Just got done speaking to the Fiddler (whom I interacted with here and here) a few months ago.  The conversation pertained to the fact that there is no single word in the Hebrew Bible that means virgin and only virgin.  The Fiddler was having a conversation with someone about Isaiah 7:14 and being the good little anti-missionary that he is claimed that it was not a prophecy about Jesus and that the Hebrew almah  does not mean virgin.  Well, this is not exactly correct as it CAN have reference to a virgin and indeed in nearly every use in the Tanakh it does.  But this is not to say that the almah must of necessity be TRANSLATED as virgin.

I mentioned that not even betulah always meant virgin and demanded the translation of virgin as is evidenced in a number of Jewish translations of the Tanakh into English (e.g. JPS Tanach, Stone Edition Tanach, Judaica Press Complete Tanach) and according to a number of scholarly works (e.g. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament).   

I simply stated the fact that the Jews who translated Isaiah into Greek found the Greek parthenos to be an appropriate translation for almah which Matthew understood as a virgin and I then admitted that not even parthenos always had reference to virginity because even Dinah was called a virgin in the LXX after having been raped (Gen. 34:3). 

For a fuller treatment of this see Gerhard Delling’s “παρθένος” in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967, rpt. 2006.) 5.826-37. 

For some reason he felt the need to refer to Homer using parthenos to say that a woman laid with Mars (which of course is wrong, the text says Ares, see The Iliad 2.511-15).  But what was the point in bringing up something I conceded?  The point is that fundies are programmed and go into defense mode when challenged.  He had his ready-made response all set up in conjunction with his blinders and ear plugs that were already in use.  Had he listened he would have seen that I said parthenos doesn’t always mean virgin, just like betulah and almah do not always mean virgin.

I then gave him 5 examples of betulah being used where it either could not mean virgin (Job 31:1; Is. 47:1-8), was not clear enough to indicate virginity and needed to be elaborated on (Gen. 24:6), or was paralleled with bachur indicating youth and not virginity (2Chr. 36:17; Ez. 9:6).  

For a more detailed treatment of this see Michael L. Brown’s, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 20-32.

His reply was that he was not convinced and simply because I was that didn’t mean that betulah meant anything either than virgin.  This was his defense–’I'm not convinced, so there!’ 

He then asked me why I didn’t refer to Joel 1:8 (which he had what he felt to be an irrefutable answer for) and I said because I realized that it would be a waste of time–I knew I was dealing with a fundamentalist.  He had no valid responses to the passages I did cite other than to say he couldn’t see why they didn’t have references to virgins, yet he so wanted to give me his cookie cutter response to Joel 1:8. 

After I didn’t bite he accused those who use Joel 1:8 of not understanding marriage in the ancient world and kept trying to bait me into asking for his explanation.  But at a certain point you realize that pearls are pearls, swine are swine, and pearls are not to be cast to swine.  It just wasn’t worth it for me. 

I’d relay the rest of the conversation but it was even more ridiculous.  Just remember, Christians aren’t the only fundamentalists out there (and Muslims aren’t either)–there is an entire sect of Judaism (actually a few sects of Judaism) that are just as closed-minded and tradition driven as any other fundamental group in the world.  We just have to plant our seeds and pray that the Lord provide the increase, but there comes a time when you learn to shake the dust from your feet and move on.

 B”H 

Your response: