The question to be discussed in this chapter needs careful definition.
What we wish to discover, if possible, is whether the Virgin Birth is an
original element in the Third Gospel. This question is not without a
certain ambiguity. It is sometimes taken as if it were equivalent to the
further question, Did St. Luke teach the Virgin Birth? It is clear that
these questions are closely connected; nevertheless, they are distinct,
and should be kept distinct. The difference is at once apparent if, for
purposes of argument, we assume that the doctrine really does belong to a
later stratum in the Gospel. In this case, all the references to the
tradition must have been inserted, either (i) by an unknown reader,
editor, or scribe, or (ii) by St. Luke himself. In either case, the Virgin
Birth would be a later element in the Gospel; but the two senses in which
this could be true are clearly very different.
Before one could say that St. Luke did not teach the Virgin Birth, it
would be necessary to show that he did not write the passage Lk. i. 34
f.,(28) and this is a point which cannot be determined by arguments
derived from the context and subject‐matter alone. Such arguments may, or
may not, be able to prove that the doctrine is a later element, but they
cannot show that it is a non‐Lukan element. This is a second and distinct
step, which is not justified until the textual and the linguistic facts
have been examined. Then, and then only, can we say if St. Luke taught the
Virgin Birth.
In the present chapter all questions of a linguistic character will be
left aside. Lk. i. 34 f. is perfectly susceptible of the linguistic test,
and this will be applied in its proper place. The only arguments we shall
consider at present will be those which arise out of matters of context
and subject‐matter. In the light, then, of the principle laid down above,
the question whether St. Luke taught the Virgin Birth, does not yet
properly arise. The only question we have to consider at this stage is
whether the Virgin Birth is an original element in the Third Gospel,
interpreting that question in its strictest and barest sense.
The distinction we have drawn is perfectly obvious when it is pointed out.
At the same time, one cannot read the literature which treats of the Third
Gospel in relation to the Virgin Birth, without feeling how frequently the
point has been neglected. The assumption, that, if the Virgin Birth is
found to be a later element in the Gospel, we must straightway have
recourse to the hypothesis of non‐Lukan interpolation, runs through the
writings of critics of all schools like a refrain. Its presence in the
arguments of those who deny the Virgin Birth is often sufficiently clear.
But the same assumption is also tacitly made by many critics on the other
side. It would be ungenerous, and perhaps unwarranted, to suggest that
this assumption has prevented many orthodox writers from doing justice to
the objections which have been raised against the view that the doctrine
was present in the Gospel from the very first. That its effects have been
harmful in the interests of dispassionate investigation, is, however,
hardly open to question. In the treatment which follows, an attempt will
be made to avoid this fallacy, and to keep the discussion within the
limits which are proper to itself.
The material to be examined is found for the most part in the first two
chapters of the Gospel, and consists (1) of certain narratives and
passages, which apparently are inconsistent with the view that the author
wrote with a knowledge of the Virgin Birth, and (2) of the passage i. 34
f., which implies the doctrine, but is believed by many scholars to be a
later insertion. Outside chaps. i and ii, the only passages which call for
notice are iii. 22, iii. 23, and iv. 22.
We may say at once that we have few new arguments to bring forward. The
contentions we have to examine are familiar to every one who studies the
question of the Virgin Birth. They have been brilliantly stated in two
well‐known articles in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, one by P. W. Schmiedel
(on “Mary”), and the other by Usener (“Nativity”). In a review (HJ., vol.
i, no. 1, p. 164), Dr. Moffatt justly describes these articles as
“competent and first‐rate essays, which deserve alert recognition”. But
both these articles not only deny that the Virgin Birth was an original
element in the Third Gospel, but also that St. Luke, the companion of St.
Paul, ever taught that doctrine—and this without any linguistic
examination of the passage i. 34 f. They provide, in fact, a clear
illustration of the point we have already discussed. Inasmuch, then, as
our purpose is to consider the question, Was the Virgin Birth an original
element in the Third Gospel?, interpreted in its strictest terms, we shall
need to state and weigh the arguments afresh. This is the more desirable,
because, in the form in which these scholars present their case, each
argument is put forward with an assurance and a finality which
individually it does not merit. It is the cumulative force of a number of
arguments, each of which has strong presumptive value, which ultimately
carries conviction; not a series of arguments each of which is conclusive
in itself. We do not suppose, of course, that a writer like Schmiedel
would deny anything so obvious as this. Nevertheless, very many English
readers feel that his several arguments are stated too much in the light
of the result. Moreover, they appear to be shaped by presuppositions which
are themselves fatal to the Virgin Birth. In the present treatment of the
question, an attempt will be made to assign to each argument its proper
force, to observe its limitations as well as its cogency. The result
sought is not a conclusion to which we can append a triumphant Q. E. D.,
but that hypothesis, whatever it be, which best explains the observed
facts taken as a whole.
I. Narratives and Passages Said to be Inconsistent With the View
Our first task must be to examine _those narratives and passages in the
Third Gospel which are said to be irreconcilable with the view that St.
Luke wrote in the belief that Jesus was miraculously conceived of the
Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost_. What we have to ask is whether or not they
are consistent with that supposition. We begin with Lk. iii. 22.
(a) Lk. iii. 22, according to the “Western Text”
In the great majority of existing MSS. this passage reads as in the RV.,
“Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased”. But in Codex Bezae,
supported by Old Latin MSS. and by quotations in Justin and Clement, the
passage reads, “_Thou art my Son: to‐day have I begotten Thee_”. Blass
(_Philology of the Gospels_, p. 168 f.) believes this to be the genuine
Lukan reading, and explains the common text as “a product of assimilation
to the other Gospels”. Usener (EB., col. 3348) also accepts the “Western”
reading, and says, “Thus the passage in Lk. was read, in the Greek Church
down to about 300 A.D. and in the Latin West down to and beyond 360 A.D.”
Dr. Moffatt (INT., 3rd ed., p. 269) goes so far as to say that the Lukan
reading “undoubtedly was υἱός μου εἷ σύ· ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε”. He
follows this reading in his _Translation of the New Testament_, and says
(p. 74), “In the other MSS. it has been altered, for harmonistic reasons”.
These opinions, and the arguments upon which they rest, have great weight.
If the “Western” reading is accepted, a strong presumption is set up
against the view that the Third Gospel originally contained the Virgin
Birth; for it is very difficult to believe that the hand which wrote, “To‐
day have I begotten Thee”, had already described the miraculous birth.
(Cf. also Harnack, _Sayings_, pp. 310 ff.)
At first sight Blass’s argument would seem to show a way of escape from
this conclusion. He defends the “Western” reading by showing the close
connexion which it has with the following verse. “The ‘_to‐day_ have I
begotten Thee’ stands in opposition to the ‘thirty years’, and the ‘Thou
art _my_ Son’ likewise to ‘being as was supposed the son of _Joseph_’ ”
(op. cit., p. 169). The phrase “as was supposed” (verse 23) will fall to
be discussed next. Meanwhile we may observe that the connexion which Blass
notes is actually strengthened if what St. Luke originally wrote was
“being the son of Joseph”. This is the real point in the parallelism, as
Blass himself indicates by printing the name Joseph in italics.
If the “Western” reading is to be accepted, a very interesting question
arises as regards St. Luke’s conception of the Baptism of Jesus. There is
no need to suppose that he looked upon it as the occasion of the imparting
of the Divine Sonship. If the connexion which Blass notes be allowed, it
is probably purely literary, and the form in which St. Luke reports the
logion is determined by his recollection of Ps. ii. 7.(29) There is no
intention, that is to say, on his part, of describing an act of
deification or even adoption. But if the connexion is literary, we return
again to the question, Can we think that St. Luke would have written the
passage in this form, if he had already described the miraculous birth?
Can we explain his deliberate preference for the language of Ps. ii. 7?
The answer is, we feel bound to say, It is difficult, if it is not
impossible. The force of this argument rests, nevertheless, upon the
confidence with which we can accept the “Western” reading; and while the
present writer would favour that reading himself, he recognizes that its
attestation is not such as to compel acceptance. Moffatt’s claim that it
“undoubtedly was” the Lukan reading is too strong. The most we can say is
that it has great, if not very great, probability in its favour.
(b) The Lukan Genealogy and Lk. iii. 23
It will be best at this point to consider the question of the Lukan
Genealogy, and also the passage to which attention has just been called:
“being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph” (RV.).
An examination of the Genealogy reveals the fact that it is artificially
constructed, it is an arrangement of names in multiples of seven (cf.
Sanday, _Outlines_, p. 202). The whole list contains seventy‐seven names.
From Adam to Abraham there are twenty‐one names (7 x 3); from Isaac to
David fourteen names (7 x 2), if we include, as we probably should, the
name Admin, as in the RV. margin; from Nathan to Shealtiel twenty‐one
names; and from Zerubbabel to Christ twenty‐one names. Not only is this
so, but in order to preserve the symbolic arrangement, names are repeated
and omitted. Thus in verse 36, the compiler has preferred the LXX to the
Hebrew. This permits the name Cainan to be introduced into the Genealogy
twice, as the son of Arphaxad in verse 36, and again as the son of Enos in
verse 37. No Hebrew MS. mentions Cainan as the son of Arphaxad. Again, in
the list from Isaac to David, the name Ram (cf. 1 Chron. ii. 10 and Ruth
iv. 19) is omitted, and in its place the two names Admin and Arni appear.
Whatever be the explanation of these facts, it is significant that in this
way the symmetrical arrangement is preserved.
It is not probable that a Genealogy of such an artificial character was
constructed by St. Luke himself. He shows no predilection for symbolic
numbers in his writings, and does not indeed appear to observe this
feature in the list. (Cf. Sanday, op. cit., p. 202, and contrast Mt. i.
17.) Probably he found the Genealogy ready to hand. The fact that it
traces the descent to Adam may have appealed to him, in view of his own
bent of mind, and it may have been this feature in the list which led him
to incorporate it in his Gospel. The words “the son of God” with which the
list ends, may be due to St. Luke himself, “added for the sake of Gentile
readers, to remind them of the Divine origin of the human race” (Plummer,
ICC., St. Luke, p. 105)·
It does not seem likely that the Genealogy in its original form, in the
form, that is to say, in which St. Luke found it, contained the words
which now stand in iii. 23, “_as was supposed_”. It is generally allowed
at the present day that the Genealogies, both in the First Gospel and in
the Third, trace the ancestry of Jesus through Joseph. But unlike the
Matthaean Genealogy, that in Lk. gives us no reason to suppose that
_legal_ descent only is traced in it. It is therefore difficult to believe
that its author intended to construct a chain of descent in which the
vital link should contain the words, “as was supposed”. These words more
naturally give the impression of being a later insertion intended to adapt
the Genealogy to a new situation. For our present purpose the important
question is, Are these words the words of St. Luke?, and what is still
more vital, At what point, if Lukan, were they inserted in the
Genealogy,—when it was first incorporated in the Gospel, or at some
subsequent time? If from the first they stood where they now stand, it is
obvious that the Third Gospel taught the Virgin Birth from the beginning.
If, on the other hand, they were added after the Gospel was written (or
its earlier chapters), this supports the view that the doctrine is a later
element.
The data at present at our disposal do not enable us to decide between
these alternatives. We may argue _a priori_ that it is unlikely that St.
Luke would have thought it worth while to introduce the Genealogy at all,
if at the time when he wove it into his Gospel he had realized the
necessity of interpolating the words “as was supposed”. In other words, we
may say that had he known of the Virgin Birth from the first he would
never have made use of the Genealogy. And further, we may argue that we
best conserve St. Luke’s reputation as a skilful writer by supposing the
phrase “as was supposed” to be a correction, introduced to make the best
of a Genealogy, used in the first place under presuppositions which new
information had now led him to discard. Short of excising the Genealogy
altogether—we may say—he did the best he could. But such speculations,
however attractive, do not lead to a conclusion which we can regard with
confidence. It is better to leave iii. 23 to depend upon the conclusion to
which we come with regard to i. 34 f. This is the crucial passage, and if
this should prove to be a later insertion, then iii. 23 must also be
regarded as such, introduced by the same hand at the same time and for the
same reasons.
(c) The Narratives of Lk. ii
We have now to examine the narratives of Lk. ii, and to ask, _Under what
presuppositions were they shaped?_ The incidents which call for special
notice are the Purifying, the meeting with Simeon in the Temple, and the
visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the age of twelve. The five passages which
speak of “the parents” of Jesus will be considered separately. There is no
need to dwell on the story of the visit of the shepherds. It goes without
saying that it nowhere presupposes the Virgin Birth. On the other hand,
there is nothing in the presentation of the story which is alien to the
doctrine.
Turning to the story of the Purifying in Lk. ii. 22‐4, we are met by the
question, What are we to understand by the phrase “_their purification_”
(ii. 22)? Attempts have been made to take the pronoun as referring to the
mother and the child, but, in view of the construction of the passage,
this exegesis is impossible. Joseph and Mary are clearly the unexpressed
subject of the verb in the sentence in which the pronoun “their” occurs
(“And when the days of _their_ purification ... were fulfilled, _they_
brought him up to Jerusalem”). Schmiedel holds that the word “their”
refers to Joseph and Mary,(30) and without doubt this opinion is correct.
But if this is so, is it probable that St. Luke had the thought of a
virgin birth in the background of his mind when he first penned the
phrase? Is not the pronoun one which we may think he would have been
anxious to avoid? Nor was there any need for him to introduce it, since,
according to the Levitical law, it was only the mother who was made
unclean by a birth (cf. Lev. xii). Schmiedel, who calls attention to this
fact, thinks that the writer has made “an archaeological error”. “This
error serves to show that the writer regarded Joseph as the actual father
of Jesus; otherwise he could not have thought of him at all as unclean”
(EB., col. 2955). Even if we think that Schmiedel’s remorseless logic is
too confidently applied, the fact remains that St. Luke’s pronoun is as
unnecessary as it is ambiguous. The difficulty of the expression is not
felt by the modern mind alone. It is reflected in two subsequent textual
alterations. Instead of “their purification”, the Codex Bezae reads “his
purification”, and the Sin. Syr. MS., together with the cursive 76, has
the pronoun “her”. The textual evidence forbids us to accept the reading
“her purification”, but this is assuredly the phrase we should expect a
writer to use who has just told the story of a virgin birth.
In the two remaining stories, that of the meeting with Simeon, and that of
the visit of Jesus to Jerusalem, there is a common element which provokes
reflection in _the surprise of Joseph and Mary_. In reference to the
prophecy of Simeon concerning Jesus, we are told that they “_were
marvelling at_” the things that were said (ii. 33). We can readily account
for this remark, if St. Luke had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth at the
time of writing, for the prophecy of Simeon transcends that of the angelic
announcement of i. 31‐3. Whereas the latter does not leave the soil of
Israel, the former speaks of a revelation to the Gentiles. We could say,
then, that the wider scope of the prophecy of Simeon provides room for
wonder. But can we say this if St. Luke believed Mary to have received the
announcement of a virgin birth, which, moreover, had been fulfilled? Would
he have thought any prophecy called for wonder after such facts as these?
The same difficulty arises in the story of the visit to the Temple. After
St. Luke has recorded the pregnant words of Jesus, “Wist ye not that I
must be in my Father’s house?”, he writes: “_And they understood not the
saying which he spake unto them_” (ii. 50). If, in this case, as
distinguished from ii. 33, the Evangelist had said that they marvelled,
the difficulty would be less great. It might then have been argued that,
inasmuch as the facts of His birth had not been made known to the boy
Jesus, there was room for wonder that already He should have attained to
such a consciousness of filial relationship to God. But to say that they
did not understand His words is an astonishing statement on the part of a
writer who believes the Virgin Birth. On the other hand, it is a perfectly
natural remark, if we can presume the Evangelist to have written in the
absence of such a belief.(31)
Speaking of the narratives of Lk. ii, as a whole, we may say that, apart
from the references to “the parents”, which remain to be considered,
distinct difficulties are raised if we must believe that St. Luke knew of
the Virgin Birth at the time when he first wrote the chapter, and that
greater justice can be done to the narratives if we can presume him to
have written them without that knowledge. How far this view is supported
by the five passages which speak of Joseph and Mary, we have now to
consider.
(d) The References to Joseph and Mary in Lk. ii
These passages are as follows: ii. 27, “_the parents_”; ii. 41 and 43,
“_his parents_”; ii. 33, “_his father and his mother_”; and ii. 48, “_thy
father and I_”. The point to be considered is whether we can suppose St.
Luke to have known of the Virgin Birth at the time when he used these
expressions.
The last passage (ii. 48) differs from the rest, and should not be
pressed. It is reasonable to urge that, in addressing the boy Jesus, Mary
would naturally speak in this way, even if the Virgin Birth is
historically true; and that it is conceivable that St. Luke, while himself
holding the doctrine, should have been so far faithful to his sources as
to preserve Mary’s words in this form.
In this respect the four passages which remain are quite different, _in
that they are expressions which St. Luke himself employs_. This gives them
a distinctive character which has often been overlooked. It has been too
frequently assumed that these passages are of like character to those
which belong to the story of Jesus at the synagogue at Nazareth. In this
incident the Jews speak of Jesus as “the carpenter’s son” (Mt. xiii. 55.
Cf. Mk. vi. 3, “the carpenter, the son of Mary”). St. Luke, who records
the same incident, but perhaps follows a special source of his own (Lk.
iv. 16 ff.), gives the question in the form, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”
With regard to these passages, it is open to any one to urge that in them
we have instances of the accuracy with which the Gospels record
contemporary beliefs, which were natural but erroneous. The language of
the Jews, it may be said, is justified by ignorance of the true facts, and
its retention by Evangelists who teach the Virgin Birth is evidence of
their fidelity to detail. This is a reasonable argument, and it cannot be
gainsaid, until the whole question has been faced (again, as in the case
of ii. 48). But the four passages in Lk. ii stand upon an entirely
different footing. In these passages it is not a question of what is
justified by ignorance, but of what is possible in the light of knowledge.
Assuming that we have to do with a writer who believes Jesus to be the son
of Mary by the direct operation of the Holy Ghost, we have to ask whether,
believing this, and having (on this assumption) just stated this very
thing, that writer would be at all likely to speak of “the parents”, “his
parents”, and, indeed, to use an expression so definite as “his father and
his mother”. In short, granting that St. Luke has recorded the language of
the Nazarenes, can we suppose that he would have used the same language
himself in the light of the Virgin Birth? It is not as if these modes of
speech were indispensable. The words “Joseph and Mary” could easily have
been employed, and in this way all danger of ambiguity removed. In the
face of a fact so unique as a virgin birth, one would expect an effort to
avoid ambiguity; all the more, in the case of a writer, with whose apt
choice of words and delicacy of expression scholars like Ramsay and
Harnack have made us familiar.
In saying this we are not guilty of imposing modern canons of accuracy
upon an ancient writer. The difficulties we ourselves feel have long been
felt. “It is very noteworthy that six old Latin codices in ii. 41 have
_Ioseph et Maria_ for ‘his parents’ (οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ); most uncials in ii.
33 substitute ‘Joseph’ (ὁ ιωσηφ) for ‘his father’ (ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ)”
(Schmiedel, EB., col. 2955). None of these readings can claim, of course,
to be original, since admittedly they represent attempts to remove
difficulties. Their significance lies in the fact that they indicate that
those difficulties have long been felt. They show that we are not asking
an ancient writer to conform to modern standards, when we assert that St.
Luke has expressed himself with an ambiguity which it is difficult, if not
impossible, to understand, if he wrote from the first in the knowledge of
the Virgin Birth.
The impression made by the narratives of Lk. ii is thus deepened and
confirmed by the several references to Joseph and Mary.
(e) Lk. ii. 5
The bearing of the facts examined thus far is in the direction of showing
the Virgin Birth to belong to a later stratum in the Gospel. One passage
in Lk. ii might seem to invalidate this view. In the Revised Version,
verse 5 reads: “_to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him,
being great with child_”. These words, if they must stand, imply that the
Virgin Birth is known to the writer. But, apart altogether from the
historical character of the miracle, it is highly probable that we ought
to read: “_with Mary his wife_”.(32) This is the reading of the Sinaitic
Syriac and of the Old Latin MSS. a, b, c; and the word “wife” together
with “betrothed”, also appears in AC2ΓΔΛ, l, q*, Syrp, vulg., goth., aeth.
(Moffatt, INT., p. 269). There is much to be said for the view that this
is one of the cases in which “Western” readings, where Old Syriac and Old
Latin MSS. agree, probably preserve an original text.(33) When we add the
argument of transcriptional probability, it is difficult to resist this
conclusion. One can easily understand how the reading “with Mary his wife”
could come to be altered to “with Mary, who was betrothed to him” by those
who imagined that the former was inconsistent with the Virgin Birth. But,
if the words “with Mary, who was betrothed to him” stood in the primitive
text, can we give any satisfactory explanation of the change? When we
consider that from New Testament times the Virgin Birth was part of the
faith of the Church, questioned by few save the Ebionites and some of the
Gnostic sects, the supposition that “with Mary his wife” is a later
corruption, becomes improbable in the extreme. It is hardly sufficient to
adopt Plummer’s suggestion, that “the γυναικί of A. Vulg. Syr. and Aeth.
is a gloss, but a correct one” (op. cit., p. 53). Must we not find more
than a gloss? Moreover, is this a satisfactory explanation of the Sin.
Syr. and of those Old Latin MSS. which have “wife” without “betrothed”? We
should probably conclude that in this instance the “Western” reading,
supported by transcriptional probability, must outweigh the evidence of
even the great uncials, and that what St. Luke wrote was “with Mary his
wife”.
If this view is sound, the verse in itself is not necessarily inconsistent
with the Virgin Birth, since it may reasonably be urged that it carries us
no further than Mt. i. 24, where the marriage is implied.(34) If this fact
is put forward in a narrative which expressly teaches the Virgin Birth, it
could be so here. The phrase “with Mary his wife” is certainly congruous
with the view that the doctrine is a later element in the Third Gospel,
but it would be improper to employ it in support of that view. (The case
is like those of ii. 48, iv. 22.) But even if we must leave the question
open, at any rate we have no longer to reckon with the words, “with Mary,
who was betrothed to him”. There is nothing, therefore, in the verse which
is in conflict with the view that St. Luke had no knowledge of the Virgin
Birth when he first wrote his Gospel.
Before leaving this part of the subject it may be well to recall the
nature of the argument. The several points treated are not regarded as
contentions which inexorably demand a certain conclusion, but as distinct
difficulties, greater or less, which arise, on the view that St. Luke knew
of the Virgin Birth from the first. We may fairly say that the facts
examined thus far would be best satisfied by considering the Virgin Birth
as a later element in the Gospel; but, until we have investigated the
important passage Lk. i. 34 f., it would be precarious to say more.
II. The Passage Lk. i. 34 f
In the Revised Version Lk. i. 34f. reads as follows: “_And Mary said unto
the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (35) And the angel
answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is
to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God._” As regards the last
clause, the margin gives the alternative rendering: “the holy thing which
is to be born shall be called the Son of God”. The difference rests upon a
question of punctuation in the Greek, and does not affect our immediate
problem.
Our purpose in this section is to inquire how far the view, which is
widely held, that Lk. i. 34 f. is a later insertion is justified. But two
important questions must detain us first. (_a_) Is the assumption we have
made thus far, that Lk. i. 34 f. implies the Virgin Birth, tenable? What
is the true interpretation of the passage? (_b_) What is the purport of
the angelic announcement in Lk. i. 30‐3? Is Dr. Plummer’s language
justified, when, in reference to this message, he speaks of “the strange
declaration that she [Mary] is to have a son before she is married” (op.
cit., p. 24)? Is there any suggestion of a virgin birth?
(a) The Interpretation of Lk. i. 34 f
In the text as it stands, in answer to the angel’s words in Lk. i. 30‐3,
Mary says: “_How shall this be, seeing I know not_ (οὐ γινώσκω) _a man?_”
The interpretation of this verse depends upon the force we give to the
word γινώσκω. Schmiedel (EB., col. 2956) thinks that γινώσκω in this verse
“cannot mean the act of concubitus for which the word is often employed”,
because it is here used in the present tense. On the other hand, the quite
general sense of knowledge in the way of acquaintanceship, is also, in his
view, “equally precluded”, since it would be “quite meaningless in the
present context”. Accordingly, he finds the true interpretation to be “the
intermediate one; I have no such acquaintanceship with any man as might
lead to the fulfilment of this prophecy”. In other words, Mary’s objection
or difficulty is that she is not even betrothed. Schmiedel is not daunted
by the fact that this interpretation is in conflict with Lk. i. 27 (“a
virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph”). Indeed, the
contradiction is given as one reason for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a later
insertion. In this respect Schmiedel’s view will probably not command much
support. He gives no example of γινώσκω used in the special sense in which
he interprets it, and fails to justify his rejection of the common use of
the verb. (See Th‐Gr., p. 117; VGT., p. 127.) It is altogether preferable
to follow Dr. Plummer (op. cit., p. 24), whose view is indicated in the
references which he gives to the OT. passages, Gen. xix. 8; Judg. xi. 39;
Num. xxxi. 17. “The words”, says Dr. Plummer, “are the avowal of a maiden
conscious of her own purity”. According to this view the phrase “seeing I
know not a man” must be interpreted of the marital relationship. Mary’s
perplexity is that she, an unmarried woman, is promised an immediate
conception. It is impossible to accept Schmiedel’s view, when he says:
“Mary takes the words of the angel as referring to a fulfilment in the way
of nature”. This explanation is, of course, consistent on the
interpretation which Schmiedel gives to Mary’s question, but not on that
which we have found reason to prefer. Had Mary understood the angelic
message to mean a natural human birth after marriage, there would have
been no cause for perplexity. Her words, “How shall this be, seeing I know
not a man?”, are clearly _a reply to what is understood as the
announcement of an immediate conception_, and not of a birth within the
marriage tie.
If this view is taken of Mary’s words, it follows that verse 35 must be
explained as the yet clearer announcement of a virgin birth,
supernaturally caused. If the verse is treated in itself, it is possible
to interpret it of an ordinary human birth, and there is much that is
attractive in the interpretation. The words may be said to speak of the
Holy Ghost who should come upon Mary to inspire and preserve the purity of
her soul in the act of conception. They may speak, that is to say, of
God’s use of His own appointed agencies. But, to accept this view, it
would be necessary to regard the words “seeing I know not a man” as a
later insertion, and, though this opinion has been held by some (including
Kattenbusch, Weinel, J. M. Thompson), it does not on the whole commend
itself as a satisfactory solution of the problem (see further pp. 69 ff.).
We are compelled therefore to accept the ordinary interpretation of verse
35, as implying the Miraculous Conception.
(b) The Purport of the Angelic Announcement in Lk. i. 30‐3
In treating Mary’s question in Lk. i. 34. we have concluded that it
reflects the point of view of one who has received the announcement of a
miraculous birth. But this conclusion does not compel us to interpret the
words of Lk. i. 30‐3 as containing such an announcement. We have to
examine the passage so as to determine whether as a matter of fact it is
susceptible of that interpretation. That its present context requires this
view of Lk. i. 30‐3 is a fact not lightly to be regarded; nevertheless, it
must find justification _within the passage itself_ before it can be
accepted.
In the Revised Version, the angelic message reads as follows: “_Fear not,
Mary: for thou hast found favour with God._ (31) _And behold, thou shalt
conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name
Jesus._ (32) _He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most
High: and the Lord God shall give __ unto him the throne of his father
David_: (33) _and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of
his kingdom there shall be no end._”
We have already expressed the view that this prophecy moves strictly
within Jewish limits (p. 29). Detailed study of the passage only serves to
confirm this opinion. The Sonship mentioned in verse 32 bears a purely
Messianic character. Dr. Plummer justly remarks: “The title υἱὸς ᾿Υψίστου
expresses some very close relation between Jesus and Jehovah, but not the
Divine Sonship in the Trinity” (op. cit., p. 23). _Nothing is either said
or implied in this announcement of a miraculous birth._ The terms of the
promise to Mary would be perfectly fulfilled by an ordinary birth within
the marriage tie, so far, that is to say, as the mode of birth is
concerned. We must therefore reject the view which speaks of “the strange
declaration that she is to bear a son before she is married” (Plummer). We
look in vain for this declaration. We agree that Mary’s question in verse
34 demands such a declaration in order to make it rational. In fact, we
ourselves have argued that verse 34 is “a reply to what is understood as
the announcement of an immediate conception”. Nevertheless, even on the
most generous interpretation of Lk. i. 30‐3, it is impossible to find in
the passage any such announcement.(35) There is thus a radical difference
of point of view between the angelic announcement of Lk. i. 30‐3 and
Mary’s question in Lk. i. 34. This difference of standpoint will be urged
as one, though not the only reason for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a later
insertion. But before we examine these reasons, we need to consider
whether after all the angelic announcement may not contain some
implication (which does not lie upon the surface of the passage) that a
Miraculous Conception is promised.
We find it impossible to rest satisfied in the suggestion of W. C. Allen,
that there may have been some unrecorded indication of something unique in
the conception (_Interpreter_, 1905, p. 121 f.). A suggestion of this kind
can neither be justified nor gainsaid, and is valuable only as a
confirmation of the view that there is nothing “recorded” in Lk. i. 30‐3
of a unique conception. To launch upon the waters of what is unrecorded
would seem to be a policy of despair. There is much more to be said for an
extremely interesting suggestion of Canon Box in his article on the Virgin
Birth in Hastings’s _Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels_ (see vol. ii,
p. 806 a). Box argues that in the angelic announcement of Lk. i. 30‐3 “an
immediate conception is meant”. Accepting the view that a Hebrew original
underlies the nativity‐narratives of Lk. i, ii, he thinks that this
original has been incorrectly translated in Lk. i. 31, where, in the
Greek, we have the future tense συλλήψῃ, “thou shalt conceive”. “The
Hebrew original of συλλήψῃ would be a participle”, he says, “and the exact
rendering would be, ‘Behold, thou art conceiving now’ ”. There can be no
doubt that, if this view can be allowed, the angelic announcement really
does speak of a miraculous birth, and thus an adequate explanation is
given of Mary’s surprise in Lk. i. 34. There are, however, certain
objections which, in the judgement of the present writer, appear to be
fatal to this theory. We need not press the objection that it rests upon
an initial assumption, the existence of the supposed Hebrew original,
since this theory of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) documentary source is accepted
by most British scholars. Nor is it more than a formal objection if we
question if the word συλλήψῃ would necessarily be represented in the
supposed Hebrew original by a participle. In the Hebrew NT. published by
the British and Foreign Bible Society, the adjective הָרָה is used, and
this is the case in similar passages in the Hebrew OT., viz. Gen. xvi. 11,
xxxviii. 24; Judg. xiii. 7 (verse 3, perf.); 1 Sam. iv. 19; 2 Sam. xi. 5;
Isa. vii. 14. A more serious objection arises from Lk. ii. 21, where it is
said that the name Jesus was so called by the angel “before he was
conceived in the womb” (πρὸ τοῦ συλληφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ). On the
theory we are considering, this must be held to be either a second
mistranslation of the Hebrew original, or a departure from it. In either
case we must conclude that a promised conception, and not an immediate
one, was the considered view of the translator of the Hebrew document. A
second and conclusive objection to the theory of Canon Box rests upon
questions of grammatical syntax. Is it correct to say that “the exact
rendering” of the participle (or adj.) would be, “Behold, thou art
conceiving now”? It is true that the active participle is “mainly
descriptive of something present” (Davidson, _Hebrew Syntax_, p. 134), but
it is also true, to quote the same authority, that “the participle does
not indicate time, its colour in this respect being taken from the
connexion in which it stands”. The same consideration also applies to
הָרָה in all the OT. instances referred to above. Where it is made clear
in the context that conception has already taken place, הָרָה is
translated in the RV. by the present (cf. Gen. xvi. 11, xxxviii. 24; 2
Sam. xi. 5). Where, however, there is no such indication, it is rendered
by the future, and the announcement is treated as a promise (cf. Judg.
xiii. 7).
To convict the translator of the Hebrew document of an error in
translation, it is clearly necessary to show from the context of Lk. i. 31
that conception has already taken place. In other words, the translation
preferred by Canon Box, if it is to be accepted, must be justified by some
statement, either previously made, or made within the angelic announcement
itself; it must be required, that is to say, by something in the narrative
previous to Mary’s question in Lk. i. 34.(36) But these conditions, which
are by no means arbitrary, cannot be met. We must, therefore, conclude
that the translator was quite justified, when he used the future
(συλλήψῃ), and so represented the announcement as a prophecy; and we must
draw this conclusion, irrespective altogether of the difference of point
of view which thus stands revealed between this announcement and verse 34
in the connexion in which it now appears. Indeed, the argument of Canon
Box seems capable of being employed in a direction the very reverse of
that intended. It could be argued that since, in point of fact, the
translator has used the future in verse 31, there was nothing in the
Hebrew original to suggest to his mind the idea of an immediate
conception; not even the statement of verse 34, which might have
suggested, though it does not justify, the rendering, “Behold, thou art
conceiving now”. Thus we might enlist the considered view of the
translator, that a promised conception is meant, in support of the
contention that Lk. i. 34 f. is a later insertion. Without pressing this
view, we may fairly say that there is much more to be said for it than for
the theory we have discussed. The latter theory, in spite of all that can
be urged in its favour, fails to justify itself. In that case its failure
seems to illustrate the somewhat desperate expedients to which we must
have recourse, in order to find in the angelic announcement the thought of
an immediate conception. On the question as a whole, we can only conclude
that such a view is neither stated nor implied in the announcement, but
that, on the contrary, its reference is to the future.
(c) Reasons for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a Later Insertion
Having sought to give their full force and proper meaning to the two
passages, Lk. i. 30‐3 and Lk. i. 34 f., we may now consider the arguments
which can be advanced in favour of regarding the latter passage as an
interpolation. In respect of these arguments, there is far from general
agreement among those who are at one in the conclusion reached. But the
significant fact is not the diversity of opinion as regards the mode of
proof, but the agreement of so many scholars in holding the passage to be
a later insertion.(37) The arguments we shall examine are not equally
cogent, and, as in the first part of the present chapter, we shall call
attention to their limitations as well as to the points in which they are
strong. We shall also treat the case entirely apart from the results
suggested in the first half of our inquiry. Those results, if valid, set
up a presupposition against Lk. i. 34 f. But it seems much the best not to
avail ourselves of such an argument, but rather to consider the passage in
itself and in relation to its context. If in this way we find reasonable
grounds for considering Lk. i. 34 f. to be a later insertion, we have then
a double series of arguments converging on one conclusion.
(1) The first point to be considered is that _verse 36 follows naturally
after verse 33_. As we have seen, in verses 30‐3 we have an angelic
announcement to Mary to the effect that she is to give birth to a son who
is destined to become the Messiah. He will be called “the Son of the Most
High”, and to him the Lord God will give “the throne of his father David”.
To this message, it may be said, verses 36 and 37 form a fitting sequel.
They add the assurance that “no word from God shall be void of power”, in
proof of which it is declared that Mary’s kinswoman, Elisabeth, is shortly
to bear a son in her old age. The whole speech (Lk. i. 30‐3, 36, 37) is a
consistent passage, and in relation to it the words of Mary in verse
38—“Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy
word”—are a natural and fitting reply. Canon Box, in the article already
cited, questions this view. “There would be nothing extraordinary”, he
says “in Mary’s conceiving a son as Joseph’s wife”—nothing, that is to
say, to require the sign offered. But surely it is not a question of
“conceiving a son”, but of conceiving such a son, the long‐promised
Messiah; and, moreover, the ratification of so great a promise by means of
a miracle is a commonplace of OT. thought. It is not suggested, of course,
that this argument proves Lk. i. 34 f. to be an interpolation. That a
section runs smoothly when a particular passage within it is excised, is
no proof that that passage is not original. This last conclusion must be
established on the ground of other arguments. If, however, in the present
instance, other arguments carry weight, then the fact that verse 36 can be
connected easily and naturally with verse 33 becomes of very great
importance, and it is for that reason that we introduce it here.
(2) We take a really decisive step when we instance what already has been
found, namely that _verse 34 follows quite unnaturally upon Lk. i. 30‐3_.
We have seen that Mary’s question implies the announcement of an immediate
conception, and we have failed to find any such announcement in the
angel’s words. There is thus a complete difference of point of view in the
two passages. No possible ground is provided in the angelic announcement
for the objection raised in verse 34. It is difficult, therefore, to deny
the suggestion that Mary’s question already implies a knowledge of what is
told for the first time in verse 35. But this view, if we accept it, is to
say that Mary’s question could not possibly have been present to the mind
of Mary in the connexion in which it stands; it was the last question she
would have thought of asking. The question can only have been put into her
mouth by one who already knew of the Virgin Birth, and wished to introduce
that doctrine into a context in which originally it did not appear. On the
interpretation which we have given to Lk. i. 30‐3 and Lk. i. 34 f., this
conclusion is inevitable, unless we prefer to find in St. Luke an utter
inconsecutiveness of thought which does him no credit as writer, and which
neither of his works justify us in attributing to him.
(3) We are unable to attach the same force to the contention that verse 35
is followed unnaturally by verses 36 and 37 (so Schmiedel), though this
view has something to be said for it. Verse 35 announces the virgin birth
of the promised Messiah, a doctrine which is not found in Jewish
literature and tradition, and for which, therefore, the mind of Mary must
have been utterly unprepared.(38) As the section now stands, the statement
of verses 36 and 37 is added as a sign that what has just been promised
will surely come to pass. This sign, we have already argued, would be
quite natural, according to OT. modes of thought, as authenticating such a
message as that given in Lk. i. 30‐3. But can we say this in reference to
the promise of a virgin birth? To the modern mind at least the argument
seems faulty and unconvincing. Mary is bidden to accept as the divine
promise what is so remarkable as to be otherwise unknown to her, on the
ground of what is certainly remarkable but familiar to her mind and
outlook. In truth, this seems a remarkable argument with which to credit
an angel! At the same time, it has to be admitted that such an objection
may be too stringent, and that it may not allow sufficiently for ancient
modes of thought, according to which the argument from the less to the
greater is by no means uncommon. For this reason the present writer would
not feel confident in pressing the argument sketched above.(39)
(4) A much stronger argument calls attention to _the similarity between
Mary’s question and that of Zacharias (Lk. i. 18), and the difference with
which they are treated by the angel_. “Mary’s speech expresses doubt of
the truth of the angel’s message, and yet she is not so much as blamed,
whilst Zacharias is actually punished for a like doubt (i. 20)”.(40) The
presumption is that the two cases do not emanate from the same cycle of
tradition. The force of this argument depends, of course, upon the way in
which we interpret Lk. i. 34. It is true that we have no indication of the
tone in which the question is asked, beyond the words themselves and the
sentences which follow; but quite sufficient is given to indicate the
presence of doubt. The point is not merely one of subjective valuation.
This will appear if we consider Plummer’s view, which is quite different
from Schmiedel’s. “She does not ask for _proof_, as Zacharias did (ver.
18); and only in the form of the words does she ask as to the mode of
accomplishment. Her utterance is little more than an involuntary
expression of amazement.... It is clear that she does not doubt the fact
promised, nor for a moment suppose that her child is to be the child of
Joseph” (op. cit., p. 24). In weighing this opinion, it should be noticed
that it refers only to the words, Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο? We may readily agree
that if all that Mary had said were, “How shall this be?”, we should be
unable to contest this view. But to divide Mary’s question in this way is
not permissible. The second part, “seeing I know not a man”, clearly
determines the first, and debars us from viewing it as merely “an
involuntary expression of amazement”. The presence of doubt, we think,
must be conceded, though it is less marked than in the case of Zacharias.
This view, moreover, is supported by the fact that, in the narrative as it
stands, an explanation follows, which is also confirmed by a sign. Since,
as Plummer says, Mary, unlike Zacharias, does not ask for proof, we need
not object that she is not “punished.” And it is just possible that we
make the parallelism too rigid if we lay stress on the fact that “she is
not so much as blamed”. It is rather the “eulogium” of Lk. i. 45 (“Blessed
is she that believed”) which presents the difficulty. It is true that, in
the narrative as we have it now, Mary believes ultimately (verse 38), but
Lk. i. 45 seems rather to belong to a narrative in which Mary believes
from the first. We conclude that the present argument gives real support
to the view that Lk. i. 34 f. belongs to a source distinct from its
context.
(5) A fifth argument dwells on _the different senses_ in which Divine
Sonship is predicated of the promised child in verse 32 as compared with
verse 35. As we have seen, the term υἱὸς ᾿Υψίστου in verse 32 is purely
Messianic. But in verse 35 the expression υἱὸς θεοῦ must be given a very
different meaning. It is in consequence of (διὸ καί) the divine
overshadowing that the child is to be called “Son of God”. Here, to quote
Dr. J. Estlin Carpenter, the term denotes “not official adoption, but
actual origin”, and, with the same writer, we must conclude that verse 35
“is thus a doublet of verses 31, 32 on another plane” (op. cit., p.
487).(41) It is more difficult to decide whether the difference supports
the theory of interpolation. We cannot shut out the possibility that two
diverse types of Sonship might have been attributed by St. Luke to the
same speaker at the same time of writing. But, having said this, we may
observe that it is certainly much easier to suppose, and is much more
probable, that they belong to different periods of reflection, and are the
product (or deposit) of different traditions. This argument, then, may be
said to lean in the direction of the theory of interpolation, but, for the
reason given above, we should hesitate to urge it, if it stood alone.
(6) We have lastly to look at the vexed question of the Davidic descent.
It is safe to say that, if we had not Lk. i. 34 f. in the Gospel as it
stands to‐day, we should have no ground for regarding Mary as of Davidic
descent. It is the presence of these verses that makes possible that
inference in verse 32, where, in addressing Mary, the angel speaks of
David as the forefather of the promised child. It is surely a remarkable
fact that a point so vital to St. Luke’s narrative as the Davidic descent
of Mary should be introduced in so incidental a manner. Our wonder is
increased when we observe that St. Luke is at great pains to assure
Theophilus of the Davidic descent of Joseph. In ii. 4 it is said that
Joseph was “_of the house and family of David_”; not a word is said of
Mary’s descent. It is true that the Sin. Syr. reads, “because they were
both of the house of David”; but this does not naturally fit into the
structure of the sentence, is unsupported elsewhere, and is accepted by no
one; it clearly represents an attempt to remove a difficulty. In. i. 27 it
is also said that Joseph was “_of the house of David_”. The phrase cannot
be construed with the word “virgin”, which occurs earlier in the sentence,
in view of the fact that after ἐξ οἴκου Δανείδ St. Luke resumes the thread
of the story by saying “and the virgin’s name was Mary”; otherwise, he
would have continued (so Schmiedel, op. cit., col. 2957), “and her name
was Mary”. It is not easy indeed to resist Schmiedel’s further contention
that the phrasing of the sentence expressly forbids our ascribing the
Davidic descent to Mary, though the opinion is put forward with greater
confidence than seems justified. The one passage in which St. Luke
directly refers to the family of Mary is dubious. In i. 36 Elisabeth is
said to be “_the kinswoman_” of Mary, and we know from i. 5 that Elisabeth
was “_of the daughters of Aaron_”, which seems to imply that Mary too was
of Levitical descent. But as the precise nature of the relationship is not
stated, we cannot say, with Schmiedel, Usener, and others, that this is
so. Nevertheless, the broad fact remains that apart from an inference,
which itself depends on Lk. i. 34 f., we have no grounds for believing
Mary to be a descendant of David. St. Luke undoubtedly believes Jesus to
be of Davidic descent; he carefully shows Joseph to be of that descent; he
gives us no reason to suppose, that, like the author of the First Gospel,
he traced the descent of Jesus through Joseph as His _legal_ father; and
yet, in spite of all this, he has left the vital question of the Davidic
descent of Mary at the mercy of an inference! If he knows Mary to be a
descendant of David, why does he not say so explicitly? We have a right to
ask the question, which is neither captious nor unfair. No one has yet
answered it satisfactorily, except in the answer that St. Luke had no
tradition of the Davidic descent of Mary at his disposal, that he traced
the descent of Jesus through Joseph as His real father, that this is the
true interpretation of verse 32, and that Lk. i. 34 f. is a later
insertion, which has imposed on verse 32 a sense which originally it did
not bear. _Regard Lk. i. 34 f. as a later insertion, and all the facts
alleged by St. Luke about the Davidic descent fall into intelligible
order_; refuse to do this, and they remain in inexplicable confusion.
When we consider the cumulative force of the preceding arguments, it
becomes impossible for us to think that Lk. i. 34 f. was written at the
same time, and from the same point of view, as the context in which it now
stands; it is clearly a later insertion. With some reason we may hesitate
to say that verse 36 does not follow naturally upon verse 35, and we may
speculate whether two diverse conceptions of Sonship may not be held in
the same mind at the same time of writing. But when we ponder the question
of the Davidic descent; when we compare verse 34 with Lk. i. 18 ff.; when
we observe the natural coherence of Lk. i. 30‐3 and Lk. i. 36‐8, and the
radical difference in point of view between verses 34, 35 and the angelic
announcement; when, in short, we have a narrative, which, if Lk. i. 34 f.
was present from the first, ought to be dominated by those verses, but on
the contrary does not seem to be influenced by them; we are compelled to
conclude that the suspected verses represent a later insertion in the
Gospel.
III. Summary and Conclusion
We are in a position now to conclude from the foregoing investigation that
_the Virgin Birth is not an original element in the Third Gospel_. This
conclusion has been reached by two lines of argument which confirm and
strengthen each other. We have seen that the one passage which
unmistakably asserts the doctrine is a later insertion. Independently of
this, statements have been noted in chapters i and ii, which receive no
natural and satisfactory explanation on the assumption that St. Luke wrote
his narrative with a knowledge of the miracle presupposed. In the first
part of this chapter we expressly refrained from pressing the view that
these points in themselves absolutely forbid this assumption. But,
obviously, now that we have found Lk. i. 34 f. to be a later insertion,
the force of these difficulties is greatly increased. We are now entitled
to say that the opinion which does least honour to St. Luke is the view
that he has written cc. i, ii, while knowing of the Virgin Birth. We have
to remember that not only is the Virgin Birth itself a stupendous thought,
but that, if known to St. Luke, it cannot have been known long, and must
therefore have preserved the freshness of its wonder. Can we, then,
suppose that, while under the sway of a presupposition so despotic as
this, he would straightway proceed to use such expressions as “the
parents”, “his parents”, “his father and his mother”; that, without
qualification, he would speak of “their purification”; that he would
represent them astonished at the words of Simeon, and mystified by the
bearing and speech of Jesus at Jerusalem? Is it credible, in short, that
he should have fallen into the very ambiguities and inconsistencies, which
presumably he would be anxious to avoid, and which without the slightest
difficulty he could have avoided? Even if we should still hesitate to
answer these questions in the negative, our conclusion, that originally
the Gospel lacked the references to the Virgin Birth which we now find in
it, leaves us no other option.
It should be observed that the arguments we have employed in the present
chapter do not compel us to take the view that St. Luke never at any time
taught the Virgin Birth. They are satisfied if we can suppose that he had
no knowledge of the doctrine when Lk. i, ii was first written. To say that
i. 34 f. is a correction, inserted by a redactor or reader, whose name we
do not know, but who is not St. Luke, is to take two steps where we have
ground for one only. All that our study entitles us to claim is that the
Virgin Birth belongs to a later stratum in the Third Gospel. More than
this we cannot say, until we have made a thorough linguistic and textual
examination of Lk. i. 34 f., and this must be our next task.