Is the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism?

The pagan myth charge, often applied to the birth of Christ, is frequently made by the uninformed. Here is a classic example:

The idea of a supernatural or virgin birth is pagan, and it must have found its way into the story of Jesus through Gentile-Christian channels (Bundy, p. 11).

The truth is that there is a vast difference between the record of Christ's conception and birth, as recorded in Matthew and Luke's Gospel narratives, and those alleged "supernatural" births of primitive paganism. Here are some important points worth reflecting on.

Mary was a virgin girl of Nazareth. She was "betrothed" to Joseph, but they had never been intimate (Matthew 1:25; Luke 1:34). Her conception was a miracle (Matthew 1:18ff; Luke 1:35ff).

It must be stressed, however, that unlike the stories of paganism in which maidens consorted with the gods, there is no indication whatever in the biblical accounts that Mary had any sexual union either with God the Father or with the Holy Spirit. She conceived merely by the power of God (Luke 1:35). The scriptural narratives are not burdened with the absurdities uniformly characteristic of the so-called "miracle" births of antiquity.

The New Testament records of the virgin birth were written by writers who stood in close historical proximity to the birth event. Matthew was one of the Lord's apostles. And Luke, a physician (Colossians 4:14) and first-rate historian, was a companion of Paul. He carefully researched the data regarding Jesus (Luke 1:3).

Sir William Ramsay, once skeptical of Luke's reliability, was compelled, after extensive on-site research, to conclude that "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness" (81). Both Matthew and Luke, of course, wrote under the Spirit of God's oversight. Moreover, these men were willing to lay their lives on the line to authenticate their messages.

What about the Pagan Accounts?

By way of startling contrast, consider the data on the alleged "miraculous" birth of "the Buddha"—one of the supposed parallels to which appeal is commonly made.

The earliest records agree that "the Buddha" (whose actual name was Siddhartha Gautama) was the son of a king of the Sakyas, a warrior caste of people near the Himalayas in what is now Nepal. One ancient document says he was well-born on his mother's and father's side for seven generations (Digha Nikaya i.113). There is absolutely no early indication of a "virgin" birth.

No authentic accounts of Buddha's early life come from historians contemporary with him. The oldest information about Gautama's life comes from the Pali canon, which is believed to have originated about two hundred years after his death.

Even later stories of a supposed miraculous birth enter the historical scene some five to ten centuries after the philosopher's sojourn on earth (see Machen, 342). Such is hardly credible history. And so, centuries after his death (c. 483 B.C.), legends about him evolved, some of which suggested an "unusual" birth, to express the matter as diplomatically as possible.

For example, it is said that at the time of his conception his mother dreamed that a white elephant with six tusks entered her belly. Supposedly, Gautama left his mother's womb (from her side) like a man descending "from a ladder." The newborn child was described as having legs like an antelope and having "webbed" feet and hands. His hands allegedly reached down to his knees even when standing erect. His skin was the color of gold, and his head was shaped like a turban (see Boslooper for full documentation, 139ff).

Another legend, this one from Tibet, suggests that the Buddha was born from his mother's "right armpit" (McClintock 907). Further comment regarding such absurdities is scarcely necessary.

Competent scholars have answered the reckless claims of skeptical critics who attempt to connect the New Testament narratives to such pagan fables time and again. Machen was exhaustive in his treatment of this matter.

Following his own critical examination of this theme, Louis Matthews Sweet wrote:

After a careful, laborious, and occasionally wearisome study of the evidence offered and the analogies urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births. Supernatural births it has without number, but never from a virgin in the New Testament sense and never without physical generation, except in a few isolated instances of magical births on the part of women who had not the slightest claim to be called virgins. In all recorded instances which I have been able to examine, if the mother was a virgin before conception took place she could not make that claim afterward (188).

Even Thomas Boslooper, a modernist who repudiated the historical reality of a literal virgin birth of Christ, conceded: "The literature of the world is prolific with narratives of unusual births, but it contains no precise analogy to the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. Jesus' 'virgin birth' is not 'pagan'" (p. 136).

In conclusion, we must firmly insist that those who contend that the record of the Lord's virgin birth takes its rise out of a heathen background are not informed relative to this topic. Or else, from a personally biased agenda, they choose to distort the facts.