The Christmas Narrative.

[Elijah John]

The Christmas Narrative, otherwise known as the "Virgin Birth story" is absent from the earliest (and presumably most reliable) Gospel Mark. No mention of it at all. It is only when we get to subsequent Gospels, Matthew and Luke, that we get the Christmas narrative. And John goes a step further, claiming that Jesus has always existed, making the Virgin Birth narrative obsolete.

-For debate,

1) Does this progression indicate a process of myth-making in the deification of Jesus?

2) In order to be "saved", is it important to believe that Jesus was born without the aide of a human Father?

3) If so, why is there no Christmas narrative in the earliest, (and most reliable) Gospel, Mark? Was his audence (readership, community) lacking an essential element of the "plan of salvation"?

[polonius]

The Christmas Narrative, otherwise known as the "Virgin Birth story" is absent from the earliest (and presumably most reliable) Gospel Mark. No mention of it at all. It is only when we get to subsequent Gospels, Matthew and Luke, that we get the Christmas narrative. And John goes a step further, claiming that Jesus has always existed, making the Virgin Birth narrative obsolete.

-For debate,

1) Does this progression indicate a process of myth-making in the deification of Jesus?

2) In order to be "saved", is it important to believe that Jesus was born without the aide of a human Father?

3) If so, why is there no Christmas narrative in the earliest, (and most reliable) Gospel, Mark? Was his audence (readership, community) lacking an essential element of the "plan of salvation"?

RESPONSE: Actually, Matthew, Luke, and Mark weren't present at the "virgin birth" They hadn't been born yet. The Nativity narrative were most likely added after Matthew and Luke's were written.

The very early Christians used a very early edition of Matthew's Gospel. And they didn't believe in the virgin birth or divinity of Jesus.

(Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 101-102).

"The Ebionites accepted the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew -- without the first two chapters -- as their sole New Testament scripture, with the possibility of several other books such as their own Gospel of the Ebionites. Explains Bart Ehrman -- "Obviously they retained the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) as the Scripture par excellence. These people were Jews, or converts to Judaism, who understood that the ancient Jewish traditions revealed God's ongoing interaction with his people and his Law for their lives....The Ebionites did have other "Christian" texts as part of their canon, however. Not surprisingly, they appear to have accepted the Gospel of Matthew as their principal scriptural authority. Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic [or, the ORIGINAL Aramaic text BEFORE being translated into Greek? -- JDK]....It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin -- a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well"

[Elijah John]

The Christmas Narrative, otherwise known as the "Virgin Birth story" is absent from the earliest (and presumably most reliable) Gospel Mark. No mention of it at all. It is only when we get to subsequent Gospels, Matthew and Luke, that we get the Christmas narrative. And John goes a step further, claiming that Jesus has always existed, making the Virgin Birth narrative obsolete.

-For debate,

1) Does this progression indicate a process of myth-making in the deification of Jesus?

2) In order to be "saved", is it important to believe that Jesus was born without the aide of a human Father?

3) If so, why is there no Christmas narrative in the earliest, (and most reliable) Gospel, Mark? Was his audence (readership, community) lacking an essential element of the "plan of salvation"?

RESPONSE: Actually, Matthew, Luke, and Mark weren't present at the "virgin birth" They hadn't been born yet. The Nativity narrative were most likely added after Matthew and Luke's were written.

The very early Christians used a very early edition of Matthew's Gospel. And they didn't believe in the virgin birth or divinity of Jesus.

(Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 101-102).

"The Ebionites accepted the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew -- without the first two chapters -- as their sole New Testament scripture, with the possibility of several other books such as their own Gospel of the Ebionites. Explains Bart Ehrman -- "Obviously they retained the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) as the Scripture par excellence. These people were Jews, or converts to Judaism, who understood that the ancient Jewish traditions revealed God's ongoing interaction with his people and his Law for their lives....The Ebionites did have other "Christian" texts as part of their canon, however. Not surprisingly, they appear to have accepted the Gospel of Matthew as their principal scriptural authority. Their own version of Matthew, however, may have been a translation of the text into Aramaic [or, the ORIGINAL Aramaic text BEFORE being translated into Greek? -- JDK]....It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin -- a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well"

Of course, but "Mark" was written earliest, and presumably was closer to the events narrated than were the other Gospel writers. And he knew of no Virgin Birth story, or if he did, didn't consider it important enough to include in his Gospel.

I am sorry the Ebionites view of things didn't triumph over the Pauline sects and become today's orthodoxy.

The scenario you and Ehrmann paint is plausible, but is there any room for the foundational Gospel of Mark, and the "Q" document in this theory?

[polonius]

Elijah John posted:

Of course, but "Mark" was written earliest, and presumably was closer to the events narrated than were the other Gospel writers. And he knew of no Virgin Birth story, or if he did, didn't consider it important enough to include in his Gospel.

I am sorry the Ebionites view of things didn't triumph over the Pauline sects and become today's orthodoxy.

The scenario you and Ehrmann paint is plausible, but is there any room for the foundational Gospel of Mark, and the "Q" document in this theory?

RESPONSE: Mark’s account was written about 70 AD. Matthew and Luke were written 10 years later than Matthew and Luke in 80 AD.

So evidently the nativity narrative legends were written later. Also, Mark didn’t have a "Q" document either.

Mark 6:1-3
Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown ; and His disciples followed Him. When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue ; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands ? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ? Are not His sisters here with us?� And they took offense at Him.

(0ne might conclude that Joseph’s name was omitted because he had died by 80 A.D)

(And I don’t understand why there is such amazement at a virgin birth. When I was growing up virgin births evidently were quite common. Many of the girls in my high school who had babies insisted that they were virgins too).

[polonius]

Do you think that this report could be true?

Jesus, son of Pantera� by Robin Helweg-Larsen

"About 177 AD the Greek philosopher Celsus, in his book ‘The True Word’, expressed what appears to have been the consensus Jewish opinion about Jesus, that his father was a Roman soldier called Pantera. ‘Pantera’ means Panther and was a fairly common name among Roman soldiers. The rumor is repeated in the Talmud and in medieval Jewish writings where Jesus is referred to as “Yeshu ben Pantera�.

[Elijah John]

Do you think that this report could be true?

Jesus, son of Pantera� by Robin Helweg-Larsen

"About 177 AD the Greek philosopher Celsus, in his book ‘The True Word’, expressed what appears to have been the consensus Jewish opinion about Jesus, that his father was a Roman soldier called Pantera. ‘Pantera’ means Panther and was a fairly common name among Roman soldiers. The rumor is repeated in the Talmud and in medieval Jewish writings where Jesus is referred to as “Yeshu ben Pantera�.

I think more likely that Joseph was Jesus biological father. That Pantera story was told in order to discredit Jesus by casting aspergens on his mother. Propaganda from his enemies. And very fashionable to tell by modern, PC skeptics. I reject it.

[Elijah John]

Elijah John posted:

Of course, but "Mark" was written earliest, and presumably was closer to the events narrated than were the other Gospel writers. And he knew of no Virgin Birth story, or if he did, didn't consider it important enough to include in his Gospel.

I am sorry the Ebionites view of things didn't triumph over the Pauline sects and become today's orthodoxy.

The scenario you and Ehrmann paint is plausible, but is there any room for the foundational Gospel of Mark, and the "Q" document in this theory?

RESPONSE: Mark’s account was written about 70 AD. Matthew and Luke were written 10 years later than Matthew and Luke in 80 AD.

So evidently the nativity narrative legends were written later. Also, Mark didn’t have a "Q" document either.

Mark 6:1-3
Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown ; and His disciples followed Him. When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue ; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands ? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ? Are not His sisters here with us?� And they took offense at Him.

(0ne might conclude that Joseph’s name was omitted because he had died by 80 A.D)

(And I don’t understand why there is such amazement at a virgin birth. When I was growing up virgin births evidently were quite common. Many of the girls in my high school who had babies insisted that they were virgins too).

Very funny.

THere is no nativity story in Q, either. It's a "sayings Gospel", as you probably know.. So I wonder where Matthew and Luke got the Nativity stories.

Because it is believed that both "Matthew" and "Luke" used the GoM plus Q to compose their Gospels.

[polonius]

There are many virgin birth stories from Jesus' era. Important persons sometimes had them.

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/originsVBmyth.html

“However, the Virgin Birth story was not new when the Messiah was born. Mythology is full of such stories. An Egyptian Virgin Birth story, told about 2,000 years before the Messiah, had many details identical with those found in the Gospel accounts.�

"Although the virgin birth cannot be understood as a historical-biological event, it can be regarded as a meaningful symbol at least for that time" (Hans Kung, On Being a Christian).

“Of Plato it was related that his mother Perictione was a virgin who conceived him immaculately by the god Apollo. Apollo himself revealed the circumstances of this conception to Ariston, the betrothed husband of the virgin.�

“The devout Simeon who is filled with the holy ghost and recognizes the child Yeshua as the Messiah (Luke 2:25-35) is a duplicate of the Holy Brahmin Asita, who recognizes the child Gautama as the Buddha. He, Simeon, speaks of the Messiah as "a light to lighten the Gentiles" (verse 32), using the same metaphor as is used in the gatha with which, later on in the story, the young Gautama is greeted by the rishis: "In the darkness of the world a light has appeared to lighten all who are in ignorance."

From Wikipedia

“The Emperor Augustus was praised as the Savior of the world …[but] the idea of Savior was not unique or original with Augustus himself. Before him the same title was given to Seleucid and other Hellenistic kings. Throughout this period there were frequent longings for a savior from the present troubles.� Augustus was said to have had a miraculous birth and a childhood filled with many portents and signs. A few months before he was born a portent was observed at Rome which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman People. “

[polonius]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/searc ... rgin+birth

JESUS OF NAZARETH – ...intended to support these prophecies and the dogmatic positions of Christianity. This applies especially to the story of the virgin-birth, a legend which is common to almost all folk-heroes as indicating their ...Legends Concerning His Birth. Some legends, however, are artificial rather than the natural product of popular fancy. To this category belong those concerning Jesus' birthplace. The fact that Nazareth was his ...the story representing Jesus as the son of the Virgin Mary and of the Holy Ghost (taken as masculine, Matt. i. 20-23; Luke i. 27-35). So also the story of the angels and shepherds hailing the babe in the manger

NEW TESTAMENT – ...possessed call him "Jesus, son of David" (Mark x. 47). Here, too, John's gospel is more consistent. It knows nothing of the Davidic descent of Jesus; on the contrary, his legitimacy of birth is disputed (John viii. 48 ...of thinking and speaking is the story, in Matt. i. 18-23 (with which Luke i. 27, 34, ii. 5, and iii. 23 were afterward harmonized), of his conception by the virgin from the Holy Ghost ("Ruaḥ" = "Spirit," being ...Somewhat artificial, and in contrast to such genuine legends as those in Luke, are the birth-stories in ch. ii., woven together from Num. xxiv. 17 (referred to the Messiah), Micah v. 1, Isa. lx. 6, and from Moses...

CHRISTIANITY IN ITS RELATION TO JUDAISM – ...Messianic Midrash, the myths of Jesus' birth from a virgin (after Isa. vii. 14), in Bethlehem, the city of David (after Micah v. 1 et seq.; there was a town of Bethlehem also in Galilee, which Grätz identifies ...the sword and to the strife as resulting from Jesus' birth (Luke ii. 34, 35); and the disappointment voiced by Cleopas, "We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel" (Luke xxiv. 21; compare ...of Jesus.The Risen Christ. That the movement did not end with the crucifixion, but gave birth to that belief in the risen Christ which brought the scattered...

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 9 by polonius]

I generally agree with the Jewish prespective on things. Not always, but they know their own Scriptures better than Christian apologists do. While I reject the "Pantera" theory, I do agree with the Jewish position that Christians have engaged in widespead revisionism when they twist Jewish "prophesies" out of context, and when in some cases they fabricated them. ("don't you remember that it is written that the Son of Man must suffer these things and be raised on the third day?" WHERE, is this "written" in the Tanakh?)

But regarding the present matter, the notion that the Jewish propesy a "virgin shall conceive..." means Jesus, is a huge stretch for a couple of reasons. The prophecy was not a messianic one. And it does not mean that a virgin shall supernaturally conceive. But only that she would. Presuably by natural means, and either she was a virgin until the point she conceived, or that there is some confusion what between the words "almah" and "betullah". I forget which is which, but one means "virgin" and one, "young woman".

Seems I'm not the only one confused about which word was which. The apologist too, seemed to have been "confused", or did not worry too much about taking things out of context and twisting meanings. I side with Jews and Judaism on this one.