Loading...I have pointed out that our earliest Gospel, Mark, not only is lacking a story of the virgin birth but also tells a story that seems to run precisely counter to the idea that Jesus’ mother knew that his birth was miraculous, unlike the later Gospels of Matthew and Luke. It is striking to note that even though these two later Gospels know about a virgin birth, our latest canonical Gospel, John, does not know about it. This was not a doctrine that everyone knew about – even toward the end of the first century.
Casual readers of John often assume that it presupposes the virgin birth (it never says anything about it, one way or the other) because they themselves are familiar with the idea, and think that John must be as well. So they typically read the virgin birth into an account that in fact completely lacks it.
As is well known, John’s Gospel begins …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, REMEMBER: THE END IS NEAR!!!
Do you think John knew about the idea of the virgin birth and held a different view, or perhaps didn’t know about it? It seems possible that he might have agreed with the idea even if he didn’t explicitly say so. The beloved disciple takes Mary into his home, which you might not expect if Mary had other children. Being an only child still wouldn’t mean a virgin birth of course, but it leaves open the possibility she remained a virgin. It also seems plausible that the idea of an incarnation might be God making a virgin pregnant. I get this is an attempt to harmonise in a way the author may not have intended, yet I’m not sure it is implausible the author had this view.
I think the idea that Mary took him into his home is a later legend(it’s found only in the Gospel of John). Plus I don’t think John is the beloved disciple in that Gospel anyway. But I’m not sure if he knew about the view and rejected it or had simply never heard of it. I suspect the latter, since almost no one else knows about it either.
Did John envision Jesus being born the normal way? There are myths in which humans are created from other things – flowers, snow, etc.
My guess is that if he thought Jesus came into the world in an unusual way he would have made a point of it.
Later in the gospel, John seems to make a point of the fact that Jesus, despite appearing to have been (born?) raised like a normal kid in a normal family, is now claiming some kind of divine origin, much to the astonishment of his family and neighbors (e.g. 6:42; 7:3-5). So yeah, it seems that John accepts that Jesus came into the world the “normal” way, but that he was also the miraculous incarnation of the Word.
Very interesting view.
I’m a simple layman, but I would read John 8:41 as a response to Jesus suggesting that they don’t know who their father is as opposed to them making a comparison of themselves to Jesus.
I am certainly guilty of reading a virgin birth into John. Which I would now say is wrong to do. John would have been most inclined to narrate some type of miraculous conception since he has such a higher Christology compared to the other Gospels (perhaps debatable).
I wonder if the author even believed in a conception/birth since he didn’t mention it. It seems possible that he believed more in Jesus/God creating a body to inhabit, like Adam, and then coming onto the scene as an adult.
Dr. Ehrman, You’ve previously discussed your position on Luke 1-2 not being in the original edition of his gospel. Recently, I’ve read a post (by someone else) referring to Luke 1-2 as a later “interpolation.” This isn’t a term I would have chosen for this material. It seems to me that in the field of textual criticism that an interpolation would more appropriately refer to minor additions or changes to an existing text by a later scribe who wasn’t the original author. Luke 1-2 seems rather to be a prefix to a previously released edition possibly added by the original author, not an interpolation. What are your thoughts?
I suppose I wouldn’t have a problem calling it an interpolation. I think the way the terms are normally defined is that an interpolation is an addition to a text for which we have no manuscript evidence (that is, the shorter text, without the addition, is not found in any of our manuscript witnesses), where as a textual variant of addition would be one in which there is manuscript evidence of both forms of the text (e.g., with the woman taken in adultery)
Did John not know about Matthew and Luke or did he not agree with them and decided to create a new beginning? I don’t see how John would not have known about Matthew and Luke. Or is it like today where there are different denominations of Christianity and they don’t always agree?
I think the problem is that we think about ancient book circulation like we do modern ones. If someone is writing a book about 9/11, she has certainly read all the other previous major books about 9/11; but htat’s because our books get circulated widely, *everywhere*, after being written. When books were copied by hand and there were no means of widespread distribution, most books were not widely known about in other parts of the world from wehre they were made. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence, for example, that the author of Acts had read Paul’s letters, even though Paul was his hero and he was living 20 years later! THat’s true for a lot of ancient literature.
Richard Pervo argues that the author of Acts knew Paul’s letters, and is rather persuasive IMO.
Yes, he’s not alone. I don’t find the evidence at all persuasive — just the opposite! It seems to me that Luke doesn’t know what Paul wrote, at least in the letters we have. If he did know, he decided to put other views on Paul’s lips.
Paul also has the pre-existing Son “emptying himself” into human form of Jesus, otherwise described as “descended from David according to the flesh”, and “born of a woman”, implying normal human reproduction. Matthew seems to acknowledge the allegations about Mary by including four women in the genealogy, notable for their impurity. Luke emphasizes Mary’s actual virginity; Matthew emphasizes that Joseph didn’t have sex with her until after she gave birth. John recounts the repeated taunts about Jesus’s illegitimate conception, perhaps with a Samaritan, but asserts that Jesus was the incarnation of the Word. John also states (1:12-13) that all who believe are empowered to become children of God, not from the desire of a man or of the flesh, but the will of God. Professor, do you think that this is an allusion to the same idea otherwise expressed as the virgin birth? Namely, the impetus behind Jesus’s existence was not the passion of a man, but the desire of God to express himself in human form? And that this impetus continues to be expressed in all who believe?
I”d say all these views are trying to say that Christ comes from God, that he was not a mere human being. But the way they express it is vastly different from each other, and it’s hard to know if they would have agreed with each other.
It seems to me that Christianity today would be more viable and more vibrant if people were allowed to wonder and speculate about who and what Jesus was or is, rather than churches deciding it for you and putting it in creeds that must be believed if you are to belong to the community, or in the extreme if you want to be saved.
Doesn’t the parable of the tenants indicate that Matthew, Luke and Mark’s concept of “the son” was that he was pre-existent?
Matthew 21:37 “Finally he sent his son saying they will respect my son”
Luke 20:13 “What should I do? I will send the beloved son of me, perhaps they will respect him”
Mark 12:6 “Yet one still having, a beloved son, he sent him last to them saying they will respect my son”
(Luke and Mark’s addition of “beloved” further clarifying that this is about Jesus and that he was beloved before being sent into the world)
Saying you were “sent” by God was a common motif among prophets — including John the Baptist. So it’s not usually thought to imply pre-existence.
Yes the servants/prophets were sent into the world but the son is different, especially in Mark. “Yet one having, a beloved son, he sent him last to them … ”
Isn’t the only reading here that there was a beloved son who was held back in reserve until all the servants/prophets had failed?
YEs, that seems to be what it’s saying.
But does that not mean Mark thought the son was pre-existent?
No, Mark definitely did not think Christ was pre-existent.
But the only time Mark gives an indication of what he means by “the Son” is in this parable. And here the Son is pre-existent – he is beloved before being sent.
The prophets say simiilar things, no, about being formed in the womb and “sent”? Anyway, you’ll need to remind me which parable you’re tlaking about and re-ask the question so I’m sure we’re talking about the same thing.
Its the parable of the tenants, Mark 12:1-9
The owner of the vineyard sends various servants to collect the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat or kill these servants.
Finally the owner sends his beloved son to the vineyard thinking they’ll respect the son. But the tenants see he is the heir and kill him to take the inheritance for themselves.
This is the only place Mark indicates what his understanding of the nature of “the son” is, and it can only be understood as a beloved son that pre-existed his mission to the vineyard. He’s not an adopted son of the vineyard. The owner does not say “let me now beget a son and they’ll respect him”.
Shouldn’t we take this as a parable about Jesus and that Mark therefore understood Jesus as a beloved son pre-existing his being sent into the world?
Ah, thanks. Yes, as you know, John the Baptist and the prophets were also “sent” by God, but that doesn’t mean they pre-existed. I don’t think that problem is answerable. (i.e., I think that definitively shows that the son being “sent” in the parable doesn’t mean that he pre-existed) (I supposed you would also have to say all the *other* servants preexisted, even in the parable, since they too are sent)
Yeah I think the idea of being “sent” for the servants can be taken form the OT understanding. But the notion of “son” is new and Mark, in his version of the parable especially, seems to understand the son as existing whilst the other servants were being sent. Held back to the end when there was no one else to send.
It’s not for nothing that some things are spoken of as a “mash-up”.
Are there in Greek or Roman mythologies any examples of gods incarnating as humans
and living an entire human life as an incarnate god?
I know of course several examples of brief incarnations (often with sexual aims),
but are there any long term incarnations?
There are of course long term incarnations in India:
Vishnu incarnated several times, including as Rama, Krishna and Buddha.
Do Rama, Krishna and Buddha have virgin births?
Could John have been influenced by myths from India?
Do you mean pre-existing divine beings who become human and then die and return to their divine status? No, I don’t know of any. Also, I’ll be talking about Greco-Roman demi-gods in a post or two soon. I don’t think there are any accounts of virgin births there.
Yes, that is what I mean. That is what John says about Jesus, no?
My question is whether there are similar examples in myths or religions John might have known about. And whether there are any virgin births in any such examples.
I look forward to your post on Greco-Roman demi-gods.
Sorry, I tried to answer that. No, I don’t think there are accounts of virgin births elsewhere.
About the Nicene Creed. It is my understanding that the first version from 325 AD did not include any reference to the virgin birth (“[Jesus] came down and was incarnate and was made man”). It is only in the 381 version that the virgin birth is mentioned. Does this imply that the virgin birth wasn’t a mainstream christian view even by the early 4th century? More in general, why is the virgin birth so important to christians? Like you said, Jesus divinity does not require a virgin birth, and only Matthew and Luke mention it. So why is this so important that it had to be included in the creed?
The creed of 325 was not meant to state everything orthodox thinkers believed; it was directed mainly to the theological professions being challenged in the Arian controversy. Neither side denied the virgin birth (almost no one did, except some marginalized groups). AS the creed developed it started to make more of the standard orthodox assertions. It seems to be important to Xns because it shows that Jesus was not merely human but was also divine: born as a human, but conceived by God.
Again Dr Ehrman, May I humbly suggest that the smashing together of the disparate views of the authors of the canonical bible is part and parcel to understanding the doctrine of Christianity? It is the basis for a responsible Christians credo. Period. Without viewing the canonical writings in totality implies either a partial ignorance of them or an entirely unsatisfactory selective theology. Without integrating the canon in its entirety to ones beliefs, leaves either a subjective standard or no standard at all. How can such a view ever be taken seriously? “I will accept this, I will not accept that” a la Marcion, Thomas Jefferson, and the Jesus seminarians. There is no doctrine. There is no universally agreed on standard. There is nothing to debate. Reader response criticism? I’m ok, and you’re ok? Write your own creed. Or better yet, don’t write it so you can change it whimsically. How can a religion be founded on this?
Yes, I agree that it is essential for establishing Christian doctrine. That’s not an endeavor I’m personally interested in, since it works on non-historical premises, but I have no problem with people who want to do it, and some do it amazingly well. (though most do it amazingly badly….)
I wouldn’t be tormented by all these things. John didn’t mention Jesus’ birth because lots of other people had done so. At least three Gospels were widely circulated, plus many epistles. Take some time to read the actual Gospel of John, you will find he omitted lots of things – don’t try reading anything into it.
It certainly isn’t something that should keep you awake at night. But I don’t know why you think lots of people were talking about it (since we know of only two who mention it independently of one another); and I’m not sure why you are sure you know what John didn’t mention it. Doesn’t historical knowledge require evidence? Without evidence, we are simply left with two or more possibilities.
You are absolutely correct Dr. Ehrman that “John” does not mention the so-called “Virgin Birth” in his gospel. For John, Jesus “was always the divine Messiah” since time/creation itself. Otherwise, how can Jesus fulfill Matthew 1:23 when his name is “Immanuel” and Isaiah 9:6 the “Mighty God?” The prologue of John makes this point obvious: “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus)…and the Word was God” – Jn 1:1.
Clearly, John disagreed with his predecessors that Jesus “became the divine Messiah” at birth (as in Matthew and Luke) or at even when his own cousin (the Baptist) had baptized him at the river Jordan (as in Mark). John needs this fully God narrative or evangel to make Jesus appear more as a Gentile God rather than as another Jewish sage from the desert. John wants to win over Gentile souls within the Roman Empire, especially when there are plenty of man-gods (of non-Jewish abstraction) to choose from.
All of this proves that – aside from the heavy evangelism in the gospels, Jesus was an ordinary Jewish sage, a Nazarene by birth…
A final point! Matthew 1:23 which speaks of a “virgin” who shall conceive in the Greek NT is a corruption of the word “hā-‘al-māh” in Isaiah 7:14, the Hebrew is a “young woman.” And historically, Mary gave birth to Jesus at a young age, possibly at age 16 or sometime in her teens? Even the Qur’an hints that Mary was met by “an angel” of God who appeared to her “in the form of a perfect man” – Qur’an 19:17.
In other words, Mary became pregnant by normal means as the Qur’an delicately and respectfully says so! The Qur’an and the NT both try to hide the real truth of the matter that Mary was violated as the Talmud clearly suggests. If so, than Jesus would be illegitimate, much less divine according to Deuteronomy 23:2. In this verse, Jesus would be excommunicated as a bastard from the Jewish community. John may have felt that the Virgin Birth at the very least could lead to a spectacle. So to clear-up any flaws in the early Jesus traditions, John’s Prologue makes Jesus’ divinity incontrovertible.
But don’t most scholars believe that John had access to some version of Luke, due to overlaps in the two texts that aren’t found in Mark? Is it your view that John didn’t have Luke, or that John had a version of Luke without the virgin birth?
It’s debated, but no, I don’t think John had access to Luke. THe overlaps look like shared oral traditions to me, not some kind of literary dependence. (I was on a dissertatoin committee at Duke years ago for a student who argued that Luke had used *John*; I didn’t find that convincing either)
Samuel, Mark Goodacre believes John knew the Synoptics. His next book will be on this subject.
You might be interested in episode 33 of the NT Review podcast on Percy Gardner-Smith’s Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels. Dr. Goodacre joins Laura and Ian for that discussion.
Thanks, I’ll check those out.
Dr bart this is out of topic but how many contradiction in bible that completly clear cut contradiction like story of the daughter of jarius which cited already died and not died yet , also those contradiction which completly cited different word and number or place ? And what are big differences among 500,000 in gospel besides last twelve verse of mark and all that you’ve been told ? Also what do you think about word bismillah in book of ezra ?
One question at a time please! Short answers, though: there is no way to count the clear contradictions because no one agrees on what counts as one. And before we could say how many big differneces there are, we would have to define what “big” means.
Dr bart dont you think taht authority keep the original gospel while this copiers wrote their copy so when the byzantine standarize bible their job are not hard to works on the differences ,because i think there are not many writers and byzantine could easely compile and look what most plausible explanation or something like that , they could just collect many of the nearest copy and ask and work on it together for whats the most plausible word that was different or something like that
No, we have no evidence that medieval authorities had access to or retained original copies.
It really is important to stress here WHY DOES JOHN (and Mark for that matter) OMIT THE VIRGIN BIRTH? He does so, or they do so, because of a dark secret Jesus tradition that both Matthew and Luke specifically (and quite possibly Mark too) know of. And they reveal, inadvertently, this dark secret within their “Virgin Birth” narrative. The same narrative appears in the Arabic Qur’an. The reason being, is that Islam is an offshoot of Christianity, Eastern-Syriac Christianity to be specific.
We can’t say *why* an author did something unless we have evidence. Otherwise we are simply stating one of the possibilities.
Luke was popular in the Eastern church and naturally this gospel found it’s way in the Eastern counter-part of the Greek Holy Bible from the Syro-Arabian desert called the Holy Qur’an. Simply compare Luke 1:34-35 with Quran 19:19-20, almost word for word. Luke 1:35 in the KJV: “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest (God) shall OVERSHADOW THEE!” The key to the secret is in italics, it literally means GOD “THE FATHER” WILL RAPE or cause impregnation just like Zeus “the Father of the Greek gods” had done with the mother of Hercules! The verse before, Mary said to the angel at the Annunciation: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Qur’an 19:20 says the same: “How can I have a son, when no man has touched me?”
In short, it is clear that Mark, Matthew and Luke knew that Jesus’ birth was questionable. John, rather, avoids this issue altogether and focuses on Jesus’ divinity (as opposed to the Synoptic gospels which focus on his humanity) which was ALWAYS, since Creation itself!
Rape occurs when a sexual act of penetration occurs against the will of the person being penetrated. Luke does not say that Mary was unwilling. So it is not necessarily a rape.
I should point out that Alcmene herself was very willing, but in that case it was a matter of deceit (by Zeus/Jupiter). That’s not at all like what happens in the Gospels.
I disagree Dr Ehrman, the NT does hint that molestation of a teen Mary did take place!! The NT writers are apologists, evangelists, they cannot be graphic about the historical birth of Jesus – the Most High God (the Father) “WILL OVERSHADOW THEE!” Respectfully, this means RAPE in politically correct terms, or +G rated terms. Clearly, Mary DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE in the matter here! She must comply or accept. She can’t say no! The Bible/Scripture is a family tradition. For the children’s sake and to preserve his legitimacy as the Messiah of the Jews, we have a Virgin Birth cover story. GOD “THE FATHER” DOES COMMIT RAPE AND PRODUCES A MAN-GOD in similar fashion, not exact, to what we have in the Zeus “the Father of the Gods” rape story of the birth of Hercules the Greek and Roman man-god. There is a resonation here.
RE: Is this a suggestion that Jesus was known to have been born out of wedlock?
So what then do you make of the fact that in the gospel of John Mary is never mentioned by name and Joseph is mentioned by name twice? Perhaps some sensitivity to the issue?
Thanks
I really don’t know.
There are those who believe that Zechariah was actually the father of Jesus and when you read the story in Luke (Mary goes to visit a couple for 3 months, the wife is 6 months pregnant at her arrival, and Mary is pregnant when she returns home), it’s not a stretch to see how they came to that conclusion. If the story has any truth to it, you have to think that Joseph and any family, friends, or neighbors entertained those thoughts themselves. Is it possible that Luke created the “conception by the Holy Spirit” story to thwart a nasty rumor?
Do you mean historically? I’ve never heard that before, but it seems incredibly unlikely to me. Luke has invented the relationship of Mary and Elizabeth; in no other source are Jesus and John related And there’s no way John’s actual father was a major priest in the temple.
He is mentioned only in Luke, of coruse. NOthing outside of Luke suggests the two families actually knew each other. Matthew clearly assumes that John had never laid eyes on Jesus before, eg.
What do you think of the notion that John was aware (whether through Matt or Luke or otherwise) that some believed in a virgin birth , and that John affirmatively rejected the idea? I have long felt that the omission of the birth narrative from John reveals a difference of opinion/belief, rather than an absence of knowledge on John’s part. At a minimum, it seems to reduce the importance of the virgin birth — if it were truly vital to the faith one would expect it to be well known even in the early generations.
Also, it seems to me that nothing in John presupposes that the Incarnation was something that happened in utero. Do you think that John would be consistent with a divine adoption type of theory – that Jesus became the Son of God at some point in life, rather than being born in that state?
Its possible John knew of it and rejected it. But I’d say the default position is that he didn’t know, since no one else seems to have either. But there’s not hard evidence either way. You’re right, though: John’s view is very different.
Bart, are we allowed to copy your blog posys and use them on other sites? I belong to a debate group and would like to share this article. No problem though if we are not allowed to.
It is OK on (rare) occasion as long as you ask and you give full credit, including a link to the blog site.
Found this nugget on Facebook and I just had to share:
“The Bible was written entirely by the greatest American who ever lived: JESUS”
When challenged, he simply replied “That’s history.”
I think in penultimate paragraph you mean to say “…that Jesus Christ was a pre-existent being…”. I don’t think John is saying he was human before his incarnation, is he?
No he’s not. He’s saying he was a pre-existent *divine* being.
I agree with Bart regarding John 1 and Genesis 1— John echos the creation account. But beyond Gen1:26 we find “our” virgin birth in the word monogenes (appearing elsewhere) commonly translated as “only begotten” to mean “the only kind” of offspring the Father ever has. That would be each of us, if we would have it. So I now move that we claim our original innocence, shedding the bogus teaching of original sin (it’s an allegory, folks!) which causes unbaptized infants who perish prior to baptism to roast in hell for eternity. Sorry Augustine, you were badly mistaken.
~eric. @ MeridaGOround dot com
“That is often how Christian doctrines are created out of the Bible, by combining disparate views of different authors and through that combination creating something that precisely none of them subscribed to.”
Probably one reason “everyone” expects the virgin birth to be in John is that our religious education that we could not avoid (aka Sunday School) was dictated by the Compendium Bible Story books used in those schools – starting with versions so highly illustrated they were almost comic books….. One key feature was a Jesus who looked like Robert Taylor with a beard.
Dr. Ehrman,
I have two questions for you.
First, do you think John was aware of the Synoptics? If so, it would seem even more significant that he doesn’t mention or imply the Virgin birth; perhaps he was intentionally providing an alternate account of Christ’s origins.
Second, as a historian specializing in New Testament and Early Christian studies, what are your thoughts on so-called “Socinian” interpretations of John’s gospel which do not take him to portray Jesus as a divine being become flesh or making claims to be Yahweh the God of Israel?
I don’t think so, but it’s debated among scholars. I absolutely don’t think Jesus claims to be Yahweh the God of Israel, anywhere inthe Bible (or in early Christian thinking); but John certainly portrays him as a divine being (other htan Yahweh) who became human. I think that is clearly the teaching of 1:1-18.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Do you believe that the development of the virgin birth story came about through pagan influence from the wider hellenistic world?
Part of me would find it strange that early Christianity which still had a rather Jewish identity, would morph a pagan belief into their narrative.
Also how likely would it have been for the virgin birth to have begun via the historical Mary or Jesus, that is, that either of them claimed or hinted at a virgin conception to others during their lives?
I think traditions found more widely in the Roman world certainly influenced Christian thinking. The idea that Jesus was made a divine being when he ascended to heaven, would be an obvious example. Lots of Sons of God had miraculous births. But none of them is said to have born of a virgin, so that would be a unique twist.
Any indication that ‘And the wurd was God’ was originally
‘And the wurd was God’s’
ie possessiv?
or
And the wurd was god
‘god’ – small ‘g’ as in psalm 82 ‘you ar gods’?
–
This is muslim polemic.
No, it is not a possessive. And there are technical grammatical reasons for thinking it means God and not god.
The famous founder of analytical psychology, Carl Gustav Jung, who’s rechearch seemed to parallel a kind of Gnosticism and esoteric views, extensively reflected on symbolism in Gnosticism, and also The book of Revelation. His reflections was based on his research about different level of conciousness and inner evolvment. He considered chapter 12 in the Revelation (in his book “Answer to Job) about the great wonder, the Woman who wore (the perfect number) 12, (so often used), stars on her head, and this child, psychologically, was one of the most important in the Book of Revelation. He seemed to point to a prehistoric perfect, enlightened man (last Adam/Christ/ the perfect Anthropos?) crown with man’s (12) twelve basic patterns of mind. This is not so far from what is suggested in the “gnostic” Apocryphon of John.
I’ve understood that these kind of symbolic ideas were close to the the author(s) of the Gospel of John, in particular the first part of it. In my mind these ideas are well in accordance with how I interpret the Revelation, her chapter 12, which also resonate with the Gnostic creation myth in Apocryphon of John. If so, the idea and to empazise a physical virgin birth would be lesser important, than the idea of pointing to a more spiritual origin/”birth” and enterence of Christ into our current physical realm. From how I read it, this is the position the author(s?) took in the first verses of the Gospel of John, Christ was eminated from oneness in the beginning, which was enought to express Jesus’ divinty.
To point out a physical virgin birth would have been completely unnessesary.
Dr. Ehrman: Did the late Father Raymond Brown seem to believe that, perhaps, the Gospel of John had more than one author? What are your thoughts?
He thought that it was produced in stages and that the sources behind the stages reflect different points of teh community’s history. I find his view persuasive still. My collegue Hugo Mendez is challenging it; if you look his name up in a word search on the blog you’ll see some of his comments. (the main Brown book to read on this: The Community of the Beloved Disciple)
Dr Ehrman
there is a post discussing one of your claims here
https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/kp949m/do_you_find_ehrmans_line_of_reasoning_compelling/
this is supposed to be a place where biblical scholars post and only scholarly citations are allowed to be posted.
what are your thoughts on this :
” It is not like the women were considered perfectly reasonable human beings outside the court; It is actually the other way around; The women’s testimony was considered unreliable”
in 2021, i am wondering how anyone, unless he is omniscient knows “the women’s testimony WAS CONSIDERED UNRELIABLE”
this was the case in jerusalem, bethlehem and nazareth ?
The problem with this kind of blanket statement is that it is … a blanket statement. What we say if someone today said: “People in America do not think that women can be trusted”? We’d probably say, well, there are certainly some people who think that and others who don’t. So what’s your point exactly?
i have another question, is there any evidence that when the disciples life was in danger and it was day of sabbath, they would not have traveled on sabbath?
thats what baukman says :
For an even less adequate response to the argument, see G. Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress; London: SCM, 1994) 116-17. It is sometimes argued (e.g., Lorenzen, Resurrection, 173; T. Williams, “ The Trouble with the Resurrection,” in C. Rowland and C. H. T, Fletcher-Louis, eds., Understanding, Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton [JSNTSup 153; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1,998] 233) that women had to be represented as those who found the tomb empty, because it was common knowledge that the male disciples had all fled to Galilee; but Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 58-60, rightly responds that there is no convincing evidence that the male disciples were ever thought to have returned to Galilee immediately after Jesus’ death. They would, in any case, not have traveled on the Sabbath.
Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002) pages 257-258.
I don’t know that we know that, one way or the other. Is he saying that people didn’t break the Sabbath if they thought their life was in danger? Really? Because no one would violate a religious holiday to save their lives? Seems like an unlikely view to me. Even if it is right, they could well have headed out Saturday night as soon as it was dark.
Hi Bart! Bear with me as I try to organize my question 🙂 – so John was talking more about the “Logos” or “Word / Breath of God” and less about the actual person of “Jesus” in John 1? Saying that the Logos took up residence in the person of Jesus, but has been around for all of time?
Am I on the right track?
And then Christians merged that with Matthew and Luke to create the narrative that Jesus and the Logos are one in the same and therefore Jesus is the one who has existed for all of time?
And so perhaps that wasn’t Matthew and Luke’s intention? I feel like that makes Jesus much more human and a much more relatable character in the story.
I’d say, not quite. The Logos did not come to inhabit a person; the Logos *became* a person, actually became a flesh and blood human being. The Logos pre-existed as a divine being; the human it became was Jesus.
Oh I see, thanks!
As I have mentioned before, it seems that John the Baptist (also John the Evangelist and John of Patmos) is based on a telogical exegesis of the sufferings and visions Job had of God and of God’s creation.
The Gospel of John opens with, “In the beginning was the Word.”
The word used for “beginning” is the Greek Ἀρχὴ (G746)which can also mean “the first being” or “the chief being”.
This is the meaning of the word in Job 40:14 (19), where God points out an exalted being to Job, and says “This is the chief (the first) (Ἀρχὴ) of the creation of the Lord; made to be played with by angles.»
Which in turn means that the opening of the Gospel of John may also sound like this: “In the first being was the word.”
As we remember from the Book of Job, God asks Job; «Where wast thou when I founded the earth?» Implied; Where was you in the beginning?
What is important to understand is that Job appears in this way as a witness for God, and for God’s predetermined plan.
Just before God points out this exalted being who is played with by angels, God gives Job a lesson about suffering through a kind of bird that is mostly believed to be an ostrich (perhaps a dove in Christian theology?).
It is as if God were saying to Job; Look at the ostrich! The ostrich is one of my creatures.
The ostrich has wings but cannot fly. The ostrich lays eggs on the ground that are trampled on, but she does not care! She labors in vain without fear. The ostrich has not even gained wisdom and knowledge of me, as you have.
You should learn from all the suffering this bird is going through, an not pity yourself.
This bird flies up and mocks the horse and its rider (The Lamb, the White Horse), and in a way points out the exalted being that God afterwards shows Job.
The answer from Job is: «I have heard the report of thee by the ear before; but now mine eye has seen thee.» Job 42:5
In Revelation 19:11 we find this White Horse again, now not as a suffering Lamb but as a Warrior.
Job 42:5 «I have heard the report of thee by the ear before; but now mine eye has seen thee.»
Who exactly had Job now seen? Was it God he saw, or was it someone else? The authors of the New Testament were well acquainted with the prophecies of the Old Testament, and of course the text of the Book of Job.
If the writers of the New Testament had meant that Job saw God the Father, then Jesus must have lied when he said; no one has seen the Father except the Son.
It seems that Job had a personal conversation with someone whom the evangelists thought could not have been the Father, just because Job had seen Him.
The question is; Who do you think it was that Job had finally seen?
He apparently saw God. (So did Ezekiel. And John in Revelation)
Yes, I completely agree that this is what the Book of Job says.
However, the Gospel writers did not live in Israel but in the diaspora, and there they had a different view of what was the essence of God. The Gospel writers lived in a Greek sphere where God was considered to be transcendent; this was Plato’s understanding of God. This was a God who in no way had any connection with humans or with an imperfect world.
Perhaps the Gospels were an attempt to reconcile the Platonic idea of a transcendent God with the Jewish understanding of a God who was closely associated with his people and with his prophets?
I don’t think we can differentiate a single view of Jews in Israel and a single view of Jews in he Diaspora.
What about Herod Antipas and the death of John the Baptist?
Job was joined by three of his friends who came and argued with him about his tragic condition. One of them was King Eliphaz.
Eliphaz is a well-known name in Jewish tradition. Eliphaz was a son of Esau, and the Bible says that he took Timna as a concubine, and through her Amalek was born.
Amalek was an enemy of God, so the Gospel writers had to find a theological explanation for this embarrassing connection between Job and Eliphaz’s dirty relationship with Timna. One solution to the problem was to make Eliphaz an enemy, and not a friend of Job.
Eliphaz became Herod Antipas and Timna became Herodias. Herodias’ daughter, who danced before Herod, was Job’s first wife, the wife who tempted Job. In some traditions named Salome.
Then, in a form of pesher, Job was thought to be the baker who was imprisoned with Joseph in Egypt, and later beheaded by Pharaoh.
According to tradition, Herod Antipas was first a king of Edom. This fits perfectly with Eliphaz as a son of Esau.
Just to clarify; There were possibly two Timna’s in the Bible, not just one.
Timna, who became Eliphaz’s concubine, was Lotan’s sister. But later in 1 Chron 1:36 it is said that Timna was the daughter of Eliphaz. One solution would be to say that Timna and Timnah were mother and daughter.
The daughter of Herodias is given many different names in different traditions; Herodiana is one of them. I think this was the starting point for this legend. As time went on, Timnah, Timna’s supposed daughter, was replaced by Job’s first wife.
Job’s first wife is not named in the Book of Job, but the apocryphal scripture “Testament of Job” calls her Sitis, possibly because Job was from Ausitis – Au-Sitis. That’s why Salome came into the picture.
Can we reflect on this further and perhaps find out who Herod Philip and the Apostle Philip were? Maybe.
When Elihu spoke, he criticized not only Job but also Job’s three friends, including Eliphaz.
Tradition says that Laban, Elihu and Balaam are one and the same person.
The meaning of the name Philip is “horse lover”, or more precisely “female horse lover”, which should point to Balaam and his relationship with his donkey.
Timna was a sister of Lotan. Could the Gospel writers have thought that Lotan and Laban were the same person? Nothing is impossible for one who performs theological exegesis.
Balaam is a problematic figure. Was he a prophet or a charlatan? After all, he made an important prophecy about Christ.
Elihu (Job 36:26) «Behold, the Mighty One is great, and we shall not know him.»
Philip (John 14: 8) «Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.» 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Who was Elisabeth? Or, What is the theological significance of the story of Job’s mother?
We must understand that Job lived a life in abundance before he was “surrendered” by God. He had an abundance of livestock and of servants. He was loved by God, and God said of him; “There is none like him on earth.”
But Satan answered God; Job 1:10 “Have you not made a hedge about him?”
It is as if Satan is saying that Job is not yet living in the real world. Job is like a fetus in his mother’s womb. Let Job be born into the real world, then you will see.
The meaning of the name Elisabeth is “My God is abundance” which refers perfectly to the condition Job was in at first. Elisabeth was the hedge about Job; his life in abundance, happiness and presence of God.
After this, when Job was “born” out of this condition of abundance, he often cursed the day he was born; the day he was «surrendered.»
The Gospel of John is often considered the most “Greek” of the four gospels, and for valid reasons; it seems to be infused with ideas that were extant in Greek philosophy. Rather than not being aware of the virgin birth narrative, which may have been in circulation for a couple of decades before John was written, could it not be possible that they deliberately chose to ignore it? They were engaged in what seems (to me) an effort to elevate Christian theology to a level commensurate with Greek paideia, and may have felt uncomfortable with such a narrative.
Absolutely possible. And impossible to prove either way, I’d say.