Authored by: admin.

Richard Dawkins seems like a pretty smart guy. I mean, his work on biology is good. I have read River Out of Eden (okay, maybe read is not the best term to use, since I have it on audio mp3), and he can explain biological concepts pretty well. However, I think he oversteps his area of credibility when he attempts to tackle religious issues. This goes particularly for his arguments against scripture, which are found in The God Delusion (particularly in chapter 3, Arguments for God’s existence). While I could go to great lengths on the exegetical and historical arguments he makes, I would like to concentrate particularly on one particular assertion he makes, since it’s often brought up by critics of Christianity. In page 122 of the paperback edition of the book, Dawkins makes this assertion on his footnote:

A.N. Wilson, in his biography of Jesus, casts doubt on the story that Joseph was a carpenter at all. The Greek word “Tekton” does indeed mean carpenter, but it was translated from the Aramaic word naggar, which could mean craftsman or learned man. [1]

Okay, let’s get one thing straight: The New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic. Jesus may very well have spoken Aramaic, but since that’s not the language the gospels were written in, it is questionable whether Joseph was ever really described as a naggar. The fact remains that the only testimonies we have on Joseph are in Greek, and refer to him as a tekton. To state anything more is nothing more than conjecture. Now, with that out of the way, it is time to focus on the more weighty assertion found in Dawkins’ footnote:

This is one of several constructive mistranslations that bedevil the bible, the most famous being the mistranslation of Isaiah’s Hebrew for young woman, (almah) into the Greek for virgin (parthenos). An easy mistake to make (think of the English words ‘maid’ and ‘maiden’ to see how it might have happened), this translators slip was to be wildly inflated and give rise to the whole preposterous legend of Jesus’ mother being a virgin![2]

I find it interesting that Dawkins makes this argument, since I too made the same argument in attempting to debunk biblical Christianity back in my agnostic days. Anyway, this assertion refers to the word almah in Isaiah 7:14 that is translated as either “virgin” or “young woman,” depending on what translation you are using. [3] This charge has been over-inflated and brought up numerous times by critics of the Messianic claims of Christianity. It shows how a little knowledge of Hebrew can be a dangerous thing. Yes, it is true that almah does not explicitly refer to virginity. It is generally used to describe a young woman of marriageable age. In fact, there is another Hebrew word (bethulah) that is more often used to more explicitly denote virginity, which is not used here.

However, the usage of the word almah does not preclude virginity. If you consider the Jewish culture of that day, a young woman would necessarily have been assumed to have been a virgin. This is the understanding that Greek-speaking Jews living in the third through first centuries B.C. who translated almah into parthenos when they were writing the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible plus some other books). In fact, a prominent medieval Jewish rabbi by the name Shlomo Yitzchaki (also known by the acronym Rashi) stated in his commentary on Isaiah 7:14 that “some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl and incapable of giving birth.” [4] The usage of “almah” thus denotes that the birth itself would take place under unusual or even supernatural circumstances. Thus, even with the more literal translation of almah as ” young woman,” the virgin birth would still fit the bill.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that there is biblical typology involved in this particular passage. This means that the prophecy concerned both an event that was going to happen in the near future (as seen in Isaiah 8:1 ff), as well foreshadowing a more distant event that is to happen centuries into the future. As biblical scholar Merrill Unger explains:

The Holy Spirit through Isaiah did not use bethulah, because both the ideas of virginity and marriageable age had to be combined in one word to meet the immediate historical situation and the prophetic aspect centering in a virgin born Messiah. [5]

Taking all of this into consideration, it would be safe to say that Dawkins (and everybody else who makes this same argument) pretty much misses the mark. This exegetical and typological issue is not new; it has been known for a long time and has long been resolved by competent scholars and historians.  As King Solomon once put it, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

Now, this is not the only error that Dawkins makes in his arguments against scripture. They may seem compelling at first, but a studious researcher ought to be able to expose all the flaws contained therein. After all, it will take more than a few populist books to provide a solid argument against this specific passage, or scripture in general.

End Notes

1. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press, 2006. p. 122 (see footnote).

2. Ibid.

3. “Almah” is translated as “young woman” in the RSV, NRSV, NEB and the JPS TeNaKh. Every translation that I know of translates the word as “virgin.”

4. Yitzchaki, Shlomo. The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary. <http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938/showrashi/true>.

5. Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971. p. 1159.