Talk:Virgin birth of Jesus

Almah/parthenos translation

The description as a "mistranslation" is POV. Scripture translators have considered this a perfectly acceptable translation. Others see it as controversial. Elizium23 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

But Almah does not mean virgin. Pet the main article on the term: "scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity". Matthew invented a tale of virginity that did not exist in Isaiah 7:14. Dimadick (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that modern scholars are smarter than that pesky Matthew dude! Elizium23 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not about being smart, they have more sources and better methodology. Cinadon36 06:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The word "almah" conveyed the concept of a woman of childbearing age who had not yet borne a child. As girls were married at 12 or 13, it followed that the almah was a virgin, but the primary idea was fecundity, not virginity. Greek culture, of course, was Western, and so virginity was the primary meaning of "parthenos". Achar Sva (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Source being misquoted

[41] claims that the Barker source is supportive of the fact that Jews in Palestine no longer spoke Hebrew around the turn of the millennium, and instead read scripture in Greek; this is a misquoting of the material. On page 490, Barker is discussing the fact that Jesus likely relied on an Aramaic targum, and not a Hebrew Isaiah scroll. Page 490, the page cited, has only one paragraph referring to Christian interpretation of Isaiah: it reads:

"One complete scroll of Isaiah and part of another were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so it is reasonably certain what was in an Isaiah scroll in the first century ad . With some significant exceptions, which will be noted when the passages are discussed in detail, the Hebrew text is the one generally used today. But having the words is not the same as knowing how those words were understood, and for this we are dependent on the Targum, a translation of Isaiah into Aramaic. When Hebrew was no longer the everyday language of Palestine, readings in the synagogue were translated, not as a literal, word-for-word rendering but rather as a free translation incorporating a variety of other material, showing how Isaiah was understood at that time." (Barker 490).

I added a failed verification tag, and encourage others with a scholarly background in Biblical criticism to engage with this article.

Please sign your contributions. As for the substance, I agree that that paragraph is a poor source for the statement that 1st century BC Jews didn't read/speak Hebrew. A better one is needed. But the sentence to which footnote 41 is attached says this: "Matthew presents the ministry of Jesus as largely the fulfilment of prophecies from the Book of Isaiah", which is nothing to do with the use of Hebrew; are you talking about something else? Achar Sva (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of Mark 6:4 is misleading

Although the author himself shows no awareness of the virgin birth, nor the more legendary narrative we see in Matthew and Luke, the verse prior in Mark 6:3 implies however that there wasn't certainty about Jesus' paternal side as the author refers to Mary where we'd expect to see Joseph.

I think this should be noted in some way on the article. Divus303 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)