Sojourner553

Hi Bede,

Sorry it took me awhile to respond.

I'm sure you are aware there are a number of Christians who believe that at least SOME myths and inaccuracies have made their way into the Bible. Still, these same Christians believe the CORE message(s) of the Bible are divine in origin and that great moral truths can be found in biblical stories such as the ark and so forth.

My understanding of your position is that 0% of the Bible have mythical elements intertwined in them. I think this means Old and New Testament (although this is not yet clear to me).

I have debated a few selected atheists on this board who have insisted that 100% of the biblical stories are mythical. I acknowledge I have received more intense/furious rebuttals from these individuals on this position that I have from theists who argue that 0% of the stories were mythical – Note: The pun on the word “intense” WAS intended!)

Again keep in mind when I challenge your view that at least SOME pagan myths did enter into the stories of the New Testament – that I acknowledge for purposes of this discussion this does not equate to mean that 100% of the biblical stories are therefore myths. (That is, my points below would not have as much significance to those Christians who agree there are SOME errors and myths that made there way into the NT (and OT)).

All said, here is why I think your position (that 0% of the biblical stories were not affected by pagan myths) is untenable:

Currently I think we agree:

· there were parallel pagan stories of saviors, virgin births (with a child seeded by a god) and ascensions in pagan religions
· These pagan myths PREDATE Christianity.
· These stories of saviors, virgin births of heroes (seeded by divine fathers), and ascensions into heaven are not found in the earlier Hebrew tradition of the Old Testament.


Here are my arguments

(1) Such terms as savior, resurrection, Trinity, virgin were terms that pre-existed in the Greek mystery religions

I gave examples in an earlier post how many of the Greek and Roman heroes were typically given a virgin birth and believed to held divine powers themselves.

Christians did not have to invent any of these concepts because all of the concepts and terminology already so conveniently existed in pagan traditions/religions.

(2) These terms are missing in the JEWISH tradition!

“Messiah” IS a Jewish term. But it does not perfectly translate to “Savior”, because Messiah does not have a “divine” implication in the OT (unlike Savior in the NT). That is, traditionally messiah meant a human who was given special powers/favors by God. There was never an implication that a messiah could be a divine, supernatural beings. King David was called messiah, but there was never any implication he was divine.

It is an interesting side note that Jesus is typically quoted as describing himself with the term “Son of Man’ in the NT. It is when “others” describe him, he is deemed to be “Son of God”.

(2) Matthew claimed that Isaiah 7:14 could be interpreted to mean a virgin was predicted in the Old Testament. But this is not accurate. Here is why:

First the OT verse: "A young woman (translated 'virgin' ?) is with child, and she has borne a son, and will call him Immanuel. By the time that he has learnt to reject evil and choose good, he will be eating curds and honey; before that child has learnt to reject evil and choose good, desolation will come upon the land before whose two kings you cower now (Isaiah 7:14-16 NEB)

n Note the translated term meant a “young women eligible for marriage”. True, young Hebrew women were “supposed” to be virgins before they were married – but this was not always true. (Take as an extreme example: a raped Hebrew woman could be married to her rapist if the latter paid her father 50 shekels of silver. She is eligible for marriage, but clearly not a virgin in this case.)
n There is no indication that the father of the child was of divine origin – ie a god. This is true of all the pagan stores of virgins (same as with Mary/Jesus)
n There is no implication that the child would be of a divine nature himself or even have an important role in the world.
n The verse merely uses the story to mark the passage of time – ie twenty years or so. [see footnote below for more information]
n Matthew tries to twist OTHER passages in the Old Testament to “predict” Jesus as well . [Examples include (1)where he obviously alters the genealogies in the Old Testament to make them “fit” his proposed genealogies of Jesus using magical numbers, and (2) his claim that the Old Testament stated Jesus would be called a “Nazarene”—found no where in the OT]


(2) Greek influence was very strong in the Palestine region over a hundred years before Jesus was born. There were a large number of Greek inhabitants who lived in northern Galilee. Greek influence was so predominant that all business and most writing was in Greek. Greek ideas therefore would have been prevalent in the area.

(3) Paul never ascribes a virgin birth nor miracles (except the Eucharist/Resurrection) to Jesus.

-- In his first letter to the Corinthians (after lashing out against the "wisdom of the wise") Paul exasperatingly writes how the Jews require a "sign" and the Greeks seek after "wisdom"—

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom".

The scenario shows Paul frustrated because he does not have a response to the Greeks who ask for wisdom and the Jews who want a miraculous sign. If Paul had known of a miraculous sign (not to mention wisdom), he surely would have mentioned it in his debate to win new over new Christian converts.

It has been argued that Paul was isolated from the Jewish Christian communities—instead spending most of his time in the Greek Christian communities.

But Paul DID make visits to Palestine: First from persecuting Christians and later on his famous trip to Jerusalem to meet with James. He should have heard about miracles from his own experiences – or at least from other Greek Christians in his communities. Stores of miracles (via word of mouth or letters) have always spread like wildfire in every other setting. Look how fast office rumors spread.

Paul’s theology expressed in his letters explain why he did not think Jesus performed miracles on earth:

Paul believed that Jesus pre-existed as a supernatural, cosmic being with God ("the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him were all things created." Coloss. 1:25 Jesus had "emptied" himself of his divine nature and humbly assumed the form of a human, born of a woman. (Galatians 4:4: Note, the tone here would indicate that Paul believed Jesus to have been born of an ordinary woman--not divinely via a virgin.)

Paul believes in elemental spirits (lesser deities in the sky) who exert powers. This is an exact parallel of Plato’s universe: With an all powerful God at the top of the universe and more evil deities and a demiurge controlling the earth (who are the source of materialism and evil). Jesus had to appear weak before these powerful elemental spirits while on earth in order that they might not suspect his true purpose on earth and therefore try to stop his crucifixion (preparing the way to save mankind for heaven.)

True, Paul does bring up the eucharist miracle. Many scholars think this is an interpolation by a later Christian(s), because of differences seen in the writing style of these verses. Again, this would “draw” the attention of the elemental spirits by this display of power.

Of course, once Jesus is crucified, he is spiritual in form and again all-powerful. Paul definitely believed in the miracle of the resurrection!

The above shows why Paul’s theology would hold that Jesus performed no miracles on earth. His powers were spiritual and were present at the time of resurrection.

In summary: Paul should have known of miracles performed by Jesus in his debate with the Greeks and Jews. He would have wanted to know them and touted them as “proof” to gain new converts – if he had known of them.


(4) You are arguing no PAGAN myths entered into the Bible. I can show you clear discrepancies within the NT that show it is not free from errors in consistency – ie where one NT verse conflicts with another one. The common thread here is that if the NT is not perfect (full of discrepancies) this would make it easier for pagan themes to enter into the NT.

(5) Then of course, my favorite: Themes


Do you REALLY believe the NT representation that demons exist and are responsible for ALL instances of mental illnesses? {I would think on this latter point, Bede, you would WANT to claim this came from the pagans. Smile)


Footnote:
One of the most controversial passages that Matthew uses in this way,
is the Old Testament prediction that Jesus would be "born of a virgin."
For, when Joseph is told by the angel that Mary will conceive Jesus through the Holy Ghost, Matthew writes:

"All this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God is with us" (Matthew 1:22-23)

The reference is to Isaiah 7:14, where the prophet Isaiah is addressing Ahaz, the king of Judah, who is being attacked by the two kings of Israel and Syria. Isaiah assures King Ahaz that he has nothing to worry about, and that:

"A young woman (translated 'virgin' ?) is with child, and she has borne a son, and will call him Immanuel. By the time that he has learnt to reject evil and choose good, he will be eating curds and honey; before that child has learnt to reject evil and choose good, desolation will come upon the land before whose two kings you cower now (Isaiah 7:14-16 NEB)

In the original Hebrew text, the term used is 'ahmah' which means "young woman". The term has a connotation of meaning a young woman eligible for marriage, but does not necessarily imply a virgin. The Septuagint version of the New Testament translated the Hebrew term 'ahmah' into the Greek word 'parthenos' which DOES imply a "virgin". (The concept of a "virgin" impregnated by Greek gods was a common theme in many of the ancient Greek myths.


Sojourner

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

NOGO

The word translated "maid" above is actually "almah". If this word implies virginity it surely is not evident from these verses.

Verse 20 explains the last item in verse 19. Which means that in this case the "almah" is actually an adulterous woman.

From what I understand however Bede is simply saying that since the writers of the NT read the septuagint then the error in the septuagint accounts for the virgin birth and therefore it was not from pagan sources.

It is difficult to take this seriously because although the word "almah" may have been mistranslated the whole context of the situation in Is 7:14 is not one of a virgin birth.

a) no devine father is mentioned
b) the virgin birth is not the sign which is offered to the the King, Ahaz
c) No statement of surprize with regard to the virgin birth as in the NT.

On the other hand look at the birth of John the Baptist

Luke 1
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years.
...
11 And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense.
12 Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him.
13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John.
18 Zacharias said to the angel, "How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years."
20 "And behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time."
24 After these days Elizabeth his wife became pregnant, and she kept herself in seclusion for five months, saying,
25 "This is the way the Lord has dealt with me in the days when He looked with favor upon me, to take away my disgrace among men."

Now this is typical OT unusual birth of someone designated by God. Not from virgins but from parents advanced in age.

Note that there is no need for Luke to quote or allude to the OT. Everybody knew the pattern. For Jesus on the other hand the NT writers were not dealing with very well known OT ideas. They had to go fishing for support. They jumped on Is 7:14 not from a clear virgin birth but only on one single mistranslated word.

This is however sufficient for Bede to assert that the NT writer did not get this idea of virgin birth from Pagan sources.

Reason would dictate that the idea came from elsewhere and the NT writers then went finishing in the OT for support.

Note that the NT writers knew the distinction very well. They did not just mention that Mary was a virgin and with child as is the case in Is 7:14. They described the surprize and reaction of Joseph who had ideas of denouncing Mary. It is then strange that this type of surprize in a virgin birth did not arouse any kind of suspicion on their part on the translation of the word Parthenos in the septuagint. One must therefore conclude that the source of the virgin birth idea did not come from this mistransalted word in Is 7:14.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

I do not, of course, claim that the Bible has no mythes or inaccuracies in it. There are lots and lots. I also know that the pagan culture that surrounded early Christians effected them and moulded their views, rituals, language and theology.

But on these boards I only argue about the historical Jesus and almost never venture to make any theistic, theological or supernatural claim. My only interest is to what extent the story of the life of Jesus is effected by paganism. So I will leave aside all that stuff on the Trinity, saviors, redemption etc. I am highly dubious about claims made about them coming from paganism based on scholarship I have read, but I will not argue that here.

So, what elements in the life of Jesus look like pagan accretions? None. Not a thing. The best case is, as you say, the myth of the virgin birth. But NOGO gets my point exactly, and as Matthew can hardly be accused of never taking a prophecy out of context, his objection fails. Luke, of course, never mentions a virgin birth, only Mary´s confusion and the angel´s rather cryptic reply.

But the virgin birth is a myth (one I happen to believe to be true) and is a later addition to the life of Jesus as first set out by Mark. Even conceeding that this case is unclear, we still find the adult life of Jesus as reported by the Gospels to be clear of pagan references. Hardly surprising given the rich recourses of the OT that the evangelists had to draw on as well as the actual life of Jesus himself.

Yours

Bede

NOGO

Correct, Matthew is certainly no genius when it comes to fishing for support in the OT. What I don't get is how does this make my point fail.

Are you saying that Matthew never heard of Pagan virgin births and one day as he was reading his favourite version of the bible he stumbled across the word "parthenos" in Is7:14 and decided to give Jesus a virgin birth?

If so, can you please answer this.
Someone who reads Greek must know something of Greek culture. Therefore how can you claim that Matthew never heard of virgin births from Pagan sources and later went fishing in Bible for support???


Except for the resurrection and demonic possession.

As I see it Jesus probably preached only to the Jews and his message and promise of salvation was only for the children of Israel. Later this was extended to the whole world.

Bede,
What is your opinion on this from the historical Jesus point of view.

Bede

NOGO,

I am coming to the conclusion that virgin/divine birthes are so ubiquitous that it is impossible to assume that Matt and Luke would not have had contact with them. I assume there was a pre Gospel tradition they both used which may well have been influenced by the pagan milieu. I hesitate to call that copying but anti-apologists probably will. Matt was Jewish but would have had contact with pagan culture as he does not appear to be from Palestine but Greek speaking Syria. Mind you, if Yuri wins his argument for the Aramaic being primary, that would weaken the argument for Greek influence on Matt .

As I said, the virgin birth, true or not, is a myth. On reflection I will drop my assertion it is more likely to be a Jewish than Greek idea falling back on the position that it has nothing to do with HJ and hence does not help the case that Jesus´s adult life is made up of pagan elements. Your point that Jesus was preaching only to Jews is a valid inference from the historical evidence, but not water tight. That said, for HJ rather than theological purposes, I would accept it.

Yours

Bede

NOGO

Copying is a willful act. Sometimes we are influenced and do some borrowing without actually knowing it.

I must admit that I am puzzled by the above statement. To me if the virgin birth is a myth it means that it never took place. If it did take place then it is not a myth.

You statement confuses the issue.
On the one hand you want to be rational and state that a virgin birth is a myth and on the other hand you really do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin but don't want to say it outright.

My guess is that you are purposely being vague.
When I say that the virgin birth in the Gospels is a myth I mean that Jesus' birth stories are myths similarly to the killings of infants by Herod. ie they never took place.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Sojourner553

Thank you for explaining this. I must say this is not always clear to me in reading your posts. Because you seem to say one thing, and then the opposite in the next sentence...

Now one issue that always bothered me. What is your view on the stories of demons in the Bible. Are they real, or they mythical infiltration of pagan belief?

I have talked to Christians who were scientifically oriented who believed in demons because it is mentioned in the Bible.

Just curious...

Sojourner

Funny when reading your posts though you seem to

-- it's as if you wrote from a left and right brain. One side

Peter Kirby

Bede writes: As I said, the virgin birth, true or not, is a myth.

It seems that most people know only one meaning of the word "myth," i.e., pernicious falsehood. You might try a different word next time. It seems better to substitute a word that people have to look up instead of misunderstand. For example, "theologoumenon," a story that gives expression to theological beliefs in a community.

best,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
Myth
1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the world view of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A story, a theme, an object, or a character regarded as embodying an aspect of a culture.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing.

We are talking about Jesus' virgin birth.
I do not consider 1 and 2 can apply to Jesus.

1. Christians believe that Jesus' birth is unique therefore it cannot "serve as a fundamental type".

2. Is the virgin birth an aspect of culture?
What "aspect" would that be?

That leaves 3 and 4 both of which have nothing to do with "pernicious falsehoods".

Within the context of the conversation the virgin birth is considered a later addition and is therefore not historical ie a myth in the sense of the forth (4) definition above.

If my memory is good Bede did not put Jesus' virgin birth as part of the HJ when asked in another thread to state which parts of the NT he considered historic. Now he tells us that he believes that Jesus was actually born of a virgin.

When I say that Bede is purposely ambiguous here is an example.

BEDE: But the virgin birth is a myth (one I happen to believe to be true) and is a later addition to the life of Jesus as first set out by Mark.

Note the last part of the sentence "and is a later addition to the life of Jesus as first set out by Mark."

Is Bede simply saying here that Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels after Mark ???
OR
he is playing into the generally accepted belief among non-believers that Matthew and Luke fabricated the virgin birth story... by first writing "later addition" and then annulling it by tagging "as first set out by Mark"

BEDE: As I said, the virgin birth, true or not, is a myth. On reflection I will drop my assertion it is more likely to be a Jewish than Greek idea falling back on the position that it has nothing to do with HJ ...

I do have problems with the sentence structure here which perhaps made me misunderstand Bede's statement.

Peter, is Bede saying here that the virgin birth has nothing to do with the HJ? If so how do you reconcile it with the first sentence.

Take care,
NOGO

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Hi NOGO,

I will leave it to Bede to explain what he means and/or defend himself. My brief post was a suggestion to Bede, perhaps more appropriate if made non-public, that he use terminology that is more likely to be understood. Kindly do not take what I have said or will say in this thread as directed towards offering rebuttal to what you say to Bede or anything like that.

NOGO writes: That leaves 3 and 4 both of which have nothing to do with "pernicious falsehoods".

Well, it seems to me that 3 and 4 have a lot to do with falsehoods. Is it the "pernicious" part that bothers you? I understand that there is difficulty in deciding whether to give a word's denotation or its common connotations in a definition. Strictly, you would be right in saying that "myth" is most often equated with falsehood simply. But when you read stuff like "top ten myths about X" or "refuting the myth that Y," it is obvious that the writer does not consider the myth to be a good thing. It is not the most common usage of of myth to say "it may be literally false, but it is not necessarily undesirable for that, as it reflects the values and beliefs of a society or sub-culture" -- that would be in line with the meaning of myth as it is usually used in the social sciences.

I would suggest "signifying story" or "idea to live by" as cute ways to capture the non-common meaning of myth. For the virginal conception thingy, as I have intimated, the more precise word would be "theologoumenon," a story that gives expression to theological beliefs in a community. Basically it means what Justin Martyr says: "And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. . . . And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus." (Apol. I.22) Basically, anyone who sought to be worthy of worship in antiquity would want to make sure he is virgin-born; or, rather, his pious biographers would make sure of that for him, whether Octavius made Augustus or Joshua made Christ.

best,
Peter Kirby