Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?

[Geoffrey]

This thread is for the exegetical discussion of whether the Bible teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her womb (hereafter referred to as the “virginal conception”)

1. This is not the thread to point out the fact that the Nicene Creed, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, etc. teach the virginal conception.

2. This is not the thread to point out that the overwhelming majority of scholars teach that Matthew 1 and Luke 1 teach the virginal conception.

3. This is not the thread to point out any supposed theological consequences if the Bible does not teach the virginal conception.

4. This is not the thread to express one’s disapproval of the very idea of a virginal conception.

Instead, this thread seeks to investigate one question: Does the Bible teach the virginal conception?

The following webpage has a six-part argument against the idea of the virginal conception: http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index...d=14&Itemid=26 I encourage interested persons to study those arguments. Here is a brief list of some of the more important conclusions (in no particular order) of the webpage:

Point 1: Neither Matthew 1 nor Luke 1 claims that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Rather, Matthew 1 simply claims that Joseph had no part in Jesus’s conception, while Luke 1 simply claims that Mary was a virgin when Gabriel appeared to her. One does not find the virginal conception in these chapters. The natural inference is that shortly after Gabriel appeared to Mary, a man other than Joseph impregnated her.

Point 2: This clearly explains the so-called “contradictory” genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, while Luke’s genealogy is that of Jesus.

Point 3:The Greek texts of the New Testament have no punctuation. Therefore, all punctuation in translations has more to do with interpretation rather than translation. Here is the proposed punctuation of Luke 3:23: “When he began his ministry, Jesus himself was about 30 years of age, being (as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Eli, the son of Matthat,” etc. In other words, Eli impregnated Mary with Jesus.

Point 4: Mary was of the tribe of Levi. For Jesus to be the Davidic king, either his father or mother had to have been of the tribe of Judah and of the line of David. Eli, father of Jesus, fulfills this requirement.

Point 5: Mary’s question in Luke 1:34 (“How shall this be since I know not a man?”) refers to the angel’s words in verse 32: “and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David”. In other words, Mary is essentially saying, “How shall this be since my betrothed Joseph is descended from Jeconiah [Jeremiah 22:30 says that no man of Jeconiah’s seed would sit upon David’s throne]?” Mary is certainly not wondering how she, a virgin, would one day have a child: It happens every day: A virgin has sex, ceases to be a virgin, gets pregnant, and gives birth to a child. In other words, Mary’s confusion arises solely because she knows that the man she expects to impregnate her (i. e., Joseph) is unqualified to sire a Davidic king. She did not know that a different man (i. e., Eli) would impregnate her.

Point 6: Luke 1:35 (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you.”) and Matthew 1:20 (“That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”) do not mention a virginal conception. Consider a few similar verses:

"So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, Yahweh gave her conception, and she bore a son." (Ruth 4:13)

"And Yahweh visited Hannah, so that she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters." (1Samuel 2:21)

"And Yahweh visited Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him." (Genesis 21:1-2)

'Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man from Yahweh.”' (Genesis 4:1)

Were Ruth, Hannah, Sarah, and Eve miraculously impregnated? Then why suppose that Mary was?

Point 7: Translations are not inerrant. Only the autographs can be inerrant. Thus, the Septuagint’s translation of Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek word meaning “virgin” is simply a mistaken translation of the Hebrew word meaning “young woman”. Matthew 1:23 quotes this passage from Isaiah using the Greek word for “virgin”. Does this imply that the inspired writer of the Gospel used (and therefore gave legitimacy to) a mistranslation? No. Some modern scholars and some ancient sources hold that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew, in which case there is no reason to suppose the author did anything other than quote the Hebrew text accurately, with the Hebrew word for “young woman”.

I find all of the above intriguing. I haven’t given enough study or thought to the question yet to decide whether or not I believe that the virginal conception is taught in the Bible. At this point for me it is an open question.

[Sheepdog]

Point 1: Neither Matthew 1 nor Luke 1 claims that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Rather, Matthew 1 simply claims that Joseph had no part in Jesus’s conception, while Luke 1 simply claims that Mary was a virgin when Gabriel appeared to her. One does not find the virginal conception in these chapters. The natural inference is that shortly after Gabriel appeared to Mary, a man other than Joseph impregnated her.

Alternatively, the virgin conception is not explicitly taught, but implied. Perhaps the writers had weightier concerns so they simply glanced over it and left it to the reader to form a conclusion.

Point 2: This clearly explains the so-called “contradictory” genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, while Luke’s genealogy is that of Jesus.

Matthew's genealogy follows the heir to the throne of Israel.

Point 3:The Greek texts of the New Testament have no punctuation. Therefore, all punctuation in translations has more to do with interpretation rather than translation. Here is the proposed punctuation of Luke 3:23: “When he began his ministry, Jesus himself was about 30 years of age, being (as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Eli, the son of Matthat,” etc. In other words, Eli impregnated Mary with Jesus.

or the punctuation could be as it is in most modern translations.

Point 4: Mary was of the tribe of Levi. For Jesus to be the Davidic king, either his father or mother had to have been of the tribe of Judah and of the line of David. Eli, father of Jesus, fulfills this requirement.

Why couldn't Jesus inherit that role through adoption? Was it unusual for adopted sons to claim an inheritance? I don't know, but it's an argument that needs to be fleshed out.

Point 5: Mary’s question in Luke 1:34 (“How shall this be since I know not a man?”) refers to the angel’s words in verse 32: “and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David”. In other words, Mary is essentially saying, “How shall this be since my betrothed Joseph is descended from Jeconiah [Jeremiah 22:30 says that no man of Jeconiah’s seed would sit upon David’s throne]?” Mary is certainly not wondering how she, a virgin, would one day have a child: It happens every day: A virgin has sex, ceases to be a virgin, gets pregnant, and gives birth to a child. In other words, Mary’s confusion arises solely because she knows that the man she expects to impregnate her (i. e., Joseph) is unqualified to sire a Davidic king. She did not know that a different man (i. e., Eli) would impregnate her.

?????

Where pray tell do you get that Joseph descended from Jeconiah?

Point 6: Luke 1:35 (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you.”) and Matthew 1:20 (“That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”) do not mention a virginal conception.

No they don't. It's implied.

Point 7: Translations are not inerrant. Only the autographs can be inerrant. Thus, the Septuagint’s translation of Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek word meaning “virgin” is simply a mistaken translation of the Hebrew word meaning “young woman”. Matthew 1:23 quotes this passage from Isaiah using the Greek word for “virgin”. Does this imply that the inspired writer of the Gospel used (and therefore gave legitimacy to) a mistranslation? No. Some modern scholars and some ancient sources hold that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew, in which case there is no reason to suppose the author did anything other than quote the Hebrew text accurately, with the Hebrew word for “young woman”.

Not precisely accurate. the Hebrew word is a bit ambiguous, but could mean "virgin." Was the word ever used of married women? If not, now many unmarried women in that day would not be virgins? (And don't forget that ancients usually got married shortly after puberty. "teenager" is a modern concept, and even a century or two ago most "teenagers" would have already been married)

I find all of the above intriguing. I haven’t given enough study or thought to the question yet to decide whether or not I believe that the virginal conception is taught in the Bible. At this point for me it is an open question.

the arguments all ignore one crucial detail which would have to be addressed. namely, if Mary is betrothed to Joseph, but has sex with Eli (implied be being impregnated by him), she had committed adultery. Hardly a virtuous act for the mother of the Christ and savior of the world. You see, in the Torah, betrothal in this regard was like marriage. If you cheated with another man's fiance, you and her are adulterers, even though she wasn't technically married yet. See Deut. 22:23-27. And so, they would both be deserving of the death penalty under the Torah.

[Geoffrey]

Where pray tell do you get that Joseph descended from Jeconiah?

Thanks for your post, Coffin Builder. All good points. The only one that stands out as immediately answerable is your question I've quoted here. Consult the first 16 verses of Matthew chapter 1. It gives the genealogy of Joseph back to Abraham. Verses 11-12 have the following ancestors of Joseph:

Abraham
.
.
.
Josiah
Jeconiah
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
.
.
.
Joseph

[Tladatsi]

Hello Geoffrey,

No, you are not correct. Matthew is quite explicit.

Matthew 1:18 NLT

Now this is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

The Greek text is unambiguous. There is no evidence that there was some scribal corruption in the text, it is clear for the context, as well as the text, that a virgin conception is the entire point of these chapters.

Luke 1:34 NLT

Mary asked the angel, "But how can I have a baby? I am a virgin."

The text explicitly states she was a virgin.

This thread is for the exegetical discussion of whether the Bible teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her womb (hereafter referred to as the “virginal conception”)

1. This is not the thread to point out the fact that the Nicene Creed, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, etc. teach the virginal conception.

2. This is not the thread to point out that the overwhelming majority of scholars teach that Matthew 1 and Luke 1 teach the virginal conception.

3. This is not the thread to point out any supposed theological consequences if the Bible does not teach the virginal conception.

4. This is not the thread to express one’s disapproval of the very idea of a virginal conception.

Instead, this thread seeks to investigate one question: Does the Bible teach the virginal conception?

The following webpage has a six-part argument against the idea of the virginal conception: http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index...d=14&Itemid=26 I encourage interested persons to study those arguments. Here is a brief list of some of the more important conclusions (in no particular order) of the webpage:

Point 1: Neither Matthew 1 nor Luke 1 claims that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Rather, Matthew 1 simply claims that Joseph had no part in Jesus’s conception, while Luke 1 simply claims that Mary was a virgin when Gabriel appeared to her. One does not find the virginal conception in these chapters. The natural inference is that shortly after Gabriel appeared to Mary, a man other than Joseph impregnated her.

Point 2: This clearly explains the so-called “contradictory” genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, while Luke’s genealogy is that of Jesus.

Point 3:The Greek texts of the New Testament have no punctuation. Therefore, all punctuation in translations has more to do with interpretation rather than translation. Here is the proposed punctuation of Luke 3:23: “When he began his ministry, Jesus himself was about 30 years of age, being (as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Eli, the son of Matthat,” etc. In other words, Eli impregnated Mary with Jesus.

Point 4: Mary was of the tribe of Levi. For Jesus to be the Davidic king, either his father or mother had to have been of the tribe of Judah and of the line of David. Eli, father of Jesus, fulfills this requirement.

Point 5: Mary’s question in Luke 1:34 (“How shall this be since I know not a man?”) refers to the angel’s words in verse 32: “and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David”. In other words, Mary is essentially saying, “How shall this be since my betrothed Joseph is descended from Jeconiah [Jeremiah 22:30 says that no man of Jeconiah’s seed would sit upon David’s throne]?” Mary is certainly not wondering how she, a virgin, would one day have a child: It happens every day: A virgin has sex, ceases to be a virgin, gets pregnant, and gives birth to a child. In other words, Mary’s confusion arises solely because she knows that the man she expects to impregnate her (i. e., Joseph) is unqualified to sire a Davidic king. She did not know that a different man (i. e., Eli) would impregnate her.

Point 6: Luke 1:35 (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you.”) and Matthew 1:20 (“That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”) do not mention a virginal conception. Consider a few similar verses:

"So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, Yahweh gave her conception, and she bore a son." (Ruth 4:13)

"And Yahweh visited Hannah, so that she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters." (1Samuel 2:21)

"And Yahweh visited Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him." (Genesis 21:1-2)

'Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man from Yahweh.”' (Genesis 4:1)

Were Ruth, Hannah, Sarah, and Eve miraculously impregnated? Then why suppose that Mary was?

Point 7: Translations are not inerrant. Only the autographs can be inerrant. Thus, the Septuagint’s translation of Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek word meaning “virgin” is simply a mistaken translation of the Hebrew word meaning “young woman”. Matthew 1:23 quotes this passage from Isaiah using the Greek word for “virgin”. Does this imply that the inspired writer of the Gospel used (and therefore gave legitimacy to) a mistranslation? No. Some modern scholars and some ancient sources hold that Matthew’s Gospel was first written in Hebrew, in which case there is no reason to suppose the author did anything other than quote the Hebrew text accurately, with the Hebrew word for “young woman”.

I find all of the above intriguing. I haven’t given enough study or thought to the question yet to decide whether or not I believe that the virginal conception is taught in the Bible. At this point for me it is an open question.

[Geoffrey]

Hello Geoffrey,

No, you are not correct. Matthew is quite explicit.

Matthew 1:18 NLT

Now this is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

The Greek text is unambiguous. There is no evidence that there was some scribal corruption in the text, it is clear for the context, as well as the text, that a virgin conception is the entire point of these chapters.

Luke 1:34 NLT

Mary asked the angel, "But how can I have a baby? I am a virgin."

The text explicitly states she was a virgin.

Tladatsi, those translations are quite inexact. The Greek word for "virgin" is in neither of those passages. Here are some more exacting translations:

Matthew 1:18: "Now Jesus Christ's birth was thus: At the espousal of His mother, Mary, to Joseph, ere their coming together, she was found pregnant by holy spirit." (Corcordant Literal New Testament)

Luke 1:34: "Yet Miriam said to the messenger, "How shall this be, since I know not a man?" (Concordant Literal New Testament)

Further, I acknowledge that Mary was a virgin during her talk with Gabriel in Luke 1:28-38.

[historic salve]

Tladatsi, those translations are quite inexact. The Greek word for "virgin" is in neither of those passages. Here are some more exacting translations:

Matthew 1:18: "Now Jesus Christ's birth was thus: At the espousal of His mother, Mary, to Joseph, ere their coming together, she was found pregnant by holy spirit." (Corcordant Literal New Testament)

Luke 1:34: "Yet Miriam said to the messenger, "How shall this be, since I know not a man?" (Concordant Literal New Testament)

Further, I acknowledge that Mary was a virgin during her talk with Gabriel in Luke 1:28-38.

And what is the angel's response to Mary (in the Lukan passage)?

Lk 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon 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. (NIV)

The Holy Spirit would allow Mary, a virgin, to become pregnant. Matthew says the same thing, that the Holy Spirit was the agency that allowed Mary to become pregnant. So there is absolutely no room for debate about the virgin birth in either of these Gospels.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Geoffrey,

Tladatsi, those translations are quite inexact. The Greek word for "virgin" is in neither of those passages. Here are some more exacting translations:

Matthew 1:18: "Now Jesus Christ's birth was thus: At the espousal of His mother, Mary, to Joseph, ere their coming together, she was found pregnant by holy spirit." (Corcordant Literal New Testament)
Luke 1:34: "Yet Miriam said to the messenger, "How shall this be, since I know not a man?" (Concordant Literal New Testament)
Further, I acknowledge that Mary was a virgin during her talk with Gabriel in Luke 1:28-38.

While it is true that the word παρθένον is not used in those verses, the text is quite clear that that is what is meant. In Matthew 1:18 the phrase "before they came together" means "before they had sexual intercourse",i.e. she was a virgin. Likewise, the phrase "not having known a man" is likewise means that she was a virgin.

More to the point in Luke 1:27 tells us...

Luke 1:27 Textus Receptus

προς παρθενον μεμνηστευμενην ανδρι ω ονομα ιωσηφ εξ οικου δαβιδ και το ονομα της παρθενου μαριαμ

Here the word παρθένον is used, which is the Greek word for virgin. The text could not be any more explicit that Mary was a virgin.

For getting the text but looking at the context, what is the point of this entire section Luke if not to establish that Jesus was born to a virgin? Of course being born to a virgin which indicates divine intervention (as were Augustus Ceasar, Mithra, the Buddha, and Anakin Skywalker). If you take out the virgin conception, there is no point to Luke 1 and Matthew 1.

[Geoffrey]

the arguments all ignore one crucial detail which would have to be addressed. namely, if Mary is betrothed to Joseph, but has sex with Eli (implied be being impregnated by him), she had committed adultery. Hardly a virtuous act for the mother of the Christ and savior of the world. You see, in the Torah, betrothal in this regard was like marriage. If you cheated with another man's fiance, you and her are adulterers, even though she wasn't technically married yet. See Deut. 22:23-27. And so, they would both be deserving of the death penalty under the Torah.

I agree that this is the big difficulty. If it wasn't for this consideration, I'd probably have been convinced of the "no virginal conception in the Bible" position already. Ever since I first read the arguments against the virginal conception being in the Bible, I've been wrestling with this. I have a couple of vague ideas, but nothing so far that I'd be willing to post.

[Geoffrey]

And what is the angel's response to Mary (in the Lukan passage)?

Lk 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon 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. (NIV)

The Holy Spirit would allow Mary, a virgin, to become pregnant. Matthew says the same thing, that the Holy Spirit was the agency that allowed Mary to become pregnant. So there is absolutely no room for debate about the virgin birth in either of these Gospels.

The relevant passages are these:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you.” (Luke 1:35)

“That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:20)

Now compare those with these two passages:

"And Yahweh visited Hannah, so that she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters." (1Samuel 2:21)

"And Yahweh visited Sarah as He had said, and Yahweh did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him." (Genesis 21:1-2)

I do not think it any more obvious that the two N. T. passages quoted above are talking about virginal conception than are the two O. T. passages quoted above.

Further, in many places in the Bible the Holy Spirit comes upon people without a virginal conception taking place. I do not think the activities of the Holy Spirit necessitate a virginal conception.

[Geoffrey]

Hello Geoffrey,



While it is true that the word παρθένον is not used in those verses, the text is quite clear that that is what is meant. In Matthew 1:18 the phrase "before they came together" means "before they had sexual intercourse",i.e. she was a virgin. Likewise, the phrase "not having known a man" is likewise means that she was a virgin.

More to the point in Luke 1:27 tells us...

Luke 1:27 Textus Receptus

προς παρθενον μεμνηστευμενην ανδρι ω ονομα ιωσηφ εξ οικου δαβιδ και το ονομα της παρθενου μαριαμ

Here the word παρθένον is used, which is the Greek word for virgin. The text could not be any more explicit that Mary was a virgin.

For getting the text but looking at the context, what is the point of this entire section Luke if not to establish that Jesus was born to a virgin? Of course being born to a virgin which indicates divine intervention (as were Augustus Ceasar, Mithra, the Buddha, and Anakin Skywalker). If you take out the virgin conception, there is no point to Luke 1 and Matthew 1.

I acknowledge that Mary was a virgin all the way up to the end of Luke 1:38. It would be between verses 38 and 39 that Mary in this theory lost her virginity.

As for the overall point of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke: Even without a virginal conception, these stories are beautiful and moving. I can tell you that from personal experience. When I was a young child, I had no idea whatsoever what virginity meant. Yet these stories of Jesus's birth (with their angels, and shepherds, and wise men, and the star, and all the other elements of the stories) moved me--without any idea AT ALL in my mind of a virginal conception.

In short, these stories tell of the wonders surrounding Jesus's nativity, wonders fitting for the Messiah. There are still plenty of wonders there without a virginal conception.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Geoffrey,

I acknowledge that Mary was a virgin all the way up to the end of Luke 1:38. It would be between verses 38 and 39 that Mary in this theory lost her virginity.

Based on what? The text does not say anything to the effect that she had ceased to be a virgin.

As for the overall point of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke: Even without a virginal conception, these stories are beautiful and moving.

The author of the Gospels were not writing novels to achieve certain emotional effects, they were writing to present the Good News. They were making theological (or Christiological) points. They were not going for "Aw, ain't that cute" but "This is the Son of God". Entire point of Matthew 1 and Luke 1 is Jesus is the descendant of King David in the male line and thus the Messiah as for told in Scripture. Moreover, He is the begotten son of God Himself as evidenced by the virgin conception. These chapters are pointless without a virgin conception.

I can tell you that from personal experience. When I was a young child, I had no idea whatsoever what virginity meant. Yet these stories of Jesus's birth (with their angels, and shepherds, and wise men, and the star, and all the other elements of the stories) moved me--without any idea AT ALL in my mind of a virginal conception.

Be that as it may, it is entirely beside the point. The authors wrote the Gospels the way they did for very specific reasons, i.e. to demonstrate the divine paternity of Jesus.

In short, these stories tell of the wonders surrounding Jesus's nativity, wonders fitting for the Messiah. There are still plenty of wonders there without a virginal conception.

Yes but that is not the point. The OP asks the question, "Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?". This can only be answered by the Biblical text. The text is very clear that the authors' believed she was a virgin. There is no other evidence.

[Geoffrey]

the arguments all ignore one crucial detail which would have to be addressed. namely, if Mary is betrothed to Joseph, but has sex with Eli (implied be being impregnated by him), she had committed adultery. Hardly a virtuous act for the mother of the Christ and savior of the world. You see, in the Torah, betrothal in this regard was like marriage. If you cheated with another man's fiance, you and her are adulterers, even though she wasn't technically married yet. See Deut. 22:23-27. And so, they would both be deserving of the death penalty under the Torah.

Here are some thoughts on this. First, consider the following passages from the Torah:

"The nakedness of your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover." (Lev. 18:9)

"You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness." (Lev. 18:18)

Yet Abraham married his half-sister (the daughter of Abraham's father), and Jacob was married to two sisters (Rachel and Leah) at the same time. I don't get the impression from the Genesis text that any of these three marriages were displeasing to God.

I think this illustrates that the marriage/sexual commandments in the Torah are general commandments that can admit of exceptions if God so decrees. If, for example, marrying your half-sister were always and everywhere wicked, then the marriage of Abraham and Sarah would have been portrayed in Genesis quite differently. In this case at least, God blessed a marriage of a sort later forbidden in the Law of Moses.

In the matter of Mary and Eli, it is possible to have another exception to the precepts in the Torah. In this case God could have offered an exception, essentially saying to Mary, "You can be the mother of the Messiah, but you must consent to being impregnated by someone other than Joseph." And Mary consented. Later, when Joseph found out, he was understandably upset until the angel of God essentially told him, "Don't let it bother you. This is all part of God's holy plan."

I'm not presenting any of this as an assured conclusion. Rather, I am simply thinking out loud here amongst my fellow students of the Bible. All exegetical comments are welcome.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Geoffrey,

Here are some thoughts on this. First, consider the following passages from the Torah:

"The nakedness of your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover." (Lev. 18:9)

"You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness." (Lev. 18:18)

Yet Abraham married his half-sister (the daughter of Abraham's father), and Jacob was married to two sisters (Rachel and Leah) at the same time. I don't get the impression from the Genesis text that any of these three marriages were displeasing to God.

I think this illustrates that the marriage/sexual commandments in the Torah are general commandments that can admit of exceptions if God so decrees. If, for example, marrying your half-sister were always and everywhere wicked, then the marriage of Abraham and Sarah would have been portrayed in Genesis quite differently. In this case at least, God blessed a marriage of a sort later forbidden in the Law of Moses.

All of the above is quite true but quite irrelevant. The Gospels explicitly state that Mary was a virgin and was caused to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

In the matter of Mary and Eli, it is possible to have another exception to the precepts in the Torah. In this case God could have offered an exception, essentially saying to Mary, "You can be the mother of the Messiah, but you must consent to being impregnated by someone other than Joseph." And Mary consented. Later, when Joseph found out, he was understandably upset until the angel of God essentially told him, "Don't let it bother you. This is all part of God's holy plan."

This is clearly not the meaning of the text. The fact that there may not have been a comma does not change the reading. The text is completely clear that Joseph was the husband of Mary and thought to be his father. There is no indication that the author of either Matthew or Luke considered Eli to be the biological father of Jesus or the Mary was not a virgin before the birth of Jesus.

I'm not presenting any of this as an assured conclusion. Rather, I am simply thinking out loud here amongst my fellow students of the Bible. All exegetical comments are welcome.

The plain text reading is the Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. There is no contextual clues that this story should be read as anything but plain text.

[Geoffrey]

I've further studied the papers linked to in my opening post, as well as reflected upon the nativity narratives in both Matthew's and Luke's Gospels.

The more I look at it, the more I think that the only reason any one sees a virginal conception in these narratives is because they expect to. I doubt whether a man completely ignorant of Christianity would find a virginal conception within these chapters.

The texts are clear that Mary was pregnant, and that Joseph did not get her pregnant. It is never said that God miraculously made Mary pregnant. The Holy Spirit came upon her. The same can be said for a great many men and women of the Bible. This does not imply a virginal conception.

During Jesus's earthly ministry, people thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was descended from David. Most people obviously didn't realize that Joseph was descended from Jeconiah, which would make Jesus ineliglble to sit upon David's throne.

It seems likely to me that Mary realized that sooner or later people would discover that Joseph was descended from Jeconiah, so she had to reveal the truth of the matter: Joseph was not Jesus's father.

I think Matthew was written well before Luke. Matthew revealed that Jesus's father was not Joseph. Years or decades later, Luke revealed a further aspect of Jesus's nativity: He was Eli's son. Eli was descended from David, but not from Jeconiah. Matthew gives us Joseph's genealogy to show that he simply could not be Jesus's father. Luke gives us Jesus's genealogy to show that he was descended from Eli, back to David (and thus eligible for David's throne).

This explanation for the two genealogies is clear and simple: They are so different because they are for two different people. Contrast that with the gymnastics required to harmonize them as being for the same individual.

In this view of the nativity narratives, it was God's will that Eli impregnate Mary. Mary consented to God's will. Joseph also consented to God's will. No sin was committed in this conception. It was all done in obedience to God. We needn't imagine anything licentious or scandalous or impure. Eli fathering Jesus upon Mary was just as holy as (for example) Abraham fathering Isaac upon Sarah.

[Tladatsi]

Hello Geoffrey,

What you describe happens all of the time in the Bible. People have readings of various texts that are completely unsupported by the text itself. They read the text a certain way because they are told ahead of time, before they read the text what is "really" means, and how really important it is to not read the text in some other way as that would be "heretical' (and we can't have any of that). Indeed, that is the main reason I even post here, to strip away all of what I have been taught the text of the Bible says and to find what it actually says - a very great challenge let me tell you. My favorite case is that of the "fall of man" from Genesis (that is not a video game). The vast majority of people who post on this site will tell you that A&E were expelled from Eden as punishment for eating the fruit of the TOKOGAE and that they lost immortality as well. This despite the fact that the text says the exact opposite, A&E were expelled from Eden not as punishment but to prevent them from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and BECOMING IMMORTAL. There are others with the "secret decoder rings" who, when they read the word "hate", can accurately translate it as "love".

However, this is not one of those cases. Luke 1 and Matthew 1 are very clearly saying that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception and birth. You have to understand, everybody who was anybody in the ancient world was born to a virgin. The Buddha, Mithras, Augustus Ceasar, Krishna, and even Anakin Skywalker were born to virgins. It would have been a poor form if Jesus, the Son of God, had not been born to a virgin. As I have noted before, if Jesus' birth was not miraculous, why bother mentioning it? For a man whose entire life as recorded in the Gospels was a string of miracles, would on not expect His birth the miraculous? Notably His bar mitzvah was not mentioned, presumably because it no miracles occurred and was not worth mentioning.

There are plenty of "projected readings" out there, this is just not one of them.

I've further studied the papers linked to in my opening post, as well as reflected upon the nativity narratives in both Matthew's and Luke's Gospels.

The more I look at it, the more I think that the only reason any one sees a virginal conception in these narratives is because they expect to. I doubt whether a man completely ignorant of Christianity would find a virginal conception within these chapters.

The texts are clear that Mary was pregnant, and that Joseph did not get her pregnant. It is never said that God miraculously made Mary pregnant. The Holy Spirit came upon her. The same can be said for a great many men and women of the Bible. This does not imply a virginal conception.

During Jesus's earthly ministry, people thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was descended from David. Most people obviously didn't realize that Joseph was descended from Jeconiah, which would make Jesus ineliglble to sit upon David's throne.

It seems likely to me that Mary realized that sooner or later people would discover that Joseph was descended from Jeconiah, so she had to reveal the truth of the matter: Joseph was not Jesus's father.

I think Matthew was written well before Luke. Matthew revealed that Jesus's father was not Joseph. Years or decades later, Luke revealed a further aspect of Jesus's nativity: He was Eli's son. Eli was descended from David, but not from Jeconiah. Matthew gives us Joseph's genealogy to show that he simply could not be Jesus's father. Luke gives us Jesus's genealogy to show that he was descended from Eli, back to David (and thus eligible for David's throne).

This explanation for the two genealogies is clear and simple: They are so different because they are for two different people. Contrast that with the gymnastics required to harmonize them as being for the same individual.

In this view of the nativity narratives, it was God's will that Eli impregnate Mary. Mary consented to God's will. Joseph also consented to God's will. No sin was committed in this conception. It was all done in obedience to God. We needn't imagine anything licentious or scandalous or impure. Eli fathering Jesus upon Mary was just as holy as (for example) Abraham fathering Isaac upon Sarah.