This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
Parent:: EbioniteChristianity
Virgin Birth
We're not sure who came up with the idea of a "Virgin Birth", but it's not in EarlyEbioniteMatthew. From BnaiAmenEbionaens we cite:
In the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2-3), we read:
In the Gospel that is in general use among them (Ebionæans) which is
called "according to Matthew", which however is not whole and
complete but forged and mutilated - they call it the Hebrew's Gospel
- it is reported:
There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of
age, who chose us. And when he came to Capernaum, he entered into
the house of Simon whose surname is Peter, and opened his mouth and
said: "As I passed the Lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the
sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddeus and Simon the
Zealot and Judas the Iscariot, and you, Matthew, I called as you sat
at the receipt of custom, and you followed me. You, therefore, I
will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel."
The citation by Epiphanius, perhaps him reading from the original HAramaic Matthew, is clearly our (Matt. 3:1). Epiphanius considered this a bug in the Ebionite gospel; we consider it to be a feature as it frees it from a broken geneaology, and a story for which we see no need according to Christ in the rest of Matthew.
Justifications for the Virgin Birth
Facebook - Patristics for Protestants
Steven Avery initial review (tweaked a bit later)
The virgin birth and the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus as our atoning sacrifice
without blemish.
And I will review how I understand four general views, there may be more, e.g. I
have not searched out gnostics. There may be hybrid views. And this may not get
a lot of church writer attention, early, medieval, reformation or modern. Our
helpful compatriots may be able to align early church writers to one or more of
these, or greatly improve my layout.
==========
(A) The immaculate conception of Mary and her sinlessness, combined with the
Holy Spirit parentage of Jesus meant that through the virgin birth there was no
sin nature transference/inheritance.
(B) The virgin birth of Jesus was in the realm of a divine implant, with Mary,
if you will, as a surrogate mother. Thus the non-sin element was built into his
Messiah nature. In this case, Mary’s human egg-DNA and nature are bypassed, even
while she is the chosen vessel.
(C) The sin-nature is passed through Adam and the "seed" of the man. Thus, the
virgin birth negates that human propensity to sin. In modern times, this has
been articulated very well in some writings by Arthur Custance (1910-1985)
including "The Seed of the Woman" in his sometimes uneven Doorway Papers. Some
iterations of this give Jesus a unique chromosomal count.
(D) The virgin birth did not have any direct effect on the nature of the Lord
Jesus, it was mostly for prophetic fulfillment and Messianic narrative. Jesus
was sinless by his goodness and effort, with perhaps a providential anointing
put in the mix. Here we are more into the realm of the Ebionæans, and possibly
adoptionists and nazarenes.
It's a topic over which a lot of ink, and blood has been spilled; for more detail see IntroToLukeVirginBirth.
Pernicious Reasons for the Virgin Birth
We're not sure when the idea of a "Virgin Birth" first came up, but it's a story we see NO need for according to Christ's teachings in the rest of Matthew. So what other reason might there be for adding it?
In the section above, part (D) we see:
The virgin birth did not have any direct effect on the nature of the Lord
Jesus, it was mostly for prophetic fulfillment and Messianic narrative.
He's just speculating, and we agree that the virgin birth did not have any direct effect on the nature of Jesus, and in fact to us it's extraneous and unnecessary. But the last part is completely wrong; in fact the opposite is true, for it means that Jesus' father was Joseph, and as a result, Jesus is of the Davidic line, which is a Hebrew prerequisite for being a Messiah. Which may be the whole point for adding it to the early christian Matthew, perhaps around the time it was translated into Greek.
The Ancient Versions on Isaiah 7.14
[May 16, 2009 ~ John Meade] (https://septuagintstudies.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/the-ancient-versions-on-isaiah-7-14/)
Fewer texts in the OT have been more important to the Christian church than Isaiah 7:14. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho is a great example of the controversy between Jews and Christians over this crucial text. However, Justin and Trypho argue on the basis of Greek versions alone, and the controversy never descends to the meaning of the Hebrew Bible. The Versions listed below are translations from the Hebrew text, and I offer some commentary on each one.
Isaiah 7:14 in the Versions of the OT
The Aramaic Targum represents a clear Jewish reading of the verse: בְכֵין יִתֵין יוי הוּא לְכוֹן אָתָא הָא עוּלֵימְתָא מְעַדְיָא וּתלִיד בַר וְתִקרֵי שְמֵיה עִמָנוּ אֵל׃.
Although the Targum contains a cognate of the Hebrew lemma, according to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL), עוּלֵימְתָא means “girl” with no reference to the chaste or unchaste state of the girl. The Jews of the second century AD did not interpret this text as a virgin birth as the Dialogue with Trypho demonstrates. Therefore, the Targum probably should be read in a naturalistic way, the young woman will conceive and give birth to a son [in the natural way].
The Syriac Peshitta of Isaiah 7:14 reads as follows: ܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ ܢܬܠ ܠܟܘܢ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܐܬܐ܂ ܗܐ ܒܬܘܠܬܐ ܒܿܛܢܬ ܘܝܿܠܕܐ ܒܪܐ܂ ܘܢܬܩܪܐ ܫܡܗ ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ܂. Syriac ܒܬܘܠܬܐ certainly means “chaste girl” or “virgin,” and this translation may infer that Christians translated Isaiah, though we cannot be certain of this conclusion. Although we do not know whether Christians or Jews translated the OT Peshitta, this version still testifies to another reading of virgin over young woman.
Jerome’s Vulgate has as follows: propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis nomen eius Emmanuhel. Jerome represents the conclusion to the debate, since his version was completed by 405 AD. He also brought a new dimension to the debate, since he was the only Christian to argue from the Hebrew text, who concluded that the Hebrew העלמה should be read as virgo, if even in a periphrastic way. Jerome actually believed that the Hebrew העלמה meant abscondita “hidden.” Therefore the girl in Isaiah 7:14 was more than a virgin. She was a cloistered girl, which necessitates virginity.
The LXX has διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ. Its reading is found in (Matt. 1:21) and it has become the proof text of the virgin birth of Christ for the church.
Justin debated the readings of Aquila and Theodotion, two of the Three Jewish revisers of the LXX in the first and second centuries. These two translated the text as follows: ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν. They clearly remove the idea of chaste woman from the text. Of course a young woman might incidentally be a virgin, but ἡ νεᾶνις renders the Hebrew העלמה and implies that the conception and the birth of the son will happen in the natural way.
There is one Hebrew text that underlies these readings. Of course the NT decides which way Christians are to go, but it is interesting to note that early Christians did not argue presuppositionally over this verse, when they conversed with Jews.