A Reflection On The Virginal Conception And Birth Of Jesus

The Virgin Shall Conceive: A Reflection On The Virginal Conception And Birth Of Jesus

BY: AUGUSTINE ANYIMADU-AHENKAE

“Sacrifice and offering you did not please, but a body you have prepared for me…then

I said behold I have come…to do your will O God” (Heb 10: 5, 7 cf Ps 40: 6)

CRITICISING THE CRITICS

Imagine you one day decide to find out the truth about a US Democratic president,

President M’s performance in office, and the only piece of information handed you is

an article or book entitled, “The Whole Truth About President M’s Reign- An

Objective Analysis” written by his Republican Opponent who wants to defeat incumbent

President M in the next elections. What kind of “definitive truth” will be included

in such a book, how unbiased will it be, and what will be the likely conclusion for

anyone whose only source of information about President M is that book or article?

Change the parties to NDC and NPP, if you are in Ghana, to get the point home. And,

if you really want to know the truth, will you just jump to conclusion after reading

that book alone, or you will seek information from other sources?

Consequently, why should we trust the conclusions of a so-called “Islamic scholar”

on a subject like the virgin birth of Jesus, or an avowed traditionalist or atheist,

without comparing their so called evidence with facts from the other side as well?

Our elders back home used to say, that “AKOKO ANTWIWAA BESA ABU NE PA DWE DWE SEN

ARA A ENNYE AKROMA FE DA”, to wit, “no matter how beautifully the hen will dance, it

will never please the hawk”. Why? Because the hawk just doesn’t like the hen, and

wants to eat it. How so quickly the imperative for objectivity eludes these critics,

the imperative that “WOTAN OKWADUO A WOYI NE MMIRIKA”, literally, “no matter how

much you hate the duiker, you have to give it credit for its speed”.

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, like other Christian doctrines especially

those involving the miraculous, and just like Christ himself, has faced a lot of

criticisms from left, right and center from the very beginning – even right at the

Apostolic times! The question is, why the hue and cry? Why do others care so much

about our faith when we ourselves are okay with it? The answers are not far-fetched.

An analysis of the critics reveal an interesting fact: the critics don’t criticize

because they seriously believe it is not a historical fact – at least not those

earlier ones like the second century critics who were so close to the event as not

to be able to mount any successful attack on its historicity- No! They rather attack

because it disturbs them- it challenges their own faith, doctrines, philosophy, etc.

Like the Jews, who disliked Jesus because his claims to divinity offended their

conceived notions of God and Messiahship (they

told Pontius Pilate “we have a law, and according to our law he must die, because

he, being man, makes himself God”), critics of Christian doctrines dislike

christianity for many things among which are its claims to being unique, necessary

path to salvation, the miraculous, etc. And, like the devil who disguises himself

as an angel of light, many of these atheists and pagan apologists, among others,

hide behind the catch phrase “telling the truth”, - their versions of the truth of

course-without really telling their readers their ulterior motives – to sow seeds

of unbelief in whomever they can sway away.

Let’s analyze for example the backgrounds of those who oppose the virgin birth

doctrine:

- Atheists – who reject God and therefore anything miraculous: how can they accept

the virgin birth, which is a “sign” (miracle)?

-Even though the Quran talks affirmatively about the Virgin birth of Jesus in

Chapter 3 from verses 43 upwards, and Islam does not have any issue against it, I

will understand it if an Islamic scholar rejects the Virgin birth, a doctrine so

central to the uniqueness of Jesus’ nature as Son of God, a fact which raises Him

above all the other prophets including Islam’s founder.

- Adherents of paganism, who will have nothing to do with Christianity’s “impetuous”

claims to being the true way to God. ‘What about them?’

- Mordenist Theologians following the lead of Rudolf Bultmann, especially his

disciple Uta Ranke-Heinemann. The open secret is that these scholars reject God’s

intervention in the course of human history, hence reject the miraculous, and

therefore have big problems with doctrines that involve claim to miracles.

Consequently, while admitting that there was a historical Jesus, they would deny his

virgin birth, and ascribe to him a natural birth – almost like the Ebionites. The

danger of a lazy or ignorant “researcher” quoting from such a source as these

scholars, for example, is that they will not tell you in their criticism that they

reject the miraculous, but will try to find other “reasons” to reject it, so without

doing due homework you would not see their ulterior motives!

- Some Adherents or sympathizers of traditional religions, like African Traditional

Religion, who mistakenly antagonize Christianity and call it the white man’s

religion. Do they know when Christianity really stepped on the shores of Africa?

That Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus carry his cross, or the Ethiopian Eunuch in

the Acts of the Apostles were all Africans and they carried the gospel back home? Do

they know that on the day of Pentecost when the church was inaugurated, Africans

were also there, and the Holy Spirit made the disciples speak tongues in African

dialects too (Acts 2:10)? I’ll write on this some time, but the point here is,

Christianity belongs in Africa as much as it belongs anywhere else: we were there

from the beginning- nay, even before the beginning (“out of Egypt I have called my

son”)- we have been there ever since, and yes, even before some of those we think

brought Christ to us !

- Some writers I see on ghanaweb, Andy Kwawukume and Kwaku Ba, who keep ridiculing

and maligning Christianity and all Christian doctrines they don’t understand. Their

fallacious arguments, arguing “cum hoc ergo propter hoc” as well as “post hoc ergo

propter hoc” (Implying cause from correlation) have already been raised by others in

history- the pagan origin theory- and easily dispelled.

-In the late first and through the second centuries – heretics like the Gnostics,

Docetics, Ebionites, later Marcionists etc etc.

For instance, Docetics – from the Greek ‘DOKEO’ –I appear or I seem, contended that

Christ only appeared human, but wasn’t actually human. Hence they denied the

humanity of Christ. A look into their main philosophy however reveals that they

believed matter was evil and that spirit was good, so accepting doctrines like the

virgin birth which implied Jesus was God and man, meaning the good has mingled with

the evil, was not possible for them. So they would argue that Jesus was not actually

a man, but he just appeared to be or seemed like man. Point is, how objective would

such a criticism of the virgin birth from a docetic standpoint, for instance, be?

How true would it be – since the underlying reason is not to seek the historical

accuracy of the doctrine - of whether Christ was actually and historically born of a

virgin – but to defend the docetic’s own dualistic philosophy?

The Gnostics took docetism to an extreme point. From the Greek “gnosis”, knowledge,

or “ginosko”,

I know, they held that one needed a special esoteric knowledge to escape

materiality, but they also denied the humanity and virgin birth of Jesus, for the

same reason as the docetics.

The Ebionites were a section of Jewish Christians who still could not accept Jesus

as God, and hence they denied Jesus’ divinity. Consequently, they denied the virgin

birth.

We could go on, but we see that underlying each rejection is an ulterior motive

springing from the critic’s own faith, philosophy or tenet which may be incompatible

with the unique claims of Jesus and his followers, and for which reason proper quest

for the historical truth is thrown backstage. It is like trying to dispute a claim

that a member of a particular family has become a doctor by arguing why he cannot

be, instead of going to find out from where he works or the school that passed him

out whether he actually passed there as a doctor. All the critics needed to do in

this case was to ascertain the historicity of the event – that’s all! But modernist

scholarly critics like the Bultmanian faction know too much to question the

historicity of the Jesus event, because they know they wouldn’t succeed on that

path, just like earlier critics – Ebionites, Docetics, Gnostics, Marcionites and

others down the ages, have never dared question whether

there was a historical Jesus, because they also knew too much to go that way. Only

copy and paste critics who copy blindly pages of books written by anti-christian

scholars, like the Kwaku Ba- Kwawukume group, will dare question the fact of a

historical Jesus, because they themselves don’t know what they are talking about,

and only copied from spurious sources. In the end, Jesus – and his ontological

truth as the Son of God, born of a virgin – just like other truths about Him,

remain as solid as ever, amidst all the ridicule, rejection, and controversies,

because these are all historical facts !

THE VIRGIN BIRTH: WHAT ARE WE SAYING?

Alright, so what do we mean by the virgin conception and birth of Jesus? That is not

the same as Immaculate Conception of Mary, mind you. In simple terms, the doctrine

of the virgin birth says that

‘the Blessed Mother of Jesus Christ was a virgin before, during, and after the

conception and birth of her Divine Son’. Further explained, it means that:

- Jesus was not born of a human father, because there was no male seed in his

conception

- His mother conceived her by the power of the Holy Spirit

- He was therefore truly God’s son, and Mary’s son: “True God and True man”,

says the Nicene Creed.

- This miraculous event is purely and solely an act of God, necessary for our

salvation

These are the bare facts. I want to go ahead with the Biblical and Historical

proofs, among others, but for the sake of anyone who may still need further

elucidation of this truth, I provide below few paragraphs from Christianity’s most

ancient source – the Catholic Church - for explanation about the conception and

birth of our Lord Jesus by His Blessed Mother:

“

I. CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. . .

484 The Annunciation to Mary inaugurates "the fullness of time",119 (119 Gal 4:4.)

the time of the fulfillment of God's promises and preparations. Mary was invited to

conceive him in whom the "whole fullness of deity" would dwell "bodily".120 (120 Col

2:9.)The divine response to her question, "How can this be, since I know not man?",

was given by the power of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you."121(

121 Lk 1:34-35 (Gk.).)

485 The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the

Son.122 (122 Cf. Jn 16:14-15.)The Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of Life", is

sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her

to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

486 The Father's only Son, conceived as man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, is

"Christ", that is to say, anointed by the Holy Spirit, from the beginning of his

human existence, though the manifestation of this fact takes place only

progressively: to the shepherds, to the magi, to John the Baptist, to the

disciples.123 (123 Cf. Mt 1:20; 2:1-12; Lk 1:35; 2:8-20; Jn 1:31-34; 2:11.)Thus the

whole life of Jesus Christ will make manifest "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth

with the Holy Spirit and with power."124 (124 Acts 10:38.)

II. . . .BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY

487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about

Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

Mary's predestination

488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him,125 (125 Gal 4:4; Heb

10:5. )he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity

God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of

Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the

house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":126 (126 Lk 1:26-27.)

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on

the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the

coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.127(127 LG

56; cf. LG 61)

489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of

Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives

the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the

promise that she will be the mother of all the living.128(128 Cf. Gen 3:15, 20.)

By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age.129(129

Cf. Gen 18:10-14; 21:1-2.)

Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and

weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel;

Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women.130(130 Cf. 1 Cor 1:17; 1 Sam

1.)

Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for

and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are

fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is

established."131 (131 LG 55.)” (Culled from the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

484-489)

THE STARTING POINT: A HISTORICAL JESUS BORN OF A HISTORICAL VIRGIN.

The starting point of all our inquiry into the truth of this debate, in my opinion,

should be whether there was really a historical Jesus born of a historical Virgin

Mary. Once that is ascertained, everything else is an added on. Whether someone

copied the idea of virgin birth from another, whether the doctrine was a later

addition, whether some scripture was wrongly translated, or whether the miracle did

not happen- all of them should be easily settled by the veracity of a historical

Jesus born of a historical virgin. The Biblical evidences only add to our faith, but

the starting point is what that faith itself says: that there was a historical Jesus

born of a historical virgin.

On that most important score, there’s no contest. We win hands down. No serious

scholar, today or yesterday, can question the fact that there was a man who lived

2000 years ago called Jesus, and expect to be taken serious by the intellectual

community. As I pointed out earlier, critics of the earliest centuries like

Gnostics, Docetics, Ebionites, Manicheans, Marcionists and others, second century

pagan critics like Celcus, never dared question the historicity of the Jesus event,

because they were so close to the event as not to be able to deny it. Similarly,

modern scholars like the Bultmanian group who would ascribe to Jesus a natural birth

dare not question the fact of the historical Jesus whose mother was Mary. Only

uninformed critics would, and for their sake, we supply the following evidence:

1- First to second century Roman Historian, Cornelius Tactius, drawing his

sources of information from the official records of Rome, believed to be actual

reports written by Pontius Pilate, wrote about Jesus, the Christians and the burning

of Jerusalem temple in AD 70 which had been prophesied by Jesus in the gospels. He

wrote, among others:

“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated

for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the

name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at

the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous

superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the

first source of the evil, but even in Rome…”

2- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote,

"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of

Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." (Annals 15.44).

Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that

broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result,

the Jews were banished from the city.

3- Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness

which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in

Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D.

Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He

wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Thallus’ work predates the

new testament writings.

4- Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the

governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D., two hundred years before the

"deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ.

5- Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who became the court historian for

Emperor Vespasian, wrote in the “Antiquities” about many persons and events of first

century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed

associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."

He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus. And his conduct was

good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and

other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.

And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They

reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he

was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have

recounted wonders." Josephus died in 97 A.D.

6- Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references

include Justin Martyr (150 A..D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references

correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate.

The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles.

Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman

Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into

the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had

clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate,

with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the

approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening

wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

7- RECORDED IN THE TALMUD

The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation

to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. In

Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found:

"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution

took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because

he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say

anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since

nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing

before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they

should be executed. No deaths are recorded.

8- Gospel accounts corroborated by historical records and Archaeological finds

The above already show that the gospel accounts are corroborated by official and

unofficial historical records. For the sake of brevity we will not add more. Let us

emphasize here though that recent archaeological finds are all proving the

historicity of the gospel and Jesus events. Other sources like the second century

Greek satirist, Lucian of Samosata, the Syrian sage Mara Bar-Serapion, and the

Gnostic writings-dated in New Testament times (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon

of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) - among others,

all prove the historical Jesus as the Bible says.

9-The New Testament speaks of a census at the time of Christ's birth. Historical

records indicate that a census was ordered in Syria and Judea between 6 and 5 B.C.

and 5 and 6 A.D. Returning to a person's home city was definitely the practice of

the time. Luke refers to Quirinius being governor of Syria during the time of the

census, again historically correct.

10- TESTIMONY OF A HISTORICAL, LIVING CHURCH

Wait a minute: you tell me there was no Jesus? So who started the church? Whom were

the followers following? For whom did those apostles and disciples die, and were

ever ready to be killed than denouncing? Where did the church start from, and how

come it has survived up till today? So you tell me someone sat down one day, and

came up with the “nice story of Jesus”, including all the characters in the gospels?

Who did that, when, where? Seriously, excuse my language, but such a charge is about

the most silly one to make. Really, the psalmist was right, “the fool has said in

his heart, that there is no God”.

Imagine someone trying to argue with you seriously that there was no Okomfo Anokye,

or that “Okomfo Anokye stories are too incredible to be true, therefore he didn’t

exist”. You don’t have to be an Ashanti to have a good reason to punch such a person

in the mouth, do you? Ask that person to go tell a Moslem that Mohammed didn’t

exist, and see if he will have the balls to do that!

THE INFANCY NARRATIVES: AUTHENTIC HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS

The Gospels of Luke and Mathew give detailed account of Jesus’ conception and birth.

In it, both writers tell us that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus’ mother, conceived

Him by the action of the Holy Spirit, and gave birth to him while yet a virgin. They

also record that Joseph was told the miracle by the angel himself. Studying the

accounts, which were finally written down about 65-100 AD or far earlier, scholars

agree on the following points:

1- The accounts were eye-witness accounts which were probably first passed on as

oral tradition, then written down, and later collected together. At the time of

writing, the eye witnesses were still alive, and those eye witnesses include Jesus’

family members and those who knew him. The stories were written down not for

dogmatic reasons, but first as historical account of the things that had happened

among them.

2- The nature of the narratives: the writers draw no inference from the virgin

birth to Jesus’ deity or to his ontological sonship of God per se; but record the

events simply as historical facts (both Mathew and Luke) and also as fulfillment of

prophecy (Mathew). They were merely reporting what had taken place.

3- In the case of Mathew, he saw in the virgin birth the fulfillment of the

prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. For all the gospel writers, it was miracles such as the

miracle of the virgin birth and others, which historically took place, which caused

them to believe whatever Jesus said. Even pagan officials like Pontius Pilate and

others also followed suit: so the starting point was not faith in Jesus- the

starting point was who Jesus said He was and what He did to support those claims,

that made them believe.

4- THE ORIGINS OF THESE INFANCY NARRATIVES ARE HEBRAIC, JEWISH, not gentile, and

therefore they could not have originated from later Christians. The Hebraic

character of both infancy narratives in Mathew and Luke are remarkable: Jewish

customs and laws are introduced without any further explanations, the Jewish hymns

sung by the people involved flow through naturally- i.e. Mary’s canticle

(Magnificat), Zechariah’s (Benedictus), Simeon’s (Nunc Dimittis) –all very Jewish.

As Reginald H.Fuller argues, this fact counters the suggestion in some quarters that

Jesus’ Virginal conception and birth is a theologoumenon-which is a story invented

later by the early church to support its Christological teaching.

5- As scholars like Raymond E. Brown have already argued, the historical

presence of Mary the mother of Jesus and Jesus’ brothers, especially James (cf Acts

1:14;15:13-21; Gal 1:19;2:9) in the early church would have prevented the

development of any legendary material or false stories concerning Jesus’ origin. On

the other hand, facts about his virgin birth was no secret among the disciples, and

there is no record of opposition or attempts at correction.

6- CREDIBILITY OF LUKE: A doctor and a historian, Luke did a careful study of

the narratives and historical data that was doing the rounds about Jesus. At his

time, he cross checked his facts, interviewed the eyewitnesses, spent some time in

the places where Jesus lived, and, from a purely historical point of view, got an

accurate record. The credibility of Luke the historian is accepted by even modernist

skeptical scholars such as Harnack, who admit that both Luke’s vocations as a

historian and a doctor would prevent him from responding gullibly to such incredible

reports as virgin births, or fables. So when he himself says he has made a careful

study of the events and cross checked them “according to the testimonies of those

who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…”(cf Acts 1:1-4), we believe his account to

be true.

Let’s move on to what the Bible says about it, but one of the many more points we

can adduce for the authenticity of its historicity is the principle of multiple

attestation – the fact that different writers agree in the essentials even though

they got their information from different sources.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH: BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

Some object to the virgin birth because they claim Isaiah 7:14 was mistranslated, a

point we will answer soon. However, evidence of the virgin birth is not based on

Isaiah 7:14 alone, but different Biblical passages. Furthermore, the virgin birth

did not start out as a doctrinal teaching, but a historical reality. The biblical

evidence only throws more light on and helps us understand this historical reality.

Let’s see what the Bible says:

Genesis 3:15 “ And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed

and her Seed ….”

There is no dispute anywhere, and all Biblical scholars agree that this prophecy was

for the second Adam, Christ, and the second Eve, the Virgin Mary and their triumph

over Satan and sin. The emphatic reference to the Virgin birth, however, is on the

fact that the second Adam, Christ, is “the Seed of the woman”( "her seed" ????

(zarah) in the Hebrew original). He is not the seed of a man, nor even the seed of

“a” woman, but the seed of “the” woman. Will you think about that for a moment?

Two points here: one-the fact that he is a woman’s seed, and two, that He is the

seed of a particular woman. All of us who are conceived in the natural way are the

“seeds of our fathers” in the sense that if just one parent is mentioned as giving

us “ seed”, then it is the man who sows the seed into our mothers, and we become the

“seeds of our fathers”. The sperm, which is the seed, fertilizes the ovum before

conception of the human being takes place. In Jesus’ case, as this prophecy shows,

there was no man involved: he was the “seed of the woman”, the second eve, the

Blessed Virgin Mary, who conceived him, her seed, without the interference of any

man! Glory be to Jesus!

The second point is the fact that it was a particular woman, one prophesied about,

the second eve, whose seed He will be. The first point links us to Gal 4:4 while the

second links us to Micah 5:3 and Isaiah 7:14

GAL 4:4 “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his son, born of a woman,

born under the law, to redeem us under the law..”

Oh la la! St. Paul understood this virgin conception clearly! Coincidentally echoing

this Genesis 3:15 passage, this time not as a prophecy but as a fulfillment of the

prophecy, St. Paul reiterated the fact that GOD’S SON whom He sent was BORN OF A

WOMAN. The original Greek leaves no doubt as to the emphasis on the singularity of

the woman’s product - ‘ek gunaikos’ :

“ hote de Elthen to pleroma tou chronou exapesteilen ho theos ton huion autou

genomenon ek gunaikos genomenon hupo nomon..” –Gal 4:4, Original Greek

transliteration

There was no man involved, otherwise he would not be God’s Son, “theos ton huion”,

but his father’s (whoever he would have been, name provided) son. He was a product

of God and “a woman”(gunaikos). So He was conceived and born of a woman without a

man’s contribution and with God’s help – a virgin!

The woman whose seed would crush the devil was again prophesied about in Micah 5:3,

in the prophecy about the coming messiah, now known as Jesus:

Verse 2 : “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands

of Judah,yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose

going forth are from old, From everlasting.”

(Remember the rabbis quoted verse 2 above for wicked King Herod to try to find out

where the messiah was born with the intention of killing him).

Verse 3: “Therefore He shall give them up, until the time has come that she who is

in labor has given birth…”. Other translations: “she who is to give birth has given

birth”

While not asserting the virgin birth of Jesus, this passage emphasizes the fact that

the one to give birth to the messiah was a particular woman prophesied about long

before she was even born. This underscores the special nature of the messiah’s birth

and the special preparation of the one to bring it about, by God, and therefore it

is only natural and normal for this miracle to accompany it.

Mt 1:18 “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was

betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy

Spirit.”

The emphasis is on “before they came together”

(Greek original: ‘prin E sunelthein autous’ - literally before or to-be-together-

coming them). That answers the charge of the Jews, who did not know whatever the

Holy Spirit had done within that family, to call Jesus the son of Joseph later on.

He was just a foster father.

Mt 1:25

“ And Joseph did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he

called His name JESUS.”

Emphasis – “till she had brought forth”

“heos ou eteken ton huion” – Note that the original Greek used “heos” for “till”-

and it indicates that the writer was concerned about the fact that there was nothing

before this time, not necessarily that there was something afterwards. It’s the same

with the earlier one.

Lu 1:34* Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

She understood the angel perfectly, and was wondering how she, a virgin, could give

birth, just like many skeptics are doing today.

Lu 1:35* And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon

you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy

One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Lu 1:27* to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of

David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Isaiah 7:14 and Matt 1: 23

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive

and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel”

So, if you have a problem with Isaiah 7:14 and Matt 1:23, how do you explain away

all the others?

ANSWERING THE CRITICS: THE PAGAN ORIGIN THEORY

As laughable as the pagan origin theory is – scholars who dared raise it were easily

answered – it is amazing that some largely uninformed atheistic apologists keep

disturbing people with it. Their argument is that there are virgin birth myths in

other pagan religions which predate christianity, and therefore that of Christ is

also a myth copied from these pagan religions. Really?

FALLACIOUS, TO SAY THE LEAST

FIRST, their argument sounds like primary school logic. They commit fallacies of

confusing correlation with causation, or implying causation from correlation (cum

hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc). Granted that there are

similarities among these pagan ones and Christ’s, does the similarity necessarily

imply that we took ours from them? Can’t two things be similar without one

necessarily springing from or originating from the other? Two illustrations here

will clear this point:

ONE- Godfried Wilhelm Liebnitz and Sir Isaac Newton are both credited with the

invention of Calculus. They lived in different countries, did not communicate with

each other, did not see each other’s work, did not have the same education, teacher

etc, and developed the same concepts- Calculus. The academic community therefore

credited both of them with this invention. Why did we not conclude that one copied

from another, or that both copied from the same source? Because the academic

community was wise enough not to imply causation from correlation; and there was no

proof to the contrary!

Contrast this with the conclusion of Andy Kwakukume of the Kwaku Ba camp, in his

attack on the virgin birth of Jesus. He wrote in his Ghanaweb article of December 13

““The similarity themselves are so staggering that we hardly need historical

evidence to conclude that, by deduction, these ideas and practices were lifted more

or less wholesale and put into Christianity”

Really? We don’t need any historical evidence to conclude? Don’t be smart on us,

sir- it is because you don’t have any, so you want to nullify that burden of proof.

Come again, sir! (I will return to this shortly)

TWO- Man is a religious being, and from his beginning has been seeking to worship

God whose existence is evident through nature. In many ways and in various cultures,

human beings have tried to worship God in the best way they recognize him with their

consciences, and it is safe to say that people everywhere perceive or are able to

perceive the existence of God. Our elders say: “OBI NNKYERE ABOFRA NYAME”,

literally, no one needs to point God to a child, for even the child can perceive

God. Consequently, concepts, ideas and even doctrines about the nature of God can

really be similar among different cultures and people without one necessarily

influencing or stealing from another. For example, before Christianity was

re-introduced to us about a century ago, our traditional concepts of God as well as

our general beliefs, bore striking resemblance to the Biblical God of Christianity.

Check these out: NYAME (He who satisfies the one who has Him); NYANKOPON

(Nyame-koro-pon: The one and only great ‘Nyame’); TWERDUAMPON (A great tree on which

you can lean and not fall); HUNTAHUNU (The one who sees even hidden things);

BEREKYIRIHUNUADE (One who sees even what is behind him); BOREBORE (the creator)

AMAOWI (giver of sunshine) AMAOSU (giver of rain) … and many more. How about our

belief that the death is not the end of man, and that the soul separates from the

body at death to experience eternity after judgement? Or our belief in ancestors vis

a vis the Biblical concept of saints? What are more strikingly similar than these to

Christianity? Should we conclude then that Christianity influenced these or that

African Traditional Religion influenced Christianity? Here, as elsewhere, we see

strikingly similar religious concepts between Christianity and a so-called “pagan”

religion, but because we know about both of them, we would

easily reject the wrong idea that Christianity copied from the other.

WHERE IS THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE?

The main reason why the pagan-origin myth is not repeated by scholars is that there

is no historical evidence to support it. If you say we stole it from paganism, who

did it? When? At which point? Where? Was there no opposition? Why wasn’t there any

opposition?

Andy Kwawukume wrote:

“In this rather brief piece, I intend to present evidence tracing the origins of the

myth of Jesus's birth by a virgin, one of many pagan myths foisted on the teachings

of Jesus and his disciples, long after their deaths”

“Here I shall only present the evidence showing that Jesus was not born by a virgin.

This idea of the virginity of Mary was something adopted from previous religions by

Trinitarians long after the death of Jesus and his 12 disciples.”

I followed the whole article with interest, hoping to see some “evidence tracing the

origins of the myths of Jesus’s birth by a virgin..” that he is talking about, but I

found none.

He again claims to “ present the evidence showing that Jesus was not born by a

virgin”, but then again, there is none! The only thing he lists are parallel claims

to virgin births by other religions. So where is the evidence that traces the origin

of the Jesus myth- where is the connection, who put this so called myth there, when,

how, and, where is the evidence that he was not born by a virgin? What an insult to

our intelligence! This kind of fallacies and circumlocutions and begging the

questions can only convince first year JSS students, who will just look at the so

called “striking similarities” you talk about and forget that you were going to show

them some connections.

Kwawukume already takes himself out of any credible contention with outright

falsities as this:

“The process of making Jesus born by a virgin and being the son of God was a long

one, completed about 500 years after his death. “

Seriously! Is that a deliberate attempt to malign or sheer ignorance of what he

talks about? So the impression someone gets is that whoever is supposed to have

“made Jesus born by a virgin”, looked at the pagan myths, then decided to do the

same to Jesus, not so? Again he doesn’t tell us who did it, but that is not

necessary anymore.

First, from all that we’ve said about the historicity of the event, or even the date

of writing the gospels, or the fact that second century apologists like Origen,

Tertullian and others needed to fight this same controversy, or the fact that sects

like gnostics, docetics, ebionites and others all attacked this doctrine in the

first and second centuries, it is clear that Kwawukume’s 500 years after Christ is a

big fat lie. Either he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he has ulterior

motives.

The fact is, for all the talk about similarity, there is no historical evidence

tracing Jesus’s with any of these, or attesting to a supposition that someone

somewhere- whoever that person or group of persons are- added these doctrines to the

deposit of faith (fidei depositum). Neither Biblical nor church nor secular history

has any such records. That is why scholars who care about their reputation do not go

that way, because they cannot prove. On the other hand, there is ample historical

evidence that:

1- Jesus’s virgin birth was a historical event that happened

2- Eyewitnesses in the time of Jesus knew he was born of a virgin. The Jews who

thought he was Joseph’s son were only saying what any normal human being would

think. You needed to be told to know, for it was a miracle. He also needed that

cover so as not to be called a bastard.

3- The gospel accounts, collected and written while many of Jesus’ family were

still alive, amplify this. If any of these was wrong, they would have been checked,

or we would have seen some opposition from Jesus’ family and friends.

4- The fact that already in the first and second centuries, some groups were

opposing this shows it was a belief back then – gnostics, ebionites, docetics, etc.

5- Jesus’ family, all very pious Jews, as well as his earliest followers, were

not even privy to any pagan religion, nor would they have anything to do with

paganism. So where would the pagan influence come from?

6- If by the time Paul came in, as Galatians 4:4 shows, it was a common

knowledge, and this is part of the canonical scripture, then when and where would

such an infiltration from paganism take place?

7- Do you know that the mockery of Jesus by anti-christians of the later

centuries that he was the son of a Roman soldier ‘Panthera’ had to do with his

virgin birth? Panthera was a corruption of the Greek “parthenos”, virgin, and just

for the records, a Roman soldier would not take a Greek name, let alone “virgin”. If

anything like that were to be the case, the Jews of his day would be the first to

point out!

JESUS’S VIRGIN BIRTH NOT LIKE THE PAGAN MYTHS

Just like any other aspect of Divine revelation, there may be some apparent

similarities between Jesus and others- including the old Testament, other religions

etc, but at the same time, there are unmistakable differences between Jesus and

these, that make the person and works of Jesus unique. It is the same with the

virgin birth.

1- Whereas Jesus virgin birth was a historical event that happended, many of

these pagan mythologies were man-made: their followers made them or ascribed them to

their gods or heroes. Kwawukume observes, about his 500 year time span:

“This was far longer than it took to make Alexander the Great the son of the

Egyptian god Amun-'Re, when he visited Egypt in 332 B.C., a practice followed by all

the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt too, just like the Pharaohs before them. Nothing new

about making a human the son of a god then.”

Interesting admission! So in the case of Alexander the Great, it was his followers

who deified him, just like the other pharaohs- but he was not actually born by a

virgin! He was claimed to be born by a virgin long after he himself left the scene-

by his followers! And he notes rightly that it is they who made him the son of God.

Same thing can be said of many other so-called pagan “sons of God”. Take Budha for

example. Sidharta Gautama himself, who was later called ‘ The Budha’ (enlightened

one), did not claim to have been a god or son of God. Like Confucius, he regarded

himself as a great teacher, teaching the eightfold path to nirvana. It was many

years afterwards that his followers started making all these claims about him. And

you talk about similarities? Please!

2- Not a few scholars have observed that whereas the virgin birth of Jesus is

situated in a time frame in the gospels, with historical events, these pagan

so-called virgin births aren’t. It all adds to the open secret that these latter are

mere fables and legends- not actual occurrences.

3- The virgin birth of Jesus was foretold so many years before he was born. It

was prophecied in the scriptures, and his birth just fulfilled the prophecies. On

the contrary, which of those pagan myths was foretold ages before? They were rather

made by their followers later!

4- Many scholars have noted that the pagan mythologies involve gods having sex

with maidens either by deceiving or raping them or appearing in human form – of

course with the possible exceptions of the human beings who lived but whom all

records show were only deified later- like the Budha, Alexander the Great, etc. On

the contrary, Jesus’ virgin birth does not involve any sexual intercourse, but by

the action of the holy spirit.

Greg Machen had this to say:

“Outside the Bible, legendary heroes and even actual kings are frequently portrayed

as offspring of gods. Both Pharaohs and Roman emperors were considered gods, the

latter being considered in Rome itself as divinized only after death. Extra-biblical

birth narratives typically involve sexual intercourse, sometimes involving rape or

deceit, by a god in human or animal form—for example, the stories of Leda, Europa or

the birth of Hercules.

The birth narrative of Jesus is distinctive in that it speaks of the Holy Spirit,

not of male seed, as the active agent in his conception.[Mt. 1:20] [Lk. 1:35]

Some have tried to demonstrate Christian dependence on a Roman mystery cult called

Mithraism, which was established prior to Christianity. Early reconstructions of the

Mithras legend proposed, from Persian sources, that he might have been born of the

union of Mother Earth and Ahuramazda, however the theory has not endured. Carvings

illustrating the legend reinforce documentary sources that focus on Mithras being

born purely from rock (saxigenus),[51] as Athena, the daughter of Zeus and

Metis,[52] sprang from the forehead of Zeus.”

5- St. Justin Matyr, in the early second century, made a counter argument that

those pagan worshippers stole from the old testament accounts of miraculous births,

in his disputation with the Jew Trypho:

"Be well assured, then, Trypho," I continued, "that I am established in the

knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is

called the Devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were

wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For

when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by Jupiter's intercourse

with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that

being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and

when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the Devil has

imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?"[50]

Eddy P. Boyd also had this to say, after studying all the pagan myths normally

advanced by critics:

“the alleged parallels to the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ conception are simply not

very impressive. There are, of course, numerous accounts of gods having sex with

each other to produce a divine mythic hero and even some accounts of a male god

having intercourse with a woman to produce a partly divine hero. But these are not

accounts of virginal conceptions for the simple reason that the divine or human

females had sex! So far as I know, there are three possible exceptions to this

(Krishna, Buddha and the son of Zoroaster), but even in these accounts it’s a

stretch to say they parallel the Gospel accounts of a seed being created ex nihilo

and planted in the womb of a woman who had never had sex. And, in any case, we have

absolutely no historical reasons for thinking any of these accounts is at all rooted

in history or that the earliest Christians knew about them – let alone borrowed from

them.”

Enough said of that.

ISAIAH 7:14 AND THE OTHERS

Some Jewish Scholars who don’t want to tell the truth, like Rabi A. J. Rosenborg in

his “The book of Isaiah”, claim the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the

Hebrew Bible translated by Jewish Scholars and which Jesus and the people of his day

used, and from which Mathew quoted, was wrong in its translation of Isaiah 7:14. The

original Hebrew used the word “almah”, which is ‘young maiden’, and the Septuagint

translated it ‘virgin’. Because the Hebrew word for virgin is ‘betulah’, it sounds

right to the ordinary ear that the Septuagint translators made a mistake, because if

Isaiah wanted to say virgin, it would have used ‘betulah’. That is a very ‘populist’

argument – and it may sound right, but it is wrong, and this is where the

intellectual dishonesty is!

1-An analysis of the only seven times in all of the Hebrew Bible – be it the torah,

nebiim or ketubim(TANAKH- Law, prophets and Writings)- where the word ‘almah’ is

used, shows that it could be translated as ‘betulah’, virgin. As a matter of fact,

in some of the references, when the chance is given again for reference to the same

person, betulah is used the second time example Genesis 24:16 and 43. The 7

instances where ‘almah is used are: Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs

30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14

2- The translators in question were Jewish scholars, who translated over 200 years

before Christ, so who did not even know Jesus, had no connection with Christianity.

They translated ‘almah’ with the Greek “parthenos”, virgin because they knew it

meant virgin.

3- They were right because the conception and birth being talked about here,

according to Isaiah, was a “sign”- miracle. How could it be a sign if it was an

ordinary thing? A young woman giving birth or conceiving is no sign. They do that

each day. Only a virgin conceiving is a “sign” from the Lord

4- The Jewish critics mistakenly think Mathew produced a doctrine of the virgin

birth from the Isaiah prophecy: wrong! He only sought from it an explanation of a

stark reality in front of him- a virgin conceiving and giving birth. So whether he

had that right or wrong did not change the reality of Jesus being born by a virgin.

5 -How about the other scriptural verses?

SOME FIRST AND SECOND CENTURY QUOTATIONS:

For the Virginal Conception:

1-"The virginity of Mary, her giving birth and also the death of the Lord, were

hidden from the prince of this world; three mysteries loudly proclaimed, but wrought

in the silence of God" (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, 18:2; c. 107

AD)

2-"(Jesus Christ) was born of a holy Virgin without seed of man, and took flesh

without defilement" (Aristides of Athens, Apology, 15; c. 140 AD)

3-"And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a

virgin; for he spoke thus: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son,

and they shall say for His name, 'God with us.'"...This, then, "Behold, a virgin

shall conceive," signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if

she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the

power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet

a virgin to conceive." (St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 33; c. 150 AD)

4-"And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to

Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we

before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the

salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to

suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death." (First Apology, 63;

c. 150 AD)

For the Virgin Birth:

Some first century Christians believed that Mary had given birth without labor

pains. Here are the quotes again:

5-"The report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, 'The

Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.' And many said, 'She

has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of

pain.'" (Ascension of Isaiah 11; c. 70 AD)

6-"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the

Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not

seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with

will" (Odes of Solomon 19; c. 80 AD).

LINK WITH EVERYTHING ABOUT JESUS

The virginal conception and birth of Jesus is one important piece of the Jesus cake,

and has immense ontological(his being-ness, who he is), christological (as God and

man) and even soteriological(concerning his work of salvation) implications. That is

why the devil wants to attack it. He cannot be truly the Son of God if He both his

parents were human. And he cannot efficaciously save us if he is not truly man and

truly God, such that his holy human blood can satisfy the divine justice concerning

our sins. But, incidentally, and as bad news for the critics, we only learned about

all of these after the incident of the virgin birth happened such that as a

historical event, how can they dispute it?

DON’T WANT TO HEAR IT

Thus far, we have produced evidence that should be clear to the objective truth

seeker about the historicity of Jesus and the fact of His virgin birth. I also know

too well, that like Jesus himself, there are many who do not want to hear such a

talk, and I do not presume to convince them or anyone. Of them, St. Paul said, that

they would gather for themselves those who will tell them the kind of lies they want

to hear:

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to

suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to

say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Tim 4:3

and like Jesus said, “they will hear and hear but not understand, see and see, but

not perceive”. They multiply in the discussion forums, and give anti-christian

comments and ad-hominem attacks at anyone who dares challenge their ‘heroes’. It

doesn’t take long for one to see where they lean, but alas, if only they could be a

little objective! How so quickly the imperative for objectivity eludes them as well,

just like their mentors- the imperative that “WOTAN OKWADUO A WOYI NE MMIRIKA”, to

wit, give praise where it is due, essentially. Their failure to tell the truth does

not help their ‘heroes’ one bit – these false teachers who use fallacious arguments,

half-truths and gross lies to malign anything they don’t understand about Jesus. Of

them St. Paul said:

“ For there are many insubordinate, both talkers and deceivers…whose mouth must be

stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not , for

the sake of dishonest gain… therefore rebuke them sharply…” (Titus 1: 10-11,13).

That was his advice to Titus, and part of Titus’ assignment the reason for which

Paul left him in Crete. It is also our assignment today, as always, according to St

Jude the Apostle, to “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the

saints” (Jude 3).

Our promise to them is that as long as God gives us breadth of life, we shall not

wait and watch them take the name of God in vain. We will expose them for their

lies, falsities, half- truths with which they seek to destroy the faith of many.

Like someone said, why don’t they try their tricks on Islam? Are they afraid?

CONCLUSION: SPIRITUAL IMPLICATIONS

The virginal conception of Jesus is a hope for all of us collectively and each of us

individually. It tells us about two important things concerning God’s action in us:

One- that God can do anything He says He will do for us, and with Him all things are

possible. If he caused a virgin to conceive, what can He not do for you and I? The

dead bones shall come to life! Our barrenness shall be fecundated and we shall

spring forth with abundance! As we gear into the new year, all the dry and parched

lands shall be watered, if only we adopt the attitude of the virgin : “ I am the

handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to your word” – if we keep His

word and do not give in to foolish talk of atheists and others who say there is no

God!

Two- The fullness of time : When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,

born of a woman, - that same “woman” phrase used in Genesis 3:15 and which Jesus

used of his mother in John’s gospel to indicate she was the “woman” being talked

about, the new Eve. We often say, “God’s time is the best”. Yes, God’s time is the

best- and God’s time is now. We can make the new year our “ year of the Lord’s

favour” because, as Jesus promised in Luke 4: 18, he came to proclaim that year of

the Lord’s favour. That is our fullness of time- the year of the Lord’s favour, when

the Lord showers favours on his people, visits them, and makes them truly experience

the prescence of the Lord. In the prescence of the Lord, the good news is preached

to the poor, the sick are healed, those in bondage are delivered. May the Lord have

mercy on all those blind leaders of the blind who blaspheme against His name,

because, evidently, they

don’t know what they are doing. Happy new year to all of us.

May this new year be a time when we moved from dream to accomplishment, that we

shall look back on it and say, “ Ebenezer, thus far has the Lord brought us”.

God bless Our Homeland Ghana/And make our nation great and strong/Bold to defend for

ever/The cause of freedom and of right/Fill all our hearts with true humility/Make

us cherish fearless honesty/And help us to resist oppressors’ rule/With all our will

and might for evermore.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL

- AUGUSTINE ANYIMADU-AHENKAE

New year’s eve, 2010

New York, New York

gtrabboni@yahoo.com

REFERENCES:

Anyimadu-Ahenkae, Augustine. Son Of God, Son Of Mary: A Treatise on the Divinity And

Humanity of Jesus. New York: Augustine Publications LLC, 2010.

Print.

Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of The Messiah. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.Print

Kwawukume, Andy. ““Exposing Biblical Myths: The Virgin Birth and Christmas”.

Ghanaweb feature of December 13, 2010.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/artikel.php?ID=199358

Maas, Anthony. "Virgin Birth of Christ." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New

York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 29 Dec. 2010

Rosenborg,Rabbi,A.J. The Book of Isaiah, vol. one. New York: The Judaica Press, 1992.