Another early legend about Jesus birth

The Ascension of Isaiah preserves what might be a cognate but independent tale about Jesus' birth.  This book was initially pre-Christian and was known to the author of Hebrews (cf. Hebrews 11:37 = AscenIs 5:2-15), but was heavily interpolated in the first and second century A.D.  The first interpolation, 3:13-4:22, most likely dates to the end of the first century (as it was known to second-century writers in its literary form) but the second, the so-called Vision of Isaiah (11:2-22) is later, probably from the first half of the second century.  It would thus be later than the birth narratives in the canonical gospels but contemporaneous with the Protevangelium of James which relates a similar but different story. 

The birth legend in AscenIs is as follows:

One striking feature of this story is the almost magical appearance of the baby Jesus outside Mary's womb without any delivery or labor pains, allegedly without a midwife as well.  In the Protevangelium version of the story, Mary delivers the child with the help of a midwife in a cave (not Joseph's house) but the bright blinding light of Jesus' glory obscures the otherwise unpleasant nature of Mary's giving birth (the motif of the bright light possibly inspired by Isaiah 9:2).  Here there is no mention of a blinding light, nor a visit by shepherds or wise men, or Herod's slaughter of babies in Bethlehem. 

In fact, what happens in Bethlehem afterwards is quite different: there is a controversy among the people over what exactly happened.  The mention of this controversy is the writer's attempt to fulfill a prophecy in scripture (similar to the "prophecies" fulfilled in the canonical birth stories).  But it is not a prophecy found in our present Bible, but in the book that Josephus (Antiquities 10.5.1) called "the second book of Ezekiel" and what Epiphanius (Adversus Haereses 64.70.5-17) called "the apocryphon of Ezekiel".  This book has been lost.  But fragments survive, and in Fr. 3, preserved by Epiphanius (Panarion Haeresies 30.3.3), reads: "And again in another place he says, 'And the heifer gave birth and they said, "She has not given birth." ' "  Tertullian (De carne Christi 23) also summarized the passage and referred it to Jesus' birth: "We read also in the writings of Ezekiel concerning the cow which has given birth and has not given birth."  This same passage was again quoted by Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, and in the Acts of Peter.  This prophecy from the Apocryphon of Ezekiel was likely known to the second-century author of the "Vision of Isaiah," who regarded it fulfilled by the story of the rumor of Mary's maternity spreading throughout Bethlehem and some affirming and some denying the story.

Although nothing else from the ApEzekiel prophecy of the pregnant heifer survives, the characterization of the Messiah's mother as a heifer probably finds its inspiration in 1 Enoch 90:37-38:

Here Enoch symbolically represents the coming of a Messiah by the birth of a white bull.  ApEzekiel apparently has taken over this motif and assumed that Enoch's white bull was born of a heifer.  Then this motif of the heifer bearing the Messiah was used by the early Church fathers (such as Tertullian, Epiphanius, Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa) in their debates on Mary's virginity, while it was independently used by the interpolator of AscenIs to construct a story about a controversy in Bethlehem over Jesus' birth.

This is another interesting example of the complexities in the early traditions and stories about Jesus.

Leolaia

 

Interesting. I have read somewhere how the lable "Virgin" was specifically indicative of the intact Hymen and tight vagina not whether the mystical mother had had sex or born children. This emphasizes the symbolism of purity of the CHILD above any literal interpretation of the virgin story. The miracle was that the Savior never had to pass thru the "unseemly regions" of a woman. Catholics to this day insist that Mary's birth canal was never stretched. A second/separate miracle was the child's father being spirit. Whether this reflects the intention of the Matthean virgin story addition to the Jesus tale is another issue. There were many opinions as to how the story should be told. Thanks again for your posting an interesting example.

That's a very interesting understanding of the word "virgin" and the AscenIs text would seem to support that understanding quite distinctly.  I vaguely recall another relevant text but it doesn't come to mind at the moment.

Sounds like she stole someone else's baby.

Steve....your question is pretty much the same one I was posing in my "Seeking Jesus" thread.  And in the same post you quote, I also state what Jesus means to me:

It is this message, this really revolutionary message, that is lost completely by the WTS.  I disagree with those who believe no such person as Jesus existed and that he was invented purely as a mystical religious concept.  My exploration of the evidence convinces me that there really was this man who had a very real, powerful, and tangible message -- namely, about the Kingdom of God.  And I do believe in God, and I am quite persuaded by Jesus' philosophy of having God dwell in our hearts.  The problem with his message is that it is filtered through the traditions and writings of his followers who developed very different ideas of who Jesus was.  So, I am still seeking, not sure if I know Jesus yet, but I like very much what I am finding.

And at the same time I do not reject entirely the more mystical, theological conceptions of Jesus in the different streams of Christianity.  He may have been God as some Christians believed.  Or he may have had a gnostic message, as others believed.  I myself am more persuaded by the Jewish-Christian (i.e. Nazorean) conception of Jesus since that seems to be closest of the view of his original disciples.  But I would rather embrace different contradictory conceptions of Jesus than reject possible truth.  Maybe that's not faith, I am quite agnostic in many matters, as I freely admit, and I do well to study and discover how perhaps some traditions of Jesus are based on misunderstandings of things he said, but I do cherish and truly enjoy the wide spectrum of opinion.

Interesting reading

Thank you Leolaia

Leolaia:

Thank you for both for the thread, recent posts, and statement of faith.  I've found them profoundly interesting.

Jst2Laws:

That statement seems to question the rationale of "believers", as if they haven't quite gone the full way in debunking.

As I intimated to you, during my recent visit, it is quite possible to maintain faith whilst questioning some of the bedrocks of belief that so many set their store by.

The question would really surround what is the "focus" of their faith.

If it's a "Holy Book", religion, group of people, tradition, or one of any number of things, I suspect it can get a good shaking.

If it's a personal relationship with someone, then that may be a different matter.

For example - I've met and like you.  It would take something pretty major to shake my faith in you, and since I don't suspect that I'm suddenly going to find out that you're a paedophile (or something equally nasty), I think I'm onto a safe bet.

For many of us Jesus is in a similar category.

Folks may deny what is written about him, or even try to sully his character, but he still remains someone personal and faithful.

I sometimes wonder how many have genuinely tried to meet with him, before scientifically undermining the whole story about him.  I would posit that some get preconceived ideas about what he is and is not, before they even attempt to find him.  Then that baggage starts to impede their progress in that direction.

Personally I stated from a simple awareness that he was more than I'd been taught as a JW...

I've yet to meet someone who says that they wouldn't like to meet him, if they could believe he truly existed (that isn't an offer for detractors to denigrate him, btw, coz if they do I'm gonna get close to busting some b*lls!!! just as I would if someone started attacking Steve).

Back to the thread title.

Some, who were around at the time, tried to relate the experience.

Whether or not it was recorded correctly, or later interfered with, is open to debate.

 

Thank you for sharing your comments on your beliefs about Jesus Leolaia, I find them to be most eye opening. 

It's amazing what a narrow view of religion and Jesus you have after being a dub, well I guess not amazing when you consider how we were taught...you and LT have given me some food for thought.

Thank you again.

Leolaia..some more about the virgin Birth. Chrysostom (300s)made clear it was his understanding that earlier Christians accepted the ever Virginal state of Mary's hymen. St. Ambrose (391) wrote: .."His birth did not break the seals of virginity".



Ephraem Syrus (300s) Felt the need to explain a physical point of entry into Mary. His solution was the EAR. :"it entered into her ear and hid in her womb."



These bwriters and other interpreted Is 7 ,"Virgin shall be pregnant AND give birth" as implying that she was still a virgin thru the whole episode. Perhaps this was Matt intented meaning?



Also Ezekial 44:2 was interpreted as a prophey of her remaing physically virginal. "As regards this gate, shut is how it will continue. No mere man will come in by it; for the Lord the God of Israel has come in by it, and it must continue shut."





Also they assert that the Gospel story says as much when it has Mary up and active immediatly after the birth of what would have been her first.





The Odes of Solomon (70ce) declare the birth was painless.





Interestingly at a Hinu website the writer declared Buddha's birth as superior to Jesus' in that Buddha was not "stained" as happens in normal births. He seems to imply he exited miraclously. He was apparently unaware that early Xtian tradition mirrored the Hindu.

Steve

Thank you Leolaia! That was very interesting reading. I really appreciate your sharing of the things you are researching.

Tor

LONGHAIRED RADICAL SOCIALIST JEW              

      (THE GOSPEL SONG)

Well, Jesus was a homeless lad

With an unwed mother and an absent dad

And I really don't think he would have gotten that far

If Newt, Pat and Jesse had followed that star

So let's all sing out praises to

That longhaired radical socialist Jew

When Jesus taught the people he

Would never charge a tuition fee

He just took some fishes and some bread

And made up free school lunches instead

So let's all sing out praises to

That long-haired radical socialist Jew

He healed the blind and made them see

He brought the lame folks to their feet

Rich and poor, any time, anywhere

Just pioneering that free health care

So let's all sing out praises to

That longhaired radical socialist Jew

Jesus hung with a low-life crowd

But those working stiffs sure did him proud

Some were murderers, thieves and whores

But at least they didn't do it as legislators

So let's all sing out praises to

That longhaired radical socialist Jew

Jesus lived in troubled times

the religious right was on the rise

Oh what could have saved him from his terrible fate?

Separation of church and state.

So let's all sing out praises to

That longhaired radical socialist Jew

Sometimes I fall into deep despair

When I hear those hypocrites on the air

But every Sunday gives me hope

When pastor, deacon, priest, and pope

Are all singing out their praises to

Some longhaired radical socialist Jew.

They're all singing out their praises to....

Some longhaired radical socialist Jew.

 

© 1996 Hugh Blumenfeld/Hydrogen Jukebox Music (ASCAP)

Steve:

It's ok.  I can understand you slamming some believers, as they can come across as quite irrational and dogmatic.  Bigotry is never pretty.

I've had cause to pause and think where I'd be if I was coming from a position where I'd had no experiences, and only the rationale to assist.  I find Paul's words to the Corinthians, regarding what Jews and Greeks were looking for, interesting in this regard.

I wonder how they would approach the contents of this thread.

I suspect it would be in much the manner of what we see in the various quotations.

A full range from credulity through to the ludicrous.

From one "previously fundamentalist", to another, I hear ya

Have to quote my brother again............"the worlds needs less Christians and more Christs".

I do consider myself a Christian, not because I believe in the divinity of Jesus, because I don't. I believe he was a real person in history, but surrounded by legends and myths, and there are so many other similiar stories to his, like Horus, that Steve mentioned. I consider myself to be a Christian because I think the basic philosophy, with religious dogma removed, is good and worth following, such as love your neighbor as yourself, and other similar things................kindness included.

I also like Dr. Phil, and think his philosophies are brilliant, but he isn't god.  Maybe I am a "Philian".

Ah, there it is!  That was the scripture I was trying to remember, thank you!  I wonder if there was some literary connection between the concept of Mary's birth as painless and Gen. 3 -- under the view of Jesus as undoing the curse on humanity (as the "seed" of the woman), related perhaps also to the Pauline view of redemption.  It would be odd tho to view Christ as the Second Adam but Mary, his mother, as the "Second Eve" -- tho Epiphanius placed Mary of Magdala (the other Mary) in this role.  Coincidentally, tho, the antecedent of the Yahwist Eden story possibly viewed Eve as a creator goddess, along the lines of Aruru and Marduk with respect to Adapa.

Leolaia

Thank you, Steve, Mulan, toreador, Xena, LittleToe, et alia...

Jesus did not just espouse a philosophy of social justice, it seems pretty clear that the ethics he taught was tightly bound to spirituality, living for the Kingdom and receiving the Kingdom was accepting the Father and approaching him as a child to "Abba" with the intimacy and spiritual closeness it brings. I think I agree with Thomas Sheehan that Jesus sought to undo organized religion, especially the Pharisiacal notion of God as remote and impersonal and only approachable by following ritualistic rules and supplication in the Temple. Jesus said, no, God's Kingdom can be in you and have "the immediate presence of God as a loving Father" (Sheehan, p. 60). Even those rejected by society as unclean, unworthy of approaching God in the Temple or be purified in ritual baths, they are closer to God than those who follow all the purity rituals but do not have an open heart.

How ironic then that this is the basis that some have organized new religions that teach that for the vast majority of mankind, God is inaccessible and even access to Jesus requires the mediation of a human organization that requires you to follow all sorts of rules and "rituals" in order to be "approved" by God.