Andrew T. Lincoln, Portland Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Gloucestershire, is well known for his work on John and the Pauline Epistles. His new work on the virgin birth traditions is carefully researched and will likely open up a lively discussion for years to come.

Lincoln makes it clear that he is writing from a faith-based tradition and that the belief that Jesus is fully human and fully divine is a “non-negotiable element of Christianity’s ‘scandal of particularity’” (p. 18). Lincoln’s position on the “virginal conception” may well fall within the parameters of the Church of England (pp. 300–301), but are certainly contradictory to traditional views, such as those propounded in the Apostles’ Creed and the even earlier Old Roman Creed (or Symbol).

Lincoln begins in chapter one by making a case for a re-evaluation of the traditions concerning the “virginal conception” and then progresses to examine the literary, historical, hermeneutical, and theological issues concerning this issue. Lincoln argues that there are at least two views of Jesus’s conception found within the New Testament: 1) the “virginal conception” as referred to in Matthew (1:21–23) and Luke (1:27–38); and 2) his conception through the natural sexual union of Mary and Joseph (“born of the seed of David according to the flesh,” Rom 1:3; “son of Joseph,” John 1:45). He maintains that Matthew consistently refers to a virginal birth, but that Matthew’s wording conveys merely a special empowerment by God (similar to Philo’s use of “begotten of God”), not a miraculous birth. Lincoln proposes that the book of Luke, on the other hand, contains both traditions: in some passages Jesus’s birth was a virginal conception and in others it occurred from normal sexual relations between Mary and Joseph. He sees this latter tradition displayed in phrases that speak of Jesus coming from the “line of David” (Luke 1:27; 2:24; 18:38, 39) or being “the son of Joseph” (3:23). However, it should be noted that the phrase ὡς ἐνομίζετο “as supposed” in Luke 3:23 implies a question as to whether Jesus was indeed Joseph’s son.

We doubt whether these birth traditions are as contradictory as Lincoln suggests. First, at least as far back as the second century, Church Fathers argued that Mary was also from the line of David; and second, based upon adoption practices of the Jews, Jesus could legitimately be called the “son of Joseph.”

Lincoln also points out the recurring charge, largely by Jewish sources, that Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier named Panthera, and that the angel’s message to Joseph was meant to encourage him to marry her anyway. However, this tradition developed later and can credibly be viewed as an attempt by early Jews to discredit Christian beliefs.

An interesting part of the book is Lincoln’s description of the traditions of miraculous births surrounding other prominent figures in the Greco-Roman world. Lincoln argues that these myths were created to enhance the reputation of these people (e.g., Romulus and Remus; Alexander the Great; Augustus Caesar) and that the biblical authors acted in a similar fashion when describing Jesus’s birth. However, none of the Greco-Roman traditions developed during the lifetime of these important people—they were later developments. The traditions concerning Jesus’s “virginal conception” appear to have arisen during his lifetime when people could indeed confirm it. It is also very likely that each of the Greco-Roman miraculous birth tropes developed after the biblical traditions and not before.

It was also surprising in such a careful working through the evidence by Lincoln that the nature of the sources were not evaluated more fully. For example, it is not surprising that sources from a later point in the Greco-Roman period contradict the biblical text, since by then Christians were being persecuted and their beliefs ridiculed. Furthermore, it seems odd that such an outrageous claim of a “virginal conception” could have had proponents so close to Jesus’s birth that it would have been mentioned in two of the Gospels and somehow became the majority position—unless there was some truth behind it.

Lincoln believes that a “virginal conception” would undermine Jesus’s incarnation. He argues that it would have been impossible for Jesus to be fully human if he did not have a human father to supply the Y chromosome (pp. 261–62). And yet the biblical account does not portray either Adam, who was created without having parents, or Eve, who was fashioned from only Adam’s genetic material, as demi-gods; the biblical accounts picture them as fully functioning human beings.

The context of Heb 2 makes it very clear that Jesus partook fully of “flesh and bones” (2:14) just like we have and was put through testing just like we are (2:18), so that we could have a merciful high priest. But does Heb 2:17 demand that his bodily make-up be exactly like ours? The phrase κατὰ πάντα “in every respect” must still allow for Jesus’s true identity as God-Man (which Lincoln himself affirms) with both natures perfectly united in one person.

We wonder if some of the statements implying or even clearly stating a “virginal conception” are quite so easily dismissed: Matt 1:18, “before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit”; Matt 1:20, “for the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”; Matt 1:25, “he kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son”; Luke 1:27, Mary is called a “virgin” twice; and Mary’s own question in Luke 1:34, “How can this be since I am a virgin?” Lincoln argues that Matthew’s use of the phrase “the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” refers to merely “empowering by the Holy Spirit.” However, in the Lukan accounts we have two birth narratives side by side, Elizabeth’s and Mary’s. Of these two narratives, the former appears to be adequately described as an “empowering by the Holy Spirit” to have a son, since Elizabeth was beyond childbearing years; this narrative is significantly different than how Mary’s conception is described. Thus we believe Matthew’s account describes something more than merely a supernatural empowerment.

We also are not convinced by Lincoln’s use of the Isa 7:14 in his discussion of Matt 1. There are several phrases in this passage that suggest Mary is more than simply a “young woman”; in addition, by the New Testament time the word παρθένος had narrowed down in meaning to “virgin” (see Matt 1:25; Luke 1:27, 34; etc.).

While we have pointed out what we consider to be areas of weakness in the book, Lincoln’s discussions are thought provoking on a number of points. First, Lincoln is correct in noting that the “virginal conception” is not frequently mentioned in the New Testament, but that does not necessarily mean that it is an unimportant concept. Several other issues or concepts are mentioned only infrequently in the New Testament, yet they carry great significance: divorce (Matt 5, 19; Mark 10; 1 Cor 7), tongues as a spiritual gift (Acts 2; 1 Cor 12–14), and the great commission (Matt 28:19–20). Second, Lincoln makes an interesting argument that Jesus could have been sinless without a virginal conception. Finally, Lincoln reminds Christians that it is necessary to think through the incarnation given the scientific advancements in our understanding of human reproduction.

Thus even though one may disagree with Lincoln’s conclusions, he provides a very coherent and stimulating discussion.

---