Download The Virgin-Birth Debate in Anthropological Literature

THE VIRGIN-BIRTH DEBATE IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT
JOHN A. SALIBA, S.J.
University of Detroit
most recent discussions in theological circles has focused
OneonofthetheVirgin
Birth. The debate has centered around the question,
1
whether the virginal conception of Jesus was a historical fact. Theologians and Scripture scholars participating in the controversy have been
unaware that the same topic was concurrently the subject of a lively, at
times acrimonious, exchange in anthropological literature,2 to which
leading anthropologists from both sides of the Atlantic have
contributed.3
The anthropological debate on the Virgin Birth is important for a
number of reasons. First, it is one of the few cases where anthropological
theory has been applied to Christian beliefs.4 Secondly, the topic under
1
See R. Brown, "The Problem of the Virginal Conception of Jesus," THEOLOGICAL
STUDIES 33 (1972) 3-34, (a slightly revised version of this essay was published in Brown's
monograph The Virginal Conception and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus [New York,
1973]); J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Virginal Conception of Jesus in the New Testament," ibid.
34 (1973) 541-75. Both articles contain ample references to the copious literature on the
subject. Cf. also A. C. Piepkorn, "The Virgin Birth Controversy: A Lutheran's Reaction,"
Marian Studies 24 (1973) 25-65, and J. F. Craghan, "The Gospel Witness to Mary's Ante
partum Virginity," ibid. 21 (1970) 28-68.
2
None of the main theological articles on the Virgin Birth contains references to the
anthropological literature on the subject. E. R. Carroll, in his more recent scholarly surveys
on Mariology published in Marian Studies (1967-73), seems unaware of the controversy in
anthropological quarters. Further, the problems raised by the anthropological debate and
discussed in this paper have not been faced in the theological and exegetical writings on the
Virgin Birth.
3
E. Leach, "Virgin Birth," Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland for 1966, pp. 39-49. The following are the major participants in the
debate that ensued: M. E. Spiro, "Virgin Birth, Parthenogenesis and Physiological
Paternity: An Essay in Cultural Interpretation," Man 3 (1968) 242-61; J. D. M. Derrett,
"Virgin Birth in the Gospels," Man 6 (1971) 289-93; S. Montague, "Trobriand Kinship and
the Virgin Birth Controversy," Man 6 (1971) 353-68.
4
Though anthropological studies on Western culture have increased in the last few
decades, it is still hard to point to major anthropological works on Christian beliefs and
practices. F. Hsu's The Study of Literate Civilizations (New York, 1969) attests to this
deficiency. Margaret Mead is probably the only leading anthropologist today who has
written specifically on Christianity; cf. her collection of essays Twentieth Century Faith
(New York, 1972). Mary Douglas has made an indirect but nonetheless important
contribution to sacramental theology in her Natural Symbols (New York, 1970). So also has
V. W. Turner with his studies on symbolism; see in particular The Forest of Symbols
(Ithaca, 1967), The Ritual Process (Chicago, 1969), and, more recently, "Passages,
Margins, and Poverty: Religious Symbols of Communitas," Worship 46 (1972) 390-412,
482-94.
428
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
429
discussion was dealt with comparatively, thereby underlining the
importance of the comparative method in anthropology, a method which
many claim is a major contribution of anthropology to the science of
man.5 Christian scholars cannot ignore this method, because in our age of
interreligious dialogue comparison between religious beliefs and practices of different peoples is inevitable.6 Last, but not least, the anthropological discussion on the Virgin Birth raises the issue of interdisciplinary
dialogue between theology and the human sciences. Theologians have
often sought insights from other disciplines, but they have largely
neglected cultural anthropology, the youngest of the social sciences.
This paper will attempt to outline the main positions taken in the
anthropological controversy and to point out the major contributions and
deficiencies of the methodological procedures followed. The discussion
will be seen in the light of contemporary theological views on the Virgin
Birth. The focus of attention is the method pursued by the anthropologists involved in the debate. "The merit of this essay," writes Edmund
Leach, "lies in its method."7 Can anthropological method be applied to
Christian issues and, if so, to what extent? What insights, if any, can
theologians and Scripture scholars gain from the use of methods
borrowed from anthropology? Can the pursuit of anthropological method
lead to insights into the significance of the Virgin Birth itself?
THE STRUCTURAL APPROACH8
Leach ignited the debate with a paper he delivered at the annual
meeting of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland in 1966. He begins the discussion on the Virgin Birth (by which he
usually means Virginal Conception9) in the context of the belabored
ethnographic reports on the Australian aborigines, who were believed,
and still are believed, by some to have been ignorant of physical pa5
Cf., e.g., the excellent textbook Anthropology Today (Del Mar, Calif., 1971) pp. 5 ff.
The dialogue between religions being carried out under the auspices of the World
Council of Churches has produced many cases of explicit and implicit comparisons; cf. S.
J. Samartha, ed., Dialogue between Men of Living Faiths (Geneva, 1971).
7
Leach, art. cit., p. 39.
8
The method referred to is basically that of C. Lévi-Strauss; cf. his Structural
Anthropology (New York, 1963). Leach has applied this method to the study of the Bible.
See especially E. Leach, Genesis as Myth and Other Essays (London, 1969), where the
essay on the Virgin Birth is reprinted. It should be noted, however, that Leach himself has
criticized Lévi-Strauss's method rather severely at times h. his Claude Lévi-Strauss
(New York, 1970).
9
The failure on Leach's part to distinguish between the Virginal Conception and the
Virgin Birth, as theologians normally do, is a source of confusion in his essay. None of the
participants in the debate, with M. Spiro as a possible exception, clarifies the issue. Since
the debaters bring in ethnographic data which relates to conception rather than to birth, it
is assumed that the virginal conception of Jesus is the main topic of discussion.
e
430
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
ternity.10 He argues that statements by informants which bypass reference to physiological facts are not indicative of their ignorance of these
facts. In other words, such statements should not be taken literally.
This naturally raises the question, how does one interpret credal statements? Should one rely on the interpretation which the natives give of
their own beliefs? Do dogmas tell precisely what believers maintain to be
true? And does ritual give an indication of the inner psychological attitude of the participants? Leach's answer to all these questions is in the
negative. He frowns upon the method of asking the ritualist about the
meaning of his beliefs and ceremonies, of eliciting conscious symbolism.
Ritual is not an expression of religious experience but a statement about
the social situation.11 Ritual, like myth, "establishes categories" and "affirms relationships."12 Hence what is important in a credal formula is
not the words but the situation.13
It is an obvious assumption in Leach's argument that the Christian
dogma of the Virginal Conception should not be treated as a unique
phenomenon. He derides past anthropological tendencies to exclude
higher religions, Christianity in particular, from their speculations. He
maintains that the Virginal Conception is just one of three types of
supernatural births. The first type would be a virginal, and hence
extraordinary, conception, but both the mother and child are looked
upon as normal human beings (supernatural/natural/natural). He cites
the belief of the Trobriand Islanders as a case in point. The second type
involves socie supernatural dimension in the child's conception, a kind of
"magical pregnancy." While the mother is thoroughly normal, the child
is destined to become a hero and has, therefore, supernatural qualities
and attributes (supernatural/natural/supernatural). Isaac and John
the Baptist are the examples he cites. The third type has a supernatural
dimension throughout. The conception is virginal and both mother and
child are abnormal (supernatural/supernatural/supernatural).14 The
conception of Jesus belongs to this third category and is thus one
variable in multiple combinations. From a methodological point of view,
therefore, Christian beliefs are seen in the wider framework of world
religions.
The crucial question to Leach is to explain how people maintain
dogmatic statements of this kind which run counter to their knowledge.15
10
Cf. R. M. Berndt and C. H. Berndt, World of the First Australians (Chicago, 1964) pp.
120-23.
11
Leach, "Virgin Birth," p. 41.
12
Ibid., p. 42.
13
Ibid., p. 43.
"Ibid.
15
Leach's basic assumption is that all peoples must know the physiological aspects of
paternity, which include the causal relation between sexual intercourse and conception.
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
431
Three answers are listed: (1) One may hold that people profess such
beliefs because of childish ignorance—a position Leach rejects outright
as inapplicable just as much to the Australian aborigines as to
Christians.18 (2) One may take the theologian's or the believer's answer,
which states simply that the Virginal Conception is an exception to the
rule, executed by God for a purpose-a position which Leach says he respects, but which he cannot accept as an explanation. (3) One can apply
Lévi-Strauss's structuralism, which entails "fitting the pieces together to
form a pattern." 17 The emphasis here lies not in finding causal relationships but in looking for interesting patterns of belief. In such a procedure
the scholar does not ask what the causes are which brought about the
myth or the belief, nor does he seek to unearth the human needs which
the myth satisfies. He asks what the myth tells us about the social
situation. Dogmatic statements must fit into the complex social pattern.
Their significance lies in their relationships to the social structure, and
their meaning makes sense only if seen in the total social pattern.
In the framework of this methodological procedure, Leach makes a
number of important statements on the Virginal Conception. First, he
asserts that this Christian belief cannot be taken literally. He refers to
Matthew and Luke as giving a genealogy "which places Jesus in the
direct line of patrilineal descent from David through Joseph."18 This he
interprets to mean that these two Synoptic Gospels are affirming that,
after all, Jesus was born like every other human being. Secondly, the
meaning or the symbolism of the Virginal Conception cannot be
expressed in religious terms. If I understand Leach correctly, his position
would be that to explain a religious statement by another religious or
theological formulation would amount to tautology.
The dogma of the Virginal Conception is, in Leach's view, "compatible
with a social system that is essentially patriarchal."19 He further
attempts to show, rather briefly, that Mariology fitted comfortably in
Catholic but not in Protestant colonialism. The concept of society in
predominantly Catholic countries left room for an elaborate cult of the
From this he concludes that no other belief which contradicts this physiological knowledge
can be held seriously by those who claim to profess it. Such a conclusion, however, is not
self-evident and it can be argued that some ethnographic data contradicts Leach's position.
18
One of the great debates in anthropological literature has been on the rationality of the
so-called primitives; cf. A. Montague, ed., The Concept of the Primitive (New York, 1968),
and C. and R. Berndt, The Barbarians (Baltimore, 1973).
"Leach, "Virgin Birth," p. 41.
18
Ibid., p. 42. Leach is apparently not interested in the Christian exegesis of this phrase.
Cf., e.g., C. T. Davis, "The Fulfilment of Creation: A Study in Matthew's Genealogy,"
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (1973) 520-35 and E. A. Abel, "The
Genealogies of Jesus ho Christos," New Testament Studies 20 (1974) 302-10.
19
Leach, "Virgin Birth," p. 43.
432
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
Virgin Mary; but the Virgin Mother had no place in a Protestant setting.
Lastly, he points out that the basic religious theme in the dogma of the
Virginal Conception is the alliance between gods and men.20 He observes
that in all societies social distance in time, space, and generation is a
fundamental human experience. This is metaphorically expressed in
distinctions between the I and the others (ancestor and descendants),
this world and the other world, the living and the dead, men and gods,
and normality and abnormality. This disjunction between two worlds is
also accompanied by a social experience of continuity and mediation.
Dogmas and beliefs in virginal conceptions are ways of expressing this
experience; they vary because the social experience differs from one
culture to another. The task of the anthropologist is to show how religious
beliefs fit into the total social structure. To accomplish this, one does
not have to explore the conscious symbolism, or the theology, of the
believers themselves. When Leach ignores the abundant Christian
theological reflections on the Virginal Conception, he is being consistent
with his own method.
THE FUNCTIONAL
APPROACH21
Melford Spiro was the first anthropologist to react to Leach's
position.22 The first part of his reply combats Leach's personal
insinuations.23 Spiro vehemently defends his integrity as an anthropologist who does not look on the so-called primitive people as inferior and
insists most emphatically that ethnographic data leaves no doubt as to
20
Ibid., p. 45.
There may be some cause for confusion in anthropology with regard to the meaning of
the functional and structural methods. The classical functionalist was B. Malinowski, who
explained culture as fulfilling biological needs. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown expanded and refined
Malinowski's views and adopted a functional/structural approach which, while relating all
cultural institutions and seeing them as part of a system, examined the effects which the
various institutions had on one another. In this case the functions of religion are the
relationships it bears to family patterns, political and economic organizations, social
values, and the social structure as a whole. This functional/structural approach is to be
distinguished from the structural method of Lévi-Strauss, though there are some points of
contact. See B. Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion (New York, 1954), A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, Structure and Function in Primitive Society (New York, 1952). For a summary of anthropological works which follow the functional/structural approach to religion,
cf. A. de Waal Malefijt, Religion and Culture (New York, 1968) pp. 290-328.
22
Cf. Spiro, art. cit. (η. 3 above).
23
The disagreement on method between Leach and Spiro dates at least from the early
60's; cf. E. Leach, "Golden Bough or Golden Twig," Daedalus 90 (Spring, 1961) pp. 372-78,
and M. Spiro, "Religion and the Irrational," in Symposium on New Approaches to the
Study of Religion, ed. J. Helm (Seattle, 1963) pp. 102-15. Among anthropologists Leach
has the reputation of a maverick; see, e.g., his Rethinking Anthropology (New York, 1963)
for some of his views. Recently Elizabeth Hall has interviewed Leach and published the
conversation in Psychology Today 8 (1974) 60-64.
21
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
433
the fact that the Australian aborigines were ignorant of the role of the
father in conception.24
Then Spiro moves on to the Virginal Conception. He adopts the
functional position, which tries to understand, interpret, and at times
explain cultural traits and institutions by what they do. His main
functional assumption is that religious beliefs and practices satisfy
certain human needs. He starts his rebuttal by rejecting Leach's analogy
between the Australian aborigine belief in the procreation process and
the Christian dogma about the conception of Jesus.26 The two beliefs, he
holds, are hardly comparable. The Virginal Conception is an extraordinary event which denies conception by sexual intercourse in the case of
Jesus; the aborigine belief deals with all conceptions, thus referring to
ordinary events which are in no way exceptions to the rule. The
Australian aborigine belief that "spirit children" make a woman
pregnant is really not a virginal conception; after all, regular intercourse
between married couples was taken for granted. Leach, Spiro correctly
observes, confuses virginal conception and parthenogenesis. In the
Australian case we have nonvirgins (all women) conceiving parthenogenically, while in the case of Jesus we have a virgin (obviously an
exception) conceiving without copulation and solely through the intervention of God. The main thrust of Spiro's argument is that Leach
misuses the comparative method. The only similarity that Spiro sees
between virginal conception and parthenogenesis is that in both instances conception occurs without direct copulation. And there the
similarity ends. Hence the Christian belief differs radically from the
aborigine tenet. The dogma of the Virginal Conception implies knowledge about physiological paternity; the belief that "spirit children"
impregnate women does not.26
Another important disagreement between Spiro and Leach regards the
actual statement that Mary conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin.
Leach would hold that this creed does not have a biological or a
theological message but only a sociological one. Spiro, on the other hand,
insists that the dogma has also a biological and theological meaning: it
proclaims the audacious theological truth that the Son of God became
incarnate in a very specific manner. The Virginal Conception is thus, for
Spiro, a miracle affirming the descent of the Messiah, the Son of God.27
While Spiro takes the statement that Mary conceived Jesus while
maintaining her virginity to mean exactly what it says, Leach does not.
Those Christians who believe in the Virginal Conception would accept
Spiro's intepretation more readily; they would find Leach's analysis
difficult to follow and would perhaps judge it off the mark. Spiro allows
24
Spiro, "Virgin Birth," pp. 243 ff.
Ibid., p. 249.
25
"Ibid., p. 250.
"Ibid., pp. 251-52.
434
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
more scope for the believer to express his own credal statements and
formulas and to determine the meaning of his own symbols and
doctrines.
Finally, Spiro brings out some of the difficulties in Leach's structural
interpretation. The basis of Spiro's argument is that beliefs and practices
must have some functional purport; in other words, they must have a
detectible usefulness, be it sociological, psychological, or religious.
Otherwise their coming into being would be quite inexplicable. Spiro
concludes by giving two possible functional solutions. The first is
cultural, "7n default of a procreative explanation," he writes, "the
conception belief enunciates a non-procreative theory of conception. This
being so, the function of the message is cognitive explanatory, and the
motivational basis for the natives' belief in the message is intellectual
curiosity concerning an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon, and one
which is of central concern."28 In simpler terms, the Australian aborigines were ignorant of the causal link between intercourse and conception.
The common fact of conception and pregnancy required some explanation, if for no other reason than that the average person is motivated by
curiosity. Theories of conception have thus the function of fulfilling this
intellectual need. This, of course, does not solve the problem of why the
natives never discovered the mentioned link and why they chose this
particular explanation. Hence Spiro proposes a psychological interpretation as a second possibility. The assertion that "spirit children" enter the
womb of the woman and make her pregnant is a symbolic denial in
fantasy of the role of the father as genitor. Australian aborigine beliefs
regarding conception are thus seen within the larger framework of the
Freudian Oedipus complex.29
REACTION TO THE LEACH-SPIRO DEBATE
It has to be admitted from the start that the correspondence on this
topic addressed to the editor of Man has not contributed much to
clarifying the issues and much less to solving the methodological
problems involved. Most of the anthropologists who reacted to the
debate hardly even mention the Virginal Conception. These writers tend
to refer to ethnographic literature in favor of or against the tenet that
some nonliterate peoples were unaware of the physiological role of the
father in procreation.30
**Ibid., p. 255.
M
Ibid., pp. 255-57.
30
The following anthropologists took part in the debate by writing to the editor of the
British anthropological journal Man: D. M. Schnieder, Man 3 (1968) 126-29; E. Leach,
ibid., pp. 129, 655-56; Ph. Karberry, ibid., pp. 311-13; K. Bumdge, ibid., pp. 354-55; H. A.
Powell, ibid., pp. 651-53; R. M. W. Dixon, ibid., pp. 653-54; E. G. Schwimmer, Man 4 (1969)
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
435
A few attempt to go beyond the now sterile debate about primitive
people and to make comments on the Christian doctrine of the Virginal
Conception. Burridge,31 for one, notes that the Australian aborigines,
like Christians, believe that God is ultimately the real father and that
the part man plays is that of a foster father. He also contrasts man's
reproductive cycle with the kangaroo's, for reasons which are not very
clear, to say the least. He observes that the Australian belief in
conception has to be seen in opposition to what they affirm in native
animals. Schwimmer,32 after describing the Orokaivan situation,33 notes
that there are some similarities between the Christian and Orokaivan
beliefs ίχι human conception and birth. Both Christians and Orokaivans,
according to Schwimmer, believe that some births are not the result of
sexual congress; that some children may be conceived by women sleeping
alone; and that conception in this latter case is explained by the entrance
of a spirit into the womb of the woman and fertilizing her. It is hardly
worth the time assessing these comparisons, or rather identifications,
since none of the beliefs, as stated by Schwimmer, are adhered to by
Christians. The most relevant remark he makes is that Orokaivan
parthenogenesis has social significance; and this would tend to support
Leach's position. Only one of the anthropologists who participated in the
debate suggested that the dogma of the Virginal Conception has a long
historical development, a study of which might shed light on the whole
matter. 34
At best, the response to the Leach-Spiro debates shows that the
participants are not very familiar with the Christian writings on the
Virginal Conception and on the perpetual virginity of Mary;35 and much
less are they cognizant of the ramifications of the dogmas involved. The
intricacies of the arguments, and the issues themselves, are sometimes
36
lost in the abusive language of the debaters. One is not surprised to find
that most of those who reacted to the initial articles of Leach and Spiro
have made very little, if any, contributions to the basic issues at stake.
132-33; M. Douglas, ibid., pp. 133-34; R. J. Wilson, ibid., pp. 286-88; R. McGaffey, ibid.,
p. 467; R. Needham, ibid., pp. 457-58; M. Spiro, Man 7 (1972) 315-16; S. Dhrangadhra,
ibid., p. 137.
31
Loc. cit.
i2
Loc. cit.
33
The Orokaiva are a tribe in New Guinea.
34
See Needham's correspondence (n. 30 above). Neither Leach nor Spiro gives any
evidence of being acquainted with the development of Christian thought on the virginity of
Mary.
35
None of the anthropologists involved in the debate distinguishes between Jesus'
virginal conception and Mary's perpetual virginity. As Brown notes, art. cit., pp. 3 ff., these
doctrines must be distinguished, because dogmatically they are not of equal importance.
36
This is especially true of the exchanges between Spiro and Leach.
436
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
There are two exceptions to these superficial responses: the essays of
37
38
Derrett and Montague. Derrett, writing from a theological point of
view, maintains that the scriptural data does not support the contention
that Mary conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin. "The Evangelists,"
he writes, "believe that in Jesus' case conception took place in two
stages, perhaps separated by a short interval; a spirit pregnancy took
place first and a human pregnancy afterwards." 3 9 Even those Christian
exegetes who tend to interpret the scriptural data as lending some
support to the doctrine of the Virginal Conception are aware of the
problem so evident in Luke (1:26-38). 40 If Derrett's interpretation were
unanimously accepted by Christians, Leach's position would be greatly
enhanced. Those who agree with Derrett should have no difficulty
accepting at least in part Leach's stand, for both are saying that the
dogma that Jesus was conceived of a virgin should not be taken at face
value.
Derrett and Leach, however, soon part company; for the former sees in
the dogma of the Virginal Conception an important religious meaning.
" T h e notion [i.e., of the Virginal Conception] was a fiction intended to
show no more than this, viz. Jesus is a second Moses, his conception
being God's will, which anticipated in a significant respect the copula­
tion between a young Jewish bridal pair. This is the 'true' explanation for
Jesus's extraordinary powers and unique life. . . ." 4 1 Derrett bases his
interpretation on the Jewish legal customs of the time, when legal
fictions were common. He tends to look on the Virginal Conception as a
symbolic way of expressing important religious beliefs and tenets. He
admits that what is really important in the statement that Mary
conceived while keeping her virginity intact is the offspring, Jesus—a
fact which, while ignored by Leach, is attested by many Christian
theologians. 42
Derrett's interpretation is thus only partially in agreement with
Leach's analysis. Derrett goes back to a social custom, a legal fiction, to
understand the doctrine, but, unlike Leach, he sees a definite religious
message in the dogma. In other words, whether the conception of Jesus
was virginal or not, the doctrine affirms Jesus' place in history. Derrett,
"Derrett, art. cit. (η. 3 above).
38
Montague, art. cit. (η. 3 above).
39
Derrett, art. cit., p. 292.
40
Cf. Fitzmyer, art. cit. (η. 1 above) pp. 566-68.
41
Derrett, art. cit., p. 292.
42
Cf., e.g., some of the standard works on Mariology: E. Schillebeeckx, Mary, Mother of
the Redemption (New York, 1964); C. Vollert, A Theology of Mary (New York, 1964); R.
Laurentin, The Question of Mary (New York, 1965); O. Semmelroth, Mary, Archetype of
the Church (New York, 1963).
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
437
therefore, implies that a religious statement must have a religious
meaning, even though one has to fall back on a social custom to acquire a
fuller and better understanding of it. Leach does not seem to detect any
religious significance in the doctrine of the Virginal Conception. The
importance of this religious belief, according to Leach, is sociological, not
theological.
The problem is approached by Montague from quite a different
perspective. She concentrates her remarks mainly on the ethnographic
material on the Trobriand Islanders, a Melanesian group in the Western
Pacific. Up to a point she follows Leach's method. Taking the Trobriand
kinship system as a whole, she notes that it is replete with symbols of
totem and rank. Their beliefs regarding conception she sees as related to
their marriage rules, adoption patterns, etc. The literature on these
natives does not, in her opinion, support Spiro's contention. On the
contrary, the Trobrianders are well aware of the physiological aspects of
conception and pregnancy, but they relegate the physical aspects of
procreation to a secondary position. "This is reasonable," she adds,
"when we remember that the animate Trobriand universe is constructed
around the contrast totem/rank rather than that of nature/culture, and
that totem and rank cut across each other."43 Thus the Trobriand
attitudes to conception are part of a whole kinship structure which is
dominated by the distinction and the overlapping of their ideas of totem
and rank; and these play the primary role in the identity of the child.
According to Montague, the Trobriands minimize their knowledge of the
physiology of conception under the pressure of the social conditions
dictated by totem and rank. With Leach she agrees that beliefs often
serve organizational purposes and that therefore while they are often
affirmed in apparently dogmatic fashion, they are not to be taken
literally. She takes issue with Leach, however, where he refers to the
Trobriand conceptions as virginal.44
Montague warns against false analogies between Trobriand and
Christian beliefs. Both form a pattern, but they are based on two
different sets of symbols. The Christian's world is divided into the
natural and the supernatural (cultural). Human conception in this
system is given a twofold explanation: man and woman unite sexually
and bring about the conception and the physical aspects of the child.
This is part of the natural process defined by God. But man's soul, his
intellectual (or cultural) capacity, remains God's sole contribution. A
virginal conception implies that God has suspended the natural
process.45 Montague here agrees in some degree with Spiro, for she
48
Montague, art. cit., p. 360.
Ibid., p. 366.
"Ibid.
44
438
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
suggests that comparison between the Virginal Conception in Christianity and related beliefs among other peoples should be handled with
caution. While following Leach's symbolic method, in which the social
structure is used as a basis for understanding religious beliefs, she
implies that his comparisons have highlighted the minor similarities and
omitted the major differences. In general, Montague, as well as Derrett,
tends to be more supportive of Leach's approach and method than of
Spiro's.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Symbolic
Interpretations
The first issue which the Virgin-Birth debate has brought to the fore is
whether Christians take the Gospel account of the infancy of Jesus to
imply that Mary conceived him virginally. Raymond Brown sums up the
situation as follows: "It would seem to me that for some 1600 years of
Christian existence (A.D. 200-1800) the virginal conception of Jesus in a
biological sense was universally believed by Christians."46 Though such
agreement is hardly the case today, there are many, especially in the
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, who strongly abide by
the doctrinal statement that Mary was a virgin.47 Spiro has no difficulty
in accepting the Virginal Conception as a belief in the miraculous powers
of God through which Mary remained a virgin in the biological sense.
Leach, however, will have nothing to do with this approach. In one of his
letters to the editor of Man he asserts: "I claim that the anthropologist
has absolutely no information about what is inwardly felt by the
professed believer."48
It may be true that many anthropologists have found it difficult to
unearth, and consequently to understand, the beliefs of some of the
peoples they have studied. The evidence for the Christian belief in the
Virginal Conception is on a different plane. There is overriding data to
show that many Christians, past and present, have proclaimed that
Mary was biologically a virgin, and this in spite of the fact that they were
and are fully aware of the physiology of procreation. Whether Leach
agrees with their position and whether Scripture supports their view are
different problems altogether. Surely, the testimony of the believer is
important, even though he may not always find it easy or possible to express his inner feelings. Leach is saying, in effect, that the natives' interpretation of their own beliefs and customs is not a crucial consideration in
48
Brown, art. cit., p. 11.
Cf. Fitzmyer, art. cit., pp. 542 ff., where he supplies references to the current Christian
debate on the issue.
48
Man 3 (1968) 655.
47
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
439
the understanding and explanation of a religion and culture. The anthropological method of finding out the indigenous view of life and of eliciting
information about the natives' view is indirectly scorned by Leach's
method. Ethnoscience or cognitive anthropology is relegated to a useless
anthropological accretion.49
Leach may be quite right when he remarks, in his customary
self-assured manner, that theologians do not show signs of knowing what
they are talking about.50 But even if he is right, which is questionable, he
might at least listen to what they are saying; for theological interpretations of the Virginal Conception are ethnographic data. By ignoring this
data, the scholar would be judging it as irrelevant before he examines it.
Leach states that he is willing to accept religious statements as data, but
he insists that "non-rational theological propositions can only serve as
data, not as explanations."51 This may explain why he has not bothered
to find out what exegetes and theologians are saying on the Virginal
Conception.
There is, however, some support in theological writings for certain
aspects of Leach's methodology. The attempt to look at the symbolic
dimensions of the Virginal Conception is found repeatedly in theological
explanations and elaborations of Christian dogmas. Fitzmyer, in his
recent re-examination of the NT data on the Virginal Conception, writes:
Given the silence of the NT outside of the two annunciation scenes, is it possible
that the real thrust of the infancy narratives is to affirm something other than the
historical, biological virginity of Mary? Is the affirmation of these scenes to be
found in something else? For instance, in the divine and gratuitous creativity of a
new age of salvation history, which is inaugurated with the birth of this
extraordinary child, who will in time be recognized as God's agent of salvation
and as the fulfilment of OT promises, the heir to sit on David's throne, the
Christian Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior and Lord proclaimed to all men?
In other words, is the virginal conception of Jesus, which is clearly asserted in the
Matthean infancy narrative, and possibly so in the Lucan annunciation scene,
anything more than a theologoumenon?52
Even when theologians insist that the Virginal Conception is "a physical
and real fact,"53 they still point out that religious and spiritual
significance is of equal importance. Daniélou, for instance, observes that
the object of the NT accounts of the birth of Jesus is not to defend or to
49
Cf. S. A. Tylor, ed., Cognitive Anthropology (New York, 1968), and my essay "The
New Ethnography and the Study of Religion," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
13 (1974) 145-59, where this method is underscored.
50
"Virgin Birth," p. 39
51
Ibid., p. 44.
52
Art. cit., p. 572.
63
L. G. Owens, "Virgin Birth," New Catholic Encyclopedia 14 (1967) 692-97.
440
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
establish the doctrine of the Virginal Conception; it is rather "to
establish how Jesus came to be a descendant of David and be the Davidic
Messiah despite the virgin birth which seems so fundamentally an
objection to his being so."54 Rahner and Vorgrimler, in their Theological
Dictionary, clearly state the religious and spiritual meaning of the
Virginal Conception when they write: "The birth of Jesus without a
father, yet of a mother, emphasizes the fact that with Christ salvation
begins absolutely anew; he does not prolong the guilt-entangled history
of mankind but redeems it into newness of life. Injury and pain, to the
extent that these manifest the domination of sin, are absent from Mary's
children."55
Perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to give a symbolic interpretation to the Virginal Conception is Dettloff s.56 He points out that when
the Bible and the Fathers of the Church teach Mary's virginal motherhood, they may not be chiefly concerned with anatomical integrity. The
interest is not in empirical facts but in the metaphysical and theological
reality. The integrity of creation they see symbolized in the integrity of
woman or, more concretely, of the woman who is a virgin. The fulness of
creation, on the other hand, is symbolized also in the fulness of woman,
seen again concretely as the woman who is a mother. For Dettloff, the
Virginal Conception does not have to be taken literally. He observes that
the early Church celebrated the feasts of virgin martyrs, even though,
according to Roman law, no virgin in the physical sense could be
executed and was therefore first violated.
While many theologians would not go as far as to say that the doctrine
has only symbolic meaning, new interest in the theology of the symbol is
bound to shift the emphasis from the physical, historical import of the
Virginal Conception to its symbolic significance.57 The methods of Leach
and some Christian theologians are thus not at all dissimilar. The issue is
what kind of symbolic interpretation we should look for. If the anthropologist, sociologist, and psychologist have the right to give their own
symbolic interpretations of religious facts, it is hard to see why the
theologian should not enjoy the same freedom. And if the explanations of
religious phenomena formulated by social scientists should be taken
seriously, there seems to be no reason why the evaluation of the same
phenomena by theologians should not be given its due consideration. By
refusing even to consider religious interpretations and explanations of
religious data, Leach is leaving his flank wide open for the accusation of
reductionism.
54
J. Daniélou, The Infancy Narratives (New York, 1968) p. 41.
K. Rahner and H. Vorgrimler, Theological Dictionary (New York, 1965) p. 277.
56
Cf. W. Dettloff, "The Virgin Birth," Theology Digest 7 (1969) 53-58.
57
Cf., e.g., K. Rahner, Theological Investigations 4 (Baltimore, 1966) 221-52.
55
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
441
A much deeper issue raised by Leach is that of religious experience.
This concept has received prominence among historians of religion.58
Theologians have tended to shy away from it, though of late some have
taken it into serious consideration.59 Leach brushes the concept aside
and indirectly claims that all experience is ultimately social. His negative evaluation has, ironically, a positive element: it brings to the attention of the theologian the need to explore and to understand the
religious experience claimed by many believers of all religious persuasions.
Functional Values
Many functional studies present a challenge to the Christian believer,
for they often give the impression of an attempt to undermine religious
beliefs. But functional interpretations of the Virginal Conception are
almost inevitable.
Christian scholars today agree that the Virginal Conception is not
referred to in the earlier NT writings. This does not, of course, prove that
the early Christians did not take the doctrine for granted. But it seems
plausible to hold that, if such a belief was present at all, it could not have
been very important; or perhaps the Christians of the time did not feel
the need to emphasize it. Since the doctrine of the Virginal Conception
appeared in some NT writings and soon became universal, it is
legitimate to ask how and why this growth and development took place.
Functional interpretation immediately comes to mind. The emergence
and spread of the belief must have had a detectable purpose. Similarly,
the gradual formulation and explicitation of the doctrine was accompanied by other developments in both the religious and cultural spheres.
The examination of concomitant developments is a subject for fruitful
analysis and research.
Theological studies on the development of doctrine have concentrated
on the embryonic emergence of dogma and have looked for evidence for
or against specific credal statements in early Christian writings and in
conciliar pronouncements. Doctrinal development is looked upon as a
growth in Christian maturity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.60
The anthropologist is trained to ask different questions. For him, the
newly emerging doctrine must have arisen to fulfil some particular need,
religious or otherwise. In other words, the development of the doctrine of
the Virginal Conception could be indicative of religious, social, and
68
See N. Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind (New York, 1969) and W. C.
Smith, The Faith of Other Men (New York, 1963).
M
Cf. E. G. Bozzo, "Theology and Religious Experience,'' THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 31
(1970) 415-35.
eo
For a classical study, see K. Rahner, Theological Investigations 4, 3-35.
442
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
psychological needs of the growing and expanding Christian community.
Again, for the anthropologist, the development of dogma connotes a
change; and changes do not occur in isolation. The rise and growth of the
belief in the Virginal Conception could possibly fall into a pattern of
religious and social change occurring at the same period in history.
Relating the Virginal Conception in a functional manner to concurrent
changes can only serve to broaden the horizon of religious beliefs and the
context in which they flourish. The relationships are valid irrespective of
whether the Virginal Conception actually occurred or not.
There is some evidence that theologians have not neglected the
functional aspects of the doctrine. It is a common opinion among
Christian scholars that the Virginal Conception tells us more about Mary
than just the way in which she conceived her Son; it also portrays the
Christian attitude towards Jesus. In fact, the uniqueness of her Son is
stressed again and again in the context of Mary's virginity.61 Some
authors are at pains to point out that the doctrine was not borrowed from
pagan sources.62 The dogma has thus definite religious functions, even
though these are not always spelled out very clearly. One of the most
obvious problems of the early Christian community was to assert itself as
a distinct group. Its missionary activities led to an insistence that its
message was unique—a uniqueness based on the person of Jesus. The
formulation of the dogma had the function of supplying Christians with a
historical justification for the uniqueness they were claiming. The
connection between the uniqueness of Christ and the Virginal Conception is not just a matter of anthropological conjecture. Richardson, for
example, states:
The sole non-hellenistic explanation of the method of the incarnation is the virgin
birth, since this presupposes that from His very conception the one in Mary's
womb is God. To think, for example, that Joseph begets the child of Mary and
that God simply unites Himself to the child thus begotten is to deny that God
truly begins to exist in time. From these considerations, we see that there is a
necessary reason for the virgin birth. It is implied by the proper understanding of
Jesus Christ as God.63
61
Besides the references cited in n. 42 above, cf. Max Thurian, Mary, Mother of All
Christians (New York, 1964) and K. Rahner, Mary, Mother of the Lord (New York, 1963).
62
This seems to be the case with both older and more recent authors. Cf. J. E.
Steinmueller and K. Sullivan, "Virgin Birth," in Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia: New
Testament (New York, Wagner, 1949) pp. 657-58, and Rahner and Vorgrimler, Theological
Dictionary, p. 481. Cf. also J. Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (New York, 1970)
pp. 206-8.
63
H. W. Richardson, Toward an American Theology (New York, 1967) pp.
138-39. Brown, art. cit., p. 3, seems to make the same point, though less forcibly than
Richardson. The latter's logic will not convince everyone; his reasoning would be, to some,
a classical example of anthropomorphism.
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
443
Mary's virginity, as another theologian has succinctly expressed it,
"safeguards the divinity of Christ."64 The function of the Virginal
Conception would thus be to establish the place of Christ as the par
excellence savior of the world, to give assurance to the Christian believer
of the pre-eminent status of his faith.
Theologians have also been careful to look at the Virginal Conception
within the broader spectrum of Christian belief. Christian writers on
Mary do not view it as an isolated religious tenet, nor have they
considered only the one narrow dimension of its historicity. "A comparison of sources," we are told, "reveals that the virgin birth must not be
regarded as an isolated biographical detail or a private miracle. Rather
what is primarily recorded is Jesus' dignity as the Son of David, the
Messiah, the Son of God, of which the virgin birth is a consequence."85
What is indirectly being said is that the Virginal Conception forms part
of a coherent system of beliefs. The doctrine that Jesus was conceived of
a virgin is one loop in a chain of ideas, supporting and receiving support
from one another. The problem raised by anthropological reflections is
whether we should view the Virginal Conception in an even wider context
than that of Christian beliefs and dogmas. Can we somehow relate the
doctrine to social or cultural traits? Does this particular dogma fit into a
specific world view?
Richardson's study of virginity66 provides a good example of anthropological methodology which might provide a useful framework of reference
in our analysis of the functions of the Virginal Conception. He points out
that attitudes toward virginity in ancient Israel and classical Greece were
shaped by the requirements of the emerging patriarchal system. In such
a system "the decisive institution effecting the transition from matriarchal society is the puberty test of the male's competence in virginity."67
Rules regarding virginity are understood in relation to man's growing
dominance. For example, part of the rationality behind the Decalogue
proscription of adultery is that a man's wife is like his ox or one of his
slaves. Adultery is partly wrong because it is a form of stealing from
another man. It injures not the wife but her owner. Law and voluntary
obedience govern the relationship between husband and wife, thereby
banishing all sexual expression and feeling in public. The new period,
64
R. Masterson, "Mary's Virginity in Secular Culture," Marian Studies 29 (1969) 105.
Cf. also Rahner, Mary, Mother of the Lord, p. 69, and P. de Rosa, 'The Significance of
Mary's Virginity," Clergy Review 51 (1966) 422.
w
Rahner and Vorgrimler, Theological Dictionary, p. 481. Cf. de Rosa, art. cit., who links
the Virgin Birth with the death and resurrection of Christ.
66
H. W. Richardson, "The Symbol of Virginity," in The World Book of Religion 2 (ed.
Donald Cutler; London, 1970) 775-811.
67
Ibid., p. 782.
444
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
which Richardson designates as the postaxial period68 and in which early
Christianity falls, is the time when man's awareness of the existence and
power of the transcendent acquires a new dimension. The emphasis on an
absolute being made man reflect upon his destiny as transtemporal and
therefore not necessarily dependent on the sexual need to reproduce
offspring. Sex no longer is considered essential to human fulfilment. The
end of man is the vision of God. Man no longer sees his immortality in his
progeny, but places it in a transhuman dimension irrelevant to whether
he has natural sons or not. In other words, man gradually comes to the
realization that he can achieve fulfilment and immortality without
family, sexual pleasure, and progeny. The concept of a spiritual
community, in which the renunciation of the flesh becomes an ideal, can
be held as a possible substitute for the natural family.
The second important change which occurred during this postaxial
period regards the relationship between man and woman. 69 In the
preaxial age man and woman were considered incomplete in themselves.
Joining in the flesh was deemed necessary for fulfilment and completion.
The only relationship between man and woman had to be a sexual union;
friendships were looked upon with suspicion. Sexuality was an activity
which belonged primarily to woman. Man—the spirit—could remain a
virgin in relation to woman, who symbolized the sexual drive. In the
postaxial age the position is reversed: virginity becomes chiefly a female
achievement. By their virginity women appropriate for themselves the
fulness of life in the spirit; they can become "a second type of male." The
emergent ideas of this period are a religious equality of men and women,
an ideological community of love transcending race, and a personal
experience of man's immortality; all these transformations were occurring within, and to some degree influencing, the changing cultural
situation.
Richardson does not attempt to relate the Virginal Conception to his
scheme. It seems clear, however, that the doctrine makes sense in the
postaxial age, which has stayed with us, substantially, till the twentieth
century. In this period the virginity of Mary acquires prominence over
that of Joseph. The Holy Family is more like a spiritual community than
a regular family. The element of transcendence dominates religious
formulations on the Virgin Mother. The conception and birth of her Son
are placed on a transcendent plane above human experience. Mary
symbolizes the ideal form of Christian existence, where the ultimate goal
is heaven, a place or state where people do not marry or have sexual
68
The concept of an "axial period" in history is Karl Jaspers'; cf. his The Origin and
Goal of History (New Haven, 1953) pp. 1-27.
69
Richardson, "The Symbol of Virginity," p. 784.
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
445
relationships. At the same time, she is also mother, albeit a different one,
thereby reflecting the recognized fact that virginity for all is ultimately
unrealistic. In psychoanalytic terms, Mary is an ambivalent figure, an
ambivalence reflected among early Christian writers who argued in favor
of or against her virginity not just in conceiving her Son but also during
and after his birth.70 The Virginal Conception has to be seen within the
developing Christian ideas of celibacy and virginity. It also suggests, and
is reflective of, a theory of sexuality in which the sexual relationship "has
no positive creative role in man's spiritual development and must always
be a sign of his alienation from God."71 It is thus understandable that
over the centuries Christians found it necessary to defend the theory of
the perpetual virginity of Mary; for if Mary was the creature closest to
God, she could not possibly have sexual behavior, however legitimate,
ascribed to her. The insistence on the virginity of Mary, particularly in
her conception of Jesus, tells us something about the Christian attitude
towards sex, as some Christian theologians seem to suggest.72 This
changing attitude toward sex in the early Christian period is part of a
total changing world view in which the man-woman relationship was
undergoing radical transformation. Seen, therefore, in functional perspective, the Virginal Conception and the doctrine of Mary's perpetual
virginity uphold, justify, and strengthen a particular world view which
subordinates sex and the resultant man-woman relationship to the
transcendental end of man. Such an analysis seems corroborated by the
changes occurring in our culture today. No one can doubt that our views
on sex, on the man-woman relationship, and on man's relation to the
transcendent are being questioned and altered. In this period of change,
doubts about the Virginal Conception have arisen even in quarters where
it was taken for granted.
This functional analysis of the Virginal Conception relates the
Christian doctrine to a social world view and in particular to the social
relationship between man and woman and the sexual implications
implied. It takes into account both religious and cultural dimensions.
How and to what degree these dimensions acted causally on one another
is debatable, but the concomitant occurrences and patterns are observable. It is suggested here that the evolving pattern noted above
might give a wider perspective to the Virginal Conception, ascribing to it,
70
Cf., e.g., A. C. Clark, "The Virgin Birth: A Theological Appraisal," THEOLOGICAL
STUDIES 34 (1973) 576-93.
71
P. Sherrad, "The Sexual Relationship in Christian Thought," Studies in Comparative
Religion 5 (1971) 161.
72
Cf. the presidential address given by A. B. Vaughan to the 22nd National Convention
of the Mariological Society of America (1971), Marian Studies 22 (1972) esp. p. 24. Rahner's
comments in Mary, Mother of the Lord, pp. 70-72, seem to have the same implications.
446
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
besides religious and theological reflections, human and social dimen­
sions which may have cross-cultural significance.
The Question of Comparison
Scholarly comparison between Christianity and other religions is a
relatively recent endeavor. Anthropologists have contributed to the
comparative method mainly because they have studied many different
societies, thus accumulating much data. From a theoretical point of view
anthropologists have made some important statements on the compara­
tive method.73 There is unanimous agreement that comparison is
essential to anthropological research. Comparison seems to be an aspect
of human thought. General or universal statements cannot be made
without comparison. From a practical point of view it must be admitted
that comparison takes place when one studies or comes in contact with
other cultures or religions, even though the comparisons may not be
explicit. It is also generally agreed that in comparing societies or cultures
the differences must be explored as well as the similarities; the former
may at times be more significant than the latter. A general principle is
that cultural traits can only be intelligently compared when they are first
understood in their own cultural context. Customs, beliefs, and traits
exist not in isolation but in relation to other cultural aspects. The
understanding of these relations may be necessary for a meaningful
comparison which goes beyond the superficial listing of similar charac­
teristics. Another principle, put forward by Franz Boas as early as 1896,
states that legitimate comparison must be restricted to those customs,
beliefs, etc. which have been proved to be the effects of the same
causes. 74 Further, the accounts on which comparisons are based should
follow similar standards of observation and classification.75 Some
anthropologists have taken ideological postulates of societies as a basis
73
Cf. Ε. H. Ackerkneck, "On the Comparative Method in Anthropology," in R. F.
Spencer, ed., Method and Perspective in Anthropology (Minneapolis, 1954) pp. 117-25; A.
R. Radcliffe-Brown, "The Comparative Method in Social Anthropology," in M. N.
Srinivas, ed., Method in Social Anthropology: Selected Essays of A. R. Radcliffe-Brown
(Chicago, 1958) pp. 108-27; I. Schapera, "Some Comments on the Comparative Method in
Social Anthropology," in C. S. Ford, ed., Cross-Cultural Approaches (New York, 1953) pp.
55-64; O. Lewis, "Comparisons in Cultural Anthropology," in F. W. Moore, ed., Readings
in Cross-Cultural Methodology (New York, 1961) pp. 55-88; E. E. Evans-Pritchard, "The
Comparative Method in Social Anthropology," in his The Position of Women in Primitive
Societies and Other Essays in Social Anthropology (New York, 1965) pp. 13-36; F. Eggan,
"Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison," in F. W. Moore, ed., op.
cit., pp. 107-27; F. Eggan, "Some Reflections on the Comparative Method in Anthropolo­
gy," in M. Spiro, ed., Context and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology (New York, 1965) pp.
357-71.
74
F. Boas, "The Limitations of the Comparative Method in Anthropology," in his Race,
Language and Culture (New York, 1965) pp. 270-80.
75
Cf. Anthropology Today, p. 330.
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
447
for comparison,76 while other have suggested that one could compare
processes, that is, the way comparable things are done in different
societies.77 One of the main problems in the articles of both Leach and
Spiro is that not all these principles are adhered to.
Different scholars have adopted various attitudes in their use of the
comparative method. Anthropologists have tried, with some measure of
success, to be as objective as possible, looking at their data as cultural
traits of equal value. Historians of religions have adopted the phenomenological approach, suspending their judgment on the relative or
absolute value of the beliefs under study.78 Theologians have tended to
be the most evaluative of scholars. Even the questions they ask often
assume the absolute stance of Christianity. The theological endeavor has
been largely an attempt to understand other beliefs in terms of the
Christian revelation. This is clearly seen, for example, in the discussion
on the salvation of non-Christians.79 The tendency of theologians is to
consider the Virginal Conception as a unique and thus incomparable
event.80 Some exegetes, however, have compared the infancy narratives
of the Gospels with OT passages. Thus Fitzmyer has noted that the
story in Matthew is "modeled partly on the haggadic development of the
birth of Moses in contemporary Palestinian Judaism." 81 With reference
to Luke's account, he sees a similarity with the story of the childhood
of Samuel (1 S 1-2). Fitzmyer does not enlarge his scope to go beyond the
Judeo-Christian tradition; but in principle he could be interpreted as re­
lating the Virginal Conception and the whole account of the birth of
Jesus to similar, though not necessarily identical, stories elsewhere.
The literature comparing the Virginal Conception or the Virgin Birth
to religious phenomena outside Christianity is scanty, confusing, and
sometimes misleading. Joseph Campbell seems to detect virgin births
and conceptions in all religions. Virgin birth, he assures us, "is one of
those themes which appears everywhere in new combinations."82 He
76
Hsu, op. cit. (η. 4 above) pp. 61 ff.
This is what Max Gluckman has attempted to do in his Rituals of Rebellion in South
East Africa (Manchester^ Eng., 1952).
78
C. J. Bleeker, "The Phénoménologies* Method," Numen 6 (1959) 96-111; R. A.
McDermott, "Religion as an Academic Discipline," Cross-Currents 18 (1968) 11,^33.
79
See, e.g., P. Schreiner, "Roman Catholic Theology and non-Christian Religions,"
Journal of Ecumenical Studies 6 (1969) 376-99.
80
Uniqueness, one must note, is not a trait which can be applied exclusively to
Christianity; pther religions have their particular unique characteristics. G Parrinder, in
his Avatar and Incarnation (London, 1970), writes about the uniqueness of the Buddha (pp.
163 ff., 276 ff.>, of Krishna (p. 165), and of Muhammad (p. 224).
61
Art. cit. (η. 1 above) p. 563.
82
Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology (New York, 1959) p. 3. Cf.
also his The Hero with a Thousand Faces (New York, 1968) p. 308 and Myths to Live By
(New York, 1972) p. 9.
77
448
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
discovers the theme in many places, including Egypt, China, and
Mexico.83 Even the birth of Confucius is interpreted as a result of a
virginal conception.84 Virginal birth or conception is one motif in the
qualities attributed to a hero.85 Campbell explains his findings in
Jungian terms, stating that myths and legends of virgin births tell us of
the structure, order, and forces of the psyche in symbolic language.88 The
main anthropological difficulty with Campbell's approach is that he
seems to be comparing literatures and not beliefs, attitudes, and values.
He never asks whether the stories of virgin births in world religions
occupy the same religious and social status as the account of the Virginal
Conception does in Christianity. Campbell's comparisons are so detached from their own particular milieu that their value is negligible. In
his comparative scheme similarities, often superficial, play the main, if
not the only, role.
It is a fairly common theme among historians of religion that accounts
of virgin births and virginal conceptions are related in all religious
traditions. S. F. G. Brandon,87 for instance, maintains that the concept
of a woman, usually a virgin, conceiving and giving birth to a child
without having first had sexual intercourse with a man, is ancient and
widespread. The reason for this, he thinks, is possibly the biological
ignorance among primitive people—a position held by Frazer88 but now
no longer accepted by the majority of anthropologists. How the Virginal
Conception fits into Brandon's view is not easy to see, since biological
ignorance in this respect could hardly be imputed to the Jews around the
beginning of the Christian era.
That there are similarities between Christ and other important figures
in world religions can hardly be denied. To take just one example, Hindu
tradition tells us that Krishna was born in a stable, that a star appeared
at his birth, that his foster father had to flee with the infant, and so on.89
Some accounts of the Buddha's birth could easily be interpreted as
implying a virginal conception.90 -There are similarities between the
attributes of the Virgin Mary and those assigned to many mother
goddesses in the ancient Near East.91
83
Campbell, The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology (New York, 1962) pp. 98 and 384
ff., and his Primitive Mythology, p. 457.
84
Campbell, Oriental Mythology, p. 414.
85
Campbell, The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology (New York, 1964) pp. 73-74.
86
Myths to Live By, p. 253.
87
Cf. "Virgin Birth," in A Dictionary of Comparative Religion (London, 1970) p. 642.
88
James Frazer, The Golden Bough (New York, 1959) p. 403.
89
Charles White, "Krishna as Divine Child," History of Religions 10 (1970) 156-77.
90
See, e.g., the account given in L. Stryk, ed., World of the Buddha (New York, 1965)
pp. 13 ff.
91
R. Patai, The Hebrew Goddess (New York, 1967) pp. 192 ff.
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
449
There are, however, serious problems in any attempt to classify all
alledged virginal conceptions under one heading. In the case of Krishna,
in spite of the many similarities, we do not have a tradition that he was
conceived virginally. The oldest traditions of the birth of the Buddha
describe him as being born naturally and not miraculously.92 And the
similarities between the Virgin Mary and other central female figures in
world religions run into difficulties when one goes into detailed comparative research; for the Near Eastern goddesses are noted for their
promiscuous activities. The paradox lies in the statement that, in spite of
their sexual behavior, they remain virgins when they conceive the hero.93
Mary's paradox is that she conceives while remaining a virgin. Promiscuous sexual activity does not enter into the picture at all. Because of such
glaring differences some scholars have gone as far as to say that there is
no distinct virginal-conception motif before Christianity. Traditions of
"abnormal impregnation" abound, but their main import is that a
woman becomes a mother in an extraordinary way.94 These extraordinary
births and conceptions cannot be simply identified with the tradition
about Jesus' conception.
The positions of Leach and Spiro lie at opposite poles. Leach sees the
Virginal Conception as part of a universal, common pattern; Spiro, by
bringing in the distinction between virginal conception and parthenogenesis, places the Christian belief in a category of its own. Leach
maintains that these beliefs are basically the same everywhere. By
explaining the accounts of virgin births as symbols of the social
structure, he minimizes the religious significance which they obviously
have. Spiro avoids the mistakes of Leach and tries to solve the problem
by introducing the distinction between virginal conception and parthenogenesis. But on closer scrutiny this distinction does not place the
conception of Jesus in a class of its own; for the two concepts of virginal
conception and parthenogenesis are related, overlap, and deal with the
same fundamental question. The anthropologists who participated in the
debate—and they have been joined by many other scholars—do not take
into account that a clearly defined methodology is needed for the
admittedly difficult, when not hazardous, task of comparison. Their
comparative results are, not surprisingly, far from satisfactory.
One could, therefore, suggest some positive methodological procedures
to study the Virginal Conception in the context of world religions. First,
92
Cf. Parrinder, op. cit., p. 135; see also pp. 223-39, where he outlines some of the
differences between Krishna and Christ.
93
Patai, op. cit., p. 192.
94
G. Ashe, "Virgin Birth," in Man, Myth and Magic 21 (New York, 1970) 2953. Stith
Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk Literature 5 (Bloomfield, Ind., 1966) 390-96 provides a
thematic list of such unusual conceptions.
450
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
one must determine what exactly "virgin" means in each culture in the
comparison. In most modern Western societies a virgin is a woman
without a ruptured hymen. The Catholic theory in the same Western
context is stricter, for it excludes all sexual activities. In other cultures an
unmarried woman, even though she may be a prostitute, and a married
woman without children would be called virgins.95 Consequently, attitudes toward virginity differ, and these divergences must be carefully
noted.
Secondly, one must consider the importance that beliefs in virginal
conceptions and virgin births have in their respective cultures or faiths.
There is no doubt that belief in the virginal conception of Jesus occupied
and still occupies an important part in Christian belief. But whether or
not allegedly similar beliefs elsewhere played the same role in their own
cultural milieu is not to be assumed but proved. Whether, for instance,
the virginal conception of Gautama has the same momentous significance to the Buddhist as the virginal conception of Jesus has to the
Christian is a crucial question to ask for controlled comparative
research.96 Too often Western scholars, brought up in a Christian
environment, have assumed that major Christian beliefs and tenets
occupy the same central position in other religions as well.
Thirdly, the doctrine of the Virginal Conception must be seen in
relation to the total system of Christian belief. For the anthropologist,
the Gospel accounts of the nativity, apocryphal tales about the Virgin
Mary, and folk tales on the Mother of God which have accumulated
throughout the centuries are important for understanding the Christian
doctrine of the Virginal Conception. When the Virginal Conception is
compared with related accounts in other traditions, legends of heroes and
mother goddesses must also be taken into consideration.97 This broader
comparative base may help the scholar determine what indeed are the
similar and different elements in the stories under study. Thus, to
compare the life of Jesus with Muhammad's may not take the scholar far
in his research. Since the Gospel of John starts with the theory of Jesus as
the pre-existent Word of God, some religionists have suggested that it
would be more appropriate to compare the Christian attitude toward
Jesus with the Islamic attitude to the holy Qur'an.*8
98
Maria Leach (ed.), Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend (New York, 1950)
pp. 1159-1160.
96
M. M. Mooney emphasizes the same methological procedure in his article "On
Comparing Christian and Buddhist Traditions: A Response to Mervyn Fernando,"
International Philosophical Quarterly 13 (1973) 267-70.
97
Dorothy Norman, The Hero: Myth/Image/Symbol
(New York 1969), p. 222, sees
Mary as a mother goddess.
98
See, e.g., Hasan Askari, "The Dialogical Relationship between Christianity and
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
451
Finally—and here is where the anthropologist can be most helpful—
the religious attitudes, values, etc. must be seen in their social context.
Religious beliefs are so often interwoven with life that they can be best
understood in relation to the total world view and life pattern of the
believers themselves. In other words, the scholar must first grasp the
ethos of a culture. Beliefs, values, and practices have their meaning only
in relation to the comprehensive life style of a society. After the
researcher has apprehended the world views of different societies in such
a way that he can relate to them both on the academic and the
experiential level, then he is competent to embark on a comparative
analysis.
CONCLUSION
It may be granted that the anthropological debate on the Virgin Birth
has not solved our theological problems concerning the conception of
Jesus. On the contrary, the debate may only persuade exegetes and
theologians of the incompetence of anthropologists to deal with the
question at hand. One may also argue that, since many anthropologists
have been notorious for their negative attitude to religion in general,99
their opinions on the Virgin Birth should be put aside from the very start.
But to stop with these scholarly reflections would be to miss the point; for
anthropological studies on the Virgin Birth, and on religious issues in
general, may be more important for their method than for their content.
The basic question raised by the Virgin-Birth controversy in anthropo­
logical literature is whether exegetes and theologians should pay more
attention to the social functions and cultural symbols implied in the
Virgin Birth, and whether they should also take into account a
methodology which is more suitable for dialogue between religious faiths.
The first area where the application of anthropological method can
have beneficial results is in the interpretation of Scripture. The kind of
exegesis of the Virgin Birth on the lines conducted by Brown and
Fitzmyer is admittedly indispensable. But it has obvious limitations.
Fitzmyer's study confirms Brown's earlier statements, 100 but it follows
the same methodological approach. Further, the questions posed at the
beginning of the exegetical method are few and somewhat narrow.
Understandably, such scriptural studies make little attempt to exhaust
Islam," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 9 (1970) 477-87, where he points out that
Christianity tends to emphasize the Person of the Word, while Islam stresses the Word as
speech or revelation.
99
Ε. E. Evans-Pritchard, "Religion and the Anthropologists," in his Social An­
thropology and Other Essays (New York, 1962) pp. 158-71.
100
Cf. Raymond E. Brown, "Luke's Description of the Virginal Conception," THEO­
LOGICAL STUDIES 35 (1974) 360-62.
452
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
the meaning of the Virgin Birth. They are not intended to relate the
doctrine to contemporary Christian life and much less to the broader
spectrum of world religions. It is suggested here that the use of
anthropological method can open up new and wider perspectives in the
attempt to understand the scriptural assertion that Jesus was born of the
Virgin Mary and to interpret it meaningfully both in our culture and in
the context of the major religions of the world. One of the best
articulations of the scriptural issue has been made by W. Cantwell
Smith. In a provocative article, in which he complains that Scripture
scholars have not been trained to use the methods of the history of
religions, he recommends a biblical study that would combine a number
of approaches and methodologies:
The course that I envisage would be concerned with the Bible as scripture. It
would begin with some consideration of scripture as a generic phenomenon. The
questions to which it would address itself would be questions such as these: what
is involved in taking a certain body of literature, separating it from all other, and
giving it a sacrosanct status? What is involved psychologically, what, sociologically, and what, historically? How and when did it first come about? How did the
Christian Church happen to take up the practice? What attitudes, magical or
otherwise, towards writing are involved? And once this is done—what consequences follow? One would wish a brief but perhaps striking comparativist
introduction: the conception and role of scripture in other major communities
—Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and the like. Salient differences, as well as striking
similarities, could be touched briefly.101
The anthropologist would go further: he would include, in more direct
manner, the social situation as one of his main inquiries. But the method
is essentially the same.
One can also apply anthropological method to interpret doctrinal
statements. That attempts have been made by theologians to adopt some
of the methods of the social sciences needs no proof. 102 The use of
anthropological method lags behind because, for one reason, anthropology is the youngest of the social sciences. The lesson of anthropological method is not just to replace dogmatic formulations in their
general cultural and historical context, but more specifically to relate
religious beliefs and practices to particular social institutions and
cultural traits. An excellent example of this approach is Wolfs study of
Our Lady of Guadalupe. 103 Wolf sees this belief as expressive, in different
101 "The Study of Religion and the Study of the Bible," Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 39 (1971) 132-33.
102
See, e.g., Gregory Baum and Andrew Greeley, eds., The Church as Institution (New
York, 1974).
103
Eric Wolf, '"Die Virgin of Guadalupe: A Mexican National Symbol,'' in W. A. Lessa
and E. Z. Vogt, Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach (3rd ed.;
New York, 1972) pp. 149-53.
VIRGIN BIRTH IN ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
453
ways, of the two strata of society in Mexico. He shows how this belief
became a national symbol, not just religiously but also politically and
socially. In somewhat similar fashion, the theologian Conzemius has
examined the primacy of the pope.104 Though he is more cautious than
Wolf and does not talk in terms of symbols and functions, he still sees
specific social and political factors as "preconditions" that made the
definition of papal infallibility possible. Applying this method to the
Virgin Birth, the scholar will ask in what way and to what extent the
doctrinal statement is related to the cultural matrix out of which it grew
and in which it matured and developed. Are there specific social
conditions that made the rise of the cult of the Virgin Mary possible?
What are the social values implicitly contained in the assertion that
Mary conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin? What meaning can the
Virgin Birth have today if these social conditions and values are no longer
operative? In other words, how can the doctrine of the Virgin Birth fit
into our cultural situation and in what ways can it be related meaningfully to a non-Western cultural context? It has to be emphasized that
anthropological method is not here being espoused as a way of solving
dogmatic issues or as the best or only way to approach Scripture and
dogma. Anthropological method is itself beset with problems.105 But it
seems legitimate to propose that the method can help the theologian
locate the problem of the Virgin Birth in our times, as well as determine
some of the meanings the belief might have for contemporary man.
The final question raised by the application of anthropological method
is that of historicity. That many Christians, past and present, have taken
the Virgin Birth as an important historical event in the life of the
Christian Church can hardly be doubted. Fundamentalist churches, in
their literal interpretation of Scripture, place greater emphasis on the
historical dimension than on the functional and symbolic aspects of the
infancy narratives. The magisterium of the Catholic Church, while
accepting functional and symbolic aspects,106 still underlines the importance of the historicity of the doctrinal statement that Jesus was born of
a virgin, as the official reaction to the Dutch Catechism showed.107 Some
104
Victor Conzemius, "Why Was the Primacy of the Pope Defined in 1870?," in Hans
Küng, ed., Papal Ministry in the Church (New York, 1971) pp. 75-83.
106
Some anthropologists are thus re-examining the functions which have been commonly ascribed to religion; see, e.g., Philip E. Hammond, "Religious Pluralism and
Durkheim's Integration Thesis," and Richard K. Fern, "Religion and the Legitimation of
Social Systems," both essays published in Allan W. Euster, ed., Changing Perspectives in
the Scientific Study of Religion (New York, 1974) pp. 115-42 and 143-61 respectively.
106
A typical example of this is Paul VF s recent Apostolic Constitution Marialis cultus
(Feb. 2, 1974). The Pope makes the following observation on the Virgin Birth: "This was a
miraculous motherhood, intended by God as the type and fulfilment of the virgin-Church
which herself becomes a mother" (cf. The Pope Speaks 19 [1974] 61).
107
Cf. A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults (New York, 1969) p. 538.
454
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
theologians feel the same way. Eamon Carroll, a leading Mariologist,
thinks that the real question is whether the Virginal Conception is a
"historical event or only a theologoumenon."108 Many theologians have
explored the functional and symbolic interpretations of the Virgin Birth,
as has been shown above;109 but their tendency has been to dwell on the
religious rather than the social functions and symbols of the doctrine.
One must stress that anthropological method cannot solve the problem
of the historicity of the Virginal Conception. It rather bypasses the
question. It is important to note, however, that functional and symbolic
interpretations of the Virgin Birth are valid whether or not its historicity
can be established. Anthropological method lays so much stress on
interpretative and speculative meanings that the historical issue becomes secondary.110 For the scholar who applies anthropological method,
the following questions acquire prominence: Why and how did theologoumena of the Virgin Birth arise and become meaningful, relevant, and
spiritually fulfilling to believers? What values did the belief in the
Virgin Birth epitomize in early and medieval Christian life, and what
value and spiritual message can it convey in the new cultural situation in
which evolving man finds himself? Bearing in mind the missionary
nature of the Christian faith, the same scholar will be faced with the
problem of presenting the doctrine of the Virgin Birth to outsiders and of
asking whether the insistence on its historicity should occupy a central
place.111
It seems a truism to state that many different methods can be
profitably used to throw light on doctrinal issues. The thesis maintained
in this paper is that anthropological method, in spite of its déficiences,
could present the theologian and Scripture scholar with another dimension of the Virgin Birth, a dimension which might help present the
doctrine to the modern Christian and to men of other faiths. The
anthropological controversy on the Virgin Birth, therefore, has a positive
value for the believing Christian community of our time; for anthropologists have, by their method, posited the problem, at least partly, where it
belongs: in man's perception of the world in history and culture and in
his multiple experience of the transcendent or of God which we call faith.
108
"A Recent Survey of Mariology," Marian Studies 22 (1971) 101.
See the discussion above on "Methodological Issues," especially the sections
"Symbolic Interpretations" and "Functional Values."
110
Some theologians also have minimized the importance of the historicity of the Virgin
Birth. Hubert Halbfas, in his Theory of Catechetics (New York, 1971) p. 138, holds that
the infancy narratives are charged more with theological significance than with historical
facts.
111
This raises the question of evangelization, not discussed in this paper. A re-evaluation
of the missionary approach has been under way for some time. See Gerald H. Anderson and
Thomas F. Stransky, eds., Mission Trends No. 1 (Grand Rapids, 1974).
109