6 The Virgin Birth, Apologetic Defenses,

The Virgin Birth is among those concepts that are crucial to an adequate understanding of Christianity, one of the stones in the ideological foundation. Yet, like other stones, it is permeated with problems and contradictions that need to be exposed. Apologists contend the miraculous nature of the event could only be associated with the birth of a divine being, namely Jesus Christ. But what is so miraculous about a virgin birth? Webster's Dictionary defines it as a birth in which the mother retains her virginity by having no contact with a male.But this isn't a miraculous event. An egg can easily be taken from a virgin, united with a sperm in a test tube and re-inserted into the uterus without any physical contact being involved. Indeed, the parents that eventually emerge from this union don't even need to know one another. Where is the miracle? Webster defines miracle as, "an event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be due to supernatural causes, esp., to an act of God." But God doesn't need to act in this instance. It's not necessary. A fundamentalist apologist was correct when he said: "The Bible Believer should not defend the possibility of virgin births within the human race; rather he should argue that the virgin births cannot happen naturally or artificially, and that the only reason why Christ was virgin born was because of the miraculous ministry of the Holy Spirit." (The Virgin Birth, by Gromacki, p.96.)

#1. Most of the difficulties associated with the Virgin Birth arise from within the Bible itself. To begin with, several statements contend Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth and that Joseph did not have contact with her until afterwards (Luke 1:34-35, Matt. 1:24-25, 1:18, 20), while other verses say Jesus was Joseph's son (John 1:45, 6:42, Luke 2:27, 41, 4:22, Luke 2:33,43 in NASB, Matt. 13:55, Luke 3:23). Even Mary said Joseph was the father of Jesus (Luke 2:48), and she ought to know. Several others verses show Jesus had a natural birth, according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3, 9:5). It's hard to believe the birth was natural if one of the parents was an Un-natural Holy Spirit.

#2. Another major problem connected with the Virgin Birth arises from some of the previously-mentioned verses which allege Joseph was the actual father of Jesus. According to the genealogies in the first chapter of Matthew (1-16) and the third chapter of Luke (23-31), Joseph was a descendant of David. Therefore, Jesus was a descendant of David, which is required of one claiming the Messiah-ship (Jer. 23:5, 2 Sam. 7:12-13, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11). But Joseph couldn't be the father of Jesus and Jesus couldn't be of David's seed (2 Tim. 2:8, Acts 13:22-23, Rev. 22:16) "according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3, 9:5) if he energed from a virgin birth. Christians must abandon one of two concepts, either the Virgin Birth or Messiahship of Jesus. They are incompatible. How could he be of David's descent "according to the flesh" if Joseph was not his physical father? A virgin birth would destroy the physical chain, the link between generations.

Apologists attempt to resolve this dilemma by alleging one of the genealogies (Luke 3) pertains to Mary, not Joseph. (See: Tough Questions Skeptics Ask by McDowell and Stewart). It allegedly shows he is a physical descendant of David, and since Jesus was from her flesh, he is also a physical descendant of David and can claim the Messiah-ship. However, there are several problems with this explanation. Although Joseph was from the house of David (Luke 1:27, 2:4), Mary appears to have been from the house of Judah since her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron, i.e. from the house of Judah (Luke 1:5). Moreover, Mary's name is never mentioned in the genealogy of Luke 3, and only arises incidentally in that of Matthew 1. Both genealogies clearly pertain to Joseph. Both clearly trace the descent of Joseph, not Mary. In fact, none of the genealogies in either the Old or New Testament trace the lineage of a woman. Women are never given a position of such importance in the Bible as to merit a genealogy, and there is no evidence Luke 3 provides an exception. The superiority granted men in the Bible would forestall any possibility of women being considered as equals.

#3. A third problem arising from the birth of Jesus lies in the fact that the Bible repeatedly says nothing pure can come from woman (Job 25:4, 14:4, Job 15:14 NIV), and anyone touching a woman within seven days after she has menstruated (Lev. 15:19) is impure. Mary had to be purified (Luke 2:22-24) according to the Old Testament law (Lev. 12:8), and it's difficult to see how Jesus could have avoided touching her during these periods. Mary was under the curse of Original Sin, like all of us, and thus was no purer than anyone else. Realizing the problem an impure Mary presents, Catholics tried to resolve this difficulty by proclaiming the Immaculate Conception in 1854. They alleged that Mary herself was conceived apart from sin: she was pure. But that does not resolve the problem; it's only removed one step. If this were true, how could Mary's sinful parents produce a pure daughter? Moreover, if Mary were sinless, like Jesus, then why would she say in Luke 1:47: "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." If Mary had been sinless, holy, and the mother of God, why did she need a Saviour? According to Christianity, only sinners need saviours.

#4. A fourth problem with the Virgin Birth arises from the wording of Isaiah 7:14, which supposedly prophesies the virgin birth of Jesus. According to the King James Version (KJV) the verse says: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Translators hotly debate the use of the word "virgin", which came from the Hebrew word "almah". Hebraic scholars say "almah" means a "young woman", not a virgin. They further contend that the real Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah". They refer to Gen. 24:43 and Ex. 2:8 which show "almah" means a maid, not a virgin. Who knows Hebrew better, the Hebrews or the Christians? And the Hebrews say in their Masoretic text that "almah" should be translated as the young woman, not virgin. Some scholars further allege that "shall concieve" should have been translated as "is with" child, which is in the present tense and shows the prophecy pertains to a woman existing in Isaiah's time. Other critics claim "shall conceive" was translated from "harah" which actually means"has conceived". They say "harah" (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which represents past completed action in English. Additional evidence that Isaiah 7:14 does not pertain to Jesus lies in the fact that Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel in the New Testament, is never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfill the prophecy, and, according to Luke 1:31, was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.

#5. A fifth problem associated with the Virgin Birth is that some Christians allege Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. But this couldn't have occurred unless all of Jesus' brothers and sisters were products of virgin births also. Many verses show Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matt. 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, Gal. 1:15, Luke 8:19, John 2:12, 7:3-5, 7:10, Acts 1:14), that Jesus was only the first of several offspring (Luke 2:7), and that Joseph had no contact with Mary till she had brought forth her firstborn (Matt. 1:25).

Besides these major problems, there are also several difficulties related to the Virgin Birth. If Joseph was the natural father of Jesus, as some previously-mentioned verses allege, then Jesus was illegitimate, a bastard, since Joseph and Mary were engaged, not married. Luke 2:5 proves the latter quite clearly in the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New American Standard Version (NAS), and the New International (NI) Version. Moreover, Jesus couldn't claim the throne of David. To quote the fundamentalists: "...if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, He would not have been able to claim the legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30, there could be no king in Israel who was a Descendant of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been fathered by Joseph, He could not rightly inherit the throne of David, since he was a relative of the cursed line." (Answers to Tough Questions, by McDowell, p. 56). Secondly, several other figures in the Old Testament also had miraculous births. Issac was born to an aged woman, Sarah, who no longer menstruated (Gen. 18:10-11), and Samuel was born to a woman, Hannah, whose womb had been closed by the lord (1 Sam. 1:5, 2:21). And thirdly, it's difficult to believe that the scruples of Jesus were far from those of his ancestors. Was his morality really that different from theirs? Abraham married his sister and seduced herhandmaiden; Judah committed incest with his daughter-in-law; David was a polygamist, an adulter, a robber, and a murderer; Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines; and Rehoboam, Abijam, Joram, Ahaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Manasseh, Amon, and Jehoiachin were all described as purveyors of iniquity. Only four women are mentioned in Jesus' ancestry, besides Mary, and yet each was morally deficient. Tamar seduced the father of her late husband; Rahab was a common prostitute; Ruth went to bed with one of her cousins instead of marrying another cousin; and Bathsheba was involved in adultery. Despite this litany, apologists ask the world to believe these unprincipled malefactors gave rise to a perfectly sinless being, God himself.

Greek and Hebrew

In discussions with respect to the Bible's validity and meaning of verses (exegesis), apologists often say, "But you have to go to the original Greek and Hebrew to determine the meaning of words and phrases in order to see what the author meant." The implication, of course, is that if you don't know Greek and Hebrew, you can't really understand the Bible. There are several flaws in this tactic, however. To begin with, an apologist correctly stated: "With the various revised versions at hand, with an analytical concordance, with reliable commentaries, and with the help of dictionaries of the Bible language, the reader need not know Greek and Hebrew to verify the original meaning of a given passage. He has in his mother tongue the means whereby he may determine the correctness of most of the obscure translations." (Bible Difficulties, by W. Arndt, p. 20). Robert Ingersoll also made an appropriate observation in this regard: "It has been contended for many years that no one could pas judgement on the veracity of scripture who did not understand Hebrew. This position was perfectly absurd. No man needs to be a student of Hebrew to know the shadow on the dial did not go back several degrees..." (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 11, p.297-98). But equally important is the fact that returning to the "original" Greek and Hebrew doesn't really solve the problem, because thoroughly knowledgeable Greek and Hebrew scholars often can't agree on the translation of many words and phrases. They not only can't agree on the best translation of many terms, but they can't agree on which manuscripts are the best reproductions of the non-existent original manuscripts and, thus, which manuscripts the translations should come from. To make matters worse, they can't agree as to the authorship of many books in the Bible or when they were written. Disputes in these matters are never-ending and often boring. All of this disagreement has given rise to the many versions of the Bible that currently exist. Which is the best version? Who knows? They all claim validity; they all came from Greek and Hebrew scholars, often teams of individuals; and they disagree on significant points. For example, what is the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14? Should it say a "virgin" or a "young woman"? What is the correct translation of Luke 2:43? Does it say, "Joseph and his mother" (KJV) or does it say, "His parents did not know it" (RSV)? The distinction is crucial because the KJV implies a virgin birth, while the RSV shows a natural birth. To further complicate the problem, some manuscripts, which are felt by some scholars to be accurate reproductions of the originals (the autographa,) don't even include many verses in most current versions of the Bible. For example, some of the most ancient authorities don't even have the last 12 verses of Mark, which are quite important to critics of the Bible's validity.

These are only some of the major problems one will encounter if he thinks returning to the Greek and Hebrew will resolve problems. If there were unanimity among the scholars, this would be a wholly viable approach. But one need only compare the KJV with the RSV to see that it's still a matter of selecting whom you wish to believe. Any true believer in the Bible is really placing his bets and hoping for the best when he chooses a version. Apologists try their best to put a gloss of confidence over the whole situation. They confidently assure their followers that the latter are getting the truth straight from God's mouth, that there is nothing to worry about, they are receiving the words of God as originally written. "The text of the Bible has been translated accurately. We may rest assured that what we have today is a correct representation of what was originally given." (Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, by McDowell & Stewart, p. 77). "What of the New Testament? Again, based on the evidence, the conviction comes that there is a text which does not differ in any substantial particular from the originals of various books as they came from the hands of the human writers." (Know Why You Believe, by Paul Little, p. 42). But that's just the question, Mr. Little. What text? Scholars agree there is a text that "does not differ in any particular from the originals" but they can't agree on what that text says. "The number of manuscripts of the New Testament...is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities." (Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by McDowell, p. 45). The question is not, has the "true reading" been preserved, but what is the "true reading". The many versions of today show scholars can't agree. Any layman walking into a bookstore to buy a version can only guess and take his chances. Anyone trying to reconcile the Living Bible(LB), the RSV, or the NWT with the KJV, for example, is destined for a migraine. Before one can discuss the Bible's validity with a fundamentalist, there must first be agreement as to the version to be discussed.

REVIEWS

A professor of the Bible and Greek and chairman of the department of Biblical education at Cedarville Bible College, attempted to resolve some of the problems related to the Virgin Birth. He alleged, for example: "Joseph and Mary were legally married or betrothed" (Matt. 1:18). She was called "his wife" twice (Matt. 1:20,24). He was called "her husband" (Matt. 1:19) (The Virgin Birth, by Robert Gromacki, p. 76). Obviously, Gromacki doesn't like the idea of believing his alleged Saviour was illegitimate. Of course, what he has done is opt for the Biblical version that suits his needs, a common ploy of apologists. The KJV of Matthew 1:18 says they were "espoused", which Gromacki equates with "being married," while the Modern Language (ML), the LB, the NWT, and the NI versions clearly say "engaged." There are no valid grounds for equating espoused with being married. Even the RSV and the NASB versions say they were betrothed, i.e. engaged. Gromacki uses the word "married." Although Matthew 1:20, 24 in the KJV strongly imply Mary is Josepj's wife, the ML, the LB, the NAS, and the NI versions show she is not his wife. And while the KJV of Matt. 1:19 says Joseph is Mary's husband, the ML and the LB versions versions refer to Joseph as her fiance. As stated earlier, the version people use depends on what they want to prove. Every Christian is putting his/her money on a Biblical version favored by one group of scholars and taking his/her chances. You could be an expert in Greek and Hebrew and still find scholars who would firmly disagree with your translation of many verses.
In trying to explain why Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus' father, Gromacki says, "In public, Mary had to refer to Jesus as Joseph's son in order not to arouse any suspicion about His origin." (Ibid. p. 75). this explanation is pure speculation, since Gromacki couldn't possibly know Mary's motives, and is also alleging the "Blessed Mother" lied. We are to believe the mother of God deliberately told a falsehood.

In a Life Magazine article Robert Coughlan said: "On the other hand, both Gospel writers (Matthew and Luke) give genealogies showing that Jesus was a descendant of King David through the male line-that is, the line of Joseph--an incongruity increased still more by the fact that the genealogies differ." (Life, Dec. 25, 1964, by Robert Coughlan, p. 90). Apologist Gromacki's response to this was: "If both genealogies did record Joseph's physical lineage, then Coughlan was indeed correct; however, no reputable evangelical embraces that position. Coughlan's rejection of the accuracy of the two genealogies was based upon his subjective equation of the two. He nowhere proved that they both belonged to Joseph." (The Virgin Birth, by Gromacki, p.151). Coughlan doesn't need to "prove it." All one needs to do is read the genealogies in Matt.1 and Luke 3 to see they pertain to Joseph. It's stated quite clearly. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of Gromacki. He needs to prove the genealogy in Luke 3 pertains to Mary, which isn't possible unless some unwarranted assumptions are made. Her name never appears once in the entire third chapter of Luke. It's rather difficult to believe a geneaology pertains to someone who isn't even mentioned. Another apologist said: "The reason that Mary is not mentioned in Luke 3 is because she has already been designated the mother of Jesus in several instances." (Answers to Tough Questions, by McDowell and Steward, p. 60). Why would this be of significance? The point at issue is not whether Mary is the mother of Jesus, but whether the genealogy in Luke 3 pertains to Mary.

DIALOG AND DEBATE

Letter #4 from Michael Hauenstein of Dayton, Ohio (Part III)
You say, "Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable." Have you proved that the works of Ingersoll and Paine (atheists and infidels), that their work is more truthful, valid and reliable than the Bible? If so, please exlain to us dumb, dumbs, how you so ingeniously accomplished this fact.
Editor's Response to Letter #4 (Part III)
To begin with, Mike, you haven't read the works of Thomas Paine. He was a deist, not an atheist. Read The Age of Reason and you'll see quite clearly he believed in God. Secondly, I use accurate statements from Ingersoll and Paine's writings; I'm not supporting everything they said. They never claimed the perfection for themselves that you claim for the Bible, and I wouldn't believe them if they had. Thirdly, quotes from these men are used to disprove the Bible's validity, not to propound a position. Are we discussing the "inerrant Bible" or the infallibility of Ingersoll and Paine? They don't have to be perfect in everything they wrote to prove the Bible is imperfect. They aren't on trial; the Bible is. It's claiming perfection, they aren't. Fourthly, Mike you are the infidel. You lack fidelity to logic, evidence, science, and reason. Infidelity depends upon one's perspective. And finally, I've never implied you or those of your persuasion are dumb, dumbs. Pejoratives only build walls. You just haven't been given a lot of vital information.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #13 from N.S. of Richman, Indiana Dear Dennis, LOVE IT! Received April issue, and now want Jan. and Feb. Don't want to miss a word! I'll let you do all the work and I'll have all the discussions with my Christian friends. This is just the fuel I've needed. I just haven't the patience to read that horrible book. Thanks again for a wonderful job-- well done.
Letter #14 from S.W. of New York
Dear Dennis, I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your publication. You certainly are a sharp and perceptive individual, and I admire you greatly for your work to expose the Bible for the fraud that it is... Keep up the good work and remember that there are a lot of people out here supporting you.

Editor's response to Letter #14
Dear S.W: I would apreciate any assistance you or others can provide in urging my supporters out there to contact me. Tell your friends and relatives. I always need publicity and more subscribers.

Letter #15 from Rev. E.E. of St. Louis
I am a retired pastor in the United Church of Christ, and for most of my career I have had to deal with and sometimes attempt to work with "Biblical Inerrancy" people. Aside from quoting a few unacceptable passages from Paul's epistles... I have found little help, like you are offering in BE, which I saw offered in the April issue of Progressive magazine. I would be very grateful to receive a copy of BE for one of my committees in my United Church of Christ denomination, Missouri Conference.

Letter #16 from D.W. of Dayton, Ohio
I can appreciate that yours is the only national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists; however, in future issues I hope that you will establish a balnce between the Commentary section and the Dialog and Debate section. I realize that you are attempting to bend over backward in an effort to allow ample space for the apologists. If you give them the whole magazine, they still would not be satisfied. If you and Mike Hauenstein want to maintain a long-winded personal dialogue, fine; do it through your personal letters. Obviously he does not want to listen to the facts, and you will not change him. In the meantime, the work you do with the commentaries is excellent, and I, for one, do not want to see that cut short. I can go to the Christian bookstore and obtain all of the tracts that I could ever care to burn, but yours is the only place to get the objective commentaries. All I am asking is that in future issues the space be allocated more on a 50/50 basis.

Editors Response to Letter #16
Your point is well taken, D.W. A balance is important. However, Mike wrote BE a lengthy letter, replete with arguments often made and appropriate for this publication. Biblical Errancy is not meant to be an anti-Bible publication. It's intended to provide a forum for a dialogue on the Bible's validity, a platform for all points-of-view. Debate, argumentation, and polemics are an indispensable part of its overall philosophy. You seem to be quite intelligent and have probably discovered this for yourself. The April issue became overly involved with the corespondence between Mike and myself. I apologize. Who sent whom what publication can be rather confusing to outside observers. I think this was the real problem. Henceforth, I will make amends.




EDITOR'S NOTE:
A sizable number of BE critics seem to think the DIALOGUE AND DEBATE section is actually entitled HIT AND RUN. They write one critical letter and then vanish into the darkness of anonymity. Perhaps they are fearful; perhaps that is all they had to say. I don't know. I do know that if they aren't willing to engage in an open discussion over several months; if they aren't willing to defend the "perfect" book; if they don't have the courage of their convictions, then they are trying to circumvent the very purpose for which BE was created. Over the years I've talked to many ministers and other biblicists and found they, too, want to avoid additional discussions. Yet they continue making absurd claims about the Book's accuracy. I've even tried to get Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to return to my home. They won't.