How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
|
Today on Slate.com, a wonderful online magazine in line with Time or Newsweek but with an edge, the “Explainer” section dealt with the question: “Can a Virgin Give Birth?” This was also the article’s title. Ultimately, in answer to the question, the explainer concluded by saying “Yes—but it is very, very, very, very unlikely.” How did the explainer justify his answer? Notably, the explainer did not refer to any holy texts to justify his view that yes a virgin birth could possibly happen. Rather, the explainer’s answer was justified by reference to science, to people who are credentialed and recognized authorities and practitioners of science—namely, the explainer cited Jose Cibelli of Michigan State University, George Daley and Willy Lensch of Children’s Hospital Boston, Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon Stem Cell Center, and Kent Vrana of Pennsylvania State University. These are two distinct ways of justifying one’s view that a virgin birth is possible. Because the explainer gets to the same conclusion as the Christian, but gets there by referring to scientific arguments and not the Holy Bible, some Christians might be inclined to conflate scriptural justifications with scientific justifications. That is to say, some Christians might make the claim, as did Pastor Comfort on ABC, that “I believe God’s existence can be proven absolutely, scientifically, without even mentioning faith.” Or they may write a book entitled: Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In conflating scriptural justifications with scientific justifications, these men of faith are suggesting that faith in Jesus Christ and his virgin birth are matters amenable to science, they are presented as hypotheses that can be empirically tested and validated. Thus, we get a situation where some people believe that the empirical evidence adds up to Christ just as plainly as the evidence adds up to the force of gravity. But tell me, who made scientific authority the arbiter of truth? When was it that scientific authority was able to explain God? When was it that scientific justification for a virgin birth became more significant to us than a scriptural justification? Toward these very types of questions, John D. Caputo has written a small and illuminating set of essays on the relationship between philosophy and theology in a book entitled, Philosophy and Theology. Caputo says that sometime during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as the modern Enlightenment project started to take hold, “the relationship between faith and reason was reversed” (22). He artfully puts it like this:
So, it has not always been the case that Evidence demanded a verdict. And it has not always been the case that a pastor could or would claim to be able to “prove absolutely” and “scientifically” that God is real. And it has not always been the case that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ could or would be justified by reference to the authority of science. This is only a rather recent possibility, as in the past few hundred years since the rise of the Enlightenment faith in Reason and science as the arbiter of truth. Five hundred years ago, to justify the virgin birth of Jesus Christ by reference to science would have made no sense to anyone. |
Comments
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
A virgin in 2007 can give birth because we have the means through artificial insemination to cause such a thing to happen. OTHOH, I think it is unlikely that a Virgin could give birth by any other means given the short life of sperm in the air.
If you are to believe in the text (faith), then, two things must be dealt with IMHO - How was the egg fertilized and how do you prove paternity? Without some scientific or archaeologic record it makes it difficult to believe anything.
Take the “recent” uncovering of the tomb of “jesus”. No-one is positive if it is indeed the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and it was forced closed almost in attempt to insure that no more information could be found.
A deeply religious person, a person of faith might take offense to the following and I apologize in advanced for writing it but I am simply re-printing something that I had read elsewhere… The story of Mary being a virgin could have been a lie. Or maybe Immaculate conception has some notion of reality to it with the exception that since G-d can not be seen it almost certainly would have been rape.
Of course all that seems unlikely to me. More likely Mary and Joseph begat Jesus and there was no virgin at the time.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
"Faith is a function of trust. It is a trust that the witnesses of the Christian tradition and that of scripture are accurate witnesses of the experience with a living God. To make this assertion is one that cannot be conflated with proof or certainty and that is where people of faith get caught in the jaws of scientific demands."
What do you mean by ‘proof’ and ‘certainity’ - there’s the rub, I think! I would venture to say that nothing nontrivial can be proven with ‘absolute’ (geometric) certainity - as determined according to the canons of analytical philosophy. Yet, there is a certainty or assurance that is both morally and epistemologically commendable. And I would want to be cautious to NOT say that the desire for evidence, and assurance of factuality or historicity, is contrary to faith (cf. Lk.1:1-4).
"Apologetics takes the place of witness and usually weakens the legitimacy of having faith in anything much less a living God. This is so because apologetics attempts to support the assertions of the existence and life of God with the world on scientific grounds which will always fail."
I do not think this is accurate. Certainly, the early fathers felt that the discipline of apologetics was a worthwhile endeavor on behalf of the faith. Moreover, apologetics (premodern or modern) does not seek to support the assertions of faith on solely scientific (or evidential) grounds, but also, generally speaking, on existential grounds, rhetorical grounds, logical grounds, philosophical or theological grounds, etc. Scientific evidence is only one piece of the puzzle.
I wonder if we are being a bit sloppy about the term ‘scientific’… what precisely do we mean by this? Logical? Analyitical? Empricial? Or are speaking specifically of the scientific method?
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Interesting stuff… I’m a bit unclear as to the precise meaning of your distinction between ‘scientific justification’ and ‘scriptural justification.’ You write that these two are often conflated, indicating that they ought to be kept separate. Yet, I understand truth to be wholistic and organic, internally coherent and mutually consistent. To quote Arthur Holmes’ title, all truth is God’s truth. Therefore, I have no principle problems with subjecting biblical truth claims to scientific analysis, or vice versa.
Of course, there are significant methodological differences; differences that make some such ’cross-examination’ extremely limited. One cannot, for example, put history into a test tube (though obviously one can subject it to the scrutiny of modern historical studies). And this suggests perhaps the most relevant difference between biblical revelation and scientifically acquired knowledge: the empiricism of science. ’Scientific justification’ is, with a few (significant) exceptions (e.g., the principle of induction, as Hume famously pointed out), entirely dependent upon measurable, repeatable, empirical evidence. And this is good (though limited, of course).
Scriptural justification, however, being dependent upon a proper understanding (and there’s a loaded term) of divine revelation in Scripture, has an entirely different set of criteria.
Yet, science is based on a number of significant (non-trivial) presuppositions, which are not only entirely consistent with, but find a ‘rational’ ground (or justification) within a biblical understanding of God and creation (e.g., a rational, uniform natural order, open to a rational analysis, the validity of logic, and the presumption of induction). Likewise, much of our biblical studies (e.g., textual criticism) are established upon rigorous principles of analysis, drawn from (if not mimicking) the scientific method.
I believe both are legtimate methods of exploring divine revelation (whether ‘general’ or ‘special’), and do find not only significant common ground (namely, one God), but also cohere together, as witnesses to the singularity of the multifaceted truth of God.
Regarding the Caputo quote, I would generally agree with his sentiment. Thoug one must, I think, distinguish between our systematic conceptions of reason or traditions of rationality and rationality/reason per se. To borrow from Alysdair MacIntyre’s title,whose reason are we discussing; which rationality? I am a bit ole fashioned (read Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc.), and do believe that the divine rationality grounds both a cosmic order (e.g., the laws of nature) and human rationality (e.g., laws of thought), and is variously approximated by human conceptions and systems of rationality (sometimes closely, sometimes not so much). But I agree with Caputo, to subject God to our own conceptions of what is rational is amazing hubris; and yet, to some extent, it is avoidable that we should seek to understand God according to our own systems of thought. The principle, however, in pursuing knowledge should always be: that we might think God’s thoughts after him.
Regarding the virign birth in particular, it is a supernatural event. I do not expect science (particuarly understood within a naturalistic framework) to explain it satisfactorily. Science deals with law, with what is typical, natural and predictive in nature - not with the supernatural - that which transcends natural law. Yet I am puzzled why Christians should have such difficultu with it. Is it an exegetical problem? I find the Matthean and Lukan accounts to be pretty straightforward. Or is it a philosophical bent toward naturalism, and away from a super natural universe?
Is it that much harder to believe that a woman conceives apart from any male contribution, than that a man, dead for some 36 hours, should be resurrected?
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Thanks for the clarification… But what would be wrong with both? It seems that folks like Pastor Comfort are quite comfortable (no pun intended) with resting their belief on biblical grounds (i.e., authority of Scripture). Yet, they understand, rightly, that this is essentially a meaningless appeal to authority to the ears of a secularist, who rejects Scripture out of hand. It needs to be demonstrated that such an appeal is indeed rational - or if you prefer, good, appropriate, morally justified, epistemologically responsible, etc. It appears that he is seeking a common (epistemic) ground to which he can appeal for validating the claims, or at least demonstrating their plausibility. Now, whether one can scientifically validate miracles or not (and I seriously doubt that we will duplicate the virgin birth in a laboratory), I nevertheless think we are quite right to make appeals to authorities distinct from the scriptures (understanding that all such authorities must ultimately yield to the scrutinity of the divine Word) in our attempt to communicate the gospel to culture. Would you agree?
And I think science is a pretty big sociological-epistemological slice of the pie.
How, then, does science relate to the faith, to our understanding of Scripture, etc. This seems to me to be the critical quesiton of our day on the matter.
This is NOT to say, of course, that we ought to or even can reduce our theological claims to science, or post/modern philosophy, or whatever social, epistemological authority we are employing in expounding, defending, and contending for the faith. On the contrary, I believe all other authorities, to which we may legitimately appeal (e.g., logic, emprical evidence, existential claims, moral arguments), though not reducible to, are grounded in - that is, ultimately contextualized within, and justified by - the biblical revelation itself.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
So, in your analysis (I didn’t see the program with Comfort, so I can offer no opinion there), Comfort doesn’t conflate them…he bypasses one (the foundaitonal, scriptural justification) for the other (scientific). Correct?
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Is there then no scientific ground for believing in God? And did he conflate his belief’s basis with science, or merely present a scientific argument?
I for one do believe that there is scientific and philosophical ground for believing in God. E.g., the big bang theory, and the cosmological argument. These may not be rigorous proofs for divine existence, but then again, what nontrivial reality can be so proved? Science after all is a hypothetical endeavor…it cannot prove anything. It can only disprove by observation; that is, it can only falsify hypotheses. And, as the infamous Richard Dawkins himself has admitted, the divine reality can not be, in principle, ever thus disproved.
Nevertheless, I think there are postive arguments for God’s existence that go beyond the ‘god-of-the-gaps’. Beyond the big bang theory (and the philosophical conundrum of what lies behind space-time itself, and its intrinsic ‘laws’), there is strong evidence of intelligence in the reality of natural law per se. Einstein grasped this in his scientific search to know "the mind of God." He also grasped how wonderful it was that we human beings, strangely, have the capacity to grasp, somehow, and to some extent, the universe ‘out there’. As he famously put it: "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible!" How can we explain that the rationality of the world ‘out there’ is mysteriously, yet undeniably, commensurate with the rationality ‘in here’, in our little heads? A rational, universal Creator makes eminent sense, and explains quite a bit.
Not only can we make such appeals; I feel we ought to. Why don’t we? Because of fear, I think. Fear that we’ll somehow be shown up. Fear that, like the Church’s debacle over Galileo, we’ll be proven by history to have been wrong. We are afraid of looking foolish. So our tendency, from modern fundamentalism to modern and postmodern liberalism, has been to hide in the dark caves of fideism - of one sort or another. We feel that we can protect the content of our faith by not merely distinguishing, but separating altogether, the claims of faith from the claims of science, or any other critical, historical or analytical scrutiny. But this is lethal to us. We may escape the ruthless blade of modernity’s rendition of Occam for the moment, but only at the risk of disconnecting faith-claims from the ‘flesh and blood’ realities of our world, and thereby become doubly useless: mute on matters of import, and utterly irrelevant in obscurantism.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
But this is a straw-man - no one has argued for either/or here, except perhaps for yourself. It is not either the bible or the physics text book (or more precisely, the bible as special revelation and the book of nature, so to speak, as general revelation). It is always physics (or whatever) with the Bible. In fact, if the bible is what it claims to be, the physical universe itself cannot be properly understood apart from it.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Now that would be a great day! A preacher preaching science! I’m guessing people would learn physics.
On your third point - are you suggesting that both things can’t live side by side?
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Right…I can bring, in your experiment, either a bible, or a physics text book. Either/or. But I have no issues with walking into the pulpit with a bible, and a physics text book. Actually, I’ve entered a pulpit with a bible and physics book before (a Paul Davies book) - though it was for a quote, and not a physics lesson :).
The Bible repeatedly claims to be "the word of the Lord" (a self-referential claim, but valid nevertheless), both in individual prophetic writings, and in retrospect, upon the whole (e.g., 2Ti.3:16). This then obviously has great significance, impinging upon our understanding of everything - including our understanding of the physical universe.
Lastly, I don’t understand your third point. Are you suggesting either/or again? What is the meaning of your distinguishing belief in God’s creation of the world from the utility of physics?
Again, I can’t help but detect in your language a dichotomized and hermetically sealed curricula: theology in one compartment, and science in another. Help me out here…
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
The Bible repeatedly claims to be “the word of the Lord” (a self-referential claim, but valid nevertheless), both in individual prophetic writings, and in retrospect, upon the whole (e.g., 2Ti.3:16).
And this is my problem… Because the book says so? Comment after comment here is quoting chapter and verse of the bible. But this is no different than Joe Smith and the Golden Tablets. No one will ever really know.
Belief in G-d does not have to be more or less real if there is or is not a bible or proof.
Belief in Jesus does not have to be more or less real either but I would suggest that his birth and after-life stories are ideas that each person will have to decide for themselves. In fact, I don’t think Jesus having a ‘normal’ birth, life, death would in any way lesson his impact or importance.
As to ‘preaching’ a story from the bible or a lesson from a book of physics - I’m guessing most people will enjoy the bible one a lot more and it is less likely anyone will understand the physics one the first time around. The advantage of a good story vs. cold hard facts.
I’m just getting a little exhausted from this thread. :)
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Based on what you’re saying, here, it is clear that you hold to little or nothing of historic Christianity. Do you consider yourself a "Christian"? It would appear that to you all the essential elements of the faith, as it has been understood for 2,000 years, are expendable adiaphora.
But if you are not bound to the biblical revelation of God, in which Jesus stands at the center (in his birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension and session etc), what is your authority for determining what is true, good, and beautiful? Do you just pick and choose what you like from Scripture and the Christian religion? And if so, on what ground? Your personal whims? Science? Liberal political philosophy? I’m asking you to explain, I suppose, the rationality and integrity of your beliefs.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
I guess I need to answer your post in two parts:
1 - There are IMHO no rules on how to be a Christian. There are only rule on how to be a Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, etc… so who decides what are essential elements of the faith and what aren’t?
2 - I believe that the revelation of G-d and the revelation of Jesus are completely separate ideas and should remain separate. I believe that nature stands at the center of it and I have no way of knowing if Jesus’s resurrection, ascension etc happened. Either way I hold him in the same high regard. After-all, even if there had been no crucifixion he is the Messiah right? Those events were not needed to prove anything. You could take the kite story away from Ben Franklin and still hold him in high regard right?
This has nothing to do with my personal whims. There have been great people throughout history and I honor lots of them. It is unfortunate that more of them don’t get the praise that Jesus does.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
This is the problem. If I decided to believe that there are pink flying bears you would say I was delusional. There has to be more than faith at some point as we as people evolve.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Not at all Jacob. To me it means at some point you no longer require faith to explain things that you can explain using either science or common sense. In most cases, religion filled the gap - to answer questions that people did not have the means to answer at the time. We have since evolved - not just through science but through strength of thought. We know, for example, that when two people have sex and produce a child it is not because of some magic or G-d’s will. We can, however, choose to believe that. We know, for example, rain occurs when moisture from the oceans evaporates, condenses into drops, and falls from the sky. We could choose to believe that a G-d sent it because we needed for crops or in response to our prayer.
Faith is an important thing but it should not be the only thing that makes up the EC. That is my point.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
I agree Jacob. But just saying “G-d exists because I believe or I have faith” is no longer valid in late modern life IMHO.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Really? I would agree with the assessment of "delusional."
On what authority do you believe in pink flying bears or pigs (unless you’re dropping acid at a Floyd concert)? Christians appeal to Scriptural authority concerning matters of faith. Naturalists appeal to observable phenomenon, generally speaking, and falsifiable hypotheses. To which I, as a Christian, would respond: on what epistemological grounds do you ‘trust’ your senses, your observations? And on what logical grounds do you ‘trust’ in reasoning based on induction?
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Right…but, as you say, "they can usually give us reasons…" which is an appeal to an authority of some kind (a certain sort of rationality, an experience, a text, etc.). That is my point. What is the authority to which we either implicitly or explicitly appeal. Christians appeal to the text of Scripture on the grounds that is the word of God. This isn’t then a ‘jump in the dark’, but from a Christian perpsective, eminently rational. I was responding more to Larry…, who posed flying pigs, or whatever animal it was, rather than to your comments.
Faith by definition always has an object. The question is in what do you believe or put your trust? So it does no good to give the ridiculous hypothetical, and then claim: I believe it by faith… Faith in what? That is the question.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Here’s the rub: how does one define ‘rational’? But I was speaking of rationality in its most generic sense: as a way or narrative [even logical calculus can be construed as a type of narrative, a way of connecting A to B to C] of justifying or explaining things (as in, "well, according to his rationality…," etc.). Not all reasons are rational according to our own canons of rationality. But all reaons given for a belief are a type of rationality. Perhaps just a very poor and perverse one…
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
But they are ‘provable’ or demonstrable on the basis of the ultimate authority to which one appeals - in this case, holy writ. Faith is not an irrational or non-rational leap into the abyss. It is trusting an authority - in this case, in God, as he has revealed himself in scripure.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Can’t we all agree that the overwhelming most probable answer is “No”? If we could, for the sake of argument, accept the most probable answer, then we could start asking the more important questions like:
Why did the story have a virgin birth added?
What does a virgin birth story tell us about the people who followed Jesus and created his story?
How does the virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection myths clarify what Jesus was passionate about?
Mike L. - http://www.faithprogression.com
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Jacob, I disagree on one point. The whole point of a virgin birth story was that it was not probable (even for ancient people). The reason the storytellers added a miraculous birth story is because it sets Jesus in context with Israels other great leaders. All these great leaders had improbable birth stories and a story of survival against an attempt on their lives. Moses birth and survival from pharoah - Abraham and Sarah’s improbable conception - John the Baptist’s birth. All of these are mythical stories that claim these people are “special”. The important point is that the storytellers saw Jesus on the same level as moses and abraham. They are making the case that Jesus is the new political leader who will restore justice (the messiah). Also, Caesar had a miraculous birth story. It was important to claim Jesus as their leader over Caesar.
When I’m talking about probability, I’m suggesting it is more probable that the story is a mythical creation (fiction based on symbolic truth).
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Jacob,
I agree in part, but I don’t see our response as accepting or denying the facts of the story. I see it as accepting and participating in the mission of Jesus to create a just kingdom on earth. Unfortunately there has been a modern preoccupation with facts. That modern movement focused the discussion around accepting the facts as true or false instead of accepting the mission to which the symbolism points.
What the story means to me is that Jesus incarnates God’s wisdom about a just kingdom on earth. Jesus’ vision is God’s vision. It is also my vision. I have chosen to follow that vision. It doesn’t mean anything in the area of supernatual possiblities, but it means everything in the area of social and political alligence. I align with the views of Jesus not the views of Empire. I do that because these ancient storytellers encapsulated and preserved God’s message in this myth of Jesus’ birth and resurrection that dared to oppose the values of Caesar even unto death.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Yet the irony here is that your reading of the biblical narratives about Christ are entirely modern. That is to say, no such understanding of the biblical stories are articulated within the premodern church. Not until the enlightenment are these stories understood as myth by its ‘enlightened’ readers - and even when read allegorically (e.g., Origin, et al), they nevertheless were understood to be literally true as well.
Concern about facutality is hardly a modern novelty. Observe Paul’s ’anxiety’ about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus in 1Cor.15. And by the response of his audience in Acts 17, it is safe to say that the resurrection story was intented to be understood quite literally - as actual history. Even then, the idea of dead men getting up out of their graves was ludicrous. Nevertheless, Paul stresses, it must be true. Otherwise, we are fools to be pitied.
These stories, then, were not "cleverly invented tales" (2Pe.1:16), but redemptive-history: how God has acted in real time and real space to redeem a real people - in concrete ways and in concrete actions. To reduce this to myth is not only to deny their historical character, but to wipe away their redemptive significance.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Isn’t this being a bit pedantic? Paul didn’t use the term ‘eschatological’ either, yet we speak (rightly I think) of his conceptions of soteriology and christology as being eschatological in character.
Okay, so Paul never used the term ‘literal’. If you don’t like that pick another, functionally synonymous term, like historical, or actual. Paul said, "if there is no resurrection from dead," which in the context of Corinth, clearly was a response to the typically Greek rejection of a corporal afterlife - of an embodied eschatology - in which the apostle stressed the historicity (cf. 1Cor 15:5-12) and actuality (yea, verily, the corporality, cf.15:35-53 ) of Christ’s resurrection. Paul was arguing that if Jesus didn’t really (i.e., literally, or historically, or actually, etc.) resurrect from the dead, then our entire faith is futile.
You say that all we can know is what Paul actually said in his letter, but clearly his words reveal meaning, entailing authorial intent, and not merely the emotive or existential flutterings of ‘reader response’. That is to say, we know to some extent what Paul intended to mean by his words - how he used them, and how they were understood in his context (grammatico-historical exegesis).
You say Paul interpreted Jesus’ resurrection as "supremely significant" - but how, and in what sense? If all we can say is that it was supremely significant for him in some way (which we cannot get at), then we have said nothing at all - except perhaps that Paul, for some reason, felt strongly (and positively) about these words: Jesus was raised from the dead.
But such extreme agnosticism regarding Paul’s straightforward affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead renders the whole chapter incoherent and ultimately obscure. With such an obtuse reading, I’m not surprised that you find Paul’s intent "impossible to get at."
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Authorial intent is fundamental to "meaning" in a text, at least as understood by traditional hermeneutics, and more careful expressions of contemporary hermeneutics (e.g., Vanhoozer’s "Is There Meaning In this Text?").
I don’t think its such a great mystery to get at authorial intent, and neither has the history of exegesis.
And, yes, I see that you believe Paul thought it was significant, as evidenced in all of his talk about it. I understand that. But how is it significant to him? What does it mean to him?
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
I think you are forgetting that Paul was not interpreting the Gospels. His letters came before the Gospels. He was developing a theory for how Jesus could die but yet still be the messiah. Then the gospels came along and put that idea into narrative.
The gospels bring Paul’s idea about atonement and afterlife to narrative form. They are myths (stories) that seek to show how Paul’s theories might be correct. I think it is a mistake to try and read it backwards as if the stories were set in stone and then Paul later created the doctrine from the stories.
I don’t think Christianity has to be about accepting Paul’s worldview (complete with virgin births and resurrection) as possible.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Hard to know where to jump in here, but I commend a short essay by JR Lucas entitled “On Not Worshipping Facts” which may be found at least at http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/facts.html
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
I wonder why you link that article here…are you suggesting that a certain preoccupation with ‘factuality’ (i.e., the factuality of the virgin birth) is fundamentally mistaken?
Interesting article…it seems the author is affirming the (generally recognized) ‘fact’ (sorry) that the notion of a ‘naked’ fact is naive…that, as the Reformed apologist, Cornelius Van Til, constantly repeated: all facts are interpreted facts.
Yet, not all interpretations are true ones, correct? But on what basis? On the basis that all ‘facts’ are interpreted firstly and fundamentally by God. In other words, all facts are revealed facts, being contextualized, arranged and interpreted by the sovereign LORD, who is the sole revelator of himself. This is the meaning of revelation: the divine unveiling and self-interpretation in history - through creation, providence, and redemption. Scripture is the embodiment of the divine, covenantal revelation - that is to say, the revelation "unto salvation," 2Ti.3:16 - in which God is made known in the world as he acts in history, and those actions are interpreted through the prophets and apostles, etc. So, for example, that Jesus died is a widely accepted ‘fact’ by historians; and it is a fact Scripture declares plainly. Yet Scripture also interprets this fact thus: Jesus died for sins. Accordingly, Christ’s death can only be properly understood in the context of its sacrificial and atoning significance. Apart from that, the ‘naked fact’ of his death is an artificiality; a false abstraction. Facts cannot be properly construed apart from their revelatory character. If facts are ‘given’ in any sense, they are only divinely given (and therefore, always, divinely interpreted - though we may deeply misconstrue them).
Where I think he goes too far is in saying,
"We think too much of facts as hard, brute facts, existing independently of us and ineluctable, as things that are what they are, and whose consequences will be what they will be, And about which we must not seek to be deceived."
Here he has leaped from the obvious truth that facts do not exist as abstract entities floating in some Platonic sea, to the unsupportable statement that they do not have any objective roots at all - no givenness. They are radically subjective. He seems to think that the human point of view is the only view to be accessed. But what of the divine point of view - the ‘God’s eye view’, so to speak? Isn’t this precisely the perspective that revelation purports to give us? Agreed, none of us may claim that our point of view is identical with the divine one; for divine relveation is always mediated from God to man, and therefore accomodated to our finitude. More than that, it is always imperfectly grasped by flesh and blood (1Co.13:12). Furthermore, though sufficient for its purpose, it is never exhaustive of the divine mind (1Co.13:9; Dt.29:29), such that we might claim to have acheived omniscience. Nevertheless, we have access to the heavenly perspective through the divine Self-expression, the Word, the revelation of God, such that we might, as mere men, "think God’s thoughts after him!" Imperfectly, yes; but truly nonetheless.
But he seems here to dismiss any ‘givenness’ to our knowledge, which appears to be radically skeptical.
He goes on: "Having hypostatized them, we bow down to them, and prostrate ourselves before them. It is unnecessary. It is impossible. Facts are not sacred: they are not worth worshipping: they do not exist: they are not even things."
Of course ‘facts’, as a linguistic concept and philosophical category, should not be reified. But this is a trivial matter, I think. Few today think of propositional statement as existing somewhere in space, or even in some immaterial realm. Just what is he getting at? Is he challenging logical postivism? That is long dead! Who worships facts as facts???
I can’t help but think he’s missed the point. It is what particular ‘statements of fact’ signify or represent (namely, aspects of reality) which are considered important and worth our knowing, and not being deceived about…etc. E.g., it is good to know the ‘fact’, as I’m crossing the street, that a car is coming at full speed. It is, we would all agree, a very very important fact.
And as the incarnate, self-interpreting divine Word (cf. Jn.1:14, 18), Jesus is one such ‘fact’ that is worthy of worship precisely because all the facts about him (interpreted by God, as they are) demand that we do so!
In other words, if all truth is God’s truth, and all facts of reality are God’s interpretation of reality, then we should concern ourselves with understanding these facts accordingly. In fact (yikes, there it is again), we should take great pains in knowing these divinely revealed facts as such, and live in accordance to them! Therein lies our salvation, and that of our hearers.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Out of curiosity, would you say that concern about the ‘factuality’ (i.e., historicity) of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus misses the point?
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
I do not understand your grasp of ‘fact’. It seems to be a pejorative term in your usage. And yes, I understand factuality as synonymous with historicity in the case of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. In a word, did they happen as reported in the gospel: a narrative of events, purporting to be true (factual) and historical (e.g., Lk.1:1-4; Ac.1:1-2; 1Co.15:1-11).
Of course God isn’t the sum-total of facts in the world (but then, who has ever argued this?). Yet facts in the world do point to God; I would be prepared to argue that every fact points to God. But these facts can only be understood within the matrix of revelation - according to the divine hermeneutic, if you will.
No one has argued that we ‘fixate’ on the resurrection of Jesus to the exclusion of his life and teachings. I think that is another straw-man. However, there is a reason why the apostles ‘fixated’ on Christ’s death and resurrection in their preaching (such that Paul summarized his kerygma simply as "Christ and him crucified," and the Greeks in Athens thought Paul was advocating two gods: a male deity named Jesus, and a female deity named "Anastasis," Ac.17:18). And of course the synoptic Gospels themselves focus on Christ’s death as the center or climax of the narrative (such that they’ve been variously described as the story of his death and resurrection, with a prolonged historical prologue). And in the church’s continuing covenantal and memorial meal, we celebrate his sacrifice at the Lord’s table, "declaring his death until he comes."
In other words, there is a powerful, biblical precedent for seeing the cross and resurrection as the centerpiece of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Can one be too fixated on the cross? I suppose in a morbid sense. Yet, for Paul, it was the ‘crux’ of his message: "May I never boast in anything, save the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!"
But of course the meaning of his death (and subsequent resurrection) cannot be comprehended apart from his life: a life of obedience (He.5:8) and righteousness (Ro.5:18), filled with authoritative teachings (e.g., 1Co.7:10; 1Th.4:15), miraculous healings and good works (e.g., Ac.10:38). As Hebrews 2 and 5 make especially clear, the atoning efficacy of his death was grounded in the life he lived as a man preceding it.
Lastly, you write "Likewise, to focus on the ‘facts’ without the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ is to miss the point. "
Who here is focusing on the facts without the story? Rather, the focus on these facts is a focus on the biblical narrative, in which these ‘facts’ are presented as such for our faith. What are these facts but the events of the narrative? I do not understand your dichotomizing these facts from the narrative in which they commended to us, and by which they are framed within the broader scope of Israel’s redemptive-history.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Here’s a more probing question: is historicity vital to the gospel? E.g., the historicity of Jesus, his death, his resurrection, etc. Must we accept the gospel proclamation concerning these details as factual? Or can we, as classical liberalism has sought to do, see his death as essentially immaterial to his message (indeed, a tragedy to be grieved), and focus on his moral (political, social) teachings instead? Can we have a cross-less, and resurrection-less Christianity (except of course, on a metaphorical level)?
Bultmann felt free to reject essentially everthing as vital to the meaning of Christianity in the modern context - with one exception: for some reason, Bultmann felt compelled to cling to the historicity of Jesus. He must have existed for Christianity to really ‘hold water’. But why? Many post-Bultmannians have taken the next step and argued to the contrary: even Jesus’ existence is irrelevent to a relevant Christianity.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Nice comment. I inserted the reference to Lucas’s article because I interpret the question “Can a Virgin Give Birth?” to be equivalent to the question “Is it a fact that a virgin can give birth?” A fact may be considered as a statement that is justified which I consider to be equivalent to a statement that is proved. Jacob’s orginal post on the virgin birth can be read to suggest that in proving that an assertion is a fact, the persons in the article valued a scientific proof over a religious proof and he goes on to question whether there is any basis for such a valuation.
Contrary to your statement that logical postivism is long dead and that no one worships facts anymore, I would say that this is precisely the argument that is playing out or through the science vs. religion polemic. And yes, I think Lucas’s article was attempting to be a corrective to some notions included within the notions of logical positivism.
But more importantly, I think I meant to suggest, as Lucas asserts, that whether a statement is a “fact” depends on the context in which the proposed fact is made. The word fact is systematically ambiguous. It has many meanings and the right meaning is the one that fits in the context within which the statment is made. But how do we get at what fits in context? Aye, there’s the rub.
Up until a few years ago (before I began my quest for an M.Div.) I would have said that a proposition of fact is true if it is reasonable where the efficacy of reason is measured by the strictures of logic—Western logic; that there is such a thing as objectivity and that, yes, there are givens. It is fair to say that in my experience the current theological environment within institutions of learning does not favor one who holds such views.
Everything is subjective (all knowledge is intrepreted), there are no right or wrong answers (just answers that have some utility in context, relatively), and all views should be considered, even if irrelevant or immaterial. Oh,and by all means, verbosity is valued most highly.
If Jesus lived at all, then it is a fact that he died, although in a supernatural reality, this does not necessarily follow. What does Jesus’s death mean? Then, it meant that he stopped breathing. Now it means layers upon layers upon layers of things. What ought the death of Jesus mean to us here and now, to those doing the interpreting? This I think is the fundamental, ultimate question.
But aside from this ultimate question, your comment suggests that there may be different kinds of facts: biological facts, cosmological facts, literary facts, religious facts, theological facts. In this view, theology is sui generis. Barth would certainly agree that the bible is a world unto itself. And Tillich went through great lengths to establish in his system that God is the ground of being. So, once you are inside the tent, God’s creation in six days is a fact, Moses’s encounter with an eternally burning bush is a fact, Mary’s giving birth to Jesus as a virgin is a fact, it is a given. I agree and I think that is why I referred to the article by Lucas.
I like the way you hink and write, kingjames1, and I thank you for actually taking the time to consider the Lucas article and argument, in place.
Peace.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Thanks for the postive affirmation, shiert!
You wrote, "But aside from this ultimate question, your comment suggests that there may be different kinds of facts: biological facts, cosmological facts, literary facts, religious facts, theological facts. In this view, theology is sui generis. Barth would certainly agree that the bible is a world unto itself. And Tillich went through great lengths to establish in his system that God is the ground of being. So, once you are inside the tent, God’s creation in six days is a fact, Moses’s encounter with an eternally burning bush is a fact, Mary’s giving birth to Jesus as a virgin is a fact, it is a given."
I’m not sure what you mean by "different kind of facts." How is a biological fact different from a cosmological fact or a theological fact, exactly? And can a theological or biblical ‘fact’ be integrated with cosmology, biology, etc.? Can Genesis 1 in any way be understood as a cosomological ‘fact’? Or can the biology of mice be understood as a theological fact?
I think in our fragmented intellectual world, where disciplines are divorced from one another, and knowledge is left unintegrated (and, we’re often told, is un-integrable, to make up a word), we are always at risk of improperly dichotomizing ‘fact’ from ‘faith’, or ‘science’ from ‘religion’, etc. As I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread, I think this sort of separation of theological and biblical truth from other fields of knowledge is dangerous. So I am a bit uncomfortable with talking about theology as a sui genersis - really, because I’m not sure what’s being said by that. Now I agree with folks like McGrath who say that science and faith are different ways of knowing. But certainly, as McGrath vigorously argues, they can and should dialogue meaningfully, and even offer each other meaningful critique; and ultimately, if the cosmos is truly a uni-verse (which I think is warranted by both theology and science), then they must cohere. Genesis 1 must be correlative and complementary with the physics of cosmogenesis. At least, it would seem to me, the theory of the big bang is congruent and coterminous with the Genesis account: bounded by nothingness, and then, "bam!", somehow everything takes shape from there.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that a virgin birth story was added as a way to control people sexually. I don’t think it really has anything to with what Jesus was or was not passionate about. Do you believe natural child birth or a c-section impacts your long term development? Do you believe if your parents had intercourse or if, instead artificial insemination your development would be different?
The books are full of many stories and you can interpret them as you like but I believe that church leadership has used this one to control sex.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
So you believe that the virgin birth was added by ‘the church’ ex post facto? On what critical or historical grounds? There is no textual evidence that they were added to Luke or Matthew’s accounts. I assume that you mean then that the authors themselves added them to control people sexually? If so, on what grounds? Sounds very Freudian to me!
But, I think, on the contrary, they were important pieces to understanding who Jesus was and is. As Luke’s account declares: "the Son of God" (Lk.1:35).
There were other miraculous births in the biblical accounts, as someone earlier pointed out (e.g., Isaac, Samuel, and John the Baptist). Yet, obviously, none were virginal conceptions. This birth then is seen as both consistent w/other biblical birth accounts of children "of promise," and yet, climatically, as going beyond them (as is appropriate to the birth of One who fulfills and sums up Israel’s destiny, and yet, as it were, takes it to "the next level" in accomplishing a cosmic redemption and unveiling God in the flesh fully, cf. Jn.1:1, 14, 18; Col.2:9.
And clearly Matthew (Mt.1:22-23), and, evidently, Luke (cf. Lk.1:31; Isa.7:14 LXX), understood this as an important fulfillment of biblical prophecy concerning the Messiah. Perhaps Isaiah 7:14 wasn’t clearly undestood as messianic prior to Jesus’ birth, but, as with much of the NT exposition of "the revelation of the mystery of God," these things are seen clearer in retrospect, in their fulfillment - that is, in light of "the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ," (2Ti.1:10). After all, Psalm 22 wasn’t clearly understood as messianic either - until Christ came and fulfilled the themes of "suffering servant" and the "poor and lowly" king (e.g., such Davidic Psalms as 40) in his ‘humiliation’ and death.
As the early fathers understood, taking their cue from Luke’s gospel perhaps (1:35), the virgin birth was an important piece for christology. Jesus had no earthly father. As John’s gospel makes clear again and again, the "Son of Man" came down from heaven. He is with us (even "God with us"), but he is not of us. This man is qualitatively different. In Jesus of Nazareth, God has (realistically, and with poetic flair) unveiled his salvific arm in human history, breaking the hopeless, inexorable chain of cause and effect (that morbid fetter which binds us all on this mortal coil), to redeem men supernaturally. The kingdom of God, which Jesus announced and embodied, then, signified a divine inbreaking, a violent irruption of God himself into human history of apocalyptic proportions.
How poetic then that Jesus comes to us this way! How wonderfully true!
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
I never said it was added BY the church.
However the church does have a history of deciding which gospels it agrees with and what parts of ‘history’ or which stories it wants you to hear.
It wont even let people watch some movies!
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Seriously?
First of all, Dan Brown’s rendition of scholarship notwithstanding, this sort of conspiracy theory about the church’s recognition of the canon is difficult to demonstrate historically (as such works as Bruce Metzger’s excellent "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration" illustrate).
Secondly, that the church ‘choose’ Luke and Matthew (above the Gospel of Thomas - now there was a difficult decision!) is irrelevent. Matthew and Luke included these stories. So it would seem that you are in fact arguing that it was the intention of the biblical authors to so manipulate the faithful…sexually.
I’m not sure though that even Dan Brown (or Bart Ehrman) could demonstrate this (modern, Freudian) reading.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
People don’t magically give birth they either have sex or get artificially inseminated. I don’t think you’ll turn out any different whichever way your parents had you. Personally i love sex and enjoy it enough to have even called some female escorts at one point or another. I don’t mind what people preach as long as it’s in church and not on the street.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
No, we can’t all agree that it was improbable for the simple reason that Christians have historically understood the scriptures to be authoritative and true. Unless, that is, you’re quite prepared to argue exegetically that the virgin birth is either a) not taught in scripture at all, or b) was included by the biblical authors as a myth qua myth, or an otherwise allegorical literary device that would have been so read by its first century audience. But, certainly from the early 2nd century onward, the virgin birth was understood ‘literally’ (e.g., in the writings of Justin Martyr), and taken as a vital aspect of an orthodox confession about Christ (e.g., the earliest forms of the apostles creed, and all subsequent, ecumenical creeds).
Otherwise, only on purely naturalistic assumptions would such a conclusion be warranted. But Christians (historically speaking) have not shared those (essentially atheistic) presuppositions. Rather, from a biblical perspective, it is not only probable, but in fact true.
With respect to the naturalistic zeitgeist of modern thought (which has profoundly influenced contemporary biblical scholarship and theology), I agree with the assessment of John Frame in this regard: "If one rejects the possibility of miracle in general, as does, e.g., Bultmann, then one must reject the virgin birth as well. But such a generalized rejection of miracle is arbitrary and indefensible on any ground, and it is contrary to the most fundamental presuppositions of Christian thought. The virgin birth is no more miraculous than the atonement or the resurrection or the regeneration of sinners. If miracle is rejected, then nothing important to Christianity can be retained."
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
From an ontological perspective, Explainer lost the argument when he answered “yes” notwithstanding the unlikelyness.
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
I am a London Escort and maybe can offer a different perspective. If someone concieved through artifical means rather than sexual intercourse would they then be considered a virgin when they gave birth??
Re: How Would You Answer the Question? Can a Virgin Give Birth?
Looking at this situation the other way, I find it interesting that so many Christians feel obligated to produce scientifically valid evidence in order to make any assertions of faith. Coupling with this is an acceptance of Dawkins’ definition that faith is accepting the existence of God, the resurrection and so forth without any evidence whatsoever.
How does one prove they have a relationship with God? How does one prove they love their spouse? Even with the latter it does not meet the demands of a controlled environment where we can “prove” love. To do so means that we are supporting a particular understanding of love.
Faith is a function of trust. It is a trust that the witnesses of the Christian tradition and that of scripture are accurate witnesses of the experience with a living God. To make this assertion is one that cannot be conflated with proof or certainty and that is where people of faith get caught in the jaws of scientific demands.
Apologetics takes the place of witness and usually weakens the legitimacy of having faith in anything much less a living God. This is so because apologetics attempts to support the assertions of the existence and life of God with the world on scientific grounds which will always fail.