Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!hedrick
From: hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Virgin Birth - reply to Evangelical Protestantism
Message-ID: <2054@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 22-May-85 02:15:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2054
Posted: Wed May 22 02:15:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 04:19:35 EDT
References: <509@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 98

> 	... the virgin birth narrative is seen within its 
> contemporary milieu as a legend articulted more for the interest of 
> significance than for disinterested historiography.
>   ....
>   				.... I see no reason why
> the Xian texts can NOT be seen to partake of the same literary devices,
> codes, rhetoric and genres of its contemporary non Xain literature.
>   ....
>   It all depends on where YOU live and the particular way that YOU have 
> re-made the world that decides if the "virgin birth" is Reality or is not
> Reality.
>   ...
>   Gary

I would like to suggest a slightly more moderate position than yours.
Perhaps you didn't mean it to come out this way (and my excerpting probably
exaggerates this), but you sound like you are treating the NT sort of like a
Rorshak ink blot.  If this is carried too far, it provides justification for
the literalist position:  "Once you start doubting the truth of God's Word,
how can you possibly draw a line?  Either it is God's Word, or it is just so
much mythology." I would like to propose that there is a middle ground,
which says that Scripture is roughly what we would expect from an honest
witness in a courtroom, namely a good faith attempt to tell the truth, but
subject to limitations of human accuracy, and to differences in standards
between the first and twentieth centuries.

I agree that we need to read the NT texts with an understanding of the
standards that the authors actually used.  For example, it seems clear that
there is no equivalent in the First Century of the modern quotation mark.
When we see " ", we expect what is inside the quotes to be verbally
accurate, as if recorded by a tape recorder.  As I understand it, ancient
authors were more concerned that their quotations were a fair representation
of the views of the person quoted, even if they combined things that he said
at different times, or were typical of the sort of things they the person
said.  In some sense it is probably misleading to put quotation marks into
translations, since they are not there in the Greek, and the attitude that
they represent isn't there either.  I also agree that we need to have an
understanding of the sorts of things that happen to texts as they are
transmitted orally.  A good example is the Resurrection account.  In the
empty tomb, we initially have a young man (Mk. 16:5), then two men in bright
clothes (Lk. 24:4), and finally an angel (Mt. 28:3 ff.)

Nevertheless, I think there has to be some control on this sort of critique.
It is not true that the NT authors were totally oblivious to the factual
side of truth.  "And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is a
delusion and you are still lost in your sins." (I Cor. 15:17)  In Lk.
1:1-4, Luke shows an attitude which bears at least some resemblence to
historiography: "because I have carefully studied all these matters from
their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for
you.  I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which
you have been taught."  Now he probably meant truth to include an
existential element as well as a factual one.  But it is hard to believe
that the factual is totally absent.  The mere fact that the Gospels are
written as narrative rather than as collections of sayings seems to indicate
that events had some significance.  I am also willing to assume at least a
certain degree of competence on the part of the Gospel writers.  While a
certain amount of legend has clearly crept in during retelling of the
stories, I am willing to believe that the church did have a basic
understanding of what Jesus was trying to say, and that we do have a
substantially correct picture of his teaching and the sort of things he did.
I do not believe that they simply made things up out of whole cloth.  If the
Virgin Birth is in fact a creation of Matthew (I regard the account in Luke
as at most ambiguous), it seems likely that it came Is. 7:14 ("A virgin will
become pregnant ...")  While no current historian would use prophecy in this
way, I am prepared to believe that Matthew might have done so.  I would also
like to point out that the history of Higher Criticism is not a very
encouraging one.  If you want to be in tune with what scholars are going to
think 50 years from now, you are better to bet on the Biblical text than on
the current scholarly theories.  (For example, consider the vicissitudes
suffered by the Gospel according to John.)  One of my problems with academic
Biblical scholarship is that I do not see much evidence of an interest in
this problem.  Perrin did come out with some criteria for trying to identify
Jesus' original opinions, but I haven't seen much work like that.  I would
like to see some critical studies that look back over a few decades of NT
scholarship and try to look at the problem of developing proper controls on
speculation.  (I trust you realize I use the word "control" in the
scientific rather than political sense.)

I'm not sure quite what to make of your mention of the New Testament
apocrypha.  You seem to be saying that because there are varying degrees of
embroidery, it would be naive to think that the documents we have are free
from it.  Well, I guess I agree to some extent.  On the other hand, the
range of documents seems betray a differing attitude towards the task of
writing the Gospel.  And the church seems to have chosen documents written
by people who did have a reasonable regard for fact (always understanding
that the form in which it shows in them is not the same as it would show in
a modern historian).

The thing that upsets me most in your message is the following:

>   It all depends on where YOU live and the particular way that YOU have 
> re-made the world that decides if the "virgin birth" is Reality or is not
> Reality.

I still cling to the outmoded idea that Reality is independent of my
attitudes.  I hope you don't really mean what it sounds like you mean.  (I
realize it is dangerous to put too much weight on one sentence.)  If I had
to choose between this and Francis Shaeffer, I would take Shaeffer.