A Virgin Birth: The Biggest Con Job in Christianity
For years I have read about the simple mistranslation that led to "the virgin birth of Jesus" in the New Testament. We all know a claim that is approximately, "The Old Testament prophesy led to events that actually happened in the New Testament. This could not have happened without an all powerful and all knowing God."
For reasons I do not understand, the tale that a woman who had never had sex but gave birth to the Jesus character is a big deal in the faith. And, the claim it was prophesied in the Old Testament makes it an even bigger deal. Whether a virgin birth ever happened gave skeptics a lot to work with. But that is was prophesied in the Old Testament has skeptics even inside the faith.
Talking of the Bible we have to first mention the usual disclaimer. There are no original copies of anything written in the Bible. Everything available today is the result of scribes recopying thousands of times. And, we would expect scribes edited to suit themselves.
The oldest Old Testament materials were written in Hebrew. The oldest New Testament in Greek. When the oldest Old Testament materials are today translated directly into English they do not prophesy a "virgin birth." They predict the birth to a young woman. These translations to a "young woman" are not just from secular translators but include scholars within the faith.
The virgin birth part came from the New Testament in Matthew, Mark and whomever else. They were written in Greek and whoever the writers were they no doubt were taking the story from something else written in Greek. If the NT writers had read Hebrew and they might have written something different.
Those defending the misinterpretation say the Hebrew "young woman" word was interchangeable with "virgin." There is disagreement with that also, however. There was a word for virgin used several times elsewhere so that does not hold water.
All of which goes to show the Bible is a book of myths and should not be considered important in real life.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteHebrew “almah” vs Greek “parthenos” — “young woman” vs “virgin”. In any case Joseph is my hero. Betrothed to and caring for a young woman pregnant perhaps by his own doing, perhaps not, perhaps by a divine spirit, perhaps Gabe was no angel. It’s all very confusing to me. No wonder we call it “faith”. Joseph was a fine example of a honorable loving man. Amen.
Ardy B -- "It's all very confusing to me."
ReplyDeleteMe as well. Since there were other ancient deities "born of virgins" it leads one to think this version of the Jesus story was passed down from long before. The Greek speakers wanted it incorporated, Hebrews had taken a pass.
And the Joseph character is an interesting one. Perhaps there was an earlier story that gave those who wrote the Bible a model for him too.
Jon, September 20, 2020 at 7:21 AM, “ Since there were other ancient deities "born of virgins"
DeleteAs you know the history of religion in Egypt, Greece, Rome, and other locales tell of gods impregnating human women and no surprise, virgins conceiving and giving birth. Those stories are filed under bizarre but entertaining mysteries from robust mythologies. There is also in nature biological parthenogenesis, reproduction from an unfertilized ovum. Oh yes, and tall tales of pregnancy by inadvertent exposure to semen in the environment. We can grant that Mary the mother Yeshua was not a mythical character, a plant or invertebrate, and did not conceive relieving herself on a toilet seat?
So we are left with the ageless story of a young pregnant woman married to a devoted husband on the run from an authoritarian government. Their dear son decades later became a firebrand, a protester of laws, was sadly betrayed by his own people, and executed for sedition. Another ageless story. Poignant enough, I say.
By the way, great link to a valuable future reference. Thanks.
You forget the New Testament was not written, or translated from the Hebrew. It was Greek.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think the definition of a virgin is an ugly 3rd grader.
helper--"You forget..."
DeleteThe NT was written in Greek, the OT in Hebrew. The NT in story in Greek of the birth was supposed to fulfill a prophesy in the OT written in Hebrew. The OT in Hebrew did not use "virgin" but "young girl." When centuries later the NT in Greek was written they did not get the prophesy written in Hebrew correct--the writers wanted the story to be a miracle. So they changed it from what was prophesied.
Re. Isiah 7;14 ----Gen. 24;16; re, "Virgin". The earliest copy of the Septuagent was written 1 BC. (before the NT). See; Wiki; "When was the Septuagent written".) The NT writers came after.
Deletehelper "Septuagent..."
ReplyDeleteThat's my point, third grader. The translation got the prophesy wrong. The VIRGIN BIRTH WAS NOT PROPHESIED. It says in Matthew THE VIRGIN BIRTH WAS PROPHESIED.
As reported by the Jews in the Septuagent.
ReplyDeletehelper "As reported by the Jews in the Septuagent."
DeleteMore third grade stuff. So it was the Jews who made the mistaken translation. Was their native language Greek or Hebrew? Did they have the same academic training and computers to find how ancient Hebrew words were used elsewhere? Explain why the ancients in Isaiah did not use the work for virgin when they had such a word?
re. "ancients"; As said in the clip, it could assume a young girl was a virgin, as was my wife. Evidently, the Jews that translated the Septuagent thought so. Your bias refuses the possibility. Thus the ugly 3rd grade virgin in your world.
Deletere. native language; Actually, both. At the time many Hebrews were Helenized, and Greek was the common language for most. That's why the Septuagent was made available. They would have clearly understood and approved the translation.
DeleteSo, go ahead, mind the timeline, and blame the Jews.
helper -- "They (Greek/Hebrew) speakers (a thousands or years later) would have clearly understood and approved the translation."
DeleteOh sure. That 3rd grade stuff again. They might have been good at translating it to conform with what they wanted it to say. Today's scholars know the ancient Hebrew better than they did.
It is quite peculiar there was a word for virgin that was not used. Another word, "young women" was used instead. If the prophesy of a virgin birth is necessary for you to buy into the whole myth stay with it. Don't pay any attention to evidence to the contrary.
Dear third rate historian; your "a thousand or years later" Where in the hell is your timeline? Are you talking 1000 AD or for your sensitivity; CE? Your context is out of context. But, don't pay any attention to it, it destroys your contrary.
DeleteI am sensing a little frustrated anger when the bias you present doesn't line up for you.
Helper "Where the hell is your timeline?"
DeleteIsaiah, 8th century BCE,
Septuagint 3rd or 2nd BCE
Book of Matthew 85 CE
Jon; the Septuagent was written for the benefit of the Greek speaking Jews, (Helenized), not for the Christian community much much later on. Indeed, the NT had not yet been written, nor were there Christians. You can't accuse the Christian writers . But you try to. No credability.
DeleteTimelines Jon, timelines.
Helper-- "Septuagent was written for the ...."
DeleteSometimes you make NO sense at all. Of course the spetuagent was written for Greek speaking Jews. I didn't say anything about the spetuagent in the blog. You brought it up for reasons I do not understand. Why did you bring it up? I put it in the time line because you brought it up.
The case I made is so simple. It is included in a The Bible 101 class textbook I have. The Old Testament, Isaiah, says the coming ONE will be born to a young woman. The New Testament says Isaiah prophesized ONE would be born to a virgin. You wanted a timeline for some reason, I'll go over it again: Isaiah 8th century BCE. Matthew 85 CE.
I got sucked into your misdirection trick. You misdirected me to the septuagent. I should have recognized it's what you always do when you are losing an argument.
Jon; You really should read your attachments.
DeleteThe septuagent is clearly mentioned in the 4th and 5th paragraphs. Your reference to that is the source, of "virgin". Even a " young woman" can be a virgin.
Not a misdirection, but a reminder of the contents you yourself provided, and timeline even before Christ, or Christianity.
Helper "You should read your attachments...Even a young woman can be a virgin."
DeleteI did not mention the septuagent, period. I did not mention it because it doesn't matter where the translation mischief occurred, it appeared in Matthew. The big deal of a virgin birth is that a young woman might have meant a virgin?? This is another case of the unethical and shady business involved in Christianity. It makes a clear statement, "Jesus was born of a virgin." And then you come along and say what was written might mean Jesus was born of a virgin.
Misdirection, slight of hand, it's all part of your game.
When people trying to cover their tracks on this virgin birth thing say that, "Well, when the ancients used a word for 'young girl' and did not use the word they knew well for 'virgin' they still may have meant virgin when they wrote 'young girl.'" This leaves wide open the obvious, they might have meant what they wrote, "young girl" which is different than "virgin." The latter puts to rest the far fetched notion they KNOW the ancients prophesied a virgin birth.
Deletewhat in hell is the point? young women were probably assumed to be virgins. that of course is not true in Lindgren's world. nor in today's society generally. as an aside, there were some disputes between ancient scholars as to the differences between the Septuagint and other translations at the time. those people were good scholars, even w/o Jon's vaunted computers. and old Jon's sneer about third graders: interesting remark coming from a self-appointed atheistic scripture "scholar" whose knowledge of the subject is at about the same level. remember the old adage (alexander Pope, as I recall): a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deeply or.....".
ReplyDeleteUnknown-- re "Third graders" That was helpers phrase. I was just returning the compliment.
DeleteAs to your "young women were probably assume to be virgins" I mentioned that in my blog. What I did was to point out the specific difference in translation between what the latter Greek writers said and what the Hebrew "prophesies" said. Was it an important difference? It has the potential to be. Today's scholars know more about ancient Hebrew than did Greek speakers, even if the used Hebrew, around the year 100.
But I know, those who are believers today understand what the ancient Hebrew writers meant better than any scholars since.
I will concede that today's scholars know more about the ancient documents than the Greek scholars probably knew about the OT at the time. nonetheless, I don't think that any snotty modern can write off the credibility or the acuity of the ancient scholars. this from one who is not a Scripture scholar but who is willing to admit to that fact.
ReplyDelete