Does Hebrew Scripture say Jesus born of young woman (not virgin)?

[ryanoneil]

There are aspects in addition to the woman and child in (Isaiah 7:14)

Jerusalem was spared from it’s enemies the first time. In fewer than 70 years, Ephaem (the ten northern “lost” tribes that had refected the reign of David’s heir) was utterly conquered, dispersed, and left without a trace. (II Kings 15-16)

After the initial prophecy was fulfilled in (Isaiah 8:3-4) some leaders of God’s people taught that these events had another future fulfillment. Someday another Son would come who would signal the availability of a more universal salvation for Israel.

So, we see the change from “young woman” to “virgin” in regard to the future fulfillment of the Messiah. In (Matthew 1:23) the prophecy of Isaiah points to more than the virgin birth. It includes the entire series of events including the salvation of the believing remnant and the destruction of the unbelieving majority after the actual birth of the child. (Matthew 24:2)

Peace,

Ryan

 

[peregrinus_sg]

When I took a course with a Jewish professor, he mentioned something that I found quite interesting.

Until sometime in the 1st century, Jews counted lineage from the paternal side only. This means you are a Jew so long as your father is one.

But after the 1st century AD, Jews swopped to count lineage from the maternal side only. You are a Jew so long as your mother is one. This is maintained by modern Jews. Although the reason was not documented, the professor did suggest the Fall of Jerusalem and the rape of Jewish women by Roman soldiers necessitated the change.

The friend’s and his spiritual advisor’s understanding are thus entirely unhistorical.

I am not a biblical scholar to talk about the issue of MT vs LXX’s rendering of Is 7:14. But scholars today have a high regard for the LXX as an accurate translation of the Hebrew text. The MT may only represent one Hebrew tradition of the text, and it is possible that the LXX had access to some Hebrew manuscripts that did use the Hebrew word for virgin. St Jerome, even though he championed the Hebrew text, also translated that word as virgo. Perhaps there is more than meets the eye.

 

[Ron_Conte]

A friend of mine who was catholic has converted to Judaism. He says the a Messiah from the line of David has not been born yet. Jesus was not physically from the line of David as Jews beliive is required. His foster father Joseph was from the line, but his blood mother Mary was not.

My friend says the virgin birth is impossible as the Messiah must come from father’s side, the line of David.

He says the original Hebrew says Jesus will be born of a young woman - it does not say virgin. He and his spiritiual advisor are adamant on this.

It sort of sounds like young woman is what the source says but I don’t know Hebrew.Can someone clarify?

The Promise that the Messiah would be a descendent of David is fulfilled in two ways:

1. by the flesh, through Mary, who was of the house of David, and is the Mother of Jesus
2. by the law, through Joseph, who was of the house of David, and who was the legal father of Jesus, under religious law (having been betrothed to Mary prior to His conception)

The Hebrew translated variously as young woman or virgin is almah, which refers to a young unmarried woman of marriable age. In the religious and cultural context of the OT Israelites, such a woman would be a virgin. The penalty in the OT law for a young woman who did not keep her virginity until marriage was death:

[Deuteronomy]
{22:20} But if what he has claimed is true and virginity is not found in the girl,
{22:21} then they shall throw her down, outside the doors of her father’s house, and the men of that city shall stone her to death, and she shall die. For she has acted wickedly in Israel, in that she fornicated in her father’s house. And so shall you take away the evil from your midst.

Therefore, the term almah implies virginity, even though the word itself does not mean virgin.

 

[jcrichton]

That is correct as a description of the meaning of Isaah 7.14 - except that the verse has nothing to do with Jesus until it is interpreted by Christians to refer to Him.​

***Hi, Mitchael!

If I understand you correctly, Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah? So who is the Immanuel?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[joseph_virgen]

The impossible happened. Now that impossibility has become the norm. Virgin births. A donor egg, some sperm and into an awaiting womb, sometimes rented wombs. Now what? Where do we go?

The story of the vigin birth has been both misleading and misunderstood. The virginity of Mary has been overly scrutinized to the extend that the true meaning has been literally lost… the Most Holy becoming flesh.

It teaches us what God tried to teach Adam and Eve. Be content with being human. Do not try to be as God. In truth, God does the unthinkable… becoming human.

In becoming as you and me, God effectively leaves his ‘essence’ to remind us that being human is enough.

 

[Valke2]

This whole subject also ties in with the deuterocanonical books that exist in the Catholic bible and not in the protestant bibles.

The Septuagint (which was a Greek translation of Hebrew scripture) translates the passage as “virgin”. Other translations of Hebrew scripture use the term young woman when referring to the prophecy in Isaiah. It is believed that Jesus and his followers used and studied the Septuagint because of His teachings. A lot of the things Jesus refers to are found in the deuterocanonical books.

The Hebrew scholars, directly after the death of Jesus and the subsequent years, disavowed the Septuagint in the hopes that it would end the whole christian “thing” that had occurred. Unfortunately it didn’t and later in history reformists used this move to discredit these books that were part of the bible and later throwing them out altogether. These books referred to purgatory and prayers for the dead among other things that protestant reformers couldn’t stand.

Furthermore, Hebrews “back in the day” couldn’t agree on a true translation anyway so it was pretty much whoever was the high priest had the say of things.

I don’t believe there is any evidence that the book of Isaiah, specifically, was translated into Greek by Hebrew scholars. Jewish tradition and other sources that I have read believe that only the Five Books of Moses were originally translated into Greek and that the other works came later, over the next 3 centuries or so. Whether one believes the story of 72 Jewish translators or not, it is referring to the Torah and not to any of the books of prophets, which were translated at a later time.

Also, how is a virgin birth a sign? It is not as if anyone hearing Mary say she was a virgin and pregnant would believe her. Were there any witnesses to the conversation between Mary and the angel? Or Joseph and the angel? Were any of Jesus’ apostles there?

Also, given the context in which Isaiah 7:14 occurs, what is the argument that it refers to the Messiah?

Also, there are christian bibles that use the word “virgin” and there are christian bibles that use the word “young woman”. So the translation problem found in Isaiah is not simply a debatable point between Christians and Jews, but is also debate between Christian scholars.

 

[Valke2]

The impossible happened. Now that impossibility has become the norm. Virgin births. A donor egg, some sperm and into an awaiting womb, sometimes rented wombs. Now what? Where do we go?

The story of the vigin birth has been both misleading and misunderstood. The virginity of Mary has been overly scrutinized to the extend that the true meaning has been literally lost… the Most Holy becoming flesh.

It teaches us what God tried to teach Adam and Eve. Be content with being human. Do not try to be as God. In truth, God does the unthinkable… becoming human.

In becoming as you and me, God effectively leaves his ‘essence’ to remind us that being human is enough.

If the lesson was to be “being human is enough” then why make Jesus’ birth completely unnatural by using a virgin birth?

 

[foundthelight]

The impossible happened. Now that impossibility has become the norm. Virgin births. A donor egg, some sperm and into an awaiting womb, sometimes rented wombs. Now what? Where do we go?

The story of the vigin birth has been both misleading and misunderstood. The virginity of Mary has been overly scrutinized to the extend that the true meaning has been literally lost… the Most Holy becoming flesh.

It teaches us what God tried to teach Adam and Eve. Be content with being human. Do not try to be as God. In truth, God does the unthinkable… becoming human.

In becoming as you and me, God effectively leaves his ‘essence’ to remind us that being human is enough.

Just because we play god today does not mean that we should.

Using current practice that did not exist at the time of the bible to explain away the miracle of the Virgin Birth is ludicrous. This Virgin Birth was and is of utmost importance.

 

[reccanboy]

And what makes you say that?

If you read Irenaeus, he said in book 3:22 that Luke speaks of Mary’s geneology, but in 3:21, he refutes the ebionites by stating that Matthew’s geneology has Jeconiah, thus Joseph couldn’t be his father.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Interesting that you should ask about the Hebrew scripture. The word in Hebrew refers both to a young girl and to a virgin. However when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek for the benefit of the Greek speaking Jews in the Mediterranean basin, they translated the word using a Greek word which meant specifically a virgin. Therefore it is legitimate to agrue that the Hebrew scholars understood the Hebrew to mean a virgin and not just a young woman.

Matthew

Also the translation predates 1 A.D.

An aside, tradition states that the Virgin was both Davidic and Aaronic descent.

 

[EphelDuath]

Actually, this question should be first thrown at you. What makes you say the Luke gives the lineage of Mary? (not being rude, by the way).

There is nothing in the text to support the idea that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary. Both genealogies are that of Joseph, and that’s all the text says.

Matthew focuses more on the journey of Joseph and Jesus’ inherited royalty. So that’s obviously Joseph’s genealogy.

Luke on the other hand stresses Jesus’ miraculousness and follows Mary’s journey. Although it doesn’t specifically say it is Mary’s bloodline, it is easy to assume this by the context.

Now you have an absurdly large contradiction between the two Gospels if Luke is describing Joseph’s lineage as well; it’s safe to say that the Church wouldn’t of let such an enormous error go untouched.

 

[St_Aloysius]

Does Hebrew Scripture say Jesus born of young woman (not virgin)?

The Hebrew Scriptures say in Isaiah that the child will be born of an “almah”–or, young maiden. Almah assumes virginity but is not the Hebrew word for it.

On the other hand, Saint Matthew quotes this same passage in his Gospel from the Greek, and here the word IS translated correctly as “virgin”–and it is done so consistently throughout the New Testament. The NT makes it clear that Mary was a true virgin and impregnated via the power of the Holy Spirit only (read Luke 1 again).

The Greek translation of Scripture, the Septuagint, could have been translating an unknown Hebrew manuscript for all we really know, where the text read “virgin.” But in any case, the Church has always understood the almah of the Old Testament as referring to the Virgin Mary, and the NT’s witness to her sexual purity is firm and strong and has always been well attested to.

Pax

 

[Valke2]

From the “New Advent” website:

Alma
A Hebrew signifying a “young woman”, unmarried as well as married, and thus distinct from bethulah, “a virgin” (see Hebrew Lexicons). The interest that attaches to this word is due to the famous passage of Isaiah 7:14: “the Alma shall conceive”, etc. We can only mention some of the various opinions with regard to the meaning of Alma in this verse. She is said to be

the wife of Achaz;
the prophetess mentioned in Isaiah 8:3,
any young married woman, who on account of the promised victory of Judah, could at some near date call her child Immanuel (God with us),
metaphorically, the Chosen People;
the Virgin Mother of the Messiah. This last view is the one adopted by St. Matthew 1:23, and after him by Christian tradition.

 

[porthos11]

***Hi, Mitchael!

If I understand you correctly, Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah? So who is the Immanuel?

Maran atha!

Angel***

In the immediate context, Immanuel was simply a child born during those times, since his mother was already pregnant. That was most likely his real name, Immanuel.

 

[jcrichton]

The impossible happened. Now that impossibility has become the norm. Virgin births. A donor egg, some sperm and into an awaiting womb, sometimes rented wombs. Now what? Where do we go?

***Hi, joseph virgen!

…no… not quite… true, scientists have broken the barriers of knowledge; true, baren wombs are able to be implanted with artificially created fertilized eggs; true, poor/well-meaning wombs are being sublet; true, in the future many of the SciFi concepts might come through (creation of spare parts through creation of creatures to use as organ donors–already done–etc.)… but the virgen bith, to my knowledge, has not been reproduced; even if a woman knows not a man if she has been sexually involved (artificial/mechanical male sex organs or alternate body parts or objects used) though she is artificially impregnated it cannot be called virgin birth!

The story of the vigin birth has been both misleading and misunderstood.

 

[jcrichton]

IAlso, how is a virgin birth a sign? It is not as if anyone hearing Mary say she was a virgin and pregnant would believe her. Were there any witnesses to the conversation between Mary and the angel? Or Joseph and the angel? Were any of Jesus’ apostles there?

***Hi, Valke!

The virgen birth is a sign for believers… in today’s lingo “those in the know.”

Your reasoning seems quite exact… but unless you are attempting to debunk the Holy Scriptures it is innert:

Where are Moses’ witnesses (both at the first encounter, during the time he received the Ten Commandments and during the time he received all of the other teachings and commandments), the witnesses of any of the prophets (both those leading Israel and those keeping the Sacred Writings, Paul’s witnesses about his conversion and encounter with Jesus, and the witnesses of all who claim to have had some direct intervention by the Holy Spirit who commanded them to do anything in Christ’s name?

Reasoning as such does not enlighten/support anything Biblical.

Also, given the context in which Isaiah 7:14 occurs, what is the argument that it refers to the Messiah?

---

If this Biblical passage which speaks of the Immanuel (God-with/among us) does not refer to the Son of God, the Messiah, Kristos, then who is this fellow? Where is he in the historical accounts? What was his accomplishment? Are you telling us that Jesus is not the Messiah because the Immanuel already came to the Jewish people during Isaiah’s life time?

Also, there are christian bibles that use the word “virgin” and there are christian bibles that use the word “young woman”. So the translation problem found in Isaiah is not simply a debatable point between Christians and Jews, but is also debate between Christian scholars.

Perhaps you are not aware that there was an ancient schism in the Church and that the split caused the emersion of several Catholic groups; and, that a much later schism gave birth to the Protestant church–this final schism being deeply rooted in dissension made its mark by challenging not only the Church’s Authority but also her Doctrine, in almost every aspect. Sadly, as the story of Christmas, many Christians have ended up supporting secular ideologies instead of furthering Christendom.

Maran atah!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In the immediate context, Immanuel was simply a child born during those times, since his mother was already pregnant. That was most likely his real name, Immanuel.

***Hi, porthos!

…so… Matthew, who was there at the post birth of Jesus, had it wrong (remember he too was Jewish and probably versed in the idosyncrasies of word-roots and other language accidents)? He simply decided to introduce nuance into the world by claiming that God-with-us is*** among us? And to further his cause he translated the meaning of young woman to mean virgin… to win over the Jewish scholars?

And, supposing that the true meaning of the fraction of the passage applied to Mary actually meant a young woman, was Mary such a great liar that she fooled not only Joseph but Gabriel as well as she claimed to still be a virgin at the angel’s visitation?

And, if she was no longer a virgin, how did that escape the Holy Spirit or was it not important that she may have already been carrying the seed of a man when He would come upon her or did God have the right to eradicate the seed of man in order to implant His?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Valke2]

***Hi, Valke!

The virgen birth is a sign for believers… in today’s lingo “those in the know.”

Your reasoning seems quite exact… but unless you are attempting to debunk the Holy Scriptures it is innert:

Where are Moses’ witnesses (both at the first encounter, during the time he received the Ten Commandments and during the time he received all of the other teachings and commandments)***

These events were not meant to be either signs or wonders for the people of Israel. I have heard it said that the virgin birth was meant to be a sign. But that is an odd thing to believe in light of what miracles had previously passed for signs (i.e, the plagues, parting of the see, Revelation at Sinai…, Mana from heaven…)

 

[Valke2]

***Hi, Valke!

If this Biblical passage which speaks of the Immanuel (God-with/among us) does not refer to the Son of God, the Messiah, Kristos, then who is this fellow? Where is he in the historical accounts? What was his accomplishment? Are you telling us that Jesus is not the Messiah because the Immanuel already came to the Jewish people during Isaiah’s life time?***

I of course do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. But I am merely saying that looking to Isaiah 7:14 to support a virgin birth is quite problematic. That is not to say there is not such support elsewhere in the Christian Bible.

 

[paidion]

An interesting side note to this discussion (but relevant, I believe) is that nearly all current copies of the Jewish scriptures (printed by the JPS and others since ) have been stripped of any sort of Messianic prophesies in the translation.

As other posts have indicated in this thread, the Hebrew word for “virgin” or “young woman” is the same.