Discuss the historicity of the virginal conception. Alexandra Roadknight.

The historicity of the virginal conception has been subject to considerable debate for
several centuries. Ever since it was said that Jesus ‘was incarnate of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary’, it has been open to speculation as to how far it can be
considered true. There are many myths surrounding the virginal conception which
have been proposed by various sectors of the Christian faith and which need to be
examined in order to determine the historicity of the subject.

“When the time was fully come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under
the law, to redeem those who were under the law.” (Galatians 4: 4-5) In the New
Testament, this appears to be as close as it can get to accounts of Jesus’ birth. It
discusses the birth of Jesus from a woman, yet nothing about his conception, and this
lack of discussion in such a text as the New Testament, apart from that discussed in
Luke and Matthew, seems only to imply that the idea of the virginal conception,
would not have been used as part of early church teaching and was possibly not
highly thought of. This may well have been to do with how Mary, a woman, was
being portrayed at the time.

However, quite on the contrary, Mary, a virgin woman, would have been one of the
more vital influences in the conception process, with the Holy Spirit conceiving inside
her, a child, Christ, who had no biological father of human decent. Many early
Christians such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian back up this concept and
follow it’s scriptural basis. However there are some discrepancies with regards to the
idea of the ‘virginal conception’ which should be discussed and in many cases ruled
out.

Clement of Alexandria highlighted the idea of ‘Virginitas in partu.’ This is the

name given to the theory that Mary gave birth to Jesus in such a way that she did not
experience any pain during the birth. Also, this theory puts forward the suggestion
that after Jesus was born Mary’s hymen was still intact. Even though these ideas were
accepted by Clement of Alexandria and appeared in the Gnostic ‘Ascension of
Isaiah’1 in the late first century, they receive much opposition today. Studying God’s
own words; ‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring
forth children.’ forms one argument against the idea that Mary did not experience
pain. (Genesis 3:15) After studying this quote it is clear that God intended women, all
women, to experience pain in childbirth. Therefore, it is easily concluded by many
that Mary must have experienced pain. However, one argument against this is that
Jesus was free from sin and hence would not have caused his mother pain. On the
other hand, Jesus was sent into the world by God to live a human life and therefore,
we would expect his birth to be like any other human birth would have been at the
time, causing considerable pain and stress to the expecting mother. The belief that
Mary did experience labour pains is further supported by the Catholic interpretation of
Revelations (12:2). ‘She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony
of giving birth.’ The Roman Catholics believe that the woman in the quote was Mary

1
Graef, MaryH, 43.
and that she was therefore not free from ‘birth pangs.’ Tertullian2 was opposed to the
beliefs that Mary did not experience pain and that she gave birth in a way as to keep
her hymen intact. Tertullian also strongly disagreed with the belief of perpetual
virginity with regards to Mary.

The Roman Catholics believed that Mary was an ‘everlasting’ virgin. The term for
this was Viringitas post partum which is interpreted to be perpetual virginity. The
Roman Catholics did present a justified and logical explanation to support their belief.
Quoting Luke (1:34) “Mary said to the angel, ‘how can this be, since I am a virgin?’”
They took this to mean that Mary had vowed to always remain a virgin. In some
biblical translations this same quote translates as ‘I know not a man’ which they again
took to mean that Mary had made a conscious decision not to ever know a man.
However, there are a number of arguments presented against the belief that Mary
remained a virgin throughout her life. Firstly, Mary said to the Angel Gabriel that ‘I
am a virgin’, not that she wanted to remain a virgin forever. Therefore, this quote
should not be interpreted as a future intention but just as how Mary was at the time of
the conversation with the Angel. A second point, which provides evidence against the
idea that Mary remained a virgin, was that she was already betrothed to Joseph.
Matthew (1:25) reports that Joseph “had no marital relations with her (Mary) until she
had borne a son and he named him Jesus.” This clearly implies that Joseph had
marital relations with Mary after she had given birth to Jesus which obviously rules
out the belief that she did not have sex even in her marriage to Joseph.

A third argument against the idea that Mary and Joseph lived in a sexless marriage is
the numerous hints in the bible that Jesus had brothers who were born to Mary and
Joseph. One such quotation can be found in Matthew (13:55) “Is not his mother called
Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.” One
interpretation of this is that James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were literally Jesus’
brothers. On the other hand, the term ‘brother’ is often used as an affectionate way to
describe Jesus’ close friends and followers. Nevertheless, the fact that the sentence
preceding it gives direct mention to Jesus’ actual mother suggests that they might in
fact have been his actual brothers. However, at Jesus’ crucifixion he turned to his
mother and said “’Woman, here is your son.’ Then he turned to the disciple (John),
‘Here is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.”
The fact that Jesus instructed John to look after Mary suggests that Jesus did not have
any brothers because if he had have had brothers then it would be expected that they
would take care of their mother Mary after Jesus’ death.

Once these common myths and misconceptions with regards to the virginal
conception have been analysed and irradiated we are able to delve deeper into the
facts associated with the conception.

A famous writer on the subject, Brown3 clearly states that the virginal conception
"would have become the subject of preaching (and therefore likely to be included in
the kind of writing we find in the New Testament) only when its christological
significance was seen." Brown also observes that Christ was not tainted by the
original sin is the main theological doctrine associated with the virginal conception
2
Graef, MaryH, 43
3
Brow.BirM, 521
and that this was first cited by Augustine. Therefore, taking these factors into account
it can be suggested that the writers of the New Testament did not place any
importance or observe any christological significance in the virginal conception.
However, by saying that we mean that they did not place any more significance on
this compared with the other miracles which Jesus performed in his lifetime. If that
was the case then it is not surprising if the writers of the New Testament did not see
the need in going out of their way to write about the virginal conception. We can also
infer from the silence of the New Testament that the virginal conception was probably
not used by evangelists to call other people to the Christian faith. Brown believes that
if the virgin conception had been more widely reported in the New Testament and
therefore used as a tool with which to preach and encourage people into the church
then it would have “opened Jesus’ origins to ridicule and calumny” 4. Even though
Brown did not explain why he thought this, we can easily speculate. One theory is
that there would be inevitable comparisons to pagan myths or the charge of
illegitimacy (not to dissimilar to today).

Many historians have similar views to Brown on the subject. One such person is
Campenhausen 5 who confirmed Brown’s claims and also went into more detail in
some areas. Campenhausen was sceptical of the virginal conception and this is
probably what led him to perform a survey of the theology of the virginal conception
in the early church. He has been quoted as saying that the virgin conception was
"anything but the starting point of the early Christian message." Campenhausen did
not expand on this statement by explaining why he believed that the virgin conception
was not the starting point of the early Christian message however, he did observe that
the virgin conception was regarded at an essential part of the doctrine only in the time
of Ireneaus. He also noted that there were hints of its theological importance being
found in the works of Justin (c. 150 AD). Campenhausen’s views on the subject can
be summarised when he wrote, “...the doctrine of the virgin birth was not formulated
for the sake of a theological line of thought; it is simply a supposedly 'apostolic' piece
of biblical tradition that was handed down.”
Therefore, it has been seen that Brown and Campenhausen have similar views on the
virginal conception. It can be seen from the Bible that when Matthew and Luke
reported the virgin conception it was not seen in a christological perspective.
Therefore, since this is the case, there is no reason for it to appear in Paul’s letter or
anywhere else in the New Testament. Taking that into account there is no reason for it
to be reported in Mark or John either. It is worth noting that in the preaching of Acts
the preaching begins with Jesus’ baptism by John and not with his Birth. Even though
there was no reason to report the virginal conception in Mark or John, it can be argued
that it could and maybe should have been reported in Matthew and Luke. Matthew
wished to link it to the fulfilment of the prophecy 6 and Luke consistently showed
special interest in the life of Mary.
Finally, theories have been presented to say that the virgin conception was directly
alluded to in John’s Gospel. John 1:12-13 says, “ 12Yet to all who received him, to
those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
13
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but
born of God.” If this is studied in the singular instead of the plural then it does

4
Brow.VirgRes, 61
5
VonCamp.VBT
6
Is. 7:14
indicate a virginal conception. However, this idea is subject to widespread criticism
and therefore should be treated with caution.
Genesis 3:15 mentions a concept that could be linked to the virginal conception
referring to the ‘seed’.
“ … and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring
and hers; and he will strike your head and you will strike his heel.”(NRSV).
Many writers of the early church saw this as the first time that the Gospel was brought
about in the Bible so far. With regards to the “offspring” or ‘seed’ it could be seen as
a reference to Christ being the ‘seed’ of a woman, which is unusual as common
practice in the time that the Bible was written named the father rather than the mother
of a child, for example Genesis 5 discussed Adam’s descendants to Noah. There was
no mention of the mother that carried their children and this was how it was almost
exclusively displayed at the time. Therefore the discussion of her offspring stands out
and could lead to the notion that maybe it is possible that there was a virginal
conception.
This idea of Mary being the only mentioned parent is brought up in the Gospels and
this time follows Mark. He does not include a birth narrative in his works however he
is the only one from the synoptists that shows people saying of Jesus,
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary.” 7
Again in these times, it would have been rare for the woman to have been quoted as
the parental figure rather than the husband, and if so it could often be interpreted as
implying that Mary was promiscuous around the time of the conception. It is likely
that the objectors in Nazareth, and therefore also Mark, were aware of the idea of
Jesus’ conception and were not all that convinced by it. This is supported in John’s
Gospel where he also quotes no narrative of the birth of Jesus, however he seems also
to be very much aware that many speak of Christ as being illegitimate when he quotes
in 8:41 that the Jews had said to Jesus,
“We are not illegitimate children, we have one father; God himself.” 8. This and
other passages seem to hint that John was a believer in the virginal conception.9

7
Mk 6:3 NRSV
8
Jn 8:41 NRSV
9
Barrett, GosJohn, pp. 164 and 348
Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion 1:34, Sheed and Warde, NY,
1963.

C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John, London, pp. 164 and 348, 2nd ed. 1978.

Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah. New York: Image Books, 1977.

Brown, Raymond E. The Virgin Birth and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. New York:
Paulist Press, 1973.

Campenhausen, Hans von. The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the Ancient Church.
Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, 1964.

N.T. Wright, The resurrection of the Son of God , London: SPCK 2004