The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

142 Pages·1972·10.338 MB·English

by  Raymond E. Brown

The Virginal Conception
and Bodily Resurrection
of Jesus
by
Raymond E. Brown, S.S.
PAULIST PRESS
I I
New York Pa·ramus Toronto
THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION
AND BODILY RESURRECTION OF JESUS
NIHIL OBSTAT
Myles M. Bourke, S.T.D., S.S.L.
Censor Librorum
IMPRIMATUR
II James P. Mahoney, D.O.
Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York
January 11. 1973
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or
pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained
therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur
agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.
Copyright © 1973 by
The Missionary Society
of St. Paul the Apostle
in the State of New York
Library of Congress
Catalog Card'Number: 72-97399
ISBN 0-8091-1768-1
Published by Paulist Press
Editorial Office: 1865 Broadway, N.Y., N.Y. 10023
Business Office: 400 Sette Drive, Paramus. N.J. 07652
Printed and bound in the
United States of America
To the memory of
EDWARD F. SIEGMAN, c.pp .S.
(1908-1967)
Associate Professor of Sacred Scripture at the
Catholic University of America; Editor of the
Catholic Biblical Quarterly,· President of the
Catholic Biblical Association of America
A compassionate priest
and an honest scholar
who suffered much
for biblical truth.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .... ...................................... .......................... 1
(A) The Theological Significance of the Two Topics 2
(B) Basic Biblical Suppositions .............................. 15
(1) Limitations of Old Testament Prophecies.... 15
(2) Gospels Written by Second-Generation
Christians .................................................. 16
(3) Gradual Growth ofthe Gospel Content...... 17
(4) Limited Inerrancy ........................ .............. 18
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM OF THE VIRGINAL
CONCEPTION OF JESQS .............................. 21
I. The State of the Problem.......................................... 22
II. The Evidence from Authority.................................... 31
III. The Evidence from Interlocking Doctrines................ 38
(A) Doctrines That Seemingly Suppose a Virginal
Conception ...................................................... 38
(1) The Sanctity of Mary.................................. 38
(2) The Sinlessness of Jesus ............................ 40
(3) The Divine Sonship of Jesus ...................... 41
(B) Doctrines Seemingly Unfavorable to a Virginal
Conception ...................................................... 42
(1) The Pre-Existence of the Son of God.......... 43
(2) The True Humanity of Jesus...................... 45
IV. The Evidence from Early History.............................. 47
V. The Evidence from the Scriptures.............................. 52
(A) Scriptural Arguments Against Historicity.......... 53
(1) The "High" Christology Implied ................ 53
(2) The Dubious Historicity of the
Infancy Material........................................ 53
(3) The Silence of the Rest of the
New Testament ...... .................................. 56
vii
viii CONTENTS
(B) Scriptural Arguments Favoring Historicity........ 61
f a
(1 The Origins of the Idea of
Virginal Conception .................................. 61
(2) The Charge of Illegitimacy........................ 65
CHAPTER Two; THE PROBLEM OF THE BODILY
RESURRECTION OF JESUS ............................ 69
1. The State of the Problem.......................................... 70
II. The Earliest Christian Formulations of
Resurrection Faith .................................................. 78
(A) The Shorter Formulas ...................................... . 78
(B) The Formula in-I Corinthians 15: 3-8................ 81
\ (1) The Sequence of Death, Burial,
Resurrection, and Appearance(s).............. 83
(2) Paul's List of the Recipients of the
Appearances ..... ....................................... 92
III. The Gospel Narratives of the Appearances
to the Twelve................. ............................................ 96
(A) General Critical Suppositions............................ 97
(B) The Sequence of the Appearances.................... 99
(C) Miscellaneous Considerations about the
Appearances ......................................... ........... 111
IV. The Gospel Narratives of the Empty Tomb.............. 113
(A) Details about the Burial of Jesus ...................... 113
(B) The Evolution of the Empty Tomb Narratives.. 117
V. Conclusions.............................................................. 125
EPILOGUE ............................................................................ 131
INDEX OF AUTHORS .............................................................. 135
INTRODUCTION
This book treats two complex and sensitive issues. Studies
of the historical Jesus are already complicated today by our
realization that the Gospel accounts of the ministry are not
simple reporting but developed reflections on the significance
of Jesus. However, a study of the conception and resurrection
of Jesus is doubly complicated by the fact that these two events
lie outside the public domain in which the general ministry of
Jesus was set. From the baptism to the crucifixion what Jesus
proclaimed by deed and word could be seen and heard by the
residents of Galilee and Judea-through Jesus God was acting
in the course of history. But a virginal conception could be
personally attested only by Mary. No one in the New Testament
claims to have seen the resurrection of Jesus, and only believers
claim to have seen the risen Jesus. A conception without a
human father and a bodily resurrection from the dead imply
unique divine interventions from outside the flow of history.
They are events that belong to the eschatological period, to
that moment when the limits of history yield to God's freedom
from space and time.
If the complexities of the two issues affect all Christians,
the sensitivities are felt particularly by those Christians con
cerned with the exactitude of the Gospel accounts and/or with
the reliability of Church doctrine. As a Roman Catholic I am
aware that vital interest in my own church will be centered
particularly on the latter point, since Catholic teaching has not
envisioned any alternative to a literal adherence to the virginal
conception and the bodily resurrection. But I am also aware
that for many Protestants as well as for many Catholics the
literal historicity of the biblical accounts of the conception and
1
2 RAYMOND E. BROWN, S.S.
the resurrection of Jesus is a vital issue. Some of this sensitivity
is really fundamentalist in tendency; it presupposes a complete
identification of divine truth with past formulations of that truth
in Scripture and/or in doctrine, as if the formulations were
not substantially affected by the historical limitations of the
men who formulated them. But much of the truly conservative
sensitivity is not fundamentalist: it recognizes the limitations
of past (and of all) formulations of truth; but it insists that
despite the limitations there was a grasp of truth in those formu
lations. This valid conservatism fears that a change in the for
mulation or in the understanding of the formulation may result
in a loss of the insight into fruth.
In writing this book I have sought to speak to both the
complexities and the sensitivities. While I try to "Show how criti
cal biblical scholarship would nuance our approach to the Gos
pel accounts, I seek to do this with enough explanation so that
the reader who is open to conviction may see that a truly con
servative attitude (as opposed to a fundamentalist attitude)
need not be affronted by modern approaches to the Bible and to
theology.
A short book normally does not need an introduction of
any length. But precisely because I am trying to meet sensi
tivities, as well as complexities, I wish to offer the reader a pre
liminary explanation of two points: first, why two such diverse
topics have peculiar theological significance for Scriptural and
theological studies today, especially in the development of
Roman Catholic theology; and second, what suppositions about
biblical criticism underlie the treatment.
(A) The Theological Significance
of the Two Topics
As I have lectured throughout the United States and abroad
to clergy, religious, and laity who are interested in the Bible, I
have been struck with how often I am questioned about modem
views concerning the virginal conception and the bodily resur
rection of Jesus. Obviously the questioners have heard rumors ...
Introduction 3
about "new ideas" on these subjects and want to get the biblical
facts straight-a refreshing contrast to those whose immediate
reaction to rumors of new ideas is one of suspicion or condem
nation. Nevertheless, I have asked myself why the peculiar
fascination for these two topics when most often the lectures
given by me have touched on neither. I now suspect that this
interest is implicitly indicative of our having come to a new
stage in the development of the Catholic biblical movement in
the twentieth century.
A short explanation of what I mean may be useful so that
the context and significance of a discussion of the virginal con
ception an:d the bodily resurrection are not lost. As a prelude
let me guess that history will divide this century roughly into
thirds as regards significant movements in the Catholic study
of the Bible. The first period (1900-1940) was dominated by
the rejection of modern biblical criticism, an attitude forced on
the Church by the Modernist heresy. The second period
(1940-1970) involved the introduction of biblical criticism by
order of Pope Pius XII and the gradual but reluctant accept
ance of that criticism by the mainstream of Church thought.
The third period (1970-2000), if I guess right, will involve
the painful assimilation of the implications of biblical criticism
for Catholic doctrine, theology, and practice.
We need not belabor the first period of the Modernist crisis
and its aftermath, from 1900 to 1940. It was a time of danger
ous heresy, and the saintly Pius X was more interested in pro
tecting the faithful than in the niceties of scientific attitude. In
Scripture the Modernists were using the new biblical criticism
inaugurated by the German Protestants; and in Pascendi and
Lamentabili, the official Roman condemnations of Modernism,
little distinction was made between the possible intrinsic valid
ity of biblical criticism and the theological misuse of it by the
Modernists. Between 1905 and 1915 the Pontifical Biblical
Commission in Rome issued a series of decisions on many ques
tions of biblical interpretation and authorship. While these de
cisions were conservative in tone and ran against the trends of
biblical criticism, they were often phrased with nuance. But
since scholars were obliged to assent, such actions gave to the