Of course, the notion of Christ’s virgin birth (more correctly, ‘virginal conception’) is as commonly ridiculed outside the Christian church as it is disputed within it.  Many theologians insist that we cannot take it literally: that it is a mythical way of expressing who Jesus was.

It is pointed out by critics that the virgin birth is recognised only by Matthew and Luke, and is conspicuously absent from the other New Testament writings, including those of Paul.  In reply, we should point out that there are various hints elsewhere that there had been something unusual about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth (see, for example, Jn 8:41).  Then Paul, in three different letters (Gal 4:4; Phil 2:7; Rom 1:3), uses the word ginomai (‘to come to be’) rather than the more usual gennao (to produce; to beget) when referring to Jesus’ birth.  And we should not forget that Paul and Luke were close associates and travelling companions: it seems unlikely that Luke would know about the virgin birth while Paul did not.

As J.I. Packer writes:

‘The stress laid on Jesus’ preincarnate dignity and glory (John 1:1–9; 17:5; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5–11; Col. 1:15–17; Heb. 1:1–3; 1 John 1:1) made a mode of entry into incarnate life that involved proclamation of the glorious role he was coming to fulfill (Matt. 1:21–23; Luke 1:31–35) more natural than any alternative.’

(Concise Theology, p112)

Those who doubt the historicity of the virgin birth either have to reduce the whole story as recorded by Matthew and Luke to a patchwork of myths, or to raise serious questions about Mary’s moral behaviour (and Joseph’s gullibility!).

According to David Instone-Brewer:

‘There are significant reasons why it is also unlikely that Joseph and Mary would have invented such a strange cover story. First, first-century Palestine was a relatively well-educated and sophisticated society, and the religious leaders of the time were particularly sceptical about improbable and unprecedented miracles. Most Jews would have regarded the story of a virgin birth as unbelievable at best and blasphemous at worst. Second, Joseph and Mary would have attracted less criticism if they’d said the child was the result of rape by a Roman soldier or pre-marital love-making. And if Joseph was a character who was brave enough to marry this apparently fallen woman, it makes sense that he would also have the courage to tell the truth. And why would they invent such a dubious story when, as the incidental references in the Gospels of John and Mark demonstrate, these claims about Jesus’ birth being miraculous were simply disbelieved by most Jews? They didn’t believe it in his home village or in the rest of the country, as anyone knowing that society could have predicted. Historians have a problem: they have to choose between two equally unlikely scenarios. Either a group of religious Jews adamantly proclaimed an extremely naive and potentially blasphemous story, or there was a miraculous birth. This is an uncomfortable choice, except for those who do not rule out the miraculous.’

The Jesus Scandals, pp5-6.