Chili

So now spirit is spirit and water is flesh?

Solo

The answer is: possibly, if you are dyslexic.

Jiri

Chris Weimer

I'd call it modeling Jesus after Moses to imply Jesus' nature - i.e. one who leads "his people" (as Matthew puts it) to the promised land, aka The Kingdom of God/the Heavens.

Oh wait, I was referring to the bit about Jesus' escape in infancy from the hands of Herod. Virgin birth is, in my opinion, best as Jeffrey Gibson saw it.

gstafleu

Let's look at the particular issue at hand: the birth story. Mat and Luke are pretty clear: Jesus was born as the result of a divine entity impregnating a mortal woman. So we are looking for a parallel where a divine entity (a "god" if you will) impregnates an earthly woman, virgin or otherwise. I suggest there are none in the OT. Just adducing a verse where someone is called "son of god" doesn't seem all that impressive.

It seems even less impressive once one notices there are multiple instances of this theme available in other religions/mythologies of the time, as Roland shows. So given that we have difficulty finding an OT source but no difficulty at all finding a "pagan" source, it is not out-of-left-field to assume pagan derivation in this instance.

That we assume it in this instance does not then mean we must assume it in all instances. Clearly there is a lot of OT derivation in Christian mythology. We have to judge it on a case-by-case manner. I suggest that the following list cannot easily be derived from the OT, while it can be derived from "pagan" sources:

• The birth of Jesus as result of a divine being impregnating a mortal woman.
• The concept of someone closely related to divinity--possibly an instance of the god himself, depending in where you situate yourself in the development of Christian mythology--sacrificing himself and then resurrecting in some from, for the good of humanity.
• The eat-my-body-drink-my-blood part of the Eucharist (not the "common meal" part).

Furthermore, I suggest that these three are central issues of Christian mythology and rite. Given that these three are difficult to derive from the OT but easy to derive from "pagan" mythologies would indicate that your general comment about not attaching too much credence to pagan derivations misses the mark on some central issues.

Gerard Stafleu

jgibson000

Isn't this implied in your statement that the motif is one of the most common of all mythological motifs?

Leaving aside your shifting of the ground from "one of the most common of all" to "very common", I note that you are still asserting a comparison that is as unclear (how common is "very common"?) as it is undemonstrated ("very common" compared to what?).

I am not disputing that the motif is recounted in the some of the sources which inform our understanding of ancient myths. But I am disputing that it was as common as you say it was, whether this be "one of the most common of all" or simply "very".

And I note with interest that you have yet to make your case. In fact, your reply is actually a dodge of the question. To show that the motif has several instantiations is not the same as showing that the motif was as common as you assert it was.

Nor, more importantly, have you done anything to demonstrate the truth of your original claim that the Matthean (not the Lukan) "birth story" of Jesus is derived from and/or is informed by, and would have called to mind, pre-christian non Jewish sources or instatiations of that motif.

Even should the motif be as common as you say it is, what actual evidence do you have that shows a knowledge, let alone a use, on the part of Matthew (or for that matter on the part of the author of Exodus and the various Jewish retellings/elaborations of story of the Pharaoh and the infant Moses or of Balak and Baalim that were extant in Matthew's time [cf. Josephus Ant 2.9 §205–37; Philo, Vita Mos 1.50 §276 and other early midrashim that as Raymon Brown has shown do inform Matthew's story] of Greek (let alone far eastern) stories of "persecuted divine children"? Presumed parallels are not enough. They may raise the question of derivation. But they do not answer it.

JG

Solo

I don't get it. If Jeffrey said that the "adoption" of Jesus as Son of God was a divinity counter-claim to the Julio-Claudian dynasty, I would say, yes, likely was. (Both, the original divi filius Octavian, and Tiberius were adoptive sons). However, I see no reason to play symbolically with the reproductive organs of Mary to make that point. Even less so, as the "virgin" motive and Jesus divine status from "infancy" appear to be secondary tradition in the creed.

Jiri

jgibson000

Do you not know the tradition about Octavian/Augustus' virginal conception recounted by Suetonius?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

Bad choice of words. I meant his heirs. I know the principate did not pass cleanly from father to son for a long time.

Ben.

Solo

No, I do not know that. (...but it's good to know) Do you think the Christian "virgin" tradition came as reaction to Suetonius ?

Jiri

Ben C Smith

I am not sure what your question is asking. I am wary of truth claims in the first place, and then when such claims are highly charged and polemical, well, all the more. But what do you mean, exactly?

Ben.