Of all the hundreds of variations in Biblical content, there is one glaring mistranslation that has had the most profound effect on the most people over the longest period of time. This is the meaning of the Greek word "parthenos".
In both the ancient and modern language, this word means "maiden", or "unmarried girl". It does not specifically mean "virgin". Although common mores would probably lead to an expectation of chastity in a nubile girl, there was no guarantee then, anymore than there is now, that a young woman would retain her virginity until marriage.
So we see that the whole story of the ghostly insemination of Mary, leading to the "virgin" birth of Jesus, is based on nothing more than one translator's interpretation of the Latin, then English, word for "parthenos". The original text simply referred to Mary as "an unmarried girl", which she was at the time, although apparently sleeping with Joseph, or maybe some other horny village kid.
Don't you find it incredible that two billion people base an entire belief system, and in some cases, their whole lives, on this one little hiccup? A universal mythos has been built on it, millions of people have been slaughtered because of it, trillions of dollars have been made on it, virtually every aspect of every life on the planet has been affected by it. And all because a couple of kids in a Jewish community called Nazareth decided to have a little premarital roll in the hay.
If the truth be told, I think this would be it: After some sneaky shtupping in the fields, Mary found herself thoroughly knocked up. Knowing that no nice Jewish girl could remain in the village in that condition, without suffering severe shame and probable banishment, the couple decided to cut their losses and arranged for a hasty elopement, sans rabbi, chupah or hora-dancing.
They wandered the countryside, hitching rides and taking odd jobs for food until Mary went into labor when they arrived at Bethlehem. They tried to check into the Best Mideastern Inn, but because they weren't married, the tightass desk clerk refused them a room and they were forced to bed down out in the stable, where Mary gave birth to a boy. Nobody knows how long she was in labor, nor who actually delivered the baby; however, if we believe the Genesis story, one has to wonder, in light of God's curse upon Eve that "in pain shall ye bring forth children" how many hours of kvetching the poor kid had to endure before delivering a son.
After the birth, the couple finally legalized their union, but realized that as soon as they got home, people would start counting on their fingers, so they needed to devise a good cover story.
They did this by enlisting the aid of the local Mensa chapter, comprised of a group of well-educated mystics called "Magi" (add a "c" for a fuller picture of their talents).
Current translations say there were three of them, but there might have been as many as twelve. Whatever their number, they concocted a story so outrageous, it was impossible to refute. They threw the new parents a baby shower (myrrh, gold and incense, but no Diaper Genie). Then, to add veracity to their tale, they launched an amazing PR campaign to fill in the details. They chronicled a new star in the East, broadcast a story of a girl giving birth without having had sex, and declared that the baby must surely be the son of God, because who else could be born from an unfertilized egg?
The fact is, if the ovum actually did start to split without benefit of a spermatozoon poke, as in the experiment performed on frog eggs in every Bio 101 class, the resulting offspring would have been female, lacking a Y chromosome. So, either Jesus was a girl, or those Magi dudes were superb spin doctors.
In any case, the story spread, was told and retold so many times it became "truth". (We all know how that happens...see "Hitler, A" and "Bush, G.W.). And here we are, some 2000 years later, still telling and believing it, still shedding blood over it, still capitalizing on it, still swallowing a completely irrational premise based on an unknown writer's editorial error. Now, don't you feel silly?
Ho Ho Ho.


Comments: 246
One of the best articles I have seen on gather- but then blasphemy is always near and dear to my heart.
Two things;
In the days of (ancient) yore, Greek girls were ravished as soon as they became pubescent. It was expected and done, particularly with those 'chosen' ones who were schooled at the same sites as their young male counterparts, equally as 'chosen' - does that not ring 'Arian' bells?
The Eastern star at the specified period, not midwinter as we know, that timing is superimposed upon a pagan festival (another blog there for you Ruth) has been, as I recall, located in astronomical history to about September of AD
I love your rendering of a human story. If diapers had been invented then, with all the stuff that goes into manufacturing them, the rest of the shower wouldn't have been needed. G,F & M would have been peanuts to M & J, together with whatever else they would have gained for the globalised sales. Can you imagine the merchant sailing ships casting off, selling their diaper wares around the Mediterranean with ease. Pirating would have taken on new meaning. (I wonder what Johnny Dep would have done with a booty full of diapers; he'd have had real difficulty putting safely into port to sell them, he would have stood out like a sore bum/butt!)
Stevo, recent research shows that spin doctoring goes back to the Big Bang, when gravity was invented to control rampant spinning.
Amelie, always nice to meet another sceptic.
Andy, if you think this is interesting, wait till you read my take on...well, everything. I'm positively bursting with "interesting". Just ask Sandy.
I suspect you will get some vehement responses from the 'other' side, but that will not for a moment negate the brilliance of this piece! And I am not tushiemunching or syco-panting. Truly.
Great point, Joan - and people think Scientology is weird??
There ya go...
__________________________________________________
Any resemblance to similar posts, past or future, is completely coincidental. Management is not responsible. For anything.
Great piece, by the way.
A little weak scholarship to support it: The Gospels were written roughly forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They depict the life of Jesus as having fulfilled ancient prophesies. Believers accept that they depict this because it was the case. The rest of us assume that it was a clever spin job.
Donna: my deep apologies for overlooking your cogent comment. Here's a belated {{{smooch}}}}
Joanne: I'm sorry to have caused such disillusion, but you're old enough to know the truth. By the way, you do know about Santa Claus, right?
Parke: I didn't make this up. There is documentation by the book-ful (in fact, the Discovery Channel did an entire program on this topic awhile back). If you're really interested in my sources, try doing a little research of your own. I've been there and done that, and don't have the patience or desire to revisit those particular areas.
Bongo: This may help answer some of your questions (although it doesn't explain P&TM): http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66
Sandy: If someone can tell me how to download a picture to a comment box, I have found several that will also address Janet's comment.
Janet: If this factoid is correct, I think you need to inform every museum that displays paintings of the NEWBORN Jesus being adored by the Magi, every nativity play that uses an infant to portray him and everyone whose creche features a baby doll surrounded by three kings that they are WRONG! By the way, do you happen to have the address of that house? I'm sure it would be of great interest to historians.
Well, Dame Ruth, I'm a little stunned by that. I wasn't accusing you of making things up (I said I was playing "devil's advocate"), but I would have hoped that "Sacriligeous but Factual" included some actual... well... facts.
Good luck convincing folks to abandon 2,000 years of religious tradition based on a half-remembered Discovery Channel show, however. If nothing else, I admire your chutzpah.
Pluuuuus many of the tales attributed to JC were actually stolen from earlier fables. IE the whole resurection tale happened to some Egyptian king or other waaaay before Joseph and Mary were even sparks in their parent's eyes...
But as Dame has said: It is all out there and rather easy to find should you iwsh to know.
Nicely done!
Lori,
> And Biff. We need a picture of Christ's Childhood Pal too, yanno.
Absolutely! I figure he looks a lot like Ben Stiller.
They don't go to heaven where the angels fly
Go to a lake of fire and fry
Don't see them again 'till the Fourth of July
{Lake of fire by Nirvana
--Originally by The Meat Puppets}
Now I'll go read the article. After I spell-check my comment 20X.
'Twas a good article, Ruth. Pretty much sums up my reaction to the whole virgin birth thing. When I was pregnant, no one wanted to hear my stories about how I was a virgin; I don't know why anyone would believe Mary...
Ruth, you're a Jewish Atheist. You can't threaten me with xmas!
(Boy am I screwed if I'm wrong and they're right.)
Charles - Quit trying to get us back on topic. It's just soooo annoying. Jesus-Christ, man!
If that's not a transdenominational lesson for the ages, I don't know what is. Virginity, forsooth.
LOL R. Scott...wootage! on best comment EVER..as far as we know..
WOW! Stunning article!
Wow...
(I am starry-eyed... Can I be your Lady-in-waiting or whatever it is you need to hold your train and your hanky?)
.
The statue of Moses in the vatican (seated and holding the stone tablets) has horns growing up out of his forehead.
For two hundred years a mistanslation of 'horns of light came forth from his brow' had existed. So Michaelangelo (I think it was) carved the Moses he knew from the Bible.
Today's modern versions translated this as 'beams of light came forth from his brow.'
But maybe it was horns?
For DeMill and Heston it was streaks of white hair.
To Parke: If you want scholarly evidence you might want to check out the writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong. He wrote about Mary in the Gospel —
Paul, writing between 50-64, never mentions the Virgin. Jesus' birth was quite normal, he says, adding he "was born of a woman, born under the law;" that he had a brother named James; and was descended from King David "according to the flesh."
In Mark, the first gospel, the mother of Jesus is referred to only once and that by a stranger who shouts: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?" Mark also portrays the mother of Jesus as believing him to be "beside himself," or out of his mind, so she goes to take him away.
Mary does not become a virgin until Matthew writes, and she appears to cease being one when John writes. Yet in history she becomes not just a virgin mother, but a perpetual virgin, a postpartum virgin, one who is immaculately conceived and bodily assumed into heaven. No vision is ever seen of the Mary of the New Testament, it is always the Mary of Christian tradition. When this is augmented by the fact that no non-believer as well as no Buddhist or Muslim ever sees the Virgin, subjectivity is obvious.
Mary is the "church's later portrait, drawn from developed cultural imagination".
.
You may now return to hole and tushie munching. I promise I won't interrupt again.
Ruth, glad to see you're still standing
Great article and comments.
I have to go watch Deal or No Deal, Australian style now...
My rebuttal: Mother's aren't God.
This is fun. :D
I hope Parke comes back to see Pearl's comment, which was facinating. It makes me want to read something from a Bishop, which would be a virgin experience for me.
I'm going to give you until the count of three to take that back.
Remember now. I'm playing DA, here.
If I weren't so tired, I'd smote you. Smite you? Mama go nie nies now.
But I'm a sports model, so no embryos for me.