No Virgin Birth Prophecy

[Gnosis]

When the author of Matthew was writing his Gospel, he was using a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, that mistranslated the word young woman (almah) to be parthenos (which most often means virgin). He read the so called prophecy in Isaiah as “The virgin will be with child”

If we look at the book of Isaiah in Hebrew, the passage reads that the “young woman (almah) will be with child”. If Isaiah had meant virgin (as a young woman can be a virgin) he would have used the word “bethula” which is the Hebrew word ALWAYS used in reference to virginity.

Thus Matthew based the entire story of the virgin birth on a mistranslation (that almah=parthenos).

It is my understanding that many people believe the virgin birth story to have been non-literal. But how does this affect Catholic notions of Mary and her “ever virginity”?

 

[Fidelis]

Gnosis:

When the author of Matthew was writing his Gospel, he was using a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, that mistranslated the word young woman (almah) to be parthenos (which most often means virgin). He read the so called prophecy in Isaiah as “The virgin will be with child”

If we look at the book of Isaiah in Hebrew, the passage reads that the “young woman (almah) will be with child”. If Isaiah had meant virgin (as a young woman can be a virgin) he would have used the word “bethula” which is the Hebrew word ALWAYS used in reference to virginity.

Thus Matthew based the entire story of the virgin birth on a mistranslation (that almah=parthenos).

It is my understanding that many people believe the virgin birth story to have been non-literal. But how does this affect Catholic notions of Mary and her “ever virginity”?

It doesn’t. The translation “virgin” is not erronous; it is a legitimate alternative translation of the word almah, i.e., it could be translated either way, which is why the Septuagint translators used it, why Matthew (who was Jewish) understood it that way and why the Church has always taught the same . The fact that the Hebrew version of the Scriptures (from the Palestinian canon as opposed to the Greek Septuagint) used the alternative translation “young girl” is probably as much a reaction against the Christian understanding of this verse than a real concern for accuracy.

**The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon **

ALMAH

**Original Word Word Origin **
hml

Transliterated Word
`almah

**Phonetic Spelling **
al-maw’

Parts of Speech:
Noun Feminine

**Definition **
virgin, young woman
of marriageable age
maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05959&version=kjv

 

[BayCityRickL]

Gnosis:

. . .But how does this affect Catholic notions of Mary and her “ever virginity”?

Well, those are two separate things.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Paragraph 95 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that Catholic beliefs are soundly based on the inseparable relation of scripture, Tradition, and magisterium (the teaching mission of the church commissioned by Christ).

The Tradition of the Church refers among other things to the testimony of the early Church fathers. And, two quick citations from the early church (from Vol 1 of The Faith of the Early Fathers, William A. Jurgens, Liturgical Press, 1970) goes like this:

Tertullian (155 AD to 240 AD, approx) wrote “…It was a virgin who gave birth to Christ…”

and later

St. Athanasius (295-373 AD) “…He took true human flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary…”

Also, but just from my frail memory, Luther and Calvin also subscribed to the idea perpetual virginity of Mary. Perhaps I might be in error there.

Karl Keating’s book on Catholicism and Fundamentalism (1988 )discusses attacks on the beliefs of the Catholic Faith and gives the Church doctrine, with a particular view to such criticisms. It’s worth the time to read it as a response to a whole litany of attacks on Catholic Church doctrine.

For any particular attack on doctrine, Keating discusses the matter from several angles: scripture - what it says and what it doesn’t say, what the early church fathers said, and, for example, what the heretics and critics of the early church said and did not say.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a long- and widely-held belief.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (on the web) is a great resource for investigating such questions. God bless!

 

[FCEGM]

The word “almah” in Hebrew means a virtuous young maiden. The technical word for virgin in Hebrew is “bethulah.” While “almah” does not EXPLICITLY mean virgin, in that culture at the time that Isaiah was writing it did mean so IMPLICITLY. When we speak of a virtuous maiden in English virginal status is also implied.

The reason why “almah” was chosen instead of “bethulah” by Isaiah is open to debate. One possibility is that it was because “almah” singled out a young girl, possibly one who had not yet reached menarche. The Jewish scholar Geza Vermis speculates about this in his writings with reference to the virginal conception of Jesus. There were several stories in the Bible about barren women who bore children as if by miracle (e.g., Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, the wife of Manoah, Hannah, & St. Elizabeth). The term “barren” usually referred to women who were not menstruating. A pre-menopausal girl likewise is “barren” in that sense and so a conception in her would be in keeping with a long biblical tradition. We know that Mary was very young woman at the time that she conceived Jesus and so this would fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy exactly.

Under ordinary circumstances when it is said that a virginal woman will bear a child it ususally meant that she would shortly marry and become pregnant. But Isaiah 7:14 was a prophetic utterance alleging an unmistakable sign from God. Young virginal women got married and had children all the time in Israel so this would not have been extraordianry. But if the virginal young woman REMAINED virginal and yet bore a son, that would indeed be a miraculous sign from God.

There is another rather fascination possibility. The Jewish people were taken into exile in Babylon by pagan invaders. Later, these pagans were defeated by the Persians who were Zoroastrian monotheists. Zoroaster was a Gentile “prophet” living in Persia around the time of Moses (or earlier, the dates are not clear). We know that there were true prophets among the Gentiles even after Moses’ time such as Balaam. Zoroaster might have been one of them. In any case, he preached about the one God Azurha Mazda and his struggle agisnt the evil one Ahriman. He also taught the necessity for ethical living, life after death with rewards for virtue & punishments for sin, a cataclysmic end of the world, and bodily resurrection.

It was the Zoroastrian king Cyrus and his successors who allowed the Jews to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple. It is also beleived tha the Magi who came to see the Christ child were also Zoroastrian Mages. When the Greeks defeated the Persians at Thermopylae in 490 BC, it was a defeat for the monotheists against the polytheists. How different would history be if the Greeks had become Monotheists four centuries before Christ?

Now the Zoroastrians believed that there would be at least one savior born of a virginal woman. Peter Clark writes on page 15 of his book “Zoroastrianism, Introduction to an Ancient Faith”:

“One of Zarathushtra’s most revolutionary concepts [is] that of the savior, the ‘bringer of benefit’ or the benefactor known in the Gathas as the Saoshyant. It is this savior figure - also referred to in the plural - who will bring about the renovation of the world.”

The expectation of the Zoroastrians was very EXPLICITLY that the savior would be born of a virgin. The exact details of how this would happen do not exactly correlate to the story of Jesus but the expectation was there and it could have influenced the Jews. At the time of Jesus, the largest Jewish population outside of Israel was in Persia around old Babylon. It was estimated at around 1 million people. The most widespread book of Jewish traditions still used by the Jewish people is the Bavli or Babylonian Talmud which was compiled around 600 AD. The relationship between the Jews and the Zoroastrians went back a long way and continued well into the Christian era.

Whether or not Zoroaster was a true prophet in the biblical sense, he was still very influencial in the ancient world and his ideas would have become know to Jewish sages. Much of hat he preached paralleled jewish teachings. When the Rabbis in Alexandria translated the Hebrew bible into the Greek Septuagint, many of them had studied in Babylon. Their experience among the Zorastrians MAY have influenced the way they translated Isaiah 7:14.

In short, the word “almah” does indeed imply virginal status and the expectation of a Messiah born of a virgin may have been reinforced by similar beliefs among the Zorastrians in Babylon. The original context of Isaiah 7:14 makes it clear that this was a miraculous Messianic prophecy. The Jewish tradtion of miraculous births by “barren” women could be consistent with a conception to a premenstrual virginal young maiden.

Art Sippo
Catholic Apologist
February 12, 2003

catholic-legate.com/

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Gnosis ( secret knowledge? ) nice rehash of a Jews for Judaism argument. I recently was told that the Aramaic translation of Isaiah has “virgin”, what do you know of it?

And, if you are aware of Jews for Judaism then you know that the Answering Jewish Objections books have already answered your questions.

And, what about those aramaic targums of Isaiah, how do they translate?

And, who is emmanual in Isaiah? and, who was the woman that Isaiah was talking about? any infomation would be interresting.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Lexicon Results for `almah (Strong’s 05959)
Hebrew for 05959

Pronunciation Guide
`almah {al-maw’}

TWOT Reference Root Word
TWOT - 1630b from 05958
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage

1. virgin, young woman

a) of marriageable age

b) maid or newly married
++++

There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 7
AV - virgin 4, maid 2, damsels 1; 7

Hebrew Lexicon (Help)

MORE (88 KBytes)

Word / Phrase / Strong’s Search Here
Previous
Strong’s 05958 H
G Next
Strong’s 05960

KJV English Concordance for "`almah (Strong’s 05959) "
Learn More About Our Word Search Tools
We are showing you Strong’s Numbers since your search includes a Strong’s Number

---

Strong’s Number 05959 matches the Hebrew `almah

---

`almah (Strong’s 05959) occurs 7 times in 7 verses:

---

Gen 24:43 Behold, I stand 05324 by the well 05869 of water 04325; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin 05959 cometh forth 03318 to draw 07579 [water], and I say 0559 to her, Give me 08248 00, I pray thee, a little 04592 water 04325 of thy pitcher 03537 to drink 08248 ;

virgin​

Exd 2:8 And Pharaoh’s 06547 daughter 01323 said 0559 to her, Go 03212 . And the maid 05959 went 03212 and called 07121 the child’s 03206 mother 0517.

virgin​

Psa 68:25 The singers 07891 went before 06923 , the players on instruments 05059 [followed] after 0310; among 08432 [them were] the damsels 05959 playing with timbrels 08608 .

young woman???​

Pro 30:19 The way 01870 of an eagle 05404 in the air 08064; the way 01870 of a serpent 05175 upon a rock 06697; the way 01870 of a ship 0591 in the midst 03820 of the sea 03220; and the way 01870 of a man 01397 with a maid 05959.

young woman???​

Sgs 1:3 Because of the savour 07381 of thy good 02896 ointments 08081 thy name 08034 [is as] ointment 08081 poured forth 07324 , therefore do the virgins 05959 love 0157 thee.

Most likely not virgins​

Sgs 6:8 There are threescore 08346 queens 04436, and fourscore 08084 concubines 06370, and virgins 05959 without number 04557.

Makes no sense to list virgins apart from concubines, if not virgins​

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord 0136 himself shall give 05414 you a sign 0226; Behold, a virgin 05959 shall conceive 02030, and bear 03205 a son 01121, and shall call 07121 his name 08034 Immanuel 0410 06005.

Could be “youn woman”​

Cite This Page:

Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for '`almah (Strong’s 05959) ’ " . Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002. 17 Jan 2006. http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=05959&page=1

For my Catholic Brothern, Jerome, ruled that the hebrew means virgin and the Most library has a good article on Almah.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

Interesting.

I read a book called Why Do Catholics Do That? by Kevin Orlin Johnson amazon.com/gp/product/0345397266/qid=1137607839/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7969271-2046567?n=507846&s=books&v=glance). If I recall - he states that the Jews changed Scripture at Jamnia due to the Christians (this being one instance). I don’t recall him substantiating that. I think I’ve also heard that once on Relevant Radio.

Anyone?

 

[Marilena]

Gnosis:

When the author of Matthew was writing his Gospel, he was using a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, that mistranslated the word young woman (almah) to be parthenos (which most often means virgin). He read the so called prophecy in Isaiah as “The virgin will be with child”

If we look at the book of Isaiah in Hebrew, the passage reads that the “young woman (almah) will be with child”. If Isaiah had meant virgin (as a young woman can be a virgin) he would have used the word “bethula” which is the Hebrew word ALWAYS used in reference to virginity.

Thus Matthew based the entire story of the virgin birth on a mistranslation (that almah=parthenos).

It is my understanding that many people believe the virgin birth story to have been non-literal. But how does this affect Catholic notions of Mary and her “ever virginity”?

You are incorrect! Here is what the Bible states in: Matthew 1: 23:
Behold a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son: and they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, God with us. ( DRV)

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

with all respect Marilena, no one is disputing that Matthew has the word virgin. What is disputed is if Isaiah had the word virgin.

The fact is, in the Hebrew the lady is already pregnant, “with child” thus she an’t no virgin. Unless you believe there was two virgin births.

The Jewish translations are generally consistent in their renditions of the tense of the conjugated verb (harah) in this verse, though four of the five sources quoted in Table II.B.1-1 render the conjugated verb in the present tense as is with child (already pregnant), the ArtScroll Tanach has it in the future tense as shall become pregnant. However, this is not a significant issue here, since a verb conjugated in the perfect tense, which is the case here with (harah), can also be understood as describing an imminent action, something that is about to occur, in the near future. Some Jewish Sages use this aspect of the perfect tense in their commentary (e.g., RASHI), and even the noted German grammarian and Christian theologian, H. W. F. Gesenius

messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

 

[Marilena]

Daniel Marsh:

with all respect Marilena, no one is disputing that Matthew has the word virgin. What is disputed is if Isaiah had the word virgin.

The fact is, in the Hebrew the lady is already pregnant, “with child” thus she an’t no virgin. Unless you believe there was two virgin births.

messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

With all due respect, Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost AS a virgin. That is a FACT. Christ was born of a virgin, that is also a FACT. There was and is only 1 virgin birth, that of Jesus Christ.
Son of the living God. The Bible clealy states that Christ WAS
born of a virgin, and that is Mary, who conceived by the Holy Ghost as a virgin, unknown to man. period.

 

[Marilena]

Quote: “with all respect Marilena, no one is disputing that Matthew has the word virgin. What is disputed is if Isaiah had the word virgin”

Isaiah states this in regards to the birth of Christ,

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son: and his name shall be called
Emmanuel. ( DRV )

The Book of Isaiah DOES state it. The word* virgin *is there as you can plainly see.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Marilena, I read Hebrew, and I plainly see a woman with child, not a virgin in Isaiah. And, I do believe in the virigin birth based on Matthew. The decussion is NOT if Mary was a virgin. The discussion is, in Hebrew is the woman “with child” and is she a virgin in Isaiah. The woman in Isaiah need not be a virgin for Mary to be a virgin.

 

[Marilena]

Isaiah states that as I have said, they are NOT my words… Believe what you want. I believe Gods word the Bible. You can interpret it anyway you want. Case closed. No need to speak to me further of it. Case closed.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

It is the first part of the verse that presents difficulties of translation. There are five words in Hebrew in that first phrase.

hinneh, a particle that can be translated as “look!” or “behold!” However, it can serve other grammatical functions in Hebrew, as we shall see below.

ha‘almah, a feminine noun with a definite article, “the young woman.” This noun has traditionally been translated as “virgin,” but research reveals that more likely it means “a young woman of marriageable age” (i.e., old enough to bear a child) without any specific indication of whether or not she is a virgin. This is reflected in most modern translations.

harah, in form either a masculine singular verb in the perfect tense signifying completed action meaning “he conceived.” It can be used metaphorically as in Psalm 7:15. Or it is a feminine adjective meaning “pregnant.” However, since context determines usage in Hebrew, and there are no masculine referents in this context, here it must be a feminine adjective modifying the feminine noun ha‘almah. In other words, as it stands in the text it is not a verb at all, but an adjective that should be translated “pregnant [young woman].”

cresourcei.org/isa7-14.html

The Hebrew is clear, the woman in Isaiah is pregnant!!!

facts are facts

 

[ChristsSoldier]

This is a thread I started some time ago.
Intersting subject, but I still stand by my previous thoughts

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=69912

Peace!

 

[Della]

I think there are a couple of points not yet made here that might be helpful to everyone.

Firstly, when the writers’ of the Gospels referred to a verse/verses in the OT that pointed to some aspect of the Messianic promise, they weren’t using it as a “proof-text” in the modern sense. They were calling on the OT to witness to the fact that the Messiah had been promised and how Jesus fulfilled these promises.

So, in this case, what Matthew is telling us isn’t that the young woman referred to in the OT story was a virgin or that she wasn’t already pregnant. None of that matters to what Matthew is telling us. He is saying that like that young woman’s pregnancy, the conception and birth of Jesus is a sign to Israel. Of course, he’s not in any way denying the virgin birth–he isn’t actually talking about the virgin birth at all, but only addressing the fact that Jesus’ coming among us is the sign that God had fulfilled his promise to give us the Messiah.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Great point Della. Thank you!

(On a side note: I always found it interesting that, in my understanding, the German"jung" means young, and the German “frau” means woman, but the German “jungfrau” translates as virgin.)

VC

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Amen Della, and to add if I may, Jesus opened the scriptures to the disciples after his resurrection – thus the interpretation given by Matthew was likely taught to him by Jesus.

 

[Della]

Great point Della. Thank you!

(On a side note: I always found it interesting that, in my understanding, the German"jung" means young, and the German “frau” means woman, but the German “jungfrau” translates as virgin.)

VC

Daniel Marsh:

Amen Della, and to add if I may, Jesus opened the scriptures to the disciples after his resurrection – thus the interpretation given by Matthew was likely taught to him by Jesus.

You’re welcome, VC! And it’s always great to learn something about another language.

DM, I hadn’t thought of that before. Great insight!

 

[Marilena]

Verbum Caro:

Great point Della. Thank you!

(On a side note: I always found it interesting that, in my understanding, the German"jung" means young, and the German “frau” means woman, but the German “jungfrau” translates as virgin.)

VC

My husband is German. You cannot separate German words when they are put together. you cannot take apart jungfrau to mean young woman. It means virgin. For clariification of German words, you may ask my husband. He is on here as Frank Fenn. Simply ask him why you cannot take apart jungfrau to mean what you think it means.You just can’t. Germans have different meanings for same words.