Did Paul believe in the virgin birth?

C.J. Cornthwaite recently produced a video that's partly about the subject. I want to make several points in response:

- Near the beginning of the video, C.J. mentions the possibility that the virgin birth claim originated with the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. And he apparently dates those gospels to the late first century or after. So, he's suggesting a scenario in which the virgin birth claim originated nearly a century after Jesus' birth. Keep that timeline in mind.

- C.J. brings up Romans 1:3, where Jesus is referred to as "born of a descendant of David according to the flesh". C.J. is right to bring up this passage as evidence against the virgin birth. But we have to go on to ask to what extent the passage is evidence against Jesus' being born of a virgin. See my response to Andrew Lincoln here for a discussion of the subject. As I explain there, the sort of probability C.J. is appealing to is a weak one that can easily be overcome by evidence pointing in a different direction. Similarly, the term "son" in modern English normally involves a biological relationship, but that usual meaning can easily be overcome by evidence that the relationship is adoptive rather than biological. As I'll explain below, we have multiple, independent, weightier lines of evidence for the earliness of belief in the virgin birth, including Paul's belief in it, so an appeal to Romans 1:3 for a position like C.J.'s is valid, but outweighed by other evidence.

- He brings up the "born of a woman" language in Galatians 4:4 and asks why Paul doesn't mention a miracle as significant as the virgin birth in that context (such as by using the phrase "born of a virgin" instead). Though Paul thought Jesus was extraordinary in some ways, he seems to be more focused on his ordinariness in the context in question. The "born of a woman" phrase is common (e.g., Matthew 11:11), and Paul immediately goes on to refer to how Jesus was "born under the Law, so that he might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons" (Galatians 4:4-5). The focus is on Jesus' becoming like us to redeem us. That doesn't mean Paul thought Jesus was ordinary in every context. But he's focused on ordinariness here, and bringing up the virgin birth would undermine his point and would be a distraction. So, C.J.'s appeal to Galatians 4 doesn't work.

- He appeals to other passages in Paul, but doesn't provide enough details to justify agreement with his interpretation of the passages. He refers to how the virgin birth is relevant in the context of paralleling Adam and Jesus, which Paul does sometimes. But the fact that Paul sometimes parallels the two in the process of discussing a particular topic doesn't give us reason to think he'd discuss every Adam/Jesus parallel he thought existed. There's no letter where Paul sets out to discuss every way in which Adam and Jesus can be paralleled. I'm not aware of any place in Paul's letters where we'd expect the particular Adam/Jesus parallel C.J. is bringing up to be mentioned.

- So, C.J. hasn't given us any reason to think Paul should have mentioned the virgin birth in a passage in which he doesn't mention it.

- My impression is that most scholars, not just conservatives, think Matthew and Luke relied on an earlier tradition when they referred to the virgin birth. Raymond Brown, whose work on the infancy narratives is still widely regarded as the standard in the field, concludes that Matthew and Luke drew from "a pre-Gospel tradition" on the subject (The Birth Of The Messiah [New York, New York: Doubleday, 1999], 161). And as Charles Quarles notes, "That allusion or affirmation of the virginal conception appears in multiple pre-Matthew sources should make one pause before dismissing it too lightly." (in Robert Stewart and Gary Habermas, edd., Memories Of Jesus [Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2010], approximate Kindle location 4168)

- As I've argued elsewhere, 1 Timothy 5:18 likely refers to the gospel of Luke as scripture. For a discussion of some of the evidence that chapters 1-2 were part of the original gospel of Luke, see here. On the likely presence of the virgin birth in Luke 3, go here. So, 1 Timothy indirectly affirms the virgin birth. Even if Paul's authorship of the document is rejected, it's still an early source and one coming from an author, community, or whoever supporting a high view of Paul. The writings attributed to Luke also put forward a high view of Paul. Paul's belief in the virgin birth makes more sense of its affirmation in multiple early Pauline sources (like Luke and 1 Timothy) and the manner in which it's affirmed in those sources. Though it's possible that multiple early Pauline sources would advocate a view on the subject that's inconsistent with Paul's view, the issue isn't what's possible. The issue is what makes the most sense of the evidence. Continuity is more likely than discontinuity. It's a simpler explanation.

- Belief in the virgin birth also seems to have been widespread in early Pauline (and Johannine, etc.) individuals and churches outside the New Testament. See my discussion of those sources in response to Andrew Lincoln here. Such widespread acceptance of the virgin birth and the manner in which it's discussed (as if it's mainstream Christian belief, for example) is better explained if the belief originated earlier rather than later.

- The earliness of the virgin birth claim is supported by multiple ancient non-Christian sources. See here for a discussion of how Celsus and his Jewish source(s) referred to the existence of the virgin birth claim during Jesus' lifetime, for example. Recall the timeline I mentioned near the beginning of this post. If the virgin birth claim didn't originate until close to a century after Jesus' birth, why didn't opponents of the concept make an issue of that lateness? And why was there such widespread agreement that the virgin birth claim originated earlier?

- I've explained elsewhere, like here, that the premarital timing of Mary's pregnancy is highly likely to be historical. The early Christians probably wouldn't have been silent about the negative implications of that premarital timing. And they probably wouldn't have said that Jesus was conceived through sexual immorality. Either of those scenarios, silence or saying that Jesus was conceived through sexual sin, would have been highly discrediting to the Christian movement and should have left far more of a mark in the historical record if it happened. If knowledge of the premarital pregnancy was accompanied by the claim of a virgin birth, then the lesser degree of scandal becomes more coherent. Christians would have thought that no premarital sex was involved, and non-Christians would have known that any claim of premarital sex that they alleged would be disputed. They'd still make the accusation to some extent, but they'd probably make less of an issue of it than they would have if Christians had no response or if premarital sex had been acknowledged by the early Christians. In other words, the fact that the premarital timing of the pregnancy wasn't more of an issue in both Christian and non-Christian sources is best explained if there was some mitigating factor involved, and the virgin birth claim is the best candidate we have for that mitigating factor. So, widespread early Christian belief in a virgin birth makes the most sense of the situation. That includes belief in the virgin birth on the part of Paul.

- For a summary of some evidence for the virgin birth, see here.