He's not saying anything new and nothing that hasn't been taught in theological colleges of all denominations in the last fifty years. that is unless you are a biblical literalist and then why are you reading his book in the first place?

That was my reaction to the book as well. There's nothing especially "cutting edge" in it either in terms of theology or biblical scholarship. It wouldn't even be noteworthy except for the fact that it was written by the Pope. The media fuss over it is a bit silly, actually.

Pope Benedict is just catching up Catholic literature on evidence provided by historical Jesus writers such as Funk, Borg and Crossan and  research provided by the Jesus Seminar.

Hi Random Questions,

I haven't read the book and based on what has been revealed about the book via the media I expect that I won't be reading it.  As DKS and Rev. Steven Davis point out there is nothing in the book which is, for this protestant, earth-shattering.  In fact much of it comes as very old news.

I had an e-mail from a friend of my wife's this past week who will occasionally e-mail me and ask me questions about religious "discoveries" or "events" and ask for my impressions.  The miscalculation of the birth date for Jesus was this week's question.  It took me a while to figure out why this was an issue all of a sudden as it has been old news for at least 22 years now.

Regrettably there will be some who believe that the Pope finally catching up with the most consistent theological scholarship is an attack by Satan.  They appear to labour under the misconception that since Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever that all knowledge of Jesus will stay the same yesterday, today and forever.

The book is a lot of old news and scholarship which may be new to some.

It is no attack from Satan.

Grace and peace to you.

John

redhead, that's giving way to much credit to the Jesus Seminar. The ideas in the book have been around (and widely accepted) long before the Jesus Seminar was ever dreamed of. The Jesus Seminar is basic, mild "liberal" theology that gets way more attention than it deserves.

Knew all of this.

Yes, Rev Steven Davis,

I am aware that long before the Jesus Seminar, protestant exegetical analysis existed, and in particular I was exposed to Husserl, in my undergrad studies. 

I merely presented a relatively current example of scholarly works that Pope Benedict is now providing Catholic readers with, as well.

I haven't read it and probably won't but the headlines I read proclaimed that the Pope confirmed in his book that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Still it does make me wonder when Jewish rabbis insist that Christians have misinterpreted what was said in the OT as "virgin" rather than a young girl. Prophecy in the OT has been used  by the Catholic and protestant churches to confirm that Jesus was in fact the Messiah..If one is using a jewish text as prophesy why are we allowed to "change the words" when we are told we are not translating it correctly?

I've never really understood why Mary must be a virgin in order for Jesus to be the Messiah according to most mainstream religions. I'm familiar with the reasons that are given and I'm aware that Catholics must believe this way and that they are a very large denomination. But why insist on Mary being a virgin when OT scripture doesn't support it as a sign of the Messiah and then causes us to deify Mary? Is this the only way that Jesus can be made sinless?

Why is it so important that Mary is a virgin?

Interseting points guys. I have looked over some of the topics which are listed in the book, I have not read it, and biblical text does support his ideas. But because the Bible does not claim animals, angels singing etc.. does that mean it didn't happen? Did it happen and was just not written down? One can even ask that since churches today seem to take biblical text and change it to fit them, (the best saying is, "it was written that way because of cultue") you then have to ask is this section in the Gospels something that we can hold strong to, or is it just something that was written for the people at the time?

The virgin birth was prophesized in the Old Testament. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." -- Isaiah 7: 14 (KJV)

Mary's being a virgin need not lead us to deify her. I believe that the vast majority of Protestants would agree that Mary was not deity. She was probably a very devout believer in God. I once read that Catholics make too much out of Mary, Protestants not enough -- I like that thought.

I believe that is in keeping with traditional Christian doctrine.

In order that Jesus might be born outside the curse of original sin. If Jesus had been born to a woman not a virgin, he would not have been able to atone for our sins as he would have had to face death in order to pay for his own.

This is the first that I've heard of the book. I doubt that I'll find the time to read it. I am already swamped with my studies. Perhaps it will be discussed in one of my classes.

Yes Jae the King James Version has been translated to say "virgin" but the Jews will tell you that the word that was used in Isaiah should never have been translated as virgin. Now who should we believe? Someone that is not jewish translating jewish text or someone that is Jewish translating their own text?

[oops

It is interesting that the reaction to the book in the States, be it Evangelical or Evangelical Catholic, has been less than friendly, the general consensus being that that which questions tradition questions authourity (which ironically does not mean the Pope). Of course thinking for oneself is frowned upon in the eyes of the religious right..

The translation of Isaiah 7:14 is problematic from a number of perspectives. The Hebrew word used is "al-mah." In Hebrew, this generally refers to a young woman, and so many today (because of the Christian insistence on the virgin birth as testified to in Isiaah 7:14) insist that it MUST mean only "young woman" and nothing else and that is the accepted Jewish translation today. It isn't quite that simple, though. The word "al-mah" has no exact English translation. It could mean "virgin," or it could mean "a young woman who has never given birth." The Septuagint, however (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek by Jewish scholars of the diaspora a couple of centuries before the birth of Jesus) did choose the Greek word "parthenou" which means "maiden" or "virgin." So Christians didn't invent the translation to make it fit Jesus; it significantly pre-dated Christianity, and Christians saw it as prophetic. The rejection of that translation by modern Judaism is really a response to Christians insisting that the verse is a prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth as opposed to an exact, undebatable translation. There's no clear resolution to this debate.

Not to mention, today the world is flooded with born again virgins.

A "virgin," in the ancient Greek sense of the word, was not necessarily a woman who abstained from sexual intercourse, but a woman who lived independent of men. "Mary, a woman sufficient onto herself," I read somewhere about the virgin Mary.

So Mary pre-dated Gloria Steinem.

Have you heard of the Ugaritic Text and how it has aided with the understanding of the old testament.

In this text it apparently confirms that almah could be translated as virgin........hmmm.

And again, Benedict is well behind his own scholars. I recall very progressive Roman Catholic scholars at Toronto School of Theology (St. Michael's College) exploring this kind of disussion more than three decades ago.

DKS, you attended SMC?

Pope trumps scholars.

Most likely Emmanuel College, as did I.  Emmanuel is a part of the Toronto School of Theology, which is ecumenical and includes 3 Roman Catholic Schools (St. Michael's College, Regis College and St. Augustine Seminary.) Anyone who has attended TST has probably had at least some exposure to Roman Catholic thought, since we can take courses from all the various colleges.

Correct. One of the advantages of TST. I took courses at St. Mike's, Knox, Wycliffe, McMaster and even in the Faculty of Religion at U of T, as well as Emmanuel.

Only when speaking ex cathedra.

very good, DKS :)

DKS

As did I. Emmanuel, Knox, and St Basels.

some 45 years ago

I was going to post my assessment of those three but it wouldn't be currently accurate or

meaningful.

I took a church history course at St. Michael's, Philosophy of Religion at Regis and World Religions and a course on Old Testament prophets at St. Augustine. Those are the ones I remember anyway.

There is more than the "Jewish church" that says Mary was not a virgin because she wasn't. The meaning of the word was changed like you say,like so many other things in the bible.People are smarter today and research has found out a lot of things, Until the churches change what they are preaching the doors to the churches will be closing more and more. I don't know why it is important to say Mary was a virgin, doesn't make sense to me and thousands of others.

But when the RC church just admitted a couple of years ago that the earth wasn't flat, we are subject to keep hearing myths.

I just read part of  the review on the book and when the Pope said there were definately no animals in the stables where Jesus was born. , I considered the page read. That's what the stable was/is, a place for animals to take shelter. Any woman will tell you that when the time is nigh for delivery you find a place quickly where you are sheltered.

Some stories say it was a cave.

Fern,

the text (in translation at least) not only makes no mention of ANY animals (which would be why Benedict makes that statement) but Luke also says nothing about a stable.  HE says "laid him in a manger", which could have been in a cave or a stable or the middle of a courtyard for all we know from the text.  And in Matthew's account Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem until they flee to Egypt.

Theyn probably didn't want an animal voiding itself and the whole thing ending up on a blooper reel

We can look at almah or parthénos. Both mean young maiden, unmarried girl. It can be marriageable age or nearso...  It may or may not imply a lack of sexual penetration.

In fact, only some would be virgins.

The teaching that Mary was a virgin, was the product of an Immaculate Conception, even a Perpetual Virgin, was developed by other people than the gospel writers.

Whether it was at Nicea or Constantinople or by Pius, they were developed theologies needed to deal with the concept of Original Sin and how Jesus could be without it, not touched by it....

What is amazing, is it looks like Matthew1:23 got it wrong? Luke 1:26-27--Got it wrong? Even Mary in luke1:24__Got it wrong?This is hard to understand . Would the Jews at this time of Isaiah , think that a young woman having a child was news?

Here is Isaiah 7 in its entirety:

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=220957316

I see nothing in Isaiah to suggest that it had to be news that a young woman was having a child (or not any more newsworthy than any other child, although it may be the child of the King which makes it a bit more notable).  I see Isaiah saying "This woman is having a child and before this child is grown these things will happen"  (Which by the way means it is re-interpretation to make it about the Messiah at all.  Re-interpretation is not automatically bad, it happens all the time.  But we should at least be honest about the fact we are doing it)

If you take the birth narratives largely as literary and theological devices rather than factual historical accounts then it is not about anyone getting it "wrong".  It is about the writer choosing an interpretation of events and writings to make a point. 

Prophecy was not thought of as predicting the future.

Yet, even for those who understand that, they can tend to make Isaiah be that.

Dogma.....

I would be far more interested if the pope wrote a book about the child sex scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church.

His focusing about whether or not there were animals in the stable seems rather pointless given that there are much more urgent issues that need to be addressed.

Just my thoughts.....

Rita

There are texts that compare and contrast, side by side, the synoptic gospels.  I suspect that synoptic comparison is in part what Benedict is doing.  Without reading his book, I would also guess that he is, in the very subtle way of Vatican research, examining redaction, interpolation, and tentatively the notion that the Gospels were written by human(s).  While this notion is accepted (generally, but with exception) and comfortable within Protestant Christianty, for many (not all) Catholics thisbook  may still be received as radical.  But it is important that the former Cardinal Ratzinger produced it, because at the underlying message to Catholics is that exegesis is important.  That is a new message to many, not all, Catholics.

.

That might be correct, SG, and I have no particular vested interest in the historicity of the virgin birth since it's not essential to my personal faith in Christ. But the truth is that we don't know for sure what the writers of the gospels (or of the translators of Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint) were trying to say with the use of the word. Therefore, we simply can't say with the certainty you've expressed that "the teaching that Mary was a virgin ... was developed by other people than the Gospel writers." They may have meant that she was a virgin. Or it may have been a theological device. We simply don't know - which, to me, adds to the mystery and wonder of the story

	Isa 7:13	And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
	Isa 7:14	Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.

_____As you can see by the Bible I study by,  R.S.V.says women and I think they got it wrong. But it don't stop me from looking at other places in GODS word to see the meaning or even another Bible version.Dose it matter?I thing what ever GOD says matters.

RevSteven Davis,

As I stated, all ___ were not virgins, but they might have been.

It will sound like semantics, but when I say "the teachings that Mary was a virgin".  I mean the teachings that Mary was a virgin.  I do not mean the word itself or what it meant to Gospel writers or did not mean to them.

I mean the dogma and doctrine of it all.

Those teachings of what virgin means and implies and how it relates to Jesus and the OT... were developed to deal with all the questions that came from the writers words.

They were the accepted answers. The approved answers.

As such, they were what was taught.

Teaching anything else was dangerous. Heresy.

They were not IMO the only answers, then or now.

Am I more clear on my position?

Hi GordW__You posted___

If you take the birth narratives largely as literary and theological devices rather than factual historical accounts then it is not about anyone getting it "wrong".  It is about the writer choosing an interpretation of events and writings to make a point. ___________________________________________________________-----Airclean_This mite be Gord. Or could it be GOD .Puting a plan in place that would point to His Son . That would be coming?

Old old news.  Some nice points here.  SG makes a great point on how theology or dogma determines the translation.

If one rejects the idea of orginal sin - then no need for a virgin.  This idea of orginal sin owes more to Augustine than the bible.

What does original sin have to do with sex?

In his writings on Original Sin Augustine taught that the "stain" of OS was passed on through the male seed.

one of them is a mythic human construction?

Passed on, but not sex itself as so many infer over the years.

Damn,

my calendar is 7 YEARS OFF?!!!  stupid social games being turned into social norms...Dr Brown, is the DeLorean tuned up?  We've got a Divinity to kidnap...

(glad the Current Occupant admits that Jesus was a clone of Mary...)

Are we not possibly all hybrids of existing life here and elsewhere?