Masoretic Matthew: Does Matthew 1:23 Say That Mary Was a Virgin?

Masoretic Matthew Table of Contents:

1. What’s the Best Evidence? (AKA the TL;DR)
2. Did Matthew write in Hebrew or Greek?
3. FAQ
4. Hebrew text of the Masoretic Matthew (Google Doc)
5. Where Did I Get the Consonantal Text of Matthew?
6. Did Matthew Quote the LXX?
7. Does Matthew 1:23 Say That Mary Was a Virgin?
8. Why Paris Manuscript 132 and not the Shem Tob Text of Matthew?
9. The Synoptic Problem in a Nutshell
10. The Problems With Q with Solutions in Hebrew Matthew
11. On Markan Priority
12. Why Does Hebrew Matthew Matter?
13. For the Love of Google Docs
14. Who Were the Masoretes?
15. What Features Did the Masoretes Add to the Text?
16. About Vowel Points in Hebrew
17. About Accent Marks and Punctuation in Hebrew and Greek
18. The Masoretic Hebrew Text, Masoretic Matthew, and Byzantine Greek Text
19. Is Everything in an Inspired Manuscript Inspired?
20. Text Formatting in the Bible
21. On Divine Preservation
22. Which Features Have Been or Will Be Added to the Masoretic Matthew?
23. What are the Questions at the End?
24. What are the Traditional Dates for the Authorship of the Gospels?
25. What are the Eusebian Tables?
26. On Translating Parallel Passages in Parallel
27. 7 Reasons to Get the Paperback Version of the Masoretic Matthew
28. Corrected King James Matthew Second Edition based on the Masoretic Matthew available on Amazon

All Masoretic Matthew documents were updated 3/23/2024 to reflect the current state of my research and correct typos and errors.

---

Today’s post is not appropriate for all audiences. I will discuss subjects of an adult nature and adult feelings about those subjects. If you are under the age of thirty, please consult your parents or spiritual advisor before continuing.

---

Before I get into this too far, I’m not arguing about whether or not Mary was a virgin. Luke does say that Mary was a virgin. There’s a very real sense in which I don’t care. I don’t attach the same theological baggage to the idea that some traditions do. In that, I might be wrong. Even if I’m not wrong, one thing I know for sure is that I’m not right. I would need to make a much more definitive statement to be right about anything about her virginity. It might be right to put more emphasis on Mary’s virginity, and then I would be wrong. It might be right to reduce the emphasis on her virginity, and in that case I’m still not right, because I never recommended that anyone reduce their emphasis on her virginity.

Even past that, no matter how you read these concerns in the Gospel of Matthew, even this gospel strongly implies that Mary was a virgin. Even if the word “virgin” does not rightly belong anywhere in the first chapter of Matthew, it stands that an innocent young woman is found pregnant before her betrothal could be consummated. There are grotesque and evil scenarios that could accommodate this with human conception, but that’s neither hinted at nor easily extracted from the text of Matthew. While I have no particular opinion on the biological details of Jesus’s conception, the opinion of the Gospel writer is evidently that it is divine and pure.

While I find biology boring, I do enjoy the textual examination of events like this. I’ll let the biologists and the physicians argue over cases of parthenogenesis, and I’ll be over on the side of the textual historians trying to make sense of Matthew and Luke’s words. This does touch pretty firmly on a subject I’ve put a fair amount of my effort into as well. I believe that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, against the consensus of scholarship that believes that it was written in Greek. The first thing that people in the know will often bring up to try to defend their belief that Matthew was written in Greek is Matthew 1:23. In Greek, this reads Ἰδού, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον, Μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός. This is a quote from Isaiah 7:14, which in Hebrew reads הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל ׃. The Greek translation of Isaiah says is the same as in Greek Matthew, except that it leaves out the interpretation of the name Emmanuel. The Hebrew text of Matthew quotes from the Hebrew version of Isaiah exactly, without the interpretation. In Greek, the word describing the one who bears a child is ἡ παρθένος. In Hebrew, it’s הָעַלְמָה. This is where the problem comes in. These two words are not exactly synonyms. Most often, παρθένος implies sexual inexperience, where עַלְמָה implies fertility. This creates a multilayered problem when it’s read as a reference to Mary.

Before I go further with this, I find that it helps to state the things that are most often unstated. One of the reasons that we are so eager to highlight Mary’s virginity is that it is a titillating subject. Because of the intensity of the sexual drive among the majority of people, and the discomfort and expense associated with children, any suggestion that these two very important portions of human life could be separated is exciting. This is true of medical realities, like birth control or sterilization surgeries. It’s also true of legends and myths where births come about by another means, like Athena’s birth from the head of Zeus. 

Stating that outright allows us to ask a question that doesn’t often get asked: is Mary’s virginity the focus of Matthew 1:24? The fact that we are drawn to her virginity doesn’t mean that it’s actually the focus. It just means that we find it titillating. We didn’t need it to be in the Bible to know that we find it titillating. So is Matthew really talking about Mary’s virginity here? Or is there something else that’s in focus and we’re just drawn to the thing that excites us?

Let’s look at other places where Matthew says an Old Testament passage is fulfilled. This will help us get a sense of what Matthew means when he talks about something being fulfilled. There are eleven other places in Matthew where he says an Old Testament text is fulfilled.

• Matthew 2:14-15 When he arose, and did as was told him of the angel. He took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
• Matthew 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, (peace upon him) saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping [for] her children, and would not be comforted regarding her children, because they are not.
• Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
• Matthew 4:13-14 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, [by] the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
• Matthew 8:16-17 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with [his] word alone, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare [our] sicknesses.
• Matthew 12:16-21 And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgement to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgement unto victory. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgement in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
• Matthew 13:13-15 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
• Matthew 13:34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from ancient times.
• Matthew 21:3-7 And if any [man] say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [him] thereon.
• Matthew 27:7-10 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD appointed me.
• Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

One thing that’s a topic for another day that quickly becomes apparent is that Matthew doesn’t mean the same thing by “fulfill” that a lot of people in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries understand “fulfill” to mean. That topic only lightly touches on this point, but Matthew isn’t looking for a one-to-one correspondence between the events described and the events that occur. This is most evident in Matthew 2:23 which is based on a wordplay and 2:18, where neither the person nor the place correspond to the event described. I’m not going deep into how Matthew uses the Old Testament. There are a few different thoughts on that, several wrong ways and then of course the right way, which is the one I believe in. But that’s not an argument I’m picking today. Even if someone subscribes to one of the wrong ways (as long as it isn’t the one-to-one correspondence understanding) they should still be able to see that what I present for Matthew 1:23 is compatible with their preferred system.

One of the things that immediately jumps out at me when I look through these is that the fulfilled item is what Matthew was talking about immediately before the quote. The only possible exception to this is Matthew 21:5, where the quote comes in the middle of the fulfillment. If we apply this principle to Matthew 1:23 and collapse the quote so that we can focus on what is under discussion, I notice something interesting. I’ll include a little extra on either side of the event and the quote just so I can’t be accused of cheating by cutting too close.

• Matthew 1:20-24 But while he thought on this the angel 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, for of the Holy Ghost she has conceived. And behold, she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from all their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled… Then Joseph was raised from sleep and did as the angel of the LORD had bidden him, and took [unto him] her as his wife.

Notice how almost all reference to Mary’s virginity completely disappears. When you look at it this way it looks a lot more like a divine commentary on Jesus’s name, not the sexual experience or lack thereof that his mother has. This is further highlighted by the Greek text highlighting what Emmanuel means, not what παρθένος means. Before someone complains that this shouldn’t need clarification, it often does get exactly that kind of clarification in the Bible when it’s the point of the passage, for example Genesis 24:16, Leviticus 21:13-14, and Judges 21:12. So if the author had intended to focus on virginity rather than the divine naming, there was precedent to do so.

There is one last piece of evidence that I want to bring up. It’s a small piece of evidence with a lot of moving parts, and that’s why I bring it up last. It’s not nothing. There was an ancient sect of Jewish Christians called the Ebionites that used only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. They did not believe in the virgin birth. Irenaeus wrote about them in Book 1, chapter 26: “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.” The Cerinthus mentioned at the beginning of the document “represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles.” (As stated by Irenaeus just before that.) One of the ways that modern scholarship tries to make sense of this is by supposing that the version of Matthew that they used must have started with our current chapter two of Matthew. You can read this theory, for example, in the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Ebionites. I have not been able to find any patristic author that ever implies this, though. It is purely speculation from the modern era. Given the absolutely scant data that we have for the Ebionites, it’s absolutely possible that this is true. It’s also entirely possible from the data that we have that the Ebionites used a complete Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, and simply did not read anything in the text that strictly required that Mary be a virgin. This would explain Irenaeus’s comparison in Book 3, chapter 11. “For the Ebionites, who use Matthew’s Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.” Notice that the Ebionites simply “use” Matthew, but Marcion “mutilated” Luke. One of the scribes leading up to Hebrew Manuscript 132 of the National Library of Paris (my primary source) felt it relevant to add “for of the Holy Ghost she has conceived,” to the end of Matthew 1:20. I’m not aware of any other manuscript in any of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or Syriac that adds that particular clause to that particular verse. Someone in the history of this manuscript felt that it was important to clarify that point because they didn’t feel that 1:23 or 1:25 sufficiently demonstrate that Joseph was not Jesus’s natural father. I still feel that 1:25 strongly implies a virgin birth and that Joseph is not Jesus’s father (and that Luke flat out says so) but those with a theological agenda could definitely read what’s there without this added clause in 1:20 differently. Such a person would probably ask something like, “What else could ‘took’ in ‘took her as his wife’ mean?” We see similar discussions between those that think that Mary was a virgin her whole life and those who think her and Joseph had an otherwise ordinary, active, and passionate marriage regarding the “until” in 1:25. While we don’t have enough data about the Ebionites and their interpretation of the first chapter of Matthew to really decide between those that think they just cut it off and my own theory that the Hebrew is just ambiguous enough give them that wiggle room, I think the fact that this interpretation is possible in the Hebrew and we know of a group that actually held that belief that used Matthew, I think this deserves to be considered as slight evidence in favor of the theory that Hebrew Matthew quoted Isaiah just as it appears in our current Masoretic Text and remained just ambiguous enough about the subject as to give raise to alternative interpretations.

In another place, I go over all the times that Matthew quotes from the Old Testament, and I show that most often the Greek text of Matthew borrows the LXX reading only when it agrees in substance with the Hebrew text. Where the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments disagree, even the Greek text of Matthew most often modifies the quote to match the essence of the Hebrew text. It seems that in this case, the one behind the Greek edition of Matthew felt that the LXX was close enough. This would make the most sense if they were focused on the naming aspect of the quote rather than the sexual experience of the mother. That said, it’s worth noting that neither עַלְמָה nor παρθένος are quite as straightforward in their designations as those that want to use this to prove Matthew was written in Greek like to pretend. In the Greek translation of Genesis 34:3, Dinah is called a παρθένος after Shechem has had her. And in Genesis 24:43, the LXX translates עַלְמָה with παρθένος. There are more examples from Greek literature of παρθένος not being quite as straightforward as those who want it to be “virgin” claim as well. Altogether, this makes it plausible that the Greek translator of Isaiah didn’t have a virgin in mind and likely that the author of Matthew was focused more on the divine naming of Joseph’s adopted son than the mechanics of Mary’s conception.