The last time I went to visit my mom in Kansas during the holiday season was six years ago (she is now in a retirement home in Ohio; 93 and still walkin’ around!). I talked about it on the blog soon thereafter. I was not a church going person then (still not) but I did the sonly thing and took her to her church. This was a conservative evangelical Free Methodist Church – one that my mom has attended for many years. It was not really my style – I rather prefer centuries-honored liturgy to electric guitars and drums, myself – but I wasn’t there to satisfy my own aesthetic preferences. (She doesn’t like the guitars and drums either, but we missed the earlier service with the choir).
The sermon in that kind of church is very different from what one hears in an Episcopal church and is also very different from the kind of sermon I learned to preach when I was in my Masters of Divinity program at the Presbyterian Princeton Theological Seminary. This sermon at my mom’s church was really more of a reflective point-by-point verse-by-verse discussion of a text of Scripture. A fairly long text (20 verses?). And a fairly long sermon (40 minutes?).
In the church bulletin there was a kind of hand-out that had the key points of the sermon given in outline form with blanks that the parishioner was supposed to fill in as the pastor got to that part. “Mary responded _____________ when she heard the angel’s voice.” You’re left guessing how to fill in the blank – is it “fearfully?” “hopefully?” “joyfully?” – until the pastor tells you the right answer. When the sermon is over, you have all the blanks filled in, and since you’ve been actively participating in the sermon by writing down the key words, presumably the message will stick with you longer.
Most of the sermon, then, involved the pastor reading the passage bit by bit and then telling the congregation what it meant – a kind of exegetical sermon. Fair enough. It wasn’t bad, if you appreciate that kind of thing.
The text was from Luke 1, the long chapter that is the lead-up to the birth of Jesus in Luke 2. Luke’s first chapter includes the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist, the miraculous pregnancy of Elizabeth who had been barren, the “Annunciation” of the angel Gabriel to Mary that she too would conceive, even though she was a virgin, and the songs of joy sung on each occasion by the father of John, Zechariah, and the mother of Jesus, Mary. It’s a historically really important chapter, of course, and nothing makes it more important than the fact that it is one of the two passages of the entire New Testament that mentions Jesus’ virgin birth.
I was struck by one of the things that the pastor said in his exposition of the text, that belief in the Virgin Birth “is not optional” for Christians. In his forcefully stated view, if you are a Christian, “you have to believe in the Virgin Birth.”
It makes sense that conservative evangelical Bible-believing Christians insist that you have to believe in certain things or you can’t be a Christian. In my part of the world (and in my mom’s church, I’m sure), you “have to” believe in the Bible or you can’t be a Christian. That particular view has long thrown me for a loop, since in none of the historical creeds of Christianity – the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed, for example – is there one word about having to believe in the Bible. Christianity is belief in Christ; it’s not Biblianitry – belief in the Bible.
But conservatives stress that, for good reason, if you take the Bible away from them they won’t have “objective” authority for telling you what else you have to believe and how else you have to live your lives. Without the Bible they wouldn’t have written grounds for arguing their favorite doctrinal positions (Trinity), moral positions (anti-abortion), social positions (it *used* to be used to argue for slavery), etc.
There are certain fundamentals of the faith that very conservative Christians insist you have to believe in. That’s why, originally, that kind of Christian proudly took on the name “fundamentalist.” This wasn’t a negative term used by outsiders, but a positive one that insiders used to describe their commitment to the fundamental aspects of the faith: the complete inspiration of Scripture; the physical reality of hell; the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and the …. virgin birth. These things needed to be believed literally, otherwise, well, otherwise you weren’t a Christian. And if you weren’t a Christian — that’s where the physical reality of hell came into play.
The older I get the more I’m a “Live and Let Live” kind of guy. But I do wonder about those who insist that you “have to” believe something. Take the Virgin Birth. Is it actually a biblical teaching that you have to believe in it? The reality is that the virgin birth is mentioned by only two authors of the New Testament, Matthew and Luke. And only in their opening narratives. Matthew says that Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 7:14). He also says that he was born in Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy (Micah 5:2). And that Herod killed all the boys of Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy (why God had to make that part of his plan he doesn’t say; think about all those bereft families.). But he nowhere says that you “have to” believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or that Herod slaughtered the innocents or you can’t be a Christian. He doesn’t say that about the virgin birth either. And neither does Luke.
If the Virgin Birth was so important – vital! – to these authors, why don’t they make a bigger deal of it? Why, for example, don’t they ever (not once!) refer to it again later in their Gospels? And if it’s an “essential” part of the faith, why doesn’t Paul show the slightest knowledge of it? Or John? Or James? Or Peter? Or anyone else? If someone were to ask Paul “Do I have to believe in the Virgin Birth to be saved?”, what do you imagine he’s say? I myself imagine he’d say “believe in the … what??”
In no passage of the NT does it say that anyone “has” to believe in the Virgin Birth. I can see why some modern Christians (and a lot of ancient ones – starting about a century after the Gospels) think so: without the Virgin Birth, isn’t Jesus just a human, like the rest of us? Well, that’s an interesting question, since John, who does not even hint at the virgin birth, thinks that Jesus is not at all human like the rest of us.
But to claim you “have” to believe in a literal virgin birth to be a Christian, I would argue, is empirically wrong. Most of my friends who are Christian do not believe in a literal virgin birth. You could say they aren’t “really” Christian, but they could respond that *you* aren’t “really” Christian. And at that point, we’re at a standoff. No one has been given the authority to make that kind of pronouncement….
Biblianitry – I thought I had run across a new lofty word of academia before noticing the word play, lol.
This is the first Christmas season that I will not be attending any services (I currently no longer attend church at all). The deconstruction of my faith began with an emotional journey. I turned to the Bible to find God again only to end up even further away. At this point I don’t know whether I’m more lost or more found. It’s a scary place to be. Especially as I think of my kids.
Thank you for your books Dr Ehrman. The have helped me think more about what I believe.
So what function does the Virgin Birth have in Matthew’s and Luke’s narrative? I assume they got it from Q since it’s not in Mark and in both of them.
No, it’s not from Q because the stories are completely different. (No verbal overlap, but even stories themselves differ). Matthew’s point, in a nutshell: Jesus was the predicted messiah; Luke’s: Jesus was literally the son of God.
Considering that the stories are different, doesn’t the fact that they both independently have stories of the same thing(a virgin birth) imply that the idea of his virgin birth is coming from an earlier tradition they both inherited?
Absolutely. AT least in my view: no way the two of them independently came up with it themselves. There must have been earlier stories about Jesus’ unusual birth, possibly connected with the knowledge that he was born out of wedlock.
Very nice post.
You should sometime write a post concerning the Trinity,
and basis for this doctrine in the New Testament. Or perhaps lack of basis.
I am particularly curious about Thomas 44 (the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).
I find it odd that Thomas is here much more explicitly trinitarian
than Matthew, Mark or Luke!
I may do that! (Just did a webinar on it)
Thank you Dr Ehrman for a most thought provoking post, which I personally found very helpful. As a Christian hanging on to my religion by my fingernails, the need to believe in the Virgin Birth has long troubled me and I found your post extremely reassuring on this point. I’m the same age as you and recall many years ago a former Anglican Bishop of Durham (England) questioning the Virgin Birth and being castigated in the Media for doing so. I think even today a mainstream Christian leader who queried the Virgin Birth would do it at their peril. And of course, the Roman Catholic Church places great emphasis on Mary’s virginity so wouldn’t dream of suggesting that the Biblical accounts shouldn’t be taken too literally.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think Paul says there were really only 2 things you had to believe. 1 Cor 15:3-4
1. Jesus died for our sins.
2. Jesus was resurrected and people saw him.
He doesn’t actually say these are the two things you have to believe.
Do you think as notions about authority in Christianity have changed over time (with one of the latest stages being impacted by Protestant individualism, especially), the turning of the Bible itself into an authority is a modern psychological maneuver to conceal individual authority, a sort of passing the buck from the anxiety of individual belief to something impersonal, physical, unchanging…a book?
Making the Bible as the primary religious authority seems to me to be a tactic to answer modern objections to apparently worn-out authorities. Examples: “How can I be a Christian when the church hierarchy is corrupt?”—Don’t follow them, just trust the Bible. “How can I be a Christian when there are so many Christians with contradictory claims?”—Don’t believe Christians, just believe the Bible. “How can I trust myself to be a Christian when I make mistakes?”—You’re right not to trust yourself, but you can trust a perfect Bible. “Why should I trust you about the Bible being an authority, when you can make mistakes?”—Don’t trust me as an authority on the Bible, but you can trust the Bible as an authority.
Thanks
Interesting idea. I’m not sure I”ve thought about it in that way before. But yes, that could be seen even as the motivation behind the Reformation itself.
Can you recommend (or comment on) any ancient literature or modern studies on the notion of forbidden sexual unions leading to either divine offspring or a messiah? I’m thinking, for example, of Tamar and Judah being ancestors of David, or the sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis. You might see where this might lead—Mary and God/Holy Spirit. Is there anything parallel here? Are Matt or Luke’s accounts part of an ancient Hebrew and/or pagan gentile tradition of including unusual (maybe illicit) sexual encounters as a lead up to an extraordinary person being born?
Thanks
THere are two different things going on; in Matthew it is about Jesus as the *messiah* — hence the genealogy that lists four women, all of whom have had questionable sexual relationships (as Mary was reputed to have had as well); for Matthew it is about Jesus as teh Son of God, born of a union of a mortal with a god, as is common in pagan stories of the gods
But doesn’t the Apostle’s Creed affirm belief in the Virgin Mary?
Yes it does. But our the creed was not written by the Apostles; it came about centuries later.
Great entry. I recall when I was much younger I attended a church meeting where there was a discussion about the diverse nature of Christianity. One of the members finally said, “Well at least we can all agree on the virgin birth!” I thought then, I really don’t believe this and wondered whether that meant I wasn’t a ‘real’ Christian after all. I finally decided that my visualization of Jesus had little to do with how he was born and more to do with my concept of his reasons for being here in the first place.
Thanks for the note today.
“Christianity is belief in Christ; it’s not Biblianitry – belief in the Bible.”
Ok but since all we can know about Christ is from the Bible wouldn’t it follow that a Christian would have to “believe” in the Bible before they could “believe” in Christ? (Just to clarify I’m a non-believer who wonders how revelation actually works.)
Thanks!
No, I would say most people learn what they learn about Christ not by reading the Bible but by hearing other people talk about Jesus. The CAthlic church has forever insisted that the traditions that developed outside the Bible can be as authoritative as those found in the Bible.
Dr Ehrman how?
On what basis can the catholic church insists traditions outside the bible? Like what kind of authority?
Because then they can just keep on adding to these traditions, so what’s the purpose of the bible to them?
Is the catholic church a religion or is it more like tuning into some kind of a big cult?
Thank you Dr Ehrman
I wouldn’t call it a cult, no; it’s a very large and sophisticated religion. The way I look at it is that throughtout history most Christians have not read the Bible (or been able to); so it’s not surprise that the Bible was not the foundation for their faith — until the Reformation and modern Protestantism. seems a bit strange to those of us raised protestant! But for most Christians thorughout history it seemed natural and normal.
One aspect of the virgin birth left out of Christmas sermons is that the Almighty God, who (in the Jewish scriptures) was on record as having done terrible things to those who opposed His will, tells a young woman that she is to bear His child. She was not asked (read the accounts!) but even if she was, this is the very definition of sexual harassment: one in power exerting his will over a vulnerable woman. Of course Mary consents: who is she to stand up to a powerful God who threatens terrible things to those who disobey Him? You don’t see that presented in too many Christmas pageants. (Of course, one could argue the Magnificat in Luke 1 shows that Mary was happy about the situation, although even there it points out that God’s mercy is on those who fear Him, but then we get into the Stockholm Syndrome…but that’s another discussion.)
Yes indeed. Some very troubling aspects of this story if one thinks about it. ANd the aftermath: the slaughter of the innocents?? Wow….
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”)
Some skeptics say Isaiah wrote ‘alma’ means ‘young woman.’ So this would translate “… a sign: a young woman will conceive and give birth to a son….”
So what is the ‘sign’ if a young woman has a child? Most Jewish woman had children as ‘young women.’
Alma, like many words, has multiple meanings, depending upon context. And the context here was that God would give a sign – the Messiah’s birth would be different.
I’m not sure why you’re saying that’s a view of sceptics? That is indeed what hte word means. The Hebrew word for “virgin” is Bethulah. Read Isaiah 7-8 in toto yourself, note the historical context, and see what the sign is. And note, the text does not say a young woman will conceive and bear a son; it says that she has conceived and will bear a son. WHat is the sign? Read it in context and see. (The military issue and a very upset king).
You’re 100% right about the young woman in Isaiah 7. But as to the idea of biblianitry, you just used the Bible to very effectively refute someone’s erroneous belief in this thread. You appealed to the Isaiah passage as the authority on the matter. That’s how we all should use it. I’m thankful you did. I wish you’d do it more. You’re exactly right, people are clueless about what it says, and base their beliefs on what they are taught. Use your years of open-eyed study to refute erroneous ideas ? This is the exact reason I hang on your every word, with bated breath even. You don’t care who it offends. I don’t consider myself a biblidolitrist, but I base what I believe/teach on what it actually SAYS vs what some guy who just got hit by lightning on top of his gazebo claims God revealed to him.i couldn’t care less if God told him to be a golf pro or marry 10 women or whatever else. I’ll stick with the text … as soon as y’all text critics figure out exactly what it is HA! ? am I out of line thinking this way?
Biblianitry, is a word that I either heard or invented which means salvation comes by believing in the Bible. THat is not at all the same as determining what early Christians thought by seeing what is taught in parts of the Bible.
Seems to me that most protestants and especially fundamentalists set up the bible as an idol. They don’t worship Jesus nearly as much as that collection of writings. Alan Watts commented that the bible should be ceremoniously and reverently burned every Easter, “For we don’t need it as The Word (Jesus) is with us.”
Some Christians ignore the historical context of this passage.
Yup! I’d say most do!
I was a fundamentalist for seventy two years until I started to seek the truth of my beliefs. The foundation of all their beliefs is that the Bible is the inspired word of God with no error. Therefore, if the Bible says that Mary was a virgin, IT WAS SO, no question! Some people even believe the Bible is true “word for word”. To call the Bible inerrant is the greatest mistake that modern Christians make.
“The older I get the more I’m a “Live and Let Live” kind of guy.”
I’m the same way and I’m a lot older than you. To keep peace in the family you don’t rock the boat. Especially about religion and especially about the Christian religion.
The Virgin Birth is just one more fantasy in the pile of fantasies that is the Christian religion. What’s ironic is that these religious fantasies have made Western Civilization what it is today. For more information on this irony, read sociologist Joseph Henrich’s recent (2020) book
The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous.
Note: WEIRD is an acronym meaning: Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic.
Dr. Henrich is chair of the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University.
That is one of the dangers of authoritarianism: its demands require no evidence or logic. Just threats.
I suppose primarily evangelicals have to believe in the Virgin Birth because it is in the Bible. Secondarily, there may be some doctrine about the need to be free from original sin. The Virgin Birth is probably a non-negotiable doctrine of the Catholic Church – scepticism or critique of the doctrine would undermine doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which in turn undermines authority of all doctrines declared infallible, which in turns undermines papal authority.
I recall in a recent post that your mother was a lukewarm Catholic? Did she convert to conservative evangelicalism later in life?
As you have quite a reputation in evangelical circles, do you get much reactions from people when you attend an evangelical church, eager to challenge you or eager to have your autograph?
No, no. My mom was never CAtholic. When I was a kid she was as committed Episcopalian. And yes, some evangelicals ahve a very good sense of humor about and with me. When I was at a conservative apologetics conference last year, I had lunch with about ten students from Moody Bible Institute, my alma mater. We had a great time and a lot of laughs.
How do you get pagans many of who worship Goddesses tho join up? You create a goddess, Mary. My grandmothers, their friends and the nuns at school were big Mary fans. Most would do the rosary rather than listen to what the priest was doing in Latin. consider the Hail Mary verse “Holy Mary Mother of God….”. When they spoke about Le Bon Deux (God), they were not talking about Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Thru the ages, Christianity has created a little something for everybody?
It’s an interesting idea. I’m not aware of any evidence that belief in Mary brought anyone into the fold, since her elevated status arose only after Christianity had become the dominant religion among non-Jews in the empire.
Good evening, Bart. Your mentioning of the Apostle’s creed brought up an interesting thought in my mind. Since you deal in early Christianity, have you ever thought about doing some posts about the three creeds? The Nicene and the Athanasian creeds being the other two. Stuff like why they were written in the first place, dates of writing, controversies, etc. One thing I would be interested in is what are the earliest known written manuscripts we have of these three creeds? Do we have original manuscripts? Have you ever got to inspect a real old version of any of these?
Interesting idea. I’m thinking about a series of posts on the rise of the doctrine of the Trinity, which would get inot it a bit.
Well, at least there is some evidence in favor of the Virgin Birth. I find the perpetual virginity of Mary much more absurd. Matthew says that Joseph had no marital relations with her until she had born Jesus, implying they did have sex after that. And given the customs of the time, it would have been unthinkable that she remained a virgin.
What would be the evidence for a virgin birth? (Do you mean the fact that two NT authors say she was a virgin? I would think that what one would look for is evidence for whether they were right or not, rather than appealing to them *as* the evidence. See what I mean?)
Dr. Ehrman,
What is it that makes you believe that the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus did not originate with the historical Jesus?
See this post (toward the end): https://ehrmanblog.org/how-should-we-understand-the-story-of-lazarus-and-the-rich-man/
I suppose one’s opinion of the Virginal Conception depends on one’s view of (1) the importance of original sin to Christianity, (2) the need for Jesus to be without original sin, (3) how original sin is inherited/transmitted, and (4) what the implications are if Luke and Matthew were…how to say this…less than fully inspired when they crafted Jesus’ origin story. Probably (3) is the key. Since Jesus never really propounded on the mechanism of original sin….we humans have a need to fill in the gaps….and flesh out theology. In this case, God can’t be dirty…..and certainly Jesus could not be illegitimate….so what plot device works?
Dr Ehrman I’m not sure if you said this before or someone else did..
If this whole virgin birth stories and immaculate conception dogma are all about Jesus being free from original sin and other sins because he is the messiah, son of GOD.
So why is there a need for his baptism in Jordan river?
Thank you Dr Ehrman
It would completely depend on which Gospel writer you asked. Matthew deals directly with the problem by having Jesus explain to John that it is “to fulfil all righteousness.” Luke oddly does not exactly explain the actual baptism by John. Mark, of course, has not problem because there JEsus is not born of a virgin…
thanks Bart! wow is that an earth shattering one—actually not as bad as when I learned the bible was assembled and voted on 1000 something years after Jesus…that was earth shattering.. I don’t know what I believe till someone questions it..and that’s why you are so fun (frightening?) you have an inside out perspective. Although you have certainly given my faith some historical certainty so that is awesome. Really enjoying the triumph of christianity. Naturally!
I have an old earth christian friend and a young earth chrisitan friend both great engineers and smarter than me–but I heard a sermon once and the preacher said God only spends one chapter on creation and 49ish on people so what do you think his focus is?
So now I place the virgin birth in this category—what’s the focus? The death and resurrection. But of course we couldn’t have either without Christmas!!!! The honey is cooking up a prime rib…can’t wait. Merry Xmas!
Thanks. BTW, teh Bible was not assembled a thousand years after Jesus — way, way before — and was never voted on at a major council of church leaders.
Maybe the hardcore Christians recognize that Christianity is based (supposedly) on historical events and when one of these events regardless of whether it is central to the Christian message is questioned this could lead to all of the “historical” events in the Bible being questioned. So they fight everything that suggests that the Bible is not the way that things happened. That is what led me to abandon Christianity. I stopped believing that the Bible was historically accurate.
If you think it is possible to say, how would you define the minimum criteria to be Christian? Someone of course would still disagree.
I remember reading “Why I Am Not a Christian” and disagreeing with even the minimum criteria suggested by Bertrand Russel. Even the notion that Jesus must be “the best of wisest of men” can be argued against. What if someone calls herself/himself a Christian because they believe in God, that the teachings of Jesus ought to be followed (even if not perfect or complete) and that he is a figure to be admired (even if not perfect or the best of all time for all time). Why should the founder of anything be the greatest of all time forever? Unless he was perfect, surely someone will eventually improve or build upon it. Yet the founder is always remembered and admired. In Jesus’ case, I suspect he wasn’t intending to be the founder of anything.
I don’t think anyone can or will agree on the minimal requirements for being a CHristian, and so I will just speak for myself. Anyone can object as they see fit! In my personal view, to be a Christian you need at least to (1) believe that there is a God, (3) believe that Jesus in some way is a special manifestation of God, and (3) try to follow Jesus as you understand him.
But what does the NT say about the matter? May I quote a notable NT scholar?
“When a person becomes a follower of Jesus and undergoes the ritual of baptism, for Paul, something actually happens. The person goes under the water, just as Jesus at his burial went underground. “We have been buried with him in baptism.” For Paul, at this moment in the baptism ritual, the believer is “united with Christ,” so that the victories that Christ experienced are shared by the believer. The believer too, then, has participated in the victory over sin and death. The person is then, and only then, freed from the power of sin and placed under a different power, the power of righteousness. Moreover, the person is freed from the power of death and will now have eternal life.”
Those are your words Dr. E. Will you retract them? Of course you refer to Romans 6. Should we define minimum requirements outside the NT? Are you saying, “Well Paul indeed taught one thing, but it’s ok to draw conclusions outside of the NT on how one is to be saved?” You have no reason to affirm any dogma. What does the NT say?
Romans 6 does not talk about “becoming a Christian” (you’ll notice the word does not occur there). Even if it did, it would be Paul’s view, not “the” view of the NT authors, let alone other Christians at the time. Paul himself certainly had a view of what it meant to be saved through Christ. Luke had a different view. James a different view. Etc…
May I humbly point out that Luke/Acts is in agreement with Paul on the matter of baptism?
“And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’”
Acts 22:16
And again,
“Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 2:38
And in disputed Pauline material?
“In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses,”
Colossians 2:11-13
And now a more credible source than the NT:
“I knew belief in the resurrection was essential for salvation for Paul. Are you saying being baptized was a non-negotiable requirement also?
DrEhrman
DrEhrman January 5, 2016 at 3:36 pm – Reply
Yup!”
Baptism is a requirement in the NT. Agreed?
Requirement for what? Salvation? I suppose it depends which author you ask. As you know, most don’t say a word about it.
Professor Ehrman,
Your definition of a Christian is invaluable to me. I’m wishing it were in a post for everyone to see.
For Protestant theology (much of it anyway) Christ crucifixion satisfied everything, so I don’t see theologically what the big issue is about being born from a Virgin. He was raised from the dead and declared the Son of God.
For Orthodox theology, big problem, since salvation itself is based on theosis/glorification. Without Christ being God theosis is impossible and theosis is salvation (not to be confused with the experience of witnessing the Uncreated Light). Hence the need to express true belief with the belief in the term Theotokos (see St. Cyril of Alexandria “On the Unity of Christ.”)
What I would like to know is: How important is the Virgin Birth in the years between the writing of the Gospels and the crystallization of Proto-Orthodoxy (325?)?
Does monastic literature discuss the importance of the Virgin Birth? Is there a trail of literature that culminates in the NECESSITY of Mary’s virginity for salvation (through theosis) vs using her as a simple moralistic paradigm?
There are different protestant views, of course; but one is that Christ’s death could not remove the sins of the world unless he was divine; if I myself choose to die for you, it won’t get you into heaven. Might be a nice thing for me to do, but it doesn’t absolve you of your sins. You need a God-man for that. God takes your punishment upon yourself. The virgin birth does become an important doctrine in Christianity, starting esp. in the second century.
You wrote: “…why doesn’t Paul show the slightest knowledge of it [Virgin Birth]? …If someone were to ask Paul “Do I have to believe in the Virgin Birth to be saved?”, what do you imagine he’s say? I myself imagine he’d say “believe in the … what??”
What about Paul’s word choice in Galatians 4:4? “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον)…” (KJV) Arguably, in using the verb γίνομαι, which means “came into being”, Paul was avoiding the verb γεννάω, which means “to beget, to give birth to”, and thus also implying that he believed in Virgin Birth!
I’d like to hear the best argument against that exegesis of Galatians 4:4?
THe words are used synonymously; γινομαι can indeed mean to “become” to “come into the world”. Gal 4:4 is often taken as an argument that Paul did *not* hold to a virgin birth, since that would have been the time to mention it “born of a woman” rather than “born of a virgin”
The modern mind misses the point. The Virgin Birth refers to the manner in which Jesus was concieved, that his conception was not the consequence of human sexual intercourse. People in the ancient world thought conception happened because the man planted his seed inside a woman, but still needed to explain why sometimes it led to a boy versus girl. And why the boy might look like his mother, or the men from his mother’s family, and the girl might look like the father, or the women on her father’s side, etc. A common understanding (e,g, Aritstotle) was that the relative passions of the parents determined the child’s traits. Luke explicitly exploits this belief, when Gabriel tells Mary that the Holy Spirit will come upon her, and the power of the Most High will overshadow her. It was to be God’s traits expressed in the child, and Mary explicitly submits to it. NT writers might have agreed, especially John (see Jn. 1:13). Modern understanding of genetics makes it unintelligible. Bultmann was right; we have to proclaim it in modern terms, not first century terms. Do we have to believe it in first century terms? No!
Your comment “belief in Christ & not Biblianitry” brings up a good question. When reading the authentic epistles of Paul, I’m left wondering what exactly was a convert of his supposed to do? Correct me if I’m wrong please. It seems like it was a very simple belief/practice system. You baptize into Christ and are freed from the power of sin. At this point you believe in the One God of Israel, avoid sexual immorality, love your Christian community, and just wait for Jesus to return. None of the laws/festival/practices carry through. It seems like a very simple religion compared to what Christianity was to become.
Yes, I’d say it was a very simple religion in a sense, and for Paul it was a good deal as you summarize.
Bart, off topic. Any thoughts on why none of the Books of Enoch made it into the Old Testament canon? Merry Christmas!
They were written very late and were not widely enough used. (Daniel was written later, of course, but it explicitly claimed to be written three centuries before it was and it was more widely used)
This runs into the same problem that people confront over miracles. That which cannot be explained scientifically is assumed to not have been possible and therefore to not have happened. But that’s a mistake in thinking. Just as religion has no place in science class, science has no place in religion. When you encounter someone who says Jesus must have walked on a sand bar or Moses must have crossed at low tide, what you’re usually encountering is someone who is attempting to be smarter or more sophisticated (usually smarter or more sophisticated than you). So believe as you choose without hesitation or apology. That’s America.
But isn’t it interesting how people that claim to believe in miracles are often the biggest skeptics? For example, conservative Christians never accept miracles in other religions. Protestant churches I’ve been in and relatives don’t accept miracles claimed by Catholics. How many faith healers on TV are even believed by other denominations?
So yes, people often believe what they want once they are willing to accept stories. But they usually only accept miracle stories of their own group and not the same claims of others. It’s probably why people look more to science: belief has no standard.
The problem is, when people disregard science, reason, logic, etc. they sometimes end up believing some very weird stuff and get in very serious trouble and do very destructive things, like drinking cyanide laced Kool Aide, and killing themselves and their children and anyone who happens to disagree with them. Maybe people are free to disregard science but sometimes they crash and burn and take a lot of innocent bystanders with them. In my humble opinion, there is NO realm where the scientific method is inappropriate, and NO instance where reason should not rule.
I think it could be tied to Augustine’s identification of the “original sin” with sex, meaning that Adam’s original sin was transmitted to all of his descendants through sex. Jesus missed out on this transmission because his mother was a virgin. (When scientists discovered that the woman contributes half of the person – something that any animal breeder could have told them – the Vatican resurrected the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception to get past that problem.)
That doesn’t explain Protestant belief in the virgin birth, since they mostly reject Augustine’s original sin = sex. Or do they?
I’d say the concept of the virgin birth became especailly important with AUgustine; also important in the Catholic view that goes back to him, though, was the immaculate conception of Mary’s mother — I don’t think that was related to scientific discovery though. Protestants ended up diverging, but the virgin birth was so central to teh biblical accounts they were not about to get rid of it. THey simply came up with other theological explications of it.
My recollection of the immaculate conception (and I could be wrong) is that it was an early doctrine that became obscure until the XIX century, when the discovery of the ovum led the Catholic Church to revive it.
It seems to me that the virgin birth of Jesus was not alone among the various theological / philosophical tales of heroes and divine persons, from all over the world, and at the time of Jesus and before.
https://glorian.org/connect/blog/what-is-virgin-birth
.
I’ll be dealing with all that in a later post! I’m going to be arguing that we actually don’t have records of other divine men being born of virgins. Almost always their mothers have had sex; often a lot of sex.
My point is, it seems that a whole lot of traditions (including the Hellenistic tradition who most probably influenced some Judean thoughts) ,shown in my link above, used the consept of virgin birth. It seems that the authors used that kind of consept as an attribute to a “hero” or a “devine” person, as a quality to emphazise the persons divinity.
Could the story of virgin birth in the Gospels come from such “tradtion”?
I’m saying that in fact there were not any traditions about people being born of a virgin. Modern authors often *say* there were, but I don’t know of any from an ancient source.
was mary a pre-teen when she was made pregnant? i heard that her question could mean “how could i have a child when i am young”
Nothing suggests that. Her questoin is not about her being young but about her not “having known a man” (meaning, having had sex)
mary spoke greek or palestinian aramaic? what is a pre-teen ancient palistinian girl identfied as? “betulah”?
“Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”[b] 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[c] will be holy; he will be called Son of God. 36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren”
elizabeth is identified as barren and one of old age.
mary is young and is not old .
what was the point to mention the words “old age” and “barren” ?
mary = young
elizabeth= old and barren
is there a link ?
Sorry, I’m not completely sure what you’re asking. The histoircal person Mary would have spoken Aramaic. Luke was written in Greek, and is not recording something that actually happened to Mary.
if mary was found pregnant by joseph, how did he keep secret that she was pregnant?
the text says:
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife,
so on wedding day, people had no idea that mary was pregnant?
joseph spotted her pregnancy “but before they lived together, she was found to be with child”
on wedding day, the people did not ask how mary became pregnant so fast?
once the baby was born, joseph was congratulated for having a male child, i heard that back in those days a male child would be a party throwing time,so joseph told the peoples that his child was of the holy spirit?
The text doesn’t say how far along she was when he learned she was pregnant.
“The text doesn’t say how far along she was when he learned she was pregnant.”
but it was enough for him to send her away?
It doesn’t say that he saw that she was showing. As we all know, there are lots of ways one can learn that someone is pregnant. E.g. maybe she told him.
You’re walking dangerously close to using the canonical NT to refute doctrinal error there, “Brother” ? Ehrman ? go ahead by all means though. Does a person have to believe in the virgin birth, not according to the scriptures themselves. Feel free to correct me when I’m wrong here, but contrary to popular belief being saved does not come by faith alone. “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
James 2:24 different answers are given in the NT as to what must a person do to be saved. For example, John gospel quotes JC to say “unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins” john 8:24. Luke/Acts quotes Peter as saying that his audience should, “repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins,” acts 2:38, and Paul (who himself taught immersion) states ““because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Romans 10:9. Are any of these things not explicitly stated as essential to being saved in the NT? Don’t let me down here, Dr. E, what does the NT say?
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking. I don’t think there is a single teaching about salvation among the authors of the NT. So if they say different things, I’m … not sure what you’re asking.
Did the pastor at your mum’s church realise who he had in his congregation when you turned up? Did his knees start to knock? Or did he come over for a chat with you afterwards?
Usually in those situations the pastor sees it as a golden opportunity to reveal the truth!
So the birth narratives are found only in Matthew and Luke. They both contain statements that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but otherwise seem to be totally different. How aware do you think the authors of the two gospels were of each other’s narratives? Other than for the reference to Bethlehem, there seems to be no real overlap. Clearly both authors felt the need to identify Jesus and Bethlehem so as to connect him to presumed Jewish prophecy. Same goes for Mary’s virginity. What does this tell us about how Christians viewed Jesus in the late first century?
I think the narratives were completely independent; there were stories afloat about Jesus being born of a virgin in Bethlehem, and the two authors had heard different versions of the story (otherwise there’d be *some* similiarities otherwise — such as how it all happened). My sense is that late-first-century Christains had a wide range of understandings of Jesus. (You’ll note, btw, that Luke does not explicitly talk about Jesus’ birth fulfilling prophecy the way Matthew does)
I am really enjoying your blog Bart…. thank you!
Regarding the genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke- why did the authors think it was important to list the patriarchal lineage of Jesus, while at the same time teaching that Jesus is the ‘son of God’ who was conceived between the Holy Spirit and Mary? Joseph, of course, would have been stepfather..no blood relation to Jesus.
It’s almost certainly to show that he could be traced back to King David (King of the Jews) and Abraham (FAther of the Jews) and — for Luke — even to Adam (since for him Jesus is the savior of all people, not just Jews).
Thank you for the response Bart!
If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, how would he be biologically connected to David and Abraham via his stepfather Joseph? His connection to humanity would have to come from Mary.
Right! He wouldn’t be!
Thanks for the confirmation Bart!
Happy New Year!