The Virginal Conception of Christ Essay Example for Free

The Virginal Conception of Christ Essay The Virginal Conception is a vital aspects in Christian faith, this is also held by Muslims (Qur’an 3.47). Virginal conception is a miraculous, non-sexual manner. The Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive God Incarnate without the help of a man. For some believers they believed that   Mary also gave birth to Jesus miraculously; He passed through her without wounding her or spoiling her physical virginity, But for some He passed through her in natural way- thus breaking her hymen and went thru birth pains. When talking of virgin birth, it means also, Virginal Conception (Virginitas ante partum), i.e. that Christ, one of the person in the Deity Incarnate, had no human biological father. The biblical basis of virginal conception of Jesus was prophesied in Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14. It came true in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:34-35. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2:7) However, the possibility of a virgin birth is often questioned for the fact that, from a biological viewpoint, it is impossible for a human being to be born without a biological father and a mother. Also, some Christians do not believe in the Virgin Birth. Research by many groups, including Christian researchers, indicates that among both the clergy and the laity (in all branches of Christianity) a belief in central tenets of the faith such as Virgin Birth or bodily Resurrection is highly variable. Although they believe in the Virgin Birth, Muslims do not call Jesus Son of God, rather Servant of God. In the Quran, Jesus (Isa in Arabic) is consistently termed Isa ibn Maryam a matronymic- because, in Muslim belief, he had no biological father. Philosophical controversy In the wider sense, arguments for and against the Virgin Birth depend on fundamental philosophical assumptions: if one believes God does not exist, or if God exists but does not perform miracles, the Virgin Birth cannot have taken place in any traditionally accepted sense. While parthogenesis, a type of virgin birth where a female gives birth without the intervention of the male material, is known in nature, the resulting offspring must be female since the mother has no Y chromosome to pass on. Also, the process has never been observed in mammals. The Virgin Birth not only violates a naturalist philosophy, but also science based upon methodological naturalism. Alleged late appearance in the New Testament There are explicit references to the virgin birth in only two places in the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are believed by many scholars to be amongst the later written parts of the New Testament. The apparently older Gospel of Mark, on which Matthew and Luke are believed to be partly based, does not mention the virgin birth, and some scholars also argue from grammar and style that the first two chapters of Luke, describing the virgin birth, were a later addition to the Gospel, which may originally have begun at 3:1: 2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. At 3:1 there is an abrupt change of subject and the story begins again. Nevertheless, this is characteristic of many stories in the Gospels and the author of Luke may simply be beginning a new segment of his narrative. Arguments regarding the addition of material to a narrative (Redaction and Form criticism), especially when the material in question is present in the earliest manuscripts, have received significant criticism in the last 20 years and are now regarded as dubious by some textual critics. Double attestation The Virgin conception and birth is a tradition that fits within the criterion of multiple attestation, that is, the same event appears in two independent traditions (most scholars argue that the authors of Matthew and Luke worked independent of one another). For many historians, independent testimony is a significant evidence for the historical validity of a said event. Matthew and Luke are testifying to an event, the birth, about which there was a tradition, namely, that it resulted from a miraculous conception. That the conception itself was indeed miraculous appears to rest on a single attestation, that of the Virgin Mary. The attestation of the Angel to St. Joseph on the miraculous nature of the conception would not be accepted by many scholars as historiographically valid. Critics of the double attestation argument cite many inconsistencies between the accounts of Matthew and Luke regarding Jesus birth. According to Matthew, Joseph was forewarned of the virgin birth by an unnamed angel; in Luke it is Mary who is notified of this by the angel Gabriel. Matthew tells us that Joseph and Mary were residents of Bethlehem who moved to Nazareth after Jesus birth in order to avoid living under Archelaus: according to the better-known story in Luke the couple lived in Nazareth and only traveled to Bethlehem in order to comply with a Roman census. Luke mentions that Mary was the sister of Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, has the new-born Jesus visited by shepherds, and mentions several long hymns uttered by various characters, such as Marys Magnificat. None of this is mentioned by Matthew, who instead tells us of the visit of the Magi, the massacre of the innocents by Herod, and the flight into Egypt. There are thus two rival explanations for the double attestation of Matthew and Luke regarding the virgin birth of Jesus: The virgin birth was a historical event, and the stories of Matthew and Luke are based on different aspects and witnesses accounts of it. Matthew and Luke both wanted to make Jesus fit prophecies from Hebrew scripture. Both authors were aware of the prophecies concerning virgin birth and Bethlehem, and therefore these elements of their stories match. But each author wove these prophecies into the overall narrative in a different way. For example, both authors had to explain how Jesus was born in Bethlehem when he was known to be from Nazareth (as mentioned in Marks gospel) and each came up with a totally different explanation. The double attestation shows only that the two witnesses are independent, although, there are some inconsistencies but it does not disqualify the truth of the case. Dispute regarding Isaiah 7:14 In the past two millennia, there has been controversy among scholars about the translation and the meaning of a small section of Isaiah. For many scholars, the crux of the matter is the translation of the word  : × ¢Ã—Å"מה, `almah which has been translated as young woman and as virgin. In Isaiah the word for virgin here is almah. Some liberals1 and Orthodox Jews claim that the word really means young woman, and this is reflected in Bible translations such as the NEB, RSV, NRSV, and GNB. Such people fail to explain why a young womans bearing a son should be a sign it happens all the time. The Septuagint translates it as (parthenos), the normal word for virgin.2 Later Jews, such as Trypho,3 Justin Martyrs (c. 160) dialog opponent, and Rashi4 (11th Cent.) have claimed that the Septuagint was wrong. Trypho claimed that almah should have been translated neanis (young girl) rather than parthenos.5 However, even Rashi admitted that the word could mean virgin in Song of Sol. 1:3 and 6:8. In the KJV, the word is translated virgin in Gen. 24:43 (Rebekah before her marriage), maid in Ex. 2:8 (Miriam as a girl) and Prov. 30:19, and damsels in Ps. 68:25. These verses contain all the occurrences of almah in the OT, and in none can it be shown that a non-virgin is meant. In English, maid and maiden are often treated as synonyms for virgin (e.g. maiden voyage). Vine et al. note that the other word for virgin, betà »lah, emphasizes virility more than virginity (although it is used with both emphases, too).6 It is qualified by a statement neither had any man known her in Gn. 24:16, and is used of a widow in Joel 1:8. Further evidence comes from clay tablets found in 1929 in Ugarit in Syria. Here, in Aramaic, a word similar to `almah is used of an unmarried woman, while on certain Aramaic incantation bowls, the Aramaic counterpart of betà »lah is used of a married woman.37 The Encyclopedia Judaica, while criticising the translation of almah in Is. 7:14 as virgin, also points out that btlt was used of the goddess Anath who had frenzied sex with Baal.8 In the King James Virsion of The Bible, a traditional Protestant translation, the verses in question run like this: 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Some newer translations also use the word virgin: The New King James, The English Standard Version, The Contemporary English Version, Youngs Literal Translation, among others. Many modern translations concede that the word in the Hebrew does not mean virgin, including The Revised Standard Version, The New Jerusalem Bible, The Revised English Bible, The Good News Bible, The New Revised Standard Version, among others. This demonstrates that some Christian scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, prefer the traditional translation of the Hebrew in the context of Isaiah 7:14, while others do not. Skeptics argue that this is not a very clear prophecy of the birth of Jesus. In addition to the objection that Jesus was not in fact named Immanuel there are other problems: for example, (1) what does the butter and honey refer to? (One possible response to the butter and honey problem: it is a reference to one who, metaphorically, has eaten good meat his entire life in order to spit out the bad meat if it ever touched his lips. Note that the butter and honey reference is immediately followed by the comment on an ability to choose between good and evil; this may suggest that they are related.) (2) Why is Jesus, who was sinless from birth in the traditional Christian understanding, described as having to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good? and (3) This passage within the latter translations states clearly that the young woman within this prophecy is already pregnant with a child. This makes this prophecy about the coming Messiah Jesus very difficult to explain as the prophecy would have already been fulfilled during Isaiahs time. Some Christian aplogists have attempted to explain this problem of temporal context as: a) the latter translations are in error, and b) the latter translations are correct, but that the prophecy has a double-application for both Isaiahs time and the first century. Thomas Paine argued in the second part of The Age of Reason that Isaiahs prophesy (7:16) turned out to be false. He based his conclusion on the 2nd Chronicles (chapter 28) account of heavy defeat of Ahaz. Skeptics raise even greater questions about the translation of the first verse in this passage: 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, × ¢Ã—Å"מה (a `almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Christian apologists respond that the passage is a double reference— a sign both to Ahaz that the alliance against him would be destroyed, and to the house of David as a whole that was threatened with extinction. This is shown by the Hebrew which uses singular you for the former and plural you for the latter. With the former, Isaiah reassures Ahaz that the alliance would be destroyed before his own son Shear Jashub, who was present (v. 3), would learn to refuse the evil and choose the good. Finally, there is archaeological evidence that Jewish speakers of Greek used the word parthenos elastically; Jewish catacombs in Rome identify married men and women as virgins, and some have suggested that in this case the word was used to call attention to the fact that the deceased was someones first spouse (although it is notable that this usage is from several centuries before the translation of the Septuagint [citation  needed]). Certainly, Jews stopped using the more explicit Septuagint translation as Christianity spread, and post-Christian Jewish translations into Greek use ÃŽ ½ÃŽ µÃŽ ±ÃŽ ½ÃŽ ¹Ãâ€š, neanis, meaning young (juvenile) woman, rather than parthenos. Possible borrowing from Paganism Some have argued that the Virgin Birth is a Christian borrowing from paganism The impregnation of mortal women by gods is common in pagan mythology. However, this is not technically virginal conception, since virginity is lost by definition when the sex act is initiated. Christian writers have noted that the obvious sex of the pagan myths is missing in the Gospels: Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. A pagan myth of virgin birth may also underlie the disputed verses from Isaiah: It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for virgin is betulah, whereas `almah means a young woman who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. The aim of this note is rather to call attention to a source that has not yet been brought into the discussion. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew `almah young woman; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah virgin. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of `almah as virgin for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet. (Feinberg, BibSac, July 62; the citation to Gordon is: C. H. Gordon, `Almah in Isaiah 7:14, Journal of Bible and Religion, XXI, 2 (April, 1953), p. 106.) This philological reasoning seems to raise four possibilities: virgin birth is a pagan concept that Christianity has 1) taken from contemporary paganism; 2) taken from pre-Mosaic paganism through Isaiah; 3) taken from contemporary paganism and justified from Isaiah, who took it from pre-Mosaic paganism; 4) produced independently of all forms of paganism, though sharing similar vocabulary. If pre-Mosaic paganism supports Isaiah, and Isaiah supports Matthew and Mark, paganism has anticipated Christianity, perhaps because God was preparing the way for Christianity or because, as some Church Fathers argued, the Devil was blasphemously imitating Christianity. On the other hand, if paganism does not underlie Isaiah, there are several possibilities. Perhaps virgin birth was invented separately, first in paganism, then in Christianity. Perhaps the idea of asexual conception was so different from the idea of conception through sexual intercourse with a deity that there was little or no borrowing in either direction. Or perhaps, despite the earlier date of the Ugaritic text, virgin birth existed first in Judaism, without any other instances than this one, and was borrowed by paganism. The obvious difficulty with this idea is that virgin birth was much more prominent in paganism, where it occurs in many myths in many different areas, than it was in Judaism, where it occurs (if at all) in a single verse late in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the argument that virgin birth was a Jewish concept first borrowed by paganism and later incorporated into Christianity was first made by Justin Martyr in The First Apology of Justin, written in the second century. Justin also made this argument in his Dialog with Trypho, in which he debates with a Jew called Trypho: Be well assured, then, Trypho, I continued, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the Devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijahs days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by Jupiters intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the Devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? Justin was clearly not referring to any Ugaritic texts, as these texts were not known in his day; he was referring to Greek paganism. That the Devil is responsible for the similarities between paganism and Judaism is not generally accepted by modern scholars, partly because the Devils influence would be impossible to disprove. The Devil could not, for example, imitate Christianity or Judaism before either existed, without violating the generally accepted historical rule that a culture cannot be influenced by a culture that does not yet exist; even though in point of fact it is likely that if the patriarch Jacob existed, he was contemporary with the inscriptions at Ugarit. In a similar vein, it might also be argued that God had chosen to out-do these earlier human myths, all as part of his Plan. Christian writers point out that if in fact the writer of Isaiah intended to borrow the idea of a virgin birth from an older pagan tradition, we might expect to find Isaiah using more explicit language to indicate that a virgin was meant. However, if Isaiah had borrowed the story from pagans, he might be expected to speak in the same way as the pagans, and that is what he does, according to the scholar quoted, who notes the remarkable similarity of the Ugaritic and the Hebrew. However, Isaiah may speak the same way as the pagans simply because he came from a similar sociological and semantic context. If Isaiah received a new prophecy direct from God, on the other hand, he had no tradition to conform to, and he could have expanded the meaning to make it completely unambiguous. That he did not choose to make it unambiguous is thus an apparent difficulty for the Christian interpretation of the text, though the ambiguity could be seen as being intended, if one supposes that God had a dual purpose for the text (i.e., to serve one function in Isaiahs time and another function later). Isaiahs prophecy departs from the Ugaritic version of the virgin birth by having the female be entirely human, whereas in the Ugaritic culture, the virgin was another deity, on par with the male; but this is exactly what might be expected if the myth were borrowed from paganism, since Judaism has only one male deity; a female deity in a borrowed myth might thus conceivably become a female human. According to Origen and Tertullian, the Christian doctrine of the Virgin birth met with lively opposition and mockery from pagan groups. This testimony would seem to discount the suggestion of those modern revisionists who have posited that the pagan religions had a similar or identical tradition. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is frequently confused with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The latter, taught by the Roman Catholic Church states that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Mary, however, unlike many peoples views of Jesus, was conceived in the ordinary way: i.e. she had a human father as well as a human mother (whose names, according to Catholic and Orthodox tradition, were Joachim and Anna/Anne or Jehoiakim and Hannah in Hebrew). Whilst Protestant denominations adhere to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, they do not adhere to the idea of Marys immaculate conception, nor of her perpetual virginity. References: Hagner, Donald-Matthew 2 Vols. (Biblical Commentary) Dallas; Word, 1993,1995. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7 Minneapolis; Augsburg Fortress, 1989. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1997. Keener Craig, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1999. Nolland, John, The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2005 Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, New York: Paulist, 1973 (pp. 21-68) Marshall, I. Howard. Commentary on Luke, Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1978 Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Gospel According to Kuke I-IX (Anchor Bible) Garden City. Doubleday. 1981