I’ve been working my way through Craig Blomberg’s Jesus and the Gospels, Second Ed. (B
& H Academic, 2009) in the Life of Jesus class I’m teaching this
semester. Blomberg represents what are
some of the best and worst aspects of evangelical scholarship which attempts to
use all the modern historical-critical tools, while at the same time trying to
maintain and defend various traditional, pre-critical perspectives (e. g.,
affirming purported authorship of the canonical Gospels, historicity of those
Gospels, etc.). For a critique of
evangelical scholarly embrace of modern critical methods in Gospel research and
a charge that this necessarily leads to compromise (including particular criticism
of Blomberg), see Robert F. Thomas, Ed. The
Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical
Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship (Kregel, 1998).
My sense is that the difficulties with Blomberg arise not
only from his embracing modern historical-critical method (e. g., embracing
Markan priority and the two source theory) but also, and more significantly,
from his lack of a clear confessional framework in approaching the Bible and
Christian theology. Like most
evangelicals he seems to approach the NT with definite “conservative” doctrinal
presuppositions but not from a clearly defined, historical, creedal perspective. We might well describe this position as a-confessional evangelicalism.
This stands out in particular in his treatment of the virgin
birth (i. e., virginal conception) in Jesus
and the Gospels. On one hand,
Blomberg offers cautious but clear reasons why the virginal conception might be
reasonably defended as historical. He notes
in particular that conclusions reached on the virgin bith, as with other
supernatural aspects of the Gospels, depend on one’s presuppositions: “Of course, if one rules out the supernatural
a priori, there is much here [in
Matthew and Luke’s teaching of the virginal conception] that will have to be
dismissed or radically reinterpreted” (p. 243).
He notes that the Gospel descriptions of the virginal conception are
given in a “straightforward” manner without “embellishments” (p. 243). He argues that the Semitic style of the birth
narratives in both Matthew and Luke suggests the use of early source material
for this tradition. He concludes that “early
Christians would never have invented the narratives of the virginal conception
itself” and notes that “Luke’s narrative shows remarkable restraint compared to
various Greco-Roman myths of ‘virgin births’” (p. 244). He adds: “Narrators creating pious legends
usually go into much more detail than Luke does here” (p. 244). He sums up:
“All of these observations make it highly unlikely that the church would
have included these accounts unless there were strong historical reasons for
doing so” (p. 244).
If left here, one might commend Blomberg for his thoughtful defense
of the historicity of the virginal conception.
However, he then proceeds to offer reflections on the theological
significance of the virginal conception.
He opens by downplaying the doctrine noting that “it neither proves the
incarnation nor is demanded by it” (p. 244).
He concludes: “Given how little the New Testament and even
the Gospels make of this doctrine it probably does not deserve to rank among
the top five fundamentals of the faith [a footnote here references Dixon and
Meyer’s The Fundamentals]. Yet it remains a cherished truth not to be
glibly denied or explained away” (p. 245).
This conclusion follows an apologetic approach which Blomberg
uses elsewhere in this work. He defends
the historical and critical plausibility of a traditional perspective but then
concludes that even if the viewpoint is found to be untenable its loss would be
inconsequential to an orthodox position.
For example, in his discussion of the authorship of the Gospel of Mark,
Blomberg ably defends the traditional view that the Gospel was written by John
Mark in consultation with the apostle Peter but then concludes: “Little of interpretive significance depends
on whether or not Mark was the author, but modern objections scarcely outweigh
the unanimous testimony of the early church” (p. 140; he reaches similar
conclusions on Matthew, p. 156; Luke, p. 174; and John, p. 201).
Whatever the apologetic reasoning, it is striking to read an
evangelical scholar willing to abandon the virginal conception as a foundation
(fundamental) Biblical doctrine. Yes, as
my daughter pointed out to me in a family devotion discussion of the
resurrection over Easter weekend, Paul did not include the virgin birth in his
summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, but still the virginal
conception has long been affirmed as essential and foundational to Christian faith,
particularly in its creedal tradition, based on its unequivocal presence in the
Gospels (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26-27, 30-31, 34-35; cf. also subtle or ironic
references to the virginal conception in the Gospels which do not include
explicit birth narratives: Mark 6:3;
John 5:18; 6:42; 8:19, 41; 16:28); in addition, cf. a possible Pauline
reference in Galatians 4:4). The oldest
post-canonical Christian symbol, the Apostles’ creed, originating in the mid
second century affirms that Jesus was “conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the
Virgin Mary.” The doctrine then becomes firmly embedded in the confessional
tradition, including, eventually, the Westminster/London Baptist Confessions. Consider chapter eight, paragraph two of the
London Confession on “Of Christ the Mediator” (emphasis added):
The Son of God, the second person in
the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's
glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth
and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with
all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;
being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy
Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her;
and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and
David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct
natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion,
composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one
Christ, the only mediator between God and man.
(John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15;
Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5)
Given the strong Biblical and confessional emphasis given to
the doctrine of the virginal conception and its significance for understanding
the person and nature of Christ, as emphasized especially in the creedal
tradition, Blomberg’s conclusion that it does not rank among the cardinal
Christian doctrines is incomprehensible.
It illustrates the dangers of joining evangelical Biblical scholarship to
the historical-critical method without a clear confessional framework.
JTR
