We now come to Part 6 of my book analysis series on Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s (Dr. S) controversial book, God: An Anatomy. In this post, I am going to conclude looking at Part 3 of her book, entitled “Genitals.” In particular, we will be looking at chapter 6 (“Phallic Masculinities”), chapter 7 (“Perfecting the Penis”), and chapter 8 (“Divine Sex”).
An Overview of Chapter 6: “Phallic Masculinities”
Dr. S begins Chapter 6 with a brief discussion of that time during Donald Trump’s presidency when North Korean leader Kim Jong-un fired some missiles and Donald Trump openly said that his “button was bigger” and actually works. Clearly, in his addressing of the North Korean missiles, in typical “alpha dog” manner, Trump was alluding to his own “big member.” The missiles were phallic symbols, and Trump’s missiles worked. This kind of language, Dr. S says, can actually be seen throughout ancient Near Eastern mythology and royal propaganda. This is true. Oftentimes, the images of bows, spears, and clubs were often presented in very phallic-like ways to celebrate the prowess of a god or king in battle.
The problem in the chapter comes when Dr. S attempts to argue that the Old Testament is full of the exact same phallic examples, with YHWH being just another hyper-masculine ANE deity whose spear, bow, or club was always a reference to His mighty penis that made all the penises of his enemies drop and their genitals tremble. These are the verses she cites as proof of this:
- Isaiah 13.7–8: Therefore all hands will be feeble, and every human heart will melt, and they will be terrified. Pangs and agony will seize them; they will be in anguish like a woman in labor. They will look aghast at one another; their faces will be aflame.
- Jeremiah 51.56: for a destroyer has come against her, against Babylon; her warriors are taken; their bows are broken, for the Lord is a God of recompense; he will repay in full.
- Ezekiel 21.6: Moan, therefore, mortal; moan with body collapsed and bitter grief before their eyes.
- Nahum 2.10: Devastation, desolation, and destruction! Hearts faint and knees tremble; all loins quake; all faces grow pale!
- Genesis 9:13: I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
Passages like these convince Dr. S that “This was a patriarchal world in which social relationships tended to be structured on unequal terms, distinguishing between the penised and the non-penised, the penetrators and the penetrated, the dominant and the submissive, and the active and the passive” (115).
Because of this, that meant homosexual relationships were problematic, despite that fact that sometimes “homosocial relationships were occasionally celebrated in myth and song” (116). She cites the stories of Gilgamesh, as well as the relationship between David and Jonathan as examples of “homosocial relationships” that bordered on the erotic and the taboo. Still “penetrative sex between men of the same social status was unacceptable,” (116) for it would obviously feminize one of the men. Although she doesn’t come out and say it, Dr. S gives the clear indication that David and Jonathan were gay men who didn’t actually engage in penetrative sex. If you are wondering where she gets this notion from, it is found in II Samuel 1:26, where, in his lament for Jonathan’s death, David said, “Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
Dr. S ends the chapter with a discussion about how, in the ancient world, “the penis was the pivot around which ideologies of cultural power turned” (116). The power of life was in men’s semen, and women were viewed as nothing more than incubators or ovens that men filled with the life that eventually developed into a baby. In this discussion, Dr. S claims that in Deuteronomy 30:9, the word “hand” really is a euphemism for “penis,” thus reading, “YHWH your god will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand/penis, in the fruit of your [woman’s] womb, in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your soil.”
In fact, Dr. S claims that the YHWH of the OT is so hyper-masculinized and so sexually potent that He is presented as not even needed a woman to bring about life. She highlights Deuteronomy 32:18 to make this point: “You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.” Contrary to what many Jewish and Christians communities think, Dr. S argues this does not, in fact, celebrate the “feminine/motherly character” of God. Rather, “The ability to self-procreate was a characteristic of the most powerful male gods – a graphic assertion of a potent hyper-masculinity” (125). Thus, YHWH was one, highly masculine deity.
***This is the point in the book where I found myself thinking, “I’m not really sure the real thesis of the book has anything to do with arguing that the OT God YHWH was understood to have a literal body.” As I said at the beginning of my book analysis, anyone who has ever read the OT knows that YHWH is described sometimes has having hands, feet, face, etc. Some of these instances are clearly metaphorical, while others indicate YHWH really did appear in bodily form and speak to Moses, or Abraham, etc. There is no need to argue that point, as if it was in dispute to begin with.
As should be obvious by now, in her attempt to argue that point, Dr. S tends to read some obvious metaphorical references as literal. In addition, she tends to ignore the literary context of such passages and favors instead to read them solely against the backdrop of ANE myth. No matter, as show be obvious by now, what her real focus seems to be is on penises, sex, patriarchy, “phallic-masculinities,” and, as we will see later, both eroticism and the sexual oppression of women. Simply put, this is not a book about Biblical Studies. Rather, it is a book that seeks to impose the various popular ideologies of our current society back onto the biblical text in order to argue…what? Let’s see if things can be cleared up by the end of the book.
In any case, even though it is true that sometimes in ANE myths objects like spears, bows, and clubs are understood in phallic terms, I think Dr. S goes a little overboard by seeing penises everywhere. As Sigmund Freud once allegedly said, “Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.” I mean, I really don’t see how the idea that YHWH hung his penis in the sky in the form of the rainbow in Genesis 9 has anything to do with the meaning of the passage.
An Overview of Chapter 7: “Perfecting the Penis”
Chapter 7 focuses on circumcision. For the first few pages in this chapter, Dr. S ponders the question that “If circumcision marked the special covenantal relationship between God and man,” then were figures like Noah, Adam, and even YHWH Himself, circumcised? She concludes by saying that, given the elevated religious status of male circumcision in the Old Testament, it was “unthinkable that [YHWH] could have had a foreskin” (129). And then, to support her claim that YHWH was circumcised, she appeals to an ANE myth about the Late Bronze deity El, who “appears to have undergone circumcision in a ritual preparing him for marriage and sex with the two goddesses he encountered at the seashore” (129).
Personally, I found this line of discussion to be rather silly and, quite frankly, ignorant of basic biblical concepts. First of all, circumcision didn’t mark a “special covenantal relationship between God and man.” It was the sign of YHWH’s covenant with the people of Israel. Secondly, the biblical text doesn’t mention anything along these lines regarding Adam or Noah, therefore it is worthless speculation. But please note the line of thinking here on Dr. S’s part: (A) Circumcision marked a special covenantal relationship between God and man [factually wrong], so (B) Adam and Noah were “good guys,” therefore they must have been circumcised [no evidence; purely speculative], and therefore, (C) that means YHWH was circumcised! And what is her evidence? Why, of course, she points to a pagan ANE myth in which she herself admits it only appears that El underwent circumcision. Sorry, that really isn’t a convincing argument.
From there, Dr. S turns to Jesus in the New Testament, who calls himself the “true vine.” Dr. S sees this as an example of “viticultural imagery of circumcision,” where Jesus is “pruned [i.e. circumcised] by his divine father to bring forth Christ’s ‘fruitful’ disciples” (130).
Again, to be kind, such an interpretation of John 15, is somewhat odd. Jesus says he is the “true vine,” that his disciples are the “branches,” and they should expect to be “pruned” by His Father in order to become more fruitful. Not only is there nowhere in John 15 where Jesus ever says HE is “pruned,” there is absolutely no indication that Jesus is referring to circumcision at all. Let’s be honest, if “pruning” meant circumcision, then that would mean he is telling his disciples that they will be circumcised, which would be weird, being they were Jewish men who had already been circumcised. On top of that, he tells them that some “branches” will be “cut off—are we to believe that Jesus was speaking of future castrations? I think not.
For the rest of the chapter, Dr. S jumps around in true “Gish Gallop” fashion to a number of loosely connected items. For time’s sake, I will briefly hit the highlights with only a minimal amount of commentary.
(1) In the Temple community of ancient Israel, women and eunuchs had bodies that “deviated…from the religious ideal of the circumcised male,” for it was the “specialized scribal culture” that presented the circumcised penis as “the ultimate human manifestation of a divinely endorsed, phallocentric masculinity” (135).
***I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the stated central idea of the book that God in the OT had a literal body. On top of that, I see this as another indication as to what the real focus of the book is, not to mention a shocking misunderstanding of the purpose of circumcision.
(2) In several Renaissance paintings of Mary and the baby Jesus, Mary’s hand isn’t veiling the baby Jesus’ penis. “Instead, she gestures towards it, holds it between her fingers, or gently fondles it in ways indicative of its very deliberate public exhibition.” In response to this, according to art historian Leo Steinberg, the baby Jesus reaches out and touches his mother’s chin in a “chin-chuck”—“an artistic motif of erotic endorsement, adapted in medieval Christian art to communicate the complex theological intimacy of Christ and the Virgin: she is not only his mother, but his chosen heavenly consort” (145). In other paintings, like The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine, Dr. S claims the adults in the painting are all staring at Jesus’ venerated penis.
***In one of her footnotes in this section, Dr. S mentions both Steinberg’s book, The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and Modern Oblivion, as well the book, The Power of Erotic Celibacy: Queering Heteropatriarchy, by Lisa Isherwood, that discusses “erotic celibacy and its queering of gender in Christian art and theology.” Again, the real focus of the book comes into clearer focus. On top of that, when I look at the paintings in question, I’ll be kind and just say I do not see what Dr. S is claiming is there. To look at these paintings as see them in an erotic, gender-queering, or incestuous way, says more about the one seeing them in that way than the paintings themselves.
(3) Then there are the various versions of the Pieta, where the dead Christ is being held by his mother Mary. Dr. S makes that claim that in some depictions, “Christ’s penis is startingly erect beneath his loincloth” (146). She specifically mentions a painting by William Key, in which Mary is bending down to kiss Christ’s lips while Christ’s penis “swells into an erection” under the loincloth. This, supposedly, shows the “sexualized virility of this divine man” (146). Dr. S then ends the chapter by saying, “Whether newly circumcised, prepubescent, or maturely erect, the divine penis of the post-biblical Christ inherited the sexualized, life-giving agency of the phallic body of the God of the Bible – with one important exception. In the religious imagination, Christ tended to remain tantalizingly chaste and sexually innocent. The God of the Bible did not” (147).
***Take a look at the pictures for yourself. Do you get an erotic, erection vibe when you look at it? If someone had not claimed there is an erection in the painting, would you ever have thought that in the first place? I’m guessing no. Needless to say, I think Dr. S might be overstating her case just a bit. And again, what does this curious and imaginative talk about the penis of Jesus as both a baby and just-crucified have to do with the supposed thesis of the book—that the God of the OT was thought to have a literal body?
Chapter 8: “Divine Sex”
For brevity’s-sake, this section on Chapter 8 will be…well, brief! Dr. S begins the chapter with a lengthy discussion of the ANE goddess Asherah. She correctly points out that in ancient Israel she was often worshipped and thought to be YHWH’s wife—to be clear, this is true. The OT itself acknowledges this was the case. Of course, the OT also condemned the practice. And, of course, Dr. S can explain why that is so—the OT we have today is the product of those monotheistic, phallocentric scribes who not only tried to cover-up the notion that YHWH had a body, but who also “downgraded” all other gods and goddesses (like Asherah) as abominations.
After that, Dr. S then turns to the story in Genesis 6:1-4, where the “sons of Elohim” go into the “daughters of men,” and then God condemning the practice of divine beings having sex with human women. But according to Dr. S, God doesn’t condemn the practice because it was wrong—no, He condemns it because He wanted to be the only divine being to have sex with women.
Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Joel, where on earth does Dr. S get that notion from?” Well, from Genesis 4:1, of course! The birth of Cain! Dr. S writes, “God’s pairing of Adam and Eve seemingly comes to fruition when Eve bears Cain – the first human child. But her emphatic declaration at the birth of her son credits God, not Adam, with paternity: ‘I have procreated a man with Yahweh!’”(155). To be clear, in every other translation, what Dr. S conveniently translates as “procreated” is something like “gotten with the help of” or “gained” or “acquired.” The Greek word in the Septuagint also denotates “gaining” or “acquiring.” But according to Dr. S, Genesis 4:1 is really telling us that God had sex with Eve and that Cain was their offspring. After all, it has to be that, because that is how she can then claim that what we see in Genesis 4:1 is “a long-lost mythic backstory [translation? “I’m making it up!”] to Eve’s character. Although in her biblical form she is a human woman, her choice of vocabulary is the language of goddesses” (156).
From there, Dr. S jumps to Ezekiel 16, which is admittedly a disturbing passage. In the passage Israel is depicted as an abandoned Canaanite (pagan) girl whom YHWH cares for and then later marries when she comes of age. And yet, she cheats on YHWH with other lovers (i.e. pagan gods) and suffers YHWH’s punishment. Eventually, YHWH promises to restore her. The entire chapter is filled with shocking imagery of both sexual immorality and violence. At the same time, the entire thing is an extended metaphor describing the state of Israel and Judah.
The overall point is this: Israel was originally pagan, but YHWH cared for Israel and made her His people [hence, the marriage imagery that illustrates the covenant]; yet Israel, and later Judah, continued to worship other gods and engage in the sexually promiscuous fertility cults of her neighbors; because of that, Israel was eventually destroyed by Assyria, and Judah was sent into exile by Babylon—and YHWH allowed that to happen because they had broken the covenant. Nevertheless, after that judgment, YHWH would restore Israel. –Yes, the entire chapter is shocking and disturbing. That’s the point. This shocking story is a metaphor for the entire history of Israel and Judah.
Dr. S, though, never mentions any of that context. Instead, she claims YHWH forcibly rapes Israel and makes her His wife, as if she is just property. The entire story is just “reflective of a patriarchal, masculinist culture” in which women are just objective as sex objects. And YHWH Himself is simply “a predatory alpha male, whose sexual entitlement entirely shapes the identity and fate of this displaced and vulnerable young girl” (158).
As for the divine punishment by means of her “lovers,” it should be understood within the historical context of Assyria’s destruction of Israel and Babylon destruction of Jerusalem and subsequent exile. Ezekiel is basically saying that when Israel and Judah “cheated on” YHWH and went off after foreign gods, those foreign nations eventually turned on both Israel and Judah and destroyed them—and in the bigger picture, their destruction of Israel and Judah is ultimately seen as YHWH’s judgment. Dr. S, though, doesn’t mention any of that. Instead, she simply sees it as God’s “psychosexual anger” in which He gleefully abuses and tortures Israel and Judah. And what’s the “moral to the tale” according to Dr. S? She believes the purpose of Ezekiel 16 is essentially “a warning to all women, lest they too dishonour their husbands” (160).
Again, there is no attempt to understand the chapter within its literary or historical contexts. There is a pre-determined agenda at play, so damn the context.
Near the end of the chapter, Dr. S brings up Mary Magdalene. According to Dr. S, the “ancient Christian texts” of the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip depict Mary as the disciple that Jesus loved the most. She was his “beloved” and his “consort” whom he kisses. But then those hyper-masculine, patriarchal church leaders clearly didn’t like that, so they denigrated Mary Magdalene and called her a prostitute. –It’s all very Davinci Code, if you ask me. Then there is the problem that Dr. S characterizes the 2nd and 3rd century later Gnostic texts of the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip as “ancient Christian texts.” But hey, whatever! Who really needs to care about the proper understanding of the linear flow of historical events and writings anyway? There’s a phallocentric theocracy a misogynistic monotheism that needs to be taken down!
What does any of this have to do with the claim that the OT God had a body again? I don’t think it does.
It does not seem that Doctor in front of a person’s name implies that they are not wack!
“If someone had not claimed there is an erection in the painting, would you ever have thought that in the first place? I’m guessing no.”
I don’t think I would have noticed, no, but that it because it is quite subtle, but there is no denying that Jesus definitely has an erection in that painting. I mean, look at it! This is all pretty interesting, if you ask me.
I beg to differ. If neither you, nor most people, would have noticed, then there is the legitimate question whether or not it really is there. Maybe the painter is just painting a cloth over a body, and like any cloth or blanket, it has rolls and folds. And maybe someone with an erotic fetish or particular agenda is projecting that fetish/agenda onto the painting. Do you think everyone in the “Mystic Marriage” painting is really ogling the baby Jesus’ penis? Come on.
I did not notice, like I said, because it is very subtle. But I can’t see how you can deny that there is an erection under that linen. It is surprisingly obvious now that my attention has been drawn to it. But, I am just talking about William Key’s Pieta. I don’t know about the Mystic Marriage, except to say that Mary is definitely lifting the swaddling cloth to reveal Jesus’s junk.
Sorry, but I don’t see an erection under that cloth (and I am a non-believer). Look at the folds in the cloth. If there were an erection, the angles in the cloth should not be there. The angles in the cloth indicate to me that the cloth as been bunched up to cover Jesus’ (flacid) genitals. And that’s it. I have to agree with Joel on this one.
I looked at it trying my absolute hardest to see an erect penis, but there isnt one, not unless the penis is bent in two places, last I checked erect penises are straight
“As Sigmund Freud once allegedly said, ‘Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.’”
No. Sigmund Freud did not say this. I know you qualified the quotation with “allegedly,” but the attribution is flat-out wrong.
Hence “allegedly”–George Washington never really chopped down a cherry tree, but that “event” is in the modern American cultural consciousness and is sometimes used to make a point. The phrase, “Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar” is associated with Freud, and it makes the point that not everything is a phallic symbol.
But by all means, continue to make nit-picky, stupid comments, if it helps make you feel smart.
But, we know that this is a false attribution. By saying it is an “alleged quote” you are leaving open the possibility that it is something Freud said, when he absolutely did not. It’s sloppy.
Lol…okay.
Oh, and I’m sorry I assumed you were a full-time professor. Sloppy.
Very sloppy.
“To be clear, in every other translation, what Dr. S conveniently translates as ‘procreated’ is something like ‘gotten with the help of’ or ‘gained’ or ‘acquired.’ The Greek word in the Septuagint also denotates ‘gaining’ or ‘acquiring.’”
So, at the outset there is absolutely no mystery why the LXX translates this word as it does. (It is the same for the Greek translation of Isa 6:1, but that is another hole you have dug that you cannot now refill.) In any event, while קנה can often mean “to buy,” or “to acquire,” it is very frequently used to mean “create,” especially when applied to God, i.e. Gen 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6; Prov 8:22 etc. It is actually used with some frequency in comparative Canaanite literature to express just that: the creative acts of the High God, El.
And this meaning is something that was still understood by later Jews, even after the first century. The author of tg.Ps.Jon paraphrases this verse by maintaining the meaning of קני (Arm.) as “create,” and substitutes in the “Angel of YHWH,” called “Samel,” who is the one that impregnates Eve, and is credited as the father of Cain.
“Simply put, this is not a book about Biblical Studies. Rather, it is a book that seeks to impose the various popular ideologies of our current society back onto the biblical text in order to argue…what?”
I agree that the Hebrew god, Yahweh, is a brutal, misogynistic, blood-thirsty (fictitious) ghoul but I have to agree with Joel: the author of this book seems to be pushing an agenda; a radical feminist agenda. And because of that, the reader should be cautious of Dr. S.’ research and conclusions. She is biased.
Skeptics who criticize conservative/moderate Christian Bible scholars for their biases but fail to call out the biases of the Radical Left are hypocrites.
I need to somehow “star” these two comments, Gary–Every few years we agree on something! haha…
Are atheist Biblical scholars ok? What is even happening here?
I’m starting to feel bad for Richard Carrier not getting a job. As strange as his cosmic sperm bank exegesis is, it is more plausible than Fransescas work
Haha…no need to go that far! Carrier is pretty out there!
Sadly, though, as a few have told me, she is considered “mainstream” to a lot of people. I think there has been a fundamental shift in the accepted ways to do Biblical Studies that is rooted in a very different view of the biblical text itself. I’m going to try to flesh that idea out when I get to my last post in this series.
I understand the documentary hypothesis is mainstream (although the consensus it enjoyed seems to have collapsed lately). I also understand the view that the existence of even a monotheistic minority existing throughout Israel’s history is not accepted by many.
I can follow the reasoning of that crowd as each premise used to construct the argument tends to rise to the level of plausible allowing for the fact that the evidence is pretty underdetermined
I can also follow the reasoning of Midrashic interpretations (and the authors of Midrashes seem aware they are celebrating what is possible rather than what is most likely)
Does her work at least rise to the level of being a secular liberal feminist* Mirash?
* I distinguish here between liberal feminism which has a heavy emphasis on negative freedoms and is popular amongst wealthy women. I say this because I saw a commentator describe this book as radical feminist, but I suspect she is better described as a liberal feminist
You would probably do well to read up on modern biblical scholarship. William Dever’s books are pretty good for this, and he is decidedly on the more “traditional” side of scholarship. Finkekstein and Silberman are probably a good resource for balancing out Dever. That would provide you a rudimentary handle on what has been happening in the field the past 20 or 30 years.
Dr. ANDERSON: Haha…no need to go that far! Carrier is pretty out there!
Sadly, though, as a few have told me, she is considered “mainstream” to a lot of people. I think there has been a fundamental shift in the accepted ways to do Biblical Studies that is rooted in a very different view of the biblical text itself. I’m going to try to flesh that idea out when I get to my last post in this series.
LEE: These academic authors get all the hype because a) their views are out there, and b) because, to paraphrase mainstream academic Dr. Philip Jenkins, they tell a lay audience exactly what it wants to hear. The stranger the theory the more the public will rave over it.
There’s nothing controversial in CNN reporting that practically all mainstream NT scholars believe Jesus actually existed, was crucified, and that his disciples at least BELIEVED he was resurrected. But if you can find an outlier like the late Dr. Barbara Thiering who argued that the gospels and Acts are actually a secret code that, if deciphered properly, will reveal the truth about Jesus and how he survived his crucifixion, married, divorced, then remarried and to cap it all off became the Wicked Priest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then you can rake in the viewers and the ratings.
Or the book and documentary on the Talpiot Tomb, the so-called “Jesus Tomb” of 15 years ago, described by one mainstream archaeologist as “archaeo-porn.”
Nowadays it seems as if lots of scholars approach the Biblical texts with a preconceived suspicion of the text until it can be proved genuine, a hyper-critical mistrust they would never apply to the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Celsus or any other ancient writer.
The assumption going in seems to be, “What was the author of this Biblical text trying to hide or conceal?”
When you start with these kinds of presuppositions it’s easy to see them in the text.
Pax.
Lee.
One of the subtopics of this post is “divine sex”. I believe that the early Christian teaching regarding the alleged Virginal Conception is very informative as to whether ancient peoples viewed Yahweh as possessing anthropomorphic features. I realize that Christians do not interpret the term used the the Gospel author, “overshadowed”, as literally inferring that Yahweh engaged in vaginal penetrative intercourse with the virgin Mary. This is “allegorical” language, of course.
Let’s assume Christian apologists are right. Yahweh impregnated Mary without a physical act of intercourse. There was no semen. There were no sperm. The question remains however: Did Jesus’ possess the chromosomes/DNA of Yahweh? If he did, then Yahweh possessed anthropomorphic features. If Jesus did not possess the chromosomes and DNA of Yahweh, then he was not Yahweh’s son. If Jesus did not possess male chromosomes, he was not a male. If he did not possess a full compliment of chromosomes from a mother and a father, he was not fully human.
I’d love to hear the “modern” Christian explanation for this dilemma.
Jesus has two natures that are perfectly united, one divine and one human, this is what is called the hypostatic union. It is in his divine nature that Jesus is the Son of God, having been born of the Father before all ages. Whereas in his human nature he is the son of Mary alone and has no father, hence the virgin birth, which was a miracle brought about by the holy spirit and like all miracles doesn’t have a scientific explanation.
So you are saying that Jesus only had 23 chromosomes, not 46? If that is true, he was not fully human. If you are saying all of his chromosomes came from his mother, he was not a male. Did Jesus have any male chromosomes? If so, who did they come from? Were they created out of thin air? If half of Jesus’ chromosomes were created out of thin air, Yahweh was not the father of Jesus the man, only the father of Jesus the pre-existing god. However, if Jesus was never begotten by God the Father, but has existed as long as Yahweh has existed, he cannot be Yahweh’s son. To say otherwise is word salad.
Bottom line: You must have 46 chromosomes, half from a father and half from a mother to be a human being. Please explain where the other half of Jesus’ chromosomes came from.
A miracle?? Saying that “God’s ways are not our ways” doesn’t cut it. Trinitarian, orthodox Christianity claims that Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time. Fully human individuals have 46 chromosomes, 23 from a mother and 23 from a father. Please explain how Jesus was fully human.
the obvious inference would be that God created the remaining genetic information.
GARY: I’d love to hear the “modern” Christian explanation for this dilemma.
LEE: Gary, this is juvenile, even for you, man. The virginal conception can’t be explained the way your biology teacher explained human reproduction and you know it.
It’s what Christianity has always referred to as a MYSTERY.
And it’s only a “dilemma” for skeptics desperate to hang onto their skepticism.
If God–an uncreated, eternal spirit who exists outside time and space–created humans–and thus by necessity human DNA–he cannot therefore have human DNA.
Yet if I buy the idea (which I do, for lots of other reasons) that this same God created human DNA in the first place then it would be no big deal for that same God to impregnate a human female. The resultant infant would be miraculous by anyone’s standards despite his “unusual” DNA.
Two gospels claim this is what happened despite the very real risk of pagans comparing this to one of the pagan myths of Zeus impregnating a human woman. Of course when you examine the birth narratives critically–not hyper-critically but with a reasonable amount of intellectual critical thinking, they actually don’t look much at all like one of the pagan myths.
The birth narratives were not written to satisfy the objections of modern, 21st century obstetrics. Or desperate 21st c. skeptics.
Pax.
Lee.
I fully agree that an omnipotent God can create DNA, but Jesus cannot claim to be the human son of Yahweh if he does not have Yahweh’s DNA. Can you admit that Jesus was not the human son of Yahweh. He was solely the human son of Mary? He was therefore, half human and half god?
GARY: I fully agree that an omnipotent God can create DNA, but Jesus cannot claim to be the human son of Yahweh if he does not have Yahweh’s DNA. Can you admit that Jesus was not the human son of Yahweh. He was solely the human son of Mary? He was therefore, half human and half god?
LEE: No, Gary, because the NT and the ancient creeds all claim that Jesus was/is true God and true man in one person. I cannot explain that in the technical, clinical sense. Nor does that fact even bother me.
For 500 years the early fathers attempted to sort this out; if those great minds cannot, neither can I.
I simply accept certain things on FAITH as MYSTERIES.
Again, I’m not bothered by ANY of this.
Pax.
Lee.
Doesn’t the virginal conception imply that ancient peoples believed that Yahweh has anthropomorphic features?
GARY: Doesn’t the virginal conception imply that ancient peoples believed that Yahweh has anthropomorphic features?
LEE: No. Because the text says “The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.'”
Matthew and Luke had words for sexual intercourse, none of which are used in the birth narratives.
Nobody upon hearing that Mary was pregnant assumed God had literally impregnated her. The assumption was that Mary had been fooling around with a human man she wasn’t betrothed to, thus Joseph intended to divorce her without causing a scene. Until the angel assures him that Mary has not in any way been unfaithful
NT Wright intelligently and succinctly addressed the question of the virgin conception 20 years ago in the book he coauthored with liberal scholar the late Marcus Borg, *The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions*:
1. If we have reached certain conclusions about the resurrection and the incarnation, then the door is open to a divine creative act ‘from the outside’, to inaugurate the new creation from the womb of the old.
2. There is no pre-Christian tradition that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. No one used Isaiah 7:14 in this way. The only conceivable parallels are pagan ones, and these fiercely Jewish stories cannot have been modelled on them.
3. We have then to account for when and by whom the stories were invented, if not true.
This is how it would look: Christians came to believe that Jesus was in some sense divine. Someone who shared this faith broke thoroughly with Jewish precedents and invented the story of a pagan-style virginal conception. Some Christians failed to realize that this was historicized metaphor, and retold it as though it were historical. Matthew and Luke, assuming historicity; drew independently upon this astonishing fabrication, set it (though in quite different ways) within a thoroughly Jewish context, and wove it in quite different ways into their respective narratives.
And all this happened within, more or less, 50 years. Possible? Yes, of course. Most things are possible in history. Likely? No.
Smoke without fire does, of course, happen quite often in the real world. But this smoke, in that world, without fire? This theory asks us to believe in intellectual parthenogenesis: the birth of an idea without visible parentage. Difficult. Unless, of course, you believe in miracles, which most people who disbelieve the virginal conception don’t.
Of course, proof is not possible either way. And if the first two chapters of Matthew and of Luke did not exist, Christian faith could still flourish.
But since they do, and since for quite other reasons I have come to believe that the God of Israel, the world’s creator, was personally and fully revealed in and as Jesus of Nazareth, I hold open my historical judgement and say: If that’s what God deemed appropriate, who am I to object?
Pax.
Lee.
If the all-knowing, all-powerful Yahweh really does exist, of course he can create magic sperm carrying magic DNA and implant it into Mary’s uterus/egg without using a penis. However, if Yahweh did not contribute any of his own chromosomes to this union, Jesus the man was not his son and Jesus was only half human (from Mary). If half of Jesus’ chromosomes were made from magical DNA, he was not a real human being.
This is why modern science debunks the concept of the Trinity.
(insert Patrick Stewart face palm meme)
Lee: “Nowadays it seems as if lots of scholars approach the Biblical texts with a preconceived suspicion of the text until it can be proved genuine, a hyper-critical mistrust they would never apply to the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Celsus or any other ancient writer.”
ANY text that makes supernatural claims is going to receive hyper-critical analysis. Period. I guarantee you that any Muslim or Mormon text which contains supernatural claims is going to receive hyper-critical analysis from 99.999% of conservative/moderate Christian historians. (Extra-ordinary claims always require extra-ordinary evidence…except when the extra-ordinary claim is made by *your* religion.)
GARY: ANY text that makes supernatural claims is going to receive hyper-critical analysis. Period.
LEE: Not true. Where is the hyper-critical analysis, for example, of Suetonius when he reports that on his death Julius Caesar was declared to be a god, signaled by the appearance in the sky of his soul, which appeared as a comet and was visible for twelve days?
I guarantee you that No skeptic I’ve ever met applies to Suetonius the same hyper-critical standard they apply to the gospels.
And I suppose by this that Suetonius literally meant what he said, thus Caesar turned into a comet?
Pax.
Lee.
Please provide even ONE reputable source which states that even ONE reputable historian accepts as historical fact (Suetonius’ claim) that Julius Caesar’s soul appeared in the sky as a comet. That is silly.
I think what you are really arguing is that mainstream NT scholars reject the traditional authorship of the Gospels based on a bias against the supernatural. This is nonsense. The rules to evaluate and establish the authorship and dating of any ancient text has nothing to do with any supernatural claims within that text.
If mainstream scholars were as biased as you say, they would dispute the authorship and dating of II Corinthians due to Paul’s claim within that text that he may or may not have taken an intergalactic voyage to a third heaven. They do not.
A bias against the authorship and dating of the Gospels is in your imagination, Lee.
GARY: Please provide even ONE reputable source which states that even ONE reputable historian accepts as historical fact (Suetonius’ claim) that Julius Caesar’s soul appeared in the sky as a comet. That is silly.
LEE: You keep insisting that ancient authors said what they meant and meant what they said, that they didn’t intend their writings to be interpreted figuratively or allegorically. Thus because Jesus described heaven as a “mansion” “heaven” must therefore be a literal place with walls, a ceiling, bathrooms, a swimming pool, guest-wing, garage, and presumably a fuse-box.
So if Suetonius meant his text to be read literally–as you keep insisting Jesus meant his words to be taken literally–then Julius Caesar’s mortal remains turned into a comet.
Pax.
Lee.
I have *never* said that Jesus literally meant leverything he said (“I am the door, I am the vine, etc.). You are once again engaging in a strawman attack on me. Please stop.
GARY: I think what you are really arguing is that mainstream NT scholars reject the traditional authorship of the Gospels based on a bias against the supernatural. This is nonsense. The rules to evaluate and establish the authorship and dating of any ancient text has nothing to do with any supernatural claims within that text.
LEE: This isn’t what I meant at all. See my response above.
As for the dating of the gospels, the primary reason that until about 20 years or so ago they were dated to the late first through early 2nd century or even later by many mainstream scholars is because of their miraculous claims about Jesus being the resurrected divine Son of God. Had Jesus been just another would-be Messiah who got plastered by the Romans and his followers dispersed nobody would’ve had any objections to dating them to ca. 60 – ca. 90 AD and we wouldn’t be debating this now.
How many times have skeptics argued to me over the past 20 years that the high Christology of the gospels is exhibit A for their very late composition?
But now, thanks to scholars such as the late Dr. Larry Hurtado, the late Dr. Martin Hengel, Dr. Richard Bauckham and others of the “Early High Christology Club,” the mainstream academic consensus seems to have shifted to an acceptance that very soon after Jesus’ death and alleged resurrection–and not 150 or 200 years later–the early Church had a very high and exalted Christology, too soon for it to have been a later myth.
Pax.
Lee.
What does that have to do with the dating and authorship of the Gospels? Most mainstream scholars date the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel written according to scholarly consensus, to circa 65-75 CE. That dating allows for the possibility that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. So where is the bias??
GARY: What does that have to do with the dating and authorship of the Gospels? Most mainstream scholars date the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel written according to scholarly consensus, to circa 65-75 CE. That dating allows for the possibility that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. So where is the bias??
LEE: Thirty years ago lots of mainstream scholars argued for a very late authorship of the gospels, in large part because of their preconceived idea that the high christology of the Gospels was a late phenomenon. Due to recent research by members of the EHCC, they’ve had to (in some cases grudgingly) accept an early and very high christology, which in turn argues for an earlier date for much of the material in the gospels.
The consensus has shifted from a view that the gospels were written much too late to reflect the truth about the historical Jesus to one which says they were probably written within 30-60 years of his death, much too early for significant myth and legend to accrue.
That was my point.
Pax.
Lee.
“The consensus has shifted from a view that the gospels were written much too late to reflect the truth about the historical Jesus to one which says they were probably written within 30-60 years of his death, much too early for significant myth and legend to accrue.”
Nonsense. Thousands of people today believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a ped_p_il_ cabal operating out of a pizza parlor in the suburbs of D.C. Legends (baseless rumors) develop today within days or even hours! The idea that this same phenomenon did not occur in the first century; that legends (baseless rumors) could only develop centuries after a person’s death, is a modern Christian delusion (wishful thinking).
GARY: Nonsense. Thousands of people today believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a ped_p_il_ cabal operating out of a pizza parlor in the suburbs of D.C. Legends (baseless rumors) develop today within days or even hours! The idea that this same phenomenon did not occur in the first century; that legends (baseless rumors) could only develop centuries after a person’s death, is a modern Christian delusion (wishful thinking).
LEE: You’re thinking like a modern again, not like an ancient. Historically speaking, it takes several generations for that level of myth and legend to accrue to a historical figure.
For the life of Alexander he Great there are much fewer historical materials (I believe only five sources), which come much later after his death. The earliest accounts from Plutarch, Arrian, Quintus, and Diodorus all date to more than three centuries after the life of Alexander.
Alexander’s earliest known biography is from AD 130 from Arrian (a 450 year gap). Jesus has four biographies of his life all written within a generation of his death.
Contrast the ms evidence for Alexander with the 5,500 hundred GK manuscripts and mss fragments of the NT alone (not counting the thousands of Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc. texts) many of which date to the early second century.
Historical research shows that significant legends arise two to three generations after the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Academic historians agree that there are non-historical anecdotes in the biographies of Alexander. Roman historian AN Sherwin-White argued that one generation was too quick for legend to accrue that would corrupt the main message of Jesus’ life presented in the gospels.
Thus a mere 30 years–when eyewitnesses who could expose them were still living–is not nearly enough time for that kind of myth and legend to accrue to the stories about Jesus.
Pax.
Lee.
Baloney. Even the Bible suggests that first century people were gullible regarding rumors and legends.
“And he [Jesus] called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal… And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen. Herod said, “John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?” And he sought to see him.”
–Luke 9
Rumors galore about Jesus! In the first century! And Jesus wasn’t even dead yet! Just imagine how fantastical the rumors and legends became after his death!
(If you and I are the only people interested in this topic, Lee, this is my last comment. I’ll let you have the last word.)
GARY: Rumors galore about Jesus! In the first century! And Jesus wasn’t even dead yet! Just imagine how fantastical the rumors and legends became after his death!
(If you and I are the only people interested in this topic, Lee, this is my last comment. I’ll let you have the last word.)
LEE: Ta.
Gary, the rumors about Jesus which circulated as his ministry was getting underway are lightyears apart from the Gospels’ reports of his resurrection and exaltation as the Son of God after his death.
And one thing almost every current NT scholar–even the skeptics like Bart Ehrman and Dom Crossan–takes for granted is that Jesus performed miracles and exorcisms. The one probably genuine section of Josephus’ TF is the part which notes that Jesus was known for doing “startling deeds,” or miracles. For example, the late Marcus Borg, a prominent fellow of the Jesus Seminar, thus a very liberal scholar, stated:
“Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.”
You seem to have the mistaken idea that in the ancient world people were gullible enough to believe almost anything, and that nobody in the early church really cared enough to find out what really happened, but everyone was comfortable with silly myths and legends. This old Walter Bauer theory was shot down seventy years ago by other scholars and despite Bart Ehrman’s recent attempts to rehabilitate it it still has no traction.
If you’ve read *The Jesus Legend* by Eddy and Boyd you know that oral tradition in the ancient first century world was more highly regarded than the written word because of high illiteracy rates among other things, that preserving oral tradition was a community endeavor, that tradents were trained to be accurate, and if they strayed too far off book the community would correct them.
Pax.
Lee.
DT is basically Father Comstock. “Jesus and John Wayne” goes into this particular subject. As a Leftist, she supports the patriarchy via gender ideology (the validation of which alone discredits everything she ever said and ever will say)
Francesca Stavrakopoulou comes off like a teenager who sees and draws penises on everything, and cant carry on a conversation without saying penis at somepoint, yet she is paraded unironically.
I think it comes from a presupposition that Christianity, and by extension, Judaism ultimately are all just about misogynistic men who want to abuse women. It is reading every single “far left” ideological extreme in this day and age BACK into the text.