The blessed virgin Mary
There was a huge debate amongst biblical scholars and apologists regarding the meaning of the word virgin as used in the Old Testament (hā·‘al·māh) and its equivalent Greek word (parthenos) used in the New Testament. The debate was centered around whether the word virgin meant the same back then in the time it was used in the texts as it did to us now. The Hebrew version of the word could be used to refer to a young maiden and not necessarily a virgin in our modern day traditional sense, and it can mean virgin. Either way I will overlook this part of the discussion and give them the benefit of the doubt that virgin as used in the New Testament texts in reference to Mary meant a woman who had not had sexual intercourse with a man.
Catholics insist that Mary never had sex with Joseph and did not have any more children after the birth of Jesus. So I will like to start this discussion by dispelling the first myth. That is, if we are to take the N.T. literally regarding this matter without alluding to parables, allegories, etc. The most telling verse in the gospels that gives one the impression that Mary did in fact consummate her marriage with Joseph after birthing Jesus is found in the book of Matthew.
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Matthew 1:25
The context of this verse states that Joseph was betrothed to Mary so they were already arranged to be married. But when he found out that she was pregnant and he had not yet had intercourse with her he was thinking of quietly cancelling the wedding. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and explained the situation. He then realized that the child would be sent from God and went on and married her as the Lord had commanded him.
The text I have cited says that he did not consummate the marriage and ends the sentence with until she gave birth indicating that he did in fact consummate the marriage later on. The word until as used in this sentence basically can be interpreted as Joseph not having sex with Mary till she gave birth giving me the impression that he did so afterwards.
There are other verses that support my conclusion quite clearly in the gospel of Matthew where it states that Jesus took a trip to his home town and was preaching to the people and they were amazed at his knowledge.
55“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
Mathew 13:55-56
According to the author of Matthew who most likely wasn't Matthew at all; not only were the people impressed by Jesus display of knowledge, but also by the fact that they had apparently known him and his family before he left to start his ministry. This was of course before he was baptized by John and set out to fulfill his calling. In the text they mention that he has four brothers and an unknown number of sisters. Mark is believed to have been the first gospel written and it is thought that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. As a result of this it is no surprise to find a similar passage in Mark.
3"Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of
James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And
they took offense at him." Mark 6:3
After Jesus she got freaky with it!
My position on the matter is that Jesus never existed and so the whole story of a virgin birth is just as false and fictional as most of the stories in the scriptures. But those are future posts best left for another time when I can present my position thoroughly and in greater detail.
If anything about the Jesus myth is true, and Mary did exist, then I say she got knocked up and came up with an original excuse. Simple.
ReplyDeleteI agree but the author of the narrative wrote that Joseph was visited in a dream by the angel of the Lord. I personally think that this entire narrative was juat a shitty piece of fiction.
DeleteOne popular, but of course largely unsubstantiated notion, is that she was raped by a Roman soldier. Whether Joseph was actually naively taken in by her story or complicit in the coverup isn't clear.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, I think if this did happen which I don't think it actually did at all then Joseph had to be complicit in the cover up. One good reason would be to save face since he was betrothed to her and probably did not want her to get killed either under the laws of fornication and adultery.
DeleteGods impregnating human women is a veritable prerequisit for god like stature to the ancients - Zeus, Dionysis, Heracles, Apollo to name a few, all diddled human women with their offspring attaining god or demi-god stature . The concept of Jesus' supposed virgin birth was unknown to the earliest Xtians, and the earliest New Testament contributor...St. Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus)... never mentions it. It was a post Paulian contrivance.
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense that Paul was the originator of these beliefs being introduced into Christianity from pagan sources. His doctrines seem to differ from those of the gospels.
Delete@Chat --
DeleteI don't think Paul is plausible for the infancy narratives. His (and by his I mean the Pauline corpuses) Jesus is known about through scripture, he has no concept of the incarnation at all nor does he ever mention Mary.
Mary is a Jewish version of the Isis cult. She is the Jewish "queen of heaven". As Jesus, the heavenly Melchizedek, Elijah, Seth... start to jell into a unified Jesus there needs to be some relationship between them. So she has to be wife / syzygy, mother, daughter... The final configuration has a confusion where she is mother and through Magdalene also wife / daughter and ... (as below)
But I don't see any evidence that Paul has any notion of this theology. His Jesus is a variant of the Jewish primordial man and a redeemer who overturns creation.
Sorry to disagree but no I don't think Paul is your source. There is no Isis theology anywhere in Paul.
Trust me the ancients surely must have meant for the "young woman" to be portrayed as being married before getting pregnant with Jesus !instead the stupid story in the New Test. has Mary getting knocked up as God's baby momma. A bastard messiah? Lol I am sure that is NOT originally what the Hebrews had in mind! Ooops! :-)
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrews used the word "bethulah" which specifically meant " virgin" A bastard messiah? Nope that would have been crazy to the mind sets of the ancient Jews. That is why we know the story is fiction.
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrews had a different concept of a messiah. Their view of a messiah was going to come in the form of a military or world leader who would subdue all nations to God and restore Israel to its former glory. The Christian idea of Jesus as messiah is nothing more than a Christian invention that plagiarized O.T. prophecies and wove it into their fictional narratives. I believe it was meant to give the tale of Christ credibility with the Jews.
DeleteThere isn't much of a debate.
ReplyDeletealmah is the word in Isaiah 7:14. almah means young women. It can be used for a prostitute as long as she is young.
The word for a woman whose never had sex is betulah. When Isaiah wants to refer to women who have never had sex he uses that word: 23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1 and 62:5
The LXX does use παρθενος (paryenov=virgin) so Matthew is just quoting the Greek Old Testament not the Hebrew.
Good points CD-Host I forgot to mention that that debate I was referring to only exists amongst apologists. You are correct that Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint (LXX) which in my rush to write this post I had completely forgotten about. Thanks for the clarification it is greatly appreciated.
DeleteOK I understand. Yes. I have to deal with apologist craziness all the time.
DeleteIn terms of the mythic Mary. Yes I think she is ever virgin mythically. The imagery seems to come from the cult of Isis. Isis role grew from being Osiris wife to being all the source of creation. She was birth ever virgin, wife and mother. Her sex and her mysteries are tied together. So for example if you go to her temple in Rome:
"I, Isis, am all that has been, that is or shall be; no mortal Man hath ever me unveiled."
Osiris is the mystical true king and she is mother and wife: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Jesus, Mary of Bethany and her identification with Mary Magdalene, Mary the beloved disciple in Gnostic literature, Mary in Acts 12:12...
All this imagery works well for Sophia (personified Wisdom) who can be Jesus' mother, Yahweh's mother (and thus Jesus mother or grandmother), Jesus wife (Jesus is the Logos Law and Wisdom create a mystical perfect pair)....
I suspect that Mary imagery predates the incarnation imagery and that infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew are later. We know that in the early 2nd century Christians who believed in the incarnation believed that Jesus had appeared on earth fully grown so they saw Mary as a mother who existed solely in the higher realms.
Luke does his typical shtick of stitching together 1/2 dozen different Christian imageries into one semi-cohestive story.
I think Matthew is the source for this humanizing of the Sophia / Isis character. But I don't have a good theory for why Matthew 1-2. Why does the author of Matthew want Jesus begotten on earth? I'm still not sure.
Anyway so that's my $.02 on the broader conversation.
I've said it a million times that the gospels are nothing more than a conglomeration of ancient plagiarized myths. Seen from this perspective one can recognize the mythical nature of the gospels themselves.
DeleteI personally don't believe in an historical Christ nor do I see the need for one. The lack of evidence for his existence is overwhelming. This is why the quest for the historical Christ has been an utter failure. It's like trying to find historical evidence for Hercules.
The personage of Jesus himself is also a patchwork of ancient myths that predated Christianity but Christian believers refuse to see this. I have heard some of the most absurd rationalizations to try and explain away the fact that Christianity simply borrowed its story from surviving myths of the cultures that they came in contact with.
@Chat
ReplyDeleteAgree with all you wrote here. Going to have to disagree above but I totally agree with your basic theme.
Nothing wrong with disagreement it's healthy and leads us to dig deeper in our quest for truth and accuracy.
Delete