So, I don't care if you are talking about Mary, Devaki, Aditit, Isis, Venus, etc., they all represent the eternal virgin in mythological terms.

Oh ... O.k. Well here we are.

I was also interested in suggesting some of the books by Geza Vermes who has done a lot of writing about Jesus.. I felt this review was cogent:

The Passion and The Nativity by Geza Vermes | Biblical Archaeology Review

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

Well, I wish you would have highlighted what, from this review, you felt was connected to this discussion. It kind of leaves me with the task of having to deduce what, if anything, is poignant to this conversation. So, if I didn't pick the correct part, I do apologize:


Unfortunately, there's nothing particularly new here. The author of Matthew, finding his influence in a bad Septuagint translation, does not replace the fact that the idea that Gods are born of virgins is already a commonplace theme in religious literature. In other words, even though he read a bad translation as "virgin" does not excuse the fact that he barely bats an eye at the possibility of it. That these "virgins" conceiving of gods are often married or about to be married to mortal men is also not uncommon. So what do you think this is supposed to demonstrate? I'm not being rude here, I just really don't see the point.

-TC

My view Travis is that Matthew was probably not referring to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah.. The whole Gospel or parts of it was likely in Aramaic and later translated for the new Greek Christians and Hellenized Jews who used the Septuagint..

The Greeks as you know were more mythically oriented...probably some of the Hellenized Jews as well....

Act 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.


Act 14:12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

I'm still missing the relevance. If he wasn't translating from the Septuagint, then he meant "virgin" in its carnal sense, which would indicate a mythological concept.

Either way, most experts that I know, both Christian and otherwise, seem to indicate the earliest copies of the texts we have are Greek and don't bear evidence of being translations. Further, almost all the Apostolic Fathers wrote and spoke in Greek.

Now, if you are simply stating your belief about the matter, that's one thing. But, so far as the evidence that we have, I don't see where these conclusions can be drawn. I also don't see where any of this sidebar contradicts the association of Devaki with Aditi, and to that end, that Devaki can't be considered "a virgin", with the descriptors of "chaste" and "incarnation of Aditi" are applied.

Perhaps, I missed your point and you could restate the case for me, or just concede you are expressing your belief on the matter, appealing to evidence that may have once existed but no longer does.

-TC

The evidence that the Koine Greek version or translation of an earlier Aramaic Gospel can be found in two areas I believe..

Just taking what we have of the Greek New Testament there are remnants of Aramaic...

Here are some:

Aramaic of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other source that I think is important is that is acknowledged there was a Hebrew Gospel or version of Matthew..

also in the fragments of Papias it mentions the following:

About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) wrote this:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Papias was supposed to have thrived in the early half second century.

There were also a few known Gospels used by the Ebionites and Nazarenes that for the most part did not survive.

Why is all this important?

It suggests tehre was an earlier version of Christianity which used Aramaic that did not survive... The Jewish Christians if you will who still probably observed Jewish holidays and went to the Temple. The Jewish Christians were I believe maligned by the Greek Christians for being too Jewish and they were not well received by the main line Jews either.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

Well, this is from the source you gave me:


I think this is actually a shaky ground for you to venture out into, though. I think it demonstrates that "Christianity" was not an inspiration of one man and his few followers, but was instead, many different beliefs who used Jesus or Christ as their archetype. The difference between the "Kingdom of God" sects and the "Risen Christ" sects to name but two of them.

If this is the case, however, then one has to show why the concept of a virgin birth was prevalent or absent in their theology. Its a bit late, but I can check some of my sources on the Ebionites and Nazarenes and see how this concept fits or doesn't fit within each.

But the connection you are failing to make for me is how this impacts the relationship Graves and others make in associating Devaki as a virgin who parallels Mary in the same function, or mythological theme. Or how this disproves that this theme wasn't utilized cross-culturally. That's the connection you aren't illustrating very well. You criticize Graves' scholarship because he notes the parallel. You then say Hindus don't regard Devaki as a virgin. Yet, I can present evidence where indeed they do, and your retort was that there was a difference between being locked up in a cell and what happened to Mary. But that's just a cultural storytelling difference, its not a difference in the mythological representation that they fulfill.

So my question is, "If one entertains the idea that the Ebionites/Nazarenes were the "original Christians", and that the Christianity we have today is a corruption of some texts that were originally Aramaic, how does that possibility impact the parallel Graves draws between Devaki and Krishna with Mary and Jesus, which is based on the only surviving texts we have on the Christianity that is expressed today?"

Because, it seems to me, if you are saying the Gospels we have today are corruptions of an Aramaic original, then the stories contained in them are much more likely to be reworked myths of other cultures. This in turn, would seem to signal to me, that if we are to find any possible evidence of an historical Jesus, we could only trust surviving testimony from one of these two groups. And, if it is one of those two groups, which one do we follow when their ideologies diverge?

-TC

Yes well Travis.. Shakey or not, my inclination is to lean toward Jesus as an itenerant country preacher Who was not well received in the big city ..er Jerusalem. His speech as a Galilean and that of His disciples was easily identified by the Judeans of the south.

Probably Judas though was one of those who was a little closer to the political/ecclesiastical process going in and around the Temple.

The Greeks to me were heavily into their mythological orientations, i.e., (virgin birth, resurrection, incarnate deity) and so this is the Christianity that survives over time.

I do tend to lean toward what is called the Aramaean primacy which means there was likely originally a Jesus that was more Jewish than most Christians would probably want to accept.

I wanted to add one more thing.. If we consider that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest Gospel which many scholars have suggested you will not find the virgin birth story there .. rather it begins with John the Baptist and the earliest copies we have of Mark end at Mark 16:8 without the post resurrection appearances, so it would appear to me that here was an early Gospel that tends not to support the mythologized Jesus that came to be developed later.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

I think we are in agreement on many things, just with different motivations. So, after unveiling this discussion can we now admit that there may be some credence to the parallel associations of what you might term "Greco-Roman Christianity" and Hinduism concerning the mythlological themes of virgin mothers and god-incarnate sons?

-TC

Yes.. I think so.. there are also connections in Indo aryan languages and so on.

Here are some of the classics:

Frazer, Sir James George. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930

Joseph Campbell
The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton University Press, 1949.

One of my favorites:

The White Goddess. London: Faber & Faber, 1948; New York: Creative Age Press, 1948; rev., London: Faber & Faber, 1952, 1961; New York: Alfred. A. Knopf, 1958.

The Greek Myths. London: Penguin, 1955; Baltimore: Penguin, 1955.

Of course the topic as you know was about a "real Jesus", I think some of the mythology about Jesus which was encrusted over time needs to be removed in order to maybe better access a historcial Jesus.

-Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler