There is
good evidence that some sects of 'The Way' (the followers of Yeshua) had
versions of Matthew/Matityahu that contained no genealogical record and birth
narrative at all.
For example, there was a 'sect' known by some as the Ebionites (who some of the early 'Church Fathers' considered to be two distinct groups, one of which may have been actually been the Nazarenes).
At least one of these groups had an early version of Matityahu in Hebrew and labelled the 'Gospel According To The Hebrews'[1] and which omitted the birth narrative and opened with the ministry of Yochanan (see Epiphanius' Pan.
30:13:6).
Note also that the Gospel of Mark does not include Yeshua's genealogy either.
So, if the first version, the autograph of Matthew did not contain the genealogical record, nor the birth record, then we have no record of this particular aspect of the Messiah's record anywhere in the NT except in Luke. This may suggest that this requirement was not seen as a crucial one of record, or that the many other references to the 'son of David', especially in Matthew, Mark and Luke (along with references in Romans 1:3; Acts 13:23 & 2 Tim 2:8), were considered sufficient testimony that Yeshua was a descendant of King David.
So without the single reference in Matthew, while we have many other references that inform us of Yeshua's qualification for the King Messiah role as a 'son of David', we have no other clear and unquestionable reference to the Virgin Birth'.
What about the birth narrative and the 'Virgin Birth':
I strongly recommend the writings of A B (Bruce) Barham on the whole Virgin Birth issue. Here is part of how he introduces this issue:
For example, there was a 'sect' known by some as the Ebionites (who some of the early 'Church Fathers' considered to be two distinct groups, one of which may have been actually been the Nazarenes).
At least one of these groups had an early version of Matityahu in Hebrew and labelled the 'Gospel According To The Hebrews'[1] and which omitted the birth narrative and opened with the ministry of Yochanan (see Epiphanius' Pan.
30:13:6).
Note also that the Gospel of Mark does not include Yeshua's genealogy either.
So, if the first version, the autograph of Matthew did not contain the genealogical record, nor the birth record, then we have no record of this particular aspect of the Messiah's record anywhere in the NT except in Luke. This may suggest that this requirement was not seen as a crucial one of record, or that the many other references to the 'son of David', especially in Matthew, Mark and Luke (along with references in Romans 1:3; Acts 13:23 & 2 Tim 2:8), were considered sufficient testimony that Yeshua was a descendant of King David.
So without the single reference in Matthew, while we have many other references that inform us of Yeshua's qualification for the King Messiah role as a 'son of David', we have no other clear and unquestionable reference to the Virgin Birth'.
What about the birth narrative and the 'Virgin Birth':
I strongly recommend the writings of A B (Bruce) Barham on the whole Virgin Birth issue. Here is part of how he introduces this issue:
“IF Messiah was born of a “virgin” with no earthly father, why
is it so rarely mentioned in the New Testament?
IF such an event occurred, it would have been an astounding miracle and a subject of frequent discussion! Yet, the New Testament authors virtually never even mention it! This fact alone makes its actual occurrence unlikely.
IF such an event occurred, it would have been an astounding miracle and a subject of frequent discussion! Yet, the New Testament authors virtually never even mention it! This fact alone makes its actual occurrence unlikely.
1.
It
is NEVER mentioned in ANY of the epistles.
2.
It
is NEVER mentioned by Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah.
3.
It
is NEVER mentioned in ANY recorded presentations of the “gospel” in Acts or the
epistles.
4.
It
is NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE as part of a necessary belief a person must accept!
EVER!
5. The ONLY place it is mentioned, or even hinted
at, is in the alleged (and contradictory) birth accounts of Matthew and Luke!
6. Yet Christianity, counterfeit Messianism, and
many monotheistic Messianics consider it a crucial doctrine even though Scripture
most certainly shows it to NOT be crucial!- see http://torahofmessiah.org/the-birth-of-yeshua-messiah-jesus-christ/
Rather than go into detail, I refer you to Bruce's great articles on this topic.
Another often ignored, but very revealing aspect with respect to this question is the chronology of the NT books.
As I argue in my 'James The Just - Re-evaluating his legacy'[2], I believe 'James' was the first recorded book of the NT canon (around 37-40 BCE). Next in chronological order we have Galatians (~49 CE), 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, & Romans (~50-57 BCE) and the Gospel of Mark (late 50's – early 60s), then Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Luke, Acts, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 & 2 Peter (60-68 BCE)[3] and then Matthew[4].
So what this chronological order (as opposed to the theological order given in the NT) reveals, is that there is no mention of the 'Virgin Birth' until some 40 years after the event, despite over half of the NT canon having been written by then! This appears to be a serious indictment of this doctrine.
And Ya'acov (James) was Yeshua's own brother, yet even he didn't see fit to mention something which, if true to any degree (i.e. even as a whispered possibility), would seem to have earth-shattering consequences.
Overall, this is a very telling historical reality. Some scholars have tried to argue that the NT versions of Matthew (used by the Ebionites and others) that did not contain the Virgin Birth narrative, did so because it had been removed. It seems far more likely based on this chronological reality that the exact opposite is true. That is, the Virgin Birth narrative was a later addition, a redaction by Greek scribes and translators.
Uriel Ben Mordechai also has a great teaching[5] on this topic. In his classes on the genealogies he also made the point that according to Torah rulings (Jewish Halacha), if the 'Holy Spirit' had somehow impregnated Miriam, who was already betrothed to Yosef then the 'holy Spirit' had committed adultery!
He writes that many of these stories that were
commonplace in the first few centuries of the Common Era, especially within
Hellenistic society, were of Greek mythical past as well of some of the famous
Greek figures.
Amongst these stories of individuals born to a divine mother and a human father, were Achilles (son of the divine Thetis and the human Peleus), and Aeneas (son of Aphrodite and the mortal Anchises).
Those believed to be the offspring of a god and a human
mother included Asclepius (son of Apollo and the mortal Coronis) and Hercules
(son of Zeus and the human Alcmene).
Stories of miraculous conceptions and births were also
told about rulers and philosophers in historical time. Among the philosophers,
Pythagoras was said to be the offspring of Apollo and the human Pythais. Plato
was believed to have been the son of Apollo and Amphictione; and Apollonius of
Tyana was thought to be the son of Proteus, a divinity of Egypt, or Zeus.
He writes that these traditions were still common in
the 2nd century
CE and gives a number of examples including the apparent miraculous conception
of Alexander the Great.
He also notes a second tradition where a number of
these miraculous conceptions involved some form of spiritual encounter with the
virgin mother, with Aeschylus an early example. "In
"Suppliants" 17-19, lo is said to be impregnated by Zeus in the form
of the ‘on-breathing of his love’."
In the Greek historian Plutarach’s ‘Life of Alexander’
(written around 100 CE) we read "it happened not through semen but by another
power of God (dunamei tou theou) that God begot in matter the principle of
generation, … not by a physical approach, like a mans, but by some other kind
of contact or touch that a god alters mortal nature and makes it pregnant with
a more divine offspring”.
Plutarch also writes: "Nevertheless the Egyptians make a
plausible distinction in such a matter. A woman can he made pregnant by a
spirit (pneuma) of a god, but for a human there is no physical intercourse with
a god”.
Talbert states that the two main reasons for such
stories about great individuals was that firstly, they were a way to explain
these individuals superiority above other humans. The second was as a form of
veneration of these great figures of history.
So Talbert argues that early (Hellenistic) auditors[6] of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke may well
have felt that “Jesus' divine
begetting were certainly needed to explain his marvelous life. A divine origin
was appropriate for their chief benefactor and founder.”
Mark does not have a birth narrative. Irenaeus (late 2nd century)
even wrote about the believer, Cerinthus[7] (of
late first century CE) “who believed Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was
the son of Joseph and Mary according to the usual manner.”
I believe this is a significant comment that shows
that the birth narratives do not appear to have been seen as ‘in-errant’ and
inspired by some within the church only a matter of decades after the
autographs of the Gospels.
He argues that such a non-miraculous understanding of
the conception of Yeshua would have lead to the conclusion that Yeshua’s
followers would also need to lead meritorious lives (i.e. be Torah observant).
With the rejection of such an understanding by the Hellenists, it then went
hand-in-hand with the ‘grace only’, anti-Torah position of the Hellenistic
church to write into the gospels a miraculous birth narrative to be able to
reject the previous conclusion regarding the need for Torah observance.
Talbert concludes in this manner by stating that “The Greco-Roman conviction that a human's superiority can be explained only by a divine creative act is used to establish the prevenience of divine grace in the divine-human relation. This is what an ancient auditor would have heard.”
So while such evidence of this Hellenistic, or Greco-Roman mythical narrative to explain and venerate the great figures of their history does suggest strongly that such a mythical narrative was likely adopted and redacted into the Gospels, it does not of-course prove that such typology is not purely co-incidental.
Talbert concludes in this manner by stating that “The Greco-Roman conviction that a human's superiority can be explained only by a divine creative act is used to establish the prevenience of divine grace in the divine-human relation. This is what an ancient auditor would have heard.”
So while such evidence of this Hellenistic, or Greco-Roman mythical narrative to explain and venerate the great figures of their history does suggest strongly that such a mythical narrative was likely adopted and redacted into the Gospels, it does not of-course prove that such typology is not purely co-incidental.
It is, I think most significant to appreciate though,
that the Jewish people of Yeshua’s day NEVER expected the Messiah to be
virgin-ally conceived. In fact, this understanding of the Messianic prophecies
has remained the consistently held view of Judaism ever since.
The evidence regarding Cerinthus does indeed appear confusing, especially though, in that those trying to either lay claim to him (the Gnostics) or reject his authenticity as a believer (the Hellenists), can’t even agree (and certainly have different criteria to me) on what a follower of Yeshua in those early decades typically looked like.
For me the evidence is extremely strong that all the early Jewish followers were Torah observant (including a significant number of Pharisees). After some 12-15 years when the Gentiles began to join this movement, they to were often Torah observant, or at the very least observed the Ten Words and the Noahide Laws (as much as detailed in Acts 15 at least).
Therefore the fairly clear indication from a number of sources that Cerinthus was circumcised and at least in some ways a strong supporter of Torah would suggest he was a follower of Yeshua.
What does make it a little difficult is that all the commentary on him comes from the Hellenistic Christians such as Eusebius, who believed in such falsehoods as the divinity of Yeshua, the Trinity and that the Kingdom of Heaven was not to be on the earth!
So to me, the best approach seems to be, to believe that if these Hellenists had a problem with Cerinthus and thought him a heretic, it is more likely that he was much closer to be a real believer, as they certainly weren’t!
For example, Eusebius condemns Cerinthus because “the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one.” – from Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine – (circa 260 - 340 CE)
Some, such as a second century sect, even believed that Cerinthus wrote the Gospel of John! Wouldn’t that be ironic if it turns out be true.
The evidence regarding Cerinthus does indeed appear confusing, especially though, in that those trying to either lay claim to him (the Gnostics) or reject his authenticity as a believer (the Hellenists), can’t even agree (and certainly have different criteria to me) on what a follower of Yeshua in those early decades typically looked like.
For me the evidence is extremely strong that all the early Jewish followers were Torah observant (including a significant number of Pharisees). After some 12-15 years when the Gentiles began to join this movement, they to were often Torah observant, or at the very least observed the Ten Words and the Noahide Laws (as much as detailed in Acts 15 at least).
Therefore the fairly clear indication from a number of sources that Cerinthus was circumcised and at least in some ways a strong supporter of Torah would suggest he was a follower of Yeshua.
What does make it a little difficult is that all the commentary on him comes from the Hellenistic Christians such as Eusebius, who believed in such falsehoods as the divinity of Yeshua, the Trinity and that the Kingdom of Heaven was not to be on the earth!
So to me, the best approach seems to be, to believe that if these Hellenists had a problem with Cerinthus and thought him a heretic, it is more likely that he was much closer to be a real believer, as they certainly weren’t!
For example, Eusebius condemns Cerinthus because “the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one.” – from Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine – (circa 260 - 340 CE)
Some, such as a second century sect, even believed that Cerinthus wrote the Gospel of John! Wouldn’t that be ironic if it turns out be true.
Others argue that he disagreed with the Apostle Paul because he thought all Gentiles who became followers of Yeshua should be proselytized and become Jews. Again, this makes him more likely a follower of the early church in Jerusalem rather than a Gnostic or Hellenistic heretic.
Here is an interesting and informative quote from 'How Jesus Became Christian':
"...they [the Ebionites] did not accept the virgin birth
story at all since this MYTHOLOGY does not find its roots in Jewish thinking.
So, unlike later Christians [of the Roman Catholic variety], they did not see
Jesus as a divine being. Nor did they think that Jesus 'preexisted' his human
form in any fashion...He was, like you and me, HUMAN IN ALL RESPECTS, feeling
our pain, joy, sorrow, and gladness. He became God's CHOSEN Messiah because God
judged him more righteous than any other person"
(Barrie Wilson, 'How Jesus Became Christian', St. Martin's Press, N.Y.
2008, p. 100)[8].
I have not discussed here Luke's annunciation (the angelic announcement of the birth of Yeshua) narrative. Luke also wrote Acts. There is no reference to the Virgin Birth at all in Acts, which is very much a narrative that informs followers of Yeshua in how they too should act. As per the great Jewish maxim 'Deeds matter more than Creeds'[9], this is also quite telling.
For a great treatment of Luke's annunciation narrative, I recommend Chapter 5 in particular, of Prof. Andrew T. Lincoln's, 'Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition and Theology'.
In this book Professor Andrew Lincoln argues that the notion of the 'virgin birth' was promoted to enhance the Hellenistic argument for Yeshua’s divinity. Lincoln instead argues that the earliest, most primitive historical New Testament witnesses do not affirm the historicity of the virgin birth.
I have not discussed here Luke's annunciation (the angelic announcement of the birth of Yeshua) narrative. Luke also wrote Acts. There is no reference to the Virgin Birth at all in Acts, which is very much a narrative that informs followers of Yeshua in how they too should act. As per the great Jewish maxim 'Deeds matter more than Creeds'[9], this is also quite telling.
For a great treatment of Luke's annunciation narrative, I recommend Chapter 5 in particular, of Prof. Andrew T. Lincoln's, 'Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition and Theology'.
In this book Professor Andrew Lincoln argues that the notion of the 'virgin birth' was promoted to enhance the Hellenistic argument for Yeshua’s divinity. Lincoln instead argues that the earliest, most primitive historical New Testament witnesses do not affirm the historicity of the virgin birth.
In conclusion, the genealogical records of Yeshua are certainly no impediment to his qualification to be Messiah King, and in fact, they appear to offer some strong confirmation, not only of the validity of his claim, but also the difficulty for any future prospective claimants (after the destruction of the birth records in the Temple in 70 CE) to present evidence that they possibly qualify for the role.
[1] Epiphanius
calls the Gospel according to the Hebrews' “their Gospel” (Pan. 30:16:4-5) and
Jerome refers to it as “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use”. The
actual document has been lost to history, but about 50 quotations and citations
of this document are preserved in quotations and citations from the so-called
“Church Fathers” and other commentators even into the middle ages. - see James
Scott Trimm - http://nazarenespace.com/profiles/blogs/the-gospel-according-to-the-3
[3]These datings from p16 'Chronological ad Background
Charts of the New Testament (2nd Ed.) by H. Wayne House
[4]H. Wayne House has 40-60 CE but Prof. David Flusser and
many others date the first Greek version of Matthew as definitely after the Fall
of Jersualem in 70 CE. I discuss this in my book 'The New Testament: The Hebrew
Behind the Greek' available via Amazon.com
[5] Uriel Ben Mordechai
also argues that the text of Matthew, properly understood, without the standard
Hellenistic church pre-supposition of the Virgin Birth, does not imply with any
certainly that Yosef and Miriam had never had sexual relations. The text
indicates that at the time of the angel's visitation Miriam had not yet slept
with a man, but we are not privy to what exactly took place after that.
[6] i.e. not the original author(s), but later
translators and editors.
[7] Here’s a few excerpts from The 1911
Classic Encyclopaedia: "CERINTHUS: … There can be no truth in
the notice given by Epiphanius (Haer. xxviii. 4) that Cerinthus had in earlier
days at Jerusalem led the judaizing opposition against Paul. (why not?!) … The difficulty of defining
Cerinthus's theological position is due not only to the paucity of our sources
but to the fact that the witness of the two principal authorities, Irenaeus
(1.26, iii. 11) and Hippolytus (Syntagma), does not agree. … It
would appear, … that Cerinthus laid stress on the rite of circumcision and on
the observance of the Sabbath. (sounds like a Torah observant Jew just like Yeshua and all his
apostles and disciples!)
He taught that the world had been made by angels ….(and that) Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary … Cerinthus, if we may trust the notices of Gaius the Roman presbyter (c. 290) and Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 340), he held a violent and crude form of chiliasm (the belief that Christ will return to reign in the body for a thousand years)" -http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cerinthus
He taught that the world had been made by angels ….(and that) Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary … Cerinthus, if we may trust the notices of Gaius the Roman presbyter (c. 290) and Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 340), he held a violent and crude form of chiliasm (the belief that Christ will return to reign in the body for a thousand years)" -http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cerinthus
[8]This quote came from the website 'Hope of Israel':
Here's a little more of the excellent article on their site on the question of
the Virgin Birth:
There is a lot of evidence to show that the original Hebrew or Aramaic forms of both Matthew and Luke were -- like the present Gospel of Mark -- WITHOUT the first two chapters, starting their accounts of the Messiah's ministry with John the Baptist's calling. It is a fact that the Ebionites of the second to fourth centuries after the Messiah, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic but WITHOUT the Virgin Birth narrative -- unlike our version of this gospel that, like Luke, includes the Virgin Birth story.... The New Testament we have today is at least a THIRD LEVEL translation of the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles that have mysteriously vanished. These Gospels and Epistles were originally translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew by uninspired Hellenized Judahites -- followed by pagan Greeks and canonized by the equally paganized ancient Roman Universal (Catholic) Church and government of the Roman god and Emperor Constantine "the Great."
- from http://www.hope-of-israel.org/originsVBmyth.html
There is a lot of evidence to show that the original Hebrew or Aramaic forms of both Matthew and Luke were -- like the present Gospel of Mark -- WITHOUT the first two chapters, starting their accounts of the Messiah's ministry with John the Baptist's calling. It is a fact that the Ebionites of the second to fourth centuries after the Messiah, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic but WITHOUT the Virgin Birth narrative -- unlike our version of this gospel that, like Luke, includes the Virgin Birth story.... The New Testament we have today is at least a THIRD LEVEL translation of the original Apostolic Writings and Epistles that have mysteriously vanished. These Gospels and Epistles were originally translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew by uninspired Hellenized Judahites -- followed by pagan Greeks and canonized by the equally paganized ancient Roman Universal (Catholic) Church and government of the Roman god and Emperor Constantine "the Great."
- from http://www.hope-of-israel.org/originsVBmyth.html
No comments:
Post a Comment