{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54858/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54858","id":"gutenberg_54858","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54858","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Gospels","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ -- Nativity","Virgin birth"],"text":"The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth\n\n                     by Vincent Taylor, B.D. (Lond.)\n\n                             Clarendon Press\n\n                                  Oxford\n\n                                   1920\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface\nAbbreviations\nChapter I. The Virgin Birth And The New Testament Outside The First And\nThird Gospels\n   I. St. Paul\n   II. Q\n   III. St. Mark\u2019s Gospel\n   IV. Acts\n   V. The Epistle to the Hebrews\n   VI. The Fourth Gospel\n   VII. The Pastoral and the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse\n   VIII. Summary\nChapter II. The Virgin Birth And The Third Gospel\n   I. Narratives and Passages Said to be Inconsistent With the View\n      (a) Lk. iii. 22, according to the \u201cWestern Text\u201d\n      (b) The Lukan Genealogy and Lk. iii. 23\n      (c) The Narratives of Lk. ii\n      (d) The References to Joseph and Mary in Lk. ii\n      (e) Lk. ii. 5\n   II. The Passage Lk. i. 34 f\n      (a) The Interpretation of Lk. i. 34 f\n      (b) The Purport of the Angelic Announcement in Lk. i. 30\u20103\n      (c) Reasons for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a Later Insertion\n   III. Summary and Conclusion\nChapter III. St. Luke and the Virgin Birth\n   I. Lk. i. 34 f. and the Textual Question\n   II. Linguistic and Stylistic Examination of Lk. i. 34 f\n   III. Summary and Conclusion\nChapter IV. The Place Of The Virgin Birth In The Third Gospel\n   I. A Suggested Theory\n   II. Literary Conditions Under Which the Gospels Were Written\n   III. The Objections to Which the Above Theory is Exposed\n   IV. Certain Consequences\nChapter V. The Virgin Birth And The First Gospel\n   I. The Characteristics of the Genealogy\n   II. The Genuineness of Mt. i, ii\n   III. The Unity of Mt. i, ii\n      1. The Genealogy\n      2. The Passage Mt. i. 18\u201025\n   IV. Implications, Sources, and Results\n   Appendix To Chapter V. The Textual Problem of Mt. i. 16\nChapter VI. The Historical Question: Its Limits And Bearings\n   I. The Virgin Birth in the First and Third Gospels\n   II. The Date of the Gospels in Relation to the Virgin Birth Tradition\n   III. The Relation of the Question of the Historical Value of the\n   Gospels to the Problem\n   IV. The Question of Alternative Theories\n   V. Doctrinal Considerations\nIndex\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               [Cover Art]\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThis book is intended to be a literary and critical examination of the\nhistorical evidence for the Virgin Birth. It is not the writer\u2019s desire to\ndiscuss the evidence from the point of view of an advocate; with a view,\nthat is to say, of obtaining an uncompromising verdict. His aim is rather\nto trace and to define the earliest Christian tradition upon the subject,\nand to show the limits and the bearings of the historical question.\n\nA limited aim such as this ought not to require much justification. If,\nhowever, justification is needed, it is not far to seek.\n\nMuch of the literature which treats of the Virgin Birth is controversial\nin point of origin if not in form, and, in the nature of the case, it\ncould not have been otherwise. Controversial literature has, of course, a\nnecessary place in the search for truth. Nevertheless, it is exposed to\nserious perils, especially when such a subject as that of the Virgin Birth\nis discussed. It is not always easy, for example, to avoid an arbitrary\ntreatment of the New Testament, and to prevent philosophic or dogmatic\npresuppositions from determining purely critical questions. Few will deny\nthat the discussion of the Virgin Birth has suffered in these directions,\nand that, as a consequence, the problem remains in considerable confusion.\nNot only has the evidence been variously estimated, but there are the\nwidest differences of opinion as to what the evidence really is. Neither\nside has succeeded in convincing the other, and very many students of the\nquestion preserve an attitude of suspended judgement.\n\nThe point which it is important to make is that, if any escape is to be\nmade from the present impasse, the problem must be approached in another\nway. Doctrinal presuppositions must be resolutely laid aside; there must\nbe a common desire to ascertain the true facts of the evidence, whatever\nthe results may be. Not that dogmatic considerations have no place in the\nproblem! It is part of the conclusion reached in this book that in the end\ndogmatic considerations do determine the issue. But it must be \u201cin the\nend\u201d; not at the beginning, nor in the middle.\n\nIt may be that the writer has not himself escaped the perils to which he\nhas referred. He can only say that no pains have been spared to achieve\nthis purpose. It is true that the problem has been faced with a conviction\nthat, while truly man, Jesus was much more than man as we know him to be.\nBut this is not a presupposition which colours the evidence. On the\ncontrary, it is the one point of view which recognizes that there is a\nproblem to be solved. If our Lord was a prophet, and no more, there is no\nreal difficulty; no one would defend the Virgin Birth upon such terms. The\nquestion becomes a living issue only when Jesus is believed to be more\nthan man.\n\nIn Chapter I the New Testament evidence outside the First and Third\nGospels is discussed. On the question of the attitude of the Fourth\nEvangelist to the Virgin Birth\u2014a question as difficult as it is\ninteresting\u2014the writer has been glad to accept and to work out a striking\nsuggestion made by Dr. E. F. Scott (_The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and\nTheology_).\n\nOne reason for allotting three chapters to the Third Gospel is the\ncomplexity of the Lukan problem. The theory which is outlined in Chapter\nIV is one which has not yet received sufficient consideration. The\nalternative, in the opinion of the writer, is to regard the Miraculous\nConception as a \u201cnecessary stone in the structure\u201d of Lk. i, ii. It is the\ndifficulties mentioned in Chapter II which have prevented him from taking\nthis view. The writer is convinced that St. Luke believed and taught the\nVirgin Birth. Nevertheless, the critical difficulties are such that it has\nnot been found possible to accept this view in the form in which it is\ngenerally held.\n\nIt is well to remember that he who states a theory in connexion with such\nproblems contributes to their solution, whether his theory stands the test\nof time or not. Even in the case of failure the possibilities are reduced\nand a by\u2010path is revealed as such. As an illustration of this, reference\nmay be made to the view which ascribes the Virgin Birth tradition in Lk.\ni, ii to an unknown and later writer.\n\nOne chapter (Chapter V) has been assigned to the First Gospel. The\nexposition there given is one which is widely held in this country, but an\nattempt has been made to emphasize the unique character of the\nEvangelist\u2019s standpoint, which, it is believed, is the key to the textual\nproblem of Mt. i. 16. The textual problem is treated in an Appendix to the\nchapter.\n\nIt may seem strange that in Chapter VI no decided opinion is expressed for\nor against the Virgin Birth. The justification for this position is the\nfact that, in the end, the question becomes one of Theology, and that to\nattack the theological problem would be to go beyond the limited aim which\nthe present work has in view.\n\nOne result of the investigation is that the documentary evidence for the\nVirgin Birth is found to be earlier than \u201cnegative\u201d criticism has allowed.\nBut to accept this conclusion is only to be brought face to face with the\nquestion which the modern New Testament student cannot escape. \u201cWhence\ncome the sources upon which the Evangelists drew?\u201d At first sight the\nproblem seems hopeless. To recover and to describe with objectivity of\nstatement the several sources which the Evangelists employed is a task\nbeset with difficulties: to penetrate still further might well seem\nimpossible. If, however, the problem is faced bravely, with an open mind\nand an eagerness to learn, it may be that as time passes there will be\ncause to rejoice over real progress made. The journey is not the plunge\ninto the dark which it might be thought to be. If, indeed, it will bring\nmen nearer to the Jesus of history, it is a quest which cannot be refused,\nhowever great the difficulties may be.\n\nIn a subject such as this, certain things have necessarily to be taken for\ngranted. The author of the First Gospel is regarded as unknown;\naccordingly, he is spoken of as the First Evangelist or as St. \u201cMatthew\u201d.\nThe writer of the Fourth Gospel is also referred to as the Fourth\nEvangelist, the question of authorship being left open. St. Mark and St.\nLuke, the companions of St. Paul, are assumed to be the authors of the\nSecond and Third Gospels respectively; St. Luke is also believed to be the\nauthor of the Acts. The reader who does not accept these views may\nmentally substitute such phrases as the Second and Third Evangelists\nwherever St. Mark and St. Luke are mentioned. Such abbreviations as Mt.,\nMk., Lk., Jn. are always meant to refer to the Gospels, not to their\nauthors.\n\nIt only remains for the writer to express his deep sense of gratitude to\nthose to whose knowledge and help he is debtor. How much he owes to\nearlier workers in the field will be sufficiently evident. It has proved\nby no means an easy task to weigh and to differentiate between opposing\nviews, and the writer is not unmindful of his temerity, in certain places,\nin dissenting from opinions supported by justly honoured names.\n\nHe desires particularly to speak of the generous encouragement he received\nin his task from the late Dr. Sanday. Dr. Sanday had made a provisional\npromise to write a brief introduction to the present work. His lamented\ndeath has prevented the carrying out of this promise, and for the lack of\nsuch an introduction the book is so much the poorer.\n\nThe writer further wishes to express his gratitude to his former tutor,\nthe Rev. Prof. A. S. Geden, M.A., D.D., and to the Rev. J. Walthew\nSimister, for their kindness in reading the typescript, and in suggesting\nimprovements, and also to the Rev. Prof. F. Bertram Clogg, M.A., for his\nvalued assistance in the reading of the proof\u2010sheets.\n\nVincent Taylor.\n\nBATH, _September, 1920_.\n\n\n\n\n\nABBREVIATIONS\n\n\nDCG.            Hastings\u2019s _Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels_\n(1906\u20108).\n\nEB.             _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ (1899\u20101903).\n\nEvan. Da\u2010Meph.  F. C. Burkitt\u2019s _Evangelion Da\u2010Mepharreshe_ (1904).\n\nGHD.            V. H. Stanton\u2019s _The Gospels as Historical Documents_,\nParts I and II (1903\u20109).\n\nGHT.            F. C. Burkitt\u2019s _The Gospel History and its Transmission_\n(1906).\n\nGr. ii.         J. H. Moulton\u2019s _Grammar of New Testament Greek_, Vol. II\n(1919).\n\nHDB.            Hastings\u2019s _Dictionary of the Bible_ (1898\u20101904).\n\nHJ.             _The Hibbert Journal._\n\nHS.             _Horae Synopticae_, Sir John C. Hawkins (2nd ed., 1909).\n\nICC.            _The International Critical Commentary._\n\nINT.            J\u00fclicher\u2019s _Introduction to the New Testament_, Eng. Tr.\n(1904); J. Moffatt\u2019s _An Introduction to the Literature of the New\nTestament_ (3rd ed., 1918).\n\nProleg.         Vol. I of J. H. Moulton\u2019s _Grammar of New Testament Greek_\n(3rd ed., 1908).\n\nSH.             Sanday and Headlam\u2019s Commentary on _The Epistle to the\nRomans_ (ICC., 1895).\n\nTh\u2010Gr.          Thayer\u2010Grimm\u2019s _Greek\u2010English Lexicon of the New\nTestament_ (1905).\n\nVGT.            Moulton and Milligan\u2019s _The Vocabulary of the Greek\nTestament_, Parts I to III (1914\u201018).\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE NEW TESTAMENT OUTSIDE THE FIRST AND\nTHIRD GOSPELS\n\n\nOutside the First and Third Gospels there is no direct reference to the\nVirgin Birth in the New Testament. There are passages which have been said\nto imply a knowledge of the doctrine, but, for particularity of statement,\nnone of them can be compared with Mt. i. 18\u201025 and Lk. i. 34 f. This fact\nmust be our justification in the present chapter for treating together the\nNew Testament Books outside these two Gospels.\n\nThe inquiry is mainly a study in silence; it is for that reason both\ndifficult and complicated.\n\nDr. Sanday has expressed considerable distrust in the argument from\nsilence (cf. _The Criticism, of the Fourth Gospel_, pp. 33\u201041). He quotes\na striking passage from Dr. Drummond\u2019s _Character and Authorship of the\nFourth Gospel_ (p. 157 f.), in which reference is made to Theophilus of\nAntioch, who, in a defence of Christianity, relates nothing about Christ\nHimself, and maintains a remarkable silence concerning the Gospels. The\nquotation ends with the words: \u201cWe may learn from these curious facts that\nit is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things,\nsimply because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant\nwriting: or even because he does not mention them when his subject would\nseem naturally to lead him to do so.\u201d Dr. Sanday has two main objections\nto the way in which the argument from silence is often handled.\n\n\u201c(1) The critic does not ask himself _what_ is silent\u2014what extent of\nmaterial.... And (2) experience shows that the argument is often most\nfallacious\u201d (op. cit., p. 35).\n\nNothing can be lost in considering this opinion at the outset of our\ninquiry. In the connexion in which it is urged, it has very great\njustification. Dr. Sanday is referring to the paucity of references to the\nGospels in the second century previous to 170 A.D. The real question is,\nhe says, \u201cWhat is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the\nwhole body of that which once existed, and how far can we trust the\ninferences drawn from it?\u201d The available literature is confessedly small.\n\u201cIf we take the whole extant Christian literature between the years 130\nand 170 A.D., it would not fill more than a thin octavo volume, and by far\nthe greater part of that is taken up with external controversy\u201d (ib., p.\n39).\n\nThe caution suggested by these words is distinctly healthy. It may be\nquestioned, however, whether Dr. Sanday\u2019s point of view would apply quite\nso well as regards the alleged silence of so many New Testament Books with\nreference to the Virgin Birth. There are good reasons for this opinion.\n\n(1) The existing New Testament Writings represent the best Christian\nliterature of the period which they cover. No one would compare them in\nthis respect with the extant works of the first seven decades of the\nsecond century.\n\n(2) While not exhaustive in their treatment, the Gospels are faithful to\nthe outstanding events in the life of Jesus.\n\n(3) The Epistles are rich in doctrinal teaching. Occasional in point of\norigin, they impinge again and again upon the great doctrines of the\nChristian Faith. The Incarnation and the Person of Christ especially are\ncentral.\n\nIf, then, very many New Testament Writings are found to be silent as\nregards the Virgin Birth, the silence is not one which can be ignored. It\nmay in part be explained, but it must not be explained away. If it exists,\nit is not a silence which can be regarded with equanimity; it must be\nsignificant, and no pains can be spared in trying to understand that\nsignificance.\n\nWe believe, then, that the _argumentum ex silentio_ has a valid place in\nour inquiry. All the more, therefore, must we consider what the\npossibilities of silence are. Obviously, silence may be consistent with\nknowledge of a fact or lack of knowledge. But that is not all. If it\nimplies knowledge, it may mean tacit acceptance of the fact, tacit\nrejection, or comparative indifference. Lack of knowledge, on the other\nhand, may be explained by special circumstances, or by the view that the\nalleged fact is untrue.\n\nIn treating the New Testament Books outside the First and Third Gospels,\nour first task must be to determine whether their silence is complete.\nWhere this is the case, we have to try, so far as we can, to interpret the\nsilence. Each stage is, however, a further step into the unknown, and must\ntherefore be taken with increasing care and caution.\n\n\n\n\nI. St. Paul\n\n\nWe begin with ST. PAUL, the earliest New Testament writer, and the author\nof ten, if not thirteen, Epistles. Several passages have been quoted from\nhis writings, in support of the view that the Virgin Birth tradition was\nknown to him. Among these are Gal. iv. 4, Rom. i. 3, and passages in which\nSt. Paul speaks of Christ as the Second Adam, notably Rom. v. 12\u201015 and 1\nCor. xv. 47.\n\nGal. iv. 4 f. reads as follows: _But when the fulness of the time came,\nGod sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might\nredeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption\nof sons_. It is most improbable that there is here any reference to the\nVirgin Birth, or even any indication that the doctrine is known to St.\nPaul. The phrase \u201c_born of a woman_\u201d is one that is used naturally of an\nordinary human birth (cf. Job xiv. 1; and Mt. xi. 11 (Lk. vii. 28) \u201camong\nthem that are born of women\u201d). The determining consideration is, however,\nthe argument of Gal. iv. 1\u20107. St. Paul is there working out the figure of\nthe heir who is yet a minor (verses 1, 2). While we were children, he\nargues, we were in bondage (verse 3). But, when the fulness of the time\ncame, God sent forth his Son to redeem men from the law. To accomplish\nthis purpose, the Son must needs make Himself one with those He came to\ndeliver. Like them He must be \u201cborn under the law\u201d; like them He must be\n\u201cborn of a woman\u201d. The one clause asserts His position as a child of the\nJewish race; the other declares the reality of His humanity. There is not\nthe slightest suggestion of a miraculous birth.(1) Indeed, the more\nnatural impression made by the words is that of a birth common to all the\nsons of men. If St. Paul had wished to avoid giving that impression, he\ncould have done so with ease, since he was perfectly familiar with the\ndistinction between \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae (woman) and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (virgin) (cf. 1 Cor. vii.\n34).\n\nRom. i. 3 f. reads: \u201c... _his Son, who was born of the seed of David\naccording to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power,\naccording to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead_.\u201d\nHere the thought of the Virgin Birth is said to lie implicit in the\nopening words of the passage (cf. Orr, _The Virgin Birth of Christ_, pp.\n119 ff.; also Knowling, _Testimony of St. Paul to Christ_, p. 313; and\nSweet, _The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ_, p. 237 n.). Again, the\nexegesis cannot be allowed. St. Paul\u2019s words state an antithesis; they\nspeak of the Son from two standpoints, that of the body and that of the\nspirit (SH., Rom., p. 7). \u201cAccording to the flesh\u201d, He was \u201cborn\n(\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) of the seed of David\u201d, but, \u201caccording to the spirit of\nholiness\u201d, He was designated (\u1f41\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) Son of God \u201cby the resurrection\nof the dead\u201d. It is very difficult to think that the antithesis would have\nbeen stated in this way, if the Apostle had been thinking of the Virgin\nBirth. \u201cBorn of the seed of David\u201d contains no reference to the doctrine.\nThe Divine Sonship, indeed, is not mentioned until the following clause,\nand there it is said to be predicated, not in the Virgin Birth, but in the\nResurrection. Without pressing the view that \u201caccording to the flesh born\nof the seed of David\u201d implies an ordinary human birth, we may certainly\nclaim that the Miraculous Conception is a thought entirely foreign to the\npassage.\n\nA further implication of the doctrine has been found in St. Paul\u2019s thought\nof _the Second Adam_ (Rom. v. 12\u201021, 1 Cor. xv. 44\u20109). In _Dissertations_\n(new ed., p. 11), Dr. Gore writes: \u201cWhat we can maintain, with great\nboldness, is that St. Paul\u2019s conception of the \u2018Second Adam\u2019 postulates\nHis miraculous birth\u201d (cf. Box, _The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 150). In a\nquestion of this kind, we must distinguish between what the doctrine of\nthe \u201cSecond Adam\u201d may or may not \u201cpostulate\u201d in our own minds, and what\nSt. Paul\u2019s thoughts may have been. Certainly he gives us no reason to\nsuppose that the Virgin Birth was in the background of his mind when he\nwrote Rom. v. 12\u201021.(2) There would be as much justification, if not more,\nfor the contrary suggestion. So far as 1 Cor. xv. 44\u20109 is concerned\u2014(verse\n47 reads: \u201c_The second man is of heaven_\u201d)\u2014the reference is to the\nResurrection, not the Incarnation.(3)\n\nNone of these passages is sufficient to show that St. Paul was acquainted\nwith the Virgin Birth tradition, nor can any others be cited. This fact is\nthe more remarkable when we call to mind the great Pauline passages which\nbear upon the Incarnation. With the closest scrutiny, not one of them\ngives us reason to think that the Apostle knew of the Virgin Birth. This\nis true of the great Christological passage of Phil. ii. 5\u201011, and also of\nthe well\u2010known words of 2 Cor. viii. 9. Most significant in this connexion\nare Phil. ii. 7 (\u201c_Being made in the likeness of man_\u201d) and Rom. viii. 3\n(which speaks of the Son as sent \u201c_in the likeness of sinful flesh_\u201d).\nThese passages are important because they clearly imply a difference\nbetween the humanity of Christ and ordinary humanity. This\ndifference\u2014indicated by the word \u201clikeness\u201d (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1)\u2014is certainly not a\ndifference in mode of origin. Its character is manifest in Rom. viii. 3;\nit lies in the sinlessness and moral perfection of Jesus.(4) There is no\nindication that the Apostle is thinking of anything further, and the same\nis true of Phil. ii. 7. Viewing the passages as a whole, we must conclude\nthat, not only is St. Paul completely silent as to the Virgin Birth, but\nthat he is silent just where his silence is most difficult to understand,\nif he knew of the tradition.\n\nCan we go further, and say that St. Paul did not know of the doctrine?\nShort of a hard and fast conclusion, we are at liberty to state what would\nseem to be the probabilities of the case; and as regards these we can have\nlittle hesitation. It is reasonable to urge that St. Paul would have\nphrased his references to the Incarnation somewhat differently, if he had\nknown of the Virgin Birth, and that, on the whole, his words are best\nexplained by presuming his ignorance of the tradition.\n\nW. C. Allen has suggested that St. Paul\u2019s silence may have been due to\nreasons of prudence. He may have thought that the tradition would prove \u201ca\ngreat stumbling\u2010block to the progress of Christianity, and a continual\nsource of wounded feeling for the reverence of Christians for the Person\nof their Master\u201d (ICC., St. Mt., p. 20). It is possible that this argument\nmight go some way to explain the absence of direct allusions to the Virgin\nBirth in St. Paul\u2019s writings. It might cover his failure to employ the\ntradition as \u201can argument for Christianity in his preaching to the\nGentiles\u201d. But, assuredly, the theory is stretched to breaking\u2010point, if\nit is made to cover the absence of the slightest indication that the\ndoctrine was present to St. Paul\u2019s mind. For the most part, St. Paul\u2019s\nEpistles were not public manifestoes, but private letters, written to\nChristian communities. Moreover, they are intensely self\u2010revealing. They\npermit us to appreciate how much St. Paul knew of the words and deeds of\nJesus, and of the events of His earthly life. That they reveal no\nknowledge of the Virgin Birth is hardly to be explained by a policy of\nsilence. Unless, on other grounds, it can be shown that the tradition was\nknown in Apostolic circles during St. Paul\u2019s lifetime, his silence must be\ninterpreted to mean lack of knowledge concerning it.\n\nThis conclusion, if established, would not, of course, be fatal to the\nhistorical value of the Virgin Birth tradition. Special reasons might be\nforthcoming to account for the later spread of the belief. The importance\nof St. Paul\u2019s silence is that it furnishes help in deciding when the\nbelief became current.\n\nA further inference, of considerable theological importance, is that the\nApostle could build up a mature and consistent Christology, without any\nreference to, and apparently, thought of the Miraculous Conception.\n\n\n\n\nII. Q\n\n\nQ (Quelle, \u201csource\u201d) is the symbol used to denote the main documentary\nsource, upon which the First and Third Evangelists drew, in addition to\nSt. Mark\u2019s Gospel. As regards its character, there is difference of\nopinion. Some scholars identify it with the Matthaean Logia of which\nPapias speaks; others regard the latter as an independent collection of\nMessianic proof\u2010texts. By some it is thought to have been a Gospel; by\nothers it is looked upon as a collection of the Sayings of Jesus, with a\ncertain element of narrative. Wellhausen dates it later than Mk., but most\nscholars think that it is earlier, and date it from the sixties and in\nsome cases from the fifties.(5)\n\nAs regards the Virgin Birth, it is almost certain that Q did not contain\nthe tradition. Harnack thinks that Q\u2019s narrative of the Baptism, with its\nuse of Ps. ii. 7, \u201cexcludes all ideas of pre\u2010existence and miraculous\nbirth\u201d (_Sayings of Jesus_, p. 235), and J. M. Thompson, who quotes this\nopinion, finds in the Baptist\u2019s question, \u201cArt thou he that cometh?\u201d,(6) a\npassage which it is \u201chard to reconcile ... with Lk.\u2019s story of the Birth,\nas generally interpreted\u201d (_Miracles_, p. 140). What is more important\nthan either of these arguments, is the fact that neither the First nor the\nThird Evangelist drew a Virgin Birth tradition from Q. The presumption is\nthat Q was silent as regards the Virgin Birth,(7) but in view of the fact\nthat it probably contained only a small element of narrative, we ought not\nto say more.(8)\n\n\n\n\nIII. St. Mark\u2019s Gospel\n\n\nIn treating ST. MARK\u2019S GOSPEL, our first task is to ask if its silence is\ncomplete. This leads at once to a discussion of Mk. vi. 3: \u201c_Is not this\nthe carpenter, the son of Mary...?_\u201d\n\nParentage among the Jews was traced on the father\u2019s side. The passage may\ntherefore imply that Joseph was already dead. Archdeacon Allen thinks that\n\u201cson of Mary\u201d is \u201cmore naturally an allusion to the supernatural\ncircumstances of the birth of Jesus\u201d (ICC., St. Mt., p. 156).(9) Without\ngoing so far as this, Canon Box thinks that there is something \u201cdecidedly\nremarkable and unusual\u201d in the phrase, and suggests that it is probably\ncontemptuous (op. cit., p. 139).\n\nHowever we explain the phrase, we ought not to interpret Mk. vi. 3 as\nimplying a knowledge of the Virgin Birth on the part of the people of\nNazareth. Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22 directly exclude this view.(10) \u201cWho\nwould allude to the miraculous birth of somebody _as a reason for not\nbelieving in him_?\u201d (Thompson, ib., p. 138 n.).\n\nBut did the Evangelist know of the Virgin Birth? Has a knowledge of the\ndoctrine shaped his phrasing in Mk. vi. 3? The question is complicated by\ncritical considerations. It is suggested by several scholars that the\npassage, in whole or in part, is a later addition to the Second\nGospel.(11) There is much to be said for this view, but, so far as our\nimmediate purpose is concerned, we have no need to discuss it in detail.\nOn either view\u2014that of the critical theory just mentioned, or that which\nattributes the passage to the Evangelist\u2014it is improbable that St. Mark\nintended to refer to the Virgin Birth, or was influenced by the doctrine.\nOn the interpolation\u2010hypothesis, this is obvious enough, but it is also\ntrue if Mk. vi. 3 is original. The suggestions that Joseph was already\ndead, and that a certain contempt breathes in the words, have great force.\nWe may also note that the passage goes on to refer to the brothers and\nsisters of Jesus, with no suggestion that the relationship was other than\nfull and complete. But what is most telling of all is the fact that, if\nMk. vi. 3 does imply St. Mark\u2019s knowledge of the Virgin Birth, both St.\n\u201cMatthew\u201d and St. Luke, in their own narratives, have destroyed the\nreference. This is all the more remarkable if the First Evangelist\u2019s\ntreatment of Mk. vi. 3 is motived by reverence for the Person of\nJesus.(12) Finally, can we suppose that St. Mark would have placed his\nsole reference to the Virgin Birth in the lips of unbelieving Jews who\nspeak with thinly veiled contempt? For these reasons, we find it\nimpossible to discover in Mk. vi. 3 a reference to the Virgin Birth by St.\nMark; the Evangelist\u2019s silence is unbroken.\n\nWas, then, the tradition unknown to St. Mark?\n\nSeveral passages have been cited in support of the contention that St.\nMark had no knowledge of the doctrine. Among these is Mk. iii. 21, 31\u20105\n(cf. Mt. xii. 46\u201050; Lk. viii. 19\u201021). The story of Mk. iii. 31\u20105 is that\nof the coming of Mary and of the brothers of Jesus, while our Lord is\nsurrounded by a crowd, apparently in a house. When Jesus is informed that\nthey are without seeking Him, He says, \u201cWho is my mother and my\nbrethren?\u201d, and looking round upon the assembled company, He continues,\n\u201cBehold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of\nGod, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother\u201d. The account in Mt.\nis almost identical, and St. Luke\u2019s story, while much briefer, is\nsubstantially the same. But St. Mark\u2019s narrative must be read in the light\nof Mk. iii. 21 (cf. Gould, ICC., St. Mk., pp. 61, 67)\u2014a passage which is\nomitted in Mt. and in Lk. There, we are told that the friends of Jesus (\u03bf\u1f31\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, probably \u201cHis kinsmen\u201d) went out to lay hold on Him, in the\nbelief that He was mad. This fact must unquestionably be held to explain\nthe action of the family of Jesus in the incident of Mk. iii. 31\u20105, and\nthe question arises, Did Mary share in the fears and intentions of the\nrest?(13)\n\nA second passage is Mk. vi. 4, where Jesus declares that a prophet is not\nwithout honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his\nown house. The phrase \u201c_among his own kin_\u201d, which both Mt. (xiii. 57) and\nLk. (iv. 24) omit, is said to point in the same direction as Mk. iii. 21,\n31\u20105.(14) A third incident adduced is that recorded in Mk. xii. 35\u20107 (Mt.\nxxii. 41\u20106; Lk. xx. 41\u20104), where Jesus raises the question, how the\nMessiah can be at once David\u2019s Son and David\u2019s Lord. \u201cHere again\u201d, writes\nMr. Thompson, \u201cJesus assumes the reality of that human parentage on which\nHis Davidic descent relies.... Thus it appears that on three separate\noccasions (and there are no others) when Jesus, according to the earliest\nGospel, spoke about His birth, He used language naturally compatible with\nhuman parentage, and not naturally compatible with anything else\u201d (op.\ncit., p. 138).\n\nIt will be seen that these passages raise more than the question whether\nSt. Mark knew of the Virgin Birth. They raise the question of the\nknowledge of Jesus, and indeed the whole question of the historical\ncharacter of the Miraculous Conception.\n\nClearly, the question of the knowledge of Jesus is a determinative\nconsideration. Few indeed will care to argue for the Virgin Birth\ntradition, if it can be proved that Jesus knew nothing of it, but believed\nHimself to be the son of Joseph. Just for this very reason we ought to be\nscrupulously careful in treating the question. A scientific inquiry will\nhesitate to draw an inference which makes further research superfluous.\nAnd in the present case hesitation is amply justified. We cannot share Mr.\nThompson\u2019s conviction that the words of Jesus acknowledge a natural\nparentage. (1) Such exegesis must suffer an obvious discount if we find\nthat the _Evangelist_ knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. (2) We cannot be\ncertain that Mary shared the fears and intentions of her children. (3) We\ndo not know the tone in which Jesus spoke, nor can we be sure that He\nintended to repudiate His family. It may be so; but our opinion on these\nmatters must rest upon what we believe about the Virgin Birth; the\nevidence is too uncertain to reverse the process.\n\nAs regards the Evangelist, we may say at once that we could account much\nmore easily for the passages cited, if St. Mark did not know of the\ndoctrine. But it is doubtful if we can say more, so long as we confine\nourselves to what St. Mark has actually written.\n\nThere is little difficulty in the third passage (Mk. xii. 35\u20107), since\nboth Mt. and Lk. repeat it without material variation. Nor is there the\nforce claimed in the phrase \u201camong his own kin\u201d (Mk. vi. 4). In any case\nMt. has the words \u201cin his own house\u201d, and probably the omission of the\nformer phrase is sufficiently explained by the writer\u2019s tendency to remove\nredundant expressions in Mk.(15) While in the case of St. Luke, we have to\nremember that abbreviation is a common feature in his use of Markan\nmaterial.\n\nThe real difficulty lies in Mk. iii. 21, 31\u20105. Something more than a\ndesire for brevity must account for the later Evangelists\u2019 treatment of\nthis story. Mary\u2019s position and attitude are certainly left very ambiguous\nin the light of Mk. iii. 21. In the subsequent story St. Mark does not\ndistinguish her from the rest (iii. 31\u20105). In short, he leaves her open to\nthe charge of having thought her Son distraught and in need of restraint.\nOught we to find in this proof that St. Mark had no knowledge of the\nVirgin Birth? Our hesitation in drawing this conclusion arises out of the\n\u201cobjectivity\u201d of St. Mark\u2019s writing. Frequently, he does not hesitate to\nintroduce details, to which, for various reasons, St. \u201cMatthew\u201d and St.\nLuke took exception. He does not appear to feel the difficulties which the\nlater writers felt. We could not, therefore, attach the same significance\nto an \u201cinconsistency\u201d in Mk., as in Lk., or in Mt. For this reason, we\nthink that, while Mk. iii. 21, 31\u20105 raises very great difficulties, the\npassage is not sufficient in itself to prove that St. Mark knew nothing of\nthe Virgin Birth. We may say that the passage points in this direction,\nbut that the inference requires further confirmation. Can this be found?\nWe believe that it can be found in the broad fact of St. Mark\u2019s silence.\n\nThere is much greater significance in St. Mark\u2019s silence than is sometimes\nallowed. Why should he, as an Evangelist, remain silent about the Virgin\nBirth, if he knew of it, and believed in it? The deep interest which he\ntakes in the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism, and his evident\nintention to describe this event as a crucial moment in the life of Jesus,\nset up a strong presumption that, had he known of the Miraculous\nConception, he would have introduced it into his narrative. There is no\nsufficient analogy in his silence about other events in the life of Jesus\nwhich later writers record; no omission can be compared with this. Nor\nwill reasons of prudence account for his silence; the Second Gospel is\nprobably too late for this argument to have weight. There is still less\nforce in the suggestion that St. Mark\u2019s intention was to describe only the\npublic ministry of Jesus. This solution evades the difficulty, and comes\nperilously near to saying that St. Mark does not record the Virgin Birth\ntradition because he does not record it! The Second Gospel describes not\nonly the death and burial of Jesus, but also the visit of the women to the\ntomb, and probably, in its original ending, some of the Post\u2010Resurrection\nAppearances of Jesus. These facts are enough to show how inadequate it\nwould be to describe the Gospel as an account of the public ministry of\nJesus.\n\nHaving regard to all the facts of the case, the probability is that St.\nMark\u2019s silence must be explained on the ground that the Evangelist had no\nknowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition. The further implication is that\nit formed no part of Apostolic preaching, and was unknown in the circles\nin which St. Mark moved. These conclusions cannot, of course, be hardened\ninto certainties; they move in the realms of what is probable. Instead of\nbeing capable of refuting other considerations which might arise, they\nthemselves require further confirmation.\n\n\n\n\nIV. Acts\n\n\nThere is no reference to the Virgin Birth, either direct of indirect, in\nTHE ACTS. The presumption is that the doctrine had no place in Apostolic\npreaching.(16) This view is suggested, not only by the silence of Acts,\nbut also by the character of its Christology.\n\nChrist is spoken of as Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by mighty\nworks and wonders and signs (ii. 22), and as one who was anointed by God\nwith the Holy Spirit, and with power, who went about doing good (x. 38).\nHe is the Holy and Righteous One (iii. 14), the Prince of Life (iii. 15),\nwhom God made both Lord and Christ (ii. 36). He is exalted to the right\nhand of God, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to\nIsrael and remission of sins (v. 31).\n\nIn all this, the main ground of appeal is to the Resurrection (ii. 24, 32,\niii. 15, iv. 10).(17) The reference to the miracles of Jesus (ii. 22, x.\n38) is \u201cthe only direct and concrete allusion to the events of His earthly\nlife\u201d.(18) Even where the Davidic descent is mentioned (ii. 25 f., xiii.\n23, 33), there is no suggestion other than that of direct physical lineage\n(\u201cOf this man\u2019s seed hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a\nSaviour, Jesus\u201d, xiii. 23).\n\nDoes the silence of Acts permit us to draw any inferences concerning St.\nLuke\u2019s knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition? The question ought to be\nconsidered apart altogether from Lk. i, ii. Having regard to the character\nof the work we do not think that any one conclusion can safely be drawn.\nThe Acts obviously differs from the Gospels, and we cannot, as in the case\nof the Pauline Epistles, look to it for any sufficient account of the\nwriter\u2019s Christology. It would therefore be unsafe to say that the silence\nof Acts implies that its author had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth.(19)\nIf the doctrine was not a subject of Apostolic preaching, St. Luke must\nhave known this: his silence may therefore be due to a sound historical\nsense. If, at the time when he wrote the Acts, his knowledge of the\ntradition had not long been gained, he would be still less likely to\nperpetrate what would have been an historical anachronism. On the other\nhand, we cannot, on the evidence of the Acts alone, show that he did know\nof the doctrine, and that the possibilities just stated represent the\nfacts. The case is one in which the _argumentum ex silentio_ would be\nuntrustworthy in either direction. It should be emphasized that this view\nsprings entirely out of the character of the book, and in no way affects\nthe use of the argument we have made in the case of Mk. and the Epistles\nof St. Paul.\n\n\n\n\nV. The Epistle to the Hebrews\n\n\nTHE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS claims attention because of the developed\ncharacter of its doctrine of the Person of Christ, and because its writer,\nwhile not an eye\u2010witness (ii. 3), has a vivid knowledge of many events in\nthe earthly life of Jesus. As regards the Virgin Birth, the Epistle is\ncompletely silent. In the comparison with Melchizedek (vii. 1\u20103), no\nstress can be laid on the fact that the latter is described as \u201cwithout\nfather\u201d; he is also \u201cwithout mother\u201d and \u201cwithout genealogy\u201d. The\nreference to the descent of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (vii. 14) is\nleft quite bare. Even the statements concerning the sinlessness of Christ\n(iv. 15, vii. 26), and the lofty characterization of the Son as \u201cthe\neffulgence\u201d of God\u2019s glory and \u201cthe very impress of his substance\u201d (i. 3),\nare made without a word as to the method of the Incarnation. It is\ndifficult to read the Epistle without feeling that the writer\u2019s thought is\nnowhere influenced by the Virgin Birth. Especially is this the case in\nsuch passages as ii. 14 (\u201c_Since then the children are sharers_\n(\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd) _in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook\nof_ (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd) _the same_\u201d),(20) and ii. 17 (\u201c_It behoved him in all\nthings to be made like unto his brethren_\u201d). Two considerations forbid,\nhowever, the drawing of this conclusion. We have no certain knowledge of\nthe writer\u2019s identity, and we have no other work from his pen with which\nto compare the Epistle. Its significance is therefore mainly theological;\nit is an instance of an elaborate doctrinal writing,(21) coming possibly\nfrom the seventh decade of the first century, or, more probably, from\nabout the year 80 A.D., in which no reference of any kind is made to the\nMiraculous Conception. This fact, however it is explained, cannot be\nignored, and the later we date the Epistle the more important it becomes.\n\n\n\n\nVI. The Fourth Gospel\n\n\nThe silence of THE FOURTH GOSPEL regarding the Virgin Birth is now\ngenerally admitted;(22) the only question being whether there is not a\npassing reference to the doctrine in Jn. i. 13.(23)\n\nWhat the writer\u2019s silence means is one of the most difficult problems in\nthe question of the Virgin Birth. The case is different from any we have\nyet considered. For the doctrine of the Virgin Birth must have been\nperfectly well known to the Fourth Evangelist. He was well acquainted with\nthe Synoptic Gospels,(24) and there can be little doubt but that he read\nLk. i, ii, and Mt. i, ii, in the form in which we have them to\u2010day. That\nhe knew of the tradition is further confirmed by the fact that, so early\nprobably as _c._ 110 A.D., the Epistles of Ignatius contain several\nreferences to the doctrine (Eph. xviii. 2; xix. 1; Magn. 11; Tr. ix). The\ndifficulty is further increased by the freedom with which the Evangelist\ntreats the Synoptics. \u201cOn the one hand their contents are very largely\nassumed; and on the other hand the author does not hesitate, where he\nthinks it necessary, to correct them.... The author evidently felt himself\nat liberty to select just those incidents which suited his purpose\u201d\n(Sanday, _The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_, p. 71).\n\nAs the problem is usually treated, the silence of the Fourth Gospel is\nsaid to mean either \u201ctacit rejection\u201d or \u201ctacit acceptance\u201d of the\ntradition. It may be questioned, however, if these alternatives\nsufficiently cover the possibilities of the case. \u201cTacit rejection\u201d under\nany circumstances means repudiation of the doctrine. But \u201ctacit\nacceptance\u201d may mean anything from comparative indifference to whole\u2010\nhearted assent.\n\nAs containing the sharper issue, the case for \u201ctacit rejection\u201d may be\nconsidered first. Among the arguments in favour of this view, we may note\nthe following:\u2014\n\n(1) Certain passages seem to require this position. In i. 45 Jesus is\ndescribed by Philip as \u201c_the son of Joseph_\u201d, and in vi. 42 the Jews at\nCapernaum ask the question: \u201c_Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose\nfather and mother we know?_\u201d Three times, moreover, controversy turns on\nthe question of the birthplace of Jesus. The Jews look for the birthplace\nof the Messiah at Bethlehem (\u201cHath not the scripture said that the Christ\ncometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem?\u201d, vii. 42), or they\nregard it as unknown (\u201cWhen the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he\nis\u201d, vii. 27), and the objection is raised that Jesus is of Galilee (i.\n45, vii. 41 f., 52). Nowhere does the Evangelist expose the futility of\nthe controversy by a reference to Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. On\nthe contrary (it is said), he himself believed Nazareth to be the\nbirthplace, and must thus have rejected the tradition of Mt. i, ii.\n\n(2) Instead of directly repudiating a particular Synoptic narrative, the\nFourth Evangelist\u2019s method is silently to set it aside by preferring\nanother tradition or view. Is not his preference for his own Incarnation\ntheory a tacit repudiation of the Virgin Birth tradition?\n\nOf these arguments the second can be allowed only if we can show that the\nEvangelist looked upon the two doctrines, that of the Virgin Birth and\nthat of the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, as contradictory and mutually\nexclusive. It is not possible, however, to prove this, and to assume it is\nto beg the question. The stronger argument is the first. It is certainly\ndifficult to show that the language of i. 45 and vi. 42 is that of Philip\nand the Jews respectively, and that it does not reflect the Evangelist\u2019s\npoint of view. In the Fourth Gospel we are often unable to assume that the\nwriter intends to give the _ipsissima verba_ of those who speak. Are i. 45\nand vi. 42 cases in point, or are they exceptions? The question is not an\neasy one to decide, unless, of course, we have satisfied ourselves that\nthe Fourth Gospel is an entirely unhistorical work. In this case, i. 45\nand vi. 42 will represent the Evangelist\u2019s opinions. But, on this view, we\nhave largely forfeited our right to appeal to the Fourth Gospel in\ntreating the question of the Virgin Birth on its historical side. We\ncannot have it both ways. If the Fourth Gospel shows a pronounced\ndisregard of history, it is not permissible to draw historical arguments\nfrom it. It will have (on this view) an important bearing on the\nhistorical question from the theological side; but, as a primary\nhistorical authority, it must disappear. If, on the other hand, we\nadmit\u2014as we have good reason to admit\u2014the presence of a considerable\nelement of valuable historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel, it is by no\nmeans certain that i. 45 and vi. 42 represent the Evangelist\u2019s views. As\nin the case of Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22, these passages may indicate\ncontemporary opinions and no more. This view is less easy to hold in the\ncase of i. 45 and vi. 42 than it is in respect of the Synoptic passages;\nbut it is a possibility not lightly to be set aside. And if this is so, we\ncannot with confidence urge that in i. 45 and vi. 42 the Fourth Evangelist\nrepudiates the Virgin Birth.\n\nAs regards the passages which connect Jesus with Nazareth and Galilee, it\nis not necessary to infer that the writer looked upon the town as the\nbirthplace of our Lord. His silence regarding Bethlehem is strange, but it\ndoes not compel us to conclude that he is rejecting the tradition bound up\nwith Mt. i, ii, as Mr. Thompson thinks (op. cit., p. 158).(25) The more\nimportant fact is that the Evangelist does not name _any town_, not even\nNazareth, as the birthplace of the Eternal Word.\n\nThe view that the Fourth Evangelist tacitly rejects the Virgin Birth fails\nto justify itself on internal grounds. It is also opposed by\nconsiderations of an _external_ character. It is from the locality in\nwhich probably the Fourth Gospel arose, that we have the earliest\nreferences to the Virgin Birth outside the New Testament. Ignatius,\naccording to Dr. Moffatt (INT., p. 211), seems \u201cto fuse the Johannine idea\nof the incarnation with the synoptic birth\u2010stories\u201d. If this is so, the\nfact does not compel us to suppose that the Fourth Evangelist would have\ndone the same; but it raises a strong presumption against the view that he\nexplicitly rejected the tradition.\n\nMust we then suppose that the Evangelist\u2019s silence means \u201ctacit\nacceptance\u201d of the doctrine? Obviously, the failure to prove \u201ctacit\nrejection\u201d tells so far in the opposite direction. But, as we have seen,\n\u201ctacit acceptance\u201d is a very elastic term; it calls, therefore, for closer\nconsideration.\n\nIt can scarcely be shown that the Fourth Evangelist accepts the Virgin\nBirth in the same way in which it is held in Mt. i, ii. There is no\nsufficient answer to this assertion in the plea that the story had been\nalready told, and that the Evangelist\u2019s purpose was to supplement the\nSynoptic narratives. This is a view of the Fourth Gospel which cannot be\ncarried through. It is better to suppose that the Evangelist\u2019s omission of\nthe Virgin Birth tradition has a more definite meaning, even though we\nreject the view that its significance is silent repudiation of the\ndoctrine. We have also to find a place in our solution of the problem for\nthe difficulties left over in i. 45 and vi. 42, and in the Evangelist\u2019s\nfailure to name the birthplace of Jesus. In other words, arguments\ninsufficient to prove \u201ctacit rejection\u201d cannot on that account be ignored.\nThey must rather be held to condition the sense in which we speak of\n\u201ctacit acceptance\u201d.\n\nThe Evangelist\u2019s silence regarding the Virgin Birth can only be understood\nwhen it is considered along with his other notable \u201comissions\u201d. It is one\nof \u201ca whole series of episodes, cardinal to the Synoptic story\u201d (Scott,\n_Fourth Gospel_, p. 42). This series includes the Genealogy, the Virgin\nBirth, the Baptism, the Temptation, the Transfiguration, the Supper, the\nAgony, the Ascension. The true explanation is probably that given by Dr.\nE. F. Scott: \u201cThese remarkable omissions ... cannot be due to oversight or\nto the leaving out of what was non\u2010essential. Without doubt they have been\nmade deliberately, in view of certain theories and presuppositions with\nwhich the writer approached his subject\u201d (ib., p. 42 f.). These words set\nus on the right track. The Evangelist\u2019s silence does not mean that he\nrejected the Virgin Birth tradition. The Synoptic birth\u2010stories were more\nprobably accepted by him \u201cas a part of the orthodox tradition, in which,\nas a member of the Church, he acquiesced\u201d (ib., p. 188). His doctrinal\nsympathies, however, lay in another direction. It may be that at the time\nwhen he first heard of the Virgin Birth tradition, his doctrine of the\nIncarnate Word had already shaped itself in his mind. Jesus Christ was the\nEternal Son of God, the Word made flesh, who became incarnate by His own\nvoluntary act. The fact that his own theological scheme was already\ndeveloped, together with its specific character,(26) may well account for\nhis neglect of the Virgin Birth. _He does not deny the story, but his own\nChristology has superior spiritual attractions._\n\nIt will be seen that this theory leaves little room for difficulties\narising from such passages as i. 45 and vi. 42, and explains at once the\nEvangelist\u2019s attitude to the question of the birthplace of Jesus. On the\none hand, the doctrinal presuppositions of the Virgin Birth were not\noperative in his mind; on the other hand, in the light of his doctrine of\nthe Logos, the difficulties mentioned would scarcely be felt. The Jewish\ncontroversies must have seemed to him so much playing with words. What did\nit matter where the Word became flesh? What did it matter if men called\nHim Joseph\u2019s son?\n\nOur conclusion, then, is that the Fourth Evangelist tacitly accepts the\nVirgin Birth, but gives it no place in his doctrinal system. With the\ntheological significance of this result we are not now concerned. Our\npresent interest is rather in its historical implications. On the positive\nside, it yields little; on the negative side, its importance is greater.\nIt is not permissible to argue against the Virgin Birth tradition on the\nground that the Fourth Evangelist rejected it. We may go further and say\nthat, having regard to his evident preoccupation with the Logos\u2010doctrine,\nit may not even be safe to make too much of the fact that he ignored the\ntradition.\n\n\n\n\nVII. The Pastoral and the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse\n\n\nOf the New Testament Writings, other than the First and Third Gospels,\nthere remain THE PASTORAL AND THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE.\nWhether _the Pastoral Epistles_ are the work of St. Paul or not, their\nsilence regarding the Virgin Birth cannot be pressed. 1 Tim. iii. 16\n(probably a fragment from an early Christian hymn) may or may not be\nsignificant in its silence; but, in either direction, the inference would\nbe unsafe. These writings are much too brief and restricted in subject\u2010\nmatter to leave room for the argument from silence. The same view is also\ntrue of _the Catholic Epistles_. _The Apocalypse_ contains one passage\n(xii) which has been thought to indicate the writer\u2019s knowledge of the\ndoctrine,(27) but the inference is far from being certain, and, in any\ncase, in view of the date of the Book, it would add nothing to our\nknowledge which cannot be learnt more clearly elsewhere.\n\n\n\n\nVIII. Summary\n\n\nWe may summarize the historical results reached in the present chapter as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n1. _There is no certain instance of a New Testament writer who knew of the\nVirgin Birth tradition, and yet repudiated it._ It is more than doubtful\nif an exception can be found even in the case of the Fourth Gospel, though\nthe Evangelist makes no doctrinal use of the tradition. If the author of\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews knew of the doctrine, the same is probably true\nof that writer also.\n\n2. _The doctrine had no place in the subject\u2010matter of Apostolic\npreaching._ This view is supported by all the available evidence. The\nsilence of the Pauline Epistles, of the Acts, and of the Second Gospel can\nbe explained in no other way.\n\n3. _The tradition was not a matter of public knowledge during the period\ncovered in common by the Pauline Epistles, the Second Gospel, and Q._\n\n4. _It is also probable that the same conclusion should be extended to the\nperiod covered by the Second Gospel alone, if this Book is dated later\nthan St. Paul\u2019s lifetime, as it usually is._\n\nUntil we have examined the Virgin Birth tradition reflected in the First\nand Third Gospels, it would not be right to discuss these results further,\nexcept to say that an historical argument against the Virgin Birth based\non these conclusions alone would be precarious. The chief importance of\nthe results reached is the help they furnish in deciding when belief in\nthe Virgin Birth first became current.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE THIRD GOSPEL\n\n\nThe question to be discussed in this chapter needs careful definition.\nWhat we wish to discover, if possible, is whether the Virgin Birth is an\noriginal element in the Third Gospel. This question is not without a\ncertain ambiguity. It is sometimes taken as if it were equivalent to the\nfurther question, Did St. Luke teach the Virgin Birth? It is clear that\nthese questions are closely connected; nevertheless, they are distinct,\nand should be kept distinct. The difference is at once apparent if, for\npurposes of argument, we assume that the doctrine really does belong to a\nlater stratum in the Gospel. In this case, all the references to the\ntradition must have been inserted, either (i) by an unknown reader,\neditor, or scribe, or (ii) by St. Luke himself. In either case, the Virgin\nBirth would be a later element in the Gospel; but the two senses in which\nthis could be true are clearly very different.\n\nBefore one could say that St. Luke did not teach the Virgin Birth, it\nwould be necessary to show that he did not write the passage Lk. i. 34\nf.,(28) and this is a point which cannot be determined by arguments\nderived from the context and subject\u2010matter alone. Such arguments may, or\nmay not, be able to prove that the doctrine is a later element, but they\ncannot show that it is a non\u2010Lukan element. This is a second and distinct\nstep, which is not justified until the textual and the linguistic facts\nhave been examined. Then, and then only, can we say if St. Luke taught the\nVirgin Birth.\n\nIn the present chapter all questions of a linguistic character will be\nleft aside. Lk. i. 34 f. is perfectly susceptible of the linguistic test,\nand this will be applied in its proper place. The only arguments we shall\nconsider at present will be those which arise out of matters of context\nand subject\u2010matter. In the light, then, of the principle laid down above,\nthe question whether St. Luke taught the Virgin Birth, does not yet\nproperly arise. The only question we have to consider at this stage is\nwhether the Virgin Birth is an original element in the Third Gospel,\ninterpreting that question in its strictest and barest sense.\n\nThe distinction we have drawn is perfectly obvious when it is pointed out.\nAt the same time, one cannot read the literature which treats of the Third\nGospel in relation to the Virgin Birth, without feeling how frequently the\npoint has been neglected. The assumption, that, if the Virgin Birth is\nfound to be a later element in the Gospel, we must straightway have\nrecourse to the hypothesis of non\u2010Lukan interpolation, runs through the\nwritings of critics of all schools like a refrain. Its presence in the\narguments of those who deny the Virgin Birth is often sufficiently clear.\nBut the same assumption is also tacitly made by many critics on the other\nside. It would be ungenerous, and perhaps unwarranted, to suggest that\nthis assumption has prevented many orthodox writers from doing justice to\nthe objections which have been raised against the view that the doctrine\nwas present in the Gospel from the very first. That its effects have been\nharmful in the interests of dispassionate investigation, is, however,\nhardly open to question. In the treatment which follows, an attempt will\nbe made to avoid this fallacy, and to keep the discussion within the\nlimits which are proper to itself.\n\nThe material to be examined is found for the most part in the first two\nchapters of the Gospel, and consists (1) of certain narratives and\npassages, which apparently are inconsistent with the view that the author\nwrote with a knowledge of the Virgin Birth, and (2) of the passage i. 34\nf., which implies the doctrine, but is believed by many scholars to be a\nlater insertion. Outside chaps. i and ii, the only passages which call for\nnotice are iii. 22, iii. 23, and iv. 22.\n\nWe may say at once that we have few new arguments to bring forward. The\ncontentions we have to examine are familiar to every one who studies the\nquestion of the Virgin Birth. They have been brilliantly stated in two\nwell\u2010known articles in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, one by P. W. Schmiedel\n(on \u201cMary\u201d), and the other by Usener (\u201cNativity\u201d). In a review (HJ., vol.\ni, no. 1, p. 164), Dr. Moffatt justly describes these articles as\n\u201ccompetent and first\u2010rate essays, which deserve alert recognition\u201d. But\nboth these articles not only deny that the Virgin Birth was an original\nelement in the Third Gospel, but also that St. Luke, the companion of St.\nPaul, ever taught that doctrine\u2014and this without any linguistic\nexamination of the passage i. 34 f. They provide, in fact, a clear\nillustration of the point we have already discussed. Inasmuch, then, as\nour purpose is to consider the question, Was the Virgin Birth an original\nelement in the Third Gospel?, interpreted in its strictest terms, we shall\nneed to state and weigh the arguments afresh. This is the more desirable,\nbecause, in the form in which these scholars present their case, each\nargument is put forward with an assurance and a finality which\nindividually it does not merit. It is the cumulative force of a number of\narguments, each of which has strong presumptive value, which ultimately\ncarries conviction; not a series of arguments each of which is conclusive\nin itself. We do not suppose, of course, that a writer like Schmiedel\nwould deny anything so obvious as this. Nevertheless, very many English\nreaders feel that his several arguments are stated too much in the light\nof the result. Moreover, they appear to be shaped by presuppositions which\nare themselves fatal to the Virgin Birth. In the present treatment of the\nquestion, an attempt will be made to assign to each argument its proper\nforce, to observe its limitations as well as its cogency. The result\nsought is not a conclusion to which we can append a triumphant Q. E. D.,\nbut that hypothesis, whatever it be, which best explains the observed\nfacts taken as a whole.\n\n\n\n\nI. Narratives and Passages Said to be Inconsistent With the View\n\n\nOur first task must be to examine _those narratives and passages in the\nThird Gospel which are said to be irreconcilable with the view that St.\nLuke wrote in the belief that Jesus was miraculously conceived of the\nVirgin Mary by the Holy Ghost_. What we have to ask is whether or not they\nare consistent with that supposition. We begin with Lk. iii. 22.\n\n\n\n(a) Lk. iii. 22, according to the \u201cWestern Text\u201d\n\n\nIn the great majority of existing MSS. this passage reads as in the RV.,\n\u201cThou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased\u201d. But in Codex Bezae,\nsupported by Old Latin MSS. and by quotations in Justin and Clement, the\npassage reads, \u201c_Thou art my Son: to\u2010day have I begotten Thee_\u201d. Blass\n(_Philology of the Gospels_, p. 168 f.) believes this to be the genuine\nLukan reading, and explains the common text as \u201ca product of assimilation\nto the other Gospels\u201d. Usener (EB., col. 3348) also accepts the \u201cWestern\u201d\nreading, and says, \u201cThus the passage in Lk. was read, in the Greek Church\ndown to about 300 A.D. and in the Latin West down to and beyond 360 A.D.\u201d\nDr. Moffatt (INT., 3rd ed., p. 269) goes so far as to say that the Lukan\nreading \u201cundoubtedly was \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f37 \u03c3\u03cd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5\u201d. He\nfollows this reading in his _Translation of the New Testament_, and says\n(p. 74), \u201cIn the other MSS. it has been altered, for harmonistic reasons\u201d.\nThese opinions, and the arguments upon which they rest, have great weight.\nIf the \u201cWestern\u201d reading is accepted, a strong presumption is set up\nagainst the view that the Third Gospel originally contained the Virgin\nBirth; for it is very difficult to believe that the hand which wrote, \u201cTo\u2010\nday have I begotten Thee\u201d, had already described the miraculous birth.\n(Cf. also Harnack, _Sayings_, pp. 310 ff.)\n\nAt first sight Blass\u2019s argument would seem to show a way of escape from\nthis conclusion. He defends the \u201cWestern\u201d reading by showing the close\nconnexion which it has with the following verse. \u201cThe \u2018_to\u2010day_ have I\nbegotten Thee\u2019 stands in opposition to the \u2018thirty years\u2019, and the \u2018Thou\nart _my_ Son\u2019 likewise to \u2018being as was supposed the son of _Joseph_\u2019 \u201d\n(op. cit., p. 169). The phrase \u201cas was supposed\u201d (verse 23) will fall to\nbe discussed next. Meanwhile we may observe that the connexion which Blass\nnotes is actually strengthened if what St. Luke originally wrote was\n\u201cbeing the son of Joseph\u201d. This is the real point in the parallelism, as\nBlass himself indicates by printing the name Joseph in italics.\n\nIf the \u201cWestern\u201d reading is to be accepted, a very interesting question\narises as regards St. Luke\u2019s conception of the Baptism of Jesus. There is\nno need to suppose that he looked upon it as the occasion of the imparting\nof the Divine Sonship. If the connexion which Blass notes be allowed, it\nis probably purely literary, and the form in which St. Luke reports the\nlogion is determined by his recollection of Ps. ii. 7.(29) There is no\nintention, that is to say, on his part, of describing an act of\ndeification or even adoption. But if the connexion is literary, we return\nagain to the question, Can we think that St. Luke would have written the\npassage in this form, if he had already described the miraculous birth?\nCan we explain his deliberate preference for the language of Ps. ii. 7?\nThe answer is, we feel bound to say, It is difficult, if it is not\nimpossible. The force of this argument rests, nevertheless, upon the\nconfidence with which we can accept the \u201cWestern\u201d reading; and while the\npresent writer would favour that reading himself, he recognizes that its\nattestation is not such as to compel acceptance. Moffatt\u2019s claim that it\n\u201cundoubtedly was\u201d the Lukan reading is too strong. The most we can say is\nthat it has great, if not very great, probability in its favour.\n\n\n\n(b) The Lukan Genealogy and Lk. iii. 23\n\n\nIt will be best at this point to consider the question of the Lukan\nGenealogy, and also the passage to which attention has just been called:\n\u201cbeing the son (as was supposed) of Joseph\u201d (RV.).\n\nAn examination of the Genealogy reveals the fact that it is artificially\nconstructed, it is an arrangement of names in multiples of seven (cf.\nSanday, _Outlines_, p. 202). The whole list contains seventy\u2010seven names.\nFrom Adam to Abraham there are twenty\u2010one names (7 x 3); from Isaac to\nDavid fourteen names (7 x 2), if we include, as we probably should, the\nname Admin, as in the RV. margin; from Nathan to Shealtiel twenty\u2010one\nnames; and from Zerubbabel to Christ twenty\u2010one names. Not only is this\nso, but in order to preserve the symbolic arrangement, names are repeated\nand omitted. Thus in verse 36, the compiler has preferred the LXX to the\nHebrew. This permits the name Cainan to be introduced into the Genealogy\ntwice, as the son of Arphaxad in verse 36, and again as the son of Enos in\nverse 37. No Hebrew MS. mentions Cainan as the son of Arphaxad. Again, in\nthe list from Isaac to David, the name Ram (cf. 1 Chron. ii. 10 and Ruth\niv. 19) is omitted, and in its place the two names Admin and Arni appear.\nWhatever be the explanation of these facts, it is significant that in this\nway the symmetrical arrangement is preserved.\n\nIt is not probable that a Genealogy of such an artificial character was\nconstructed by St. Luke himself. He shows no predilection for symbolic\nnumbers in his writings, and does not indeed appear to observe this\nfeature in the list. (Cf. Sanday, op. cit., p. 202, and contrast Mt. i.\n17.) Probably he found the Genealogy ready to hand. The fact that it\ntraces the descent to Adam may have appealed to him, in view of his own\nbent of mind, and it may have been this feature in the list which led him\nto incorporate it in his Gospel. The words \u201cthe son of God\u201d with which the\nlist ends, may be due to St. Luke himself, \u201cadded for the sake of Gentile\nreaders, to remind them of the Divine origin of the human race\u201d (Plummer,\nICC., St. Luke, p. 105)\u00b7\n\nIt does not seem likely that the Genealogy in its original form, in the\nform, that is to say, in which St. Luke found it, contained the words\nwhich now stand in iii. 23, \u201c_as was supposed_\u201d. It is generally allowed\nat the present day that the Genealogies, both in the First Gospel and in\nthe Third, trace the ancestry of Jesus through Joseph. But unlike the\nMatthaean Genealogy, that in Lk. gives us no reason to suppose that\n_legal_ descent only is traced in it. It is therefore difficult to believe\nthat its author intended to construct a chain of descent in which the\nvital link should contain the words, \u201cas was supposed\u201d. These words more\nnaturally give the impression of being a later insertion intended to adapt\nthe Genealogy to a new situation. For our present purpose the important\nquestion is, Are these words the words of St. Luke?, and what is still\nmore vital, At what point, if Lukan, were they inserted in the\nGenealogy,\u2014when it was first incorporated in the Gospel, or at some\nsubsequent time? If from the first they stood where they now stand, it is\nobvious that the Third Gospel taught the Virgin Birth from the beginning.\nIf, on the other hand, they were added after the Gospel was written (or\nits earlier chapters), this supports the view that the doctrine is a later\nelement.\n\nThe data at present at our disposal do not enable us to decide between\nthese alternatives. We may argue _a priori_ that it is unlikely that St.\nLuke would have thought it worth while to introduce the Genealogy at all,\nif at the time when he wove it into his Gospel he had realized the\nnecessity of interpolating the words \u201cas was supposed\u201d. In other words, we\nmay say that had he known of the Virgin Birth from the first he would\nnever have made use of the Genealogy. And further, we may argue that we\nbest conserve St. Luke\u2019s reputation as a skilful writer by supposing the\nphrase \u201cas was supposed\u201d to be a correction, introduced to make the best\nof a Genealogy, used in the first place under presuppositions which new\ninformation had now led him to discard. Short of excising the Genealogy\naltogether\u2014we may say\u2014he did the best he could. But such speculations,\nhowever attractive, do not lead to a conclusion which we can regard with\nconfidence. It is better to leave iii. 23 to depend upon the conclusion to\nwhich we come with regard to i. 34 f. This is the crucial passage, and if\nthis should prove to be a later insertion, then iii. 23 must also be\nregarded as such, introduced by the same hand at the same time and for the\nsame reasons.\n\n\n\n(c) The Narratives of Lk. ii\n\n\nWe have now to examine the narratives of Lk. ii, and to ask, _Under what\npresuppositions were they shaped?_ The incidents which call for special\nnotice are the Purifying, the meeting with Simeon in the Temple, and the\nvisit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the age of twelve. The five passages which\nspeak of \u201cthe parents\u201d of Jesus will be considered separately. There is no\nneed to dwell on the story of the visit of the shepherds. It goes without\nsaying that it nowhere presupposes the Virgin Birth. On the other hand,\nthere is nothing in the presentation of the story which is alien to the\ndoctrine.\n\nTurning to the story of the Purifying in Lk. ii. 22\u20104, we are met by the\nquestion, What are we to understand by the phrase \u201c_their purification_\u201d\n(ii. 22)? Attempts have been made to take the pronoun as referring to the\nmother and the child, but, in view of the construction of the passage,\nthis exegesis is impossible. Joseph and Mary are clearly the unexpressed\nsubject of the verb in the sentence in which the pronoun \u201ctheir\u201d occurs\n(\u201cAnd when the days of _their_ purification ... were fulfilled, _they_\nbrought him up to Jerusalem\u201d). Schmiedel holds that the word \u201ctheir\u201d\nrefers to Joseph and Mary,(30) and without doubt this opinion is correct.\nBut if this is so, is it probable that St. Luke had the thought of a\nvirgin birth in the background of his mind when he first penned the\nphrase? Is not the pronoun one which we may think he would have been\nanxious to avoid? Nor was there any need for him to introduce it, since,\naccording to the Levitical law, it was only the mother who was made\nunclean by a birth (cf. Lev. xii). Schmiedel, who calls attention to this\nfact, thinks that the writer has made \u201can archaeological error\u201d. \u201cThis\nerror serves to show that the writer regarded Joseph as the actual father\nof Jesus; otherwise he could not have thought of him at all as unclean\u201d\n(EB., col. 2955). Even if we think that Schmiedel\u2019s remorseless logic is\ntoo confidently applied, the fact remains that St. Luke\u2019s pronoun is as\nunnecessary as it is ambiguous. The difficulty of the expression is not\nfelt by the modern mind alone. It is reflected in two subsequent textual\nalterations. Instead of \u201ctheir purification\u201d, the Codex Bezae reads \u201chis\npurification\u201d, and the Sin. Syr. MS., together with the cursive 76, has\nthe pronoun \u201cher\u201d. The textual evidence forbids us to accept the reading\n\u201cher purification\u201d, but this is assuredly the phrase we should expect a\nwriter to use who has just told the story of a virgin birth.\n\nIn the two remaining stories, that of the meeting with Simeon, and that of\nthe visit of Jesus to Jerusalem, there is a common element which provokes\nreflection in _the surprise of Joseph and Mary_. In reference to the\nprophecy of Simeon concerning Jesus, we are told that they \u201c_were\nmarvelling at_\u201d the things that were said (ii. 33). We can readily account\nfor this remark, if St. Luke had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth at the\ntime of writing, for the prophecy of Simeon transcends that of the angelic\nannouncement of i. 31\u20103. Whereas the latter does not leave the soil of\nIsrael, the former speaks of a revelation to the Gentiles. We could say,\nthen, that the wider scope of the prophecy of Simeon provides room for\nwonder. But can we say this if St. Luke believed Mary to have received the\nannouncement of a virgin birth, which, moreover, had been fulfilled? Would\nhe have thought any prophecy called for wonder after such facts as these?\nThe same difficulty arises in the story of the visit to the Temple. After\nSt. Luke has recorded the pregnant words of Jesus, \u201cWist ye not that I\nmust be in my Father\u2019s house?\u201d, he writes: \u201c_And they understood not the\nsaying which he spake unto them_\u201d (ii. 50). If, in this case, as\ndistinguished from ii. 33, the Evangelist had said that they marvelled,\nthe difficulty would be less great. It might then have been argued that,\ninasmuch as the facts of His birth had not been made known to the boy\nJesus, there was room for wonder that already He should have attained to\nsuch a consciousness of filial relationship to God. But to say that they\ndid not understand His words is an astonishing statement on the part of a\nwriter who believes the Virgin Birth. On the other hand, it is a perfectly\nnatural remark, if we can presume the Evangelist to have written in the\nabsence of such a belief.(31)\n\nSpeaking of the narratives of Lk. ii, as a whole, we may say that, apart\nfrom the references to \u201cthe parents\u201d, which remain to be considered,\ndistinct difficulties are raised if we must believe that St. Luke knew of\nthe Virgin Birth at the time when he first wrote the chapter, and that\ngreater justice can be done to the narratives if we can presume him to\nhave written them without that knowledge. How far this view is supported\nby the five passages which speak of Joseph and Mary, we have now to\nconsider.\n\n\n\n(d) The References to Joseph and Mary in Lk. ii\n\n\nThese passages are as follows: ii. 27, \u201c_the parents_\u201d; ii. 41 and 43,\n\u201c_his parents_\u201d; ii. 33, \u201c_his father and his mother_\u201d; and ii. 48, \u201c_thy\nfather and I_\u201d. The point to be considered is whether we can suppose St.\nLuke to have known of the Virgin Birth at the time when he used these\nexpressions.\n\nThe last passage (ii. 48) differs from the rest, and should not be\npressed. It is reasonable to urge that, in addressing the boy Jesus, Mary\nwould naturally speak in this way, even if the Virgin Birth is\nhistorically true; and that it is conceivable that St. Luke, while himself\nholding the doctrine, should have been so far faithful to his sources as\nto preserve Mary\u2019s words in this form.\n\nIn this respect the four passages which remain are quite different, _in\nthat they are expressions which St. Luke himself employs_. This gives them\na distinctive character which has often been overlooked. It has been too\nfrequently assumed that these passages are of like character to those\nwhich belong to the story of Jesus at the synagogue at Nazareth. In this\nincident the Jews speak of Jesus as \u201cthe carpenter\u2019s son\u201d (Mt. xiii. 55.\nCf. Mk. vi. 3, \u201cthe carpenter, the son of Mary\u201d). St. Luke, who records\nthe same incident, but perhaps follows a special source of his own (Lk.\niv. 16 ff.), gives the question in the form, \u201cIs not this Joseph\u2019s son?\u201d\nWith regard to these passages, it is open to any one to urge that in them\nwe have instances of the accuracy with which the Gospels record\ncontemporary beliefs, which were natural but erroneous. The language of\nthe Jews, it may be said, is justified by ignorance of the true facts, and\nits retention by Evangelists who teach the Virgin Birth is evidence of\ntheir fidelity to detail. This is a reasonable argument, and it cannot be\ngainsaid, until the whole question has been faced (again, as in the case\nof ii. 48). But the four passages in Lk. ii stand upon an entirely\ndifferent footing. In these passages it is not a question of what is\njustified by ignorance, but of what is possible in the light of knowledge.\nAssuming that we have to do with a writer who believes Jesus to be the son\nof Mary by the direct operation of the Holy Ghost, we have to ask whether,\nbelieving this, and having (on this assumption) just stated this very\nthing, that writer would be at all likely to speak of \u201cthe parents\u201d, \u201chis\nparents\u201d, and, indeed, to use an expression so definite as \u201chis father and\nhis mother\u201d. In short, granting that St. Luke has recorded the language of\nthe Nazarenes, can we suppose that he would have used the same language\nhimself in the light of the Virgin Birth? It is not as if these modes of\nspeech were indispensable. The words \u201cJoseph and Mary\u201d could easily have\nbeen employed, and in this way all danger of ambiguity removed. In the\nface of a fact so unique as a virgin birth, one would expect an effort to\navoid ambiguity; all the more, in the case of a writer, with whose apt\nchoice of words and delicacy of expression scholars like Ramsay and\nHarnack have made us familiar.\n\nIn saying this we are not guilty of imposing modern canons of accuracy\nupon an ancient writer. The difficulties we ourselves feel have long been\nfelt. \u201cIt is very noteworthy that six old Latin codices in ii. 41 have\n_Ioseph et Maria_ for \u2018his parents\u2019 (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6); most uncials in ii.\n33 substitute \u2018Joseph\u2019 (\u1f41 \u03b9\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c6) for \u2018his father\u2019 (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6)\u201d\n(Schmiedel, EB., col. 2955). None of these readings can claim, of course,\nto be original, since admittedly they represent attempts to remove\ndifficulties. Their significance lies in the fact that they indicate that\nthose difficulties have long been felt. They show that we are not asking\nan ancient writer to conform to modern standards, when we assert that St.\nLuke has expressed himself with an ambiguity which it is difficult, if not\nimpossible, to understand, if he wrote from the first in the knowledge of\nthe Virgin Birth.\n\nThe impression made by the narratives of Lk. ii is thus deepened and\nconfirmed by the several references to Joseph and Mary.\n\n\n\n(e) Lk. ii. 5\n\n\nThe bearing of the facts examined thus far is in the direction of showing\nthe Virgin Birth to belong to a later stratum in the Gospel. One passage\nin Lk. ii might seem to invalidate this view. In the Revised Version,\nverse 5 reads: \u201c_to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him,\nbeing great with child_\u201d. These words, if they must stand, imply that the\nVirgin Birth is known to the writer. But, apart altogether from the\nhistorical character of the miracle, it is highly probable that we ought\nto read: \u201c_with Mary his wife_\u201d.(32) This is the reading of the Sinaitic\nSyriac and of the Old Latin MSS. a, b, c; and the word \u201cwife\u201d together\nwith \u201cbetrothed\u201d, also appears in AC2\u0393\u0394\u039b, l, q*, Syrp, vulg., goth., aeth.\n(Moffatt, INT., p. 269). There is much to be said for the view that this\nis one of the cases in which \u201cWestern\u201d readings, where Old Syriac and Old\nLatin MSS. agree, probably preserve an original text.(33) When we add the\nargument of transcriptional probability, it is difficult to resist this\nconclusion. One can easily understand how the reading \u201cwith Mary his wife\u201d\ncould come to be altered to \u201cwith Mary, who was betrothed to him\u201d by those\nwho imagined that the former was inconsistent with the Virgin Birth. But,\nif the words \u201cwith Mary, who was betrothed to him\u201d stood in the primitive\ntext, can we give any satisfactory explanation of the change? When we\nconsider that from New Testament times the Virgin Birth was part of the\nfaith of the Church, questioned by few save the Ebionites and some of the\nGnostic sects, the supposition that \u201cwith Mary his wife\u201d is a later\ncorruption, becomes improbable in the extreme. It is hardly sufficient to\nadopt Plummer\u2019s suggestion, that \u201cthe \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03af of A. Vulg. Syr. and Aeth.\nis a gloss, but a correct one\u201d (op. cit., p. 53). Must we not find more\nthan a gloss? Moreover, is this a satisfactory explanation of the Sin.\nSyr. and of those Old Latin MSS. which have \u201cwife\u201d without \u201cbetrothed\u201d? We\nshould probably conclude that in this instance the \u201cWestern\u201d reading,\nsupported by transcriptional probability, must outweigh the evidence of\neven the great uncials, and that what St. Luke wrote was \u201cwith Mary his\nwife\u201d.\n\nIf this view is sound, the verse in itself is not necessarily inconsistent\nwith the Virgin Birth, since it may reasonably be urged that it carries us\nno further than Mt. i. 24, where the marriage is implied.(34) If this fact\nis put forward in a narrative which expressly teaches the Virgin Birth, it\ncould be so here. The phrase \u201cwith Mary his wife\u201d is certainly congruous\nwith the view that the doctrine is a later element in the Third Gospel,\nbut it would be improper to employ it in support of that view. (The case\nis like those of ii. 48, iv. 22.) But even if we must leave the question\nopen, at any rate we have no longer to reckon with the words, \u201cwith Mary,\nwho was betrothed to him\u201d. There is nothing, therefore, in the verse which\nis in conflict with the view that St. Luke had no knowledge of the Virgin\nBirth when he first wrote his Gospel.\n\nBefore leaving this part of the subject it may be well to recall the\nnature of the argument. The several points treated are not regarded as\ncontentions which inexorably demand a certain conclusion, but as distinct\ndifficulties, greater or less, which arise, on the view that St. Luke knew\nof the Virgin Birth from the first. We may fairly say that the facts\nexamined thus far would be best satisfied by considering the Virgin Birth\nas a later element in the Gospel; but, until we have investigated the\nimportant passage Lk. i. 34 f., it would be precarious to say more.\n\n\n\n\nII. The Passage Lk. i. 34 f\n\n\nIn the Revised Version Lk. i. 34f. reads as follows: \u201c_And Mary said unto\nthe angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (35) And the angel\nanswered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the\npower of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is\nto be born shall be called holy, the Son of God._\u201d As regards the last\nclause, the margin gives the alternative rendering: \u201cthe holy thing which\nis to be born shall be called the Son of God\u201d. The difference rests upon a\nquestion of punctuation in the Greek, and does not affect our immediate\nproblem.\n\nOur purpose in this section is to inquire how far the view, which is\nwidely held, that Lk. i. 34 f. is a later insertion is justified. But two\nimportant questions must detain us first. (_a_) Is the assumption we have\nmade thus far, that Lk. i. 34 f. implies the Virgin Birth, tenable? What\nis the true interpretation of the passage? (_b_) What is the purport of\nthe angelic announcement in Lk. i. 30\u20103? Is Dr. Plummer\u2019s language\njustified, when, in reference to this message, he speaks of \u201cthe strange\ndeclaration that she [Mary] is to have a son before she is married\u201d (op.\ncit., p. 24)? Is there any suggestion of a virgin birth?\n\n\n\n(a) The Interpretation of Lk. i. 34 f\n\n\nIn the text as it stands, in answer to the angel\u2019s words in Lk. i. 30\u20103,\nMary says: \u201c_How shall this be, seeing I know not_ (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9) _a man?_\u201d\nThe interpretation of this verse depends upon the force we give to the\nword \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9. Schmiedel (EB., col. 2956) thinks that \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 in this verse\n\u201ccannot mean the act of concubitus for which the word is often employed\u201d,\nbecause it is here used in the present tense. On the other hand, the quite\ngeneral sense of knowledge in the way of acquaintanceship, is also, in his\nview, \u201cequally precluded\u201d, since it would be \u201cquite meaningless in the\npresent context\u201d. Accordingly, he finds the true interpretation to be \u201cthe\nintermediate one; I have no such acquaintanceship with any man as might\nlead to the fulfilment of this prophecy\u201d. In other words, Mary\u2019s objection\nor difficulty is that she is not even betrothed. Schmiedel is not daunted\nby the fact that this interpretation is in conflict with Lk. i. 27 (\u201ca\nvirgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph\u201d). Indeed, the\ncontradiction is given as one reason for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a later\ninsertion. In this respect Schmiedel\u2019s view will probably not command much\nsupport. He gives no example of \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 used in the special sense in which\nhe interprets it, and fails to justify his rejection of the common use of\nthe verb. (See Th\u2010Gr., p. 117; VGT., p. 127.) It is altogether preferable\nto follow Dr. Plummer (op. cit., p. 24), whose view is indicated in the\nreferences which he gives to the OT. passages, Gen. xix. 8; Judg. xi. 39;\nNum. xxxi. 17. \u201cThe words\u201d, says Dr. Plummer, \u201care the avowal of a maiden\nconscious of her own purity\u201d. According to this view the phrase \u201cseeing I\nknow not a man\u201d must be interpreted of the marital relationship. Mary\u2019s\nperplexity is that she, an unmarried woman, is promised an immediate\nconception. It is impossible to accept Schmiedel\u2019s view, when he says:\n\u201cMary takes the words of the angel as referring to a fulfilment in the way\nof nature\u201d. This explanation is, of course, consistent on the\ninterpretation which Schmiedel gives to Mary\u2019s question, but not on that\nwhich we have found reason to prefer. Had Mary understood the angelic\nmessage to mean a natural human birth after marriage, there would have\nbeen no cause for perplexity. Her words, \u201cHow shall this be, seeing I know\nnot a man?\u201d, are clearly _a reply to what is understood as the\nannouncement of an immediate conception_, and not of a birth within the\nmarriage tie.\n\nIf this view is taken of Mary\u2019s words, it follows that verse 35 must be\nexplained as the yet clearer announcement of a virgin birth,\nsupernaturally caused. If the verse is treated in itself, it is possible\nto interpret it of an ordinary human birth, and there is much that is\nattractive in the interpretation. The words may be said to speak of the\nHoly Ghost who should come upon Mary to inspire and preserve the purity of\nher soul in the act of conception. They may speak, that is to say, of\nGod\u2019s use of His own appointed agencies. But, to accept this view, it\nwould be necessary to regard the words \u201cseeing I know not a man\u201d as a\nlater insertion, and, though this opinion has been held by some (including\nKattenbusch, Weinel, J. M. Thompson), it does not on the whole commend\nitself as a satisfactory solution of the problem (see further pp. 69 ff.).\nWe are compelled therefore to accept the ordinary interpretation of verse\n35, as implying the Miraculous Conception.\n\n\n\n(b) The Purport of the Angelic Announcement in Lk. i. 30\u20103\n\n\nIn treating Mary\u2019s question in Lk. i. 34. we have concluded that it\nreflects the point of view of one who has received the announcement of a\nmiraculous birth. But this conclusion does not compel us to interpret the\nwords of Lk. i. 30\u20103 as containing such an announcement. We have to\nexamine the passage so as to determine whether as a matter of fact it is\nsusceptible of that interpretation. That its present context requires this\nview of Lk. i. 30\u20103 is a fact not lightly to be regarded; nevertheless, it\nmust find justification _within the passage itself_ before it can be\naccepted.\n\nIn the Revised Version, the angelic message reads as follows: \u201c_Fear not,\nMary: for thou hast found favour with God._ (31) _And behold, thou shalt\nconceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name\nJesus._ (32) _He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most\nHigh: and the Lord God shall give __ unto him the throne of his father\nDavid_: (33) _and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of\nhis kingdom there shall be no end._\u201d\n\nWe have already expressed the view that this prophecy moves strictly\nwithin Jewish limits (p. 29). Detailed study of the passage only serves to\nconfirm this opinion. The Sonship mentioned in verse 32 bears a purely\nMessianic character. Dr. Plummer justly remarks: \u201cThe title \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1fbf\u03a5\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\nexpresses some very close relation between Jesus and Jehovah, but not the\nDivine Sonship in the Trinity\u201d (op. cit., p. 23). _Nothing is either said\nor implied in this announcement of a miraculous birth._ The terms of the\npromise to Mary would be perfectly fulfilled by an ordinary birth within\nthe marriage tie, so far, that is to say, as the mode of birth is\nconcerned. We must therefore reject the view which speaks of \u201cthe strange\ndeclaration that she is to bear a son before she is married\u201d (Plummer). We\nlook in vain for this declaration. We agree that Mary\u2019s question in verse\n34 demands such a declaration in order to make it rational. In fact, we\nourselves have argued that verse 34 is \u201ca reply to what is understood as\nthe announcement of an immediate conception\u201d. Nevertheless, even on the\nmost generous interpretation of Lk. i. 30\u20103, it is impossible to find in\nthe passage any such announcement.(35) There is thus a radical difference\nof point of view between the angelic announcement of Lk. i. 30\u20103 and\nMary\u2019s question in Lk. i. 34. This difference of standpoint will be urged\nas one, though not the only reason for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a later\ninsertion. But before we examine these reasons, we need to consider\nwhether after all the angelic announcement may not contain some\nimplication (which does not lie upon the surface of the passage) that a\nMiraculous Conception is promised.\n\nWe find it impossible to rest satisfied in the suggestion of W. C. Allen,\nthat there may have been some unrecorded indication of something unique in\nthe conception (_Interpreter_, 1905, p. 121 f.). A suggestion of this kind\ncan neither be justified nor gainsaid, and is valuable only as a\nconfirmation of the view that there is nothing \u201crecorded\u201d in Lk. i. 30\u20103\nof a unique conception. To launch upon the waters of what is unrecorded\nwould seem to be a policy of despair. There is much more to be said for an\nextremely interesting suggestion of Canon Box in his article on the Virgin\nBirth in Hastings\u2019s _Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels_ (see vol. ii,\np. 806 a). Box argues that in the angelic announcement of Lk. i. 30\u20103 \u201can\nimmediate conception is meant\u201d. Accepting the view that a Hebrew original\nunderlies the nativity\u2010narratives of Lk. i, ii, he thinks that this\noriginal has been incorrectly translated in Lk. i. 31, where, in the\nGreek, we have the future tense \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u1fc3, \u201cthou shalt conceive\u201d. \u201cThe\nHebrew original of \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u1fc3 would be a participle\u201d, he says, \u201cand the exact\nrendering would be, \u2018Behold, thou art conceiving now\u2019 \u201d. There can be no\ndoubt that, if this view can be allowed, the angelic announcement really\ndoes speak of a miraculous birth, and thus an adequate explanation is\ngiven of Mary\u2019s surprise in Lk. i. 34. There are, however, certain\nobjections which, in the judgement of the present writer, appear to be\nfatal to this theory. We need not press the objection that it rests upon\nan initial assumption, the existence of the supposed Hebrew original,\nsince this theory of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) documentary source is accepted\nby most British scholars. Nor is it more than a formal objection if we\nquestion if the word \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u1fc3 would necessarily be represented in the\nsupposed Hebrew original by a participle. In the Hebrew NT. published by\nthe British and Foreign Bible Society, the adjective \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 is used, and\nthis is the case in similar passages in the Hebrew OT., viz. Gen. xvi. 11,\nxxxviii. 24; Judg. xiii. 7 (verse 3, perf.); 1 Sam. iv. 19; 2 Sam. xi. 5;\nIsa. vii. 14. A more serious objection arises from Lk. ii. 21, where it is\nsaid that the name Jesus was so called by the angel \u201cbefore he was\nconceived in the womb\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3). On the\ntheory we are considering, this must be held to be either a second\nmistranslation of the Hebrew original, or a departure from it. In either\ncase we must conclude that a promised conception, and not an immediate\none, was the considered view of the translator of the Hebrew document. A\nsecond and conclusive objection to the theory of Canon Box rests upon\nquestions of grammatical syntax. Is it correct to say that \u201cthe exact\nrendering\u201d of the participle (or adj.) would be, \u201cBehold, thou art\nconceiving now\u201d? It is true that the active participle is \u201cmainly\ndescriptive of something present\u201d (Davidson, _Hebrew Syntax_, p. 134), but\nit is also true, to quote the same authority, that \u201cthe participle does\nnot indicate time, its colour in this respect being taken from the\nconnexion in which it stands\u201d. The same consideration also applies to\n\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 in all the OT. instances referred to above. Where it is made clear\nin the context that conception has already taken place, \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 is\ntranslated in the RV. by the present (cf. Gen. xvi. 11, xxxviii. 24; 2\nSam. xi. 5). Where, however, there is no such indication, it is rendered\nby the future, and the announcement is treated as a promise (cf. Judg.\nxiii. 7).\n\nTo convict the translator of the Hebrew document of an error in\ntranslation, it is clearly necessary to show from the context of Lk. i. 31\nthat conception has already taken place. In other words, the translation\npreferred by Canon Box, if it is to be accepted, must be justified by some\nstatement, either previously made, or made within the angelic announcement\nitself; it must be required, that is to say, by something in the narrative\nprevious to Mary\u2019s question in Lk. i. 34.(36) But these conditions, which\nare by no means arbitrary, cannot be met. We must, therefore, conclude\nthat the translator was quite justified, when he used the future\n(\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u1fc3), and so represented the announcement as a prophecy; and we must\ndraw this conclusion, irrespective altogether of the difference of point\nof view which thus stands revealed between this announcement and verse 34\nin the connexion in which it now appears. Indeed, the argument of Canon\nBox seems capable of being employed in a direction the very reverse of\nthat intended. It could be argued that since, in point of fact, the\ntranslator has used the future in verse 31, there was nothing in the\nHebrew original to suggest to his mind the idea of an immediate\nconception; not even the statement of verse 34, which might have\nsuggested, though it does not justify, the rendering, \u201cBehold, thou art\nconceiving now\u201d. Thus we might enlist the considered view of the\ntranslator, that a promised conception is meant, in support of the\ncontention that Lk. i. 34 f. is a later insertion. Without pressing this\nview, we may fairly say that there is much more to be said for it than for\nthe theory we have discussed. The latter theory, in spite of all that can\nbe urged in its favour, fails to justify itself. In that case its failure\nseems to illustrate the somewhat desperate expedients to which we must\nhave recourse, in order to find in the angelic announcement the thought of\nan immediate conception. On the question as a whole, we can only conclude\nthat such a view is neither stated nor implied in the announcement, but\nthat, on the contrary, its reference is to the future.\n\n\n\n(c) Reasons for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a Later Insertion\n\n\nHaving sought to give their full force and proper meaning to the two\npassages, Lk. i. 30\u20103 and Lk. i. 34 f., we may now consider the arguments\nwhich can be advanced in favour of regarding the latter passage as an\ninterpolation. In respect of these arguments, there is far from general\nagreement among those who are at one in the conclusion reached. But the\nsignificant fact is not the diversity of opinion as regards the mode of\nproof, but the agreement of so many scholars in holding the passage to be\na later insertion.(37) The arguments we shall examine are not equally\ncogent, and, as in the first part of the present chapter, we shall call\nattention to their limitations as well as to the points in which they are\nstrong. We shall also treat the case entirely apart from the results\nsuggested in the first half of our inquiry. Those results, if valid, set\nup a presupposition against Lk. i. 34 f. But it seems much the best not to\navail ourselves of such an argument, but rather to consider the passage in\nitself and in relation to its context. If in this way we find reasonable\ngrounds for considering Lk. i. 34 f. to be a later insertion, we have then\na double series of arguments converging on one conclusion.\n\n(1) The first point to be considered is that _verse 36 follows naturally\nafter verse 33_. As we have seen, in verses 30\u20103 we have an angelic\nannouncement to Mary to the effect that she is to give birth to a son who\nis destined to become the Messiah. He will be called \u201cthe Son of the Most\nHigh\u201d, and to him the Lord God will give \u201cthe throne of his father David\u201d.\nTo this message, it may be said, verses 36 and 37 form a fitting sequel.\nThey add the assurance that \u201cno word from God shall be void of power\u201d, in\nproof of which it is declared that Mary\u2019s kinswoman, Elisabeth, is shortly\nto bear a son in her old age. The whole speech (Lk. i. 30\u20103, 36, 37) is a\nconsistent passage, and in relation to it the words of Mary in verse\n38\u2014\u201cBehold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy\nword\u201d\u2014are a natural and fitting reply. Canon Box, in the article already\ncited, questions this view. \u201cThere would be nothing extraordinary\u201d, he\nsays \u201cin Mary\u2019s conceiving a son as Joseph\u2019s wife\u201d\u2014nothing, that is to\nsay, to require the sign offered. But surely it is not a question of\n\u201cconceiving a son\u201d, but of conceiving such a son, the long\u2010promised\nMessiah; and, moreover, the ratification of so great a promise by means of\na miracle is a commonplace of OT. thought. It is not suggested, of course,\nthat this argument proves Lk. i. 34 f. to be an interpolation. That a\nsection runs smoothly when a particular passage within it is excised, is\nno proof that that passage is not original. This last conclusion must be\nestablished on the ground of other arguments. If, however, in the present\ninstance, other arguments carry weight, then the fact that verse 36 can be\nconnected easily and naturally with verse 33 becomes of very great\nimportance, and it is for that reason that we introduce it here.\n\n(2) We take a really decisive step when we instance what already has been\nfound, namely that _verse 34 follows quite unnaturally upon Lk. i. 30\u20103_.\nWe have seen that Mary\u2019s question implies the announcement of an immediate\nconception, and we have failed to find any such announcement in the\nangel\u2019s words. There is thus a complete difference of point of view in the\ntwo passages. No possible ground is provided in the angelic announcement\nfor the objection raised in verse 34. It is difficult, therefore, to deny\nthe suggestion that Mary\u2019s question already implies a knowledge of what is\ntold for the first time in verse 35. But this view, if we accept it, is to\nsay that Mary\u2019s question could not possibly have been present to the mind\nof Mary in the connexion in which it stands; it was the last question she\nwould have thought of asking. The question can only have been put into her\nmouth by one who already knew of the Virgin Birth, and wished to introduce\nthat doctrine into a context in which originally it did not appear. On the\ninterpretation which we have given to Lk. i. 30\u20103 and Lk. i. 34 f., this\nconclusion is inevitable, unless we prefer to find in St. Luke an utter\ninconsecutiveness of thought which does him no credit as writer, and which\nneither of his works justify us in attributing to him.\n\n(3) We are unable to attach the same force to the contention that verse 35\nis followed unnaturally by verses 36 and 37 (so Schmiedel), though this\nview has something to be said for it. Verse 35 announces the virgin birth\nof the promised Messiah, a doctrine which is not found in Jewish\nliterature and tradition, and for which, therefore, the mind of Mary must\nhave been utterly unprepared.(38) As the section now stands, the statement\nof verses 36 and 37 is added as a sign that what has just been promised\nwill surely come to pass. This sign, we have already argued, would be\nquite natural, according to OT. modes of thought, as authenticating such a\nmessage as that given in Lk. i. 30\u20103. But can we say this in reference to\nthe promise of a virgin birth? To the modern mind at least the argument\nseems faulty and unconvincing. Mary is bidden to accept as the divine\npromise what is so remarkable as to be otherwise unknown to her, on the\nground of what is certainly remarkable but familiar to her mind and\noutlook. In truth, this seems a remarkable argument with which to credit\nan angel! At the same time, it has to be admitted that such an objection\nmay be too stringent, and that it may not allow sufficiently for ancient\nmodes of thought, according to which the argument from the less to the\ngreater is by no means uncommon. For this reason the present writer would\nnot feel confident in pressing the argument sketched above.(39)\n\n(4) A much stronger argument calls attention to _the similarity between\nMary\u2019s question and that of Zacharias (Lk. i. 18), and the difference with\nwhich they are treated by the angel_. \u201cMary\u2019s speech expresses doubt of\nthe truth of the angel\u2019s message, and yet she is not so much as blamed,\nwhilst Zacharias is actually punished for a like doubt (i. 20)\u201d.(40) The\npresumption is that the two cases do not emanate from the same cycle of\ntradition. The force of this argument depends, of course, upon the way in\nwhich we interpret Lk. i. 34. It is true that we have no indication of the\ntone in which the question is asked, beyond the words themselves and the\nsentences which follow; but quite sufficient is given to indicate the\npresence of doubt. The point is not merely one of subjective valuation.\nThis will appear if we consider Plummer\u2019s view, which is quite different\nfrom Schmiedel\u2019s. \u201cShe does not ask for _proof_, as Zacharias did (ver.\n18); and only in the form of the words does she ask as to the mode of\naccomplishment. Her utterance is little more than an involuntary\nexpression of amazement.... It is clear that she does not doubt the fact\npromised, nor for a moment suppose that her child is to be the child of\nJoseph\u201d (op. cit., p. 24). In weighing this opinion, it should be noticed\nthat it refers only to the words, \u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf? We may readily agree\nthat if all that Mary had said were, \u201cHow shall this be?\u201d, we should be\nunable to contest this view. But to divide Mary\u2019s question in this way is\nnot permissible. The second part, \u201cseeing I know not a man\u201d, clearly\ndetermines the first, and debars us from viewing it as merely \u201can\ninvoluntary expression of amazement\u201d. The presence of doubt, we think,\nmust be conceded, though it is less marked than in the case of Zacharias.\n\nThis view, moreover, is supported by the fact that, in the narrative as it\nstands, an explanation follows, which is also confirmed by a sign. Since,\nas Plummer says, Mary, unlike Zacharias, does not ask for proof, we need\nnot object that she is not \u201cpunished.\u201d And it is just possible that we\nmake the parallelism too rigid if we lay stress on the fact that \u201cshe is\nnot so much as blamed\u201d. It is rather the \u201ceulogium\u201d of Lk. i. 45 (\u201cBlessed\nis she that believed\u201d) which presents the difficulty. It is true that, in\nthe narrative as we have it now, Mary believes ultimately (verse 38), but\nLk. i. 45 seems rather to belong to a narrative in which Mary believes\nfrom the first. We conclude that the present argument gives real support\nto the view that Lk. i. 34 f. belongs to a source distinct from its\ncontext.\n\n(5) A fifth argument dwells on _the different senses_ in which Divine\nSonship is predicated of the promised child in verse 32 as compared with\nverse 35. As we have seen, the term \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1fbf\u03a5\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 in verse 32 is purely\nMessianic. But in verse 35 the expression \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 must be given a very\ndifferent meaning. It is in consequence of (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af) the divine\novershadowing that the child is to be called \u201cSon of God\u201d. Here, to quote\nDr. J. Estlin Carpenter, the term denotes \u201cnot official adoption, but\nactual origin\u201d, and, with the same writer, we must conclude that verse 35\n\u201cis thus a doublet of verses 31, 32 on another plane\u201d (op. cit., p.\n487).(41) It is more difficult to decide whether the difference supports\nthe theory of interpolation. We cannot shut out the possibility that two\ndiverse types of Sonship might have been attributed by St. Luke to the\nsame speaker at the same time of writing. But, having said this, we may\nobserve that it is certainly much easier to suppose, and is much more\nprobable, that they belong to different periods of reflection, and are the\nproduct (or deposit) of different traditions. This argument, then, may be\nsaid to lean in the direction of the theory of interpolation, but, for the\nreason given above, we should hesitate to urge it, if it stood alone.\n\n(6) We have lastly to look at the vexed question of the Davidic descent.\nIt is safe to say that, if we had not Lk. i. 34 f. in the Gospel as it\nstands to\u2010day, we should have no ground for regarding Mary as of Davidic\ndescent. It is the presence of these verses that makes possible that\ninference in verse 32, where, in addressing Mary, the angel speaks of\nDavid as the forefather of the promised child. It is surely a remarkable\nfact that a point so vital to St. Luke\u2019s narrative as the Davidic descent\nof Mary should be introduced in so incidental a manner. Our wonder is\nincreased when we observe that St. Luke is at great pains to assure\nTheophilus of the Davidic descent of Joseph. In ii. 4 it is said that\nJoseph was \u201c_of the house and family of David_\u201d; not a word is said of\nMary\u2019s descent. It is true that the Sin. Syr. reads, \u201cbecause they were\nboth of the house of David\u201d; but this does not naturally fit into the\nstructure of the sentence, is unsupported elsewhere, and is accepted by no\none; it clearly represents an attempt to remove a difficulty. In. i. 27 it\nis also said that Joseph was \u201c_of the house of David_\u201d. The phrase cannot\nbe construed with the word \u201cvirgin\u201d, which occurs earlier in the sentence,\nin view of the fact that after \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4 St. Luke resumes the thread\nof the story by saying \u201cand the virgin\u2019s name was Mary\u201d; otherwise, he\nwould have continued (so Schmiedel, op. cit., col. 2957), \u201cand her name\nwas Mary\u201d. It is not easy indeed to resist Schmiedel\u2019s further contention\nthat the phrasing of the sentence expressly forbids our ascribing the\nDavidic descent to Mary, though the opinion is put forward with greater\nconfidence than seems justified. The one passage in which St. Luke\ndirectly refers to the family of Mary is dubious. In i. 36 Elisabeth is\nsaid to be \u201c_the kinswoman_\u201d of Mary, and we know from i. 5 that Elisabeth\nwas \u201c_of the daughters of Aaron_\u201d, which seems to imply that Mary too was\nof Levitical descent. But as the precise nature of the relationship is not\nstated, we cannot say, with Schmiedel, Usener, and others, that this is\nso. Nevertheless, the broad fact remains that apart from an inference,\nwhich itself depends on Lk. i. 34 f., we have no grounds for believing\nMary to be a descendant of David. St. Luke undoubtedly believes Jesus to\nbe of Davidic descent; he carefully shows Joseph to be of that descent; he\ngives us no reason to suppose, that, like the author of the First Gospel,\nhe traced the descent of Jesus through Joseph as His _legal_ father; and\nyet, in spite of all this, he has left the vital question of the Davidic\ndescent of Mary at the mercy of an inference! If he knows Mary to be a\ndescendant of David, why does he not say so explicitly? We have a right to\nask the question, which is neither captious nor unfair. No one has yet\nanswered it satisfactorily, except in the answer that St. Luke had no\ntradition of the Davidic descent of Mary at his disposal, that he traced\nthe descent of Jesus through Joseph as His real father, that this is the\ntrue interpretation of verse 32, and that Lk. i. 34 f. is a later\ninsertion, which has imposed on verse 32 a sense which originally it did\nnot bear. _Regard Lk. i. 34 f. as a later insertion, and all the facts\nalleged by St. Luke about the Davidic descent fall into intelligible\norder_; refuse to do this, and they remain in inexplicable confusion.\n\nWhen we consider the cumulative force of the preceding arguments, it\nbecomes impossible for us to think that Lk. i. 34 f. was written at the\nsame time, and from the same point of view, as the context in which it now\nstands; it is clearly a later insertion. With some reason we may hesitate\nto say that verse 36 does not follow naturally upon verse 35, and we may\nspeculate whether two diverse conceptions of Sonship may not be held in\nthe same mind at the same time of writing. But when we ponder the question\nof the Davidic descent; when we compare verse 34 with Lk. i. 18 ff.; when\nwe observe the natural coherence of Lk. i. 30\u20103 and Lk. i. 36\u20108, and the\nradical difference in point of view between verses 34, 35 and the angelic\nannouncement; when, in short, we have a narrative, which, if Lk. i. 34 f.\nwas present from the first, ought to be dominated by those verses, but on\nthe contrary does not seem to be influenced by them; we are compelled to\nconclude that the suspected verses represent a later insertion in the\nGospel.\n\n\n\n\nIII. Summary and Conclusion\n\n\nWe are in a position now to conclude from the foregoing investigation that\n_the Virgin Birth is not an original element in the Third Gospel_. This\nconclusion has been reached by two lines of argument which confirm and\nstrengthen each other. We have seen that the one passage which\nunmistakably asserts the doctrine is a later insertion. Independently of\nthis, statements have been noted in chapters i and ii, which receive no\nnatural and satisfactory explanation on the assumption that St. Luke wrote\nhis narrative with a knowledge of the miracle presupposed. In the first\npart of this chapter we expressly refrained from pressing the view that\nthese points in themselves absolutely forbid this assumption. But,\nobviously, now that we have found Lk. i. 34 f. to be a later insertion,\nthe force of these difficulties is greatly increased. We are now entitled\nto say that the opinion which does least honour to St. Luke is the view\nthat he has written cc. i, ii, while knowing of the Virgin Birth. We have\nto remember that not only is the Virgin Birth itself a stupendous thought,\nbut that, if known to St. Luke, it cannot have been known long, and must\ntherefore have preserved the freshness of its wonder. Can we, then,\nsuppose that, while under the sway of a presupposition so despotic as\nthis, he would straightway proceed to use such expressions as \u201cthe\nparents\u201d, \u201chis parents\u201d, \u201chis father and his mother\u201d; that, without\nqualification, he would speak of \u201ctheir purification\u201d; that he would\nrepresent them astonished at the words of Simeon, and mystified by the\nbearing and speech of Jesus at Jerusalem? Is it credible, in short, that\nhe should have fallen into the very ambiguities and inconsistencies, which\npresumably he would be anxious to avoid, and which without the slightest\ndifficulty he could have avoided? Even if we should still hesitate to\nanswer these questions in the negative, our conclusion, that originally\nthe Gospel lacked the references to the Virgin Birth which we now find in\nit, leaves us no other option.\n\nIt should be observed that the arguments we have employed in the present\nchapter do not compel us to take the view that St. Luke never at any time\ntaught the Virgin Birth. They are satisfied if we can suppose that he had\nno knowledge of the doctrine when Lk. i, ii was first written. To say that\ni. 34 f. is a correction, inserted by a redactor or reader, whose name we\ndo not know, but who is not St. Luke, is to take two steps where we have\nground for one only. All that our study entitles us to claim is that the\nVirgin Birth belongs to a later stratum in the Third Gospel. More than\nthis we cannot say, until we have made a thorough linguistic and textual\nexamination of Lk. i. 34 f., and this must be our next task.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. ST. LUKE AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH\n\n\nWhile, in the preceding chapter, we concluded that the Virgin Birth is a\nlater stratum in the Third Gospel, we were unable to say to whose hand its\npresence is due. There was nothing to show that St. Luke could never at\nany time have known of the doctrine, but only that he could not have known\nof it at the time when he first drafted and wrote his Gospel. We are free,\nthen, to make a new beginning, and to ask: _Did St. Luke teach the Virgin\nBirth?_\n\nThe question is most conveniently treated by discussing the authorship of\nLk. i. 34 f. As we have seen, this is the crucial passage. If we can\nbelieve St. Luke himself to have written these verses, we must also\nattribute to his pen the words, \u201cas was supposed\u201d in iii. 23; in a word,\nwe must conclude that he taught the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and we must\nleave the question, how this result is to be co\u2010ordinated with those\nreached in the previous chapter, to be considered later.\n\nThat St. Luke and no other did write these verses, is the considered view\nof the present writer. There are two lines of argument which converge in\nthis direction. The first argument is _textual_, but it is more than a\nmatter of weighing documents; the second is _linguistic_ and stylistic.\nNeither is completely conclusive in itself, and, when taken together, they\ndo not admit of a result so stringent as rigid demonstration. They are\ncomplementary each to the other. Either would be weakened in force in the\nabsence of the other, but their agreement is sufficient to establish a\nresult for which a very high degree of probability can justly be claimed.\n\n\n\n\nI. Lk. i. 34 f. and the Textual Question\n\n\nIt is well known that no exception to Lk. i. 34 f. can be taken on\nstrictly _textual_ grounds. The external evidence for the passage is\npractically complete. The sole exception, which only serves to throw into\nrelief the overwhelming mass of positive evidence, is found in the Old\nLatin MS. known as b, which substitutes i. 38 for i. 34 and omits verse 38\nafter verse 37.(42)\n\nIn Great Britain, a generation ago and less, this weight of external\nevidence would have been thought sufficient to settle the question, and\nthere are probably very many scholars who would still take this view. But\nwithin recent years a change has come to be discernible among leading\ntheological writers on the general question of attestation. Much more than\nin former times it is now recognized that during the first half of the\nsecond century the text of the New Testament, and especially that of the\nGospels, was subject to rather free handling, and the possibility has to\nbe faced that interpolations may have crept into the text in places where\nformerly the external attestation would have been thought sufficiently\nstrong.\n\nDr. George Milligan(43) traces the danger of textual corruption to which\nthe New Testament writings were exposed to a threefold cause, (i) the\nmaterial upon which the autographs were written, (ii) the employment of\nnon\u2010professional scribes, (iii) the fact that the thought of the need of\nabsolute verbal reproduction was strange to early scribes. The last named\nfact led, not only to attempts to improve the grammar and to add\n\u201cexplanatory words\u201d, but also to the insertion \u201ceven of deliberate changes\nin the supposed interests of historic or dogmatic truth\u201d. Milligan\ninstances the case of Dionysius of Corinth who, \u201cin view of the\ncirculation of his epistles in a falsified form\u201d, is found \u201cna\u00efvely\ncomforting himself with the thought that the same fate had befallen the\nScriptures\u201d (p. 179 n.). \u201cThe general result\u201d, Dr. Milligan concludes,\n\u201cis, that instead of assigning textual corruption to a comparatively late\ndate ... everything rather points to the conclusion that, the nearer we\nget to the original manuscripts, the greater were the dangers to which\ntheir text was exposed\u201d (p. 180).\n\nIn view of this position, it is important to ask whether interpolations\nmay not exist which have left no trace whatever of their origin in the\nabundant documentary evidence we possess. A representative statement of\nthis view may be found in the words of Dr. James Moffatt (INT., p. 36 f.):\n\u201cEven where the extant text does not suggest any break, the possibility of\ninterpolations cannot be denied outright; the distance between the oldest\nMSS., or even the oldest versions, and the date of composition leaves\nample room for changes to have taken place in the interval between the\nautograph and the earliest known text\u201d (p. 38). \u201cThe extent of\ninterpolations varied from a word or two to a paragraph, and the motives\nfor it varied equally from sinister to na\u00efve\u201d (p. 38).(44)\n\nOne argument in favour of this view may be drawn from the state of the\nexisting MSS. and versions. The multitudinous variations which occur in\nthese documents cannot be explained without admitting the free treatment\nwhich has been mentioned, and which was natural at a time when the Gospels\nwere not yet looked upon as \u201csacred books\u201d. In large measure such\nadditions as we find were drawn from floating Christian tradition, and in\nmany cases, e.g. the _pericope adulteriae_, they probably reflect historic\nfact.(45) Nevertheless, they are not genuine parts of the New Testament.\nThe further argument is an inference: if such variations from such causes\noccur in the MSS. and versions we possess, may there not be interpolations\nof which we have no external indication in the existing texts?\n\nStated in this way the question invites an affirmative answer, but there\nare other factors which have yet to be considered. As a matter of fact,\nthere is little profit in a broad and general discussion. We touch the\nheart of the problem only when we consider the _types_ or classes into\nwhich such insertions might conceivably fall. On the whole it is best,\neven if only for purposes of argument, to admit the possibility that\ninsertions unmarked by signs of textual variation exist, and to ask: Of\nwhat character may we suppose these insertions to be, and can we define\nany limits within which they are more probable than others? In particular,\nis Lk. i. 34 f. a likely or probable instance? It is obvious that hard and\nfast lines cannot be drawn in individual cases. Nevertheless, it ought to\nbe possible to say whether or not a passage like the one we are\nconsidering is, or is not, the work of a redactor.\n\nThose instances of insertions, _where textual variations can be cited_,\nsupply us with the safest criterion for other suspected cases. Of these\ninstances many, as we have seen, were drawn from the floating tradition of\nthe Christian communities. An interesting case is suggested by Dr. J. H.\nMoulton (_From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps_, p. 101 f.). He traces the saying,\n\u201cFather, forgive them; for they know not what they do\u201d, to the\nreminiscences of the centurion who was present at the death of Jesus. \u201cThe\nwords are not in Luke\u2019s original Gospel, but as the great Professor Hort\nsaid in regard to the fact that these words cannot be textually defended,\n\u2018Few if any words in all the Gospels bear more intrinsic witness to the\ntruth of what they relate than these\u2019 \u201d (p. 103). On general grounds, it\nmay very well be, that similar items of tradition have found their way\ninto the existing texts, leaving the surface of the textual stream\nunruffled. But it is clear that, in any suspected case, the insertion\ncould be the act of the author himself and not the reader. If the latter\nreally is the case, the insertion must have been made very early, and must\nhave been of such a kind as not to awaken comment or dissent.\n\nA second kind of insertions may possibly be found in _explanatory words or\nphrases_, introduced with the intention of bringing out the original\nwriter\u2019s meaning. We may take as an instance Rom. iv. 1 (\u201cWhat then shall\nwe say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, hath found?\u201d\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9), where Sanday and Headlam say that they \u201cregard the omission of\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 as probable with WH. text Tr. RV. marg.\u201d (ICC., Rom., p.\n99).(46) In this case, however, as in so many others, the gloss, if gloss\nit is, is reflected in the textual evidence. Nevertheless, the possibility\nmay be allowed, that such glosses exist even where variants cannot be\ncited. In these cases, however, it is clear that the insertions must have\nbeen very early and very happy, and that in specific cases their presence\ncan rarely be conceded with complete confidence.\n\nYet another class of interpolations may possibly be found in certain\npassages in the Gospels which later conditions obtaining within the\nChristian Church have shaped. That later experience did interpret the\nwords of Jesus and give the sense of them in its own terms, need not be\nquestioned. But it should always be remembered that in any suspected case,\nthe process may well have been complete by the time that the Evangelists\nwrote, and that the passage is not an interpolation at all. There are very\ngood grounds for this opinion even in cases in which variations in\nrendering can be cited from patristic and other sources, as, for example,\nin the case of the Great Commission in Mt. xxviii. 19. This fact makes it\nall the more difficult to concede an interpolation where the textual\nrecord is unbroken, though again the possibility that such cases do exist\nmay well be left open.\n\nThe cases just considered help us when we come to think of _doctrinal\nmodifications_. As regards these, it is important to draw again a\ndistinction which has been already made. We must distinguish, on the one\nhand, between those instances of doctrinal modification that are due to\nthe Evangelists themselves, and which are in no sense interpolations, and,\non the other hand, those which may subsequently have been made by later\nscribes or readers. Cases of the former kind unquestionably occur in the\nGospels. We have only to examine the way in which the First and Third\nEvangelists have treated the Second Gospel, which lay before them, to be\nassured of this. Alterations, e.g., are made out of a sense of reverence\nfor the person of Jesus (cf. Allen, ICC., St. Mt., p. xxxi f.). Mt. xix.\n17 (\u201cWhy askest thou me concerning that which is good?\u201d), and the changes\nwhich Mk. vi. 5 f. has been subjected to, both in Mt. and Lk., will serve\nas illustrations.\n\nModifications of this kind are not, however, the sort we have specially in\nmind. It is the second type, those which are interpolations proper, that\nwe have particularly to consider. The existence of these has frankly to be\nadmitted. It is beyond question that doctrinal insertions were introduced\ninto the text of the Gospels by later scribes and readers. The one case of\nMt. i. 16 is proof positive of this (see pp. 105 ff.). If the opinion,\nthat the original ending of our Second Gospel was deliberately suppressed,\nis correct, Mk. xvi. 9\u201020 may be cited as another instance.(47) An\nimportant qualification, however, requires to be made. In the two cases\nmentioned there is a conflict of textual evidence, and, as regards the\nlatter, the objections are reinforced by the internal evidence, arising\nfrom the vocabulary, the style, and the subject\u2010matter. The present writer\nmust needs conclude that _the presence of textual variation is an almost\nnecessary condition in the case of a doctrinal insertion_. It is more\ndifficult to say how far this requirement should be pressed in the other\ntypes of interpolation which have been mentioned, but as regards doctrinal\nmodifications the test is thoroughly legitimate. Without going so far as\nto pronounce it absolutely impossible, we may say that _the theory, that\ndoctrinal insertions may exist where the extant texts show no break, is\nimprobable in the extreme_.\n\nIn taking this view, we are not confined to the plea of the early and\nabundant nature of textual evidence, or to the effect of controversy in\npreserving the purity of the text, though these are arguments of very\ngreat weight. A sufficiently decisive factor is _the character of the\nexisting textual variants_.(48) If authentic items of Jesus\u2010tradition and\n\u201cexplanatory words and phrases\u201d have not been able to enter the textual\nstream unnoticed, can we suppose that doctrinal modifications have\nbreasted the waters without leaving so much as a ripple? If even an\ninsertion like \u201cFather, forgive them; for they know not what they do\u201d has\nnot been able successfully to conceal itself, can we believe Lk. i. 34 f.\nto have succeeded in doing this? Can we think that, like Melchizedek, the\npassage is without father, mother, genealogy and beginning of life? In\nasking these questions we need to recall the character of the section. It\nis such as radically to transform the standpoint of the chapters in which\nit occurs. It speaks of matters which, for a considerable time at least,\nwere not known among the mass of Christian believers, and were never\naccepted by some. To suppose, then, that it is a non\u2010Lukan doctrinal\ninterpolation, is a flight of faith, for which those who can make it\nshould receive the credit that is due, but of which the present writer\nmust confess that he is not capable.\n\nWhile, however, we conclude that the theory we are discussing is\nmanifestly improbable, we have admitted our inability to pronounce it\nimpossible in any shape and form. Provided we agree that the Third Gospel\nnever circulated without Lk. i. 34 f., there is one point where the\npassage might have entered as an insertion, and that is in the interval\nbefore circulation. But even here it is difficult to suppose that the\npassage was added by some one other than St. Luke himself. In our entire\nignorance of the circumstances under which the Gospel came to have a wider\ncirculation, we cannot say that this supposition is inadmissible. It has a\nbare possibility in its favour, but not more. If a linguistic examination\nof the passage gave a result unfavourable to Lukan authorship, the\npossibility would become more significant. But if the contrary proves to\nbe the case, then it becomes so remote as to be unworthy of serious\nconsideration. It is because of this position that we have described the\npresent argument as being not completely conclusive in itself, and the one\nline of reasoning as complementary to the other. Quite apart, however,\nfrom the linguistic argument, the difficulties which the theory of non\u2010\nLukan interpolation has to face on textual grounds are formidable.\n\n\n\n\nII. Linguistic and Stylistic Examination of Lk. i. 34 f\n\n\nOur second task is to make _a linguistic and stylistic examination of Lk.\ni. 34 f._ At the beginning of the last chapter we drew attention to the\nimportance of the test. It cannot be too strongly affirmed that any\nhypothesis of interpolation, which does not take account of the linguistic\ncharacteristics of the passage, is premature; indeed, it may easily turn\nout to be a rather glaring case of _non sequitur_.\n\nIt is precisely the linguistic test which we miss in the arguments of\nthose who claim that Lk. i. 34 f. was not written by St. Luke. Usually it\nis thought enough to argue an incompatibility between this passage and its\ncontext, and straightway to assign the former to the pen of an unknown\nredactor. We may illustrate this method from the two articles in the\n_Encyclopaedia Biblica_ to which reference has been made. In the article\non \u201cMary\u201d, Schmiedel says (col. 2956): \u201cIt has to be pointed out that even\nin Lk. i only two verses\u2014vv. 34 f.\u2014contain the idea of the virgin birth\nclearly and effectively; and these disturb the connexion so manifestly\nthat we are compelled to regard them as a later insertion\u201d. The only\nargument of a linguistic character is the remark: \u201cNote, further, that\napart from i. 34 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af (\u2018since\u2019) is not met with either in the third gospel\nor in Acts\u201d. Usener writes (col. 3349): \u201cTo Joh. Hillmann (JPT. 17, 221\nff.) belongs the merit of having conclusively shown that the two verses in\nLk. (i. 34 f.), the only verses in the Third Gospel in which the\nsupernatural birth of Jesus of the Virgin Mary is stated, are incompatible\nwith the entire representation of the rest of chaps, i and ii, and _thus\nmust have been interpolated by a redactor_\u201d.(49) It is theories of this\nkind that we have in view when we say (p. 47) that to state such a\nconclusion is to take two steps where there is ground for one only.\n\nThe importance of the linguistic argument is manifest in such works as Sir\nJohn C. Hawkins\u2019s _Horae Synopticae_ (2nd ed., 1909) and Dr. W. K.\nHobart\u2019s _Medical Language of St. Luke_ (1882). It has also received great\nemphasis in the books in which Harnack has sought to prove the Lukan\nauthorship and early date of the Acts, viz. _Luke the Physician_, _The\nActs of __ the Apostles_, and _The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic\nGospels_.\n\nIt may not be without value to ask how far the linguistic argument can\ntake us. We may certainly lay down the broad proposition that arguments in\nfavour of an interpolation ought to be supported by the linguistic facts;\nprovided, of course, that the suspected passage is susceptible of the\nlinguistic test. We do not forget that a passage may be of such a neutral\ncharacter as not to admit of that test. In that case we have to be content\nwith other available arguments. Where, however, the linguistic test can be\napplied, and where the result is strongly favourable to the genuineness of\nthe passage, that, assuredly, is a very serious objection for the theory\nof interpolation to face. It becomes especially formidable, if we can\nbring forward no evidence to prove an anachronism, or if we can allege no\nreal textual objections. Under such circumstances, indeed, we may well\nadopt the rule that, in cases of this kind, we have not to do with the\ninsertion of a redactor; unless, of course, we have good reason for saying\nthat the interpolator has entered deeply into the original writer\u2019s style.\nThe view here taken does not mean that all objections to a passage are\nsufficiently met if we can state a strong linguistic case on the other\nside. We shall have reason to take up this point again (p. 69). For the\npresent it is sufficient to say that each kind of argument must be given\nits own particular force. In the case of a passage where objections\narising from context and subject\u2010matter cannot be gainsaid, we must\nconclude that the passage is of later date than its context, but not more.\nIn a case where the facts of vocabulary, style, and subject\u2010matter are\nsufficiently favourable, and no textual difficulties forbid, we must\nascribe the passage to the original writer. In a case, finally, where both\nkinds of conditions occur, we must suppose that the passage was afterwards\ninserted by the writer himself into the body of his own work. Clearly,\nthen, the linguistic examination of a suspected passage is a matter of\ngreat importance. In the case of Lk. i. 34 f., it is not too much to say\nthat it is a task as necessary as it is neglected.\n\nIt may be objected that the passage is one of two verses only, and that,\nin consequence, it is much too brief to allow of satisfactory results. On\nthe other hand, it should be remembered that the thirty\u2010seven words of the\nsection include several interesting phrases and points of construction,\nwhich are so important in matters of this kind. Moreover, in the case of\nSt. Luke, we are dealing with a writer who has a very distinctive\nstyle.(50)\n\nHarnack has recognized the force of the linguistic argument in the case of\ntwo verses (thirty\u2010one words). These are the last two verses of the Acts.\nAfter remarking that, so far as he knows, it has never been questioned\nthat these words come from the author of the complete work, though they\nhave the appearance of being a postscript, he continues: \u201cMoreover, in\ncontent and in form they agree so closely with the Lukan style that from\nthis point of view strong arguments can be produced in favour of their\ngenuineness\u201d (_Date of Acts_, &c., p. 94). In a footnote he adds the\nlinguistic argument. This is quite enough for our purpose. It is true that\nthe genuineness of Lk. i. 34 f. is questioned by many (on other than\nlinguistic and textual grounds). Nevertheless, the field is open for\ninquiry as to whether \u201cin content and form they agree so closely with the\nLukan style that from this point of view strong arguments can be produced\nin favour of their genuineness\u201d. After all, the length of the passage is\nnot the vital consideration, but its _character_ (which may, or may not,\nbe more striking than that of a much longer section); and this is\nsomething which can come out only after actual examination.\n\nWe turn, then, to the linguistic examination of Lk. i. 34 f. According to\nthe Westcott and Hort text, the passage is as follows:\n\n34. \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\n\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9; 35. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f59\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1fbf\u1f0d\u0393\u0399\u039f\u039d\n\u039a\u039b\u0397\u0398\u0389\u03a3\u0395\u03a4\u0391\u0399, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nIn treating these words, we shall not follow the order in which they\noccur, but the order of their importance for our investigation.(51) It is\nclear that the words fall into different classes: (_a_) according as they\nare neutral in character, that is to say, of insufficient importance\neither way in deciding the question; (_b_) in so far as they create\ndifficulty on the assumption of Lukan authorship, and, to that extent,\nsupport the theory of interpolation; (_c_) in so far as they give clear\nsupport in favour of Lukan origin.\n\n\n\na.\n\n\nIn the first class we may include the words: \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2, \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2,\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd with dat., \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, and perhaps even\n\u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nEvery one of these words and phrases is well represented in the Lukan\nwritings, and in the case of some of them we get, on investigation,\nremarkable results.(52)\n\nTake the case of \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1. In the NT. it occurs 212 times, and of these no\nless than 125 appear in St. Luke\u2019s works (26 in G. and 99 in Acts), i.e.\n58 per cent. Still more remarkable is the result when we compare \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1 and\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Whereas the other Evangelists use \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 very frequently\nindeed (218 times), they employ \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1 only 20 times. St. Luke also\n(especially in the Gospel) uses \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 frequently (93 times), but he has\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1 26 times (cf. Mt. 8 times, Mk. 4 times, Jn. 8 times). If we take both\nLukan writings, the usage of \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1 is roughly equal, whereas\nin the rest of the NT. it is as 9 is to 2. We can say, therefore, that St.\nLuke shows a liking for \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1, whereas Mt. Mk. and Jn. markedly prefer\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. However, the word is so common that we can lay no stress on the\nfact that it occurs in i. 34, where the connexion demands it. We can only\nnote its congruity with a Lukan liking.\n\n\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 is also interesting, though not, of course, in any way\ndecisive. In Lk. the phrase occurs 14 times; in Mt. it is found 6 times;\nin Mk. 8; never in the Fourth Gospel, and never in the Acts. It occurs,\nthat is to say, in those parts of the New Testament in which sources,\nprobably Aramaic,(53) are employed. This is in line with the view\nexpressed by Moulton and Milligan with regard to the aorist passive forms\nof the verb.(54) They say that they incline to the opinion that \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\n\u201cbelongs only to early Hellenistic, whence it was taken by the LXX\ntranslators to render a common Hebrew phrase, passing thence into the\nnarrative parts of NT. as a definite \u2018Septuagintalism\u2019 \u201d. It is in keeping\nwith this view that \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 ... \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd should appear in that part of\nSt. Luke\u2019s Gospel where most of all we have reason to posit Semitic\nsources, whether oral or documentary. As we have seen, half the record of\nthis expression in the New Testament, apart from Lk. i. 35, is in the\nThird Gospel. The presence, then, of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 in Lk. i. 35 is\ncongruous with these facts; more, perhaps, we cannot say.\n\nA word like \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 has no bearing on our present investigation, and the same\nis true of \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 (otherwise, however, of \u03b4. in combination with\nnouns, &c., in the gen.), \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (very frequently in Lk.), \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd (with\ndat.),(55) and \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc (of the mother of Jesus) occurs more often in Lk. than in other NT.\nwriters (9 times and probably 10 in the G., once in Acts); the form \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\nappears but once (ii. 19 is doubtful). In Mk. \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 occurs once, \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc\nnever; in Mt. we find \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 3 times and \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc probably twice. The use of\nthe form \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc in i. 34 is therefore in agreement with St. Luke\u2019s usage,\nbut of course this does not preclude the hand of an interpolator, since\nevery instance of \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc (of the mother of Jesus) in the Third Gospel\noccurs in the first two chapters.\n\nAs is well known, the phrase \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is very frequently found in the\nLukan writings. The percentage is as much as 60, and out of the instances\nin the NT., where the phrase is anarthrous, more than 50 per cent, are in\nSt. Luke (G. and Acts). The phrase is therefore very strongly Lukan. But\nperhaps we ought not to include the phrase among those which tell strongly\nagainst the theory of interpolation, since a redactor would easily and\nnaturally introduce it in the connexion in which it appears in i. 35. \u201cThe\nnew view was not an intruder from the sphere of heathen mythology, but a\nlogical conclusion from the belief that our Lord was _God\u2019s Son by the\noperation of the Holy Spirit_\u201d (Harnack\u2019s _Date of Acts_,(56) p. 144). We\ncan say therefore that \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is admirably in keeping with Lukan\nusage but hardly more. The case is quite otherwise with the whole phrase,\n\u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad, as we shall see.\n\n\u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 is also a word which might be considered here, for it is, of course,\na very common word. Having regard, however, to the way in which it is\nused, it will be better to take it later.\n\nSumming up our results thus far, we may say that we have found nothing\nthat is out of accord with Lukan usage. On the other hand, indeed, every\nword and phrase we have examined is well represented in St. Luke\u2019s\nwritings. Nevertheless, the words are common elsewhere, and in no case do\nthey tell decisively either way.\n\n\n\nb.\n\n\n_We now come to words which present difficulties, less or greater, on the\nassumption of Lukan authorship, and so far tell in favour of the theory of\ninterpolation._ These are\u2014\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af, \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, and perhaps \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n1. We introduce \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd here, because the expression, as distinct\nfrom the construction, occurs nowhere else in Lk. As a matter of fact it\noccurs nowhere else in the New Testament in this form. The perfect passive\nparticiple, however, appears twice in the Johannine writings: \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4. \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd (Jn. iii. 6), and \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fb7 \u03c4. \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd (1 Jn. v. 4). What is more\nimportant is that there is a close parallel to \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd in Mt. i. 30,\nwhich reads, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. The\ncomplete clause in Lk. runs, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nIt is certainly open to any one to argue that the passage in Lk. is\nintroduced by an interpolator who is under the influence of Mt. i. 20.\nWhy, however, while under that influence, he should so far enter into\nLukan usage as to introduce the Lukan \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, and \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, to say\nnothing of putting \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd into a different connexion in a\ncharacteristically Lukan phrase (\u03a0. \u1f05\u03b3. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad. Cf. Acts i. 8\nand see later), are questions which it is not easy to answer. Assuredly\nthere is not much here to support the hypothesis of interpolation, and\nwhen we consider the constructional use of the article with the\nparticiple, there is still less, if indeed anything at all. To consider \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is rather a concession to carefulness than the acknowledgement\nof a real difficulty.\n\n2. \u0393\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 must be examined, because in i. 34 it is used of knowledge in\nthe way of marital relationship. The only parallel in the New Testament is\nMt. i. 25, where, however, it is used of a man: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd. On the other hand, in other senses, \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 occurs\nfairly frequently in Lk. It is, however, in no sense Lukan, being\ndistributed evenly throughout the New Testament, except in the Johannine\nwritings, where it is very common.\n\nWe cannot, therefore, produce evidence to show that elsewhere St. Luke\nuses \u03b3. in the special sense of i. 34. Nevertheless, there is no reason\nwhy he should not have written \u03b3. in that passage, and there are\nconsiderations which go to show how he could easily have used the word.\n\nIn i. 34 and also in Mt. i. 25 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 is by no means a \u201cHebraistic\neuphemism\u201d,(57) yet it is probable that the influence of the Septuagint is\nto be found in both passages. In the LXX there are several instances of \u03b3.\nused, as in i. 34, of a woman. It is so used in Gen. xix. 8 (of Lot\u2019s\ndaughters), in Judg. xi. 39 (of Jephthah\u2019s daughter), and in Num. xxxi. 17\n(of the women of Midian). If, then, we are right in tracing the influence\nof the LXX, in i. 34, we have ground for finding the hand of St. Luke in\nthat passage, even though he never again uses \u03b3. in that sense. For it is\njust in Lk. i, ii that the influence of the LXX is most marked.(58)\n\nEven if we do not press LXX influence (for \u03b3. in this special sense is\nfound \u201cin Greek writers from the Alexandrian age down\u201d),(59) it is not at\nall apparent why St. Luke himself should not have used the word. And if\nthe argument in favour of the theory of interpolation is to be sustained,\nit is scarcely enough to urge the bare fact that St. Luke does not use \u03b3.\nas in i. 34 elsewhere. An idiom which occurs in Greek writers from the\ntime of Menander(60) (B.C. 325) may well have been known to a writer like\nSt. Luke, apart from its presence in the Septuagint. If verses 34, 35 are\nindeed Lukan, it is quite probable that in \u03b3. we should find the influence\nof the Septuagint, but we are not at all shut up to Septuagint usage. In\nthe connexion in which it occurs \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 was a suitable word to employ,\nand its presence there is in no way incongruous with Lukan authorship.\n\n3. In these verses the word which is of greatest difficulty is without\ndoubt \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af. In the rest of the New Testament it occurs 25 times. Of these\n10 are found in the Pauline Epistles and 9 in the Epistle to the Hebrews.\nThe remaining 6 appear in the Gospels; 3 in Mt., 1 in Mk., and 2 in Jn.\nApart then from i. 34 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af occurs nowhere in St. Luke\u2019s works.\n\nThere are, it is true, two Lukan passages, one in the Gospel (vii. 1) and\nthe other in the Acts (xiii. 46), where \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af \u03b4\u03ad occurs in some MSS. The\ntrue reading, however, in both cases is probably \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae.(61) We have,\ntherefore, to face the fact, that not only is \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af found nowhere else in\nSt. Luke\u2019s works, but that elsewhere he seems to prefer \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae and\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 (the latter in the Prologue to the Gospel, and the former five\ntimes out of the ten cases in which it occurs in the New Testament). Here\nis the strongest argument, which on linguistic grounds can be urged\nagainst the genuineness of i. 34 f. The richness of St. Luke\u2019s vocabulary\nincreases the difficulty.(62) Why, if he has used \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af in i. 34, he should\nnever employ it again, is a question which it is not easy to answer. If,\nin view of the evidence as a whole, the case for an interpolation fails,\nwe shall have to content ourselves with the fact, however strange, that\nhere and here only \u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03af occurs in Lk. A writer indeed may use a word once\nand never again. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03af occurs but once in Mk. (xv. 42), and it may be so\nhere. Assuredly, in a linguistic argument room must always be left for the\noccurrence of \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 in an individual writer. The force of this\ncontention is, however, somewhat weakened by the preference which St. Luke\nseems to show for \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae, and it must be allowed that the case for an\ninterpolation does receive support from \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af.\n\n\n\nc.\n\n\nWe have now to consider the _third_ division of the linguistic evidence.\nIt includes the following words and phrases:\n\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (the construction),\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f59\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af,\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9,\n\u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad,\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 ...\n\n1. We begin with \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (the construction.) As is well known, the\narticle with the participle is quite a characteristic of the Lukan\nwritings. \u201cParticiples with the article often take the place of\nsubstantives\u201d, writes Plummer (ICC., St. Lk., p. lxii). The instances\ngiven by Plummer are as follows:\n\nii. 27. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f30\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. (Here only in NT.)\n\niv. 16. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03cc \u03b5\u1f30\u03c9\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2. (Here and Acts xvii, 2 only.)\n\nviii. 34. \u1f30\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b2\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd. (Here and Mk. v. 14;\nLk. [xxiv. 12]. Cf. also Acts iv. 21.)\n\nxxii. 22. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f61\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. (Here only in NT. Cf. the parallel passages,\nMt. xxvi. 24 and Mk. xiv. 21, where we find \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.)\n\nxxiv. 14. \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u1f78\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. (Cf. Acts iii. 10.)\n\nTo these may be added xxi. 36, xxiii. 47, 48. The construction is clearly\nLukan, without, of course, being exclusively Lukan, and though \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd does not occur elsewhere in St. Luke\u2019s works, the verb is not\nuncommon (10 times out of 93 in the NT., of which 40 occur in the\nGenealogy in Mt.).\n\n2. \u039a\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. In his _Date of Acts_ Harnack underlines this verb, as a\nLukan trait, wherever it occurs in the \u201cWe\u201d Sections, which he prints on\npp. 4\u201012. Out of the total number of cases in which it occurs in the New\nTestament, no less than 44 per cent. are found in the Lukan writings. In\nthe Gospel it is present 41 times. It should also be noted that when we\ncompare \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3. \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 with the analogous phrase in Mt. 1. 20,\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, in the latter the Lukan\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 is absent. Of course \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9 is a common word, but St. Luke\u2019s use of\nit is distinctive, and with this usage \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in verse 35 agrees.\n\n3. We have referred to \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 already,(63) and have said that while\nfrequent in Lk., it is too common a word to be important for our present\npurpose. The case is otherwise with the phrase \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f59\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. St. Luke\nis fond of using \u03b4. in composition with other words in the genitive. In\nhis Gospel, he employs it with \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af, and\n\u1f41 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. In the Acts (viii. 10) we have \u1f21 \u0394\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\n\u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7. In Mt. we find this usage twice; in Mk. once; in the main epistles\nof St. Paul it occurs 13 times; elsewhere in the New Testament 7 times.\nThat is to say, out of 29 instances in the New Testament (other than i.\n35),(64) St. Luke has 6 (or 20 per cent.). We may therefore say that this\nagain is a marked characteristic of St. Luke\u2019s usage, and though the\nphrase \u03b4. \u1f5d. does not occur again in Lk. (it occurs nowhere else in the\nNT.), it is thoroughly congruous with the Lukan style. We have also to\nnote the word \u1f5d\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Out of 12 instances in the New Testament St. Luke\nactually has 8, or 75 per cent. As, however, three of these occur in\nchaps. i and ii, it might be argued that the interpolator has introduced\n\u1f5d. in verse 35 under the influence of these very chapters. That, however,\nhe should combine it with \u03b4. is interesting. Indeed, on the theory of\ninterpolation, our interpolator has combined a distinctively Lukan word\n(\u1f5d\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) with another word (\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2) which St. Luke often uses (24\ntimes), to produce a characteristic Lukan phrase (\u03b4. in composition with a\nnoun in the genitive)!\n\n4. \u0394\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. Elsewhere St. Luke uses \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc 9 times (once in the Gospel and 8\ntimes in the Acts). In this respect he may be compared with St. Paul, who\nuses the word 25 times, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who\nemploys it 8 times. In the Catholic Epistles it appears 6 times. There is\nbut one instance in Mt. and a doubtful case in Mk. The results are also\ninteresting when we take \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. Out of 10 instances in the New\nTestament, St. Luke has 2 (Ac. x. 29 and xxiv. 26), St. Paul has 6, and\nHebrews 2. There is not an instance in Mt. or Mk., or anywhere else in the\nNew Testament. We are far from suggesting that no one else could use \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03af.(65) The point is that the supposed interpolator has introduced the\nphrase into the work of a writer who, with St. Paul and the author of\nHebrews, alone among New Testament writers employs it!\n\n5. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9. \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 appears in four other places in the New\nTestament. Of these, three are connected with the story of the\nTransfiguration (Mt. xvii. 5, Mk. ix. 7, Lk. ix. 34). That the remaining\ninstance should be Acts v. 15 is, in connexion with our present problem,\nan interesting fact. Thayer\u2010Grimm remarks that the verb occurs in\n\u201cprofane\u201d authors, \u201cgenerally with an accusative of the object, and in the\nsense of obscuring\u201d. In the Septuagint, however, it is used of the divine\ncovering or overshadowing (cf. Ps. xc. (xci.) 4; Ps. cxxxix. (cxl.) 8; Ex.\nxl. 29 (35)). We have to ask whether these passages, especially the last,\nhave influenced the writer of i. 35. We cannot assume the point, of\ncourse, but there is much to be said for it. The thought of the cloud of\nYahweh overshadowing the tent of meeting may very well have shaped the\nthought and the phrasing of \u03b4. \u1f5d\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9. If there is any\nweight in this suggestion (cf. Plummer, op. cit., p. 24), again it tells\nfor Lukan authorship\u2014so far, that is to say, as the undoubted fact that\nchaps. i and ii have a distinctly Old Testament atmosphere will take us.\nApart, however, from such considerations it is a remarkable fact, on the\ntheory of interpolation, that a word so rare in the New Testament, and one\nwhich St. Luke uses more than any one else, should appear in the suspected\nverses. Acts v. 15 (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u1f21 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd)\nis enough in itself to raise the gravest doubt that we have here to do\nwith an interpolator.\n\n6. \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad. Here we have first to call attention\nto the verb \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. Apart from Eph. ii. 7 and James v. 1, this verb is\nlimited to the Lukan writings, where it occurs six times (i.e. besides i.\n35). We have already spoken of \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and remarked that, while it is\ncharacteristic of St. Luke, we could not lay stress upon that fact, since\neven an interpolator would naturally introduce a reference to the Holy\nSpirit in such a connexion as i. 35. If, however, as now we take the whole\nphrase, we come to a very different conclusion. For in Acts i. 8 we have\nthe significantly close parallel, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4. \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2.\nThe parallel speaks for itself!\n\n7. We consider lastly, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. A comparison of passages in the\nfour Gospels and the Acts gives the following results:\n\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad: Jn. 1 (& 2?); Lk. (G.) 60; Acts 15; Lk. (G. & Ac.) 75\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2: Mt. 1?; Mk. 2; Jn. 9; Lk. (G.) 79; Acts 26; Lk. (G. & Ac.)\n            105\n\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2: Lk. (G.) 25; Acts 2; Lk. (G. & Ac.) 27\n\nTo the facts noted in the foregoing table we may add that \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2\noccurs nowhere else in the New Testament. St. Luke, therefore, has it 105\ntimes out of 116. Still more is \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 limited to St. Luke. No\nother New Testament writer uses the phrase, and St. Luke has it 27\ntimes.(66)\n\nIn his three books on the Acts, Harnack is fond of underlining Lukan\ncharacteristics in the \u201cWe\u201d Sections, in order to show the linguistic\nidentity which exists between these Sections and the rest of the work. Let\nus see how Lk. i. 34 f. appears, when treated in this way; not forgetting,\nof course, that we are dealing with two verses only. It is obviously\nimpossible to indicate by this method the special significance of each\nword or phrase; this, however, has already been shown. Our results may be\nrepresented as follows: _\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72_ \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc _\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd_ \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9; \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 _\u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad_, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 _\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2  \u1f5d\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd_ \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd _\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9_, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\nA possible reply to the linguistic argument presented above is that we may\nhave to do with an interpolator who has thoroughly entered into the Lukan\nstyle. If our examination has shown anything at all, it has shown that Lk.\ni. 34. f. is very far from presenting neutral features: it is shot through\nand through with \u201cLukanisms\u201d.(67) But, it may be asked, could not an\ninterpolator, strongly influenced by the Lukan style, have penned these\nverses?\n\nLet us see what, on that hypothesis, the interpolator has done. He has\nproduced a passage of thirty\u2010seven words, in which there is not a\nconstruction, and only one word (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af), which is not well represented in\nthe Lukan writings. He has used a word (\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9) in a sense not elsewhere\nillustrated in those works, but a word which St. Luke would naturally\nemploy in the connexion in which it occurs. He has employed words,\nphrases, and constructions for which St. Luke has a fondness, such as\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f5d\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af, the article with the participle in place\nof a noun (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd.).(68) He has used two verbs (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 and \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9)\nwhich are rare in the New Testament, but which St. Luke uses more than\nonce; the phrase \u03a0. \u1f05. \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad, which is closely paralleled in\nActs i. 8; and, above all, the markedly Lukan \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 ... \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nThis feat, it must be confessed, is a striking performance. If, indeed, it\nhas been achieved, we must conclude that it has been carried out\ndeliberately. We make every allowance for the possibility that a redactor\nmay well enter into the style of an author. But to suppose that in so\nshort a passage so many Lukan features have come together without\npremeditation or design is all but impossible. We make bold to say that,\nif we must admit such an undesigned collocation of \u201cLukanisms\u201d, we can\nhave little confidence in the linguistic argument anywhere.\n\nBut can we believe that the linguistic features of Lk. i. 34 f. have been\n_purposely_ introduced? Such a question is its own answer. No one,\nassuredly, would resort to the desperate expedient of supposing a\nredactor, who laboriously amasses Lukan characteristics, with the\nintention of passing off the very phraseology of his insertion as genuine.\nA modern interpolator might work along these lines, but not an ancient\nredactor. Interpolations are not forgeries. The thought of consciously\nreproducing stylistic features in an insertion would probably never have\noccurred to a redactor of the Gospels.(69)\n\nSo far then as linguistic considerations go, we must conclude that our\nunknown interpolator is a mythical personage. We do not forget the\ndifficulty of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af, but if Lk. i. 34 f. is a non\u2010Lukan interpolation, we\nmust have more support than this. Warp and woof are Lukan; only a single\nthread gives cause for hesitation. Must not this hesitation give way when\nwe look at the facts as a whole? Can we strain out the gnat, and swallow\nthe camel? Assuredly on linguistic grounds the most reasonable conclusion\nwe can frame is that _Lk. i. 34 f. comes from the hand of St. Luke\nhimself_.\n\n\n\n\nIII. Summary and Conclusion\n\n\nWe have now to co\u2010ordinate our results. However strong a linguistic\nargument may be, there is perhaps always room for the view that it is\nconfirmatory rather than demonstrative. In the present case also, the\nshortness of the passage can be pleaded. In noticing this objection we\nurged that the character of the passage is the relevant consideration, and\nwe think Lk. i. 34 f. meets this demand. But we have no need to press the\nlinguistic argument to the extent we ourselves believe to be legitimate,\nwhen we find that both this argument and the textual argument point\nsteadily in the same direction. It is this fact, that both arguments\nconverge on the same point, which is the ultimate ground for our\nconclusion. Short of supplying a rigid demonstration, which should not be\nsought, it is sufficient to establish for us the Lukan authorship of Lk.\ni. 34 f.\n\nThis view carries with it at once the further conclusion that at some time\nor other St. Luke taught and believed in the Virgin Birth. But before we\ncan rest satisfied with this result, we need to look more closely at _an\nalternative form of the interpolation\u2010hypothesis_, to which reference has\nalready been made (p. 36). This is the view of Kattenbusch, Merx, Weinel,\nand J. M. Thompson (_Miracles in the New Testament_, p. 149).\n\nAccording to this theory the interpolation consists in the phrase \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, an insertion which, it is contended, has transformed the\npromise of a natural conception into the prophecy of a virgin birth. Mr.\nThompson notices the two forms which the theory may assume. The insertion\nmay be either \u201ca modification of St. Luke\u2019s source, introduced by the\nEvangelist himself, as editor\u201d, or it may be \u201ca later addition to the text\nof Lk. by some person or congregation who wished to make the miracle quite\nclear\u201d (p. 149). It is obvious that, in its former shape, this hypothesis\nwould not seriously affect our results reached thus far, provided we could\nagree that \u201cverse 35 is not inconsistent with human parentage\u201d (Thompson,\np. 148), and is best interpreted in this way. As regards the second form\nof the theory, the case is different. If \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 is the\naddition of a later reader or congregation, it is much more difficult to\nthink that St. Luke taught the Virgin Birth. It would not be impossible;\nbut it would leave the whole problem to rest upon the interpretation of\nverse 35.\n\nWe are unable to accept the theory that \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 is an\ninsertion of unknown origin, for the following reasons:\n\n1. _On the whole, the more natural interpretation of verse 35 is that in\nitself it implies the Virgin Birth._ It is easier, on this view, to\nexplain \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 followed by \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af. (Cf. Schmiedel,\ncol. 2957 n.; Plummer, _St. Lk._, p. 24f.; Lobstein, op. cit., p. 67.)\n\n2. _No textual evidence can be cited in support of the theory._ This is\nfrankly admitted by Mr. Thompson, and the insertion is explained as an\neditorial modification. We could regard this explanation as sufficient, if\nthe \u201cinsertion\u201d could be looked upon as an \u201cexplanatory phrase\u201d, intended\nto sharpen a reference to the Virgin Birth, which had already been found\nin the context. On this reading of the problem, absence of textual\nvariation might not be an insuperable difficulty. But if we must regard\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 as a doctrinal modification\u2014an attempt on the part\nof an unknown editor to impose upon the narrative a sense quite different\nfrom that which previously it had been understood to bear\u2014then the\nargument sketched in the first part of the present chapter is wholly\nagainst the theory. We cannot understand why no echoes of the earlier view\nhave lingered.\n\n3. _It is difficult to suppose that a later reader who sought to work up\nthe original narrative in the interests of the Virgin Birth would have\nexercised such restraint._ To expand a narrative in the direction of the\nsense which it already bears is a conceivable suggestion. To transform it\ntotally by merely adding four words is a theory which does not carry\nconviction. Was ever an interpolator so ingenious as this?\n\nOn the other side may be pleaded (1) the difficulty of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76, (2) many of\nthe arguments we have sketched in Chapter II. The difficulty of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 we\nhave to admit. As regards the second point, we believe that the theory we\nhave yet to outline in the next chapter meets the case much better,\nwithout suffering from the special objections which can be brought against\nthe view we have just discussed. For the reasons given we are unable to\naccept that view. We prefer to regard Lk. i. 34 f. as a unity, and to\ninterpret both verses as implying the Virgin Birth. And as we have found\nsufficient reasons, both on textual and linguistic grounds, for ascribing\nthe passage to St. Luke, we believe that he taught the Virgin Birth.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. THE PLACE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN THE THIRD GOSPEL\n\n\nIn the present chapter we must formulate a theory which shall do justice\nto the results obtained in the last two chapters. We have argued that the\nVirgin Birth is not an original element in the Third Gospel, that several\npassages in it are inconsistent with the doctrine, and that Lk. i. 34 f.\nis a later insertion. On the other hand we have given reasons for our\nbelief that St. Luke really did write the passage just mentioned, and that\nin consequence he taught the Virgin Birth. It is useless, we think, to set\nthese results against one another; they are not contradictory. The\nargument from the linguistic and textual facts will not make one iota of\ndifference to those derived from the treatment and subject\u2010matter of Lk.\ni, ii, and the latter will not in any way impair the former. Writers who\nhold fast to the view that St. Luke wrote i. 34 f. have not, in that one\ncontention, answered their opponents, and critics who plead for the\nhypothesis of non\u2010Lukan interpolation travel much too fast. The final\ntheory must take all the facts into account.\n\n\n\n\nI. A Suggested Theory\n\n\nSo far as we ourselves are concerned, there is only one hypothesis open to\nus, and it is not far to seek. It will be best if we first state it\nsomewhat baldly, leaving obvious difficulties to be considered later. The\ntheory is as follows:\n\nIn the first instance St. Luke wrote his Gospel, either in whole or in\npart, without any knowledge of the Virgin Birth. To him, as to the\ncompiler of the Lukan Genealogy, Jesus was the son of Joseph and of Mary.\nSt. Luke\u2019s estimate of Jesus was not less high than that of St. Paul and\nSt. Mark, but, as was probably true in the case of each of these writers,\nno tradition of the Miraculous Birth had reached him. He looked upon Jesus\nas the Child of Wondrous Promise, and for his analogies he turned to the\nOld Testament to the stories of Isaac and of Samuel.\n\nIn contrast to earlier writers St. Luke had an excellent Birth\u2010tradition\nat his disposal. According to his sources the coming and future Messianic\ngreatness of Jesus had been divinely foretold. His birth was heralded by\nangelic choirs, and humble shepherds brought their meed of worship and of\npraise. By an insight divinely given, men like Simeon and women like Anna\nsaw in Him the child of promise. He was to be a light for revelation to\nthe Gentiles and the glory of His people Israel. We need not stay to look\nmore closely into the story, which doubtless has been worked up as regards\nits form by the Evangelist\u2019s hand. Suffice it to say that St. Luke\u2019s\npicture is that of a Wondrous Birth, supernaturally foretold; not a virgin\nbirth.(70)\n\nSome time after he had penned his narrative, possibly after it had been\ndispatched to Theophilus, but at any rate before the Gospel gained a wider\ncirculation, St. Luke received the tradition of the Virgin Birth. At what\ntime and from what source the story reached him we are quite unable to\nsay; possibly it was from some reader or readers to whom he had submitted\nhis narrative; possibly the story travelled along some independent\nchannel. In any case the probability is that the tradition was imparted to\nSt. Luke by some one who claimed to possess a fuller and a better account,\nand whose claim the Evangelist respected and admitted. Having regard to\nSt. Luke\u2019s standing and methods as an historian, we prefer to believe that\nthe tradition reached him through a definite and _personal_ channel, than\nto suppose that of his own initiative he freely altered a valuable source\nout of deference to a growing theory.\n\nThe historical value of the new information is a question we are not now\nconsidering. It is part of our theory, however, that it satisfied the mind\nof St. Luke; to him the Virgin Birth was historic fact. Probably the story\nappealed to him at once as a fitting explanation of the unique personality\nof Jesus. It was a tradition rich in doctrinal possibilities; it provoked\nreflection, and it answered questions.\n\nThe Evangelist saw at once that the story must find a place in his\nnarrative. Fortunately it was not too late, and fortunately again there\nwas a point where it could be included without entailing the necessity of\nrewriting cc. i, ii entirely. He had only to insert the words we have now\nin i. 34 f. into the address of the angel, and to add to the opening words\nof the Genealogy the phrase \u201cas was supposed\u201d, to obtain a narrative in\nwhich truths previously unknown to him found sufficient statement. If we\ncan suppose that the adaptation of what he had previously written was not\ndrastic enough, we obtain a hypothesis which at least does justice to\nevery result we have yet secured.\n\nThe view that Lk. i. 34 f. is an interpolation made by St. Luke himself\nwas put forward by Zimmermann in _Studien und Kritiken_ (p. 273 f.) in\n1903. His treatment (cf. Moffatt, INT., p. 269 n.) differs in several\nrespects from that outlined above. Zimmermann posits an Aramaic Jewish\u2010\nChristian source which described a natural birth, and suggests that it was\nin the course of translating this document that St. Luke added i. 34 f.\nThe Evangelist is also credited with having altered i. 27 and ii. 5, so as\nto describe Mary as betrothed to Joseph. Zimmermann also explains ii. 22\n(\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd) as a mistranslation, and ascribes to St. Luke the parenthesis of\nii. 35 a, and the chronology of iii. 1\u20102, which he holds is inaccurate.\n\nAccording to this hypothesis St. Luke must have been acquainted with the\nVirgin Birth _before_ he began to translate the supposed Aramaic document.\nThis view is encumbered with difficulty; for, if Zimmermann is right, we\nshould certainly expect a much more drastic editing of the document than\ncan be shown. The extent to which this difficulty appears in the case of\nour own theory is one for which we think that justification can be\ngiven.(71) In the case of Zimmermann\u2019s hypothesis the obstacle is too\ngreat. On this view we cannot understand how the Evangelist allowed\nhimself to write down those expressions which are incompatible with the\nMiraculous Conception.(72)\n\nThe view we have preferred agrees with that of Zimmermann in positing a\nsource or sources which described a natural birth. It differs from it in\ndenying that the Evangelist knew of the Virgin Birth at the time when he\nmade use of those sources. We prefer to think that it was after cc. i, ii\nhad attained what is substantially its present form in Greek, that St.\nLuke came to hear of the Virgin Birth, and that it was then that he\ninserted i. 34 f. This supposition includes the positive advantages of\nZimmermann\u2019s theory, and it agrees better with the existing literary\nphenomena of Lk. i, ii.(73)\n\n\n\n\nII. Literary Conditions Under Which the Gospels Were Written\n\n\nIn holding the view we have outlined, we have no thought of running with\nthe hare and hunting with the hounds. Our theory is not intended as an\neirenicon. It is not an attempt to make the best of two worlds, the\ncritical and the dogmatic. If we appear to have introduced the Virgin\nBirth into the Third Gospel by the back door, after we have bowed it out\nat the front, this is simply because the evidence leaves us no\nalternative. Our theory makes room for the twofold fact, as it seems to\nus, (1) that the Virgin Birth is not an original element in the Third\nGospel, and (2) that St. Luke wrote the one passage in the Gospel which\nasserts the doctrine; thus for us it is inevitable.\n\nIf, from another point of view, our hypothesis seems a bold venture, we\nmay justly claim that the facts are such as to demand a bold treatment.\nNor is it a sufficient objection to say that the theory is complex. Life\nis a complex thing, and there are few times when we need to remember it so\nmuch as when we are thinking of the production of an historical work.\n\nApart from other claims which can be made, our theory has one important,\nif general, advantage; it takes account of the elementary facts of human\ncomposition. Have we given sufficient thought to the fact that a writer\nlike St. Luke may well have turned back to review, and even to alter, in\nthe light of further information, what he had already written? Is not this\nwhat nearly every one does who writes or relates anything at all? Is it\nnot indeed rather a rare than a usual proceeding to write a story from\nstart to finish without insertion, omission, and revision?\n\nIn his \u201cIntroduction\u201d Dr. James Moffatt has drawn attention to these\nthings, and especially as they concern St. Luke\u2019s two works. He shows that\ninterpolation may take place \u201ceither (_a_) at the hands of the author\nhimself, or (_b_) by subsequent editors of the volume, after the writer\u2019s\ndeath, or (_c_) by scribes (or editors) of the text\u201d (p. 36). Under (a) he\nrefers to instances in Aeschylus, Herodotus, Virgil, Juvenal, Martial, and\nLucretius. \u201cSeveral passages in the _De Rerum Natura_ (e.g. ii. 165\u201083)\nare also to be explained most naturally as additions made by Lucretius\nhimself to the original draft, and in the case of the Third Gospel or its\nsequel it is not unlikely that Luke may have re\u2010edited ... his work\u201d (p.\n37). Dr. Moffatt gives a very interesting modern example in the case of\n_Northanger Abbey_, which was first composed by Jane Austen in 1798. \u201cIn\nthe fifth chapter, however, we have an allusion to Miss Edgeworth\u2019s\n_Belinda_\u2014a novel which did not appear until 1801. This proves that Miss\nAusten\u2019s work lies before us in a revised form; the first draft was gone\nover by the authoress before its final publication some years later\u201d (p.\n37).(74)\n\nIt will scarcely be denied that the possibility of interpolation by an\noriginal author has often been overlooked by many critics. They are not\nslow to find the insertions of later readers and scribes, but often it\nseems tacitly to be assumed that the original writers must have written\nwith logical and almost unerring precision. Curiously enough, something\nlike the Verbal Inspiration of Scripture is required to justify some of\nthe critical results reached. This is a doctrine long since discredited,\nbut being dead it yet speaks. It will have to be allowed, we think, that\nmechanical theories of Inspiration have not yet left us free to perceive\nthose ordinary conditions of writing under which the New Testament writers\nwrote. The aftermath of Verbal Inspiration still blinds us to the\ncommonplaces of composition.\n\nOf all New Testament authors St. Luke is perhaps the last to have issued\nhis works without modifications. The high art which is self\u2010evident in a\nmodern writer like Robert Louis Stevenson was not attained without\ncorrections, substitutions, redrafting, and rewriting. Without drawing the\nparallel too closely, and without impugning his real inspiration, we may\nwell credit some of these processes to St. Luke. This, however, is an\nargument we cannot press too far, for, as will be seen in the following\nsection, there is good ground for the belief that St. Luke\u2019s revision of\nhis work was never complete. It is sufficient for our hypothesis to find\nroom for a measure of revision and for the presence of modifications\nrequired by new information.\n\nThe nature of St. Luke\u2019s task is an added reason for expecting these\nprocesses. In his Preface (i. 1\u20104) St. Luke shows a desire to produce a\nfull and accurate record, and claims to have traced the course of all\nthings from the first. Any new information bearing upon the Birth and the\nhidden years of the Infancy would be especially welcome to him. Any one,\nmoreover, who has had anything to do with collecting memoirs knows that\nnot infrequently new facts come to hand just when the task seems well\u2010nigh\ncompleted, facts for which a place must be found, however great the\ndifficulties may be.\n\nWe are not indeed left entirely to conjecture. We can examine St. Luke\u2019s\ntreatment of the Markan record. The modifications which he introduces are\nmanifest, and they arise in different ways. Many of them are stylistic,\nothers are intended to clear up difficulties, while it is in every way\nprobable that others again are corrections introduced as the result of new\ninformation. If, from such causes, St. Luke does not hesitate to modify\nthe statements of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel, it is inconceivable that he would\nhave refrained from altering his own narrative if occasion should arise.\n\nWe have at least one definite example, within St. Luke\u2019s works, of a story\nwhich has been modified in the light of further information. In Lk. xxiv\nthere is good ground for thinking that the final parting of Jesus from His\ndisciples is not described as an Ascension, and apparently it takes place\nat the close of Easter Day. In Acts i we have the story of a forty days\u2019\ninterval, during which the Risen Christ teaches His disciples the things\nconcerning the Kingdom of God (i. 3). The Ascension is described as an act\nof visible levitation. Jesus is taken up into heaven and a cloud receives\nHim out of His disciples\u2019 sight (i. 9). As they stand gazing upwards two\nmen appear by their side clothed in white garments, who declare that Jesus\nshall return in like manner as they beheld Him going into heaven (i. 10\nf.). The disciples then return to Jerusalem. It can hardly be denied that\nthis is a totally different story from that which is told in Lk. xxiv.\nWhatever its historical value may be the presumption is that it rests upon\na tradition which had come to St. Luke\u2019s knowledge after he had completed\nhis Gospel. Apparently he acquired his new information when it was too\nlate to alter his earlier work. Otherwise we may believe that the story\nwould have appeared in the Gospel and not in the Acts.\n\nIt may freely be granted that the foregoing considerations are of a purely\ngeneral character. Admittedly they do not prove that Lk. i. 34 f. is a\nspecific instance of modification. Our justification of this hypothesis is\nthe results we have reached in Chapters II and III. What we have just\nurged, however, is sufficient to show that our theory is not by any means\ninherently impossible, but is consonant with St. Luke\u2019s procedure and\nmethods as a writer.\n\n\n\n\nIII. The Objections to Which the Above Theory is Exposed\n\n\nWe have now to consider what is perhaps the strongest objection to which\nour theory is exposed. It may be stated as follows:\n\nIf the Virgin Birth is a later element in the Third Gospel introduced by\nSt. Luke himself, the Evangelist\u2019s revision of cc. i, ii might reasonably\nhave been expected to be much more thorough than it is. Why, for example,\ndoes he leave untouched the references to Joseph and Mary as \u201cthe parents\u201d\nof Jesus? Why does he not qualify his ambiguous reference to \u201ctheir\u201d\npurification? Why is he still untroubled by their astonishment, and by\ntheir failure to understand the words of Jesus at Jerusalem? Why does he\nnot insert some clearer reference to the Davidic descent of Mary, or at\nleast give us reason to believe that he looked upon Jesus as the adopted,\nand therefore legal, son of Joseph? Why does he leave the Sonship\nmentioned in the first part of the angel\u2019s speech (i. 31\u20103) apparently of\na purely Messianic character? Why does he not provide occasion in the\nAnnunciation for the terms of Mary\u2019s question in i. 34? In short, are we\nnot back again face to face with the same difficulties with which our\ninvestigation opened? These are some of the difficulties which our theory\nraises.\n\nIn reply to this objection there are two preliminary considerations to be\nborne in mind. They are not arguments in the sense of things which can be\nproved; they are rather possibilities which ought seriously to be taken\ninto account.\n\n(1) In the first place it should be recognized that _we may not have all\nthe details of St. Luke\u2019s actual reconstruction before us_. Something may\nhave been altered or excised; we have the result; we may not have all the\nstages. Usener (EB., col. 3350) has asserted that statements of fact have\nactually been omitted from the original narrative; he is even able to tell\nus what they are! He thinks that we can \u201cinfer with certainty\u201d that in the\noriginal form of the narrative after i. 38 stood the further statement\nthat Mary was then taken to wife by Joseph and that she conceived by him.\nUsener suggests that this statement was \u201cjudged inadmissible\u201d by the\nredactor who interpolated i. 34 f., and that in consequence it was\nexpunged. There can be little doubt that reasoning such as this requires\nomniscience as well as intuition! And the same criticism would be just in\nreply to any one who should elect to tell us exactly what St. Luke himself\nhas altered or omitted. These are things which we do not know, and which\nwe cannot know; we cannot even \u201cinfer with certainty\u201d that St. Luke has\nomitted anything at all. But the broad possibility that he may have\neffected transformations and modifications in cc. i, ii, which we cannot\nnow trace, is quite another matter, and, indeed, is by no means\nimprobable. And if this is so, must it not affect the judgement we pass\nupon the skill or lack of skill which, on the theory proposed, St. Luke\nhas shown? We may not know all. Obviously, we cannot prove this, but it is\na consideration which we ought to have in mind.\n\n(2) A second thing to be remembered is that, if our theory is true, _we do\nnot know anything of the actual circumstances under which the new\ntradition was introduced into the Gospel; it may have been in haste_. Did\nthe story reach the Evangelist at the last moment? Or, if not, was there a\nprocess of sifting and testing of the new information, which left little\ntime when at length the fateful decision was taken, and the Evangelist\ntook up his pen? Again we cannot prove these things, but again we cannot\ndeny them. And if we cannot deny them, we must not ignore them. Only if we\ndo ignore these possibilities, are we at liberty to insist that the\nreconstruction should have been more drastic. If, as we ourselves think,\nthe supposition is reasonable, that i. 34 f. was added when the Evangelist\nhad only just heard of the Virgin Birth tradition, we have clearly a good\nanswer to the objection we are considering.\n\nThe foregoing arguments are speculative; there are, however, more positive\nconsiderations to urge. In addition to what has been said, we may point\nout (3) the fact that _St. Luke\u2019s writings left his hand without a\npainstaking final revision_, and (4) _the different effect upon the mind\nof a new piece of information as compared with a belief, which has been\nheld for some time, and has already become an intellectual\npresupposition_.\n\n(3) _That St. Luke\u2019s writings left his hands without a final revision is\nstrongly supported by the literary phenomena of the two works._ The\nclearest evidence is found in the Acts, in which we probably have a closer\nliterary parallel to the Birth Stories of Lk. i, ii than in the rest of\nthe Gospel itself. Writing on the Acts (_Acts of the Apostles_, Eng. Tr.,\npp. 203 ff.) Harnack gives a list of more than two hundred \u201cinstances of\ninaccuracy and discrepancy\u201d. Harnack does not accept them all, and shows\nthat they are of different types, many of them being comparatively\ntrifling and unimportant. Some are cases of anacoluthon and of transition\nfrom indirect to direct speech and vice versa. There are also \u201ccases where\nSt. Luke introduces persons with a certain unconcern, or in other places\nseems to forget that he has already introduced them\u201d (p. 230). Harnack\npoints out that \u201cthe details of a story are here and there inserted later\nor again earlier than their proper place\u201d (p. 227), and he asserts that\n\u201cinstances of redundancy, of awkward repetition, of silence upon important\npoints, and of extraordinary brevity, can be adduced from different parts\nof the book\u201d (p. 230). He finds \u201cinstances of discrepancy\u201d in the three\naccounts of the conversion of St. Paul, the letter of Claudius Lysias, the\nreport of Festus, the last speech of St. Paul at Rome, and in other\npassages (p. 231).\n\nAdequately to enter into this very interesting question would take us too\nfar beyond the limits of our main subject. It is perhaps not unfair to\nsuggest that Harnack\u2019s long list, as given in pp. 203\u201025, is capable of\nvery considerable reduction. There is great force in Ramsay\u2019s remark: \u201cHe\nwho reads Luke without applying practical sense and mother\u2010wit and\nexperience will always misunderstand him\u201d, and in his caution: \u201cWhen you\nthink you find an \u2018inconsistency\u2019 in Luke, you should look carefully\nwhether you have been sufficiently applying these qualities, before you\ncondemn the supposed fault\u201d (_Luke the Physician_, p. 55). Ramsay himself\nadmits, however, that there are inconsistencies which cannot be denied,\nand holds that they show that \u201cthe work never received the final form\nwhich Luke intended to give it, but was still incomplete when he died\u201d\n(ib., p. 24). In his earlier work, _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman\nCitizen_, Ramsay has made the same suggestion, illustrations of which he\nfinds in Acts xvi. 19, 20 and xx. 4, 5.(75)\n\nWe may describe the impression which St. Luke, as a writer, makes upon us\nby saying that, while his work is marked by great literary art, and while\nit is characterized by many striking instances of historical accuracy,\nyet, at the same time, the Evangelist shows a certain unconcern in matters\nof detail (Harnack would call it \u201ca certain literary carelessness\u201d), the\nresults of which would probably have disappeared had he subjected his\nworks to a close final revision. If this view is just there is little\nweight in the objection that, on the theory we have stated, St. Luke\u2019s\nreconstruction might have been expected to be more drastic than it is. The\ninconsistencies he has left are like those which we find elsewhere and are\na feature of his works as they stand.\n\n(4) Our final argument is of a psychological kind. It rests, as we have\nsaid, upon _the difference between an intellectual prepossession and the\nfirst effect upon the mind of new information_.\n\nThe previous argument might seem to point in another direction. Will not\nthe character of St. Luke\u2019s writings sufficiently explain the literary\nphenomena of Lk. i, ii, on the view that he taught the Virgin Birth from\nthe first? In the light of the discrepancies which occur in the Gospel and\nthe Acts, can we not believe that after all the Virgin Birth is an\noriginal element in the Gospel? This contention would be an example of\nwhat Harnack has called attempting to gather apologetic figs from\nsceptical thistles.(76) We do not think that in this case the harvest\nwould realize expectations.\n\nIt must be remembered that the two cases are not parallel. In the one case\nwe begin with a writer whose mind is filled with an intellectual\npresupposition, with a knowledge, that is to say, of the Virgin Birth\npresupposed. Under these circumstances the miracle must be \u201ca necessary\nstone in the structure\u201d, and its effect determinative. If the Virgin Birth\nhad been known to St. Luke for some considerable time, we cannot think\nthat Lk. i, ii would have possessed the features to which we have called\nattention in Chapter II. In the other case\u2014that of our hypothesis\u2014the\nVirgin Birth is a piece of new information, and, if this is so, we submit\nthat inconsistencies left in the adapted narrative wear a different hue.\nIt is one thing to introduce into a narrative what is inconsistent to\none\u2019s presuppositions. It is quite another thing not to perceive\ninconsistencies at once, when our knowledge is enlarged by a totally new\nfact. A presupposition is much more despotic than a subsequent discovery.\n\nIt is common knowledge that the implications of a new point of view are\nnot always immediately recognized. For a time old and new live together.\nIt is not by any means an easy task to introduce into a narrative,\nconstructed under the guidance of alien presuppositions, a fact of an\nentirely new order. That St. Luke should have performed his task so well\nargues no little skill in literary craftsmanship. That his work was not\ncompletely done is after all no more than we might expect. From the\nstandpoint of literary exactitude, no doubt the better plan would have\nbeen to rewrite the narrative, or at least to subject it to a rigorous\npruning. But we ought not to complain if these things have not been done.\nSt. Luke was probably too much of an artist to feel the merciless logic of\nhis new information; and the result is a compromise.\n\nIn connexion with our theory we do not think that this is an unreasonable\nview to take. The difficulties are certainly much greater upon the theory\nthat St. Luke knew of the Virgin Birth from the first. Granted certain\npresuppositions, and we can say with good reason what a writer like St.\nLuke would not be likely to do. Assume the entrance of a new fact,\ntransforming by a whole world of difference the writer\u2019s point of view,\nand who can say just what he would do? We can say, of course, that he\nwould introduce his new knowledge, if persuaded of its truth; but when we\ncome to the details of reconstruction, we are face to face with the\nuncertainties of the personal equation. The logical procedure is drastic\nrevision. If the writer stops short of this, as he may very well do, and\nattempts to fuse his material, seams must show and markings remain. This\nis precisely what we find in Lk. i, ii. In i. 34 f. and its context we can\ndetect the seams; in c. ii we can see the markings.\n\nIt will be recognized that the situation is quite different on the view\nwhich credits i. 34 f. to a later Christian editor. Against this theory\nthe objection we are considering has much greater force. For it is\nunlikely that the redactor would approach the Gospel with a knowledge of\nthe Virgin Birth but lately gained. On the contrary, it would probably be\na doctrine with which he had long been familiar. Accordingly, in addition\nto the other objections that we have raised against the theory of late\ninterpolation, it would be legitimate to ask, Why has the redactor not\ndone his work better? Our own hypothesis\u2014that St. Luke had only just\nentered into a knowledge of the new tradition\u2014is, indeed, the one theory\nwhere we have the least need to ask this question.\n\nFor the reasons given, we believe that the objection that St. Luke\u2019s\nrevision should have been more drastic is not insuperable. That there is\ndifficulty we allow. But there is probably no solution of the Lukan\nproblem, not even the correct one, which will not leave difficulties of a\nkind. The problem is complex and the facts often elusive. It is on the\nground that the theory we have sketched leaves least difficulties, and\ndoes justice to the facts as they appear, that we venture to find in it a\nreasonable solution of the problem of the Virgin Birth in relation to the\nThird Gospel and to St. Luke.\n\n\n\n\nIV. Certain Consequences\n\n\nIt remains for us to consider certain consequences which follow if our\nhypothesis is true.\n\n(1) In the first place, _we can claim St. Luke as a witness to the\ntradition of the Virgin Birth_. This is a result of first importance. For\nthose who regard St. Luke as a very credulous person with a special\n\u201cfondness\u201d for \u201ca good miracle\u201d, this conclusion will mean little. But for\nthose who are impressed by his claim to be regarded as a good historical\nwriter, it is not a view to be lightly esteemed. There are those who will\nconsider that St. Luke\u2019s witness settles the historical question, and will\nbe disposed on the ground of his authority to accept the tradition. But\nwith greater reason there are others who will feel that, with all his\nexcellences as an historian, St. Luke has the elementary human right to\nmake a mistake, especially when he is dependent upon the evidence of\nothers. The determining feature is clearly the character of his source or\nsources.\n\n(2) A further fact to be noticed is that _St. Luke\u2019s witness marks a very\nearly stage in the spread of the Virgin Birth tradition_. In this respect\nthere is a contrast between the Third and First Gospels. In the Third\nGospel the tradition is stated, but its problems are scarcely felt. There\nis a foreshadowing of this in the words \u201cas was supposed\u201d in the\nGenealogy, but not more. St. Luke has not really felt the problem of the\nDavidic descent. He has not envisaged that very striking treatment of the\nproblem which we shall have occasion to point out in the Matthaean\nGenealogy (see pp. 89 ff.). St. Luke\u2019s narrative is neither didactic nor\napologetic. It is almost, but not quite, a simple narrative of what is\nimplicitly accepted as fact. In making this qualification we are thinking\nof the artistic form which the earlier narrative embodied in Lk. i, ii has\nimposed upon St. Luke\u2019s account of the Virgin Birth; but this is a matter\nwhich will come up again a little later. The fact that is of outstanding\ninterest is that St. Luke could sit down to write a Gospel, with a desire\nto trace out all things accurately from the first, and yet know nothing of\nthe Virgin Birth, until after the greater part, if not the whole, of his\nwork was completed.\n\n(3) _It is the fact just noted which helps us to date the first appearance\nof the Virgin Birth tradition; its date is bound up with the question of\nthe date of the Third Gospel._ This is a question which will receive\nfurther treatment in our final chapter (pp. 117 ff.).\n\n(4) _Our hypothesis postulates an earlier narrative of the Birth of Jesus\nwhich knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. The relation of this narrative to\nthe later tradition needs carefully to be considered._\n\nWe have already expressed the opinion that the earlier narrative was\nprobably taken from a good historical source. Ramsay has noted signs of a\nwomanly spirit in the whole narrative, and thinks that it may well go back\neither to Mary, or to some one who was very intimate with her (cf. _Was\nChrist Born at Bethlehem?_, pp. 74\u201088; _Luke the Physician_, pp. 13, 50).\nSanday is not able to speak quite so confidently as to the nearness of the\nsource to Mary, but thinks that it could not be \u201cmore than two or three\ndegrees removed from her\u201d. \u201cIt must have been near enough\u201d, he says, \u201cto\nretain the fine touches which Professor Ramsay so well brings out\u201d\n(_Outlines_, p. 195 n.). These views have won considerable support in\nGreat Britain. It will be remembered, of course, that they have regard to\nthe whole of Lk. i, ii, to the narrative, that is to say, as an account of\nthe Virgin Birth. The same arguments are valid, however, for ascribing a\ngood historical foundation to the narrative, even if i. 34 f. is a later\naddition. The probability is that the source, whether documentary or oral,\nis of Palestinian origin, and that it points back ultimately, if not\nimmediately, to the Holy Family. On our theory, however, while silent as\nto the paternity of Joseph, the source had nothing to say of the Virgin\nBirth. It described the non\u2010miraculous birth of the long\u2010expected Messiah.\n\nAt first sight the high historical value of this earlier source would\nappear to be detrimental to the tradition of Lk. i. 34 f. But it is not\ncertain that this is so. There is more force than has often been allowed\nin the suggestion that the facts of the Virgin Birth may have been\npurposely withheld from public knowledge for many years by those who knew\nthem.(77) Assuming for the moment the truth of this view, we may ask,\n_Would nothing at all be told?_ If we think it probable that part at least\nof the story would be related, it may be that the tradition upon which St.\nLuke first drew is a version of that part. We might even hazard the\nsuggestion that it was the publication of this story by St. Luke which\ndrew out the fuller narrative. In other words, the fact that the earlier\ntradition makes no reference to the Virgin Birth need not be fatal to the\ntruth of the later story expanded in i. 34 f. This, of course, is\nspeculation; but, at any rate, the possibilities are such as to forbid the\nspecious argument\u2014the Holy Family know nothing of the Virgin Birth! We\ntread upon firmer ground when we urge that the higher the historical value\nof the earlier story the less likely would St. Luke have been disposed to\nmodify it in deference to further information, unless he had attached\nconsiderable value to the new tradition, and was persuaded of its truth.\n\n(5) As regards _the origin of the Virgin Birth tradition implied in Lk. i.\n34 f._, we have to confess that we are completely in the dark. We have\nstated our preference for the view that it came through a personal channel\n(p. 73). We are unable to think that in writing i. 34 f. St. Luke was\nhimself merely translating theology into narrative. But who the\nintermediary was we cannot tell. On our theory, the tradition cannot have\nbeen directly imparted to the Evangelist by Mary. Whether, in the end, the\nstory can be traced back to her, is a question we cannot now discuss. At\nthis stage it would be no more than a guess to connect it with the women\nmentioned in Lk. viii. 2, 3; xxiv. 10, or with the daughters of Philip\n(Acts xxi. 8, 9). In an historical inquiry it is never safe to ascribe a\ntradition to an authority, unless we have solid grounds for so doing.\nOtherwise, we import a bias into the investigation, if indeed we do not\nbeg the question. The mistake is one which has been made more than once in\ndiscussing the Virgin Birth. In the present case we have nothing whatever\nto guide us, and accordingly we have to acquiesce in the bare conclusion\nthat St. Luke accepted the Virgin Birth tradition, but that we do not know\nanything about his authority, except that it satisfied his mind.\n\n(6) The _form_ in which the tradition reached St. Luke can hardly have\nbeen the brief statement of i. 34 f. The literary form of that passage is\ndetermined by that of the earlier narrative. The latter, as we have said\n(p. 73), is something more than a bare transcript of events. It is a\nproduct of high art, and is shaped upon Old Testament models. Ramsay finds\nin it a Greek element. The story has been \u201cre\u2010thought out of the Hebraic\ninto the Greek fashion\u201d (_Luke the Physician_, p. 13). The divine\nmessenger becomes to St. Luke \u201cthe winged personal being who, like Iris or\nHermes, communicates the will and purpose of God\u201d (op. cit., p. 13).\nHaving regard, however, to the Old Testament birth\u2010stories of Isaac,\nSamson, and Samuel, it is doubtful if we really need this suggestion. In\nany case, we may say that it is the mould in which the earlier story has\nbeen cast, which accounts for the literary form of the Virgin Birth\ntradition in Lk. i. 34 f. The tradition which St. Luke received probably\ncontained the substance of what is stated in verse 35, and asserted that\nJesus was begotten of Mary by the Holy Spirit.\n\n(7) The historical value of the Virgin Birth tradition in the Third Gospel\nis a question which cannot be answered until the problem is treated as a\nwhole. Our study of the Lukan problem adds to the material at our\ndisposal. It confirms our conclusions in Chapter I as regards St. Paul and\nSt. Mark. It also enables us to say that _St. Luke, in his later years,\ncame to believe and teach the Virgin Birth, on grounds which are unknown\nto us, but which he himself deemed sufficient_.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE FIRST GOSPEL\n\n\nMore than the other Synoptic Gospels, the First Gospel comes before us as\nan \u201cofficial\u201d document of the Christian Church. Our Third Gospel was\nsomewhat of the nature of a \u201cprivate venture\u201d, and how inadequately the\nvalue of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel was recognized in the first half of the second\ncentury appears in the fact that its survival seems almost accidental, all\nexisting copies being derived from a single mutilated MS.(78) Whether,\nthen, we can claim the authority and sanction of the First Gospel for the\nVirgin Birth tradition, is clearly a question of first\u2010rate importance. To\nsome the question will appear determinative; but for those also, who feel\nthat in any case the historical value of the witness would remain an open\nquestion, a conclusion as regards the problem is of very great\nsignificance, in view of its historical implications.\n\nIn the present chapter our purpose is to inquire how far the First Gospel\nbears witness to the Virgin Birth, and what the character of its witness\nis. Was the narrative, as we have it to\u2010day, present in the Gospel from\nthe first? Is Mt. i, ii a later insertion, or is the passage i. 18\u201025 an\ninterpolation? Extremely interesting discussions have also arisen around\nthe question of the Matthaean Genealogy and the true text of Mt. i. 16,\nand these call for notice. The question of the historical value of the\ntradition of Mt. i. 18\u201025 must in the main be postponed, but the\npossibilities, and such positive facts as emerge, can be noted.\n\nPerhaps the best method of approach is to consider first the character of\nthe Genealogy, apart altogether from the question of its authorship. The\ndetails of the textual problem of Mt. i. 16 will be discussed in an\nAppendix to the chapter. The remaining points to be treated are the\ngenuineness of cc. i, ii, the unity of these chapters, and lastly the\nsources and implications of the narrative, together with a survey of the\nresults reached.\n\n\n\n\nI. The Characteristics of the Genealogy\n\n\nAmong the features which mark the Genealogy we may note the following:\n\n(1) _Its purpose_ is to show the Davidic descent of Jesus by tracing the\nroyal line (cf. verse 6 \u201cDavid the king\u201d).\n\n(2) _The structure is obviously artificial._(79) The Genealogy is arranged\nin three groups of fourteen generations, an arrangement to which the\nwriter himself calls attention (verse 17). In order to secure this\nstructure, the names of Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah are omitted (cf. 1\nChron. iii) and the third group covers a space of about six hundred years.\n\u201cIf any source of the schematism is wanted, the cabbalistic interpretation\nof \u05d3\u05d5\u05d3, whose three letters are equivalent by gematria to the number 14,\nis the most probable\u201d (Moffatt, INT., p. 250 n.).\n\n(3) The verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd is used throughout of legal, not physical,\ndescent.(80) This inference is drawn from the artificial character of the\nGenealogy. Its omissions are obvious, and must have been so both to the\ncompiler and his readers. \u201cThe contemporaries of the Evangelist knew their\nBible at least as well as we do. They knew that there were more than\nfourteen generations between David and the Captivity, that Joram did not\nbeget Uzziah, and that Josiah did not beget Jeconiah\u201d (Burkitt, _Evan. Da\u2010\nMeph._, ii, p. 260). If the passage Mt. i. 18\u201025, as well as the\nGenealogy, comes from the hand of the Evangelist, the verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd must\nclearly indicate legal parentage; but there is sufficient ground for this\nview within the Genealogy itself.\n\n(4) The references to women in the Genealogy are unique, and are best\nexplained as due to an apologetic purpose. They cannot be so well\nexplained as reflecting a universalistic interest (Heffern, quoted by\nMoffatt, INT., p. 251). In contrast to the Genealogy in the Third Gospel,\nthat in Mt. traces the descent no farther back than to Abraham; it is\nfundamentally Jewish. There can be little doubt but that the writer\u2019s\npurpose is to rebut Jewish slanders already current regarding the birth of\nJesus. \u201cThroughout the whole Genealogy the Evangelist appears to be\ntelling us in an audible aside that the heir had often been born out of\nthe direct line or irregularly. Thamar the daughter\u2010in\u2010law of Judah, Rahab\nthe harlot, Ruth the Moabitess, and the unnamed wife of Uriah, are forced\nupon our attention, as if to prepare us for still greater irregularity in\nthe last stage\u201d (Burkitt).(81)\n\nIf these are the characteristic features of the Genealogy, it is clear\nthat _from the first it was compiled with the Virgin Birth presupposed_.\nIt is, in fact, an attempt to present that belief in connexion with the\nclaim that Jesus was of Davidic descent, through the legal relationship in\nwhich He stood to Joseph.(82) Thus, the Matthaean Genealogy is unique; it\ndiffers altogether from that in Lk. If to us its form seems forced and\nunreal, that is because we fail to come to it from the historical point of\nview. From this standpoint we may ask, with W. C. Allen (ICC., St. Mt., p.\n6): \u201cIf the editor simply tried to give expression to the two facts which\nhad come down to him by tradition\u2014the fact of Christ\u2019s supernatural birth\nand the fact that He was the Davidic Messiah, and did not attempt a\nlogical synthesis of them, who shall blame him?\u201d We are not here concerned\nwith the question of the truth of the Virgin Birth tradition, but simply\nwith the view that the compiler of the Genealogy held that belief, and for\nthis inference a high degree of probability can be claimed.\n\nIf this is the character of the Genealogy, it must follow that _the\ntextual problem of Mt. i. 16_ differs considerably in importance from the\nthought of a quarter of a century ago. It is becoming increasingly\nrecognized that, whatever the true text of Mt. i. 16 may be, it can make\nlittle difference to the character of the Genealogy as outlined above. Its\ninterest is textual and literary rather than historical. The most\ninteresting statement of this point of view is that of F. C. Burkitt in\nhis _Evangelion Da\u2010Mepharreshe_ (1904, see vol. ii, pp. 258 ff.). On p.\n258 Burkitt expresses a firm belief that no fresh light upon the\nhistorical events of the Nativity has been thrown either by the discovery\nof the Sinaitic Syriac MS. or by the publication of the _Dialogue of\nTimothy and Aquila_. He says (p. 261) that even if the Genealogy had ended\nwith the uncompromising statement \u201cand Joseph begat Jesus\u201d, it would not\nprove that its compiler believed that Joseph was the actual father of\nJesus. In this connexion it is of great interest to note that Archdeacon\nAllen, who upholds the historical truth of the Virgin Birth, actually\nadopts in his commentary on Mt. (ICC., 1907) the reading implied by the\nSin. Syr., as the true text of Mt. i. 16\u2014\u201cAnd Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph,\nto whom was espoused Mary a virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ\u201d (p.\n5). Writing in 1916, Canon Box takes a different view of the textual\nproblem, but is no less emphatic in his assertion that, \u201ceven if the\nreading _Joseph ... begat Jesus_ be correct, it need not imply a belief in\nthe natural generation of Jesus\u201d (_The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 15).\nLastly, we may compare the judgement of Dr. James Moffatt (INT., 1918):\n\u201cSuch modifications as may be due to doctrinal presuppositions are\ndesigned to re\u2010set or to sharpen the reference of the original text to the\nvirgin birth, not to insert the dogma in a passage which was originally\nfree from it\u201d (p. 251). These are great and honoured names, but the\nopinion is not one which cries out for the cloak of authority; it springs\ndirectly out of the character of the Genealogy itself. If \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd is\nused throughout of legal parentage, it would clearly be so in the last\nstep, if it should be proved that this also contained the word \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\nIndeed, we should naturally expect to find that word in verse 16.\n\nAt the same time, it would not be right to regard the textual problem as\none of merely academic interest. It gives a valuable sidelight upon the\nhistory of the exegesis of Mt. i, ii in the early Christian centuries. It\nenables us to see how the Matthaean narrative was viewed, the difficulties\nit raised, and the way in which they were met. Thus it throws into strong\nrelief the unique character of the Genealogy. It also sheds a welcome\nlight upon the treatment which the text of the Gospels received at the\nhands of their earliest readers before these writings had acquired the\nstatus of sacred books. Even then if we have finally to acquiesce in Dr.\nMoffatt\u2019s statement: \u201cThe textual problem of i. 16 is not yet settled\u201d,\nthe question is one of absorbing and of fruitful interest.(83) For our\nimmediate purpose it is enough to say that the results, so far as they go,\nstrengthen rather than weaken our belief that the compiler of the\nGenealogy worked under the presupposition of the Virgin Birth.\n\n\n\n\nII. The Genuineness of Mt. i, ii\n\n\nThis problem can no longer be regarded as a burning question. Few scholars\nof the present day would contend that the First Gospel ever circulated\nwithout these chapters. In style, in vocabulary, and in mode of treatment,\nthey are of a piece with the rest of the book.\n\n(1) The _literary style_ of the First Evangelist is not so marked as that\nof St. Luke, but it has nevertheless a distinct character of its own. As\ncompared with that of St. Mark, it is \u201cmore prosaic and colourless\u201d, but\nit is \u201cmore calm and balanced\u201d (Milligan).(84) Prof. Burkitt describes it\nas follows: \u201cI wish I could think of some other word than \u2018formality\u2019 by\nwhich to name the chief characteristic of the First Evangelist\u2019s literary\nstyle. Formality suggests rigidity, generally with a certain measure of\nincapacity, and these are not among his defects. On the contrary, Matthew\nhas great literary skill, as well as dignity. Everything that he says is\nput with admirable clearness and lucidity; what he writes down he has\nfirst understood himself. If there is an exception to be noted he notes\nit\u201d (GHT., p. 186). Now this same style is manifest everywhere throughout\nthe Gospel, in cc. i, ii, as well as elsewhere.(85) The theory therefore\nthat these chapters are a later insertion labours under an immense initial\ndisadvantage. It requires to be explained how it is that this\ncharacteristic literary style is just as manifest in cc. i, ii as in the\nrest of the Gospel, in spite of the fact that the subject\u2010matter of these\nchapters is peculiar and distinct.\n\n(2) The _Vocabulary_ and constructional forms of cc. i, ii are also\ncharacteristic of the Gospel as a whole. Burkitt (_Evan. Da\u2010Meph._, ii, p.\n259) instances eight words from these chapters as \u201ccharacteristic\nMatthaean words\u201d. These words are given below. The statistics have been\nobtained by tracing the record of the words in Moulton and Geden\u2019s\n_Concordance_ (doubtful cases and quotations being omitted).\n\n                       Instances    Instances    Instances\n                       in Mt. i,    in Mt.       in the\n                       ii.          iii\u2010         rest of\n                                    xxviii.      the NT.\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd              4            6            4\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (with        2            11           Mk. (1),\nnames)                                           Lk. (2),\n                                                 Jn. (8),\n                                                 Ac. (2),\n                                                 Pl. (4),\n                                                 Heb. (1).\n\u1f44\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1                   5            1            0\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9             4            8            13\n\u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd                  4            8            0\n\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1                 1            6            4\n\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5                   3            86           67\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9              4            9            9\n\nIn addition to the list given by Burkitt, we may note also the following:\n\n                       Instances    Instances    Mt, as\n                       in Mt. i,    in Mt.       compared\n                       ii.          iii\u2010         with the\n                                    xxviii.      rest of\n                                                 the NT.\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd          6            10           1/3 of NT.\n                                                 Record.\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd             3            9            1/4 of NT.\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd             1            13           1/3 of NT.\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd               1            23           2/5 of NT.\n\u1f45\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd                  1            5            1/2 of NT.\n\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2               1            8            1/2 of NT.\n\u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd                  1            8            1/2 of NT.\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9                  1            7            2/5 of NT.\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2                 1            4            1/2 of NT.\n\nOther words which repay examination are \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9.\n\nThe argument is not, of course, that no one but the First Evangelist could\nhave used these words\u2014that would be absurd; but that they are words which\nhe uses frequently, and in nearly every case more frequently than any\nother New Testament writer.(86)\n\nAn interesting fact is instanced by W. C. Allen (op. cit., p. lxxxvi). He\nnotes as a characteristic of the Gospel \u201ca tendency to repeat a phrase or\nconstruction two or three times at short intervals\u201d. Fifteen examples of\nthis are given, one of which occurs in Mt. ii. This last is an instance in\nwhich the genitive absolute is followed in three cases by \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03cd (ii. 1, 13,\n19). We may add that the same construction appears in i. 20. Sir J. C.\nHawkins shows (HS., 2nd Ed., pp. 5, 31) that there are seven instances of\nthis construction in the rest of Mt., as compared with a single case in\nLk. One other detail of construction may be noted. More than half the New\nTestament record of \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd with the subjunctive (which occurs in ii. 13)\nbelongs to the First Gospel.\n\nOn the other side, we have to set down the fact that in Mt. i, ii there\nare some twenty\u2010eight words, exclusive of proper nouns, which do not occur\nin the rest of the Gospel.(87) But nearly half of these are accounted for\nby the subject\u2010matter. The remaining instances are not more numerous than\nwe might naturally expect. On the other hand, if cc. i, ii are a later\ninsertion, we could reasonably look for more.\n\nSo far, then, as the linguistic facts will take us, we may say that,\nconsidered as a whole, they support the view that Mt. i, ii are from the\nsame hand as the rest of the Gospel.\n\n(3) The _mode of treatment_ in these chapters is that of the First\nEvangelist. This writer is distinguished by the marked interest which he\ntakes in describing the new faith as the true fulfilment of the old. This\ncharacteristic appears in the quotations which he makes from the Old\nTestament. Among these there are twelve which stand out distinct.(88) (i)\nIn each case they are preceded by the words, \u201cin order that that which was\nspoken by the prophets might be fulfilled\u201d, or words to that effect. (ii)\nWith one exception (iii. 3), they are quoted in this Gospel alone. (iii)\nWhat is more important, most of them are based upon the Hebrew, whereas\nthe remaining quotations in the Gospel (except xi. 10) are taken from the\nSeptuagint.(89) For our present purpose the significant thing is that\nthese characteristic quotations are distributed throughout the whole of\nthe Gospel. No less than five of them occur in cc. i, ii, and it is not\ntoo much to say that their presence is a kind of water\u2010mark authenticating\nthe genuineness of these chapters.\n\nCombining the foregoing arguments we may justly claim that the hypothesis\nof interpolation is violent in the extreme. Dr. Moffatt sums up a very\nwidely accepted view when he says: \u201cNeither the style nor contents of 1\u20102\nafford valid evidence for suspecting that they are a later insertion in\nthe gospel\u201d (INT., p. 250).\n\n\n\n\nIII. The Unity of Mt. i, ii\n\n\nThe arguments used in the preceding section are sufficient to show that\ncc. i, ii, as a whole, come from the Evangelist\u2019s hand. But this\nconclusion does not exclude the possibility that certain parts may be of\nlater date. In particular, it could be said, and has in fact been claimed\nthat the Genealogy, the passage i. 18\u201025, or both, are interpolations; and\nthat originally the First Gospel knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. These\nquestions must now be treated.\n\nThere is not the same need for us to examine the section describing the\nvisit of the Wise Men and its sequel (c. ii). This section is of great\nimportance in a discussion of the Nativity narratives, but in relation to\nthe Virgin Birth it is secondary as compared with the Genealogy and the\npassage i. 18\u201025. The section is treated by Canon Box in _The Virgin Birth\nof Jesus_, pp. 19\u201033.\n\n\n\n1. The Genealogy\n\n\nWe are not concerned to ask at this point whether the Genealogy ever\nexisted independently of the Gospel, and is thus a source which the\nEvangelist has worked up and incorporated in his own work. The question we\nhave to consider is whether Mt. i. 1\u201017 is a genuine part of the Gospel.\n\nThe case in favour of this view is overwhelmingly strong. Its weight lies\nin the fact that the peculiar characteristics of the Genealogy (p. 89 f.)\nare the peculiar characteristics of the rest of the Gospel.\n\n(1) This is manifest in the strong interest taken in the Davidic Sonship.\n\u201cThe Gospel according to Matthew may be called _The Book of Jesus Christ,\nthe Son of David_ ... The special aim of Matthew, in one word, is to\nrepresent our Lord as the legitimate Heir of the royal house of David\u201d\n(Burkitt, _Evan. Da\u2010Meph._, ii, p. 259). We may partially illustrate this\nclaim by the New Testament record of the term \u201cSon of David\u201d. There are 8\ninstances in Mt. other than i. 1, and 6 in the rest of the New Testament\n(3 in Mk. and 3 in Lk.). The regal aspect of Christ\u2019s Sonship is also\nillustrated in Mt. xix. 28, xxv. 34 (cf. Allen, op. cit., p. lxiv).\n\n(2) As regards the artificial structure of the Genealogy, we may note that\nthis too is characteristic of the First Evangelist\u2019s manner. He is fond of\narranging his material in groups of threes. Allen enumerates twenty\u2010three\ninstances outside cc. i, ii (ib., p. lxv). Similarly the double seven\nreflects \u201cthe author\u2019s penchant for that sacred number\u201d (Moffatt, INT., p.\n250, who notes four other examples (p. 257)).\n\n(3) We are unable to illustrate from the rest of the Gospel the legal use\nof \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9, but where else save in the Genealogy could we expect to find\nit? It is the unique character of the Genealogy which requires that usage.\nOn the other hand, the point of view which determines the usage is the\npoint of view of cc. i, ii as a whole. As in i. 1\u201017, so in i. 18\u2010ii. 23,\nthe standpoint is that of a writer who desires to combine two diverse\nbeliefs, the Virgin Birth and the Messiahship of Jesus.\n\n(4) The apologetic motive manifest in the Genealogy is also characteristic\nof the First Gospel. Not only is the same motive present in every section\nof cc. i, ii, but in other connexions and in every part of the Gospel, the\ndesire to defend and to interpret is evident; notably this is the case in\nthe story of the Baptism, the account of the Guard at the Tomb and the\nResurrection narratives.(90)\n\n(5) The nature of the Genealogy leaves little room for the linguistic\ntest. \u201cYet even here we have the characteristic \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in _v._ 16, and\nthe objective way that the writer speaks of \u2018the Christ\u2019 in _v._ 17 is\nquite in the manner of Mt. xi. 2\u201d (Burkitt, op. cit., p. 259).\n\nTaken together these arguments justify us in concluding that Mt. i. 1\u201017\ncomes from the Evangelist\u2019s pen.\n\n\n\n2. The Passage Mt. i. 18\u201025\n\n\nIt is this passage which leads us to the heart of the whole question, for\nhere, in the angelic message to Joseph, the Virgin Birth is asserted\nunmistakably.\n\nWe should be justified in making use of the results we have already\nobtained. If the Genealogy comes from the hand of the Evangelist, and if\nit is of the character we have alleged, there can be no question but that\nMt. i. 18\u201025 is also a genuine part of the Gospel. In view, however, of\nthe importance of the section, it may be well not to avail ourselves of\nthis argument.\n\nSchmiedel\u2019s objections to the passage (EB., col. 2959 f.) may not unfairly\nbe summarized as follows: (i) Mt. xiii. 55 (\u201cIs not this the carpenter\u2019s\nson?\u201d) \u201cdirectly contradicts the theory of the Virgin Birth\u201d, (ii) Mt. ii\ncan be understood without presupposing the story, (iii) Bethlehem is not\nmentioned until ii. 1, (iv) Mt. i. 18\u201025 is not from the same hand as the\nGenealogy, which \u201ccould never have been drawn up after Joseph had ceased\nto be regarded as the real father of Jesus\u201d.\n\nOf these arguments the last arises out of Schmiedel\u2019s view of the\nGenealogy, which is, that in its original form in the Gospel it asserted\nthe physical paternity of Joseph (the Virgin Birth being a later\ninsertion). Needless to say, on this view, Mt. i. 18\u201025 must be rejected.\nWe have already discussed the nature of the Genealogy, and have seen\nreason to take a totally different view of it. The Genealogy, as we\nunderstand it, furnishes no ground of objection to i. 18\u201025, but rather\nthe contrary. Nor do Schmiedel\u2019s remaining objections carry the weight\nclaimed.\n\n(1) As we have observed on p. 31, Mt. xiii. 55 simply reflects the\nopinions of our Lord\u2019s contemporaries. Unless we make the gratuitous\nassumption that the Evangelist would never have reflected a view which he\ndid not himself share, we are not justified in raising an objection to i.\n18\u201025 from this particular passage.\n\n(2) As regards c. ii, it is true that what is there related can, if\nnecessary, be understood without presuming the story of i. 18\u201025.\nNevertheless, the chapter is quite congruous with what is told in that\npassage, and, indeed, agrees better with the presupposition of the Virgin\nBirth. In a narrative written from the standpoint of Joseph, we may note\nthat, while Mary is spoken of no less than five times as the mother of\nJesus (ii. 11, 13, 14, 20, 21), wherever Joseph is mentioned, we have\ninvariably the quite neutral expression \u201cthe young child\u201d (ii. 13, 14, 20,\n21). Also the quotation, \u201cOut of Egypt did I call my son\u201d (ii. 15), by the\nvery reason of its exegetical violence, is more intelligible if the\nEvangelist has already narrated the story of the supernatural birth. To\nhave real weight, Schmiedel\u2019s objection should be able to point to more\nthan the fact that c. ii can be read \u201cwithout the presupposition of the\nvirgin birth\u201d. If i. 18\u201025 is an interpolation, we might reasonably expect\nstatements in c. ii inconsistent with that passage. And, moreover, it\nwould be gratuitous to say that they have been carefully suppressed, in\nview of those which survive in Lk. i, ii to which we have called attention\nin Chapter II.\n\n(3) That Bethlehem is not mentioned until ii. 1 is true. But as an\nobjection to i. 18\u201025 this fact would be of significance, if the latter\nwere simply a narrative of the birth of Jesus. But to assert this is to\nmistake its character, which is didactic and apologetic. Joseph rather\nthan Jesus is the central figure of the section; the birth is not\nannounced until the closing words. The reference to Bethlehem in ii. 1 is\ncertainly abrupt, but it would have been quite as abrupt in i. 25. Nothing\nin i. 18\u201025, if we have regard to its character, requires a reference to\nBethlehem within the passage.\n\nThe onus of proof really rests upon those who deny the genuineness of i.\n18\u201025. It may not be without advantage, however, to set down reasons which\nlead us to believe that the passage comes from the Evangelist\u2019s hand.\n\n(a) As in the case of Lk. i. 34 f. there is _no textual authority for the\nomission of these verses_. While we recognize the free handling which the\ntext of the Gospels may have received during the first half of the second\ncentury, it does not appear likely on general grounds that Mt. i. 18\u201025 is\nan interpolation. The addition to the text of a saying of Christ, or of a\ncomment, or even of an incident drawn from floating Christian tradition,\nwe can understand, as well as a certain amount of stylistic alteration.\n\u201cDoctrinal modifications\u201d, however, of such a wholesale character as the\npresent instance would be, if the passage is a later insertion of unknown\norigin, are quite another matter. That Mt. i. 18\u201025 should have been\ninserted in a Gospel, which, on this theory, taught the physical paternity\nof Joseph, and should have been inserted without leaving traces in the\nliterature of the early Christian centuries, is most improbable. The sole\nsupport from early Christian literature is the statement of Epiphanius\nthat the text used by Cerinthus lacked the passage. Had we more\ninformation of this kind, there would be ground for the theory of\ninterpolation; as it is, the basis is too slender and uncertain.(91)\n\n(b) _The standpoint and mode of treatment in Mt. i. 18\u201025 is that of cc.\ni, ii, and of the Evangelist._ As in the rest of cc. i, ii, it is the\ndidactic and apologetic interest that is uppermost. Joseph is the central\nfigure, and there is the same use of \u201cthe machinery of dreams\u201d as in c.\nii, and in the story of Pilate\u2019s wife (xxvii. 19).\n\n(c) _The same may be said of the vocabulary and the style._ Six words\nappear which are not found elsewhere in the Gospel,(92) but with the\nexception of one (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9), they are sufficiently explained by the\npeculiar subject\u2010matter. On the other hand, there are at least five\n\u201ccharacteristic Matthaean words\u201d,(93) while other features distinctive of\nthe First Evangelist appear in the opening words of verse 20, the\nreference to Joseph as the \u201cson of David\u201d, the phrase \u201cBehold, an angel of\nthe Lord\u201d, and especially the quotation of verse 23 with its introductory\nformula.\n\nIn view of these arguments, it is not too much to apply to Mt. i. 18\u201025\nwhat Burkitt says of Mt. i. 18\u2010ii. 23. If the passage \u201cbe not an integral\npart of the First Gospel, it must be counted one of the cleverest of\nliterary adaptations, a verdict that is not likely to be passed on it by a\nsane criticism\u201d (op. cit., ii. 259).\n\n\n\n\nIV. Implications, Sources, and Results\n\n\n(1) In the earlier sections of this chapter an attempt has been made to\nprove that the Virgin Birth is an original element in the First Gospel.\nThe suggestion that it is a later insertion from an unknown hand breaks\ndown on examination, and our conclusion is that the doctrine was taught by\nthe First Evangelist. There is no need to raise the question whether the\ndoctrine was a later element introduced by the Evangelist himself into a\nwork which originally knew nothing of it, for there is absolutely no\nevidence pointing in that direction. In this respect the passage Mt. i.\n18\u201025 differs altogether from Lk. i. 34 f. Against the former passage no\ninconsistencies, either in the immediate context or in the Gospel as a\nwhole, can be shown. From one end to the other the narrative is governed\nby the same presuppositions and reflects the same point of view.\n\nWhether the Genealogy ever existed independently and in another form is a\nview for which little can be said. There are no grounds for this theory\nwithin the Genealogy as it stands, and the textual problem of Mt. i. 16\ndoes not require the supposition (see pp. 105 ff.). The possibility\ncannot, of course, be excluded. If the Evangelist did make use of an\nexisting Genealogy, it was probably one which implied the real paternity\nof Joseph. In that case he has completely transformed it, and must have\ndone this either before, or at the time when he first wrote cc. i, ii. But\nthe existence of such a source is pure speculation. It is more probable\nthat the Genealogy is the Evangelist\u2019s own composition, constructed not\nfor historical but for didactic purposes.(94)\n\n(2) The question of _the implications of Mt. i, ii_ is one of great\ninterest. The narrative is very far from being an attempt to relate the\nstory of the Virgin Birth for the first time. On the contrary, it is\nprobable that the doctrine was already known to the readers of the First\nGospel, and that it had become a subject of controversy. It is from this\npoint of view that the Evangelist writes; it is for this reason that he\ntells the story from the standpoint of Joseph. It is not difficult to\nimagine the circumstances under which the Matthaean narrative came to be\nwritten. Once the story of the Virgin Birth had begun to circulate,\ninterest must soon have been aroused in the position and attitude of\nJoseph. How were his natural fears allayed? What action did he take? What\nbecame of the Davidic descent? Such questions would press for answer.\nOutside the Christian community these difficulties would inevitably become\nthe occasion of scandal, as the case was in later times. The Evangelist\u2019s\nnarrative is an attempt to meet these difficulties. His view, or the view\nhe reflects, is that the fears of Joseph were allayed by a divine message.\nThe subsequent action of Joseph, also under angelic direction, was to\ncomplete the legal act of wedlock before the child was born. The\ndifficulty of the Davidic descent is the problem attacked in the\nGenealogy. According to several writers it is the same interest which\ngoverns the narratives of c. ii. \u201c... the Nativity Story shows us the\nalarm of the usurper Herod, when he learns that the legitimate ruler has\nbeen born within his dominions. As Saul tried to kill David, so Herod\ntries to kill Jesus; and Jesus finds a refuge in Egypt, as David found a\nrefuge among the Philistines\u201d (Burkitt, op. cit., ii. 259; cf. Box, op.\ncit., p. 19).\n\n(3) The question of _the source or sources_ from which the Evangelist\nobtained the narrative of Mt. i. 18\u201025 cannot be adequately discussed in\nitself and in relation to the First Gospel alone. Nevertheless it is worth\nwhile to ask how far we can go within those limits. From the evidence\nsupplied by the Gospel itself, we cannot say that the narrative rests on\nthe testimony of Joseph. If the Virgin Birth is historically true, this\nview has much probability in its favour. But to urge such an origin for\nthe Matthaean narrative, as part of the proof for the Virgin Birth, is not\npermissible, since obviously it begs the question. Many writers think that\nthe narrative really does come from Joseph himself because it reflects his\nstandpoint. Amongst others this is the opinion of Bishop Gore (_The New\nTheology and the Old Religion_, p. 126 f.), and of Dr. Orr (_The Virgin\nBirth of Christ_, pp. 83 ff.).(95) Such a conclusion travels beyond the\nfacts of the case. That the narrative is written from Joseph\u2019s standpoint\nis, of course, beyond question. It may be, however, that this fact is\nsufficiently accounted for by the apologetic character of the narrative.\nWe do not say here that this is the case, but we do say that to claim more\nis to put an outside interpretation upon the narrative. Eventually this\nis, of course, inevitable; our final conclusion reacts upon our view of\nthe earlier problems; but in the constructive stage this is a peril\nsedulously to be avoided.\n\nThe possibility has to be allowed that the narrative of Mt. i. 18\u201025 may\nbe the result of an inference which arose within the Christian community,\nand which has clothed itself in an imaginative and pictorial form. In\nanswer to the question, How were the fears of Joseph allayed?, it would be\nnatural to reply, By a divine message, and current beliefs would supply an\nexplanation of the means and the method by which such a message would be\nconveyed. Angelic mediation would account for the one, just as revelation\nby a dream would explain the other.\n\nThe presence of _inference_ in the Synoptic narratives is perhaps not so\nwidely recognized as it ought to be. Whether we ought to be so ready as we\noften are to suppose the existence of special information, documentary or\noral, when the First Evangelist and St. Luke add details to the Markan\nnarrative, or relate entirely new facts, is a pertinent question. In many\ncases there is much justice in the supposition. In other cases it may\neasily be that the new detail or narrative has been shaped by inferences\nplaying upon difficulties or ambiguities left by earlier narratives and\ntraditions.(96) This would be a perfectly natural circumstance, the\nexistence of which would be more readily acknowledged if obsolete theories\nof Inspiration did not continue to exact unlawful tribute. In the case of\nthe First Gospel this use of inference is sometimes manifest, especially\nin the accounts of the Burial and the Resurrection of Jesus.(97) Whatever\njudgement may be passed upon Prof. Kirsopp Lake\u2019s brilliant examination of\nthe Resurrection narratives, there can be little doubt but that he has\nshown that inference, as well as information, shaped the formation of\nearly Christian tradition. This conclusion, even if accepted, would not\njustify us in supposing that the narratives of Mt. i, ii are nothing more\nthan the inferential resolution of difficulties left by the story of the\nVirgin Birth. But it would suffice to make it probable that, to an extent\nwhich we may leave undefined, inference did play its part, either in the\nmind of the Evangelist or in the thought of the Christian community.\n\nIt is, indeed, quite possible to admit this view, and yet to hold that\nbehind the narrative there is a nucleus of historic fact. Dr. Gore, who\nbelieves that the story goes back to Joseph, does not hesitate to say:\n\n\n    \u201c... to suppose such angelic appearances ... to be imaginative\n    outward representations of what were in fact real but inward\n    communications of the \u2018divine word\u2019 to human souls, is both a\n    possible course and one which is quite consistent with accepting\n    the narrative as substantially historical and true\u201d\n    (_Dissertations_, p. 22 f.).\n\n\nCanon Box expresses a similar view when he writes:\n\n\n    \u201cTo us [the narrative] seems to exhibit in a degree that can\n    hardly be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament the\n    characteristic features of Jewish Midrash and Haggada. It sets\n    forth certain facts and beliefs in a fanciful and imaginative\n    setting, specially calculated to appeal to Jews.... The task that\n    confronts the critical student is to disentangle the facts and\n    beliefs\u2014the fundamental ground\u2010factors on which the narration is\n    built\u2014from their decorative embroidery\u201d (op. cit., p. 12).\n\n\nFrom what has been said above it will be seen that, if we restrict\nourselves to the First Gospel, there are three theories possible regarding\nthe source or sources employed in i. 18\u201025. (i) The narrative, very much\nas it stands, may have come from Joseph himself. (ii) Inference and\nimagination may have played upon a nucleus of historic fact. (iii) The\nnarrative may be a story without historic foundation, which has grown up,\nas the result of inference and imagination, in answer to difficulties\narising out of a belief in the Virgin Birth antecedently held.\n\nSo long as we confine ourselves to the Gospel, it is not possible to\nchoose between these views, unless we are prepared to assume that early\nChristian tradition cannot have been mistaken\u2014an assumption which cuts the\nknot instead of untying it. As we are not ready to make that assumption,\nwe have to be content to leave the possibilities open, and to regard the\nuse of any one of them in the historical inquiry as illegitimate. In part\nthis is a disappointing decision, but it is better to feel that we have\nsolid ground beneath our feet.\n\n(4) The positive results to which we have been led are (i) that _the First\nEvangelist knew of, and believed in, the story of the Virgin Birth_; and\n(ii) that _the belief was shared by his readers, and had been held\nsufficiently long for some of its problems to be raised_. Unquestionably,\nthis is an important result, and its place in the historical problem will\nfall to be considered later.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix To Chapter V. The Textual Problem of Mt. i. 16\n\n\n\nI.\n\n\nImportant and well\u2010known discussions of the textual problem of Mt. i. 16\nare those of Sanday (_Outlines_, pp. 197\u2010200); P. W. Schmiedel (EB., col.\n2961 ff.); F. C. Burkitt (_Evan. Da\u2010Meph._, ii, pp. 258\u201066); W. C. Allen\n(ICC., _St. Mt._, p. 8); G. H. Box (_The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, pp.\n215\u201018).(98) For purposes of reference, the most important facts may be\nsummarized as follows:\n\n(A) First, we have the _text followed in the A V. and R V._, which reads:\n\u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f41\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2. This is the text of all extant uncials, very many\nminuscules, and many versions (Sanday). \u201cIt is definitely attested by\nTertullian, _De Carne Christi_, \u00a7 20\u201d (Burkitt).\n\n(B) A different text is attested by the _\u201c__Ferrar__\u201d__ Group_. It is\nimplied by a number of important MSS. of the _Old Latin Version_, by the\n_Armenian_, and by the _Curetonian Syriac_. This text is as follows: \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03bc \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n(C) Thirdly, we have the _Sinaitic Syriac_. _Syr.\u2010Sin._ reads: \u201cJacob\nbegat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus,\nwho is called Christ,\u201d and implies \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6\u00b7 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 [\u03b4\u1f72] \u1fa7\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 [\u1f26\u03bd] \u03c0. \u039c. \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f38. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3. \u03a7. (Burkitt, p. 263). [The\nreading of the _Syr.\u2010Cur._ is: \u201cJacob begat Joseph, him to whom was\nbetrothed Mary the Virgin, _she_ who bare Jesus the Messiah\u201d.] We may also\nmention here the passage from the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ which\nConybeare claims to be the true text of Mt. i. 16. The alleged quotation\nincludes the text as given under (A) together with the words, \u201cAnd Joseph\nbegat Jesus who is called Christ\u201d.\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\n(1) Conybeare\u2019s claim, mentioned above, has failed to win general\nacceptance. It is rejected by Schmiedel,(99) who justly asks, \u201cHow can we\nsuppose that an evangelist deliberately added the second half to the\nfirst?\u201d (col. 2961). Schmiedel\u2019s view is that in the passage cited from\nthe _Dialogue_ \u201cit is precisely the youngest text and the oldest which\nhave found a place peaceably side by side in one and the same line\u201d. F. C.\nBurkitt\u2019s theory probably gives the best explanation. He does not think\nthat \u201c_And Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ_\u201d is meant to be a part\nof the quotation of Mt. i. 16, but is simply the inference of the Jew.\n\u201c_The Jew quotes the Genealogy and then draws his inference, which is of\ncourse repudiated by the Christian disputant_\u201d (p. 265). Accepting this\nview we may leave the supposed quotation outside our discussion. We may\nnote, however, that, according to Burkitt, the second of two other\nquotations of Mt. i. 16 in the _Dialogue_ is interesting \u201cas affording an\nactual proof that the phrase \u2018_husband of Mary_\u2019 was liable to change\u201d.\n(p. 265).\n\n(2) G. H. Box regards the _Curetonian Syriac_ as \u201can interpretation rather\nthan a translation of the Greek text given us by the \u2018Ferrar\u2019 Group\u201d (p.\n216). Burkitt thinks it is \u201clike an attempt to rewrite the text of _S_\u201d\n(p. 263), but as he derives the _Syr.\u2010Sin._ from the same Group,(100) his\nopinion leads to the same result. Directly or indirectly _Syr.\u2010Cur._ is a\nwitness for the text (B). As such its general character in Mt. i, ii needs\nto be taken into account. In i. 20 it has \u201cthy betrothed\u201d instead of \u201cthy\nwife\u201d. It omits \u201cher husband\u201d in i. 19. In i. 24 it substitutes \u201cMary\u201d for\n\u201cthy wife\u201d. In i. 25 it shares with the _Diatessaron_ the reading \u201cpurely\ndwelling with her\u201d, and it renders \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd by \u201cshe called\u201d. It is clear\nthat its text is _dominated by a desire to assert unmistakably the\nhistoric fact of the Virgin Birth_.\n\n(3) W. C. Allen takes the Greek text implied in the _Syr.\u2010Sin._ to be the\ntrue text of Mt. i. 16. Burkitt, as we have seen, derives it from (B). For\nthe present it is important to consider _the __ character of the Syr.\u2010Sin.\nin relation to the Virgin Birth_. In i. 21, with the _Curetonian_, it adds\nthe words, \u201cto thee\u201d. In i. 25 it omits \u201cknew her not until\u201d, and, as in\nthe English versions, it renders \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd by the masculine; in the same\nverse it also has the reading, \u201cshe bore him a son\u201d. At first sight it\nwould appear as if the tendency of the MS. is in direct opposition to the\ndoctrine of the Virgin Birth; it is, however, very questionable if this is\nthe case. It is not improbable that \u201che knew her not until\u201d (omitted also\nby the Old Lat. _k_) is an interpolation in the First Gospel. Burkitt\nthinks that \u201cto thee\u201d in i. 21 appeared in the _Evangelion Da\u2010\nMepharreshe_, and that \u201chim\u201d is a \u201cmere stylistic addition\u201d in the\n_Syr.\u2010Sin._ When we add that this MS. includes Mt. i. 18\u201025, and the\nparenthesis, \u201cto whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin\u201d, in Mt. i. 16, it\nbecomes impossible to suppose that its text is of \u201cEbionite origin\u201d. Nor\nis it any more likely that it represents \u201cthe slip of a scribe\u201d. It is too\nmuch of a piece with the entire representation of the MS., of which the\nmost we can say is that it hardens the unique point of view which is\ncharacteristic of the Evangelist himself. Whether it represents the\noriginal ending of the Genealogy, in a form independent of, and earlier\nthan, the First Gospel, is a point which may be left open, though the view\nis not one which otherwise finds support from the Genealogy, as it now\nappears in the Gospel.(101) In any case, _we ought very probably to reject\nthe view that the Syr.\u2010Sin. in Mt. i. 16 asserts, or implies, the physical\npaternity of Joseph_. It clearly takes \u1fa7 to \u201crefer to \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd as well as\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u201d (Burkitt, p. 263), but, having regard to its character as a\nwhole, the strong probability is that it interprets \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd in the same\nsense which it bears throughout the earlier links of the Genealogy, viz.\nof legal parentage (Allen, p. 8). _In this case the scribe who produced\nthe Syr.\u2010Sin. has remained truer to the mind and spirit of the First\nEvangelist than any other early Christian writer we know._ Whether he has\npreserved the letter is more open to question.\n\n(4) As regards the rendering (B), it is sufficient to say that the\n\u201cFerrar\u201d Group and the Old Lat. MSS., while representing a text which\ndiffers from (A), _agree in affirming the Virgin Birth_. Some of them do\nso with emphasis (e.g. _c_ and _b_). All of them (except _q_) contain the\nword \u201cVirgin\u201d, but, with the exception of _c_ and _b_, the connexion\nbetween \u1fa7 (_cui_) and \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 (_desponsata_) is left ambiguous.\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\nWe are left, then, with three readings, for each of which priority may be\nclaimed (those we have indicated by (A) and (B), and that of the\n_Syr.\u2010Sin._ (C)). It is highly probable that (C) is derived from (B); but\nit may be well to leave this an open question, so as to have all the\npossibilities before us.\n\n(1) _Can we, then, explain the textual facts already noticed, if we\npresume the originality of_ (A)?\n\nIt is certainly remarkable that, after using \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd in a legal sense\nthroughout the earlier links of the Genealogy (Moffatt, Burkitt, Westcott,\nBox, Allen, Barnard, A. J. Maclean), the compiler should desert this\npractice, and use the verb of physical parentage (\u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7) in the last\nlink of the chain. The compiler, if we may say so, does not strike us as\nthe kind of man who would have felt the need of this. It seems much more\nlikely that, together with some qualifying clause in reference to Mary, he\nwould have continued to employ \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd in the same sense to the end.\nThis is conjecture; but (on the present theory) it is a conjecture\nsupported by the procedure of the scribes who have produced (B). Their\nobject (on the present supposition) will have been to remove the\nambiguities of (A) in Mt. i. 16, so as to state the doctrine more clearly.\nWe could understand, then, their objection to \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and the\nchange to \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0. \u039c. What is less easy to understand is the\nchange from \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 to \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. It is true that \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 is not\nwithout ambiguity, as the comment of the Jew in the _Dialogue of Timothy\nand Aquila_ shows.(102) But, if this was a ground of objection, why should\nthe ambiguity be replaced by one that is much greater? As we have seen,\nthe construction of (B) is singularly loose. It is this fact which has\nclearly invited the modifications represented in the _Syr.\u2010Cur._ and the\nOld Lat. MSS., and perhaps the _Syr.\u2010Sin._ itself. The reading (B)\ncertainly does not commend itself as a doctrinal modification of (A).\nFurther, the priority of (A) does not help us to account for (C). If, as\nwe believe, (C) is derived from (B), it is needless to discuss the point.\nBut apart from that theory of the origin of (C), our conclusion remains\nthe same. We have seen how near in spirit the scribe of the _Syr.\u2010Sin._\nwas to the First Evangelist. Can we suppose, then, that he would have\ndemurred to the words, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2? It is very difficult to think so.\nFor these reasons, in spite of its strong attestation, we find it\nimpossible to presume the originality of (A).\n\n(2) _We reach a similar conclusion, if we assume_ (B) _to be the true text\nof Mt. i. 16._ Its singular construction does not readily suggest the\ncraftsmanship of the compiler of the Genealogy. It is true that we can\ngive a very good account of (C) on the present assumption. We can adopt\nBurkitt\u2019s suggestion, and regard it as a paraphrase of (B). But can we\nderive (A) from (B)? It would be reasonable to explain \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 as a\ncorrection of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd by a believer who failed to understand the\nEvangelist\u2019s point of view, and who desired a clearer reference to the\nVirgin Birth. But can we imagine a scribe, or an editor, motived in this\nway, replacing \u201cto whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary\u201d by the words \u201cthe\nhusband of Mary\u201d? The question answers itself, and forbids the assumption\nof the priority of (B).\n\n(3) _Can we, then_, accept Archdeacon Willoughby C. Allen\u2019s view, and\n_find the true text in_ (C)?(103) It is quite possible, on this theory, to\ngive a reasonable explanation of (B), but, as in the last case, the\ndifficulty is to account for (A). We can follow the change from \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\nto \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7, but the substitution of \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 for the\nparenthesis found in (C) remains as before an insuperable objection. At\nthe same time Archdeacon Allen has laid down a true and a valuable\nprinciple when he writes: \u201cThe earliest Greek form was gradually altered\nfrom a desire to avoid words which, though in the intention of the writer\nthey expressed legal parentage, not paternity, in fact, might be\nmisunderstood by thoughtless readers\u201d (p. 8).\n\nOur results thus far are negative, but they are not barren. We have\nfrankly to admit that _no extant reading, as a whole, commends itself as\nthe original text of Mt. i. 16_. On the other hand, _we can form a\nreasonably good idea of what that text was like_. If we are to make any\nfurther advance, we must have recourse to _conjecture_. It is not at all\nimpossible that future discoveries may enable us to travel upon firmer\nground. Such a discovery as that of the _Syr.\u2010Sin._ MS. by Mrs. Lewis and\nMrs. Gibson in 1902 shows that this hope is not unreasonable. But\nmeantime, unless we are content to acquiesce in a negative conclusion, we\nhave no choice but to resort to conjecture. This does not mean a leap in\nthe dark. It is in every way likely that parts of the true text are\nembedded in the extant readings, and it is by no means impossible that,\ntaken together, these readings may contain the whole. _It may be, that is\nto say, that the true text of Mt. i. 16 has found its grave in the\nreadings we possess._ Whether its resurrection can be accomplished is\nanother question. But, in view of the general character of the true text,\nas indicated above, the attempt need not be foreclosed. Obviously, our\nresults will be tentative, but they should be something more than dubious\nand uncertain in the extreme.\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n\nIn attempting to reconstruct the true text of Mt. i. 16, we may venture\nthe following suggestions:\n\n(1) _We have very good ground for regarding_ \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd. \u03bb. \u03a7. _as part of the\ntrue text_ (though whether we read the nom. or the acc. depends upon\nwhether we prefer \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 or \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd). Not only does this expression\noccur both in (A) and (B), but it is also one which we should naturally\nexpect the Genealogy to contain. A Genealogy constructed to show the\nMessiahship of Jesus ends fittingly with the words \u201cwho is called Christ\u201d.\n\n(2) _It is very probable indeed that the original text included_ \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\nand not \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7. (i) On this view, we can readily understand the\nmisconceptions that would arise, and give a reasonable explanation of the\ntextual variants which exist. (ii) As indicating legal parentage, the\nexpression is not one from which we think the compiler would be likely to\nshrink. (iii) It is not easy to suppose that those who have employed\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd in the reading (B) would have used this form if they had not\nfound it already in the text.\n\n(3) _It is probable that Mt. i. 16 contained a reference to Mary._ This\nview is supported by the earlier references to women in the Genealogy. \u201cIt\nis inconceivable that the Evangelist, who thought it served the purpose\nthat he had in hand to mention Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah\u2019s wife,\nshould leave the step containing Joseph bare\u201d (Burkitt, p. 264).\n\n(4) _Of the two qualifying clauses open to us_, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 _is more\nlikely to be the older_. (i) It is an expression such as we can easily\nsuppose the First Evangelist would use (cf. Mt. i. 19). (ii) It safeguards\nthe Virgin Birth; there would be no point in describing Joseph as \u201c_the\nhusband of Mary_\u201d unless that expression bore some special meaning. (iii)\nIn the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ we possess \u201cactual proof\u201d that the\nphrase was \u201cliable to change\u201d (Burkitt, quoted above, p. 106). (iv) The\nexpression could easily be misunderstood at a time when the interest in\nthe Davidic Sonship was no longer paramount. (v) In that case the phrase \u1fa7\n\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4. \u03c0. \u039c. would commend itself as a doctrinal modification. (vi) It\nwould be altogether less easy to say this of \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n(5) _It is probable that Joseph was mentioned twice._ (i) This conclusion\nfollows of necessity, if, as we have argued, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd and not \u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 is\noriginal. (ii) It is implied in the earlier steps of the Genealogy. (iii)\nIt is attested by the _Syr.\u2010Sin._, and the omission of the second \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6 in\n(A) and (B) is not difficult to explain (see later).\n\n(6) _It is on the whole more probable that_ \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c. _followed the\nfirst_ \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6 _and not the second_. (i) This view is supported by the\ncompiler\u2019s method. \u201cThe practice of the writer is to interpose no words\nbetween the name and the verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u201d (Burkitt, p. 263). (ii) This\norder enables us to give an explanation of the fact that both (A) and (B)\nomit the second \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6 (see below).\n\nGathering together these several results, we obtain the following as the\nreconstructed text of Mt. i. 16:\n\n\u1f38\u03b1\u03ba\u1f7c\u03b2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2;\n\u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nIn addition to the reasons already given, we may also urge the fact that,\nwith this text posited, we can give the simplest and least involved\naccount of the origin of (A), (B), (C).\n\n(1) The scribes who have produced (A) substituted the passive (\u1f10\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7)\nfor the active (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd). This caused the second \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6 to drop out, its\nplace being taken by \u1f10\u03be \u1f27\u03c2 \u201cfrom whom\u201d (fem.). \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3. \u03a7\u03c1. followed\nas a grammatical change.\n\n(2) All that the originators of (B) had to do was to substitute \u1fa7 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4.\n\u03c0. \u039c. for \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c., and then, by omitting \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03b4\u03ad, to leave \u039c. as the\nsubject of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n(3) We may explain (C), with Burkitt, as derived from (B). The Syriac\ntranslator was not satisfied with the loose construction of (B). Taking \u1fa7\nto refer to \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd as well as to \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1, he made the connexion\nclearer by inserting a second \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ae\u03c6 as the subject of the verb. In taking\nthis last step, he either returned unconsciously to part at least of the\ntrue reading, or had access to good Greek MSS. which we no longer possess.\n\nIt is of interest to compare the reading we have suggested as the original\ntext of Mt. i. 16 with others which have been put forward. In discussing\none of these possibilities, Sanday writes (_Outlines_, p. 200): \u201cIf we may\nsuppose that the original text ran \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f23 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, that would perhaps account for the two\ndivergent lines of variants better than any other\u201d. In spite of its\nadvantages, this text suffers under two disadvantages from which the one\nwe have preferred is free. (i) Not only is \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9 used in a different\nsense from that which it has in the rest of the Genealogy, but it is _the\nvery same form of the verb_ which is employed differently. (ii) The\nreading is too smooth and clear. Apart from the phrase \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c. no\nloophole is left for misunderstanding, and so no sufficient starting\u2010point\nis provided for the subsequent textual variants.\n\nBurkitt has instanced the reading we have preferred. In rejecting the view\nthat the _Syr.\u2010Sin._ represents the true text, he writes (p. 264): \u201cHad we\nsuch a text as \u1f38\u03b1\u03ba. \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd. \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03bb. the case would have been different\u201d. In reference to this\nsuggestion, however, Burkitt says, (i) the evidence does not point that\nway, (ii) in that case the _Syr.\u2010Sin._ would be further from the original\nthan that of \u05d0 B and Tertullian, (iii) _Syr.\u2010Sin._ and _k_ would \u201cagree in\na common corruption\u201d, and we should have to speak of the \u201cWestern\u201d text in\nthe singular number.\n\nThe last point raises a large question which it is impossible to consider\nhere. As regards the second objection, while in some respects (C) would be\nfurther from the original than (A), in other and more important respects\nit would be appreciably nearer. In its use of \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd it would be nearer\nto the original than any reading we possess. As regards the first\nobjection, we have frankly to agree that the textual evidence does not\npoint that way. We cannot point to a shred of MS. evidence to support the\nconjectured reading. A generation ago this would have been considered a\nfatal objection. But, in view of the freedom with which the text of the\nGospels was handled during the first half of the second century, and which\nthe textual variants illustrate, this objection can no longer be regarded\nas insuperable. So long as we restrict ourselves to the attested readings,\nthe problem remains insoluble. If, then, we can reach a reasonable\nconclusion on other lines, we are free to do so. Doubtless, in default of\nattestation, we can describe our results as no more than tentative. But we\nhave no desire to claim more. As the problem stands at present, the test\nto be applied is, What reading, conjectured or attested, furnishes the\nbest explanation of the facts at our disposal?, it being remembered that\nthese facts include, not only the textual variants, but also the unique\ncharacter of the Genealogy itself. It may be, as we have suggested, that\nnew discoveries await us. But, unless we have entirely misread the\nevidence we already possess, no discovery is to be expected which will\ncompletely transform the textual problem.\n\nIn conclusion, we may state certain propositions (apart from the question\nof the exact wording of the true text of Mt. i. 16) which have in their\nfavour a high degree of probability.\n\n(1) The readings which we have called (A) and (B) are independent attempts\nto alter the original text in the interests of the Virgin Birth; that is,\nthey are \u201cdoctrinal modifications\u201d.\n\n(2) The reading of the Sinaitic Syriac is not unfavourable to the\ndoctrine. It should no longer be spoken of as \u201cthe eccentric reading\u201d, nor\nshould we describe the translator as influenced by \u201cheretical tendencies\u201d.\n\n(3) _The original text of Mt. i. 16 implied the Virgin Birth, but it was\nstated from the unique point of view reflected in the Genealogy itself._\n\n(4) _The text was liable to misunderstanding, and the history of the\ntextual variants is the history of that misunderstanding._\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. THE HISTORICAL QUESTION: ITS LIMITS AND BEARINGS\n\n\nOur purpose in the final chapter is to co\u2010ordinate the results we have\nreached, and to discuss their bearing upon the historical question of the\nVirgin Birth. We have also to determine how far strictly historical\nconsiderations can take us; to ask, that is to say, within what limits the\nproblem is historical at all. It will be well first to summarize the\nconclusions to which we have already come.\n\n(1) The Virgin Birth was not the subject of Apostolic preaching, and\napparently was unknown to St. Paul and St. Mark.\n\n(2) St. Luke became acquainted with the tradition for the first time,\neither when he was in process of writing his Gospel, or immediately\nafterwards.\n\n(3) The First Gospel presupposes the Virgin Birth tradition, which had\nprobably been known to its readers for some time, sufficiently long for\nproblems to be started and for difficulties to be raised.\n\n(4) No satisfactory proof is forthcoming to show that the Fourth\nEvangelist definitely rejected the tradition. The most we can say is that\nhis doctrinal sympathies lay in another direction.\n\nOn the positive side our most important result is that we can prove from\nthe New Testament itself that belief in the Virgin Birth existed in\ninfluential Christian communities at the time when the First and Third\nGospels were written. We have no further need, therefore, to consider\ntheories which assign the belief to a later age, and which, by various\ninterpolation\u2010hypotheses, deprive the doctrine of New Testament support.\nThose who have stated such theories have rendered service in that they\nhave explored an alternative path. On the view we have preferred this path\nproves to be a cul\u2010de\u2010sac. We have therefore, to recognize that, whether\nwe accept or reject the Virgin Birth, we must do this in full\nacknowledgement of the fact that among early witnesses to the belief are\ntwo outstanding New Testament Writings.\n\nCan we go further than this? To do so we must consider the First and Third\nGospels, in respect of their mutual relations and of what they conjointly\nimply.\n\n\n\n\nI. The Virgin Birth in the First and Third Gospels\n\n\nIn considering the relation in which the First and Third Gospels stand to\neach other and to the Virgin Birth three questions are of the greatest\ninterest and importance. (1) _To what extent do the two Gospels imply a\ncommon tradition and belief?_ (2) _How far back can we trace this\ntradition?_ (3) _In what relation does the public tradition stand to the\ntheory of an earlier tradition of a private and restricted character?_\n\n(1) In answer to the first question, our view is that _each Gospel, in a\ndifferent way, is a witness to the same tradition_. Too much has\nfrequently been made of the theory that in Mt. and Lk. we have two\nindependent accounts of the Virgin Birth tradition. It may seriously be\nquestioned if this theory is true. Mt. i. 18\u201025 is misunderstood if it is\nexplained as a Virgin Birth tradition. Like the rest of cc. i, ii, its\ncharacter is Midrashic, and it is written from an apologetic standpoint.\nIt would therefore be much truer to say that it _implies_ the existence of\na Virgin Birth tradition as known to the readers of the Gospel. What form\nthat tradition took we are of course unable to say. It is possible that it\nwas similar to the tradition as it appears in Lk. On the other hand, it\nmay be that even in Lk. the form in which the tradition is presented owes\nsomething to the Evangelist\u2019s craftsmanship. If this is so, it would seem\nthat the narratives of both writers point back to a simpler tradition or\nbelief, from which, in different ways, they came to assume their present\nform. What is of chief importance is the view that in both Gospels we\nhave, not so much two independent narratives of the Virgin Birth, as\nrather two independent witnesses to what originally was one and the same\ntradition.\n\nIt cannot escape our notice that, in spite of their obvious differences,\nLk. i. 34 f. and Mt. i. 18\u201025 contain what is substantially the same\nstatement, a statement which in each passage is central. In Mt. i. 20 we\nread: \u201c_That which is conceived_ (\u03c4\u1f78 ... \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd) _in her is of the Holy\nSpirit_\u201d; and in Lk. i. 35, after the reference to the Holy Spirit, we\nread: \u201c_That which is to be born_ (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) _shall be called holy,\nthe Son of God_\u201d. There is much to be said for the view that both\nexpressions point back to a common original, to a primitive belief that\nJesus was \u201cborn of the Holy Spirit\u201d (cf. Harnack, _Date of Acts_, &c., pp.\n142 ff.).\n\nIf then we are unable to accept the view that in Mt. and Lk. we have two\nindependent accounts of the Virgin Birth, we may well ask if the loss is a\nreal one. It is probably nothing of the kind. There was indeed a certain\nadvantage in feeling able to point to two diverse traditions which\nconverged upon one fact. Nevertheless, the argument always had a certain\nweakness. We had to account for the two different traditions, and the\nexplanation was a theory we could never prove. It may be that St. Luke\u2019s\nstory goes back for its authority to Mary; it is very doubtful if St.\n\u201cMatthew\u2019s\u201d has any historical connexion with Joseph; but in either case\nneither assumption is justifiable in an historical inquiry. It must be\nallowed, we think, that our view has sounder advantages. Instead of\nclaiming validity for two diverse traditions, we can point to two very\ndifferent narratives, which arise out of the same belief and are\nindependent witnesses to its existence in the primitive Christian\ncommunity.\n\n(2) _To what point, then, can we trace this tradition?_\n\nWe have argued that the Virgin Birth tradition first began to gain\ncurrency in the circles in which St. Luke moved at the time when the Third\nGospel was being written. We have also seen that the tradition was already\nknown to the readers of the First Gospel. If these conclusions are valid,\nit is evident that the relative order in which the two Gospels were\nwritten will determine the farthest point to which we can trace the Virgin\nBirth tradition as publicly known. What, then, is the order of composition\nin the case of Mt. and Lk.?\n\nWe may frankly admit that if priority must be assigned to Mt., it becomes\ndifficult to understand how St. Luke could have no knowledge of the Virgin\nBirth at the time when he first took up his pen. For, on this view, we\nask, Must not the tradition have already reached the circles in which he\nwas moving at the time? It would certainly be more favourable to our\ntheory if we could assign priority to the Third Gospel. In this case we\nshould have a very simple account to give of the history of the tradition.\nWe should discover it emerging for the first time in St. Luke\u2019s Gospel,\nand we should have a ready explanation (in the fact of the interval\nbetween the two works) for the apologetic note in the later Gospel.\n\nBut the priority of the two Gospels is not a question to be decided simply\nby the attitude which the Evangelists display towards the Virgin Birth.\nMt. and Lk. must be compared throughout. When this is done there do not\nappear to be sufficient grounds for giving a vote in either direction (cf.\nStanton, GHD., ii, p. 368). All that we can say is that the two Gospels\nare independent works, and must have been written about the same time. If\nthere was an interval, it cannot have been great, for there are no\nsufficient signs that either writer was acquainted with the work of the\nother. It is especially difficult to think that St. Luke would have\nneglected the First Gospel, if it had been accessible to him (cf. Lk. i.\n1\u20104).\n\nIf, however, we accept, as a working hypothesis, the view that the two\nGospels were written independently of each other, and more or less\nsimultaneously,(104) it will still follow that the Virgin Birth tradition\nwas already known in at least one influential primitive Christian\ncommunity (that to which the First Gospel was addressed) while it was\nunknown to St. Luke.(105) Is this a fatal objection, or does such a\nposition represent what may well have been the actual situation? We do not\nthink that the difficulty is too great.\n\nThe tides by which traditions flow in different places are not\nsimultaneous; they differ in time, in height, and in volume. No practice\ncould be more mischievous than the habit of dating the relative spread of\nearly beliefs simply by the dates of contemporary documents. Regard must\nbe paid to local conditions.\n\nIn life as in nature there are variations of current and of coast\nformation. There are limits, of course, within which this caveat holds\ngood; but, provided the interval of time is not too great, the view that\nSt. Luke could begin to write in ignorance of a tradition already known\nelsewhere is not self\u2010condemned. After all, St. Luke himself had access to\nmuch tradition which presumably was unknown to the First Evangelist\n(witness St. Luke\u2019s special matter).\n\nConcerning the length of time we can allow the Virgin Birth tradition to\nhave been already known elsewhere, when St. Luke began to write, there is\nroom for difference of opinion. If, as we have contended, he became\nacquainted with it in the process of writing or immediately afterwards,\nthe period can scarcely have been considerable. Perhaps it ought to be\nestimated in months rather than in years, but to say more would be idle\nspeculation.\n\n_The farthest point therefore to which we can trace the existence of the\nVirgin Birth as a public tradition is some little time previous to the\ncomposition of the Third Gospel._\n\n(3) It is a perfectly fair assumption to make that the public tradition\nmust have had a _private_ vogue before, and perhaps for some time before,\nit became public property. This view becomes especially probable in the\nlight of what we have just seen, viz. that the spread of the public\ntradition among the primitive Christian communities covered an appreciable\nperiod of time. The question of the historical truth of the Virgin Birth\nis precisely the question of how far back the private tradition can be\ntraced; whether it can go back to Mary the mother of Jesus, and whether\nsatisfactory reasons can be given for a silence which extends beyond the\nperiod covered by the Pauline Epistles and the Second Gospel, and is\nbroken only at last in the interval which shortly preceded the composition\nof the Gospels of Mt. and Lk. In this lies the real historical problem.\n_Can the theory of a private authoritative tradition be vindicated?_ There\nare several questions which bear upon this problem. They are: (1) The\nquestion of the date of the First and of the Third Gospels; (2) The extent\nto which the credibility of the Gospels permits of the possibility of\nerror; (3) The Alternative Theories of the origin of belief in the Virgin\nBirth; (4) The theological aspect of the tradition.\n\n\n\n\nII. The Date of the Gospels in Relation to the Virgin Birth Tradition\n\n\nThe relation in which the question of _the Date of the Gospels_ stands to\nthe results reached is sufficiently clear. If we could fix the time when\nMt. and Lk. were written, we could determine within comparatively narrow\nlimits when the Virgin Birth tradition first gained currency. A conclusion\nupon this point would materially affect our estimate of the historical\nvalue of the tradition.\n\nUntil this stage we have deliberately refrained from assigning dates to\nthe Gospels. The only things we have assumed are the priority of Mk. and\nthe practically contemporaneous origin of Mt. and Lk. Our justification\nfor this course lies in the great variety of opinion which exists on the\nquestion of date, and hence the desirability of keeping clear, as long as\nwe can, from considerations which must vitally affect the results secured.\n\nUnfortunately, as we have said, no sort of unanimity exists upon the\nquestion of the date of the Gospels. A glance at the extremely useful\ntable which Dr. Moffatt prints on page 213 of his Introduction makes this\nclear. At first sight the position would appear chaotic, and we might well\nshrink from attempting to connect our results with specific dates. It is\nimpossible, moreover, in a work like the present, to discuss the question\nin detail. Such a problem ought to be considered independently, and with\nregard to all the facts of the case. It would seem best therefore to ask\nwhat the consequences are, if we incline to any one of certain\nrepresentative dates. We are at liberty, of course, to indicate our\npersonal preferences, but, for the reasons stated, we shall have to agree\nto a measure of uncertainty. This is disappointing, but the responsibility\nmust lie at the right door, and that door is the present failure of\nBiblical Scholarship to arrive at a consensus of opinion on the question\nof the date of the Gospels. Perfect agreement there will never be, but\nuntil there is substantial agreement every historical investigation into\nquestions of New Testament origins must prove incomplete.\n\nThe problem of the date of the Gospels is not, however, so chaotic as\nmight at first sight appear. There is a strongly marked disposition to\nrecede from the extremes on both sides, and there is a very considerable\nagreement that the period from 60 to 100 A.D. covers the time during which\nthe Synoptic Gospels were written. There is also a consensus of opinion\nthat the Second Gospel cannot have been written later than about 70 A.D.\nEvery decade, and almost every year, however, between 60 and 100 A.D.\nfinds advocates for the composition of Mt. and Lk. There are,\nnevertheless, three periods which find special favour. These may be\nbriefly mentioned.\n\n(1) The first period we may note is the closing years of the first\ncentury. For this view the main arguments are (i) the supposed dependence\nof St. Luke upon Josephus, and (ii) the ecclesiastical tone of certain\npassages in the First Gospel.\n\n(2) A second view brings both Mk. and Lk. within St. Paul\u2019s lifetime, and\ndates Mt. shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. This is the opinion of\nHarnack (_Date of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels_). It has not won a\nlarge following, either in Germany or in this country, but it is probably\nnearer the truth than the previous view.\n\n(3) A third period is the time about 80 A.D. One advantage of this view,\nas Dr. Plummer candidly admits (ICC., St. Lk., p. xxxi), is the fact that\nit avoids the difficulties which beset the other two. The main argument\nwhich commends it to Dr. Plummer is that \u201csuch a date allows sufficient\ntime for the \u2018many\u2019 to \u2018draw up narratives\u2019 respecting the acts and\nsayings of Christ\u201d.\n\nIt remains for us to indicate what bearing these representative dates have\nupon the Virgin Birth tradition in the light of our results.\n\nIt is clear that if we must date Mt. and Lk. in the closing years of the\nfirst century, the historical value of the tradition is reduced to a\nminimum. For, if that tradition is historical, we are compelled to assume\nthat for a period of about ninety years the story was jealously guarded,\nfirst by Mary herself and then by a chosen few to whom it was revealed.\nBut who will believe this? If we accept Harnack\u2019s dates, then the period\nabout 60 A.D. will be the time when belief in the Virgin Birth first began\nto spread. While, if we prefer the third alternative, we must fix upon a\ntime some fifteen to twenty years later, i.e. the period from 75 to 80\nA.D.\n\nIt is evident that the case for the historical truth of the tradition is\nat its strongest if Harnack\u2019s dates can be accepted. Looking at the\nquestion from the sole standpoint of the time\u2010interval, we do not believe\nthat the third period is impossibly late. However we look at the question,\nwe are unable to bring the public tradition within the lifetime of Mary.\nBut, provided we are not compelled to date the Gospels at the close of the\ncentury, there do not seem to be insuperable difficulties\u2014so far as the\ntime\u2010element is concerned\u2014against connecting that public tradition with\nthose who were near her person.\n\nIt will be seen that the question of the date of the Gospels is an\nimportant one. The utmost, however, we are able to glean in this field is\na somewhat negative advantage. Our conclusion is that no insuperable\ndifficulty stands in the way. Obviously, the onus of proof yet remains.\nThe long period of silence must be explained, and the truth of the\ntradition vindicated.\n\n\n\n\nIII. The Relation of the Question of the Historical Value of the Gospels\nto the Problem\n\n\nWe must next briefly consider the question of _the historical value of the\nSynoptic Gospels_, so far as it bears upon our immediate problem. It is\nright to urge that our first aim must be to examine the Virgin Birth\ntradition without bias or presuppositions of any kind. But it is no less\ntrue to say that our estimate of the credibility of the Gospels as a whole\nmust react upon that task in the end. Whether the Synoptic Gospels are but\na tissue of legends, or whether they fulfil a good standard of historical\nvalue, are questions which cannot be ignored.\n\nFor those who claim infallibility, as well as inspiration, for the\nEvangelists, the problem is at an end: Lk. and Mt. teach the Virgin Birth;\nthe doctrine is therefore true! But for most people to\u2010day that short and\neasy path is impossible. The Gospels do not claim infallibility, and their\ncontents do not bespeak it. There can be no question that a trained\nobserver of to\u2010day would have described many incidents in the life of\nJesus very differently. There are parables which have been unconsciously\nhardened into miracles, sayings of Jesus which have been misunderstood,\nstories which have grown amidst the exigencies of controversy and in the\nprocess of evangelization. These things are no more than we might expect.\nThey were inevitable; unless we credit the Evangelists with a mechanical\npreservation from error which finds no justification beyond our own\npreconceived notions of what a Gospel ought to be. Nor do such admissions\nrob the Gospels of real worth. On the contrary, they throw their\nhistorical value into strong relief. For to perceive that the natural\ninfirmities of the human mind have left their trace upon the Evangelic\nRecords is only to prepare the way for us to recognize how close in the\nmain the Evangelists have kept to the real facts of history. The\nsignificant fact is not that they have made mistakes, but that they have\nmade so few that are of real importance. We have only to compare their\nwork with the Apocryphal Gospels to see, in the case of the Evangelists,\nwhat restraint the solid facts of history exercised upon the natural\ntendencies of their minds. J\u00fclicher, who does not hesitate to say that\nwhat the Evangelists relate is \u201ca mixture of truth and poetry\u201d (INT., Eng.\nTr., p. 368), nevertheless declares that \u201cthe Synoptic Gospels are of\npriceless value, not only as books of religious edification, but also as\nauthorities for the history of Jesus\u201d (ib., p. 371). \u201cThe true merit of\nthe Synoptists\u201d, he says, \u201cis that, in spite of the poetic touches they\nemploy, they did not repaint, but only handed on, the Christ of history\u201d\u2019\n\nWhat bearing has such an estimate of the Gospels upon the historic truth\nof the Virgin Birth tradition? Obviously, it does not save us from the\ntrouble of testing the tradition by such tests as we can apply. That the\ntradition has found a place in the New Testament is not in itself a\ncertificate of truth. The Evangelists certainly believed the tradition;\nthey were intellectually honest; but they may have been mistaken. The\nultimate question is the truth of the authorities upon which they rested\nand of the belief they reflect. Their importance as writers is that they\ncountersign the tradition with the high authority they possess. But,\nhowever high their authority, it is not that of infallibility. The truth\nof the Gospels is the truth of their sources. As regards the Virgin Birth\ntradition, the sources cannot be traced back to Mk. and Q, the two primary\nSynoptic documents, but to the later tradition of the Christian Church, at\nthe time when Mt. and Lk. were written. The First and Third Evangelists\nhave endorsed that tradition; the problem of the Virgin Birth is whether\nthey were right. Nothing that we have said in this section must be\nconstrued to prejudge that question. That the Evangelists have accepted\nthe tradition, for us unquestionably gives it a higher value; but it is\nnot a determinative value. The main result is to make yet clearer the\nfinal issue, which is, we repeat, whether the story which the Evangelists\nendorse can be traced back to an authoritative source. Has it the sanction\nof Mary or of those who may be supposed to have known her mind?\n\n\n\n\nIV. The Question of Alternative Theories\n\n\nIn many discussions of the Virgin Birth, the question of _Alternative\nTheories_ occupies a prominent place. Our purpose in the present section\nis to ask what place it may legitimately be given. Has it the importance\nwhich is often claimed?\n\nAttention has frequently been called to the inability of those who reject\nthe Virgin Birth to agree upon an alternative theory. The failure is\npatent. Harnack and Lobstein, on the one side, plead for a Jewish\u2010\nChristian origin for the doctrine, in which the influence of Isa. vii. 14\nplayed a decisive part; on the other side, Soltau, Schmiedel, Usener, and\nothers, trace the tradition to the effect of non\u2010Christian myths. Not only\nso; the advocates of each theory specifically reject the other. Lobstein,\nfor example, thinks that \u201cit would be rash to see direct imitations or\npositive influences\u201d in the analogies \u201cbetween the Biblical myth and\nlegends of Greek or Eastern origin\u201d. While there was mutual action between\nthe worship or doctrine of paganism and advancing Christianity, \u201cnothing\nwarrants historical criticism in considering the tradition of the\nmiraculous birth of Christ as merely the outcome of elements foreign to\nthe religion of Biblical revelation\u201d (_The Virgin Birth of Christ_, p.\n76). Schmiedel, on the other hand, rejects the Jewish\u2010Christian origin of\nthe tradition, \u201cNor would Isa. vii. 14 have been sufficient to account for\nthe origin of such a doctrine unless the doctrine had commended itself on\nits own merits. The passage was adduced only as an afterthought, in\nconfirmation.... Thus the origin of the idea of a virgin birth is to be\nsought in Gentile\u2010Christian circles\u201d (EB., col. 2963 f.).(106)\n\nIt is not strange, perhaps, that some writers have pressed these\ncontradictions into the service of Apologetics. Thus, for example, Dr. Orr\ndoes not scruple to say: \u201cAs in the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim,\n\u2018neither so did their witness agree together\u2019 \u201d (op. cit., p. 152). He\neven presents the remarkable argument that Dr. Cheyne\u2019s theory \u201cgives the\ndeath\u2010stroke to all the theories that have gone before it\u201d, and yet is\nitself \u201cabsolutely baseless\u201d (ib., p. 178). Sweet\u2019s argument is more\ncautiously introduced. He recognizes that the contention has its limits.\nHe instances Bossuet\u2019s argument against the Reformation drawn from the\nVariations of Protestantism and G. H. Lewes\u2019s inference from the History\nof Philosophy that philosophy is impossible (op. cit., p. 299). But,\nhaving said this, Sweet argues that the critics agree in nothing \u201csave\ndislike and depreciation of the documents\u201d, and that \u201ctheir theories are\nmutually destructive\u201d.\n\nIt appears to us that this line of argument is open to serious objection;\nit is unfair, and it is unwise.\n\nIt is unfair, because it is neither uncommon nor unreasonable to find men\nagreed in rejecting a tradition or belief, and yet at variance in respect\nof theories of origin. It is one thing to say that a belief is untrue;\nquite another thing to account for its existence. That men agree upon the\none point is more significant than that they differ upon the other. The\nview we have mentioned is unwise, because its triumph may be short\u2010lived.\nThere is always room for the emergence of a better alternative theory,\nwhich shall combine the excellences, and avoid the weaknesses, of pioneer\nattempts.\n\nIt does not need a prophet to suggest that the next alternative theory\nwill be psychological and eclectic. If the tradition is not historical, it\nis not likely that we can account for its rise by one factor alone. We may\nregard it as established that prophecy alone did not create the tradition,\nand that it was not invented on the analogy of non\u2010Christian myths.\nNevertheless, it may be that Isa. vii. 14, together with the idea that\nunderlies non\u2010Christian legends, played an important part in the formation\nof the Christian tradition. If the tradition is not historical, its\nultimate origin must be sought in the overwhelming impression which Jesus\nleft upon believing hearts and minds; in the conviction that from the time\nof His Birth, and not only at His Baptism and Resurrection, Jesus Christ\nwas the Son of God by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The presumption\nthat His Birth must have been remarkable would be strengthened by the Old\nTestament stories of the birth of Isaac, of Samson, and of Samuel, and\nespecially by the tradition which already had gathered round the birth of\nJohn. It may also have been stimulated by the belief, found the whole\nworld over, that the origin of great men is supernatural and miraculous.\nEven amongst the Jews the idea was present, that the Messiah\u2019s origin\nwould be strange, and that no man would know from whence he came (Jn. vii.\n27). If there is reason to presuppose such a point of view, we can easily\nimagine the electric effect which such a passage as Isa. vii. 14 would\nhave upon those who studied Old Testament prophecies in the light of their\nexperience of Jesus. It is vain to object that it is only in the LXX that\nthis connexion could be established, and that in the Hebrew the word\nrendered \u201cvirgin\u201d means a young woman of marriageable age. The First\nGospel (i. 23) shows that it was the LXX rendering which was already read,\nand doubtless preferred, in the primitive Christian community. Still more\nfatuous is it to say, as it has been said again and again, that no Jew\never interpreted Isa. vii. 14 of the Messiah. As well might we say of\nother passages that no Jew would have interpreted them Messianically! The\nquestion is not how Jews regarded Isa. vii. 14, but how it may have\nappeared in the eyes of Jews who had come under the spell of Jesus. The\npassage cannot have created belief in the Virgin Birth, but it could have\ncrystallized a belief for which wonder and speculation had prepared the\nway. \u201cSo it must have been!\u201d men could well have argued. On this\nsupposition the belief antedated the tradition. But that beliefs have\ncreated traditions again and again is enough to show that it could have\nbeen so here. Nor is the time\u2010element the insuperable difficulty it has\nbeen supposed to be. The idea that a myth would require fifty years to\ngrow is absurd.(107) Provided the parents of Jesus were already dead, the\nmyth could have sprung up new born.\n\nIn sketching the foregoing theory our purpose is not to assert its truth,\nbut rather to illustrate its by no means inherent improbability. It could\nbe true; or, at any rate, this judgement might any day have to be passed\nupon some alternative theory, superior to any that has yet been stated.\nThe agreement of the Virgin Birth tradition with historic fact may be the\ntrue solution of the problem, but it is not the only solution that is\npossible, nor can its superiority be established by the comparative method\nalone. We therefore work along wrong lines if we attempt to argue the\nhistoric character of the Virgin Birth tradition by dwelling upon the\nincongruities and contradictions of alternative theories. The baleful\nattractiveness of such a method ought strenuously to be resisted. It may\nyield a few showy triumphs, but few, if any, solid results. Of course, if\nwe have first satisfied ourselves that the Virgin Birth is historically\ntrue, the practice is less objectionable; but it is doubtful if even then\nit adds much to results otherwise obtained. To include the method in the\nprocess of proof is to build upon sand.\n\nOn the other hand, this view is equally sound, if our solution of the\nproblem is one of the alternative theories to which we have referred. We\nhave sketched a theory which we have claimed might be true. But what more\ncould be claimed by the comparative method? Its justification or lack of\njustification lies elsewhere. The possible may not be the probable, nor\nthe probable the true. The importance of the question we have discussed in\nthe present section is that it reveals what are the by\u2010paths and what is\nthe high\u2010road of a true investigation. The question of alternative\ntheories is purely secondary. The high\u2010road is where we left it at the end\nof Section II. Can the tradition, endorsed by the First and Third\nEvangelists, be vindicated?\n\n\n\n\nV. Doctrinal Considerations\n\n\n_The ultimate considerations which determine a true estimate of the Virgin\nBirth tradition are doctrinal._ It is one of the chief merits of\nLobstein\u2019s well\u2010known book that he so clearly recognizes this fact: \u201cWhat\nmust finally turn the scale ... are reasons of a dogmatic and religious\norder\u201d (op. cit., p. 79).\n\nWe need make no apology for not having dealt with the question of the\npossibility of the Miraculous Birth from the standpoint of Science. We do\nnot propose to consider the question at length even now. The objection\nthat miracles are impossible has long been exploded. In a famous letter to\nthe _Spectator_ (February 10, 1866) Huxley wrote: \u201c... denying the\npossibility of miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative\nAtheism\u201d, and Atheism, he said, is \u201cas absurd, logically speaking, as\npolytheism\u201d. What we call a \u201cmiracle\u201d may be no more than the divine\noperation within the domain of law itself. We have therefore no ground for\nsaying that a virgin birth is impossible; while, in the case of One so\nunique as Jesus Christ, such an assertion would be utterly absurd. We do\nnot really need any support which may be gained from the question of\nParthenogenesis. The question is in the first place one of evidence.\n\nBut if primarily the question is one of evidence, it does not stop there.\nThe historical and the theological aspects of the problem overlap; we\ncannot determine the question by weighing evidence alone.\n\nIf we attempt to confine ourselves to a purely historical inquiry, the\nverdict must be \u201cNot proven\u201d.(108) It is true, on the one hand, that the\nlate appearance of the tradition is not an insuperable difficulty. The\ntheory of a long\u2010treasured secret has a logic of its own. On the other\nhand, by the conditions of the case, we are unable to interrogate the\nwitnesses. We cannot ask them whence they derived what they tell us. We\ncannot demonstrate that the story they relate has the ultimate authority\nof Mary. All that we can reach is a primitive belief, generally accepted\nwithin New Testament times, which presumably implies an earlier private\ntradition. Beyond that point we cannot travel\u2014within the limits of the\nevidence alone.\n\nSubstantially this position is recognized by Dr. Gore in _Dissertations_.\nWhile affirming his belief that the historical evidence is \u201cin itself\nstrong and cogent\u201d, he says frankly that \u201cit is not such as to compel\nbelief\u201d. \u201cThere are ways to dissolve its force\u201d, he continues. The last\nsentence is not very happily phrased, but it need not detain us. The point\nthat is of greatest importance is expressed by Dr. Gore as follows:\n\n\n    \u201c... to produce belief there is needed\u2014in this as in almost all\n    other questions of historical fact\u2014besides cogent evidence, also a\n    perception of the meaning and naturalness, under the\n    circumstances, of the event to which evidence is borne. To clinch\n    the historical evidence for our Lord\u2019s Virgin Birth there is\n    needed the sense that, being what He was, His human birth could\n    hardly have been otherwise than is implied in the Virginity of His\n    mother\u201d (ib., p. 64).\n\n\nThe present work is, in part, a foot\u2010note to, or illustration of, this\nprinciple. We may therefore be pardoned for a further reference to it in a\npassage from F. C. Burkitt\u2019s _Gospel History and its Transmission_, in\nwhich it finds an almost classic statement:\n\n\n    \u201cOur belief or disbelief in most of the Articles in the Apostles\u2019\n    Creed does not ultimately rest on historical criticism of the\n    Gospels, but upon the general view of the universe, of the order\n    of things, which our training and environment, or our inner\n    experience, has led us severally to take. The Birth of our Lord\n    from a virgin and His Resurrection from the dead\u2014to name the most\n    obvious Articles of the Creed\u2014are not matters which historical\n    criticism can establish\u201d (p. 350 f.).\n\n\nIt is clear, then, that if further advance is to be made, we must enter\nthe realms of doctrine. What doctrinal purpose, we must ask, does the\nVirgin Birth serve? Does it explain the sinlessness of Jesus? Is it\nnecessary to the doctrine of the Incarnation? Is it congruous with the\ndoctrine of the Person of Christ? It is not contended that an answer to\nthese questions in the affirmative would prove the event to have happened.\nNevertheless, such an answer would unquestionably invest the New Testament\ntradition with a yet higher probability, sufficiently great, in our\njudgement, to make belief in its historical character reasonable. If,\nhowever, we have to answer the doctrinal questions in the negative, then\nthe historical character of the tradition receives a fatal blow. The\nopinion, so frequently expressed, that, in any case, the Virgin Birth is\nnot a doctrine of essential importance, is one that calls for scrutiny. If\nit means that a man may be a sincere follower of our Lord, whether he\nbelieves the doctrine or not, it is, of course, a truism. But if it means\nthat the doctrine is of no importance in relation to the Incarnation and\nthe Person of Christ, that is perhaps the strongest argument that can be\nadduced _against_ the credibility of the miracle. What is doctrinally\nirrelevant is not likely to be historically true.\n\nIt does not fall in with the scope of this work to enter fully into the\ntheological question. Our purpose has been to examine the historical and\ncritical questions and to show where the real problem lies. Criticism\ncannot solve that problem. Nevertheless, its contribution is not barren.\nIt can discuss interpolation theories; it can treat of the literary form\nwhich the tradition has assumed in the Gospels. It can date\u2014imperfectly it\nis true\u2014the time when the belief became current. It can apply broad tests\nof credibility. We ourselves believe that it can say the miracle may have\ntranspired. But it cannot say more. The last word is with Theology.\n\nOn the theological side, the question is probably more far\u2010reaching than\nis commonly supposed. Individual Christian doctrines can never be treated\n_in vacuo_; they are inter\u2010related one with another. It is often said that\nthose who reject the Virgin Birth reject also the physical Resurrection of\nJesus, the Ascension, and many of the miracles reported in the Gospels.\nThe statement is largely true; it is possible we ought also to include in\nit the doctrine of the Pre\u2010existence of Christ. The reason is that these\ndenials belong to the same general habit of mind; they are part of the\ncontent of what has been called a \u201creduced Christianity\u201d. It is\nimpossible, therefore, adequately to discuss the question of the Virgin\nBirth on its theological side, without raising the larger question,\nwhether this so\u2010called \u201creduced Christianity\u201d is not the true faith, as\ndistinguished from a \u201cfull Christianity\u201d which in reality is florid and\novergrown. Sweet can scarcely be said to go too far when he writes: \u201cIn\nshort, and this is the gist of the whole matter, in this controversy\nconcerning the birth of Christ, two fundamentally different Christologies\nare groping for supremacy\u201d (ib., p. 311). This fact has not always been\nrecognized by those who think of the Virgin Birth, but there can be no\nquestion of its truth. The Virgin Birth is part of a larger problem; it\nmust ultimately be established, if at all, as a corollary, not as an\nindependent conclusion. The larger problem is whether we can still hold\nthe Trinitarian Theology and the Two\u2010Nature Doctrine of the Person of\nChrist, or whether we must give to the Immanence of God a place greatly in\nexcess of any it has yet held in Christian thought; whether, indeed, we\ncan feel it adequate to speak of Christ as One in whom the Immanent God\nrevealed and expressed Himself in an altogether unique and ultimately\ninexplicable way. In any case, the conflict is one of Christologies. The\npurely naturalistic interpretation of Jesus holds a more and more\nprecarious place in the field. This, then, is the problem of the present\nand of the immediate future. It is nothing less than the problem which\nevery age has had to face since the days of Jesus of Nazareth\u2014the problem\nof the Incarnation.\n\nThe present writer takes no shame to say that upon the theological aspect\nof the Virgin Birth he has not yet been able to satisfy his mind. The\nlonger the question is studied the less easy it becomes airily to brush\nthe miracle aside and call it myth. We speak of those who are impressed by\nthe unique spiritual greatness of Jesus, and who cannot explain for\nthemselves His Person in terms of humanity alone. The hesitation does not\nspring from vacillation, nor, we hope, from lack of courage and strength\nof mind. It springs out of a sense of the uniqueness of Jesus. Have we\nadequately grasped His greatness? Can we say what is, or what is not,\ncongruous with His Person? It is open to serious question whether the\nindividual can expect, or ought to expect an answer to these questions out\nof his experience and thought alone. Brief discussions of the Virgin Birth\nby individual writers do not carry us very far. What is needed more than\nanything else is a yet fuller disclosure of the unfettered mind of the\nChristian Church; and for this we must wait.\n\nThis last statement may perhaps seem strange. Has not the Church already\nexpressed her corporate mind? Has she not committed herself to the Virgin\nBirth tradition? Can we not find it in Ignatius, in Justin, and in the\nCreeds of the Undivided Church? That these things are so is too patent to\nbe denied. But has the Church expressed her _unfettered_ mind? Has she\nsaid her final word? Has she, indeed, ever been in a position to do these\nthings? The appeal to the almost unbroken external witness of the Catholic\nChurch does not carry us so far as we might think. Once the Gospels had\nattained canonical authority the rest was a foregone conclusion. The\nstatus given to the Gospels carried everything else with it, and the\nChurch was no longer free to judge. It is written, therefore it was so!\nMoreover, the question of the Virgin Birth was largely overshadowed in the\nstruggle with Docetism. It is only in modern times that a more intelligent\nattitude towards the Gospels permits the Church freely to ponder the\nVirgin Birth tradition in the light of her experience of Christ. We may\ncherish the hope that she has yet greater things to say of Christ than any\nshe has yet uttered. It is in its relation to that voice that the Virgin\nBirth will find its place.\n\nWhere, then, shall we look for this expression of corporate mind? Not\nperhaps again in Consiliar Decrees, though who can say? There is, however,\na corporate mind that finds expression in the affirmations of simple\nbelievers, and in the writings of Christian thinkers the world over. The\naffirmations are neither the medley nor the babel they are sometimes\nthought to be. There is no colourless uniformity, but there is a real and\ngrowing unity, a harmony in which varied voices blend. No one can survey\nChristendom without seeing that everywhere denominational walls become\nless and less forbidding, and that every year it is more difficult to\nclassify Christian thinkers under the prim labels of exclusive schools.\nThought is unbound, but it is not chaotic. The thousand streams fall to\nthe rivers which flow onward towards the sea that is never full. Those\nonly may be pessimistic who cannot take long views. We may believe that\nthe Spirit will yet guide His Church into all the truth. The individual\nthinker whose voice breaks the silence will ever be needed. Yet his task\nis but a limited one; he too must listen. For unless, beneath his\naffirmations, we hear the undertone of a corporate faith and experience,\nhis voice will be but the echo that rings among the empty hills.\n\nOne thing is certain. Whatever the ultimate issue, it must be gain, even\nif gain through loss. Whether it be historical or not, the Virgin Birth\ntradition must always be full of beauty and of truth.\n\nIf, on the one hand, the tradition is involved in the corporate experience\nof Christ, if it is congruous with what He was and is, then, admittedly,\nthe gain is great. For this means increased confidence in the facts which\nthe Evangelists relate and the primitive community believed: there is no\nbreach with the past. It means too another foothold in history for the\ntheological interpretation of the Person of Christ. And these are things\nnot lightly to be surrendered, save at the command of Truth.\n\nIf, on the other hand, the story is a legend of the Christian Faith, that\nis not an end. Strangely enough, if the tradition is not historical, it\nthereby becomes a valuable piece of Christian apologetic. Who was this\nJesus, we ask, of whom men dared to believe that He was born of a virgin?\nThe faded wreath is no less the tribute of undying love. That Jewish\nChristians could explain the unique divine personality of Jesus by the\nmiracle of a virgin birth is\u2014if we must solve the problem so\u2014the highest\ntribute they could pay. If we find it hard to understand how they could\nthink of Him in this way, without the warrant of the fact, it may be that\nour difficulty is just the measure of our failure to grasp the wonder of\ntheir love. If, in the end, we must call poetry what they called fact, it\nwill not be because we are strangers to their faith. They too were bound\nby the spell of that Transcendent Face in which is the light of the\nknowledge of the glory of God.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nActs, The, 12 ff., 21.\n\nAllen, W. C., 6, 8, 9 n., 11 n., 15 n., 33 n., 37, 42 n., 52, 89 n., 90,\n            90 n., 91, 92 n., 94, 95 n., 96, 105\u201014.\n\nApocalypse, The, 20.\n\nArgument from Silence, The, 1\u20103.\n\nAscension, 78, 130.\n\nBacon, B. W., 8 n.\n\nBaptism of Jesus, 7, 25, 125.\n\nBarnard, 89 n., 108.\n\nBethlehem, 16, 17, 98.\n\nBezae, Codex, 25, 29.\n\nBirthplace of Jesus, 16, 17 f., 19.\n\nBlass, Friedrich, 15 n., 25, 32 n., 50 n.\n\nBossuet, 125.\n\nBox, George H., 4 n., 5, 8, 15 n., 38 ff., 40 n., 41, 86 n., 89 n., 90 n.,\n            91, 95, 101, 103, 105, 106, 108.\n\nBurkitt, F. C., 33 n., 50 n., 88 n., 89, 89 n., 90, 91, 92, 92 n., 93, 95\n            n., 96, 96 n., 97, 99 n., 100, 100 n., 101, 105\u201014, 129.\n\nCarpenter, J. Estlin, 43 n., 44.\n\nCatholic Epistles, 20.\n\nCerinthus, 99.\n\nChase, 40 n.\n\nCheyne, T. K., 20 n., 40 n., 125.\n\nClemen, 40 n.\n\nConybeare, F. C., 40 n., 99 n., 105, 106, 108 n.\n\nCorporate Mind of the Church, The, 131 f.\n\nCreeds, The, 131.\n\nCuretonian Syriac, The, 105 ff., 108.\n\nDalman, G., 59 n.\n\nDate of the Synoptic Gospels, 120 ff.\n\nDavidic Descent, The:\n  in Acts, 13.\n  in Lk., 44 ff., 84.\n  in Mt., 85, 89, 101.\n\nDavidson, A. B., 39.\n\n_Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_, The, 91, 99 n., 105, 106, 108, 111.\n\n_Diatessaron_, The, 106.\n\nDionysius of Corinth, 49.\n\nDocetism, 15 n., 132.\n\nDoctrinal Modifications, 52 ff., 99, 113.\n\nDrummond, James, 1.\n\nEbionites, The, 33, 107.\n\nEpiphanius, 99.\n\n_Expository Times_, The, 39 n.\n\nFairbairn, A. M., 15 n.\n\n\u201cFerrar\u201d Group, The, 105, 106, 107 f.\n\nFirst Gospel, The:\n  apologetic motive, 96, 99, 116.\n  characteristic words, &c., 93 f., 99, 99 n.\n  date, 117 f., 121.\n  genuineness of cc. i, ii, 95 ff.\n  mode of treatment, 94, 99.\n  quotations, 94 f., 126.\n  source of Virgin Birth tradition, 101 ff.\n  style, 92 f., 99.\n  unity of cc. i, ii, 95 ff.\n  Virgin Birth an original element, 100, 104, 115.\n\nFourth Gospel, The, 15\u201020, 115.\n\nGardner, Percy, 128.\n\nGenealogy in Lk., 26 ff., 74, 84, 89, 90.\n\nGenealogy in Mt., 27, 64, 89 ff., 95 ff., 97, 100, 101.\n\nGnostics, The, 33.\n\nGore, Charles, 5, 102, 103, 128 f.\n\nGould, Ezra P., 9, 68 n., 103 n.\n\nGrill, 40 n.\n\nGunkel, 40 n.\n\nH\u00e4cker, 32 n., 43 n.\n\nHarnack, Adolf, 7, 7 n., 15 n., 25, 26 n., 32, 40 n., 55, 57, 57 n., 58\n            n., 60, 62 n., 63 n., 64, 67, 80, 82, 117, 121, 124.\n\nHawkins, Sir John C., 52 n., 55, 57 n., 67 n., 93 n., 94.\n\nHeadlam, 49 n.\n\nHebrews, The Epistle to, 14 f., 21.\n\nHeffern, 89.\n\nHilgenfeld, 40 n.\n\nHillmann, 40 n., 55.\n\nHistorical value of the Synoptic Gospels, 122 ff.\n\nHobart, W. K., 55.\n\nHoltzmann, 40 n.\n\nHort, F. J. A., 33 n., 51, 58.\n\nHuxley, 128.\n\nIgnatius, 16, 18, 131.\n\nIncarnation, 129, 131.\n\nInference, its place in the Gospels, 102 f.\n\nInterpolations, 76 ff.\n\nIrenaeus, 15 n.\n\nJews at Nazareth, The, 8 f., 31, 97.\n\nJohn the Baptist, 126.\n\nJoseph, 28 f., 30 ff., 98, 99, 101, 102.\n\nJ\u00fclicher, Adolf, 15 n., 118 n., 123.\n\nJustin, 15 n., 131.\n\nKattenbusch, 36, 69.\n\nKnowledge of Jesus, The, 10.\n\nKnowling, R. J., 4, 40 n.\n\nLake, Kirsopp, 33 n., 96 n., 103, 103 n.\n\nLewes, G. H., 125.\n\nLewis, Mrs., and Mrs. Gibson, 110.\n\nLinguistic Argument, The, its importance, 22 f., 55 f.\n\nLobstein, Paul, 44 n., 70, 124, 127.\n\nLoisy, Abb\u00e9 Alfred, 40 n.\n\nLoofs, Friedrich, 82 n., 126 n.\n\nMackintosh, H. R., 5 n., 7 n., 13 n., 15 n.\n\nMaclean, A. J., 89 n., 108.\n\nMary, the mother of Jesus, 9, 10, 11, 35 f., 42, 43 f., 45, 87, 121, 122,\n            128.\n\nMerx, 69.\n\nMilligan, George, 49, 92.\n\nMiracles, 127 f., 130.\n\nMoffatt, James, 7 n., 8 n., 13 n., 15 n., 18, 18 n., 24, 25, 26, 32, 43\n            n., 49 n., 50, 52 n., 53 n., 57 n., 67 n., 74, 76, 89, 89 n.,\n            90 n., 91, 92, 95, 96, 96 n., 106 n., 108, 120.\n\nMontefiore, C. G., 40 n., 43 n.\n\nMoulton, James Hope, 50 n., 51, 53 n., 58 n., 59 n., 62 n., 92 n.\n\nMoulton and Geden, 58 n., 93.\n\nMoulton and Milligan (VGT.), 35, 59, 59 n., 62 n., 65 n.\n\nOrr, James, 3 n., 4, 15 n., 40 n., 102, 125.\n\n_Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, 26 n., 76 n.\n\nPapias, 7.\n\nParthenogenesis, 128.\n\nPastoral Epistles, 20.\n\nPeake, A. S., 15 n.\n\n_Pericope adulteriae_, 50.\n\nPerson of Christ, The, 129 ff.\n\nPfleiderer, Otto, 40 n.\n\nPhilip, daughters of, 87.\n\nPlummer, A., 8 n., 27, 29 n., 33, 34 f., 35, 37, 43, 44, 57 n., 63 n., 64,\n            70, 121.\n\nPre\u2010existence of Christ, The, 130.\n\n_Protevangelium Iacobi_, 49 n.\n\nQ, 7, 21, 26 n., 123.\n\nRamsay, W. M., 32, 81, 81 n., 85, 87.\n\nResch, 15 n.\n\nResurrection of Christ, The, 4, 5, 5 n., 13, 13 n., 103, 125, 130.\n\nRobinson, J. Armitage, 50 n.\n\nSanday, William, 1 f., 15 n., 16, 26, 27, 50 n., 85, 86 n., 89 n., 102 n.,\n            105, 106 n., 107 n., 112.\n\nSanday and Headlam, 4, 5 n., 51.\n\nSchmidt, N., 40 n.\n\nSchmiedel, Paul W., 9 n., 10 n., 23, 24, 29, 32, 32 n., 35, 37 n., 40 n.,\n            42, 43, 45, 55, 70, 97 f., 105, 106, 124.\n\nScience, 127 f.\n\nScott, Ernest F., 15 n., 19, 19 n.\n\nSecond Adam, 3, 4 f.\n\nSimeon, Prophecy of, 29, 73.\n\nSinaitic Syriac MS., 29, 32, 33, 105\u201014.\n\nSinlessness of Jesus, 129.\n\nSoltau, 124.\n\nSpitta, 43 n.\n\nSt. Luke:\n  did he teach the Virgin Birth? 48\u201071.\n  his knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition, 13, 72\u20104, 84 f., 87, 115.\n  his revision of Lk. and Acts, 77, 80 ff., 81 n.\n  his treatment of Mk., 77.\n  the richness of his vocabulary, 63, 63 n.\n\nSt. Mark\u2019s Gospel, 8\u201012, 21, 87, 115, 123.\n  date, 121.\n  original ending, 12, 53, 68 n.\n\nSt. Paul, 3\u20107, 21, 87, 115.\n\nStanton, Vincent H., 8 n., 40 n., 95 n., 118.\n\nSweet, Louis Matthews, 4, 4 n., 125, 130.\n\nTertullian, 15 n., 105, 113.\n\nText of the Gospels in the Second Century, 49 ff., 91 f., 99, 113.\n\nTextual Problem of Mt. i. 16, 90 ff., 100, 105 ff.\n\nThayer\u2010Grimm, 35, 62 n., 65 n., 66.\n\nTheophilus of Antioch, 1.\n\nThird Gospel, 22\u201047, 72\u201087.\n  birth tradition of Lk. i, ii, 73, 85 f.\n  date, 118, 121.\n  narratives of Lk. ii, 28 ff.\n  purport of the angelic announcement (i. 30\u20103), 36 ff.\n\nThompson, J. M., 7, 7 n., 8, 10, 10 n., 13 n., 18, 18 n., 36, 69, 70.\n\nTrinitarian Theology, 130.\n\nUsener, H., 9 n., 23, 25, 32 n., 40 n., 45, 55, 79, 124.\n\nVerbal Inspiration, 76 f., 103, 122 f.\n\nVirgin Birth tradition:\n  alternative theories, 124 ff.\n  apologetic and spiritual value, 133.\n  doctrinal aspects, 127 ff.\n  earliest date of public tradition, 117 ff.\n  historical problem, 115\u201033.\n  theory of a private tradition, 119, 121, 128.\n\nV\u00f6lter, 40 n.\n\nWeinel, 36, 69.\n\nWeiss, J., 40 n.\n\nWellhausen, J., 7.\n\nWendland, 8 n.\n\nWestcott, B. F., 15 n., 89 n., 108.\n\nWestcott and Hort, 33 n., 57 n.\n\n\u201cWestern\u201d Readings, 24\u20106, 32\u20104, 33 n.\n\nWise Men, 95.\n\nZacharias, 43 f.\n\nZahn, Theodor, 15 n.\n\nZimmermann, 74 f., 75 n.\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: Obvious printer\u2019s errors have been corrected.]\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 Dr. Orr (_The Virgin Birth of Christ_, 1907, 3rd ed., 1914) says\n      that in every Pauline reference to the origin of Christ there is\n      \u201csome peculiarity of expression\u201d (pp. 117 ff., 196). He instances\n      \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 in Gal. iv. 4, Rom. i. 3, Phil. ii. 7, and speaks of\n      \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 as the word properly denoting \u201cborn\u201d. But St. Paul never\n      uses \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, and Mt. xi. 11 and Lk. vii. 28 are the only instances\n      in the NT. Moreover, the papyri show that \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 were\n      in common use in the sense of \u201cto come into being\u201d, \u201cbe born\u201d (cf.\n      Moulton and Milligan, VGT., 1915, p. 126 a). Canon Box also speaks\n      of St. Paul\u2019s use of \u201cthe out\u2010of\u2010the\u2010way \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u201d (_The Virgin\n      Birth of Jesus_, 1916). \u201cThis would harmonise\u201d, he says, \u201cwith the\n      feeling that there was something extraordinary and supernatural\n      about the birth, which led to its being spoken of in unusual terms\u201d\n      (p. 149 n.). Not to speak of the papyri, what would these writers\n      make of Jn. viii. 58, \u201cBefore Abraham was (\u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) I\n      am\u201d? Was there \u201csomething extraordinary\u201d in Abraham\u2019s birth too? For\n      a view similar to that of Orr and Box see Sweet, _The Birth and\n      Infancy of Jesus Christ_, p. 237 f.\n\n    2 Compare verse 12, \u201cas through one man\u201d, with verse 15, \u201cthe grace of\n      the one man, Jesus Christ\u201d. Cf. also Rom. ix. 5 (and 1 Tim. ii. 5).\n\n    3 Cf. H. R. Mackintosh, _The Person of Jesus Christ_, p. 69: \u201c... the\n      passage [1 Cor. xv. 44\u20109] is throughout concerned not in the least\n      with the pre\u2010existent but with the exalted Christ. It was only in\n      virtue of resurrection that He became the archetype and head of a\n      new race.\u201d Mackintosh says that the Virgin Birth is \u201cnot present\u201d in\n      Gal. iv. 4, \u201cnot even hinted at\u201d (p. 528).\n\n    4 \u201cThe flesh of Christ is \u2018like\u2019 ours inasmuch as it is flesh; \u2018like\u2019,\n      and only \u2018like\u2019, because it is not sinful: _ostendit nos quidem\n      habere carnem peccati, Filium vero Dei similitudinem habuisse carnis\n      peccati, non carnem peccati_ (Orig.\u2010lat.)\u201d (SH., ICC., Rom., p.\n      193).\n\n    5 For these and other details see Moffatt, INT., pp. 194\u2010206; also\n      Harnack, _The Sayings of Jesus_, pp. 229\u201052.\n\n    6 Cf. Mt. xi. 2 f. = Lk. vii. 18 f.\n\n    7 Cf. Mackintosh, _Person of Jesus Christ_, p. 528.\n\n    8 Mr. Thompson thinks that in Q \u201cwe are dealing with an age that has\n      not yet begun to think of the Virgin Birth\u201d (ib., p. 140). This may\n      be true, but it is not a legitimate inference to draw from Q alone.\n\n    9 Cf. Plummer, ICC., St. Lk., p. 125.\n\n   10 Mt. xiii. 55: \u201cIs not this the carpenter\u2019s son?...\u201d Lk. iv. 22: \u201cIs\n      not this Joseph\u2019s son?\u201d\n\n   11 So Wendland and Bacon (Moffatt, INT., p. 227 f.); Stanton, GHD., ii.\n      142. Mt. xiii. 55 reads: \u201cIs not this the carpenter\u2019s son?\u201d, and Lk.\n      iv. 22: \u201cIs not this Joseph\u2019s son?\u201d The argument is that it is very\n      difficult to think that the later Evangelists can have read what is\n      now Mk. vi. 3 in the Markan Source.\n\n   12 \u201cMt. has substituted \u2018the Son of the Carpenter\u2019 for \u2018the Carpenter\u2019\n      from a feeling that the latter was hardly a phrase of due reverence\u201d\n      (Allen, op. cit., p. 155).\n\n   13 Both Schmiedel (EB., 2954 f.) and Usener (EB., 3345) hold that the\n      incident excludes the Virgin Birth. In reference to the words of\n      Jesus, J. M. Thompson says: \u201cThe force of His aphorism about\n      spiritual kinship depends on the reality of the human kinship which\n      He at once acknowledges and rejects\u201d (op. cit., p. 137).\n\n   14 So Schmiedel (op. cit., col. 2955). Thompson thinks that the story\n      of Mk. vi. 1\u20106 \u201ccould not possibly have been told as it has been, if\n      the narrator had known anything about the Virgin Birth\u201d (op. cit.,\n      p. 138).\n\n   15 Cf. Allen, ICC., St. Mt., p. xxiv (c) (i), where fifty examples of\n      this tendency are given.\n\n   16 \u201cThe speeches in the earlier part may represent not untrustworthily\n      the primitive Jewish\u2010Christian preaching of the period\u201d (Moffatt,\n      INT., p. 305). Cf. Mackintosh, op. cit., p. 39.\n\n   17 Mackintosh, ib., p. 40 f. \u201cWhat absorbs the preacher is Jesus\u2019\n      deliverance from the grave and entry into glory\u201d, p. 41.\n\n   18 Mackintosh, ib., p. 41.\n\n   19 For the opposite view see Thompson, op. cit., p. 142.\n\n   20 It is true different verbs and tenses are used of the children and\n      of the Son. The tense of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd is explained by the fact that the\n      Son assumed flesh and blood at a definite time now past. The change\n      of verb\u2014so far as it is not explained on stylistic grounds\u2014is due to\n      the fact that \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd (of the children) expresses the universal\n      fact of human frailty which men share one with another, and \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd\n      the individual entering upon this state. The latter word does not\n      imply a participation of a peculiar and distinct kind.\n\n   21 \u201cIn point of time, the Epistle to the Hebrews is the first\n      systematic sketch of Christian theology\u201d (Mackintosh, _Person of\n      Jesus Christ_, p. 78). \u201cIt is not so much an epistle as an elaborate\n      treatise\u201d (Fairbairn, _Christ in Modern Theology_, p. 320).\n\n   22 \u201cFew would say, with Westcott, that virgin\u2010birth is implied though\n      not explicitly asserted in Jn. i. 14....\u201d (Mackintosh, ib., p. 528).\n\n   23 The view that i. 13 should be read \u201cWho was born, &c.\u201d, is that of\n      Resch, Blass, and Th. Zahn. The reading appears in Tertullian,\n      Irenaeus, Justin, but the weight of textual authority is against it.\n      Nor is the reading, as representing what the Evangelist wrote,\n      intrinsically probable. It would rule out the maternity of Mary as\n      well as the paternity of Joseph. The birth would not only be not \u201cof\n      the will of man\u201d; it would not even be \u201cof blood\u201d. There would be\n      nothing human about it; from first to last it would be \u201cof God\u201d. In\n      short, the reading leads directly to that docetic view of the Person\n      of Christ, against which the Johannine Writings so earnestly\n      contend. The same objection may be urged against the view that, in\n      the accepted text of Jn. i. 13, the Virgin Birth is present to the\n      writer\u2019s mind \u201cas a kind of pattern or model of the birth of the\n      children of God\u201d (W. C. Allen, _Interpreter_, Oct., 1905. Cf. Orr,\n      op. cit., p. 111 f.; Box, op. cit., p. 145). Would not the Fourth\n      Evangelist have regarded such a comparison as almost a denial that\n      Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? Harnack has recently contended\n      for the singular and for a reference to the Virgin Birth. He thinks\n      that the verse was added in the margin, as a comment on i. 14, at a\n      very early time and in the Johannine circle (Peake, _Commentary on\n      the Bible_, p. 747 a).\n\n   24 Cf. Sanday, op. cit., pp. 71, 143\u201055; Moffatt, INT., pp. 533 ff.; E.\n      F. Scott, _The Fourth Gospel, Its Purpose and Theology_, pp. 32 ff.;\n      J\u00fclicher, INT., p. 396 f.\n\n   25 iv. 44 (\u201cFor Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour\n      in his own country\u201d), unless it is a gloss, probably refers to\n      Judaea, not Galilee. Cf. Moffatt, INT., p. 553. Mr. Thompson argues\n      that it refers to Galilee (op. cit., p. 158).\n\n   26 \u201cIn order to explain his silence, we must remember his strict\n      exclusion of all that might imply a passivity in the divine Logos.\n      It was by His own free act that the Son of God entered the world as\n      man. The evangelist shrank from any theory of His origin that might\n      impair the central idea of full activity, from the beginning of His\n      work to the end\u201d (Scott, ib., p. 187).\n\n   27 According to Cheyne (_Bible Problems_, pp. 76 ff.), the chapter\n      contains a Jewish Messianic legend of Babylonian origin, which was\n      the source of the Virgin Birth tradition.\n\n   28 The passage which begins with the words: \u201cAnd Mary said unto the\n      angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?\u201d\n\n   29 Or was taken from Q. See Harnack\u2019s _Sayings_, p. 314; _Oxford\n      Studies in Synoptic Problem_, p. 187.\n\n   30 EB., col. 2955 n. Cf. Plummer, ICC., St. Lk., p. 63.\n\n   31 In this connexion it should be observed that the same note of wonder\n      appears in ii. 18 in the case of all those who hear the shepherds\u2019\n      words. But according to the terms of ii. 17, what _they_ are told is\n      the angelic message of ii. 10\u201012, in which the Virgin Birth is not\n      mentioned. The presumption is that ii. 33 stands upon the same\n      plane.\n\n   32 So among others Schmiedel, Usener, H\u00e4cker, and Blass, who writes\n      (op. cit., p. 171 n.): \u201c \u2018The espoused wife\u2019 of the ordinary text is\n      a very clear corruption, due to an assimilation to i. 27 (where the\n      case is quite different) and to dogmatic prejudices ...\u201d \u201cThat we\n      have here a case of real contamination is seen very plainly in the\n      old Freising MS., in which the ancient variants \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 and\n      \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 still stand together in immediate\n      juxtaposition\u201d (Usener, EB., col. 3350).\n\n   33 On the agreement of the Old Syriac and Old Latin against the great\n      uncials, cf. Kirsopp Lake (_The Text of the NT._, p. 90 f.),\n      \u201cPerhaps the general result is to make it probable that W. H.\n      (largely from lack of evidence) underestimated the possibility that\n      a consensus of the Old Latin and Old Syriac may give us a really\n      primitive text even when opposed to the great uncials\u201d. To similar\n      effect Burkitt writes, \u201cIt is, however, in the direction here\n      indicated\u2014viz., the preservation of the true text in a considerable\n      number of cases by \u2018Western\u2019 documents alone\u2014that criticism may\n      ultimately be able to advance beyond the point reached by Hort\u201d\n      (EB., col. 4990 f.). \u201cI am unable to assume that the edition of\n      Westcott and Hort gives us a final text in either Gospel [Mt. and\n      Mk.]. In particular, I am inclined to believe that the second\n      century readings, attested by the ecclesiastical writers of that\n      century, and by the Syriac and Latin versions, are often deserving\n      of preference\u201d (W. C. Allen, ICC., St Mt., p. lxxxvii).\n\n   34 \u201cAnd Joseph ... took unto him his wife.\u201d\n\n   35 While we are unable to acquiesce in Schmiedel\u2019s view that \u201cMary\n      takes the words of the angel as referring to a fulfilment in the way\n      of nature\u201d, we may fairly say that, if the passage Lk. i. 30\u20108 is a\n      unity, Mary ought to have been represented as taking the angel\u2019s\n      words in this way, and that this would be the plain natural sense in\n      which to take them.\n\n   36 The claim, therefore, that the suggested translation is supported by\n      the words \u201cwith haste\u201d in verse 39 (Box) cannot be sustained.\n      Moreover, these words are easily satisfied on the usual view of a\n      promised conception. See further an article by the present writer in\n      the _Expository Times_ (May, 1919), _Is the Lukan Narrative of the\n      Birth of Christ a Prophecy?_ In l. 16 in the second column read: \u201cIt\n      could _not_ be anything else\u201d.\n\n   37 E.g. Cheyne, Conybeare, Grill, Harnack, Hillmann, Holtzmann, Loisy,\n      Montefiore, Pfleiderer, N. Schmidt, Schmiedel, Usener, V\u00f6lter, J.\n      Weiss. On the other side are Hilgenfeld, Clemen, Gunkel, Chase,\n      Stanton, Orr, Box, Knowling.\n\n   38 But see W. C. Allen, ICC., St. Mt., p. 10 and p. 19.\n\n   39 Some scholars, including H\u00e4cker, Spitta, and Montefiore, bring\n      verses 36, 37 within the interpolation. Schmiedel\u2019s presentation of\n      the argument stated above is as follows: \u201cMoreover, the case of\n      Elizabeth to which the angel points in v. 36 is no evidence of the\n      possibility of a supernatural conception; it has evidential value\n      only if what has happened to Elizabeth is more wonderful than what\n      is being promised to Mary\u2014namely that she, in the way of nature, is\n      to become the mother of the Messiah\u201d (EB., col. 2957).\n\n   40 Schmiedel, op. cit., col. 2957. To the same effect J. Estlin\n      Carpenter (op. cit., p. 487 f.). Compare Lk. i. 45 where Mary is\n      praised for her faith, and see Moffatt, INT., p. 268 f.\n\n   41 Cf. Lobstein, _The Virgin Birth of Christ_, p. 67.\n\n   42 Cf. Moffatt (INT., p. 268 n.): \u201cThe substitution ... is too slender\n      a basis, and may have been accidental, whilst the alleged omission\n      of 34\u20105 from the _Protevangelium Iacobi_ breaks down upon\n      examination\u201d (cf. Headlam\u2019s discussion with Conybeare in the\n      _Guardian_ for March\u2010April 1903).\n\n   43 _The New Testament Documents, their Origin and early History_\n      (Croall Lectures, 1911\u201012). 1913.\n\n   44 Cf. also Burkitt (GHT., p. 11): \u201c... the text of the Gospels, the\n      actual wording, and even to some extent the contents, were not\n      treated during the second century with particular scrupulosity by\n      the Christians who preserved and canonized them. There is nothing in\n      the way which Christians treated the books of the New Testament\n      during the first four centuries that corresponds with the care\n      bestowed by the Jews upon the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of\n      Aquiba onwards.\u201d See also Blass, _Philology of the Gospels_, p. 72\n      f.\n\n   45 Cf. Sanday (_Inspiration_, 2nd Ed., pp. 295\u20108): \u201cPossessors of\n      copies did not hesitate to add little items of tradition, often\n      oral, and in some cases perhaps written, which reached them\u201d (295).\n      See also J. H. Moulton (_From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps_, pp. 97 ff.),\n      and an article in the _Classical Review_ for March 1915 on \u201cThe\n      Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts\u201d; J. A. Robinson, _Study of\n      the Gospels_, p. 24 f.\n\n   46 Cf. also Hawkins (HS., 2nd Ed., pp. 152 and 197), who instances\n      \u201cadditions of various kinds which may be regarded as probably\n      editorial\u201d (p. 197) in the Second and Third Gospels. See also\n      Moffatt (INT.), under heading \u201cGlosses in NT. text\u201d, p. 641, where\n      references are given to cases treated in the body of the work.\n\n   47 It may, however, have been accidentally lost. See Moffatt, INT., pp.\n      238 ff, where the question is discussed.\n\n   48 In this connexion it is important to remember that even early\n      orthographic peculiarities have been accurately preserved. \u201cI have\n      been much struck by the number of cases in which the old uncials\n      preserve spellings which can be proved current in the time of the\n      autographs, but obsolete long before the fourth century. Faithful in\n      minutiae, they might reasonably be expected to be faithful also in\n      greater matters\u201d (J. H. Moulton, in an article in the _Classical\n      Review_, March, 1915, reprinted in _The Christian Religion in the\n      Study and the Street_, 1919, p. 153). See also the _Prolegomena_,\n      pp. 42\u201056.\n\n   49 The italics are ours.\n\n   50 Plummer, ICC., St. Lk., pp. xlviii ff.; Harnack, _Luke the\n      Physician_, p. 104 f.; Moffatt, INT., p. 278 f.; Hawkins, HS., 2nd\n      Ed., pp. 15 ff.\n\n   51 There is a well\u2010known difficulty of punctuation in verse 35. Ought\n      we to put a comma, with WH., after \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9? If we do so, the\n      subj. is \u03c4\u03cc \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, and \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is part of the predicate. If we\n      omit the comma, the whole phrase \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd. \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is the subj., and the\n      pred. is \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8. \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8. (cf. RV. marg.). Most critical editors of the\n      Greek text omit the comma. It is probable, as the WH. type shows,\n      that Dr. Hort was influenced by his belief that \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8. went\n      together as a quotation or reminiscence of the OT., and, if the\n      passage comes from St. Luke, this is a strong argument. On the other\n      hand, it can be argued that if the words are a Greek rendering of an\n      Aramaic phrase it is improbable, if not impossible, that the\n      participle should stand alone as the subj. It is not possible, of\n      course, to settle the question by appealing to manuscript authority,\n      as the early MSS. were practically devoid of punctuation marks. In\n      our own case, we are unable to use either of the arguments cited,\n      since each rests upon the assumption of the Lukan origin of Lk. i.\n      34 f., which is the very point we are discussing. While then we\n      follow the WH. text we have to leave the question of punctuation an\n      open one. If the comma should be omitted we lose the difficulty of\n      \u03c4\u03cc \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd noted on p. 61, and we lose also the argument from its\n      construction, sketched on p. 64.\n\n      As, in the end, we claim that Lk. i. 34 f. comes from the hand of\n      St. Luke, we may perhaps be permitted to express a personal\n      preference for the WH. punctuation. St. Luke\u2019s admitted fondness for\n      OT. phraseology points strongly in this direction, while the theory\n      of an original Aramaic document gains no increased support, but\n      rather the contrary, as time goes by. On the one hand, Harnack has\n      convincingly shown how much the Greek of Lk. i, ii owes to St.\n      Luke\u2019s craftsmanship (cf. _Luke the Phys._, pp. 102 ff.), and, on\n      the other hand, the argument from \u201cSemiticisms\u201d becomes less cogent\n      the more we know of the papyri (cf. Moulton, _Proleg._, pp. 13\u201018.\n      See also Gr. ii. 12\u201020). Aramaic oral tradition may underlie cc. i,\n      ii, but the probability is that the Greek of these chapters owes its\n      OT. flavour to the more or less deliberate attempt of St. Luke to\n      create an appropriate archaic atmosphere.\n\n   52 The various computations are drawn from the _Concordance to the\n      Greek Testament_ by Dr. W. F. Moulton and Dr. A. S. Geden. In the\n      case of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel words occurring in i. 34 f. are omitted.\n      If these verses are Lukan, this underestimates the Lukan evidence.\n      It would, however, be begging the question to include these verses\n      in the present examination. Quotations and doubtful cases (except\n      where mentioned) are also omitted.\n\n   53 But cf. Dalman, _Words of Jesus_, p. 24, quoted by Moulton,\n      _Proleg._, p. 131.\n\n   54 Cf. _The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament_, by Moulton and\n      Milligan, p. 65 a. See also the note at the foot of p. 131 in the\n      _Prolegomena_: \u201cThis phrase ... occurs in the Semitic atmosphere\n      alone....\u201d\n\n   55 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03b5\u1f37\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad (see later) are both strongly characteristic\n      of St. Luke\u2019s style, but \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd with the dative is also very\n      frequent. Taking the two works together, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd with\n      the dat. are almost equally common (\u03b5\u1f36\u03c0. w. dat. having the greater\n      number of instances). In the G. the proportion of \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd with the\n      dat. to \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03af\u03c2 is 5 : 4. In Acts it is 4 : 5.\n\n   56 The italics are his.\n\n   57 Cf. Moulton and Milligan, p. 127 a.\n\n   58 Cf. Harnack\u2019s _Luke the Physician_, p. 104; Moulton, _Proleg._, p.\n      18.\n\n   59 So Thayer\u2010Grimm, p. 117, where it is pointed out that the same idiom\n      appears in the Latin, in _cognoscere_, Ovid, _Met._ iv. 596.\n\n   60 _v._ Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., p. 127 a.\n\n   61 So L. T. WH. In both cases WH. give \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af \u03b4\u03ad in the margin.\n\n   62 There are \u201c261 words which occur in the New Testament only in the\n      gospel of St. Luke\u201d (Harnack, _Date of Acts_, p. 2). Plummer (ICC.,\n      St. Lk., lii) speaks of 312 such words, but says that 52 are\n      doubtful and 11 occur in quotations. Including Acts, according to\n      Plummer, the number is 750 or (including doubtful cases) 851.\n\n   63 P. 59.\n\n   64 As in all these enumerations. See note on p. 58.\n\n   65 Cf. Th\u2010Gr., p. 152 a, and for papyri, &c., Moulton and Milligan, op.\n      cit., p. 163 b.\n\n   66 Sir John C. Hawkins\u2019s record of \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 (used of speaking to) is as\n      follows (HS., 2nd Ed., p. 21): Mt. 0, Mk. 5, Lk. 99, Ac. 52, Paul 2,\n      Jn. 19, rest of NT. 4. Thus for the Lukan writings the percentage is\n      83.4.\n\n   67 Moffatt\u2019s remark (\u201cThe style of 34\u20105 is fairly Lucan, though \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\n      occurs only once in the third gospel and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af never\u201d, INT., 269) is\n      surely an understatement. As we have seen \u03b4\u03b9\u03cc occurs eight times in\n      Acts.\n\n   68 See, however, p. 57 n.\n\n   69 A good illustration of this point is found in the spurious ending to\n      St. Mark\u2019s Gospel. As Prof. E. P. Gould shows (ICC., St. Mk., pp.\n      301\u20104) out of 163 words 19 (or more than 11 per cent.) are not found\n      elsewhere in the Gospel. They include such words as \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (5\n      times), \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 (3 times), \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 (twice). There are also two\n      unfamiliar expressions: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 (verse 10) and\n      \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 (\u03b4\u1f72) \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n   70 If we could accept the view that \u201cseeing I know not a man\u201d in verse\n      34 is St. Luke\u2019s only insertion, and that he wrote verse 35 from the\n      first without thought of the Virgin Birth, his point of view would\n      then be somewhat different. On this theory his thought would be that\n      while born of Joseph and Mary the promised child was none the less\n      supernaturally conceived. See p. 69 f.\n\n   71 See later pp. 78\u201084.\n\n   72 Cf. V. H. Stanton (GHD., ii, p. 226 f.).\n\n   73 As regards the remaining details of Zimmermann\u2019s hypothesis, none of\n      them is really necessary to our theory. We believe that what St.\n      Luke actually wrote in ii. 5 was \u201cwith Mary his wife\u201d (see pp. 32\n      ff.). But his new information did not compel him to alter this to\n      \u201cwith Mary who was betrothed to him\u201d, though later readers thought\n      the change was necessary. Nor was it required to alter i. 27. Even\n      in the original narrative (i.e. on our theory, before i. 34 f. was\n      added) the passage may have read as we have it now, the prophecy\n      being regarded as uttered previous to marriage. There is no real\n      need to regard \u201cto a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was\n      Joseph\u201d as an interpolation in the interests of the Virgin Birth,\n      either (with Harnack) on the part of a redactor, or (with\n      Zimmermann) on the part of St. Luke himself.\n\n   74 Cf. _Ox. Studies in the Syn. Prob._, pp. 417, 420, where the Rev. N.\n      P. Williams, M.A., suggests that certain passages in Mk. may be\n      later insertions, made \u201cpossibly by St. Mark himself\u201d.\n\n   75 In Acts xvi. 19, 20 it is said that the owners of the demented girl\n      \u201cseized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the agora before the\n      magistrates\u201d. The words which immediately follow are: \u201cand bringing\n      them to the presence of the praetors, they said....\u201d Ramsay\u2019s\n      comment is: \u201cThe expression halts between the Greek form and the\n      Latin ... as if the author had not quite made up his mind which he\n      should employ.... It is hardly possible that a writer, whose\n      expression is so concise, should have intended to leave in his text\n      two clauses which say exactly the same thing\u201d (_St. Paul_, p. 217\n      f.). In reference to Acts xx. 4, 5, Ramsay writes: \u201cIn verse 4 we\n      have probably a case like xvi. 19 f., in which the authority\n      hesitated between two constructions, and left an unfinished sentence\n      containing elements of two forms\u201d (ib., p. 289). He adds that the\n      sentence \u201cperhaps never received the author\u2019s final revision\u201d.\n\n   76 Cf. Loofs, _What is the Truth about Jesus Christ?_, p. 122.\n\n   77 Speaking of the late appearance of the Virgin Birth tradition G. H.\n      Box writes (op. cit., p. 137): \u201cIts comparatively late appearance\n      and primitive character can only be reconciled by the explanation\n      that it is based upon facts which were for long treasured within a\n      narrow circle in close contact with our Lord, and which were only\n      gradually divulged to the Church.\u201d Cf. also Sanday, _Outlines_, pp.\n      193, 196.\n\n   78 Cf. Burkitt, _The Gospel History and its Transmission_, pp. 260, 274\n      f.\n\n   79 Cf. Burkitt (_Evangelion Da\u2010Mepharreshe_, ii. 260); Moffatt (INT.,\n      250); Box (_The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 12); Sanday (_Outlines_,\n      p. 201).\n\n   80 So among others Westcott, Burkitt, Box, Allen, Barnard, A. J.\n      Maclean, Moffatt.\n\n   81 _Evan. Da\u2010Meph._, ii, p. 260. Cf. also Allen (ICC., St. Mt., p. 5);\n      Box (ib., p. 14); Moffatt (ib., p. 251).\n\n   82 \u201cIt is merely an embodiment, in genealogical form\u2014a form specially\n      calculated to appeal to Jewish readers\u2014of the idea that Jesus\n      belonged, through His relation to Joseph, to the royal family of\n      David\u201d (Box, ib., p. 15).\n\n   83 See Appendix to present chapter.\n\n   84 _The N. T. Documents, their Origin and early History_, p. 148. W. C.\n      Allen (op. cit., p. lxxxv f.) seems to emphasize the more negative\n      aspects of the writer\u2019s style, but calls attention to phrases and\n      constructions which are said to be \u201cstrikingly characteristic of the\n      Gospel\u201d. Cf. Moulton, _Gk. Gr._, ii, p. 29.\n\n   85 Cf. Burkitt (GHT., p. 184 f.)\n\n   86 Sir J. C. Hawkins points out (HS., 2nd Ed., p. 9) that the\n      \u201ccharacteristic\u201d words and phrases of Mt. are \u201cused considerably\n      more freely in these two chapters than in the rest of the book\u201d.\n\n   87 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03c9, \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ce\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9, \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\n      \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 (in sense used), \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd,\n      \u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9, \u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03c1\u1fb3, \u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bc\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n      \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1fc4,\n      \u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9, \u1f55\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9.\n\n   88 i. 22 f., ii. 5 f., ii. 15, ii. 17 f., ii. 23, iii. 3, iv. 14 ff.,\n      viii. 17, xii. 17\u201021, xiii. 35, xxi. 4 f., xxvii. 9. Of these iii. 3\n      differs somewhat from the rest, and ii. 23 cannot be identified with\n      any single OT. passage.\n\n   89 See especially Stanton (GHD., ii, p. 343); also Allen (op. cit., p.\n      lxii) and Burkitt (GHT., pp. 124 ff.).\n\n   90 Cf. Burkitt, op. cit., ii. p. 259; Box, op. cit., pp. 11, 19 ff.;\n      Moffatt, INT., p. 259; Lake, _The Historical Evidence for the\n      Resurrection of Jesus Christ_, pp. 178 ff.\n\n   91 For the reference to Epiphanius see an article by F. C. Conybeare,\n      HJ., i, p. 96. Conybeare\u2019s main argument is drawn from the edition\n      of the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_, published by himself\n      (1898). He thinks that the Dialogue \u201creflects an age when [Mt. i.\n      18\u201025] had already been introduced, but was not present in all the\n      copies\u201d (p. 100). If we accept the view advocated by F. C. Burkitt\n      (_Evan. Da\u2010Meph._, ii. 265) this inference is not necessary. See\n      Appendix to present chapter, p. 106.\n\n   92 \u0393\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 (in sense used, but the phrase in which it occurs is\n      probably an insertion, Burkitt, ib., ii, p. 261), \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9,\n      \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f55\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n   93 \u1f4c\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1fe5\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n   94 \u201cI cannot believe that any document underlies it. On the contrary, I\n      believe it is the composition of the Evangelist himself\u201d (Burkitt,\n      _Evan. Da\u2010Meph._, ii, p. 260). Cf. also Allen (ICC., St. Mt., p. 5).\n\n   95 Sanday (_Outlines_, p. 196) writes: \u201cIn regard to the Matthaean\n      document we are in the dark. The curious gravitation of statement\n      towards Joseph has a reason; but beyond this there is not much that\n      we can say. It would not follow that the immediate source of the\n      narrative was very near his person.\u201d\n\n   96 \u201cIn the historical judgement of the Gospels this distinction between\n      facts and reflections has frequently to be remembered\u201d (E. P. Gould,\n      ICC., St. Mk., p. 37).\n\n   97 See _The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ_,\n      by Professor Kirsopp Lake.\n\n   98 Unless otherwise stated further references to these writers are to\n      the works cited above.\n\n   99 Cf. also Moffatt, p. 251; Sanday (_Outlines_, p. 197); W. C. Allen,\n      p. 8.\n\n  100 \u201cThe reading of _S_ itself I have come to regard as nothing more\n      than a paraphrase of the reading of the \u2018Ferrar Group\u2019, the Syriac\n      translator taking \u1fa1 to refer to \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd as well as to\n      \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u201d (p. 263).\n\n  101 The foregoing three alternatives are those noted by Dr. Sanday\n      (_Outlines_, p. 199 f.), between which, he says, \u201cthe data do not\n      allow us to decide absolutely\u201d.\n\n  102 Referring to the Evangelist the Jew objects: \u201cHe says begat out of\n      Mary\u201d (cf. Conybeare, HJ., vol. i, no. 1, p. 100).\n\n  103 We ought to add that Allen leaves open the possibility that the\n      parenthesis may be a later addition, and that the original text may\n      have been \u201cAnd Joseph begat Jesus\u201d. \u201cIt seems probable ... that the\n      text underlying S1 is the nearest approach now extant to the\n      original Greek, and it must remain possible that even here the\n      relative clause is an insertion\u201d (p. 8).\n\n  104 Cf. J\u00fclicher, INT. (Eng. Tr.), p. 367: \u201cIn my opinion, both took up\n      their pens more or less simultaneously, each unaware of the other\u2019s\n      work, and both actuated essentially by the same motive, i.e. that of\n      bestowing a Gospel upon the Church which should be at once complete,\n      and well adapted both to refute unjust accusations from outside and\n      to edify the believers themselves.\u201d\n\n  105 This appears in the fact that the First Gospel implies, as we have\n      seen, that the doctrine had already been known to its readers for\n      some time.\n\n  106 Cf. Usener to the same effect, EB., col. 3351.\n\n  107 Cf. Loofs, _What is the Truth about Jesus Christ?_, p. 92 f.:\n      \u201cLegends arise much more quickly than is assumed by liberal theology\n      since Strauss\u201d.\n\n  108 So Prof. Percy Gardner, quoted in _Faith and Freedom_, p. 168.","title":"The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":57147}