RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Virgin Birth
1895; Burkitt, op. cit., pp. 260 sqq.; V. Bartlett, DB, iii. 203). In any event, until Syriac specialists have pursued the subject much further, or until other versions are discovered which agree with the Sinaitico-Syriac text, judgment must be suspended as to the exact form of the original genealogy.
With reference to the narrative in Luke, the testimony of the manuscripts is even more decisive in favor of the virgin birth than it is in Matthew, since no manuscript can be cited which radically conflicts with the Gospel as we now have it. The suggestion is, however, made to eliminate i. 34-35,
which contains the only direct evidence 5. The for the virgin birth in Luke (cf. Har- Evidence in nack, ZN W, 1901, pp. 53 sqq.; Usener, Luke. ‘“ Nativity,’ in HB). Reasons assigned for this elision are—(1) the verses do not harmonize with the context, e.g., verse 36 is naturally connected with verse 33; ‘‘ Son of the Highest ”’ (i. 32) is Messianic, whereas in verse 35 “* Son of God ” signifies true origination; the Sinaitico-Syriac appears in li. 5 to prefer the reading, “with Mary his wife”; Joseph seems to be treated as the husband of Mary, and thus as the father of Jesus. (2) The verses do not agree with the Davidic descent of Jesus—‘‘ as was supposed ”’ (iii. 23), or with Mary’s conduct—her incredulity as to the possible birth of a son to one already betrothed (i. 34), and with her words in ii. 48. On the other hand, Gunkel maintains that verses 34-35 are translations of a Hebrew original: ‘‘ Behold thou art conceiving now” (ef. Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstdindnis des Neuen Testaments, p. 68, Gdttingen, 1903). If, as Briggs suggests, the conception and the theophany coincide, the announcement has begun already to be realized in the woinb of the Virgin, which vacates any question of Joseph’s part later in the transaction (The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 50, New York, 1894). It is further urged that an extraordinary conception by Mary simply parallel to that by Elizabeth is implied in verse 36. The genealogy is also appealed to; as the creation of the first Adam is referred to the immediate action of God, so the second Adam owes his existence to the power of the Holy Spirit—a consideration which confirms ‘‘ Son of God ”’ ini. 35. Finally, the wholly subordinate position of Joseph throughout the narrative in Luke is alleged as due to the miraculous birth, as set forth in this Gospel.
With reference to the genealogies, Matt. i. 1-17 and Luke iii. 23-38, it is evident that they are entirely independent of each other. If Matthew’s Gospel was composed first, say, in 70-75, and Luke’s in 78-93 (Harnack), Luke might have been expected to contain traces of Matthew’s treatment, but nothing of the kind is to be alleged. Two names only
in the two genealogies as far back as
6. The David are the same; the number of Genealogies generations is different. Matthew in Matthew traces the ancestral course back in and Luke. three groups from Joseph through David to Abraham; Luke in an un-
broken series carries the line past David and Abraham to Adam, the son of God. The special point of agreement between the genealogies lies in their affirmation that both Joseph and Jesus were de-
scendants from David (cf. Matt. i. 20, ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22; Luke i. 27, 32, 69, ii. 4, it. 23). The line of each from David down is a different one; for Matthew, through Solomon, for Luke, through Nathan, a fact to which Celsus called attention (cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, ii. 32), but both naturally lead to Jesus through Joseph; except on such an interpretation, they are wholly lacking in point. The New Testament offers no proof that Mary was of the lineage of David, although this might be involved in such passages as Acts ti. 30, Rom. i. 3-4, and Heb. vii. 14, if we were sure that the respective authors were cognizant of the virgin birth. The Davidie descent of Mary was affirmed by tradition (Justin, Dialogus, xxiii. 45, 100; Irenzeus, III., xxi. 5; ANF, i. 452-453; cf. also the Protevangelium of James, x., and The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary), and it has also been defended by modern writers, as Godet, Bernard Weiss, and Edersheim. Mary may have been of the house of David, but so far all attempts to bring her into the genealogies have proved ineffectual. It has been alleged that she was a kinswoman of Joseph, which is, of course, possible, but of which there is no evidence. All of this goes to confirm the supposition that the genealogies—two chosen from perhaps several in existence—originated in a circle which still believed that Joseph was the father of Jesus, and that the evangelists either found these genealogies in their present form, or so modified them in their reference to Jesus that the paternal relation of Joseph became putative— Joseph has by marriage taken the place of a father —and hence not inconsistent with the supernatural conception of Jesus. In the case of Matthew, at least, there is no good ground for surmising that he constructed the genealogy (but ef. R. H. Griitzmacher, The Virgin Birth, p. 48, New York, 1907), which traced the family-tree of Joseph to David, only to abandon the irresistible conclusion that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus. The same position would be valid as against the conjecture that Matthew’s genealogy was compiled by our Lord’s relatives, unless, indeed, this is conceived as taking place while they still believed that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph. From what source arose the tradition that Jesus was supernaturally conceived does not appear in the genealogies themselves.
Concerning the relation of the nativity stories to Joseph and Mary, it has been customary to associate Matthew with Joseph and Luke with Mary, as the respective source of each. The main reason for connecting Matthew with Joseph is found in i. 18 sqq. and ii. 19 sqq. The particular difficulty which besets this position arises from the probable time of Joseph’s death, and the keeping alive of the tradition originating from him in a circle wholly unknown to the apostles for more than fifty years. That he was not alive during Jesus’ ministry is commonly accepted (cf. Mark iii. 31, vi. 3; John xix. 27; Acts i. 14), but how long his death took place after Jesus’ appearance as a child in the temple (Luke i. 45 sqq.) and before Jesus’ baptism (Luke iii. 21-22) there is no means of ascertaining. That the testimony of Joseph to the circumstances of Jesus’ birth might be needed may well be imagined; but that he
Virgin Birth