The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth
by Vincent Taylor, B.D. (Lond.)
Clarendon Press
Oxford
1920
CONTENTS
Preface
Abbreviations
Chapter I. The Virgin Birth And The New Testament Outside The First And
Third Gospels
I. St. Paul
II. Q
III. St. Mark’s Gospel
IV. Acts
V. The Epistle to the Hebrews
VI. The Fourth Gospel
VII. The Pastoral and the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse
VIII. Summary
Chapter II. The Virgin Birth And The Third Gospel
I. Narratives and Passages Said to be Inconsistent With the View
(a) Lk. iii. 22, according to the “Western Text”
(b) The Lukan Genealogy and Lk. iii. 23
(c) The Narratives of Lk. ii
(d) The References to Joseph and Mary in Lk. ii
(e) Lk. ii. 5
II. The Passage Lk. i. 34 f
(a) The Interpretation of Lk. i. 34 f
(b) The Purport of the Angelic Announcement in Lk. i. 30‐3
(c) Reasons for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a Later Insertion
III. Summary and Conclusion
Chapter III. St. Luke and the Virgin Birth
I. Lk. i. 34 f. and the Textual Question
II. Linguistic and Stylistic Examination of Lk. i. 34 f
III. Summary and Conclusion
Chapter IV. The Place Of The Virgin Birth In The Third Gospel
I. A Suggested Theory
II. Literary Conditions Under Which the Gospels Were Written
III. The Objections to Which the Above Theory is Exposed
IV. Certain Consequences
Chapter V. The Virgin Birth And The First Gospel
I. The Characteristics of the Genealogy
II. The Genuineness of Mt. i, ii
III. The Unity of Mt. i, ii
1. The Genealogy
2. The Passage Mt. i. 18‐25
IV. Implications, Sources, and Results
Appendix To Chapter V. The Textual Problem of Mt. i. 16
Chapter VI. The Historical Question: Its Limits And Bearings
I. The Virgin Birth in the First and Third Gospels
II. The Date of the Gospels in Relation to the Virgin Birth Tradition
III. The Relation of the Question of the Historical Value of the
Gospels to the Problem
IV. The Question of Alternative Theories
V. Doctrinal Considerations
Index
Footnotes
[Cover Art]
PREFACE
This book is intended to be a literary and critical examination of the
historical evidence for the Virgin Birth. It is not the writer’s desire to
discuss the evidence from the point of view of an advocate; with a view,
that is to say, of obtaining an uncompromising verdict. His aim is rather
to trace and to define the earliest Christian tradition upon the subject,
and to show the limits and the bearings of the historical question.
A limited aim such as this ought not to require much justification. If,
however, justification is needed, it is not far to seek.
Much of the literature which treats of the Virgin Birth is controversial
in point of origin if not in form, and, in the nature of the case, it
could not have been otherwise. Controversial literature has, of course, a
necessary place in the search for truth. Nevertheless, it is exposed to
serious perils, especially when such a subject as that of the Virgin Birth
is discussed. It is not always easy, for example, to avoid an arbitrary
treatment of the New Testament, and to prevent philosophic or dogmatic
presuppositions from determining purely critical questions. Few will deny
that the discussion of the Virgin Birth has suffered in these directions,
and that, as a consequence, the problem remains in considerable confusion.
Not only has the evidence been variously estimated, but there are the
widest differences of opinion as to what the evidence really is. Neither
side has succeeded in convincing the other, and very many students of the
question preserve an attitude of suspended judgement.
The point which it is important to make is that, if any escape is to be
made from the present impasse, the problem must be approached in another
way. Doctrinal presuppositions must be resolutely laid aside; there must
be a common desire to ascertain the true facts of the evidence, whatever
the results may be. Not that dogmatic considerations have no place in the
problem! It is part of the conclusion reached in this book that in the end
dogmatic considerations do determine the issue. But it must be “in the
end”; not at the beginning, nor in the middle.
It may be that the writer has not himself escaped the perils to which he
has referred. He can only say that no pains have been spared to achieve
this purpose. It is true that the problem has been faced with a conviction
that, while truly man, Jesus was much more than man as we know him to be.
But this is not a presupposition which colours the evidence. On the
contrary, it is the one point of view which recognizes that there is a
problem to be solved. If our Lord was a prophet, and no more, there is no
real difficulty; no one would defend the Virgin Birth upon such terms. The
question becomes a living issue only when Jesus is believed to be more
than man.
In Chapter I the New Testament evidence outside the First and Third
Gospels is discussed. On the question of the attitude of the Fourth
Evangelist to the Virgin Birth—a question as difficult as it is
interesting—the writer has been glad to accept and to work out a striking
suggestion made by Dr. E. F. Scott (_The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and
Theology_).
One reason for allotting three chapters to the Third Gospel is the
complexity of the Lukan problem. The theory which is outlined in Chapter
IV is one which has not yet received sufficient consideration. The
alternative, in the opinion of the writer, is to regard the Miraculous
Conception as a “necessary stone in the structure” of Lk. i, ii. It is the
difficulties mentioned in Chapter II which have prevented him from taking
this view. The writer is convinced that St. Luke believed and taught the
Virgin Birth. Nevertheless, the critical difficulties are such that it has
not been found possible to accept this view in the form in which it is
generally held.
It is well to remember that he who states a theory in connexion with such
problems contributes to their solution, whether his theory stands the test
of time or not. Even in the case of failure the possibilities are reduced
and a by‐path is revealed as such. As an illustration of this, reference
may be made to the view which ascribes the Virgin Birth tradition in Lk.
i, ii to an unknown and later writer.
One chapter (Chapter V) has been assigned to the First Gospel. The
exposition there given is one which is widely held in this country, but an
attempt has been made to emphasize the unique character of the
Evangelist’s standpoint, which, it is believed, is the key to the textual
problem of Mt. i. 16. The textual problem is treated in an Appendix to the
chapter.
It may seem strange that in Chapter VI no decided opinion is expressed for
or against the Virgin Birth. The justification for this position is the
fact that, in the end, the question becomes one of Theology, and that to
attack the theological problem would be to go beyond the limited aim which
the present work has in view.
One result of the investigation is that the documentary evidence for the
Virgin Birth is found to be earlier than “negative” criticism has allowed.
But to accept this conclusion is only to be brought face to face with the
question which the modern New Testament student cannot escape. “Whence
come the sources upon which the Evangelists drew?” At first sight the
problem seems hopeless. To recover and to describe with objectivity of
statement the several sources which the Evangelists employed is a task
beset with difficulties: to penetrate still further might well seem
impossible. If, however, the problem is faced bravely, with an open mind
and an eagerness to learn, it may be that as time passes there will be
cause to rejoice over real progress made. The journey is not the plunge
into the dark which it might be thought to be. If, indeed, it will bring
men nearer to the Jesus of history, it is a quest which cannot be refused,
however great the difficulties may be.
In a subject such as this, certain things have necessarily to be taken for
granted. The author of the First Gospel is regarded as unknown;
accordingly, he is spoken of as the First Evangelist or as St. “Matthew”.
The writer of the Fourth Gospel is also referred to as the Fourth
Evangelist, the question of authorship being left open. St. Mark and St.
Luke, the companions of St. Paul, are assumed to be the authors of the
Second and Third Gospels respectively; St. Luke is also believed to be the
author of the Acts. The reader who does not accept these views may
mentally substitute such phrases as the Second and Third Evangelists
wherever St. Mark and St. Luke are mentioned. Such abbreviations as Mt.,
Mk., Lk., Jn. are always meant to refer to the Gospels, not to their
authors.
It only remains for the writer to express his deep sense of gratitude to
those to whose knowledge and help he is debtor. How much he owes to
earlier workers in the field will be sufficiently evident. It has proved
by no means an easy task to weigh and to differentiate between opposing
views, and the writer is not unmindful of his temerity, in certain places,
in dissenting from opinions supported by justly honoured names.
He desires particularly to speak of the generous encouragement he received
in his task from the late Dr. Sanday. Dr. Sanday had made a provisional
promise to write a brief introduction to the present work. His lamented
death has prevented the carrying out of this promise, and for the lack of
such an introduction the book is so much the poorer.
The writer further wishes to express his gratitude to his former tutor,
the Rev. Prof. A. S. Geden, M.A., D.D., and to the Rev. J. Walthew
Simister, for their kindness in reading the typescript, and in suggesting
improvements, and also to the Rev. Prof. F. Bertram Clogg, M.A., for his
valued assistance in the reading of the proof‐sheets.
Vincent Taylor.
BATH, _September, 1920_.
ABBREVIATIONS
DCG. Hastings’s _Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels_
(1906‐8).
EB. _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ (1899‐1903).
Evan. Da‐Meph. F. C. Burkitt’s _Evangelion Da‐Mepharreshe_ (1904).
GHD. V. H. Stanton’s _The Gospels as Historical Documents_,
Parts I and II (1903‐9).
GHT. F. C. Burkitt’s _The Gospel History and its Transmission_
(1906).
Gr. ii. J. H. Moulton’s _Grammar of New Testament Greek_, Vol. II
(1919).
HDB. Hastings’s _Dictionary of the Bible_ (1898‐1904).
HJ. _The Hibbert Journal._
HS. _Horae Synopticae_, Sir John C. Hawkins (2nd ed., 1909).
ICC. _The International Critical Commentary._
INT. Jülicher’s _Introduction to the New Testament_, Eng. Tr.
(1904); J. Moffatt’s _An Introduction to the Literature of the New
Testament_ (3rd ed., 1918).
Proleg. Vol. I of J. H. Moulton’s _Grammar of New Testament Greek_
(3rd ed., 1908).
SH. Sanday and Headlam’s Commentary on _The Epistle to the
Romans_ (ICC., 1895).
Th‐Gr. Thayer‐Grimm’s _Greek‐English Lexicon of the New
Testament_ (1905).
VGT. Moulton and Milligan’s _The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament_, Parts I to III (1914‐18).
CHAPTER I. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE NEW TESTAMENT OUTSIDE THE FIRST AND
THIRD GOSPELS
Outside the First and Third Gospels there is no direct reference to the
Virgin Birth in the New Testament. There are passages which have been said
to imply a knowledge of the doctrine, but, for particularity of statement,
none of them can be compared with Mt. i. 18‐25 and Lk. i. 34 f. This fact
must be our justification in the present chapter for treating together the
New Testament Books outside these two Gospels.
The inquiry is mainly a study in silence; it is for that reason both
difficult and complicated.
Dr. Sanday has expressed considerable distrust in the argument from
silence (cf. _The Criticism, of the Fourth Gospel_, pp. 33‐41). He quotes
a striking passage from Dr. Drummond’s _Character and Authorship of the
Fourth Gospel_ (p. 157 f.), in which reference is made to Theophilus of
Antioch, who, in a defence of Christianity, relates nothing about Christ
Himself, and maintains a remarkable silence concerning the Gospels. The
quotation ends with the words: “We may learn from these curious facts that
it is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things,
simply because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant
writing: or even because he does not mention them when his subject would
seem naturally to lead him to do so.” Dr. Sanday has two main objections
to the way in which the argument from silence is often handled.
“(1) The critic does not ask himself _what_ is silent—what extent of
material.... And (2) experience shows that the argument is often most
fallacious” (op. cit., p. 35).
Nothing can be lost in considering this opinion at the outset of our
inquiry. In the connexion in which it is urged, it has very great
justification. Dr. Sanday is referring to the paucity of references to the
Gospels in the second century previous to 170 A.D. The real question is,
he says, “What is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the
whole body of that which once existed, and how far can we trust the
inferences drawn from it?” The available literature is confessedly small.
“If we take the whole extant Christian literature between the years 130
and 170 A.D., it would not fill more than a thin octavo volume, and by far
the greater part of that is taken up with external controversy” (ib., p.
39).
The caution suggested by these words is distinctly healthy. It may be
questioned, however, whether Dr. Sanday’s point of view would apply quite
so well as regards the alleged silence of so many New Testament Books with
reference to the Virgin Birth. There are good reasons for this opinion.
(1) The existing New Testament Writings represent the best Christian
literature of the period which they cover. No one would compare them in
this respect with the extant works of the first seven decades of the
second century.
(2) While not exhaustive in their treatment, the Gospels are faithful to
the outstanding events in the life of Jesus.
(3) The Epistles are rich in doctrinal teaching. Occasional in point of
origin, they impinge again and again upon the great doctrines of the
Christian Faith. The Incarnation and the Person of Christ especially are
central.
If, then, very many New Testament Writings are found to be silent as
regards the Virgin Birth, the silence is not one which can be ignored. It
may in part be explained, but it must not be explained away. If it exists,
it is not a silence which can be regarded with equanimity; it must be
significant, and no pains can be spared in trying to understand that
significance.
We believe, then, that the _argumentum ex silentio_ has a valid place in
our inquiry. All the more, therefore, must we consider what the
possibilities of silence are. Obviously, silence may be consistent with
knowledge of a fact or lack of knowledge. But that is not all. If it
implies knowledge, it may mean tacit acceptance of the fact, tacit
rejection, or comparative indifference. Lack of knowledge, on the other
hand, may be explained by special circumstances, or by the view that the
alleged fact is untrue.
In treating the New Testament Books outside the First and Third Gospels,
our first task must be to determine whether their silence is complete.
Where this is the case, we have to try, so far as we can, to interpret the
silence. Each stage is, however, a further step into the unknown, and must
therefore be taken with increasing care and caution.
I. St. Paul
We begin with ST. PAUL, the earliest New Testament writer, and the author
of ten, if not thirteen, Epistles. Several passages have been quoted from
his writings, in support of the view that the Virgin Birth tradition was
known to him. Among these are Gal. iv. 4, Rom. i. 3, and passages in which
St. Paul speaks of Christ as the Second Adam, notably Rom. v. 12‐15 and 1
Cor. xv. 47.
Gal. iv. 4 f. reads as follows: _But when the fulness of the time came,
God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might
redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption
of sons_. It is most improbable that there is here any reference to the
Virgin Birth, or even any indication that the doctrine is known to St.
Paul. The phrase “_born of a woman_” is one that is used naturally of an
ordinary human birth (cf. Job xiv. 1; and Mt. xi. 11 (Lk. vii. 28) “among
them that are born of women”). The determining consideration is, however,
the argument of Gal. iv. 1‐7. St. Paul is there working out the figure of
the heir who is yet a minor (verses 1, 2). While we were children, he
argues, we were in bondage (verse 3). But, when the fulness of the time
came, God sent forth his Son to redeem men from the law. To accomplish
this purpose, the Son must needs make Himself one with those He came to
deliver. Like them He must be “born under the law”; like them He must be
“born of a woman”. The one clause asserts His position as a child of the
Jewish race; the other declares the reality of His humanity. There is not
the slightest suggestion of a miraculous birth.(1) Indeed, the more
natural impression made by the words is that of a birth common to all the
sons of men. If St. Paul had wished to avoid giving that impression, he
could have done so with ease, since he was perfectly familiar with the
distinction between γυνή (woman) and παρθένος (virgin) (cf. 1 Cor. vii.
34).
Rom. i. 3 f. reads: “... _his Son, who was born of the seed of David
according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead_.”
Here the thought of the Virgin Birth is said to lie implicit in the
opening words of the passage (cf. Orr, _The Virgin Birth of Christ_, pp.
119 ff.; also Knowling, _Testimony of St. Paul to Christ_, p. 313; and
Sweet, _The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ_, p. 237 n.). Again, the
exegesis cannot be allowed. St. Paul’s words state an antithesis; they
speak of the Son from two standpoints, that of the body and that of the
spirit (SH., Rom., p. 7). “According to the flesh”, He was “born
(γενομένον) of the seed of David”, but, “according to the spirit of
holiness”, He was designated (ὁρισθέντος) Son of God “by the resurrection
of the dead”. It is very difficult to think that the antithesis would have
been stated in this way, if the Apostle had been thinking of the Virgin
Birth. “Born of the seed of David” contains no reference to the doctrine.
The Divine Sonship, indeed, is not mentioned until the following clause,
and there it is said to be predicated, not in the Virgin Birth, but in the
Resurrection. Without pressing the view that “according to the flesh born
of the seed of David” implies an ordinary human birth, we may certainly
claim that the Miraculous Conception is a thought entirely foreign to the
passage.
A further implication of the doctrine has been found in St. Paul’s thought
of _the Second Adam_ (Rom. v. 12‐21, 1 Cor. xv. 44‐9). In _Dissertations_
(new ed., p. 11), Dr. Gore writes: “What we can maintain, with great
boldness, is that St. Paul’s conception of the ‘Second Adam’ postulates
His miraculous birth” (cf. Box, _The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 150). In a
question of this kind, we must distinguish between what the doctrine of
the “Second Adam” may or may not “postulate” in our own minds, and what
St. Paul’s thoughts may have been. Certainly he gives us no reason to
suppose that the Virgin Birth was in the background of his mind when he
wrote Rom. v. 12‐21.(2) There would be as much justification, if not more,
for the contrary suggestion. So far as 1 Cor. xv. 44‐9 is concerned—(verse
47 reads: “_The second man is of heaven_”)—the reference is to the
Resurrection, not the Incarnation.(3)
None of these passages is sufficient to show that St. Paul was acquainted
with the Virgin Birth tradition, nor can any others be cited. This fact is
the more remarkable when we call to mind the great Pauline passages which
bear upon the Incarnation. With the closest scrutiny, not one of them
gives us reason to think that the Apostle knew of the Virgin Birth. This
is true of the great Christological passage of Phil. ii. 5‐11, and also of
the well‐known words of 2 Cor. viii. 9. Most significant in this connexion
are Phil. ii. 7 (“_Being made in the likeness of man_”) and Rom. viii. 3
(which speaks of the Son as sent “_in the likeness of sinful flesh_”).
These passages are important because they clearly imply a difference
between the humanity of Christ and ordinary humanity. This
difference—indicated by the word “likeness” (ὁμοίωμα)—is certainly not a
difference in mode of origin. Its character is manifest in Rom. viii. 3;
it lies in the sinlessness and moral perfection of Jesus.(4) There is no
indication that the Apostle is thinking of anything further, and the same
is true of Phil. ii. 7. Viewing the passages as a whole, we must conclude
that, not only is St. Paul completely silent as to the Virgin Birth, but
that he is silent just where his silence is most difficult to understand,
if he knew of the tradition.
Can we go further, and say that St. Paul did not know of the doctrine?
Short of a hard and fast conclusion, we are at liberty to state what would
seem to be the probabilities of the case; and as regards these we can have
little hesitation. It is reasonable to urge that St. Paul would have
phrased his references to the Incarnation somewhat differently, if he had
known of the Virgin Birth, and that, on the whole, his words are best
explained by presuming his ignorance of the tradition.
W. C. Allen has suggested that St. Paul’s silence may have been due to
reasons of prudence. He may have thought that the tradition would prove “a
great stumbling‐block to the progress of Christianity, and a continual
source of wounded feeling for the reverence of Christians for the Person
of their Master” (ICC., St. Mt., p. 20). It is possible that this argument
might go some way to explain the absence of direct allusions to the Virgin
Birth in St. Paul’s writings. It might cover his failure to employ the
tradition as “an argument for Christianity in his preaching to the
Gentiles”. But, assuredly, the theory is stretched to breaking‐point, if
it is made to cover the absence of the slightest indication that the
doctrine was present to St. Paul’s mind. For the most part, St. Paul’s
Epistles were not public manifestoes, but private letters, written to
Christian communities. Moreover, they are intensely self‐revealing. They
permit us to appreciate how much St. Paul knew of the words and deeds of
Jesus, and of the events of His earthly life. That they reveal no
knowledge of the Virgin Birth is hardly to be explained by a policy of
silence. Unless, on other grounds, it can be shown that the tradition was
known in Apostolic circles during St. Paul’s lifetime, his silence must be
interpreted to mean lack of knowledge concerning it.
This conclusion, if established, would not, of course, be fatal to the
historical value of the Virgin Birth tradition. Special reasons might be
forthcoming to account for the later spread of the belief. The importance
of St. Paul’s silence is that it furnishes help in deciding when the
belief became current.
A further inference, of considerable theological importance, is that the
Apostle could build up a mature and consistent Christology, without any
reference to, and apparently, thought of the Miraculous Conception.
II. Q
Q (Quelle, “source”) is the symbol used to denote the main documentary
source, upon which the First and Third Evangelists drew, in addition to
St. Mark’s Gospel. As regards its character, there is difference of
opinion. Some scholars identify it with the Matthaean Logia of which
Papias speaks; others regard the latter as an independent collection of
Messianic proof‐texts. By some it is thought to have been a Gospel; by
others it is looked upon as a collection of the Sayings of Jesus, with a
certain element of narrative. Wellhausen dates it later than Mk., but most
scholars think that it is earlier, and date it from the sixties and in
some cases from the fifties.(5)
As regards the Virgin Birth, it is almost certain that Q did not contain
the tradition. Harnack thinks that Q’s narrative of the Baptism, with its
use of Ps. ii. 7, “excludes all ideas of pre‐existence and miraculous
birth” (_Sayings of Jesus_, p. 235), and J. M. Thompson, who quotes this
opinion, finds in the Baptist’s question, “Art thou he that cometh?”,(6) a
passage which it is “hard to reconcile ... with Lk.’s story of the Birth,
as generally interpreted” (_Miracles_, p. 140). What is more important
than either of these arguments, is the fact that neither the First nor the
Third Evangelist drew a Virgin Birth tradition from Q. The presumption is
that Q was silent as regards the Virgin Birth,(7) but in view of the fact
that it probably contained only a small element of narrative, we ought not
to say more.(8)
III. St. Mark’s Gospel
In treating ST. MARK’S GOSPEL, our first task is to ask if its silence is
complete. This leads at once to a discussion of Mk. vi. 3: “_Is not this
the carpenter, the son of Mary...?_”
Parentage among the Jews was traced on the father’s side. The passage may
therefore imply that Joseph was already dead. Archdeacon Allen thinks that
“son of Mary” is “more naturally an allusion to the supernatural
circumstances of the birth of Jesus” (ICC., St. Mt., p. 156).(9) Without
going so far as this, Canon Box thinks that there is something “decidedly
remarkable and unusual” in the phrase, and suggests that it is probably
contemptuous (op. cit., p. 139).
However we explain the phrase, we ought not to interpret Mk. vi. 3 as
implying a knowledge of the Virgin Birth on the part of the people of
Nazareth. Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22 directly exclude this view.(10) “Who
would allude to the miraculous birth of somebody _as a reason for not
believing in him_?” (Thompson, ib., p. 138 n.).
But did the Evangelist know of the Virgin Birth? Has a knowledge of the
doctrine shaped his phrasing in Mk. vi. 3? The question is complicated by
critical considerations. It is suggested by several scholars that the
passage, in whole or in part, is a later addition to the Second
Gospel.(11) There is much to be said for this view, but, so far as our
immediate purpose is concerned, we have no need to discuss it in detail.
On either view—that of the critical theory just mentioned, or that which
attributes the passage to the Evangelist—it is improbable that St. Mark
intended to refer to the Virgin Birth, or was influenced by the doctrine.
On the interpolation‐hypothesis, this is obvious enough, but it is also
true if Mk. vi. 3 is original. The suggestions that Joseph was already
dead, and that a certain contempt breathes in the words, have great force.
We may also note that the passage goes on to refer to the brothers and
sisters of Jesus, with no suggestion that the relationship was other than
full and complete. But what is most telling of all is the fact that, if
Mk. vi. 3 does imply St. Mark’s knowledge of the Virgin Birth, both St.
“Matthew” and St. Luke, in their own narratives, have destroyed the
reference. This is all the more remarkable if the First Evangelist’s
treatment of Mk. vi. 3 is motived by reverence for the Person of
Jesus.(12) Finally, can we suppose that St. Mark would have placed his
sole reference to the Virgin Birth in the lips of unbelieving Jews who
speak with thinly veiled contempt? For these reasons, we find it
impossible to discover in Mk. vi. 3 a reference to the Virgin Birth by St.
Mark; the Evangelist’s silence is unbroken.
Was, then, the tradition unknown to St. Mark?
Several passages have been cited in support of the contention that St.
Mark had no knowledge of the doctrine. Among these is Mk. iii. 21, 31‐5
(cf. Mt. xii. 46‐50; Lk. viii. 19‐21). The story of Mk. iii. 31‐5 is that
of the coming of Mary and of the brothers of Jesus, while our Lord is
surrounded by a crowd, apparently in a house. When Jesus is informed that
they are without seeking Him, He says, “Who is my mother and my
brethren?”, and looking round upon the assembled company, He continues,
“Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of
God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother”. The account in Mt.
is almost identical, and St. Luke’s story, while much briefer, is
substantially the same. But St. Mark’s narrative must be read in the light
of Mk. iii. 21 (cf. Gould, ICC., St. Mk., pp. 61, 67)—a passage which is
omitted in Mt. and in Lk. There, we are told that the friends of Jesus (οἱ
παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, probably “His kinsmen”) went out to lay hold on Him, in the
belief that He was mad. This fact must unquestionably be held to explain
the action of the family of Jesus in the incident of Mk. iii. 31‐5, and
the question arises, Did Mary share in the fears and intentions of the
rest?(13)
A second passage is Mk. vi. 4, where Jesus declares that a prophet is not
without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his
own house. The phrase “_among his own kin_”, which both Mt. (xiii. 57) and
Lk. (iv. 24) omit, is said to point in the same direction as Mk. iii. 21,
31‐5.(14) A third incident adduced is that recorded in Mk. xii. 35‐7 (Mt.
xxii. 41‐6; Lk. xx. 41‐4), where Jesus raises the question, how the
Messiah can be at once David’s Son and David’s Lord. “Here again”, writes
Mr. Thompson, “Jesus assumes the reality of that human parentage on which
His Davidic descent relies.... Thus it appears that on three separate
occasions (and there are no others) when Jesus, according to the earliest
Gospel, spoke about His birth, He used language naturally compatible with
human parentage, and not naturally compatible with anything else” (op.
cit., p. 138).
It will be seen that these passages raise more than the question whether
St. Mark knew of the Virgin Birth. They raise the question of the
knowledge of Jesus, and indeed the whole question of the historical
character of the Miraculous Conception.
Clearly, the question of the knowledge of Jesus is a determinative
consideration. Few indeed will care to argue for the Virgin Birth
tradition, if it can be proved that Jesus knew nothing of it, but believed
Himself to be the son of Joseph. Just for this very reason we ought to be
scrupulously careful in treating the question. A scientific inquiry will
hesitate to draw an inference which makes further research superfluous.
And in the present case hesitation is amply justified. We cannot share Mr.
Thompson’s conviction that the words of Jesus acknowledge a natural
parentage. (1) Such exegesis must suffer an obvious discount if we find
that the _Evangelist_ knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. (2) We cannot be
certain that Mary shared the fears and intentions of her children. (3) We
do not know the tone in which Jesus spoke, nor can we be sure that He
intended to repudiate His family. It may be so; but our opinion on these
matters must rest upon what we believe about the Virgin Birth; the
evidence is too uncertain to reverse the process.
As regards the Evangelist, we may say at once that we could account much
more easily for the passages cited, if St. Mark did not know of the
doctrine. But it is doubtful if we can say more, so long as we confine
ourselves to what St. Mark has actually written.
There is little difficulty in the third passage (Mk. xii. 35‐7), since
both Mt. and Lk. repeat it without material variation. Nor is there the
force claimed in the phrase “among his own kin” (Mk. vi. 4). In any case
Mt. has the words “in his own house”, and probably the omission of the
former phrase is sufficiently explained by the writer’s tendency to remove
redundant expressions in Mk.(15) While in the case of St. Luke, we have to
remember that abbreviation is a common feature in his use of Markan
material.
The real difficulty lies in Mk. iii. 21, 31‐5. Something more than a
desire for brevity must account for the later Evangelists’ treatment of
this story. Mary’s position and attitude are certainly left very ambiguous
in the light of Mk. iii. 21. In the subsequent story St. Mark does not
distinguish her from the rest (iii. 31‐5). In short, he leaves her open to
the charge of having thought her Son distraught and in need of restraint.
Ought we to find in this proof that St. Mark had no knowledge of the
Virgin Birth? Our hesitation in drawing this conclusion arises out of the
“objectivity” of St. Mark’s writing. Frequently, he does not hesitate to
introduce details, to which, for various reasons, St. “Matthew” and St.
Luke took exception. He does not appear to feel the difficulties which the
later writers felt. We could not, therefore, attach the same significance
to an “inconsistency” in Mk., as in Lk., or in Mt. For this reason, we
think that, while Mk. iii. 21, 31‐5 raises very great difficulties, the
passage is not sufficient in itself to prove that St. Mark knew nothing of
the Virgin Birth. We may say that the passage points in this direction,
but that the inference requires further confirmation. Can this be found?
We believe that it can be found in the broad fact of St. Mark’s silence.
There is much greater significance in St. Mark’s silence than is sometimes
allowed. Why should he, as an Evangelist, remain silent about the Virgin
Birth, if he knew of it, and believed in it? The deep interest which he
takes in the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism, and his evident
intention to describe this event as a crucial moment in the life of Jesus,
set up a strong presumption that, had he known of the Miraculous
Conception, he would have introduced it into his narrative. There is no
sufficient analogy in his silence about other events in the life of Jesus
which later writers record; no omission can be compared with this. Nor
will reasons of prudence account for his silence; the Second Gospel is
probably too late for this argument to have weight. There is still less
force in the suggestion that St. Mark’s intention was to describe only the
public ministry of Jesus. This solution evades the difficulty, and comes
perilously near to saying that St. Mark does not record the Virgin Birth
tradition because he does not record it! The Second Gospel describes not
only the death and burial of Jesus, but also the visit of the women to the
tomb, and probably, in its original ending, some of the Post‐Resurrection
Appearances of Jesus. These facts are enough to show how inadequate it
would be to describe the Gospel as an account of the public ministry of
Jesus.
Having regard to all the facts of the case, the probability is that St.
Mark’s silence must be explained on the ground that the Evangelist had no
knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition. The further implication is that
it formed no part of Apostolic preaching, and was unknown in the circles
in which St. Mark moved. These conclusions cannot, of course, be hardened
into certainties; they move in the realms of what is probable. Instead of
being capable of refuting other considerations which might arise, they
themselves require further confirmation.
IV. Acts
There is no reference to the Virgin Birth, either direct of indirect, in
THE ACTS. The presumption is that the doctrine had no place in Apostolic
preaching.(16) This view is suggested, not only by the silence of Acts,
but also by the character of its Christology.
Christ is spoken of as Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by mighty
works and wonders and signs (ii. 22), and as one who was anointed by God
with the Holy Spirit, and with power, who went about doing good (x. 38).
He is the Holy and Righteous One (iii. 14), the Prince of Life (iii. 15),
whom God made both Lord and Christ (ii. 36). He is exalted to the right
hand of God, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to
Israel and remission of sins (v. 31).
In all this, the main ground of appeal is to the Resurrection (ii. 24, 32,
iii. 15, iv. 10).(17) The reference to the miracles of Jesus (ii. 22, x.
38) is “the only direct and concrete allusion to the events of His earthly
life”.(18) Even where the Davidic descent is mentioned (ii. 25 f., xiii.
23, 33), there is no suggestion other than that of direct physical lineage
(“Of this man’s seed hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a
Saviour, Jesus”, xiii. 23).
Does the silence of Acts permit us to draw any inferences concerning St.
Luke’s knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition? The question ought to be
considered apart altogether from Lk. i, ii. Having regard to the character
of the work we do not think that any one conclusion can safely be drawn.
The Acts obviously differs from the Gospels, and we cannot, as in the case
of the Pauline Epistles, look to it for any sufficient account of the
writer’s Christology. It would therefore be unsafe to say that the silence
of Acts implies that its author had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth.(19)
If the doctrine was not a subject of Apostolic preaching, St. Luke must
have known this: his silence may therefore be due to a sound historical
sense. If, at the time when he wrote the Acts, his knowledge of the
tradition had not long been gained, he would be still less likely to
perpetrate what would have been an historical anachronism. On the other
hand, we cannot, on the evidence of the Acts alone, show that he did know
of the doctrine, and that the possibilities just stated represent the
facts. The case is one in which the _argumentum ex silentio_ would be
untrustworthy in either direction. It should be emphasized that this view
springs entirely out of the character of the book, and in no way affects
the use of the argument we have made in the case of Mk. and the Epistles
of St. Paul.
V. The Epistle to the Hebrews
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS claims attention because of the developed
character of its doctrine of the Person of Christ, and because its writer,
while not an eye‐witness (ii. 3), has a vivid knowledge of many events in
the earthly life of Jesus. As regards the Virgin Birth, the Epistle is
completely silent. In the comparison with Melchizedek (vii. 1‐3), no
stress can be laid on the fact that the latter is described as “without
father”; he is also “without mother” and “without genealogy”. The
reference to the descent of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (vii. 14) is
left quite bare. Even the statements concerning the sinlessness of Christ
(iv. 15, vii. 26), and the lofty characterization of the Son as “the
effulgence” of God’s glory and “the very impress of his substance” (i. 3),
are made without a word as to the method of the Incarnation. It is
difficult to read the Epistle without feeling that the writer’s thought is
nowhere influenced by the Virgin Birth. Especially is this the case in
such passages as ii. 14 (“_Since then the children are sharers_
(κεκοινώνηκεν) _in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook
of_ (μετέσχεν) _the same_”),(20) and ii. 17 (“_It behoved him in all
things to be made like unto his brethren_”). Two considerations forbid,
however, the drawing of this conclusion. We have no certain knowledge of
the writer’s identity, and we have no other work from his pen with which
to compare the Epistle. Its significance is therefore mainly theological;
it is an instance of an elaborate doctrinal writing,(21) coming possibly
from the seventh decade of the first century, or, more probably, from
about the year 80 A.D., in which no reference of any kind is made to the
Miraculous Conception. This fact, however it is explained, cannot be
ignored, and the later we date the Epistle the more important it becomes.
VI. The Fourth Gospel
The silence of THE FOURTH GOSPEL regarding the Virgin Birth is now
generally admitted;(22) the only question being whether there is not a
passing reference to the doctrine in Jn. i. 13.(23)
What the writer’s silence means is one of the most difficult problems in
the question of the Virgin Birth. The case is different from any we have
yet considered. For the doctrine of the Virgin Birth must have been
perfectly well known to the Fourth Evangelist. He was well acquainted with
the Synoptic Gospels,(24) and there can be little doubt but that he read
Lk. i, ii, and Mt. i, ii, in the form in which we have them to‐day. That
he knew of the tradition is further confirmed by the fact that, so early
probably as _c._ 110 A.D., the Epistles of Ignatius contain several
references to the doctrine (Eph. xviii. 2; xix. 1; Magn. 11; Tr. ix). The
difficulty is further increased by the freedom with which the Evangelist
treats the Synoptics. “On the one hand their contents are very largely
assumed; and on the other hand the author does not hesitate, where he
thinks it necessary, to correct them.... The author evidently felt himself
at liberty to select just those incidents which suited his purpose”
(Sanday, _The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_, p. 71).
As the problem is usually treated, the silence of the Fourth Gospel is
said to mean either “tacit rejection” or “tacit acceptance” of the
tradition. It may be questioned, however, if these alternatives
sufficiently cover the possibilities of the case. “Tacit rejection” under
any circumstances means repudiation of the doctrine. But “tacit
acceptance” may mean anything from comparative indifference to whole‐
hearted assent.
As containing the sharper issue, the case for “tacit rejection” may be
considered first. Among the arguments in favour of this view, we may note
the following:—
(1) Certain passages seem to require this position. In i. 45 Jesus is
described by Philip as “_the son of Joseph_”, and in vi. 42 the Jews at
Capernaum ask the question: “_Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose
father and mother we know?_” Three times, moreover, controversy turns on
the question of the birthplace of Jesus. The Jews look for the birthplace
of the Messiah at Bethlehem (“Hath not the scripture said that the Christ
cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem?”, vii. 42), or they
regard it as unknown (“When the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he
is”, vii. 27), and the objection is raised that Jesus is of Galilee (i.
45, vii. 41 f., 52). Nowhere does the Evangelist expose the futility of
the controversy by a reference to Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. On
the contrary (it is said), he himself believed Nazareth to be the
birthplace, and must thus have rejected the tradition of Mt. i, ii.
(2) Instead of directly repudiating a particular Synoptic narrative, the
Fourth Evangelist’s method is silently to set it aside by preferring
another tradition or view. Is not his preference for his own Incarnation
theory a tacit repudiation of the Virgin Birth tradition?
Of these arguments the second can be allowed only if we can show that the
Evangelist looked upon the two doctrines, that of the Virgin Birth and
that of the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, as contradictory and mutually
exclusive. It is not possible, however, to prove this, and to assume it is
to beg the question. The stronger argument is the first. It is certainly
difficult to show that the language of i. 45 and vi. 42 is that of Philip
and the Jews respectively, and that it does not reflect the Evangelist’s
point of view. In the Fourth Gospel we are often unable to assume that the
writer intends to give the _ipsissima verba_ of those who speak. Are i. 45
and vi. 42 cases in point, or are they exceptions? The question is not an
easy one to decide, unless, of course, we have satisfied ourselves that
the Fourth Gospel is an entirely unhistorical work. In this case, i. 45
and vi. 42 will represent the Evangelist’s opinions. But, on this view, we
have largely forfeited our right to appeal to the Fourth Gospel in
treating the question of the Virgin Birth on its historical side. We
cannot have it both ways. If the Fourth Gospel shows a pronounced
disregard of history, it is not permissible to draw historical arguments
from it. It will have (on this view) an important bearing on the
historical question from the theological side; but, as a primary
historical authority, it must disappear. If, on the other hand, we
admit—as we have good reason to admit—the presence of a considerable
element of valuable historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel, it is by no
means certain that i. 45 and vi. 42 represent the Evangelist’s views. As
in the case of Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22, these passages may indicate
contemporary opinions and no more. This view is less easy to hold in the
case of i. 45 and vi. 42 than it is in respect of the Synoptic passages;
but it is a possibility not lightly to be set aside. And if this is so, we
cannot with confidence urge that in i. 45 and vi. 42 the Fourth Evangelist
repudiates the Virgin Birth.
As regards the passages which connect Jesus with Nazareth and Galilee, it
is not necessary to infer that the writer looked upon the town as the
birthplace of our Lord. His silence regarding Bethlehem is strange, but it
does not compel us to conclude that he is rejecting the tradition bound up
with Mt. i, ii, as Mr. Thompson thinks (op. cit., p. 158).(25) The more
important fact is that the Evangelist does not name _any town_, not even
Nazareth, as the birthplace of the Eternal Word.
The view that the Fourth Evangelist tacitly rejects the Virgin Birth fails
to justify itself on internal grounds. It is also opposed by
considerations of an _external_ character. It is from the locality in
which probably the Fourth Gospel arose, that we have the earliest
references to the Virgin Birth outside the New Testament. Ignatius,
according to Dr. Moffatt (INT., p. 211), seems “to fuse the Johannine idea
of the incarnation with the synoptic birth‐stories”. If this is so, the
fact does not compel us to suppose that the Fourth Evangelist would have
done the same; but it raises a strong presumption against the view that he
explicitly rejected the tradition.
Must we then suppose that the Evangelist’s silence means “tacit
acceptance” of the doctrine? Obviously, the failure to prove “tacit
rejection” tells so far in the opposite direction. But, as we have seen,
“tacit acceptance” is a very elastic term; it calls, therefore, for closer
consideration.
It can scarcely be shown that the Fourth Evangelist accepts the Virgin
Birth in the same way in which it is held in Mt. i, ii. There is no
sufficient answer to this assertion in the plea that the story had been
already told, and that the Evangelist’s purpose was to supplement the
Synoptic narratives. This is a view of the Fourth Gospel which cannot be
carried through. It is better to suppose that the Evangelist’s omission of
the Virgin Birth tradition has a more definite meaning, even though we
reject the view that its significance is silent repudiation of the
doctrine. We have also to find a place in our solution of the problem for
the difficulties left over in i. 45 and vi. 42, and in the Evangelist’s
failure to name the birthplace of Jesus. In other words, arguments
insufficient to prove “tacit rejection” cannot on that account be ignored.
They must rather be held to condition the sense in which we speak of
“tacit acceptance”.
The Evangelist’s silence regarding the Virgin Birth can only be understood
when it is considered along with his other notable “omissions”. It is one
of “a whole series of episodes, cardinal to the Synoptic story” (Scott,
_Fourth Gospel_, p. 42). This series includes the Genealogy, the Virgin
Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation, the Transfiguration, the Supper, the
Agony, the Ascension. The true explanation is probably that given by Dr.
E. F. Scott: “These remarkable omissions ... cannot be due to oversight or
to the leaving out of what was non‐essential. Without doubt they have been
made deliberately, in view of certain theories and presuppositions with
which the writer approached his subject” (ib., p. 42 f.). These words set
us on the right track. The Evangelist’s silence does not mean that he
rejected the Virgin Birth tradition. The Synoptic birth‐stories were more
probably accepted by him “as a part of the orthodox tradition, in which,
as a member of the Church, he acquiesced” (ib., p. 188). His doctrinal
sympathies, however, lay in another direction. It may be that at the time
when he first heard of the Virgin Birth tradition, his doctrine of the
Incarnate Word had already shaped itself in his mind. Jesus Christ was the
Eternal Son of God, the Word made flesh, who became incarnate by His own
voluntary act. The fact that his own theological scheme was already
developed, together with its specific character,(26) may well account for
his neglect of the Virgin Birth. _He does not deny the story, but his own
Christology has superior spiritual attractions._
It will be seen that this theory leaves little room for difficulties
arising from such passages as i. 45 and vi. 42, and explains at once the
Evangelist’s attitude to the question of the birthplace of Jesus. On the
one hand, the doctrinal presuppositions of the Virgin Birth were not
operative in his mind; on the other hand, in the light of his doctrine of
the Logos, the difficulties mentioned would scarcely be felt. The Jewish
controversies must have seemed to him so much playing with words. What did
it matter where the Word became flesh? What did it matter if men called
Him Joseph’s son?
Our conclusion, then, is that the Fourth Evangelist tacitly accepts the
Virgin Birth, but gives it no place in his doctrinal system. With the
theological significance of this result we are not now concerned. Our
present interest is rather in its historical implications. On the positive
side, it yields little; on the negative side, its importance is greater.
It is not permissible to argue against the Virgin Birth tradition on the
ground that the Fourth Evangelist rejected it. We may go further and say
that, having regard to his evident preoccupation with the Logos‐doctrine,
it may not even be safe to make too much of the fact that he ignored the
tradition.
VII. The Pastoral and the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse
Of the New Testament Writings, other than the First and Third Gospels,
there remain THE PASTORAL AND THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE.
Whether _the Pastoral Epistles_ are the work of St. Paul or not, their
silence regarding the Virgin Birth cannot be pressed. 1 Tim. iii. 16
(probably a fragment from an early Christian hymn) may or may not be
significant in its silence; but, in either direction, the inference would
be unsafe. These writings are much too brief and restricted in subject‐
matter to leave room for the argument from silence. The same view is also
true of _the Catholic Epistles_. _The Apocalypse_ contains one passage
(xii) which has been thought to indicate the writer’s knowledge of the
doctrine,(27) but the inference is far from being certain, and, in any
case, in view of the date of the Book, it would add nothing to our
knowledge which cannot be learnt more clearly elsewhere.
VIII. Summary
We may summarize the historical results reached in the present chapter as
follows:—
1. _There is no certain instance of a New Testament writer who knew of the
Virgin Birth tradition, and yet repudiated it._ It is more than doubtful
if an exception can be found even in the case of the Fourth Gospel, though
the Evangelist makes no doctrinal use of the tradition. If the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews knew of the doctrine, the same is probably true
of that writer also.
2. _The doctrine had no place in the subject‐matter of Apostolic
preaching._ This view is supported by all the available evidence. The
silence of the Pauline Epistles, of the Acts, and of the Second Gospel can
be explained in no other way.
3. _The tradition was not a matter of public knowledge during the period
covered in common by the Pauline Epistles, the Second Gospel, and Q._
4. _It is also probable that the same conclusion should be extended to the
period covered by the Second Gospel alone, if this Book is dated later
than St. Paul’s lifetime, as it usually is._
Until we have examined the Virgin Birth tradition reflected in the First
and Third Gospels, it would not be right to discuss these results further,
except to say that an historical argument against the Virgin Birth based
on these conclusions alone would be precarious. The chief importance of
the results reached is the help they furnish in deciding when belief in
the Virgin Birth first became current.