US bishops changing Mary's 'virgin' status in Bible

[BlueSapphire]

American Catholic Bishops decided to change a key passage in the book of Isaiah that calls the mother of the coming messiah, not a ‘virgin,’ but instead a ‘young woman.’

So was she or wasn’t she? Or was Mary just “technically” a virgin? Why did they do this?

“Their point in translating this reference to Mary as a ‘young woman’ rather than a ‘virgin’ is that the original Greek word doesn’t mean what we in contemporary English mean by a ‘virgin.’ It simply means a young woman,” John Allen, with the National Catholic Reporter in Rome, told CBS Radio.

more…

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

You did the right thing by coming to Catholic Answers, but the wrong thing by reading anything to do with The National Catholic Reporter. Stick to reliable sources to avoid confusion.

The matter of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is an infallible teaching of the Magisterium. Allen said, “…the original Greek word doesn’t mean what we in contemporary English mean by a ‘virgin.’ It simply means a young woman,” No, it does mean what we mean in contemporary English as “virgin”. Although it can be translated as “young woman”, it means a young woman who is a “virgin”.

I first ran across this matter in 1984, when I attended an ecumenical dialogue between an excellent Rabbi, and a horribly heterodox Catholic priest, with the priest presenting this “young woman” argument to the audience. I discussed this with my prayer group the following week, and a German nun present observed that the German “jungfrau” means literally “young woman”. I asked, “but is there any connotation connected with the word, as to whether the young woman has ever had sex?”. The answer was that there is the connotation that the “jungfrau” has not ever had sex.

 

[BlueSapphire]

You did the right thing by coming to Catholic Answers, but the wrong thing by reading anything to do with The National Catholic Reporter. Stick to reliable sources to avoid confusion.

The matter of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is an infallible teaching of the Magisterium. Allen said, “…the original Greek word doesn’t mean what we in contemporary English mean by a ‘virgin.’ It simply means a young woman,” No, it does mean what we mean in contemporary English as “virgin”. Although it can be translated as “young woman”, it means a young woman who is a “virgin”.

I first ran across this matter in 1984, when I attended an ecumenical dialogue between an excellent Rabbi, and a horribly heterodox Catholic priest, with the priest presenting this “young woman” argument to the audience. I discussed this with my prayer group the following week, and a German nun present observed that the German “jungfrau” means literally “young woman”. I asked, “but is there any connotation connected with the word, as to whether the young woman has ever had sex?”. The answer was that there is the connotation that the “jungfrau” has not ever had sex.

Apologies,didn’t know that the National Catholic Reporter was unreliable. Thanks for the info.

 

[aicirt]

If the word has been changed to “young woman”, it should be footnoted with an explanation as given above. Not doing anyone a favor by not explaining the change in wording.

 

[Spencerian]

Apologies,didn’t know that the National Catholic Reporter was unreliable. Thanks for the info.

It can be confusing as there is the National Catholic Register (now owned by EWTN), which is a much more orthodox news source for religious news. Avoid the Reporter.

 

[NeedImprovement]

This linked article Catholic bible revamped in time for Lent by a *Pittsburgh Post Gazette *journalist looks as if it may be a little more reliable. It includes a quote by “Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, a scripture scholar and a past chairman of the U.S. bishops’ doctrinal committee.”

Not that I agree wholeheartedly with the changes, but maybe this would be a better reference point to continue from … several other more reliable sources would provide an even better primary reference for us.

 

[salusanimarum17]

The more important, and direct, reference to the Blessed Mother and her status as a virgin is in the New Testament, Matthew 1: 23 and Luke 1:27. It’s a silly headline from a secular news source. I will be charitable and chalk it up to ignorance instead of willful misinformation.

 

[Warrenton]

Actually, the dispute is quite old. The protestants of previous centuries made the change first when, after about 100 years, they began to move away from Marian devotion. They were concerned that specific prophecies relating to the Blessed Virgin would support continued devotion.

The greek word, if I recall correctly, is “Parthenos.” It is the same word from which “Parthenon” is derived. That word is translated “temple of the virgin.” If you suggested to Athenians 2000 years ago that Athena was anything other than undefiled, you would have been stoned, if not torn limb from limb first. Socrates was served his hemlock cocktail for less.

Of course, Athena was young in appearance only. She antedated all of humanity, having sprung directly from the mind of her father, Zeus.

Clearly, then, her title, Parthenos, conveyed the concept of her purity, not her age.

Likewise, the term and the prophecy in the Bible refers to our Lady’s purity.

In an impure time, the connection between purity and holiness does not sit well with some, so they seek to blur the distinction.

 

[Joe_5859]

Apologies,didn’t know that the National Catholic Reporter was unreliable. Thanks for the info.

The National Catholic Reporter, as a whole, is unreliable, but John Allen is generally pretty good. I read his articles all the time. (And if I ever need to get my heart rate going, I read the comments section! )

I somewhat agree with Allen, though, that I’m surprised at the backlash. The RSV translates the word as “young woman”, too, but you don’t see people up in arms about that.

From what I have seen, the NABRE makes some good improvements over the NAB, too. With any translation, there are going to be strengths and weaknesses.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Matthew 1:23 is certainly a more direct reference to our Blessed Mother’s virginity , but it’s worth noting that we’re considering the precise prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) upon which Matt 1:23 is based. Who is to say …?..We don’t really have any assurance that there won’t be a potential "next step" somewhere down the line where some scholar decides, that to make everything consistent, they should also change the wording of Matt 1:23 to match the changes made in Isaiah 7:14 so it reads :

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
‘Behold, the young woman shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God is with us.’ "

The change ( in Isaiah 7:14) has been in effect up here for quite a while now. The NSRV is the official version approved for use here by the CCCB. It’s what is used in the liturgy . Actually, we were previously using a lectionary for a few years that wasn’t even approved by Rome.

People should be cautious when they decide to change the language of Sacred Scripture. The NRSV also says Joseph was “engaged” to Mary rather than “betrothed” (NAB still says “betrothed” ). What should we suppose … that their reason for doing it was to put it into a modern context that some couples could understand ?

I mentioned to a very knowledgeable and holy priest here approximately 10 years ago, that it sounded different (in an uncomfortable sense) to hear “the *young woman *shall be with child…” coming from the lectern. His response caught me off guard : “Well you know, the prevalent thought is that this passage of Isaiah didn’t apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary.” … To which I replied , “Even though the evangelist (Matthew) consecrated those words of Isaiah to our Blessed Mother when he wrote the Gospel”?

Now if anyone bothers to read the footnote of the NAB concerning Isaiah 7:14, they’ll find this written:

[14] The sign proposed by Isaiah was concerned with the preservation of Judah in the midst of distress (cf Isaiah 7:15, 17), but more especially with the fulfillment of God’s earlier promise to David (2 Sam 7:12-16) in the coming of Immanuel (meaning, “With us is God”) as the ideal king (cf Isaiah 9:5-6; 11:1-5). The Church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which alone could fulfill the divinely given terms of Immanuel’s mission, and in which the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God was to fulfill also the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom.

I agree with Joe 5859 – there “will always be strengths and weaknesses” with any translation and we have to try and live with them . However, I sometimes wonder, if when some of these people get an idea about making a “change” , they really consider carefully enough just how much confusion they might end up causing.


… a little difficult for me to picture the Holy Spirit (who inspires sacred scripture) approving of something that could cause confusion or doubt about the virginity of our Blessed Mother. The footnote mentioned the divine Wisdom. My question would be:

How can anyone improve upon “The virgin shall be with child…” ?

 

[salusanimarum17]

…

The greek word, if I recall correctly, is “Parthenos.” It is the same word from which “Parthenon” is derived. That word is translated “temple of the virgin.” …

Wouldn’t the translators start with the Hebrew?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Heaven only knows I really hate it when I get confused, but I think the reason that a lot of Catholics get confused over stuff like this is the presumptions that we make. When I learned that my presumptions were wrong, it sure cleared things up quite a bit.

One presumption we have to watch out for is the influence of Protestantism. Too many Catholics think that Sacred Scripture is the only Word of God, and that the individual Christian is the sole arbiter of it’s interpretation. When you get a good handle on where Catholic doctrine originates to begin with, you don’t have the faithful getting confused over issues like this.

 

[Adeodatus]

In Christian charity I advise everyone to stay far away from this ‘translation’.

 

[pnewton]

Apologies,didn’t know that the National Catholic Reporter was unreliable. Thanks for the info.

I wouldn’t trust it, not after this article. The title is an outright lie. No one is changing the status of Mary’s virgin, in the Bible or anywhere else. I would say off hand that if someone has to lie to make their position convincing, it is not worth considering. I would suggest you stick with your shepherds and avoid those that suggest you avoiding what they offer.

 

[Dale_M]

I wouldn’t trust it, not after this article. The title is an outright lie.

A small point… the title didn’t come from the National Catholic Reporter. It came from the website of a group of Seattle area radio stations. Mainstream reporters (and editors) often get confused when covering religious matters of any complexity.

 

[NeedImprovement]

The article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says the NABRE doesn’t change any of the translations in the New Testament, which is somewhat reassuring. The title of their article is a little more charitable too : Catholic Bible revamped in time for Lent.

But I’m trying to understand some of the rationale being used by the experts.

In one instance, they claim they had to change “booty” to “spoils”(because in the last 20 years or so society has come up with a new meaning for the word “booty”). If one were to continue with that initiative unchecked, I contend sacred scripture could be butchered to the point where it wouldn’t even be coherent anymore. There are lots of other examples – particularly but not exclusively in the New Testament (some of the double connotations of which could never be posted here at CAF) … To supply us all with a smile and a bit of the absurd, do you think the experts ever might claim –

"We need to change NAB Acts 1:14…

‘All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.’

…because we don’t want anyone thinking all those people could fit into one Honda ; or (less absurd) better still, let’s change it so people don’t make jokes about cars with scripture ? "

Maybe certain bible use experts need to get out more .

Some of the most caustic jokes I’ve ever heard concerning sacred scripture had nothing to do with a secondary meaning of a word or a play on words. There are many which mock the Crucifixion . There are others (I’m talking about Catholics who tell these jokes) who mock St. Peter’s denial of Jesus. I have a lot of trouble laughing at those particular jokes, because, quite simply, if a cock crowed for every 3 times I had denied our Blessed Lord in my life, over half the roosters in the world would presently be suffering from acute laryngitis .

 

[pnewton]

A small point… the title didn’t come from the National Catholic Reporter. It came from the website of a group of Seattle area radio stations. Mainstream reporters (and editors) often get confused when covering religious matters of any complexity.

It is not a small point for me. If they are not outright liars, then they are among the most stupid of all journalists I have ever seen. It is as stupid as saying you are a Catholic newsman but you forgot who the Holy Father is.

 

[NeedImprovement]

previously linked Pittburgh Post-Gazette article :Catholic Bible revamped in time for Lent:

One step away from traditional language to more literal language may jolt some readers. Isaiah 7:14, which Christian tradition holds to be a prophecy of Jesus, had been rendered, “the virgin shall be with child.” It now says, “the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son.”

A footnote gives reasons for the change, saying that the Hebrew word doesn’t explicitly refer to virginity.

The scholars giving us this translation are accurate," said Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, a scripture scholar and a past chairman of the U.S. bishops’ doctrinal committee. “The word does allow both meanings, and in our tradition we have always taken it to be ‘virgin.’ This translation doesn’t change the interpretation of the Catholic Church that Mary was indeed a virgin. That has been the history of Christianity since the beginning.”

My own personal opinion would be that the rationale for the above is somewhat flawed .

Bishop Trautman says “The word does allow both meanings, and in our tradition we have always taken it to be 'virgin’.” I don’t doubt that part at all. My forte doesn’t lie in scriptural etymology and he’s basing that statement on the opinion of people with skills in this area. I’m not arguing about a possible dual meaning of the original word "almah".

However , the way they have chosen to render that passage from Isaiah in modern day english - “the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son” , does not really “allow for both meanings” , as is being claimed. It is slanted. That is where the inconsistency lies :
“the young woman who could be a virgin, pregnant and about to bear a son” would be the way to ensure virginity can also remain implied . But when it is clearly worded like that, the doubt it introduces becomes much easier to see – doesn’t it ?.. Should’ve left that passage as is. :sad_yes: You can’t improve upon , “The virgin shall be with child.” :nope:

I think someone might have been so intent on making a change, they may have actually overlooked what He who inspires sacred scripture intended it to say.

To take a page from their own book, they are worried about what “booty” means in modern day language. Well, shouldn’t someone pause then and ask about what “the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son” … means in modern language ? By today’s standards, that doesn’t even say “marriage” any more (sometimes it even suggests “abortion"). And where is the miracle ? … …There are so many “young women pregnant” – it’s a fact of life today, isn’t it ?

Several additional links on the subject :

USCCB site
4thepriests, Wordpress.com

 

[katy]

AT the time the reference was written, a “young woman” would be presumed to be a virgin. A derivative of the same idea is still present in a woman’s main wedding attendant who is the “maid” of honor if married and the “matron” of honor if she is married. Maid or maiden at one time implied a virgin as well as a young woman.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Father John Hardon S.J. , agrees katy.

From Father John Hardon S.J. Archives; Mary the Blessed Virgin :

“… Moreover, in Old Testament language, ‘halmah’ means an unmarried girl of marriageable age, presumed to be a virgin by the Jews’ moral code. The context requires “virgin,” for an extraordinary sign would exist only if a virgin conceived and gave birth.”



… Isaiah 7:14 [NAB] :

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”