Open main menu

Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus

  (Redirected from Psilanthropism)
The Nicene Creed, held by Emperor Constantine (center) in this icon, specifically rejected that Jesus had a human father.[1]

Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus is found among various groups and individuals throughout the history of Christianity. These groups and individuals often took an approach to Christology which understands Jesus to be human, the literal son of human parents.[2][3]

During the 19th century this view was sometimes called Psilanthropism, a term which derives from the combination of the Greek ψιλός (psilós), "plain," "mere" or "bare," and ἄνθρωπος (ánthrōpos) "human." Psilanthropists then generally denied both the virgin birth of Jesus, and his divinity. Denial of the virgin birth is distinct from adoptionism, and may or may not be present in beliefs described as adoptionist.


Early ChristianityEdit

The group most closely associated with denial of the virgin birth were the Ebionites. However, Jerome does not say that all Ebionites denied the virgin birth, but only contrasts their view with the acceptance of the doctrine on the part of a related group, the Nazarenes.[4][5]

The view was rejected by the ecumenical councils, especially in the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened to deal directly with the nature of Christ's divinity.[6]


The turmoil of the Reformation threw up many radical groups and individuals, some of were accused of denying, or actually did deny, the virgin birth. For example during the trial of Lorenzo Tizzano before the Inquisition at Venice in 1550, it was charged that the circle of the late Juan de Valdés (died 1541) at Naples had included such individuals.[7] Early Unitarians, often called Socinians, after Laelio Sozzini who first published the first unitarian analysis of John's Logos in 1550, were sometimes accused of denying the virgin birth, but mainly only denied the pre-existence of Christ in heaven. For Sozzini's better known nephew Fausto Sozzini the miraculous virgin birth was the element in their belief which removed the need for the pre-existence to which they objected.[8] The Socinians in fact excommunicated from their number the translator of the first Bible in Belarusian, Symon Budny, for his denial of the virgin birth.[9]

A large scale change among Unitarians to acceptance of a human father for Jesus took place only in the time of Joseph Priestley.[10] The young Samuel Taylor Coleridge was an example of what he called "a psilanthropist, one of those who believe our Lord to have been the real son of Joseph"[11] but later in life Coleridge decisively rejected this idea and accepted traditional Christian belief in the virgin birth.[12][13][14]


Biblical scholars, churchmen and theologians who have notably rejected the virgin birth include:

  • Fritz Barth, for whom the view cost him academic promotion.[15]
  • Uta Ranke-Heinemann, who contends that the virgin birth of Jesus was meant—and should be understood—as an allegory of a special initiative of God, comparable to God's creation of Adam, and in line with legends and allegories of antiquity.[16]
  • David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham from 1984 until 1994, was the first senior Anglican clergyman to come to the attention of the UK media for his position that "I wouldn't put it past God to arrange a virgin birth if he wanted. But I don't think he did."[17]

Sects and denominationsEdit

The Divine Principle, the textbook of the Unification movement (also called the Unification Church), a new religious movement founded in South Korea, does not include the teaching that Zechariah was the father of Jesus; however some of its members hold that belief based on the work of, British liberal theologian, Leslie Weatherhead.[18][19][20][21]

See alsoEdit


  1. ^ The creed: the apostolic faith in contemporary theology by Berard L. Marthaler 2007 ISBN 0-89622-537-2 page 129
  2. ^ The Westminster handbook to patristic theology by John Anthony McGuckin 2004 ISBN 0-664-22396-6 page 286
  3. ^ Thinking of Christ: proclamation, explanation, meaning by Tatha Wiley 2003 ISBN 0-8264-1530-X page 257
  4. ^ Machen, John Gresham (1958). Virgin Birth of Christ. James Clarke & Co. pp. 22–36. ISBN 978-0-227-67630-1. Apparently Jerome does not say in so many words that the Ebionites denied the virgin birth. But he seems to contrast their view with the acceptance of the doctrine on the part of the Nazarenes. In one place, Epiphanius says that he does not [...] the terminology (at least) differs; for by these writers those who accepted the virgin birth are called "Nazarenes," while the term Ebionites is reserved for those who denied it. Epiphanius' terminology has been followed by some scholars[.]
  5. ^ Jostein Ådna The Formation of the Early Church -3161485610 2005 - Page 269 "5.61), he makes a distinction between two kinds of Ebionites: one group denied the virgin birth, others did not. When describing the latter group, Eusebius notes that, despite the fact that they accepted the virgin birth, they were still heretics, ..."
  6. ^ Angels and Principalities by A. Wesley Carr 2005 ISBN 0-521-01875-7 page 131
  7. ^ Earl Morse Wilbur A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and its antecedents 1946 Page 92 In the trial of Lorenzo Tizzano (or Tizziano) before the Inquisition at Venice in 1550, evidence was given that in Valdes's circle at Naples there were heretics that denied the virgin birth, and held that Jesus was not the ..
  8. ^ David Munroe Cory Faustus Socinus 1932 p 103 "We find that all these doctrines, considered essential by the orthodox, are completely repudiated by Socinus. ... Christ's unique divine sonship (divina filiatio) is guaranteed for Socinus by the virgin birth; "
  9. ^ The Jews in old Poland, 1000-1795 ed. Antony Polonsky, Jakub Basista, Andrzej Link-Lenczowski - 1993 p32 "Budny rejected the eternality of Christ and, in the notes to his translation of the New Testament, denied the Virgin birth, assenting that Jesus was Joseph's son. Even among heretical leaders Szymon Budny was considered a heretic and they would have nothing to do with him
  10. ^ J. D. Bowers Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America 0271045817 2010 p.33 "As a result, Priestley spent the remainder of the decade embroiled in a public battle with the Reverend Samuel Horsley, ... the virgin birth was ascriptural, and the doctrine of the atonement was contrived over centuries of theological errors."
  11. ^ Coleridge "I was a psilanthropist, one of those who believe our Lord to have been the real son of Joseph." 1817 Biog. Lit. i 168, in Cyclopædia of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature, Volume 2 By John McClintock, James Strong 1894 p406
  12. ^ Samuel Taylor Coleridge by Basil Willey, p.156
  13. ^ Cyclopædia of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature, Volume 2 By John McClintock, James Strong 1894 p406
  14. ^ Bowers, J. D., Joseph Priestley and English Unitarianism in America, 2007, ISBN 0-271-02951-X, p. 36.
  15. ^ Dustin Resch Barth's Interpretation of the Virgin Birth: A Sign of Mystery 1317176103 2016 "... to have cost him at least two significant promotions.8 Even given the unhappy consequences of Fritz Barth's denial of the virgin birth, such a position was well established in the mainstream of European biblical and theological scholarship.
  16. ^ Ranke-Heinemann, Uta. Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Garden City: Doubleday, 1990. ISBN 0-385-26527-1.
  17. ^ The Guardian David Jenkins - obituary
  18. ^ Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains, By U. S. Department of the Army, Published by The Minerva Group, Inc., 2001, ISBN 0-89875-607-3, ISBN 978-0-89875-607-4, page 1–42. Google books listing
  19. ^ Sontag, Fredrick (1977). Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church. Abingdon. pp. 102–105. ISBN 0-687-40622-6.
  20. ^ Weatherhead, L.D. (1965). The Christian Agnostic. England: Hodder and Stoughton. pp. 59–63.
  21. ^ Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement by Ruth A. Tucker 1989 ISBN 0-310-25937-1 pages 250-251