Jesus and the virgin birth text

[Brianroy]

Michael writes:

If Jesus had really been born of a virgin under such unusual circumstances, there would not have been a single story about his life which did not include the tale. It would be like writing about Ben Franklin and never mentioning Philadelphia.

In other words, any time Benjamin Franklin is mentioned, and you don't speak of "Philadelphia", you deny Benjamin ever lived in Philadelphia. 

   So each time Benjamin Franklin is observed in Boston or Paris, according to Michael's reasoning, we had better chide any historical account that fails to mention Philadelphia.  

Or rather, we had better rule out Ben Franklin from ever been in Philadelphia, because the "cosmic myth hypothesis" rules out
that Ben could have ever been from Philadelphia.  The new rule that the future of Now places on the Past, is that if you don't always say President Bill Clinton of Arkansas, everytime you write a text on him; then he may as well have been from California, or any state that has Oxford as a city in it (never mind that University in England)... or some such view of what a "cosmic truth" must be. 



When we look at Matthew, in what context does he apply Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 -- the birthplace and virgin state of Jesus' birth?  I combine these two, because in looking at the texts and how they are applied, gives us an insight into the historical past, as well as the theology...and why each time Jesus is mentioned, the "virginity" or "lack of sexual intercourse" issue isn't harped upon.

  I dare say, humorously  in this hypothethical application, every time the wife comes back from grocery shopping, I am more interested to hear that she got what I asked, and not that she had been faithful in confessing "but I didn't have sex since we last did!"  But perhaps there are some husbands who enjoy hearing that expression 5 or 6 times a week.  I don't know.


Irenaeus in Against Heresies, 3.1.1. informs us that Matthew wrote in the Aramaic.  In other words, he wrote from the stand-point of a Syrian aligned Sadducee in the political sense. 

As we observe the ancient manuscripts we do have, we see that there was a proto-Targum which preceded Jonathan, widespread at Jerusalem during the first half of the First Century and used specifically by the Sanhedrin.  It was from this same Targum, that Matthew blasted the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on their home turf.

In Micah 5:2, Matthew gives us the specific Bethlehem of Judah, not of Asher in the Lebanese district, and defines Ephrathah through its root word as "the land of Judah", as  that place in which the fruit (i.e. Messiah, the fruitful one) must come forth...lest the Pharisees say it is of the whole house of Judah to rule each as though Davids, and the house together to rule as if G-D.

Isaiah 7:14 explained:
 
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
Matthew 1:23, KJV


 "Therefore, the Master Himself shall give you a sign [oth];

Behold, a VIRGIN [alma] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."  {trans. as 'G-D with us"}.


  As we know, in the Jewish Bible,  the word "alma" appears 7 times. 

     The primary contention of the Rabbins to "alma" being taken as "virgin" in the Tenach, deals primarily with the usage in Proverbs 30:18-20.  The way of a man with a young woman or "b'alma" is compared to three things:
an eagle in the heavens,
the path of a serpent upon the rock,
and the course of a ship in the middle of the ocean.

  In each case, the "way" is the wide course of "derek", which is subject to the whims of the wind and the eagle, the serpent and the slope of the rock, and the ship's master and the motion of the wind and the sea. 

The crux of the matter rests in verse 20, in which the woman performs a sex act with her mouth, leaves  her hymen  intact,  and is never violated.  Yet, , she says..."I have done no wickedness", as she wipes the "seed" from her mouth.  This is the harshness of the text. 

Therefore, those doctors of the Law who are called to examine the girl, find her hymen intact, and rule, "SHE IS STILL  A VIRGIN." 

     Therefore, we must again ask ourselves, what activity violates a girl or young woman, so that she is no longer a virgin; and was that act (respecting alma) performed in Proverbs 30:20 or any where else in Scripture? The answer is "no". If we were to argue that "parthenos" is used in the Septuagint in relation to Genesis 32:4, we find that we are discussing a translation of na'arah, not alma. 


In Shulchan Aruch 283:4 and 284:1-2, we find that there was an acceptance of having a ruling based on phrase and partial quotations, and/or translations of the same, of that found in the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament).  And we find that traditions are passed down without clear justification as to their observance, and yet they are observed.  Case in point:  the rabbinic is restrained by his tradition from ever writing  the four letter name of HASHEM (except as a scribe for a holy book or special rare and set aside holy work) since the ruling from pre-Hyrcanus B.C. was alleged to have been handed down on a partial verse from Amos.   A partial verse from Amos. 

In this same period, the septuagint translators of the Prophets of the Old Testament finished their work product before the reign of Herod the Great.  They specifically translated a specific word of Isaiah 7:14,  using -- in turn -- a specific Greek word for virgin, because in various other passages like Isaiah 11, it was understood that such was required to be hooked into Isaiah 7:14.  In Isaiah 11, the phrase says: And there shall come forth a rod out of the roots of Jesse, and a flower from his root shall come forth.

Irenaeus comments on this, saying:
.59   "By these words he states that He was born from her who was of the race of David and of Abraham.  For Jesse was the descendant of Abraham, and the father of David; (and David's) descendant the virgin was who conceived Christ.

Now (as to) the rod: for this cause also Moses with [/u][armenian uses "with", NOT by means of] a rod showed the mighty works to Pharaoh: and with other men also the rod is a sign of rule.

And by flower he means His flesh;
for from spirit [i.e., means of a spiritual creation through a virgin] it [the body of Messiah] budded forth, as we have said before. "


32. "Whence then is the substance of the first-formed (man)? From the Will and the Wisdom of G-D  [Isa.1:5ff.], and from the virgin earth.   For G-D had not sent rain, the Scripture says, upon the earth, before man was made; and there was no man to till the earth. [Gen. 2:5]   

From this, then, whilst it was still virgin, G-D took dust of the earth and formed the man, the beginning of mankind. So then the L-RD, summing up afresh this man, took the same dispensation of entry into flesh, being born from the Virgin by the Will and the Wisdom of G-D; that He also should show forth the likeness of Adam's entry into flesh, and there should be that which was written in the beginning, man after the image and likeness of G-D." [Gen. 1:26]

33. "And just as through a disobedient virgin man was stricken down and fell into death, so through the Virgin who was obedient to the Word of G-D man was reanimated and received life.

For the L-RD came to seek again the sheep that  was lost; and man it was that was lost: and for this cause there was not made some other formation, but in that same which had its descent from Adam He preserved the likeness of the (first) formation.

For it was necessary that Adam should be summed up in Christ, that mortality might be swallowed up and overwhelmed by immortality; and Eve summed up in Mary, that a virgin should be a virgin's intercessor, and by a virgin's obedience undo and put away the disobedience of a virgin." 

 Irenaeus, The Proof of Apostolic Teaching


Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, Book 3, chapters 21 and 22, goes into a long exposition of why Isaiah 7:14 meant a "virgin shall conceive", and why Jesus fulfilled it through Mary.

One of the crucial points he flies by, is that this Septuagint (Greek) copy was of even of the other books of the Old Testament, like Isaiah, written out of reach for Christians to tamper with the documents, over a century before.

Irenaeus refers to the Greek (full Septuagint copies) being written by and fully accepted by the Jews as having the Greek translate Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" prior to the reign of Augustus (ca. 46-45 B.C., when Augustus first co-ruled with both Marcus Antonius and Marcus Lepidus...then in 43 B.C., co-ruling only with M.A. the next 12 years, etc.)   The birth of Christ is calculated by Irenaeus to be circa 5 B.C. according to this reckoning using the first year in which Augustus was of the Triumvirate ruling.

And if by a slip of clarity, Irenaeus infers that the entire Greek copy of the Old Testament was written and approved by the Jewish elders before even Pompey entered Israel, being instead completed generations prior to Christ while as yet Ptolemy was still alive -- and that these copies were still extant in Egypt as of 181 A.D. -- what then? 

We have again come to the conclusion that there was more than just the Targum-Jonathan in antiquity.

     In regards to this "alma", we find that the one who shall be born of her is an "oth".  He is a signal, a banner, a miracle that is to come in the distant future.  This "oth" is attached upon the lineage of Ahaz (Achaz in Matthew 1:9 in the KJV), and in Isaiah 7:14, v'qarath Shemo Imanu El - "she will call out and address His name [by the familiar -- which means] with rest, home, and pasture (to all who believe), G-D (dwells)." 

Rashi expounds that the "almah" teaches of the Shekinah resting upon her, and that our "rock" or "eben" [ the Alef- BeN / trans. as "G-D's Son" in Gematriac analysis] will be with us. Who is our "rock" but HASHEM Himself, as David sings and testifies? 

 So we see,  that there is more involved to the use of "virgin" in teaching about Jesus; but if we use "virgin" every time, we lose the focus of His ministry and why he (Jesus) came.  "Virgin"  is neither a title, nor a place of residence.   

 Man, who is oft consumed with sexual related  thoughts,  could perceive that all Jesus the Virgin wants of you, is that you suffer and die,  never having married, having sexual relations, and never having children.  Is this the Gospel message?  Of course not.  Time and time again, the Gospels teach us to get our focus off the physical and onto a higher spiritual plane.   

So again, we arrive to a point, that not everything is about a man's residence, his title, or how many times he does or doesn't have sexual intercourse.  We are called to a higher plane of thinking than that.  Peace.

[Michael]

The reason why Jesus and so many other people were born of virgins was because it was a characteristic of Mary which represented Virgo. It is that simple.

The Near East and Egypt did not endow Virgo with virginity per se. She was the earth goddess of the harvest.  In Babylon Ishtar (Virgo) was called “The Holy Virgin”. This phrase meant “unmarried” to the Babylonians.  The Greeks applied “chaste” to the word. In Babylon, Virgo was the human wife of the god Bel (Canaanite Baal). As the wife of Bel she represented an earthly virgin in that she could not have intercourse with mortal men. Bel was the son of Ea, the “Lord of Wisdom”. This virgin dilemma led to Biblical complications which are still being debated to this day—for instance, that of Isaiah 7:14:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin [my emphasis] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

The word “virgin” has been the topic of a much heated debate between Christians, Jews, and Skeptics. In the Hebrew text the original word is almah. Hebrew scholars assure us the correct translation for almah is “maiden” or “young girl” and never “virgin”, although she could be a virgin: the word simply does not state the case one way or another.  The correct Hebrew word for virgin is betulah (Strong’s word 1330). If this is indeed the case, then why was the word translated incorrectly in the Septuagint  as “virgin”? Those who did the translating were undoubtedly more than just scholars. Hebrew and Greek would have been their native languages. The answer is simple.  This was not a mistake, but a deliberate mistranslation. The translators recognized the fact that the woman who would bring forth this particular savior-child was intended to be identified with the constellation Virgo. The translators conspired to change the old Hebrew text, wherever possible, to reflect “Hellenistic” theology. The mistranslation of heylel  as “Lucifer”  vice “morning star” in Isaiah 14:12 is another example of the influence of foreign cultures in instigating deliberate Biblical mistranslations. Venus, the morning star, was the last proud star to defy the morning sunrise.

[lou.poulain]

Michael,

I recognize your passion for the astrological dimension of the scriptural texts, but I think your thesis is a stretch.

I think the development of the virgin birth myth (NOTE: I am not using the term in any way to imply myth = false!) is theological rather than astrological.   I think there is a trajectory of Christology from "low" to "high" from Paul's letters, thru Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John, and the virgin birth imagery serves a higher Christology that would crystalize in the next centuries into very developed incarnational language.  The other factor is that in Mt there are particular and deliberate parallels to other miraculous births in the OT.   J.D. Crossan and M. Borg maintan that in Lk there is some deliberate polemic against the Roman Empire in the mirroring of the title of Caesar and the pagan miraculous birth stories.

Lou

[Brianroy]

Another point of the astrological dimension which is never brought out...unlike our current charts, the ones used from Nostradamus day on back to Babylonia...had 13 astrological signs, not 12.    Hence, any calculations  using only  12 will have a built in flaw to begin with.

And it is strange that those who attack the virgin birth reach for the stars.

E.W. Bullinger, who is sometimes cited by people who bring up the astrological signs as an excuse or reasoning, used virgo to show that the first reference to this constellation-- Virgo --  had to do with a prophecy of the Hebrews in Numbers concerning Messiah.  If you follow his information, you can just as easily conclude the Egyptians stole the constellation from the Jews, as one who reads it as vice versa...especially regarding the name of the boy on her lap being IEZU or "Christ". 

That is, Bullinger predates his Egyptian reference by over 1200 years, based on a Hebrew Messianic prophecy while Israel was in indentured servitude to the Hyksos.  Hyksos, as Isaiah points out in calling them by their origin (Isaiah 52:4).

In fact, the whole work of "The Witness of the stars" by E.W. Bullinger is all about how that Jesus is indeed, the prophesied "Son of G-D", born at Bethlehem (a real place), etc. 

The deity Bel is only datable to about the 1200's -1300's B.C. and is separate from Baal...though assuming and assimilating that identity into himself.  Both Saturninus (the father of the Italian race) who became a first deity, and Bel or Belus, lived at about the same time...so that not even the priests of these two  knew when the referencing of the one left off and the other began or vice versa.  These being 322 10-month years prior to the Trojan War (Theophilus to Autolycus, .21).

In fact, as you read Herodotus and selective Early Church Fathers, you find the origins of the Greek and Roman deities as real people, having an origin.

For example, we see Ceres of Greece become IO to her people, Isis as queen of Egypt, and Demeter to the Romans.  Why?  Because under her, time - money - grain - labor (etc.) came en masse...that is, civilization from Egypt came to Greece beginning with her, and with her -- for Greece -- time began.  hence the name, IO.

 If you follow the Akkadian and Cuneiform in Egypt, you can follow the likely influence period of any transfer of myths between those two regions and powers, including the fertility rites and other strange rituals they shared.
Yet, it involves alot more than someone not steeped into Egyptology, Greco-Roman history, Israelite / Bible History, etc. can likely absorb.

Anyrate...Peace.   

[Michael]

Another point of the astrological dimension which is never brought out...unlike our current charts, the ones used from Nostradamus day on back to Babylonia...had 13 astrological signs, not 12.    Hence, any calculations  using only  12 will have a built in flaw to begin with.

And it is strange that those who attack the virgin birth reach for the stars.

E.W. Bullinger, who is sometimes cited by people who bring up the astrological signs as an excuse or reasoning, used virgo to show that the first reference to this constellation-- Virgo --  had to do with a prophecy of the Hebrews in Numbers concerning Messiah.  If you follow his information, you can just as easily conclude the Egyptians stole the constellation from the Jews, as one who reads it as vice versa...especially regarding the name of the boy on her lap being IEZU or "Christ". 

That is, Bullinger predates his Egyptian reference by over 1200 years, based on a Hebrew Messianic prophecy while Israel was in indentured servitude to the Hyksos.  Hyksos, as Isaiah points out in calling them by their origin (Isaiah 52:4).

In fact, the whole work of "The Witness of the stars" by E.W. Bullinger is all about how that Jesus is indeed, the prophesied "Son of G-D", born at Bethlehem (a real place), etc. 

The deity Bel is only datable to about the 1200's -1300's B.C. and is separate from Baal...though assuming and assimilating that identity into himself.  Both Saturninus (the father of the Italian race) who became a first deity, and Bel or Belus, lived at about the same time...so that not even the priests of these two  knew when the referencing of the one left off and the other began or vice versa.  These being 322 10-month years prior to the Trojan War (Theophilus to Autolycus, .21).

In fact, as you read Herodotus and selective Early Church Fathers, you find the origins of the Greek and Roman deities as real people, having an origin.

For example, we see Ceres of Greece become IO to her people, Isis as queen of Egypt, and Demeter to the Romans.  Why?  Because under her, time - money - grain - labor (etc.) came en masse...that is, civilization from Egypt came to Greece beginning with her, and with her -- for Greece -- time began.  hence the name, IO.

 If you follow the Akkadian and Cuneiform in Egypt, you can follow the likely influence period of any transfer of myths between those two regions and powers, including the fertility rites and other strange rituals they shared.
Yet, it involves alot more than someone not steeped into Egyptology, Greco-Roman history, Israelite / Bible History, etc. can likely absorb.

Anyrate...Peace.   

The Babylonians claimed 12 zodiac signs. They may of had 13 at one time, but that is immaterial. At the time the Hebrews wrote swapped over to a 12 sign system, the Babylonians had 12 signs.

Bullinger claimed the Egyptians stole from the Christians is silly in itself and demonstrates a view built upon faith and not reason.

Yes, I understand all of that and more. The Hebrews took gods and made them into "real people" or at least a belief in real people.

Gods became combined. Their genders were changed. Their duties also changed. The surpreme god varied. It is not cut and dry as mythologists claim. Ishtar was both male and female. She was a love goddess and a war goddess both.


The Ancient Near East. Volume I. Ed. James B. Pritchard. Princeton University Press, 1973. Page 35:

“He split her like a shellfish, into two parts
 Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky
 Pulled down the bar and posted guards.
 He bade them to allow not her waters to escape”
 
Ibid. Tablet 5:
“He constructed stations for the great gods,
Fixing their astral likeness as constellations.
He determined the year of designating zones:
He set up three constellations for each of the twelve months.”

The date of this text is questionable, with scholars placing in the early second millennium B.C.E.  From the last quoted line it would seem that the Akkadians had twelve zodiac signs with three constellations associated with each month or sign. This would give us a total of 48 constellations. This is identical to what the later Greeks and Romans would adopt.  Most scholars consider the zodiac constellation to be one of the three mentioned. There was one constellation above the zodiac and one below making a total of 36.  This configuration makes no sense considering several of zodiac constellations such as Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces, Scorpio, and Sagittarius have no real constellations below them.


Lou I don't deny the theological aspects of the virgin birth. The fact it had parallels enhances the idea it was a cosmic myth, not that it detracts from it.   This is what I wrote in my book:

The cosmic myth did not stop with this ancient text. It continued onward. Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Job all have overt astrological references. The explanations of the stories as given in the midrashim proved that the priesthood still knew the exact meaning of the cosmic myth within their text well into the second century C.E. and perhaps the Middle Ages. The Jewish Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls also had astrological references. In the New Testament, Revelation is an astrologer’s dream. The book of Matthew was said to have been written for a Jewish audience. It also contains the most astrological references of the four Gospels.

The construction of the story of Jesus differs from the Old Testament. The story of Jesus started with only a partial cosmic myth— the passion, if we assume Mark was the earliest text. Numerous sayings and parables unrelated to any cosmic myth are included in this early manuscript. What we see in Matthew is the layering of cosmic myth on top of an existing text which already contained a cosmic myth. In the Old Testament we started with a cosmic myth and then layered in details that did not retain to the myth. 

A second difference is that the equinoxes have progressed from the original Old Testament text. These should seem more familiar to us with the vernal equinox in Aries, the autumnal equinox in Libra, and the summer and winter solstices in Cancer and Capricorn, respectively. There is no progression to new signs, although aspects of the ancient ordinances are still in place.

A third difference is that Jesus is a solar god, whereas YHWH is a lunar god. As such, our cosmic myth coincides to the constellations 180 degrees out of phase with the lunar god. Thus, Jesus’ winter-solstice birth is depicted in the summer constellations and his spring passion is depicted in the autumn constellations—all constellations seen just before sunrise.

A fourth difference is in the meaning of the constellations and stars. This has evolved over a period of two thousand years. Clearly it is based on a Greek influence. The significance of constellations as a group takes priority over individual stars, although certain stars will still retain their “star status.” 

From our previous study, it should be fairly simple for nearly anyone to identify the cosmic-myth aspects of the story.  What follows is my interpretation of the cosmic myth of Jesus as presented in Matthew.
Chapter one of Matthew starts with the genealogy of Joseph. It incorporates our cosmic myths of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Tamar, David and Solomon. The text does refer to Joseph as “son of David”. This shows a significant relationship. The messiah was to come from the “House of David.” David, as you recall, was lunar. His son would be solar. As the “son of David”, this would connect Joseph to a solar sign, in this case Leo, the consort of Virgo, the virgin who can only be Mary.

Mary is the celestial Virgo. This fact is recognized unofficially by the Catholic Church in their celebration of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her Assumption as the dates are associated with ancient Roman rites involving Virgo.  The virgin bringing forth a son would be the constellation Coma, which was depicted as the virgin with a child.

Chapter two of Matthew deals very heavily with the cosmic myth. This chapter oozes with a fictional nature as the sole reference for Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents”. This event certainly would have caused an uprising which would not have been missed by historians of that age.

Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, is literally translated as “house of bread.” The word ‘house’ can also be a zodiac constellation reference. Judging from ancient history, I would suggest that each “house” or clan was represented by a constellation. This custom would date from ancient Babylon, third millennium B.C.E. In this case the “house of bread” would be Virgo, which was associated with wheat.

The author wanted us to associate Jesus with the summer solstice. With the addition of July and August to the calendar, the break-up of Asad would have been finalized—thus separating Libra, Virgo, Leo, and Cancer once and for all. It would seem the author is of the “old school” inasmuch as he maintains a relationship of Virgo with the summer solstice. Jesus is called a “Nazarene”, as was Samson. Again this is a representation of the long hair associated with the solar myth.

The “slaughter of the innocents” by Herod is very similar to the previously discussed midrash of the “slaughter of the innocents” by Nimrod, in Abraham’s myth. The Hebrews associated Nimrod with Orion. Orion is also an apt representation of Herod.

The three wise men that follow the “Star of the East” would represent the three stars of the belt of Orion which follow Sirius (“Chieftain of the East”) across the sky. The three wise men replace the three sons of Noah. In modern representations one of the wise men is typically given dark skin as if to represent the three races of man as did the three sons of Noah. The ox and lamb in the modern nativity scene are a throw-back to 2000 B.C.E., when the vernal equinox changed from Taurus (Ox) to Aries (lamb). The ass would suggest an association with the stars of Cancer which represents the Northern and Southern Ass.
T
he “innocents”, or murdered children, could be represented by Lepus at the foot of Orion. It is also possible that they could be linked to the same star in Eridanus which represented the murder of the first born in the tale of Moses. This would accord with the fact that the Holy Trio fled to Egypt and then returned—another Eridanus representation.

[tiglathpileser]

Michael,

I recognize your passion for the astrological dimension of the scriptural texts, but I think your thesis is a stretch.

I think the development of the virgin birth myth (NOTE: I am not using the term in any way to imply myth = false!) is theological rather than astrological.   I think there is a trajectory of Christology from "low" to "high" from Paul's letters, thru Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John, and the virgin birth imagery serves a higher Christology that would crystalize in the next centuries into very developed incarnational language.

Lou,

I couldn't agree more with you regarding the progression of Jesus' Christology from Paul's letters through the Gospel of John. When I read Paul followed by the Gospels in order of composition, I can't help but see a theological progression of Jesus' divinity. The miracles performed by Jesus, as recorded in the four canonized gospels, make no appearance in the letters of Paul. The first century missionary chose to proclaim Jesus rather than explain who Jesus was, with the obvious exception being that Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose from the grave by the power of God. There is no mention of earthly parents in Paul’s letters, and he makes no claim that Jesus had a mother named Mary or a father named Joseph. Furthermore, there are no references to Joseph, the father of Jesus, in the rest of the New Testament outside the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. There is not even the slightest hint in Paul’s writings to indicate he knew of any miraculous birth of Jesus.

Paul appears to have understood Jesus as a mortal being who came into the world through the normal birthing process. He describes to the church in Galatia that Jesus was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). He also understood Jesus as being the descendant of David, who became David’s descendant “through the flesh” (Rom. 1:3). Paul makes mention in his letter to the Galatians that Jesus had a brother named James, and he uses the Greek word for brother, adelphos, when making his point (Gal. 1:9). The absence of a tradition of the virgin birth in Paul’s writings indicates that even twenty years after Jesus’ death the story had not yet been invented. That tradition would develop later, which I will describe momentarily. First I think we need to look at the Gospel of Mark to see what it says about the early life of Jesus.

A close examination of the Gospel of Mark yields a stunning realization: Joseph is never mentioned as the father of Jesus, and Mary is mentioned in just two passages of the text. Moreover, the way in which Mary is portrayed in these two passages is not particularly flattering. In the first reference, which can be found in Mark 3, the text describes how the mother and brothers of Jesus came to visit him upon his arrival at Nazareth (Mark 3:31). Jesus had already started his ministry, but his mother and brothers thought he was not in the best mental condition. The biblical terminology used is that Jesus was “beside himself,” which literally meant his family believed he was crazy. Jesus’ family members were not the only people who thought he was not well. The same chapter in Mark tells us that other people found Jesus’ behavior so disturbing that they believed he was possessed by demons (Mark 3:22). The Gospel of Mark also describes Jesus rebuking his family in chapter 3 upon finding out their feelings toward him. He motions to the crowd, calling his true mothers and brothers and sisters those who do the will of God (Mark 3:34-35). At least one biblical scholar, Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, has argued that such questioning of Jesus’ ministry does not make sense if Mary had truly experienced a virgin birth. She would have known Jesus was in a healthy mental state all along, yet the Gospel of Mark mentions Mary worried about her son. How is it possible that someone who had experienced a divine pregnancy would come to doubt the sanity of the son given her by the spirit of God? The rational explanation is that this late gospel tradition of the virgin birth had not yet developed.

The other passage in the Gospel of Mark that contains a reference to Jesus’ mother occurs in Mark 6, which is where his mother is first given a name. We find out that Jesus’ mother’s name is Mary, and that Jesus also has fours brother and at least two sisters (Mark 6:3). This particular verse in Mark also describes Jesus as “the carpenter, the son of Mary.” The people present in Nazareth had just heard Jesus speak, and began to ask where he received his authority. In addition to describing Jesus’ occupation and naming his mother, the crowd also asks if Jesus is the one who is the “brother of James, and Joses, and Judas and Simon.” The crowd also asks, “Are not his sisters here with us?” What makes this passage significant is the description of Jesus as the “son of Mary.” Such terminology in first-century Palestine indicated that Jesus’ paternity was being questioned. It was the norm in Jewish society to refer to children as the sons and daughters of the father rather than the mother. For Mark to mention that Jesus was the son of Mary called into question his legitimacy as a child. Matthew clearly disagreed with this terminology used by Mark, and he sought to remedy the situation when he wrote his gospel.

Whereas Mark left readers questioning the paternity of Jesus in his gospel, Matthew attempted to erase such suspicion when he wrote his account of Jesus’ life. Matthew started this process by omitting the first passage that called into question Jesus’ divine birth, namely the mention that Jesus’ family claimed he was “beside himself,” which is found in Mark 3. Eliminating such a short reference served the purpose of making Jesus’ original rebuke, as depicted in Mark, look more like a teaching in Matthew. What is compelling about Matthew’s decision to leave out the first Marcan reference to Jesus’ relatives’ doubt is that Matthew omitted as few as sixty verses of the entire Gospel of Mark. Having successfully erased the mention from his gospel, Matthew’s next goal was to fix what he saw as an “error” in Mark 6. Matthew, like many Jewish scribes of his day, accomplished this task through careful editing. Where Mark described Jesus as “the carpenter, the son of Mary,” Matthew edited the text to read that Jesus was “the carpenter’s son,” and that he had a “mother called Mary” (compare Mark 6:3, Matt. 13:55). The difference between the two texts is obvious: Jesus is a carpenter according to Mark, but he is the son of a carpenter according to Matthew. Matthew altered the text in Mark by assigning Joseph as the carpenter and mentioning Jesus was Joseph’s son, which erased the question of Jesus’ illegitimacy altogether. The phrase “son of Mary” mentioned in Mark was also altered to read something less controversial in Matthew. Matthew edited the “son of Mary” reference to read that Jesus had a mother just like everyone else, and that her name was Mary. This slight change in the gospel text makes a huge difference when one reads the two verses in question side by side. The difference is that Mark’s reference depicts Jesus as having an unknown father whereas Matthew’s reference brings closure to the issue. In addition to the textual changes, once the mention of Joseph as the father of Jesus had been completed by the author of Matthew, the stigma of Jesus being an illegitimate child soon disappeared.

How the virgin birth story in Matthew came into existence is best explained as the final product of a long theological process that began with Paul. As stated earlier, Paul mentions no miraculous birth of Jesus in any of his letters. Moreover, Paul does not appear to know much about the earthly ministry of Jesus. From analyzing the texts, however, it becomes apparent that Paul seemed to believe God accepted Jesus as his son through a process of “adoptionism.” In other words, God adopted Jesus into his heavenly kingdom only after Jesus’ reconciling act on the cross. For Paul, Jesus was not the son of God throughout his ministry. Only at the tail end of his ministry did God designate him as “son.” This position of Paul can be seen even more clearly in Romans 1:4, where Paul states that it was Jesus “who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power as the son of God by his resurrection from the dead.” It was God, through his spirit, who declared Jesus his son at the resurrection. What should stand out as significant in this view of Jesus is that he and God are not one and the same. There is no concept of a Trinity apparent in Paul’s theology, which stands in direct opposition to the beliefs of many in present-day Christianity. Moreover, the verse in Romans 1:4 appears to be the starting point for what eventually developed into the virgin birth tradition.

Whereas Paul believed Jesus became God’s son at the resurrection, the author of Mark believed the same adoption took place at Jesus’ baptism. Mark therefore begins his gospel with the baptism of Jesus.  Mark also expands upon Paul’s belief that God “declared” the status of Jesus after his saving act on the cross. The author draws upon Isaiah 42:1 and Psalm 2:7 when writing in Mark 1:11 that God said to Jesus, “You are my son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” Isaiah 42 is the key verse in which the concept of a “suffering Servant” first makes its appearance in Jewish tradition. Psalm 2:7 was written during the time following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in which the Jewish people started to formulate a belief in a divine messiah. Mark was being very deliberate when writing the words allegedly spoken by God during Jesus’ baptism. He was trying to engage his audience by challenging them to recall similar terminology in Isaiah and the Psalms. Mark did not stop there either, but instead chose his next alteration of Paul’s writing to expand on the “spirit of holiness.” Mark accomplished this by designating that spirit as the Holy Spirit, which was an extension of, and a part of, God. This Holy Spirit came to Jesus in the form of a dove, and eventually it became the key source for the development of the Christian Trinity. Just as Mark moved Jesus’ confirmed divinity from the time of his resurrection to the time of his baptism, Matthew went even further by proclaiming Jesus’ divinity at the time of his birth.

The author of the gospel of Matthew wanted to push the Christology of Jesus even further back, in particular to the time of his conception. For Matthew, since Jesus was God’s son at the resurrection, he also had to be God’s son during his earthly ministry. Jesus was thus adopted by God not during his baptism as Mark would have it, but rather at his birth. This characteristic of the divine exhibited in Jesus was revealed in a dream to Jesus’ father, Joseph. It is Joseph, according to Matthew, who first hears of the plan God has for Jesus. It is also revealed to Joseph that Jesus is a descendant of King David, and thus the belief in Jesus as the promised messiah is created in Matthew’s gospel. Moreover, the concept of a Holy Spirit is present once again as Matthew successfully expanded on Paul’s terminology, “spirit of holiness.” A similar backward projection of Jesus divinity can be seen in the gospel of Luke, which also describes miraculous events surrounding the birth of Jesus. The climax of this backward progression that started with Paul’s letter to the Romans occurs at the beginning of the gospel of John, which states matter-of-factly that Jesus existed before the creation of the world and that he was “the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God” (John 1: 1). The final progression chart therefore looks like this: 1) Jesus is adopted by God as his son at the resurrection according to Paul’s letter to the Romans. 2) Mark expands on this theology, placing Jesus’ adoption at the baptism. 3) Matthew and Luke are not happy with Mark’s placement of the adoption. They have a higher Christology of Jesus and therefore create the birth narratives to explain how Jesus was adopted as the son of God at birth. 4) John completes the cycle by placing the adoption of Jesus before the creation of the world, thereby displaying the highest form of Christology of all the canonical gospels.

[Brianroy]

Redating Revelation and other NT works, while destroying the Quelle Myth

Mike, the Gospel of Mark is simply the preachings of Peter in Rome, as recollected and edited by Mark...it is the THIRD Gospel.  This is the literary historical testimony.  Textual Criticism will one day be guided by such supporting data more rigorously. 

When the new dating system based on the historical literary texts is accepted...it will also alter the way you view the texts. 

The link is provided above to my work product, and this dating of the  books of the NT, I personally believe,  will hold more closely to these dates below, than anything you have in class presently.  Hypothetically...if I am correct, and you were to view the dates below as a new textbook format of correctly dating the NT...how will that affect your textual criticism of the development of Christology?

Remember...you do not have to agree.  It is hypothetical...how then will you approach the new data should it be updated as to how it appears below?  Hypothetically?


Supplement: Historic Dates of New Testament Authorship

Letter or Work   When Written      Written in / from 

Jude                  Pentecost, A.D. 47      Jerusalem, Israel
James          Pentecost, A.D. 47      Jerusalem, Israel
Galatians                         A.D. 48                 Philippi, Greece
Gospel of Luke       A.D. 50         Corinth, Achaia


I Thessalonians   February - July, A.D. 52   Ephesus, Asia
I Corinthians   July - November, A.D. 52   Ephesus, Asia

Revelation                Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53   Patmos, Aegean

Romans                    October - November, A.D. 53   Corinth, Achaia


Titus                     February, A.D. 54      Troas, Aegean Sea
Colossians   May - November, A.D. 54   Jerusalem, Israel
I Timothy      May - November, A.D. 54   Jerusalem, Israel

II Thessalonians   August - December, A.D. 54   Ephesus, Asia

Gospel of Matthew   May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56   Jerusalem, Israel

Philemon                   A.D. 56         Rome, Italy
II Timothy                 October, A.D. 56      Rome, Italy
Ephesians   October, A.D. 56      Rome, Italy
   
Philippians   February - April, A.D. 57   Rome, Italy
I Peter   March - April, A.D. 57      Rome, Italy

Gospel of Mark   June, A.D. 57   Rome, Italy

II Peter                      June, A.D. 57      Rome, Italy

Acts of the Apostles    July, A.D. 57   Rome, Italy

Hebrews                       July, A.D. 57      Rome, Italy


I John (severed intro)       August - October, A.D. 57   Ephesus, Asia
Gospel of John   August - October, A.D. 57   Ephesus, Asia

2,3 John   A.D. 58 - A.D. 96         Ephesus, Asia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks in advance.  Peace.

[Brianroy]

http://www.johnallegro.org/text/Further_Messianic_References_in_Qumran_Literature.pdf

I am repeating this Dead Sea Scroll perspective from John Allegro's collection here...because the prophecy of Genesis 49:10, as it was historically understood in the First century A.D., seems to support Jesus as the Biblical fulfillment -- in historical context and application as a genuine or as the last potentially genuine Messiah that was possible to have come -- so well.

For the ruler's staff is the royal
mandate...says the DEAD Sea Community in or near those of the First century A.D.

 This changes the interpretation placed upon it by rabbins post 200 A.D., and supports the CHRISTIAN interpretation upon Genesis 49:10.

This means, textual analysis may often need to refer to historical literary sources for support upon how a text was viewed in various time periods...rather than trying to place a modern view or rewrite of how the ancients viewed a text...that is, we nee to see more through their eyes...rather than ours, or any time later time period views that  they would not have been aware of nor taken.     

Peace. 

[Brianroy]

Some related links to this topic, having information:

Regarding Isaiah 7:14 -
http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/B/BeckAlmah/BeckAlmah.PDF

The Linkage Between Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eternity/rsv-ot_bruce.pdf

(for Bruce, refer  p. 45)




Regarding the singular seed or Chosen one Paul refers to:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tb/seed_alexander.pdf

Peace.

[archaeologist]

i use lee Strobel's 'A Case for Christ' a lot not because he is a learned andhonest scholar but because he allows learned and respected scholars to speak and present their knowledge in a manne that clearly outlines the solutions to many problems.

in his interview with Dr. Metger, it is pointed out that the many mss. referring to other people being born of virgins and other similiarities to Christ, were written WELL AFTER Christ's life and the gospels.

even if those secular mss. were originally authored prior to Christ's life, we can easily accept editing of them as: 1. they did not have God guiding them;

2. they were written by non-believers who did not follow God's morality, thus editing is well within the realm of possibilities;

 3.  the devil deceives and has men change the mss. of these people to look like Christ and cause confusion among those researching this area of study.

we can not attribute God's morality to non-believers and assume that they wrote as the biblical authors did then think that the biblical authors wrote contrary to the message they were transmitting.  wouldn't make sense and would elevate the secular writings to infallibility status while demoting the books of thr Bible to heathen deception.

thus the only conclusion is that the mss., addressing those people who had lives 'similar' to Christ but prior to Him, were edited by those who wanted to make their leader look like Christ and attract more adherents.

[Brianroy]

Isaiah Scroll Page 6

Line 29: Last line. First Word "Ha-almah" The word "ha-almah" (the virgin) is the first word on the line after the lacuna and fortunately was not lost in the lacuna. It is the identical form that is in M. See my comments on this word and the verse in general for a better understanding of the meaning of this word. The 5th word in the last line is "ve-qar'a" or may be "yiqar'a." This would be an imp. 3ms 2nd stem (his name) "it shall be called." The Masoretic has "qar'atha" which may be a 2ms pf and the context would require "you will call" (his name). Or: 5th word: Q = "ve-qar'a" cj + pf 3ms (and he shall call) and M = "ve-qar'at" cj + pf 3fs (and she shall call). The name which follows is Immanuel which in the Masoretic is written as two words meaning "God [is] with us" and in Q the two words are written as one word, thus acknowledging it as a proper name, Immanuel."


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


Isaiah 7 - 8

"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Verse 14: A Virgin: The Hebrew word in the text that is translated virgin is "almah." It has a definite article in Hebrew as can be seen in the last word in the first line in the Hebrew text above. It is "ha'almah" or literally "the virgin." Only after the beginning of the Christian dispensation did Jewish scholars insist that the word means a young woman who is not necessarily a virgin and therefore they say a virgin birth was not predicted. Irenaeus is the first one to answer that argument and his points have not been improved upon. One of the most telling arguments he uses is that the Septuagint translators not only translated the verse here but they told what it meant, to them, before the advent of Jesus. It is obvious from their translation that they believed that one who would be called "God with us" required a virgin birth.

Jewish Sages Who Translated the Septuagint Version of Isaiah in 285 BC believed that "ha'almah" Ment Virgin and not Young Woman.

Jewish scholars used the words "ha parthenos" (the virgin) for the Hebrew "ha-'almah"

Irenaeus wrote about 140 A.D., and is one of the first to show that Jews before the time of Christ knew that Isaiah 7:14 predicted a virgin birth. Irenaeus points out that the Septuagint translators in 285 B.C. used a word in Greek that means exactly what "virgin" means in English. Since the Jewish Septuagint translators used the Greek word "parthenos" to translate the Hebrew word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 they therefore "interpreted" the passage as well as translated it to mean that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. Irenaeus said:


" 1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph;......
" and [since] this interpretation [of "virgin" by the Septuagint translators] of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared--for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted;--[since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations,"*

*Irenaeus Book III Chapter XXI
That is: a "desire to make different translations" than those made by the Septuagint translators whose genius had been approved by Jewish historians like Josephus and Philo and other Jews from the time of Ptolemy Lagos through the first century.

Origen, in the third century, used arguments against the objections of the post first century Jews that are as good today as when first elucidated.
"But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, [almah,] to endeavor to persuade those who are unable to determine whether they ought to believe it [virgin birth] or not, that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a virgin, because at his birth these words, "God with us," were uttered, let us make good our point from the words themselves. The Lord is related to have spoken to Ahaz thus: "Ask a sign for thyself from the LORD thy God, either in the depth or height above;" and afterwards the sign is given, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." What kind of sign, then, would that have been--a young woman who was not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., "God with us"),--whether a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at whose birth it is said, "God with us." And should he be so captious as to say that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, "Ask for thyself a sign from the LORD thy God," we shall ask in return, who in the times of Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of, "Immanuel," i.e., "God with us?" And if no one can be found. then manifestly what was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written that the Savior was born of the house of David according to the flesh; and this sign is said to be "in the depth or in the height," since "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things." And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with what meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future, or the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is an object of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers."*

*Origen Contra Celcus XXXV
Verse 14: Immanuel Hebrew 'im-manu 'el: The name appears three times as two words, all in Isaiah, here and 8:8, and 8:10 and no where else in the O.T. It is translated "God is with us" in the KJV and NIV in 8:10 but there it should also be translated as a name and not as "God is with us."

Immanuel is written as two words in the masoretic text.
Immanuel is written as one word in the Qumran Scroll.

See below for further discussion under 8:8, 10. and see the Qumran scroll page where Immanuel is used 2 times in the first 3 lines...."

[Hebrew characters on link.]

[Fletch]

Hi Forum,
I would like to add a link to bring the alternative point of view to previous links in this thread.

Link with five "virgin birth" papers

There are five which deal with Isaiah 7:14/virgin birth.  If anyone can find anything incorrect with anything in them, please bring it up.  I can contact the author also.

Author of Link:
Professor Uri Yosef was born, raised, and educated in Israel, and completed his higher education (Ph.D. and M.B.A.) in the US. A researcher, scholar, and former tenured professor, Uri speaks at various Jewish venues about the efforts to counter Christian missionary groups. Uri's background in languages includes: Hebrew (native tongue), English, German, and Yiddish on a fluent level; Arabic, Aramaic, Portuguese, and Spanish, and ASL (American Sign Language) at various levels of proficiency.
Thanks,
Fletch

[archaeologist]

thanks for the link, the papers look interesting and i will go through them next week when i have more time.

[RamboPreacher]

parthenos in the LXX - a young maiden of marriageable age, assumed a virgin (in context).
then we find this in the NT - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." what "scripture"? that would be the LXX, right?   

[Fletch]

parthenos in the LXX - a young maiden of marriageable age, assumed a virgin (in context).

Hi RamboPreacher,
The context of Isaiah 7:14 is of a pregnant woman(see also Gen16:11), so under your given definition, the "(in context)" would then "assume" a non-virgin?

Fletch