THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ie i a a eee
Revelation draws any conclusions from the miraculous conception, nor contains any, even remote, reference to it.
The infancy narratives have been traced to prejudice in favor of virginity. Attention is drawn to preference of celibacy to marriage in the Apocryphal
books, in Paul’s epistles (I Cor. vii.), 17. Ascetic and in Revelation (xiv. 4), and also Influence. among the Essenes, and in Philo—a spirit which early became influential in the Church (cf. W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, p. 117, Strasburg, 1888, for legend concerning the virginity of Moses’ mother). It is to be admitted that there are ascetic elements in the Gospel of Luke which have apparently colored some of the words of Jesus in comparison with Matthew and Mark (yet see Matt. xix. 10-12), but in Luke celibacy is not exalted as the supreme ideal, and certainly not with reference to the family in which Jesus was brought up.
The history of the doctrine of the virgin birth can not here be fully sketched, but only indicated for two centuries after its appearance. With the exception of the Ebionites and certain of the Gnostics, by the middle of the second century, and probably by the close of the first, this belief was nearly universal (cf. Harnack, Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 24, Berlin, 1896). Jewish Ebionites (ef. the Gospel of the Ebionites, a corruption of the Gospel to the Hebrews)—the only ones in the Chris-
tian Church who rejected the first two
18. Views chapters of Matthew—held that Jesus of Ebionites, was naturally born of Joseph and Mary,
Ignatius, and became Messiah in virtue of his
Aristides, legal piety. Yet among Jewish Chris-
and Justin. tians this rejection was not universal,
for the Nazarenes acknowledged the
virgin birth of the Messiah, and the remainder of the old Ebionites seem later to have shared this view (A. Hering, ZKT, v. 67). Others, such as Valentinus, Basilides, and the Docetz described by Hippolytus, Her., vi. 35, vii. 26, viii. 9 (ANF, vol. v.) based their acceptance of the virgin birth on the Gospel of Luke. The first mention of this belief is in Ignatius, though Polycarp (a contemporary of Ignatius), Hermes, and Barnabas are silent concerning it. Ignatius says that Jesus was “ truly born of a Virgin,’ one of the three mysteries of renown wrought in the silence of God, but now proclaimed to the world (Ad Smyrneos, i.; Ad Ephesios, xix., ef. also vii., xvili.; Ad Trallianos, ix.; allin ANF, vol. i., cf. also Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, i. 315-414, London, 1885). In the newly recovered Apology of Aristides (126-140 a.p., ed. J. Rendell Harris in 7S, i.; ef. Harnack, Litteratur, i. 96), we read of Jesus Christ that, ‘“‘ born of a Virgin, . . . he took flesh”’ (ii.), and Harris adds that early in the second century ‘‘ the virginity of Mary was a part of the formulated Christian belief”? (ib. p. 25). With Justin Martyr the virgin birth is a subject of frequent reference (cf. Apol., i. 32, 46, 63; Dialogus, SOV Cen CV., Cx CXxVIl IMAI EL vol. 1.). It was a second presentment of God to be born of a virgin; hagion pneuma is not the Holy Spirit, but the Logos. He connects this with the crea-
tion story of Gen. i. 26, and with the theophanies of the Old Dispensation; he associates this birth with salvation, destruction of the serpent, and deliverance from death to believers. The legend of Perseus and other sons of Jupiter (Apol., i. 21-22; Dialogus, lxvi.) were referred to the deceiving power of demons, who fabricated the stories:to match the virgin birth of the prophets (Dialogus, Ixx.). “The conception is to be explained by no intercourse of the virgin with any one, whether human or divine, but to the Spirit and Power of God, i.e., his Word. He relies on prophecy, especially Isa. vii. 14, lili. 8 (ef. Dialogus, xlii., Ixvi., lxxi., Ixxxiv.); he repels the suggestion that Hezekiah is referred to in this passage, maintains that parthenos can mean only a virgin, which forbids the notion of paternal generation, claims that other portions of the prediction were fulfilled in Herod and the Magi with their gifts (ib. Ixvii— Ixviii.), and parallels this unique story by the creation of Eve and of all living beings at first. For those who could not accept the virgin birth, Justin urges that at least they see in Christ the Messiah (ib. xlviii.).
Melito, bishop of Sardis, in his discourse on “‘ The Cross,” iii., and on “ Faith,’ iv.—v., attempts to reconcile the birth stories of Matthew and Luke with the prologue of John; Jesus, who preexisted, was carried in the womb of the virgin. Irenzeus held that the messiahship of Jesus was proved, not
by his power and exaltation, but by
19. Melito, his birth (Her., I., xxx. 12; in ANF,
Irenzus, vol.i.); and relied on Gal. iv. 4, which
Gnostics, he refers to the divine agency as
and causing birth from a Virgin (ib. IIL., Tertullian. xvi. 3; cf. xxii. 1), and on Johni.13 as denying human agency in Jesus’
birth Gb. IIL, xix. 2). Prophecy was also appealed to (Dan. ii. 34; Isa. xxviii. 16)—Joseph had no part, but only God, in Jesus’ birth. Adam was formed by the Word of God, and it was fitting that the Word, who recapitulated Adam, himself should be formed as man by God (ib. xxi. 10). He declares that the entire Church (Gaul, Germany, Spain, Egypt, Libya, and the East) has received from the apostles “ the faith in God . . . in Jesus Christ . . . the birth from a virgin ” (ib. iii. 4). At this time the Church encountered the storm of Gnostic speculations regarding the person of Christ ~rhich also involved his birth (see Gnosticism, § 6). Some, such as the adherents of Carpocrates and Cerinthus and the early Ophites, rejected the virgin birth altogether (ib. i. 25-26; ef. Hippolytus, Her., v. 26, vii. 32-33, ANF, vol. v.). According to Cerinthus, at the baptism Christ as a dove descended upon him (ib. I., xxvi. 1-2; see CERINTHUS); others alleged that his body was of celestial substance, taking nothing from Mary as he passed through her (ib. III., xxii. 2; ef. V., xix. 2, and see VALENTINUS), or that he was the son of the Demiurge upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended (cf. ib. I., xxvii. 1), or that he was a transfigured man, but neither truly born nor truly incarnate (cf. BasturpEs), to all of which Ireneus opposed the teaching of the Fourth Gospel in John i. 14 (ef. ib. IIL., xi. 3).