Unbelievers reject the virgin birth of Christ. Let's consider two theories they propose to account for why Matthew and Luke (allegedly) made up the story of the virgin birth:
i) It's a cover story to conceal a prenuptial scandal. Either Mary and Joseph had premarital sex or else she had premarital sex with someone other than her fiancé. The story of the virgin birth was fabricated to quell damaging rumors. Not only would such rumors sully her own reputation, but more importantly, sully the reputation of her son.
ii) It's just a variation on the conventional heathen motif about gods (or goddesses) who sire demigods by having sex with human mortals. Matthew and Luke adapted this motif to give Jesus instant exalted status.
Now, other issues aside, notice that these two theories are mutually contradictory. According to the first theory, the story of the virgin birth was invented to destigmatize Jesus. At that time and place, his out-of-wedlock conception and birth would tarnish his reputation. He could never live down the disgrace of his illegitimacy.
According to the second theory, the story of the virgin birth was invented to enhance his status. In Greco-Roman mythology, gods often had extramarital affairs, be it with virgins or married women. Children born of such unions were demigods. They enjoyed divine pedigree and superhuman abilities that made them heroes. They were a cut above ordinary mortals.
So these two theories pull in opposing directions. The first theory is based on Jewish social mores, where to be conceived out of wedlock, whether by premarital or extramarital sex, is shameful.
The second theory is based on pagan social mores, where to be conceived out of wedlock can be ennobling, even if that's due to an extramarital liaison, so long as one of the parents is a god (or goddess). That automatically confers both ascribed status (divine paternity) as well as achieved status (superhuman abilities) on the child. To put it bluntly, to be the bastard son of a god (or goddess) put you higher on the pecking order than to be the legitimate son of a human king. Bastard demigods outrank legitimate princes.
But, of course, that entire framework is ethically and theologically anathema to Judaism. So they can't both be right, although both can most certainly be wrong.
The "pagan" theory basically states that Matthew and Luke both of whom were steeped in the Old testament were so desperate to appeal to supposed pagan audiences, even though Matthews audience would have most likely been Jewish, that they were willing to invent a story which not only opened up the possibility of illegitimatacy but potentially undermined Jesus's Davidic ancestry. It's hard to believe for me.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Eusebius' comment that Bartholomew found the gospel of Matthew preserved by the people of India (H.E. 6:10) open the door to the possibility that the Hindus, like so many 2nd-4th century Christians, would have felt comfortable creating fictions about Jesus without worrying about how this might clash with prior canonical truth?
DeleteThe more obvious you insist it is that, say, Paul was a true apostle, the more unacceptably stupid you make Barnabas, Peter and the Galatian/Asian churches for disagreeing with Paul's theology (1:6-9, 2:12-14).
Allegedly tens of thousands of Jewish Christians held strongly to a rumor about Paul that YOU think was false: that he relaxed circumcision laws for Jews outside Jerusalem (Acts 21:18-24).
The early Christians were quite capable of believing things that were clearly at variance with previously established "truths". The Corinthian division complained of by Paul would be another example.
You are also assuming that Matthew's original text mentioned the virgin birth, when in fact what Papias meant by "logia" remains sufficiently ambiguous that interpreting him to say Matthew wrote out "sayings without narrative" is still among the acceptable options, in which case a virgin birth "narrative", containing no Jesus-sayings itself, would not have been in Matthew's original.
Finally, if like most scholars you accept Marcan priority, you should also find it difficult to believe that an allegedly divinely inspired eyewitness (Matthew) should make 80% of his gospel a copy from a non-eyewitness (Mark), yet apparently, that is exactly what happened.
The people operating this blog think atheists/skeptics are "without excuse" for denying whatever fundamentalist "essential doctrine". I would argue that the evidence in favor of the historicity of the virgin birth is not so clear and compelling that it the gainsayers unreasonable. There's sufficient ambiguity in the sources to easily allow a fictional virgin birth story to be among the reasonable scholarly options.
"Doesn't Eusebius' comment that Bartholomew found the gospel of Matthew preserved by the people of India (H.E. 6:10) open the door to the possibility that the Hindus, like so many 2nd-4th century Christians, would have felt comfortable creating fictions about Jesus without worrying about how this might clash with prior canonical truth?"
DeleteYour comment is a string of non sequiturs. There's such a thing as Indian Christians. "Indian" is not synonymous with "Hindu".
Likewise, how would preserving the Gospel of Matthew suggest creating fictions about Jesus?
And in any case, why should we believe the legend about Bartholomew in the first place?
You then spend time attacking an argument I didn't present. My post had nothing to do with whether or not some Christians were capable of believing things at variance with previously established truths.
Rather, I discussed why NT writers might be reluctant to report the virgin birth.
"You are also assuming that Matthew's original text mentioned the virgin birth…"
If that was an editorial or scribal interpolation from a later date (When? 2C?), we'd expect the manuscript tradition of Matthew to be divergent on the inclusion or exclusion of the virgin birth.
"Finally, if like most scholars you accept Marcan priority, you should also find it difficult to believe that an allegedly divinely inspired eyewitness (Matthew) should make 80% of his gospel a copy from a non-eyewitness (Mark), yet apparently, that is exactly what happened."
You're not paying attention to my position, even though I already explained it. For reasons I gave, I think Mark was probably an eyewitness to most of what he reports. You're attempting to saddle me with assumptions I reject.
"Likewise, how would preserving the Gospel of Matthew suggest creating fictions about Jesus?"
Delete-----The tendency of the natives of India to create god-mythologies with texts added to by multiple and different authors, suggests it. Every source I can find about the origin of the various religions among the natives of India, says the texts are of multiple authorship.
And we know that becoming a Christian in the early second century, did not necessarily mean one would suddenly become infused with the Reformed perspective on the finality of scriptural text and canon, correct?
That gives us a tendency to work with no less than the "good memory of the Jews" gives you a tendency you can use to argue for the reliability of the oral traditions behind the Genesis stories.
I don't know why you expect to see a manuscript tradition had the virgin birth in Matthew been a later interpolation. Comfort and Barrett are conservative textual scholars, and date P1 (earliest ms. of Matthew 1:18) to middle third century, which is about 200 years after whatever early first century date you'd like to assign to Matthew.
Some textual scholars would say 200 years of "I don't know what happened to the text of Matthew in this dark period" leaves a lot of open territory on what exactly Matthew's text said before Matthew died.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'm a skeptic, and I say explaining Mark's silence on the virgin birth requires a degree of speculation somewhat less blind than required in explaining why Matthew and Luke positively mention it.
Isn't it true that arguments from silence are more compelling when we can show that, had the author believed a fact in certain circumstances where it would have been natural to assert it, they wouldn't have remained silent on it in those circumstances?
Isn't it true that we know more about Mark's motives in excluding material, than we know about Matthew's motive in including material?
"I'm a skeptic, and I say explaining Mark's silence on the virgin birth requires a degree of speculation somewhat less blind than required in explaining why Matthew and Luke positively mention it."
DeleteYour opinion is not my standard of comparison.
"Isn't it true that arguments from silence are more compelling when we can show that, had the author believed a fact in certain circumstances where it would have been natural to assert it, they wouldn't have remained silent on it in those circumstances?"
And I've presented a detailed argument for why NT writers might be hesitant to mention it.
"Isn't it true that we know more about Mark's motives in excluding material, than we know about Matthew's motive in including material?"
Really?
"Your opinion is not my standard of comparison."
Delete---You chose to forego a rebuttal of my reasoning. Should I be as quick to draw conclusions about your failure to engage my point, as you and Jason are when you think a skeptic has similarly failed to engage one of your points?
"And I've presented a detailed argument for why NT writers might be hesitant to mention it."
----And you refused to engage after I tried to engage you in the subject of why specifically Mark might be silent on it. So let's begin the interrogation: Do you believe that Eusebius is correct when presenting Papias as having asserted that Mark was careful to "omit nothing" from what he remembered of Peter's preaching, yes or no?