What do you do when your minister makes the bold claim that Jesus was definitely not born of a virgin? That when Matthew states Mary was a virgin, the word Matthew used didn’t actually mean virgin. Or that virgin births were a common trope, that even the Emperor was said to be born of a virgin.
Personally, I’d find a new minister. Now, it’s not that they questioned the birth of Jesus. A healthy bit of skepticism can be a good thing. Really diving into and examining these stories builds a healthy faith. But there is a point where one moves past skepticism and into the realm of conspiracy theory.
So, let’s dive into this. While debating what individual words mean within the Greek can be a fun academic exercise, in this case, it really doesn’t add anything of importance to the narrative.
In this case, the verse in question is Matthew 1:23, where the author is quoting from Isaiah; “Look, the parthenos shall conceive and bear a son.”
Matthew here is quoting from the Septuagint, which was the Greek version of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Old Testament). This is where the academic gymnastics can come into play, which as I said, can be fun. The Hebrew text of Isaiah here uses the term almah, which refers to a young woman who is of childbearing years. This term almah was then translated to the Greek parthenos, which generally means young woman as well.
Young woman wasn’t the only meaning of parthenos though. Depending on the qualifiers, it could mean other things, such as virgin. Now, none of this actually matters when reading Matthew. One thing that I tell people all the time is that context matters. And when we look at this passage as a whole, what Matthew is intending here is very clear.
Starting at verse 18, Matthew makes it exceptionally clear that Mary was a virgin, that Joseph never even lived with her. Joseph is then reassured that Mary hadn’t slept with anyone else, but that the baby she was pregnant with was conceived of the Holy Spirit. He goes as far as to say that even after she was pregnant, and the two were married, there was still no “martial relations” between them.
It’s a point that Matthew hammers down time and time again, as he wants to make a point very clear; there is no other possible father besides God, as Mary was still a virgin.
What we have to remember when reading the Bible, or any text, is that context matters. Ignoring the context means that we miss out on what is actually being said. Missing the context is one thing though. Spreading conspiracy theories is another.
Other Virgin Births
When looking at important historical figures, it’s not uncommon to come upon a miraculous birth story. Looking at the Roman Emperors, a number of them were said to have been born through the union of a god and their mothers. Within Jewish writings, and even with John the Baptist, we see women who are barren, couples who are well past their child-bearing years, becoming pregnant through miraculous means.
Taking it a step further, and looking at the birth stories of the gods from other religions, we naturally find miraculous births. The concept of a miraculous birth was not unheard of during the time of Jesus. But were any of these other births said to have been virgin births? The answer is a clear no.
Looking through the primary texts, there simply is no mention of virgin births. So how did the idea that virgin births were common ever arise? The answer is one man from the 1800s made it all up. His name was Kersey Graves.
In 1875, Kersey Graves wrote a book titled The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors. This book, in many ways, has become the crux of the Christ-Myth theory, the idea that Jesus never existed. It is with this book that the claim that other various individuals were born of virgins, and the story of Jesus was simply copied from them, first appears.
The problem is, Graves generally doesn’t cite his sources, and when he does, they are dubious at best. Often, he will jump to conclusions that aren’t based on even the information he’s presenting, and that’s when he’s not mixing what he presents as facts with his own opinions.
It was not until 1875 that the idea that any of the individuals Graves mentions were ever said to be born of virgins. Where Graves got this idea, we simply don’t know. He may have made it all up, or thought he was inspired to document these ideas. What we do know for sure is that the information he puts forth is not found in any of our primary sources.
It is from Graves that this idea comes from, and to which it always goes back to. Because even though nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of Graves work, no evidence, no sources, not a single citation has been brought forth supporting the idea of these other virgin births.
So, Virgin Birth?
Where does this all put the virgin birth then? Can we say definitively that it happened or not? This is the center point from which the rest of this series will follow. When speaking of Jesus, there are two distinct views we must consider; the Jesus of History, and the Christ of Faith.
When it comes to the Jesus of history, speaking from a historical perspective, we can neither confirm nor deny that the virgin birth happened. History can’t give a definitive answer there. Instead, we have to look at probability. What is most probable?
Miracles by definition are the least likely thing to occur. That doesn’t mean they can’t occur. It’s historically possible that Jesus was literally born of a virgin. But virgin births are not probable. The most probable thing is that Mary and Joseph were intimate, and that Jesus was conceived through that union. But again, that doesn’t mean that is what actually happened. History often doesn’t deal with absolutes.
Moving to the Christ of Faith, one could affirm the virgin birth if they wanted. They could also deny it. Either way, it is the story itself that we should look at in order to find the truth that the authors meant to portray.
Whether one takes the virgin birth stories literally or not, there is truth to be found within them. Too often people get caught up in debating the authenticity of the accounts without actually seeing them for what they are. For the believer, regardless of how it’s read, it tells us that Jesus is special. That he is the son of God. Was he born this way, or did he become the son later, it doesn’t matter.
We can go further, and looking at the birth story in Matthew see that Jesus is a new Moses. That is the truth Matthew is trying to present. The story of this young Jesus is so very similar to that of the child Moses, who has to be whisked away from a tyrant. For Matthew, Jesus was this new Moses who would deliver us.
If the story is literal or not, it doesn’t matter because that truth can still stand. The meaning is still there.
To ignore that truth, that meaning, and instead preach about how there was definitely no virgin birth, that it was just some made-up thing to fit in, and that one term doesn’t even mean virgin, misses all of what matters in that story.