IV. Certain Consequences

It remains for us to consider certain consequences which follow if our hypothesis is true.

(1) In the first place, we can claim St. Luke as a witness to the tradition of the Virgin Birth. This is a result of first importance. For those who regard St. Luke as a very credulous person with a special “fondness” for “a good miracle”, this conclusion will mean little. But for those who are impressed by his claim to be regarded as a good historical writer, it is not a view to be lightly esteemed. There are those who will consider that St. Luke's witness settles the historical question, and will be disposed on the ground of his authority to accept the tradition. But with greater reason there are others who will feel that, with all his excellences as an historian, St. Luke has the elementary human right to make a mistake, especially when he is dependent upon the evidence of others. The determining feature is clearly the character of his source or sources.

(2) A further fact to be noticed is that St. Luke's witness marks a very early stage in the spread of the Virgin Birth tradition. In this respect there is a contrast between the Third and First Gospels. In the Third Gospel the tradition is stated, but its problems are scarcely felt. There is a foreshadowing of this in the words “as was supposed” in the Genealogy, but not more. St. Luke has not really felt the problem of the Davidic descent. [pg 085] He has not envisaged that very striking treatment of the problem which we shall have occasion to point out in the Matthaean Genealogy (see pp. 89 ff.). St. Luke's narrative is neither didactic nor apologetic. It is almost, but not quite, a simple narrative of what is implicitly accepted as fact. In making this qualification we are thinking of the artistic form which the earlier narrative embodied in Lk. i, ii has imposed upon St. Luke's account of the Virgin Birth; but this is a matter which will come up again a little later. The fact that is of outstanding interest is that St. Luke could sit down to write a Gospel, with a desire to trace out all things accurately from the first, and yet know nothing of the Virgin Birth, until after the greater part, if not the whole, of his work was completed.

(3) It is the fact just noted which helps us to date the first appearance of the Virgin Birth tradition; its date is bound up with the question of the date of the Third Gospel. This is a question which will receive further treatment in our final chapter (pp. 117 ff.).

(4) Our hypothesis postulates an earlier narrative of the Birth of Jesus which knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. The relation of this narrative to the later tradition needs carefully to be considered.

We have already expressed the opinion that the earlier narrative was probably taken from a good historical source. Ramsay has noted signs of a womanly spirit in the whole narrative, and thinks that it may well go back either to Mary, or to some one who was very intimate with her (cf. Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, pp. 74-88; Luke the Physician, pp. 13, 50). Sanday is not able to speak quite so confidently as to the nearness of the source to Mary, but thinks that it could not be “more than two or three degrees removed from her”. “It must have been near enough”, he says, “to retain the fine touches which Professor Ramsay so well brings out” (Outlines, p. 195 n.). These views have won considerable support in Great Britain. It will be remembered, of course, that they have regard to the whole of Lk. i, ii, to the narrative, that is to say, as an account of the Virgin Birth. The same arguments are valid, however, for ascribing a good historical foundation to the narrative, even if i. 34 f. is a later addition. The probability is that the source, whether documentary or oral, is of Palestinian origin, and that it [pg 086] points back ultimately, if not immediately, to the Holy Family. On our theory, however, while silent as to the paternity of Joseph, the source had nothing to say of the Virgin Birth. It described the non-miraculous birth of the long-expected Messiah.

At first sight the high historical value of this earlier source would appear to be detrimental to the tradition of Lk. i. 34 f. But it is not certain that this is so. There is more force than has often been allowed in the suggestion that the facts of the Virgin Birth may have been purposely withheld from public knowledge for many years by those who knew them.[77] Assuming for the moment the truth of this view, we may ask, Would nothing at all be told? If we think it probable that part at least of the story would be related, it may be that the tradition upon which St. Luke first drew is a version of that part. We might even hazard the suggestion that it was the publication of this story by St. Luke which drew out the fuller narrative. In other words, the fact that the earlier tradition makes no reference to the Virgin Birth need not be fatal to the truth of the later story expanded in i. 34 f. This, of course, is speculation; but, at any rate, the possibilities are such as to forbid the specious argument—the Holy Family know nothing of the Virgin Birth! We tread upon firmer ground when we urge that the higher the historical value of the earlier story the less likely would St. Luke have been disposed to modify it in deference to further information, unless he had attached considerable value to the new tradition, and was persuaded of its truth.

(5) As regards the origin of the Virgin Birth tradition implied in Lk. i. 34 f., we have to confess that we are completely in the dark. We have stated our preference for the view that it came through a personal channel (p. 73). We are unable to think that in writing i. 34 f. St. Luke was himself merely translating theology into narrative. But who the intermediary was we cannot tell. On our theory, the tradition cannot have been [pg 087] directly imparted to the Evangelist by Mary. Whether, in the end, the story can be traced back to her, is a question we cannot now discuss. At this stage it would be no more than a guess to connect it with the women mentioned in Lk. viii. 2, 3; xxiv. 10, or with the daughters of Philip (Acts xxi. 8, 9). In an historical inquiry it is never safe to ascribe a tradition to an authority, unless we have solid grounds for so doing. Otherwise, we import a bias into the investigation, if indeed we do not beg the question. The mistake is one which has been made more than once in discussing the Virgin Birth. In the present case we have nothing whatever to guide us, and accordingly we have to acquiesce in the bare conclusion that St. Luke accepted the Virgin Birth tradition, but that we do not know anything about his authority, except that it satisfied his mind.

(6) The form in which the tradition reached St. Luke can hardly have been the brief statement of i. 34 f. The literary form of that passage is determined by that of the earlier narrative. The latter, as we have said (p. 73), is something more than a bare transcript of events. It is a product of high art, and is shaped upon Old Testament models. Ramsay finds in it a Greek element. The story has been “re-thought out of the Hebraic into the Greek fashion” (Luke the Physician, p. 13). The divine messenger becomes to St. Luke “the winged personal being who, like Iris or Hermes, communicates the will and purpose of God” (op. cit., p. 13). Having regard, however, to the Old Testament birth-stories of Isaac, Samson, and Samuel, it is doubtful if we really need this suggestion. In any case, we may say that it is the mould in which the earlier story has been cast, which accounts for the literary form of the Virgin Birth tradition in Lk. i. 34 f. The tradition which St. Luke received probably contained the substance of what is stated in verse 35, and asserted that Jesus was begotten of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

(7) The historical value of the Virgin Birth tradition in the Third Gospel is a question which cannot be answered until the problem is treated as a whole. Our study of the Lukan problem adds to the material at our disposal. It confirms our conclusions in Chapter I as regards St. Paul and St. Mark. It also enables us to say that St. Luke, in his later years, came to believe and teach the Virgin Birth, on grounds which are unknown to us, but which he himself deemed sufficient.

Chapter V. The Virgin Birth And The First Gospel

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 [pg 089] 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 [pg 090] 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 [pg 091] 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 [pg 092] 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 [pg 093] 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 in Mt. i, ii.Instances in Mt. iii-xxviii.Instances in the rest of the NT.
ἀναχωρεῖν464
λεγόμενος (with names)211Mk. (1), Lk. (2), Jn. (8), Ac. (2), Pl. (4), Heb. (1).
ὄναρ510
πληροῦσθαι4813
ῥηθέν480
σφόδρα164
τότε38667
φαίνεσθαι499

In addition to the list given by Burkitt, we may note also the following:

Instances in Mt. i, ii.Instances in Mt. iii-xxviii.Mt, as compared with the rest of the NT.
παραλαμβάνειν6101/3 of NT. Record.
προσκυνεῖν391/4 of NT.
προσφέρειν1131/3 of NT.
συνάγειν1232/5 of NT.
ὅριον151/2 of NT.
θησαυρός181/2 of NT.
δῶρον181/2 of NT.
ἐπάνω172/5 of NT.
χρυσός141/2 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 [pg 095] 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 [pg 096] 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 [pg 098] 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 [pg 099] 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 [pg 100] 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 [pg 102] 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 [pg 103] 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 [pg 107]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 [pg 108] 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 [pg 109] 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 [pg 110] 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 [pg 111] 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 [pg 113] 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 [pg 114] 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.

Chapter VI. The Historical Question: Its Limits And Bearings

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 [pg 116] 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 [pg 117] 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 [pg 118] 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 [pg 121] 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 [pg 122] 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; [pg 123] 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 [pg 124] 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 [pg 125] 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 [pg 126] 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 [pg 127] 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 [pg 128] 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 [pg 129]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 [pg 130] 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 [pg 131] 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 [pg 132] 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.