the virgin birth of christ (james orr, 1907)

8/12/2019 The Virgin Birth of Christ (James Orr, 1907)

1/329


2/329


3/329


4/329


5/329


6/329


7/329

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST


8/329

BOOKS BY PROFESSOR JAMES ORRPUBLISHED BY CHARLES SCRIBWER'S SONS

The Problem of the Old Testament.12mo net, $1.50

David Hume and his Influence on Phi-losophy AND Theology. [The World'sEpoch-Makers.] 12mo $1.25

The Christian View of God and theWorld as Centering in the Incar-nation. Being the Kerr Lectures, 1890-1891. New Edition. 12mo . . . $2.75


9/329

THEVIRGIN BIRTPI OF CHRISTBEING LECTURES DELIVERED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF

THE BIBLE TEACHERS' TRAINING SCHOOLNEW YORK, APRIL, 1907

BYJAMES ORE, M.A., D.D.

PKOFESSOE OF APOLOGETICS AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGYIN THE UNITED FKEE CHUECH COLLEGE

GLASGOW, SCOTLAND

WITH APPENDIXGIVING OPINIONS OF LIVING SCHOLARS

Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb.

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONSNEW YORK 1907


10/329

C?5

Copyright, 1907, hyCharles Scribner's Sons

Published, September, 1907

TROW DIRECTORVPRINTINQ AND BOOKBINDINQ COMPANY

NEW rORK


11/329

PREFACEThese lectures were delivered during the montli of

April, 1907, in the Chapel of the Fifth Avenue Presby-terian Church, New York, under the auspices of theBible Teachers' Training School of that city, and theyare now published, practically as prepared for delivery,under the same auspices. The author regrets that theirrevision for the press had to be undertaken at a distancefrom facilities for checking quotations and references inhis pages ; but he trusts that these, if not so copious ashe could wish, will be found generally correct. Thepapers summarised in the Appendix came into the au-thor's hands in New York after his own work was com-pleted, and he has made no use of them in the text.

The aim of the lectures is to establish faith in themiracle of the Lord's Incarnation by Birth from theVirgin, to meet objections, and to show the intimateconnection of fact and doctrine in this transcendent mys-tery. The organism of truth is one, and there is muchneed, in these days of loose ends in thinking, to fortifywhat may be called the doctrinal conscience by showinghow the parts of divine truth cohere together. For the


12/329

Vi PREFACErest, the book must speak for itself. The writers towhom the author has been chiefly indebted, and to whomhe makes grateful acknowledgment, will be found men-tioned in the footnotes.

September, 1907.


13/329

CONTENTSSYNOPSIS OF LECTURES

STATEMENT OF THE CASEISSUES AND PRELIMINARYOBJECTIONS

PAOBRecent attacks on article of Virgin BirthScope of lec-turesHistory of controversyGrounds on which Vir-

gin Birth assailedUsually connected with denial of thesupernatural in Christ's life generallyStatement of thecase for faithLimits of the argument: 1. Not primarilywith those who reject all miraclesFallacy of this position2. Not primarily with those who reject the IncarnationMain question : Is the Virgin Birth unessential to those whoaccept the higher view of Christ's Person?Denial of aconnection between fact and doctrinePresumptions in anopposite directionZeal of opponents suggests such connec-tionBelief in the Incarnation usually goes along with be-lief in the Virgin BirthImpugners of the latter generallyreject the formerSurvey of scholarship on this pointThis nearly invariable concomitance points to an inner con-nectionQuestion primarily one of factIf a fact, then aconnection to be presumed, whether seen at first or notVirgin Birth may not be foundation of our faith in the In-carnation, yet may be part of foundation of the fact of theIncarnationNarratives of Infancy needed to completeour view of the supernatural PersonThey incorporateChrist into history 1


14/329


15/329

CONTENTS ixPAOBMary's genealogy involvedMassacre of the infants

Internal credibility of narrativesNarratives in both Gos-pels go together as wholesAramaic basis of Luke's nar-rativePrimitive and Hebraic in castDr. Briggs onpoetic formBoth narratives from early Jewish circlesIdea of Virgin Birth foreign to Jewish mindIf true, onlytwo sources possible : Joseph and MaryCharacter of narra-tives agree with thisMatthew's narrative concerned withJosephLuke's concerned with MaryResponsibility onthese of providing such narrativesObjection from mirac-ulous character not validAngelic appearancesObjec-tions from Mary's later conductContrast with ApocryphalGospelsMarks of simple, severe truthfulness ... 64

IVTHE BIRTH NARRATIVES AND THE REMAINING LITERA-

TURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENTALLEGED SILENCEOF THE NEW TESTAMENTAlleged isolation of birth narrativesSilence of Mark, John,

Paul, etc.Alleged contradictory factsson of Joseph,etc.Preliminary question: Assuming narratives true, whathave we a right to expect?Facts at first known to few(Mary, Joseph, EUzabeth, etc.), yet some knowledge ofdivine wonders at birth (shepherds, etc.)Mystery ofChrist's birth undivulged in NazarethNo part of Christ'spreachingProbably early known in Church that Christ'sbirth embraced a divine mystery, but full facts undisclosedReserve of Mary combined with sense of responsibilityfor providing authentic narrativePossible channels ofcommunicationAgreement with character of narrativesin GospelsUnchallenged reception of Gospels proof thatthese believed to rest on reliable informationExaminationof objectionsAlleged birth in NazarethBaseless asser-tions on this headJoseph popularly spoken of as fatherof JesusLuke himself so speaksThis natural and inevi-table in the circumstancesGenealogies declared to attestJoseph's paternitySinaitic reading of Matt. i. 16Gen-


16/329

CONTENTSPAGE

ealogiea carefully avoid conveying this laeaSon ofDavid legally through Joseph, but probably also naturallythrough MaryEvangelists felt no contradictionLimitsof argument from silenceSilence of Mark proves nothingHe begins with public ministryJesus the Son of God^John's Gospel presupposes earlier narrativesHe supple-ments by higher view, but does not contradictHis opposi-tion to Cerinthus, who denied the Virgin BirthJohn musthave assumed a miraculous birthJohn i. 13^Mary inJohn's GospelBethlehemAlleged silence of PaulLukePaul's companion^The Virgin Birth (if known) not theground of Paul's faithBut his doctrine implies a supernat-ural birthPeculiarity in his references to Christ's earthlyoriginProbable allusion to birth narratives in Rev. xii. . 91

RELATION TO OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECYWITNESS OPEARLY CHURCH HISTORYProposed derivation of narratives of Virgin Birth from Old Tes-

tament prophecyStrauss's mythical theoryIts failureView that story derived from Is. vii. 14 ( Behold a virgin,etc.)Cleft here in opposing campNewer school denypossibility of such derivationJews did not apply thisprophecy to MessiahAmbiguity of Hebrew termIdeaforeign to O. T.No application of prophecy in LukeYettrue fulfilment of prophecy in ChristMatthew's use ofprophecy in chaps, i., ii.' Nazarene Out of Egypt,etc.Rachel weeping Ruler from BethlehemIsaiah'soracleHistorical setting and meaningThe word 'almahImmanuel Fulfilled only in ChristTransition throughprophecy to early ChurchFrom Apostolic times the VirginBirth an integral part of Church's faithEarly reception ofGospelsVirgin Birth challenged only by (1) Ebionites(Anti-Pauline), not by Nazarenes; (2) Certain Gnosticsects (Cerinthus, etc.), not by allReasons for denialAffirmed constantly by main body of ChurchEvidence ofold Roman creedWitness of other Churches (Irenseus,TertuUian, etc.)Virgin Birth in Ignatius, Aristides, Justin


17/329

CONTENTS xiPAQEMartyr, Tatian, etc.Gospels in ecclesiastical useJewish

slanders based on this belief (Celsus, Talmud)Doctrinalvalue set by Fathers on Virgin Birth (Irenaeus, Tertullian,Origen, etc.)Immovable from Church testimony . . 123

VIMYTHICAL THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF NARRATIVES OF THE

VIRGIN BIRTHALLEGED HEATHEN ANALOGIESMythical explanations of story of Virgin BirthNumber andconflicting character^Two main classes: 1. Alleged origin

of myth on Jewish soil (Keim, Lobstein, Harnack, etc.)This decisively rejected by newer writers (Schmiedel, Sol-tau, Usener, etc.) ; 2. Origin from Gentile sourcesImpos-sibility of this shown by Harnack, etc.Recapitulation ofobjections to derivation from Is. vii. 14Examination ofspecial theories of Jewish Origin:Supposed stages of de-velopmentIf belief primitive, no time for rise of mythIf arose concurrently with Paul's doctrine, must have beenknown by himLess than thirty years from founding ofChurchLobstein's theory of explanatory formula tosolve Christological problemInconsistency of this withidea of its being poetry If put (with others) later thanPaul and John, we leave Jewish soilThis breaks on dateof GospelsTheories of Gentile Origin :Mingling of divineand human in heathenismDeification, myths of sons ofgods, etc.Absence of historical element in paganismNowhere true analogy to Virgin Birth of GospelsLustfultales of popular Greek and Roman mythologyAttitude ofPlato to theseOf Church FathersDivine origin ascribedby flattery to Alexander, Augustus, etc.Not virgin births,and deceived nobodyBuddhism out of the questionNoGod, Holy Spirit, or true virgin birth in BuddhismEgyptian parallels baseless and not knownSoltau'stheory of second century originIts artificial and impossi-ble characterNew theory of Gunkel, Cheyne, etc., ofBabylonian originAdmission of untenableness of previousviewsA supposed Pre-Christian Jewish Sketch, in-


18/329

xii CONTENTSPAGEeluding virgin birth of MessiahNo proof of thisCheyne

on virgin goddesses Absolute contrast to Gospel ideaGospel ideas of Virgin Birth and Incarnation are unique . 151

VIIDOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF THE VIRGIN BIRTHPERSON OF

CHRIST AS INVOLVING MIRACLE: SINLESSNESS ANDUNIQUENESS

Allegation that no doctrinal interest involved in denial of theVirgin BirthGeneral consideration: we are poor judges ofwhat is essential or unessential in so transcendent a fact asthe IncarnationReasons already shown for presuming aconnectionOthers flow from previous argument: 1. Evan-gelists plainly believed there was a connection with the su-pernatural Personality whose life they depict ; 2. The earlyFathers found important doctrinal aid in this article ofbelief; 3. Opponents themselves (as before shown) trace theorigin of the so-called myth to a doctrinal interestGroundsof denial of such connection: 1. No o priori reason why Incar-nation should not take place under conditions of ordinarymarriage; 2, Virgin Birth alone does not secure sinlessnessHereditary taint will be conveyed by one parent as effect-ually as by two^The opposite, however, is certainly true,that perfect sinlessness, still more Incarnation, implymiracle in the constitution of the Person; 3. Apostles didnot include Virgin Birth in their teachingPositive state-mentSubject viewed under three asf)ects: I. Christ's


19/329

CONTENTS xiii

VIII

DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH: THE INCAR-NATIONSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONPAQBHeight of argument only reached when Jesus is regarded as

III. The Incarnate SonPre-existence and Incarnation notincompatible, as alleged, with Virgin BirthFull mysteryof Christ's Person not unlocked at beginningAll there,indeed, as Gospel intimations show, in germBut Christhad to be manifested before Incarnation could be fully ap-prehendedOn other hand, the Apostolic doctrine does notexclude, but requires, a miraculous birth^The pre-existentSon truly entered humanityEven if Apostles did not re-flect on this question, the problem was there to be solvedBut every reason to believe that they did reflect on itIncarnation to Paul a deep mystery of godUness Johnknew narratives of Gospels, and doubtless accepted themas solution of his problem of how the Word became fleshView of Paul and John not a metaphysical explana-tionJohn rose to his view of Christ from his personalknowledge of ChristWhat he had seen, heard, handled,of the Word of lifeTheir view of Christ held by theChurch generallyAnd it involved stupendous miracleWas this miracle necessarily a Virgin Birth?This God inHis wisdom alone could determineConsiderations whichshow in part the congruity of this form of miracleAlready shown that a physical miracle involvedIt wentdown to depths of Mary's life in her motherhoodPar-thenogenesis affords interesting analogies, but does notdispense with the miracleWith such a miracle human pa-ternity becomes superfluous^The Virgin Birth signalisesthe unique character of the fact as another form of birthcould notA double miracle involved on other hypothesisin counteracting two hereditiesSummary of whole argu-ment and conclusion 208


20/329

Xiv CONTENTS

APPENDIXPAGEIntroductory Note by Prof. Orr 233

Authors of Papers: 236The Rev. Prof. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Oxford . . 239Sir William M. Ramsay, D.C.L., D.D., Aberdeen, Scotland . 243The Rev. George Box, M.A., Vicar of Linton, Herefordshire,

England 248The Rev. Prof. W. E. Addis, M.A., Oxford ..... 253The Rev. Canon R. J. Knowling, D.D., Durham, England . 258The Rev. Principal A. E. Garvie, D.D., New College, London . 260The Rev. H. Wheeler Robinson, M.A., Rawdon, by Leeds,

England 267The Rev. Prof. Theod. Zahn, D.D., Erlangen, Germany . . 269The Rev. Prof. R. Seeberg, D.D., Berlin, Germany . . .273The Rev. Prof. H. Bavinck, D.D., Amsterdam, Holland . . 275The Rev. Prof. E. Doumergue, D.D., Montauban, France . 279The Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D., Bishop of Durham . . .282The Rev. W. H. GrifRth-Thomas, D.D., Oxford . . . .284The Rev. Prof. Henry Cowan, D.D., Aberdeen, Scotland . . 286Mr. Joseph Jacobs, Litt.D., Yonkers, N. Y. .... 288Prof. Ismar J. Peritz, Ph.D., Syracuse, N. Y 291Pasteur Hirsch, Paris 292The Rev. Prof. Gabriel Oussani, D.D., Dunwoodie, N. Y. . 293INDEX 297


21/329

THE VmGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST


22/329


23/329

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTLECTUKE I

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ISSUES AND PRELIMINAEYOBJECTIONSLet me first of all sayI hardly need to say it

that I am not here to attack any individual, to inter-fere with any church or its discipline, to presume tojudge of the Christian standing of any man, whetherhe agrees with me or not, even on the very vital pointwhich brings us together. I am here to discuss withyou calmly and temperately an important part of divinetruth which has been of late years most vehemently,and, in my judgment, most unjustly assailed. Thequestion which is to occupy us is a very grave one. Itis not a question simply of liberty to the individualconscience, of tenderness and forbearance towards Chris-tian brethren whose minds may be in doubt and per-plexity on this subject: that is a totally different mat-ter. It is a question, actually, of the right of theChurch to retain in its public creed this fundamentalarticle of the oldest of all creedsan article based onexpress declarations of two of our Gospels, and foimd

1


24/329

2 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTin the creeds of every important branch of the Chris-tian Church in the world at the present hourthearticle, namely, that Jesus Christ, our Saviour, was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the VirginMary. The right to retain this article, you must beaware, is, in the name of modern thought and criticism,boldly, even peremptorily, denied us. With whatevergraceful acknowledgment of the poetry that may liein the heart of the old Christmas story, the time hascome, we are told, when that story must be parted with,and the belief it enshrines once and for ever left behindas serious affirmation.We are growing accustomed to stronger languageeven than denial. I take two examples. The first isfrom a recent, often-quoted writer, Soltau, in his bookon The Birth of Jesus Christ. Whoever makes thefurther demand, he says, that an evangelical Chris-tian shall believe in the words ' conceived by the HolyGhost, born of the Virgin Mary,' wittingly constituteshimself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit of thetrue Gospel as transmitted to us by the Apostles andtheir school in the Apostolic Age. ^ It is sin againstthe Holy Ghost to ask belief in the Virgin Birth

The other example is from Mr. R. J. Campbell'snewly published book on The New Theology. The Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu Christi, p. 32 (E. T., p. 65). The

passage is put in bold type. Soltau's own theory is discussed inLect. VI, pp. 173-5.


25/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3credibility and significance of Christianity, Mr. Camp-bell says, are in no way affected by the doctrine of theVirgin Birth, otherwise than that the belief tends toput a barrier between Jesus and the race, and to makeHim something that cannot properly be called human.. . . Like many others, I used to take the position thatacceptance or non-acceptance of the doctrine of theVirgin Birth was immaterial because Christianity wasquite independent of it; but later reflection has con-vinced me that in point of fact it operates as a hin-drance to spiritual religion and a real living faith inJesus. The simple and natural conclusion is that Jesuswas the child of Joseph and Mary, and had an unevent-ful . childhood. ^ Truly the Evangelists who intro-duced this story into their Gospels have much to answerfor

There is abundant need and call, therefore, for dis-cussion of this question. I bear in mind that I am hereto deal with the subject, not in scholastic fashion, buton the lines of a broad, popular presentation. I amnot to enter into minute discussions of philological,exegetical, historical, or even theological points, suchas might be appropriate to the class-room; but am totry to lift the question out of the cloud of learned sub-tleties in which it is becoming continually the more en-veloped, into a strong, clear light, where all may be ableto see the real character of the problem, and the true

I The New Theology, p. 104.


26/329

4 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTnature of the issues that are involved in it. I shallprobably be able to say little that is really new; noth-ing, I am afraid, that has not already been better saidby others. But I hope, at least, by a reasoned presenta-tion of the case along my own lines, to do somethingto remove misconceptions, to stablish, strengthen,settle faith,^ where that has been unduly shaken,and to produce a stronger impression in some mindsthan perhaps at present exists of the place which thismuch-contested article holds in the organism of Chris-tian truth.

1 have said that the article of the Virgin Birth ofthe Lord is being at the present time fiercely assailed.I do not know that, since the days of the conflicts withJews and pagans in the second century, there has beenso determined an attack on this particular article ofthe creed as we are now witnessing.^ The birth ofJesus from the Virgin has always, of course, been anoffence to rationalism. The attack on it had its place,though a comparatively subordinate one, in the Deis-tical controversies of the eighteenth century.^ Avail-

1 1 Peter v. 10.2 The change is perhaps most clearly seen in the literature of

apologetics. One is struck by observing how, even in approvedtext-books on the Evidences, attention is concentrated on theResurrectionthe great miracle at the end of our Lord's lifebutlittle or nothing is said of the Virgin Birththe miracle at thebeginning.

' Cf. Paine's Age of Reason, Reimarus, etc.


27/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 5ing himself of the Jewish slanders, Voltaire treated itwith a scurrilous indecency.^ In this form the attackperpetuates itself in the coarser unbelief of our owntimein Ilaeckel, for example.^ The older rational-ism, in all its schools, rejected the miracle, or explainedit away. Paulus, in his insipid way, gave a natural explanation of the event, supposing Mary to be thevictim of a deception practised upon her by her kins-woman Elisabeth.^ De Wette, who has been followedby many since, saw in the stories poetic symbols ofreligious ideas. The attack of Strauss on the narra-tives left little unsaid that could be said, and preparedthe way for all subsequent developments. A morerecent turning-point was Renan's Life of Jesus, whichopens in the bold style of assertion with which we arenow familiar: Jesus was born at ISTazareth, a smalltown of Galilee, which before His time had no celeb-rity. . . . His father Joseph and His mother Marywere people in humble circumstances. ^ Direct at-tacks on the article of the Virgin Birth developed alittle later in the Lutheran Church,^ and the movementhostile to the article has gone on gathering in volume,and spreading its influence into other countries since.

1 Cf . his Examen Important de Milord Bolinghroke, ch. x.2 Riddle of the Universe, ch. xviii. Cf. in criticism, Loofs, Anti-

Haeckel, and see below, pp. 95, 146.3 Cf. Strauss's Life of Jesus, I, p. 18 (E. T.). Ch. ii. Cf. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 20.


28/329

6 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTA marked impulse was given to it in 1892 by the depo-sition of a talented young pastor, Herr Schrempf, in.Wiirtemberg, for refusal to use the Apostles' Creed

a case which brought the redoubtable Prof. Harnackinto the field, and gave rise to an enormous controver-sial literature. Now, in the wake of newer tendencies,has come the so-called historical-critical school, withits open repudiation of everything supernatural in thehistory of Jesus. The movement which this influentialschool represents is deeply penetrating Britain andAmerica. The result in both countries is seen in awide-spread tendency, if not to deny this article, atleast to represent it as unessential to Christian faith;and the impression left on a still larger number ofminds is that the case for the Virgin Birth must bea very weak one, when so many scholarly men rejectthe belief, and so many more hold themselves in anattitude of indifference to it. Thus the questionstands at the present moment.What now are the grounds on which this article of

our old-world faith is so confidently challenged? Itwould be a poor compliment to pay to our opponents todeny that their grounds of objection, when boldly andskilfully stated, and set forth with some infusion ofreligious warmthas they are, e. g., by a writer likeLobstein ^have not a measure of plausibility fitted to

In his book on The Virgin Birth of Christ, translated in theCrown Theological Library.


29/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 7produce a strong impression on minds that bear themfor tlie first time. Briefly sketched, they are such as thefollowing :The narratives of the miraculous birth, we are told,

are found only in the introductory chapters of two ofour GospelsMatthew and Lukeand are evidentlythere of a secondary character. The rest of the ISTewTestament is absolutely silent on the subject. Mark,the oldest Gospel, and John, the latest, know nothingof it. Matthew and Luke themselves contain no fur-ther reference to the mysterious fact related in theircommencement, but mention circumstances which seemirreconcilable with it. Their own narratives are con-tradictory, and, in their miraculous traits, bear clearmarks of legendary origin. All the Gospels speakfreely of Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary. TheVirgin Birth formed no part of the oldest Apostolictradition, and had no place in the earliest Christianpreaching, as exhibited in the Book of Acts^^ The Epis-tles show a like ignorance of this profound mystery.Paul shows no acquaintance with it, and uses languagewhich seems to exclude it, as when he speaks of Jesusas of the seed of David. ^ Peter, John, the Epistleto the Hebrews, the Book of Revelation, all ignor^it. ' If thousands were brought to faith in Jesus as1;hedivine Redeemer in this earliest period, it was withoutreference to this belief. There is no proof that the

Rom. i. 3.


30/329

8 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTbelief was general in the Christian Church before thesecond century.^On the other hand, it is alleged, the origin of thisbelief, and of the narratives embodying it, can be read-ily explained. It grew out of a mistaken applicationof Old Testament prophecy (Is. vii. 14), or fromcontact with, or imitation of, pagan myths; and is itselfan example of the myth-forming spirit which ascribesa superhuman origin to great men or religious heroes.In any case, it is no essential part of Christian faith.Nowhere in the New Testament is anything ever basedon it, and neither the sinlessness of Christ nor the In-carnation itself can be shown to depend on it. Whythen, it is urged, burden faith with such a mystery?Why ask men to believe in that for which, in con-scierice, they do not think there is sufficient evidence?Why retain so doubtful an article as a binding partof the creed of the Church ?With such reasonings confidently put forward, canwe wonder that many are swept along, overpowered,

Mr. Campbell says: The Virgin Birth of Jesus was apparently-unknown to the primitive church, for the earliest New Testamentwritings make no mention of it. Paul's letters do not allude to it,neither does the Gospel of Mark. . . . Nowhere does Paul give us somuch as a hint of anything supernatural attending the mode ofHis entry into the world. Mark does not even tell us anythingabout the childhood of the Master; his account begins with theBaptism of Jesus in Jordan. The Fourth Gospel, although writtenmuch later, ignores the belief in the Virgin Birth, and even seemsto do so of set purpose as belittling and materialising the truth.(The New Theology, pp. 97-8.)


31/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 9shaken in mind, and disposed to acquiesce in the ques-tion being left an open one? Especially when they aretold, as they commonly are, that all the really com-petent scholarship has gone over to this side.

I shall immediately try to state the case from theother side, but, before doing this, there is one impor-tant remark which I feel it incumbent upon me tomake. We are discussing the Virgin Birth, but it isnecessary at the outset to point out that, in the presentstage of the controversy, this is only a fragment of amuch larger question. It is a fact we cannot ignoreit will appear more clearly as I proceedthat the greatbulk of the opposition to the Virgin Birth comes fromthose who do not recognise a supernatural element inChrist's life at all. I do not state this as a reproachthe writers in question would not regard it as a re-proach, but as a mark of their modernityI call atten-tion to it only that we may see exactly where we standin the discussion. It is not with these writers, aswe soon come to discover, a question of the Vir-gin Birth alone, but a question of the whole viewwe are to take of Jesus in His Person and work; nota question of this single miracle, but a question of allmiracles. This of itself, I grant, does not prove theimpugners of the Virgin Birth to be wrong. If theevidence for the narratives of the N ativity is weak,and the belief based on them erroneous, the fact thatit is negative critics who bring the weakness to light


32/329

10 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTwill not make the history again good and true. Never-theless it is highly important, in entering on our in-quiry, to keep in mind this general standpoint of theopponents. We constantly hear it saidEven if theVirgin Birth is given up, there is enough left in theGospels to furnish a secure basis for faith and hope.My point is, that, with these writers, the rest of therecord does not standis not allowed to stand. Theywork from a basis, and by a method, which will notallow it to stand. If the Virgin Birth is attacked sopertinaciously, it is because it seems to them the weak-est of the Gospel facts in point of evidence, and be-cause they feel instinctively that its overthrow wouldmean so much. It would be like the dislodging of agreat stone near the foundation of a building, that wouldbring down much more with it.

But is the case for the Virgin Birth really a weakone? Let me now, having stated the position as fairlyas I can for the opponents, put before you an oppositesupposition. I state it at present only hypotheticallythe proof will come later.

Suppose, then, it can be shown that the evidence isnot what is alleged in the statement above given, butthat in many respects the truth is nearly the reverse :suppose it shown that the narratives in Matthew andLuke are unquestionably genuine parts of their re-spective Gospels; that the narratives have come downto us in their integrity; that the sources of their in-


33/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 11formation were early and good; that they do not con-tradict, but, on the contrary, corroborate and supple-ment each other, and have every right to be regardedas trustworthy narrations:suppose it shown that thealleged silence of Mark and John can be readily ex-plained is explained, indeed, by the fact that it doesnot lie within the scope of these Gospels to narratethe Lord's birth and infancy at all; ^ that the Apostolicdoctrine does not contradict or exclude a miraculousbirth, but immensely strengthens the grounds of ourbelief in it; that so far as we can trace back the historyof the early Church, it was united in its testimony tothis truthonly the narrowest and most backward ofJewish-Christian sects (the Ebionites), and a few ofthe Gnostic sects (not all) denying it; that the factattested is not, as alleged, of minor significance, but,as part of the deep mystery of godliness, ^ standsin close and inseparable relation with the other truthsabout our Lord's Person (sinlessness. Incarnation) :suppose it shown that the attacks of the critics on allthese points fail, and that the failure is witnessed to,not only by the verdict of scholars of more believingtendency, but by the inability of these writers to agree,on almost any single point, among themselves; that

> Cf . e. g. Mr. Campbell's statement quoted above : Mark doesnot even tell us anything about the childhood of the Master; hisaccounts begin with the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan (p. 98). Howthen can it be contradictory of a narrative which does tell us of theInfancy? 2 1 Tim. iii. 16.


34/329

12 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTtheir rival theories in explanation of the narratives arehopelessly at variance with each other, each effectuallyknocking the bottom out of the arguments of its neigh-bours:suppose, I say, these things, or anything likethese, to be established, there are few, I think, butwill admit that the question stands in a very differentlight from that in which it is represented by opponents.Well, but this, in a word, is what I am to try to showis the actual state of the case, and you yourselves are tobe the jury to decide whether I succeed or not. Ispeak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say. ^

I have stated thus briefly the issues we are to dis-cuss: there are now one or two things it is necessaryto say, in order to define more distinctly the limits ofmy argument. Here:

1. My argument is not primarily, or in the propersense at all, with those who rule out these narrativessimply on the ground that a miracle is implied in them.I am not here, in other words, to discuss the generalquestion of the possibility or probability of the miracu-lous. I am quite prepared to do that in its own timeand place; but that is not my business at present. If,therefore, a man comes forward and says: I do notbelieve in the Virgin Birth of Christ because it in-volves a miracle, and miracles do not happen ^ I haveno place for them in my intellectual scheme, I do not

> 1 Cor. X. 15. ' Thus Matt. Arnold, Lit. and Dogma, Preface.


35/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 13profess to argue with that man. When he descendsfrom his a priori altitude to discuss the evidence, Iwill hear him, but not before. It is evident that thiscanon already rules out a great deal of objection ofa sort to the narratives of the Virgin Birth. Here,e. g., is Prof. Foster, of Chicago, who, in his book onThe Finality of the Christian Religion, goes so far asto declare that an intelligent man who now affirms hisfaith in miraculous narratives like the Biblical as actualfactswho believes, say, in the resurrection of Christ can hardly know what intellectual honesty means. ^I say nothing of honesty, but I do marvel at the self-assurance of any intelligent man who permits himselfin these days to use such language. It is language thatmight be justifiable on the lips of a Spinozist to whomnature and God are one, but which surely is not justi-fiable on the lips of any one professing faith in theliving Father-God of Jesus Christ. For who is thisGod? The Creator and Sustainer of the worldimma-nent in all its forces. Cause in all causes, Law in alllawsyet Himself not identified with the world, butabove it,^ ruling all things in personal freedom forthe attainment of wise and holy ends. How great theintellectual confidence of any man who undertakes apriori to define what are and are not possibilities tosuch a Being in His relations to the universe He hasmade Personally, I have only to say that I believe

p. 132. Eph. iv. 6.


36/329

14 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTthat God can reveal Himself in extraordinary as wellas in ordinary ways,that miracle enters deeply intothe economy of revelation,that Jesus Christ is thePerson in whom the long course of historical revela-tion culminates. To me, therefore, it is in no waya priori incredible that God should make a new super-natural beginning in the entrance of His Son into hu-manity. The world knows many new beginnings. Ido not think you can explain nature itself without tak-ing such into account. Prof. Foster himself, I observe,admits that the consciousness of Jesus is empiricallyinexplicable incapable of causal and psychologicalexplanationand that a creative element derivedimmediately from God must be discerned in it.^ Thatis a large admission, and involves much more than per-haps Prof. Foster thinks. What bearing it has onsuch a miracle as the Virgin Birth will be consideredafter.

2. The second thing I have to say is, that I do notprofess to argue with those who rule out as inadmis-sible the higher aspects of Christ's Person involved inthe New Testament doctrine of the Incarnation. I sayadvisedly, rule out as inadmissible, for I do not wishto exclude those who may be looking towards thistruth, without having obtained clearness in regard toit ; and I am ready, again, to hear any, whatever theirstandpoint, when they descend into the sphere of evi-

1 pp. 265-7.


37/329


38/329


39/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 17is based have already been indicated, and the questionis asked: How can that which was not essential to thefaith of a Peter, a Paul, or a John, be an essential offaith for us? Prof. Ilarnack is very angry with aLutheran official pronouncement in which it is de-clared: That the Son of God is 'conceived by theHoly Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary ' is the founda-tion of Christianity, is the corner-stone on which allwisdom of this world will shatter, and replies: lithat were the case, ill would Mark fare, ill Paul, illJohn, ill Christianity. ^ This consideration undoubt-edly weighs with many, even among those who do notthemselves reject the fact. It seems to me, on the otherhand, that, if the Virgin Birth be true, its connectionwith the other truths about our Lord's Person cannotbe other than essential.One thing which creates a strong presumption in

favour of this connection is the fact already advertedtothe connection which experience shows actually toexist between belief in the Virgin Birth and adequateviews of our Lord's divine dignity. The article isassailed because it is alleged to be indifferent doctrin-ally. I draw a very different inference. The veryzeal with which it is attacked is to my mind a disproofof its slight significance. Men do not as a rule fightstrenuously about points which they think of no im-portance. They concentrate their attack on points

1 Das apostoliscke Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 39.


40/329

18 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTwhich they feel to have strategic value. The VirginBirth would not be assailed so keenly as it is, if it werenot felt to mean a great deal more than appears uponthe surface. I am strongly confirmed in this convic-tion when I look to the dividing-line of parties, and ob-serve the almost invariable concomitance of belief inthe Incarnation with belief in the Virgin Birth, and ofdenial of the one with denial of the other.This is a point of so much importance that it de-serves a little closer attention. From whom, as a rule,do the attacks on the Virgin Birth of Christ come?I find, of course, ranked on the side of the assailants,as already said, the whole multitude of those who re-ject the supernatural nature and claims of Christ. Butwhat of the other side? There are exceptions, I know.Meyer, the commentator, was one; ^ Beyschlag, whooccupied a half-way house theologically, but acceptedthe resurrection, was another and others might benamed. But that stage is practically past. I do notthink it will be doubted by any one who has lookedinto the literature that the scholars and theologianswho accept the higher claims of Christwho are bonafide believers in His Incarnation and resurrectionare nearly allyou could count the exceptions on yourfingerslikewise among the upholders of the VirginBirth. Does this, on the face of it, look as if there was

> Meyer accepted the Incarnation, but rejected the Virgin Birthan ahnost soUtary exception of his class.


41/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 19no connection? When in nature a nearly invariableconcomitance is observed between two sets of phenom-ena, the scientific inquirer seldom hesitates to postu-late some causal relation. Is the presumption of a hid-den bond of connection not equally strong here?

I may illustrate this by reference to the remark onefrequently hears about the weight of scholarship beingcast preponderatingly on the side of the denial of theVirgin Birth. The assertion weighs with many who arenot too deeply rooted in their own convictions, but itrests on an illusion which it is desirable at the outsetto dispel. My reply to it is that the statement canonly be accepted if you beginas many doby defin-ing scholars as those, and those only, who take upthe negative attitude already described to the super-natural claims of Christ. Thus regarded, it is a newproof of what I say on the dividing-line of parties.Take any list of the scholars who are best known andmost frequently quoted as impugners of the VirginBirth of Christ, and note who they are. Passing overKeim and Beyschlag, who represent an older strain,you have at the present hour such writers as Lobstein,Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, Harnack, Soltau, Usener, Gun-kel, O. Holtzmann, Bousset, Percy Gardner, F. C.Conybeare, Prof. Foster, of Chicago, Prof. N. Schmidt,of Cornell University, and others of like standpoint.These writers, as I said before, do not regard it as anyreproach, but boast of it as a mark of their intellectual


42/329

20 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTmaturity, that they are one and all rejectors of miraclein the life of Christ.What now of scholars on the other side? I shall

not dwell on the long roll of the older theologiansthough, when I think of the devout faith and massivelearning of these truly great men who pass before mein mental reviewof men like Tholuck, and Lange, andLuthardt, and Y. Delitzsch, and Rothe, and Dorner,and Martensen, and Oosterzee, and Godet, not to speakof many who might be named among our own country-menI wonder, and ask myself what rich and ripescholarship is, if they did not possess it. But I takescholars of our own time or of the immediate pastscholars of all types: New Testament scholars. OldTestament scholars. Church historians, theologianssome more conservative, some more liberal, some higher critics, some non-higher criticswho acceptthis doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and they are sonumerous that time would fail me to recount themfully. Were the late Bishop Lightfoot and the lateBishop Westcott, e. g., not scholars? Are Dr. Sanday,of Oxford, and Dr. Swete, of Cambridge, at the pres-ent time, not among the finest of our Greek scholars?Is Principal Fairbairn, of Mansfield, Oxford, not ascholar and thinker? Is Sir Wm. Ramsay, of Aber-deen, who has written one of the best defences ofLuke's narrative of the Nativity, not a scholar? AreBishop Gore, or Canon Ottley, both liberal in their


43/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 21Old Testament views, or Dr. R. J. Knowling, or thewriters who ably defend this belief in the recent vol-ume of Cambridge Theological Essays, not to be classedas scholars? Canon Henson, in England, has beenalarming his fellow-churchmen by his free views onmany things; but Canon Henson holds stoutly by theIncarnation and the Virgin Birth. ^ Among the schol-ars in the Free Churches of Britain (I have alreadymentioned Principal Fairbairn), probably the names ofPrincipal W. F. Adeney, of Principal A. E. Garvie,of Prof. Vernon Bartlet, of Prof. J. Denney, are asrepresentative as any; but these are understood to ac-cept, and some of them have written ably in defenceof, the Virgin Birth.^ You glance at the Continent,where rationalism so strongly prevailsthough theforces are more evenly divided than many supposeand you have on this side the great New Testamentscholar, Th. Zahn, facile princeps in his own field ; youhad till lately the learned B. Weiss, of Berlin; you haveleading theologians like Seeberg and Cremer, above all.Prof. M. Kahler, of Halle, who has, I suppose, morestudents in his classes than any other half-dozen the-ological professors put together. Against these you

' Cf . his volume, The Value of the Bible and Other Sermons, onthese points.

2 See specially Dr. Adeney's valuable essay on The Virgin Birthand the Divinity of Christ in the series Essays for the Times,No. xi. Cf. Dr. Denney 's article on The Holy Spirit in the Diet,of Christ and the Gospels, vol. i.


44/329

22 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISThave, I grant, to place some even of the more positiveRitschlian theologians, as Kaftan, Haring, Loofs, whoshy at this article; but in Germany as elsewhere thegeneral fact is that full belief in the Incarnation andbelief in the Virgin Birth go together. In America,among a multitude of others, mention should be madeof the late Dr. Philip Schaff, a fine historical scholar,if ever there was one; and now Dr. Briggs, of the sameSeminary,^ one of the most advanced Old Testamentscholars, has thrown himself into the strenuous defenceof this article. A similar combination of standpointsis witnessed in England in Prof. W. E. Addis, a radicalOld Testament critic, but a devout believer in the In-carnation, and upholder of the birth of our Lord fromthe Virgin. Many other names might be cited, but Iforbear. If scholarship is to be the test, we need notbe afraid to meet the adversary in the gate.

While this large consensus of opinion exists as to thereality of the Virgin Birth, it is right to notice thatthere are many who themselves accept the fact, whostill, on the ground that it does not enter into the foundation of our Christian faith, are in favour ofmaking this point of belief an open one in theChristian Church. One thing, it seems to me, too oftenforgotten in the discussions on this subject is, that the

1 Union Theol. Seminary, New York. Cf. Dr. Briggs's work,New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 159/J., and a striking article in theNorth American Review for June, 190G.


45/329

STATEMExNT OF THE CASE 23question we are dealing with is not, in the first in-stance, one of theology, but one of fact. What raisesthe question at all is that we have two evangelical nar-rativesthe only two which relate the events of ourLord's Nativitywhich circumstantially testify thatthis was the mode of His earthly origin. The firstthing to do, plainly, is to try to ascertain whether thiswitness is true. If it is not, there is no more to be said.If it is, then we may^ sure that the fact it attests hassome bearing on the constitution of our Lord's Person,whether at first we see it or not. It is here that theposition of those who accept the fact of the VirginBirth, but deny its essential connection with the othertruths about our Lord's Person appears to me illogicaland untenable. The one thing certain is: either ourLord was born of a Virgin, or He was not. If He wasnot, as I say, the question falls: there is an end of it.But if He wasand I deal at present with those whoprofess this as their own beliefif this was the wayin which God did bring the Only-Begotten into theworldthen it cannot but be that it has a vital con-nection with the Incarnation as it actually happened,and we cannot doubt, in that event, that it is a fact ofgreat importance for us to know. In any case, we arenot at liberty summarily to dismiss the testimony of theGospels, or relegate the fact they attest to the class of open questions, simply because we do not happen tothinJc it is important. It is not thus that science stands


46/329

24 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTbefore its facts. If an alleged fact is presented to sci-ence, it does not first ask: What is the importance ofthe fact? but, Is the fact real? If it is, the man ofscience is sure it will have some valuable light to throwon the department of knowledge to which it belongs,whether at first he perceives it or no. This is the spiritin which we should approach the subject now under con-sideration.

Still, the objection will be pressed that the VirginBirth does not enter into the foundation of ourChristian faith; hence cannot be regarded as an essen-tial article of belief. It did not form part of the foun-dation of the faith of the Apostles, or of the earliestChristian teachers, so cannot be reasonably made partof the foundation of ours. It might be replied, forone thing, that our position is, after all, not quite thatof the earliest believers; that for us the truth is nowthere, and that we have^ whether we will or no, to takeup some kind of relation to it, just as they would havehad to do, had they been where we are. But, leavingthe discussion of the faith of the Apostles to its ownplace, and without prejudging the degree of theirknowledge of this mysterya matter to be afterwardsinvestigatedI should like to point out that a truthmay not be the foundation of our faith, yet, once it isknown, may be found to have very important bearingson our faith, to contribute to it, to be so closely relatedto what is vital in our faith, that our faith thencefor-


47/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 25ward may feel it to be indispensable, and would begreatly impoverished without it : moreover, that a truthmay not be the foundation of my faith in a fact, yetmay very well be part of the foundation of the factitself. The law of gravitation, e. g., is no part of thefoundation of my belief that stones fall. The worldknew that stones fell before it ever heard of the lawof gravitation. Yet the law of gravitation has muchto do with a proper understanding of the fact thatstones fall, and more, lies at the foundation of the factitself, though not at the foundation of my belief in it.Shakespeare's authorship is no part of the foundationof my knowledge of the play of Hamlet, or of my ap-preciation of the genius displayed in it. Yet Shake-speare's authorship is not a matter of indifference eitherto the origin, or to the character of the play. No oneI ever heard of has affirmed that the Virgin Birthwas the original ground of the belief of the Apostlesin the Incarnation or the sinlessness of Christ. Thesetruths stood on their own broad evidence, of which theVirgin Birth may or may not have formed part ; but itin nowise follows that the Virgin Birth, if a fact, doesnot stand in the most vital relations to both the one andthe other.

This leads me to remark that there seems to me tobe in these discussions a constant tendency to the con-fusing of two very different thingsthe foundation ofmy faith in the Incarnation, and the foundation of the


48/329

26 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTfad itself. The proposition is first laid down, perhapsquite truly, though not necessarily so: The VirginBirth does not enter into the foundation of my faithin Christ's Incarnation and sinlessness. This is thenimmediately transformed into the other proposition: It does not enter into the foundation of the fact ofthe Incarnation a very different thing. But whereis the proof of this latter proposition? Is it soughtin our ignorance or inability to see the connection?Need I remind you that there are a thousand thingsin nature you do not see the reason of, yet they arefacts? There are organs in the body the uses or pre-cise functions of which are obscure ; but sound physiol-ogy does not doubt that they have their uses, and doesnot abandon the hope of yet discovering them. Yougo home at night to sleep, yet you would be hard putto it to explain why it should be necessary to spend solarge a portion of your existence in this state of dor-mancy. You know, of course, that it is necessary forthe recuperation and refreshment of the body, but youcannot tell why. Even, therefore, were it granted thatwe could in no degree penetrate the mystery of theconnection of the Virgin Birth with the Incarnationand sinlessness of our Lord, it would be unwarrantabledogmatism on our part to declare that there was noconnection. Only if we knew all the implications ofthese transcendent facts would we have the right tomake such an affirmation. But that knowledge no one


49/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 27has, and our very ignorance is a reason why we shouldnot belittle the historically recorded fact.Thus far I have been arguing on the assumption ofthe opponent that no obvious relation subsists betweenthe Virgin Birth, and the other elements of our faithin Christ. I desire now to say, however, that this, inmy opinion, is far from being the case. The consider-ation of this connection belongs to succeeding lectures,but there is one thing, I think, which most fair-mindedpeople will be willing to admit. It will hardly be dis-puted that, if the Incarnation is a reality, a miracleof some kind is involved in the constitution of ourLord's divine and human Person even on the as-sumption of Christ's perfect sinlessness, so much maybe conceded; and, on the other hand, granting the Vir-gin Birth, it will hardly be denied that the Person soborn is, in some sense, superhuman in nature and dig-nity. We may, if we please, deny that the Incarnationnecessarily involves the Virgin Birth; but few willquestion, at least, that, if Christ was born from theVirgin, there is a supernatural element in His Being.

Only one thing more I would say at this preliminarystage. It will scarcely be doubted, I think, that, if theVirgin Birth is true, it is a fact of great historicalvalue. A chief worth of the narratives of the Infancyis just that, by showing how Christ actually came intothe world, they incorporate Him, as nothing else coulddo, into the history of the world, give Him a real place


50/329

28 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTin tlie history of our humanity, and furnish the need-ful introduction to what is told us regarding Him bythe other Evangelists. The Gospel of Mark, e. g.,brings Jesus before us at His entrance on His publicministry without preface or explanation. Had this beenall that was told regarding Him, His history wouldhave hung, so to speak, in the air. It would havehad no beginning; just as, if the resurrection werewanting, it would have had no suitable ending. Weshall see afterwards how, in the conflicts of the earlyChurch, the Fathers made effective use of these narra-tives in warding off, on the one hand, the Gnostic denialof our Lord's real humanity, and, on the other, theEbionitic lowering of the divine significance of HisPersonthus preserving to the Church His true imageas at once Son of Man and Son of God.^ These much-assailed narratives have thus approved themselves aspossessed of a historical and doctrinal worth whichshould make us very cautious how we join in any de-preciation or thoughtless surrender of them. For some,I know, this historic value of the narratives will onlyaggravate their offence. Religion, we will be told, can-not be bound up with historic facts. I replyReligionabstractly may not be; but a religion like the Chris-tian, which has its essence in the entrance of God intohistory for man's redemption, cannot but be. This

* See good remarks on this in Rev. Louis M. Sweet's The Birthand Infancy of Jesus Christ, pp. 14ff.


51/329

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 29means that, if we are to gain the full benefit of the re-ligion, we must believe in the facts on which it is based.We shall see, I hope, as we proceed, that among theseChristian facts, not the least fruitful in help to mindand heart is the Virgin Birth.


52/329

LECTURE IITHE GOSPEL WITNESSES GENUINENESS AND INTEGRITY

OF THE RECORDSAn inquiry into the historical reality of the Virgin

Birth naturally begins with the documents from whichthe knowledge of the Virgin Birth is derived. Theseare, as every one knows, the two Gospels of Matthewand Lukethe opening chapters in each, with part ofthe third chapter of Luke, containing the genealogy.^I shall afterwards have to deal with the objection thatthe other two Gospels, Mark and John, do not furnishsuch narratives. Perfectly good reasons, I think, canbe given for the omission; but this is a question to beinvestigated by itself. At present we are concerned,not with the silence of the New Testament, but with itsspeech; and here the salient fact before us is, that intwo of our Gospels out of the fourthe only two thatnarrate the birth of Jesus at allwe do have this cir-cumstantial testimony regarding Christ's human origin,that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of theVirgin Mary. This is a weighty fact, if there were no

Matt, i., ii.; Luke i., ii.; iii. 23-38.30


53/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 31other, and we do well to consider it closely and care-fully.

My starting-point, then, is this, that we have thesenarratives of the two Gospels, both bearing witnessthat our Lord was born of a Virgin. To set this factof the witness of the Gospels in its true light, thereare certain things which it is important to notice re-garding it.

1. I would ask you to observe, what I have justnoted, that this is the only account of Christ's hirth wepossess. You may think you see indications in otherparts of the Gospels that our Lord was not born asthese opening chapters describe: that can be discussedafter. What I wish at present to impress is that, if thisaccount which the Evangelists give is parted with, youhave no narrative at all of how or where Christ wasborn, or of anything about Him prior to His baptism.You read, e. g., in books like Pfleiderer's ChristianOrigins, or in modern Lives of Jesus like Bousset'sor Oscar Holtzmann's, that Jesus, the son of Josephand Mary, was born at I^azareth.^ But there is nohistorical corroboration for that categorical statement.The Gospels are our only authorities on the subject,and the same Evangelists who tell us that Jesus was brought up - Avith Joseph and Mary at ISTazareth,

'Pfleiderer, p. 83; Bousset's Jesus, p. 2; O. Holtzmann, LebenJesu, p. 68. Cf. Renan, quoted above, p. 5, 2 Luke iv. 16.


54/329

32 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTtell us that He was not born at Nazareth, but was bornat Bethlehem, and that it was after His birth thatJoseph and Mary settled in Nazareth. It is made acontradiction between Matthew and Luke that Mat-thew is said to know nothing of Joseph and Mary'sprevious residence in Nazareth, which Luke, on theother hand, relates.* But Luke is as explicit as Mat-thew that it was not at Nazareth, but at Bethlehem, thatJesus was born. As it is with the place, so it is withthe time of Christ's birth. It is usual to say that Jesuswas born shortly before the death of Herod the Great(4 B.C.); but, if the birth-narratives are rejected, thereare, as Wellhausen seems to admit,^ no reliable data onwhich to found so precise an assertion.

It may be argued, indeed, that, because parts of thenarratives are rejected, we are not bound to reject thewhole; some true elements of tradition may be pre-served in them. One writerthe only one I knowwho tried this plan was Beyschlag. Beyschlag thoughthe could pick and choose; take some parts and leaveothers. He very justly argued that, at the time whenMatthew and Mark wrote, any free invention of thestories of the Infancy would have met with instant con-tradiction from the family of Jesus. He sought, there-fore, to save some fragments of the narrativesthebirth at Bethlehem, the visit of the shepherds, etc.

' Luke i. 26; ii. 4. See below, pp. 34, 99.* Das Evang. Lucae, p. 6.


55/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 33while rejecting the fact which is the kernel of thewhole, the Virgin Birth. ^ It is agreed on all hands,however, that this arbitrary procedure of Beyschlag'sis quite inadmissible. The cycle of narration in bothEvangelists is too firmly connected to be thus brokenup; and the authority for one part of the story, as weshall immediately see, is the same as the authority forthe rest. I repeat, then, that, if these narratives arerejected, we really know nothing of the circumstancesof Christ's birth at all.

2. The only accounts of the birth of Jesus we havedeclare that He was born of a Virgin. My next pointis that we have two such accounts, and that the ac-counts are independent. There are two evangelicalwitnesses, not one; and, as the most cursory inspectionof the narratives shows, their testimony is independent-ly given. Attempts have been made, I know, by oneor two scholars to show some kind of dependence ofone narrative on the other, or of both on some commonsource.^ These isolated attempts have met with no

Leben Jesu, I, pp. 159^ (3d Ed.). See below, p. 76.2 E. g., the writer Conrady {Die Qicellen der hanonischen Kind-

heitsgeschichte Jesu) seeks to derive the narratives from the apocry-phal Protevangelium of James (the relation is really the reverse);another writer, Reitzenstein, derives from an earlier Gospel supposedto be indicated by a poorly preserved Egyptian fragment of the 6thcent.; Resch {Texte und Unters., x. 5, p. 208) derives from a purelyimaginary Book of the Generations of Jesus Christ, etc. Sec a good \account of these and cognate theories in papers by J. Gresham 'Machen, in The Princeton Theol. Review for Oct., 1905, pp. 648-9;Jan., 1906, pp. 39-42.


56/329

34 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTfavour, and need not here detain us. The favouritemethod of dealing with the narratives is rather to seekto discredit their trustworthiness by pitting one againstthe other, and declaring them to be divergent and con-tradictory. I shall immediately endeavour to show thatthe two narratives, so far from being contradictory, inreality remarkably corroborate and supplement eachother. In proof that the alleged discrepancies are notreally serious, I might appeal to one of the latest ofthese critical writers, Oscar Holtzmann, who, in hisrecently published Life of Jesus, tells us : A contra-diction between these narratives of Matthew and Lukedoes not exist; even in regard to the places of residencethere is no need for assuming one. ^ The difficultyabout the places of residence has already been referredto. Matthew does not mention the former residenceof Joseph and Mary at Nazareth, and speaks as if,after Christ's birth, they went to Nazareth for thefirst time.^ Suppose, however, that Matthew did notknow of this earlier residence, but, in writing his Gos-pel, kept faithfully to the information he had, withoutadding or inventingis this a contradiction, or a rea-son for distrust? But I do not think we need assumeeven this. A writer like Soltau, indeed, permits him-self to say: We learn from Matthew that Bethlehemwas the real native place of Joseph and Mary. ^ Butthere is not an atom of foundation for this statement.

Lehen Jesu, p. 65. ' Matt. ii. 23. ' Op. cit., p. 30 (E. T.).


57/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 35Matthew says nothing in his first chapter as to wherethe events he narrates happened; it is not till the sec-ond chapter that he mentions Bethlehem of Judsea asthe place where Christ was born. When, therefore, hetells of the withdrawal of Joseph and Mary to Naza-reth after the return from Egypt, he naturally namesthe place for the first time.

There is, therefore, no necessity for assuming realcontradiction; but the point I would urge, as it hasoften been urged before, is, that the very existence ofthese so-called discrepancies is a proof of the entireindependence of the narratives. It is the complete in-dependence of the accounts, in truth, whioh is thecause of any superficial appearance of discrepancywhich they present. They tell their story from differ-ent points of viewwhat these are will be seen after-wards; they group their facts from a different motive,and for a different purpose. They evidently have dif-ferent sources. Yet in the great central fact, viz. : thatJesus, conceived by the Holy Ghost, was born of Mary,a Virgin betrothed to Joseph, with his full knowledgeof the causein this they are altogether at one: thisstands out sun-clear in the narratives, and was never,so far as we know, challenged in the Church from thetime it was made public, save by the insignificantEbionitic fraction already mentioned.^

' On the fewness of the Ebionites, cf. Salmon, Introd, to N. T., p,173 (2d Ed.).


58/329


59/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 37causc.^ (10) Nevertheless he took Mary to wife, andassumed full paternal responsibilities for her childsvas from the first in loco parentis to Jesus.^ (H) TheAnnunciation and birth were attended by revelationsand visions.^ (12) After the birth of Jesus, Josephand Mary dwelt in Nazareth.^ j

This, however, is not the whole. For here a factemerges about these narratives to which we cannot givetoo much attention. There is this common basis ofagreement of which I have spoken. But careful in-spection of the narratives shows that, even in the re-spects in which they are divergent, so far from beingdiscrepant, they are really, in a singular way, comple-mentary; that where a careless glance suggests con-trariety, there is really deep and beautiful harmony.The full illustration of this belongs to a later stage ; ^but, at the risk of anticipating what is to come after,let me take a single crucial example. Is it not strangethat Luke's Gospel, while gi'ving us such full accountsabout Mary, should tell us next to nothing about Jo-seph, and specially about his state of mind when hefirst learned of the situation of his betrothed wife?It is implied in Luke's narrative, as in Matthew's, that

Matt. i. 18-20; Luke ii. 5.' Matt. i. 20, 24, 25; Luke ii. 5^.3 Matt. i. 20, etc.; Luke i. 27, 28, etc.Matt. ii. 23; Luke ii. 39.' See below, pp. 83^. It will be found that Matthew's narrative

is told throughout from the standpoint of Joseph; Luke's from thatof Mary.


60/329


61/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 39This is a question which I must argue with some

care, for it has been contested. It is evident that if,from dislike of miracle, or any other cause, these rec-ords containing the story of our Lord's birth are tobe got rid of, it is necessary in some way to breakdown their credit as early and authentic productions.If these sections are really genuine parts of the origi-nal Gospels of Matthew and Lukeassuming the lat-ter, as I here do provisionally, to be themselves genu-ine documents of the Apostolic Agemost will feelthat a long step is taken to establish the historical truthof the Virgin Birth which they narrate. It is, there-fore, almost a vital point for the opponents to disprove^their original and authentic character. Can this bedone? I am here to affirm with some confidence thatit cannot. My second factas I call itwhich Ioppose to their contention is, that these chapters con-jtaining the narratives of the Virgin Birth are attestedhy all available evidence as indubitably genuine parts oftheir respective Gospels.What are the means of proof which it is usual to

apply in such cases ? A first source of evidence is Manu-scripts. It is here to be remembered that the wealthof MS. authority for the Gospels, as for the New Testa-ment generally, is without a parallel in literature. Wecan see this most easily by comparison with the MS.authority for the works we call the classics. Of someimportant classical works only one MS. is in exist-


62/329

40 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTenceNestle reminds us, for instance, that all we pos-sess of Sophocles depends on a single MS. of the eighthor ninth century; ^ ten or fifteen is thought a largenumber for others; and few of these go beyond thetenth century, or are even so old. In contrast withthis, the MSS. of the Gospels, whole or parts, are reck-oned by scores; if you include cursives, by hundreds;and some of these, as is well known, are of great ageand authority. The great Uncials, e. g., go back tothe fourth and fifth centuries, with, as their peculiari-ties show, a long textual history behind. Another chiefsource of evidence is Versions, to which have to beadded quotations, and all the other indirect means bywhich the existence and genuineness of a book can beascertained. The net result of the application of thesetests in the present case can be readily stated. Is therea single unmutilated MS. of the Gospels^older oryoungerfrom which these chapters in Matthew andLuke are absent? Not one. Are these sections absentfrom any of the Versions? So far as our evidencegoesNo.The case, however, is too important to be thus sum-

marily dismissed, and I propose to take up the evidenceunder these heads more particularly.

1. I have said that the opening chapters of our twoGospels are found in all unmutilated MSS. Thatbroad fact will not be disputed. But let me try to

Textual Criticism, p. 33 (E. T.).


63/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 41emphasise the moral of the fact by contrast. You areaware of the doubt which attaches to the last twelveverses of Mark's Gospel. In the margin of the R. V.,you will find this note opposite ver. 8 : The two old-est Greek MSS., and some other authorities, omit fromver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a dif-ferent ending to the Gospel. Here is very strongevidence that these last verses did not belong to theoriginal Gospel, but were supplied to take the placeof the lost original ending. So again with the episodeof the woman taken in adultery in John vii. 53 to viii.11. These verses are bracketed in the R. V., and thenote is added that most of the ancient authorities omitthem. But there is no lacuna or omission of a similarkind in regard to the opening chapters of Matthew andLuke. Take the oldest Uncials. The Sinaitic MS. [ k ]the chapters are there. The Alexandrian MS. [A]this is mutilated down as far as Matt, xxv., butLuke i., ii., are there, and nobody doubts that the firstchapters of Matthew were there also. The VaticanMS. [B]there. The Codex Ephraemi [C]there.The Codex Bezae [D], representing an independent(Western) textthere. Uncials and cursives generallythere in all.

2. That is MSS.: glance now at Versions. It wasvery early in the history of the Church that transla-tions of the Gospels and of other New Testament writ-ings began to be made into the languages of the coun-


64/329

42 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTtries into which Christianity had spread. Hence,beginning with the second century, we have the rise ofSyriac, Latin, Egyptian, and other Versions, the MSS.remains of which throw light on the kind of Scrip-tures circulating in these sections of the Church, Andwhat do they tell us? The chapters containing thebirth-narratives are as little absent from the Versionsas they are from the Greek MSS. They are there inall the Latin Versions; in the Vulgate of Jerome, ofcourse, but also in the Old Latin Versions, going backas far as the days of Tertullian. They are there inall the Syriac Versionsin the Peshitta, in the Cure-tonian, in that very old Syriac Version discovered byMrs. Lewis in the convent at Mt. Sinai in 1892. Theyare there in all the Egyptian (Coptic) Versionsin aword, are there in all. In that famous old Syriac Har-mony of the Four Gospels made by Tatian about 160or 170the Diatessaronrecently so strikingly recov-ered, the chapters are present, though the genealogiesare dropped, probably as unsuitable for the author'spurpose. The Harmony is now translated, and any onecan consult the book, and read the narratives for him-self. Other sources of evidence yield the same result.The quotations and allusions in Justin Martyr, Tatian'smaster, show that these chapters were in the Gos-pels or Memoirs of the Apostles which he tellsus were read week by week in the assemblies of theChristians.^ Even the Epicurean Celsus, the bitter

> 1 Apology, 66, 67; Dial, with Trypho, 10, 100, 103.


65/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 43heathen opponent of Christianity in the second century,draws freely in his attacks on the Gospels from the in-cidents in the birth-narrativesthe genealogies, thestar in the East, the flight into Egypt, the Virgin Birthitself. 1

3. There are three special recensions of the Gos-pels, however, respecting which we have information,on which, in this connection, I must make a few re-marks.

(1) There is the Gospel of the Hebrews, an Aramaicversion of the Gospel of Matthew in use among thatmore liberal section of the Jewish Christians whomJerome calls Nazarenesthose who, while retainingtheir Jewish customs for themselves, accepted the mis-sion of Paul, and did not seek to impose circumcisionand the Jewish law upon the Gentiles, It was an ideaformerly sometimes mootedJerome himself seems atfirst to have entertained itthat this Gospel of the He-brews was the original of our present Gospel of Mat-thew. But that opinion has long since been aban-doned.^ The Gospel in question was dependent on ourMatthew, not the original of it, and, while there musthave been a general resemblance, it had a good manyapocryphal additions. Unfortunately we only know itin extracts. The point of interest for us is that thisJewish-Christian Gospel likewise had the chapters re-

> Origen, Against Celsus, i. 38-40; ii. 32.' Cf. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, I, pp. 25Sff.

Meyer, Com. Introd.; Salmon, Introd. to N. T., etc.


66/329

44 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTcording the birth and infancy of Jesus. Ilarnack, Iknow, disputes this. But he stands almost alone indoing so, and the reasons against his opinion seem con-clusive. We have the direct attestation of Eusebiusthat the section of Jewish Christians using this Gospelwere distinguished by their accepting the Virgin Birthof our Lord.^ We have the testimony of Epiphaniusthat the Gospel used by the ISTazarenes was a completeone; ^ we can be certain that Jerome, who knew andtranslated the Gospel, would not have failed to men-tion so serious an omission, had it existed; finally, whatappears decisive, we have actual allusions in Jerome tothe contents of these early chapters in the Hebrew Gos-pel. Thus he notices that it had the peculiar reading Bethlehem of Judah for Bethlehem of Judsea in Matt. ii. 5 ; also the citations of prophecy, Out ofEgypt have I called my Son, and He shall be calleda Nazarene

both unmistakably from Matthew.^(2) This, however, was not the only form of theGospel of Matthew in circulation among the HebrewChristians. There was a version in use among thatnarrower section known commonly as the Ebionitesthe descendants, formerly alluded to,'* of those anti-

' Eusebius, iii. 27; cf. Origen, Against Celsus, v. 61.2 Cf. Westcott, Introd. to Gospels, p. 465.3 Cf. Stanton, op. cit., p. 258.* See above, pp. 11, 35. It should be noted that the name Ebion-

ites was often given by the Fathers to all Jewish Christians. Thedifferent classes were then distinguished by their Christological andother peculiarities.


67/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 45Pauline Judaizers we read of in the Acts and the Epis-tles, who contended for the imposition of the Mosaiclaw upon the Gentiles. These held Jesus to be merelya man, chosen by God on account of his legal piety.We do not know much about the Gospel used by thispartythe so-called Gospel of the Ehionitesbut it isdescribed to us as not entire and perfectly complete,but falsified and mutilated ' ; ^ and w^e do know thatit omitted the first two chapters of Matthew, and com-menced: It came to pass in the days of Herod, Kingof Judsea, that John came baptizing with a baptism ofrepentance in the river Jordan, who was said to be ofthe race of Aaron the priest, a son of Zachariah andElisabeth, and all went out to him. ^ Of course, aGospel of this kind, which puts the baptism of Johnin the days of Herod of Judaea, and otherwise falsifiesits text, is absolutely worthless. But it will be ob-served how, even in rejecting the narratives of the In-fancy, it is forced unwittingly to bear testimony tothem ; for where else does it get the date, in the daysof Herod, King of Judsea, ^ and the information aboutZachariah and Elisabeth, the parents of John?'* Mostprobably the Gospel was simply a badly corrupted ver-sion of The Gospel of the Hehreius, with the first twochapters left out.Why have I spent so much time on this obscure

I Westcott, op. cit., p. 467. ' Matt. ii. 1; Luke i. 5.2/6id., p. 466. Lukei. 5.


68/329

46 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTGospel of a backward and reactionary sect? Simplybecause, as I hinted before, this is the solitary in-stance within the Church of any sort of party who re-jected the narrative of the supernatural birth. I saywithin the Church, though we see from Justin Martyrthat already by the middle of the second century thissect was coming to be regarded as hardly a part of thetrue Church.^ Surely, however, it requires hardihoodon the part of any one to hold that this reactionarypartythis mere side-eddy in the stream of theChurch's developmentrepresented the true, originalChristianity, and that their Gospel was the genuineGospel of the Hebrews, instead of being, as has alwaysbeen believed, a corrupt and mutilated form of thatGospel.^ In any case it is certain that it was not theoriginal Gospel of Matthew, any more than the Gospelof the Hebrews itself was.

(3) I have to notice still a third non-canonical recen-sionthe Gospel of Luke used by Marcion. Marcionwas a Gnostic teacher (c. 140), who held that the Godof the Old Testament was an inferior, imperfect Being,in contrast with the good God of the New Testament,and who believed in the essential evil of matter. Hecould not, therefore, in consistency with his principles,allow that Jesus was, I do not say supernaturally born,

^Dial. with Trypho, 47; cf. Ritschl, AUkathol. Kirche (2d Ed.),p. 253.

' Keim actually bases on this Gospel an argument for the omissionof chs. i., ii. from the original Gospel of Matthew.


69/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 47but born at all. Marcion drew up for himself a Canonwhich included one Gospelthat of Lukeand tenEpistles of Paul. But his Gospel of Luke had not thefirst two chapters. It began at the third chapter: Inthe fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius/' then passedto ch, iv. 31; He came down [i. e., from heaven]to the Galilean city of Capernaum. ^ Here, again,the attempt was formerly made by certain writers toshow that Marcion's Gospel represented the originalLuke. But the attempt met with no success. Ritschl,who at first advocated this view, afterwards gave it up.Dr. Sanday gave it its death-blow in England when re-vived by the author of the book called SupernaturalReligion. I do not know of any scholar who now holdsit.^ The discussion on Marcion's Gospel thus reallyturned round into a new evidence that the genuineLuke had these two chapters.

I have thus surveyed the field of MSS. and Versions,and have sought to show you how absolutely unbrokenis the phalanx of evidence that these first chapters ofMatthew and Luke are genuine parts of the Gospels inwhich they are found. Well, but, I have no doubt youare long ere this asking in surprise: If the facts arethus undeniable, what do the objectors say to them?How are they dealt with? One characteristic example

1 Cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion, iv. 7.2 Cf. Plummer, Luke, p. Ixviii.


70/329


71/329


72/329

50 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTand Luke have both elsewhere large sections not foundin Mark, and Luke has some six chapters wholly hisown. Why should it not be so here ? The facts aboutChrist's birth and childhood, surely, were matters aboutwhich there would be a desire for information; why,if these Evangelists had the knowledge, should theynot impart it? I cannot, therefore, allow that anyweight attaches to this objection.

(2) The second objection, drawn from internalmarks showing the narratives to be additions, is moreto the purpose, if it can be made good, which, however,it certainly cannot be. Keim, e. g., among older wri-ters, argued that the connection is loose between thefirst two chapters of Matthew and the third chapter.^It needs a keen vision to see the force of his arguments,but in any case the facts of the case are against him.Ch. iii. begins with the words In those days.What days? The very form of the expression pointsto something preceding. So ch. iv. 13 speaks of Jesusas leaving Nazareth. But this has obvious referenceto ch. ii. 23, the only place where Nazareth is previ-ously mentioned He [Joseph] came and dwelt ina city called Nazareth.

It is futile to point in this connection, as Wellhausendoes, to the genealogy in Luke iii. 23^. as proof ofseparate authorship,^ or, with others, to Matt. xiii. 50or Luke iv. 22, where Jesus is spoken of by the people

1 Jesus of Nazara, I, p. 82 (E. T.). ' d^s Evang. Lucae, p. 6.


73/329


74/329

52 THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRISTmeirt quotations, accompanied by the regular Mat-thean formula,^ etc. . . . We may say, in fact, thatif the Nativity story (Matt. i. 18-ii. 23) be not anintegral part of the First Gospel, it must be countedone of the cleverest adaptations: a verdict that is notlikely to be passed on it by a sane criticism. ^The case for the unity of the sections in Luke is

perhaps even stronger. Harnack's recent brilliant vin-dication of the Lucan authorship of the Third Gospelturns in part on this very pointthat the unmistakablemarks of Luke's Greek style in the rest of the Gospeland in the Book of Acts are found also in the first twochapters. The argument is not original to Prof. Har-nack. Among recent writers Dr. Plummer has ablydeveloped it in the Introduction to his Commentary onLuke ; but Harnack has brought to it fresh and weightycorroboration.^

We may, therefore, rest with confidence in the viewexpressed by J. Weiss in a recent article, borne out byall the external evidence, that there never were formsof Matthew and Luke without the Infancy narra-tives. *

The genuineness of these chapters of the Gospelsmay be regarded as established, but there remains the

1 Cf. e. g., outside these chapters, Matt. viii. 17; xii. 17; xiii. 14, 35.2 Evangelion Da Mepharreshe, pp. 258-9.3 Cf . his Lukas der Arzt, p. 73, and Appendix II.* Theol. Rundschau, 1903, p. 208 (quoted by Machen).


75/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 53question of their integrity. If the chapters cannot beexcised in whole, may they not be in part? To a suf-ficient degree, at least, to destroy the evidence of theVirgin Birth? The method of mutilation has seldombeen attempted in Matthew ^ (the disputed reading inch, i. 16 will be referred to later ^) ; but it is attemptedby a considerable number of recent scholars,' includingProf. Harnack himself, in the case of Luke. Removecertain verses, it is ingeniously contended, from Luke'snarrativeprincipally ch. i, 34, 35, the verses whichrecord Mary's question to the angel: How shall thisbe, seeing I know not a man? and the angel's answer: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the powerof the Most High shall overshadow thee, etc.and theevidence for the Virgin Birth disappears. The story be-comes one of the promise of a son, like the promise ofIsaac, or Samson, or Samuel, or John the Baptist, tobe born in the ordinary way. So, mirabile dictu, itturns out that we have in Luke no story of a VirginBirth at all ^

On the theories of Schmiedel, who makes Matt. i. 18-25 laterthan ch. ii., and of Charles, who makes the genealogy a later addition(against him F. C. Conybeare), see article by Machen in PrincetonTheol. Review, Jan., 1906, p. 63.

2 See below, p. 102.'Thus, e.g., Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, Usener, Hillmann, J. Weiss,

Cheyne, Conybeare, etc. Other critics, as Hilgenfeld, Clemen,Gunkel, and in part Wernle, Weinel, etc., oppose. See below, p. 56.

* Wellhausen thinks there is no Virgin Birth in Luke ii., but seesit in ch. i.


76/329


77/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 55all, ch. i. 27, which tells how the angel was sent untoa virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph,has to be disposed ofthis time without any authorityby deleting the word virgin, which occurs twice,and likewise the word betrothed. The way is thenopen for Harnack to pronounce : After these few andeasy deletions, . . . the narrative is smooth, and no-where presupposes the Virgin Birth ^

This, I submit, may be magnificent, but really it is notwar. It is not serious criticism. Is any one so simpleas to imagine that these changes would ever have beenthought of, but for the previous desire to get rid ofthis particular feature of the Virgin Birth? Even thentrouble is not over, for, as another criticUsenerisquick enough to perceive, if these deletions are made,one would expect to find some notice of a marriage ofJoseph and Mary. Usener, however, is equal to theoccasion. It is naturally as easy to put in as to takeout. So he courageously writes : We are in a posi-tion to infer with certainty [I always prick up my earswhen one of these writers speaks of something he caninfer with certainty ; I am sure it will be some-thing peculiarly doubtful] from Luke ii. 5 that in theoriginal form of the narrative after i. 38 stood the fur-ther statement, hardly to be dispensed with (eventhough judged inadmissible by the redactor who inter-

1 Cf . his discussion in Zeitschrift fiir die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1891,pp. 53^.


78/329


79/329

THE GOSPEL WITNESSES 57Matthew, which cannot be operated on in this fashion,remains as a second corroborative witness.

I come now to my last point in this part of the dis-cussion. I am entitled to assume that these narrativesof the Virgin Birth are genuine parts of their Gospels,and that they have come down to us in their integrity.But what of the Gospels themselves, and of their valueas witnesses to such transcendent facts? The Gospels,we are told, are late; we do not know for certain whoare their authors; they are at least far removed fromthe events which they relate. What credit, therefore,can be attached to them?The full answer to this question cannot be givenhere, for much depends on the internal evidence, whichfalls to be discussed in a succeeding lecture. Neithercan I enter into the intricacies of what is called theSynoptical problem; but I may endeavour to showbriefly how the question stands as regards external at-testation, and what grounds we have for believing thatour two Gospels are, as I have taken them to be,unquestionably genuine documents of the ApostolicAge.On this subject it will be generally admitted, I think,

that we are in a better position for meeting objectionsthan we have been for a long time. Of late years,as Harnack has been remindi