Yet, on the other hand, the same two Gospels, though tliffering widely in the details of the nan-a- tive, assert uneciuivocally that Joseph had no share in the parentage of Jesus, and that the place of a human latlier was taken by the direct action of the Spirit of God. The differences show that the two traditions are independent of each other ; and yet both converge upon this one point. They agree not only in representing Jesus as born of a virgin, but also in representing this fact as super- naturally ainiouuced beforehand. — in the one case to Joseph, in the other ca.se to Mary.
Wiiat account is to be given of these seeming inconsistencies ? We caimot get rid of them by a.s.signing the opposed statements to different sources. In St. Matthew the genealogy which ends in Joseph is followed immediately by the narrative of the Anminciation and Virgin-Birth. In St. Luke the .successive sections of ch. 2, which begins with the Nativity and ends with the scene of the boy Jesus in the Temple, where we have .seen that such expressions as ' his parents,' ' his father and mother' occur so freely, are linked together by the recurrent note, ' Mary kept all these sayings, iiondering them in her heart,' ' his mother kept all these sayings in her heart' (Lk 2''' ■^' ; cf. also the argument which Prof. Hamsay skilfully draws from 1*' 2<"- •''-'*). And when we turn to St. John we cannot but remember that the Gospel which records so frankly the .Jews' cjues- tion, ' Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ? ' if it nowhere refers directly to the Virgin-Biith, yet goes further than any other Gospel in asserting the pre-existence of the Son as (5oil with God.
What we regard as inconsistent will clear itself up best if we consider the order of events and the way in which these preliminary stages of the history were gradually brought to the conscious- ness of the Church.
The .sources from which the knowledge of them was derived were, without doubt, private.! We shall consider presently the character of these sources. We know more aViout that of which use w.as made by St. Luke than of that used by St. Matthew, and we can rely upon it as a his- torical authority with greater conlidence. We shall see that it is ultimately traceable to the Virgin herself, in all probability through the little circle of women who were for some time in her company.
We are told expressly that the Virgin Mary ' kept all these sayings (or things) in her heart.' She, if any one, might well .say. tutT^jpioy <nbp ipLoi. It was only by slow degrees in the intimacy of conlidential intercourse that she allowed her secret to ])a.ss beyond herself, .md to become known. Kven if committed to writing before it came into the hands of St. Luke, it ]>robalily did not reach any wide public until it was embodii-d in his (iospel. The place which the Virgin-Birth occupies in Ignatius and in the Creed seems to
• ir.iM Chriht born itt Itetfitrhem f ji. s".
+ *l.uki< (fives, f^oni Icnowlciliri' intintii witliin the fiinilty. All niToiint of facts known only to t)ie faintly, anil in {lart to the Mother alone* tllaliisay. i>/k rit. p. TIM. Prof. iEalii*;iv. hii»fvi-r, !.eeiiis to CO t«Mi far In coilra^tlnir >!t wllii I.k wh.-n he *avH. ■ Matthew tribes the piiMh- areioint. that wtileh «:,- ir.-'i'Tiilly known iliirlnc the Saviour's lif.' an.l after lll> liealh-" W.- ilo not think that any ae.'.tiiiit «af. known diirinc the SiiM'Mir'^ lif.*. nfi.l we pn'fer to tlillik of tiie Mattiiaan version a^ pitrLiilel to rather than eontm*!.-.! wltli the Lucau.
644
JESUS C'HKIST
JESUS CHRIST
ihow thai it cannot liave been much later than thi- niiihlle of the century before the knowlcilge (if it made its way to the headquarters of Cliris- ti;uiily. But before some such date as that there is no reason to think that it was };enerally known. It was no part of our Lord's own teaching. Tlie neighbours among wlioni His early life was i)as.seil, tlie chaufjing crowds who wilnis.std His miracles or gathered niuml Him to hear Him, had never ha<l it [iroclaimed to them. 'Jesus son of Jo.seph, tlie prophet of Nazareth." was the common name by which He wius known. And it is a great presumption of the historical trutli of the Gospels tliat they so simply and naturally reflect this language. We may well believe that the lar.guage was shared, as the ignorance which caused it was shared, even by the Twelve tlii-mselves. It would be very fitting if the channel through which these sacred things first came to the ears of the Church was a little group of women.*
i. The Sources of the Xarrntive. — It has often been observed that whereas the first two chapters of St. .Matthew appear to be written from the point of view of .Joseph, the first two chapters of .St. Luke are written from the point of view of Mary. In Mt the Annunciation is made to Joseph ; it is Joseph who is bidden in a dream not to fear to take to him his wife ; Joseph who is told what the Son whom she is to bear is to be called. It is .loseph. again, who is warned to take the young Child and His mother into Egypt, and who, when the danger is past, receives the command to return ; and it is .Joseph also whose anxious care is the cause that the family settle in Galilee and not in Judaja. On the other hand, when we turn to St. Luke the prominent figures at first are the two kinswomen, Klisabeth tlie mother of John the Baptist, and Mary. Mary herself receives the announcement of the lioly thing tliiit is to be born of her. The Mngnijicat is her song of thanksgiving. She treasures in her heart the sayings of the shepherds ami of her Divine Son. The aged Simeon points his prophecy to her, and foretells that a sword should pierce through her soul.