Reactions to Bishop Barron often mirror criticisms of Jordan Peterson, as both are seen as upholding traditionalist frameworks that emphasize individual morality and hierarchical order over systemic change, while being critical of abortion and LGBTQ rights. Hart chooses to engage with the best of Bishop Barron, much as he has with Peterson, focusing on their engagement with "tradition." This approach has prompted me, and likely others, to step back from judgment and remember that the Spirit moves where it wills, including through excellence. Thank you, Addison Hodges Hart, for what you continue to share with us.
Peterson isn't a Christian, despite his flirtation with Christianity. Barron's views are entirely in accordance with Catholic faith and practice, as befits a bishop.
God bless the good Bishop; I should like to listen to the one about St. Newman, whom I would like to read in greater detail.
Two miscellaneous questions for you, unrelated:
1. What do you think about historical-critical analyses of the virgin birth (which, as I can tell, usually dismiss it on the grounds that Ss. Matthew and Luke's narratives contradict and seem somewhat constructed, as well as the fact that the rest of the New Testament is silent on the matter)? I have no issues believing it (God does what He wills), and it certainly makes sense. "Thou, without blemish and who hast never known a man, hast brought forth without father a Son in the flesh, begotten of the Father without mother before all ages, Who suffered no change, confusion nor division, but kept in full what is proper to each nature." (Sunday Dogmatikon, Third Tone)
2. Do you know of any good academic resource on the development of the cult of the Virgin?
I accept the virginal conception as a non-negotiable article of the faith. Let me think about the second question, although my book, "The Woman, the Hour, and the Garden" touches on it.
Would that include "ever virgin," for OE? I know that is true for RC. I however, am not convinced by that viewpoint although scripture is fairly clear regarding the Virgin birth.
To my knowledge, the 'Epiphanian' view (that the Lord's brethren are S. Joseph's children from another marriage) is about equally historically supportable as the 'Helvidian' view that they are the half-siblings of Christ, God forbid. Jerome's theory of their being cousins is generally seen as implausible at best. So, it's not historically untenable.
Obviously your question was for Mr. Hart, and he has responded to it, but I just wanted to add a couple of things.
1. Despite the differences in the Matthean and Lukan accounts of the virgin birth, there are a number of commonalities that are noteworthy:
- Angelic annunciation
- Conceived by the Holy Spirit
- Movement / displacement of Joseph and Mary
- Birth in Bethlehem
- Virginal conception
- A group of strangers brought to the event of the birth by angels (as Dale Allison convincingly argues in his "Studies in Matthew," Matthew's star is intended to be an angel)
None of the first four points would be particularly surprising by themselves, especially given OT scriptural precedent, but all together they create an interesting coincidence of similarities.
But this is nothing compared to the last two points, which all but confirm that Matthew and Luke are drawing upon a prior tradition (if not a narrative, then at least an account of some kind) given their peculiarity.
I see nothing inherently implausible about the idea that this story lying behind the narrative of the two evangelists went back to a member of Jesus's family, possibly either James (who heard about it from Mary) or Mary herself. There are a few contributing factors here:
- If anyone were interested in Jesus's early life in the early Church, the natural people to ask would be members of Jesus's family. Since James of Jerusalem was a prominent figure in the Church (and since Mary was living with the Beloved Disciple, though that claim involves a whole other historical discussion), family members would not have been hard to come by, and one would expect their words on the subject to have considerable staying power, even if upon that base later accretions attached themselves (as we see in the final infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke).
- The points/narrative/account lying behind each infancy narrative would have had to reach both Matthew's Jewish and Luke's Gentile communities, separated by distance and aspects of culture. An easy explanation for how this happened is that the points/narrative/account came from a fairly central and important location in the early Christian world. Jerusalem fits the bill, and James was in charge there until the 60s AD.
- Right after his introduction wherein Luke expresses his desire to write a properly ordered account with referent to eyewitnesses, Luke writes that Mary "treasured these things in her heart" twice during the infancy narrative (Luke 2:19, Luke 2:51). Of the two events for which this is said, one of them does not contradict Matthew's narrative (since it concerns Jesus's life at the age of twelve, which Matthew says nothing about). The other is one of those two final, critical similarities between Matthew and Luke, the arrival of visitors during the birth (though Luke specifies that these visitors were shepherds, and Matthew specifies that they were magi, it is entirely possible that the earliest version of the story made no specification: while Luke made the more natural assumption, Matthew made use of the flexibility). I see nothing inherently implausible in the notion that these Marian phrases indicate lines of tradition that go back to Mary (through James or otherwise).
I could go on at greater length, but basically my point is that dissimilarity between Matthew and Luke's infancy narratives is itself curious given the commonalities that seem to lie behind them. While Raymond E Brown in his "On the Birth of the Messiah" finds the idea of a family oral tradition unconvincing, I actually find his arguments on this score to be unconvincing in themselves. IMO the history here is perfectly consistent with (though obviously does not demonstrate) the virgin birth.
2. I am reading Stephen J. Shoemaker's "Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion" and it is quite interesting so far. The notion that Marian veneration began within more heterodox sects and then slowly migrated more deeply into the core of the faith is especially intriguing.
This is fine stuff; I will think it over throughout today. These two being later elaborations of a common earlier tradition makes a good deal of sense.
On another's recommendation, I am currently reading Jaroslav Pelikan's book on the Mother of God, which is simply delightful! He transferred to the Orthodox Church of America (my own church) from the Lutherans, and has an extremely lucid yet erudite style. I will take note of Shoemaker's book. Thank you for your time!
Thank You, my response to your comment didn't click so I am attaching it here.
Thank You.
It's been years since I did any reading on this topic, but I seem to remember that Helvidius (sp?) was part of a resistance or pushback against an increasing ascetic movement also promoted by Jerome. It is interesting the parallels between the defense of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary and the growth in the Church of asceticism as an ideal, not that it didn't have a strong presence from the beginning, ie. Paul. Given the strong evidence and emphasis on the Virgin Birth in scripture, yet no comment on the Mary's continuance in that state along with Matt 1:21 "maybe" and Matt 1:25, it seems to be a draw.
Reactions to Bishop Barron often mirror criticisms of Jordan Peterson, as both are seen as upholding traditionalist frameworks that emphasize individual morality and hierarchical order over systemic change, while being critical of abortion and LGBTQ rights. Hart chooses to engage with the best of Bishop Barron, much as he has with Peterson, focusing on their engagement with "tradition." This approach has prompted me, and likely others, to step back from judgment and remember that the Spirit moves where it wills, including through excellence. Thank you, Addison Hodges Hart, for what you continue to share with us.
I'm under the impression that Peterson is an agnostic or secular reactionary than a Christian. But maybe I am wrong.
Peterson isn't a Christian, despite his flirtation with Christianity. Barron's views are entirely in accordance with Catholic faith and practice, as befits a bishop.
Yes, Barron's views are certainly RC from the little I know about him, and he comes across as a knowledgeable communicator.
God bless the good Bishop; I should like to listen to the one about St. Newman, whom I would like to read in greater detail.
Two miscellaneous questions for you, unrelated:
1. What do you think about historical-critical analyses of the virgin birth (which, as I can tell, usually dismiss it on the grounds that Ss. Matthew and Luke's narratives contradict and seem somewhat constructed, as well as the fact that the rest of the New Testament is silent on the matter)? I have no issues believing it (God does what He wills), and it certainly makes sense. "Thou, without blemish and who hast never known a man, hast brought forth without father a Son in the flesh, begotten of the Father without mother before all ages, Who suffered no change, confusion nor division, but kept in full what is proper to each nature." (Sunday Dogmatikon, Third Tone)
2. Do you know of any good academic resource on the development of the cult of the Virgin?
I accept the virginal conception as a non-negotiable article of the faith. Let me think about the second question, although my book, "The Woman, the Hour, and the Garden" touches on it.
Would that include "ever virgin," for OE? I know that is true for RC. I however, am not convinced by that viewpoint although scripture is fairly clear regarding the Virgin birth.
To my knowledge, the 'Epiphanian' view (that the Lord's brethren are S. Joseph's children from another marriage) is about equally historically supportable as the 'Helvidian' view that they are the half-siblings of Christ, God forbid. Jerome's theory of their being cousins is generally seen as implausible at best. So, it's not historically untenable.
The Orthodox Church considers her "ever Virgin" (as did also Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, interestingly).
Hi John,
Obviously your question was for Mr. Hart, and he has responded to it, but I just wanted to add a couple of things.
1. Despite the differences in the Matthean and Lukan accounts of the virgin birth, there are a number of commonalities that are noteworthy:
- Angelic annunciation
- Conceived by the Holy Spirit
- Movement / displacement of Joseph and Mary
- Birth in Bethlehem
- Virginal conception
- A group of strangers brought to the event of the birth by angels (as Dale Allison convincingly argues in his "Studies in Matthew," Matthew's star is intended to be an angel)
None of the first four points would be particularly surprising by themselves, especially given OT scriptural precedent, but all together they create an interesting coincidence of similarities.
But this is nothing compared to the last two points, which all but confirm that Matthew and Luke are drawing upon a prior tradition (if not a narrative, then at least an account of some kind) given their peculiarity.
I see nothing inherently implausible about the idea that this story lying behind the narrative of the two evangelists went back to a member of Jesus's family, possibly either James (who heard about it from Mary) or Mary herself. There are a few contributing factors here:
- If anyone were interested in Jesus's early life in the early Church, the natural people to ask would be members of Jesus's family. Since James of Jerusalem was a prominent figure in the Church (and since Mary was living with the Beloved Disciple, though that claim involves a whole other historical discussion), family members would not have been hard to come by, and one would expect their words on the subject to have considerable staying power, even if upon that base later accretions attached themselves (as we see in the final infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke).
- The points/narrative/account lying behind each infancy narrative would have had to reach both Matthew's Jewish and Luke's Gentile communities, separated by distance and aspects of culture. An easy explanation for how this happened is that the points/narrative/account came from a fairly central and important location in the early Christian world. Jerusalem fits the bill, and James was in charge there until the 60s AD.
- Right after his introduction wherein Luke expresses his desire to write a properly ordered account with referent to eyewitnesses, Luke writes that Mary "treasured these things in her heart" twice during the infancy narrative (Luke 2:19, Luke 2:51). Of the two events for which this is said, one of them does not contradict Matthew's narrative (since it concerns Jesus's life at the age of twelve, which Matthew says nothing about). The other is one of those two final, critical similarities between Matthew and Luke, the arrival of visitors during the birth (though Luke specifies that these visitors were shepherds, and Matthew specifies that they were magi, it is entirely possible that the earliest version of the story made no specification: while Luke made the more natural assumption, Matthew made use of the flexibility). I see nothing inherently implausible in the notion that these Marian phrases indicate lines of tradition that go back to Mary (through James or otherwise).
I could go on at greater length, but basically my point is that dissimilarity between Matthew and Luke's infancy narratives is itself curious given the commonalities that seem to lie behind them. While Raymond E Brown in his "On the Birth of the Messiah" finds the idea of a family oral tradition unconvincing, I actually find his arguments on this score to be unconvincing in themselves. IMO the history here is perfectly consistent with (though obviously does not demonstrate) the virgin birth.
2. I am reading Stephen J. Shoemaker's "Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion" and it is quite interesting so far. The notion that Marian veneration began within more heterodox sects and then slowly migrated more deeply into the core of the faith is especially intriguing.
Another book worth a look is Margaret Barker's enjoyable "Christmas: The Original Story."
This is fine stuff; I will think it over throughout today. These two being later elaborations of a common earlier tradition makes a good deal of sense.
On another's recommendation, I am currently reading Jaroslav Pelikan's book on the Mother of God, which is simply delightful! He transferred to the Orthodox Church of America (my own church) from the Lutherans, and has an extremely lucid yet erudite style. I will take note of Shoemaker's book. Thank you for your time!
Thank You, my response to your comment didn't click so I am attaching it here.
Thank You.
It's been years since I did any reading on this topic, but I seem to remember that Helvidius (sp?) was part of a resistance or pushback against an increasing ascetic movement also promoted by Jerome. It is interesting the parallels between the defense of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary and the growth in the Church of asceticism as an ideal, not that it didn't have a strong presence from the beginning, ie. Paul. Given the strong evidence and emphasis on the Virgin Birth in scripture, yet no comment on the Mary's continuance in that state along with Matt 1:21 "maybe" and Matt 1:25, it seems to be a draw.
-God's grace
It certainly fits typologically. God occasionally does order things on the basis of “it ought to be so” (especially in physics).