I know I'm a day late, but hey, I can pre-date it...
On the seventh day of Meier, his Marginal Jew brought to me, 7) origins of Jesus of Nazareth, 6) part 2 criteria for the historical Jesus, 5) part 1 criteria for the historical Jesus, 4) agrapha and Nag Hammadi, 3) Tacitus and other Jewish sources; 2) Josephus and the books of the canon; and 1) and an introduction to the historical Jesus.
This chapter treats of some basics about Jesus' birth, naming, etc. I feel confident that Meier believes in the virginal conception as a Christian, but he is asking what is most likely given the historical evidence and he doesn't pull any punches.
Jesus' Name
He begins the chapter, "In the Beginning.. The Origins of Jesus of Nazareth," with a discussion of Jesus' name. The name for Joshua (Yehoshua) had been typically shortened after the exile to Yeshua. The Galilean dialect, Meier suggests, would probably have dropped the final ayin in pronounciation and said Yeshu (following correspondence with David Noel Freedman).
It was a very common name, although not from the 2nd century on, Meier thinks in reaction to Christianity. Rabbis from then on do return to the fuller Yehoshua. But at the time of Jesus, "so current was the name Jesus that some descriptive phrase like 'of Nazareth' or 'the Christ (Messiah)' had to be added to distinguish him from the many other bearers of that name" (206).
It was unusual, Meier suggests, to have so many in Jesus' family named after patriarchs and such. To him this suggests "the family's participation in this reawakening of Jewish national and religious identity" (208) that took place after the Maccabean crisis. The appointment of twelve disciples, he suggests, may fit into this pattern as well.
Problem of Sources about Jesus' Birth
Little or nothing can be said with certainty about Jesus' birth and childhood from a historical standpoint. Interestingly, the events of the "infancy narratives" are almost never referred to outside of Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. Jesus' miraculous birth never appears in any of the early preaching in Acts or in Paul. I will merely note that Meier unflinchingly discusses some of the tensions and difficulties within the infancy narratives themselves.
Meier finds the most important agreements between them as Jesus' birth toward the end of the reign of Herod the Great and that Jesus' putative father was named Joseph and his mother Mary. He goes on in the following section to mull over whether Jesus was more likely, given the historical data, to have been born in Bethlehem or Nazareth. He concludes that Nazareth was the more likely place of Jesus' birth, although he does not rule out Bethlehem.
At the same time, he finds it overwhelmingly likely, given the data, that Jesus was indeed descended from David on his father's side. Luke might point more toward a descendency from Levi on his mother's side, but Meier does not think any conclusion about Mary is possible if one is only following historical canons.
Virginal Conception
When Meier is dividing faith and reason, he places faith in the virginal conception of Jesus on the faith side of the line. In other words, we might conclude historically that Joseph was not likely Jesus' father and we might conclude that no other father was known and that people believed he was born of no human father. But belief that he was born of the Holy Spirit will be a theological interpretation of that historical data, not a historical datum itself. I say above, "we might," as a hypothetical, for Meier does not seem to think any conclusion either way is possible using only historical canons.
So he merely discusses how early belief in the virgin conception seems to appear in early Christian literature and some details of the term "virgin." Here the most interesting thought is that a woman could be called a parthenos up until she gave birth. In other words, what is miraculous in Christian belief is not that a virgin conceived--virgins conceive all the time--but rather than Mary conceived without a human father involved.
Finally, Meier addresses the claims of some scholars--as well as some ancient non-believing Jews--that Jesus was born illegitimately. Meier finds this charge a second century response to Christian claims about the virgin conception (by the way, technically, a virginal conception is more accurate than a virgin birth), not a long standing tradition about Jesus' birth. In other words, the charge that Mary was raped was anti-Christian propaganda invented after the fact, not a tradition that had been around forever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_virgin_birth.html
Whoever made up the story of Alexander the Great getting his godness from a divine snake didn't copy the "fact" of an impregnating snake having a go at the king's wife. They used the general notion of passing along godness, and a local reverence for divine snakes, and made up facts to fit those ideas in with the other circumstances of Alexander's story.
Ditto whoever made up the virgin birth of Romulus. And the virgin birth of Perseus. And the virgin birth of Danae. And the virgin birth of Melanippe. And the virgin birth of Auge. And the virgin birth of Antiope. And the virgin birth of Plato.
Meier does discuss the oft mention possibility that the virgin birth was patterned after stories such as these where a male god impregnates a virgin. The main difference he cites is that all of these generally involve impregnation by a male god while Mary is found pregnant "of the Holy Spirit." This phrase in Matthew 1 is used uniformly of women rather than men.
There is also the question of what segment of the early church might find a parallel to such Greco-Roman myths attractive, an enhancer. Perhaps there would be some Gentile converts who had little Jewish investment. It seems much harder to me to think such a person would be in a position to cause this rumor to catch on widely enough to make it independently into two different gospels.
All of that is to say that, if I were to leave the supernatural out of the equation, I think it is far more probable to suggest that there were "suscipious" circumstances rumored about Jesus' birth rather than that some early Christian invented the virgin birth out of the blue to make Jesus look better in the Greco-Roman world.
Thanks for the link!
And the magic dream announcing the virgin birth, how does that figure in your theory? You'll certainly agree prophetic god-sent dreams were deeply pagan. And yet there they are in our bible. They there to attract Gentile converts? Or is this Jewish syncretism?
If Judaism borrowed Paganism's magic prophetic dreams—what alternative is there to this?—why not also the idea of a walking, talking, miracle-working godman who gets his divinity from the sky god?
In fact the idea of a walking, talking, miracle working godman who gets his divinity by the overshadowing of the god who lives in the sky – can there be anything more Pagan than that?
It is possible that some Greco-Roman images could have influenced the presentation, even though I don't think they can account for the origins of the birth story. But the Greco-Roman world certainly doesn't have any monopoly on getting messages in dreams! You find them in Jewish tradition from Genesis to the Dream Visions of the Enochic tradition.
So I still think that even from an atheistic position, the burden of proof is on the person who thinks the Greco-Roman mythological background is a more important background to this story than the Jewish.
By the way, you sound a lot like a fundamentalist, Anonymous. Same attitude and use of evidence, just a different position.
I don't mean to be abrasive. You're smart. I'm trying to learn how you think these things through. In pursuit of that I'm offering clearly stated propositions you can refute or deny. Or ignore. So far you seem more dismissive than engaged. If you're not interested, please just say.
I don't doubt the _virgin_ part of Jesus' story comes from Isaiah. The virgin part of Romulus' myth comes from details of Roman culture. But virgin is only part of the story. There's the woman overshadowed by the god part, the divine father mortal mother part. That seems to me perfectly Greco-Roman. What do you think? How do you think the NT authors / readers/ hearers understood it? On what evidence and reasoning do you base your belief?
I understand old Jewish theologies were consonant with other ancient religions' theologies. Shucks, Josephus has Greeks sacrificing in the Jewish temple. The pagan king's theology of prophetic dreams and Daniel's Jewish theology of prophetic dreams were identical: God sends magic dreams. I don't see how that changes the answer about the source of the ideas. Pretty much everybody back then believed in magic dreams. Assyrio-Summerio-Babologna-o-Egyptioan people believed in prophetic God sent dreams first. Jewish people believed in it second. They must have. They came along later. So where, according to your thinking, did the Jews get their idea of prophetic God sent dreams?
Bernie O'Higgins
Austin
My method is twofold: 1) assess the evidentiary lay of the land in terms of more or less probable meanings and origins given the evidence as it currently stands, then 2) bring those probabilities into dialog with faith. In theory, my stage 1 process is no different from that of any atheist, with the exception that an atheist might limit the number of possible interpretations of the data more than I would. In that sense, my stage one process is more open-minded than the typical person without faith. At the same time, my stage one process is more open-minded than the typical person with faith as well.
My stage 1 process thus aims to assess the likelihood of the Greco-Roman background of Matthew 1 as objectively as possible. Evidence doesn't equal truth, and probable does not mean certain. There is thus no reason for me to cheat with the evidence, since the final decision for me will ultimately involve faith in the equation.
So in terms of trying to assess this possible background as objectively as possible, it seems a very strange milieu for the "conservative" Jewish author of Matthew's gospel to be attracted to, either as a basis for his own creation or as a tradition he would be attracted to from someone else. After all, this is the gospel that deleted Mark's comment that Jesus declared all foods clean. It is this gospel that supports keeping the "least of these [Jewish] commandments." Paul would never have been attracted to such traditions, and the author of Matthew is far more conservative Jewish than Paul.
I am open to being convinced that the evidence lies otherwise. But about the best one can say here, I think, is that it was important in the Greco-Roman world for a person of great importance to have had an important entrance into the world.
> But about the best one can say
> here, I think, is that it was important in the Greco-
> Roman world for a person of great importance to
> have had an important entrance into the world.
You're thinking too fast for me. I don't understand your point.
You say, I think, that in the culture of Judea's Roman overlords, important people had divine births heralded by prodigies. And certainly Jesus was an important person who had a divine birth, heralded by prodigies. Further, you don't suggest anything other than that "Matthew" understood Jesus' birth to be divine and the attendant prodigies to be prodigies.
So the pagans had these ideas, and the first Christians used these ideas – and you don't think Mt borrowed the ideas because … he was a conservative Jew?
What I don’t understand is, how is it _possible_ to know about an idea, and then use the idea itself, and do anything other than borrow it?
Bernie O'Higgins
Austin
Post a Comment