BS2385 .H582v.lUniversityofChicago.Historicalandlinguisticstudiesinliterature5erHISTORICALAND LINGUISTIC STUDIESIN LITERATURE RELATEDTOTHENEWTESTAMENTZDcmnivcxQii^of Cbtcaao(^j^^-^3^q^qFOUNDEDBYJOHN D. ROCKEFELLERAtHistoricalandLinguisticStudiesINLITERATURERELATEDTOTHENEWTESTAMENTISSUEDUNDERTHEDIRECTIONOFTHEDEPARTMENTOFBIBLICALANDPATRISTICGREEKSECONDSERIESLINGUISTICANDEXEGETICALSTUDIESVOLUMEICHICAGOttbe'Onivetsitfiot CbicagoPress1909CONTENTSPAGBI. TheVirgin Birth . . . ^'. iBy Allan HobenII. TheKingdomofGodin the Writings of the Fathers . 89By Henry Martyn HerrickIII. TheDiatessaron of Tatianandth^Synoptic Problem . 207By A. Augustus HobsonIV. TheInfinitive in Polybius Compared with the Infinitivein Biblical Greek 280By Hamilton Ford AllenV. McTavoewand McTa/xe'Aci inGreekLiteratureuntil 100a.d.349By Effie FreemanThompsonVI. ALexicographicaland Historical S^dyof AuidrJKr} .379By Frederick Owen NortonVII. TheIrenaeusTestimonyto the Fojatth Gospel . . .451By FrankGrant LewisVIII. TheIdea of the Resurrection in the Ante-Nicene Period515By Calvin Klopp StaudtTHE VIRGINBIRTHThe Department of Biblical and Patristic Greek of theUniversity of Chicago proposes to issue, from time to time,Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature Eelated to theNewTestament. TheseStudieswill begroupedin three series:I, Texts; II, Linguistic and Exegetical Studies; III, HistoricalStudies. The volumes in each series will be issued in parts.Ernest D. Burton.Shailer Mathews.Clyde W. Votaw.Edgar J. Goodspeed.THEVIRGINBIRTHBYALLANHOBEN, Ph.D.CHICAGOc;be"GlniversltBofCblcagoipress1903Copyright1903ByThe University of ChicagoPREFACE.Thiswork is purelyan historical essay. Taking the story of theVirgin Birth as found in the NewTestament, it aims to trace the his-tory of its interpretation and use throughout the ante-Nicene period.Thebearing of thestudyuponthe historical criticism of theNewTes-tamentandtheologyproper is notdiscussed.5]TABLEOFCONTENTS.I'PAGEThe NewTestament gThe Virgin Birth has a double attestation. The relation of thecanonical story to the Gospel of James. Interpretation of thecanonicalaccounts.II.The Ante-Nicene Fathers17Ignatius; Aristides;Justin Martyr;Tatian ; Melito; Irenseus; Ter-tullian ; Clement of Alexandria; Origen; Hippolytus; Cyprian;Novatian;Malchion; Archelaus; Arnobius; Lactantius ;Methodius;Victorinus;PeterofAlexandria;AlexanderofAlexandria;Conclu-sion.III.The NewTestament Apocrypha 81DifferentiatedfromtheNewTestament. Theirtheologicalpurpose.OldTestamentmodels.Index 867]THEVIRGIN BIRTH.I. THENEWTESTAMENT.This essayaims to trace the historyanduse of the story of thevirginbirth of Jesus in theante-Nicene Christian literature. Indoingthis, specialattention ispaidtothepatristicfield,whichhasnothithertobeen thoroughly investigated with such a purpose in view. What ishere offered on the NewTestament material is introductory to themain body of the essay, and, as a prerequisite to tracing the useandeffects oftheNewTestament stories in thesubsequentChristian litera-ture, aimsto determinewhether thesenarratives in reality representadouble or onlya single attestation of the virgin birth, and also toascertainwhat is their exactmeaning.'The question whether the account of the virgin birth has in theNewTestamenta single or adouble attestation is, broadlyspeaking,the question of thecommonorigin orindependence of the infancysections of MatthewandLuke. Resch''holdsthatMatthewand Lukeused a pre-canonical child history, which had been translated fromHebrewinto Greek,andthat,if wehadthat history, itwould bea har-monyof the infancy stories of the first andthird gospels. Conrady'thinks that the protevangelium of James is that pre-canonical sourcewhich both Matthew and Luke used,and that, moreover, Luke hadaccess to Matthew's account. Whether the infancy stories aremoreindependentthan these theorieswould implycan beascertained onlybyacomparativeexamination ofthe material.The genealogies, Matt. 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, may be firstconsidered in suchacomparison. Thegenerations prior to Abrahamare peculiarto Luke,and,whilefavoringtheindependenceof thetwotables,areprobably moresignificantasindicatingLuke'sunderstandingof the virgin birth, as will be pointed out later. BetweenAbrahamandDavid thetwotables,havingaccesstotheOldTestamentmaterial,'The pseudonymous and fictitious materialwhich falls within the ante-Niceneperiodand is usuallyincluded underthe title of theNewTestament apocryphawillbe brieflytreated inan appendix,forthe purpose of supplementingthe studyof theante-NiceneFathers.*KindheihevangeliumnachLucasund Matthaeus."^Die Quellederkanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu.9J.910HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIESare in harmony, but between David and Joseph, where onewouldexpectthemtobeprecisein provingthe Davidicdescent of Jesus,theyare, with the possible exception of two names,* wholly at variance.Thusthegenealogical tables as awholemake against the theoryof acommonsource.^ Theexplanation that Luke gives thegenealogyofMaryis notsubstantiated oradequate.Continuingthis comparison, the question of thecommon depend-ence or the interdependence of the infancy sections can be betterappreciated, perhaps, by a tabulation showing the material in eitheraccount.MATTHEW. LUKE.Birth of John the Baptistpromised, i : 5-25Annunciationto Mary, i : 20-38Annunciationto Joseph, i : 18-25Mary'svisit to Elizabeth, i :39-56BirthofJohnthe Baptist, i :57-80Birth ofJesus, 2:1-7Theangels andtheshepherds,2 : 8-20Thecircumcision, 2:21Presentation in thetemple, 2: 22-39The magi,2:1-12Flight intoEgyptand returnto Nazareth, 2 : 13-23Childhoodat Nazareth, 2 : 23Childhoodat Nazareth, 2 :39,40Incidentin thetemple, 2 : 41-50Eighteenyearsat Nazareth, 2 :51, 52It will beseen fromthe foregoingthat Matthewand Luke are inagreement as to the birth-place, the parents' names, a residence inNazareth after the birth, the Davidic descent, and the virgin birth.But all of these facts, exceptthe last, are derivable from thegospelsproper, or, asin thecase of the Bethlehem birth, fromsuch informa-tion asmayeasilybesupposed to have beencommonChristian tradi-*Shealtiel andJerubbabel,Matt. 1:12;Luke3: 27.sInconnectionwith Matt, i : 16 it shouldbebroughtto notice that,although alltheGreekuncialsandnearly all theminusculeshave"Josephthe husband of Mary,ofwhomwasbornJesus,whois called Christ,"theCuretonian Syriac,the Armenian,two Greek minuscules(346and556),and most of the old Latin versions have,"Joseph towhomthe virginMarywas betrothed begat Jesuswhois called Christ,"whilethe Sinaitic Syriachas," And Joseph towhomthevirgin Marywas betrothedbegat Jesus Christ." The reading of theMS. recentlydiscovered at OxyrhynchusagreeswiththeGreekuncials.10THE VIRGIN BIRTH11tion(John 7: 42).* Onthe otherhand,MatthewrepresentsBethlehemas thehomeofJosephandMaryprior to their flight into Egypt,whileLukeknowsofnohomefor the sacred familyexcept that of Nazareth,and is silent concerningtheannunciationto Joseph,thestar,the magi,the slaughter of the innocents,and the flight into Egypt. Matthewomitscompletely the story of John theBaptist,thuscausing his gospelproper to begin with needless abruptness,were he in possession ofthe source used byLuke. Moreover, Matthew says nothing of theannunciationto Mary, or of Mary's visit to Elizabeth; nothingof theangels and the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation inthe temple,the incident in the temple at theageof twelve,and theyouthspent in Nazareth.Now,if wetakeasectionfromthegospelwhereMatthewandLukeare evidentlydependentupon theircommonsource, Mark,wecan thebetter determinewhether a similar dependenceexists here. Takingthe record of thesecond northern journeyfor retirement,beginningwith Matt. 16:13andLuke9:18,theorderofevents is as follows:1. Peter'sconfession...2. Deathandresurrectionforetold3.Transfiguration . . . .4.Thedemoniacboy - - - -5.Deathandresurrectionagainforetold6. Theshekel in the fish'smouth - -24-27(Matthaean addition tocommonsource)7.Discourseonhumilityandforgiveness - chap. 18 46-50Comparing thesubstantial nature of this harmonyof eventswiththecomparativerelation ofevents in the infancysections,the evidenceis against acommonsource in the latter case.Havingmadethis survey, it maybewell totakeupthetwoaccountsofthevirgin birth in orderto ascertainwhetherthere is evidenceof acommon source in this particular part of the infancy sections. ThisinvolvesacomparisonofMatt, i : 18-25withLuke i : 26-38and2 :6,7 ;and, at thesametime, ofbothwith the parallel material of the gospelof James, in orderto ascertain thevalue of the theorywhich makes itthecommonsourceofthe canonical stories.* Thispassage also indicatesthat theBethlehembirthwasnotknownin the life-timeof Jesus,butthat it wasacommonlyacceptedfact in the apostolic age. Ontheother hand,one mustadmit the possibility that the information presented in John7 : 42maybederivedfromthe infancystory itself.7Vs. 21 expungedas aninterpolation.11MATTHEW.12HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIESMatthewandLukeare in harmonyin their statement of thechieffact, that Mary was Joseph's betrothed, and prior to any sexualintercourse on their part conceived a son bythe Spirit of God,andthat suchaconceptionwas predictive of the child's future greatness.Butin Luketheangelwhoannounces this wonderful fact and namesthe unborn child is sent to Maryin Nazareth, while in Matthewtheangelcomes in a dream to Joseph, presumably in Bethlehem. Theparticular task of theonetobeborn is represented in Lukeas rulingonthethrone of David forever, and in Matthewas saving his peoplefrom their sins. In Luke his manner of birth warrants the epithet"God'sSon,"andin Matthew,"Immanuel."Thelimits ofthe presentarticle donotpermit the insertion of theGreektext of these three accounts in such awayas to makeclear allcorresponding material, but from such an examination we are con-vinced that Conrady'sthesis isuntenable. Thefollowingextract fromthegospel of James maybecomparedwith theLucan and Matthseanaccounts,theverbal correspondenceto Lukebeingroughlydesignatedby italics, that to Matthew by capitals, and that to both byspacedtype:II. And she took the pitcher andwent out to fill it with water. Andbeholdavoicesaying: Hail,thouwhohastreceived grace ; theLordis withthee; blessed artthouamong women(Luke i :42).Andshe looked aroundontheright handandonthe left to seewhence this voice came. And shewentawaytremblingto herhouse,andputdownthepitcher;andtakingthepurpleshe sat downonherseat and drewit out. Andbehold,anangel oftheLordstoodbeforeher, saying : Fear not,Mary, forthouhastfoundfavorbeforetheLordof all, and thoushall conceive according to his word. Andshehearingreasonedwith herself, saying : Shall I conceivebythe Lord, thelivingGod? and shall I bring forth as every woman brings forth ? (LukeI :34).And theaftgelof theLordsaid: Notso,Mary: for the powerof theLordshall overshadowthee: whereforealsothatholythingthatshallbebornoit\it& shallbecalledthesonofthe M.05i High. Andthou shalt callhis name Jesus, FOR HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROMTHEIRSINS, And Marysaid: Beholdthe servatitoftheLordbefore hisface;let itbeuntomeaccordingtothyword.13. Andshewasin her sixthmonth;and behold,JOSEPH came backfromhis building,andenteringinto hishousehe DISCOVEREDthatshe wasbig WITHCHILD. And he smote his face and threwhimself upon thegroundupon the sackcloth, andwept bitterly, saying: Withwhat face shallI look upon the Lord myGod,and what prayer shall I make about thismaiden? because I received heravirgin out of thetempleof the Lord, andI have not watched over her. Whois it that has hunted me(her)down?12THE VIRGIN BIRTH 13Whohasdonethis evil thing inmyhouseand hasdefiled thevirgin ? Hasnotthehistoryof Adambeenrepeated inme? Forjust asAdamwas in thehourof his singing praise,and theserpent cameand found Eve alone andcompletelydeceivedher, so it hashappened tomealso. And Josephstoodupfrom the sackclothand called Mary and said unto her: Oh,thou whohastbeencared forbyGod,whyhast thoudonethisand forgotten theLordthy God? Whyhast thou brought lowthysoul, thouwhowast brought upin theholyof holiesandthat didst receivefoodfromthe handof anangel?And she wept bitterly, saying: I am innocent,and have known no man.AndJosephsaid to her: Whence then is thatwhich is in thy womb? Andshesaid : AstheLordmyGodliveth, I donotknowwhence it is to me.14. AndJosephwasgreatlyafraid,andretiredfromher,and consideredwhatheshould do in regard to her. AndJosephsaid: If I concealhersin,I findmyselffightingagainst thelawoftheLord; andif I exposeher tothesonsof Israel, I amafraidlest thatwhich is in her befroman angel,and Ishall befoundgiving up innocent bloodto thedoomof death. What thenshall I dowith her? I will put her awayfrommesecretly. (Matt, i : 19.)Andnightcameuponhim; and BEHOLD,ANANGELOFTHELORDAPPEARSTO HIM IN ADREAM,SAYING: BE NOTAFRAID forthis maiden, FOR THATWHICH IS IN HER IS OF THE HOLYSPIRIT,ANDSHESHALLBRINGFORTHASON,and thou shaltcall his name Jesus,FORHESHALLSAVEHIS PEOPLEFROMTHEIRSINS. ANDJOSEPHAROSEFROMSLEEPandglorified theGodof Israelwhohadgivenhimthis grace ;andhekeptherig. And I said : I am seekingaHebrew midwife. And she answeredandsaiduntome: ArtthouofIsrael ? And I said untoher: Yes. Andshesaid : Andwho is it that is bringing forth in the cave?*AndI said : Awomanbetrothed to me. Andshesaid tome: Is she notthywife ? AndIsaid to her: It is Marywho was reared in the temple of the Lord,and Iobtained herbylot asmywife. And yet she is not mywife,but has con-ceived OFTHEHOLYSPIRIT. (Matt, i : 18, 25.)Andthemidwife saidtohim: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And themidwifewentawaywithhim. Andtheystood in the placeof thecave,andbehold, aluminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwifesaid :Mysoulhasbeenmagnified this day,because mine eyes have seen strangethingsbecausesalvation hasbeen brought forth to Israel. (Luke i : 46,68 ff.) Andimmediatelythe clouddisappearedoutof thecaveandagreatlight shone in the cave so that the eyes could not bear it. Andin alittlethat lightgraduallydecreased until the infantappeared andwent and tookthebreastfrom his motherMary.' And the midwife cried out and said :^Thegospel ofJamesrepresents this cave asbeingwithinthree miles of Bethle-hem.9ContrastLuke2 :6, 7.1314 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIESThis is a greatdaytomebecause I haveseen this strangesight. And themidwife went forth out of the cave and Salomemet her. And she saidtoher: Salome, Salome, I havea strange sight to relate to thee: A virginhas brought forth a thing which her nature admits not of. Then saidSalome : Asthe LordmyGodliveth, unless I thrust inmyfinger andsearchthe parts, I will notbelieve that avirginhasbroughtforth.20. And the midwife wentin and said to Mary: Show thyself, for nosmallcontroversyhasarisenabout thee. And Salomeput in herfingerandcriedoutandsaid : Woeis meformineiniquityand mine unbelief,becauseI havetemptedthelivingGod;and behold myhand is dropping off as ifburnedbyfire.Anyonewhois acquaintedwith thestory-makinghabit,theextrava-gant characteristics of the apocryphal literature as awhole, or evenwith the tendency in New Testament interpolation, cannot holdMatthewand Luketo bedeductionsfrom this gospel of James. Thegospel of James seems rather to be the fanciful working out of thecanonical stories;and,while it is difficult to account for theplacingofthebirth in acave nearBethlehem, thismaybe acreation of fancy,the better to set off themiraculousillumination at the time of birth;ortheinvention mayhave beenfavored bythe Septuagint translationof Isa.33: i6.'Contrastwiththeaboveextractsuchsamplesof verbaldependence"as Matt. 3:7-10 and Luke3:7-9,or Matt. 12:43-45 and LukeII : 24-26;or take the threefold accountofJesus' encounterwiththePharisees," Matt. 21 : 23-27,Luke20 : 1-8,derivedfrom Mark 11:27-33,and judge whether there is sufficient ground in the canonicalstories of the virgin birth for supposingthemtobedependentuponeachotherorupontheprolixvulgarityofthegospelofJames. Indeed,the instances cited, together with such passages as Mark 12:13-27,13:5-9,and parallels, serve to indicate the true nature of verbaldependence,and,taken with the comparison of the narratives as awhole, to warrantthe conclusion thatwhere thevirgin-birth story firstappears it is attestedbytwowitnesseswhichbetrayno certain sign ofdependenceof oneuponthe otheror ofbothuponacommonsource."SeeWestcott,Canonofthe NewTestament, p. 102,note7." SeeHucK,SynopsederdreierstenEvangelien,p. 17,whereoutofthe147wordscomposing the two accounts 130 are identical andarranged in thesameorder. Forthesecondexamplesee HucK,p. 54,whereout of the 126wordsof thetwoaccounts104are identical andinthesameorder. AlsoRushbrook,Synopticon,pp. 136, 159."SeeHuCK,pp.118 ff., whereofsome356wordscomposingthe threeaccountsabout200 are identicaland in the same order. See also Rushbrook, Synopticon,p. 81.14THE VIRGIN BIRTH15It is nownecessary, before proceedingto trace the influence of thenarratives of the virgin birth on thesubsequent Christian literature, toget as clear an idea as possible of the meaning of the story in theearliest formspreserved to us. Matthew'sthoughtseemstobethatthewonder-working Spirit of God, exclusive of human agency, causedMaryto conceive;that,byreason of this fact,shewasinnocentofanywrongsuch as that the suspicion of whichhad troubledJoseph; andthat at thesametimesuch abirth,being in accord with the Immanuelprophecy,marked the child to be born as the Messiah, the Savior ofhis people, as the one spoken of in Isa., chaps.7and8, to be thedeliverer of his nation in the impendingwar. Thus theapplicationofthepropheticandsymbolicexpression"Immanuel"wasnot for thepurposeof designating the nature of the child, but rather his work,whichwas tobe national and messianic. The result of the nation'ssins wasalways thewithdrawal of God; but the Messiahwould leadthem in righteousnessand savethem from that abandoning byGodwhichwas at the sametime the result of their sins and the cause oftheirimpotenceand subjection. The term"Immanuel,"then, is thepropheticandsymbolicdesignation for Savior; but that it sooncameto beused as designating the divine nature of Christwill appearfromthe study of the patristic literature.Themeaningof Luke'saccountof the virgin birth is notso clear,perhaps, but, like Matthew's, is destitute ofanyattemptto explain thedivine nature of Jesus upon the basis that God,and not a humanfather,washis begetter. In replyto Mary'squestion(i :34),theangelsays :"HolySpirit shall comeupontheeand powerof Highestshallovershadowthee,thereforealso thebegottenthingshall becalled holy,Son of God." In otherwords, thepureSpirit ofGodwill causeMaryto conceivemiraculously, andthus, in contrast to \\lq. pollutedoffspringof anyhuman begetter,who would bea sinful descendantof Adam,the child shall he pureas the begetting Spirit is pure. This is oneelementin theangel's annunciationthe purity of the child throughthe action of the HolySpirit and the breaking of the line of sinfulAdam'sdescent. Theother is that the creativepowerofGodis toactdirectly in this creation, as it did in that ofAdam,the first man,whobecauseof his direct creation byGod is called God'sson {c/.3:38,"theson of Adam,theson of God"). In like mannershall this one,whoseholinessis securedbythebreakingof the sinfulAdamicdescent,betermedSonofGodbecause directly createdbydivinepower.This is undoubtedlythe dasisforthe useoftheterm"SonofGod"1516HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIESin this passage; buthas the term no larger contentthan that whichappliesequallytoAdam? Therearetwootherpossibilities : first,that itis equivalentto"Messiah;" and,second,thatit designates moral like-nessto God. In supportof the formercontention it canbepointedoutthat this passage in Lukeis clearly messianic, as is seen in vss.32and33,andalso in the psalms interspersed throughoutthe narrative.Moreover,theprobableuse of theterm"Son of God"as amessianictitle canbeappealed to in Matt. 16 : 16 (but not in Mark3:11; 5:7;15 :39;nor in Luke3:22; 4:3, 9 ; 9:35).For the viewthat itdesignates moral likeness to God it can beshownthat the thought isthusmadeparallel to the preceding thought of purityand is broughtinto harmonywith the Jewish conception of the original purityofAdam,avoidingatthesametimeauseof theterm" SonofGod"whichcannotwithcertainty beattributed to anypart of theNewTestamentexceptits latest elements.Adoptinganyoneof these three possible interpretations, however,there is in the passagenoexplanation of the divine nature ofJesusonthebasis ofdivineparentage,but atmostonly astatementandpartialexplanation ofhis purity (in Matthewmorespecifically anexonerationof the purity of Mary'sconception,and in Lukeof the purity ofJesusfrom the hereditaryAdamic sin), and a prophecyof his greatness asthe theocraticrepresentative. Bothaccounts have the national mes-sianic coloring,but in neither of them is there representedan incar-nation of a pre-existent being,such as is set forth in the prologueto John's gospel. The natural deductions made from the terms"Immanuel"and "Son of God" by the subsequentChristian litera-ture, and the embarrassingattempts to harmonizethe synoptistswiththe prologue of the fourth gospel, will be pointed out in the nextsection.Passing fromthe infancy sections, wefind nouse of them(unlesspossiblyJohn 7:42)or of thevirgin birth prior to Ignatius, in thesecond decade of thesecond century. The narrative of thevirginbirth, if in existence, made no impression upon the exponents ofChristianityprior to the formationandcrystallization of the preachinggospel, or, indeed, within the period in which the NewTestamentbooksmost of them, at leastarose. There is no trace of it inPeter's preaching,as preserved to us;and Paul,though itwouldseemthat hecould havemadeoccasional good use of the teaching," pre-servesasignificant silence;Matthew'sgospel, from3: i on,depending'3.g.,I Cor.15:45ff.; 2 Cor. 5:21 ; Rom. 5:12 f.; 8:3;Phil. 2:6 ff.;