Readers Reply

006

Avalanche of Letters Challenges Controversial Article

“Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” by J. Edward Barrett in our October 1988 issue evoked more readers’ letters than any other single article we have ever published—either in Bible Review or in its sister publication Biblical Archaeology Review, which is now 15 years old. The letters below are representative, but they cannot reflect the quantity of mail we received concerning this article.

As the following letters indicate, very few of them had anything good to say about this article. It obviously offended many of our readers. This is something we do try to avoid. On the other hand, we are committed to providing a forum for the full range of responsible modern scholarship. Professor Barrett’s article falls well within that range; like it or not, this is a fact.

We respect the widely differing faith commitments of our readers. When modern scholarship seems aimed at undermining the faith commitments of some of our readers, we hope our readers will feel free to examine this. scholarship even while rejecting it. Although readers may reject some or all of what we publish—and all are respectfully free to pick and choose—is possible learn even what we reject. At the least, what we reject helps us to clarify—and even strengthen—what we do accept and believe.—Ed.

Is Bible Review Becoming the National Enquirer?

“Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, by J. Edward Barrett, leaves me wondering if we can take J. Edward Barrett seriously. Is Bible Review seeking to attain the credibility of the National Enquirer?

Jesus Christ Had to be Unique

If the birth of Jesus was not a “biological” miracle, then the millions of born-again Christians who believe this are deluding themselves. They cannot possibly be vindicated and cleansed by the blood of Jesus is Jesus had an earthly father. It is through the blood of the human father that sin is passed on to the human race. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Jesus Christ had to be unique. He had to experience human birth without “benefit” of a human father.

Barrett Is a Liberal Blashphemer

I was greatly offended by the article “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, by J. Edward Barrett. Mr. Barrett begins by calling the accounts of our Savior’s birth poetry. Then he calls Matthew and Luke liars. He continues by telling us that Jesus is nothing more than a mere man. As though all that was not enough, he continues by telling us how Jesus is a bastard. I’m afraid Mr. Barrett is nothing more than a liberal blasphemer. Mr. Barrett seems to believe that it is possible to be a disciple and not take the virgin birth literally. That is a damnable heresy, and I’ll pray that you lost souls will be saved by the truth.

Cancel my subscription and return my money immediately, and accept my prayers that this work of Satan may be overturned.

Would Barrett Prefer “Godless Communism”?

The article by J. Edward Barrett seems very one sided. It does not take Holy tradition into account. Perhaps Thomas Paine doubted the virgin birth. However, the vast and scholars have taken the virgin birth for granted.

Perhaps Mr. Barrett would be more satisfied with “Godless Communism” He certainly doesn’t support orthodox Christianity.

The beautiful pictures used by the editor are a cynical counterpoint to the article.

007

Is This Barrett Teaching Religion to Young People?

Does this professor of religion believe God would “breathe” or “inspire” something that is false? How can anything be “profitable” if it is false?

Professor Barrett says it is more important that we understand rather than believe or not believe. That is an unusual stance for a man teaching religion to young people. Where in the Bible does it say that God requires us to “understand” before we “believe”? That is man’s way, not God’s.

I counted about 25 “maybe,” “perhaps,” “suggest,” “seems” and “possible”s in this “scholarly” article. If that is scholarship, I need a new dictionary. That is what I call “waffling.” His use of “… seems a possibility” is roughly equivalent to a “definite maybe.”

Professor Barrett had the opportunity to inform his readers on a difficult subject, one that is central to Christian belief. However, he has, in the tradition of too many main-line Protestant theologians, felt compelled to explain away the supernatural. He has said loud and clear that it is not “scholarly” to believe in the miracles of the Bible. In fact, implied in his title is the thought that the simple folk may believe by faith, but that would not be appropriate for a learned professor. How sad.

What Do You Have to Lose by Believing?

“Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, by J. Edward Barrett, is well written from an argument standpoint. The one stumbling block to finalizing my personal relationship with Jesus was this very issue. Can an open-minded thinker accept the virgin conception? I had reached a point in my spiritual growth that demanded an answer to the question. Is it possible?

After long hours of agonizing and soul searching and logical problem-solving methodology, I felt like a computer would feel (if computers had feelings) if asked to find the end digit of the square root of three.

Finally, the question was answered with another question. This question was not mine. This question was from the Lord Himself. The question was, “What do you have to lose by believing in my virgin conception?” This caused me to realize that I had been worshipping my “higher education.” Repentance followed with the confession that all I had to lose was a little pride.

Previously, I had such an open mind that my faith had no place to be planted, to be watered and to grow.

I personally believe that it will not be mature until I am with the Lord in everlasting life.

So, I say to J. Edward Barrett and others: Scholars can take the virgin birth seriously only when their open mind is in submission to the will of the Father. It is only under this circumstance that the truth is known. When this submission is present, then we are members of God’s family, a grafted branch to the vine.

Scholarship Is on the Other Side

Congratulations. You’ve done it again in providing a thought-provoking topic for discussion in your October issue with the article “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05. Biblical scholarship? Not really. My understanding is that one should approach the text neutrally and discover what it is saying, rather than approaching with a preconceived answer and looking for what you want in the text and ignoring the rest.

So in the cause of fairness I’ve dusted off some of my commentaries from my seminary days (early 1980s) to provide the other side of the coin.

The infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke disagree in many areas, but one thing they do agree on is the Virgin birth, an indication that this belief was not created by either of the evangelists, but rather they are sharing a common earlier tradition. Had it been created by one of them and borrowed by the other, one would expect to find many other points of contact between the two. As it is, they disagree in their presentation or ignore each other’s texts.

Also there do not seem to be any direct parallels With contemporaneous literature that the evangelists would have been able to access which speak of a virgin birth. The miraculous birth stories known to them would have God or the “gods” intervening, but through a normal act of procreation. And rabbinic literature does not know of a virgin birth prediction for the Messiah.

Also what of the rumors of illegitimacy that were leveled against Jesus? There seem to have been rumors of Jesus not being the son of Joseph, which circulated in the time of Gospel development as is witnessed even in the Gospels (John 8:41). Could not this have been a parallel development by the critics to an early tradition which said Mary did not conceive Jesus through sexual union with Joseph?

In his genealogy Matthew speaks of “Joseph the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus” (1:15), whereas all the earlier generations speak only of “X was the father of Y.” Luke speaks of Jesus, “the son, as people thought, of Joseph” (3:23). In both cases there is something different about the relationship between Joseph and Jesus and the rest of the fathers and sons. Interestingly, Mark, the earliest Gospel, speaks of Jesus “the son of Mary” (6:3), whereas the normal biblical phrase is “son of X (the father).”

It also was the tradition of the church to require a profession in the virgin birth in the recitation of the creed from as early as the beginning of the third century. This seems to be rooted in an earlier belief which was accepted, at least by some authorities in the church, as early as the beginning of the second century, as is witnessed by Ignatius of Antioch (Ephesians 19:1). Could a “poetic interpretation” have been replaced so soon with a literal one and have been lost for so long only to be rediscovered more than 18 centuries later? No, it seems Matthew and Luke meant a more concrete understanding of “virgin birth.”

In scriptural criticism the more difficult reading is normally accepted as the more original. One would think that in such a case as this, a virgin birth is more difficult than an adoptionistic view, wherein Jesus had a biological father as well as mother and became God’s son through obedience, which view was later replaced by the “virgin birth” theory.

For that matter, do any of the accepted texts know of other than a “virgin birth”?

To argue that since Jesus was called the “son of Joseph,” there is reason to accept his direct biological link is to miss the fact that there was a development of an understanding of who he was and a search for meaning with the formation of the Gospels. Jesus could be called “son of Joseph” because of his obedience to Joseph: “He … continued to be under their [Joseph and Mary’s] authority” (Luke 2:51). The earliest strokes of tradition do not concern themselves with this later item of concern. The Gospels developed from the death/resurrection backwards. Would Barrett have Mary openly proclaiming her virginity to her neighbors and friends as Jesus grew up and during the Ministry? I think not.

008

Barrett Contradicts Himself

J. Edward Barrett’s article (see “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05) on the virgin birth proposes a thesis that traditionally minded Christians will find disturbing—namely, that “it is possible to be a disciple who takes the virgin birth seriously, but not literally.” In plain English: Joseph or somebody else got Mary pregnant.

There is a great deal of value in Professor Barrett’s article. He argues persuasively—if a bit jarringly—that it’s a mistake to read the Gospels as if they were yesterday’s Times. But he seems to lose his scholarly balance once he addresses the issue: Did Jesus have a human, biological father?

Professor Barrett grabs at any argument he can find to support his thesis. He doesn’t mind contradicting himself in order to support his thesis. Although he emphasizes that in Hebrew thought “son-ship was understood not primarily as a matter of biology,” he gives a biological interpretation to any text he can get his hand on. Thus the meaning of kata sarka (according to the flesh) “does not seem equivocal.” In other words, Jesus was “son of David” in a fleshly (biological) way because Joseph, son of David, was his fleshly (biological) father. But elsewhere he can assert: “the Hebrew ‘Son of God’ meant primarily the one who obeys God.” Can’t Professor Barrett also envision a “Jesus, son of Joseph,” not primarily as a matter of biology (Barrett’s phrase), but rather as the one who obeyed and was subject to Joseph, whom he called Abba, “Father”?

He pits the infancy narratives against the genealogies, as if Matthew and Luke were split-personalities. He is all for the genealogies: “both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ Davidic ancestry through Joseph …, which would, after all, be meaningless if Joseph were not Jesus’ father.” Meaningless to whom? Not to the Jews, for whom legal paternity was a powerful relationship. It would be important to keep a record of that, a “genealogy,” but not a biological one. If an author tells us that Mary was a pregnant virgin, that through God’s power (Holy Spirit) she was enabled to bear a child, without having “known man,” maybe he meant it. Especially since the genealogies shy away from biological paternity for Joseph!

Matthew, who is full of “begats,” tells us: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16, KJV). In other words, no “Joseph begat.” As for Luke’s genealogy, it speaks of Jesus as “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). Neither of these authors contradicts his story about the virginal conception of Jesus. Neither commits himself to the biological paternity of Joseph. For Matthew, he’s the husband of Jesus’ mother; for Luke, he’s Jesus’ supposed father. And why does Professor Barrett relegate to a footnote (in miniscule print) the confession: “The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are not the same, raising the question whether, and to what extent, either is accurate”?

Why does Professor Barrett speak of “a normal union between Joseph and Mary,” as if a union between Mary and the Holy Spirit were less than normal or even grotesque? Cannot God bring us beyond the normal to what eye has not seen nor ear heard?

Without a doubt, there are respectable arguments for Professor Barrett’s thesis. I regret that Professor Barrett did not choose to expose the “state of the question,” 009providing both sides of the issue. He is an able expositor.

Confusing Scholarship with Revelation

The article by J. Edward Barrett in the October 1988 issue is disgusting (see “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05). If believing this is part of the criteria for being a “Bible scholar,” then no thanks, I’ll just continue to struggle through the Scriptures.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is how you confuse scholarship with revelation. I too have studied philosophy, ethics, apologetics and Greek, but recognize that they are only tools to assist, not replace, the Holy Spirit. One need not look very far into philosophy before you see endless questions that none of these “great minds” of the ages are able to give any answers with hope. No amount of learning can replace a truly humble and seeking (Him) heart.

God have mercy on you for what you are doing with His word.

Matthew and Luke Intentionally Wrote History

Dr. Barrett first proposes that we can regard the virgin birth stories as “pious inventions” to conceal the fact that Jesus was born out of wedlock. If Matthew and Luke were really guilty of such a deception, then their Gospels become entirely untrustworthy. Who can have faith in Christ when a considerable amount of what we know of Him comes from supposedly fraudulent sources?

Dr. Barrett’s second approach is little better, but at least it has the advantage of not impugning the honesty of the Gospel writers. The stories of Jesus’ birth, he says, can be read as poetic fables meant to illustrate the power of God to redeem mankind. This does not explain why Luke makes the claim that his work should be treated as a historical document based on eyewitness testimony. It makes no sense that immediately following this claim, he starts right in with a fictitious story.

Furthermore both Matthew and Luke include a lot of details that seem to indicate that they wanted to place the story of Mary and the infant Jesus in a historical context. References to real people such as Herod, Archelaus, Caesar Augustus and Cyrenius would be meaningless in a purely imaginary narrative.

J. Edward Barrett, Who Are You?

Edward Schweizer, commenting on the virgin birth in The Good News According to Matthew, says “Whether a virgin birth is possible is a question only a modern would ask.” The term “a modern” refers to one who is given to scientific inquiry, and whatever will not stand the crucible of scientific proof is discredited. 034Faith, in the theological sense, however, cannot enter the laboratory. I believe Barrett is a modern.

Since no one can be entire objective, Barrett and myself included, but comes to an issue with certain presuppositions, so have I. I am admittedly, and unashamedly, an evangelical. I believe in the virgin birth gynecologically, historically, theologically and salvifically! I am not saved by the instrumentality of the virgin birth, but the virgin birth is part of God’s salvation history.

Jesus I know; Paul I know; but, J. Edward Barrett, who are you?

Yours for better scholarship in forthcoming articles, and the furtherance of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Mary Would Have Been Stoned If She Conceived a Son by Joseph Out of Wedlock

As a priest of God’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and one who inerrantly followed liberal speculative theology for thirty years before realizing its absolute bankruptcy, I object to J. E. Barrett’s article in the October 1988 issue theorizing on the legitimacy of Matthew’s narrative of the virgin birth (see “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05), his intimation that only scholars are privy to the truth, and that Matthew lied to the Church. I certainly place more trust in the veracity of St. Matthew and the Early Church Fathers than I do in the wild-guess logic of J. E. Barrett of Muskingum College. I suppose Mr. Barrett could enlighten us with some esoteric knowledge giving a reason why Mary would not have been stoned to death if she conceived out of wedlock? Is it possible Barrett might speculate on how we could expect to hear ever again from a Jesus whose mother died by stoning before He was born?

In 1848 Ludwig Feuerbach, the philosophical father behind the efforts of the first speculative biblical critics Bruno Bauer and David Straus, stated his principle goal in the Heidelburg Lectures. Humanist Feuerbach trumpeted that he wanted to change “the friends of God into friends of man, believers into thinkers, worshippers into workers … and Christians, who on their own confession are half-animal and half-angel, into men … whole men.” From that point to this time we have been told by Feuerbach’s disciples, biblical 035manipulators like Barrett, that Paul and the evangelists are liars and Holy Scripture is unreliable and therefore untrue. I have one question, “How can anyone believe that Christ is Lord when denying the legitimacy of the Bible?”

If by any chance I have renewed my subscription to Bible Review, please cancel it. I find your magazine to be totally incompatible with Christian truth and faith.

Believe Barrett If You Disbelieve God

Professor Barrett is suggesting that Jesus, instead of being the sole product of the Holy Spirit, was the product of human parents and, if that isn’t bad enough, the product of sin. Sex outside of marriage is sin and if Jesus was the product of a premarital relationship, He was the product of sin. If this is true, then the Church must also change the doctrine of salvation as well as the doctrine of Christ.

It was the likeness of sinful flesh and not sinful flesh itself that Jesus took upon Himself. He could not have been the product sinful flesh and still be an offering for sin. The reason for this is very simple. If Jesus had been the product of human parents, He would have possessed a fallen nature His own and would have needed to die for His own sins. If He had to die for His own sins it would have been impossible for Him to die for the sins of anyone else.

The only way Jesus could die as a substitute for the sins of the many is for Him to be perfect and to be God himself. If any of these things are removed, the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ is thrown out the window and we are all still in our sins. We can have it no other way. Throw out the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and you have thrown out the gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation itself. hardly think that this was his intention, at least I hope not, but that is in fact what Professor Barrett has done. Believe Professor Barrett if you must, but recognize that in believing him you have chosen to disbelieve God and will suffer the consequences of that choice.

If we interpret poetry in the New Testament as symbols as Dr. Barrett seems to do with the virgin birth passages, should we also symbolically interpret the poetry in 2 Timothy 2:11–13, 1 Timothy 3:6, Colossians 1:15–20, Philippians 2:6–11, and possibly the Prologue of John? These are powerful passages dealing with the diety of Christ, his role as Creator, his incarnation and resurrection.

If we align ourselves with the suggestion that God was operative in the normal union of Joseph and Mary as He is in all human conceptions, as suggested by Dr. Barrett, then when did Jesus become God? When did the Word become flesh?

A Piece of Garbage

Your article, “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, is a piece of garbage. It not only denies the Christian faith, but it also an insult to logic and academic scholarship. Cancel my subscription.

Biblical Bulldroppings

The article by J. Edward Barrett on the virgin birth was just great (see “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05). Now maybe you can have some articles by world-famous criminologists on what happened to Christ’s body after the crucifixion; some articles by enologists on how the water was turned to wine; and some articles by physicists on how He walked on water.

As you might have surmised, I look on the article by Barrett as biblical bulldroppings. Don’t bother to send me a renewal notice.

Misleading the Uninformed

For the past few months, we’ve had to put up with The Last Temptation of Christ. Now, we have “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05. I can only wonder who will be next to cast doubt on the Holy Scriptures and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I am not a college graduate, I teach no college courses and I am not a winter. J. Edward Barrett claims to be all of the above. How is it then that a man of such knowledge and seeming brilliance does little if any research before writing an article such as he did for your magazine?

Many, Many people will read that article and take it for the truth, because, after all, Mr. Barrett is a college professor and if he doesn’t know what he is talking about, who does?

Reading that article made me very depressed. Could he possibly be right? Have I been believing a lie? Has he 036stumbled across something that has been hidden from scholars for centuries? After all, he is a teacher and should know.

I used my Strong’s Concordance, my Dakes Annotated Reference Bible and my Liberty Bible Commentary. I checked each and every point Mr. Barrett had addressed and discovered that he might be a very brilliant and knowledgeable man about some things, but he “don’t know doodily squat” about the Bible. According to my reference material, none of his points were true, none check out the way he said they were. I feel fortunate in not being a student of Mr. Barrett.

I am also fortunate in having reference material available to use in checking on things of this nature. However, many people do not have any reference material and can be miserably misled by such articles.

Mr. Barrett should prayerfully read and heed 2 Peter 2:1 [“There will be false teachers among you …”], but he would probably misinterpret that, too.

Christ’s Blood Would Defy Chemical Analysis

“Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05. Yes, if they want to. True believers believe the virgin birth to be as much a fact of history as any other irrefutable historical event.

I never saw George Washington. I have visited his alleged burial site. I cannot prove Washington was. I cannot prove he was our first president. I cannot prove his remains are in the burial site I visited. American history tells he was, tells me he was our first president, And it tells me his remains lie entombed at Mount Vernon. I can elect to believe or disbelieve that part of American history. Assuming that part of our history is true, my disbelieving it would not prove it untrue. There is no way the virgin birth of Christ can be disproved. It can be disbelieved but not disproved.

Fathers are identifiable through the childrens’ blood. Not so the mothers. Were blood analysts to obtain samples of Christ’s blood, they would be baffled. Its chemicals would defy analysis. Why? Because it is unstained blood, unpolluted, undefiled blood. It is holy blood compounded of holy chemicals, wherefore analysts have no data to help in any attempted analysis of it.

Moses and Aaron missed getting into, Canaan, the Promised Land, because of one instance of disbelieving God, disbelieving His Word (Numbers 20:12). Likewise those who now disbelieve God, disbelieve His Word in but one instance, will be barred from the Heavenly Promised Land.

Nothing in God’s Word questions the virgin birth. Only unbelieving minds do.

Barrett Is Obviously a Fool

The article by J. Edward Barrett, “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, is an affront. This man is obviously a fool. His article in your magazine brands it as an open endorsement of Barrett’s article and the kind of liberalism that crucified Jesus Christ when He lived here on earth. The man is a “Christ killer.” Consequently, I brand him as an anti-Christ.

Believe me, I shall share this article by Barrett with my Evangelical Brethren.

Can Barrett Save Himself from Sin?

I am appalled at the utter disregard for authentic, proven biblical scholarship and research that is expressed in “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, by J. Edward Barrett! His twisted statements remind me of Jesus” prediction of those who would scoff and deny him or his authority in the Latter Days (these days)!

And apparently Mr. Barrett must assume that he can save himself from sin, disease and death. Unless the Savior of mankind is Immaculate, there is no salvation for any or us! That is why God’s Plan was to send Christ Jesus out of the Godhead at a special time in human history! Thus He had to take on human flesh temporarily, via a pure channel—i.e., the virgin Mother Mary. If He had come as a mere mortal like the rest of us, He could have saved no one! That is simple, intelligent logic!

I would hope that in your otherwise scholarly periodical, articles that display such ecclesiastical twisting of facts, founded on baseless scholarship (and negative intentions?) would not appear!

The Flaw in Barrett’s Textual Evidence

I believe there is a flaw in Dr. Barrett’s logic regarding the textual evidence. In the article, he quotes Paul (assuming Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy) as warning Timothy not to be influenced by “myths and endless genealogies.” He then makes the jump from Paul’s “myths and endless genealogies” to Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth narratives. “If we ask what Paul could possibly be describing as ‘myths’ in close association with ‘genealogies,’ the virgin birth stories immediately come to mind”. Barrett is basing this assumption on the juxtaposition of the narratives to the genealogies in the Gospels. He correctly points out, however, that Paul would have no knowledge of the Gospels, having certainly died before they were authored. Consequently, there is no concrete evidence that the genealogies and virgin birth narratives circulated together before this time. If this is the only evidence supporting the conclusion that Paul rejected the virgin birth, then there is no such evidence.

Further, Dr. Barrett argues that the virgin birth should be questioned because Mark, John and Acts do not mention it. (Viewing Luke-Acts as a single work solves some of that) But to argue this point is saying that what is missing in two Gospels is more important than what is contained in two. To me it seems speculative to base arguments on the absence of material when there could be other reasons for the omissions.

Still, the author makes some excellent points and the article was well worth reading. I am a new subscriber to your periodical and if the quality of material remains this high, I will be a reader for a long time.

The Basic Clash: Inerrancy

Professor J. Edward Barrett’s essay: “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, is a classic example of one of two schools of thought that are striving to dominate Christian thinking. There are the neo-orthodox (subjective) school, the, Progeny of Karl Barth (note that I am, avoiding the word “liberal” due to its Pejorative connotations) and the inerrancy (objective) school, whose viewpoints have been summarized in the two Chicago Statements; the 1978 Statement on Errancy¹ and the 1982 Statement on Hermeneutics.²

Each school approaches Scripture with a presupposition, which they claim is based on the Bible. The neo-orthodox position, represented by Barrett’s essay, correctly observes that Scripture nowhere claims to be “inerrant” in that precise term. He feels that 2 Timothy 3:16 claims only that it is “inspired” and “profitable,” but not inerrant. Inerrantists’ scriptural support comes from numerous sources. For example, 037Psalm 119:160 says: “Thy word is true from the beginning ….” Jesus also made the simple yet profound statement: “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Surely “true” is synonymous with “inerrant” and “word” must include the written word: Scripture. To take a contrary position would necessarily force one to conclude that some or all of Scripture is not God’s word. Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen has delineated numerous other scriptural references to support his conclusion that Scripture is inerrant.³

Dr. Harold O. J. Brown, professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, believes that the neo-orthodox understanding of Scripture is capable of destroying Christianity its view ultimately prevails.⁴ He compares this controversy with the crisis of Gnosticism in the second century, the defeat of which established the doctrine of creation as essential to the Christian faith, and the rejection of the fourth-century heresy, Arianism, which established the essential doctrine of the Trinity.

Compromise on the issue of the fundamental nature of Scripture is not possible, and therefore one side or the other will ultimately leave the denomination (Amos 3:3). It is clear that a basic realignment in Christendom is underway, due to the irreconcilability of these two views on this substantive issue. This substantive issue is the cause of the theological and political warfare that has embroiled my denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, for the past decade.

We Must All Fear God’s Judgment

Denying Christ’s virgin birth is like denying his resurrection. One goes with the other. It is dangerous to cast doubt on doctrine and to make people stumble, for we must all face God in judgment.

Please give this letter to Mr. Barrett. I hope he will take the time to read it and also 1 Corinthians 2:14 [“The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned”]. This will explain why he can’t understand the virgin birth.

Making the Biblical Text Say Something It Doesn’t

If Mr. Barrett chooses not to believe something clearly stated in the canon of the New Testament, it is fine with me, but I wish that he would refrain from attempting. to make the biblical text say something that it obviously doesn’t.

P.S. Although I don’t always agree with the articles presented in BR, I usually enjoy them. Keep up the good work.

If the Scriptures are not to be relied upon, Old or New Testament, why study them?

How the Birth Process Was Understood in Jesus’s Time

I found J. Edward Barrett’s article “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05, thought provoking. While the ground he covers is not new, certainly he does cast a different light on the subject.

The understanding of the role of the woman in the birth process in Jesus’ time was not what we today know it to be. The biological process involved in the union of egg and sperm was unknown until the middle of the 19th century. Prior to that time, the woman was understood to be the recipient of the man, which her womb then nurtured. It was analogous to planting a seed in the ground. Barren ground could not bring forth a crop, and a barren woman could not nurture the seed provided by the man. It took modern biology to explain the complete process both for the seed and for human conception.

With this understanding of conception, is easy to understand why the Credo of the Council of Nicea describes Jesus as “being of one substance with the Father.” As the Son of God, biologically he could have no other father than God. Paul would have we had no better understanding of biology than Matthew or Luke.

In order to understand how the concept of virgin birth came about in the first place, it is important to understand how the people of that time understood the birth process. Knowing what the disciples knew, the concept of virgin birth is not so farfetched. It is, in fact, difficult to see how they could come to any other conclusion, especially considering the number of times Jesus used the words Father and My Father when referring to God. (There isn’t space to document the nearly 200 references of this sort in the New Testament.)

Your magazine never fails to capture my interest. Keep up the good work.

Barrett Missed His Strongest Argument

I wish to express my appreciation for the article, “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” BR 04:05.

However, I wish to express my disappointment with the author, Mr. Barrett, in not offering much more persuasive argumentation against the virgin birth. In the very quoted words of Jesus himself, Jesus consistently refers to himself as “the Son of Man.” It isn’t until after the time of Jesus, that his devotees took it upon themselves to refer to Jesus as divinely co-created by God, rather than by Joseph.

Milestones and Mile Stations

Barry J. Beitzel’s article, “How to Draw Ancient Highways on Biblical Maps,” BR 04:05, was very much appreciated. In his discussion of Roman milestones he properly distinguishes between individual milestones and mile-stations.

The caption writer for the photo of the Roman milestones may have been unaware of this distinction when she said that one of the stones had been moved one Roman mile. The stones probably belong together and mark a single mile-station. Such clusters of milestones were rather common. I have observed as many as 24 fragments of milestones, representing at least 15 milestones, clustered at a single mile-station. It is assumed that a milestone was erected each time the road was reconstructed. Thus it is unnecessary to suggest that one of the two milestones had been moved.

Dr. Ibach is correct.—Ed.

035

NEH Seminars Probe Hellenism, Judaism and Biblical History Writing

The contact between Judaism and Greek thought laid the foundation for Western humanism. To examine this event in detail, a seminar for college teachers, “The Greek Encounter with Judaism in the Hellenistic Period,” will meet, June 12 through August 4, 1989, at Yeshiva University, N.Y., NY. The seminar, the fifth to be conducted by Professor Louis H. Feldman under the auspices of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), will analyze and evaluate the cultural and religious contacts between Greeks and Jews both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. It will isolate those elements during the Hellenistic period that were distinctively Greek and those that were distinctively Jewish and see how the Septuagint, the Apocrypha and other works tried to accommodate or reject those elements.

Another NEH-sponsored seminar, “History Writing in Ancient Greece, the Near East, and Israel: A Comparative Study,” will examine the origins and nature of biblical history writing in the light of Greek and Near Eastern historiography. The seminar, to be conducted by Professor John Van Seters, June 12 through August 4, 1989, will focus on the historical narratives from Genesis through 2 Kings. The seminar will reveal how much the Bible and early Greek historians have in common and how indebted both are to various Near Eastern historical texts.

The 12 college teachers chosen to participate in each seminar will each receive $3,500. Although the programs seek applicants whose primary duties in undergraduate teaching, other persons, such as independent scholars, may also apply if they are qualified to contribute to the seminar. A reading knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is desirable but not required.

For further information, please write to Prof. Feldman, Annenberg Research Institute, 420 Walnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19106, for the former seminar; and, to Prof. Van Seters, Department of Religious Studies, 101 Saunders Hall #3225, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, for the latter seminar.

Avalanche of Letters Challenges Controversial Article