Like all 4 gospels Mark believes jesus is the son of god – unlike the other 3 he makes no mention of any earthly father.
Like John Mark choses to avoid any mention of how the son of god came to be a human on earth.
The historical progressional of virgin birth to no mention of incarnation mechanism through the gospels would appear to make most sense.
Robert, per usual, when you draw things out like this, it’s very illuminating.
“With respect to Jesus, this may be supported by a tradition underlying Jn 8,41 where Jesus’ opponents (Jews who had formerly believed in him! 8,31) imply that he was born from fornication.”
Stuck as I am as a biblical monoglot, the oppositional connotation doesn’t come across in the NRSV – it reads as the crowd saying they are not illegitimate because they are Abraham’s children. Does the underlying Greek read more oppositional vs Jesus (I.e., [unlike you,] we are not illegitimate)?
felixberlin1997 said
Does the author of Mark knows Virgin Birth, does this concept invented after the gospel of Mark?
The virgin birth was invented by Isaiah. This man, an historic figure in his own right, spoke of a “sign” being given to the Jewish people. His language is couched in symbolic form, and to a largely pagan people, in fascinating. A young woman having a child is no sign at all – you had to dig deeper to understand what the man was saying.
A “sign” would be given through a special child born.
To “us” a son is “given” – he will belong to the Jewish people but his glory would be to the Gentiles. He will be the “mighty God” and “Counselor.” His “judgment” and “justice” was “forever.”
He would be a “tender shoot… in a dry ground.” And a “great light” to Galilee of the Gentiles.
Robert, thank you. This is truly excellent. I was aware of the later allegations, but the internal-to-John suggestion (via the double ‘we’) had previously eluded me because it is unfortunately smoothed out in the English NRSV I typically read. Yet another example of why being a biblical monoglot is a liability…
Hey Robert! Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. Sorry that I’ve been incommunicado these last months. Unfortunately, a biblical monoglot I sadly remain. Fortunately, my absence from these shores has been solely due to being underwater with some positive life changes. My hope is that as things calm personally, I’ll be back around here more, expressing my deep ignorance with reckless abandon.
Robert said
felixberlin1997 said
Does the author of Mark knows Virgin Birth, does this concept invented after the gospel of Mark?
There’s no evidence that Mark knew any virgin birth stories. Some apologists try to see a reference to the virgin birth in Mk 6,3, where Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Mary,” rather than the common designation of a man as the son of his father, but that is wishful thinking in my opinion. In the Markan context, this designation is used by unbelieving hometown villagers that took offense at Jesus, thus it would be most surprising if they are being portrayed as referring to his miraculous virginal birth.
More common speculation is that Jesus’ father had passed away by this time, but the “son of ‘father'” designation is not dependent on ‘the father’ still being alive. Joshua, even at his own death at 110 years of age, is still being referred to as the son of Nun (Joshua 24,29). Thus this is not very well informed speculation.
There’s no proof for this, but the most likely reason for this designation in my opinion is that Jesus may have been known or thought to have had an illegitimate birth in some way. Some point to a similar designation in Judges 11,1-2, where the father is specifically mentioned in this context. With respect to Jesus, this may be supported by a tradition underlying Jn 8,41 where Jesus’ opponents (Jews who had formerly believed in him! 8,31) imply that he was born from fornication. There is indeed a Jewish tradition recorded much later in the Talmud and other Jewish texts that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. All of this may have been based in a rumor (false or not, who’s to say) that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate in some way. This putative tradition could also have been the origin of the Christian traditions that Jesus’ human father was not known or important because he was actually born of a virgin. Thus, to me, the most likely original reality underlying and best explaining all of the differing traditions is that there was some question as to Jesus’ legitimacy.
Christian traditions pertaining to the virgin birth may have predated Matthew and Luke, since it likely that they both wrote independently of each other, but there’s no reason to believe that it predated Mark, ‘though it is possible. It is also possible that Matthew himself invented the story about Jesus’ virgin birth. Some post-Matthean account of his story may have reached Luke, without Luke having ever possessed Matthew’s gospel. That is my own opinion.
Robert said
felixberlin1997 said
Does the author of Mark knows Virgin Birth, does this concept invented after the gospel of Mark?
There’s no evidence that Mark knew any virgin birth stories. Some apologists try to see a reference to the virgin birth in Mk 6,3, where Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Mary,” rather than the common designation of a man as the son of his father, but that is wishful thinking in my opinion. In the Markan context, this designation is used by unbelieving hometown villagers that took offense at Jesus, thus it would be most surprising if they are being portrayed as referring to his miraculous virginal birth.
More common speculation is that Jesus’ father had passed away by this time, but the “son of ‘father'” designation is not dependent on ‘the father’ still being alive. Joshua, even at his own death at 110 years of age, is still being referred to as the son of Nun (Joshua 24,29). Thus this is not very well informed speculation.
There’s no proof for this, but the most likely reason for this designation in my opinion is that Jesus may have been known or thought to have had an illegitimate birth in some way. Some point to a similar designation in Judges 11,1-2, where the father is specifically mentioned in this context. With respect to Jesus, this may be supported by a tradition underlying Jn 8,41 where Jesus’ opponents (Jews who had formerly believed in him! 8,31) imply that he was born from fornication. There is indeed a Jewish tradition recorded much later in the Talmud and other Jewish texts that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. All of this may have been based in a rumor (false or not, who’s to say) that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate in some way. This putative tradition could also have been the origin of the Christian traditions that Jesus’ human father was not known or important because he was actually born of a virgin. Thus, to me, the most likely original reality underlying and best explaining all of the differing traditions is that there was some question as to Jesus’ legitimacy.
Christian traditions pertaining to the virgin birth may have predated Matthew and Luke, since it likely that they both wrote independently of each other, but there’s no reason to believe that it predated Mark, ‘though it is possible. It is also possible that Matthew himself invented the story about Jesus’ virgin birth. Some post-Matthean account of his story may have reached Luke, without Luke having ever possessed Matthew’s gospel. That is my own opinion.he
I remember sitting with my very austere Jesuit Theology chairman and being asked how I, as a Jew, was experiencing Catholic Theology and did I, um. have any questions? I thought a bit, said I was being respected and well treated and, um, yes I did have a question. I was a medical researcher before wanting to be an historical theologian and I was wondering where the “other” 23 chromosomes came from. Rather than throwing me out on the street, he thought for a bit before saying, “Karen, it’s a matter of faith.It’s okay. You don’t have to believe it.” I’m an obligate adoptionist. I cannot accept the idea that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus and that she wasn’t impregnated by her betrothed. There is a whole–and unwholesome–fascination with Mary’s private parts. Jesus may well have been extraordinary in the spirit but was definitely not extraordinary in the body.
I was a medical researcher before wanting to be an historical theologian and I was wondering where the “other” 23 chromosomes came from.
I think most modern believers would regard the “virgin birth” as a miracle of genetics of some sort but of course the ancients had no such knowledge. Apparently their thinking was that the man’s “seed” contained the active principle and the woman was more or less a passive receptacle. If the father was human then the child was human and if the father was divine then the child was divine although of a lower order of divinity than the father.
The closest the gospel writers come to describing the process is in Luke –
The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you…
When we moderns ask for an explanation what we usually want is a description of the process involved. But Luke is subtly referencing the original act of creation with the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters of primordial chaos. Genesis not genetics.
So this raises for me what I think is a very interesting question. The doctrines like the Virgin Birth were invented by people who lived in an entirely different conceptual universe than the one in which we find ourselves. Call it modernity, or the Enlightenment, whatever, between us and them a great gulf is fixed. So my question is this, can even the most pious modern believer be said to “believe” in the same way these ancients did? Aren’t they using the same words not realizing the meanings have been profoundly altered?
Robert said
felixberlin1997 said
Does the author of Mark knows Virgin Birth, does this concept invented after the gospel of Mark?
There’s no evidence that Mark knew any virgin birth stories. Some apologists try to see a reference to the virgin birth in Mk 6,3, where Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Mary,” rather than the common designation of a man as the son of his father, but that is wishful thinking in my opinion. In the Markan context, this designation is used by unbelieving hometown villagers that took offense at Jesus, thus it would be most surprising if they are being portrayed as referring to his miraculous virginal birth.
More common speculation is that Jesus’ father had passed away by this time, but the “son of ‘father'” designation is not dependent on ‘the father’ still being alive. Joshua, even at his own death at 110 years of age, is still being referred to as the son of Nun (Joshua 24,29). Thus this is not very well informed speculation.
There’s no proof for this, but the most likely reason for this designation in my opinion is that Jesus may have been known or thought to have had an illegitimate birth in some way. Some point to a similar designation in Judges 11,1-2, where the father is specifically mentioned in this context. With respect to Jesus, this may be supported by a tradition underlying Jn 8,41 where Jesus’ opponents (Jews who had formerly believed in him! 8,31) imply that he was born from fornication. There is indeed a Jewish tradition recorded much later in the Talmud and other Jewish texts that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. All of this may have been based in a rumor (false or not, who’s to say) that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate in some way. This putative tradition could also have been the origin of the Christian traditions that Jesus’ human father was not known or important because he was actually born of a virgin. Thus, to me, the most likely original reality underlying and best explaining all of the differing traditions is that there was some question as to Jesus’ legitimacy.
We should add to this discussion the original considerations brought forward by James McGrath to argue that Jesus was not suspected of having been born illegtimately. In the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, McGrath argues that the way Jesus is treated by others in the Gospels is inconsistent with his having a reputation for being illegitimate.
This blog post has a link to the journal article:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Some thoughts on the general topic, and not related to anything that has been said…
We actually have no knowledge of how far back the virginal conception idea goes, since most evidence that could help us with that question has been irreovcably lost.
*Our* first evidence for such a belief goes back to the first century or thereabouts, based on the standard dating of Matthew or Luke. But it would be completely fallacious to conclude, just on this basis, that the belief only arose in the first century. This sort of fallacy is all too common in historical studies, even among professionals. It is a case of projecting onto the past features of the evidence that, as luck would have it, happens to have come our way.
The claim that the virgin birth arose for the first time in the first century is at best a conjecture, a working assumption; it’s not a bad conjecture or anything like that, but it can’t be asserted in an unqualified way. The same thing can be said about the idea that the idea that monotheism only arose with Deutero-Isaiah, based only on the fact that *we* happen not to have found any evidence which can be dated before his time; I have no problem with constructing a model or hypothesis with such claims built in, as long as they are recognized for what they are: theoretical constructs meant to be tested and evaluated for their explanatory power rather than evidence-based discoveries of “the way things really were”.
Any clues as to what prompted the two gospel writers to form the different genealogies?
Welcome Jill!
Perhaps there were pre-existing Messianic genealogies? The gospel writers adapted them to their purpose?
The claim that the virgin birth arose for the first time in the first century is at best a conjecture, a working assumption; it’s not a bad conjecture or anything like that, but it can’t be asserted in an unqualified way.
Omar the idea of the Virgin Birth seems directly tied to the Christologies of the gospel writers. Mark begins with an adult Jesus because in his Adoptionist view Jesus was born in the normal biological fashion. The writers of Matthew and Luke believed that Jesus was the biological son of god at birth. (The ancients knew nothing of genetics of course. They viewed a woman as a passive receptacle. If the father was divine the child was divine. If the father was human then human.) The myths are full of divine heroes and saviors with special births. But the idea that Mary had not had sex at all before Jesus was born seems like an Christian innovation to me.
The same thing can be said about the idea that the idea that monotheism only arose with Deutero-Isaiah…
Based on what we know about the development of ancient Jewish thought I begin to doubt that any Hebrew was a monotheist in the sense moderns might mean.
Omar I take your main point though about interpreting the past. It is truly scary to realize how little we actually know about the past. At some point it all becomes interpretation. You consider not what’s possible but what’s likely. What else? You’re either going to do history or you’re not.
Stephen said
Omar I take your main point though about interpreting the past. It is truly scary to realize how little we actually know about the past. At some point it all becomes interpretation. You consider not what’s possible but what’s likely. What else? You’re either going to do history or you’re not.
My research specialty is Edgar Allan Poe, a person we definitely know (to the degree that we can really “know” anything) lived a little over 150 years ago, and it is amazing to see how difficult it is to determine fact from invention even there. Poe has some similarities to Jesus mostly in that he was famous, and lots of people made up stories about him. Many sources that appear to confirm one or more traditions actually end up being little more than repetitions of the original story, once you look more deeply into them. It also becomes clear that, as time passed, even people who had known Poe personally (to some degree or other) have consulted and been influenced by printed sources. I can only imagine this effect multiplied by 2,000 years.
PS – It might also be interesting to note that biographers and general scholars often latch onto and focus on these stories because without them they would have so little to say.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)