In the present chapter we must formulate a theory which shall do justice
to the results obtained in the last two chapters. We have argued that the
Virgin Birth is not an original element in the Third Gospel, that several
passages in it are inconsistent with the doctrine, and that Lk. i. 34 f.
is a later insertion. On the other hand we have given reasons for our
belief that St. Luke really did write the passage just mentioned, and that
in consequence he taught the Virgin Birth. It is useless, we think, to set
these results against one another; they are not contradictory. The
argument from the linguistic and textual facts will not make one iota of
difference to those derived from the treatment and subject‐matter of Lk.
i, ii, and the latter will not in any way impair the former. Writers who
hold fast to the view that St. Luke wrote i. 34 f. have not, in that one
contention, answered their opponents, and critics who plead for the
hypothesis of non‐Lukan interpolation travel much too fast. The final
theory must take all the facts into account.
I. A Suggested Theory
So far as we ourselves are concerned, there is only one hypothesis open to
us, and it is not far to seek. It will be best if we first state it
somewhat baldly, leaving obvious difficulties to be considered later. The
theory is as follows:
In the first instance St. Luke wrote his Gospel, either in whole or in
part, without any knowledge of the Virgin Birth. To him, as to the
compiler of the Lukan Genealogy, Jesus was the son of Joseph and of Mary.
St. Luke’s estimate of Jesus was not less high than that of St. Paul and
St. Mark, but, as was probably true in the case of each of these writers,
no tradition of the Miraculous Birth had reached him. He looked upon Jesus
as the Child of Wondrous Promise, and for his analogies he turned to the
Old Testament to the stories of Isaac and of Samuel.
In contrast to earlier writers St. Luke had an excellent Birth‐tradition
at his disposal. According to his sources the coming and future Messianic
greatness of Jesus had been divinely foretold. His birth was heralded by
angelic choirs, and humble shepherds brought their meed of worship and of
praise. By an insight divinely given, men like Simeon and women like Anna
saw in Him the child of promise. He was to be a light for revelation to
the Gentiles and the glory of His people Israel. We need not stay to look
more closely into the story, which doubtless has been worked up as regards
its form by the Evangelist’s hand. Suffice it to say that St. Luke’s
picture is that of a Wondrous Birth, supernaturally foretold; not a virgin
birth.(70)
Some time after he had penned his narrative, possibly after it had been
dispatched to Theophilus, but at any rate before the Gospel gained a wider
circulation, St. Luke received the tradition of the Virgin Birth. At what
time and from what source the story reached him we are quite unable to
say; possibly it was from some reader or readers to whom he had submitted
his narrative; possibly the story travelled along some independent
channel. In any case the probability is that the tradition was imparted to
St. Luke by some one who claimed to possess a fuller and a better account,
and whose claim the Evangelist respected and admitted. Having regard to
St. Luke’s standing and methods as an historian, we prefer to believe that
the tradition reached him through a definite and _personal_ channel, than
to suppose that of his own initiative he freely altered a valuable source
out of deference to a growing theory.
The historical value of the new information is a question we are not now
considering. It is part of our theory, however, that it satisfied the mind
of St. Luke; to him the Virgin Birth was historic fact. Probably the story
appealed to him at once as a fitting explanation of the unique personality
of Jesus. It was a tradition rich in doctrinal possibilities; it provoked
reflection, and it answered questions.
The Evangelist saw at once that the story must find a place in his
narrative. Fortunately it was not too late, and fortunately again there
was a point where it could be included without entailing the necessity of
rewriting cc. i, ii entirely. He had only to insert the words we have now
in i. 34 f. into the address of the angel, and to add to the opening words
of the Genealogy the phrase “as was supposed”, to obtain a narrative in
which truths previously unknown to him found sufficient statement. If we
can suppose that the adaptation of what he had previously written was not
drastic enough, we obtain a hypothesis which at least does justice to
every result we have yet secured.
The view that Lk. i. 34 f. is an interpolation made by St. Luke himself
was put forward by Zimmermann in _Studien und Kritiken_ (p. 273 f.) in
1903. His treatment (cf. Moffatt, INT., p. 269 n.) differs in several
respects from that outlined above. Zimmermann posits an Aramaic Jewish‐
Christian source which described a natural birth, and suggests that it was
in the course of translating this document that St. Luke added i. 34 f.
The Evangelist is also credited with having altered i. 27 and ii. 5, so as
to describe Mary as betrothed to Joseph. Zimmermann also explains ii. 22
(αὐτῶν) as a mistranslation, and ascribes to St. Luke the parenthesis of
ii. 35 a, and the chronology of iii. 1‐2, which he holds is inaccurate.
According to this hypothesis St. Luke must have been acquainted with the
Virgin Birth _before_ he began to translate the supposed Aramaic document.
This view is encumbered with difficulty; for, if Zimmermann is right, we
should certainly expect a much more drastic editing of the document than
can be shown. The extent to which this difficulty appears in the case of
our own theory is one for which we think that justification can be
given.(71) In the case of Zimmermann’s hypothesis the obstacle is too
great. On this view we cannot understand how the Evangelist allowed
himself to write down those expressions which are incompatible with the
Miraculous Conception.(72)
The view we have preferred agrees with that of Zimmermann in positing a
source or sources which described a natural birth. It differs from it in
denying that the Evangelist knew of the Virgin Birth at the time when he
made use of those sources. We prefer to think that it was after cc. i, ii
had attained what is substantially its present form in Greek, that St.
Luke came to hear of the Virgin Birth, and that it was then that he
inserted i. 34 f. This supposition includes the positive advantages of
Zimmermann’s theory, and it agrees better with the existing literary
phenomena of Lk. i, ii.(73)
II. Literary Conditions Under Which the Gospels Were Written
In holding the view we have outlined, we have no thought of running with
the hare and hunting with the hounds. Our theory is not intended as an
eirenicon. It is not an attempt to make the best of two worlds, the
critical and the dogmatic. If we appear to have introduced the Virgin
Birth into the Third Gospel by the back door, after we have bowed it out
at the front, this is simply because the evidence leaves us no
alternative. Our theory makes room for the twofold fact, as it seems to
us, (1) that the Virgin Birth is not an original element in the Third
Gospel, and (2) that St. Luke wrote the one passage in the Gospel which
asserts the doctrine; thus for us it is inevitable.
If, from another point of view, our hypothesis seems a bold venture, we
may justly claim that the facts are such as to demand a bold treatment.
Nor is it a sufficient objection to say that the theory is complex. Life
is a complex thing, and there are few times when we need to remember it so
much as when we are thinking of the production of an historical work.
Apart from other claims which can be made, our theory has one important,
if general, advantage; it takes account of the elementary facts of human
composition. Have we given sufficient thought to the fact that a writer
like St. Luke may well have turned back to review, and even to alter, in
the light of further information, what he had already written? Is not this
what nearly every one does who writes or relates anything at all? Is it
not indeed rather a rare than a usual proceeding to write a story from
start to finish without insertion, omission, and revision?
In his “Introduction” Dr. James Moffatt has drawn attention to these
things, and especially as they concern St. Luke’s two works. He shows that
interpolation may take place “either (_a_) at the hands of the author
himself, or (_b_) by subsequent editors of the volume, after the writer’s
death, or (_c_) by scribes (or editors) of the text” (p. 36). Under (a) he
refers to instances in Aeschylus, Herodotus, Virgil, Juvenal, Martial, and
Lucretius. “Several passages in the _De Rerum Natura_ (e.g. ii. 165‐83)
are also to be explained most naturally as additions made by Lucretius
himself to the original draft, and in the case of the Third Gospel or its
sequel it is not unlikely that Luke may have re‐edited ... his work” (p.
37). Dr. Moffatt gives a very interesting modern example in the case of
_Northanger Abbey_, which was first composed by Jane Austen in 1798. “In
the fifth chapter, however, we have an allusion to Miss Edgeworth’s
_Belinda_—a novel which did not appear until 1801. This proves that Miss
Austen’s work lies before us in a revised form; the first draft was gone
over by the authoress before its final publication some years later” (p.
37).(74)
It will scarcely be denied that the possibility of interpolation by an
original author has often been overlooked by many critics. They are not
slow to find the insertions of later readers and scribes, but often it
seems tacitly to be assumed that the original writers must have written
with logical and almost unerring precision. Curiously enough, something
like the Verbal Inspiration of Scripture is required to justify some of
the critical results reached. This is a doctrine long since discredited,
but being dead it yet speaks. It will have to be allowed, we think, that
mechanical theories of Inspiration have not yet left us free to perceive
those ordinary conditions of writing under which the New Testament writers
wrote. The aftermath of Verbal Inspiration still blinds us to the
commonplaces of composition.
Of all New Testament authors St. Luke is perhaps the last to have issued
his works without modifications. The high art which is self‐evident in a
modern writer like Robert Louis Stevenson was not attained without
corrections, substitutions, redrafting, and rewriting. Without drawing the
parallel too closely, and without impugning his real inspiration, we may
well credit some of these processes to St. Luke. This, however, is an
argument we cannot press too far, for, as will be seen in the following
section, there is good ground for the belief that St. Luke’s revision of
his work was never complete. It is sufficient for our hypothesis to find
room for a measure of revision and for the presence of modifications
required by new information.
The nature of St. Luke’s task is an added reason for expecting these
processes. In his Preface (i. 1‐4) St. Luke shows a desire to produce a
full and accurate record, and claims to have traced the course of all
things from the first. Any new information bearing upon the Birth and the
hidden years of the Infancy would be especially welcome to him. Any one,
moreover, who has had anything to do with collecting memoirs knows that
not infrequently new facts come to hand just when the task seems well‐nigh
completed, facts for which a place must be found, however great the
difficulties may be.
We are not indeed left entirely to conjecture. We can examine St. Luke’s
treatment of the Markan record. The modifications which he introduces are
manifest, and they arise in different ways. Many of them are stylistic,
others are intended to clear up difficulties, while it is in every way
probable that others again are corrections introduced as the result of new
information. If, from such causes, St. Luke does not hesitate to modify
the statements of St. Mark’s Gospel, it is inconceivable that he would
have refrained from altering his own narrative if occasion should arise.
We have at least one definite example, within St. Luke’s works, of a story
which has been modified in the light of further information. In Lk. xxiv
there is good ground for thinking that the final parting of Jesus from His
disciples is not described as an Ascension, and apparently it takes place
at the close of Easter Day. In Acts i we have the story of a forty days’
interval, during which the Risen Christ teaches His disciples the things
concerning the Kingdom of God (i. 3). The Ascension is described as an act
of visible levitation. Jesus is taken up into heaven and a cloud receives
Him out of His disciples’ sight (i. 9). As they stand gazing upwards two
men appear by their side clothed in white garments, who declare that Jesus
shall return in like manner as they beheld Him going into heaven (i. 10
f.). The disciples then return to Jerusalem. It can hardly be denied that
this is a totally different story from that which is told in Lk. xxiv.
Whatever its historical value may be the presumption is that it rests upon
a tradition which had come to St. Luke’s knowledge after he had completed
his Gospel. Apparently he acquired his new information when it was too
late to alter his earlier work. Otherwise we may believe that the story
would have appeared in the Gospel and not in the Acts.
It may freely be granted that the foregoing considerations are of a purely
general character. Admittedly they do not prove that Lk. i. 34 f. is a
specific instance of modification. Our justification of this hypothesis is
the results we have reached in Chapters II and III. What we have just
urged, however, is sufficient to show that our theory is not by any means
inherently impossible, but is consonant with St. Luke’s procedure and
methods as a writer.
III. The Objections to Which the Above Theory is Exposed
We have now to consider what is perhaps the strongest objection to which
our theory is exposed. It may be stated as follows:
If the Virgin Birth is a later element in the Third Gospel introduced by
St. Luke himself, the Evangelist’s revision of cc. i, ii might reasonably
have been expected to be much more thorough than it is. Why, for example,
does he leave untouched the references to Joseph and Mary as “the parents”
of Jesus? Why does he not qualify his ambiguous reference to “their”
purification? Why is he still untroubled by their astonishment, and by
their failure to understand the words of Jesus at Jerusalem? Why does he
not insert some clearer reference to the Davidic descent of Mary, or at
least give us reason to believe that he looked upon Jesus as the adopted,
and therefore legal, son of Joseph? Why does he leave the Sonship
mentioned in the first part of the angel’s speech (i. 31‐3) apparently of
a purely Messianic character? Why does he not provide occasion in the
Annunciation for the terms of Mary’s question in i. 34? In short, are we
not back again face to face with the same difficulties with which our
investigation opened? These are some of the difficulties which our theory
raises.
In reply to this objection there are two preliminary considerations to be
borne in mind. They are not arguments in the sense of things which can be
proved; they are rather possibilities which ought seriously to be taken
into account.
(1) In the first place it should be recognized that _we may not have all
the details of St. Luke’s actual reconstruction before us_. Something may
have been altered or excised; we have the result; we may not have all the
stages. Usener (EB., col. 3350) has asserted that statements of fact have
actually been omitted from the original narrative; he is even able to tell
us what they are! He thinks that we can “infer with certainty” that in the
original form of the narrative after i. 38 stood the further statement
that Mary was then taken to wife by Joseph and that she conceived by him.
Usener suggests that this statement was “judged inadmissible” by the
redactor who interpolated i. 34 f., and that in consequence it was
expunged. There can be little doubt that reasoning such as this requires
omniscience as well as intuition! And the same criticism would be just in
reply to any one who should elect to tell us exactly what St. Luke himself
has altered or omitted. These are things which we do not know, and which
we cannot know; we cannot even “infer with certainty” that St. Luke has
omitted anything at all. But the broad possibility that he may have
effected transformations and modifications in cc. i, ii, which we cannot
now trace, is quite another matter, and, indeed, is by no means
improbable. And if this is so, must it not affect the judgement we pass
upon the skill or lack of skill which, on the theory proposed, St. Luke
has shown? We may not know all. Obviously, we cannot prove this, but it is
a consideration which we ought to have in mind.
(2) A second thing to be remembered is that, if our theory is true, _we do
not know anything of the actual circumstances under which the new
tradition was introduced into the Gospel; it may have been in haste_. Did
the story reach the Evangelist at the last moment? Or, if not, was there a
process of sifting and testing of the new information, which left little
time when at length the fateful decision was taken, and the Evangelist
took up his pen? Again we cannot prove these things, but again we cannot
deny them. And if we cannot deny them, we must not ignore them. Only if we
do ignore these possibilities, are we at liberty to insist that the
reconstruction should have been more drastic. If, as we ourselves think,
the supposition is reasonable, that i. 34 f. was added when the Evangelist
had only just heard of the Virgin Birth tradition, we have clearly a good
answer to the objection we are considering.
The foregoing arguments are speculative; there are, however, more positive
considerations to urge. In addition to what has been said, we may point
out (3) the fact that _St. Luke’s writings left his hand without a
painstaking final revision_, and (4) _the different effect upon the mind
of a new piece of information as compared with a belief, which has been
held for some time, and has already become an intellectual
presupposition_.
(3) _That St. Luke’s writings left his hands without a final revision is
strongly supported by the literary phenomena of the two works._ The
clearest evidence is found in the Acts, in which we probably have a closer
literary parallel to the Birth Stories of Lk. i, ii than in the rest of
the Gospel itself. Writing on the Acts (_Acts of the Apostles_, Eng. Tr.,
pp. 203 ff.) Harnack gives a list of more than two hundred “instances of
inaccuracy and discrepancy”. Harnack does not accept them all, and shows
that they are of different types, many of them being comparatively
trifling and unimportant. Some are cases of anacoluthon and of transition
from indirect to direct speech and vice versa. There are also “cases where
St. Luke introduces persons with a certain unconcern, or in other places
seems to forget that he has already introduced them” (p. 230). Harnack
points out that “the details of a story are here and there inserted later
or again earlier than their proper place” (p. 227), and he asserts that
“instances of redundancy, of awkward repetition, of silence upon important
points, and of extraordinary brevity, can be adduced from different parts
of the book” (p. 230). He finds “instances of discrepancy” in the three
accounts of the conversion of St. Paul, the letter of Claudius Lysias, the
report of Festus, the last speech of St. Paul at Rome, and in other
passages (p. 231).
Adequately to enter into this very interesting question would take us too
far beyond the limits of our main subject. It is perhaps not unfair to
suggest that Harnack’s long list, as given in pp. 203‐25, is capable of
very considerable reduction. There is great force in Ramsay’s remark: “He
who reads Luke without applying practical sense and mother‐wit and
experience will always misunderstand him”, and in his caution: “When you
think you find an ‘inconsistency’ in Luke, you should look carefully
whether you have been sufficiently applying these qualities, before you
condemn the supposed fault” (_Luke the Physician_, p. 55). Ramsay himself
admits, however, that there are inconsistencies which cannot be denied,
and holds that they show that “the work never received the final form
which Luke intended to give it, but was still incomplete when he died”
(ib., p. 24). In his earlier work, _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman
Citizen_, Ramsay has made the same suggestion, illustrations of which he
finds in Acts xvi. 19, 20 and xx. 4, 5.(75)
We may describe the impression which St. Luke, as a writer, makes upon us
by saying that, while his work is marked by great literary art, and while
it is characterized by many striking instances of historical accuracy,
yet, at the same time, the Evangelist shows a certain unconcern in matters
of detail (Harnack would call it “a certain literary carelessness”), the
results of which would probably have disappeared had he subjected his
works to a close final revision. If this view is just there is little
weight in the objection that, on the theory we have stated, St. Luke’s
reconstruction might have been expected to be more drastic than it is. The
inconsistencies he has left are like those which we find elsewhere and are
a feature of his works as they stand.
(4) Our final argument is of a psychological kind. It rests, as we have
said, upon _the difference between an intellectual prepossession and the
first effect upon the mind of new information_.
The previous argument might seem to point in another direction. Will not
the character of St. Luke’s writings sufficiently explain the literary
phenomena of Lk. i, ii, on the view that he taught the Virgin Birth from
the first? In the light of the discrepancies which occur in the Gospel and
the Acts, can we not believe that after all the Virgin Birth is an
original element in the Gospel? This contention would be an example of
what Harnack has called attempting to gather apologetic figs from
sceptical thistles.(76) We do not think that in this case the harvest
would realize expectations.
It must be remembered that the two cases are not parallel. In the one case
we begin with a writer whose mind is filled with an intellectual
presupposition, with a knowledge, that is to say, of the Virgin Birth
presupposed. Under these circumstances the miracle must be “a necessary
stone in the structure”, and its effect determinative. If the Virgin Birth
had been known to St. Luke for some considerable time, we cannot think
that Lk. i, ii would have possessed the features to which we have called
attention in Chapter II. In the other case—that of our hypothesis—the
Virgin Birth is a piece of new information, and, if this is so, we submit
that inconsistencies left in the adapted narrative wear a different hue.
It is one thing to introduce into a narrative what is inconsistent to
one’s presuppositions. It is quite another thing not to perceive
inconsistencies at once, when our knowledge is enlarged by a totally new
fact. A presupposition is much more despotic than a subsequent discovery.
It is common knowledge that the implications of a new point of view are
not always immediately recognized. For a time old and new live together.
It is not by any means an easy task to introduce into a narrative,
constructed under the guidance of alien presuppositions, a fact of an
entirely new order. That St. Luke should have performed his task so well
argues no little skill in literary craftsmanship. That his work was not
completely done is after all no more than we might expect. From the
standpoint of literary exactitude, no doubt the better plan would have
been to rewrite the narrative, or at least to subject it to a rigorous
pruning. But we ought not to complain if these things have not been done.
St. Luke was probably too much of an artist to feel the merciless logic of
his new information; and the result is a compromise.
In connexion with our theory we do not think that this is an unreasonable
view to take. The difficulties are certainly much greater upon the theory
that St. Luke knew of the Virgin Birth from the first. Granted certain
presuppositions, and we can say with good reason what a writer like St.
Luke would not be likely to do. Assume the entrance of a new fact,
transforming by a whole world of difference the writer’s point of view,
and who can say just what he would do? We can say, of course, that he
would introduce his new knowledge, if persuaded of its truth; but when we
come to the details of reconstruction, we are face to face with the
uncertainties of the personal equation. The logical procedure is drastic
revision. If the writer stops short of this, as he may very well do, and
attempts to fuse his material, seams must show and markings remain. This
is precisely what we find in Lk. i, ii. In i. 34 f. and its context we can
detect the seams; in c. ii we can see the markings.
It will be recognized that the situation is quite different on the view
which credits i. 34 f. to a later Christian editor. Against this theory
the objection we are considering has much greater force. For it is
unlikely that the redactor would approach the Gospel with a knowledge of
the Virgin Birth but lately gained. On the contrary, it would probably be
a doctrine with which he had long been familiar. Accordingly, in addition
to the other objections that we have raised against the theory of late
interpolation, it would be legitimate to ask, Why has the redactor not
done his work better? Our own hypothesis—that St. Luke had only just
entered into a knowledge of the new tradition—is, indeed, the one theory
where we have the least need to ask this question.
For the reasons given, we believe that the objection that St. Luke’s
revision should have been more drastic is not insuperable. That there is
difficulty we allow. But there is probably no solution of the Lukan
problem, not even the correct one, which will not leave difficulties of a
kind. The problem is complex and the facts often elusive. It is on the
ground that the theory we have sketched leaves least difficulties, and
does justice to the facts as they appear, that we venture to find in it a
reasonable solution of the problem of the Virgin Birth in relation to the
Third Gospel and to St. Luke.
IV. Certain Consequences
It remains for us to consider certain consequences which follow if our
hypothesis is true.
(1) In the first place, _we can claim St. Luke as a witness to the
tradition of the Virgin Birth_. This is a result of first importance. For
those who regard St. Luke as a very credulous person with a special
“fondness” for “a good miracle”, this conclusion will mean little. But for
those who are impressed by his claim to be regarded as a good historical
writer, it is not a view to be lightly esteemed. There are those who will
consider that St. Luke’s witness settles the historical question, and will
be disposed on the ground of his authority to accept the tradition. But
with greater reason there are others who will feel that, with all his
excellences as an historian, St. Luke has the elementary human right to
make a mistake, especially when he is dependent upon the evidence of
others. The determining feature is clearly the character of his source or
sources.
(2) A further fact to be noticed is that _St. Luke’s witness marks a very
early stage in the spread of the Virgin Birth tradition_. In this respect
there is a contrast between the Third and First Gospels. In the Third
Gospel the tradition is stated, but its problems are scarcely felt. There
is a foreshadowing of this in the words “as was supposed” in the
Genealogy, but not more. St. Luke has not really felt the problem of the
Davidic descent. He has not envisaged that very striking treatment of the
problem which we shall have occasion to point out in the Matthaean
Genealogy (see pp. 89 ff.). St. Luke’s narrative is neither didactic nor
apologetic. It is almost, but not quite, a simple narrative of what is
implicitly accepted as fact. In making this qualification we are thinking
of the artistic form which the earlier narrative embodied in Lk. i, ii has
imposed upon St. Luke’s account of the Virgin Birth; but this is a matter
which will come up again a little later. The fact that is of outstanding
interest is that St. Luke could sit down to write a Gospel, with a desire
to trace out all things accurately from the first, and yet know nothing of
the Virgin Birth, until after the greater part, if not the whole, of his
work was completed.
(3) _It is the fact just noted which helps us to date the first appearance
of the Virgin Birth tradition; its date is bound up with the question of
the date of the Third Gospel._ This is a question which will receive
further treatment in our final chapter (pp. 117 ff.).
(4) _Our hypothesis postulates an earlier narrative of the Birth of Jesus
which knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. The relation of this narrative to
the later tradition needs carefully to be considered._
We have already expressed the opinion that the earlier narrative was
probably taken from a good historical source. Ramsay has noted signs of a
womanly spirit in the whole narrative, and thinks that it may well go back
either to Mary, or to some one who was very intimate with her (cf. _Was
Christ Born at Bethlehem?_, pp. 74‐88; _Luke the Physician_, pp. 13, 50).
Sanday is not able to speak quite so confidently as to the nearness of the
source to Mary, but thinks that it could not be “more than two or three
degrees removed from her”. “It must have been near enough”, he says, “to
retain the fine touches which Professor Ramsay so well brings out”
(_Outlines_, p. 195 n.). These views have won considerable support in
Great Britain. It will be remembered, of course, that they have regard to
the whole of Lk. i, ii, to the narrative, that is to say, as an account of
the Virgin Birth. The same arguments are valid, however, for ascribing a
good historical foundation to the narrative, even if i. 34 f. is a later
addition. The probability is that the source, whether documentary or oral,
is of Palestinian origin, and that it points back ultimately, if not
immediately, to the Holy Family. On our theory, however, while silent as
to the paternity of Joseph, the source had nothing to say of the Virgin
Birth. It described the non‐miraculous birth of the long‐expected Messiah.
At first sight the high historical value of this earlier source would
appear to be detrimental to the tradition of Lk. i. 34 f. But it is not
certain that this is so. There is more force than has often been allowed
in the suggestion that the facts of the Virgin Birth may have been
purposely withheld from public knowledge for many years by those who knew
them.(77) Assuming for the moment the truth of this view, we may ask,
_Would nothing at all be told?_ If we think it probable that part at least
of the story would be related, it may be that the tradition upon which St.
Luke first drew is a version of that part. We might even hazard the
suggestion that it was the publication of this story by St. Luke which
drew out the fuller narrative. In other words, the fact that the earlier
tradition makes no reference to the Virgin Birth need not be fatal to the
truth of the later story expanded in i. 34 f. This, of course, is
speculation; but, at any rate, the possibilities are such as to forbid the
specious argument—the Holy Family know nothing of the Virgin Birth! We
tread upon firmer ground when we urge that the higher the historical value
of the earlier story the less likely would St. Luke have been disposed to
modify it in deference to further information, unless he had attached
considerable value to the new tradition, and was persuaded of its truth.
(5) As regards _the origin of the Virgin Birth tradition implied in Lk. i.
34 f._, we have to confess that we are completely in the dark. We have
stated our preference for the view that it came through a personal channel
(p. 73). We are unable to think that in writing i. 34 f. St. Luke was
himself merely translating theology into narrative. But who the
intermediary was we cannot tell. On our theory, the tradition cannot have
been directly imparted to the Evangelist by Mary. Whether, in the end, the
story can be traced back to her, is a question we cannot now discuss. At
this stage it would be no more than a guess to connect it with the women
mentioned in Lk. viii. 2, 3; xxiv. 10, or with the daughters of Philip
(Acts xxi. 8, 9). In an historical inquiry it is never safe to ascribe a
tradition to an authority, unless we have solid grounds for so doing.
Otherwise, we import a bias into the investigation, if indeed we do not
beg the question. The mistake is one which has been made more than once in
discussing the Virgin Birth. In the present case we have nothing whatever
to guide us, and accordingly we have to acquiesce in the bare conclusion
that St. Luke accepted the Virgin Birth tradition, but that we do not know
anything about his authority, except that it satisfied his mind.
(6) The _form_ in which the tradition reached St. Luke can hardly have
been the brief statement of i. 34 f. The literary form of that passage is
determined by that of the earlier narrative. The latter, as we have said
(p. 73), is something more than a bare transcript of events. It is a
product of high art, and is shaped upon Old Testament models. Ramsay finds
in it a Greek element. The story has been “re‐thought out of the Hebraic
into the Greek fashion” (_Luke the Physician_, p. 13). The divine
messenger becomes to St. Luke “the winged personal being who, like Iris or
Hermes, communicates the will and purpose of God” (op. cit., p. 13).
Having regard, however, to the Old Testament birth‐stories of Isaac,
Samson, and Samuel, it is doubtful if we really need this suggestion. In
any case, we may say that it is the mould in which the earlier story has
been cast, which accounts for the literary form of the Virgin Birth
tradition in Lk. i. 34 f. The tradition which St. Luke received probably
contained the substance of what is stated in verse 35, and asserted that
Jesus was begotten of Mary by the Holy Spirit.
(7) The historical value of the Virgin Birth tradition in the Third Gospel
is a question which cannot be answered until the problem is treated as a
whole. Our study of the Lukan problem adds to the material at our
disposal. It confirms our conclusions in Chapter I as regards St. Paul and
St. Mark. It also enables us to say that _St. Luke, in his later years,
came to believe and teach the Virgin Birth, on grounds which are unknown
to us, but which he himself deemed sufficient_.