The Virgin Birth & The Syriac Pampilipset

Agnes Smith Lewis Proves The Virgin Birth

Last time we spoke on some of the historical problems one faces when attempting to disprove the virgin birth mainly from the church fathers early attestation to how Christ was born. But today we will examine a document that professing Hebrew Divine Prospect has used to affirm his belief that the virgin birth was never true and came later.

I'm going to allow Agnes smith Lewis, Translator of this document to give our introduction.

[NOTE: This introduction isnt the exact words of Lewis and is simply a role play based on her introduction of her own work.

When I discovered the Syriac Sinaiticus palimpsest in 1892, I was intrigued to uncover a possible earliest witness to the gospels in Syriac translation buried under layers of vellum. However, as my team worked to reconstruct the original manuscript, many questions emerged that should give us pause in fully accepting its contested variants. Given the extensive textual damage and overwriting, could errors have crept into our reading even with meticulous deciphering? My colleague Bensly's untimely death left only one of us confirming difficult passages like Matthew 1:16 crediting Joseph as Jesus' biological father. And the apparent intentional destruction of the original text to reuse the pages suggests alarming disregard by previous handlers.

More questions arise when we consider gaps in the document's history. Is this Syriac witness from the early 2nd century truly an independent translation or does it rely on Tatian's Diatessaron harmony with its own peculiar editing? Without clarity, substantiating unusual readings becomes tenuous. In the end, while restored portions of the palimpsest provide tantalizing textual witnesses, evident damage and lingering unknowns advise scholarly caution when significantly differing variants surface, especially in reconstructions relying on speculation from context alone. One might even say when it comes to controversial readings, "one witness is no witness" without corroboration. More discoveries may someday illuminate if certain singular changes reflect early corruption or authentic tradition. For now, we should question but not conclusively confirm.

With that being said, let's dive in.

Questioning the Polemic Against the Virgin Birth

The Authenticity of Mary's Virtue

Could a young Jewish woman in first century Palestine have secretly borne a child outside of wedlock without anyone knowing? What was the cultural context regarding female behavior that might cast doubt on accusations against Mary's moral purity? According to the introduction section of Agnes Smith Lewis’ Syriac Pampilipset, in the secluded, gregarious society of eastern women at the time, it seems highly improbable that Mary could have lapsed in virtue without some female companion eventually finding out. As the text highlights, "It was almost impossible for women to go much in public, and they were very gregarious in their habits." How then could detractors credibly claim improper behavior by Mary when her situation would likely not have been hidden from other women? This insider perspective challenges the argument against the virgin birth by pointing out that it's unlikely that such a mistake could have been kept secret.

The Disciples' Costly Investigation

Continuing with more highlights of her introduction section, if Mary's account of miraculous conception was false, would not Jesus' closest followers have searched out the truth, especially regarding something as monumental as a virgin birth? As the text states, "The disciples...must have made some investigation of the statement concerning the miraculous birth of Jesus." In other words, did they simply accept Mary's word without looking into corroborating evidence, especially if a rumor circulated of illegitimacy?

What lends weight to the virgin birth account is precisely the fact that most disciples went to their brutal deaths overtly proclaiming Jesus as Messiah. Had the virgin birth been suspected as fabrication or cover-up for scandal, would not at least one disciple over time have broken rank when faced with martyrdom for supporting what they knew to be a lie?

The argument is that the disciples' willingness to suffer and die underscores the sincerity of their belief in Mary's purity. Who would die upholding something believed to be untruth?

Joseph's Pivotal Role

Furthermore, the text highlights how Jesus' identity and rights under the law hinged on His relationship to Joseph as legal father: "The social position and civil rights of Jesus were determined by the relationship subsisting between Himself and Joseph." In other words, Joseph's acceptance of Mary while pregnant and his raising of Jesus afforded critical cultural protections. What are the implications of disrupting this delicate father-son bond by inserting suspicion around Jesus' paternity? Potentially, it jeopardizes the entire narrative by clouding Jesus' authority to teach in the temple, minister in synagogues, travel unfettered, and claim Davidic heritage. The strands holding together Jesus' legitimate standing depended in large part on Joseph's paternal tie and his community's recognition of this fact. Seen thus, the singular role of Joseph argues for cautiously weighing any claims that might introduce uncertainty regarding Jesus' paternity and delicate affiliation with his foster father.

Scrutinizing the Historical Context

In general, by analyzing the cultural practices, female seclusion norms, perspectives of Jesus' disciples, and significance of Joseph's legal paternity, a strong interpretive argument emerges ironically from the text used for questioning the polemic against Mary's moral purity and the virgin birth account. Does the historical context suggest plausible alternative explanations for Jesus' unusual conception aligning with a miracle rather than scandal?

Examining the key issues related to women's public access, the disciples' sincerity unto death, and significance of Jesus' tied legitimacy all cast doubt on allegations against Mary while lending credibility to her virtuous character and testimony.

The Genealogies of Jesus

What about the genealogies presented in Matthew and Luke - don't they trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph, implying his biological fatherhood? This is where considers how the genealogies may have been compiled in ways that leave room for ambiguity regarding Jesus' miraculous origins.

A Few Textual Harmonization Theories

The text also notes that both Matthew and Luke give genealogies of Joseph but not Mary. One speculative theory is that perhaps one genealogy traced the paternal lineage while the other tracked the maternal side, possibly even "copied from the public register." In other words, could the genealogies represent an official record modified later by gospel writers privy to the virgin birth account, thereby introducing ambiguity between Joseph's legal yet non-biological paternity and Jesus' miraculous conception?

So again the text itself is giving arguments and answers for the virgin birth via genealogy.

This raises thought-provoking questions:

1. If the genealogies were not comprised originally with the virgin birth in mind, could subsequent adjustments by authors seeking to harmonize the accounts have resulted in lingering textual tensions between the genealogies tracing Joseph while upholding Mary's purity?

2. Does the presence of genealogies indirectly demonstrate that gospel writers Close to the events saw no inherent conflict in affirming both Joseph's paternity for official records and Mary's miraculous virginal conception of Jesus?

Emphasis on Mary's Virginity

On top of the questions, the text highlights that even in their potentially modified form, the genealogies still refer to Mary by her epithet "the virgin." If uncertainty surrounded her moral character, would this title have been used??? Its retention implies EARLY widespread recognition of Mary's purity was common despite possible record changes pointing to Joseph. In other words, the genealogies trace Joseph's line, but Mary's virginity remains embedded in the text. Both legally and morally, Mary's situation finds indirect support in the biblical ancestry accounts when read closely.

Joseph's Perplexity

What about Joseph's initial inclination to quietly divorce Mary upon discovering her pregnant? Doesn't this show the genealogies are correct in identifying him as the father? Actually, his confusion and distressed reaction lend credibility to the miraculous origins. As the text reasons, if Joseph was indeed the biological father after privately taking Mary as wife, why was he troubled by her pregnancy? Would this discovery not make sense if following marital relations?

Rather, Joseph's turmoil better aligns with bafflement upon Mary, still unmarried, turning up unexpectedly expecting with no reasonable explanation available. Though societal norms pressed for swift divorcing, something gave him pause. The text suggests "this state of matters is inexplicable" if Joseph already knew the circumstances through being the father. His perplexity indirectly affirms a situation confounding human understanding - namely, a miraculous virginal conception.

Reconciling Joseph's Righteousness

To further the point, if Joseph was the natural father, this disturbing possibility arises - it presents a moral dilemma for reconciling his righteous reputation with secretly impregnating his unmarried betrothed. The text surfaces this glaring issue, noting the "difficulty of reconciling the idea that Joseph was a just man" with evidence of pregnancy prior to marriage. In other words, for Joseph to save face as a righteous observer of Torah, his only legal recourse was to divorce Mary, unless he knew with divine certainty what others could not, granting patience.

Once again, Joseph's reactions subtly underscore the veracity of a miraculous birth. Both his distress and tempered response when honor called for swift action suggest aspects of the situation hidden outside the normal purview of human judgment. By looking closely at Joseph's struggles, we can find hints of the miraculous. The same details that raise doubts can reveal deeper truths upon closer examination.

Text vs. its Context

The section everyone's come to read about.

1) The passage discusses a "startling variation" in Matthew 1:16 in the Sinai codex, which uniquely states that Joseph begat Jesus. This contradicts the account in the Greek gospels where Jesus is miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit. The passage notes that this reading "stands alone" against all other early manuscripts and seems "self-contradictory" when compared to the surrounding verses.

2) In the passage discussing Matthew 1:16, says in their translation that Mary is still called "the Virgin" in verse 16. This title affirms her virginal status.

OBSERVE BELOW

Syriac Pampilipset- Matthew 1:16

16 Matthan begat Jacob; Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ.

Mat 1:16 KJV And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

So it goes further than the Greek manuscripts themselves to affirm Mary's virginal status. Interesting…

In v. 18, the text states Joseph and Mary "had not come near one to another" before she was found to be with child. This implies no sexual relations.

The phrase "come together" in Matthew 1:18, "συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς" (synelqeîn autous), is a verb in the aorist infinitive form that means "to come together" or "to meet." However, in the context of Matthew 1:18, it is clear that the phrase refers to sexual relations between Mary and Joseph.

So for example, in 1 Corinthians 7:5, the phrase "συνελθεῖν τῇ γυναικί" (synelqeîn tē gynaiki) is used to refer to sexual relations between a husband and wife. The phrase is translated as "to come together" in the New International Version (NIV) and "to have sexual relations" in the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Plus you have Genesis 24:67, where the Septuagint uses the phrase "συνελθεῖν τῇ γυναικί" (synelqeîn tē gynaiki) to refer to Isaac and Rebekah's sexual relations. The phrase is translated as "to come together" in the NIV and "to consummate the marriage" in the NASB.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon states that the verb "συνελθεῖν" (synelqeîn) can mean "to come together" in a general sense, but it also specifically notes that it is used in the New Testament to refer to sexual relations (Thayer, 1889, p. 636).

And the A.M.G.L. (Analytical Greek Lexicon) also notes that the phrase "συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς" (synelqeîn autous) in Matthew 1:18 refers to sexual relations between Mary and Joseph (A.M.G.L., 1996, p. 428).

So it's pretty clear the text meant sexual relations and not some general coming together to be married as some falsely assert.

Moving on!

3) The fact that Joseph is "troubled" about Mary's condition (v. 19) makes no sense if he was the father. This hints at a miraculous conception.

4) Verse 20 states the child was conceived "of the Holy Spirit." So while v. 16 gives a contradictory genealogy, other details throughout the narrative indicates Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit before marrying Joseph.

5) Even with its textual issues, nowhere does the Sinai codex explicitly deny or reject the idea of the virgin birth. The account is simply muddled. But hints of the miracle remain.

6)8 Mary was emphasized as the biological parent of Jesus, while Joseph was only "supposedly" his parent. Additionally, the Holy Spirit was always associated with the conceiving of Mary.

Observe Luke 3:23, he says, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being as was supposed the son of Joseph, which was of Heli". The phrase "as was supposed" (ὡς ἐνομίζετο) implies that Jesus' paternity was not certain or widely recognized. This verse suggests that Jesus' true parentage was not through Joseph, but through Mary, who was miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

Paul in Galatians 4:4 follows Luke closely, stating, "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law" (NKJV). He emphasizes that Jesus was born of a woman, specifically Mary, and that His birth was a divine act of God by saying “God sent forth His son”.

And in Romans 1:3-4 further reinforces this idea, stating, "concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (NKJV). This verse highlights Jesus' dual nature, born of human flesh (Mary) and declared Son of God by the Holy Spirit.

Other conception passages:

1. Matthew 1:18,20 clearly states that Mary was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit, and that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus.

2. Luke 1:26-35, which describes the annunciation of the angel Gabriel to Mary, and emphasizes yet again the role of the Holy Spirit in Mary's conception.

In terms of manuscript evidence, Luke 3:23 is supported by several ancient manuscripts, including:

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340 AD) directly engages with the phrase "as was supposed" in Luke 3:23 in his work "Church History."

In Book 1, Chapter 7, Eusebius is discussing Jesus' lineage and the objections raised against it by critics of Christianity. He writes:

"For in the Gospel according to Luke, after he has described the baptism of our Savior and when the testimony to him from heaven was heard saying, 'Thou art my beloved Son,' concerning which the apostles later preached, he traces the lineage of Christ's ancestry back step by step to Adam and thence to God, in the way mentioned above. And so the slander against his birth according to the flesh originating with those who were ignorant of the mystery of his birth by a virgin, he disposes of by the insertion of the single phrase ‘As was supposed'—for he writes the words, 'And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.'"

So Eusebius directly quotes Luke 3:23, including the Greek phrase usually translated "as was supposed", and discusses why Luke includes this qualification about Jesus' earthly ancestry, given the early virgin birth affirmation. So it seems Eusebius may be the earliest extant author quoting and explicitly discussing the "as was supposed" wording in Luke 3:23 in the context of Jesus' lineage. Lastly you have:

1. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD)

2. Codex Vaticanus (4th century AD)

3. Codex Bezae (5th century AD)

4. Codex Washingtonianus (5th century AD)

5. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century AD)

These manuscripts, along with other ancient texts and versions, contain the phrase which provides us strong support for the verse's authenticity being of Luke.

Conclusion so far: Questioning Through the Context

Examining the family history, Joseph's confusion, and his reputation for righteousness can help us better understand the argument against Jesus' miraculous birth when we read about it closely. Rather than disproving the virgin birth, they lend contextual support upon deeper examination. Seen through the eyes of first century Jews weighing Joseph's dilemma, do not the very tensions questions raise add dimension to the miracle claim by resonating with authentic human confusion awaiting divine explanation?

Checking the Reliability of the Sinai Palimpsest

The Sinai palimpsest contains notable textual variants from biblical manuscripts in other traditions. But what about the palimpsest itself - can it be considered a reliably accurate witness? I'm gonna walk through some intrinsic factors and rediscovery methods that potentially undermine confidence in its textual fidelity by the normal standards of Bible Criticism.

The Challenges of Damaged Manuscripts

As the backstory itself describes, the Sinai manuscript consists of a palimpsest - a parchment page reused after the original writing was washed or scraped away. A 10th century Christian martyrology text was then written over the effaced 4th century Syriac script containing the gospels. What uncertainties does this damaged and overwritten state introduce regarding textual accuracy? The palimpsest's altered condition posed innate difficulties for the transcribers seeking to recover the underlying gospel text in the 19th century. Gaps exist where the uppermost writing obliterates the lower text. Entire passages can only be conjecturally reconstructed with words completely erased at points. Even fully legible lines depend on speculation about erased content above or below to contextualize thought flow.

Compounding matters, one initial scholar involved died during that time, soon after commencing decipherment, unable to provide needed verification of difficult readings. This left only a "single pair of eyes" as the introduction section states, - either Burkitt's or Bensly's - to confirm problematic variants like Joseph's paternity of Jesus in Matthew 1:16. Lacking corroboration, could errors have crept in amid challenging reconstruction? By analogy, if an ancient mosaic were broken up with many tiles missing or overwritten by graffiti, attempts to restore the original would inevitably involve some degree of uncertainty given the extensive damage. So too the palimpsest's material state introduces questions about textual accuracy.

Criteria for Authenticating Variants

To highlight why damaged or partially reconstructed manuscripts always invite the most entertaining of skepticism, it helps comparing methods for affirming contested readings. As the passage notes regarding Matthew 1:16, Greek New Testament scholars utilize multiple verifications across manuscripts and linguistic traditions to authenticate unusual variants. This allows "vetting committees" to reference wider attestation whenuncertainty exists.

The problems for supporters of this syriac text are readings in the Sinai palimpsest like Joseph's fathering of Jesus have little external support given its unique preservation. Unlike Greek texts sharing common manuscript ancestors of families, as perhaps the earliest Syriac witness it appears oddly unaffiliated textually. In other words, it's the only manuscriptof its kind. Not even the other syriac manuscripts state what the palimpsest states.

To put this in legal terms, "testis unus, testis nullus" - "one witness is no witness." Damage and isolation converge to raise doubts.

Physical Evidence of Textual Negligence

But there is more undermining confidence. Codicologists attempt to authenticate texts by tracing reliable lines of transmission and scribal processes to copy manuscripts precisely. What does the palimpsest's material condition suggest about care taken in conveying its contents accurately?

Disturbingly, the original gospel text shows signs of intentional defacing deemed destructive and convenience-driven: "the disappearance of the Evangelion da Mepharreshe was brought about by design, not by accident." Unlike structured Greek scribal centers governing formal training in Alexandria or Caesarea, the palimpsest's handlers excised the holy words with seeming recklessness to save parchment. Such defacing evidences, at best, textual negligence - at worst, willful historical erasure. Would those valuing sacred writ knowingly damage manuscripts apart from dire circumstances or overt textual suppression? By allowing damage and overwriting, the palimpsest's caretakers implicitly raised doubts about their own value of the notebook's integrity. Their methods hardly inspire confidence.

Unclear Textual Tradition & Relationship

A further issue clouding reliability assessments involves uncertainty whether the palimpsest's Syriac version derives directly from the Greek, or, the Diatessaron harmony. Experts have been divided on whether it evidences an initial independent translation or comes from Tatian's merged narrative, with the majority view now favoring the former being the greek. Why does this textual relationship matter? Because classification depends partly on translation style and word choice patterns either demonstrating uniqueness from or affinity with the Diatessaron. But ambiguous connections between versions introduce circular issues in analyzing variants:

1) If the palimpsest utilized Tatian's source text, could changes trace partly to his editing?

2) Or do peculiarities in readings argue for it preceding the Diatesseron, as an earlier tradition?

3) How does one judge between divergence or corruption without context of a version timeline?

In effect, vague textual history interrupts internal critiques of variants. Change may result from anything: early editorial process, independent translation dynamics, accidental corruption. The state of flux regarding classifications means judging readings relies largely on theological persuasion rather than textual science.

Conclusion: Cumulative Case for Caution 101

Noting the palimpsest's material fragility, questionable reconstruction process, evidence of destructive textual transmission, and gaps in knowledge about precise textual relationships, abundant cautions confront asserting its supreme reliability compared to Greek manuscripts.

Too many unknowns linger:

1) **Are peculiar readings like Matthew 1:16 errors of sight reading or ancient corruptions?**

2) **Does the condition of the manuscript itself suggest negligence by handlers?**

3) **What scribal processes created this text and does the ambiguity undermine authentication methods?**

The palimpsest provides valuable insights into previously unknown Syriac biblical traditions and possibly the earliest gospel text. However, scholars are cautious about relying on its readings that significantly differ from widely accepted Greek manuscripts due to concerns about damage, transmission errors, and gaps in the text's history. While future discoveries may shed more light on the matter, it's essential to approach the palimpsest with caution and avoid making sweeping claims about its contested variants.

As Christians, The Virgin Birth stands.

So while Divine Prospect stands by a manuscript that affirms the virgin birth through close examination of the text itself, so do i… However, since He denies the virgin birth, then what does this mean for the Pampilipset he holds to?

I encourage you to read the introduction section and compare all of its passages to other texts.

https://archive.org/details/translationoffou00lewi/page/n8/mode/1up