18 ms·

I recall Josh McDowell citing the virgin birth as one of the defining reasons for believing Christ was the son of God. I quite enjoyed Christopher Hitchens' ta

I recall Josh McDowell citing the virgin birth as one of the defining reasons for believing Christ was the son of God. I quite enjoyed Christopher Hitchens' take on Parthenogenesis: "Even if I grant you that, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove that he was divine." Things like this add to that workload. Fascinating and festive and very HN.

shawndumas 12y ago
"There is no god and I hate him!"
happyscrappy 12y ago
The Hebrew word for young girl was very close to the word virgin, there was only a subtle difference in the spelling.
- dangero 12y ago
  Are you implying that the meaning was lost in translation?
  - danabramov 12y ago
    That's a very common argument, indeed. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus >The word "virgin" in Christian translations is disputed. The Hebrew word is "עלמה" (almah), which scholars agree means a young woman of child-bearing age, "but has nothing to do with whether she is a virgin", and the context of the passage makes it clear that Isaiah has in mind events in his and Ahaz's near future. The Greek-speaking author of Matthew, however, used the Greek translation of Isaiah, in which the word is given as "παρθένος", parthenos, meaning a virgin.[57] The Encyclopedia Judaica calls this "a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14", which "indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question".[50]
    - olavk 12y ago
      Note though that the ambiguity is in the translation of Isiah, the prophet in the Old Testament, NOT in the translation of the gospels where it is unambiguous that Mary was a virgin in the sense that she had not had sex with a man. However the reason the virgin birth is important for Matthew is because it is supposed to fulfill the prophecy in Isiah. Which in turn indicates that the story about the virgin birth probably originated among Greek-speaking Jews.
    - zkhalique 12y ago
      I am actually not sure that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek. While we may not know the original language in which the gospel of Matthew is written, it is written for a Jewish audience and seems to be one of the most colorful, with e.g. many dead saints coming back to life, begging the question of why no one else bothered to write about this stuff. In any event, if this did indeed happen then it's another example of something that doesn't fit our worldview today that nevertheless can take place, like black swans and freak waves. On a related note, the Hebrew word for "wife" and "woman" are the same. And the same is true of Greek. So quotes of Jesus such as http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm are probably mistranslated, since it doesn't make sense that two unmarried people can commit adultery, so it's likely that the original word was "wife". And yet because of these translations so many young people's sexual desires were repressed so that they might not look lustfully at any woman, married or not. Whenever I ask other Christians about this kind of stuff, they never seem to have a good answer but continue to insist that it should be "woman", and that young men should still not look with lust at any woman.
      - maaku 12y ago
        But the earliest source we have for Matthew are Greek.
      - olavk 12y ago
        There are no evidence that Matthew was originally written in anything other than Greek. But Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic (not Hebrew), so the sayings in the text would be a translation, but probably translated while still an oral tradition.
- everydaypanos 12y ago
  The new testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew. And yes, back then, the word virgin could actually have allegoric meaning(young/innocent/beautiful/... girl). Imagine if she was actually the first ever mammal to asexually reproduce..
  - nocman 12y ago
    Yes, but the prophecy that Jesus fulfilled by being born of a virgin was from the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14), not the New Testament. (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+7%3A14&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+7%3A14&v...
    - baddox 12y ago
      Sure, but the New Testament is pretty clear about its claims that Mary hadn't had sex before conceiving. It seems clear that at least some people thought that the Old Testament prophecies involved a virgin birth.
    - gohrt 12y ago
      Yes, but Isaiah 7:14 wasn't originally written in English, and the Hebrew word "almah" didn't mean "virgin" in the Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah
      - nocman 12y ago
        Well, in fairness (strictly going by that article) it didn't have to mean "virgin" -- but it sometimes did: "Almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות) is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be an unmarried virgin or a married young woman." I'm not saying that Wikipedia gets the final say here, just pointing out what the quoted article says.
  - duaneb 12y ago
    It would be pretty fantastic to generate an Y chromosome. It think it's more likely she was cheating on Joseph.
- SilasX 12y ago
  Not surprising. The German word for virgin is ... youngwoman (Jungfrau).
  - duaneb 12y ago
    There's quite a bit of evidence that virginity only became a "thing" after lines traced paternally—i.e. a mother is pretty damn sure a kid is hers, but the father wants stronger guarantees because even in appearance there's a lot of room for cuckolding. So, given that some early germanic culture was matrilineal (e.g. the Suebi, attested by IIRC Suetonius), it's ALSO not surprising that the word for "virgin" is actually the closest approximation.
    - baddox 12y ago
      I would have expected that to be a "thing" long before humans were writing books. Given that males provided protection and resources during child rearing, I suspect there would have been strong selective pressure for males that tried to ensure that the children they supported were their own.
      - duaneb 12y ago
        > I would have expected that to be a "thing" long before humans were writing books. I agree whole-heartedly; however, books are far from the only thing that drive language. Most of the world didn't have access to books until very recently, and language is driven by that most of the world (to some extent, it's difficult to say how much). > Given that males provided protection and resources during child rearing, I suspect there would have been strong selective pressure for males that tried to ensure that the children they supported were their own. Careful, you're treading into "let's speculate about how genetics and society interact" territory, which is basically impossible to do correctly without many generations of evidence. Males do provide protection in many cultures, but women provide many forms of protection and resources as well. Among other things (which vary from culture to culture), they provide men. Matrilineal societies are attested many times over, as are matriarchal societies. Given that there are no reliable signals for virginity, it's quite easy to see how men might lust after young women instead of "the first sex". Furthermore, I would (again) argue that "the first sex" is by far most valuable in patrilineal societies. In societies where resources are scarce, for instance, polyandrous societies are more common, because it's more important that individual children are given the appropriate nutrition and protection than it is to ensure that the birth rate is maximized. In these situations, who the real father is is not important, because it's one of the child's caretakers (de-facto). Furthermore, male status is tied to children, so there is more impetus to protect existing children than there is to ascertain paternity.
- qohen 12y ago
  The Hebrew word for young girl was very close to the word virgin, there was only a subtle difference in the spelling. Sorry, but this simply isn't so. עַלמָה -- 'almah -- is the Hebrew word for young girl in Isaiah. (The corresponding male term is עֶלֶם -- 'elem.) בְּתוּלָה -- betulah -- is the Hebrew word for virgin. (There is no corresponding male term.) Note that, aside from the feminine ah ending (i.e. the last consonant and the vowel under the next-to-last consonant), they don't look, or sound, alike at all and, semantically, their roots are totally different.
  - cygx 12y ago
    Correct. The problem isn't with Hebrew, but Greek.
- duaneb 12y ago
  While the chronology of the books still leave literary misinterpretation in the bag, Matthew 1:20 explicitly states that the holy spirit impregnated Mary, so under most christian belief system's it's pretty damn clear she was a virgin. Historians, not so much.
fnayr 12y ago
His main argument was actually the Lord Liar Lunatic one, where you need to prescribe one of those descriptions to him (He argues).
- ebiester 12y ago
  That argument came from C.S. Lewis, and the primary counter I know is that it assumes "lunatic" is a binary condition -- someone is either delusional or not. We, today, know that this isn't the case. There are people who have truly bizarre beliefs that don't otherwise hinder logical functioning.
  - gress 12y ago
    By 'people', I presume you mean all of us.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - xivzgrev 12y ago
    Then wouldn't that person be a liar? All and all Jesus said he was the Lord. So I think it is actually rather tight - he was correct, he was incorrect and aware of it (liar), or he was incorrect and not aware of it (lunatic).
    - fsiefken 12y ago
      That is assuming the rendition and interpretation of his words concerning him being the Lord in the gospels written decades after his death on the cross are correct. Perhaps he was merely a charismatic wisdom teacher. Even so there is a field of study (transpersonal psychology) where mystical experiences are not necessarily seen as deviant and a sign of disease. So the mystical union with the Godhead might not necessarily be lunacy. Perhaps this got understood by the leading intellectuals in the mythological imagery we have concerning Christ and it's meaning for humanity as the platonic Man.
- mgkimsal 12y ago

shawndumas 12y ago

"There is no god and I hate him!"

happyscrappy 12y ago

The Hebrew word for young girl was very close to the word virgin, there was only a subtle difference in the spelling.

dangero 12y ago
Are you implying that the meaning was lost in translation?
- danabramov 12y ago
  That's a very common argument, indeed. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus >The word "virgin" in Christian translations is disputed. The Hebrew word is "עלמה" (almah), which scholars agree means a young woman of child-bearing age, "but has nothing to do with whether she is a virgin", and the context of the passage makes it clear that Isaiah has in mind events in his and Ahaz's near future. The Greek-speaking author of Matthew, however, used the Greek translation of Isaiah, in which the word is given as "παρθένος", parthenos, meaning a virgin.[57] The Encyclopedia Judaica calls this "a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14", which "indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question".[50]
  - olavk 12y ago
    Note though that the ambiguity is in the translation of Isiah, the prophet in the Old Testament, NOT in the translation of the gospels where it is unambiguous that Mary was a virgin in the sense that she had not had sex with a man. However the reason the virgin birth is important for Matthew is because it is supposed to fulfill the prophecy in Isiah. Which in turn indicates that the story about the virgin birth probably originated among Greek-speaking Jews.
  - zkhalique 12y ago
    I am actually not sure that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek. While we may not know the original language in which the gospel of Matthew is written, it is written for a Jewish audience and seems to be one of the most colorful, with e.g. many dead saints coming back to life, begging the question of why no one else bothered to write about this stuff. In any event, if this did indeed happen then it's another example of something that doesn't fit our worldview today that nevertheless can take place, like black swans and freak waves. On a related note, the Hebrew word for "wife" and "woman" are the same. And the same is true of Greek. So quotes of Jesus such as http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-28.htm are probably mistranslated, since it doesn't make sense that two unmarried people can commit adultery, so it's likely that the original word was "wife". And yet because of these translations so many young people's sexual desires were repressed so that they might not look lustfully at any woman, married or not. Whenever I ask other Christians about this kind of stuff, they never seem to have a good answer but continue to insist that it should be "woman", and that young men should still not look with lust at any woman.
    - maaku 12y ago
      But the earliest source we have for Matthew are Greek.
    - olavk 12y ago
      There are no evidence that Matthew was originally written in anything other than Greek. But Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic (not Hebrew), so the sayings in the text would be a translation, but probably translated while still an oral tradition.
everydaypanos 12y ago
The new testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew. And yes, back then, the word virgin could actually have allegoric meaning(young/innocent/beautiful/... girl). Imagine if she was actually the first ever mammal to asexually reproduce..
- nocman 12y ago
  Yes, but the prophecy that Jesus fulfilled by being born of a virgin was from the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14), not the New Testament. (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+7%3A14&version=NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+7%3A14&v...
  - baddox 12y ago
    Sure, but the New Testament is pretty clear about its claims that Mary hadn't had sex before conceiving. It seems clear that at least some people thought that the Old Testament prophecies involved a virgin birth.
  - gohrt 12y ago
    Yes, but Isaiah 7:14 wasn't originally written in English, and the Hebrew word "almah" didn't mean "virgin" in the Old Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah
    - nocman 12y ago
      Well, in fairness (strictly going by that article) it didn't have to mean "virgin" -- but it sometimes did: "Almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות) is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be an unmarried virgin or a married young woman." I'm not saying that Wikipedia gets the final say here, just pointing out what the quoted article says.
- duaneb 12y ago
  It would be pretty fantastic to generate an Y chromosome. It think it's more likely she was cheating on Joseph.
SilasX 12y ago
Not surprising. The German word for virgin is ... youngwoman (Jungfrau).
- duaneb 12y ago
  There's quite a bit of evidence that virginity only became a "thing" after lines traced paternally—i.e. a mother is pretty damn sure a kid is hers, but the father wants stronger guarantees because even in appearance there's a lot of room for cuckolding. So, given that some early germanic culture was matrilineal (e.g. the Suebi, attested by IIRC Suetonius), it's ALSO not surprising that the word for "virgin" is actually the closest approximation.
  - baddox 12y ago
    I would have expected that to be a "thing" long before humans were writing books. Given that males provided protection and resources during child rearing, I suspect there would have been strong selective pressure for males that tried to ensure that the children they supported were their own.
    - duaneb 12y ago
      > I would have expected that to be a "thing" long before humans were writing books. I agree whole-heartedly; however, books are far from the only thing that drive language. Most of the world didn't have access to books until very recently, and language is driven by that most of the world (to some extent, it's difficult to say how much). > Given that males provided protection and resources during child rearing, I suspect there would have been strong selective pressure for males that tried to ensure that the children they supported were their own. Careful, you're treading into "let's speculate about how genetics and society interact" territory, which is basically impossible to do correctly without many generations of evidence. Males do provide protection in many cultures, but women provide many forms of protection and resources as well. Among other things (which vary from culture to culture), they provide men. Matrilineal societies are attested many times over, as are matriarchal societies. Given that there are no reliable signals for virginity, it's quite easy to see how men might lust after young women instead of "the first sex". Furthermore, I would (again) argue that "the first sex" is by far most valuable in patrilineal societies. In societies where resources are scarce, for instance, polyandrous societies are more common, because it's more important that individual children are given the appropriate nutrition and protection than it is to ensure that the birth rate is maximized. In these situations, who the real father is is not important, because it's one of the child's caretakers (de-facto). Furthermore, male status is tied to children, so there is more impetus to protect existing children than there is to ascertain paternity.
qohen 12y ago
The Hebrew word for young girl was very close to the word virgin, there was only a subtle difference in the spelling. Sorry, but this simply isn't so. עַלמָה -- 'almah -- is the Hebrew word for young girl in Isaiah. (The corresponding male term is עֶלֶם -- 'elem.) בְּתוּלָה -- betulah -- is the Hebrew word for virgin. (There is no corresponding male term.) Note that, aside from the feminine ah ending (i.e. the last consonant and the vowel under the next-to-last consonant), they don't look, or sound, alike at all and, semantically, their roots are totally different.
- cygx 12y ago
  Correct. The problem isn't with Hebrew, but Greek.
duaneb 12y ago
While the chronology of the books still leave literary misinterpretation in the bag, Matthew 1:20 explicitly states that the holy spirit impregnated Mary, so under most christian belief system's it's pretty damn clear she was a virgin. Historians, not so much.

fnayr 12y ago

His main argument was actually the Lord Liar Lunatic one, where you need to prescribe one of those descriptions to him (He argues).

ebiester 12y ago
That argument came from C.S. Lewis, and the primary counter I know is that it assumes "lunatic" is a binary condition -- someone is either delusional or not. We, today, know that this isn't the case. There are people who have truly bizarre beliefs that don't otherwise hinder logical functioning.
- gress 12y ago
  By 'people', I presume you mean all of us.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- xivzgrev 12y ago
  Then wouldn't that person be a liar? All and all Jesus said he was the Lord. So I think it is actually rather tight - he was correct, he was incorrect and aware of it (liar), or he was incorrect and not aware of it (lunatic).
  - fsiefken 12y ago
    That is assuming the rendition and interpretation of his words concerning him being the Lord in the gospels written decades after his death on the cross are correct. Perhaps he was merely a charismatic wisdom teacher. Even so there is a field of study (transpersonal psychology) where mystical experiences are not necessarily seen as deviant and a sign of disease. So the mystical union with the Godhead might not necessarily be lunacy. Perhaps this got understood by the leading intellectuals in the mythological imagery we have concerning Christ and it's meaning for humanity as the platonic Man.
mgkimsal 12y ago