Myth~Understanding the Virgin Birth

by Dave Porter

Madison County UU Fellowship, December 23, 2007

I’m the third Berea College faculty member to speak this month – Bob Hoag is a philosopher and spoke to us about moral issues underlying the conflict in Darfur.  His talk revealed many of the complexities inherent in trying to decide what is right and how to take action that will alleviate suffering.  Jeff Richey is in Bob’s department but his degree is in religious studies.  He talked with us about Confucianism and its emphasis on altruism.  He spoke of the importance of self reflection and respect for others and how these ideas served as pillars for thousands of years of Chinese society.  Confucians believe that these qualities are a part of human nature.  Jeff takes a social scientific approach and uses historical evidence to illuminate the contents of religious belief systems.  Today’s topic would be an excellent subject for a professor of religious studies… Unfortunately, this being the 23^rd of December, I’m the only one available and my background in religious studies is very limited.  I am a behavioral scientist – I try to connect the biology of being with the systematic study of what people think and do.

Although by academic occupation, I claim to be a behavioral scientist, I should also admit that by inclination, I am a free thinker – I share this penchant (and a potential bias) with many of you.  In contrast to “normal” people, the mere fact that an authority has made a claim gives us sufficient reason to question it.  We resonate with the famous Max Headroom riddle: How can you tell when the authorities are lying? Answer: Their lips are moving.” Or like the adolescent freethinker who hears his high school English teacher assert that while two negatives may make a positive, two positives can never create a negative.  Our collective response is “Yeah, right.”  I make this confession now because it is important that as we begin this inquiry, we recognize what our own biases may conceal more than they reveal.  We seek the truth about our topic today: the virgin birth; not mere confirmation of our own prejudices.

So let’s start with a little biology.  Many simple life forms get along just fine using asexual reproduction – cloning.  The disadvantage of this primitive method of reproduction is that it limits diversity – each generation is just like the previous one.  The simple answer to Jared Diamond’s literary question: Why Is Sex Fun? Is that it has adaptive significance.  In general, and within limits, the increased variety in organisms (particular combinations of genes) within a species created by sexual reproduction means greater flexibility and increases a species’ capacity to adapt to changes in environments and ecosystems.  Sexual reproduction itself is seen as being the product of natural selection.

I had assumed that asexual reproduction (something in the natural world that might be categorized as a “virgin birth” was limited to amoebae and other very simple life forms.  I was wrong.  As it turns out, several animal species have apparently retained the capacity for asexual reproduction.  Insects such as bees and ants, for example use it to produce their drones.  It has also been observed in several species of fish and most recently in a hammerhead shark residing at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Nebraska.  “Parthenogenesis, as this type of reproduction is known, occurs when an egg cell is triggered to develop as an embryo without the addition of any genetic material from a male sperm cell” (BBC News,  2007). Parthenogenesis, by the way, is the Greek word for “virgin birth.” However, there are no mammalian species in which parthenogenesis has been obswerved.

While we are on the topic of biology, however, it might be useful to note a few things about our normal mode of reproduction: sex.  In his book Why is Sex Fun? The evolution of human sexuality, Jared Diamond notes that our human species is quite distinctive in a number of ways.  In addition to our bipedal posture, opposable thumbs, and big brains, we also possess a number of unique sexual characteristics.  Males have unusually large penises as a proportion of our total body size.  Male gorillas, for example, may weigh 600-800 pounds but on average have smaller penises smaller than the average male homo sapiens.  Perhaps even more importantly, homo sapien females hide any signs of ovulation and are receptive to sexual intercourse throughout their fertility cycle.  In her provocative speculation on the evolution of our species and the emergence of culture, Helen Fisher (1982) suggested that “The Sex Contract” between human males and females provided a unique bond within our species that served as the foundation for all cultural as well as subsequent biological evolution.

While there is still debate among anthropologists and other scientists about the relative influence of particular factors on the evolution of our species, most agree that humans are innately social and that our survival and development has relied upon our inclination and ability to form and sustain ourselves in groups.  Our two closest relatives, the chimpanzee and the bonobo, illustrate that although we share an innate affinity for forming social groups, the culture within these groups may be markedly different (DeWaal & Lanting, 1997).  Standard chimpanzees are brutally patriarchic; infanticide and murder are not uncommon among chimpanzees.  In contrast, the bonobo are strongly matriarchic and hypersexual; while there is limited in-group aggression, infanticide and murder have yet to be observed in this species.  Human cultures around the world seem to include examples that fall along a continuum between these two extreme primate models.

Unlike our other primate cousins, humans have developed an extraordinary capacity for abstract communication.  Social groups provide an environment in which big brains and the ability to communicate provide many advantages for species reproduction as well as survival.  Along with rats, spiders, and cockroaches, human beings seem to have convincingly demonstrated an incredible ability to adapt to nearly any climate or geographic region.  Unlike the bonobo, humans did not remain in a lush rainforest with ample food supplies and the absence of predators or competitors. Human group success depended upon group cohesion, stability, and adaptability.  Sharing values in the form of stories with one another is a way that our many distinctive human cultures developed.  Inevitably these stories dealt with our ultimate concerns as well as our most intimate characteristics (viz., our sexuality).  These stories contained different types of information.  As Joseph Campbell has suggested, history contains accounts of things that happened but none of which are generally true.  In contrast, myths concern things that may have never happened and yet may be generally true.  Thus a religion provides a mythology that helps sustain a group; religious stories and other myths create focus, promote communication and increase group cohesion.

Religions also often contain beliefs which control behavior in ways that benefit the whole group by providing order and relative stability.  Within species, cooperation is often essential to communal survival.  Rampant sexuality threatens stability and thus the security of the group and each of the individuals within it.  Thus, societies with religions that found ways to effectively constrain sexuality may have had a competitive advantage over those groups with less effective controls and less cohesion.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the association of sexual intercourse with original sin was one way in which a religion used shame and guilt to reduce sexual activity.  This belief then allowed an authority (such as the church) to provide forgiveness for transgressions as a way to establish and maintain power over each individual within society.  Judeo-Christian religions are not the only social institution interested in controlling sexuality, however.  Folklore, as well as other religions, provides many other examples.  In Nepal, the common belief is that 40 drops of blood (life energy) are required to produce a single drop of brain (intellectual energy) and that 40 drops of brain are required to produce a single drop of semen.  The implication is clear. Sexual restraint is a virtue.  There is even a pagan mythic tale of Pan’s creation of his pipes that includes his frustration at being unable to seduce a young nymph named Syrinx (Shattuck, 1997).  After a lengthy chase and just as he has her corned and is about to overpower her, she retreats into a stand of reeds and disappears.  Pan rushes in hoping to capture her still but finds himself embracing only an arm full of reeds. However, his frustrated sexual energy is sublimated to the higher purpose of crafting the set of “pipes” he would use in the future to seduce many other maidens.  Similarly, Islam offers access to dozens of virgins in the afterlife as an inducement to martyrdom.

So, in a general way the adoration of virginity provides a model which might help to delay sexual activity in adolescents.  Virgin births also provide a vehicle through which a hero might be introduced without the taint of sexuality which the church seeks to control.  If sex is associated with sin, virginity becomes a protective barrier between the flesh and spirit; between humankind and deity.  Virgin births are thus a way to establish or re-establish connections between heaven and earth.  Joseph Campbell (1988) concludes that the god who emerges from the virgin birth is you – you have died to your animal nature and come to life as a human incarnation of compassion… born of a virgin to signify that the begetter is of the spirit and not merely of the flesh.

If this is so, we might expect to find many other examples of virgin births in the world’s mythologies.  This turns out to be the case. The Buddha was not only born to a virgin – he magically emerged from her side altogether avoiding the part of her body associated with the lower “animal” chakras.  Lao Tse, who lived in the 6^th Century BC, author of the Tao Te Ching, was, according to legend, conceived “when his mother gazed upon a falling star.”  Deganawidah (Da-gon’-a-wid-ah’) the Huron hero destined to plant the Tree of Peace at Onondaga was born of a virgin mother informed in a dream by a messenger from the Creator.  Montezuma, the Pueblo god-hero, was conceived by a beautiful virgin when a pinion pine seed fell from a tree and landed on her belly.  Zoroastrianism prophesizes that the end-of-time Saoshyant (literally “savior”) will be miraculously conceived by a virgin who has swum in a lake where Zoroaster’s seed has been magically preserved.

So with this brief mythological background perhaps we might examine THE virgin birth in Bethlehem associated with our celebrations at this time of year.  It would be nice if there was just one story to exam here, however, as you will see there are many different stories offered authoritatively by churches from several faith traditions.

Isaiah 7:14, in the Old Testament contains a prophecy that is widely accepted as being related the birth of Jesus.  Let’s look at the whole prophecy in Isaiah to see how well it fits.

Isaiah 7:14-16: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.  For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Many Biblical scholars believe that this prophecy was intended for the immediate circumstances in 734 BCE when it was written and should not be applied to events that occurred 700 years later.  Syria was threatening Israel at the time and two years later Syria was defeated by the Assyrians and both its kings were killed in the process.  Mary named her son “Jesus” rather than “Immanuel” and the “butter and honey” diet would not seem to apply to any child raised in a Jewish carpenter’s family.  There is also a question concerning the word virgin in the first line of the prophecy.  There are two Hebrew words that are often translated into English as “virgin”: “bethulah” and “almah” and different ancient versions of the Old Testament include one term but some contain the other.  While many scholars agree that the word “bethula” means virgin specifically, many suggest that “almah” denotes youth explicitly and only implies virginity.  Others point out many passages in the Old Testament where “bethula” is used are then qualified with a phrase such as “and no man had known her” implying that the word alone (as used in the prophesy) might only imply youth and not necessarily sexual chastity. Similarly, the Greek word, “Parthenos,” is sometimes used to denote youth and beauty but at other times to indicate chastity.  There are whole texts dedicated to explaining the intricacies of various and apparently conflicting translations and the elasticity of meaning of the words involved in this one prophecy.

As a behavioral scientist though, it seems more important to attempt to understand the times in which Jesus of Nazareth lived to appreciate the meaning of the virgin birth. As the noted anthropologist, Marvin Harris (1974), points out, the preeminent lifestyle during jesus’ time was that of the vengeful military messiah:

“Inspired by the model of David’s triumph against Goliath and the promise of Jahweh’s military-messianic redemption, Jewish guerilla’s waged a prolonged struggle against the Roman administrators and the Roman army.  The cult of the peaceful messiah – the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers – developed in the midst of a guerrilla war and in the very districts of Palestine that were the center of insurgent activity, seemingly in total contradiction to the tactics and strategies of the liberation forces” (Harris, 1974, p.160).

For several decades before the birth of Jesus until several decades after his death, “zealot-bandits” terrorized Roman administrators and the local urban Jewish aristocracy.  Josephus, governor of Galilee and a general in the Jewish liberation army, was captured during the battles that were to end the Jewish insurrection about 40 years after Jesus death.  Being brought before the Vespasian, the Roman general, and his son, Titus, Josephus adroitly declared that Titus was in fact the true messiah the Jews had been awaiting and that both he and his father were destined to ascend the throne of Rome as emperors.  When Vespasian did in fact become emperor a year later, Josephus was brought to Rome as a reward for his prophetic proclamation.  Josephus spent much of the rest of his life writing of the Jewish war and “antiquities.”  His writings provide a clear account of the long series of militaristic messiahs that dominated ancient Israel during the Roman occupation and throughout the Jesus’ lifetime.  Although Josephus never mentions Jesus by name, he does provide detailed accounts of John the Baptist, five different military messiahs, and many other unnamed messiahs who traveled through Palestine with messages similar to those attributed to Jesus.

Keep this context in mind as we turn to several subsequent gospel accounts of the life of Jesus.  The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all purport to provide biographical information.  Somewhat curiously, however, only two, Matthew and Luke mention Jesus’ birth; Mark and John take up the story much later in Jesus’ life.   Some Christian scholars argue that since both authors (Matthew and Luke), independently, provide accounts of Jesus’ virgin birth in Bethlehem (as prophesized in the Old Testament) such “double attestation” supports the literal truth of the event.  Fundamentalists go even further by insisting that the Bible is not only literally true but also, through divine inspiration, it is also “inerrant.”  If the Bible was both literally true and inerrant, one might expect the two accounts of Jesus’ birth to be basically the same.  However, a review of the scripture provides reason to doubt:  “According to Matthew, an unnamed angel informs Joseph of the virginal conception; in Luke, the angel Gabriel informs Mary before the conception occurs.  Matthew says that Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and that they then moved to Egypt, to avoid Herod the Great, and later, to avoid Herod’s son, Archelaus, they moved to Nazareth; according to Luke the couple lived in Nazareth and only visited Bethlehem to comply with a Roman census.  Luke states that Mary was a relative of Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, has the new born Jesus, and is visited by shepherds.  None of this is mentioned by Matthew.  Matthew’s account of the visit by the Magi, the massacre of the innocents by Herod, and the flight into Egypt is not mentioned by Luke (Wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth_of_Jesus; 11/13/2007. Page 5 of 11).

It is as if each author knew of the prophecy that a messiah was to be born of a virgin in Bethlehem and then created a set of plausible details to embellish the story.  Some theologians also note that the passage about the birth of Jesus appearing in Luke may have been added by an unknown author sometime in the second century CE. The argument that the virgin birth just was not sufficiently important to be mentioned by the other gospels seems rather weak.  Likewise the assertion that the Apostle’s Creed which contains the virgin birth as a central tenet of the Christian faith and was agreed upon by all the apostles before they went forth to spread the word seems inconsistent with the gospel evidence.

In fact, as Harris (1974, p. 190) points out, the New Testament contains many apparent inconsistencies and contradictions which render the fundamentalists’ claim of literal inerrancy untenable.  In Matthew 5:9 Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers” but Matthew 10:34 reports him saying, “Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth, I come not to bring peace but a sword.”  Jesus is reported to have said: “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39) but also “Suppose ye that I come to give peace on earth? I will tell you nay, but rather division” (Luke 12:51).  Matthew (26:52) contains another account of the peaceful Jesus, “All who take the sword shall perish with the sword” while Luke (22:36) shows the bellicose Jesus, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garments and buy one.”  But Luke (6:27) also shows the peaceful Jesus, “Love thine enemies; do good to them that hate you” while John (2:15) provides an account of the hostility which may have directly led to Jesus arrest and crucifixion: “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them out of the temple… and poured out the changer’s money and overthrew the tables.” Also, it seems clear that not all the gospels concur with the account of the virgin birth of Jesus.  For example, Paul’s numerous accounts seem to consistently refer to a mortal Jesus: “the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh… (Romans 1:3) or “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do; by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin…” (Romans 8:3).  In summary, it appears that the accounts of Jesus’ virgin birth were introduced later than many of the original accounts which seemed to focus on his teachings, death, and resurrection.

Marvin Harris concludes that these mixed accounts were caused by the complexity of Jesus’ message, limitations on human perception and memory, and, most importantly, changing circumstances.  The actual teachings of Jesus were likely to have been influenced by the prevailing animosity toward the Roman occupiers and their well-to-do Jewish minions.  However, Jesus basic message differed markedly from the messages of the militant messiahs – Jesus message was spiritual rather than material and his preaching was much more metaphorical than immediate and tactical.  When the gospels were actually written down many years later, things had changed; the Jewish Rebellion in Palestine was crushed in 72 CE and the new Christianity was seeking converts among Gentiles as well as Jews.  Associating too closely with the many militant Jewish messiahs who dominated the scene during Jesus’ life would have been ill advised.  In some ways, the inclusion of a virgin birth in the story of Jesus accentuated this distinction between him and the many other messiahs of his time; his was a message of peace and love.  As Joseph Campbell points out, the kingdom he sought to establish was not about real estate and his virgin birth was not really about biology. One might also imagine that the virgin birth was seen by some (viz., Matthew and ‘Luke’) as a way to emphasize the divinity of Jesus since many of the gods and demigods of Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Pagan mythologies had been conceived and/or born in similarly magical ways.

Various Christian denominations teach somewhat different messages about the way in which Jesus was conceived, and the virginity of Jesus’ mother, Mary:

This not-so-virgin version of Mary thus provided a model of submission appropriate for young girls to follow when directed by a profit to marry men many times older than they were. I suspect Warren Jeffs, leader of the approximately 10,000 members of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints sect might have found this particular interpretation to be of relevance and value.  Fortunately, his capture and recent conviction on multiple counts of rape will help put an end to this version of the story.

So there you have it, my mythic understanding of the virgin birth of Jesus.  As I said at the beginning of this talk, I consider myself to be a behavioral scientist and a free thinker.  I search for evidence and would much rather understand things I don’t necessarily believe than to believe in things I don’t understand.  In this regard, I find little evidence to support a belief in the account of the virgin birth as a biological reality.  However, as a metaphor that emphasizes the possibility of flesh and spirit being united within each of us, I find it quite appealing.  So much of Christianity seems to have been devoted to exclusion and denial an account that provides hope that the peace and love we celebrate at this time of year might become a reality for each of us warrants our careful consideration and appreciation.

This morning in the discussion group we talked about the second chapter of A Chosen Faith.  It discusses how experience differs after the awakening of a broader consciousness and provided accounts of many Unitarian Universalists and their influence on our church.  Much of what they had to say seemed to fit with my experience in preparing this homily.  I’ll conclude with this paragraph from that book:

“Channing’s ideal was an inclusive church – one from which no one could be excommunicated, except ‘by the death of goodness’ in one’s own breast.  He became a leader in the movement away from harsh and dogmatic Calvinism and toward a more liberal and liberating theology.  He preached grace, not fear, and spoke of human reason as a divine gift.  Then he applied reason to religious life with profound insight into human motivation, history, the Bible, and contemporary moral and social issues.  He preached not retribution, but the love of God, and the human capacity for ‘likeness to God’ in more divine living.  He spoke of Jesus less in the second person of a metaphysical trinity than as a human example of human life lived to the fullness of its spiritual capacity” (Buehrens and Church, 1998, pp. 28-29).

From Channing’s perspective, a virgin birth seems to be a useful metaphor for capturing the significance of Jesus’ introduction into our lives and into our world.  What do you think?

References:

Buehrens, J.A. & Church, F. (1998). A Chosen Faith; An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism [Revised Edition]. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Campbell, J. (1988). The Power of Myth. New York: Anchor Books.

DeWaal, F. & Lanting, F. (1997). Bonobo; the forgotten ape. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Diamond, J. (1997). Why is Sex Fun? The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

Fisher, H.E. (1982). The Sex Contract: The evolution of human behavior. New York: Wm Morrow & CO.

Harris, M. (1974). Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches; the riddles of culture. New York Vintage Books.

Shattuck, R. (1996). Forbidden Knowledge – From Prometheus to Pornography. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

The following website sponsored by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance has a great deal of material concerning the virgin birth and attendant controversies and was used extensively in preparing this talk: http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm#menu