Shalom, guys, I've been having a discussion with these two women who are very insistent that the virgin birth is a fabricated part of the New Testament, which I was strongly disputing. From your knowledge is the virgin birth in the oldest Greek manuscripts that we have available to us?
-
A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)
Virgin birth
- Thread starter andrewlya
- Start date
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
Christians have always believed in the virgin birth.
MalpanaGiwargis
High Elder
What point-of-view are these two women coming from? What do they mean by "fabricated," exactly? The virgin birth is in the Gospels, which are substantially the same in all manuscripts, apart from some early manuscripts of Mark without the Resurrection appearances. If your interlocutors are hostile to traditional Christian beliefs, it is probably a fruitless conversation to have.
Why would you say it like that? That's just plain rude.
Let me show what they write below. Let me know your thoughts and how you would counter it. One of them has quoted a Christian scholar.
Scholar Affirms That Later Editor Deliberately Corrupted Text to Add Virgin Birth This is agreed upon by J.R. Wilkinson - a renown Christian scholar of his day -- in his article "Mr. Conybeare's Textual Theories, Hibbert Journal, October 1902, p. 96," Hibbert' Journal (1904) at 354 et seq. We read at page 358 (link) the following text: The reading of Syrus Sinaiticus Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin begat Jesus who was called the Christ is clearly due to a mixture of the Western text with the reading of the original genealogy. [Note: the Western text has the virgin birth.] It carries us back to the early days when the canonical gospel was competing with the source or sources from which it was derived. We have here perhaps a conscious corruption of the canonical text for we find that in Syriac Sinaiticus agrees with the famous Old Latin manuscript in omitting the words mix é y vwo xev a1i ri1v Ewg [MY NOTE: verse 25, 'before they came together, found with child" omitted in Old Latin and Syriac Sinaiticus thus proving the Older manuscripts did not have virgin birth.] The reading of Syriac Sinaiticus [of 1:25] here is he took his wife and she bore to him a son and he called his name Jesus. The reading of Timothy and Aquila is as Schmiedel says a confluence from the Textus Receptus [i.e., Virgin Birth] and the original genealogy [i.e., "Joseph begat Jesus."] The article continues and weighs the possibility that the "canonical evangelist" (not Matthew) may have not been sure which way to go, and left traces of the original version -- Joseph begat Mary, while trying to conform to the newer virgin birth account. He calls the "Davidic Messiahship" idea was the "old Davidic idea" which was gradually being displaced by the newer "supernatural birth idea" in the mind of the "canonical evangelist" himself. The article ends suggesting that the "canonical evangelist" was not the original compiler of the sayings in Matthew, and that he used a version of Matthew "much in favor in the church" which had the older text, and then would "corrupt by mixture the old text," i.e., mixing mention of the "virgin Mary" in 1:16 with "Joseph begat Jesus." So now it reads in Syr Sinaiticus 1:16 partly in favor of a virgin birth and partly negating it. The scholar Wilkinson earlier had agreed on why we are compelled to believe both Matthew and Luke had to have something like "Joseph begat Jesus." Otherwise, the point of the geneologies is lost: [355] The text of Syrus Sinaiticus alone seems to postulate such a clause [i.e., Joseph begat Jesus]; and is it possible to believe anyone would have taken the trouble to construct the long line of natural descent if at the last step natural descent were to play no part? This inconsistency is best seen in the geneaology of St. Luke, where as Holtzmann [Ham-Kommentatur Zum N.T.] justly remarks, it is absurd to assume an evangelist would take the trouble to construct the long geneaology of our Lord through Joseph, and then as it were, spoil all that he had done by adding that Jesus was only "accounted" or supposed to the son of Joseph. The construction of such genealogies presupposes natural descent throughout. It is evident that in both St. Matthew and Luke correction has taken place [356] (in the case of St. Luke a very clumsy correction), so as to render these genealogies consistent with a virgin birth.
and
this:
nvalidates Jesus As Messiah The first problem with the virgin birth account is that it makes it impossible for Jesus to be Messiah. He must come from David's flesh and blood. Jewish critics correctly say: The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father— and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David! (Rabbi Simmons, “Jesus as the Messiah,” http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messiah3.htm (August 14, 2011). See also About.Com Judaism, "The Jewish View of Jesus.") Jerome knew an adoption by Joseph does not satisfy the prophecies in Samuel, Isaiah and Jeremiah that Messiah must be in the blood line of David. So he made up a claim that it is IMPLIED that Mary is of the Davidic line -- a completely unfounded claim. Yet, this proves that Jerome knew something is missing -- fatally -- due to the virgin birth account. First, Wikipedia mentions: “The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) states [there is]... a general implication of her Davidic origin.....’ (“Genealogy of Jesus,” Wikipedia.) Finally, Jerome's words from the 380s in his Commentary on Matthew 1:18 say: “Since Joseph is not the father of the Lord and Savior, how does the sequence of the genealogy descending to Joseph pertain to the Lord? Our first response to this is that it is not the custom of Scripture to trace out genealogies of women; secondly, Mary and Joseph came from the same tribe. This is why he was compelled by law to marry her, since she was a close relative. Also the fact they are both counted together [in the census] at Bethlehem clearly shows they were descended from the same stock.” This is utterly bogus. The accounts of the lineage in both Matthew and Luke are of Joseph's line, not Mary's. They are said to be taken in a census in Bethlehem because Joseph (not Mary) is in the Davidic line. In Luke 2:4, Luke says that Joseph in going to Judaea went “unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.” But Jerome's bogus claim proves one thing: even Jerome knew an adoption by Joseph does not fulfill the prophecies of a Davidic Messiah. He and the Catholic Church desperately seek the answer in the nonsensical notion that Mary was supposedly in the Davidic line. Hence, because the virgin birth makes it impossible to believe Jesus was of the Davidic bloodline, we must examine the evidence to the contrary which lifts this burden off of Jesus' shoulders.. Certainly, adoption by Joseph is clearly not what the prophecy in Samuel had in mind. Thus, the virgin birth story is fatal to Jesus' validity as Messiah, thus dictating we must examine the compelling evidence that the virgin birth account was not originally present.
hecma925
Stratopedarches
Aren't you a Jew?
He’s a Messianic Jew, in other words, a Protestant.
He’s a church of one.
He’s a church of one.
I don't mind being called a Jew, I thought you meant it in a derogatory manner. No issues
I beg to differ, I'm definitely not a protestant
hecma925
Stratopedarches
What is derogatory about being Jew?
It was the way it was inserted in your response. I was shocked too.
We don't say:
" yes Yankee "
" yes German"
" yes, Negro"
" yes Croat"
" yes Serb"
" yes wetback"
You probably didn't mean for it to sound like a radical hate slam. It was probably a misunderstanding.
Lord have mercy
It is not what you said it's how you said it. If you an American, imagine I said to you 'yes, you Yankee. Do you know what I mean? It doesn't sound nice, does it. Apologies, if I misunderstood you
Yes, that is how it came across...Yahweh have mercy, indeed if I misunderstood
- Joined
- May 15, 2017
- Messages
- 4,242
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 48
- Location
- California & Nevada ranches
He was just being caustic, but that's his charm, straight forward, he doesn't mind, I don't think, even would welcome a harsh reply ~ his on line persona ```
hecma925
Stratopedarches
Radical hate slam..."wetback", certainly an insult, not necessarily radical. "Negro" is a term that is not politically correct anymore, in the USA anyway. And "Yankee" is so outdated as an insult, Americans have a baseball team bearing the name.
A pretend Jew. A pretend Christian. I dabbled in that "church" of one, once upon a time.
Lord have mercy
Really? What church was that?
I don't pretend to be anyone, I just believe
rakovsky
Toumarches
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 12,030
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 38
- Location
- USA
- Website
- rakovskii.livejournal.com
Well, the Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars in the pre-Christian era (BC) and they interpreted the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7 to mean parthenos in Greek, meaning virgin.
Thetruthisgod
Member
When The Spirit of Truth impregnates undefiled wisdom, the fruit of this union is The Truth Incarnate. God with us.
So Jesus Christ came down and was incarnate of The Holy Spirit and The Virgin Mary.
Because Christ didn't simply teach in parables, His life itself was a lived out parable!
The idea that the virgin birth is a fabricated part of the New Testament seems silly to me, because typologically speaking, the virgin birth itself expresses a beautiful theology. There is so much more there than I feel adequate to express
It doesn't seem at all strange to me that God would become incarnate in this way, because everything in Christ's life was done to reveal something about God and His relationship with us. Even Christ's conception and birth reveal things about God and our relationship with Him.
That is very true
I did not know it was the Jewish scholars who had translated Septuagint into Greek. Interesting, thanks
Thetruthisgod
Member
Technically the Septuagint is the oldest version of the scriptures, though it is a translation. The Masoretic text itself could even be called a translation, because it is not the same written language that the Septuagint was translated from.
Really, all we have are translations. The idea that the Masoretic text is the original language of scripture isn't true. In fact, the written Hebrew language from before the Babylonian captivity looks completely different than the written language of the Hebrews that developed in the next few centuries. The Hebrew in the Masoretic text is still yet different than the written Hebrew during the Greek period.
recent convert
Archon
Would Josephus’ paraphrasing of the law & historical books be closer to the Septuagint or something else?
rakovsky
Toumarches
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 12,030
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 38
- Location
- USA
- Website
- rakovskii.livejournal.com
As I recall, sometimes Josephus differed from both the Hebrew and from the Septuagint versions when telling Biblical stories. One factor was that he came from a priestly family and knew traditions passed down.