There are two sources for the Matthean virgin conception concept that I find unlikely.
First, the idea that the Evangelist reasoned from the LXX of Isaiah 7.14 to the concept of the virgin conception seems odd. In Hebrew that text signifies nothing regarding a future Messiah conceived of a virgin. While the LXX wording fits better (ἡ παρθένος) the context still seems to demand much reworking by Matthew. In other words, I don’t find Isaiah 7.14 an apparent source for a virgin conception narrative. Rather, I think Matthew had the concept and he scanned through his knowledge of Torah for any evidence that Scripture foretold such an event. In other words, Isaiah 7.14 seems like it must be reworked to serve as a proof-text for a virgin conception more than it seems like an obvious prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.
Second, pagan deities being born of a virgin assumes a higher Christology than I find evident in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew is more concerned with presenting Jesus as the Messiah (though we may say in proto-orthodox language as a Messiah within whom YHWH dwelt in a unique way) than as a “deity” in the pagan sense of the concept. So sure, there are examples of pagan gods being born of virgins. I’m not convinced this motivated the Jewish Evangelist.
Of course, this does not prove a virgin conception, but I don’t think these proposals are as sound as some argue as evidence against it.
the archives near Emmaus 
Fair points, Brian, especially the second. As for the first point, if riffing on παρθένος in LXX Isaiah was indeed a case of proof-texting something already supposed (e.g. Jesus was not the son of Joseph), it could have been to creatively explain rumors of Jesus’ illegitimate birth (which you already mentioned in the regards to John). Interesting.
@Steve: Indeed, Matthew could have been part of a tradition wherein somehow the creative response to Jesus’ illegitimate birth was some sort of virgin birth narrative. How exactly that evolved would be quite difficult to speculate.
Is there any human source for the account of the virgin conception of Christ that could have more access to the facts of the matter than Mary?
And isn’t the likeliest explanation for Matthew’s account that the disciples (Mary and Matthew among them) were shown the Is 7:14 prophecy during Jesus’ 40-day post-resurrection Bible study when He reminded them of what they had experienced of Him and then showed them where these things had been written “in the Law of Moses and the Psalms and the Writings” long before?
that is it is just as unlikely that the virgin birth was foreseen by means of merely reading Is 7 prior to the time of Christ as it was that the crucifixion of Christ was foreseen by the mere reading of Is 53 prior to the time of Christ. It is Christ raised and His Holy Spirit who have brought to light that which was previously hidden in the Scripture (Rom 16:25-27).
@Mike: As far as (1) is concerned it may make the most sense that Mary is the source. Personally, I affirm this, but it is hard to reconstruct using the rules of historiography. As far as (2) is concerned it is very possible that Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances is where his disciples learned to read Scripture Christocentrically. Whether or not Jesus himself was the source of Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah 7.14 is impossible to know.
Yes, impossible to know; we’re only talking about what is likely. I only meant to affirm your original post, and then add what it provoked in me.
I would also go a step slightly farther than you in that I believe it is more than “possible” (though maybe that’s what you meant by “very”) that Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances are when His disciples learned to read Scripture Christocentrically (you could also call it “the resurrection hermeneutic”). I see nothing else that could account for their transformation from dismay and disillusionment in Luke 23 to their confident scriptural declarations about Him privately in Acts 1 and publicly in Acts 2 except for the Bible tutorial that intervened in Luke 24. And I don’t need to tell you that this 40-day intensive seminar began near Emmaus.
Oh, the wonder of those 40 days with Him. It must have been unimaginably wonderful to have been there.
Sorry for posting so late in this discussion, your daily “productivity” is quite high and unfortunately in this period I don’t have much time to write. It’s my first post here.
It looks like you didn’t consider possible similarities with the miraculous birth of Melchizedek as described in 2 Enoc (aka Slavonic Enoc) chapter 71, a text that can be dated to 1st century CE.
In terms of influence to our new testament texts, I believe that 2 Enoc (although it presents some difficulties) can be definitely preferred to pagan influences and other hypotheses.
Also, I don’t see strong arguments to support a possible response to polemics on illegitimate birth. When Matthew responds to polemics on the stolen body of Jesus, he’s pretty explicit and provide straight evidence of such polemic (Mt 27,62-66 and 28,11-16). It’s definitely not the case here.
Also, it might be interesting to consider a tradition we find in the “Gospel of Hebrews” (a difficult witness that we only know partially thru apostolic fathers), where Jesus says: “Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to the great mountain Tabor”. In Hebrew “spirit” is feminine gender, so Jesus here is son of the Spirit – who’s he’s mother.
speak soon!
ciao
@Talita: Interesting observations. I lack familiarity with 2 Enoch’s story, but it is worth asking how you may find that one contemporary document influenced the other if they are both first century. Do you think Matthew had a copy or do you think they shared the tradition in some oral form?
Hi Brian,
we discussed this subject in our forum – I’ll now try to quickly translate from italian. Here you have some parallels (and dissimilarities) between 2 Enoch and Matthew’s account
– Virgin birth without human intervention (difference: Mary is young, virgin, and not yet living with Joseph, while Sofonim is old and barren, and the end of her relationship with her husband Nir happened only when he became high priest);
– The fear of public shame and the intention to repudiate the woman (differences: Matthew’s concern for the public shame is focused on Mary, while in 2 Enoch the focus is on the shame of Nir; moreover, in 2 Enoch Nir wants to repudiate Sofonim in order to not have to kill her himself… of course nothing like that in Matthew!).
– The emphasis on the divine origin of the unborn child (Mt: “what’s in her is from the Holy Spirit”, 2 Enoch: “This [comes from] the Lord”).
– The theme of the child’s life threaten (by Herod in Matthew, by the wickedness of people on earth in 2 Enoch), the reassurance of divine protection through angelic revelation, and shelter the child in a safe place (Egypt in Matthew, Eden in 2 Enoch).
Besides these similarities, there are obvious glaring differences: in 2 Enoch, Sofonim dies and Melchizedek was born from his dead corpse as a grown-child, already dressed in his priestly robes and able to speak.
As for the origin and date of 2 Enoch, scholars tend to regard him as a Jewish text (and Alexandrian), which represents the link between the apocalyptic of 1 Enoch and the mystique of Hekhalot, and consider its references to the temple and its sacrificial practices as a clue for pre-70 dating.
In short, I do not believe in a textual dependency (it wouldn’t explain the independent account we have in Luke) but rather in a kind of common ground of tradition where the “divine origin” translates to a virgin birth.
Considering the previous reference to the Judaeo-Christian Gospel of Hebrews (Holy Spirit = Mother of Jesus), the idea of Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit may have took form in some Judaeo-Christian environment as one of several configurations of the relationship between the divine sonship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Hence the idea developed in different narrative patterns in quite different cultural environments, such as those underlying the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
For geographical reasons, the community of John may or may not had contacts with such tradition (although this is pure speculation).
In any case, under these assumptions, we’re talking of a pretty ancient tradition, possibly before 60 CE – thus coming from the first Christian (Jewish-Christian) generation.
P.S.: since the above material comes directly (even if translated) from a web source, I have to indicate its source: http://cristianesimoprimitivo.forumfree.it/?t=59335662
take care
@Talita: These are interesting comparisons. I’ve been trying to read a bit more on 2 Enoch this morning to get a basic grasp of the text (though I haven’t read a translation of it yet). It seems like there is a bit of debate over the time it was written and others do mention to assumption of the temple’s presence as evidence for a pre-70 origin. I will need to look more into this.
Complex matter anyway, Brian… I just wanted to propose something different than the “conventional” views on this subject.
I regularly read your blog, that is a great source of interesting topics and information.. Unfortunately many topics would require a lot of time to go into more depth (2 Enoch is a good example, for what concerns dating debates among scholars, parallels between Enochic apocalyptic tradition and new testament texts, etc.)
So, I do not expect to close such questions here, but at least I’m happy if I provided some “food for thought” 🙂
Thank you, ciao
I am thankful for your contribution to the discussion. I wouldn’t have thought of 2 Enoch if you had not brought it to my attention. Maybe by this time next year I can make it into a blog discussion!
Reasonable, fascinating idea, Talita, suggesting many interesting possibilities. Thanks!