In Matthew 1:23, the virgin birth of Jesus is described, stating that it fulfills the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." I want to discuss this here! In the original Hebrew verse, it is written as follows: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin (הָעַלְמָה֙ - ha·al·mah) is with child and will give birth to a son, and will call his name Immanuel." Matthew translates the word "עלמה" (almah) as "virgin" and thus claims that the Messiah is supposed to be born of a virgin. This is what we are going to examine!
To examine this, it is important to understand a bit about Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew, there is a difference in addressing a male and addressing a female, not only in nouns like "bachur" (young man) and "bachura" (young woman) but in every address, such as "bo le'po" (come here - to a male) and "bo'i le'po" (come here - to a female). Another thing is that in Hebrew, there are words composed of a certain "root," meaning the letters that are the basis of the word, to which other letters are added that express the context, etc. The word "עלמה" (almah) appears many times in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), sometimes in the context of a virgin girl, but the question is whether this is the literal meaning or not.
In 1 Samuel 17:55, it is said about David, "Whose son is this youth (הַֽנַּעַר֙ - ha·na·ar)?" In verse 56 it says "Inquired Abner, 'Whose son is that young man (הָעֶלֶם֙ - hā·‘e·lem)?" The word "עלם" ('elem) is the root of the word "עלמה" ('almah) with a "ה-" (ha-) added to express that it is feminine. That is, the word is exactly the same word, only in a male and female form. Now, it is important to understand that there is no word that describes a male virgin in Hebrew, and there is no meaning for male virginity in Hebrew. So, to know what the root "עלם" ('elem) means in the female form, we simply have to check what it means in the male form! And since in the male form the meaning cannot be "virgin" because there is no such concept in Hebrew, it must be that even when it is in the female form, "עלמה" ('almah) does not mean virgin (it might be that she is a virgin, but that is not the meaning of the word). So why does Matthew write "virgin"? And even Christian translations translate the root "עלם" ('elem) in every place it appears in the male form as "young man" and not "virgin," so why is it different here?
The obvious answer is that indeed, this is not necessarily the meaning of the word, but Matthew copied from the Septuagint, which translates it that way, and the reason it translates it that way is because of the context of the "sign." For if she is a regular young woman, then there is no "sign" here, therefore it must be that she is a virgin. There are several problems with this claim. First, the unfairness of quoting a verse through interpretation instead of quoting the exact verse. Another thing is the claim that if she is a regular young woman, then there is no "sign." The problem is that in Hebrew, there is a difference between "אות" ('ot) - sign, and "מופת" (mofet) - wonder, supernatural sign. A "mofet" is something supernatural, and an "אות" ('ot) is a sign, not necessarily supernatural. Therefore, the young woman can be regular, and it will still be a sign because it doesn't have to be supernatural. Moreover, what exactly is the sign of a virgin birth that no one can see and prove? It might be supernatural, but "אות" ('ot) is not! Third, this creates an absurdity because it is clear that the verse comes to give a "sign," and if we translate the verse literally without any interpretation, the verse said that a young woman will give birth and did not say a virgin, while the whole sign is that she is a virgin? It's like I would say I'm giving you a sign that tomorrow you will meet a person! And I expect you to understand by yourself that it's a person 100 meters tall because otherwise, what's the sign...? And the sign can be anything supernatural (according to the understanding that it must be supernatural), it doesn't have to be a virgin! So here the question arises, why did the Jewish Septuagint really translate it that way?
The answer is that the Jewish Septuagint was originally written only for the five books of the Torah, and until about 300 CE, all the books of the Tanakh were translated by Christians. The Septuagint we have is not the original; the oldest copy is from the 4th-5th century CE, completely Christian! And why would Matthew copy from the Septuagint and not copy from the original? All this leads to the more logical conclusion that Matthew did not copy from the Septuagint but changed the verse to make it look like it was talking about a virgin, and then the Septuagint translated the word as Matthew wrote it!!!