it to mean merely very great in its second appearance; and the superlative use itself is disputed by some grammarians.

One more caution, because the point is sometimes made in sermons. That ruach is grammatically feminine tells us about Hebrew grammar, not about the nature of the Spirit. Hebrew gives every noun a gender, as the module on nouns explained, and the words for wind, breath and spirit happen to be feminine. Do not build a doctrine on grammatical gender in either direction.

What is settled? The word is ruach, the verb is the eagle's hovering verb, and the context is the dark, watery world before God's first word. What is not settled is whether Genesis 1:2 already speaks of the Spirit of God as a distinct agent, or of a wind sent by God, and readers who hold the Trinity with full conviction are found on both sides of that question.

The three cases in this lesson share a pattern. In each, the Hebrew text is firm. In each, the dispute is about what a word means. In each, the doctrine people fear for is supported by other texts that are not contested: the virginal conception by Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:34, the divine sonship of the messianic king by Psalm 2:7 and the New Testament's reading of it, the Spirit's work in creation by Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30. And in each, believing scholars stand on more than one side.

So the method the Koine Greek lesson Why Translations Differ taught for the Greek applies here too. You may preach what all the good readings share. You may name the choice briefly, in a sentence your congregation can follow. You may argue for one reading as your reading, openly, after stating the others fairly. What you may not do is tell your church that the Hebrew really means one thing, when the scholars who know Hebrew best are divided, or tell them that a doctrine stands or falls with one word, when it does not.

There is a second temptation, quieter than the first. It is to dismiss one reading because of who holds it. 'Young woman' is not a liberal plot; Jewish readers held it in the second century and Christian scholars who affirm the virgin birth hold it now. 'Kiss the Son' is not naive piety; it is a defensible reading of the Hebrew consonants. Weigh the reading, not the reputation.

Open your notebook to your capstone passage and add a new page headed Translation.

First, read your passage on your phone in the BSB, the KJV and at least one other modern translation. Mark every place where the translations differ in meaning, not just in wording. Check the BSB footnotes on Bible Hub for any note beginning 'Or', which signals that the translators considered another rendering possible.

Second, sort each difference. Is it a difference of text, of the kind the first three lessons of this module examined, which a footnote will usually name with DSS, LXX or MT? Or is it a difference of meaning, with the Hebrew agreed, like the three cases in this lesson? Write T or M beside each.

Third, choose the one difference of meaning that matters most for preaching. Write the Hebrew word, its transliteration and its Strong's number. Look up two or three other places where the same word occurs, as the inquiry did for almah, bar and ruach, and write what each shows. Then write two or three lines giving the best case for each rendering, as its defenders would put it. Do this as carefully for the rendering you dislike as for the one you prefer.

Finally, write the sentence you would actually say about this word from the pulpit, using one of the three honest options in section 5, and check it for the words 'the Hebrew really means'. If they are there, and the scholars are divided, rewrite the sentence. Then write one more line naming the other passages that support the truth you will preach, so that your sermon does not rest its whole weight on a single contested word.