Like everyone else, I have no idea where Matthew and Luke got their virgin birth stories. Were they "patterned on the birth of Isaac or Moses?" Again, I have no idea, but I think not. There are too many dissimilarities. I think the Heracles myth is a much closer parallel. BTW, who are some of the NT scholars who see Isaac or Moses parallels?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
I didn't claim to be "neutral." I don't think anyone on this website is "neutral" on these issues. Most skeptics here have panic attacks about "opening" the door to the mere possibility of the existence of God. However, as I pointed out, I am not just an apologist, I am very interested in history. That being said, I am honest. I don't further arguments that I find unpersuasive.

Certainly, an historian is more neutral than a Christian. For me, I don't care if Jesus (or anyone else) was born of the "Holy Spirit" or not. I just do not find any convincing evidence that he was.

Layman: Regardless, I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Bias?

Layman: And I never said there weren't any similarities, I said I doubted that the Hercules story is the source for the virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke. There certainly is no literary dependence, and I doubt there is inspirational dependence. As I said, this doesn't mean that they are true, just that they were not derived from that particular greek myth.

I see enough similarities to think it reasonable that there could have been some influence on the writers.

Layman: If it was created, or is a legend, I find it more likely that it was created to explain what the early Christians were convinced of: Jesus was the special and unique Son of God.

Some scholars think the myths were created to counter charges that Jesus was illegitimate. We read in Matthew: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce here quietly." (1:18-19) This sounds very suspicious to me.

Layman: However, I find the most likely explanation for THAT belief arising in the early Church was their firm conviction that Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected from the dead.

Who knows?

"Certainly, an historian is more neutral than a Christian. For me, I don't care if Jesus (or anyone else) was born of the "Holy Spirit" or not. I just do not find any convincing evidence that he was.

There are no Christians who are also historians? Really? And I wasn't aware that you were a historian. Where do you teach?

"Some scholars think the myths were created to counter charges that Jesus was illegitimate. We read in Matthew: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce here quietly." (1:18-19) This sounds very suspicious to me."

The allegations of illegitmacy don't really arise in Jewish sources until well into the second century, at the earlist. And, from the scholars I have read, they are most likely reactions to the Christian claim regarding the virgin birth. Much of this is based on Mark and John's failure to mention the virgin birth.

It is somewhat of a mystery. Mark didn't see the need for Jesus to be born of a virgin for him to be the messiah for Jesus to fil that role. Likewise, the Gospel of John clearly beleives that Jesus was the incarnation of God, but also doesn't seem to see the need for Jesus to be born of a virgin to fulfill that role.

But, nevertheless the story arises independently in Matthew and Luke's gospels. Matthew is so thorougly Jewish, and the greek myths too tangentially "similar", for me to believe the simplistic argument that the birth accounts were merely invented out of wholeclothe from pagan myths. Source criticism indicates that the accounts are most likely preexisting traditions. And given Luke's careful use of Mark and Q, we see little evidence that he felt free to invent such events in Jesus' life.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 02, 2001).]

penatis:
"Certainly, an historian is more neutral than a Christian. For me, I don't care if Jesus (or anyone else) was born of the "Holy Spirit" or not. I just do not find any convincing evidence that he was.

Layman: There are no Christians who are also historians? Really?

Where did I say “There are no Christians who are also historians?” I think you missed my point. There is a wide range in the degree of bias between Josh McDowell’s views and those of John Mackinnon Robertson. If you don’t believe me, just read their respective works. Questions: a) Why read the commentaries of those who wish only to prove the NT is true? b) Why read the commentaries of those who wish only to prove the NT is untrue? As I said earlier, I personally would just like to KNOW what actually happened, and I think my views are consistent with those of historians. The best of the bunch, in my opinion, are Charles Guignebert, F. C. Conybeare, Robin Lane Fox, Bart D. Ehrman, Michael Grant, John Dominic Crossan, Helmut Koester, Geza Vermes, and E. P. Sanders.

Layman: And I wasn't aware that you were a historian. Where do you teach?

Who said I was an historian? BTW, you say you are a lawyer. Where do you teach?

Why do you think that only those who teach can be historians? What do you call those who seriously wish to ascertain what happened in history, but do not teach? (For the record: I have made no claims about having superior knowledge, intelligence, training, or genius. As a matter of fact, to be realistic, I can only claim to have modest amounts of each. Certainly, several Christian apologists have pointed out my less-than-modest amount of intelligence.)

penatis: "Some scholars think the myths were created to counter charges that Jesus was illegitimate. We read in Matthew: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce here quietly." (1:18-19) This sounds very suspicious to me."

Layman: The allegations of illegitmacy don't really arise in Jewish sources until well into the second century, at the earlist. And, from the scholars I have read, they are most likely reactions to the Christian claim regarding the virgin birth. Much of this is based on Mark and John's failure to mention the virgin birth.

Historically, if Miriam was pregnant BEFORE she married Joseph, as the writers indicate, Jesus was illegitimate. This fact would have caused some followers to create stories to counter the true nature of his conception and birth. According to R. Joseph Hoffman, “[P]olemical statements were long-lived and known to Celsus, who comments on the illegitimacy of Jesus and the absurdity of the story of the virgin birth...Undoubtedly, the bulk of this Jewish tradition can be traced back to a period before the formation of the written Gospels.” Jesus Outside the Gospels, P. 40.


Layman: It is somewhat of a mystery. Mark didn't see the need for Jesus to be born of a virgin for him to be the messiah for Jesus to fil that role.

It is certainly possible that the writer was unaware of a virgin birth story. It is also possible that the writer was unaware of who Jesus’ father was. He doesn't name him. He just says that Jesus was the son of Miriam: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary [Miriam] and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" (Mk 6:3) According to Morton Smith, “In Semitic usage, to refer to a man as the son of his mother was to indicate that his father’s identity was uncertain.” Jesus the Magician, P. 26.

Another scholar writes, “The cost to narrative integrity of the introduction of the Virgin Birth is so great--it isolates Jesus’ origins from all ancient Hebrew and subsequent Judahist traditions, which is something the rest of the ‘New Testament’ strives mightily not to do--that one still wonders, why was it included?...One obvious possibility is that the Virgin Birth refers to some aspect of the life of Yeshua of Nazareth that either had to be remembered silently, or (as in Matthew and Luke) had to be painted over...In a society that was highly patriarchal (in the modern sense of the word), not identifying Joseph as Jesus’ father was tantamount to saying that he was not indeed the father. In either the Gospels of Matthew or of Luke that might be taken as an endorsement of the concept of the Virgin Birth, but the text is found in Mark [6:3], the author-editor of which has no apparent knowledge of, and certainly no enthusiasm for, the Virgin Birth.” Donald Harman Akenson, Surpassing Wonder, P. 460.


Layman: Likewise, the Gospel of John clearly beleives that Jesus was the incarnation of God, but also doesn't seem to see the need for Jesus to be born of a virgin to fulfill that role.

I quote an historian who addresses that issue: “John...believed that Jesus was the incarnation of the logos, co-eternal with God...From this point of view, Christ is not human at all. He is dependent upon neither an earthly father nor an earthly mother, which is the exact meaning of 1:13, if the reading of Tertullian be accepted as original: ‘It was not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God that he was born.’ To cite this passage in favour of the Virgin Birth, is grossly to misconstrue it. The incarnation of the logos in Jesus does not imply that the man Jesus was exempt from the laws of human generation, for it was at the Baptism, according to John, that the logos descended into him. John thus elevates the idea of Mark, but he preserves its framework, and, if we may so put it, all its external garb. Accordingly, he never misses an opportunity of stating that Jesus is ‘the son of Joseph.’ Far from supporting the legend of Matthew and Luke, he definitely opposes it.” Charles Guignebert, Jesus, P. 118.

Layman: But, nevertheless the story arises independently in Matthew and Luke's gospels. Matthew is so thorougly Jewish, and the greek myths too tangentially "similar", for me to believe the simplistic argument that the birth accounts were merely invented out of wholeclothe from pagan myths.

I have stated I am not sure what influenced their creation; no one knows. The Heracles myth (or another myth) remains a reasonable possibility. Guignebert writes: “It is not in the Jewish world, nor even in the oriental world proper, but in the Greco-Roman, that we find the most striking parallels to the story of the miraculous conception of Jesus. It is here that we find the legend of Perseus, born of Danae, a virgin who was impregnated by a shower of gold. (A parallel which was made the most of by the Jews, and proved so embarrassing to the Christians of the second century that they were compelled to maintain that it was an invention of the Devil to confuse men and lure them from the truth)...It is quite conceivable that, in a community in which so many stories of this kind were current, the Christians, desirous of adducing conclusive vindication of their faith in the divinity of Jesus, naturally turned to the sign by which men bearing the divine stamp were commonly identified. There was no question, of course, of conscious imitation of any particular story, but simply of the influence of a certain atmosphere of belief.” Ibid, pp. 121-122.

Layman: Source criticism indicates that the accounts are most likely preexisting traditions. And given Luke's careful use of Mark and Q, we see little evidence that he felt free to invent such events in Jesus' life.

Bart D. Ehrman writes, “[T]he two sources that mention the virgin birth both have a vested interest in the doctrine. For Matthew the virgin birth fulfills prophecy (Matt. 1:23) and for Luke it shows that he really was God’s son (Luke 1:35). That is to say, in view of the criterion of dissimilarity, these [he gives several] are ample reasons for an early Christian to have made up the idea of a virgin birth, leading most historians to question it as a historical datum. At the end of the day, of course, there’s simply no way to know anything about the sex lives of Jesus’ parents before he was born.” Jesus, pp. 96-97.

Helmut Koester has this to say: “It is generally agreed that the infancy narratives belong into a relatively late phase of the development of the gospel tradition. For Paul, the sonship of Jesus dates from his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3-4). This is reflected in the Gospel of Mark where the confession of the centurion at the cross of Jesus constitutes the first time that a human being applies the title ‘Son of God’ to Jesus. That the two later Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke, date the divine sonship of Jesus from his birth is not only related to a christological development which eventually resulted in the formulation of a christology that assumed Christ’s preexistence as God’s Son from before the beginning of the world. It is also related to the full realization of Christianity’s entrance into the world of Hellenism and Rome...The most striking feature revealing the non-Jewish origin of the story of the birth of Jesus is the divine conception of the child. ‘The idea of divine generation from a virgin is not only foreign to the Old Testament and to Judaism, but it is completely impossible.’ This statement of Rudolph Bultmann is still valid insofar as the origin of this concept is concerned, and it cannot be moderated by theological or historical reflections. This concept is Hellenistic and ultimately, Egyptian. No other religious or political tradition of antiquity can be identified as its generator. However, though Jewish circles did not create this concept, it may well have found a cautious acceptance in certain circles of Hellenistic Judaism.” Ancient Christian Gospels, P. 306.

A few quick questions for penatis:

Do you honestly believe that an atheist that has already formed an opinion that there is no God can treat the Bible in an unbiased manner?

Second, do you think a Jew can treat the New Testament in an unbiased manner?

Third, since the historians you have cited would not make such a claim, why do you?

"Now I present a study of Jesus from a similar point of view (that of the historian). I do so with the keenest sense of inadequacy, only too well aware that 'anyone who attempts to write a life of Christ is vulnerable at a hundred point'.
All the same I shall go ahead and look at the Gospels in the way one would look at other ancient historical source: endeavoring to reconstruct what really happened. The phrase 'what really happened is of course a well-known snare because it is beyond the power of human beings to be really objective. Yet they can try, and I have tired.
To undertake such an enterprise means that one must set aside all presupposition based solely on one's own belief or unbelief. They are irrelavent..."
(Michael Grant, Jesus, London, 1972, pg. 2)

Considering the fact that Grant is an atheist, why can't you accept that he is right here? You have pointed out (quite rightly) the limitations of the Christian, yet denied that you or your (and ANY) historians suffer from the same malady. Why is that?

Thanks,

Nomad

Now, I am going to show that Koester is wrong here. After I do that will you admit that he either did not do his homework, or that he decided to cover up the fact that he is wrong? I think the latter option is rather harsh, since we would then be required to assume that he would have had propagandistic motives, or worse yet, was deliberately lying. But even granting him the benefit of the doubt, how do you explain his sloppiness (as well as that of Bultmann, but that is another matter al together)?

Now, does Judaism (at least at the time that Jesus was born) accept that the Messiah could be born of a virgin, or that the entire idea of a virgin birth is impossible as Koester states?

We cannot deny the possibility that God, may He be blessed, could create in a virgin, even one whom no man has known, for He created everything out of nothing.
(Abraham Farissol, a Jewish sage, --quoted by Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (New York: KTAV/ADL, 1977), p. 153)

Granted that the prophet said that a virgin would give birth to a son. So what? There is, after all, no doubt that the Lord's hand is not incapable of fulfilling his will and desire, and that he is a ruler who can do whatever he wishes...."
(David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus [Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996], pg. 103)

The doctrine of the virgin conception was not attacked per se. The possibility that a woman might conceive with her virginity intact, though by means of normal fertilization, is an occurrence which is conceded in the Talmud.
(Adam Kamesar, "The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century," Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., vol. 41 part 1 (April 1990), p. 51).

There is a simple reason these Jewish scholars concede that Isaiah 7:14 could have been prophecying a virgin birth: the Septuagint, written by Jews in the 2nd Century BC translated the word almah EXACTLY the same way as Matthew and Luke did, as parthenos, and on this basis ALONE, we must accept that the Jews at the time of Jesus (just as the Jews I have quoted above) would accept that the Messiah could very well be born of a virgin. In fact, at that time, they almost certainly DID expect him to be born of a virgin.

I am left to wonder why Koester ignored (covered up?) this simple fact.

Nomad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
A few quick questions for penatis:

Do you honestly believe that an atheist that has already formed an opinion that there is no God can treat the Bible in an unbiased manner?

I think a critical historian has no vested interest in proving the NT is historically or not historically accurate. Are some atheists capable of doing this? Yes.

Nomad: Second, do you think a Jew can treat the New Testament in an unbiased manner?

I think non-Christians (including Jews) are less biased when dealing with the NT than are Christian theologians.

Nomad: Third, since the historians you have cited would not make such a claim, why do you?

What claim? Don't say that I have ever said that anyone is totally neutral or unbiased. I have repeatedly pointed out that there are degrees of both.

"Now I present a study of Jesus from a similar point of view (that of the historian). I do so with the keenest sense of inadequacy, only too well aware that 'anyone who attempts to write a life of Christ is vulnerable at a hundred point'.
All the same I shall go ahead and look at the Gospels in the way one would look at other ancient historical source: endeavoring to reconstruct what really happened. The phrase 'what really happened is of course a well-known snare because it is beyond the power of human beings to be really objective. Yet they can try, and I have tired.
To undertake such an enterprise means that one must set aside all presupposition based solely on one's own belief or unbelief. They are irrelavent..."
(Michael Grant, Jesus, London, 1972, pg. 2)

Nomad: Considering the fact that Grant is an atheist, why can't you accept that he is right here? You have pointed out (quite rightly) the limitations of the Christian, yet denied that you or your (and ANY) historians suffer from the same malady. Why is that?

You presume that since you are highly biased, everyone else must be as well. That is not the case. I honestly do not care if the NT is one hundred per cent fiction or nonfiction. I ONLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. My aspirations are consistent with those of critical historians.

[This message has been edited by penatis (edited March 03, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
Helmut Koester has this to say: “...That the two later Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke, date the divine sonship of Jesus from his birth is not only related to a christological development which eventually resulted in the formulation of a christology that assumed Christ’s preexistence as God’s Son from before the beginning of the world. It is also related to the full realization of Christianity’s entrance into the world of Hellenism and Rome...The most striking feature revealing the non-Jewish origin of the story of the birth of Jesus is the divine conception of the child. ‘The idea of divine generation from a virgin is not only foreign to the Old Testament and to Judaism, but it is completely impossible.’ This statement of Rudolph Bultmann is still valid insofar as the origin of this concept is concerned, and it cannot be moderated by theological or historical reflections. This concept is Hellenistic and ultimately, Egyptian. No other religious or political tradition of antiquity can be identified as its generator. However, though Jewish circles did not create this concept, it may well have found a cautious acceptance in certain circles of Hellenistic Judaism.” Ancient Christian Gospels, P. 306.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Now, I am going to show that Koester is wrong here. After I do that will you admit that he either did not do his homework, or that he decided to cover up the fact that he is wrong? I think the latter option is rather harsh, since we would then be required to assume that he would have had propagandistic motives, or worse yet, was deliberately lying. But even granting him the benefit of the doubt, how do you explain his sloppiness (as well as that of Bultmann, but that is another matter al together)?

I am glad you can approach this issue without demeaning a well-respected scholar.

Nomad: Now, does Judaism (at least at the time that Jesus was born) accept that the Messiah could be born of a virgin, or that the entire idea of a virgin birth is impossible as Koester states?

What do you think?

[b]Nomad: We cannot deny the possibility that God, may He be blessed, could create in a virgin, even one whom no man has known, for He created everything out of nothing.
(Abraham Farissol, a Jewish sage, --quoted by Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (New York: KTAV/ADL, 1977), p. 153)


Granted that the prophet said that a virgin would give birth to a son. So what? There is, after all, no doubt that the Lord's hand is not incapable of fulfilling his will and desire, and that he is a ruler who can do whatever he wishes...."
(David Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus [Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996], pg. 103)

The doctrine of the virgin conception was not attacked per se. The possibility that a woman might conceive with her virginity intact, though by means of normal fertilization, is an occurrence which is conceded in the Talmud.
(Adam Kamesar, "The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century," Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., vol. 41 part 1 (April 1990), p. 51).


Nomad: There is a simple reason these Jewish scholars concede that Isaiah 7:14 could have been prophecying a virgin birth: the Septuagint, written by Jews in the 2nd Century BC translated the word almah EXACTLY the same way as Matthew and Luke did, as parthenos, and on this basis ALONE, we must accept that the Jews at the time of Jesus (just as the Jews I have quoted above) would accept that the Messiah could very well be born of a virgin.

Let's see what the Tanakh actually says:
"Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

Please point out any word or phrase that demonstrates the "prophecy" that Jesus would be born over seven centuries in the future and be conceived by the "Holy Spirit" entering Miriam, a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus.

Nomad: In fact, at that time, they almost certainly DID expect him to be born of a virgin.

Yes, all they had to do was completely ignore the context, change the meaning of words, change the grammar, and voila! there's the "prophecy." It has been obvious to scholars for hundreds of years that the writer of Isaiah 7:14 DID NOT have Jesus in mind. He had no future Messiah in mind. Any impartial reader can go and read it for himself and verify this fact.

Judaism is reflected in the Hebrew Tanakh, not the Greek mistranslation of it. If you don't believe Koester, just ask a practicing Jew (not a Jewish-Christian) what he thinks of Isaiah 7:14, Jesus, and the virgin birth myth.


Nomad: I am left to wonder why Koester ignored (covered up?) this simple fact.

What "fact?"

Since an historian that discovered that the NT was true would be compelled to convert to Christianity, how would you prove that this hypothetical historian of yours would not have a vested interest in not wanting to convert? Do you know the heart or mind of these men?

LOL!

Prove this.

Then demonstrate how a Jew would be less biased about the NT than would a Christian. Then do the same for an atheist.

Prove it. Grant disagrees with you penatis.

Oh? Really? Prove this.

No you don't. Stop with the assertions penatis. Each time you make one I will simply reply in kind.

So long as you will not have to believe that the NT could be true, you might do this. But I doubt it. Thus far you have demonstrated all the open mindedness of a dedictated fanatic.

Nomad

You did not answer my questions.

I demonstrated this. However, you did not appear to read it, so I will go again. Pay attention this time please.

You realize that the Tanakh you are using dates to the 10th Century AD right? So skip the bullshit penatis and answer the question please.

In the 2nd Century BC the Jews of Alexandria translated Isaiah 7:14 EXACTLY the same way that Matthew did. Almah=parthenos.

This is not hard stuff. Explain to me why Jews translating 1000 years AFTER Jesus' birth would want to ignore the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, then tell me why Jews writing 200 years BEFORE He was born didn't have a problem with this FACT?

I just did this penatis. In fact, I have now done so for the second time, and until you actually answer the question I will keep asking this same question.

Are you talking about the 2nd Century BC Septuagint here penatis? Don't tell me that you have fallen hook line and sinker for Jewish apologetics here. After all, to admit your biases would be pretty fatal for you here wouldn't it?

I am asking you to read the Septuagint as an "impartial reader" penatis, and tell me what you see. You do know what the Septuagint was right?

Why would you believe a translation written 1000 years AFTER Jesus over one written 200 years BEFORE Jesus? Even you must be able to see which would be less biased here penatis. Think hard, then tell me what you think please. Your self impression that you are an unbiased mind is on the line here.

You mean ask a Jewish apologist rather than go to the pre-Christian era sources? Don't be so naive penatis.

You missed it the first time through. Let's hope you can do better with your second try.

Nomad


[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited March 04, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited March 04, 2001).]