SS handout for 12 Dec 2021
Good morning, because this handout is long, I decided to publish and distribute it early so that any class members, in person or online, who prefer to can glance through it ahead of time.
Our Advent topic (for Sunday School tomorrow morning) is the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and if you will kindly let me open with a few minutes of introduction before any questions, comments, or discussion, I’ll say a number of things that to you may seem as disorganized as they are in my mind!
First, that Christianity is a religion of stories, holy stories; and/but that we are sensible, observant, reasoning people, we are not a literalist, inerrantist church. For example, the Genesis chapter one 7-day creation story is one of our holy stories: a purpose of it is to show how central we are to God's mind, how much God loves us; another purpose, post-exile, is to put down Canaanite polytheism that spread among Israelites left behind during the Babylonian Exile. Very few Episcopalians take the 7-day creation story literally. With this in mind, you may want to have your mind open about all our other holy stories.
The virgin birth of Jesus is one of our holy stories. Paul, Mark, and the Gospel according to John know nothing about virgin birth. Mark never heard of Joseph, never even mentions Joseph’s name. The virgin birth stories are unique to Matthew and Luke, and their two stories are quite different.
Matthew. Not with the Hebrew original but using the Greek language Septuagint translation as his source, Matthew lifts out of context a line at Isaiah 7:14 involving a conversation between Isaiah and king Ahaz (scroll down), and cites it as messianic prophecy that the messiah will be born of a virgin. Matthew makes a regular practice of this proof-texting in writing his story for his intended audience. [In class we have often discussed Matthew as a Jewish Christian writing for a Jewish Christian audience, to deter them from leaving the Christian movement and returning to mainline Judaism. Matthew’s agenda is to convince his audience that even though Jesus was killed in life's process (thereby losing all credibility as conquering messiah), Jesus really is/was the long awaited Messiah, and Matthew “proves it” by proof-texting to show that so many things about Jesus’ life were prophesied about the messiah in the Greek language translation of the Jewish Bible.
“Agenda”, by the way is NOT a bad word, it’s a literary term for why an author is writing. Without exception, every writer has agenda. [My favorite example is Samuel Clemens, who, writing as Mark Twain, had the agenda of writing captivating adventure stories to sell for profit. And, as with Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, and John's story characters Jesus, Mary, Peter and others take on credible lives of their own. You and I might argue, for example, about what Huck Finn was thinking about Tom Sawyer in a certain situation, or about which girl loved Tom Sawyer the most].
Luke. Our other virgin birth story is in Luke. Luke’s agenda, for which he may have been paid by a sponsor, whoever Theophilus was, is to collect the facts and set the record straight with what he believes to be a true and correct written account of the life and ministry of this Jerusalem-and-Temple-centered prophet Jesus whom everyone is talking about. Already in circulation when Luke comes along, are some letters of Paul, and the gospel of Mark, and evidently a collection of Jesus stories titled “Q” (for German “Quelle”, which simply means “source”). So for sources, Luke uses Mark, and Q, and he comes up with more stories on his own, including his nativity narrative about Jesus’ birth and childhood.
Some scholars insist that all the gospels really begin at Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist in the River Jordan, but that originally or later, Gospel John added his Prologue, and that Matthew and Luke basically took Mark’s gospel and added Q, and a bit of their own material, and originally or later their quite different nativity narratives about the virgin birth.
Are the virgin birth stories “history” in the sense that they could be taught in public school History class, or are they holy stories that belong to Christian religious tradition and not to the general public?
Once, at a Jesuit retreat, I had as my spiritual advisor a RC clergyman who corrected me that Joseph was NOT Mary’s husband; that the Holy Spirit was Mary’s husband, that otherwise Mary would have been living in adultery. To me, this was ludicrous, ridiculous, but it’s his holy story, so fine, no outsider has to believe someone else's holy story!
Another time: a woman who helped in my office in Apalachicola, an American Indian by heritage, used to tell me outrageous tales as the history of her people. I once asked her, Marge, that’s impossible, do you really believe that? She said, It’s OUR story, we know it can’t be true for everyone, but it’s true for us, and it’s no more impossible than many Christian stories about Jesus.
I want to ring in one more relevant memory. The summer of 1957 I was at Navy OCS in Newport, RI, and in my barracks room my three roommates were Roman Catholic. In a discussion one evening of their papal infallibility dogma of the physical assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, I asked, That's impossible, how can you believe that? And one of my three young colleagues responded (the other two agreed) that "I don't have to clutch my breast and gaze up toward heaven and say piously and fervently 'I BELIEVE that', but if the Pope says it, it's okay with me".
As to objectivity, a holy story that you love and hold as true does not have to be true for folks outside your community. And as you hold a holy story in tension with nature, it is not a rejection of a holy story to know that "it’s holy, not history". Nor do you have to apologize for holy stories.
Thinking for yourself, could you stay in the church if, after research and contemplation, you concluded that the virgin birth stories are not historically, literally true?
Are you amenable to discussing this, or is this sort of inquiry outside of your "spectrum of acceptable contemplation and opinion"? Are you afraid that you may be disillusioned? Would that destroy your Christian faith?
In some Christian denominations the concept is “blessed Mary, EVER virgin”, regardless that Matthew 1:25 says Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary "until after Jesus was born". In fact,
in popular lore, poor Joseph (who as a character in the stories is somewhat developed in Matthew, and also a bit in Luke) - - we like to visualize and depict Joseph as an impotent old man - - because we don’t want him having sex with innocent young Blessed Virgin Mary whom we adore. But why? We are not a sex-obsessed community who idolize chastity for Mary as human perfection. Within our spectrum of acceptable opinion, Jesus had brothers and sisters. And the fictive about those siblings being half-siblings (or non-siblings), Joseph's children by his late wife, is casuistry, absurd unscriptural sophistry; but even that doesn't matter when one considers that every religious community "has" its own holy stories; and if it isn't satisfied with those recorded in its Scripture it can simply modify or mold its holy stories in its Tradition.
[John, writing a generation after Paul and after Mark, and even after Matthew and Luke, John still knows nothing about a virgin birth. How might we explain this apparent “Time issue”? Conceivably that Matthew and Luke’s nativity stories were later additions to their gospels? I think it’s just as likely that Matthew, Luke, and John were written so close together in Time, including John writing too close in Time to Matthew and Luke for John to have known, read or heard about what they wrote. And remember, communications weren’t instantaneous like they are today. Besides, Jesus’ spiritual being is more John’s agenda anyway, than his earthly origins]
[Some Bible scholars insist that the Holy Family and virgin birth stories were composed entirely by the gospel writers, for reasons of their own agenda, and were not likely anything that ever actually happened. After all (Mark Twain and Mark the gospel writer e.g.,) story characters do and think and say whatever the story teller says they do.]
In the handout is an internet link to an article about miracle birth stories throughout known history. Virgin birth stories, and stories mixing gods and humans, were common in Greek and Roman times including Jesus’ time, to honor important figures and also to indicate humble beginnings.
Jesus is presented as:
+ the fulfillment of OT prophecy,
+ the promised successor to Moses,
+ the Son of Man from Daniel 7,
+ the Messiah in a new concept of messiah (because Jesus died humiliated and not the anticipated Jewish military king to reestablish the throne of David, assemble an army, and throw out gentile occupiers of the Holy Land).
In the OT there are extraordinary and miracle birth stories for beloved OT figures, going all the way back into Genesis (Isaac), in Judges (Samson), in Samuel (Samuel), in Kings (Elisha’s Shunamite woman), in Ruth (Obed, David’s grandfather), (stories that show unexpected people being born as part of God mysterious plan, and God’s power exercised through God’s prophet) so we also have two different (though not necessarily inconsistent or incompatible) miracle birth stories for Jesus (just as we also have miracle stories of Jesus’ miraculous healing powers and powers over nature, stories that equal and exceed all the miracle stories about the OT prophets).
Back to Matthew and Luke, who have different agenda(s): Matthew writes of a Jewish messiah who is certifiably Jewish all the way back to Abraham through king David, and he enhances the power of his story by telling his audience of a Messiah whose virgin birth was prophesied in Isaiah.
Luke ties his entire gospel story to Jerusalem and the Temple from beginning to end, beginning with his story of the divinely miraculous birth of John the Baptist that is identifiable historically with Samuel, and then with Elizabeth and Mary as relatives, Luke ties it to a miracle virgin birth story for Jesus, who then is tied to beginning and ending in the Temple and Jerusalem.
As to why John the Baptist is involved, class members will recall that all four canonical gospel writers open their stories by discrediting John the Baptist as messiah, with dialogue in which JtheB himself disclaims the honor title in deference to Jesus. What reason for that? Most likely, to counter a then-current movement to acclaim John the Baptist as having been the messiah. (aside from our virgin birth topic this morning).
As to Joseph and Mary’s betrothal, something of what I understand about marriage practice in the middle east in Jesus’ time: That it was common for a man and woman to go into a marriage arranged by their parents, even arranged when they were children. That there would be a betrothal point at which they officially became husband and wife, but the girl still living at home with her parents, no wedding celebration while the boy prepared their marital living space. That during this “preparation time” the husband could visit and the couple might enjoy conjugal sex. That it was not unusual for pregnancies to originate during this preparation time. That once the boy/man husband had prepared their marital home, only then was there a wedding celebration that ended ceremonially with the wife leaving her parent's home and going to live with her husband.
As to the travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem for census that Luke describes, I don’t claim to know anything, but I understand that there is no historical record of a census during the time of Luke’s story (written maybe ninety years after Jesus’ birth, sixty years after Jesus death?), nor historical evidence of any requirement that common people go to their ancestral home to be counted in a census. So, for class discussion, why might Luke have written this?
Finally, did Jesus become Christ, Son of God, messiah at his resurrection and ascension (Paul?), at his baptism (Mark)?, at his conception (Matthew & Luke)?, as the Logos from eternity (John)?, and how might an answer be related to the virgin birth?
some relevant scripture
John 6:42
They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
Luke 4:22
All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,
Matthew 1 The Virgin Birth of Jesus
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin[a] will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Isaiah 7 A Sign for Ahaz
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin[a] will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
[a] In the Septuagint translation from the Hebrew original, the Greek word is ἡ παρθένος “he parthenos”, which means the/a virgin. But in the Hebrew original, the Hebrew word is הָעַלְמָ֗ה ha-almah, which means the/a maiden, the/a young woman, not necessarily a virgin. The Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew bible into the Greek Septuagint selected that word parthenos, and so the Septuagint, that Matthew uses, enables him to say virgin birth. It’s like if we use the English KJV translation to get a meaning that was not in the original Greek or Hebrew language, and, for us, it's okay, our holy story, that we eventually cement in doctrine, dogma, creed.
Luke 1 The Virgin Birth of Jesus
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births
Genesis: Divine intervention birth of Isaac
Judges: Divine intervention birth of Samson
Ruth: Divine intervention birth of Obed, grandfather of king David
Samuel: Divine intervention birth of Samuel
Luke: Divine intervention birth of John the Baptist
Matthew & Luke: Divine intervention birth of Jesus
What am I suggesting?
You can understand and accept that holy history, holy stories, are not necessarily the same thing as documentable records of human history, and that they do not have to stand any test of logic or modern science.
You can love and enjoy the holy story without feeling compelled to take it historically literally, but if you want to take it literally, that’s okay.
You can accept that a colleague in community doubts a holy story that you take seriously literally.
You can accept that people outside your faith community have no use at all for your holy story.
You can accept and embrace that God loves those who do not believe your holy story just as much as God loves you.
You can believe in a holy story without feeling foolish about loving a story that is scientifically and experientially unnatural, unlikely, even “impossible”.
You can realize and accept that stories involving the activities of gods in human life, including male gods' love affairs with human women, were once common, accepted, and credible in religious mythology, and that your own holy stories may have roots in that ancient practice (have you read Genesis 6:1&2?).
You can realize that the virgin birth of Jesus is two of OUR holy stories that not everyone accepts and believes as their holy story, and that most every Christian loves but not every Christian regards as historic fact.
You can comfortably doubt that your holy story is literal history and continue a faithful Christian.
You can love a holy story without feeling it necessary to make doctrine, creed, dogma, or a status confessionis issue of it.
You can, as is our custom of literary discussion of our Bible in this class, step outside your usual comfortable spectrum of acceptable opinion, and contemplate not simply What was written, but When and Why holy stories were written; perhaps especially stories that strain modern credence or astonish natural expectation.
Image of the Holy Family pinched online, and imagining a little human family, a happy, mutually-agreed sacrificially celibate, contentedly chaste couple in a sexless yet fully satisfying marriage, and their infant in swaddling clothes.