Dialogue with Trypho 67

2 verses • Goodspeed Greek (Die ältesten Apologeten, 1914)

Translator's Introduction

What This Chapter Is About

The doctrinal climax of the Dial. 56-67 unit. Trypho mounts the strongest single-verse counter-objection of the entire arc: the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 reads עַלְמָה (ʻalmah, 'young woman'), not the LXX's παρθένος ('virgin'), and the prophecy refers to Hezekiah, not to a future Messiah. Trypho then escalates by comparing the Christian virgin-birth claim to pagan Perseus myths — Jesus's birth, on this reading, is just another instance of the kind of 'monstrous phenomena' (τερατώδη) that Greco-Roman religion routinely produces and that serious Jewish theology has always rejected. Justin's reply maintains the textual authority of the LXX over rabbinic re-translations and emphasizes Christ's actual observance of Mosaic law as evidence of his non-pagan provenance. The chapter is a foundational moment in Christian-Jewish translation controversies and one of the load-bearing pre-Nicene articulations of the LXX-as-Christian-scripture commitment.

What Makes This Chapter Remarkable

Dial. 67 contains the earliest extant Christian engagement with the παρθένος-vs-ʻalmah controversy. The dispute will recur across Tertullian (Adversus Judaeos 9), Origen (Against Celsus I.34-35), Eusebius (Demonstratio Evangelica VII.1), Jerome (Adversus Helvidium), and the entire medieval-modern Christian-Jewish exegetical exchange. Justin's specific moves here — defending LXX authority against rabbinic Hebrew, refusing the Hezekiah identification, distinguishing Christian incarnation-doctrine from pagan theogonies — set the pattern that all subsequent Christian engagements inherit. The chapter is a natural future Pillar III doctrinal-index entry ('Translation Controversies in Christian-Jewish Exegesis' or 'The παρθένος-ʻalmah Dispute').

Translation Friction

Both readings have real textual warrant. The Hebrew עַלְמָה (ʻalmah) does mean 'young marriageable woman' and does not in itself specify virginity; Hebrew bětûlāh (בְּתוּלָה) is the more technical virginity-term. The LXX translators' choice of παρθένος is interpretive, not lexically forced. The Hezekiah-application reading has its own textual support: Isaiah 7:14's immediate context (Ahaz's refusal of a sign during the Syro-Ephraimite war, c. 735 BCE) is a contemporary crisis, and the 'sign' should plausibly have immediate-time-frame fulfillment. Modern scholarly consensus is mixed; the Christian reading and the Jewish reading remain real interpretive options, each with its own theological and exegetical commitments. TCR's bias policy (strategic roadmap §12) commits to presenting both positions in their strongest form when this becomes a Pillar III doctrinal entry.

Connections

Isaiah 7:14 LXX (παρθένος) vs Isaiah 7:14 Hebrew (עַלְמָה); 2 Kings 18-19 (the Hezekiah narrative, which Trypho's reading applies the prophecy to); Matthew 1:23 (the gospel citation of LXX Isaiah 7:14); Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 9 (extended Latin treatment); Origen, Against Celsus I.34-35 (engagement with the same Jewish counter-readings); Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica VII.1 (systematic LXX-defense); Justin, 1 Apology 33 (Justin's parallel deployment of the παρθένος reading); canonical Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 at /isaiah/7#v14; LXX Isaiah chapter at /lxx-isaiah/7 (per-chapter coverage). Future Pillar III doctrinal-index entry candidate: 'Translation Controversies in Christian-Jewish Exegesis' (the παρθένος-ʻalmah dispute as the foundational case).

Dialogue with Trypho 67:1

καὶ ὁ Τρύφων ἀπεκρίνατο· ἡ γραφὴ οὐκ ἔχει 'ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται καὶ τέξεται υἱόν,' ἀλλ' 'ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται καὶ τέξεται υἱόν,' καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ὡς εἴρηται. ἡ δὲ ὅλη προφητεία εἰς τὸν Ἑζεκίαν εἴρηται, εἰς ὃν ἀποδεικνύεται καὶ τὰ προειρημένα τῆς προφητείας οὕτως πεπληρωμένα.

Trypho replied: 'Scripture does not say Behold the virgin shall conceive in her womb and bear a son. It says Behold the young woman shall conceive in her womb and bear a son — and the rest as you have it. And the whole prophecy was spoken about Hezekiah, in whom the earlier parts of the prophecy were demonstrably fulfilled.'

REF And Trypho answered: The Scripture does not have 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive in her womb and shall bear a son' — but rather, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive in her womb and shall bear a son,' and what follows, as is said. The whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, in whom indeed the foregoing words of the prophecy are shown to have been fulfilled. (Schaff, ANF I, p. 233, paraphrased)

Notes & Key Terms 2 terms

Key Terms

νεᾶνις neanis

"young woman" — young marriageable woman; in classical Greek, the lexical parallel to Hebrew עַלְמָה (ʻalmah)

The Greek noun Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (the second-century-CE Jewish-Greek revisers of the LXX) used to render עַלְמָה at Isaiah 7:14. The choice deliberately rolls back the LXX's παρθένος, signaling Jewish rejection of the Christian virgin-birth reading. The lexical move is technically defensible (νεᾶνις is closer to the Hebrew's general 'young woman' sense) and theologically pointed (removing the virginity-specification that Christian Christology depends on).

Ἑζεκίας Hezekias

"Hezekiah" — the Davidic king of Judah ~715-686 BCE, whose narrative in 2 Kings 18-20 and Isaiah 36-39 provides the application Trypho attributes to Isaiah 7:14

The historical-context application reading of Isaiah 7:14. The advantage of the Hezekiah reading: Isaiah 7-9's immediate context is the Syro-Ephraimite war of 735 BCE, and Hezekiah's birth/childhood falls within a few decades of that crisis — a 'sign' applicable to Ahaz's house should plausibly resolve within Ahaz's reign or shortly after.

Translator Notes

Goodspeed, p. 169 (Dial. 67.1); Schaff, ANF I, p. 233. Trypho's objection has two distinct moves. (1) Translation: scripture (i.e., the Hebrew) does not read παρθένος ('virgin'); it reads νεᾶνις ('young woman'). The lexical claim is correct — the Hebrew עַלְמָה corresponds more naturally to νεᾶνις than to παρθένος, and second-century rabbinic Hebrew-Greek translation tradition (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) all rendered עַלְמָה as νεᾶνις rather than παρθένος. (2) Application: the prophecy refers to Hezekiah (king of Judah ~715-686 BCE, whose miraculous-childhood-narratives at 2 Kings 18-19 provide the application context).
The Trypho-attributed reading is documented elsewhere in second-century-CE Jewish-Christian exegetical exchange. Justin's contemporary Akiba and the later Jerome (Adversus Helvidium) both reference the Hezekiah-application reading as the standard Jewish interpretation. The reading has real textual support: Isaiah 7:14's immediate context (the Syro-Ephraimite war and Ahaz's reign, ~735 BCE) is a near-contemporary-fulfillment frame.
The translation controversy (παρθένος vs νεᾶνις/ʻalmah) is one of the most theologically consequential single-word disputes in the entire Christian-Jewish exegetical exchange. Justin's defense of παρθένος in v3-v4 below depends on (a) the LXX's prophetic authority (the LXX was the Christian Bible from earliest Christianity through Augustine), (b) the Matthean citation precedent at Matt 1:23, and (c) the uniqueness argument from Dial. 66 (no one else in Abraham's line is reported born of a virgin).
Editorial note on the cross-link to LXX Isaiah 7:14: TCR's lxx-isaiah route is per-chapter, not per-verse — /lxx-isaiah/7 carries the παρθένος-vs-ʻalmah analysis but there is no /lxx-isaiah/7/14 deep-link. Variant-tradition per-verse anchors are a Pillar II UX item planned after Phase A. The cross-link Isaiah 7:14 in this note resolves to canonical /isaiah/7#v14; the LXX divergence is documented in this translator_note rather than via deep-anchor.

Dialogue with Trypho 67:2

εἶτα μέντοι καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις Ἑλληνικοῖς μύθοις παρενηνεγμένα παρὰ τοῖς ποιηταῖς πεπιστευκέναι ἀνέχεσθε, ὅτι ὁ Περσεὺς ἀπὸ τῆς Δανάης παρθένου οὔσης, καταρρυέντος ἐπ' αὐτὴν ἐν χρυσῷ τοῦ παρ' αὐτοῖς λεγομένου Διός, ἐγεννήθη.

And then, look — you readily accept what is handed down in the Greek myths the poets tell: that Perseus was born of Danae, who was a virgin, when their Zeus poured down upon her in the form of gold.

REF And then again, you accept those Greek myths handed down by the poets, that Perseus was born from Danae, who was a virgin, when the one whom they called Zeus flowed down upon her in the form of gold. (Schaff, ANF I, p. 234, paraphrased)

Notes & Key Terms 2 terms

Key Terms

Περσεύς Perseus

"Perseus" — the Greek mythological hero, son of Zeus and Danae

Trypho's chosen pagan-mythic comparison-figure. Perseus's birth narrative was a paradigm of divine-impregnation myth in Greek tradition (handled in extant form by Hesiod, Apollodorus, and others). The Perseus comparison appears repeatedly in second-century-CE Christian-pagan-Jewish polemical exchange (also in Origen's Celsus passages and in patristic responses to Stoic critics).

τερατώδη teratōdē

"monstrous phenomena / portentous events" — of the nature of a portent or marvel; in negative valence, monstrous or unnatural

The classical Greek noun τέρας ('marvel, portent, monster') with the adjective-suffix -ώδη. Trypho's negative valence: the virgin-birth claim falls within the genre of τερατώδη — implausible mythological phenomena that serious religion should reject. The same word-family appears in early Christian apologetics defending the genuine prophetic-fulfillment status of Christ's miracles against their dismissal as mere τερατώδη.

Translator Notes

Goodspeed, p. 170 (Dial. 67.2); Schaff, ANF I, p. 234. Trypho's escalation: comparing Christian incarnation-doctrine to pagan Perseus myths. The Perseus narrative — Zeus impregnating Danae through a shower of gold while she is locked in a tower by her father Acrisius — is a paradigmatic Greek divine-impregnation-of-mortal myth, and Trypho's argument is that Christian doctrine is structurally indistinguishable from this pagan-mythic pattern. The rhetorical move is sharp: if Christians accept the παρθένος reading of Isaiah 7:14, they should be willing to accept their Christology is on a par with Greek mythology.
Justin's reply (in the sections following) will distinguish the Christ's birth from pagan theogonies on multiple grounds: (1) the Christ's actual observance of Mosaic Law as evidence of his Jewish-monotheist context, (2) the prophetic-foretelling pattern (the Christ's birth was prophesied centuries in advance, unlike Perseus's), (3) the doctrinal commitment to one God rather than a pantheon. The reply is not always rhetorically convincing — Greek-Roman pagans deployed prophecy-of-births patterns too (Apollo's birth foretold, etc.) — but it sets the pattern for Christian apologetics' engagement with pagan-mythic comparisons for centuries.
On the comparative-religions move generally: Trypho's argument is one of the earliest extant deployments of what later scholarship will call the 'history-of-religions' approach — comparing Christian Christological claims to broader Greco-Roman or Ancient Near Eastern mythological patterns. The move recurs at Celsus (Origen, Against Celsus I.37), at modern critical scholarship (Bultmann's myth-and-Christology framework), and at the broader Christian-pagan apologetic exchange of late antiquity.
Note Trypho's pointed phrase τοῖς λεγομένοις Ἑλληνικοῖς μύθοις ('the so-called Greek myths' — the participle λεγομένοις signals Trypho's Jewish-monotheist contempt for the genre). Trypho is not endorsing Greek mythology; he is asking why Christians accept what looks structurally identical to it. The argument cuts in either direction depending on whether Christians can articulate a principled distinction.

Chapter 66 Report an error Dialogue with Trypho index Chapter 68