Our purpose in the final chapter is to co‐ordinate the results we have
reached, and to discuss their bearing upon the historical question of the
Virgin Birth. We have also to determine how far strictly historical
considerations can take us; to ask, that is to say, within what limits the
problem is historical at all. It will be well first to summarize the
conclusions to which we have already come.
(1) The Virgin Birth was not the subject of Apostolic preaching, and
apparently was unknown to St. Paul and St. Mark.
(2) St. Luke became acquainted with the tradition for the first time,
either when he was in process of writing his Gospel, or immediately
afterwards.
(3) The First Gospel presupposes the Virgin Birth tradition, which had
probably been known to its readers for some time, sufficiently long for
problems to be started and for difficulties to be raised.
(4) No satisfactory proof is forthcoming to show that the Fourth
Evangelist definitely rejected the tradition. The most we can say is that
his doctrinal sympathies lay in another direction.
On the positive side our most important result is that we can prove from
the New Testament itself that belief in the Virgin Birth existed in
influential Christian communities at the time when the First and Third
Gospels were written. We have no further need, therefore, to consider
theories which assign the belief to a later age, and which, by various
interpolation‐hypotheses, deprive the doctrine of New Testament support.
Those who have stated such theories have rendered service in that they
have explored an alternative path. On the view we have preferred this path
proves to be a cul‐de‐sac. We have therefore, to recognize that, whether
we accept or reject the Virgin Birth, we must do this in full
acknowledgement of the fact that among early witnesses to the belief are
two outstanding New Testament Writings.
Can we go further than this? To do so we must consider the First and Third
Gospels, in respect of their mutual relations and of what they conjointly
imply.
I. The Virgin Birth in the First and Third Gospels
In considering the relation in which the First and Third Gospels stand to
each other and to the Virgin Birth three questions are of the greatest
interest and importance. (1) _To what extent do the two Gospels imply a
common tradition and belief?_ (2) _How far back can we trace this
tradition?_ (3) _In what relation does the public tradition stand to the
theory of an earlier tradition of a private and restricted character?_
(1) In answer to the first question, our view is that _each Gospel, in a
different way, is a witness to the same tradition_. Too much has
frequently been made of the theory that in Mt. and Lk. we have two
independent accounts of the Virgin Birth tradition. It may seriously be
questioned if this theory is true. Mt. i. 18‐25 is misunderstood if it is
explained as a Virgin Birth tradition. Like the rest of cc. i, ii, its
character is Midrashic, and it is written from an apologetic standpoint.
It would therefore be much truer to say that it _implies_ the existence of
a Virgin Birth tradition as known to the readers of the Gospel. What form
that tradition took we are of course unable to say. It is possible that it
was similar to the tradition as it appears in Lk. On the other hand, it
may be that even in Lk. the form in which the tradition is presented owes
something to the Evangelist’s craftsmanship. If this is so, it would seem
that the narratives of both writers point back to a simpler tradition or
belief, from which, in different ways, they came to assume their present
form. What is of chief importance is the view that in both Gospels we
have, not so much two independent narratives of the Virgin Birth, as
rather two independent witnesses to what originally was one and the same
tradition.
It cannot escape our notice that, in spite of their obvious differences,
Lk. i. 34 f. and Mt. i. 18‐25 contain what is substantially the same
statement, a statement which in each passage is central. In Mt. i. 20 we
read: “_That which is conceived_ (τὸ ... γεννηθέν) _in her is of the Holy
Spirit_”; and in Lk. i. 35, after the reference to the Holy Spirit, we
read: “_That which is to be born_ (τὸ γεννώμενον) _shall be called holy,
the Son of God_”. There is much to be said for the view that both
expressions point back to a common original, to a primitive belief that
Jesus was “born of the Holy Spirit” (cf. Harnack, _Date of Acts_, &c., pp.
142 ff.).
If then we are unable to accept the view that in Mt. and Lk. we have two
independent accounts of the Virgin Birth, we may well ask if the loss is a
real one. It is probably nothing of the kind. There was indeed a certain
advantage in feeling able to point to two diverse traditions which
converged upon one fact. Nevertheless, the argument always had a certain
weakness. We had to account for the two different traditions, and the
explanation was a theory we could never prove. It may be that St. Luke’s
story goes back for its authority to Mary; it is very doubtful if St.
“Matthew’s” has any historical connexion with Joseph; but in either case
neither assumption is justifiable in an historical inquiry. It must be
allowed, we think, that our view has sounder advantages. Instead of
claiming validity for two diverse traditions, we can point to two very
different narratives, which arise out of the same belief and are
independent witnesses to its existence in the primitive Christian
community.
(2) _To what point, then, can we trace this tradition?_
We have argued that the Virgin Birth tradition first began to gain
currency in the circles in which St. Luke moved at the time when the Third
Gospel was being written. We have also seen that the tradition was already
known to the readers of the First Gospel. If these conclusions are valid,
it is evident that the relative order in which the two Gospels were
written will determine the farthest point to which we can trace the Virgin
Birth tradition as publicly known. What, then, is the order of composition
in the case of Mt. and Lk.?
We may frankly admit that if priority must be assigned to Mt., it becomes
difficult to understand how St. Luke could have no knowledge of the Virgin
Birth at the time when he first took up his pen. For, on this view, we
ask, Must not the tradition have already reached the circles in which he
was moving at the time? It would certainly be more favourable to our
theory if we could assign priority to the Third Gospel. In this case we
should have a very simple account to give of the history of the tradition.
We should discover it emerging for the first time in St. Luke’s Gospel,
and we should have a ready explanation (in the fact of the interval
between the two works) for the apologetic note in the later Gospel.
But the priority of the two Gospels is not a question to be decided simply
by the attitude which the Evangelists display towards the Virgin Birth.
Mt. and Lk. must be compared throughout. When this is done there do not
appear to be sufficient grounds for giving a vote in either direction (cf.
Stanton, GHD., ii, p. 368). All that we can say is that the two Gospels
are independent works, and must have been written about the same time. If
there was an interval, it cannot have been great, for there are no
sufficient signs that either writer was acquainted with the work of the
other. It is especially difficult to think that St. Luke would have
neglected the First Gospel, if it had been accessible to him (cf. Lk. i.
1‐4).
If, however, we accept, as a working hypothesis, the view that the two
Gospels were written independently of each other, and more or less
simultaneously,(104) it will still follow that the Virgin Birth tradition
was already known in at least one influential primitive Christian
community (that to which the First Gospel was addressed) while it was
unknown to St. Luke.(105) Is this a fatal objection, or does such a
position represent what may well have been the actual situation? We do not
think that the difficulty is too great.
The tides by which traditions flow in different places are not
simultaneous; they differ in time, in height, and in volume. No practice
could be more mischievous than the habit of dating the relative spread of
early beliefs simply by the dates of contemporary documents. Regard must
be paid to local conditions.
In life as in nature there are variations of current and of coast
formation. There are limits, of course, within which this caveat holds
good; but, provided the interval of time is not too great, the view that
St. Luke could begin to write in ignorance of a tradition already known
elsewhere is not self‐condemned. After all, St. Luke himself had access to
much tradition which presumably was unknown to the First Evangelist
(witness St. Luke’s special matter).
Concerning the length of time we can allow the Virgin Birth tradition to
have been already known elsewhere, when St. Luke began to write, there is
room for difference of opinion. If, as we have contended, he became
acquainted with it in the process of writing or immediately afterwards,
the period can scarcely have been considerable. Perhaps it ought to be
estimated in months rather than in years, but to say more would be idle
speculation.
_The farthest point therefore to which we can trace the existence of the
Virgin Birth as a public tradition is some little time previous to the
composition of the Third Gospel._
(3) It is a perfectly fair assumption to make that the public tradition
must have had a _private_ vogue before, and perhaps for some time before,
it became public property. This view becomes especially probable in the
light of what we have just seen, viz. that the spread of the public
tradition among the primitive Christian communities covered an appreciable
period of time. The question of the historical truth of the Virgin Birth
is precisely the question of how far back the private tradition can be
traced; whether it can go back to Mary the mother of Jesus, and whether
satisfactory reasons can be given for a silence which extends beyond the
period covered by the Pauline Epistles and the Second Gospel, and is
broken only at last in the interval which shortly preceded the composition
of the Gospels of Mt. and Lk. In this lies the real historical problem.
_Can the theory of a private authoritative tradition be vindicated?_ There
are several questions which bear upon this problem. They are: (1) The
question of the date of the First and of the Third Gospels; (2) The extent
to which the credibility of the Gospels permits of the possibility of
error; (3) The Alternative Theories of the origin of belief in the Virgin
Birth; (4) The theological aspect of the tradition.
II. The Date of the Gospels in Relation to the Virgin Birth Tradition
The relation in which the question of _the Date of the Gospels_ stands to
the results reached is sufficiently clear. If we could fix the time when
Mt. and Lk. were written, we could determine within comparatively narrow
limits when the Virgin Birth tradition first gained currency. A conclusion
upon this point would materially affect our estimate of the historical
value of the tradition.
Until this stage we have deliberately refrained from assigning dates to
the Gospels. The only things we have assumed are the priority of Mk. and
the practically contemporaneous origin of Mt. and Lk. Our justification
for this course lies in the great variety of opinion which exists on the
question of date, and hence the desirability of keeping clear, as long as
we can, from considerations which must vitally affect the results secured.
Unfortunately, as we have said, no sort of unanimity exists upon the
question of the date of the Gospels. A glance at the extremely useful
table which Dr. Moffatt prints on page 213 of his Introduction makes this
clear. At first sight the position would appear chaotic, and we might well
shrink from attempting to connect our results with specific dates. It is
impossible, moreover, in a work like the present, to discuss the question
in detail. Such a problem ought to be considered independently, and with
regard to all the facts of the case. It would seem best therefore to ask
what the consequences are, if we incline to any one of certain
representative dates. We are at liberty, of course, to indicate our
personal preferences, but, for the reasons stated, we shall have to agree
to a measure of uncertainty. This is disappointing, but the responsibility
must lie at the right door, and that door is the present failure of
Biblical Scholarship to arrive at a consensus of opinion on the question
of the date of the Gospels. Perfect agreement there will never be, but
until there is substantial agreement every historical investigation into
questions of New Testament origins must prove incomplete.
The problem of the date of the Gospels is not, however, so chaotic as
might at first sight appear. There is a strongly marked disposition to
recede from the extremes on both sides, and there is a very considerable
agreement that the period from 60 to 100 A.D. covers the time during which
the Synoptic Gospels were written. There is also a consensus of opinion
that the Second Gospel cannot have been written later than about 70 A.D.
Every decade, and almost every year, however, between 60 and 100 A.D.
finds advocates for the composition of Mt. and Lk. There are,
nevertheless, three periods which find special favour. These may be
briefly mentioned.
(1) The first period we may note is the closing years of the first
century. For this view the main arguments are (i) the supposed dependence
of St. Luke upon Josephus, and (ii) the ecclesiastical tone of certain
passages in the First Gospel.
(2) A second view brings both Mk. and Lk. within St. Paul’s lifetime, and
dates Mt. shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. This is the opinion of
Harnack (_Date of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels_). It has not won a
large following, either in Germany or in this country, but it is probably
nearer the truth than the previous view.
(3) A third period is the time about 80 A.D. One advantage of this view,
as Dr. Plummer candidly admits (ICC., St. Lk., p. xxxi), is the fact that
it avoids the difficulties which beset the other two. The main argument
which commends it to Dr. Plummer is that “such a date allows sufficient
time for the ‘many’ to ‘draw up narratives’ respecting the acts and
sayings of Christ”.
It remains for us to indicate what bearing these representative dates have
upon the Virgin Birth tradition in the light of our results.
It is clear that if we must date Mt. and Lk. in the closing years of the
first century, the historical value of the tradition is reduced to a
minimum. For, if that tradition is historical, we are compelled to assume
that for a period of about ninety years the story was jealously guarded,
first by Mary herself and then by a chosen few to whom it was revealed.
But who will believe this? If we accept Harnack’s dates, then the period
about 60 A.D. will be the time when belief in the Virgin Birth first began
to spread. While, if we prefer the third alternative, we must fix upon a
time some fifteen to twenty years later, i.e. the period from 75 to 80
A.D.
It is evident that the case for the historical truth of the tradition is
at its strongest if Harnack’s dates can be accepted. Looking at the
question from the sole standpoint of the time‐interval, we do not believe
that the third period is impossibly late. However we look at the question,
we are unable to bring the public tradition within the lifetime of Mary.
But, provided we are not compelled to date the Gospels at the close of the
century, there do not seem to be insuperable difficulties—so far as the
time‐element is concerned—against connecting that public tradition with
those who were near her person.
It will be seen that the question of the date of the Gospels is an
important one. The utmost, however, we are able to glean in this field is
a somewhat negative advantage. Our conclusion is that no insuperable
difficulty stands in the way. Obviously, the onus of proof yet remains.
The long period of silence must be explained, and the truth of the
tradition vindicated.
III. The Relation of the Question of the Historical Value of the Gospels
to the Problem
We must next briefly consider the question of _the historical value of the
Synoptic Gospels_, so far as it bears upon our immediate problem. It is
right to urge that our first aim must be to examine the Virgin Birth
tradition without bias or presuppositions of any kind. But it is no less
true to say that our estimate of the credibility of the Gospels as a whole
must react upon that task in the end. Whether the Synoptic Gospels are but
a tissue of legends, or whether they fulfil a good standard of historical
value, are questions which cannot be ignored.
For those who claim infallibility, as well as inspiration, for the
Evangelists, the problem is at an end: Lk. and Mt. teach the Virgin Birth;
the doctrine is therefore true! But for most people to‐day that short and
easy path is impossible. The Gospels do not claim infallibility, and their
contents do not bespeak it. There can be no question that a trained
observer of to‐day would have described many incidents in the life of
Jesus very differently. There are parables which have been unconsciously
hardened into miracles, sayings of Jesus which have been misunderstood,
stories which have grown amidst the exigencies of controversy and in the
process of evangelization. These things are no more than we might expect.
They were inevitable; unless we credit the Evangelists with a mechanical
preservation from error which finds no justification beyond our own
preconceived notions of what a Gospel ought to be. Nor do such admissions
rob the Gospels of real worth. On the contrary, they throw their
historical value into strong relief. For to perceive that the natural
infirmities of the human mind have left their trace upon the Evangelic
Records is only to prepare the way for us to recognize how close in the
main the Evangelists have kept to the real facts of history. The
significant fact is not that they have made mistakes, but that they have
made so few that are of real importance. We have only to compare their
work with the Apocryphal Gospels to see, in the case of the Evangelists,
what restraint the solid facts of history exercised upon the natural
tendencies of their minds. Jülicher, who does not hesitate to say that
what the Evangelists relate is “a mixture of truth and poetry” (INT., Eng.
Tr., p. 368), nevertheless declares that “the Synoptic Gospels are of
priceless value, not only as books of religious edification, but also as
authorities for the history of Jesus” (ib., p. 371). “The true merit of
the Synoptists”, he says, “is that, in spite of the poetic touches they
employ, they did not repaint, but only handed on, the Christ of history”’
What bearing has such an estimate of the Gospels upon the historic truth
of the Virgin Birth tradition? Obviously, it does not save us from the
trouble of testing the tradition by such tests as we can apply. That the
tradition has found a place in the New Testament is not in itself a
certificate of truth. The Evangelists certainly believed the tradition;
they were intellectually honest; but they may have been mistaken. The
ultimate question is the truth of the authorities upon which they rested
and of the belief they reflect. Their importance as writers is that they
countersign the tradition with the high authority they possess. But,
however high their authority, it is not that of infallibility. The truth
of the Gospels is the truth of their sources. As regards the Virgin Birth
tradition, the sources cannot be traced back to Mk. and Q, the two primary
Synoptic documents, but to the later tradition of the Christian Church, at
the time when Mt. and Lk. were written. The First and Third Evangelists
have endorsed that tradition; the problem of the Virgin Birth is whether
they were right. Nothing that we have said in this section must be
construed to prejudge that question. That the Evangelists have accepted
the tradition, for us unquestionably gives it a higher value; but it is
not a determinative value. The main result is to make yet clearer the
final issue, which is, we repeat, whether the story which the Evangelists
endorse can be traced back to an authoritative source. Has it the sanction
of Mary or of those who may be supposed to have known her mind?
IV. The Question of Alternative Theories
In many discussions of the Virgin Birth, the question of _Alternative
Theories_ occupies a prominent place. Our purpose in the present section
is to ask what place it may legitimately be given. Has it the importance
which is often claimed?
Attention has frequently been called to the inability of those who reject
the Virgin Birth to agree upon an alternative theory. The failure is
patent. Harnack and Lobstein, on the one side, plead for a Jewish‐
Christian origin for the doctrine, in which the influence of Isa. vii. 14
played a decisive part; on the other side, Soltau, Schmiedel, Usener, and
others, trace the tradition to the effect of non‐Christian myths. Not only
so; the advocates of each theory specifically reject the other. Lobstein,
for example, thinks that “it would be rash to see direct imitations or
positive influences” in the analogies “between the Biblical myth and
legends of Greek or Eastern origin”. While there was mutual action between
the worship or doctrine of paganism and advancing Christianity, “nothing
warrants historical criticism in considering the tradition of the
miraculous birth of Christ as merely the outcome of elements foreign to
the religion of Biblical revelation” (_The Virgin Birth of Christ_, p.
76). Schmiedel, on the other hand, rejects the Jewish‐Christian origin of
the tradition, “Nor would Isa. vii. 14 have been sufficient to account for
the origin of such a doctrine unless the doctrine had commended itself on
its own merits. The passage was adduced only as an afterthought, in
confirmation.... Thus the origin of the idea of a virgin birth is to be
sought in Gentile‐Christian circles” (EB., col. 2963 f.).(106)
It is not strange, perhaps, that some writers have pressed these
contradictions into the service of Apologetics. Thus, for example, Dr. Orr
does not scruple to say: “As in the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim,
‘neither so did their witness agree together’ ” (op. cit., p. 152). He
even presents the remarkable argument that Dr. Cheyne’s theory “gives the
death‐stroke to all the theories that have gone before it”, and yet is
itself “absolutely baseless” (ib., p. 178). Sweet’s argument is more
cautiously introduced. He recognizes that the contention has its limits.
He instances Bossuet’s argument against the Reformation drawn from the
Variations of Protestantism and G. H. Lewes’s inference from the History
of Philosophy that philosophy is impossible (op. cit., p. 299). But,
having said this, Sweet argues that the critics agree in nothing “save
dislike and depreciation of the documents”, and that “their theories are
mutually destructive”.
It appears to us that this line of argument is open to serious objection;
it is unfair, and it is unwise.
It is unfair, because it is neither uncommon nor unreasonable to find men
agreed in rejecting a tradition or belief, and yet at variance in respect
of theories of origin. It is one thing to say that a belief is untrue;
quite another thing to account for its existence. That men agree upon the
one point is more significant than that they differ upon the other. The
view we have mentioned is unwise, because its triumph may be short‐lived.
There is always room for the emergence of a better alternative theory,
which shall combine the excellences, and avoid the weaknesses, of pioneer
attempts.
It does not need a prophet to suggest that the next alternative theory
will be psychological and eclectic. If the tradition is not historical, it
is not likely that we can account for its rise by one factor alone. We may
regard it as established that prophecy alone did not create the tradition,
and that it was not invented on the analogy of non‐Christian myths.
Nevertheless, it may be that Isa. vii. 14, together with the idea that
underlies non‐Christian legends, played an important part in the formation
of the Christian tradition. If the tradition is not historical, its
ultimate origin must be sought in the overwhelming impression which Jesus
left upon believing hearts and minds; in the conviction that from the time
of His Birth, and not only at His Baptism and Resurrection, Jesus Christ
was the Son of God by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The presumption
that His Birth must have been remarkable would be strengthened by the Old
Testament stories of the birth of Isaac, of Samson, and of Samuel, and
especially by the tradition which already had gathered round the birth of
John. It may also have been stimulated by the belief, found the whole
world over, that the origin of great men is supernatural and miraculous.
Even amongst the Jews the idea was present, that the Messiah’s origin
would be strange, and that no man would know from whence he came (Jn. vii.
27). If there is reason to presuppose such a point of view, we can easily
imagine the electric effect which such a passage as Isa. vii. 14 would
have upon those who studied Old Testament prophecies in the light of their
experience of Jesus. It is vain to object that it is only in the LXX that
this connexion could be established, and that in the Hebrew the word
rendered “virgin” means a young woman of marriageable age. The First
Gospel (i. 23) shows that it was the LXX rendering which was already read,
and doubtless preferred, in the primitive Christian community. Still more
fatuous is it to say, as it has been said again and again, that no Jew
ever interpreted Isa. vii. 14 of the Messiah. As well might we say of
other passages that no Jew would have interpreted them Messianically! The
question is not how Jews regarded Isa. vii. 14, but how it may have
appeared in the eyes of Jews who had come under the spell of Jesus. The
passage cannot have created belief in the Virgin Birth, but it could have
crystallized a belief for which wonder and speculation had prepared the
way. “So it must have been!” men could well have argued. On this
supposition the belief antedated the tradition. But that beliefs have
created traditions again and again is enough to show that it could have
been so here. Nor is the time‐element the insuperable difficulty it has
been supposed to be. The idea that a myth would require fifty years to
grow is absurd.(107) Provided the parents of Jesus were already dead, the
myth could have sprung up new born.
In sketching the foregoing theory our purpose is not to assert its truth,
but rather to illustrate its by no means inherent improbability. It could
be true; or, at any rate, this judgement might any day have to be passed
upon some alternative theory, superior to any that has yet been stated.
The agreement of the Virgin Birth tradition with historic fact may be the
true solution of the problem, but it is not the only solution that is
possible, nor can its superiority be established by the comparative method
alone. We therefore work along wrong lines if we attempt to argue the
historic character of the Virgin Birth tradition by dwelling upon the
incongruities and contradictions of alternative theories. The baleful
attractiveness of such a method ought strenuously to be resisted. It may
yield a few showy triumphs, but few, if any, solid results. Of course, if
we have first satisfied ourselves that the Virgin Birth is historically
true, the practice is less objectionable; but it is doubtful if even then
it adds much to results otherwise obtained. To include the method in the
process of proof is to build upon sand.
On the other hand, this view is equally sound, if our solution of the
problem is one of the alternative theories to which we have referred. We
have sketched a theory which we have claimed might be true. But what more
could be claimed by the comparative method? Its justification or lack of
justification lies elsewhere. The possible may not be the probable, nor
the probable the true. The importance of the question we have discussed in
the present section is that it reveals what are the by‐paths and what is
the high‐road of a true investigation. The question of alternative
theories is purely secondary. The high‐road is where we left it at the end
of Section II. Can the tradition, endorsed by the First and Third
Evangelists, be vindicated?
V. Doctrinal Considerations
_The ultimate considerations which determine a true estimate of the Virgin
Birth tradition are doctrinal._ It is one of the chief merits of
Lobstein’s well‐known book that he so clearly recognizes this fact: “What
must finally turn the scale ... are reasons of a dogmatic and religious
order” (op. cit., p. 79).
We need make no apology for not having dealt with the question of the
possibility of the Miraculous Birth from the standpoint of Science. We do
not propose to consider the question at length even now. The objection
that miracles are impossible has long been exploded. In a famous letter to
the _Spectator_ (February 10, 1866) Huxley wrote: “... denying the
possibility of miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative
Atheism”, and Atheism, he said, is “as absurd, logically speaking, as
polytheism”. What we call a “miracle” may be no more than the divine
operation within the domain of law itself. We have therefore no ground for
saying that a virgin birth is impossible; while, in the case of One so
unique as Jesus Christ, such an assertion would be utterly absurd. We do
not really need any support which may be gained from the question of
Parthenogenesis. The question is in the first place one of evidence.
But if primarily the question is one of evidence, it does not stop there.
The historical and the theological aspects of the problem overlap; we
cannot determine the question by weighing evidence alone.
If we attempt to confine ourselves to a purely historical inquiry, the
verdict must be “Not proven”.(108) It is true, on the one hand, that the
late appearance of the tradition is not an insuperable difficulty. The
theory of a long‐treasured secret has a logic of its own. On the other
hand, by the conditions of the case, we are unable to interrogate the
witnesses. We cannot ask them whence they derived what they tell us. We
cannot demonstrate that the story they relate has the ultimate authority
of Mary. All that we can reach is a primitive belief, generally accepted
within New Testament times, which presumably implies an earlier private
tradition. Beyond that point we cannot travel—within the limits of the
evidence alone.
Substantially this position is recognized by Dr. Gore in _Dissertations_.
While affirming his belief that the historical evidence is “in itself
strong and cogent”, he says frankly that “it is not such as to compel
belief”. “There are ways to dissolve its force”, he continues. The last
sentence is not very happily phrased, but it need not detain us. The point
that is of greatest importance is expressed by Dr. Gore as follows:
“... to produce belief there is needed—in this as in almost all
other questions of historical fact—besides cogent evidence, also a
perception of the meaning and naturalness, under the
circumstances, of the event to which evidence is borne. To clinch
the historical evidence for our Lord’s Virgin Birth there is
needed the sense that, being what He was, His human birth could
hardly have been otherwise than is implied in the Virginity of His
mother” (ib., p. 64).
The present work is, in part, a foot‐note to, or illustration of, this
principle. We may therefore be pardoned for a further reference to it in a
passage from F. C. Burkitt’s _Gospel History and its Transmission_, in
which it finds an almost classic statement:
“Our belief or disbelief in most of the Articles in the Apostles’
Creed does not ultimately rest on historical criticism of the
Gospels, but upon the general view of the universe, of the order
of things, which our training and environment, or our inner
experience, has led us severally to take. The Birth of our Lord
from a virgin and His Resurrection from the dead—to name the most
obvious Articles of the Creed—are not matters which historical
criticism can establish” (p. 350 f.).
It is clear, then, that if further advance is to be made, we must enter
the realms of doctrine. What doctrinal purpose, we must ask, does the
Virgin Birth serve? Does it explain the sinlessness of Jesus? Is it
necessary to the doctrine of the Incarnation? Is it congruous with the
doctrine of the Person of Christ? It is not contended that an answer to
these questions in the affirmative would prove the event to have happened.
Nevertheless, such an answer would unquestionably invest the New Testament
tradition with a yet higher probability, sufficiently great, in our
judgement, to make belief in its historical character reasonable. If,
however, we have to answer the doctrinal questions in the negative, then
the historical character of the tradition receives a fatal blow. The
opinion, so frequently expressed, that, in any case, the Virgin Birth is
not a doctrine of essential importance, is one that calls for scrutiny. If
it means that a man may be a sincere follower of our Lord, whether he
believes the doctrine or not, it is, of course, a truism. But if it means
that the doctrine is of no importance in relation to the Incarnation and
the Person of Christ, that is perhaps the strongest argument that can be
adduced _against_ the credibility of the miracle. What is doctrinally
irrelevant is not likely to be historically true.
It does not fall in with the scope of this work to enter fully into the
theological question. Our purpose has been to examine the historical and
critical questions and to show where the real problem lies. Criticism
cannot solve that problem. Nevertheless, its contribution is not barren.
It can discuss interpolation theories; it can treat of the literary form
which the tradition has assumed in the Gospels. It can date—imperfectly it
is true—the time when the belief became current. It can apply broad tests
of credibility. We ourselves believe that it can say the miracle may have
transpired. But it cannot say more. The last word is with Theology.
On the theological side, the question is probably more far‐reaching than
is commonly supposed. Individual Christian doctrines can never be treated
_in vacuo_; they are inter‐related one with another. It is often said that
those who reject the Virgin Birth reject also the physical Resurrection of
Jesus, the Ascension, and many of the miracles reported in the Gospels.
The statement is largely true; it is possible we ought also to include in
it the doctrine of the Pre‐existence of Christ. The reason is that these
denials belong to the same general habit of mind; they are part of the
content of what has been called a “reduced Christianity”. It is
impossible, therefore, adequately to discuss the question of the Virgin
Birth on its theological side, without raising the larger question,
whether this so‐called “reduced Christianity” is not the true faith, as
distinguished from a “full Christianity” which in reality is florid and
overgrown. Sweet can scarcely be said to go too far when he writes: “In
short, and this is the gist of the whole matter, in this controversy
concerning the birth of Christ, two fundamentally different Christologies
are groping for supremacy” (ib., p. 311). This fact has not always been
recognized by those who think of the Virgin Birth, but there can be no
question of its truth. The Virgin Birth is part of a larger problem; it
must ultimately be established, if at all, as a corollary, not as an
independent conclusion. The larger problem is whether we can still hold
the Trinitarian Theology and the Two‐Nature Doctrine of the Person of
Christ, or whether we must give to the Immanence of God a place greatly in
excess of any it has yet held in Christian thought; whether, indeed, we
can feel it adequate to speak of Christ as One in whom the Immanent God
revealed and expressed Himself in an altogether unique and ultimately
inexplicable way. In any case, the conflict is one of Christologies. The
purely naturalistic interpretation of Jesus holds a more and more
precarious place in the field. This, then, is the problem of the present
and of the immediate future. It is nothing less than the problem which
every age has had to face since the days of Jesus of Nazareth—the problem
of the Incarnation.
The present writer takes no shame to say that upon the theological aspect
of the Virgin Birth he has not yet been able to satisfy his mind. The
longer the question is studied the less easy it becomes airily to brush
the miracle aside and call it myth. We speak of those who are impressed by
the unique spiritual greatness of Jesus, and who cannot explain for
themselves His Person in terms of humanity alone. The hesitation does not
spring from vacillation, nor, we hope, from lack of courage and strength
of mind. It springs out of a sense of the uniqueness of Jesus. Have we
adequately grasped His greatness? Can we say what is, or what is not,
congruous with His Person? It is open to serious question whether the
individual can expect, or ought to expect an answer to these questions out
of his experience and thought alone. Brief discussions of the Virgin Birth
by individual writers do not carry us very far. What is needed more than
anything else is a yet fuller disclosure of the unfettered mind of the
Christian Church; and for this we must wait.
This last statement may perhaps seem strange. Has not the Church already
expressed her corporate mind? Has she not committed herself to the Virgin
Birth tradition? Can we not find it in Ignatius, in Justin, and in the
Creeds of the Undivided Church? That these things are so is too patent to
be denied. But has the Church expressed her _unfettered_ mind? Has she
said her final word? Has she, indeed, ever been in a position to do these
things? The appeal to the almost unbroken external witness of the Catholic
Church does not carry us so far as we might think. Once the Gospels had
attained canonical authority the rest was a foregone conclusion. The
status given to the Gospels carried everything else with it, and the
Church was no longer free to judge. It is written, therefore it was so!
Moreover, the question of the Virgin Birth was largely overshadowed in the
struggle with Docetism. It is only in modern times that a more intelligent
attitude towards the Gospels permits the Church freely to ponder the
Virgin Birth tradition in the light of her experience of Christ. We may
cherish the hope that she has yet greater things to say of Christ than any
she has yet uttered. It is in its relation to that voice that the Virgin
Birth will find its place.
Where, then, shall we look for this expression of corporate mind? Not
perhaps again in Consiliar Decrees, though who can say? There is, however,
a corporate mind that finds expression in the affirmations of simple
believers, and in the writings of Christian thinkers the world over. The
affirmations are neither the medley nor the babel they are sometimes
thought to be. There is no colourless uniformity, but there is a real and
growing unity, a harmony in which varied voices blend. No one can survey
Christendom without seeing that everywhere denominational walls become
less and less forbidding, and that every year it is more difficult to
classify Christian thinkers under the prim labels of exclusive schools.
Thought is unbound, but it is not chaotic. The thousand streams fall to
the rivers which flow onward towards the sea that is never full. Those
only may be pessimistic who cannot take long views. We may believe that
the Spirit will yet guide His Church into all the truth. The individual
thinker whose voice breaks the silence will ever be needed. Yet his task
is but a limited one; he too must listen. For unless, beneath his
affirmations, we hear the undertone of a corporate faith and experience,
his voice will be but the echo that rings among the empty hills.
One thing is certain. Whatever the ultimate issue, it must be gain, even
if gain through loss. Whether it be historical or not, the Virgin Birth
tradition must always be full of beauty and of truth.
If, on the one hand, the tradition is involved in the corporate experience
of Christ, if it is congruous with what He was and is, then, admittedly,
the gain is great. For this means increased confidence in the facts which
the Evangelists relate and the primitive community believed: there is no
breach with the past. It means too another foothold in history for the
theological interpretation of the Person of Christ. And these are things
not lightly to be surrendered, save at the command of Truth.
If, on the other hand, the story is a legend of the Christian Faith, that
is not an end. Strangely enough, if the tradition is not historical, it
thereby becomes a valuable piece of Christian apologetic. Who was this
Jesus, we ask, of whom men dared to believe that He was born of a virgin?
The faded wreath is no less the tribute of undying love. That Jewish
Christians could explain the unique divine personality of Jesus by the
miracle of a virgin birth is—if we must solve the problem so—the highest
tribute they could pay. If we find it hard to understand how they could
think of Him in this way, without the warrant of the fact, it may be that
our difficulty is just the measure of our failure to grasp the wonder of
their love. If, in the end, we must call poetry what they called fact, it
will not be because we are strangers to their faith. They too were bound
by the spell of that Transcendent Face in which is the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God.
INDEX
Acts, The, 12 ff., 21.
Allen, W. C., 6, 8, 9 n., 11 n., 15 n., 33 n., 37, 42 n., 52, 89 n., 90,
90 n., 91, 92 n., 94, 95 n., 96, 105‐14.
Apocalypse, The, 20.
Argument from Silence, The, 1‐3.
Ascension, 78, 130.
Bacon, B. W., 8 n.
Baptism of Jesus, 7, 25, 125.
Barnard, 89 n., 108.
Bethlehem, 16, 17, 98.
Bezae, Codex, 25, 29.
Birthplace of Jesus, 16, 17 f., 19.
Blass, Friedrich, 15 n., 25, 32 n., 50 n.
Bossuet, 125.
Box, George H., 4 n., 5, 8, 15 n., 38 ff., 40 n., 41, 86 n., 89 n., 90 n.,
91, 95, 101, 103, 105, 106, 108.
Burkitt, F. C., 33 n., 50 n., 88 n., 89, 89 n., 90, 91, 92, 92 n., 93, 95
n., 96, 96 n., 97, 99 n., 100, 100 n., 101, 105‐14, 129.
Carpenter, J. Estlin, 43 n., 44.
Catholic Epistles, 20.
Cerinthus, 99.
Chase, 40 n.
Cheyne, T. K., 20 n., 40 n., 125.
Clemen, 40 n.
Conybeare, F. C., 40 n., 99 n., 105, 106, 108 n.
Corporate Mind of the Church, The, 131 f.
Creeds, The, 131.
Curetonian Syriac, The, 105 ff., 108.
Dalman, G., 59 n.
Date of the Synoptic Gospels, 120 ff.
Davidic Descent, The:
in Acts, 13.
in Lk., 44 ff., 84.
in Mt., 85, 89, 101.
Davidson, A. B., 39.
_Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_, The, 91, 99 n., 105, 106, 108, 111.
_Diatessaron_, The, 106.
Dionysius of Corinth, 49.
Docetism, 15 n., 132.
Doctrinal Modifications, 52 ff., 99, 113.
Drummond, James, 1.
Ebionites, The, 33, 107.
Epiphanius, 99.
_Expository Times_, The, 39 n.
Fairbairn, A. M., 15 n.
“Ferrar” Group, The, 105, 106, 107 f.
First Gospel, The:
apologetic motive, 96, 99, 116.
characteristic words, &c., 93 f., 99, 99 n.
date, 117 f., 121.
genuineness of cc. i, ii, 95 ff.
mode of treatment, 94, 99.
quotations, 94 f., 126.
source of Virgin Birth tradition, 101 ff.
style, 92 f., 99.
unity of cc. i, ii, 95 ff.
Virgin Birth an original element, 100, 104, 115.
Fourth Gospel, The, 15‐20, 115.
Gardner, Percy, 128.
Genealogy in Lk., 26 ff., 74, 84, 89, 90.
Genealogy in Mt., 27, 64, 89 ff., 95 ff., 97, 100, 101.
Gnostics, The, 33.
Gore, Charles, 5, 102, 103, 128 f.
Gould, Ezra P., 9, 68 n., 103 n.
Grill, 40 n.
Gunkel, 40 n.
Häcker, 32 n., 43 n.
Harnack, Adolf, 7, 7 n., 15 n., 25, 26 n., 32, 40 n., 55, 57, 57 n., 58
n., 60, 62 n., 63 n., 64, 67, 80, 82, 117, 121, 124.
Hawkins, Sir John C., 52 n., 55, 57 n., 67 n., 93 n., 94.
Headlam, 49 n.
Hebrews, The Epistle to, 14 f., 21.
Heffern, 89.
Hilgenfeld, 40 n.
Hillmann, 40 n., 55.
Historical value of the Synoptic Gospels, 122 ff.
Hobart, W. K., 55.
Holtzmann, 40 n.
Hort, F. J. A., 33 n., 51, 58.
Huxley, 128.
Ignatius, 16, 18, 131.
Incarnation, 129, 131.
Inference, its place in the Gospels, 102 f.
Interpolations, 76 ff.
Irenaeus, 15 n.
Jews at Nazareth, The, 8 f., 31, 97.
John the Baptist, 126.
Joseph, 28 f., 30 ff., 98, 99, 101, 102.
Jülicher, Adolf, 15 n., 118 n., 123.
Justin, 15 n., 131.
Kattenbusch, 36, 69.
Knowledge of Jesus, The, 10.
Knowling, R. J., 4, 40 n.
Lake, Kirsopp, 33 n., 96 n., 103, 103 n.
Lewes, G. H., 125.
Lewis, Mrs., and Mrs. Gibson, 110.
Linguistic Argument, The, its importance, 22 f., 55 f.
Lobstein, Paul, 44 n., 70, 124, 127.
Loisy, Abbé Alfred, 40 n.
Loofs, Friedrich, 82 n., 126 n.
Mackintosh, H. R., 5 n., 7 n., 13 n., 15 n.
Maclean, A. J., 89 n., 108.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, 9, 10, 11, 35 f., 42, 43 f., 45, 87, 121, 122,
128.
Merx, 69.
Milligan, George, 49, 92.
Miracles, 127 f., 130.
Moffatt, James, 7 n., 8 n., 13 n., 15 n., 18, 18 n., 24, 25, 26, 32, 43
n., 49 n., 50, 52 n., 53 n., 57 n., 67 n., 74, 76, 89, 89 n.,
90 n., 91, 92, 95, 96, 96 n., 106 n., 108, 120.
Montefiore, C. G., 40 n., 43 n.
Moulton, James Hope, 50 n., 51, 53 n., 58 n., 59 n., 62 n., 92 n.
Moulton and Geden, 58 n., 93.
Moulton and Milligan (VGT.), 35, 59, 59 n., 62 n., 65 n.
Orr, James, 3 n., 4, 15 n., 40 n., 102, 125.
_Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, 26 n., 76 n.
Papias, 7.
Parthenogenesis, 128.
Pastoral Epistles, 20.
Peake, A. S., 15 n.
_Pericope adulteriae_, 50.
Person of Christ, The, 129 ff.
Pfleiderer, Otto, 40 n.
Philip, daughters of, 87.
Plummer, A., 8 n., 27, 29 n., 33, 34 f., 35, 37, 43, 44, 57 n., 63 n., 64,
70, 121.
Pre‐existence of Christ, The, 130.
_Protevangelium Iacobi_, 49 n.
Q, 7, 21, 26 n., 123.
Ramsay, W. M., 32, 81, 81 n., 85, 87.
Resch, 15 n.
Resurrection of Christ, The, 4, 5, 5 n., 13, 13 n., 103, 125, 130.
Robinson, J. Armitage, 50 n.
Sanday, William, 1 f., 15 n., 16, 26, 27, 50 n., 85, 86 n., 89 n., 102 n.,
105, 106 n., 107 n., 112.
Sanday and Headlam, 4, 5 n., 51.
Schmidt, N., 40 n.
Schmiedel, Paul W., 9 n., 10 n., 23, 24, 29, 32, 32 n., 35, 37 n., 40 n.,
42, 43, 45, 55, 70, 97 f., 105, 106, 124.
Science, 127 f.
Scott, Ernest F., 15 n., 19, 19 n.
Second Adam, 3, 4 f.
Simeon, Prophecy of, 29, 73.
Sinaitic Syriac MS., 29, 32, 33, 105‐14.
Sinlessness of Jesus, 129.
Soltau, 124.
Spitta, 43 n.
St. Luke:
did he teach the Virgin Birth? 48‐71.
his knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition, 13, 72‐4, 84 f., 87, 115.
his revision of Lk. and Acts, 77, 80 ff., 81 n.
his treatment of Mk., 77.
the richness of his vocabulary, 63, 63 n.
St. Mark’s Gospel, 8‐12, 21, 87, 115, 123.
date, 121.
original ending, 12, 53, 68 n.
St. Paul, 3‐7, 21, 87, 115.
Stanton, Vincent H., 8 n., 40 n., 95 n., 118.
Sweet, Louis Matthews, 4, 4 n., 125, 130.
Tertullian, 15 n., 105, 113.
Text of the Gospels in the Second Century, 49 ff., 91 f., 99, 113.
Textual Problem of Mt. i. 16, 90 ff., 100, 105 ff.
Thayer‐Grimm, 35, 62 n., 65 n., 66.
Theophilus of Antioch, 1.
Third Gospel, 22‐47, 72‐87.
birth tradition of Lk. i, ii, 73, 85 f.
date, 118, 121.
narratives of Lk. ii, 28 ff.
purport of the angelic announcement (i. 30‐3), 36 ff.
Thompson, J. M., 7, 7 n., 8, 10, 10 n., 13 n., 18, 18 n., 36, 69, 70.
Trinitarian Theology, 130.
Usener, H., 9 n., 23, 25, 32 n., 40 n., 45, 55, 79, 124.
Verbal Inspiration, 76 f., 103, 122 f.
Virgin Birth tradition:
alternative theories, 124 ff.
apologetic and spiritual value, 133.
doctrinal aspects, 127 ff.
earliest date of public tradition, 117 ff.
historical problem, 115‐33.
theory of a private tradition, 119, 121, 128.
Völter, 40 n.
Weinel, 36, 69.
Weiss, J., 40 n.
Wellhausen, J., 7.
Wendland, 8 n.
Westcott, B. F., 15 n., 89 n., 108.
Westcott and Hort, 33 n., 57 n.
“Western” Readings, 24‐6, 32‐4, 33 n.
Wise Men, 95.
Zacharias, 43 f.
Zahn, Theodor, 15 n.
Zimmermann, 74 f., 75 n.
[Transcriber’s Note: Obvious printer’s errors have been corrected.]
FOOTNOTES
1 Dr. Orr (_The Virgin Birth of Christ_, 1907, 3rd ed., 1914) says
that in every Pauline reference to the origin of Christ there is
“some peculiarity of expression” (pp. 117 ff., 196). He instances
γενόμενος in Gal. iv. 4, Rom. i. 3, Phil. ii. 7, and speaks of
γεννητός as the word properly denoting “born”. But St. Paul never
uses γεννητός, and Mt. xi. 11 and Lk. vii. 28 are the only instances
in the NT. Moreover, the papyri show that γίνομαι and γενόμενος were
in common use in the sense of “to come into being”, “be born” (cf.
Moulton and Milligan, VGT., 1915, p. 126 a). Canon Box also speaks
of St. Paul’s use of “the out‐of‐the‐way γενόμενον” (_The Virgin
Birth of Jesus_, 1916). “This would harmonise”, he says, “with the
feeling that there was something extraordinary and supernatural
about the birth, which led to its being spoken of in unusual terms”
(p. 149 n.). Not to speak of the papyri, what would these writers
make of Jn. viii. 58, “Before Abraham was (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι) I
am”? Was there “something extraordinary” in Abraham’s birth too? For
a view similar to that of Orr and Box see Sweet, _The Birth and
Infancy of Jesus Christ_, p. 237 f.
2 Compare verse 12, “as through one man”, with verse 15, “the grace of
the one man, Jesus Christ”. Cf. also Rom. ix. 5 (and 1 Tim. ii. 5).
3 Cf. H. R. Mackintosh, _The Person of Jesus Christ_, p. 69: “... the
passage [1 Cor. xv. 44‐9] is throughout concerned not in the least
with the pre‐existent but with the exalted Christ. It was only in
virtue of resurrection that He became the archetype and head of a
new race.” Mackintosh says that the Virgin Birth is “not present” in
Gal. iv. 4, “not even hinted at” (p. 528).
4 “The flesh of Christ is ‘like’ ours inasmuch as it is flesh; ‘like’,
and only ‘like’, because it is not sinful: _ostendit nos quidem
habere carnem peccati, Filium vero Dei similitudinem habuisse carnis
peccati, non carnem peccati_ (Orig.‐lat.)” (SH., ICC., Rom., p.
193).
5 For these and other details see Moffatt, INT., pp. 194‐206; also
Harnack, _The Sayings of Jesus_, pp. 229‐52.
6 Cf. Mt. xi. 2 f. = Lk. vii. 18 f.
7 Cf. Mackintosh, _Person of Jesus Christ_, p. 528.
8 Mr. Thompson thinks that in Q “we are dealing with an age that has
not yet begun to think of the Virgin Birth” (ib., p. 140). This may
be true, but it is not a legitimate inference to draw from Q alone.
9 Cf. Plummer, ICC., St. Lk., p. 125.
10 Mt. xiii. 55: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?...” Lk. iv. 22: “Is
not this Joseph’s son?”
11 So Wendland and Bacon (Moffatt, INT., p. 227 f.); Stanton, GHD., ii.
142. Mt. xiii. 55 reads: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?”, and Lk.
iv. 22: “Is not this Joseph’s son?” The argument is that it is very
difficult to think that the later Evangelists can have read what is
now Mk. vi. 3 in the Markan Source.
12 “Mt. has substituted ‘the Son of the Carpenter’ for ‘the Carpenter’
from a feeling that the latter was hardly a phrase of due reverence”
(Allen, op. cit., p. 155).
13 Both Schmiedel (EB., 2954 f.) and Usener (EB., 3345) hold that the
incident excludes the Virgin Birth. In reference to the words of
Jesus, J. M. Thompson says: “The force of His aphorism about
spiritual kinship depends on the reality of the human kinship which
He at once acknowledges and rejects” (op. cit., p. 137).
14 So Schmiedel (op. cit., col. 2955). Thompson thinks that the story
of Mk. vi. 1‐6 “could not possibly have been told as it has been, if
the narrator had known anything about the Virgin Birth” (op. cit.,
p. 138).
15 Cf. Allen, ICC., St. Mt., p. xxiv (c) (i), where fifty examples of
this tendency are given.
16 “The speeches in the earlier part may represent not untrustworthily
the primitive Jewish‐Christian preaching of the period” (Moffatt,
INT., p. 305). Cf. Mackintosh, op. cit., p. 39.
17 Mackintosh, ib., p. 40 f. “What absorbs the preacher is Jesus’
deliverance from the grave and entry into glory”, p. 41.
18 Mackintosh, ib., p. 41.
19 For the opposite view see Thompson, op. cit., p. 142.
20 It is true different verbs and tenses are used of the children and
of the Son. The tense of μετέσχεν is explained by the fact that the
Son assumed flesh and blood at a definite time now past. The change
of verb—so far as it is not explained on stylistic grounds—is due to
the fact that κεκοινώνηκεν (of the children) expresses the universal
fact of human frailty which men share one with another, and μετέσχεν
the individual entering upon this state. The latter word does not
imply a participation of a peculiar and distinct kind.
21 “In point of time, the Epistle to the Hebrews is the first
systematic sketch of Christian theology” (Mackintosh, _Person of
Jesus Christ_, p. 78). “It is not so much an epistle as an elaborate
treatise” (Fairbairn, _Christ in Modern Theology_, p. 320).
22 “Few would say, with Westcott, that virgin‐birth is implied though
not explicitly asserted in Jn. i. 14....” (Mackintosh, ib., p. 528).
23 The view that i. 13 should be read “Who was born, &c.”, is that of
Resch, Blass, and Th. Zahn. The reading appears in Tertullian,
Irenaeus, Justin, but the weight of textual authority is against it.
Nor is the reading, as representing what the Evangelist wrote,
intrinsically probable. It would rule out the maternity of Mary as
well as the paternity of Joseph. The birth would not only be not “of
the will of man”; it would not even be “of blood”. There would be
nothing human about it; from first to last it would be “of God”. In
short, the reading leads directly to that docetic view of the Person
of Christ, against which the Johannine Writings so earnestly
contend. The same objection may be urged against the view that, in
the accepted text of Jn. i. 13, the Virgin Birth is present to the
writer’s mind “as a kind of pattern or model of the birth of the
children of God” (W. C. Allen, _Interpreter_, Oct., 1905. Cf. Orr,
op. cit., p. 111 f.; Box, op. cit., p. 145). Would not the Fourth
Evangelist have regarded such a comparison as almost a denial that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? Harnack has recently contended
for the singular and for a reference to the Virgin Birth. He thinks
that the verse was added in the margin, as a comment on i. 14, at a
very early time and in the Johannine circle (Peake, _Commentary on
the Bible_, p. 747 a).
24 Cf. Sanday, op. cit., pp. 71, 143‐55; Moffatt, INT., pp. 533 ff.; E.
F. Scott, _The Fourth Gospel, Its Purpose and Theology_, pp. 32 ff.;
Jülicher, INT., p. 396 f.
25 iv. 44 (“For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour
in his own country”), unless it is a gloss, probably refers to
Judaea, not Galilee. Cf. Moffatt, INT., p. 553. Mr. Thompson argues
that it refers to Galilee (op. cit., p. 158).
26 “In order to explain his silence, we must remember his strict
exclusion of all that might imply a passivity in the divine Logos.
It was by His own free act that the Son of God entered the world as
man. The evangelist shrank from any theory of His origin that might
impair the central idea of full activity, from the beginning of His
work to the end” (Scott, ib., p. 187).
27 According to Cheyne (_Bible Problems_, pp. 76 ff.), the chapter
contains a Jewish Messianic legend of Babylonian origin, which was
the source of the Virgin Birth tradition.
28 The passage which begins with the words: “And Mary said unto the
angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”
29 Or was taken from Q. See Harnack’s _Sayings_, p. 314; _Oxford
Studies in Synoptic Problem_, p. 187.
30 EB., col. 2955 n. Cf. Plummer, ICC., St. Lk., p. 63.
31 In this connexion it should be observed that the same note of wonder
appears in ii. 18 in the case of all those who hear the shepherds’
words. But according to the terms of ii. 17, what _they_ are told is
the angelic message of ii. 10‐12, in which the Virgin Birth is not
mentioned. The presumption is that ii. 33 stands upon the same
plane.
32 So among others Schmiedel, Usener, Häcker, and Blass, who writes
(op. cit., p. 171 n.): “ ‘The espoused wife’ of the ordinary text is
a very clear corruption, due to an assimilation to i. 27 (where the
case is quite different) and to dogmatic prejudices ...” “That we
have here a case of real contamination is seen very plainly in the
old Freising MS., in which the ancient variants τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ and
τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ still stand together in immediate
juxtaposition” (Usener, EB., col. 3350).
33 On the agreement of the Old Syriac and Old Latin against the great
uncials, cf. Kirsopp Lake (_The Text of the NT._, p. 90 f.),
“Perhaps the general result is to make it probable that W. H.
(largely from lack of evidence) underestimated the possibility that
a consensus of the Old Latin and Old Syriac may give us a really
primitive text even when opposed to the great uncials”. To similar
effect Burkitt writes, “It is, however, in the direction here
indicated—viz., the preservation of the true text in a considerable
number of cases by ‘Western’ documents alone—that criticism may
ultimately be able to advance beyond the point reached by Hort”
(EB., col. 4990 f.). “I am unable to assume that the edition of
Westcott and Hort gives us a final text in either Gospel [Mt. and
Mk.]. In particular, I am inclined to believe that the second
century readings, attested by the ecclesiastical writers of that
century, and by the Syriac and Latin versions, are often deserving
of preference” (W. C. Allen, ICC., St Mt., p. lxxxvii).
34 “And Joseph ... took unto him his wife.”
35 While we are unable to acquiesce in Schmiedel’s view that “Mary
takes the words of the angel as referring to a fulfilment in the way
of nature”, we may fairly say that, if the passage Lk. i. 30‐8 is a
unity, Mary ought to have been represented as taking the angel’s
words in this way, and that this would be the plain natural sense in
which to take them.
36 The claim, therefore, that the suggested translation is supported by
the words “with haste” in verse 39 (Box) cannot be sustained.
Moreover, these words are easily satisfied on the usual view of a
promised conception. See further an article by the present writer in
the _Expository Times_ (May, 1919), _Is the Lukan Narrative of the
Birth of Christ a Prophecy?_ In l. 16 in the second column read: “It
could _not_ be anything else”.
37 E.g. Cheyne, Conybeare, Grill, Harnack, Hillmann, Holtzmann, Loisy,
Montefiore, Pfleiderer, N. Schmidt, Schmiedel, Usener, Völter, J.
Weiss. On the other side are Hilgenfeld, Clemen, Gunkel, Chase,
Stanton, Orr, Box, Knowling.
38 But see W. C. Allen, ICC., St. Mt., p. 10 and p. 19.
39 Some scholars, including Häcker, Spitta, and Montefiore, bring
verses 36, 37 within the interpolation. Schmiedel’s presentation of
the argument stated above is as follows: “Moreover, the case of
Elizabeth to which the angel points in v. 36 is no evidence of the
possibility of a supernatural conception; it has evidential value
only if what has happened to Elizabeth is more wonderful than what
is being promised to Mary—namely that she, in the way of nature, is
to become the mother of the Messiah” (EB., col. 2957).
40 Schmiedel, op. cit., col. 2957. To the same effect J. Estlin
Carpenter (op. cit., p. 487 f.). Compare Lk. i. 45 where Mary is
praised for her faith, and see Moffatt, INT., p. 268 f.
41 Cf. Lobstein, _The Virgin Birth of Christ_, p. 67.
42 Cf. Moffatt (INT., p. 268 n.): “The substitution ... is too slender
a basis, and may have been accidental, whilst the alleged omission
of 34‐5 from the _Protevangelium Iacobi_ breaks down upon
examination” (cf. Headlam’s discussion with Conybeare in the
_Guardian_ for March‐April 1903).
43 _The New Testament Documents, their Origin and early History_
(Croall Lectures, 1911‐12). 1913.
44 Cf. also Burkitt (GHT., p. 11): “... the text of the Gospels, the
actual wording, and even to some extent the contents, were not
treated during the second century with particular scrupulosity by
the Christians who preserved and canonized them. There is nothing in
the way which Christians treated the books of the New Testament
during the first four centuries that corresponds with the care
bestowed by the Jews upon the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of
Aquiba onwards.” See also Blass, _Philology of the Gospels_, p. 72
f.
45 Cf. Sanday (_Inspiration_, 2nd Ed., pp. 295‐8): “Possessors of
copies did not hesitate to add little items of tradition, often
oral, and in some cases perhaps written, which reached them” (295).
See also J. H. Moulton (_From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps_, pp. 97 ff.),
and an article in the _Classical Review_ for March 1915 on “The
Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts”; J. A. Robinson, _Study of
the Gospels_, p. 24 f.
46 Cf. also Hawkins (HS., 2nd Ed., pp. 152 and 197), who instances
“additions of various kinds which may be regarded as probably
editorial” (p. 197) in the Second and Third Gospels. See also
Moffatt (INT.), under heading “Glosses in NT. text”, p. 641, where
references are given to cases treated in the body of the work.
47 It may, however, have been accidentally lost. See Moffatt, INT., pp.
238 ff, where the question is discussed.
48 In this connexion it is important to remember that even early
orthographic peculiarities have been accurately preserved. “I have
been much struck by the number of cases in which the old uncials
preserve spellings which can be proved current in the time of the
autographs, but obsolete long before the fourth century. Faithful in
minutiae, they might reasonably be expected to be faithful also in
greater matters” (J. H. Moulton, in an article in the _Classical
Review_, March, 1915, reprinted in _The Christian Religion in the
Study and the Street_, 1919, p. 153). See also the _Prolegomena_,
pp. 42‐56.
49 The italics are ours.
50 Plummer, ICC., St. Lk., pp. xlviii ff.; Harnack, _Luke the
Physician_, p. 104 f.; Moffatt, INT., p. 278 f.; Hawkins, HS., 2nd
Ed., pp. 15 ff.
51 There is a well‐known difficulty of punctuation in verse 35. Ought
we to put a comma, with WH., after κληθήσεται? If we do so, the
subj. is τό γεννώμενον, and ἅγιον is part of the predicate. If we
omit the comma, the whole phrase τὸ γεν. ἅγιον is the subj., and the
pred. is κληθ. υἱὸς θ. (cf. RV. marg.). Most critical editors of the
Greek text omit the comma. It is probable, as the WH. type shows,
that Dr. Hort was influenced by his belief that ἅγιον κληθ. went
together as a quotation or reminiscence of the OT., and, if the
passage comes from St. Luke, this is a strong argument. On the other
hand, it can be argued that if the words are a Greek rendering of an
Aramaic phrase it is improbable, if not impossible, that the
participle should stand alone as the subj. It is not possible, of
course, to settle the question by appealing to manuscript authority,
as the early MSS. were practically devoid of punctuation marks. In
our own case, we are unable to use either of the arguments cited,
since each rests upon the assumption of the Lukan origin of Lk. i.
34 f., which is the very point we are discussing. While then we
follow the WH. text we have to leave the question of punctuation an
open one. If the comma should be omitted we lose the difficulty of
τό γεννώμενον noted on p. 61, and we lose also the argument from its
construction, sketched on p. 64.
As, in the end, we claim that Lk. i. 34 f. comes from the hand of
St. Luke, we may perhaps be permitted to express a personal
preference for the WH. punctuation. St. Luke’s admitted fondness for
OT. phraseology points strongly in this direction, while the theory
of an original Aramaic document gains no increased support, but
rather the contrary, as time goes by. On the one hand, Harnack has
convincingly shown how much the Greek of Lk. i, ii owes to St.
Luke’s craftsmanship (cf. _Luke the Phys._, pp. 102 ff.), and, on
the other hand, the argument from “Semiticisms” becomes less cogent
the more we know of the papyri (cf. Moulton, _Proleg._, pp. 13‐18.
See also Gr. ii. 12‐20). Aramaic oral tradition may underlie cc. i,
ii, but the probability is that the Greek of these chapters owes its
OT. flavour to the more or less deliberate attempt of St. Luke to
create an appropriate archaic atmosphere.
52 The various computations are drawn from the _Concordance to the
Greek Testament_ by Dr. W. F. Moulton and Dr. A. S. Geden. In the
case of St. Luke’s Gospel words occurring in i. 34 f. are omitted.
If these verses are Lukan, this underestimates the Lukan evidence.
It would, however, be begging the question to include these verses
in the present examination. Quotations and doubtful cases (except
where mentioned) are also omitted.
53 But cf. Dalman, _Words of Jesus_, p. 24, quoted by Moulton,
_Proleg._, p. 131.
54 Cf. _The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament_, by Moulton and
Milligan, p. 65 a. See also the note at the foot of p. 131 in the
_Prolegomena_: “This phrase ... occurs in the Semitic atmosphere
alone....”
55 εἶπεν πρός and εἷπεν δέ (see later) are both strongly characteristic
of St. Luke’s style, but εἶπεν with the dative is also very
frequent. Taking the two works together, εἶπεν πρός and εἶπεν with
the dat. are almost equally common (εἶπ. w. dat. having the greater
number of instances). In the G. the proportion of εἶπεν with the
dat. to εἶπεν πρίς is 5 : 4. In Acts it is 4 : 5.
56 The italics are his.
57 Cf. Moulton and Milligan, p. 127 a.
58 Cf. Harnack’s _Luke the Physician_, p. 104; Moulton, _Proleg._, p.
18.
59 So Thayer‐Grimm, p. 117, where it is pointed out that the same idiom
appears in the Latin, in _cognoscere_, Ovid, _Met._ iv. 596.
60 _v._ Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., p. 127 a.
61 So L. T. WH. In both cases WH. give ἐπεί δέ in the margin.
62 There are “261 words which occur in the New Testament only in the
gospel of St. Luke” (Harnack, _Date of Acts_, p. 2). Plummer (ICC.,
St. Lk., lii) speaks of 312 such words, but says that 52 are
doubtful and 11 occur in quotations. Including Acts, according to
Plummer, the number is 750 or (including doubtful cases) 851.
63 P. 59.
64 As in all these enumerations. See note on p. 58.
65 Cf. Th‐Gr., p. 152 a, and for papyri, &c., Moulton and Milligan, op.
cit., p. 163 b.
66 Sir John C. Hawkins’s record of πρός (used of speaking to) is as
follows (HS., 2nd Ed., p. 21): Mt. 0, Mk. 5, Lk. 99, Ac. 52, Paul 2,
Jn. 19, rest of NT. 4. Thus for the Lukan writings the percentage is
83.4.
67 Moffatt’s remark (“The style of 34‐5 is fairly Lucan, though διό
occurs only once in the third gospel and ἐπεί never”, INT., 269) is
surely an understatement. As we have seen διό occurs eight times in
Acts.
68 See, however, p. 57 n.
69 A good illustration of this point is found in the spurious ending to
St. Mark’s Gospel. As Prof. E. P. Gould shows (ICC., St. Mk., pp.
301‐4) out of 163 words 19 (or more than 11 per cent.) are not found
elsewhere in the Gospel. They include such words as ἐκεῖνος (5
times), πορεύομαι (3 times), θεάομαι (twice). There are also two
unfamiliar expressions: τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις (verse 10) and
μετα (δὲ) ταῦτα.
70 If we could accept the view that “seeing I know not a man” in verse
34 is St. Luke’s only insertion, and that he wrote verse 35 from the
first without thought of the Virgin Birth, his point of view would
then be somewhat different. On this theory his thought would be that
while born of Joseph and Mary the promised child was none the less
supernaturally conceived. See p. 69 f.
71 See later pp. 78‐84.
72 Cf. V. H. Stanton (GHD., ii, p. 226 f.).
73 As regards the remaining details of Zimmermann’s hypothesis, none of
them is really necessary to our theory. We believe that what St.
Luke actually wrote in ii. 5 was “with Mary his wife” (see pp. 32
ff.). But his new information did not compel him to alter this to
“with Mary who was betrothed to him”, though later readers thought
the change was necessary. Nor was it required to alter i. 27. Even
in the original narrative (i.e. on our theory, before i. 34 f. was
added) the passage may have read as we have it now, the prophecy
being regarded as uttered previous to marriage. There is no real
need to regard “to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was
Joseph” as an interpolation in the interests of the Virgin Birth,
either (with Harnack) on the part of a redactor, or (with
Zimmermann) on the part of St. Luke himself.
74 Cf. _Ox. Studies in the Syn. Prob._, pp. 417, 420, where the Rev. N.
P. Williams, M.A., suggests that certain passages in Mk. may be
later insertions, made “possibly by St. Mark himself”.
75 In Acts xvi. 19, 20 it is said that the owners of the demented girl
“seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the agora before the
magistrates”. The words which immediately follow are: “and bringing
them to the presence of the praetors, they said....” Ramsay’s
comment is: “The expression halts between the Greek form and the
Latin ... as if the author had not quite made up his mind which he
should employ.... It is hardly possible that a writer, whose
expression is so concise, should have intended to leave in his text
two clauses which say exactly the same thing” (_St. Paul_, p. 217
f.). In reference to Acts xx. 4, 5, Ramsay writes: “In verse 4 we
have probably a case like xvi. 19 f., in which the authority
hesitated between two constructions, and left an unfinished sentence
containing elements of two forms” (ib., p. 289). He adds that the
sentence “perhaps never received the author’s final revision”.
76 Cf. Loofs, _What is the Truth about Jesus Christ?_, p. 122.
77 Speaking of the late appearance of the Virgin Birth tradition G. H.
Box writes (op. cit., p. 137): “Its comparatively late appearance
and primitive character can only be reconciled by the explanation
that it is based upon facts which were for long treasured within a
narrow circle in close contact with our Lord, and which were only
gradually divulged to the Church.” Cf. also Sanday, _Outlines_, pp.
193, 196.
78 Cf. Burkitt, _The Gospel History and its Transmission_, pp. 260, 274
f.
79 Cf. Burkitt (_Evangelion Da‐Mepharreshe_, ii. 260); Moffatt (INT.,
250); Box (_The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 12); Sanday (_Outlines_,
p. 201).
80 So among others Westcott, Burkitt, Box, Allen, Barnard, A. J.
Maclean, Moffatt.
81 _Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, p. 260. Cf. also Allen (ICC., St. Mt., p. 5);
Box (ib., p. 14); Moffatt (ib., p. 251).
82 “It is merely an embodiment, in genealogical form—a form specially
calculated to appeal to Jewish readers—of the idea that Jesus
belonged, through His relation to Joseph, to the royal family of
David” (Box, ib., p. 15).
83 See Appendix to present chapter.
84 _The N. T. Documents, their Origin and early History_, p. 148. W. C.
Allen (op. cit., p. lxxxv f.) seems to emphasize the more negative
aspects of the writer’s style, but calls attention to phrases and
constructions which are said to be “strikingly characteristic of the
Gospel”. Cf. Moulton, _Gk. Gr._, ii, p. 29.
85 Cf. Burkitt (GHT., p. 184 f.)
86 Sir J. C. Hawkins points out (HS., 2nd Ed., p. 9) that the
“characteristic” words and phrases of Mt. are “used considerably
more freely in these two chapters than in the rest of the book”.
87 ἀκριβόω, ἀκριβώς, ἀναιρέω, ἀνακάμπτω, βασιλεύω, βίβλος, γένεσις,
γινώσκω (in sense used), δειγματίζω, δεκατέσσαρες, διετής, ἐπάν,
θνήσκω, θυμόομαι, κατωτέρω, λάθρᾳ, λίβανος, μάγοι, μεθερμηνεύομαι,
μετοικεσία, μνηστεύομαι, πυνθάνομαι, σμύρνα, συνέρχομαι, τελευτῄ,
τίκτω, ὕπνος, χρηματίζω.
88 i. 22 f., ii. 5 f., ii. 15, ii. 17 f., ii. 23, iii. 3, iv. 14 ff.,
viii. 17, xii. 17‐21, xiii. 35, xxi. 4 f., xxvii. 9. Of these iii. 3
differs somewhat from the rest, and ii. 23 cannot be identified with
any single OT. passage.
89 See especially Stanton (GHD., ii, p. 343); also Allen (op. cit., p.
lxii) and Burkitt (GHT., pp. 124 ff.).
90 Cf. Burkitt, op. cit., ii. p. 259; Box, op. cit., pp. 11, 19 ff.;
Moffatt, INT., p. 259; Lake, _The Historical Evidence for the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ_, pp. 178 ff.
91 For the reference to Epiphanius see an article by F. C. Conybeare,
HJ., i, p. 96. Conybeare’s main argument is drawn from the edition
of the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_, published by himself
(1898). He thinks that the Dialogue “reflects an age when [Mt. i.
18‐25] had already been introduced, but was not present in all the
copies” (p. 100). If we accept the view advocated by F. C. Burkitt
(_Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii. 265) this inference is not necessary. See
Appendix to present chapter, p. 106.
92 Γινώσκω (in sense used, but the phrase in which it occurs is
probably an insertion, Burkitt, ib., ii, p. 261), δειγματίζω,
μεθερμηνεύομαι, μνηστεύομαι, συνέρχομαι, ὕπνος.
93 Ὄναρ, παραλαμβάνειν, πληροῦσθαι, ῥηθέν, φαίνεσθαι.
94 “I cannot believe that any document underlies it. On the contrary, I
believe it is the composition of the Evangelist himself” (Burkitt,
_Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, p. 260). Cf. also Allen (ICC., St. Mt., p. 5).
95 Sanday (_Outlines_, p. 196) writes: “In regard to the Matthaean
document we are in the dark. The curious gravitation of statement
towards Joseph has a reason; but beyond this there is not much that
we can say. It would not follow that the immediate source of the
narrative was very near his person.”
96 “In the historical judgement of the Gospels this distinction between
facts and reflections has frequently to be remembered” (E. P. Gould,
ICC., St. Mk., p. 37).
97 See _The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ_,
by Professor Kirsopp Lake.
98 Unless otherwise stated further references to these writers are to
the works cited above.
99 Cf. also Moffatt, p. 251; Sanday (_Outlines_, p. 197); W. C. Allen,
p. 8.
100 “The reading of _S_ itself I have come to regard as nothing more
than a paraphrase of the reading of the ‘Ferrar Group’, the Syriac
translator taking ᾡ to refer to ἐγέννησεν as well as to
μνηστευθεῖσα” (p. 263).
101 The foregoing three alternatives are those noted by Dr. Sanday
(_Outlines_, p. 199 f.), between which, he says, “the data do not
allow us to decide absolutely”.
102 Referring to the Evangelist the Jew objects: “He says begat out of
Mary” (cf. Conybeare, HJ., vol. i, no. 1, p. 100).
103 We ought to add that Allen leaves open the possibility that the
parenthesis may be a later addition, and that the original text may
have been “And Joseph begat Jesus”. “It seems probable ... that the
text underlying S1 is the nearest approach now extant to the
original Greek, and it must remain possible that even here the
relative clause is an insertion” (p. 8).
104 Cf. Jülicher, INT. (Eng. Tr.), p. 367: “In my opinion, both took up
their pens more or less simultaneously, each unaware of the other’s
work, and both actuated essentially by the same motive, i.e. that of
bestowing a Gospel upon the Church which should be at once complete,
and well adapted both to refute unjust accusations from outside and
to edify the believers themselves.”
105 This appears in the fact that the First Gospel implies, as we have
seen, that the doctrine had already been known to its readers for
some time.
106 Cf. Usener to the same effect, EB., col. 3351.
107 Cf. Loofs, _What is the Truth about Jesus Christ?_, p. 92 f.:
“Legends arise much more quickly than is assumed by liberal theology
since Strauss”.
108 So Prof. Percy Gardner, quoted in _Faith and Freedom_, p. 168.