Austin's Blog

I’ve recently begun working through Roman Catholic New Testament scholar Joseph Fitzmyer’s A Christological Catechism: New Testament Answers. It is clear that Fitzmyer holds a high view of Jesus while still representing critical scholarship. I read his question, “Does the Story of the Virgin Birth Record Simple Historical Fact or Are There Other Possible Ways of Understanding It?” His answer was varied but I found it lacking in a few areas. One area where I found his claims odd was the impression that John’s Gospel doesn’t know of the virgin birth. The scholar writes, 

The virginal conception of Jesus is never referred to by Paul, Mark, or the Johannine tradition; among New Testament writers the only ones who touch upon it are Matthew and Luke, and their infancy narratives date from about A.D. 80–85….Even though the Johannine gospel is the latest in its final redaction among the canonical gospels (ca. A.D. 90–95), its tradition in part goes back to a period as early as that of the earliest synoptic (Mark). But, significantly, it shows no knowledge of the developed conception-christology that manifests itself in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke.

He goes on to assert that the virgin birth was developed over time and not part of the original, early teaching of the church. This paragraph was surprising to me because I have been working through John’s Gospel word-by-word, line-by-line with some students of mine. Two quick thoughts concerning Dr. Fitzmyer’s claims come to mind.

First, the opening prologue of John contains some very high christology affirming the pre-existence and incarnation of the Son. If John is willing to affirm such high and lofty theological truths, surely he would agree with the virgin birth. I believe John’s Gospel to be just as historically reliable as the Synoptics. Yet, John does seems to pull the curtain back at various moments to reveal the cosmic Christ move actively working along the dusty roads of Jerusalem. He occasionally emphasizes and accents teachings and actions of Jesus that the other three Gospels don’t. Their christology is just as high but his is more apparent.

Second, John includes a veiled attack upon Jesus’ birth that I believe alludes to the virgin birth. In John 8:39-47, Jesus enters into a dispute about what it truly means for Him to be the Son of Man and for people to be the children of Abraham. One writer describes the situation noting the following:

Jesus promises a freedom that no one else can give based on truth that he alone possesses. As the Messiah, he has come to set prisoners free (Luke 4:16–21; Isa. 61:1–3). True freedom can be found only in the “right paternity”: not everyone who claims Abraham as their father has God as their Father, “for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6). None can claim God as their Father who won’t have his Son as their Savior.

As the Jewish leadership became offended, Jesus had some very direct statements for them. They weren’t the children of Abraham or they would do what Abraham did, which is believe God. They would do the works of the Father and yet their works betray who their real “father” is–the devil. In response, the Jewish leadership reply in verse 41, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father, even God!”  The term for sexual immorality is the well-known term πορνείας (porneas). Many understand the Jewish rebuttal to simply be, “We aren’t illegitimate children. We belong. We are the true children of Abraham.” Yet, the term is a loaded word and usually carries more nuance than simply, “illegitimate”.  I think the Jewish leadership are using a back-handed comment to make their point, “who are you to question our parentage? Remember the events surrounding your birth?” For them, the virgin birth was a fabrication and Mary was either raped or unchaste. Regardless, Jesus should be careful when he discusses the events and circumstances around who is and who isn’t children. Their is a stain upon the early record of his life. John leaves the comment unaddressed because the readers would know the true story about Jesus’ miraculous birth.

What does this have to do with Fitzmyer’s claim? If John 8 indeed includes a back-handed dig or smear at Jesus about the context of his birth, then it seems incorrect to say John doesn’t know of the virgin birth. His prologue which pulled back the curtain of the incarnation made including the story of the virgin birth superfluous. A writer cannot be faulted for not saying everything and being selective. All writing is narrow and choices are made about the exclusion and inclusion of data.