In my previous post I pointed out that there do not appear to be any instances in the other religions of antiquity of a virgin birth – where a woman gives birth without having sex. In this post I’ll lay out the more typical view of how a “son of God” came into the world. It very much does involve sex. Most of the post will deal with one (very funny) story in particular which is emblematic of the rest. For this post I will quote a section from my recent book, How Jesus Became God.
******************************
Even though Apollonius of Tyana was understood to be a pre-existent god come in the flesh, that is not the normal Greek or Roman way of understanding how a divine human could be born of a mortal. By far the more common view was that a divine being comes into the world – not having existed prior to birth – because a god has had sex with a human, and the offspring then is in some sense divine. In Greek myths it is most frequently Zeus who engages in these morally dubious activities, coming down from heaven when he sees an attractive woman that he has to have, leading to a rather exotic sexual encounter and a highly unusual pregnancy. But tales of Zeus and his mortal lovers were not simply the matter of entertaining mythology. Sometimes such tales were told of actual historical figures, such as Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE).
According to his later biographer, the Greek scholar Plutarch, whose book on famous Greek and Roman men provides us with biographies of many of the greatest figures of both Greece and Rome, Alexander’s birth was sometimes believed to have been altogether miraculous. Many people believed that Alexander was one of Zeus’s offspring. Alexander’s actual father was the famous and powerful Philip, king of Macedonia, who had fallen in love with a woman named Olympias. According to Plutarch, the night before the two were to consummate their marriage, Olympias dreamed that a thunderbolt came down from heaven and entered into her. Presumably this was Zeus doing his magic. In any event, Philip apparently looked in on his wife that night and saw a serpent engaged in conjugal embrace with her. As Plutarch indicates, and as one might understand, this sight very much cooled Philip’s passion for his bride. In ancient times Zeus was often represented in the form of a snake. And so, for those who believed this tale, the child – Alexander – was no mere mortal. He was literally the son of a god.
In mythology we have even more striking accounts of Zeus, or his Roman counterpart Jupiter, engaging in such nocturnal activities. No story is more intriguing than the tale of the birth of Hercules.
There are several forms of the tale in antiquity. But perhaps the most memorable is the hilarious recounting…
You don’t want to miss this one. It’s easy to catch it: just join the blog. There’s a small membership fee and every cent you pay goes to charity. You win, charity wins, the universe wins. No losers here. So join!
So why did Christians start believing in a virgin birth then? Was it just a random idea that was plucked from the air and then stuck? Maybe I should get your book… :p
My sense is that they wanted to say that he was not just a normal human, but a being specially related to God, and that was one of the ways to say it.
There are surely many ways to say that someone is not just a normal human, and that they are specially related to God. This is how classical Islam views all prophets: they are humans with a special relation to God, and all are infallible. But classical islam does not need to see all of them as born of virgins.
So why would early Christians choose the virgin birth doctrine, when it is not needed and causes trouble for another major doctrine of the early Christians, namely that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah?
For a variety of reasons, probably. Matthew wants to emphasize that Jesus fulfilled Scripture because Isaiah 7:14 predicted a virgin birth (it doesn’t actually, but it seems to in the Septuagint); Luke wants to stress that Jesus really, literally, was the Son of God, since God was his father. I don’t if any early Xns thought it was a problem that he wasn’t really from the line of David, unless they thought he got that through Mary, or by adoptoin by Joseph.
Is Luke more concerned to stress that Jesus is really, literally the Son of God than, say, John, who seems to know nothing at all about a virgin birth?
No, I’d say they are both concerned to show that, but do so in different ways.
Thank you for what you do. We really appreciate the time you take out of your day. Like the footprints in the sand, you have great footprints. Remember good people are like a lighthouse in the darkness. Let’s keep shinning the light of positive in the negative and darkness.
I still love this one
(30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him.”
Jesus, there gods! Gods are one with
With one are gods. Gods are there! Jesus.
It may be someone telling Jesus to look there are gods. Also, telling the gods to look there is Jesus. Easy!
I’m curious about the language used in Luke 1:35. The various English translations available all seem to land on the predicates “come upon” and “overshadow” (or “cover”). Is this language completely desexualized in the Greek?
thanks
Those are fairly literal translations and do seem to imply some kind of physical contact, though not obviously involving things like genitalia.
Could Luke 1:35 contain an allusion to the Genesis creation account perhaps? “…and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters…”
Yes, it certainly could be.
Grand stories both of them and I enjoyed remembering them ? Mithras seems to be the story I know at least about but I seem to hear the most about. Is that your next post maybe ? I have even heard some people try to suggest a which came first the chicken or the egg scenario between Mithras and Christianity . What do we really know from antiquity about it ? ?
They are actually very different religions indeed. The biggest problem with Mithraism is that we have no descriptions of it from people who were in it (unlike Xty obvioulsy); all we have are their cult statues and placesof worship (the Mithraea)
Isn’t Mary just one in a long line of women who experience miraculous pregnancies: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Samson’s mother, Hannah, Elizabeth? None are virgins, but God, in some form or other, plays a role. And, unlike Jesus, none of their offspring are considered divine. Can you recommend a scholarly work that addresses the relationship between Mary’s pregnancy and those of women in the Hebrew Bible?
YEs, lots of miraculous births; but none as you say is a virgin, so that’s a big difference.
Now that we know how genetics works, the idea of a virgin birth raises some odd questions. OK, Mary contributed her human DNA. Does God have DNA? Did he create some DNA to join with Mary’s to create the pregnancy? If so, does “divine” DNA make the child divine? DNA is just a string (double helix) of molecular codes; how could any combination create something divine? If there is some supernatural element that made Jesus divine, then a virgin birth wasn’t necessary: God could have instilled this supernatural element into a baby fathered by Joseph. The ancients may have thought that the male, in this case God, implanted a seed into the woman, and she was simply the incubator. I suppose in that case they might think of Jesus as being the divine son of God, but then where would the human part of Jesus come from (he is supposed to be fully human and fully divine)? And there would be no need for an Immaculate Conception of Mary if Jesus was all God and no Mary. It’s really a very confusing concept if you really think about it!
Hey, it’s a *miracle*! 🙂
Standard Introductory Genetics Class Joke #47:
Q: What does the “H” stand for in the expression “Jesus H Christ!”
A: “Haploid”.
Ah, good one.
This “agricultural” model of animal reproduction (that is, that the male simply “planted” his seed into the “fertile”, but otherwise passive, womb of the female) was fairly common from antiquity up to and through the late Middle Ages.
(For example, the etymology of “sperm” traces back to the Greek [SPERMA] or “seed”.)
In particular, see (among others) the Wikipedia article on the “Homunculus” model of reproduction. In this model the sperm contained a homunculus, I.e. a microscopic human being (or fetus) which, when planted in the womb, grew into a full human being.
(In particular in the Wikipedia article note the diagram by the Dutch microscopist Nicolas Hartsoeker, in which he draws a sperm cell, which he represents as containing a homunculus/fetus in the head of the sperm cell.)
If one set of chromosomes come from Mary, where do the other set come from?
God created them!
Completely off topic:
It would be great to have a series of posts here in which your friend Dale Martin and you discuss (not debate) the scholarly reception of SGF Brandon’s 1967 classic: Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity.
A couple of us have been reading it in the Members forum here (https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/) and it is still a very good introduction to an issue on which you and Dale have somewhat divergent views.
Interesting idea. Of course the idea of a political revolutionary goes way back to Reimarus. (And up to Aslan!)
Bart: “Interesting idea. Of course the idea of a political revolutionary goes way back to Reimarus. (And up to Aslan!)”
I purposefully said “the scholarly reception” of SGF Brandon’s work so as to exclude Aslan!
And, it would be great if you and Dale Martin want to go all the way back to Reimarus, but I figured you would probably want to limit yourselves to more gegenwärtige Fragmenten.
OK, I ain’t goin’ there on Aslan! He’s a very bright guy, of course, and knows a lot about a lot of things. But he ain’t a biblical scholar. I reviewed his book over a rather long series of posts some years ago on the blog. I was a bit harsh. It did surprise me though that he didn’t acknowledge that his view had been around for a long time. I suppose that would somewhat minimize the impact. And I’m assuming he knows about the lineage…
Bart: “OK, I ain’t goin’ there on Aslan! He’s a very bright guy, of course, and knows a lot about a lot of things. But he ain’t a biblical scholar. I reviewed his book over a rather long series of posts some years ago on the blog. I was a bit harsh. It did surprise me though that he didn’t acknowledge that his view had been around for a long time. I suppose that would somewhat minimize the impact. And I’m assuming he knows about the lineage…”
I ain’t sayin’ he ain’t smart an’ all, and, of course, you’re right, he ain’t no biblical scholar, but the simple fact he don’t acknowledge the high falutin’ pedigree of his idee among the long history of scholars afore him, already excludes him of any discussion of the scholarly reception of the ideas of Reimarus, Brandon, et al.
Of course I read yer posts on Aslan, but I’m just hopin’ fer a wee bit discussion of g’dam scholarship ’round here, you hear?
Dale & thee be scholars, ain’t ye?
Well, Dale is; some people have questions about me….
An’ don’ you go thinkin’ I be makin’ fun of the Bible Belt clans! All my kin be from Kentucky, hear! We be smart!
Ha! My world too….
With regard to Apollonius of Tyana, I think one of the best things that you have written is your “One Remarkable Life” description of the life of Apollonius in the third chapter (fifth edition) of your textbook of “The New Testament.” I still remember that I was completely surprised and totally blown away that you were describing the life of Apollonius of Tyana rather than the life of Jesus. You might want to post/repost that description/section at some point.
With regard to some of your recent agnosticism/atheism vs. Christian discussions, it would have certainly helped me in my quest for answers if somehow God had provided more recent and clearer evidence. If there is a God, why would He/She put so much emphasis on us believing “evidence” that is 2,000 years old and somewhat fuzzy historically? I certainly understand that the evidence provided might be more than sufficient for many, but It doesn’t seem quite fair to be condemned to Hell because the evidence is so old and so controversial. It would be nice if God provided us with an update or two or three.
[Off-Current-Topic:
Great Courses (in conjunction with National Geographic) has just launched a course “The History and Archaeology of the Bible”, taught by Jean-Pierre Isbout.
My experience with GC has been, in general excellent; but I was wondering if you knew anything about this particular course?
Thanks.]
I”m afraid I don’t. But the GC by Jodi Magness no the archaeology of Israel in the time of Jesus is terrific.
Dr ehrman but many near death experience they said they could see their body laid rest on bed while they see it from above levitate, if soul doesnt exist then how science can explain someone who were in surgery with eyes closed could see what happen to themself in real time , it couldnt be hallucinate because they see it real time environment but outside their body, why would people think there is no soul in this vast universe while im pretty sure their subsconcious acknowledge the existance of soul not all need to be explainable by logic because for something science cant know yet our core of humanity and instinct can feel it that soul are indeed exist just like we feel theres may another life outside earth in this vast universe but technology just cant reach it yet, im sure technology will allow us to see soul or spirit in the future
I think human to force themself to think and acknowledge everything by logic and science are just forcing and hurting themself denying their inner feel and self of humanity, im sure many scientist feel soul are exist they just trying too hard also the existance of god indeed bring more good than no god because our universe has no protector and litterally if theres no god the whole planet in the orbit could crash to each other tommorow by some huge meteor ,how could our earth manage to sustain for billion years and avoid giant meteorite impact, its must be something sustain it, because universe is expanding every second and no guarantee we will not hit anything if there is no god, also in sri lanka there is hill called adams peak, which there is a giantfootprint of human which in line of islam account which tell adam was cast out from heaven from the sky and down to sri lanka and prophet muhammad said adam was 27 meters tall , and thats giant footprint in srilanka was proof it , its become sacred place for hindu muslim and some christian claim that was footprint of some saint
Scientists have explained these out of body experiences — you may want to read up on scientific explanations of Near Death Experiences. You do not need supernatural explanations for what happens. IN fact, they have repeatedly *tested* the claims of people to have had out of body experiences and shown the person does not actually see what they say they do. If anyone is looking for “proof” they should actually read the science, not just the anecdotal evidence. (Saem for anything)
As an MD – exactly! Read up on the science of NDEs, not the sensationalistic accounts.
Regarding NDEs, I want to suggest starting with the article in Ernest O. Abell, ed., “Science and the Paranormal: Probing the Existence of the Supernatural.” Also, articles and select books by Susan Blackmore. Not intended to change your mind on NDEs, just to give you some reference to related scientific studies.
I’m not sure where else to post this question – so I will post it here. Thank you for considering it.
Among the writings and work of Philo of Alexandria is some discussion of the logos. I believe this was a central issue for him. Am I correct that for him the logos mediated between the human mind (reason) and the divine? How did Philo’s understanding of logos contribute to the understanding of logos in the prologue of John. In what ways do their understandings diverge? I have picked up bits and pieces in my readings and I have never been able to find a direct discussion of this issue.
It’s an extremely complicated situation — in terms of Philo himself and in relationship to the views of the fourth Gospel and in relationship to other philosophical traditions throughout Hellenistic antiquity (various Platonists and Stoics had strong views about the logos). If one had to summarize, the basic view that Philo thought of the Logos as God’s image, teh highest of all beings according to which the entire created order was structured, a kind of outward manifestation of God’s inner reality. And so the Logos could actually be called “God” or “the second God” in Philo, the one that expresses the inner reality of God to the creatoion. I have a brief discussion of it in How Jesus Became God (pp. 72-75)
Sorry if this has been discussed already in one of the other threads on this topic, but given that Matt. and Luke, at least, are clear about the virgin birth, what are we to make of the fact that the Gospel writers, including John, all suggest that members of Jesus’s family were (at least initially) skeptical about his claims to divinity/messiahship/healings, etc. Wouldn’t Mary and Joseph, and his other siblings, have been the first and most compelling witnesses to his divine status, at least telling family and friends about the miraculous circumstances of his birth? It seems to me that the Gospel writers were trying to merge two narratives — a theological one about the virgin birth and another about the doubts Jesus’s own family had about who he was — but without trying to logically reconcile them. What do you think that’s about?
My sense is that these other Gospels simply didn’t know about the idea of a virgin birth.
Since the term Son of God was associated with the concept of the Messiah within Judaism even prior to Jesus, are the authors of the synoptic gospels using the term Son of God in its Jewish understanding of “someone close to God”/”someone chosen by him”? Or do they really understand Jesus as half-human/half-god? Is that something that is even debated about?
From my own reading, it always seems that the reader can interpret it either way but I’m not sure what the authors meant by the term.
Thanks.
Yes, they are. But they appear to have taken it a step further to think that Jesus was Son of God in a unique way, that in some sense he was himself divine (either because God chose hinm as in Mark, or was his literal father as in Luke, or was spiritually at one with him as a divine being in jOhn)
Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up.
As a Muslim I find it very interesting that Luke’s annunciation stories of both John and Jesus are so similar to the Quranic telling yet the two communities (Muslims/Christians) have such different interpretations of the basically the same wording.
In the Quran God says “We blew into her(Mary) something of our spirit (roohina)” which is the same word as the Hebrew ruach. It also says Jesus was “a spirit from God” and “a word of God” which is of course similar to John (though in the Quran all creation is from God’s word). None of this ended up creating an idea of Jesus having a divine nature in Muslim thought through the centuries. I suppose it’s because the Quran is so explicit in maintaining God’s uniqueness and unity.
Prof Ehrman,
Q1. In your reference to Plutarch’s narrative on the birth of Alexander, since the dream clearly depicted some element of a ‘divine’ affair and the ‘serpent conjugal embrace’ ahead of the consummation by the husband Philip – would this not pass for a concept of a ‘virginal’ conception?
Q2. The Second Book of Enoch contains a section, called Exaltation of Melchizedek, which says that Melchizedek was born of a virgin, Sofonim (or Sopanima), the wife of Nir, a brother of Noah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births#cite_note-18. Please, wouldn’t this present as ‘Virginal conception’ and a probable influence on the Christian story especially given what I have personally observed in the religions [ i.e. cross-cultural borrowings and unique adaptations to support religious theologies/ beliefs/ ideologies ] ?
I’m taking the term “virgin” to refer to a person who has never physically had sexual intercourse; the idea of the snake, of course, is that it is a phallic symbol and does repersent real sexual activity.
The book of 2 Enoch is very complicated and its extremely hard to know when it was written. We have it only in Slavonic manuscripts from the 14th century and later; it usually is not dated prior to the NT Gospels though.
Prof Ehrman,
I perfectly get your point on the complication relating to the timing of the writing of the Book of 2 Enoch. It highly plausible that if the Book of 2 Enoch post date the NT Gospels, then, the NT Gospels may well have influenced its virgin birth narrative of Melchizedek. Would the vice-versa have made an evidential case against the NT Gospel?
Secondly, if I understand your point on Plutarch’s narrative of Alexander’s birth correctly – what he doesn’t do is to explicitly label Olympias as a Virgin although some divine encounter may have taken place prior to the consummation?
Yes, a divine encounter definitely happened, and it definitely involved sex. But in any event, she wasn’t a virgin; she was married already.
It is interesting that there is a tradition recorded in some of the apocryphal books that Thomas was the twin brother of Jesus. I wonder how they reconciled that with the virgin birth and if the Hercules story had any influence on this tradition.
I’ve posted on that! Maybe I should do so again…
Jesus was born of the virgin (LXX), he was betrayed by the Jews and crucified by the Romans because story was written by the Greek.
According to greek authors he was born in a little hamlet close to the most hellenized/romanized city in entire Palestine – Sepphoris. He was was developed as a new divine offer, as a counter-messiah and counter-emperor, apocaliptic prophet, visdom sage, new Moses, new Hermes Kriophoros, as a LXX (not Torah) observant zealot by many scribes in their books written in koine. Copy rights was an unsolved problem in ancient greek literature.
Prof Ehrman,
Even if the ‘Virginal’ + Divine (Deity/ God) birth narrative is peculiar to only Christianity (per your assertion), then since the general concept of Divine Birth [Human (human woman) + Divine (Deity/ God)] birth was employed by Christians even in the birth of Jesus (adopted and made unique by ‘virginising’ it), can it therefore be said that the general concept of a Divine Birth in antiquity may have influenced that aspect employed by Christians?
I think it certainly did: the idea that a divine man had a supernatural birth is widespread.
Dr. Ehrman,
Correct me when I’m wrong please: In one of the legends related to Romulus, he is son of Mars and his mother was a Vestal priest, and vestals were virgins. Moreover Romulus was not born directly from Mars as there was a spirit in a phalus shape, which did the service. This legend is most probably BC, as Plutarch mentions his sources when writing about Romulus (and they are from around 200 BC).
Even though Buddha’s mother wasn’t a virgin, Buddhist priests consider she was sterile.
According to Encyclopedia Iranica, “a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child, and will bear a son, the Saosyant” from Zoroaster seed in the lake. Later tradition?
In the Greek world around 500 BC a sexual relation between a God and a woman began to be seen as something not very pure, and I am not sure if it is Plato who writes about it in one of this dialogues to support the idea, about the need of a third element. This 3rd element spiritual presence opens the door to the virgin mother?
Yes, in none of these cases has the woman conceived without sexual penetration. I’m not familiar with the variant on the tale of Romulus that Mars came in the shape of a phalus. Is that in Plutarch? If so I’ve forgotten (I’m out of town and don’t have my books). I know the story mainly from Livy, and he doesn’t say that.
Yes this is Plutarch. Two English translations don’t mention the phalus spirit. But it’s found in Latin and in one English translation. In my view Plutarch’s description of the legends and variations are more impressive than Livy, as it matches better Christ’s biblical tale related to his birth and he mentions the sources. Plutarch’s version mentions:
– Romulus’s father is a God, his mother is a virgin (in one variation, as there are 3 or 4), the phalus spirit
– oracle predicting Romulus will be an important person
– the king who wants to kill Romulus before Romulus is born
– a “divine” dream the king has and is advised to not kill Romulus
– Romulus lives a simple/poor life when young even though he is son of a God
– Romulus kills a son of God (his brother) and puts his corpse in the walls of the city of Rome. Killiing a son of God means the Romans “stole” his power… Same as in Christ.
– Romulus ascends to heaven after disappearing (disappearing was seen as carried by Gods in Greece and it’s how Mark originally ends).
Another impressive myth about a virgin having a son is found in Greek Princess Danae, son of King Acrisius. The oracle of Delphi answers the King her daughter would have a son, saying he (the king) would have been killed by the daughter’s son. Then King Acrisius shut her up in a chamber in his palace and left her there. Zeus wanted her and came into her as a golden rain through the roof. Soon, Perseus was born. One of the coolest things in this story is this image in a 400 BC vase in Louvre showing the rain coming into the virgin and the immaculate conception….
https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2016/02/12/reinterpreting-zeus-golden-rain-the-greek-anthology-on-persuading-women/
There is another 500 BC vase (not the above) painted 80 miles from Rome showing the golden rain, which is in a St. Petersburg Museum. It means in Etruria, Rome, and Greece they already believed in the immaculate conception possibility about 600 years before Mark was written. The nice thing is that it is possible to see it when looking at the vase.
Romulus mother shouldn’t be seen as a woman who lost her virginity either in my view, as the third element presence, in this case a spiritual/ghostly, means there wasn’t a direct sexual relation, so the hymen is intact as a result. (The same for the the lake except if it is later tradition.)
Parallel Lives, Plutarch, Life of Numa, chapter 4: “And yet the Egyptians make a distinction here which is thought plausible, namely, that while a woman can be approached by a divine spirit and made pregnant, there is no such thing as carnal intercourse and communion between a man and a divinity.” In Parallel Lives, Life of Numa, Plutarch uses πνεῦμα, pneuma.