Re: Virginal conception (was Re: [asa] Lawrence Krauss Defends New Atheism)

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Sat Jun 27 2009 - 15:39:49 EDT

Hi All,

On this question of natural process which might lead to a "virgin birth" (technically "parthenogenesis"), there is a paper on this by R.J. Berry, "The Virgin Birth of Christ", Science & Christian Belief Vol.8 No.2, October 1996, 101-110. The abstract (available here: <http://tinyurl.com/exqys>) reads;

<cite>
The Bible describes Jesus as being born to Mary ‘by the power of the Holy Spirit’, implying (although not stating) that the Spirit was his father. This has been rejected by some as an unnecessary doctrine, separating Jesus from the rest of humankind and dependent on an intrinsically incredible miracle. Such an objection is wrong: some form of distinctiveness like a Virgin Birth is theologically required if Jesus is to be divine as well as human, and there are several mechanisms by which the virgin birth of a male child could occur. The reason for recognising these is not to suggest that God necessarily used any of them, but simply to point out that apparent scientific difficulty should not determine the acceptability of a theological concept.
</cite>

Blessings,
Murray

George Murphy wrote:
> The issue here is whether or not Mary conceived the Word as a virgin,
> not whether or not she retained her virginity in giving birth. The
> latter view has been held by many Christians (not only Orthodox & RCs -
> Luther & I believe Calvin & Wesley held it) but there is no biblical
> warrant for it. "Virginal conception" rather than "virgin birth" is the
> term that should be used. (& while it may be a bit pedantic, it's not a
> bad idea to respond to a question "What about the virgin birth?" from
> someone like Krauss by first pointing this out. It's a slightly subtle
> way of saying "You don't really know what you're talking about.")
>
> I think an appropriate answer might then proceed somewhat as follows.
> 1st, if - to use a quite crude model - God simply created a sperm /ex
> nihilo /in the womb of Mary, to be united with one of her ova, there's
> no way in which scientific observation after the fact (& certainly at a
> remove of 2000 years) could distinguish between that & the usual mode of
> conception for Jesus. 2d, there may be very rare natural processes
> which God could have used to bring about Jesus' conception from Mary
> alone - Edward Kessel suggested one in the _Journal of the American
> Sscientific Affiliation_ (the old name of PSCF) 35 (1983), 129. (I am
> not competent to comment on the scientific plausibility of this
> mechanism. It would be good if an independent embryologist could look
> at it.)
>
> Having said that, there are some reasons for Christians to wonder if the
> statements about virginal conception in Mt & Lk are to be understood as
> historical & scientifically accurate accounts. Briefly, these are:
>
> 1) Biblical questions. The only statements we have about virginal
> conception of Jesus in the Bible are in the infancy narratives of Mt &
> Lk. These narratives are quite different, something that tends to be
> obscured by centuries of harmonizing to form a unified "Christmas
> story." They do have in common the idea that Mary was a virgin when she
> conceived Jesus, indicating that by the last quarter of the 1st century
> (at least) there was such a tradition. But the differences in the two
> accounts gives reason to wonder if they are really historical, or
> perhaps whether other legends & myths of virginal conceptions
> from surrounding cultures may have influenced them.
>
> 2) Theological questions. The idea that Jesus didn't have a human
> father raises concerns about his full humanity. The rather crude
> "miraculous sperm" model that I suggested (& that I think C.S. Lewis
> referred to /en passant/) illustrates that. OTOH one has to ask what
> the real theological function of virginal conception is. While it
> raises questions about Jesus full humanity, it is not necessary for
> belief in his divinity.
>
> I am not saying that these questions are unanswerable, & my own
> inclination is to say that Jesus was indeed conceived of a virgin. But
> those holding that view should understand that some Christians may have
> legitimate questions about the idea that don't stem from the naive claim
> that it's "scientifically impossible." For those who want to go into
> this more deeply, Raymond E. Brown's _The virginal Conception and Bodily
> Resurrection of Jesus_ (Paulist, 1973) and/or Appendix IV of his _The
> Birth of the Messiah_ (Doubleday, 1993) are worth consulting.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 27 15:40:38 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 27 2009 - 15:40:38 EDT