It is common knowledge that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. But what about John the Baptist?
Virgin birth? Almost certainly! Just read the Bible!
His mother was a close relation to Mary. She is named Elizabeth in the common English version. Jesus said John was in the category of the greatest of men. Greatest by birth and achievement.
Let's examine his birth first. Was John the Baptist's mother a virgin when he was born? Was his birth, like Jesus, marked with extraordinary events and signs? Why were the establishment, Rome-selected high priests and many people terrified when he was born?
Yes. The principal sign then was his virgin birth! The people knew the significance. Do you?
Then fear came on all who dwelt around them; and all these sayings were discussed throughout all the hill country of Judea. Luke 1:65 NKJV
The importance of that birth event may be hard to grasp for many churchgoers today. Not so in the first century. The Bible is quite specific on the reasons for those who understand Hebrew teachings. But ask: how much is Jewish theology of the first century discussed from the pulpit? Even if John gets a mention, the extraordinary aspects of his birth get little focus. The Roman church had a long, long history of persecuting Jews. Luther's antisemitism was intense and spawned that of the Nazis. What are churchgoers missing in their education? What do Jews fail to explain to the public?
Deaf shouts at deaf
Even today there is little understanding of Jewish theology in the churches. Church dogma and the New Testament (NT) are equally dismissed as nonsense by many Jews. Why such a non-dialogue of the deaf?
John was a baptizer of Israelites. He was not a Southern Baptist. He reputedly baptized in the north of Judah. He immersed people in the river Jordan. Why there? It was near the border to another mighty empire, so powerful that it defeated Rome several times. Is that historical context always mentioned? Can churchgoers name that empire that was Rome's mortal enemy and won victory over its legions several times around this time? Is this 'forgetfulness' partly why John's virgin birth was dropped into oblivion?
How was John different? John's father was old when he was told by an angel that he would become a father. Where and when is significant. He was officiating in the Temple. That's where the priests constantly bathed or baptized before they could perform tasks. Washings and full immersions were necessary before Israelites could enter the Temple to worship.
Thirty years later, John suddenly appeared at the Jordan river. His unexpected re-appearance was a shock. People were terrified again. Establishment figures came all the way from Jerusalem to see if they could stop him. Instead he condemned them as a bunch of snakes, Lk 3:7 Strong terms. On what authority did this man condemn the leaders and for what cause? Speaking ill of leaders is condemned in the Torah. What is the 'Christian' churches' explanation of this?
He gave a sign to all. He baptized. His non-Jewish, non-priestly style appearance also shocked them. Priests wore white linen. Why did he wear camel-hair clothing and a black leather belt?
His camel-hair clothing indicated he came from the East. At the border of the Holy Land in the river, he baptized hordes of immigrant people who had not yet made it to Jerusalem and the Temple. At the time crowds and caravans of Israelites were coming from the eastern diaspora in the powerful Parthian Empire, the land of camels, Acts 2:9. This baptising area was on their route from the East into the Holy Land and Holy Jerusalem. They needed to show willingness to be purified. The repentant tribes were returning from Babylonian exile where God had sent them for their sins, Ezek 36:24-5.
'For I will take you from the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you to your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you.'
Incompatible stories
Why baptize? Anyone can wash deeply in water. But who had priestly authority to supervise baptism? Why the Jordan? The answer is given in the Hebrew scriptures that are essential for understanding the NT.
Here we enter into the heart of the perplexity. Current understanding about baptism and 'virgin birth' among Catholic and Protestant churches is incompatible with both Jewish and Hebrew biblical concepts. Either one or the other must be right and the other wrong. Which is the disinformation?
What is at the origin of this culture conflict? In the medieval Roman church the hierarchical leaders were blinded by antisemitism. They refused to view their religion through anything but gentile spectacles. The church was fashioned in their own format. It opposed the synagogue and persecuted Jews. As for the Temple, they hated the idea and that Jesus and the disciples were frequently there, as the center of worship for all Israelites who fought the Empire.
The Roman church opposed the writings in Hebrew or even Greek. They circulated their own version in Latin. But few of the priests understood or could read the Latin translation of the New Testament. Greek and Hebrew scriptures were burnt. Local language translations were forbidden.
For medieval gentile 'Christians' the Temple was as a horrific center of Jewish exclusivism. To enter would be a thousand times worse than going to a synagogue on Sabbath. Yet Jesus, the disciples and the apostle Paul taught in the Temple. They frequented synagogues.
Jesus was a Jew. Some churches long sought to hide this or belittle it. Why? Jesus taught priests and lawyers in God's Holy Temple, Luke 19:47. It was impossible to be a faithful Jew and be against the Temple. It was impossible to enter the Temple if one did not follow strict Jewish rules. It symbolized God's authority over the nations. How can ordinary people understand if church leaders do not know how to explain basic facts about first century beliefs?
God's word, the Bible, has authority and authenticity in explaining baptism and defining who is born of a virgin. Read it. Virgin birth, for example, has to be explained in Jewish and Hebrew terms first of all. Not modern ones, or those of ancient Greek and Romans.
Jews of Christ's time who were reading both the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek translations would understand that John's mother Elizabeth was a virgin, as well as Mary, the mother of Jesus. But Romans and Greeks had different ideas and culture about virgins.
That's the crux of the problem.
What do we know about Hebrew culture? Let's start with the names. Memorials tracing Hebrew history are lost in translation. The Hebrews did not give names haphazardly as seems to be the case today. They reflected a revered ancestry.
Elizabeth the virgin
John's mother is named Elizabeth in the common English versions. That is a translation of the Hebrew name Elisheva. It is a name found in the Hebrew Scriptures. It reflects a high personage, no less than the name of the wife of Aaron, the high priest and elder brother of Moses. As a priest Aaron had constantly to bathe and supervise the immersion of other priests.
And there is more. Significantly this first Elisheva was the daughter of the Jewish leader, Naashon, Exodus 6:23. Thus a marriage united a Jewish princess and the priestly Aaron. From this marriage and the first Elizabeth/Elisheva sprang all the high priests who later attended to the Temple.
One and a half thousand years later, calling a child Elisheva, who later married to a priest in Luke's account and who later became the mother of 'John', reflects this huge heritage.
Jesus was born of a father, Joseph, a Jew who was a notable heir, the primary claimant to the throne of David. No mean office. It is the throne that will rule the world according to God's word. The Bible in Matt 1 gives the hereditary line according to Hebrew law starting with Abraham.
Recognize the names
Were John and Jesus related? What was the relationship between Elizabeth and the mother of Jesus? In everyday usage and the King James English translation she is called Mary. That is also common in nearly all English versions. In the Greek NT she is called Mariam, though few people commonly call her any name other than Mary today. What would be the impact if church people started calling her Mariam or Miriam as it is usually in Hebrew?
In the Hebrew Scriptures Miriam was the sister of both Moses and Aaron. It was Miriam who as his elder sister saved the life of Moses when he was placed in a basket and set afloat on the Nile. Moses was rescued by the daughter of Pharaoh and raised and educated as if he were an Egyptian prince.
Miriam was also a prophetess and was considered equally with her brothers as a founder of Israel. By all accounts she may not have been a beauty. Late in life she married a younger man, Caleb, who recognized her spiritual character. Miriam was Moses's older sister. The Exodus took place after Moses reached 80 years of age and returned to Egypt.
She wasn't Caleb's first wife. Caleb married Miriam, also known as Ephrath, when he was a widower after his first wife had given him three sons, IChron 2:18. That would make the marriage to have taken place in Caleb's and Miriam's mature years. Nevertheless she bore him a son, Hur, who became the Priest for War for Israel, Ex 17. After Miriam died Caleb went on to be one of the leaders in the conquest of the land of Israel. He was not young by then but still courageous and vigorous. (His great grandson Bazeleel, son of Uri, son of Hur, was the craftsman of many objects of the Tabernacle, IChron 2:20, Ex 31:2.)
Far from the mothers of John and Jesus being called by common English names and therefore sounding like Gentiles, they had names of highly eminent women of faith in priestly Hebrew history.
Back to the NT
What is the significance of the names, Elisheva and Mariam in the NT? What do they have in common? The first observation is that the two women involved with both John and Jesus were named after the most important priestly family in Israel. The priestly tribe was that of the patriarch Levi, while the royal tribe was called after Judah. Among the Levites, Moses was the leader and his brother Aaron was the high priest.
So the question arises: were the two women direct, lineal descendants of this priestly family? Were they the direct descendants and inheritors of Aaron?
Yes. The NT significance of the two women, Mariam and Elizabeth/ Elisheva is revealed in the first chapters of the Gospel of Luke. They were closely related, probably cousins, maybe even sisters. Elisheva was married to a priest of the Temple, named Zacharias (Greek) or Zachariah (Hebrew). He is not called a direct descendant of Aaron. There were few male descendants of Aaron still alive at the time. They were the sort of people that both the Romans and Herod, their representative in Israel, would be keen to eliminate as possible rivals. Before them the Greek Seleucid Empire wanted to eliminate all aspects of the Jewish religion and convert the entire population to Hellenism, worship of the Greek gods, drink up Greek philosophy, and serve Greek values and culture. Being a true priest was dangerous.
The priesthood was Rome's target. It wielded immense moral and political power. Herod and his military government therefore chose as substitute priests subservient men who were not qualified to be priests according to biblical criteria. They were his yes-men. He killed off as many of the authentic priests as possible. He wiped out any trace of royal and political rivals.
Herod killed three of his own sons when he suspected them of disloyalty. So what Herod did to those with legal claims to the priesthood or the Davidic throne does not take much imagination.
He wiped out enemies on an industrial scale. The high priest was the link between divine authority and the people, a legitimate Aaronic high priest more so.
But what about women? They posed no direct threat. They could not be priests.
Luke 1:3 states quite clearly that Elisheva was 'of the daughters of Aaron'. She was a direct descendant of Aaron. Her father was an Aaronite priest and could trace his genealogy directly back to Aaron. As such her male children (if she had any) would be candidates for high priests. Luke says she had no children until her old age.
And Mariam? Later on in Luke chapter one, an angel visits Mariam who was married to Joseph. She was a virgin, 1:26. She was a virgin married to Joseph. Has that curious fact been pointed out in church, whenever it is read for example at Christmas? In Hebrew usage betrothed means married in our terms. It required a divorce to break the marriage bond. The first question that should have been discussed was why Joseph and Mary were married and they had not tried to have children. When did you hear that debated?
Who was Mariam? The angel says she was of the same clan as Elisheva: 'Elisheva your kinswoman has also conceived in her old age' v36. The Greek term for kin, sungenes, means tribal relative. Here it means close relative such as cousin and in Hebrew custom of the same tribe. Elisheva was a descendant of the family clan of Aaron. A person of the same tribal designation would have the same patrilineal family. In theory it would mean any person from sister to a cousin with direct Aaronic blood.
Luke has already specified that Elisheva was especially marked out with this distinction of being a descendant of the most prestigious first high priest. She was daughter of a later high priest's family that went directly back to Aaron. Thus both Mariam and Elisheva were directly descended from Aaron on the male side of the family. Regardless of their mother's tribe, they were considered Aaronite women. In Hebrew custom, the tribal designation is given by the father. Having this Aaronic pedigree allowed offspring to claim priestly office according to specific laws of inheritance.
Priestly Dereliction of Duty?
John's birth was miraculous. It was outside normal human experience. Elisheva was quite aged at the time. In her old age of ch 1v36 is in Greek in her gera. It means she had long ceased to menstruate. (The English term geriatrics comes from the word gera.) She was infertile and could not expect to have a son because to have a son requires that she produce ova and that an ovum could be fertilized by a viable sperm from her equally aged husband.
Elisheva was what we would call today post-menopausal. It was impossible for her to conceive. Yet she did. Her husband, Zecharias, also thought he was passed parenting and he was sure his wife was. That accounts for his skepticism in the face of a mighty angel's message announcing she would bear a son.
He did not receive with joy the message direct from God's high emissary Gabriel, 1:19. He was actually inside the Holy Place, the first section of the Temple with incense when he was confronted by the angel. Did that mighty presence give him pause? He was not timid. He said boldly that the angel coming with a message from God was wrong. He was struck deaf and dumb for this insolence.
And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings. 20 But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time.” NKJV
Why would a priest take such a stance? Because Zechariah was a very strict and observant priest, 1:6. There were very strict rules about how and when a woman could enter the Temple courts. They were very restrictive especially about blood and therefore when the woman was having periods. He knew that women, unless they fulfilled certain conditions, were not allowed inside the courts of the Temple and that included his wife, Elisheva. And who was in charge of overseeing that all the women followed these rules? The priests.
His wife, Elisheva, was of the highest caste among the priestly families. He would not have been able to marry her, long ago, if he were not able to defend her and speak out for righteousness.
The fact that he stood his ground about Elisheva's post-menstrual condition while being on official priestly duty in, of all places, the Temple's Holy Place and speaking out to an archangel sent by God shows there was absolutely no doubt in his mind and other priests who witnessed it that Elisheva was old and past child-bearing age.
Zechariah was saying that he was sure that he had not made a mistake and that his wife was not having periods. She had stopped menstruating a long time ago. He was sure he had the facts. And he did. But God's messenger was saying that, in spite of the facts, a birth would take place and he and Elisheva would be parents in their old age.
It was no reflection on his competence as priest and his observance of the Temple rules. God had different plans. Is it all true? Yes. Secular history too tells us a lot about John and his followers. He raised a storm at his birth. His death reputedly caused a striking military defeat for Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great.
John is not only confirmed as a historical figure in the books of the New Testament, both the Gospels and Acts, but by contemporary writers like Flavius Josephus. John was a man of great righteous authority and family fame. His unjust execution by Herod was widely considered to be the reason God punished Herod and he lost a war. John was famed as a high status international personality.
It is impossible that Luke, writing in 37 CE to the High Priest Theophilus 1:2, would come up with anything false. It would immediately be debunked. Everyone living could verify facts when it came to John's parents, and their ages as well as describing that, through his grandfather's family, John had the lineage of a true Aaronic priest. He outstripped the rank of Annas and his son, Theophilus as well as Caiaphas, his son-in-law. Josephus describes how Theophilus became high priest shortly after Caiaphas and Jonathan were dismissed in 37 CE (Antiquities 18.5.2-3 (116, 123) and 19.6.2 (297).
John's whole life provoked controversy against illegitimate rulers. John's birth terrified the whole of Jerusalem because they anticipated a major power struggle that would drench the country of Judea in blood again, Luke 1:65. His sudden arrival again at 30 years of age, even more so.
Old age virgins?
The verse 36 quoted above about this old-age mother contains information that directly contradicts centuries of medieval mythology about Mary/ Mariam. Did you catch it? It says that she was equally in her old, post-menstrual age. This is far from the pictures of the Roman church from Constantine on, that tried to picture 'Mary' as a young teenager.
Let's first examine Archangel Gabriel's announcement to Mariam: 'Elisheva your kinswoman has also conceived in her old age' v36. The clear meaning of this is that both Elisheva and Mariam conceived in their old age. That is the force of the word 'also'. The Roman Catholic edition of the New Jerusalem Bible gives the following statement of the angel Gabriel:
And I tell you this too: your cousin Elizabeth also, in her old age, has conceived a son, and she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month.
Logically then both were previously called barren. Both were in their old age, Mariam more so than Elisheva. The pregnancy of Elisheva is given as a reason that she should have faith they she too would bear a child. The gentile church, however, says quite the opposite: she was just a teenager.
False.
Gabriel's message.
If Mariam were a teenager, why would she need a special divine message with an extra special delivery service to inform her about getting pregnant?
And more:
- What is the point to announce to a married woman that she would become pregnant? That was to be expected. If Gabriel had a special message and it required an extraordinary visit, why tell a young couple something which most people would consider banal?
- Why if, beyond telling her about the 'birds and the bees', did the archangel not warn her that her life was in grave danger as she might be convicted as an adulteress if Joseph was not the father of the child?
- Why did the archangel not inform her how the child was to be considered the long-expected Davidic Messiah if the seed of David through Joseph was not involved? Mariam was of the tribe of Levi and clan of Aaron.
- Why did Gabriel not come to Joseph, as head of the family, to announce news about a future son and also other children to come such as James, Joses, Simon and Jude plus the daughters Mt 13:35?
- Why did Gabriel announce that her body had to be fixed first?
It would be more worthy of such an angelic visit to say something extraordinary or shocking, as he just had to Elisheva. Even if the message was about having twins, it would hardly be worthy of the archangelic visit. The only thing that would be shocking and extraordinary would be that she as a teenager would never have children. The lineage would devolve to Elisheva's John.
But there was absolutely no reason to burden the righteous Mariam with a message of gloom.
Gabriel drew the parallel to Elisheva and said she, who may have been younger than Mariam, is pregnant. Both of you old women whom the world calls barren, will bear children. The world will be confounded. First Elisheva and then you who are even older. Both are daughters of God's priest Aaron. Both demonstrate the Living God is active in spite of the slaughter the enemies have committed against the family.
Why is it impossible for church theologians to conceive that the miracle that happened to permit Elisheva conceiving could also happen to their Mary? The Greek text says the opposite.
Vatican defends Mary, denounces Mariam
Was Mariam young and Elisheva old? What does the NT say? The Greek is pretty clear that both were old. The problem was that many brought up on Roman dogma and the Latin translation had been taught differently. This question became the source of such controversy that the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission had to step in.
Recent textual scholars analyzed the Greek text, not the Latin. The Vatican denounced textual scholars for making the 'wrong interpretation'. These scholars said that the Magnificat -- the song of praise of Mary/Mariam and the source of much repetitive prayer -- could not be Mary's because it implied that the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) was old. The scholars read the Greek text and were not restricted to Jerome's Latin Vulgate. They were not subject to doctrinal enforcement or excommunication or the inquisition.
Luke records the joyful reaction of the two women when they learned that they would bear children. Both praise God because they were old. The announcements to them were so unexpected. A young woman would be happy but not totally astounding that she might have a child. The two women would not use similar words to describe their new condition as the Bible records.
In Luke 1:25 Elisheva conceived and retired in secrecy because it was so unusual for an old woman to become pregnant. This confinement then lasted for five months.
Elisheva says: 'Thus the Eternal has dealt with me in the days he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people' for not having children. Thus it is clear she is praising a miracle of reproductive regeneration in old age. The reproach came from barrenness and not being able to bring forth the next generation.
Then Mariam arrived to see her. Mariam had been told she would become pregnant when Elisheva was in her sixth month. She then went immediately to a city of Judah (where presumably Joseph was lodging). She became pregnant. When she arrived to see her cousin, Elisheva recognized her pregnancy and declared the tiny embryo she carried was her Lord and Sovereign, v43. She recognized a similar miracle of regeneration and conception had taken place. How? Because Mariam had begun to menstruate before she went to see Joseph. She immediately became pregnant. Jesus was born six months after John.
What evidence do we have for this? See what she says.
Mariam is recorded as saying: 'My soul magnifies the Eternal, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior. He has regarded the humiliation of his handmaiden.' (Greek tapeinoosin as Act 8:33, Phil 3:21, James 1:10).
The latter phrase is parallel with the phrase of Elisheva: 'taken away my reproach.' This is not a phrase expected from a young woman. A teenager would not be humiliated about not having a child.
Nor is it in line with the Catholic mythical interpretation of an unmarried teenager. On the contrary, she would be extremely humiliated in Jewish society, perhaps accused of fornication and threatened with possible execution for sexual looseness. Mariam, however, was married. It says so from the first mention in Matt 1:18. Hebrew 'betrothed' = married, not some sort of modern 'arrangement'!
That is why textual critics who translate the phrase more correctly than the KJV 'of low estate' felt that the whole of this declaration belongs to an old woman. But these more modern scholars were hit with a quandary. They too believed that Mary was a teenager. They had been heavily indoctrinated with it every Christmas and in schools. The church had maintained that for a millennium or more. Hence they said that these words must have come, not from a teenage Mary, but from Elisheva's mouth.
Scholars are also thrown by the reference to a warrior king that will overthrow the enemies of God.
'God has shown the strength of his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their thrones and exalted the lowly....' v51.
This may seem far from the distorted Catholic and Protestant theology of the church being God's kingdom but it is fully in line with the prophetic expectation of an anointed King and Priest that had been expected for many generations. The Messiah, the Anointed of God, will rule the world. The Hebrew scriptures are full of such talk.
Even these modern 'scientific' scholars were swept up in the thousands years of disinformation. They are the product of churches that absorbed medieval syncretism of paganism to flood the church numbers. Residual paganism about Greek and Roman demigods distorted the attributes of Mariam (age, marriage and genealogy). Demigods always came from the illicit union of gods like Zeus and young virgins. They fail to understand the miraculous significance of a begettal in old age in the plan of God and throughout the Hebrew scriptures.
Teenage tales
The Greek biblical text and Hebrew custom and scriptures are in direct conflict with the traditional church beliefs. These are derived from pagan culture making Mariam/ Mary to be a young, perhaps 14-year old. She would be a victim of child abuse.
For centuries that was reinforced ceaselessly in church and in infants' schools in their nativity stories and plays. But where did that idea come from? No trace can be found in the Bible. There are no inns, no caves, no stables and animals, no three wise men (there were many Magi and thousands of armed Parthians that scared Herod). The churches transmitted a later story, made up for a specific purpose to gain favor with a largely pagan public. The long-repeated tale certainly began around in the early medieval period.
How did it arise? All Gentiles were familiar with young virgins being taken by gods like Zeus. Long-standing persistent myths and religious worship centered on gods taking young virgins and spawning the demi-gods, half human, half divine. Nothing similar is in the Bible.
Then comes another shocker from the history of Christianity. In all the first few centuries, there is no evidence, no historical record, of Mary/ Mariam being a teenager. There is no such story like it in the history of Israel. Israelites, like modern people, did not consider it a miracle that young girls suddenly 'got pregnant'. They can tell you what really happened among suddenly pregnant teenagers. The Torah says that a young man who impregnates a young girl must take responsibility for mother and child.
Early history of the believers in Jesus as the Christ say the opposite to the Roman myth. The records of the Jewish believers, like Paul were called Nazarenes, Yessenes or Ebionites. They did not follow anything like this later, medieval story of an early teenage girl called Mary. They say that Jesus was the son of Joseph, a descendant of David, husband of Mariam. They were lawfully married. And Jews who confronted the early gentile 'Christian' propagandists denied any idea that Mary was single.
After the destruction of the Temple and the slaughter of all who opposed Rome, the Jews were silenced. It is the gentiles that came up with the story of a teenage Mary and this now traditional version of a virgin birth. They also emphasized the stature of Mary as some sort of goddess and called her the 'Queen of Heaven'. This title was the attribute of Diana (also called Artemis and Isis), the virgin goddess whose worshippers Paul confronted in Ephesus, Acts 19:24.
Mariolatry myth
Where then did mariolatry come from? The honest researcher does not have to go far to find the historic, mythic source. Nor go far to find the geographic worship sites. It is still being propagated in its original mythic form today.
Hellenistic religion is full of the exploits of Zeus/ Jupiter of the Romans who abducted a young virgin and spawned a number of demi-gods (mixed human and god). One of the most prominent illustrations of this is the myth of Europa, daughter of king Agenor of Phoenicia. She was abducted when Zeus transformed himself into a surprisingly tame bull. This curious conduct seduced the virgin Europa to risk riding on its back. The Zeus took her away to Crete and spawned several children. The act is the symbol that is widely used for the origin of Europe. Statues of Europa's rape by Zeus are all over Brussels the capital of the European Union, its euro coins and elsewhere.
The syncretic introduction of the pagan virgin birth myth came from the arch-heretic, Simon Magus. He said he was the product of a virgin birth of a woman called Rachel. He was denounced by the early Nazarenes. Simon Magus then fled to Rome.
Jerome and virgins
What was the origin of the BVM? A thousand years of Roman-based propaganda about a Blessed Virgin Mary was originally designed to cover-up a big problem threatening the future of the City of Rome. The Vestal Virgin cult maintained the pagan religion of Rome. Their continuation was deemed necessary to ensure the eternity of the city of Rome.
The Vestal Virgins were guardians charged with keeping alight a sacred flame symbolising Rome as an eternal city. So long as their bodies remained unpenetrated, the walls of Rome would remain intact.
Then came Christianity and diminished the supply of pagan virgins! Funds were cut off. Among the pagans in fourth century Rome, the authorities could no longer find virgins for the role. It did not help recruitment that any Vestal Virgin found to have had sex was to be entombed alive in a cell!
The problem came to a head in the time of the fourth century Jerome, secretary to the pagan-friendly bishop of Rome. Jerome was obsessed in finding a solution for the mythic continuation of the city of Rome. The city depended on it. If they died off, legend said, the city would fall.
Vestal Virgin with the sacred fire
The Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) became the substitute as the eternal virgin of the City. That cult was combined with the inherent violent antisemitism. Today that exists as a dialog of the deaf between Jews and Christians.
It surfused deeply into all the churches by force of arms and weekly propaganda. So deeply that anyone questioning this dogma about Mary's virginal conception as historical fact is shouted down as heretical. No reasoning necessary. One and a half millenniums of propaganda have ensured a solid following. Each generation became loyal propagators of distortion; the historic truth seems inconceivable.
First century facts, 'Jewish' facts, were rendered as repulsive as paganism would be to Orthodox Jews. Giving up long-cherished beliefs is a horrific idea. When challenged about error, the deceived grip more firmly to their bosoms the most outrageous mendacities because all their past generations were fooled. It would be like denouncing their ancestors for what? The truth and expulsion!
Only an honest re-appraisal of origins will reveal the truth. Start with the Gospels. What do Luke and Matthew actually say about blessed virgins? What would a Jew like Jesus understand by the term?
Jewish customs of marriage
Any lie will come unstuck when it does not conform to logic. The intervention of the Creator God is logical. To many, the passage of Luke raises a number of issues and conflicts of logic, all requiring explanation. Where does logic come unstuck? A close look makes utter nonsense of medieval myths. Take the question of Hebrew marriage versus Roman or modern 'engagement'.
According to Hebrew custom as described in the Mosaic laws and still valid today, 'betrothed' means they were married as understood today. In Luke 1:26 Mariam is betrothed, espoused, that is married, to Joseph before the angel visits her. The angel announces that she will become pregnant. Then according to one translation by a biblical scholar she says in v34: 'How can this be, since I have no husband?'
This is crazy. She has a husband! It is an obviously inaccurate English translation. Even if Joseph is understood as a fiancé, modern style, this is a crazy way to speak. She had a husband-to-be. What do other versions say?
The NIV has 'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?' It is no better. Nor is it a reflection of the Greek words. Surprising how translators make her say such nonsense!
The Greek actually says 'since I know not {my} man,' (present tense) that is, 'I am not having sexual relations with my husband.' That needs explanation but its clear. She is betrothed to a husband, fully married.
On the other hand, it makes no sense to take the verse in the modern sense of betrothal as 'engagement,' a pledge to marry. It is also wrong to translate it as 'engaged'. What do you get if it is? Crazy teenager doesn't know where babies come from even though she is either engaged or in reality married.
Why would a supposed young girl, engaged to be married, ask: 'How can I get pregnant because I have not known my husband?' Or how could it make sense if it is translated 'How can this be because I haven't been intimate (had sex) with my husband?' The simple answer -- a chorus of married couples would shout -- is: 'Make love together. Have intercourse with your husband!'
Jewish betrothal
The Jewish term 'betrothed' has nothing to do with western style 'engagement'. The NT is written in Greek but the customs are those of Jews, not Greeks. They are Hebrew and like those throughout the Hebrew scriptures. How did Israelites marry?
The Israelite system depended on a couple publicly pledging themselves to each other in a ceremony formally called 'sanctification' or kiddushin. Marriages were usually arranged by parents for their children when young. Once the young couple later confirmed that choice at an age of responsibility, that sealed them for life or, by allowance, until divorce.
The question should have puzzled many people from the gentile, supposedly logical, Greeks to modern supposedly 'scientific' commentators. Where are the explanations, where is the logical analysis, the commentaries of scholars, of what was in their sight the key doctrine of the virgin birth that founded their church? Luke's statement says that
- The couple were married but
- Mariam was considered a virgin.
- She was not having sexual relations with Joseph.
One contextual answer is that for reasons -- perhaps foreign to Gentile thought -- the married couple had not been intimate at this point. That requires elucidation.
Another reason would be that the term 'virgin' does not mean the same as it does to gentiles or in modern usage. Church leaders tend to treat such questions as heretical. In the past asking would have involved the enquirer in exclusion or economic or even lethal penalties. Praise God we live in freer times.
What does virgin mean in Hebrew thought as distinct from Romano-Greek or modern usage?
Many commentators are willing to admit that Elisheva was old, and therefore barren, but by the grace of God she was able to bear a child, John. He was a sign to all and recorded in history as a remarkable man.
But when it comes to Mariam, then a fighting fog descends on church folk and commentators. She could not possible be old, they assert. She could not possibly be so old that she would normally be unable to have a child. It is considered almost a personal affront, an insult even, to suggest that people should read the Bible and affirm it says she was old. Mariam could not possibly be the recipient of God's grace in this same way that Elisheva had God heal her womb.
What if Mariam's healed womb was an even greater sign to all than Elisheva's because she was even older? Was she as old as Sarah, Abraham's wife, who gave birth at 90 years?
Why do people acknowledge this for Elisheva yet believe Mariam a teenager so fervently, while there is no biblical source for this neo-pagan belief?
Hebrew virgins versus Greek virgins
Luke tells simply us that Mariam was also old. She was old like Elizabeth. The context also tells us this as it speaks of other old women like Anna the prophetess who was constantly in the Temple. She was 84 or more years old. She may have known Mariam all her life and would then have been a witness to confirm the old age of Mariam.
There is no hint that Mariam was a teenager. If she were, one would expect Luke, a doctor, to say so rather than only discussing aged women. Instead of a clueless teenager, he tells us both Mariam and Elisheva were in their old age and barren. Hence both registered shock at the two separate announcements. They were ashamed that they had not had children. Both said so individually. The word, barren, means that they were incapable of giving birth to children because they were past the time when fertilisation was possible.
If 'Mary' were a teenager there would be no miracle in having a child. She already had a husband.
De-Hellenize your mind
Has her real miracle anything to do with the way Hebrew labeled a woman a virgin?
Yes, most certainly. Most modern people understand 'virgin' as a girl or woman who has not had sex with a man. They think the Greeks understood it in the same way. But even that isn't clear. Virginal intactness or purity was not always its only meaning in ancient Greek secular literature. The Greek word for virgin, parthenos, is of unknown derivation, so that does not help us.
Have any commentators admitted that even their idea of what the Greek word parthenos means does not necessarily fit in with the dogma of the BVM? It sometimes means virgin in the modern sense and sometimes does not.
Modern commentators, who assume that the Greek word for virgin means that a girl had never had sex with a man, transfer this shaky interpretation to the NT. It helps shore up a medieval interpretation but cannot be taken as proof.
It is on the wrong track. The Greek use is not how the Bible describes virgin women. The approach is not a way to properly understand what the NT means. Anyone searching for the truth would know that it has to be taken in a Hebrew context, not a Greek or modern one.
Hebrew Virgins
Hebrew tradition readily explains how such terms as 'virgin' are to be understood in the context of the Temple and family life. As distinct from a purely sexual interpretation, whether inside marriage or outside it, the Israelites were told that what mattered in daily life and especially towards the Temple of God was their purity and cleanness. This involved both mind and body.
The Israelites were being prepared to understand that sin and breaking God's laws brings dire consequences of life and blood. They must all behave as if they were ready to renounce any action that involves disrespect of parents, lust, covetousness and murder. Their ultimate parent was God.
Purity was especially defined in relation to the Temple. Those who attended had to be of pure genealogy. Those who could not prove their parentage to ten inclusive generations were not allowed in. Many other conditions applied too before they could enter. Men could not enter if they had a bloody wound or a bandage. Blood was central to sacrifices for sin, both individually and on a cosmic scale. Men could not enter if they had had sexual intercourse earlier. They had to wash and wait till the next day at least, sometimes much longer. The women could not enter unless they were not absolutely free from menstrual blood.
That meant that premenstrual girls were considered pure and virginal. And married women were also considered pure only in the days between menstruations when no blood was seen. They had to wait several days after the flow stopped to be sure. Thus of itself sexual relations were not an absolute prohibition but required a rite of cleansing.
Jewish laws describe the matter in detail in the Torah and elsewhere. Pregnant women and lactating mothers did not have periods. They were also in a different category as the Talmud and Tosefta, tractates Niddah, describe. They are considered in some ways like virgins (bethulah). The latter two categories are definitively virgins: young premenstrual girls and post-menopausal old women. A third category is also mentioned.
Who is accounted a virgin (bethulah)? She that has never suffered a flow, even though she is married. Mishnah Niddah 1:4
What the NT says about Joseph as father
The statement in Matthew that Joseph did not have intercourse with the pregnant, married Mariam until after Jesus was born has been widely and sometimes wilfully misunderstood.
Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, Mt 1:25.
She was already pregnant at this point in time! This statement occurs after all the events mentioned and after the listing of Joseph's genealogical descent from David. That affirmation of Davidic descent is important to note. It starts in 1:18 by saying Mariam was married (betrothed) to Joseph.
The verses describe how and when Mariam conceived first. So what does it mean about not knowing her, not having relations?
Once a woman was pregnant it was forbidden for her husband to have intercourse with her. It would cast doubt on the purity of the child, and the couple. This is a common rule found in the literature of Jews and Nazarenes.
For observant Israelite and Nazarenes alike they were taught that intercourse was for procreation primarily and not for pleasure. It was to reproduce children faithful to their Creator God. He was the author of life; parents were merely the means for life to be expressed.
Without even referring to Matthew's Gospel, Peter explained this principle of life to Clement:
This kind of chastity is also to be observed, that sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children. (Recog 6:12).
Matthew clearly took it for granted that his readers understood this and the statement about not having intercourse with the pregnant Mariam was to discount any rumors of evil-minded critics that he had this as a motive for taking the heavily pregnant Mariam from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
What in fact does Matthew say after the genealogies? God through the Holy Spirit would revive Mariam's reproductive organs, just like Elizabeth. Zechariah begot John. An angel told Joseph in a dream that he was to become a father in spite of the facts of old age. What was he then to do? Guess!
First, logically Joseph did not want Mariam to come with him to Bethlehem. Thus he thought she should be put in a safe, unobtrusive accommodation rather than take a long, possibly dangerous, journey with him, 1:19. She, as an elderly pregnant woman, was already an object for the curious. A woman known to carry a Davidic heir was in grave danger of death, and being assassinated by Herod's thugs. He wished to hide her in a secret place.
Joseph her husband being a righteous (dikaios) man and not willing to expose her publicly, purposed to release (Greek apolusai) her unnoticed (Greek lathra in secret). (Greek)
Release her from what? Marriage? No. Release her from an obligation. Which one?
The previous verse explains that they had not yet come together (Greek sunelthein).
What does that mean? It is an almost obsolete form used by both Greeks and Jews to mean 'assemble in matrimonial celebration'. Parkhurst's lexicon notes that it includes 'the nuptial feast' and 'being solemnly brought to the husband's house.' That seems curious because the couple were already long married. They were. But Jewish custom included an additional community celebration, sometimes years after marriage.
It is described in Matt 25. This is called nisuin in Hebrew. It involves bringing the bride to the husband's hereditary home and the community celebrating for a number of days welcoming them. A couple may have been married abroad or in another tribal area.
The nisuin ceremony of home coming recognizes hereditary rights in the ancient family home among the tribe that was originally designated this territory from Mosaic times. In this case it establishes headship of Judah as royal tribe and hence all Israel. Thus the son would be undisputedly the rightful heir to the throne by the laws of Israel.
David's hereditary home was Bethlehem in Judea, Mt 2:6. Joseph and Mariam were living in Nazareth in the north, in the territory of other tribes, Zebulun and Naphtali, Mt 4:15, (where Jesus also later relocated). Joseph thought to release Mariam from any now dangerous obligation for this matrimonial and community wedding celebration.
Bethlehem was then largely uninhabited. Contrary to medieval fable of 'no room in the inn' there was no community in Bethlehem. It was desolate. Archaeology shows that no one lived there at this time. It was highly dangerous still. The only people anywhere near were shepherds.
In previous years Joseph could not take his bride to David's property in Bethlehem. Why? Because Herod, the Roman-installed king, had destroyed anything to do with a potential rival Jewish king of Israel. Now however Herod was requiring all claimants to register their property there using Roman law. That is the obvious reason why Joseph wanted his pregnant wife to steer clear of this lethal danger zone. Herod probably thought no one would be so foolhardy to claim Davidic descent.
The angel told Joseph in a dream: Don't fear to take your wife with you, v20.
Joseph did as the angel of the Eternal commanded him and took to him his wife NKJV.
The Greek word is parelaban from paralambanoo meaning receive in charge, take to one's self. It thus describes the exact obligation as nisuin, homecoming to David's property. In the Hebrew context it emphasises his responsibility to fulfill all the law and customs as understood from the angel's message and to rely on God's protection for his precious son. He fulfilled his duty as a husband, took care of Mariam on the journey so that the couple celebrated the Home-Coming on David's property. It was desolate except for shepherds. And the child was born in the royal family property, still in ruins. There was 'no place' for them in David's ruined property, a castle.
Then, after the circumcision of Jesus, the parents brought him to the Temple to make the customary sacrifice to God, 2:24. Neither Mariam, nor Joseph, nor Jesus would have been allowed inside the Temple if there was any funny business about a Greek-style virgin birth.
One important detail is often overlooked. They fulfilled all the law but did not offer the 5 shekels redemption money, Lev 27:6, the Pidyon haBen. All firstborn were the direct property of God and the money offering recognized this and bought back (redeemed) the child so it was part of the tribe. In the case of Jesus, it would have confirmed him as of the tribe of Judah. The lack of payment of the redemption money meant Jesus was dedicated to the Temple. He could be considered a levitical priest from his mother's line as well as his father's (who also had priestly lineage.) That meant also he passed the qualifying conditions to act as Aaronic Teacher-priest to instruct the priests inside the Temple.
What were the rules about Temple purity and how did the priesthood define virgins? A woman who had given birth would not be menstruating. She fitted one category.
Temple purity defines Virginity
When Hebrew writers refer to virgins they mean purity from blood in relation to the Temple. For women who had not yet had children like Mariam this involves several possibilities.
- A young girl who has never had a period;
- A woman who for some physical reason has not had a period;
- An older woman who is no longer menstruating.
In Jewish tradition, a post-menstrual woman is considered to be a virgin again.
The examples of Elisheva and Anna the prophetess are also directly mentioned by Luke.
And there was Anna a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, she was advanced in many days, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity. And she was a widow of 84 years. Luke 2:36-7
These two verses have caused great problem for English translators. There is a confusion of interpretations and probably none of them are correct. Why? Because they try to interpret the Greek text as if it referred either to a modern society or an ancient Greek one. But certainly not a Jewish one or in this case an Israelite one. There may be two factors that hamper a correct translation.
One is that it involves the Temple and no temple existed when the English translations were made. The Temple in Jerusalem involved elaborate ritual and regulation so that it remained pure to God's glory. Only pure people who fulfilled precise conditions of genealogy and physical perfection were allowed to enter. For example no blind or deaf were allowed in. Nor were any who were physically deformed. No one could enter if they had a cut and were bandaged. Why? Because of blood. This is nothing like a cathedral, an abbey or a church with which they were more familiar.
This brings us to the second consideration, women who have periods. Most of the translators (Catholic and Protestant) were men. They are not necessarily the best people to be experts in both the Temple rites (when many Jews were also ignorant after so many years without one) and the female laws concerning the menstrual cycle and the Temple. The Christian translators weren't Jewish and maybe any Jewish friends if they had any were not able to advise them. Jews had their own ideas about priests (Levites/ Sadducees). They fell back on what they considered normal western understanding that was divorced from the Temple, priestly purity and biological matters.
Anna, an aged virgin in the Temple
How should we analyze the verses in a Hebrew sense? Luke is in fact giving the modern world, gentile or not, all the clues to correctly understand the meaning of verses. Think like a priestly guard of the Temple, not like a pagan!
Firstly the context. Previously Luke has spoken of two aged women. Luke then refers to another aged women of a different tribe. He gives her age as 84 years. So now we know what Luke means that the two previously mentioned women, Elisheva and Mariam, when he says they were in their old age, in their gera. He is saying that both Elisheva and Mariam were in the same age group, such as their eighties.
We as modern people would agree they were so old they were far beyond the age of normally becoming pregnant. They were in their menopause.
Secondly, what does Luke mean by virginity?
Some translators have tried to interpret this word to mean the opposite of what it actually says: they say from her virginity means 'since her marriage'. She was in her eighties! Marriage is usually the end of virginity! A pure girl is considered a virgin for so many years before she is married. Check the other translations and see how many give a literal version and how many try and re-interpret the verse and change its literal meaning. Virginity here does not mean marriage.
What we know about Anna the prophetess is that:
- she was married,
- in her eighties,
- a virgin and
- did not, it seems, have children (at least none are mentioned.)
Does it mean after she lost her virginity or something else like gaining it again?
Thirdly, the context of all three women is the Temple. That is highly significant. Most if not all the interpreters ignore this because it gives them free rein to twist the meaning. Why is it important? Because no woman is allowed into the Court of Women in the Temple unless it was absolutely certain they carried no blood impurity. The normal procedure was for no woman to enter the Temple while she was in her period and for several days afterwards. She must have bathed and been certified as purified from blood.
The laws of Niddah in the Hebrew Bible Lev 18 describe how purity fit for the Temple and marriage is to be carried out.
What did Jews outside Israel in the wider Greek-speaking world understand by virgin? Did Jews in Greek synagogues understand the word parthenos to mean only a young pre-adolescent girl?
Paul describes virgin marriage at Corinth
Contrary to promiscuous Greek and Roman culture, sex for the faithful Hebrews was seen primarily for generating offspring in a faithful couple. A question that arises from the biblical view of the purpose of sexual relations is: should the couple have sex if the woman for example appears to be irrevocably infertile? The example of Anna in the Temple is that she lived with a husband for a number of years after she reached her second virginity. Hope for children was a primordial duty, regardless of the externals.
Abraham and Sarah were in their nineties yet they had faith and had sexual relations so that they could conceive Isaac. Thus sex in old age became a question of faith. What about Jews in the Diaspora at the time of the Apostles? How should gentile converts behave?
Among the diaspora Jews the understanding that an aged woman entered her second virginity with the menopause was taken for granted. They held this belief even though their Greek-speaking neighbors who were gentiles may have understood parthenos, the term for 'virgin', differently in their culture.
A term can be used with different meanings by two different cultures living in the same society. Today among some Christians the word Sabbath may mean Sunday -- that was more the case in Victorian times. The Jews living in Victorian England understood it differently. Nowadays most people understand Sabbath to be the seventh day of the week, Saturday, in common with the Jews. They follow biblical use. Words like heaven and star mean different things to different people and in different contexts, such as astronomy or pop music.
In Greece, Jews and Nazarenes who followed the apostles followed Jewish understanding of Greek words. Take for example the city of Corinth which was a very Greek city but where a minority there were also a lively group of believers in Christ. It was also known empire-wide for its sexual promiscuity as the center of temple prostitution of Aphrodite/ Diana. The goddess of virgins and virginity had a thousand prostitutes dedicated to her cult.
Did Paul agree with Greeks or with Hebrews? Paul confirms that post-menstrual women were considered virgins. He refers to the elder women who helped out in the ekklesia as virgins. In 1 Cor 7:36.
If any man think that he behaves (is behaving) himself uncomely towards his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will: let them marry.
It is clear that the virgin is menopausal -- she has passed the flower of her age. She can no longer expect to give birth to children. However, in Corinth, in Sex-City, it was prudent to marry where possible. For Jews, children are the main purpose of marriage but in this case the couple can and maybe should marry if the circumstances were difficult or dangerous to remain single. In Corinth a single woman might be forced to become a temple prostitute as in Cyprus.
Philo of Egypt describes virgins
In the first century Philo was a leader of the large Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt. He was considered a very scholarly man and wrote many books on Greek philosophy and expositions of Bible for Jews and non-Jews.
In his book, The Posterity and Exile of Cain, 134, he describes how Sarah begot and gave birth while she was considered a virgin. She was in her old age, in her ninetieth year, when she overheard the messenger say she should have a child. To make sure we understand scripture cites Gen18:11:
Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself saying: After I am old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
Philo comments:
Among the virtues some are ever virgin. Some pass from womanhood to virginity, as Sarah did: for 'it ceased to be with her after the manner of women.'
Thus Philo explains for the Jews in Egypt and his readers around the Roman Empire a woman reached her second virginity after menopause.
Second Virginity and the Resurrection
Sarah was not the only woman in Hebrew history that conceived in her old age. Hannah the mother of Samuel the prophet was also old. (Hannah is the same name as the NT Greek Anna mentioned in Luke.)
Rachel, the wife of Jacob, was also old before she conceived Joseph. So was Rebekah, the wife of Isaac and some other women too.
What is the message? It appears that God is saying: who else can produce life from a woman who is considered dead to having children? Who can create sons from old-aged couples who are nearer the grave than the normal age of parenthood?
It also sets out a challenge to unbelievers. Try this trick! Show how -- without fancy surgery -- you can have children in old age when no other couples in the world can! Further, these specific couples who have children are blessed because they are faithful to the Living God and prayed to follow his wishes.
Upon a number of these miracles and their offspring, God will build his plan for the salvation of the world. Follow that line of faith and you will be on the right track.
God will show how to bring life from the dead.
What the Greeks did not want to know
Pagan priests could be of any race. They could marry whom they wished or be celibate. They could control the population with their rites and edicts. The imperial Roman church absorbed such pagans like ink on blotting paper. It was policy.
Constantine and others wanted to have a single Roman religion with subservient priests. Popes converted pagan temples into churches and sanctified them as part of the new order. Some of the former pagan priests 'converted' to become 'Christian' priests. Doctrines were modified to make them so flexible that the newly absorbed pagan priests could use double-speak, saying one thing for the 'Christians' while it reflected old syncretic paganism in the symbolisms.
This was the opposite of how the Temple priests in Jerusalem were to conduct themselves. They were a genealogical clan. The priests of Israel were told that they had to marry according to the Mosaic code. It was stricter than that of other Israelites. The other eleven tribes could marry non-Israelite converts. The men of the priestly family had to chose a wife of good Israelite pedigree. For good reasons, they could not marry a gentile girl, even if she apparently converted and was very pious. She might deceive and commit adultery. Their wife had to be 'pure' meaning more than she had not had sex with another man. For priests virginity for marriage also involved proof of her pure genealogy as well as their own.
Children of the priestly line were generally matched for marriage while they were very young by both sets of parents. This way both sets of parents were sure of the doctrinal beliefs of each other's family and its traditions. This future arrangement would be confirmed by the two young people at an age when they could make sensible decisions -- around 13 for the young man. They were then considered married for life. But they did not live together until they were more mature.
There were other conditions. If the boy decided to turn down the young girl at this stage, then not only did they not marry but she was deemed unfit to marry into another priestly family. His refusal was considered sufficient to reflect on her unsuitability for any other priestly marriage. The suspicion of intercourse was sufficient to deny her marriage to a priest.
The Roman church priesthood forbade marriage and its indoctrination turned pure principles upside down.
Antisemitism of the Christian church
Absorbing so many pagans into the imperial Roman church had a major effect. The gentile church in the early centuries retained the intense antisemitism of the Roman Empire that had destroyed the Temple and tried to eliminate all things Jewish and priestly. Around the time of Jerome in the fourth and fifth century, any sympathy with or even study of Jewish concepts of purity and the Temple was considered grounds for Christian excommunication and expulsion. That's how far removed they were from biblical Christianity. They were its absolute enemies!
This is a creed of the time from Constantinople, the headquarters of the church.
'I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with the Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi (leprosy) cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.'(Wikipedia: Nazarene)
Why did the Roman church take such an extreme antisemitic attitude? Why purge its members of anyone with knowledge of the Bible, the Temple and what they called Jewish practice? After all Jesus was a Jew and laid down precepts about how believers should keep the teachings of Moses and the Hebrew prophets. Jesus was often inside the Temple. He passed all the strict entrance requirements of genealogical purity. He taught high priests and lawyers inside the Temple. The Temple was fundamental to early worship. The early disciples and apostles were constantly there praising God in the Temple, Luke 24:53.
Rome had destroyed the Temple. The Roman authorities in charge of religion did not want anyone reminding the public of these brutal facts. Roman soldiers nailed Jesus to the cross. Jesus denounced the false and impure priesthood. The Apostle John as a priest was able to enter the palace of the high priest to witness the trial of Jesus. James, the brother of Jesus, officiated in the Holy Place of the Temple, according to the unanimous voice of early authors, a fact so undeniable it was also recorded by Jerome.
So Rome invented another Jesus who had nothing to do with the Temple. In fact this Jesus denounced the Temple and all Jews. This process of disinformation took several centuries to fully indoctrinate all their congregations. It defined Roman 'Christianity' for more than a millennium. It erected a pope with massive religious and political powers over peoples and kingdoms from the time of Constantine until people could eventually read the Bible in their own language.
Those who want to understand the real Jesus, a Jew in a Jewish and Temple context, should also understand that John the Baptist was also born of a virgin according to the Hebrew scriptures.
John the Baptist, Rabbi
Rome also invented another John the Baptist. Protestants also invented their own version that was different in that he did not sprinkle with water but plunged his followers into a mikvah bath of water or a river.
What does Jewish history say about John the Baptist, real history, not Roman history? He is an important personality who opposed the Herodian family. He cannot be dismissed as just a biblical figure. Josephus devotes a powerful passage about him.
It may come as a shock to many churchgoers (as it was to me) when they first read about John the Baptist as an opponent to the Herods in Josephus. No one taught that when I was young. Baptists were just a Christian denomination. But John was known as John the Baptist in the books of Josephus who wrote in the first century. It was not just invented in the Reformation period.
Why was he so prominent? First the remarkable birth. That was something that got people's attention. Then he disappeared from the land aof Israel until he reappeared at the river Jordan to baptize returning exiles from Parthia and other places.
The NT says indisputably that his mother, Elisheva/ Elizabeth was old and barren when it was announced to Zachariah her husband that they would have a child. We saw that Elisheva was directly descended from Aaron although her husband was not. The high priests at the time put in charge by the Romans did not have this direct Aaronic lineage.
It was well known that Elisheva was a daughter of the Aaronic line but she was safe because specific genealogical records were kept in the Temple. They were essential for determining the right of claimants to be priests or even enter the Temple.
Why was Aaronic descent so important? Herod only wanted to kill Aaronic high priests. They had greater moral authority than he had. They were religious leaders and teachers. Some of the earlier high priests were called ethnarchs -- leaders of the people. Some had even been crowned king.
So the Roman authorities and Herod were confronted by two highly disturbing facts at the appearance of John at the Jordan.
- They knew he was a legitimate descendant of Aaron.
- More startling to many was the fact that his mother had conceived and given birth to him in her old age. That was a miraculous sign. John was born of a virgin birth as much as Isaac was born of Sarah and Abraham when they were in their nineties.
High Priest John the Baptist
What proof do we have from the New Testament and other contemporary writings?
The NT only classifies two men who can legitimately be called Rabbi. One is John the Baptist and the other is Jesus. Contrary to what many assume, the term rabbi was never used in the first century as the title of the head of a synagogue. That was a later misuse of the term from long after the destruction of the Temple. The first non-biblical use of the term rabbi appears centuries later in Talmudic literature and it means scholar.
The New Testament has the first recorded use of the term rabbi. In the first century the gospels show that others were falsely calling each other Rabbi. Were they authentic? They called aloud in the streets, not in the synagogues or the Temple, Matt 23. Shouting to some sectarian friend, Rabbi, Rabbi, caused confusion. In Hebrew in meant My Master or my teacher but in Aramaic, the language of the streets, it meant Anointed One!
They were fraudsters. None of the Sadducees, lawyers or high priests were anointed. The Talmud admits that. Anointing required first of all authentication of priestly genealogy by a priestly clan designated to do this work from the time of Moses.
If the rabbis did not run the synagogues, what did they do? John was genuine Aaronic priest. His office of high priesthood is not mentioned directly in the NT. But it is recorded in other contemporary writings. The Gospels do not go into great detail about his confrontation with the unanointed high priests who fraudulently claimed the office. But other works do.
One Hebrew version of Josephus is called the Yosippon. It was the most popular version of Josephus before the longer version was published in the late seventeenth century. It described John the Baptist thus:
Rabbi John the Baptist High Priest.
High Priest. Who wrote these words? Josephus writing in Hebrew or another person? The author's name, Josephus ben Gorion, appears to be the priestly name of Josephus as his father is called Gorion.
Thus we have confirmation that John the Baptist was considered the High Priest. But is it a forgery? Who wrote it? It seems unlikely that it was written either by a non-Christian Jew or a Christian who wanted to separate his religion from Judaism.
Why would a Jew who was a non-Christian, non-Nazarene describe John as a High Priest? Why would a Jew describe him as a rabbi? Why would a Jew mention John the Baptist at all?
If it was written by a Christian, why would he call John the Baptist a High Priest? That is something that the NT does not say specifically. Later Roman 'Christians' would immediately reject the book as a fraud because it draws the whole religion into Temple worship.
For those who detect its authenticity, it is confirmed by what the NT says implicitly but not openly. It is implied by the text and the context of John's authority over the Jerusalem establishment. It explains many aspects of John's interactions with the Herods in the NT and Josephus. It is clear to anyone who understands Hebrew law that John had hereditary rights to the high priesthood..
The clues in the NT are quite concise but definite. It is stated in a book that many Christians read all the time but fail to fully understand. That is the Gospel of Luke! In chapter 1:5. John is described as the offspring of Zachariah but also of Elisheva, who was of the daughters of Aaron. That meant that her grandfather was a direct descendant of Aaron. Her son had Aaronic blood.
It is quite natural for anyone who follows the priestly law to expect that John would be called High Priest. He had more right to be called High Priest than Annas or Caiaphas.
God gave the public an extra sign.
John the Baptist was born of a virgin.
