Why was Mary a virgin?

Beady said:
Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews and Christians still follow those rules (the real Fundies do, anyway). Illustration:

Some time ago, a cow-orker was processing a Muslim woman whose husband, already here as a Permanent Resident, was petitioning to have her made a Permanent Resident, as well. The documentation for the marriage was a little lacking, which was no reflection on the couple, so my cow-orker sent out a boilerplate request to the husband for further corroboration. The documents came in, all right, but they were accompanied by a cover letter literally damning my cow-orker to hell for suggesting that the wife was less than pure. There was enough in there that the entire package was sent to ICE for a ruling on whether it constituted a threat to a Federal officer.

ETA: I've also seen affidavits that describe how the sheets from the marriage bed are routinely displayed to the family the next morning, to verify the bride's chastity before the ceremony.
Click to expand...

and people make fun of Steve G.
 
drkitten said:
Isaiah 7:14, in the original Hebrew.

The word used there is "almah" (please apologize for my using Latin letters instead of Hebrew), which more generally means "young woman." Perhaps the best direct translation into modern English is "maiden," which does double duty as referrring to a "young woman" (OED, sense 1) and "virgin" (OED, sense 2).

The Septuagint (the traditional Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the word "parthenos," which does strictly mean "virgin," to translate "almah." This is also the word used in the original Greek versions of the Gospel of Matthew.



Except that Isaiah doesn't say she was a "virgin," it says she was a "maiden."
Click to expand...
Is there a Hebrew word specifically meaning virgin? If not....
 
fuelair said:
Is there a Hebrew word specifically meaning virgin? If not....
Click to expand...

... If not, then one can use longer phrases (as in the Judges example above) to make one's meaning perfectly clear. "Young women who had known no man by lying with him" sems pretty specific to me.

Did you know that French has no word specifically meaning "shallow"?

Does this mean that the French have no way of expressing the idea that a pond of water is too shallow to dive safely into? Of course not.
 
drkitten said:
Several dozen, I should think. Eskimos and snow, you know....
Click to expand...
Low blow.....

On that basis US English must have a variety of words for "complacent, ignorant overweaning a--holes" or are stereotypes only funny when applied to someone else ?
 
The Don said:
Low blow.....

On that basis US English must have a variety of words for "complacent, ignorant overweaning a--holes" ?
Click to expand...

Hundreds, if not thousands. "Damnyankee" -- note the one word spelling -- is one of the more common.
 
Weren't the gospels written in Greek (and not Hebrew)?

Matthew 1 said:
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. [19] Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
I never quite understood it myself. Their social relationship was like engagement, but was more serious than that, but not quite marriage. Evidently it meant they could be living together, or why would they be travelling together?
Click to expand...

Only Luke mentions this journey - the only other gospel that mention the birth is Matthew and that has a very different story - no journey. Our modern "nativity" story is a blending of Luke and Matthew.
 
Luke 1 said:
[29] Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. [30] But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. [31] You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. [32] He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, [33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

[34] "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
Click to expand...

What do you suppose Mary meant by that question?
 
rwp said:
Weren't the gospels written in Greek (and not Hebrew)?
Click to expand...

The Gospels were written in Greek, specifically to fulfil the Hebrew prophesies and most specifically Isaiah. There's no reason to assume that the facts weren't "shaded" to make them more closely meet the prophesies -- and indeed, every reason to believe that they were. Witness the two incompatible ancestry lines to prove that Jesus was of the house of David.
 
drkitten said:
The Gospels were written in Greek, specifically to fulfil the Hebrew prophesies and most specifically Isaiah. There's no reason to assume that the facts weren't "shaded" to make them more closely meet the prophesies -- and indeed, every reason to believe that they were. Witness the two incompatible ancestry lines to prove that Jesus was of the house of David.
Click to expand...

What facts? Isn't the new testament our only source of information on Mary? It seems the authors wanted to make a virgin have a child. Can we really take the New Testament and pick and choose what is real and what is not? How do we know what is real? What is the evidence that any of it ever happened?
 
Unfortunately there is no textual proof to assert that they were fabricated or tweaked.

Witness the two incompatible ancestry lines
Click to expand...
Who was the other blood line in addition to Joseph?
 
What is the evidence that any of it ever happened?
Click to expand...
Just about the same evidence that exists of many historical figures and events of that time that we take as fact without skepticism.
 
Blutarsky said:
Who was the other blood line in addition to Joseph?
Click to expand...

Huh?

Matthew 1
1 ¦ The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;
3 and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;
4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6 and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
7 and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;
8 and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;
9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;
10 and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
11 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.
12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;
13 and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
[...]
22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.
Click to expand...

Luke 3
23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David,
Click to expand...

So who was Joseph's father? Heli, or Jacob?

Who was Joseph's (paternal) grandfather? Matthat, the son of Levi -- or Matthan, the son of Eleazar?

After Joseph, there's basically nothing in common -- in a purportedly straight line paternal descent -- until you get to David, son of Jesse.

And, of course, the closing of the passage from Matthew makes the reason for this clear. In order for Jesus to be the Christ, he had to be the son of David, so the early mythologizers had to come up with some lineage to prove it. Accuracy being secondary....
 
rwp said:
Can we really take the New Testament and pick and choose what is real and what is not?
Click to expand...

Er, yes. It's called "textual analysis" and historians do it all the time. If we have independent reason to believe that a particular event was made up, we disregard the text telling us about that event.

I don't know of any historian that believes in the Quest for the Holy Grail, Geoffrey of Monmouth not withstanding.
 
I think I understand the basic idea: You are saying that the authors of Matthew and Luke wanted show how Mary was the woman who Isaiah (and other characters in the Old Testament books) was talking about.

In addition, you say that the authors of Matthew and Luke may have been incorrect in assuming that Isaiah/OT was referencing a virgin, rather that Isaiah/OT just meant a young woman.

Is that right?
 
rwp said:
I think I understand the basic idea: You are saying that the authors of Matthew and Luke wanted show how Mary was the woman who Isaiah (and other characters in the Old Testament books) was talking about.

In addition, you say that the authors of Matthew and Luke may have been incorrect in assuming that Isaiah/OT was referencing a virgin, rather that Isaiah/OT just meant a young woman.

Is that right?
Click to expand...

More or less spot on.
 
drkitten said:
Isaiah 7:14, in the original Hebrew.

The word used there is "almah" (please apologize for my using Latin letters instead of Hebrew), which more generally means "young woman." Perhaps the best direct translation into modern English is "maiden," which does double duty as referrring to a "young woman" (OED, sense 1) and "virgin" (OED, sense 2).

The Septuagint (the traditional Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the word "parthenos," which does strictly mean "virgin," to translate "almah." This is also the word used in the original Greek versions of the Gospel of Matthew.

Except that Isaiah doesn't say she was a "virgin," it says she was a "maiden."
Click to expand...

I'm no Biblical scholar, but I don't see how Isaiah 7 is talking about Mary and Jesus at all. By my reading, he's talking about the boy who's born in Isaiah 8. In Chapter 7, the kingdom of Judah is being attacked by two kings: King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Ephraim. Isaiah goes to Ahaz, the king of Judah, and says, "This kid will be born and before he's old enough to know right from wrong, Rezin and Pekah will will be defeated by the Assyrians."

Then in Chapter 8, Isaiah fathers a child with the "prophetess" and God tells him, "before your son is old enough to say 'mommy' or 'daddy', the Assyrians will show up and kick Rezin and Pekah in the butt." Ahaz's reign, along with the war with Rezin and Pekah and their subsequent defeat at the hands of Assyria, is also recounted in 2 Kings Chapter 16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom