Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[abaddon]

This does not refute anything I or anyone else has said on this topic.

Please desist from repeating it.



Except for this guy and his fans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733


So, what are we to call these people who arrive on forums and start chanting this mantra about "no evidence" and "Jesus was a myth"?

I'm all ears...

Dunno. I have no issue with the existence of one or more vociferous crackpots in the biblical revolutionary Palestine. They may or may not have existed, but probably did. Did the Romans kill one or more of their number? Most likely.

Where does that leave us?

Some vocal revolutionaries put their heads above the parapet sufficiently to have the Romans come down hard. Afterwards, some unidentified authors merged them into a mythical creature. Decades after. Paul had a hissy fit and made up a whole religion, if even.

It seems to me that the existence of such radicals at the time is obvious, Masada being a case in point. Still, all that is left is "so what?"

 

[maximara]

Wow, that is some article; I will need a few days to digest. I notice Doherty refers to the 'great divide between mythicism and historicism' - that is quite a claim. You would think that a great divide would leave behind lots of debris and arguments and general bad temper - so, presumably lots of evidence? Hmm. But maybe the winners (the historicists) erased it all, eh?

Already, my parsimony-meter is beginning to creak and groan.

I have real issues with Doherty ignoring the concept of historical myth which is "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical." (Remsburg (1909))

Not everybody in the "mythist" camp throws the baby (Jesus) out with the bath water (Gospel account).


Many of the classic mythers were actually stating that the Gospel account no more lead back to an actual Jesus then the accounts of Robin Hood or King Arthur led directly back to the people that inspired the core of those stories.


As Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall stated you could have a "historical Jesus" who was a real person as opposed to a totally fictional creation like King Lear or Doctor Who but (and this is the important part) but whose story is an series of unverifiable legends such as those surrounding King Arthur. (Marshall, Ian Howard. (2004) I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing p. 27-29.)


This is why I quote Remsburg so much because he said basically the same thing Marshall did: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Remsburg's argument was NEVER that a flesh and blood Jesus didn't exist but that the Gospel accounts do not lead back to such a man. "That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written."

Price's argument is the same: "My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

If you go far enough you can say the same thing about Robin Hood and King Arthur even though they are in the historical myth camp--the bast we can do is say there are flesh and blood men behind those myths...and nothing else. The "real historical" Robin Hood and King Arthur have been lost to us ie using their stories to try and find them leads to a dead end. Jesus is basically in the same boat.


If you really look at most apologists arguments they are NOT really arguing for a Jesus of Nazareth but for a Jesus of Bethlehem and trying to make as many of the supernatural events "real" as possible.

 

[Brainache]

Dunno. I have no issue with the existence of one or more vociferous crackpots in the biblical revolutionary Palestine. They may or may not have existed, but probably did. Did the Romans kill one or more of their number? Most likely.

Where does that leave us?

Some vocal revolutionaries put their heads above the parapet sufficiently to have the Romans come down hard. Afterwards, some unidentified authors merged them into a mythical creature. Decades after. Paul had a hissy fit and made up a whole religion, if even.

It seems to me that the existence of such radicals at the time is obvious, Masada being a case in point. Still, all that is left is "so what?"

Well I have my own personal hobby horse HJ, which I discuss in another thread.

I think it is possible to argue that the "Teacher Of Righteousness"(or one of them, there may have been several) in the Dead Sea scrolls is the person who we now know as "Jesus".

That is off-topic in this thread, but if you start at the beginning of this other thread, you'll see my crackpot thesis laid out in all its glory. Beware, may contain traces of nuts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

Looking at the thread view counter at the moment, if you time it right, you could be the 8,666 customer to view the thread. You wouldn't want to miss an opportunity like that...

 

[zugzwang]

maximara

The concept of historical myth is an interesting and subtle one. I was discussing with somebody yesterday the power of legend in people's lives - for example, a guy was killed in Bristol, England, as his neighbours said that he was a paedophile. He wasn't. But the legend that he was, was somehow satisfying to them.

I don't think this is a myth by the way, but a legend, but no matter.

And today the media join in the construction of legends, as they sell more papers.

It does make separating history from legend very difficult. I was reading about Napoleon's death, which was described as murder by the English, murder by the Bourbons, accidental poisoning, and so on. And it is still debated today - although I think most people absorbed large quantities of arsenic in those days.

But to do this separation in ancient texts seems impossible really, unless you have multiple sources. But I suppose the commonest HJ argument is that of parsimony.

 

[maximara]

Here we start to see the modern usage of the term.

The wiki says that he has changed his mind on this. Probably needs updating.

Uh, which "he" are you talking about? Wells changed his mind in 1996 with Jesus Myth ie that work and those after is where he accepted a Jesus behind the hypothetical Jesus. But every source I sited called either that book or it sequels as Christ myth books!

Jesus Myth (1996) and Jesus Legend (1999) are labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis (defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature" (sic)) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 ''The Jesus Legend Baker'' Academic on pp. 24; Despite the fact that both works accept a historical Jesus being behind the hypothetical Q gospel. In fact, Van Voorst in 2003 expressly stated that Jesus Legend (1999) was an about face for Wells (Van Voorst, Robert E. "Nonexistence Hypothesis", in James Leslie Holden (ed.) Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 660.) and yet Eddy and Boyd still labeled it a Christ myth book!



"The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists."(Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review)

Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus... (Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine)

"In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A Wells; the most recent is the Jesus Legend (1996) (Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143.)

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity:
(...)
George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005) (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?"])

The bolded works accept a historical Jesus being behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and yet they are still called "Christ Myth" on both side of the debate!

The view that the Bible Jesus isn't an accurate depiction of the man "Jesus", is no longer called a "Jesus Myth" theory

Yes it is:

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)


There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

We can all agree that 1982 and 1995 is of a MODERN reference.

We can all agree that Davy Crockett was an actual living person.

We can all agree that "Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn" is a story of Davy Crockett "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"

Ergo International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J of 1982 and 1995 directly states that the view that the Bible Jesus isn't an accurate depiction of the man "Jesus" is the Christ (ie Jesus) myth theory.

You can hem and haw all you like but that is the definition the MODERN apologists themselves have given you to work with. Deal with it.

 

[Brainache]

Uh, which "he" are you talking about? Wells changed his mind in 1996 with Jesus Myth ie that work and those after is where he accepted a Jesus behind the hypothetical Jesus. But every source I sited called either that book or it sequels as Christ myth books!

Jesus Myth (1996) and Jesus Legend (1999) are labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis (defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature" (sic)) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 ''The Jesus Legend Baker'' Academic on pp. 24.

"The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists."(Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review)

Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus... (Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine)

"In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A Wells; the most recent is the Jesus Legend (1996) (Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143.)

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity:
(...)
George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005) (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?"])

The bolded works accept a historical Jesus being behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and yet they are still called "Christ Myth" on both side of the debate!



Yes it is:

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."<ref>International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley</ref>


There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

We can all agree that 1982 and 1995 is of a MODERN reference.

We can all agree that Davy Crockett was an actual living person.

We can all agree that "Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn" is a story of Davy Crockett "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"

Ergo International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J of 1982 and 1995 directly states that the view of Bible Jesus isn't an accurate depiction of the man "Jesus" is the Christ (ie Jesus) myth theory.

You can hem and haw all you like but that is the definition the apologists themselves have given you to work with.

You can call it Calithumpianism for all I care.

Why does it matter what label you give it. If Jesus Myth is ambiguous to you, come up with something else. I don't care.

 

[maximara]

maximara

The concept of historical myth is an interesting and subtle one. I was discussing with somebody yesterday the power of legend in people's lives - for example, a guy was killed in Bristol, England, as his neighbours said that he was a paedophile. He wasn't. But the legend that he was, was somehow satisfying to them.

I don't think this is a myth by the way, but a legend, but no matter.

"myth: 1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events" (Oxford online dictionary.)

Note how Oxford itself defines the word.

Christopher Columbus sailing west to prove the world was round was a traditional story ie myth that fits into Remsburg's "The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true" category ie historical myth.

Biblical studies professor J. W. Rogerson covers much the same ground Resmburg did in 1909 in his 1984 paper "Slippery words: Myth" which shows just how complex the word "myth" really is. (Dundes, Alan (ed.) (1984) Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth University of California Press ISBN: 9780520051928 62-71)

And today the media join in the construction of legends, as they sell more papers.

It does make separating history from legend very difficult. I was reading about Napoleon's death, which was described as murder by the English, murder by the Bourbons, accidental poisoning, and so on. And it is still debated today - although I think most people absorbed large quantities of arsenic in those days.

But to do this separation in ancient texts seems impossible really, unless you have multiple sources. But I suppose the commonest HJ argument is that of parsimony.

On that last part I agree. The classic Christ Mythers were simply saying that the Gospel story didn't seem to lead back to an actual man anymore then the stories of Robin Hood and King Arthur lead back to their core.

IMHO even modern Christ Mythers are for the most part arguing that if you treat treat the Gospels as history you have to keep dialing back Jesus' actual accomplishments to the point that the relationship between the Jesus of Bethlehem (ie Biblical Jesus) and Jesus Nazareth (actual flesh and blood Jesus) is essentially nil.

 

[maximara]

You can call it Calithumpianism for all I care.

These are not my definitions but those of the experts!

Since the apologists themselves in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J of 1982 and 1995 directly states that the view of Bible Jesus isn't an accurate depiction of the man "Jesus" is the Christ (ie Jesus) myth theory which is supported by Eddy and Boyd (2007) and Stanton (2002) classifying a book accepting a historical Jesus being behind Q Gospel as Christ Myth that is the definition you are stuck with.

You may not like it but that is the definition the apologists in their infinite wisdom have given you to work with.

 

[Brainache]

These are not my definitions but those of the experts!

Since the apologists themselves in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J of 1982 and 1995 directly states that the view of Bible Jesus isn't an accurate depiction of the man "Jesus" is the Christ (ie Jesus) myth theory which is supported by Eddy and Boyd (2007) and Stanton (2002) classifying a book accepting a historical Jesus being behind Q Gospel as Christ Myth that is the definition you are stuck with.

You may not like it but that is the definition the apologists in their infinite wisdom have given you to work with.

OK. Is It Ok with you if I call them "Neo-Mythicists" or something?

It only seems to be you here who has any problem with this.

I don't care about the labels, it's the ideas that count.

 

[dejudge]

Not really a pro-HJ argument, but it is an anti-"celestial Jesus" one. That is, if Paul and earliest Christianity believed in a celestial Jesus, then we have no record of such a belief. And if Paul did write to all those early churches, and they believed in a celestial Jesus as well, then the question of how that belief disappeared apparently within a generation needs to be explained.

Your constant propaganda is really useless. You seem to have no intention to show what is written by apologetic sources.

Virtually all Christian writers who mentioned the nature of Jesus claimed he was the Son of a Ghost or God Creator.

1. Ignatius in an Epistle to the Ephesians claimed Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

2. Aristides in The Apology claimed Jesus was God who came down from heaven.

3. Justin Martyr in First Apology claimed Jesus was born without sexual union and was conceived by a Ghost.

4. Tertullian in On the Flesh of Christ claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

5. Origen in De Principiis claimed that Jesus was God and born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

6. Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" claimed Jesus was bon of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

7. Hippolytus in "Refutation Against All Heresies" claimed Jesus was God Creator.

8. Eusebius in "Church History" claimed that Jesus was Divine


Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology--never a human being.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Phantom--a mythological human character.

 

[maximara]

OK. Is It Ok with you if I call them "Neo-Mythicists" or something?

It only seems to be you here who has any problem with this.

I don't care about the labels, it's the ideas that count.

But as Horace Miner showed your mindset will influence how you view the ideas presented. If you think the culture is primitive and believes in magic then that is the way you will view them...even if they are the modern culture of the United States!

That is why I presented Frazer and Schweitzer and the examples of Wells Frazer clearly was arguing for Jesus as historical myth just as Wells has been since 1996...and yet their works were called "Christ Myth".

Are the ideas being presented by the "Christ Myth" detractors accurate? As we have seen with Wells they largely weren't then you have to ask was is being read into those "Christ Myth" works that simply is not there? Is the real "Christ Myth" idea being misrepresented as a Jesus didn't exist as a human being at all strawman?

What if the "Christ Myth" idea is that the Jesus as presented in the Bible didn't exist as a human being or that the story doesn't lead back to a definitive person? This would included that concept that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character which by definition would be "nonhistorical" because it describes a man who said and did things that no one person said and did.

 

[Brainache]

But as Horace Miner showed your mindset will influence how you view the ideas presented. If you think the culture is primitive and believes in magic then that is the way you will view them...even if they are the modern culture of the United States!

That is why I presented Frazer and Schweitzer and the examples of Wells Frazer clearly was arguing for Jesus as historical myth just as Wells has been since 1996...and yet their works were called "Christ Myth".

Are the ideas being presented by the "Christ Myth" detractors accurate? As we have seen with Wells they largely weren't then you have to ask was is being read into those "Christ Myth" works that simply is not there? Is the real "Christ Myth" idea being misrepresented as a Jesus didn't exist as a human being at all strawman?

What if the "Christ Myth" idea is that the Jesus as presented in the Bible didn't exist as a human being? This would included that concept that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character which by definition would be "nonhistorical" because it describes a man who said and did things that no one person said and did.

Then I wouldn't be calling it a "Jesus Myth" theory. Just Historical speculation.

You can't be seriously telling me at this stage of the debate that you are unfamiliar with the ideas of Carrier and Doherty. Can you?

Unless you've been under a rock for the last two years, it's what the whole thing is about.

Go talk to Kapyong.

G'day.

 

[dejudge]

Then I wouldn't be calling it a "Jesus Myth" theory. Just Historical speculation.

You can't be seriously telling me at this stage of the debate that you are unfamiliar with the ideas of Carrier and Doherty. Can you?

Unless you've been under a rock for the last two years, it's what the whole thing is about.

Go talk to Kapyong.

G'day.

What?? Your statement is bizarre. You are the same guy who admitted that you have not read books by Bart Ehrman.

You have a very bad memory.

 

[JaysonR]

People here who argue for an historical Jesus show an extreme limited knowledge of the writings of antiquity.

You not only show a lack of knowledge of "writings of antiquity", but also show a severe lack of knowledge of anthropology.

I do find of interest, your reliance on 4th and 6th c CE texts to tell you that 2nd c CE writers prove that 1st c CE texts did not exist.

Question: do you think that if someone proved that the Pauline corpus existed in the 1st c CE that it would prove that Jesus was an historical figure?

I don't.

 

[GDon]

Wow, that is some article; I will need a few days to digest.

Kevin Rosero, like me, is an amateur on this topic, but he includes a lot in his articles and has a focus like a laser beam.

I notice Doherty refers to the 'great divide between mythicism and historicism' - that is quite a claim. You would think that a great divide would leave behind lots of debris and arguments and general bad temper - so, presumably lots of evidence? Hmm. But maybe the winners (the historicists) erased it all, eh?

Did you know that some mythicists like Doherty propose that virtually the entire NT is the product of mythicist writers, with the exceptions of Acts of the Apostles (which doesn't have any actions or sayings of a Jesus on earth anyway) and some interpolations?

Which means that, not only did the proto-historicist Christians destroy all the evidence of a "mythicist" Christianity, but late in the Second Century CE the proto-historicists decided to adopt the mythicist Christian works for their own. Rosero's article does a good job of laying out the beliefs of the writers and whom they were writing against.

Already, my parsimony-meter is beginning to creak and groan.

Yep. That's what it is about: the best and most parsimonious explanation. It's still possible that there was no historical Jesus, but I think there are more unneeded assumptions on that side.

 

[dejudge]

You not only show a lack of knowledge of "writings of antiquity", but also show a severe lack of knowledge of anthropology.

I do find of interest, your reliance on 4th and 6th c CE texts to tell you that 2nd c CE writers prove that 1st c CE texts did not exist.

Question: do you think that if someone proved that the Pauline corpus existed in the 1st c CE that it would prove that Jesus was an historical figure?

I don't.

What utter nonsense.

When did Suetonius write about Julius Caesar?

When did Cassius Dio write about Julius Caesar?

Why are you telling me about Paul the Pharisee in the 21st century using copies of copies of unknown date of authorship?

Please, I can't accept such nonsense from you. No, No sorry. You have no idea how the past is re-constructed.

 

[JaysonR]

What utter nonsense.

When did Suetonius write about Julius Caesar?

When did Cassius Dio write about Julius Caesar?

Why are you telling me about Paul the Pharisee in the 21st century using copies of copies of unknown date of authorship?

Please, I can't accept such nonsense from you. No, No sorry. You have no idea how the past is re-constructed.

lol, Thanks for the amusement.
You clearly didn't understand the question.

Oh, also...I wasn't telling you anything about Paul.
I was telling you something about you, and then I was asking you a question about the Pauline corpus; not Paul.

*eats popcorn*
Enjoy your fun stomping around and calling people names.

 

[maximara]

What utter nonsense.

Which is a good way to described your counter points as well.

When did Suetonius write about Julius Caesar?

Irrelevant as known contemporaries such Cato the Younger and Cicero wrote of Julius Caesar. Furthermore you have Julies Caesar' own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili aka The Civil War) Then you have the contemporary coins, statues, monuments.

When did Cassius Dio write about Julius Caesar?

Irrelevant as known contemporaries such Cato the Younger and Cicero wrote of Julius Caesar. Furthermore you have Julies Caesar' own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili aka The Civil War) Then you have the contemporary coins, statues, monuments.

Please, I can't accept such nonsense from you. No, No sorry. You have no idea how the past is re-constructed.

Given your counter examples are simply a variant of the old there is "more evidence for Jesus than 'X'" argument which has been shown to be largely drivel I fail to see your point.

 

[JaysonR]

Hey Maximara,

Just in case there was some confusion there, dejudge doesn't hold to an actual Jesus existing; he holds Jesus was a myth created in the 2nd c CE.

 

[dejudge]

Did you know that some mythicists like Doherty propose that virtually the entire NT is the product of mythicist writers, with the exceptions of Acts of the Apostles (which doesn't have any actions or sayings of a Jesus on earth anyway) and some interpolations?

Doherty is not evidence that Jesus was a figure of mythology. Please stop hiding behind Doherty's opinion and expose the evidence for myth Jesus.

Why can't you show the evidence that Jesus was God and born of a Ghost?

I am amazed that even Christians and atheists are scared of the evidence for myth Jesus.

1. Ignatius' "Epistle to Ephesians"

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

2. Aristides' "Apology"

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh...

3. Hippolytus' "Refutation of All Heresies"

For as many things as He willed, God made from time to time. These things He created through the Logos, it not being possible for things to be generated otherwise than as they were produced.

4. Justin Martyr's First Apology

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

5. Jerome's The Perpetual virginity of Mary

2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse.

6. Origen's De Principiis

Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures......... it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit...

7.Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

.... He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God. As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother[/I], so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.