Before I begin this multi-part series around the virgin birth, let me advise those readers who may not already know that I do not belief in the “literal virgin birth” of Jesus. I simply do not NEED a virgin birth to validate the fact that God was in Jesus reconciling Himself to the world, nor that a virgin birth is necessary for any incarnational stance. Even before the Age of Enlightenment, well before the Newton, Galileo, and the more recent scientific innovations, the virgin birth was looked upon more as a MYTH. Myths are good, necessary, and critical to all societies. Let me explain.
So, what makes a myth so important in our lives? A myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. Myths are found in traditional stories of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.
As to the topic of this commentary, the virgin birth myth was man’s attempt to explain the diety of Jesus!
I submit that neither God not Jesus need our help in explaining how Jesus became the Christ and more importantly the second person of the trinity for the Christian community. Were it not for four chapters in the Bible (Matthew and Luke: chapters 1 and 2 in each), there would be no virgin birth story, no need for an Annunciation concept, no need for an Immaculate Conception theory, and no Mariology to try and intellectually defend or support.
Do we not find it interesting that stories of virgin births are in almost all religions? 
Isn’t it strange that neither the earliest gospel of Mark was silent on the virgin story, that St. John, who is above all the most mystical of all the New Testament writers, never mention it? And why didn’t St. Paul, (in any of his writings or epistles) the earliest of all writers of the New Testament manuscriptes, ever mention a virgin birth? Isn’t it such an astounding historical event to merit at least a mention by the above, or the writer of Hebrews as well?
Enough of the introduction. On to some deeper theological and practical thoughts in my second commentary. But I leave you with this thought. Why? Why was there, is there a NEED for such a myth or more importantly for followers of Jesus to demand that a virgin birth be literal and not metaphorical?
The virgin birth is a way to set Jesus against Caesar Augustus (Octavian) who had a miracle birth story in Roman imperial theology. The miracles and myths of the gospels are a competitive development within the growth of Christianity.
“The providence which has ordered the whole of our life, showing zeal and concern, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving it to [him] . . . by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men, and by sending in him, as it were, a savior for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create peace everywhere. . . . The birthday of the god was the beginning for the world of the gospel that has come to men through him.
That wasn’t Jesus birth annoncement it was Caesar’s. And just like Jesus’ birth annoncement in Matthew, it was written years after his actually birth. It was common to WRITE A PERSON INTO POSTERITY after their death by writing a myth about them. Myth is how history was told by those people and Christianity picked up on that idea when writing about Jesus. Writing a myth is the utmost respect to the historical person because it immortalizes them.
Asking why we need this myth is like saying why did we need to imortalize Jesus. The answer is because people loved him and respected him. Isn’t that we we keep telling the myths today?
As I said in my commentary, myths are sacred touch-stones which we all NEED. And more importantly, we also need the TRUTHS that come from the myths.
I would welcome your comments on the virgin birth at my blog, personalpaths.blogspot.com.
I’ll check it out