Born Divine Paperback – January 1, 2003
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
About the Author
- Paperback : 355 pages
- ISBN-10 : 094434495X
- Item Weight : 1.06 pounds
- ISBN-13 : 978-0944344958
- Product Dimensions : 6 x 0.74 x 9 inches
- Publisher : Polebridge Press; First Edition (January 1, 2003)
- Language: : English
- Best Sellers Rank: #2,295,407 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
One wonders why a man of his convictions even bothers with the Jesus of the Gospels. It seems outside his competence and area of interest. The book is a weaving of his version of the Four Gospels, with the pen of a destroyer of Christian illusions, and the creator of new Gospel for those deceived by a Jesus who never existed, and whose followers created a Biblical Frankenstein, which he proceeds to disassemble piece by piece, haggadah by haggadah, prophecy by prophecy.
With a certainty as if he were there as midwife, he reveals to us the hidden secrets of the "virgin birth", with all the tomfoolery that was not revealed in the Gospel account, not openly affirmed but not openly denied, that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera, and strong hints that when some critics replied to him in John 8/41 with "we are not illegitimate!, they were throwing back into his face that he was!
That reveals in all its raw rhetoric the literary obscenity after historical obscenity, the real purpose and intent of his cleverly disguised "exegesis" of the Four Gospels and the lengths the Jesus Seminar will goto destroy the Jesus of the Gospels by clever manipulation and bold dismantling of the Biblical texts.
I would urge anyone to read his chapters on "The Virgin Birth" and "Understanding the Virgin Birth" to see the level to which he will descend to defame the Jesus of the Gospels, by every trick and literary device that can be devised to accomplish that purpose.
This is not a "Gang of Four" trying to foist a political agenda on the masses, it is rather a Gang of 150 "scholars" trying to foist their unbelief in Jesus Christ on the masses, under the guise of scholarship. They are intent on reading into the Gospels and fashioning Jesus Christ Himself into a disillusioned fanatic or immoral monster bent on deceiving His followers - making Himself God - and dying a tragic death in the process.
The book is not worth the paper it is printed on - but buy it and read it and judge for yourself.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
So it is in Miller's book. I certainly agree that most people don't approach the doctrine of the virgin birth apart from all the others. It is more based on other doctrines. I hold to the resurrection, for instance, and with that, the virgin birth naturally follows. The resurrection shows that Jesus's claims to be the Son of God and fully God and fully man are true and if so, then the account of the virgin birth fits.
Miller does speak often about how a miracle needs to be public, but I think that misses the point of the virgin birth. The virgin birth was not done as a public sign I think just so much as it was done so that Jesus could not be at all an adopted Son of God. He really is a unique human being with both natures fully in Him. I do not agree either with early church theologians who said it was done this way because sex is something fallen and Jesus didn't need to come about through that.
Sometimes, Miller gives criticisms of the birth narratives that strike me as weak. Consider that there is often a repeated claim that the angel tells Joseph to return the boy to Israel from Egypt because those who were seeking His life are dead. Miller will tell us there were no those. There was only Herod. I don't find this convincing at all since when Herod says he wants the child dead, I have no reason to think Herod himself went all around Bethlehem looking for boys and murdering them. Those would refer to soldiers of Herod that were sent to do the job.
Miller also speaks some about how Matthew interpreted prophecy. He gives about a paragraph to how Qumran did the same, but this strikes me as highly insufficient. Why is there no interaction with Jewish exegesis at the time? Why not reference the work of Longenecker that has been done on this topic?
By the way, that brings me to another concern I had. Miller's bibliography is written on just two pages. I see this as the sound of one hand clapping. Why not look and see what someone like Keener or Witherington has to say in response to some claims? Sure, those two could be wrong, but isn't it best to interact with them?
Consider as an example his look at the slaughter of the infants. Why should we not consider it? Miller tells us the story can't stand apart from Matthew's writing. Since the magi and the star are fictions, so is the slaughter. Also, Jesus would have to be born in Bethlehem, which he was most certainly not. Finally, the story fits perfectly with Jesus being the new Moses.
I find this as somewhat circular. If you don't see the accounts as historical, they are not historical. Miller does look at the accounts of the magi, but I think there is a lot lacking. Who are they? Where did they come from? These are questions that needed more. I find it odd that when the narratives disagree, there is a problem, but when they agree, such as Jesus being born in Bethlehem, there is still a problem. As for Jesus being the new Moses, if you are a believer in God who is working behind the scenes, this really isn't a problem.
There is something on history and miracles. He quotes N.T. Wright who talks about people who come with a high view of a closed continuum and everything being in the system so there can be no outside interference. Wright rightly says that this is something we cannot know ahead of time and gives the impression of a mouse sitting up on its hind legs and looking down on the elephant.
Miller says that this sounds open-minded, but it is intending to belittle people with the opposite view and make them look foolish. I find this amusing since this is exactly what is often said about those of us who believe in miracles. I also think Wright is correct. This attitude is right there in many scholars who assume that miracles can't happen.
Miller replies to this saying that if we want to go the route of openmindedness and say Jesus had no human father, you must be open also to Plato, Pythagoras, Augustus, and others. Why yes indeed! As historians, we must be open! Let's compare the evidence for them to the evidence for Jesus and see who comes out better!
Miller says we don't believe in those stories because we don't believe in those gods anymore, but too many Christians will say their God is real so the story is real. The question I have to ask here is why do we not believe in those gods? We don't believe in them because they were more glorified superhumans. One God is overall a far better explanation and many of us have arguments that lead us to believe that there is one God, such as the Thomistic arguments that I prefer, though we could happily say that demons could take on the guise of any Greek or Roman god.
Miller also says that belief your God is real is religious and not historical. Sure, but my belief is not outside of history as it is my belief that this God acted in history and that cannot be ruled out at the outset. There is an attempt to compare this to the Muslim denial that Jesus died on the cross based on the Qur'an. I would ask in reply to see what non-Muslim scholars will grant is true in the Qur'an and compare that to non-Christian scholars on the New Testament.
One good benefit of Miller's book that will be fascinating is that he lists several birth narratives in other works about Jesus outside the New Testament, such as infancy Gospels. These were very interesting to read, but at the same time it is quite astounding to realize how many people treated them as historical in church history.
Overall, I am unpersuaded by the counterarguments. I still hold that Jesus was truly born divine based on the evidence of the New Testament. Rest assured all that I still affirm the virgin birth.