Does your Bible say that Mary was a "virgin" or "young woman"?

Question

Which is a more accurate translation?
Were the terms interchangeable?

Answer 1

A virgin
Look at King James Bible
27: To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29: And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Accordingly to chapter 1 of St. Luke's Gospel

Answer 2

Whoa boy, that's a complicated one.

Let's get a little bit of textual history out of the way. We don't have just one version of the OT, but several. Here the important two: the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.

The Masoretic Text (MT) is the Hebrew text that has been standardized on at least two major occasions. The first was at a school in Jamnia (not a council; I've never seen a single source for this, but I've seen them for a school). They were having problems with Christian apologists using the Septuagint, and there were a plethora of contradictory texts. They decided on which variants they would preserve and instituted a rather rigorous discipline in copying (it hasn't changed much since then, where before it had, but it can only be as accurate as their decisions and the texts they used). This was copied for a thousand years before a group of people called the Masoretes standardized it again (and added vowel points for reading it). Thus, we have the MT today.

The Septuagint (LXX) started as a translation of the Law into Greek in the third century BC. Over time, the other books were added to it (including some not in what we have today as the Hebrew Bible). Some of these existed in multiple versions (like Daniel), but that doesn't concern us too much. The LXX can be difficult, because it was sometimes translated from a text that differed substantially from the MT, and because sometimes they got a little free in translation. What's worse, in both the LXX and Hebrew things were both added and taken away in the transmission of things (neither one is what was originally written, I'm afraid).

Interestingly, both of them were considered inspired, sometimes by the same community (going to show we don't have to have an absolutely inerrant Bible). The LXX has a rather interesting legend surrounding it called the Letter of Aristeas, which I do believe contains some truth. Suffice it to say that Hellenistic Jews and the Christians considered the LXX inspired, and to borrow from St. Augustine, where they took liberties, they were inspired to do so. I know this is a foreign concept to us now, but this is the ancient world not ours with a printing press.

Well, in Is. 7.14, the LXX reads "parthenos." This means "virgin." In the MT it reads "almah" which means "young girl." It would need bethulah to correspond exactly to "parthenos" (though it can). They say different things.

This leaves us with a quandry. Can the two mean the same thing? Did the LXX take liberty, or was the Hebrew text changed? Can we know? Well, on the last, I can say that we can never know with certainty. However, on the question of whether it was changed, I would have a hard time seeing how bethulah could accidentally change into almah. The two words are far too different from one another. If this happened, then it was a deliberate change, but we have no record of such a change. It is, thus, possible, but not likely.

In the absence of a record of the change, and because we know the LXX translators in some books would take liberties. We can wonder if there is any reason it would happen. From the immediate context, we see that the conception will be a sign. So, a young woman will conceive? I can go to the park and see that. There's nothing signatory about it. Since, howver, almah doesn't denote a virgin but can connote it, then we can see where this reading came from.

This brings us to Matthew, and to a still *third* version of the Old Testament. Matthew originally composed his work in Hebrew or Aramaic according to our early witnesses. In this case, he might have been using an Aramaic translation (of the Old Testament (called a targum), which was also often an interpretation also (all translations are, even today). If not, he possibly used a form of Hebrew we have today.

Where does this come in? Well, if he was quoting a targum, then the interpretation existed there before his day. What's more, it would correspond with the LXX interpretation (interestingly, the LXX Isaiah normally doesn't translate almah as parthenos, so this is an unusual point right there, further evidence they were trying to give a more clear meaning). If this is the case, then, this represents a strain of Jewish thought that is untestified to today outside Christianity and the LXX.

It also causes a problem, because different translations will take this different ways. Mine follows the LXX, and I would also if I translated (it is still the OT of the Orthodox Church). Others follow the MT and refuse to read it as "virgin" because the normal meaning is "young girl." They have a point, but as I've outlined (in far too short a fashion) so does the other side.

It also raises the possibility of a theological controversy before the time of Christ that we have no direct records of. Since we know that people changed the OT (and some of these changes were indeed deliberate), and we know that bethulah would actually make more sense as a sign, we can actually argue that such a deliberate alteration did occur (though I find this unlikely here; not enough evidence). This is complicated by the fact that our exhaustive lists of Jewish rabbinical teachings of the era were compiled after the advent of Christianity, and thus will inevitably be spun by that controversy. We have no records from this period on almost any controversy, and so we cannot surmise from an absence of evidence that it didn't exist.

In the end, which way you go really depends on your faith. Are you a Christian, then you will interpret Is. 7.14 as "virgin." If you aren't, then you may very well not do it (Jews won't). You must look at your doctrines and beliefs; they will determine what this Scripture says, because it won't determine itself, and sadly, the issue is more complicated than it looks at first (as I have demonstrated).

Answer 3

When the Septuagint came out (early Greek version translation of the Old Testament), the translators translated the Hebraic word "almah" as the Greek "parthenos". While the second definitely means "virgin", there's been a lot of debate as to whether that's the meaning of the original word as well, with some saying it means "virgin" and others saying it means just "young lady". Supporters for the latter view say that there's a distinctive word for "virgin" ("betulah") that the writer of Isaiah could have used if that's what he meant and believe that the word traces. Proponents of the former view say that "betulah" was also used of non-virgins, making "almah" a better word choice.
Personally, I think it's a beyond definite resolution, since we can't ask the writer of Isaiah directly.

Answer 4

I read the KJV Bible, and it says virgin.

In the Commentary on the Jewish New Testament, the author said that there is a better word for virgin in the Greek language, and this word that is used could be considered a young woman.

But every time that that word is used it is used to describe (directly or in-directly) that the woman was a true virgin.
But the word that specifically means virgin is one time used for women to act like a virgin.

So as far as the word contained in the Bible, and using the Bible to explain itself, then Mary was a true Virgin.

Answer 5

When the Hebrew word "alma" was translated into Greek, they used the word for "virgin" which was "parthenos". Alma is a young woman, not a virgin. If you read the verses in context, you will see that speaker says that she will concieve a son, and before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, "the two kings you dread will be laid waste". He was predicting the outcome of a war that was happening at the time, not predicting the birth of a Messiah.

Answer 6

The hebrew term used in the prophecy in Isaiah 7 is almah and literally means a young woman however in every other instance in the bible where it is used it is denoting a young woman who indeed is a virgin. For example Rebecca is described as both almah and Bethsulah which is the hebrew for virgin.

The hebrew word translated virgin Is Bethsulah and quite often is used to describe someone who is definatly not a virgin and in prophetic usage the virgin is never a virgin but is described more as a spiritual whore. for example virgin daughter of babylon. It is also used to describe the concubines of the king in Ester.

Mary was a virgin ya'll get over it.

Answer 7

It's rather obvious and unremarkable that Mary was a young woman. That fact doesn't make her any differentiate her from thousands of other young women of the time. However, the Old Testament prophecy states that the Messiah can be recognized by this sign - that a virgin will give birth. It doesn't make much sense to say that the sign by which the Messiah can be recognized is that a young woman will give birth. That wouldn't be any sign at all.
.

Answer 8

From what I understand, people of the time of Jesus believed a mistranslation in the prophesy. Our bibles will say virgin in the old or new testament. But those are all translations. The new would originally say virgin. But the original prophesy would say a word that is more often used to mean a girl who has just entered the age where she can concieve but not necessarily, "virgin."

Answer 9

Virgin

Answer 10

The word in the Bible is ranslated from the Greek, parthenos. It is of unknown origin; a maiden; by implication an unmarried daughter: - virgin.—Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

According to Strong’s the English Word used in KJV is virgin 14 times

Answer 11

Every translation that I know of says that Mary was a virgin. Some translations, such as the RSV, translate Isaiah 7.14 as saying a young woman would conceive a son, but that passage doesn't specify any particular woman, let alone, Mary.
.