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

rien · #1 Dec 30, '07, 6:15 pm

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?

EphelDuath · #2 Dec 30, '07, 6:44 pm

Matthew's genealogy was the lineage of Joseph, Luke's was of Mary. He has the bloodline of David through Mary and the royalty through Joseph's adoption.

bogeydogg · #3 Dec 30, '07, 6:55 pm

There are two geneologies given in Scripture. Remember first and foremost that the writers of the Gospels were theologians and not historians, though they did write about things which happened in history, and consequently they were aiming for different things.

Matthew in giving his geneology cites the line of David through Solomon on down through to Joseph as a direct son of David and thus by Joseph on a strictly human level Jesus is the rightful heir to the throne of His father David. However, in the lineage in Matthew the line is cursed by God and is forbade from bringing forth Messiah. So how then can Joseph be the rightful heir to his father David's throne, the answer is it was his by birth right but he could not be the actual human father of Messiah. But, in Genesis when Israel take Ephraim and Manneseh on his knee and adopts them he gives to them all the legal rights of decent and inheritance so that even though they are not Hebrew children but rather half-Hebrew they still receive a full portion according to the rights of their father Joseph. So it through adoption that Jesus is rightful heir on a human level.

Luke however does not trace the lineage through Joseph but rather through Mary. It is not surprising that Mary's name is left out of the line because it was not custom to include the name of a man's mother in his lineage so therefore there is no need to necessarily assert that this line must also be Joseph and thus inconsistent with the line in Matthew. Luke is recording the line of Messiah through Mary because the line does not trace through Solomon and thus the cursed kings of Judah but rather through Nathan and thus the curse is avoided. So what abut Mary?

The word used in Isaiah 7 is in Hebrew alma which can be translated maiden. This word however when used in Scripture is in context Gen. 24:43 for example does mean imply virgin in that it means a young woman of marriable age. However, in Hebrew custom a maiden who was not a virgin was something other than marriable entirely. Why else would St. Joseph be so upset at discovering the pregnancy of Mary except that such a thing was big big deal in the culture of the day. So no the word does not explicitly mean virgin but it does imply a virgin and does so to such an extent that when the greeks translated it into the Septuagint they did translate the word virgin so I think those who jump on this are really erecting a straw man and looking for a reason to not believe.

Jesus was the heir on a human level because joseph was a rightful heir through David and Solomon and He inherited it because of rightful adoption by St. Joseph. However the King cannot come through that line on a human level because it is cursed.

Jesus is heir on a supernatural level because He is God (I mean that's enough right there isn't it) and because he did fulfill the prophesy by being born to Mary.

It is also worth noting that among the intellectual protestant teachers (i know I know) that since jesus was Himself utterly and completely sinless he could not have an earthly father because then he would have inherited a sin nature from Adam.

Volodymyr 988 · #4 Dec 30, '07, 7:04 pm

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masorete.htm

There are plenty of historical incidents to show that the Masoretic Text (of which the modern OT translations come from) has been corrupted and that the Septuagint is actually the better translation.

Tim Kirchoff · #5 Dec 30, '07, 7:29 pm

This passage is supposed to be giving a sign or a miracle of some osrt, no? How is a woman getting pregnant a miracle?

(overlooking the obvious answer, that is)

Linda Marie · #6 Dec 30, '07, 8:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Kirchoff

This passage is supposed to be giving a sign or a miracle of some sort, no? How is a woman getting pregnant a miracle?

(overlooking the obvious answer, that is)

This is my thinking too. How is it a Sign if a non-virgin young woman bears a child? It is something that happens all the time. What would be remarkable about it?

My footnotes say the word Almah means unmarried young woman. If this did not also mean virgin, then it would be saying that the Holy One of God would be born of a fornicator, which would be unthinkable.

However, for a virgin to bear a child - now that's a Sign.

thistle · #7 Dec 31, '07, 3:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EphelDuath

Matthew's genealogy was the lineage of Joseph, Luke's was of Mary. He has the bloodline of David through Mary and the royalty through Joseph's adoption.

While it is possible, maybe even likely that Mary was also of the House of David as marriage generally was within the same tribe, the two geneologies (Matthew and Luke) are BOTH that of Joseph. Luke's is NOT of Mary.

EphelDuath · #8 Dec 31, '07, 10:45 am

Quote:

the two geneologies (Matthew and Luke) are BOTH that of Joseph. Luke's is NOT of Mary.

And what makes you say that?

drafdog · #9 Dec 31, '07, 11:20 am

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

Gottle of Geer · #10 Dec 31, '07, 3:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rien

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.

## St. Joseph was the legal father of Jesus, which is amply sufficient for Jesus to be reckoned as his son. So the objection is solved.

Quote:

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.

## 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.

Quote:

It sort of sounds like young woman is what the source says but I don't know Hebrew.

Can someone clarify?

lsburk · #11 Dec 31, '07, 5:27 pm

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.

quiet52 · #12 Dec 31, '07, 7:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thistle

While it is possible, maybe even likely that Mary was also of the House of David as marriage generally was within the same tribe, the two geneologies (Matthew and Luke) are BOTH that of Joseph. Luke's is NOT of Mary.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

"St. Paul too testifies that Jesus Christ "was made to him [God] of the seed of David, according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3). If Mary were not of Davidic descent, her Son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be "of the seed of David". ...

... Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). ...

nsper7 · #13 Dec 31, '07, 7:59 pm

Quote:

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.

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

porthos11 · #14 Jan 1, '08, 5:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by EphelDuath

And what makes you say that?

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.

porthos11 · #15 Jan 1, '08, 5:24 pm

The idea that the Masoretic text is corrupted in Isaiah 7:14 has no textual or critical basis whatsoever. The Great Isaiah Scroll, which predates the Masoretic by several centuries also has almah in this passage.

If one is translating from the Hebrew, then technically, the proper translation of Isaiah 7:14 (not Matthew 1:23) is "young woman" or "maiden", but "virgin" is also acceptable.

Yes, I get all the explanation that a young woman is also a virgin in the ancient times yakkety yak but that's not the point linguistically speaking. almah is not the precise term for virgin in Hebrew, regardless of cultural norms. This makes "maiden" or "young woman" renderings acceptable for Old Testaments translated from the Hebrew.

It is, however, NEVER acceptable to translate Matthew 1:23 as anything other than "virgin."