Toto

Gamera: When 1st century Jews used that term, did they think of God impregnating a woman? I think this is a problem for your argument.

This Wiki article has some warning flags on it: Son of God, but for what it's worth:

Chris Weimer

That does put things into perspective, Amaleq.

Apikorus

Could you quote some of these "contemporary messianic Jewish writings" in support of this claim? Remember that divine parentage was arrogated by many rulers in the ancient near east. In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh identifies Solomon as his son (2 Sam 7:14, 1 Chr 17:13). The title of son-ship is conferred by God. This seems to be how Mark views Jesus' son-ship in Mk 1:10-11.

The notion that a god might impregnate a human female is a pagan one.

The most nuanced, complete, and accessible discussion of Jewish messianism during the late Second Temple period is John Collins' The Scepter and the Star (or via: amazon.co.uk). In it, Collins emphasizes that Jewish messianic beliefs before the rabbinic era were pluriform, and he identifies four classes of messiah figures found in the extrabiblical Jewish writings of this period: royal, priestly, military, and heavenly. The Qumranians famously held for a kind of messianic dualism, with both royal and priestly figures playing roles. It is the heavenly messiah who has an other-worldly character. An example of this figure is found in Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles:

For there came from the heavenly plains a man, one blessed, with a scepter in his hand, which God gave him, and he ruled all things well, and unto all the good did he restore the riches which the earlier men had seized. And many cities with much fire he took from their foundations, and he set on fire the towns of mortals who before did evil... (Syb. Or. 5:556-564)

A brief description of the collection may be found here. While they are of uncertain provenance, Book 5 is generally believed to be Jewish literature. One sees in the above quote some characteristics of Collins' "heavenly messiah" figure. However, there is no hint here that God is the actual father of the heavenly figure. If you could supply a Jewish text which unambiguously reflects that view, I'd be most interested.

Last edited by Apikorus : Today at 03:49 PM. Reason: Toto posted some similar material while I was composing this.

edited again by Toto for Amazon link

Gamera

I don't know. Common sense woud suggest yes, so I guess the burden is on those that suggest otherwise. My point is it is part of a bundle of evidence that suggests that virgin birth idea came out of 1st century messianic Jewish concepts. Note that your link doesn't even have to be wrong for me to be right because early Christianity could have simply misread the Son of God motif in light of other ideas to come up with the virgin birth narrative.

Given that the virgin birth trope had to come from somewhere, this seems to be the best alternative, which is supported by the Septuagint's translation of Isaiah 7 and the pervasive "Son of God" trope in contemporary Jewish messianic texts. I'm not saying these is the best evidence, I'm saying it's evidence, and I'm saying it outweighs the alternatives. Given the yawning lacuna in our understanding of that period, it this evidence isn't so bad.

Apikorus

Gamera, if you are going to include commentary such as in your post, you might as well be honest enough to tell us from where you are copying your material. In this case, Glenn Miller.

None of these passages, however, addresses the question in my previous post. They are all are easily interpreted in terms of one or more of Collins' classifications. Note that 4 Ezra presupposes standard Davidic lineage:

...this is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David... (4 Ezra 12:32)

There is no hint of an unusual birth of the messianic figure.

Gamera

Post 169. Plus I provided the link which goes into excruciating detail.

Ah, so you're now dismissing the evidence again with an explanation. That's OK. The point is its evidence. And in fact, it works for my position even if a sect of Jews, or the early Christians simply misread this vast reference to the messiah as the Son of God. So dismiss away. The evidence is there.

Gamera

I provided the link about three times before in quoting the material, the entire passage isn't mine and I never claimed it was, it's from a very detailed discussion. Please try to stop making personal attacks and stick to the topic, which you're losing bigtime.
The fact that the Son of God trope is messianic is of course relevant to the likelihood that Christianity got the virgin birth narrative from a strain of messianic Judaism. But please, explain away. It just digs a deeper hole in your credibility.

Gamera

No hint eh? So the Son of God trope in messianic 1st century Judiasm is irrelevant to the likelihood that the early Chrisitian virgin birth narrative had Jewish origins. Hookay. Keep trying to explain away the obvious with the obscure.

Apikorus

The evidence is there that the Christian version of "Son of God" is sui generis, apparently integrating Jewish and pagan elements. Your post, which regurgitates material from Glenn Miller's website, doesn't support your earlier contention that "contemporary Jewish writings" suggested that the messiah "would be born in an unusual way." I would be very interested if you could identify any such writings.

Gamera

No! And you never heard of people thinking contradictory thoughts or doubting the quality of experiences from years past! You must have very well-adjusted patients!

I'm an attorney. I deal with witnesses every day. Don't think I ever deposed one who didn't have contradictory thoughts or doubts about what they remember -- or rather those that didn't, those who had perfectly consistent stories and perfect memories, were invariably lying.