Published by 
Image via Wikipedia
The story of Jesus’ virgin-birth is a well-known one, taught to most of us during primary school, but is it accurate? Many people take this unbelievable story as proof that Christians are either nut-jobs or unbelievably gullible or stupid and conclude, therefore, that no God exists. But what if there has been some terrible mistake? What if the word “virgin” was a mistranslation and the whole idea of a virgin-birth always was as ridiculous as it now sounds? Is it possible that Christians have been teaching an untruth as the result of poor scholarship? Let’s investigate…
Image via Wikipedia
Translation of the Bible became necessary when Christianity quickly flourished and spread to other parts of the world. Unfortunately, it seems the translators of the time made at least one vital mistake, giving rise to the fantastic story of a virgin-birth.
The Hebrew word na’rah means “a young girl”, but the word was mistranslated to mean “virgin” – for which the Hebrew word is, in fact, betulah. It’s easy to understand an error being made, but why wasn’t this recognised early on, and rectified before the myth began?
Image via Wikipedia
When Mary was visited by the archangel Gabriel she was told the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Highest would over shadow her. This would seem, to anyone unfamiliar with the Kabbalah – as almost those living all in the West would have been at the time the Bible was translated – to confirm the child she was carrying would be born of the Lord, rather than Mary’s husband, Joseph.
Image via Wikipedia
However, according to the Kabbalah, the Holy Spirit is the Shekinah; the feminine principle of the creator. While Christian theology tells us the Holy Spirit is essentially masculine, the Hebrew word used in the scriptures is a feminine noun; Ruach. The Kabbalah teaches that the universe was brought into being by the feminine aspect, while the male aspect simply initiated the action. This is exactly the way humans are conceived, with the female creating and carrying the child, but only as a direct result of impregnation by the male.
Image via Wikipedia
In the Jewish tradition, it is believed that the Holy Spirit (the Shekinah) is present at all conceptions – not just those of special children or Messiahs! Thus, the Holy Spirit being present at the conception of Christ would have been nothing but standard practise, fully in line with the beliefs of the community he was born into.
The Shekinah is believed to visit the marital bed and hover above the copulating couple while conception occurs. The soul of the baby is believed to be provided by the Heavenly King and the Shekinah, or Heavenly Bride, while the body is created by the couple having sex. Kabbalists view the act of sex as a divine union between masculine and feminine so sex and procreation are celebrated and encouraged, while celibacy is thought to denote spiritual barrenness.
Image via Wikipedia
So, there we have it: a common error made during the initial translation has caused a huge number of people, all over the world, to believe an obviously silly story, for over a thousand years…
I wonder what else they got wrong?
Nice one to share…Great work
All good; but the text you refer to was originally written in Greek not in Hebrew.
Thank-you both for your comments, and thanks for pointing out my error, Vincent (how ironic LOL), it has now been corrected!
Taking this as a text; can you explain your point in better detail? Note that the original language of this is Greek.
Luke Chapter 1:
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
This is an interesting article about how the story of the virgin birth in the Bible was perpetuated. I also think something deeper and more profound is going on with the mythology of the virgin birth, though. I don’t think it’s just a mistake of translation. Virgin births are an archetypal myth that appear in many traditions throughout the world, including Hinduism, Greek and Roman mythology, Native American mythologies, and so on. The virgin birth seems to suggest that on a deeper level, humans are more than just our physicality. The myth symbolizes the pure, compassionate spiritual nature (Christ consciousness, Buddha consciousness, etc.) that is beyond polarities and beyond opposites that all religions and mythologies, and all humans in all cultures and at all times, have struggled towards. I’m still working out my thoughts on this and don’t quite have the language to express it yet.
So, one more thought: I don’t think the problem is necessarily with the mistranslation of the Bible but rather with the literal interpretation of the virgin birth. The virgin birth does not make sense as a historical fact, but it does make sense as a metaphor for a spiritual reality to which the human heart struggles.
Great Article Cas : ))
Why does it not “make sense as a historical fact”? Or do you start by deciding miracles don’t exist and hence all records of miracles are mere myths?
Samson, of course, was just naturally strong; and happened to fall ill when his hair was cut off. It makes more sense from a historical perspective.
As the Torah says; the red sea was parted by a strong wind all night. Since we know it was the wind that did it, it’s just a natural phenomenon that happened at the right time and there is no need to credit God.
Now, that manna in the wilderness… obviously some really really really tall trees were overhanging the camp that dropped their fruit every night. Yes, everything has a perfectly logical explanation.
Thi is a very interesting article as well as the comments.
@WriteEditSeek regarding the comments I somehow missed.
You’re right, but which came first? Was it purposely mistranslated to continue the popular myth? Because it’s one hell of a “coincidence” if not. I don’t understand why anything written in the Bible would be interpreted literally, and that’s one of my only problems with Christianity: I understand the esoteric experience is there for anyone who chooses it, and I guess if they are the questioning type and seek spiritual fulfillment they’ll take that path and find their own answers. I also understand that Religion (and particularly Christianity) has played a massive part in controlling the masses, and that this was also necessary, in many ways. I just hate the idea of people believing nonsense and not seeing the bigger picture. It just doesn’t seem fair… Personally, I’m convinced science and religion will eventually agree (and I’ve been saying this for years without any good reason to, but last year I realised we’re almost at that point already!). Part of the problem is people humanizing the idea of “God” (I prefer the word source), imagining it as a person with morals etc, and being so unable to understand abstract concepts that ideas have to be explained with these symbolic stories that are then taken literally by millions.
Religions breed disagreements and war. They are mixed with mysticism,peculiar hatreds,and superstition. Miracles are figments of imagination. Now go figure how an immaculate birth could be attained: A religious cult hoping to use its mysticism, astrology,and beliefs might designate someone to give birth to their supposed holy being. To make it an immaculate birth they might actually impregnate someone without actually using sex as the direct means, but certainly using the DNA of someone choosen for that purpose.This would be possible at any time in history. The person choosen to carry the child would have had to be the one who the signs pointed as being the one to do it and that would be the same as if an angel had selected her,the angel of chance.
With no sex envolved it would certainly be an immaculate birth.