Was the virgin birth was translated incorrectly?

Question

I've read that the term "almah" was translated incorrectly as a 'virgin' instead of a 'young woman' from the old testiment to the new. Does anyone have any information to back this up or what do you think about this?

Answer 1

You've read right:

"The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah is "almah", which undisputably means "young woman", with no implication of virginity. If "virgin" had been intended, "bethulah" could have been used instead (the ambigious English word "maiden" illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The "mutation" occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered "almah" into "parthenos", which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards) quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said"Now all this is done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel" (Authorized English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) prophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give "young woman" in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave "virgin" in Matthew, since there they are translating from his Greek".

Answer 2

The virgin birth was a late addition to the gospels. The first gospel written, Mark, does not address the birth of Jesus at all. At the time, it was not considered significant.

Many scholars feel that the birth narratives in the later gospels were more myth than fact. Things are mentioned in one gospel but not the others. Dates don't line up (for example Herod died a decade before the census of Quirinius). And, of course, there are the two divergent genealogies, both of which claim to be the genealogy of Joseph (although christians now say one is the genealogy of Mary).

The later gospels added a number of things not found in Mark which link back to OT verses and prophesies. The "virgin" birth may have been put in for this reason. It may also have been an attempt to elevate the stature of Jesus in the Roman world. The Greeks and Romans were familiar with gods having sons born of virgins. Hercules was the son of Zeus and a virgin. The later gospels may have used this model.

I can't speak to your translation question, although I have also read the "almah" argument. What I can say is that the virgin birth makes no particular sense and was probably added by later christians.

Answer 3

The truth is that the Hebrew, "almah" can be used either way--both translations are correct. In the pre-Christ Hebrew culture, a "young woman" was either a virgin or was stoned for having sex outside of marriage (almost happened to Mary). So the translation would be correct and not a mistranslation. As to which one to use, let us look up the source...

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive..." - Isaiah 7:14

Matthew quoted this as a prophecy, but gave the Greek Septuagint version that was translated by Jewish scholars many year before the fulfillment.

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son..." Matthew 1:23

The word "virgin" in Greek is parthenos, which means exactly how it is translated. A young girl who has not had sexual intercourse. Remember, this was translated by 70 Hebrews, not those who have studied Hebrew. They were in agreement that this was the perfect Hebrew to Greek translation for "almah".

Another reason we know that "virgin" is the correct translation is because the first Messianic prophecy said specifically that He was to be born of a virgin.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. Gen. 3:15

The woman does not have the seed, she has an egg. This is a virgin birth. We can also see that God had set up the virgin birth as "a sign" to King Ahaz in Isaiah 7. Now tell me, what kind of sign is it that a young woman will have a baby?

So the so-called "scholars" who say that "almah" means "young woman" and not "virgin" have obviously obtained their credentials from a Cracker Jack box.

Answer 4

Old Testament prophecy states that the Messiah will be recognizable by certain distinct signs. One of these signs is that "a virgin will conceive and bear a son". It would be absurd to translate this as "young woman". How could a young woman having a son serve as a sign by which we can identify the Messiah?? This happens hundreds of times every day. Obviously such a sign must be something extremely unusual, something impossible except by the direct action of God. The conception and birth of Jesus Christ fulfilled this prophecy.
.

Answer 5

I have actually read that the Virgin Birth was Mary's mother because she was considered barren, but I hate that I don't remember where. I have also read the same thing about the translation as there is no direct translations from Hebrew to English but I don't know. Good questions!

Answer 6

Well, it could be-depending on context. The English word "fire" could mean that something is burning, or it may mean shoot, or, someone lost their job. It depends on the context of the passage.

In the case of the virgin birth-the Bible is talking about a man (Jesus) who is born without hereditary sin-which is passed by the seed of the father. If he had no earthly father and Mary was impregnated by the word of God-then it means "virgin", in a sexual way, not young girl.

Answer 7

Catholic belief is that all of us, Mary included, need a Redeemer because of our fallen nature and that no one can attain Heaven without His Blood. We are saved from our fallen nature by His grace alone through faith that worketh in charity. Mary, though, because God knew how she would use the free will He gave to her, was saved, by His grace, from having a fallen nature at the moment of her conception. She was redeemed from her mother's womb, an act planned from Genesis 3 so that she could act as the New Eve and so that Christ could be born of vessel even more pure than the Ark of the Covenant. Christ would not have been born from that which is impure! God knew of Mary's will to serve even before she was conceived. He knew she would say yes to Him, and He saved her at her first moment.

Three things in the Bible lead some Protestants to believe that Mary was not ever-virgin: the reference to Jesus' "brothers", the use of the word "until" in Matthew 1:25, and the reference to Jesus as Mary's "firstborn."

Jesus could well have had step-brothers, as Church Tradition and early Church writings tell us that Joseph was an older man when Mary, a consecrated virgin, was betrothed to him so that he could act as her protector when she got to be of age enough to "defile the Temple" (though she could not, in fact defile the Temple). Please read the Protoevangelium of St. James, dated to ca A.D. 125, which, in chapter 9, clearly states that St. Joseph had other children from a former marriage. Though this document was rejected by the Church as being a part of infallible Scripture, it is very early evidence of the belief, held as possisble from the beginning of the Church, that Jesus had "brothers" because his earthly father, Joseph, had children when he married Mary, a consecrated virgin. Also see the apocryphal document, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, yet another early source which proves that many of the earliest Christians believed in Mary's consecrated virginity, that Joseph was an aged man when he married her, and that she was kept free from sin.


Yet another poser: why, in the name of all that's Holy, would Jesus give Mary to John to care for if He had all these brothers and sisters around? John 19:26-27 reads, "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."

Some Protestants say that the use of the word "firstborn" indicates that Mary had other children, but they are simply being ignorant of Jewish law, Pidyon ha-Ben in particular. Pidyon ha-Ben is the "Redemption of the Firstborn," who were to have been consecrated to God and serve as priests and Temple workers. The "firstborn" is the male child that "opens the womb". If the child that "opens the womb" is a female child, there is no "firstborn" for the family because the child that "opened the womb" is not a masculine child. If no more children are born after the firstborn, the firstborn still has the status and title of "firstborn."

Mary remained both sinless and a virgin her entire life.

Answer 8

You bet it was. What you read is absolutely correct.

There were so many supposed virgin births that predate Jesus, they must have felt it necessary to invent that story.

Jesus never once said his mother was a virgin when he was born.

Answer 9

no God knows what Hes is doing
in those days not many ppl did that stuff before marriage anyway

Answer 10

No, it was correct.