Emile, here is a little historical reality to your virgin birth stuff, including a list of all the ancient pagan virgin birth stories, the problem of mistranslations of the the words for an unmarried pregnant woman, and the lateness of the development of the virgin birth legend, in addition to the fact that virgin birth are simply impossible from a biological standpoint in human women:
Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying: "The day will
come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will
be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." (5)
Some common observations by LTs are:
St. Paul was Unaware of the Virgin Birth St. Paul does not mention the virgin birth anywhere in his
writings. It would seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known of the special conditions of Jesus' birth
that he would have mentioned them in one of his epistles. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: he seems to
have thought that the birth was natural and conventional:
Between 49 and 55 CE, he recorded the first known reference to the birth. In Galatians 4:4, he
writes:
"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under
law."
If he had been aware of the virgin birth, he would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with
"virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous.
In about 57 CE, he wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes:
"I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the
gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh."
The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph,
because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph. The phrase " according to the
flesh" implies a natural, normal conception and birth.
The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had
written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st
century CE. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the
original founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. (3) Perhaps some Christian
groups slightly modified this fable and adopted it as their own, in an attempt to show that Jesus was an person
of very great importance.
The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion (8) History records that:
Buddah was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.
The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.
In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama
A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin
In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death
The Babylonian deity Adonis was born of the virgin Ishtar. She was called the "Queen of Heaven."
In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. Zoroaster was also born of a virgin
In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki
Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great
of Greece.
One source (14) is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris,
Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were
believed to have:
been male
lived in pre-Christian times
had god for a father
human virgin for a mother
had their birth announced by a heavenly display
had their birth announced by celestial music
been born about DEC-25
had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
met with a violent death
rose from the dead
Almost all were believed to have:
been visited by "wise men" during infancy
fasted for 40 days
The virgin birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures: Throughout the Old Testament, we hear
of the very unusual births (9) of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel. Usually prior to the birth, an angel
appears to an individual; the latter is afraid; the message of an upcoming birth is given; objections are raised;
and a sign is given. Matthew and Luke could have replicated the essence of these stories, and added a virgin
birth as proof that Jesus' birth was not only unusual, but was a miracle. This would establish Jesus at a much
higher status than the four famous figures from the Hebrew Scriptures.
The virgin birth story was an honest mistake: Most liberal theologians believe that the author of the
Gospel of Matthew (or someone who supplied the writer with source material) scanned an unknown ancient
Greek Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. He found what he believed to be a reference to Jesus'
birth. It was in Isaiah 7:14 (listed above). This has since become a famous passage; it is often recited at
Christmas time. He simply copied it into Matthew (1:23) as a method of showing that prophecies in the
Hebrew Testament were fulfilled in Jesus' life.
As it happens, the Greek translators had made a mistake. When they were translating the Septuagint and
similar translations, they converted the Hebrew word "almah" as the Greek equivalent of our English word
for virgin. "Almah" appears 9 other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means "young woman".
When the scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over 50 times) they always used the Hebrew word
"betulah". (4) So, Isaiah was referring to a young woman becoming pregnant (a rather ordinary event).
Some English translators had the courage to be accurate to the original Hebrew; they got it right:
Revised English Bible: "...a young woman is with child..."
Revised Standard Version: "...a young woman shall conceive..."
James Moffatt Translation: "...a young woman with child..."
New Revised Standard Version: "...the young woman is with child..."
Others completely mistranslated the Hebrew and referred to the woman as a pregnant virgin - a miracle had
occurred. This neatly settles the conflict that would otherwise occur between Isaiah and Matthew 1:22-23.
(The author of Matthew quoted Isaiah as describing a virgin who was pregnant before becoming sexually
active):
New International Version: "...the virgin will be with child..."
The Living Bible: "...a child shall be born to a virgin..."
Contemporary English Version: "...a virgin is pregnant...". In a footnote, they say that the
"Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth". They give "young woman" as an alternate.
Others went part way. They mistranslated the Hebrew and said that the woman was a virgin. However, they
imply that the woman might have been a virgin, who engaged in sexual intercourse and then became pregnant:
American Standard Version: "...a virgin shall conceive..."
Amplified Bible: "...the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive..."
King James Version: "...a virgin shall conceive..."
New Living Translation: "...the virgin shall conceive a child..."
New Century Version: "...the virgin will be pregnant...". They also admit in a footnote that the
original Hebrew word really means "a young woman".
Some versions are vague and can be interpreted in many ways:
New World Translation: "...the maiden herself will actually become pregnant..."
The Jerusalem Bible: "...the maiden is with child..."
Young's Literal Translation: "...the virgin is conceiving"
The story in Isaiah 7:14 is unrelated to the birth of Jesus. It describes a siege of Jerusalem by the Syrians
about 715 BCE. The child that was born to the young woman at the time was a sign from God that the siege
would be lifted and that Jerusalem would continue as before. The prophecy was completely fulfilled more
than 700 years before the birth of Jesus. For another analysis of this passage, see Reference 10.
The Writers of the Gospel of Q are Silent on the Virgin Birth: The Gospel of Q was an early gospel,
which was written about 50 CE and later expanded. It has been lost, but has been pieced together through
theological research. It says nothing about the virgin birth. This is a possible indicator that the early followers
of Jesus did not hold that belief. If they knew of such an important miracle, they would probably have
included mention of it.
The Writer(s) of the Gospel of John Deny the Virgin Birth: Some LTs believe that the Gospel of John
was written by a group of authors. The writers(s) did not mention the virgin birth. They must have aware of
the belief, since the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15
years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching.
In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph." John 6:42 repeats the phrase: "Is this
not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"
The Writer(s) of the Gospel of Thomas is Silent: This Gospel was written about the same time as Mark,
about 70 CE. It was in wide use among various Christian communities at the time, but never made it into the
official canon. It is silent about any miracles associated with Jesus' birth. Its silence is not proof that the virgin
birth was unknown to the author(s). Thomas is a "sayings gospel" which deals primarily with the parables and
conversations of Jesus.
The Improbability of a Virgin Birth: Some animal species can reproduce from an unfertilized ovum, in a
process called parthenogenesis. The Webster's New World Dictionary mentions that this occurs in certain
insects and algae. Although "it is the rule among rotifers and quite common in plants and insect, it does
not appear above the plane of the amphibians." (5). A virgin birth is considered impossible for species as
complex as the higher apes or man (unless elaborate medical cloning techniques are used).
In conclusion the most likely scenario, as interpreted by many LTs is:
The writer(s) of the Gospel of Q, circa 50 CE, seem to have been unaware of the virgin birth
Paul (who died about 64 CE) was similarly unaware
The writer of the Gospel of Mark, circa 70 CE hadn't heard of it either
If any of the above writers knew of a virgin birth, they would almost certainly have incorporated it into their
writings.
Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, the story was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus'
teachings by stating that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Roman Army
demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they
would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan
religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not include many of the
features found in mythical figures of other religions.
By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The authors of Luke and Matthew incorporated it into their Gospels.
The writer(s) of the Gospel of John knew of the story, but rejected it as being a false teaching. They did not
refer to it in their writing.
As J.S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, wrote:
"In time, the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the cosmic ascension
as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to
describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound
words and concepts of first-century human beings." (7)
References
1.R.C. Broderick, Ed., "The Catholic Encyclopedia" Thomas Nelson Pub., Nashville TN, (1987), P. 601
2.S.B. Ferguson et. al. Eds, "New Dictionary of Theology", InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, (1988),
P. 708-710
3.Isaac Asimov, "Asimov's Guide to the Bible", Wing's Books, New York NY, (Reprinted) P. 780-782
4.J.S. Spong, "Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus", Harper San Francisco, CA,
(1992), P. 74-79
5.L.M. Graham, "Deceptions and Myths of the Bible", Citadel Press, New York, NY, (1991), P. 304
6.Michael Martin, "The Case Against Christianity", Temple University Press, Philadelphia PA (1991), P.
105 to 115
7.J.S. Spong, "Born of a Woman", P. 45
8.J.S. Spong, "Born of a Woman", P. 56-57
9.J.S. Spong, "Born of a Woman", P. 58
10.Kenneth E. Nahigian, "A Virgin-Birth Prophecy?" at: mantis.co.uk
11.Mather & Nichols, Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult, Zondervan (1993), P. 331-332
12.Martin Luther, "The Small Catechism (1529 CE) is at:
iclnet.org
13.Philip Melanchthon, "Augsburg Confession" (1530 CE) is at:
iclnet.org
14.Patrick Campbell, "The Mythical Jesus," P. 41
|
