Verhoeven Claim about Jesus is Old News April 24.08
The CNN release that Paul Verhoeven, the Hollywood director and Jesus Seminar participant, has written a biography of Jesus that attributes Jesus’ birth to a rape of Mary by a Roman soldier is old news. In dealing with the theories of Jim Tabor in Dethroning Jesus (pp. 178-79) I wrote the following about this claim that goes back to Celsus and the late second century.
The CNN release that Paul Verhoeven, the Hollywood director and Jesus Seminar participant, has written a biography of Jesus that attributes Jesus’ birth to a rape of Mary by a Roman soldier is old news. In dealing with the theories of Jim Tabor in Dethroning Jesus (pp. 178-79) I wrote the following about this claim that goes back to Celsus and the late second century.
"Finally, Tabor appeals to the “Pantera” tradition. This common
name for Jesus’s alleged father emerges from Celsus, an anti-
Christian writer from around AD 180. Celsus describes Pantera as a
Roman soldier. Tabor then alludes to an even later teaching from a
Jewish text from the Tosefta (t. Hullin 2.24) that describes a man
named Jacob who passed on the teaching of “Jesus son of Panter.”He
goes on to discuss a gravestone found in Germany of a Tiberius
Julius Abdes Pantera of Sidon, who belonged to a Roman cohort of
archers (Tabor 2006, 63–70). To wrap up his survey of Pantera,
Tabor remarks, “Is it remotely plausible that among all the thousands
of tomb inscriptions of the period this might be the tombstone
of Jesus’s father—and in Germany of all places? The chances
seem infinitesimal but the evidence should not be just dismissed out
of hand” (2006, 70). He concludes, “Our best evidence indicates that
Joseph who married the pregnant Mary was not the father of Jesus.
Jesus’s father remains unknown but possibly was named Pantera, and
if so, was quite possibly a Roman soldier” (2006, 72). We can agree
with Tabor that Joseph doesn’t appear to be Jesus’s father. Ironically,
both the virgin birth tradition and the ugly rumors spread by some
about Jesus’s origins point in this direction.Moreover, Tabor’s explanation
for solving the dilemma is an excellent case of a divide created
by worldviews concerning the ways in which God can act.
In the end, Tabor steps back from the brink of fully adopting
this theory while at the same time leaving the impression that it is
quite plausible. One thing he knows: the virgin birth is impossible.
To support his stance, he presents a string of questionable readings
of ancient texts, including an appeal to late texts and an exaggeration
of the contrasts between the Gospel texts; he supplements these
dubious readings with the discovery of a gravestone with the common
name Pantera. Should we mention that the texts Tabor appeals
to have a biased perspective, a point usually made to disqualify the
claims of Christian texts from being accepted as historical? We have
taken this side trip exploring the theory of Pantera and the discussion
of Jesus’s origins to show how far some go to try to fill in what
they perceive as gaps in the record. Ultimately, however, Tabor’s
alternative theory is very much a stretch."
So this claim really is not news to anyone familiar with the polemics surrounding Jesus.
8 Comments
Michael Metts
Dr. Bock,
I have a question
Dr. Bock,
I have a question that’s only mildly on topic. It is regarding the NET Bible. In a critical review by Michael Marlowe, he says the NET incorrectly translates parthenos in Matthew 1.
“The Immanuel Prophecy
The preface dwells upon the case of Isaiah 7:14, and so we will take up that issue here. This verse is quoted in the Gospel according to Matthew (1:26), in which it is explained that Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the child named Immanuel is fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ. In his quotation, Matthew uses the Greek word παρθενος (parthenos), which in the Hellenistic era usually had the meaning “virgin.” This rendering was already given in the Septuagint, and so Matthew is not introducing it as something new; but there can be no doubt that he uses this word deliberately, because the virginity of Mary is an important aspect of his account of Christ’s birth. However, the NET Bible has “young woman” instead of “virgin” as a translation for עלמה (almah) in this verse. Its preface claims that the עלמה in Isaiah 7:14 cannot refer to Mary, and that the word does not even mean “virgin.” We are given a rather opaque argument that tries to explain Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 while condemning “virgin” as a translation of the Hebrew word.”
While this is great information, the problem I’m having is, my NET Bible doesn’t say “young woman” but in fact “virgin”.
So, what’s the deal? Was this an earlier version being reviewed?
Thank you so much for your time Dr. Bock. Big fan of Bible.org.
Michael
bock
Question dlb
Michael:
Sorry, I have no idea what is going on. The earliest version of Matthew in the NET Bible I have also has virgin. My version is of the New Testament alone, so it is an early edition (though not perhaps the earliest). It was done before the Old Testament was released. The "First Beta edition" of the whole Bible also has virgin. What might be going on is that the NET rendering of the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 in this Beta edition was young woman, reflecting the most likely contextual meaning of that Hebrew term in that passage. What many people do not think about is that many young women of that time were virgins, which is why there is discussion about what that term can mean and why a more exact sense can be given in Matthew and in the LXX. The NT usage works with what is called mirror (or pattern) prophecy where a short term event is repeated (and often enhanced) in a susequent realization of the pattern. In this case a young woman giving birth to a child picturing God with us (the meaning of the name Emmanuel) in the time of Isaiah pictures and prophecies a virgin (enhancement 1) giving birth to GOD WITH US (enhancement 2), Jesus.
dlb
Michael Metts
“We are given a rather
“We are given a rather opaque argument that tries to explain Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 while condemning “virgin” as a translation of the Hebrew word.”
The problem seems to be with this last sentence of his review. I mistakenly took this sentence as referring to the occurrence of parthenos in Matthew, but Marlowe is referring to the translation in Isaiah in light of Matthew. I think the mistake was entirely mine. If that’s the case, I don’t see how this warrants so much criticism, in light of your mentioned pattern, mirror prophecy fullfilments. If the prophecy is essential to the virgin birth of Christ (which of course it is) as the distant fullfilment, and that is where the NET translates it as virgin, then it seems unwarranted.
The NET will continue to be my most used and favorite translation. I am eagerly awaiting the newer versions which will include books of the Apocrypha. Do you know when they might debut? I read about this in the following article: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1899
“Inclusion of the Apocrypha in future editions of the NET Bible is based on…” I believe this refers to printed editions.
Thank you for the helpful response,
Michael Metts
bock
We are given dlb
I do not know the timing of this yet.
dlb
Michael Metts
Darn
Darn
Joe0510
Isaiah 7:14
Dr. Bock:
Any online articles about the translation of Isa 7:14 that you find particularly useful?
It seems that to really get at the heart of the matter one has to come to some understanding of Jewish prophecy and how a 1st century Jew would have understood prophecy.
So a follow up question would be: have you any preferred sources about ancient Jewish prophecy and it's 1st century interpretation?
I just need a starting point appropriate for someone who has no Greek or Hebrew knowledge. Tall order! 😉
Many thanks!
Joe
Darrell L. Bock
OT/NT Isa 7
Joe:
Not sure about what is online. Two books are helpful to get into this discussion. Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period and an edited work by Ken Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Three Views on the New Testament's Use of the Old. They will help you begin to appreciate the issues. In a half year or so I will have a book out with two colleagues entitlled Jesus the Messiah that will cover specific texts.
Joe0510
Thanks!
Thanks Dr.Bock! I look forward to your new book! Meanwhile I'll check out these books that you recommend.