Amaleq13

That is my conclusion based on the absence of any evidence that pre-Christian Jews held such a belief and the explicit rejection of such an interpretation by 2nd century Jews.

There is nothing inherently problematic or even unlikely with this possibility though it is, IMO, unnecessarily restrictive in its description. There is no reason to assume that the author of Matthew was solitary in his interpretation nor that it was only chance that motivated the author of Luke to also include the notion of a virgin birth in his story. The hidden and unsupported assumption in your statement, of course, is that both authors represent the alleged messianic Jews who favored such an interpretation. Unless and until that assumption is supported, this is simply begging the question.

I think this tangential discussion is best continued at The Virgin Birth

Gamera

It did not survive, but it existed at the time of Paul's writing, which is the pertinent timeframe.

It is precisely what the evidence does not suggest since we have established the early church was predominantly Jewish, that they considered themselves Jews, and that they had a text that used a word that associated the messiah with a virgin birth, and that later Christian writings make that same connection. I see a pattern here.

The burden is on you. You raised these later Christain writer's silence on the issue as evidence of a positive claim about Jewish messianic thought in the first century. I don't see the connection. If you can't make it, you lose.

Then why does Isaiah call it "a sign." What is the "sign." The birth of a child? That's hardly a very specific sign. I think they would need a little more details. Like, for instance, a virgin birth. Now, that's a sign.

Gamera

I didn't misread the passage at all. The tribune thought Paul was an Egyptian, that particular Egyptian who was a rebel. He clearly didn't expect an Egyptian to speak Greek, no doubt because Egypt was not as Hellenized as the eastern mediterranean. Paul explains he's a Jew. Confusion resolved. The tribune understood that as Jew in Judea it was natural for Paul to speak Greek.

Note that the tibune doesn't go on and say, "OK, so you're a Jew, but why are you speaking Greek." Paul's assertion that he is a Jew answers his query about why he spoke Greek.

Gamera

The point is, the author agrees that Peter spoke Greek, resolving the issue in my favor. Whether 1 Peter was written by Peter or someone else is in dispute. I merely pointed out the discrepancies between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are consistent with Peter using a scribe for 1 Peter (a common practice as you know, since Paul -- an educated man -- did so all the time).

In any case unless you have some rebutting scholarship, it appears that you have conceded that Peter and Jesus spoke Greek, which was my point. The rest is off topic.

Gamera

Arguments from what authors do not say are perhaps the weakest possible arguments available regarding their intent. However, your assumption is wrong: Peter isn't silent on the issue.


1 Peter 5:10 - And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you.

2 Peter 1:11 - so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Gamera

Again, arguments about what authors do not say are the weakest arguments one can make.

But since you invite speculation, the answer is probably that Paul unlike Peter, wasn't a witness to what you call "proofs" but rather met the risen Christ, which he does testify to repeatedly. Why don't you count that as "proof"?

And further, Paul is anxious to make the point that he got the gospel directly from the risen Christ and not from the other apostles, who did not understand the universal nature of Christ's message. Paul did not want to be associated with the legalism that befell the church in Judea, since he was speaking to gentiles:

Galatians 1: For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia. 22 And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; 23 they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they glorified God because of me.

Gamera

No, I'm going to ask you to focus on one topic at a time and the evidence that relates to it.

You raised the issue of Paul's "silences" on various topics. I and others showed that those silences were not unexpected given the early make-up of the church and its Jewish-gentile dichotomy. Instead of rebutting that claim with facts, you post complaints about how we've moved goalposts.

So focus, focus: explain to us how the claim that the Jewish-gentile dichonomy of the early church (an established fact that appears to explain the "silences") is NOT relevant to the issues Paul would raise or not raise in his letters? Be specific about the argument, rather than complaining about you inability to respond.

Julian

The Egyptian operated in Judaea and environs. He certainly must have spoken something other than Egyptian. A commander wouldn't have assumed that a leader of men in Judaea wouldn't have been able to speak to them. Unless you are suggesting that the population of Judaea spoke Egyptian...?

Julian

Amaleq13

No, you are still jumping without support to fabricate a connection between the Jewish group in Jerusalem and the Gospel claim as well as, presumably, the Jewish group in Jerusalem and pre-Christian messianic Jews in general. That the original group in Jerusalem was Jewish in no way supports your assertion that the belief that the Messiah would be born of a virgin can be retrojected from the Gospels in which it is found to pre-Christian messianic Jews. ETA: You can't even connect the Gospel claim to the Jerusalem group!

You are imagining a pattern despite the gaps in supporting evidence. You have no evidence that the earliest Jewish Christians held this belief. You have no evidence that pre-Christian messianic Jews held this belief. You only have evidence that Christians held this belief and 2nd century Jews disputed the interpretation as incorrect.

No, you made the assertion and have failed to provide any evidence to support it. What I have done is present the reasons why I questioned your assertion. Contrary to your claim, there appears to be no evidence to support your contention that pre-Christian messianic Jews expected the Messiah to be born of a virgin.

Diogenes answered this quite well in the thread where the discussion belongs. The child is nothing but a timing-marker for the fulfillment of the prophecy. Anything else must be read into the text and that is precisely what Christians have been doing at least since the end of the 1st century and precisely what Jews have been arguing against at least since the middle of the 2nd century.

Gamera

Well, you're arguing with yourself. Whatever the background of Egyptians in Judea was, the tribune clearly didn't expect an Egyptian to speak Greek. Right? That's why he raised the issue. He thought Paul was that very non-Greek speaking Egyptian. When Paul explains he wasn't an Egyptian, but a Jew, the tribune basically say, OK, now I get it. Meaning, oh yeah, Jews of course speak Greek.

I have no idea if your claim about there being Egyptians operating in Judea or what language they spoke (though the tribune, who should know didn't think they spoke Greek!) but whatever, it doesn't impact on the issue of Jewish triligualism.

What is your point?