It's going to air on December 10. I plan to watch it, and I'll probably post about it again after doing so, but I want to make some preliminary comments.
I doubt he'll go much beyond the book Andrew Lincoln published on the topic a decade ago. Go here to read my review of Lincoln's work. Everything I've read about Ehrman's webinar to this point suggests that it's going to largely, if not entirely, be a reformulation of Lincoln's approach.
Since I was going to post an article about how to argue for the virgin birth this Christmas season, I'll go ahead and include that material here. After I address that subject, I'll add some further comments about interacting with Ehrman in particular.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query virgin birth. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query virgin birth. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Sunday, December 08, 2024
Why would early sources who believed in the virgin birth not mention it?
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.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Did Paul believe in the virgin birth?
C.J. Cornthwaite recently produced a video that's partly about the subject. I want to make several points in response:
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Andrew Lincoln's Book Against The Virgin Birth (Part 5)
(Go to the following links for previous parts in the series: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4.)
If the belief that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus was the majority position among Christians during the first several decades of church history, non-Christians should easily have recognized that fact and would have had reason to make much of it. The change Lincoln proposes, in which there was a shift from claiming natural descent from Joseph to claiming a virgin birth, supposedly occurred shortly before or during the lifetime of the most prominent critics of Christianity in the second century. Does the information we have about the early opponents of Christianity suggest that such a shift occurred?
If the belief that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus was the majority position among Christians during the first several decades of church history, non-Christians should easily have recognized that fact and would have had reason to make much of it. The change Lincoln proposes, in which there was a shift from claiming natural descent from Joseph to claiming a virgin birth, supposedly occurred shortly before or during the lifetime of the most prominent critics of Christianity in the second century. Does the information we have about the early opponents of Christianity suggest that such a shift occurred?
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Attesting the Virgin Birth
One popular objection to the Virgin Birth is that only two Gospels mention it. By way of reply:
i) Not only do only two Gospels record the Virgin Birth, but only two Gospels even have nativity accounts. And it's not coincidental that the only two Gospels which record the Virgin Birth are the only two Gospels with nativity accounts. Since Mark and John don't even have nativity accounts, it's hard to see how they'd fit the Virgin Birth into their narratives. Conversely, since Matthew and Luke have nativity accounts, it's not surprising in that connection that they mention the Virgin Birth. But if a Gospel doesn't even have a general account regarding the childhood of Christ, why would we expect a it to have an account of the Virgin Birth in particular?
Therefore, I think the presence of that specific detail in Matthew and Luke, as well as its absence in Mark and John, is hardly suspect.
ii) In addition, both Matthew and Luke have special reasons to include the Virgin Birth. In the case of Matthew, this would be of interest to his Jewish readers, not just because of the Isa 7:14 oracle, but more generally because of other OT figures whose conception was supernaturally mediated.
In the case of Luke, it's often thought that Mary was one of his sources. If so, it's only natural that he mentions the Virgin Birth.
Luke in also interested in parallels between Jesus and John the Baptist, including divine intervention regarding their respective conceptions.
Luke in also interested in parallels between Jesus and John the Baptist, including divine intervention regarding their respective conceptions.
iii) Christians know about the Virgin Birth because we've read Matthew and Luke. But why think that would have been widely known absent Matthew and Luke? Mary and Joseph are the only two individuals with direct knowledge of Virgin Birth.
iv) Even if Mark and John recorded the Virgin Birth, skeptics of the Virgin Birth are skeptical of Mark and John. They think Mark's fascination with miracles and exorcisms reflects legendary embellishment, and they think John's high Christology reflects legendary embellishment.
v) If Paul mentioned the Virgin Birth, they'd discount that because they don't think Paul had any firsthand knowledge of the historical Jesus. And even if he did, that would be towards the end of Christ's life. His public ministry. Not the beginning of his life.
vi) In principle, if James and Jude mentioned the Virgin Birth, that would be significant, coming from close relatives of Jesus. But skeptics of the Virgin Birth typically think the letters of James and Jude are pseudonymous. So even if they mentioned the Virgin Birth, that would be discounted.
Indeed, skeptics of the Virgin Birth generally use reported miracles as evidence for dating the Gospels late. So the argument is circular.
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
Andrew Lincoln's Book Against The Virgin Birth (Part 4)
(Go to the following links for previous parts in the series: part 1, part 2, part 3.)
Consider the implications of Lincoln's reading of the New Testament. He thinks belief in Joseph as the natural father of Jesus was the majority position among the Christians of the New Testament era. He thinks the view is found in documents he assigns to the end of the first century (186), perhaps even later in one or more cases. He claims that the view was held by such influential figures as Paul and the authors of Mark's gospel and the Johannine literature. Think of all of the individuals, churches, and other groups influenced by such leaders, including through their writings. Accordingly, we'd expect the view that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary to be widespread in the early extrabiblical Christian and non-Christian sources. Is that what we find? I'll address the early Christian sources in this post and the early non-Christian sources in the post that follows.
Consider the implications of Lincoln's reading of the New Testament. He thinks belief in Joseph as the natural father of Jesus was the majority position among the Christians of the New Testament era. He thinks the view is found in documents he assigns to the end of the first century (186), perhaps even later in one or more cases. He claims that the view was held by such influential figures as Paul and the authors of Mark's gospel and the Johannine literature. Think of all of the individuals, churches, and other groups influenced by such leaders, including through their writings. Accordingly, we'd expect the view that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary to be widespread in the early extrabiblical Christian and non-Christian sources. Is that what we find? I'll address the early Christian sources in this post and the early non-Christian sources in the post that follows.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Why Did The Early Christians Claim A Virgin Birth?
A claim of a virginal conception in ancient history isn't something that can be directly examined. We make judgments based on more indirect criteria (whether the supernatural is possible, the genre of the accounts, the sources available to the authors, etc.). In earlier posts, I've argued for some of the evidence that indirectly supports the Christian belief that Jesus was conceived of a virgin, such as the earliness of the gospel accounts, their genre, the availability of relevant sources, and the Divine inspiration of scripture. What I want to do in this post is address some common arguments that are raised against the doctrine.
People often compare the Christian virgin birth accounts to unhistorical birth accounts in Jewish or pagan sources. However:
"Yet most alleged parallels to the virgin birth (see Allen 1977: 19; Soares Prabhu 1976: 5-6; cf. Grant 1986: 64) are hopelessly distant, at best representing supernatural births of some kind (Barrett 1966: 6-10; Brown 1977: 522-23; Davies and Allison 1988: 214-15; Hagner 1993: 17; even further are ancient biological views, e.g., Arist. Gen. An. 3.6.5; Ep. Arist. 165). Certainly pagan stories of divine impregnation, which typically involve seduction (e.g., Ovid Metam. 3.260-61) or rape (Ovid Metam. 3.1-2), bear no resemblance to a virgin birth. Even most proposed Jewish parallels (Daube 1973: 6-9; cf. also 2 Enoch 71; Gen. Rab. 53:6) are too late or on closer examination have little merit (cf. Brown 1977: 523-24); Philo’s claims that God supernaturally opened wombs (Schweizer 1975: 33; cf. Vermes 1973: 220) probably simply imply that only God can provide conception (cf. Gen 30:2; cf. Meier 1991a: 221-22)." (Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], pp. 83-84)
Ben Witherington comments that "most scholars" think that the infancy narratives are more like Jewish infancy accounts than pagan birth legends (in Joel B. Green, et al., editors, Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 60). Darrell Bock writes that there’s a "consensus" among scholars to reject the view that the virgin birth was derived from pagan mythology (Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], n. 4 on p. 103). Bock also makes another relevant point. If the concept of a virgin birth was so important to the Christians that multiple gospel authors would be willing to fabricate an account, then why is it that "the virgin birth plays only a minor role in Luke and is largely absent from the writings of the early church and the church fathers" (ibid., p. 112)? Ben Witherington explains:
"It is doubtful that the idea of a virginal conception was part of Jewish messianic expectations in or before the era when the Gospels were written...It is difficult if not impossible to explain why Christians would create so many problems for themselves and invite the charge of Jesus' illegitimate birth by promulgating such an idea if it had no historical basis." (in Joel B. Green, et al., editors, Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 70)
In the second century, Justin Martyr commented:
"Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born of a virgin, save this our Christ." (Dialogue With Trypho, 66)
It doesn't seem that a virgin birth was a common Messianic expectation or a common claim. And the idea that Christianity borrowed the concept from paganism is unlikely even aside from the differences mentioned by Craig Keener above. Christianity arose in a highly anti-pagan atmosphere, and the alleged pagan parallels are of too vague a nature to prove what critics want to prove. The doctrine of the virgin birth originated in a highly Jewish religion that was centered in Israel. The earliest Christians believed that their gospel was "to the Jew first" (Romans 1:16). They considered the Jewish people their "fathers" (Romans 9:5). They viewed pagan religion as a system of "ignorance" (Acts 17:23) and "foolishness" (Romans 1:22-23). Pagan gods were "no gods" (Galatians 4:8). Pagan religions were viewed as demonic (1 Corinthians 10:14-22). Pagan religions left people "dead in trespasses and sins" and "without God and without hope" (Ephesians 2:1, 2:12). The infancy narratives are written in a highly Jewish context, with many citations of Old Testament scripture, references to Jewish tradition, Hebraisms, etc. Since conception by means of intercourse with the pagan gods was common in pagan mythology, the Christian concept of a virgin birth is more anti-pagan than a parallel to paganism.
The best explanation for why the early Christians claimed a virgin birth is what Luke suggests in the opening verses of his gospel. They believed that it happened, even though the Messiah wasn't commonly expected to be born of a virgin and even though a virgin birth wouldn't do much to appeal to the Gentile world. Celsus, a second century critic of Christianity, rejects the virgin birth account, as we would expect, but attributes the virgin birth claim to Jesus Himself (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:28). The timing of the gospels and their sources suggests that the virgin birth claim was circulating when close relatives of Jesus were still alive. The claim may have been widely circulating even prior to Jesus' death, as Celsus suggested.
People often compare the Christian virgin birth accounts to unhistorical birth accounts in Jewish or pagan sources. However:
"Yet most alleged parallels to the virgin birth (see Allen 1977: 19; Soares Prabhu 1976: 5-6; cf. Grant 1986: 64) are hopelessly distant, at best representing supernatural births of some kind (Barrett 1966: 6-10; Brown 1977: 522-23; Davies and Allison 1988: 214-15; Hagner 1993: 17; even further are ancient biological views, e.g., Arist. Gen. An. 3.6.5; Ep. Arist. 165). Certainly pagan stories of divine impregnation, which typically involve seduction (e.g., Ovid Metam. 3.260-61) or rape (Ovid Metam. 3.1-2), bear no resemblance to a virgin birth. Even most proposed Jewish parallels (Daube 1973: 6-9; cf. also 2 Enoch 71; Gen. Rab. 53:6) are too late or on closer examination have little merit (cf. Brown 1977: 523-24); Philo’s claims that God supernaturally opened wombs (Schweizer 1975: 33; cf. Vermes 1973: 220) probably simply imply that only God can provide conception (cf. Gen 30:2; cf. Meier 1991a: 221-22)." (Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], pp. 83-84)
Ben Witherington comments that "most scholars" think that the infancy narratives are more like Jewish infancy accounts than pagan birth legends (in Joel B. Green, et al., editors, Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 60). Darrell Bock writes that there’s a "consensus" among scholars to reject the view that the virgin birth was derived from pagan mythology (Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], n. 4 on p. 103). Bock also makes another relevant point. If the concept of a virgin birth was so important to the Christians that multiple gospel authors would be willing to fabricate an account, then why is it that "the virgin birth plays only a minor role in Luke and is largely absent from the writings of the early church and the church fathers" (ibid., p. 112)? Ben Witherington explains:
"It is doubtful that the idea of a virginal conception was part of Jewish messianic expectations in or before the era when the Gospels were written...It is difficult if not impossible to explain why Christians would create so many problems for themselves and invite the charge of Jesus' illegitimate birth by promulgating such an idea if it had no historical basis." (in Joel B. Green, et al., editors, Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 70)
In the second century, Justin Martyr commented:
"Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born of a virgin, save this our Christ." (Dialogue With Trypho, 66)
It doesn't seem that a virgin birth was a common Messianic expectation or a common claim. And the idea that Christianity borrowed the concept from paganism is unlikely even aside from the differences mentioned by Craig Keener above. Christianity arose in a highly anti-pagan atmosphere, and the alleged pagan parallels are of too vague a nature to prove what critics want to prove. The doctrine of the virgin birth originated in a highly Jewish religion that was centered in Israel. The earliest Christians believed that their gospel was "to the Jew first" (Romans 1:16). They considered the Jewish people their "fathers" (Romans 9:5). They viewed pagan religion as a system of "ignorance" (Acts 17:23) and "foolishness" (Romans 1:22-23). Pagan gods were "no gods" (Galatians 4:8). Pagan religions were viewed as demonic (1 Corinthians 10:14-22). Pagan religions left people "dead in trespasses and sins" and "without God and without hope" (Ephesians 2:1, 2:12). The infancy narratives are written in a highly Jewish context, with many citations of Old Testament scripture, references to Jewish tradition, Hebraisms, etc. Since conception by means of intercourse with the pagan gods was common in pagan mythology, the Christian concept of a virgin birth is more anti-pagan than a parallel to paganism.
The best explanation for why the early Christians claimed a virgin birth is what Luke suggests in the opening verses of his gospel. They believed that it happened, even though the Messiah wasn't commonly expected to be born of a virgin and even though a virgin birth wouldn't do much to appeal to the Gentile world. Celsus, a second century critic of Christianity, rejects the virgin birth account, as we would expect, but attributes the virgin birth claim to Jesus Himself (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:28). The timing of the gospels and their sources suggests that the virgin birth claim was circulating when close relatives of Jesus were still alive. The claim may have been widely circulating even prior to Jesus' death, as Celsus suggested.
Monday, November 04, 2013
Parsing the virgin birth
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”(which means, God with us). (Mt 1:18-23)
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[e] will be called holy—the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” (Lk 1:25-37)
I'm going to respond to some "scientific" objections to the virgin birth. I'm piggybacking on Jason Engwer's series:
To some extent I'm responding to the Andrew Lincoln's new book Born of a Virgin?: Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition, and Theology. However, my comments are more general. I've only read some sections of his book. I'm not attributing any particular argument to him. I'm more concerned with assessing certain types objections, rather than nailing down who said what.
In this post I'll be using the "virgin birth" as a synonym for the virginal conception of Christ. The latter is a more accurate descriptor for the concept I'm defending. However, it's simpler to use the traditional designation.
i) I believe Lincoln used to be a theological conservative, back when he taught at Gordon-Conwell. However, he became an egalitarian. When he wrote his commentary on Ephesians, he rejected Pauline authorship. I think it's been hypothesized that he rejected Pauline authorship to weaken the authority of Ephesians, given its complementarian statement on male/female role relations in chap. 5.
His later commentary on John is theologically insightful, but sits lightly on questions of historicity. That's a problem since theology cut adrift from history is inspirational fiction.
In addition, he wrote a favorable blurb for Robin Parry's The Evangelical Universalist. Now his attack on the virgin birth.
Seems like he's been moving steadily to the left, all to justify his egalitarian views.
Here's one of the blurbs for his new book:
Edward Adams-- King's College London"A thorough and far-reaching investigation of the topic of Jesus' conception. Andrew Lincoln, one of the finest New Testament exegetes of our time...
That's overstated. Lincoln is a fine NT exegete, but the same could be said for dozens of his contemporary NT scholars.
Years ago he wrote a commentary on Ephesians which was, at the time of publication, the best available commentary on Ephesians. There wasn't much competition at the time–basically F. F. Bruce, and Mitton, as well as Robinson's old classic.
But his commentary on Ephesians has since been overtaken by Hoehner, Arnold, O'Brien, and Thielman. It's no longer the leader of the pack.
His more recent commentary on John is good on theology, but even in the respect it's not in the same league as the magnum opus by Ridderbos, much less the magnum opus by Michaels. (In fairness, they have more space to play with than he was allotted.)
And, of course, there are better commentaries on the historical aspects of John, viz. Keener, Blomberg.
He also wrote a fine monograph on the theology of Hebrews.
He also wrote a fine monograph on the theology of Hebrews.
He's very capable, but he doesn't stand head-and-shoulders above his peers.
ii) One of his problems is that he's one-sided. The NT writers emphasize two truths about the humanity of Jesus rather than one.
One the one hand they stress his solidarity with humanity. He's one of us.
On the other hand, they also set him apart from us. Christ is both like us and unlike us. He has much in common with his, but in some respects he's sui generis.
Lincoln suppresses the distinctives. But that's a reductionistic Christology. And that's apart from the deity of Christ, or the hypostatic union. Christ is a complex person.
iii) Believing the virgin birth because Scripture teaches the virgin birth is sufficient warrant. It doesn't require a defense over and above exegeting the classic prooftexts.
iv) However, Christian philosophers, theologians, and apologists sometimes attempt to explain the virgin birth or offer a scientific model of sorts. Unlike the doctrine itself, a scientific model of the virgin birth is susceptible to rational scrutiny. That has to be internally consistent, as well as consistent with scientific possibilities. Mind you, that's not confined to what's naturally possible. Rather, this is akin to genetic engineering. Artificially manipulating natural possibilities.
iv) Biblical miracles are not all of a kind. Some employ natural mechanisms. Take the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was a natural disaster. What makes that miraculous is not the means, but the way that event reflects the divine coordination of natural means.
In principle, miracles of that kind are more open to human inspection, in terms of how it might have happened. We can postulate natural mechanisms.
But other miracles, like the metamorphosis of rods into snakes and vice versa, humans surviving in a furnace, or the multiplication of food, are "contrary" to the ordinary course of nature. These don't involve an obvious "mechanism." They don't involve a linear extension of natural processes. They are discontinuous with natural processes.
The virgin birth is more like the second kind of miracle. To that extent, it's more opaque. We know the result. We know what didn't happen. But the details of "how" God did it elude us. And below a certain level, there's nothing more to explain. No "how" beyond God's sheer fiat.
v) One objection to the virgin birth is the contention that the virgin birth was predicated on an obsolete understanding of reproductive genetics. Matthew and Luke thought the mother's contribution was sufficient. But now that we know the father's contribution is an essential component, that's no longer tenable. Or so goes the argument.
One problem with that objection is that, to my knowledge, it's got the relationship exactly backwards. In my reading, the usual claim is that ancient people didn't think the mother made any positive contribution to procreation. They thought the father made the positive contribution. The new human was contained in the man's seed or semen. A homunculus. Like an acorn. The mother was basically an incubator. So it's odd to see Lincoln turn that upside down.
vi) Also, it's obvious that Matthew and Luke didn't think Mary's contribution was sufficient. The agency of the Holy Spirit was a necessary component.
vii) To assume the virgin birth was based on an obsolete understanding of reproductive genetics denies the inspiration of Matthew and Luke. Christians don't think Bible writers were limited to what they could naturally know, through observation and education. God corrected their misconceptions. God revealed information to them.
viii) However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Matthew and Luke had inaccurate views of reproductive genetics. Their personal understanding of reproductive genetics is irrelevant to the accuracy of the virgin birth accounts. For Matthew is reporting an event. Luke is reporting an event, as well as reporting a conversation (between Mary and the angel Gabriel). In their reportorial role, they don't have to understand reproductive genetics. They simply transmit revealed truths. They relay historical events. The virgin birth isn't dependent on how they understood the mechanics of the virgin birth. They aren't the source of the concept.
The only thing they have to understand is that Mary wasn't impregnated by a man. She became pregnant apart from sexual intercourse. The creative agent was the Holy Spirit. An incorporeal agent. A physical effect of an immaterial cause.
It doesn't require a scientific mastery of reproductive genetics to grasp that. Primitive people know that making a baby normally requires the conjunction of a man and a woman. That's a presupposition of the virgin birth accounts. They stand in studied contrast to that backdrop.
ix) Someone like Lincoln could attempt to evade this by denying that we should take the objective, third-person narrative at face value. He could say that's literary artifice.
But if he takes that tack, then that's a different debate. That becomes a debate about the inspiration of Scripture.
In addition, that's counterproductive. By trying to pit the NT witness to the Incarnation against the NT witness to the virgin birth, he destroys both. If he rejects the inerrancy of Scripture respecting the virgin birth, he might as well reject the inerrancy of Scripture respecting the Incarnation or the humanity of Christ. Attacking the virgin birth in order to defend the Incarnation is suicidal inasmuch as both doctrines depend on the witness of Scripture. If Scripture can't be trusted to attest the virgin birth, it can't be trusted to attest the Incarnation.
x) One way of modeling the virgin birth is to use a modified reproductive paradigm in which the Holy Spirit miraculously fertilized Mary's ovum. But critics attack it on the grounds that, absent a seminal contribution, the "fertilized" ovum would lack the Y chromosome.
To which we can postulate that the Holy Spirit created ex nihilo sperm to fertilize the ovum. And that supplies the Y chromosome.
xi) A critic might object that that's sheer speculation. However, scientific objections to the virgin birth are no less speculative. Matthew and Luke don't specify the process, just the result. Mary conceives Jesus in the womb through the unilateral action of the Holy Spirit. That's it.
In order to mount a scientific objection to the virgin birth, the critic must first postulate a specific process, then object to it. So the critic is in the same boat as the Christian philosopher or theologian.
The critic begins with normal procreation: sperm meets ovum, sperm fertilizes ovum. The critic then objects that a key component of this transaction is missing in the case of the virgin birth.
But given that conventional procreative framework, a Christian philosopher or theologian is entitled to modify the paradigm. Indeed, since the virgin birth is avowedly miraculous, a Christian philosopher or theologian is compelled to modify the paradigm, for this is not a purely or primarily natural process. Therefore, that's not ad hoc. That's responding to the critic on his own terms. Speculative objections justify speculative rejoinders.
xii) Perhaps, though, the critic will say it's ad hoc in a different respect. We'd expect God to either be consistently naturalistic or supernaturalistic in his methodology, whereas the virgin birth oscillates between both. Why use a woman at all if you don't use a man?
However, that's easy to parry:
a) There's biblical precedent. God didn't create Adam and Eve entirely from scratch. In the case of Adam, he made use of preexisting inorganic material–and in the case of Eve, preexisting organic material.
b) He made sure Jesus had a biological mother to tie into Gen 3:15.
c) In addition, the virgin birth is an extension and intensification of other miraculous conceptions in Scripture. Same principle. It just takes it a step further, to mark out Jesus as even more special than, say, Isaac or John the Baptist.
xiii) But suppose we use a different paradigm: a modified clone. Although a clone normally shares the sex of the donor, I believe that could be genetically engineered to adjust the sex of the clone.
A critic might object that this is artificial. But that misses the point. The virgin birth is a miracle. Miracles are artificial to one degree or another. They involve the divine manipulation of nature.
Wednesday, December 06, 2023
Tovia Singer Is Wrong About The Origins Of Belief In The Virgin Birth
His YouTube channel recently put out a video on the virgin birth. He repeats a lot of claims I've addressed before. See here for resources on how much Matthew and Luke agree concerning Jesus' childhood, what they say about the timing of the family's residence in Bethlehem, etc. There are too many false claims in Singer's video for me to interact with all of them here. He refers, for example, to how "many" Evangelical scholars say that the infancy narratives are "hopelessly unreconcilable". He provides no documentation. I've reconciled the narratives, and so have other people. And I can cite non-Evangelicals acknowledging that the material can be reconciled. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, two very liberal Jesus Seminar scholars, acknowledged, "It is not impossible to harmonize them." (The First Christmas [New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007], 23) But the subject I want to focus on here is what Singer claimed about the origins of the virgin birth belief.
Friday, November 08, 2013
Andrew Lincoln's Book Against The Virgin Birth (Part 6)
(Go to the following links for previous parts in the series: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5.)
Lincoln often compares the gospels to ancient accounts of pagan gods, emperors, and other figures whose lives are commonly thought to have been recorded unreliably (in part or in whole). The frequent paralleling of the gospels with such accounts is accompanied by a lack of discussion of the most significant evidence that distinguishes the gospels from those other sources. Lincoln sometimes makes comments such as:
Lincoln often compares the gospels to ancient accounts of pagan gods, emperors, and other figures whose lives are commonly thought to have been recorded unreliably (in part or in whole). The frequent paralleling of the gospels with such accounts is accompanied by a lack of discussion of the most significant evidence that distinguishes the gospels from those other sources. Lincoln sometimes makes comments such as:
Saturday, December 22, 2018
How Should We Argue For The Virgin Birth?
Steve Hays drew my attention to a recent interview with William Lane Craig in the New York Times, part of which discusses the virgin birth. Craig's responses to the questions he's asked are of mixed quality, and I won't be responding to most of what he said. But I want to comment on his remarks about the virgin birth.
He didn't have much space to discuss the issue, and he made some good points in the short space he had. But I would have addressed the subject differently.
Better than citing the multiple attestation provided by Matthew and Luke would be to cite the fact that widespread early belief in the virgin birth is the best explanation for why the premarital timing of Mary's pregnancy wasn't more controversial in early Christian and non-Christian circles. The premarital timing of the pregnancy is highly unlikely to have been made up by the early Christians. It seems to be something that was widely known early on. So, the lack of controversy over it needs to be explained. An accompanying belief in a virgin birth, accepted by Paul and other early Christians long before Matthew and Luke were written, is the best explanation. And even non-conservative scholars often acknowledge that the gospel material on the virgin birth is derived from pre-gospel sources. For these and other reasons, we ought to conclude that belief in the virgin birth not only predates the gospels, but was even widespread in that pre-gospel timeframe. Celsus and his Jewish source(s) attribute the virgin birth claim to Jesus himself rather than portraying it as something made up a couple or a few decades later, for example.
Craig shouldn't have used the brief space he had to claim that there are no Jewish or pagan parallels to the virgin birth. The more important point is that there's no evidence of borrowing from such sources. Critics can't just allege that there are Jewish and/or pagan parallels to the virgin birth. They need to go on to the second step of arguing that the Christian claim was in some significant way derived from the sources in question. They not only can't do that, but also would have to overcome a lot of evidence to the contrary in attempting to establish their allegation. There are many explicit and implicit anti-pagan sentiments throughout the New Testament. That's not the sort of environment in which we'd expect borrowing from paganism. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who want us to believe that such borrowing occurred. That's a better point to make than to claim that no parallels exist, which invites critics to then bring up one alleged parallel after another. Each supposed parallel has to be discussed, after which the critic can just go look for another one. They often aren't particularly careful about claiming supposed parallels, so the potential for wasting time and misleading people is large.
Another point that ought to be made in these discussions, which Craig didn't bring up, is that a virgin birth not only wasn't expected by ancient Jews, but even diminishes Jesus' fulfillment of one of the most widely expected characteristics of the Messiah. He was expected to be a descendant of David. And a virgin birth would diminish Jesus' claim to Davidic ancestry. Why make up a claim about a Messianic figure that gives him a characteristic the Messiah wasn't expected to have at the expense of diminishing a characteristic he was so widely expected to have?
The best argument for the virgin birth is the evidence for the Divine inspiration of the documents that affirm it. But Craig doesn't bring the subject up, and his comments about issues like the historicity of the Old Testament and Biblical inerrancy weaken the case for Divine inspiration and make people who are influenced by Craig less likely to appeal to it. But we should appeal to it. Scripture is Divinely inspired, and the evidence for its inspiration is a good argument for beliefs like the virgin birth.
For more about making an argument for the virgin birth, see here and here.
He didn't have much space to discuss the issue, and he made some good points in the short space he had. But I would have addressed the subject differently.
Better than citing the multiple attestation provided by Matthew and Luke would be to cite the fact that widespread early belief in the virgin birth is the best explanation for why the premarital timing of Mary's pregnancy wasn't more controversial in early Christian and non-Christian circles. The premarital timing of the pregnancy is highly unlikely to have been made up by the early Christians. It seems to be something that was widely known early on. So, the lack of controversy over it needs to be explained. An accompanying belief in a virgin birth, accepted by Paul and other early Christians long before Matthew and Luke were written, is the best explanation. And even non-conservative scholars often acknowledge that the gospel material on the virgin birth is derived from pre-gospel sources. For these and other reasons, we ought to conclude that belief in the virgin birth not only predates the gospels, but was even widespread in that pre-gospel timeframe. Celsus and his Jewish source(s) attribute the virgin birth claim to Jesus himself rather than portraying it as something made up a couple or a few decades later, for example.
Craig shouldn't have used the brief space he had to claim that there are no Jewish or pagan parallels to the virgin birth. The more important point is that there's no evidence of borrowing from such sources. Critics can't just allege that there are Jewish and/or pagan parallels to the virgin birth. They need to go on to the second step of arguing that the Christian claim was in some significant way derived from the sources in question. They not only can't do that, but also would have to overcome a lot of evidence to the contrary in attempting to establish their allegation. There are many explicit and implicit anti-pagan sentiments throughout the New Testament. That's not the sort of environment in which we'd expect borrowing from paganism. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who want us to believe that such borrowing occurred. That's a better point to make than to claim that no parallels exist, which invites critics to then bring up one alleged parallel after another. Each supposed parallel has to be discussed, after which the critic can just go look for another one. They often aren't particularly careful about claiming supposed parallels, so the potential for wasting time and misleading people is large.
Another point that ought to be made in these discussions, which Craig didn't bring up, is that a virgin birth not only wasn't expected by ancient Jews, but even diminishes Jesus' fulfillment of one of the most widely expected characteristics of the Messiah. He was expected to be a descendant of David. And a virgin birth would diminish Jesus' claim to Davidic ancestry. Why make up a claim about a Messianic figure that gives him a characteristic the Messiah wasn't expected to have at the expense of diminishing a characteristic he was so widely expected to have?
The best argument for the virgin birth is the evidence for the Divine inspiration of the documents that affirm it. But Craig doesn't bring the subject up, and his comments about issues like the historicity of the Old Testament and Biblical inerrancy weaken the case for Divine inspiration and make people who are influenced by Craig less likely to appeal to it. But we should appeal to it. Scripture is Divinely inspired, and the evidence for its inspiration is a good argument for beliefs like the virgin birth.
For more about making an argument for the virgin birth, see here and here.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Is the virgin birth poorly attested?
1. A stereotypical objection to the virgin birth is that it's only attested in two of the four Gospels. Likewise, Paul is silent on the subject.
A potential problem with stereotypical objections is how they condition people who view an issue. If an issue is routinely framed in a particular way, it may not occur to people to think outside that framework.
2. Before getting to my main point, Paul's silence is to be expected. He was an adult living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's public ministry. It's hardly surprising that he talks about events so close to his own time and place, in the life of Christ. By contrast, the birth of Christ probably took place several years before Paul was born.
3 Apropos (1), I'd recast the issue. If anything, what's striking is not that the virgin birth wasn't recorded in more than two Gospels, but that's recorded at all. Reporting the circumstances of his conception poses a dilemma. In the nature of the case, a NT author can't mention the virgin birth without simultaneously informing his readers that Mary was pregnant out of wedlock. After all, you can't have one without the other.
But the moment he says Mary was pregnant out of wedlock, that opens a can of worms. Only people who are already Christian believe the story of the virgin birth. By contrast, people who aren't Christian are inclined to view the virgin birth as a cover story for a prenuptial scandal.
Indeed, that was Joseph's initial reaction. When he discovered that she was pregnant, he was planning to divorce her, on the assumption that she had a child by another man.
So why would Matthew and Luke record the virgin birth unless they thought it happened? You might say the reported the virgin birth despite the virgin birth. For surely they knew that by recording that story, their account invited a contrary interpretation.
By narrating the virginal conception of Christ, they were starting a fire they couldn't extinguish. Enemies of the faith will seize on that to discredit Jesus. They will say this is a transparent alibi to camouflage the fact that Mary had premarital sex. Not only would that stigmatize the mother, but stigmatize the illegitimate child.
So, if you think about it, NT writers had to overcome a disincentive to report it at all, since the very mention of it would play into the hands of their enemies. They only record it because that's what happened, even though it hands enemies of the faith a propaganda coup. Sometimes you have to tell a true story knowing that people will twist the truth.
4. Now, a critic might object that my explanation misses the point. Given the rumors of a prenuptial scandal, they had to say something to squelch the rumors. But there are problems with that objection. For instance:
i) That would be a counterproductive alibi. Rather than draw attention away from the specter of a prenuptial scandal, it would draw attention to the specter of a prenuptial scandal. Hostile readers will view this as a coverup.
ii) If the Gospel writers were attempting to conceal a prenuptial scandal, and if they felt free to invent a cover story, why not just say Jesus was conceived after Mary and Joseph got married? After all, the Incarnation doesn't require a virgin birth. The sinlessness of Jesus doesn't require a virgin birth.
If some people find the story of the virgin birth fishy, there's nothing suspicious about saying he was born to married parents. So that would be a better cover story.
5. But a critic might say that misses the point. If Mary was known to be pregnant out of wedlock, then it's too late for Matthew and Luke to fabricate a cover story that denies that fact. The best they can do is to spray paint it with miraculous whitewash. But there are problems with that objection, even on its own grounds:
i) People who deny the virgin birth typically think Matthew and Luke were written about a century after the birth of Christ. They don't think Matthew or Luke had access to firsthand information about the circumstances surrounding his conception and birth. So what, exactly, is there to rationalize or cover up? By that late date, who knews any better what really happened?
ii) Likewise, even if we take the historicity of Matthew and Luke far more seriously, how many people were really privy to the timing of Mary's pregnancy in relation to her engagement and marriage? Other than some relatives and villagers, who else would know about it? Mary wasn't born famous. She was a nobody. She's one of those people who becomes retroactively famous in association with a famous person. Jesus himself only became relatively famous towards the end of his short life, and even then he was just a local celebrity at the time of his death. Had anyone heard of him outside some pockets in Palestine? So why assume, decades later–when Matthew and Luke were written–that there'd be a widespread rumor about the illegitimacy of Jesus?
iii) Presumably, the target audience for Matthew and Luke are people who don't already know about the life of Christ. So what would possess Matthew and Luke to introduce a cover story about the circumstances of his conception? That would create a problem that hadn't existed before in the mind of the reader. For the average reader would never have reason to suspect anything untoward unless Matthew and Luke gratuitously interject this subterfuge.
Left to their druthers, I wouldn't expect any NT writer to mention the circumstances of Christ's conception if they could avoid it, since the story of the virgin birth will be used against them. It's one of those dilemmas where doing the right thing looks like doing the wrong thing. What's striking, therefore, is that we have even one, much less two Gospels, that record the virgin birth. For they must do that despite the derision which that will provoke.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Andrew Lincoln's Book Against The Virgin Birth (Part 1)
(This will be a six-part series. All six parts will be linked in one post after the series has been completed.)
Andrew Lincoln, a New Testament scholar, recently published Born Of A Virgin? (London, England: SPCK, 2013). I've read the British edition. The American version is due out next month. Lincoln is a supernaturalist who accepts traditional Christian concepts like the deity of Jesus and his resurrection, but rejects other traditional positions, such as Biblical inerrancy and the historicity of the virgin birth. He thinks Joseph was Jesus' natural father.
On the back cover, James McGrath of Butler University calls Lincoln's book "groundbreaking…excellent…sure to be considered the volume to turn to on this topic for many years to come." Edward Adams of King's College London refers to it as "thorough…the most important contribution to the subject of Jesus' earthly origins for many years." Helen Bond of the University of Edinburgh calls it "masterly" and comments that "I cannot recommend it highly enough." Robert Morgan of Linacre College, Oxford refers to "Lincoln's masterly literary and historical analyses…theological and hermeneutical reflection at its best".
Andrew Lincoln, a New Testament scholar, recently published Born Of A Virgin? (London, England: SPCK, 2013). I've read the British edition. The American version is due out next month. Lincoln is a supernaturalist who accepts traditional Christian concepts like the deity of Jesus and his resurrection, but rejects other traditional positions, such as Biblical inerrancy and the historicity of the virgin birth. He thinks Joseph was Jesus' natural father.
On the back cover, James McGrath of Butler University calls Lincoln's book "groundbreaking…excellent…sure to be considered the volume to turn to on this topic for many years to come." Edward Adams of King's College London refers to it as "thorough…the most important contribution to the subject of Jesus' earthly origins for many years." Helen Bond of the University of Edinburgh calls it "masterly" and comments that "I cannot recommend it highly enough." Robert Morgan of Linacre College, Oxford refers to "Lincoln's masterly literary and historical analyses…theological and hermeneutical reflection at its best".
Monday, November 04, 2013
Andrew Lincoln's Book Against The Virgin Birth (Part 2)
(To read part 1, go here.)
There's a lesson to be learned from the title of Lincoln's book. What do people have in mind when they refer to Jesus' being "born of a virgin"? They may be thinking of a virginal conception, without the intention of suggesting that Mary remained a virgin until after the birth. The point is that the child was born from a woman who was a virgin at the time of conception. Others accept the historicity of Matthew 1:25 as a reference to Mary's virginity until after the birth, so they think she was a virgin both at the time of conception and at the time when Jesus was born. Some would include virginity in partu, while others would define the virginity as consisting only of the avoidance of sexual intercourse. Terms like "born of a virgin" and "virgin birth" are somewhat flexible.
There's a lesson to be learned from the title of Lincoln's book. What do people have in mind when they refer to Jesus' being "born of a virgin"? They may be thinking of a virginal conception, without the intention of suggesting that Mary remained a virgin until after the birth. The point is that the child was born from a woman who was a virgin at the time of conception. Others accept the historicity of Matthew 1:25 as a reference to Mary's virginity until after the birth, so they think she was a virgin both at the time of conception and at the time when Jesus was born. Some would include virginity in partu, while others would define the virginity as consisting only of the avoidance of sexual intercourse. Terms like "born of a virgin" and "virgin birth" are somewhat flexible.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Believe it or not?
Rather recently, Nicholas Kristof, a leading columnist for the New York Times, penned an op-ed piece savaging the Christian faith as irrational. (Cf. "Believe it, or Not," August 15, 2003.)
Considering that the New York Times may be the most influential paper in the world, and a leading organ for the liberal elite, his attack should not go unanswered. Let us run through his major claims, and then examine their validity.
1. "The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual… One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America."
For Mr. Kristof, traditional Christian faith is anti-intellectual. Scholarship is on the side of the liberals. Very well, then. Let us hold Mr. Kristof to his own stated standard of comparison. Let us see how well he makes a reasoned case for the intellectual superiority of his own position.
2. "Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)."
The insinuation seems to be that belief in evolution is a touchstone of rationality. Anyone who denies evolution is, by definition, irrational.
Okay, if that's the implication, then where's the supporting argument? What are Mr. Kristof's reasons for believing in evolution? And how does he field objections to evolution?
Unless Mr. Kristof is prepared to mount an argument for his paradigm of rationality, how is his position any more rational than the opposing position he decries?
I can't help but wonder how long Mr. Kristof would survive in a debate with Michael Behe, Phil Johnson, Bill Dembski or Kurt Wise. I suspect he'd be taken off the stage on a stretcher.
3. "Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view."
How does this add up to an argument for or against anything? Is truth a matter of percentages? In fact, many secular philosophers embrace moral relativism (e.g., Bertrand Russell, Kai Nielsen, Michael Martin, J. I. Mackie, Charles Taylor).
4. "My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation."
How does Mr. Kristof know that? Does he have polling data for that particular period of American church history?
5. A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend.
i) How is it a hallmark of rationality for a man who denies the Bible to be a Presbyterian elder? Wouldn't it be more logical for such a man to make a clean break with the church?
ii) My guess would be that his grandfather was a contemporary of J. Gresham Machen, a fellow Presbyterian, who wrote the standard scholarly defense of the Virgin Birth. (Cf. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ [Baker, 1977]).
It would appear that neither Mr. Kristof nor his grandfather ever read the work.
6. "Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice."
How is that irrational? If you're a Christian with a firm belief in divine providence, then every presidential election reflects the decretive (but not necessarily preceptive) will of God.
This belief would only be irrational if one were an atheist or adherent of finite theism. Is Mr. Kristof an atheist? If so, we're waiting to hear his arguments.
7. "Most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith."
i) How does Mr. Kristof happen to know what most Bible scholars believe about the Virgin Birth? What is the sampling base? Where are the polling data? How many Bible scholars has he spoken to? Has he conducted any personal interviews with Bible scholars at any Evangelical seminaries?
Remember, Mr. Kristof writes for what is supposedly the greatest newspaper in the world. So it is not unreasonable to expect some sources, some footnotes. Where are his journalistic rules of evidence?
ii) Is it reasonable to bundle together the dogma of the Assumption with the Virgin Birth? Does the evidentiary weakness of the one automatically drag down the other? Don't both have to be judged separately on the evidence proper to each?
iii) Assuming, for discussion purposes, that most Bible scholars take this position, what are their arguments? Nose-counting is not an argument.
8. "As the Catholic theologian Hans Küng puts it in 'On Being a Christian,' the Virgin Birth is a "collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world."
i) At one level, this is just another example of circular reasoning. Mr. Kristof supports his liberal opinion by appealing to—liberal opinion!
ii) What contradictions? Specifics, please!
iii) What widespread parthenogenic myths? Give me some names and dates and places, if you will.
The tactical advantage of speaking in groundless generalities is that you don't expose your bare assertions to specific scrutiny and rebuttal.
iv) The aforementioned book by Machen goes over all this ground in some detail. Indeed, Machen's main challenge is to come up with a parallel that is even worth rebutting. There really are no parallels even remotely resembling the Virgin Birth.
9. "Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus."
i) Notice the studied ambiguity of this statement. It could mean that (a) Mark and Paul do not mention the conception of Jesus at all; or that (b) they mention the conception of Jesus, but without reference to anything unusual; or that (c) they mention the usual process of conception.
Only (c) would be inconsistent with the NT witness to the Virgin birth, whereas Mark represents the position of (a).
ii) Where in Galatians does Mr. Kristof suppose that Paul makes any reference to Mary?
iii) Mr. Kristof disregards differences of genre. Since Paul is writing a topical letter rather than a biography, he would have no occasion to mention the circumstances surrounding the birth of Christ—just as Mr. Kristof's op-ed piece makes no mention of the Iraq war.
10. "The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin."
i) But I thought that Küng referred to a collection of narratives. How do two sources constitute a collection?
ii) The New York Times often runs a single-source story. So what's wrong with a two-source story? Isn't that considered to be sufficient corroboration for a reliable news report?
iii) Although the Virgin Birth is in no need of a broader database, there is wider warrant for the doctrine than Kristof, in his willful ignorance, is even aware of. (Cf. M. Brown. C. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus [Baker, 2003], 3:17-32; 199-210; Cranfield, On Romans and Other New Testament Essays [T&T Clark, 1988], 153-56; J. Motyer, "Content and context in the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14," TynB 21 [1970], 118ff.; E.Y. Young, Studies in Isaiah [Tyndale, 1954], 171ff).
11. "Internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel)."
i) When a news reporter interviews someone for a story, doesn't he often model the wording of his story on his source?
ii) If the Gospel of Luke was issued in more than one edition, shouldn't there be variant MSS? Where is Mr. Kristof's text-critical evidence for this conjecture?
iii) In the Gospel of Luke, the miraculous conception of Christ parallels the miraculous conception of the Baptist—only the Virgin Birth is even more miraculous, and thus goes to show the superiority of Christ over John the Baptist and the OT prophets. Such a comparison and contrast is integral to the Lucan narrative. Hence, the Virgin Birth is a fundamental feature of Luke's high Christology.
12. "Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence..."
i) There is a lack of scientific evidence for the birth of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon. Science generally deals with repeated and repeatable events, whereas history deals with unrepeatable events.
ii) The subject-matter of science is ordinary providence. Since a virgin birth would be unnatural, Mr. Kristof commits a category mistake by demanding scientific evidence of a miraculous event.
13. "The great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic."
It is hard to know what to make of this statement. Belief in the Virgin Birth is the unanimous position of the historic Christian church. It has figured in the creed of such high-powered thinkers as Anselm, Augustine, Scotus, Aquinas, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, and Berkeley, to name a few.
Is Mr. Kristof saying that men like Oswald Allis, Gleason Archer, Roger Beckwith, Craig Blomberg, F.F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Bill Dembski, John Frame, Donald Guthrie, Vern Poythress, Rousas Rushdoony, B. B Warfield, Donald Wiseman, and E. Y. Young are unscholarly or anti-intellectual? Mr. Kristof may make it easy on himself by dismissing the opposing side unread, but—in that event—who is the obscurantist?
14. "I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams."
Notice the abrupt equation, the sudden shift, the invidious comparison between conservative Christians and radical Muslims. Mr. Kristof has done nothing in his article to lay the foundation for this guilt-by-association smear.
15. "The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain."
Actually, it is quite unclear how a brain which was the byproduct of a non-purposive evolutionary process can be relied on to arrive at the truth. (Cf. For a critique of evolutionary epistemology, cf. A. Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function [Oxford, 1993]). Sounds like a leap of faith to me!
Although Mr. Kristof fancies himself and his circle to represent the beleaguered intelligentsia, all that comes across in this hit-and-run piece is an effort to project an intellectual image. But there is no argumentation to back up the air of superiority.
Some readers might object that I'm making unreasonable demands on a brief op-ed piece. But even an op-ed piece ought to reflect a well-informed opinion, and not engage in sweeping allegations that have no discernible basis in fact. If space constraints hinder Mr. Kristof from doing justice to the issues, then he should not try to cover so much ground in so little space. One suspects that Mr. Kristof favors this fact-free shooting gallery because he is firing blanks. But that will at least spare the Church the expense of investing in flak-jackets.
Considering that the New York Times may be the most influential paper in the world, and a leading organ for the liberal elite, his attack should not go unanswered. Let us run through his major claims, and then examine their validity.
1. "The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual… One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America."
For Mr. Kristof, traditional Christian faith is anti-intellectual. Scholarship is on the side of the liberals. Very well, then. Let us hold Mr. Kristof to his own stated standard of comparison. Let us see how well he makes a reasoned case for the intellectual superiority of his own position.
2. "Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)."
The insinuation seems to be that belief in evolution is a touchstone of rationality. Anyone who denies evolution is, by definition, irrational.
Okay, if that's the implication, then where's the supporting argument? What are Mr. Kristof's reasons for believing in evolution? And how does he field objections to evolution?
Unless Mr. Kristof is prepared to mount an argument for his paradigm of rationality, how is his position any more rational than the opposing position he decries?
I can't help but wonder how long Mr. Kristof would survive in a debate with Michael Behe, Phil Johnson, Bill Dembski or Kurt Wise. I suspect he'd be taken off the stage on a stretcher.
3. "Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view."
How does this add up to an argument for or against anything? Is truth a matter of percentages? In fact, many secular philosophers embrace moral relativism (e.g., Bertrand Russell, Kai Nielsen, Michael Martin, J. I. Mackie, Charles Taylor).
4. "My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation."
How does Mr. Kristof know that? Does he have polling data for that particular period of American church history?
5. A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend.
i) How is it a hallmark of rationality for a man who denies the Bible to be a Presbyterian elder? Wouldn't it be more logical for such a man to make a clean break with the church?
ii) My guess would be that his grandfather was a contemporary of J. Gresham Machen, a fellow Presbyterian, who wrote the standard scholarly defense of the Virgin Birth. (Cf. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ [Baker, 1977]).
It would appear that neither Mr. Kristof nor his grandfather ever read the work.
6. "Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice."
How is that irrational? If you're a Christian with a firm belief in divine providence, then every presidential election reflects the decretive (but not necessarily preceptive) will of God.
This belief would only be irrational if one were an atheist or adherent of finite theism. Is Mr. Kristof an atheist? If so, we're waiting to hear his arguments.
7. "Most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith."
i) How does Mr. Kristof happen to know what most Bible scholars believe about the Virgin Birth? What is the sampling base? Where are the polling data? How many Bible scholars has he spoken to? Has he conducted any personal interviews with Bible scholars at any Evangelical seminaries?
Remember, Mr. Kristof writes for what is supposedly the greatest newspaper in the world. So it is not unreasonable to expect some sources, some footnotes. Where are his journalistic rules of evidence?
ii) Is it reasonable to bundle together the dogma of the Assumption with the Virgin Birth? Does the evidentiary weakness of the one automatically drag down the other? Don't both have to be judged separately on the evidence proper to each?
iii) Assuming, for discussion purposes, that most Bible scholars take this position, what are their arguments? Nose-counting is not an argument.
8. "As the Catholic theologian Hans Küng puts it in 'On Being a Christian,' the Virgin Birth is a "collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world."
i) At one level, this is just another example of circular reasoning. Mr. Kristof supports his liberal opinion by appealing to—liberal opinion!
ii) What contradictions? Specifics, please!
iii) What widespread parthenogenic myths? Give me some names and dates and places, if you will.
The tactical advantage of speaking in groundless generalities is that you don't expose your bare assertions to specific scrutiny and rebuttal.
iv) The aforementioned book by Machen goes over all this ground in some detail. Indeed, Machen's main challenge is to come up with a parallel that is even worth rebutting. There really are no parallels even remotely resembling the Virgin Birth.
9. "Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus."
i) Notice the studied ambiguity of this statement. It could mean that (a) Mark and Paul do not mention the conception of Jesus at all; or that (b) they mention the conception of Jesus, but without reference to anything unusual; or that (c) they mention the usual process of conception.
Only (c) would be inconsistent with the NT witness to the Virgin birth, whereas Mark represents the position of (a).
ii) Where in Galatians does Mr. Kristof suppose that Paul makes any reference to Mary?
iii) Mr. Kristof disregards differences of genre. Since Paul is writing a topical letter rather than a biography, he would have no occasion to mention the circumstances surrounding the birth of Christ—just as Mr. Kristof's op-ed piece makes no mention of the Iraq war.
10. "The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin."
i) But I thought that Küng referred to a collection of narratives. How do two sources constitute a collection?
ii) The New York Times often runs a single-source story. So what's wrong with a two-source story? Isn't that considered to be sufficient corroboration for a reliable news report?
iii) Although the Virgin Birth is in no need of a broader database, there is wider warrant for the doctrine than Kristof, in his willful ignorance, is even aware of. (Cf. M. Brown. C. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus [Baker, 2003], 3:17-32; 199-210; Cranfield, On Romans and Other New Testament Essays [T&T Clark, 1988], 153-56; J. Motyer, "Content and context in the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14," TynB 21 [1970], 118ff.; E.Y. Young, Studies in Isaiah [Tyndale, 1954], 171ff).
11. "Internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel)."
i) When a news reporter interviews someone for a story, doesn't he often model the wording of his story on his source?
ii) If the Gospel of Luke was issued in more than one edition, shouldn't there be variant MSS? Where is Mr. Kristof's text-critical evidence for this conjecture?
iii) In the Gospel of Luke, the miraculous conception of Christ parallels the miraculous conception of the Baptist—only the Virgin Birth is even more miraculous, and thus goes to show the superiority of Christ over John the Baptist and the OT prophets. Such a comparison and contrast is integral to the Lucan narrative. Hence, the Virgin Birth is a fundamental feature of Luke's high Christology.
12. "Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence..."
i) There is a lack of scientific evidence for the birth of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon. Science generally deals with repeated and repeatable events, whereas history deals with unrepeatable events.
ii) The subject-matter of science is ordinary providence. Since a virgin birth would be unnatural, Mr. Kristof commits a category mistake by demanding scientific evidence of a miraculous event.
13. "The great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic."
It is hard to know what to make of this statement. Belief in the Virgin Birth is the unanimous position of the historic Christian church. It has figured in the creed of such high-powered thinkers as Anselm, Augustine, Scotus, Aquinas, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, and Berkeley, to name a few.
Is Mr. Kristof saying that men like Oswald Allis, Gleason Archer, Roger Beckwith, Craig Blomberg, F.F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Bill Dembski, John Frame, Donald Guthrie, Vern Poythress, Rousas Rushdoony, B. B Warfield, Donald Wiseman, and E. Y. Young are unscholarly or anti-intellectual? Mr. Kristof may make it easy on himself by dismissing the opposing side unread, but—in that event—who is the obscurantist?
14. "I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams."
Notice the abrupt equation, the sudden shift, the invidious comparison between conservative Christians and radical Muslims. Mr. Kristof has done nothing in his article to lay the foundation for this guilt-by-association smear.
15. "The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain."
Actually, it is quite unclear how a brain which was the byproduct of a non-purposive evolutionary process can be relied on to arrive at the truth. (Cf. For a critique of evolutionary epistemology, cf. A. Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function [Oxford, 1993]). Sounds like a leap of faith to me!
Although Mr. Kristof fancies himself and his circle to represent the beleaguered intelligentsia, all that comes across in this hit-and-run piece is an effort to project an intellectual image. But there is no argumentation to back up the air of superiority.
Some readers might object that I'm making unreasonable demands on a brief op-ed piece. But even an op-ed piece ought to reflect a well-informed opinion, and not engage in sweeping allegations that have no discernible basis in fact. If space constraints hinder Mr. Kristof from doing justice to the issues, then he should not try to cover so much ground in so little space. One suspects that Mr. Kristof favors this fact-free shooting gallery because he is firing blanks. But that will at least spare the Church the expense of investing in flak-jackets.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Attesting the virgin birth
Unbelievers sometimes say they reject the virgin birth because it's only attested in two Gospels.
i) Since unbelievers typically reject miracles a priori–since, indeed, unbelievers regard an account containing miracles as automatically discrediting the historical reliability of the account–this objection is duplicitous.
ii) We wouldn't expect the virgin birth to be attested outside the Gospels. The NT letters aren't histories or biographies. They contain only occasional references to the life of Christ. Same thing with Revelation. Acts is a history of the establishment of the NT church.
iii) Because John's Gospel is generally considered to be the latest Gospel and the most theologically "advanced," unbelievers regard it as the least historical. If, therefore, it reported the virgin birth, they'd discount that in the same way they discount John's high Christology, the miracles of Christ in his Gospel, as well as the speeches and dialogues of Christ in his Gospel.
Indeed, Andrew Lincoln, who's penned a critique of the virgin birth, also penned a commentary on John's Gospel, and he doesn't put much stock in the historicity of John's Gospel. So, for critics like him, it wouldn't matter if John recorded the virgin birth.
iv) Finally, if all three Synoptic gospels attested the virgin birth, unbelievers would regard that as even less impressive than if only Matthew and Luke attest the virgin birth.
Assuming Markan priority, if all three Synoptic Gospels attested the virgin birth, unbelievers would discount the testimony of Matthew and Luke because they'd say Matthew and Luke simply copied that from Mark. Rather than multiple-attestation, they'd say that boils down to just one Gospel.
Conversely, since Mark doesn't record the virgin birth, that means the witness of Matthew and Luke does constitute independent corroboration. Since, in this case, Mark is not the lynchpin connecting Matthew and Luke (vis-à-vis the virgin birth), they didn't get that information from Mark, or from each other.
So we have two Gospel authors, writing independently of each other, bearing historical witness to the virgin birth.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The confutation of Atheism-13
Jason Engwer has responded to Dave Wave see comments in: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/confutation-of-atheism-9.html
I am reproducing the text here:
Steve and Gene have responded well to this latest post from Dave, and I won't be addressing some of the subjects they've already covered. See http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/confutation-of-atheism-11.html and http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/confutation-of-atheism-12.html.
Dave writes:
Dave goes on:
It's not just that Jesus isn't "a perfect mirror image". It's that there are many differences along with some vague parallels, and those parallels don't compel us to the conclusion that Christianity was derived from paganism. The New Testament is highly Jewish and highly anti-paganism. The earliest church fathers aren't as Jewish, but are highly anti-paganism. These background characteristics of early Christianity make Dave's theory initially unlikely. Again, see the documentation in my blog article linked above.
Dave writes:
You're being too vague. Birth is a significant event for all humans. The fact that religious figures would commonly be referred to as having a birth in some sort of "unique fashion" isn't specific enough to warrant the conclusion that one religion was derived from another. As I, Steve, and Gene have explained to you repeatedly, you have yet to document a pagan virgin birth account predating Christianity. The pattern we see in pagan mythology is birth by means of sex, which is the opposite of the Christian account. Opposites are not parallels. And what "resurrections" do you have in mind? Pagans not only didn't believe in the Jewish concept of resurrection, but even were repulsed by it and criticized it (Acts 17:32). The Christian message was "to Gentiles foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:23). N.T. Wright comments:
Dave continues:
Dave continues:
Dave writes:
You haven't documented any pagan virgin birth accounts. But even if you had documented one, why should we think that it would prove borrowing? You do realize that virginity is a common theme that wouldn't require borrowing from one source to another, don't you? You do realize that myth accounts often changed over time, don't you? Where's your documentation of a pagan account involving a virgin birth, your documentation that the account contained the virgin birth before New Testament times, and your documentation that the New Testament authors had to have borrowed from this pagan source? Why should we think that any borrowing would be necessary? And if it was necessary, why not consider the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7 a more likely source?
Dave goes on:
Dave continues:
You haven't shown any pre-Christian pagan examples of virgin birth, nor have you given us any reason to think that paganism would have more of an influence on a Jewish religion than Jewish thought would.
Dave writes:
Dave writes:
# posted by Jason Engwer : 1/05/2006 8:47 PM
I am reproducing the text here:
Steve and Gene have responded well to this latest post from Dave, and I won't be addressing some of the subjects they've already covered. See http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/confutation-of-atheism-11.html and http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/confutation-of-atheism-12.html.
Dave writes:
"Justin also grounds the parallels in the pre-Jesus activity of demons, whoJustin repeatedly comments that Jesus is "more special", and he explains that Christians have evidence for their claims about Jesus, whereas pagans don't have evidence for their mythology. Justin mentions some vague parallels, mentions some differences, and distinguishes between Christian evidence and an absence of evidence for pagan mythology. See my documentation at http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/pagan-parallels-and-church-fathers.html.
created the parallels retroactively through pagan poets, so when Jesus came
along, he'd look no more special than any other god man."
Dave goes on:
"Sure, and I never said Jesus was a perfect mirror image of the pagans, either."
It's not just that Jesus isn't "a perfect mirror image". It's that there are many differences along with some vague parallels, and those parallels don't compel us to the conclusion that Christianity was derived from paganism. The New Testament is highly Jewish and highly anti-paganism. The earliest church fathers aren't as Jewish, but are highly anti-paganism. These background characteristics of early Christianity make Dave's theory initially unlikely. Again, see the documentation in my blog article linked above.
Dave writes:
"Common ground that includes specific parallels such as sons of gods being born
in unique fashion, virgin births, resurrections and ascensions."
You're being too vague. Birth is a significant event for all humans. The fact that religious figures would commonly be referred to as having a birth in some sort of "unique fashion" isn't specific enough to warrant the conclusion that one religion was derived from another. As I, Steve, and Gene have explained to you repeatedly, you have yet to document a pagan virgin birth account predating Christianity. The pattern we see in pagan mythology is birth by means of sex, which is the opposite of the Christian account. Opposites are not parallels. And what "resurrections" do you have in mind? Pagans not only didn't believe in the Jewish concept of resurrection, but even were repulsed by it and criticized it (Acts 17:32). The Christian message was "to Gentiles foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:23). N.T. Wright comments:
"Christianity was born into a world where its central claim was known to beAs far as "ascensions" are concerned, you're again being too vague. The concept of a figure departing from the earth is common and vague. The departure has to occur by means of the figure moving in some manner from one location to another. Nobody would need to get such a vague concept from another belief system. It's not specific enough to warrant an assumption of borrowing.
false. Many believed that the dead were non-existent; outside Judaism, nobody
believed in resurrection....Lots of things could happen to the dead in the
beliefs of pagan antiquity, but resurrection was not among the available
options." (The Resurrection of the Son of God [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress
Press, 2003], pp. 35, 38)
Dave continues:
"You can't just say it's mere coincidence that pre-Christian Greeks thoughtSteve and Gene have already explained that you're wrong to claim that Perseus was born of a virgin. But even if you had been right, why would the existence of a prior virgin birth account prove borrowing? It wouldn't. A birth occurs either through sex or without it. If one group claims a virgin birth, then another group claims one, the second claim could be derived from the first, but not necessarily. And, as Steve explained, even if we were to assume that the New Testament account was influenced by a pre-Christian source, how do you know that the source was a pagan myth rather than the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 7, for example? You're claiming to know things you can't possibly know. Where your theory lacks evidence, you substitute assertions.
Perseus was born of a virgin. Do you agree that virgin-birth was nothing unique
to Christianity, yes or no?"
Dave continues:
"The fact that Justin admits that there is no virgin-birth known in the raceYou haven't documented a single case, yet you're using the plural.
of Abraham is irrelevant to the cites of virgin-births coming from the race of
the Greeks."
Dave writes:
"Irrelevant, the chances of two different savior gods being said to be born of
virgins, by sheer chance and without any borrowing from one to the other, given
Christianity's existence in the middle of such paganism, are almost zero."
You haven't documented any pagan virgin birth accounts. But even if you had documented one, why should we think that it would prove borrowing? You do realize that virginity is a common theme that wouldn't require borrowing from one source to another, don't you? You do realize that myth accounts often changed over time, don't you? Where's your documentation of a pagan account involving a virgin birth, your documentation that the account contained the virgin birth before New Testament times, and your documentation that the New Testament authors had to have borrowed from this pagan source? Why should we think that any borrowing would be necessary? And if it was necessary, why not consider the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7 a more likely source?
Dave goes on:
"Second, the whole idea of gods impregnating woman was known beforeA "common motif" doesn't require borrowing. People are born either naturally or supernaturally. The fact that both pagan mythology and the New Testament are in that second category doesn't prove that the New Testament accounts were derived from pagan mythology.
Christianity, and therefore, whether God the Father became flesh and took away
Mary's virginity so as to concieve Jesus, or some other way which left her
viginity intact, god's impregnating woman were a common motif."
Dave continues:
"No coincidence...the gospel authors were making use of a commonly accepted
expectation of what a god-man would do, to make Jesus more palatable to
their first-century pagan audiences, born out absolutely perfectly by Justin
Martyr doing exactly that."
You haven't shown any pre-Christian pagan examples of virgin birth, nor have you given us any reason to think that paganism would have more of an influence on a Jewish religion than Jewish thought would.
Dave writes:
"again, it's either geneaological, or, sheer chance, that the ChristiansYou're telling us that there was "a historical context full of virgin-born god men". Yet, as Richard Swinburne said in my earlier citation of him, pagans didn't believe in an incarnation of God, and you haven't given us even one example of a pagan virgin birth account. What we do see often is a being less powerful than God being born by means of sex. But since concepts such as birth and virginity are common to all humans, how could you assume borrowing from one religion to another even if the pagan accounts involved the virgin birth of God? You'd still have to examine the historical evidence surrounding the Christian claim.
propound a virgin born god-man in the middle of a historical context full of
virgin-born god men."
Dave writes:
"Jews wouldn't, Greeks would"And the earliest Christians were Jews living in Israel. Matthew's gospel, which reports the virgin birth, is written by a Jew and is highly Jewish in its content. Regarding Luke, Ben Witherington writes:
“The fact that Luke 1-2 abounds in Hebraisms in contrast to the classical GreekOn issues of naturalism and historical evidence, Dave has again been incoherent and inconsistent. What he says in one post isn't consistent with what he's said elsewhere, and he sometimes argues for multiple views within a single post. You get the impression that he's trying to maintain the appearance of having a case without having one.
prologue in Luke 1:1-4 speaks for the use of a Semitic narrative source(s) of
considerable proportions at least up to Luke 2:40 (Farris; see Languages of
Palestine)." (in Joel B. Green, et al., editors, Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 61)
# posted by Jason Engwer : 1/05/2006 8:47 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)