The Virgin Birth

Overview

The UPDV does not take a position on the virgin birth as a matter of faith. It takes a position on the text. Five distinct judgments — translational, text-critical, editorial, and reconstructive — converge to remove the textual basis on which the doctrine is commonly argued. The UPDV follows the Hebrew of Isaiah, selects the active reading at Matthew's genealogy, identifies editorial insertions, and reads Luke's Aramaic substrate behind a key verse. What the reader does with the result is a matter of faith, not textual criticism.

These five judgments are:

1. Isaiah 7:14 — translates the Hebrew as "young woman," not "virgin"

2. Matthew 1:16 — selects the active reading: "Joseph begot Jesus"

3. Matthew 1:18-25 — treats the birth narrative as a secondary editorial addition and omits it

4. Luke 1-2 — excludes the infancy narrative as secondary (the full case is made in The Gospel of Luke)

5. Luke 3:23 — reads "known as the son of Joseph" rather than "as was supposed to be the son of Joseph"

Each judgment is documented in its respective article. This article summarizes the reasoning behind all five and shows how they relate to one another.

Isaiah 7:14: The Young Woman

The UPDV translates Isaiah 7:14 as "the young woman shall conceive and bear a son," with a footnote that the Septuagint reads "virgin." This follows the Hebrew.

The Hebrew word is עַלְמָה (almah). It occurs nine times in the Old Testament.¹ The word denotes a young woman of marriageable age, not a virgin as such — as BDB defines it, "young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married)."² HALOT concurs: "young woman (until the birth of her first child)."³ At Genesis 24:43, the almah is Rebekah, who is in fact a virgin — but the word labels her age and social status, not her sexual status, which the text establishes separately (24:16).

The Hebrew language has a word more closely associated with virginity: בְּתוּלָה (betulah). But even betulah does not function as a technical term for sexual status. At Genesis 24:16, Rebekah is called a betulah — and then the text adds, "no man had ever lain with her," a qualification that would be redundant if the word itself meant "virgin."⁴ Neither Hebrew word carries the precision that English "virgin" implies. Of the two, almah is the less specific, and Isaiah chose it.

The Greek Translations

The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures produced in the third and second centuries BC, rendered עַלְמָה at Isaiah 7:14 as παρθένος (parthenos) — a Greek word that does mean "virgin."⁵ This is the form Matthew quotes at 1:23.

But the LXX stands alone among the Greek translations. The three major later Jewish Greek revisers all rendered it differently:

• Aquila (ca. 130 AD): νεᾶνις (neanis) — "young woman"
• Symmachus (late 2nd century): νεᾶνις — "young woman"
• Theodotion (mid-2nd century): νεᾶνις — "young woman"⁶

Whether these later translations represent a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew or a deliberate anti-Christian correction is debated. Watts notes that "these latter three are all Jewish translations from the era of Christianity, and so may in fact reflect anti-Christian attempts to 'tighten' the LXX's translation to more closely match the MT."⁷ But the philological result is the same either way: the Hebrew word means "young woman," and the Jewish translation tradition consistently renders it that way.

An Ancient Debate

The UPDV's rendering is not a modern innovation. Jewish scholars have made the same argument since at least the second century, and the church fathers responded to it directly.

Justin Martyr (ca. 155 AD) records the Jewish objection: "Since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son'..."⁸

Irenaeus (ca. 180 AD) names the translators responsible: "Not as some allege... 'Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,' as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph."⁹

Origen (ca. 248 AD) engages the Hebrew directly: "If a Jew quibbles that it is not written 'Behold the virgin' (ἡ παρθένος) but rather 'Behold the young woman' (ἡ νεᾶνις), we will say to him that the word Aalma (ἡ Ἁαλμά), which the Seventy rendered as 'virgin' (παρθένον), but others rendered as 'young woman' (νεᾶνιν), is also found in Deuteronomy applied to a virgin..."¹⁰ Origen acknowledges the lexical ambiguity but argues the context supports "virgin."

Rashi (1040-1105 AD), the foremost medieval Jewish commentator, identifies the almah as Isaiah's own wife: "the young woman — My wife will conceive this year."¹¹ For Rashi, the sign is not a miraculous conception but the prophetic naming of the child.

Skinner's summary in the Cambridge Bible remains apt: "The patristic view maintained an all but unquestioned ascendancy within the Church till the dawn of historical criticism in the eighteenth century, when it began to be recognised that on the philological question the Jews were right."¹²

Matthew's Text

The Genealogy (1:16)

Matthew's genealogy traces Jesus' lineage through forty-two generations, each linked by the active verb ἐγέννησεν (egennēsen, "begot"). The standard Greek text breaks the pattern at the final entry, switching to passive voice: "from whom [Mary] was born Jesus." The UPDV selects the active reading — "Joseph begot Jesus" — attested in the Syriac Sinaiticus and adopted by Von Soden's critical text in 1913. This is a minority reading, but an attested one with versional support, structural logic, and a documented scholarly lineage from Conybeare (1898) through Von Soden (1913) to the NEB and Jerusalem Bible margins.

For the full case — manuscript witnesses, the four-women syntactic argument, the lectio difficilior rebuttal, and the cumulative evidence — see Joseph Begot Jesus: The Active Reading at Matthew 1:16.

The Birth Narrative (1:18-25)

The UPDV omits Matthew 1:18-25. This passage — the angel's appearance to Joseph, the explanation of Mary's pregnancy by the Holy Spirit, and the quotation of Isaiah 7:14 — is treated by the UPDV as an editorial addition by the Gospel's compiler.

The evidence includes: no parallel in Mark; no parallel in Luke's fundamentally different birth account; the presence of haggadic Moses-tradition motifs (pious father, wicked king, infant massacre) identified by Davies and Allison;¹³ and the concentration of formula quotations in Matthew's opening chapters, characteristic of what the UPDV identifies as the compiler's editorial hand. The Ebionite Christians, according to Epiphanius, used a form of Matthew that began at the ministry of John the Baptist — omitting both the genealogy and the birth narrative.¹⁴ The Ebionite witness does not by itself prove secondary composition, but it does confirm that chapters 1-2 circulated as a separable unit, which is consistent with that judgment.

For the full analysis, see The Book of Matthew.

Luke's Text

The Infancy Narrative (Luke 1-2)

The UPDV does not include Luke chapters 1-2. These contain the annunciation to Mary, the visit to Elizabeth, the Magnificat, the nativity in Bethlehem, and the presentation at the temple — the primary Lukan basis for the virgin birth.

The exclusion rests on the same kind of evidence that governs the UPDV's treatment of Luke's ending: material at both the beginning and end of Luke bears marks of secondary composition. Joseph Tyson's analysis of Marcion's Gospel is relevant here. If Marcion removed chapters 1-2, that does not by itself establish secondary composition; if they were added later, it would. In either case, the Marcionite evidence leaves the question open in a way the UPDV judges consistent with later addition.¹⁵ This is a reconstruction judgment, not a consensus position, and the full case — including manuscript, compositional, and patristic evidence — is made in the linked article.

For the full analysis, see The Gospel of Luke.

Luke 3:23: Known As the Son of Joseph

The UPDV reads Luke 3:23 as: "Jesus was about thirty years of age, known as the son of Joseph." The standard translation reads "as was supposed" — implying that Joseph was not really the father. This is the most linguistically detailed of the five decisions, and it rests on an Aramaic root with two distinct meanings.

The Greek word behind "as was supposed" is ἐνομίζετο (enomizeto), the imperfect passive of νομίζω (nomizō), which can mean "think," "suppose," or "consider." In Luke 3:23 it is typically rendered "was supposed," and in the traditional context — a Gospel that has already narrated a virgin birth in chapters 1-2 — the implication is that the supposition was incorrect.¹⁶ But if those chapters are secondary, the original Luke had no virgin birth context — and the Greek may reflect a mistranslation of the underlying Aramaic.

The Aramaic Root sBr

The key is the Aramaic/Syriac root ܣܒܪ (sbr). This root appears 515 times across the Peshitta Old and New Testaments and is one of the most productive roots in Syriac. It has two entirely distinct semantic ranges depending on the verbal stem:¹⁷

Stem 1 — Peal (and its passive, Ethpeal): "to think, suppose, consider"

• 1 Corinthians 10:12: ܕܣܒܪ (dsābar) — "he who thinks he stands" (Peal, translating Greek δοκέω)
• Luke 3:23: ܘܡܣܬܒܪ (wmestabbar) — "was supposed" (Ethpeal, translating Greek νομίζω)

Stem 2 — Pael (and its passive, Ethpael): "to announce, proclaim, preach, make known"

• 1 Corinthians 9:16: ܕܡܣܒܪ (damsabbar) — "I preach the gospel" (Pael, translating Greek εὐαγγελίζω)
• 1 John 1:5: ܘܡܣܒܪܝܢܢ (wamsabrinan) — "we declare to you" (Pael, translating Greek ἀναγγέλλω)
• 1 Peter 1:25: ܕܐܣܬܒܪܬܘܢ (destabbartun) — "was preached to you" (Ethpael, translating Greek εὐαγγελίζω)
• 1 Kings 1:42: ܡܣܒܪ (msabbar) — "brings good tidings" (Aphel, translating Hebrew מְבַשֵּׂר)¹⁸

The noun derived from this root, ܣܒܪܬܐ (sbartā), means "message, good tidings" — and is the standard Syriac word for Gospel.¹⁹ The "announce/proclaim" sense is not marginal. It is foundational to Syriac Christian vocabulary.

Payne Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary (founded on the Thesaurus Syriacus) lays out the dual meaning explicitly: the Peal means "to think, suppose, be convinced"; the Pael means "to announce, declare, tell, bring tidings, publish abroad." The Pael example given is the angel's words at Luke 2:10: "I bring you good tidings of great joy."²⁰

The Galatians 2 Parallel

The most striking evidence comes from within the Peshitta itself. The root sBr (ܣܒܪ) appears throughout the Peshitta NT, but the stem the translator chooses follows a clear pattern. In the passages surveyed, the Peshitta regularly renders δοκέω with the Ethpeal (passive: "be recognized"), while νομίζω is rendered with the Peal (active: "suppose") or avoided. Same root, different stem, different meaning.²¹

Passage	Greek Verb	Root	Stem	Meaning
Galatians 2:2	δοκέω	sBr	Ethpeal	recognized — they ARE leaders
Galatians 2:6	δοκέω	sBr	Ethpeal	recognized — they ARE something
Galatians 2:9	δοκέω	sBr	Ethpeal	recognized — they ARE pillars
Mark 10:42	δοκέω	sBr	Ethpeal	recognized — they DO rule
1 Corinthians 12:22	δοκέω	sBr	Ethpeal	recognized — they ARE weaker
Hebrews 12:11	δοκέω	sBr	Ethpeal	recognized — it ISN'T joyful
2 Corinthians 10:9	δοκέω	sBr	Ethpeal	neutral
2 Peter 1:13	ἡγέομαι	sBr	Ethpeal	recognized — he DOES consider it right
Acts 7:25	νομίζω	sBr	Peal	supposed — they did NOT understand
Acts 14:19	νομίζω	sBr	Peal	supposed — he was NOT dead
Matthew 20:10	νομίζω	sBr	Peal	supposed — they did NOT get more
Luke 3:23	νομίζω	sBr	Ethpeal	?

The pattern is consistent: δοκέω triggers the Ethpeal, νομίζω triggers the Peal. Luke 3:23 is the sole exception — the Greek says νομίζω, which should produce the Peal ("supposed"), but the Peshitta translator wrote the Ethpeal instead. The same stem used at Galatians 2:2, 2:6, and 2:9 for people publicly regarded as leaders. Same root, same three consonants — but the stem the translator chose is the one that means "recognized," not "supposed." CAL confirms this lexically: the Ethpeal of sbr (CAL sbr vb., Gt) has three numbered senses: (1) "to be reasonable, seem to be the case" [Syr, JBA]; (2) "to be considered" [Syr]; (3) "to have hope for" [LJLA]. None of these senses carry the doubt implication of the Peal's "to think, suppose." The Ethpeal's own dictionary definition is recognition and reasoned assessment, not uncertain supposition.

This is not a Peshitta-era phenomenon. The Old Syriac Sinaiticus — a 4th-century manuscript preserving a translation from the 2nd or 3rd century — has the same form at Luke 3:23. In Burkitt's standard edition, the text reads ܡܣܬܒܪ (mestabbar), Ethpeal of sBr.²⁴ The Peshitta translator did not break pattern; he inherited the Ethpeal from a tradition two centuries older. So far as the extant Syriac evidence shows, the form at Luke 3:23 is Ethpeal — the stem the Peshitta regularly uses for δοκέω in recognition contexts. This shifts the question. The issue is no longer simply why Syriac has Ethpeal here, but whether the Greek νομίζω fully captures the sense reflected in the Syriac tradition.

The Old Syriac palimpsest itself preserves a telling dispute. When Agnes Smith Lewis first transcribed the Sinaiticus in 1896, she read the verb at Luke 3:23 as ܡܬܩܪܐ (methqre) — Ethpeal of qr', "he was called." When F.C. Burkitt re-examined the photograph in 1904, he read ܡܣܬܒܪ (mestabbar) — the Ethpeal of sBr.²⁵ The two scholars disagreed about what the faded ink says. But both possible readings are verbs of public designation. If Lewis was right, the oldest Syriac witness says Jesus was simply "called" the son of Joseph — no hint of doubt. If Burkitt was right, the palimpsest has the same Ethpeal of sBr that the Peshitta has — the inherently neutral stem used for public recognition at Galatians 2. Either way, the Old Syriac text treats the statement as public acknowledgment, not false supposition. The "supposition" reading enters only when translators assume the Syriac must mean what the Greek means.

The UPDV infers from this Syriac evidence that the verse may preserve an earlier Aramaic construal in which the sense was neutral: "he was publicly recognized as the son of Joseph" — just as at Galatians 2. This remains a reconstruction rather than a directly attested Vorlage. On this reconstruction, the Greek rendering νομίζω may reflect a translator working in a textual context where Luke 1-2 was already present, choosing a verb that carries doubt where δοκέω would have preserved the neutral sense. This need not have been a deliberate distortion. A translator already reading Luke in a text that opened with a virgin birth narrative would naturally hear "supposed" rather than "recognized." The interpretation may have shaped the translation. But the Aramaic form, as the Syriac evidence consistently attests it, carries no such implication.

Cross-Dialect Confirmation

The cross-dialect evidence does not determine Luke 3:23 by itself; its value is to show that the communicative/acknowledgment pole of sBr is deeply rooted in Aramaic and not a late Syriac anomaly:

• Jewish Aramaic (Jastrow; confirmed by CAL): Peal = think, hope, believe, speculate. Aphel = explain, teach — CAL tags this sense across four dialects: JLAtg, Gal, JBA, Man (CAL sbr vb., C sense 5). The communicative/acknowledgment pole of sbr is attested in every major Aramaic dialect, not just Syriac.²²
• Targum Aramaic (TgLex): Peal = expect, hope, think, understand. Aphel (Palestinian, Jewish Babylonian) = explain.²³
• Syriac (Payne Smith): Peal = think, suppose. Pael = announce, declare, make known. The communicative pole of the root — expressing and publishing, not merely thinking — is attested across every major Aramaic dialect.

The Peshitta NT translates from Greek, not from an independent Aramaic source. Yet from the earliest Syriac translation to the latest, every Aramaic version of Luke 3:23 uses the Ethpeal — the stem regularly used for δοκέω in recognition contexts — not the Peal that νομίζω normally triggers. The Aramaic form at Luke 3:23 is fully compatible with "known as the son of Joseph." The primary reasons it is read as "supposed" are the Greek verb νομίζω and the interpretive influence of Luke 1-2. Remove those, and the Aramaic form naturally admits the sense it appears to carry: he was recognized as the son of Joseph.

Text and Faith

The UPDV is a translation project, not a creed. It follows the Hebrew text of Isaiah, selects the active reading at Matthew's genealogy, and reads the Aramaic substrate behind Luke. Each of the five judgments documented above is made on textual and linguistic grounds — the meaning of a Hebrew word, the pattern of a genealogy, the identification of editorial additions, the semantic range of an Aramaic root. Some of these are straightforward translation choices; others are reconstruction judgments that go beyond what most modern editions print.

Taken together, these decisions remove the textual basis on which the doctrine is traditionally built. They do not pronounce on whether it happened. That is a question of faith, and the UPDV does not legislate faith. It translates texts.

---

Notes

---