The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on slender historical foundations. Both Matthew and Luke are compositions dating from the period AD 80–90, though this still places them within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, including Jesus's own family.
Marcus Borg stated, "I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories as historically factual."
E. P. Sanders described the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as "the clearest cases of invention" in the Gospels. The earliest Christian writings, the
Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and simply state that he was "born of a woman" and "born under the law" like any Jew. In the later epistle
1 Timothy, the author urges that "certain persons" should not "occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations..." . Some scholars have seen this passage as reflecting a negative view of the developing virgin birth stories and their variant genealogies. Though the author of the
Gospel of John is confident that Jesus is more than human, he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point. John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple
Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" – ), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" – John ). These quotations, incidentally, appear to be in direct opposition to the suggestion that Jesus was, or was believed to be, illegitimate: Philip and the Jews knew that Jesus had a human father, and that father was Joseph. This raises the question of where the authors of Matthew and Luke found their stories. Luke claims to be based upon eyewitness testimonies. Joseph dominates Matthew's and Mary dominates Luke's narrative; James Barker suggests that Luke intended to supplement Matthew’s nativity by adding Mary’s perspective to Matthew’s Joseph, while
Brown views it as no more than a pious deduction. Hurtado and Hultgren argue that the infancy narratives cannot be harmonized, precluding a single source for the two, but there are many agreements as well, suggesting that both stories use sources stemming from Palestinian Jewish Christianity; the historical memory of an early birth may lie behind the virgin birth story. A growing number of scholars defend the
Farrer hypothesis where Luke used
Matthew as a source or the
Matthean Posteriority hypothesis where Matthew was aware of Luke.
Larry Hurtado argues that the two narratives were created by the two writers, drawing on ideas in circulation at least a decade before the gospels were composed, to perhaps 65-75 or even earlier.
Dale Allison and
W. D. Davies argue that Matthew presents with minimal redaction a unified and preexisting infancy narrative. They view the infancy story as based on haggadic legends about
Moses, though they maintain that elements in the story such as the names of Mary and Joseph and the location of Jesus in Nazareth during the end of
Herod’s reign are historical. Matthew presents the ministry of Jesus as largely the fulfilment of prophecies from the
Book of Isaiah, and Matthew 1:22-23, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son..., is a reference to
Isaiah 7:14, "...the Lord himself shall give you a sign: the maiden is with child and she will bear a son..." The Book of Isaiah had been
translated into Greek, and from this translation, Matthew uses the Greek word (
parthenos), which does mean virgin, for the Hebrew (
almah), which scholars agree signifies a girl of childbearing age without reference to virginity. This mistranslation gave the author of Matthew the opportunity to interpret Jesus as the prophesied
Immanuel, "God is with us", the divine representative on earth. According to
R. T. France, the inclusion of Isaiah 7:14 was an explanatory addition to Matthew's birth narrative, albeit not the inspiration for it. According to
Mark Goodacre, the Gospel of Matthew did not base the virgin birth on a mistranslation of Isaiah. Conservative scholars argue that despite the uncertainty of the details, the gospel birth narratives trace back to historical, or at least much earlier pre-gospel traditions. For instance, according to
Ben Witherington: ==Theology and development==