The myth of the virgin birth

According to a recent Newsweek poll, 67% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. By any measurement our collective belief in the supernatural is unique for an advanced industrial society. Our fellow citizens believe in angels, aliens, and a host of imaginary beings.

I devote the majority of my time in this journal to attacking many of the myths and misconceptions we hold regarding our country and the world around us: the media has a liberal bias, the death penalty deters crime, war works, and a host of other issues. But as the biggest Christian holiday on the calendar rolls around, I thought it would be fun to take a look at the central myth surrounding Jesus: that he was born of a virgin.

Myth? What am I talking about? This has nothing to do with my belief or disbelief in the supernatural at all. In fact, my argument lives within the pages of the Bible. I will try to be as clear as possible. Let me explain.

The belief that Jesus was born of a virgin rests on two biblical quotes:

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

As you can see, the author of Matthew quotes the verses from Isaiah in refrence to the belief that Jesus was born a virgin as a sign of prophecy. The problem? Isaiah did not use the Hebrew word for virgin (bethulah) but instead used the Hebrew term almah, which simply means a young maiden. In fact, Isaiah 7:14 is correctly translated in the New Revised Standard Version, and the New Jerusalem Bible. I use the New Revised Standard Version.

The quote above is typically what people will find when learning about the virgin birth. Like most alleged prophecies it is taken out of context in such a way as to lead the believer to assume it must be referring to Jesus. Let me quote a fuller section of the text in question to give it context:

Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey and by the time he knows how to refuse evil and choose good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings are in dread will be deserted. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah--the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:14-17)

Where most Christian theologians stop quoting gives the distinct impression that the sign god will give his people is that a virgin will give birth. However, when read in its greater context, it is clear that the pregnancy and birth of the child is not the sign at all, but is merely to give a reference of time to his listeners. Isaiah is telling his people that within the time frame of this baby being born, and knowing good from evil (about the age of eight) the kings we dread will be no more. Also note that the baby is not to be named Jesus, but Immanuel.

Various theories exist that attempt to explain how this happened. One theory posits that the Virgin Birth story began as a polemic against Talmudic writings which depicted Jesus as the bastard son of a Roman soldier. While I favor this theory, I won't delve into it simply because it can be a bit confusing for those not already familiar with biblical scholarship. Furthermore, I believe a much simpler theory does a very good job of explaining this discrepancy.

It was based on a mistranslation. You see, many first century Jews, including Jesus and his disciples, relied upon the Greek translation of their Hebrew scriptures: The Septuagint. The Septuagint mistranslated Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek word parthenos, which is the word for virgin. Matthew probably used this version and thus this was probably the source for his error.

Obviously such a direct assault against such a dearly held myth has not gone unnoticed. Various theologians have attempted to attack this analysis. I won't go into all the counter arguments here simply because it would take too much time. But I will address one point that is raised in response to this analysis.

One argument states that since this is a prophecy a miracle must be implied. Since a natural birth is not miraculous we must infer that a virgin is meant. I found this response by James D. Price:

Now if the *'almah* conceived by natural means, then no miracle occurred. Young women conceive regularly by natural means. There is nothing miraculous about that. The only way the conception could be a miraculous sign would be for it to be supernatural. Thus, it is appropriate to conclude that the word *'almah* means "virgin" here also.

As I stated earlier, the use of the imagery of a woman having a baby is to give the listener a time line. The miracle isn't that a virgin is going to have a baby, but that within a short time (by the time this baby knows right from wrong) God will deliver the Jews from these kings.

Most the other arguments are either grammatical or are deeply tied to a familiarity with Hebrew that would make them tedious to explain and boring to read.

Jesus was conceived in a very natural way. He came about the way the rest of us came about. That doesn't mean we have to throw away our Christmas trees and take our gifts back. Celebrate the birth of Jesus. Celebrate our collective goodness. Celebrate the spirit of family and cooperation. Celebrate, enjoy, and have fun.

I wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

| +Save/Share | |