his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
together, she was found with the child of the Holy Ghost.
Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing
to make her a public example was minded to put her away
privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying,
Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary
thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy
Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call
his name JESUS, for he shall save his people from their
sins. And now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold
a virgin shall be with a child and shall bring forth a son,
and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from
sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took
unto him his wife: And knew her not until she had brought
forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."
(_Matt. 1:18-25._)
Luke's account is as follows:
"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God
unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused
to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and
the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her
and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is
with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw
him she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind
what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said
unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with
God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring
forth a son and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be
great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the
Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of
his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the
angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the
angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God." (_Luke 1:26-33._)
And so, this then is the commonly accepted, orthodox teachings of
Christian theology. It is embodied in the two best-known creeds of the
church and is made an essential article of belief by the majority of
the orthodox churches.
In the Apostle's Creed, which has been traced back to about the year
A.D. 500, and which is claimed to have been based on an older creed,
the doctrine is stated thusly: "... and in Jesus Christ, his only Son,
our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin
Mary," etc. In the Nicene Creed, which dates from A.D. 325, the
doctrine is stated thusly: "... and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father ... and was incarnate by
the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," etc.
And so, the doctrine is plainly stated and firmly insisted upon by the
orthodox churches of today, although such was not always the case for
the matter was one which gave rise to much conflict and difference of
opinion in the early centuries of the Church, the present view,
however, overcoming those who opposed it, and finally becoming
accepted as beyond doubt or question by the orthodox, believing
Christian.
But the present time finds many leading minds in the churches, who
refuse to accept the doctrine as usually taught, and the voice of the
Higher Criticism is heard in the land in increasing volume and many
doctrines unquestioningly held by the pews are being abandoned by the
pulpits, usually in the way of "discreet silence" being maintained.
But here and there courageous voices are heard stating plainly that
which their reason and conscience impels. We shall now consider these
dissenting opinions.
We have to say here, at this point, that we have no sympathy for the
so-called "infidel" opinion, which holds that the whole tale of the
Virgin Birth was invented to conceal the illegitimate birth of Jesus.
Such a view is based neither on intelligent investigation or
criticism, or upon the occult teachings. It was merely "invented"
itself, by those who were unable to accept current theology and who,
when driven from the churches, built up a crude system of
reconstructed Biblical History of their own. And so we shall not stop
to even consider this view of the matter, but shall pass on to the
scholarly objectors and their views and thence to the Occult
Teachings.
In the first place, the theologians who favor the views of the Higher
Criticism object to the idea of the Virgin Birth upon several general
grounds, among which the following are the principal ones:
(1) That the story of the Divine Conception, that is the
conception by a woman of a child without a human father, and
by means of a miraculous act on the part of Deity, is one
found among the traditions, legends and beliefs of many
heathen and pagan nations. Nearly all of the old Oriental
religions, antedating Christianity by many centuries,
contain stories of this kind concerning their gods, prophets
and great leaders. The critics hold that the story of the
Virgin Birth and Divine Conception were borrowed outright
from these pagan legends and incorporated into the Christian
Writings after the death of Christ;
(2) that the idea of the Virgin Birth was not an original
Christian Doctrine, but was injected into the Teachings at a
date about one hundred years, or nearly so, after the
beginning of the Christian Era; this view being corroborated
by the fact that the New Testament Writings themselves
contain very little mention of the idea, the only mention of
it being in two of the Gospels, those of St. Matthew and St.
Luke--St. Mark and St. John containing no mention of the
matter, which would not likely be the case had it been an
accepted belief in the early days of Christianity--and no
mention being made of it in the Epistles, even Paul being
utterly silent on the question. They claim that the Virgin
Birth was unknown to the primitive Christians and was not
heard of until its "borrowing" from pagan beliefs many years
after. In support of their idea, as above stated, they call
attention to the fact that the New Testament writings, known
to Biblical students as the oldest and earliest, make no
mention of the idea; and that Paul ignores it completely, as
well as the other writers;
(3) that the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke bear
internal evidences of the introduction of the story at a
later date. This matter we shall now consider, from the
point of view of the Higher Criticism within the body of the
Church.
In the first place, let us consider the Gospel of St. Matthew. The
majority of people accept this as having been written by St. Matthew,
with his own hand, during his ministry; and that the Gospel, word for
word, is the work of this great apostle. This idea, however, is not
held for a moment by the educated clergy, as may be seen by a
reference to any prominent theological work of late years, or even in
the pages of a good encyclopedia. The investigators have made diligent
researches concerning the probable authorship of the New Testament
books and their reports would surprise many faithful church-goers who
are not acquainted with the facts of the case. There is no warrant,
outside of tradition and custom, for the belief that Matthew wrote the
Gospel accredited to him, at least in its present shape. Without going
deeply into the argument of the investigators (which may be found in
any recent work on the History of the Gospels) we would say that the
generally accepted conclusion now held by the authorities is that the
Gospel commonly accredited to St. Matthew is the work of some unknown
hand or hands, which was produced during the latter part of the first
century A.D., written in Greek, and most likely an enlargement or
elaboration of certain Aramaic writings entitled, "Sayings of Jesus,"
which are thought to have been written by Matthew himself. In other
words, even the most conservative of the critics do not claim that the
Gospel of St. Matthew is anything more than an enlargement,
elaboration or development of Matthew's earlier writings, written many
years before the elaboration of the present "Gospel." The more radical
critics take an even less respectful view. This being the fact, it may
be readily seen how easy it would have been for the latter-day
"elaborator" to introduce the then current legend of the Virgin Birth,
borrowed from pagan sources.
As a further internal evidence of such interpolation of outside
matter, the critics point to the fact that while the Gospel of Matthew
is made to claim that Joseph was merely the _reputed father_ of the
child of Mary, the same Gospel, in its very first chapter (_Matt. 1_)
_gives the genealogy of Jesus from David to Joseph_ the husband of
Mary, _in order to prove that Jesus came from the "House of David_,"
in accordance with the Messianic tradition. The chapter begins with
the words, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of
David, the son of Abraham" (_Matt. 1_), and then goes on to name
fourteen generations from Abraham to David; fourteen generations from
David to the days of the carrying away into Babylon; and fourteen
generations from the Babylonian days until the birth of Jesus. The
critics call attention to this _recital of Jesus's descent, through
Joseph, from the House of David_, which is but one of the many
indications that the original Matthew inclined quite strongly to the
view that Jesus was the Hebrew Messiah, come to reign upon the throne
of David, rather than a Divine Avatar or Incarnation.
The critics point to the fact that _if Joseph were not the real father
of Jesus, where would be the sense and purpose of proving his descent
from David through Joseph?_ It is pertinently asked, _"Why the
necessity or purpose of the recital of Joseph's genealogy, as applied
to Jesus, if indeed Jesus were not truly the son of Joseph_?" The
explanation of the critics is that the earlier writings of Matthew
contained nothing regarding the Virgin Birth, Matthew having heard
nothing of this pagan legend, and that naturally he gave the genealogy
of Jesus from David and Abraham. If one omits the verses 18-25 from
Matthew's Gospel, he will see the logical relation of the genealogy to
the rest of the account--otherwise it is paradoxical, contradictory
and ridiculous, and shows the joints and seams where it has been
fitted into the older account.
"But," you may ask, "what of the Messianic Prophecy mentioned by
Matthew (1:23)? Surely this is a direct reference to the prophecy of
Isaiah 7:14." Let us examine this so-called "prophecy," of which so
much has been said and see just what reference it has to the birth of
Jesus.
Turning back to Isaiah 7, we find these words, just a little before
the "prophecy":
"Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a
sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in
the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither
will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of
David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye
weary my God also?" (_Isaiah 6:13._)
Then comes the "prophecy": "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you
a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call
his name Immanuel." This is the "prophecy" quoted by the writer of the
Gospel of Matthew, and which has been quoted for centuries in
Christian churches, as a foretelling of the miraculous birth of Jesus.
As a matter of fact, intelligent theologians know that it has no
reference to Jesus at all, in any way, but belongs to another
occurrence, as we shall see presently, and was injected into the
Gospel narrative merely to support the views of the writer thereof.
It may be well to add here that many of the best authorities hold that
the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "_almah_" into the equivalent
of "virgin" in the usual sense of the word is incorrect. The Hebrew
word "_almah_" used in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, does not
mean "virgin" as the term is usually employed, but rather "a young
woman of marriageable age--a maiden," the Hebrews having an entirely
different word for the idea of "virginity," as the term is generally
used. The word "_almah_" is used in other parts of the Old Testament
to indicate a "young woman--a maiden," notably in Proverbs 30:19, in
the reference to "the way of a man with a maid."
But we need not enter into discussions of this kind, say the Higher
Critics, for the so-called "prophecy" refers to an entirely different
matter. It appears, say they, that Ahaz, a weakling king of Judea, was
in sore distress because Rezin the Syrian king, and Pekah the ruler of
Northern Israel, had formed an offensive alliance against him and were
moving their combined forces toward Jerusalem. In his fear he sought
an alliance with Assyria, which alliance was disapproved of by Isaiah
who remonstrated with Ahaz about the proposed move. The king was too
much unnerved by fear to listen to Isaiah's arguments and so the
latter dropped into prophecy. He prophesied, after the manner of the
Oriental seer, that the land would be laid waste and misery entailed
upon Israel, should the suicidal policy be adopted. But he held out a
hope for a brighter future after the clouds of adversity had rolled
by. A new and wise prince would arise who would bring Israel to her
former glory. That prince would be born of a young mother and his name
would be Immanuel, which means "God with us." All this had reference
to things of a reasonably near future and had no reference to the
birth of Jesus _some seven hundred years after_, who _was not a
prince_ sitting upon the throne of Israel, and who did not bring
national glory and renown to Israel, for such was not his mission.
Hebrew scholars and churchmen have often claimed that Isaiah's
prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of Hezekiah.
There is no evidence whatever in the Jewish history of the seven
hundred years between Isaiah and Jesus, that the Hebrews regarded
Isaiah's prophecy as relating to the expected Messiah, but on the
contrary it was thought to relate to a minor event in their history.
As a Jewish writer has truly said, "Throughout the wide extent of
Jewish literature there is not a single passage which can bear the
construction that the Messiah should be miraculously conceived." Other
writers along this line have stated the same thing, showing that the
idea of a Virgin Birth was foreign to the Jewish mind, the Hebrews
having always respected and highly honored married life and human
parentage, regarding their children as blessings and gifts from God.
Another writer in the Church has said, "Such a fable as the birth of
the Messiah from a _virgin_ could have arisen anywhere else easier
than among the Jews; their doctrine of the divine unity placed an
impassable gulf between God and the world; their high regard for the
marriage relation," etc., would have rendered the idea obnoxious.
Other authorities agree with this idea, and insist that the idea of
the Virgin Birth never originated in Hebrew prophecy, but was injected
into the Christian Doctrine from pagan sources, toward the end of the
first century, and received credence owing to the influx of converts
from the "heathen" peoples who found in the idea a correspondence with
their former beliefs. As Rev. R.J. Campbell, minister of the City
Temple, London, says in his "New Theology," "No New Testament passage
whatever is directly or indirectly a prophecy of the virgin birth of
Jesus. To insist upon this may seem to many like beating a man of
straw, but if so, the man of straw still retains a good deal of
vitality."
Let us now turn to the second account of the Virgin Birth, in the
Gospels--the only other place that it is mentioned, outside of the
story in Matthew, above considered. We find this second mention in
Luke 1:26-35, the verses having been quoted in the first part of this
lesson.
There has been much dispute regarding the real authorship of the
Gospel commonly accredited to Luke, but it is generally agreed upon by
Biblical scholars that it was the latest of the first three Gospels
(generally known as "the Synoptic Gospels"). It is also generally
agreed upon, by such scholars, that the author, whoever he may have
been, was not an eye witness of the events in the Life of Christ. Some
of the best authorities hold that he was a Gentile (non-Hebrew),
probably a Greek, for his Greek literary style is far above the
average, his vocabulary being very rich and his diction admirable. It
is also generally believed that the same hand wrote the Book of Acts.
Tradition holds that the author was one Luke, a Christian convert
after the death of Jesus, who was one of Paul's missionary band which
traveled from Troas to Macedonia, and who shared Paul's imprisonment
in Caesarea; and who shared Paul's shipwreck experiences on the voyage
to Rome. He is thought to have written his Gospel long after the death
of Paul, for the benefit and instruction of one Theophilus, a man of
rank residing in Antioch.
It is held by writers of the Higher Criticism that the account of the
Virgin Birth was either injected in Luke's narrative, by some later
writer, or else that Luke in his old age adopted this view which was
beginning to gain credence among the converted Christians of pagan
origin, Luke himself being of this class. It is pointed out that as
Paul, who was Luke's close friend and teacher, made no mention of the
Virgin Birth, and taught nothing of the kind, Luke must have acquired
the legend later, if, indeed, the narrative was written by him at all
in his Gospel.
It is likewise noted that Luke also gives a genealogy of Jesus, from
Adam, through Abraham, and David, and Joseph. The words in parenthesis
"as was supposed," in Luke 3:23, are supposed to have been inserted in
the text by a later writer, as there would be no sense or reason in
tracing the genealogy of Jesus through a "supposed" father. The verse
in question reads thusly: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the
son of Heli," etc. Students, of course, notice that the line of
descent given by Luke differs very materially from that given by
Matthew, showing a lack of knowledge on the part of one or the other
writer.
On the whole, scholars consider it most remarkable that this account
of the Virgin Birth should be given by Luke, who was a most ardent
Pauline student and follower, in view of the fact that Paul ignored
the whole legend, if, indeed, he had ever heard of it. Surely a man
like Paul would have laid great stress upon this wonderful event had
he believed in it, or had it formed a part of the Christian Doctrine
of his time. That Luke should have written this account is a great
mystery--and many feel that it is much easier to accept the theory of
the later interpolation of the story into Luke's Gospel, particularly
in view of the corroborative indications.
Summing up the views of the Higher Criticism, we may say that the
general position taken by the opponents and deniers of the Virgin
Birth of Jesus is about as follows:
1. The story of the Virgin Birth is found only in the
introductory portion of two of the four Gospels--Matthew and
Luke--and even in these the story bears the appearance of
having been "fitted in" by later writers.
2. Even Matthew and Luke are silent about the matter after
the statements in the introductory part of their Gospels,
which could scarcely occur had the story been written by and
believed in by the writers, such action on their part being
contrary to human custom and probability.
3. The Gospels of Mark and John are absolutely silent on the
subject; the oldest of the Gospels--that of Mark--bears no
trace of the legend; and the latest Gospel--that of
John--being equally free from its mention.
4. The rest of the New Testament breathes not a word of the
story or doctrine. _The Book of Acts, generally accepted as
having also been written by Luke, ignores the subject
completely_. Paul, the teacher of Luke, and the great writer
of the Early Church, seems to know nothing whatever about
the Virgin Birth, or else purposely ignores it entirely, the
latter being unbelievable in such a man. Peter, the First
Apostle, makes no mention of the story or doctrine in his
great Epistles, which fact is inconceivable if he knew of
and believed in the legend. The Book of Revelation is
likewise silent upon this doctrine which played so important
a part in the later history of the Church. The great
writings of the New Testament contain no mention of the
story, outside of the brief mention in Matthew and Luke,
alluded to above.
5. There are many verses in the Gospels and Epistles which
go to prove, either that the story was unknown to the
writers, or else not accepted by them. _The genealogies of
Joseph are cited to prove the descent of Jesus from David,
which depends entirely upon the fact of Joseph's actual
parentage. Jesus is repeatedly and freely mentioned as the
son of Joseph._ Paul and the other Apostles hold firmly to
the doctrine of the necessity of the Death of Jesus; his
Rising from the Dead; and his Ascension into Heaven, etc.
But they had nothing to say regarding any necessity for his
Virgin Birth, or the necessity for the acceptance of any
such doctrine--they are absolutely silent on this point,
although they were careful men, omitting no important detail
of doctrine. Paul even speaks of Jesus as "of the seed of
David." (_Rom. 1:3._)
6. The Virgin Birth was not a part of the early traditions
or doctrine of the Church, but was unknown to it. And it is
not referred to in the preaching and teaching of the
Apostles, as may have been seen by reference to the Book of
Acts. This book, which relates the Acts and Teachings of the
Apostles, could not have inadvertently omitted such an
important doctrine or point of teaching. It is urged by
careful and conscientious Christian scholars that the
multitudes converted to Christianity in the early days must
have been ignorant of, or uninformed on, this miraculous
event, which would seem inexcusable on the part of the
Apostles had they known of it and believed in its truth.
This condition of affairs must have lasted until nearly the
second century, when the pagan beliefs began to filter in by
reason of the great influx of pagan converts.
7. There is every reason for believing that the legend arose
from other pagan legends, the religions of other peoples
being filled with accounts of miraculous births of heroes,
gods, and prophets, kings and sages.
8. That acceptance of the legend is not, nor should it be, a
proof of belief in Christ and Christianity. This view is
well voiced by Rev. Dr. Campbell, in his "New Theology,"
when he says "The credibility and significance of
Christianity are in no way affected by the doctrine of the
Virgin Birth, otherwise than that the belief tends to put a
barrier between Jesus and the race, and to make him
something that cannot properly be called human.... Like many
others, I used to take the position that acceptance or
non-acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was
immaterial because Christianity was quite independent of it;
but later reflection has convinced me that in point of fact
it operates as a hindrance to spiritual religion and a real
living faith in Jesus. The simple and natural conclusion is
that Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary, and had an
uneventful childhood." The German theologian, Soltau, says,
"Whoever makes the further demand that an evangelical
Christian shall believe in the words 'conceived by the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,' wittingly constitutes
himself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit and the
true Gospel as transmitted to us by the Apostles and their
school in the Apostolic Age."