1. The Gospel sources. — The question really narrows itself down to one concerning the amount of credibility that is to be attached to the Gospel narratives of the Nativity contained in Mt 1-2 and Lk 1-2. This is not the place to enter into a full discussion of these narratives as a whole, or to repeat what has already been said on the subject in tlie art. BiRTH OF (i'HRLST in this work. But one or two points of special significance in this connexion may be dealt with. Recent critical dis- cussion has largely been concerned with these narratives, around which the critical battle has fiercely raged. In the result it may be said with confidence {n) that the Palestinian character and origin of the narratives have been firmly estab- lislied, and (b) that tlie attempt to disintegrate the Iiukan account has not been attended with signal success.
(«) The establishment of the Palestinian origin and character of the two Birth narratives carries witii it important consequences. The narratives have been shown to be .Jewish-Christian through and tlnough. It follows that the tradition of the virgin birtii gained currency among Ciiristian circles in Palestine at a relatively early date, pro-
806
VIRGIN BIRTH
VIRGIN BIRTH
bably by the middle of the 1st century. * A further inference is that we must look for the origin of this tradition 'on Palestinian soil at sufficiently early a date to account for its i^resence in t\vo quite independent forms in the First and Third Gospels. That being so, the view that they are based upon actual facts and came ultimately from the family of Christ Himself, is infinitely probable. 't (6) Critical objections have, been raised to the in- tegrity of the Lukan Birth narrative. In Lk 2, it is urged, the view of the narrative is that Mary was Joseph's wife, and that he Avas the father of Jesus (cf. 233 q^is father and his mother,' v." 'his parents,' v.-^^ ' thy father and I ') ; the Davidic pedigree of Jesus' is traced through Joseph, with the harmonistic explanation 'as was supposed' (3-3) ; ' and with this agrees the early reading apparently preserved in the Sinaitic - Syriac, 2^, "with Mary his wife.'" t The narrative in ch. 1 could be harmonized with that in ch. 2 if w.^-^^ —which contain ' the only reference to the virgin birth in the Third Gospel '—could be removed as an interpolation. This procedure— which has the support of such scholars (among others) as Harnack, Holtzmann, PHeiderer, Schmiedel, and Usener — is justified on the following grounds :
The reference to Elisabeth in v.36 certainly seems to follow better on v.33. in that passage, moreover, the child whose birth is announced is already designated Messianically as ' Son of the Most High ' ; but the title ' Son of God ' in v.3s has a quite different signification ; it denotes not official adoption, but actual origin : v. 35 is thus a doublet of vv.3i-32 on another plane. Moreover, the incredulity of Mary concerning the possibility of motherhood (v.S4) seems inexplicable in one already betrothed; yet it does not (like that of Zacharias, vv.i8-2b) expose her to rebuke or penalty ; the doubt seems introduced only to give occasion for the explanation in v. 35. The real reply of Mary to the original announcement in VV.30 32. 36-37 follows in v.3« 'Be it unto me according to thy word,' and her submission to the heavenly will wins the blessing of Elisabeth (v.-i2).§
A closer examination of the suspected verses does not, however, lend any support to the theory of interpolation. Their phraseology is unmistak- ably Hebraistic in character, the language being suggested by and derived from the OT. In fact, as Professor Briggs has pointed out, ' the Annuncia- tion represents the conception of Jesus as due to a theophany.'ll The verses are of the same character as the rest of the narrative, and must be the work of a Jewish writer ; and there is every reason to believe, with Gunkel, that they are translated from a Hebrew original. This consideration will help to elucidate the meaning of the announcement in V.31 more closely. The Hebrew original of av\\T]\pri there would be a participle,1[ and the exact rendering would be, ' Behold, thou art con- ceiving now.' An immediate conception is meant, not one that would naturally follow after Joseph had in due course taken her to wife ; and this immediate conception is implied by the words 'with haste' in v.3«. Besides, v."" ('And behold, Elisabeth, thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age ') implies that a conception of an extraordinary character has been mentioned in the previous verses in reference to Mary ; and the words suggest that a not unnatural doubt and surprise on her part are being set at rest (cf. esp. V.3' 'for no word of God shall be impossible'). There would be nothing extraordinary in Mary's conceiving a son as Joseph's wife.
Again, the Lukan genealogy, far from dis- crediting, seems to the present writer to offer a positive argument for the authenticity of the suspected verses. Jewish genealogies usually have
* See W. C. Allen, Interpreter, Feb. 1905, p. 115.
t W. C. Allen, ib. p. 122.
i J. Estlin Carpenter, The Bible in the XlXth Century, p. 486.