Last year at this time -- Easter weekend -- I heard a snippet of a national news report. In it, the television anchor referred to "the Virgin Mary." She said it a number of times, as if it were a given, a fact. Ronald Reagan was a U.S. president; Mary was a virgin.
Of course, Easter weekend is all about a Jesus and his alleged resurrection.* But there are really two things that form the basis of the Christian belief that Jesus was a messiah of a higher order: first, his birth to a virgin, second, his resurrection after death.
Between these bookends of miracles atypical to other Jewish messiahs, Jesus' life was the standard messiah tale. He preformed miracles and preached an updated version of his god's wishes and promises.
Moses turned his staff into a snake and brought down from the mountain the first ever David Letterman top-ten list (things not to do in ancient Israel). Jesus walked on water and said, "go ahead and eat pork, but remember to love thy neighbor."
Even during Jesus' days, there were other miracle-performing preachers. Jesus calls them false prophets and warns his followers -- beware of those who also heal the sick and can do a triple axel without ever having strapped on a pair of ice-skates.
According to Christian doctrine, what makes Jesus the Christ, what sets him apart as a divine messiah, indeed, as a divinity himself, are the miracles of his birth and death. (Oh yes, then there's that little "who's your daddy?" element. Can't forget that.)
Was Mary a virgin? Did sperm not play a role in the physical formation and development of Jesus? Did a holy ghost deliver his "y" chromosome?
A number of years ago I attended a talk by Eddie Tabash about the general lack of evidence for a god. During the question and answer period a woman challenged the speaker. She told him that Jesus' birth to a virgin was evidence of her god. Eddie's reply was spot-on. He said something to this effect: Because I wasn't Mary's gynecologist, I can't really verify that.
What interests me this morning is that despite the essential centrality to Christian thinking of Jesus' birth to "the Virgin Mary," only two of the four gospels mention it. There's one clear verse in Matthew and two hazy ones in Luke. In Mark and John -- nothing.
The gospels are biographies, they tell of the life of a Jesus. All four gospels consider Jesus' magical feat of feeding thousands with one supersized Happy Meal significant enough to include in their pages. All four gospels likewise consider it significant that a nameless person offered Jesus vinegar to drink while he hung on the cross. So why do 2 of the 4 gospels not mention the supposed virgin birth? For those bothering to listen, the silence is deafening.
Almost as surprising, of the 23 other books of the New Testament, there isn't so much as a peep about Mary the virgin, mother of Jesus the supernatural superman. The Acts of the Apostles, the many Epistles (letters to congregations spread across the land), Revelation . . . no trumpeting of the glorious, quote, "truth" of Jesus' miraculous birth.
How should the television newscaster -- and that's "newscaster" not "fictioncaster" -- have referred to Mary? Should she have said, Mary, whom two of the four biographies of Jesus claim to have been a virgin, yada, yada, yada…?
I don't know. What I do believe is that people who value rationality attempt to keep clear the distinction between fact and folklore. Heck, at least the newscaster could have prefaced her remarks with something like, "According to Christian teachings/tradition . . . ."
Question authority. That's essential advice to any freethinker, whether that authority is a single, high-profile individual, or the utterances of past authorities kept alive today in the words we choose to speak about our world.
---
*If there ever was a 'real' Jesus. Where do I stand on this issue? You might say I'm presently . . . ah . . . agnostic about it. I find it likely that Jesus is a compilation of one or a number of real people PLUS a whole slew of characteristics borrowed from other mythical agents. Was there a real Jesus? Maybe kinda. But definitely not of the supernatural variety.
It seems to me that science and salesmanship belong on opposite ends of a spectrum (the precise use of language spectrum?) To be an effective salesman (woman) you grandstand, you exaggerate, you paint with a broad brush, you aim to incite passion. The scientist actively behaving like a scientist, on the other extreme, sticks to the facts and appeals to the intellect. You can't trust passion.
That is why I find it a little perplexing when arguments are made for scientists to be better communicators of science -- some even scold them for not preaching their word better (religion and sales seem more naturally compatible, in my book).
But wait! No responsibility is given to the dumb audience that demands emotional pyrotechnics to spice up all intellectual insights they attempt to consume. And so, we are told, "Dumb down the science."
Bullocks. Sure, cultural change is more difficult and slow. And yes, there may be a middle ground. But still. Let's not ask scientists to be salesmen and saleswomen.
With that said, here is a cartoon by treelobsters.com that got me thinking about the topic. It is so spot-on it deserves to be singled out. Well done!
Tags: cartoons, culture, Friday Funnies, humor
I'm almost back from my blogging hiatus. When I do return, I'll be easing my way into it. What have I been up to? Glad you asked. First and foremost, working. Not writing-working, but working working. I'm ankle deep in renovating/refurbishing a house. (This week's goal: replace all the plumbing fixtures and shut-off values.) Although I am many, many days away from completion, I am now feeling less mentally overwhelmed: like I've been asked to juggle one ball too many.
Otherwise, I've also been on vacation. My wife and I recently turned the big 5-0 within 3 days of one another. To celebrate (run away and hide?), we made a trip to New Mexico, where we rented a small house in the middle of a gorgeous nowhere. It was awesome. Maybe the best week of my life. So far.
Anyway . . .
Tags: personal, photography
Dear Readers,
I won't be posting for a few weeks -- likely the entire month of March. A curve ball has come over my plate, so to speak, and I've got to swing away. I hope to back at blogging in April of this year.
Pro eruditio,
Andrew
Tags: personal
Do biological patterns originate in basic, chemical properties? To what degree have they been naturally 'selected' and for what: regularity and efficiency?
Tags: nature, photography
Recent Comments