§ J. Estlin Carpenter, ib. p. 487 f.
II The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 50.
il Cf. the tratislations in the Hebrew New Testaments.
some edifying purpose in view, and the list in Lk 3^3-38 seems to be no exception to the rule. The striking feature about it is that it traces the descent of Jesus right up to Adam [the son) of God. Evidently, in linking Adam to Christ, the editor or compiler intends to suggest that Christ is the Second Adam, the re-founder of the human race ; and that just as the first Adam was son of God by a direct creative act, so also was the Second (by the power of the Holy Spirit). For genealogical purjwses it was necessary to link Jesus to previous generations through His foster-father Joseph. But the suggestion is that the Second Adam, like the first, owes His human existence to a direct creative act on the part of God. Lk 3^8 thus supports the genuineness of l^^ (vlbs deou), and the whole gene- alogy, viewed in the light of its edifying purpose, guarantees the original character of the alleged interpolation.
The fact that uli; Beov in the genealogy involves the occurrence of ulo; in the physical sense of origin exactly as in 135, has an important bearing on the objection noted above, viz. that while In V.32 (' Son of the Most High ') ' son ' denotes official adoption, in V.35 it describes actual origin.* But the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. At the same time, it is difficult to see what can have suggested such an otherwise un-Jewish application of the term 'son' in such a context, and amid language so Hebraistic, except the actual occurrence of the fact narrated.
But the theory of interpolation is confronted with a further radical difficulty. It is not enough to remove the suspected verses to make the narra- tive congruous with a non-miraculous birth. The significant fact still remains that the figure of Joseph is quite subordinated in the Lukan account, while that of Mary is proportionately enhanced in lonely importance. This feature dominates the whole structure of Luke's first two chapters ; and in this particular a sharp (and obviously designed) contrast is suggested between the nativity of John tlie Baptist and that of Jesus. While in the case of the Baptist's birth the annunciation is made to the father (P^f-), in that of Jesus it is made to the mother (P») ; and while the Baptist's birf^h is repre- sented as the occasion of such profound joy on the part of Zacharias that the latter's dumbness is overcome, and he bursts into the strains of the Benedictus (P^""), no such role is assigned to Joseph. What reason can be adduced for this deliberate minimizing of the part assigned to Joseph — a feature that characterizes the Ijukan narrative throughout — except it be that the fundamental fact, dominating and forming the climax of the whole, is the miraculous birth of Jesus of a virgin mother ? f [Cf . also the criticism of this theory of interpolation in the art. Birth OF Christ, vol. i. p. 203].
(c) The Matthman account of the virgin birth (Mt 118-25) i^as already been discussed in the art. cited above (vol. i. p. 206). Here it will be necessary to emphasize onljr one or two special points. The intensely Jewish character of the narrative, its sobriety and delicacy, have been justly insisted upon. It is difficult to trace in so restrained a narrative the ' paoan substratum ' of which Usener speaks. The full-blown myth has certainly been divested of all its bloom. In fact, the points of difference far outnumber the resem- blances with the ancient myth, as even Cheyne admits (Bible Problems, p. 89 f . ). In this connexion the difficult problem arises as to the real significance of the quotation in Mt. of Is 7" (LXX) : ' Behold, the virgin (i] irapdivos) shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name ImmanueV Two points are clear: (1) No trace exists in Jewish (as distinct from Christian) literature known to us of any Messianic application of this
* The former is a characteristic Hebrew usage, t Cf. the article (cited above) by the present writer in ZNTW p. 93.
VIRGIN BIRTH
VIRGIN BIRTH
807
text ; nor is it possible to adduce any indubitable evidence from Jewish sources tliat the belief in the Messiah's being born of a virgin was ever current among the Jews. (2) It is generally agreed among critical scholars that the narrative of Mt. could not have been suggested by the quotation (Is 7'^), but that the quotation was, in accordance with his usual method, added by the narrator as a proof- passage from Scripture in support of the story.
It is, however, difficult to account for the LXX rendering (-TccpBivo?). It may, perhaps, have been adopted under the influence of 'current niythologrical ideas' in order to enhance the niysteriousness of the future Deliverer's origin, or it may be due simply to the fact that the translators regarded ^ccptiixx as being the true Greek equivalent of nopj^ri, without consciously giving it any definite reference to the Messiah. If, as Gunkel supposes, Messiah's birth of a virgin had become a fixed element in Jewish Christological belief before the birth of Jesus, which was afterwards transferred in Jewish-Christian legend to our Lord's nativity, how is it that no trace of such a belief has survived in Jewish literature '? Why the reluctance and reserve manifested in proclaiming the alleged fact, if such a birth had come to be regarded as one of the distinguishing marks of the true Messiah? But so far from its being a popular or even familiar belief among the Jews, it may be inferred with practical certainty from Mt's narrative that the story of the virgin birth was to Jewish readers a stumbling-block, which it required special apologetic efforts to overcome. Not improbably Jewish calumny regarding Jesus' birth had already made itself felt before Mt.'s narrative was published. The reference of Is 71'* to the circumstances of Jesus' birth can, therefore, only have been suggested by the event, or, at least, by what the narrator looked upon as the actual facts. Consequently the Messianic application is purely Jewish-Christian. In Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. Ixiii.) there is a curiously interesting collection of proof-passages from Scripture in support of the virgin birth : \'\z. besides Is 7i-i, also 53* (' Who shall declare his generation ? '), Gn 49'i, Ps 110'' (' In the beauties of thy saints, from the womb have I begotten thee before the morning star ' : so LXX). In the last passage the LXX clearly interprets of the pre-existent Messiah ; * the application to the virgin birth of Messiah would seem to be Jewish-Christian. Ps 110 was undoubtedly under- stood Messianically in the ancient synagogue. Cf. also the passages quoted in Raymundus Martini, Pngio Fidei (ed. Carpzov, p. 154 f.) on tlie authority of R. Moses ha-Darshan (which cannot now be verified) : ' Redemptor quern suscitabo e mbis non hahebit patrem ' ; cf . Zee 612, ig 532 (< a root out of a dry ground '), Ps 1103 and 2'?.