Replies

Sometimes it's hard to see the forest through all the trees. To be fair, I never gave Mary's reaction much thought until little more than a year ago. I was contemplating the passage in question and it just struck me: what an odd thing to say for a girl who has no intention of maintaining her virginity. As for the Isaiah factor, it's not something I would have considered relevant; mainly because I've always been under the impression that the Jews expected the Messiah to be a mere man. I don't think the Incarnation of Second Person of the Trinity was a concept being kicked around back then. Sooo... it's not reasonable to think she would have drawn that conclusion. The only other conclusion left to draw is the normative one.

Joseph's reaction I never considered until... oh, i dunno... what time is it? lol! Obviously, his behavior only makes sense if he draws the same [normative] conclusion. And why wouldn't he?

With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back and say, "Of course she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit! How else would God become incarnate?", but I seriously doubt this was even thinkable back then.

The prophecy that a virgin would bear a child would not have been familiar to Mary unless she spoke Greek. The Hebrew Scriptures contained in Isaiah 7 state that a ha'almah will give birth to a child. Ha'almah means young woman. The word ha'almah is not restricted to mean virgin. In fact, the RSV translates Isaiah 7: 14 as:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

Matthew is quoting the Greek Septuagint, which translated ha'almah as "virgin" rather than as young woman. As far as I am aware, this was the Bible that the Apostles used when writing in Greek.