Malachi151

I've always thought that the Gospel of Matthew originally said that Mary was a virgin, but I was reading that the Gospel itself was mistranslated, not that the writer of the Gospel used a mistranslation of Isaiah.

So, does GMatthew say that its a virgin birth or not? Of course a virgin birth and linage together makes no sense, but Luke does the same thing and clear Luke is saying that it was a virgin birth.

John Kesler

I think that context indicates that Matthew has a virgin birth in mind:

Roger Pearse

Eusebius of Caesarea certainly thinks so, and discusses the whole issue somewhere in the DE or PE.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Riverwind

This is a much debated issue for which faith in one's answer is the only answer. It also depends upon whether you believe Matthew used the Septuagint which contained the Greek 'parthenos' (which may be translated correctly as 'virgin'), or whether he misunderstood the Hebrew word 'almah' (which is likely better translated 'young girl'), or whether he had another version of the Hebrew (now seemingly non-existent, or at least denied) that used the Hebrew word for 'virgin'.

Either way, most early Greek speaking christians seemed to believe that the word most definitely meant 'virgin'.

Yes.

The genealogies were given to show, via the "human side" of Jesus", that through his parents he was descended from David, as this was a pre-requisite for being the messiah according to most at that time.

S.C.Carlson

Robert Miller gave an SBL paper in 2004 (?) arguing that Matthew's text does not necessarily present a virgin birth but that Mary's father was somone other than Joseph. I missed the paper and I have not seen it published, but it might be covered in his book, Born Divine (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2003).

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

The portions of Matthew that you quote certainly exclude Joseph from being the father. To get to the virgin birth, you'll need to quote the part that excludes every other fertile man.

Stephen

Chili

. . . and don't forget the part about dirty toilet bowls.

Chris Weimer

I'm lost at what you're trying to say here, Stephen.

S.C.Carlson

The parts that John Kesler quoted in support of his assertion that Matthew has a virgin birth in mind are the following:
However, the quotation only states that Joseph did not have sex with Mary before the birth of Jesus, a necessary but insufficient condition for Mary's virginity. To show that Matthew had the virgin birth in mind, this is not enough.

Stephen

Chris Weimer

I think the context supports virgin very well. Mary is espoused to Joseph; Mary is found to be pregnant before Joseph and Mary come together; but the child is said to be of a holy spirit. Finally, Matthew uses παρθενος, of which the primary meaning is "virgin". Because Matthew never mentions other men, and because Matthew never mentions prior coitus, we have no reason to assume that Matthew meant anything else but "virgin". The text is pretty clear here.

PS - Even without verse 23, the text is still pretty clear that it refers to a virgin birth. The culture itself would indicate this. Matthew wasn't written in a vacuum.