The virgin birth story.

[fallingblood]

To start off, I'm asking this in regards to an assignment I have for a class. I have to write a paper discussing the virgin birth stories as described in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew.

Basically, I just want additional views on this. Anything interesting that someone can point out would be great. Or any books on the subject would be helpful. I just want to have a very thorough cover of this subject.

Any debate on the subject would be great as well. I have a few weeks to actually write this paper. So in that course, I will be adding what I hope will spark debate as well. Thanks for any help.

 

[ninerbuff]

To start off, I'm asking this in regards to an assignment I have for a class. I have to write a paper discussing the virgin birth stories as described in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew.

Basically, I just want additional views on this. Anything interesting that someone can point out would be great. Or any books on the subject would be helpful. I just want to have a very thorough cover of this subject.

Any debate on the subject would be great as well. I have a few weeks to actually write this paper. So in that course, I will be adding what I hope will spark debate as well. Thanks for any help.

I've always wondered why the other 2 gospels have no mention of it. I would think that something that important would have been included.

 

[averageJOE]

Are you going to explore other possibilities in regards to a "virgin" birth?

 

[outhouse]

I cant see how this allegory can do anything but prove how common fiction is in the gospels.

Different accounts of the two gospels to me speaks volumes instead of solidifying the obvious fiction.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

There are two differing narratives between Luke and Matthew, if that's of interest. They diverge on quite a bit. The virgin birth also does not appear in the earliest texts of the NT, such as Paul's letters.

Is that ok?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Oh yeah, and there's a virgin birth of Buddha myth, though Buddhists never credited it much. It says that the Buddha was born from his mother's side and walked a few steps before declaring his life mission.

 

[Skwim]

Here is a Wikipedia article on Miraculous births that may be of use.

 

[fallingblood]

Are you going to explore other possibilities in regards to a "virgin" birth?

Yes, any possibilities are good. The ones that I'm exploring so far are Joseph being the natural dad, as well as Mary having a child out of wedlock.

 

[fallingblood]

I cant see how this allegory can do anything but prove how common fiction is in the gospels.

Different accounts of the two gospels to me speaks volumes instead of solidifying the obvious fiction.

This story can't really prove that fiction is common in the Gospels. It does show that two authors find nothing wrong in adding fiction to the account; but then again, we see the same thing in the records of other historical figures.

 

[fallingblood]

Oh yeah, and there's a virgin birth of Buddha myth, though Buddhists never credited it much. It says that the Buddha was born from his mother's side and walked a few steps before declaring his life mission.

The thing I find funny about Buddha's virgin birth is that it was suppose to occur after the couple had already been married for a good time.

But it does show a good point, these miraculous births find themselves appearing many different individuals who are considered important.

 

[fallingblood]

Here is a Wikipedia article on Miraculous births that may be of use.

Thanks.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The birth of Krishna and Christ are very much a like. Krishna was put in his mother by God, thus both had no human father. There was a killing of the innocent children by the local king. Both births were announced by divine beings before hand.

 

[dmgdnooc]

There are two differing narratives between Luke and Matthew, if that's of interest. They diverge on quite a bit. The virgin birth also does not appear in the earliest texts of the NT, such as Paul's letters.

Is that ok?

It should be noted that the accounts of Matthew and Luke are not entirely irreconcilable.
But most importantly; a close reading of Paul, particularly of Romans ch5, assumes that Jesus' birth was a result of the direct agency of God.
　

 

[ninerbuff]

I look at the translation from Hebrew to Greek of Isiah 7:14. Greek translation has assumed that "almah" is good enough to define virgin. "Bethulah" in Hebrew is defined as virgin, and "almah" is defined as a young woman of marriageble age. To use "almah" instead of "bethulah" leaves a lot of interpretation to be open. IMO, if the old testament was to leave NO DOUBT as the jesus virgin birth, then "bethulah" should have been used to solidify the prophecy that so many christians today believe.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Both the Greek 'parthenos' and Hebrew 'almah' have acceptable usage to designate virginity.
　
Luke 1.34 Then said Mary unto the angel 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'
　
That Mary 'knew not a man' defines her as being a virgin and contextualises the meaning of 'parthenos' as a translation of 'almah'.

 

[ninerbuff]

Both the Greek 'parthenos' and Hebrew 'almah' have acceptable usage to designate virginity.
　
Luke 1.34 Then said Mary unto the angel 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'
　
That Mary 'knew not a man' defines her as being a virgin and contextualises the meaning of 'parthenos' as a translation of 'almah'.

But the other 2 gospels don't verify virgin birth. How do we know that that scripture wasn't written to "fit" the story?
Why leave any doubt at all? To remove it, wouldn't it make much more sense to use "bethulah" to denote virgin?
It's like saying "John drove a vehicle to work". But could the vehicle been a car, truck, motorcycle, bus? At this point, we know John drove a vehicle, but not knowing what kind leaves interpretation open for anyone to assume they could be right if they just guessed.

 

[No Good Boyo]

If someone asked me to write such a report I would start with a decent biology book and explain how life is created in all mammals. I would then point out the impossibilities involved in a "virgin" birth. But that's just me. I guess I'm not much help to you. Happy to help on engineering problems though )

 

[dmgdnooc]

But the other 2 gospels don't verify virgin birth. How do we know that that scripture wasn't written to "fit" the story?
Why leave any doubt at all? To remove it, wouldn't it make much more sense to use "bethulah" to denote virgin?
It's like saying "John drove a vehicle to work". But could the vehicle been a car, truck, motorcycle, bus? At this point, we know John drove a vehicle, but not knowing what kind leaves interpretation open for anyone to assume they could be right if they just guessed.

Well, 2 out of 4 Gospels do directly verify the virgin birth; the 2 that are concerned with matters genealogical.
Mark's brevity, in his eagerness to get to the Ministry of Jesus, is understandable.
John too, after a few prefaratory remarks, dives straight into the Ministry.
Neither seem much concerned with recording genealogical information.
　
If Matthew and Luke were written to 'fit' the story, then the story must have been current from a date earlier than the writing of those Gospels.
From things that Paul says I suppose that the virgin birth was a very early, and integral, component of Christianity.
　
C'mon 'why leave any doubt at all?' if the story was exactingly reproduced in all 4 Gospels and in every letter it still would require faith to be accepted.
　
Isaiah's prophecy was given in the days of Ahaz and had to have relevance to those days as well as to its ultimate fulfillement in the days of Herod.
The 'vehicle' was a 'young girl/woman' (old enough for marriage but not yet married) and in Judah of old that meant, by strong implication, a virgin because the 'almah' had not yet married.
　
And 'bethulah' is not a word used exclusively to denote a 'virgin'.
Genesis 24.16 describes Rebekah, 'a 'bethulah', neither had any man known her'.
If 'bethulah' exclusively meant 'virgin' then the additional qualification that no man had known her is an unnecessary redundancy.
Similarly in Judges 21.12 'four hundred young 'bethulahs', that had not known man by lying with any male' are mentioned.
In Joel 1.8 the inhabitants of the land are instructed to 'Lament like a 'bethulah' girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.' This 'bethulah' is a mature woman long married and, therefore with a fair degree of certainty, not a virgin.
　
The arguments continue here.
Almah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
　
Your demand falls flat because there appears to be no Biblical Hebrew word that exclusively denotes a 'virgin' and 'bethulah' and 'almah' are, functionally, synonyms.
　
The context of the usage provides the meaning of a word.
The context of Mary's virginity, her parthenosity or almahness, is that she had not known a man.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Both the Greek 'parthenos' and Hebrew 'almah' have acceptable usage to designate virginity.
　
Luke 1.34 Then said Mary unto the angel 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'
　
That Mary 'knew not a man' defines her as being a virgin and contextualises the meaning of 'parthenos' as a translation of 'almah'.

No I don't think the Hebrew word almah does. Almah just means young woman, it shouldn't be assumed to mean virgin unless it says the almah was also batullah. Parthenos is a fortunate loophole supporters of the virgin birth can fall back on, because Parthenos is the only word in Greek that Almah or Batullah can render to, and also the Hebrew word Narah, which means young girl. Tamar is called almah after being raped in Genesis, so it doesn't necessarily suggest virgin.

 

[Pegg]

There are two differing narratives between Luke and Matthew, if that's of interest. They diverge on quite a bit. The virgin birth also does not appear in the earliest texts of the NT, such as Paul's letters.

Is that ok?

Paul was mostly writing to established congregations...they didnt need to be convinced of the virgin birth because they already knew about it

why would Paul waste time and energy writing about things that were already established?