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.