,the ,historical ,evidence for the ,virgin ,birth by ,vincent ,taylor1 ,b4,d4 7,lond47 ,clarendon ,press ,oxford #aibj ,,contents ,preface ,abbreviations ,chapter ,i4 ,the ,virgin ,birth ,and ,the ,new ,testament ,outside ,the ,first ,and ,third ,gospels ,i4 ,st4 ,paul ,,ii4 ,q ,,iii4 ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel ,,iv4 ,acts ,v4 ,the ,epistle to the ,hebrews ,,vi4 ,the ,fourth ,gospel ,,vii4 ,the ,pastoral and the ,catholic ,epistles and the ,apocalypse ,,viii4 ,summary ,chapter ,,ii4 ,the ,virgin ,birth ,and ,the ,third ,gospel ,i4 ,narratives and ,passages ,said to be ,inconsistent ,with the ,view 7a7 ,lk4 iii4 #bb1 according to the 8,western ,text0 7b7 ,the ,lukan ,genealogy and ,lk4 iii4 #bc 7c7 ,the ,narratives of ,lk4 ii 7d7 ,the ,references to ,joseph and ,mary in ,lk4 ii 7e7 ,lk4 ii4 #e ,,ii4 ,the ,passage ,lk4 i4 #cd f 7a7 ,the ,interpretation of ,lk4 i4 #cd f 7b7 ,the ,purport of the ,angelic ,announcement in ,lk4 i4 #cjc 7c7 ,reasons for regarding ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 as a ,later ,insertion ,,iii4 ,summary and ,conclusion ,chapter ,,iii4 ,st4 ,luke and the ,virgin ,birth ,i4 ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 and the ,textual ,question ,,ii4 ,linguistic and ,stylistic ,examination of ,lk4 i4 #cd f ,,iii4 ,summary and ,conclusion ,chapter ,,iv4 ,the ,place ,of ,the ,virgin ,birth ,in ,the ,third ,gospel ,i4 ,a ,suggested ,theory ,,ii4 ,literary ,conditions ,under ,which the ,gospels ,were ,written ,,iii4 ,the ,objections to ,which the ,above ,theory is ,exposed ,,iv4 ,certain ,consequences ,chapter ,v4 ,the ,virgin ,birth ,and ,the ,first ,gospel ,i4 ,the ,characteristics of the ,genealogy ,,ii4 ,the ,genuineness of ,mt4 i1 ii ,,iii4 ,the ,unity of ,mt4 i1 ii #a4 ,the ,genealogy #b4 ,the ,passage ,mt4 i4 #ahbe ,,iv4 ,implications1 ,sources1 and ,results ,appendix ,to ,chapter ,v4 ,the ,textual ,problem of ,mt4 i4 #af ,chapter ,,vi4 ,the ,historical ,question3 ,its ,limits ,and ,bearings ,i4 ,the ,virgin ,birth in the ,first and ,third ,gospels ,,ii4 ,the ,date of the ,gospels in ,relation to the ,virgin ,birth ,tradition ,,iii4 ,the ,relation of the ,question of the ,historical ,value of the ,gospels to the ,problem ,,iv4 ,the ,question of ,alternative ,theories ,v4 ,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 ,birth4 ,it is not the writer's desire to discuss the evidence from the point of view of an advocate2 with a view1 that is to say1 of obtaining an uncompromising verdict4 ,his aim is rather to trace and to define the earliest ,christian tradition upon the subject1 and to show the limits and the bearings of the historical question4 ,a limited aim such as this ought not to require much justification4 ,if1 however1 justification is needed1 it is not far to seek4 ,much of the literature which treats of the ,virgin ,birth is controversial in point of origin if not in form1 and1 in the nature of the case1 it could not have been otherwise4 ,controversial literature has1 of course1 a necessary place in the search for truth4 ,nevertheless1 it is exposed to serious perils1 especially when such a subject as that of the ,virgin ,birth is discussed4 ,it is not always easy1 for example1 to avoid an arbitrary treatment of the ,new ,testament1 and to prevent philosophic or dogmatic presuppositions from determining purely critical questions4 ,few will deny that the discussion of the ,virgin ,birth has suffered in these directions1 and that1 as a consequence1 the problem remains in considerable confusion4 ,not only has the evidence been variously estimated1 but there are the widest differences of opinion as to what the evidence really is4 ,neither side has succeeded in convincing the other1 and very many students of the question preserve an attitude of suspended judgement4 ,the point which it is important to make is that1 if any escape is to be made from the present impasse1 the problem must be approached in another way4 ,doctrinal presuppositions must be resolutely laid aside2 there must be a common desire to ascertain the true facts of the evidence1 whatever the results may be4 ,not that dogmatic considerations have no place in the problem6 ,it is part of the conclusion reached in this book that in the end dogmatic considerations do determine the issue4 ,but it must be 8in the end02 not at the beginning1 nor in the middle4 ,it may be that the writer has not himself escaped the perils to which he has referred4 ,he can only say that no pains have been spared to achieve this purpose4 ,it is true that the problem has been faced with a conviction that1 while truly man1 ,jesus was much more than man as we know him to be4 ,but this is not a presupposition which colours the evidence4 ,on the contrary1 it is the one point of view which recognizes that there is a problem to be solved4 ,if our ,lord was a prophet1 and no more1 there is no real difficulty2 no one would defend the ,virgin ,birth upon such terms4 ,the question becomes a living issue only when ,jesus is believed to be more than man4 ,in ,chapter ,i the ,new ,testament evidence outside the ,first and ,third ,gospels is discussed4 ,on the question of the attitude of the ,fourth ,evangelist to the ,virgin ,birth--a question as difficult as it is interesting--the writer has been glad to accept and to work out a striking suggestion made by ,dr4 ,e4 ,f4 ,scott 7,the ,fourth ,gospel1 its ,purpose and ,theology74 ,one reason for allotting three chapters to the ,third ,gospel is the complexity of the ,lukan problem4 ,the theory which is outlined in ,chapter ,,iv is one which has not yet received sufficient consideration4 ,the alternative1 in the opinion of the writer1 is to regard the ,miraculous ,conception as a 8necessary stone in the structure0 of ,lk4 i1 ii4 ,it is the difficulties mentioned in ,chapter ,,ii which have prevented him from taking this view4 ,the writer is convinced that ,st4 ,luke believed and taught the ,virgin ,birth4 ,nevertheless1 the critical difficulties are such that it has not been found possible to accept this view in the form in which it is generally held4 ,it is well to remember that he who states a theory in connexion with such problems contributes to their solution1 whether his theory stands the test of time or not4 ,even in the case of failure the possibilities are reduced and a bypath is revealed as such4 ,as an illustration of this1 reference may be made to the view which ascribes the ,virgin ,birth tradition in ,lk4 i1 ii to an unknown and later writer4 ,one chapter 7,chapter ,v7 has been assigned to the ,first ,gospel4 ,the exposition there given is one which is widely held in this country1 but an attempt has been made to emphasize the unique character of the ,evangelist's standpoint1 which1 it is believed1 is the key to the textual problem of ,mt4 i4 #af4 ,the textual problem is treated in an ,appendix to the chapter4 ,it may seem strange that in ,chapter ,,vi no decided opinion is expressed for or against the ,virgin ,birth4 ,the justification for this position is the fact that1 in the end1 the question becomes one of ,theology1 and that to attack the theological problem would be to go beyond the limited aim which the present work has in view4 ,one result of the investigation is that the documentary evidence for the ,virgin ,birth is found to be earlier than 8negative0 criticism has allowed4 ,but to accept this conclusion is only to be brought face to face with the question which the modern ,new ,testament student cannot escape4 8,whence come the sources upon which the ,evangelists drew80 ,at first sight the problem seems hopeless4 ,to recover and to describe with objectivity of statement the several sources which the ,evangelists employed is a task beset with difficulties3 to penetrate still further might well seem impossible4 ,if1 however1 the problem is faced bravely1 with an open mind and an eagerness to learn1 it may be that as time passes there will be cause to rejoice over real progress made4 ,the journey is not the plunge into the dark which it might be thought to be4 ,if1 indeed1 it will bring men nearer to the ,jesus of history1 it is a quest which cannot be refused1 however great the difficulties may be4 ,in a subject such as this1 certain things have necessarily to be taken for granted4 ,the author of the ,first ,gospel is regarded as unknown2 accordingly1 he is spoken of as the ,first ,evangelist or as ,st4 8,matthew04 ,the writer of the ,fourth ,gospel is also referred to as the ,fourth ,evangelist1 the question of authorship being left open4 ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke1 the companions of ,st4 ,paul1 are assumed to be the authors of the ,second and ,third ,gospels respectively2 ,st4 ,luke is also believed to be the author of the ,acts4 ,the reader who does not accept these views may mentally substitute such phrases as the ,second and ,third ,evangelists wherever ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke are mentioned4 ,such abbreviations as ,mt41 ,mk41 ,lk41 ,jn4 are always meant to refer to the ,gospels1 not to their authors4 ,it only remains for the writer to express his deep sense of gratitude to those to whose knowledge and help he is debtor4 ,how much he owes to earlier workers in the field will be sufficiently evident4 ,it has proved by no means an easy task to weigh and to differentiate between opposing views1 and the writer is not unmindful of his temerity1 in certain places1 in dissenting from opinions supported by justly honoured names4 ,he desires particularly to speak of the generous encouragement he received in his task from the late ,dr4 ,sanday4 ,dr4 ,sanday had made a provisional promise to write a brief introduction to the present work4 ,his lamented death has prevented the carrying out of this promise1 and for the lack of such an introduction the book is so much the poorer4 ,the writer further wishes to express his gratitude to his former tutor1 the ,rev4 ,prof4 ,a4 ,s4 ,geden1 ,m4,a41 ,d4,d41 and to the ,rev4 ,j4 ,walthew ,simister1 for their kindness in reading the typescript1 and in suggesting improvements1 and also to the ,rev4 ,prof4 ,f4 ,bertram ,clogg1 ,m4,a41 for his valued assistance in the reading of the proofsheets4 ,vincent ,taylor4 ,,bath1 ,september1 #aibj4 ,,abbreviations ,,dcg4 ,hastings's ,dictionary of ,christ and the ,gospels 7#aijfh74 ,,eb4 ,encyclopaedia ,biblica 7#ahiiaijc74 ,evan4 ,da,meph4 ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt's ,evangelion ,da,mepharreshe 7#aijd74 ,,ghd4 ,v4 ,h4 ,stanton's ,the ,gospels as ,historical ,documents1 ,parts ,i and ,,ii 7#aijci74 ,,ght4 ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt's ,the ,gospel ,history and its ,transmission 7#aijf74 ,gr4 ii4 ,j4 ,h4 ,moulton's ,grammar of ,new ,testament ,greek1 ,vol4 ,,ii 7#aiai74 ,,hdb4 ,hastings's ,dictionary of the ,bible 7#ahihaijd74 ,,hj4 ,the ,hibbert ,journal4 ,,hs4 ,horae ,synopticae1 ,sir ,john ,c4 ,hawkins 7#bnd ed41 #aiji74 ,,icc4 ,the ,international ,critical ,commentary4 ,,int4 ,jlicher's ,introduction to the ,new ,testament1 ,eng4 ,tr4 7#aijd72 ,j4 ,moffatt's ,an ,introduction to the ,literature of the ,new ,testament 7#crd ed41 #aiah74 ,proleg4 ,vol4 ,i of ,j4 ,h4 ,moulton's ,grammar of ,new ,testament ,greek 7#crd ed41 #aijh74 ,,sh4 ,sanday and ,headlam's ,commentary on ,the ,epistle to the ,romans 7,,icc41 #ahie74 ,th,gr4 ,thayer,grimm's ,greek,english ,lexicon of the ,new ,testament 7#aije74 ,,vgt4 ,moulton and ,milligan's ,the ,vocabulary of the ,greek ,testament1 ,parts ,i to ,,iii 7#aiadah74 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,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 ,testament4 ,there are passages which have been said to imply a knowledge of the doctrine1 but1 for particularity of statement1 none of them can be compared with ,mt4 i4 #ahbe and ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,this fact must be our justification in the present chapter for treating together the ,new ,testament ,books outside these two ,gospels4 ,the inquiry is mainly a study in silence2 it is for that reason both difficult and complicated4 ,dr4 ,sanday has expressed considerable distrust in the argument from silence 7cf4 ,the ,criticism1 of the ,fourth ,gospel1 pp4 #ccda74 ,he quotes a striking passage from ,dr4 ,drummond's ,character and ,authorship of the ,fourth ,gospel 7p4 #aeg f471 in which reference is made to ,theophilus of ,antioch1 who1 in a defence of ,christianity1 relates nothing about ,christ ,himself1 and maintains a remarkable silence concerning the ,gospels4 ,the quotation ends with the words3 8,we may learn from these curious facts that it is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things1 simply because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing3 or even because he does not mention them when his subject would seem naturally to lead him to do so40 ,dr4 ,sanday has two main objections to the way in which the argument from silence is often handled4 87#a7 ,the critic does not ask himself what is silent--what extent of material4444 ,and 7#b7 experience shows that the argument is often most fallacious0 7op4 cit41 p4 #ce74 ,nothing can be lost in considering this opinion at the outset of our inquiry4 ,in the connexion in which it is urged1 it has very great justification4 ,dr4 ,sanday is referring to the paucity of references to the ,gospels in the second century previous to #agj ,a4,d4 ,the real question is1 he says1 8,what is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the whole body of that which once existed1 and how far can we trust the inferences drawn from it80 ,the available literature is confessedly small4 8,if we take the whole extant ,christian literature between the years #acj and #agj ,a4,d41 it would not fill more than a thin octavo volume1 and by far the greater part of that is taken up with external controversy0 7ib41 p4 #ci74 ,the caution suggested by these words is distinctly healthy4 ,it may be questioned1 however1 whether ,dr4 ,sanday's point of view would apply quite so well as regards the alleged silence of so many ,new ,testament ,books with reference to the ,virgin ,birth4 ,there are good reasons for this opinion4 7#a7 ,the existing ,new ,testament ,writings represent the best ,christian literature of the period which they cover4 ,no one would compare them in this respect with the extant works of the first seven decades of the second century4 7#b7 ,while not exhaustive in their treatment1 the ,gospels are faithful to the outstanding events in the life of ,jesus4 7#c7 ,the ,epistles are rich in doctrinal teaching4 ,occasional in point of origin1 they impinge again and again upon the great doctrines of the ,christian ,faith4 ,the ,incarnation and the ,person of ,christ especially are central4 ,if1 then1 very many ,new ,testament ,writings are found to be silent as regards the ,virgin ,birth1 the silence is not one which can be ignored4 ,it may in part be explained1 but it must not be explained away4 ,if it exists1 it is not a silence which can be regarded with equanimity2 it must be significant1 and no pains can be spared in trying to understand that significance4 ,we believe1 then1 that the argumentum ex silentio has a valid place in our inquiry4 ,all the more1 therefore1 must we consider what the possibilities of silence are4 ,obviously1 silence may be consistent with knowledge of a fact or lack of knowledge4 ,but that is not all4 ,if it implies knowledge1 it may mean tacit acceptance of the fact1 tacit rejection1 or comparative indifference4 ,lack of knowledge1 on the other hand1 may be explained by special circumstances1 or by the view that the alleged fact is untrue4 ,in treating the ,new ,testament ,books outside the ,first and ,third ,gospels1 our first task must be to determine whether their silence is complete4 ,where this is the case1 we have to try1 so far as we can1 to interpret the silence4 ,each stage is1 however1 a further step into the unknown1 and must therefore be taken with increasing care and caution4 ,i4 ,st4 ,paul ,we begin with ,,st4 ,,paul1 the earliest ,new ,testament writer1 and the author of ten1 if not thirteen1 ,epistles4 ,several passages have been quoted from his writings1 in support of the view that the ,virgin ,birth tradition was known to him4 ,among these are ,gal4 iv4 #d1 ,rom4 i4 #c1 and passages in which ,st4 ,paul speaks of ,christ as the ,second ,adam1 notably ,rom4 v4 #abae and #a ,cor4 xv4 #dg4 ,gal4 iv4 #d f4 reads as follows3 ,but when the fulness of the time came1 ,god sent forth his ,son1 born of a woman1 born under the law1 that he might redeem them which were under the law1 that we might receive the adoption of sons4 ,it is most improbable that there is here any reference to the ,virgin ,birth1 or even any indication that the doctrine is known to ,st4 ,paul4 ,the phrase 8born of a woman0 is one that is used naturally of an ordinary human birth 7cf4 ,job xiv4 #a2 and ,mt4 xi4 #aa 7,lk4 vii4 #bh7 8among them that are born of women074 ,the determining consideration is1 however1 the argument of ,gal4 iv4 #ag4 ,st4 ,paul is there working out the figure of the heir who is yet a minor 7verses #a1 #b74 ,while we were children1 he argues1 we were in bondage 7verse #c74 ,but1 when the fulness of the time came1 ,god sent forth his ,son to redeem men from the law4 ,to accomplish this purpose1 the ,son must needs make ,himself one with those ,he came to deliver4 ,like them ,he must be 8born under the law02 like them ,he must be 8born of a woman04 ,the one clause asserts ,his position as a child of the ,jewish race2 the other declares the reality of ,his humanity4 ,there is not the slightest suggestion of a miraculous birth47#a7 ,indeed1 the more natural impression made by the words is that of a birth common to all the sons of men4 ,if ,st4 ,paul had wished to avoid giving that impression1 he could have done so with ease1 since he was perfectly familiar with the distinction between 7woman7 and 7virgin7 7cf4 #a ,cor4 vii4 #cd74 ,rom4 i4 #c f4 reads3 8444 his ,son1 who was born of the seed of ,david according to the flesh1 who was declared to be the ,son of ,god with power1 according to the spirit of holiness1 by the resurrection of the dead40 ,here the thought of the ,virgin ,birth is said to lie implicit in the opening words of the passage 7cf4 ,orr1 ,the ,virgin ,birth of ,christ1 pp4 #aai ff42 also ,knowling1 ,testimony of ,st4 ,paul to ,christ1 p4 #cac2 and ,sweet1 ,the ,birth and ,infancy of ,jesus ,christ1 p4 #bcg n474 ,again1 the exegesis cannot be allowed4 ,st4 ,paul's words state an antithesis2 they speak of the ,son from two standpoints1 that of the body and that of the spirit 7,,sh41 ,rom41 p4 #g74 8,according to the flesh01 ,he was 8born 77 of the seed of ,david01 but1 8according to the spirit of holiness01 ,he was designated 77 ,son of ,god 8by the resurrection of the dead04 ,it is very difficult to think that the antithesis would have been stated in this way1 if the ,apostle had been thinking of the ,virgin ,birth4 8,born of the seed of ,david0 contains no reference to the doctrine4 ,the ,divine ,sonship1 indeed1 is not mentioned until the following clause1 and there it is said to be predicated1 not in the ,virgin ,birth1 but in the ,resurrection4 ,without pressing the view that 8according to the flesh born of the seed of ,david0 implies an ordinary human birth1 we may certainly claim that the ,miraculous ,conception is a thought entirely foreign to the passage4 ,a further implication of the doctrine has been found in ,st4 ,paul's thought of the ,second ,adam 7,rom4 v4 #abba1 #a ,cor4 xv4 #ddi74 ,in ,dissertations 7new ed41 p4 #aa71 ,dr4 ,gore writes3 8,what we can maintain1 with great boldness1 is that ,st4 ,paul's conception of the #8,second ,adam' postulates ,his miraculous birth0 7cf4 ,box1 ,the ,virgin ,birth of ,jesus1 p4 #aej74 ,in a question of this kind1 we must distinguish between what the doctrine of the 8,second ,adam0 may or may not 8postulate0 in our own minds1 and what ,st4 ,paul's thoughts may have been4 ,certainly he gives us no reason to suppose that the ,virgin ,birth was in the background of his mind when he wrote ,rom4 v4 #abba47b7 ,there would be as much justification1 if not more1 for the contrary suggestion4 ,so far as #a ,cor4 xv4 #ddi is concerned--7verse #dg reads3 8,the second man is of heaven07--the reference is to the ,resurrection1 not the ,incarnation47#c7 ,none of these passages is sufficient to show that ,st4 ,paul was acquainted with the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 nor can any others be cited4 ,this fact is the more remarkable when we call to mind the great ,pauline passages which bear upon the ,incarnation4 ,with the closest scrutiny1 not one of them gives us reason to think that the ,apostle knew of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,this is true of the great ,christological passage of ,phil4 ii4 #eaa1 and also of the wellknown words of #b ,cor4 viii4 #i4 ,most significant in this connexion are ,phil4 ii4 #g 78,being made in the likeness of man07 and ,rom4 viii4 #c 7which speaks of the ,son as sent 8in the likeness of sinful flesh074 ,these passages are important because they clearly imply a difference between the humanity of ,christ and ordinary humanity4 ,this difference--indicated by the word 8likeness0 77--is certainly not a difference in mode of origin4 ,its character is manifest in ,rom4 viii4 #c2 it lies in the sinlessness and moral perfection of ,jesus47#d7 ,there is no indication that the ,apostle is thinking of anything further1 and the same is true of ,phil4 ii4 #g4 ,viewing the passages as a whole1 we must conclude that1 not only is ,st4 ,paul completely silent as to the ,virgin ,birth1 but that he is silent just where his silence is most difficult to understand1 if he knew of the tradition4 ,can we go further1 and say that ,st4 ,paul did not know of the doctrine8 ,short of a hard and fast conclusion1 we are at liberty to state what would seem to be the probabilities of the case2 and as regards these we can have little hesitation4 ,it is reasonable to urge that ,st4 ,paul would have phrased his references to the ,incarnation somewhat differently1 if he had known of the ,virgin ,birth1 and that1 on the whole1 his words are best explained by presuming his ignorance of the tradition4 ,w4 ,c4 ,allen has suggested that ,st4 ,paul's silence may have been due to reasons of prudence4 ,he may have thought that the tradition would prove 8a great stumblingblock to the progress of ,christianity1 and a continual source of wounded feeling for the reverence of ,christians for the ,person of their ,master0 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 #bj74 ,it is possible that this argument might go some way to explain the absence of direct allusions to the ,virgin ,birth in ,st4 ,paul's writings4 ,it might cover his failure to employ the tradition as 8an argument for ,christianity in his preaching to the ,gentiles04 ,but1 assuredly1 the theory is stretched to breakingpoint1 if it is made to cover the absence of the slightest indication that the doctrine was present to ,st4 ,paul's mind4 ,for the most part1 ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles were not public manifestoes1 but private letters1 written to ,christian communities4 ,moreover1 they are intensely selfrevealing4 ,they permit us to appreciate how much ,st4 ,paul knew of the words and deeds of ,jesus1 and of the events of ,his earthly life4 ,that they reveal no knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth is hardly to be explained by a policy of silence4 ,unless1 on other grounds1 it can be shown that the tradition was known in ,apostolic circles during ,st4 ,paul's lifetime1 his silence must be interpreted to mean lack of knowledge concerning it4 ,this conclusion1 if established1 would not1 of course1 be fatal to the historical value of the ,virgin ,birth tradition4 ,special reasons might be forthcoming to account for the later spread of the belief4 ,the importance of ,st4 ,paul's silence is that it furnishes help in deciding when the belief became current4 ,a further inference1 of considerable theological importance1 is that the ,apostle could build up a mature and consistent ,christology1 without any reference to1 and apparently1 thought of the ,miraculous ,conception4 ,,ii4 ,q ,q 7,quelle1 8source07 is the symbol used to denote the main documentary source1 upon which the ,first and ,third ,evangelists drew1 in addition to ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,as regards its character1 there is difference of opinion4 ,some scholars identify it with the ,matthaean ,logia of which ,papias speaks2 others regard the latter as an independent collection of ,messianic prooftexts4 ,by some it is thought to have been a ,gospel2 by others it is looked upon as a collection of the ,sayings of ,jesus1 with a certain element of narrative4 ,wellhausen dates it later than ,mk41 but most scholars think that it is earlier1 and date it from the sixties and in some cases from the fifties47#e7 ,as regards the ,virgin ,birth1 it is almost certain that ,q did not contain the tradition4 ,harnack thinks that ,q's narrative of the ,baptism1 with its use of ,ps4 ii4 #g1 8excludes all ideas of preexistence and miraculous birth0 7,sayings of ,jesus1 p4 #bce71 and ,j4 ,m4 ,thompson1 who quotes this opinion1 finds in the ,baptist's question1 8,art thou he that cometh8017#f7 a passage which it is 8hard to reconcile 444 with ,lk4's story of the ,birth1 as generally interpreted0 7,miracles1 p4 #adj74 ,what is more important than either of these arguments1 is the fact that neither the ,first nor the ,third ,evangelist drew a ,virgin ,birth tradition from ,q4 ,the presumption is that ,q was silent as regards the ,virgin ,birth17#g7 but in view of the fact that it probably contained only a small element of narrative1 we ought not to say more47#h7 ,,iii4 ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel ,in treating ,,st4 ,,mark',s ,,gospel1 our first task is to ask if its silence is complete4 ,this leads at once to a discussion of ,mk4 vi4 #c3 8,is not this the carpenter1 the son of ,mary44480 ,parentage among the ,jews was traced on the father's side4 ,the passage may therefore imply that ,joseph was already dead4 ,archdeacon ,allen thinks that 8son of ,mary0 is 8more naturally an allusion to the supernatural circumstances of the birth of ,jesus0 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 #aef747i7 ,without going so far as this1 ,canon ,box thinks that there is something 8decidedly remarkable and unusual0 in the phrase1 and suggests that it is probably contemptuous 7op4 cit41 p4 #aci74 ,however we explain the phrase1 we ought not to interpret ,mk4 vi4 #c as implying a knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth on the part of the people of ,nazareth4 ,mt4 xiii4 #ee and ,lk4 iv4 #bb directly exclude this view47#aj7 8,who would allude to the miraculous birth of somebody as a reason for not believing in him80 7,thompson1 ib41 p4 #ach n474 ,but did the ,evangelist know of the ,virgin ,birth8 ,has a knowledge of the doctrine shaped his phrasing in ,mk4 vi4 #c8 ,the question is complicated by critical considerations4 ,it is suggested by several scholars that the passage1 in whole or in part1 is a later addition to the ,second ,gospel47#aa7 ,there is much to be said for this view1 but1 so far as our immediate purpose is concerned1 we have no need to discuss it in detail4 ,on either view--that of the critical theory just mentioned1 or that which attributes the passage to the ,evangelist--it is improbable that ,st4 ,mark intended to refer to the ,virgin ,birth1 or was influenced by the doctrine4 ,on the interpolationhypothesis1 this is obvious enough1 but it is also true if ,mk4 vi4 #c is original4 ,the suggestions that ,joseph was already dead1 and that a certain contempt breathes in the words1 have great force4 ,we may also note that the passage goes on to refer to the brothers and sisters of ,jesus1 with no suggestion that the relationship was other than full and complete4 ,but what is most telling of all is the fact that1 if ,mk4 vi4 #c does imply ,st4 ,mark's knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth1 both ,st4 8,matthew0 and ,st4 ,luke1 in their own narratives1 have destroyed the reference4 ,this is all the more remarkable if the ,first ,evangelist's treatment of ,mk4 vi4 #c is motived by reverence for the ,person of ,jesus47#ab7 ,finally1 can we suppose that ,st4 ,mark would have placed his sole reference to the ,virgin ,birth in the lips of unbelieving ,jews who speak with thinly veiled contempt8 ,for these reasons1 we find it impossible to discover in ,mk4 vi4 #c a reference to the ,virgin ,birth by ,st4 ,mark2 the ,evangelist's silence is unbroken4 ,was1 then1 the tradition unknown to ,st4 ,mark8 ,several passages have been cited in support of the contention that ,st4 ,mark had no knowledge of the doctrine4 ,among these is ,mk4 iii4 #ba1 #cae 7cf4 ,mt4 xii4 #dfej2 ,lk4 viii4 #aiba74 ,the story of ,mk4 iii4 #cae is that of the coming of ,mary and of the brothers of ,jesus1 while our ,lord is surrounded by a crowd1 apparently in a house4 ,when ,jesus is informed that they are without seeking ,him1 ,he says1 8,who is my mother and my brethren801 and looking round upon the assembled company1 ,he continues1 8,behold1 my mother and my brethren6 ,for whosoever shall do the will of ,god1 the same is my brother1 and sister1 and mother04 ,the account in ,mt4 is almost identical1 and ,st4 ,luke's story1 while much briefer1 is substantially the same4 ,but ,st4 ,mark's narrative must be read in the light of ,mk4 iii4 #ba 7cf4 ,gould1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,mk41 pp4 #fa1 #fg7--;a passage which is omitted in ,mt4 and in ,lk4 ,there1 we are told that the friends of ,jesus 7 1 probably 8,his kinsmen07 went out to lay hold on ,him1 in the belief that ,he was mad4 ,this fact must unquestionably be held to explain the action of the family of ,jesus in the incident of ,mk4 iii4 #cae1 and the question arises1 ,did ,mary share in the fears and intentions of the rest87#ac7 ,a second passage is ,mk4 vi4 #d1 where ,jesus declares that a prophet is not without honour1 save in his own country1 and among his own kin1 and in his own house4 ,the phrase 8among his own kin01 which both ,mt4 7xiii4 #eg7 and ,lk4 7iv4 #bd7 omit1 is said to point in the same direction as ,mk4 iii4 #ba1 #cae47ad7 ,a third incident adduced is that recorded in ,mk4 xii4 #ceg 7,mt4 xxii4 #daf2 ,lk4 xx4 #dad71 where ,jesus raises the question1 how the ,messiah can be at once ,david's ,son and ,david's ,lord4 8,here again01 writes ,mr4 ,thompson1 8,jesus assumes the reality of that human parentage on which ,his ,davidic descent relies4444 ,thus it appears that on three separate occasions 7and there are no others7 when ,jesus1 according to the earliest ,gospel1 spoke about ,his birth1 ,he used language naturally compatible with human parentage1 and not naturally compatible with anything else0 7op4 cit41 p4 #ach74 ,it will be seen that these passages raise more than the question whether ,st4 ,mark knew of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,they raise the question of the knowledge of ,jesus1 and indeed the whole question of the historical character of the ,miraculous ,conception4 ,clearly1 the question of the knowledge of ,jesus is a determinative consideration4 ,few indeed will care to argue for the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 if it can be proved that ,jesus knew nothing of it1 but believed ,himself to be the son of ,joseph4 ,just for this very reason we ought to be scrupulously careful in treating the question4 ,a scientific inquiry will hesitate to draw an inference which makes further research superfluous4 ,and in the present case hesitation is amply justified4 ,we cannot share ,mr4 ,thompson's conviction that the words of ,jesus acknowledge a natural parentage4 7#a7 ,such exegesis must suffer an obvious discount if we find that the ,evangelist knew nothing of the ,virgin ,birth4 7#b7 ,we cannot be certain that ,mary shared the fears and intentions of her children4 7#c7 ,we do not know the tone in which ,jesus spoke1 nor can we be sure that ,he intended to repudiate ,his family4 ,it may be so2 but our opinion on these matters must rest upon what we believe about the ,virgin ,birth2 the evidence is too uncertain to reverse the process4 ,as regards the ,evangelist1 we may say at once that we could account much more easily for the passages cited1 if ,st4 ,mark did not know of the doctrine4 ,but it is doubtful if we can say more1 so long as we confine ourselves to what ,st4 ,mark has actually written4 ,there is little difficulty in the third passage 7,mk4 xii4 #ceg71 since both ,mt4 and ,lk4 repeat it without material variation4 ,nor is there the force claimed in the phrase 8among his own kin0 7,mk4 vi4 #d74 ,in any case ,mt4 has the words 8in his own house01 and probably the omission of the former phrase is sufficiently explained by the writer's tendency to remove redundant expressions in ,mk47#ae7 ,while in the case of ,st4 ,luke1 we have to remember that abbreviation is a common feature in his use of ,markan material4 ,the real difficulty lies in ,mk4 iii4 #ba1 #cae4 ,something more than a desire for brevity must account for the later ,evangelists' treatment of this story4 ,mary's position and attitude are certainly left very ambiguous in the light of ,mk4 iii4 #ba4 ,in the subsequent story ,st4 ,mark does not distinguish her from the rest 7iii4 #cae74 ,in short1 he leaves her open to the charge of having thought her ,son distraught and in need of restraint4 ,ought we to find in this proof that ,st4 ,mark had no knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth8 ,our hesitation in drawing this conclusion arises out of the 8objectivity0 of ,st4 ,mark's writing4 ,frequently1 he does not hesitate to introduce details1 to which1 for various reasons1 ,st4 8,matthew0 and ,st4 ,luke took exception4 ,he does not appear to feel the difficulties which the later writers felt4 ,we could not1 therefore1 attach the same significance to an 8inconsistency0 in ,mk41 as in ,lk41 or in ,mt4 ,for this reason1 we think that1 while ,mk4 iii4 #ba1 #cae raises very great difficulties1 the passage is not sufficient in itself to prove that ,st4 ,mark knew nothing of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,we may say that the passage points in this direction1 but that the inference requires further confirmation4 ,can this be found8 ,we believe that it can be found in the broad fact of ,st4 ,mark's silence4 ,there is much greater significance in ,st4 ,mark's silence than is sometimes allowed4 ,why should he1 as an ,evangelist1 remain silent about the ,virgin ,birth1 if he knew of it1 and believed in it8 ,the deep interest which he takes in the descent of the ,spirit at the ,baptism1 and his evident intention to describe this event as a crucial moment in the life of ,jesus1 set up a strong presumption that1 had he known of the ,miraculous ,conception1 he would have introduced it into his narrative4 ,there is no sufficient analogy in his silence about other events in the life of ,jesus which later writers record2 no omission can be compared with this4 ,nor will reasons of prudence account for his silence2 the ,second ,gospel is probably too late for this argument to have weight4 ,there is still less force in the suggestion that ,st4 ,mark's intention was to describe only the public ministry of ,jesus4 ,this solution evades the difficulty1 and comes perilously near to saying that ,st4 ,mark does not record the ,virgin ,birth tradition because he does not record it6 ,the ,second ,gospel describes not only the death and burial of ,jesus1 but also the visit of the women to the tomb1 and probably1 in its original ending1 some of the ,post,resurrection ,appearances of ,jesus4 ,these facts are enough to show how inadequate it would be to describe the ,gospel as an account of the public ministry of ,jesus4 ,having regard to all the facts of the case1 the probability is that ,st4 ,mark's silence must be explained on the ground that the ,evangelist had no knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth tradition4 ,the further implication is that it formed no part of ,apostolic preaching1 and was unknown in the circles in which ,st4 ,mark moved4 ,these conclusions cannot1 of course1 be hardened into certainties2 they move in the realms of what is probable4 ,instead of being capable of refuting other considerations which might arise1 they themselves require further confirmation4 ,,iv4 ,acts ,there is no reference to the ,virgin ,birth1 either direct of indirect1 in ,,the ,,acts4 ,the presumption is that the doctrine had no place in ,apostolic preaching47#af7 ,this view is suggested1 not only by the silence of ,acts1 but also by the character of its ,christology4 ,christ is spoken of as ,jesus of ,nazareth1 a man approved of ,god by mighty works and wonders and signs 7ii4 #bb71 and as one who was anointed by ,god with the ,holy ,spirit1 and with power1 who went about doing good 7x4 #ch74 ,he is the ,holy and ,righteous ,one 7iii4 #ad71 the ,prince of ,life 7iii4 #ae71 whom ,god made both ,lord and ,christ 7ii4 #cf74 ,he is exalted to the right hand of ,god1 to be a ,prince and a ,saviour1 for to give repentance to ,israel and remission of sins 7v4 #ca74 ,in all this1 the main ground of appeal is to the ,resurrection 7ii4 #bd1 #cb1 iii4 #ae1 iv4 #aj747ag7 ,the reference to the miracles of ,jesus 7ii4 #bb1 x4 #ch7 is 8the only direct and concrete allusion to the events of ,his earthly life047#ah7 ,even where the ,davidic descent is mentioned 7ii4 #be f41 xiii4 #bc1 #cc71 there is no suggestion other than that of direct physical lineage 78,of this man's seed hath ,god according to promise brought unto ,israel a ,saviour1 ,jesus01 xiii4 #bc74 ,does the silence of ,acts permit us to draw any inferences concerning ,st4 ,luke's knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth tradition8 ,the question ought to be considered apart altogether from ,lk4 i1 ii4 ,having regard to the character of the work we do not think that any one conclusion can safely be drawn4 ,the ,acts obviously differs from the ,gospels1 and we cannot1 as in the case of the ,pauline ,epistles1 look to it for any sufficient account of the writer's ,christology4 ,it would therefore be unsafe to say that the silence of ,acts implies that its author had no knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth47#ai7 ,if the doctrine was not a subject of ,apostolic preaching1 ,st4 ,luke must have known this3 his silence may therefore be due to a sound historical sense4 ,if1 at the time when he wrote the ,acts1 his knowledge of the tradition had not long been gained1 he would be still less likely to perpetrate what would have been an historical anachronism4 ,on the other hand1 we cannot1 on the evidence of the ,acts alone1 show that he did know of the doctrine1 and that the possibilities just stated represent the facts4 ,the case is one in which the argumentum ex silentio would be untrustworthy in either direction4 ,it should be emphasized that this view springs entirely out of the character of the book1 and in no way affects the use of the argument we have made in the case of ,mk4 and the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul4 ,v4 ,the ,epistle to the ,hebrews ,,the ,,epistle ,,to ,,the ,,hebrews claims attention because of the developed character of its doctrine of the ,person of ,christ1 and because its writer1 while not an eyewitness 7ii4 #c71 has a vivid knowledge of many events in the earthly life of ,jesus4 ,as regards the ,virgin ,birth1 the ,epistle is completely silent4 ,in the comparison with ,melchizedek 7vii4 #ac71 no stress can be laid on the fact that the latter is described as 8without father02 he is also 8without mother0 and 8without genealogy04 ,the reference to the descent of ,jesus from the tribe of ,judah 7vii4 #ad7 is left quite bare4 ,even the statements concerning the sinlessness of ,christ 7iv4 #ae1 vii4 #bf71 and the lofty characterization of the ,son as 8the effulgence0 of ,god's glory and 8the very impress of his substance0 7i4 #c71 are made without a word as to the method of the ,incarnation4 ,it is difficult to read the ,epistle without feeling that the writer's thought is nowhere influenced by the ,virgin ,birth4 ,especially is this the case in such passages as ii4 #ad 78,since then the children are sharers 77 in flesh and blood1 he also himself in like manner partook of 77 the same0717#bj7 and ii4 #ag 78,it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren074 ,two considerations forbid1 however1 the drawing of this conclusion4 ,we have no certain knowledge of the writer's identity1 and we have no other work from his pen with which to compare the ,epistle4 ,its significance is therefore mainly theological2 it is an instance of an elaborate doctrinal writing17#ba7 coming possibly from the seventh decade of the first century1 or1 more probably1 from about the year #hj ,a4,d41 in which no reference of any kind is made to the ,miraculous ,conception4 ,this fact1 however it is explained1 cannot be ignored1 and the later we date the ,epistle the more important it becomes4 ,,vi4 ,the ,fourth ,gospel ,the silence of ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel regarding the ,virgin ,birth is now generally admitted27#bb7 the only question being whether there is not a passing reference to the doctrine in ,jn4 i4 #ac47bc7 ,what the writer's silence means is one of the most difficult problems in the question of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,the case is different from any we have yet considered4 ,for the doctrine of the ,virgin ,birth must have been perfectly well known to the ,fourth ,evangelist4 ,he was well acquainted with the ,synoptic ,gospels17#bd7 and there can be little doubt but that he read ,lk4 i1 ii1 and ,mt4 i1 ii1 in the form in which we have them today4 ,that he knew of the tradition is further confirmed by the fact that1 so early probably as c4 #aaj ,a4,d41 the ,epistles of ,ignatius contain several references to the doctrine 7,eph4 xviii4 #b2 xix4 #a2 ,magn4 #aa2 ,tr4 ix74 ,the difficulty is further increased by the freedom with which the ,evangelist treats the ,synoptics4 8,on the one hand their contents are very largely assumed2 and on the other hand the author does not hesitate1 where he thinks it necessary1 to correct them4444 ,the author evidently felt himself at liberty to select just those incidents which suited his purpose0 7,sanday1 ,the ,criticism of the ,fourth ,gospel1 p4 #ga74 ,as the problem is usually treated1 the silence of the ,fourth ,gospel is said to mean either 8tacit rejection0 or 8tacit acceptance0 of the tradition4 ,it may be questioned1 however1 if these alternatives sufficiently cover the possibilities of the case4 8,tacit rejection0 under any circumstances means repudiation of the doctrine4 ,but 8tacit acceptance0 may mean anything from comparative indifference to whole hearted assent4 ,as containing the sharper issue1 the case for 8tacit rejection0 may be considered first4 ,among the arguments in favour of this view1 we may note the following3-- 7#a7 ,certain passages seem to require this position4 ,in i4 #de ,jesus is described by ,philip as 8the son of ,joseph01 and in vi4 #db the ,jews at ,capernaum ask the question3 8,is not this ,jesus1 the son of ,joseph1 whose father and mother we know80 ,three times1 moreover1 controversy turns on the question of the birthplace of ,jesus4 ,the ,jews look for the birthplace of the ,messiah at ,bethlehem 78,hath not the scripture said that the ,christ cometh of the seed of ,david1 and from ,bethlehem801 vii4 #db71 or they regard it as unknown 78,when the ,christ cometh1 no one knoweth whence he is01 vii4 #bg71 and the objection is raised that ,jesus is of ,galilee 7i4 #de1 vii4 #da f41 #eb74 ,nowhere does the ,evangelist expose the futility of the controversy by a reference to ,bethlehem as the birthplace of ,jesus4 ,on the contrary 7it is said71 he himself believed ,nazareth to be the birthplace1 and must thus have rejected the tradition of ,mt4 i1 ii4 7#b7 ,instead of directly repudiating a particular ,synoptic narrative1 the ,fourth ,evangelist's method is silently to set it aside by preferring another tradition or view4 ,is not his preference for his own ,incarnation theory a tacit repudiation of the ,virgin ,birth tradition8 ,of these arguments the second can be allowed only if we can show that the ,evangelist looked upon the two doctrines1 that of the ,virgin ,birth and that of the ,incarnation of the ,divine ,logos1 as contradictory and mutually exclusive4 ,it is not possible1 however1 to prove this1 and to assume it is to beg the question4 ,the stronger argument is the first4 ,it is certainly difficult to show that the language of i4 #de and vi4 #db is that of ,philip and the ,jews respectively1 and that it does not reflect the ,evangelist's point of view4 ,in the ,fourth ,gospel we are often unable to assume that the writer intends to give the ipsissima verba of those who speak4 ,are i4 #de and vi4 #db cases in point1 or are they exceptions8 ,the question is not an easy one to decide1 unless1 of course1 we have satisfied ourselves that the ,fourth ,gospel is an entirely unhistorical work4 ,in this case1 i4 #de and vi4 #db will represent the ,evangelist's opinions4 ,but1 on this view1 we have largely forfeited our right to appeal to the ,fourth ,gospel in treating the question of the ,virgin ,birth on its historical side4 ,we cannot have it both ways4 ,if the ,fourth ,gospel shows a pronounced disregard of history1 it is not permissible to draw historical arguments from it4 ,it will have 7on this view7 an important bearing on the historical question from the theological side2 but1 as a primary historical authority1 it must disappear4 ,if1 on the other hand1 we admit--as we have good reason to admit--the presence of a considerable element of valuable historical tradition in the ,fourth ,gospel1 it is by no means certain that i4 #de and vi4 #db represent the ,evangelist's views4 ,as in the case of ,mt4 xiii4 #ee and ,lk4 iv4 #bb1 these passages may indicate contemporary opinions and no more4 ,this view is less easy to hold in the case of i4 #de and vi4 #db than it is in respect of the ,synoptic passages2 but it is a possibility not lightly to be set aside4 ,and if this is so1 we cannot with confidence urge that in i4 #de and vi4 #db the ,fourth ,evangelist repudiates the ,virgin ,birth4 ,as regards the passages which connect ,jesus with ,nazareth and ,galilee1 it is not necessary to infer that the writer looked upon the town as the birthplace of our ,lord4 ,his silence regarding ,bethlehem is strange1 but it does not compel us to conclude that he is rejecting the tradition bound up with ,mt4 i1 ii1 as ,mr4 ,thompson thinks 7op4 cit41 p4 #aeh747be7 ,the more important fact is that the ,evangelist does not name any town1 not even ,nazareth1 as the birthplace of the ,eternal ,word4 ,the view that the ,fourth ,evangelist tacitly rejects the ,virgin ,birth fails to justify itself on internal grounds4 ,it is also opposed by considerations of an external character4 ,it is from the locality in which probably the ,fourth ,gospel arose1 that we have the earliest references to the ,virgin ,birth outside the ,new ,testament4 ,ignatius1 according to ,dr4 ,moffatt 7,,int41 p4 #baa71 seems 8to fuse the ,johannine idea of the incarnation with the synoptic birthstories04 ,if this is so1 the fact does not compel us to suppose that the ,fourth ,evangelist would have done the same2 but it raises a strong presumption against the view that he explicitly rejected the tradition4 ,must we then suppose that the ,evangelist's silence means 8tacit acceptance0 of the doctrine8 ,obviously1 the failure to prove 8tacit rejection0 tells so far in the opposite direction4 ,but1 as we have seen1 8tacit acceptance0 is a very elastic term2 it calls1 therefore1 for closer consideration4 ,it can scarcely be shown that the ,fourth ,evangelist accepts the ,virgin ,birth in the same way in which it is held in ,mt4 i1 ii4 ,there is no sufficient answer to this assertion in the plea that the story had been already told1 and that the ,evangelist's purpose was to supplement the ,synoptic narratives4 ,this is a view of the ,fourth ,gospel which cannot be carried through4 ,it is better to suppose that the ,evangelist's omission of the ,virgin ,birth tradition has a more definite meaning1 even though we reject the view that its significance is silent repudiation of the doctrine4 ,we have also to find a place in our solution of the problem for the difficulties left over in i4 #de and vi4 #db1 and in the ,evangelist's failure to name the birthplace of ,jesus4 ,in other words1 arguments insufficient to prove 8tacit rejection0 cannot on that account be ignored4 ,they must rather be held to condition the sense in which we speak of 8tacit acceptance04 ,the ,evangelist's silence regarding the ,virgin ,birth can only be understood when it is considered along with his other notable 8omissions04 ,it is one of 8a whole series of episodes1 cardinal to the ,synoptic story0 7,scott1 ,fourth ,gospel1 p4 #db74 ,this series includes the ,genealogy1 the ,virgin ,birth1 the ,baptism1 the ,temptation1 the ,transfiguration1 the ,supper1 the ,agony1 the ,ascension4 ,the true explanation is probably that given by ,dr4 ,e4 ,f4 ,scott3 8,these remarkable omissions 444 cannot be due to oversight or to the leaving out of what was nonessential4 ,without doubt they have been made deliberately1 in view of certain theories and presuppositions with which the writer approached his subject0 7ib41 p4 #db f474 ,these words set us on the right track4 ,the ,evangelist's silence does not mean that he rejected the ,virgin ,birth tradition4 ,the ,synoptic birthstories were more probably accepted by him 8as a part of the orthodox tradition1 in which1 as a member of the ,church1 he acquiesced0 7ib41 p4 #ahh74 ,his doctrinal sympathies1 however1 lay in another direction4 ,it may be that at the time when he first heard of the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 his doctrine of the ,incarnate ,word had already shaped itself in his mind4 ,jesus ,christ was the ,eternal ,son of ,god1 the ,word made flesh1 who became incarnate by ,his own voluntary act4 ,the fact that his own theological scheme was already developed1 together with its specific character17#bf7 may well account for his neglect of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,he does not deny the story1 but his own ,christology has superior spiritual attractions4 ,it will be seen that this theory leaves little room for difficulties arising from such passages as i4 #de and vi4 #db1 and explains at once the ,evangelist's attitude to the question of the birthplace of ,jesus4 ,on the one hand1 the doctrinal presuppositions of the ,virgin ,birth were not operative in his mind2 on the other hand1 in the light of his doctrine of the ,logos1 the difficulties mentioned would scarcely be felt4 ,the ,jewish controversies must have seemed to him so much playing with words4 ,what did it matter where the ,word became flesh8 ,what did it matter if men called ,him ,joseph's son8 ,our conclusion1 then1 is that the ,fourth ,evangelist tacitly accepts the ,virgin ,birth1 but gives it no place in his doctrinal system4 ,with the theological significance of this result we are not now concerned4 ,our present interest is rather in its historical implications4 ,on the positive side1 it yields little2 on the negative side1 its importance is greater4 ,it is not permissible to argue against the ,virgin ,birth tradition on the ground that the ,fourth ,evangelist rejected it4 ,we may go further and say that1 having regard to his evident preoccupation with the ,logosdoctrine1 it may not even be safe to make too much of the fact that he ignored the tradition4 ,,vii4 ,the ,pastoral and the ,catholic ,epistles and the ,apocalypse ,of the ,new ,testament ,writings1 other than the ,first and ,third ,gospels1 there remain ,,the ,,pastoral ,,and ,,the ,,catholic ,,epistles ,,and ,,the ,,apocalypse4 ,whether the ,pastoral ,epistles are the work of ,st4 ,paul or not1 their silence regarding the ,virgin ,birth cannot be pressed4 #a ,tim4 iii4 #af 7probably a fragment from an early ,christian hymn7 may or may not be significant in its silence2 but1 in either direction1 the inference would be unsafe4 ,these writings are much too brief and restricted in subject matter to leave room for the argument from silence4 ,the same view is also true of the ,catholic ,epistles4 ,the ,apocalypse contains one passage 7xii7 which has been thought to indicate the writer's knowledge of the doctrine17#bg7 but the inference is far from being certain1 and1 in any case1 in view of the date of the ,book1 it would add nothing to our knowledge which cannot be learnt more clearly elsewhere4 ,,viii4 ,summary ,we may summarize the historical results reached in the present chapter as follows3-- #a4 ,there is no certain instance of a ,new ,testament writer who knew of the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 and yet repudiated it4 ,it is more than doubtful if an exception can be found even in the case of the ,fourth ,gospel1 though the ,evangelist makes no doctrinal use of the tradition4 ,if the author of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews knew of the doctrine1 the same is probably true of that writer also4 #b4 ,the doctrine had no place in the subjectmatter of ,apostolic preaching4 ,this view is supported by all the available evidence4 ,the silence of the ,pauline ,epistles1 of the ,acts1 and of the ,second ,gospel can be explained in no other way4 #c4 ,the tradition was not a matter of public knowledge during the period covered in common by the ,pauline ,epistles1 the ,second ,gospel1 and ,q4 #d4 ,it is also probable that the same conclusion should be extended to the period covered by the ,second ,gospel alone1 if this ,book is dated later than ,st4 ,paul's lifetime1 as it usually is4 ,until we have examined the ,virgin ,birth tradition reflected in the ,first and ,third ,gospels1 it would not be right to discuss these results further1 except to say that an historical argument against the ,virgin ,birth based on these conclusions alone would be precarious4 ,the chief importance of the results reached is the help they furnish in deciding when belief in the ,virgin ,birth first became current4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,the ,,virgin ,,birth ,,and ,,the ,,third ,,gospel ,the question to be discussed in this chapter needs careful definition4 ,what we wish to discover1 if possible1 is whether the ,virgin ,birth is an original element in the ,third ,gospel4 ,this question is not without a certain ambiguity4 ,it is sometimes taken as if it were equivalent to the further question1 ,did ,st4 ,luke teach the ,virgin ,birth8 ,it is clear that these questions are closely connected2 nevertheless1 they are distinct1 and should be kept distinct4 ,the difference is at once apparent if1 for purposes of argument1 we assume that the doctrine really does belong to a later stratum in the ,gospel4 ,in this case1 all the references to the tradition must have been inserted1 either 7i7 by an unknown reader1 editor1 or scribe1 or 7ii7 by ,st4 ,luke himself4 ,in either case1 the ,virgin ,birth would be a later element in the ,gospel2 but the two senses in which this could be true are clearly very different4 ,before one could say that ,st4 ,luke did not teach the ,virgin ,birth1 it would be necessary to show that he did not write the passage ,lk4 i4 #cd f417#bh7 and this is a point which cannot be determined by arguments derived from the context and subjectmatter alone4 ,such arguments may1 or may not1 be able to prove that the doctrine is a later element1 but they cannot show that it is a non,lukan element4 ,this is a second and distinct step1 which is not justified until the textual and the linguistic facts have been examined4 ,then1 and then only1 can we say if ,st4 ,luke taught the ,virgin ,birth4 ,in the present chapter all questions of a linguistic character will be left aside4 ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is perfectly susceptible of the linguistic test1 and this will be applied in its proper place4 ,the only arguments we shall consider at present will be those which arise out of matters of context and subjectmatter4 ,in the light1 then1 of the principle laid down above1 the question whether ,st4 ,luke taught the ,virgin ,birth1 does not yet properly arise4 ,the only question we have to consider at this stage is whether the ,virgin ,birth is an original element in the ,third ,gospel1 interpreting that question in its strictest and barest sense4 ,the distinction we have drawn is perfectly obvious when it is pointed out4 ,at the same time1 one cannot read the literature which treats of the ,third ,gospel in relation to the ,virgin ,birth1 without feeling how frequently the point has been neglected4 ,the assumption1 that1 if the ,virgin ,birth is found to be a later element in the ,gospel1 we must straightway have recourse to the hypothesis of non,lukan interpolation1 runs through the writings of critics of all schools like a refrain4 ,its presence in the arguments of those who deny the ,virgin ,birth is often sufficiently clear4 ,but the same assumption is also tacitly made by many critics on the other side4 ,it would be ungenerous1 and perhaps unwarranted1 to suggest that this assumption has prevented many orthodox writers from doing justice to the objections which have been raised against the view that the doctrine was present in the ,gospel from the very first4 ,that its effects have been harmful in the interests of dispassionate investigation1 is1 however1 hardly open to question4 ,in the treatment which follows1 an attempt will be made to avoid this fallacy1 and to keep the discussion within the limits which are proper to itself4 ,the material to be examined is found for the most part in the first two chapters of the ,gospel1 and consists 7#a7 of certain narratives and passages1 which apparently are inconsistent with the view that the author wrote with a knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth1 and 7#b7 of the passage i4 #cd f41 which implies the doctrine1 but is believed by many scholars to be a later insertion4 ,outside chaps4 i and ii1 the only passages which call for notice are iii4 #bb1 iii4 #bc1 and iv4 #bb4 ,we may say at once that we have few new arguments to bring forward4 ,the contentions we have to examine are familiar to every one who studies the question of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,they have been brilliantly stated in two wellknown articles in the ,encyclopaedia ,biblica1 one by ,p4 ,w4 ,schmiedel 7on 8,mary071 and the other by ,usener 78,nativity074 ,in a review 7,,hj41 vol4 i1 no4 #a1 p4 #afd71 ,dr4 ,moffatt justly describes these articles as 8competent and firstrate essays1 which deserve alert recognition04 ,but both these articles not only deny that the ,virgin ,birth was an original element in the ,third ,gospel1 but also that ,st4 ,luke1 the companion of ,st4 ,paul1 ever taught that doctrine--and this without any linguistic examination of the passage i4 #cd f4 ,they provide1 in fact1 a clear illustration of the point we have already discussed4 ,inasmuch1 then1 as our purpose is to consider the question1 ,was the ,virgin ,birth an original element in the ,third ,gospel81 interpreted in its strictest terms1 we shall need to state and weigh the arguments afresh4 ,this is the more desirable1 because1 in the form in which these scholars present their case1 each argument is put forward with an assurance and a finality which individually it does not merit4 ,it is the cumulative force of a number of arguments1 each of which has strong presumptive value1 which ultimately carries conviction2 not a series of arguments each of which is conclusive in itself4 ,we do not suppose1 of course1 that a writer like ,schmiedel would deny anything so obvious as this4 ,nevertheless1 very many ,english readers feel that his several arguments are stated too much in the light of the result4 ,moreover1 they appear to be shaped by presuppositions which are themselves fatal to the ,virgin ,birth4 ,in the present treatment of the question1 an attempt will be made to assign to each argument its proper force1 to observe its limitations as well as its cogency4 ,the result sought is not a conclusion to which we can append a triumphant ,q4 ,e4 ,d41 but that hypothesis1 whatever it be1 which best explains the observed facts taken as a whole4 ,i4 ,narratives and ,passages ,said to be ,inconsistent ,with the ,view ,our first task must be to examine those narratives and passages in the ,third ,gospel which are said to be irreconcilable with the view that ,st4 ,luke wrote in the belief that ,jesus was miraculously conceived of the ,virgin ,mary by the ,holy ,ghost4 ,what we have to ask is whether or not they are consistent with that supposition4 ,we begin with ,lk4 iii4 #bb4 7a7 ,lk4 iii4 #bb1 according to the 8,western ,text0 ,in the great majority of existing ,,mss4 this passage reads as in the ,,rv41 8,thou art my beloved ,son2 in thee ,i am well pleased04 ,but in ,codex ,bezae1 supported by ,old ,latin ,,mss4 and by quotations in ,justin and ,clement1 the passage reads1 8,thou art my ,son3 today have ,i begotten ,thee04 ,blass 7,philology of the ,gospels1 p4 #afh f47 believes this to be the genuine ,lukan reading1 and explains the common text as 8a product of assimilation to the other ,gospels04 ,usener 7,,eb41 col4 #ccdh7 also accepts the 8,western0 reading1 and says1 8,thus the passage in ,lk4 was read1 in the ,greek ,church down to about #cjj ,a4,d4 and in the ,latin ,west down to and beyond #cfj ,a4,d40 ,dr4 ,moffatt 7,,int41 #crd ed41 p4 #bfi7 goes so far as to say that the ,lukan reading 8undoubtedly was 04 ,he follows this reading in his ,translation of the ,new ,testament1 and says 7p4 #gd71 8,in the other ,,mss4 it has been altered1 for harmonistic reasons04 ,these opinions1 and the arguments upon which they rest1 have great weight4 ,if the 8,western0 reading is accepted1 a strong presumption is set up against the view that the ,third ,gospel originally contained the ,virgin ,birth2 for it is very difficult to believe that the hand which wrote1 8,to day have ,i begotten ,thee01 had already described the miraculous birth4 7,cf4 also ,harnack1 ,sayings1 pp4 #caj ff47 ,at first sight ,blass's argument would seem to show a way of escape from this conclusion4 ,he defends the 8,western0 reading by showing the close connexion which it has with the following verse4 8,the #8today have ,i begotten ,thee' stands in opposition to the #8thirty years'1 and the #8,thou art my ,son' likewise to #8being as was supposed the son of ,joseph' 0 7op4 cit41 p4 #afi74 ,the phrase 8as was supposed0 7verse #bc7 will fall to be discussed next4 ,meanwhile we may observe that the connexion which ,blass notes is actually strengthened if what ,st4 ,luke originally wrote was 8being the son of ,joseph04 ,this is the real point in the parallelism1 as ,blass himself indicates by printing the name ,joseph in italics4 ,if the 8,western0 reading is to be accepted1 a very interesting question arises as regards ,st4 ,luke's conception of the ,baptism of ,jesus4 ,there is no need to suppose that he looked upon it as the occasion of the imparting of the ,divine ,sonship4 ,if the connexion which ,blass notes be allowed1 it is probably purely literary1 and the form in which ,st4 ,luke reports the logion is determined by his recollection of ,ps4 ii4 #g47bi7 ,there is no intention1 that is to say1 on his part1 of describing an act of deification or even adoption4 ,but if the connexion is literary1 we return again to the question1 ,can we think that ,st4 ,luke would have written the passage in this form1 if he had already described the miraculous birth8 ,can we explain his deliberate preference for the language of ,ps4 ii4 #g8 ,the answer is1 we feel bound to say1 ,it is difficult1 if it is not impossible4 ,the force of this argument rests1 nevertheless1 upon the confidence with which we can accept the 8,western0 reading2 and while the present writer would favour that reading himself1 he recognizes that its attestation is not such as to compel acceptance4 ,moffatt's claim that it 8undoubtedly was0 the ,lukan reading is too strong4 ,the most we can say is that it has great1 if not very great1 probability in its favour4 7b7 ,the ,lukan ,genealogy and ,lk4 iii4 #bc ,it will be best at this point to consider the question of the ,lukan ,genealogy1 and also the passage to which attention has just been called3 8being the son 7as was supposed7 of ,joseph0 7,,rv474 ,an examination of the ,genealogy reveals the fact that it is artificially constructed1 it is an arrangement of names in multiples of seven 7cf4 ,sanday1 ,outlines1 p4 #bjb74 ,the whole list contains seventyseven names4 ,from ,adam to ,abraham there are twentyone names 7#g x #c72 from ,isaac to ,david fourteen names 7#g x #b71 if we include1 as we probably should1 the name ,admin1 as in the ,,rv4 margin2 from ,nathan to ,shealtiel twentyone names2 and from ,zerubbabel to ,christ twentyone names4 ,not only is this so1 but in order to preserve the symbolic arrangement1 names are repeated and omitted4 ,thus in verse #cf1 the compiler has preferred the ,,lxx to the ,hebrew4 ,this permits the name ,cainan to be introduced into the ,genealogy twice1 as the son of ,arphaxad in verse #cf1 and again as the son of ,enos in verse #cg4 ,no ,hebrew ,,ms4 mentions ,cainan as the son of ,arphaxad4 ,again1 in the list from ,isaac to ,david1 the name ,ram 7cf4 #a ,chron4 ii4 #aj and ,ruth iv4 #ai7 is omitted1 and in its place the two names ,admin and ,arni appear4 ,whatever be the explanation of these facts1 it is significant that in this way the symmetrical arrangement is preserved4 ,it is not probable that a ,genealogy of such an artificial character was constructed by ,st4 ,luke himself4 ,he shows no predilection for symbolic numbers in his writings1 and does not indeed appear to observe this feature in the list4 7,cf4 ,sanday1 op4 cit41 p4 #bjb1 and contrast ,mt4 i4 #ag47 ,probably he found the ,genealogy ready to hand4 ,the fact that it traces the descent to ,adam may have appealed to him1 in view of his own bent of mind1 and it may have been this feature in the list which led him to incorporate it in his ,gospel4 ,the words 8the son of ,god0 with which the list ends1 may be due to ,st4 ,luke himself1 8added for the sake of ,gentile readers1 to remind them of the ,divine origin of the human race0 7,plummer1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,luke1 p4 #aje7 ,it does not seem likely that the ,genealogy in its original form1 in the form1 that is to say1 in which ,st4 ,luke found it1 contained the words which now stand in iii4 #bc1 8as was supposed04 ,it is generally allowed at the present day that the ,genealogies1 both in the ,first ,gospel and in the ,third1 trace the ancestry of ,jesus through ,joseph4 ,but unlike the ,matthaean ,genealogy1 that in ,lk4 gives us no reason to suppose that legal descent only is traced in it4 ,it is therefore difficult to believe that its author intended to construct a chain of descent in which the vital link should contain the words1 8as was supposed04 ,these words more naturally give the impression of being a later insertion intended to adapt the ,genealogy to a new situation4 ,for our present purpose the important question is1 ,are these words the words of ,st4 ,luke81 and what is still more vital1 ,at what point1 if ,lukan1 were they inserted in the ,genealogy1--when it was first incorporated in the ,gospel1 or at some subsequent time8 ,if from the first they stood where they now stand1 it is obvious that the ,third ,gospel taught the ,virgin ,birth from the beginning4 ,if1 on the other hand1 they were added after the ,gospel was written 7or its earlier chapters71 this supports the view that the doctrine is a later element4 ,the data at present at our disposal do not enable us to decide between these alternatives4 ,we may argue a priori that it is unlikely that ,st4 ,luke would have thought it worth while to introduce the ,genealogy at all1 if at the time when he wove it into his ,gospel he had realized the necessity of interpolating the words 8as was supposed04 ,in other words1 we may say that had he known of the ,virgin ,birth from the first he would never have made use of the ,genealogy4 ,and further1 we may argue that we best conserve ,st4 ,luke's reputation as a skilful writer by supposing the phrase 8as was supposed0 to be a correction1 introduced to make the best of a ,genealogy1 used in the first place under presuppositions which new information had now led him to discard4 ,short of excising the ,genealogy altogether--we may say--he did the best he could4 ,but such speculations1 however attractive1 do not lead to a conclusion which we can regard with confidence4 ,it is better to leave iii4 #bc to depend upon the conclusion to which we come with regard to i4 #cd f4 ,this is the crucial passage1 and if this should prove to be a later insertion1 then iii4 #bc must also be regarded as such1 introduced by the same hand at the same time and for the same reasons4 7c7 ,the ,narratives of ,lk4 ii ,we have now to examine the narratives of ,lk4 ii1 and to ask1 ,under what presuppositions were they shaped8 ,the incidents which call for special notice are the ,purifying1 the meeting with ,simeon in the ,temple1 and the visit of ,jesus to ,jerusalem at the age of twelve4 ,the five passages which speak of 8the parents0 of ,jesus will be considered separately4 ,there is no need to dwell on the story of the visit of the shepherds4 ,it goes without saying that it nowhere presupposes the ,virgin ,birth4 ,on the other hand1 there is nothing in the presentation of the story which is alien to the doctrine4 ,turning to the story of the ,purifying in ,lk4 ii4 #bbd1 we are met by the question1 ,what are we to understand by the phrase 8their purification0 7ii4 #bb78 ,attempts have been made to take the pronoun as referring to the mother and the child1 but1 in view of the construction of the passage1 this exegesis is impossible4 ,joseph and ,mary are clearly the unexpressed subject of the verb in the sentence in which the pronoun 8their0 occurs 78,and when the days of their purification 444 were fulfilled1 they brought him up to ,jerusalem074 ,schmiedel holds that the word 8their0 refers to ,joseph and ,mary17#cj7 and without doubt this opinion is correct4 ,but if this is so1 is it probable that ,st4 ,luke had the thought of a virgin birth in the background of his mind when he first penned the phrase8 ,is not the pronoun one which we may think he would have been anxious to avoid8 ,nor was there any need for him to introduce it1 since1 according to the ,levitical law1 it was only the mother who was made unclean by a birth 7cf4 ,lev4 xii74 ,schmiedel1 who calls attention to this fact1 thinks that the writer has made 8an archaeological error04 8,this error serves to show that the writer regarded ,joseph as the actual father of ,jesus2 otherwise he could not have thought of him at all as unclean0 7,,eb41 col4 #biee74 ,even if we think that ,schmiedel's remorseless logic is too confidently applied1 the fact remains that ,st4 ,luke's pronoun is as unnecessary as it is ambiguous4 ,the difficulty of the expression is not felt by the modern mind alone4 ,it is reflected in two subsequent textual alterations4 ,instead of 8their purification01 the ,codex ,bezae reads 8his purification01 and the ,sin4 ,syr4 ,,ms41 together with the cursive #gf1 has the pronoun 8her04 ,the textual evidence forbids us to accept the reading 8her purification01 but this is assuredly the phrase we should expect a writer to use who has just told the story of a virgin birth4 ,in the two remaining stories1 that of the meeting with ,simeon1 and that of the visit of ,jesus to ,jerusalem1 there is a common element which provokes reflection in the surprise of ,joseph and ,mary4 ,in reference to the prophecy of ,simeon concerning ,jesus1 we are told that they 8were marvelling at0 the things that were said 7ii4 #cc74 ,we can readily account for this remark1 if ,st4 ,luke had no knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth at the time of writing1 for the prophecy of ,simeon transcends that of the angelic announcement of i4 #cac4 ,whereas the latter does not leave the soil of ,israel1 the former speaks of a revelation to the ,gentiles4 ,we could say1 then1 that the wider scope of the prophecy of ,simeon provides room for wonder4 ,but can we say this if ,st4 ,luke believed ,mary to have received the announcement of a virgin birth1 which1 moreover1 had been fulfilled8 ,would he have thought any prophecy called for wonder after such facts as these8 ,the same difficulty arises in the story of the visit to the ,temple4 ,after ,st4 ,luke has recorded the pregnant words of ,jesus1 8,wist ye not that ,i must be in my ,father's house801 he writes3 8,and they understood not the saying which he spake unto them0 7ii4 #ej74 ,if1 in this case1 as distinguished from ii4 #cc1 the ,evangelist had said that they marvelled1 the difficulty would be less great4 ,it might then have been argued that1 inasmuch as the facts of ,his birth had not been made known to the boy ,jesus1 there was room for wonder that already ,he should have attained to such a consciousness of filial relationship to ,god4 ,but to say that they did not understand ,his words is an astonishing statement on the part of a writer who believes the ,virgin ,birth4 ,on the other hand1 it is a perfectly natural remark1 if we can presume the ,evangelist to have written in the absence of such a belief47#ca7 ,speaking of the narratives of ,lk4 ii1 as a whole1 we may say that1 apart from the references to 8the parents01 which remain to be considered1 distinct difficulties are raised if we must believe that ,st4 ,luke knew of the ,virgin ,birth at the time when he first wrote the chapter1 and that greater justice can be done to the narratives if we can presume him to have written them without that knowledge4 ,how far this view is supported by the five passages which speak of ,joseph and ,mary1 we have now to consider4 7d7 ,the ,references to ,joseph and ,mary in ,lk4 ii ,these passages are as follows3 ii4 #bg1 8the parents02 ii4 #da and #dc1 8his parents02 ii4 #cc1 8his father and his mother02 and ii4 #dh1 8thy father and ,i04 ,the point to be considered is whether we can suppose ,st4 ,luke to have known of the ,virgin ,birth at the time when he used these expressions4 ,the last passage 7ii4 #dh7 differs from the rest1 and should not be pressed4 ,it is reasonable to urge that1 in addressing the boy ,jesus1 ,mary would naturally speak in this way1 even if the ,virgin ,birth is historically true2 and that it is conceivable that ,st4 ,luke1 while himself holding the doctrine1 should have been so far faithful to his sources as to preserve ,mary's words in this form4 ,in this respect the four passages which remain are quite different1 in that they are expressions which ,st4 ,luke himself employs4 ,this gives them a distinctive character which has often been overlooked4 ,it has been too frequently assumed that these passages are of like character to those which belong to the story of ,jesus at the synagogue at ,nazareth4 ,in this incident the ,jews speak of ,jesus as 8the carpenter's son0 7,mt4 xiii4 #ee4 ,cf4 ,mk4 vi4 #c1 8the carpenter1 the son of ,mary074 ,st4 ,luke1 who records the same incident1 but perhaps follows a special source of his own 7,lk4 iv4 #af ff471 gives the question in the form1 8,is not this ,joseph's son80 ,with regard to these passages1 it is open to any one to urge that in them we have instances of the accuracy with which the ,gospels record contemporary beliefs1 which were natural but erroneous4 ,the language of the ,jews1 it may be said1 is justified by ignorance of the true facts1 and its retention by ,evangelists who teach the ,virgin ,birth is evidence of their fidelity to detail4 ,this is a reasonable argument1 and it cannot be gainsaid1 until the whole question has been faced 7again1 as in the case of ii4 #dh74 ,but the four passages in ,lk4 ii stand upon an entirely different footing4 ,in these passages it is not a question of what is justified by ignorance1 but of what is possible in the light of knowledge4 ,assuming that we have to do with a writer who believes ,jesus to be the son of ,mary by the direct operation of the ,holy ,ghost1 we have to ask whether1 believing this1 and having 7on this assumption7 just stated this very thing1 that writer would be at all likely to speak of 8the parents01 8his parents01 and1 indeed1 to use an expression so definite as 8his father and his mother04 ,in short1 granting that ,st4 ,luke has recorded the language of the ,nazarenes1 can we suppose that he would have used the same language himself in the light of the ,virgin ,birth8 ,it is not as if these modes of speech were indispensable4 ,the words 8,joseph and ,mary0 could easily have been employed1 and in this way all danger of ambiguity removed4 ,in the face of a fact so unique as a virgin birth1 one would expect an effort to avoid ambiguity2 all the more1 in the case of a writer1 with whose apt choice of words and delicacy of expression scholars like ,ramsay and ,harnack have made us familiar4 ,in saying this we are not guilty of imposing modern canons of accuracy upon an ancient writer4 ,the difficulties we ourselves feel have long been felt4 8,it is very noteworthy that six old ,latin codices in ii4 #da have ,ioseph et ,maria for #8his parents' 7 72 most uncials in ii4 #cc substitute #8,joseph' 7 7 for #8his father' 7 70 7,schmiedel1 ,,eb41 col4 #biee74 ,none of these readings can claim1 of course1 to be original1 since admittedly they represent attempts to remove difficulties4 ,their significance lies in the fact that they indicate that those difficulties have long been felt4 ,they show that we are not asking an ancient writer to conform to modern standards1 when we assert that ,st4 ,luke has expressed himself with an ambiguity which it is difficult1 if not impossible1 to understand1 if he wrote from the first in the knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,the impression made by the narratives of ,lk4 ii is thus deepened and confirmed by the several references to ,joseph and ,mary4 7e7 ,lk4 ii4 #e ,the bearing of the facts examined thus far is in the direction of showing the ,virgin ,birth to belong to a later stratum in the ,gospel4 ,one passage in ,lk4 ii might seem to invalidate this view4 ,in the ,revised ,version1 verse #e reads3 8to enrol himself with ,mary1 who was betrothed to him1 being great with child04 ,these words1 if they must stand1 imply that the ,virgin ,birth is known to the writer4 ,but1 apart altogether from the historical character of the miracle1 it is highly probable that we ought to read3 8with ,mary his wife047#cb7 ,this is the reading of the ,sinaitic ,syriac and of the ,old ,latin ,,mss4 a1 b1 c2 and the word 8wife0 together with 8betrothed01 also appears in ,,ac#b1 l1 q991 ,syrp1 vulg41 goth41 aeth4 7,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bfi74 ,there is much to be said for the view that this is one of the cases in which 8,western0 readings1 where ,old ,syriac and ,old ,latin ,,mss4 agree1 probably preserve an original text47#cc7 ,when we add the argument of transcriptional probability1 it is difficult to resist this conclusion4 ,one can easily understand how the reading 8with ,mary his wife0 could come to be altered to 8with ,mary1 who was betrothed to him0 by those who imagined that the former was inconsistent with the ,virgin ,birth4 ,but1 if the words 8with ,mary1 who was betrothed to him0 stood in the primitive text1 can we give any satisfactory explanation of the change8 ,when we consider that from ,new ,testament times the ,virgin ,birth was part of the faith of the ,church1 questioned by few save the ,ebionites and some of the ,gnostic sects1 the supposition that 8with ,mary his wife0 is a later corruption1 becomes improbable in the extreme4 ,it is hardly sufficient to adopt ,plummer's suggestion1 that 8the of ,a4 ,vulg4 ,syr4 and ,aeth4 is a gloss1 but a correct one0 7op4 cit41 p4 #ec74 ,must we not find more than a gloss8 ,moreover1 is this a satisfactory explanation of the ,sin4 ,syr4 and of those ,old ,latin ,,mss4 which have 8wife0 without 8betrothed08 ,we should probably conclude that in this instance the 8,western0 reading1 supported by transcriptional probability1 must outweigh the evidence of even the great uncials1 and that what ,st4 ,luke wrote was 8with ,mary his wife04 ,if this view is sound1 the verse in itself is not necessarily inconsistent with the ,virgin ,birth1 since it may reasonably be urged that it carries us no further than ,mt4 i4 #bd1 where the marriage is implied47#cd7 ,if this fact is put forward in a narrative which expressly teaches the ,virgin ,birth1 it could be so here4 ,the phrase 8with ,mary his wife0 is certainly congruous with the view that the doctrine is a later element in the ,third ,gospel1 but it would be improper to employ it in support of that view4 7,the case is like those of ii4 #dh1 iv4 #bb47 ,but even if we must leave the question open1 at any rate we have no longer to reckon with the words1 8with ,mary1 who was betrothed to him04 ,there is nothing1 therefore1 in the verse which is in conflict with the view that ,st4 ,luke had no knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth when he first wrote his ,gospel4 ,before leaving this part of the subject it may be well to recall the nature of the argument4 ,the several points treated are not regarded as contentions which inexorably demand a certain conclusion1 but as distinct difficulties1 greater or less1 which arise1 on the view that ,st4 ,luke knew of the ,virgin ,birth from the first4 ,we may fairly say that the facts examined thus far would be best satisfied by considering the ,virgin ,birth as a later element in the ,gospel2 but1 until we have investigated the important passage ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 it would be precarious to say more4 ,,ii4 ,the ,passage ,lk4 i4 #cd f ,in the ,revised ,version ,lk4 i4 #cd;f4 reads as follows3 8,and ,mary said unto the angel1 ,how shall this be1 seeing ,i know not a man8 7#ce7 ,and the angel answered and said unto her1 ,the ,holy ,ghost shall come upon thee1 and the power of the ,most ,high shall overshadow thee3 wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy1 the ,son of ,god40 ,as regards the last clause1 the margin gives the alternative rendering3 8the holy thing which is to be born shall be called the ,son of ,god04 ,the difference rests upon a question of punctuation in the ,greek1 and does not affect our immediate problem4 ,our purpose in this section is to inquire how far the view1 which is widely held1 that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is a later insertion is justified4 ,but two important questions must detain us first4 7a7 ,is the assumption we have made thus far1 that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 implies the ,virgin ,birth1 tenable8 ,what is the true interpretation of the passage8 7b7 ,what is the purport of the angelic announcement in ,lk4 i4 #cjc8 ,is ,dr4 ,plummer's language justified1 when1 in reference to this message1 he speaks of 8the strange declaration that she ,mary is to have a son before she is married0 7op4 cit41 p4 #bd78 ,is there any suggestion of a virgin birth8 7a7 ,the ,interpretation of ,lk4 i4 #cd f ,in the text as it stands1 in answer to the angel's words in ,lk4 i4 #cjc1 ,mary says3 8,how shall this be1 seeing ,i know not 7 7 a man80 ,the interpretation of this verse depends upon the force we give to the word 4 ,schmiedel 7,,eb41 col4 #bief7 thinks that in this verse 8cannot mean the act of concubitus for which the word is often employed01 because it is here used in the present tense4 ,on the other hand1 the quite general sense of knowledge in the way of acquaintanceship1 is also1 in his view1 8equally precluded01 since it would be 8quite meaningless in the present context04 ,accordingly1 he finds the true interpretation to be 8the intermediate one2 ,i have no such acquaintanceship with any man as might lead to the fulfilment of this prophecy04 ,in other words1 ,mary's objection or difficulty is that she is not even betrothed4 ,schmiedel is not daunted by the fact that this interpretation is in conflict with ,lk4 i4 #bg 78a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was ,joseph074 ,indeed1 the contradiction is given as one reason for regarding ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 as a later insertion4 ,in this respect ,schmiedel's view will probably not command much support4 ,he gives no example of used in the special sense in which he interprets it1 and fails to justify his rejection of the common use of the verb4 7,see ,th,gr41 p4 #aag2 ,,vgt41 p4 #abg47 ,it is altogether preferable to follow ,dr4 ,plummer 7op4 cit41 p4 #bd71 whose view is indicated in the references which he gives to the ,,ot4 passages1 ,gen4 xix4 #h2 ,judg4 xi4 #ci2 ,num4 xxxi4 #ag4 8,the words01 says ,dr4 ,plummer1 8are the avowal of a maiden conscious of her own purity04 ,according to this view the phrase 8seeing ,i know not a man0 must be interpreted of the marital relationship4 ,mary's perplexity is that she1 an unmarried woman1 is promised an immediate conception4 ,it is impossible to accept ,schmiedel's view1 when he says3 8,mary takes the words of the angel as referring to a fulfilment in the way of nature04 ,this explanation is1 of course1 consistent on the interpretation which ,schmiedel gives to ,mary's question1 but not on that which we have found reason to prefer4 ,had ,mary understood the angelic message to mean a natural human birth after marriage1 there would have been no cause for perplexity4 ,her words1 8,how shall this be1 seeing ,i know not a man801 are clearly a reply to what is understood as the announcement of an immediate conception1 and not of a birth within the marriage tie4 ,if this view is taken of ,mary's words1 it follows that verse #ce must be explained as the yet clearer announcement of a virgin birth1 supernaturally caused4 ,if the verse is treated in itself1 it is possible to interpret it of an ordinary human birth1 and there is much that is attractive in the interpretation4 ,the words may be said to speak of the ,holy ,ghost who should come upon ,mary to inspire and preserve the purity of her soul in the act of conception4 ,they may speak1 that is to say1 of ,god's use of ,his own appointed agencies4 ,but1 to accept this view1 it would be necessary to regard the words 8seeing ,i know not a man0 as a later insertion1 and1 though this opinion has been held by some 7including ,kattenbusch1 ,weinel1 ,j4 ,m4 ,thompson71 it does not on the whole commend itself as a satisfactory solution of the problem 7see further pp4 #fi ff474 ,we are compelled therefore to accept the ordinary interpretation of verse #ce1 as implying the ,miraculous ,conception4 7b7 ,the ,purport of the ,angelic ,announcement in ,lk4 i4 #cjc ,in treating ,mary's question in ,lk4 i4 #cd4 we have concluded that it reflects the point of view of one who has received the announcement of a miraculous birth4 ,but this conclusion does not compel us to interpret the words of ,lk4 i4 #cjc as containing such an announcement4 ,we have to examine the passage so as to determine whether as a matter of fact it is susceptible of that interpretation4 ,that its present context requires this view of ,lk4 i4 #cjc is a fact not lightly to be regarded2 nevertheless1 it must find justification within the passage itself before it can be accepted4 ,in the ,revised ,version1 the angelic message reads as follows3 8,fear not1 ,mary3 for thou hast found favour with ,god4 7#ca7 ,and behold1 thou shalt conceive in thy womb1 and bring forth a son1 and shalt call his name ,jesus4 7#cb7 ,he shall be great1 and shall be called the ,son of the ,most ,high3 and the ,lord ,god shall give unto him the throne of his father ,david3 7#cc7 and he shall reign over the house of ,jacob for ever2 and of his kingdom there shall be no end40 ,we have already expressed the view that this prophecy moves strictly within ,jewish limits 7p4 #bi74 ,detailed study of the passage only serves to confirm this opinion4 ,the ,sonship mentioned in verse #cb bears a purely ,messianic character4 ,dr4 ,plummer justly remarks3 8,the title expresses some very close relation between ,jesus and ,jehovah1 but not the ,divine ,sonship in the ,trinity0 7op4 cit41 p4 #bc74 ,nothing is either said or implied in this announcement of a miraculous birth4 ,the terms of the promise to ,mary would be perfectly fulfilled by an ordinary birth within the marriage tie1 so far1 that is to say1 as the mode of birth is concerned4 ,we must therefore reject the view which speaks of 8the strange declaration that she is to bear a son before she is married0 7,plummer74 ,we look in vain for this declaration4 ,we agree that ,mary's question in verse #cd demands such a declaration in order to make it rational4 ,in fact1 we ourselves have argued that verse #cd is 8a reply to what is understood as the announcement of an immediate conception04 ,nevertheless1 even on the most generous interpretation of ,lk4 i4 #cjc1 it is impossible to find in the passage any such announcement47#ce7 ,there is thus a radical difference of point of view between the angelic announcement of ,lk4 i4 #cjc and ,mary's question in ,lk4 i4 #cd4 ,this difference of standpoint will be urged as one1 though not the only reason for regarding ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 as a later insertion4 ,but before we examine these reasons1 we need to consider whether after all the angelic announcement may not contain some implication 7which does not lie upon the surface of the passage7 that a ,miraculous ,conception is promised4 ,we find it impossible to rest satisfied in the suggestion of ,w4 ,c4 ,allen1 that there may have been some unrecorded indication of something unique in the conception 7,interpreter1 #aije1 p4 #aba f474 ,a suggestion of this kind can neither be justified nor gainsaid1 and is valuable only as a confirmation of the view that there is nothing 8recorded0 in ,lk4 i4 #cjc of a unique conception4 ,to launch upon the waters of what is unrecorded would seem to be a policy of despair4 ,there is much more to be said for an extremely interesting suggestion of ,canon ,box in his article on the ,virgin ,birth in ,hastings's ,dictionary of ,christ and the ,gospels 7see vol4 ii1 p4 #hjf a74 ,box argues that in the angelic announcement of ,lk4 i4 #cjc 8an immediate conception is meant04 ,accepting the view that a ,hebrew original underlies the nativitynarratives of ,lk4 i1 ii1 he thinks that this original has been incorrectly translated in ,lk4 i4 #ca1 where1 in the ,greek1 we have the future tense 1 8thou shalt conceive04 8,the ,hebrew original of would be a participle01 he says1 8and the exact rendering would be1 #8,behold1 thou art conceiving now' 04 ,there can be no doubt that1 if this view can be allowed1 the angelic announcement really does speak of a miraculous birth1 and thus an adequate explanation is given of ,mary's surprise in ,lk4 i4 #cd4 ,there are1 however1 certain objections which1 in the judgement of the present writer1 appear to be fatal to this theory4 ,we need not press the objection that it rests upon an initial assumption1 the existence of the supposed ,hebrew original1 since this theory of a ,hebrew 7or ,aramaic7 documentary source is accepted by most ,british scholars4 ,nor is it more than a formal objection if we question if the word would necessarily be represented in the supposed ,hebrew original by a participle4 ,in the ,hebrew ,,nt4 published by the ,british and ,foreign ,bible ,society1 the adjective is used1 and this is the case in similar passages in the ,hebrew ,,ot41 viz4 ,gen4 xvi4 #aa1 xxxviii4 #bd2 ,judg4 xiii4 #g 7verse #c1 perf472 #a ,sam4 iv4 #ai2 #b ,sam4 xi4 #e2 ,isa4 vii4 #ad4 ,a more serious objection arises from ,lk4 ii4 #ba1 where it is said that the name ,jesus was so called by the angel 8before he was conceived in the womb0 7 74 ,on the theory we are considering1 this must be held to be either a second mistranslation of the ,hebrew original1 or a departure from it4 ,in either case we must conclude that a promised conception1 and not an immediate one1 was the considered view of the translator of the ,hebrew document4 ,a second and conclusive objection to the theory of ,canon ,box rests upon questions of grammatical syntax4 ,is it correct to say that 8the exact rendering0 of the participle 7or adj47 would be1 8,behold1 thou art conceiving now08 ,it is true that the active participle is 8mainly descriptive of something present0 7,davidson1 ,hebrew ,syntax1 p4 #acd71 but it is also true1 to quote the same authority1 that 8the participle does not indicate time1 its colour in this respect being taken from the connexion in which it stands04 ,the same consideration also applies to in all the ,,ot4 instances referred to above4 ,where it is made clear in the context that conception has already taken place1 is translated in the ,,rv4 by the present 7cf4 ,gen4 xvi4 #aa1 xxxviii4 #bd2 #b ,sam4 xi4 #e74 ,where1 however1 there is no such indication1 it is rendered by the future1 and the announcement is treated as a promise 7cf4 ,judg4 xiii4 #g74 ,to convict the translator of the ,hebrew document of an error in translation1 it is clearly necessary to show from the context of ,lk4 i4 #ca that conception has already taken place4 ,in other words1 the translation preferred by ,canon ,box1 if it is to be accepted1 must be justified by some statement1 either previously made1 or made within the angelic announcement itself2 it must be required1 that is to say1 by something in the narrative previous to ,mary's question in ,lk4 i4 #cd47cf7 ,but these conditions1 which are by no means arbitrary1 cannot be met4 ,we must1 therefore1 conclude that the translator was quite justified1 when he used the future 771 and so represented the announcement as a prophecy2 and we must draw this conclusion1 irrespective altogether of the difference of point of view which thus stands revealed between this announcement and verse #cd in the connexion in which it now appears4 ,indeed1 the argument of ,canon ,box seems capable of being employed in a direction the very reverse of that intended4 ,it could be argued that since1 in point of fact1 the translator has used the future in verse #ca1 there was nothing in the ,hebrew original to suggest to his mind the idea of an immediate conception2 not even the statement of verse #cd1 which might have suggested1 though it does not justify1 the rendering1 8,behold1 thou art conceiving now04 ,thus we might enlist the considered view of the translator1 that a promised conception is meant1 in support of the contention that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is a later insertion4 ,without pressing this view1 we may fairly say that there is much more to be said for it than for the theory we have discussed4 ,the latter theory1 in spite of all that can be urged in its favour1 fails to justify itself4 ,in that case its failure seems to illustrate the somewhat desperate expedients to which we must have recourse1 in order to find in the angelic announcement the thought of an immediate conception4 ,on the question as a whole1 we can only conclude that such a view is neither stated nor implied in the announcement1 but that1 on the contrary1 its reference is to the future4 7c7 ,reasons for regarding ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 as a ,later ,insertion ,having sought to give their full force and proper meaning to the two passages1 ,lk4 i4 #cjc and ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 we may now consider the arguments which can be advanced in favour of regarding the latter passage as an interpolation4 ,in respect of these arguments1 there is far from general agreement among those who are at one in the conclusion reached4 ,but the significant fact is not the diversity of opinion as regards the mode of proof1 but the agreement of so many scholars in holding the passage to be a later insertion47#cg7 ,the arguments we shall examine are not equally cogent1 and1 as in the first part of the present chapter1 we shall call attention to their limitations as well as to the points in which they are strong4 ,we shall also treat the case entirely apart from the results suggested in the first half of our inquiry4 ,those results1 if valid1 set up a presupposition against ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,but it seems much the best not to avail ourselves of such an argument1 but rather to consider the passage in itself and in relation to its context4 ,if in this way we find reasonable grounds for considering ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 to be a later insertion1 we have then a double series of arguments converging on one conclusion4 7#a7 ,the first point to be considered is that verse #cf follows naturally after verse #cc4 ,as we have seen1 in verses #cjc we have an angelic announcement to ,mary to the effect that she is to give birth to a son who is destined to become the ,messiah4 ,he will be called 8the ,son of the ,most ,high01 and to him the ,lord ,god will give 8the throne of his father ,david04 ,to this message1 it may be said1 verses #cf and #cg form a fitting sequel4 ,they add the assurance that 8no word from ,god shall be void of power01 in proof of which it is declared that ,mary's kinswoman1 ,elisabeth1 is shortly to bear a son in her old age4 ,the whole speech 7,lk4 i4 #cjc1 #cf1 #cg7 is a consistent passage1 and in relation to it the words of ,mary in verse #ch--8;,behold1 the handmaid of the ,lord2 be it unto me according to thy word0--are a natural and fitting reply4 ,canon ,box1 in the article already cited1 questions this view4 8,there would be nothing extraordinary01 he says 8in ,mary's conceiving a son as ,joseph's wife0--nothing1 that is to say1 to require the sign offered4 ,but surely it is not a question of 8conceiving a son01 but of conceiving such a son1 the longpromised ,messiah2 and1 moreover1 the ratification of so great a promise by means of a miracle is a commonplace of ,,ot4 thought4 ,it is not suggested1 of course1 that this argument proves ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 to be an interpolation4 ,that a section runs smoothly when a particular passage within it is excised1 is no proof that that passage is not original4 ,this last conclusion must be established on the ground of other arguments4 ,if1 however1 in the present instance1 other arguments carry weight1 then the fact that verse #cf can be connected easily and naturally with verse #cc becomes of very great importance1 and it is for that reason that we introduce it here4 7#b7 ,we take a really decisive step when we instance what already has been found1 namely that verse #cd follows quite unnaturally upon ,lk4 i4 #cjc4 ,we have seen that ,mary's question implies the announcement of an immediate conception1 and we have failed to find any such announcement in the angel's words4 ,there is thus a complete difference of point of view in the two passages4 ,no possible ground is provided in the angelic announcement for the objection raised in verse #cd4 ,it is difficult1 therefore1 to deny the suggestion that ,mary's question already implies a knowledge of what is told for the first time in verse #ce4 ,but this view1 if we accept it1 is to say that ,mary's question could not possibly have been present to the mind of ,mary in the connexion in which it stands2 it was the last question she would have thought of asking4 ,the question can only have been put into her mouth by one who already knew of the ,virgin ,birth1 and wished to introduce that doctrine into a context in which originally it did not appear4 ,on the interpretation which we have given to ,lk4 i4 #cjc and ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 this conclusion is inevitable1 unless we prefer to find in ,st4 ,luke an utter inconsecutiveness of thought which does him no credit as writer1 and which neither of his works justify us in attributing to him4 7#c7 ,we are unable to attach the same force to the contention that verse #ce is followed unnaturally by verses #cf and #cg 7so ,schmiedel71 though this view has something to be said for it4 ,verse #ce announces the virgin birth of the promised ,messiah1 a doctrine which is not found in ,jewish literature and tradition1 and for which1 therefore1 the mind of ,mary must have been utterly unprepared47#ch7 ,as the section now stands1 the statement of verses #cf and #cg is added as a sign that what has just been promised will surely come to pass4 ,this sign1 we have already argued1 would be quite natural1 according to ,,ot4 modes of thought1 as authenticating such a message as that given in ,lk4 i4 #cjc4 ,but can we say this in reference to the promise of a virgin birth8 ,to the modern mind at least the argument seems faulty and unconvincing4 ,mary is bidden to accept as the divine promise what is so remarkable as to be otherwise unknown to her1 on the ground of what is certainly remarkable but familiar to her mind and outlook4 ,in truth1 this seems a remarkable argument with which to credit an angel6 ,at the same time1 it has to be admitted that such an objection may be too stringent1 and that it may not allow sufficiently for ancient modes of thought1 according to which the argument from the less to the greater is by no means uncommon4 ,for this reason the present writer would not feel confident in pressing the argument sketched above47#ci7 7#d7 ,a much stronger argument calls attention to the similarity between ,mary's question and that of ,zacharias 7,lk4 i4 #ah71 and the difference with which they are treated by the angel4 8,mary's speech expresses doubt of the truth of the angel's message1 and yet she is not so much as blamed1 whilst ,zacharias is actually punished for a like doubt 7i4 #bj7047dj7 ,the presumption is that the two cases do not emanate from the same cycle of tradition4 ,the force of this argument depends1 of course1 upon the way in which we interpret ,lk4 i4 #cd4 ,it is true that we have no indication of the tone in which the question is asked1 beyond the words themselves and the sentences which follow2 but quite sufficient is given to indicate the presence of doubt4 ,the point is not merely one of subjective valuation4 ,this will appear if we consider ,plummer's view1 which is quite different from ,schmiedel's4 8,she does not ask for proof1 as ,zacharias did 7ver4 #ah72 and only in the form of the words does she ask as to the mode of accomplishment4 ,her utterance is little more than an involuntary expression of amazement4444 ,it is clear that she does not doubt the fact promised1 nor for a moment suppose that her child is to be the child of ,joseph0 7op4 cit41 p4 #bd74 ,in weighing this opinion1 it should be noticed that it refers only to the words1 8 ,we may readily agree that if all that ,mary had said were1 8,how shall this be801 we should be unable to contest this view4 ,but to divide ,mary's question in this way is not permissible4 ,the second part1 8seeing ,i know not a man01 clearly determines the first1 and debars us from viewing it as merely 8an involuntary expression of amazement04 ,the presence of doubt1 we think1 must be conceded1 though it is less marked than in the case of ,zacharias4 ,this view1 moreover1 is supported by the fact that1 in the narrative as it stands1 an explanation follows1 which is also confirmed by a sign4 ,since1 as ,plummer says1 ,mary1 unlike ,zacharias1 does not ask for proof1 we need not object that she is not 8punished40 ,and it is just possible that we make the parallelism too rigid if we lay stress on the fact that 8she is not so much as blamed04 ,it is rather the 8eulogium0 of ,lk4 i4 #de 78,blessed is she that believed07 which presents the difficulty4 ,it is true that1 in the narrative as we have it now1 ,mary believes ultimately 7verse #ch71 but ,lk4 i4 #de seems rather to belong to a narrative in which ,mary believes from the first4 ,we conclude that the present argument gives real support to the view that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 belongs to a source distinct from its context4 7#e7 ,a fifth argument dwells on the different senses in which ,divine ,sonship is predicated of the promised child in verse #cb as compared with verse #ce4 ,as we have seen1 the term in verse #cb is purely ,messianic4 ,but in verse #ce the expression must be given a very different meaning4 ,it is in consequence of 7 7 the divine overshadowing that the child is to be called 8,son of ,god04 ,here1 to quote ,dr4 ,j4 ,estlin ,carpenter1 the term denotes 8not official adoption1 but actual origin01 and1 with the same writer1 we must conclude that verse #ce 8is thus a doublet of verses #ca1 #cb on another plane0 7op4 cit41 p4 #dhg747da7 ,it is more difficult to decide whether the difference supports the theory of interpolation4 ,we cannot shut out the possibility that two diverse types of ,sonship might have been attributed by ,st4 ,luke to the same speaker at the same time of writing4 ,but1 having said this1 we may observe that it is certainly much easier to suppose1 and is much more probable1 that they belong to different periods of reflection1 and are the product 7or deposit7 of different traditions4 ,this argument1 then1 may be said to lean in the direction of the theory of interpolation1 but1 for the reason given above1 we should hesitate to urge it1 if it stood alone4 7#f7 ,we have lastly to look at the vexed question of the ,davidic descent4 ,it is safe to say that1 if we had not ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 in the ,gospel as it stands today1 we should have no ground for regarding ,mary as of ,davidic descent4 ,it is the presence of these verses that makes possible that inference in verse #cb1 where1 in addressing ,mary1 the angel speaks of ,david as the forefather of the promised child4 ,it is surely a remarkable fact that a point so vital to ,st4 ,luke's narrative as the ,davidic descent of ,mary should be introduced in so incidental a manner4 ,our wonder is increased when we observe that ,st4 ,luke is at great pains to assure ,theophilus of the ,davidic descent of ,joseph4 ,in ii4 #d it is said that ,joseph was 8of the house and family of ,david02 not a word is said of ,mary's descent4 ,it is true that the ,sin4 ,syr4 reads1 8because they were both of the house of ,david02 but this does not naturally fit into the structure of the sentence1 is unsupported elsewhere1 and is accepted by no one2 it clearly represents an attempt to remove a difficulty4 ,in4 i4 #bg it is also said that ,joseph was 8of the house of ,david04 ,the phrase cannot be construed with the word 8virgin01 which occurs earlier in the sentence1 in view of the fact that after ,st4 ,luke resumes the thread of the story by saying 8and the virgin's name was ,mary02 otherwise1 he would have continued 7so ,schmiedel1 op4 cit41 col4 #bieg71 8and her name was ,mary04 ,it is not easy indeed to resist ,schmiedel's further contention that the phrasing of the sentence expressly forbids our ascribing the ,davidic descent to ,mary1 though the opinion is put forward with greater confidence than seems justified4 ,the one passage in which ,st4 ,luke directly refers to the family of ,mary is dubious4 ,in i4 #cf ,elisabeth is said to be 8the kinswoman0 of ,mary1 and we know from i4 #e that ,elisabeth was 8of the daughters of ,aaron01 which seems to imply that ,mary too was of ,levitical descent4 ,but as the precise nature of the relationship is not stated1 we cannot say1 with ,schmiedel1 ,usener1 and others1 that this is so4 ,nevertheless1 the broad fact remains that apart from an inference1 which itself depends on ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 we have no grounds for believing ,mary to be a descendant of ,david4 ,st4 ,luke undoubtedly believes ,jesus to be of ,davidic descent2 he carefully shows ,joseph to be of that descent2 he gives us no reason to suppose1 that1 like the author of the ,first ,gospel1 he traced the descent of ,jesus through ,joseph as ,his legal father2 and yet1 in spite of all this1 he has left the vital question of the ,davidic descent of ,mary at the mercy of an inference6 ,if he knows ,mary to be a descendant of ,david1 why does he not say so explicitly8 ,we have a right to ask the question1 which is neither captious nor unfair4 ,no one has yet answered it satisfactorily1 except in the answer that ,st4 ,luke had no tradition of the ,davidic descent of ,mary at his disposal1 that he traced the descent of ,jesus through ,joseph as ,his real father1 that this is the true interpretation of verse #cb1 and that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is a later insertion1 which has imposed on verse #cb a sense which originally it did not bear4 ,regard ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 as a later insertion1 and all the facts alleged by ,st4 ,luke about the ,davidic descent fall into intelligible order2 refuse to do this1 and they remain in inexplicable confusion4 ,when we consider the cumulative force of the preceding arguments1 it becomes impossible for us to think that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 was written at the same time1 and from the same point of view1 as the context in which it now stands2 it is clearly a later insertion4 ,with some reason we may hesitate to say that verse #cf does not follow naturally upon verse #ce1 and we may speculate whether two diverse conceptions of ,sonship may not be held in the same mind at the same time of writing4 ,but when we ponder the question of the ,davidic descent2 when we compare verse #cd with ,lk4 i4 #ah ff42 when we observe the natural coherence of ,lk4 i4 #cjc and ,lk4 i4 #cfh1 and the radical difference in point of view between verses #cd1 #ce and the angelic announcement2 when1 in short1 we have a narrative1 which1 if ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 was present from the first1 ought to be dominated by those verses1 but on the contrary does not seem to be influenced by them2 we are compelled to conclude that the suspected verses represent a later insertion in the ,gospel4 ,,iii4 ,summary and ,conclusion ,we are in a position now to conclude from the foregoing investigation that the ,virgin ,birth is not an original element in the ,third ,gospel4 ,this conclusion has been reached by two lines of argument which confirm and strengthen each other4 ,we have seen that the one passage which unmistakably asserts the doctrine is a later insertion4 ,independently of this1 statements have been noted in chapters i and ii1 which receive no natural and satisfactory explanation on the assumption that ,st4 ,luke wrote his narrative with a knowledge of the miracle presupposed4 ,in the first part of this chapter we expressly refrained from pressing the view that these points in themselves absolutely forbid this assumption4 ,but1 obviously1 now that we have found ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 to be a later insertion1 the force of these difficulties is greatly increased4 ,we are now entitled to say that the opinion which does least honour to ,st4 ,luke is the view that he has written cc4 i1 ii1 while knowing of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,we have to remember that not only is the ,virgin ,birth itself a stupendous thought1 but that1 if known to ,st4 ,luke1 it cannot have been known long1 and must therefore have preserved the freshness of its wonder4 ,can we1 then1 suppose that1 while under the sway of a presupposition so despotic as this1 he would straightway proceed to use such expressions as 8the parents01 8his parents01 8his father and his mother02 that1 without qualification1 he would speak of 8their purification02 that he would represent them astonished at the words of ,simeon1 and mystified by the bearing and speech of ,jesus at ,jerusalem8 ,is it credible1 in short1 that he should have fallen into the very ambiguities and inconsistencies1 which presumably he would be anxious to avoid1 and which without the slightest difficulty he could have avoided8 ,even if we should still hesitate to answer these questions in the negative1 our conclusion1 that originally the ,gospel lacked the references to the ,virgin ,birth which we now find in it1 leaves us no other option4 ,it should be observed that the arguments we have employed in the present chapter do not compel us to take the view that ,st4 ,luke never at any time taught the ,virgin ,birth4 ,they are satisfied if we can suppose that he had no knowledge of the doctrine when ,lk4 i1 ii was first written4 ,to say that i4 #cd f4 is a correction1 inserted by a redactor or reader1 whose name we do not know1 but who is not ,st4 ,luke1 is to take two steps where we have ground for one only4 ,all that our study entitles us to claim is that the ,virgin ,birth belongs to a later stratum in the ,third ,gospel4 ,more than this we cannot say1 until we have made a thorough linguistic and textual examination of ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 and this must be our next task4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,st4 ,,luke ,,and ,,the ,,virgin ,,birth ,while1 in the preceding chapter1 we concluded that the ,virgin ,birth is a later stratum in the ,third ,gospel1 we were unable to say to whose hand its presence is due4 ,there was nothing to show that ,st4 ,luke could never at any time have known of the doctrine1 but only that he could not have known of it at the time when he first drafted and wrote his ,gospel4 ,we are free1 then1 to make a new beginning1 and to ask3 ,did ,st4 ,luke teach the ,virgin ,birth8 ,the question is most conveniently treated by discussing the authorship of ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,as we have seen1 this is the crucial passage4 ,if we can believe ,st4 ,luke himself to have written these verses1 we must also attribute to his pen the words1 8as was supposed0 in iii4 #bc2 in a word1 we must conclude that he taught the ,virgin ,birth of ,jesus1 and we must leave the question1 how this result is to be coordinated with those reached in the previous chapter1 to be considered later4 ,that ,st4 ,luke and no other did write these verses1 is the considered view of the present writer4 ,there are two lines of argument which converge in this direction4 ,the first argument is textual1 but it is more than a matter of weighing documents2 the second is linguistic and stylistic4 ,neither is completely conclusive in itself1 and1 when taken together1 they do not admit of a result so stringent as rigid demonstration4 ,they are complementary each to the other4 ,either would be weakened in force in the absence of the other1 but their agreement is sufficient to establish a result for which a very high degree of probability can justly be claimed4 ,i4 ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 and the ,textual ,question ,it is well known that no exception to ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 can be taken on strictly textual grounds4 ,the external evidence for the passage is practically complete4 ,the sole exception1 which only serves to throw into relief the overwhelming mass of positive evidence1 is found in the ,old ,latin ,,ms4 known as b1 which substitutes i4 #ch for i4 #cd and omits verse #ch after verse #cg47db7 ,in ,great ,britain1 a generation ago and less1 this weight of external evidence would have been thought sufficient to settle the question1 and there are probably very many scholars who would still take this view4 ,but within recent years a change has come to be discernible among leading theological writers on the general question of attestation4 ,much more than in former times it is now recognized that during the first half of the second century the text of the ,new ,testament1 and especially that of the ,gospels1 was subject to rather free handling1 and the possibility has to be faced that interpolations may have crept into the text in places where formerly the external attestation would have been thought sufficiently strong4 ,dr4 ,george ,milligan7#dc7 traces the danger of textual corruption to which the ,new ,testament writings were exposed to a threefold cause1 7i7 the material upon which the autographs were written1 7ii7 the employment of nonprofessional scribes1 7iii7 the fact that the thought of the need of absolute verbal reproduction was strange to early scribes4 ,the last named fact led1 not only to attempts to improve the grammar and to add 8explanatory words01 but also to the insertion 8even of deliberate changes in the supposed interests of historic or dogmatic truth04 ,milligan instances the case of ,dionysius of ,corinth who1 8in view of the circulation of his epistles in a falsified form01 is found 8navely comforting himself with the thought that the same fate had befallen the ,scriptures0 7p4 #agi n474 8,the general result01 ,dr4 ,milligan concludes1 8is1 that instead of assigning textual corruption to a comparatively late date 444 everything rather points to the conclusion that1 the nearer we get to the original manuscripts1 the greater were the dangers to which their text was exposed0 7p4 #ahj74 ,in view of this position1 it is important to ask whether interpolations may not exist which have left no trace whatever of their origin in the abundant documentary evidence we possess4 ,a representative statement of this view may be found in the words of ,dr4 ,james ,moffatt 7,,int41 p4 #cf f473 8,even where the extant text does not suggest any break1 the possibility of interpolations cannot be denied outright2 the distance between the oldest ,,mss41 or even the oldest versions1 and the date of composition leaves ample room for changes to have taken place in the interval between the autograph and the earliest known text0 7p4 #ch74 8,the extent of interpolations varied from a word or two to a paragraph1 and the motives for it varied equally from sinister to nave0 7p4 #ch747dd7 ,one argument in favour of this view may be drawn from the state of the existing ,,mss4 and versions4 ,the multitudinous variations which occur in these documents cannot be explained without admitting the free treatment which has been mentioned1 and which was natural at a time when the ,gospels were not yet looked upon as 8sacred books04 ,in large measure such additions as we find were drawn from floating ,christian tradition1 and in many cases1 e4g4 the pericope adulteriae1 they probably reflect historic fact47#de7 ,nevertheless1 they are not genuine parts of the ,new ,testament4 ,the further argument is an inference3 if such variations from such causes occur in the ,,mss4 and versions we possess1 may there not be interpolations of which we have no external indication in the existing texts8 ,stated in this way the question invites an affirmative answer1 but there are other factors which have yet to be considered4 ,as a matter of fact1 there is little profit in a broad and general discussion4 ,we touch the heart of the problem only when we consider the types or classes into which such insertions might conceivably fall4 ,on the whole it is best1 even if only for purposes of argument1 to admit the possibility that insertions unmarked by signs of textual variation exist1 and to ask3 ,of what character may we suppose these insertions to be1 and can we define any limits within which they are more probable than others8 ,in particular1 is ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 a likely or probable instance8 ,it is obvious that hard and fast lines cannot be drawn in individual cases4 ,nevertheless1 it ought to be possible to say whether or not a passage like the one we are considering is1 or is not1 the work of a redactor4 ,those instances of insertions1 where textual variations can be cited1 supply us with the safest criterion for other suspected cases4 ,of these instances many1 as we have seen1 were drawn from the floating tradition of the ,christian communities4 ,an interesting case is suggested by ,dr4 ,j4 ,h4 ,moulton 7,from ,egyptian ,rubbish ,heaps1 p4 #aja f474 ,he traces the saying1 8,father1 forgive them2 for they know not what they do01 to the reminiscences of the centurion who was present at the death of ,jesus4 8,the words are not in ,luke's original ,gospel1 but as the great ,professor ,hort said in regard to the fact that these words cannot be textually defended1 #8,few if any words in all the ,gospels bear more intrinsic witness to the truth of what they relate than these' 0 7p4 #ajc74 ,on general grounds1 it may very well be1 that similar items of tradition have found their way into the existing texts1 leaving the surface of the textual stream unruffled4 ,but it is clear that1 in any suspected case1 the insertion could be the act of the author himself and not the reader4 ,if the latter really is the case1 the insertion must have been made very early1 and must have been of such a kind as not to awaken comment or dissent4 ,a second kind of insertions may possibly be found in explanatory words or phrases1 introduced with the intention of bringing out the original writer's meaning4 ,we may take as an instance ,rom4 iv4 #a 78,what then shall we say that ,abraham1 our forefather according to the flesh1 hath found80 71 where ,sanday and ,headlam say that they 8regard the omission of as probable with ,,wh4 text ,tr4 ,,rv4 marg40 7,,icc41 ,rom41 p4 #ii747df7 ,in this case1 however1 as in so many others1 the gloss1 if gloss it is1 is reflected in the textual evidence4 ,nevertheless1 the possibility may be allowed1 that such glosses exist even where variants cannot be cited4 ,in these cases1 however1 it is clear that the insertions must have been very early and very happy1 and that in specific cases their presence can rarely be conceded with complete confidence4 ,yet another class of interpolations may possibly be found in certain passages in the ,gospels which later conditions obtaining within the ,christian ,church have shaped4 ,that later experience did interpret the words of ,jesus and give the sense of them in its own terms1 need not be questioned4 ,but it should always be remembered that in any suspected case1 the process may well have been complete by the time that the ,evangelists wrote1 and that the passage is not an interpolation at all4 ,there are very good grounds for this opinion even in cases in which variations in rendering can be cited from patristic and other sources1 as1 for example1 in the case of the ,great ,commission in ,mt4 xxviii4 #ai4 ,this fact makes it all the more difficult to concede an interpolation where the textual record is unbroken1 though again the possibility that such cases do exist may well be left open4 ,the cases just considered help us when we come to think of doctrinal modifications4 ,as regards these1 it is important to draw again a distinction which has been already made4 ,we must distinguish1 on the one hand1 between those instances of doctrinal modification that are due to the ,evangelists themselves1 and which are in no sense interpolations1 and1 on the other hand1 those which may subsequently have been made by later scribes or readers4 ,cases of the former kind unquestionably occur in the ,gospels4 ,we have only to examine the way in which the ,first and ,third ,evangelists have treated the ,second ,gospel1 which lay before them1 to be assured of this4 ,alterations1 e4g41 are made out of a sense of reverence for the person of ,jesus 7cf4 ,allen1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 xxxi f474 ,mt4 xix4 #ag 78,why askest thou me concerning that which is good8071 and the changes which ,mk4 vi4 #e f4 has been subjected to1 both in ,mt4 and ,lk41 will serve as illustrations4 ,modifications of this kind are not1 however1 the sort we have specially in mind4 ,it is the second type1 those which are interpolations proper1 that we have particularly to consider4 ,the existence of these has frankly to be admitted4 ,it is beyond question that doctrinal insertions were introduced into the text of the ,gospels by later scribes and readers4 ,the one case of ,mt4 i4 #af is proof positive of this 7see pp4 #aje ff474 ,if the opinion1 that the original ending of our ,second ,gospel was deliberately suppressed1 is correct1 ,mk4 xvi4 #ibj may be cited as another instance47#dg7 ,an important qualification1 however1 requires to be made4 ,in the two cases mentioned there is a conflict of textual evidence1 and1 as regards the latter1 the objections are reinforced by the internal evidence1 arising from the vocabulary1 the style1 and the subjectmatter4 ,the present writer must needs conclude that the presence of textual variation is an almost necessary condition in the case of a doctrinal insertion4 ,it is more difficult to say how far this requirement should be pressed in the other types of interpolation which have been mentioned1 but as regards doctrinal modifications the test is thoroughly legitimate4 ,without going so far as to pronounce it absolutely impossible1 we may say that the theory1 that doctrinal insertions may exist where the extant texts show no break1 is improbable in the extreme4 ,in taking this view1 we are not confined to the plea of the early and abundant nature of textual evidence1 or to the effect of controversy in preserving the purity of the text1 though these are arguments of very great weight4 ,a sufficiently decisive factor is the character of the existing textual variants47#dh7 ,if authentic items of ,jesustradition and 8explanatory words and phrases0 have not been able to enter the textual stream unnoticed1 can we suppose that doctrinal modifications have breasted the waters without leaving so much as a ripple8 ,if even an insertion like 8,father1 forgive them2 for they know not what they do0 has not been able successfully to conceal itself1 can we believe ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 to have succeeded in doing this8 ,can we think that1 like ,melchizedek1 the passage is without father1 mother1 genealogy and beginning of life8 ,in asking these questions we need to recall the character of the section4 ,it is such as radically to transform the standpoint of the chapters in which it occurs4 ,it speaks of matters which1 for a considerable time at least1 were not known among the mass of ,christian believers1 and were never accepted by some4 ,to suppose1 then1 that it is a non,lukan doctrinal interpolation1 is a flight of faith1 for which those who can make it should receive the credit that is due1 but of which the present writer must confess that he is not capable4 ,while1 however1 we conclude that the theory we are discussing is manifestly improbable1 we have admitted our inability to pronounce it impossible in any shape and form4 ,provided we agree that the ,third ,gospel never circulated without ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 there is one point where the passage might have entered as an insertion1 and that is in the interval before circulation4 ,but even here it is difficult to suppose that the passage was added by some one other than ,st4 ,luke himself4 ,in our entire ignorance of the circumstances under which the ,gospel came to have a wider circulation1 we cannot say that this supposition is inadmissible4 ,it has a bare possibility in its favour1 but not more4 ,if a linguistic examination of the passage gave a result unfavourable to ,lukan authorship1 the possibility would become more significant4 ,but if the contrary proves to be the case1 then it becomes so remote as to be unworthy of serious consideration4 ,it is because of this position that we have described the present argument as being not completely conclusive in itself1 and the one line of reasoning as complementary to the other4 ,quite apart1 however1 from the linguistic argument1 the difficulties which the theory of non ,lukan interpolation has to face on textual grounds are formidable4 ,,ii4 ,linguistic and ,stylistic ,examination of ,lk4 i4 #cd f ,our second task is to make a linguistic and stylistic examination of ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,at the beginning of the last chapter we drew attention to the importance of the test4 ,it cannot be too strongly affirmed that any hypothesis of interpolation1 which does not take account of the linguistic characteristics of the passage1 is premature2 indeed1 it may easily turn out to be a rather glaring case of non sequitur4 ,it is precisely the linguistic test which we miss in the arguments of those who claim that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 was not written by ,st4 ,luke4 ,usually it is thought enough to argue an incompatibility between this passage and its context1 and straightway to assign the former to the pen of an unknown redactor4 ,we may illustrate this method from the two articles in the ,encyclopaedia ,biblica to which reference has been made4 ,in the article on 8,mary01 ,schmiedel says 7col4 #bief73 8,it has to be pointed out that even in ,lk4 i only two verses--vv4 #cd f4--contain the idea of the virgin birth clearly and effectively2 and these disturb the connexion so manifestly that we are compelled to regard them as a later insertion04 ,the only argument of a linguistic character is the remark3 8,note1 further1 that apart from i4 #cd 7#8since'7 is not met with either in the third gospel or in ,acts04 ,usener writes 7col4 #ccdi73 8,to ,joh4 ,hillmann 7,,jpt4 #ag1 #bba ff47 belongs the merit of having conclusively shown that the two verses in ,lk4 7i4 #cd f471 the only verses in the ,third ,gospel in which the supernatural birth of ,jesus of the ,virgin ,mary is stated1 are incompatible with the entire representation of the rest of chaps1 i and ii1 and thus must have been interpolated by a redactor047#di7 ,it is theories of this kind that we have in view when we say 7p4 #dg7 that to state such a conclusion is to take two steps where there is ground for one only4 ,the importance of the linguistic argument is manifest in such works as ,sir ,john ,c4 ,hawkins's ,horae ,synopticae 7#bnd ed41 #aiji7 and ,dr4 ,w4 ,k4 ,hobart's ,medical ,language of ,st4 ,luke 7#ahhb74 ,it has also received great emphasis in the books in which ,harnack has sought to prove the ,lukan authorship and early date of the ,acts1 viz4 ,luke the ,physician1 ,the ,acts of the ,apostles1 and ,the ,date of the ,acts and of the ,synoptic ,gospels4 ,it may not be without value to ask how far the linguistic argument can take us4 ,we may certainly lay down the broad proposition that arguments in favour of an interpolation ought to be supported by the linguistic facts2 provided1 of course1 that the suspected passage is susceptible of the linguistic test4 ,we do not forget that a passage may be of such a neutral character as not to admit of that test4 ,in that case we have to be content with other available arguments4 ,where1 however1 the linguistic test can be applied1 and where the result is strongly favourable to the genuineness of the passage1 that1 assuredly1 is a very serious objection for the theory of interpolation to face4 ,it becomes especially formidable1 if we can bring forward no evidence to prove an anachronism1 or if we can allege no real textual objections4 ,under such circumstances1 indeed1 we may well adopt the rule that1 in cases of this kind1 we have not to do with the insertion of a redactor2 unless1 of course1 we have good reason for saying that the interpolator has entered deeply into the original writer's style4 ,the view here taken does not mean that all objections to a passage are sufficiently met if we can state a strong linguistic case on the other side4 ,we shall have reason to take up this point again 7p4 #fi74 ,for the present it is sufficient to say that each kind of argument must be given its own particular force4 ,in the case of a passage where objections arising from context and subjectmatter cannot be gainsaid1 we must conclude that the passage is of later date than its context1 but not more4 ,in a case where the facts of vocabulary1 style1 and subjectmatter are sufficiently favourable1 and no textual difficulties forbid1 we must ascribe the passage to the original writer4 ,in a case1 finally1 where both kinds of conditions occur1 we must suppose that the passage was afterwards inserted by the writer himself into the body of his own work4 ,clearly1 then1 the linguistic examination of a suspected passage is a matter of great importance4 ,in the case of ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 it is not too much to say that it is a task as necessary as it is neglected4 ,it may be objected that the passage is one of two verses only1 and that1 in consequence1 it is much too brief to allow of satisfactory results4 ,on the other hand1 it should be remembered that the thirtyseven words of the section include several interesting phrases and points of construction1 which are so important in matters of this kind4 ,moreover1 in the case of ,st4 ,luke1 we are dealing with a writer who has a very distinctive style47#ej7 ,harnack has recognized the force of the linguistic argument in the case of two verses 7thirtyone words74 ,these are the last two verses of the ,acts4 ,after remarking that1 so far as he knows1 it has never been questioned that these words come from the author of the complete work1 though they have the appearance of being a postscript1 he continues3 8,moreover1 in content and in form they agree so closely with the ,lukan style that from this point of view strong arguments can be produced in favour of their genuineness0 7,date of ,acts1 c41 p4 #id74 ,in a footnote he adds the linguistic argument4 ,this is quite enough for our purpose4 ,it is true that the genuineness of ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is questioned by many 7on other than linguistic and textual grounds74 ,nevertheless1 the field is open for inquiry as to whether 8in content and form they agree so closely with the ,lukan style that from this point of view strong arguments can be produced in favour of their genuineness04 ,after all1 the length of the passage is not the vital consideration1 but its character 7which may1 or may not1 be more striking than that of a much longer section72 and this is something which can come out only after actual examination4 ,we turn1 then1 to the linguistic examination of ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,according to the ,westcott and ,hort text1 the passage is as follows3 #cd4 1 2 #ce4 1 1 4 ,in treating these words1 we shall not follow the order in which they occur1 but the order of their importance for our investigation47#ea7 ,it is clear that the words fall into different classes3 7a7 according as they are neutral in character1 that is to say1 of insufficient importance either way in deciding the question2 7b7 in so far as they create difficulty on the assumption of ,lukan authorship1 and1 to that extent1 support the theory of interpolation2 7c7 in so far as they give clear support in favour of ,lukan origin4 a4 ,in the first class we may include the words3 1 1 1 1 1 1 with dat41 1 and perhaps even 4 ,every one of these words and phrases is well represented in the ,lukan writings1 and in the case of some of them we get1 on investigation1 remarkable results47#eb7 ,take the case of 4 ,in the ,,nt4 it occurs #bab times1 and of these no less than #abe appear in ,st4 ,luke's works 7#bf in ,g4 and #ii in ,acts71 i4e4 #eh per cent4 ,still more remarkable is the result when we compare and 4 ,whereas the other ,evangelists use very frequently indeed 7#bah times71 they employ only #bj times4 ,st4 ,luke also 7especially in the ,gospel7 uses frequently 7#ic times71 but he has #bf times 7cf4 ,mt4 #h times1 ,mk4 #d times1 ,jn4 #h times74 ,if we take both ,lukan writings1 the usage of and is roughly equal1 whereas in the rest of the ,,nt4 it is as #i is to #b4 ,we can say1 therefore1 that ,st4 ,luke shows a liking for 1 whereas ,mt4 ,mk4 and ,jn4 markedly prefer 4 ,however1 the word is so common that we can lay no stress on the fact that it occurs in i4 #cd1 where the connexion demands it4 ,we can only note its congruity with a ,lukan liking4 is also interesting1 though not1 of course1 in any way decisive4 ,in ,lk4 the phrase occurs #ad times2 in ,mt4 it is found #f times2 in ,mk4 #h2 never in the ,fourth ,gospel1 and never in the ,acts4 ,it occurs1 that is to say1 in those parts of the ,new ,testament in which sources1 probably ,aramaic17#ec7 are employed4 ,this is in line with the view expressed by ,moulton and ,milligan with regard to the aorist passive forms of the verb47#ed7 ,they say that they incline to the opinion that 8belongs only to early ,hellenistic1 whence it was taken by the ,,lxx translators to render a common ,hebrew phrase1 passing thence into the narrative parts of ,,nt4 as a definite #8,septuagintalism' 04 ,it is in keeping with this view that 444 should appear in that part of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel where most of all we have reason to posit ,semitic sources1 whether oral or documentary4 ,as we have seen1 half the record of this expression in the ,new ,testament1 apart from ,lk4 i4 #ce1 is in the ,third ,gospel4 ,the presence1 then1 of in ,lk4 i4 #ce is congruous with these facts2 more1 perhaps1 we cannot say4 ,a word like has no bearing on our present investigation1 and the same is true of 1 7otherwise1 however1 of 4 in combination with nouns1 c41 in the gen471 7very frequently in ,lk471 7with dat4717#ee7 and 4 7of the mother of ,jesus7 occurs more often in ,lk4 than in other ,,nt4 writers 7#i times and probably #aj in the ,g41 once in ,acts72 the form appears but once 7ii4 #ai is doubtful74 ,in ,mk4 occurs once1 never2 in ,mt4 we find #c times and probably twice4 ,the use of the form in i4 #cd is therefore in agreement with ,st4 ,luke's usage1 but of course this does not preclude the hand of an interpolator1 since every instance of 7of the mother of ,jesus7 in the ,third ,gospel occurs in the first two chapters4 ,as is well known1 the phrase is very frequently found in the ,lukan writings4 ,the percentage is as much as #fj1 and out of the instances in the ,,nt41 where the phrase is anarthrous1 more than #ej per cent1 are in ,st4 ,luke 7,g4 and ,acts74 ,the phrase is therefore very strongly ,lukan4 ,but perhaps we ought not to include the phrase among those which tell strongly against the theory of interpolation1 since a redactor would easily and naturally introduce it in the connexion in which it appears in i4 #ce4 8,the new view was not an intruder from the sphere of heathen mythology1 but a logical conclusion from the belief that our ,lord was ,god's ,son by the operation of the ,holy ,spirit0 7,harnack's ,date of ,acts17#ef7 p4 #add74 ,we can say therefore that is admirably in keeping with ,lukan usage but hardly more4 ,the case is quite otherwise with the whole phrase1 4 1 as we shall see4 is also a word which might be considered here1 for it is1 of course1 a very common word4 ,having regard1 however1 to the way in which it is used1 it will be better to take it later4 ,summing up our results thus far1 we may say that we have found nothing that is out of accord with ,lukan usage4 ,on the other hand1 indeed1 every word and phrase we have examined is well represented in ,st4 ,luke's writings4 ,nevertheless1 the words are common elsewhere1 and in no case do they tell decisively either way4 b4 ,we now come to words which present difficulties1 less or greater1 on the assumption of ,lukan authorship1 and so far tell in favour of the theory of interpolation4 ,these are--1 1 and perhaps 4 #a4 ,we introduce here1 because the expression1 as distinct from the construction1 occurs nowhere else in ,lk4 ,as a matter of fact it occurs nowhere else in the ,new ,testament in this form4 ,the perfect passive participle1 however1 appears twice in the ,johannine writings3 4 7,jn4 iii4 #f71 and 4 4 7#a ,jn4 v4 #d74 ,what is more important is that there is a close parallel to in ,mt4 i4 #cj1 which reads1 4 ,the complete clause in ,lk4 runs1 1 4 ,it is certainly open to any one to argue that the passage in ,lk4 is introduced by an interpolator who is under the influence of ,mt4 i4 #bj4 ,why1 however1 while under that influence1 he should so far enter into ,lukan usage as to introduce the ,lukan 1 and 1 to say nothing of putting into a different connexion in a characteristically ,lukan phrase 74 4 4 ,cf4 ,acts i4 #h and see later71 are questions which it is not easy to answer4 ,assuredly there is not much here to support the hypothesis of interpolation1 and when we consider the constructional use of the article with the participle1 there is still less1 if indeed anything at all4 ,to consider is rather a concession to carefulness than the acknowledgement of a real difficulty4 #b4 must be examined1 because in i4 #cd it is used of knowledge in the way of marital relationship4 ,the only parallel in the ,new ,testament is ,mt4 i4 #be1 where1 however1 it is used of a man3 4 ,on the other hand1 in other senses1 occurs fairly frequently in ,lk4 ,it is1 however1 in no sense ,lukan1 being distributed evenly throughout the ,new ,testament1 except in the ,johannine writings1 where it is very common4 ,we cannot1 therefore1 produce evidence to show that elsewhere ,st4 ,luke uses 4 in the special sense of i4 #cd4 ,nevertheless1 there is no reason why he should not have written 4 in that passage1 and there are considerations which go to show how he could easily have used the word4 ,in i4 #cd and also in ,mt4 i4 #be is by no means a 8,hebraistic euphemism017#eg7 yet it is probable that the influence of the ,septuagint is to be found in both passages4 ,in the ,,lxx there are several instances of 4 used1 as in i4 #cd1 of a woman4 ,it is so used in ,gen4 xix4 #h 7of ,lot's daughters71 in ,judg4 xi4 #ci 7of ,jephthah's daughter71 and in ,num4 xxxi4 #ag 7of the women of ,midian74 ,if1 then1 we are right in tracing the influence of the ,,lxx1 in i4 #cd1 we have ground for finding the hand of ,st4 ,luke in that passage1 even though he never again uses 4 in that sense4 ,for it is just in ,lk4 i1 ii that the influence of the ,,lxx is most marked47#eh7 ,even if we do not press ,,lxx influence 7for 4 in this special sense is found 8in ,greek writers from the ,alexandrian age down0717#ei7 it is not at all apparent why ,st4 ,luke himself should not have used the word4 ,and if the argument in favour of the theory of interpolation is to be sustained1 it is scarcely enough to urge the bare fact that ,st4 ,luke does not use 4 as in i4 #cd elsewhere4 ,an idiom which occurs in ,greek writers from the time of ,menander7#fj7 7,b4,c4 #cbe7 may well have been known to a writer like ,st4 ,luke1 apart from its presence in the ,septuagint4 ,if verses #cd1 #ce are indeed ,lukan1 it is quite probable that in 4 we should find the influence of the ,septuagint1 but we are not at all shut up to ,septuagint usage4 ,in the connexion in which it occurs was a suitable word to employ1 and its presence there is in no way incongruous with ,lukan authorship4 #c4 ,in these verses the word which is of greatest difficulty is without doubt 4 ,in the rest of the ,new ,testament it occurs #be times4 ,of these #aj are found in the ,pauline ,epistles and #i in the ,epistle to the ,hebrews4 ,the remaining #f appear in the ,gospels2 #c in ,mt41 #a in ,mk41 and #b in ,jn4 ,apart then from i4 #cd occurs nowhere in ,st4 ,luke's works4 ,there are1 it is true1 two ,lukan passages1 one in the ,gospel 7vii4 #a7 and the other in the ,acts 7xiii4 #df71 where occurs in some ,,mss4 ,the true reading1 however1 in both cases is probably 47#fa7 ,we have1 therefore1 to face the fact1 that not only is found nowhere else in ,st4 ,luke's works1 but that elsewhere he seems to prefer and 7the latter in the ,prologue to the ,gospel1 and the former five times out of the ten cases in which it occurs in the ,new ,testament74 ,here is the strongest argument1 which on linguistic grounds can be urged against the genuineness of i4 #cd f4 ,the richness of ,st4 ,luke's vocabulary increases the difficulty47#fb7 ,why1 if he has used in i4 #cd1 he should never employ it again1 is a question which it is not easy to answer4 ,if1 in view of the evidence as a whole1 the case for an interpolation fails1 we shall have to content ourselves with the fact1 however strange1 that here and here only occurs in ,lk4 ,a writer indeed may use a word once and never again4 occurs but once in ,mk4 7xv4 #db71 and it may be so here4 ,assuredly1 in a linguistic argument room must always be left for the occurrence of in an individual writer4 ,the force of this contention is1 however1 somewhat weakened by the preference which ,st4 ,luke seems to show for 1 and it must be allowed that the case for an interpolation does receive support from 4 c4 ,we have now to consider the third division of the linguistic evidence4 ,it includes the following words and phrases3 7the construction71 1 1 1 1 1 444 444 #a4 ,we begin with 7the construction47 ,as is well known1 the article with the participle is quite a characteristic of the ,lukan writings4 8,participles with the article often take the place of substantives01 writes ,plummer 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,lk41 p4 lxii74 ,the instances given by ,plummer are as follows3 ii4 #bg4 4 7,here only in ,,nt47 iv4 #af4 4 7,here and ,acts xvii1 #b only47 viii4 #cd4 4 7,here and ,mk4 v4 #ad2 ,lk4 xxiv4 #ab4 ,cf4 also ,acts iv4 #ba47 xxii4 #bb4 4 7,here only in ,,nt4 ,cf4 the parallel passages1 ,mt4 xxvi4 #bd and ,mk4 xiv4 #ba1 where we find 47 xxiv4 #ad4 4 7,cf4 ,acts iii4 #aj47 ,to these may be added xxi4 #cf1 xxiii4 #dg1 #dh4 ,the construction is clearly ,lukan1 without1 of course1 being exclusively ,lukan1 and though does not occur elsewhere in ,st4 ,luke's works1 the verb is not uncommon 7#aj times out of #ic in the ,,nt41 of which #dj occur in the ,genealogy in ,mt474 #b4 4 ,in his ,date of ,acts ,harnack underlines this verb1 as a ,lukan trait1 wherever it occurs in the 8,we0 ,sections1 which he prints on pp4 #dab4 ,out of the total number of cases in which it occurs in the ,new ,testament1 no less than #dd per cent4 are found in the ,lukan writings4 ,in the ,gospel it is present #da times4 ,it should also be noted that when we compare 4 with the analogous phrase in ,mt4 #a4 #bj1 1 in the latter the ,lukan is absent4 ,of course is a common word1 but ,st4 ,luke's use of it is distinctive1 and with this usage in verse #ce agrees4 #c4 ,we have referred to already17#fc7 and have said that while frequent in ,lk41 it is too common a word to be important for our present purpose4 ,the case is otherwise with the phrase 4 ,st4 ,luke is fond of using 4 in composition with other words in the genitive4 ,in his ,gospel1 he employs it with 1 1 1 1 and 4 ,in the ,acts 7viii4 #aj7 we have 4 4 ,in ,mt4 we find this usage twice2 in ,mk4 once2 in the main epistles of ,st4 ,paul it occurs #ac times2 elsewhere in the ,new ,testament #g times4 ,that is to say1 out of #bi instances in the ,new ,testament 7other than i4 #ce717fd7 ,st4 ,luke has #f 7or #bj per cent474 ,we may therefore say that this again is a marked characteristic of ,st4 ,luke's usage1 and though the phrase 4 4 does not occur again in ,lk4 7it occurs nowhere else in the ,,nt471 it is thoroughly congruous with the ,lukan style4 ,we have also to note the word 4 ,out of #ab instances in the ,new ,testament ,st4 ,luke actually has #h1 or #ge per cent4 ,as1 however1 three of these occur in chaps4 i and ii1 it might be argued that the interpolator has introduced 4 in verse #ce under the influence of these very chapters4 ,that1 however1 he should combine it with 4 is interesting4 ,indeed1 on the theory of interpolation1 our interpolator has combined a distinctively ,lukan word 77 with another word 77 which ,st4 ,luke often uses 7#bd times71 to produce a characteristic ,lukan phrase 74 in composition with a noun in the genitive76 #d4 4 ,elsewhere ,st4 ,luke uses #i times 7once in the ,gospel and #h times in the ,acts74 ,in this respect he may be compared with ,st4 ,paul1 who uses the word #be times1 and the author of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 who employs it #h times4 ,in the ,catholic ,epistles it appears #f times4 ,there is but one instance in ,mt4 and a doubtful case in ,mk4 ,the results are also interesting when we take 4 ,out of #aj instances in the ,new ,testament1 ,st4 ,luke has #b 7,ac4 x4 #bi and xxiv4 #bf71 ,st4 ,paul has #f1 and ,hebrews #b4 ,there is not an instance in ,mt4 or ,mk41 or anywhere else in the ,new ,testament4 ,we are far from suggesting that no one else could use 47#fe7 ,the point is that the supposed interpolator has introduced the phrase into the work of a writer who1 with ,st4 ,paul and the author of ,hebrews1 alone among ,new ,testament writers employs it6 #e4 4 appears in four other places in the ,new ,testament4 ,of these1 three are connected with the story of the ,transfiguration 7,mt4 xvii4 #e1 ,mk4 ix4 #g1 ,lk4 ix4 #cd74 ,that the remaining instance should be ,acts v4 #ae is1 in connexion with our present problem1 an interesting fact4 ,thayer,grimm remarks that the verb occurs in 8profane0 authors1 8generally with an accusative of the object1 and in the sense of obscuring04 ,in the ,septuagint1 however1 it is used of the divine covering or overshadowing 7cf4 ,ps4 xc4 7xci47 #d2 ,ps4 cxxxix4 7cxl47 #h2 ,ex4 xl4 #bi 7#ce774 ,we have to ask whether these passages1 especially the last1 have influenced the writer of i4 #ce4 ,we cannot assume the point1 of course1 but there is much to be said for it4 ,the thought of the cloud of ,yahweh overshadowing the tent of meeting may very well have shaped the thought and the phrasing of 4 4 ,if there is any weight in this suggestion 7cf4 ,plummer1 op4 cit41 p4 #bd71 again it tells for ,lukan authorship--so far1 that is to say1 as the undoubted fact that chaps4 i and ii have a distinctly ,old ,testament atmosphere will take us4 ,apart1 however1 from such considerations it is a remarkable fact1 on the theory of interpolation1 that a word so rare in the ,new ,testament1 and one which ,st4 ,luke uses more than any one else1 should appear in the suspected verses4 ,acts v4 #ae 7 7 is enough in itself to raise the gravest doubt that we have here to do with an interpolator4 #f4 4 ,here we have first to call attention to the verb 4 ,apart from ,eph4 ii4 #g and ,james v4 #a1 this verb is limited to the ,lukan writings1 where it occurs six times 7i4e4 besides i4 #ce74 ,we have already spoken of and remarked that1 while it is characteristic of ,st4 ,luke1 we could not lay stress upon that fact1 since even an interpolator would naturally introduce a reference to the ,holy ,spirit in such a connexion as i4 #ce4 ,if1 however1 as now we take the whole phrase1 we come to a very different conclusion4 ,for in ,acts i4 #h we have the significantly close parallel1 4 4 ,the parallel speaks for itself6 #g4 ,we consider lastly1 444 4 ,a comparison of passages in the four ,gospels and the ,acts gives the following results3 3 ,jn4 #a 7 #b872 ,lk4 7,g47 #fj2 ,acts #ae2 ,lk4 7,g4 ,ac47 #ge 444 3 ,mt4 #a82 ,mk4 #b2 ,jn4 #i2 ,lk4 7,g47 #gi2 ,acts #bf2 ,lk4 7,g4 ,ac47 #aje 444 3 ,lk4 7,g47 #be2 ,acts #b2 ,lk4 7,g4 ,ac47 #bg ,to the facts noted in the foregoing table we may add that occurs nowhere else in the ,new ,testament4 ,st4 ,luke1 therefore1 has it #aje times out of #aaf4 ,still more is 444 limited to ,st4 ,luke4 ,no other ,new ,testament writer uses the phrase1 and ,st4 ,luke has it #bg times47#ff7 ,in his three books on the ,acts1 ,harnack is fond of underlining ,lukan characteristics in the 8,we0 ,sections1 in order to show the linguistic identity which exists between these ,sections and the rest of the work4 ,let us see how ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 appears1 when treated in this way2 not forgetting1 of course1 that we are dealing with two verses only4 ,it is obviously impossible to indicate by this method the special significance of each word or phrase2 this1 however1 has already been shown4 ,our results may be represented as follows3 1 2 1 1 4 ,a possible reply to the linguistic argument presented above is that we may have to do with an interpolator who has thoroughly entered into the ,lukan style4 ,if our examination has shown anything at all1 it has shown that ,lk4 i4 #cd4 f4 is very far from presenting neutral features3 it is shot through and through with 8,lukanisms047#fg7 ,but1 it may be asked1 could not an interpolator1 strongly influenced by the ,lukan style1 have penned these verses8 ,let us see what1 on that hypothesis1 the interpolator has done4 ,he has produced a passage of thirtyseven words1 in which there is not a construction1 and only one word 771 which is not well represented in the ,lukan writings4 ,he has used a word 77 in a sense not elsewhere illustrated in those works1 but a word which ,st4 ,luke would naturally employ in the connexion in which it occurs4 ,he has employed words1 phrases1 and constructions for which ,st4 ,luke has a fondness1 such as 1 1 1 the article with the participle in place of a noun 7 4747#fh7 ,he has used two verbs 7 and 7 which are rare in the ,new ,testament1 but which ,st4 ,luke uses more than once2 the phrase 4 4 1 which is closely paralleled in ,acts i4 #h2 and1 above all1 the markedly ,lukan 444 4 ,this feat1 it must be confessed1 is a striking performance4 ,if1 indeed1 it has been achieved1 we must conclude that it has been carried out deliberately4 ,we make every allowance for the possibility that a redactor may well enter into the style of an author4 ,but to suppose that in so short a passage so many ,lukan features have come together without premeditation or design is all but impossible4 ,we make bold to say that1 if we must admit such an undesigned collocation of 8,lukanisms01 we can have little confidence in the linguistic argument anywhere4 ,but can we believe that the linguistic features of ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 have been purposely introduced8 ,such a question is its own answer4 ,no one1 assuredly1 would resort to the desperate expedient of supposing a redactor1 who laboriously amasses ,lukan characteristics1 with the intention of passing off the very phraseology of his insertion as genuine4 ,a modern interpolator might work along these lines1 but not an ancient redactor4 ,interpolations are not forgeries4 ,the thought of consciously reproducing stylistic features in an insertion would probably never have occurred to a redactor of the ,gospels47#fi7 ,so far then as linguistic considerations go1 we must conclude that our unknown interpolator is a mythical personage4 ,we do not forget the difficulty of 1 but if ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is a non,lukan interpolation1 we must have more support than this4 ,warp and woof are ,lukan2 only a single thread gives cause for hesitation4 ,must not this hesitation give way when we look at the facts as a whole8 ,can we strain out the gnat1 and swallow the camel8 ,assuredly on linguistic grounds the most reasonable conclusion we can frame is that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 comes from the hand of ,st4 ,luke himself4 ,,iii4 ,summary and ,conclusion ,we have now to coordinate our results4 ,however strong a linguistic argument may be1 there is perhaps always room for the view that it is confirmatory rather than demonstrative4 ,in the present case also1 the shortness of the passage can be pleaded4 ,in noticing this objection we urged that the character of the passage is the relevant consideration1 and we think ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 meets this demand4 ,but we have no need to press the linguistic argument to the extent we ourselves believe to be legitimate1 when we find that both this argument and the textual argument point steadily in the same direction4 ,it is this fact1 that both arguments converge on the same point1 which is the ultimate ground for our conclusion4 ,short of supplying a rigid demonstration1 which should not be sought1 it is sufficient to establish for us the ,lukan authorship of ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,this view carries with it at once the further conclusion that at some time or other ,st4 ,luke taught and believed in the ,virgin ,birth4 ,but before we can rest satisfied with this result1 we need to look more closely at an alternative form of the interpolationhypothesis1 to which reference has already been made 7p4 #cf74 ,this is the view of ,kattenbusch1 ,merx1 ,weinel1 and ,j4 ,m4 ,thompson 7,miracles in the ,new ,testament1 p4 #adi74 ,according to this theory the interpolation consists in the phrase 1 an insertion which1 it is contended1 has transformed the promise of a natural conception into the prophecy of a virgin birth4 ,mr4 ,thompson notices the two forms which the theory may assume4 ,the insertion may be either 8a modification of ,st4 ,luke's source1 introduced by the ,evangelist himself1 as editor01 or it may be 8a later addition to the text of ,lk4 by some person or congregation who wished to make the miracle quite clear0 7p4 #adi74 ,it is obvious that1 in its former shape1 this hypothesis would not seriously affect our results reached thus far1 provided we could agree that 8verse #ce is not inconsistent with human parentage0 7,thompson1 p4 #adh71 and is best interpreted in this way4 ,as regards the second form of the theory1 the case is different4 ,if is the addition of a later reader or congregation1 it is much more difficult to think that ,st4 ,luke taught the ,virgin ,birth4 ,it would not be impossible2 but it would leave the whole problem to rest upon the interpretation of verse #ce4 ,we are unable to accept the theory that is an insertion of unknown origin1 for the following reasons3 #a4 ,on the whole1 the more natural interpretation of verse #ce is that in itself it implies the ,virgin ,birth4 ,it is easier1 on this view1 to explain and followed by 4 7,cf4 ,schmiedel1 col4 #bieg n42 ,plummer1 ,st4 ,lk41 p4 #bd;f42 ,lobstein1 op4 cit41 p4 #fg47 #b4 ,no textual evidence can be cited in support of the theory4 ,this is frankly admitted by ,mr4 ,thompson1 and the insertion is explained as an editorial modification4 ,we could regard this explanation as sufficient1 if the 8insertion0 could be looked upon as an 8explanatory phrase01 intended to sharpen a reference to the ,virgin ,birth1 which had already been found in the context4 ,on this reading of the problem1 absence of textual variation might not be an insuperable difficulty4 ,but if we must regard as a doctrinal modification--an attempt on the part of an unknown editor to impose upon the narrative a sense quite different from that which previously it had been understood to bear--then the argument sketched in the first part of the present chapter is wholly against the theory4 ,we cannot understand why no echoes of the earlier view have lingered4 #c4 ,it is difficult to suppose that a later reader who sought to work up the original narrative in the interests of the ,virgin ,birth would have exercised such restraint4 ,to expand a narrative in the direction of the sense which it already bears is a conceivable suggestion4 ,to transform it totally by merely adding four words is a theory which does not carry conviction4 ,was ever an interpolator so ingenious as this8 ,on the other side may be pleaded 7#a7 the difficulty of 1 7#b7 many of the arguments we have sketched in ,chapter ,,ii4 ,the difficulty of we have to admit4 ,as regards the second point1 we believe that the theory we have yet to outline in the next chapter meets the case much better1 without suffering from the special objections which can be brought against the view we have just discussed4 ,for the reasons given we are unable to accept that view4 ,we prefer to regard ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 as a unity1 and to interpret both verses as implying the ,virgin ,birth4 ,and as we have found sufficient reasons1 both on textual and linguistic grounds1 for ascribing the passage to ,st4 ,luke1 we believe that he taught the ,virgin ,birth4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,the ,,place ,,of ,,the ,,virgin ,,birth ,,in ,,the ,,third ,,gospel ,in the present chapter we must formulate a theory which shall do justice to the results obtained in the last two chapters4 ,we have argued that the ,virgin ,birth is not an original element in the ,third ,gospel1 that several passages in it are inconsistent with the doctrine1 and that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is a later insertion4 ,on the other hand we have given reasons for our belief that ,st4 ,luke really did write the passage just mentioned1 and that in consequence he taught the ,virgin ,birth4 ,it is useless1 we think1 to set these results against one another2 they are not contradictory4 ,the argument from the linguistic and textual facts will not make one iota of difference to those derived from the treatment and subjectmatter of ,lk4 i1 ii1 and the latter will not in any way impair the former4 ,writers who hold fast to the view that ,st4 ,luke wrote i4 #cd f4 have not1 in that one contention1 answered their opponents1 and critics who plead for the hypothesis of non,lukan interpolation travel much too fast4 ,the final theory must take all the facts into account4 ,i4 ,a ,suggested ,theory ,so far as we ourselves are concerned1 there is only one hypothesis open to us1 and it is not far to seek4 ,it will be best if we first state it somewhat baldly1 leaving obvious difficulties to be considered later4 ,the theory is as follows3 ,in the first instance ,st4 ,luke wrote his ,gospel1 either in whole or in part1 without any knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,to him1 as to the compiler of the ,lukan ,genealogy1 ,jesus was the son of ,joseph and of ,mary4 ,st4 ,luke's estimate of ,jesus was not less high than that of ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,mark1 but1 as was probably true in the case of each of these writers1 no tradition of the ,miraculous ,birth had reached him4 ,he looked upon ,jesus as the ,child of ,wondrous ,promise1 and for his analogies he turned to the ,old ,testament to the stories of ,isaac and of ,samuel4 ,in contrast to earlier writers ,st4 ,luke had an excellent ,birthtradition at his disposal4 ,according to his sources the coming and future ,messianic greatness of ,jesus had been divinely foretold4 ,his birth was heralded by angelic choirs1 and humble shepherds brought their meed of worship and of praise4 ,by an insight divinely given1 men like ,simeon and women like ,anna saw in ,him the child of promise4 ,he was to be a light for revelation to the ,gentiles and the glory of ,his people ,israel4 ,we need not stay to look more closely into the story1 which doubtless has been worked up as regards its form by the ,evangelist's hand4 ,suffice it to say that ,st4 ,luke's picture is that of a ,wondrous ,birth1 supernaturally foretold2 not a virgin birth47#gj7 ,some time after he had penned his narrative1 possibly after it had been dispatched to ,theophilus1 but at any rate before the ,gospel gained a wider circulation1 ,st4 ,luke received the tradition of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,at what time and from what source the story reached him we are quite unable to say2 possibly it was from some reader or readers to whom he had submitted his narrative2 possibly the story travelled along some independent channel4 ,in any case the probability is that the tradition was imparted to ,st4 ,luke by some one who claimed to possess a fuller and a better account1 and whose claim the ,evangelist respected and admitted4 ,having regard to ,st4 ,luke's standing and methods as an historian1 we prefer to believe that the tradition reached him through a definite and personal channel1 than to suppose that of his own initiative he freely altered a valuable source out of deference to a growing theory4 ,the historical value of the new information is a question we are not now considering4 ,it is part of our theory1 however1 that it satisfied the mind of ,st4 ,luke2 to him the ,virgin ,birth was historic fact4 ,probably the story appealed to him at once as a fitting explanation of the unique personality of ,jesus4 ,it was a tradition rich in doctrinal possibilities2 it provoked reflection1 and it answered questions4 ,the ,evangelist saw at once that the story must find a place in his narrative4 ,fortunately it was not too late1 and fortunately again there was a point where it could be included without entailing the necessity of rewriting cc4 i1 ii entirely4 ,he had only to insert the words we have now in i4 #cd f4 into the address of the angel1 and to add to the opening words of the ,genealogy the phrase 8as was supposed01 to obtain a narrative in which truths previously unknown to him found sufficient statement4 ,if we can suppose that the adaptation of what he had previously written was not drastic enough1 we obtain a hypothesis which at least does justice to every result we have yet secured4 ,the view that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is an interpolation made by ,st4 ,luke himself was put forward by ,zimmermann in ,studien und ,kritiken 7p4 #bgc f47 in #aijc4 ,his treatment 7cf4 ,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bfi n47 differs in several respects from that outlined above4 ,zimmermann posits an ,aramaic ,jewish ,christian source which described a natural birth1 and suggests that it was in the course of translating this document that ,st4 ,luke added i4 #cd f4 ,the ,evangelist is also credited with having altered i4 #bg and ii4 #e1 so as to describe ,mary as betrothed to ,joseph4 ,zimmermann also explains ii4 #bb 77 as a mistranslation1 and ascribes to ,st4 ,luke the parenthesis of ii4 #ce a1 and the chronology of iii4 #ab1 which he holds is inaccurate4 ,according to this hypothesis ,st4 ,luke must have been acquainted with the ,virgin ,birth before he began to translate the supposed ,aramaic document4 ,this view is encumbered with difficulty2 for1 if ,zimmermann is right1 we should certainly expect a much more drastic editing of the document than can be shown4 ,the extent to which this difficulty appears in the case of our own theory is one for which we think that justification can be given47#ga7 ,in the case of ,zimmermann's hypothesis the obstacle is too great4 ,on this view we cannot understand how the ,evangelist allowed himself to write down those expressions which are incompatible with the ,miraculous ,conception47#gb7 ,the view we have preferred agrees with that of ,zimmermann in positing a source or sources which described a natural birth4 ,it differs from it in denying that the ,evangelist knew of the ,virgin ,birth at the time when he made use of those sources4 ,we prefer to think that it was after cc4 i1 ii had attained what is substantially its present form in ,greek1 that ,st4 ,luke came to hear of the ,virgin ,birth1 and that it was then that he inserted i4 #cd f4 ,this supposition includes the positive advantages of ,zimmermann's theory1 and it agrees better with the existing literary phenomena of ,lk4 i1 ii47#gc7 ,,ii4 ,literary ,conditions ,under ,which the ,gospels ,were ,written ,in holding the view we have outlined1 we have no thought of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds4 ,our theory is not intended as an eirenicon4 ,it is not an attempt to make the best of two worlds1 the critical and the dogmatic4 ,if we appear to have introduced the ,virgin ,birth into the ,third ,gospel by the back door1 after we have bowed it out at the front1 this is simply because the evidence leaves us no alternative4 ,our theory makes room for the twofold fact1 as it seems to us1 7#a7 that the ,virgin ,birth is not an original element in the ,third ,gospel1 and 7#b7 that ,st4 ,luke wrote the one passage in the ,gospel which asserts the doctrine2 thus for us it is inevitable4 ,if1 from another point of view1 our hypothesis seems a bold venture1 we may justly claim that the facts are such as to demand a bold treatment4 ,nor is it a sufficient objection to say that the theory is complex4 ,life is a complex thing1 and there are few times when we need to remember it so much as when we are thinking of the production of an historical work4 ,apart from other claims which can be made1 our theory has one important1 if general1 advantage2 it takes account of the elementary facts of human composition4 ,have we given sufficient thought to the fact that a writer like ,st4 ,luke may well have turned back to review1 and even to alter1 in the light of further information1 what he had already written8 ,is not this what nearly every one does who writes or relates anything at all8 ,is it not indeed rather a rare than a usual proceeding to write a story from start to finish without insertion1 omission1 and revision8 ,in his 8,introduction0 ,dr4 ,james ,moffatt has drawn attention to these things1 and especially as they concern ,st4 ,luke's two works4 ,he shows that interpolation may take place 8either 7a7 at the hands of the author himself1 or 7b7 by subsequent editors of the volume1 after the writer's death1 or 7c7 by scribes 7or editors7 of the text0 7p4 #cf74 ,under 7a7 he refers to instances in ,aeschylus1 ,herodotus1 ,virgil1 ,juvenal1 ,martial1 and ,lucretius4 8,several passages in the ,de ,rerum ,natura 7e4g4 ii4 #afehc7 are also to be explained most naturally as additions made by ,lucretius himself to the original draft1 and in the case of the ,third ,gospel or its sequel it is not unlikely that ,luke may have reedited 444 his work0 7p4 #cg74 ,dr4 ,moffatt gives a very interesting modern example in the case of ,northanger ,abbey1 which was first composed by ,jane ,austen in #agih4 8,in the fifth chapter1 however1 we have an allusion to ,miss ,edgeworth's ,belinda--a novel which did not appear until #ahja4 ,this proves that ,miss ,austen's work lies before us in a revised form2 the first draft was gone over by the authoress before its final publication some years later0 7p4 #cg747gd7 ,it will scarcely be denied that the possibility of interpolation by an original author has often been overlooked by many critics4 ,they are not slow to find the insertions of later readers and scribes1 but often it seems tacitly to be assumed that the original writers must have written with logical and almost unerring precision4 ,curiously enough1 something like the ,verbal ,inspiration of ,scripture is required to justify some of the critical results reached4 ,this is a doctrine long since discredited1 but being dead it yet speaks4 ,it will have to be allowed1 we think1 that mechanical theories of ,inspiration have not yet left us free to perceive those ordinary conditions of writing under which the ,new ,testament writers wrote4 ,the aftermath of ,verbal ,inspiration still blinds us to the commonplaces of composition4 ,of all ,new ,testament authors ,st4 ,luke is perhaps the last to have issued his works without modifications4 ,the high art which is selfevident in a modern writer like ,robert ,louis ,stevenson was not attained without corrections1 substitutions1 redrafting1 and rewriting4 ,without drawing the parallel too closely1 and without impugning his real inspiration1 we may well credit some of these processes to ,st4 ,luke4 ,this1 however1 is an argument we cannot press too far1 for1 as will be seen in the following section1 there is good ground for the belief that ,st4 ,luke's revision of his work was never complete4 ,it is sufficient for our hypothesis to find room for a measure of revision and for the presence of modifications required by new information4 ,the nature of ,st4 ,luke's task is an added reason for expecting these processes4 ,in his ,preface 7i4 #ad7 ,st4 ,luke shows a desire to produce a full and accurate record1 and claims to have traced the course of all things from the first4 ,any new information bearing upon the ,birth and the hidden years of the ,infancy would be especially welcome to him4 ,any one1 moreover1 who has had anything to do with collecting memoirs knows that not infrequently new facts come to hand just when the task seems wellnigh completed1 facts for which a place must be found1 however great the difficulties may be4 ,we are not indeed left entirely to conjecture4 ,we can examine ,st4 ,luke's treatment of the ,markan record4 ,the modifications which he introduces are manifest1 and they arise in different ways4 ,many of them are stylistic1 others are intended to clear up difficulties1 while it is in every way probable that others again are corrections introduced as the result of new information4 ,if1 from such causes1 ,st4 ,luke does not hesitate to modify the statements of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 it is inconceivable that he would have refrained from altering his own narrative if occasion should arise4 ,we have at least one definite example1 within ,st4 ,luke's works1 of a story which has been modified in the light of further information4 ,in ,lk4 xxiv there is good ground for thinking that the final parting of ,jesus from ,his disciples is not described as an ,ascension1 and apparently it takes place at the close of ,easter ,day4 ,in ,acts i we have the story of a forty days' interval1 during which the ,risen ,christ teaches ,his disciples the things concerning the ,kingdom of ,god 7i4 #c74 ,the ,ascension is described as an act of visible levitation4 ,jesus is taken up into heaven and a cloud receives ,him out of ,his disciples' sight 7i4 #i74 ,as they stand gazing upwards two men appear by their side clothed in white garments1 who declare that ,jesus shall return in like manner as they beheld ,him going into heaven 7i4 #aj f474 ,the disciples then return to ,jerusalem4 ,it can hardly be denied that this is a totally different story from that which is told in ,lk4 xxiv4 ,whatever its historical value may be the presumption is that it rests upon a tradition which had come to ,st4 ,luke's knowledge after he had completed his ,gospel4 ,apparently he acquired his new information when it was too late to alter his earlier work4 ,otherwise we may believe that the story would have appeared in the ,gospel and not in the ,acts4 ,it may freely be granted that the foregoing considerations are of a purely general character4 ,admittedly they do not prove that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 is a specific instance of modification4 ,our justification of this hypothesis is the results we have reached in ,chapters ,,ii and ,,iii4 ,what we have just urged1 however1 is sufficient to show that our theory is not by any means inherently impossible1 but is consonant with ,st4 ,luke's procedure and methods as a writer4 ,,iii4 ,the ,objections to ,which the ,above ,theory is ,exposed ,we have now to consider what is perhaps the strongest objection to which our theory is exposed4 ,it may be stated as follows3 ,if the ,virgin ,birth is a later element in the ,third ,gospel introduced by ,st4 ,luke himself1 the ,evangelist's revision of cc4 i1 ii might reasonably have been expected to be much more thorough than it is4 ,why1 for example1 does he leave untouched the references to ,joseph and ,mary as 8the parents0 of ,jesus8 ,why does he not qualify his ambiguous reference to 8their0 purification8 ,why is he still untroubled by their astonishment1 and by their failure to understand the words of ,jesus at ,jerusalem8 ,why does he not insert some clearer reference to the ,davidic descent of ,mary1 or at least give us reason to believe that he looked upon ,jesus as the adopted1 and therefore legal1 son of ,joseph8 ,why does he leave the ,sonship mentioned in the first part of the angel's speech 7i4 #cac7 apparently of a purely ,messianic character8 ,why does he not provide occasion in the ,annunciation for the terms of ,mary's question in i4 #cd8 ,in short1 are we not back again face to face with the same difficulties with which our investigation opened8 ,these are some of the difficulties which our theory raises4 ,in reply to this objection there are two preliminary considerations to be borne in mind4 ,they are not arguments in the sense of things which can be proved2 they are rather possibilities which ought seriously to be taken into account4 7#a7 ,in the first place it should be recognized that we may not have all the details of ,st4 ,luke's actual reconstruction before us4 ,something may have been altered or excised2 we have the result2 we may not have all the stages4 ,usener 7,,eb41 col4 #ccej7 has asserted that statements of fact have actually been omitted from the original narrative2 he is even able to tell us what they are6 ,he thinks that we can 8infer with certainty0 that in the original form of the narrative after i4 #ch stood the further statement that ,mary was then taken to wife by ,joseph and that she conceived by him4 ,usener suggests that this statement was 8judged inadmissible0 by the redactor who interpolated i4 #cd f41 and that in consequence it was expunged4 ,there can be little doubt that reasoning such as this requires omniscience as well as intuition6 ,and the same criticism would be just in reply to any one who should elect to tell us exactly what ,st4 ,luke himself has altered or omitted4 ,these are things which we do not know1 and which we cannot know2 we cannot even 8infer with certainty0 that ,st4 ,luke has omitted anything at all4 ,but the broad possibility that he may have effected transformations and modifications in cc4 i1 ii1 which we cannot now trace1 is quite another matter1 and1 indeed1 is by no means improbable4 ,and if this is so1 must it not affect the judgement we pass upon the skill or lack of skill which1 on the theory proposed1 ,st4 ,luke has shown8 ,we may not know all4 ,obviously1 we cannot prove this1 but it is a consideration which we ought to have in mind4 7#b7 ,a second thing to be remembered is that1 if our theory is true1 we do not know anything of the actual circumstances under which the new tradition was introduced into the ,gospel2 it may have been in haste4 ,did the story reach the ,evangelist at the last moment8 ,or1 if not1 was there a process of sifting and testing of the new information1 which left little time when at length the fateful decision was taken1 and the ,evangelist took up his pen8 ,again we cannot prove these things1 but again we cannot deny them4 ,and if we cannot deny them1 we must not ignore them4 ,only if we do ignore these possibilities1 are we at liberty to insist that the reconstruction should have been more drastic4 ,if1 as we ourselves think1 the supposition is reasonable1 that i4 #cd f4 was added when the ,evangelist had only just heard of the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 we have clearly a good answer to the objection we are considering4 ,the foregoing arguments are speculative2 there are1 however1 more positive considerations to urge4 ,in addition to what has been said1 we may point out 7#c7 the fact that ,st4 ,luke's writings left his hand without a painstaking final revision1 and 7#d7 the different effect upon the mind of a new piece of information as compared with a belief1 which has been held for some time1 and has already become an intellectual presupposition4 7#c7 ,that ,st4 ,luke's writings left his hands without a final revision is strongly supported by the literary phenomena of the two works4 ,the clearest evidence is found in the ,acts1 in which we probably have a closer literary parallel to the ,birth ,stories of ,lk4 i1 ii than in the rest of the ,gospel itself4 ,writing on the ,acts 7,acts of the ,apostles1 ,eng4 ,tr41 pp4 #bjc ff47 ,harnack gives a list of more than two hundred 8instances of inaccuracy and discrepancy04 ,harnack does not accept them all1 and shows that they are of different types1 many of them being comparatively trifling and unimportant4 ,some are cases of anacoluthon and of transition from indirect to direct speech and vice versa4 ,there are also 8cases where ,st4 ,luke introduces persons with a certain unconcern1 or in other places seems to forget that he has already introduced them0 7p4 #bcj74 ,harnack points out that 8the details of a story are here and there inserted later or again earlier than their proper place0 7p4 #bbg71 and he asserts that 8instances of redundancy1 of awkward repetition1 of silence upon important points1 and of extraordinary brevity1 can be adduced from different parts of the book0 7p4 #bcj74 ,he finds 8instances of discrepancy0 in the three accounts of the conversion of ,st4 ,paul1 the letter of ,claudius ,lysias1 the report of ,festus1 the last speech of ,st4 ,paul at ,rome1 and in other passages 7p4 #bca74 ,adequately to enter into this very interesting question would take us too far beyond the limits of our main subject4 ,it is perhaps not unfair to suggest that ,harnack's long list1 as given in pp4 #bjcbe1 is capable of very considerable reduction4 ,there is great force in ,ramsay's remark3 8,he who reads ,luke without applying practical sense and motherwit and experience will always misunderstand him01 and in his caution3 8,when you think you find an #8inconsistency' in ,luke1 you should look carefully whether you have been sufficiently applying these qualities1 before you condemn the supposed fault0 7,luke the ,physician1 p4 #ee74 ,ramsay himself admits1 however1 that there are inconsistencies which cannot be denied1 and holds that they show that 8the work never received the final form which ,luke intended to give it1 but was still incomplete when he died0 7ib41 p4 #bd74 ,in his earlier work1 ,st4 ,paul the ,traveller and the ,roman ,citizen1 ,ramsay has made the same suggestion1 illustrations of which he finds in ,acts xvi4 #ai1 #bj and xx4 #d1 #e47ge7 ,we may describe the impression which ,st4 ,luke1 as a writer1 makes upon us by saying that1 while his work is marked by great literary art1 and while it is characterized by many striking instances of historical accuracy1 yet1 at the same time1 the ,evangelist shows a certain unconcern in matters of detail 7,harnack would call it 8a certain literary carelessness071 the results of which would probably have disappeared had he subjected his works to a close final revision4 ,if this view is just there is little weight in the objection that1 on the theory we have stated1 ,st4 ,luke's reconstruction might have been expected to be more drastic than it is4 ,the inconsistencies he has left are like those which we find elsewhere and are a feature of his works as they stand4 7#d7 ,our final argument is of a psychological kind4 ,it rests1 as we have said1 upon the difference between an intellectual prepossession and the first effect upon the mind of new information4 ,the previous argument might seem to point in another direction4 ,will not the character of ,st4 ,luke's writings sufficiently explain the literary phenomena of ,lk4 i1 ii1 on the view that he taught the ,virgin ,birth from the first8 ,in the light of the discrepancies which occur in the ,gospel and the ,acts1 can we not believe that after all the ,virgin ,birth is an original element in the ,gospel8 ,this contention would be an example of what ,harnack has called attempting to gather apologetic figs from sceptical thistles47#gf7 ,we do not think that in this case the harvest would realize expectations4 ,it must be remembered that the two cases are not parallel4 ,in the one case we begin with a writer whose mind is filled with an intellectual presupposition1 with a knowledge1 that is to say1 of the ,virgin ,birth presupposed4 ,under these circumstances the miracle must be 8a necessary stone in the structure01 and its effect determinative4 ,if the ,virgin ,birth had been known to ,st4 ,luke for some considerable time1 we cannot think that ,lk4 i1 ii would have possessed the features to which we have called attention in ,chapter ,,ii4 ,in the other case--that of our hypothesis--the ,virgin ,birth is a piece of new information1 and1 if this is so1 we submit that inconsistencies left in the adapted narrative wear a different hue4 ,it is one thing to introduce into a narrative what is inconsistent to one's presuppositions4 ,it is quite another thing not to perceive inconsistencies at once1 when our knowledge is enlarged by a totally new fact4 ,a presupposition is much more despotic than a subsequent discovery4 ,it is common knowledge that the implications of a new point of view are not always immediately recognized4 ,for a time old and new live together4 ,it is not by any means an easy task to introduce into a narrative1 constructed under the guidance of alien presuppositions1 a fact of an entirely new order4 ,that ,st4 ,luke should have performed his task so well argues no little skill in literary craftsmanship4 ,that his work was not completely done is after all no more than we might expect4 ,from the standpoint of literary exactitude1 no doubt the better plan would have been to rewrite the narrative1 or at least to subject it to a rigorous pruning4 ,but we ought not to complain if these things have not been done4 ,st4 ,luke was probably too much of an artist to feel the merciless logic of his new information2 and the result is a compromise4 ,in connexion with our theory we do not think that this is an unreasonable view to take4 ,the difficulties are certainly much greater upon the theory that ,st4 ,luke knew of the ,virgin ,birth from the first4 ,granted certain presuppositions1 and we can say with good reason what a writer like ,st4 ,luke would not be likely to do4 ,assume the entrance of a new fact1 transforming by a whole world of difference the writer's point of view1 and who can say just what he would do8 ,we can say1 of course1 that he would introduce his new knowledge1 if persuaded of its truth2 but when we come to the details of reconstruction1 we are face to face with the uncertainties of the personal equation4 ,the logical procedure is drastic revision4 ,if the writer stops short of this1 as he may very well do1 and attempts to fuse his material1 seams must show and markings remain4 ,this is precisely what we find in ,lk4 i1 ii4 ,in i4 #cd f4 and its context we can detect the seams2 in c4 ii we can see the markings4 ,it will be recognized that the situation is quite different on the view which credits i4 #cd f4 to a later ,christian editor4 ,against this theory the objection we are considering has much greater force4 ,for it is unlikely that the redactor would approach the ,gospel with a knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth but lately gained4 ,on the contrary1 it would probably be a doctrine with which he had long been familiar4 ,accordingly1 in addition to the other objections that we have raised against the theory of late interpolation1 it would be legitimate to ask1 ,why has the redactor not done his work better8 ,our own hypothesis--that ,st4 ,luke had only just entered into a knowledge of the new tradition--is1 indeed1 the one theory where we have the least need to ask this question4 ,for the reasons given1 we believe that the objection that ,st4 ,luke's revision should have been more drastic is not insuperable4 ,that there is difficulty we allow4 ,but there is probably no solution of the ,lukan problem1 not even the correct one1 which will not leave difficulties of a kind4 ,the problem is complex and the facts often elusive4 ,it is on the ground that the theory we have sketched leaves least difficulties1 and does justice to the facts as they appear1 that we venture to find in it a reasonable solution of the problem of the ,virgin ,birth in relation to the ,third ,gospel and to ,st4 ,luke4 ,,iv4 ,certain ,consequences ,it remains for us to consider certain consequences which follow if our hypothesis is true4 7#a7 ,in the first place1 we can claim ,st4 ,luke as a witness to the tradition of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,this is a result of first importance4 ,for those who regard ,st4 ,luke as a very credulous person with a special 8fondness0 for 8a good miracle01 this conclusion will mean little4 ,but for those who are impressed by his claim to be regarded as a good historical writer1 it is not a view to be lightly esteemed4 ,there are those who will consider that ,st4 ,luke's witness settles the historical question1 and will be disposed on the ground of his authority to accept the tradition4 ,but with greater reason there are others who will feel that1 with all his excellences as an historian1 ,st4 ,luke has the elementary human right to make a mistake1 especially when he is dependent upon the evidence of others4 ,the determining feature is clearly the character of his source or sources4 7#b7 ,a further fact to be noticed is that ,st4 ,luke's witness marks a very early stage in the spread of the ,virgin ,birth tradition4 ,in this respect there is a contrast between the ,third and ,first ,gospels4 ,in the ,third ,gospel the tradition is stated1 but its problems are scarcely felt4 ,there is a foreshadowing of this in the words 8as was supposed0 in the ,genealogy1 but not more4 ,st4 ,luke has not really felt the problem of the ,davidic descent4 ,he has not envisaged that very striking treatment of the problem which we shall have occasion to point out in the ,matthaean ,genealogy 7see pp4 #hi ff474 ,st4 ,luke's narrative is neither didactic nor apologetic4 ,it is almost1 but not quite1 a simple narrative of what is implicitly accepted as fact4 ,in making this qualification we are thinking of the artistic form which the earlier narrative embodied in ,lk4 i1 ii has imposed upon ,st4 ,luke's account of the ,virgin ,birth2 but this is a matter which will come up again a little later4 ,the fact that is of outstanding interest is that ,st4 ,luke could sit down to write a ,gospel1 with a desire to trace out all things accurately from the first1 and yet know nothing of the ,virgin ,birth1 until after the greater part1 if not the whole1 of his work was completed4 7#c7 ,it is the fact just noted which helps us to date the first appearance of the ,virgin ,birth tradition2 its date is bound up with the question of the date of the ,third ,gospel4 ,this is a question which will receive further treatment in our final chapter 7pp4 #aag ff474 7#d7 ,our hypothesis postulates an earlier narrative of the ,birth of ,jesus which knew nothing of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,the relation of this narrative to the later tradition needs carefully to be considered4 ,we have already expressed the opinion that the earlier narrative was probably taken from a good historical source4 ,ramsay has noted signs of a womanly spirit in the whole narrative1 and thinks that it may well go back either to ,mary1 or to some one who was very intimate with her 7cf4 ,was ,christ ,born at ,bethlehem81 pp4 #gdhh2 ,luke the ,physician1 pp4 #ac1 #ej74 ,sanday is not able to speak quite so confidently as to the nearness of the source to ,mary1 but thinks that it could not be 8more than two or three degrees removed from her04 8,it must have been near enough01 he says1 8to retain the fine touches which ,professor ,ramsay so well brings out0 7,outlines1 p4 #aie n474 ,these views have won considerable support in ,great ,britain4 ,it will be remembered1 of course1 that they have regard to the whole of ,lk4 i1 ii1 to the narrative1 that is to say1 as an account of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,the same arguments are valid1 however1 for ascribing a good historical foundation to the narrative1 even if i4 #cd f4 is a later addition4 ,the probability is that the source1 whether documentary or oral1 is of ,palestinian origin1 and that it points back ultimately1 if not immediately1 to the ,holy ,family4 ,on our theory1 however1 while silent as to the paternity of ,joseph1 the source had nothing to say of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,it described the nonmiraculous birth of the longexpected ,messiah4 ,at first sight the high historical value of this earlier source would appear to be detrimental to the tradition of ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,but it is not certain that this is so4 ,there is more force than has often been allowed in the suggestion that the facts of the ,virgin ,birth may have been purposely withheld from public knowledge for many years by those who knew them47#gg7 ,assuming for the moment the truth of this view1 we may ask1 ,would nothing at all be told8 ,if we think it probable that part at least of the story would be related1 it may be that the tradition upon which ,st4 ,luke first drew is a version of that part4 ,we might even hazard the suggestion that it was the publication of this story by ,st4 ,luke which drew out the fuller narrative4 ,in other words1 the fact that the earlier tradition makes no reference to the ,virgin ,birth need not be fatal to the truth of the later story expanded in i4 #cd f4 ,this1 of course1 is speculation2 but1 at any rate1 the possibilities are such as to forbid the specious argument--the ,holy ,family know nothing of the ,virgin ,birth6 ,we tread upon firmer ground when we urge that the higher the historical value of the earlier story the less likely would ,st4 ,luke have been disposed to modify it in deference to further information1 unless he had attached considerable value to the new tradition1 and was persuaded of its truth4 7#e7 ,as regards the origin of the ,virgin ,birth tradition implied in ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 we have to confess that we are completely in the dark4 ,we have stated our preference for the view that it came through a personal channel 7p4 #gc74 ,we are unable to think that in writing i4 #cd f4 ,st4 ,luke was himself merely translating theology into narrative4 ,but who the intermediary was we cannot tell4 ,on our theory1 the tradition cannot have been directly imparted to the ,evangelist by ,mary4 ,whether1 in the end1 the story can be traced back to her1 is a question we cannot now discuss4 ,at this stage it would be no more than a guess to connect it with the women mentioned in ,lk4 viii4 #b1 #c2 xxiv4 #aj1 or with the daughters of ,philip 7,acts xxi4 #h1 #i74 ,in an historical inquiry it is never safe to ascribe a tradition to an authority1 unless we have solid grounds for so doing4 ,otherwise1 we import a bias into the investigation1 if indeed we do not beg the question4 ,the mistake is one which has been made more than once in discussing the ,virgin ,birth4 ,in the present case we have nothing whatever to guide us1 and accordingly we have to acquiesce in the bare conclusion that ,st4 ,luke accepted the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 but that we do not know anything about his authority1 except that it satisfied his mind4 7#f7 ,the form in which the tradition reached ,st4 ,luke can hardly have been the brief statement of i4 #cd f4 ,the literary form of that passage is determined by that of the earlier narrative4 ,the latter1 as we have said 7p4 #gc71 is something more than a bare transcript of events4 ,it is a product of high art1 and is shaped upon ,old ,testament models4 ,ramsay finds in it a ,greek element4 ,the story has been 8rethought out of the ,hebraic into the ,greek fashion0 7,luke the ,physician1 p4 #ac74 ,the divine messenger becomes to ,st4 ,luke 8the winged personal being who1 like ,iris or ,hermes1 communicates the will and purpose of ,god0 7op4 cit41 p4 #ac74 ,having regard1 however1 to the ,old ,testament birthstories of ,isaac1 ,samson1 and ,samuel1 it is doubtful if we really need this suggestion4 ,in any case1 we may say that it is the mould in which the earlier story has been cast1 which accounts for the literary form of the ,virgin ,birth tradition in ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,the tradition which ,st4 ,luke received probably contained the substance of what is stated in verse #ce1 and asserted that ,jesus was begotten of ,mary by the ,holy ,spirit4 7#g7 ,the historical value of the ,virgin ,birth tradition in the ,third ,gospel is a question which cannot be answered until the problem is treated as a whole4 ,our study of the ,lukan problem adds to the material at our disposal4 ,it confirms our conclusions in ,chapter ,i as regards ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,mark4 ,it also enables us to say that ,st4 ,luke1 in his later years1 came to believe and teach the ,virgin ,birth1 on grounds which are unknown to us1 but which he himself deemed sufficient4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,virgin ,,birth ,,and ,,the ,,first ,,gospel ,more than the other ,synoptic ,gospels1 the ,first ,gospel comes before us as an 8official0 document of the ,christian ,church4 ,our ,third ,gospel was somewhat of the nature of a 8private venture01 and how inadequately the value of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel was recognized in the first half of the second century appears in the fact that its survival seems almost accidental1 all existing copies being derived from a single mutilated ,,ms47#gh7 ,whether1 then1 we can claim the authority and sanction of the ,first ,gospel for the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 is clearly a question of firstrate importance4 ,to some the question will appear determinative2 but for those also1 who feel that in any case the historical value of the witness would remain an open question1 a conclusion as regards the problem is of very great significance1 in view of its historical implications4 ,in the present chapter our purpose is to inquire how far the ,first ,gospel bears witness to the ,virgin ,birth1 and what the character of its witness is4 ,was the narrative1 as we have it today1 present in the ,gospel from the first8 ,is ,mt4 i1 ii a later insertion1 or is the passage i4 #ahbe an interpolation8 ,extremely interesting discussions have also arisen around the question of the ,matthaean ,genealogy and the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af1 and these call for notice4 ,the question of the historical value of the tradition of ,mt4 i4 #ahbe must in the main be postponed1 but the possibilities1 and such positive facts as emerge1 can be noted4 ,perhaps the best method of approach is to consider first the character of the ,genealogy1 apart altogether from the question of its authorship4 ,the details of the textual problem of ,mt4 i4 #af will be discussed in an ,appendix to the chapter4 ,the remaining points to be treated are the genuineness of cc4 i1 ii1 the unity of these chapters1 and lastly the sources and implications of the narrative1 together with a survey of the results reached4 ,i4 ,the ,characteristics of the ,genealogy ,among the features which mark the ,genealogy we may note the following3 7#a7 ,its purpose is to show the ,davidic descent of ,jesus by tracing the royal line 7cf4 verse #f 8,david the king074 7#b7 ,the structure is obviously artificial47#gi7 ,the ,genealogy is arranged in three groups of fourteen generations1 an arrangement to which the writer himself calls attention 7verse #ag74 ,in order to secure this structure1 the names of ,joash1 ,amaziah1 and ,azariah are omitted 7cf4 #a ,chron4 iii7 and the third group covers a space of about six hundred years4 8,if any source of the schematism is wanted1 the cabbalistic interpretation of 1 whose three letters are equivalent by gematria to the number #ad1 is the most probable0 7,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bej n474 7#c7 ,the verb is used throughout of legal1 not physical1 descent47#hj7 ,this inference is drawn from the artificial character of the ,genealogy4 ,its omissions are obvious1 and must have been so both to the compiler and his readers4 8,the contemporaries of the ,evangelist knew their ,bible at least as well as we do4 ,they knew that there were more than fourteen generations between ,david and the ,captivity1 that ,joram did not beget ,uzziah1 and that ,josiah did not beget ,jeconiah0 7,burkitt1 ,evan4 ,da ,meph41 ii1 p4 #bfj74 ,if the passage ,mt4 i4 #ahbe1 as well as the ,genealogy1 comes from the hand of the ,evangelist1 the verb must clearly indicate legal parentage2 but there is sufficient ground for this view within the ,genealogy itself4 7#d7 ,the references to women in the ,genealogy are unique1 and are best explained as due to an apologetic purpose4 ,they cannot be so well explained as reflecting a universalistic interest 7,heffern1 quoted by ,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bea74 ,in contrast to the ,genealogy in the ,third ,gospel1 that in ,mt4 traces the descent no farther back than to ,abraham2 it is fundamentally ,jewish4 ,there can be little doubt but that the writer's purpose is to rebut ,jewish slanders already current regarding the birth of ,jesus4 8,throughout the whole ,genealogy the ,evangelist appears to be telling us in an audible aside that the heir had often been born out of the direct line or irregularly4 ,thamar the daughterinlaw of ,judah1 ,rahab the harlot1 ,ruth the ,moabitess1 and the unnamed wife of ,uriah1 are forced upon our attention1 as if to prepare us for still greater irregularity in the last stage0 7,burkitt747#ha7 ,if these are the characteristic features of the ,genealogy1 it is clear that from the first it was compiled with the ,virgin ,birth presupposed4 ,it is1 in fact1 an attempt to present that belief in connexion with the claim that ,jesus was of ,davidic descent1 through the legal relationship in which ,he stood to ,joseph47#hb7 ,thus1 the ,matthaean ,genealogy is unique2 it differs altogether from that in ,lk4 ,if to us its form seems forced and unreal1 that is because we fail to come to it from the historical point of view4 ,from this standpoint we may ask1 with ,w4 ,c4 ,allen 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 #f73 8,if the editor simply tried to give expression to the two facts which had come down to him by tradition--the fact of ,christ's supernatural birth and the fact that ,he was the ,davidic ,messiah1 and did not attempt a logical synthesis of them1 who shall blame him80 ,we are not here concerned with the question of the truth of the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 but simply with the view that the compiler of the ,genealogy held that belief1 and for this inference a high degree of probability can be claimed4 ,if this is the character of the ,genealogy1 it must follow that the textual problem of ,mt4 i4 #af differs considerably in importance from the thought of a quarter of a century ago4 ,it is becoming increasingly recognized that1 whatever the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af may be1 it can make little difference to the character of the ,genealogy as outlined above4 ,its interest is textual and literary rather than historical4 ,the most interesting statement of this point of view is that of ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt in his ,evangelion ,da,mepharreshe 7#aijd1 see vol4 ii1 pp4 #beh ff474 ,on p4 #beh ,burkitt expresses a firm belief that no fresh light upon the historical events of the ,nativity has been thrown either by the discovery of the ,sinaitic ,syriac ,,ms4 or by the publication of the ,dialogue of ,timothy and ,aquila4 ,he says 7p4 #bfa7 that even if the ,genealogy had ended with the uncompromising statement 8and ,joseph begat ,jesus01 it would not prove that its compiler believed that ,joseph was the actual father of ,jesus4 ,in this connexion it is of great interest to note that ,archdeacon ,allen1 who upholds the historical truth of the ,virgin ,birth1 actually adopts in his commentary on ,mt4 7,,icc41 #aijg7 the reading implied by the ,sin4 ,syr41 as the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af--8;,and ,jacob begat ,joseph4 ,joseph1 to whom was espoused ,mary a virgin1 begat ,jesus1 who is called ,christ0 7p4 #e74 ,writing in #aiaf1 ,canon ,box takes a different view of the textual problem1 but is no less emphatic in his assertion that1 8even if the reading ,joseph 444 begat ,jesus be correct1 it need not imply a belief in the natural generation of ,jesus0 7,the ,virgin ,birth of ,jesus1 p4 #ae74 ,lastly1 we may compare the judgement of ,dr4 ,james ,moffatt 7,,int41 #aiah73 8,such modifications as may be due to doctrinal presuppositions are designed to reset or to sharpen the reference of the original text to the virgin birth1 not to insert the dogma in a passage which was originally free from it0 7p4 #bea74 ,these are great and honoured names1 but the opinion is not one which cries out for the cloak of authority2 it springs directly out of the character of the ,genealogy itself4 ,if is used throughout of legal parentage1 it would clearly be so in the last step1 if it should be proved that this also contained the word 4 ,indeed1 we should naturally expect to find that word in verse #af4 ,at the same time1 it would not be right to regard the textual problem as one of merely academic interest4 ,it gives a valuable sidelight upon the history of the exegesis of ,mt4 i1 ii in the early ,christian centuries4 ,it enables us to see how the ,matthaean narrative was viewed1 the difficulties it raised1 and the way in which they were met4 ,thus it throws into strong relief the unique character of the ,genealogy4 ,it also sheds a welcome light upon the treatment which the text of the ,gospels received at the hands of their earliest readers before these writings had acquired the status of sacred books4 ,even then if we have finally to acquiesce in ,dr4 ,moffatt's statement3 8,the textual problem of i4 #af is not yet settled01 the question is one of absorbing and of fruitful interest47#hc7 ,for our immediate purpose it is enough to say that the results1 so far as they go1 strengthen rather than weaken our belief that the compiler of the ,genealogy worked under the presupposition of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,,ii4 ,the ,genuineness of ,mt4 i1 ii ,this problem can no longer be regarded as a burning question4 ,few scholars of the present day would contend that the ,first ,gospel ever circulated without these chapters4 ,in style1 in vocabulary1 and in mode of treatment1 they are of a piece with the rest of the book4 7#a7 ,the literary style of the ,first ,evangelist is not so marked as that of ,st4 ,luke1 but it has nevertheless a distinct character of its own4 ,as compared with that of ,st4 ,mark1 it is 8more prosaic and colourless01 but it is 8more calm and balanced0 7,milligan747#hd7 ,prof4 ,burkitt describes it as follows3 8,i wish ,i could think of some other word than #8formality' by which to name the chief characteristic of the ,first ,evangelist's literary style4 ,formality suggests rigidity1 generally with a certain measure of incapacity1 and these are not among his defects4 ,on the contrary1 ,matthew has great literary skill1 as well as dignity4 ,everything that he says is put with admirable clearness and lucidity2 what he writes down he has first understood himself4 ,if there is an exception to be noted he notes it0 7,,ght41 p4 #ahf74 ,now this same style is manifest everywhere throughout the ,gospel1 in cc4 i1 ii1 as well as elsewhere47#he7 ,the theory therefore that these chapters are a later insertion labours under an immense initial disadvantage4 ,it requires to be explained how it is that this characteristic literary style is just as manifest in cc4 i1 ii as in the rest of the ,gospel1 in spite of the fact that the subjectmatter of these chapters is peculiar and distinct4 7#b7 ,the ,vocabulary and constructional forms of cc4 i1 ii are also characteristic of the ,gospel as a whole4 ,burkitt 7,evan4 ,da,meph41 ii1 p4 #bei7 instances eight words from these chapters as 8characteristic ,matthaean words04 ,these words are given below4 ,the statistics have been obtained by tracing the record of the words in ,moulton and ,geden's ,concordance 7doubtful cases and quotations being omitted74 ,instances ,instances ,instances in ,mt4 i1 in ,mt4 in the ii4 iii rest of xxviii4 the ,,nt4 #d #f #d 7with #b #aa ,mk4 7#a71 names7 ,lk4 7#b71 ,jn4 7#h71 ,ac4 7#b71 ,pl4 7#d71 ,heb4 7#a74 #e #a #j #d #h #ac #d #h #j #a #f #d #c #hf #fg #d #i #i ,in addition to the list given by ,burkitt1 we may note also the following3 ,instances ,instances ,mt1 as in ,mt4 i1 in ,mt4 compared ii4 iii with the xxviii4 rest of the ,,nt4 #f #aj #a_/c of ,,nt4 ,record4 #c #i #a_/d of ,,nt4 #a #ac #a_/c of ,,nt4 #a #bc #b_/e of ,,nt4 #a #e #a_/b of ,,nt4 #a #h #a_/b of ,,nt4 #a #h #a_/b of ,,nt4 #a #g #b_/e of ,,nt4 #a #d #a_/b of ,,nt4 ,other words which repay examination are 1 1 1 1 4 ,the argument is not1 of course1 that no one but the ,first ,evangelist could have used these words--that would be absurd2 but that they are words which he uses frequently1 and in nearly every case more frequently than any other ,new ,testament writer47#hf7 ,an interesting fact is instanced by ,w4 ,c4 ,allen 7op4 cit41 p4 lxxxvi74 ,he notes as a characteristic of the ,gospel 8a tendency to repeat a phrase or construction two or three times at short intervals04 ,fifteen examples of this are given1 one of which occurs in ,mt4 ii4 ,this last is an instance in which the genitive absolute is followed in three cases by 7ii4 #a1 #ac1 #ai74 ,we may add that the same construction appears in i4 #bj4 ,sir ,j4 ,c4 ,hawkins shows 7,,hs41 #bnd ,ed41 pp4 #e1 #ca7 that there are seven instances of this construction in the rest of ,mt41 as compared with a single case in ,lk4 ,one other detail of construction may be noted4 ,more than half the ,new ,testament record of with the subjunctive 7which occurs in ii4 #ac7 belongs to the ,first ,gospel4 ,on the other side1 we have to set down the fact that in ,mt4 i1 ii there are some twentyeight words1 exclusive of proper nouns1 which do not occur in the rest of the ,gospel47#hg7 ,but nearly half of these are accounted for by the subjectmatter4 ,the remaining instances are not more numerous than we might naturally expect4 ,on the other hand1 if cc4 i1 ii are a later insertion1 we could reasonably look for more4 ,so far1 then1 as the linguistic facts will take us1 we may say that1 considered as a whole1 they support the view that ,mt4 i1 ii are from the same hand as the rest of the ,gospel4 7#c7 ,the mode of treatment in these chapters is that of the ,first ,evangelist4 ,this writer is distinguished by the marked interest which he takes in describing the new faith as the true fulfilment of the old4 ,this characteristic appears in the quotations which he makes from the ,old ,testament4 ,among these there are twelve which stand out distinct47#hh7 7i7 ,in each case they are preceded by the words1 8in order that that which was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled01 or words to that effect4 7ii7 ,with one exception 7iii4 #c71 they are quoted in this ,gospel alone4 7iii7 ,what is more important1 most of them are based upon the ,hebrew1 whereas the remaining quotations in the ,gospel 7except xi4 #aj7 are taken from the ,septuagint47#hi7 ,for our present purpose the significant thing is that these characteristic quotations are distributed throughout the whole of the ,gospel4 ,no less than five of them occur in cc4 i1 ii1 and it is not too much to say that their presence is a kind of watermark authenticating the genuineness of these chapters4 ,combining the foregoing arguments we may justly claim that the hypothesis of interpolation is violent in the extreme4 ,dr4 ,moffatt sums up a very widely accepted view when he says3 8,neither the style nor contents of #ab afford valid evidence for suspecting that they are a later insertion in the gospel0 7,,int41 p4 #bej74 ,,iii4 ,the ,unity of ,mt4 i1 ii ,the arguments used in the preceding section are sufficient to show that cc4 i1 ii1 as a whole1 come from the ,evangelist's hand4 ,but this conclusion does not exclude the possibility that certain parts may be of later date4 ,in particular1 it could be said1 and has in fact been claimed that the ,genealogy1 the passage i4 #ahbe1 or both1 are interpolations2 and that originally the ,first ,gospel knew nothing of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,these questions must now be treated4 ,there is not the same need for us to examine the section describing the visit of the ,wise ,men and its sequel 7c4 ii74 ,this section is of great importance in a discussion of the ,nativity narratives1 but in relation to the ,virgin ,birth it is secondary as compared with the ,genealogy and the passage i4 #ahbe4 ,the section is treated by ,canon ,box in ,the ,virgin ,birth of ,jesus1 pp4 #aicc4 #a4 ,the ,genealogy ,we are not concerned to ask at this point whether the ,genealogy ever existed independently of the ,gospel1 and is thus a source which the ,evangelist has worked up and incorporated in his own work4 ,the question we have to consider is whether ,mt4 i4 #aag is a genuine part of the ,gospel4 ,the case in favour of this view is overwhelmingly strong4 ,its weight lies in the fact that the peculiar characteristics of the ,genealogy 7p4 #hi f47 are the peculiar characteristics of the rest of the ,gospel4 7#a7 ,this is manifest in the strong interest taken in the ,davidic ,sonship4 8,the ,gospel according to ,matthew may be called ,the ,book of ,jesus ,christ1 the ,son of ,david 444 ,the special aim of ,matthew1 in one word1 is to represent our ,lord as the legitimate ,heir of the royal house of ,david0 7,burkitt1 ,evan4 ,da,meph41 ii1 p4 #bei74 ,we may partially illustrate this claim by the ,new ,testament record of the term 8,son of ,david04 ,there are #h instances in ,mt4 other than i4 #a1 and #f in the rest of the ,new ,testament 7#c in ,mk4 and #c in ,lk474 ,the regal aspect of ,christ's ,sonship is also illustrated in ,mt4 xix4 #bh1 xxv4 #cd 7cf4 ,allen1 op4 cit41 p4 lxiv74 7#b7 ,as regards the artificial structure of the ,genealogy1 we may note that this too is characteristic of the ,first ,evangelist's manner4 ,he is fond of arranging his material in groups of threes4 ,allen enumerates twentythree instances outside cc4 i1 ii 7ib41 p4 lxv74 ,similarly the double seven reflects 8the author's penchant for that sacred number0 7,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bej1 who notes four other examples 7p4 #beg774 7#c7 ,we are unable to illustrate from the rest of the ,gospel the legal use of 1 but where else save in the ,genealogy could we expect to find it8 ,it is the unique character of the ,genealogy which requires that usage4 ,on the other hand1 the point of view which determines the usage is the point of view of cc4 i1 ii as a whole4 ,as in i4 #aag1 so in i4 #ah;ii4 #bc1 the standpoint is that of a writer who desires to combine two diverse beliefs1 the ,virgin ,birth and the ,messiahship of ,jesus4 7#d7 ,the apologetic motive manifest in the ,genealogy is also characteristic of the ,first ,gospel4 ,not only is the same motive present in every section of cc4 i1 ii1 but in other connexions and in every part of the ,gospel1 the desire to defend and to interpret is evident2 notably this is the case in the story of the ,baptism1 the account of the ,guard at the ,tomb and the ,resurrection narratives47#ij7 7#e7 ,the nature of the ,genealogy leaves little room for the linguistic test4 8,yet even here we have the characteristic in v4 #af1 and the objective way that the writer speaks of #8the ,christ' in v4 #ag is quite in the manner of ,mt4 xi4 #b0 7,burkitt1 op4 cit41 p4 #bei74 ,taken together these arguments justify us in concluding that ,mt4 i4 #aag comes from the ,evangelist's pen4 #b4 ,the ,passage ,mt4 i4 #ahbe ,it is this passage which leads us to the heart of the whole question1 for here1 in the angelic message to ,joseph1 the ,virgin ,birth is asserted unmistakably4 ,we should be justified in making use of the results we have already obtained4 ,if the ,genealogy comes from the hand of the ,evangelist1 and if it is of the character we have alleged1 there can be no question but that ,mt4 i4 #ahbe is also a genuine part of the ,gospel4 ,in view1 however1 of the importance of the section1 it may be well not to avail ourselves of this argument4 ,schmiedel's objections to the passage 7,,eb41 col4 #biei f47 may not unfairly be summarized as follows3 7i7 ,mt4 xiii4 #ee 78,is not this the carpenter's son807 8directly contradicts the theory of the ,virgin ,birth01 7ii7 ,mt4 ii can be understood without presupposing the story1 7iii7 ,bethlehem is not mentioned until ii4 #a1 7iv7 ,mt4 i4 #ahbe is not from the same hand as the ,genealogy1 which 8could never have been drawn up after ,joseph had ceased to be regarded as the real father of ,jesus04 ,of these arguments the last arises out of ,schmiedel's view of the ,genealogy1 which is1 that in its original form in the ,gospel it asserted the physical paternity of ,joseph 7the ,virgin ,birth being a later insertion74 ,needless to say1 on this view1 ,mt4 i4 #ahbe must be rejected4 ,we have already discussed the nature of the ,genealogy1 and have seen reason to take a totally different view of it4 ,the ,genealogy1 as we understand it1 furnishes no ground of objection to i4 #ahbe1 but rather the contrary4 ,nor do ,schmiedel's remaining objections carry the weight claimed4 7#a7 ,as we have observed on p4 #ca1 ,mt4 xiii4 #ee simply reflects the opinions of our ,lord's contemporaries4 ,unless we make the gratuitous assumption that the ,evangelist would never have reflected a view which he did not himself share1 we are not justified in raising an objection to i4 #ahbe from this particular passage4 7#b7 ,as regards c4 ii1 it is true that what is there related can1 if necessary1 be understood without presuming the story of i4 #ahbe4 ,nevertheless1 the chapter is quite congruous with what is told in that passage1 and1 indeed1 agrees better with the presupposition of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,in a narrative written from the standpoint of ,joseph1 we may note that1 while ,mary is spoken of no less than five times as the mother of ,jesus 7ii4 #aa1 #ac1 #ad1 #bj1 #ba71 wherever ,joseph is mentioned1 we have invariably the quite neutral expression 8the young child0 7ii4 #ac1 #ad1 #bj1 #ba74 ,also the quotation1 8,out of ,egypt did ,i call my son0 7ii4 #ae71 by the very reason of its exegetical violence1 is more intelligible if the ,evangelist has already narrated the story of the supernatural birth4 ,to have real weight1 ,schmiedel's objection should be able to point to more than the fact that c4 ii can be read 8without the presupposition of the virgin birth04 ,if i4 #ahbe is an interpolation1 we might reasonably expect statements in c4 ii inconsistent with that passage4 ,and1 moreover1 it would be gratuitous to say that they have been carefully suppressed1 in view of those which survive in ,lk4 i1 ii to which we have called attention in ,chapter ,,ii4 7#c7 ,that ,bethlehem is not mentioned until ii4 #a is true4 ,but as an objection to i4 #ahbe this fact would be of significance1 if the latter were simply a narrative of the birth of ,jesus4 ,but to assert this is to mistake its character1 which is didactic and apologetic4 ,joseph rather than ,jesus is the central figure of the section2 the birth is not announced until the closing words4 ,the reference to ,bethlehem in ii4 #a is certainly abrupt1 but it would have been quite as abrupt in i4 #be4 ,nothing in i4 #ahbe1 if we have regard to its character1 requires a reference to ,bethlehem within the passage4 ,the onus of proof really rests upon those who deny the genuineness of i4 #ahbe4 ,it may not be without advantage1 however1 to set down reasons which lead us to believe that the passage comes from the ,evangelist's hand4 7a7 ,as in the case of ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 there is no textual authority for the omission of these verses4 ,while we recognize the free handling which the text of the ,gospels may have received during the first half of the second century1 it does not appear likely on general grounds that ,mt4 i4 #ahbe is an interpolation4 ,the addition to the text of a saying of ,christ1 or of a comment1 or even of an incident drawn from floating ,christian tradition1 we can understand1 as well as a certain amount of stylistic alteration4 8,doctrinal modifications01 however1 of such a wholesale character as the present instance would be1 if the passage is a later insertion of unknown origin1 are quite another matter4 ,that ,mt4 i4 #ahbe should have been inserted in a ,gospel1 which1 on this theory1 taught the physical paternity of ,joseph1 and should have been inserted without leaving traces in the literature of the early ,christian centuries1 is most improbable4 ,the sole support from early ,christian literature is the statement of ,epiphanius that the text used by ,cerinthus lacked the passage4 ,had we more information of this kind1 there would be ground for the theory of interpolation2 as it is1 the basis is too slender and uncertain47#ia7 7b7 ,the standpoint and mode of treatment in ,mt4 i4 #ahbe is that of cc4 i1 ii1 and of the ,evangelist4 ,as in the rest of cc4 i1 ii1 it is the didactic and apologetic interest that is uppermost4 ,joseph is the central figure1 and there is the same use of 8the machinery of dreams0 as in c4 ii1 and in the story of ,pilate's wife 7xxvii4 #ai74 7c7 ,the same may be said of the vocabulary and the style4 ,six words appear which are not found elsewhere in the ,gospel17#ib7 but with the exception of one 771 they are sufficiently explained by the peculiar subjectmatter4 ,on the other hand1 there are at least five 8characteristic ,matthaean words017#ic7 while other features distinctive of the ,first ,evangelist appear in the opening words of verse #bj1 the reference to ,joseph as the 8son of ,david01 the phrase 8,behold1 an angel of the ,lord01 and especially the quotation of verse #bc with its introductory formula4 ,in view of these arguments1 it is not too much to apply to ,mt4 i4 #ahbe what ,burkitt says of ,mt4 i4 #ah;ii4 #bc4 ,if the passage 8be not an integral part of the ,first ,gospel1 it must be counted one of the cleverest of literary adaptations1 a verdict that is not likely to be passed on it by a sane criticism0 7op4 cit41 ii4 #bei74 ,,iv4 ,implications1 ,sources1 and ,results 7#a7 ,in the earlier sections of this chapter an attempt has been made to prove that the ,virgin ,birth is an original element in the ,first ,gospel4 ,the suggestion that it is a later insertion from an unknown hand breaks down on examination1 and our conclusion is that the doctrine was taught by the ,first ,evangelist4 ,there is no need to raise the question whether the doctrine was a later element introduced by the ,evangelist himself into a work which originally knew nothing of it1 for there is absolutely no evidence pointing in that direction4 ,in this respect the passage ,mt4 i4 #ahbe differs altogether from ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 ,against the former passage no inconsistencies1 either in the immediate context or in the ,gospel as a whole1 can be shown4 ,from one end to the other the narrative is governed by the same presuppositions and reflects the same point of view4 ,whether the ,genealogy ever existed independently and in another form is a view for which little can be said4 ,there are no grounds for this theory within the ,genealogy as it stands1 and the textual problem of ,mt4 i4 #af does not require the supposition 7see pp4 #aje ff474 ,the possibility cannot1 of course1 be excluded4 ,if the ,evangelist did make use of an existing ,genealogy1 it was probably one which implied the real paternity of ,joseph4 ,in that case he has completely transformed it1 and must have done this either before1 or at the time when he first wrote cc4 i1 ii4 ,but the existence of such a source is pure speculation4 ,it is more probable that the ,genealogy is the ,evangelist's own composition1 constructed not for historical but for didactic purposes47#id7 7#b7 ,the question of the implications of ,mt4 i1 ii is one of great interest4 ,the narrative is very far from being an attempt to relate the story of the ,virgin ,birth for the first time4 ,on the contrary1 it is probable that the doctrine was already known to the readers of the ,first ,gospel1 and that it had become a subject of controversy4 ,it is from this point of view that the ,evangelist writes2 it is for this reason that he tells the story from the standpoint of ,joseph4 ,it is not difficult to imagine the circumstances under which the ,matthaean narrative came to be written4 ,once the story of the ,virgin ,birth had begun to circulate1 interest must soon have been aroused in the position and attitude of ,joseph4 ,how were his natural fears allayed8 ,what action did he take8 ,what became of the ,davidic descent8 ,such questions would press for answer4 ,outside the ,christian community these difficulties would inevitably become the occasion of scandal1 as the case was in later times4 ,the ,evangelist's narrative is an attempt to meet these difficulties4 ,his view1 or the view he reflects1 is that the fears of ,joseph were allayed by a divine message4 ,the subsequent action of ,joseph1 also under angelic direction1 was to complete the legal act of wedlock before the child was born4 ,the difficulty of the ,davidic descent is the problem attacked in the ,genealogy4 ,according to several writers it is the same interest which governs the narratives of c4 ii4 8444 the ,nativity ,story shows us the alarm of the usurper ,herod1 when he learns that the legitimate ruler has been born within his dominions4 ,as ,saul tried to kill ,david1 so ,herod tries to kill ,jesus2 and ,jesus finds a refuge in ,egypt1 as ,david found a refuge among the ,philistines0 7,burkitt1 op4 cit41 ii4 #bei2 cf4 ,box1 op4 cit41 p4 #ai74 7#c7 ,the question of the source or sources from which the ,evangelist obtained the narrative of ,mt4 i4 #ahbe cannot be adequately discussed in itself and in relation to the ,first ,gospel alone4 ,nevertheless it is worth while to ask how far we can go within those limits4 ,from the evidence supplied by the ,gospel itself1 we cannot say that the narrative rests on the testimony of ,joseph4 ,if the ,virgin ,birth is historically true1 this view has much probability in its favour4 ,but to urge such an origin for the ,matthaean narrative1 as part of the proof for the ,virgin ,birth1 is not permissible1 since obviously it begs the question4 ,many writers think that the narrative really does come from ,joseph himself because it reflects his standpoint4 ,amongst others this is the opinion of ,bishop ,gore 7,the ,new ,theology and the ,old ,religion1 p4 #abf f471 and of ,dr4 ,orr 7,the ,virgin ,birth of ,christ1 pp4 #hc ff4747#ie7 ,such a conclusion travels beyond the facts of the case4 ,that the narrative is written from ,joseph's standpoint is1 of course1 beyond question4 ,it may be1 however1 that this fact is sufficiently accounted for by the apologetic character of the narrative4 ,we do not say here that this is the case1 but we do say that to claim more is to put an outside interpretation upon the narrative4 ,eventually this is1 of course1 inevitable2 our final conclusion reacts upon our view of the earlier problems2 but in the constructive stage this is a peril sedulously to be avoided4 ,the possibility has to be allowed that the narrative of ,mt4 i4 #ahbe may be the result of an inference which arose within the ,christian community1 and which has clothed itself in an imaginative and pictorial form4 ,in answer to the question1 ,how were the fears of ,joseph allayed81 it would be natural to reply1 ,by a divine message1 and current beliefs would supply an explanation of the means and the method by which such a message would be conveyed4 ,angelic mediation would account for the one1 just as revelation by a dream would explain the other4 ,the presence of inference in the ,synoptic narratives is perhaps not so widely recognized as it ought to be4 ,whether we ought to be so ready as we often are to suppose the existence of special information1 documentary or oral1 when the ,first ,evangelist and ,st4 ,luke add details to the ,markan narrative1 or relate entirely new facts1 is a pertinent question4 ,in many cases there is much justice in the supposition4 ,in other cases it may easily be that the new detail or narrative has been shaped by inferences playing upon difficulties or ambiguities left by earlier narratives and traditions47#if7 ,this would be a perfectly natural circumstance1 the existence of which would be more readily acknowledged if obsolete theories of ,inspiration did not continue to exact unlawful tribute4 ,in the case of the ,first ,gospel this use of inference is sometimes manifest1 especially in the accounts of the ,burial and the ,resurrection of ,jesus47#ig7 ,whatever judgement may be passed upon ,prof4 ,kirsopp ,lake's brilliant examination of the ,resurrection narratives1 there can be little doubt but that he has shown that inference1 as well as information1 shaped the formation of early ,christian tradition4 ,this conclusion1 even if accepted1 would not justify us in supposing that the narratives of ,mt4 i1 ii are nothing more than the inferential resolution of difficulties left by the story of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,but it would suffice to make it probable that1 to an extent which we may leave undefined1 inference did play its part1 either in the mind of the ,evangelist or in the thought of the ,christian community4 ,it is1 indeed1 quite possible to admit this view1 and yet to hold that behind the narrative there is a nucleus of historic fact4 ,dr4 ,gore1 who believes that the story goes back to ,joseph1 does not hesitate to say3 8444 to suppose such angelic appearances 444 to be imaginative outward representations of what were in fact real but inward communications of the #8divine word' to human souls1 is both a possible course and one which is quite consistent with accepting the narrative as substantially historical and true0 7,dissertations1 p4 #bb f474 ,canon ,box expresses a similar view when he writes3 8,to us the narrative seems to exhibit in a degree that can hardly be paralleled elsewhere in the ,new ,testament the characteristic features of ,jewish ,midrash and ,haggada4 ,it sets forth certain facts and beliefs in a fanciful and imaginative setting1 specially calculated to appeal to ,jews4444 ,the task that confronts the critical student is to disentangle the facts and beliefs--the fundamental groundfactors on which the narration is built--from their decorative embroidery0 7op4 cit41 p4 #ab74 ,from what has been said above it will be seen that1 if we restrict ourselves to the ,first ,gospel1 there are three theories possible regarding the source or sources employed in i4 #ahbe4 7i7 ,the narrative1 very much as it stands1 may have come from ,joseph himself4 7ii7 ,inference and imagination may have played upon a nucleus of historic fact4 7iii7 ,the narrative may be a story without historic foundation1 which has grown up1 as the result of inference and imagination1 in answer to difficulties arising out of a belief in the ,virgin ,birth antecedently held4 ,so long as we confine ourselves to the ,gospel1 it is not possible to choose between these views1 unless we are prepared to assume that early ,christian tradition cannot have been mistaken--an assumption which cuts the knot instead of untying it4 ,as we are not ready to make that assumption1 we have to be content to leave the possibilities open1 and to regard the use of any one of them in the historical inquiry as illegitimate4 ,in part this is a disappointing decision1 but it is better to feel that we have solid ground beneath our feet4 7#d7 ,the positive results to which we have been led are 7i7 that the ,first ,evangelist knew of1 and believed in1 the story of the ,virgin ,birth2 and 7ii7 that the belief was shared by his readers1 and had been held sufficiently long for some of its problems to be raised4 ,unquestionably1 this is an important result1 and its place in the historical problem will fall to be considered later4 ,appendix ,to ,chapter ,v4 ,the ,textual ,problem of ,mt4 i4 #af ,i4 ,important and wellknown discussions of the textual problem of ,mt4 i4 #af are those of ,sanday 7,outlines1 pp4 #aigbjj72 ,p4 ,w4 ,schmiedel 7,,eb41 col4 #bifa ff472 ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt 7,evan4 ,da,meph41 ii1 pp4 #behff72 ,w4 ,c4 ,allen 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 #h72 ,g4 ,h4 ,box 7,the ,virgin ,birth of ,jesus1 pp4 #baeah747ih7 ,for purposes of reference1 the most important facts may be summarized as follows3 7,a7 ,first1 we have the text followed in the ,a ,v4 and ,r ,v41 which reads3 1 4 ,this is the text of all extant uncials1 very many minuscules1 and many versions 7,sanday74 8,it is definitely attested by ,tertullian1 ,de ,carne ,christi1 #bj0 7,burkitt74 7,b7 ,a different text is attested by the 8,ferrar0 ,group4 ,it is implied by a number of important ,,mss4 of the ,old ,latin ,version1 by the ,armenian1 and by the ,curetonian ,syriac4 ,this text is as follows3 4 7,c7 ,thirdly1 we have the ,sinaitic ,syriac4 ,syr4,sin4 reads3 8,jacob begat ,joseph2 ,joseph1 to whom was betrothed ,mary the ,virgin1 begat ,jesus1 who is called ,christ10 and implies 4 4 4 4 4 4 7,burkitt1 p4 #bfc74 ,the reading of the ,syr4,cur4 is3 8,jacob begat ,joseph1 him to whom was betrothed ,mary the ,virgin1 she who bare ,jesus the ,messiah04 ,we may also mention here the passage from the ,dialogue of ,timothy and ,aquila which ,conybeare claims to be the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af4 ,the alleged quotation includes the text as given under 7,a7 together with the words1 8,and ,joseph begat ,jesus who is called ,christ04 ,,ii4 7#a7 ,conybeare's claim1 mentioned above1 has failed to win general acceptance4 ,it is rejected by ,schmiedel17#ii7 who justly asks1 8,how can we suppose that an evangelist deliberately added the second half to the first80 7col4 #bifa74 ,schmiedel's view is that in the passage cited from the ,dialogue 8it is precisely the youngest text and the oldest which have found a place peaceably side by side in one and the same line04 ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt's theory probably gives the best explanation4 ,he does not think that 8,and ,joseph begat ,jesus who is called ,christ0 is meant to be a part of the quotation of ,mt4 i4 #af1 but is simply the inference of the ,jew4 8,the ,jew quotes the ,genealogy and then draws his inference1 which is of course repudiated by the ,christian disputant0 7p4 #bfe74 ,accepting this view we may leave the supposed quotation outside our discussion4 ,we may note1 however1 that1 according to ,burkitt1 the second of two other quotations of ,mt4 i4 #af in the ,dialogue is interesting 8as affording an actual proof that the phrase #8husband of ,mary' was liable to change04 7p4 #bfe74 7#b7 ,g4 ,h4 ,box regards the ,curetonian ,syriac as 8an interpretation rather than a translation of the ,greek text given us by the #8,ferrar' ,group0 7p4 #baf74 ,burkitt thinks it is 8like an attempt to rewrite the text of ,s0 7p4 #bfc71 but as he derives the ,syr4,sin4 from the same ,group17#ajj7 his opinion leads to the same result4 ,directly or indirectly ,syr4,cur4 is a witness for the text 7,b74 ,as such its general character in ,mt4 i1 ii needs to be taken into account4 ,in i4 #bj it has 8thy betrothed0 instead of 8thy wife04 ,it omits 8her husband0 in i4 #ai4 ,in i4 #bd it substitutes 8,mary0 for 8thy wife04 ,in i4 #be it shares with the ,diatessaron the reading 8purely dwelling with her01 and it renders by 8she called04 ,it is clear that its text is dominated by a desire to assert unmistakably the historic fact of the ,virgin ,birth4 7#c7 ,w4 ,c4 ,allen takes the ,greek text implied in the ,syr4,sin4 to be the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af4 ,burkitt1 as we have seen1 derives it from 7,b74 ,for the present it is important to consider the character of the ,syr4,sin4 in relation to the ,virgin ,birth4 ,in i4 #ba1 with the ,curetonian1 it adds the words1 8to thee04 ,in i4 #be it omits 8knew her not until01 and1 as in the ,english versions1 it renders by the masculine2 in the same verse it also has the reading1 8she bore him a son04 ,at first sight it would appear as if the tendency of the ,,ms4 is in direct opposition to the doctrine of the ,virgin ,birth2 it is1 however1 very questionable if this is the case4 ,it is not improbable that 8he knew her not until0 7omitted also by the ,old ,lat4 k7 is an interpolation in the ,first ,gospel4 ,burkitt thinks that 8to thee0 in i4 #ba appeared in the ,evangelion ,da ,mepharreshe1 and that 8him0 is a 8mere stylistic addition0 in the ,syr4,sin4 ,when we add that this ,,ms4 includes ,mt4 i4 #ahbe1 and the parenthesis1 8to whom was betrothed ,mary the ,virgin01 in ,mt4 i4 #af1 it becomes impossible to suppose that its text is of 8,ebionite origin04 ,nor is it any more likely that it represents 8the slip of a scribe04 ,it is too much of a piece with the entire representation of the ,,ms41 of which the most we can say is that it hardens the unique point of view which is characteristic of the ,evangelist himself4 ,whether it represents the original ending of the ,genealogy1 in a form independent of1 and earlier than1 the ,first ,gospel1 is a point which may be left open1 though the view is not one which otherwise finds support from the ,genealogy1 as it now appears in the ,gospel47#aja7 ,in any case1 we ought very probably to reject the view that the ,syr4,sin4 in ,mt4 i4 #af asserts1 or implies1 the physical paternity of ,joseph4 ,it clearly takes to 8refer to as well as 0 7,burkitt1 p4 #bfc71 but1 having regard to its character as a whole1 the strong probability is that it interprets in the same sense which it bears throughout the earlier links of the ,genealogy1 viz4 of legal parentage 7,allen1 p4 #h74 ,in this case the scribe who produced the ,syr4,sin4 has remained truer to the mind and spirit of the ,first ,evangelist than any other early ,christian writer we know4 ,whether he has preserved the letter is more open to question4 7#d7 ,as regards the rendering 7,b71 it is sufficient to say that the 8,ferrar0 ,group and the ,old ,lat4 ,,mss41 while representing a text which differs from 7,a71 agree in affirming the ,virgin ,birth4 ,some of them do so with emphasis 7e4g4 c and b74 ,all of them 7except q7 contain the word 8,virgin01 but1 with the exception of c and b1 the connexion between 7cui7 and 7desponsata7 is left ambiguous4 ,,iii4 ,we are left1 then1 with three readings1 for each of which priority may be claimed 7those we have indicated by 7,a7 and 7,b71 and that of the ,syr4,sin4 7,c774 ,it is highly probable that 7,c7 is derived from 7,b72 but it may be well to leave this an open question1 so as to have all the possibilities before us4 7#a7 ,can we1 then1 explain the textual facts already noticed1 if we presume the originality of 7,a78 ,it is certainly remarkable that1 after using in a legal sense throughout the earlier links of the ,genealogy 7,moffatt1 ,burkitt1 ,westcott1 ,box1 ,allen1 ,barnard1 ,a4 ,j4 ,maclean71 the compiler should desert this practice1 and use the verb of physical parentage 77 in the last link of the chain4 ,the compiler1 if we may say so1 does not strike us as the kind of man who would have felt the need of this4 ,it seems much more likely that1 together with some qualifying clause in reference to ,mary1 he would have continued to employ in the same sense to the end4 ,this is conjecture2 but 7on the present theory7 it is a conjecture supported by the procedure of the scribes who have produced 7,b74 ,their object 7on the present supposition7 will have been to remove the ambiguities of 7,a7 in ,mt4 i4 #af1 so as to state the doctrine more clearly4 ,we could understand1 then1 their objection to 1 and the change to 4 4 ,what is less easy to understand is the change from to 4 ,it is true that is not without ambiguity1 as the comment of the ,jew in the ,dialogue of ,timothy and ,aquila shows47#ajb7 ,but1 if this was a ground of objection1 why should the ambiguity be replaced by one that is much greater8 ,as we have seen1 the construction of 7,b7 is singularly loose4 ,it is this fact which has clearly invited the modifications represented in the ,syr4,cur4 and the ,old ,lat4 ,,mss41 and perhaps the ,syr4,sin4 itself4 ,the reading 7,b7 certainly does not commend itself as a doctrinal modification of 7,a74 ,further1 the priority of 7,a7 does not help us to account for 7,c74 ,if1 as we believe1 7,c7 is derived from 7,b71 it is needless to discuss the point4 ,but apart from that theory of the origin of 7,c71 our conclusion remains the same4 ,we have seen how near in spirit the scribe of the ,syr4,sin4 was to the ,first ,evangelist4 ,can we suppose1 then1 that he would have demurred to the words1 8 ,it is very difficult to think so4 ,for these reasons1 in spite of its strong attestation1 we find it impossible to presume the originality of 7,a74 7#b7 ,we reach a similar conclusion1 if we assume 7,b7 to be the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af4 ,its singular construction does not readily suggest the craftsmanship of the compiler of the ,genealogy4 ,it is true that we can give a very good account of 7,c7 on the present assumption4 ,we can adopt ,burkitt's suggestion1 and regard it as a paraphrase of 7,b74 ,but can we derive 7,a7 from 7,b78 ,it would be reasonable to explain as a correction of by a believer who failed to understand the ,evangelist's point of view1 and who desired a clearer reference to the ,virgin ,birth4 ,but can we imagine a scribe1 or an editor1 motived in this way1 replacing 8to whom was betrothed the ,virgin ,mary0 by the words 8the husband of ,mary08 ,the question answers itself1 and forbids the assumption of the priority of 7,b74 7#c7 ,can we1 then1 accept ,archdeacon ,willoughby ,c4 ,allen's view1 and find the true text in 7,c787#ajc7 ,it is quite possible1 on this theory1 to give a reasonable explanation of 7,b71 but1 as in the last case1 the difficulty is to account for 7,a74 ,we can follow the change from to 1 but the substitution of for the parenthesis found in 7,c7 remains as before an insuperable objection4 ,at the same time ,archdeacon ,allen has laid down a true and a valuable principle when he writes3 8,the earliest ,greek form was gradually altered from a desire to avoid words which1 though in the intention of the writer they expressed legal parentage1 not paternity1 in fact1 might be misunderstood by thoughtless readers0 7p4 #h74 ,our results thus far are negative1 but they are not barren4 ,we have frankly to admit that no extant reading1 as a whole1 commends itself as the original text of ,mt4 i4 #af4 ,on the other hand1 we can form a reasonably good idea of what that text was like4 ,if we are to make any further advance1 we must have recourse to conjecture4 ,it is not at all impossible that future discoveries may enable us to travel upon firmer ground4 ,such a discovery as that of the ,syr4,sin4 ,,ms4 by ,mrs4 ,lewis and ,mrs4 ,gibson in #aijb shows that this hope is not unreasonable4 ,but meantime1 unless we are content to acquiesce in a negative conclusion1 we have no choice but to resort to conjecture4 ,this does not mean a leap in the dark4 ,it is in every way likely that parts of the true text are embedded in the extant readings1 and it is by no means impossible that1 taken together1 these readings may contain the whole4 ,it may be1 that is to say1 that the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af has found its grave in the readings we possess4 ,whether its resurrection can be accomplished is another question4 ,but1 in view of the general character of the true text1 as indicated above1 the attempt need not be foreclosed4 ,obviously1 our results will be tentative1 but they should be something more than dubious and uncertain in the extreme4 ,,iv4 ,in attempting to reconstruct the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af1 we may venture the following suggestions3 7#a7 ,we have very good ground for regarding 4 4 4 as part of the true text 7though whether we read the nom4 or the acc4 depends upon whether we prefer or 74 ,not only does this expression occur both in 7,a7 and 7,b71 but it is also one which we should naturally expect the ,genealogy to contain4 ,a ,genealogy constructed to show the ,messiahship of ,jesus ends fittingly with the words 8who is called ,christ04 7#b7 ,it is very probable indeed that the original text included and not 4 7i7 ,on this view1 we can readily understand the misconceptions that would arise1 and give a reasonable explanation of the textual variants which exist4 7ii7 ,as indicating legal parentage1 the expression is not one from which we think the compiler would be likely to shrink4 7iii7 ,it is not easy to suppose that those who have employed in the reading 7,b7 would have used this form if they had not found it already in the text4 7#c7 ,it is probable that ,mt4 i4 #af contained a reference to ,mary4 ,this view is supported by the earlier references to women in the ,genealogy4 8,it is inconceivable that the ,evangelist1 who thought it served the purpose that he had in hand to mention ,thamar1 ,rahab1 ,ruth1 and ,uriah's wife1 should leave the step containing ,joseph bare0 7,burkitt1 p4 #bfd74 7#d7 ,of the two qualifying clauses open to us1 is more likely to be the older4 7i7 ,it is an expression such as we can easily suppose the ,first ,evangelist would use 7cf4 ,mt4 i4 #ai74 7ii7 ,it safeguards the ,virgin ,birth2 there would be no point in describing ,joseph as 8the husband of ,mary0 unless that expression bore some special meaning4 7iii7 ,in the ,dialogue of ,timothy and ,aquila we possess 8actual proof0 that the phrase was 8liable to change0 7,burkitt1 quoted above1 p4 #ajf74 7iv7 ,the expression could easily be misunderstood at a time when the interest in the ,davidic ,sonship was no longer paramount4 7v7 ,in that case the phrase 4 4 4 would commend itself as a doctrinal modification4 7vi7 ,it would be altogether less easy to say this of 4 7#e7 ,it is probable that ,joseph was mentioned twice4 7i7 ,this conclusion follows of necessity1 if1 as we have argued1 and not is original4 7ii7 ,it is implied in the earlier steps of the ,genealogy4 7iii7 ,it is attested by the ,syr4,sin41 and the omission of the second in 7,a7 and 7,b7 is not difficult to explain 7see later74 7#f7 ,it is on the whole more probable that 4 followed the first and not the second4 7i7 ,this view is supported by the compiler's method4 8,the practice of the writer is to interpose no words between the name and the verb 0 7,burkitt1 p4 #bfc74 7ii7 ,this order enables us to give an explanation of the fact that both 7,a7 and 7,b7 omit the second 7see below74 ,gathering together these several results1 we obtain the following as the reconstructed text of ,mt4 i4 #af3 2 4 ,in addition to the reasons already given1 we may also urge the fact that1 with this text posited1 we can give the simplest and least involved account of the origin of 7,a71 7,b71 7,c74 7#a7 ,the scribes who have produced 7,a7 substituted the passive 77 for the active 774 ,this caused the second to drop out1 its place being taken by 8from whom0 7fem474 4 4 followed as a grammatical change4 7#b7 ,all that the originators of 7,b7 had to do was to substitute 4 4 4 for 41 and then1 by omitting 1 to leave 4 as the subject of 4 7#c7 ,we may explain 7,c71 with ,burkitt1 as derived from 7,b74 ,the ,syriac translator was not satisfied with the loose construction of 7,b74 ,taking to refer to as well as to 1 he made the connexion clearer by inserting a second as the subject of the verb4 ,in taking this last step1 he either returned unconsciously to part at least of the true reading1 or had access to good ,greek ,,mss4 which we no longer possess4 ,it is of interest to compare the reading we have suggested as the original text of ,mt4 i4 #af with others which have been put forward4 ,in discussing one of these possibilities1 ,sanday writes 7,outlines1 p4 #bjj73 8,if we may suppose that the original text ran 1 that would perhaps account for the two divergent lines of variants better than any other04 ,in spite of its advantages1 this text suffers under two disadvantages from which the one we have preferred is free4 7i7 ,not only is used in a different sense from that which it has in the rest of the ,genealogy1 but it is the very same form of the verb which is employed differently4 7ii7 ,the reading is too smooth and clear4 ,apart from the phrase 4 no loophole is left for misunderstanding1 and so no sufficient startingpoint is provided for the subsequent textual variants4 ,burkitt has instanced the reading we have preferred4 ,in rejecting the view that the ,syr4,sin4 represents the true text1 he writes 7p4 #bfd73 8,had we such a text as 4 4 4 the case would have been different04 ,in reference to this suggestion1 however1 ,burkitt says1 7i7 the evidence does not point that way1 7ii7 in that case the ,syr4,sin4 would be further from the original than that of ,b and ,tertullian1 7iii7 ,syr4,sin4 and k would 8agree in a common corruption01 and we should have to speak of the 8,western0 text in the singular number4 ,the last point raises a large question which it is impossible to consider here4 ,as regards the second objection1 while in some respects 7,c7 would be further from the original than 7,a71 in other and more important respects it would be appreciably nearer4 ,in its use of it would be nearer to the original than any reading we possess4 ,as regards the first objection1 we have frankly to agree that the textual evidence does not point that way4 ,we cannot point to a shred of ,,ms4 evidence to support the conjectured reading4 ,a generation ago this would have been considered a fatal objection4 ,but1 in view of the freedom with which the text of the ,gospels was handled during the first half of the second century1 and which the textual variants illustrate1 this objection can no longer be regarded as insuperable4 ,so long as we restrict ourselves to the attested readings1 the problem remains insoluble4 ,if1 then1 we can reach a reasonable conclusion on other lines1 we are free to do so4 ,doubtless1 in default of attestation1 we can describe our results as no more than tentative4 ,but we have no desire to claim more4 ,as the problem stands at present1 the test to be applied is1 ,what reading1 conjectured or attested1 furnishes the best explanation of the facts at our disposal81 it being remembered that these facts include1 not only the textual variants1 but also the unique character of the ,genealogy itself4 ,it may be1 as we have suggested1 that new discoveries await us4 ,but1 unless we have entirely misread the evidence we already possess1 no discovery is to be expected which will completely transform the textual problem4 ,in conclusion1 we may state certain propositions 7apart from the question of the exact wording of the true text of ,mt4 i4 #af7 which have in their favour a high degree of probability4 7#a7 ,the readings which we have called 7,a7 and 7,b7 are independent attempts to alter the original text in the interests of the ,virgin ,birth2 that is1 they are 8doctrinal modifications04 7#b7 ,the reading of the ,sinaitic ,syriac is not unfavourable to the doctrine4 ,it should no longer be spoken of as 8the eccentric reading01 nor should we describe the translator as influenced by 8heretical tendencies04 7#c7 ,the original text of ,mt4 i4 #af implied the ,virgin ,birth1 but it was stated from the unique point of view reflected in the ,genealogy itself4 7#d7 ,the text was liable to misunderstanding1 and the history of the textual variants is the history of that misunderstanding4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,historical ,,question3 ,,its ,,limits ,,and ,,bearings ,our purpose in the final chapter is to coordinate the results we have reached1 and to discuss their bearing upon the historical question of the ,virgin ,birth4 ,we have also to determine how far strictly historical considerations can take us2 to ask1 that is to say1 within what limits the problem is historical at all4 ,it will be well first to summarize the conclusions to which we have already come4 7#a7 ,the ,virgin ,birth was not the subject of ,apostolic preaching1 and apparently was unknown to ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,mark4 7#b7 ,st4 ,luke became acquainted with the tradition for the first time1 either when he was in process of writing his ,gospel1 or immediately afterwards4 7#c7 ,the ,first ,gospel presupposes the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 which had probably been known to its readers for some time1 sufficiently long for problems to be started and for difficulties to be raised4 7#d7 ,no satisfactory proof is forthcoming to show that the ,fourth ,evangelist definitely rejected the tradition4 ,the most we can say is that his doctrinal sympathies lay in another direction4 ,on the positive side our most important result is that we can prove from the ,new ,testament itself that belief in the ,virgin ,birth existed in influential ,christian communities at the time when the ,first and ,third ,gospels were written4 ,we have no further need1 therefore1 to consider theories which assign the belief to a later age1 and which1 by various interpolationhypotheses1 deprive the doctrine of ,new ,testament support4 ,those who have stated such theories have rendered service in that they have explored an alternative path4 ,on the view we have preferred this path proves to be a culdesac4 ,we have therefore1 to recognize that1 whether we accept or reject the ,virgin ,birth1 we must do this in full acknowledgement of the fact that among early witnesses to the belief are two outstanding ,new ,testament ,writings4 ,can we go further than this8 ,to do so we must consider the ,first and ,third ,gospels1 in respect of their mutual relations and of what they conjointly imply4 ,i4 ,the ,virgin ,birth in the ,first and ,third ,gospels ,in considering the relation in which the ,first and ,third ,gospels stand to each other and to the ,virgin ,birth three questions are of the greatest interest and importance4 7#a7 ,to what extent do the two ,gospels imply a common tradition and belief8 7#b7 ,how far back can we trace this tradition8 7#c7 ,in what relation does the public tradition stand to the theory of an earlier tradition of a private and restricted character8 7#a7 ,in answer to the first question1 our view is that each ,gospel1 in a different way1 is a witness to the same tradition4 ,too much has frequently been made of the theory that in ,mt4 and ,lk4 we have two independent accounts of the ,virgin ,birth tradition4 ,it may seriously be questioned if this theory is true4 ,mt4 i4 #ahbe is misunderstood if it is explained as a ,virgin ,birth tradition4 ,like the rest of cc4 i1 ii1 its character is ,midrashic1 and it is written from an apologetic standpoint4 ,it would therefore be much truer to say that it implies the existence of a ,virgin ,birth tradition as known to the readers of the ,gospel4 ,what form that tradition took we are of course unable to say4 ,it is possible that it was similar to the tradition as it appears in ,lk4 ,on the other hand1 it may be that even in ,lk4 the form in which the tradition is presented owes something to the ,evangelist's craftsmanship4 ,if this is so1 it would seem that the narratives of both writers point back to a simpler tradition or belief1 from which1 in different ways1 they came to assume their present form4 ,what is of chief importance is the view that in both ,gospels we have1 not so much two independent narratives of the ,virgin ,birth1 as rather two independent witnesses to what originally was one and the same tradition4 ,it cannot escape our notice that1 in spite of their obvious differences1 ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 and ,mt4 i4 #ahbe contain what is substantially the same statement1 a statement which in each passage is central4 ,in ,mt4 i4 #bj we read3 8,that which is conceived 7 444 7 in her is of the ,holy ,spirit02 and in ,lk4 i4 #ce1 after the reference to the ,holy ,spirit1 we read3 8,that which is to be born 7 7 shall be called holy1 the ,son of ,god04 ,there is much to be said for the view that both expressions point back to a common original1 to a primitive belief that ,jesus was 8born of the ,holy ,spirit0 7cf4 ,harnack1 ,date of ,acts1 c41 pp4 #adb ff474 ,if then we are unable to accept the view that in ,mt4 and ,lk4 we have two independent accounts of the ,virgin ,birth1 we may well ask if the loss is a real one4 ,it is probably nothing of the kind4 ,there was indeed a certain advantage in feeling able to point to two diverse traditions which converged upon one fact4 ,nevertheless1 the argument always had a certain weakness4 ,we had to account for the two different traditions1 and the explanation was a theory we could never prove4 ,it may be that ,st4 ,luke's story goes back for its authority to ,mary2 it is very doubtful if ,st4 8,matthew's0 has any historical connexion with ,joseph2 but in either case neither assumption is justifiable in an historical inquiry4 ,it must be allowed1 we think1 that our view has sounder advantages4 ,instead of claiming validity for two diverse traditions1 we can point to two very different narratives1 which arise out of the same belief and are independent witnesses to its existence in the primitive ,christian community4 7#b7 ,to what point1 then1 can we trace this tradition8 ,we have argued that the ,virgin ,birth tradition first began to gain currency in the circles in which ,st4 ,luke moved at the time when the ,third ,gospel was being written4 ,we have also seen that the tradition was already known to the readers of the ,first ,gospel4 ,if these conclusions are valid1 it is evident that the relative order in which the two ,gospels were written will determine the farthest point to which we can trace the ,virgin ,birth tradition as publicly known4 ,what1 then1 is the order of composition in the case of ,mt4 and ,lk48 ,we may frankly admit that if priority must be assigned to ,mt41 it becomes difficult to understand how ,st4 ,luke could have no knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth at the time when he first took up his pen4 ,for1 on this view1 we ask1 ,must not the tradition have already reached the circles in which he was moving at the time8 ,it would certainly be more favourable to our theory if we could assign priority to the ,third ,gospel4 ,in this case we should have a very simple account to give of the history of the tradition4 ,we should discover it emerging for the first time in ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel1 and we should have a ready explanation 7in the fact of the interval between the two works7 for the apologetic note in the later ,gospel4 ,but the priority of the two ,gospels is not a question to be decided simply by the attitude which the ,evangelists display towards the ,virgin ,birth4 ,mt4 and ,lk4 must be compared throughout4 ,when this is done there do not appear to be sufficient grounds for giving a vote in either direction 7cf4 ,stanton1 ,,ghd41 ii1 p4 #cfh74 ,all that we can say is that the two ,gospels are independent works1 and must have been written about the same time4 ,if there was an interval1 it cannot have been great1 for there are no sufficient signs that either writer was acquainted with the work of the other4 ,it is especially difficult to think that ,st4 ,luke would have neglected the ,first ,gospel1 if it had been accessible to him 7cf4 ,lk4 i4 #ad74 ,if1 however1 we accept1 as a working hypothesis1 the view that the two ,gospels were written independently of each other1 and more or less simultaneously17#ajd7 it will still follow that the ,virgin ,birth tradition was already known in at least one influential primitive ,christian community 7that to which the ,first ,gospel was addressed7 while it was unknown to ,st4 ,luke47#aje7 ,is this a fatal objection1 or does such a position represent what may well have been the actual situation8 ,we do not think that the difficulty is too great4 ,the tides by which traditions flow in different places are not simultaneous2 they differ in time1 in height1 and in volume4 ,no practice could be more mischievous than the habit of dating the relative spread of early beliefs simply by the dates of contemporary documents4 ,regard must be paid to local conditions4 ,in life as in nature there are variations of current and of coast formation4 ,there are limits1 of course1 within which this caveat holds good2 but1 provided the interval of time is not too great1 the view that ,st4 ,luke could begin to write in ignorance of a tradition already known elsewhere is not selfcondemned4 ,after all1 ,st4 ,luke himself had access to much tradition which presumably was unknown to the ,first ,evangelist 7witness ,st4 ,luke's special matter74 ,concerning the length of time we can allow the ,virgin ,birth tradition to have been already known elsewhere1 when ,st4 ,luke began to write1 there is room for difference of opinion4 ,if1 as we have contended1 he became acquainted with it in the process of writing or immediately afterwards1 the period can scarcely have been considerable4 ,perhaps it ought to be estimated in months rather than in years1 but to say more would be idle speculation4 ,the farthest point therefore to which we can trace the existence of the ,virgin ,birth as a public tradition is some little time previous to the composition of the ,third ,gospel4 7#c7 ,it is a perfectly fair assumption to make that the public tradition must have had a private vogue before1 and perhaps for some time before1 it became public property4 ,this view becomes especially probable in the light of what we have just seen1 viz4 that the spread of the public tradition among the primitive ,christian communities covered an appreciable period of time4 ,the question of the historical truth of the ,virgin ,birth is precisely the question of how far back the private tradition can be traced2 whether it can go back to ,mary the mother of ,jesus1 and whether satisfactory reasons can be given for a silence which extends beyond the period covered by the ,pauline ,epistles and the ,second ,gospel1 and is broken only at last in the interval which shortly preceded the composition of the ,gospels of ,mt4 and ,lk4 ,in this lies the real historical problem4 ,can the theory of a private authoritative tradition be vindicated8 ,there are several questions which bear upon this problem4 ,they are3 7#a7 ,the question of the date of the ,first and of the ,third ,gospels2 7#b7 ,the extent to which the credibility of the ,gospels permits of the possibility of error2 7#c7 ,the ,alternative ,theories of the origin of belief in the ,virgin ,birth2 7#d7 ,the theological aspect of the tradition4 ,,ii4 ,the ,date of the ,gospels in ,relation to the ,virgin ,birth ,tradition ,the relation in which the question of the ,date of the ,gospels stands to the results reached is sufficiently clear4 ,if we could fix the time when ,mt4 and ,lk4 were written1 we could determine within comparatively narrow limits when the ,virgin ,birth tradition first gained currency4 ,a conclusion upon this point would materially affect our estimate of the historical value of the tradition4 ,until this stage we have deliberately refrained from assigning dates to the ,gospels4 ,the only things we have assumed are the priority of ,mk4 and the practically contemporaneous origin of ,mt4 and ,lk4 ,our justification for this course lies in the great variety of opinion which exists on the question of date1 and hence the desirability of keeping clear1 as long as we can1 from considerations which must vitally affect the results secured4 ,unfortunately1 as we have said1 no sort of unanimity exists upon the question of the date of the ,gospels4 ,a glance at the extremely useful table which ,dr4 ,moffatt prints on page #bac of his ,introduction makes this clear4 ,at first sight the position would appear chaotic1 and we might well shrink from attempting to connect our results with specific dates4 ,it is impossible1 moreover1 in a work like the present1 to discuss the question in detail4 ,such a problem ought to be considered independently1 and with regard to all the facts of the case4 ,it would seem best therefore to ask what the consequences are1 if we incline to any one of certain representative dates4 ,we are at liberty1 of course1 to indicate our personal preferences1 but1 for the reasons stated1 we shall have to agree to a measure of uncertainty4 ,this is disappointing1 but the responsibility must lie at the right door1 and that door is the present failure of ,biblical ,scholarship to arrive at a consensus of opinion on the question of the date of the ,gospels4 ,perfect agreement there will never be1 but until there is substantial agreement every historical investigation into questions of ,new ,testament origins must prove incomplete4 ,the problem of the date of the ,gospels is not1 however1 so chaotic as might at first sight appear4 ,there is a strongly marked disposition to recede from the extremes on both sides1 and there is a very considerable agreement that the period from #fj to #ajj ,a4,d4 covers the time during which the ,synoptic ,gospels were written4 ,there is also a consensus of opinion that the ,second ,gospel cannot have been written later than about #gj ,a4,d4 ,every decade1 and almost every year1 however1 between #fj and #ajj ,a4,d4 finds advocates for the composition of ,mt4 and ,lk4 ,there are1 nevertheless1 three periods which find special favour4 ,these may be briefly mentioned4 7#a7 ,the first period we may note is the closing years of the first century4 ,for this view the main arguments are 7i7 the supposed dependence of ,st4 ,luke upon ,josephus1 and 7ii7 the ecclesiastical tone of certain passages in the ,first ,gospel4 7#b7 ,a second view brings both ,mk4 and ,lk4 within ,st4 ,paul's lifetime1 and dates ,mt4 shortly after the fall of ,jerusalem4 ,this is the opinion of ,harnack 7,date of ,acts and of the ,synoptic ,gospels74 ,it has not won a large following1 either in ,germany or in this country1 but it is probably nearer the truth than the previous view4 7#c7 ,a third period is the time about #hj ,a4,d4 ,one advantage of this view1 as ,dr4 ,plummer candidly admits 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,lk41 p4 xxxi71 is the fact that it avoids the difficulties which beset the other two4 ,the main argument which commends it to ,dr4 ,plummer is that 8such a date allows sufficient time for the #8many' to #8draw up narratives' respecting the acts and sayings of ,christ04 ,it remains for us to indicate what bearing these representative dates have upon the ,virgin ,birth tradition in the light of our results4 ,it is clear that if we must date ,mt4 and ,lk4 in the closing years of the first century1 the historical value of the tradition is reduced to a minimum4 ,for1 if that tradition is historical1 we are compelled to assume that for a period of about ninety years the story was jealously guarded1 first by ,mary herself and then by a chosen few to whom it was revealed4 ,but who will believe this8 ,if we accept ,harnack's dates1 then the period about #fj ,a4,d4 will be the time when belief in the ,virgin ,birth first began to spread4 ,while1 if we prefer the third alternative1 we must fix upon a time some fifteen to twenty years later1 i4e4 the period from #ge to #hj ,a4,d4 ,it is evident that the case for the historical truth of the tradition is at its strongest if ,harnack's dates can be accepted4 ,looking at the question from the sole standpoint of the timeinterval1 we do not believe that the third period is impossibly late4 ,however we look at the question1 we are unable to bring the public tradition within the lifetime of ,mary4 ,but1 provided we are not compelled to date the ,gospels at the close of the century1 there do not seem to be insuperable difficulties--so far as the timeelement is concerned--against connecting that public tradition with those who were near her person4 ,it will be seen that the question of the date of the ,gospels is an important one4 ,the utmost1 however1 we are able to glean in this field is a somewhat negative advantage4 ,our conclusion is that no insuperable difficulty stands in the way4 ,obviously1 the onus of proof yet remains4 ,the long period of silence must be explained1 and the truth of the tradition vindicated4 ,,iii4 ,the ,relation of the ,question of the ,historical ,value of the ,gospels to the ,problem ,we must next briefly consider the question of the historical value of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 so far as it bears upon our immediate problem4 ,it is right to urge that our first aim must be to examine the ,virgin ,birth tradition without bias or presuppositions of any kind4 ,but it is no less true to say that our estimate of the credibility of the ,gospels as a whole must react upon that task in the end4 ,whether the ,synoptic ,gospels are but a tissue of legends1 or whether they fulfil a good standard of historical value1 are questions which cannot be ignored4 ,for those who claim infallibility1 as well as inspiration1 for the ,evangelists1 the problem is at an end3 ,lk4 and ,mt4 teach the ,virgin ,birth2 the doctrine is therefore true6 ,but for most people today that short and easy path is impossible4 ,the ,gospels do not claim infallibility1 and their contents do not bespeak it4 ,there can be no question that a trained observer of today would have described many incidents in the life of ,jesus very differently4 ,there are parables which have been unconsciously hardened into miracles1 sayings of ,jesus which have been misunderstood1 stories which have grown amidst the exigencies of controversy and in the process of evangelization4 ,these things are no more than we might expect4 ,they were inevitable2 unless we credit the ,evangelists with a mechanical preservation from error which finds no justification beyond our own preconceived notions of what a ,gospel ought to be4 ,nor do such admissions rob the ,gospels of real worth4 ,on the contrary1 they throw their historical value into strong relief4 ,for to perceive that the natural infirmities of the human mind have left their trace upon the ,evangelic ,records is only to prepare the way for us to recognize how close in the main the ,evangelists have kept to the real facts of history4 ,the significant fact is not that they have made mistakes1 but that they have made so few that are of real importance4 ,we have only to compare their work with the ,apocryphal ,gospels to see1 in the case of the ,evangelists1 what restraint the solid facts of history exercised upon the natural tendencies of their minds4 ,jlicher1 who does not hesitate to say that what the ,evangelists relate is 8a mixture of truth and poetry0 7,,int41 ,eng4 ,tr41 p4 #cfh71 nevertheless declares that 8the ,synoptic ,gospels are of priceless value1 not only as books of religious edification1 but also as authorities for the history of ,jesus0 7ib41 p4 #cga74 8,the true merit of the ,synoptists01 he says1 8is that1 in spite of the poetic touches they employ1 they did not repaint1 but only handed on1 the ,christ of history0' ,what bearing has such an estimate of the ,gospels upon the historic truth of the ,virgin ,birth tradition8 ,obviously1 it does not save us from the trouble of testing the tradition by such tests as we can apply4 ,that the tradition has found a place in the ,new ,testament is not in itself a certificate of truth4 ,the ,evangelists certainly believed the tradition2 they were intellectually honest2 but they may have been mistaken4 ,the ultimate question is the truth of the authorities upon which they rested and of the belief they reflect4 ,their importance as writers is that they countersign the tradition with the high authority they possess4 ,but1 however high their authority1 it is not that of infallibility4 ,the truth of the ,gospels is the truth of their sources4 ,as regards the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 the sources cannot be traced back to ,mk4 and ,q1 the two primary ,synoptic documents1 but to the later tradition of the ,christian ,church1 at the time when ,mt4 and ,lk4 were written4 ,the ,first and ,third ,evangelists have endorsed that tradition2 the problem of the ,virgin ,birth is whether they were right4 ,nothing that we have said in this section must be construed to prejudge that question4 ,that the ,evangelists have accepted the tradition1 for us unquestionably gives it a higher value2 but it is not a determinative value4 ,the main result is to make yet clearer the final issue1 which is1 we repeat1 whether the story which the ,evangelists endorse can be traced back to an authoritative source4 ,has it the sanction of ,mary or of those who may be supposed to have known her mind8 ,,iv4 ,the ,question of ,alternative ,theories ,in many discussions of the ,virgin ,birth1 the question of ,alternative ,theories occupies a prominent place4 ,our purpose in the present section is to ask what place it may legitimately be given4 ,has it the importance which is often claimed8 ,attention has frequently been called to the inability of those who reject the ,virgin ,birth to agree upon an alternative theory4 ,the failure is patent4 ,harnack and ,lobstein1 on the one side1 plead for a ,jewish ,christian origin for the doctrine1 in which the influence of ,isa4 vii4 #ad played a decisive part2 on the other side1 ,soltau1 ,schmiedel1 ,usener1 and others1 trace the tradition to the effect of non,christian myths4 ,not only so2 the advocates of each theory specifically reject the other4 ,lobstein1 for example1 thinks that 8it would be rash to see direct imitations or positive influences0 in the analogies 8between the ,biblical myth and legends of ,greek or ,eastern origin04 ,while there was mutual action between the worship or doctrine of paganism and advancing ,christianity1 8nothing warrants historical criticism in considering the tradition of the miraculous birth of ,christ as merely the outcome of elements foreign to the religion of ,biblical revelation0 7,the ,virgin ,birth of ,christ1 p4 #gf74 ,schmiedel1 on the other hand1 rejects the ,jewish,christian origin of the tradition1 8,nor would ,isa4 vii4 #ad have been sufficient to account for the origin of such a doctrine unless the doctrine had commended itself on its own merits4 ,the passage was adduced only as an afterthought1 in confirmation4444 ,thus the origin of the idea of a virgin birth is to be sought in ,gentile,christian circles0 7,,eb41 col4 #bifc f4747#ajf7 ,it is not strange1 perhaps1 that some writers have pressed these contradictions into the service of ,apologetics4 ,thus1 for example1 ,dr4 ,orr does not scruple to say3 8,as in the trial of ,jesus before the ,sanhedrim1 #8neither so did their witness agree together' 0 7op4 cit41 p4 #aeb74 ,he even presents the remarkable argument that ,dr4 ,cheyne's theory 8gives the deathstroke to all the theories that have gone before it01 and yet is itself 8absolutely baseless0 7ib41 p4 #agh74 ,sweet's argument is more cautiously introduced4 ,he recognizes that the contention has its limits4 ,he instances ,bossuet's argument against the ,reformation drawn from the ,variations of ,protestantism and ,g4 ,h4 ,lewes's inference from the ,history of ,philosophy that philosophy is impossible 7op4 cit41 p4 #bii74 ,but1 having said this1 ,sweet argues that the critics agree in nothing 8save dislike and depreciation of the documents01 and that 8their theories are mutually destructive04 ,it appears to us that this line of argument is open to serious objection2 it is unfair1 and it is unwise4 ,it is unfair1 because it is neither uncommon nor unreasonable to find men agreed in rejecting a tradition or belief1 and yet at variance in respect of theories of origin4 ,it is one thing to say that a belief is untrue2 quite another thing to account for its existence4 ,that men agree upon the one point is more significant than that they differ upon the other4 ,the view we have mentioned is unwise1 because its triumph may be shortlived4 ,there is always room for the emergence of a better alternative theory1 which shall combine the excellences1 and avoid the weaknesses1 of pioneer attempts4 ,it does not need a prophet to suggest that the next alternative theory will be psychological and eclectic4 ,if the tradition is not historical1 it is not likely that we can account for its rise by one factor alone4 ,we may regard it as established that prophecy alone did not create the tradition1 and that it was not invented on the analogy of non,christian myths4 ,nevertheless1 it may be that ,isa4 vii4 #ad1 together with the idea that underlies non,christian legends1 played an important part in the formation of the ,christian tradition4 ,if the tradition is not historical1 its ultimate origin must be sought in the overwhelming impression which ,jesus left upon believing hearts and minds2 in the conviction that from the time of ,his ,birth1 and not only at ,his ,baptism and ,resurrection1 ,jesus ,christ was the ,son of ,god by the anointing of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,the presumption that ,his ,birth must have been remarkable would be strengthened by the ,old ,testament stories of the birth of ,isaac1 of ,samson1 and of ,samuel1 and especially by the tradition which already had gathered round the birth of ,john4 ,it may also have been stimulated by the belief1 found the whole world over1 that the origin of great men is supernatural and miraculous4 ,even amongst the ,jews the idea was present1 that the ,messiah's origin would be strange1 and that no man would know from whence he came 7,jn4 vii4 #bg74 ,if there is reason to presuppose such a point of view1 we can easily imagine the electric effect which such a passage as ,isa4 vii4 #ad would have upon those who studied ,old ,testament prophecies in the light of their experience of ,jesus4 ,it is vain to object that it is only in the ,,lxx that this connexion could be established1 and that in the ,hebrew the word rendered 8virgin0 means a young woman of marriageable age4 ,the ,first ,gospel 7i4 #bc7 shows that it was the ,,lxx rendering which was already read1 and doubtless preferred1 in the primitive ,christian community4 ,still more fatuous is it to say1 as it has been said again and again1 that no ,jew ever interpreted ,isa4 vii4 #ad of the ,messiah4 ,as well might we say of other passages that no ,jew would have interpreted them ,messianically6 ,the question is not how ,jews regarded ,isa4 vii4 #ad1 but how it may have appeared in the eyes of ,jews who had come under the spell of ,jesus4 ,the passage cannot have created belief in the ,virgin ,birth1 but it could have crystallized a belief for which wonder and speculation had prepared the way4 8,so it must have been60 men could well have argued4 ,on this supposition the belief antedated the tradition4 ,but that beliefs have created traditions again and again is enough to show that it could have been so here4 ,nor is the timeelement the insuperable difficulty it has been supposed to be4 ,the idea that a myth would require fifty years to grow is absurd47#ajg7 ,provided the parents of ,jesus were already dead1 the myth could have sprung up new born4 ,in sketching the foregoing theory our purpose is not to assert its truth1 but rather to illustrate its by no means inherent improbability4 ,it could be true2 or1 at any rate1 this judgement might any day have to be passed upon some alternative theory1 superior to any that has yet been stated4 ,the agreement of the ,virgin ,birth tradition with historic fact may be the true solution of the problem1 but it is not the only solution that is possible1 nor can its superiority be established by the comparative method alone4 ,we therefore work along wrong lines if we attempt to argue the historic character of the ,virgin ,birth tradition by dwelling upon the incongruities and contradictions of alternative theories4 ,the baleful attractiveness of such a method ought strenuously to be resisted4 ,it may yield a few showy triumphs1 but few1 if any1 solid results4 ,of course1 if we have first satisfied ourselves that the ,virgin ,birth is historically true1 the practice is less objectionable2 but it is doubtful if even then it adds much to results otherwise obtained4 ,to include the method in the process of proof is to build upon sand4 ,on the other hand1 this view is equally sound1 if our solution of the problem is one of the alternative theories to which we have referred4 ,we have sketched a theory which we have claimed might be true4 ,but what more could be claimed by the comparative method8 ,its justification or lack of justification lies elsewhere4 ,the possible may not be the probable1 nor the probable the true4 ,the importance of the question we have discussed in the present section is that it reveals what are the bypaths and what is the highroad of a true investigation4 ,the question of alternative theories is purely secondary4 ,the highroad is where we left it at the end of ,section ,,ii4 ,can the tradition1 endorsed by the ,first and ,third ,evangelists1 be vindicated8 ,v4 ,doctrinal ,considerations ,the ultimate considerations which determine a true estimate of the ,virgin ,birth tradition are doctrinal4 ,it is one of the chief merits of ,lobstein's wellknown book that he so clearly recognizes this fact3 8,what must finally turn the scale 444 are reasons of a dogmatic and religious order0 7op4 cit41 p4 #gi74 ,we need make no apology for not having dealt with the question of the possibility of the ,miraculous ,birth from the standpoint of ,science4 ,we do not propose to consider the question at length even now4 ,the objection that miracles are impossible has long been exploded4 ,in a famous letter to the ,spectator 7,february #aj1 #ahff7 ,huxley wrote3 8444 denying the possibility of miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative ,atheism01 and ,atheism1 he said1 is 8as absurd1 logically speaking1 as polytheism04 ,what we call a 8miracle0 may be no more than the divine operation within the domain of law itself4 ,we have therefore no ground for saying that a virgin birth is impossible2 while1 in the case of ,one so unique as ,jesus ,christ1 such an assertion would be utterly absurd4 ,we do not really need any support which may be gained from the question of ,parthenogenesis4 ,the question is in the first place one of evidence4 ,but if primarily the question is one of evidence1 it does not stop there4 ,the historical and the theological aspects of the problem overlap2 we cannot determine the question by weighing evidence alone4 ,if we attempt to confine ourselves to a purely historical inquiry1 the verdict must be 8,not proven047#ajh7 ,it is true1 on the one hand1 that the late appearance of the tradition is not an insuperable difficulty4 ,the theory of a longtreasured secret has a logic of its own4 ,on the other hand1 by the conditions of the case1 we are unable to interrogate the witnesses4 ,we cannot ask them whence they derived what they tell us4 ,we cannot demonstrate that the story they relate has the ultimate authority of ,mary4 ,all that we can reach is a primitive belief1 generally accepted within ,new ,testament times1 which presumably implies an earlier private tradition4 ,beyond that point we cannot travel--within the limits of the evidence alone4 ,substantially this position is recognized by ,dr4 ,gore in ,dissertations4 ,while affirming his belief that the historical evidence is 8in itself strong and cogent01 he says frankly that 8it is not such as to compel belief04 8,there are ways to dissolve its force01 he continues4 ,the last sentence is not very happily phrased1 but it need not detain us4 ,the point that is of greatest importance is expressed by ,dr4 ,gore as follows3 8444 to produce belief there is needed--in this as in almost all other questions of historical fact--besides cogent evidence1 also a perception of the meaning and naturalness1 under the circumstances1 of the event to which evidence is borne4 ,to clinch the historical evidence for our ,lord's ,virgin ,birth there is needed the sense that1 being what ,he was1 ,his human birth could hardly have been otherwise than is implied in the ,virginity of ,his mother0 7ib41 p4 #fd74 ,the present work is1 in part1 a footnote to1 or illustration of1 this principle4 ,we may therefore be pardoned for a further reference to it in a passage from ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt's ,gospel ,history and its ,transmission1 in which it finds an almost classic statement3 8,our belief or disbelief in most of the ,articles in the ,apostles' ,creed does not ultimately rest on historical criticism of the ,gospels1 but upon the general view of the universe1 of the order of things1 which our training and environment1 or our inner experience1 has led us severally to take4 ,the ,birth of our ,lord from a virgin and ,his ,resurrection from the dead--to name the most obvious ,articles of the ,creed--are not matters which historical criticism can establish0 7p4 #cej f474 ,it is clear1 then1 that if further advance is to be made1 we must enter the realms of doctrine4 ,what doctrinal purpose1 we must ask1 does the ,virgin ,birth serve8 ,does it explain the sinlessness of ,jesus8 ,is it necessary to the doctrine of the ,incarnation8 ,is it congruous with the doctrine of the ,person of ,christ8 ,it is not contended that an answer to these questions in the affirmative would prove the event to have happened4 ,nevertheless1 such an answer would unquestionably invest the ,new ,testament tradition with a yet higher probability1 sufficiently great1 in our judgement1 to make belief in its historical character reasonable4 ,if1 however1 we have to answer the doctrinal questions in the negative1 then the historical character of the tradition receives a fatal blow4 ,the opinion1 so frequently expressed1 that1 in any case1 the ,virgin ,birth is not a doctrine of essential importance1 is one that calls for scrutiny4 ,if it means that a man may be a sincere follower of our ,lord1 whether he believes the doctrine or not1 it is1 of course1 a truism4 ,but if it means that the doctrine is of no importance in relation to the ,incarnation and the ,person of ,christ1 that is perhaps the strongest argument that can be adduced against the credibility of the miracle4 ,what is doctrinally irrelevant is not likely to be historically true4 ,it does not fall in with the scope of this work to enter fully into the theological question4 ,our purpose has been to examine the historical and critical questions and to show where the real problem lies4 ,criticism cannot solve that problem4 ,nevertheless1 its contribution is not barren4 ,it can discuss interpolation theories2 it can treat of the literary form which the tradition has assumed in the ,gospels4 ,it can date--imperfectly it is true--the time when the belief became current4 ,it can apply broad tests of credibility4 ,we ourselves believe that it can say the miracle may have transpired4 ,but it cannot say more4 ,the last word is with ,theology4 ,on the theological side1 the question is probably more farreaching than is commonly supposed4 ,individual ,christian doctrines can never be treated in vacuo2 they are interrelated one with another4 ,it is often said that those who reject the ,virgin ,birth reject also the physical ,resurrection of ,jesus1 the ,ascension1 and many of the miracles reported in the ,gospels4 ,the statement is largely true2 it is possible we ought also to include in it the doctrine of the ,preexistence of ,christ4 ,the reason is that these denials belong to the same general habit of mind2 they are part of the content of what has been called a 8reduced ,christianity04 ,it is impossible1 therefore1 adequately to discuss the question of the ,virgin ,birth on its theological side1 without raising the larger question1 whether this socalled 8reduced ,christianity0 is not the true faith1 as distinguished from a 8full ,christianity0 which in reality is florid and overgrown4 ,sweet can scarcely be said to go too far when he writes3 8,in short1 and this is the gist of the whole matter1 in this controversy concerning the birth of ,christ1 two fundamentally different ,christologies are groping for supremacy0 7ib41 p4 #caa74 ,this fact has not always been recognized by those who think of the ,virgin ,birth1 but there can be no question of its truth4 ,the ,virgin ,birth is part of a larger problem2 it must ultimately be established1 if at all1 as a corollary1 not as an independent conclusion4 ,the larger problem is whether we can still hold the ,trinitarian ,theology and the ,two,nature ,doctrine of the ,person of ,christ1 or whether we must give to the ,immanence of ,god a place greatly in excess of any it has yet held in ,christian thought2 whether1 indeed1 we can feel it adequate to speak of ,christ as ,one in whom the ,immanent ,god revealed and expressed ,himself in an altogether unique and ultimately inexplicable way4 ,in any case1 the conflict is one of ,christologies4 ,the purely naturalistic interpretation of ,jesus holds a more and more precarious place in the field4 ,this1 then1 is the problem of the present and of the immediate future4 ,it is nothing less than the problem which every age has had to face since the days of ,jesus of ,nazareth--the problem of the ,incarnation4 ,the present writer takes no shame to say that upon the theological aspect of the ,virgin ,birth he has not yet been able to satisfy his mind4 ,the longer the question is studied the less easy it becomes airily to brush the miracle aside and call it myth4 ,we speak of those who are impressed by the unique spiritual greatness of ,jesus1 and who cannot explain for themselves ,his ,person in terms of humanity alone4 ,the hesitation does not spring from vacillation1 nor1 we hope1 from lack of courage and strength of mind4 ,it springs out of a sense of the uniqueness of ,jesus4 ,have we adequately grasped ,his greatness8 ,can we say what is1 or what is not1 congruous with ,his ,person8 ,it is open to serious question whether the individual can expect1 or ought to expect an answer to these questions out of his experience and thought alone4 ,brief discussions of the ,virgin ,birth by individual writers do not carry us very far4 ,what is needed more than anything else is a yet fuller disclosure of the unfettered mind of the ,christian ,church2 and for this we must wait4 ,this last statement may perhaps seem strange4 ,has not the ,church already expressed her corporate mind8 ,has she not committed herself to the ,virgin ,birth tradition8 ,can we not find it in ,ignatius1 in ,justin1 and in the ,creeds of the ,undivided ,church8 ,that these things are so is too patent to be denied4 ,but has the ,church expressed her unfettered mind8 ,has she said her final word8 ,has she1 indeed1 ever been in a position to do these things8 ,the appeal to the almost unbroken external witness of the ,catholic ,church does not carry us so far as we might think4 ,once the ,gospels had attained canonical authority the rest was a foregone conclusion4 ,the status given to the ,gospels carried everything else with it1 and the ,church was no longer free to judge4 ,it is written1 therefore it was so6 ,moreover1 the question of the ,virgin ,birth was largely overshadowed in the struggle with ,docetism4 ,it is only in modern times that a more intelligent attitude towards the ,gospels permits the ,church freely to ponder the ,virgin ,birth tradition in the light of her experience of ,christ4 ,we may cherish the hope that she has yet greater things to say of ,christ than any she has yet uttered4 ,it is in its relation to that voice that the ,virgin ,birth will find its place4 ,where1 then1 shall we look for this expression of corporate mind8 ,not perhaps again in ,consiliar ,decrees1 though who can say8 ,there is1 however1 a corporate mind that finds expression in the affirmations of simple believers1 and in the writings of ,christian thinkers the world over4 ,the affirmations are neither the medley nor the babel they are sometimes thought to be4 ,there is no colourless uniformity1 but there is a real and growing unity1 a harmony in which varied voices blend4 ,no one can survey ,christendom without seeing that everywhere denominational walls become less and less forbidding1 and that every year it is more difficult to classify ,christian thinkers under the prim labels of exclusive schools4 ,thought is unbound1 but it is not chaotic4 ,the thousand streams fall to the rivers which flow onward towards the sea that is never full4 ,those only may be pessimistic who cannot take long views4 ,we may believe that the ,spirit will yet guide ,his ,church into all the truth4 ,the individual thinker whose voice breaks the silence will ever be needed4 ,yet his task is but a limited one2 he too must listen4 ,for unless1 beneath his affirmations1 we hear the undertone of a corporate faith and experience1 his voice will be but the echo that rings among the empty hills4 ,one thing is certain4 ,whatever the ultimate issue1 it must be gain1 even if gain through loss4 ,whether it be historical or not1 the ,virgin ,birth tradition must always be full of beauty and of truth4 ,if1 on the one hand1 the tradition is involved in the corporate experience of ,christ1 if it is congruous with what ,he was and is1 then1 admittedly1 the gain is great4 ,for this means increased confidence in the facts which the ,evangelists relate and the primitive community believed3 there is no breach with the past4 ,it means too another foothold in history for the theological interpretation of the ,person of ,christ4 ,and these are things not lightly to be surrendered1 save at the command of ,truth4 ,if1 on the other hand1 the story is a legend of the ,christian ,faith1 that is not an end4 ,strangely enough1 if the tradition is not historical1 it thereby becomes a valuable piece of ,christian apologetic4 ,who was this ,jesus1 we ask1 of whom men dared to believe that ,he was born of a virgin8 ,the faded wreath is no less the tribute of undying love4 ,that ,jewish ,christians could explain the unique divine personality of ,jesus by the miracle of a virgin birth is--if we must solve the problem so--the highest tribute they could pay4 ,if we find it hard to understand how they could think of ,him in this way1 without the warrant of the fact1 it may be that our difficulty is just the measure of our failure to grasp the wonder of their love4 ,if1 in the end1 we must call poetry what they called fact1 it will not be because we are strangers to their faith4 ,they too were bound by the spell of that ,transcendent ,face in which is the light of the knowledge of the glory of ,god4 ,,index ,acts1 ,the1 #ab ff41 #ba4 ,allen1 ,w4 ,c41 #f1 #h1 #i n41 #aa n41 #ae n41 #cc n41 #cg1 #db n41 #eb1 #hi n41 #ij1 #ij n41 #ia1 #ib n41 #id1 #ie n41 #if1 #ajead4 ,apocalypse1 ,the1 #bj4 ,argument from ,silence1 ,the1 #ac4 ,ascension1 #gh1 #acj4 ,bacon1 ,b4 ,w41 #h n4 ,baptism of ,jesus1 #g1 #be1 #abe4 ,barnard1 #hi n41 #ajh4 ,bethlehem1 #af1 #ag1 #ih4 ,bezae1 ,codex1 #be1 #bi4 ,birthplace of ,jesus1 #af1 #ag f41 #ai4 ,blass1 ,friedrich1 #ae n41 #be1 #cb n41 #ej n4 ,bossuet1 #abe4 ,box1 ,george ,h41 #d n41 #e1 #h1 #ae n41 #ch ff41 #dj n41 #da1 #hf n41 #hi n41 #ij n41 #ia1 #ie1 #aja1 #ajc1 #aje1 #ajf1 #ajh4 ,burkitt1 ,f4 ,c41 #cc n41 #ej n41 #hh n41 #hi1 #hi n41 #ij1 #ia1 #ib1 #ib n41 #ic1 #ie n41 #if1 #if n41 #ig1 #ii n41 #ajj1 #ajj n41 #aja1 #ajead1 #abi4 ,carpenter1 ,j4 ,estlin1 #dc n41 #dd4 ,catholic ,epistles1 #bj4 ,cerinthus1 #ii4 ,chase1 #dj n4 ,cheyne1 ,t4 ,k41 #bj n41 #dj n41 #abe4 ,clemen1 #dj n4 ,conybeare1 ,f4 ,c41 #dj n41 #ii n41 #aje1 #ajf1 #ajh n4 ,corporate ,mind of the ,church1 ,the1 #aca f4 ,creeds1 ,the1 #aca4 ,curetonian ,syriac1 ,the1 #aje ff41 #ajh4 ,dalman1 ,g41 #ei n4 ,date of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 #abj ff4 ,davidic ,descent1 ,the3 in ,acts1 #ac4 in ,lk41 #dd ff41 #hd4 in ,mt41 #he1 #hi1 #aja4 ,davidson1 ,a4 ,b41 #ci4 ,dialogue of ,timothy and ,aquila1 ,the1 #ia1 #ii n41 #aje1 #ajf1 #ajh1 #aaa4 ,diatessaron1 ,the1 #ajf4 ,dionysius of ,corinth1 #di4 ,docetism1 #ae n41 #acb4 ,doctrinal ,modifications1 #eb ff41 #ii1 #aac4 ,drummond1 ,james1 #a4 ,ebionites1 ,the1 #cc1 #ajg4 ,epiphanius1 #ii4 ,expository ,times1 ,the1 #ci n4 ,fairbairn1 ,a4 ,m41 #ae n4 8,ferrar0 ,group1 ,the1 #aje1 #ajf1 #ajg f4 ,first ,gospel1 ,the3 apologetic motive1 #if1 #ii1 #aaf4 characteristic words1 c41 #ic f41 #ii1 #ii n4 date1 #aag f41 #aba4 genuineness of cc4 i1 ii1 #ie ff4 mode of treatment1 #id1 #ii4 quotations1 #id f41 #abf4 source of ,virgin ,birth tradition1 #aja ff4 style1 #ib f41 #ii4 unity of cc4 i1 ii1 #ie ff4 ,virgin ,birth an original element1 #ajj1 #ajd1 #aae4 ,fourth ,gospel1 ,the1 #aebj1 #aae4 ,gardner1 ,percy1 #abh4 ,genealogy in ,lk41 #bf ff41 #gd1 #hd1 #hi1 #ij4 ,genealogy in ,mt41 #bg1 #fd1 #hi ff41 #ie ff41 #ig1 #ajj1 #aja4 ,gnostics1 ,the1 #cc4 ,gore1 ,charles1 #e1 #ajb1 #ajc1 #abh f4 ,gould1 ,ezra ,p41 #i1 #fh n41 #ajc n4 ,grill1 #dj n4 ,gunkel1 #dj n4 ,hcker1 #cb n41 #dc n4 ,harnack1 ,adolf1 #g1 #g n41 #ae n41 #be1 #bf n41 #cb1 #dj n41 #ee1 #eg1 #eg n41 #eh n41 #fj1 #fb n41 #fc n41 #fd1 #fg1 #hj1 #hb1 #aag1 #aba1 #abd4 ,hawkins1 ,sir ,john ,c41 #eb n41 #ee1 #eg n41 #fg n41 #ic n41 #id4 ,headlam1 #di n4 ,hebrews1 ,the ,epistle to1 #ad f41 #ba4 ,heffern1 #hi4 ,hilgenfeld1 #dj n4 ,hillmann1 #dj n41 #ee4 ,historical value of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 #abb ff4 ,hobart1 ,w4 ,k41 #ee4 ,holtzmann1 #dj n4 ,hort1 ,f4 ,j4 ,a41 #cc n41 #ea1 #eh4 ,huxley1 #abh4 ,ignatius1 #af1 #ah1 #aca4 ,incarnation1 #abi1 #aca4 ,inference1 its place in the ,gospels1 #ajb f4 ,interpolations1 #gf ff4 ,irenaeus1 #ae n4 ,jews at ,nazareth1 ,the1 #h f41 #ca1 #ig4 ,john the ,baptist1 #abf4 ,joseph1 #bh f41 #cj ff41 #ih1 #ii1 #aja1 #ajb4 ,jlicher1 ,adolf1 #ae n41 #aah n41 #abc4 ,justin1 #ae n41 #aca4 ,kattenbusch1 #cf1 #fi4 ,knowledge of ,jesus1 ,the1 #aj4 ,knowling1 ,r4 ,j41 #d1 #dj n4 ,lake1 ,kirsopp1 #cc n41 #if n41 #ajc1 #ajc n4 ,lewes1 ,g4 ,h41 #abe4 ,lewis1 ,mrs41 and ,mrs4 ,gibson1 #aaj4 ,linguistic ,argument1 ,the1 its importance1 #bb f41 #ee f4 ,lobstein1 ,paul1 #dd n41 #gj1 #abd1 #abg4 ,loisy1 ,abb ,alfred1 #dj n4 ,loofs1 ,friedrich1 #hb n41 #abf n4 ,mackintosh1 ,h4 ,r41 #e n41 #g n41 #ac n41 #ae n4 ,maclean1 ,a4 ,j41 #hi n41 #ajh4 ,mary1 the mother of ,jesus1 #i1 #aj1 #aa1 #ce f41 #db1 #dc f41 #de1 #hg1 #aba1 #abb1 #abh4 ,merx1 #fi4 ,milligan1 ,george1 #di1 #ib4 ,miracles1 #abg f41 #acj4 ,moffatt1 ,james1 #g n41 #h n41 #ac n41 #ae n41 #ah1 #ah n41 #bd1 #be1 #bf1 #cb1 #dc n41 #di n41 #ej1 #eb n41 #ec n41 #eg n41 #fg n41 #gd1 #gf1 #hi1 #hi n41 #ij n41 #ia1 #ib1 #ie1 #if1 #if n41 #ajf n41 #ajh1 #abj4 ,montefiore1 ,c4 ,g41 #dj n41 #dc n4 ,moulton1 ,james ,hope1 #ej n41 #ea1 #ec n41 #eh n41 #ei n41 #fb n41 #ib n4 ,moulton and ,geden1 #eh n41 #ic4 ,moulton and ,milligan 7,,vgt471 #ce1 #ei1 #ei n41 #fb n41 #fe n4 ,orr1 ,james1 #c n41 #d1 #ae n41 #dj n41 #ajb1 #abe4 ,oxford ,studies in the ,synoptic ,problem1 #bf n41 #gf n4 ,papias1 #g4 ,parthenogenesis1 #abh4 ,pastoral ,epistles1 #bj4 ,peake1 ,a4 ,s41 #ae n4 ,pericope adulteriae1 #ej4 ,person of ,christ1 ,the1 #abi ff4 ,pfleiderer1 ,otto1 #dj n4 ,philip1 daughters of1 #hg4 ,plummer1 ,a41 #h n41 #bg1 #bi n41 #cc1 #cd f41 #ce1 #cg1 #dc1 #dd1 #eg n41 #fc n41 #fd1 #gj1 #aba4 ,preexistence of ,christ1 ,the1 #acj4 ,protevangelium ,iacobi1 #di n4 ,q1 #g1 #ba1 #bf n41 #abc4 ,ramsay1 ,w4 ,m41 #cb1 #ha1 #ha n41 #he1 #hg4 ,resch1 #ae n4 ,resurrection of ,christ1 ,the1 #d1 #e1 #e n41 #ac1 #ac n41 #ajc1 #abe1 #acj4 ,robinson1 ,j4 ,armitage1 #ej n4 ,sanday1 ,william1 #a f41 #ae n41 #af1 #bf1 #bg1 #ej n41 #he1 #hf n41 #hi n41 #ajb n41 #aje1 #ajf n41 #ajg n41 #aab4 ,sanday and ,headlam1 #d1 #e n41 #ea4 ,schmidt1 ,n41 #dj n4 ,schmiedel1 ,paul ,w41 #i n41 #aj n41 #bc1 #bd1 #bi1 #cb1 #cb n41 #ce1 #cg n41 #dj n41 #db1 #dc1 #de1 #ee1 #gj1 #ig f41 #aje1 #ajf1 #abd4 ,science1 #abg f4 ,scott1 ,ernest ,f41 #ae n41 #ai1 #ai n4 ,second ,adam1 #c1 #d f4 ,simeon1 ,prophecy of1 #bi1 #gc4 ,sinaitic ,syriac ,,ms41 #bi1 #cb1 #cc1 #ajead4 ,sinlessness of ,jesus1 #abi4 ,soltau1 #abd4 ,spitta1 #dc n4 ,st4 ,luke3 did he teach the ,virgin ,birth8 #dhga4 his knowledge of the ,virgin ,birth tradition1 #ac1 #gbd1 #hd f41 #hg1 #aae4 his revision of ,lk4 and ,acts1 #gg1 #hj ff41 #ha n4 his treatment of ,mk41 #gg4 the richness of his vocabulary1 #fc1 #fc n4 ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 #hab1 #ba1 #hg1 #aae1 #abc4 date1 #aba4 original ending1 #ab1 #ec1 #fh n4 ,st4 ,paul1 #cg1 #ba1 #hg1 #aae4 ,stanton1 ,vincent ,h41 #h n41 #dj n41 #ie n41 #aah4 ,sweet1 ,louis ,matthews1 #d1 #d n41 #abe1 #acj4 ,tertullian1 #ae n41 #aje1 #aac4 ,text of the ,gospels in the ,second ,century1 #di ff41 #ia f41 #ii1 #aac4 ,textual ,problem of ,mt4 i4 #af1 #ij ff41 #ajj1 #aje ff4 ,thayer,grimm1 #ce1 #fb n41 #fe n41 #ff4 ,theophilus of ,antioch1 #a4 ,third ,gospel1 #bbdg1 #gbhg4 birth tradition of ,lk4 i1 ii1 #gc1 #he f4 date1 #aah1 #aba4 narratives of ,lk4 ii1 #bh ff4 purport of the angelic announcement 7i4 #cjc71 #cf ff4 ,thompson1 ,j4 ,m41 #g1 #g n41 #h1 #aj1 #aj n41 #ac n41 #ah1 #ah n41 #cf1 #fi1 #gj4 ,trinitarian ,theology1 #acj4 ,usener1 ,h41 #i n41 #bc1 #be1 #cb n41 #dj n41 #de1 #ee1 #gi1 #abd4 ,verbal ,inspiration1 #gf f41 #ajc1 #abb f4 ,virgin ,birth tradition3 alternative theories1 #abd ff4 apologetic and spiritual value1 #acc4 doctrinal aspects1 #abg ff4 earliest date of public tradition1 #aag ff4 historical problem1 #aaecc4 theory of a private tradition1 #aai1 #aba1 #abh4 ,vlter1 #dj n4 ,weinel1 #cf1 #fi4 ,weiss1 ,j41 #dj n4 ,wellhausen1 ,j41 #g4 ,wendland1 #h n4 ,westcott1 ,b4 ,f41 #ae n41 #hi n41 #ajh4 ,westcott and ,hort1 #cc n41 #eg n4 8,western0 ,readings1 #bdf1 #cbd1 #cc n4 ,wise ,men1 #ie4 ,zacharias1 #dc f4 ,zahn1 ,theodor1 #ae n4 ,zimmermann1 #gd f41 #ge n4 ,transcriber's ,note3 ,obvious printer's errors have been corrected4 ,,footnotes #a ,dr4 ,orr 7,the ,virgin ,birth of ,christ1 #aijg1 #crd ed41 #aiad7 says that in every ,pauline reference to the origin of ,christ there is 8some peculiarity of expression0 7pp4 #aag ff41 #aif74 ,he instances in ,gal4 iv4 #d1 ,rom4 i4 #c1 ,phil4 ii4 #g1 and speaks of as the word properly denoting 8born04 ,but ,st4 ,paul never uses 1 and ,mt4 xi4 #aa and ,lk4 vii4 #bh are the only instances in the ,,nt4 ,moreover1 the papyri show that and were in common use in the sense of 8to come into being01 8be born0 7cf4 ,moulton and ,milligan1 ,,vgt41 #aiae1 p4 #abf a74 ,canon ,box also speaks of ,st4 ,paul's use of 8the outoftheway 0 7,the ,virgin ,birth of ,jesus1 #aiaf74 8,this would harmonise01 he says1 8with the feeling that there was something extraordinary and supernatural about the birth1 which led to its being spoken of in unusual terms0 7p4 #adi n474 ,not to speak of the papyri1 what would these writers make of ,jn4 viii4 #eh1 8,before ,abraham was 7 7 ,i am08 ,was there 8something extraordinary0 in ,abraham's birth too8 ,for a view similar to that of ,orr and ,box see ,sweet1 ,the ,birth and ,infancy of ,jesus ,christ1 p4 #bcg f4 #b ,compare verse #ab1 8as through one man01 with verse #ae1 8the grace of the one man1 ,jesus ,christ04 ,cf4 also ,rom4 ix4 #e 7and #a ,tim4 ii4 #e74 #c ,cf4 ,h4 ,r4 ,mackintosh1 ,the ,person of ,jesus ,christ1 p4 #fi3 8444 the passage #a ,cor4 xv4 #ddi is throughout concerned not in the least with the preexistent but with the exalted ,christ4 ,it was only in virtue of resurrection that ,he became the archetype and head of a new race40 ,mackintosh says that the ,virgin ,birth is 8not present0 in ,gal4 iv4 #d1 8not even hinted at0 7p4 #ebh74 #d 8,the flesh of ,christ is #8like' ours inasmuch as it is flesh2 #8like'1 and only #8like'1 because it is not sinful3 ostendit nos quidem habere carnem peccati1 ,filium vero ,dei similitudinem habuisse carnis peccati1 non carnem peccati 7,orig4lat470 7,,sh41 ,,icc41 ,rom41 p4 #aic74 #e ,for these and other details see ,moffatt1 ,,int41 pp4 #aidbjf2 also ,harnack1 ,the ,sayings of ,jesus1 pp4 #bbieb4 #f ,cf4 ,mt4 xi4 #b f4 ,lk4 vii4 #ah f4 #g ,cf4 ,mackintosh1 ,person of ,jesus ,christ1 p4 #ebh4 #h ,mr4 ,thompson thinks that in ,q 8we are dealing with an age that has not yet begun to think of the ,virgin ,birth0 7ib41 p4 #adj74 ,this may be true1 but it is not a legitimate inference to draw from ,q alone4 #i ,cf4 ,plummer1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,lk41 p4 #abe4 #aj ,mt4 xiii4 #ee3 8,is not this the carpenter's son84440 ,lk4 iv4 #bb3 8,is not this ,joseph's son80 #aa ,so ,wendland and ,bacon 7,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bbg f472 ,stanton1 ,,ghd41 ii4 #adb4 ,mt4 xiii4 #ee reads3 8,is not this the carpenter's son801 and ,lk4 iv4 #bb3 8,is not this ,joseph's son80 ,the argument is that it is very difficult to think that the later ,evangelists can have read what is now ,mk4 vi4 #c in the ,markan ,source4 #ab 8,mt4 has substituted #8the ,son of the ,carpenter' for #8the ,carpenter' from a feeling that the latter was hardly a phrase of due reverence0 7,allen1 op4 cit41 p4 #aee74 #ac ,both ,schmiedel 7,,eb41 #bied f47 and ,usener 7,,eb41 #ccde7 hold that the incident excludes the ,virgin ,birth4 ,in reference to the words of ,jesus1 ,j4 ,m4 ,thompson says3 8,the force of ,his aphorism about spiritual kinship depends on the reality of the human kinship which ,he at once acknowledges and rejects0 7op4 cit41 p4 #acg74 #ad ,so ,schmiedel 7op4 cit41 col4 #biee74 ,thompson thinks that the story of ,mk4 vi4 #af 8could not possibly have been told as it has been1 if the narrator had known anything about the ,virgin ,birth0 7op4 cit41 p4 #ach74 #ae ,cf4 ,allen1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 xxiv 7c7 7i71 where fifty examples of this tendency are given4 #af 8,the speeches in the earlier part may represent not untrustworthily the primitive ,jewish,christian preaching of the period0 7,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #cje74 ,cf4 ,mackintosh1 op4 cit41 p4 #ci4 #ag ,mackintosh1 ib41 p4 #dj f4 8,what absorbs the preacher is ,jesus' deliverance from the grave and entry into glory01 p4 #da4 #ah ,mackintosh1 ib41 p4 #da4 #ai ,for the opposite view see ,thompson1 op4 cit41 p4 #adb4 #bj ,it is true different verbs and tenses are used of the children and of the ,son4 ,the tense of is explained by the fact that the ,son assumed flesh and blood at a definite time now past4 ,the change of verb--so far as it is not explained on stylistic grounds--is due to the fact that 7of the children7 expresses the universal fact of human frailty which men share one with another1 and the individual entering upon this state4 ,the latter word does not imply a participation of a peculiar and distinct kind4 #ba 8,in point of time1 the ,epistle to the ,hebrews is the first systematic sketch of ,christian theology0 7,mackintosh1 ,person of ,jesus ,christ1 p4 #gh74 8,it is not so much an epistle as an elaborate treatise0 7,fairbairn1 ,christ in ,modern ,theology1 p4 #cbj74 #bb 8,few would say1 with ,westcott1 that virginbirth is implied though not explicitly asserted in ,jn4 i4 #ad44440 7,mackintosh1 ib41 p4 #ebh74 #bc ,the view that i4 #ac should be read 8,who was born1 c401 is that of ,resch1 ,blass1 and ,th4 ,zahn4 ,the reading appears in ,tertullian1 ,irenaeus1 ,justin1 but the weight of textual authority is against it4 ,nor is the reading1 as representing what the ,evangelist wrote1 intrinsically probable4 ,it would rule out the maternity of ,mary as well as the paternity of ,joseph4 ,the birth would not only be not 8of the will of man02 it would not even be 8of blood04 ,there would be nothing human about it2 from first to last it would be 8of ,god04 ,in short1 the reading leads directly to that docetic view of the ,person of ,christ1 against which the ,johannine ,writings so earnestly contend4 ,the same objection may be urged against the view that1 in the accepted text of ,jn4 i4 #ac1 the ,virgin ,birth is present to the writer's mind 8as a kind of pattern or model of the birth of the children of ,god0 7,w4 ,c4 ,allen1 ,interpreter1 ,oct41 #aije4 ,cf4 ,orr1 op4 cit41 p4 #aaa f42 ,box1 op4 cit41 p4 #ade74 ,would not the ,fourth ,evangelist have regarded such a comparison as almost a denial that ,jesus ,christ is come in the flesh8 ,harnack has recently contended for the singular and for a reference to the ,virgin ,birth4 ,he thinks that the verse was added in the margin1 as a comment on i4 #ad1 at a very early time and in the ,johannine circle 7,peake1 ,commentary on the ,bible1 p4 #gdg a74 #bd ,cf4 ,sanday1 op4 cit41 pp4 #ga1 #adcee2 ,moffatt1 ,,int41 pp4 #ecc ff42 ,e4 ,f4 ,scott1 ,the ,fourth ,gospel1 ,its ,purpose and ,theology1 pp4 #cb ff42 ,jlicher1 ,,int41 p4 #cif f4 #be iv4 #dd 78,for ,jesus himself testified1 that a prophet hath no honour in his own country071 unless it is a gloss1 probably refers to ,judaea1 not ,galilee4 ,cf4 ,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #eec4 ,mr4 ,thompson argues that it refers to ,galilee 7op4 cit41 p4 #aeh74 #bf 8,in order to explain his silence1 we must remember his strict exclusion of all that might imply a passivity in the divine ,logos4 ,it was by ,his own free act that the ,son of ,god entered the world as man4 ,the evangelist shrank from any theory of ,his origin that might impair the central idea of full activity1 from the beginning of ,his work to the end0 7,scott1 ib41 p4 #ahg74 #bg ,according to ,cheyne 7,bible ,problems1 pp4 #gf ff471 the chapter contains a ,jewish ,messianic legend of ,babylonian origin1 which was the source of the ,virgin ,birth tradition4 #bh ,the passage which begins with the words3 8,and ,mary said unto the angel1 ,how shall this be1 seeing ,i know not a man80 #bi ,or was taken from ,q4 ,see ,harnack's ,sayings1 p4 #cad2 ,oxford ,studies in ,synoptic ,problem1 p4 #ahg4 #cj ,,eb41 col4 #biee n4 ,cf4 ,plummer1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,lk41 p4 #fc4 #ca ,in this connexion it should be observed that the same note of wonder appears in ii4 #ah in the case of all those who hear the shepherds' words4 ,but according to the terms of ii4 #ag1 what they are told is the angelic message of ii4 #ajab1 in which the ,virgin ,birth is not mentioned4 ,the presumption is that ii4 #cc stands upon the same plane4 #cb ,so among others ,schmiedel1 ,usener1 ,hcker1 and ,blass1 who writes 7op4 cit41 p4 #aga n473 8 #8,the espoused wife' of the ordinary text is a very clear corruption1 due to an assimilation to i4 #bg 7where the case is quite different7 and to dogmatic prejudices 4440 8,that we have here a case of real contamination is seen very plainly in the old ,freising ,,ms41 in which the ancient variants and still stand together in immediate juxtaposition0 7,usener1 ,,eb41 col4 #ccej74 #cc ,on the agreement of the ,old ,syriac and ,old ,latin against the great uncials1 cf4 ,kirsopp ,lake 7,the ,text of the ,,nt41 p4 #ij f471 8,perhaps the general result is to make it probable that ,w4 ,h4 7largely from lack of evidence7 underestimated the possibility that a consensus of the ,old ,latin and ,old ,syriac may give us a really primitive text even when opposed to the great uncials04 ,to similar effect ,burkitt writes1 8,it is1 however1 in the direction here indicated--viz41 the preservation of the true text in a considerable number of cases by #8,western' documents alone--that criticism may ultimately be able to advance beyond the point reached by ,hort0 7,,eb41 col4 #diij f474 8,i am unable to assume that the edition of ,westcott and ,hort gives us a final text in either ,gospel ,mt4 and ,mk44 ,in particular1 ,i am inclined to believe that the second century readings1 attested by the ecclesiastical writers of that century1 and by the ,syriac and ,latin versions1 are often deserving of preference0 7,w4 ,c4 ,allen1 ,,icc41 ,st ,mt41 p4 lxxxvii74 #cd 8,and ,joseph 444 took unto him his wife40 #ce ,while we are unable to acquiesce in ,schmiedel's view that 8,mary takes the words of the angel as referring to a fulfilment in the way of nature01 we may fairly say that1 if the passage ,lk4 i4 #cjh is a unity1 ,mary ought to have been represented as taking the angel's words in this way1 and that this would be the plain natural sense in which to take them4 #cf ,the claim1 therefore1 that the suggested translation is supported by the words 8with haste0 in verse #ci 7,box7 cannot be sustained4 ,moreover1 these words are easily satisfied on the usual view of a promised conception4 ,see further an article by the present writer in the ,expository ,times 7,may1 #aiai71 ,is the ,lukan ,narrative of the ,birth of ,christ a ,prophecy8 ,in l4 #af in the second column read3 8,it could not be anything else04 #cg ,e4g4 ,cheyne1 ,conybeare1 ,grill1 ,harnack1 ,hillmann1 ,holtzmann1 ,loisy1 ,montefiore1 ,pfleiderer1 ,n4 ,schmidt1 ,schmiedel1 ,usener1 ,vlter1 ,j4 ,weiss4 ,on the other side are ,hilgenfeld1 ,clemen1 ,gunkel1 ,chase1 ,stanton1 ,orr1 ,box1 ,knowling4 #ch ,but see ,w4 ,c4 ,allen1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 #aj and p4 #ai4 #ci ,some scholars1 including ,hcker1 ,spitta1 and ,montefiore1 bring verses #cf1 #cg within the interpolation4 ,schmiedel's presentation of the argument stated above is as follows3 8,moreover1 the case of ,elizabeth to which the angel points in v4 #cf is no evidence of the possibility of a supernatural conception2 it has evidential value only if what has happened to ,elizabeth is more wonderful than what is being promised to ,mary--namely that she1 in the way of nature1 is to become the mother of the ,messiah0 7,,eb41 col4 #bieg74 #dj ,schmiedel1 op4 cit41 col4 #bieg4 ,to the same effect ,j4 ,estlin ,carpenter 7op4 cit41 p4 #dhg f474 ,compare ,lk4 i4 #de where ,mary is praised for her faith1 and see ,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bfh f4 #da ,cf4 ,lobstein1 ,the ,virgin ,birth of ,christ1 p4 #fg4 #db ,cf4 ,moffatt 7,,int41 p4 #bfh n473 8,the substitution 444 is too slender a basis1 and may have been accidental1 whilst the alleged omission of #cde from the ,protevangelium ,iacobi breaks down upon examination0 7cf4 ,headlam's discussion with ,conybeare in the ,guardian for ,march,april #aijc74 #dc ,the ,new ,testament ,documents1 their ,origin and early ,history 7,croall ,lectures1 #aiaaab74 #aiac4 #dd ,cf4 also ,burkitt 7,,ght41 p4 #aa73 8444 the text of the ,gospels1 the actual wording1 and even to some extent the contents1 were not treated during the second century with particular scrupulosity by the ,christians who preserved and canonized them4 ,there is nothing in the way which ,christians treated the books of the ,new ,testament during the first four centuries that corresponds with the care bestowed by the ,jews upon the ,hebrew ,scriptures from the time of ,aquiba onwards40 ,see also ,blass1 ,philology of the ,gospels1 p4 #gb f4 #de ,cf4 ,sanday 7,inspiration1 #bnd ,ed41 pp4 #bieh73 8,possessors of copies did not hesitate to add little items of tradition1 often oral1 and in some cases perhaps written1 which reached them0 7#bie74 ,see also ,j4 ,h4 ,moulton 7,from ,egyptian ,rubbish ,heaps1 pp4 #ig ff471 and an article in the ,classical ,review for ,march #aiae on 8,the ,primitive ,text of the ,gospels and ,acts02 ,j4 ,a4 ,robinson1 ,study of the ,gospels1 p4 #bd f4 #df ,cf4 also ,hawkins 7,,hs41 #bnd ,ed41 pp4 #aeb and #aig71 who instances 8additions of various kinds which may be regarded as probably editorial0 7p4 #aig7 in the ,second and ,third ,gospels4 ,see also ,moffatt 7,,int471 under heading 8,glosses in ,,nt4 text01 p4 #fda1 where references are given to cases treated in the body of the work4 #dg ,it may1 however1 have been accidentally lost4 ,see ,moffatt1 ,,int41 pp4 #bch ff1 where the question is discussed4 #dh ,in this connexion it is important to remember that even early orthographic peculiarities have been accurately preserved4 8,i have been much struck by the number of cases in which the old uncials preserve spellings which can be proved current in the time of the autographs1 but obsolete long before the fourth century4 ,faithful in minutiae1 they might reasonably be expected to be faithful also in greater matters0 7,j4 ,h4 ,moulton1 in an article in the ,classical ,review1 ,march1 #aiae1 reprinted in ,the ,christian ,religion in the ,study and the ,street1 #aiai1 p4 #aec74 ,see also the ,prolegomena1 pp4 #dbef4 #di ,the italics are ours4 #ej ,plummer1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,lk41 pp4 xlviii ff42 ,harnack1 ,luke the ,physician1 p4 #ajd f42 ,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bgh f42 ,hawkins1 ,,hs41 #bnd ,ed41 pp4 #ae ff4 #ea ,there is a wellknown difficulty of punctuation in verse #ce4 ,ought we to put a comma1 with ,,wh41 after 8 ,if we do so1 the subj4 is 1 and is part of the predicate4 ,if we omit the comma1 the whole phrase 4 is the subj41 and the pred4 is 4 4 7cf4 ,,rv4 marg474 ,most critical editors of the ,greek text omit the comma4 ,it is probable1 as the ,,wh4 type shows1 that ,dr4 ,hort was influenced by his belief that 4 went together as a quotation or reminiscence of the ,,ot41 and1 if the passage comes from ,st4 ,luke1 this is a strong argument4 ,on the other hand1 it can be argued that if the words are a ,greek rendering of an ,aramaic phrase it is improbable1 if not impossible1 that the participle should stand alone as the subj4 ,it is not possible1 of course1 to settle the question by appealing to manuscript authority1 as the early ,,mss4 were practically devoid of punctuation marks4 ,in our own case1 we are unable to use either of the arguments cited1 since each rests upon the assumption of the ,lukan origin of ,lk4 i4 #cd f41 which is the very point we are discussing4 ,while then we follow the ,,wh4 text we have to leave the question of punctuation an open one4 ,if the comma should be omitted we lose the difficulty of noted on p4 #fa1 and we lose also the argument from its construction1 sketched on p4 #fd4 ,as1 in the end1 we claim that ,lk4 i4 #cd f4 comes from the hand of ,st4 ,luke1 we may perhaps be permitted to express a personal preference for the ,,wh4 punctuation4 ,st4 ,luke's admitted fondness for ,,ot4 phraseology points strongly in this direction1 while the theory of an original ,aramaic document gains no increased support1 but rather the contrary1 as time goes by4 ,on the one hand1 ,harnack has convincingly shown how much the ,greek of ,lk4 i1 ii owes to ,st4 ,luke's craftsmanship 7cf4 ,luke the ,phys41 pp4 #ajb ff471 and1 on the other hand1 the argument from 8,semiticisms0 becomes less cogent the more we know of the papyri 7cf4 ,moulton1 ,proleg41 pp4 #acah4 ,see also ,gr4 ii4 #abbj74 ,aramaic oral tradition may underlie cc4 i1 ii1 but the probability is that the ,greek of these chapters owes its ,,ot4 flavour to the more or less deliberate attempt of ,st4 ,luke to create an appropriate archaic atmosphere4 #eb ,the various computations are drawn from the ,concordance to the ,greek ,testament by ,dr4 ,w4 ,f4 ,moulton and ,dr4 ,a4 ,s4 ,geden4 ,in the case of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel words occurring in i4 #cd f4 are omitted4 ,if these verses are ,lukan1 this underestimates the ,lukan evidence4 ,it would1 however1 be begging the question to include these verses in the present examination4 ,quotations and doubtful cases 7except where mentioned7 are also omitted4 #ec ,but cf4 ,dalman1 ,words of ,jesus1 p4 #bd1 quoted by ,moulton1 ,proleg41 p4 #aca4 #ed ,cf4 ,the ,vocabulary of the ,greek ,testament1 by ,moulton and ,milligan1 p4 #fe a4 ,see also the note at the foot of p4 #aca in the ,prolegomena3 8,this phrase 444 occurs in the ,semitic atmosphere alone44440 #ee and 7see later7 are both strongly characteristic of ,st4 ,luke's style1 but with the dative is also very frequent4 ,taking the two works together1 and with the dat4 are almost equally common 74 w4 dat4 having the greater number of instances74 ,in the ,g4 the proportion of with the dat4 to is #e 3 #d4 ,in ,acts it is #d 3 #e4 #ef ,the italics are his4 #eg ,cf4 ,moulton and ,milligan1 p4 #abg a4 #eh ,cf4 ,harnack's ,luke the ,physician1 p4 #ajd2 ,moulton1 ,proleg41 p4 #ah4 #ei ,so ,thayer,grimm1 p4 #aag1 where it is pointed out that the same idiom appears in the ,latin1 in cognoscere1 ,ovid1 ,met4 iv4 #eif4 #fj v4 ,moulton and ,milligan1 op4 cit41 p4 #abg a4 #fa ,so ,l4 ,t4 ,,wh4 ,in both cases ,,wh4 give in the margin4 #fb ,there are 8#bfa words which occur in the ,new ,testament only in the gospel of ,st4 ,luke0 7,harnack1 ,date of ,acts1 p4 #b74 ,plummer 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,lk41 lii7 speaks of #cab such words1 but says that #eb are doubtful and #aa occur in quotations4 ,including ,acts1 according to ,plummer1 the number is #gej or 7including doubtful cases7 #hea4 #fc ,p4 #ei4 #fd ,as in all these enumerations4 ,see note on p4 #eh4 #fe ,cf4 ,th,gr41 p4 #aeb a1 and for papyri1 c41 ,moulton and ,milligan1 op4 cit41 p4 #afc b4 #ff ,sir ,john ,c4 ,hawkins's record of 7used of speaking to7 is as follows 7,,hs41 #bnd ,ed41 p4 #ba73 ,mt4 #j1 ,mk4 #e1 ,lk4 #ii1 ,ac4 #eb1 ,paul #b1 ,jn4 #ai1 rest of ,,nt4 #d4 ,thus for the ,lukan writings the percentage is #hc4d4 #fg ,moffatt's remark 78,the style of #cde is fairly ,lucan1 though occurs only once in the third gospel and never01 ,,int41 #bfi7 is surely an understatement4 ,as we have seen occurs eight times in ,acts4 #fh ,see1 however1 p4 #eg n4 #fi ,a good illustration of this point is found in the spurious ending to ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,as ,prof4 ,e4 ,p4 ,gould shows 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,mk41 pp4 #cjad7 out of #afc words #ai 7or more than #aa per cent47 are not found elsewhere in the ,gospel4 ,they include such words as 7#e times71 7#c times71 7twice74 ,there are also two unfamiliar expressions3 7verse #aj7 and 77 4 #gj ,if we could accept the view that 8seeing ,i know not a man0 in verse #cd is ,st4 ,luke's only insertion1 and that he wrote verse #ce from the first without thought of the ,virgin ,birth1 his point of view would then be somewhat different4 ,on this theory his thought would be that while born of ,joseph and ,mary the promised child was none the less supernaturally conceived4 ,see p4 #fi f4 #ga ,see later pp4 #ghhd4 #gb ,cf4 ,v4 ,h4 ,stanton 7,,ghd41 ii1 p4 #bbf f474 #gc ,as regards the remaining details of ,zimmermann's hypothesis1 none of them is really necessary to our theory4 ,we believe that what ,st4 ,luke actually wrote in ii4 #e was 8with ,mary his wife0 7see pp4 #cb ff474 ,but his new information did not compel him to alter this to 8with ,mary who was betrothed to him01 though later readers thought the change was necessary4 ,nor was it required to alter i4 #bg4 ,even in the original narrative 7i4e4 on our theory1 before i4 #cd f4 was added7 the passage may have read as we have it now1 the prophecy being regarded as uttered previous to marriage4 ,there is no real need to regard 8to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was ,joseph0 as an interpolation in the interests of the ,virgin ,birth1 either 7with ,harnack7 on the part of a redactor1 or 7with ,zimmermann7 on the part of ,st4 ,luke himself4 #gd ,cf4 ,ox4 ,studies in the ,syn4 ,prob41 pp4 #dag1 #dbj1 where the ,rev4 ,n4 ,p4 ,williams1 ,m4,a41 suggests that certain passages in ,mk4 may be later insertions1 made 8possibly by ,st4 ,mark himself04 #ge ,in ,acts xvi4 #ai1 #bj it is said that the owners of the demented girl 8seized ,paul and ,silas and dragged them into the agora before the magistrates04 ,the words which immediately follow are3 8and bringing them to the presence of the praetors1 they said44440 ,ramsay's comment is3 8,the expression halts between the ,greek form and the ,latin 444 as if the author had not quite made up his mind which he should employ4444 ,it is hardly possible that a writer1 whose expression is so concise1 should have intended to leave in his text two clauses which say exactly the same thing0 7,st4 ,paul1 p4 #bag f474 ,in reference to ,acts xx4 #d1 #e1 ,ramsay writes3 8,in verse #d we have probably a case like xvi4 #ai f41 in which the authority hesitated between two constructions1 and left an unfinished sentence containing elements of two forms0 7ib41 p4 #bhi74 ,he adds that the sentence 8perhaps never received the author's final revision04 #gf ,cf4 ,loofs1 ,what is the ,truth about ,jesus ,christ81 p4 #abb4 #gg ,speaking of the late appearance of the ,virgin ,birth tradition ,g4 ,h4 ,box writes 7op4 cit41 p4 #acg73 8,its comparatively late appearance and primitive character can only be reconciled by the explanation that it is based upon facts which were for long treasured within a narrow circle in close contact with our ,lord1 and which were only gradually divulged to the ,church40 ,cf4 also ,sanday1 ,outlines1 pp4 #aic1 #aif4 #gh ,cf4 ,burkitt1 ,the ,gospel ,history and its ,transmission1 pp4 #bfj1 #bgd f4 #gi ,cf4 ,burkitt 7,evangelion ,da,mepharreshe1 ii4 #bfj72 ,moffatt 7,,int41 #bej72 ,box 7,the ,virgin ,birth of ,jesus1 p4 #ab72 ,sanday 7,outlines1 p4 #bja74 #hj ,so among others ,westcott1 ,burkitt1 ,box1 ,allen1 ,barnard1 ,a4 ,j4 ,maclean1 ,moffatt4 #ha ,evan4 ,da,meph41 ii1 p4 #bfj4 ,cf4 also ,allen 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 #e72 ,box 7ib41 p4 #ad72 ,moffatt 7ib41 p4 #bea74 #hb 8,it is merely an embodiment1 in genealogical form--a form specially calculated to appeal to ,jewish readers--of the idea that ,jesus belonged1 through ,his relation to ,joseph1 to the royal family of ,david0 7,box1 ib41 p4 #ae74 #hc ,see ,appendix to present chapter4 #hd ,the ,n4 ,t4 ,documents1 their ,origin and early ,history1 p4 #adh4 ,w4 ,c4 ,allen 7op4 cit41 p4 lxxxv f47 seems to emphasize the more negative aspects of the writer's style1 but calls attention to phrases and constructions which are said to be 8strikingly characteristic of the ,gospel04 ,cf4 ,moulton1 ,gk4 ,gr41 ii1 p4 #bi4 #he ,cf4 ,burkitt 7,,ght41 p4 #ahd f47 #hf ,sir ,j4 ,c4 ,hawkins points out 7,,hs41 #bnd ,ed41 p4 #i7 that the 8characteristic0 words and phrases of ,mt4 are 8used considerably more freely in these two chapters than in the rest of the book04 #hg 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7in sense used71 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 #hh i4 #bb f41 ii4 #e f41 ii4 #ae1 ii4 #ag f41 ii4 #bc1 iii4 #c1 iv4 #ad ff41 viii4 #ag1 xii4 #agba1 xiii4 #ce1 xxi4 #d f41 xxvii4 #i4 ,of these iii4 #c differs somewhat from the rest1 and ii4 #bc cannot be identified with any single ,,ot4 passage4 #hi ,see especially ,stanton 7,,ghd41 ii1 p4 #cdc72 also ,allen 7op4 cit41 p4 lxii7 and ,burkitt 7,,ght41 pp4 #abd ff474 #ij ,cf4 ,burkitt1 op4 cit41 ii4 p4 #bei2 ,box1 op4 cit41 pp4 #aa1 #ai ff42 ,moffatt1 ,,int41 p4 #bei2 ,lake1 ,the ,historical ,evidence for the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ1 pp4 #agh ff4 #ia ,for the reference to ,epiphanius see an article by ,f4 ,c4 ,conybeare1 ,,hj41 i1 p4 #if4 ,conybeare's main argument is drawn from the edition of the ,dialogue of ,timothy and ,aquila1 published by himself 7#ahih74 ,he thinks that the ,dialogue 8reflects an age when ,mt4 i4 #ahbe had already been introduced1 but was not present in all the copies0 7p4 #ajj74 ,if we accept the view advocated by ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt 7,evan4 ,da,meph41 ii4 #bfe7 this inference is not necessary4 ,see ,appendix to present chapter1 p4 #ajf4 #ib 7in sense used1 but the phrase in which it occurs is probably an insertion1 ,burkitt1 ib41 ii1 p4 #bfa71 1 1 1 1 4 #ic 1 1 1 1 4 #id 8,i cannot believe that any document underlies it4 ,on the contrary1 ,i believe it is the composition of the ,evangelist himself0 7,burkitt1 ,evan4 ,da,meph41 ii1 p4 #bfj74 ,cf4 also ,allen 7,,icc41 ,st4 ,mt41 p4 #e74 #ie ,sanday 7,outlines1 p4 #aif7 writes3 8,in regard to the ,matthaean document we are in the dark4 ,the curious gravitation of statement towards ,joseph has a reason2 but beyond this there is not much that we can say4 ,it would not follow that the immediate source of the narrative was very near his person40 #if 8,in the historical judgement of the ,gospels this distinction between facts and reflections has frequently to be remembered0 7,e4 ,p4 ,gould1 ,,icc41 ,st4 ,mk41 p4 #cg74 #ig ,see ,the ,historical ,evidence for the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ1 by ,professor ,kirsopp ,lake4 #ih ,unless otherwise stated further references to these writers are to the works cited above4 #ii ,cf4 also ,moffatt1 p4 #bea2 ,sanday 7,outlines1 p4 #aig72 ,w4 ,c4 ,allen1 p4 #h4 #ajj 8,the reading of ,s itself ,i have come to regard as nothing more than a paraphrase of the reading of the #8,ferrar ,group'1 the ,syriac translator taking to refer to as well as to 0 7p4 #bfc74 #aja ,the foregoing three alternatives are those noted by ,dr4 ,sanday 7,outlines1 p4 #aii f471 between which1 he says1 8the data do not allow us to decide absolutely04 #ajb ,referring to the ,evangelist the ,jew objects3 8,he says begat out of ,mary0 7cf4 ,conybeare1 ,,hj41 vol4 i1 no4 #a1 p4 #ajj74 #ajc ,we ought to add that ,allen leaves open the possibility that the parenthesis may be a later addition1 and that the original text may have been 8,and ,joseph begat ,jesus04 8,it seems probable 444 that the text underlying ,s#a is the nearest approach now extant to the original ,greek1 and it must remain possible that even here the relative clause is an insertion0 7p4 #h74 #ajd ,cf4 ,jlicher1 ,,int4 7,eng4 ,tr471 p4 #cfg3 8,in my opinion1 both took up their pens more or less simultaneously1 each unaware of the other's work1 and both actuated essentially by the same motive1 i4e4 that of bestowing a ,gospel upon the ,church which should be at once complete1 and well adapted both to refute unjust accusations from outside and to edify the believers themselves40 #aje ,this appears in the fact that the ,first ,gospel implies1 as we have seen1 that the doctrine had already been known to its readers for some time4 #ajf ,cf4 ,usener to the same effect1 ,,eb41 col4 #ccea4 #ajg ,cf4 ,loofs1 ,what is the ,truth about ,jesus ,christ81 p4 #ib f43 8,legends arise much more quickly than is assumed by liberal theology since ,strauss04 #ajh ,so ,prof4 ,percy ,gardner1 quoted in ,faith and ,freedom1 p4 #afh4