tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post144863416358660401..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION-- MIRACLE ON NAZARETH STREETBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-64345250624461541392008-12-24T10:12:00.000-08:002008-12-24T10:12:00.000-08:00Hello James: The Gospel story was part of the ora...Hello James: <BR/><BR/>The Gospel story was part of the oral tradition already in the time of Paul. We needn't wait for Mark's Gospel's publication in about 68. This is clear for example from 1 Cor. 11 where Paul cites the Lukan form of the Last Supper. The OT stories are not close to the story of Mary. They are certainly closer to the story of Elizabeth. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-26807785248427055292008-12-24T09:59:00.000-08:002008-12-24T09:59:00.000-08:00Okay, maybe Christianity didn't draw from pagan le...Okay, maybe Christianity didn't draw from pagan legends, but could it have drawn from Old Testament stories of miraculous births (e.g., Samuel, Sarah, etc.)? No, those aren't virgin births, but is it a stretch for Matthew or Luke to carry those stories a step further, by making Jesus born without sexual intercourse altogether?<BR/><BR/>On your comment that Mary would be putting her life in danger by making up a story about the virgin birth, that depends on what the Gospels were written. Would her life be in danger after 70 C.E.? She'd be pretty old then!<BR/><BR/>Also, I wonder if there's a way to find religious significance in the virgin birth without replaying the Augustine tape: Jesus was born of a virgin because that way he avoided original sin. Matthew doesn't say that. Neither does Luke.James Patehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14247799389009268470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-67413736330183658022008-12-21T14:13:00.000-08:002008-12-21T14:13:00.000-08:00Brother Abbott there is a major difference between...Brother Abbott there is a major difference between 'muthos' ( a story about the gods), and say a legend or a saga. The latter both intend to have some historical substance, and are connected to historical persons. This is precisely what we see in Gen. 1-4 where Adam is connected to a whole series of historical persons by means of geneaology. <BR/><BR/>Now you may argue that though the author had historical intent, in fact the material is fictional, though I would not say this. But what you cannot do is call this material myth. It meets neither the ancient nor the modern criteria for the term. <BR/><BR/>If you want to see a good discussion on these sorts of matters from a very responsible OT scholar see Bill Arnold's new commentary on Genesis by Cambridge. <BR/><BR/>Joyeux Noel,<BR/><BR/>Ben W.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44019683064263812942008-12-21T13:33:00.000-08:002008-12-21T13:33:00.000-08:00Dr. Witherington,I've been trying to wrap my thoug...Dr. Witherington,<BR/>I've been trying to wrap my thoughts around your latest reply for the past few days.<BR/><BR/>When you say "Jews were not myth making peoples", are you saying that something like the "J" Creation Story in Genesis 2, complete with elements like a talking serpent, YHWH searching among the animals to find a mate for Adam, magical fruit trees and a heavenly court afraid that man would "become like one of us", doesn't strike you as mythological in character? <BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>WAwabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964826042850069901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-88715336815421635592008-12-20T15:49:00.000-08:002008-12-20T15:49:00.000-08:00Hi Brother Coulter: I am certainly not saying that...Hi Brother Coulter: I am certainly not saying that sexual activity is inherently sinful. God after all created us that way. What I am however saying is that since the Fall, sin has touched and tainted all that we are, and the way our fallenness happens to be transmitted is of course genetically, and thus through sexual intercourse. The fault lies not with the activity itself, but with the fact that it is a means of transmitting fallenness. Think of the analogy with AIDs. The intercourse itself may be perfectly moral, but the transmitting of the disease involves transmitting something that is not good.<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-679200345837987172008-12-20T15:16:00.000-08:002008-12-20T15:16:00.000-08:00IMO, this is a great post. Except when you get to...IMO, this is a great post. Except when you get to this point:<BR/><BR/>"Too seldom, in sermonizing about the Christmas story do preachers actually discuss why it was important for their to be a virginal conception. The answer has to do not with the sinlessness of Mary, but rather the sinlessness of Jesus. Jesus was not born with what we would call original sin, because, as Luke says ‘the Holy Spirit’ overshadowed and protected Mary, and the child miraculously conceived in her woman did not partake of the taint of human sin, either original or actual."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dr. Witherington, saying that Jesus' sinlessness is caused by the virgin conception seems wedded to the notion that the sex act is somehow morally impure, and that the inherent impurity of sex is responsible for normally conceived babies' inherent sinfulness. But surely that is not a sound biblical notion? <BR/><BR/>Jesus' conception is certainly miraculous, and certainly a qualitative step above the conceptions of Sarah (with Isaac), or Hannah (with Samuel), or Elizabeth (with John). But I don't like saying that Mary's virginity was needed for Jesus' being untainted by human sin.<BR/><BR/>Have I misunderstood your position? Or can you explain why my negative reaction to it is unfounded or misguided? Thanks. :)S. Coulterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871591426399844076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-25621232812791095932008-12-19T10:14:00.000-08:002008-12-19T10:14:00.000-08:00Yes, it surely is Brittney.Yes, it surely is Brittney.Belovedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13178571788989858707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-5244876221626308422008-12-18T04:58:00.000-08:002008-12-18T04:58:00.000-08:00Thanks Brother Abbott for this, but unless I am ba...Thanks Brother Abbott for this, but unless I am badly confused neither Satan, nor resurrection nor Apocalypticism emerge anywhere before they appear in early Judaism. Of course there are various religions that are syncretic, but Judaism and Christianity would not be good examples of them, not least because they stood out like a sore thumb in their insistence on monotheism. Monotheism did not encourage them to go to the smorgasbord of other religion and take samples, and when Jews did sometimes try this, they were roundly condemned as idolaters. I want to stress again two things: 1) Jews were not myth making peoples. They did not explain their origins or beliefs that way; 2) the Greco-Roman stories you are talking about were known to be myths even by their proponents, and their proponents were all polytheists. They had no allergic reactions in principle to other religions-- the Romans for example were happy to borrow from the Greeks in their mythology.<BR/><BR/>Blessings<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-6163358020513554902008-12-17T20:18:00.000-08:002008-12-17T20:18:00.000-08:00Dr. Witherington,I appreciate you bringing up the ...Dr. Witherington,<BR/>I appreciate you bringing up the point about the Christian virgin birth story causing the re-interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 because it certainly isn't a popular position to take among conservatives.<BR/><BR/>With regard to evolution of thought, I think certainly we have to allow for the possibility of innovation and originality, but when I observe the emergence of Satan, resurrection and apocalypticism within Judaism only <I>after</I> the Jewish people come into contact with cultures who already have these concepts in their religion, it does greatly raise the probability of syncretistic origins in my mind.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, when stories of God-female unions and miraculous star-signs accompanying the births of great figures all pop up within a relatively short period of time in a certain cultural context, this at least raises suspicions that either (1) God put something in the drinking water or (2) that these ideas became common religious themes in the Greco-Roman cultural context.<BR/><BR/>Again, we're talking about probabilities, but when noticing the similarities would it be crazy or irrational to think that syncretism is a real possibility?<BR/><BR/>-wawabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964826042850069901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44463132079966640342008-12-16T19:09:00.000-08:002008-12-16T19:09:00.000-08:00Trees, unlike ideas can be said to develop over ti...Trees, unlike ideas can be said to develop over time in an evolutionary spiral of sorts, but ideas are a whole different ballgame, and it is always dangerous to play the game-- this idea must have evolved from that idea which in turn came from this idea. <BR/><BR/>History is far more messy than that, and so are human ideas, especially mutually contradictory ideas that come from completely different thought worlds and mindsets. <BR/><BR/>The synthetic and evolutionary approach to radically different religious ideas and systems, in order to produce an earlier myth origins is not only fraught with possible errors. It also often makes the fundamental mistake of all--- assuming that the ideas always came from earlier ideas, when in fact, in many cases the ideas were spawned by events in space and time, by history itself. Such an idea is the virginal conception that took place in the womb of Mary. It was the event which spawned the reinterpretation of the ancient prophetic text in Is. 7.14. Not the other way around.<BR/><BR/>Blessings<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-10863314657947900882008-12-16T13:48:00.000-08:002008-12-16T13:48:00.000-08:00Dr. Witherington,I like both apples and oranges. ...Dr. Witherington,<BR/>I like both apples and oranges. They both grow on angiospermic trees and have a sweet flavor that has contributed to their survival. I also understand that, despite their unique characteristics, they most likely have a common evolutionary ancestor. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Many blessings to you as well.wabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964826042850069901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-91628924620792324332008-12-16T13:29:00.000-08:002008-12-16T13:29:00.000-08:00Not to push the obvious but the LXX only say a vir...Not to push the obvious but the LXX only say a virgin will conceive. It does not say by what means she was impregnated-- kapish? So not even the LXX was interpreted to refer to a virginal conception in the miraculous sense. Many virgins have conceived without a miraculous virginal conception. and Jewish interpreters of Is. 7.14LXX did not read anything out of the norm into that verse.<BR/><BR/>And Mr. Abbott you are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to Suetonius' stories and the birth narratives of Jesus. The Romans understood the story about Caesar to be an etiological myth. That understood that what was being written was not making historical claims. This is not true in the case of the Jewish stories about Jesus' orgins, which reflect a whole different genre and type of literature. As for Zorastrian theology, we have no pre-NT evidence of what that looked like. All of the sources for that stuff comes from long after the time of Jesus, and could just as easily have been influenced by the Jewish sources, as vice versa. <BR/><BR/>Blessings<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-32142903546791447592008-12-16T12:07:00.000-08:002008-12-16T12:07:00.000-08:00it needs to be stressed that Isaiah 7.14 while pat...<I>it needs to be stressed that Isaiah 7.14 while patient of the interpretation that it refers to a virginal conception, was never interpreted that way before the time of Mary of Nazareth.</I><BR/><BR/>Surely this is not true. As you note yourself, Dr Witherington, the LXX interprets the passage in a fashion that refers to a virginal conception. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the LXX is older than the gospels and their virginal conception accounts.gdelassuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11107851777800250317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-53385556240554213282008-12-16T11:55:00.000-08:002008-12-16T11:55:00.000-08:00The story of the virginal conception is a story to...<I>The story of the virginal conception is a story too improbable not to be true</I><BR/><I>it is an argument from silence to say only Luke and Matthew know of the virginal conception</I><BR/><BR/>BW3,<BR/>Your article as always was interesting. But I have to wonder why you propose that we accept "folk logic" in the first case, but deny it in the second?<BR/><BR/>The (weak) logic of the argument from silence is that if someone thought something important they would have mentioned it. So we might (weakly) infer that Paul either didn't know about a virgin birth or didn't think it was important enough to talk about.<BR/><BR/>If the virgin birth is too improbable to be true, then why wouldn't Seutonius' account of the miraculous birth of Augustus be accorded the same honor? it strikes me just an improbable.<BR/><BR/>The virgin birth account in Matthew and Luke may have some unique elements, but they also have some common elements with pagan religions (God-Female union, miraculous star signs). Just because something is unique in its details doesn't mean that it is not <I>very</I> similar in pattern to other stories.<BR/><BR/>The same is true about 'resurrection theology' in Judaism. It may be unique in that it insists that resurrection is physical, but it looks very much like Zoroastrian theology and the apocalyptic model that goes with it.wabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964826042850069901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-79929441487288349812008-12-15T12:44:00.000-08:002008-12-15T12:44:00.000-08:00In regard to the various questions: 1) nope that a...In regard to the various questions: 1) nope that ain't Britney, besides that's not a name in the Jewish lexicon anyhow; 2)Ed your comment on a non-seminal miracle provided seed for thought :) When is something seminal not seminal???<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-29984435027514789772008-12-15T12:24:00.000-08:002008-12-15T12:24:00.000-08:00(1) "This was a better question than I have receiv...(1) "This was a better question than I have received from many seminary students about one of the seminal miracles in all of the Bible"<BR/><BR/>(2) "...the story of the virginal conception which stresses there was no intercourse with any kind of male, whether terrestrial or celestial."<BR/><BR/>Since (2) is true, should not (1) then be about a "non-seminal miracle"?Edward Pothierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18392755645105646320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-57537383468109861912008-12-15T09:47:00.000-08:002008-12-15T09:47:00.000-08:00is this mary or brittney spears?is this mary or brittney spears?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17118625498303996868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-78831178683847656832008-12-15T00:09:00.000-08:002008-12-15T00:09:00.000-08:00BW3 writes: "The story of the virginal conception ...BW3 writes: "<B>The story of the virginal conception is a story too improbable not to be true</B>, as an ambitious evangelical religion in an honor and shame world would not make up a story prone to all sorts of negative alternative appraisals."<BR/><BR/>I think you would be wise not to use this kind of argument.Quiddityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08543124816916606452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-78283851295170617672008-12-14T19:46:00.000-08:002008-12-14T19:46:00.000-08:00Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, ea...Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, each expressing a different modality of the verb's lexical meanings.(FH. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 108-109.) For instance, Ephesians 1:6 has the first aorist active indicative form, <I>echaritosen</I>, "he graced, bestowed grace." This form, based on an aorist stem of charitoo, expresses momentary action,(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166. ) action simply brought to pass.(Smyth, sec. 1852:c:1.) It cannot express or imply any fullness of bestowing because "the aorist tense . . . does not show . . . completion with permanent result."(Ibid., sec. 1852:c, note.)<BR/><BR/>Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, <I>kecharitomene</I>. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the "continuance of a completed action";(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) "completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem."(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." -C.A.Lasserre deVillierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14658492637019888155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-90188194529386368992008-12-14T14:06:00.000-08:002008-12-14T14:06:00.000-08:00The verb charitoo means to bless, to bestow favor ...The verb charitoo means to bless, to bestow favor on, even to highly favor. We do not have the concept of fullness attached here to this participle, that would have required the word pleroma, for starters. Secondly the angel is greeting Mary and telling her that God has favored or blessed her, and will going on doing so. The term refers to divine action and divine blessing, not human qualities nor the human response. The angel is simply making an announcement about what God is doing. He is not giving Mary a character reference.<BR/><BR/>As for the Aramaic it would probably have been some form of the word HESED which refers to God's covenant faithfulness or blessing on his people. <BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-85292529589238890922008-12-14T13:24:00.000-08:002008-12-14T13:24:00.000-08:00Ben, you last comment there is the most significan...<I>Ben, you last comment there is the most significant. The word Kecharitomene does not denote that she has grace within her, as if she were a cup or something. It simply refers to the fact that God's hand has been upon her, and He has shown her grace.</I><BR/><BR/>No he denies the Angel Gabriel even says the word "grace". Kecharitomene means full of grace, how do you justify interpreting it differently?Lasserre deVillierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14658492637019888155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-33896053222201749762008-12-14T13:18:00.000-08:002008-12-14T13:18:00.000-08:00"You can't build a doctrine on the basis of Luke's..."You can't build a doctrine on the basis of Luke's translation of an Aramaic original."<BR/><BR/>Your argument presupposes the existence of an Aramic original that translates into "blessed, or heavenly favored one". What is it?Lasserre deVillierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14658492637019888155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-17625313776706849862008-12-14T04:50:00.000-08:002008-12-14T04:50:00.000-08:00That picture does bear a striking resemblance to B...That picture does bear a striking resemblance to Britney SpearsIIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16315227626348856638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-17833693697850950812008-12-14T04:13:00.000-08:002008-12-14T04:13:00.000-08:00First of all I would say that it is an argument fr...First of all I would say that it is an argument from silence to say only Luke and Matthew know of the virginal conception, but that may be true. This may have been a story only circulated within the family, and amongst some of the earliest Jewish Christians. To judge from Acts and Paul it was not part of the public proclamation early on. You can't however judge the importance of something by how many times it is mentioned in the NT. For example the Lord's Supper is hardly discussed outside 1 Cor. 11. <BR/><BR/>As for Jesus DNA, check out the discussions on the blood found on the Shroud of Turin....<BR/><BR/>BW3Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-62053496354719173412008-12-13T21:08:00.000-08:002008-12-13T21:08:00.000-08:00Ben, in light of what some say about Mark's espous...Ben, in light of what some say about Mark's espousing an "adoptionistic" Christology (Mk 1:9-11), I'm glad you brought up the text in Mark 6. What else would you say in rejoiner to those taking such a view? Many also would say that, as only Matthew and Luke in the NT speak of the virginal conception, it was not a central or widespread doctrine in early Christianity. What's your response? Thanks!Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14736144233077082159noreply@blogger.com