Hi folks
I was going through some old things recently and came across photocopied pages I had forgotten existed. They are scans of selected pages from the book Who Was Jesus?, by Don Cupitt, published in the 70s. I've checked on Amazon and it now seems to be out of print.
The pages in question discuss certain inconsistencies in the Gospel records, and attempt to explain to the layperson the process by which higher critics work to establish which biblical accounts were likely accurate and which were probably embellished.
I was given the scans years ago when I was calling on a scholarly man, a writer of university publications. He was an evolution enthusiast, but expressed intrigue concerning religious belief. I think he viewed me as an interesting guinea pig who could offer the other side of the argument. Needless to say our conversations rarely went anywhere, but he did say a few things that always stayed with me and kept the embers of my doubts alive. I'm sure I learnt more from him than he learnt from me, though he probably doesn't realize this.
On one occasion he grilled me on the "nativity" account, especially the part where Mary conceives as a virgin. Perhaps it would be best to actually type out what it says in the pages he gave me from Who Was Jesus, so here goes (this is from page 46, my comments in bold italics]...
So it looks like we may have to do without Bethlehem, the star and the three Kings. But the issue of the Virgin Birth raises much more important questions - especially for Roman Catholics. Here again our first principle should make us wary - suspect an Old Testament parallel. [He's referring to the fact that critics are automatically suspicious of accounts in Jesus' life that mirror exactly what is contained in the Hebrew Scriptures.] What Matthew wrote was: 'All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel".' [Matt 1:23 in NWT: “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im·man′u·el,”] Matthew took this quotation of the prophet Isaiah from his Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint:
Behold a parthenos shall conceive...
Here the word parthenos certainly means a virgin. But if Matthew had gone back to the original Hebrew in which Isaiah wrote, he would have found that this word was almah, which means simply 'a young woman.' Hebrew has a word for virgin, bethulah, but Isaiah chose not to use it. He was predicting a perfectly natural birth. There is no idea of virgin birth in Isaiah's original prophecy. [Isaiah 7:14 in NWT: "Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son,"] Matthew can only use it as a proof text because of this mistranslation from Hebrew into Greek. It remains just possible that Matthew inherited an independent tradition of the Virgin Birth, which he thought he could support with Isaiah's prophecy. But historically it seems more likely that the whole idea arose simply from this mistranslation.
I remember being dumbfounded by this when it was shown to me, but like many other things I was able to dismiss it all with lashings of cognitive dissonance.
Now I have unearthed this material with a more open mind, it does seem plausible that the whole idea of Mary being impregnated directly by Holy Spirit arose through a simple mistranslation, hence raising serious questions about just how inspired everything in the Gospels truly is.
By the way, I don't want to dent anyone's bible faith with this information. I just think it's good to share and debate this kind of material, which was hidden from us within the organization.
Cedars