Arguments for the Historicity of the Virgin Birth

On the other hand, there are numerous arguments for the historicity of the virginal conception. One of the main arguments is that Matthew and Luke—despite the differences in their birth narratives—are two independent accounts of the virginal conception. In addition, several New Testament texts demonstrate an awareness of the viriginal conception:

• Mark 6:3 and John 8:41 (the same verses that Shaberg and Crossan appeal to) demonstrate that even the two Gospels with no infancy narratives show awareness of the mysterious circumstances of Jesus’ birth.

• Paul may demonstrate an awareness of the virginal conception in Gal 4:4 (“born of a woman”) and in Rom 1:3, where he uses a verb that means “become,” rather than “born” (translated “descended [γίνομαι, ginomai] from David”).

• The author of Hebrews may show an awareness of Jesus’ mysterious birth when comparing Jesus with Melchizedek, who was “without father or mother” (Heb 7:3).

Furthermore, the claim that Matthew created the story as a narrative midrash for Isa 7:14, is not demanded from the prophecy. The Hebrew and Greek words used do not have to mean a celibate woman. Raymond Brown has argued that Matthew used a source to which he later added the quotation, in the same ways he did when using Mark as a source (Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 143). Another argument for the historicity of the event is that a virginal conception was not part of early Jewish messianic beliefs. It is therefore not theologically necessary when proving Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. Ultimately, there could be no good reason to invent this story, as it raised the same intellectual questions for the early church that it raises for the church today.