I have heard that the Bible was changed around 400 A.D. and, that
prior to this, the account of Jesus' birth does not say that Mary was
a virgin. Also that there are references to Jesus having older
brothers and sisters. Are there any actual sources that would confirm
or repudiate this?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 17 Apr 2006 18:50 PDT

You will probably find this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia to
be of considerable interest:


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
Virgin Birth of Christ 


though I don't know if it is explicit enough about the history of
changes in the Bible to answer your question.


Let me know what you think.

pafalafa-ga

Dear Annie, 

Liberal theologians and religious scholars today believe, indeed, that
the virgin birth is a late addition to the story of Christ. However,
not as late as the 5th Century AD, more like AD 90.

They have several reasons to claim so: 

- St. Paul does not write about virgin birth and also the Gospel of
John refers to "normal" birth; likewise, the virgin birth is not
mentioned in the so called "Gospel of Q", an early (AD 50) gospel,
which has been reconstructed through theological-historical research.
It is also not mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas, nor in the Gospel of
Mark.
- There are similar myths and fables in contemporary cultures, esp. Roman
- There are similar stories in the Bible. 
- Translation mistake: a "young woman" is translated as a "virgin" (by
the way, this is still so in German - Jungfrau means a virgin; "jung"
means young and Frau means "a woman").

The site "religious tolerance" summarises: 
"	Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, a myth of the virgin birth was
invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus' teachings by
claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great
change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and
scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they
would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various
politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have
been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not  include
many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.
bullet	By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The authors of Luke and
Matthew incorporated it into their Gospels."
(SOURCE: THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF YESHUA OF NAZARETH (JESUS CHRIST):
Beliefs of many liberal theologians, skeptics, etc. PART 2,
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm>).

"Infant Gospels", semi gospels that describes Jesus' childhood, were
very popular in early Christianity and are part of the early
non-canonical literature of the 2nd to 6th century.

Further Reading:
Vexen Crabtree, "Matthew",
<http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/matthew.html> (this site is very
critical towards Christianity)

Wikipedia /Infancy Gospels
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_gospel#Infancy_Gospels>  

Chloe Breyer, "The Earthly Father", Slate, Dec. 22, 2005,
<http://www.slate.com/id/2132639/>

I hope this answers your question. Please contact me if you need any
clarification on this answer before you rate it.

Answer is great, provides several links. I've only had time to look at
one site so far, and it alone is worth the question price.

I read somewhere that 'virgin' in hebrew or a language the Bible was
once written in meant fair or beautiful or something similar, at least
not the modern sense of virgin. Don't know how it relates to the
question but might be something worth looking into.

No matter what facts or historical records that might indicate what
you say might be true,  the story of the virgin birth is a faith based
belief and it is very, very, doubtfull, anything to the contrary would
be accepted.  In fact it would be reprudiated.

Very interesting source, Pafalafa.

Anniemdaffodils-ga,

The problems about Christ's virgin birth and his status as equal to
God or only god-like were part of Arianism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

and something St Jerome wrote about in the period +/- 400 AD.  Jerome
translated the Bible into Latin, so it may be that what you heard came
from persons who consider that his translation and his defense of the
virgin birth at that time were the source of this belief.

Of course, we won't find support of this in a Catholic website.

The bible emphatically states that Mary was a virgin when she was told
by an angel she would give birth.
 Messianic Prophecy. Although the Hebrew word bethu·lah´ means
?virgin,? another term (`al·mah´) appears at Isaiah 7:14: ?Look! The
maiden [ha·`al·mah´] herself will actually become pregnant, and she is
giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel.?
The word `al·mah´ means ?maiden? and can apply to a nonvirgin or a
virgin. It is applied to ?the maiden? Rebekah before marriage when she
was also called ?a virgin? (bethu·lah´). (Ge 24:16, 43) Under divine
inspiration, Matthew employed the Greek word par·the´nos (virgin) when
showing that Isaiah 7:14 found final fulfillment in connection with
the virgin birth of Jesus, the Messiah. Both Matthew and Luke state
clearly that Jesus? mother Mary was then a virgin who became pregnant
through the operation of God?s holy spirit.?Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:26-35
Isaiah 7;14 "Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look!
The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving
birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el".
Genesis 24; 16, 43 "(Genesis 24:16) Now the young woman was very
attractive in appearance, a virgin, and no man had had sexual
intercourse with her; and she made her way down to the fountain and
began to fill her water jar and then came up.
(Genesis 24:43) here I am stationed at a fountain of water. What must
occur is that the maiden coming out to draw water to whom I shall
actually say: ?Please, let me drink a little water from your jar,?
Matthew 1; 18-25 and Luke 1; 26-35.
To take notice of other un-supported comments and ignore what the
Bible has stated for 2,ooo years does not seem to have much
commonsense. To " read somewhere", or to say its a "faith based"
belief, without ever specifying which faith, are all just speculation.
Its there in black and white, and has been for a long time. Now if the
Bible is not believed, that is their choice. But considering what God
promises THROUGH the Bible, it is well worth believing. Revelation
21;4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will
be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The
former things have passed away.?

Somewhat off the direct subject, but...

I heard that the New Testament story about Christ and the prostitute
(with the famous text "Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone") wasn't added to the bible until the 12th century.  See
"Misquoting Jesus: ..."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/sr=8-1/qid=1145383164/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1197922-2570350?%5Fencoding=UTF8

So I wouldn't be surprised if the virgin birth was added later.

J.

Here's the complete link, I hope:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/sr=8-1/qid=1145383164/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1197922-2570350?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Thank you for the rating and the tip!