Just before Easter a friend wrote to wish me a Happy Easter but then added that he hoped I would write something on Another Voice about the “crazy feminists” who think they can be priests because, as he wrote, “…we all know that Jesus only ordained MEN at the Last Supper.” He then reminded me that Pope John Paul II (1920 – 2005) had stressed in his 1994 document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.”

My friend’s comment inspired this week’s reflection. I realize that I have written before about the sacraments but ask your patient understanding, if you are a long-time follower. Perhaps you will have some questions, after reading this somewhat longer reflection. The issue is important and contemporary, especially when it concerns women in church history, women’s ordination, and certainly ecumenical understandings of sacramental life. Christ’s Church is much larger than just the Roman Catholic Church.

FACTS and SUPPOSITIONS: When people really don’t know what happened in the past, they often use their creative imaginations to presume what happened. In the history of the sacraments, we see this as well. The sixteenth century Counter Reformation Council of Trent is a good example. The Catholic bishops met, off and on, in the northern Italy town of Trento (Trent) for twenty-five sessions between December 13, 1545 and December 4, 1563. In 1547, the Council of Trent solemnly declared that there are seven sacraments — Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony — and that all seven were personally instituted by the historical Jesus.

The Protestant Reformation had significantly affected sacramental doctrine, primarily shifting the focus from the Catholic Church’s seven sacraments to a limited number of “means of grace.” Martin Luther (1483 – 1546), John Calvin (1509 – 1564), and other Protestant reformers emphasized the primacy of scripture and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion).

HOW MANY SACRAMENTS: The number of sacraments prior to Trent, in fact, was variable and undefined. The Italian Benedictine monk and later cardinal, Peter Damian (c.1007 – 1072) for example, listed twelve including the ordination of kings. Hugh of Saint Victor (c. 1096 – 1141) a theologian and writer on mystical theology, who spent most of his life at the Abbey of Saint Victor in Paris, listed thirty sacraments. But he put Baptism and Holy Communion first with special relevance. Interestingly, Hugh also said the ideal Christian marriage was one of union between husband and wife, but preferably without any sexual intercourse! He focused on the spiritual communion and covenant between the couple as the core of marriage.

CHRIST THE SACRAMENT: Considering the sacraments, what I find most helpful is the theological observation of my former professor and long-time acquaintance, Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009). In his 1963 book Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, Schillebeeckx emphasized that Jesus Christ is the primary sacrament because he is the visible expression of God’s love. He is the ultimate revelation of God, making God and God’s love present on earth through his person, actions, and words. Schillebeeckx stressed as well that the sacraments are more than one-time-completed rituals. Sacraments are Christian life experiences, and their validity comes from the presence of Christ in the Christian community.

In 1986, Edward Schillebeeckx was reprimanded by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (1927 – 2022) who, at that time, was Prefect of the CDF, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

According to the CDF document from Ratzinger dated September 15, 1986, Schillebeeckx: “continues to conceive and present the apostolicity of the Church in such a way that the apostolic succession through sacramental ordination represents a non-essential element for the exercise of the ministry and thus for the bestowal of the power to consecrate the Eucharist – and this in opposition to the doctrine of the Church.” The Ratzinger document concluded with: “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to conclude that the conception of ministry as put forward by Professor Schillebeeckx remains out of harmony with the teaching of the Church on several important points.” In the end, however, no further action was taken against Schillebeeckx.

A couple years later, I remember talking with Professor Schillebeeckx, when he was visiting Leuven. I asked what a community should do if they did not have a priest for liturgy. He smiled and said: “let the community select its own liturgical presider from within the community.”

 

EARY CHRISTIAN RITUALS: The earliest existing writings about Jesus’ teachings and early Christianity are the letters of Paul the Apostle. They predate the Four Gospels. Not all of the letters attributed to Paul are genuinely Pauline. Scholars do agree that seven of the thirteen “Pauline epistles” (Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) were written by Paul, who was beheaded in Rome, some time between 64 and 68 CE. In his letters, Paul mentions early Christian rituals, most notably the immersion of converts in water (Baptism) and the sharing of a commemorative meal “The Lord’s Supper” (Eucharist).

ORIGIN OF EUCHARIST: The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, written between c. 70 and c. 90 CE, describe Jesus’ Last Supper with Jesus’ disciples, during which Jesus instructs them to continue the bread and wine ritual practice in his memory. It became the model for the early Christian Lord’s Supper, which was part of an agape (“love feast”). It was a communal meal shared among early Christians.

BAPTISM: The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–23) mention the ritual immersion practiced by John the Baptizer in which Jesus himself took part. Matthew 29:18–20 also portrays the risen Lord, in a post-Resurrection narrative, commanding his disciples to baptize using a Trinitarian formula. Biblical scholars suggest that the words most probably did not come from the historic Jesus, but from early church practice around the year 80 CE. 

Acts of Apostles, composed around 80-90 CE, enlarges the scriptural picture of early Christianity with references to the Lord’s Supper and several stories about baptisms. Acts also mentions another ritual action, the laying on of hands, which in this context usually resulted in charismatic activities such as speaking in tongues, described as “receiving the Holy Spirit.” See for instance Acts 2:4: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.”

The laying on of hands was an action mentioned many times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It involved placing one or both hands palms down on the top of another person’s head, usually while saying a prayer or blessing. It was a customary practice used by parents blessing their children. Jacob in the book of Genesis, for instance, blesses his two grandsons by laying his hands on their heads (Genesis 48:14). The laying on of hands was also used to bless someone for service. In Numbers, the people of Israel lay hands on the Levites to dedicate them to the Lord’s service (Numbers 8:9-10). Moses laid hands on Joshua as his successor in leadership (Numbers 27:18-23; Deuteronomy 34:9). 

JESUS AND LAYING ON OF HANDS: Jesus followed the laying on of hands tradition. His most customary practice in healing was touch, often described as “laying his hands on” the one to be healed (Matthew 9:18; Mark 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:22–25; Luke 13:13). Jesus also “lays his hands” on the little children who come to him, to bless them (Matthew 19:13–15; Mark 10:16).

CONFIRMATION:  Confirmation as a separate sacramental ritual in western Christianity did not exist before the 3rd century. But it did not become a regular practice in Europe until after the 5th century. Before the third century it was part of the baptismal ritual.

PENANCE: In the New Testament there is no description of a ritual or ceremony associated with Penance or reconciliation. Even a quick reading of the Gospels, however, shows that Jesus was concerned with the forgiveness of sins and the reconciling of sinners. And Jesus clearly told his followers to forgive sinners. See Matthew 6:14-15, for example.

In Early Christianity, however, Penance was seen as part of Baptism. There was no separate sacrament as we have it today. If a baptized person sinned seriously after Baptism, that person was excluded from the Christian Community. The sacrament of Penance evolved over time, transitioning from public penance to private confession, and was formally recognized and defined in the 13th century as Confession.

MEDIEVAL EUCHARISTIC METAMORPHOSIS: Between the eighth and ninth centuries, the place of the altar and worship space arrangements in church buildings changed. The presider, now called the “celebrant” of Eucharist, no longer faced the people but, with his back to them, faced the eastern end of the church. What was lost, of course, was the sense that the congregation was the Body of Christ.

The purpose of the “Mass” (from the Latin word missa) became to consecrate and preserve the Blessed Sacrament, as the consecrated bread was called. It was also called the “host” from the Lain word hostia meaning “sacrificial victim.” The host, a small wafer, was carried in processions and put on display in a golden display case called a “monstrance” so it could be adored. Monstrance is derived from the Latin “monstrare” (to show). Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was the priority. People rarely if ever received communion. Communion was for the celebrant, away at his altar and often far removed from the congregation.

Unfortunately, the medieval Eucharistic rituals ignored the biblical understanding of the Body of Christ as the community of believers. Recall, for instance, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:27: “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” And of course we have the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” And we have, for example, the wonderful words of Jesus in John 15:5: “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”

ANOINTING OF THE SICK, LATER CALLED “EXTREME UNCTION”: Up until the eighth century, Anointing of the Sick was a widespread if not uniform practice. It was done by Christian people for their relatives, by men and women with a reputation for healing, and by monks, women religious, and ordained ministers. Especially noteworthy, however, is the fact that anointing of the sick was done primarily by lay people.

In the twelfth century, thanks to Peter Lombard (c.1096 – 1160) theologian and bishop of Paris, Anointing of the Sick , done by priests, was officially named Extreme Unction, and it became an end-of-life sacrament. Then in the early 1970s, following the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965), the official name was changed to Anointing of the Sick.

MARRIAGE: The very first official declaration that marriage is a sacrament was made in 1184 at the Council of Verona. However, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that marriage was officially deemed one of the seven sacraments.

HOLY ORDERS: The historical Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. Today historical theologians would say that we have no direct evidence of  ordinations until the early third century. In the Apostolic Tradition by Bishop Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235 CE) we find the first extended evidence of early Christian ordination in which the laying on of hands was understood as a uniquely Christian “ordination ritual.” But when ordination began, it was not understood as a way to pass on “the sacred power to consecrate the Eucharist” but as a form of quality control – a way to assure communities that their leaders were competent and people of genuine and solid faith.

WOMEN: What historical theologians now realize, as well, is that for centuries women had been ordained as deacons and abbesses, and even as presbyters and bishops. This was certainly the case until the 12th century. Gary Macy, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, at Santa Clara University, is very helpful here especially in his book: The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West. What Macy points out is that references to the ordination of women exist in papal, episcopal, and theological documents of the time; and the rites for these ordinations have survived. But as Gary Macy says: “This is a history that has been deliberately forgotten, intentionally marginalized, and, not infrequently, creatively explained away.”

 

So, with open minds we examine and move forward, realizing that educated Christians are essential for Christianity to thrive.

• Jack

 

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

The very first Easter taught us that life never ends and love never dies.

Jack

The Gospel According to John differs from the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke in style and content in several ways.

John’s Gospel omits a large amount of material found in the Synoptic Gospels, like the temptation of Jesus, Jesus’ transfiguration, and the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. The sermon on the mount and the Lord’s prayer are also not found in the Gospel of John, and we do not see proverbs and parables but symbolic discourses.

Jesus’ miracles, considered “signs” in the Gospel of John, are designed to provide insight into Jesus’ identity and his relationship to God the Father. Jesus is clearly the Wisdom of God, the source of eternal life, and most importantly still living within the community of faith.

Seven and Perfection: The author of the Gospel of John was no stranger to the Hebrew tradition and symbolism. The author understood the use of the number seven throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. In biblical numerology, 7 symbolizes completion or perfection. In Genesis, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7^th: the sabbath.

This “system of seven” is used three times in the Gospel of John. In addition to Jesus’ seven miracle “signs,” there are seven major discourses given by Jesus, and seven “I am” claims. The goal of the Gospel’s author was to lead believers to the realization that Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of the Hebrew law and the prophets. 

In the Gospel of John, the Greek word “semeion” (σέμειον), better translated as “sign” but also as “miracle,” is used to describe the acts performed by Jesus, emphasizing their symbolic meaning and pointing towards his identity and mission. The “signs” point to Jesus as the giver of life. They stress that all hopes and aspirations for the fullness of life are met in Jesus.

The seven miracle “signs” are: (1) Turning Water into Wine (John 2:1-12), (2) Healing the Nobleman’s Son (John 4:46-54), (3) Healing the Man at the Pool (John 5:1-11), (4) Feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:1-15), (5) Walking on Water (John 6:16-21), (6) Healing a Man Born Blind (John 9:1-12), and (7) Raising Lazarus (John 11).

Jesus’ Ministry in John: In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ public ministry appears to extend over a period of at least three years. During that time, he went, several times, from Galilee to Jerusalem in Judaea. The Synoptics, on the other hand, have Jesus making only one journey to Jerusalem, where he was crucified. Most of his ministry in the Synoptics took place within just one year and it was primarily in Galilee.

The Gospel of John uses a “post-resurrection” point of view. The author looks back on the Jesus events — after Jesus’ death and resurrection — and emphasizes the inability of the apostles to understand the things that were happening at the time they occurred. See for instance: John 2:17-22, where there are obvious references to the Resurrection, “He was speaking of the sanctuary that was his body, and after he rose from the dead his disciples remembered.” See John 12:16-17: “At the time his disciples did not understand this but later, after Jesus had been glorified, they remembered….” And John 20:9: “Until this moment they had failed to understand the teaching of scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” Perhaps we do not always clearly see and understand?

Prologue: The prologue in John’s Gospel Gospel, that begins with: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. (John 1:1-18) is most likely an elaboration of an early Christian hymn. Interestingly, the rest of John’s Gospel does not speak of Jesus as the pre-existent, creative Word. Scholars believe the prologue was added as an introduction after the rest of the Gospel had already been written.

The Gospel of John’s Authorship and Locality: The old tradition was that the Gospel’s author was the Apostle John, son of Zebedee. Most contemporary scholars are not of this opinion. In fact, Scholars began debating the authorship of John since already in the third century. Contemporary biblical scholars, such as the Catholic priest and scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998), have proposed that the original author of an oral tradition that evolved into the Gospel of John, was a companion of Jesus, the Beloved Disciple. The Beloved Disciple formed a community, most probably in Ephesus, which today is an ancient city in Turkey’s Central Aegean region, near the modern-day Selçuk. Scholars call this “the Johannine community.”

The oral tradition of eye-witness recollections of the Beloved Disciple evolved and began being written down around 90 CE. The final redaction occurred ten to twenty years later, giving us a composition date of between 90 and 110 CE.

Biblical scholars are really uncertain who the Beloved Disciple was. There is quite a variety of opinions: a truly unknown disciple, the Apostle John, Jesus’ brother James, or even Jesus’ close friend Mary the Magdalene. Raymond Brown has likened the quest to identify the author of the Fourth Gospel to a good detective story. While the idea that Mary the Magdalene wrote the Fourth Gospel is a popular and intriguing theory, most biblical scholars today do not attribute the authorship to her.

The Johannine Community: Mostly Gentile Christians: The final version of the Gospel of John was composed after the crisis created by the expulsion of Christians from the synagogue. A parting of the ways between Hebrew and Christian believers had occurred. The early Christians no longer went to the synagogue for the basic reason that more Christians were Gentile converts and the distinction between Hebrew and Christian belief had become clearer. John 9:22 describes how “the Hebrew people had agreed that if anyone confessed Jesus as the Christ or Messiah that person was to be excluded from the synagogue.”

Turning Point: John 13:1-4 is a turning point in this Gospel. Jesus’s “hour” had come “for him to pass from this world to the Father.”

A key moment is in John 13:1-5: “Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God. He got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.” People wore sandals in the days of Jesus, with wooden soles and fastened with straps of leather, which allowed their feet to get dirty. But they did not wear sandals indoors. They removed them upon entering the house and washed their feet.

Then, in John 13:12-15, Jesus stresses: “‘Do you understand what I have done for you?’ he asked them. ‘You call me Teacher and Lord, and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.’”

Jesus Real Presence: For centuries, in my Roman Catholic tradition, people have developed various explanations about Jesus’ “Real Presence” in the Eucharistic bread and wine. In the Gospel of John there is no mention of Jesus instituting the Eucharist. Nevertheless, the Gospel is very clear about Jesus’ abiding presence. The primary “Real Presence” of Jesus is in the community. Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches (John 15). The branches cannot survive without the vine. But the vine cannot survive without the branches. (And a contemporary observation: the branches cannot survive without the support of other branches.)

Humanity Taking on Divinity:  In Mark, Matthew, and Luke the stress was on Divinity taking on humanity. In John, however, we see another emphasis: humanity taking on Divinity. God is truly with us: in the very heart of our being.

Some of the old images of God may no longer speak to contemporary people. But God has not abandoned us. We should not abandon God. We simply need to reflect on better ways of conceptualizing and speaking about our experience of the Divine.

Crucifixion: The account of the crucifixion in John does not stress Jesus as the one who suffers, as we saw for example in Mark 15.25–39. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is the one who is exalted: “lifted up” in his moment of glorification.

In John 13 to John 16, Jesus prepares his disciples for his imminent departure followed by his “high priestly prayer” in John 17. Here we see a very strong and confident Jesus. “I have glorified you on earth and finished the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, it is time to glorify me…” (John 17:4-5)

Final Chapters: The final chapters in the Gospel of John contain the accounts of Jesus’s trial, crucifixion, and resurrection. The Jesus who stands before Pilate is strong. Note that, on the way to Golgotha, Jesus carries his own cross. He does not need the help of a Simon of Cyrene as we saw in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Also in John, unlike the other three gospels, Jesus’ crucifixion occurs on the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14) rather than on the Passover holiday itself. Here Jesus prepares himself for the departure to the Father and seems to be in complete control of his destiny, even to the extent of commending his mother to the Beloved Disciple (John 19:26–27).

Conclusion: The Gospel concludes with the discovery of the empty tomb by the women and other disciples (John 20:1–10), Jesus’s appearance to them (John 20:11–18), and the narrative of the “Doubting” Thomas (John 20.24–29).

The last two verses contain what many scholars think was most likely the Gospel’s original ending: “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31)

 

Appendix: Chapter 21 is stylistically very different from the main body of the Gospel. Raymond Brown, and others, have suggested it was a later addition to John. It is now known as the Johannine Appendix. It not only contains resurrection appearances in Galilee, but it also emphasizes the authority of the Beloved Disciple. Recall that, in John 18:15-27, Peter had denied knowing Jesus three times. Now, in John 21:15, Jesus in a way reinstates Peter. But when Peter questions Jesus about the Beloved Disciple, Jesus, perhaps a bit annoyed, responds: “If I want that one to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

This appendix quite possibly reflects a controversy among some in the Johannine community who may have considered the Beloved Disciple inferior to Peter. But chapter 21 reinforces the Beloved Disciple’s role as the authorized witness of the Jesus tradition for the Johannine community. In John 21:24 we read about the Beloved Disciple: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that the testimony is true.”

 

I titled today’s reflection “Courageous and Confident.” That is how I perceive Jesus in the Gospel of John. With courage and confidence, Jesus spoke out against the hypocrisy of the self-centered arrogant. In conflicts with his contemporary religious leaders he stressed that religiosity is not faith.

 

 

Happy Easter my friends!

The great gift of Easter is hope. May we remain courageous and confident, and hopeful, in difficult times.

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

P.S. I will be away from Another Voice for a couple weeks of “Easter Vacation.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Testament accounts of the birth and early life of Jesus – the “Infancy Narratives” — are found in Matthew 1:1–2:23 and Luke 1:5–2:52. The Infancy Narratives are certainly not fairytales. But they are not strictly historical either.

The Bible contains a variety of literary forms by which the truths of our faith are expressed and communicated. We find poetry, drama, symbolism, metaphors, imaginative recreations of past events, and varying degrees of historical narration.

When it comes to the New Testament Infancy Narratives, I suspect that most people simply ignore the differences found in Matthew and Luke. They easily combine the accounts without noticing the differences. Nor do they realize that imaginative infancy suppositions, that arose centuries after Jesus’ birth, got thrown into the mix.

In reality, most of our contemporary Jesus-birth imagery comes from the Catholic friar, Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone (c. 1181 – 1226), known today as St. Francis of Assisi.

Francis created the Christmas Creche tradition in Greccio, Italy, where he had visited a community to celebrate Christmas. Francis had wanted to create a scene that would be symbolic of Jesus’ birth and have an impact on the community. He therefore prepared a manger — the feeding trough for animals —and even brought an ox and a donkey to the location where he prepared the altar. He put a statue of baby Jesus on the altar so all could see it. The scenery created by Francis clearly symbolized the poverty and simplicity associated with the birth of Jesus.

Over the centuries, of course, misconceptions have crept into accounts about Jesus’ birth. The “three kings” stories are a good example.

Neither Matthew nor Luke mention “three kings.” Matthew mentions “wise men,” magoi in Greek, from which we get the English word “magi.” He does not say there were three “wise men.” That number was a medieval creation. Although the “Magi” are now commonly referred to as “kings,” there is nothing in Matthew that implies that they were rulers of any kind. In addition, nowhere in the New Testament do we find them called “Balthasar, Melchior, and Casper.” Those names first appeared in the Chronographia Scaligeriana, an early medieval historical compilation composed in Greek between 527 and 539. The only surviving text is a Latin translation from the late 8th century.

Most contemporary historians and biblical scholars regard the Magi as legendary figures. Nevertheless, in Germany’s Cologne Cathedral, since the 13^th century, there has been a reliquary that tradition says holds the bones of the Biblical Magi.

Summary of what we find in Matthew:

• In Matthew we find: the visit of the wise men, the star, and Herod’s plot to kill Jesus. Herod I (c. 73 BCE – 4 BCE) also known as Herod the Great, was the tyrant King of Judea from 37 to 4 BCE.
• In Matthew 2:16–18, we read that Herod the Great ordered the execution of all male children who were two years old and in the vicinity of Bethlehem. In fact, there is no historical evidence that it ever happened other than this passage in Matthew. But it is certainly congruous with Herod’s violent character.
• Clearly the author of Matthew’s Gospel – who saw Jesus as the new Moses — modeled the Herod episode on the biblical story of Pharaoh’s attempt to kill the Hebrew children in Exodus 1:15-22. Pharaoh’s scribes had warned him of the impending birth of the man who would be a threat to his crown, i.e., Moses.

Comparing Matthew and Luke:

• In Matthew we see the visit the wise men, the star, and Herod’s plot. They are not found, however, in Luke.
• In Luke we do find the shepherds and the presentation of Jesus in the Temple. But these are not found in Matthew.
• The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile, although they do share some similarities.

The American biblical scholar and Catholic priest, John P. Meier (1942 – 2022), often stressed that accounts of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem are not to be taken as historical facts. In his 1991 book, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Meier describes the Infancy Narratives as “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.” In other words, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of a story about his birth in Bethlehem, because King David (c. 1010 – c. 970 BCE) was born and raised in Bethlehem.

Concluding this week’s reflection, I would like to offer some reflections about the virginal conception of Jesus.

The Virgin Birth doctrine of traditional Christianity maintains that Jesus had no natural father but was conceived by Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine that Mary was the virginal mother of Jesus is expressed in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. The two passages in the Infancy Narratives are: Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38.

Traditionally, Christian theologians writing about the “virgin birth,” have referred to a passage from the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures produced between the third century BCE and the first century CE: Isaiah 7:14, which is found in Matthew 1:23, “Behold, the virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Emmanuel.”

Examining both the original Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 and the later Greek translation version, biblical scholars point out, significantly, that the Hebrew word ’almâ, meaning “a young woman of marriageable age” found in the original Hebrew Scriptures text was not so carefully translated into the Greek Septuagint text which used the word parthenos, which means “a virgin.”

In short, using only historical research one cannot come to any conclusion, either for or against a virginal conception of the baby Jesus. An excellent book that discusses this is The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus by the respected American Catholic priest and biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1988).

Years ago, I decided to not get into the occasionally heated debate about the virginal conception of Jesus. I understand the issues, but for me the all-important fact is that Jesus of Nazareth in his life, death, and resurrection is the revelation of divinity and authentic humanity. That truth keeps me going.

 

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

P.S. Next week we look at a courageous and confident Jesus in the Gospel of John.