Just in time for Christians all over the world to celebrate the birth of Our Savior, the New York Times published an article titled “A Conversation About the Virgin Birth that Maybe Wasn’t”
The purpose of the article was quite clear: an attempt to insult and undermind the faith of billions of Christians around the world.
Part of me is almost flattered by this attack. If Christianity were not a real threat to the powers of the world, then such a coordinated attack in the largest American newspaper of record would not have occured. Christians must be doing something right if the world finds us so noxious that they try to debunk us (albeit very innefectively).
However, this attack also shows a cowardice on the part of those in power. As others have pointed out, what other religion would be so brazenly attacked on the eve of one their holiest days? Knowing that Christians tend not to respond in violence (as always there are sad exceptions to this), it feels very much like the actions of a bully.
The article was not aimed at believers, but at people outside of the faith. We can tell this because the article pretty much dismisses the Biblical accounts outright. As Christians, we accept the Gospels as God’s Word, free from error. To be sure, the Gospels are not written the way we do modern history. But Bible scholars like Fr. Raymond Brown as well as Pope Benedict XVI have pointed out that the historical content of the four Gospels is rich and reliable.
Both Matthew and Luke tell the story of Jesus’ Virgin Birth. The New York Times article diminishes their historicity by saying that these two Gospels were written after the Gospel of Mark, which does not mention the Virgin Birth. Even if you accept this chronology, this proves nothing. Mark’s Gospel is incredibly brief and he begins his account with Jesus’ baptism. All four Gospels agree that this moment with John the Baptist begins Christ’s public ministry. Keep in mind people in the ancient world were not as intersted in the childhoods of great men. Modern people, because of the effect of Freudian psychology, draw a strong thread between our childhood experience and our adult personalities. The ancients really didn’t think this way. So it would be perfectly understandable for both Mark and John to skip Jesus’ childhood.
Dismissing the historicity of Matthew and Luke makes little sense. The Gospel of Matthew has often been attributed to the Apostle, who would have been an eyewitness. While this is never explicitly said in the text, the early Church Fathers are very clear about this. But Luke makes explicitly clear that his Gospel is based on eyewitness accounts. When you realize this, then the rest of the attacks on the Virgin Birth in this article seem completely ridiculous.
The source of attacks on the Virgin Birth come from two sources. The first is Celsus. He was a pagan enemy of the Christian faith who was writing in the 2nd Century. The other is from the Talmud, which also written hundreds of years after Jesus’ earthly life. Both Celsus and the Talmud had a vested interest in debunking Christianity (which means they share an affinity with the New York Times, come to think of it). But even if we ignore this, Matthew and Luke have a much stronger claim to historicity. The two Gospels were were written much sooner to the event and on the basis of eyewitness accounts.
Even the alternate fable that was concocted by Christianity’s detractors feels fabricated. Here, it is said that Jesus is the son of a Roman soldier named “Pantera.” Not only was this a fairly common name at this time, but scholars have pointed out that this is clearly play on words meant to mock the faith. The Greek word for “Virgin” is “Parthenos.” So Christianity’s detractors could say that Jesus was not “Son of Parthenos” but “Son of Pantera.” This is like the child visiting Dunder-Mifflin in The Office who makes fun of Dwight Schrutte by calling him “Mr. Poop.”
I will admit that the previous paragraph is speculative. But based on the critira of evidence used by the New York Times article, my theory would have just as much weight as theirs.
Christians, however, have no issues with the Virgin Birth. Our entire faith is based on a miracle: Jesus Christ is risen from the dead!
If God has the power to perform miracles, then He has the power to enact a Virgin Birth.
That is such simple logic, even the New York Times could follow it.
Copyright 2024, WL Grayson
W.L. Grayson
I am a devoutly Catholic theology teacher who loves a popular culture that often, quite frankly, hates me. I grew up absorbing every movie, TV show, comic book, science fiction novel, etc. I could find. As of today I’ve watched over 2100 movies and tv shows. They take up a huge part of my life. I don’t know that this is a good thing, but it has given me a common vocabulary to draw from in order to illustrate whatever theological point I make in class. I’ve used American Pie the song to explain the Book of Revelation (I’ll post on this some time later) and American Pie the movie to help explain Eucharist (don’t ask). The point is that the popular culture is popular for a reason. It is woven into the fabric of our lives and imaginations, for good or ill. In this blog I will attempt to bring together the things of heaven with the things of earth. Of course this goal may be too lofty for someone like me.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.