Jem : see, further, his article in SK, 1904, Heft 2). derivation might well be called a literary miracle. For a criti- cism of Conrady's attempt, see Theol. LiUralurblatt, 1901, p. -283.
t See, e.g., C. A. Witz, Keine Liicke im Leben Jem, 1895, described as ' Antwort auf die Schrift von Nikolaus Notowitsch, Vie Liicke im Leben Jesu.'
5 CL Gunkel, I.e. p. 60, and H. Cremer, Reply to Harnack, p. 163, Eng. tr. 1903.
II See especially Swete, Tlie Apostles' Creed, p. 60, for the distinctness of the two accounts and the almost entirely differ- ent ground covered. For a probable order of the events see Plummer, St. Luke, p. 04 ; .\ndrews, Li/e of ottr Lord upon the Earth, 1892, p. 92; Rose, Studies in the Gospels, p. 64£E., also £can!/ite seton S. J/a(!/iiV«, p. 17.
thus transcend his own special standpoint and purpose (Falrbaim, Stud, in Life of Christ, p. 36).*
It is indeed urged that this same contradiction may be found in those parts of the canonical narratives which relate most closely to our Lord's birth (Lobsteiii, The Virgin Birth of Christ, p. i'2, Eng. tr.). But ;■ ' • . h-afed to us, it may be
fairly said, present i' ivitibility, and two con-
vergent tra(fitions i-' ,-ijiirces may be rightly
affirmed to corrobor; n other as to the main
facts which they desT •• rig Bevietc, Oct. laoi,
pp. 200, 201; W. C. AIIli], I.e. i: IK'i).
The belief that St. Matthew gives us an account which comes primarily from Joseph, while St. Luke gives us an account that comes primarily from Mary, has long been maintained by many able critics, and it is a belief which still commends itself as the most satisfactory e.xplanation of the two stories. It is the simplest thing to see how in the one case the frequent repetition of the name ' Joseph ' points to him as the primary source of information, and how in tlie other case the twice repeated reference to Mary points to her as occupying the same position : ' ^lary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart' (Lk 2") ; ' and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart' (v.^'). One thing may be safely asserted, that if these two accounts had come to us agreeing in every particular, we should have been asked to discredit them on account of this very agreement.
LrrERATtjRE.— A considerable amount of the literature has been indicated above, and for further information art. VlRQi.v Birth should be consulted. The following works may be added here: W. H. Mill, Mythical JnterpretatUm qf the Gospels, 1S61 ; C. F. Schniid, Biblical Theoloqy of the XT, 1870 (Eng. tr. p. 25 ff.]; F. L. Steimnever, Die Gesch. der Geburt des Herrn, 1873 ; Wace, The Gospel and its Witnesses, 1SS3 ; F. Godet, Comiiu'iitaire sur KoangHe de Luc, 1888; Nosgen, Gei-
iTh, July 1902; J. Grill, ; des vierten Emngelium, 1902, ( on, the Life of Jems, 1903 ; ughts on the Incarnation, 1903 ;
KauJolpli, Bible in : ' worth, Ti Wandel, /' duction to ti and "The C Ji^sus Messie t
\ 1903, p. 491 ff. ; Bishop Words- ..■n and the Creed, 1904 ; Th. H. .' iiung, 1903; E. Burton, Intro- Clio): Appended notes on ' Quirinius," , Law in Luke U. 22--24,' 1904 ; Lepin, Fils de Dieu, 1904, pp. 6.5-75 ; P. W. Schmidt,
E. J. Knowling.
ZATir, 1905, Heft L
BIRTHDAY.— In Mt 14« and Mk 6=' this word represents the Gr. ra yiviina in the account of the king's (Herod Antipas) feast to his nobles, at which John the Baptist -was condemned to death. It has been suggested, however, though without much acceptance, that the anniversary referred to was that of Herod's accession, not strictly that of his birth. Tcfiffia., which in Attic Greek means 'the commemoration of the dead,' is in the later language interchangeable with ■yeii^O\ia (birthday celebrations), ;in.l tht-rf suciiis n.i n.-:i>on wliy the translatiun ..i KV ami ,\V -h..„l.l nut W- ri-ht (see Swete on Mk tl-'. una ILi^tiii--' /'/-', s.,-.). The custom of observing the birthday ul :i king was widely spread in ancient times (cf. Gn -40-", 2 Mac G'; Herod, i.x. 110).
For the question of the date of our Lord's birth, and the authority for the traditional 25th December, see art. Calendar. C. L. Feltoe.
BLASPHEMY (/JXaff^ij/xia ; for derivation of word see Hastings' DB, vol. i. p. 305").— This word is used in the Gospels, as in other parts of the NT, for abusive speech fjenerally, as well as for lan- guage that is insulting to God. Thus we read of
guage
A cartf
irst two chapters of St. Luke some extra-canonical parallels, il of the narrative, can scarcely
BLASPHEMY
BLASPHEMY
209
' an evil eye, blasphemy (RV railing), pride,' etc. (Mk 7"-), where tlie position of the word indicates human relations. The evil eye is followed by the evil tongue, the one by look and the other by speech expressing malignity towards a fellow-man. Two questions concerning blasphemy come up in the Go.spels, viz. the teachin" of Jesus Christ on the subject, and the charge of blasphemy brought against out Lord.
1. The teaching of Jesns Christ concerning blaspheray.—Using tlie term in the general sense, onr Lord does not always formally distinguish be- tween insulting speech with regard to God and abusive language towards men. ^Xaa^rifila in any application of it is sin. As railing against our fellow-men, it comes in a catalogue of sins together with the most heinous— 'murders, adulteries,' etc. (Mk 7^^). In this connexion it is treated as one of the 'evil things' that 'proceed from within, and defile the man.' Tims it is taken to be the expres- sion of a corrupt heart, and as such a defilement of the person wlio gives vent to it. Nevertheless it is not beyond the reach of pardon. With one exception all revilings may be forgiven (Mk 3^- '', Mt 12?'). Tlie comprehensive sentence must in- clude blasphemy against God, although that is not expressly mentioned. In Mt 12^ there is a refer- ence to blasphemy against the Son of Man, and in both cases the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is mentioned ; but iii neither case is there any reference to blasphemy against the Father. Perhaps the safest thing is to say that this was not in mind at the time, so that no direct pronouncement was made concern- ing it; and, further, it is to be observed that Trini- tarian distinctions do not appear in these teach- ings of Jesus. Jesus is here the ' Son of Man,' not ' the Son,' i.e. of God, and the Holy Spirit is God in His manifested activity. Still, it must be im- plicitly contained in St. Mark's emphatic sentence, ' All their sins . . . and their blasphemies ivhere- with soever they shall blaspheme {baa hv fiXaucpriuTj- aoHnv).'