The Ancient Mediterranean’s Virgin Birth Narratives:

In ‘The Historical Jesus in Context’ (Amy Jill Levine, Dale C Allison and John Dominic Crossan Editors), there is a chapter ‘Miraculous Conceptions and Births in Mediterranean Antiquity’  by Charles H. Talbert, in which he discusses the many stories of miraculous conceptions and births from the last centuries BCE to the second century CE.

He writes that many of these stories that were commonplace in the first few centuries of the Common Era, especially within Hellenistic society, were of Greek mythical past as well of some of the famous Greek figures.

Amongst these stories of individuals born to a divine mother and a human father, were Achilles (son of the divine Thetis and the human Peleus), and Aeneas (son of Aphrodite and the mortal Anchises).

Those believed to be the offspring of a god and a human mother included Asclepius (son of Apollo and the mortal Coronis) and Hercules (son of Zeus and the human Alcmene).

Stories of miraculous conceptions and births were also told about rulers and philosophers in historical time. Among the philosophers, Pythagoras was said to be the offspring of Apollo and the human Pythais. Plato was believed to have been the son of Apollo and Amphictione; and Apollonius of Tyana was thought to be the son of Proteus, a divinity of Egypt, or Zeus.

He writes that these traditions were still common in the 2^nd century CE and gives a number of examples including the apparent miraculous conception of Alexander the Great.

He also notes a second tradition where a number of these miraculous conceptions involved some form of spiritual encounter with the virgin mother, with Aeschylus an early example. "In "Suppliants" 17-19, lo is said to be impregnated by Zeus in the form of the ‘on-breathing of his love’."

In the Greek historian Plutarach’s ‘Life of Alexander’ (written around 100 CE) we read "it happened not through semen but by another power of God (dunamei tou theou) that God begot in matter the principle of generation, … not by a physical approach, like a mans, but by some other kind of contact or touch that a god alters mortal nature and makes it pregnant with a more divine offspring”.

Plutarch also writes: "Nevertheless the Egyptians make a plausible distinction in such a matter. A woman can he made pregnant by a spirit (pneuma) of a god, but for a human there is no physical intercourse with a god”.

Talbert states that the two main reasons for such stories about great individuals was that firstly, they were a way to explain these individuals superiority above other humans.

The second was as a form of veneration of these great figures of history.

So Talbert argues that early (Hellenistic) auditors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke may well have felt that “Jesus' divine begetting were certainly needed to explain his marvelous life. A divine origin was appropriate for their chief benefactor and founder.”

Mark does not have a birth narrative. Irenaeus (late 2^nd century) even wrote about the believer, Cerinthus (of late first century) “who believed Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Joseph and Mary according to the usual manner.”

I believe this is a significant comment that shows that the birth narratives do not appear to have been seen as ‘in-errant’ and inspired by some within the church only a matter of decades after the autographs of the Gospels.

He argues that such a non-miraculous understanding of the conception of Yeshua would have lead to the conclusion that Yeshua’s followers would also need to lead meritorious lives (i.e. be Torah observant). With the rejection of such an understanding by the Hellenists, (between 80 -120 CE) it then went hand-in-hand with the ‘grace only’, anti-Torah position of the Hellenistic church to write into the gospels a miraculous birth narrative to be able to reject the previous conclusion regarding the need for Torah observance.

Talbert concludes in this manner by stating that “The Greco-Roman conviction that a human's superiority can be explained only by a divine creative act is used to establish the prevenience of divine grace in the divine-human relation. This is what an ancient auditor would have heard.”

So while such evidence of this Hellenistic, or Greco-Roman mythical narrative to explain and venerate the great figures of their history does suggest strongly that such a mythical narrative was likely adopted and redacted into the Gospels, it does not of-course prove that such typology is not purely co-incidental.

It is, I think most significant to appreciate though, that the Jewish people of Yeshua’s day NEVER expected the Messiah to be virginally conceived. In fact, this understanding of the Messianic prophecies has remained the consistently held view of Judaism ever since.

For more I recommend a very simple, but clear and thought-provoking series of articles here: http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26

Update May 2015:

The best teaching I have found on this issue is by Uriel Ben Mordechai. In his introduction to his audio teaching (available to listen to here - http://above-and-beyond-ltd.com/audio_samples/virgin_birth_sample.mp3), Uriel makes the great point (in part based on what can and can't be known), that 'it is really NOT that big a deal'!

The mp3 s on 4 1/2 mins, but well worth listening to 'to wet your taste buds'!

Update:

After some questions about the doctrines of John Dominic Crossan and the background of Cerinthus, I have added some comments below:

Firstly, I recognize that many ‘evangelical’ Christians may take great issue with Crossan’s scholarship. However, in trying to sum up the man and his ‘faith’, I found a Youtube video of a talk he gave (where he presented along with NT Wright, Bart Ehrman and Amy Jill-Levine). In the 8+ minutes at the start of this video, he argues for a re-think of the Christian Bible (the NT) in terms of describing a united theology that could be agreed on. 

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaV9mTvGfKg

In the beginning of his talk he used the phrase ‘believer, scholar’ and then said he felt like his position was at the comma. That is, he clearly sees himself as a ‘Christian’ and a scholar, despite what others say of him. As I have stated I find his take on the trial of Yeshua a strong one, and I found in this short video the portrayal of a genuine believer.

In conclusion then, I find his voice worthy to be heard.

Regarding, Cerinthus, the evidence does indeed appear confusing, especially though, in that those trying to either lay claim to him (the Gnostics) or reject his authenticity as a believer (the Hellenists), can’t even agree (and certainly have different criteria to me) on what a follower of Yeshua in those early decades typically looked like. 

For me the evidence is extremely strong that all the early Jewish followers were Torah observant (including a significant number of Pharisees). After some 12-15 years when the Gentiles began to join this movement, they to were often Torah observant, or at the very least observed the Ten Words and the Noahide Laws (as much as detailed in Acts 15 at least).

Therefore the fairly clear indication from a number of sources that Cerinthus was circumcised and at least in some ways a strong supporter of Torah would suggest he was a follower of Yeshua. 

What does make it a little difficult is that all the commentary on him comes from the Hellenistic Christians such as Eusebius, who believed in such falsehoods as the divinity of Yeshua, the Trinity and that the Kingdom of Heaven was not to be on the earth! 

So to me, the best approach seems to be, to believe that if these Hellenists had a problem with Cerinthus and thought him a heretic, it is more likely that he was much closer to be a real believer, as they certainly weren’t!

For example, Eusebius condems Cerinthus because “the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one.” – from Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine – (circa 260 - 340 CE)

Some, such as a second century sect, even believed that Cerinthus wrote the Gospel of John! 

Wouldn’t that be ironic if it turns out be true. 

Others argue that he disagreed with the Apostle Paul because he thought all Gentiles who became followers of Yeshua should be proselytized and become Jews. Again, this makes him more likely a follower of the early church in Jerusalem rather than a Gnostic or Hellenistic heretic.

Here’s a few excerpts from The 1911 Classic Encyclopedia:

"CERINTHUS: … There can be no truth in the notice given by Epiphanius (Haer. xxviii. 4) that Cerinthus had in earlier days at Jerusalem led the judaizing opposition against Paul. (why not?!)

The difficulty of defining Cerinthus's theological position is due not only to the paucity of our sources but to the fact that the witness of the two principal authorities, Irenaeus (1.26, iii. 11) and Hippolytus (Syntagma), does not agree. 

… It would appear, … that Cerinthus laid stress on the rite of circumcision and on the observance of the Sabbath. (sounds like a Torah observant Jew just like Yeshua and all his apostles and disciples!)

He taught that the world had been made by angels ….(and that) Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary … Cerinthus, if we may trust the notices of Gaius the Roman presbyter (c. 290) and Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 340), he held a violent and crude form of chiliasm (the belief that Christ will return to reign in the body for a thousand years)" -http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cerinthus

I would consider some of his other views as way off base, but there is plenty here to convince me that he was a genuine believer. His rejection of the virgin birth is therefore significant.

Update (Oct 2014):

For perhaps the best critique of the false doctrine of the 'Virgin Birth' I recommend the writing of AB (Bruce) Barham. Here is a very small part of his article (with the link at the end) - it is mostly just a quote of Isaiah 7 with some commentary:

"Isaiah 7:1-8:8 (KJV)

¹ And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. ² And it was told the house of David (king Ahaz), saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.(Ahaz and the people of Judah were terrified of the defeat they expected from the united efforts of Syria and the northern Kingdom, Israel) ³ Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, (Isaiah sent to talk to Ahaz) thou, and Shearjashub (lit. "a remnant shall return") thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; ⁴ And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, (Isaiah sent to calm the fears of the king of Judah) neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. ⁵ Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, ⁶ Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: ⁷ Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass (the defeat of Judah by Rezin of Syria and Pekah of the northern Kingdom of Israel). ⁸ For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years (NOTE! a clear timeframe was given from THAT time) shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. ⁹ And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.¹⁰ Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, ¹¹ Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; (Ahaz is asked to ask for a sign) ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. ¹² But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. ¹³ And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; (Ahaz is of the house of David) Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? ¹⁴ Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (Ahaz) a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
(the birth - or the name - was to be a sign to Ahaz. This couldn't possibly be the birth of Messiah, since it was hundreds of years later, long after Ahaz had died! A "sign" to a dead man is useless.)
¹⁵ Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. ¹⁶ For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (those united against Judah) ¹⁷ The LORD shall bring upon thee(Ahaz), and upon thy people (Judah), and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. (Judah would be chastised severely through Assyria because of the wicked rule of Ahaz and other kings that forsook God's torah; however, Assyria would not be the end for Judah.) ¹⁸ And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. ¹⁹ And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. ²⁰ In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard. ²¹ And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; ²² And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land. ²³ And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. ²⁴ With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns. ²⁵ And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle. ^8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. ² And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. ³ And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.(THIS IS THE FULFILLMENT OF 7:14!) ⁴ For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria. (repeat of 7:16, further proving the birth of Isaiah's son to be the fulfillment of Is. 7:14!)⁵ The LORD spake also unto me again, saying, ⁶ Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; ⁷ Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: ⁸ And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.
(The use of this term (Immanuel) in 7:14 was part of the sign which was "God with us" during the time to soon come when Judah feels threatened from Assyria. Here the name is applied to Judah to insure that divine protection will be extended to it, which of course, it was at that time.)

There are several unambiguous facts seen in the context of these verses.

1. First, Isaiah is talking to King Ahaz of Judah and tells HIM (Ahaz) that the sign of a birth will be for HIM. This fact alone makes application of Isaiah 7:14 to the birth of Yeshua impossible, since Ahaz was long dead by the time Yeshua was born; thus proving it is not a Messianic prophesy.
2. The ENTIRE context of these verses refer to the specific issue of the prophecy regarding what will happen to those that were plotting to destroy Judah, of which Ahaz was King.  Even the term Immanuel, "god with us", was to assure Judah, as shown in Is. 8:8, that God would be "with them" during the time of trial that was to come when Syria and Israel strove against Judah and Assyria invaded.
3. Only a few verses after Isaiah 7:14, in verse 8:3, we probably see the birth he was speaking of in Is. 7:14.  It was a birth of a son to Isaiah and his young wife.  Furthermore, even the term "virgin" would apply to the prophetess if the information shown earlier regarding the use of almah to mean "a young woman" (i.e., "sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may of may not be sexually active") is considered.  I will comment more on this a little later.
4. Thus, the context is clear that the "virgin" (young woman) was probably Isaiah's wife, the "prophetess", mentioned in Is. 8:3.  This is crystal clear when bias is removed and the Scripture is actually allowed to speak for itself.  Some Judaic commentators believe it applies to Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, who proved to be one of Judah's greatest Kings; however, I feel the context more correctly points to Isaiah's son as the fulfillment.  Either way, the newborn child being prophesied was for THAT PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME as a sign to Ahaz.  The prophecy was NOT for the timeframe 700 years after Ahaz was dead (Yeshua was born about 700 years after this prophecy)!
5. Additionally, Isaiah 7:16 and 8:4 are almost identical, proving them to reference the same event, which was that while the newborn son of Isaiah was yet young, the prophecy would be accomplished, which was that God would eliminate the threat posed to Ahaz by the combined efforts of Ephraim and Damascus.  This provides further evidence that the birth foretold as a sign TO AHAZ was fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's newborn son with the prophetess (Isaiah's wife) as the mother.
6. The common sense context is clear.  The ONLY way Isaiah 7:14 can be a Messianic verse referring to Yeshua the Messiah is to completely rip it free of the clear context in which it resides.  The ONLY evidence that this is a Messianic prophecy is the evidence supplied by Constantinian Christian tradition and probable scribal manipulation of the Gospels.

I humbly challenge anyone to show me FROM THE CONTEXT OF ISAIAH that this verse applies to the Messiah!  And don't throw Matthew and Luke at me, writings for which evidence exist of scribal manipulation, an issue I will briefly address later.  Prove it from Isaiah.  Also, recall that even in the New Testament we find that truth must be proven from the Tanakh, just as was done by the "noble" Bereans of Acts 17:11.  Almost all Christians seem to forget or ignore this clear teaching from the pages of the New Testament." - for more see http://torahofmessiah.com/assets/virginbirth.html