Customer Reviews

Born Divine

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is one of the best books I've read from the Jesus Seminar. However, it's important to note that this isn't for Christians that want their beliefs affirmed. Christians like to bad mouth honest scholarship of the bible if it refutes anything that's said in the gospel--and this book calls many passages into question. I'd be shocked if anyone who finishes it still believes that Jesus was born of a virgin. The gospel of Matthew is really called into doubt. There are two things I'd like to say though--if you buy this book, and I recommend it--make sure you read it in a quiet room with a highlighter. It's not an easy read. Second, I'd start with chapter 7 and read to the end and then go back to read the first 6 chapters. I say this because the first few chapters are kind of dense, but once Miller's point becomes clear, the earlier chapters are easier to read. An intelligent book for people who want to explore what Jesus was really all about.

I am a seminary student writing a paper for a class on the gospels. I chose to write on the virgin births and I found this to be a great book to really dig into the details of this in an acessible manner. Its more detailed than Tatum's The Quest for Jesus or Borg and Wrights The Meaning of Jesus. (Although both are good resources for more basic overviews on the issue) and it is more acessible than Raymond Brown's commentary on The Birth of The Messiah (although that is a great resource for material with more depth if you are doing research on this kind of subject). It is easy to read and has good detail. If you are new to the historical crtical method of looking at the Bible, it may be a difficult book to start with. Consider taking a course or reading a more basic book as an introduction if you do not have a background iin this. However if you are a college or seminary student or a church worker in a tradition that honors the historical critical tradtion this is a valuable resource.

The scholarly presentation has changed the way I think about the the Christian story. Professor Miller is a religious man, and yet this account is not an appeal to faith but to understanding of what it means, or rather what it meant, in the days of Jesus, to be a "son of God." Miller begins by reminding us that the Greeks believed Zeus had human children too and were unsurprised to learn of another son of a God. OOps, and I knew that, only I had not thought of what that means in this context. This is a wonderful book.

Miller's central thesis is that the Gospels of the New Testament were part of larger genre of literature known as Hellenistic biographies and so shares a number of common characteristics with them. Hellenistic biographies were shaped by the two beliefs. The first is that the achievements of heroes so surpassed the achievements of ordinary people that heroes cannot be merely human. The second belief is that "human life is determined by Fate." So heroes were the sons (daughters) of a god, whose greatness was discernible early in life and it was an essential function of a Hellenistic biography to reveal this greatness.

Quite often the biography would portray events which announced the coming/birth of a hero. These events could be in the form of a genealogy, a message from a god in a dream or in a vision, or supernatural signs which heralded the coming of the hero. Then Hellenistic biographies moved rapidly from birth to adulthood often spanning those years with a single event. People in the ancient world believed that heroes were the children of gods because of the extraordinary events of their adult lives. So stories about divine paternity/maternity were not informational but symbolic.

Infancy narratives are found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Each uses elements of a Hellenistic biography to tell its story. Both Gospels identify the divine sonship of Jesus. Both use lengthy genealogies. Both have angelic messengers which reveal the coming birth of Jesus. And both have celestial signs; Matthew has the story of the magi and Luke has the glorious radiance in the night sky. Most Christians are aware of the fact that the only event from the childhood of Jesus is Luke's story of Jesus impressing the teachers in the Temple.

Miller draws comparisons with such sources as Plutarch's Life of Alexander. Alexander the Great was a descendant of Herakles (Hercules) and son of Philip of Macedon and his wife, Olympias. On the night before they were to be married, Olympias had a dream that foretold of the birth of Alexander. Apollonius of Tyana was a holy man born a couple of decades after Jesus. He was a healer and a teacher who traveled from city to city going as far as India. He taught the teachings of Pythagorus and strict morality. Many miracles are attributed to him including raisings from the dead. Prior to the birth of Apollonius his mother had a vision in which the Egyptian deity Proteus appeared to her. Apollonius was to be the incarnation of the shape-shifting Proteus. Miller includes Hellenistic biographies of Theagenes (an Olympic champion), Caesar Augustus, Plato, Cyrus the Great, Pythagorus, Herakles, and Josephus who writes a precocious childhood story about himself. (When he was 14, the leading men of the city consulted him for his learning.)

Origen once wrote that it was not absurd to use Greek historiai when talking to the Greeks in order that Christians might not seem to be the only ones using such incredible historiai as Jesus being born of a virgin. For it seemed proper to record that Plato was born while his mother was prevented from having sexual intercourse. However these stories are mythos. People fabricate such stories about a man they regard as having greater wisdom or power than most others. So they say that at his composition, he received a superior and more divine sperm as if this were appropriate for those who surpass ordinary human nature.(Paraphrased from _Against Celsus_ I.37. See _Documents for the Study of the Gospels_, p 130.)

Miller writes much about the Virgin Birth. He includes a mini commentary on the Gospel of Luke which demonstrates "step parallelism." John the Baptist was born of an old woman. This was uncommon but not unheard of. (Abraham and Sarah.) But Jesus was born of a woman who had know not a man. That was really something. Miller addresses the question of whether Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Miller finds that the Gospel of Matthew commits such errors as ripping verses out of context such as Isaiah 7.14. Could Matthew have been fascinated by Emmanuel rather than by parthenos/virgin? Miller points to Romans 1.3ff and argues that Paul understood Jesus as having a biological father descended from David and that Jesus became God's son by "virtue of his resurrection, not his birth." Had Jesus had a Virgin Birth, Paul would have heard of it from James and Peter when they met in Jerusalem. Mark has Jesus becoming God's son at his baptism. It is Matthew and Luke who extend this idea by introducing the idea of the Virgin Birth. John extends it further by having Jesus as God's son before his conception. Later Christian theological reflection blended these ideas and developed the composite doctrine of the Trinity.

There is a very interesting question that should be raised here. Each of these historical figures has a handful of stories which portray their greatness. For example, the mother of Augustus asserted that he had been fathered by Apollo. But these stories do not compare to the number of stories about Jesus. Most of the New Testament was written within two generations (Miller likes later dating) after the death of Jesus. These include at least the four Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Why was there such as explosion of stories about Jesus?

One might remember Robert Miller as the editor of _The Complete Gospels_, a collection of canonical gospels, non-canonical gospels, and gospel fragments, which is also a noteworthy book.

Born Divine: The Birth of Jesus & Other Sons of God by Robert J. Miller questions popular Christian understanding regarding the birth and life of Jesus. Miller's honest and critical insight concerning the biographies of Jesus challenges and refutes conservative thought that views Jesus as a God conceived, divine-human hybrid who fulfilled Jewish Bible prophecies that were seemingly foretold about him many years before his birth. He argues that stories told about Jesus, particularly those concerning his birth and childhood, are not unique when compared to those of other prominent and celebrated figures of ancient civilizations from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. He claims that the infancy narratives found in Matthew and Luke are not example of historical-factual accounts, but rather created myth used to convey Jesus' greatness. Miller's Born Divine is a refreshing presentation of historical evidence not tainted by religious belief.

Miller's attempt to separate historical evidence and religious belief is well executed. Scholarly work regarding Jesus and the Bible is often tainted by personal presuppositions regarding the faith. Historians generally agree that the history of a particular period or set of events is best left to those on the outside because these outsiders usually possess little bias. I believe it to be same for the study of religion. Furthermore, the study of the history of Christianity should especially not be carried out by apologists. Miller's work is not a work of apologetics. He examines the evidence and draws conclusions. Miller's paradigm of the Bible is much different than the more conservative scholars however. Miller apparently does not feel obligated to defend popular Christian doctrine, biblical infallibility, or the divine origin of the Bible. This freedom allows for a clear examination of the material through critical thought; he does not intend to reconcile error and discrepancy because of preconceived beliefs about the status of the text.

I appreciate the work of Miller and his very detailed and critical examination of the birth stories of Jesus. I enjoyed his focused analysis on the gospel writers and their agendas, and his analysis of the similarities between the Christian and Hellenistic infancy narratives. Born Divine is an example of critical scholarship not tainted by traditional religious views regarding theology, biblical origins and doctrine.

The organization of this book is poor. It could be more concise in a few areas such as prophecy. I also would like to have seen more evidence to support the claim that Luke and Matthew were influenced by Hellenistic biographers aside from the fact that the biographies share a distinct pattern.

Exciting reading for anyone that wants to learn more about the great variety of religions that have had an effect on the development of Christian faith. It is possible that Jesus was trained in some of these, and may have traveled afar in his early adulthood.

Miller analyzes the Gospels' birth narratives not with faith and conviction, but with evidence and rational argument - and the result is undeniably devastating for some of the most wide-held Christian beliefs. His arguments against the view that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophesies, for example, are simply a knock out blow to traditional views.

What's so nice about this book is that Miller never "pounds the table" in trying to get you to believe something. He simply offers up the evidence as an invitation for people to think about these things for themselves - an approach that will undoubtedly be both brand-new and challenging to many readers.

This book is so important! I wish it were compulsory reading for anyone growing up in our western culture.

The viewpoint of this book is obvious from its subtitle: The Births of Jesus & Other Sons of God. Miller compares the biblical infancy narratives with similar stories that were extant in the time of Jesus, and concludes that the virgin birth didn't happen. Of course, anyone who can view the narratives with even a bit of detachment will come to the same conclusion. Miller also concludes that the prophecies in Matthew aren't prophecies at all. Although these conclusions are not novel or surprising (and Miller doesn't claim that they are), the discussion is interesting and often lively. However, I can only give this book three stars, for several reasons:

1) The book is poorly organized. The chapter topics jump around, and the chapter that reads like the main summary of the book (chapter 16) isn't the last one.

2) The book is a scholarly lightweight compared to Raymond Brown's "The Birth of the Messiah."

3) In the book's Introduction, Miller states that the reader will have no doubt about where he stands on a given issue. Although he usually doesn't mince words (an admirable trait, in my opinion), he nevertheless states (p. 257) that "one can take the virgin birth seriously, and believe in it with integrity, no matter what one thinks about Jesus' biological origins." In this part of the book he uses the words "believe" and "true" in a subjective way --- as Bertrand Russell wrote about William James, his "... doctrine is an attempt to build a superstructure of belief on a foundation of skepticism ..." If Miller had been content to say, "The virgin birth isn't true, but it symbolizes something important," I might disagree with his assertion but I wouldn't argue with the way he expressed it. But for some reason he feels compelled to imply that because the myth of the virgin birth symbolizes something important to him, it is "true". I suspect he would adopt a more mundane definition of "true" if the issue at stake were whether he had received his paycheck for the month.

This is absolutely a wonderful book! It has so much information in it I have read this book 3 times over and still have not absorbed everything the author is describing.The information is fascinating and gives copies of texts so you dont have to have a bible handy.Shows wonderful paralells between old and new testament heroes.The evidence he presents is undeniable. The understanding of the subject material by this author really shines through! He really comprehends what he is writing about.

Miller's badly written "Born Divine" goes through the usual litany of problems with the infancy stories, but he never makes reference to the counter arguments. This is poor scholarship and "Born Divine" ends up sounding like one of those atheist rants by Dawkins.

Miller goes on and on and on about Isaiah 7:14 "clearly had nothing to do with virginity" (p 95). The Second Temple Jews lived in an honor/shame society. A thirteen year old girl raised in such as society would be a virgin. Christians didn't "misunderstand" (p 95) the quote. They were simply taking it to its logical conclusion and reading the text in the light of the new facts they had. Miller has taken a pea and tried to make it the size of an elephant by huffing and puffing. Doesn't work

Furthermore, Jewish writers contemporary with the early Christians never mentioned Isaiah and the birth in connection with the coming messiah. This was clearly a unique Christian interpretation, and Miller forgets to ask why.

Here are some questions he has overlooked: Why did churches who had recently been in touch with the original apostles accept the doctrine? Why did it circulate during a time when Jesus' relatives were still alive and could have contradicted the story? And we know that some of Jesus' relatives were still alive in Domitian's time, because he had them dragged to Rome so he could examine them.

Indeed, the stories of John the Baptist, Jesus, Mary, James, Peter, and many of the earliest Christians are so intertwined that it would be impossible to yank out one element and have the story remain true. Dozens, even hundreds of people named in the gospels and in Paul epistles are involved.

Why was the idea of the virgin birth everywhere, and all at the same time? Why is there no evidence of competing stories or disclaimers, even a trace of disagreement? And even later on, when the anti Christian author Celsus wrote, why was he unable to show any evidence that the early Christians didn't believe in a virgin birth? Why weren't Jewish critics either? Why did all the evidence brought by Celsus and the Jews try to disprove the virgin birth?

Miller argues that "the theory that Mary's personal memories as the source for Luke's story is untenable in light of the errors in the description of the temple ritual...the family going to the temple for `their purification'" (p 176). His thesis is that "purification after childbirth was for the mother alone, and there was no such ritual as the presentation of a child" (p 176).

Granted, the temple burned down in 70 AD. Finding out what rituals were, or were not, done there is impossible. However we do have this clear bit of information from Exodus 13: "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me"...or.... "For this I sacrifice to the Lord every male that first issues from the womb, and redeem every first-born of my sons". Redeem every first born son? Sure sounds to me as though there would be some sort of ritual for first born sons. Does Miller not know about Exodus 13? Or is he just not mentioning it and being deceptive so that his argument has more force? Either way, it's another huge error.

Miller also has serious problems with his arguments about Matthew's prophecies. "Isaiah's prediction is about his immediate future" (p 164) he actually argues. So we must assume Miller has never heard of that old biblical standard, only used for the last two thousand years, multiple fulfillment.

He actually argues that "'I called my son out of Egypt'" (p 165) is not a prediction" (p 165). This is amazing. The early Christians were using typology, not prophecy in the sense of prediction. Good grief, has Miller never heard of typology? It's only the single most basic interpretation made by the early Christians. Without knowing about typology, it's impossible to understand early Christianity. I am aghast at the extent of his ignorance here.

Miller staggers again, hilariously, by summing up: "Of the five prophecies...only three are predictions..." (p 166). No surprise to anyone who knows anything about biblical scholarship and therefore knows these were all examples of typology.

Here are more mistakes: "He will be called a Nazorean...is not an authentic prophecy" (p 165). On the contrary. The wordplay about Nazareth only works in Hebrew, and therefore likely goes back to the very first circle of Christians. "Nezer" comes from Isaiah 11:1: There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. Nazoreth=branch town as Bethlehem is wordplay on `house of bread' and a reference to the Eucharist.

So, instead of proving the early Christians were making errors, that phrase is another very strong confirmation that the infancy narratives go back to the earliest Jewish strata.

Further, it is important to note that when Matthew picks out references to the Christ from the Old Testament, he picked obscure texts. Many have a connection to the Old Testament that is difficult, and convoluted. This makes no sense if Matthew himself choose the texts and made up a story to go with it. It makes no sense if this was midrash. Again, that would have been specifically tailored to fit the prophecies. Matthew would have chosen only the most obvious, easiest of references to the Christ. This certainly buttresses the idea that the story was true.

"The visit of the magi is certainly not historical" (p 100)," Miller pontificates. It is difficult to imagine making up a story about magi in a Jewish society which detested and condemned pagan astrology. The magi were not typical `wise men" to the Jews. They were the very opposite--pagans who created evil rituals and sorcery. Why would they have been added as midrash? Clearly, they would not be chosen by anyone raised in Second Temple Judaism.

Furthermore, the magi are clearly symbolic--TYPES, again, as in TYPOLOGY-- of those gentiles who would come to believe in Jesus, just as the shepherds, a group commonly thought of as ruffians by Jews, are a type of those within Second Temple Judaism who would believe in Christ. But neither are believable as figures a Second Temple Jew would make up in midrash.

To give an idea of how poor Miller's research is, consider this dogmatic statement he makes: "Scholars regard the infancy narratives a whole to be non-historical" (p 175). If you have ever read a book of biblical scholarship you will know that if you make a statement that sweeping, you had better have a long list of scholars who really do agree with it, and then you need to list the ones who disagree. Then you typically go over the evidence, weighing each. Miller doesn't bother to do either.

In fact there are many liberal scholars who agree with that statement, and even a small number of conservative ones. But all? Or even most? Hardly. Why is he being so deceptive here? And why won't he once bring up the arguments of the other side?

Truly ridiculous: bringing in Apollonius as if his story influenced the gospels. When it is very clear the gospels created the Apollonius story.

More of the ridiculous: "The narratives of Luke and Matthew are mutually contradictory and irreconcilable" (p 176). If they are so irreconcilable, then it's a funny thing how every kindergarten class can put them together for a Christmas play.

Utterly ridiculous: Miller's s chapter of the Gospel of Thomas in which he argues that "some early Christians were thinking through the implications of their belief that Jesus was both human and divine" (p 275).

Come, come. Hasn't he read any recent scholarship? Sure, some scholars around 1970 thought Thomas had an early dating. Perrin and other scholars have proved that Thomas is derived from Syrian sources after 150 AD, which means Thomas was written over a hundred years after the gospels and it was written by Gnostics, not Christians. Christians condemned it at the time. Why would it give us any evidence about Christians??

Painfully ridiculous: Miller argues that Paul's discussion of Abraham's two sons in the Letter to the Galatians, in which he says one son of Abraham was fathered through the flesh and the other through the spirit is "by itself a strong clue about how Jews and early Christians understood the language of divine begetting" (p 227). This is a truly enormous mistake on many levels.

First, Paul is using typology. All the firstborn sons in the Old Testament, save one, were not the one favored by God. It was always the second child. Um, rather like God's covenant with his firstborn Jews and then the later Christians--at least as seen through the eyes of Christians. This is clearly typology. And clearly Paul is talking about the Jews and the Christians. Trying to find some hint about how Paul thought about Christ's birth is a connection apparent only in Miller's mind.

Very, very poor scholarship.