THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
boren von der Jungfrau Maria, 1893; and J. Hausleiter, Zur Vorgeschichte des apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses, Munich, 1893. In opposition were A. Harnack, Das Apostolicum, Leipsic, 1892; W. Herrmann, Worum handelt es um das Apostolikum? Magdeburg, 1893; and F. H. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, Leipsic, 1894 (3d ed., 1900).
Aside from the particular discussions referred to, two or three conditions of present-day thought have made necessary a reopening of the question of the virgin birth, with presuppositions different from those which were possible to earlier scholarship. There is, first, the scientific spirit with its evolu-
tionary view of the world, its deeper 2. Modern study of biology and the processes of Demand for life, and its conviction that all events Reopening are related to one another by a law of the Dis- uniform and concomitant variation. cussion. Secondly, the historical spirit subjects all alleged facts to far more searching scrutiny than was hitherto possible, as a result of which many events previously supposed to have been supernaturally caused are brought within the range of human historical explanation; and the hope is expressed that all will ultimately be drawn into the same category. In addition, many special disciplines have focused attention on this subject, such as New-Testament criticism and comparative religion. Two other impressive facts have secured recognition in recent times, and these have profoundly influenced Christian thinking. One is, that this doctrine formed no part of the original preaching or message of Christ or his apostles; the other, that nowhere else in the New Testament, outside of the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, is there any use of this doctrine, or direct or even indirect reference to it. These omissions in themselves constitute no valid objection to the fact of the virgin birth; this fact must stand or fall according as it is authenticated by the narratives in which it is embedded. On the ground that the Scriptures as a whole and in every part are inerrant and infallible, a question might indeed arise, but it would be concerned, not with the virgin birth as a fact, but with the exposition and defense of the nature and basis of the alleged inerrancy. With this position, however, this article is not concerned.
Since, then, this article of the Creed rests on the narratives in Matthew and Luke, attention must first be directed to them. It may be laid down as a safe proposition that these narratives are an integral part of the First and Third Gospels (cf. J. Weiss, ‘“‘ There were never forms of Matthew and Luke without the Infancy narratives,” Theologische Rundschau, 1903, p. 208). In every one of the early complete manuscripts of the Gospels the chap-
ters containing these narratives are
3. Infancy present. The oldest uncials, such as Narratives the Sinaitic, the Vatican, Codex Eph- Integral in raemi, and Codex Beze, include these the Gospels. chapters; the Alexandrian, mutilated in the first part of Matthew, has Luke
i.andii. The same is true of the versions—the Latin in Tertullian’s time, the Syriac, Peshito, Curetonian, Egyptian (Coptic), and the one discovered at Mt. Sinai in 1892, and also Tatian’s Diatesseron (with
the exception of the genealogies). The Gospel of the Ebionites, depending upon the Gospel of the Hebrews, which in turn depended upon our Matthew, omitted the first, two chapters (cf. B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Gospels, p. 465, London, 1895), and the Gnostic ‘Marcion began his Gospel according to Luke with the third chapter. From certain characteristics of style this argument is confirmed, for in Matthew, a comparison of i. 22, ii. 5— 6, 15, 17, 23, with his frequent reference to fulfilment of Old-Testament prophecy betrays the same use of the Scripture throughout (cf. F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, pp. 258-259, Cambridge, 1904). In Luke also the author’s peculiar Greek style, which is everywhere evident in this Gospel and in the Acts, shines through in the first two chapters (cf. A. Plummer, Commentary on Luke, New York, 1896; A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, p. 73, Leipsic, 1906, and Appendix ii.).
A further question arises, however, whether every part of the narrative is equally attested or integrally related to the whole, and at two points this question becomes critical. In Matt. i. 16 the Sinaitico-
Syriac version reads, “ Joseph, to
4. The whom Mary the Virgin was betrothed, Evidence in begat Jesus, who is called Christ.” Matthew. Concerning the verse in Matthew several suppositions are possible. One is,
that the Codex Sinaiticus gives the original form of the genealogy, in which the natural paternity of Joseph is affirmed in the same formula as that of the others mentioned hitherto. This would harmonize with all the remaining references of the Gospel which allege the fatherhood of Joseph as the husband of Mary (cf. i. 19-20, 24, xiii. 55), and it agrees with the common belief of the time, i.e., until apparently between 60 and 70, that Jesus was the son of Joseph. If the genealogy was originally prepared for Jewish Christians, it represented what they had already believed concerning the parentage of Jesus, and, moreover, it establishes the only relation of Jesus with David which this Gospel claims. The verse itself (i. 16), as it appears with variant readings in some cursives (e.g., 346 of the Ferrar group), in seven Latin codexes previous to Jerome, and in the Curetonian Syriac, shows that it has been the subject of considerable difficulty and disturbance to the copyists. It is possible that it was due to a very obvious error of a copyist, or it may have had an Ebionite source (cf. Academy, 1894-95, passim). A contradiction appears on the face of the Sinaitico-Syriac version, for in the same verse this says that Joseph begat Jesus and that Mary is called the Virgin. H. B. Swete suggests that the virginity of Mary may not have been asserted in the original text; and he intimates that, if it was asserted, the contradiction would be no greater than is contained in Luke, who relates the birth of Jesus from the Virgin, and yet names J oseph as the father and Joseph and Mary as the parents of Jesus (Luke ii. 33, 41; see Swete, The Apostles’ Creed, pp. 52-53, Cambridge, 1898). The genealogy of Matthew may have ended originally with Joseph, and its connection with Jesus may have been carried forward by the Evangelist (cf. C. Gore, Dissertations, pp. 292 sqq.; also The Academy, 1894—