Virgin Mary?

Thanks for that info! I have been educating myself on all religions and I didn’t know about the immaculate conception being related to Mary and not Jesus. I find it very interesting that so many different religions choose to accept one truth or faith over another. Peace to all!!

“However, he says that it is more likely that it is a singular feminine participle, which would render the verse as follows “Therefore, my Lord himself will give you this sign: behold, the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel””

Your friend is using, in my opinion, a pretty shaky basis to claim that the tense of the word is future, and that the verse must therefore be a prophecy. Besides not fitting in with the context of the passage, which I discuss more below, the grammar is not readily interpreted the way your friend believes. The lack of clarity in the passage is because the reader must insert the proper form of the “to be” verb in the sentence. “”Behold, the young woman (is or will be) pregnant and bearing (or bears) a son”.” And since “harah” is used predicatively, true expert Hebrew scholars agree that it refers to a present or imminent future pregnancy. In other words, it’s as if I said “George W. Bush is delivering the State of the Union address” and I say that about an hour before he actually does it. You wouldn’t assume I’m referring to something taking place next year, you would assume I mean soon, even though I’m using perfect tense.

Reading the entire passage with the verse translated this way: ‘Behold, the young woman has conceived or is conceiving— and bears or is bearing a son and calls his name Immanuel.’ therefore is proper because it fits with the context of Isaiah’s description of a sign that was given to Ahaz regarding the battle between his kingdom and the Syro-Israelite alliance. It’s a reference to contemporary events.

Why would a sudden, and very vague, reference to a birth 700+ years in the future be buried amidst a description of this war, anyway? It makes absolutely no sense. If Isaiah didn’t even know he was making this prophecy, you can’t even really call it a prophecy. Therefore, even if we accept that Jesus was born of a virgin, it would not have been prophesied by Isaiah.

If you try hard enough, you can twist anybody’s words into a prophecy. People do it all the time with Nostradamus even though he very rarely predicted the future but rather cloaked his commentary on the politics of his day with his quatrains. Isaiah is being more explicit, but the vague nature of his wording leaves it open for people to manipulate for their own purposes.

As for the Septuagint, the original version, translated about 2300 years ago, was only the Torah, or Pentateuch. This is the only portion of the Septuagint about which there is any consensus regarding dates. For all other books, including Isaiah, there is no consensus on when they were written. Some may have been written prior to Jesus birth, but we just don’t know for sure. See Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint. And keep in mind that the early Jewish scholars brought up the issue of the mistranslation of “almah” at the same time Christian scholars were working their colossal mistranslation.

“However, my advisors tell me that the relationship in Hebrew between the word “almah” and “bethulah” is analogous to the relationship between the English word “maiden” and the word “virgin.” “

They are not as analogous as that. The word almah can, in fact, refer to a young woman who is ready to wed and under her parents care (likely a virgin in that culture) OR it could refer to a young woman who is already married and with child. It’s a loose term, and you’d think that for the purpose of clarity, if Isaiah was prophesying a virgin birth, he would use a term that would leave no doubt about what he was saying.

In the original Hebrew, you can find seven uses of the word “almah” always referring to a young female. and is rendered “damsel” once, “maid” twice, and “virgin” four times. The word bethulah occurs fifty times, rendered “maid” seven times, “maiden” eight times, and “virgin” thirty-five times. All fifty times it has the technical sense of virginity. See Genesis 24:16, Leviticus 21:13-14, and Judges 11:37-38 for examples of “bethulah” used to refer very specifically to virginity or virgins. Why wouldn’t Isaiah, if he was describing a prophecy about a virgin birth of the Messiah, the most imporant event in all history, use the term “bethulah” as well since it was obviously far more common? The only logical answer is that the woman described in that verse is in fact not a virgin, but just a young woman.

“First, the verse is written in the future tense. It would not make sense for a young woman who is already pregnant to conceive. Second, the verse must be examined within the whole context of the chapter:”

Which translation of the Bible are you reading from? Not even every translation of the Bible in English has the word virgin as the KJV does. Some in fact, do use the phrase young woman.

As for the verse itself, you can’t rely on English to determine this. You have to turn to Hebrew. In Hebrew, the verse is not in future tense, it is in perfect tense: “laken yittan adonai hu lakem oth hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.”

Notice the word “harah” which translates into English as “conceived” and is, therefore, in perfect tense, not at all referring to a future event.

Other translations of the Bible have, in fact, already corrected the mistake the KJV makes, although somewhat discretly…such as the Revised version which puts the correct translation in the sidenotes.

Also, it refers specifically to “the young woman”, not the more vague, non-specific “a young woman”, indicating that the verse was referring to someone already known to be with child.

Finally, if we do look at the meaning of the entire passage, as you correctly state we should do, then we find that Isaiah cannot possibly be prophesying about something seven centuries into the future. He’s talking about a war between the King of Judah, Ahaz, and his enemies the kings of Syria and Israel. The birth of Immanuel was a sign given by Isaiah to the King of Judah, one of many that he describes in this chapter as he predicts other wars between Judah and the rising Assyrian Empire. The rest of the language of the chapter makes it very clear that Isaiah is referring to contemporary events. He never makes any explicit, clear reference to Jesus or why his birth will be significant.

That the Septuagint originally contains the word “parthenos” is also an incorrect statement. The original Septuagint was only a translation of the Torah, written around 2200 years ago, and would not have included Isaiah’s prophecies. The Septuagint which you and I have today was compiled by the church, long after Jesus would have lived and after the Gospels themselves were written. And that Septuagint was heavily influenced by men like Origen, who had an agenda and shaped the document to fit his needs. Matthew’s author is not referring in any way to the original Septuagint.

There is a reason most Jews have never converted to Christianity, and that is that most Jews reject the mistranslations and misinterpretations of their Tanakh which the early Christians used to say that Jesus’ coming was foretold. If it was all true, the evidence of Jesus in prophecy should be enough to convince most Jews.

Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, while she was betrothed to Joseph. He, being a gentle man, was going to put her away privately. We not knowing the custom of the time, struggle with knowing exactly what this meant.

However, the punishment of the law was stoning, and if he had of called the legal aspect of this into play, that is what would have happened to her. The priests would have ordered it.

But, he had love in his heart, and did not want to do this, to the woman he loved, showing his character. So, he was going to deal very gently with this.

Can you imagine how she must have felt? To be a woman, that could be killed for what had just happened to her? A woman back then had no power, she was at the mercy of the state and the church.

But…she trusted God…

This is why he choose her to begin with, he knew her faith, and her ability to trust in him, when all hell was breaking around her, when she faced death for something that had been done to her, something that she could not have even understood, but, she trusted God.

An angel spoke to Joseph, and told him what to do, he too, had to have great faith, he was being asked to do the unbelievable… to believe and trust, that his beloved… was in truth, pregnant by God…

Unheard of… unbelievable… out of this world. Completely foreign to the culture, and the teachings of the bible. Although it had been foretold. Only a handful of people knew it for what it was. An awesome move of God, unheard of before.

With two young people being asked to stretch their faith to the breaking point, in order that scripture might be fullfilled in them.

Could anyone of us, even think of being up to this task?

What a story, How would they know she was a virgin!? …Absurd!

Thank you flossheal for your kind and thoughtful comments.

I am familiar with the Gospels, including those verses that point to the possibility that Jesus may have had siblings (thus implying that Mary did not remain a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ, as the Church teaches).

The one that you raise (your mother and brothers are here) is one of several that appear to have that implication. There are several things to consider in that case. First and foremost, we must consider the dialect of the time. The people would have been speaking in Aramaic. In that language, there was no word for “brother” per-se. The word that they had was the equivalent of the English word “kinsman,” and it would refer to brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc. So, when the people said, “your mother and brothers are here,” they would have used that word.

The counter-argument to the point that I just made: while it is true that the people would have spoken in Aramaic, the Gospels were written in Greek, which has separate words for brother and cousin etc.

The counter-argument to that point: while it is true that there were separate words in Greek, the Gospels were penned by people who had “Semitic minds.” They weren’t written in proper Greek, but rather in a form of Greek-Aramaic slang. (St. Jerome even said that trying to read the Gospel of Mark and translate it into Latin was a penance for him). There is evidence in the New Testament that the Aramaic understanding of the word “kinsmen” over-flowed into the Greek text.

For instance, the Apostle James is referred to as, “the brother of the Lord.” We see elsewhere, however, that he is in fact the son of Alpheus. Also the Gospel of Mark names several of Christ’s kinsmen when it recounts his rejection at Nazareth, saying, “is he not the brother of James and Joses…” (Mark 6:3). However, later on, we see that “the Mother of the younger James and Joses” was present at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40). We also see in that Mary (Jesus’ mother) was present at the crucifixion with “her sister,” so it is conceivable that they could be her sisters children (John 19:25).

There is also another possibility that the early Church Fathers have considered (and some artists have depicted). It is possible that St. Joseph may have been a widower, and could have had children from a previous marriage. Several early Christian art-works depict St. Joseph as an older man, with several children. There is no Scriptural evidence to support or deny this claim; therefore, it remains a distinct possibility.

Dr. Scott Hahn addresses these points at length is his book “Hail Holy Queen.” Karl Keating also addresses the question of Biblical language (and many other things) in the book “What Catholics Really Believe”

Joseph and Mary were not married when Jesus was concieved. They were engaged and when Joseph found out she was with child he was going to break it off or put her away privately. But an angel appeared to Joseph and told him she was pregnant with the son of God and Joseph being a good person obeyed what the angel told him married Mary, but the bible indicates that they probably never had relation till after the birth of Jesus then the had other children.

There is a BIG misunderstanding about the Immaculate Conception, especially among non-Catholics. It’s not Jesus that was immaculately conceived, it was Mary.

The belief is that in order for the sinless Son of God to be conceived in Mary’s womb, she had to be without sin herself. Therefore, SHE was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb. She was conceived the same way as any other child, but when she was conceived, she was filled with divine grace, and that’s what the Immaculate Conception was.

Most Catholics believe Mary did, in fact, live a life without sin. Most Protestants do NOT believe in the Immaculate Conception, because they do not revere Mary as a saint or holy figure, just as a woman who happened to be chosen to give birth to Jesus.

This is different from Jesus conception, which supposedly happened to Mary when she was a virgin. But the virgin birth of the Messiah was never prophesied in the Old Testament, which is something most Christians have come to believe.

“ I don’t know which Bible you have but it must have parts missing… “

Actually I’m taking the Bible in its original language. You must be reading the Bible in English, which means it’s probably mistranslated, either accidentally or intentionally.

Genesis 3:15 makes no reference whatsoever to a virgin birth. I’m glad you cited it though, because it’s one of the verses Catholics use to explain the Immaculate Conception. The phrase “enmity between you and the woman” has been interpreted to mean a woman who would not be under the power of sin. It’s a Catholic belief, not MY belief, and I was just trying to explain it.

Anyway, no verse in the Old Testament prophesies a virgin birth of the Messiah, not even Isaiah 7:14. This is where you need to check your translation of the Bible. The Hebrew word for virgin, during the time of Isaiah’s writing, was “bethulah” and it is used quite clearly to refer to virgins at other points in the Old Testament. The word Isaiah uses in 7:14 however, is “almah” which does not always translate directly into English as virgin. It sometimes refers to a young woman who is already pregnant, and if you look at the context of Isaiah 7:14, this is more likely. When the New Testament writers tried to link Jesus and his “virgin birth” to the prophecy of Isaiah, they used the Greek word parthenos, which does mean a sexually pure woman. However, quite obviously, the NT is a mistranslation of the OT, and your English Bible probably is too.

I don’t hate you! You’re officially my friend! I disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on this one - I believe the statement ‘your mother and brothers are here’ imdictes that she had other sons (and who knows, maybe even daughters!!!) once her marriage with Joseph was consumated.

But I defy anyone to hate you simply because you follow the teachings of your church (and also explain them very intelligently and caringly)…

Is it possible that they cam up with the plan being not married etc that if they birthed a superstar no one would bug them about the whole not married thing ?? Just came to my head.

yea joseph hadnt married mary yet. thats why they fled, because if people found out that mary had concieved a child without being married, they would of assumed she had commited adultery, which back then was punishable by stoning

“Was Mary a virgin?”

   I recently watched a TV program on the history of Jesus. In it they said that Mary was not a virgin but that it was a man other than Joseph who was the father of Jesus. She also had several children after Jesus, so she wasn’t a virgin all her life as some religions teach.

Below are three informational links. The first two are from a Catholic point of view on the siblings and the third is referencing whether Mary was a virgin which is from a syndicated column, “Ethics & Religion.” by Mike McManus.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

http://www.remnantofgod.org/Virgin.htm

http://www.ethicsandreligion.com/redesignedcolumns/C1216.htm

(If they’re not active links then simply copy and paste them into your browser’s Address box.)

Yes, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus- she wasn’t married to Joseph yet.

No, Mary wasn’t perfect, the Bible quite clearly states that Jesus is the only perfect human to have ever existed- “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”- that is, everyone, including Mary, has sinned and falls short of the glory of God, that is, Jesus.

And Yes, there are Old Testament prophesies about the Virgin birth. I don’t know which Bible you have but it must have parts missing… eg Isaiah in 7:14, Genesis 3:15

Ok but I thought he died for our sins and his? Or was it just ours? I have nooo idea about religon.

Exactly, how could she?…

Since my last serious post, I have done some serious reading, and have spoken with one of my advisors about the veracity of the claims that have been made regarding the translation and origin of Isaiah’s possible prophesy of the virgin birth from Isaiah.

First, the bible translation that I am using: I usually use the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition, so it includes the Deutero-Canon, AKA the apocrypha). For the purposes of this post, my advisors have been using the following bibles: “The Septuagint with Apocrypha” (printed in Greek with side-by-side English translation) translated by Lancelot Brenton; “Stone Edition Tanach: The Torah/ Prophets/ Writings” edited and annoted by Rabbi Nosson Scherman (Printed in Hebrew with side-by-side English Translation); “The Greek New Testament: Fourth revised edition” (printed entirely in Greek) Published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft United Bible Societies; “Biblia Sacra Vulgata” (St.Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, prineted entirely in Latin) Published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft United Bible Societies.

The following claim has been made: “As for the verse itself, you can’t rely on English to determine this. You have to turn to Hebrew. In Hebrew, the verse is not in future tense, it is in perfect tense [rendering of Hebrew in English characters]… Notice the word ‘harah’ which translates into English as ‘conceived’ and is, therefore, in perfect tense, not at all referring to a future event.”

According to my advisor, the word “harah” could be in the perfect tense as has been asserted. However, he says that it is more likely that it is a singular feminine participle, which would render the verse as follows “Therefore, my Lord himself will give you this sign: behold, the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel” (As rendered by Rabbi Scherman in the Tanach).

He says that that translation is more likely because the reference is to the Lord’s future action (will give you this sign). If the word were supposed to be interpreted in the perfect tense, then it MUST refer to an action that had taken place completely in the past and is complete (done, finished etc.). Because the event depicted is a prophesy, it would only make sense then that he passage must be rendered as a participle, thus allowing the entire passage to refer to a future event.

Furthermore, St. Jerome translated that passage from Isaiah in the future tense when he translated the Latin Vulgate in the same way. He rendered the words for “give,” “conceive,” “give birth,” and “name” all in the future tense (“dabit,” “concipiet,” “pariet,” and “vocabitis nomen” respectively). It is worth noting that St. Jerome spent many years studying under the rabbis of his time, and was fluent in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The Septuagint also renders this verse in the Greek future tense.

The following statement has also been made: “Why wouldn’t Isaiah, if he was describing a prophecy about a virgin birth of the Messiah, the most imporant event in all history, use the term ‘bethulah’ as well since it was obviously far more common? The only logical answer is that the woman described in that verse is in fact not a virgin, but just a young woman.”

It could be because Isaiah did not know that he was making a prophesy about the coming of the Messiah per-se. The writings of the Old Testament are full of “typology.” That term refers to future events or people, but not at the expense of the present moment. It is entirely possible for Isaiah to make a prophesy that finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, even though the Christ’s circumstances were not known at the time the prophesy was written.

St. Jerome says as much in his commentary on this passage of Isaiah: “An immense literature has grown up around this oracle and the debate continues. Several point may be noted. Isaish does not use the technical term for “virgin” (betula) but a word (alma) that signifies a young woman of marriageable age, whether a virgin or not. The solemn oracle is spoken before the royal court, fearful lest the Davidic dynasty be overthrown… Nevertheless, the solemnity of the oracle and the name “Immanuel” lend credence to the opinion that Isaiah’s perspective does not stop at the birth of Hezekiah; it moves ahead to that ideal king of David’s line through whose coming God could finally be said to be with his people. This does not mean, of course, that Isaiah foresaw the fulfillment of this prophesy in Christ, but he expressed the hope that Christ perfectly realized. Matthew and the Church have seen in the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mother the perfect fulfillment of this prophecy” (St. Jerome commentary on Isaiah 7:14).

The following statement has also been made: “That the Septuagint originally contains the word ‘parthenos’ is also an incorrect statement. The original Septuagint was only a translation of the Torah, written around 2200 years ago, and would not have included Isaiah’s prophecies. The Septuagint which you and I have today was compiled by the church, long after Jesus would have lived and after the Gospels themselves were written. And that Septuagint was heavily influenced by men like Origen, who had an agenda and shaped the document to fit his needs.”

My friends and I are wondering what the basis for this claim is. According to James C. VanderKam, one of the leading scholars on the study of the Dead Sea scrolls confirms that the Septuagint was a compilation of all of the Old Testament books of the Bible (including the Deutero-canon). VanderKam says that according to legend, the Septuagint was a translated all during the 3rd century BC. He denies the veracity of the legend (naturally), but he does conclude that the translations were complete by the end of the first century BC.

Furthermore, VanderKam asserts, in the book “The Dead Sea Scrolls Today,” that the Septuagint is as accurate a rendering of the content of the Scrolls as the Hebrew. He specifically refers to the copy of the Book of Isaiah found at Qumran, saying that the Septuagint (presumably the one “which you and I have today”) is a startlingly accurate translation of that scroll.

As far as Origen is concerned: he was the one that compiled the hex-, which was a compilation of all the known Greek copies of the Septuagint that were known in Africa during his time. All of them had undergone some modifications over the years (mistranslations etc.) and he was the one that brought them all to one place, and copied them onto a single scroll side-by-side so that they could be compared. There is no way that there could have been six distinct Greek translations of a single text, unless they had been circulating for quite some time already.

On the question of perpetual virginity, I will answer that one shortly.

There are three main concerns to be addressed in this question. I’m glad that we got the first concern out of the way: that the term immaculate conception refers specifically to Mary’s conception rather than Jesus’.

The Second concern, the Virgin birth: There are three primary reasons for belief in the Virgin Birth. The Gospel of Matthew has already been cited, as one reason. Matthew asserts that she was a virgin when the Christ’s conception took place, and claims that it fulfills the prophecy of Issaiah 7:14, which he then quotes. He goes on to say that Joseph has no relations with Mary during her pregnancy.

The next reason for belief in the virgin birth: Isaiah 7:14: There have been several excellent arguments raised about this point, and I will try to answer them, beginning with the Hebrew translation of the words “almah” and “bethulah.”

I must start by admitting that I, myself am not fluent in the ancient languages, but I will also tell you that I have based most of the information that I provide here an detailed discussions that I have had with a friend of mine who is a studying for a MA in biblical languages (and it’s also based on the Tradition of the Church, so I’m not just pulling this out of my rear-end).

That said, the word that is used in Isaiah 7:14 is “almah” which does not translate as “virgin” per-se in the English language. “Bethulah” is the word that means virgin in the most pure, perfect and precise sense of the word. On this point we agree.

However, my advisors tell me that the relationship in Hebrew between the word “almah” and “bethulah” is analogous to the relationship between the English word “maiden” and the word “virgin.” While virginity is not its express purpose, it would have been implied.

The following claim has been made: “It sometimes refers to a young woman who is already pregnant, and if you look at the context of Isaiah 7:14, this is more likely.” I disagree with this claim for two reasons. First, the verse is written in the future tense. It would not make sense for a young woman who is already pregnant to conceive. Second, the verse must be examined within the whole context of the chapter:

‘’’Ask for a sign from the Lord, your God; let it be as deep as the nether world or as high as the sky!’ But Ahaz answered, ‘I will not tempt the Lord.’ Then he said: ‘Listen O House of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary my God!? Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin* shall conceive and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel’’’

*In the context of that passage, it doesn’t make sense to translate that word as either ‘young woman’ or ‘beautiful one’ because neither would constitute a sign, which was the entire purpose of the passage to begin with.

Furthermore, by the time the New Testament was written, the common form of the Old Testament was the “Septuagint,” which was an early Greek translation of the Hebrew. The word that appears in the Septuagint is the Greek word “parthenos,” which would have been understood to be “virgin” in the Greek speaking word of that time (which would have included ancient Palestine). It is that Septuagint verse that Matthew cites, using that same Greek word (Mt. 1:23).

The third reason for belief in the Virgin-birth comes from the Gospel according to Luke. He describes the Angel Gabriel appearing to “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph…” (Lk 1:27). When the angel tells her God’s plan, she responds, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” (Lk 1:34). Luke had already said that she was betrothed (engaged), so presumably this conception should have taken place in the normal fashion. Mary’s question implies that she may have taken a personal vow of virginity (thus one reason for the Church’s doctrine of perpetual virginity).

The third concern here is the actual discussion of the Immaculate Conception, I.e. that Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless throughout her whole life.

The Catholic Church confesses that Mary was immaculately conceived, and there are several reasons why they make this claim. The first reason has already been mentioned, Gen. 3:15, which is as follows:

God talks to the serpent (understood to be the devil) and says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”

This is the first promise of a savior, and it implies that his mother will be free from the devil (I.e. the power of sin).

The Church is very clear on this point, that the Blessed Virgin was free from all personal sin from the moment of her conception to the time she passed from this world. The Church is equally clear on this point: that Mary did absolutely nothing to deserve this privilege. It was a gift freely given from God, fully dependent on the Sacrifice of Christ on the cross, in “anticipatory redemption” of the one act (Christ’s passion, death, resurrection, and ascension: the Paschal Mystery) that brought salvation to the entire world (including Mary).

The Church cites, as evidence of this gift, the account of the Annunciation in Luke’s gospel. The angel (who speaks with the full power and authority of God) approaches Mary and says, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Lk 1:28). The phrase that is translated “full of grace” is of particular interest, and bears further review.

That phrase is actually one word: “ke-cha-ri-to-me-any.” Its noun route word is “cha-ris” which means “grace” or “kindness.” As a verb, the infinitive form is “cha-ri-to`-o,” which means “to give” or “to bestow freely on”. The tense that is used (kecharitomene) is the present passive progressive, which indicates that the action is a continuation of something that has already been going on. Taking all this into account, another translation could legitimately be “Hail you who is now and has already been freely bestowed the gift of grace.” One more thing regarding the use of this route word: it is the same word that St. Paul uses when he talks about man being saved by grace (notably in his letter to the Ephesians). He uses it to mean an overflowing, life-changing grace. This term refers to the transforming grace of God.
The angel (speaking with the full authority of God himself) indicated that this gift had already been, and continued to be bestowed on Mary. Some biblical scholars have even commented that it is as if he was referring to Mary using that word (kecharitomene) as if is was her name (in other words, it was as if he was re-naming her). The Church, from the earliest days has confessed that Mary was indeed conceived without the stain of original sin, which means that she was also free from concupiscence (the effects of original sin, especially the tendency to sin, often called “fallen nature”). Again, this was purely by action of the Holy Spirit. We still believe that Mary was a creature, purely human, and like all creatures was created through, in, and for Christ Jesus (John 1:1-4). There is also an answer to the passage quoted above from Paul’s letter to the Romans (there was none without sin). Recall that the word “none” is a contracted form of the words “no one” or “not one.” Based on that definition, one posit that there was “not one” that was without sin, but rather that there were 2 (Jesus and Mary). The other point is that it refers specifically to the fact that “no man was without sin.” In that case, it should seem obvious that Mary was not a man. (This last argument may seem like a cop out, but that’s because I didn’t explain it very well. If you want to hear it done better, I suggest the Church Fathers such as John Duns Scotus.)