KJV
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Okay, 18 verses in and we have our first contradiction. Why describe a bloodline and then declare that Jesus didn't come from that bloodline? Weren't they worried it might impact Dan Brown's sales?
I think it's a clue to the nature of this gospel (and all the gospels). As I said before, it is not an eyewitness account, in fact it can't be called an account at all, not a single account. This gospel is an amalgam of different trends and traditions. One tradition wanted to establish a bloodline and lend authority to a Jewish audience. Another tradition wanted to take Jesus beyond Judaism and to put him above all other prophets. What we have here is a confusing compromise, containing both mutually exclusive ideas, but also a sort of textual sedimentation, a rich field for textual archaeologists.
Holy Ghost, Batman!
Right away we have a mention of the Holy Ghost, but the Bible does not define its terms, and therefore this mention alone cannot be considered evidence of a Trinity, which I will be looking for as I read, along with all the other stuff that constitutes Christian belief. Just how much of the religion is in the Bible? We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As long as Matthew is placed first in the NT, this'd have to be the first reference to the HG (a.k.a, HS), wouldn't it? A couple of things seem weird about it, though.
ReplyDeleteFirst, if we're heading toward the development of a Trinity with three players--father, son and HG--surely this ought to be the father's role, no? Can the HG knock up a virgin without then becoming a father? Beats me. It'd be a novel defense in a paternity case, that's for sure.
But the other thing that seems dissonant, if I'm remembering my Sunday School lessons correctly, is that Jesus supposedly prayed to the father to send the holy ghost to comfort his followers, didn't he? I don't remember where that's from--John maybe--but I got the idea the holy ghost, like the "son", was part of the "new deal".
Taken at face value, this verse has the HG ghost put in place before Jesus and acting right fatherly.
Caveat: I admit to having a poor understanding of these things.
I agree. There is a dissonance here. I don't think "Holy Ghost" in this passage is part of a Trinity at all. It's simply some sort of sacred sperm, i.e. divine essence. I'm very curious to know just how early or late the concept of the Trinity occurred. I don't think it was really solidified until the Arian debate in the 4th century.
ReplyDeleteThis is totally out of my own head, but I don't think the writer(s) of this part ever intended anyone to have to riddle this out, or build a doctrine of trinity around it. The Spirit (of God) approved this union, chose it for the birth of the Son of Man, before man & wife evem knew each other 'carnally.' This is not to say that YHVH entered Mary's womb as Zeus entered Leda's. The simple answer: the hero of our story is sacred to the writers before we even get to the story... not a mythos beginning with virgin birth.
ReplyDeleteYa know, Mike, it didn't take long before the issues of translation popped up, did it?
ReplyDeleteI'd love to know what the original word(s) (here translated in the KJV version) were for HG/HS and what they suggested in the ancient Aramaic and/or Hebrew. Moreover, is this spirit expressed in language that can be found in the OT or is it new?
I'm inclined to go along with your supposition that the writer intended no riddle at this point.
I mean, why? The Trinity won't be fully developed in the Book of Matthew, will it? Ah, but now we're getting ahead of ourselves.
- TT
I've always heard that the Greek word for "virgin" was more like "maiden," in other words, just an indicator of someone young, unmarried.
ReplyDelete