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?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Ok, lets agree to disagree for now, and maybe lets come back to it later.

Let's assume that you are correct, and that the notion of Jesus's virgin birth was introduced by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 50AD and 200AD ballpark, and not by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 200AD and 360AD.

Now, please explain to me why we should take this miraculous birth story more seriously than the other 27 I mentioned.

I never said you should. In fact I identified what seems to be a highly probable origin of the Jesus virgin birth story, Matthew's exploitation of the Septuagint use of the word virgin. I was objecting to one specific point.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The virgin birth story. Should we believe it?

No more'n when Mom tells it.

As Opie points out, there's a multitude of such stories, and all have one thing in common - an utter lack of confirmatory data in support of such being literally true.

In my amateur understanding, I contend such notions are more an effort to shore up the referenced person's credentials.

[notachance]

Ok, lets agree to disagree for now, and maybe lets come back to it later.

Let's assume that you are correct, and that the notion of Jesus's virgin birth was introduced by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 50AD and 200AD ballpark, and not by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 200AD and 360AD.

Now, please explain to me why we should take this miraculous birth story more seriously than the other 27 I mentioned.

I never said you should. In fact I identified what seems to be a highly probable origin of the Jesus virgin birth story, Matthew's exploitation of the Septuagint use of the word virgin. I was objecting to one specific point.

Ah, ok.

[fredonly]

Ok, lets agree to disagree for now, and maybe lets come back to it later.

Let's assume that you are correct, and that the notion of Jesus's virgin birth was introduced by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 50AD and 200AD ballpark, and not by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 200AD and 360AD.

Now, please explain to me why we should take this miraculous birth story more seriously than the other 27 I mentioned.

I never said you should. In fact I identified what seems to be a highly probable origin of the Jesus virgin birth story, Matthew's exploitation of the Septuagint use of the word virgin. I was objecting to one specific point.

If I may nitpick a bit. It doesn't seem likely that the author of Matthew himself made this connection, because the same connection to the ostensible virgin birth occurs in Luke, which most scholars believe to be independent of Matthew and written at about the same time. The likely explanation is that it was in a separate tradition that was known to both. There's no way to know where or when this occurred, although Paul doesn't mention it, so it was probably after him.

[notachance]

Ok, lets agree to disagree for now, and maybe lets come back to it later.

Let's assume that you are correct, and that the notion of Jesus's virgin birth was introduced by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 50AD and 200AD ballpark, and not by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 200AD and 360AD.

Now, please explain to me why we should take this miraculous birth story more seriously than the other 27 I mentioned.

I never said you should. In fact I identified what seems to be a highly probable origin of the Jesus virgin birth story, Matthew's exploitation of the Septuagint use of the word virgin. I was objecting to one specific point.

If I may nitpick a bit. It doesn't seem likely that the author of Matthew himself made this connection, because the same connection to the ostensible virgin birth occurs in Luke, which most scholars believe to be independent of Matthew and written at about the same time. The likely explanation is that it was in a separate tradition that was known to both. There's no way to know where or when this occurred, although Paul doesn't mention it, so it was probably after him.

Fair enough.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Ok, lets agree to disagree for now, and maybe lets come back to it later.

Let's assume that you are correct, and that the notion of Jesus's virgin birth was introduced by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 50AD and 200AD ballpark, and not by some anonymous author at some unknown time between 200AD and 360AD.

Now, please explain to me why we should take this miraculous birth story more seriously than the other 27 I mentioned.

I never said you should. In fact I identified what seems to be a highly probable origin of the Jesus virgin birth story, Matthew's exploitation of the Septuagint use of the word virgin. I was objecting to one specific point.

If I may nitpick a bit. It doesn't seem likely that the author of Matthew himself made this connection, because the same connection to the ostensible virgin birth occurs in Luke, which most scholars believe to be independent of Matthew and written at about the same time. The likely explanation is that it was in a separate tradition that was known to both. There's no way to know where or when this occurred, although Paul doesn't mention it, so it was probably after him.

Fair enough.

The similarities between Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark are explainable in two ways. One is the hypothesized vanished Q document containing that non-Markan common material. The other - which I personally favor - is that despite the general consensus Luke was fully aware of Matthew and inherited material that way. Even beyond that I see Luke as being in deliberate opposition to Matthew on a number of major points, telling very different versions of the story for different purposes. One major point is the genealogy, another is the nativity.

[Furrowed Brow]

Multiple sources other than Matthew reference the virgin birth. In addition to Luke and the Ascension of Isaiah already referenced, there is the Book of James.

The book of James is dated around mid 2nd century wiki tells me. This clearly puts the idea of Jesus Virgin birth as an idea with currency in that time frame. No problem with accepting that. It is unreasonable to think the virgin both idea arrived in the Codex out of a vacuum. If any other document references a virgin birth with an earlier date then we can push the virgin birth theme back still further.

But they all tell more elaborate stories than Matthew yet do not agree with each other. Even Origen tells a story more detailed than what is found in Matthew. A simple explanation is that Matthew is the source of these stories.

Yes that is a simple explanation but not a compelling one. It does not follow that because one account is more elaborate than another that the less elaborate account was a source of the more elaborate.

If the early Christian community reasons for believing in the virgin birth were in any way embedded in the details of real life, and not just 100% fabricated, it is more than likely that the original version of the story was grounded in some factual details of who met who when and said what to who and so forth. Just as the person who was there or knows most finds it easier to give more details in their accounts than the person who comes by a story second hand and goes on to leave stuff out. I’ll suggest to you that what tends to happen is that stories go from detailed to vague in the retelling and not the other way around unless they pass through a helpful fantasist or forger. Or I should say that is a more realistic interpretation of how information is transmitted. If the provenance of the virgin birth narrative in Matthew indeed goes back furthest then by this reasoning it should be the more elaborate account. Unless of course the author of Matthew just made up the story and was followed up by a bunch of fantasists. The simplest answer is that Matthew handed down to us from the codex gives a simplified version of someone else’s story. This would make even more sense if author of Matthew was wanting to distil and disseminate the essence of the idea of a virgin birth and avoid any controversies or disagreements. This idea would be falsified if someone digs up a 2nd century copy of Matthew with the relevant verse.

It is not necessary to find originals of everything for this to make sense. Matthew coming up with the idea makes much more sense than the invented in 325 idea. Try addressing that rather than demanding originals.

Clearly the idea of a virgin birth had currency before 325. My point is that we do not have the data to pin down with any certainty the provenance of the idea and its transmission within the 2nd century early Christian community. And we can all play the simplest explanation game and come up with a different answer that makes sense.

[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???

Mistranslation for one. The original Hebrew is ALmah.. which means 'young lady'..
The Greek translation was parthenos, and in 300 and 400 bce, that could either mean young woman or virgin.. however, the language shifted, and by the 1st century, it tended to mean virgin.

Second of all, it's out of context. The 'young woman' in Isaiah 7:14 is identified in Isaiah 8:4.. The young woman is the prophetess, whom Isaiah went to and insured she would conceive (by the use of sexual intercourse). This cause the son to be born... which turn on the 'timer' for sign.. . (about 3 years)

Isaiah then identifies the 'signs' to be his sons and himself (isaiah 8:18). So, it shows that Matthew ripped the context of Isaiah 7:14 to shred, mistranslated, to try to make it appear to be the prophecy of Jesus.

Hey Goat....read my original post again. Your answer doesn't fit with my point.
There seems to be a disconnect here.

It is , through mistranslation and out of context quotes is how it can be.

Hey Goat!
I agree with everything that you wrote.

My point is that the quotation in Isaiah says that the child will mature to be able to know enough to refuse evil and choose good. But if the child were Jesus, who is God according to Christian thinking, then the child,would know good right from birth. Thus the child could NOT be Jesus.

Get my point?

[Goat]

Hey Goat!
I agree with everything that you wrote.

My point is that the quotation in Isaiah says that the child will mature to be able to know enough to refuse evil and choose good. But if the child were Jesus, who is God according to Christian thinking, then the child,would know good right from birth. Thus the child could NOT be Jesus.

Get my point?

Absolutely.. that is because they rip the one line out of context.. mistranslated ..

If looked at in context, it is talking about Isaiah 's wife/mistress, his son, and the timing from when his son was conceived until the King of Assyria no longer being a local threat.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Multiple sources other than Matthew reference the virgin birth. In addition to Luke and the Ascension of Isaiah already referenced, there is the Book of James.

The book of James is dated around mid 2nd century wiki tells me. This clearly puts the idea of Jesus Virgin birth as an idea with currency in that time frame. No problem with accepting that. It is unreasonable to think the virgin both idea arrived in the Codex out of a vacuum. If any other document references a virgin birth with an earlier date then we can push the virgin birth theme back still further.

But they all tell more elaborate stories than Matthew yet do not agree with each other. Even Origen tells a story more detailed than what is found in Matthew. A simple explanation is that Matthew is the source of these stories.

Yes that is a simple explanation but not a compelling one. It does not follow that because one account is more elaborate than another that the less elaborate account was a source of the more elaborate.

If the early Christian community reasons for believing in the virgin birth were in any way embedded in the details of real life, and not just 100% fabricated, it is more than likely that the original version of the story was grounded in some factual details of who met who when and said what to who and so forth. Just as the person who was there or knows most finds it easier to give more details in their accounts than the person who comes by a story second hand and goes on to leave stuff out. I’ll suggest to you that what tends to happen is that stories go from detailed to vague in the retelling and not the other way around unless they pass through a helpful fantasist or forger. Or I should say that is a more realistic interpretation of how information is transmitted. If the provenance of the virgin birth narrative in Matthew indeed goes back furthest then by this reasoning it should be the more elaborate account. Unless of course the author of Matthew just made up the story and was followed up by a bunch of fantasists. The simplest answer is that Matthew handed down to us from the codex gives a simplified version of someone else’s story. This would make even more sense if author of Matthew was wanting to distil and disseminate the essence of the idea of a virgin birth and avoid any controversies or disagreements. This idea would be falsified if someone digs up a 2nd century copy of Matthew with the relevant verse.

Can you reference specific examples in the scriptures of detailed stories becoming abbreviated in later retellings? In any case, we see a number of differently detailed ‘virgin’ stories. If the detailed version of a story comes first, which of these versions is the original and why are the others also detailed but different? Here is another one that fits that description. And another. Mark is generally accorded to be the first Gospel written, yet Matthew and Luke tell substantially more elaborate (but different) versions of the same stories as Mark. I am afraid that in the absence of examples I must disagree with your idea. With multiple differently detailed versions around, the simplest is likely to be the earliest.

Current scholarly consensus dates the Gospel of Matthew to not long after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Dating the virgin idea to later than this would imply Matthew getting changed in this regard. Scholarly opinion is always subject to review and scripture getting changed is nothing new. However the dating of Matthew is well grounded. Let us look at whether Matthew might have been changed.

Insertions into scriptures tend to be clumsy. Examples are Jesus sweating blood in Luke, women should not talk in Paul and even the Great Commission in Matthew. But if we look at the ‘virgin’ passage in Matthew, we see that it flows smoothly and sounds very much like the rest of Matthew.

Matthew 1:18-24 NKJV (Why NKJV – best balance between understandability and copyright rules)
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.�
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,�[d] which is translated, “God with us.�
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[e] And he called His name JESUS.

d. Matthew 1:23 Isaiah 7:14. Words in oblique type in the New Testament are quoted from the Old Testament.
e. Matthew 1:25 NU-Text reads a Son.

When Jesus enters Jerusalem, Matthew references a scriptural prophecy in that same style.

Matthew 21:1-5 NKJV
1 Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. 3 And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.�
4 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
5 “ Tell the daughter of Zion,

‘ Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’�[c]

c. Matthew 21:5 Zechariah 9:9

Matthew is full of prophecies that are referenced in this same style. If the ‘virgin’ passage is an insertion it was done by an expert, not your usual clumsy amateur.

Immediately preceding the ‘virgin’ passage is the genealogy of Jesus. As Matthew states it is structured in groups of 14 names. The final three names are “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ�. Matthew wants that impressive genealogy, lots of powerful names all the way back to Abraham. But he is also about to tell us that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus so he inserts Mary as the link. If the ‘virgin’ passage is an insertion then this is also the work of a clever forger.

Following the ‘virgin’ passage Matthew tells us “Now after Jesus was born…� (Matt. 2:1). If that passage is an insertion, Matthew goes from genealogy to after the birth with no commentary on the birth itself. Having that passage in from the beginning makes it much smoother. And go read Matthew – he is smooth.

We may note about the passage itself that the ‘virgin’ aspect is incidental. The word is first mentioned when quoting the prophecy that has just been ‘fulfilled’. Matthew first tells us that Mary is betrothed but not yet married. This is entirely in keeping with the original sense of the Hebrew word ’almah’ as opposed to literal physical ‘virgin’. It is the later more elaborate stories that carry on so much about physical virginity.

All in all, it still seems most likely to me that Matthew originated the story in order to have yet another scriptural prophecy ‘fulfilled’. And considering that he and his community are very Jewish in their outlook, it is doubtful that Matthew did this in imitation of other religions. For that idea to even be in the air would turn off his audience in a minute.