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?

[notachance]

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?

Hey Thatgirlagain.

Does an original copy of Origen's commentary of Matthew exist today?

In which museum is it being held? Is it open to the public? Do you know of anybody that has read it? Is there any text I can buy or read online that certifiably is a direct translation of that currently existing original document by Origen?

I am not stating that Origen's work has been destroyed and that we're relying on subsequent copies from decades later by unknown authors. I'm not saying that.

But I'm not going to randomly assume that the reference to the virgin birth is in the original 240ish AD original, if the original doesn't exist, and we're relying on copies of that work from anonymous translators. Makes sense?

Present evidence that we possess today a document reliably carbon dated to prior to 325 AD referencing Jesus's virgin birth, and I will retract my earlier claim that 325 Ad is the first time the virgin birth claim appears.

I'm assuming this is entire sub-debate is in the context of an agreement between us that there is ZERO reason to take the claim from unknown author at an unknown time that Jesus was born of a virgin, more seriously than the other 20+ similar claims about other people. Am I correct in this assumption?

[ThatGirlAgain]

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 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.

Eusebius dates Origen’s Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew at around 248 CE. If we are to doubt that and instead say that this (and all the many other works of Origen?) were in fact created after 325 and that the Gospel of Matthew (and the Gospel of Luke of course) were modified in 325 to create the idea of a virgin birth is starting to sound a lot like a conspiracy theory. It would mean fabricating new sections in the exact style, word usage etc. of the two very different authors.

In any case, the idea of a virgin birth was already around in other early material such as the non-canonical Ascension of Isaiah, written probably in the 2nd century.

The book Ascension of Isaiah is one of the Pseudepigrapha. Theories as to the date of its composition place it in a range from the late 1st century AD to the second half of the 2nd century AD. As for its authorship, it is believed almost universally to be a compilation of several texts completed by an unknown Christian scribe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Isaiah

Ascension of Isaiah
CHAPTER 11
AFTER this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: "Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz; for for this purpose have I been sent from God."
2. And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah.
3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

Are we to say that a non-canonical work was also forged to lend support to the idea? Are we to admit the early existence of the detailed idea in Ascension but not allow it in the original Matthew and Luke? Is not the notion that Matthew grabbed the idea of ‘virgin’ from the Greek Septuagint and used it to tie Jesus to the OT, something he does almost continuously in his Gospel, an entirely reasonable one? Why is there any reason to even suspect that this was a later addition?

I do not need a slam dunk case. My position is the least problematic one. It is the idea of a later addition that needs justification, and I do not see any.

[Furrowed Brow]

OK wiki seems to attribute the existing version of the Origen commentary to a Latin 6th century copy. The intro in the link you gave says

Of the numerous quotations from Matthew only one (Matt. xxi. 35) can be definitely traced to this section of the writings of Origen; and as this differs greatly from our present text, and is moreover purely narrative, it is probably taken like the others either from the Scholia (commaticum interpretation is genus), or from the Homilies to which reference is made by Jerome (Prol. in Matt. I. iv). The majority of them may be ascribed to the Scholia.

Matthew 21:35 is not the verse in question and the other books are attributed to Latin versions.

From all this I deduce Origen wrote a commentary on Matthew probably in the time frame 246-248. What exactly in its detail the original said we can only infer. Maybe it had a reference to the virgin birth, maybe that is the most likely answer, but we cannot say with certainty, and unless we can pin down the provenance of the Latin text the possibility that the reference is a later insertion remains: which brings me back to my basic point we have no reference of a virgin birth on any version of Matthew or any version of a commentary before 350; the argument then boils down to questions of plausibility and interpretation of the data we do have.

[notachance]

ThatGirlAgain:

Let's stop beating around the bushes.

Please provide the name, location and verified dating of the earliest written mention of Jesus's virgin birth.

Here's the earliest I could find:
Name: Codex Vaticanus
Location: Vatican City
Verified date of creation: Circa 325 AD

Please, please, please, don't start giving me a list of documents you THINK might have existed but we can't verify because they've been destroyed millennia ago.

Just fill in the blanks:
Name of manuscript: _______________
Current location: ________________
Verified date of creation: _____________


Also, on a separate topic. Let's IMAGINE that the first time the virgin birth of Jesus story was introduced was not 325 years after his birth, but 100 years after his birth. Or 50 years after his birth. Or 15 minutes after his birth.

Does that make the story of Jesus's miraculous birth any more believable than the dozens of the other miraculous birth stories? That's a yes or no answer.

[Furrowed Brow]

The chapter and verses that contain a reference to a virgin birth are Matthew 1:18-25 . As far as I can tell this passage does not appear on any surviving papyrus. I’ll accept correction on this. If the earliest appearance in extant documents of the reference of a virgin birth is the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus then the time period is around 325-360 and we then can’t with any certainty say it was in Matthew until the early mid to mid 4th century. References to later Latin texts that reference the likes of Origen became pretty much meaningless written 6th century given the accepted canon had already put it in Matthew since the mid 4th.They are not going to leave it out if it was there and they are not going to leave it out if it was not there given it was already canon. If Origen had failed to mention the virgin birth it seems more than plausible a later scribe would have felt the need to interpolate Origen’s commentary. We need a 3rd century copy of Matthew or Origin’s original commentary to place the virgin birth in Matthew 3rd century beyond all reasonable doubt.

Is there anything majorly wrong with this line of reasoning?

Is there a reference to the virgin birth on an extant copy of Luke that predates 325? If not we can only say for sure the virgin birth was an idea that was accepted doctrine and part of the gospels by the mid 4th century. What have we got to place it earlier?

[Goat]

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.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Hey Thatgirlagain.

Does an original copy of Origen's commentary of Matthew exist today?

In which museum is it being held? Is it open to the public? Do you know of anybody that has read it? Is there any text I can buy or read online that certifiably is a direct translation of that currently existing original document by Origen?

I am not stating that Origen's work has been destroyed and that we're relying on subsequent copies from decades later by unknown authors. I'm not saying that.

But I'm not going to randomly assume that the reference to the virgin birth is in the original 240ish AD original, if the original doesn't exist, and we're relying on copies of that work from anonymous translators. Makes sense?

Present evidence that we possess today a document reliably carbon dated to prior to 325 AD referencing Jesus's virgin birth, and I will retract my earlier claim that 325 Ad is the first time the virgin birth claim appears.

I'm assuming this is entire sub-debate is in the context of an agreement between us that there is ZERO reason to take the claim from unknown author at an unknown time that Jesus was born of a virgin, more seriously than the other 20+ similar claims about other people. Am I correct in this assumption?

I would say your assumption is incorrect.

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. 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.

Matthew's stock in trade was references to the OT making Jesus the 'predicted' culmination of the trajectory of Jewish history, or otherwise invoking OT authority. Matthew especially liked to reference Isaiah. The Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures uses the word ‘virgin’ in reference to a prophesied figure. Matthew references this. It would be surprising if he did not. The man was so obsessed with literal references to scriptures that he even has Jesus enter Jerusalem on two animals to exactly match the wording of a prophesy.

The multiple references to a virgin birth do not agree with each other in detail yet all preserve the basic Matthean theme, and the styles of each of these passages agree with the general styles of the respective works. To require the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus to appear no earlier than 325 would imply that each of these works as well as Origen was modified to include the idea by experts in forgery, yet not put in accord with a common story. And remember that two of the works are even non-canonical. Sorry but this is just too weird to take seriously.

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.

And you did not just claim that the earliest surviving record of the Matthean virgin birth dates from 325. (And once more why exactly 325?) You stated …

…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.

That requires too wacky of a conspiracy theory for credibility.

[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.

[notachance]

Hey Thatgirlagain.

Does an original copy of Origen's commentary of Matthew exist today?

In which museum is it being held? Is it open to the public? Do you know of anybody that has read it? Is there any text I can buy or read online that certifiably is a direct translation of that currently existing original document by Origen?

I am not stating that Origen's work has been destroyed and that we're relying on subsequent copies from decades later by unknown authors. I'm not saying that.

But I'm not going to randomly assume that the reference to the virgin birth is in the original 240ish AD original, if the original doesn't exist, and we're relying on copies of that work from anonymous translators. Makes sense?

Present evidence that we possess today a document reliably carbon dated to prior to 325 AD referencing Jesus's virgin birth, and I will retract my earlier claim that 325 Ad is the first time the virgin birth claim appears.

I'm assuming this is entire sub-debate is in the context of an agreement between us that there is ZERO reason to take the claim from unknown author at an unknown time that Jesus was born of a virgin, more seriously than the other 20+ similar claims about other people. Am I correct in this assumption?

I would say your assumption is incorrect.

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. 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.

Matthew's stock in trade was references to the OT making Jesus the 'predicted' culmination of the trajectory of Jewish history, or otherwise invoking OT authority. Matthew especially liked to reference Isaiah. The Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures uses the word ‘virgin’ in reference to a prophesied figure. Matthew references this. It would be surprising if he did not. The man was so obsessed with literal references to scriptures that he even has Jesus enter Jerusalem on two animals to exactly match the wording of a prophesy.

The multiple references to a virgin birth do not agree with each other in detail yet all preserve the basic Matthean theme, and the styles of each of these passages agree with the general styles of the respective works. To require the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus to appear no earlier than 325 would imply that each of these works as well as Origen was modified to include the idea by experts in forgery, yet not put in accord with a common story. And remember that two of the works are even non-canonical. Sorry but this is just too weird to take seriously.

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.

And you did not just claim that the earliest surviving record of the Matthean virgin birth dates from 325. (And once more why exactly 325?) You stated …

…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.

That requires too wacky of a conspiracy theory for credibility.

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.

[Goat]

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.