How is that a contradiction? Why can’t Jesus & Joseph be cousins?
There is an interpretation according to which the list of ancestors in Luke 3 (which differs from the list in Matthew 1, although both lists include David) is of Mary’s ancestry, not Joseph’s. Under that reading, the contradiction would be resolved: Jesus descends from David on his mother’s side, causing no problems with the virgin birth.
A wainwright. So was my great grandfather, Dennis. I was named after him and have the branding iron with his initials that he marked the wagons with. I have the letter his wife sent back home when he had what we now realize was a stroke. His brother went in to work in his place so he wouldn’t lose his job. He didn’t live very long after that, though.
Very cool. The only thing I have that commemorates that side of the family are some coasters and a tee that have my grandfather’s Oregon produce company’s logo on them. He was a fairly wealthy man back then.
Many last names used to mean a maker of wagons, like Carter, Cartwright, Wainwright, Wayne, Wagner, Carretero, and Stellmacher.
Also, curiously enough, Wagonmaker.
I linked to a cite above but didn’t explain: “carpenter,” itself is, etymologically, “wagonmaker,” the root coming from Gaulish to Latin as a word for a kind of chariot.
It’s pretty explicitly Joseph. And Mary is Elisabeth’s cousin, no hint of other ancestry. And about the time of the conception she arrived in Zacharias’ house to visit Elisabeth and stayed there for 3 months (until John was born). That had to suggest to the gossipy neighbours some tongue-wagging about of where and how she got pregnant, if she came back from a 3-month visit about 3 months along.
It’s my understanding that they are seen as more likely to be true, rather than likely to be true. IOW, it can add to the weight of a passage but serious scholars don’t simply accept anything embarrassing as fact.
There are apologists who argue that it anything not flattering does mean that it is completely true.
What 7:14 says, or at least can be understood as saying, is two different sentences: She names him. God is with us.
In other words, at the ritual completion of the pregnancy and birth, when everybody can let out their breath, God will be with us.
It would be odd, to my way of thinking, for a people very superstitious about revealing the name planned for a baby to anyone before the bris, for their God to prophesy a very long time in advance what some baby’s name would be.
While I’m on the topic, though, I am compelled to point out that 7:14 begins not with “There will be a young woman…” but with “THIS HERE young woman…” The Hebrew word is “hina,” “there she is”; it is related to the famous exclamation “hineni!” “here I am!” (ie, ready to serve).
If I said “Here is a young woman (implication: virgin); by this time next year, she will have a baby.” Your assumption is not that there is going to be a virgin birth, but rather that a wedding is probably already in the works, and she isn’t going to be a virgin much longer.
The prophet is just trying to describe, poetically, a period of time, he isn’t saying there will be a virgin birth. He is saying that something will happen in the time it takes for an unmarried (ie, virginal), but probably betrothed, woman to have her first child. In other words, in 15-18 months, a certain thing will transpire.
“Maiden” might be a better term. There is a specific word for “virgin” but it was rarely used- the assumption being any unmarried young woman - “maiden” is a virgin.
But most translations say “virgin” and that as a virgin she will conceive.
I assume what they were trying to say is she was otherwise pure untrodden beforehand and Emmanuel is her first and only child so far… I assume some earlier cultures put a good measure of importance on “to boldly go where no man has gone before”.
how common is the “virgin birth” concept? Considering the great importance put on paternity, I suppose the question was how many religions believes in an ethereal being who did not assumae a male substantive incarnation to accomplish their procreation? For example, Zeus/Jupiter, IIRC, was not beyond procreating with assorted godesses and women, wanted or not, as a physical being doing physical impregnation in male form.
Any translation that says that is wrong. I’m looking at the Hebrew in front of me. It is very simple and clear.
I am not reading “Emanuel” (or “Imanu El”) as the name of the child, but as a statement of how things will be once this child is part of the community-- or even simply as an exclamation someone might make once it is all finally done.
Further, I think in other traditions, where women were pregnant by Zeus or whomever, they were not considered virgins. I think intercourse with any man, god or mortal, ended your virginity.
Arguable point with Danaë and the ‘golden rain’ bit…
A lot of the myths talk about Zeus raping this or that woman. No, i didn’t think they considered her to still be a virgin.
Every Christian translation say “virgin”, and no Jewish translation ever says that. I had guessed that the Greek translation of the Bible used a word with more virgin-y vibes than the original Hebrew. The early Christians mostly read the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew Bible after all.
Yes, that is part-way there… It must have been a cramped prison cell though for Danae to end up in the right position…
Seems like the inspiration for Milli Vanilli…
What’s next? Are you going to suggest that The Suffering Servant isn’t Jesus?
You do want to be careful with the translations there, too. The word “rape” used to mean “carried off”, not necessarily “forced sex on without consent”. I think most of the original myths were kind of vague on the entire concept of the woman’s consent being relevant.
Most of the very early Christians (e.g the disciples) were Jewish and Hebrew was their mother tongue, I am sure they would have read the scripture in its original Hebrew. Greek was the equivalent of English today in that it was the language most people knew, even if it was not their mother tongue so non Hebrew speakers wold be likely to read the Greek translation (as translations into other languages with the possible exception of Latin would not be readily available).
Regarding the virgin birth, the New Testament clearly implies that was the case. In Luke 1:34 Mary responds to the angel telling her that she will conceive and bring forth a Son by asking “How can this be seeing a know not a man” (KJV) the word translated as “know” is “γεεννα” which while it does not only mean to know carnally the context here that is clearly meant as the question would be meaningless for any other meaning of the word.
St. Paul, after his seizure on the road to Damascus, made up his own religion. There was a strong ongoing tension between him and his preachings and the temple Christians, the followers of the apostles who were hanging around there trying to spread their gospel. The latter assumed that Jesus had come only for Jews. Paul has some nasty things to say about them. They eventually conceded Paul could do whatever the hell he wanted with gentiles provided he didn’t subvert the Jews the temple bunch were trying to convert. When Jerusalem was sacked and most of its inhabitants dispersed or killed, that left Paul’s followers as the dominant group in the eastern Roman empire. Most of them were gentiles, and I assume Greek was a/the common language in that area.