The Virgin-Birth Debate in Anthropological Literature: A Critical Assessment

Abstract

O of the most recent discussions in theological circles has focused on the Birth. debate has centered around the question, 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, to which leading anthropologists from both sides of the Atlantic have contributed. anthropological debate on the 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. 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 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 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 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 Birth. 3 E. Leach, Virgin Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland for 1966, pp. 39-49. 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 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 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 Forest of Symbols (Ithaca, 1967), Ritual Process (Chicago, 1969), and, more recently, Passages, Margins, and Poverty: Religious Symbols of Communitas, Worship 46 (1972) 390-412, 482-94.