Poohbear said
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.
The point of Isaiah 7 is NOT the birth of the child. The point of the chapter is the defeat and destruction of political enemies. Virgin is a mistranslation of young woman.
karenf2021 said
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.
The Gospel of Matthew definitely doesn’t say that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.
The Gospel of Matthew definitely doesn’t say that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.
One of the insights of historical-critical scholarship is that many if not most of the core doctrines of the Christian church developed over time using material in the New Testament but not identical with it. This is why many Christians who read the Bible are puzzled when they can’t find ideas familiar to them but absent from the NT text. A perfect example is Prof Ehrman’s current series about Paul’s interpretation of “sin”. No mention of the doctrine of “Original Sin” because it was centuries away from being developed! (Although you can see the places in the text used to later develop the doctrine.)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)