Midwife: Remained a Virgin

[Standing Up]

As you read, please keep in mind the time in which these things took place c150ad. Long before certain doctrines had been hammered out.

The Protoevangelium of James (PoJ) relates this story:

" And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. "

Why do you think the midwife thought she remained a virgin?

There's a bright light that recedes and the child appears. A strange sight. And the midwife says Mary is still a virgin. Why does she think this?

Joseph had told her Mary conceived and carried the child as a virgin. But why, upon birth, does the midwife believe Mary is still a virgin? What was different about this birth from all the others the midwife had attended? What must have been missing?

All the normal things (blood, placenta, umbilical cord) that accompany a normal birth canal birth. If those are not there, she can believe Mary is still a virgin.

ADDITIONAL:

So, no normal birth is shown in the PoJ, but a docetic (Christ only seemed to have flesh) view. IOW, take away the blood and placenta and umbilical cord and the tie to humanity vanishes. God-in-the-flesh becomes God-the-phantom.

Origen traced the belief that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph/previous wife to the PoJ and gospel of Peter. Both present docetic beliefs.

Docetism:
Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his physical body was a phantasm. The word docetai (illusionists) referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197-203),[5] who discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter, during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in Rhosus, and later condemned it as a forgery
-wiki-

The PoJ was condemned later. As shown above, it too presented the illusion of Christ's humanity; it too is docetic.

 

[Thekla]

As you read, please keep in mind the time in which these things took place c150ad. Long before certain doctrines had been hammered out.

The Protoevangelium of James (PoJ) relates this story:

" And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. "

Why do you think the midwife thought she remained a virgin?

There's a bright light that recedes and the child appears. A strange sight. And the midwife says Mary is still a virgin. Why does she think this?

Joseph had told her Mary conceived and carried the child as a virgin. But why, upon birth, does the midwife believe Mary is still a virgin? What was different about this birth from all the others the midwife had attended? What must have been missing?

All the normal things (blood, placenta, umbilical cord) that accompany a normal birth canal birth. If those are not there, she can believe Mary is still a virgin.

ADDITIONAL:

So, no normal birth is shown in the PoJ, but a docetic (Christ only seemed to have flesh) view. IOW, take away the blood and placenta and umbilical cord and the tie to humanity vanishes. God-in-the-flesh becomes God-the-phantom.

Origen traced the belief that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph/previous wife to the PoJ and gospel of Peter. Both present docetic beliefs.

Docetism:
Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his physical body was a phantasm. The word docetai (illusionists) referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197-203),[5] who discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter, during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in Rhosus, and later condemned it as a forgery
-wiki-

The PoJ was condemned later. As shown above, it too presented the illusion of Christ's humanity; it too is docetic.

In literary analysis, there is text, context, and subtext.

The text is what is said, the subtext is roughly what is not said.

Every author chooses what to describe (based on a standard that is not typically fully accessible to the reader).

One can read "against the text" - "read" the subtext.

In R. Barthes' S/Z, he advocates reading subtext as a form of creative readership which allows the reader to create a "new text" (which may or may not reflect the author's views or text).

Here, because the author does not give the information, one of a potentially infinite number of possible subtextual readings is the one you describe -- that there is no afterbirth.

Without further context to point to that reading, it becomes a "creative re-texting of the text through subtextual reading" -- not necessarily accurate on your part.

What is rather interesting -- if your "reading" is correct, that there was no afterbirth - how did the author come to know what has only recently been discovered (though still being researched); that the placenta is formed from the father's genetic contribution.
Placenta
New Scientist - Google Books

If the finding is correct, a virginal birth would likely mean no afterbirth.

 

[Standing Up]

What's your point Thekla? Mice are men? There's no divinity in Christ? Did you read the article to the end? See the third paragraph from the end.

 

[Thekla]

What's your point Thekla? Mice are men? There's no divinity in Christ? Did you read the article to the end? See the third paragraph from the end.

I did read the third paragraph from the end.
As the author stated, it is thought that the placenta would remain small; however, as the pregnancy would not be viable it is impossible to know what would occur in a full term pregnancy.

During the puerperal state, the mother's hormonal balance and uterine size begin their return to normal and the remaining fluids - including placental leavings - are reabsorbed and also discharged as lochia. Ie., no firm conclusion can be reached. Should such a pregnancy occur - that there would be any visible placenta remaining (ie it may not exist full term, may be reabsorbed, may be discharged as lochia) is at best doubtful. Given the phenomenon of reabsorption, lochial discharge, and the fact that such a placenta would not be viable (meaning it's survival full term would be unlikely), it is likely that no such false (female only) placenta would either remain or be visible.

On your first point, mice have become central to scientific study as stand-ins for human subjects (including most recently "knock-out" mice) because they area a fast breeding short-lived mammalian human parallel. They represent a guide and first step, and researchers have indeed made several mouse discoveries that are fully applicable to humans.

As I noted, research is ongoing in this area.

What is clear is that if your 'reading' is correct, the author of the PoJ was far more knowledgeable about the features of true virgin birth than mankind has been until only recently (an almost 1800 year jump on the scientific community).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That's a trip...

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

What is clear is that if your 'reading' is correct, the author of the PoJ was far more knowledgeable about the features of true virgin birth than mankind has been until only recently (an almost 1800 year jump on the scientific community).

Be sure to keep us apprised when they produce a sans placenta, umbilical cord, after birth, not to mention infant, virgin birth

 

[Thekla]

Be sure to keep us apprised when they produce a sans placenta, umbilical cord, after birth, not to mention infant, virgin birth

As the author mentioned (last quote), mammalian parthenogenesis is impossible unless there is a miracle.

Nor could one say there was a 'virgin birth', or any birth, without an infant.

 

[Thekla]

As well, as EasyG pointed out, Adam and Eve likely had no belly-buttons (ie, no placenta); if to be human requires a placenta, then we are not descended from humans. (And Paul refers to Christ as the second Adam.)

 

[Standing Up]

As well, as EasyG pointed out, Adam and Eve likely had no belly-buttons (ie, no placenta); if to be human requires a placenta, then we are not descended from humans. (And Paul refers to Christ as the second Adam.)

Clearly from history there are those who believe Christ was born out from Mary's side, from the sealed east gate. No blood, no afterbirth. Ever-virgin.

At least you have presented accurately the thinking of some at that time.

For me, I'll go with scripture and tradition through Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and other. Christ born normally of the flesh and blood.

 

[Thekla]

Clearly from history there are those who believe Christ was born out from Mary's side, from the sealed east gate. No blood, no afterbirth. Ever-virgin.

At least you have presented accurately the thinking of some at that time.

For me, I'll go with scripture and tradition through Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and other. Christ born normally of the flesh and blood.

It seems you read into what you read, and do not accurately present the thinking of some.

Which is a shame, unless you are following the creative direction of Barthes.

I don't think that sort of creative reading is appropriate in matters of Christianity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It seems you read into what you read, and do not accurately present the thinking of some.

Which is a shame, unless you are following the creative direction of Barthes.

I don't think that sort of creative reading is appropriate in matters of Christianity.

So, do you believe that Jesus Christ was or was not born with a placenta, afterbirth, and blood? If not, why don't you?

 

[Thekla]

So, do you believe that Jesus Christ was or was not born with a placenta, afterbirth, and blood? If not, why don't you?

I don't claim to know.

 

[Kristos]

My personal feeling is that he was born like us - but when I read this thread - about Jesus passing through a wall, I'm reminded of the Resurrection. While the stone was sealed by the Jews... - he passed bodily from it. Does that make the gospel of Matthew docetic? Or does this mean that the early Church and author of the PoJ saw the Resurrection as the necessarily central idea in Christian thought? That even Christ's birth was foreshadowing of His death for this was the reason He came into the world. The womb and the tomb -

 

[Erose]

I think the biggest thing in this mess of a conversation that is forgotten is we are talking about God here. God can do whatever He pleases. If He wants a virgin to conceive a child without the introduction of seed He can do this. If He wants a virgin to give birth to a child and retain her virginity then He can do this as well.

It is obvious from both Scripture and Tradition that Mary's virginity was extremely important when it came to the Gospel. It is the most physical evidence of Jesus' miraculous conception and birth. Without Mary's Virginity then Jesus is not the Son of God, but rather the son of Joseph and the whole Christian message is a lie.

Also there is no evidence whatsoever that POJ is the source of this teaching. POJ like the Gospels themselves is most probably the result of an author trying to document what he was taught on the subject, because he felt it was important to document. Since it's early on (at the latest mid-2nd century) we are talking about a Church in it's 3rd or 4th generation. There were probably people still alive at the time of the writing of PoJ that learned directly from the Apostles.

Also another noted fact is that PoJ was written BEFORE the Diocetian heresy (late 2nd century).

Also another noted fact was that PoJ was not rejected by the Church as a writing to be avoided. But rather it was rejected as canonical and as such could not be read as Scripture in the liturgy in Church.

I think what you have in the PoJ is what we now call Christian Fiction or Historical Fiction, in other words you have an author who took what was known and wrote a story around that knowledge to fill in the gaps of what was not known.

Was there a light involved in the birth of Jesus? I doubt it. I think that this was a writing method of discribing a mystery that quite honestly cannot be explained with words. So the light was used to block out the part that is unexplainable.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And we know that God caused a man (John the Baptist) to grow seven heads. That, assuredly is proof that not only can God do what He pleases, but he doesn't need the Bible to record it for us.

 

[Standing Up]

My personal feeling is that he was born like us - but when I read this thread - about Jesus passing through a wall, I'm reminded of the Resurrection. While the stone was sealed by the Jews... - he passed bodily from it. Does that make the gospel of Matthew docetic? Or does this mean that the early Church and author of the PoJ saw the Resurrection as the necessarily central idea in Christian thought? That even Christ's birth was foreshadowing of His death for this was the reason He came into the world. The womb and the tomb -

Born like us. Yep. But do you include everything that goes with that? The midwife in the PoJ claimed Mary was still a virgin. Why? Because none of that stuff (blood, afterbirth, umbilical cord) was present. It was retained. This would make Mary ill. Perhaps that's why Aquinas called the PoJ spurious rantings. A midwife contradicted scripture he thought.

Or, born normal with all the evidence, except her virginity somehow remained intact. Christ passed through the wall, but as an infant? Didn't He tell Mary about 30 years of age, My time has not yet come? An infant. He was not only God, but also human. He emptied Himself, had to learn obedience.

There's another infancy gospel about His childhood that has Him killing rude kids and other nonsense. Just another outgrowth of abnormality.

Born like us. With everything that entails. When He physically entered His ministry (at baptism), then He revealed who He was. The Lamb of God. Not the 'let's do some miracles for the heck of it'. Zapping and zipping, calling down thunder for personal reasons. Before His time.

 

[Standing Up]

I think the biggest thing in this mess of a conversation that is forgotten is we are talking about God here. God can do whatever He pleases. If He wants a virgin to conceive a child without the introduction of seed He can do this. If He wants a virgin to give birth to a child and retain her virginity then He can do this as well.

He can. But He's the one who inspired scripture and scripture says Mary went to the Temple after the days of purification and presented the doves for sacrifice (Lk. 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord. This relates to Lev. 12. the blood.

It is obvious from both Scripture and Tradition that Mary's virginity was extremely important when it came to the Gospel. It is the most physical evidence of Jesus' miraculous conception and birth. Without Mary's Virginity then Jesus is not the Son of God, but rather the son of Joseph and the whole Christian message is a lie.

Oddly this is exactly the reverse of the argument from Tertullian c200ad. He said Joseph/Mary's children (James, etc) were proof of God-in-the-flesh. The argument wasn't about the virgin birth (except to the Jews), but about the human flesh of Christ. Some thought Him a phantom, only apparent, not birthed, or if He had flesh still not born normally.

Throughout our history, Christians believed in the virgin conception and birth. The disagreement was what happened next (upon birth). Virginity intact or not.

Also there is no evidence whatsoever that POJ is the source of this teaching. POJ like the Gospels themselves is most probably the result of an author trying to document what he was taught on the subject, because he felt it was important to document. Since it's early on (at the latest mid-2nd century) we are talking about a Church in it's 3rd or 4th generation. There were probably people still alive at the time of the writing of PoJ that learned directly from the Apostles.

Also another noted fact is that PoJ was written BEFORE the Diocetian heresy (late 2nd century).

Origen says the source of the idea that the brothers of Jesus were from Joseph/previous wife was PoJames and gospel of peter.

PoJ is thought to be written c150ad. We don't know who wrote the PoJames, but there's no way it sources to apostles (it contradicts scripture). Most likely it sources to Cerdo (c140ad) , Marcion (c150ad) bishop of Sinope, or Valentinus (c145ad). They taught docetic ideas (birth abnormal, body not real, death not real).

Also another noted fact was that PoJ was not rejected by the Church as a writing to be avoided. But rather it was rejected as canonical and as such could not be read as Scripture in the liturgy in Church.

To the contrary:

from the gelasian decree (papal approved)
V. The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:

I think what you have in the PoJ is what we now call Christian Fiction or Historical Fiction, in other words you have an author who took what was known and wrote a story around that knowledge to fill in the gaps of what was not known.

Was there a light involved in the birth of Jesus? I doubt it. I think that this was a writing method of discribing a mystery that quite honestly cannot be explained with words. So the light was used to block out the part that is unexplainable.

She was a midwife who claimed she witnessed the events. Either it's accurate or not. But if we agree its fiction, then here are the choices about who the brothers were:

1) sons of Joseph/Mary
2) sons of Joseph/previous wife (rejected as fiction)
3) cousins (invented by Jerome c 400, so rejected as too late to be apostolic and it contradicts scripture)

 

[SolomonVII]

My personal feeling is that he was born like us - but when I read this thread - about Jesus passing through a wall, I'm reminded of the Resurrection. While the stone was sealed by the Jews... - he passed bodily from it. Does that make the gospel of Matthew docetic? Or does this mean that the early Church and author of the PoJ saw the Resurrection as the necessarily central idea in Christian thought? That even Christ's birth was foreshadowing of His death for this was the reason He came into the world. The womb and the tomb -

Was not the tomb opened as well, like Luke relates about the womb of Mary; the stone rolled away, unsealed, the burial garments left behind for all to discover?

I guess I will have to revisit those passages to make sure.

The resurrected Jesus appears suddently and disappears just as suddenly.
And he eats, and invites people to touch him, all the while assuring us that he is not a ghost, but one and the same person that he always was.

It is good indeed to use the Bible to help get an understanding of the Bible.
Very much, the tomb is unsealed like the womb of Mary is opened, the burial clothes left behind like afterbirth that the unborn wears into survive the world of the womb is surely left behind, Jesus is reborn; this is the retelling of the Nativity of the Gospel.

Mary Magdalene testifies that the rock is rolled away, and hears the Gardener's voice, giving her her name. Her soul is healed
Salome whose hand withers away touching the hymen obstructing the passage of Jesus into this world.
For Mary of Magdala, though. the gates of Hell have not prevailed, and the Resurrected body of the Lord enters into the New Creation.

 

[Thekla]

Born like us. Yep. But do you include everything that goes with that? The midwife in the PoJ claimed Mary was still a virgin. Why? Because none of that stuff (blood, afterbirth, umbilical cord) was present. It was retained. This would make Mary ill. Perhaps that's why Aquinas called the PoJ spurious rantings. A midwife contradicted scripture he thought.

Which version are you reading - there is no mention of how the midwife knows this is a virgin birth, no mention of afterbirth or the absence of afterbirth.

Then, you are incorrect in your assertions; it is not unusual for some of the placenta to remain and be "resorbed" (the medical term) and/or be discharged in the lochia. As before (and you can research this) cases of minimal retained placenta are monitored as 75% resolve through the mechanics mentioned above.

Or, born normal with all the evidence, except her virginity somehow remained intact. Christ passed through the wall, but as an infant? Didn't He tell Mary about 30 years of age, My time has not yet come? An infant. He was not only God, but also human. He emptied Himself, had to learn obedience.

Matthew states that a virgin will conceive and birth ... the two verbs are actions related to the subject of the sentence, "virgin". You might disagree with the Gospel, but that is what it says.

There's another infancy gospel about His childhood that has Him killing rude kids and other nonsense. Just another outgrowth of abnormality.

And is rejected as spurious.

It is historically invalid to conflate record of concept with origin of concept. It would be like saying that Christ did not resurrect until the record of the resurrection was written some years later.

Born like us. With everything that entails. When He physically entered His ministry (at baptism), then He revealed who He was. The Lamb of God. Not the 'let's do some miracles for the heck of it'. Zapping and zipping, calling down thunder for personal reasons. Before His time.

Upon re-examination of the pertinent portions of the PoJ, there is no mention of afterbirth or lack of afterbirth. In fact, the midwife leaves after the child begins to suckle. The delivery of the placenta typically occurs, of course, after the birth. The delivery of the placenta is facilitated by suckling; suckling triggers the release of the hormone oxcytocin. Thus, no experienced midwife would expect a placenta to be delivered by the time the midwife leaves the cave.

 

[Standing Up]

Was not the tomb opened as well, like Luke relates about the womb of Mary; the stone rolled away, unsealed, the burial garments left behind for all to discover?

I guess I will have to revisit those passages to make sure.

The resurrected Jesus appears suddently and disappears just as suddenly.
And he eats, and invites people to touch him, all the while assuring us that he is not a ghost, but one and the same person that he always was.

It is good indeed to use the Bible to help get an understanding of the Bible.
Very much, the tomb is unsealed like the womb of Mary is opened, the burial clothes left behind like afterbirth that the unborn wears into survive the world of the womb is surely left behind, Jesus is reborn; this is the retelling of the Nativity of the Gospel.

Mary Magdalene testifies that the rock is rolled away, and hears the Gardener's voice, giving her her name. Her soul is healed
Salome whose hand withers away touching the hymen obstructing the passage of Jesus into this world.
For Mary of Magdala, though. the gates of Hell have not prevailed, and the Resurrected body of the Lord enters into the New Creation.

Interesting symbolisms and comparisons.