Dalman (The Words of Jesus, pp. 139-143, Eng. tr.) in an important section, the substance of which is here transcribed, seeks to find the probable Aramaic antecedent of /3(a$£T«j. A. Meyer suggests Jpn, cf. Dn 718- 22 ; but this would mean merely 'to take possession of,' and would hardly cause one writing in Greek to use /3/ii?£«. He finds a better equivalent in ^Ipn, which means in Peal 'to be strong,' in Aphel 'to hold fast'; in Dt 2225, Onkelos has P]pn:i for Heb. p'lnni, while the LXX renders by ISixirxiu,in);. It is important to remember that fjpri has no Passive ; from this it would follow that the Passive ^ixZirai is not derived immediately from an Aramaic prototype. A solution more in conformity with the Greek may be arrived at provided D^N be made the starting-point, for it can mean ' to use force ' and 'to rob.'. The text (Mt lli2)thus refers to that period of the theocracy (i.e. the Kingdom of God) which was introduced by the imprisonment of John the Baptist ; it is its peculiarity that the theocracy suffers violence, not, of course, from be- lievers, but from those in authority. The words a,pTaZ,ova-iy ccvTYiv (nmDli<) are not intended to suggest that the violent seize the' theocracy, but merely that they maltreat it in the persons of its representatives. 'The utterance occurs in St. Luke in an entirely different connexion. According to him, it is applied in opposition to the Pharisees, who despised the admoni- tion as to the right use of money. Jesus declared to them that the proclamation of the theocracy since the time of John made it possible for any one to intrude himself violently into it ; nevertheless it was not their ovm estimate, but the judgment of God that decided who was worthy of entrance. The context, however, in Lk. may be pronounced peculiarly Greek. Neither the Passive lixyyiXittraci nor ik a,vrr,v fiixZsTxi is capable of being directly rendered into Aramaic, especially if DJN is used.
If it be supposed, adds Dalman, that by using (yy 15-18) sayings of our Lord which originally had quite a different association, Lk. obtains the transi- tion to a new parable, it may be surmised that he has given to v.^® its present form to accommodate it to the context. The saying which Mt. and Lk. found in their sources macle mention only of the violent treatment of the theocracy since the time of John. St. Luke thought of attempted entrance into it, and thus found it natural to insert it here. St. Matthew, with greater reason, understood it to refer to the violent treatment of the preachers of the theocracy, and therefore connected it with the answer of Jesus to John. Neither by Jesus nor by the Evangelists is it suggested that any one could actually appropriate the theocracy by force. Unless absolutely driven to it, we ought not to tiy to discover beneath these words an idea so dis- tinctly at variance with the whole style of our Lord's teaching.
Literature.— In addition to the works cited above, a good article in Expos. Times, 1892-93, p. 510, by J. S. Banks, will be found useful. See also Expositor, i. iii. [1S76] 252, v.[18ii]19i, IV. vii. [1893] 224. W. H. DUNDAS.
YIPER.— See Animals in vol. i. p. 66^
VIRGIN Bl^TK.— Introductory.— A cursory ex- amination of the Gospel narratives is sufficient to reveal certain apparent inconsistencies of statement and implication regarding the parentage of Jesus. He is popularly regarded and spoken of as the son of Josejih (cf. Mt 13^5 ' Is not this the carpenter's son ?' Lk 422, Jn l'*^ 6^^) ; and even in the Nativity narrative of the Third Gospel, Mary and Joseph
VIRGIN BIRTH
VIRGIN BIRTH
805
are several times referred to as ' his parents ' (yoveis, Lk 2'-""^^-'*^),* wliile once the mother of Jesus her- self is made to say, 'Thy father [i.e. Josejih] and I sought thee sorrowing' (2^*). It is quite clear that Jesus was popularly looked upon by His contem- poraries as Joseph's son by natural generation. On the other hand, both the First and the Third Gospels contain special sections dealing with the circumstances of the birth of Jesus in detail, and, tliougli obviously independent, the two traditions embodied in the Nativity narratives agree in stating unequivocally that Jesus was born of a virgin mother without the intervention of a human father (Mt P"-, Lk P^- =*5).
No real inconsistency is, however, necessarily involved in the narratives as they stand. The secret of Jesus' birth may have been for long jealously guarded within the narrow circle among whom it was originally known. It apparently formed no part of the early Apostolic teaching and preaching, and was not included in the common form of the Synoptic Gospel-tradition (note that the Second Gospel begins with the Baptism). In preserving, therefore, the popular references to Jesus as Joseph's son, the First and Third Gospels conform to psychological and historic truth. In one part of the narrative, popular opinion is accu- rately reflected and expressed ; in the other, know- ledge of a special character derived from private sources.
That no inconsistency was felt to exist in this double use of description appears from the fact that it occurs even in the Apocryphal Gospels, where the virginity of the mother of Jesus is often insisted upon with unnecessary stress. Thus in the Gospel of pseudo- Matthew (oh. 27) the following, e.g., occurs : ' And some went away to the chief priests, and to the chiefs of the Pharisees, and told them that Jesus the son of Joseph had done great signs,' etc. A few pages further on (ch. 30) Jesus is made to saj' : ' But I am an alien in your courts, because I have no carnal parent.' On the other hand, if such references as those cited above from the Gospels had exhibited a mechani- cal consistency in describing Jesus as the Son of Mary (to the entire exclusion of Joseph), the representation would have justly been impugned as violating the canons of historical and psychological truth.