Virgin birth of Jesus

A not even remotely accurate painting of an angel announcing to Mary she will give birth to the Messiah. Fra Angelico circa 1430-1432.

The virgin birth of Jesus is a the Christian belief that Jesus was born, not through normal sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, but through a miracle where the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary's uterus directly, and that she gave birth to Jesus before ever having sex. This belief comes from interpretations of the stories found in the Gospel of Matthew and another found in the Gospel of Luke, which Christians believe fulfills the prophecy described in the Book of Isaiah. The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin was adopted by most Muslims as a virgin birth is found in the Quran, though they don't view Jesus as a part of their god. The virgin birth is extremely important to Christian theology, but most scholars now admit that the event has a weak historical foundation.

Sources

Book of Isaiah (800-580 BCE)

This is the prophecy Christians believe was fulfilled with the virgin birth. Isaiah 7:10-17, NRSV.

Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.

Then Isaiah said: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah — the king of Assyria."

Early Epistles (50-66 CE)

The earliest writings about the birth of Jesus are from the epistles attributed to Paul which describe nothing but a natural human birth. Apologists attempt to inject a virgin birth into these passages, but their attempts are without evidence.

Galatians 4:4-5, NRSV (circa 50 CE).

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.

Romans 1:1-4, NRSV (circa 56 CE).

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord...

Philippians 2:5-8, NRSV (circa 62 CE).

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross.

Gospel of Mark (66-70 CE)

When Jesus is first mentioned in Mark he is already an adult; there is nothing mentioned of his birth.

Gospel of Matthew (80-90 CE)

Matthew 1:18-25, NRSV.

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

Gospel of Luke (80-100 CE)

Luke 1:26-38, NRSV.

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.

The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

The angel said to her, "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 holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God."

Then Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

Gospel of John (90–110 CE)

Like Mark, the Gospel of John begins with Jesus already an adult and doesn't mention his birth.

Later Epistles (80+ CE)

None of the epistles written, either at the time of Matthew or Luke or after, even suggest a virgin birth.

Interpretations

Christians interpret the virgin birth story as a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah. While some of the more liberal denominations suggest the virgin birth could be a metaphor, most Christians take the passages literally, and, since humans aren't normally born from virgins, view it as a miracle.

Historical Evidence

The only historical evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus comes from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Each author is anonymous and neither claims or even implies they are an eye-witness to any part of Jesus' birth and neither describes the source of their account or how they received it. Matthew's author describes knowledge of conception being presented to Joseph in a dream while Luke's author describes it being presented to Mary; neither claims or implies other witnesses. Both sources describe Jesus being born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph without claiming or implying other witnesses. Both sources were written around 80-90 years after the event supposedly took place, meaning anyone old enough to be a reliable witness would most likely be dead, and anyone capable of writing the gospels would, at best, have been a very young child when the event took place.

However, the fact that there are two at least partially-independent sources cannot be ignored. Most historians agree that Matthew and Luke shared common sources (as suggested by the various hypothetical solutions to the Synoptic Problem), though none of the popular hypotheses place the virgin birth neatly in any one shared source. My current hypothesis is that an anonymous person who was familiar with the Septuagint translation of Isaiah, in an effort to disavow Docetism, appropriated the prophecy and concocted the virgin birth, and this idea reached both the authors of Matthew and Luke who expanded on it for their respective gospels. I hold this hypothesis only because it fits the existing evidence, and freely admit it has no basis in evidence itself.

Criticisms

While I'm more inclined to believe historical events when there are multiple independent sources, I find severe faults with the authors of Matthew and Luke and don't feel that they have given extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims. My reasons are as follows:

The Hebrew word for "virgin" is bĕthuwlah, but the author of Isaiah uses the word `almah, which Hebrew scholars agree translates simply to "young woman" and has nothing to do with virginity. For example, Proverbs 30:18-20 describes an adulterous woman, who can't possibly be a virgin, as an `almah. This means that Isaiah's prophecy is properly translated to the mundane, "the young woman shall conceive" which is precisely how the Jewish Publication Society and the NRSV translate it. However, the authors of Matthew and Luke might have used the Greek Septuagint as their source, and, in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word `almah is incorrectly translated to the Greek parthenos, which means "virgin." Being born of a virgin is certainly interesting, in fact, miraculous birth is a popular motif in the history of many cultures, several of which predate Christianity, and may be why both authors fixated on it, but their fixation appears to be the result of a mistranslation.

Furthermore, while Christians assume that Isaiah's prophecy is symbolic and applies to an event that will take place centuries after the prediction, most Jewish scholars are in agreement that the passage in Isaiah was meant to be taken literally and refers to a child that was born shortly after the prediction just as the kingdoms fell. This means that neither Matthew nor Luke have historical foundation for a virgin birth (see "The Gospel of Matthew," by R.T. France, p.56-57).

The earliest Christian authors either describe Jesus's birth as ordinary, or don't mention it at all, which you wouldn't expect them to do if they were aware of such a miracle. Apologists suggest Paul implicitly wrote about a virgin birth, but if you read the passages in the Early Epistles above, you'll see there is nothing there.

The virgin birth stories found in Matthew and Luke are markedly different and the differences are only compounded through the Nativity of Jesus. Every New Testament author writing after Matthew and Luke fails to acknowledge the virgin birth story and even the authors of Mark and John, two sources which focused specifically of the events of Jesus' life, didn't bother to mention it. A common apologist response is that the various authors who don't mention the virgin birth either purposely left it out because they didn't feel it was important or didn't know about it. I don't find either excuse believable. As authors of books purporting to have an intimate knowledge of Jesus, how could they possibly not know about his miraculous birth, and, assuming they knew, why would they leave out what early Christians would think of as such an obvious fulfillment of prophecy?

Media

Mr. Deity.

Links