Virgin Birth

[lucaspa]

In another thread (that I have lost track of), pmh1nc (did I spell that right?) and I got into a discussion of the Virgin Birth. The link is to a book chapter giving a history of the Virgin Birth within Christian writings. I'm not taking a position on the validity of the Virgin Birth, but just want to provide some information.
http://n4m.org/book/view/18
http://n4m.org/book/view/19
http://n4m.org/book/view/20

 

[KennySe]

The Virgin Birth Doctrine
By Jocelyn Rhys - Published 1922

Yeah, this woman knows far more than the MILLIONS of Christians; including priests, Bishops and Popes through the ages about Jesus' birth.

I am amused at "scholars" who present "modern understandings" and "new insights" to what the Church has known and taught.
As though the theologians of the past knew less or incorrectly.

These modern scholars are calling all those before them idiots and unlearned.
These modern scholars call Jerome and Augustine and Thomas of Aquinas dumb.

These modern followers of Helvidius are the real joke.
http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2001-02/17-999999/virginity.html

 

[lucaspa]

Yeah, this woman knows far more than the MILLIONS of Christians; including priests, Bishops and Popes through the ages about Jesus' birth.

I am amused at "scholars" who present "modern understandings" and "new insights" to what the Church has known and taught.
As though the theologians of the past knew less or incorrectly.

These modern scholars are calling all those before them idiots and unlearned.
These modern scholars call Jerome and Augustine and Thomas of Aquinas dumb.

I can't see that the authoress did any of these. Instead, she traces the history of the Virgin Birth thru the writings of the Epistles, the Church Fathers, and the gospels. That she shows that the Virgin Birth may be a later addition does not insult anyone. It may be against your belief, but that doesn't deserve the ad hominem attack here.

These modern followers of Helvidius are the real joke.
http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2001-02/17-999999/virginity.html

I'd say that St. Jerome is the joke here. You expect Mary to be married and never have sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus? You change the plain reading of scripture in Acts and make Jesus' "brothers" be cousins? And you are serious about this?

Good grief, even if you hold to the Virgin Birth, Jerome's position that Mary had to remain virgin the rest of her life is ridiculous!

 

[Philip]

Some the author's citation are dubious. A quotation attributed to St Clement of Rome is known to not be his. A quotation of St Justin Martyr is taken grossly out of context.

 

[lucaspa]

Some the author's citation are dubious. A quotation attributed to St Clement of Rome is known to not be his. A quotation of St Justin Martyr is taken grossly out of context.

Which one? Can you give us the context?

Since the book was done in 1922, I fully expect that Biblical scholarship would have made new discoveries in the 75 years since.

However, I think the point that none of the epistles mention the Virgin Birth is a good one. I also find it interesting that Marcion's Luke did not mention the Virgin Birth. It is assumed that Marcion took those chapters out, but what if they weren't there in 144 AD? What if Marcion correctly quoted the version of Luke he was aware of? The hypothesis, based on the data, is that the Virgin Birth was not known to the early disciples but is a later addition to the story of Jesus.

 

[Philip]

According to the Clementine Homilies (and Clement is regarded as a "Father"), St. Peter is said to have affirmed that Jesus never claimed to be God, and to have argued that "the begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten." This apparently is an expression of the point of view of the Ebionites, one of the oldest sects, if not indeed actually the very oldest sect, of Christians That Jesus was neither miraculously born nor a god was another second-century Christian doctrine

The quotation comes from the pseudo-Clementina (Homily XVI, I think). It was not written by St Clement of Rome. It was most likely written by an Ebionitic Jew. Rhys calls the Eboinites a sect of Christianity. I don't think that it appropriate. The Eboinites were semi-Gnostic. They denied the teachings of St. Paul. If you accept the Book of Acts as being at least a fair depiction of history, it is impossible to claim that Paul was not supported by the Apostles.

The Eboinites recognized Christ as a prophet (sometimes as the greatest prophet), but not as God. Countless other religions do this, but that does not make them Christian.

Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, about the same time as or just after our Canonical Gospels were first published, himself admits that many Christians did not believe in the supernatural birth of Jesus. Although he himself believes in the divine birth, and although he classes as heretics many sects of Christians whose orthodoxy as regards "eating meats sacrificed to idols," insistence upon the observance of the law, and other kindred matters, is suspect, he does not so class those who believe in the normal and natural generation of Jesus. Indeed, he was quite ready to compromise with those who regarded Jesus as a man and not a god, and with those who regarded him as a spiritual being never clothed in flesh, and ready too to adapt his argument to Pagan ideas. In his apologia he writes:-

But when we say that the Word (Logos), which is the first begetting of God, was begotten without intercourse- Jesus Christ, our Master-. we bring forward no new thing beyond those known among you who are called sons of Zeus​

The quotation comes from the 21st chapter of Justin's First Apology. He does not "try to adapt his argument to Pagan ideas". He is demonstrating that the Roman claim that the stories of Christ can not be true by pointing out that the Romans have beliefs that are just as fantastic. Back up a few chapters to see this theme.

2. The Protevangelion, said to be written by James, first Bishop of Jerusalem, and "brother of the Lord Jesus."- According to this Gospel, Joseph was accused of corrupting Mary before his marriage, and both he and Mary were tried upon the charge and gave evidence about the miraculous birth.

What Rhys fails to mention is that the Protevangelion states that accusations were false. The Protevangelion specifically confirms the Virgin Birth. It states that he "evidence about the miraculous birth" came not from Joseph or Mary, but from God.

Rhys also mentions many other books that are not accepted as canonical. One, the Acts of Paul, Rhys groups with books "Suppressed by bishops and emperors, destroyed by fanatics, and lost in various ways, they have left no traces, except an occasional quotation, behind them." It is interesting that she does not mention that this book was a known forgery, and the forger confessed to it.

Rhys writes

Twenty-three books, at one time considered as genuine as any of our present New Testament books, after being in common use in Christian Churches for many generations, were subsequently excluded from the canon, but have survived, and can still be read by us.

Rhys does not mention a few important facts about why these books were excluded from the Canon. These books were not written by eye-witnesses to Christ (except for the books from Paul that are lost) or under the direction of such a witness. Among these books, she lists

7. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans.
8. The Epistles of St. Paul to Seneca, and the replies of Seneca thereto.
9. The Acts of Paul and Thecla.
10. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
11. Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
12. General Epistle of Barnabas.
13. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.
14. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
15. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians.
16. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans.
17. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians.
18. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans.
19. The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp.
20. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.
21. The First Book (or Visions) of Hermas.- Frequently referred to by Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Athanasius, Tertullian, and other Christian writers.
22. The Second Book (or Commands) of Hermas.
23. The Third Book (or Similitudes) of Hermas.

Rhys gives the impression that these early writings are ignored or supressed. This may be the case in Protestant Churchs, but is certainly not the case in Orthodoxy or Catholicism. St Ignatius's Epistles are read regularly by the Orthodox. BTW, they confirm the Virgin Birth and the Divinity of Christ. The Epistle of Polycarp is read, as is I Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Which one? Can you give us the context?

Since the book was done in 1922, I fully expect that Biblical scholarship would have made new discoveries in the 75 years since.

However, I think the point that none of the epistles mention the Virgin Birth is a good one. I also find it interesting that Marcion's Luke did not mention the Virgin Birth. It is assumed that Marcion took those chapters out, but what if they weren't there in 144 AD? What if Marcion correctly quoted the version of Luke he was aware of? The hypothesis, based on the data, is that the Virgin Birth was not known to the early disciples but is a later addition to the story of Jesus.

Are there any textual seams in the beginning of Luke that would indicate that the birth narrative was inserted into a pre-existing text?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Yes. People argue for the addition of later text in Luke. And Luke was a late written gospel anyway.

Also Isaiah 7:14 is now believed a mistranslation in the KJV. It should read young woman and NOT virgin.

 

[Philip]

Also Isaiah 7:14 is now believed a mistranslation in the KJV. It should read young woman and NOT virgin.

This is not entirely accurate. The word almah does mean "young women", but it carries with it the connotation of "virgin". You will note that nowhere in the OT is almah used to describe a married woman (or any other woman who would be presumed not virginal.)

In the LXX (translated by Jews), the word is parthenos, which definitely denotes a virgin. Remember, the LXX was 200 years old at the time of Christ's birth. Most people accept that it was widely used outside of Palestine. More recent archaeological evidence proves it was used in Palestine as well. Yet, there seems to be no objection by any Jew, Hebrew speaking or otherwise, to the translation.