Matthew 1:18

Previous Verse < Matthew 1 > Next Verse

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (ASV)

Pro

Edit this section if you suspect error.

Inconsistency of Virgin Birth Story With the Rest Of "Matthew"

JW:

A critical question regarding the Christian Bible is was the "virgin birth" story in "Matthew" written by the original author or was it later added. An increasing number of Christian Bible scholars are accepting that 1st century Judaism had no conception (pun intended) of a virgin birth and that combined with the observation that the supposed virgin birth of Jesus causes many awkward inconsistencies in Matthew with other verses which imply a normal birth, the virgin birth story may have been added to Matthew after it was first written. "The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary" which is one of the two main Christian Bible commentaries now found in the big bookstores writes: "Neither Mark, nor John,nor Paul has any hint of the virgin birth story; it seems to have become important for the church only in the 2nd cent. As a way of combating the charge that Jesus was not truly human." The implication is that the authors of the Commentary suspect that the virgin birth story was added to Matthew in the 2nd century.

Mark, likely the first Gospel written, has no virgin birth story and it's generally accepted that "Matthew" used Mark as a primary source for his Gospel (the other main Christian commentary in the big bookstores, "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary", actually lists Mark before Matthew in its detailed commentary). In Mark, Jesus is told by God that he is God's son at his baptism.Not something that would need to be done to a virgin birth and literally son of God product.

In "Birth Of The Messiah", Father Raymond Brown, who may have been the top Christian Bible scholar of our time, demonstrates in detail how Matthew generally presents formula type accounts of Jesus which closely parallel formula type accounts in the Tanakh as to structure. Brown shows how the virgin birth account and references to it along with verses next to these accounts in Matthew seem to consist of a mixture of formula accounts but when you separate the likely virgin birth references from non-virgin birth verses you can recreate the usual formula patterns indicating that a virgin birth story was subsequently weaved into an original Matthew which lacked one.

Another reason the virgin birth story may not be original to "Matthew" is that "Matthew" has a theme of presenting his version of Jesus as the new Moses and there does not appear to be any reference to Moses in the virgin birth story of "Matthew".

The following Textual problems suggest that the virgin birth story is not original to "Matthew":

Matthew 1: (KJV)

"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"

The Greek word for birth here, "genesis" is exactly the same Greek word used in Matthew 1:1, "a record of the genealogy" and has a wide range of meaning such as "birth", "creation" and "genealogy". Church Fathers generally used the Greek word "gennesis", which has a more limited meaning of "birth" to describe the nativity. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that the same author would have used the exact same Greek word in Matthew 1:1 and 1:18 to describe a genealogy and a birth. The genealogy and birth stories are probably from two different sources.

Matthew 1: (KJV)

"18…When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband,"

Mary has gone from engaged to married after a mere thirteen words, a record that would stand until Liz Taylor two thousand years later. The mention in the genealogy of the four women is highly unusual (unparalleled?) for a 1st century Jewish writing. The common link is the questionable sexual morals of the four. Unnecessary apology if there was a virgin birth.

Matthew 1: (KJV)

"19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily."

The word that KJV has translated as "privily" is normally translated as "quietly". Under Jewish law at the time Joseph would have had to deliver a writ of repudiation before two witnesses so it would have been tough to keep it "quiet" unless the witnesses Joseph had in mind were the blind and mute men of Chapter 9.

Matthew 1: (KJV)

"20… fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife"

The literal translation of the Greek is, "do not be afraid to take Mary your wife" which is an incomplete sentence making the meaning ambiguous. Does it mean take as in sexually, take as in accept or take as in bring home? Most of the main Christian Bibles have added words in their translations to give the appearance of a complete sentence (the relatively newer RSV being the exception): NIV "do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife" NASB "do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife" RSV "do not fear to take Mary your wife" Darby "fear not to take to [thee] Mary, thy wife" YLT "thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife" WE "do not fear to take Mary to be your wife"

It's possible that "Matthew" was originally written with a virgin birth story but if so the rest of "Matthew" is still inconsistent with it with the following textual problems:

Why Does The Son Of God Need A Baptism?

Matthew 3: (KJV)

14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

The Greek word that "Matthew" uses for "fulfill" is generally the same word used by Matthew to claim fulfillment of prophecies from the Tanakh. There is no prophecy in the Tanakh that the Messiah would be baptized in a river. As far as performing a commandment from the Tanakh there is no commandment requiring baptism in a river as a general type of atoning or purification ritual. A related question is, "who baptized John with water?" Matthew has to copy Mark's baptism story but the purpose of Mark's story was to show Jesus becoming the son at the baptism. Matthew presents a perfect Jesus so he is left with no good explanation for why a sinless person would need a baptism for repentance.

John the Baptist Unaware of the Virgin Birth

Matthew 11: (KJV)

2 "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"

Strange question to ask of someone who was the virgin birth son of God and was told by God at the baptism he performed that Jesus was God's son.

Jesus' Hometown Unaware of the Virgin Birth

Matthew 13: (KJV)

54 "And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Once again, strange question.

--JoeWallack 09:23, 6 Jan 2007 (CST)

--JoeWallack 20:13, 25 Feb 2007 (CST)

Neutral

Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.

JW:

Literally, the Greek reads "having in the womb" and not "with child". In any case, there is no definite article, "the", in front of "Holy Ghost" in almost all Greek manuscripts. The best translation would be "found to be pregnant through Holy Spirit". Christian translators have provided the "the" in English translations (found to be with child of the Holy Spirit) in order to support their pre-conceived belief that the Holy Spirit is a separate person.

Even though "the" is absent in the Greek it could be properly translated into English if the Context supports it. Another reason for "the" could be just to indicate it's the holy spirit of God and not a separate entity.

--JoeWallack 08:42, 20 Jan 2007 (CST)

Movement of Con Argument to Neutral

"The basic fact is in error in the "Pro" position. Please check your text. The Greek TR has an important one-letter distinction that is a separate word.

Matthew 1:18 (KJB) Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"

> The Greek word for birth here, "genesis" is exactly the same Greek word used in Matthew 1:1...

Nope. Matthew 1:1 is 'genesis' translated as generation (also translated as nature) never as birth, nor as genealogy, which is a separate and distinct word used in the Pastorals.

The Greek TR on Matthew 1:18 is 'gennesis' and that is birth.

The KJB, following the Reformation TR text, is perfectly accurate.

Steven Avery"

Reason for Move

JW:

I have Edited Pro and Clarified the error since the Con post. The claimed error is the Inconsistency of the virgin birth story with the rest Of "Matthew". In order to defend against error here Con must either argue that the virgin birth story is not inconsistent with the rest of "Matthew" or that being inconsistent is not an error.

The Con argument asserted that the key to the Pro argument was a specific word used by Pro that Pro selected based on inferior text. However, the related example cited by Pro is only used to point out that the virgin birth story may not have been original to "Matthew" or at least to "Matthew's" source for the Infancy Narrative.

While Pro thinks that the virgin birth story was added to the original "Matthew", at this time Pro can not prove it and therefore does not claim it as an error. Alternatively, if "Matthew" was the one who added the virgin birth story to an existing Infancy Narrative, that by itself is also not claimed as an error by Pro.

However, Pro is using the Textual problems created by either having the virgin birth story added to the original "Matthew" or having "Matthew" add it to an original Infancy Narrative as evidence that the virgin birth story is inconsistent with the rest of "Matthew". The explanation being the rest of "Matthew" had a primary source of "Mark" which lacked a virgin birth.

--JoeWallack 09:15, 27 Feb 2007 (CST)

External links

• RSV
• NIV
• NAB
• Zhubert
• Perseus
• HTML Bible
• BibleWiki