Taking a lead from Jarek and inspired by the season, I thought I’d bring up something that has long fascinated me–The possibility of a virgin birth in John.
So the main evidence, very briefly stated:
I–
A) Several early MSS have Jn 1:13 in the singular, so that it is describing the Logos not those who believe in him (admittedly these early MSS are all translations–principally Latin or Syriac–and they are a minority).
B) The standard plural reading is puzzling in several ways–including breaking the flow of the passage.
C) Several early Fathers clearly quote the passage in the singular, and some fathers even hold that the now-standard plural reading was a corruption. Ignatius and Justin possibly quote it in the singular, though it is unclear; Irenaeus and Tertullian clearly and unambiguously quote it in the singular; Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine all know it in the singular.
II–Jn 8:41 seems to indicate that John was aware of Jesus’ not being born in wedlock. The fact that he is willing to bring it up makes more sense if he did accept and teach a virgin birth. One doesn’t usually bring up embarrassing and inconvenient facts without addressing them somehow.
A nice, if dated, summary is available here ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Interesting!
I wasn’t aware of the textual variation in John 1:13. I can’t comment on the greek text but in verse 14 in english, the subject of the sentence seems to be changing to the Logos which at least implies that the subject of the previous section was something else. Translation of course.
But I think the real objection to a johannine virgin birth is in chapter 6-
So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
This would seem to be a perfect opportunity for the author to discuss Jesus’ birth, yet he forgoes this opportunity, having Jesus expand on the image of the “bread” from heaven. If the author believed in a virgin birth wouldn’t he feel the need to specifically reject this claim from the “Jews”? If you take the text at face value, John seems to be saying that Jesus was both the pre-existent Logos and the product of a normal biological birth. (Hence the other thread.)
Stephen said
But I think the real objection to a johannine virgin birth is in chapter 6-So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
This would seem to be a perfect opportunity for the author to discuss Jesus’ birth, yet he forgoes this opportunity, having Jesus expand on the image of the “bread” from heaven. If the author believed in a virgin birth wouldn’t he feel the need to specifically reject this claim from the “Jews”? If you take the text at face value, John seems to be saying that Jesus was both the pre-existent Logos and the product of a normal biological birth. (Hence the other thread.)
That’s a good counterpoint, but what then do you do with jn 8:41?
It seems to me, with a few modest assumptions, we can deduce from these two passage that the rumor going around among “the Jews” was (according to John) that Jesus was born scandalously early, but that they presumed the father was Joseph either because they were already engaged or at least because Joseph acknowledge and raised the boy–that seems to match what we get in Lk and Mt–they knew he was born before they were wed.
Okay, so that is one point of agreement that probably shouldn’t be underestimated–John seems to know slurs that presuppose the context of Mt and Lk. A big question I have, by the way, is whether Mt and Lk were responding, in their infancy narratives, to prior–and potentially accurate–rumors that Jesus was born illegitimately, or did the accusation of illegitimate birth follow from the Christian belief in a virgin birth–“you Christians say he was born of a virgin, well, we all know what that means”? In either event, we can put John in a similar context to Mt and Lk.
The next issue is why John would have given the scandalous rumours any air-time if he didn’t have any answer to them? Why repeat these slurs if he couldn’t offer a rebuttal? Well, that isn’t all that surprising if he already pointed out the Jews’ mistake back in the prologue. In fact, he predicted just this sort of misunderstanding back in the verses immediately before v. 13: Jn 1:10-11.
And similarly, in Jn 6:41-2, John clearly thinks the Jews are (somehow mistaken) in their objection that Jesus isn’t come down from heaven as they know his parents, but he doesn’t really say what they got wrong. See Jesus’ response in jn 6:43-44–which basically amounts to, “I meant what I said, you are wrong.” So, whether he knew of the virgin birth or not, the situation is basically the same–the Jews raise an objection, and though John has Jesus say they are wrong, he doesn’t really give an explanation in loc, of precisely why they are wrong. So, in any event, your problem stands; in either event this would have been a perfect time for John to answer and explain, and in either event, he chooses not to, at least not in this passage.
Maybe Joseph divorced Mary and ran off. The Jews of John 6:42 know the father and mother of Joseph, but not Joseph himself. This would also explain why Jesus preached against divorce and that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery with her.
Anyway John 1:13, whatever the original, should be understood as Jesus offering to his disciples what was already true of himself. That he was born “not of blood, nor desire of the flesh, nor desire of a husband … “. ie John is claiming Jesus was not conceived ordinarily through sexual intercourse.
Like Paul when he says “when the fullness of time had come God sent his Son born of a woman … “, John is not necessarily claiming Mary was a virgin but they are both claiming Jesus was miraculously conceived with no earthly father.
brenmcg said
Maybe Joseph divorced Mary and ran off. The Jews of John 6:42 know the father and mother of Joseph, but not Joseph himself. This would also explain why Jesus preached against divorce and that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery with her.
You read the relative pronoun as referring to Joseph rather than Jesus? That possibility had never occurred to me.
Porphyry said
You read the relative pronoun as referring to Joseph rather than Jesus? That possibility had never occurred to me.
Yes, its suggesting a long lineage – son of Joseph of whom we know the father and mother, how then can he say he came from heaven.
John wants to say the Jews are not wrong about Jesus having a mother but are wrong about his descent from Joseph’s line.
Good job. In Mk 6:3 Joseph is not a father of Jesus. A kind of insult in a patriarchal society. In Jn 6:42 we have correction.
BTW. In later literature, writers come to the revolutionary conclusion that Joseph and Mary’s fathers were brothers of the line of David. And one of them had the nickname Panther.
John deliberately places John 6:42 and John 8:41 because it widens the circle of satisfied recipients. Jesus is not illegitimate and is the son of God, and such, according to the ancient tradition, are born of virgins.
Like John the Baptist, Joseph is one of those awkward figures in the NT that refuses to be marginalized.
As it turns out, Joseph is mentioned twice in John. Don’t forget John 1:45!
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.”
Whoops. John thinks Joseph was Jesus’ father. He has two of his characters, one sympathetic, one not, both refer to him by name*. (Even more oddly he tells stories about Jesus’ mother but never mentions her by name.)
Friends it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that John thinks Jesus was born in the normal biological manner while still in some sense having been pre-existent.
There is a solution that has been offered. If there was ever a gospel written by committee it is John. There are numerous textual problems. The seams in the material are often showing. Textual analysis based on style and word usage claims to detect at least four different sources. The famous opening Logos passage used vocabulary that appears nowhere else in the gospel and is often thought to have been an addition. The last chapter seems tacked on. This is one of the reasons that a hypothetical Johannine community has been hypothesized.
So perhaps what we have are different views from different sources. Perhaps there was an earlier adoptionist text with a later incarnationist text graphed on, capped by the Logos introduction. Perhaps attempts to detect a unified Johannine view are simply misguided.
* Interesting is it not that one can be the Messiah and still have a human father? Shhh…don’t tell Mattthew and Luke! What is really strange is for all those years I went to church nobody ever noticed this. It’s almost as if you’re being trained not to read the text closely.
Stephen said
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.”
Whoops. John thinks Joseph was Jesus’ father. He has two of his characters, one sympathetic, one not, both refer to him by name*. (Even more oddly he tells stories about Jesus’ mother but never mentions her by name.)
What this tells you is that Jesus was referred to as “Jesus son of Joseph”, what it does not tell you is that John thought Joseph was his real father. You might as well conclude that Matthew thought Joseph was the father when you read Matthew 13:55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?”
John has Jesus refers to his own heavenly father and earthly mother, but never to his earthly father (after all he wasn’t born of a husband’s desire).
The whole point is that the people don’t understand who he is – “how can he claim to be the messiah if he’s from nazareth not bethlehem”, “how can he claim to have come down from heaven if he’s the son of Joseph who’s father and mother we know”. The reader is supposed to know the answer to these questions.
What this tells you is that Jesus was referred to as “Jesus son of Joseph”, what it does not tell you is that John thought Joseph was his real father. You might as well conclude that Matthew thought Joseph was the father when you read ** you do not have permission to see this link ** “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?”
You should derive meaning from the text rather than imposing your views on the text. That this is difficult is not an excuse not to try. Matthew follows Mark of course where Jesus is the carpenter’s son adopted to divine sonship. Matthew contrasts this passage with his account of the Nativity where Joseph is clearly not Jesus’ father. What do we have in John? Two opportunities, one offered by a sympathetic voice and one by an unsympathetic voice, and John forgoes either chance to push back on this view. As mysterious as it is John seems to have believed that incarnating as a pre-existent divine being was perfectly consistent with normal biological birth.
The reader is supposed to know the answer to these questions.
Prior to reading the text? How convenient.
Stephen said
What this tells you is that Jesus was referred to as “Jesus son of Joseph”, what it does not tell you is that John thought Joseph was his real father. You might as well conclude that Matthew thought Joseph was the father when you read ** you do not have permission to see this link ** “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?”You should derive meaning from the text rather than imposing your views on the text.
I’m afraid I’m with bren here. What we can safely conclude is that Jesus was known as the son of Joseph, not that John thought Joseph really was his biological father.
Matthew follows Mark of course where Jesus is the carpenter’s son adopted to divine sonship. Matthew contrasts this passage with his account of the Nativity where Joseph is clearly not Jesus’ father.
How do you see Matthew drawing such a contrast? I don’t see it as contrast at all; I see it as Matthew borrowing material from Mark that doesn’t need to be revised because, though Mark may have had a different Christology, by itself the borrowed material doesn’t actually pose any problem for Matthew’s Christology. I mean, it is perfectly reasonable–even given Matthew’s infancy narrative–that Jesus would have been known as the son of Joseph.
What do we have in John? Two opportunities, one offered by a sympathetic voice and one by an unsympathetic voice, and John forgoes either chance to push back on this view.
If the plural reading of 1:13 is correct (and I’m not saying it is), John wouldn’t need to clarify every time someone identifies Jesus as the son of Joseph. The reader would already have been clued in. A novelist need not heavy-handedly remind the reader every time one of the characters says something that the reader already knows is a mistake.
The reader is supposed to know the answer to these questions.
Prior to reading the text? How convenient.
If the singular reading of 1:13 was original, the reader would have known from the prologue.
I believe the original idea of Christ’s birth was a virgin birth, and that’s for all evangelists. The virgin birth was intended by the author to evoke negative reactions from the environment, confirming it. Mary was accused of having an extramarital affair, of prostitution, of being raped. The author’s intention was to assign the young woman an old guardian from the family circle, which turned out to be her patruelis – her uncle’s son.
Not all gospel editors were smart enough to understand this, and that’s why they built the defenses of Joseph’s son, Jesus’ father, etc.
Hence all the mess.
It comes to the point that if we assume that the Magnificat was sung by Mary, it is a song of an abandoned and abused fallen woman… as for me, Elizabeth sings the Magnificat.
Virgin birth and the accusations associated with it were a very strong element in the popularization of Christianity. The general public believed in virgin birth and this was masterfully exploited by early Christian writers like Origen. Epiphanius of Salamis did not like Origen, and so he began to correct something that was planned from the beginning to cause controversy.
Oh, and yet undiscussed pre-existence in Mark 5:7 (YHWH himself) and no earthly dad in Mark 6:3
Stephen said
You should derive meaning from the text rather than imposing your views on the text. That this is difficult is not an excuse not to try. Matthew follows Mark of course where Jesus is the carpenter’s son adopted to divine sonship.
But this is the very epitome of imposing one’s views on the text. Nowhere does Mark say Jesus is the carpenter’s son.
Matthew Luke and John all present the people as incorrectly assuming Joseph is the father.
Mark simply erases Joseph from the whole narrative.
All four believe Jesus has an earthly mother and heavenly father.
brenmcg said
All four believe Jesus has an earthly mother and heavenly father.
All five. Dont forget the very first one. But for synoptic’ writers He is YHWH himself (based on intertext).
ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον
I hope everyone had a delightful Yuletide. I honor the seasons which come and go no matter what symbol system is attached. But what could possibly be more delightful than arguing gospel Christology?
We don’t know who wrote the gospels, where they wrote, or to whom they wrote. As a consequence we are forced to take these texts more or less at face value, meaning that in order to analyze the texts we must assume that the authors are communicating that which they intended to communicate. Beyond that assumption, necessary to even proceed, authorial intention is occluded. We can only take those clues available in the text. Make sense?
(If you disagree with this chain of reasoning fine but understand my comments flow from this chain of reasoning. I acknowledge my presuppositions. I do not believe there is any extra-literary source of wisdom informing us as to their “meaning”, i.,e., some sort of divine inspiration.)
What we can safely conclude is that Jesus was known as the son of Joseph, not that John thought Joseph really was his biological father.
The problem is that John offers to us no other view. Matthew qualifies his account (derived from Mark) with his Nativity account. John has two opportunities to correct the record but does not. The Logos passage does not presuppose anything other than a normal biological birth. Later Christians conflated the Logos with the Virgin Birth but John doesn’t do this. I can only use the clues provided to me in the text.
As far as 1:13 I take the reading to be referring to the believer. This view has an interesting implication. If the believer can be said in some sense to be “born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God” when they all are obviously born in the normal biological process, maybe the same can be said about Jesus?
I believe the original idea of Christ’s birth was a virgin birth, and that’s for all evangelists.
But where in Paul & Mark & John is there any hint of a Virgin Birth?
…and yet undiscussed pre-existence in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (YHWH himself)
In Mark’s view Jesus was adopted to Divine Sonship at his baptism. I’m not going off on a tangent and defend this view but there is no hint of pre-existence here.
…and no earthly dad in ** you do not have permission to see this link **
There is a well substantiated textual variant of this passage that can be translated Is not this the son of the carpenter and Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?”
Since the obvious movement of the tradition over time was to marginalize Joseph, one should not be accused of fancy to suppose this was probably the original reading.
Stephen said
What we can safely conclude is that Jesus was known as the son of Joseph, not that John thought Joseph really was his biological father.The problem is that John offers to us no other view. . . . I can only use the clues provided to me in the text.
As far as 1:13 I take the reading to be referring to the believer. This view has an interesting implication. If the believer can be said in some sense to be “born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God” when they all are obviously born in the normal biological process, maybe the same can be said about Jesus?
The problem is that we aren’t certain of the original reading. (It is most likely that that the plural reading is correct, but there is enough early evidence of a singular reading to at least entertain the possibility that it was the authentic version).
If the singular was the original, then your objections are mooted, and John pretty clearly taught a virgin birth.
If the plural was the original, then your objections stand, and he pretty clearly didn’t teach a virgin birth.
But so long as the textual question stands, the issue can’t be resolved definitively.
Stephen said
I hope everyone had a delightful Yuletide. I honor the seasons which come and go no matter what symbol system is attached. But what could possibly be more delightful than arguing gospel Christology?We don’t know who wrote the gospels, where they wrote, or to whom they wrote. As a consequence we are forced to take these texts more or less at face value, meaning that in order to analyze the texts we must assume that the authors are communicating that which they intended to communicate. Beyond that assumption, necessary to even proceed, authorial intention is occluded. We can only take those clues available in the text. Make sense?
(If you disagree with this chain of reasoning fine but understand my comments flow from this chain of reasoning. I acknowledge my presuppositions. I do not believe there is any extra-literary source of wisdom informing us as to their “meaning”, i.,e., some sort of divine inspiration.)
What we can safely conclude is that Jesus was known as the son of Joseph, not that John thought Joseph really was his biological father.
The problem is that John offers to us no other view. Matthew qualifies his account (derived from Mark) with his Nativity account. John has two opportunities to correct the record but does not. The Logos passage does not presuppose anything other than a normal biological birth. Later Christians conflated the Logos with the Virgin Birth but John doesn’t do this. I can only use the clues provided to me in the text.
As far as 1:13 I take the reading to be referring to the believer. This view has an interesting implication. If the believer can be said in some sense to be “born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God” when they all are obviously born in the normal biological process, maybe the same can be said about Jesus?
I believe the original idea of Christ’s birth was a virgin birth, and that’s for all evangelists.
But where in Paul & Mark & John is there any hint of a Virgin Birth?
…and yet undiscussed pre-existence in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (YHWH himself)
In Mark’s view Jesus was adopted to Divine Sonship at his baptism. I’m not going off on a tangent and defend this view but there is no hint of pre-existence here.
…and no earthly dad in ** you do not have permission to see this link **
There is a well substantiated textual variant of this passage that can be translated Is not this the son of the carpenter and Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?”
Since the obvious movement of the tradition over time was to marginalize Joseph, one should not be accused of fancy to suppose this was probably the original reading.
There will always be an editor who knows better or is afraid of other people’s opinions that he also shares. He entered the carpenter as the father because he did not see the power of Virgin Birth in a specific target group and was concerned about disregarding the public. A classic mistake of a weak content creator – they don’t listen to the market but themselves. So we have textual variants without dad?
I believe that some of the authors/editors could not stand the mockery of public opinion about the virgin birth, and thus Joseph appeared as a literary hero.
Something similar happened with the resurrection of the body in the fourth century. A large part of the bishops had a colossal problem with this. And especially those from the imperial promotion who converted to Christianity because they held important positions in the administration of the Empire
Stephen said
The problem is that John offers to us no other view. Matthew qualifies his account (derived from Mark) with his Nativity account. John has two opportunities to correct the record but does not. The Logos passage does not presuppose anything other than a normal biological birth. Later Christians conflated the Logos with the Virgin Birth but John doesn’t do this. I can only use the clues provided to me in the text.
Great. Use the clues provided in the text.
“Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph?” – John 6:42
“I have come in my Father’s name” – John 5:43
“You do not know me or my Father” – John 8:19
Do they know who Jesus’s father is?
As far as 1:13 I take the reading to be referring to the believer. This view has an interesting implication. If the believer can be said in some sense to be “born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God” when they all are obviously born in the normal biological process, maybe the same can be said about Jesus?
The point is that it is Jesus who makes this possible. It is because the word became flesh that the believers can now be “born not of blood or desires of the flesh or husband’s desire but born of God”. Before Jesus this wasn’t possible.
Since the obvious movement of the tradition over time was to marginalize Joseph, one should not be accused of fancy to suppose this was probably the original reading.
Yes excellent reasoning. Lets order the gospels based on how marginalized Joseph has become.
Matthew – angel visits Joseph. Joseph protects and makes decisions for the family.
Luke – angel visits Mary. Joseph tags along for the ride.
John – Joseph obliquely referenced but not present in the narrative.
Mark – Joseph erased utterly from the narrative.
And you are 100% correct – “Is not this the son of the carpenter ” is probably the original version of the text (ie Matthew’s version).
The problem is that we aren’t certain of the original reading.
Porphyry could you point me to a discussion of this issue? I don’t have any commentaries on John and the only comment I found was buried in a wholly irrelevant discussion.
For he says that the former is of bloods (αἱμάτων), which is a Hebraism for blood, meaning the blood of man, produced by food.
There will always be an editor…
Jarek you are assuming authorial intent. How could you possibly know this?
Great. Use the clues provided in the text.
“Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph?” – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
“I have come in my Father’s name” – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
“You do not know me or my Father” – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Do they know who Jesus’s father is?
brenmcg I’m not sure what you’re asking me. The author(s) of John clearly believe Jesus had a special relationship with God, even to the point where the Logos section implies that Jesus was a pre-existent emanation of God that assumed a separate existence. None of this precludes a normal human birth.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert