What is the point here? The NT refers to siblings of Jesus, so it is natural to think that Mary did not remain a virgin. Not being a scholar, I have no idea what Jerome’s arguments are. The author's asserting that they are convincing is not convincing to this reader. My own preference, in the absence of definitive evidence, draws more on William of Ockham than on seemingly unsupported Church tradition.

I think questions such as the one treated here give theology a bad name. It is question we cannot answer and whose answer, could we find it, would be of no consequence. (No doubt, however, a competent theologian could find some significance. It’s what theologians do.)

Since this goes beyond what is contained in the Creed, it is not obligatory to the same degree. I myself would want to see any Mariological statement imply a correlative Christological one. For this reason, I think a good case can be made for the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. Perpetual Virginity, especially when it is bound up with an emphasis on physical intactness, is very problematic, both in terms of an ideology of female purity and in terms of a docetic account of the Lord's Nativity. I like Derek's use of feminist accounts of celibacy as a means ro freedom in antiquity. Could we see Mary (and & Joseph) as claiming freedom for their vocation by abstaining from intercourse. Perhaps, but we're on dangerous ground here, when we get close to Jerome on virginity. I would want to celebrate celibacy as a potential gift and vocation but realize that it has been bound up with

Much that is problematic.

yes, the NT refers to the siblings of Jesus. These have tended to be understood in one of two ways. First, following Jerome's evidence the LXX (the 3rd-2nd century BC Alexandrian translation of the OT into Greek used by the NT authors) does use it to refer to cousins and nephews. I think this one's a reach personally. Second, some 2nd and 3rd century texts--not canonical ones but ones that transmitted traditions that are difficult to date--believed that Joseph was older and married Mary after his first wife died; the brothers and sisters of Jesus are his step-siblings from the first marriage. This is what I believe. In particular, it helps us make sense of John 19:26-27 where Jesus commits his mother's care to the beloved disciple. This looks like Jesus providing for his mother who would otherwise be a widow without support. Why would this be necessary if she had natural children of her own? Granted, it's not always easy (or wise) to try ad tease out the historical and the theological in John's narrative, but Eusebius and other early church historians connect John and the BVM and many of her early shrines are in Ephesus where both tradition and Scripture place the later career of John.

What's the point? The point is to have a theological discussion, Lionel. And that's what we're having. In the first place, personally, I think a lot of Episcopalians have no sense of the importance of Mary in catholic theology of which we Anglicans are partial inheritors. As Bill rightly notes, all theology about Mary is fundamentally theology about Jesus; scratch a substantive discussion of Mary and you'll hit Christology pretty quickly. In the second place, I think we have a lot of retrojective reading of agendas into history, which is why I'm reminding us (myself included) that we can't assume that our head-space and assumptions are necessarily those of Scripture. Attentive readings of both Scripture and tradition help us get a broader perspective that transcends our inherited 20th/21st century views.

Bill,

I would agree that much of Jerome's writing on celibacy moves into problematic territory. Too, the main lens that we moderns have for celibacy is either a) a closet for forcing other people into or b) the imposed celibacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

We need to remember that these two factors are not the only two factors. Both exploring historical perspectives and listening to our own vowed celibates in Anglican religious communities can give us a different perspective.

I think it is the Protoevangelium of James that tells us that Mary's "time" arrived before the couple got to Bethlehem. So they found a cave and Joseph set off to get a midwife from Bethlehem. Meanwhile, alone in the cave, Mary gave birth (in a great flash of light). When Joseph and the midwife arrived, the midwife examined Mary's body and declared her to be still a virgin (in spite of having just given birth) thereby guaranteeing even a physical perpetual virginity!!!

I tend to think of Aquinas's disapproval of the idea of the Immaculate Conception as compromising Mary's humanity -- and suspect the perpetual virginity falls somewhere near that (as well as its obvious support of the Church's celibacy agenda).

But I'm with Bill in that it surely is "pious opinion" and I really don't think it is worth arguing about. Either outcome would be quite satisfactory for me. (And I really DO love the ever-blessed [possibly every-virgin] Mary!)

The ever virgin Mary is yet another way of saying only women who are not really women can be "holy" - we cannot have full spiritual lives unless we deny our bodies. It shows a deep fear of women and their power of creation - trying to contain it within male privilege. It supports all the sexist stuff we have to deal with in the church. A fully embodied woman is somehow "less than" --
As to the siblings, cousins etc debate - most Shoshone and Arapaho people where I live, consider all children of one's sisters (and in some cases brothers) to be their daughters and sons. Cousins assume that they are brothers and sisters. It made difficulties for the white "Indian agents" who demanded a different standard.

I am late to appreciating Mary as I grew up in the protestant end of TEC with a minister (never called a priest) who railed against all things Roman. I like the work that Ann Johnson has done in her book Miryam of Nazareth

If Mary was a virgin for her entire life, that explains why Joseph didn't stick around.

The doctrine is an absurd belief grounded in body-hatred. If Mary was married to Joseph, then their relationship was consummated. Otherwise, she was never married.

It's funny how some who promote the "plain sense" of scripture eschew its plain sense when it skewers their favorite doctrine.

Roy Murphy

Of course, this doctrine can be misused. The interesting question is: must it be? Derek has offered a "no" worth considering.

The ever virgin Mary is yet another way of saying only women who are not really women can be "holy" - we cannot have full spiritual lives unless we deny our bodies.
That's one explanation, Ann, but not the only explanation. It's not one I agree with, and I can think of quite a few saints who are women and who had children. I think you're taking a rather narrow view here.

"What is the point here? The NT refers to siblings of Jesus, so it is natural to think that Mary did not remain a virgin." Not necessarily. It depends on how many linguistic and cultural contexts you have your feet in.

Not all languages and cultures have the same terminological precision as modern English does when it comes to family relations. When my cousin in Belarus and I write to each other, I address her as "syastra" and she addresses me as "brat." Those Belarusian words mean "sister" or "cousin," and "brother" or "cousin," depending on the context. A separate word for "cousin" does not exist. From what I've read, the same holds true for Aramaic, the language Jesus and his disciples spoke, among many others. Consider how the Bible identifies Lot as Abraham's "brother" (Genesis 14:14), when Lot was in fact Abraham's nephew -- the son of Abraham's brother Haran (Genesis 11:27).

If Joseph and Mary did have other children after she gave birth to Jesus, then it looks like they sure didn't do a very good job at raising them to be good Jews. Why else would a dying Jesus entrust his mother to the care of his disciple John, then, when such a duty would naturally fall to any brothers or half-brothers he had by blood? Failure to do so sure isn't any way to "honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12). "If a widow has children or grandchildren, they should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God" (1 Timothy 5:4). That isn't just a New Testament ethic. Christianity inherited care of widows from Judaism. (That Jesus entrusted his mother to John's custody intimates her widowhood, as Joseph would have had to care of her if he was still alive.)

Put yourself in Joseph's place. The young woman to whom you are betrothed becomes pregnant, and you played no part in it. She explains that she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit after an angel visited her and announced that she was to be the mother of the Messiah (Luke 1:26-55). After receiving that bit of mind-boggling news, you also have a dream in which an angel from God tells you that her story is true (Matthew 1:18). After such extraordinary occurrences, do you really think life would go on "as normal," along the same routine as everybody else's? That you'd relate to each other just as ordinary couples the world over do, after watching your betrothed give birth to a child identified as Immanuel, "God with us"? It seems highly unlikely. "Traumatic" may not be quite the right word, but such a conception and birth are bound to shake up one's perspectives and ways of relating to each other, to an extremely dramatic extent. If the Jews had such qualms about merely touching the ark of the covenant, which held God's presence for them (Numbers 4:15), it's rather hard to imagine a pious Jew like Joseph, "a righteous man," daring to get intimate with Mary after she, like a living ark, bore God in her womb.

Gregory Orloff

Evelyn Underhill in her magisterial study, Mysticism, wrote of the Church’s creeds, “all such maps, and we who treat of them, can but set down in cold blood and with a dreadful pretence of precision, matters which the true explorers of Eternity were only able to apprehend in the ardors of such a passion, in the transport of such a union as we, poor finite slaves of our frittered emotions, could hardly look upon and live.” In other words, the Church does not have an exclusive tradition of taking the creeds literally. Consequently, the creeds provide an inadequate hermeneutic for reading scripture. As Anglicans, we are united not by our common understanding of concepts such as “virgin birth” and “resurrection” but by agreeing to pray together as struggle with the uncertain authority of scripture, tradition, and reason. While I applaud your careful scholarship, Derek, I not find it persuasive nor the only possible interpretation of the “facts” – however one interprets those.

It's been along time since my years at the University of Dallas, but I remember two conclusions reached about the virginity of Mary, after as well as before the conception of Jesus. 1.I'm 99.44% sure that somewhere in Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah, he says that it would have been very unusual for a young Jewish girl to have taken a vow of perpetual celibacy upon the eve of her marriage. 2. Two very devout Roman Catholic scholars said in their lectures that the theological point of the virginal conception of Jesus was that Jesus was a completely free gift from God.
Corrections are welcome, but the latter point is a very satisfactory answer to any questions I've ever had.
A wise and witty priest friend of mine said recently, "During the year I might have my doubts about the virginal conception of Jesus. But when I'm lined up, ready to process on Christmas Eve, and I hear the first few notes of "Once in Royal David's City," I believe the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel."

Thanks, George, I'm perfectly aware that many will not find my perspective persuasive--and I'm ok with that. I do believe in charity in non-essentials and I regard the question of Mary's *perpetual* virginity to be a non-essential. I know that there are other ways to interpret the evidence. As Bill Carroll noted, my goal here is to present an understanding of a traditionally-held belief that is not rooted in body-hatred. (Apparently not all agree and somehow have a clearer understanding of my motives than I...)

EHCulver:
A wise and witty priest friend of mine said recently, "During the year I might have my doubts about the virginal conception of Jesus. But when I'm lined up, ready to process on Christmas Eve, and I hear the first few notes of "Once in Royal David's City," I believe the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel."

Amen!

First of all, whatever happened between Mary and Joseph in their bedroom is no business of mine, or yours. These were REAL PEOPLE, and I choose to respect that and not speculate on their sex lives. What is so fascinating about all this, really? Geez. I'm more interested to know how Mary dealt with widowhood. I'm also interested in knowing what happened to the rest of the family; did they get killed too, and so John was the only one personally close enough to the family to take Our Lady in?

Derek, I don't follow you on history because, on the one hand, you say the faith is based on something concrete, but, on the other hand, you pull the rug out from under the reader and admit that the so-called concrete is only intuited through literature. I suppose you have redefined "history" for theological purposes, meaning it would never be accepted by professional historians. Also, you list the incarnation and the resurrection as among the concrete events you intuit, when incarnation and resurrection are always already interpretations.

I agree with Ann that it seems the myth of perpetual virginity can be easily read as saying women must renounce their sexuality in order to be viewed as worthy. I also note there are not a lot of women writing on this perpetual virginity thing. Sounds like a male fantasy.

Gary Paul Gilbert

"Our faith is rooted in a number of concrete historical events, preeminently the incarnation, life, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. However, we have no historical access to these events: no DNA, no vitals, no photos or videos, not even much in the way of independent confirmation by outside sources. Instead, we access this history through two sets of veils: first, the New Testament itself which gives us literary rather than directly historical data; and second, the creeds which are literary guides to the interpretation of the Scripture."

No mention of James, the brother of Jesus? Funny how, after all the harsh sayings about family in the gospels, James turns up as head of the church in Jerusalem after the crucifixion.

I wouldn't base anything on the gospel according to John, a religious novel with a Jesus very unlike the synoptics'.

Dr. Olsen makes explicit the Christian claim that the gospel events really happened, but this is simply an assertion because any evidence is lost. The gospels are constructions of a couple of generations later, and Paul is an eccentric witness (spiritual body?). Yes, the story has gone on to have great influence and effects in history, but stories can do that.

If something happens, there is a way that it happens, a mechanism or process. As Dr. Olsen says, the first century mindset was very different from ours -- but he wants to import first century notions into the present day, with no concept of how they might have been carried out. (We noted the problem of a divine sperm yesterday.)

Ann and others are right, I think -- what we can do now is to live in the spirit of the story. Oddly, if you want to work for justice, you may find as many strangers on your side than co-religionists.

. . . as many as, not than.

All right, Derek, having just left a comment at the previous post about my belief that the virginity of the Blessed Virgin is fact but not necessity, let me expand that to the next step. Perpetual virginity seems, to me, to undermine the Incarnation.

If the Church has understood Christ to be of two natures, she has also understood Christ to have received his humanity - his full humanity - by participating in the full humanity of his mother. To establish her as too special, too set apart, is to separate her from the human experience. This undermines both Jesus' full participation in humanity, and our salvation, for as Gregory of Nyssa said what (of humanity) has not been raised in Christ has not been saved.

Now, this is not to say that Mary couldn't be fully human having taken with Joseph a vow of celibacy; but to argue for such a commitment is another argument from silence. Much more historically and humanly probable is that the marriage was consummated.

And the Creed? While I appreciate your point that inclusion points to the importance of the designation "virgin," it might only mean to distinguish her from the two or three other Marys in Jesus' life. Do I believe that was all that was intended? No; I only point out that it was reasonable. The fact of Mary's virginity before Jesus' birth highlights that his birth is miraculous, and that God has shared Godself in becoming Incarnate. However, that remains for me a matter of fact and illumination, not a necessary limitation on God.

The same is true for me of perpetual virginity. Folks become fearful for their salvation, and so tend to lean too hard on the divinity of Christ, to the point of undermining his humanity. Full humanity can be an ugly business, one that would seem to some to tarnish God too much. I, on the other hand, lean heavily (and sometimes perhaps too heavily) on his full humanity as the promise that my sometimes ugly humanity is redeemed. To that end, unlike the Protoevangelium of James, I sometimes reflect on the Blessed Virgin's labor pains. In faith that my common humanity has been raised with him, I want his humanity - and so his mother's - to be as common as possible.

Marshall Scott

I think you're taking a rather narrow view here.
That is because you have not experienced what it is like to be a woman in the church.

Anne: Are you saying that a virgin is not fully a woman?

Gary,
What I'm doing is acknowledging the complexities of the evidence. I'm saying that our faith does rest on certain historical foundations but that we do not have access to the empirical data to test them scientifically. What I don't want to do is to over-argue the evidece but to both note and accept that our sources have some real limits when it comes to independently verifiable data.

Murdoch,
Of course I believe that certain gospel events happened. I believe that these are narratives with the bases in truth. Are there events in the gospels that I regard as creative theological interpretations of events rather than straight-forward 20th century historiography? Of course! But this does not mean that I jettison the narratives as "just stories." After all, stories are powerful things.

Marshall,
Perpetual virginity seems, to me, to undermine the Incarnation. ?? What, then, does this say about our Anglican monastics? Are they not fully human or are they less than human due to their "perpetual virginity"? Perhaps a few of them could comment on whether they are less or more than human...

Ann,
You're right, I have never been a woman in the church. I have seen how my wife has been treated, though, so I may know more than you suspect.

I'm distrustful of any attempts to make Mary equal to Jesus. Everyone who does this denies that they're doing it, but as Will Durant said, "Don't like the male god Jesus? No problem, we've got a female one too named Mary! And local gods we call saints, male and female, to correspond with the old gods of the mountain and seashore and forest and harvest you're already used to!"

In the case of St. Mary, if it can't be proved by Holy Scripture I don't have to believe it and I don't. She is in no way equivalent to her son, no matter how many statues of Virgins the peasants parade around, pray to and throw money at, or how many priests make pilgrimages to her competing shrines at Walsingham.

That's not her image on your cheeseburger and there's no reason she couldn't have lived as a full-blooded woman and died a natural death like the rest of us. Who was Mary? I don't know and I don't care overmuch. Celibacy is highly overrated.

Thank you, brother Olsen, for sharing your essay. Jerome's polemic against Helvidius is on-line at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm and paragraphs 9 through 17 appear to be relevant, though I have not had time to read Jerome yet.

Wikipedia informs us that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and John Wesley all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, so you are in good company, my brother.

My question is, did any of the first four ecumenical councils pronounce on this matter? If not, I would take the siblings as siblings, at least until I have time to read Jerome. à bientôt, chers amis! -- Craig

John Robison: No. (ann no e)
Derek - thanks for the though provoking essays -- always helps me sort out what I believe discussing these things.
Josh: a joke - there was an old woman praying in church, a sacristan thought he would tease her - so used the mic to say - this is Jesus - what do you want. There was no answer from the woman. She continued to pray. The sacristan repeated - this is Jesus, what do you want? She continues to pray. He tries one more time - she looks up and says - be quiet -can't you tell I'm talking to your mama.

Do not discount the power of prayers by people who find Mary more accessible than any of the male images of God.

Very sorry. I thought I had checked the spelling of your name.

I congratulate Derek for bringing this subject to public discussion, despite the very heated discussions it always produces. Somehow, the Blessed Virgin Mary has been intertwined with the story of my life.

When I decided to start attending a church again, I was most likely an agnostic who had a (possibly) near-death experience and felt that something "higher" existed. I had been hurt by churches; I decided to become an atheist, but things eventually changed. Of course, I didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, and most certainly I didn't believe in any catholic view of the Communion of Saints. I felt very welcome at this church, though, and then, when I went back to my country, continued to feel very welcome at the church I started to attend. I didn't receive communion (it didn't make sense to me to do it, for I knew I didn't believe in the same mystery those people believed) but the people were always very nice.

Derek makes some good points about what Tradition has to say about it all, and I agree with most of them. I just wasn't convinced by such arguments. It took me a handful mysterious events, usually followed by uncontrollable tears, for me to have faith in doctrines that previously seemed to be just unbelievable. Or, as I would say: "it suddenly made sense."

That happened when I was attending Evensong and heard the Nunc Dimittis. "For my eyes have seen your salvation" That's when the Incarnation, and the virgin birth "made sense" to me. Or when I heard the people reciting the creed (I didn't recite it) and suddenly the words "God from God, light from light" brought me to tears again. And the same happened to Our Lady. There I was, caught by the simple, yet dignifying melody of "Regina Caeli, laetare" which filled me with this burst of joy. Forgive me if it sounds profane, but I fell in love with her by repeating the words of the Magnificat.

Of course, none of that makes sense to those who don't agree with me. I'm thankful, however, to people in the Church who, like Derek, tried to explain these tenets of faith without judging or forcing me to accept them. It was important to me that they were not shy to talk about their beliefs, nor tried to dumb them down so I'd easily "accept them", yet they were open to hearing about my disbeliefs. I don't believe many of them really thought I was going to be eternally condemned for that (I certainly don't, I'm possibly what I call a "quasi-universalist"). So, when things "made sense" to me, I guess it was natural for me to go to the priest and ask what I should do to be confirmed, and make a public statement about that. It certainly was a very different experience from what I saw as a child in Evangelical circles, where you'd be practically obliged to "accept Jesus as Lord and Savior." I guess my point is that, after all, conversion is God's work.

And, oh well, throughout this journey, Our Lady has been a very faithful companion, I must say. Through Scripture, Holy Tradition, scripture, the visual arts, etc. there's always a special message for me. And, of course, that helped me understand and value women much more than before. I know that for so long, this model of a perfect, obedient, shy, chaste wife has been used upon women as a means of oppression, but whomever did it, they were very equivocated and manipulative. The Lady I know was a prophet, a strong and faithful person - all of that in the midst of an environment that was very hostile to poor women like her. I'm certain that she understands a lot about oppression and am confident of her prayers for those who suffer. Despite the excesses of folk Marianism in some parts of the world, I don't see any problems with acknowledging that the Communion of Saints - including Mary - is united through prayer to God.

As for celibacy, I think we have to see it through different lenses depending on the period of time we are talking about. Many times, marriage was extremely oppressive to women (sometimes even to men) and a celibate, monastic life was more empowering to people. Perpetual virginity is, based on this and Derek's arguments, possible, but one of the charming aspects of Anglicanism is that we don't have to agree on non-essential points. But it's always nice to have a charitable conversation between people with opposing views.

I'm sorry for eventual orthographic and grammar mistakes. I'm feeling a bit dizzy and frankly, I shouldn't even have started to write this, but I thought it was worth some comments.

Derek, how many of our Anglican monastics would claim to be monastic virgins, much less in the sense that the Roman Church, at least, has claimed for the Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity?

More to the point, once again, I think we need to make a distinction between what the Church has asserted about the Blessed Mother and celibacy. I made reference to the possibility in my note, but, again, it requires speculation. Moreover, it has been a hallmark of the Anglican understanding of celibacy that it is exceptional, a special vocation. No, that isn't dehumanizing (my OHC brothers have helped this Associate see that), and also in some sense reflects the assent of Mary. That said, we have no sense that Mary has such a vocation, as exceptional then as it is now. The Scriptural reference to siblings suggests otherwise.

No, it seems to me that, having rejected tertium quid when speaking of Jesus, some have tried to assert it for the Blessed Mother. It is no more acceptable for her than for him, unless we want to understand differently his humanity.

Marshall Scott

I'm sorry, I meant perpetual virgins, not monastic.

Marshall Scott

I think we need to be careful here. Virginity, that is, singleness of heart, cannot be reduced to celibacy. Virginity is more closely correlated for all of us to chastity. One can be celibate and unchaste. One can be married and chaste. It isn't just about genital expression or not, but about growth (yes, it don't come all at once) in God and love toward others, either through being with one other or being in a community (the ordinary Anglican monastic ideal). Though even hermits are never alone with the alone. All of creation is present in their singleness.

That Mary may have shown forth singleness of heart not only in heart (Virginity) but outwardly in flesh (remained a virgin) as sign to us is one thing. The Incarnation is all about truths of God and truths of humanity being manifest in flesh.

It is chastity that Mary's own Virginity commends to us, that is, growth in singleness of heart in relation to God and to others and to creation.

That is so whether we are sexually active in faithful commitment to another as response to faithful commitment of God to us in Christ or we are celibate (which isn't without sexuality) and are working at directing our connective energies to all. In either case, we must burst beyond turn to self toward others in children, in service, in work, etc.

In effect, Derek, you have admitted you have not a shred of evidence by admitting you cannot test any of your claims. Given faith does not need bogus or untestable evidence, I am puzzled by your claims.

Historical foundations which cannot be tested in any way are not historical foundations. German makes a nice distinction between Historie (what professional historians do) and Geschichte (telling historical narratives, as theologians do).

Gary Paul Gilbert

"What I'm doing is acknowledging the complexities of the evidence. I'm saying that our faith does rest on certain historical foundations but that we do not have access to the empirical data to test them scientifically. What I don't want to do is to over-argue the evidece but to both note and accept that our sources have some real limits when it comes to independently verifiable data."

I'm glad that NT scholarship (and, for that matter, historiography) has moved beyond the illusion of a "scientific history."

This isn't really relevant to our discussion about BVM, it's just that, by happy accident, in today's OT reading for the Daily Office, from Judges (the "judges" being successful military leaders of the people Israel, leaders who arose when needed, in the conquest of the land), there are two remarkable women: Deborah, the impressive leader to whom the warrior Barak says, "If you will go with me [against Sisera, the enemy of Israel], I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go," and Ya-EL, who deals the fatal blow against Sisera. Judges 4 is a remarkable chapter. Lehitra-ot, khaverai: hasta la vista, my friends. -- Craig

In effect, Derek, you have admitted you have not a shred of evidence by admitting you cannot test any of your claims.
Lol, Gary! No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we have no surviving empirical, material evidence of the incarnation, resurrection, etc. There is actually little empirical evidence for quite a lot of very important human history--all we have for most of it is testimony. As that doesn't carry any weight with you, I wonder if you believe in any history at all that occurred before the 20th century!

Dr. Olsen is correct that history is much more thinly attested than is commonly supposed. Even some prominent figures in Roman history are little documented. We go on teaching the conventional chronology because there's no evidence against it, and not to would leave holes.

But I don't know what he's talking about when he says "we have no surviving empirical evidence of the incarnation, resurrection, etc." Hello! These are doctrines more than events. If you had Jesus of Nazareth standing in front of you, how would you verify the Incarnation? DNA testing? It's an idea, a value we find in the person.

If you'd been present at the first Easter, perhaps you could testify to the actuality of the Resurrection. But what we have are accounts written decades later that don't agree in their details -- and Mark's account is missing. Paul is the earliest witness, and he muddies the picture with talk of Spiritual Bodies, which sounds good but nobody knows what they might be.

So you have hearsay and theorizing developing into a tradition. The Christian movement is history. It's origins are legend.

I've often wondered how, having experienced the Annunciation and subsequent virgin birth, Mary could presume to question her clearly divine son's actions when he was merely going about his heavenly Father's business (Luke 2:49 and Mark 3:20-21). But if the birth were normal -- if God manifested not genetically, but in some equally wonderful, if mysterious, way -- Mary's initial misunderstanding of Jesus might make sense, as might his lack of warm attachment to his uncomprehending family of origin (Mark 3:33-35, Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 8:19-21).

Considering who Jesus turned out to be, both in his lifetime and forever via the Holy Spirit, an insistence on supernatural miracles begins to take on the aspect of gilding the lily.

So I can agree with Murdoch Matthew's assessment of the tradition.

And yet, the Jesus of all the Gospels lived as perfect a life as one can imagine, and he has managed to live on, as sustenance and hope, in our hearts. That, ungilded as it may be, is pretty miraculous.

The ever virgin Mary is yet another way of saying only women who are not really women can be "holy" - we cannot have full spiritual lives unless we deny our bodies. It shows a deep fear of women and their power of creation - trying to contain it within male privilege. It supports all the sexist stuff we have to deal with in the church. A fully embodied woman is somehow "less than"

I'm not clear on how a woman who's been in labor and given birth can be considered to be "not really a woman."

You're apparently making sexual intercourse the sine qua non of womanhood here - which wouldn't, certainly, be my definition. Of course, lots of people think lesbians are "not really women" for the same reason, so at least you have plenty of company there....

I dunno, Murdoch, maybe I might identify Him by the wounds in His hands and feet and side? It seems to me absurd to call the resurrection a "doctrine" as though it was an alternative to asserting it as an event. In that sense, "doctrine" is vacuous, because ordinarily I would understand it as a property of a claim. I can only understand you to be saying, "one must believe in the resurrection even though it may or may not have happened." That seems to me to be demanding a contentless belief. It just is not compelling-- in fact, quite the opposite.

C. Wingate, If you bumped into the historical Jesus I doubt you would have been able to identify him as the Christ. Kierkegaard makes this point that most people today assume they would have gone with Jesus, when in fact many of us probably would not have been impressed. Miracles, signs, etc., are assumed to be necessary for faith when I tend to see them as irrelevant.

Regarding the resurrection, it was not a historical event but rather a doctrine invented by the early movement to express their conviction that even after death Jesus was still worth following.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I am dubious of your invocation of Kierkegaard, nor do I brag or even assume I would have followed Jesus in his day. But as my history is not that of a 1st century Jew or gentile, the question is unanswerable; I have only my own personal history, and its setting within the greater history of the world, to go on. Nor do I care whether miracles are necessary for faith, because the only real issue is whether they are the real foundation of faith. If I interpret you correctly, you seem to say that lying about miracles is the foundation of faith, which I submit is a less than inspiring ratification of the gospel message.

>>I am dubious of your invocation of Kierkegaard

You do well to be dubious when anyone tosses Kierkegaard's name out. In my experience, it's the same kind of people who will only cook with expensive copper-bottomed pots.

I admit Kierkegaard is difficult to interpret. What I like about him is that he sets the standards for Christianity so high that nobody can meet them. If that is like cooking with copper-bottomed pans, then so be it! Kierkegaard was not a "have a nice day" type of person, for sure.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Well, I cook with 25-year-old Revereware pots and with cheap teflon skillets from Target, so perhaps I have achieved the proper attitude here. As for the Dour K., I would feel more sanguine were I to be presented with a passage which I could look up and read for myself.

And as far as him setting the standards so high, I am possessed of the suspicion that those who so invoke him are all too often actually convicted of the belief that they are somehow justified through their repetition of his words.

C. Wingate:

I wrote "Jesus of Nazareth" to evoke the person who lived in the first century. You assume a Resurrection Appearance (Gospel of John, perhaps). As I said, if you'd been there, you'd have something to report. Now, whatever the event was (accounts vary. a lot.), it is now a doctrine -- or a received opinion. As such, not provable, and discussion consists of differing understandings.

A contentless faith sounds attractive. I grew up in church (Baptist) and worked in the 1950s and 1960s to further catholic tradition in the present day. But the history is not so solid as I supposed (Abraham, Moses, and David are not supported by archaeology; accounts of Jesus seem to be based on preserved sayings worked into biographies constructed of quotations from the prophets). And the success of the Eucharistic movement in the church didn't lead more influence in society. Indeed, the civil rights movement despite its gains provoked a backlash of bigotry and knownothingism that continues today. The church tiptoes around controversy, but supporting the former status quo is a losing proposition as circumstances and understandings change.

But not only the history and practice proved unsecured -- the advice I was given on sexuality proved based on prejudice and stereotype. The tradition actually is almost silent on sexuality, and my attempt to keep silence on the matter in my life was hurtful. All that beauty and tradition and certainty -- and it misled me about a central fact of my being.

What now? I've gone on trying to understand my experience and to contribute to the good of the commons. I recognize that when people get enough money or power, they tend to despise the commons and seize what they can for themselves, fear of divine retribution notwithstanding. If people do not share, the tribe and the environment will be ravaged. I see fairness and reason as goods, even if selfishness all too often is more rewarding to an individual. So I suppose my faith has content -- just no divine warrant.

By the way, I edited two volumes of Kierkegaard's journals for Indiana University Press. I think Gary gets him right. Read him on the Abraham/Isaac business.