Critics of the virgin birth often suggest that it surely would have been mentioned by sources like Paul and the authors of the gospels of Mark and John if those individuals believed in it. I've discussed the evidence for the virgin birth elsewhere, including evidence for the earliness of belief in it, and that evidence is weightier than objections like the one I'm considering in this post. Still, I want to say more about that objection.
The early Christian sources tell us that they knew some things they didn't mention (John 21:25). Paul repeatedly refers to his own miracles without going into detail about them, and I've argued elsewhere that he does the same with the miracles of Jesus. There are many extrabiblical sources, some of them even contemporaries of the apostles, who seem to have accepted documents that affirm the virgin birth, yet those individuals don't refer to the virgin birth in their writings. See the many examples provided in Bruce Metzger's book The Canon Of The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), in which he argues for widespread early acceptance of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, including among sources who don't bring up the virgin birth. Even in our day, it's commonplace for sermons, Christian radio programs, posts on Christian blogs (like this one), etc. to discuss a subject like the miracles in Jesus' life without addressing the virgin birth.
Maybe a critic wants to single out the earliest sources, for whatever reason. For example, perhaps he thinks the newness of the virgin birth claim should have led the earliest sources to mention it, whereas it makes more sense for later sources to sometimes not bring it up. But even if we limit ourselves to the earliest sources, we have a good example of a source who seems to have known about and accepted the virgin birth claim, yet doesn't mention it. 1 Timothy 5:18 probably refers to the gospel of Luke as scripture. That implies an acceptance of the virgin birth. And the author was interested enough in Christmas issues to bring up the incarnation a couple of times, for example (1:15, 3:16). Yet, he never refers to the virgin birth. Anybody who wants to date 1 Timothy significantly after the time of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, such as dating it to the second century, would need to argue for that dating rather than just asserting it. We've argued for Paul's authorship of the document elsewhere on this blog, and others have argued for it. Even if it's a forgery, an earlier date would be better than a later date at making sense of the document's widespread acceptance as a genuine letter of Paul. Furthermore, it has some characteristics that make more sense earlier rather than later (e.g., the reference to two rather than three church offices in chapter 3). So, it seems that 1 Timothy provides us with a good example of one of the earliest Christian sources believing in the virgin birth, yet not mentioning it, even when he shows interest in Christmas issues in some places.
What are some of the potential reasons why such a source wouldn't mention the virgin birth? There are many, and I don't want to even attempt to be exhaustive, but here are some:
- There's no reason to think the relevant sources viewed the virgin birth as the only miracle associated with Jesus, the most important one, or one that's essential in the sense that somebody had to know about it and affirm it in order to be a Christian. If a critic is going to object that something so important should have been mentioned, he needs to specify what importance he thinks it had to the relevant sources and argue that those sources viewed the virgin birth that way. Doing something like making a vague reference to the importance of the concept or citing how important it was to a later source isn't enough.
- The virgin birth is connected to other concepts that are of a difficult nature. It's a sexual issue, non-Christians sometimes raised the allegation that Mary was sexually immoral, and the premarital timing of the pregnancy was difficult even within the framework of belief in a virgin birth. Given the difficult nature of the situation and the availability of so many other lines of evidence for Christianity, including so many other miracles connected to Jesus, it makes sense that there would be a significant amount of restraint in how often the virgin birth would be brought up.
- By its nature, a virgin birth would be much less verifiable than other miracles. Who other than the mother (Mary in this case) could be confident about it by normal means (in contrast to paranormal means, something like Divine revelation in scripture or in a dream)? A virgin birth is of a far less evidential nature than something like the feeding of the five thousand or Jesus' resurrection. The less evidential character of the virgin birth probably influenced how seldom it was discussed.
- It occurred a few decades before Jesus' public ministry and more than half a century before the New Testament documents were written. Given that there was such a large number, variety, and quality of other miracles associated with Jesus more recently (occurring right in front of people in the context of Jesus' public ministry, through the apostles later, etc.), how much attention would be given to something that was so much more distant, like the virgin birth?
- Any form of communication involves limits. You begin a biography of somebody at one point in his life rather than another point (e.g., starting the gospel of Mark at the time of the public ministry of John the Baptist). If you're writing a brief letter, like 1 Timothy, you might leave out the virgin birth (and many other miracles mentioned in the gospel of Luke and elsewhere), because it doesn't need to be mentioned in order to make your points adequately and you're trying to be brief. Even if bringing up the virgin birth would be helpful in some way in a certain context, you would take the downsides of bringing it up into account as well (the questions it might raise, the hostility it might meet with, the time and effort it would take, etc.). There are tradeoffs. You weigh the advantages against the disadvantages, and you make a judgment about the overall balance. We often don't bring up something we're aware of in a conversation, even if what we're not bringing up is something we think is true.
It's not just that discussing the virgin birth less for reasons like these makes sense in the context of early Christianity. It makes sense today as well. Modern Christians frequently mention the virgin birth much less than other miracles, prioritize other lines of evidence over the virgin birth, are hesitant to bring it up because of its sexual nature, are hesitant to bring it up in anticipation of the hostility that sort of claim often meets with, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment