Virgin birth of Jesus

==Historicity and sources of the narratives==
{{Jesus| in Christianity}}
The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on very slender historical foundations.{{sfn|Bruner|2004|p=37}} Both Matthew and Luke are late and anonymous compositions dating from the period AD 80–100.{{sfn|Fredriksen|2008|p=7}} The earliest Christian writings, the [[Pauline epistles]], do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity, stating that he was "born of a woman" like any other human being and "born under the law" like any Jew.{{sfn|Lincoln|2013|p=21}} In the [[Gospel of Mark]], dating from around AD 70, we read of Jesus saying that "prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house" – {{Bibleref2|Mark|6:4}}, which suggests that Mark was not aware of any tradition of special circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, and while the author of the [[gospel of John]] is confident that Jesus is more than human he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point.{{sfn|Lincoln|2013|p=23}} John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" – {{Bibleref2|John|1:45}}), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" – John {{Bibleref2-nb|John|6:42}}).{{sfn|Lincoln|2013|p=24}} These quotations, incidentally, are in direct opposition to the suggestion that Jesus was, or was believed to be, illegitimate: Philip and the Jews knew that Jesus had a human father, and that father was Joseph.{{sfn|Lincoln|2013|p=29}}

This raises the question of where the authors of Matthew and Luke found their stories. It is almost certain that neither was the work of an eyewitness.{{sfn|Boring|Craddock|2009|p=12}}{{sfn|Reddish|2011|p=13}} In view of the many inconsistencies between them neither is likely to derive from the other, nor did they share a common source.{{sfn|Hurtado|2005|p=318}} [[Raymond E. Brown]] suggested in 1973 that Joseph was the source of Matthew's account and Mary of Luke's, but modern scholars consider this "highly unlikely" given that the stories emerged so late.{{sfn|Lincoln|2013|p=144}} It follows that the two narratives were created by the two writers, drawing on ideas in circulation at least a decade before the gospels were composed, to perhaps 65-75 or even earlier.{{sfn|Hurtado|2005|pp=318–319, 325}}

Matthew presents the ministry of Jesus as largely the fulfilment of prophecies from the [[Book of Isaiah]],{{sfn|Barker|2001|p=490}} and Matthew 1:22-23, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son...", is a reference to [[Isaiah 7:14]], "...the Lord himself shall give you a sign: the maiden is with child and she will bear a son..."{{sfn|Sweeney|1996|p=161}}{{sfn|Saldarini|2001|p=1007}} But in the time of Jesus the Jews of Palestine no longer spoke Hebrew, Isaiah was translated into Greek,{{sfn|Barker|2001|p=490}}{{Failed verification|date=June 2023}} and Matthew uses the Greek word ''parthenos'', which does mean virgin, for the Hebrew ''[[almah]]'', which scholars agree signifies a girl of childbearing age without reference to virginity.{{sfn|Sweeney|1996|p=161}}{{sfn|Saldarini|2001|p=1007}} This mistranslation gave the author of Matthew the opportunity to interpret Jesus as the prophesied [[Immanuel]], ''God is with us'', the divine representative on earth.{{sfn|Saldarini|2001|p=1007}}