On Dec 7th in a ** you do not have permission to see this link ** on the subject, The Other Virgin Births in Antiquity, Prof Ehrman discussed the idea of other virgin births of divine figures in ancient history. How widespread was this idea? Was Jesus unique or one among many? I look forward to the lecture.
I took the opportunity to ask about Paul and John’s views. I now reproduce that exchange.
-
Certainly in pagan sources gods become human, yes. But I’m not sure what you’re asking? The Gospels of Matthew and Luke have a virgin birth but not pre-existent divine being; John has a pre-existent divine being but no birth; Mark doesn’t have either.-
Your comment is awaiting moderation.Yes, both Paul and John believe Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who incarnated as a human being. But Paul does say that Jesus was born of a woman. John tells stories about Jesus’ mother and has a character identify Joseph as Jesus’ father. Neither tells us stories about Jesus’ birth. So my question. How do you suppose Paul and John imagined a pre-existent divine being incarnating as a human who had human parents? Matthew and Luke’s virgin births have a logic to them since they remove joseph from the equation. But as you say there is no hint of Jesus’ pre-existence. But Paul and John have both a pre-existent Jesus and human parents. I just wonder how that might have worked.Thanks
-
I look forward to Prof Ehrman’s reply. I hope my question is clear.
Mark ignores Jesus’ biological birth and concentrates on his spiritual birth because apparently he is taking an adoptionist view, that Jesus was a righteous human being who was made divine at his baptism. Matthew and Luke provide virgin births where Mary is impregnated by the Holy Spirit. So far so good. There are many stories in antiquity of how human beings were made divine or how earthly women were impregnated by gods. But how did the incarnationist view work? Functionally I mean. How does a pre-existent divine being incarnate into a human being with earthly parents? Later Gnostics speculated that Jesus was a human who was possessed at some point by the divine Christ who also left him at some point. I don’t think Prof Ehrman thinks that Paul or John held that view. So how did it work? I can’t think of a clear example of such from pagan mythology. It is impossible that nobody else has ever wondered about this.
Any ideas?
Jill_L said
That is a good question to ponder. As the logos Jesus would have to be a figure of wisdom and that may be what John is trying to convey. The word became flesh and wisdom is embodied. I think it may be a wisdom text?
Proverbs 8. Especially 8:24. Maybe Jesus was just a wise guy
Not unlike Piers the Plowman. Uneducated and poor but observant and wise. But I see, that would just make him a man and not some sort of incarnate? I’ll move on.
Stephen said
How does a pre-existent divine being incarnate into a human being with earthly parents? . . .So how did it work? I can’t think of a clear example of such from pagan mythology. It is impossible that nobody else has ever wondered about this.Any ideas?
Well, not exactly the same, but Plato thought (or at least suggested, I’m not certain he was sure of the thesis himself) that all humans were preexistent (semi-divine) beings before they were born, so that might have been a paradigm they could have been following.
I’d never thought in those terms before, but now that I do, I wonder if that wouldn’t make a tremendous amount of sense of the Christ song in Philippians 2–with its puzzlingly early high Christology. Maybe the preexistent form of God stuff isn’t all that high afterall, but just more or less standard Platonic theory of human preexistence.
Well I more than half expected Prof Ehrman’s reply that we just don’t know. For the record we should note that there are some scholars who don’t think Paul actually believed in Jesus’ pre-existence and who interpret Philippians 2 differently. There are also scholars of John that think that when Jesus says that he and the Father are “one” it means one in intent and purpose and not one ontologically. You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.
In any case these ancient thinkers knew nothing about human reproductive biology and we should always entertain the possibility that we are completely missing the point. It’s been said that myths partake of dream logic. In Luke the impregnation of Mary is associated with the spirit of God hovering over the primordial waters at creation. Try that one out in a biology class!
Stephen said
For the record we should note that there are some scholars who don’t think Paul actually believed in Jesus’ pre-existence and who interpret Philippians 2 differently.
Yeah, I don’t find that persuasive. I don’t see how you can escape the implication of preexistence without doing serious violence to the text.
To my mind, this is the single most historically pregnant passage in the whole NT.
Jill_L said
That is a good question to ponder. As the logos Jesus would have to be a figure of wisdom and that may be what John is trying to convey. The word became flesh and wisdom is embodied. I think it may be a wisdom text?
You know you may be on to something here. When we modern folk ask for an explanation we tend to expect a description of physical processes. We think of Jesus’ birth as some sort of genetic miracle. But the ancients knew nothing about genetics. For them – and forgive me here ladies – the woman was a passive receptacle. The life force was in the jizz of the man, and if the father was human the baby was human. If the father was divine then the child was divine (although they tended to be on a lesser level of divinity than the father). Yeah, men took all the credit.
What gives me pause about the idea of a pre-existent divine being incarnating into a human being as part of the natural birth process is that we don’t have any clear analogues in the pagan world. Prof Ehrman mentioned that. My first suspicion is that we’re not interpreting it correctly. So maybe you’re right Jill. Maybe the Word becoming flesh doesn’t have anything to do with biology in the first place.
So , the light is not always thought to be created. There are those that interpret let there be light as a creating and some who believe it is simply a sorting out of a pre-existing miasma. So if the light is already with God then he was not created. It would bring wisdom to the forefront. It actually seems a contradiction to the virgin birth narrative? Here the Spirit later descends like a dove and hovers then descends upon him to abide.
Stephen said
What gives me pause about the idea of a pre-existent divine being incarnating into a human being as part of the natural birth process is that we don’t have any clear analogues in the pagan world. Prof Ehrman mentioned that. My first suspicion is that we’re not interpreting it correctly. So maybe you’re right Jill. Maybe the Word becoming flesh doesn’t have anything to do with biology in the first place.
What about the parallel I suggested earlier–platonic preexistence?
As to the suggestion that the Word’s becoming flesh has nothing to do with biology, is the suggestion that John wasn’t thinking about the biological implications of this doctrine (so the assertion that a preexistent spiritual being took flesh *was* to be understood in a literal and historical sense, and as such it *would* bear some biological implications about how exactly that literal, physical enfleshment happened, but John just wasn’t concerned with those implications).
Or is the suggestion that what John is saying doesn’t even have biological implications, because he doesn’t actually think there literally was a preexistent spiritual being that historically took on flesh, but that all that is allegorical or metaphorical; so it’s not just that John doesn’t care about the biological implications, but that it is just a fundamental mistake to even think there would be any implications, sort of like trying to study Aesop’s views on animal cognition by looking at what the animals in his narratives where able to do and understand fundamentally misses what Aesop is doing?
Stephen said
What gives me pause about the idea of a pre-existent divine being incarnating into a human being as part of the natural birth process is that we don’t have any clear analogues in the pagan world. Prof Ehrman mentioned that. My first suspicion is that we’re not interpreting it correctly. So maybe you’re right Jill. Maybe the Word becoming flesh doesn’t have anything to do with biology in the first place.
What about the parallel I suggested earlier–platonic preexistence?
As to the suggestion that the Word’s becoming flesh has nothing to do with biology, is the suggestion that John wasn’t thinking about the biological implications of this doctrine (so the assertion that a preexistent spiritual being took flesh *was* to be understood in a literal and historical sense, and as such it *would* bear some biological implications about how exactly that literal, physical enfleshment happened, but John just wasn’t concerned with those implications). If this actually happened then there would be biological questions that need to be answered, John just didn’t care about them, but they are still fair questions in their own right.
Or is the suggestion that what John is saying doesn’t even have biological implications, because he doesn’t actually think there literally was a preexistent spiritual being that historically took on flesh, but that all that is allegorical or metaphorical; so it’s not just that John doesn’t care about the biological implications, but that it is just a fundamental mistake to even think there would be any implications, sort of like trying to study animal cognition by looking at what the animals in Aesop’s narratives where able to do and understand fundamentally misses what Aesop is doing?
EDIT: Sorry for the double post; I meant to edit.
Porphyry said
Now that I think about this even longer, there are some pretty suggestive links to John too, given the apparent influence of Philo on John. Logos, anamnesis, it could all work together really nicely. But now I feel like I’m just rediscovering things that everyone knows.
I like this explanation. M. Carasik suggests that “and God said” can be/should be “and God thought”. Kind of simultaneously — thought-said. As such, this is wisdom in shape of the logos, yes? So logos as pre-existent. So, can *wisdom* heal the sick, make the blind see . . .? This is Jesus’ capability. Anamnesis would work here really nicely. In John, I can even see a trinity forming here as the Spirit later descends as/like a dove. Miracles were performed post-Spirit descension, so the Spirit is needed for the aspect of healing and miracles the first being water into wine. I take all those as literal. But not necessarily as we’re all familiar with the famous spiritual Amazing Grace. Of course, there’s levels of infirmity.
But how about this. Satan is also referred to 2 Cor 11:14-15 as transforming himself into an angel of light. Maybe Paul’s version is based on the *created* light and so sees Jesus as an exalted angelic being because angels are also considered to be *created* beings. It’s rather the same principle as John.
But alas, Stephen, this is probably where you started asking questions in the first place? Well, if so, now we know how you got here.
Porphyry said
Stephen said
What gives me pause about the idea of a pre-existent divine being incarnating into a human being as part of the natural birth process is that we don’t have any clear analogues in the pagan world. Prof Ehrman mentioned that. My first suspicion is that we’re not interpreting it correctly. So maybe you’re right Jill. Maybe the Word becoming flesh doesn’t have anything to do with biology in the first place.
What about the parallel I suggested earlier–platonic preexistence?
As to the suggestion that the Word’s becoming flesh has nothing to do with biology, is the suggestion that John wasn’t thinking about the biological implications of this doctrine (so the assertion that a preexistent spiritual being took flesh *was* to be understood in a literal and historical sense, and as such it *would* bear some biological implications about how exactly that literal, physical enfleshment happened, but John just wasn’t concerned with those implications).
Or is the suggestion that what John is saying doesn’t even have biological implications, because he doesn’t actually think there literally was a preexistent spiritual being that historically took on flesh, but that all that is allegorical or metaphorical; so it’s not just that John doesn’t care about the biological implications, but that it is just a fundamental mistake to even think there would be any implications, sort of like trying to study Aesop’s views on animal cognition by looking at what the animals in his narratives where able to do and understand fundamentally misses what Aesop is doing?
Okay Porphyry. I get it. So, in this M. Smith monograph I’m reading – a footnote: In general, the language of seeing God is not taken literally in rabbinic tradition . . . apparently due to the anthropomorphism felt to be inappropriate of God.
So it could be interpreted here that Jesus in his human form is an anthropomorphic version of God presented in John (influenced by Philo) sans biological implications. And that would make the whole of the gospel a fable. But Paul prefers that Jesus is born of a woman with real implications for humanity.
Also, but not to labor a point, Paul’s angel would be in god form (created angel) but not God.
What about the parallel I suggested earlier–platonic preexistence?
Ok for John a real possibility I think. It was certainly the view of the Gnostics and John was always the Gnostics’ favorite gospel. But for Paul the divine is embodied. That’s the view expressed in 1Cor and that was the ancient greek view held by most intellectuals in Paul’s day. The duality between the immaterial soul and the fleshly body came was much much later as a result of that very Platonic influence. So how do we get a pre-existent divine embodied figure incarnated into a fleshly body? If all we were doing (all!!!) was to transform a human into a divine being or transform a divine being into a human we’d be ok. Used to happen all the time! But with Paul (and John) we still have those pesky parents. As Jill said we’re right back where we started.
You can see how elegant a solution was the virgin birth. Take Joseph out of the equation altogether. Problem solved. So much so that Pauline and Johannine speculation on these matters was completely dropped. Now have fun convincing most Christian believers that Paul or John or Mark didn’t know about the virgin birth.
…the language of seeing God is not taken literally in rabbinic tradition . . . apparently due to the anthropomorphism felt to be inappropriate of God.
Yeah the rabbis had as much problem with the ancient embodied God as did the early Christians. Hellenistic philosophy gave them both their solution.
Also, but not to labor a point, Paul’s angel would be in god form (created angel) but not God.
It’s always hilarious to hear christians use Philippians 2 to justify the doctrine of the Trinity. But if you’re raised like I was to filter these texts though an evangelistic lens you do it unconsciously.
Stephen said
What about the parallel I suggested earlier–platonic preexistence?Ok for John a real possibility I think. It was certainly the view of the Gnostics and John was always the Gnostics’ favorite gospel. But for Paul the divine is embodied. That’s the view expressed in 1Cor and that was the ancient greek view held by most intellectuals in Paul’s day. The duality between the immaterial soul and the fleshly body came was much much later as a result of that very Platonic influence. So how do we get a pre-existent divine embodied figure incarnated into a fleshly body? If all we were doing (all!!!) was to transform a human into a divine being or transform a divine being into a human we’d be ok. Used to happen all the time! But with Paul (and John) we still have those pesky parents. As Jill said we’re right back where we started.
You seem to be posing an opposition between a true embodying and enfleshing and dualism, but I don’t see the problem.
Plato’s dualistic suggestion was that all humans began as disembodied spirits inhabiting a sort of divine realm, where we had direct access to the forms (thus giving him a way to solve some big epistemological problems). But on his view all of us subsequently ended up in bodies–real fleshy bodies that come somehow from our parents. In a sense all of us are incarnate preexisting spirits. Thus you have dualism with real flesh.
So while Platonic model is dualistic–insofar as the soul preexists the body and survives the death of the body–still I think that sort of dualism is in Paul too as it is built into the idea of a preexistent Christ who takes on flesh.
Also, but not to labor a point, Paul’s angel would be in god form (created angel) but not God.
It’s always hilarious to hear christians use Philippians 2 to justify the doctrine of the Trinity. But if you’re raised like I was to filter these texts though an evangelistic lens you do it unconsciously.
Well, I do enjoy entertaining the idea of wisdom and righteousness embodied in human form.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
Thanks