More than the other Synoptic Gospels, the First Gospel comes before us as
an “official” document of the Christian Church. Our Third Gospel was
somewhat of the nature of a “private venture”, and how inadequately the
value of St. Mark’s Gospel was recognized in the first half of the second
century appears in the fact that its survival seems almost accidental, all
existing copies being derived from a single mutilated MS.(78) Whether,
then, we can claim the authority and sanction of the First Gospel for the
Virgin Birth tradition, is clearly a question of first‐rate importance. To
some the question will appear determinative; but for those also, who feel
that in any case the historical value of the witness would remain an open
question, a conclusion as regards the problem is of very great
significance, in view of its historical implications.
In the present chapter our purpose is to inquire how far the First Gospel
bears witness to the Virgin Birth, and what the character of its witness
is. Was the narrative, as we have it to‐day, present in the Gospel from
the first? Is Mt. i, ii a later insertion, or is the passage i. 18‐25 an
interpolation? Extremely interesting discussions have also arisen around
the question of the Matthaean Genealogy and the true text of Mt. i. 16,
and these call for notice. The question of the historical value of the
tradition of Mt. i. 18‐25 must in the main be postponed, but the
possibilities, and such positive facts as emerge, can be noted.
Perhaps the best method of approach is to consider first the character of
the Genealogy, apart altogether from the question of its authorship. The
details of the textual problem of Mt. i. 16 will be discussed in an
Appendix to the chapter. The remaining points to be treated are the
genuineness of cc. i, ii, the unity of these chapters, and lastly the
sources and implications of the narrative, together with a survey of the
results reached.
I. The Characteristics of the Genealogy
Among the features which mark the Genealogy we may note the following:
(1) _Its purpose_ is to show the Davidic descent of Jesus by tracing the
royal line (cf. verse 6 “David the king”).
(2) _The structure is obviously artificial._(79) The Genealogy is arranged
in three groups of fourteen generations, an arrangement to which the
writer himself calls attention (verse 17). In order to secure this
structure, the names of Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah are omitted (cf. 1
Chron. iii) and the third group covers a space of about six hundred years.
“If any source of the schematism is wanted, the cabbalistic interpretation
of דוד, whose three letters are equivalent by gematria to the number 14,
is the most probable” (Moffatt, INT., p. 250 n.).
(3) The verb ἐγέννησεν is used throughout of legal, not physical,
descent.(80) This inference is drawn from the artificial character of the
Genealogy. Its omissions are obvious, and must have been so both to the
compiler and his readers. “The contemporaries of the Evangelist knew their
Bible at least as well as we do. They knew that there were more than
fourteen generations between David and the Captivity, that Joram did not
beget Uzziah, and that Josiah did not beget Jeconiah” (Burkitt, _Evan. Da‐
Meph._, ii, p. 260). If the passage Mt. i. 18‐25, as well as the
Genealogy, comes from the hand of the Evangelist, the verb ἐγέννησεν must
clearly indicate legal parentage; but there is sufficient ground for this
view within the Genealogy itself.
(4) The references to women in the Genealogy are unique, and are best
explained as due to an apologetic purpose. They cannot be so well
explained as reflecting a universalistic interest (Heffern, quoted by
Moffatt, INT., p. 251). In contrast to the Genealogy in the Third Gospel,
that in Mt. traces the descent no farther back than to Abraham; it is
fundamentally Jewish. There can be little doubt but that the writer’s
purpose is to rebut Jewish slanders already current regarding the birth of
Jesus. “Throughout the whole Genealogy the Evangelist appears to be
telling us in an audible aside that the heir had often been born out of
the direct line or irregularly. Thamar the daughter‐in‐law of Judah, Rahab
the harlot, Ruth the Moabitess, and the unnamed wife of Uriah, are forced
upon our attention, as if to prepare us for still greater irregularity in
the last stage” (Burkitt).(81)
If these are the characteristic features of the Genealogy, it is clear
that _from the first it was compiled with the Virgin Birth presupposed_.
It is, in fact, an attempt to present that belief in connexion with the
claim that Jesus was of Davidic descent, through the legal relationship in
which He stood to Joseph.(82) Thus, the Matthaean Genealogy is unique; it
differs altogether from that in Lk. If to us its form seems forced and
unreal, that is because we fail to come to it from the historical point of
view. From this standpoint we may ask, with W. C. Allen (ICC., St. Mt., p.
6): “If the editor simply tried to give expression to the two facts which
had come down to him by tradition—the fact of Christ’s supernatural birth
and the fact that He was the Davidic Messiah, and did not attempt a
logical synthesis of them, who shall blame him?” We are not here concerned
with the question of the truth of the Virgin Birth tradition, but simply
with the view that the compiler of the Genealogy held that belief, and for
this inference a high degree of probability can be claimed.
If this is the character of the Genealogy, it must follow that _the
textual problem of Mt. i. 16_ differs considerably in importance from the
thought of a quarter of a century ago. It is becoming increasingly
recognized that, whatever the true text of Mt. i. 16 may be, it can make
little difference to the character of the Genealogy as outlined above. Its
interest is textual and literary rather than historical. The most
interesting statement of this point of view is that of F. C. Burkitt in
his _Evangelion Da‐Mepharreshe_ (1904, see vol. ii, pp. 258 ff.). On p.
258 Burkitt expresses a firm belief that no fresh light upon the
historical events of the Nativity has been thrown either by the discovery
of the Sinaitic Syriac MS. or by the publication of the _Dialogue of
Timothy and Aquila_. He says (p. 261) that even if the Genealogy had ended
with the uncompromising statement “and Joseph begat Jesus”, it would not
prove that its compiler believed that Joseph was the actual father of
Jesus. In this connexion it is of great interest to note that Archdeacon
Allen, who upholds the historical truth of the Virgin Birth, actually
adopts in his commentary on Mt. (ICC., 1907) the reading implied by the
Sin. Syr., as the true text of Mt. i. 16—“And Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph,
to whom was espoused Mary a virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ” (p.
5). Writing in 1916, Canon Box takes a different view of the textual
problem, but is no less emphatic in his assertion that, “even if the
reading _Joseph ... begat Jesus_ be correct, it need not imply a belief in
the natural generation of Jesus” (_The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 15).
Lastly, we may compare the judgement of Dr. James Moffatt (INT., 1918):
“Such modifications as may be due to doctrinal presuppositions are
designed to re‐set or to sharpen the reference of the original text to the
virgin birth, not to insert the dogma in a passage which was originally
free from it” (p. 251). These are great and honoured names, but the
opinion is not one which cries out for the cloak of authority; it springs
directly out of the character of the Genealogy itself. If ἐγέννησεν is
used throughout of legal parentage, it would clearly be so in the last
step, if it should be proved that this also contained the word ἐγέννησεν.
Indeed, we should naturally expect to find that word in verse 16.
At the same time, it would not be right to regard the textual problem as
one of merely academic interest. It gives a valuable sidelight upon the
history of the exegesis of Mt. i, ii in the early Christian centuries. It
enables us to see how the Matthaean narrative was viewed, the difficulties
it raised, and the way in which they were met. Thus it throws into strong
relief the unique character of the Genealogy. It also sheds a welcome
light upon the treatment which the text of the Gospels received at the
hands of their earliest readers before these writings had acquired the
status of sacred books. Even then if we have finally to acquiesce in Dr.
Moffatt’s statement: “The textual problem of i. 16 is not yet settled”,
the question is one of absorbing and of fruitful interest.(83) For our
immediate purpose it is enough to say that the results, so far as they go,
strengthen rather than weaken our belief that the compiler of the
Genealogy worked under the presupposition of the Virgin Birth.
II. The Genuineness of Mt. i, ii
This problem can no longer be regarded as a burning question. Few scholars
of the present day would contend that the First Gospel ever circulated
without these chapters. In style, in vocabulary, and in mode of treatment,
they are of a piece with the rest of the book.
(1) The _literary style_ of the First Evangelist is not so marked as that
of St. Luke, but it has nevertheless a distinct character of its own. As
compared with that of St. Mark, it is “more prosaic and colourless”, but
it is “more calm and balanced” (Milligan).(84) Prof. Burkitt describes it
as follows: “I wish I could think of some other word than ‘formality’ by
which to name the chief characteristic of the First Evangelist’s literary
style. Formality suggests rigidity, generally with a certain measure of
incapacity, and these are not among his defects. On the contrary, Matthew
has great literary skill, as well as dignity. Everything that he says is
put with admirable clearness and lucidity; what he writes down he has
first understood himself. If there is an exception to be noted he notes
it” (GHT., p. 186). Now this same style is manifest everywhere throughout
the Gospel, in cc. i, ii, as well as elsewhere.(85) The theory therefore
that these chapters are a later insertion labours under an immense initial
disadvantage. It requires to be explained how it is that this
characteristic literary style is just as manifest in cc. i, ii as in the
rest of the Gospel, in spite of the fact that the subject‐matter of these
chapters is peculiar and distinct.
(2) The _Vocabulary_ and constructional forms of cc. i, ii are also
characteristic of the Gospel as a whole. Burkitt (_Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, p.
259) instances eight words from these chapters as “characteristic
Matthaean words”. These words are given below. The statistics have been
obtained by tracing the record of the words in Moulton and Geden’s
_Concordance_ (doubtful cases and quotations being omitted).
Instances Instances Instances
in Mt. i, in Mt. in the
ii. iii‐ rest of
xxviii. the NT.
ἀναχωρεῖν 4 6 4
λεγόμενος (with 2 11 Mk. (1),
names) Lk. (2),
Jn. (8),
Ac. (2),
Pl. (4),
Heb. (1).
ὄναρ 5 1 0
πληροῦσθαι 4 8 13
ῥηθέν 4 8 0
σφόδρα 1 6 4
τότε 3 86 67
φαίνεσθαι 4 9 9
In addition to the list given by Burkitt, we may note also the following:
Instances Instances Mt, as
in Mt. i, in Mt. compared
ii. iii‐ with the
xxviii. rest of
the NT.
παραλαμβάνειν 6 10 1/3 of NT.
Record.
προσκυνεῖν 3 9 1/4 of NT.
προσφέρειν 1 13 1/3 of NT.
συνάγειν 1 23 2/5 of NT.
ὅριον 1 5 1/2 of NT.
θησαυρός 1 8 1/2 of NT.
δῶρον 1 8 1/2 of NT.
ἐπάνω 1 7 2/5 of NT.
χρυσός 1 4 1/2 of NT.
Other words which repay examination are κατοικεῖν, ὅπως, ἐνθυμέομαι,
ἐξετάζω, τελευτάω.
The argument is not, of course, that no one but the First Evangelist could
have used these words—that would be absurd; but that they are words which
he uses frequently, and in nearly every case more frequently than any
other New Testament writer.(86)
An interesting fact is instanced by W. C. Allen (op. cit., p. lxxxvi). He
notes as a characteristic of the Gospel “a tendency to repeat a phrase or
construction two or three times at short intervals”. Fifteen examples of
this are given, one of which occurs in Mt. ii. This last is an instance in
which the genitive absolute is followed in three cases by ἰδού (ii. 1, 13,
19). We may add that the same construction appears in i. 20. Sir J. C.
Hawkins shows (HS., 2nd Ed., pp. 5, 31) that there are seven instances of
this construction in the rest of Mt., as compared with a single case in
Lk. One other detail of construction may be noted. More than half the New
Testament record of ἕως ἄν with the subjunctive (which occurs in ii. 13)
belongs to the First Gospel.
On the other side, we have to set down the fact that in Mt. i, ii there
are some twenty‐eight words, exclusive of proper nouns, which do not occur
in the rest of the Gospel.(87) But nearly half of these are accounted for
by the subject‐matter. The remaining instances are not more numerous than
we might naturally expect. On the other hand, if cc. i, ii are a later
insertion, we could reasonably look for more.
So far, then, as the linguistic facts will take us, we may say that,
considered as a whole, they support the view that Mt. i, ii are from the
same hand as the rest of the Gospel.
(3) The _mode of treatment_ in these chapters is that of the First
Evangelist. This writer is distinguished by the marked interest which he
takes in describing the new faith as the true fulfilment of the old. This
characteristic appears in the quotations which he makes from the Old
Testament. Among these there are twelve which stand out distinct.(88) (i)
In each case they are preceded by the words, “in order that that which was
spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled”, or words to that effect. (ii)
With one exception (iii. 3), they are quoted in this Gospel alone. (iii)
What is more important, most of them are based upon the Hebrew, whereas
the remaining quotations in the Gospel (except xi. 10) are taken from the
Septuagint.(89) For our present purpose the significant thing is that
these characteristic quotations are distributed throughout the whole of
the Gospel. No less than five of them occur in cc. i, ii, and it is not
too much to say that their presence is a kind of water‐mark authenticating
the genuineness of these chapters.
Combining the foregoing arguments we may justly claim that the hypothesis
of interpolation is violent in the extreme. Dr. Moffatt sums up a very
widely accepted view when he says: “Neither the style nor contents of 1‐2
afford valid evidence for suspecting that they are a later insertion in
the gospel” (INT., p. 250).
III. The Unity of Mt. i, ii
The arguments used in the preceding section are sufficient to show that
cc. i, ii, as a whole, come from the Evangelist’s hand. But this
conclusion does not exclude the possibility that certain parts may be of
later date. In particular, it could be said, and has in fact been claimed
that the Genealogy, the passage i. 18‐25, or both, are interpolations; and
that originally the First Gospel knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. These
questions must now be treated.
There is not the same need for us to examine the section describing the
visit of the Wise Men and its sequel (c. ii). This section is of great
importance in a discussion of the Nativity narratives, but in relation to
the Virgin Birth it is secondary as compared with the Genealogy and the
passage i. 18‐25. The section is treated by Canon Box in _The Virgin Birth
of Jesus_, pp. 19‐33.
1. The Genealogy
We are not concerned to ask at this point whether the Genealogy ever
existed independently of the Gospel, and is thus a source which the
Evangelist has worked up and incorporated in his own work. The question we
have to consider is whether Mt. i. 1‐17 is a genuine part of the Gospel.
The case in favour of this view is overwhelmingly strong. Its weight lies
in the fact that the peculiar characteristics of the Genealogy (p. 89 f.)
are the peculiar characteristics of the rest of the Gospel.
(1) This is manifest in the strong interest taken in the Davidic Sonship.
“The Gospel according to Matthew may be called _The Book of Jesus Christ,
the Son of David_ ... The special aim of Matthew, in one word, is to
represent our Lord as the legitimate Heir of the royal house of David”
(Burkitt, _Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, p. 259). We may partially illustrate this
claim by the New Testament record of the term “Son of David”. There are 8
instances in Mt. other than i. 1, and 6 in the rest of the New Testament
(3 in Mk. and 3 in Lk.). The regal aspect of Christ’s Sonship is also
illustrated in Mt. xix. 28, xxv. 34 (cf. Allen, op. cit., p. lxiv).
(2) As regards the artificial structure of the Genealogy, we may note that
this too is characteristic of the First Evangelist’s manner. He is fond of
arranging his material in groups of threes. Allen enumerates twenty‐three
instances outside cc. i, ii (ib., p. lxv). Similarly the double seven
reflects “the author’s penchant for that sacred number” (Moffatt, INT., p.
250, who notes four other examples (p. 257)).
(3) We are unable to illustrate from the rest of the Gospel the legal use
of γεννάω, but where else save in the Genealogy could we expect to find
it? It is the unique character of the Genealogy which requires that usage.
On the other hand, the point of view which determines the usage is the
point of view of cc. i, ii as a whole. As in i. 1‐17, so in i. 18‐ii. 23,
the standpoint is that of a writer who desires to combine two diverse
beliefs, the Virgin Birth and the Messiahship of Jesus.
(4) The apologetic motive manifest in the Genealogy is also characteristic
of the First Gospel. Not only is the same motive present in every section
of cc. i, ii, but in other connexions and in every part of the Gospel, the
desire to defend and to interpret is evident; notably this is the case in
the story of the Baptism, the account of the Guard at the Tomb and the
Resurrection narratives.(90)
(5) The nature of the Genealogy leaves little room for the linguistic
test. “Yet even here we have the characteristic λεγόμενος in _v._ 16, and
the objective way that the writer speaks of ‘the Christ’ in _v._ 17 is
quite in the manner of Mt. xi. 2” (Burkitt, op. cit., p. 259).
Taken together these arguments justify us in concluding that Mt. i. 1‐17
comes from the Evangelist’s pen.
2. The Passage Mt. i. 18‐25
It is this passage which leads us to the heart of the whole question, for
here, in the angelic message to Joseph, the Virgin Birth is asserted
unmistakably.
We should be justified in making use of the results we have already
obtained. If the Genealogy comes from the hand of the Evangelist, and if
it is of the character we have alleged, there can be no question but that
Mt. i. 18‐25 is also a genuine part of the Gospel. In view, however, of
the importance of the section, it may be well not to avail ourselves of
this argument.
Schmiedel’s objections to the passage (EB., col. 2959 f.) may not unfairly
be summarized as follows: (i) Mt. xiii. 55 (“Is not this the carpenter’s
son?”) “directly contradicts the theory of the Virgin Birth”, (ii) Mt. ii
can be understood without presupposing the story, (iii) Bethlehem is not
mentioned until ii. 1, (iv) Mt. i. 18‐25 is not from the same hand as the
Genealogy, which “could never have been drawn up after Joseph had ceased
to be regarded as the real father of Jesus”.
Of these arguments the last arises out of Schmiedel’s view of the
Genealogy, which is, that in its original form in the Gospel it asserted
the physical paternity of Joseph (the Virgin Birth being a later
insertion). Needless to say, on this view, Mt. i. 18‐25 must be rejected.
We have already discussed the nature of the Genealogy, and have seen
reason to take a totally different view of it. The Genealogy, as we
understand it, furnishes no ground of objection to i. 18‐25, but rather
the contrary. Nor do Schmiedel’s remaining objections carry the weight
claimed.
(1) As we have observed on p. 31, Mt. xiii. 55 simply reflects the
opinions of our Lord’s contemporaries. Unless we make the gratuitous
assumption that the Evangelist would never have reflected a view which he
did not himself share, we are not justified in raising an objection to i.
18‐25 from this particular passage.
(2) As regards c. ii, it is true that what is there related can, if
necessary, be understood without presuming the story of i. 18‐25.
Nevertheless, the chapter is quite congruous with what is told in that
passage, and, indeed, agrees better with the presupposition of the Virgin
Birth. In a narrative written from the standpoint of Joseph, we may note
that, while Mary is spoken of no less than five times as the mother of
Jesus (ii. 11, 13, 14, 20, 21), wherever Joseph is mentioned, we have
invariably the quite neutral expression “the young child” (ii. 13, 14, 20,
21). Also the quotation, “Out of Egypt did I call my son” (ii. 15), by the
very reason of its exegetical violence, is more intelligible if the
Evangelist has already narrated the story of the supernatural birth. To
have real weight, Schmiedel’s objection should be able to point to more
than the fact that c. ii can be read “without the presupposition of the
virgin birth”. If i. 18‐25 is an interpolation, we might reasonably expect
statements in c. ii inconsistent with that passage. And, moreover, it
would be gratuitous to say that they have been carefully suppressed, in
view of those which survive in Lk. i, ii to which we have called attention
in Chapter II.
(3) That Bethlehem is not mentioned until ii. 1 is true. But as an
objection to i. 18‐25 this fact would be of significance, if the latter
were simply a narrative of the birth of Jesus. But to assert this is to
mistake its character, which is didactic and apologetic. Joseph rather
than Jesus is the central figure of the section; the birth is not
announced until the closing words. The reference to Bethlehem in ii. 1 is
certainly abrupt, but it would have been quite as abrupt in i. 25. Nothing
in i. 18‐25, if we have regard to its character, requires a reference to
Bethlehem within the passage.
The onus of proof really rests upon those who deny the genuineness of i.
18‐25. It may not be without advantage, however, to set down reasons which
lead us to believe that the passage comes from the Evangelist’s hand.
(a) As in the case of Lk. i. 34 f. there is _no textual authority for the
omission of these verses_. While we recognize the free handling which the
text of the Gospels may have received during the first half of the second
century, it does not appear likely on general grounds that Mt. i. 18‐25 is
an interpolation. The addition to the text of a saying of Christ, or of a
comment, or even of an incident drawn from floating Christian tradition,
we can understand, as well as a certain amount of stylistic alteration.
“Doctrinal modifications”, however, of such a wholesale character as the
present instance would be, if the passage is a later insertion of unknown
origin, are quite another matter. That Mt. i. 18‐25 should have been
inserted in a Gospel, which, on this theory, taught the physical paternity
of Joseph, and should have been inserted without leaving traces in the
literature of the early Christian centuries, is most improbable. The sole
support from early Christian literature is the statement of Epiphanius
that the text used by Cerinthus lacked the passage. Had we more
information of this kind, there would be ground for the theory of
interpolation; as it is, the basis is too slender and uncertain.(91)
(b) _The standpoint and mode of treatment in Mt. i. 18‐25 is that of cc.
i, ii, and of the Evangelist._ As in the rest of cc. i, ii, it is the
didactic and apologetic interest that is uppermost. Joseph is the central
figure, and there is the same use of “the machinery of dreams” as in c.
ii, and in the story of Pilate’s wife (xxvii. 19).
(c) _The same may be said of the vocabulary and the style._ Six words
appear which are not found elsewhere in the Gospel,(92) but with the
exception of one (μεθερμηνεύομαι), they are sufficiently explained by the
peculiar subject‐matter. On the other hand, there are at least five
“characteristic Matthaean words”,(93) while other features distinctive of
the First Evangelist appear in the opening words of verse 20, the
reference to Joseph as the “son of David”, the phrase “Behold, an angel of
the Lord”, and especially the quotation of verse 23 with its introductory
formula.
In view of these arguments, it is not too much to apply to Mt. i. 18‐25
what Burkitt says of Mt. i. 18‐ii. 23. If the passage “be not an integral
part of the First Gospel, it must be counted one of the cleverest of
literary adaptations, a verdict that is not likely to be passed on it by a
sane criticism” (op. cit., ii. 259).
IV. Implications, Sources, and Results
(1) In the earlier sections of this chapter an attempt has been made to
prove that the Virgin Birth is an original element in the First Gospel.
The suggestion that it is a later insertion from an unknown hand breaks
down on examination, and our conclusion is that the doctrine was taught by
the First Evangelist. There is no need to raise the question whether the
doctrine was a later element introduced by the Evangelist himself into a
work which originally knew nothing of it, for there is absolutely no
evidence pointing in that direction. In this respect the passage Mt. i.
18‐25 differs altogether from Lk. i. 34 f. Against the former passage no
inconsistencies, either in the immediate context or in the Gospel as a
whole, can be shown. From one end to the other the narrative is governed
by the same presuppositions and reflects the same point of view.
Whether the Genealogy ever existed independently and in another form is a
view for which little can be said. There are no grounds for this theory
within the Genealogy as it stands, and the textual problem of Mt. i. 16
does not require the supposition (see pp. 105 ff.). The possibility
cannot, of course, be excluded. If the Evangelist did make use of an
existing Genealogy, it was probably one which implied the real paternity
of Joseph. In that case he has completely transformed it, and must have
done this either before, or at the time when he first wrote cc. i, ii. But
the existence of such a source is pure speculation. It is more probable
that the Genealogy is the Evangelist’s own composition, constructed not
for historical but for didactic purposes.(94)
(2) The question of _the implications of Mt. i, ii_ is one of great
interest. The narrative is very far from being an attempt to relate the
story of the Virgin Birth for the first time. On the contrary, it is
probable that the doctrine was already known to the readers of the First
Gospel, and that it had become a subject of controversy. It is from this
point of view that the Evangelist writes; it is for this reason that he
tells the story from the standpoint of Joseph. It is not difficult to
imagine the circumstances under which the Matthaean narrative came to be
written. Once the story of the Virgin Birth had begun to circulate,
interest must soon have been aroused in the position and attitude of
Joseph. How were his natural fears allayed? What action did he take? What
became of the Davidic descent? Such questions would press for answer.
Outside the Christian community these difficulties would inevitably become
the occasion of scandal, as the case was in later times. The Evangelist’s
narrative is an attempt to meet these difficulties. His view, or the view
he reflects, is that the fears of Joseph were allayed by a divine message.
The subsequent action of Joseph, also under angelic direction, was to
complete the legal act of wedlock before the child was born. The
difficulty of the Davidic descent is the problem attacked in the
Genealogy. According to several writers it is the same interest which
governs the narratives of c. ii. “... the Nativity Story shows us the
alarm of the usurper Herod, when he learns that the legitimate ruler has
been born within his dominions. As Saul tried to kill David, so Herod
tries to kill Jesus; and Jesus finds a refuge in Egypt, as David found a
refuge among the Philistines” (Burkitt, op. cit., ii. 259; cf. Box, op.
cit., p. 19).
(3) The question of _the source or sources_ from which the Evangelist
obtained the narrative of Mt. i. 18‐25 cannot be adequately discussed in
itself and in relation to the First Gospel alone. Nevertheless it is worth
while to ask how far we can go within those limits. From the evidence
supplied by the Gospel itself, we cannot say that the narrative rests on
the testimony of Joseph. If the Virgin Birth is historically true, this
view has much probability in its favour. But to urge such an origin for
the Matthaean narrative, as part of the proof for the Virgin Birth, is not
permissible, since obviously it begs the question. Many writers think that
the narrative really does come from Joseph himself because it reflects his
standpoint. Amongst others this is the opinion of Bishop Gore (_The New
Theology and the Old Religion_, p. 126 f.), and of Dr. Orr (_The Virgin
Birth of Christ_, pp. 83 ff.).(95) Such a conclusion travels beyond the
facts of the case. That the narrative is written from Joseph’s standpoint
is, of course, beyond question. It may be, however, that this fact is
sufficiently accounted for by the apologetic character of the narrative.
We do not say here that this is the case, but we do say that to claim more
is to put an outside interpretation upon the narrative. Eventually this
is, of course, inevitable; our final conclusion reacts upon our view of
the earlier problems; but in the constructive stage this is a peril
sedulously to be avoided.
The possibility has to be allowed that the narrative of Mt. i. 18‐25 may
be the result of an inference which arose within the Christian community,
and which has clothed itself in an imaginative and pictorial form. In
answer to the question, How were the fears of Joseph allayed?, it would be
natural to reply, By a divine message, and current beliefs would supply an
explanation of the means and the method by which such a message would be
conveyed. Angelic mediation would account for the one, just as revelation
by a dream would explain the other.
The presence of _inference_ in the Synoptic narratives is perhaps not so
widely recognized as it ought to be. Whether we ought to be so ready as we
often are to suppose the existence of special information, documentary or
oral, when the First Evangelist and St. Luke add details to the Markan
narrative, or relate entirely new facts, is a pertinent question. In many
cases there is much justice in the supposition. In other cases it may
easily be that the new detail or narrative has been shaped by inferences
playing upon difficulties or ambiguities left by earlier narratives and
traditions.(96) This would be a perfectly natural circumstance, the
existence of which would be more readily acknowledged if obsolete theories
of Inspiration did not continue to exact unlawful tribute. In the case of
the First Gospel this use of inference is sometimes manifest, especially
in the accounts of the Burial and the Resurrection of Jesus.(97) Whatever
judgement may be passed upon Prof. Kirsopp Lake’s brilliant examination of
the Resurrection narratives, there can be little doubt but that he has
shown that inference, as well as information, shaped the formation of
early Christian tradition. This conclusion, even if accepted, would not
justify us in supposing that the narratives of Mt. i, ii are nothing more
than the inferential resolution of difficulties left by the story of the
Virgin Birth. But it would suffice to make it probable that, to an extent
which we may leave undefined, inference did play its part, either in the
mind of the Evangelist or in the thought of the Christian community.
It is, indeed, quite possible to admit this view, and yet to hold that
behind the narrative there is a nucleus of historic fact. Dr. Gore, who
believes that the story goes back to Joseph, does not hesitate to say:
“... to suppose such angelic appearances ... to be imaginative
outward representations of what were in fact real but inward
communications of the ‘divine word’ to human souls, is both a
possible course and one which is quite consistent with accepting
the narrative as substantially historical and true”
(_Dissertations_, p. 22 f.).
Canon Box expresses a similar view when he writes:
“To us [the narrative] seems to exhibit in a degree that can
hardly be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament the
characteristic features of Jewish Midrash and Haggada. It sets
forth certain facts and beliefs in a fanciful and imaginative
setting, specially calculated to appeal to Jews.... The task that
confronts the critical student is to disentangle the facts and
beliefs—the fundamental ground‐factors on which the narration is
built—from their decorative embroidery” (op. cit., p. 12).
From what has been said above it will be seen that, if we restrict
ourselves to the First Gospel, there are three theories possible regarding
the source or sources employed in i. 18‐25. (i) The narrative, very much
as it stands, may have come from Joseph himself. (ii) Inference and
imagination may have played upon a nucleus of historic fact. (iii) The
narrative may be a story without historic foundation, which has grown up,
as the result of inference and imagination, in answer to difficulties
arising out of a belief in the Virgin Birth antecedently held.
So long as we confine ourselves to the Gospel, it is not possible to
choose between these views, unless we are prepared to assume that early
Christian tradition cannot have been mistaken—an assumption which cuts the
knot instead of untying it. As we are not ready to make that assumption,
we have to be content to leave the possibilities open, and to regard the
use of any one of them in the historical inquiry as illegitimate. In part
this is a disappointing decision, but it is better to feel that we have
solid ground beneath our feet.
(4) The positive results to which we have been led are (i) that _the First
Evangelist knew of, and believed in, the story of the Virgin Birth_; and
(ii) that _the belief was shared by his readers, and had been held
sufficiently long for some of its problems to be raised_. Unquestionably,
this is an important result, and its place in the historical problem will
fall to be considered later.
Appendix To Chapter V. The Textual Problem of Mt. i. 16
I.
Important and well‐known discussions of the textual problem of Mt. i. 16
are those of Sanday (_Outlines_, pp. 197‐200); P. W. Schmiedel (EB., col.
2961 ff.); F. C. Burkitt (_Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, pp. 258‐66); W. C. Allen
(ICC., _St. Mt._, p. 8); G. H. Box (_The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, pp.
215‐18).(98) For purposes of reference, the most important facts may be
summarized as follows:
(A) First, we have the _text followed in the A V. and R V._, which reads:
Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ
λεγόμενος Χριστός. This is the text of all extant uncials, very many
minuscules, and many versions (Sanday). “It is definitely attested by
Tertullian, _De Carne Christi_, § 20” (Burkitt).
(B) A different text is attested by the _“__Ferrar__”__ Group_. It is
implied by a number of important MSS. of the _Old Latin Version_, by the
_Armenian_, and by the _Curetonian Syriac_. This text is as follows: Ἰακὼβ
δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν
λεγόμενον Χριστόν.
(C) Thirdly, we have the _Sinaitic Syriac_. _Syr.‐Sin._ reads: “Jacob
begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus,
who is called Christ,” and implies Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγ. τὸν Ἰωσήφ· Ἰωσὴφ [δὲ] ᾧ
μνηστευθεῖσα [ἦν] π. Μ. ἐγέννησεν Ἰ. τὸν λεγ. Χ. (Burkitt, p. 263). [The
reading of the _Syr.‐Cur._ is: “Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was
betrothed Mary the Virgin, _she_ who bare Jesus the Messiah”.] We may also
mention here the passage from the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ which
Conybeare claims to be the true text of Mt. i. 16. The alleged quotation
includes the text as given under (A) together with the words, “And Joseph
begat Jesus who is called Christ”.
II.
(1) Conybeare’s claim, mentioned above, has failed to win general
acceptance. It is rejected by Schmiedel,(99) who justly asks, “How can we
suppose that an evangelist deliberately added the second half to the
first?” (col. 2961). Schmiedel’s view is that in the passage cited from
the _Dialogue_ “it is precisely the youngest text and the oldest which
have found a place peaceably side by side in one and the same line”. F. C.
Burkitt’s theory probably gives the best explanation. He does not think
that “_And Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ_” is meant to be a part
of the quotation of Mt. i. 16, but is simply the inference of the Jew.
“_The Jew quotes the Genealogy and then draws his inference, which is of
course repudiated by the Christian disputant_” (p. 265). Accepting this
view we may leave the supposed quotation outside our discussion. We may
note, however, that, according to Burkitt, the second of two other
quotations of Mt. i. 16 in the _Dialogue_ is interesting “as affording an
actual proof that the phrase ‘_husband of Mary_’ was liable to change”.
(p. 265).
(2) G. H. Box regards the _Curetonian Syriac_ as “an interpretation rather
than a translation of the Greek text given us by the ‘Ferrar’ Group” (p.
216). Burkitt thinks it is “like an attempt to rewrite the text of _S_”
(p. 263), but as he derives the _Syr.‐Sin._ from the same Group,(100) his
opinion leads to the same result. Directly or indirectly _Syr.‐Cur._ is a
witness for the text (B). As such its general character in Mt. i, ii needs
to be taken into account. In i. 20 it has “thy betrothed” instead of “thy
wife”. It omits “her husband” in i. 19. In i. 24 it substitutes “Mary” for
“thy wife”. In i. 25 it shares with the _Diatessaron_ the reading “purely
dwelling with her”, and it renders ἐκάλεσεν by “she called”. It is clear
that its text is _dominated by a desire to assert unmistakably the
historic fact of the Virgin Birth_.
(3) W. C. Allen takes the Greek text implied in the _Syr.‐Sin._ to be the
true text of Mt. i. 16. Burkitt, as we have seen, derives it from (B). For
the present it is important to consider _the __ character of the Syr.‐Sin.
in relation to the Virgin Birth_. In i. 21, with the _Curetonian_, it adds
the words, “to thee”. In i. 25 it omits “knew her not until”, and, as in
the English versions, it renders ἐκάλεσεν by the masculine; in the same
verse it also has the reading, “she bore him a son”. At first sight it
would appear as if the tendency of the MS. is in direct opposition to the
doctrine of the Virgin Birth; it is, however, very questionable if this is
the case. It is not improbable that “he knew her not until” (omitted also
by the Old Lat. _k_) is an interpolation in the First Gospel. Burkitt
thinks that “to thee” in i. 21 appeared in the _Evangelion Da‐
Mepharreshe_, and that “him” is a “mere stylistic addition” in the
_Syr.‐Sin._ When we add that this MS. includes Mt. i. 18‐25, and the
parenthesis, “to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin”, in Mt. i. 16, it
becomes impossible to suppose that its text is of “Ebionite origin”. Nor
is it any more likely that it represents “the slip of a scribe”. It is too
much of a piece with the entire representation of the MS., of which the
most we can say is that it hardens the unique point of view which is
characteristic of the Evangelist himself. Whether it represents the
original ending of the Genealogy, in a form independent of, and earlier
than, the First Gospel, is a point which may be left open, though the view
is not one which otherwise finds support from the Genealogy, as it now
appears in the Gospel.(101) In any case, _we ought very probably to reject
the view that the Syr.‐Sin. in Mt. i. 16 asserts, or implies, the physical
paternity of Joseph_. It clearly takes ᾧ to “refer to ἐγέννησεν as well as
μνηστευθεῖσα” (Burkitt, p. 263), but, having regard to its character as a
whole, the strong probability is that it interprets ἐγέννησεν in the same
sense which it bears throughout the earlier links of the Genealogy, viz.
of legal parentage (Allen, p. 8). _In this case the scribe who produced
the Syr.‐Sin. has remained truer to the mind and spirit of the First
Evangelist than any other early Christian writer we know._ Whether he has
preserved the letter is more open to question.
(4) As regards the rendering (B), it is sufficient to say that the
“Ferrar” Group and the Old Lat. MSS., while representing a text which
differs from (A), _agree in affirming the Virgin Birth_. Some of them do
so with emphasis (e.g. _c_ and _b_). All of them (except _q_) contain the
word “Virgin”, but, with the exception of _c_ and _b_, the connexion
between ᾧ (_cui_) and μνηστευθεῖσα (_desponsata_) is left ambiguous.
III.
We are left, then, with three readings, for each of which priority may be
claimed (those we have indicated by (A) and (B), and that of the
_Syr.‐Sin._ (C)). It is highly probable that (C) is derived from (B); but
it may be well to leave this an open question, so as to have all the
possibilities before us.
(1) _Can we, then, explain the textual facts already noticed, if we
presume the originality of_ (A)?
It is certainly remarkable that, after using ἐγέννησεν in a legal sense
throughout the earlier links of the Genealogy (Moffatt, Burkitt, Westcott,
Box, Allen, Barnard, A. J. Maclean), the compiler should desert this
practice, and use the verb of physical parentage (ἐγεννήθη) in the last
link of the chain. The compiler, if we may say so, does not strike us as
the kind of man who would have felt the need of this. It seems much more
likely that, together with some qualifying clause in reference to Mary, he
would have continued to employ ἐγέννησεν in the same sense to the end.
This is conjecture; but (on the present theory) it is a conjecture
supported by the procedure of the scribes who have produced (B). Their
object (on the present supposition) will have been to remove the
ambiguities of (A) in Mt. i. 16, so as to state the doctrine more clearly.
We could understand, then, their objection to τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, and the
change to ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα π. Μ. What is less easy to understand is the
change from ἐγεννήθη to ἐγέννησεν. It is true that ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη is not
without ambiguity, as the comment of the Jew in the _Dialogue of Timothy
and Aquila_ shows.(102) But, if this was a ground of objection, why should
the ambiguity be replaced by one that is much greater? As we have seen,
the construction of (B) is singularly loose. It is this fact which has
clearly invited the modifications represented in the _Syr.‐Cur._ and the
Old Lat. MSS., and perhaps the _Syr.‐Sin._ itself. The reading (B)
certainly does not commend itself as a doctrinal modification of (A).
Further, the priority of (A) does not help us to account for (C). If, as
we believe, (C) is derived from (B), it is needless to discuss the point.
But apart from that theory of the origin of (C), our conclusion remains
the same. We have seen how near in spirit the scribe of the _Syr.‐Sin._
was to the First Evangelist. Can we suppose, then, that he would have
demurred to the words, τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας? It is very difficult to think so.
For these reasons, in spite of its strong attestation, we find it
impossible to presume the originality of (A).
(2) _We reach a similar conclusion, if we assume_ (B) _to be the true text
of Mt. i. 16._ Its singular construction does not readily suggest the
craftsmanship of the compiler of the Genealogy. It is true that we can
give a very good account of (C) on the present assumption. We can adopt
Burkitt’s suggestion, and regard it as a paraphrase of (B). But can we
derive (A) from (B)? It would be reasonable to explain ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη as a
correction of ἐγέννησεν by a believer who failed to understand the
Evangelist’s point of view, and who desired a clearer reference to the
Virgin Birth. But can we imagine a scribe, or an editor, motived in this
way, replacing “to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary” by the words “the
husband of Mary”? The question answers itself, and forbids the assumption
of the priority of (B).
(3) _Can we, then_, accept Archdeacon Willoughby C. Allen’s view, and
_find the true text in_ (C)?(103) It is quite possible, on this theory, to
give a reasonable explanation of (B), but, as in the last case, the
difficulty is to account for (A). We can follow the change from ἐγέννησεν
to ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη, but the substitution of τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας for the
parenthesis found in (C) remains as before an insuperable objection. At
the same time Archdeacon Allen has laid down a true and a valuable
principle when he writes: “The earliest Greek form was gradually altered
from a desire to avoid words which, though in the intention of the writer
they expressed legal parentage, not paternity, in fact, might be
misunderstood by thoughtless readers” (p. 8).
Our results thus far are negative, but they are not barren. We have
frankly to admit that _no extant reading, as a whole, commends itself as
the original text of Mt. i. 16_. On the other hand, _we can form a
reasonably good idea of what that text was like_. If we are to make any
further advance, we must have recourse to _conjecture_. It is not at all
impossible that future discoveries may enable us to travel upon firmer
ground. Such a discovery as that of the _Syr.‐Sin._ MS. by Mrs. Lewis and
Mrs. Gibson in 1902 shows that this hope is not unreasonable. But
meantime, unless we are content to acquiesce in a negative conclusion, we
have no choice but to resort to conjecture. This does not mean a leap in
the dark. It is in every way likely that parts of the true text are
embedded in the extant readings, and it is by no means impossible that,
taken together, these readings may contain the whole. _It may be, that is
to say, that the true text of Mt. i. 16 has found its grave in the
readings we possess._ Whether its resurrection can be accomplished is
another question. But, in view of the general character of the true text,
as indicated above, the attempt need not be foreclosed. Obviously, our
results will be tentative, but they should be something more than dubious
and uncertain in the extreme.
IV.
In attempting to reconstruct the true text of Mt. i. 16, we may venture
the following suggestions:
(1) _We have very good ground for regarding_ τὸν. λ. Χ. _as part of the
true text_ (though whether we read the nom. or the acc. depends upon
whether we prefer ἐγεννήθη or ἐγέννησεν). Not only does this expression
occur both in (A) and (B), but it is also one which we should naturally
expect the Genealogy to contain. A Genealogy constructed to show the
Messiahship of Jesus ends fittingly with the words “who is called Christ”.
(2) _It is very probable indeed that the original text included_ ἐγέννησεν
and not ἐγεννήθη. (i) On this view, we can readily understand the
misconceptions that would arise, and give a reasonable explanation of the
textual variants which exist. (ii) As indicating legal parentage, the
expression is not one from which we think the compiler would be likely to
shrink. (iii) It is not easy to suppose that those who have employed
ἐγέννησεν in the reading (B) would have used this form if they had not
found it already in the text.
(3) _It is probable that Mt. i. 16 contained a reference to Mary._ This
view is supported by the earlier references to women in the Genealogy. “It
is inconceivable that the Evangelist, who thought it served the purpose
that he had in hand to mention Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah’s wife,
should leave the step containing Joseph bare” (Burkitt, p. 264).
(4) _Of the two qualifying clauses open to us_, τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας _is more
likely to be the older_. (i) It is an expression such as we can easily
suppose the First Evangelist would use (cf. Mt. i. 19). (ii) It safeguards
the Virgin Birth; there would be no point in describing Joseph as “_the
husband of Mary_” unless that expression bore some special meaning. (iii)
In the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ we possess “actual proof” that the
phrase was “liable to change” (Burkitt, quoted above, p. 106). (iv) The
expression could easily be misunderstood at a time when the interest in
the Davidic Sonship was no longer paramount. (v) In that case the phrase ᾧ
μνηστ. π. Μ. would commend itself as a doctrinal modification. (vi) It
would be altogether less easy to say this of τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας.
(5) _It is probable that Joseph was mentioned twice._ (i) This conclusion
follows of necessity, if, as we have argued, ἐγέννησεν and not ἐγεννήθη is
original. (ii) It is implied in the earlier steps of the Genealogy. (iii)
It is attested by the _Syr.‐Sin._, and the omission of the second Ἰωσήφ in
(A) and (B) is not difficult to explain (see later).
(6) _It is on the whole more probable that_ τὸν ἄνδρα Μ. _followed the
first_ Ἰωσήφ _and not the second_. (i) This view is supported by the
compiler’s method. “The practice of the writer is to interpose no words
between the name and the verb ἐγέννησεν” (Burkitt, p. 263). (ii) This
order enables us to give an explanation of the fact that both (A) and (B)
omit the second Ἰωσήφ (see below).
Gathering together these several results, we obtain the following as the
reconstructed text of Mt. i. 16:
Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας;
Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν.
In addition to the reasons already given, we may also urge the fact that,
with this text posited, we can give the simplest and least involved
account of the origin of (A), (B), (C).
(1) The scribes who have produced (A) substituted the passive (ἐγεννήθη)
for the active (ἐγέννησεν). This caused the second Ἰωσήφ to drop out, its
place being taken by ἐξ ἧς “from whom” (fem.). Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγ. Χρ. followed
as a grammatical change.
(2) All that the originators of (B) had to do was to substitute ᾧ μνηστ.
π. Μ. for τὸν ἄνδρα Μ., and then, by omitting Ἰωσὴφ δέ, to leave Μ. as the
subject of ἐγέννησεν.
(3) We may explain (C), with Burkitt, as derived from (B). The Syriac
translator was not satisfied with the loose construction of (B). Taking ᾧ
to refer to ἐγέννησεν as well as to μνηστευθεῖσα, he made the connexion
clearer by inserting a second Ἰωσήφ as the subject of the verb. In taking
this last step, he either returned unconsciously to part at least of the
true reading, or had access to good Greek MSS. which we no longer possess.
It is of interest to compare the reading we have suggested as the original
text of Mt. i. 16 with others which have been put forward. In discussing
one of these possibilities, Sanday writes (_Outlines_, p. 200): “If we may
suppose that the original text ran Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας ἣ ἐγέννησεν
Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν, that would perhaps account for the two
divergent lines of variants better than any other”. In spite of its
advantages, this text suffers under two disadvantages from which the one
we have preferred is free. (i) Not only is γεννάω used in a different
sense from that which it has in the rest of the Genealogy, but it is _the
very same form of the verb_ which is employed differently. (ii) The
reading is too smooth and clear. Apart from the phrase τὸν ἄνδρα Μ. no
loophole is left for misunderstanding, and so no sufficient starting‐point
is provided for the subsequent textual variants.
Burkitt has instanced the reading we have preferred. In rejecting the view
that the _Syr.‐Sin._ represents the true text, he writes (p. 264): “Had we
such a text as Ἰακ. δὲ ἐγένν. τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας· Ἰωσὴφ δὲ
ἐγέννησεν κτλ. the case would have been different”. In reference to this
suggestion, however, Burkitt says, (i) the evidence does not point that
way, (ii) in that case the _Syr.‐Sin._ would be further from the original
than that of א B and Tertullian, (iii) _Syr.‐Sin._ and _k_ would “agree in
a common corruption”, and we should have to speak of the “Western” text in
the singular number.
The last point raises a large question which it is impossible to consider
here. As regards the second objection, while in some respects (C) would be
further from the original than (A), in other and more important respects
it would be appreciably nearer. In its use of ἐγέννησεν it would be nearer
to the original than any reading we possess. As regards the first
objection, we have frankly to agree that the textual evidence does not
point that way. We cannot point to a shred of MS. evidence to support the
conjectured reading. A generation ago this would have been considered a
fatal objection. But, in view of the freedom with which the text of the
Gospels was handled during the first half of the second century, and which
the textual variants illustrate, this objection can no longer be regarded
as insuperable. So long as we restrict ourselves to the attested readings,
the problem remains insoluble. If, then, we can reach a reasonable
conclusion on other lines, we are free to do so. Doubtless, in default of
attestation, we can describe our results as no more than tentative. But we
have no desire to claim more. As the problem stands at present, the test
to be applied is, What reading, conjectured or attested, furnishes the
best explanation of the facts at our disposal?, it being remembered that
these facts include, not only the textual variants, but also the unique
character of the Genealogy itself. It may be, as we have suggested, that
new discoveries await us. But, unless we have entirely misread the
evidence we already possess, no discovery is to be expected which will
completely transform the textual problem.
In conclusion, we may state certain propositions (apart from the question
of the exact wording of the true text of Mt. i. 16) which have in their
favour a high degree of probability.
(1) The readings which we have called (A) and (B) are independent attempts
to alter the original text in the interests of the Virgin Birth; that is,
they are “doctrinal modifications”.
(2) The reading of the Sinaitic Syriac is not unfavourable to the
doctrine. It should no longer be spoken of as “the eccentric reading”, nor
should we describe the translator as influenced by “heretical tendencies”.
(3) _The original text of Mt. i. 16 implied the Virgin Birth, but it was
stated from the unique point of view reflected in the Genealogy itself._
(4) _The text was liable to misunderstanding, and the history of the
textual variants is the history of that misunderstanding._