Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously? - The BAS Library

Footnotes

1.

This sentence is a fair summary of the traditional position of (particularly Protestant) Christians, But it is itself an interpretation and supposition, based largely upon 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness ….” Three things should be noted: (1) By “scripture” the author is referring to what Christians call the Old Testament, the New Testament having not yet been fully written or collected; (2) Use of the word “inspired” does not mean “infallible” (as is usually supposed), since when God “inspired” Adam (literally, “breathed into” him [Genesis 2:7]) Adam became alive, but certainly not infallible; (3) The New Testament author does not claim what is traditionally claimed for him, He says that Scripture is “profitable,” not that it is infallible, that it is “able to instruct you” (more literally, from the Greek, “able to make you wise”), not that it is inerrant.

2.

Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (New Rochelle, NY: Thomas Paine National Historical Association, 1925), p. 9. Paine, like many of the American founding fathers, was a deist, which means he believed that God was revealed in nature (general revelation), but not in any historically or geographically conditioned scriptures (special revelation).

3.

The Apostles’ Creed was not written by the apostles, but was meant to summarize what the apostles believed. It was not finalized until about 750 A.D.

Endnotes

1.

Although the “virgin birth” of Jesus is the phrase typically used, it might be more descriptive to speak of the “virgin conception.” In any event, Mary apparently later conceived other children in the usual manner. Matthew tells us that Joseph “knew her not until she had born a son” (2:25), implying later sexual experience. Mark and Matthew (who is indebted to Mark) name four of Jesus’ brothers, and list an unspecified number of sisters (Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55, 56).

2.

The “Timothy” correspondence claims to be written by Paul, though many modern scholars, for very good reasons, doubt this. The issue of authorship is complex, and cannot finally be resolved. But, if the letters are as late as these scholars date them (toward the end of the first century A.D.), then the author may have been familiar with Matthew, Luke or both. In that case, 1 Timothy 1:4 could be a direct rejection of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and not just a rejection of the tradition that they express.

3.

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are not the same, raising the question whether, and to what extent, either is accurate.

4.

See The Koran, especially Sura XIX, but also Suras III, XXI, CIX, CXIV.