The virgin birth story. Should we believe it?

[notachance]

Claim 1: Jesus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 2: Krishna was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 3: Buddha was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 4: Mitra was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 5: Marduk was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 6: Horus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 7: Notachance NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 8: Perseus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 9: Theseus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 10: Dionyus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 11: Hercules was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 12: Pan was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 13: Ion was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 14: Romulus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 15: Asclepius was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 16: Helen was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 17: Alexander the Great was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 18: Augustus was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 19: Zarathustra was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 20: Huitzilopochtli was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 21: Pharaoh Amenkept III was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 22: The sun God Ra was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 23: Genghis Khan was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 24: Melanippe was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 25: Auge was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 26: Attis was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 27: Antiope was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Claim 28: Auge was NOT conceived in a normal man-and-woman-have-sex way
Author of claim: Unknown
Date claim was made: Unknown
Empirical evidence in support of claim: None

Questions for debate:
Is there any good reason to take all of these claims seriously?

Is there are any good reasons to take half of them seriously, but not the other half?

Is there any good reason to take one of them seriously, but take all the other ones not seriously?

If you had a personal religious experience in which a voice in your head told you that Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, would you believe it? If not, why not?

[Strider324]

Only the virgin birth of Yeshua should be believed. Any story alleging that a horny deity impregnated a young woman without even the decency to ask her if she wanted this 'honor' is just too delightful and inspiring not to be true....

[ChristShepherd]

What about this.....
Isaiah 7:14-16(King James Version)
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

According to Matthew, and Christian theology, Jesus is the son of this virgin mentioned in Isaiah 7:14. But this child has to grow old enough to be able to learn how to choose the difference between good and evil.

But Jesus, according to christian theology, is God in the flesh. Certainly, Jesus the God, knew the difference between good and evil from the beginning. How could he possibly be the son of the virgin of Isaiah 7:14???

[ThatGirlAgain]

We have NO IDEA who it is that brought up the notion of the virgin birth. We have NO IDEA when this idea was first introduced. We have no idea where.

All we know is that the earliest document mentioning the virgin birth is the Codex Vaticanus, written in 325 AD in either Rome or Alexandria by an anonymous scribe.

That's 325 AD. That's 325 years after Jesus died. That's 23 generations.

That means that the unknown person who wrote about the virgin birth was the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandson of somebody who would have been alive when Jesus was born.

The anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew first introduced the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus. The earlier Gospel of Mark and the even earlier writings of Paul make no mention of it. Scholarship places this document as originating around 80-90 CE probably in Syria. The content and of tone of the work appear to tie in well to that location and period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_acc ... to_Matthew

Matthew’s reference to a virgin birth derives from the use of the Greek word for ‘virgin’ (parthenos) in the Greek Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures in place of the Hebrew word almah, which means “an unmarried, betrothed，or newly wed woman�.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_bir ... s#Immanuel

The prophecy referenced by Matthew is Isaiah 7:14-16

The Codex Vaticanus is (probably) the oldest complete copy of the New Testament and almost all of the Old Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus is another contender for that title. But Individual NT books and fragments have been dated as far back as the early 2nd century, with fragments of Matthew in particular from around 200 CE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_m ... anuscripts

Also, in the late 2nd century Irenaeus names the four canonical Gospels (including Matthew) in language that suggests that these were already well known and widely accepted.

I see that you used a date of 325 for the Codex Vaticanus. This is the date of the Council of Nicaea. Are you under the impression that this Council had anything to do with the Bible? This is not the case.

[Furrowed Brow]

But Individual NT books and fragments have been dated as far back as the early 2nd century, with fragments of Matthew in particular from around 200 CE.

The oldest surviving anything is a papyrus fragment called P52 dated as you say to early 2nd. And it is a fragment with a passage of from John and the trial with Pontius Pilate. We won’t get much from that. When I last debated this I don't remember there being much else between that fragment and the stuff that appears around 200 CE. But to be true I am curious novice at this kind of thing.

If you had anything specific in mind dated closer to P52 I’d be curious.

[Furrowed Brow]

OK beginning to answer my own questions. Another small fragment P90 dated around 150 to late 2nd, and fragment 104. Nothing near book length until P75 which could be end of 2nd start of 3rd.

[ThatGirlAgain]

But Individual NT books and fragments have been dated as far back as the early 2nd century, with fragments of Matthew in particular from around 200 CE.

The oldest surviving anything is a papyrus fragment called P52 dated as you say to early 2nd. And it is a fragment with a passage of from John and the trial with Pontius Pilate. We won’t get much from that. When I last debated this I don't remember there being much else between that fragment and the stuff that appears around 200 CE. But to be true I am curious novice at this kind of thing.

If you had anything specific in mind dated closer to P52 I’d be curious.

I was not trying to state anything specific about the various fragments, only that the various primary elements of what would become the Bible, including Matthew, existed well before 325 CE. The idea of the virgin birth was not invented at that time. However I was not implying that a virgin birth actually took place, as I think I also made clear. There is a middle ground between the extremes of scriptures as real historical records and scriptures as much later invention for the purpose of imposing power. To my mind, both extremes are ideologically driven and ignore genuine scholarship.

[fredonly]

The anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew first introduced the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus. The earlier Gospel of Mark and the even earlier writings of Paul make no mention of it. Scholarship places this document as originating around 80-90 CE probably in Syria. The content and of tone of the work appear to tie in well to that location and period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_acc ... to_Matthew

Matthew’s reference to a virgin birth derives from the use of the Greek word for ‘virgin’ (parthenos) in the Greek Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures in place of the Hebrew word almah, which means “an unmarried, betrothed，or newly wed woman�.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_bir ... s#Immanuel

The prophecy referenced by Matthew is Isaiah 7:14-16

There was probably a common tradition about Jesus' virgin birth, since both Matthew and Luke refer to it and it wasn't in Mark. You've given the most likely reason why this tradition began, to link it to the "prophecy" in Isaiah. I think the same thing can be said about Jesus' supposed birth in Bethlehem (he was known as Jesus of Nazareth, after all).

Historical analysis wouldn't give the Virgin Birth story much credibility because there's no apparent chain of custody of the information. Who was around at the time to observe the the details of the story, and then pass it on? Do you suppose Mary started this? Would you believe YOUR daughter if she explained her pregnancy in this way? I don't believe there's any mention of Joseph hanging around the disciples.

[Furrowed Brow]

I was not trying to state anything specific about the various fragments, only that the various primary elements of what would become the Bible, including Matthew, existed well before 325 CE.

I though it might be a useful exercise tracking down what of Matthew we have dated prior to 325. Using Wiki these are the Matthew Papyri I found.

Dated around 200 Papyrus 64 contains Matthew 26:23 and 31

Nothing remotely miraculous regarding Jesus goes on here.

3rd century Papyrus 70 contains Matthew 2:13-16; 2:22-3:1; 11:26-27; 12:4-5; 24:3-6.12-15

In these verses the angels speaking to joseph, a mention of what was spoke by the prophets, talk of the father son relationship. But again very difficult to see how much of that fits on this papyrus.

Dated Mid 2nd to mid 3rdPapyrus 77 contains Matthew 23:30-39

Nothing remotely miraculous regarding Jesus goes on here.

Dated 250 3rdPapyrus 101 contains Matthew 3:10-12; 3:16-4

Again nothing of a supernatural order occurs in these verses.

Dated 300 3rdPapyrus 102 contains Matthew 4:11-12; 4:22-23

The verses in full mention the devil and angels but as you see there is not much to go on here.

2nd/3rd century Papyrus 103 contains Matthew 13:55-56; 14:3-5

Matthew 14:5 mentions the multitude that counted Jesus as a prophet. I can’t tell if the word prophet is actually on P103.

Dated mid 2nd to later Papyrus 104 contains Matthew 21:34-37 Verso is near illegible apparently.

Accoerding to wike these are the words visible on the recto

.... his servants to
...... to collect the harvest
...... the vine-growers took
his servants; indeed,
...... one and they killed another,
....... they stoned. Again, he sent
other servants, more than
........ they did
.........But last of all he sent...

I think this clearly shows unless I have missed something out that whilst the narrative of Jesus was developing before 325 we don’t get much of Matthew in that period and what there is does not touch on anything spooky or miraculous about him other than he is a prophet....maybe.. I know my approach is simplistic and there is a lot of scholarship that fills the gaps in an expert way, but it is useful I think to actually get a look at what of Matthew there is that exists in this time frame.

In summary I don’t think we have much at all of Matthew before 350 and so we have visit a time frame some 300+ years after the death fo Jesus to get a reference of a virgin birth from Matthew or anythingelse a bit spooky. What there is as you can see fis ragmentary and it would be a stretch to attribute the appearance of say a supernatural Jesus based on this evidence. But of course there is other evidence. I'm just looking at Matthew here.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I was not trying to state anything specific about the various fragments, only that the various primary elements of what would become the Bible, including Matthew, existed well before 325 CE.

In summary I don’t think we have much at all of Matthew before 350 some 300+ years after the death of Jesus, and what there is as you can see fragmentary and it would be a stretch to attribute the appearance of a supernatural Jesus based on this evidence.

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, written ca. 246-248 CE has Matthew calling Jesus the son of a virgin.

And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?" [5262]And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [5263]They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, [5264] as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," [5265] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," [5266] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 2:17

We see that there was a Gospel of Matthew that was known well before 325 and that it referred to a virgin birth. We have evidence that this Gospel existed well before Origen. Keeping in mind Matthew’s penchant for OT references, is there any reason to doubt that the earliest version of Matthew also referred to a virgin?

[Furrowed Brow]

I was not trying to state anything specific about the various fragments, only that the various primary elements of what would become the Bible, including Matthew, existed well before 325 CE.

In summary I don’t think we have much at all of Matthew before 350 some 300+ years after the death of Jesus, and what there is as you can see fragmentary and it would be a stretch to attribute the appearance of a supernatural Jesus based on this evidence.

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, written ca. 246-248 CE has Matthew calling Jesus the son of a virgin.

And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?" [5262]And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [5263]They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, [5264] as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," [5265] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," [5266] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 2:17

We see that there was a Gospel of Matthew that was known well before 325 and that it referred to a virgin birth. We have evidence that this Gospel existed well before Origen. Keeping in mind Matthew’s penchant for OT references, is there any reason to doubt that the earliest version of Matthew also referred to a virgin?

What is the earliest existing document of the commentary or any reference anywhere for that matter that attributes a mention of the virgin birth in Matthew. If a we have the original which dates prior to 325 then it looks like you have a slam dunk case. But if we have only copies that date to a later period then we are no nearer 325 and earlier. If we only have stuff that comes through say Eusebius then I'd treat that as suspect. I'm not saying the idea of a virgin birth was not floating around in the time period you say I just want to make sure we can beyond reasonable doubt indeed attribute it to Matthew. Yes I know I go about things in a literal and naive way but that is how I look at stuff and I'm learning here. Anyhow you may have a quick and slam dunk answer. I’ll do some Googling myself as well.