Birth Narratives

[_Rick_C]

Christian Evidences/Challenges
Do you have intellectual challenges to the Bible or Christianity?

I've "had doubts" (for lack of better terminology) the Virgin Conception of our Lord Jesus Christ...and haven't had the chance to talk about it much. For about five years I have studied this topic in-depth looking for answers.

First, I must say that I believe Jesus is Divine and consider myself Trinitarian: I believe Christ is "the (pre-existing) Word made flesh" and the Agency of Creation.

Next, I can say that at this point for me there is nothing from the Bible that can disprove the Virgin Conception. So I suppose I am taking something like a "leap of faith" and acknowledge that this is a "Bible mystery" that I can't comprehend.

There are many angles that have been taken to this topic from the very-liberal to ultra-conservative. My approach hasn't been "liberal" in the sense that I don't think a miracle such as the Virgin Conception is possible. But a fundamental doubt I have had is: Why isn't Jesus just like me? in the sense of having a 'real' (human) mother and father. I'm aware that someone might answer, "He had to have God as his biological father so he wouldn't have Original Sin." But I don't believe in (Augustinian) Original Sin!

There is so much to talk about on this. I'll make a (non-exhaustive) list of some issues I have had re: The Virgin Conception:
1] Few verses about it. Which wouldn't be to say that a lack of more verses necessarily makes any difference.
2] Unique Greek word(s) that are never used any place else in Greek literature. I can't recall offhand how many there are but have it in my notes.
3] Mary and Joseph's and his siblings' seemingly "not knowing" that God was Jesus' 'real' (biological) father.
4] The Virgin Conception is not mentioned outside of Matthew and Luke in the NT...(which brings up other questions).
5] Luke and Matthew can be exegeted and understood (translated and interpreted) differently in a manner that takes into account first century Jewish Marriage customs and practises.
6] Very early manuscripts (in Syriac) which have Joseph as the biological father of Jesus...(and other related textual issues).
7] Matthew's quotation of Isaiah 7:14 can be interpreted differently than is "conventionally" done (and the same can be said for Luke's entire Narrative).
8] Emperors (Caesars) in the first century time frame being declared "a son of a god" (when it was known they also had two real human parents).
9] Lastly for now, the historical context of an "anti-Mary polemic" in Jewish circles in the first? and/or second centuries, ff. (Was the Virgin Conception (doctrine, in context) and other writings such as The Protoevangelion of James simply a reaction to this?).


I hope this time of year isn't a bad time to bring this up. I have the utmost respect for Mary, the Mother of Our Lord. And regardless of my doubts, I consider myself to be a "Bible-believing Christian"...but wonder if I, and the Church at large, have accurately interpreted the Scriptures!
Thanx,
Rick

[_Rick_C]

P.S. Since there is so much to discuss...we could go by the numbers (listed above) or just, well......we'll see! Thank you very much (in advance)!
Rick

[Guest]

excellent steven wright-ism, by the way.

do you think the angel's explanation to mary about conceiving other than by normal means made up by the gospel writer, or added later?

TK

[Guest]

7] Matthew's quotation of Isaiah 7:14 can be interpreted differently than is "conventionally" done (and the same can be said for Luke's entire Narrative).

Rick, could you clarify what you mean by a different interpretation? Thx.

Steve

[_Rick_C]

TK,

excellent steven wright-ism, by the way.

Ty...and has anyone ever said you look like him, kinda?

and:

do you think the angel's explanation to mary about conceiving other than by normal means made up by the gospel writer, or added later?

Before I reply, I need to mention it again that I have been "puzzled" by the Virgin Conception and am still searching for answers....

from NIV for context:
Matthew
1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Luke
1:31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (italics mine, for emphasis).

The first thing that comes to mind are the many "unusual births" by women in the Bible. Think of the "barren wombs" of Sarah (Ge 21:6-7), Rebekah (Ge 25:21), Rachel (Ge 30:22-23), Manoah's wife (Ju 13:2-3+24), Hannah (1 Sam, chapter one), the Shunammite (2 Ki 4:14-17), and Elizabeth (Luke, chapter one).

And going back to the very first birth in Genesis:
4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

The idea here is that a woman giving birth -- and especially barren women doing so -- was seen as something from the Lord. In this sense the Holy Spirit would be "involved" with all births in the Bible. A child being born was a holy thing; the firstborn were consecrated to God (Ex 13:2).

However, we still have Mary's Conception specifically mentioned as being "by the Holy Spirit." Does this mean it was "other than normal"? And if so, in what way? Most of us were taught to believe this Conception was abnormal (unusual) in that God was the biological father. This may be true. But Mary's Conception might have more to do with Who she was about to bear: the unique Son of God. Seen in this way, her "Holy Spirit Conception" would be the one and only time in human history such a birth would occur.

On the question of Gospel writers "making up" things; I wouldn't say they did that! The ways NT authors quoted and/or alluded to OT texts is sometimes quite strange from our perspective. (They would violate our standards of hermeneutics)! Put another way, we could never get away with quoting the OT how they did.

Re: "adding" things.
I admit that there may have been some changes made by early scribes or manuscript copyists. I'm not a NT Greek expert by any means, lol. But there may have been some redaction (editing) going on, whether intentional or non-intentional, that could change the meanings of texts. I have read that certain sections of the Birth Narratives (I believe in Luke) have a different style of Greek than the rest of the book. But I haven't been able to confirm this. So on "adding" (copyist changes, redaction); I might be considered "liberal" in theology on this particular.

Thanx much for the questions!
(had no idea this would involve homework)....
Rick

P.S., another Steve
You guys got me working (doing theology) here! I'll get back to your questions some time this weekend. I'm consolidating my notes as I do the thread...so you boys got me busy. Thanx, I need this!

[_Rick_C]

addendum to TK, I need to include this:

Luke 1
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Mary's question (v.34) was obviously asked when she was a virgin. After Mary's encounter with the Angel she went to visit her relative (probably her cousin) Elizabeth. But there is no exact time that says when Mary became pregnant. It is often assumed that Mary is already pregnant at the time of Elizabeth's "greeting" to Mary (Lu 1:41, ff.).

Verse 1:42b reads, literally:
"...and having been blessed [is] the fruit of the womb of you."
Verse 1:45, literally:
"And blessed [is] the one having believed that there will be a fulfillment of the things having been spoken to her by the Lord."

Questions:
Could Mary's womb have been "blessed" in that she had simply become of child-bearing age? That she had become menstrual, able to bear fruit (a child)? Can the "fruit" of her womb be seen as her ability to produce an egg?

The future tense of v. 45 "there will be a fulfillment" could indicate that she, in fact, will not only "know a man" (get married) but also bear the Son of God.

In Luke it is not until 2:5 that Mary and Joseph are married (and she is expecting):
2:4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

The NIV is incorrect on "plegded to be married"! (I'm using the NIV only because I have a good site for looking up passages with it). Mary and Joseph were bethrothed (the first stage of marriage). They weren't "engaged" as first century Jews had no such thing!

My point in this post is that any time from Mary's visit to Elizabeth to (the already married) Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem could be "the time" Mary became pregnant.

I'm getting too tired...BBL...

[Guest]

My point in this post is that any time from Mary's visit to Elizabeth to (the already married) Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem could be "the time" Mary became pregnant.

Rick, I appreciate how you're trying to think this through. I can relate to questions nagging at you. I am aware there is some editing of the NT that went on through the centuries. Comparing earlier manuscripts with newer ones seems to testify to this. Most of them are very minor. The only major sections in question, that I know of, are a couple of sections in John and the ending of Mark. I've never heard about the veracity of the story of Mary and Joseph, as a whole, being challenged (from a textual criticism standpoint anyway).

Based on your quote above, do you have reasonable doubt about the reliability of the following from Matthew? Why would Joseph be so concerned and ready to divorce her if they had normal relations? Futhermore, if Joseph was going to divorce her for anything other than Mary being pregnant without him then why would the angel respond to him in such a fashion?

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

I'm not a student of textual criticism by any means, but I am interested in learning about any challenges posed regarding the inclusion/editing of this passage, and others related to the story, that you know of.

Steve

[Guest]

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Hebrew word translated as "virgin" could be simply "young woman".

This was the point made by a group of Jews with whom Justin Martyr was discussing. Justin replied something like this:

"If it's a young woman who is prophesied to conceive, that wouldn't be much of a sign from the Lord, would it! Young women are conceiving every day. But if a virgin conceives .... now that's a sign!"

[_Rick_C]

a quick note to end the evening

Thanx, everyone, for the replies and questions and for not calling me a heretic! We've covered a broad spectrum already! In order to make this a learning experience I'm going to have to take a fair amount of time to reply to each question and/or post. I'll do my best to cover all the bases with whatever I "have" but may have to proceed kind of slowly due to details (which need to be brought up, like, "already"), lol. I appreciate the atmosphere of the thread and what you all are contributing so far and will reply more this weekend...God is good (all the time)!
Rick

[Guest]

The Hebrew word translated as "virgin" could be simply "young woman".

Paidion, it's my understanding that the Hebrew language, at that time anyway, didn't have a particular word for virgin. I also heard that the Septuagint translated this with the Greek word for virgin, the same word that Matthew used. I don't read Greek but when I looked at the two words, from Isaiah (Septuagint) and Matthew, they looked the same to me. I guess the translators figured that, in this instance, the context implied a virgin since conception was the topic. Their reasoning was likely similar to the Justin Martyr quote you referenced as well.

Steve