Jason Engwer has a new post on the virgin birth:
Jason has been defending the virgin birth for years. I daresay few Christian apologists have written as much or more than he in defense of the virgin birth.
1. There are two stock objections to the virgin birth:
i) It's scientifically impossible. A Y chromosome is required to make a human male body.
ii) It delegitimates Jesus as the Davidic heir.
2. In my experience, the standard view of evangelical Christians is that Mary was the biological mother of Jesus while Joseph was his stepfather. God created the Y chromosome ex nihilo.
Jason challenges that model. He proposes that Joseph was the miraculous sperm donor. If true, that kills two birds with one stone. It simultaneously dissolves both objections (1). As such, it's an elegant explanation.
Let's consider some objections to Jason's conjecture or proposal:
3. Some Christians might object that his suggestion is a theological innovation. Of course, that's only a problem if you suppose theological innovations are inherently objectionable.
However, the objection cuts both ways. Many Bible scholars contend that the standard evangelical model of the virgin birth is a theological innovation. They'd say it's anachronistic to view Mary as the biological mother of Jesus. That's because ancient people didn't think pregnant women made a positive contribution to the physical constitution of the child. It was the father who made that contribution. The mother was essentially an incubator.
So ancient people had a different concept of maternity than we do, with our modern knowledge of genetics. They had no inkling that the mother contributed the X chromosome.
On an ancient paradigm, Mary wasn't naturally related to Jesus in the way we think mothers are naturally related to their biological offspring, not because it was a virginal conception, but because in general, or even normally, mothers didn't have that genetic link. The problem isn't supplementing Mary's contribution, but that fathers alone made the constitutive contribution to the baby's body.
4. As I've explained in the past, I'm skeptical about that narrative. Surely ancient people noticed that children resemble their mothers as well as their fathers. While some observers wouldn't put two and two together, the ancient world had its share of really smart people. So it stands to reason that there were some thoughtful people who understand that both parents must make a constitutive contribution to the formation of the child's body. At the same time, many people probably didn't give it a second thought. They just went along with whatever was the conventional wisdom.
5. This also raises questions about the nature of inspiration. Did Matthew and Luke have prescientific views of procreation? In theory, God could illuminate their minds.
But from the standpoint of inerrancy, what's important isn't so much what they believe about any number of things, but what they aver or verbalize in their Gospels. Presumably, Bible writers held many erroneous beliefs. God didn't protect them from erroneous beliefs. So long as their erroneous beliefs don't figure in what they say, that's not a problem. It would only be inconsistent with inerrancy if they assert certain things based on their erroneous beliefs. If they state as fact something that derives from a false understanding of the world, then that's incompatible with inerrancy.
Even assuming that Matthew and Luke had an inaccurate grasp of procreation, that's irrelevant so long as what they express is true. So long as the background beliefs aren't part of of the verbal assertion.
6. Some Christians might object that attempting to explain a miracle is impious. We should confine ourselves to what the Bible says and leave it at that. But there are problems with that objection.
i) To some degree, Christians do postulate a model for the virgin birth (2). And the standard model is a target for skeptics. So Jason is offering an alternative model. Insofar as evangelicals typically make some claims about the mechanics of the virgin birth, Jason offers a counterproposal. It's not as if most evangelicals are entirely silent on the issue.
ii) In addition, critics of the virgin birth also make assumptions about what Matthew and Luke are claiming to be the case. And it's Jason's contention that critics operate with gratuitous, unexamined assumptions. So he's responding to them on their own grounds.
7. I also think some professing Christians are reticent to explain a miracle because it's easier to believe if you don't give it too much thought. But once you try to explain a miracle, it can't survive scrutiny. It's more believable if you keep things safely vague. The moment you try to understand it, that exposes how ridiculous it is. For that reason, some professing Christians are afraid to explore how such things are possible. They can only maintain their faith by leaving everything mysterious. For them, apologetics threatens to break the spell.
But that's a very fragile faith. Anti-intellectualism is the only thing keeping apostasy at bay. The way to avoid doubt is to avoid thinking.
But to be more credible the less you think about it is a very bad paradigm of faith. If something is true, we can't think about it too much.
8. Some Christians might objection that if the virgin birth amounts to artificial insemination, then it ceases to be a miracle. Artificial insemination doesn't take a miracle.
But that's a simplistic view of miracles. Some kinds of miracles are naturally possible. Technology can do some things that used to take a miracle. But the fact that it's not a miracle today doesn't mean it wasn't a miracle back then, precisely because ancient people didn't have the technical means to pull it off. What makes it miraculous isn't that it necessarily requires supernatural power, but that it was naturally impossible under the circumstances.
According to the Ascension account, Jesus levitated. If we can levitate using a jet suit, does that mean it wasn't a miracle to levitate without jet packs in the 1C?
9. Finally, some Christians think the Incarnation requires a virgin birth. They think Jesus would contract original sin if he was the product of natural parentage. That, however, presumes a particular theory regarding the transmission of original sin. It isn't obvious to me that God couldn't exempt Jesus from original sin even if (contrary to fact) he was conceived by sexual intercourse.
In Scripture, I think the virgin birth of Christ functions primarily as a sign. It's the symbolism of the virgin birth that's significant. That marks him out for special attention.
I think some Christians feel the need to bolster the virgin birth with additional props, but that's misguided. Contingent truths are just as true as necessary truths. God could do many things differently. The fact of the matter is what matters.
10. I think Jason's proposal is theologically respectable and apologetically helpful. Of course we can't be dogmatic over and beyond what scripture commits us to. Like alternative models, his model is underdetermined by the evidence. But it's an economical solution to two objections.
In addition, a skeptic like a secular scientist might argue against the traditional ex nihilo in the following manner. If it's possible for God to create sperm ex nihilo, then it's possible for God to create ovum ex nihilo. In that case, why couldn't God have simply created a fertilized ovum (zygote) ex nihilo and implanted it into Mary? I suppose it'd be an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum.
ReplyDeleteFrom a Christian perspective, I presume the main counter would be biblical, viz. the Messiah would need Davidic descent from at least one of his parents.
However, skeptics might find this explanation special pleading. And they might not consider biblical prophecies if they can't get past the perceived absurdity of the virgin conception, though in fairness that's really their problem, not ours.
In any case, Jason's transfer view is an improvement against this line of thinking, for it pulls the rug from beneath their feet. Skeptics might still scoff at the miraculous in general, but it's not so preposterous that God would use Joseph's sperm and Mary's egg, because that's what would have happened in the normal sexual intercourse.
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,- Luke 3:23
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Luke 3:23 presuppose that Jesus isn't the biological son of Joseph? It seems to me Luke's term "father of" (instead of Matthew's "begat") suggests Luke didn't think Joseph was Jesus' biological son.
Opps, should have ended that last sentence with a question mark.
DeleteAlso, there are passages in the Synoptics where outsiders refer to Jesus as the son of the carpenter or Joseph's son in such a way that suggests the authors wink at readers who know Jesus really isn't the biological son of Joseph.
Annoyed Pinoy
Delete"Doesn't Luke 3:23 presuppose that Jesus isn't the biological son of Joseph? It seems to me Luke's term "father of" (instead of Matthew's "begat") suggests Luke didn't think Joseph was Jesus' biological son?"
1. I think that's anachronistic if you're assuming Luke (and other denizens of the 1st century) thought of "biological son" in the same sense we do today.
2. I think Christians today are addressing a different issue than what Luke addressed. Luke attempted to affirm Jesus' miraculous birth by the Holy Spirit in his geneology. We're asking how the Holy Spirit might've conceived Jesus. The "mechanics" (as Steve puts it) of the virgin conception. We assume Mary's contributions to Jesus, but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
3. It might be relevant to look at biblical precedences of cases of couples who couldn't conceive until God answered their prayers. Abraham and Sarah. Isaac and Rebekah. Jacob and Leah and Rachel. Hannah and Elkanah. Elizabeth and Zechariah. They were barren due to age or perhaps other issues, but we presume they conceived with their own sperm and egg after God answered their prayers.
4. As an aside, if Jason's transfer view is correct, then God used Joseph's DNA, but how would Christians have known? It's not like there was DNA testing back then.
At best, maybe they would've known if they knew how Jesus looked like. If Jesus looked like more like Joseph or a mix between Mary and Joseph, then it may reinforce Jason's transfer view.
If Jesus looked more like Mary and not like Joseph at all, then that leaves open other options.
That said, it's not uncommon for many kids to look like only one (or sometimes neither) of their parents despite being the biological offspring of their parents. So it's imprecise.
Maybe it's arguable a particular tribe of the Israelites (e.g. Judah, Levites) would've had less genetic variety, and so looked more alike, but I don't know anything about ancient Israelite genetics. (I do know a bit about Ashkenazi Jewish genetics, which is an interesting topic in its own right.)
We know some thought Jesus was a bastard child, but that could just be based on the fact that Mary and Joseph (before his death) told people the truth about Jesus' conception, which people disbelieved, and not necessarily have anything to do with Jesus' physical appearance (e.g. dissimilarities to Joseph).
ANNOYED PINOY,
DeleteAs Epistle of Dude mentioned, the Biblical authors wouldn't have been thinking in terms of biology as we do today. Luke believed that Joseph was the father of Jesus in some sense (Luke 2:33, 2:48, the inclusion of Jesus and Joseph in the genealogy). So, he can't be denying in 3:23 that there's any sense in which Joseph is Jesus' father. Rather, he's denying fatherhood in a particular sense that was commonly perceived. Given Luke's (and Matthew's) emphasis on a virginal conception, what he's most likely responding to is the supposition that Joseph produced Jesus through sexual intercourse. So, Luke is saying that the perception that Joseph is Jesus' father is correct, but that the nature of the fatherhood is sometimes misrepresented and needs to be understood with the qualifiers Luke has provided. My view of the virgin birth is consistent with those qualifiers and avoids the common supposition that Joseph produced Jesus through sexual intercourse.
Much the same can be said of the other passages you referred to. A passage like Mark 6:3 involves more than biology. It's not as though Jesus' critics had my transfer view of the virgin birth or something similar to it in mind. Rather, conception through sexual immorality is implied. Yes, that sort of conception would include a biological relationship between the father and Jesus, as my transfer view of the virgin birth does, but it (a view like the one in Mark 6:3) would include more than that. And the additional material it includes is what makes it objectionable, not the inclusion of a biological relationship. When somebody suggests a view of Jesus' conception that involves some sort of sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph (whether immoral intercourse outside of marriage or moral intercourse within marriage), it's not a biological relationship between Joseph and Jesus that makes the suggested view wrong. Rather, it's the involvement of sexual intercourse that makes the view wrong. (And, depending on the view in question, there may be one or more other elements of the view that also make it wrong.) The notion that the biological relationship between Joseph and Jesus makes a view wrong is something you'd have to argue for independently. You can't just say that if a conception through sexual intercourse is wrong, then a biological relationship between Joseph and Jesus must also be wrong. A biological relationship can be associated with sexual intercourse, but doesn't need to be.
AP,
DeleteAncient people link paternity to a man impregnating a woman. The default assumption is that someone is a father if he sired a child by sexual intercourse, since that's the natural method of procreation.
Scripture does not tell us anything about the method or mode, except, "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." All the Reformed creeds & confessions speak in terms of sin being passed through "natural propagation." There is a necessity for the messiah's propagation to be supernatural. And while Jason's theory seems to entail a supernatural uniting of sperm & egg, it is in all other ways just as natural a propagation as anyone else's. It reduces the cause of transmission of sin in all other cases to merely the lack of divine help in uniting sperm and egg. But, really, every child is conceived by the will of God and no egg & sperm are united without His involvement and power. Where, then, is the big difference?
ReplyDeleteKen Hamrick wrote:
Delete"Scripture does not tell us anything about the method or mode, except, 'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'"
No, scripture also gives us other information, such as in its comments on the relationship between David and the Messiah. And there are other issues involved, like the ones I mentioned in the other thread Steve linked above.
You write:
"And while Jason's theory seems to entail a supernatural uniting of sperm & egg, it is in all other ways just as natural a propagation as anyone else's."
No, there are other aspects of the conception that make it different than a normal conception under my view (the initiative taken by God in bringing about the conception, the involvement of Jesus' Divine nature, etc.). But why would there need to be other distinctions between my view and a normal conception? There wouldn't.
You write:
"It reduces the cause of transmission of sin in all other cases to merely the lack of divine help in uniting sperm and egg. But, really, every child is conceived by the will of God and no egg & sperm are united without His involvement and power. Where, then, is the big difference?"
Even if you were correct, so what? You would have to argue that there's a need for a "big difference" in the way you're referring to.
But you're not correct. The mechanism of the virgin birth doesn't tell us "the cause of transmission of sin in all other cases". And the way in which God is involved in a normal conception and the way in which he was involved in Jesus' conception are significantly different under my view, regardless of whether you consider the difference "big". You need to produce an argument that the difference has to be big in the sense you have in mind.
Does anyone try to answer the question of mechanics through the prism of why a virgin birth was even necessary to begin with?
ReplyDeleteSoli Deo Gloria,
DeleteIn what sense was it "necessary"? It was "a sign" (Isaiah 7:14).
Soli Deo Gloria
Delete"Does anyone try to answer the question of mechanics through the prism of why a virgin birth was even necessary to begin with?"
1. Actually, isn't Jesus' birth a normal or natural birth? It seems to me it's the conception that's miraculous.
2. Strictly speaking, I can't think of a good reason why the virgin conception was necessary. I suppose it's possible the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, could have become incarnate via some other means. Such as normal sexual intercourse. As Steve pointed out, an objection is Jesus would contract original sin if so, but that presumes a particular theory of the transmission of original sin. Maybe Steve is referring to the assumption that sin is passed down via natural generation, which to my knowledge is debatable.
3. As I alluded to above, the virgin conception is a sign that someone greater than the promised children of barren women (e.g. Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, John the Baptist) is here.
Jason:
DeleteI suppose "necessary" was a philosophically messy term to use, lol. Bear with me, I'm a noob.
EoD:
1. Granted :-)
2. Eliminate the word "necessary" and focus on "why a virgin conception".
3. You and Jason are getting at the heart of my question with the "sign" element. It's quite clear that the virgin conception is a "sign". My question is what is the function of the "sign" and how does a virgin conception serve that function? Does it have any bearing on the mechanics of the conception?
These are not leading questions, btw. In my mind it seems that the reason(s) for the virgin conception would guide how we work out the mechanics. Is there any relation?
SDG,
DeleteI don't think a virgin birth is absolutely or antecedently necessary for a divine Incarnation. But the virgin birth doesn't require that to be true. I think the function of the virgin birth is emblematic.
Emblematic of what? As I think through the virgin conception as a "sign", I wonder why a virgin conception? What does a virgin conception carry with it that points to the event it signifies?
DeleteSoli Deo Gloria,
DeleteThanks, and good question! I'm sure you and others know better than I do, but for what it's worth, here's my take:
"3. You and Jason are getting at the heart of my question with the "sign" element. It's quite clear that the virgin conception is a "sign". My question is what is the function of the "sign" and how does a virgin conception serve that function? Does it have any bearing on the mechanics of the conception?"
In addition to what I said above, maybe a related possible answer is that the virgin conception indicates the Son of God is before all things. He has no lineal predecessors unlike the other miraculous conceptions (e.g. Isaac, Jacob). No "father" or "sire" as it were. A miraculous "virgin" conception. He is and always has been and always will be. The eternal Word of God (made flesh). Something along those lines.
That's my guess anyway.
Also, the virgin birth being a far greater sign than the other promised children (stretching back to the promise of Gen 3:15) who were meant to be saviors and conquerors for God's people seems to indicate that this means Jesus is the final fulfiller (is that a word?) of all the promises. The Messiah.
DeleteSDG,
Deletei) First of all, it's common in Scripture, as well as ancient lore generally, for the birth of someone important to be heralded by portents and prodigies. It may involve a conception that's in some way miraculous. It may involve prophecies, theophanies, angelophanies, striking astronomical displays.
We have examples in the OT as well as John the Baptist. Not to mention Greco-Roman legends. The nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke would evoke those associations for Jewish and Gentile readers alike.
In that respect, the virgin birth is similar to other portents and prodigies surrounding the advent of Christ in the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke.
ii) In the ancient world, if someone doesn't have a human father (i.e. conceived apart from sexual intercourse), that points to divine paternity. So the virgin birth symbolizes the divine sonship of Christ.
Steve,
Deletei.) I'm on board with you here. This portent element is quite clear.
ii.)Likewise I understand and agree with what you are saying here. My question, then, is does Jason's theory actually eliminate a human father? Genetically, on Jason's theory, Joseph would be Jesus' human father. Or does that not matter? Does the appearance of lacking a father through ordinary sexual reproduction suffice?
I think that would suffice.
DeleteMind you, I haven't endorsed his position. I think it's defensible and useful.
EoD,
ReplyDelete"In addition to what I said above, maybe a related possible answer is that the virgin conception indicates the Son of God is before all things. He has no lineal predecessors unlike the other miraculous conceptions (e.g. Isaac, Jacob). No "father" or "sire" as it were. A miraculous "virgin" conception. He is and always has been and always will be. The eternal Word of God (made flesh). Something along those lines."
So, then, my question would be in what way does the virgin conception carry that idea across? Why would it signify preeminence? And, if it does, how would that inform mechanics, if it does at all? It seems on Jason's theory, Jesus would have a "father" or "sire".
"Also, the virgin birth being a far greater sign than the other promised children (stretching back to the promise of Gen 3:15) who were meant to be saviors and conquerors for God's people seems to indicate that this means Jesus is the final fulfiller (is that a word?) of all the promises. The Messiah."
I can get on board with this. And the term you are looking for would be "fulfillment" :-). The fantastic nature of a virgin conception would, indeed, signify the fantastic nature of the one to whom it pointed. It would set him apart from other promised "seed". Indeed, it would set him above other promised seed. If that is the case, would that inform mechanics? Would not the mechanics match the fantastic nature of the "sign"? If so, the creation of sperm or the Y chromosome "ex nihilo" would seem to carry that across more than the use of Joseph's actual sperm or genetic material. At least, superfically.
Thanks, SDG! Fulfillment is perfect. :)
Delete1. Of course, as we know, Jesus is both divine and human. I guess I'd say Jason's view speaks to more Jesus' human nature while the virginal conception speaks more to Jesus' divine nature.
2. I think the virginal conception might speak to Jesus' pre-existence and preeminence in this way. Virginity suggests purity, freshness, and the like. As such, it's in a sense a break with the past and past ancestors. It's something new. No lineal predecessors of Jesus with respect to his divinity, for Jesus is God, and God has no ancestors.
I should say, personally, I'm not against God creating sperm ex nihilo (as I stated in the previous post I see pros/cons to both views). However, speaking on behalf of Jason's transfer view I suppose I would try to argue something like the ancients wouldn't have been able to tell where Jesus got his DNA from, whether from Joseph or ex nihilo. For them, what mattered was Jesus was conceived without sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Not sure if that works, but that's my thinking at the moment!
DeleteSoli Deo Gloria wrote:
Delete"Would not the mechanics match the fantastic nature of the 'sign'? If so, the creation of sperm or the Y chromosome 'ex nihilo' would seem to carry that across more than the use of Joseph's actual sperm or genetic material."
The reasons for supporting a transfer view of the virgin birth, which I discussed in the other thread linked by Steve above, are weightier than the benefits of having a higher miracle on the fatherhood side of Jesus' humanity. Bringing about a virgin birth through a transfer of material from Joseph is a significant miracle. Adopting an ex nihilo view in order to heighten the miracle involved comes at the price of making the situation worse in a larger number and variety of contexts that carry more weight overall. The issues involved with Davidic ancestry and prophecy fulfillment, the degree to which Jesus is like us in his humanity, etc. are more substantial than having a more powerful miracle as a mechanism for the virgin birth. And since prophecy fulfillment is a type of miracle, the ex nihilo view of the virgin birth heightens one miracle while lowering others (e.g., the Davidic ancestry prophecies). There are advantages to the ex nihilo view, but the issue is which view makes more sense as a whole. I think you're making a valid point about the ex nihilo miracle being a higher miracle than the transfer miracle, but it's a valid point in an argument that's weaker on balance.
If your theory is correct, Jesus would have physiognomic features similar to Joseph.
DeleteWould not that lead people not to believe in the virgin birth?
Okay, one could believe in the testimony of Mary and Joseph, but the evidence testified against them.
That is, without further enlightenment, was not God giving misleading evidence to people?
And the lack of physiognomic features of putative father was evidence against that assumption. But if Jesus had the physiognomic features of a known man ....
DeleteOf course, many of their acquaintances would already assume that Mary and Joseph eloped or else that she had a prenuptial affair with another man.
DeleteConhecereis a Verdade,
DeleteAs Epistle of Dude mentioned earlier, children often don't look much like their biological father, and we aren't told how much Jesus resembled Joseph. Besides, resemblance to Joseph wouldn't be inconsistent with a virgin birth. Anybody who reasoned that a resemblance is more likely to be due to Jesus' being conceived through sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary could likewise have reasoned that a lack of resemblance between Joseph and Jesus was due to the scenario referred to in my first sentence above or Mary's having been sexually involved with another man. There would be widespread opposition to the virgin birth claim either way. It's not as though a lack of resemblance between Joseph and Jesus would have been a major obstacle to his critics.
There's also the issue of how much Joseph and Mary told other people and when. Given how unverifiable the virgin birth claim was for most of Joseph and Mary's contemporaries prior to Jesus' public ministry and how likely the claim was to meet with skepticism, Joseph and Mary would have had substantial reason to try to avoid discussing the subject. A few years ago, I wrote a series of posts on Jesus' childhood outside the infancy narratives. The first post in the series, here, addresses the reasons Jesus' family would have had for being selective in what they revealed, to whom, and when.
Thanks for the reply,
DeleteOf course, my point was not that the lack of resemblance between Jesus and Joseph proves the virgin birth nor the resemblance between Jesus and Joseph would refute the virgin birth. But the resemblance or lack of resemblance between Jesus and Joseph is evidence for or against the virgin birth, and it makes easier or harder for an outside observer to believe in the virgin birth. Why would God choose the most misleading mechanism when he could do it differently?
And Jesus having two fathers, one according to the flesh and another according to the divine nature, is also problematic in my opinion. But your theory is respectable.
Steve's comments are traveling through time :)
Conhecereis a Verdade
Delete"Why would God choose the most misleading mechanism when he could do it differently?"
1. As Jason has already mentioned, we don't have any concrete evidence regarding what Jesus looked like. At best, we have hints (e.g. Isa 53), but these aren't definitive.
2. Given Jason's transfer view, it's possible Jesus looked like Joseph, Mary, both, or neither. Although children generally look like their parents, it's not always the case that every child looks like their parents. It's imprecise.
3. In fact, some children look so different from the rest of the family despite sharing the same genetics that there are jokes about these kids being the black sheep of their family, being adopted, and so on.
4. Jason's transfer view is about Jesus' conception, but you're talking about the end-product (as it were). There are about a gazillion steps between zygote-Jesus and adult-Jesus.
The zygote is genetically unique. It doesn't share 100% of its genetics with its mother, nor 100% of its genetics with its father, but it's a combination of both father and mother (i.e. biparental inheritance and variation).
What's more, there are independent genetic variables in the zygote as it grows and divides.
In fact, one could even go earlier because the process starts in the sperm and egg or gametes with meiosis, which allows for the independent assortment of maternal and paternal chromosomes among the germ cells. Hence, depending on which sperm God used for Jesus, Jesus could look differently than whatever he happened to look like.
All this is just the tip of the iceberg too.
5. Taking all this into consideration, I don't see how God is (with a negative connotation) "misleading" anyone. This is the normal "mechanism" for everyone. And this would be the case if God had created sperm ex nihilo too.
*Hence, depending on which of Joseph's sperm God used for Jesus...
Delete" But the resemblance or lack of resemblance between Jesus and Joseph is evidence for or against the virgin birth, and it makes easier or harder for an outside observer to believe in the virgin birth. Why would God choose the most misleading mechanism when he could do it differently?"
DeleteHow many outsiders ever saw Joseph? Precious few readers of Matthew and Luke had any idea what Joseph looked like, and many never saw Jesus. Hardly anyone by the time of Matthew and Luke would be in a position to make comparisons regarding family resemblance. So how would that be the most misleading mechanism for a virgin birth vis-à-vis outsiders?
The apostles and disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah. For this they had to recognize that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies about the Messiah, one of which was the birth of a virgin. All this before Matthew and Luke were written, so at that time the virgin birth was known and there were many people who knew Joseph. At that time the physiognomic likeness of Jesus with Joseph could be misleading.
DeleteAlso as you said "many of their acquaintances would already assume that Mary and Joseph eloped or else that she had a prenuptial affair with another man." The resemblance between Jesus and Joseph confirm their assumptions.
The belief in the virgin birth goes back to before Matthew and Luke. It was not invented by them. Obviously for those who believe in the virgin birth just for the testimony my argument does not apply.
Conhecereis a Verdade
Delete"The apostles and disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah. For this they had to recognize that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies about the Messiah, one of which was the birth of a virgin. All this before Matthew and Luke were written, so at that time the virgin birth was known and there were many people who knew Joseph. At that time the physiognomic likeness of Jesus with Joseph could be misleading. Also as you said "many of their acquaintances would already assume that Mary and Joseph eloped or else that she had a prenuptial affair with another man." The resemblance between Jesus and Joseph confirm their assumptions. The belief in the virgin birth goes back to before Matthew and Luke. It was not invented by them. Obviously for those who believe in the virgin birth just for the testimony my argument does not apply."
1. You keep assuming Jesus would have looked like Joseph. Maybe, maybe not, for reasons people have already given you. The short answer is no one knows.
2. However, even if Jesus looked like Joseph, you keep assuming this somehow means God is "misleading" people. When did Joseph die? If Joseph died before Jesus was a full grown adult, then Jesus would have still looked like a kid or a teenager. In that case, Jesus wouldn't have looked like Joseph. At best, Jesus would have looked like Joseph when Joseph was a kid, not when Joseph was an adult. And when Jesus did grow up to become an adult, would anyone have remembered or known what Joseph looked like apart from Joseph's close circle of friends and family?
The angel should have said to Joseph: ...because what is conceived in her is from you by virtue of Holy Spirit. She will give birth to your son... Matthew 1:20-21
DeleteIf you prefer, God could have created Joseph’s sperm ex nihilo.;)
DeleteEoD,
DeleteWith a chain of unjustified assumptions I can also argue that Jesus was an alien.
For more somersaults you give is perfectly reasonable to assume that if there is a biological relationship between Joseph and Jesus they will always be more alike than if there is no biological relationship. This does not refute the virgin birth but would be evidence against it.
I’ve already given you reasons why that may not necessarily be the case. You ignored them.
DeleteAlso, as others have pointed out, even if Jesus would have resembled Joseph, that doesn’t necessarily imply God is “misleading” people.
At this point you’re just repeating yourself without attempting to argue in good faith.
You’re arguing if Jesus resembled Joseph, then that would have made people more likely to doubt the virgin conception. However, suppose Jesus didn’t resemble Joseph. Would that have made people more likely to believe the virgin conception?
DeleteFamily resemblance is quite variable. I don't look much like my parents. I look more like my maternal grandfather than my own father. My mother doesn't look much like her parents or a sister. One of her brothers bears a striking resemblance to their father, but another brother has a very different appearance.
Delete"The apostles and disciples recognized Jesus as the Messiah."
DeleteBut how many knew Joseph by sight?
"there were many people who knew Joseph."
Were there? Mary and Joseph became retroactively famous after Jesus became famous. Assuming that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry, Joseph is only posthumously famous.
Many of Joseph's older relatives were dead by the time Jesus began his public ministry.
"The belief in the virgin birth goes back to before Matthew and Luke. It was not invented by them."
Red herring. The point is that hardly any of the readers knew Joseph by sight.
The aging process can also affect family resemblance, in either direction.
Delete"Were there? Mary and Joseph became retroactively famous after Jesus became famous. Assuming that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry, Joseph is only posthumously famous"
Delete"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" Matthew 13:55-56
At least those Jews knew the carpenter. Mary and the brothers of Jesus also certainly knew Joseph ...
Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
Delete"Why would God choose the most misleading mechanism when he could do it differently?"
Again, a resemblance between Joseph and Jesus isn't inconsistent with a virgin birth. But if God wanted to accommodate a misconception on the subject, there are other factors that need to be addressed before your conclusion would be justified.
Do children, or men in particular, usually have enough of a physical resemblance to their biological father to lead people to conclude that a biological relationship is probable? Do you have any evidence that there's such a resemblance most of the time? A child could look a lot like his mother, but only a little like his father. Or a lot like his father, but only a little like his mother. He could look a lot like both parents. Or not have any significant resemblance to either. And so on. Do you have any evidence as to how often the scenario you're appealing to occurs? Where's the evidence that the situation you're objecting to would occur a majority of the time in the normal course of these biological relationships?
And since we aren't just considering the normal course of events here, since this is a context in which God is highly involved and performing what would commonly be considered miracles, why should we think he would leave the events in question to their normal course? Even under the alternative to my view that you're proposing, God presumably would ensure that Jesus not only doesn't look significantly similar to Joseph, but also doesn't look significantly similar to any other man Mary could be thought to have been sexually involved with. If God is going to choose one physical appearance for Jesus over another under an ex nihilo scenario, why can't he do the same under a transfer scenario? Jesus could be biologically related to Joseph, yet have little enough outward resemblance to Joseph for their biological relationship to not be assumed on the basis of Jesus' appearance.
You write:
"And Jesus having two fathers, one according to the flesh and another according to the divine nature, is also problematic in my opinion."
Even if you think Mary is wrong about Joseph's relationship with Jesus in Luke 2:48, what about Luke 2:33? What about the inclusion of Jesus and Joseph in the genealogies? Christians ought to affirm that Joseph is Jesus' father in some sense. You object to a fatherhood "according to the flesh", but Romans 1:3 and other passages do use that or similar language. Luke 1:32 refers to "his father David". Etc. And given the New Testament's emphasis on Davidic descent through Joseph (Matthew 1:16, 1:20, Luke 1:27, 2:4, 3:23), a relationship with David through Joseph makes more sense of the relevant passages.
You write:
"The angel should have said to Joseph: ...because what is conceived in her is from you by virtue of Holy Spirit. She will give birth to your son... Matthew 1:20-21"
As if the transfer view denies the involvement of the Holy Spirit.
Since that passage in Matthew not only doesn't mention any material taken from Joseph, but also doesn't mention any taken from Mary, do you exclude Mary's participation in that context as well?
Your great concern is how Christ is of Davidic descent. The names that appear in the genealogies are not necessarily consanguineous ascendants of Jesus. Genealogies have different functions and own rules. For exemple, if you understand that Matthew's geneology is a legal geneology, of those who are entitled to the throne of David, you have your problem solved, without the need for Jesus to have a biological relationship with Joseph.
DeleteMatthew exhibited the legal order, by naming Solomon immediately after David, he attends, not to the people whose regular lineage, according to the flesh, Christ derived his birth, but the way in which he descends from Solomon and other kings, in order to be his legal successor, in whose hands God "would establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 Sam. 7:13).
"At least those Jews knew the carpenter. Mary and the brothers of Jesus also certainly knew Joseph ..."
DeleteEquivocal. There's a difference between knowing about someone and knowing them by sight. For instance, Matthew and Luke both give genealogies. Does that mean they knew Christ's ancestors by sight?
Knowing someone by sight and knowing somewhat by reputation are two different things. My father used to tell me colorful stories about his older relatives, but I don't know what they look like.
DeleteWhat does that have to do with the context of that passage? Comparing that verse with genealogies is absurd. The carpenter does a public service, it was natural that he was known by many people and not a legend of the first-century Palestinian. How do you know they did not know him by sight?
DeleteBased on unwarranted assumptions and guesses, you can defend whatever you want.
"What does that have to do with the context of that passage? Comparing that verse with genealogies is absurd."
DeleteTo establish the rudimentary distinction between knowing somebody by reputation and knowing somebody by sight.
"The carpenter does a public service, it was natural that he was known by many people and not a legend of the first-century Palestinian."
No one said anything about a legend.
"How do you know they did not know him by sight?"
How do you know they did?
There's the year when Jesus was born (c. 6-4 BC). There's whenever Joseph died. There's the period of his public ministry (c. 30-33 AD). And there's the date of Matthew and Luke (c. 60s).
"Based on unwarranted assumptions and guesses, you can defend whatever you want."
I appreciate your self-indictment.
The only thing I am defending is that a son has similarities with the biological father and the physiognomic resemblance is an indicator of paternity, as it is done in certain scientific areas. This is perfectly founded.
Delete.
Facial phenotypic similarity between a father and a child is one possible paternity indicator....We found that, at all ages, children resemble both their parents more than would be expected by chance.... For boys, an inversion occurs and they resemble their fathers more between 2 and 3 years of age...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228656456_Differential_facial_resemblance_of_young_children_to_their_parents_Who_do_children_look_like_more
1. Assuming the paper is reliable (e.g. representative sample size, objective methodology), which seems debatable given how the abstract is written, at the very best all it amounts to is kids tend to look more like their fathers than their mothers. That's hardly conclusive.
Delete2. Anecdotally, I know people who are their biological parents' children, but they look nothing like their father. Anecdotes don't prove, on average, what tends to happen, but they do prove they can happen, and indeed it doesn't seem entirely uncommon, which is all that's needed in this case.
3. In addition, Steve, Jason, and I have anticipated the conclusion of such a paper anyway. We've already answered potential objections that this kind of study would show. For example, this study measures kids from birth to 6 years old. However, I already pointed out that Jesus as a kid may have looked different than Jesus as an adult.
4. Here's another example. My sister has a son, i.e. I have a nephew, who at birth and in fact up to a few years old didn't look like his parents, but he did look like me! It became a sort of joke among our relatives because apparently I used to look like my mom's brother when I was a kid. How is it that the sisters in our family seem to have sons who look like their brothers?! (My mom is of a superstitious mind and thought it's because she was worried about her brother when she was pregnant with me. And my sister seems inclined to think along similar lines, at least in the back of her mind, because she was worried about me at the time as I had been living far away from her.) By the way, today, as an adult, I no longer look like my uncle, and my nephew looks less and less like me every day.
"The only thing I am defending is that a son has similarities with the biological father and the physiognomic resemblance is an indicator of paternity, as it is done in certain scientific areas. This is perfectly founded."
Delete1. I wouldn't say "perfectly founded". That seems to be stretching the conclusion! I'd say there's a basis, but (as Jason and Steve and I have already pointed out) there are several other variables to take into consideration in Jason's transfer view and Jesus looking like Joseph.
2. Also, "similarities with the biological father" doesn't get you to "Jesus was the spitting image of Joseph". That's simply unknown.
3. Besides, "similarities" is so vague. Every human has certain "similarities" with every other human.
4. It could be Jesus looked 51% like Joseph but 49% like Mary on Jason's transfer view. So Jesus looked "more" like Joseph than Mary. But what would that prove? Not much as far as I can see.
Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
Delete"Your great concern is how Christ is of Davidic descent. The names that appear in the genealogies are not necessarily consanguineous ascendants of Jesus. Genealogies have different functions and own rules. For exemple, if you understand that Matthew's geneology is a legal geneology, of those who are entitled to the throne of David, you have your problem solved, without the need for Jesus to have a biological relationship with Joseph."
I've given reasons for supporting the transfer view other than the Davidic ancestry issue. You can't refer to Davidic ancestry as my "great concern", then claim that I "have my problem solved" after you've addressed Davidic ancestry.
And you haven't even addressed Davidic ancestry adequately. The Biblical documents don't just address the subject by means of genealogies. They address it by other means as well. I've given some examples.
You write:
"The only thing I am defending is that a son has similarities with the biological father and the physiognomic resemblance is an indicator of paternity, as it is done in certain scientific areas."
No, your position requires that you establish more than that, as I explained in my last response to you. You have to address the fact that a resemblance between Joseph and Jesus isn't inconsistent with a virgin birth to begin with. And the relevant similarities between a father and a son need to be shown to exist a majority of the time. Furthermore, you have to explain why we should limit ourselves to that normal course of events rather than thinking that God would give Jesus a different appearance than he'd have in the normal course of events. As I explained, under your own view of the virgin birth, God would be giving Jesus a certain appearance and avoiding other appearances he could have been given.
I don't know if you've even read the article whose abstract you quoted, but what you've quoted from that abstract doesn't even come close to establishing what you need to establish.
Piggybacking off of what Jason said, Jesus would've have looked differently depending on which of Joseph's sperm God used for Jesus' conception. Spermatogenesis employs a specialized process of cell division (i.e. meiosis) which uniquely distributes chromosomes among sperm.
Delete(For that matter, the same goes for ovum. Depending on which of Mary's eggs God used, Jesus could've looked differently too.)
The uptake is Jesus could've resembled Joseph a lot or a little depending on the sperm God employed. We simply don't know.
Yet you're acting like Jesus would've been the spitting image of Joseph (or near enough).
Jason,
DeleteAll means of Davidic biological ancestry can be solved through Mary.
I have already said that the resemblance between Joseph and Jesus is not inconsistent with the virgin birth, but that would be evidence against the virgin birth. Evidence is not the same as proof. It is empirically known that in most cases the son have similarities with the parents.
But if you add in your theory that God in addition to transferring biological material from Joseph, also provided that Jesus had no resemblance to Joseph, then my objection fails. But these are ad hoc assumptions that you add to the theory to solve possible objections. It's pure speculation.
Since family resemblance is quite variable, it doesn't even require God to make an exception in this case.
DeleteBTW, you have a bad habit of fighting tooth and nail on issues that aren't all-important. You need to prioritize and stop acting like everything is a fight to the death.
Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
Delete"All means of Davidic biological ancestry can be solved through Mary."
As I explained earlier, since the New Testament focuses on Joseph when discussing Davidic ancestry, it makes more sense for the biological ancestry from David to be from Joseph than from Mary. I think Mary was a descendant of David as well, for reasons I've explained in the comments section of the other thread Steve linked in his initial post. But the patriarchal nature of the culture that produced the prophecies and the New Testament focus on Joseph in the relevant contexts suggest that the biological descent from David comes primarily from Joseph, not Mary.
You write:
"It is empirically known that in most cases the son have similarities with the parents."
You haven't demonstrated that sons usually have the relevant resemblance to their biological father. You also haven't told us whether you even read the article whose abstract you quoted earlier.
Here's an article you can read online for free. In it, we're told:
"It is particularly important to note that while the degree of correct association of parents
with children is anywhere between 7 and 14% higher than chance, it remains surprisingly
poor. In all cases, non-identification exceeds 50%....Indeed, in Christenfeld and
Hill’s data correct identification of fathers from infant faces occurred only in 49.2 percent of cases. In the present study, the mean rate of correct identification over all three ages of
children is 44.7 percent. In both studies, misidentification of fathers is around 50 percent."
Another article you can read online for free reports:
"In sum, three studies have assessed whether young children resemble their parents and if so, whether they resemble one parent more. The only consistent finding is that judges perform poorly, selecting the correct parent at a rate only 1.1 to 1.3 times higher than chance….The overall probability [in the first part of this study] of guessing the biological parent (.45) was 1.37 times higher than the probability expected by chance (.33)… The overall probability of guessing the biological parent [in the second part of this study] was .49, which is 1.47 times higher than chance"
You write:
"I have already said that the resemblance between Joseph and Jesus is not inconsistent with the virgin birth, but that would be evidence against the virgin birth."
Why would that resemblance be evidence against the virgin birth?
You write:
"But if you add in your theory that God in addition to transferring biological material from Joseph, also provided that Jesus had no resemblance to Joseph, then my objection fails. But these are ad hoc assumptions that you add to the theory to solve possible objections. It's pure speculation."
No, it's something your own view of the virgin birth assumes. You're arguing that God would choose one mechanism for the virgin birth over another in order to avoid having Jesus resemble Joseph. To be consistent, you'd also have to maintain that God avoided giving Jesus too much of a resemblance to any other man Mary would be suspected of having been sexually involved with. Under your own view, God "provided that Jesus had no resemblance" to the men in question.
Jason,
DeleteThis is my last message on this. Although I disagree with this, I appreciate your work and agree with many things you write.
"But the patriarchal nature of the culture that produced the prophecies and the New Testament focus on Joseph in the relevant contexts suggest that the biological descent from David comes primarily from Joseph, not Mary."
Okay, but as you know, the full understanding of a prophecy happens in its fulfillment and not when it is produced. The New Testament focus on Joseph is due to be the legal successor to the throne of David, non-biological successor.
"You haven't demonstrated that sons usually have the relevant resemblance to their biological father. You also haven't told us whether you even read the article whose abstract you quoted earlier."
I read the abstract, is enough for the case.
So scientifically there was a probability of about 50% of Joseph's paternity being identified by resemblance with Jesus. The alternative would be virtually 0%.
"Why would that resemblance be evidence against the virgin birth?"
Because to a Jew that was evidence that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and therefore had sexual relations with Mary and they were lying about the virgin birth.
"Under your own view, God "provided that Jesus had no resemblance" to the men in question."
Not in the sense of a special intervention of God. It was enough that things would follow the natural course. The probability of Jesus look like another man of Palestine that was not his biological father was virtually 0%. 0% vs. 50% in case of your proposed mechanism.
Conhecereis a Verdade,
DeleteI'm not feeling the force of your 'resemblance' objection. As others have pointed out, on Jason's transference view (which I do not hold) God could have seen to it that none of Joseph's traits appeared in Jesus. This would be child's play for God.
Furthermore, and which also has been pointed out to an extent, on the ex nihilo view (my own view and, I gather, yours too), God may well have arranged things so that Jesus did not *accidentally* resemble Joseph or anybody else who might be mistaken for Jesus' biological father and thus giving cause to foster unnecessary suspicion. Not only that but, on both the transference and ex nihilo views, if God had wanted to see to it that Jesus resembled neither Joseph *nor* Mary, in order to keep the incarnate one free from resembling *any* other human, then He could quite easily have done so.
Take the eyes as one example. For the most part, eye colour is influenced by two main genes. If both Mary and Joseph had dark coloured eyes, then God could have seen to it that Jesus recieved the recessive (rather than the dominant) copies of the relevant alleles (one from Joseph and one from Mary; or one ex nihilo and one from Mary) to produce the recessive phenotype necessary for Him to have lighter coloured eyes.
Of course, my point is only that your 'resemblance' objection seems to carry no force at all.
Conhecereis a Verdade
Delete"I read the abstract, is enough for the case. So scientifically there was a probability of about 50% of Joseph's paternity being identified by resemblance with Jesus. The alternative would be virtually 0%."
What part of the abstract says that? Here's the url to the abstract you cited:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228656456_Differential_facial_resemblance_of_young_children_to_their_parents_Who_do_children_look_like_more
I beg your pardon. That should read, '...the recessive (rather than the dominant) copies (alleles) of the relevant genes...'
DeleteConhecereis a Verdade wrote:
Delete"Okay, but as you know, the full understanding of a prophecy happens in its fulfillment and not when it is produced."
You haven't shown that there's anything in the fulfillment that precludes what the original context implied. The burden of proof is on your shoulders to demonstrate that we should change our interpretation of the prophecies in light of their fulfillment. You haven't met that burden of proof. The original Old Testament context I appealed to still applies. The patriarchal context of the Old Testament favors my view that Jesus' biological Davidic descent comes primarily from Joseph.
You write:
"The New Testament focus on Joseph is due to be the legal successor to the throne of David, non-biological successor."
That's something you're asserting without having demonstrated it. You said that Matthew's genealogy refers to a non-biological succession, but it doesn't follow that Luke's genealogy and every other passage focusing on Joseph is about a non-biological descent. To the contrary, as I documented, the New Testament repeats the Old Testament theme of biological descent. If both Testaments refer to biological Davidic descent, and the New Testament focuses on Joseph when discussing the fulfillment of the prophecies, it makes more sense to think that biological descent comes through Joseph than to think that it doesn't.
Conhecereis a Verdade wrote:
Delete"I read the abstract, is enough for the case."
No, it isn't. You didn't even attempt to show how the abstract supposedly supports your argument, much less how the article does.
You write:
"So scientifically there was a probability of about 50% of Joseph's paternity being identified by resemblance with Jesus. The alternative would be virtually 0%."
I cited studies indicating that the probability would be forty-something. You've chosen to put the numbers in terms of "about 50%", which is ambiguous enough to be taken as either a probability or an improbability. It's an improbability. That undermines your argument.
And since the problem you appealed to is unlikely to have occurred, there's no need for the solution you're offering for that problem.
You write:
"Because to a Jew that was evidence that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and therefore had sexual relations with Mary and they were lying about the virgin birth."
In a context in which the son is expected to be a biological descendant of David through his father, the father and mother are engaged and living in a culture that places so much value on the mother carrying on the father's line through reproduction, the son is supposed to be highly similar to us in his humanity (Hebrews 2:17), etc., a mechanism for the virgin birth that makes use of the man's body to produce the child makes a lot of sense. I've argued that it's preferable to the alternatives. If an ancient Jew hadn't thought much about the issues involved or hadn't thought about them correctly, God wouldn't be obligated to accommodate him. The same can be said of other aspects of Christianity that many ancient Jews found objectionable (the premarital timing of Mary's pregnancy, the cross, etc.).
You write:
"Not in the sense of a special intervention of God. It was enough that things would follow the natural course. The probability of Jesus look like another man of Palestine that was not his biological father was virtually 0%."
Your view has God intervening from the start by creating the relevant material ex nihilo. My view has God transferring the relevant material. A later intervention wouldn't be needed under my view if God chose what material to transfer with the knowledge that it wouldn't lead to too much resemblance between Joseph and Jesus.
Earlier in this thread, there was a discussion about how the ex nihilo miracle would be of a higher nature than the transfer miracle. In that sense, your view involves more intervention of God than mine does.
And I don't know where you're getting the "virtually 0%" figure. Any appearance of Jesus that would be viewed as suspicious in relation to any of the men involved would have to be avoided under your scenario. God would have to take all of those restrictions into account. God could do that, but it would be an additional factor involved under your scenario.
Even if your objection were valid, you've given us no reason to think it outweighs the arguments I've provided for a transfer view of the virgin birth. As I said earlier in response to Soli Deo Gloria, the ex nihilo view of the virgin birth could be better in some contexts while being worse overall. You haven't even addressed most of my arguments for the transfer view. Objecting that my view requires that God intervene to prevent Jesus from looking too much like Joseph isn't much of an objection.
Sorry for commenting late -
ReplyDeleteNo one has mentioned Luke 1:34-35 - "for this reason, the holy offspring will be called the Son of God"
It seems to me that God the Father provided the divine nature miraculously, and that Mary provided the human nature. "the Holy Spirit will overshadow you, and the power of the Most High will come upon you." = God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit did some kind of miracle in putting a divine nature (the eternal Son, the eternal Word - John 1:1; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8) into the womb of Mary and combining the divine nature with the human nature derived biologically from Mary. All three persons of the Trinity are there in the text.
It seems to me that Mary was a descendent of David from Nathan (Luke 3:31); that Matthew's geneology was Joseph's and Luke's is about Mary and the humanity of Jesus - and that Luke deliberately leaves out "son" in the geneology. tou heli / του 'ελι = "of Eli or Heli - it is just the definite article "of" so that it can include concepts of gaps in the geneology and also "son in law" or "grand-son", etc. It seems the best solution to the difference in the 2 geneologies - and the Greek definite article patten is carried all the way back to Adam - "of God" tou Adam tou Theou
του Αδαμ του θεου
This fits as it started with Jesus as "supposedly the son of Joseph, of Heli (tou 'eli / του 'ελι (Luke 3:23)
So Joseph is the son in law of Heli (Luke 3:23), mean Heli is the father of Mary. The open literal "of Heli" του 'ελι without the word "son" all the way back to God in Luke 3:38, allows for either "son", "grandson", "descendent", or "son in law".
ReplyDeleteSorry for mistake
ReplyDeleteτου 'ελι
should be:
του 'Ηλι
H = capital of η
and "Adam, of God" at the end in Luke 3:38, shows that Adam was a created "son" of God.
ReplyDelete