Question:

Do DNA tests prove Jesus had two human parents?  Recently the Shroud of Turin has been re-dated within the range of 300 BC to 300 AD. As a result the blood found on the Shroud was type AB, and had both X and Y chromosomes. Where did the Y chromosome come from? If God is an immaterial being, how could he have randomly created the Y chromosomes and additional 23 chromosomes to constitute the 46 chromosomes needed for an embryo out of nothing? If all things that begin to exist require a cause, surely these 23 chromosome needed to make up all 46 chromosomes require a biological origin. Is there any solution to the virgin birth in light of modern science? Thanks.

Answer:

First of all, I an EXTREMELY skeptical of the claim that new evidence proves the Shroud of Turin to be in the range of 300 BC and AD 300.   If this were true, then I almost certainly would have heard about it.   I believe that the source you are using is unreliable.

However, for the sake of argument, let me assume something that I believe is almost certainly not true.  Let me assume that the cloth in the cathedral in Turin is 2000 years old, plus or minus three hundred years.  (The reason I say I am skeptical is that the Shroud has been tested twice and the results have been published in reliable journals, putting the age at about 750 years, not 2000) If that were true, then there is virtually a zero chance that they have found DNA or chromosomes on this cloth.   There is virtually zero chance (I am tempted to say that there is zero chance, but…) that they have found actual blood cells with recognizable AB blood type or with recognizable XY chromosomes.   These materials do not last for 2000 years except in extremely rare circumstances.  So for a third and fourth reason your premise that this could somehow disprove the virgin birth is groundless.   Next, even if we could accept that this piece of cloth was indeed two thousand years old (not true) and even if we could assume that it had scientific evidence of an AB type blood (also certainly not true) and even if it contained actual physical evidence that the person was male (also certainly not true), then how would we know that this was the actual blood of Jesus?  Obviously, this would be completely impossible to establish.  So, again, your premise is really pretty much nonsense, if I can say that with a kind spirit.   Unless we have reason to believe that the biological samples left on the Shroud of Turin are from the actual person Jesus of Nazareth (and we have no such reason that I know of), then the evidence you claim is irrelevant to establishing or disproving the virgin birth.

Then there is the next premise.  Let us assume that this was the actual burial shroud of Jesus, that we have his blood and we have proof that he had both an X and a Y chromosome.   Would this disprove the virgin birth?  Of course it would not.   First of all, Jesus was a real person, as all scholars and historians of any standing, including atheists and members of non-Christian religions.  All also believe that he was male, and therefore, discovery on the Shroud of Turin that he was male would add nothing to the question of his virgin birth.

What this really comes down to is this.   Can science disprove the virgin birth?   The simple answer is definitely not.   The Bible clearly puts out the claim that the birth of Jesus was miraculous.  If so, then it would be a violation of natural law.  Miracles are, by definition, events which defy natural scientific laws.  Therefore, science, which can only describe the things which happen according to natural law, could not do anything to establish whether or not the virgin birth happened.  The only to use this info to disprove the virgin birth is to assume that miracles do not happen.  The problem with this “proof” is that it is circular reasoning.   We would, in effect, assume that miracles do not happen and, based on this assumption, conclude that the birth of Jesus was not miraculous.   Anyone can see that this is a logical fallacy.

According to the Bible, Jesus made fish miraculously.    Presumably the fish had the correct number of chromosomes for fish.  Does this disprove the miraculous?  No.  The real question is whether there is evidence that Jesus worked miracles.   This is not a scientific question but it is a historical, theological, religious or philosophical question.   I believe that the evidence Jesus worked miracles is strong, especially in the case of his resurrection.   I have published a book on this topic, and I invite you to pick up a copy and read it.  The book is “That You May Believe.”  It is available at www.ipibooks.com.

I hope this helps.

John Oakes