START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE VIRGIN BIRTH*** The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth by Vincent Taylor, B.D. (Lond.) Clarendon Press Oxford 1920 CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations Chapter I. The Virgin Birth And The New Testament Outside The First And Third Gospels I. St. Paul II. Q III. St. Markâs Gospel IV. Acts V. The Epistle to the Hebrews VI. The Fourth Gospel VII. The Pastoral and the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse VIII. Summary Chapter II. The Virgin Birth And The Third Gospel I. Narratives and Passages Said to be Inconsistent With the View (a) Lk. iii. 22, according to the âWestern Textâ (b) The Lukan Genealogy and Lk. iii. 23 (c) The Narratives of Lk. ii (d) The References to Joseph and Mary in Lk. ii (e) Lk. ii. 5 II. The Passage Lk. i. 34 f (a) The Interpretation of Lk. i. 34 f (b) The Purport of the Angelic Announcement in Lk. i. 30â3 (c) Reasons for regarding Lk. i. 34 f. as a Later Insertion III. Summary and Conclusion Chapter III. St. Luke and the Virgin Birth I. Lk. i. 34 f. and the Textual Question II. Linguistic and Stylistic Examination of Lk. i. 34 f III. Summary and Conclusion Chapter IV. The Place Of The Virgin Birth In The Third Gospel I. A Suggested Theory II. Literary Conditions Under Which the Gospels Were Written III. The Objections to Which the Above Theory is Exposed IV. Certain Consequences Chapter V. The Virgin Birth And The First Gospel I. The Characteristics of the Genealogy II. The Genuineness of Mt. i, ii III. The Unity of Mt. i, ii 1. The Genealogy 2. The Passage Mt. i. 18â25 IV. Implications, Sources, and Results Appendix To Chapter V. The Textual Problem of Mt. i. 16 Chapter VI. The Historical Question: Its Limits And Bearings I. The Virgin Birth in the First and Third Gospels II. The Date of the Gospels in Relation to the Virgin Birth Tradition III. The Relation of the Question of the Historical Value of the Gospels to the Problem IV. The Question of Alternative Theories V. Doctrinal Considerations Index Footnotes [Cover Art] PREFACE This book is intended to be a literary and critical examination of the historical evidence for the Virgin Birth. It is not the writerâs desire to discuss the evidence from the point of view of an advocate; with a view, that is to say, of obtaining an uncompromising verdict. His aim is rather to trace and to define the earliest Christian tradition upon the subject, and to show the limits and the bearings of the historical question. A limited aim such as this ought not to require much justification. If, however, justification is needed, it is not far to seek. Much of the literature which treats of the Virgin Birth is controversial in point of origin if not in form, and, in the nature of the case, it could not have been otherwise. Controversial literature has, of course, a necessary place in the search for truth. Nevertheless, it is exposed to serious perils, especially when such a subject as that of the Virgin Birth is discussed. It is not always easy, for example, to avoid an arbitrary treatment of the New Testament, and to prevent philosophic or dogmatic presuppositions from determining purely critical questions. Few will deny that the discussion of the Virgin Birth has suffered in these directions, and that, as a consequence, the problem remains in considerable confusion. Not only has the evidence been variously estimated, but there are the widest differences of opinion as to what the evidence really is. Neither side has succeeded in convincing the other, and very many students of the question preserve an attitude of suspended judgement. The point which it is important to make is that, if any escape is to be made from the present impasse, the problem must be approached in another way. Doctrinal presuppositions must be resolutely laid aside; there must be a common desire to ascertain the true facts of the evidence, whatever the results may be. Not that dogmatic considerations have no place in the problem! It is part of the conclusion reached in this book that in the end dogmatic considerations do determine the issue. But it must be âin the endâ; not at the beginning, nor in the middle. It may be that the writer has not himself escaped the perils to which he has referred. He can only say that no pains have been spared to achieve this purpose. It is true that the problem has been faced with a conviction that, while truly man, Jesus was much more than man as we know him to be. But this is not a presupposition which colours the evidence. On the contrary, it is the one point of view which recognizes that there is a problem to be solved. If our Lord was a prophet, and no more, there is no real difficulty; no one would defend the Virgin Birth upon such terms. The question becomes a living issue only when Jesus is believed to be more than man. In Chapter I the New Testament evidence outside the First and Third Gospels is discussed. On the question of the attitude of the Fourth Evangelist to the Virgin Birthâa question as difficult as it is interestingâthe writer has been glad to accept and to work out a striking suggestion made by Dr. E. F. Scott (_The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology_). One reason for allotting three chapters to the Third Gospel is the complexity of the Lukan problem. The theory which is outlined in Chapter IV is one which has not yet received sufficient consideration. The alternative, in the opinion of the writer, is to regard the Miraculous Conception as a ânecessary stone in the structureâ of Lk. i, ii. It is the difficulties mentioned in Chapter II which have prevented him from taking this view. The writer is convinced that St. Luke believed and taught the Virgin Birth. Nevertheless, the critical difficulties are such that it has not been found possible to accept this view in the form in which it is generally held. It is well to remember that he who states a theory in connexion with such problems contributes to their solution, whether his theory stands the test of time or not. Even in the case of failure the possibilities are reduced and a byâpath is revealed as such. As an illustration of this, reference may be made to the view which ascribes the Virgin Birth tradition in Lk. i, ii to an unknown and later writer. One chapter (Chapter V) has been assigned to the First Gospel. The exposition there given is one which is widely held in this country, but an attempt has been made to emphasize the unique character of the Evangelistâs standpoint, which, it is believed, is the key to the textual problem of Mt. i. 16. The textual problem is treated in an Appendix to the chapter. It may seem strange that in Chapter VI no decided opinion is expressed for or against the Virgin Birth. The justification for this position is the fact that, in the end, the question becomes one of Theology, and that to attack the theological problem would be to go beyond the limited aim which the present work has in view. One result of the investigation is that the documentary evidence for the Virgin Birth is found to be earlier than ânegativeâ criticism has allowed. But to accept this conclusion is only to be brought face to face with the question which the modern New Testament student cannot escape. âWhence come the sources upon which the Evangelists drew?â At first sight the problem seems hopeless. To recover and to describe with objectivity of statement the several sources which the Evangelists employed is a task beset with difficulties: to penetrate still further might well seem impossible. If, however, the problem is faced bravely, with an open mind and an eagerness to learn, it may be that as time passes there will be cause to rejoice over real progress made. The journey is not the plunge into the dark which it might be thought to be. If, indeed, it will bring men nearer to the Jesus of history, it is a quest which cannot be refused, however great the difficulties may be. In a subject such as this, certain things have necessarily to be taken for granted. The author of the First Gospel is regarded as unknown; accordingly, he is spoken of as the First Evangelist or as St. âMatthewâ. The writer of the Fourth Gospel is also referred to as the Fourth Evangelist, the question of authorship being left open. St. Mark and St. Luke, the companions of St. Paul, are assumed to be the authors of the Second and Third Gospels respectively; St. Luke is also believed to be the author of the Acts. The reader who does not accept these views may mentally substitute such phrases as the Second and Third Evangelists wherever St. Mark and St. Luke are mentioned. Such abbreviations as Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn. are always meant to refer to the Gospels, not to their authors. It only remains for the writer to express his deep sense of gratitude to those to whose knowledge and help he is debtor. How much he owes to earlier workers in the field will be sufficiently evident. It has proved by no means an easy task to weigh and to differentiate between opposing views, and the writer is not unmindful of his temerity, in certain places, in dissenting from opinions supported by justly honoured names. He desires particularly to speak of the generous encouragement he received in his task from the late Dr. Sanday. Dr. Sanday had made a provisional promise to write a brief introduction to the present work. His lamented death has prevented the carrying out of this promise, and for the lack of such an introduction the book is so much the poorer. The writer further wishes to express his gratitude to his former tutor, the Rev. Prof. A. S. Geden, M.A., D.D., and to the Rev. J. Walthew Simister, for their kindness in reading the typescript, and in suggesting improvements, and also to the Rev. Prof. F. Bertram Clogg, M.A., for his valued assistance in the reading of the proofâsheets. Vincent Taylor. BATH, _September, 1920_. ABBREVIATIONS DCG. Hastingsâs _Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels_ (1906â8). EB. _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ (1899â1903). Evan. DaâMeph. F. C. Burkittâs _Evangelion DaâMepharreshe_ (1904). GHD. V. H. Stantonâs _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, Parts I and II (1903â9). GHT. F. C. Burkittâs _The Gospel History and its Transmission_ (1906). Gr. ii. J. H. Moultonâs _Grammar of New Testament Greek_, Vol. II (1919). HDB. Hastingsâs _Dictionary of the Bible_ (1898â1904). HJ. _The Hibbert Journal._ HS. _Horae Synopticae_, Sir John C. Hawkins (2nd ed., 1909). ICC. _The International Critical Commentary._ INT. JÃ¼licherâs _Introduction to the New Testament_, Eng. Tr. (1904); J. Moffattâs _An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament_ (3rd ed., 1918). Proleg. Vol. I of J. H. Moultonâs _Grammar of New Testament Greek_ (3rd ed., 1908). SH. Sanday and Headlamâs Commentary on _The Epistle to the Romans_ (ICC., 1895). ThâGr. ThayerâGrimmâs _GreekâEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament_ (1905). VGT. Moulton and Milliganâs _The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament_, Parts I to III (1914â18). CHAPTER I. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE NEW TESTAMENT OUTSIDE THE FIRST AND THIRD GOSPELS Outside the First and Third Gospels there is no direct reference to the Virgin Birth in the New Testament. There are passages which have been said to imply a knowledge of the doctrine, but, for particularity of statement, none of them can be compared with Mt. i. 18â25 and Lk. i. 34 f. This fact must be our justification in the present chapter for treating together the New Testament Books outside these two Gospels. The inquiry is mainly a study in silence; it is for that reason both difficult and complicated. Dr. Sanday has expressed considerable distrust in the argument from silence (cf. _The Criticism, of the Fourth Gospel_, pp. 33â41). He quotes a striking passage from Dr. Drummondâs _Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (p. 157 f.), in which reference is made to Theophilus of Antioch, who, in a defence of Christianity, relates nothing about Christ Himself, and maintains a remarkable silence concerning the Gospels. The quotation ends with the words: âWe may learn from these curious facts that it is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things, simply because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing: or even because he does not mention them when his subject would seem naturally to lead him to do so.â Dr. Sanday has two main objections to the way in which the argument from silence is often handled. â(1) The critic does not ask himself _what_ is silentâwhat extent of material.... And (2) experience shows that the argument is often most fallaciousâ (op. cit., p. 35). Nothing can be lost in considering this opinion at the outset of our inquiry. In the connexion in which it is urged, it has very great justification. Dr. Sanday is referring to the paucity of references to the Gospels in the second century previous to 170 A.D. The real question is, he says, âWhat is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the whole body of that which once existed, and how far can we trust the inferences drawn from it?â The available literature is confessedly small. âIf we take the whole extant Christian literature between the years 130 and 170 A.D., it would not fill more than a thin octavo volume, and by far the greater part of that is taken up with external controversyâ (ib., p. 39). The caution suggested by these words is distinctly healthy. It may be questioned, however, whether Dr. Sandayâs point of view would apply quite so well as regards the alleged silence of so many New Testament Books with reference to the Virgin Birth. There are good reasons for this opinion. (1) The existing New Testament Writings represent the best Christian literature of the period which they cover. No one would compare them in this respect with the extant works of the first seven decades of the second century. (2) While not exhaustive in their treatment, the Gospels are faithful to the outstanding events in the life of Jesus. (3) The Epistles are rich in doctrinal teaching. Occasional in point of origin, they impinge again and again upon the great doctrines of the Christian Faith. The Incarnation and the Person of Christ especially are central. If, then, very many New Testament Writings are found to be silent as regards the Virgin Birth, the silence is not one which can be ignored. It may in part be explained, but it must not be explained away. If it exists, it is not a silence which can be regarded with equanimity; it must be significant, and no pains can be spared in trying to understand that significance. We believe, then, that the _argumentum ex silentio_ has a valid place in our inquiry. All the more, therefore, must we consider what the possibilities of silence are. Obviously, silence may be consistent with knowledge of a fact or lack of knowledge. But that is not all. If it implies knowledge, it may mean tacit acceptance of the fact, tacit rejection, or comparative indifference. Lack of knowledge, on the other hand, may be explained by special circumstances, or by the view that the alleged fact is untrue. In treating the New Testament Books outside the First and Third Gospels, our first task must be to determine whether their silence is complete. Where this is the case, we have to try, so far as we can, to interpret the silence. Each stage is, however, a further step into the unknown, and must therefore be taken with increasing care and caution. I. St. Paul We begin with ST. PAUL, the earliest New Testament writer, and the author of ten, if not thirteen, Epistles. Several passages have been quoted from his writings, in support of the view that the Virgin Birth tradition was known to him. Among these are Gal. iv. 4, Rom. i. 3, and passages in which St. Paul speaks of Christ as the Second Adam, notably Rom. v. 12â15 and 1 Cor. xv. 47. Gal. iv. 4 f. reads as follows: _But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons_. It is most improbable that there is here any reference to the Virgin Birth, or even any indication that the doctrine is known to St. Paul. The phrase â_born of a woman_â is one that is used naturally of an ordinary human birth (cf. Job xiv. 1; and Mt. xi. 11 (Lk. vii. 28) âamong them that are born of womenâ). The determining consideration is, however, the argument of Gal. iv. 1â7. St. Paul is there working out the figure of the heir who is yet a minor (verses 1, 2). While we were children, he argues, we were in bondage (verse 3). But, when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son to redeem men from the law. To accomplish this purpose, the Son must needs make Himself one with those He came to deliver. Like them He must be âborn under the lawâ; like them He must be âborn of a womanâ. The one clause asserts His position as a child of the Jewish race; the other declares the reality of His humanity. There is not the slightest suggestion of a miraculous birth.(1) Indeed, the more natural impression made by the words is that of a birth common to all the sons of men. If St. Paul had wished to avoid giving that impression, he could have done so with ease, since he was perfectly familiar with the distinction between Î³Ï Î½á½µ (woman) and ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½Î¿Ï (virgin) (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 34). Rom. i. 3 f. reads: â... _his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead_.â Here the thought of the Virgin Birth is said to lie implicit in the opening words of the passage (cf. Orr, _The Virgin Birth of Christ_, pp. 119 ff.; also Knowling, _Testimony of St. Paul to Christ_, p. 313; and Sweet, _The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ_, p. 237 n.). Again, the exegesis cannot be allowed. St. Paulâs words state an antithesis; they speak of the Son from two standpoints, that of the body and that of the spirit (SH., Rom., p. 7). âAccording to the fleshâ, He was âborn (Î³ÎµÎ½Î¿Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Î½) of the seed of Davidâ, but, âaccording to the spirit of holinessâ, He was designated (á½ÏÎ¹ÏÎ¸á½³Î½ÏÎ¿Ï) Son of God âby the resurrection of the deadâ. It is very difficult to think that the antithesis would have been stated in this way, if the Apostle had been thinking of the Virgin Birth. âBorn of the seed of Davidâ contains no reference to the doctrine. The Divine Sonship, indeed, is not mentioned until the following clause, and there it is said to be predicated, not in the Virgin Birth, but in the Resurrection. Without pressing the view that âaccording to the flesh born of the seed of Davidâ implies an ordinary human birth, we may certainly claim that the Miraculous Conception is a thought entirely foreign to the passage. A further implication of the doctrine has been found in St. Paulâs thought of _the Second Adam_ (Rom. v. 12â21, 1 Cor. xv. 44â9). In _Dissertations_ (new ed., p. 11), Dr. Gore writes: âWhat we can maintain, with great boldness, is that St. Paulâs conception of the âSecond Adamâ postulates His miraculous birthâ (cf. Box, _The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 150). In a question of this kind, we must distinguish between what the doctrine of the âSecond Adamâ may or may not âpostulateâ in our own minds, and what St. Paulâs thoughts may have been. Certainly he gives us no reason to suppose that the Virgin Birth was in the background of his mind when he wrote Rom. v. 12â21.(2) There would be as much justification, if not more, for the contrary suggestion. So far as 1 Cor. xv. 44â9 is concernedâ(verse 47 reads: â_The second man is of heaven_â)âthe reference is to the Resurrection, not the Incarnation.(3) None of these passages is sufficient to show that St. Paul was acquainted with the Virgin Birth tradition, nor can any others be cited. This fact is the more remarkable when we call to mind the great Pauline passages which bear upon the Incarnation. With the closest scrutiny, not one of them gives us reason to think that the Apostle knew of the Virgin Birth. This is true of the great Christological passage of Phil. ii. 5â11, and also of the wellâknown words of 2 Cor. viii. 9. Most significant in this connexion are Phil. ii. 7 (â_Being made in the likeness of man_â) and Rom. viii. 3 (which speaks of the Son as sent â_in the likeness of sinful flesh_â). These passages are important because they clearly imply a difference between the humanity of Christ and ordinary humanity. This differenceâindicated by the word âlikenessâ (á½Î¼Î¿á½·ÏÎ¼Î±)âis certainly not a difference in mode of origin. Its character is manifest in Rom. viii. 3; it lies in the sinlessness and moral perfection of Jesus.(4) There is no indication that the Apostle is thinking of anything further, and the same is true of Phil. ii. 7. Viewing the passages as a whole, we must conclude that, not only is St. Paul completely silent as to the Virgin Birth, but that he is silent just where his silence is most difficult to understand, if he knew of the tradition. Can we go further, and say that St. Paul did not know of the doctrine? Short of a hard and fast conclusion, we are at liberty to state what would seem to be the probabilities of the case; and as regards these we can have little hesitation. It is reasonable to urge that St. Paul would have phrased his references to the Incarnation somewhat differently, if he had known of the Virgin Birth, and that, on the whole, his words are best explained by presuming his ignorance of the tradition. W. C. Allen has suggested that St. Paulâs silence may have been due to reasons of prudence. He may have thought that the tradition would prove âa great stumblingâblock to the progress of Christianity, and a continual source of wounded feeling for the reverence of Christians for the Person of their Masterâ (ICC., St. Mt., p. 20). It is possible that this argument might go some way to explain the absence of direct allusions to the Virgin Birth in St. Paulâs writings. It might cover his failure to employ the tradition as âan argument for Christianity in his preaching to the Gentilesâ. But, assuredly, the theory is stretched to breakingâpoint, if it is made to cover the absence of the slightest indication that the doctrine was present to St. Paulâs mind. For the most part, St. Paulâs Epistles were not public manifestoes, but private letters, written to Christian communities. Moreover, they are intensely selfârevealing. They permit us to appreciate how much St. Paul knew of the words and deeds of Jesus, and of the events of His earthly life. That they reveal no knowledge of the Virgin Birth is hardly to be explained by a policy of silence. Unless, on other grounds, it can be shown that the tradition was known in Apostolic circles during St. Paulâs lifetime, his silence must be interpreted to mean lack of knowledge concerning it. This conclusion, if established, would not, of course, be fatal to the historical value of the Virgin Birth tradition. Special reasons might be forthcoming to account for the later spread of the belief. The importance of St. Paulâs silence is that it furnishes help in deciding when the belief became current. A further inference, of considerable theological importance, is that the Apostle could build up a mature and consistent Christology, without any reference to, and apparently, thought of the Miraculous Conception. II. Q Q (Quelle, âsourceâ) is the symbol used to denote the main documentary source, upon which the First and Third Evangelists drew, in addition to St. Markâs Gospel. As regards its character, there is difference of opinion. Some scholars identify it with the Matthaean Logia of which Papias speaks; others regard the latter as an independent collection of Messianic proofâtexts. By some it is thought to have been a Gospel; by others it is looked upon as a collection of the Sayings of Jesus, with a certain element of narrative. Wellhausen dates it later than Mk., but most scholars think that it is earlier, and date it from the sixties and in some cases from the fifties.(5) As regards the Virgin Birth, it is almost certain that Q did not contain the tradition. Harnack thinks that Qâs narrative of the Baptism, with its use of Ps. ii. 7, âexcludes all ideas of preâexistence and miraculous birthâ (_Sayings of Jesus_, p. 235), and J. M. Thompson, who quotes this opinion, finds in the Baptistâs question, âArt thou he that cometh?â,(6) a passage which it is âhard to reconcile ... with Lk.âs story of the Birth, as generally interpretedâ (_Miracles_, p. 140). What is more important than either of these arguments, is the fact that neither the First nor the Third Evangelist drew a Virgin Birth tradition from Q. The presumption is that Q was silent as regards the Virgin Birth,(7) but in view of the fact that it probably contained only a small element of narrative, we ought not to say more.(8) III. St. Markâs Gospel In treating ST. MARKâS GOSPEL, our first task is to ask if its silence is complete. This leads at once to a discussion of Mk. vi. 3: â_Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary...?_â Parentage among the Jews was traced on the fatherâs side. The passage may therefore imply that Joseph was already dead. Archdeacon Allen thinks that âson of Maryâ is âmore naturally an allusion to the supernatural circumstances of the birth of Jesusâ (ICC., St. Mt., p. 156).(9) Without going so far as this, Canon Box thinks that there is something âdecidedly remarkable and unusualâ in the phrase, and suggests that it is probably contemptuous (op. cit., p. 139). However we explain the phrase, we ought not to interpret Mk. vi. 3 as implying a knowledge of the Virgin Birth on the part of the people of Nazareth. Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22 directly exclude this view.(10) âWho would allude to the miraculous birth of somebody _as a reason for not believing in him_?â (Thompson, ib., p. 138 n.). But did the Evangelist know of the Virgin Birth? Has a knowledge of the doctrine shaped his phrasing in Mk. vi. 3? The question is complicated by critical considerations. It is suggested by several scholars that the passage, in whole or in part, is a later addition to the Second Gospel.(11) There is much to be said for this view, but, so far as our immediate purpose is concerned, we have no need to discuss it in detail. On either viewâthat of the critical theory just mentioned, or that which attributes the passage to the Evangelistâit is improbable that St. Mark intended to refer to the Virgin Birth, or was influenced by the doctrine. On the interpolationâhypothesis, this is obvious enough, but it is also true if Mk. vi. 3 is original. The suggestions that Joseph was already dead, and that a certain contempt breathes in the words, have great force. We may also note that the passage goes on to refer to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, with no suggestion that the relationship was other than full and complete. But what is most telling of all is the fact that, if Mk. vi. 3 does imply St. Markâs knowledge of the Virgin Birth, both St. âMatthewâ and St. Luke, in their own narratives, have destroyed the reference. This is all the more remarkable if the First Evangelistâs treatment of Mk. vi. 3 is motived by reverence for the Person of Jesus.(12) Finally, can we suppose that St. Mark would have placed his sole reference to the Virgin Birth in the lips of unbelieving Jews who speak with thinly veiled contempt? For these reasons, we find it impossible to discover in Mk. vi. 3 a reference to the Virgin Birth by St. Mark; the Evangelistâs silence is unbroken. Was, then, the tradition unknown to St. Mark? Several passages have been cited in support of the contention that St. Mark had no knowledge of the doctrine. Among these is Mk. iii. 21, 31â5 (cf. Mt. xii. 46â50; Lk. viii. 19â21). The story of Mk. iii. 31â5 is that of the coming of Mary and of the brothers of Jesus, while our Lord is surrounded by a crowd, apparently in a house. When Jesus is informed that they are without seeking Him, He says, âWho is my mother and my brethren?â, and looking round upon the assembled company, He continues, âBehold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and motherâ. The account in Mt. is almost identical, and St. Lukeâs story, while much briefer, is substantially the same. But St. Markâs narrative must be read in the light of Mk. iii. 21 (cf. Gould, ICC., St. Mk., pp. 61, 67)âa passage which is omitted in Mt. and in Lk. There, we are told that the friends of Jesus (Î¿á¼± ÏÎ±Ïá¾½ Î±á½ÏÎ¿á¿¦, probably âHis kinsmenâ) went out to lay hold on Him, in the belief that He was mad. This fact must unquestionably be held to explain the action of the family of Jesus in the incident of Mk. iii. 31â5, and the question arises, Did Mary share in the fears and intentions of the rest?(13) A second passage is Mk. vi. 4, where Jesus declares that a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. The phrase â_among his own kin_â, which both Mt. (xiii. 57) and Lk. (iv. 24) omit, is said to point in the same direction as Mk. iii. 21, 31â5.(14) A third incident adduced is that recorded in Mk. xii. 35â7 (Mt. xxii. 41â6; Lk. xx. 41â4), where Jesus raises the question, how the Messiah can be at once Davidâs Son and Davidâs Lord. âHere againâ, writes Mr. Thompson, âJesus assumes the reality of that human parentage on which His Davidic descent relies.... Thus it appears that on three separate occasions (and there are no others) when Jesus, according to the earliest Gospel, spoke about His birth, He used language naturally compatible with human parentage, and not naturally compatible with anything elseâ (op. cit., p. 138). It will be seen that these passages raise more than the question whether St. Mark knew of the Virgin Birth. They raise the question of the knowledge of Jesus, and indeed the whole question of the historical character of the Miraculous Conception. Clearly, the question of the knowledge of Jesus is a determinative consideration. Few indeed will care to argue for the Virgin Birth tradition, if it can be proved that Jesus knew nothing of it, but believed Himself to be the son of Joseph. Just for this very reason we ought to be scrupulously careful in treating the question. A scientific inquiry will hesitate to draw an inference which makes further research superfluous. And in the present case hesitation is amply justified. We cannot share Mr. Thompsonâs conviction that the words of Jesus acknowledge a natural parentage. (1) Such exegesis must suffer an obvious discount if we find that the _Evangelist_ knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. (2) We cannot be certain that Mary shared the fears and intentions of her children. (3) We do not know the tone in which Jesus spoke, nor can we be sure that He intended to repudiate His family. It may be so; but our opinion on these matters must rest upon what we believe about the Virgin Birth; the evidence is too uncertain to reverse the process. As regards the Evangelist, we may say at once that we could account much more easily for the passages cited, if St. Mark did not know of the doctrine. But it is doubtful if we can say more, so long as we confine ourselves to what St. Mark has actually written. There is little difficulty in the third passage (Mk. xii. 35â7), since both Mt. and Lk. repeat it without material variation. Nor is there the force claimed in the phrase âamong his own kinâ (Mk. vi. 4). In any case Mt. has the words âin his own houseâ, and probably the omission of the former phrase is sufficiently explained by the writerâs tendency to remove redundant expressions in Mk.(15) While in the case of St. Luke, we have to remember that abbreviation is a common feature in his use of Markan material. The real difficulty lies in Mk. iii. 21, 31â5. Something more than a desire for brevity must account for the later Evangelistsâ treatment of this story. Maryâs position and attitude are certainly left very ambiguous in the light of Mk. iii. 21. In the subsequent story St. Mark does not distinguish her from the rest (iii. 31â5). In short, he leaves her open to the charge of having thought her Son distraught and in need of restraint. Ought we to find in this proof that St. Mark had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth? Our hesitation in drawing this conclusion arises out of the âobjectivityâ of St. Markâs writing. Frequently, he does not hesitate to introduce details, to which, for various reasons, St. âMatthewâ and St. Luke took exception. He does not appear to feel the difficulties which the later writers felt. We could not, therefore, attach the same significance to an âinconsistencyâ in Mk., as in Lk., or in Mt. For this reason, we think that, while Mk. iii. 21, 31â5 raises very great difficulties, the passage is not sufficient in itself to prove that St. Mark knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. We may say that the passage points in this direction, but that the inference requires further confirmation. Can this be found? We believe that it can be found in the broad fact of St. Markâs silence. There is much greater significance in St. Markâs silence than is sometimes allowed. Why should he, as an Evangelist, remain silent about the Virgin Birth, if he knew of it, and believed in it? The deep interest which he takes in the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism, and his evident intention to describe this event as a crucial moment in the life of Jesus, set up a strong presumption that, had he known of the Miraculous Conception, he would have introduced it into his narrative. There is no sufficient analogy in his silence about other events in the life of Jesus which later writers record; no omission can be compared with this. Nor will reasons of prudence account for his silence; the Second Gospel is probably too late for this argument to have weight. There is still less force in the suggestion that St. Markâs intention was to describe only the public ministry of Jesus. This solution evades the difficulty, and comes perilously near to saying that St. Mark does not record the Virgin Birth tradition because he does not record it! The Second Gospel describes not only the death and burial of Jesus, but also the visit of the women to the tomb, and probably, in its original ending, some of the PostâResurrection Appearances of Jesus. These facts are enough to show how inadequate it would be to describe the Gospel as an account of the public ministry of Jesus. Having regard to all the facts of the case, the probability is that St. Markâs silence must be explained on the ground that the Evangelist had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition. The further implication is that it formed no part of Apostolic preaching, and was unknown in the circles in which St. Mark moved. These conclusions cannot, of course, be hardened into certainties; they move in the realms of what is probable. Instead of being capable of refuting other considerations which might arise, they themselves require further confirmation. IV. Acts There is no reference to the Virgin Birth, either direct of indirect, in THE ACTS. The presumption is that the doctrine had no place in Apostolic preaching.(16) This view is suggested, not only by the silence of Acts, but also by the character of its Christology. Christ is spoken of as Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by mighty works and wonders and signs (ii. 22), and as one who was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit, and with power, who went about doing good (x. 38). He is the Holy and Righteous One (iii. 14), the Prince of Life (iii. 15), whom God made both Lord and Christ (ii. 36). He is exalted to the right hand of God, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins (v. 31). In all this, the main ground of appeal is to the Resurrection (ii. 24, 32, iii. 15, iv. 10).(17) The reference to the miracles of Jesus (ii. 22, x. 38) is âthe only direct and concrete allusion to the events of His earthly lifeâ.(18) Even where the Davidic descent is mentioned (ii. 25 f., xiii. 23, 33), there is no suggestion other than that of direct physical lineage (âOf this manâs seed hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a Saviour, Jesusâ, xiii. 23). Does the silence of Acts permit us to draw any inferences concerning St. Lukeâs knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition? The question ought to be considered apart altogether from Lk. i, ii. Having regard to the character of the work we do not think that any one conclusion can safely be drawn. The Acts obviously differs from the Gospels, and we cannot, as in the case of the Pauline Epistles, look to it for any sufficient account of the writerâs Christology. It would therefore be unsafe to say that the silence of Acts implies that its author had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth.(19) If the doctrine was not a subject of Apostolic preaching, St. Luke must have known this: his silence may therefore be due to a sound historical sense. If, at the time when he wrote the Acts, his knowledge of the tradition had not long been gained, he would be still less likely to perpetrate what would have been an historical anachronism. On the other hand, we cannot, on the evidence of the Acts alone, show that he did know of the doctrine, and that the possibilities just stated represent the facts. The case is one in which the _argumentum ex silentio_ would be untrustworthy in either direction. It should be emphasized that this view springs entirely out of the character of the book, and in no way affects the use of the argument we have made in the case of Mk. and the Epistles of St. Paul. V. The Epistle to the Hebrews THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS claims attention because of the developed character of its doctrine of the Person of Christ, and because its writer, while not an eyeâwitness (ii. 3), has a vivid knowledge of many events in the earthly life of Jesus. As regards the Virgin Birth, the Epistle is completely silent. In the comparison with Melchizedek (vii. 1â3), no stress can be laid on the fact that the latter is described as âwithout fatherâ; he is also âwithout motherâ and âwithout genealogyâ. The reference to the descent of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (vii. 14) is left quite bare. Even the statements concerning the sinlessness of Christ (iv. 15, vii. 26), and the lofty characterization of the Son as âthe effulgenceâ of Godâs glory and âthe very impress of his substanceâ (i. 3), are made without a word as to the method of the Incarnation. It is difficult to read the Epistle without feeling that the writerâs thought is nowhere influenced by the Virgin Birth. Especially is this the case in such passages as ii. 14 (â_Since then the children are sharers_ (ÎºÎµÎºÎ¿Î¹Î½á½½Î½Î·ÎºÎµÎ½) _in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of_ (Î¼ÎµÏá½³ÏÏÎµÎ½) _the same_â),(20) and ii. 17 (â_It behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren_â). Two considerations forbid, however, the drawing of this conclusion. We have no certain knowledge of the writerâs identity, and we have no other work from his pen with which to compare the Epistle. Its significance is therefore mainly theological; it is an instance of an elaborate doctrinal writing,(21) coming possibly from the seventh decade of the first century, or, more probably, from about the year 80 A.D., in which no reference of any kind is made to the Miraculous Conception. This fact, however it is explained, cannot be ignored, and the later we date the Epistle the more important it becomes. VI. The Fourth Gospel The silence of THE FOURTH GOSPEL regarding the Virgin Birth is now generally admitted;(22) the only question being whether there is not a passing reference to the doctrine in Jn. i. 13.(23) What the writerâs silence means is one of the most difficult problems in the question of the Virgin Birth. The case is different from any we have yet considered. For the doctrine of the Virgin Birth must have been perfectly well known to the Fourth Evangelist. He was well acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels,(24) and there can be little doubt but that he read Lk. i, ii, and Mt. i, ii, in the form in which we have them toâday. That he knew of the tradition is further confirmed by the fact that, so early probably as _c._ 110 A.D., the Epistles of Ignatius contain several references to the doctrine (Eph. xviii. 2; xix. 1; Magn. 11; Tr. ix). The difficulty is further increased by the freedom with which the Evangelist treats the Synoptics. âOn the one hand their contents are very largely assumed; and on the other hand the author does not hesitate, where he thinks it necessary, to correct them.... The author evidently felt himself at liberty to select just those incidents which suited his purposeâ (Sanday, _The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_, p. 71). As the problem is usually treated, the silence of the Fourth Gospel is said to mean either âtacit rejectionâ or âtacit acceptanceâ of the tradition. It may be questioned, however, if these alternatives sufficiently cover the possibilities of the case. âTacit rejectionâ under any circumstances means repudiation of the doctrine. But âtacit acceptanceâ may mean anything from comparative indifference to wholeâ hearted assent. As containing the sharper issue, the case for âtacit rejectionâ may be considered first. Among the arguments in favour of this view, we may note the following:â (1) Certain passages seem to require this position. In i. 45 Jesus is described by Philip as â_the son of Joseph_â, and in vi. 42 the Jews at Capernaum ask the question: â_Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?_â Three times, moreover, controversy turns on the question of the birthplace of Jesus. The Jews look for the birthplace of the Messiah at Bethlehem (âHath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem?â, vii. 42), or they regard it as unknown (âWhen the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he isâ, vii. 27), and the objection is raised that Jesus is of Galilee (i. 45, vii. 41 f., 52). Nowhere does the Evangelist expose the futility of the controversy by a reference to Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. On the contrary (it is said), he himself believed Nazareth to be the birthplace, and must thus have rejected the tradition of Mt. i, ii. (2) Instead of directly repudiating a particular Synoptic narrative, the Fourth Evangelistâs method is silently to set it aside by preferring another tradition or view. Is not his preference for his own Incarnation theory a tacit repudiation of the Virgin Birth tradition? Of these arguments the second can be allowed only if we can show that the Evangelist looked upon the two doctrines, that of the Virgin Birth and that of the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, as contradictory and mutually exclusive. It is not possible, however, to prove this, and to assume it is to beg the question. The stronger argument is the first. It is certainly difficult to show that the language of i. 45 and vi. 42 is that of Philip and the Jews respectively, and that it does not reflect the Evangelistâs point of view. In the Fourth Gospel we are often unable to assume that the writer intends to give the _ipsissima verba_ of those who speak. Are i. 45 and vi. 42 cases in point, or are they exceptions? The question is not an easy one to decide, unless, of course, we have satisfied ourselves that the Fourth Gospel is an entirely unhistorical work. In this case, i. 45 and vi. 42 will represent the Evangelistâs opinions. But, on this view, we have largely forfeited our right to appeal to the Fourth Gospel in treating the question of the Virgin Birth on its historical side. We cannot have it both ways. If the Fourth Gospel shows a pronounced disregard of history, it is not permissible to draw historical arguments from it. It will have (on this view) an important bearing on the historical question from the theological side; but, as a primary historical authority, it must disappear. If, on the other hand, we admitâas we have good reason to admitâthe presence of a considerable element of valuable historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel, it is by no means certain that i. 45 and vi. 42 represent the Evangelistâs views. As in the case of Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22, these passages may indicate contemporary opinions and no more. This view is less easy to hold in the case of i. 45 and vi. 42 than it is in respect of the Synoptic passages; but it is a possibility not lightly to be set aside. And if this is so, we cannot with confidence urge that in i. 45 and vi. 42 the Fourth Evangelist repudiates the Virgin Birth. As regards the passages which connect Jesus with Nazareth and Galilee, it is not necessary to infer that the writer looked upon the town as the birthplace of our Lord. His silence regarding Bethlehem is strange, but it does not compel us to conclude that he is rejecting the tradition bound up with Mt. i, ii, as Mr. Thompson thinks (op. cit., p. 158).(25) The more important fact is that the Evangelist does not name _any town_, not even Nazareth, as the birthplace of the Eternal Word. The view that the Fourth Evangelist tacitly rejects the Virgin Birth fails to justify itself on internal grounds. It is also opposed by considerations of an _external_ character. It is from the locality in which probably the Fourth Gospel arose, that we have the earliest references to the Virgin Birth outside the New Testament. Ignatius, according to Dr. Moffatt (INT., p. 211), seems âto fuse the Johannine idea of the incarnation with the synoptic birthâstoriesâ. If this is so, the fact does not compel us to suppose that the Fourth Evangelist would have done the same; but it raises a strong presumption against the view that he explicitly rejected the tradition. Must we then suppose that the Evangelistâs silence means âtacit acceptanceâ of the doctrine? Obviously, the failure to prove âtacit rejectionâ tells so far in the opposite direction. But, as we have seen, âtacit acceptanceâ is a very elastic term; it calls, therefore, for closer consideration. It can scarcely be shown that the Fourth Evangelist accepts the Virgin Birth in the same way in which it is held in Mt. i, ii. There is no sufficient answer to this assertion in the plea that the story had been already told, and that the Evangelistâs purpose was to supplement the Synoptic narratives. This is a view of the Fourth Gospel which cannot be carried through. It is better to suppose that the Evangelistâs omission of the Virgin Birth tradition has
{'title': 'The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth by Vincent Taylor', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}