RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Virgin Birth
Tertullian continued the polemic against the Gnostics, much of the argument centering in a defense of the true body of Jesus as derived by human birth from Mary, yet without human paternity (cf. Adv. Valentinum, xxvii., Adv. Praxeam, i.; for Eng. transl. of Tertullian’s writings cf. ANF, vols. iii—iv.). Matt. i. 16; John i. 14; and Gal. iv. 4, are used to repel the Gnostic charge that Jesus was begotten in but not of Mary (De carne Christi, xx.). He appeals to prophecy, Isa. vii. 14 (Adv. Jude@os, ix.; De carne Christi, xvi.; Adv. Marcionem, iv. 10, ili. 12); Isa. xi. 1-2 (ef. Adv. Judeos, ix.; De carne Christi, xxi.; Adv. Marcionem, iii. 20); Isa. lili. (Adv. Jud@os, xiii.); Ps. ex. 3 (LXX.), and xxii. 9-10. In his use of the New Testament he relies first on Mark and John, and then on Matthew and Luke (Adv. Marcionem, iv. 2). The story of Eve is analogous to the birth from Mary (De carne Christi, xvii.; ef. xvi.)—a new order of birth, the divine Word entering the earthly body, even as at first the earthly part of Adam was quickened by the breath of God. He bases an argument on the veracity of Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of Man, and, since God was his Father, human fatherhood was precluded (Adv. Marcionem, iv. 10). This is connected with the doctrine that ‘‘a god is born of a god” (Ad Nattones, ii. 3; cf. Apol., xxi.; De carne Christi, v.18). Luke ii. 23, ‘‘ every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord,” referring to Jesus, could only signify that, since he opened the womb, his mother was a virgin (ib. xxiii.) Tertullian knew of no salvation to one who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (Adv. Marcionem, iv. 36). He attempts no analysis of the human nature, which is thus derived from his mother apart from a human father.
Clement of Alexandria taught unequivocally the virgin birth—the only virgin mother (Pedagogus, i. 6)—and appears inclined to the notion of a miraculous birth as well as a miraculous conception (Strom., vii. 16; Eng. transl. in ANF, vol. ii.). He uses as prophecy Isa. ix. 6, where, by reference to Deut. xxii. 23-24, he concludes that the Hebrew word ‘almah signifies ‘‘ virgin.” In his commentary on Matt. (x. 23) he speaks of
the body which Jesus received from
20. Clement the Virgin by divine conception and of Alexan- birth, a fact confirmed by the babe dria, Origen, leaping in Elizabeth’s womb. His and virgin birth showed him to be more Hippolytus. than a man (commentary on John, i. 34), and he also seems to attribute
credibility to the Gospels of Peter and James, which allege that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, in order to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, i.e., that she might not know intercourse with man after the Holy Ghost came upon her. Jesus was thus the first fruit of virginity (commentary on Matt., x. 17, 23). This doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was advanced a further stage by Origen, whose principal discussion of the virgin birth appears in reply to Celsus, who had assailed this doctrine. First, he refutes the charge of Celsus that Jesus was an illegitimate son of Mary and a soldier named Panthera, and that as a result of this infidelity Mary, being
XII.—14
driven out by Joseph, wandered into Egypt and there brought up her son to learn the art of miracleworking (Adv. Celsum, i. 28, 32; Eng. transl. in ANF, vol. iv.; ef. Pseudo-Matt., xix.—xxiv.). Secondly, he finds an analogy of the virgin birth of Jesus in that of animals, especially the female vulture, which preserves succession of its race without sexual intercourse (ib. i. 37). Thirdly, he argues that the Greeks themselves hold to the origination of the human species as such from the spermatic elements in the earth (ib. i. 37). Fourthly, he appeals to the legend that Plato was the son of Apollo before Ariston had had marital relations with his mother, as explained by the fact that persons of transcendent wisdom and power were naturally referred to a divine paternity (ib. i. 37). Finally, when Celsus scouts the notion of a virgin birth, comparing it to the incredible myths of Danae, Melanippe, Auge, and Antiope, Origen replies that this is the language of a buffoon (ib. i. 37). Origen, moreover, suggested that birth from a virgin would correspond with the burial of Jesus in a new tomb (ib. i. 39). Hippolytus maintained the perfect purity and perpetual virginity of Mary (Adv. Veronem), and his theory of the incarnation alleged that God, by undefiled conception in the Virgin, incorporated with himself a rational soul and sensible body, who thus became perfect God and perfect man. His reliance on Scripture was inconsiderable, and though in the Old Testament he used Ps. cix. or ex:; Prov. xxx, 29; Dane m1. 26; and vil. 14, he made no allusion to Isaiah. As a result of this brief historical survey, it is evident that by the middle of the third century the virgin birth had become a settled and undisputed article of faith in the Church.
Over against the theory of the virgin birth as a trustworthy historical event is a hypothesis which for the past seventy-five years, since Strauss, has attracted to itself an increasing number of advocates—the mythical or legendary view. Several conditions have been favorable to the development of this idea, among which are—(1) the modern
view of the world, which finds no place 21. Legen- for miracles in the traditional sense; dary or (2) the significance of Christ, sought
Mythical not in any physical basis or metaphys-
Theory. ical substratum of his being, but in
the moral and spiritual character of his personality; (3) the history of all people, and especially comparative religion, showing that myth and legend have sprung up in connection with the beginning of every great religion, and (4) historical and textual criticism, laying bare not only different strata of composition in the writings of the New Testament, but also the presence of material which, if not foreign to, is at least derived from other than the essential Gospel sources.
The legendary theory seeks in one or more of several directions for its material and justification. (1) In prophecy and the Old Testament, i.e., in a purely Jewish circle. It has been shown that Harnack and others find the source of the doctrine that Christ was born of a virgin in the prophecy of Isa. vii. 13 sqq. (see § 12), and it is maintained that the constraining motive for this interpretation lay
Virgin Birth
in the impulse to match the story of his wonderful life and resurrection with an account of his birth not less wonderful. The counterpart
22. Argu- of the birth-story of Samson and Samments from uel is that of John; and inasmuch as the Old Jesus, both in his work and his con- Testament. sciousness, was greater than John, his conception must be referred to a more
immediate and marvelous divine agency. That the passage in Isaiah had not before received the interpretation which the narrator gives to it is held to be no objection to the legendary theory; for neither the Evangelist nor other early Christians were bound by rules of scientific exegesis. If, contrary to all precedent, parthenos (‘almah) may have been interpreted as “‘ virgin ”’ as foretelling an actual virgin birth, then it is not impossible that some Christian thinker, seeing an explanation of the divine character of Christ, hit upon this passage, and found in it a suggestion which at once gave rise to a new idea of the origin of his earthly existence. Two classes of objection are urged against this position. On the one hand, the peculiar character of the nativity stories renders it improbable that such a legend arose on Jewish soil; (1) there is an utter absence of foreign elements—oriental thought or Greek pantheism; the story is intensely Jewish; (2) Jewish monotheism is in the highest degree transcendental, involving the separateness and total unlikeness of God and man; (3) asceticism, i.e., marriage and virginity, is foreign to the Jewish religion, and is not found either in the Gospels or the infancy stories; (4) since prophecy was so applied only after the event, it could not have been the cause of the belief; (5) ‘‘ Son of God” had only an ethical or official (Messianic) reference in the First and Third Gospels, and could not, therefore, be defined by metaphysical or physical qualities (ef. C. J. H. Ropes, ‘‘ Born of the Virgin Mary,” Andover Review, Noy., 1893). These objections are not, however, wholly convincing, for while the coloring is intensely Jewish, the event itself is absolutely unique in Jewish history. The legend may contain foreign elements which lie unnoticed, but far back and deep down in the past of Israel’s religious contact with other peoples. Moreover, God’s creative activity in forming man may be again called into play for the miraculous generation of the man from heaven. It is also objected that more time is required for the formation of legend than the documents of the New Testament appear to warrant. This is met by the reply, first, that there is, beyond contradiction, mythical material in the story in its existing form, without doubt much older than the manuscripts of the First and Third Gospels, and that it is arbitrary to draw the line short of the central event itself, if the evidence looks that way. Secondly, the formation of myths is a relative affair, depending upon enthusiasm, poetic imagination, and other conditions, the presence or absence of which, and the degree of their activity, will hasten or retard legendary growth. Finally, in the absence of compelling proof for the data as to the time at which the nativity stories originated—and expert judgment may be cited for both an early and a late origin—it is inept to declare that, if a myth