A Response To Ron Shields on The Virgin Birth
A long overdue response
If you like to dig deep into manuscripts and texts, then i made this piece just for you.
I want to talk to you guys about something ive been following for about a year but havent had time in my schedule to get around to, the Virgin Birth and the fascinating perspective presented in the Syriac manuscript known as the Old Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (OSS), as well as in Agnes Lewis' translation of the four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic palimpsest. Now why do I bring this up? Well because a talented brotha by the name of Ron Shields has been talking to Christians about his position on why he doesn't believe in the virgin birth.
As you may already know, the Virgin Birth is a central doctrine in Christianity that affirms that Jesus was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. However, the OSS manuscript he often brings up, and he's the first I've seen do this, challenges this notion by omitting the idea of both refraining from one another and instead Agnes Smith Lewis' translation from the syriac renders verse 24 and 25 as
"24 he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife: and she bore to him a son, and 25: he called his name Jesus."
Matthew 1:25
Agnes Lewis' translation of the Sinaitic palimpsest also presents a different reading of the Virgin Birth by making it appear as Joseph being the originator of christ instead of the Holy spirit. A reading which is present in most Greek manuscripts, including the Byzantine Text and the Alexandrian Text but not her text.
The differences between the OSS manuscript and other Syriac and Greek manuscripts on the Virgin Birth reflect the theological debates among early Christians and Ebionites, a Jewish Christian sect that rejected the Virgin Birth. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a mere human prophet who was chosen by God to be Their Messiah, but he was not divine. According to the Ebionites, the Virgin Birth was a myth invented by later Christians to elevate Jesus' status from a human to a divine being.
On the other hand, the orthodox Christian belief in the Virgin Birth is grounded in the theological understanding of Jesus as the Son of God who was born without the stain of ancestral sin. For orthodox Christians, the Virgin Birth is a miraculous sign of Christ's deity and divinity which sets Jesus apart from all other human beings.
So, what does the challenge to the Virgin Birth in the OSS manuscript and Lewis' translation mean for our understanding of Jesus and his birth? Does it cast doubt on the validity of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, or does it reveal an alternative perspective on the theological debates of the early Christian church?
Well, for one, before we delve into the early church, let's start with the manuscripts.
The reason why a case cannot be made for the belief that the virgin birth was a later belief based on a manuscriptural basis is for the following reasons.
1. The OSS manuscript affirms the virgin birth.
The following is from Agnes Lewis translation of the gospel of Matthew itself but with the surrounding verses of the controversial verse.
"And the birth of the Christ was on this wise: 1g When Mary his mother was espoused to Joseph, when they had not come near one to the other,’ she was found with child of the Holy Ghost... "Now this which happened was that it might be 22 fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by Isaia® the prophet, who said, Behold a virgin shall be with 23 child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted 185,
God with us. When Joseph arose from his sleep, 24 he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife: and she bore to him a son, and 25: he called his name Jesus."
You see the problem?... the text says that she was pregnant before they came near one another and was pregnant by, not Joseph, but the Holy ghost. Then it says that A VIRGIN shall conceive. After those two statements, THEN the controversial passage comes up about Joseph taking his wife and she baring him a son that makes it not look like a virgin birth. So to be consistent with the text, the word "took" must be interpreted in line with the statements that have come before it. Holding to Ron's position will immediately contradict the text.
Ron holds the word "took" to mean a sexual reference. However, there are a number of scholarly sources that discuss the Syriac Peshitta and its translation of Matthew 1:24-25, but they do not suggest that the word "qabbel" has a sexual meaning in this context. For example:
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by Moises Silva, notes that "qabbel" is a "neutral" term that simply indicates that Joseph accepted Mary as his wife without any suggestion of sexual activity (p. 717).
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, also notes that "qabbel" is a "neutral" term and that "there is no suggestion of sexual activity in this verb" (vol. 3, p. 639).
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey Bromiley, states that "qabbel" is "used of ordinary betrothal without any implication of a sexual act" (vol. 4, p. 1079).
Because of this linguistic fact, it cannot be asserted that any such thinking goes back to any text. Be it orthodox or heterodox. The case fails to say that the Hebrew gospel of Matthew “possibly” carried the line of thinking if the Syriac text does not carry that line of thinking. This is another incredibly serious matter to acknowledge.
Another issue is, why does her translation stand alone? Agnes Smith Lewis was not the only translator of syriac in town. Others both before and after her are consistent with the theme and doctrine of the text.
10 Syriac Translations of Matthew 1:24-25
The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock (1852):
"And when Joseph arose from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife, and knew her not until she had brought forth her son, the first-born; and he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25)
The Syriac New Testament, by George Lamsa (1933):
"Then Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord had told him, and took his wife to his home, and did not know her until she gave birth to her first-born son, and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:24-25)
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in Syriac, by Robert L. Bensly (1894):
"And when Joseph awoke from his sleep, he did according to what the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife, and knew her not, until she gave birth to her son, the first-born; and he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25)
The New Testament in Syriac and English, by J. W. Etheridge (1849):
"And Joseph, when he awoke from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife to him, and he knew her not until she had brought forth her son, the first-born; and he called his name Jeshu." (Matthew 1:24-25)
The Holy Bible in the Ancient Eastern Texts: Aramaic Scriptures, by George M. Lamsa (1957):
"And Joseph, when he arose from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife; and he did not know her until she had given birth to a son, the first-born, and he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25)
The Syriac Peshito New Testament with English Translation, by J. Murdock (1896):
"And Joseph, when he awoke from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife, and knew her not until she had brought forth her son, the first-born; and he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25)
The Syriac New Testament, by John Wesley Etheridge (1849):
"And Jauseph, when he awoke from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife to him, and knew her not until she had brought forth her son, the first-born; and he called his name Jeshu." (Matthew 1:24-25)
The Syriac New Testament, Translated into English, by William Norton (1864):
"And Joseph, awaking from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and received his wife; and he knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25)
Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Translated by J.K. Elliott, published in 1993. Page 7:
"And Joseph, arising from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had told him, and he took Mary as his wife and did not know her until she gave birth to her son, the firstborn, and he called his name Jesus."
The Aramaic New Testament in Plain English, translated by David Bauscher, published in 2010.
Page 1,094:
"And Yoseph awoke from his sleep and did just as The Angel of THE LORD JEHOVAH had commanded him, and he took her for a wife and did not know her until she gave birth to her son, The Firstborn, and he called his name Yeshua."
Agnes Lewis stands alone 10 to 1... so why does her translation alone stand out? This is something to think about.
2. The dating of The OSS vs. The dating of the Greek Gospel of Matthew.
The OSS dates to the 4th century, which is too late to claim an early belief against the virgin birth.
The earliest dating of the Sinaiticus Palimpsest(Old Syriac Sinaiticus) is around the 4th century CE. The dating is based on palaeographical analysis of the manuscript's handwriting and lettering styles. According to a description by the British Library, "The manuscript is dated palaeographically to the fourth or fifth century" (source: British Library https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/old-syriac-gospels-sinaiticus-palimpsest)
Another source that supports the dating is an article by L. W. Hurtado titled "The Recently Published Syriac Palimpsest of Codex Sinaiticus: Significance and Implications" which was published in the Journal of Theological Studies in 2010. Hurtado examines the palimpsest and argues that the manuscript should be dated to the late fourth or early fifth century, based on various factors such as the style of the script, the textual affinities, and the relationship with other manuscripts.
So how is this a belief that existed before the virgin birth if the manuscript comes 300 years later?
Compare this to The earliest manuscript we have of The Gospel of Matthew in Greek.
According to an article in the Los Angeles Times from December 25, 1994, Professor Carsten Thiede published a paper arguing that fragments kept at Oxford's Magdalen College were an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus. William Tuohy of the Los Angeles Times said, "Parts of the New Testament may have been written by men who actually knew Christ, rather than authors recounting a 2nd-Century version of an oral tradition." Thiede inspected the papyrus earlier that year and concluded that the Magdalen fragment belongs to a handwriting style that was current in the 1st century A.D. and that dates to about 100 years earlier than previously thought. He concluded,
"The Magdalen fragment now appears to belong to a style of handwriting that was current in the 1st Century A.D., and that slowly petered out around the mid-1st Century. Even a hesitant approach to questions of dating would therefore seem to justify a date in the 1st Century, about 100 years earlier than previously thought." This places the fragment squarely in the time period of the apostles and, therefore, provides strong evidence that the Gospel accounts regarding the life of Jesus Christ are accurate and reliable historical documents. It also proves the jews wrote and spoke Greek but that's another story. So the Greek text preceeded the syriac text by hundreds of years, existed during the times of the apostles, and the syriac was originally copied from the Greek text anyway when you look up how it came to be in Syria.
3. The Early Church Taught it to The Existing churches.
While the earliest voices can carry weight and direction on official beliefs, another key question can help establish early truths:
What were the new testament churches taught?
We can begin to read what the apostles taught them in their epistles, but we can read what the disciples of the apostles wrote to these same churches as well. And if we find the teaching of the virgin birth, then it paints a clear picture that one simply can't ignore.
1. The founding of the churches in the new testament by the apostles.
2. The apostles taught them.
3. The Church fathers taught them.
There were several church fathers who wrote to the same churches that Paul, John the Revelator, and Peter also wrote to. Here are some examples:
Ignatius of Antioch wrote letters to the churches in Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna. These were some of the same churches that were addressed in the letters of Paul and John in the New Testament.
Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, which was also addressed by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians.
Polycarp of Smyrna wrote a letter to the Philippians, which was the same church that received a letter from Paul in the New Testament.
Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about the churches in Ephesus and Smyrna, which were also addressed by John in the book of Revelation.
Tertullian of Carthage wrote about the churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, which were also addressed by Paul in his letters in the New Testament
Who's missing from this picture?
Answer: The Ebionites
What teaching is missing from this picture?
The human birth of Jesus.
There are quotes from the church fathers that continually say that the beginnings of the Ebionites were at Bashan, When the Church fled to Pella and Decapolis.
Here is what the churches in the new testament were taught by the church fathers after the apostles died.
Ignatius (35-117AD, the third Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch)
“He was truly born of a virgin” (from his “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, written around 103AD)
Justin Martyr (100-165AD, the early Christian Apologist)
“But you (Jews) and your teachers venture to claim that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, ‘Behold the virgin will conceive,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman will conceive, and bear a son.’ Furthermore, you explain the prophecy as if (it referred) to Hezekiah, who was your king. Therefore, I will endeavor to soon discuss this point in opposition to you“. (from his “Dialogue with Trypho”, written around 160AD)
Irenaeus (115-202AD, the Bishop of Lugdunum)
“Christ Jesus, the Son of God, because of His surpassing love towards his creation, humbled himself to be born of the virgin. Thereby, He united man through Himself to God.” (from his “Against Heresies”, written around 180AD)
Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD, the Christian Theologian)
“… Jesus, whom of the lightening flash of Divinity the virgin bore.” (from his “Paedagogus, Book I”, written around 195AD)
Tertullian (160-220AD, the Christian Apologist)
“This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient time, descended into a certain virgin, And He was made flesh in her womb. So, in His birth, God and man were united.” (from his “Apology”, written around 195AD)
Origen (185-254AD, the Christian Apologist and Theologian)
“A sign has been given to the house of David. For the virgin conceived, was pregnant, and brought forth a son.” (from his “Contra Celsus, Book I”, written around 225AD)
Irenaeus’ “Rule of Faith” (Late 1st to Early 2nd Century)
Irenaeus’ early written work was highly influential to believers at the time, and he was an excellent apologist for the faith. He found himself battling with a number of false teachings within Christendom, and as a result, he developed a statement of faith designed to affirm a number of Christian truths, including the “virgin conception”:
“…this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; And in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; And in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race…”
The “Interrogatory” Creed of Hippolytus (approximately 215 AD)
Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus and he included language that was distinctly similar to Irenaeus’ “Rule of Faith” in his “Baptismal Instructions”. Hippolytus used the following instructional statement to prepare his new converts for baptism and to confirm that they had a correct understanding of the Christian Worldview:
“Do you believe in God the Father All Governing? Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, Who was begotten by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died (and was buried) and rose the third day living from the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church and in the resurrection of the body?”
The Apostle’s Creed
The first widely accepted creed of the Christian Church continued the claims of both Irenaeus and Hippolytus related to the “virgin conception”:
“I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen” The 'virgin conception' was not a late invention that appeared for the first time centuries after the fact. It is, instead, part of the early, reliable testimony related to the nature of Jesus.
Ascension of Isaiah (Late 1st to Early 2nd Century)
This text was written very near the time of the canonical Gospels and records a narrative of the miraculous appearance of Jesus to the Virgin Mary:
“And I saw a woman of the family of David the prophet whose name (was) Mary, and she (was) a virgin and was betrothed to a man whose name (was) Joseph, a carpenter, and he also (was) of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem in Judah. And he came into his lot. And when she was betrothed, she was found to be pregnant, and Joseph the carpenter wished to divorce her. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after this Joseph did not divorce Mary; but he did not reveal this matter to anyone. And he did not approach Mary, but kept her as a holy virgin, although she was pregnant.” (Chapter 11, verses 2-5)
The Infancy Gospel of James (approximately 150AD)
This apocryphal Gospel also includes a claim to Mary’s perpetual virginity and presents her as the new “Eve”:
“And the priest said unto Joseph: Unto thee hath it fallen to take the virgin of the Lord and keep her for thyself.” (Chapter 9, verse 1)
In the end, you have to wonder why the ebionites denied the virgin birth. The simple explanation is the Ebionites' rejection of the virgin birth was rooted in their understanding of the Jewish scriptures and their expectations for the coming messiah. The Ebionites believed that the messiah would be the one who would deliver the Jewish people from their oppressors and establish God's kingdom on earth. They also believed that the messiah would be a descendant of King David, as predicted in the Jewish scriptures.
Ebionites wearing at King David's Tomb
Given these beliefs, the Ebionites would have viewed Jesus as a potential messiah because he was the son of joseph whose line was from david. However, for Jesus to be the legitimate messiah and ruler, he had to be a biological descendant of King David, as the scriptures had predicted. This meant that his Davidic lineage had to come through his earthly parents, not through some supernatural means. The concept of the virgin birth, as presented in the New Testament, posed a problem for the Ebionites because it suggested that Jesus did not have an earthly father who could pass on his Davidic lineage. If Jesus did not have a biological connection to King David through his father, then he could not be the legitimate Jewish messiah and ruler according to the Ebionites' understanding of the scriptures.
Therefore, the Ebionites rejected the idea of the virgin birth, opting instead to believe that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and that Jesus inherited his Davidic lineage through him. This allowed them to maintain their belief in Jesus as a human being and a biological descendant of David, while also affirming his status as the Jewish messiah and ruler.
In conclusion, the Ebionites' rejection of the virgin birth was based on their belief that Jesus had to be a biological descendant of King David in order to be the legitimate Jewish messiah and ruler. By denying the virgin birth, they were able to reconcile their belief in Jesus as a human being and a biological descendant of David with their belief in him as the Jewish messiah and ruler.
While I understand the logic, it is carnal instead of incarnational. If it were not for the prophecy of Isaiah, deity of Christ and his divinity taught and seen throughout the New Testament, the virgin birth would not have been a part of Christ's birth. Therefore, it is nonetheless a reality. To remove it would remove the Deity of Christ.
Till next time