The lines of arguments raised by scholars that makes the claims of the birth of Jesus a myth

The birth of Jesus remains one of the most contested issues among biblical scholars. The reason is that the illogicalities and lines of arguments from literature make it hard for them to come to agreement with one reality about the fate. It is therefore a tag of thoughts where arguments are raised concerning the celebrated birth of Jesus to be mythical than factual or historical. The purpose of this work is to discuss the lines of arguments raised by scholars that makes the claims of the birth of Jesus a myth.

A definition of the word myth by Konopka (2015) is that it is something conditioned and negotiated by the agency of language; it is, in fact the product of basic shortcoming, an inherent weakness of language. It is only a linguistic attempt to characterize the world that ultimately fails to be characterized in words. The bible is full of myths as Genesis chapter 1-11 forms a great legendary of the Jewish tradition. Those legends have significant meaning to Jewish culture and tradition and how they interpret the world around them. The birth of Jesus is argued to be part of the many mythologies that are found in the Bible.

Christians celebrate 25 December as the birth of Jesus and it is celebrated as something that literary happened. Challenging this assertion, Cummingham (2013) magnify the claim that Jesus was “conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary” and further postulates that the claim is an attempt to express the child’s extraordinary relationship to God. Supporting the view is Mohoney (2012) when adding that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary. In his argument, William denotes that the birth of Jesus is a “mystery of Christ virgin birth”. The above scholars tally with each other by pointing out the controversy of a virgin birth.

To fuel the above argument concerning the myth of Christmas, Craig (2016) refute the Holy Spirit conception by linking Panthera the Roman soldier with Jesus’ birth. Considering the fact that Rome was in control of Israel, there is a possibility of forceful intercourse by the authoritarian to the subject, after realizing that she is pregnant, and yet engaged to marry Joseph, she was facing great shame. If it is the situation, then we might say Jesus was born and assumed the “adoption” to be Joseph’s son, but scholars refute the existence of the figure by stating that there is no reliable ancient evidence about the historical existence of Jesus (Craig, 2016). There is scarcity of primary sources evidence in the affirmative and there is little that recommend Jesus as a genuine historical person.

The birth story of Jesus was influenced by the ancient tradition of magnifying the births of great men (Crabtree, 2014). Such accounts were readily accepted in an age of superstition and belief in miracles. Craig (2016) talks about Yeshus meaning Jesus that Rabbis cite in Talmud and a number of them like Yeshu ben Stada of the second century BCE. Considering the fact that the gospel traditions were written later after the death of Jesus according to scholars, we can expect more editing that is influenced by adherents to religion and ideologies and beliefs of those writers as to what they wanted to portray about Jesus.

The infancy narrative by the gospel tradition contradict the evidence about Jesus. Matthew talks about the massacre of infants by the Romans who felt threatened by the child’s birth. Contrary to Matthew, Luke is gentle and even softer when narrating the story of Jesus’ infancy (Parini, 2015). He does not mention any massacre of innocent children. This then shows that their story is a person’s own creation not a reality that ever happened. Such a gruesome event should have been kept in the archives but scholars argue that there is np historical basis of this event. This then give the sense of doubt as to whether it happened or there was nothing like a child who was born at all.

There is also an argument about the virgin birth narrative as later editions and not part of the original texts (Racy, 2008). The scholar further argues that descent was not traced through the female line in the Jewish law and custom of that time, Jesus was not Joseph’s son as the gospels all claim. Here, we have to employ the scientific understanding of the reality. There is no way the society was going to accept the child of this nature considering the density of patriarchy that rested upon the Jewish community during this era. We expect the worse to have happened to this couple but the pen of the authors makes us to see angels convincing Joseph to accept the marriage. The story here become a bit of a movie and the impossible made possible; the pregnancy by the divine is a controversy at its best when scholars use the scientific reasoning to the matter.

To soften and bring more light to the argument, Boyle and McKay (2016) similarize the birth of Jesus to the Santa Claus myth. It is mostly used for young kids for moral teachings. After all, it is a white lie. A white lie is told to protect someone from being hurt and is qualified to be good for them. The scholars argue that if the Santa myth is used for kids, why do we doubt the use of Jesus myth for adults. The line of argument is that the birth of Jesus is a white lie. It has good moral lessons and is used to portray many massages so it cannot be discarded and ignored.

 

Scholars have many reasons to argue their stand that the birth of Jesus is myth. The mystery birth of Jesus, the influence of ancient tradition, the Matthean and Lukan narrative contradiction about the infancy stories of Jesus and the scientific understanding of virgin birth are their major lines of arguments that challenges the birth of Jesus and arguing it to be just a myth than a reality and an event without historical basis. This is echoed by Crabtree (2014) that the stories about Jesus's birth in the Bible are contained in the Books of Matthew and Luke. These two accounts contradict each other in many places. Many elements are certainly untrue. There are no Roman records attesting to the birth (or life) of Jesus₁. Events such as King Herod's killing of every male child simply did not occur

The doctrine of the virgin birth is intricately woven within the texture of the liturgy, theology and piety of all branches of the Christian Church. In spite of its enduring influence, the doctrine has been dogged by criticism, particularly in the modern era. By the 20th century, the teaching of the virgin birth was rejected by the majority of Protestant theologians in Europe (Resch, 2016). The contradiction about birth stories in the synoptic gospels, the nature of the historicity of the virgin birth and claims from scholars about the rape of Mary by a Roman soldier compromise the Christian claims of the virgin birth. 

 

REFERENCES

Boyle, C. and McKay, K. (2016). A wonderful lie. Vol.3. UK: University of Exeter.

Crabtree, V. (2014). The Birth of Jesus and the Christmas Story Pagan and Unhistorical. Accessed date: 05 December 2018 http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_birthnarrative.html

Craig, M. (2016). The Christ Myth: if Jesus did not exist, would Christianity survive?

Cunningham, D.S. (2003). “Explicating those ‘troublesome’ texts of the creeds: the promise of realistic fiction,” Dialog. vol. 42, no. 2. P, 111-119.

Konopka, P. (2015). How do we represent the world we live in?

Mahoney, W.F.E. (2012). Contemporary Controversies Surrounding the Virgin Birth of Christ.

Parini, J. (2015). Writing Jesus: Issues and Challenges in the telling the Christ Story. Baylor: Baylor University.

Resch, D. (2016). Barth’s Interpretation of the Virgin Birth. A sign of Mystery. London: Routledge

Publisher: Bongani Mhlanga. Religious Studies Student at the University of Eswatini