According to Encyclopaedia Britanica, “the writing of history is based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination.”
After reading the above paragraph, I re-read Luke 1:1-4. There, Luke used language similar to classical Greek. He began with a formal preface, common to historical works of that time. He stated his purpose for writing and identified the recipient. He acknowledged other reports on the subject and showed the need for his contribution. He presented his method of approach and sources of information. That was Luke’s approach to both books of the New Testament credited to his authorship.
He demonstrated his commitment to proper recording of events in reporting on the birth of Jesus. He provided specific names of political luminaries, he identified the locations and circumstances of the events. Luke’s reporting allows us to check the biblical and other historical records to verify the accuracy of his reporting. Ascertaining accuracy is critical because the events provide a foundation for major biblical doctrines.
The late Sir William Ramsay, a skilled archaeologist, did not believe that Luke was a very credible historian. Ramsay did not believe that there was enough archaeological evidence to verify the accuracy of Luke’s work in the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. So he travelled throughout Asia Minor, Greece and other regions in the late 1800’s to bolster his opinion. However, following years of study, he found the exact opposite to be true and he reversed his position. He went on to comment that “Luke is a historian of the first rank – not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest historians.” Ramsey was so impressed with the historicity of Luke’s writings that he eventually became a Christian.
Luke was aware that he lived at a time when some contended that non-miraculous virgin births or parthenogenesis was possible. It was alleged that Romulus and Remus, twin founders of Rome, were born of the virgin Rhea Silvia. Some also contended that the Phrygo-Roman god, Attis, was born of a virgin. In such a culture, Luke as a historian was fully aware of the scepticism and risks in presenting the virgin birth of Jesus. Today, we are also aware that some birds, crayfish and sharks experience parthenogenesis, a sort of asexual fertilization process.
How then can Christians present a credible story of the Virgin Birth of Jesus? Firstly, we need to recognize that it is not our responsibility to recreate the birth of Jesus to accommodate a twenty-first century scientific mindset. Our obligation is to retell the story that Luke told – it is historically credible.
Luke’s story is not a legend. It was not based on the conclusions of communities over a long period of time. He argued that “eyewitnesses” were among the sources he contacted. In stating one of his purposes for writing, Luke said to Theophilus, he was compiling his findings “so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). Luke was not attempting to embellish a story, in order to sensationalize the birth of Jesus. The mention of persons and circumstances that were not culturally elite, is consistent with accurate reporting and not exaggeration.
Some critics may contend that Luke’s story of the virgin birth was not corroborated by other New Testament writers. Agreed, Matthew was the only other evangelist to write on the virgin birth of Jesus. However, the silence of the other writers does not mean disagreement. “Silence does not equal denial.” What if the Jewish practice of downplaying the celebration of births could have prejudiced the thinking of the Jewish-influenced New Testament writers? Furthermore, what if the writers were satisfied and never saw the need for further comment, like their silence with the baptism of Jesus and the appearance of the Holy Spirit like a dove?
Honestly though, does the virgin birth really matter? It certainly does. The virgin birth affirms prophecy. Both Matthew and Luke believed that the virgin birth was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah - “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign – the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). The virgin birth also affirms Scripture. Apart from Matthew and Luke, Paul alludes to the birth of Jesus in Galatians, “… God sent his Son, born of a woman…” (Galatians 4:4). The virgin birth further affirms our understanding of God’s sovereignty, incarnation, hamartiology, biblical genealogy and the Trinity.
