This Might Just be the One

 

Everyone who attended Sunday School as a child will recall that the Messiah of the New Testament, known to them as "Jesus" was born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not by her husband (or fiancee), Joseph.

This story and this assertion are central to the core of Christian belief.

It is beneficial to our understanding of this belief to examine it carefully, considering its origins, its reasons, and its subsequent effects.

The "virgin birth" narrative is contained in two of the canonical gospels:  Matthew and Luke.

In the Book of Matthew (KJV), the narrative is as follows:

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

In this version, the author is clear as to the reason why the one who is to "save his people from their sins" is to be born of a virgin:  

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The English Standard Version tells the story:

20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and they shall call his name Immanuel”(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

In the New International Version, we find:

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

In all three of these English translations, the author clearly states that the son has to be born of a virgin, not because God has chosen this path nor because Israel or the world at large needs a savior, but simply because a prophet (Isaiah in this case) predicted it.  (We will hold this thought until later.)

The narrative found in the Book of Luke in the King James Version) is as follows:

22 And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,25 Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,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.36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

The English Standard Version tells the story: 

And when he came out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he kept making signs to them and remained mute. And when his time of service was ended, he went to his home. After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden, saying, “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.” In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

In the New International Version, we find:

22 When he came out, he could not speak to them. They realised he had seen a vision in the temple, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak.23 When his time of service was completed, he returned home. 24 After this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained in seclusion. 25 ‘The Lord has done this for me,’ she said. ‘In these days he has shown his favour and taken away my disgrace among the people.’26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favoured! The Lord is with you.’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 favour with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him 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 Jacob’s descendants for ever; his kingdom will never end.’34 ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’35 The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.’38 ‘I am the Lord’s servant,’ Mary answered. ‘May your word to me be fulfilled.’ Then the angel left her.

In none of the versions of this narrative in the Book of Luke, is the issue of the fulfillment of prophecy discussed. Mary's kinswoman has conceived and the angel Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her that she, too will conceive and "bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High." In Luke, there is no specific reason given by the author; the angel comes to Mary and she conceives. The author does refer to previous times and previous scriptures by recalling the "House of David," but no prophecy is mentioned.

It is interesting to note here, that neither the Gospel of Mark (a source for both Matthew and Luke) nor the Gospel of John contains any account of the birth of the Christian Messiah, Jesus. This fact might cause one to wonder just how important the actual circumstances of the birth of the man Jesus really are. Only two of the four canonical gospels include any birth story and only one of the two (Matthew) gives any rationalization for a "virgin birth" except to say that it was foretold by the angel Gabriel.

If the virgin birth is important to the core beliefs of Christianity if the birth narrative is included in only two of the four canonical gospels, and if only one of these gives a reason for a virgin birth, then what, we ask ourselves, makes this such a critical part of the Christian belief system? Where does it come from and what is its purpose?

Accounts of virgin births are found in fables, myths, and stories claiming to be accurate depictions of history have appeared for centuries.

"...humans have been laying claim to virgin births since time began with the first of the big bangs. Regardless, there’s nothing new about virgin births. History is littered with them. A virgin rollcall might include Romulus and Remus, twin founders of Rome, born of the virgin Rhea Silvia. In ancient Egypt, Ra (the Sun) was born of a virgin mother, Net; Horus was the son of the virgin Isis. The Phrygo-Roman god, Attis, was born of a virgin, Nana, on December 25. It resonates because he went on to be killed and was resurrected. In ancient Greece, Dionysos was the son of either the virgin Semele or the virgin Persephone. Persephone was also the virgin mother of Jason. And Plato’s mother, Perictione, was a virgin. The list goes on. Hinduism, Buddhism and ancient China all have their share of them and none is more or less believable than any other myth, fable or symbol. (Berwyn Lewis, the Sydney Morning Herald, December 26, 2019.)

We can see that a virgin birth makes a king or leader stand out from other mere mortals who were born in an ordinary way.  It might make sense for the one who would inherit the Kingdom of God and who would be its earthly King to have an exceptional birth.  Having established this, it is not difficult to see how Gospel authors, living in a Greco-Roman world, might be compelled to include a virgin birth in the nativity narratives of the Christian Messiah.

The Luke author, as we have seen, does not give a rationalization for a virgin birth for Jesus.  He simply states that the angel Gabriel came to Mary and foretold the event.  He evokes David and tells Mary that she has been chosen by God.  Period.

The author of the book of Matthew, who clearly knew the stories contained in the Hebrew Bible of his time, chose to state that Jesus was born of a virgin in order to fulfill a prophecy:

"22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (KJV)

Christian authors, apologists, clergy, and laypeople consistently attribute that prophecy specifically to the Prophet Isaiah and to the verses in Isaiah chapter 7, verses 14-17:

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both herkings.17 The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. (KJV)

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."  That is how the verses read in the English translation of 1611, the King James Bible.

If we are to take Matthew at face value, there are two critical issues that must be addressed:  one that is pretty simple and one that is more complex.

We will consider the more simple issue first.

In the book of Isaiah, chapter 7, Ahaz, the King of Judah, is having difficulty with two kings of other states who are threatening Judah.  This takes place in the eighth century BCE. (Jewish Study Bible and The English Bible King James Version The Old Testament Norton Critical Edition)

The king asks Isaiah, a prophet, for help.  Isaiah tells the king that the Lord will send a sign:

"Assuredly my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord.  Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son.  Let her name him Emmanuel." (Isaiah 7:14, Jewish Study Bible)

Old Testament and Hebrew Bible scholar, Samuel A. Meier (Ohio State University) discusses Isaiah's naming of the boy Immanuel as a part of the naming tradition of Hebrew prophets and states that the boy is probably Isaiah's son by a "young woman" and not his wife! (The Oxford Companion to the Bible)  Clearly, this passage in Isaiah is eluding to a local problem for the king in Judah, and from the text, we can extrapolate no meaning beyond this without just making something up.

What, then does this passage in Isaiah have to do with the birth of Jesus, the Christian Messiah?  

Absolutely nothing!  

The story in Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus's birth, virgin or not.  It is simply a misunderstanding or misapplication of the earlier text.  What we do not know is why the Matthew author either made that error or deliberately added the feature to his narrative to make it more authoritative.

Why, then does the Matthew author feel the need to tie his birth narrative for the Messiah to prophecy, and why do Christian authors cite this passage specifically?

Of all possible reasons, the most obvious one seems to best fill the bill:  the Matthew author needed to make his story as powerful as possible. What better way than to tie it to a story known to and respected by the Jewish potential converts and grounded in Jewish thought for 700 years?  The problem is that the "prophecy" he evokes relates only to a time- and place-specific incident 700 years before.  What we do not know is whether the Matthew author made this error accidentally or deliberately.  This remains unanswered.

In order to fully understand these issues, before we tackle the more complex one, we need to clarify a point about the Isaiah narrative.  In the Gospels, both the Matthew author and the Luke author (scholars almost universally agree that neither gospel was written by its reported author) write about a "virgin" who "shall be with child" or "shall conceive."  In Isaiah, the "young woman" "is with child and about to give birth to a son."  In the gospels, the writers write of a future event.  In Isaiah, the young woman is already pregnant and "about to give birth."

This brings us to the more complex question.  It is clear that the gospel authors, writing in Greek, used the Hebrew Bible, possibly in Hebrew but more likely in Greek.Biblical scholars agree that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible were translated from Biblical Hebrew into Koine Greek by Jews living in the Ptolemic Kingdom, probably in the early or middle part of the third century BCE. The remaining books were presumably translated in the 2nd century BCE. (Wikipedia Septuagint quoting Beckwith, Roger T. (2008). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock. pp. 382, 383)

Translating any Bible passages (or any ancient text) into modern languages always poses a litany of problems:  finding copies of ancient texts that are legible, reconciling the copies with each other (we have more than 50 copies of scrolls of Isaiah texts in ancient Hebrew), using exactly the right word, meaningfully translating the meanings of idioms, rendering ancient language into understandable modern language without losing or distorting meaning.  The Hebrew texts of Isaiah have been translated into English several times, each time slightly or profoundly changing the meaning of words and passages throughout.  Twenty-first-century CE English speakers share many socio-religious needs and assumptions with eighth-century BNCE Hebrew speakers but there are just as many differences as there are similarities.

The big question is in the translation of Isaiah, chapter 7, and its relationship to the stories of the virgin birth of Jesus of Christianity.

Without attempting to write a dissertation about English Old Testament translations (there are many of these already), we need to consider how and when some of these translations were written.  The questions of translation accuracy and of maintaining the literal meaning of ancient texts, written in ancient languages, in ancient idioms, and in ancient cultural and religious settings, a daunting, and here, we can only paint this subject in broad strokes and only as it pertains to the present discussion.

Keep in mind that we are here considering the prophetic Book Of Isaiah.  This book was written about 700 years before the gospels of Matthew or Luke.  The issue in Isaiah was that in the eighth century BCE, King Ahaz of Judah was besieged by the Kings of Assyria and Israel and sought the counsel of the prophet Isaiah on how to deal with his problem.  Neither of them, Ahaz nor Isaiah was thinking that some gospel writer would quote them 700 years later.

The story in Isaiah is simply that a young woman who is currently pregnant will bear a son named Immanuel (Emmanuel) and that before he is very old, the troublesome kings will have left Ahaz's land.  There is nothing about a virgin being impregnated in the future by the Holy Spirit.  Nothing at all.

We look first at the Jewish tradition itself.  In the United States, the Tanakh Translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish Study Bible is widely accepted and as we have seen, contains the following English translation from the seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah (this translation is from the Hebrew directly and not from any Greek or Latin Vulgate source):

"Assuredly my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord.  Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son.  Let her name him Emmanuel." (Isaiah 7:14, Jewish Study Bible)

The commentary in the Jewish Study Bible states further:

"In the Immanuel passage, Isaiah provides a sign, the point of which is either to clarify his message or to verify it.  It is not clear whether the sign is the woman's pregnancy, the child's birth, or his name, or his diet; nor is it clear when the sign comes to pass, immediately (if the sign is his name), soon (birth), or several years into the future.

The Hebrew word almah means "young woman."  The Septuagint (my note:  the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek) translates almah as "virgin," leading Christians to connect this verse with the New Testament figure of Mary.  All modern scholars, however, agree that the Hebrew denotes only a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not."

There is no need for the woman in this story to be a virgin.  She is already pregnant and about to give birth.  To make her a virgin would be unnecessary and even perhaps even silly. 

Let me state here, clearly, that I am taking the unmoving position that early Christian authors and theologians were simply mistaken in their attribution of these verses to a virgin birth story for the Christian Messiah and not that they have a deliberate intention to deceive.  If the earliest Greek translation says "virgin," then we should expect the Latin vulgate and the early English translations to perpetuate the error.

The gospel authors (at least the Matthew author) likely knew the story in Isaiah from the Greek (and possibly from the Hebrew as well, we do not know) and saw an opportunity to relate his narrative back to an established source in Jewish tradition, adding authority to his narrative, written for his audience of first century CE Jews.   If the Messiah were to be born of a virgin, he could be established as someone more than human, someone godlike, someone unquestionably holy.  It is not difficult to see how this simple "fact" could become a central and unquestioned tenet of the Holy Mother Church and its many offshoots that caused the evolution and invention of all the many complex rituals practiced by Christian congregations to this day.

The King James Bible, the English translation still revered by many American Christians, states clearly:

"Therefore, the lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."  (Isaiah 7:14, King James Version)

"7:14  A virgin: Hebrew, 'almah;' more accurately "a young woman" of marriageable age whether married or not (a different word corresponds to 'virgin' in the strict sense.)"  (Marks, The English Bible The Old Testament The King James Version, Norton Critical Editions, 2012)

The Revised Standard Version (the Old Testament published in 1952) of the Bible translates Isaiah 7:14 as follows:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Imman′u-el." (Isaiah 7:14 RSV)

The Revised Standard Version is the first English translation to use the Dead Sea Scrolls (1946), written in Hebrew (not the Greek Septuagint) as its source. (Wikipedia, quoting Sarna, Nathan M. (October 2018). Biblical Literature The Revised Standard Version, Encyclopedia Britannica, Edinburgh.)

I remember vividly a tirade put forth by my fundamentalist Methodist Alabama teetotaller (in public) grandfather in the middle to late 1950s regarding the Revised Standard Version and its exclusion of the "virgin" translation in Isaiah. He posited loudly and authoritatively that any church that used the (1952) RSV instead of the (1611) KJV was destined for a trip to hell without the benefit of the doubt. Even then, it seemed to me that the modern language of the RSV was much easier to understand than the language of the 400-year-old KJV. In the 1950s and now, to many American Christians, the archaic language is preferable. How tragic it is that this preference is based on an error.

While this might seem logically unlikely, I would suggest that many American Christians today will tell you that Jesus was born of a virgin because Isaiah said he would be.  

We could trace the evolution of translations of the Bible into English, translation by translation but that is an essay for another day.  Here, we need to understand that the Hebrew word almah simply means "young woman" and not "young woman who has not had sex."

In summary, we have seen that:

1.  In Hebrew, Isaiah 7:14 predicts that a young woman (Hebrew: almah) who is now (eighth-century BCE) pregnant will bear a son and that before the son reaches much age, the kings vexing Ahaz of Judah will disperse.

2.  The first Greek translation of Isaiah 7 mistakenly translates the Hebrew almah as "virgin," not "young woman."

3.  The Matthew author apparently uses this verse of prophecy about a Judean King in the eighth century BCE to establish the virgin birth of the Christian Messiah in the first century CE.

4.  Christian churches have perpetuated this error accidentally or on purpose as theologies are established, debated, warred over, and often rejected during the evolution of the Christian church.

I believe we should hold the Septuagint authors and editors blameless for their errors.  There is no theological purpose in making Isaiah's young woman a virgin, especially since she is already pregnant.

Whether we should seek theological and scholarly accountability for those modern Christians who would deny the truth in the twenty-first century is a different story entirely.