***Content warning: This entry contains discussion of sexual assault.***

In this final installation of Advent, a new angle on the story of Jesus’s conception has been presented by Biblical scholars, one that the Catholic hierarchy, and likely many Catholics and Christians themselves will not like. I present it here because it makes even clearer the message of liberation, freedom from death and oppression, at the heart of who Jesus is meant to be. The story, explained by Catholic biblical scholar Jane Schaberg, is that the gospel writers may in fact have understood Jesus, not as the result of a virginal conception, but as the child of an illegitimate conception, either by Mary’s choice or more likely, by sexual assault. 

If the virginal conception is important to you, it’s okay to take this idea with a grain of salt – but it’s also worth listening to Schaberg’s educated understanding of the story of Jesus’s conception and birth, and what that can mean about being a follower of Christianity. What does it mean if Jesus is born of such a lowly position, not just a poor Israelite, but a social pariah as well?

Schaberg writes in her book The Illegitimacy of Jesus (1987) that the story of Jesus’s very human conception and illegitimacy had become largely erased from memory of the gospel texts by the end of the second century, as the virginal conception story became the dominant understanding that has been passed on to us today (2). This thorough book examines the infancy narratives, or stories of Jesus’s conception and birth that we find in Matthew and Luke; and evidence from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, the rest of the New Testament, and early church history. For our purposes, we only have time to look at a few small pieces of the evidence that Schaberg has compiled, while the body of evidence she presents throughout the book weaves together an incredibly coherent picture.

As Schaberg explains, the story of Mary the virgin is based on incorrect assumptions, or reading things into the texts of Matthew and Luke that aren’t there. Using our gospel passage for today, Luke 1:26-38, we read:

The angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph,
of the house of David,
and the virgin’s name was Mary.

The text only says that Mary is a virgin at the time of the angel’s visit, not that she will remain a virgin after conceiving a child. After the angel tells her she will conceive, Mary asks Gabriel:

How can this be,
since I have no relations with a man?

Different translations of the Bible have a huge effect on what we think the Bible is saying. In some translations, including this translation used in the Catholic lectionary, The New American Bible, two words in Mary’s response make a huge difference – “How can this be?” and “I have no relations with a man.” First, Schaberg, a scholar trained in the Bible’s ancient Greek, believes that a different Greek verb would have been used to say “how can” than the one the author uses. Schaberg says of this passage: “I suspect, however, that this translation is misleading…I prefer the translation ‘How will this be?’” In response to Mary’s question, Gabriel says:

The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore the child to be born
will be called holy, the Son of God.

While Gabriel’s response to “how can this be” implies a happening otherwise considered impossible, a conception made possible with God, Gabriel’s response to “how will this be,” in Schaberg’s words, “does not prejudice the reader to think immediately of an event that is considered physically impossible. Gabriel’s final statement, I think, refers to God’s power to overcome humiliation” (84). While Schaberg can make no definitive statements about if this humiliation was one that came from Mary’s choice to have sexual relations with someone, or a sexual assault, she also brings forward her belief that this passage deliberately invokes Deuteronomy 22:23-27, which explains how a virgin who is raped should be dealt with in the society (91-2).

Second, Schaberg explains that the Greek word used to refer to “man” here is actually used in the rest of Luke to refer to “husband,” specifically Joseph, making, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a husband?” a much more likely translation of the text, opening up the possibility that some other man will father the child, while Joseph will not. These word translations are but two small examples of the evidence that Schaberg presents, and show how delicate the work of Bible translation and understanding is. I can only say, having read her work, that the mounting evidence she presents throughout the book should at least push us to be open to the possibility of truth in what she’s saying.

So if what Schaberg says could be true, why aren’t the authors of Luke and Matthew more clear about it? At the time these gospels were written, near the end of the first century, Schaberg believes that most readers still would have assumed that Jesus came from an illegitimate pregnancy. She also explains how the author of Luke does their best to cast the birth of Jesus positively. She writes: “The potential scandal of Jesus’s origins, like the scandal of his death, was toned down by Luke in an effort to convey the ‘good news,’ power, and respectability of the Christian message” (141).

This story of Jesus’s conception and birth could be the story of an illegitimate pregnancy, possible sexual violence, and a woman and child in one of the most precarious positions in a dangerous world. It’s impossible to know this for sure, but it makes the story of Jesus, from birth to death, one shot through with great pain, and great hope in what is possible for us all, and most especially, the lowest of the low. 

Mary’s Song

In the gospel of Luke, right after our reading for today, the author pens one of the most famous liberative passages in the gospels: Mary’s Song (Luke 1:46-56).

Jane Schaberg explains how Mary’s Song is a deliberate echo of Hannah’s Song from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, in which Hannah praises God for finally helping her conceive a child. Schaberg explains how the writer of Luke could consider Hannah’s Song a good basis for Mary’s Song: “I think that Luke saw the appropriateness of the Jewish-Christian hymn for use as Mary’s canticle, and he inserted it as hers in order to communicate the tradition he received: that she had been violated and made pregnant but that God vindicated her, protecting her and her child, even recognizing and causing to be recognized this child as God’s Son and Messiah.” Schaberg continues, “He is presenting her here as one who was oppressed and liberated, one who triumphed over her enemies, one to whom God was merciful, one for whom there was a radical overturning of social expectations” (95).

Mary’s Song is a beautiful reflection for this final Sunday of Advent, Christmas Eve, just after the winter solstice, as we reflect on the dark nights, and the coming of light and hope. Mary’s Song is already powerful as a critique of wealth and empire – that it can be even richer, even more meaningful in the context of Mary’s dire situation as a victim, and with an illegitimate child, shows us the depths of hope, possibility, and love.

Mary’s Song/The Canticle of Mary

Mary said:
“My soul proclaims your greatness, O God,
And my spirit rejoices in you, my Savior.
For you have looked with favor
upon your lowly servant,
and from this day forward
all generations will call me blessed.
For you, the Almighty, have done great things for me,
and holy is your Name.
Your mercy reaches from age to age
for those who fear you.
You have shown strength with your arm;
You have scattered the proud in their conceit;
You have deposed the mighty from their thrones
and raised the lowly to high places.
You have filled the hungry with good things,
while you have sent the rich away empty.
You have come to the aid of Israel your servant,
mindful of your mercy –
the promise you made to our ancestors –
to Sarah and Abraham
and their descendants forever.”

Catholic theologian Jane Schaberg (1938-2012) was a former nun, and received her Master’s and PhD in theology and biblical studies from Columbia University and Union Theological Seminary, respectively. She wrote in the fields of theology and biblical studies through a feminist lens, including two books about Mary Magdalene. Publishing The Illegitimacy of Jesus made her an outcast in many Catholic circles, including a poor response from the University of Detroit Mercy where she taught. She received death threats, and her car was lit on fire one night, believed to be in connection to The Illegitimacy of Jesus. As New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman wrote in his blog, “Needless to say, the backlash on that idea has been massive.” 

Schaberg continued to write and publish, and stuck to her guns on her work. Her writing is an excellent example of the radical, liberative power of feminist biblical interpretation to grapple with our complex tradition.