MM 
 
 I 
 
 
 V I V, ■ 
 
 IMHV ■ ■ 
 
 
 I 'J -} — 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 HI 
 
 I 
 
 — i 
 
 I Hi 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 ^H El 
 
 *^^^H. .v Hill 
 
/. / O , O^ 
 
 &* 
 
 oi tfw ®fewlo^% g 
 
 e *h 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
 Division 
 Section ■■ 
 
 ..! 
 
 
The 
 
 Birth and Infancy 
 
 OF 
 
 Jesus Christ 
 
 ACCORDING TO THE 
 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 BY THE v^ 
 
 REV. LOUIS MATTHEWS SWEET, M. A. 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY 
 
 James Stevenson Riggs, D. D., 
 
 Professor of New Testament Literature in the 
 Auburn Theological Seminary. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 THE WESTMINSTER PRESS 
 
 1906 
 
Copyright 1906, by Thb Trusthes of the Presbyterian Board of 
 Publication and Sabbath-School Work 
 
 Published November, iqob 
 
5tye 5f am* 
 
 ifyirlf ia txbavt every 2fam* 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface vii-ix 
 
 Introduction — The Rev. James S. Riggs, D.D. . . . xi-xiii 
 
 Chapter I 
 Statement of the Problem, 1-18 
 
 Chapter II 
 Influence of the Old Testament Prophecies in the 
 
 Formation of the Infancy Story J 9~54 
 
 Chapter III 
 The Theory of Late Jewish-Christian Interpolation 55-85 
 
 Chapter IV 
 The Theory of Late Composite Origin 85-101 
 
 Chapter V 
 The Theory of Early Mytho-Theological Origin . . 102-142 
 
 Chapter VI 
 The Theory of Heathen Influence 143-192 
 
 Chapter VII 
 
 The Exegetical Construction of the Sections . . . 193-238 
 
 v 
 
VI CONTENTS 
 
 Chapter VIII 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Uniqueness of Christ in Its Bearing upon the 
 
 Question of His Birth 239-266 
 
 Chapter IX 
 The Doctrinal Construction of the Historic Fact . 267-286 
 
 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Note A. — Historical Review of the Discussion . . .287-311 
 
 Note B. — The Origin and Publication of the Infancy 
 
 Narratives — A Comparative Study 312-332 
 
 NoteC. — A Summary and Estimate of Dr. Ramsay's 
 Argument . . , with Some Remarks on the 
 Census Question 333-343 
 
 Note D. — Christ's Birth and the Messianic Hope . 344-348 
 
 Note E. — The Apostles' Creed 349-353 
 
 Note F. — Bibliography 354-357 
 
 Index 359-365 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The Gospel narratives of the Infancy and Youth of 
 Jesus have always been dear to the heart of the church. 
 No portion of the New Testament has been more influ- 
 ential in arousing those feelings of tenderness for child- 
 hood and respect for womanhood which are distinctively 
 Christian. No portion of the New Testament has done 
 more to mitigate the savagery of human nature and to 
 hasten the day of universal peace than the narratives in 
 which is enshrined the Christmas message, " Glory to God 
 in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." 
 No portion of Scripture has contributed more to the 
 maintenance of a complete and adequate Christology in 
 the faith of the Church. 
 
 These narratives have in the past ten or twelve years 
 become the storm center of critical controversy. The 
 acrimonious discussions in Germany concerning credal 
 obligations have issued in a critical investigation of the 
 Infancy stories. The general outcome, so far as Germany 
 is concerned, has been distinctly unfavorable. 
 
 The preliminary sections of Matthew and Luke have 
 been practically thrown out of court as worthless. The 
 general attitude of the European mind may be seen in 
 Harnack, 1 and Colain, who does not even discuss the 
 virgin birth. 2 
 
 It is safe to predict a reaction from this extreme attitude. 
 
 1 History of Dogma, pp. 100-105, and What Is Christianity ■? p. 33. 
 
 2 See Lobstein, p. 135. 
 
viil PREFACE 
 
 Indeed, among English thinkers the reaction has already 
 begun. 1 
 
 The following volume is the result of an inquiry into 
 the documents, conducted for the purpose of reaching 
 satisfactory personal convictions on the subject of Christ's 
 birth and youth. The study was begun with a bias rather 
 unfavorable to the doctrine of the miraculous birth, though 
 with the usual warm affection for the Christmas narrative. 
 The issue of the investigation has been an assured belief 
 in the authenticity and authority of the Infancy narratives, 
 and is offered as a contribution to the establishment of 
 the historic faith as a valuable part of the heritage of the 
 Christian Church. 
 
 To many it may seem that undue importance has been 
 given to the mere mode of the Saviour's birth, by allotting 
 to it a discussion so extensive and minute. The author 
 hopes that the pages which follow will serve to dispel this 
 misconception, for a misconception it certainly is. 
 
 Not only is the question of importance and interest in 
 itself, as are all questions, even of minute detail concerning 
 the life of the unique Man, but it touches not remotely 
 upon other questions of more vital import, — the testimony 
 of the Gospel witnesses, the mode and character of the 
 Incarnation, the formation of the records, the processes 
 of early Christian history. 
 
 Indeed, if we mistake not, it will be seen that, while the 
 question of the miraculous birth may be and often is con- 
 sidered apart from other problems in Christology, yet, 
 logically, the entire mode of interpreting the Incarnation 
 is involved. 
 
 By what process did Jesus become Christ? One's 
 attitude toward this question will issue in a corresponding 
 attitude toward the question of His conception. 
 1 See Sanday : Hastings B. D., p. 646 b. 
 
PREFACE IX 
 
 In addition to this, one need not adopt the role of a 
 prophet in order to point out the possibility that, at some 
 future time, the mode of Christ's birth may have a doc- 
 trinal importance which it does not seem now to possess. 
 Stranger things have happened than that the process of 
 changing emphasis, which has carried us from the death 
 and resurrection, to the life and the teaching of Christ, 
 may some day give an altogether new significance to His 
 birth. 
 
 In the faith that the witnesses have told the truth, and 
 that the truth will prevail, this study of the narratives of 
 the sacred Infancy is offered to students of the Life of 
 Jesus. 
 
 Indebtedness to other writers has been indicated in the 
 notes. Wherever I have found close resemblances in 
 thought or expression I have indicated them, even in 
 cases where my own conclusions have been reached 
 independently. The peculiar circumstances of this con- 
 troversy have compelled me to take a polemical attitude 
 toward the writings of men who are unquestionably 
 Christian in spirit. This free and willing acknowledgment 
 will serve to call attention to the fact that I am concerned 
 with the theological and historical questions at issue, and 
 not with the Christian standing of individuals or groups. 
 
 I am indebted to Professor W. J. Beecher for an inspir- 
 ing course of study in prophecy, and for suggestions ; to 
 Professor J. S. Riggs for many helpful discussions of the 
 themes here dealt with ; to the Editorial Committee of the 
 Presbyterian Board of Publication for advice and encour- 
 agement ; to Miss Caroline C. Crane for invaluable aid in 
 the preparation of the manuscript ; and to my wife for 
 careful literary revision of the text. 
 
 The Manse, Canandaigua, N. Y. 
 April 2, 1906. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 In one of our theological journals 1 appeared recently a 
 symposium upon the supernatural birth of Jesus. The 
 conclusions of the several writers, briefly stated, were that 
 " the idea of the virgin birth reflects the spirit of the post- 
 apostolic age, involving a compromise, or amalgamation, 
 between the primitive doctrine of Messiahship by descent 
 from David, and the Hellenistic, of Messiahship by 
 incarnation after preexistence, represented in the Wisdom 
 doctrine of Paul, and the Logos doctrine of the fourth 
 evangelist;" that "however sacred the associations which 
 cling for us to the tradition, in simple candor it must be 
 confessed that it contains nothing essential to the most 
 exalted Christology;" that " he who casts himself upon 
 Jesus as his divine Redeemer will find the fact of the 
 virgin birth of this Saviour not only consonant with his 
 faith and an aid to it, but a postulate of it, without which 
 he would be puzzled and distressed." Such is the varia- 
 tion of opinion within the church upon this subject. A 
 serious, scholarly discussion of it is, therefore, sure to be 
 timely. 
 
 Negative criticism has at all times found these stories 
 of a miraculous birth incredible. The notable fact of our 
 day is that they have lost their hold upon many thought- 
 ful Christian minds, who are willing to accept the Christmas 
 message of the Gospels without that setting of annuncia- 
 tions, dreams, visits of wise men and shepherds, with 
 
 1 Biblical World, vol. x, pp. I-30. 
 
Xll INTRODUCTION 
 
 which we are all so familiar. The causes at work beget- 
 ting this spirit of doubt are : — 
 
 (a) The hesitation regarding the miraculous in the Gos- 
 pel narratives which is the outcome of the scientific temper 
 and spirit of our day. (b) The uncertainty begotten by 
 historical criticism regarding the origin of these special 
 narratives ; and (c) the apparently valueless character of 
 the fact of the supernatural birth so far as the New Testa- 
 ment itself is concerned. It is perhaps the last reason 
 which has weight with many who are not disposed to deny 
 the miraculous, and who would certainly not take such a 
 position in reference to the Resurrection. 
 
 The first cause is, however, more prevalent than we are 
 accustomed to think. If the fact serves no real purpose 
 in the teaching of the New Testament, may it not have 
 some in the way of glorifying the Master by making His 
 incoming into the world more like that of reputed heroes 
 of the heathen world ? Or, if such an explanation is 
 impossible, may not the emphasis later upon the doctrine 
 of original sin with its transmission of taint have led to this 
 conception of a break, and the formulation of a story to 
 set it forth ? 
 
 Such questions will not down, and an earnest, intelligent 
 concern for the Scriptures cannot be indifferent to them. 
 They are simply not the objections of a shallow skepticism, 
 but as well the expressions of serious, disquieting doubt. 
 They are asked, often with no flippant tone, but with a real 
 desire for light and help. It is at once manifest that no 
 answer can be helpful which does not meet negative criti- 
 cism on its own ground. Such objectors, as Keim, Lob- 
 stein, Soltau, or Cheyne, not one of them aiming to be 
 merely destructive in their objections to this recorded fact 
 of Scripture, can only be refuted by exposing their mis- 
 taken use of evidence or by showing the insufficiency of 
 
INTRODUCTION Xlll 
 
 their reasoning. The task is not an easy one for him who 
 would defend these opening chapters. The author of 
 this work has in no way minimized the strength of the 
 scholarship which he seeks to combat. With penetrating 
 criticism, logical marshaling of facts, and sympathetic in- 
 sight he has striven to show the place, purpose, and histori- 
 cal truthfulness of these accounts in Matthew and Luke. 
 
 The real strength and value of the work will be found 
 in its vigorous grasp of the whole significance of the New 
 Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus. Every phase 
 of the evidence for its reality is discussed with the minutest 
 care. Especially is the character of the documents con- 
 taining the story subjected to keen analysis and criticism. 
 They are made to speak for themselves regarding the date 
 of their origin, and the influences which were formative 
 of them. 
 
 Some years since, the author, little realizing that his 
 studies would ultimately bring him to a defense of these 
 chapters, undertook a critical study of the life and times 
 of Herod the Great. He caught the spirit of that trying 
 period of Jewish history. The background of Matthew's 
 account became very definite and vivid. This study has 
 fitted him to discuss with peculiar insight the Jewish 
 qualities of these narratives and to show whether or not 
 we have here " a compromise between a primitive doctrine 
 of Messiahship by descent from David, and a Hellenistic, 
 of Messiahship by incarnation ; " whether there could or 
 would be an attempted imitation of heathen myths ; 
 whether there is here evident a Babylonian influence ; 
 whether poetic forms have been made into literal prose ; 
 whether, in short, facts or fancies are the contents of these 
 chapters. 
 
 James Stevenson Riggs. 
 
 Auburn, N. Y., January 26, 1906. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 
 
 The purpose of the present chapter is to make a full 
 and frank statement of the difficulties involved in the 
 documents as they stand, and in the traditional interpre- 
 tation of them as genuinely historical. 
 
 Setting aside all merely captious and frivolous objec- 
 tions which have been urged by those who are in the 
 habit of conducting what has been well called " guerrilla " 
 warfare against the documents, I wish to bring the reader 
 face to face with every genuine exegetical difficulty in- 
 volved in the section, and to allow to each one all due 
 force. 
 
 It is urged that we have two accounts of the Infancy, 
 differing in tone, atmosphere, and understanding of the 
 subject, and containing irreconcilable contradictions in the 
 statement of facts. It seems impossible to fit together 
 the accounts of Matthew and Luke so as to make a 
 coherent and consistent account. 
 
 There are vast difficulties involved in the genealogies. 
 Each Gospel professes to give the derivation of Jesus from 
 the family of David through a genealogical line, but there 
 are but two names in which they agree, and each counts 
 a different number of generations. 
 
 Moreover, there is an apparently irreducible contradic- 
 tion between the genealogies and the statement concerning 
 the virgin birth. 
 
 The genealogies trace the origin of Jesus to David as 
 
 1 
 
2 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 the theocratic head of the royal house, but reliance is 
 placed wholly upon Joseph as the representative of that 
 house. Matthew gives, clearly and definitely, the gene- 
 alogy of Joseph. What significance in this connection 
 has the genealogical derivation of Joseph, if he were 
 nothing more than the foster father of Jesus ? The Jews 
 counted the generations through the male line, and 
 inheritance was in all cases transmitted through the male 
 heads of families. If Jesus was the son of David, 
 according to the flesh, how can the conclusion be avoided 
 that He was the son by ordinary generation of Joseph, the 
 husband of Mary ? * 
 
 Along with this is the great difference in viewpoint 
 involved in the statements of the two accounts concerning 
 the residence of Joseph and Mary. 
 
 Luke states that Joseph and Mary originally lived at 
 Nazareth, and implies that, after the birth of Jesus, they 
 naturally returned to their old home to live. He gives no 
 hint of any danger threatening the child from Herod or 
 from any other source. He passes at once from the birth 
 of Jesus to the presentation in the temple, and the life 
 at Nazareth. It looks as if he knew nothing of Herod's 
 attempt to destroy the child, or the incidents connected 
 therewith. 
 
 On the other hand, Matthew seems entirely ignorant 
 of the previous residence at Nazareth, and introduces the 
 fear of Archelaus as their reason for going to Nazareth 
 from Egypt. There is difficulty involved in the attempt 
 to fit the events told by Matthew into the structural 
 framework of Luke's account. 
 
 Where are the massacre of the Innocents and the flight 
 into Egypt to be placed ? before or after the presentation 
 in the temple ? 
 
 x On this difficulty see Meyer, Com. on Matt., vol. i, p. 65. 
 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 3 
 
 Luke's account l seems to imply an immediate return to 
 Nazareth after the completion of all the religious duties 
 involved in Mary's purification and the child's presenta- 
 tion, and the transition is so rapid that no room seems to 
 be left for the important events recorded by Matthew. 
 
 There is, too, a striking difference in viewpoint involved 
 in the relative importance attributed to Joseph and Mary 
 in the two accounts. In Luke's story, Mary is the cen- 
 tral figure, around whom all the persons, save only the 
 child, are grouped. To her the annunciations are made, 
 and her thoughts and feelings are the subject of description 
 and the center of interest. 
 
 In Matthew's account, Joseph is brought to the fore- 
 ground. The annunciations and dreams are vouchsafed 
 to him, and his feelings and actions are continually empha- 
 sized. 
 
 The multiplication of supernatural interference in the 
 progress of events by angelic appearances and inspired 
 dreams has often been urged by critics against the his- 
 toricity of the account. 
 
 But all these considerations are of slight moment com- 
 pared with one, which is now to be stated. 
 
 The Infancy narrative apparently stands alone and 
 unsupported by the rest of the New Testament. All that 
 we know concerning the infancy, childhood, and early 
 manhood of Jesus up to the time of His baptism at the 
 Jordan, we know from these controverted portions of 
 Matthew and Luke. 
 
 It is confidently affirmed that the story of the Infancy 
 forms no part of the primitive Gospel ; that the accounts 
 in Matthew and Luke are legendary accretions to the 
 genuine tradition of the apostles, who knew nothing about 
 the virgin birth, the birth at Bethlehem, the massacre of 
 
 1 Luke ii, 39. 
 
4 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 the Innocents, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, 
 or the return to Nazareth. It is affirmed with great con- 
 fidence that the disciples during Jesus' life and throughout 
 the entire apostolic age up to the time when the main 
 body of the evangelic tradition was completed, believed 
 that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary by the ordi- 
 nary processes of nature. Furthermore, it is affirmed that 
 the idea of Christ's virgin birth, and all the incidents con- 
 nected with it, are purely mythical, developed in the absence 
 of authentic information concerning Jesus' early life, partly 
 out of the Old Testament, and partly by heathen influence. 
 As a matter of fact, Christ was born of Joseph and" Mary 
 at Nazareth, where He lived, excepting for brief absences 
 at Jerusalem for the temple ordinances and for visits to 
 relatives, until the day of His manifestation at the Jordan. 
 
 We may take Keim's summary of results as a representa- 
 tive utterance of those who hold the negative view concern- 
 ing the authority of the documents of the childhood : — 
 
 " As reliable historical remainder of the whole legend 
 of the Infancy, there is but little left, and still enough : 
 The birth (at Nazareth) in a pious Israelitish home, the 
 circumcision on the eighth day, performed, it may be, by 
 the father, a first-fruits of pain for this young life, by which ( 
 notwithstanding, it entered into the divine protection and 
 communion, into federal relations with Israel and its holy 
 ordinances, and, in conclusion, the name of Jesus, which, 
 as Matthew hints, was given Him immediately after birth, 
 or as the third Gospel tells us, may have been ultimately 
 bestowed on Him at His circumcision by the parents and 
 kinsfolk, most of all by His mother. " 1 
 
 1 The literal historical facts, according to Holtzman (L. J., p. 89) are 
 these: "Jesus, then, was born at Nazareth in Galilee, the son of Joseph 
 and Mary, being the eldest of five brothers and several sisters, and there 
 He grew up." 
 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 5 
 
 What are the reasons adduced for the claim that the 
 narratives of Matthew and Luke form no integral part of 
 the primitive tradition of the Gospel ? 
 
 There is, first, the argument from silence. Mark, John, 
 and Paul are adduced as witnesses, especially against the 
 central statement of the Infancy narrative, that Jesus was 
 born of a virgin, and, in general, against the entire narrative. 
 
 Mark begins his narrative at the baptism, and, more- 
 over, expressly states it as a definite beginning : ! " Begin- 
 ning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. " 
 
 Of the four evangelists, Mark is the best representative 
 of the primitive Gospel in the early preaching of the 
 apostles, and the beginning of his Gospel implies that the 
 virgin birth was no part of their authoritative message. 
 With this, it is alleged, the book of the Acts perfectly 
 agrees. In the specimens of apostolic preaching exhibited 
 in the narrative, the virgin birth and the other incidents 
 of the Infancy story receive no mention and evidently 
 had no place. 
 
 John's makes no mention of the miraculous origin 
 of Jesus. His emphasis is upon the preexistence of Christ 
 and the reality of His incarnation, but he says nothing 
 about the method by which Christ's incarnation was 
 accomplished. 
 
 Paul also lays no stress upon the manner of Christ's 
 entrance into the world. He seems to be in direct con- 
 flict with the idea of the virgin birth in that he asserts with 
 great emphasis Jesus' sonship to David according to the 
 flesh, and the expression which he uses 2 to describe His 
 relationship to David " would be singularly inappropriate 
 if Jesus had not come into the world in the ordinary way." 3 
 
 We have then, apparently, this result, that three of the 
 
 1 Mark i, I. 2 Romans i, 3. Cf. 2 Timothy ii, 8. 
 
 8 Lobstein, p. 52. 
 
6 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 greatest exponents of New Testament thought and teach- 
 ing ignore all the statements made in the section of the 
 Gospels under review. It is argued that this fact can point 
 to no other conclusion than that the Infancy section is no 
 part of the authoritative tradition, and therefore no secure 
 ground of faith. 
 
 It is likewise argued, with great assurance, that there are 
 traces of another tradition, ancient and authentic, to be 
 found in the Infancy section itself, and in other parts of 
 the narrative, that Jesus was the son of Joseph. 
 
 It is pointed out as present even in the genealogies. 
 Lobstein says : " Both genealogies try to prove that Jesus 
 was truly the Messiah by recording the succession of His 
 ancestors in direct line from King David to Joseph, the 
 husband of Mary. It is beyond dispute that in the mind 
 of both genealogists Jesus is the son of Joseph. Had they 
 possessed the slightest idea of a miraculous birth, they 
 would have drawn up the genealogy of Mary, not of 
 Joseph. " l 
 
 The ancient tradition is more clearly manifest in Luke's 
 statement that Joseph and Mary were puzzled 2 by the 
 words of Jesus, in reply to Mary's reproachful question, 
 that He must be concerned in the things of His Father. 
 Would Joseph and Mary have been puzzled if they had 
 had in their minds the wonderful events which preceded 
 and accompanied His birth? Would they not have been 
 prepared for any unusual manifestation of self-conscious- 
 ness in the budding Messiahship of Mary's marvelous 
 Son? This sentence is taken to be an authentic 
 survival of the time when Jesus was believed to be 
 the son of Joseph as well as of Mary, before the wonders 
 connected with His birth had been imagined. 
 
 This same consideration is urged in connection with the 
 1 Lobstein, pp. 45, 46. s Luke ii, 50. 
 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 7 
 
 incident recorded of Maiy and His brethren in Matthew 
 xii, 46-50, taken in connection with Mark iii, 21, which is 
 probably an echo of the same incidents, or of a similar 
 one. Would Mary have ventured thus to interfere with 
 Christ in His mission and work, if she had carried in her 
 mind the cherished memory of those wondrous scenes of 
 promise and fulfillment which were connected with the 
 birth of her son ? 
 
 This same connection with a primitive tradition is 
 claimed for those passages scattered through the Gospels, 
 in which. Jesus is spoken of as the son of Joseph l and 
 the carpenter's son, and the allied passages in which His 
 " parents " 2 are spoken of. Keim maintains that there 
 was an unbroken tradition of the natural birth in Jewish- 
 Christian circles dating from the earliest time and persist- 
 ing along with the other tradition into the second century. 
 
 These, I think, constitute the real difficulties connected 
 with the Infancy section, and they are certainly, on the 
 surface, formidable enough. Keim's arguments against 
 the account on the ground of the distance to Egypt, the 
 unreasonableness of going to Egypt at all, and other con- 
 siderations of a similar nature, seem to me to have little 
 weight. It would be simply impossible for two men to 
 narrate from different points of view, and for different 
 purposes, a series of events such as is contained in the 
 double narrative of Matthew and Luke without leaving it 
 open to a priori objection. 
 
 These are doctrinal and philosophical objections urged 
 against the virgin birth, but with these I am not now con- 
 cerned. The question is primarily one of evidence ; the 
 matter of doctrinal construction is entirely secondary. 
 The exegetical and critical difficulties outlined above are 
 
 1 John i, 45 ; vi, 42 ; Matt, xiii, 55. 
 
 2 Luke ii, 27, 41. 
 
8 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 real and of vital importance, and must be squarely and 
 honestly met. I propose to question the witnesses and 
 to attempt the establishment of my views on purely 
 critical grounds. I make no requisition upon the doctrine 
 / of inspiration, and no appeal to the authority of the 
 church. My purpose is to set forth the grounds upon 
 which I have reached the conclusion that the Infancy 
 section is a substantially accurate historical record. That 
 this conclusion, if established, will contribute an argument 
 for inspiration and also for the authority of the church as 
 the guardian of the truth is clear ; but this is the conclu- 
 sion of the argument, not the basis of it. 
 
 In view of the difficulties involved in these two 
 accounts, is there sufficient motive for attempting to 
 retain them ? If we follow the advice of the negative 
 critics and abandon this entire preliminary Gospel as 
 mythical and untrustworthy, are we thereby greatly 
 impoverished ? or are we relieved from a weight and an 
 embarrassment? Are we to mourn a loss or rejoice in 
 an enrichment through deliverance from a burden ? 
 
 It is my belief that in the abandonment of the Infancy 
 section we should be losers, and large losers, but I am 
 quite sure that we have not always correctly understood 
 just what our losses would be. I do not believe, nor can 
 I for one moment admit, that this discussion involves the 
 stability or integrity of the Christian faith as a whole. If 
 we are compelled by the results of sane and intelligent 
 criticism to abandon the preliminary sections of Matthew 
 and Luke with all that they contain, we are not driven 
 thereby to abandon our Christian heritage. 
 
 The religion of Christ is broadly and firmly established, 
 — based upon what He was as revealed in the manifold 
 portrait of Him by those who knew Him best. That 
 face, in which shines the light of the knowledge of the 
 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 9 
 
 glory of God, can never be destroyed by the blotting out 
 of any one detail, or the erasure from the sacred text of 
 any one item. Let it not be forgotten that the utmost 
 that negative criticism, working upon these texts, can do 
 is to throw into the shadow of uncertainty the actual facts 
 concerning the early life of Jesus. If it can force us to 
 abandon our positive statements concerning the mode of 
 His entrance into the world and the simple details hitherto 
 confessed as Gospel concerning His early life, it is not 
 itself thereby enabled to make any positive statement 
 whatsoever. Many seem to take it for granted that by 
 the overthrow of the historic belief concerning Christ's 
 nativity they are enabled to substitute a positive statement 
 of their own as to the facts of the birth and infancy, but 
 this assumption, as I shall proceed to show, is a fallacious 
 begging of the question. There is but one rational 
 attitude for those who accept the results of the negative 
 criticism of the Infancy sections, and that is to say in 
 reply to all mental questionings concerning the early life 
 of Jesus, " We do not know." 
 
 The position thus reached need not necessarily affect our 
 attitude toward the rest of the sacred story. What Jesus 
 was in His maturity as a teacher, as a healer of disease, as 
 a friend of men and a servant of God, is clearly seen in the 
 record. We may accept that as the basis of our faith ; in 
 the absence of authentic information concerning His pre- 
 vious life we may be reverently silent, and yet remain His 
 followers and rejoice in His light. I agree altogether with 
 Lange when he says that " without the virgin birth a man 
 cannot understand any incident of Christ's life perfectly ;" 
 but that with the virgin birth we are able to interpret His 
 life perfectly, is too large an assumption to make, for we 
 may easily overlook or underestimate some other fact 
 equally vital. The omission of the infancy and youth of 
 
10 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Jesus from our interpretation of Him will result, without 
 question, in a mutilation of our Christology, but it will 
 leave us enough to establish the validity of our Chris- 
 tian hope, and form a secure basis for Christian life and 
 service. 
 
 Why, then, conduct any crusade on behalf of the con- 
 troverted section of the Gospel ? I answer : First, 
 because, it is in itself so serious a mutilation. Without 
 the controverted section, we have no Gospel of the infancy 
 and youth of Jesus. We have no Christmas message. I 
 am aware that Lobstein has constructed his argument for 
 the very purpose of conserving the religious value of the 
 narrative while surrendering its historicity. He would retain 
 for us the Christmas message while denying an objective 
 basis to the account of Christ's birth. It must be confessed 
 that while this theory makes a promise to the ear it breaks 
 it to the heart. The essential core of the Christmas 
 message is that the very Christ of God was born as a 
 little child, and with this the singing of the angels, the 
 virgin birth, the visit of the wise men, perfectly accord. 
 
 The alternative which this theory presents is that Jesus 
 of Nazareth, who afterwards at the baptism or in the 
 wilderness, by union with the Divine Spirit became the 
 Christ, was born in Nazareth of Joseph and Mary. This 
 latter theory does not retain in any real sense the humilia- 
 tion of Christ. It does imply a deification of man, but 
 no humiliation of the Lord of Glory. All that is left to 
 us by the theory of Lobstein is that the virgin birth is a 
 secondaiy and inferior and essentially incorrect attempt 
 on the part of the church to construe the person of Christ. 
 Keim's poetical-legendary interpretation leaves the whole 
 account separated from the fact, a rainbow of imaginary 
 embellishments about the cradle of the Messiah, a garland 
 of cut flowers without root in the reality of history, 
 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM II 
 
 bound to wither and fade, as any mere poetry must, which 
 has been made to do the duty of fact. 
 
 The entire art and literature of Christmas, the hymns 
 of the nativity, the pictures of the Virgin, the sanctities 
 of thought and feeling which have gathered round Beth- 
 lehem, must be interpreted to the coming generation with 
 this footnote: " All these things are beautiful as poetry, 
 but untrustworthy as history. According to poetry, 
 Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary in the stable of the 
 Khan at Bethlehem ; according to history He was born 
 of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth." 
 
 I am well aware that this consideration is by no means 
 final. We should be prepared, if candor demands it, to 
 make the sacrifice, but we should not be blinded by 
 rhetoric to the exact consequences of what we are doing, 
 nor submit to having foisted upon us the imagina- 
 tions of modern critics in place of the accounts of Matthew 
 and Luke, for the so-called historical substitute for the 
 narrative is as absolutely imaginary and fabulous as any- 
 thing can possibly be in the accounts which it displaces. 
 Those who believe that because it is discredited that 
 Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem, it is 
 therefore firmly established that He was born of Joseph 
 and Mary at Nazareth, are easily satisfied. As a matter 
 of fact, the same sort of criticism, which has for many 
 destroyed the trustworthiness of the Infancy documents, 
 if relentlessly and rigorously applied, leaves not a shred 
 of certainty for the entire period previous to the appear- 
 ance at the Jordan. 
 
 The residuum which Keim leaves for us from the 
 Infancy legend is itself in some of its component parts 
 open to serious objection. The name Jesus, for example, 
 though it is consistently applied to the hero throughout 
 the New Testament, is very suspicious in its origin. It is 
 
12 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 bestowed upon Him before His birth by the angel of the 
 Annunciation, and is so obviously connected with Israel- 
 itish theocratic hopes as to lend color to the supposition 
 that it might have been bestowed upon Him, like the 
 epithet Christ, by the enthusiasm of His followers, who 
 were always eager to unite Him with the Old Testament. 
 
 Joseph's connection with the family is exceedingly 
 dubious. Mark does not mention him, neither does Paul, 
 and the latter, by implication, excludes him. More than 
 that, the way in which Joseph's genealogy is used to 
 establish the Davidic origin of Jesus suggests the possi- 
 bility that his historic name and his royal lineage led the 
 disciples to imagine a closer relationship with him than 
 the facts would justify. His connection with Jesus seems 
 so fanciful, and his disappearance so sudden and complete, 
 as to give an air of unreality to the whole account con- 
 cerning him. How do we know that Joseph and Mary 
 were married at all ? The general belief in the marriage 
 of Joseph and Mary, apart from the account in the Infancy 
 section, rests upon the implication of two indirect state- 
 ments 1 of John's Gospel, which Keim would not have us 
 rate too highly as an authority. 
 
 It may be doubtful whether Jesus was born at Bethle- 
 hem ; it is certainly no assured result of criticism that 
 He was born at Nazareth. We have a strong consensus 
 of testimony that He lived there, but no unshakable 
 evidence that He was born there. The very fact that we 
 have a legend that He was born at Bethlehem is evidence 
 enough that it is by no means certain that He was born at 
 Nazareth. Such a legend could grow up only in an 
 atmosphere of uncertainty. Conjecture does not flourish 
 in the presence of assured and incontrovertible fact. In 
 short, by the rejection of the preliminary section of the 
 1 John i, 45 ; vi, 42. 
 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 3 
 
 first and third Gospels as documentary evidence worthy 
 of trust, we are logically forced to a position of nescience 
 concerning the time, place, circumstances, and conditions 
 of the Saviour's birth. We have no distinctly Christmas 
 message. 
 
 But the loss is more serious than this. By the rejection 
 v of this preliminary portion of the Gospel, we are deprived 
 of the use of important data in the development of Christ's 
 self-consciousness. 
 
 I am concerned more for the account which Luke gives 
 of the natural infancy, the gradual growth in body, mind, 
 and spirit of the Son of man, and that incomparable 
 exhibition of the dawning of His consciousness of a 
 unique relationship with the Father given in the incident 
 in the temple, than for the virgin birth considered in the 
 abstract and by itself. We cannot have Luke's picture of 
 the growing of Christ without the virgin birth ; for it is 
 part of one and the same undivided testimony. 
 
 It would be well for those who occupy the negative 
 attitude toward these documents to ponder deeply their 
 actual historical influence upon the thought of the church. 
 They have been fiercely attacked from the beginning, but 
 we ought to love them for the enemies they have made. 
 From two sides the attacks have converged upon the Gos- 
 pel of the Infancy, in both cases in the interests of a muti- 
 lated Gospel. The Ebionites attacked the virgin birth 
 because they denied the essential divinity of Christ. They 
 claimed that the man Jesus, born of the union of Joseph 
 and Mary, became Messiah by union with the Divine 
 Spirit at His baptism. They rejected the entire Gospel of 
 the Infancy, because it put the inspiration in the life of 
 Jesus too far back and brought Him too close to the 
 divine. 
 
 On totally different grounds the Gnostics attacked the 
 
14 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Infancy story. They were dualists, who maintained the 
 inherent and necessary corruption of matter. They could 
 not believe it possible for the Son of God to be born of a 
 woman, to be a child, or to live as a real man in the flesh. 
 This would be not a humiliation, but a degradation. Both 
 parties to this concerted attack denied the actual reality 
 of the Incarnation. 
 
 I believe that it is not too much to say that every doc- 
 trinal attack upon the validity of the Infancy document is 
 animated by feelings akin to those of the Ebionites and 
 Gnostics. The more serious of the two heresies (if one 
 may make a comparison in a case where both would have 
 been fatal to Christianity as an universal religion) was the 
 Gnostic, which really issues in a denial of our Lord's 
 humanity. 
 
 It was not difficult for men, to whom Christ brought 
 such a fresh and wonderful revelation of the unseen God 
 and the meaning of life, to accept Him as divine, but it was 
 almost impossible to accept Him as at once divine and 
 human. It was the historic task of the Infancy documents 
 through arid ages of dogma to keep alive faith in the 
 human Christ, for men could not cut Him loose from real 
 participation in human life and experience so long as they 
 held before them the authoritative documents which as- 
 serted His real birth and His genuine childhood. 
 
 On the other hand, the Infancy documents resist, 
 by their central affirmation of the miraculous birth, all 
 attempts to separate the human Jesus from the eternal 
 Christ. Their connection with this entire stream of tend- 
 ency is clearly and forcibly expressed by Lange : — 
 
 " The remembrance which the church has preserved, 
 and the testimony she has given to the childhood of the 
 Lord Jesus, form a series of incidents, together displaying 
 in artless, poetical, and sacred delineation, the full reality 
 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 5 
 
 and historic nature on one side ; on the other, the perfect 
 ideality of the individual life of Jesus in its beginnings and 
 earliest events. They form a cycle; they manifest them- 
 selves, by the most speaking facts, to belong to the Chris- 
 tology of the childhood of Jesus. This cycle is naturally 
 a circle of most mysterious and tender images, exhibiting 
 the beauties and graces, as well as the terrors, of poetry 
 in the most absolute reality. These images only differ 
 from many of the productions of actual poetry by surpass- 
 ing, in their strict conformity to the due proportions of 
 ideal perfection, all that is glaring and enthusiastic in more 
 ordinary poetry and, at the same time, all the images of 
 fancy. Their reality has always had the effect of banish- 
 ing from the center of Christian doctrine the mutilated 
 forms of Ebionitism, which cannot believe in the full spir- 
 itual glorification of corporeity. 
 
 "In our days, indeed, the history of Christ's childhood 
 seems to have been almost abandoned to Ebionitism. 
 The practice of removing the ideality of Christ's life to 
 greater and still greater distances from its commencement 
 has been constantly persisted in. At first, in accordance 
 with the views of the ancient Ebionites and Socinians, it 
 was not till His baptism that He was allowed to become 
 the Son of God ; then, not till long after His baptism and 
 after having, as was supposed, first passed through the 
 school of John the Baptist. Again, another advance was 
 made, and it was said that it was not till after His death 
 that the image of Christ was produced, as an embellished 
 image of the actual Christ. And, further still, Paul is said 
 to have been the inventor of mature, universal Christianity. 
 A new station is next formed by the opinion that the 
 perfectly ideal, or, as it is rather thought, idealistic, view 
 of the life of Christ, given in pseudo-Gospel of John, did 
 not arise till about the end of the second century. At 
 
1 6 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 last, even the present times are passed by, and Christian- 
 ity is first to become a truth in the times of the Coming 
 Spirit. These spouting prophets of a spirit who is not to 
 kindle but to extinguish the light of the Gospel history 
 take one step further, and expect, with the Jews, the ad- 
 vent of the Messiah in a new religion. Such is the histor- 
 ical progress of Ebionitism. 
 
 " It is a part of the notion of Christianity that, as the 
 incarnate Word, it should be perfect from its very origin. 
 Christianity is distinctively a new principle of all improve- 
 ment, and cannot itself meanwhile need improvement. It 
 is the principle of the identity of the eternal Word and 
 human corporeity, of real and ideal life ; it therefore rejects 
 every attempt to introduce into its origin that incongruence 
 between the ideal and life which oppresses the ancient 
 aeon. It comes forth from the heart of God, as a new and 
 miraculous life; hence a halo of miracles is formed around 
 this central miracle ; the rays of the rising sun." l 
 
 From this fine and truthful historical summary, I take 
 for repetition and particular emphasis this one sentence : 
 " Their reality has always had the effect of banishing from 
 the center of Christian doctrine the mutilated forms of 
 Ebionitism, which cannot believe in the full spiritual glori- 
 fication of corporeity." 
 
 We have, then, this historical situation : That against the 
 tendencies of Ebionitism and Gnosticism the Infancy sec- 
 tion has contributed its full quota, in proportion to the 
 rest of the Gospel, to the maintenance of that complete, 
 full-orbed, Catholic faith which holds equally and firmly 
 to the divine and human Christ ; and the dynamic of that 
 important contribution to Christian thought is the miracu- 
 lous birth in conjunction with the real childhood of Jesus. 
 
 1 Lange, Life of Christ, Am. ed., 1872, vol. i, pp. 257, 258. 
 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 7 
 
 A document with such a history will not readily be dis- 
 credited, nor ought it to be lightly surrendered. 
 
 There is also a motive for the defense of the Infancy 
 documents to be found in their relationship to the general 
 question of the character for trustworthiness of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 Our views as to the preliminary section of the Gospels 
 do not necessarily determine our views of the New Testa- 
 ment documents as a whole, but that they have a tendency 
 in logical minds thus to do cannot be doubted. 
 
 That so considerable a modification of the true history 
 as is involved in the visit to Bethlehem and the virgin 
 birth, the coming of the Magi, the slaughter of the Inno- 
 cents, the flight into Egypt, could be introduced so early 
 into the evangelic tradition that only slight traces, if any, 
 of other teaching appear, casts suspicion upon the whole 
 process by which the New Testament was formed. There 
 is no more reason, textually speaking, to suspect the pre- 
 liminary sections of Matthew and Luke than any other 
 portions of those Gospels. There is no better reason for 
 supposing that loose mythical material has been gathered 
 into the Infancy sections than for supposing that such 
 material has been gathered into other parts of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 No question of criticism can be treated absolutely alone 
 in complete isolation from questions generically related to 
 it. And the logical mind is driven by inherent necessity 
 from one conclusion to another. I must therefore record 
 my conviction that the tendency of the criticism which 
 has been directed against this section of the Gospel is to 
 lead one to a general skepticism concerning the authen- 
 ticity and authority of the documents of the evangelic tra- 
 dition, which is not justified by the facts. 
 
 It is interesting to note, in this connection, that Soltau 
 2 
 
15 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 introduces his attack upon the Infancy section of the Gos- 
 pel by considerations which tend to discredit many other 
 sections of the New Testament as well. 1 
 
 1 may also record the conviction that the same treat- 
 ment which has been accorded to the preliminary part of 
 the Gospel would, if rigorously carried out, destroy not 
 only the testimony to the incidents of Christ's life, but 
 much of the testimony upon which rests our confidence 
 in general history. 2 
 
 As I conceive it, therefore, there is abundant justification 
 on the ground of the issues involved for a vigorous defense 
 of the controverted sections of the Gospel, in so far as this 
 may be done with intelligence and candor. 
 
 In view of these considerations, also, it may be well to 
 emphasize that the burden of proof rests with those who 
 make the attack. They are bound to give a clear, con- 
 sistent account of the rise of the beliefs involved in the 
 sections under review and a convincing demonstration that 
 the surrender of the documents involves no serious muti- 
 lation of Christian doctrine. 
 
 Let us listen, then, to what they have to say. Let us 
 begin with a theory which is more or less involved in 
 every attempt to destroy the authority of the Infancy sec- 
 tions, — I mean the theory that Old Testament prophecy 
 is responsible for the incidents narrated in them. 
 
 ^oltau, The Birth of Jesus Christ, p. 9. On Soltau's general critical 
 position, see Exp. Times, vol. xiii, p. 75- 
 
 2 See Bruce, Miraculous Element in Gospels, p. 364. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES IN 
 THE FORMATION OF THE INFANCY STORY l 
 
 At the outset of the inquiry concerning the authority 
 of the preliminary sections of Matthew and Luke, we are 
 met with the important question concerning the influence 
 of the prophecies of the Old Testament in the formation 
 of the biography of Christ. In all the forms which the 
 mythical hypothesis of the life of Christ has assumed, the 
 Messianic expectations of the Jews at the time of Christ 
 and their interpretation and use of supposedly predictive 
 passages of the Old Testament necessarily play an impor- 
 tant role. 
 
 The older apologetics made much of the fulfillments of 
 ancient oracles in the unfolding of history, and especially 
 in the life of the world's Redeemer. Prophecy and his- 
 tory, prediction and event, were made to fit together in 
 minute and intimate correspondence. Prophecy, accord- 
 ing to this view, is history enfolded ; history, prophecy 
 unfolded. 
 
 It is, of course, perfectly evident that those who deny 
 the supernatural element in the Scriptures and in history 
 could not admit the thought of any such minute cor- 
 respondence between specific predictions in the Old Tes- 
 tament and specific events recorded in the New, without 
 
 1 For a statement of the part played by this theory in the discussion, see 
 Appendix, note A, The History of the Discussion. 
 
 19 
 
20 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 fatally compromising their position. The fact once 
 admitted, its bearing upon the question of the super- 
 natural is inescapable. The argument was tempting, but 
 dangerous. Rationalism cleverly turned the tables on 
 those who made use of the argument from prophecy to 
 fulfillment by a simple two-fold device, the operation of 
 which for some time practically nullified the entire force 
 and meaning of the argument from prophecy. 
 
 It is argued that in many alleged cases of fulfillment the 
 passage from the Old Testament was not predictive at all 
 and did not refer to the Messiah, and hence was not and 
 could not have been fulfilled in the life of Jesus. 
 
 According to this method the attempt is made to break 
 the tie between the Old Testament and the New by 
 impugning the exegetical methods of the New Testament 
 writers. The biographers of Jesus, especially Matthew, 
 and the other writers of the New Testament, made an 
 unjustifiable use of the older book of revelation. They 
 took passages at random, wrenched them from the con- 
 text, interpreted them without regard to their historic set- 
 ting, and violently made them to apply to incidents with 
 which they had no real connection. 
 
 The other half of the device is, in cases where the 
 exegetical argument fails to apply, to give the prophetic 
 passage the credit of creating the incident with which it is 
 connected. A familiar Old Testament passage has been 
 popularly interpreted as applying to the Messiah. Since 
 it was in common circulation, the disciples of Jesus were, 
 of course, acquainted with it. They felt in a dim but 
 enthusiastic way that every such passage must apply to 
 Jesus, and under the stress of the mythic tendency the 
 incident was created. 
 
 In connection with this question, it is to be noticed 
 that if we are compelled to a choice between the horns 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 21 
 
 of the dilemma thus forced upon us, the believer in the 
 New Testament cannot hesitate for a moment. The results 
 of the two methods are not equal. 
 
 The first method, even if successfully applied, does not 
 destroy the harmony between the Old and the New Tes- 
 taments, prophecy and the life of Christ, which rests upon 
 a sounder foundation than specific fulfillments of specific 
 predictions, nor does it impugn the substantial historic 
 accuracy of the Gospels. If the writers of the Gospels 
 were simply guilty of making incorrect application of Old 
 Testament texts to events within their knowledge, we are 
 still on the firm ground of history, and need have no 
 uneasiness concerning the essential facts. The hypothesis 
 simply delimits their literary inspiration. If successfully 
 maintained, it shows that they adopted the literary meth- 
 ods of their own day, and the Spirit of inspiration did not 
 see fit to dictate their use of the Old Testament. 
 
 The other method, however, cuts at the root of things. 
 If it be proved that the disciples, under the influence of the 
 mythic temper, invented incidents for the life of Christ to 
 fit Old Testament predictions, much has been done to 
 undermine the entire fabric of New Testament trustworth- 
 iness. The testimony of the writers to any important fact 
 is then worth very little. The subtlety of the method and 
 its wide applicability may be seen in some of the uses made 
 of it. For example, Harnack, in "What Is Christianity ?" 
 in attempting to group the stories of miracles in the New 
 Testament according to the causes operating in their pro- 
 duction, cites "stories such as arose in the interests of the 
 fulfillment of Old Testament sayings." 
 
 The second method can be applied only to a part of the 
 passages in question, though it is the most important part. 
 If the connection between the prediction and the event is 
 remote, or, if the passage is fairly open to the charge of 
 
22 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 being fanciful or is merely illustrative, the generic relation- 
 ship between the two cannot successfully be maintained. 
 
 I propose now to deal somewhat in detail with the pas- 
 sages to which the second method is applicable, confining 
 attention to those in the section under review. 
 
 This discussion is vitally related to the question of 
 Christ's birth, and the controversy may be brought to an 
 issue in the preliminary section of the Gospel of Matthew. 
 
 The hypothesis, therefore, stands before us. The ele- 
 ments of the process are these : (i) An Old Testament 
 prediction in common circulation among the Jews who 
 had become Christians. (2) A blank space in the life of 
 Christ. (3) The operation of the mythic temper by which 
 the blank space is filled with an incident created in har- 
 mony with the prophecy. 
 
 It is perhaps fair to say that in many instances, instead 
 of the absolutely blank space in Christ's life, there is a 
 simple and natural incident devoid of the supernatural 
 which readily lends itself to exaggeration. The process, 
 however, is practically the same. 
 
 Before we come to the examination of specific passages, 
 there are a few observations to be offered on the hypoth- 
 esis in general. 
 
 In the first place there is a problem to be solved in con- 
 nection with the use of specific passages. There are in 
 the Gospel of Matthew thirty-seven quotations from the 
 Old Testament, taken from eleven or twelve books, and 
 closely interwoven with the incidents of Christ's life. This 
 number, large in proportion to the size of the Gospel, is 
 small by comparison with the total number of Old Testa- 
 ment passages commonly receiving a Messianic interpre- 
 tation. It is, in fact, a mere selection. 
 
 Now a selection of this kind must have been made either 
 at random or in accordance with some unifying principle 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 23 
 
 — for why should these thirty-seven passages have been 
 chosen rather than any other thirty-seven out of the vast 
 number available P 1 If the passages were chosen at ran- 
 dom by disciples who blindly picked up any passage that 
 seemed likely to fit the life of the Messiah, then the result 
 would necessarily have lacked unity and harmony. A 
 homogeneous product would be impossible by such a 
 method. 
 
 It is inconceivable that the passages as a whole should 
 have created a life such as we find in the Gospels ; for the 
 total effect of so many passages of varying import upon a 
 mind which had no organizing principle to aid it in selec- 
 tion would have been confusion and contradiction. No 
 harmonious life could have issued from such a process. 
 The mere numerical chance, that any one passage should 
 have issued in the creation of an incident without some 
 independent principle at work in the mind of the disciple 
 choosing, is very small. 
 
 General principles, such as the desire to prove the Mes- 
 siahship of Jesus from the Old Testament, or to glorify 
 His person, do not fit the case, for, conceivably, other pas- 
 sages and incidents might prove His Messiahship and 
 glorify His person just as well as those actually chosen. 
 The general hypothesis, therefore, that the life of Christ 
 was created out of very meager materials by the operation 
 of the mythic spirit upon the raw materials of Old Testa- 
 ment prophecy and popular expectation, is too heavy to 
 stand. An hypothesis that cannot be applied on the large 
 scale to phenomena so homogeneous as the life of Christ 
 is very precarious when applied to specific instances. 
 
 A second remark that must be made is that the mythic 
 temper works in the line of preconceived notions. No 
 
 1 For a list of passages Messianically applied, see Edersheim, Z. and T. 
 /. J/., vol. ii, Appendix ix. 
 
24 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 sane mind, however enthusiastic and uncritical, will imag- 
 ine incidents in contradiction to its own cherished convic- 
 tions. No normal mind, however blindly idolatrous in 
 the worship of a hero, would imagine events for the adorn- 
 ment of his personality which, according to the accepted 
 standard of his time, are considered disgraceful. For 
 example, an enthusiastic Japanese student of history not 
 long ago propounded the theoiy that the Mikados were of 
 Korean ancestry. His statement was met with a storm of 
 indignant protest, and punishment was meted out to his 
 reckless and impertinent iconoclasm. It is not to be 
 believed that any Japanese would deliberately invent such 
 an hypothesis as the one outlined above in order to honor 
 his emperor and exalt him before his countrymen. No 
 more would the friends of Jesus, however blindly enthu- 
 siastic, be tempted to invent an incident for His life which, 
 in the common judgment of the day, would be considered 
 disgraceful. 
 
 The bearing of these observations upon the question at 
 issue will be seen a little later. Our next step is to 
 examine the theory in the light of the specific passages in 
 question. 
 
 The passage from Jeremiah, 1 which Matthew applies to 
 the slaughter of the Innocents, need not detain us long. 
 This paragraph could not possibly have suggested the 
 incident, for two reasons, either one of which would seem 
 to be entirely sufficient. 
 
 In the first place, the passage as Jeremiah originally 
 wrote it was a bold and beautiful figure of speech, and 
 nothing more. In a striking hyperbole he represents 
 Rachel, then for centuries asleep in her quiet tomb, as 
 weeping over the slaughter of her descendants, the pas- 
 sionate sons of Benjamin and their allies, an event which 
 
 1 Jer. xxxi, 15. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 2$ 
 
 took place near Ramah, Rachel's burial place. The passage 
 was purely literary and figurative, and could not possibly 
 be interpreted as predictive. The incident which Jeremiah 
 describes and that which Matthew describes has but one 
 element in common, — the shedding of blood. In all other 
 respects they are absolutely and strikingly unlike. That 
 the one suggested the other it is well-nigh impossible to 
 believe. 
 
 In the second place, it required a new and original adap- 
 tation of the figure to apply it to any incident connected 
 with Bethlehem. Rachel is historically identified, not 
 with Judah, but with Benjamin. Her burial place is uni- 
 formly represented as being in the neighborhood of Bethel, 
 "on the border of Benjamin." 1 Only one passage (Gen. 
 xxxv, 19) connects her with Bethlehem. The contradic- 
 tion between this statement and the rest of the Old Testa- 
 ment is so apparent as to point to the conclusion that the 
 explanatory formula was an incorrect marginal note which 
 ultimately crept into the text. 
 
 Now the Genesis passage contains no hint of the 
 slaughter (of course), nor any hint of Ramah, while Jere- 
 miah says nothing of Bethlehem, but indicates Ramah in 
 Benjamin as the locality of the slaughter. If the incident 
 told by Matthew was created by the influence of the Old 
 Testament, it was done through a fusion of these two con- 
 tradictory passages into one impression. The writer was 
 impressed by the locality element of the Genesis passage, 
 and by the slaughter element of the Jeremiah passage, 
 so as to transfer the slaughter spoken of by Jeremiah to 
 the place spoken of in Genesis, while he yet retains the 
 word Ramah, which marks the contradiction between the 
 two. This is an altogether impossible supposition. 
 
 We next come to the third passage in the preliminary 
 
 1 1 Sam. x, 2. 
 
26 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 section of Matthew, — the quotation from Hosea xi, I, 
 applied to the flight into Egypt, " Out of Egypt did I call 
 my son." The peculiarity in this quotation is that it is 
 taken from the Hebrew text and differs from the Septua- 
 gint in the use of the singular noun. The difference is 
 not accidental. In it consists the entire applicability of 
 the quotation. The writer was compelled to use the 
 Hebrew form in the singular in order to apply it to Christ. 
 This fact is interesting and valuable, because of the light 
 thus thrown upon the way in which the quotation came 
 into the text, and upon the personality of the man who 
 used it. The text could not have been one of those 
 Messianic texts floating in the common consciousness ; 
 for in the form in which it was accessible to the common 
 mind it had no applicability to the Messiah at all. 
 
 The phrase, " Out of Egypt did I call thy children," could 
 not possibly suggest to any mind that the Messiah, or any 
 other individual, must go down into Egypt and come back 
 again. It could be thus suggestive only in the Hebrew 
 form and to one familiar with it in that form. In addition 
 to this, it is evident that Avhatever suggested the flight into 
 Egypt must also have suggested the incident of Herod's 
 murderous purpose which caused the flight, and also 
 the visit of the Magi, with which the entire incident is 
 bound up. 
 
 Either the passage from Hosea suggested the entire 
 nexus of events with which it is connected, in which case 
 it must be acknowledged to be one of the most pregnant 
 texts of prophecy, or else the text simply suggested the 
 central incident of the flight into Egypt, and the writer 
 invented all the rest to account for the flight, — a rather 
 elaborate and unbelievable hypothesis. 
 
 It is unreasonable to suppose that it should have started 
 up such imaginative activity in a mind sufficiently trained 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 2J 
 
 to discriminate between versions, and cold enough to 
 choose so carefully the version by which to be moved. 
 
 It may reasonably be objected that this argument is 
 wasted because no one would seriously urge that this 
 particular passage created the incident with which it is 
 connected. The analysis, however, has its bearing upon 
 other texts far more central and important. 
 
 We next take up the passage from Micah, 1 which is 
 applied to the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. This text is 
 most confidently pointed to as evidence of the power of a 
 Messianic text to create the expectation out of which has 
 issued a fictitious series of events. The questioning of the 
 Jewish leaders by Herod drew forth the response that the 
 Messiah should be born at Bethlehem. This points to a 
 widespread and prevalent notion that the Messiah should 
 be manifested in the City of David. This in course of 
 time, developed the conviction that Christ, whom they 
 confidently believed to be the Messiah, was actually born 
 there. What more natural than that such a notice should 
 by " dogmatic reflection " be developed into the conviction 
 that the event had actually thus occurred ? Keim thinks 
 it a very simple case. 
 
 A little closer study, however, will show that it is not 
 so simple as it at first appears. In the first place, how 
 did it come about that any Jew believed Jesus to be the 
 Messiah ? Given the faith that Jesus actually was the 
 Messiah, the belief that He was born at Bethlehem might 
 arise, but the initial faith, which is the mainspring of the 
 entire process, is one of the things to be accounted for. 
 Would not the birth at Bethlehem be one of the elements 
 in the body of evidence to prove that Jesus was the 
 Messiah ? If there was a widespread conviction that the 
 Messiah must be born at Bethlehem, strong enough to 
 
 1 Micah v, 2. 
 
28 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 overbear the actual facts and create the conviction that 
 He was born there, when He was not, it was certainly- 
 strong enough to lead men, at least men of a skeptical 
 temper, to investigate the question •before giving their 
 allegiance to the candidate for the Messiahship. We 
 know certainly that the question came up. Nathanael's 
 sneer at Nazareth, and the argument of the Jews that no 
 prophet could come out of Galilee, is the negative state- 
 ment, and the question of the objectors, " Hath not the 
 scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, 
 and from Bethlehem, the village where David was ? " 1 the 
 positive statement of the requirement. 
 
 Both positively and negatively, this argument was 
 urged against Jesus, and His disciples were compelled to 
 make answer. If it be objected that the argument of the 
 Jews against Jesus on this ground led to the invention of 
 the story of the Bethlehem birth, the answer is easy: 
 The theory implies deliberate dishonesty on the part of 
 the disciples, and is therefore absurd. 
 
 There is still more to be said on the subject of this 
 prophecy. There is a certain distinct and individual 
 atmosphere about the passage, to which a mind saturated 
 with the spirit of the Old Testament could not fail to be 
 sensitive. One need not hesitate to say that the record 
 of happenings at Bethlehem is not in accord with the 
 outstanding features of the prophecy as any ordinary 
 interpreter, not especially illuminated, would understand 
 it. The prophet contrasts, and with high lights and deep 
 shadows draws his picture, the humble standing and rural 
 situation of Bethlehem with the exalted position and far- 
 reaching authority of the Ruler who should issue from 
 her. The little town of Bethlehem should be distinguished 
 by the appearance of the great Governor in her midst 
 
 1 John vii, 42. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 2Q 
 
 This is easily applicable to Christ, as seen in the light 
 of after history ; but is there anything in it which would 
 lead a Jewish interpreter to imagine the incidents recorded 
 in the Infancy narrative ? The passage clearly points to 
 the beginning of the Great Ruler's life at Bethlehem, but 
 it points, also, and superficially considered, just as clearly, 
 to a royal birth under royal conditions. The text was one 
 of those which helped to create that ideal of a political 
 and conquering Messiah who should come visibly robed 
 in the garments of authority, in view of which the claims 
 made on behalf of the humble Nazarene were contemptu- 
 ously rejected by the Jewish people as a whole. 
 
 How could Micah's stately description be applied to a 
 Child, even if born at Bethlehem and of David's stock, 
 of whom such things as these could be said : That He 
 happened to be born at Bethlehem because He, like His 
 nation and His family, was subject to the detested rule 
 of Rome ; that His mother was so devoid of influence as 
 to be compelled, because the khan was crowded, to bring 
 forth her Child in a stable ; that she was so utterly power- 
 less that the wise men who visited her Child from afar had 
 to skulk away in secret flight from the new-found King ; 
 and that He Himself was driven forth from His country 
 merely by the uplifted hand of the hated Herod ? Strange 
 fulfillment these details furnish of the prophetic sentence, 
 which speaks of the advent of a world Ruler whose 
 goings forth have been of old from the days of eternity. 
 
 It is fair to say that, while the mere fact that Jesus was 
 born at Bethlehem accords with the prophecy, the circum- 
 stances and surroundings of it as described in the New 
 Testament utterly contradict the passage as generally 
 interpreted by the Jews of Jesus' time. It could not pos- 
 sibly have led in any naturally constituted mind to the 
 construction of the incidents with which it is connected. 
 
30 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 We now come to the crucial passage of the section, — 
 the prophecy from Isaiah, 1 which is applied to the virgin 
 birth. If one were ever so much disposed to believe that 
 prophecies under certain circumstances might give rise to 
 imaginary incidents concerning Him, there is much in the 
 present instance to make one pause before accepting the 
 hypothesis. Given a blind and not too scrupulous enthu- 
 siasm for Jesus, and an equally faulty use of Old Testa- 
 ment passages, incidents such as miracles of power 
 might conceivably be imagined: But the difficulties in 
 the way of accepting the virgin birth as one of these are 
 insuperable. In this case the hypothesis grants nothing 
 for the process save the Christian enthusiasm working 
 upon the Messianic text. There can be no germ of 
 incident lending itself to fond exaggeration which has 
 issued in the doctrine of a miraculous birth. It is either 
 a fact or a myth created in toto out of the prophecy by 
 the heated imagination of admirers of Jesus. By the 
 hypothesis, there is not even a tradition to defend nor an 
 a priori dogmatic thesis to maintain. 
 
 Granting for the time that among the disciples of Jesus 
 there were some sufficiently enslaved to their own imagina- 
 tions to allow themselves to be worked upon by isolated 
 Messianic texts, one would suppose that in this instance 
 the slightest exercise of sober second thought would 
 have rendered such an exceedingly dubious process 
 entirely impossible. Even among the most blindly 
 enthusiastic of those with whom the idea originated, 
 there ought to have been discernment enough to perceive 
 the danger to faith lurking in the doctrine. There is no 
 evidence to show that among the Hebrews of Jesus' time 
 any general expectation existed that the Messiah was to 
 be virgin born. There is no evidence outside Matthew's 
 
 1 Isa. vii, 14, 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 3 1 
 
 Gospel that the passage from Isaiah had created such an 
 impression. The interpretation must have been as original 
 as the doctrine. The mere shock of surprise involved in 
 a theory so alien to ordinary Hebrew thought as a virgin 
 birth must have been a dash upon the white heat of 
 enthusiasm hard to resist. It is very difficult to under- 
 stand how any group of Jewish Christians could have 
 been prevailed upon by the influence of a single text to 
 formulate so novel, and, according to their ways of think- 
 ing, so forbidding, a doctrine as the virgin birth. 
 
 But the case is still more difficult than this. The pas- 
 sage in question was quoted from the Septuagint version, 
 which translates the Hebrew word *WJ2 by the Greek 
 TzapOevoz. 
 
 The usual contention of negative criticism is that this is 
 "an inadmissible translation." 1 If this contention is 
 justified, the case of those who hold that the prophecy 
 created the incident goes utterly by the board ; for in that 
 case, the text could have led to the creation of the doc- 
 trine only in minds having no strong prepossession against 
 the doctrine, and without the critical apparatus to study 
 the relationship of the passage in the Greek translation to 
 the original text. 
 
 No man having a natural prejudice against the theory 
 of a virgin birth could have been so tyrannized over by a 
 single doubtful passage, unless incapable through igno- 
 rance of appealing to the authoritative text of the passage 
 in question. 
 
 As we have already seen, the author of the preliminary 
 section of Matthew's Gospel was at home in the Hebrew 
 text. 2 He was in the habit of setting one version over 
 
 x It is held that the Hebrew word simply means "a young woman of 
 marriageable age." 
 
 2 See Weiss, In. to N. T., vol. ii, p. 275. 
 
32 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 against the other. In his use of the passage from Hosea 
 he set aside the popular version as unsuited to his pur- 
 pose, and chose the Hebrew. In the present instance, 
 there is no occasion for doubt that he chose the Sep- 
 tuagint for the same reason. He could not have been 
 ignorant of the difference between the versions. While he 
 evidently differed from those who believed that the Sep- 
 tuagint form is an inadmissible translation, he must have 
 known that a translation shutting out the virgin idea alto- 
 gether would be perfectly natural and legitimate. He 
 must, therefore, have had strong reasons for preferring the 
 Septuagint form. 
 
 Furthermore, the author of the section was intensely 
 Jewish. The entire Messianic conception which underlies 
 the Gospel, and not least of all the earlier part of it, is pro- 
 foundly Hebraic. The author must have shared the feel- 
 ings and prejudices of the Hebrews of the Old Testament 
 type, of whom not a few lived in Christ's time. Among 
 these intense feelings, not the least powerful was a concep- 
 tion of the sacredness of marriage, and abhorrence of all 
 heathen notions of physical deities and incarnations. Both 
 these prejudices, which were intense and unyielding, must 
 have combined to create in the mind of every well-taught 
 Hebrew a strong bias against the doctrine of an incarna- 
 tion of the Messiah by birth from a virgin, very hard 
 indeed to overcome. There is indubitable evidence in the 
 section before us that the author shared in this feeling. 
 Had there been nothing to force him to admit the state- 
 ment into his story, save only a doubtful interpretation of 
 this one passage, his mental bias would have found an 
 escape, through another rendering of the Hebrew text, 
 easy and welcome. 1 
 
 1 For the Jewish position on the question of the translation of the pas- 
 sage, see Justin, Dial., cap. lxvii. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 33 
 
 We have now passed in review the chief prophetic pas- 
 sages quoted in the section, and it has become clear that 
 the theory in question does not hold in any single instance. 
 It is impossible, in the light of the facts fairly interpreted, 
 to maintain that any one of them created the incident with 
 which it is connected. In most instances the connection 
 is so figurative and ideal as to compel one to the belief 
 that the passages were searched for by a writer keen to 
 adorn his narrative and to illustrate its incidents by pro- 
 phetic sentences that served in his mind to bind the vision 
 of the prophets and the life of the Christ together. 
 
 But, it is objected, if the connection between the pas- 
 sages used by the author of Matthew's Gospel and the 
 incidents with which he unites them is thus figurative, 
 ideal, illustrative, what is left of the fulfillment of prophecy? 
 What remains of the connection between the old covenant 
 and the new, and of the argument of the Gospel for the 
 Messiahship of Jesus ? Much, in every way ; but it is not 
 to be looked for chiefly in merely incidental resemblances 
 between the words of prophets and the life of Christ. 1 
 
 Let us argue the question broadly and candidly. Is 
 it conceivable that Matthew should base his argument 
 for the Messiahship of Jesus on incidental and almost 
 accidental resemblances between predictions and events, 
 such as he brings together in some of the passages quoted 
 from the Old Testament ? Is it possible that a man 
 intelligent enough to write or edit the Gospel of Matthew 
 was not as well aware as we that the real claim of Jesus 
 to be the Messiah lay in His moral and spiritual tran- 
 scendence ? He could not have been ignorant that birth, 
 even in David's city and of David's stock, could not have 
 
 1 For exposition of this whole question of Messianic Fulfillment, see 
 Beecher, Prophets and Promise, chap. xvii. 
 3 
 
34 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 availed to mark a man of faulty temper and insignificant 
 personality as the promised Messiah. To be first born 
 of the blood royal is enough to mark a man as Czar of all 
 the Russias, even though he be of epileptic habit and feeble 
 mind, but not so the anointed of God. Birth at Bethlehem 
 and of the lineage of David could not constitute Jesus the 
 Messiah, save as these were symbols of the Divine choice 
 and anointing fulfilled in His commanding personal 
 majesty and wisdom. 
 
 The merest outline of the author's experience is enough 
 to indicate how he arrived at faith in the Messiahship of 
 Jesus. x His first contact with Jesus was as one of a com- 
 pany, who heard Him speak, and saw Him work. He 
 was drawn to Him by something out of the common in His 
 words and works. He was drawn more and more power- 
 fully to Him by an increasing apprehension of His wisdom 
 and His power. The author of this Gospel was drawn 
 even more by His wisdom than by His power. But it 
 was His personal quality, His individuality as concretely 
 manifested in His words and life, that led this man to 
 believe in Him. The correspondence between the life of 
 Jesus and the Old Testament was an afterthought, a part 
 of his interpretation ; but the primary fact, the original 
 dynamic of his discipleship, was simply Jesus Himself. 
 He did not come to Jesus through the prophecies ; he 
 : came to the prophecies through Jesus. In attempting to 
 commend Jesus to his countiymen, it was natural and 
 inevitable that he should turn to prophecy, and it is also 
 natural, that, while he drew the character of Jesus in such 
 a way that they could see that He was one with the 
 Majestic figure who fills the prophetic page, he should 
 call attention to incidental resemblances in His life to 
 familiar Messianic expectations. And he knew exactly 
 
 : Cf. Harnack, History of Dogma, (Eng. Tran.), vol. i, p. 133. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 35 
 
 what he was doing, and why he did it. There can be no 
 mistake in attributing to ancient writers a fair share of 
 intelligence, and a reasonable amount of common infor- 
 mation. Perhaps wisdom may die with us, but it is too 
 much to suppose that it was also born with us. In the 
 present instance, there is a reason to believe that the 
 author is quite as intellectual and well balanced as many 
 of his critics. I cannot believe, in view of the facts, that he 
 was ignorant of the context and the primary meanings of 
 the passages which he quotes from the Old Testament, or 
 that he means to claim for many of the passages, which 
 he introduces with the formula, " Then was fulfilled, " or 
 "that it might be fulfilled," anything more than any 
 intelligent man would claim for interesting and helpful 
 illustrations of his theme. 
 
 For example, is it conceivable that the author of the 
 Gospel of Matthew was ignorant that the passage from 
 Jeremiah concerning the weeping of Rachel had in it no 
 real and definite predictive element ; that in its first use it 
 was a figure of speech and that in his application of it to 
 Christ, it could have, as in Jeremiah's use, only a figurative 
 and illustrative meaning? 
 
 This same illustrative use of Old Testament prophecies 
 is clearly seen in the last passage of the section, of which 
 we have made no previous mention, — the text applied to 
 Jesus of Nazareth, — " He shall be called a Nazarene. " 1 
 This is not a direct quotation from any known prophecy, 
 and is obscure and difficult. The explanation, which 
 finds in the word translated Nazarene a vague connection 
 with the " branch " prophecy of Isaiah, is probably as 
 nearly correct as any. It is evidently meant for nothing 
 more than a mere resemblance, really a play upon sim- 
 ilarly sounding words used for purposes of illustration, 
 
 1 Matt, ii, 23. 
 
36 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 and yet it is introduced by the formula, " That it might be 
 fulfilled." 
 
 Dr. Edersheim maintains that the Hebrew method of 
 finding in prophecy anything that the words may be 
 interpreted to mean, whether that meaning lies within the 
 original intention of the prophet or not, is legitimate. It 
 may be, but I see no evidence that the New Testament 
 writers allowed themselves any such liberty. 
 
 They certainly had the right to use the Old Testament 
 as a storehouse of illustrative material, but that they 
 strained Old Testament passages to make them mean 
 something they did not mean, in order to prove something 
 which they were not intended to prove, is a statement 
 which requires very clear evidence to support it, and that 
 evidence is not forthcoming. 
 
 A close scrutiny of the Immanual passage which is 
 brought into connection with the birth of Jesus will show 
 how clear and true Matthew's idea of exegesis was. The 
 original meaning of the message as spoken to Ahaz is 
 clearly and beautifully expressed by George Adam Smith : 
 "The general significance apart from the name Immanuel 
 is that ' before a certain Child, whose birth is vaguely but 
 solemnly intimated in the near future, shall have come to 
 years of discretion, the results of the choice of Ahaz shall 
 be manifest. Judah shall be devastated and her people 
 have sunk to the most rudimentary means of living.' " 1 
 
 Here most radical critics stop in the interpretation of 
 the passage. But this leaves out of consideration the 
 most distinctive word in the passage, — the name of this 
 child Immanuel, — and we are compelled to agree with 
 Dr. Smith, " that it is quite impossible to dissociate so 
 solemn an announcement by Jehovah to the house of 
 David of the birth of a Child, so highly named, from that 
 
 1 Isa. vii, 15. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 2)7 
 
 expectation of the coming of a Glorious Prince, which 
 was current in this royal family since the days of its 
 founder. Mysterious and abrupt as the intimations of 
 Immanuel's birth may seem to us at this juncture, we 
 cannot forget that it fell from Isaiah's lips upon hearts 
 which cherished as their dearest hope the appearance of 
 a glorious descendant of David, and were just now the 
 more sensitive to this hope that both David's city and 
 David's dynasty were in peril. Could Ahaz possibly 
 understand by Immanuel any other child than that Prince 
 whose coming was the inalienable hope of His house ? 
 
 But if we are right in supposing that Ahaz made this 
 identification or had even the dimmest presage of it, then 
 we understand the full force of the sign. 
 
 Ahaz by his unbelief had not only disestablished him- 
 self (ver. 9), but he had mortgaged the hope of Israel. In 
 the flood of disaster which his fatal resolution would 
 bring upon the land it mattered little what was to happen 
 to himself. Isaiah does not trouble now to mention any 
 penalty for Ahaz. But his resolve's exceeding pregnancy 
 of peril is brought home to the king by the assurance 
 that it will devastate all the golden future and must disin- 
 herit the promised king. The Child who is Israel's hope 
 is born ; He receives the divine name, and that is all of 
 salvation or glory suggested. He grows up, not to a 
 throne or the majesty which the seventy-second Psalm 
 pictures, — offerings of Sheba's and Sheba's kings, the 
 corn of the land shaking like the fruit of Lebanon, while 
 they of the city flourish like the grass of the earth, — but to 
 the food of privation, to the sight of His country razed by 
 His enemies into one vast common, fit only for pasture, to 
 loneliness and suffering. Amid the general desolation 
 His figure vanishes from our sight and only His name 
 remains to haunt, with its infinite melancholy of what 
 
38 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 might have been, the thorn-choked vineyards and grass- 
 grown courts of Judah." ! 
 
 In the light of sane and intelligent exegesis, Matthew's 
 use of this passage with reference to Christ is justified. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the word of the prophet to Ahaz 
 was a repetition of the promise made to Abraham, to 
 Moses, and to David, with the solemn warning attached 
 that by his willfulness and sin he may alienate the empire 
 of the promised deliverer. 2 
 
 We shall come to the question of the relationship of 
 this passage to the virgin birth a little later, but in its 
 general application to Christ, Matthew shows not only 
 correct understanding of the passage, but deep insight 
 into its application. 
 
 No intelligent understanding of the relationship between 
 Old Testament prophecy and the life of Christ is possible 
 without giving careful heed to the chief argument for His 
 Messiahship, which underlies the entire New Testament — 
 that is Christ's intellectual and moral greatness and His 
 spiritual preeminence. 
 
 This, in a sense, is the only vital question. We need 
 care only for this. Was Jesus the moral fulfillment of 
 the ideal of the prophets ? This question moves in a 
 region above controversy about the minutiae of exegesis 
 — either in the Old Testament or the New, is untouched 
 by critical theories and can be answered only by an 
 appeal to the facts as exhibited in the life of Jesus. Upon 
 their proof that Jesus was fit to be the Messiah New 
 Testament writers fearlessly stake their credit. That they 
 have been successful in their efforts to prove that Jesus is 
 spiritually worthy to be the Messiah, is strikingly seen in 
 the new phase upon which, in late years, the entire con- 
 
 1 G. A. Smith, Isaiah, vol. i, pp. 1 15 ff. 
 
 J See Beecher, Prophets and Promise, p. 333. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 39 
 
 troversy has entered. The question is no longer whether 
 Jesus is great enough to be the fulfillment of Messianic 
 prophecy, but whether Messianic prophecy is great 
 enough to claim Jesus as its fulfillment The entire 
 Messianic conception is condemned by some as an 
 unworthy and inadequate representation of Jesus. 
 
 It is alleged that by comparison with the world-wide 
 and even cosmic mission of Christ, as seen in the unfold- 
 ing of Christian thought and life, the Messianic ideas of 
 the Jewish nation sink into utter insignificance. It mat- 
 ters not whether the prophecies are fulfilled; they are 
 not of sufficient importance to merit much attention. 
 The most that can be granted is that the world-wide 
 career of Jesus had its historic inception in the Messianic 
 idea. This, however, was merely the temporary sheath, 
 which was soon outgrown and abandoned by the expand- 
 ing Kingdom of the Christ. The whole question, there- 
 fore, of the fulfillment of prophecy is settled by relegating 
 it to a place among the unconsidered trifles, which may 
 safely be disregarded by the student of Christ's life and 
 teaching. 
 
 It seems to me that this notion is to be combated with 
 all earnestness. It is an incorrect interpretation of the 
 Old Testament ; it is opposed to Jesus' own conception of 
 His life and work ; it leads to a dangerous underestimate 
 of the importance of history. The Messianic ideal as 
 popularly interpreted by many of the Jews of Jesus' time 
 was narrow, provincial, political, and unworthy. Jesus 
 met it with unflinching opposition and refused on every 
 occasion to be bound by it. But this leaves untouched 
 the fact that the Messianic hope, as uttered by the 
 prophets themselves and as interpreted by Jesus, is of 
 unmeasured historic importance and of perennial worth. 
 
 In it the spiritual longings of the whole world, often 
 
40 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 unconscious, chiefly inarticulate, came to voice and utter- 
 ance. The interpretation which it offers of history and 
 of human life overleaps continually the boundaries of 
 national exclusiveness, and demands for its satisfaction and 
 fulfillment nothing less than a world-wide kingdom — a 
 universal brotherhood of man. 
 
 The Ruler, who in outline and anticipation it describes 
 and promises, is adequate to the kingdom which He is to 
 establish. The Messiah of the prophets is none other and 
 no less than the revealer of God, and the redeemer of men. 
 
 In order that we may see clearly the real significance 
 of the Messianic hope of Israel, let us briefly pass in review 
 the leading features of prophetism as it unfolds in the suc- 
 cessive teachings of the Old Testament. 1 
 
 In order to get some adequate conception of the mean- 
 ing of this unique national hope it is scarcely needful to do 
 more than to examine the very first utterance of the great 
 promise to Abraham : " Now the Lord said unto Abram, 
 Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and 
 from thy father's house . . . and I will make of thee a great 
 nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; 
 and thou shalt be a blessing : and I will bless them that bless 
 thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse ; and in thee 
 shall all the families of the earth be blessed." 2 
 
 This passage and the parallel texts exhibit certain strik- 
 ing facts. 
 
 It contains a promise of posterity which shall be per- 
 manent and shall include a nation and a federation of 
 nations in which all the nations of the earth shall be 
 blessed. This promise had a religious value to Abraham 
 because it brought him into relationship with the living 
 
 1 See Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, Part II, pp. 175, sea. 
 *Gen. xii, 1-3. Cf. xviii, 18 ; xxii, 18 ; xxvi, 4 ; xxviii, 14. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 4 1 
 
 God, 1 but the promise made to him passed beyond him- 
 self to his children, and beyond them to the " nations of the 
 earth." The universalistic note was struck in the very 
 first delivery of the message. This message was repeated 
 several times in Genesis, and each time the emphasis upon 
 the inclusion within the promise of all mankind form the 
 climax of an ascending series of specifications. It is a 
 promise that " Abraham and his seed shall be eternally 
 Yahweh's own people for the benefit of the nations," and 
 an intelligent man of patriarchal times would expect that 
 the events included under it would still be in progress, 
 whatever their nature, hundreds of years in the future. 2 
 
 In the era of the Exodus the promise made to Abraham 
 was still looked upon as operative, and the new covenant 
 publicly entered into more than once is thought of as the 
 perpetuation of the covenant with Abraham. 
 
 The people were to be the Lord's people, a priest-nation 
 for the sake of all mankind. 3 
 
 In David's time, 4 the same promise was repeated with 
 the same emphasis upon the universality* of the promise. 
 David should have as his successors an endless line of 
 kings, one of whom should build the temple, while through- 
 out the whole succession should be fulfilled the promise 
 made to Abraham. In the prophets after David, this faith 
 had risen to a sublime doctrine that the Lord had made 
 Israel His peculiar people ; had vested this relation in the 
 royal line of David; and had done this for the purpose of 
 blessing mankind. The promises had been unfolding for 
 
 1 See G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. Holy Land, p. 33. 
 
 1 Beecher, Prophets and Promise ; Bruce, Apologetics, p. 195- 
 
 3 Ex. vi, 7 ; xxix, 45 ; xix, 5, 6; Lev. xi, 45 ; Deut. xxviii, 9-1 1 ; vii, 6; 
 xiv, 2. 
 
 * 2 Sam. vii, passim. Cf. with Deut. xii, II ; iv, 7, 8 ; Gen. xvii, 7, 8 ; 
 Deut. xxvi, 17, 18. Cf. especially, 2 Sam. vii, 17, 19 (original), with Gen. 
 xii, 1-3. 
 
42 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 centuries and were on their way to still larger fulfillment 
 in the future. 
 
 Now, in this whole prophetic conception there are a 
 number of great and illuminating ideas. Israel is the 
 nation of promise; the promise is eternal and irrevocable; 
 the nations of the earth have an interest in its fulfillment. 
 An eternally operative promise involves cumulative fulfill- 
 ment, with culminating periods of fulfillment. 1 In every 
 age, it meant a special manifestation of God's grace con- 
 nected with the past, operative in the present, and leading 
 out into the illimitable future. This promise was always 
 connected with sin and redemption ; it held true to right- 
 eousness and brotherhood as its ruling principle and ulti- 
 mate ideal ; it was always connected with some burning 
 moral question of immediate and pressing importance. 2 
 Throughout also, the living representation of the house of 
 David was made trustee and guardian of the promise. 
 
 In this connection, is it pertinent to ask what single item 
 in the noblest and broadest modern interpretation of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven is lacking from Old Testament proph- 
 etism ? The contribution which Christianity made to the 
 ancient conception of the Kingdom of God was not so 
 much in furnishing new ideals as in setting the Old Testa- 
 ment teaching free from narrow and partial interpretations, 
 and particularly in furnishing the dynamic for carrying it 
 into action. And this leads directly to a second remark- 
 able feature of Old Testament prophetism — what may be 
 called the instrument for the realization of the promise. 
 The prophets consistently taught that the promise which 
 had such connection with the sacred part, such bearing 
 upon the duties of the immediate present, and such infinite 
 
 1 Beecher, Prophets and Promise, p. 376. 
 
 2 Cf. Bruce, Apologetics, p. 242. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 43 
 
 meaning for the future, should be realized through the 
 influence of consecrated personality. v ' 
 
 It was, first of all, Israel, the " seed " of Abraham, 1 the 
 priest-nation of the world — then David and his descendants 
 as the representative of the best life of Israel who manifest 
 the Lord to mankind and bring about the fulfillment of 
 the promise. The bearing of this promise in urging both 
 upon king and people faithfulness to Jehovah has been 
 noted already in the Immanuel passage. Then under 
 various titles and with various descriptive details there 
 appears the figure of One, of the people and yet greater 
 than the nation ; of the Davidic line, yet greater than 
 David, human and yet bearing Divine attributes, who is 
 to be the trustee of the promise, its consummate embodi- 
 ment, and the adequate instrument of its fulfillment. 
 
 A catalogue of His titles will show what a wonderful 
 conception it was that filled the minds of the later prophets. 
 
 The familiar word Messiah is used a few times, chiefly 
 to " denote David, or the reigning king of his line, thought 
 of as especially the depository of the great promise." 2 
 
 The most striking and significant title in connection 
 with the New Testament is Servant of Jehovah applied to 
 Israel and to the line of David, " thought of, not merely 
 in themselves, but as the promise people and the promise 
 dynasty." This expressive and significant word conditions 
 the great passage in Isaiah lii and liii, — the suffering 
 Servant of the Lord. 
 
 The expression, "the Son," 3 is used of Israel or the 
 existing representative of the house of David, thought of 
 as a son to Jehovah. 
 
 1 Gen. xii, 1-3 ; Ex. vi, vii, et al. ; 2 Sam. vii, pass. 
 
 * Dr. Beecher. 
 
 s 1 Chron. xxii, 10; Psa. ii, 7-12, lxxxix, 26; Hos. xi, I ; Isa. ix, 6. 
 
44 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 This great personality is called the Chosen or Elect One, 1 
 representing the choice of God as the bearer of blessing 
 to the world. 
 
 He is also called Hasidh, 2 the "permanent depository 
 of Gods's loving kindness." 
 
 He is also called " branch " 3 and "flower," 4 terms which 
 express His connection with the race and His usefulness 
 and beauty. 
 
 Now in this hurried and inadequate outline of Old Testa- 
 ment prophetism, two great ruling ideas of vast import 
 and far-reaching significance appear. 
 
 i. A world Kingdom of God based upon righteousness 
 issuing in universal peace. The song of the angels in 
 Luke might be taken as a summary of the unfolding pro- 
 phetic conception. 
 
 2. The realization of that kingdom through consecrated 
 personality — a holy people and a holy king. 
 
 The unique distinction of the New Testament men and 
 their claim to permanent honor in the moral annals of man 
 was their identification of the teaching of Christ with the 
 teaching of the prophets and the personality of Christ with 
 the fulfillment of the prophetic promise. 
 
 That they chose just the perpetual spiritual elements 
 of the promises as constituting the essence of the prophetic 
 idea, and were bold enough to identify the humble Jesus 
 of Nazareth with the august figure who should reveal God 
 to men and usher in the kingdom of righteousness, argues 
 for them a grasp of the meaning of the Old Testament and 
 the significance of the person of Christ for men, which 
 goes far to account for their influence over the world since. 
 
 1 Psa. Ixxxix, 3; Isa. xlii, I ; xliii, 20; xlv, 4. 
 
 s Micah vii, 2 ; Psa. xii, I ; xxxii, 6 ; xviii, 25 ; iv, 3, 4 ; lxxxvi, 2. 
 
 s II. Sam. xxiii, 8 ; Isa. iv, 2-6 ; Jer. xxiii, 5-8 ; xxxiii, 14-18; Zech. iii, 8. 
 
 4 Isa. xi, 1-10. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 45 
 
 Account for it as you may, the apostolic identification of 
 Jesus with the promised Messiah is one of the most 
 remarkable incidents in the history of the human mind. 
 
 This identification, however, reveals the perpetual value 
 of the Messianic ideal l as well as the historic importance 
 of Jesus. 2 The promise is of God, so also the fulfillment; 
 both together constitute a true philosophy of history in 
 relationship both to the past and to the future. 
 
 That this is the correct interpretation of the Messianic 
 hope, the attitude of Jesus toward it is adequate and con- 
 vincing evidence. That the teachings of the prophets had 
 a profound and even controlling influence upon Him, there 
 can be no question. That He looked upon the promise of 
 the prophets as God's promise and upon His life as 
 the fulfillment of it, cannot be successfully denied. He 
 accepted the Messianic idea for Himself, not merely as a 
 garment to be worn until He was established on His way 
 and then to be flung aside as outworn and useless, but as 
 the permanent and adequate form of His historic self- 
 revelation. He conformed His life to the teaching of the 
 prophets, not often in the sense of performing acts inci- 
 dentally fulfilling ancient oracles, but by accepting that 
 inward spirit of concentration to the will of God and the 
 need of man, which was the soul of the prophetic ideal. 
 
 The difference between Jesus and the Jews with whom 
 He came into conflict was that He despised the Messianic 
 idea which they adored, but that to Him that idea meant 
 purity and devotion, labor and sacrifice and suffering, 
 willingly endured and patiently borne; while to most of 
 them it meant political power, earthly exaltation, and a 
 spectacular career of conquest and glory. The difference 
 was irreconcilable, but the Jews and not Jesus were false 
 
 1 See Bruce, Miraculous Element in the Gospels, pp. 252-254. 
 
 2 Cf. Clarke, The Use of the Scriptures in Theology, p. 129. 
 
46 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 to the real Messianic idea. As He looked out upon His 
 career as the Messiah, He saw clearly the crown of thorns, 
 the cross and the tomb, and though He was able to stay 
 His soul with the thought of the joy that was set before 
 Him, His acceptance of it was none the less an act of 
 supreme consecration to an ordeal, dreadful to contemplate, 
 of sacrifice and loss. 
 
 This minimizing of the importance of the Messianic 
 framework of the Gospel is connected also with a dangerous 
 underestimate of the value of history. The full flower of 
 the tendency may be seen in utterances like the following, 
 from James Martineau. 
 
 In speaking of the disappearance from radical theology 
 of certain conceptions formerly held, he instances 1 " the 
 entire Messianic theology, " and goes on to say : " As objec- 
 tive reality, as a faithful representation of our invisible 
 and ideal universe, it is gone from us, gone therefore from 
 our interior religion, and become an outside mythology. 
 
 " From the person of Jesus, for instance, everything 
 official attached to Him by evangelists or divines, has 
 fallen away; when they put such false robes on Him, they 
 were but leading Him to death. The pomp of royal line- 
 age and fulfilled prediction, the prerogative of King, of 
 Priest, of Judge, the advent with retinue of angels on the 
 clouds of heaven are to us mere deforming investitures, 
 misplaced, like court dresses on the spirits of the just, and 
 He is simply the Divine Flower of Humanity blossoming 
 after ages of spiritual growth — the realized possibility of 
 life in God. 
 
 " All that has been added to that real historic scene, 
 
 the angels that hang around His birth and the fiend that 
 
 tempts His youth ; the dignities that await His future ; the 
 
 throne, the trumpet, the assize, the bar of judgment; with 
 
 1 Loss and Gain in Recent Theology, pp. 14 ff. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 47 
 
 all the splendors and terrors that ensue, Hades and the 
 Crystal Sea, Paradise and the Infernal Gulf, nay, the very 
 boundary walls of the Kosmic panorama that contain 
 these things have for us utterly melted away and left us 
 amid the infinite space and the silent stars." 1 
 
 Stripping the alluring rhetoric from this utterance and 
 making a careful analysis of the things that with one 
 stroke currcnte calamo he removes from the boards, it will 
 be seen to involve the rejection of practically the entire 
 historic form of Christ's self-revelation and the interpre- 
 tation of it by the disciples. Martineau's lifelong rejection 
 of the Messianic theology must be regarded as the vagary 
 of a great mind whose understanding of Christ was philo- 
 sophic rather than historical. 2 The ornate sentences 
 quoted above involve an evident fallacy, for those who 
 have given us the portrait of the " Divine Flower " of 
 humanity are the same ones who have robed Him in the 
 " deforming investitures," and it is very difficult to under- 
 stand how men could at one and the same time have eyes to 
 see and skill to portray the " Divine Flower " yet be unen- 
 lightened enough to put false robes upon Him, to dim His 
 beauty with meretricious decorations, to enswathe Him in 
 deforming investitures, especially as these very terms 
 which are intended most clearly to manifest and maintain 
 His Divineness are, according to this teaching, "the 
 deforming investitures." 
 
 1 Strauss has given expression to the same general tendency. He has 
 said: " What matters it to us what passed in Palestine eighteen hundred 
 years ago ? How does it concern us that Jesus was born in such or such a 
 village, that He had such or such ancestors, that He suffered on such or 
 such a day of the Holy Week." {Leben Jesu In.) 
 
 This transcendence of history is fatal in the long run to reality in faith 
 or life. What Christ is ideally is dependent upon what He was actually. 
 The only interpretation of Christ which accounts for His historic influence 
 is that given in the Gospel. * Cf. Bruce, Apologetics, pp. 53 ff. 
 
48 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 And the ages of spiritual growth, out of which the 
 Divine Flower blossomed, are literally interpreted — the 
 training of the chosen people by the prophets into the 
 meaning and power of the Messianic hope. 
 
 And the Jesus thus stripped of all the symbolism of 
 authority and power and cut off from history is a dream, 
 not a reality. The attempts to find a Gospel behind the 
 Gospel have conspicuously failed. Criticism has increas- 
 ingly shown that the primary Gospel, the alleged group 
 of facts behind the evangelic record, which we now 
 possess, is the same Gospel in all essential particulars. 
 
 That simple unmiraculous Galilaean vision of the 
 gentle teacher, without self-assertion and without wonders, 
 never existed, nor if it had existed would it have been of 
 any value to us. The form of the record is a part of its 
 essence. The reality of the Christ is bound with the 
 reality of His life as portrayed in the Gospel. The tran- 
 scendental idealism that attempts to construe Jesus apart 
 from His real life on the earth as found in the historical 
 records is bound to blunder. 1 
 
 The utterance quoted above could not have emanated 
 from a man with any strong grasp of the meaning and 
 sacredness of histoiy. This explains the anomaly of 
 Martineau's devoutness toward Christ and his radical 
 and ruthless criticism of the documents in which Christ's 
 life is enshrined. Christ to him was an inward vision 
 interpreted in the light of philosophy rather than of 
 history. The Christ whom he pictures is such a one as 
 our age has often dreamed of, but such as no age ever 
 actually saw, morally magnetic, spiritually ideal, but 
 working no miracle and lacking in all the symbolism of 
 power and dignity. 
 
 1 For a good statement of the essentially miraculous Gospel, see Fairbairn, 
 Phil. Christ. Rel. pp. 323 seq. Cf Bruce, ibid., p. IOI. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 49 
 
 But in order to be real, Christ must be historically 
 placed. In order to be known He must live, be recorded 
 and portrayed. He must be born at a certain time and 
 at a certain place, under certain definite circumstances, 
 into family and natural and historic relationships; He 
 must establish Himself in society ; relate Himself to the 
 religious life of man ; fulfill expectations and make Him- 
 self believed and gain followers. And having thus 
 established Himself, He must be made known to the 
 world in records which shall constitute testimony to His 
 person, and thus manifested, the historic facts of His life 
 are of interest and of permanent value in the interpretation 
 of His character and meaning for the world. To cut 
 loose from history is to fly off into the spaces. It is a 
 separation from reality. This constitutes the value of the 
 Messianic conception. It is a historic fact that Jesus 
 Himself and His followers believed that He was the 
 Messiah. This granted, as it certainly must be, the rest 
 follows, for no historic fact can be shuffled off like an old 
 coat, once good but now outworn. That a thing so hap- 
 pened is evidence enough that it is a part of God's plan, 
 that it is sacred and of permanent value. I do not believe 
 that Jesus would accept honor paid to Himself at the 
 cost of discredit placed upon the noble and worthy idea 
 that had such mighty influence in molding His own 
 consciousness and life, and brought into His new move- 
 ment for humanity the momentum of that conception of 
 God and man and their union in a kingdom of grace and 
 love, which had required ages for its ripening, and to the 
 fulfillment of which He gave His life a willing offering. 
 He who abandons the Messianic theology 1 has cut him- 
 
 1 Mathews in Messianic Hope in the New Testament has opened anew the 
 question of the permanent value of the Messianic conception, but after 
 carefully reading the book I see nothing to modify in the above statement. 
 4 
 
5<D GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 self off from historic reality and is indeed left amid the 
 " infinite space and the silent stars " and alone, for the 
 Jesus of history and of Christian experience is not there. 
 
 It now remains to gather up the reasonings of this 
 chapter and to indicate certain conclusions toward which 
 we have been tending. 
 
 The prophecies did not create the incidents with which 
 they are connected. We have found abundant reason in 
 each case to justify a peremptory dismissal of the hypoth- 
 esis that the incidents arose by legendary creation due to 
 the influence of the Old Testament texts upon the imagin- 
 ation of the disciples. 
 
 In addition to all the reasons which have been already 
 adduced to establish this conclusion, there is another, 
 which would seem to be sufficient in itself. There was 
 no unanimity in the Messianic expectation of the Jews 
 contemporary with Christ. 1 Some looked for a man; 
 some for a Divine being ; some for a succession of men ; 
 some for a kingdom without any single personality at the 
 head of it. There was no such consensus upon any one 
 Messianic text, nor any connected series of texts as would 
 lead to the creation of incidents to fulfill them. The hope 
 was particularly vivid ; the details of the way in which the 
 hope was to be fulfilled was blurred, vague, and contra- 
 dictory. 
 
 As was to be expected, therefore, the texts seem rather 
 to be illustrations and side lights used to outline and 
 illuminate a profound and philosophic conception of the 
 
 1 See statements and references in Mathew's Messianic Hope in the New 
 Testament, pp. 3, 44, 45, 54, and index under " Messianism ; " see also 
 Stanton in //. D. B. article, " Messiah," vol. ii, p. 354; and Schiirer, 
 Jewish People in Time of Christ, index under "Messianic Hope," vol. ii, 
 ch. ii, pp. 126-187 5 Edersheim, L. J. 71/. bk. ii, ch. v; Beecber, Prophets 
 and Promise, pp. 366-375. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 5 I 
 
 unity of the life of Jesus with past history, and especially 
 the promise of God through the prophets. 
 
 This conception of the evangelists lends no little credi- 
 bility to all statements of fact which they may choose to 
 make. 
 
 It is unlikely that men, who had such a firm grasp upon 
 the philosophy of history as is indicated by the fact that 
 they alone of their contemporaries understood the mean- 
 ing of prophecy and of the person and work of Jesus, and 
 exhibited the unity of these two with such clearness and 
 power as to convince the vast majority of competent 
 minds not only that Jesus was the Messiah, but that the 
 Messiah was the Revealer of God and the Saviour of 
 men, would have a weak sense of the sacredness of fact, 
 or show themselves lacking in the genuine historic spirit. 1 
 
 In other words, I find it impossible to believe that the 
 followers of One who taught with unexampled emphasis 
 the sacred obligation of truth, who portrayed with such 
 simple truth and moral majesty the ideal life — "the flower 
 of humanity " — would weave into the fabric of the story, 
 which to them, was of all things in life the most important, 
 floating legends and old wives' fables, for which there was 
 and could be no reasonable ground of assurance. 
 
 The connection between prophecy and fulfillment in 
 the life of Jesus, as seen on the large scale in His realization 
 of the Messianic ideal, and deliniated with such power, 
 especially by the writer of Matthew's Gospel, is one of 
 our reasons for attributing to him the genuine historic 
 spirit. 
 
 Based upon this fact, my conviction that Matthew was 
 a genuine historian is so strong that even if I should find 
 reason to doubt the correctness of his exegesis according 
 
 1 Cf. Beecher, Prophets and the Promise, p. 380 (extract quoted from 
 article in Am. Journal of TheoL). 
 
52 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 to modern methods, I should still be driven to hold that 
 he had some good reason for his interpretations. 
 
 It seems to me that there must have been some 
 harmony between the life of Jesus and current Messianic 
 expectations, irrespective of exegesis. Attention has 
 often enough been called to the divergence between the 
 career of Jesus and the Messianic expectations of the 
 day — was there not likely to be some harmony as well as 
 great divergence ? 
 
 It is not a question whether the exegesis of Mat- 
 thew is justifiable according to the methods of the 
 modern class-room, but whether some of the current 
 expectations of the Jews were not literally met and fulfilled 
 in Jesus. 
 
 I refer especially to such beliefs as that Christ should 
 be born of the family of David and at the town of Bethle- 
 hem. 
 
 To me it seems a clear case of simple necessity that so 
 far as they did not derogate from His true dignity as 
 Messiah and did not tend to deflect Him from the true 
 path of His mission, He should meet and answer some 
 specific hopes and convictions of His contemporaries. It 
 would seem to be essential that there should be before, at, 
 and after, His birth providential indications of His impor- 
 tance, that His life might be guarded with especial care 
 and His personality watched with expectant interest. 
 Otherwise, why should there have been any prophecy at 
 all ? It would seem necessary that there should be some 
 meeting ground between Him and His own age, and where 
 could this meeting ground be except in their ideas of how 
 the Messiah should come and what He should be ? He had 
 to disappoint them in many things, would it be likely that 
 He would be forced to disappoint them in all things ? If 
 they expected Him to be born of the family and in the City 
 
OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES 53 
 
 of David, in line, that is, with their fondest memories and of 
 their most sacred hopes, why should He not be thus 
 born ? x 
 
 The only answer to be made to this would be a con- 
 tention that Jesus could not be born at Bethlehem and of 
 David's line and still be the Messiah and Saviour, which is, 
 of course, an absurdity. We have found, therefore, I feel, 
 a rational interpretation of Matthew's use of prophecy, 
 which does not require any wresting of the texts and is in 
 harmony with his otherwise strongly established reputa- 
 tion for historic carefulness. 
 
 There is evidence in the life of Jesus that where there 
 was no moral principle involved, He sometimes deliber- 
 ately conformed to popularly understood Messianic 
 requirements in order to aid recognition and acceptance 
 of Him. The possibility of harmony between popular 
 expectation and the deeper meaning of prophecy is 
 strikingly seen in the incident which occurred on Palm 
 Sunday. In the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus 
 deliberately performed a Messianic act in accordance 
 with popular ideas. It was a claim of Messiahship put 
 into pictorial form. He entered Jerusalem as her King, 
 at the same time that, in accordance with Rabbinical 
 tradition, He proclaimed Israel's apostasy. 
 
 But it has a deeper meaning than this. 2 Superficially 
 considered, it was simply a concession to their methods 
 of interpretation. But the passage had become symbolic: 
 The ass was the universal type of peace, and in riding upon 
 the animal's back He adopted the symbolism to Himself 
 as the Prince of Peace. It was a parable in act instead of 
 in word, which at once met a present purpose of the time, 
 
 1 Cf. Beecher, Prophets and Promise, p. 370. 
 *Cf. Edersheim, L.J. M., vol. ii, p. 370. 
 
54 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 and touched upon the very deepest meanings of the pro- 
 phetic idea. * 
 
 It must also be said that precisely in the most vital 
 points Matthew's exegesis will bear any legitimate test 
 which may be applied to it. The Davidic origin of the 
 Messiah is based, not upon uncertain interpretations of 
 isolated texts, but upon the entire body of prophecy after 
 David's time, having not only a literal but also a spiritual 
 meaning and a legitimate and inescapable predictive force. 
 
 The birth at Bethlehem was incidental rather than vital, 
 but is evidently a legitimate detail under the Promise. 
 
 The birth from a virgin was connected with a legiti- 
 mately Messianic passage and is also the culmination of a 
 long series of repetitions of the promise connected with 
 the birth of especially important historic persons. 
 
 The fulfillment of a comprehensive historic promise as 
 a whole lends all needful credibility to the details which 
 accompanied that fulfillment. The Infancy narratives sup- 
 ply the links of connection between the promise and its 
 fulfillment. 
 
 In them we see the ancient hope illumined by the bright 
 light of its fulfillment. In them, therefore, we are on firm 
 ground both of exegesis and history. 2 
 
 1 It may be worth while to call attention to the fact that while Jesus 
 deliberately adopted this popular expectation as an object lesson or parable 
 in act emphasizing at once His Messiahship and the nation's sin, there is 
 no evidence that the point of the incident reached their understanding at 
 all. The pilgrims cried, Hosanna ! The nation stood aloof in sullen per- 
 plexity and cold dislike or in ill-repressed fury. It shows that there was no 
 such widespread eagerness and aptitude in the application of Messianic 
 texts to Jesus as has sometimes been claimed. 
 
 2 The most original and valuable recent discussion of Messianic prophecy 
 is Willis Judson Beecher's Prophets and the Promise (T. Y. Crowell & Co., 
 I905)- 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE THEORY OF LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLA- 
 TION — KEIM 
 
 In order to justify the rejection of the Gospel story of 
 the birth of Jesus, it seems necessary to cut it off from the 
 main body of the evangelic tradition. By denying apos- 
 tolic origin and consequently apostolic authority to those 
 statements concerning the mode of His entrance into the 
 world, found in our Gospels, much is done to discredit 
 them as the legitimate basis of faith. 
 
 The task, however, is not an easy one, for, at the very 
 outset, the weight of textual authority is in favor of the 
 section. 
 
 The story of the Infancy is a part of the record. It has 
 been a part of the record from the beginning so far as we 
 have any evidence. The first two chapters of Matthew 
 belong to present Greek Gospel ; they are found in every 
 unmutilated Greek manuscript ; they are testified to by the 
 earliest church fathers ; and according to Epiphanius, 
 belonged to the Hebrew copy of the Gospel in the posses- 
 sion of the Nazarene sect. 1 
 
 The Infancy section throughout has an equally good 
 textual foundation. Against this, Keim alleges, first, a 
 solution in continuity between the genealogy at the begin- 
 ning of the first chapter and the Infancy narrative, and 
 again between the latter and the account of the baptism in 
 the third chapter. 
 
 1 See full discussion in Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, pp.257, sea. 
 
 55 
 
$6 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Second, inconsistency in certain statements in the Infancy- 
 section with statements in the section following. 1 
 
 Third, the omission of the section by the Gospel of the 
 Ebionites. 
 
 Of these arguments, we may settle the third one first 
 and very summarily. The omission of the Infancy section 
 from the Ebionite Gospel was not only natural, but inevi- 
 table. The statements therein contained of Jesus' birth 
 impinged with destructive effect upon all Ebionite interpre- 
 tations of Jesus' life, and could not be allowed to stand by 
 the adherents of that view. That the Ebionites did cut 
 out the section adds as much as any one thing could to 
 our assurance that the story of the birth belonged to the 
 orthodox tradition. 2 
 
 The argument, from alleged inconsistencies in statement 
 between the section and that which follows, is also far from 
 conclusive. In the first chapter, eighteenth and twentieth 
 verses, it is stated that Jesus was conceived by the Holy 
 Ghost. In the third chapter, sixteenth verse, it is stated 
 that the heavens were opened, and that the Spirit of God 
 descended upon Him in form as a dove. (See note A at 
 end of Chapter.) 
 
 These statements are inconsistent only in the mind of 
 one who interprets the latter statement as meaning that 
 then, for the first time, the Spirit was granted to Jesus. 
 But there is no reason why they should be thus inter- 
 preted. That the Spirit of God was especially manifested 
 to Jesus at the crisis of His baptism one need not question ; 
 that He was bestowed then, for the first time, is to be very 
 seriously doubted. That the Spirit of God had nothing 
 to do with Jesus until He was a mature man, ready for 
 
 1 Keim, vol. i, p. 83. 
 
 2 For evidence that the Infancy narrative was in the Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews see Stanton : Gospels as Historical Documents, p. 297. 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION $7 
 
 His life work, is untenable. As a matter of fact, the pas- 
 sage in the Infancy section and the one concerning the 
 baptism are parts of one consistent representation that the 
 Spirit of God was present throughout the entire career of 
 Jesus. 
 
 We, then, are left to face the question as to the alleged 
 solution of continuity between the Infancy section and the 
 adjacent parts of the narrative. 
 
 Keim's statement of the case is as follows : — 
 
 " There is for example no sort of connection between 
 the history of the childhood of Jesus and that of His 
 baptism ; the latter is tacked on to the former in a strik- 
 ingly loose and inexact manner, as if the childhood of 
 Jesus and John's baptizing were contemporary; and to 
 the baptism of Jesus is ascribed the inspiration from God, 
 which the narrative of the childhood expressly refers to 
 His birth. 1 
 
 " This shows that the Gospel began with the genealogy 
 of Jesus (chap, i), and John's baptizing (chap, iii), and that 
 the interpolator fitted in, as well as he could, the narrative 
 of the childhood." 2 
 
 Now, is there any such break in continuity as this 
 statement alleges ? 
 
 The blunder of making the baptizing of John and the 
 infancy of Jesus contemporaneous is so colossal as to 
 suggest a doubt that even an interpolator could have 
 perpetrated it. 
 
 Is it not pertinent to suggest that the significance of the 
 last verse of the second chapter, to which the words " in 
 those days " refer has been overlooked ? Whoever wrote 
 that passage must have known that there was an interval 
 between the arrival of the family at Nazareth, when Jesus 
 was a baby, and the appearance of Jesus among the 
 
 1 Keim, vol. i, p. 82. 2 Page 83. 
 
58 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 disciples of John at Jordan, when He was a man grown. 
 He does not wish to tell the story of those years in 
 detail. He, therefore (in the manner of Matthew), sum- 
 marizes the entire period of residence in Nazareth as a 
 fulfillment of prophecy. His mind is evidently dwelling 
 upon the period as completed in His public manifestation, 
 when He became talked about and known as the 
 Nazarene. In the fourth chapter a statement is made 
 which is meaningless, except with reference to the last 
 verse of the second chapter. 1 
 
 If the Infancy section is an interpolation, it is most 
 skillfully done ; in other words, there is nothing in the 
 passage to compel us to the belief that it has been thrust 
 in where it does not belong. Let us look a little more 
 closely at this alleged interpolator, — who was he and 
 when did he work ? 2 
 
 Keim thus states his theory : " The impression is over- 
 whelming that a grand unity underlies this Gospel, and 
 that a moderate share of small, but essentially related 
 additions, belongs to the Jewish-Christian interpolator, 
 who lived after the destruction of Jerusalem, more or less 
 contemporary with Luke or Mark, and who wrote in the 
 spirit of a freer Christianity." 3 
 
 The work of the interpolator is marked in general by 
 quotations from the Hebrew Old Testament " introduced 
 by impressive stereotyped phrases, closely resembling 
 each other, but not occurring either in the case of the 
 sayings of Jesus, or the reflection of the first writer." 4 
 
 As related to the section especially under review, the 
 statement of Keim is this : — 
 
 " With the exception of the single passage as to the birth 
 by a virgin, where, as often in other parts of the book, 
 the Greek version was quite indispensable, the use of the 
 
 1 Ch. iv, 13. * Page 85. 3 Page 84. 4 Page 82. 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION 59 
 
 Hebrew Old Testament prevails throughout the whole of 
 the preliminary history, as can be demonstrated in four 
 particulars ; and these very particulars, the birth by the 
 virgin, intimations of which are introduced also into the 
 genealogy, the birth at Bethlehem, the flight into Egypt, 
 with the return thence, and the slaughter of the children 
 at Bethlehem, all so much more evidently the property 
 of this collector of prophecies, as they find little or no 
 confirmation elsewhere in the Gospel history." 
 
 The quotations thus far made apply chiefly to the first 
 Gospel. Keim seems to have no definite theory as to the 
 connection of the Infancy stories with the Gospel of Luke, 
 but in another place he very definitely pronounces upon 
 the date of the entire Infancy section in both Gospels. 1 
 
 " The age of these tales cannot be put far back in the 
 first Gospel ; they can hardly be counted as part of the 
 groundwork of the book, which more likely, with Mark, 
 began with the baptism of John, and on that account 
 alone fall below a. d. 70. In the third Gospel, whose rise 
 lies far enough on this side of the destruction of Jerusalem 
 (a. d. 80-90), the Jewish-Christian portions, even of the 
 introductory narrative, in spirit, matter, and form show 
 the coloring of a later time than that of Matthew himself. 
 
 " We may safely call these accounts post-apostolic, and 
 above all post-Pauline ; the latter, if only for this reason, 
 that Paul and the rest of the New Testament have as yet 
 no inkling of a miraculous birth of Jesus ; which indeed 
 finds no strong support until after the middle of the 
 second century, in the pages of Justin, in the epistle of 
 Ignatius, and in the Gospel of James." 2 
 
 According, then, to the additions in Matthew, and 
 according to Luke, Mary is betrothed to Joseph, and is 
 blessed with offspring before any contact with him. 
 
 1 Vol. ii, p. 45. a Page 46. 
 
60 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Matthew, with chaste reserve, says, " She was found 
 with child of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Luke, following his source of information, draws a 
 more sensuous picture of the heavenly mystery: "the 
 Holy Ghost descended upon her in the form of a cloud, 
 in which the hidden God comes near to mortal men, the 
 fruit of this divine proximity is the child she bears beneath 
 her bosom." 
 
 The way in which the story grew up is also clearly 
 described. 
 
 " The longing was early excited, — a longing which 
 found the fullest satisfaction in the Apochryphal Gospels, 
 — for exacter information as to the birth and childhood 
 of Jesus, and thereby at the same time to obtain an 
 explanation of His miraculous life. Hence arose out of 
 the Old Testament the belief that He was born of a pure 
 virgin, the belief in the adoration of the Magi, the flight 
 into Egypt, and the recall thence, — stories which pointed 
 out the way of Christianity to the Gentiles." 
 
 We now have before us, in his own words and at con- 
 siderable length, Keim's account of the origin of the 
 Infancy narrative. What is to be said concerning it ? 
 
 My first remark upon this explanatory theory is that, 
 just as it stands, without calling into question one item in 
 the manifold tissue of assertions by which it is maintained, 
 it is open to serious, and, as it seems to me, fatal objection. 
 
 The theory places the accounts too early. Granting 
 that the additions to Matthew, of which the Infancy nar- 
 rative forms a part, and the account in Luke, were com- 
 posed some time in the second decade before the close 
 of the century, that date is still too early for the success- 
 ful maintenance of the mythical hypothesis. x 
 
 1 Strauss admits that the mythical hypothesis demands a very late date 
 for the documents. See Bruce, Mir. El. Gospels, p. 90. 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION 6 1 
 
 In order to do this, one must push the account to a 
 date when the Christians were beyond the reach of 
 authoritative information. The requirement is not fulfilled 
 by the date in question. At that time, beyond a doubt, 
 the apostle John was living, an eye-witness of Jesus, a 
 vigilant guardian of the evangelic tradition. If Jesus was 
 born of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth, I fail to see how any 
 story that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born 
 of the virgin Mary at Bethlehem could possibly have 
 arisen, taken literary form, and obtained general credence 
 enough to become a part of the accepted Gospel, without 
 its coming to the knowledge of John. Coming to his 
 knowledge, it would have met with vigorous and effective 
 protest that would have insured its destruction as an 
 accepted Christian tenet. It is perfectly safe to affirm 
 that no important statement concerning the life of Christ 
 could have survived the contradiction of John at any time 
 during his life. 1 
 
 A plain statement of facts will make clear the utter 
 untenableness of the theory as it stands. 
 
 Keim affirms with emphasis that the origin of the Infancy 
 stories was Jewish-Christian. In speaking of the Gospel 
 of Matthew as a whole, he says : " The interval has been 
 too brief to sweep away an historical life altogether, the 
 Jewish and Christian circles were too staid and too well 
 taught to substitute dreams for facts, the Eastern memory 
 was too tenacious, and eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus 
 still lived." 2 
 
 With the change that, while most of the eye-witnesses of 
 the life of Jesus were gone, John still lived, and with him 
 
 1 We may strengthen this by saying that no new interpretation of the 
 Gospel which contradicted John's definite teaching could have gained 
 credence for a long time after his death. 
 
 2 Page 74. 
 
62 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 many of those who were disciples of the eye-witnesses (as 
 Luke affirms in his preface) were living, this statement 
 holds true of the time when the fabrication of the narratives 
 of the birth is alleged to have taken place. It is a particu- 
 larly clear account of the characteristics of the group in 
 which they are said to have arisen. And we may add the 
 important fact, which seems to be persistently over- 
 looked by many writers on early Christian history, that 
 there was in existence an organized church, jealous of the 
 integrity of its doctrine, and scrupulously careful in main- 
 taining without change the testimony of the apostles. 
 
 Now among people of this conservative character, 
 belonging to an organization like the early church, is said 
 to have arisen, through a fusion of historical curiosity and 
 doctrinal activity, the story of the virgin birth and the rest 
 of the Infancy narrative. 
 
 Underneath that explanation lies the delusion, which has 
 obtained an unaccountable hold upon many minds dealing 
 with this subject, that at any time a Christian church could 
 have developed in vacuo the idea of the virgin birth as an 
 explanation of Christ's divinity. The doctrinal implication 
 is not obvious enough. It cannot be placed with a theory 
 like the preexistence which is a doctrinal conception, veri- 
 fiable only in the light of reason, because it lies wholly in 
 the historical sphere, is doctrinal only secondarily and by 
 inference, and could be verified or disproved by personal 
 testimony. It was not an abstract conception, but a state- 
 ment involving the experience of a family, members of 
 which had been well known in the church, and who, either 
 in person or by representative, were entitled to be heard 
 in matters which concerned their own private history. 
 
 By hypothesis, the stories go back to a longing early 
 felt for exacter information as to the birth and childhood 
 of Jesus, But if there was in existence any person who 
 
LA TE JE WISH- CHRISTIAN INTERPOLA TION 63 
 
 could offer information, having any claim to authority, 
 would people " too staid and well taught to substitute 
 dreams for facts " be likely to sit calmly down and unfold 
 from inner consciousness such fables as the virgin birth, 
 and the rest of the Infancy story ? Along with this fallacy 
 is another which vitiates much of Keim's reasoning on this 
 subject, — a failure to discriminate between the canonical 
 and noncanonical writings of the Infancy. He consist- 
 ently treats the two sets of documents as if they stood 
 upon the same level. 1 He, of course, considers them about 
 equally authoritative, but aside from the question of 
 authority, in other ways the documents are different. 2 
 
 Keim says : " The longing was early excited, — a long- 
 ing which found the fullest satisfaction in the Apocryphal 
 Gospels, for exacter information as to the birth and child- 
 hood of Jesus." 
 
 Again he says : " For as this story, following in the 
 steps of our older Gospels, is fond of going back to the 
 Old Testament," etc. 
 
 This indifferent and indiscriminate treatment of records 
 entirely different in genesis and character must lead to 
 erroneous conclusions. In the passage before us the Gos- 
 pel story and the Apocryphal legends are attributed to 
 the same origin, — the curiosity of Christians as to the 
 early life of Jesus. But if curiosity on the part of Chris- 
 tians can account for the contents of the canonical Infancy 
 narrative, it cannot account for the omissions from it, and 
 the omissions are just as significant as the contents. When 
 has it ever happened that unregulated curiosity could be 
 
 x See, however, a notable exception, Keim, vol. ii, p. 137. 
 
 2 For a statement of the world-wide difference in motive and viewpoint, 
 see Neander, History of Dogma (Bohn's Trans.), vol. i, p. 193 ; also on 
 character of Gospel narratives, see Stapfer, Jesus Christ before Ministry, 
 Preface ; also for clear and succinct account, see Bernard, Lit. of Second 
 Century, lect. iii, pp. 99-124. 
 
64 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 satisfied with the meager details of a brief and fragmentary 
 account like that of the Infancy section ? There is but a 
 scanty group of brief and simple statements of fact, 
 not enough to satisfy the curiosity of a devout and intelli- 
 gent believer of to-day. The affirmation that the account 
 is the work of those who were so eager to know how 
 Christ came into the world and lived in the days of His 
 youth that they created a fictitious story to satisfy the 
 longing is to me utterly unbelievable. I can well believe 
 that it is the literary creation of devout interest in the early 
 life of Jesus working upon the scanty materials of author- 
 itative information that were within reach. That it was 
 the work of curiosity beyond the reach of facts, and cut 
 loose from the limitations of truth, I cannot accept. This 
 process would have gone much further. Such a process we 
 have in the Apocryphal stories, which are indubitably the 
 work of those who, although perhaps no more curious about 
 the life of Jesus than the earlier generations of believers, 
 were beyond reach of authoritative knowledge, except what 
 had already been given in the Gospel narrative. They were, 
 moreover, less scrupulous concerning the obligation of 
 strict and absolute truthfulness. 
 
 This is certainly a reasonable explanation of the strik- 
 ing difference between the two sets of documents concern- 
 ing the Infancy, differences which Keim's theory overlooks 
 altogether, or at least incorrectly minimizes. 
 
 Still granting that the date is approximately correct, 
 Keim's theory as to the way in which the Infancy narra- 
 tive came into the text of Matthew's Gospel is open to 
 objection. 
 
 Keim maintains that the entire section concerning the 
 infancy of Jesus is the work of a Jewish-Christian inter- 
 polator, who is the author of a series of essentially related 
 additions to the Gospel, marked by a special formula of 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION 65 
 
 introduction, by use in quotation of the Hebrew texts, 
 and by a liberalizing tendency of thought. 
 
 I remark, to begin with, that on general principles it is 
 very precarious to attribute parts of a book having a 
 " grand underlying unity " to a different author on the 
 ground of such slight differences in the phrasing of intro- 
 ductory formulas as between " it is written in order that 
 it might be fulfilled, " and " this is He spoken of by Isaiah 
 the prophet, " and " this took place in order that it might 
 be fulfilled which was written by the prophet, " etc. 
 
 The formulas are generically alike, and are simply vari- 
 ations in the expression of one idea, which a writer, 
 desirous of giving literary finish to his work, would be 
 very apt to use. 
 
 It is hardly safer to divide the document on the ground 
 of quotations from the Septuagint or the Hebrew Bible. 
 In the critical discussions of the unity of Matthew, it seems 
 to be taken for granted that the variation in the method 
 of quotation is due either to the work of different writers 
 or to mere chance. 
 
 Is it not at least conceivable that it is due to intelligent 
 and deliberate choice on the part of one writer familiar 
 with both texts, and using either according to his judg- 
 ment of its value for the purpose in hand ? 
 
 It would seem also that the theory vastly overworks 
 the possibility of interpolation. Keim speaks of the inter- 
 polations as small ; but the entire Infancy section, to say 
 nothing of the other passages attributed to the inter- 
 polator, can hardly be called small, at least in impor- 
 tance. 
 
 We may reasonably believe in the presence of a certain 
 limited amount of interpolated material in the Gospels. 
 In the days of copying, notes and comments had a way 
 of creeping from the margin into the texts. It may have 
 
 5 
 
66 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 been that in the body of the narrative an unauthorized 
 incident may now and then have been added. 
 
 But this hypothesis calls for the wholesale fabrication of 
 an entire section of the history, in which the actual facts 
 are completely subverted. How could such a thing have 
 happened ? 1 We know from references in the New Testa- 
 ment how any meddling with the teaching of the apostles 
 was looked upon. 2 We know also that writings purport- 
 ing to be of apostolic origin were scrutinized with the 
 utmost care. We know that books, the authorship of 
 which was in doubt, were looked upon with suspicion, 
 and kept outside the canon until the church was con- 
 vinced that they were of apostolic origin. We know that 
 while some books ultimately accepted as canonical were 
 at first looked upon with suspicion, and some which were 
 at first quoted as authoritative were finally rejected, as a 
 whole the process of sifting was careful and satisfactory, 
 and a broad line of difference marks off the canonical from 
 the noncanonical books. 3 
 
 This process implies such careful scrutiny of the mater- 
 ials contained in the sacred tradition that I fail to see 
 room for the unauthorized entrance into the text of so 
 large an amount of material, containing such important 
 additions to the record. 4 
 
 The careful guardianship exercised by the early church 
 over the sacred apostolic tradition forbids such a sup- 
 
 1 It would have been more difficult to interpolate new material into the 
 early life of Jesus because of the absence of detail. The novelty would be 
 much more conspicuous. Cf. Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, p. 
 
 257. 
 
 8 Gal. i, 8; Rev. xxii, 18. 
 
 3 The sacredness of apostolic documents is seen in the absence of attempts 
 to harmonize by changing texts — e.g., Tatian ; cf. Salmon, In. to N. T. t 
 p. 126. 
 
 *On the question of interpolations see Moffat, Hist, N. T., Appendix. 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION 6? 
 
 position. There are other considerations still more 
 definite and specific to be urged against the theory. 
 
 The alleged interpolator described by the critic is a 
 strange and fantastic figure, in whose objective reality it is 
 very hard to believe. He is a Jewish-Christian, living 
 after the fall of Jerusalem, who quotes from the Hebrew 
 Bible in the interests of a more liberal Christianity. 
 
 He must be marked, of course, as a Jewish-Christian 
 by his use of the Hebrew Bible, and as a liberalizing 
 writer by the tendency of the passages which he quotes, 
 and the uses he make of them. 
 
 A Jewish-Christian, contemporary with Luke, so zeal- 
 ous for a liberal interpretation of Christianity as to attempt 
 laboriously to modify the Gospel of Matthew in that 
 interest, could hardly have remained unknown to Luke. 
 Their common interests would inevitably have drawn 
 them together, as Luke and Paul were drawn together. 
 Such a man could hardly have carried out a revision of 
 Matthew's Gospel without Luke's being a party to it and 
 responsible for it. Moreover, in the time of Luke, the 
 reconstruction of Matthew's Gospel would have been a 
 work of supererogation. His Gospel must certainly have 
 been in course of construction, and would have served the 
 end desired more perfectly than a twisted Gospel of 
 Matthew. 
 
 The distinctive mark of the interpolator is lacking from 
 the crucial passage of the entire section ; namely, that 
 which is connected with the virgin birth of Christ, quoted 
 from the Septuagint. Keim recognizes the difficulty, for 
 he twice says that the interpolator used that version 
 because it was " indispensable to his purpose." That is to 
 say, that he could not have conveyed the idea of the virgin 
 birth without the use of the Septuagint translation. But 
 why did he care to teach the virgin birth at all ? His 
 
68 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 purpose was to make the Gospel of Matthew more " lib- 
 eral. " What possible connection has the virgin birth 
 with that purpose ? Is it seriously held that he quoted 
 Isaiah in support of the virgin birth as an attempt to make 
 the story of Christ's life more attractive to Gentiles ? He 
 could have done this more effectively by entirely discon- 
 necting the incident from prophecy. That the idea of the 
 virgin birth was repugnant to deep Jewish feeling is the 
 very nearest that we can come to giving the use of this 
 passage a liberal turn. It looks, however, as if the doc- 
 trine were connected with ancient prophecy in order to 
 make it less unpalatable to Jewish minds. 
 
 Keim's attempt to break the force of the use of the 
 Septuagint by making it indispensable to his purpose turns 
 upon the assumption that the Greek word TiapQkvoq is an 
 incorrect, or, at least, imperfect, rendering of the Hebrew 
 word n ^7i ? . The interpolator, fond as he was of quoting 
 from the Hebrew text, was compelled to depart from it 
 in this instance for he could not render the Hebrew 
 word correctly without obscuring or destroying his doc- 
 trine. Now the evidence upon which this statement is 
 made and reiterated by one critic after another is very 
 slender. 
 
 Gesenius says that the " primary idea in this word is 
 not that of unspotted virginity, for which the Hebrews 
 have the special word n 7 in ?, nor does it primarily signify 
 the unmarried state, but simply the marriageable age, the 
 age of puberty." Upon this he bases the statement that 
 in the Septuagint Isaiah vii, 14 is incorrectly rendered. 
 This totally ignores the fact that in the etymology of a 
 word not only root meanings, but also uses, are to be 
 taken into consideration. 
 
 The only passage which Gesenius alleges as evidence 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION 69 
 
 that the word is used to designate any other than a virgin 
 is Isaiah vii, 14, the very passage in dispute. 1 
 
 As a matter of fact there is no conclusive evidence to 
 show that the word was ever used in the Old Testament, 
 except with reference to a virgin. 
 
 The following quotation grants all that is reasonable to 
 the negative side in the question : — 
 
 "The meaning of ^IP is from its comparatively rare 
 use less easily determined. In Gen. xxiv, 43, it is used 
 with reference to Rebekah, apparently in the sense of a 
 virgo intacta. 
 
 " In Ca. vi, 8, the meaning is quite uncertain. The 
 women in the harem of Solomon, distinguished as they 
 are from the wives and concubines, might or might not be 
 virgins. We cannot, therefore, argue from the usage of 
 the word the meaning intended in Isaiah vii, 14 ; but the 
 whole context of the passage as well as the analogy of 
 viii, 14, suggests that the sign intended did not consist in 
 anything miraculous in the birth itself, but in the speedy 
 coming of the event, and in the symbolical name to be 
 given to the child." 2 Personally, I believe that this state- 
 ment might be made stronger on the positive side without 
 doing violence to the truth, but as it stands it deals a 
 death blow to the affirmation that the Septuagint is an 
 incorrect rendering. Dr. G. A. Smith may be perfectly 
 correct from the point of view of contemporary under- 
 standing in making the motherhood of the wonderful Child 
 uncertain and obscure, but Matthew is also correct in 
 interpreting the passage, in the light of the actual facts of 
 Christ's life, as referring to the wonderful manner of His 
 birth, and to the estate and character of His mother. 
 
 Mr. Woods suggests also that the Septuagint transla- 
 
 1 See Gesenius on HD^JT, Did., p. 788. 
 
 2 Hastings B. D. article, "Virgin." 
 
70 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 tion was due to a belief that the woman was a virgin at 
 the time the prophecy was spoken, though married per- 
 haps afterwards. The Seventy had no hint of a virgin 
 birth in mind. 
 
 We come, then, to this conclusion, justified by all the 
 facts : That in the prophecy an indeterminate word was 
 used, which allowed Matthew an escape from the virgin 
 implication if he wished it, but since he did not, lent itself 
 according to familiar usage, without violence or misinter- 
 pretation, to the illustration and enforcement of his 
 statement concerning the manner of Christ's birth. 1 
 
 The use of the Septuagint in this important passage of 
 the section attacked does much to cut it loose from the 
 work of the alleged interpolator. There is, however, 
 much stronger evidence pointing in the same direction. 
 This is the character of the passages introduced. There 
 is contradiction involved in the very thought that an 
 interpolator whose interest is in enforcing a liberalized 
 form of Christianity would connect the passages with Old 
 Testament prophecies. The five passages from prophecy 
 which are connected with the critical points of Christ's 
 early life are five separate items in a refutation of any 
 other theory of the section than that it is the attempt of a 
 Hebrew to recommend Christ to his own countrymen by 
 connecting even the earliest events in His life with Old 
 Testament prophecies. And with this interpretation 
 other features of the section agree. 
 
 If the interpolator introduced the story of Herod and 
 the wise men in the interest of a more liberal Christianity, 
 he has failed most signally ; for he has succeeded only in 
 imparting a more intensely Hebraic cast to the narrative. 
 Let us look at it. When the wise men appear, they ask 
 the question, " Where is He that is born King of the Jews ?" 
 
 1 Cf. Beecher, Prophets and Promise, p. 334, note. 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION J I 
 
 The narrative introduces Gentiles in the act of approach- 
 ing Christ, but they come seeking One who is so closely- 
 identified with the Jewish nation as to be known the 
 world over as the King of the Jews. The tribute of the 
 wise men to Israel is almost as marked as their reverence 
 for the Child Himself. It falls in perfectly with the gen- 
 eral purpose of Matthew to get outside testimony to the 
 fact that Jesus was the long watched-for King of the 
 Jewish nation. But the passage does not serve the pur- 
 pose of a liberalizing interpolator. He would have been 
 more likely to invent an incident which would exhibit 
 Hebrews in the act of inviting strangers to share with 
 them the glory of the Messiah's reign, and interpreting 
 the Messiah as the Saviour of the world. This the pas- 
 sage does not do. 
 
 The Herod incident points the same way. The account 
 occupies the consistent, unyielding Jewish attitude toward 
 Herod. It represents him as doing what Jewish patriots 
 always accused him of doing, viz., crushing out Jewish 
 national aspirations. Herod was groping in the dark 
 with his blood-stained sword for the Infant of Promise, 
 because He threatened to become the living center 
 around which Jewish national life might form itself 
 anew. He knew little about the world's Saviour, and 
 probably cared less, but he was intensely interested in 
 any one proclaimed to be the King of the Jews. The 
 integrity of the entire incident depends upon the intensely 
 Hebrew conception of the Messiah as a national king. 
 Any liberalizing writer who invented such an incident 
 must have had a curiously inverted mind. 
 
 There is no clear expression of Christian universalism 
 in the entire Infancy section of Matthew. It is Jewish 
 throughout. And more, it possesses in a superlative 
 degree that purpose which Keim calls the " one literary 
 
J2 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 passion " of the book, namely, the desire " to prove Jesus 
 to be the true Messiah, certainly unexpected in this form, 
 yet exactly so announced by all the utterances of God in 
 the Old Testament." 
 
 He adds to this that the Gospel " appears in a favorable 
 light, because it has not ignored the anti-Jewish thorn of 
 offense in the life of Jesus. " In addition to this, he main- 
 tains as "complete proof of its essential accuracy," that it 
 exhibits " a Christ elevated, yet human, law-observing, yet 
 superior to law, Jewish yet more than Jewish. " 
 
 By the possession of all these features of the Gospel, 
 which Keim adduces as especially worthy of commen- 
 dation, the Infancy section demonstrates its right to a 
 place in the Gospel. It is apologetic in its purpose. It 
 does not ignore the anti-Jewish offense in the birth of 
 Jesus, rather is so strongly apologetic that it risks being 
 used as an authority against the virgin birth in order to 
 bring forward and emphasize Joseph's tribute in word and 
 deed to the innocence of Mary. It seeks to prove the 
 Messiahship of Jesus by linking even the strange and 
 unaccountable fact of His birth of a virgin mother to Old 
 Testament prophecy. It exhibits Him as elevated in His 
 birth, but human in His growth ; Jewish in that He was 
 born into a Jewish family observant of all the rites and 
 ordinances of the Jewish law, yet more than Jewish in that 
 in His advent He was the mystery of a new divine creation. 
 There are many passages in Matthew which might more 
 easily be severed from the main body of the sacred tradi- 
 tion than this section, which, by its grand consonance with 
 the entire scheme and purpose of the Gospel, shows itself 
 an unassailable part thereof. Keim's theory, as thus far 
 considered, applies only to the Gospel of Matthew, and 
 the arguments offered in rebuttal have been taken from 
 that Gospel only. The arguments have been formed on 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION 73 
 
 the basis of the acceptance of a late date for the origin of 
 the Infancy section. 
 
 We now come to the question whether the assumption 
 of a late date for the section is justified by the facts. Keim 
 holds that the additions in Matthew and the story of Luke 
 are to be dated, with the rest of Luke's Gospel, well on 
 this side of the destruction of Jerusalem, i. e. y somewhat 
 
 between a. d. 80 and 90. 
 
 I see no sufficient ground for placing the Gospel of 
 Luke, as a whole, so late as the above date. According 
 to the accepted chronology the events recorded in the Book 
 of the Acts end somewhere between the years 59 (Har- 
 nack), and 63 (Lightfoot), and the composition of the book 
 is almost certainly not later than 82 ( see Ramsay, " St. 
 Paul," p. 387). The Book of the Acts presupposes the 
 Gospel. If we allow a reasonable time between the two 
 parts of Luke's work, we are pushed almost inevitably the 
 other side of the fall of Jerusalem, a. d. 70. * 
 
 In view of these facts the reasons adduced for the later 
 date are not conclusive. The reason which Keim alleges 
 is that the work shows evidence of having been written in 
 the time after the fall of Jerusalem and the final destruction 
 of the Jewish state, in that the interval between the fall of 
 the city and the end of the world in the apocalyptic dis- 
 courses of Jesus has indefinitely widened, and that a slow 
 historic process emerges into view, in which the Gentiles 
 are to be brought under the Gospel; while Matthew depicts 
 the two events almost without perspective. 
 
 In the first place, in a discourse of such tremendous 
 import, but treated so fragmentarily as it confessedly is in 
 both accounts, it is impossible to draw any very certain 
 
 1 On the date of Luke see Plummer, Com. on Lk., Intro., sec. iv ; and 
 for novel reasoning for an early date, Blass, Phil. Gosp., chap. iii. Cf. 
 also Moffat, Hist. N. T. Prologue, p. 272. 
 
74 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 conclusions from omissions or differences in emphasis 
 between the two. 
 
 In the second place, Matthew does make an interval 
 between the two events, an interval as great as that of 
 Luke, although he treats it more briefly : " This Gospel 
 of the Kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for 
 a testimony unto all nations, and then shall the end come." x 
 
 Luke's interest in all things Gentile, leads him to place 
 greater emphasis upon the interval in which the Gentiles 
 are to come into the Kingdom. The details added to the 
 description of the siege in Luke's account prove nothing 
 except, perhaps, a more vivid imagination for such details 
 on the part of the narrator. 2 
 
 This process of reasoning brings the Infancy stories 
 closer to the main body of the narrative. We are justified, 
 however, in making a much sharper statement concerning 
 them than this. 
 
 They show every evidence of being not late, but early, 
 — one of the very earliest elements in the entire New Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 Nearly all who discuss this question seem to take it for 
 granted that the Infancy stories are late additions to the 
 apostolic tradition. But one seeks for the grounds of 
 this conviction in vain. 
 
 Keim asserts that " we may safely call these accounts 
 post-apostolic on the ground that Paul and the rest of the 
 New Testament have as yet no inkling of a miraculous 
 birth of Jesus, which indeed finds no strong support until 
 after the middle of the second century, in the pages of 
 Justin, in the epistles of Ignatius, and in the Gospel of 
 James. " 3 
 
 1 Matt, xxiv, 14. 
 
 2 See Matt, xxiv, 15 ; Cf. Gloag, Intro. Syn. Gospels, p. 246. 
 8 Page 45. 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION f$ 
 
 He also says that " the Jewish-Christian portions, even 
 of the introductory narrative, in spirit, matter, and form, 
 show the coloring of a later time than that of Matthew 
 himself. " 
 
 It would be interesting to have the evidences for this 
 last assertion clearly set forth. In the " serried ranks of 
 annotations, " of which the great critic is justly proud, 
 none are devoted to this particular assertion. And one 
 may safely assert that they are not forthcoming because 
 they are not in existence. There are but three particulars 
 in the entire narratives which may, with any plausibility, 
 be urged in proof of a late origin. All three are in Luke. 
 First is the alleged metaphysical implication of the sen- 
 tences attributed to the angel in which Jesus is called the 
 Son of God. 1 In regard to this it may reasonably be 
 suggested that if any metaphysical statement were intended, 
 it would not have been allowed to remain implicit in a mere 
 statement, but would have been reenforced by exposition 
 and argument. It would have filled a larger place in the 
 rest of the Gospel. The dependence of the divine Son- 
 ship of Jesus upon the method of His birth is not stated 
 again. And the very wording of the passage indicates 
 the meaning : " He shall be great, and shall be called the 
 Son of the Most High ; and the Lord God shall give Him 
 the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over 
 the house of Jacob for ever, and of His kingdom there 
 shall be no end. . . . The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
 thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow 
 thee : wherefore also the holy thing which shall be born 
 shall be called the Son of God. " 2 
 
 In this passage nothing further is intended than the as- 
 sertion that by the power of God, immediately exercised, 
 she should become the mother of the Messiah promised 
 1 See discussion below, p. ioi. * Luke i, 32, 35. 
 
y6 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 to the house of David, who by His transcendent holiness 
 should gain the Messianic title, the Son of God. 
 
 The second feature which is urged in favor of a late 
 origin is the universalism in Simeon's address, " Mine eyes 
 have seen thy salvation, 1 which thou hast prepared before 
 the face of all peoples. A light for the unveiling of the 
 Gentiles (margin)." 
 
 In answer, we urge that this is no more than is con- 
 tained in the first statement of the promise made to 
 Abraham, 2 and the very next sentence shows us that we 
 are still moving in the circle of Old Testament notions : 
 " The glory of thy people Israel." 
 
 Again, the minor note in Simeon's address : " Behold, 
 this child is set for the falling and the rising of many in 
 Israel ; and for a sign which is spoken against ; yea and 
 a sword shall pierce through thine own soul; that thoughts 
 out of many hearts may be revealed. " This sentence 
 ought to be convincing evidence of an early origin for the 
 account in which it is found ; for it would have been im- 
 possible for any Christian to refer in that vague and ellip- 
 tical manner to the great catastrophe of Christ's death, 
 had it already occurred. The confident optimism of the 
 narrative is scarcely qualified by this word of Simeon, who 
 has caught the minor note of prophecy, such as was 
 sounded in Isaiah, ch. 53, and also has seen more deeply 
 than others into the corruptions of the age, which promised 
 sorrow for the Messiah and those who loved Him. In 
 favor of an early origin for the Infancy story may be urged 
 the entire spirit, form, and matter of the narratives. They 
 move within the narrow limits of Jewish-Messianic con- 
 victions in their very first application to Jesus. They 
 contain no hint of the later doctrinal expansion, which 
 brought the death of Christ into the framework of Chris- 
 1 Luke ii, 29-32. 2 Gen. xii, 1-3. 
 
LATE JEWISH- CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION J J 
 
 tian thinking. They are much closer to the Old Testa- 
 ment even than the Epistle of James. 
 
 Of the songs in Luke, Ryle and James in the introduc- 
 tion to their edition of the Psalms of Solomon, say, " The 
 writings which, in our opinion, most clearly approach our 
 Psalms in style and character are the hymns preserved in 
 the early chapters of St. Luke's Gospel, which in point 
 of date of composition probably stand nearer to the 
 Psalms of Solomon ( 70-40 b. c. ) than any other portion 
 of the New Testament (intro., p. lx.)." 
 
 In view of these facts, the contention for a late date is 
 not at all successful. 
 
 Keim's statement concerning Paul and the other writers 
 of the New Testament will be considered in a later chap- 
 ter. We now pause to take up the affirmation that the 
 Infancy narratives find no strong support until after the 
 middle of the second century. There may be some dif- 
 ference of opinion as to what constitutes " strong " support, 
 but considering all the circumstances the evidence for the 
 Infancy documents is remarkably conclusive. It must be 
 remembered that the first half of the second century is 
 the most obscure period in the history of the church. 
 The literary remains are scanty, and references are frag- 
 mentary. Nevertheless, the existence and circulation of 
 Christian documents in all essentials corresponding to 
 our Gospels is clearly manifest, and among them the 
 narratives concerning the birth and infancy must be 
 included. 
 
 To begin with, we may safely take issue with Keim on 
 the date of Ignatius. The genuineness of his letters in 
 the shorter Greek form is now practically undisputed, and 
 the concensus of recent scholarship is that his martyrdom 
 occurred under Trajan, and that consequently the letters 
 are to be dated between a. d. i 10 and 115 (no Light- 
 
78 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 foot, 110-115 Stanton. Between no and 117, Harnack, 
 who holds that it may possibly be as late as 125). 
 
 These letters are full of allusions to the miraculous 
 birth. (See Epistle to Ephesians, chaps, xviii, xix, etc.) 
 
 In the 19th chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians 
 he says:" Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the 
 Prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the 
 death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown which were 
 wrought in silence by God. How then was He manifested 
 to the ages ? A star shone forth in heaven above all the 
 stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its 
 novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest 
 of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to 
 this star, and its light was exceeding great above them all. " 
 
 The latter part of the foregoing citation is commented 
 upon by Dr. Stanton (Gospels as Hist. Doc, pt. I, p. 15) 
 as exhibiting the use of an extra-canonical source, either 
 oral or written. He says of the star-chorus : " This de- 
 scription differs markedly from the simple narrative of St. 
 Matthew. It is unlikely that Ignatius is merely giving 
 the rein to his imagination. We may conjecture that he 
 had obtained the idea from the same source, whatever 
 that was, as the words of the risen Christ which have just 
 been discussed. " 
 
 If this supposition is correct, then we have the follow- 
 ing interesting fact : That there was in circulation in the 
 first quarter of the second century a story based upon St. 
 Matthew's account and differing from it only in the addi- 
 tion of picturesque and illustrative details, and not yet 
 cut loose from the primitive narrative in the unrestrained 
 use of the imagination. Since such a story must have been 
 in existence some time in order to gain circulation and a cer- 
 tain amount of authority, the fact above stated alone goes a 
 long way toward pushing the canonical narrative into the 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION 79 
 
 first century. The fragment exhibits clearly the working of 
 the mythic temper, and serves to emphasize the restrained 
 sobriety of Matthew's account with its emphasis upon cen- 
 tral facts and neglect of details. The statement of Ignatius, 
 however derived, represents the transition from the histori- 
 cal spirit of the evangelists to the wonder-mongering spirit 
 of the apocryphal gospels. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Trallians, 1 he says : " Stop your 
 ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with 
 Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was 
 also of Mary, who was truly born and did eat and drink. 
 He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, He was 
 truly crucified and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, 
 and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly 
 raised from the dead," etc. The succession of statements 
 recalls to mind the Apostles' Creed, and the somewhat 
 formal and stereotyped phraseology indicates that it was 
 taken from some of those forms of catechetical instruc- 
 tion which afterwards developed into the old Roman sym- 
 bol and the creeds. 
 
 His statements show clearly enough that the belief in 
 the birth of Christ as narrated in the Gospels was con- 
 sidered in the first quarter of the second century an essen- 
 tial item in the historic faith, and also that denial of it was 
 confined to those who questioned the reality of Christ's 
 earthly life throughout. The alternatives of belief, as 
 exhibited in the writings of Ignatius, seem to have been — 
 the miraculous birth or docetism. 2 
 
 The writings of Justin Martyr belong to a slightly 
 later date, but in the statements and arguments which 
 occupy many chapters of his works, there are several 
 interesting items. In the first place, he confined himself 
 with surprising carefulness to the canonical accounts. 
 1 Cap. 1, xx. 3 See Note D, end of Volume. 
 
80 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 There are several references to what may possibly be 
 noncanonical sources, 1 but the changes are very slight, 
 and contain merely explanatory or illustrative material — 
 there is no invention of additional incidents. He uses 
 both Gospels (see Apol. I: 33), and does not deviate from 
 them in any matters of essential fact. 
 
 This latter consideration is especially important, for it 
 shows that down to the middle of the second century 
 the canonical account was kept by orthodox church 
 teachers free from legendary invention, and treated as 
 authoritative in connection with the birth of Christ. 2 
 The interval which separates Justin from the Gospels of 
 Matthew and Luke, 3 together -with the general accuracy 
 of his citations, indicates the great care with which the 
 evangelic tradition of the Lord's birth was guarded. 
 Again, in the Dialogue, Justin put into the mouth of his 
 imaginary opponent arguments against the miraculous 
 birth which must have been derived from Jewish sources, 
 and represent with great accuracy the unyielding ultra- 
 Jewish attitude toward the whole subject. (See note and 
 reference on page 35.) 
 
 This reference, together with the fact that there was 
 throughout the second century, and reaching back to the 
 period of the apostles, an unbroken succession of heret- 
 ical teachers (Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Basilides, Valen- 
 tinus, Marcion, Gnostics, Docetae, Ebionites, Ophites, etc., 
 some of whom did and some did not believe in the 
 miraculous birth, but all of whom testify to its prevalence 
 as a Christian doctrine) whose fundamental tenets com- 
 pelled them to the rejection of the Infancy narratives, 
 shows clearly that the canonical story of Christ's birth 
 
 1 See Apology 32, Dialogue with Trypho, 23, 43, 100. 
 
 1 Dial. 77, 78, 88, 102, etc. 
 
 9 Cf. Dial. Cap. 75, with Matt, xvi, 18. 
 
LA TE JE WISH- CHRISTIAN INTER POL A TION 8 I 
 
 did not creep into a place of authority, but had been pre- 
 served with care as a sacred deposit after having passed 
 through the fires of controversy. It is inconceivable that 
 a section of the narrative should have endured such in- 
 tense opposition had it not been well authenticated as 
 apostolic in its origin. And throughout the entire con- 
 troversy, there is no shred of documentary evidence from 
 either side to indicate that any one questioned the deri- 
 vation of the Infancy documents from the apostolic age. 
 
 Upon the basis of careful investigation of the patristic 
 literature, Dr. Gore says: "We have evidence then that 
 the virgin birth held a prominent place in the second century 
 tradition or creed of the churches of Rome, Greece, 
 Africa, Asia, Syria, and Palestine, Arabia. Such a con- 
 sensus in the second century reaching back to its begin- 
 ning, among very independent churches, seems to us, 
 apart from any question of the Gospels, to prove for the 
 belief an Apostolic origin. 
 
 It could not have taken such an undisputed position \ 
 unless it had really had the countenance of the Apostolic 
 founders of churches, of Peter and Paul and John, of 
 James and the Lord's, brethren." l It would seem as if 
 Keim's assertion that the narrative of the Infancy receives 
 no strong support until after the middle of the second 
 century is effectually disposed of. 2 (See notes B and C 
 at end of chapter.) 
 
 One other general consideration against Keim's view 
 should be taken into account. The supposition that the 
 Infancy narrative is at once Jewish and late would seem 
 to be altogether inadmissible. In order to be late the 
 narrative must be non-Jewish for the following reasons : 
 
 First. The Jewish Christian church at Jerusalem was 
 
 1 See Admission of Lobstein on this point in Birth of Christ : Preface. 
 1 Dissertations, pp. 48, 49. See entire statement. 
 
82 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 finally broken up in a. d. 135. No other Jewish-Christian 
 community was strong enough to have created a legend 
 which would have been accepted by the church in general. 
 
 Second. From the death of James (a. d. 62 or 63) until 
 the date of Hadrian's edict against the Jews the control of 
 the Jerusalem church was vested in a succession of bishops, 
 all of whom according to Eusebius 1 (who uses Hege- 
 sippus as authority) were " of the circumcision, " i. e., strict 
 observance Jews, and the church was of the same character. 
 
 " During the period, indeed from the outbreak of 
 troubles, a. d. 62, till long after the suppression of Barco- 
 chab's revolt, they must often have been sorely harassed 
 by political convulsions, and by the persecutions which 
 they had to endure at the hands of their compatriots who 
 did not believe in Jesus." 2 
 
 It is extremely unlikely that churches ruled by strictly 
 Jewish bishops, and passing through such tumultuous 
 experiences, would have originated innovations in the 
 evangelic tradition so serious as are involved in the Infancy 
 narrative. All considerations, therefore, of which there 
 are many, pointing to an early Palestinian origin, as 
 strongly point to a date for their origination previous to 
 the death of James, in the very heart of the Apostolic era. 3 
 
 1 H. E., Bk. iv, cap. v. 
 
 J Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Doc, Pt. I, p. 253. 
 
 8 For statement of probable occasion when questionings on subject of 
 Christ's birth arose see Gore : Dissert., p. 12. 
 
 NOTE A 
 
 Gardner (Historical View of the New Testament, p. 163) repeats this 
 argument of Keim but cannot be said to have added greatly to its cogency. 
 The argument exhibits a naive unconsciousness of a perfectly obvious dis- 
 tinction. Gardner says : " It is quite true that Matthew and Luke tell both 
 of the miraculous birth and the descent of the Spirit at baptism, but in doing 
 so they combine two inconsistent explanations of the same truth. For it is 
 clear that if Jesus was filled with the Spirit from His mother's womb, there 
 was no need that that Spirit should come upon Him at His baptism." To 
 
LATE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERPOLATION 83 
 
 say nothing of the failure to distinguish (as Keim has done) between the 
 Spirit looked upon as creative energy and as a person, this argument over- 
 looks the fact that all the requirements of the Gospel narrative which brings 
 together the miraculous birth and the baptism would be met by the simple 
 and necessary supposition, that the Spirit who had been energizing in the 
 life and being of Jesus from the beginning was then consciously and com- 
 pletely accepted in His personal manifestation as Inspirer and Guide. The 
 experience of the baptism certainly could not have been without some rela- 
 tionship to Jesus' past experience. How did He know that the Spirit had 
 been manifested to Him, and bestowed in full measure upon Him at the 
 Baptism ? Simply because the lofty experience of that hour at the Jordan, 
 the critical importance of which I would not for a moment seem to under- 
 estimate, was the culmination of a series of gracious experiences, (the full 
 significance of which he may not have hitherto understood) which reached 
 back even to His childhood. The baptismal experience was the key which 
 unlocked the secret of His whole life. But its importance and value con- 
 sist in the fact that it was so related to His entire life, past and future, as 
 to give us a revelation of its quality throughout. Instead of being inconsist- 
 ent with the account of the Baptism, the miraculous birth and the story 
 of the youthful visit at Jerusalem are necessary to any intelligible explana- 
 tion of the Baptism. The latter experience is intelligible only as a culmi- 
 nating revelation of an inspired and God-filled life. The real significance 
 of this argument of Keim and Gardner is that up to the time of the Bap- 
 tism, Jesus was not the Son of God in any special sense, that He had no 
 relationship, conscious or unconscious, to the Holy Spirit ; that He was (in 
 the theological sense) a natural man and that, at the Baptism, a new being 
 was created. This robs the entire life of Jesus previous to His ministry of 
 any significance or value. Gardner also argues from a parallelism between 
 the experience of the believer and that of the Master. " Paul says that 
 the followers of Christ are buried with Him in baptism. This view is ex- 
 plicable only on the supposition that the Spirit was given to believers as to 
 their Master in baptism. This new birth they share with Him, that they 
 may also share His life." 
 
 It is, of course, not fair to force an inference too far, but the implication 
 of this last sentence inevitably carries one a long way. It, of course, im- 
 plies that at His baptism the Lord experienced a "new birth." Not only 
 are we to be born again, but Jesus had to be born again, and the question 
 necessarily arises : What was Jesus before this new birth occurred ? What 
 did His new birth involve ? In our case it involves a change from a natural 
 unspiritual, sinful condition of greater or less alienation from God into a new 
 filial and spiritual temper and life. Does the parallel hold in the case of 
 Jesus ? Was He changed by this new birth from a sinner into God's anointed, 
 or merely from a clod lacking the divine fire? For if the experience 
 
84 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 at the baptism necessarily excludes a miraculous conception by the power of 
 the Holy Spirit, it with equal force excludes all inspiration or even vital 
 contact with the Spirit from all the pre-baptismal life of Jesus. It seems to 
 me that the argument carries those who make it into deeper waters than they 
 are aware. 
 
 This question apart, however, I doubt the force of the parallel. For I 
 do not believe that any experience comparable with that of Jesus at the 
 Jordan was ever undergone by a believer de novo. No man ever consciously 
 and completely entered into a gracious relationship of dependence and obedi- 
 ence with the Spirit as a Person without premonitions, without anticipatory 
 experiences, without being moved and won by the Spirit in previous con- 
 scious experiences, and certainly not without the secret workings of the 
 Spirit in the life. Even if the supposition that the birth of Jesus was purely 
 natural were true, I cannot believe that the Baptism was so entirely revolu- 
 tionary and sporadic as these statements imply. In short the argument 
 against the miraculous birth drawn from the experience at the Jordan fails 
 utterly to justify itself. 
 
 NOTE B 
 
 The lack of documentary evidence as to the use of the creed in the 
 sub-apostolic age is at least partially explained by the fact that the Chris- 
 tians kept the statements of their belief as sacred arcana not on any 
 account to be made common property by being committed to writing and 
 put into circulation, but to be preserved religiously in the memory. Lumby 
 in the first chapter of his book on the History of the Creeds shows this 
 fact and adduces the literature which exhibits it. When the creeds first 
 appear in Christian literature, the creeds of all the historic churches are so 
 nearly identical as to point unmistakably to a common source, and the very 
 fact that they were looked upon as sacred, too sacred to be communicated 
 to the public or put in writing, together with the no less certain fact that 
 during the period to which our documents refer, creeds underwent prac- 
 tically no changes except in minor points of phraseology, is strong evi- 
 dence of their authoritative apostolic origin. (Cambridge, 1880.) 
 
 NOTE C 
 
 H. B. Swete (The Apostles' Creed, Cam., 1894, pp, 42, #•) i n rebut " 
 tal of Harnack, has made a very clear exhibition of the evidence for the 
 antiquity of the doctrine of the miraculous birth. 
 
 From the statement of the Roman Creed of the fourth century, in which 
 the miraculous birth holds a forward place he follows the belief, step by 
 step, through Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Ignatius. A 
 collateral line of evidence is followed through the various heretical sects 
 and teachers to the beginning of the second century. Those heresiarchs 
 
LA TE JE WISH- CHRISTIAN INTERPOLA TION 85 
 
 who accept the fact do so " on the authority of the Gospels, and not as a 
 tradition inherited from the church ;" and those who deny do not allege on 
 their side a lack of apostolic authority for the doctrine. 
 
 Still another thread of proof is connected with the Jewish attitude 
 toward the doctrine. Finding that the Christians were united in denying 
 Joseph's paternity and evidently unable to adduce any satisfactory evidence 
 in its favor, they accepted the denial and made it the basis of an attack 
 upon the honor of Jesus' home. This was familiar argument to Celsus. 
 The details of this disgusting and blasphemous Pantheras story lends proba- 
 bility to the view that it goes back anterior to the age of Hadrian, and the 
 "impression is confirmed which has been received from the letters of 
 Ignatius as to the wide diffusion of this belief among Christians of the 
 generation which immediately followed the death of St. John." 
 
 For the sources of the doctrine we are thus forced back to the Gospels 
 themselves. Justin states that the doctrine was learned from the Memoirs, 
 and his references are mostly to St. Luke, though not exclusively. 
 Ignatius, on the other hand, appears to be independent of both narrators. 
 
 "If he leans to either, it is to St. Matthew, but, on the whole, his 
 words leave the impression that he either refers to some third document 
 perhaps akin to our first Gospel, or is simply handing in a fact which had 
 been taught him orally, probably when he first received the Faith. The 
 latter supposition carries us back, perhaps far back, into the first century." 
 
 The story of the Infancy lay outside the plan both of Mark and John, 
 but forms an integral part of Luke's story. Marcion's mutilated Gospel 
 began with an arbitrary fusion of iii, I, and iv, 31, yet if, as is altogether prob- 
 able, the first two chapters formed a part of the original Gospel, " the most 
 important record of the conception is carried back, let us say, to A. D. 75- 
 80, a terminus ad quetn for the publication of the third Gospel accepted by 
 one of the most cautious and far seeing of living New Testament scholars," 
 (?'. e. Sanday). Then follows a most interesting statement of facts which 
 have been generally overlooked in the discussion. 
 
 " The style of Luke i, 5 to ii, 52, clearly points to sources older than the 
 Gospel itself. There are indeed correspondences of style and vocabulary 
 which connect this section with the rest of the Gospel and show that the 
 whole book has passed through the hands of the same compiler ; yet the 
 section betrays unmistakably, as we think, an independent origin. It has 
 an archaic tone ; its thought and spirit are Judseo-Christian ; the hymns 
 which characterize it are permeated by the thought and language of the 
 Old Testament ; the narrative preserves a simplicity which contrasts not 
 only with St. Luke's formal dialogue, but with his rendering of the Syn- 
 optic tradition. " Every consideration thus urges to the acceptance of an 
 early date for the Infancy narratives. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN SOLTAU 
 
 The theory of Soltau 1 as to the origin of the Infancy 
 stories differs somewhat from Keim's, especially in the 
 place which he gives to heathen influences, and in his 
 assertion of a later date for completion of the story. He 
 says : " Toward the end of the first century Bethlehem 
 was regarded as the real birthplace of Jesus. Upon this 
 foundation were built up the two narratives which now 
 stand at the beginning of the first and third Gospels." 2 
 
 It will be seen that the foundation of the story was not 
 laid until about the end of the first century. The work 
 of developing the legend must have been done after that 
 date. 
 
 The author next proceeds to involve Luke in the chron- 
 ological difficulty concerning the death of Herod. He 
 says flatly, " Herod the Great, under whom Jesus is sup- 
 posed to have been born, was already dead." This argu- 
 ment has been very generally abandoned as incorrect. 3 
 
 In stating some of the difficulties involved in the two 
 stories, Soltau makes at least one serious error of his own. 
 He says, " We learn from Matthew, on the other hand, that 
 Bethlehem was the real native place of Joseph and Mary." 4 
 As a matter of fact, we do not learn anything of the kind. 
 
 1 The Birth of Jesus Christ, by W. Soltau, A. and C. Black, London. 
 
 2 P. 25, cf. Keim, quoted on p. 60. 
 
 8 See H. B. D. Art. : N. T. Chron., also Ramsay, Was Christ born at 
 Bethlehem? Cap. X. 
 4 P. 30. 
 
THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN 87 
 
 According to Soltau, there was a process of growth, by- 
 accretion and redaction, from the fundamental misconcep- 
 tion that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem to the 
 elaborate legend as it now stands in the Gospels. 
 
 The first form of it was a story l " current in Palestinian 
 circles, which represented that Jesus actually came from 
 Nazareth, but was born as a descendant of David in Beth- 
 lehem, and was really derived in the male line from David 
 himself, though the story even in this developed form 
 knew nothing as yet of the virgin birth of Jesus. It 
 described in a genuinely Jewish 2 way the joy manifested 
 by the oldest generation when the Messiah appeared, and 
 was only legendary in so far as it acquiesced in the dog- 
 matic views which required that the Messiah should be 
 born only in David's native place." 
 
 " The next step in this building-up process was a further- 
 developed Jewish-Christian version of the story, to the 
 effect that Jesus, the son of Joseph, of the tribe of David, 
 was born in Bethlehem, and from that place journeyed to 
 Nazareth, a story recounted in a different form and with 
 different ideas from those of the account in the First and 
 Third Evangelists." To this developed story Luke added 
 as details : — 
 
 1. Generation of Jesus through the Holy Spirit (i, 25- 
 56). 
 
 2. The Angels' Song of Praise (ii, 8-20). 
 
 Matthew has connected the virgin birth with Jesus, and 
 the visit of the Magi. 
 
 The song attributed to the angels was taken even in 
 verbal details from certain inscriptions discovered recently 
 
 1 Pp. 28, 29. 
 
 2 This admission as to the early composition of the songs is really fatal, 
 for the songs are an integral part of the story, and are logically and vitally 
 connected with the miraculous birth. See discussion Chap. VI. 
 
88 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 in Asia Minor, in which was expressed the common joy- 
 felt over the birth of the Emperor Augustus. 
 
 The adoration of the Magi was altogether based upon 
 heathen mythology. The story of the Magi is made up 
 of two elements taken from very different sources : The 
 sign of the star from the celestial phenomena, connected 
 in popular mythology with the birth of great men, and the 
 journey of the wise men from the east from a story of the 
 journey of the Parthian King Tiridates and his Magians 
 from the East in the time of Nero ( a. d. 66 ). 
 
 Soltau says, that "in the joyful Christmas message (Luke 
 ii, 14), the terms in which in those days it was usual to 
 pay homage to the earthly prince of peace, Augustus, were 
 applied quite spontaneously to the heavenly Prince of 
 Peace, so the first evangelists felt that the journey of the 
 Magi from the East, which threw the whole cultured 
 world into a state of astonishment, could only be explained, 
 if their act of adoration might be transferred from the anti- 
 Christ Nero to the Messiah." l 
 
 The virgin birth, which is not accounted for in the natu- 
 ral history of the legend thus far, is to be viewed under 
 three aspects : — 
 
 1. As regards form, the whole narrative is simply a 
 deliberate recast of the older Jewish fables about Samson 
 and John. 
 
 2. As regards matter, on the other hand, it is to be ex- 
 plained as a transformation of biblical conceptions, due to 
 misconception. 
 
 3. At the same time, those elements drawn from heathen 
 mythology can be detected which promoted the transfor- 
 mation of Christian ideas, and the development of a wrong 
 conception. 
 
 The matter in the early chapters was built up almost 
 1 Pp. 39, 40. 
 
THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN 89 
 
 verse by verse upon the original foundation of the story 
 of John by gradual accretions and successive redactions, 
 until we come to the finished product of the double legend. 
 The finished product is very late, for, according to the 
 theory, the legend was completed after the views of Paul 
 and John were published and had time to percolate into 
 the popular mind and start up a reaction in the shape of 
 legendary stories. 
 
 " When the Pauline and Johannine Christology, 1 having 
 been translated into popular language, penetrated to the 
 lower classes of the people, it was almost bound to lead 
 to the view becoming current amongst Christians untrained 
 in philosophy, that Christ, in calling God his Father, did 
 not merely call Him so in the sense in which all are chil- 
 dren of God, but that He was even bodily of ' higher 
 derivation,' of divine origin. Here, then, the myth-making 
 imagination of Christians, roused to religious enthusiasm, 
 settled, and sought to remodel in a form intelligible to the 
 senses what had been puzzled out by the brains of philos- 
 ophers and dogmatists ; and in this task, widely diffused 
 heathen fables again came to their assistance." 
 
 Now that this theory lies fully before me, I confess to 
 no little hesitation in undertaking to criticise it. It is so 
 complicated and so ingenious, and yet so full of logical 
 inconsistencies and unprovable assumptions. The logical 
 tangle into which its statements lead is so complete that I 
 find it very difficult to understand how its author himself 
 could have overlooked it. 
 
 On page twenty-five, he says ; " Toward the end of the 
 first century, Bethlehem was regarded as the real birth- 
 place of Jesus. Upon this foundation were built up the 
 two narratives, which now stand at the beginning of the 
 first and third Gospels." 
 
 2 Pp- 44,45- 
 
90 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 On page forty-eight, he says : " The idea that the Holy 
 Spirit begat Jesus can have no other than a Hellenic 
 origin. Note here that the idea did not certainly arise 
 until toward the end of the first century, or cannot have 
 come to be commonly held." 
 
 We have here a curious process. There came into 
 existence near the end of the first century a conviction 
 that Jesus must be born at Bethlehem. From this begin- 
 ning, by an elaborate process of building up, detail upon 
 detail, through the addition to the primitive tradition of 
 detached fragments from all imaginable sources culmin- 
 ating finally in the fiction of the virgin birth, which is itself 
 a complicated, manufactured article, the completed fable 
 came to be, and yet the beginning and the ending of this 
 whole process is dated at the same time. The conviction 
 that Jesus must be born at Bethlehem arose about the 
 end of the first century, the Hellenic conception of the 
 miraculous birth arose about the end of the first century, 
 and yet between the two lies a process of development, 
 which would require at least a half century to consum- 
 mate. If this is " scientific criticism," one would like to 
 see what sort of work old-fashioned dogmatism would 
 make of the interpretation of the documents. 
 
 One can see plainly enough where the difficulty lies. 
 The process of building up an elaborate legend from such 
 humble beginnings as a simple belief that Jesus was born 
 at Nazareth of Joseph and Mary, into the story as we now 
 have it, by adding details borrowed from Old Testament 
 stories, heathen mythology, and Imperial edicts, requires 
 time and a great deal of it. The process must be supposed 
 to begin late because time must be allowed for the sharp 
 outlines of the "genuine tradition" to become blurred — 
 this accounts for the beginning of the process at about 
 the end of the first century. It is unsafe to carry the pro- 
 
THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN 9 1 
 
 cess of formation too far into the second century for we 
 begin to have some definite results as to the establish- 
 ment of the canon and the formation of church creeds ; 
 hence the completion of the process is put about the end 
 of the first century. 
 
 But it is clearly impossible that such a process as the 
 theory describes could have occupied less than half a 
 century. If the foundation of the legend was laid, as 
 Soltau affirms, in the dogma of the Bethlehem birth about 
 the end of the first century, then the capstone of the virgin 
 birth could not have been in place before A. d. i 50. We 
 have indubitable evidence that the virgin birth had recog- 
 nized credal standing in all the principal churches long 
 before that date. 
 
 I do not propose to deal with Soltau's theory of piece- 
 meal growth in detail ; it really is not worth while. The 
 theory is sufficiently condemned on general principles of 
 common sense and logical consistency. 
 
 But I do propose to take up a few specimens of the criti- 
 cal work, which has gone into the elaboration of the theory. 
 
 In the first place, it is noticeable that he assumes that 
 any similarity between heathen stories and the incidents 
 connected with the birth of Jesus is evidence enough that 
 the Christian writer borrowed from the heathen as a source, 
 provided there is a bare possibility that the Christian 
 writer was acquainted with the authority in question. For 
 example, the words attributed by Luke to the angel is 
 said to be taken verbatim from congratulatory inscriptions 
 on the birth of Augustus. 
 
 " The writer transferred them to the times when his 
 Saviour was born ; for no one, who decides the question 
 from a scientific standpoint, could really doubt the priority 
 of the Asiatic inscriptions to the first beginnings of a 
 history of the childhood of Jesus." 
 
92 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Now notice the assumptions upon which this conclusion 
 rests : — 
 
 1. That the inscriptions were prior to the composition 
 of the angels' song in Luke's Gospel. 
 
 2. That the angels' song was of heathen origin. Soltau 
 says in the texts that the " ideas in the angels' song may- 
 be of purely heathen origin, " and in a note, " This, of 
 course, excludes the idea that the form, which they have 
 taken was due to Jewish-Christians ; we may be sure that 
 they are not of Palestinian origin." 
 
 3. That the writer was familiar with the inscriptions and 
 transferred them to his Saviour. If any one of these three 
 assumptions breaks down, the theory goes with it. 
 
 Now of the assumptions, we may say of the first that it 
 is probably correct, if the date assigned to the inscriptions 
 is accurate. The history of the Augustan period is notably 
 obscure, and all conclusions concerning dates are to be 
 held with caution. 
 
 As to the second assumption, we may safely say that it 
 is contradicted by two patent facts. First, its connection 
 with the doctrine of angels, which, in the form given 
 it in the Infancy narrative, is a distinctly Jewish con- 
 ception. 1 Second, the song of the angels is a fragment 
 of a poem originally written in Hebrew with the distinctive 
 Hebrew parallelism still remaining. Unfortunately, the 
 writer has chosen one of the most ancient and character- 
 istically Hebraic portions of the New Testament as exhibit- 
 ing late heathen influence. 2 
 
 As to the third assumption, we have no evidence to 
 justify a conclusion oneway or the other. The confident 
 assertion that the song of the angels was framed from 
 Imperial inscriptions is shattered upon the actual facts. 
 
 'See Hastings B. D., article Angels, also note at end of Chap. vi. 
 2 Briggs, New Light on L. J., p. 163. 
 
THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN 93 
 
 It is hardly necessary to add that the inscriptions them- 
 selves coincide with Luke only in the use of words com- 
 monly used in classic and Hellenic Greek. The similarity 
 between the inscriptions and the passage in Luke is not 
 striking enough to warrant any definite conclusion apart 
 from other considerations. * 
 
 Another specimen of Soltau's critical method is seen in 
 his attempt to account for the story of the wise men. He 
 fails altogether to see, or at least to mention, the inter- 
 dependence of this story with the incident of the massacre 
 of the Innocents and the flight into Egypt. In Matthew's 
 account, the visit and inquiry of the wise men for the new- 
 born King called Herod's attention to His birth ; made the 
 flight into Egypt necessary ; and occasioned the slaughter 
 of the Innocents. This does not prevent the critic, how- 
 ever, from ascribing the closely knit narrative to several 
 independent sources. 
 
 The massacre of the Innocents and the flight into Egypt 
 was due to the influence of the Old Testament precedents. 2 
 The star of the wise men was taken from the common 
 mythology, in which celestial phenomena are said to have 
 accompanied the birth of great men. The journey of the 
 wise men, however, was due to a story recorded by Pliny 
 and repeated with variations by Dio Cassius of a visit of 
 King Tiridates, and the Magians to Nero. The writer of 
 the account in Matthew could not believe that this visit 
 of respect and worship could have been made to such a 
 monster as Nero, and therefore made free to correct his- 
 tory by attributing the visit to Jesus. He took great 
 pains, however, to suppress the fact that there was a king 
 among the visitors, although the Christian imagination has 
 delighted to think that kings came to worship the King 
 
 1 See Soltau's proof passages in appendix to his book. 
 
 2 Ex. i, 15. 
 
94 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 of kings. He lost a great opportunity in suppressing the 
 fact that there was a king among the Magi. Think, 
 too, of the cosmopolitan comprehensiveness of a mind that 
 could take an incident from the Old Testament and remodel 
 it, a feature from current mythology, and a fact of Roman 
 imperial history, and weave them together so that the star 
 (taken from current mythology) led the wise men on a 
 journey (taken from the history of Nero's reign) to seek 
 the king, upon whom Herod made a murderous attempt 
 (according to the Old Testament mythology) which would 
 have succeeded if the Child had not fled to Egypt (accord- 
 ing to Old Testament precedent), and the wise men returned 
 home another way (according to Dio Cassius). 
 
 The whole contention depends for its plausibility on the 
 assumption, first, that the account in Matthew is late, 
 which is contradicted by the Christology of the entire 
 section ; second, that the writer was familiar with the 
 incidents of Roman court life, for which there is not the 
 slightest foundation ; third, that the writer would have 
 accepted with equal facility ideas from the Old Testament, 
 current mythology, and Roman history, which is contra- 
 dicted by every single implication of the passage. In the 
 facts of the case the explanation has not a leg to stand 
 upon. 
 
 Once more, I wish to call attention to the curious 
 natural history, which the critic ascribes to the idea of the 
 virgin birth : — 
 
 In form — a deliberate recast of older Jewish fables 
 about Samson, and John the Baptist. 
 
 In matter — a transformation of biblical conceptions, such 
 as those found in the Christologies of Paul and John. In 
 final outcome — modified by heathen elements. 
 
 This elaborate explanation also breaks into fragments 
 upon actual facts : — 
 
THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN 95 
 
 1. It calls for a late origin, i. e., after the publication and 
 common acceptance of the writings of John and Paul, 
 which is contradicted by the nature of the documents, and 
 by the known facts of Christian thought of the early 
 second century. l 
 
 2. The virgin birth in its statement in the Infancy nar- 
 rative is not doctrinal in its form. It is stated as a his- 
 torical fact without elaboration or development. 
 
 3. The documents, in which the statement is found, and 
 of which it is a component part, are essentially Jewish. 
 
 The entire theory of Soltau breaks down upon three 
 unassailable facts : — 
 
 1. The narratives, each of Matthew and Luke, are 
 units. They have one central formative principle, close 
 inter-relation of parts, and unbroken flow of narrative. 
 
 2. The narratives are ancient. This has been demon- 
 strated at length in these pages, and is an assured result 
 of criticism. 
 
 3. The narratives are Jewish — the convincing evidence 
 for this has been urged at length. 234 
 
 In contrast with the work of Soltau, which seems to me 
 a travesty upon criticism, I wish to place before the reader 
 
 1 One might easily overlook the insuperable difficulties involved in this 
 theory. The Infancy narrative according to Soltau originated among 
 simple-minded people, familiar with the teachings of Paul and John, but 
 incapable of understanding them in the sense intended by their authors. 
 These people succeeded in concocting a crude theory of their own to explain 
 the greatness of Jesus, and in thrusting it up over the heads of their leaders 
 and teachers into a secure place among the documents of Christianity, and 
 the creeds of the church. 
 
 2 See Lobstein, p. 129. 
 
 'See Fairbairn, Phil. Christian Religion, p. 518, quoted in note 
 at end of volume. Also Ibid., p. 349, on character of the narrative of 
 Infancy. 
 
 * For a statement of this by one clearly alive to all the difficulties invol- 
 ved in the narratives, see Mathews : Mess. Hope in N. T, p. 233. 
 
96 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 a specimen of sane and scholarly criticism working upon 
 the documents of the Infancy. Dr. C. A. Briggs, of New- 
 York, is known on both sides of the Atlantic as a critic 
 who is thoroughly committed to the documentary theory 
 both of the Old Testament and the New. I take the 
 liberty of quoting a chapter from his recent book on "New 
 Light on the Life of Christ." l I may say that most of my 
 book was written before I had the privilege of seeing the 
 work of Dr. Briggs. 
 
 " The Gospels of Mark and John agree in having no 
 gospel of the infancy of Jesus. This was due, doubtless, 
 to a lack of interest in that part of the life of Jesus, as 
 well as to the fact that both of these Gospels seem to be 
 limited to the testimony of what the primary authorities 
 themselves had seen and heard, St. Peter in Mark, and St. 
 John in the Gospel of John ; that is, in both Gospels in 
 their original forms. 
 
 " The later editors, doubtless owing to a more dogmatic 
 interest, thinking of Jesus as the Son of God and divine, 
 had still less interest in the infancy of Jesus. The gospel 
 of the Infancy is confined to a brief statement in Matthew 
 i, 1 8 to ch. ii to which a genealogy of Jesus is prefixed ; and 
 a fuller statement, Luke i-ii, to which a genealogy is 
 appended, iii, 23-38, the ministry of John being inserted, 
 iii, 1-22. 
 
 " The fact, that in both cases the gospel of the Infancy is 
 attached to genealogies shows an interest in proving that 
 Jesus was the son of David, the heir of the promises to 
 David and his seed, and so the Messiah. The fact that 
 Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam shows a human 
 interest, and a universalism characteristic of the Roman 
 disciple of St. Paul. The stories of the Infancy, told by 
 Matthew, were all to show that Jesus was the Messiah of 
 
 1 Published by Charles Scribner's Sons. 
 
THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN g? 
 
 Prophecy: (i) The annunciation to Joseph and birth of 
 Jesus, as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah respect- 
 ing Immanuel. (2) The adoration of the Magi, as the 
 fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah that the Messiah 
 would be born in Bethlehem. (3) The blood-bath of 
 Bethlehem and the flight into Egypt, as fulfilling the proph- 
 ecy of Jeremiah, of Rachel weeping for her children ; and 
 the prediction of Hosea that, ' out of Egypt did I call my 
 son.' (4) The return to Nazareth, as fulfilling the 
 prophecy of Isaiah that He should be called a Nazarene. 
 
 " It is evident that none of this was found in the original 
 Gospels of Matthew or Mark. These are all additions 
 inserted by the author of the canonical Matthew. This 
 conception of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy 
 by these events as stated by this author, is doubtless a 
 crude interpretation of the Old Testament Scripture. We 
 may, however, find a sufficient number of parallels in the 
 Rabbinical methods of the time. We are to explain them, 
 therefore, not in accordance with modern principles of in- 
 terpretation, but in accordance with those principles which 
 were in use in the times of Jesus. 
 
 " Did these stories come from an oral source, or from a 
 written source? Matt, i, 20, 21 gives a little piece of 
 poetry. This is not complete in itself. It was taken from 
 a longer poem. Its contents show that the longer poem 
 contained a fuller account of the story of the Annunci- 
 ation to Joseph. We may therefore say that the story of 
 the Annunciation to Joseph, and the birth of Jesus, was 
 taken from this poem and given by the author of our 
 Matthew in prose with the exception of this extract. 
 This piece has the parallelisms and measures of Hebrew 
 poetry. We may, therefore, conclude that there was a 
 poem in the Hebrew language, which has been translated 
 for the present Gospel. The other stories do not contain 
 
98 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 such poetic extracts, and, therefore, we cannot use the 
 same argument for a written source. But they are 
 Hebraistic in style. It is possible that these also were 
 in the same poem ; but we have no evidence of it, in their 
 composition or their context. They may, therefore, have 
 come from an oral source. The use that is made of them 
 in the canonical Matthew, to show that Jesus was the 
 Messiah of Prophecy, we may safely say, was not in the 
 source, whether oral or written, but was due to the author 
 of the Gospel himself. 
 
 "The fullest report of the story of the Infancy of Jesus is 
 given in Luke. The story is composed of a number of 
 pieces of poetry. The prose narrative gathers about 
 these ; and is chiefly of the nature of seams to build the 
 poetry together into a harmonious story. These poems 
 are : (1) The Annunciation to Zacharias, a trimeter poem in 
 the original Hebrew in two strophes of different lengths, 
 evidently incomplete in the translation. (2) The Annun- 
 ciation to Mary, four pieces of trimeter poetry of different 
 lengths connected by seams, evidently incomplete in their 
 present form. (3) The Annunciation to the Shepherds, 
 two pieces of trimeter poetry, evidently extracts from a 
 larger piece. (4) The Song of Elisabeth, and (5) the 
 Song of the Virgin, the Magnificat of the Church, both 
 trimeter poems, more complete than the others, but prob- 
 ably also incomplete. (6) The Song of Zacharias, the 
 Benedictus of the Church. This seems to be of the pen- 
 tameter movement. It is uncertain whether we should 
 divide it into five or into two strophes. It is the most 
 complete of the poems, but it is by no means certain that 
 the whole of it has been preserved. (7) The song of 
 Simeon is a trimeter poem, which is certainly incomplete 
 in the parts of two strophes that have been preserved. 
 This is the Nunc Dimittis of the church. 
 
THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN 99 
 
 "These seven pieces of poetry are a scries of annuncia- 
 tions and of songs of gratitude and praise, all with marked 
 characteristics of Hebrew poetry, not only in form, but in 
 the style and substance of the thought. They are not 
 complete in themselves, but extracts from poems. This 
 raises the question whether they were not originally parts 
 of larger poems, rather than each from different and inde- 
 pendent poems. Six of them have the same trimeter 
 movement, and may all be from the same poem. One of 
 them is a pentameter, like the pentameter preserved in 
 Matthew, and therefore both of these may be from the same 
 poem. May we, therefore, think of two long poems, each 
 giving a poetic account of the birth and infancy of Jesus ? 
 Or are we to think of a number of little poems each tak- 
 ing up a different theme ? It seems more probable that 
 we have to think of two original poems of this kind, the 
 one chiefly used by Matthew, the other chiefly used by 
 Luke. At all events, so far as Luke is concerned, his 
 story of the Infancy is nothing more than a prose setting 
 for these seven poetic pieces given by him. These poems 
 were certainly originally in Hebrew ; they were also cer- 
 tainly before him in written documents, one or more. 
 They were written sources as truly as the original Mark, 
 and the original Matthew, — all alike in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage. They must have been composed before the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, either in the Christian congrega- 
 tion of Jerusalem, or the Christian community in Galilee ; 
 therefore by early Christian poets who had access to the 
 family of Jesus, certainly to His brother James the head 
 of the Jerusalem Church, and possibly also to the Virgin 
 Mother of our Lord ; and to others who could speak as 
 eyewitnesses or earwitnesses of these matters embodied 
 in verse. Making every allowance for the poetic form, 
 style, and conception, these poems are sources of the high- 
 
100 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 est value, and of the first degree of historic importance, as 
 belonging with the original Hebrew Gospels of Mark, 
 Matthew, and John, rather than with the later Gospels of 
 Matthew, Luke, and John, as we now have them. 
 
 " They give us information as to the Infancy of Jesus, and 
 as to the Virgin Mother, which is necessary to complete 
 the story of their lives, and to give us a complete under- 
 standing of their character. Indeed this gospel of the 
 Infancy as enshrined not only in the first and third Gos- 
 pels, but also in the Canticles of the Church derived from 
 them, has had more influence upon Christian worship, and 
 no less influence upon Christian doctrine, than the more 
 dogmatic statements of the Epistles. There is no sound 
 reason to reject it as merely legendary in its material. 
 There is every reason to accept it as giving a valid and 
 essentially historic account of the Infancy of our Lord, so 
 far as it could be reasonably expected in poetic forms." 
 
 NOTE TO CHAPTER IV 
 
 There are two statements in this chapter to which especial interest is 
 attached. 
 
 The first is the assertion (quoted on p. 97) that " none of this" (that is the 
 prophetic passages quoted by Matthew in connection with the incidents of 
 Christ's birth and infancy) " was found in the original Gospels of Matthew 
 or Mark. These are all additions inserted by the author of the canonical 
 Matthew." The bearing of this statement upon the question of the influence 
 of the prophecies upon the story is evident. According to Dr. Briggs (see p. 
 99) the facts told concerning the Infancy were taken from written sources 
 belonging to the primitive groundwork of the Gospels, while the connection 
 with prophecy was made by the literary author or editor of the completed 
 Gospel. The reader may compare this statement with the remark made on 
 p. 34 of the present work. " He (the author of the Gospel) did not come to 
 Jesus through the prophecies ; he came to the prophecies through Jesus." 
 
 Along with this is to be placed the further striking statement which, in 
 view of the facts adduced, it would be very difficult to dispute. " So far as 
 
THEORY OF LATE COMPOSITE ORIGIN 10 1 
 
 Luke is concerned, his story of the Infancy is nothing more than a prose 
 setting for these seven poetic pieces given by him. 
 
 " Making every allowance for the poetic form, style, and conception, these 
 poems are sources of the highest value, and of the first historic importance, 
 as belonging with the original Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John, rather 
 than with the later Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John as we now have 
 them." 
 
 When it is remembered that the historic incidents which enter into Luke's 
 prose setting for the poems are essentially involved in the poems themselves, 
 the sound historic basis of the Lukan account becomes manifest. The con- 
 tention elsewhere maintained in these pages that the Infancy documents 
 form a part of the primitive basis of the gospels, and are among the earliest 
 of the component parts of the New Testament finds abundant support in this 
 chapter from Dr. Briggs' work. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN — 
 LOBSTEIN 
 
 In the preceding chapters, a detailed examination was 
 made of the theories of Keim and Soltau to account for 
 the origin of the Infancy stories with the result that they 
 were found to lead us into a tangle of difficulties and con- 
 tradictions from which there seems to be no escape except 
 by rejecting the theories altogether. 
 
 In the present chapter, I propose taking up the theory 
 set forth by Professor Lobstein, of the University of Strass- 
 burg, in a monograph entitled, "The Virgin Birth of 
 Christ." x 
 
 This theory is far more ably constructed than Keim's, 
 is advocated more persuasively and, it must be acknowl- 
 edged, has more warrant in the facts. 
 
 Lobstein admits that the theory of late origin for the 
 documents is untenable — at least his theory pushes them 
 well back into the apostolic age, while, at the same time, 
 it cuts them away from the main body of the evangelic 
 tradition. 
 
 In what follows, I shall consider this positive and con- 
 structive theory only. His objections to the narratives, in 
 so far as they are new, have been incorporated into the 
 first chapter. 
 
 Lobstein advocates his theory with great confidence. 
 It is my purpose to discover whether that confidence is 
 well founded. 
 
 1 Crown Library. 
 102 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 103 
 
 Lobstein states his theory in outline in the following 
 words : — 
 
 1 "The miraculous birth of Jesus vanishes away, or rather 
 is resolved into a myth created by popular devotion and 
 destined to explain the divine Sonship of Christ by His 
 supernatural generation. Thus received, the conception 
 of our two evangelists is an important landmark in the 
 development of Scriptural Christology ; if it ceases to 
 remain a real fact in the history of Jesus, it stands out as 
 the characteristic creation of the faith of the church." 
 And the process was this : " Between the primitive outlook 
 of popular Messianic belief, and the point reached by spec- 
 ulative thought in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel, we 
 may place the tradition which has been preserved in the 
 double narrative of the Protevangel . . . the explanation 
 disclosed in the Gospels of the nativity is the physical 
 explanation of the divine Sonship of Jesus." 
 
 Lobstein relies for proof of this claim principally upon 
 the statement attributed to the angel in Luke i, 35, "The 
 Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 Most High shall overshadow thee : wherefore also the 
 holy thing . . . shall be called the Son of God. 2 
 
 " The expression ' Son of God ' must be taken in its most 
 literal sense ; the Holy Ghost is the author of the corpo- 
 real and material life of Jesus, the maker of His whole 
 personality : the divine Sonship of Christ implies a com- 
 munication of the substance of God; it is a physical 
 filiation." 3 
 
 And this is the way in which they arrived at the notion 
 of the virgin birth. It was a general tendency of the 
 Israelitish mind to ignore second causes, and to emphasize 
 the agency of God. Wonders were multiplied round the 
 cradles of national heroes, and a special divine action 
 
 1 Page 1 10. ' Page 66. s Page 67. 
 
104 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 affirmed in connection with their birth. Isaac and others 
 of the fathers and heroes of the race were children of 
 "promise." The agency of the human father was not 
 excluded, but was passed over in order to emphasize the 
 immediate efficiency of God. The next step was easy 
 enough. 
 
 " It was natural that the Christian consciousness, abso- 
 lutely convinced of the divine nature of the work and 
 inspiration of Christ, should have attempted to explain the 
 birth and nature of the Messiah by a greater miracle than 
 any which had presided over the origin of the most 
 famous prophets. 1 
 
 " Being greater than those who received the Holy Spirit 
 from their earliest infancy, He was conceived by the Holy 
 Spirit ; His life proceeds directly from the life of God Him- 
 self; His entire personality is an immediate creation of the 
 divine activity — the primitive and essential relationship 
 which unites Jesus to God is not only a bond of spiritual 
 sonship, it embraces the life of the body no less than that 
 of the soul; the divine Sonship of Jesus is a physical 
 filiation." 
 
 This whole process was aided by the famous verse from 
 Isaiah (vii, 14) for the use of which the LXX had prepared 
 the way by admitting the inadmissible translation, virgin, 
 for the original Hebrew. 
 
 I have stated Lobstein's theory in his own words and 
 sufficiently at length to bring clearly before the reader the 
 striking fact that in the very statement of his theory, he 
 is forced into self-contradiction. 
 
 In one place, he says that " like the speculative thesis 
 of the preexistence of Christ, the Gospel narrative of the 
 supernatural birth of Jesus is an explanatory formula, an 
 attempt to solve the Christological problem. " 2 
 1 Page 71. 2 Page 72. 
 
THEOR Y OF EARL Y MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 105 
 
 In another place he says, " The conception of the mirac- 
 ulous birth of Christ is the fruit of religious feeling, the 
 echo of Christian experience, the poetic and popular 
 expression of an affirmation of faith. " l 
 
 Now it is perfectly certain that while the narrative of 
 the Infancy may be either one of these two things, it can- 
 not be both at the same time. 
 
 An " explanatory formula " which is an attempt to solve 
 the Christological problem cannot be the " fruit of religious 
 feeling," nor the " echo of Christian experience. " 
 
 I am not juggling with words. Lobstein's theory con- 
 tains a fundamental and irreducible contradiction — the iron 
 is mingled with clay. 
 
 When Christ has become a problem for the intellect to 
 be solved by explanatory formulae, he has passed entirely 
 out of the region of mere religious feeling, and altogether 
 out of the reach of popular imagination. Lobstein has 
 evidently felt this difficulty, for he attempts to scale down 
 the contradiction by saying, " If the theory of the pre- 
 existence is the theological corollary of a religious axiom, 
 the study of the miraculous birth is not so much the result 
 of dogmatic thought, as the fruit of popular imagination. " 
 The difficulty is not removed by this fine-spun distinction. 
 Dogmatic thought, and popular imagination do not mingle 
 well. The hybrid is sterile. The amount of dogmatic 
 thought, which can be combined with popular imagination 
 and not destroy the distinctive qualities of both, is very 
 small. Dogmatic thought is severe ; popular imagination, 
 spontaneous and intuitive. The dogmatic thinker ought 
 to have imagination, but it is distinctly not of the popular 
 sort. The contradiction is inescapable for it inheres in the 
 hypothesis. 
 
 The documents, especially Luke's account, are for the 
 
 1 Page 96. 
 
106 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 most part touched with poetic grace, set off by a spon- 
 taneous, unforced tuneful, lyric quality. 
 
 In the midst of a nexus of incidents very simply told, 
 the statement of the virgin birth of the Saviour is placed. 
 
 This might be described as the fruit of religious feeling, 
 but Lobstein's attempt to make it also an " explanatory for- 
 mula " turns upon a single verse, into which he imports 
 an abstract and severe philosophical meaning. This is his 
 explanation of the verse : " The expression ' Son of God ' 
 must be taken in its most literal sense, the Holy Ghost is 
 the author of the corporeal and material life of Jesus, the 
 maker of His whole personality ; the divine Sonship of 
 Christ implies a communication of the substance of God, 
 it is a physical filiation. " 
 
 Now I maintain that this interpretation is simply impos- 
 sible in the light of the context. x It reads into the verse 
 the interpreter's own ideas. As a matter of fact, the verse 
 by itself does not necessarily imply a virgin birth at all. 
 It reads thus : " The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, 
 and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee : 
 wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be 
 called the Son of God. " 
 
 Lobstein claims that the logical connection of the verse 
 would be broken if the divine Sonship of Jesus did not rest 
 according to the angel's declaration, upon the miraculous 
 conception of the holy child in the virgin's womb. 
 
 In answer to Mary's question as to how she could 
 become a mother, still being a maiden, it implies that her 
 child was to be born by the power of God, and that alone. 
 But this severe construction, if rigidly applied in connection 
 with the next verse, would carry it altogether too far, for 
 the angel continues, "And behold, Elisabeth thy kins- 
 
 1 On the meaning of the phrase " Son of God," see Briggs' Messiah of the 
 Gospels, p. 46. Cf. Luke i, 35 with Psa. ii, 7 ; and pp. 26, 27, and 89. 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN I07 
 
 woman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age," etc., 
 implying that Elisabeth's child also was miraculous and, 
 so far as the account goes, in the same way, and to the 
 same extent. 
 
 It requires no more violence with the texts to imply 
 that the event predicted by the angel was to take place in 
 the regular way after Mary's marriage than to infer that 
 John, though a child of promise, was thus to be born. 
 
 Now the context excludes both Lobstein's interpreta- 
 tion and this one, to which logic points with equal force. 
 
 In the verse rationally interpreted, there is no definite 
 dogmatic content revealed, whatever may have been in the 
 mind of the angel. 
 
 The verse simply implies that Mary's Child is, from the 
 moment of His conception, to occupy a unique relation- 
 ship to God. 
 
 The exact manner of His entrance into the world, and 
 and difference between Him and Elisabeth's child is left 
 to be revealed by after events. The angel's promise would 
 have been fulfilled so far as the necessary implication of the 
 words is concerned, even if Lobstein's theory were correct. 
 
 It is clear, then, by analysis, that Lobstein's theory is 
 really the amalgamation of two theories : One, that the 
 narrative was the result of dogmatic thought ; ^he other, 
 that it was the fruit of^rjopular imagination. We may/ 
 then proceed to consider these two suppositions separately. 
 
 First, then, the theory that the Infancy narrative is an 
 attempt in the form of a narrative to solve the problem 
 presented by Jesus to His followers. 
 
 The most obvious remark to be made in regard to 
 this contention, that the Infancy story was a phase of 
 Christian thought, is that early Christian thinking did not 
 pass through the course of development demanded by the 
 theory as Lobstein interprets it. 
 
108 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 He places this concrete representation of Christ's divine 
 mission and life midway (logically) between the primitive 
 Messianic interpretation of the early disciples, and the fully 
 developed and elaborate Christology of John and Paul. 
 Notice the antecedent condition, out of which this so- 
 called phase of Scriptural Christology issued. 
 
 "The Christian consciousness, 1 absolutely convinced 
 of the divine nature of the work and inspiration of Christ," 
 attempted to explain the birth and origin by a greater 
 miracle than any which had presided over the origin of 
 patriarchs and prophets. Here then is the process : The 
 root of it all, an absolute conviction of the divinity of 
 the work and inspiration of Christ ; and growing out of 
 it as branches, The Primitive Messianic Interpretation, 
 The Concrete Historical Interpretation, The Johannine 
 Logos Interpretation, the Pauline Ascended Lord Inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 But the absolute unshaken conviction of the Christian 
 consciousness, out of which this whole development is said 
 to have arisen, is itself not a point of departure, but a point 
 of arrival ; and long and weary was the way thither. This 
 whole contention of Lobstein's is absolutely demolished by 
 known facts of early Christian thought. 
 
 The course of that development, as exhibited in our 
 documents, is as follows : First, a primitive impression of 
 Jesus' greatness in word and work, which led to the 
 thought that He must be the Messiah. 2 There seems to 
 be conclusive evidence that during this period the disciples, 
 on one or two occasions, in moments of rare insight, spoke 
 of Jesus as the Son of God ; though this need not be 
 insisted upon. Second, a period of painful suspension of 
 judgment, during which the disciples were utterly unable 
 to reconcile their belief in Jesus' Messiahship and Divinity 
 
 1 Page 71. 2 Mark viii, 29. 
 
THEOR Y OF EARL Y MYTHO- THEOL OGICAL ORIGIN 1 09 
 
 with His impending death at the hands of enemies. 1 2 
 Third, a sudden and great illumination and enlargement 
 of vision due to the Resurrection, and the light shed by it 
 upon the meaning of Christ's death. 3 Fourth, a great 
 burst of missionary zeal, consequent upon the experience 
 of Pentecost, and connected with the Resurrection, during 
 which the Resurrection, reinforced and illustrated by lead- 
 ing events of Christ's life and words connected therewith, 
 was the burden of the preaching and teaching of the apos- 
 tles and disciples. 4 This period lasted until, fifth, the 
 church expanded beyond the ability of the original mes- 
 sengers of the word to care for it personally in all its parts, 
 when the writing of the Gospels for the use of churches 
 for public reading and catechetical instruction in the 
 absence of the apostles began. 5 
 
 Now in the arrangement of minor details, this outline 
 may be modified, but the general sequence is thoroughly 
 well established. In view of this succession of events, 
 what room is left for a dogmatic process, like the creation 
 of the Infancy narratives, in explanation of an assured con- 
 sciousness of Christ's divinity midway between the primi- 
 tive Messianic belief, and the developed Christology of 
 Paul and John ? 
 
 It is excluded, for, during that whole time, the disciples 
 were struggling to adjust the death of which Christ so 
 constantly spoke, to their belief in His divine mission. 6 
 
 1 Mark viii, 31 seq. 
 
 2 For early beginning of Christ's foreboding concerning His death, and for 
 statement as to His teaching on the subject see Denney, Death of Christ, 
 p. 22. 
 
 3 Acts i, 15. *Actsii. 5 Luke i, 1-4. 
 
 6 Two things are to be noted here : (a) The relative lateness of the time 
 when Jesus drew forth the confession of His Messiahship; i.e., at Caesarea- 
 Philippi in the later Galilsean ministry, just before the Transfiguration. 
 
 b. Immediately upon this confession followed new teaching on the coming 
 death which threw the disciples into perplexity and distress. 
 
IIO GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Until after the Resurrection, they never reached the posi- 
 tion of absolute conviction, out of which the narrative of 
 the Infancy is alleged to have issued. 
 
 Lobstein attempts to escape from the chronological 
 puzzle into which his theory leads, by disavowing any 
 chronological implications which may arise, but the at- 
 tempt is not successful. 
 
 The very statement of the theory involves chronological 
 data. This interpretation certainly was not developed 
 after the death of Christ was taken up into Christian theol- 
 ogy, and the Christologies of John and Paul were 
 unfolded. 
 
 The preliminary section is certainly, as we have 
 seen, an early part of the Gospel record. It never 
 passes beyond the circle of Old Testament ideas and 
 expectations. And yet we are asked to believe, that it 
 is a myth due to the attempt to embody forth an inward 
 conception of the unique exaltation of Christ among 
 men, which demanded some explanation. It must have 
 been composed at a time when certain followers of Jesus 
 had a very clear notion of His unique position among 
 men, for that is the foundation of the myth, and yet did 
 not have under consideration His death and resurrection, 
 for of the doctrinal implication of these no hint appears 
 in the story. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true that Christ's followers were im- 
 pressed from the beginning with the fact that He was 
 different from other men — indeed, we have good reason to 
 suppose that they believed after a fashion that He was the 
 promised Messiah. But this belief was confused, incon- 
 sistent, and hard pressed to maintain itself until after the 
 Resurrection. We know that the expansion of Christian 
 belief came very early, and that it was due to the taking 
 up into Christian consciousness of a fact which, until 
 
THE OR Y OF EARL Y M YTIIO- THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 1 1 1 
 
 the Resurrection, remained stubbornly outside; viz., Christ's 
 atoning death. ' 
 
 It is difficult to see how an idea of Jesus' exaltation 
 could have grown to any great proportions without an 
 explanation of the significance of His death. It is equally 
 difficult to see how His death could have been explained 
 without some understanding of its atoning value. It is 
 even more difficult to see how anyone who had attained 
 an understanding of the atoning value of Jesus' death 
 could have kept an idea of such commanding importance 
 out of his writing. 
 
 There is, therefore, an accumulation of difficulties in- 
 volved in the supposition that those who Wiere responsible 
 for the composition of the Gospel of the Infancy could 
 have possessed such an idea of the unique exaltation of 
 Jesus as would impel them to the formation of a myth to 
 explain it. A myth does not grow in an hour. 
 
 Are we to suppose that, between the period of confusion 
 in the disciple's mind, which lasted until the death of Jesus, 
 and that clear unfolding of doctrine consequent upon the 
 outpouring at Pentecost, a sufficient time elapsed for the 
 formation of a myth so elaborate as the double Infancy 
 Narrative ? 
 
 The supposition is inadmissible. The Christian con- 
 sciousness could not take a single step beyond that primi- 
 tive attitude of wondering and hesitating faith in Jesus' 
 Messiahship without coming into contact with the unman- 
 ageable fact that He was to suffer. There was nothing to 
 do but to struggle with that first until it could be brought 
 into the structure of faith. 
 
 Even though, conceivably, we might break through the 
 foregoing difficulties, the troubles into which the theory 
 
 1 For good study of course of events see Rhees : Life of Jesus, Section 
 165, p. 150. 
 
112 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 leads us are not yet ended. Indeed, they have but just 
 begun. 
 
 The reasonings and conclusions of Lobstein have very 
 little cogency for me, because of one significant omission 
 throughout his entire argument. 
 
 From the beginning to the end of his treatise, I find no 
 indication that it ever occurred to him that Hebrew Chris- 
 tians could feel any mental recoil from the idea of a virgin 
 birth. 
 
 He expressly excludes the supposition of any domina- 
 ting heathen influence. He says clearly : 1 " The aversion 
 which primitive Christianity felt for polytheistic paganism 
 was so deep-seated that before supposing the new religion 
 to have been influenced by pagan mythologies, we must 
 examine with the utmost possible care the points of resem- 
 blance which are sometimes found to exist between beliefs 
 and institutions." 23 
 
 The belief in incarnations and in births by the power of 
 deities was confined to the heathen, and the conceptions 
 of the Deity which made such notions possible were 
 utterly foreign both to the Old Testament and to the Jew- 
 ish adherents of the Gospel. It is clear from internal evi- 
 dence that the Gospel of the Infancy proceeded from 
 Jewish Christians of the Old Testament type — separate 
 entirely from heathen influences. That they should have 
 originated the idea of the virgin birth out of Old Testa- 
 ment ideas in which they habitually moved is very hard 
 to believe. 4 
 
 The difficulty is greatly increased by another consider- 
 
 1 See also Gore, Dissert., pp. 55, seq. 
 
 5 Page 76. 
 
 3 Cf. Gore : Incarnation of Son of God — p. 271, note 24 — and reference to 
 Kellogg : Light of Asia and Light cf the World. Cf. Meyer, Matt. Com. 
 vol. i, p. 67, note. 
 
 *Neander: Life of Christ, pp. 13 seq. especially 10. 
 
THE OR Y OF EARL Y M YTHO- THE OL O GICAL ORIGIN 1 1 3 
 
 ation still more definite and practical. In Lobstein's exposi- 
 tion, the process of development was very simple and easy. 
 From the strong conviction of Jesus' superiority, even to 
 patriarchs, and lawgivers, and prophets, through the birth 
 marvels attendant upon their entrance into the world, with 
 the assistance of the incorrect translation from Isaiah to 
 the idea that Jesus was Himself the very Son of God by a 
 supernatural generation, the entire process was as easy 
 and natural as the growth of a plant from stem to flower 
 and fruit. But this is a mere scholastic theory, utterly 
 unlike what did or could actually take place. It is per- 
 fectly safe to assert that had we no positive evidence in 
 rebuttal of this theory, as to the course of development in 
 the thought of the early church, we would still be in a 
 position to deny on other grounds the possibility of the 
 theory. It fails to take into account the nature of the 
 people who were dealing with the materials of the Gospel 
 story, and the nature of the circumstances under which 
 they were placed. 
 
 The most marked characteristic of Christ's disciples and 
 of the people, by whom He was usually surrounded, was 
 their almost unmovable intellectual conservatism. 
 
 They were fixed in the traditions of the scribes and the 
 elders. Any novelty of teaching or practice, any depar- 
 ture from the beaten track of traditional interpretation or 
 action, was sure to awaken feelings of fear and disgust. 
 Christ's own disciples moved under His leadership out of 
 the old era into the new with most amazing reluctance and 
 timidity. 1 
 
 To give these men, or their immediate successors, credit 
 for so startling an innovation as the attempt to interpret 
 Christ's divine life by a supernatural generation, is to lay 
 
 1 Take as an example their attitude toward His death, and afterwards their 
 attitude toward the admission of Gentiles. 
 
114 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 upon them a task which they were utterly incapable of 
 performing. The panic into which the more conservative 
 brethren were thrown by the liberalism of Paul gives one 
 an indication of the atmosphere of intense conservatism, in 
 which the early Jewish Christians had been trained, and 
 from which they never wholly escaped. It required all 
 the force of the entire Christian revelation, and the lifelong 
 teaching of such a leader as John, to bring men of Jewish 
 blood to the acceptance of the idea of an incarnation at all, 
 and many revolted from it finally, to the loss of Christian 
 fellowship and hope. To these men, the chasm which 
 separates the wonder stories concerning the birth of Isaac 
 and the other Jewish heroes from the story of a divine 
 incarnation by birth from a virgin (a thing different not in 
 degree but in kind) would have been utterly impassable. 
 The men, who hesitated to sit down at meat with Gentiles, 
 lest it be an innovation upon what they had been taught, 
 would have hesitated and stopped a long way this side of 
 the invention of a virgin birth to explain Christ's divine Son- 
 ship. Besides, the Gospels were formed and written in an 
 atmosphere of controversy and criticism. During the 
 latter part of Christ's ministry, the early days of the young 
 church after the Resurrection, the entire period of the for- 
 mation of the canon, the disciples were in the midst of a 
 continual conflict with critics, Jewish and heathen. They 
 were forced to put emphasis upon essentials, to guard 
 every statement, so as not to leave themselves open to mis- 
 construction. They would be loyal to the teachings of the 
 Lord, and to all authentic traditions concerning Him, but 
 they would be certain not to form innovations which might 
 be misconstrued and used against them. In the composi- 
 tion of the Gospels, the writers would be under pressure 
 to scrutinize their materials so as to guard their teaching 
 from error and misinterpretation. 
 
THE OR Y OF EARL Y MYTHO- THE OL GICAL ORIGIN 1 1 5 
 
 In view of these facts, I fail to see how a floating tra- 
 dition, without sound authority to recommend it, and even 
 to compel its admittance into the story, could have forced 
 its way into the Gospel. In speaking of the genealogies 
 (and the statement applies equally to all the documents 
 of the Infancy), Lobstein says : " Our evangelists evidently 
 found these genealogies in older documents ; then, because 
 of the dearth of traditions current about the childhood of 
 Jesus, they dared not reject any of those which came to 
 their knowledge, but pieced together the little they col- 
 lected about this obscure subject, of which Jesus Himself 
 had never spoken." ! 
 
 Against this statement is to be urged the well-known 
 fact that the evangelists constantly took the liberty to omit 
 those materials, even well authenticated, which did not 
 suit their purpose, and certainly they would not hesitate to 
 cut out documents of doubtful validity and obscure author- 
 ship. Matthew was writing to Hebrews, and was desir- 
 ous of commending the faith to his countrymen. He 
 knew the Hebrew mind, and understood its prejudices. 
 He must have known that the statement concerning the 
 manner of Christ's birth would come under critical and 
 even unfriendly eyes, and we may be sure that he would 
 have scrutinized the document with exceeding care as to 
 its origin and authority before admitting it into his Gospel. 
 Keim is so sure of this, that he expends the whole force 
 of his criticism in the attempt to cut the document away 
 from Matthew. He may fairly be said to have failed in 
 the attempt, but it is a very good indication that the 
 admission of Matthew's responsibility for the document is 
 fatal to the mythical theory. 
 
 It is asking a great deal of our credulity to imagine that 
 the virgin birth was an incident invented to honor Christ, 
 
 1 Page 46. 
 
Il6 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 or to explain His divinity by any Jewish-Christian whom- 
 soever, to say nothing of Matthew. 
 
 It is difficult to believe in the crass stupidity involved 
 in the assumption that the incident would result in 
 increased honor to Jesus, or would really convince any- 
 body of His divine nature, who was not already convinced 
 of it on other grounds. 
 
 Why should any one have chosen the idea of a virgin 
 birth, in order to make Jesus illustrious, when the authors 
 could hardly have been ignorant that probably the very 
 first use made of the doctrine would be to cast discredit 
 both upon Jesus and upon His mother ? 
 
 Mysterious circumstances surrounding a man's birth did 
 not then, more than now, serve to accredit him with his 
 contemporaries. Even the heathen, who were very lenient 
 in such matters, were rarely bold enough to attribute dubi- 
 ous ancestry from the gods only one generation back. 
 
 Among the Hebrews, birth out of wedlock was looked 
 upon with intense disfavor, and marked the family and the 
 members of it with disgrace. As a matter of painful and 
 disagreeable fact, germane to the discussion, Mary has 
 labored under this charge from the day when her con- 
 dition first became known to the village gossips of Naza- 
 reth until the present. 
 
 It is perfectly plain in the Gospel that a storm of venom- 
 ous detraction burst upon the blameless maiden of 
 Nazareth. 
 
 Some writers on the life of Christ think that this was 
 the reason why the family intended to leave Nazareth and 
 remain at Bethlehem. Even Joseph, one of the most 
 magnanimous and princely souls of history, could be 
 brought, only by a divine revelation, to believe in the 
 innocence of the woman whom he had known and loved 
 so well. His reluctance to believe in the possibility of a 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN II7 
 
 virgin birth must have been shared by every person 
 brought into contact with the facts. 
 
 The anti-Christian literature of the second century is 
 full of the accusation — a familiar controversial weapon in 
 dealing with Christians. 
 
 It is clear also (and this is the most significant fact of 
 all) that Matthew felt this difficulty in all its force, and 
 the form into which he has thrown the account shows 
 that he makes the most careful effort to surround it with 
 every safeguard. This is the explanation, according to 
 my judgment, of his use of the verse from Isaiah vii, 14. 
 He uses it to break the force of the initial prejudice of the 
 Jewish mind against the statement, by suggesting that 
 Messianic prophecy contained a hint of the marvelous 
 occurrence. This also is the reason for the prominence 
 he gives in the account of Joseph. His best argument for 
 the innocence of Mary was that so high-minded and 
 blameless a man as Joseph had made her his wife, and 
 received her into his home. 
 
 The unjust charge against her spotless character was a 
 part of her burden, and there can be little doubt that she 
 had a prevision of it, when the event of Jesus' birth was 
 foretold by the angel. 
 
 Since Matthew felt keenly that the doctrine was one 
 which might easily be turned against faith in Christ, 1 
 he must have had some other reason for admitting the 
 statement into his account than a document of doubtful 
 authenticity which had fallen into his hands. The incident 
 must have had the backing of some authority which he 
 
 x The difference between this explanation of Matthew's attitude and 
 Zahn's elaborate theory (See Das Apostolische Symbolum, p. 58) will appear 
 at once. Zahn supposes the slander to be already in circulation which is 
 unlikely (cf. Machen, Princeton R., Oct., 1905, p. 651). It is not unlikely, 
 however, that Matt, could foresee the likelihood of such slander resulting 
 from the publication of his narrative. 
 
Il8 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 dared not ignore in the formation of his story of Christ's 
 life. 
 
 It may not seem necessary to urge, in addition to the 
 foregoing arguments, that the narrative is not dogmatic 
 in any sense, and could not well be the product of the 
 dogmatic temper. The virgin birth is stated merely as a 
 fact of history, in connection with other facts having no 
 particular dogmatic significance. It is not especially 
 emphasized; it is not expounded nor interpreted; nor 
 is it argued in the manner of the dogmatic teacher. 
 
 Aside from the sentence attributed to the angel, there is 
 absolutely no hint of any discursive process which is an 
 integral part of all dogmatic thinking, and that verse can- 
 not be pushed very far without breaking it down. 
 
 Compared with the elaboration of John's thesis of the 
 preexistence, and Paul's argument concerning the risen 
 and glorified Christ, or even the implicit process of reason- 
 ing concerning the Messiahship of Jesus which underlies the 
 experience of the disciples from Peter's confession at Caesarea 
 Philippi to His sermon at Pentecost, the amount of dogmatic 
 thinking implied in the Infancy narrative is infinitesimal. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that the explanation of the In- 
 fancy stories as a phase of Christian doctrine is inadmissible. 
 
 We are still to face the question whether the narrative 
 is myth or actual history. 
 
 The admission that the double narrative is poetical in 
 its character, an admission which we may freely make, 
 does not settle the question at issue ; for it still remains to 
 be determined whether the facts created the poetry or the 
 poetry the facts. 
 
 Are we to look upon the Infancy stories simply as 
 beautiful, religious, legendary poetry — a phase of Chris- 
 tian art — or as the poetical, but essentially truthful rep- 
 resentation of facts concerning Christ ? There are some 
 
THEOR Y OF EARL Y MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 1 1 9 
 
 who feel that the question is not a vital one; but, profoundly- 
 convinced that permanent religious inspiration is impossible 
 apart from connection with the actual facts of history, I 
 cannot bring myself to feel that the question is unimportant. 
 
 It is well to recall, before proceeding further, the exact 
 purpose of Lobstein's theory. It is to preserve the 
 religious value of the narrative, while surrendering its 
 historical character. He wishes the record kept and ad- 
 mired as a phase of early Christian thinking, while it is 
 frankly given up as a statement of fact. 
 
 The tendency to hold religious values as something 
 apart from questions of actual fact is very strong in our 
 day. But in the present instance, religious value and 
 actual conformity to the truth of history are inseparable. 
 Close attention to the actual texts will compel us to the 
 conclusion, that in adopting the mythical hypothesis we 
 are doing violence to the writers' conception of their own 
 work. The interpretation of this account as a spon- 
 taneous, poetical, religious myth, springing up in minds 
 misty with enthusiasm, and childlike in the inability to 
 distinguish between dreams and reality, unconsciously 
 giving an outward and sensuous expression to an inward 
 experience, will not hold, in view of the careful elabora- 
 tion which the story has received at the hands of men 
 competent to distinguish between dream and fact, and 
 sufficiently trained to make the acceptance of loose 
 mythical material entirely inexcusable. 
 
 There is at the beginning of Luke's Gospel an explicit 
 claim to historic accuracy for the account which follows, 
 and a no less clear and emphatic assertion that it is 
 worthy of credence, because it was received from eye- 
 witnesses and written in order and with care. 1 2 
 
 1 Luke i, 1-4. 
 
 2 On Luke's Introduction, see remark of Ewald, quoted by Meyer, 
 Com. on Mark and Luke, vol. ii, p. 273, note. 
 
120 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 If it be objected that this claim is made in the prologue, 
 and may not necessarily refer to the document of the 
 Infancy which immediately follows, it is sufficient to refer 
 to the document itself, in which lies the claim, more than 
 once unmistakably made, that the information which is 
 recounted, was received from the only one capable of 
 giving it. 1 2 
 
 In Matthew's account the same claim is implicitly 
 made, for when he connects the leading incidents of 
 Christ's early life with the prophecies, he really asserts in 
 the most solemn and emphatic manner that they are his- 
 torically true. 3 
 
 Documents claiming to be historical, but really mythi- 
 cal, can have no religious value for minds with a sound 
 understanding of the meaning and value of history. 
 Facts are too sacred to be juggled with, even in the 
 interests of edification. We can well believe that naive, 
 poetic expressions of truth have permanent value, but 
 not when they misrepresent actual facts of history. In 
 particular, the religious poetry-theory breaks down at the 
 Herod incident. This obstinately refuses to be harmo- 
 nized with the explanation. Had this incident been left 
 out, it would have been less difficult to accept the rest of 
 the story as poetry or religious legend without serious 
 loss of beauty or value. But a story, which fastens upon 
 the memory of a human being a crime like the murder 
 of innocent children, must be historic in order to be 
 tolerable. The writer of the account must have believed 
 in the actual occurrence of the incident, and have had 
 good grounds for his belief, or he is stamped as a vilifier 
 of his fellow-men. 
 
 1 Luke ii, 19, 51. 
 
 2 See Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? chap. iv. 
 
 3 Cf. Bruce : Apologetics, p. 456. 
 
THE OR Y OF EA RL Y M YTHO- THE OL O GICA L ORIGIN 1 2 1 
 
 It is no answer to say that Herod's name is so covered 
 with infamy that the addition of this charge adds but 
 little to his evil fame. From the ethical point of view, 
 one is not justified in painting even the Devil blacker than 
 he really is. 
 
 It is one thing to picture forth a beautiful faith under 
 the imagery of choiring angels and rapt Judaean shep- 
 herds and star-led Magi, and quite another to fix a charge 
 of murder for all time, falsely, upon an historic character. 
 
 The mythical hypothesis destroys the religious value 
 of the document in which the account is found, and 
 places a serious stain upon the character of those who 
 recorded it. 
 
 In looking for evidences of the presence of the historic 
 spirit in these accounts, I shall begin with the incident 
 just spoken of — Herod's murder of the children of Beth- 
 lehem. 
 
 This story has been most confidently challenged, but with 
 those who deny its historicity, I unhesitatingly take issue. 
 
 If internal evidence counts for anything, the incident is 
 historic. In most arguments concerning this incident, the 
 mooted question seems to be whether or not Herod was 
 capable of the savagery involved in such a deed. Keim 
 thinks that the murder of the children was in excess of 
 any other act of his career, and consequently improbable. 
 Others point to the series of murders within his own family 
 as evidence that he would stop at nothing. ! 
 
 The argument ought to be made on broader grounds 
 than these. 
 
 Herod the Great was marked by three dominating 
 characteristics, in the intimate blending of which in one 
 composite character of great originality and force, is to be 
 found the explanation of his career : — 
 
 1 Schlosser, View of Ancient History and Civilization, vol. iii, p. 261. 
 
122 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 1. An imperious and all controlling ambition. 1 
 
 2. A profound subtlety of mind in dealing with men. 
 
 3. A ruthless and tigerish temper when once his jeal- 
 ousies and fears were aroused. 
 
 Let us look at these in order : — 
 
 Herod's ambition was strictly limited by the circum- 
 stances of his life. It never soared beyond the purpose of 
 being the true friend and trusted ally of Rome. Within 
 those limits, however, his ambition ruled him body and 
 mind. He held his Judaean kingdom with a grip that could 
 not be shaken loose for a generation after his death. And 
 to keep the favor of Rome, and to maintain his position in 
 his kingdom, no price in blood or treasure was too great 
 to pay. His purpose was as inflexible as fate. 
 
 He was gifted, too, in a superlative degree, with Oriental 
 subtlety of mind. He gained his ends by indirection, often 
 without the direct exercise of power. He must indeed 
 have been a master of diplomacy who could have held for 
 thirty-six years the uncertain favor of the successive rulers 
 of Rome, through all the upheavals of that tumultuous 
 transition from the republic to the empire, from Julius 
 Caesar to Augustus. He had the most turbulent province 
 in the empire to rule over ; he was hated by the people ; 
 he was surrounded by jealous Roman officials ; he had 
 bitter and persistent and powerful enemies, among them 
 Cleopatra, the sorceress of Egypt, and Syllaeus, the Ara- 
 bian. He was often brought to the verge of ruin, but by 
 his skill and astuteness averted disaster again and again. 
 His unshaken power in a time of upheaval, his steadfast 
 career through storm and whirlwind, remains one of the 
 marvels of history. 
 
 1 See Riggs, Mac. and Roman Periods, Chap. V., Farrar, The Herods and 
 other works on period of Herod, but especially the primal authority Josephus, 
 Anth., Bk 3, XIV, seq. B. J., Bk. I, xl. 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 123 
 
 His third leading characteristic was utterly unlike the 
 other two, and often in conflict with them. He was not 
 by nature bloodthirsty. That seems to me clear from all 
 his early history. He did not kill for the pleasure of kill- 
 ing ; but his ambition was sleepless and jealous. He was 
 of suspicious temper ; his fears were easily worked upon, 
 and, when once aroused, he was like a baited beast ; he 
 saw all things through a red haze, and struck blindly at 
 friend and foe, repeatedly wounding himself to the very 
 quick. He was as one possessed ; his fury was the raging 
 of a madman. 
 
 Now, with this in mind, turn to the account of Matthew. 
 There is far more in the story than mere savagery. 
 Indeed the element of savagery has been strangely exag- 
 gerated. So far as the number of children involved is 
 concerned, Farrar 1 is probably right in his estimate that 
 no more than twenty children perished. But there is a 
 strange verisimilitude in the record. There is, first, the 
 sleepless watchfulness that brought him into contact with 
 the facts. Of one thing we may be certain, that if there 
 was any talk about a newborn king in circulation, Herod 
 knew about it. He went in disguise among the people to 
 find out what they were talking about, and his spies were 
 everywhere. He would have known, and would have acted 
 with the promptitude attributed to him in the account. 
 Notice also the subtlety with which he dealt with the 
 wise men. No hint of hostile intent was allowed to appear. 
 With a devout demeanor, which none knew better how to 
 assume when it pleased him, Herod asked permission to 
 pay his homage with them at the cradle of the new king. 
 He meant no wholesale murder. He meant to get his 
 hands upon this dangerous infant, and, if he had succeeded, 
 no other children would have suffered. He took the 
 
 1 Life of Christ, vol. i, p. 45, note. 
 
124 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 method, of which he was so complete a master, to bring 
 about the desired end. And, so far as they were con- 
 cerned, he was successful. He fooled them completely, 
 and it required a superhuman revelation to avert the catas- 
 trophe. Then, when he found that the wise men had 
 eluded him, he was " wroth," the red mist rose again, and 
 he struck blindly through the haze at his unseen foe. 
 
 It has been objected that this murder was unnecessary. 
 True, but so also was the murder of Mariamne, and of 
 Alexander, and of Aristobulus, and of scores of others 
 falsely accused. All these executions were futile and un- 
 necessary. They were the acts of a man of fierce temper 
 goaded to madness by jealousies and fears. So also was 
 the murder of the children of Bethlehem. 
 
 We gain a little more light upon the incident by compar- 
 ing it with two others which occurred almost at the same 
 time. Herod had discovered that his favorite son Antipater x 
 was plotting against him. Characteristically, his passion- 
 ate love turned at once to murderous hatred, and he only 
 awaited the opportunity to destroy his unnatural son. 
 Antipater had used Rome as the basis of his operations, 
 and still lingered at the capital. Herod, therefore, sent 
 him a letter, full of fatherly affection, urging him to come 
 home, and hinting at great honors in store for him upon 
 his return. Antipater took the bait, and returned to 
 Palestine, only to be received in disgrace, stripped of all 
 his honors, tried and condemned to death. 
 
 At the same time, Herod was sinking to the grave 
 under a complication of disorders that made the few 
 remaining weeks of his life a living torment. In addition 
 to this, he was goaded to desperation by the hatred of the 
 people and the plots against him on every side. He 
 therefore, with a touch of that sardonic humor, which 
 
 1 Jos. Ant., B. 17, IV and V. 
 
THEOR Y OF EARL Y MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 1 25 
 
 never quite deserted him even in articulo mortis, sent for 
 the principal men through the country, and shut them up 
 in the race course at Jericho with orders that, at the moment 
 of his death, they should be slain, in order that there 
 might be mourning for him in the nation. This infamous 
 command was not carried out — none the less, it was 
 Herod's purpose. In the light of this incident, any doubt 
 as to the historicity of the murder of the children on the 
 ground of its unnatural savagery seems slightly far- 
 fetched. 
 
 Through the entire account, there are so many touches 
 of truth, such comprehensive psychological accuracy, 
 such fitness in all its details with the career of Herod, 
 such appositeness to the circumstances of the time, as 
 to compel one to the conclusion that the author knew 
 whereof he wrote. 
 
 The invention of an incident involving the interaction 
 of such peculiar and individual qualities as are exhibited 
 in Herod's dealing with the wise men and the child, by a 
 simple and artless writer but a few years removed from 
 the character in question, lies well over the line of the 
 impossible. If the incident of the massacre of the children 
 has been confidently challenged, the visit of the Magi has 
 been contemptuously dismissed as unworthy of more than 
 passing notice. It is claimed that it has all the marks of 
 legend. But coming to the incident from a study of the 
 related occurrence of the massacre, we have good reason 
 for looking at it rather more favorably. 
 
 Many thoughtful and devout men have sought to explain 
 the story of the Magi and the star on natural grounds. 
 These attempts have been unfavorably received on the 
 whole, because all explanations seem to be contradicted by 
 the plain statements of the text. Alford's explanation is 
 based upon the fact that a remarkable conjunction of the 
 
126 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 planets, Jupiter and Saturn, in the constellation Pisces 
 occurred three times in the year Seven of our era. Dean 
 Alford states the case from his point of view, thus : " Sup- 
 posing the Magi to have seen the first of these three con- 
 junctions, they saw it actually ' in the east,' for on the 29th 
 of May it would rise three and a half hours before sunrise. 
 If they then took their journey, and arrived at Jerusalem 
 in a little more than five months (the September conjunc- 
 tion would occur), if they performed the route from Jerusa- 
 lem to Bethlehem, the December conjunction would be 
 before them in the direction of Bethlehem." l 
 
 The usual objections made to Alford's explanation may 
 be conveniently expressed in the words of Dr. Gloag: 
 " In all probability, the star was a supernatural phenom- 
 enon, as it is apparently so described in the narrative — 
 some meteor divinely formed for the purpose, which, by 
 its movements, guided the wise men to the infant 
 Messiah." But does the account so describe the celestial 
 phenomenon which accompanied the coming of the wise 
 men? 
 
 It is not necessary nor wise to deny that they were 
 divinely led to the manger of the newborn King. The 
 Providence which operates unceasingly through all the 
 affairs of the world, and guides the lives of all devout and 
 truthful men, would certainly continue in operation in an 
 event so critical in the history of the world as the birth 
 of Jesus Christ. 
 
 It is inherently reasonable that some representatives of 
 the Gentile world should be brought into connection with 
 an occurrence so fraught with significance for them. It is 
 also reasonable to expect that God would use symbols 
 recognized to be sacred among the people to whom He 
 wished to communicate the good tidings. It has been 
 
 1 Grk. Test. Note on Matt, ii, I and 2. 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTIIOTIIEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 1 27 
 
 objected that no motive worthy of Deity is assignable for 
 the use as a means of revelation of " the false opinion of 
 certain Magi concerning the significance of the stars." ! 
 
 The objection cannot stand. If God is to communi- 
 cate with men at all, He must use a language which they 
 understand, and employ symbols which they recognize as 
 sacred. The argument would apply equally to all use of 
 imperfect media of revelation, even to the use of human 
 language, which is confessedly inadequate to convey 
 divine truth in all its fullness. If the members of this 
 sect, who regulated all the important affairs of life by the 
 stars, were to be brought to Christ at all, it must have 
 been through some such medium as the account describes. 
 A rare and beautiful conjunction of planets, such as the 
 one described as occurring at this time, would infallibly 
 have led the Magi to expect some signal event in the 
 affairs of men. 
 
 It is well known that the birth of Christ came just at a 
 time of expectancy. The hope that God would manifest 
 himself in an especial manner was cherished far beyond 
 the borders of Israel. In the East the hope was particu- 
 larly intense. What more probable, therefore, than the 
 use of the peculiar conditions of the heavenly bodies at 
 that time to work the conviction that God had prepared 
 the special manifestation of Himself for which they had 
 been waiting and longing. Add to this the probability 
 that Jewish writings, widely circulated during the disper- 
 sion, had given definiteness of form to the vague and 
 general hopes which the Magi shared with the rest of the 
 world, and we have the historical background of the 
 incident. 
 
 While a rational interpretation of the incident must 
 admit the presence of a supernatural element, care should 
 1 Ezra Abbott. 
 
128 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 be taken to recognize the limits of it. This, it seems to 
 me, has not been sufficiently done. If, as most commen- 
 tators on both sides of the controversy seem to hold, the 
 star was a purely supernatural manifestation, formed for 
 the purpose of guiding the wise men, it is reasonable to 
 ask : " Why did it not do its appointed work ?" When 
 the wise men came to Judaea, they went to Jerusalem, 
 making inquiries as they went. The celestial phenomenon 
 pointed them to Judaea, but it did not lead them to Beth- 
 lehem, nor did it indicate where the Babe was. Herod 
 heard of the inquiry ; questioned the Jewish scholars as 
 to the probable birthplace of the expected King; and 
 sent the wise men to Bethlehem. It was after the inter- 
 view with Herod that the star " went before them, till it 
 came and stood over where the young child was." Is it 
 conceivable that a miraculous star, formed for the purpose 
 of guiding the wise men to the presence of Jesus, would 
 have had to wait until Herod had found out where the 
 Babe was likely to be ? 
 
 It is evident enough, it would seem, that we have a 
 poetical rendering of the fact that the bright planets, seen 
 from Jerusalem in the direction of Bethlehem, would 
 appear to move as they moved, and would also appear to 
 hover over the house in which the child lay. 
 
 A believer in astrology would be certain to say, under 
 such circumstances, that the star went before them and 
 pointed out the way. Matthew's account has every 
 appearance of being taken verbatim from some one who 
 heard the wise men tell their own story. It is colored 
 by their view of the transaction. It could hardly have 
 been originated by a Jew. Moreover, the presence of the 
 historical spirit is indicated by the statement, that the star 
 in and of itself did not lead to the presence of the Babe. 
 A legend-maker would have omitted such a feature as 
 
THEOR Y OF EARL Y MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 1 29 
 
 contradictory in appearance and likely to discredit the 
 entire story, and would have led the wise men directly to 
 the abiding place of the holy family. 
 
 It will be noticed that I found no argument upon the 
 certainty of Alford's explanation being correct. I do not 
 know whether the explanation is correct or not. I have 
 no means of knowing. I am simply contending that the 
 objection to it drawn from the text does not hold. Accord- 
 ing to the account, the star was not necessarily a special 
 creation for the purpose of leading the visitors. It rather 
 makes clear the fact that the wise men were led in accord- 
 ance with the genius of their own system. Moreover, the 
 historical temper is sufficiently manifest, and the vivid and 
 idiomatic description argues so strongly for nearly first- 
 hand narration, that the hypothesis of a legendary origin 
 fails to account for the story. 
 
 When we turn to the account given by Luke, in spite 
 of the fact that it is far more poetical than Matthew's, there 
 are, none the less, many significant touches which indicate 
 that we are dealing with actual historical records cast into 
 poetical forms. Any adequate interpretation of the docu- 
 ments must do equal justice to both these elements — the 
 self-evident truthfulness and the poetic adornment. In order 
 to do this, it is not necessary to suppose that the songs of 
 Mary and Zacharias, and the poetical exclamation spoken 
 by Simeon in the temple, were as a matter of literal fact, 
 spoken off-hand in the elaborate poetic form in which they 
 appear in the third Gospel. This elaborate semi-public 
 declamation of poetry seems to imply a stiff and formal, 
 and almost histrionic, quality in the scenes quite at vari- 
 ance with the spirit of the narrative. It seems to me per- 
 fectly clear, that we are to look upon these songs as the 
 literary expression of the thoughts and emotions which 
 filled the minds of persons who had passed through high 
 9 
 
130 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 and unique experiences, and had meditated upon them in 
 the light of Scripture. They must have been composed 
 by members of a group absolutely dominated by Old 
 Testament conceptions, and stirred to poetical expression 
 by meditation upon God's wonderful dealings with them. 
 
 Connecting these after meditations with the events which 
 gave rise to them is not only legitimate in a poetic account, 
 but is an inevitable accompaniment of the literary form. 
 We have at least three precedents in the Old Testament 
 for this treatment of religious experiences in the light of 
 after events. In Isaiah vi, we have, as a prologue to the 
 prophet's career, a narrative of his call and consecration, 
 which could have been written only after a long series of 
 experiences had opened up to him the meaning of his 
 life, and of God's dealings with him from the beginning. l 
 In Jeremiah xxxii, 6-S, we have a clear exposition of the 
 interpretation which after events give to experiences previ- 
 ously imperfectly understood. He says after the events 
 occurred : " Then I knew that this was the word of the 
 Lord. " In Hosea i, according to the usual modern inter- 
 pretation, the command said to have been issued to the 
 prophet to marry a woman of evil life, which has given 
 so much trouble to commentators, is to be understood as 
 a reading of earlier experiences in the light of after events. 
 These three instances are exactly parallel with the inter- 
 pretation which we are giving of the songs in Luke. 
 
 It is a literary device which is necessary to any well- 
 told historical account, and involves no juggling with 
 essential facts. It simply makes explicit, for purposes of 
 interpretation, what was implicit in the experience itself. 2 
 
 That in the present instance the literary form was not 
 due to Luke or to any other writer of Gentile antecedents, 
 
 1 See G. A. Smith, Isa., vol. i, p. 57. 
 
 * It is clear also from the absence of all references to Jesus' death that 
 the time of composition was not long subsequent to the events recorded. 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO- THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 131 
 
 and is therefore very close to first-hand narrative, is easily 
 demonstrable. The songs in the Gospels are in almost 
 every line echoes of the Old Testament. x That Luke 
 himself was incapable of creating poems with this minute 
 assonance with the Old Testament surely needs no 
 comment. 
 
 If this is a reasonable explanation of the songs in Luke, 
 the question now arises how much farther are we to carry 
 the same mode of exposition. We wish to maintain a fair 
 balance between the historic essence and the poetic form. 
 We wish, on the one hand, to be just to the self-evident 
 and vivid truthfulness of the account, and, on the other, to 
 do equal justice to the literary qualities which are no less 
 marked and striking. How, then, are the annunciations 
 and dreams to be interpreted, — as literal fact or poetic 
 drapery ? At the outset, it is to be noted that the sepa- 
 rate accounts differ consistently in the method of the divine 
 revelation. In Luke's account, the divine word is invari- 
 ably through annunciation. 2 In Matthew the same result 
 is attained through dreams. 3 
 
 Does this consistently-maintained difference imply that 
 God manifested Himself invariably in one way to Mary and 
 in another to Joseph ? Or does it imply that the difference 
 is due to the fact that in each case we have an attempt to 
 interpret a transcendent experience, which could be made 
 intelligible to other minds only under some such form of 
 treatment ? 4 
 
 l Cf. Luke i, 46-55, with I Sam. ii, 1-10; Luke i, 68-79, with Ps. lxii, 
 17, 18 and C. 48; lxxx, 14, 15 ; Luke i, 76 with Isa. xl, 3-5; Luke i, 78 
 with Isa. ix, 2 ; Luke ii, 32 with Gen. xii, 1-3 ; Isa. xlix, 6. 
 
 1 Luke i, II, 26; ii, 9. 
 
 * Matt, i, 20; ii, 12, 19, 22. 
 
 4 Dr. Briggs {Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 49 f,) holds that the conception 
 of Jesus took place in a theophany, for, as he urges, " it not only represents 
 that the divine power covered her with a shadow, but this is to be thought 
 
132 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 There are certain facts to be explained, and the narra- 
 tives as they stand explain them. Granted that the events 
 took place at all, some supernatural machinery was neces- 
 sary to account for them. Why did the Magi come to 
 Judaea just at that time ? The answer to this is compara- 
 tively simple up to a certain point. A rare combination 
 of planets convinced a group of astrologers, who had read 
 the Hebrew Scriptures and were looking for a great ruler 
 to appear among the Jews, that the time had come. Their 
 expectations led them to Judaea, and then by inquiry 
 they were led to Bethlehem. But, having reached Beth- 
 lehem and seen the child, how did they know that this 
 humble babe was the promised King ? There is an irre- 
 ducible element of immediate revelation involved in the 
 very necessities of the case. 
 
 of after the uniform usage of Scripture as a bright cloud of glory, hovering 
 over her, resting upon her or enveloping her with a halo of divinity, in the 
 moment when the divine energy enabled her to conceive the child Jesus," 
 and in a note he says: " The same verb, cttkjki&Zc), is used in the lxx of 
 Exodus xl, 35, with reference to the cloud of glory of the tabernacle, and 
 also to the theophanic cloud of the Transfiguration in Matthew xiii, 5 ; 
 Mark ix, 7 ; Luke ix, 34. The cloud of glory is always connected with 
 God, and implies more than the agency of the divine spirit. " 
 
 So far as the language is concerned, this is undoubtedly correct, but it 
 is to be remembered that the words occur in the highly-poetized message 
 of the angel previous to the conception, and not in the historical state- 
 ment of what actually occurred. The statement, therefore, does not justify 
 us in asserting anything more, than that the narrative of the announcement 
 made to Mary concerning the mysterious experience which was to befall 
 her took the familiar Old Testament form. How otherwise could it more 
 appropriately be expressed ? To affirm that there was anything physically 
 visible in her experience seems to me at once dangerous and beyond Scripture. 
 I fail to discover any adequate basis for the opinion, held in common by 
 Keim and Briggs, that Luke intends to depict the great mystery in a sensu- 
 ous way. The words upon which this opinion is based are poetical, and 
 are a part of the literary form. They should be interpreted, in harmony 
 with the chaste reserve which marks the rest of Luke's account, as hinting 
 at, but not disclosing, the facts. 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 1 33 
 
 Take up the incident of the shepherds and the same 
 necessity appears. How did they know that the Messiah 
 was born that night and in Bethlehem, and that by going 
 thither they should be able to find him ? It is necessary 
 to postulate some experience which gave them (1) an inti- 
 mation of the sacred birth, and (2) definite directions as to 
 the place where He might be found. There is a striking 
 touch of the unexpected in the account as it stands. The 
 sign offered by the angel was : " Ye shall find the babe wrap- 
 ped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Nothing 
 could be imagined more remote from ordinary Jewish 
 expectations than the condition and circumstances of the 
 holy Child. l His helplessness and assimilation to ordi- 
 nary human conditions were accentuated by the mention 
 of the bands, and His extreme humiliation by His place in 
 the manger. It would seem that nothing less than a 
 deputation of angels would be sufficient to authenticate so 
 strange a sign to men of Jewish thought and feeling. In 
 addition to this, some one with authority must have told 
 them that they had found the actual babe they sought. 
 There may have been several babies born in overcrowded 
 Bethlehem that night, and more than one mother may 
 have been obliged to lay her child in the straw. But even 
 now we are only at the beginning of the problem. In 
 order to account for the assurance reached by the shep- 
 herds and Magi, that they had found the child for whom 
 they sought, it is necessary to postulate a knowledge on 
 the part of Joseph and Mary that Mary's child was the 
 King sought by the visitors. And Mary herself must 
 have been made aware of the fact that she was to become 
 the virgin mother of the Messiah. The occurrence of 
 such an event without clear previous announcement would 
 be certain to eventuate in the madness of the subject. 
 
 1 Cf. Edersheim L. J. M., vol. i, p. 186. 
 
134 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 In the case of Joseph, also, it is perfectly evident that he 
 must have been prepared for the historic task of guarding 
 the mother and the child. Matthew's narrative that 
 Joseph was kept by a supernatural revelation from repudi- 
 ating his betrothed is strictly in accordance with the neces- 
 sities of the case. The consistent representations in both 
 accounts that the persons involved in this wonderful cycle 
 of events were profoundly agitated by the information 
 brought to them is also psychologically correct. Joseph 
 must have been convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt 
 that the event of Jesus' birth was supernatural, or else the 
 lower inference concerning it would have been inevitable. 
 Under whatever form the revelation was made, it must have 
 come with such unmistakable clearness and cogent force 
 as to drive away the last shadow of misgiving from his 
 mind. An ordinary dream on such a subject would seem 
 to require some additional support. The dream must have 
 been of such a nature — so entirely out of the ordinary — as 
 to authenticate itself. 
 
 In other words, looking at the narrative as a whole, it 
 is clear that if the miraculous birth occurred at all, it must 
 have been accompanied by incidents equivalent to those 
 recorded in the text. The influence said to have been 
 exercised upon the minds of Joseph and Mary by angels 
 and dreams was absolutely essential, or the whole connec- 
 tion of events would have issued in confusion and disaster. 
 There is an interior logical consistency in the accounts as 
 they stand which compels us to affirm, that if the event 
 happened at all, it must have happened in some such way. 
 Moreover, if we throw the entire story out of court as 
 poetic mythology, we have lessened the difficulty, but we 
 have not removed it. For even if the Magi and shepherds 
 never came, and Jesus was derived in the ordinary way 
 from Joseph and Mary, we are still face to face with the 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN I35 
 
 necessity of postulating some special information to the 
 parents as to the prospects of their child, in order that He 
 might be guarded and prepared for His task, or else of 
 believing that He was not designated from the beginning 
 for His task, but was chosen in middle life, suddenly and 
 without previous warning. 
 
 This latter supposition is contradicted by incidental refer- 
 ences in Scripture, is false to all that we know of human 
 psychology, which affirms that a man's life is a unit 
 throughout, and gives to the Messianic career of Jesus an 
 artificial and revolutionary character which is very revolt- 
 ing as well as unnatural. As a matter of fact, in view of 
 the mature life of Jesus and His career as Messiah, we are 
 shut up to one of two conclusions. Either there was no 
 sacred childhood and youth, and the beginnings of Jesus' 
 life have no vital connection with His public career, or else 
 the incidents of His childhood and youth must have been 
 something very like those recorded in the narratives under 
 review. 
 
 In view of all the facts, therefore, it would seem that 
 either one of two essentially related convictions is reason- 
 ably tenable. We may hold that the events occurred liter- 
 ally as they are told, and that the account is poetical only 
 in the form of words used. On the other hand, we may 
 believe, without surrender of the vital point at issue, that 
 the dreams and annunciations, and other machinery of 
 revelation form the poetic accessories and literary draping 
 of experiences so transcendent that the subjects of them 
 could not relate them intelligibly to others, except under 
 the forms hallowed by usage and familiar to those 
 acquainted with the narrative of the old covenant. 1 
 
 Either of these conclusions is easier and more rational 
 than the surrender of the essential historicity of the 
 
 1 Cf. Gore : Dissertations, p, 21. 
 
I36 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 accounts. The revelation of God's purpose to the human 
 servants who were called, in circumstances of trial and 
 difficulty, to aid in carrying it out is the essential thing — 
 the form of that revelation is a purely secondary matter. 1 
 
 Every consideration to prove that the central event did 
 happen adds force to the conclusion, that the account is 
 correct and historic in essence, though poetical in form. 
 In favor of this interpretation of the record, I urge three 
 specifications : First, the absolute congruity between the 
 spirit and expression of the Infancy section with the known 
 beliefs and feelings of those from whom it purports to be 
 derived. We have already seen that the character of the 
 document points to a very early origin. It moves within 
 a range of Messianic ideas very soon outgrown by the dis- 
 ciples. But this peculiarity is an indication not only of 
 date, but also evidence of great value as to the sources of 
 the document. 
 
 The decidedly Aramaic cast of the Greek in the narra- 
 tive of Luke has often been noticed, and various attempts 
 have been made to account for it. But two explanations, 
 however, seem really to be open to us. Either the idiom 
 was due to the document of the Infancy, which Luke incor- 
 porated into his account, or to his effort to preserve the 
 spirit and color of an oral account which he had heard either 
 from Mary, or from some one to whom Mary had given it. 
 
 Professor Ramsay has argued with considerable cogency 
 for the second of these two explanations. 2 Professor 
 Briggs advocates the other view. 3 I am not disposed to 
 quarrel with either supposition, for in either case we have 
 Luke's attempt to preserve in his Greek the spirit of that 
 which had been transmitted to him, either orally or in 
 
 a Cf. note on Dr. Briggs, above p. 131 u. 
 
 2 Was Christ bo7-n at Bethlehem ? pp. 80, seq. 
 
 s See statement quoted on, p. 99. 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 1 37 
 
 writing, from those who were in a position to know about 
 the circumstances of Jesus' birth. 
 
 There can be little question that in the time of Jesus, 
 amid all the warring sects into which Judaism had split 
 up, there were many individuals who had preserved the 
 spirit of Old Testament Judaism, and were consequently 
 identified with none of the sects. Of these Simeon and 
 Anna, Zacharias and Elisabeth, Joseph and Mary, and 
 John the Baptist were examples. 
 
 Of the thoughts and feelings, the hopes and aspirations, 
 of this group, the psalms and conversations and ideas of 
 Luke's version are the exact and wonderful expression. 
 The psalms were the utterances of Jewish hearts touched 
 to jubilation by the accomplished fulfillment of long 
 cherished hopes, finding utterance in forms natural to 
 believers grouped about the cradle of the infant Messiah 
 in the glad days before the dark shadow of rejection had 
 dimmed their joy ; but utterly impossible afterwards. The 
 only touch of sadness is in the sentence of Simeon, and 
 that is so vague as to show that it is merely the foreboding 
 of one who had caught more clearly than most, the truth 
 that the Messianic career was not to be one unbroken 
 triumph. 
 
 The document, as a whole, could not have been composed 
 after the Crucifixion, nor even after Jesus had begun His 
 lessons to the disciples on the cross. It is too care-free, 
 too jubilant, too undisciplined, too free from perplexity. 
 It moves entirely within the sphere of Old Testament 
 ideas, and is intensely Hebraic both in the range and in 
 the quality of its thought and feeling. All this is signifi- 
 cant. Taking into consideration Luke's nationality and 
 history, his mode of understanding and interpreting the 
 Gospel as shown in his other writings, the conclusion 
 seems to me inevitable not only that Luke could not have 
 
I38 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 invented the story, but that he could not have obtained it 
 except through personal relationship with some one who 
 belonged to the group of whose faith and emotion it 
 was the characteristic and inimitable expression. No 
 Gentile coming to the story of Christ's life through 
 the preaching of the apostle Paul could have been 
 brought to accept a tradition or document of a nature so 
 utterly foreign to his own favorite modes of thought and 
 interpretation, without the influence of some person of 
 authority who could enable him to see the historic bond 
 of unity between notions so primitive and Hebraic, and the 
 expanded universal Christianity of which he himself with 
 Paul was the exponent and advocate. In other words, we 
 are compelled, by the minute accuracy of the description 
 of a very peculiar and individual phase of early Hebrew- 
 Christian thought, to the belief that the writer, who was a 
 Gentile not over skillful in Hebrew matters, had a very 
 close and intimate fellowship with the group with which 
 the story is concerned. 
 
 The second specification, which I urge in favor of the 
 view that we are here dealing with actual history and not 
 legend, lies in the evident constraint of mind under which 
 the account is written. I mean the profound reverence 
 and careful reserve with which the writer deals with the 
 incidents and persons of his narrative. Those who main- 
 tain the hypothesis which we are now contesting hold 
 that the Infancy narrative in the Gospels is an irregular 
 and unauthorized addition to the evangelical tradition, 
 created under the influence of the mythic or legendary 
 temper, imagining incidents in an obscure and little under- 
 stood part of Christ's life of which He Himself never 
 spoke. It happens that in the Apocryphal books of the 
 New Testament, we have undoubted and unquestioned 
 specimens of this kind of work. 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 139 
 
 We know that these writings have originated in the 
 same way that the Gospel narratives must have originated, 
 if this hypothesis is correct. It is fair to ask, whether 
 there is such kinship between the two sets of documents 
 as to indicate a similarity in the condition from which they 
 issued. 
 
 Keim * has exerted his skill to the utmost to exhibit 
 resemblances between the two sets of narratives concern- 
 ing the Infancy, but his comparison leaves untouched the 
 fundamental world-wide difference which separates them. 
 And this difference is not a matter of literary workmanship 
 or artistic finish, but lies wholly in the region of moral 
 moods and ideas. The Apocryphal stories are many of 
 them childish and silly, but they are worse than this — they 
 are fundamentally irreverent. They fumble with coarse 
 fingers and unwashen hands, with sacrilegious and repul- 
 sive intimacy of detail, with the sacred mystery. I need 
 not specify ; the text is within reach of my hand as I 
 write, and every reader of it is familiar with the facts which 
 I urge. 
 
 In contrast with this clumsy and coarse irreverence, 
 Luke's restraint and delicacy are both beautiful and won- 
 derful. He handles with unerring nicety of touch a story 
 which one false note or faintest suggestion of coarseness 
 would utterly destroy. He is silent where unrestrained 
 fancy would be most active in picturing. He draws the 
 outline so that the great central fact stands forth bright 
 and clear, but refrains from filling in with details which 
 curiosity would like to know. Let the advocates of the 
 legendary hypothesis explain this difference between 
 the Apocryphal and Gospel narratives, for explained it 
 must be before any balanced mind ought to be able to 
 accept the theory of a common origin for the two. 
 1 L. J. N. vol. ii, pp. 46, seq. See quotations above p. 59. 
 
140 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 I am satisfied that it can be explained, but not in 
 harmony with this theory. I am profoundly convinced 
 that the irreverence which mars the Apocryphal stories 
 was due to a surrender of the obligation of truthfulness. 
 The writers were tampering with facts which ought to 
 have been absolutely sacred; in yielding the obligation 
 of truth to the spirit of inquisitiveness, the mind lost its 
 tone, became blunted in its spiritual perceptions, and 
 naturally puerile and irreverent in its imaginings. 
 
 Luke's account shows the noble constraint of one who 
 knows the truth and holds it sacred, and is, by the truth, 
 made free from the lower workings of his own mind. 1 I 
 am persuaded by the whole moral tone of the story, its 
 restraint and delicacy, its sublime purity, that it came by 
 no very indirect course from the mother herself. 
 
 I urge in conclusion, as evidence of the presence and 
 working of the historic temper in this account, the definite 
 dating of the occurrence given in the first verses of the 
 second chapter. Here we are upon debatable ground. Many 
 scholars maintain that this statement of Luke's is a colossal 
 blunder, and a demonstration that Luke was not a true 
 historian. 2 On this subject, no scholar can afford to ignore 
 the work of New Testament scholars in this field, partic- 
 ularly Prof. Ramsay. The latter, with the skill and 
 patience of the scholar born and trained, has gone through 
 Luke's work, and exhibited in detail his mastery of facts and 
 materials in connection with the Roman Empire. The 
 general issue of his works as regards Luke's position as 
 
 1 Cf. sentence of Fairbairn concerning the miraculous in the Gospel : " Is 
 it too bold an inference to argue that the very magnitude of their subject had 
 superseded in the Evangelists the creative activity of the morbid and 
 mythical imagination? " Phil. Chr. Rel., p. 337. 
 
 * On this see Plummer, Com. on Luke, ii, 2; also Meyer, Com. on Mark 
 and Luke, vol. ii, p. 323 ; also Cam. Bible for Schools, Luke, p. 62, note. 
 
THEORY OF EARLY MYTHO-THEOLOGICAL ORIGIN 14I 
 
 a historian is not doubtful, and whatever Prof. Ramsay has 
 to say about Luke is to be heard with respect. He has 
 written an elaborate treatise J in explanation of the account 
 given of the enrollment which brought Joseph and Mary 
 to Bethlehem. 
 
 Whether his argument is valid in every particular, I am 
 not competent to judge. The argument is intricate and 
 complicated, and depends upon a vast amount of careful 
 adjustment. This much, however, he has done — he has 
 brought the discussion into a new phase. Luke must 
 henceforth be listened to with thoughtful regard. It is no 
 foregone conclusion that he has blundered in statements 
 concerning the methods of Roman administration. I shall 
 make very modest requisition upon Professor Ramsay's 
 work. I simply wish to take this ground, which is cer- 
 tainly reasonable : 2 "It is quite justifiable and reasonable, 
 in a period of history so obscure as the first century, to 
 plead, as many have done, that, while we cannot in the 
 present dearth of information solve the difficulty com- 
 pletely, we are obliged, in accordance with our perception 
 of the high quality of the author's work as a whole, to 
 accept his statement in certain cases where he is entirely 
 uncorroborated." 
 
 While I do not claim that the passage in question 
 proves that Luke was a great historian, for its accuracy is 
 disputed, 3 I do claim that it proves that Luke was not of 
 the legendary temper. His whole purpose in the Gospel 
 and the Acts was to relate the history of Christ and early 
 Christianity to its Roman setting. The purpose is utterly 
 foreign to the legendary mood. Vagueness of date and 
 localization is characteristic of all mythical productions. 
 
 1 Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? 
 
 * Ibid, p. 7. 
 
 3 See note C at end of volume — Prof. Ramsay' s Argument. 
 
142 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 The definite dating of the incident, with the names of 
 historic characters connected therewith, is proof that 
 Luke tried at least to write history, and the general 
 character of his work is demonstration enough that on the 
 whole he was successful. 
 
 In general, therefore, we conclude that Lobstein's elabo- 
 rate and ingenious theory breaks to pieces on the facts ; 
 that the Protevangel is neither dogma nor legend, but 
 history, authentic in its origin, and well and soberly nar- 
 rated, although in the forms of sacred poetry. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 
 
 It would be appropriate to place at the head of this 
 chapter the words of Lobstein elsewhere quoted, 1 in 
 which he definitely rejects Soltau's elaborate attempt to 
 account for the Infancy narratives on the basis of heathen 
 influence, or the words of Harnack in which he takes the 
 same position. 2 It would seem as if no really close stu- 
 dent of the Gospel narratives, occupying a position of 
 genuine sympathy, and approaching the subject from 
 within, could imagine for a moment, that heathen anal- 
 ogies have had the slightest influence in molding the two- 
 fold story of the Saviour's birth and infancy, as we now 
 have it. 
 
 We have elsewhere incidentally made answer to certain 
 aspects of this theory, but since the assertion has taken 
 so many different forms, and has lately reappeared in new 
 dress, we now devote some pages to a discussion of the 
 question of heathen influence in general upon the Infancy 
 documents. 
 
 Before taking up the specific points of evidence, it is 
 necessary to indicate certain general principles which 
 must govern any adequate discussion of the problem. It 
 is taken for granted, as abundantly proved in the preced- 
 ing pages, that the literary sources of the two narratives 
 in Matthew and Luke were composed by Jewish-Chris- 
 tians. It is not necessary to repeat the arguments here ; 
 
 1 See page 1 1 2. 
 
 2 History of Dogma, Eng. Trans., vol. i, p. ioo. 
 
 143 
 
144 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 the conclusion rests upon undeniable features of the 
 narratives themselves. 1 
 
 This, of course, does not prove that the main incident 
 narrated therein was not due to the invention of a non- 
 Jewish Christian, although the nature of the documents 
 in which the statement is found reduces the probability 
 of that to very small dimensions. But, however the 
 statement originated, it was passed upon, accepted, and 
 formulated, by Jewish Christians. If it was of heathen 
 origin, we have an undoubted instance of a heathen 
 notion passing the barriers of race, beating down the 
 guard of national prejudice, and becoming domesticated 
 in Jewish minds. It is, of course, perfectly true that this 
 would by no means be without a parallel in history. All 
 extreme theories aside, it is acknowledged that there were 
 Jews, even after the captivity had solidified the bulk of 
 the nation into intense loyalty to their own religion and 
 social customs and no less intense hatred of Gentiles, 
 who were susceptible to foreign influence, and inclined to 
 adopt foreign ways. There were periods, notably that 
 just preceding the persecution under Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes, when the influence of Hellenism seemed to be 
 gradually permeating the Jewish people. 2 The cruel and 
 tyrannical methods of Antiochus brought about not only 
 a political revolution, in which foreign power was banished 
 for a century from Jewish soil, a century during which 
 
 1 So admitted by most writers on the subject — Lobstein, Keim, Har- 
 nack, Cheyne, etc. 
 
 2 See for a discussion of this subject, Rappoport's continuation of Mas- 
 pero's Hist. Egypt, vol. x, cap i. Cf. Schiirer, J. P. T. C, First Divi- 
 sion i, pp. 194, f. For a brief but accurate and sane discussion of re- 
 lationship between foreign religions and Judaism, see Kent : Bab. Per. 
 and Greek Periods in History of Jewish People Series, pt. ii, cap. xiii and 
 xiv ; also for Jewish reaction against Hellenism, p. iii, cap. iii-vi. See 
 also for contination of this struggle, Riggs, Mac. and Rom. Period, pt. i, 
 cap. ii and iii. (See also literature in these books.) 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 45 
 
 decaying Hellenism was gradually giving way before the 
 advance of Rome, but also a social revulsion, which to a 
 large extent broke the power of Hellenistic ideas and 
 customs over Hebrew minds. The vast majority of the 
 nation was a unit against all foreign influence — the Jew- 
 ish inhabitants of large towns and cities in Palestine and 
 Syria were wholly separate from their heathen neighbors ; 
 in foreign cities they also formed communities by them- 
 selves. They hated the heathen, and were cordially hated N 
 by them in return. Social intercourse, and even business 
 relations were established only under great restrictions. 
 One has but to read the writings of the period to feel how 
 intense was the hatred with which the Jews as a whole 
 regarded the heathen, with whom circumstances had 
 brought them into most unwelcome contact. 1 2 It is 
 necessary simply to recall, for a most conspicuous ex- 
 ample, the undying hatred, of which Herod the Great 
 was the object, principally because he was a foreigner. 
 No nation can be altogether impervious to social influ- 
 ences from foreign nations, but the Jewish nation came 
 nearer being such than almost any other except, perhaps, 
 the Egyptian, known to history. 
 
 But there were always some who were sympathetic 
 toward foreigners and accessible to foreign influence. 
 Even Herod had Jewish adherents. The most remarkable 
 instance known of heathen influence over Jewish minds 
 is exhibited in that mysterious and un- Jewish sect, the 
 Essenes. Their system seems to have been an eclectic 
 compound of Pharasaic Judaism, Pythagoreanism, and 
 Parsee sun-worship. As to how they came into exist- 
 
 1 Cf. e - g- the remarks of Bissell : Gen. Intro, to Lange' s Com. on Apoc. 
 (1901), p. 49. 
 
 2 On relations of Jews and Gentiles in Palestine, see Edersheim, L. and 
 T. J. M., chap, vii, especially end of chapter. Cf. also Com. Apoc. 
 (Lange's), pp. 436, ff. 
 
 10 
 
I46 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 ence, there is no conclusive evidence, but they formed a 
 large party in the land. They were cut off from the 
 Jews, excluded from the temple, and the recipients of a 
 generous share of the hatred bestowed by the Jews upon 
 the heathen. Looking now at the phenomena presented 
 by the Essenes, and indeed at the entire history of Hel- 
 lenism on Jewish soil, certain facts emerge with great 
 distinctness. 
 j- Amalgamation between heathen and Jewish notions, in 
 I the minds either of heathens or Jews, was possible only 
 through essential modification of both elements in the 
 combination. A union between unchanged Hebraism 
 and unmitigated heathenism was impossible. There 
 must be, first, a movement from both sides toward a 
 common center before any union could take place. In 
 so far as a Jew adopted heathen customs and ideas, he 
 ceased, in the strict sense, to be a Jew. To a Hebrew, 
 brought up in the strict fashion of his fathers, taught in 
 the way of the nation, any adoption of heathen ways was 
 an abomination. The Jew must become modified by long 
 contact with the heathen, as in the Dispersion, and, also, 
 it would seem, by a breaking down of inward principles, 
 before any adoption of heathen ideas would be possible. 
 Moreover, there were, historically, movement and change 
 on the other side. Heathenism underwent tremendous 
 modifications in the centuries immediately before Christ. 
 The popular myths had been largely abandoned before 
 the Jews became Hellenized to any extent. Abstract 
 philosophies had taken the place of crude natural myth- 
 ologies. Heathenism invaded the life of the Jew, not in 
 its ancient form, but in the social customs, dress, literature, 
 and philosophies of modernized Greeks, and their imi- 
 tators, the cosmopolitan politicians and soldiers of Rome. 
 Philo, in whose philosophical system Hellenism and 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 47 
 
 Hebraism were united, was certainly not an orthodox Jew 
 of the older fashion, but he certainly did not accept the 
 crude ancient myths of the heathen. He interpreted Old 
 Testament history allegorically in the terms of Greek 
 philosophy. He was a modified Jew influenced by a modi- 
 fied heathenism. 
 
 The Essenes were not Jews except in blood, many of 
 the distinctive and cardinal Jewish ideas of their day they 
 rejected, but, even so, they did not accept the ancient 
 mythologies, by which they were influenced, unchanged. 
 They seemed to have taken into their system revived 
 Pythagoreanism, such as we find in the communities of 
 Alexandria, with its ascetic cenobitism, and hatred of 
 blood sacrifice, and combined it with eastern mysticism 
 and sun-worship, the latter in all probability purged from 
 much that was historically connected with it. It is per- 
 fectly clear, therefore, that it would be vain to search history 
 for an instance of a devout Jew of the unmodified Old 
 Testament type, loyal to the traditions of the past, and 
 steadfast in adherence to the principles for which Israel 
 had always stood, who at the same time admitted heathen 
 ideas into his thought, and heathen customs into his life. 
 He must in large measure lose his distinctive Jewish 
 characteristics, and even then could accept heathen notions 
 only after they had been greatly changed and elevated. 
 
 In addition to this law of development, another principle 
 clearly emerges in the history of the relationship between 
 heathenism and Judaism. This principle is that in order 
 for amalgamation between the two forms of faith to take 
 place, there must be more than one point of contact. No 
 single unrelated heathen notion would be likely to appear 
 in Hebrew writings. The admission of heathen elements 
 into a Jew's system of belief would result in the radical 
 modification of the tone and atmosphere of his thought 
 
148 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 The admission of a single important heathen conception 
 would change the entire contents of the mind. 
 
 And, moreover, ideas come, not singly, but in groups. 
 One idea involves another, and every fundamental notion 
 really involves a special point of view from which all things 
 appear in a particular light. Nothing in the world could 
 appear just the same to a man who had shifted in the 
 slightest degree from the Jewish to the heathen point of 
 view. The operation of this law of mind is clearly exhib- 
 ited in the case of the Essenes. The composite nature of 
 their system is clearly discerned under analysis. Their 
 Jewish affinities were shown in their passion for ceremonial 
 purity, their Pythagorean tendencies by their attitude toward 
 animal sacrifice, their sun-worship by their prayers to the 
 sun to rise and their adoration of him on his rising, their 
 asceticism by their attitude toward marriage, their con- 
 nection with the Alexandrian sects by their settlement in 
 monastic communities, their relationship to oriental systems 
 by the rigid division into Brahman-like castes or orders 
 within their organization. Taking any one of these ruling 
 ideas it will be seen that it leads to other related ideas, and 
 is one element in a system both of thought and of life. 
 The Essenes represent an eclecticism of related ideas taken 
 from various sources, but held together by inherent affin- 
 ities into a more or less coherent system. No one item 
 of any one of the systems which were combined in their 
 elaborate and intricate mode of thought and life was 
 adopted to the exclusion of all others. They were Jewish 
 in several points, Pythagorean in some particulars, Parsee 
 in not a few items. They evidently adopted certain lead- 
 ing ideas from all these systems, and were guided by a 
 sure instinct to allied principles. There is a common 
 ground to all the apparently unrelated and motley items of 
 their system. Their fundamental implicit principle was 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 49 
 
 the inherent impurity of matter, and with this their sun- 
 worship, their frequent lustrations, their white robes, their 
 spades or picks with which to cover up all that would 
 offend the purity of the sun, their abstention from mar- 
 riage, their separate orders, their communal monastic 
 organization all agree. 1 
 
 Their system represents the natural history of all such 
 attempts to import ideas from one faith to another. Sys- 
 tems of faith which involve ideas of God, philosophies of 
 the world, ceremonial rites hang together and form systems 
 — they are to a certain extent interdependent and consist- 
 ent. Men who combine religion may begin with one 
 idea, but inevitably find themselves in the coil of a system. 
 
 Now, with these two principles in view, let us turn to 
 the Infancy narrative. We are told that the chief incident 
 therein narrated is due to the influence of heathen anal- 
 ogies, and that the statement was framed in accordance 
 with the stories of the birth of mythical heroes from the 
 gods. It seems impossible that those who hold this view 
 realize clearly the logical implications of their statements. 
 For it means that positively the most unsavory element in 
 the ancient mythology was taken over bodily into Chris- 
 tianity, wrought into the fabric of the New Testament, 
 incorporated in the historic creeds, and made a permanent 
 element of Christian faith. It means that this disreputable 
 rag of ancient. heathenism, the one element most completely 
 discredited by the advance of enlightenment among the 
 heathen themselves, rejected and covered with scorn by 
 the philosophers, ridiculed in the theaters amid the laughter 
 
 1 Conybeare ( H. B. D., vol. i, p. 769, Art. Essene) refers to the 
 attitude of the Essenes toward marriage to a desire for Levitical purity, and 
 cites the Mosaic law of purification. If he means to imply that the motive 
 of that law was an ascetic notion of the inherent uncleanness of the sexual 
 relation, I differ emphatically. The law in question was sanitary rather 
 than philosophic. 
 
150 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 of the mob, was adopted by Christians and made a part of 
 their testimony to their Lord. If the miraculous birth is 
 a heathen notion, it involves that degrading conception of 
 a Deity holding intimate physical relations with human 
 beings which is the very essence of heathen idolatry, the 
 object of Jewish hatred and scorn since the days of the 
 prophets. If the virgin birth is a borrowed heathen 
 notion, it involves nothing less than absolute apostasy on 
 the part of those who formulated and accepted it. None 
 but a renegade Jew, false to the faith of his fathers, and 
 infected with the virus of the lowest heathenism, could have 
 been guilty of such an invention. 
 
 The adoption of the categories of heathen philosophy, such 
 as we find in Philo, and even the rites of sun-worship, which 
 we see among the Essenes, are matters of trifling moment, 
 compared with the moral lapse into coarse heathenism 
 involved in the story of Christ's birth thus interpreted. l 
 
 But the bald statement of the logical content of this 
 affirmation concerning the virgin birth brings us face to 
 face with a tremendous difficulty. We find this imported 
 heathen notion imbedded in a narrative of the most 
 intensely Jewish character. I do not urge against the 
 theory, as I reasonably might, the moral sublimity of the 
 narrative, the unique combination of simplicity and gran- 
 deur which lifts the story into a place by itself, a whole 
 heaven above all the stories that heathenism in its best 
 days ever produced, but simply the Jewish character of 
 the narrative. The story in both its forms stands close 
 to the Old Testament. It is Hebraic rather than Judaic. 
 It is combined with prophecy in Matthew, and with songs, 
 which are but glorified Old Testament psalms, in Luke. 
 
 1 For a clear exhibition of the mental and moral atmosphere in which 
 such myths nourish, see Curtiss's Primitive Semitic Religion To-day (Revell, 
 1902) Chap. IX. It is not pleasant reading, but will be a good tonic for 
 those who are inclined to this theory. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 151 
 
 Here is the appropriate place to emphasize the fact, 
 incidentally stated elsewhere, that these songs are vitally- 
 connected with the miraculous birth. Soltau says of the 
 early document embodied in the narrative, of which the 
 songs are a part : " It described in a genuinely Jewish 
 way the joy manifested by the oldest generation when the 
 Messiah appeared." But the exuberant, heart-swelling 
 joy which rings in those incomparable lyrics, was based 
 upon belief in a signal interference of God in human 
 history for the salvation of His people, comparable with 
 the deliverance from Egypt, or the destruction of Sen- 
 nacherib. It was based upon the appearance of one who 
 was announced, manifested, certified as the Messiah from 
 the very beginning of His life. It could not be based 
 upon the birth of a child "unaccompanied by divine warrant 
 and announcement from heaven of the dignity of His 
 person and mission. Those songs could not have reflected 
 the feelings of the first generation concerning the appear- 
 ance of the Messiah had they not known, by positive 
 authority, that He whom they welcomed was actually the 
 Messiah. The songs can be accounted for only by refer- 
 ence to the facts with which they are bound up in the 
 narrative ; namely, the wonders accompanying and desig- 
 nating the Messiah's birth. 
 
 But, aside from this, the document embodied in the 
 narrative could have been written by genuine Hebrews 
 only. The writers were men whose minds were permeated 
 with the spirit as well as the language and style of their 
 sacred books ; who were in love with the past of their 
 nation ; who shared its hopes and ideals, and were filled 
 with joy, because, in the birth of Jesus, their national 
 longing was fulfilled. If the hypothesis which we are 
 criticising is correct, we have here a flagrant violation of 
 the principles which we have seen in operation through 
 
152 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 the entire history of Hellenism in contact with the Hebrews. 
 We have the unnatural and impossible coalition of unmodi- 
 fied Hebraism, and unchanged heathenism. We have 
 Jews of the highest type adopting mythological notions 
 most vulgar and debased. 
 
 In addition, there is a clear violation of the second prin- 
 ciple. If the virgin birth is a heathen notion, it stands 
 alone of its kind, not only in the Infancy narrative, but 
 also in the New Testament. It has been claimed, and 
 strongly rebutted, that there are heathen elements in the 
 New Testament ; but no one, so far as I know, makes the 
 claim that there is in the New Testament any trace of 
 mythological notions so vulgar and debased as is to be 
 found in this statement interpreted as an adoption- from 
 heathenism. Those who adopted this heathen myth, by a 
 strange mental caprice, kept their Jewish idea of the spiritu- 
 ality and unity and exaltation of God. They were worlds 
 apart from the heathen attitude of mind, save in this one 
 particular. The theory, therefore, as ordinarily stated, logic- 
 ally involves the violation of laws of general force, and 
 wide application in the actual history of the process of 
 religious amalgamation. The theory exhibits an impos- 
 sibility ; namely, a genuine Jew, filled with the spirit of his 
 race, lending himself to the adoption of a vulgar heathen 
 notion, which really involves a total change of belief con- 
 cerning the nature of God, and stopping short just at that 
 point. The adoption of this theory for the explanation 
 of the Infancy story demands a greater credulity than 
 most of us have to spare on a single point. 
 
 In view of these considerations, the multiplication of 
 heathen analogies 1 to the miraculous birth has no great 
 force to a discerning mind. 
 
 1 Such as those collected inHartland's Legend of Perseus, vol. i, and by 
 Usener in Ency. Biblica, Art. Nativity. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 153 
 
 Any close and thoughtful study of the documents in 
 the light of history leads to the conclusion reached by 
 Prof. Sanday, that those who reject the Infancy narrative 
 because of incidental resemblances to heathen myths ! " do 
 not sufficiently consider the entire difference of the con- 
 ditions under which the Christian tradition was promul- 
 gated from those which surrounded the creations of 
 mythopoeic fancy. The Christian tradition belongs to 
 the sphere, not of myth, but of history. It is enshrined in 
 documents near in date to the facts, and in which the line 
 of connection between the record and the fact is still 
 traceable." 
 
 We may, therefore, unhesitatingly reject as impossible 
 the theory that the Gospel story of the miraculous birth 
 was due to the influence of popular heathen myths. 
 
 The whole question, however, of heathen influence 
 upon the Gospel story is of broader application and of 
 more vital import than thus far appears. 
 
 It touches not merely upon incidental details of the 
 narrative, but upon the central affirmation of Christian 
 faith ; namely, the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. 
 
 It is startling at first to discover that incarnation, the 
 appearance of Deity in material, and especially in human 
 form, is not only a feature, but the central feature, of 
 almost every great historic religion. It is the common 
 feature of systems otherwise widely divergent. " Pagan 
 theophany is one of the most interesting and significant 
 of studies that a reverent soul can pursue. And the most 
 significant fact in connection with the study is the univer- 
 sality of the belief in the incarnation of the Deity. It is 
 one of those " always, everywhere, and by everybody," 
 beliefs that have the highest authority that can possibly 
 be given to a religious conception — the authority of a 
 1 H. B. D., vol. ii, p. 647 a, Art. Jesus Christ. 
 
154 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 universal spiritual conviction. That God must reveal 
 Himself to His creatures, that this revelation must take 
 visible form, that the presence of the Deity in the object 
 or being that embodies Him gives superhuman worth and 
 power, and demands from men reverence and worship, is 
 the conviction that underlies all religious forms and cere- 
 monies. It does not detract from the significance of the 
 fact, that many supposed incarnations are absurd, and 
 many low and base. That is the fault, not of man's 
 spiritual intuition, but of his intellectual and moral degen- 
 eracy. He believes in a God higher and holier than 
 himself, whose embodiment in the most abject form 
 renders it sacred and superior to himself. The fetich of 
 the savage African, the idols of the heathen, the demi- 
 gods of pagan Greece and Rome, the composite creatures 
 of ancient Assyria, all witness to the belief of man in the 
 possibility and fact of a mysterious relation of God to His 
 creatures, established by some sort of embodiment. And 
 this belief is just as strong now among pagan peoples as 
 it ever was. In India it takes the form of a caste, the 
 Brahmins. In Japan and China, it incarnates Buddha in 
 nine forms, and anticipates another and higher incarnation 
 of him. In Thibet, it makes a perpetual incarnation of 
 Buddha in the Dalai Lama by heredity. Nowhere can 
 a race or tribe be found that does not have some definite 
 conviction that the gods come down to earth and reveal 
 themselves to men in visible form." ' 
 
 From the universality of the belief in incarnation among 
 the heathen, superficial thought has hastily jumped to the 
 conclusion that Christianity is but one among many myth- 
 ologies, having no greater authority than any of the ethnic 
 religions. This ill-founded conclusion misses the truth in 
 two directions : — 
 
 1 From an address by the Rev. Isaac O. Best. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 155 
 
 I. It fails to take account of the real significance of those 
 deep-seated and wide-spread convictions of the pagan 
 world. They point to a permanent necessity of the human 
 heart. They voice the inappeasable cry of the universal 
 human spirit for the manifestation of God in some tangible 
 and intelligible form. 
 
 Job's cry, "Oh that I knew where I might find Him! 
 that I might come even to His seat," is the utterance of 
 that same longing for the approachable, the intelligible, 
 the human in God which has created the mythology of 
 incarnations in the ethnic faiths. And it is safe to say, that 
 this universal longing evidences one of those fundamental 
 and permanent qualities of the human soul which must 
 always condition the religious life in all its manifestations. 
 If God is to reveal Himself to men at all, He must do so 
 in accordance with the laws of the human mind, and must 
 meet the spiritual necessities of the men to whom He 
 would make Himself known. Indeed, a profounder grasp 
 of the subject compels to the belief that those fundamental 
 necessities of the human constitution are of His own crea- 
 tion. They must in some sense be the reflection of His 
 nature. Illingworth has said somewhere that our concep- 
 tion of God is anthropomorphic because our own being is 
 theomorphic. He has implanted such longings in order 
 to meet and satisfy them. No religion, in which the spirit- 
 ual affections have scope, is possible without the manifes- 
 tation of God in the terms of humanity to reach our human 
 need. John Fiske, in his essay on the everlasting reality 
 of religion, 1 lays down as religion's first postulate the 
 Quasi-Human God. He says, among other things : 
 " Omitting from the account a few score of ingenious 
 philosophers, it may be said that all mankind, the wisest 
 and simplest, have taken for granted the existence of a 
 
 1 Through Nature to God, Boston, 1899. 
 
156 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Deity, or deities, of a psychical nature more or less similar 
 to that of humanity. Such a postulate has formed a part 
 of all human thinking from primitive ages down to the 
 present time .... The notion of a kinship between God 
 and man remains and is rightly felt to be essential to 
 theism. Take away from our notion of God the human 
 element, and the theism instantly vanishes ; it ceases to be 
 
 a notion of God Take away from our symbolic 
 
 conception of God the human element, and that aspect of 
 theism, which has from the outset chiefly interested man- 
 kind, is gone." 1 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that the heathen mythologies 
 represent a human necessity, and also correspondingly a 
 condition of divine revelation. The myths are not alto- 
 gether mythical. They have a basis in fact in the inner 
 constitution of the human soul. 
 
 This view of the relationship between heathen myths 
 and Christian facts also misses the truth by a failure to 
 realize the significance of the central fact of Christianity; 
 namely, the person of Christ Himself. The weakness of 
 the heathen faiths consists, not so much in the principle 
 of incarnation as in the specific applications which have 
 been made of it. It is the distinction of Christianity that 
 it takes this universal religious category and makes appli- 
 cation of it to the supreme spiritual and ethical personality 
 of history. This fact, at least, must be kept in mind 
 throughout the entire discussion. If the categories under 
 which Christ is interpreted are borrowed, which certainly is 
 not proved, Christ Himself is not borrowed. Christ Him- 
 self is fact, incontestable, primary, and original. Chris- 
 tianity rises at once by sheer ascent to the summit of orig- 
 
 1 Cf. van Dyke, Gospel for an Age of Doubt, Lect. IV. See also litera- 
 ture quoted in Appendix to van Dyke's 4th lecture, and Illingworth, Per- 
 sonality, Human and Divine. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 57 
 
 inality by the assertion that the incarnation of Deity, for 
 which universal man has longed and of which he has so 
 persistently dreamed, was actually accomplished in Jesus 
 of Nazareth. For, while the assertion is contradicted by 
 the external circumstances of His career, by the reality, the 
 simplicity, the humility of His human life, it is established, 
 so far as any such transcendant assertion can be estab- 
 lished by proof, by the ethical perfection, the spiritual com- 
 pleteness, and the historic supremacy of Jesus. 
 
 The assertion that Christianity is a plagiarized and mas- 
 querading heathenism, is absurd in view of the fact that at 
 precisely the vital point— the character of the personality 
 upon whom the claim of authority depends — Christianity 
 is conceded to be without a measurably successful com- 
 petitor among heathen faiths. 
 
 And, be it remembered, this is really the essential point 
 at issue. Heathenism alleges that in her great men God 
 has in some sense been present. The proof of such an 
 allegation must rest primarily upon the character of the 
 person concerning whom such statements are made. It 
 seems to me perfectly evident that the heathen religions 
 do not affirm concerning their great leaders and prophets 
 all that Christianity claims for Christ, 1 but even if they did, 
 the proof must be framed from the life history of the per- 
 son in question. Christ is Christianity's challenge to the 
 world. Christ is the basis and the proof for every asser- 
 tion which we make concerning the nature of God and His 
 relationship to humanity. The supreme fact of Christian- 
 ity is Christ. Our interpretation of Him in terms of meta- 
 physics is a secondary and derivative question. We may 
 have inherited or borrowed our metaphysics, — the ques- 
 tion, however, is, have we inherited or borrowed the 
 
 ^ee Cam. Theol. Essays (Mac, 1905) p. 430; also Fairbairn, Phil. Ch. 
 Rel., 258-288, 311-568. 
 
158 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 person whom we thus interpret ? If Christ Himself is 
 original, unique, supreme, our contention is established, 
 and we may look with comparative indifference upon 
 attempts to criticise our modes of apprehending and inter- 
 preting Him. 
 
 Considerations of this character must be allowed due 
 weight in all discussions of the analogous accounts of 
 miraculous births found in other religions. Any number 
 of such analogies cannot prove that the story found in the 
 Christian documents is copied and therefore mythical. If 
 the idea of an exceptional mode of entrance into the world 
 offers any real assistance in accounting for the career of 
 an exceptional personality, we should naturally expect 
 such an idea to be connected with the advent of many 
 great men who have been objects of wonder and admira- 
 tion to their own and succeeding generations. 
 
 That it does render aid to the mind in understanding 
 an exceptional character, is no final argument against 
 its historic truthfulness. Its fitness as an element in the 
 explanation of an exceptional Person does not prove that 
 it was invented to explain Him. If the idea of an unusual 
 mode of birth in which the agency of God is more than 
 ordinarily manifest has any value whatsoever, its appearance 
 in myth is almost certain. But the appearance in myth is 
 no conclusive evidence that it has not and may not appear 
 in history. The belief that God is in a special sense the 
 giver of great and good men to the race is certainly a 
 rational one. Whether in any given case He has indicated, 
 by prophetic promise or otherwise, such a special gift, is a 
 question, primarily, of evidence. It is not a priori unreason- 
 able that a character of special importance to the life of 
 man should be from birth or before birth designated as 
 God's messenger. The sons of promise in the Old Testa- 
 ment, and John the Baptist in the New, come under this 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 59 
 
 description. It is, as I have said, a matter of evidence, 
 and one element in that evidence must be the congruity 
 between what is affirmed concerning the birth of the per- 
 son, and the character and life of the person. The unique- 
 ness of Jesus 1 gives force to the affirmation which we 
 make concerning the uniqueness of His birth. The mirac- 
 ulous birth by itself does not constitute a complete 
 evidence of Christianity. It does not logically prove that 
 Christ was divine — it merely proves that He was a super- 
 naturally-begotten man. It was a distinct intimation 
 (and herein its value lay) to those who knew of it, that an 
 exceptional personality was about to enter the world. 
 It was the signal of a new cycle of events. How abso- 
 lutely exceptional that personality was, how wondrously 
 new that cycle of events was to be, was left to the revela- 
 tion and unfolding of them to show. Viewed without the 
 life of Christ, the birth was a symbol of the fulfillment of 
 hopes, and the beginning of a new era, in the actual coming 
 of God's promised messenger. Seen in connection with 
 the life which follows, it becomes simply a congruous item 
 in the life of the Incarnate Son of God. The following 
 sober and thoughtful words exactly express the truth which 
 we have been trying to utter : — 2 
 
 " It would, we feel, be not unbecoming for such a mo- 
 mentous entrance into human life as that of the Son of 
 God, that the mode of it should be different from that of 
 other men's birth. This is not the place to argue for the 
 historical truth of the virgin birth of Christ ; but if it be 
 assumed that Jesus Christ is what St. Paul thought Him to 
 be, then we can at least say with St. Ambrose, " Talis 
 decet partus Deum." No one ever believed Jesus to be 
 divine on the ground that He was born of a virgin ; and 
 
 1 See Chapter viii. 
 
 * Cf. also Ottley, H. B. D., vol. ii, p. 460, Art. Incar. 
 
l6o GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 it is most unlikely that He was first imagined to be born 
 of a virgin because He was believed to be divine. But, if 
 He really was divine, such a manner of birth was not 
 unsuitable. It would not be a breach of natural laws in 
 the same sense as if an ordinary man were to be so born. 
 For a given man, who was nothing more than man, to be 
 an exception to his kind in a matter of this sort would be 
 a miracle such as perhaps no evidence could induce us to 
 accept. But in this case the person to be born, unlike His 
 brother-men, is on the hypothesis, already, an existing 
 person before His conception, and that person is divine. 
 What wonder if, the conditions being dissimilar, the events 
 should be dissimilar likewise ! We cannot say that God 
 could not have been incarnate otherwise ; but we can at 
 least say that if He came in this manner, He gave a signifi- 
 cant token of the new beginning which His birth effected 
 in and for the race of men. It became Him." (Mason, 
 Cam. Theol. Essays, p. 464,5.) 
 
 Having now considered certain general principles which 
 must enter the discussion, let us turn to some of the spe- 
 cific cases in which pagan influences have been alleged. 
 We have already dismissed, as out of the question, the so- 
 called "analogies" afforded by the vulgar myths of 
 Greece and Rome. We may begin with the Buddhist 
 legends. As the basis of this discussion, I shall make 
 special use of an article on Buddhism and Christianity by 
 Prof. T. W. Rhys-Davids in the International Quarterly 
 for March-June, 1903, which states the essential facts in 
 form convenient for reference. 
 
 The writer brings together the most striking analogies 
 between the teaching- of the Buddhist documents and the 
 New Testament, and also certain resemblances in details 
 between the life of Christ and that of the Buddha. Among 
 these is the story of the miraculous birth. It is perfectly 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE l6l 
 
 evident that Prof. Rhys-Davids is not greatly impressed 
 with the resemblance in the two stories so far as the his- 
 torical episodes are concerned. He says on the question 
 of borrowing : " Surely this general similarity in the pre- 
 vious intellectual conditions must have been, after all, the 
 dominant factor in the general similarity, so far as it goes, 
 of the ethical result. Why, then, in strange forgetfulness 
 of the well-known law of parsimony, seek farther for a 
 cause that is not required, and postulate a borrowing for 
 which there is no historical evidence? No one would 
 even suggest for a moment that any borrowing is possible 
 in the case of early Buddhism. Why suggest that in the 
 case of early Christianity such borrowing is not only 
 possible but probable ? 
 
 The case of the episodes is very different — so different 
 at least, that it is best to discuss it always apart from the 
 question of ethics. In the ethics, we find really certain 
 deep-reaching similarities on points of essential moment. 
 In the episodes, the resemblances are very much on the 
 surface. If the suggestion be that there has been imita- 
 tion, the word " resemblance " seems out of place. The 
 latter should rather be described as a travesty or a mockery 
 of the earlier. 
 
 ' And the Jesuit missionary would not be so far wrong 
 when he thought of the Thibetans that the Devil had deceived 
 themwith a blasphemous imitation of the religion of Christ." 
 
 We have but to look at the two narratives side by side 
 to see at once the utter impossibility of imitation, at least 
 on the part of the Christian writers. Taking for granted, 
 what is not proved nor even shown to be probable, that 
 there was communication between adherents of the two 
 faiths, imitation is out of the question. 1 
 
 1 I have been unable to examine A. J. Edmund's book (Buddhists and 
 Christian Gospels, for sale by Open Court Pub. Co., 1905), but from a 
 11 
 
1 62 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 In a comparatively late document of Buddhism (the 
 Maha-Vastu), which is to be dated somewhat earlier than 
 the Christian era, there is an account of the birth of the 
 Buddha. 1 " His mother before the conception retires to 
 keep the fast, and in complete chastity sleeps surrounded 
 by her women. Her husband is not there. As she sleeps 
 she dreams a dream : it seems as if a white elephant enters 
 her side. This is the conception." Is there any one of 
 sound mind and the most rudimentary literary sense who 
 can believe that this puerile legend, with its dream of the 
 sacred white elephant, is the source of the sublime nar- 
 ratives of the Gospel ? Besides, as Prof. Rhys-Davids 
 points out, there is no suggestion that the mother was a 
 virgin at the time, nor of any connection with prophecy. 
 
 Review (Princeton R., Apr., 1906) I take the following quotation: "I 
 hold to the independent origin of Buddhist and Christian Scriptures, pro- 
 vided we mean their fundamental documents. The Epistles of Paul, the 
 Gospel of Mark, and the Logia-source, are dependent for their primary 
 inspiration upon the life and deeds of Jesus ; and secondly, upon the Old 
 Testament oracles, the current belief of the times as embodied in works 
 like Enoch, and the personal convictions of earnest men like Paul, Peter, 
 and Matthew. But when we come to late documents such as Luke, John, 
 and the canonical First Gospel the case is different. This is now admitted 
 by all historical critics, and the most that I advance in this direction is the 
 possibility of the Gentile Gospel of Luke, in certain traits extraneous to the 
 Synoptic narrative having been tinged by the Gotama Epic." 
 
 In this careful and modest statement (in striking contrast with many 
 extravagant claims in this connection) we note that if our contention be at 
 all successful concerning the age of the Infancy documents, the possibility 
 of Buddhist influence goes utterly by the board. As a matter of fact, the 
 Infancy narratives stand among the most primitive portions of the New 
 Testament and exhibit fewer touches of the later ideas of the disciples 
 than almost any others. Belonging to the primitive ground work of the 
 written Gospel their connection with Buddhist documents or derivation from 
 them becomes an unbelievable hypothesis. 
 
 1 Cf. Rhys-Davids' Buddhist Birth Stoi-ies. Hopkins, Religions 0/ India 
 (Ginn & Co., 1895), p. 340, holds that quite probably all the birth stories 
 are later than our era. This is at least open, to question. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 63 
 
 These two suggestions are absolutely destructive of the 
 theory of imitation on the part of the Christian writers. 
 There is no way to account for the invention of a virgin 
 birth l in contradistinction to a miraculous birth which is 
 claimed for Gotama. Moreover, it is inconceivable that a 
 Christian writer, finding the statement of Gotama's birth 
 in Buddhist writings, or hearing of it from the lips of 
 Buddhist missionaries, should, at the same time, be acces- 
 sible enough to heathen notions to accept it, and Jewish 
 enough to strip it of all heathen accessories, and lift it up 
 into connection with prophecy in order to clothe it with 
 purely Jewish forms of thought. Moreover, the form in 
 which the story appears in the Maha-Vastu (that is a 
 miraculous conception on the part of a married woman) 
 was far better adapted for acceptance and defense than the 
 story of a miraculous conception on the part of a virgin 
 as told in the Gospels. 2 
 
 There is no adequate motive for the change. There are 
 still other reasons for rejecting this theory. The natural 
 history of the miraculous birth of Gotama, the Buddha, is 
 clearly exhibited in the documents. 
 
 As has already been said, " the Buddhist legend is not 
 found in the oldest documents. It occurs neither in the 
 chapter on ' Wonders and Marvels ' (namely, at the birth 
 of a Buddha) in the Majjhima-nikayas, nor in the sublime 
 legend in the Digha-nikaya. These two passages agree, 
 nearly word for word, but in the ' Wonders and Marvels,' 
 
 1 That the Prophecy, Isa. vii, 14, did not create the idea, see chap. ii. 
 
 2 Some justification for this statement may be deemed necessary. In the 
 case of a married woman, of whom it is claimed that her child was miracu- 
 lously conceived, those who disbelieve the miracle would simply charge 
 both husband and wife of conspiracy to defraud. The chastity of the 
 woman would not be called in question. The attitude of the Jews toward 
 the miraculous birth of Christ, as shown in the Pantheras story, is evidence 
 enough of the difficulty involved in the New Testament narrative. 
 
164 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 probably the later of the two, a line or two is added to 
 the effect, ' When a Wisdom-being (Bodesat, that is, a 
 being who will become a Buddha) has descended into its 
 mother's womb no thought of lust as regards men arises 
 to her, neither can she be affected, in the way of lustful 
 thought, by any man.' " Prof. Rhys-Davids adds : " This 
 passage, thus introduced, may be the germ of the later 
 development." Long after this comes the second step 
 in the process ; namely, the story of the Maha-Vastu. 
 Then later yet the legend grows complete, reaching even 
 to the description of the mother of a Buddha as the 
 Divine Virgin — a suggestion which was not received with 
 any great favor. Now in the probable natural history of 
 the Buddha legend, from the idea that the mother of the 
 Buddha must be free from earthly emotions, to the full 
 grown notion that she must be a virgin and the mother 
 of no other child, the psychological connection at least is 
 clear. But the origin of the Gospel story, if indeed it be 
 a legend, must have been altogether different. The ideas 
 which are embodied in the Buddhist legend would not 
 have appealed to a Jew. He had no such ascetic view of 
 the marriage relation. 1 The pure love of a wife for her 
 husband could have in it for the Jewish mind no touch of 
 any emotion unworthy of the mother of the Messiah. 
 
 To the Jew there was no superiority in the state of 
 celibacy. In the Gospel narrative itself there is clear 
 indication that the authors considered Mary in reality the 
 wife of Joseph, and the mother of his children. To the 
 genuine Jew there could have been no shock, so far as 
 his ideas of the sacredness of marriage were concerned, in 
 the thought that the Messiah was born as other men. The 
 virgin birth must have made its appeal to him at an 
 
 1 Barring the Essenes who were isolated and despised, asceticism among 
 the Jews was a negligible factor. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 65 
 
 entirely different angle, by making the divine agency in 
 the birth of the Messiah more clearly manifest. 
 
 While Prof. Rhys-Davids rejects the superficial and 
 unfounded theory of imitation, at the same time he affirms 
 an analogy between two narratives, which it is worth our 
 while to study a little more closely. 
 
 " As we have already seen, the Buddhist legend is not 
 found in the oldest documents. It is a latter development, 
 under the influence of two great " ideals " current in 
 India when Buddhism arose, the ideal of the Wise-man 
 of Old, the Seer (the Buddha or the Rishi), and the ideal 
 of the King of the Golden Age (the Cakkavatin). Both 
 were beautiful conceptions, and with the latter were 
 mingled the ancient glories of the sun god. The union 
 of these two was to the early Buddhist what the union of 
 the two ideas of the Messiah and the Logos was to the 
 early Christians. . . And it is the Buddha-Cakkavatti 
 circle of ideas in the one case, just as it is the Messiah- 
 Logos circle of ideas in the other, that has had a larger 
 influence than the real facts in formulating the views held 
 by the early disciples as to the person of their Master." 
 
 The kernel of this discussion is to be found in the last 
 sentence quoted. The vital point at issue is not the 
 reality of the analogy, that may be admitted at once with- 
 out question, but as to what lies back of the analogy. We 
 may admit that the union of the two ideas of the wise 
 man of Old and King of the Golden Age was to the 
 early Buddhist what the union of the two ideas of the 
 Messiah and the Logos was to the early Christians, but 
 that in the case of Christianity the Messiah-Logos circle 
 of ideas has had a larger influence than the real facts in 
 formulating the views held by the early disciples as to 
 the person of their Master, we emphatically deny and are 
 prepared to show the reason why. The parallel thus 
 
1 66 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 drawn breaks down in three essential particulars. In the 
 first place, there is a break in historic continuity between 
 Gotama and the opinions held concerning him by his dis- 
 ciples, which puts these at once into the realms of second- 
 ary judgments. Gotama, so far as the personality of God 
 is concerned, was an atheist. He taught a system of 
 ethics on a purely materialistic basis. Had his teachings 
 been literally followed, his disciples would have been 
 disbelievers in the unseen world and divine reality. There 
 is, therefore, an irreducible contradiction between the 
 teaching of Gotama, who repudiates the idea of Deity and 
 the teaching of his disciples, which makes him an incar- 
 nation of Deity. Gotama was deified in spite of himself. 
 One might as consistently make a Deity of Auguste 
 Comte. As has been well said, this process of apotheo- 
 sis applied to Gotama is a striking exhibition of the 
 inherent religiousness of men, but it destroys completely 
 the authority of the Buddha category as applied to 
 Gotama. 1 It is possible, of co.urse, that a man may be a 
 reflection of the divine without being conscious of it, but 
 he could not be an incarnation of the Deity even in most 
 extreme humiliation without being conscious of it. 
 
 The same person could not be at once a god and an 
 atheist. Gotama could not have known that he was super- 
 naturally conceived, because he did not believe in the 
 supernatural at all. 
 
 This general argument does not hold against Christian- 
 ity. We have undoubted authority for the statement that 
 
 1 Fairbairn says (Phil. Ch. Rel. p. 243): " His people could not stand 
 where he did ; his philosophy could not become a religion without a person 
 to be worshiped, and they, by a sublime inconsistency of logic, rose in the 
 region of the imagination and the heart to a higher consistency and deified 
 the denier of the divine." Fairbairn denies the title atheist to Gotama. 
 Undoubtedly, on the ethical side, his consciousness was theistic, but for him 
 a personal God had no existence. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE l6j 
 
 Jesus not only believed in God, but also in a special sense 
 the messenger and revealer of God. Leaving entirely 
 aside the testimony of John on the basis of the Synoptics, 
 we are compelled to the belief that Jesus claimed to be the 
 Messiah of His people and the revealer of God. We have 
 a basis, therefore, in our knowledge of the self-conscious- 
 ness of Jesus for our faith in His Messiahship. There is 
 no contradiction involved in attributing to Jesus a super- 
 human dignity and wisdom ; for He at least believed in a 
 wisdom and power greater than man. 
 
 It has been urged against the historicity of the birth 
 narratives that Jesus Himself does not confirm them, and 
 therefore, presumably, was not acquainted with the facts. 
 This argument is based almost entirely upon His silence, 
 which is not at all conclusive. The only sentence which 
 can be quoted against it is a purely conventional remark 
 about His home. 
 
 But the parallel is broken in another particular. The 
 question of time is an important one. We have already 
 noticed that the Buddhist birth legends are comparatively 
 late, arising long after the first documents of Buddhism 
 were promulgated, and gradually developing through 
 long periods of time. In forming his parallel Prof. 
 Rhys-Davids makes this statement concerning the birth 
 narratives of the Gospels : " As is well known, the doctrine 
 of the immaculate conception l is not referred to in the 
 oldest of the Christian documents, the epistles attributed 
 to the original apostles and to Paul, nor in the oldest of 
 the Gospels, that according to Mark." 
 
 As a matter of fact, the sources of the Infancy narratives 
 of Matthew and Luke are among the oldest documents 
 of the New Testament, but taking the statement just as it 
 
 1 A misstatement for the miraculous conception which is amazingly prev- 
 alent in discussions of this subject. 
 
1 68 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 stands the parallel with the Buddhist legends breaks down. 
 The lapse of time between the earliest and latest of the 
 Christian documents on any supposition that can plausibly 
 be defended, is infinitesimal compared with the time con- 
 sumed in the development of the Buddhist legends. The 
 entire space of time covered by the history of the formation 
 of the New Testament documents could be spanned by 
 one human life, while the period of the Buddhist stories 
 is measured by ages rather than years. 1 
 
 If anything more is needed to exhibit the impossibility 
 of accounting for the Infancy narratives by any known 
 operation of the mythopceic tendency, it would be furnished 
 by this interesting historic comparison. 
 . The parallel breaks still more completely at another 
 point, in the actual historic results of the two systems. 
 Gotama himself was a reformer and philanthropist, and, 
 compared with the teachings which he displaced, he rep- 
 resents a great advance. But his teaching, that misery is 
 coextensive with existence, and that the only attainable 
 bliss lies in cessation of being, resulted practically in 
 enchaining in moral and spiritual hopelessness the millions 
 brought under his sway. 
 
 The Buddha, typified in the cold, impassive figure of 
 stone with calm, expressionless features, sitting in endless 
 contemplation of vacancy, endeavoring to extirpate all 
 natural emotions, has no message for the modern world 
 
 1 The importance of the question of time in connection with the New 
 Testament estimate and interpretation of Jesus should not be overlooked. 
 
 Harnack has said : " Within two generations from His death Jesus Christ 
 was already put upon the highest plane upon which men can put Him." 
 ( What is Christianity ? p. 154, Eng. Tr.) In connection with this statement 
 Prof. Mason makes the following comment, "As Harnack put the Epistle 
 to the Romans between 52 and 54, and the Epistles to the Philippians, 
 Colossians, and (more doubtfully) Ephesians in the years 57-59, or per- 
 haps 56-58, he might have said within one generation," {Cam. Theol. 
 Essays, p. 429, note). 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 69 
 
 of living men who have a grip upon the real meaning of 
 life. It has no blessing for womanhood, no hope for the 
 world, save in ceasing to be. The followers of Buddha 
 have been left behind in the progress of the world because 
 they were taught to hope nothing except ceasing to be, 
 and to attempt nothing save the repression of feeling. 
 Buddhism is the survival of a departed era. 
 
 Christ has been the inspiration of all progress, the cre- 
 ator of new eras without end, the leader of each generation 
 of workers because he poured into the veins of his follow- 
 ers the tonic of a deathless hope. Christianity is the relig- 
 ion of the rising sun. The future is always within its 
 hand. 
 
 On all grounds, therefore, we are justified in rejecting 
 the hypothesis that the Buddha legends had any part in 
 the formation of the Infancy narrative. 
 
 If the virgin birth cannot be said to be an importation 
 from Buddhism, may it not have come from Egypt ? The 
 doctrine of a virgin birth is said to be found in Egyptian 
 documents, as also other "foregleams " of Christianity. 
 Sayce says : " We owe to them (the Egyptian thinkers) 
 the chief molds into which religious thought has since 
 been thrown. The doctrines of emanation, of a trinity 
 wherein one god manifests himself in three persons, of 
 absolute thought as the underlying and permanent sub- 
 stance of all things, all go back to the priestly philosophers 
 of Egypt." This is enthusiastic, but perhaps not too much 
 so. But we shall never understand the history of religion, 
 unless we keep clearly in mind differences, as well as 
 resemblances, in the various forms of faith. The Egyptian 
 doctrine of virgin births is connected with the advent of 
 kings, and is especially marked in the case of the Pharaoh 
 Amenhotep III. We will permit Prof. Sayce to tell the 
 story of this myth, and also to furnish us a translation of 
 
I70 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 the inscription in which it is found. " On the western wall 
 of one of the chambers in the southern portion of the 
 Temple of Luxor, Champollion first noticed that the birth 
 of Amenhotep III. is portrayed; the inscription and scenes 
 which describe it have since been copied, and we learn 
 from them that he had no human father ; Amon himself 
 descended from heaven and became the father of the future 
 king. His mother was still a virgin when the God of 
 Thebes ' incarnated himself so that she might ' behold 
 him in his divine form.' " The inscription, according to 
 Sayce, is as follows : " Said by Amon-Ra, etc. : He (the 
 God) has incarnated himself in the royal person of this 
 husband, Thotmes IV., etc. He found her lying in her 
 beauty ; he stood beside her as a god. She has fed upon 
 sweet odors emanating from his majesty. He has gone 
 to her in order that he may be a father through her. He 
 caused her to behold him in his divine form when he had 
 gone upon her that she might bear a child at the sight of 
 his beauty. His lovableness penetrated her flesh, filling 
 it with the odor of all his perfumes of Punt. 
 
 " Said by Mut-em-na before the majesty of this august 
 god Amon, etc., the twofold divinity: ' How great is thy 
 twofold will, how (glorious thy) designs in making thy 
 heart repose upon me ! Thy dew is upon all my flesh in 
 . . . This royal god has done all that is pleasing to him 
 with her.' 
 
 " Said by Amon before her majesty : ' Amenhotep is the 
 name of the son which is in thy womb. This child shall 
 grow up according to the words which proceed out of 
 thy mouth. He shall exercise sovereignty and righteous- 
 ness in this land unto its very end. My soul is in him ; 
 he shall wear the twofold crown of royalty ruling the 
 two lands like the sun forever.' " 
 
 Here, then, are the facts. What conclusion should we 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 171 
 
 draw from them ? Have we here a clear case of the 
 heathen origin of a Christian doctrine ? Let us look at it. 
 
 To begin with, I am compelled to express what may- 
 seem an unreasonable skepticism as to the distinctly reli- 
 gious character of this so-called " virgin birth." I have 
 my doubts as to the real religious value attached to it 
 even by those who were most zealous in advocating it. 
 The Pharaonic cult was a politico-religious combination 
 in which, as it seems to me, the political element alto- 
 gether overshadowed the religious. 
 
 In the first place, it was not the primitive religion of Egypt. 
 It was forced upon the people by conquerors who brought 
 their religion with them. The divineness of the Pharaohs 
 as the off-spring of the sun god was the necessary theoreti- 
 cal justification of their usurpation, 1 and throughout its 
 entire history there are significant touches which indicate 
 the political basis of the cult. It ceased at Babylon on 
 the overthrow of the dynasty with which it had been con- 
 nected. Its rise in Egypt was coincident with the advance 
 of the conquering usurpers from the south. It was the 
 embodiment of the political principle known as "the 
 divine right of kings." It was in conflict with the native 
 religion, which was a worship of nature as embodied in 
 sacred animals. In spite of all the efforts of the priests, 
 the new religion could not be unified with the old. Prac- 
 tically, as we know from incidents in the reign of Rameses 
 II., in the arena of politics there was a constant conflict 
 between the priests and the Pharaohs. Rebellion against 
 the Pharaoh was theoretically impiety against the gods, 
 yet rebellions and popular tumults and uprisings in which 
 the authority of the Pharaohs were imperiled were not 
 infrequent, showing that the divinity of the ruler was not 
 
 1 Cheyne says that this divinity of the king was always peculiarly empha- 
 sized in connection with usurpers. 
 
I72 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 too securely held. The fifth dynasty is the first in Egypt- 
 ian history to take the name " Son of Ra." It is significant 
 that these kings came from a frontier island inhabited by 
 foreigners. These foreigners, instead of being sons of 
 Horus, became sons of Ra. On the basis of a Babylonian 
 analogy (the priests of Babylon having refused to acknowl- 
 edge the legitimacy of a foreign king who had not been 
 adopted by the sungod), Sayce says : " It may be (in the 
 case of the kings of the fifth dynasty) that the price of their 
 acknowledgement by the priests and princes of Memphis 
 was their acceptance of the title 'Son of Ra.' It narrowed 
 their pretensions to divinity, and at the same time implied 
 their submission to the god of the great sanctuary which 
 stood in such close relation with Memphis." l In other 
 words, the divine standing of the ruling monarch varied 
 with the stability of his temporal power. A new king 
 received his rank in the Pantheon at the hands of the 
 priests. He had no more divinity granted to him than he 
 could maintain vi et armis. And, so far as the people 
 were concerned, the divinity that hedged the Pharaohs 
 never was so clear and undoubted a tenet of faith as the 
 sacredness of the bull Apis, or of the cats and crocodiles 
 which were protected with such great care. An instance 
 is related of a Greek officer under one of the Ptolemies 
 who carelessly caused the death of a cat. All the powers 
 of the throne which were exercised in his favor could not 
 save his life. 
 
 But most significant of all for our present purpose, is 
 the fact that this alleged virgin birth was expressly framed 
 to meet a dynastic exigency. Let Sayce speak again. 2 
 
 " Legitimacy of birth was reckoned through the mother 
 
 1 Hibbuert Lee, Egypt, and Bab. Re/., p. 88. 
 
 2 Cf., also Cheyne, B. P., p. 237 and references ; Maspero's Dawn of 
 Civilization, p. 259. 
 
THE THE OR Y OF HE A THEN I NFL UENCE 1 7 3 
 
 by whom, accordingly, the divine nature of the Pharaoh 
 was handed on. Only those who had been born of a 
 princess of the royal family could be considered to possess 
 it in all its purity ; and where this title was wanting, it was 
 necessary to assume the direct intervention of a god. The 
 mother of Amenhotep III. (the king whose birth is alleged 
 to have been miraculous) was of Asiatic origin ; we read 
 therefore, on the walls of the Temple of Luxor, that he 
 was born of a virgin, and the god of Thebes. Alexander, 
 the Conqueror of Egypt, was a Macedonian ; it was need- 
 ful accordingly that he should be acknowledged as a son 
 by the god of the oasis of Ammon." 1 
 
 Upon this one consideration, the theory of Egyptian 
 influence over the Infancy narrative is destroyed, and 
 incidentally the larger part of the alleged pagan analogies 
 lose their force. According to Canon Cheyne's own in- 
 terpretation, the word "virgin," as used in the myths, 
 goes back to the tribal mother who was independent of 
 the marriage tie, held chief place in the clan, and with the 
 rest of the women " shared a measure of free love." The 
 myths in which these alleged virgin births occur, reflect 
 the ideas of people who had reached the polyandrous stage 
 of social development, in which the woman rules the tribe, 
 and has many husbands. 
 
 It ought not to be necessary to say that of this influence 
 the Infancy narratives show not the slightest trace. To 
 say nothing of Matthew, who places Mary in the back- 
 ground, puts the direction of affairs in the hands of Joseph, 
 and guards his dignity and rights with scrupulous care ; 
 even Luke, who brings Mary forward, and is keenly alive 
 to her significance, subordinates her to the Child, and rep- 
 resents her as a humble, submissive, and obedient hand- 
 maid of the Lord. In this connection the genealogies are 
 1 Ibid, P . 45. 
 
174 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 significant. In both cases we have Joseph's genealogy- 
 given. The true Jewish attitude is exhibited, which traces 
 the birthright and inheritance through the male line. 
 
 But to return to the Egyptian instances, we find that the 
 alleged cases of miraculous conception were simply legal 
 fictions invented and accepted to legitimatize a claimant 
 to a throne. There is no evidence that anybody believed 
 it as a religious truth. There was no genuine religious 
 conviction in the acceptance of the divinity of Amenhotep 
 III., except, perhaps, among those fanatically attached to 
 the dynasty. 1 
 
 This judgment is confirmed by the wording of the 
 inscription itself. According to Sayce, the god Amon, 
 who was the father of Amenhotep, incarnated himself 
 before the conception took place. Once more, according 
 to the inscription, the god parent became incarnate in the 
 royal person of the queen's husband, Thothmes IV. That 
 is to say, that the alleged virgin birth is not a virgin birth 
 at all, but a flatterer's idealization of the birth of a prince, 
 whose claim to the throne which he occupies is not 
 beyond question. 2 
 
 The analogy, therefore, which the story presents is not 
 really an analogy at all, but is a series of contrasts 
 throughout. 
 
 Moreover, I doubt the accessibility of this myth to 
 Jewish minds. It belonged to the life of ancient Egypt ; 
 the record of it was locked away in the sacred language ; 
 
 1 Of course I do not mean to say that the untaught crowd did not after 
 a fashion worship the Pharaoh along with their sacred bulls, crocodiles, 
 ibises, and cats. My argument refers to the men who formulated the 
 alleged statements concerning the miraculous birth of the kings. 
 
 2 On the parentage of Amenhotep III., cf. Breasted, Hist. Egypt (Scrib- 
 ner's) 1905, p. 328 ; Rawlinson, Ancient Egypt, vol. ii, p. 261 (Longman's 
 and Co. 1881); Budge, Hist. Egypt (Ox. Un. Press, 1902), vol. iv, p. 90 ; 
 Brugsch, Egypt under Pharaohs (Scrib., 1891), p. 201. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE lj$ 
 
 the form in which this inscription gives it was no part of 
 the popular faith. Indeed, long years before Christ came, 
 the original form of the myth had faded from the minds of 
 the Egyptian teachers of religion themselves into a mere 
 allegory ; for we are told that a later statue represents the 
 god pouring the sacred ichor, which constitutes this trans- 
 mitted divinity, into the veins of the king standing before him. 
 
 To complete the severance of the myth from the Gos- 
 pel narratives, it is necessary only to bring them together. 
 Read the inscription, and note the sensuousness of the 
 imagery in which the sacred mystery of life is unveiled, 
 and compare it with the story of the Gospels, in which, 
 with a delicacy which surpasses admiration, words are 
 used in such a way as to reveal the central fact, while the 
 circumstances are wrapped in an impenetrable seclusion. 
 In passing from the one narrative to the other we enter 
 a different world of ideas and of feelings. 
 
 I have dealt with this one case of parallelism some- 
 what in detail because the case is typical. In the vast 
 majority of instances, as in this one, the resemblances are 
 apparent and superficial, while the differences are world- 
 wide and deep-seated. 
 
 The theory of heathen influence has undergone trans- 
 formation at the hands of Canon Cheyne. 1 Certain fun- 
 damental questions involved in Cheyne's book I shall deal 
 with in another place. Here we are concerned with his 
 theory of the origin of the Infancy story. He abandons 
 definitely the creation of the narrative by the influence 
 of Isa. vii, 14, and also the direct influence of contempo- 
 rary heathenism. He attributes the rise of the stories to 
 what might be called a domesticated Jewish heathenism. 
 The theory is an application of the new pan-Babylonian 
 propaganda. Let the author speak for himself. 
 
 1 Bible Problems, 1904, (Crown Library, Putnam). 
 
176 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 " The historical explanation of the statement of the 
 virgin birth of Christ, which seems to me to be the most 
 probable, is that it originated, not in a mistranslation of 
 the Immanuel prophecy (Isa. vii, 14), which is Prof. Har- 
 nack's theory, nor, immediately in a non-Jewish, heathen 
 story, adopted by Gentile Christians, a story such as those 
 which Mr. Gartland in his Perseus, and Prof. Usener in his 
 Weihnachtsfest, have collected in abundance (this is Prof. 
 Schmiedel's theory), but in a story of non-Jewish origin 
 current in Jewish circles, and borrowed from them by 
 certain Jewish Christians (this is Prof. Gunkel's theory)." l 
 
 The writer criticises the theories of Usener and Schmie- 
 del (and the criticism would also apply to Soltau) in two 
 particulars : — 
 
 1. They are wrong in stating that the circles in which 
 the statement of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ were 
 first current were Gentile Christian. 
 
 2. In making too wide a search for parallels ; that is, in 
 passing beyond the range of connection with the Jews. 
 
 The parallels to be sought are Arabian, Babylonian, 
 Egyptian, and Persian, because these were most likely to 
 have influenced the beliefs of the Jews. These two criti- 
 cisms are of immense importance to the argument as we 
 shall see later. 
 
 But we ask, How did the heathen notions become 
 domesticated in Israel? The Canon is ready with an 
 answer to this natural question : The basis of this argu- 
 ment is to be found in the fact that long before the life 
 of Christ the Israelites had come under the influence of 
 highly-developed Oriental cultures. The influence was 
 especially strong in the post-exilic period. In other 
 words, long before the Christian era, heathen elements 
 were incorporated into the thought and life of the 
 
 1 Tages 71, 72. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 77 
 
 Jews, so that complete Messianic myths were at hand, 
 ready-made, and nothing was needed but an historic 
 person like Jesus to whom they might be definitely 
 applied. But this process of adoption was accompanied 
 by adaptation. " Of course the religion of Israel reacted 
 against these influences, the dangerousness of which must 
 have been apparent. Consequently the things which 
 were borrowed were more or less completely Hebraized and 
 rendered innocuous." 1 Where is this influence of Oriental 
 Mythology to be found ? What evidences do we discover 
 in the Scriptures that such a syncretism has taken place ? 
 
 "The constant pressure of Oriental beliefs on the Israel- 
 itish religion is abundantly attested, and its traces are 
 nowhere more visible than in the Apocalyptic portions of 
 Daniel, and in the book of the Revelation." 
 
 Between the last statement quoted above and the eluci- 
 dation of the historic parallels which he urges, Canon 
 Cheyne inserts a parenthetic remark, and, connected with 
 it, a long note, the two together forming one of the main 
 props of his entire argument : — 
 
 " Parenthetically, I may remark here that the popular 
 Messianic belief was probably much more definite than we 
 might suppose from most of the Jewish religious literature. 
 It received a great impulse from the reference in the Book 
 of Daniel (vii, 13 /), but this reference itself proves that 
 the Messianic belief had already a development behind it. 
 And from the Synoptic Gospels we see that this belief 
 was deeply fixed in the popular mind in the time of Jesus. 
 So much may be stated, with the brevity which our cir- 
 cumstances demand, to illustrate the statement that the 
 account in Matt, i, 18, has most probably arisen out of 
 a non-Jewish story, known in certain Jewish circles, and 
 adopted from these by some Christians." (Page 7$-) 
 
 1 Page 70. 
 12 
 
I78 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 The conclusion to which the long and somewhat con- 
 fused note leads is, that the being resembling a man in 
 Dan. vii, 13 is very probably no other than the prince- 
 angel Michael. 
 
 Further, it is concluded that this being is also the 
 Messiah. 
 
 " Finally, this man-like being, who is Michael and also the 
 Messiah, corresponds to Marduk (Merodach), the son of 
 Ea, and to Nabu (Nebo), the son of Marduk — originally, 
 perhaps indentical (Zimmern) — in the genealogical system 
 of Babylonian theology." 
 
 The cycle of connection between the myth and the 
 Infancy narrative is made through Rev. xii in which the 
 woman mentioned under such glowing imagery is a trans- 
 formation of the Babylonian myth connected with Mar- 
 duk. The seven- headed dragon (Rev. xii, 3) also called 
 the " ancient serpent " is no other than Tiamat, whom 
 the god of the springtide sun — Marduk — encountered 
 and overcame. 
 
 Prof. Gunkel has also pointed out striking points of 
 contact between Rev. xii and Dan. vii, and argues that 
 since the former passage cannot possibly be viewed as an 
 imitation of the latter, and since Dan. vii has been proved 
 (by himself) to have strong Babylonian affinities, we can- 
 not do otherwise than assume a Babylonian origin for 
 Rev. xii. 
 
 This interpretation of the passage in Rev. xii, as the 
 working up of a sun-myth ultimately of Babylonian origin, 
 is made in spite of the fact that exactly such a myth has 
 not yet been found in the Babylonian records so far 
 brought to light. 
 
 Now, interpret the passage in the Revelation as the story 
 of the Messiah's mother, and the chain of connection 
 between Babylon and Bethlehem is complete. Cheyne 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 79 
 
 says: "That the woman, 'clothed with the sun, and the 
 moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve 
 stars,' was, to the Jewish narrator, the mother of the 
 expected Messiah, is plain. But it is from the kindred 
 mythologies of Babylonia and Egypt that we learn why 
 the woman was so magnificently arrayed. 
 
 "The reason was that, according to the underlying myth, 
 she was the queen of heaven, the mother of the sungod." 
 
 The next step is to elaborate the parallel between the 
 passage in the Revelation and the Infancy narrative. " In 
 the original myth of the world-redeemer's birth, a place 
 was doubtless given to the persecution of His mother by the 
 dragon. No practiced eye can fail to see its counterpart 
 in Matt. ii. The infuriated dragon becomes the angry 
 Herod, whose popular reputation for cruelty marked him 
 out as a fit historical representative of the blood-thirsty 
 monster of chaos." There are several important and strik- 
 ing differences which the reader may follow out for him- 
 self. I wish, however, to quote a striking passage in 
 which there is more than appears to the eye. "The 
 woman arrayed with the sun — a representation still pre- 
 served in the Jewish-Christian Apocalyptic passage — 
 became to the writer in the Matthean prelude a lowly Jew- 
 ish maiden ; the functions of her Son became, not the 
 destruction of the chaos-monster, nor the ruling of nations 
 with a rod of iron, but the internal as well as external sal- 
 vation of His people ; the royal capital of the Redeemer 
 became not Babylon but Jerusalem ; the dragon with jaws 
 wide open to devour, became Herod, ' seeking the young 
 child ' in Bethlehem ' to destroy him ;' the flight of the 
 mother into the wilderness (the child had been caught up 
 to God's throne) became the flight of the Holy Family 
 into Egypt." 
 
 The conclusion of the whole matter is thus stated : " So 
 
l8o GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 far as the virginity of the mother of Christ is concerned, I 
 speak as a historical critic, that the passage in the prelude 
 to the first Gospel is a Jewish-Christian transformation of 
 a primitive story, derived ultimately, in all probability, from 
 Babylonia, and analogous to the Jewish transformation of 
 the Babylonian cosmogeny in the opening section of 
 Genesis." 
 
 In attempting the criticism of this theory I wish to call 
 attention, first of all, to the fact that the fundamental the- 
 sis upon which the entire structure depends is contested. 
 The influence of Babylonian ideas upon the Old Testament 
 is in dispute, and, while Dr. Cheyne is perfectly sure that 
 the question has been finally settled, other scholars just as 
 competent differ from him. That cosmological myths 
 have been imported and domesticated within the limits of 
 Israel, is denied by strong and capable thinkers. The 
 matter is at least doubtful. There is no question, however, 
 that in all periods of Jewish history, even when apostasy 
 was most widespread as in the days of Elijah, there have 
 been some who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Early 
 in the post-exilic period, when the alleged foreign influence 
 was most general, a reaction began against all forms of 
 heathen thought, and this reaction gathered momentum 
 through the Maccabean and Roman periods, which carried 
 it down to the days of Christ. 1 There were always some 
 who accepted nothing heathen if they were aware of its 
 heathen nature and origin. There was an inner spiritual 
 core of the nation to whom all heathen conceptions were an 
 abomination. It is, therefore, at least a doubtful question 
 whether the writers of the New Testament may not have 
 been of this class, insulated by the intensity of their Hebraism 
 from contact with heathen ideas. Of this, more hereafter. 
 
 1 Kent, Historv of J. P. in Bab., Per., and Grk. Periods, pp. 262-3 '■> Ri gg s » 
 Mac. and Roman Period, pp. 16, 17, 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE l8l 
 
 The essential point now at issue is' the contact with 
 heathenism. Cheyne criticises the views of other theorists 
 on this subject, on the ground that in going so far afield 
 into heathenism for analogies they have gathered many 
 which could not have been accessible to the Jews of any 
 period. But is he any more happy in his attempt to connect 
 heathenism with the New Testament, and especially the 
 Infancy narratives ? Taking up the chain of connection 
 which he has formed between the Babylonian myths and 
 the prelude of Matthew, I notice that it is defective in three 
 essential particulars. In the first place, his interpretation 
 of Dan. vii, 13 is more than doubtful. According to the 
 best interpretation of the passage, the manlike being refers 
 not to any personality x whether the Messiah, Michael or 
 Marduk, but to the character of the kingdom. Just as 
 the other kingdoms which are characterized by brute force 
 and cruelty are symbolized by beasts, so the last great 
 kingdom which is to be characterized by reason and justice 
 is symbolized by a manlike being. It refers to the Mes- 
 siah inferentially, but the primary reference is to the nature 
 of the Messianic kingdom. The resemblance to the 
 Marduk myth, according to this interpretation, becomes 
 very dim. 
 
 In the second place, the interpretation of the passage in 
 the Revelation as a reference to the Messiah's birth is also 
 doubtful (see Cheyne : Note, p. 240). 
 
 Dr. Gore interprets this passage, as does Dr. Cheyne, 
 as a reference to Christ's birth, but even so, there is in the 
 passage no hint of a miraculous conception. Even if the 
 passage can be connected on one side with the Babylonian 
 mythology, it cannot be united on the other with the 
 Infancy narrative. We have an ideal representation of 
 the birth of the World's Redeemer from faithful Israel, 
 
 1 Mathews, Messianic Hope in N. T, p. 31, note 4. 
 
1 82 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 and His triumph over foes that lie in wait at His advent. 
 In important particulars, it departs from the historic 
 account of Christ's birth. But the representation is wholly- 
 Jewish. " The use of the number twelve indeed suggests 
 the thought of a bond of connection between this light 
 (worn by the woman), and the Christian Church. The 
 tribes of Israel, the type of God's spiritual Israel, were in 
 number twelve ; our Lord chose to Himself twelve apos- 
 tles ; the new Jerusalem has twelve gates, and at the gate 
 twelve angels, and names written thereon which are the 
 names of the twelve tribes of Israel." 1 
 
 In the third place, if the interpretation given both of 
 Daniel vii and Rev. xii is correct, and the connection of 
 both with Babylon established, the fact has no bearing 
 whatsoever upon the derivation of Matthew's narrative. 
 This belongs to a different form of literature altogether. 
 It is outside the cycle of common influences. The trans- 
 formation which Dr. Cheyne points out in the story shows 
 this important fact. He says that the dragon of the myth 
 becomes Herod and the woman clothed with the sun and 
 crowned with stars a lowly Jewish maiden, etc. It is evi- 
 dent that if there has been any transformation here it has 
 been in the opposite direction. A Jewish maiden, who was 
 believed to be mother of the Messiah, might in Apoca- 
 lyptic (perhaps has) become the star-crowned woman in 
 heaven, and Herod, the enemy of the Messiah, might 
 become a dragon, but by no conceivable process could the 
 order be reversed. The only plausible evidence which he 
 adduces of domesticated heathen ideas are found in Apoca- 
 lyptic literature. But isn't Dr. Cheyne familiar enough 
 with this literature to recognize that the prelude of Matthew 
 moves in a totally different realm, and is the result of dif- 
 ferent influences ? If he doesn't see this distinction, 
 
 1 Milligan, Ex. Bib., Rev., p. 198. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 83 
 
 there must be something lacking in his " practiced eye." 
 Let any reader, contrast the extravagant description, the 
 high-sounding epithets, the cosmic transactions of the 
 myths, with the story of the Gospels — the humble maiden, 
 the carpenter, the inn stable, the simple language, the 
 definite dates and locations — and ask himself whether it is 
 possible to believe that the Gospel story is an adaptation 
 of the myth. 1 
 
 1 The very fact that this alleged heathen element is so disguised that a 
 special critical apparatus is required to reveal its presence is argument 
 enough against its reality. Unless it is the work of a conscious and delib- 
 erate fabricator no such concealment would be attempted. Naive uncon- 
 scious heathenism is naked and unashamed. Combinations of pagan and 
 Christian elements are always mixtures not chemical unions, and the pagan 
 elements are distinctly traceable. In most instances the motives operating 
 in the minds of the originators of such schemes are also plainly discernible. 
 A complete amalgamation of Christian and heathen ideas in which the 
 heathen elements reappear in purely Christian forms is unknown to history. 
 " Out of the fusing of cosmological myths and philosophies of Oriental and 
 Greek paganism with Christian historical elements in the crucible of its own 
 speculation, there arose numerous systems of a higher fantastic sort of relig- 
 ious philosophy, which were included under the common name of Gnosti- 
 cism. The pagan element upon the whole is the prevailing one, inasmuch 
 as in most Gnostic systems Christianity is not represented as the conclusion 
 and completion of the development of salvation given in the Old Testament, 
 but often merely as the continuation and climax of the pagan religion of 
 nature and the pagan mystery worship." (Kurtz, Ch. His., Eng. Tr., 
 vol. i, p. 99.) 
 
 In these known combinations of Christian and pagan elements, the inter- 
 est in paganism is open and undisguised. In apologetic concessions from 
 the Christian side such as we find in Justin the motive is also apparent. 
 A striking example of easily discernible pagan elements in a Christian 
 document is to be found in the Gospel of Peter (quoted and commented 
 upon by Wilkinson : Early History of the Gospels pp. 33, f.) In the 
 account of the Resurrection occurs this passage: "And as they declared 
 what things they had seen, again they see coming forth from the tomb, 
 three men, and the two following them. And of the two the head reached 
 unto the heaven, but the head of Him that was led by them overpassed the 
 heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens saying. ' Hast thou 
 preached to them that sleep ? ' And an answer was heard from the Cross, 
 
184 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 There is another difficulty much more important than 
 these, the consideration of which will lead us to the very- 
 heart of the whole question. 
 
 If the Gospel story is such an adaptation, it has under- 
 gone a complete moral and spiritual transformation. The 
 parallels with the Gospel story upon which Dr. Cheyne 
 dwells most at length are the Tammuz cult in N. Arabia 
 and the Babylonian myth of Marduk. The latter we have 
 already noticed. Of the former he says : "Dusares (local 
 name for Tammuz) in fact was worshiped, both at Petra 
 and at Elusa, as 'the only begotten of the Lord' 
 {p.ovoyEvqz too AeoTcbroo, etc.), and his mother as the virgin 
 {jtap^kvo'z, Xope)." The phrase " only begotten " may re- 
 mind us of the " only begotten Son " in Jno. i, 18 (Cheyne, 
 
 P- 75} 
 
 It is also to be noted that the Tammuz cult (according 
 to Jerome) was practiced in the reputed cave of the Nativity 
 at Bethlehem. How close the parallel in words ! But let 
 us look a little more particularly at the thing signified. 
 
 Istar, who was beloved by Tammuz " was conceived of 
 as a virgin, or at all events as a goddess who might indulge 
 in amours so long as they did not lead to regular mar- 
 riage." In other words, the only meaning of the word 
 " virgin " as applied to Istar was that she was not regularly 
 married. The nature of the Tammuz cult in the cave of 
 the Nativity may be inferred from the following descrip- 
 tion which I introduce only because it is necessary to an 
 
 'Yea. ' " When we learn from the sacred book of the sect of Elkesaites 
 that they taught doctrines in which gigantic beings like angels figure we 
 are not at a loss to assign this document to its probable source. Is there 
 anything comparable with this in the Infancy narrative? The incident 
 which comes nearest to it is the visit of the wise men — but while this is 
 told in the phraseology of the Magians, it is yet related from the view-point 
 of the Jew, and without exhibiting the slightest interest in their peculiar 
 doctrines. 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 85 
 
 understanding of the problem. "At Erech, Istar was 
 served by organized bands of unmarried maidens who 
 
 prostituted themselves in honor of the goddess 
 
 In return for the lives they led, ' the handmaids of Istar ' 
 were independent from the control of men." 1 
 
 Add to this the statement in which Dr. Cheyne gives 
 the historical interpretation of the word " virgin," and the 
 theory in all its completeness will stand before you. 
 
 " And what was the original meaning of the term 
 ' virgin ' ? As has long since been shown, it expressed 
 the fact that the great mythic mother-goddess was inde- 
 pendent of the marriage-tie. In those remote times to 
 which the cult of that goddess properly belonged, 'the 
 mother held the chief place in the clan, and all women 
 shared a measure of free love.' 2 The goddess-mother, in 
 fact, preceded the goddess-wife." 
 
 We have at last tracked this hypothesis to its lair, and 
 the quest has led us into the foul depths of the orgiastic 
 and licentious rites of the heathen worship with which the 
 Hebrew people were forbidden to have any fellowship 
 upon penalty of the wrath of Jehovah, and for falling into 
 which they were punished with fire and sword again and 
 again. We have, then, this striking phenomenon for which 
 the theory must account : A narrative, marked by these 
 three outstanding peculiarities, Hebraic monotheism 
 (witness the songs) ; spirituality of mind (witness the 
 characters) ; exalted purity of heart (witness the ret- 
 icence as to details, and the general atmosphere and tone 
 of the narrative) ; was derived more or less mediately from 
 a heathen polytheistic mythology, accompanied by grovel- 
 ing materialism of mind, and impure social rites. Surely 
 a white lily never grew from mud so foul. Moreover, the 
 
 1 Sayce, Eg. Bab. Rel. 
 
 * Quoting Barton, Sera. Origins, p. 84. 
 
1 86 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 heart, the central mystery, namely, the Lord's birth, is 
 original. " The stress laid on the virginity (in the ordinary 
 sense of the word) of the holy mother is peculiar to the 
 evangelist." 
 
 Everyone must admit that this marvelous transformation 
 of mud into a flower requires some explanation ; indeed an 
 explanation that will really grip hold of the difficulties 
 involved in the supposition. In order to exhibit Dr. 
 Cheyne's explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon, 
 I wish to bring together a number of sentences which lose 
 nothing by being taken out of their connection. 
 
 The first one refers to the matter of heathen borrowings 
 in general, the others to the specific instance in hand. 
 
 " Of course, the religion of Israel reacted against these 
 influences, the dangerousness of which must have been ap- 
 parent (italics mine). Consequently, the things which 
 were borrowed were more or less completely Hebraized, 
 and rendered innocuous." (P. 70,71.) "We must re- 
 member that the real presence of a spirit of holiness in 
 Israel is best proved by its transformations of the rude and 
 gross conceptions of a primitive age." (P. 76.) 
 
 " It (the change in the meaning of the word virgin) 
 arose out of a misunderstood title which originally implied 
 something very far from the thoughts of Christians, and 
 the narrative, to a historic and therefore reverent mind, is 
 by no means disparaged if taken to stand in some con- 
 nection with the Egyptian theory of the divine generation 
 of kings, and the Philonian belief in the divine generation 
 of certain favored personages of the Old Testatment." 
 (P. 90.) 
 
 Combining these scattered elements of explanation, we 
 have the following lucid and convincing result. That the 
 spirit of holiness in Israel (for no conceivable purpose 
 that appears, except to frame a false adornment for the 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 87 
 
 person of the Messiah) purified a foul heathen myth into 
 a pure Jewish-Christian one, without making it any the 
 less a myth, using for the purpose of purification the inno- 
 cence of the Christian writer, who could not understand 
 that the word " virgin " in the myth which he was adopt- 
 ing had any meaning other than the pure and sacred one 
 to which he had been accustomed. 
 
 Extended comment upon this explanation is unneces- 
 sary. I offer the following suggestions : — 
 
 1. An analogy in which part and counterpart diverge 
 at every vital point cannot rightly be called an analogy at 
 all. A myth which uses the word " virgin " in one sense 
 cannot be the analogue of a narrative which uses it in 
 exactly the opposite sense. Birth from a pure maiden, 
 and birth from a polyandrous tribal mother, " who enjoys 
 a measure of free love," are not parallels but contrasts. 
 
 2. The spirit of holiness in Israel does not inspire false- 
 hoods. The statement that Jesus was born of the virgin 
 Mary either is true or is not true. If it is not true, the 
 Spirit of God did not inspire the record of it. Michael 
 may be Marduk, but, according to the Scriptures, the 
 Spirit of Holiness is not the Father of lies. 
 
 3. No man could possibly come into contact with the 
 Babylonian and Arabian cults, and the rites connected 
 therewith, and preserve his ignorance as to the meaning 
 of the word " virgin. " I can believe in such innocence, and 
 do believe in it, but only in connection with a circle into 
 which the foul breath of that monstrous heathen worship 
 had never penetrated. But, in a man or a group of men, 
 so exposed to the contamination of heathenism as to come 
 under its fascination, such ignorance is inconceivable. 
 
 But we have had enough of this study. I have reserved 
 for the end of this chapter a statement, which I am 
 prepared to retract upon further evidence, but which 
 
1 88 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 represents a very firm conviction based upon present 
 knowledge. After a careful, laborious, and occasionally 
 wearisome study of the evidence offered and the analogies 
 urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of 
 virgin births. Supernatural births it has without number, 
 but never from a virgin in the New Testament sense and 
 never without physical generation, except in a few isolated 
 instances of magical births on the part of women who had 
 not the slightest claim to be called virgins. In all recorded 
 instances which I have been able to examine, if the mother 
 was a virgin before conception took place she could not 
 make that claim afterwards. The supernatural conception 
 of Christ therefore was unique in several particulars : — 
 
 1. Christ's conception was in order to incarnation — 
 heathen wonder-births were the result of incarnation. 
 
 2. The story combines a miraculous birth with a pure 
 spiritualistic monotheism. Christ's birth was due to the 
 creative agency of the unseen God — without the usual 
 human mediation. 
 
 3. His mother was at the time of His conception and 
 remained until after His birth a virgin. In short the con- 
 ception of Jesus was as unique as the person thus brought 
 into the world. 
 
 NOTE TO CHAPTER VI 
 
 There are three collateral items of evidence which of themselves go a 
 long way toward demonstrating independence of heathen influence on the 
 part of the Infancy narratives. These three items are the story of the 
 Magi, the angelology of Luke, and the delineation of Mary. These items 
 are especially interesting because they occur just at the points where heathen 
 influence, if present, would be most clearly manifest. 
 
 In the narrative of the visit of the Magi, two difficulties in the way of a 
 clear interpretation of the occurrence have been pointed out. In the first 
 place, the meaning of the word (/layoi) is obscure and confused. Whether 
 these Magians were a nation, or a sect or order, it is practically impossible to 
 decide. In the second place, the astronomical occurrence with which their 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE 1 89 
 
 visit was connected has not been clearly explained. But altogether apart 
 from this, there is one most remarkable quality exhibited in the story; namely, 
 a certain aloofness or detachment of mind on the part of the writer. It has 
 been strenuously debated whether the word Magi is used in a good or bad 
 sense. As a matter of fact, it not used in either sense. " The Evangelist 
 lays no stress, either on the value of the religion of the Magi in general or on 
 its falsity, so that the attempts of many ancient commentators (Just. Chrys.; 
 Theophil ; cf. J. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ii, 36) to press the bad sense here, is 
 as irrelevant to the story in the Gospels as the ironical fears of Strauss for the 
 dogmatic consequences of a favorable construction. The newly-born King 
 of the Jews receives homage from Eastern sages ; their views (beyond the 
 reference to the star, which does not imply any opinion on astrology in gen- 
 eral) are not touched upon, and therefore neither praised nor blamed — a 
 point in which Mt. ii contrasts with Sen. Ep. 58, where some critics have 
 endeavored to find a parallel." (Benecke in H. B. D., vol. iii, p. 204 b. On 
 the historicity of the narrative, see latter part of same article.) 
 
 In other words, the evangelist tells his story for what it is worth, without 
 comment. Certainly there is no touch of heathen influence. He tells the 
 story in the words of the astrologists, but his Hebrew leanings are apparent. 
 There is no hint of the heathen attitude of superstitious reverence in the 
 presence of the heavenly bodies. The star points the way to the King who 
 is the sole object of worship. The Magians of the First Gospel are Jewish 
 proselytes, not heathen, and the evangelist himself occupies the position of 
 the Jewish Messianist who would, of course, refer such a celestial occurrence 
 as described by the strangers to the Messiah. Every item in the story points 
 away from heathen influence. 
 
 The same is true also of the angelology of Luke. The agency of angels 
 in this narrative is made very prominent. It is the more remarkable, there- 
 fore, when we come to study the account closely, to find that it keeps so 
 rigidly within the lines of the earlier Old Testament representation. Accord- 
 ing to the earlier documents of the Old Testament, angels were looked 
 upon as the visible manifestations of God in human form. This was espe- 
 cially true of that mysterious person, who accepts divine honors, and is yet 
 distinct from Jehovah, known as the angel of the Lord, the angel of the face, 
 or the angel of the covenant. In regard to him Prof. Davidson (H. B. D., 
 vol. i, p. 94 b) says : " As the manifestation called the angel of the Lord 
 occurred chiefly in redemptive history, older theologians regarded it as an 
 adumbration or premonition of the incarnation of the Second Person. This 
 idea was just in so far as the angel of the Lord was a manifestation of J " 
 on the earth in human form, and in so far as such temporary manifestations 
 might seem the prelude to a permanent redemptive self-revelation in this 
 form (Mai. iii, 12) ; but it was to go beyond the Old Testament, or at 
 
I9O GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 least, beyond the understanding of Old Testament writers, to found in the 
 manifestation distinctions in the Godhead. The only distinction implied is 
 that between J " and J " in manifestation." 
 
 This fundamental idea, that the angel is Jehovah in manifestation, 
 branches in two directions, giving, on the one hand, the idea of a heavenly 
 host, which expresses or symbolizes the Lord's manifested glory; and on 
 the other, the idea of God's messengers which expresses God's active going 
 forth to men. Under the one or the other of these two essentially related 
 representations, almost all the earlier angelology of the Old Testament may 
 be summed up. 
 
 In the book of Daniel, however, we find important modifications of the 
 primitive angelology. As a result partly of an intensified sense of the 
 divine transcendence, for " in Daniel God no longer speaks to men directly, 
 but only through the intervention of angels, who even interpret His written 
 word to men (ix, 20) ,' ' and partly, perhaps, owing to foreign influence, angels 
 become more distinct and more prominent. They are given names, and 
 arranged in the ranks of a graduated hierarchy, and in addition are given 
 the task of wielding authority over the nations. 
 
 The development of angelology in later Judaism has been thus described : 
 " The added prominence given to them (i.e., angels) in the writings of such 
 prophets as Ezekiel and Zechariah was undoubtedly due to the fact that, as 
 Jehovah was then regarded as more exalted and farther removed from man, 
 messengers were required to perform His will on earth and to communicate 
 between Him and His people. Later, Judaism conceived of a highly devel- 
 oped hierarchy of angels ( compare the beginning of the conception in the 
 book of Zechariah and its full development in Daniel and Enoch). 
 Although the names given to these heavenly beings are of Hebrew origin, 
 the many close points of similarity to the Persian system suggests a more 
 direct influence. Especially is this conclusion confirmed when we find that 
 one of the names of an evil angel (Asmodeus — Aeshma — daeva) has been 
 adopted from the Persian into Jewish thought (Book of Tobit)." (Kent, 
 Bab., Pers. and Grk. Periods in Hist. J. P. Series, p. 256.) 
 
 Since the Jews already believed in the agency and personality of the 
 angels, it is only necessary to believe that they adopted the foreign custom 
 of naming them. It is not clear that they borrowed the names, while it is 
 clear that the beings thus named preserved their original biblical character- 
 istics and offices. As Dr. Plummer (Com. on Lk., p. 16) says: " It is one 
 thing to admit that such names are of foreign origin, quite another to 
 assert that the belief which they represent is an importation. Gabriel, the 
 • Man of God,' seems to be the representation of angelic ministry to man ; 
 Michael, 'who is like God,' the representative of angelic opposition to 
 Satan. In Scripture Gabriel is the angel of mercy ; Michael, the angel of 
 
THE THEORY OF HEATHEN INFLUENCE I9I 
 
 judgment. In Jewish legend, the reverse is the case, proving that the Bible 
 does not borrow Jewish fables. In the Targum, Gabriel destroys Sen- 
 nacherib's army ; in the Old Testament, he comforts Daniel." However 
 this may be, we have but to turn to the Lucan narrative to find ourselves in 
 a thoroughly Old Testament atmosphere. The name Gabriel (which had 
 undoubtedly become the common designation of the messenger of God) is 
 used but to describe the " Angel of the presence " after the Old Testament 
 manner. The angel says to Zacharias : "lam Gabriel that stand in the 
 presence of God (6 irapsori/Kuc; kvuniov tov Aeov)." Let the reader com- 
 pare this statement with Isa. lxiii, 9, and follow the Hebrew words ( •'"]N30 
 and HJ3 j through the Old Testament, and he will at once see how true to 
 the deepest thought of the earlier revelation Luke' s treatment is. 
 
 The statement of Dr. Grieve, therefore, is abundantly justified by the facts: 
 " His (Gabriel's) connection with, far less his derivation from, any of the 
 Seven Amshaspends of Zoroastrianism, the seven Babylonian planets, or the 
 seven councilors at the Persian court (Ezra vii, 14) has not been made out. 
 He is the messenger of J" a characteristic Jewish idea, though the number 
 of the archangels — seven — may have been derived from foreign sources." 
 (H. B. D., vol. ii, p. 75#.) Following the angelology of the section through 
 we find it to be strictly of the Old Testament type. When the angels ap- 
 pear in the annunciation to the shepherds there is no naming, no number- 
 ing, no hint of hierarchical graduation among them. It is again the simple 
 idea of the angel of the Lord as His messenger and the heavenly host con- 
 nected with the manifestation of His glory. The angels are not unduly 
 exalted, nor are they over emphasized. They do their work and disappear 
 — there is no hint of anything like divine honor being paid to them. There 
 is no touch of prevalent exaggeration so marked in the heathen angelologies. 
 Still more striking, perhaps, than these, is the evidence afforded by the 
 delineation of Mary in both Infancy narratives. If the mythological influ- 
 ence is present, it ought to exhibit itself here if anywhere. In the original 
 myth the mother must have been as divine as the child 1 — a subject of 
 almost equal interest. All the professed mythologists (Gunkel, Cheyne, 
 etc.) attempt to prove that Mary is the equivalent of the tribal mother, 
 or ancestral goddess, or some mythological figure of the sort. 
 
 Now according to the Infancy narrative, the mother of Jesus is caught up 
 into a cycle of supernatural occurrences — she is the subject of experiences 
 unique in human annals, and yet, where can there be found, in all the 
 literature of the world such an exquisitely natural and human portraiture 
 as is given of her in this same story ? There is a haunting fascination 
 about the brief record of her life which has led captive the imagination of 
 
 1 Except as in Egypt, when the birth was meant to overcome the mother's 
 lack of royal position. 
 
192 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 many generations. The record which we have in the Gospels is tantaliz- 
 ingly brief and so deficient in details. In the narratives where she plays 
 so great a part, she is named but sixteen times and then usually in mere 
 
 statements of fact. And the account throughout is perfectly consistent it 
 
 is the genuine portrait of a living person. She is humble, devout, and sub- 
 missive. Puzzled by what is happening to her, a little startled by the un- 
 usual character of her experiences, she is yet obedient to the will of God. 
 She is represented not only in the Infancy sections, but in the New Testa- 
 ment as a whole, as a devout Jewish Messianist of the old type. But the 
 point is, she is natural, human, domestic. There is no attempt to exaggerate 
 her importance. There is no divine honor paid to her. When the visitors 
 come they find the child with Mary His mother, but they worship the child. 
 She is represented as the human instrument of God. Is it not perfectly 
 clear that we have in this narrative no disguised heathen mythology but a 
 truthful representation in harmony with the spirit of the Jewish people ? 
 Mary is no portentous mythological figure, but a simple human being, a 
 devoted servant of God, a loving mother faithful to her duties as she under- 
 stood them. The uniqueness of her historic task is the cause of her unique 
 experience. There could be but one mother of the Messiah. But the 
 uniqueness of her experience only serves to emphasize the naturalness of 
 the portraiture of,her character. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 
 
 The review to which, in the preceding chapters, we 
 have subjected the theories framed to explain the origin 
 of the Infancy stories according to the mythical hypoth- 
 esis does not tend to establish any very firm ground of 
 confidence in the theories, nor in the hypothesis which 
 they are supposed to support. The theories, all of which 
 are confidently put forth as adequate to the solution of 
 the problem, are separately open to serious objection and 
 unitedly present, both in outline and in detail, a series of 
 divergences, not to say contradictions, so absolute as to 
 suggest something radically wrong in the general attitude 
 toward the whole subject. 
 
 We have not one satisfactory, self-consistent expla- 
 nation of the use, acceptance, and circulation of the Gos- 
 pel story of Christ's birth in the early church. We have 
 not one explanation which fairly meets and adjusts the 
 facts of the case. 
 
 I do not propose at this point to make any further 
 use of the weaknesses and contradictions of the mythical 
 theories than to claim a hearing for the historic view. It 
 is perfectly evident to an unprejudiced mind that the 
 advocates of the mythical hypothesis in all its forms have 
 failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, their con- 
 tention. 
 
 If these representative attempts of able and learned 
 men to account for the Infancy documents, in the suppo- 
 
 13 193 
 
194 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 sition of myth, can bring them into fundamental contra- 
 diction not only as to explanations, but as to the facts to 
 be explained, the case lies far this side of a demonstration. 1 
 
 The theory that the Gospel of the childhood is histor- 
 ical and trustworthy, has a right to be heard. It must be 
 remembered, however, that the contradictions in the posi- 
 tive and constructive theories as to how the narratives 
 arose does not entirely meet their negative work in dis- 
 crediting the documents as worthy of confidence. 
 
 It is a much more difficult task than any yet under- 
 taken, which I have set for myself in the present chapter; 
 namely, to attempt the exegetical construction of the In- 
 fancy narratives. 
 
 It is not to be expected that any such attempt shall 
 issue in the entire removal of difficulties. I hope to be 
 able to show, however, that the acceptance of the narra- 
 tives as substantially historical is attended with less dif- 
 ficulty than any other hypothesis which can be framed 
 to meet the case. 
 
 Let us begin with the question : Did Jesus ever state 
 clearly that He was born at Nazareth ? 2 
 
 The narrative of the birth at Bethlehem is said to be 
 in contradiction to His own express statements, in which 
 He claimed Nazareth as His native town. 
 
 This argument is based upon the statement attributed 
 to Jesus by Mark (vi, 4) : " And Jesus said unto them, 
 A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, 
 and among his own kin, and in his own house." This 
 same statement occurs in Luke ( iv, 24, 25 ). If this 
 were found in any document not under suspicion, would it 
 have been interpreted as anything more than a general 
 reference to the place of His residence, and the residence 
 
 1 See also Note A. Historical Review of the Discussion. 
 
 2 On this see Neander, L. C, p. 28, note. (Eng. Tr. 1851). 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 195 
 
 of His family ? How long, in the first century, did it take 
 for a man to acquire a residence ? Jesus was brought to 
 Nazareth as a child, and had lived there for the period of 
 nearly thirty years ; He might certainly speak of it as " His 
 own country, " even though He was born at Bethlehem. 
 
 Besides, He was making use of a popular proverb. It 
 would be altogether unreasonable to expect that he 
 should accompany such an allusion with an explanation 
 of the fact that He was in reality born at Bethlehem. 
 Such a statement would be awkward and meaningless. 
 It is to be doubted whether He even thought of it in that 
 connection. He certainly had no memory of the stay at 
 Bethlehem, and no conceivable motive for mentioning it. 
 
 That there is no essential contradiction between the 
 statement of Jesus and the narrative of the birth at Beth- 
 lehem, is seen in Luke's narrative, in which he introduces 
 the incident at Nazareth by the very carefully chosen 
 phrase : "And He came to Nazareth, where He had been 
 brought up." 1 
 
 This objection is too frivolous to be worthy of notice, 
 were it not for the fact that it is related to another of 
 much greater importance. Why did Jesus say nothing 
 about His supernatural birth ? There were numberless 
 instances, when, in answer to the taunts of His enemies, it 
 would have been natural and proper for Him to have 
 made a clear and unequivocal assertion of His unique 
 birth. Why did He not make it ? I retort with another 
 question : How could He ? What good would it have 
 done either to the disciples, or to the public ? What effect 
 would the announcement have had upon those, who were 
 already blinded with prejudice, except to intensify that 
 prejudice and to put into their hands a weapon, which 
 could be used not only against Jesus, but against His 
 1 Luke iv, 16. 
 
I96 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 household ? Weiss is perfectly correct, when he says, " It 
 is a most extraordinary demand to require Jesus to point 
 out the miracle of His birth to the masses of the people, 
 who remained unbelieving in spite of the miracles 
 wrought among them daily, or to require the apostles to 
 do so, who proclaimed the resurrection and exaltation of 
 of Jesus." 
 
 With this question, is bound up the still larger one of 
 the time and manner in which this secret of Joseph's house- 
 hold was published to the world. 
 
 We have abundant ground for holding that the docu- 
 ments embodied in the Infancy narratives are old by com- 
 parison with the rest of the Gospels. This does not 
 definitely determine the date of their admittance into the 
 completed Gospels, nor the date when the information 
 came into the hands of the disciples. At this point, we 
 will take for granted the statement confidently put forth 
 by nearly every critic on the negative side of this question 
 — that during the lifetime of Jesus, it was believed not 
 only by the people at large, but by the circle of disciples, 
 that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. 
 
 Along with this statement, I will place another which I 
 believe to be beyond the reach of successful denial. If the 
 story of Jesus' birth is authentic at all, it came with more 
 or less directness from the immediate family into which 
 He was born. If the story is entitled to the least credence, 
 it can rest ultimately upon no other authority than the 
 word of Joseph and Mary. 
 
 The argument adduced by many writers of the life of 
 Jesus, for attributing at least Luke's account to Mary, can 
 be broken only by the supposition of deliberate imposture 
 on the part of the writer. 1 
 
 x See Lange, L. J., vol. 1, p. 256; Ramsay, Was Christ born at Beth- 
 Uhem? chap. iv. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS I97 
 
 Now taking for granted again for a moment that the 
 story is actually authentic on the basis of the statement 
 that Mary or Joseph must have been the ultimate author- 
 ity, we can see why the fact should not have been known 
 during the lifetime of Jesus. 
 
 More than this, it is difficult to see how the fact that 
 the supernatural birth of Jesus was not believed during 
 His life, can be accounted for on any other basis. Had it 
 originated as a myth due to a popular impression of His 
 Messianic greatness, it would naturally have taken its rise 
 and passed into circulation at the time when the popular 
 enthusiasm had reached its height, and had not been 
 dampened by the persistent hostility of the Jewish author- 
 ities. 1 
 
 But if the family of Jesus supplied the authority upon 
 which the story was finally published, we can readily 
 understand why it should have been kept a secret during 
 the lifetime of Jesus. 
 
 Mary was beset with difficulties of the most practical 
 kind. She could not tell the child Jesus of the wonders 
 connected with His birth without incurring the risk of 
 destroying the naturalness of His growth, and the simplicity 
 of His self-consciousness. She could not tell the other 
 children of the home of the circumstances attending the 
 birth of her first child for obvious reasons. She could not 
 very well make public the story without danger of awaken- 
 ing enmities, which would have imperiled His life. In 
 other words, she was absolutely compelled to silence. 
 
 All this was changed by His death. He was gone from 
 her ; the family was broken up ; the malice of His enemies 
 could touch Him no more. She would be impelled to talk 
 
 1 If the story was not originated at this time, it must have arisen (on the 
 mythical hypothesis) very late ; viz., after the resurrection and ascension 
 had made Christ's transcendence clear to His disciples. 
 
I98 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 about Him, to review His whole life, and to recall and 
 recount the circumstances connected with Him. 1 
 
 Against the positive reasons for connecting this story 
 with Mary, certain arguments have been brought forward. 
 The principal one is drawn from the perplexity of Mary in 
 view of what the boy Jesus said in reply to her question : 
 " Why hast thou thus dealt with us ? behold, thy father 
 and I sought thee sorrowing." Jesus answered : " How is 
 it that ye sought me ? knew ye not that I must be in my 
 Father's house? And they understood not the saying 
 which he spake unto them." 2 It is asserted that this verse 
 not only disconnects Mary from the Infancy narrative, 
 because it exhibits her in an attitude of perplexity in re- 
 gard to an utterance to which she possessed the key in the 
 memories of her Son's birth, (which she is said to have 
 kept in her heart) but is clearly representative of a tradi- 
 tion dating from the time when the miraculous birth was 
 not believed. 
 
 The use of this verse in such a connection suggests 
 some questions. The sentence contains a statement con- 
 cerning thoughts in the minds of Joseph and Mary, which 
 could be known only to a novelist or to one who had 
 received information from the persons whose minds and 
 thoughts were thus unveiled. That sentence was written 
 by one who had talked with Mary, or had received a 
 document from Mary through some one to whom it had 
 been intrusted, or else by a writer, who was so far from 
 the event as merely to imagine for himself the feelings 
 which Mary might have been supposed to have in the 
 presence of Christ's extraordinary self-consciousness. In 
 the former case, it vouches for the historicity of the entire 
 
 1 Note that this applies to the publication of the story. The formation 
 of the story is evidently earlier, since the shadow of the Cross is absent. 
 
 2 Luke ii, 48-50. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 1 99 
 
 incident and brings the writer into intimate contact with 
 the source of authority ; in the latter, it is a purely literary 
 device and represents no tradition whatever. 
 
 It is absurd on the face of it that a " literary expert " l 
 like Luke should embody two contradictory traditions in 
 the same account when in the fourth chapter he is so 
 careful to introduce what occurs at Nazareth by a phrase 
 which should carefully guard the fact, stated earlier, that 
 Jesus was born at Bethlehem. 
 
 This whole argument about divergent traditions is based 
 upon a misinterpretation of the phrase, which Luke twice 
 repeats in a single chapter (ii, 19, 51) that Mary kept 
 these sayings in her heart, pondering them. Does this 
 statement imply that Mary understood the meaning of all 
 that was happening, and had arrived at such clear convic- 
 tions that nothing extraordinary in the subsequent life of 
 her Son could surprise or puzzle her ? Indeed the phrase 
 implies quite the contrary. It is perfectly clear that she 
 was greatly perplexed by the whole affair, and every new 
 incident added to her wonder and perplexity. 
 
 In fact, the passages which are said to be in contradiction, 
 are parts of one consistent representation that the events 
 before and after the birth of Jesus made Mary deeply thought- 
 ful and profoundly perplexed, so that she kept revolving 
 all the facts in her mind in order to compass their meaning. 2 
 
 It is also alleged that the attempts of Mary and the rest 
 of the family to interfere Avith the Messianic career of Jesus, 
 implies that they had no inkling of the supernatural events 
 connected with His birth. It seems to me that this is a 
 peculiarly inept and futile piece of criticism, in that it reads 
 the evidence backward. 
 
 Mary labored to the end of Jesus' life under certain 
 mental limitations. She occupied the Old Testament view- 
 
 1 Soltau's phrase. 2 Cf. Luke i, 29 with ii, 19, 51. 
 
200 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 point exhibited in the Infancy document, and never passed 
 beyond it until after the death of Jesus. There was nothing 
 in the circumstances of Jesus' birth to lead her to expect 
 in Him anything but the fulfillment of the theocratic hopes 
 of the circle in which she moved. Her conduct toward 
 Jesus 1 cannot better be explained than by the supposition 
 that her expectations in Him were disappointed. She was 
 a thorough Hebrew and, when she saw her Son coming 
 into conflict with the authorities of her nation and turning 
 aside into the narrow pathway that led toward inevitable 
 death, she, like the disciples, was troubled, perplexed, 
 grieved, and driven by her painful solicitude to acts that 
 were indiscreet and unpleasant. 2 There is absolutely 
 nothing here that argues that Mary did not know the inci- 
 dents recorded by Matthew and Luke — certainly nothing 
 that has any weight compared with the positive reasons 
 for believing that Mary was herself the authority upon 
 which Luke based his story. Moreover, the attitude of 
 Mary to Jesus at the wedding in Cana implies an expecta- 
 tion of something wonderful from her Son which the events 
 of the silent period at Nazareth do not seem to justify. 
 Whence came her evident Messianic expectations ? 3 
 
 Before going further, I wish to consider a little this 
 question of a divergent tradition concerning the manner 
 of Christ's birth. It is alleged that there was a continuous 
 tradition, dating from the lifetime of Christ and extending 
 onward indefinitely into the second century, when it be- 
 comes a strenuous contention that Jesus was begotten and 
 born just as other men. This, it is maintained, is the con- 
 sistent, continuous, genuine, apostolic tradition. 
 
 Now I admit that there were two traditions, one current 
 popularly, and among the disciples during the lifetime of 
 Jesus, and the other in Jewish-Christian circles dating 
 
 1 Johnii, 3, 5. * Matt, xii, 47. Mk.iii.3i. s John ii, 3-5. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 201 
 
 from the promulgation of the Gospel of Matthew, that 
 Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary. These two tradi- 
 tions were one in the opinion held concerning the origin 
 of Jesus, but absolutely different in the ground upon which 
 the opinion rested, and in the apostolic standing of the 
 persons who held it. 
 
 In the first instance, the opinion, which was common to 
 the disciples during the lifetime of Jesus, rested upon 
 natural inference from the relationship of Jesus to the 
 household of Joseph and Mary, in the absence of authori- 
 tative information to the contrary. The later opinion rested 
 upon dogmatic prepossession, was held in opposition to 
 definite teaching, and was inextricably interwoven with 
 heretical views as to the person and work of Christ. This 
 opinion was held first by Ebionite Judaizers, 1 who were 
 the bitter and relentless foes of Paul, and later by Gnos- 
 tics, 3 represented by Cerinthus, who was so strenuously 
 opposed to John at Ephesus. 
 
 It will take very positive evidence to convince any 
 thoughtful mind that Paul shared the views of those men, 
 who forced him to spend so many years in the unwelcome 
 task of controversy, who embittered his life and did all 
 they could to destroy his work, who were present to his 
 mind under the threefold representation — " The dogs . . . 
 the evil workers . . . the concision." 3 
 
 It is no less difficult to believe that John agreed in the 
 denial of the supernatural birth with Cerinthus, against 
 whose heresies he expended the very last strength of mind 
 and body, in sincere loyalty to the person and dignity of 
 his Lord. 
 
 It is simply inconceivable that any apostle, or any dis- 
 ciple of an apostle, or any Christian, who held the faith in 
 
 1 See Church Histories under Ebionites. 
 
 2 See Ch. Histories under Gnostics. 3 Phil, iii, 2. 
 
202 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 its entirety, should have become a sharer in such 
 views. 
 
 The belief that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary 
 does not represent the mature views of any known apostle. 
 The statement that this belief constitutes " the true Gos- 
 pel, as transmitted to us by the apostles and their school 
 in the Apostolic age," 1 is not only without adequate basis, 
 but also violates every probability of the case. 
 
 If it be true that the belief in the natural derivation of 
 Jesus from Joseph was general during the lifetime of 
 Christ, we have to account for the change of opinion on 
 the part of at least the dominant element among the apos- 
 tles and their disciples, who were under the influence of 
 John and acquainted with the family of Jesus — a change 
 of opinion which resulted in the firm establishment of the 
 doctrine in the official documents and formal confessions 
 of the church by the close of the first century. 
 
 Moreover, this revolution was accomplished in spite of 
 continuous and influential opposition, and in the midst of 
 controversy. In addition to all this, we have no hint that 
 in the controversy any genuine facts were brought forward, 
 such as negative criticism assumes that there must have 
 been, but only a priori objections such as that of Cerinthus 
 that it was " impossible. " 2 
 
 In view of these considerations, that early and authori- 
 tative tradition concerning the natural birth of Jesus fades 
 away, and loses much of its coherence. 
 
 It may safely be asserted that there is more of a historic 
 process evident here than can possibly be accounted for on 
 any mythical hypothesis. 
 
 We next come to the question : Why were there two 
 
 accounts at all ? To this, the answer is to be made that 
 
 there are two contrasted phases of the historic event, one 
 
 1 Soltau, p. 65. 2 See Lange, vol. i, p. 281 ; Strauss, L. J., vol. i, p. 182. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 203 
 
 of which may be called the Jewish-theocratic phase, the 
 other, the broadly human or universal phase. 
 
 The birth of Christ had a relationship to prophecy, and 
 a significance in connection with the historic hope of the 
 Jews ; it had also a connection with universal history, and 
 a special significance for all mankind. ' 
 
 These two contrasted sides of this historic occurrence 
 would compel two very different modes of exposition. 2 
 
 This they have received at the hands of Matthew and 
 Luke. I venture the assertion that the accounts do not 
 differ from each other more than any two accounts of a 
 series of related events, told under the influence of a 
 different dominant interest and for different readers. 
 
 It is to be seen at a glance that Luke's account would 
 
 1 The difficulty involved in the existence of two accounts really goes a 
 little deeper than this, but it is met by precisely similar considerations. On 
 the supposition that the two accounts are both derived from family narra- 
 tives, why should there be two stories differing so much in details ? To 
 begin with, are we sure that the two narratives differ so greatly as we are 
 accustomed to think ? 
 
 It has seemed to me that every formidable difficulty involved in the two 
 stories is met by the simple and natural consideration that Luke's narrative 
 follows the natural order of events, and Matthew's treats of an episode or 
 group of episodes entirely aside from the main events. Behind the fact 
 that the events narrated by Luke were those which would naturally appeal 
 to him, and that the events in Matthew are those which would most deeply 
 interest him, lies the deeper fact that the events told by Matthew are those 
 which would naturally interest Joseph, and those of Luke constitute the real 
 viewpoint of Mary. Joseph was the head, guide, and protector of the 
 family and would naturally remember and relate the incident in which the 
 safety of the child intrusted to him was imperiled. On the other hand, 
 Mary was protected, and in the safety of her husband's care gave very little 
 heed to outside events. It was the great fact which made its impression 
 upon her mind. The goodness of God and the greatness of her promised 
 Son made up the sum of her thoughts. The natural history of the docu- 
 ments and their sources lies upon the surface. They represent a twofold 
 viewpoint on the part of the evangelists and also the members of Joseph's 
 household. 
 
 2 See Weiss, L. J., vol. i, p. 224. 
 
204 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 not fit into a scheme of Matthew's Gospel at all, nor would 
 it suit his purpose. Matthew's one undeviating purpose 
 was to interpret Christ to his countrymen, and it was his 
 peculiar delight to take items in Christ's life naturally 
 offensive to a Jew, and lift them up in such a way into 
 relationship with the theocratic hope as to make them 
 acceptable to one with Jewish prepossessions. In accord- 
 ance with this predominant interest, he takes incidents 
 from the carefully cherished traditions of the childhood 
 — the birth from a virgin, the birth at Bethlehem, the 
 attempt of Herod and the flight into Egypt, the residence 
 at Nazareth, every item of which, except the birth at 
 Bethlehem, would be offensive to a strict Jew — and so 
 illumines them with prophetic lights as to make them 
 shine with all the brightness of that hope which had 
 endured since Abraham's day. 
 
 Of this character, there is nothing in Luke's account. 
 He is so true to his sources that their strong Hebraic 
 character shines through the Greek, but he has nothing 
 to say of prophecy, and gives no heed to purely Jewish 
 prejudices. More serious still, he leaves the marvelous 
 story absolutely unguarded. He speaks of Mary as the 
 betrothed of Joseph, 1 and says nothing concerning their 
 subsequent marriage. Indeed, Luke's account exhibits 
 throughout a naive unconsciousness that the story could 
 give offense, evidently trusting to its transparent simplicity 
 and purity to lift it above suspicion. 
 
 Matthew's account, on the contrary, in accordance with 
 his general apologetic aim, exhibits the definite purpose to 
 guard the tradition at every point. He shows that Joseph 
 was as definitely chosen to the task of guarding the honor 
 of Mary and the safety of Jesus as Mary was chosen to 
 become the mother of the Messiah. He brings Joseph for- 
 
 1 Luke ii, 5. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 205 
 
 ward as the representative of the house of David, and uses 
 his genealogy in the assured confidence that this reputed 
 descent assures the right of Jesus to David's throne, and 
 also establishes His unstained origin. This method of pro- 
 claiming to the Jewish public the miraculous birth of the 
 Messiah formed about its central mystery a defense proof 
 against misunderstanding and even calumny, except on 
 the part of those who already hated Christ with bitterness, 
 and were without scruple in seeking weapons against 
 Him. I maintain that the whole character and purpose 
 of Matthew's statement is as strong a guarantee as one 
 could possibly find of its genuineness and authenticity. 
 
 The assertion that the genealogy, and the account of 
 the miraculous birth, are fragments of divergent traditions, 
 loosely pieced together, seems to me to exhibit an almost 
 hopeless misunderstanding of the situation. The two 
 apparently contradictory statements are united by the 
 purpose of the narrator, who has seen the bearing of the 
 one upon the other, and in his skillful apologetic use 
 makes the faithfulness of Joseph a defense for the mirac- 
 ulous birth. 
 
 In Luke's account, which, in this respect at least, pre- 
 supposes Matthew's, there is no apologetic purpose evi- 
 dent. He gives the intimate, domestic side of the occur- 
 rences in a manner altogether unexplainable, except upon 
 the understanding that he had in his possession what he 
 supposed to be direct family reminiscences. One element 
 of its perennial charm lies in the straightforward, uncon- 
 scious simplicity with which the story is told. And it 
 must be confessed that its purity has been its own defense, 
 no less effective to those who do not share the Jewish 
 feeling than Matthew's more formal and elaborate method. 
 We have then a reasonable explanation of the existence 
 of two different accounts of the events connected with the 
 
206 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 infancy of Jesus. How far can the two accounts be fairly 
 harmonized ? In statements of fact, the two accounts con- 
 verge upon six points, — the birth from a virgin, the name 
 Jesus, the birth at Bethlehem, the Davidic descent, the 
 reign of Herod, and the residence at Nazareth. Of these 
 six concurrent statements, the Davidic descent and the 
 residence at Nazareth and the general date are not 
 questioned. The accounts diverge in the matter of the 
 genealogies, on the point of the residence at Nazareth 
 previous to the birth of Jesus, and in certain positive 
 statements made by Luke and omitted by Matthew. 
 In addition to this, we have the difficulty of adjust- 
 ing statements like those of Paul concerning the Davidic 
 descent, which is supposedly dependent upon inheritance 
 through the male line, with the assertion of the virgin 
 birth. We are thus led into the very heart of the diffi- 
 culties which are urged against the accounts. 
 
 Let us take up first the knotty question of the genealogies. 
 In the attempt to solve the problem presented by the 
 genealogical lists, I shall lay down a series of propositions, 
 which seem to me individually defensible, and which as a 
 whole lead to very clear results and satisfactory con- 
 clusions. 
 
 The first proposition is that the genealogies are not 
 vitally essential to the general discussion. They have 
 been inserted in the account to prove the Davidic descent 
 of Jesus. That fact stands secure without the genealogies. 
 The general fact of family connection and descent is one 
 thing ; the detailed exhibition and proof of that connection 
 by genealogical lists is quite another. Family pedigrees 
 are proverbially uncertain. And one who has ever had 
 any dealings with long lists of names is aware of the 
 difficulty of keeping them correct. In the ancient days of 
 copying manuscripts, it must have been well-nigh impos- 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 2QJ 
 
 sible to keep the genealogies free from error. It would 
 not be surprising, therefore, if the genealogy of Jesus 
 should present many difficulties. It may be that the 
 difficulties are insuperable with our present imperfect 
 knowledge. But this does not shake the certainty that 
 Jesus was descended from David. The proof for this is 
 overwhelming. As Lange says : " As far as the relation 
 of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke to the doctrine 
 of Christ's descent from David is concerned, it must first 
 be firmly laid down, that this doctrine is entirely inde- 
 pendent of their construction. In a genuine and powerful 
 family tradition, the tradition is not supported by the 
 genealogy, but the genealogy by the tradition." l 
 
 Professor Bacon is unfavorable to the historic accuracy 
 of the genealogies, and cannot be said to be very firmly 
 attached to the belief that Jesus was actually of Davidic 
 descent, yet he makes a strong exhibition of the reasons 
 for believing that the acceptance of that belief was prac- 
 tically universal during the lifetime of Jesus and immedi- 
 ately after. He says : 2 "If the progress of critical and 
 exegetical science has shown, on the one side, the futility 
 of all harmonistic theories for rescuing the authority of 
 the pedigrees, it has more than compensated for the loss, 
 by establishing, with equal certainty, the acceptance of the 
 fact of the Davidic descent of Jesus by Himself, His con- 
 temporaries, and His immediate followers." 
 
 It is not necessary to exhibit the proofs of this in detail. 
 It is admitted with practical unanimity that Jesus could 
 never have won any recognition of His claim to the throne 
 of His ancestors without furnishing to His contemporaries 
 convincing evidence of His heirship. The real difficulty, 
 however, lies deeper, in that it appears as if this conceded 
 claim rested entirely upon the reputed relationship to 
 
 1 L. J., vol. i, p. 301, note. 2 Hastings, B. D., vol. ii, p. 138. 
 
208 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Joseph, and collides fatally with the doctrine of the virgin 
 birth. This question has yet to be met. The certainty 
 that Jesus sprang from the family of David does not carry 
 with it assurance concerning the accuracy of the genealog- 
 ical lists. There were evidently discrepant lists of relation- 
 ships and descents within the same family. This seems to 
 account for one discrepancy between Matthew and Luke : 
 " according to Matthew, Zerubbabel, the son of Salalthiel, 
 was through Solomon, descended from the kingly line 
 (i, 7-12), while Luke represents him as springing from an 
 allied branch connected, through Nathan, with David 
 (iii, 27-31). 
 
 No attempt of apologetics or criticism to resolve or 
 explain this difference can meet with much success. All 
 that we can ascertain is, that a discrepant genealogical 
 tradition has been employed here, the circumstances of 
 whose origin we are no longer in a position to indicate 
 with certainty." x This discrepancy, however, involves us 
 in uncertainty as to how the lineage of Jesus is traceable 
 to David — it does not touch the fact. However the gene- 
 alogies may diverge, the Davidic origin of Jesus would 
 still be secure. If one or both genealogies were in part 
 or in whole incorrect, we should still be compelled to 
 assume, on the basis of the evidence, that Jesus was the 
 son of David, although the attempt to prove Him such by 
 the genealogical lists was a failure. 
 
 My second proposition is that lists, which differ so utterly 
 that only two names are the same in both lists between 
 David and Jesus, cannot be interpreted as imperfect at- 
 tempts to embody the same ancestral lines. The discrep- 
 ancy is too great. If the lists were nearly alike, differing 
 here and there in a name, we might look upon them as 
 imperfect attempts to accomplish the same thing, but 
 1 Weiss, L. J., vol. i, p. 217. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 209 
 
 when they differ altogether, with the exceptions of two 
 names, this supposition is too difficult. We may account 
 with Weiss for the divergence back from Zerubbabel and 
 Salalthiel as due to " discrepant genealogical traditions." 
 Is it reasonable to suppose that the divergence on this 
 side the meeting point is due also to a different tradition ? 
 This, to say the least, is a most remarkable coincidence. 
 Moreover, Matthew's genealogy is constructed for a defi- 
 nite purpose. The theory advocated by Lord Hervey 
 and others, so far as it relates to Matthew, may be 
 accepted, that the first evangelist attempts to trace the 
 theocratic birthright of Jesus through Joseph to David. 
 
 This fits in with his apologetic purpose, for which the 
 adoptive relationship to Joseph would be entirely suffi- 
 cient. 1 Bacon holds that in the use of the word iyivvqaev, 
 Matthew means " actual physical descent," and that he 
 has mistakenly assumed that the royal succession, as was 
 usually true, was by natural descent from father to son. 
 
 This appears to me very doubtful, for it is likely that 
 Matthew is simply following the genealogical formula, 
 but, if true, it is not a serious matter — the inheritance is a 
 reality whether relationship in the succession is real or 
 merely legal. 2 The whole character of the genealogy 
 
 1 Hastings B. D., Art. Genealogy, vol. ii, p. 139. 
 
 2 Holtzmann (L. J., p. 82) argues : "If Jesus was not the son of Joseph 
 according to the flesh, both of the genealogies fall to the ground. For the 
 essential purpose of a genealogy is to show blood relationship." In like 
 manner, Pere Didon {Jesus Christ, vol. ii, pp. 421 seq. ) holds that "the 
 Christ was to be something more than the formal heir of the great King ; 
 He was to be actually of the blood of David as well as of the blood of Abra- 
 ham. Of this, I think, there cannot be the smallest doubt." 
 
 Irenseus argues (Con. Haer., Bk iii, Chap. 21, sec. 9), that if Jesus had 
 been derived from Joseph He could not have been the heir, for Jechoniah 
 (Matt, i, 12) had been disinherited. The passage upon which Irenseus 
 bases his contention is Jeremiah xxii, 28, in which it is stated that Jech- 
 oniah (Coniah in Jer.) should be written childless, "a man that shall not 
 14 
 
2IO GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 lends strong confirmation to Godet's contention that Mat- 
 thew's Infancy section is not to be interpreted as a histor- 
 
 prosper in his days ; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting 
 upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah (ver. 30). 
 
 This does not prove that Jechoniah did not have children (see H. B. D., 
 vol. ii, p. 557 ), therefore does not touch upon the difficulty raised by Holtz- 
 mann. But whether childless or not Jechoniah was the last king of 
 David's line. ... On the legal genealogies Shealtiel who was 
 descended from David through his son Nathan is counted as his son, but 
 neither he nor Zerubbabel prospered so as to sit on David's throne, etc. 
 (see Speaker's Commentary, Jeremiah ad ' loc). The question remains, how- 
 ever, whether the derivation of Christ through the disinherited Jechoniah 
 would not in Jewish eyes constitute as much an element of offense as a 
 break in the blood relationship. This point in the genealogy should make 
 one pause before asserting that in all particulars the gospel genealogies are 
 made in conformity with Jewish prejudice. There is at any rate a question 
 whether Shealtiel was anything more than the legal or adoptive son of 
 Jechoniah. It must be conceded that in troubled times such as preceded, 
 accompanied, and followed the Captivity, family lines would be endangered, 
 and adoptive or putative relationships would be necessarily employed to 
 bridge gaps in blood relationship. The appearance of the two names, 
 Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, in both genealogies points to something of this 
 character. We are thus afforded escape in one direction from the difficulty 
 urged by Holtzmann. 
 
 In point of fact the legal relationship of Jesus to Joseph would satisfy the 
 requirement of the average Jewish mind. 
 
 Holtzmann also urges that " it is clear that there existed no certain knowl- 
 edge as to the descent of Jesus from the house of David." 
 
 It may be that this statement is correct, though it is extremely improbable. 
 On the other hand it is beyond question that there was among the disciples, 
 both of the apostolic age and the age following, the practically unanimous 
 conviction that Jesus was of the house of David. (See H. D. B., Article 
 Genealogy N. T. ) Whence was this conviction derived, and upon what did 
 it rest ? In addition to what is said in the text I wish to suggest certain 
 other considerations. In the first place, it is probable that the belief in the 
 Davidic origin of Jesus rested upon the general knowledge among the dis- 
 ciples that the family of Joseph belonged to the house of David. 
 
 In the second place, it is undoubtedly the fact that the belief in the 
 Davidic origin of Jesus rested upon the same authority as the Infancy narra- 
 tive in general, and was connected with the sources upon which this is based. 
 
 In the third place, the conclusion seems inevitable that the general diffu- 
 sion among believers of the belief that Jesus was born of the house of David 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 211 
 
 ical chronicle, but as " a didactic exposition, " J embody- 
 ing historical incidents. 
 
 This seems to me fairly to explain the character and 
 construction of Matthew's genealogy. What of Luke's ? 
 
 must have been the accompaniment or result of the publication of the Gos- 
 pels. In view of these more than probable connections we are shut up to 
 two conclusions. Either the legal relationship between Jesus and Joseph 
 was sufficient to satisfy the minds of the disciples, or else Mary was con- 
 sidered a descendant of David. It seems to me that both these things are 
 probably true. In view of the presence of Jechoniah in the genealogy, as 
 well as other features of Matthew's version, it is extremely probable that the 
 adoptive fatherhood of Joseph was entirely sufficient to justify and guarantee 
 Jesus' royal position. In addition to this, certain peculiarities of Luke's 
 genealogy lend force to the conclusion that Mary was of the house of 
 David. In support of this belief is the very old and general tradition to 
 that effect. The relationship of certain statements in John's Gospel to this 
 question is, perhaps, deserving of a little fuller discussion that it has received 
 in the text. Holtzmann says : " The Johannine Gospel says distinctly, that 
 in Jerusalem exception was taken to Jesus' Galilaean origin : ' Hath not the 
 Scripture said,' etc., — (Jno. vii, 42). Yet the evangelist does not by so much 
 as a single word say that Jesus really was descended from David or that 
 He actually was born in Bethlehem. Of these things he knows nothing or 
 else he considers the tradition which relates it to be false." Now, this posi- 
 tion is certainly untenable. It makes of John a most unaccountable excep- 
 tion to his Christian brethren to suppose that he was ignorant of the tradi- 
 tion or in opposition to it. Certainly if John had been a disbeliever in the 
 tradition, he would surely have indicated by so much as a word that the 
 whole contention of the Jews that Jesus must be of the house of David and 
 a Bethlehemite by birth, was absurd and unnecessary. A glance at the 
 story will show that no such meaning can be attached to it. John simply 
 gives one half of a debate. Some said, " This is the Christ." But others 
 opposed this on the ground that Jesus was a Galilsean, whereas the Christ 
 must be of the house of David. Now John, without pausing to give the per- 
 fectly obvious retort to this objection, simply sums up the incident by saying, 
 "So there arose a division in the multitude because of him" (ver. 43. 
 Why this omission ? Because it was a commonplace of the Gospel narrative. 
 Every person for whom John was writing could supply the missing answer 
 
 'Com. on Luke, Standard Am. Ed., 1881, p. 95. Note also mnemonic 
 quality of Matthew's genealogy — five groups of fourteen names each — cor- 
 responding to five groups of sayings introduced by formulae. See Matt, vii, 
 28; xix, i; xxvi, 1, etc. Cf. Morrison, Com. on Matt., p. 7. 
 
212 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 It is not surprising that many have held that this latter is 
 Mary's. To give her genealogy would be in harmony 
 with the general character of Luke's narrative of the In- 
 fancy in that the entire story otherwise centers about her. 
 
 out of the other Gospels. John gives the incident simply as a sample of 
 the arguments used against Christ, and undoubtedly as an exhibition of the 
 narrow-minded ineptness shown by the Judaeans at every point of the debate. 
 
 In this connection, Schmiedel's remarks (Ency. Biblica, Art. Gospels 24) 
 are worthy of note. He comments on Westcott's remark on Jno. vii, 42, 
 "There is a tragic irony in the fact that the condition which the objectors 
 ignorantly assumed to be unsatisfied, i. <•., birth in Bethlehem, was actually 
 satisfied." He says : "Are we to believe that Jesus knew that the condition 
 was satisfied, and yet left the objectors in their ignorance so as to keep back 
 from them the fulfillment of God' s word, making Himself responsible for the 
 tragic consequences? " In enswer to this, it is needful to say nothing more 
 than this. There would be no "tragic irony" involved in the incident 
 unless the objectors had every opportunity to acquaint themselves with the 
 facts, and declined to make use of them. There is no reason to suppose, 
 (indeed there is every reason to suppose the contrary) that the disciples made 
 no answer to the objection thus urged. John doesn't mention their answer 
 because there is no need. He is simply recording objections, not the answers 
 to them, especially answers that were perfectly obvious. There is no hint 
 in the record of a conspiracy of silence on the part of anybody. The inci- 
 dent has no significance whatever apart from the supposition that the objectors 
 might have known the truth if they wished to. Moreover, why should any- 
 body suppose that Jesus Himself had any part in the debate on either side ? 
 
 John records what the multitude said about Him — not what was said to 
 Him. That this objection to His Messiahship was persistently and publicly 
 urged, is evidence enough that the question must have been honestly and 
 openly met. I have elsewhere urged that no Jewish inquirer concerning 
 the claims of Jesus could have been satisfied without a setdement of this 
 point. The disciples must have been convinced, and having been them- 
 selves convinced, it is not likely that they would have entered into a con- 
 spiracy of silence to keep other men from the truth. The tragic irony in 
 the incident consists of the stolid unwillingness of the Jewish objectors to 
 be convinced — a characteristic exhibited in more ways than one during this 
 portion of John's narrative. This being so the reader can judge for himself 
 of the force of Schmiedel's statement : " This at all events cannot be dis- 
 puted, that John represents the disciples as believing in a Jesus of Nazareth, 
 whilst the unbelieving Pharisees demand a Jesus of Bethlehem." A state- 
 ment wider of the mark, it would be difficult to imagine. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 213 
 
 Godet argues 1 from the absence of the article from the 
 name Joseph in Luke's genealogy: 1. That this name 
 belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke. 2. 
 That the genealogical document which he consulted began 
 with the name of Heli. 3. And consequently that this 
 piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or Joseph, 
 but of Heli. This brings the name Joseph in the list into 
 a merely explanatory relation to the name Jesus and con- 
 nects Jesus directly with his grandfather Heli, the mother's 
 name being supplied by the name Joseph. The sentence 
 would then read : Jesus, as was supposed the son of 
 Joseph, being the son of Heli. This avoids the difficulty 
 connected with the absence of the article from the name 
 of Joseph, which definitely sets him outside the succession. 2 
 
 This ingenious theory, which has many great names to 
 support it, is irrevocably shattered upon one simple con- 
 sideration, that it compels us to attribute more than one 
 meaning to the word uiot; in a single sentence. The 
 other objections to the theory that Luke is giving Mary's 
 genealogy may be successfully met ; this one seems to me 
 fatal. What is the result then ? By the breaking down 
 of this theory, are we forced back upon the other one — 
 that Luke is attempting to repeat the list which Matthew 
 gives, and succeeds so badly that he gets but two names 
 the same? If we are forced to this alternative, then of 
 course the value of the genealogies is lost. But we are 
 not forced to any such dismal choice. Let me throw into 
 the form of separate propositions, the considerations which 
 must enter into the explanation : 1. The almost complete 
 divergence of the lists. 2. The certainty that Matthew's 
 list was constructed to establish Jesus' theocratic birth- 
 
 1 Commentary on Luke, Am. Ed., p. 128. See Thinker, Jan. 1895. 
 a See good summary of this position, L. J. Lange, vol. i, p. 302, quota- 
 tion from Hoffman. 
 
214 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 right as the Jewish Messiah. 3. The presumptive likeli- 
 hood that Luke would not share Matthew's interest in 
 the theocratic birthright. 4. The certainty that the estab- 
 lishment of the birthright was not the purpose of Luke's 
 genealogy, as is sufficiently shown by his use of the 
 genealogy back of Abraham, and by his tracing of the 
 Davidic line to Nathan, who was not the heir of the 
 promise. 5. The omission of the article in connection 
 with the name of Joseph, which calls attention to a break 
 in the genealogy, and brings Heli into immediate connec- 
 tion with Jesus. 6. The certainty that lists which exhibit 
 the transmission of the theocratic birthright, would be 
 guarded with such care that a divergence like that be- 
 tween Matthew's list and Luke's list would be impossible. 
 
 7. The certainty that in the family of David there would 
 be not only a list, exhibiting the transmission of the ideal 
 birthright from one generation to another, but also a 
 civic list containing the names of the successive heirs of 
 land or other family properties — in other words a tax list. 
 
 8. The distinct possibility, if not probability, that Joseph 
 and Mary were akin. This would account for the fact 
 otherwise difficult of explanation, that Joseph was accom- 
 panied by Mary on his visit to Bethlehem at the time 
 of the enrollment. 9. If Joseph and Mary were both heirs 
 of family property, even merely presumptive or possible 
 heirs, their names would appear in conjunction upon the 
 civic register, and the civil genealogy of one would be 
 that of the other. 10. The appearance of Mary's rela- 
 tionship to the general line would constitute the value 
 and interest of the list, so far as Luke is concerned. 
 
 It seems to me that in the considerations outlined above, 
 we have the materials for a conclusion concerning the 
 genealogies, at once rational and satisfactory. 1 The ex- 
 
 1 On the question of the genealogies, see Lessons on Life of Jesus in 
 Hand-books for Bible Classes — Lesson i, note by Scrymgeour. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 21 5 
 
 treme likelihood that the lists meant something to those 
 who prepared them and accepted them as a part of the 
 Gospels, should lead one to give fair consideration to any- 
 reasonable hypothesis which explains the facts and also 
 tends to establish their correctness and authority. Luke 
 does not attempt to repeat Matthew's list. There was no 
 reason why he should. The human rather than the theo- 
 cratic relationship of Jesus interested him. And had he 
 been ever so deeply interested in the theocratic inheri- 
 tance, Matthew had established it sufficiently well, except 
 in this one particular; if Luke could also have shown 
 that Jesus was the heir of the Promise through Mary His 
 mother, as well as through Joseph His reputed father, 
 perhaps he would have done so. But this he could not 
 do. In his researches, he was shown Joseph's civic list, 
 upon which Maty appears as a kinswoman and heir. 
 This interested Luke as did everything concerning Mary, 
 and he adopted the list, merely conforming to etiquette 
 by refraining from the direct mention of Mary's name. 
 In place of doing that, he omitted the article from 
 Joseph's name thus throwing the attention over to Heli, 
 Mary's father and Joseph's uncle, joint heir with Joseph's 
 father in the properties, if such were still in existence. 
 This accounts for all the facts, the divergence in the 
 lists, Luke's interest in the one he chose, the omission of 
 the article, and Mary's trip to Bethlehem. It also opens 
 the way to an explanation of another puzzling fact. The 
 appearance of the two names which are identical in both 
 lists. It can be explained on the ground that at the time 
 of the return the real heirs of the land were absent, and 
 two kinsmen, who were prominent in the return, acted for 
 the absent heirs, and thus appeared in the lists. 1 The 
 
 1 I am indebted to some writer for this suggestion, but the reference 
 has escaped me. 
 
2l6 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 use of the words "son of" in Luke's list is to be ex- 
 plained by Luke's understanding that a succession of that 
 kind would pass from father to son, which might or might 
 not be correct in every instance. This general conclusion 
 to which all considerations which bear upon the question 
 point is none the less satisfactory that it shows Mary to 
 have been of the house of David though out of the strictly 
 theocratic line. 1 
 
 One other argument on the subject, which is really an 
 attempt to carry the question by a coup, must be consid- 
 ered. In connection with the apparent discrepancy between 
 the use of Joseph's genealogy and the doctrine of the 
 virgin birth, it is said that " recent research has suggested, 
 that, to the contemporary Jewish mind, there was no 
 incompatibility. Joseph might be, not merely the putative 
 or adoptive father of Jesus, but the real father — at the 
 same time that the birth was due solely to " the power of 
 the Most High" (Lk. i, 35). Isaac, in like manner, was 
 spoken of as "God-begotten" (cf. Rom. iv, 17-20; Heb. 
 xi, 12), without any idea of denying the reality of his rela- 
 tion to Abraham. The o>c ivofxcfsTO is, therefore, to be 
 attributed to the evangelist as against the source." 2 
 
 This explanation is dealt with more in detail in the last 
 chapter of the book. At this point, it is only necessary 
 to say that it denies distinctiveness to the idea which is the 
 formative principle of the entire Infancy section, and is 
 flatly contradicted by the evident fact that Luke, and 
 presumably Matthew, maintained a clear distinction be- 
 tween the origin of the men of promise, like Isaac and 
 John the Baptist, and the miraculous origin of Jesus. 
 
 I have accepted this interpretation of Luke's genealogy, 
 
 1 Justin Martyr believed that Mary was of Davidic origin; see Dial., 
 cap. c. 
 
 2 Bacon in Hastings B. D.,, vol. i, p. 140 a. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 217 
 
 not merely because it tends to establish its historicity, for 
 which one need not be particularly solicitous, but because 
 it is more in accord with the general character of Luke's 
 Gospel, and satisfies more of the facts than any other 
 explanation. 
 
 My third proposition is that, in the minds of the Jewish 
 disciples of Jesus at least, the most important item in the 
 whole matter of His human relationship would be His 
 kinship with the family of David in the royal line. In 
 competition with this, the virgin birth would have no rela- 
 tive standing. If the two doctrines were incompatible, and 
 one had to be sacrificed, it would necessarily be the virgin 
 birth. There could have been no conceivable motive in 
 their minds for retaining the virgin birth at the cost of 
 the Davidic origin. 
 
 The earliest Ebionite objection to the virgin birth seems 
 to have taken the form of an argument that the Messiah 
 must be of Davidic origin on both sides. In this argument, 
 there is at least an implied contention that the putative 
 fatherhood of Joseph was not enough to satisfy the case. 
 The whole Ebionite contention, however, shows clearly 
 that the virgin birth would have been unhesitatingly 
 rejected by all of Jewish antecedents who were jealous for 
 the Davidic ancestry of Jesus, unless there were some way 
 to reconcile the birth statement with this favorite tenet. 
 The conjunction of the two statements in our documents, 
 proves either that Joseph's adoptive fatherhood, as inter- 
 preted by Matthew, was satisfactory to all but the most 
 extreme Jews, x who did not expect and would hot receive 
 a divine Messiah, in which case, the interpretation of 
 Luke's genealogy is a matter of indifference ; or else, the 
 disciples were convinced that Mary was of Davidic origin. 
 At any rate, there must have been some way to reconcile, 
 
 J See Bacon : Hastings B. D., p. 141 
 
2l8 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 in the minds of such strongly Jewish writers as the author 
 of Matthew's Gospel, the two statements. This consider- 
 ation lends force to our arguments to prove that, while 
 Luke's genealogy is Joseph's, its real interest for him lay 
 in its connection with Mary. 
 
 So far as we are concerned — for the faith of the modern 
 Christian — Christ's spiritual sonship to David, and heirship 
 to the promise of God is enough to meet the demands of 
 a historic and rational faith, so that we could give up the 
 genealogies without serious loss ; but a profound convic- 
 tion that the genealogies, in connection with the narrative, 
 must have meant something definite and rational to those, 
 by whom they were published, and to those who received 
 them as scripture, has led me to seek some explanation of 
 them which shall preserve their historic value. 
 
 We come next to the question of the differing historical 
 statements of the two accounts. 1 In considering this 
 question, due consideration should be given to the facts 
 adduced by Godet in support of his contention that 
 Matthew's account is a rt didactic exposition," in which 
 particular incidents are brought into connection with 
 prophecy as a proof of the Messiahship of Jesus. This 
 interpretation lends weight to our contention, that the 
 incidents themselves are historical, because it would be 
 altogether improbable that incidents should be invented 
 for such a purpose ; at the same time, if this is the proper 
 understanding of Matthew's account of the Infancy, it is 
 obviously unfair to attempt to fit together in an ordered 
 sequence an argument like Matthew's, and a narrative like 
 Luke's. Godet thus supports his contention : " So little 
 does the author entertain the idea of relating, that in 
 chapter i, while treating of the birth of Jesus, he does not 
 
 1 On the general subject of the two stories see Fisher : Beginnings of 
 Christianity, pp. 420, ff. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 219 
 
 even mention Bethlehem ; he is wholly taken up with the 
 connection of the fact of which he is speaking with the 
 oracle, Isa. vii, 14. It is only after having finished this 
 subject, when he comes to speak of the visit of the Magi, 
 that he mentions, for the first time, and as it were in pass- 
 ing (Jesus being born in Bethlehem), this locality. And 
 with what object ? With a historical view ? Not at all ; 
 simply on account of the prophecy of Micah, which is to 
 be illustrated in the visit of the Magi, and in which the 
 place of the Messiah's birth was announced beforehand. 
 Apart from this prophecy, he would still less have thought 
 of mentioning Bethlehem in the second narrative than in 
 the first. And it is this desultory history, made up of 
 isolated facts, referred to solely with an apologetic aim, 
 that is to be employed to criticise and correct a complete 
 narrative, such as Luke's. Is it not clear that, between 
 two accounts of such a different nature, there may easily 
 be found blanks which hypothesis alone can fill up ? " 1 
 
 In addition to this, it is to be noted that neither account 
 is exhausive. Godet speaks of Luke's account as com- 
 plete; it would be more strictly accurate to speak of it as 
 relatively complete. In accordance with Luke's fixed 
 purpose, it goes farther back to trace events from their 
 beginning, and to place them accurately in their sequence, 2 
 but he nowhere pretends to be exhaustive. In fact, it is 
 perfectly evident that events, which were mere episodes, 
 without definite bearing upon the general movement of the 
 history, would not harmonize with his purpose, and would 
 be very probably omitted from his narrative. 
 
 In the very nature of the case, neither account, taken 
 
 singly or both together, can be considered complete. The 
 
 double narrative covers a period of nearly thirty years. 
 
 It contains a statement of the ancestry, brief notices of the 
 
 1 Godet, Com. on Luke, pp. 95, 96. 3 Luke i, 3. 
 
220 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 time, place, and circumstances of Christ's birth, certain 
 events which followed it, with a summary of the period 
 between the Infancy and the Baptism which contains but 
 one definite occurrence. It is simply inconceivable that a 
 story which is so fragmentary and so deficient in detail, 
 could be offered as a complete history of the Infancy. 
 
 Matthew offers a number of incidents, which are simply 
 typical and of interest as related to the Messianic hopes. 
 Luke gives the sequence of the chief events from Mary's 
 point of view. Neither account is exhaustive, both together 
 leave out many events that might naturally have found a 
 place in the record, had the intention been cherished of 
 making it complete. 
 
 It is to be noted, also, that neither account contains any 
 definite chronological indications. Matthew says that the 
 wise men came "in the days of Herod the king," and 
 Luke connects the birth with the enrollment of Augustus; 
 but neither one says anything concerning the intervals 
 intervening between the birth of Christ, the coming of the 
 wise men, the flight into Egypt, and the return to Nazareth. 
 Matthew simply connects the return from Egypt with the 
 death of the old king, which, of course, does not definitely 
 fix the length of the interval. 
 
 There is, therefore, nothing in the chronological notices 
 of either account to shut out events recorded by one and 
 omitted by the other. 
 
 Looking now at the accounts, as they stand, it is per- 
 fectly evident that Luke gives what he conceives to be the 
 main sequence of events. The events recorded by Mat- 
 thew, which he omits, do not belong to the main move- 
 ments of the history, but are in the nature of episodes. 
 
 Luke begins with the events, antecedent to the births of 
 John the Baptist and Jesus, and from that point on gives 
 the natural order of occurrences. The parents of Jesus 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 221 
 
 lived at Nazareth ; they went to Bethlehem on business 
 connected with a provincial enrollment; during their stay- 
 there Jesus was born ; after eight days the child was 
 circumcised according to the law; in due time, Mary pre- 
 sented Him in the temple and made her offering for His 
 redemption ; after their duties were accomplished, the 
 family went back again to Nazareth to live. 
 
 Matthew gives the episode which connects the geneal- 
 ogy with the history — the acceptance by Joseph of the fact 
 that Jesus should be supernaturally born. From that 
 point on, he concerns himself entirely with a group of 
 incidents centering around Herod. It is an episode which 
 derives its interest entirely from the fact that it does con- 
 nect the life of the new-born King with the dying Idumean, 
 whose career formed so strange a part of the unfolding 
 epic of Israel. Writing to Hebrews, there was no need to 
 tell them of the familiar incidents at the temple ; those 
 might easily be taken for granted by readers familiar with 
 Jewish practices. 
 
 But the episode connected with Herod had a vital inter- 
 est to Matthew, and to every other thoughtful Hebrew, 
 insomuch as there was a small but influential party among 
 the Jews, who " desired the establishment of the national 
 kingdom under one or another of the sons of Herod." l 
 
 The recognition of the fact that it is an episode, aside 
 from the main course of events, effectually disposes of the 
 assertion that it cannot be fitted into the framework of 
 Luke's account. Luke simply passes from mention of the 
 regular temple duties to the next event in which he was 
 interested: namely, the return to Nazareth, where the 
 childhood of Jesus was spent and whence He appeared as 
 the great Teacher. What Luke says would be perfectly 
 correct in a brief and summary account, such as his neces- 
 1 See Hastings B. D., Article Herodians. 
 
222 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 sarily was, even though the episode of which Matthew 
 speaks, occupied two years or more. The natural sequence 
 of events was from the temple to Nazareth, and Luke may 
 or may not have had any knowledge of the fact that the 
 natural sequence was broken by the occurrences of which 
 Matthew speaks. x 
 
 Any interpretation of ii, 39, which forbids the insertion 
 of the events connected with Herod, would force us to 
 believe that the parents of Jesus left the temple and imme- 
 diately, within a few moments or hours, departed for 
 Nazareth. Since the next few verses summarize the entire 
 period previous to the Baptism, it is not unreasonable to 
 suppose that, in this verse, Luke simply intended to carry 
 the narrative from one point in which he was interested to 
 the next, without implying anything pro or con concerning 
 the interval between the two. 2 
 
 Notice also the close connection between verses 39 and 
 40. The verse which speaks of the return to Nazareth, 
 and the verse which summarizes the greater part of the 
 childhood are connected by 8e ; this shows how rapid are 
 the transitions in this story. 
 
 In connection with the relationship of the two accounts, 
 Gloag holds 3 that Joseph and Mary remained at Bethlehem 
 for a year. They had left the Khan (Matt, ii, 12), and the 
 children, who were murdered, were from two years old 
 and under (Matt, ii, 16) — two indications that some such 
 period had elapsed. The first harmonist of the Gospels, 
 Tatian, in his Diatessaron, has combined the two accounts 
 in a very simple and effective way : — 
 
 1 The interdependence of the two accounts in at least one detail is evident. 
 The incident connected with Joseph's first dream explains the otherwise 
 baffling incident of Mary's visit to Elisabeth told by Luke ; see Cam. Bible 
 for Schools, Luke, p. 54. 
 
 2 This meets and answers the argument of Jolley, Syn. Prob. (MacMil- 
 lan, 1893), pp. 24, seq. 
 
 3 In. to Syn. Gospels, p. 136, 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 223 
 
 1. The birth at Bethlehem. 
 
 2. Removal from the stable to a house. 
 
 3. Forty days later, presentation in the Temple and 
 recognition by Simeon and Anna. 
 
 4. From Jerusalem back to Bethlehem, perhaps with 
 the idea of taking up permanent residence there. 
 
 5. About a year later the visit of the Magi and appear- 
 ance of the star. 
 
 6. The warning of danger and flight into Egypt. 
 
 7. During absence, massacre of children. 
 
 8. Return to Judaea, possibly with the idea of living in 
 Bethlehem, but warned again, turning aside to Nazareth. 
 
 Upon this, Gloag says : " By such a method, any apparent 
 discrepancy is obviated, at least it is shown that there does 
 not exist any antagonism between the two narratives. We 
 have only to suppose that Luke omits in his narrative the 
 events which occurred during the temporary residence in 
 Bethlehem. The return to Nazareth which he mentions 
 (Luke ii, 39) is the same which Matthew mentions as 
 taking place on their coming back from Egypt (Matt. 
 
 a, 23)." 
 
 In accounts so fragmentary, a full exposition of sequence 
 is, of course, impossible, but, the question may fairly be 
 asked : Is there anything in the account which forbids our 
 acceptance of Tatian's harmony as substantially correct ? 
 The most serious obstacle is the apparent contradiction 
 on the subject of the previous residence of Joseph and 
 Mary at Nazareth. 
 
 Luke clearly states that the family residence was at 
 Nazareth, to which they naturally returned after the events 
 connected with the birth of Jesus were concluded. Mat- 
 thew says nothing of any previous residence, and plainly 
 states that they went to Nazareth through fear of Arche- 
 laus, who was reigning in Herod's place. It may be that 
 
224 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Matthew knew nothing of the previous residence at Naz- 
 areth, though this is by no means certain. 
 
 It must be remembered, however, that to a strict Jew it 
 would be exceedingly offensive that the Messiah should 
 be connected with Nazareth. To many minds, as to 
 Nathanael's, it would be very difficult to believe that 
 Christ should issue from an obscure and despised hamlet 
 of Galilee. It is significant that Matthew says nothing 
 about the connection of the family with Nazareth until he 
 can properly adduce the divine authority for it. As Lange 
 very clearly states it : " The often recurring assertion of 
 modern criticism, that Matthew assumes that the parents 
 of Jesus always lived in Bethlehem, before their settlement 
 in Nazareth here mentioned, is supported, first, by the fact 
 ( chap, ii, I ) that the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem is 
 spoken of without any previous mention of the journey 
 of the parents. But since he had already spoken of Mary 
 and Joseph in the first chapter, it might have been 
 expected that the supposed assumption, with respect to 
 their dwelling, would have come to light there, if it had 
 really existed ; while the fact of his not mentioning Beth- 
 lehem till he relates the birth of Jesus, seems rather to 
 testify that he had in view another place than the ordinary 
 abode of the parents. His reason for not naming the 
 latter may be explained by the intention of his Gospel. 
 He would not unnecessarily state anything which might 
 add to the difficulties of Jewish Christians. Hence he 
 does not name Nazareth till the passage, in which he is 
 obliged to do so, and when he can appeal to a decided 
 motive, and a divine direction. That Mary and Joseph 
 had formerly dwelt at Nazareth, is, in this passage (chap. 
 ii, 23) a merely accessory circumstance." * 
 
 The difference in the reasons assigned for the return to 
 1 Lange L. J., vol. i, 317, 1 8. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 225 
 
 Nazareth is so slight as to call for no labored explanation. 
 It may be explained, however, by the very simple and 
 natural hypothesis, that after the birth of Christ the family 
 planned to live in Bethlehem, a place made doubly sacred 
 to them by ancient and recent history. They undoubtedly 
 had motive enough for not wishing to return to Nazareth. 
 
 We have considered with some fullness the differences 
 between the two accounts. Unless one looks at them with 
 a distinctively unfavorable bias, they are neither many nor 
 serious. Aside from the genealogies, there are only such 
 differences as would naturally occur in two documents 
 looking at events from varying points of view, which may 
 be readily and fairly adjusted. In any other historical docu- 
 ments, they would scarcely be looked upon as difficulties. 1 
 
 In view of the striking and notable coincidences between 
 the two documents, their divergences sink into comparative 
 insignificance. Godet says : " Two incidents are common 
 to Luke and Matthew : The birth at Bethlehem and His 
 education at Nazareth." 2 
 
 As a matter of fact, the accounts as they stand converge 
 upon six points instead of two : The birth from a virgin ; 
 the name Jesus ; the birth at Bethlehem ; the Davidic 
 descent ; the dating under Herod ; and the residence at 
 Nazareth. If it be objected that the genealogies differ in 
 the method as much as they agree in the result, it still 
 remains true that both for Matthew and Luke, Jesus is 
 the son of David. In documents so brief, this is most 
 remarkable unanimity. The narratives have evidently 
 grown up in different environments, and consider the facts 
 from different points of view, yet they agree in the emphatic 
 statement of the same central and all-important facts. 
 
 1 On contradictions in historical accounts, see Fisher, Beginnings of 
 Christianity, pp. 398, also Whately's Napoleon. 
 3 Com. on Luke, p. 96. 
 15 
 
226 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Lobstein's objection to the conclusions naturally drawn 
 from this unanimity lacks force because it is based upon 
 an underestimate of the positive evidence of truthfulness in 
 the accounts taken separately. 1 
 
 It is practically impossible to break the force of this 
 convergence upon the main points at issue. And the very 
 differences add tremendously to the value of their testi- 
 mony. The only plausible attempt which has been made 
 to account for the story on mythical grounds is by alleg- 
 ing the influence of the prophecies as shown in Matthew's 
 account. This explanation, as we have already seen, 
 breaks down even in the case of Matthew, while it has no 
 meaning in connection with Luke. The incidents must 
 have had some other backing than quoted prophecies, or 
 Luke would have had nothing to do with them. The 
 supposition that prophecy first created the incidents, and 
 that afterwards they became possessed of independent 
 existence, and continued in circulation apart from the 
 prophecies which gave them birth, and in connection with 
 which all their real value consisted, is incredible. 
 
 Two accounts given for widely different purposes, and 
 addressed to different readers, and yet testifying in common 
 to the main facts involved, cannot be called weak nor un- 
 certain testimony. It would carry conviction to any fair- 
 minded jury. The only real ground of resistance to it lies 
 in such a strong bias against the possibility of the super- 
 natural as to render the mind proof against any amount 
 or any kind of testimony. 
 
 We have now to consider the relationship of the in- 
 cidents recorded in the Gospel of the Infancy to the rest 
 
 1 Lobstein argues that the convergence of two documents separately 
 untrustworthy upon the same statement does not tend to establish their 
 truthfulness. True, but if the divergences of the documents in matters of 
 fact have been used to discredit them, then their coincidences ought 
 certainly to be allowed due weight in their favor. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 22/ 
 
 of the New Testament. Here is to be found the real 
 stronghold of the opposition. It is broadly affirmed that 
 the incidents of the preliminary section totally lack con- 
 firmation from the rest of the New Testament. Mark, 
 John, and Paul ignore the virgin birth in constructing the 
 primitive biography of Christ, the theoretic Christology, 
 and the Soteriology of the mature Gospel. Every one will 
 acknowledge, of course, that any argument from silence 
 in writings, which do not profess to be exhaustive, is to be 
 used with caution, because it is so apt to prove too much. 
 But it does not seem strange that comprehensive and sys- 
 tematic thinkers, like John and Paul, could construct their 
 doctrines of the transcendence and authority of Christ 
 without distinct reference to so important a fact as His 
 supernatural birth. 
 
 Let us address ourselves to the problem. 
 
 So far as Mark is concerned, the question is compara- 
 tively simple. Mark's Gospel does undoubtedly bring us 
 close to the early preaching of the apostles. 1 Why, then, 
 were the disciples not satisfied with Mark's study of Christ's 
 life ? The answer ought not to be difficult. Mark's re- 
 port of early apostolic preaching did not constitute an 
 adequate or satisfying life of Christ. It began and ended 
 abruptly, beginning with the Baptism, and ending with the 
 Resurrection. Now the early preaching of the disciples 
 was chiefly and properly concerned with the great fact of 
 the Resurrection. Their message at the beginning was 
 rigidly limited. They were chosen to be witnesses of His 
 resurrection. But they found it impossible, even in the 
 first delivery of their message of the Resurrection, to avoid 
 telling something about the life of Him who rose from the 
 
 1 Mark is the reporter of Peter who came into the group after the Baptism. 
 Mark's Gospel is practically confined within the limits of Peter's personal 
 experience. 
 
228 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 dead, much less could they avoid this in the discussions 
 which followed their preaching. The Resurrection rested 
 upon the meaning of the death which preceded it, and the 
 meaning of the death depended upon the significance of the 
 life, of which it was the issue. Mark's Gospel was a com- 
 pilation made from sermons of Peter, containing much 
 biographical material, but it was not biography. It was 
 deficient in many ways from the biographical point of view. 
 There was a necessary and legitimate demand for a more 
 complete life of Jesus, which should give something about 
 Kis early life, and something about the incidents following 
 the Resurrection. The Gospel of Matthew and Luke 
 represent a natural and inevitable demand for greater 
 details in the life of Jesus. Mark's silence on the subject 
 of Christ's birth is no more conclusive than his silence on 
 many other points. From his peculiar point of view, the 
 incidents antecedent to the baptism had no particular in- 
 terest. His purpose was to depict the Son of man in His 
 career of power. He had no interest in describing the 
 years of His obscurity and weakness. That Mark began 
 his Gospel at the Baptism, is certainly no evidence that the 
 life of Jesus began then. Jesus, of a truth, did not enter 
 the world as a grown-up man. Mark's silence proves 
 absolutely nothing about the youth of Jesus, or else it 
 proves that He had none. If the belief that Jesus was 
 born of Joseph and Mary, was an essential element in the 
 primitive Gospel, why did Mark not state it as such ? 
 
 His silence militates as strongly against the critical view 
 as against the historical view. If Jesus was naturally born 
 of Joseph and Mary, and became by a divine election and 
 baptism the Son of God, it was as wonderful and as de- 
 serving of record as the miraculous birth. 
 
 As a matter of fact, Mark's silence has no bearing upon 
 this question, for it becomes increasingly clear that Mark 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 229 
 
 has omitted or displaced some important synoptic material 
 which belongs before the Baptism, as well as incidents 
 recorded in the second and third chapters of John. 1 
 
 In other words, Mark confines himself to the public 
 ministry of Jesus, which he considers was formally inau- 
 gurated at the Baptism. 3 
 
 The next question concerns John's relationship to the 
 birth of Jesus. I have already adduced reasons for believ- 
 ing that John cannot be counted against the orthodox 
 position. It simply remains to bring forward those rea- 
 sons a little more in detail. 
 
 The alternative theory of the origin of Jesus is boldly 
 stated in the words of Soltau : " Jesus of Nazareth, son of 
 Joseph and Mary, became the God-given Messiah, not only 
 of His own people, but also of the whole world. This is 
 the true miracle." 3 
 
 This is exactly the view of Cerinthus. The great here- 
 tic could not have stated his belief any more forcibly than 
 in these words. The overwhelming preponderance of evi- 
 dence establishes that John and Cerinthus were contem- 
 poraries and opponents at Ephesus. 4 It seems to me a 
 
 1 See able discussion of this subject in Briggs, New Light on Life of 
 Christ, chap. i. 
 
 2 Keim concedes that Mark's interpretation of Christ really involves the 
 miraculous conception. " It is true that the last words of the short intro- 
 duction, • The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God,'' though strongly 
 attested, must be erased on the strength of the Sinaitic manuscript (as Tis- 
 chendorf has done in his eighth edition) and must be regarded as an inter- 
 polation from John ; yet the watchword of the book is the Son of God — 
 nay, going beyond the standpoint of Matthew and Luke, the only, the well- 
 beloved Son of God, Who stands high above the angels and next to God 
 Himself. Nor is the conception attached to the phrase merely a Messianic 
 one, but that of the most marvelous endowment of spirit and power, a con- 
 ception which seems to be based upon a supernatural birth of the Son of 
 Mary." (Keim. J. von N., vol. i, p. 124, Eng. Trans.) 
 
 3 Soltau, p. 65. 
 
 4 If this fact could be successfully disproved the argument would still 
 
230 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 little unreasonable for men, who find themselves in such 
 perfect accord with Cerinthus, to claim John also on their 
 side. Nothing can be clearer than that such a claim is 
 untenable. The historic influence of John through Igna- 
 tius and Polycarp is one of the clearest lines of evidence 
 in the history of the early church, and from the beginning 
 it is identified with the orthodox view of the person of 
 Christ. In every historic instance of opposition to the 
 doctrine of the virgin birth, that opposition had its ground 
 in views of the person and work of Christ, which John 
 abhorred. 
 
 Moreover, the statement of Soltau is a flat contradiction 
 of the sentence of John, which forms the keynote of his 
 Gospel, "The Word became flesh." 1 According to this 
 new-old view, John's sentence ought to read, " Flesh 
 became the word " — " Jesus of Nazareth became the God- 
 given Messiah." It is a total reversal of the entire con- 
 ception which John's Gospel offers of the life of Christ. 
 He teaches an incarnation of God, not a deification of man. 
 The movement was first downward out of deity into man, 
 thence upward out of man into deity. 
 
 John did not specifically mention the miraculous birth 
 in his Gospel, for a good and sufficient reason. The mirac- 
 ulous birth was simply an item in a larger controversy 
 in which he was absorbed body and mind. No one denied 
 the miraculous birth except as an item in a larger denial. 
 The controversy in which John was absorbed concerned 
 the reality of the Incarnation. There was no controversy 
 as to the virgin birth considered in itself. No one, who 
 
 stand, for the strength of the tradition is evidence enough that the teaching 
 of John was at variance with that of Cerinthus. The Ephesine residences 
 of John and consequently the tradition which connects him with Cerinthus 
 is conclusively established by Stanton in Gospels as His. Doc, Pt. I., Chap, 
 v.; see especially Con., pp. 231 ff. 
 
 1 Cf. Fairbairn, Phil. Christ. Rel., p. 453. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 23 1 
 
 accepted the Incarnation, denied or thought of denying 
 the miraculous birth. All who accepted the Incarnation 
 accepted, as a matter of course, the miraculous birth. 
 When, therefore, John wrote the sentence, " The Word 
 became flesh," he gave in his allegiance to that entire 
 systematic interpretation of Christ with which, in the mind 
 of the early church, the miraculous birth was inseparably 
 bound up. 
 
 The great contention of John's Gospel, the formative 
 idea of his entire interpretation of the life of Jesus, the 
 basal principle of all his thinking in the realm of theology, 
 is that the eternal Christ became embodied in the his- 
 toric Jesus ; and the recognized symbol to every intelligent 
 mind of that belief was the miraculous birth. The whole 
 question is carried by what Lange well calls the complete- 
 ness of John's " Christological definitions." To count him 
 on the opposite side of this controversy, can be done only 
 at the expense of his honesty or his intelligence. 
 
 It is also perfectly clear that the birth at Bethlehem is 
 implied in the text (John vii, 42 ) often quoted in favor of 
 John's non-belief in the miraculous birth. ( See Hastings 
 B. D., vol. ii, p. 138, note; also see Ramsay, Was Christ 
 Born at Bethlehem ? Chap, v.) 
 
 It now remains for us to consider Paul's attitude toward 
 this question. And I begin with this question : How 
 did it happen, if Paul did not believe in the miraculous 
 birth, and made statements directly opposed to it, that his 
 friend and fellow-traveler and disciple, Luke, was such a 
 strenuous believer in it? Were the two friends in opposi- 
 tion on this point ? If Paul had firm ground for his belief 
 that Jesus was born as other men, why did he not per- 
 suade Luke to abandon the doctrine of the miraculous 
 birth ? If Luke held the belief in opposition to Paul, why 
 is there no hint of a controversy ? The closeness of the 
 
232 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 relationship between Paul and Luke, and the absence of 
 any hint of a controversy between them on this or any 
 other important question, seriously impairs the argument 
 from Paul's apparent neglect of the doctrine. We must 
 seek for the reason for that neglect somewhere else than 
 in positive unbelief. Moreover, Paul's statement that 
 Jesus was of the seed of David implies nothing more than 
 an opinion, universal in the apostolic age, that Jesus 
 belonged to the family of David. x Since the word aizkpfia 
 is used in a purely figurative sense of descendants or off- 
 spring in general, 2 it conveys no definite affirmation as to 
 the mode of Jesus' birth. It does not even forbid the 
 supposition that Paul simply accepted Joseph's putative 
 fatherhood as sufficient establishment of Jesus' Davidic 
 origin. Certainly, a belief in Mary's descent from David 
 would justify the use of the phrases ix a-spjuaroz and 
 xara adpxa. Prof. Stevens 3 says, " It is improbable that 
 Paul was acquainted with the traditions respecting the 
 supernatural conception and miraculous birth of Jesus ; 
 but even in that case, there is nothing in his language 
 which is inconsistent with them. " 
 
 Stevens's belief that Paul probably was not acquainted 
 with the tradition of the Lord's birth seems to me unlikely, 
 in view of the intimacy between Paul and Luke, but the 
 conclusion which he draws from the language is unques- 
 tionable. 
 
 We have, then, two facts already upon which to base 
 conclusions. Luke believed in the miraculous birth and 
 there is no hint of any controversy between him and Paul 
 on this subject. There is nothing in Paul's phraseology 
 
 *As Ramsay says, this belief in the Davidic origin of Jesus rests upon 
 the same authority as the virgin birth. He could scarcely have believed 
 in one without accepting the other. 
 
 2 See Thayer Gk D.N.T. on cnepiia. 
 
 'Stevens's Pauline Theology, p. 212. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 233 
 
 inconsistent with the accepted doctrine. Does he say 
 anything favorable to the doctrine ? Opponents of the 
 doctrine of the miraculous birth are very careful to point 
 out that the phrase, " Born of a woman," interpreted in the 
 light of the context, simply means to unite Christ to the 
 race and therefore cannot imply an exceptional birth. But 
 if the phrase ix aTtip/xaro^ is to be pushed to its ultimate 
 physiological implications of " natural generation," what 
 is to forbid our forcing the severe interpretation of the 
 passage, " Made of a woman," to its final conclusion that it 
 excludes the parental agency of the father? As a matter 
 of fact, the assertion that the Messiah was so completely 
 a sharer in the life of the race as really to be " made of a 
 woman," carried with it, to Paul's readers, the same impli- 
 cation as John's phrase, " Became flesh," of a complete doc- 
 trine of the Incarnation in which the miraculous birth was 
 an essential item. l Paul cannot be forced into the camp 
 of his extreme Judaistic opponents in the matter of Christ's 
 birth. 
 
 That he made no further use of the fact than this inci- 
 dental allusion, constitutes a problem which is worthy of 
 a little closer attention. It would give a false impression, 
 however, to imply that the miraculous birth is the only 
 cardinal fact which is passed over or lightly touched upon 
 in Paul's treatment of Christian doctrine. 2 Paul's whole 
 
 1 Cf. acute observation of Briggs (Messiah of the Gospels, p. 50, n. 9. ) 
 that the statements of Paul imply more than the virgin birth. For evi- 
 dence that account is early, see same note. 
 
 2 For example the miracles. " The New Testament outside the Gospels 
 contains two references and only-two references to our Lord's miracles. In 
 Acts x, 38, St. Peter is represented as alluding to our Lord's having gone 
 about 'doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the Devil,' but 
 these works are not in dispute. Again. St. Luke makes the same apostle 
 on the day of Pentecost appeal to ' mighty works and wonders and signs 
 which God did by Him in the midst of you,' as pledges of the divine mis- 
 sion of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts ii, 22); and this appeal is made in the one 
 
234 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 attitude toward the historic facts of Christ's earthly life 
 constitutes a very important critical question. A work 
 has recently appeared in Germany on the Pauline Chris- 
 tology, 1 which maintains this thesis : That practically the 
 entire metaphysical ground work of Paul's Christology had 
 been carried over from his Jewish thought, only the earthly 
 life of Jesus becomes "an episode in the heavenly existence 
 of the Son of God," which by ascribing to Him an " act 
 of voluntary self-denial gave to His heavenly life an ethi- 
 cal content, which to the mind of Paul it had not previously 
 possessed." 
 
 This thesis is, of course, greatly in excess of the facts, 
 but it is interesting in its bearing upon the question now 
 before us, for the book maintains that " in this kind of 
 Christology, which Paul had in common with the Apoca- 
 lyptic writers of the age, so far at least as its main outlines 
 were concerned, there was no need and no place for a 
 human birth of the Messiah, inasmuch as the preexistence 
 applied to the body as well as to the pneuma. The pre- 
 existent One was to be revealed, suddenly to appear. " 2 
 
 place in which it could naturally and rightly have been made, i. e., in the 
 presence of those who are alleged to have themselves witnessed the works — 
 'even as ye yourselves know.' Elsewhere in the New Testament, though 
 St. Paul is deeply conscious that the Jews, whom a crucified Messiah 
 'offended,' 'demand signs' (i Cor. i, 22 ), and though he (Gal. iii, 5; 
 I Cor. xii, 9 f., 28 ff. ; II Cor. xii, 12 ; Rom. xv, 19) and the writer to the 
 Hebrews ( ii, 4 ) allude to signs and wonders wrought in apostolic times, 
 there is a complete and unbroken silence as to the miracles of our Lord. 
 A similar statement may be made as to the Apostolic Fathers." From this 
 the writer draws the conclusion that the miracle mongering spirit was not 
 active among the Christians at the time when the Gospels were in process 
 of composition. It also serves to put in a very different light Paul's silence 
 as to the birth of Christ. (Chase, Cam. Theol. Essays, pp. 403, 4.) 
 
 1 Bruckner of Karlsruhe. See Art. by Prof. Vos in Princeton Seminary 
 Review, Jan. 1905, pp. 144 seq. See comment upon this work in Cam. 
 Theol. Essays (1905), p. 430. 
 
 s Vos, Art. quoted above. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 235 
 
 In this treatise, conclusions unfavorable, not only to the 
 miraculous birth but also to the theological importance 
 of the natural birth of Jesus, have been drawn from Paul's 
 silence. And it is difficult to see why this conclusion is 
 not as cogent as the other. If the comparative silence of 
 Paul concerning the miraculous birth is an argument 
 against its historical reality, is not his silence concern- 
 ing the natural birth equally legitimate evidence against 
 its reality ? And it is difficult to see how one can avoid 
 the further rather disastrous conclusion that Paul laid very 
 little stress upon the life of Christ at all. 1 
 
 In the attempt to interpret Paul's treatment of the facts 
 of Christ's life, the peculiarity of his Christian experience 
 must not be overlooked. 2 He had a vision of the risen 
 Christ, which revolutionized his convictions and changed 
 his life, and his entire thought of Christ and Christianity 
 had its beginning and its center in that experience. To 
 him all the facts of Christ's earthly life were subordinate 
 to the supreme fact of His risen life in glory. This is the 
 basis of all such theories as Bruckner's. But this does 
 
 1 The relationship of Paul to the facts of Christ's life has been one of the 
 major topics in recent Pauline literature. The general trend of criticism 
 has been to establish what ought to have been self-evident from the begin- 
 ning ; that Paul knew much more of the biographical details related in the 
 Gospels than he mentions. The relationship between the historical Christ 
 and the spiritual Christ (the Christ of history and of experience) is always 
 one of the problems of the Christian life — but a careful consideration of our 
 own experience will certainly establish the fact that our understanding and 
 interpretation of the Lord whom we know in experience is constantly limited 
 and modified by what we know of His earthly life. Indeed, our best ground 
 of assurance that we do know Christ in experience is that the experience is 
 in line with what we have learned to expect from Him by His life revealed 
 in the Gospels. This is our safeguard against erratic mysticism. The 
 difference in Paul's experience was that He knew the exalted Christ first ; 
 afterwards, and in a secondary way, the Christ of history. For discussion 
 of literature, see Knowling, Test, of Paul to Christ, pp. 496 ff. 
 
 2 See Stevens' s Pauline Theol. , p. 206. Cf. 1 Cor. xv, 8. 
 
236 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 not imply that he does not believe or value facts which he 
 does not particularly emphasize in his teaching. He 
 knows well that Jesus died before He rose again, and was 
 born and lived and taught before He died. There is avast 
 amount of undeveloped biographical material in the back- 
 ground of Paul's thought. * His thought is most deeply 
 concerned with the eternal Christ, 2 but he has by no 
 means forgotten the historical Jesus. 
 
 Neither must we ignore the peculiar bent of Paul's 
 mind. He was a practical theologian. He was engaged 
 in succession upon the problems of Christian thought 
 and life. He died in the midst of his work. He had 
 never dealt systematically with the problem of the historic 
 and spiritual Christ nor with Christ's sinlessness in any de- 
 tail. It is perfectly true, however, as Stevens says : 3 " We 
 can only say, then, that although there is no evidence 
 that Paul reflected upon this problem (the supernatural 
 birth), it is certain that he not only affirms nothing which 
 is inconsistent with the supernatural conception, but that 
 on no other supposition can his statements concerning 
 
 x See Stevens's Pauline T/ieoL, p. 208 and references. Also Mathews' 
 Messianic Hope in N. T., p. 169. 
 
 2 This is perhaps the chief reason for Paul's comparative silence as to the 
 biographical details of the Gospel. His message was preeminently con- 
 cerned with the living Christ, as power rather than example, as present 
 experience rather than memory. " To know this exalted Christ, to under- 
 stand the present direction of His will, to be governed by Him as an active 
 force, to be so lived in by Him as to lose self in serving as a vehicle for 
 the life of Christ, this was worth more than any reminiscences of what He 
 had said and done in other days. St. Paul's conviction about Jesus 
 Christ was that He was a being of heavenly origin. He had no fantastic 
 notions about the unreality of His human nature : His death and resur- 
 rection could not have had the meaning which they bore for St. Paul if 
 they had been to him anything but realities of the most entirely practical 
 kind. But St. Paul had no doubt that Jesus Christ was something higher 
 first, and man afterwards." Mason, Cam. Theol. Essays, p. 427. 
 
 3 Ibid, p. 212. 
 
EXEGETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS 237 
 
 Christ's sinlessness, on the one hand, and universal human 
 sinfulness on the other, be so well adjusted and har- 
 monized. " 
 
 The conclusion from the discussion is that we have no 
 warrant for supposing that there was in any mature 
 apostle's mind any other belief than the one which we 
 have been taught, that Jesus was supernaturally begotten, 
 and born of the Virgin Mary. 1 2 
 
 1 Lack of emphasis upon the miraculous birth was due partly to the 
 strong emphasis placed upon the death of Christ. This received more atten- 
 tion even from John than the Incarnation by itself. Cf. Denney, Death of 
 Christ, p. 317. 
 
 2 The argument in the text has been conducted upon the assumption that 
 Paul ignores the supernatural birth of Christ altogether. It should be 
 remarked, however, that this assumption is by no means above question. 
 Prof. Briggs has called attention to the fact that Paul's statements really 
 imply the virgin birth and go beyond it. 
 
 It would be difficult to show how Paul's theory of Christ as the heavenly 
 Man could be reconciled with any interpretation of a natural generation. 
 
 Moreover, in every instance in which Paul refers to the birth of Christ, 
 he uses an unusual word in that connection. 
 
 Instead of using yevvau or its derivatives which is the familiar Septuagint 
 form (yfw?/roc ywaiKOc) we have yevo/uevog ek ywain6<?-" made of a woman " 
 (Gal. iv, 4 ; Rom. i, 3). Dr. Knowling says, concerning the passage in 
 Romans : " It does not seem an unfair inference that by this particular 
 phraseology St. Paul may really be intimating the fact that he was quite 
 aware that something was attached to the birth of our Lord which demanded 
 an unusual mode of expression." {Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 
 Scribner's, 1905, p. 313.) On this same word Sanday and Headlam (Com. 
 on Romans, in loco) say : " This word denotes, as usually, transition from 
 one state or mode of subsistence to another (Sp. Com. on I Cor. i, 30) ; 
 it is rightly paraphrased (who) was born, and is practically equivalent to 
 the Johannean k Wovroq elg tov k6g\iov. " The expression involves the pre- 
 existence, and connects this closely with the birth, making of the latter the 
 mode of transition from one state of subsistence to another. This really 
 involves a supernatural birth. 
 
 The phrase in Galalians (iv, 4), taken in connection with the context, 
 has been well called St. Paul's " Gospel of the Infancy " : "When the full- 
 ness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under 
 
238 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 The exegetical construction of the narratives on a fair 
 basis of adjustment, and by substantial critical methods, 
 results in exhibiting their harmony with each other and 
 with the rest of the New Testament. 
 
 We are more than justified, then, in claiming that the 
 interpretation of the accounts as substantially historical 
 is attended with less serious difficulties than any other 
 hypothesis. 
 
 the law that He might redeem them that were under the law, that we 
 might receive the adoption of sons. " 
 
 The reference here to the story of the Infancy as found in Luke's Gospel 
 is so clear that one critic has raised the question whether the Infancy narra- 
 tive was not an outgrowth of Paul's statement At any rate, we are justified 
 in the assertion, that it is by no means certain that Paul makes no reference 
 to the miraculous birth, and it is at least certain that he nowhere denies or 
 contradicts it. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST IN ITS BEARING UPON THE 
 QUESTION OF HIS BIRTH 
 
 The person of Christ is the central problem of history, 
 criticism, and theology. All the difficulties of critical and 
 constructive thinking center in Him. 
 
 It is impossible to exclude the consideration of Him 
 from any broad and rational attempt to interpret human 
 life and the world in their relationship to the individual 
 and to God. For the man who would "understand human 
 nature, human life, and human history, there is no escape 
 from the necessity of attempting to interpret Him, who, in 
 the plan of God and in the actual working of Providence, 
 occupies a central and commanding position in relation- 
 ship to all the facts which must be passed in review. 
 
 Of course, it is inevitable that the study of such a char- 
 acter and such a life should present manifold difficulties. 
 From these, there is no escape in any direction. 
 
 The affirmations of faith, and the negations of unbelief, 
 alike raise questions that cannot be answered, and lead to 
 difficulties that cannot be solved. Mystery, inscrutable 
 and unfathomable, is involved in any opinion or statement 
 concerning Christ. ! The man who would escape from 
 mystery must cease from thinking. The controversy, 
 which has centered about the person of Christ since the 
 days of the apostles, is simply one of measurement of His 
 
 1 Cf. Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, p. 235. 
 
 239 
 
240 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 greatness. The attempt to place Him, in His relationship 
 to God, and to man, and to history, involves the total 
 mystery of being, carries with it sweeping affirmations in 
 all spheres of thought, and is bound to issue in contro- 
 versy. With these questions, religion has little to do. An 
 unsolvable mystery to the intellect, Jesus is perfectly plain 
 to the heart, and His answer to religious instinct is so 
 complete and satisfying that the average Christian is con- 
 tent to live in the light of His face, and leave the baffling 
 question to those who delight in such questions. 
 
 Nevertheless, it remains true that Jesus could not mean 
 so much to the heart, if He were not at the same time a 
 problem to the intellect. 1 And the constant exercise of 
 the mind upon the questions suggested by His character 
 and life invests His person with unfailing interest, and 
 brings men constantly back to the vitalizing experience 
 of fresh and intimate contact with Him. And out of this 
 study, baffling as it is, new light and life for men contin- 
 ually issue. Christ baffles only to allure, and allures 
 only to enrich. Our statements concerning Him only 
 approach the truth, they never altogether reach it, but in 
 that approach consists to many of us, more and more, all 
 the light and glory and meaning of existence. 
 
 In the chapter which follows, I shall stop far short of 
 any attempt to interpret anew the mystery of Christ. I 
 could not do it, if I would, and for the purpose in hand, I 
 do not need to do it. I propose basing the conclusions to 
 which I have been led, upon the facts, which seem to me 
 beyond the reach of controversy ; and I have introduced 
 the discussion by the considerations outlined above in 
 order to steady my own mind, and the mind of the reader, 
 with the thought that we are now moving in a region 
 where the mysteries of existence center and have their 
 
 1 See Fairbairn, Ph. Chr. Religion, Introduction. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 24 1 
 
 home, as clouds dwell perpetually about lofty mountain 
 summits. 
 
 It behooves one to act with caution, to put the feet 
 firmly upon ascertained facts, and to be content to move 
 forward slowly and carefully. 
 
 That Christ was unique among men ; that He still stands 
 alone and unapproachable in person and work, needs little 
 more than thoughtful exposition; it can scarcely need 
 extended argument. It is universally conceded by all 
 competent and fair-minded students that, in the advent of 
 Jesus Christ, the world experienced something altogether 
 new, and that in His character and life and influence, we 
 have something absolutely different, not only in degree, 
 but in kind, from anything that has been seen before or 
 since. 
 
 This is a broad basis for argument, but we have a right 
 to insist upon it as the primary and elementary conclusion 
 to which the study of the life of Christ leads. 
 
 In the discussion now entered upon, I shall endeavor 
 simply to follow this premise to its ultimate and logical 
 outcome, and nothing more. I shall not claim that He is 
 divine in the absolute sense, nor even that He is sinless, 
 but only that He is unique. 
 
 In what does His uniqueness consist? It consists in 
 practically all that He was and did. His life is the revela- 
 tion of a person, such as we have never known in life, and 
 cannot find any slightest trace of in the annals of human 
 history. The authors of the Gospels have given us the 
 portrait of a unique person. 
 
 Jesus is unique in His historical influence. Not only 
 was He while He was alive, and for some time after He 
 left the world, but He is now. His influence to-day is 
 greater than at any time since He came. 
 
 The Christian Church is usually looked upon as an 
 16 
 
242 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 argument against Christianity, but, as a matter of fact, it 
 is a most wonderful tribute to His personality and influ- 
 ence. If the church were compared only with other 
 human institutions, it would be more highly honored, but 
 it is brought continually into comparison with Christ, and 
 with the ideal presented in His life and teaching, and, in 
 this comparison, the most severe that could be imagined, 
 suffers well-nigh total eclipse. 
 
 But it is the church which has accepted the ideal of 
 Christ, has cherished it, and forced it upon the world. The 
 church has held up Christ even to its own condemnation. 
 No one is so sensitive to the shortcomings of the church 
 as her own members. The most severe sentences of con- 
 demnation for her failure to embody the spirit of Christ 
 are spoken by those who confess those failures as their 
 own. And when all allowances have been made, the 
 church still stands alone in the intensity of her devotion 
 to the ideal, and in the greatness of her contributions to 
 the good of man. 
 
 The church is a world-wide, fraternal organization of 
 nearly every tribe of men, of all social grades, among 
 whom are thousands who love Christ with absolute and 
 absorbing devotion, who hold themselves and all that they 
 have in trust for the good of men for His sake. 
 
 By this organization, a vast and costly machinery is 
 maintained for the purpose of self instruction in the princi- 
 ples of Christ, and millions of dollars are annually ex- 
 pended for the purely unselfish purpose of bringing the 
 Gospel of Christ to the needy parts of the earth. 
 
 Through all this, the influence of Christ is supreme. He 
 stands alone in the sway, which He exercises over the 
 minds of His followers. 1 He is unique among the founders 
 
 1 See Orr, Ch. View, Am. ed., p. 41, and note, p. 389 ; Fairbairn, Phil. 
 Christ ReL, p. 287. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 243 
 
 of religions in that His personality is inseparable from the 
 ideas which He taught, and the influence which He wields. 
 His influence is unique also, and in this, it seems to me, 
 most of all, in that His ideas and ideals are opposed to 
 some of the strongest elementary passions of the human 
 heart, and yet have increasingly prevailed in the historic 
 struggle of humanity, and in the conflict of ideas. Moham- 
 med's power, and the secret of his influence, lay in the 
 skillfulness of his appeal to ordinary human nature, whose 
 weaknesses and foibles he read like a open book. 1 
 
 Jesus enforced ethical principles, the acceptance of which 
 depends upon a complete change of the inward being. 
 And yet the ethics of Jesus have increasingly prevailed 
 in the minds of men. His law of love, His principle of 
 brotherhood, His ideal of purity, have won their way to 
 acceptance through the overwhelming influence of His 
 personal character and example. 
 
 The influence of Jesus may be followed through history, 
 as a river may be followed to its source, back to its be- 
 ginning in His life upon earth. And throughout its entire 
 course, it is recognizable as the same. Wherever men 
 have come closely into contact with Him, they exhibit the 
 same general characteristics. Even in the dark ages of 
 Christianity's moral eclipse, there were some who walked 
 with Him, though in the shadow. And they were marked, 
 as all His genuine followers have been, by a strong faith 
 in the Unseen, by passionate devotion to the ethically 
 ideal, and by activity in the service of mankind, especially 
 the poor and weak. And all this leads us back to the 
 fact of the Gospels — that contact with the person of Jesus 
 transformed a humble group of men, in no way extraor- 
 dinary, into the builders of a new era, and the perpetual 
 moral leaders of mankind. 
 
 1 See Mozley on Miracles (2d edition), p. 179. 
 
244 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Jesus was unique in His teaching. 1 I do not intend by 
 this statement to imply that every truth spoken by Jesus 
 was then uttered for the first time. Scholars have spent 
 years in ransacking the literary remains of Jewish, Egyp- 
 tian, Chinese, and Indian sages, to find utterances similar 
 to those of Christ ; and what have they succeeded in doing ? 
 They have simply made clear the unique comprehensive- 
 ness of the mind of Jesus, for they have shown that the 
 scattered thoughts of the wisest men of many countries 
 and many centuries are, in His teaching, gathered together, 
 framed into an ordered structure, and brought into vital 
 relationship with the great regulative principles of thought. 2 
 Jesus was a unique teacher in the fullness and com- 
 prehensiveness of His thought, in the condensed pregnancy 
 of His expression, in the vividness and truthfulness of His 
 illustrations, in the completeness of His authoritative inter- 
 pretation of the great realities of the spiritual life and the 
 unseen world, in His exposition of the significance and 
 sacredness of common things, and, most of all, in His 
 revelation of God and the human soul, and their mutual 
 relationship. 
 
 It is difficult to see why the teaching of Jesus should 
 not be final and absolute. His whole exposition of spiritual 
 things is so complete and perfect, the entire scheme of His 
 teaching is so comprehensive and so lofty that it is incon- 
 ceivable that the mind should outgrow it ; but I do not 
 insist upon this. All that I care to urge is that His teach- 
 ing is unique and unparalleled. 
 
 Jesus was unique in character. He was incomparably 
 and indisputably the flower of humanity. It was not only 
 
 1 Stalker, Christology of Jesus, chapter i. Forrest, Christ of History and 
 Experience, pp. io and seq. Bruce, Apologetics, p. 49. Fairbairn, Phil. 
 Chr. Pel., bk. II, pt. i, ch. iv. 
 
 2 Fairbairn, Phil. Chr. Pel., p. 381. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 245 
 
 that His life was deeper and fuller and richer than that of 
 other men, but there was in Him a generic difference of 
 type. Love was enthroned in His life, and with that 
 central principle His entire being moved in accord. There 
 was no inconsistency anywhere in His life with this dom- 
 inant principle. 
 
 There was in Him not only moral elevation, but an 
 absolute moral unity, a perfect self-consistency. His whole 
 life, in all its activities and manifestations, flowed forth from 
 one central fountain. Mind, heart, and will moved together 
 in smooth harmonious unity and interflow. There was in 
 Him also a unique combination and balance of qualities. 
 Men uniformly have the defects of their virtues. In 
 Jesus, qualities usually ! looked upon as inconsistent and 
 mutually exclusive, were united in their fullest perfection. 
 He united lofty spirituality with humaneness. He lived 
 in the unseen world, but also close to His brethren on the 
 earth. He had an ardent hatred for sin together with an 
 equally ardent love for the sinner. He had intense con- 
 victions, but was without bigotry. He was meek and sub- 
 missive, but without weakness. He was on occasion severe 
 and even passionate, but never vindictive, narrow, or sel- 
 fish. He had broad visions, but was practical in His 
 methods of carrying them out, — at once a visionary and a 
 builder. 
 
 Jesus was also unique in His self-consciousness 2 and in 
 His relationship to God. It was not merely that He had 
 a clearer sense of His divine Sonship than other men, 
 although this is true. It was not merely that He lived 
 more completely than others the filial life, although this 
 
 1 See Bushnell's famous chapter in Nature and the Supernatural, 
 chapter x. 
 
 2 See Forrest, Christ of History and Experience, chap, i ; also summary 
 in Orr, Christian View of God and the World, pp. 24 and sea. 
 
246 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 also is true. The difference in His self-consciousness goes 
 far deeper than this. It is a general law of the spiritual 
 life that the sense of sin increases in exact proportion with 
 the increase of spiritual vision and moral goodness. The 
 best men, the prophets and saints and apostles of holiness 
 and faith, have felt most keenly and have confessed most 
 frankly their sense of failure in the attempts so earnestly 
 made to embody the ideal. 
 
 Jesus stood far and away above all these in His devotion 
 to the ideal, and in the clear penetration of His spiritual in- 
 sight. He was peculiarly sensitive in His moral nature, 
 ardent in His love of goodness, equally ardent in His hatred 
 of sin, keen in His discrimination of character, searching 
 in His analysis of motives, emphasizing above all others the 
 importance of the inward life, locating sin not merely in 
 action, but in thought and feeling, and yet, all this without 
 the consciousness of personal sin. Of this, there can be 
 no question. There is no hint from the beginning to the 
 end of His life as recorded in the Gospels, of anything like 
 the confession of sin or the sense of it. I do not argue 
 from this that He was sinless in the absolute sense, 
 although I believe it, but only that His self-consciousness 
 was absolutely unique. No other man who ever lived, 
 would have dared to lift his eyes to heaven, as Jesus did, 
 and say, " Father, I have finished the work Thou gavest 
 Me to do," without being at once absurd and blasphemous. 
 
 His whole bearing toward God was that of one whose 
 loyalty was without a flaw, and in whom perfect love had 
 cast out fear and misgiving. 
 
 Jesus was also unique in His power to mediate the life 
 of God to men. I am not contending that He was Him- 
 self divine, in the metaphysical sense the Son of God, but 
 that to Him was granted, as to no other, the power to 
 make men conscious of their sonship to God. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 247 
 
 That Jesus is the one absolute Saviour, the only medi- 
 ator between God and man may seem to some over much 
 to affirm, but it practically comes to the same thing, for 
 no other has had the ability confessedly belonging to 
 Jesus, to reveal the Fatherhood in God and the sonship in 
 man. Many, who have philosophical misgivings over 
 sweeping statements as to the centrality of Christ in the 
 religious life, admit that since His day no one has become 
 united to God except through Him. 1 
 
 We have then in the Gospels the portrait of a unique 
 person, altogether human, and yet unlike any other 
 human being ever seen upon the earth. He was unique 
 in His historical influence, in His teaching, in His char- 
 acter, in His self-consciousness, in His power to mediate 
 the life of God. And yet He is no monster in spite of 
 His strangeness. He is a living person, vivid, lifelike, real 
 and winsome. No one can possibly question that the 
 portraiture of Christ in the Gospels is a most wonderful 
 creation. 
 
 Now the same persons, who have given us this incom- 
 parable delineation of the unique Christ, have also given 
 us the story of a life, the achievements and incidents of 
 which harmonize perfectly with the character which they 
 have portrayed. The life thus narrated is consonant in 
 every particular with the recognized uniqueness of His 
 character, work, and influence. They describe One, who is 
 shown to be by His experiences and His deeds, such a 
 one as is also indicated by the place He occupies and the 
 influences he wields. 2 
 
 1 Orr, ibid, p. 393, note D. 
 
 2 " General history, if it cannot verify the fact of the virgin birth, verifies 
 the dogma as appearing in the most primitive Christian Creed, not later than 
 the middle of the second century, as the unanimous consensus of the Chris- 
 tian Church in all its great historical organizations until the present time, 
 as a dogma which has determined the history of Christian doctrine, and 
 
248 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 They describe One, whose entrance into the world, 
 whose course of action during His stay in the world, whose 
 departure from the world, was as unique and unexampled 
 as the person of whom the incidents are recorded. 
 
 The evangelists state that Jesus entered into the world 
 by a virgin birth, that He wrought miracles of love and 
 power, that He passed through death by resurrection, and 
 entered into the unseen by ascension. 
 
 Of any other person, such statements would seem 
 impossible of belief, but with what we actually know of 
 the character and life of Jesus, they are homogeneous and 
 congruous. 
 
 If it be urged that the miraculous elements in this 
 story are merely accidental and adventitious, the only 
 reasonable answer is a flat denial. The miracles are of 
 the substance of the Gospel. 1 They form an integral and 
 vital part of Christ's self-revelation. They are inseparably 
 bound up with His teaching. They are as unique and 
 inimitable as His personality. They enter into the fabric 
 of the delineation, and are interwoven with its very sub- 
 stance. Now, into the structural framework of the life of 
 
 through Christian doctrine the Christian Church and Christian civilization 
 for nineteen centuries. It is not possible to explain the history of the world 
 without recognizing that there is a God in history, and that, to use the 
 words of Lessing, ' the history of the world is the divine education of the 
 race.' It is not possible to explain Christian history without the recog- 
 nition of Christ in history, and if Christ, then what Christianity has always 
 recognized Christ to be, the Incarnate Saviour, who by virgin birth identi- 
 fied Himself, once for all and forever, not with an individual man, but with 
 human nature, as the Head of redeemed humanity. These things are dog- 
 mas interpreting history, which cannot be verified by historical criticism 
 as realities attested by the human senses and human experience ; but, with- 
 out them, Christian history is unintelligible, inexplicable, a mass of hetero- 
 geneous facts and events without harmony and without unity." (Briggs, 
 N. A. Review, June, 1906. Art. Crit. and Dog. Virgin Birth, pp. 869-70.) 
 1 Bruce, Mir. Element in Gospels, pp. 118-119. Trench., Miracles, pp. 
 80-81. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 249 
 
 Jesus, the virgin birth perfectly fits. 1 If it is an invention, 
 it is a marvelously felicitous one. 
 
 It has been objected that the virgin birth was not 
 necessary to constitute Jesus a unique person. This is 
 done by His relationship to the Father in His life, by the 
 divine election and His response to it. 
 
 It has been argued also that the Resurrection was not 
 necessary to constitute Jesus the Saviour of man. He 
 might have passed into the unseen world just as other 
 men do, leaving His body behind, and yet reveal the 
 moral power which should enable men to conquer the 
 fear of death. Schliermacher 2 placed the virgin birth and 
 the Resurrection exactly on a level, holding that belief in 
 neither was necessary to faith. 
 
 It is clear, however, that the question of the Resurrection 
 vitally involves the trustworthiness of the disciples. Paul 
 has argued this convincingly in the fifteenth chapter of 
 First Corinthians, 3 where he places the alternatives over 
 against each other — no resurrection, no trustworthy testi- 
 mony. 
 
 And to close study, it has become evident that Christ's 
 conquest over death necessarily involves such a miracle 
 in the material realm as should break forever the dismal 
 tyranny of sense. 
 
 In like manner and with equal force, it has been urged 
 that Christ might have been revealed as the Son of God 
 with power to save without His working any physical 
 miracle, and that in rejecting the miraculous altogether, 
 we leave untouched the substance of His character and 
 work. 
 
 1 Cf. Van Oosterzee, Person and Work of the Redeemer, p. 149. The 
 Miraculous Birth Natural. 
 
 'Der Christliche Glaube, vol. ii, 67, seq. 
 3 1 Cor. xv, 15. 
 
250 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 To this, the answer must be returned that, as has already 
 been said, the miraculous is an essential part of the record 
 so vitally interwoven with the entire fabric of testimony to 
 Christ, that it cannot be eliminated without loosening all 
 the threads. In addition to this, it must be said that with- 
 out miracle as an element of His character and mission, 
 the original establishment of belief in Him would have 
 been impossible. 
 
 Again, when it is argued that Jesus may be received as 
 the Son of God without the miraculous birth, I answer : 
 Theoretically, this is true, just as it is that Jesus might be 
 received as the Son of God without miracle, and, as the 
 Conqueror of Death without the Resurrection, but that He 
 was not thus constituted is a part of the record — an ele- 
 ment in that first testimony to Him by those who were 
 eyewitnesses of His glory, which is our reliance. And it 
 seems to me that it might be argued, in addition, that a 
 miracle in the physical realm was necessary to indicate 
 a new beginning in humanity, and to prepare for Him a 
 human nature adequate to His self-revelation. I am not 
 disposed, however, at this point, to urge this proposition, 
 but I do urge that the virgin birth is an integral and con- 
 gruous item in the unique life, which belongs to the story 
 of the unique Person. It will take strong arguments to 
 dislodge it, for it would be strange indeed if He, whose 
 person was unique, whose character and influence were 
 unique, whose work was unique, whose experience in 
 death and whose entrance into the unseen were also 
 unique, should have nothing out of the ordinary to attend 
 His entrance into the world when, of all times in His life, 
 it would be necessary that His importance to His own 
 people and to the race should be unmistakably indicated. 
 There is also some difficulty in believing that Christ's 
 human nature, including His body, the organ of His 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 25 1 
 
 human life, and the instrument of His connection with the 
 world, was not constituted in some exceptional manner. 
 
 But before taking up this question, there is another col- 
 lateral line of reasoning, which leads unmistakably to the 
 same conclusion. To this let us turn : — 
 
 The close student of the life of Christ is certain to 
 notice, sooner or later, two series of facts running through 
 the entire account, which he finds great difficulty in com- 
 bining. No interpretation of the life can be considered 
 satisfactory which does not find a place for all the facts. 
 And yet they seem to be fundamental antinomies almost 
 impossible to bring within the compass of any formula. 
 I have tried again and again to interpret the life of Christ 
 by the help of some definite theory of His person and 
 consciousness, such as, for example, the Kenosis, but I 
 have never yet been able to find any theory that would 
 cover all the facts, nor have I read any book, in which the 
 attempt was carried out successfully. And the least sat- 
 isfactory and adequate of all is any theory of imaginative 
 or legendary creation. It is contradicted at every step. 
 
 It is necessary here to call attention to just a few of the 
 facts. We may begin with the Resurrection. 
 
 It might easily be urged, that the Resurrection was 
 invented in order to establish that Jesus was the Messiah, 
 in spite of the experience of death, but no one has been 
 able to explain, since imagination was on the throne and 
 invention the order of the day, why the disciples did not 
 invent for Him some miraculous escape from death, so that 
 they might triumphantly declare that death had never 
 touched Him, and the smell of the grave was never upon 
 Him. 1 Were they not bound by the facts, this invention 
 would have been far simpler and just as effective for the 
 immediate purpose. 
 
 1 Mark viii, 31, 32. 
 
252 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Once more, take the Transfiguration. This might have 
 been imagined by the disciples under the influence of their 
 belief in the transcendent personal holiness of Jesus ; but 
 it is very strange that they should have invented with it, 
 circumstances which exhibited themselves in so poor a 
 light 1 and also have combined with it, immediately, a 
 lesson upon His coming death — a thought from which 
 they bitterly revolted. 
 
 Once more, take the feeding of the five thousand. 2 
 This is one of the nature miracles, against which rationalism 
 is most severe. It can easily be explained as an imaginary 
 incident, growing out of some words of Jesus on the bread 
 of life, or simply from the thought of Him as the food of 
 the soul. It was a beautiful dream of the Messiah dis- 
 pensing food to the hungry. But it is very strange that 
 this invented miracle should have been the hinge upon 
 which is made to turn a great crisis in the life of Jesus, 5 
 one of the most clearly established facts in the entire 
 narrative, involving a popular apostasy which left Jesus 
 well nigh without other following than the original twelve, 
 and seriously disturbed their peace of mind. Strange 
 indeed it is that a spurious miracle, due to the exagger- 
 ated sense of Christ's power, should have been connected 
 with an occurrence by which the structure of His power 
 was shaken to the foundation. * 
 
 Harnack has said : " That a storm was quieted by a 
 word, we do not believe, and we shall never again 
 believe." 5 He must then, of course, believe that it was 
 an imagination or invention growing out of the conviction 
 
 1 Mark ix, 5-18 ; Matt, xvii, 4-16 ; Luke ix, 33-40. 
 
 2 John vi, I-14. 
 
 3 John vi, 56, 60. 
 
 4 Cf. Bruce, Training of the Twelve (4th Ed. 1891), Chap. iv. 
 5 \V7iat is Christianity ? p. 30. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 253 
 
 that Jesus was the ruler of nature, but it is curious that in 
 the very same account, they should specify that He was 
 asleep in the stern of the boat, and under the power of the 
 nature, which they assume that He controlled. Was it 
 natural and easy for them to reconcile these two things, 
 as reconciled somehow they must have been in their 
 minds, by the thought that He was at once man, and the 
 ruler of nature ? Any rationalistic explanation as that the 
 storm suddenly ceased after the word of Jesus was spoken, 
 though not because of it, does not touch the real question 
 at issue at all, for we are dealing simply with the com- 
 pleted product of the imagination. How could they hold 
 those two apparently incongruous ideas together, that 
 Jesus could control a storm, and that He was bodily 
 weary and ruled by the power of sleep ? 
 
 This same peculiarity is exhibited in the close conjunc- 
 tion in the narrative between the Baptism and the Tempta- 
 tion. 1 Was the Baptism, with its accessories of the voice 
 and the vision, the creation of imagination on fire with the 
 thought of Jesus' Messianic purpose and mission ? Why 
 then should Jesus at once be driven into the desert and 
 there alone, unfriended (until the conflict was over), be 
 fiercely tempted? Could the Messiah, upon whom the 
 heavens had opened and the Spirit of God descended, be 
 tempted to deny His Sonship and be unfaithful to His 
 trust ? What mind, exclusively filled with the sense of 
 Christ's exaltation and unique relationship to God, could 
 at once and immediately admit the thought that He could 
 even hear the whispers of Satan, much less feel the force 
 of His suggestions ? 
 
 Now the documents of the Infancy are full of this same 
 
 1 When consideration is given to the difficulty which the Temptation has 
 always presented to Christian thought, the impossibility of its being invented 
 in conjunction with the Baptism will be apparent. 
 
254 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 strange contradiction which runs through the entire Gos- 
 pels and marks nearly every leading incident. The inci- 
 dent of the visit to the temple, when Jesus was twelve 
 years old, has been objected to on the ground that it is 
 an incident obviously invented to show that the youth of 
 Jesus was remarkable and prophetic. If that be so, it is 
 remarkable that the writer should speak of Him as " ask- 
 ing questions," and should couple with the incident the 
 statement that He went home and was subject to His par- 
 ents. This is an unexplainable anomaly in an imaginative 
 account to picture the remarkable boyhood of the Messiah. 
 
 It has been alleged that Matthew surrounds the cradle 
 of Christ with royal splendors, while Luke pictures it with 
 every circumstance of humility ; but Luke tells the story 
 of the choiring angels, and Matthew records the ignomini- 
 ous flight into Egypt. 
 
 This same contradiction enters into the story of the 
 birth. It is argued that the miraculous conception is a 
 myth to account for the divinity of Christ's person and 
 work. If this is so, how came it about that this invention 
 is coupled with a normal birth and a natural childhood 
 marked by growth in body, mind, and spirit ? 
 
 In all the range of Christian thinking, there is nothing 
 more difficult to reconcile with Jesus' divinity than His 
 birth as a child and His growth in stature, knowledge, and 
 grace. Bold indeed must the speculator have been, who 
 first, as a mere work of the imagination, coupled these 
 two things together. 
 
 The considerations outlined above, point unmistakably 
 to certain well-defined conclusions. What are they ? We 
 have seen that throughout the Gospels (and the process 
 might have been worked out a great deal more in detail) 
 facts are brought together logically impossible to correlate. 
 Facts which indicate Christ's transcendence are implicated 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 255 
 
 with facts which represent Him as a man under limitation. 
 Between these two sets of facts, the ablest constructive 
 minds of the church in all ages have vibrated. 1 
 
 1 The difficulty of adjusting these facts is a permanent one in Christology. 
 Here is a recent statement of precisely this problem : — 
 
 " We seem, however, to be in danger of being placed in a dilemma. On 
 the one side, we are directed solely to the historic Jesus and challenged to 
 face the limitations of an age little versed in the field of scientific criticism. 
 On the other, we may be tempted so to fix our gaze on the transcendental 
 Christ of St. Paul and the Fourth Gospel as to neglect the gracious Figure 
 of the Synoptists, the alternative may even be to choose between a Christ 
 altogether human, and one altogether divine. It is a phase of the old 
 question between the Ebionites with their Christ as a Jewish prophet, and 
 the Marcionites, with their transcendental revealer of the Supreme God 
 of love ; between Faul of Samosata, with his deified man, and Sabellius 
 with his economic manifestation of God ; between the School of Antioch, 
 with its excessive insistence upon the humanity of Christ, and that of 
 Alexandria with its devotion to Him as the divine Logos rather than as 
 man ; between Professor Harnack, with Christ as the moral teacher of 
 Galilee, and the Abbe Loisy with the Jesus of the Gospels lost in the Christ- 
 spirit working in the Catholic Church. 
 
 "But neither alternative can be accepted to the exclusion of the other. 
 The instinct which leads men in all religious revivals back to the historic 
 Christ of the Synoptists is indeed a sound one ; for, in a certain sense, the 
 figure of our Lord taking upon Himself the form of a servant, and the 
 glorified Christ of a later age, are equally divine. If we fail to recognize 
 this, the reason lies in our own inability to recognize that the essence of the 
 kingdom of God consists not only of a glorified Monarch in heavenly state, 
 but also of a King, tending, guarding, helping, toiling in and with His sub- 
 jects," etc. Cam. Theol. Essays, p. 522. 
 
 The truth of the matter is, that none, since the writers of the Gospels, have 
 been able to hold in perfect balance the two lines of facts about Jesus — His 
 humanity and His transcendence. But they have. The contrast sometimes 
 so sharply drawn between the Christ of Paul and John, and the Jesus of the 
 Synoptists is not justified by the facts. Mark's Gospel which is supposed 
 to be the most primitive, portrays Christ as the wonder-working Son of 
 God with greater emphasis upon His transcendent power than even John's. 
 The point of view is different, but the portrait is perfectly consistent. Mark 
 tells what Jesus did ; John tells how He was able to do what He did. 
 Mark tells the story; John grounds the story in the essential being of Jesus. 
 But so far as the transcendence, or the humility, the divinity, and the human- 
 
 V 
 
256 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Certain thinkers have seen, with great clearness, those 
 facts, which exhibit Christ's transcendence, and are con- 
 vinced believers in His deity, but have great difficulty in 
 holding firmly to His real humanity. 
 
 Others have seen with equal clearness the facts which 
 bind Christ to His brethren, and hold with ardor to the 
 human Christ, but deny or neglect His deity. 
 
 The evangelists were true to all the facts, and held them 
 firmly, never passing over indications of Christ's transcend- 
 ence or His humanity. Neither have they wavered from 
 one side to the other, portraying now a human, now a super- 
 human figure ; but they have portrayed one undivided 
 living Lord, at once human and divine. 
 
 And to me, the conclusion is inevitable that they had 
 seen and known Him, and that qualities and attributes 
 seemingly contradictory when considered in the abstract, 
 blended and were harmonized in His unique personality. 1 
 
 More than this, we have seen that the Infancy docu- 
 ments have this peculiar and striking feature in common 
 with the rest of the Gospels. They bring together into 
 one account, facts that reason cannot harmonize, except by 
 reference to Him in whom God and man were united. 
 It is an integral part of one unique representation. 
 
 If the narrative was invented, in distinction from being 
 discovered or recorded, it was invented by one who was 
 full of the spirit of the Gospel, who carried engraven 
 upon mind and heart the authentic portrait of the unique 
 Person, in whom the antinomies of the divine and the 
 human were blended and harmonized. 
 
 ity of Jesus are concerned, there is little to choose between Mark and John. 
 It is probably true that no primitive disciple of Christ, after His life story 
 was complete, was blind either to the transcendence or humility of His 
 person. 
 
 1 Cf. Fairbairn, Phil. Christ. ReL, p. 330 ; also p. 327 and all of Chap. ii. 
 Pt. I, Bk. II. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OE CHRIST 2$7 
 
 That which this unknown writer has imagined or invented 
 is one in some of its most striking characteristics with that 
 which, on the whole, is acknowledged to be accurate and 
 authentic. We are thus led to one who belonged to the 
 inmost circle of apostolic thought, and possessed at the 
 same time of a high order of creative imagination. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the hypothesis that this part of 
 the narrative was a mythical creation is utterly untenable in 
 view of what the record actually contains. Moreover, it 
 would seem that the unrestrained speculation of the dis- 
 ciples might easily have moved in an entirely different 
 direction, without putting so great a strain upon their 
 imaginative faculty. If it be true, as we are assured, that 
 the early part of Jesus' life was so obscure that no 
 authentic records were in existence concerning His child- 
 hood and youth, why did not the disciples and the evan- 
 gelists make the most of that mystery, and represent 
 Jesus as a portent suddenly appearing no one knew 
 whence ? That there were expectations current among 
 the Jews into which such an interpretation of Jesus' early 
 life would exactly fit, we have the clearest evidence. The 
 Jews objected to Him on the ground that they knew too 
 much about Him. (<1 Howbeit we know this man whence 
 He is : but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence 
 He is." That is, that the Messiah would be utterly 
 mysterious in His advent, appearing suddenly without 
 ordinary human relationships. This interpretation of 
 Christ would not be open to some objections urged 
 against the Infancy section. The earliest critics of that 
 portion of the Gospel objected to it on the ground that it 
 reduced Christ to the dimensions of a man by making 
 Him to be born of a woman, and subject to limitation and 
 growth. 
 
 1 John vii, 27. 
 17 
 
258 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 And if it be urged that this line of imaginings would 
 be impossible because the relatives of Jesus were well 
 known and the facts of His family and home familiar, 
 what becomes of the hypothesis that the earlier period of 
 His life was so obscure that facts were not attainable, and 
 the imagination of disciples was driven to creation by 
 dearth of information on a subject in which they were 
 deeply interested. ' 
 
 By two relatively independent lines of reasoning, we 
 have been brought to see that the narrative of the Infancy 
 is an integral and congruous part of the portrayal of 
 Christ's life in the Gospel. 
 
 We must now approach a little closer to the great 
 mystery itself, in the hope that to reverent and thought- 
 ful inquiry it may disclose some of its deeper meanings. 
 
 The Scripture is consistent in representing that the 
 Spirit of God stood in unique relationship to Christ 
 throughout His entire career- at His conception ; 2 at His 
 birth ; 3 during His growth ; 4 in His youth ; 5 at His Bap- 
 tism ; 6 and throughout His ministry. 7 
 
 The objection which Keim urges, that the Infancy sec- 
 tion wrongly attributes to Jesus in His early life the in- 
 spiration which was bestowed only at the Baptism, must 
 be excluded. 8 
 
 Whatever critical importance may be attributed to 
 the experience at the Baptism in connection with Jesus' 
 consciousness of His Messiahship, it must have been 
 preceded by a dawning sense of His Sonship, and this 
 could have been gained only through the same in- 
 
 1 See Author's Notes — Note D for discussion of this point. 
 
 2 Luke i, 35. 3 Luke ii, 9. 
 
 4 Luke ii, 40. 5 Luke ii, 52. 
 
 6 Mark i, 9-17 ; Luke iii, 21, 22; Matthew iii, 13-17 ; John i, 32-34. 
 
 7 Mark ix, 2-8 ; Matthew xvii, 1-8; Luke ix, 28, ff., etc. 
 
 8 See above p. 56 and note at end of Chap. iv. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 259 
 
 spiration. Christ's understanding and acceptance of 
 His mission to His nation and to the world must have 
 been based upon a previously developed consciousness 
 that He was in a special sense the Son of God, unless we 
 are to believe that Jesus received at His baptism at once 
 and by instantaneous inspiration, the knowledge that He 
 was the Son of God, and also the Saviour of men, which 
 is altogether unlikely. God does not work in that way. 
 If Jesus had already come to the consciousness of His 
 Sonship, it could have been only through the inspiration 
 of the Spirit granted to Him in the process of His growth 
 in grace and knowledge. The representation of Luke 
 that in His youth He had such a special sense of relation- 
 ship to God as to be able to speak of " the things of My 
 Father, " is perfectly correct, and lends force and value to 
 his further representation that the Spirit was especially 
 involved in the processes which were necessary in order 
 to bring Christ into the world as a little child. This puts 
 the inspiration of God in the life of Jesus back of the 
 dawn of consciousness. It may be looked upon as a 
 mere obiter dictum, or even as the confession of mental 
 impotence, but I confess that I see no better way to ex- 
 plain the origin and early life of Jesus than that given in 
 the Gospel of the Infancy. And the alternative theory 
 that Jesus was conceived in the ordinaiy way and received 
 the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as other men, except in 
 degree, seems to me utterly inadequate to explain the 
 facts. 
 
 For one thing, we are compelled to furnish some ex- 
 planation of the difference between Jesus, and John the 
 Baptist. 
 
 Arguing from analogy, it would seem necessary to 
 postulate some essential difference in heredity and pre-natal 
 influence to account for the uniqueness of Jesus. 
 
260 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Never does His uniqueness become more clearly mani- 
 fest than when He is brought into comparison with the 
 character and work of John. 
 
 According to the theoiy which we have been criticising 
 in these pages, Jesus and John were born under practically 
 the same conditions. They were kinsmen ; the families be- 
 longed to the same circle of religious beliefs ; the children 
 must have received much the same training. 
 
 John was a remarkable man — of this there can be no 
 question. We have the best of authority for according to 
 him a high place among the great men of the world. 1 He 
 was the culminating representative of a line of prophets 
 and thinkers who interpreted the hope and embodied the 
 spirit of Israel at its best. He gave to that inherited hope 
 a new interpretation — with most remarkable self-abnega- 
 tion, he sank his own personality behind the commanding 
 figure of Jesus, and in accordance with his mission prepared 
 the way for faith in Him by turning his own disciples into 
 the path of Christian belief. 
 
 Nevertheless, paying all possible honor to John, it is 
 yet saying little enough to affirm that Jesus was different 
 from him, and superior to him Jesus moved in a totally 
 different realm. 2 His conception of God, His interpre- 
 tation of the kingdom of heaven, His mode of life, the 
 method of His approach to people, the whole spirit and 
 atmosphere of His thinking differed toto cczlo from John's. 
 The most that can be said of John is that although much 
 was new in his interpretation of the prophetic message, he, 
 none the less belonged to the old era and never passed 
 into the new. He gave his disciples to Jesus, but he him- 
 self never became a disciple. 
 
 The least that can be said for Jesus is that although 
 
 1 Matthew, xi, II. 
 
 2 See Reynolds, John the Baptist, passim. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 26 1 
 
 there was much of the spirit of the prophets in His message, 
 He was the inaugurator of the new era, and altogether of it 
 Himself. 
 
 Now the most striking fact in this comparison and con- 
 trast lies just here, that John, with a touch of originality 
 due to his personal quality and a special divine endow- 
 ment, was the natural product of his heredity, his environ- 
 ment, and his training, while Jesus was not. 
 
 The careful and studied attempts which have been 
 made to connect Jesus with the mental life of His age, 
 while it has shown Him to be indebted to it for certain of 
 the raw materials of His thought, has only served to bring 
 into clearer relief the daring originality of His interpre- 
 tation and application of historic beliefs. 
 
 We come then to the question : How did Jesus come 
 to be so different from John ? John himself recognized 
 the difference between himself and his kinsman, and attrib- 
 uted it to a close relationship of the Spirit of God to the 
 life of Jesus to which he, Spirit-filled man though he was, 
 could lay no claim. Though both were children of 
 promise, yet Jesus was Himself so much closer to the 
 Spirit, that His ministry was to John's as fire to water. 1 
 How was this peculiar relationship of the Spirit to Him 
 constituted, and when did it begin ? That this peculiar 
 relationship to the Spirit of God was something that was 
 attained only at maturity in an instant of time at the Bap- 
 tism, I find it impossible to believe. That it could have 
 come to be otherwise than by the special implication of the 
 Spirit in all the processes by which Jesus came to be, I 
 find it equally impossible to believe. 
 
 I am not urging that the virgin birth alone and of 
 itself, can explain the uniqueness of Jesus, but that it is one 
 of the elements which must enter into the explanation, I 
 
 1 Luke iii, 15-17. 
 
262 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 cannot doubt. There is nothing in the two households to 
 explain why Jesus should differ from John except as one 
 individual of the same general class differs from another. 
 That the special relationship of the Spirit to two individuals 
 differing from one another only in a minor degree, is 
 enough to account for differences so world-wide is at least 
 opposed to what we know of God's method in dealing 
 with men. That there is much in the circumstances of 
 Jesus' birth, as related in Matthew and Luke, to account 
 for the phenomena of Jesus' character, seems unmistakable. 
 
 Jesus was a new creation in the midst of humanity. 
 This is all but universally admitted. But a new creation 
 in humanity implies a great deal. It implies this first, 
 that the physical organization of Jesus must have been 
 exceptional and extraordinary. There is a physical basis 
 of character. Exceptional men, especially those who have 
 deeply influenced their fellows, have had not only unusual 
 brain capacity, but a finely organized physical constitution. 
 The heights of power are reserved to those in whom body 
 and spirit are so exquisitely attuned as to make the one 
 the perfect instrument of the other. 
 
 That Jesus was exceptional in His physical character- 
 istics, is evident from many incidental touches, though the 
 disciples were very careful to leave on record no descrip- 
 tion of His appearance. But His looks, His gestures, His 
 attitudes in the presence of others, made a deep impres- 
 sion upon them, and evidently formed a part of His equip- 
 ment of power. That there was in His personal appearance 
 a unique combination of majesty and winsomeness, of the 
 divine and the human as inimitable and unexplainable as 
 in His character and life otherwise depicted, the account 
 places beyond doubt. 
 
 In addition to this, the spiritual nature of Christ must 
 have been, equally with His body, exceptional. Putting 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 263 
 
 aside the deeper mysteries of His nature, it is evident that 
 the super-material being of the human Christ, who was the 
 perfect organ of the eternal Spirit, must have been in 
 some sense a special creation of God. 
 
 The uniqueness of Jesus consisted essentially on the in- 
 ward side in the perfect clearness of His God-consciousness. 
 It does not seem too much to say that the very ground 
 work of the consciousness of Jesus was the Spirit of God. 
 
 " It is not the old Israelitish religious consciousness, 
 which lives in Jesus in such all determining fashion, but a 
 new, till then in the world unheard of, and perfect con- 
 sciousness, which not only is still unsurpassed, but in its 
 inwardness and clearness, never can be surpassed." 1 
 
 Outwardly, this uniqueness consisted, so far as its purely 
 spiritual quality is concerned, in the perfect surrender of 
 Himself to the will of God, and to the service of men. 
 
 In the history of a person thus constituted and born 
 into the world, pre-natal influence must have an important 
 modifying influence. 
 
 Human experience has established very firmly the 
 conviction that the maternal influence ?s dominant in the 
 transmission of human life. Great men, almost without 
 exception, have great mothers. Even children of great 
 men are apt to fall to the level of mediocrity unless there 
 is something above the ordinary in their mothers. 
 
 Along with this, we have learned to attribute much to 
 pre-natal influence. Those months, in which the life of the 
 child is a part of the life of the mother, are in an especially 
 important sense, creative. The mental and emotional life 
 of the child gains its direction and disposition not only 
 from the past of the race through heredity, but immedi- 
 ately through the influence of the mother's predominant 
 moods and emotions. 
 
 1 Beyschlag, Leben Jesn, p. 175. 
 
2t>4 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 Was there anything in Mary to account for the unique- 
 ness of her Son ? Looking at Mary herself, apart from 
 the recorded circumstance of Jesus' birth, I fail to see any 
 such preeminent greatness in her as would aid us in 
 accounting for Jesus. One would hesitate to do injustice 
 to the hereditary and natural reverence for the mother of 
 Jesus, but in the notices we have of her life, what qualities 
 does she exhibit that distinguish her, for example, from 
 Elisabeth ? She failed totally to understand her Son or 
 to accommodate herself to His interpretation of His own 
 career. Religiously she belonged to the school of John 
 rather than that of Jesus. She was certainly inclined to 
 interfere in the free development of His mission. She was 
 undoubtedly a blameless Jewish maiden of deeply religious 
 spirit, and if we have to add to this, that she was narrow 
 according to the limitations of her nation and of her age, 
 who shall be the first to condemn her ? 
 
 This seems to me a fair judgment of Mary apart from 
 the story of Jesus' birth, as told in the Gospel. Accept 
 this, however, and her whole career gains an altogether 
 new meaning and value. In one moral quality, it is likely 
 that Mary excelled her sisters, but it is due to the story 
 of the birth of Jesus entirely that we know it. 1 The dis- 
 tinctive historic glory of womanhood is in woman's power 
 of self-abnegation. In this, man has never been a com- 
 petitor on equal terms. Woman's contribution to social 
 advancement is perfectly evident. The industrial arts, the 
 occupations of peace, the spirit of unselfishness, the unity 
 and stability of home, the principle of self-control, — these 
 have been in large measure the gift of woman to the race. 
 The greatest triumph of evolution was the mother, and 
 through her the greatest social blessings have come. 
 
 The stress laid in Scripture upon the Hebrew mothers 
 
 1 See statement of Dr. Briggs, quoted p. 96. 
 
THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST 26$ 
 
 in connection with the promise, from the words spoken to 
 the woman in the garden, to the words of the angel of 
 the Annunciation, may be taken as an intuitive interpre- 
 tation of woman's vital connection with the spiritual evolu- 
 tion of the race. ' 
 
 If the Gospel story of Jesus' birth is true, Mary stands 
 discovered as the " ideal mother " delineated in Scripture, 2 
 for no other ever made so utter a sacrifice for the race as 
 she. In all the range of imaginable possibilities, can we 
 conceive of any service demanding such utter extinction 
 of self as that to which Mary was called, when the task 
 was laid upon her of bearing, as a virgin, the Saviour of 
 men ? She was a pure maiden. She had all the Hebrew 
 passion for purity and a pure maiden's jealousy for her 
 good name, transmitted to her through generations of 
 women, who had yearned for blameless motherhood, as 
 bearing within it the possible fruition of the promise 
 made to Abraham. 
 
 Yet, when this announcement was made to her, she 
 knew, she must have known, she could not have helped 
 knowing, that distrust and evil fame, open sneer, and 
 biting innuendo, would be her portion. We are made 
 witnesses to the recoil of her spirit in the timid question, 
 " How shall this be ? " And then to her submission to 
 the divine will, though dark and mysterious the behest. 
 " Behold the handmaid of the Lord ; be it unto me accord- 
 ing to Thy word." We are thus brought into the presence 
 of a self-abnegation immeasurable by any human mind. 
 She too, as well as her Son, had to endure the cross, 
 despising the shame, and, if it was for the joy that was 
 set before her, she could rise to the appreciation of it only 
 through the utter submission of her will to God. 
 
 1 See Dawson, Modern Science in Bible Lands, p. 207. 
 
 2 Cf. Beecher, Prophets and Promise, p. 333. 
 
266 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 It seems to me that we have here a true interpretation 
 of the antecedent and formative influences that conditioned 
 the entrance into life of the unique Man. 
 
 Viewed apart from the virgin birth, the life of Mary- 
 seems to me a sordid and meaningless tragedy. That 
 which really constituted Him the Son of God and the 
 Saviour of men took place outside her influence entirely 
 and apparently in spite of it, and all that she furnished to 
 Him, as equipment for His Messiahship, were hampering 
 limitations of thought and feeling, which He was obliged 
 to throw off in order to enter upon His true career. She 
 was not really the mother of the Christ. 
 
 But, on the other hand, viewed in connection with the 
 virgin birth, Mary is lifted into a sovereign place in the 
 life of Christ. He was formed as Christ and Lord, though 
 in humiliation within the circle of her life and the impress 
 of her consecration was upon Him. 
 
 The religious importance and value of her unique expe- 
 rience ought not to be forgotten in an estimate of the 
 formative influences in the life of Jesus. Without yielding 
 for a moment to any ascetic beliefs concerning marriage, 
 we may safely believe that there was something peculiarly 
 favorable to holiness of thought and life in the months of 
 sacred seclusion during which the child was borne be- 
 neath her heart. Certain it is, that if this story be true, 
 we have an aid to the understanding of the unique spirit- 
 ual quality of the life of Jesus. Mary gave to Him that 
 which was the ruling impulse and constitutive principle of 
 His entire life, in that she conceived Him in utter selfless- 
 ness and surrender to the will of God. God was to her, 
 in literal fact, the all in all of her sacred motherhood, and 
 from Him directly she received her Holy Child. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORIC FACT 
 
 The total outcome of our study thus far has been to 
 establish on a firm basis the general historical trustworthi- 
 ness of the Infancy narratives, which carries with it the 
 credibility of the most important assertion made therein 
 concerning the miraculous birth of Jesus. 
 
 We have tried to follow, carefully and candidly, the 
 theories which have been constructed, to account for the 
 narrative on the mythical basis and have, in every instance, 
 become involved in difficulties greater than those from 
 which we have escaped. 
 
 We are, therefore, compelled by logical necessity to 
 except the traditional interpretation of these documents as 
 the one among many rival interpretations most in harmony 
 with the facts. 
 
 It now remains to attempt the doctrinal construction of 
 the historic fact. What does the miraculous birth mean 
 for Christian faith, and what place is to be granted to the 
 affirmation concerning Christ's birth among our religious 
 convictions ? As contributary to clearness on this subject, 
 let us first of all consider certain a priori objections to the 
 doctrine of the virgin birth. 
 
 The first is made on scientific grounds. It is objected 
 that the virgin birth involves a breach in natural ordi- 
 nances, which we have been taught to consider sacred and 
 divine. l To this, I answer that a breach in those ordi- 
 
 1 Keim, vol. i, p. 53. 
 
 267 
 
268 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 nances has already been made in the bringing into the 
 world of the unique Man. Jesus Himself undeniably con- 
 stitutes an exception. He was beyond question a moral 
 miracle. 1 If He was sinless, certainly the continuity of ra- 
 cial development was violently broken. If one seeks es- 
 cape from this conclusion, which is logically inevitable from 
 the premises, by denying sinlessness in any complete sense 
 to Jesus, not only is the denial itself feeble and half-hearted, 
 but even if allowed to stand, the relief which it affords is 
 only partial ; for His uniqueness in self-consciousness, in 
 character, in life, and in ability to mediate the life of God, 
 still constitutes such an exception to ordinary human 
 character, as to leave the continuity of racial unfolding in 
 a seriously damaged condition. 
 
 Besides, we are entirely justified, on the basis of ascer- 
 tained fact, to claim exception for the bodily life of Jesus. 
 A moral miracle involves a physical miracle. All mental 
 processes involve molecular changes. The reformation of 
 a drunkard involves a readjustment of his entire physical 
 constitution. The birth into the world of a being like 
 Jesus, of such transcendent moral and spiritual qualities as 
 to set Him apart from the race to which He belongs, 
 involves a special divine activity in the formation of the 
 humanity, which He wears. The intimate blending of 
 body and soul, the necessary and constant interaction of 
 the two in one indivisible, personal life justifies no other 
 conclusion. 
 
 Moreover, if the record of Jesus' life is not an absolute 
 tissue of fables, His acts of power constitute an invasion of 
 these sacred ordinances, if such they are, very difficult 
 indeed to repair. There is need here for careful discrimina- 
 tion or we shall be going astray in the fog. Is it seriously 
 urged that there is any argument on scientific grounds 
 1 See Bruce, M. in Gospels, pp. 352. 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 269 
 
 against the miraculous birth which is not of equal force 
 against any miracle ? Is there any greater scientific objec- 
 tion to the statement that Jesus entered the world in an 
 exceptional manner, than to the statement that He left the 
 world in an exceptional manner ? As a matter of fact, there 
 is none except in just this one particular, that the fact of 
 the miraculous birth is capable of less extended verification 
 than other miracles. I cannot help the feeling that op- 
 ponents of the supernatural have looked upon the virgin 
 birth as offering opportunity for an easy victory, since in 
 the very nature of the case the number of witnesses is 
 small. The attack upon the reality of the Resurrection 
 has failed because of the fullness of the testimony. 1 There 
 are also, as we have seen, insuperable difficulties involved 
 in the mythical interpretation of the Infancy narrative. 
 
 The rise, publication, and acceptance of the story of the 
 miraculous birth is an unsolvable enigma, except upon 
 the supposition of a basis in actual fact. Against this 
 testimony, no cogent argument can be lodged on scientific 
 grounds. The real basis of objection is a naturalistic bias, 
 which applies equally to all manifestations of the super- 
 natural. 2 3 
 
 This bias is philosophic, not scientific. Much of the 
 
 1 On the subject of the Resurrection, cf.: Christlieb, Modern Doubt and 
 Christian Belief {Er\g. trans.), pp. 44S-467. 
 
 2 "From the scientific point of view the evidence required to establish any 
 • very wonderful event ' is essentially the same as that required for any other 
 historical event, only it must be scrutinized with special care, proportionate 
 to its antecedent improbability judged from that point of view. 
 
 "From the theological point of view our judgment on the ' miraculous ' 
 character of the event, where the fact of its occurrence is established, will 
 depend on the light which it throws on the character and purpose of God." 
 {Murray Cam. Fssays, p. 323.) No one can object to these principles, 
 but the hard and fast a priori determination that miracles are impossible 
 is a very different thing. 
 
 5 See note A, Appendix. 
 
270 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 current objection to miracles on alleged scientific grounds 
 is radically unscientific, because it is maintained by a 
 refusal under the influence of a philosophic notion of the 
 world to admit evidence, and it logically involves blank 
 atheism. 
 
 To the thorough-going theist, the possibility of miracles 
 is not an open question. The possibility of miracles is 
 involved in the theistic postulate. If there is a personal 
 supramundane God, then it is, of course, possible that 
 such a being at any time for reasons sufficient to His wis- 
 dom, may act directly upon the world and its ordinances. 
 Whether he has done so in any given instance is purely a 
 matter of evidence. And the man who is wise will not 
 allow any hard and fast a priori theory of the world to 
 blind him to the force of positive evidence under the mis- 
 taken notion that such an attitude is scientific. 
 
 There is no slavery comparable with mental bondage 
 to a false philosophic principle. It is positively pitiful to 
 see the struggle of men, 1 who are bound by the natural- 
 istic postulate that miracle is impossible, to interpret the 
 character and life of Christ. I cannot resist the conclusion 
 that Keim's theory of a special divine agency in the natural 
 birth of Jesus like his "heavenly-telegram" theory of the 
 Resurrection is of the nature of an impotent compromise 
 between his philosophic theory and the self-evident truth- 
 fulness of the narrative. 2 
 
 As a matter of fact, physical science as such has nothing 
 to say for or against the miraculous birth of Jesus. 3 If it 
 has anything to say at all, it is that an exceptional organ- 
 
 1 See Brace, H. of Christ, p. 216; Ibid, Miraculous Element in Gos- 
 pels, p. 98; see Keim, vol. ii, p. 127. 
 
 2 Cf. Brace, Apologetics, pp. 392-3. 
 
 3 Nor indeed against miracles as such. Cf. discussion by Fairbairn, Ph. 
 Ch. Religion, pp. 23, ff. 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 27 1 
 
 ism implies an exceptional life history. The uniformity 
 of nature has no bearing upon the question, for the uni- 
 formity of nature rightly interpreted means simply that the 
 same causes always produce the same results. It has 
 nothing to say about the hypothesis of a new cause in any 
 given instance, except to investigate it. 1 
 
 Nature herself is plastic, and introduces new methods 
 of operation. I once heard an interesting utterance of the 
 late John Fiske in reply to the old question : " Which is 
 first, the egg or the hen ? " Fiske replied : " Neither — at 
 
 1 The scientific aspects of the virgin birth of Christ have received con- 
 siderable attention at the hands of thoughtful men. Two views are espe- 
 cially worthy of note. Dean Fremantle in an address before the Church- 
 men's Union in October, 1901, made the following interesting remark upon 
 the scientific question involved: "In Darwin's book on the changes of 
 Plants and Animals under Domestication, he points out that Partheno- 
 genesis is found much higher than is generally known in the organized 
 creation, and he asks why the operation of the male is required, the germ 
 or ovum of the female being complete in itself. He answers that he can 
 give no reason except, probably, that force and energy are thus added. If, 
 then, the accounts in the Gospels — that is Matt, i and Luke i — are true 
 literally, the meaning of my suggestion would be that the yearnings of a young 
 Hebrew woman, longing with intense and holy desire to be the mother of 
 the Messiah (which longings were the direct action of the Holy Spirit) 
 excited and quickened the germ within her, and produced in this case what 
 is usually produced by the action of the male. This seems to me the only 
 meaning that can be got out of the words of St. Luke, unless you are to 
 ' invoke the word miracle.' " (See article in Con. R., vol. 84, p. 236.) 
 
 This is merely an attempt to give an explanation in terms of biology of the 
 simple statement of the Gospel that Jesus was conceived by the power of the 
 Holy Ghost. That the Gospel narrative itself attempts no such explanations 
 but rests upon the fact itself is one of the elements both of its grandeur and 
 power. Peyton in his book, The Three Greatest Forces in the World, Parti, 
 The Incarnation (London, A. & C. Black, 1905, pp. 130, f,) makes an elabo- 
 rate exposition of the subject, arguing that the virgin birth is not a miracle in 
 the ordinary sense, but simply " the exceptional operation of a natural law." 
 " She (nature) takes pleasure in variation. The virgin birth of Christ is ex- 
 ceptional, and we shall presently see how this large exception finds admis- 
 sion among other large exceptions in the scheme of nature, creating epochs 
 (p. 132)." 
 
2/2 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 the beginning of the series is a cell which has the power 
 to fold in upon itself and divide into two parts, each of 
 which becomes a complete individual." In a universe, 
 whose ordinances are so pliable as to make room for 
 reproduction by various processes from simple cell 
 division to mammiferous birth, there is room for an 
 exception, such as the birth of Jesus, in the interest of a 
 higher life for man. 1 If to the man of scientific temper, 
 the miraculous birth as a means of accomplishing the 
 Incarnation and beginning a new era in human history- 
 seems incredible, let him read the following extract which 
 exhibits the series of ascents by which the strictest science 
 interprets the movement of nature from lower to higher 
 forms and by which is laid the foundation of a " religion 
 of humanity." 2 
 
 " The ' religion of humanity ' runs back the genealogy 
 of man, with all his powers, with all his equipments, to the 
 dust of the earth. I hold in my hand a genealogy which I 
 wish you to compare with the genealogy of Luke. It is not 
 a satire ; it is not an irony. I have taken it from the pages 
 of Ernest Haeckel. It is true, I have condensed it from 
 perhaps a dozen pages, but in that condensation I have 
 followed precisely the line traced by the atheistic 'philos- 
 opher. What is omitted is simply the detailed description 
 of the several species in the genealogy. Let me read it : 
 ' Monera begat Amoebae, Amoebae begat Synamoebae, 
 Synamoebae begat Ciliated Larva, Ciliated Larva begat 
 Primeval Stomach Animals, Primeval Stomach Animals 
 begat Gliding Worms, Gliding Worms begat Soft Worms, 
 Soft Worms begat Sack Worms, Sack Worms begat 
 
 1 Cf. letter from Prof. Huxley quoted by Gore, Incarnation of the Son of 
 God, p. 266 and reference, p. 58. 
 
 2 Extract from an article by Dr. L. Abbott, quoted by van Dyke, Gospel 
 for an Age of Doubt, p. 410. 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 273 
 
 Skull-less Animals, Skull-less Animals begat Single- 
 nostriled Animals, Single-nostriled Animals begat Prime- 
 val Fish, Primeval Fish begat Mud Fish, Mud Fish begat 
 Gilled Amphibians, Gilled Amphibians begat Tailed Am- 
 phibians, Tailed Amphibians begat Primeval Amniota, 
 Primeval Amniota begat Primary Mammals, Primary 
 Mammals begat Pouched Animals, Pouched Animals 
 begat Semi-apes, Semi-apes begat Tailed Apes, Tailed 
 Apes begat Man-like Apes, Man-like Apes begat Ape- 
 like Men, Ape-like Men begat Men.' " 
 
 Another objection urged against the doctrine is that it 
 separates Christ from us by postulating a difference in the 
 mode of His conception and birth. I answer : Not unless 
 it is granted that the mode of His conception must neces- 
 sarily exercise a controlling influence in the formation of 
 His personality. The contention of those who oppose the 
 virgin birth, is that it is not necessary in order to explain 
 His exceptional character. That He is exceptional, is 
 granted ; the relationship of His birth to the distinctive qual- 
 ity of His personality is in dispute. It is affirmed that the 
 power of God acting upon the personality of the naturally 
 begotten Jesus would sufficiently account for Him. If this 
 contention is correct, then the mode of His birth, since it 
 has no determining influence upon His personality, is a 
 negligible factor in the interpretation of that personality, and 
 the mode of His birth could not have enough influence to 
 separate Him from us. Those who object to the virgin 
 birth on the ground that it is not necessary to account 
 for His divinity, ought not to object to it on the ground 
 that it destroys His humanity. There appears to be, in 
 the background of this argument, a notion that in order 
 to a complete humanity of Jesus, we must hold that He 
 was naturally derived from the race like the rest of us, 
 and that by divine election, and His own moral choice, 
 
 18 
 
274 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 He became the Messiah. It is strange that men, who 
 really hold this view do not see that they have surren- 
 dered the vital principle of the Incarnation. It is a fun- 
 damentally unscriptural Christology into which timid 
 thought has inadvertently fallen. And it offers no gen- 
 uine relief to the mind because it postulates not only an 
 exceptional personality, but also an exceptional experience. 
 
 As Soltau says, the miracle is still there. By boldness 
 in our affirmations, however, we shall save both His divin- 
 ity and His humanity. We boldly affirm that Jesus was 
 exceptional throughout, in the constitution of His being, 
 in the mode of His entrance into the world, in the quality 
 and compass of the powers within Him, in His moral con- 
 sciousness, in His character, in His mode of life, in His 
 departure from the world — and yet with equal tenacity, we 
 hold that by voluntary choice He lived a genuinely 
 human life, in dependence upon the Father, in struggle 
 with temptation, in weakness, sorrow, and death. 
 
 The meaning and glory of the Incarnation lie in this, 
 that while Jesus was exceptional, separated from us by 
 the breadth of worlds in His spiritual character and 
 moral life, He was yet, by the power of His mighty sym- 
 pathy, brought close to us, even drawn down into our 
 life, so that we touch Him as a brother and friend. In 
 view of all that Jesus was represented to be, the ob- 
 jection to His miraculous birth, which is but one item 
 in the total representation of Him, on the ground that it 
 constitutes Him an exception and removes Him from us, 
 cannot be allowed to stand. 
 
 The last objection, which I shall consider, is that the 
 virgin birth degrades our human life by assuming that 
 the Messiah could not have been brought into the world 
 except by a suspension of the natural processes by which 
 life is continued upon the earth. 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 2J$ 
 
 I do not pretend to know what God could or could 
 not do — I have not presumed to say that God could not 
 have brought the Messiah into the world by other methods 
 than the one which we think He chose. The reader, 
 who has followed the argument thus far, has noticed that 
 every a priori consideration, which has been urged in 
 favor of the received doctrine, has been introduced by the 
 saving process, " It seems, or it looks as if." There is no 
 place in such a discussion for dogmatic assertions as to 
 what God may or may not do. But that the doctrine of 
 the virgin birth has any tendency to degrade our human 
 life, or to cast discredit upon its sacred mysteries, I em- 
 phatically deny. 
 
 It is true that in the second century and onward, the 
 virgin birth was used to put a premium upon virginity, 
 and to lend support to the ascetic tendency in general. 
 It must be remembered, however, that the Gospel 1 was 
 not formed in that atmosphere, and that it did not create 
 the ascetic tendency, which was a natural reaction from 
 the corruptions of heathenism, while it offered the most 
 effective resistance to the Gnostic ideas of the corruption 
 of matter, and the most effective support to the doctrine 
 of a real incarnation. Among the historic influences of 
 the Infancy narrative, must be counted also an intensified 
 conception of the beauty of child-life, and the sacredness 
 of motherhood. 
 
 What then, does the doctrine of the miraculous birth 
 really imply as to the sacredness of human life and parent- 
 hood ? In the evoking of a new life upon the earth, it is 
 unquestionably true that human beings are permitted to 
 exercise a deputed divine function. God is Himself, in the 
 last analysis, the Creator of all living things. And yet, it is 
 a mediated connection, which He has with the origination 
 
 1 Matthew i, 25. 
 
276 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 of human life since the first creation. This function, the 
 highest and holiest which a created being is capable of 
 exercising, shares the imperfection and tendency to deteri- 
 oration which belongs to all things human. In fact, the 
 all pervading virus of sin has infected this holy mystery 
 of our being more deeply, and corrupted it more shame- 
 fully, than any other. 
 
 A train of unimaginable ills has followed upon its abuse. 
 Sometimes the divine element is reduced almost to noth- 
 ing. It would be an insult to God to call Him the crea- 
 tor, in any direct sense of multitudes of mis-begotten and 
 sin-cursed unfortunates, who are the embodiment not of 
 the divine creative power, but of human folly and crime. 
 Still, there is something of the work of God in the low- 
 est. Imperfect as human relationships are at their best, 
 God uses them as the instruments of His own power. 
 There is in every normally constituted human being an 
 individuality, an originality, which is the stamp of the 
 divine creative activity, the image of God. 
 
 The unfolding revelation of the Bible exhibits God's 
 purpose to sanctify and redeem the human family by mak- 
 ing it the means by which the great promise should be 
 fulfilled. The culmination of that process comes in the 
 birth of the Son of man of a human mother, but by the im- 
 mediate exercise of the divine creative power, God's own 
 sublime function reassumed in order to symbolize a new 
 beginning in human life, a new era in human history. Every 
 lower association was thereby removed, the veil of mystery 
 was for a time drawn back and God was revealed, not only 
 as the Father of Jesus, but as the creator of the race into 
 which Jesus was born. It is the clearest and most unmis- 
 takable revelation of the inherent sanctity of our human 
 life, and of the relationship upon which its perpetuation 
 depends. They were possessed of far keener insight, who 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 277 
 
 recognized that this doctrine was fatal to their dogma of 
 the inherent and unconquerable vileness of matter, than 
 they who find in it a reflection upon the sacredness of 
 human life, inasmuch as for the Messiah to be born by 
 the immediate power of God redeems unto sacred and 
 divine meanings, birth and parenthood, and the physical 
 life upon which these depend. He is not likely to degrade 
 this power, who understands and believes that it was 
 made the instrument, by the immediate power of the 
 Almighty, for the renewal of human life and the redemp- 
 tion of the world. 
 
 Having met the chief objections which are to be urged 
 on grounds of reason to the doctrine, it now remains for 
 us to assign a place and value to it among our other 
 beliefs. The most serious logical flaw in the usual argu- 
 ments against the virgin birth is the assumption that it 
 must be made the cornerstone of faith, or rejected as a 
 myth. 
 
 Soltau says ' that he would " gladly refrain from dis- 
 turbing the childlike faith of those who have given them- 
 selves up in heartfelt Christmas joy to the spell of these 
 unique legends — he would gladly refrain from this, if only 
 the demand were not made at the same time, in all its 
 coarseness, that the Christian, who, above all others, 
 wishes to claim this name, shall not only be obliged to 
 find in this story the foundation on which to build up his 
 own character, but also to make it the basis of the whole 
 of his Christian faith." 
 
 Soltau goes farther than this and rules out of the evan- 
 gelical ranks those who still hold to the Infancy narrative. 
 " An Evangelical Christian, that is to say, a Christian 
 holding fast in his religious convictions to the gospel of 
 
 1 Pp. 5, 6. See also Lobstein. 
 
278 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 the apostles, and of the apostolic school, is no longer 
 able to believe in the supernatural origin of Jesus." 
 
 Moreover, so sure is he that it must be abandoned in 
 order to maintain evangelical position that he hurls anath- 
 ema against all who would still retain the second article 
 as an ecclesiastical obligation. " Whoever makes the 
 further demand that an evangelical Christian shall believe 
 in the words, ' Conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the 
 virgin Mary,' wittingly constitutes himself sharer in a sin 
 against the Holy Spirit of the true Gospel as transmitted 
 to us by the apostles and their school in the Apostolic 
 Age." 
 
 Verily, these are bitter words ! It is very difficult for 
 an American Christian to understand the spirit of Soltau's 
 work. We do not thus anathematize and unchurch each 
 other. We should not deny the title, " Evangelical Chris- 
 tian," to any man of whatever creed who claims the name 
 and manifests the spirit of Christ, and we should naturally 
 expect a like charity from him. We should reserve the 
 right, which would be freely granted to him in turn, to 
 judge whether or not his theology is in accord with the 
 apostolic tradition according to our understanding of that 
 tradition. Whether he could agree with us in saying the 
 words of the creed would be for him, not for us, to deter- 
 mine, and we should allow him full liberty of assent and 
 dissent according to his own conscience. 
 
 But I wish to confute the presumption that the mirac- 
 ulous birth must be either the foundation for the whole 
 of our faith or a myth. Surely it may be neither the one 
 nor the other. Because a stone is not the cornerstone, is 
 no reason that it is not thereby resolved into a moonbeam 
 or a cloudbank. It may be solid and have an appropriate 
 place in the structure without being the cornerstone. The 
 cornerstone of our faith is the divine-human Christ in 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 2jg 
 
 the totality of His self- revelation. We are brought to 
 believe in the deity of Christ by the convergence upon it 
 of many radiating lines of evidence, by the fitting together 
 of many items of proof. The divineness of our Lord is 
 too large a conception to rest upon any one item of evi- 
 dence or proof. It is far too large to rest upon the mirac- 
 ulous birth. But this does not say that the miraculous 
 birth is a myth. The deity of Christ is too large a con- 
 ception to rest entirely upon the miracles, or the teachings, 
 or the Resurrection ; these are not, therefore, myths. The 
 apostles, especially Paul, seem to talk sometimes as if the 
 Resurrection alone were a proof of the deity of Christ, but 
 we know well enough that they silently appeal to all that 
 goes before the Resurrection. His resurrection would 
 mean little without His life and character. The corner- 
 stone of faith is Christ Himself. The miraculous birth, 
 the life, the miracles, the teaching, the Resurrection, are all 
 elements of His full manifestation, items in the proof of 
 His deity. Each one of these items has a value in pro- 
 portion to what it contributes to our understanding of 
 Jesus. l 
 
 1 The doctrinal significance of the miraculous birth has been persistently 
 underestimated by its opponents. Excessive emphasis upon it as the sole 
 or chief explanation of Christ's person, has worked out its usual results in 
 a reaction just as excessive in which its meaning and value are altogether 
 lost sight of. A careful study of the considerations urged by Dr. J. A. Dorner 
 in his great work on the History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ 
 would serve to modify and to correct that view in many minds. In the 
 following note, I have taken up the chief points in Dorner's discussion ; the 
 whole section, however, should be carefully read. 
 
 Lobstein affirms that the Infancy narratives involve the idea of a " phys- 
 ical filiation ;" that is, that the Sonship of Jesus is made to depend upon the 
 mode of His conception. This notion appears to have been adopted from 
 Dr. Dorner {His. Doc. Person of Christ, vol. i, Eng. Trans, pp. 52 seq.), but 
 without taking into consideration all that Dorner says. We have already 
 noticed in Chapter V, the objections to this interpretation of Luke. The Son- 
 ship of the Child is there made to depend more upon a unique relationship 
 
28o GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 The arguments from the comparative silence of Paul 
 and John have this force and this force only. They show- 
 that the virgin birth is not the cornerstone of our faith in 
 
 to God and the Holiness resultant therefrom than upon the physical agency 
 of God in His conception. Nothing is said in that verse about a miracu- 
 lous birth. The power of God is to overshadow Mary in her conception, but 
 nothing is stated as to the mode of that conception. 
 
 But there is another stronger consideration to be urged against Lobstein's 
 "physical filiation" theory, and any interpretations of the documents which 
 make Jesus' Sonship depend upon the mode of His conception. Dorner 
 says : "There are principally three meanings which the phrase itbg deov has 
 in these Gospels. The first we may call the physical (Matt, i, 23 ; Luke i, 
 35), because He has this name by nature, and on account of the mode of 
 His birth. Of John it is said, ' He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even 
 from his mother' s womb,' (Luke i, 15), where the existence of the person 
 of John precedes the filling with the Holy Ghost. Of Jesus it is said, because 
 He comes into being through the power of the Holy Ghost (Luke i, 35), 
 because He is conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost (Matt, i, 20), and 
 so is from a Divine Essence, He has the name Son of God (Luke i, 35, 32); 
 there is in Him God with us (Matt, i, 23); God has in Him redeemed His 
 people (Lukeii, 11), yea, all mankind (Luke ii, 14, 31); and He has become 
 the Son of mankind, who brings in a new morning (Luke i, 78); inasmuch 
 as in Him God is historically present. And it is not one of the natures that 
 has this name, but the entire Person. (Italics mine. ) " 
 
 Upon this last sentence, the whole notion that we are taught a "physical 
 filiation," breaks down. It will not, I suppose, be contended that the entire 
 person of Christ is made to depend upon the physical process involved in 
 His conception, however exceptional these may have been. This would be 
 traducianism gone mad. It is true that because He comes into being 
 through the power of the Holy Ghost, because He is conceived by the pow'er 
 of the Holy Ghost, and so is from a divine Essence, He has the name, 
 " Son of God ; " but this process involves more than a "physical filiation." 
 It would be incorrect and illogical to make the entire personality, physical 
 and spiritual, of any ordinary human individual to depend wholly upon the 
 physical process involved in His birth. Since there is an element in the in- 
 dividual for which physiology cannot account, so also must there be in the 
 process by which He comes to be something which physiology cannot ex- 
 plain. Much more is it incorrect to make the entire person of the unique 
 Man entirely dependent upon any process which can rightly be called a 
 "physical filiation." In other words, a part of the process has been al- 
 lowed to give its name to the whole. The miracle in the physical realm 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 28 1 
 
 Christ's divinity or sinlessness. To Paul, the Resurrection 
 seemed the central fact in the revelation of Christ, to Mark 
 the miracles, and to John the preexistence and higher 
 
 is the symbol of a process with the realm of the spiritual. The entire 
 being of Jesus was the special creation of God, but that process was some- 
 thing more than physical. There is, however, another serious objection to 
 this physical filiation theory of the miraculous birth. If conceivably, the 
 message of the angel to Mary might be interpreted thus, the teaching of 
 the Infancy section as a whole entirely transcends this point of view. As 
 Dorner says : " But what this is by nature and in itself, that must it become 
 through a truly human development. So far as He verifies and morally real- 
 izes this His natural Divine Sonship, we have, thereby, the concept of the 
 ethical Sonship of God (Luke ii, 52, 49, etc.)." In other words, the ethical 
 Sonship of Christ just as much as His natural Sonship has a place in the 
 Infancy section. Whatever may or may not be involved in the miraculous 
 birth, it is but one element of the interpretation of Christ in the section. 
 These two elements of the interpretation must be credited to the Infancy 
 narrative, and it becomes at once apparent that this consideration alone does 
 much to bring the Christology of the section into harmony with the rest of 
 the New Testament. I take it that Dorner does not mean by "physical 
 Sonship" what Lobstein means by "physical filiation," because the former 
 uses the phrase "physical Sonship " as the equivalent of " natural Sonship," 
 and he does not make his Sonship depend altogether upon the mode of his 
 conception. I have found nowhere else so clear an understanding and in- 
 terpretation of the relationship between the Christology of the Infancy nar- 
 rative and the rest of the New Testament. Connected immediately with 
 the sentence quoted above on the ethical Sonship he says : " That He also, 
 in this sense, perfectly represented the Sonship of God, was, for the time 
 preceding His public manifestation, attested by the utterance at His bap- 
 tism (Matt, iii, 17). But as, without the physical (natural) Sonship as a 
 presupposition, the ethical would be impossible, whereby He is the Holy 
 One of God, the Sinless man, come to bring, above all personally in Him- 
 self, the good, the divine law, into actual manifestation (Matt, v, 17), but 
 even on that account, in a perfectly human way, in a progressive manifes- 
 tation, advancing through conflict (Matt, xix, 16, 17 ; Mark x, 18 ; Luke iv, 
 13; xii, 49, 50); so, without both, the physical and the ethical, the third, 
 the official, would be impossible, which conversely is as naturally and nec- 
 essarily the end of both these, as the ethical is of the physical. This third 
 meaning of the phrase is indeed that commonly attributed to it as a desig- 
 nation of the Messiah by His cotemporaries ; but this will not justify any in 
 reducing the Christian idea of the divine Sonship within the meager limits 
 
282 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 consciousness. To the later church the miraculous birth 
 was important and for an excellent reason. Those who 
 are disposed to deny that any special providential aid was 
 
 of the Jewish ideas of the Messiah. If we would know what concept the 
 Synoptists and the first Christian churches had of Christ as God's Son, we 
 must not ignore the first two meanings ; if we do, we shall not obtain the 
 historical representation of their idea of Christ in its totality. It is when 
 we view them together, that we first come to conceive also His work. To 
 those united to Him by faith (which He desires to be faith in His Person, 
 Matt, xvi, 16, 17), He can, as He does, assume union with God only if 
 in Him there is God-with-us." 
 
 In this noble passage Dorner brings out certain facts which have not 
 always been kept in mind in the discussion of the doctrinal significance of 
 the birth of Christ. 
 
 In the first place a full consideration of the incidents narrated of the 
 Baptism reveals that Christ's whole previous life is implied. "This is My 
 beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased," indicates a previous obedience 
 (ethical Sonship) which is now rewarded by official recognition. The key 
 to the words of approval spoken at the Baptism is to be found in the words 
 addressed by the youthful Jesus to His mother in the temple : " I must be 
 about My Father's business." But having gone thus far, we are compelled to 
 go still farther. The key to the peculiar self-consciousness enjoyed by the Lad 
 at twelve years of age, lies in the dawning sense of a special relationship 
 which must be dated well back into the period of childhood, and can 
 hardly be said to find any adequate explanation short of the distinctly In- 
 fancy narrative of the Lord's birth. The story is consistent and the parts 
 hold together. If the Infancy narrative as a whole must go we have no 
 explanation of the Baptism. The whole official career of Jesus as Messiah 
 has no intelligible connection with His life before the ministry. We have 
 an abrupt, catastrophic beginning for the ministry of Jesus. It is a build- 
 ing without visible foundations. And it seems to me that the theory issues 
 in a practical depreciation of the importance of His non-ministerial life — 
 the purely human life of service and preparation — -which is very dangerous 
 in its tendency I have urged in another place that the incident in the 
 temple in Christ's youth is necessary to an adequate understanding of 
 the growth of His self-consciousness. Dorner links His whole Messianic 
 career to that incident in a way that is at once exceedingly striking and 
 suggestive. He is speaking of Christ's choice of the phrase " Son of man 
 as His own favorite self-designation. He thinks that while the phrase 
 may easily have been taken from Dan. vii, 13, 14, it does not offer any 
 explanation of His choice of that particular Messianic phrase. On 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 283 
 
 granted to the church will at least admit that she exhibited 
 a positive genius for occupying vital positions, and for 
 recognizing the near and more remote bearings of details 
 
 the contrary, this explanation is to be found in the peculiar quality of 
 Christ's self-consciousness as primarily divine, and secondarily human. 
 
 " This designation must be the product of a self-consciousness for which 
 the fact of human sonship, or being the Son of man, was not that which 
 lay nearest to it, a thing of itself, a matter of course, but that which was 
 secondary and superinduced. But if the self-consciousness of Christ were 
 so modified that His being human was presented to Him as something 
 secondary, then the primary thing in His consciousness must have been 
 something else, that which is expressed in John xvii, 5 ; and the original 
 wherein His self-consciousness knew itself immediately at home (comp. 
 Luke ii, 49), must, at least from the time, when He had Himself entire, 
 when His innermost reality came into being, have been divine." 
 
 We have then in the words spoken to Mary the primary consciousness 
 of Jesus in expression. The secondary consciousness of His human 
 nature comes later. " In this respect it deserves especial notice, that this 
 apparently humblest name first occurs in the time of His maturest con- 
 sciousness ; first, therefore, when His personal self-consciousness has been 
 perfected, and passes through means of the generic consciousness into the 
 official. " On the other hand this same consciousness rests upon the pri- 
 mary facts of His being. " In point of fact it is impossible that One, in 
 Whom the divine was the primitive and constitutive, should be only one 
 man among others, imperfect, or it may be, sinful like them. But in Him 
 pure humanity must be presented as it nowhere else is ; and that it may be 
 so, even the nvevpa ayiov(i. e., the Divine Essence) forms the constitutive 
 for the formation of His person. Since He calls Himself not a Man-son, 
 but the Man- son, also not the Son of a man, but the Son of man, there 
 lies therein of necessity, along with a perfect equality with others in what 
 is essential to humanity ; at the same time the intimation that He corre- 
 sponds more perfectly than the others to the concept of man, that He is 
 man of a nobler extraction, the pure Son of man." He also connects 
 this fact which manifestly rests in part upon the peculiarity of His birth, 
 Paul's doctrine of the Second Adam, who completes the creation of the 
 first. See note (p. 55). 
 
 It is thus seen that even from all points of view the Infancy narrative 
 cannot advisedly be omitted from the consideration of the Lord's person. 
 This historical fact has a bearing upon our Lord's self-consciousness and 
 upon the apostolic interpretation of His person which is far greater than 
 appears from explicit statements. 
 
284 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 upon the main fabric of faith. The miraculous birth was 
 defended and emphasized because the denial of it was 
 made upon grounds which, if admitted, imperiled the integ- 
 rity of the entire apostolic faith. The miraculous birth 
 was to the later generation of believers what the Resurrec- 
 tion was to the earlier — a vital and essential point. 123 
 
 The importance of the miraculous birth, admitted as an 
 historical fact, will be variously estimated according to 
 what one is able to find in it. To some of us it seems to 
 safeguard a complete and Scriptural Christology. 
 
 I fail to see any force in the attempt of Reville to force 
 an incongruity between the theory of preexistence and the 
 miraculous birth, for a real incarnation involves just the 
 completeness of surrender to human conditions as he denies, 
 and the alternative theory implies that the human person- 
 
 x This seems to me the truth involved in Sabatier's statement quoted by 
 Lobstein, p. 122. 
 
 2 Eusebius shows that the virgin birth was supposed to be involved in any 
 statement of the Incarnation (Con. Marcellum Ecc, Theo., li, II and ii, 4). 
 
 3 That any general affirmation concerning the Incarnation was considered 
 to involve the miraculous birth is seen clearly from this fact, that the Nicene 
 Creed, which is intended to be identical in every affirmation with earlier 
 creeds, except in the fullness of the second clause which affirms the consub- 
 stantiality of the Son with the Father, states simply that Christ "for us 
 men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh having become 
 man." That this sentence was interpreted as the exact equivalent of the 
 earlier phrase of the old Roman symbol, " Born of the virgin Mary," is 
 seen by the fact, first, that the clause was adopted without controversy as 
 it certainly could not have been, had it been intended as an innovation upon 
 previous belief. Second, by the statement of the Arian sympathizers at the 
 succeeding council of Antioch in 341, who endeavored to make a statement 
 acceptable to both parties to the controversy in which they affirm their belief 
 that Jesus " according to the good pleasure of His Father, came down, and 
 took flesh of the blessed virgin," etc. (Lumby, Hist. Creeds, pp. 55, 56, 
 Cam., 18S0. ) 
 
 We have here another proof for the affirmation made repeatedly in this 
 book that in the early ages no one denied the miraculous birth, who did not 
 at the same time deny either the deity of Christ, or the reality of the Incar- 
 nation. 
 
DOCTRINAL CONSTRUCTION OF HISTORIC FACT 285 
 
 ality of Jesus was completely formed and afterwards united 
 to the Eternal Logos. 1 
 
 I am convinced that a profound Christology, which is 
 in line with the apostolic affirmation, will find the miracu- 
 lous birth too valuable to be discarded. In harmony with 
 this is the critical investigation which points strongly to 
 its historical reality. 
 
 Lobstein 2 quotes with approval Godet's remark on 
 Keim's solution of the problem presented by the birth of 
 Jesus : " While holding the paternal concurrence in the 
 birth of this extraordinary Man, he admits a divine inter- 
 position which profoundly influenced and completely sanc- 
 tified the appearance of this Being. This attempt at 
 explanation is homage rendered to the incomparable 
 moral greatness of Jesus, and we think it leaves untouched 
 the great object of faith — Jesus Christ's dignity as the 
 Saviour." 3 
 
 Undoubtedly, this is true, but it suggests to one mind 
 at least the extreme probability that if the disciples came 
 so near to the truth as this in a question so mysterious 
 and profound, they spoke by the word of authority and 
 were altogether correct. 
 
 At least, we know that the New Testament writers made 
 the clearest distinction between the activity of God in the 
 giving of the sons of promise, and in the birth of Jesus. i 
 
 It seems to me that in the concession which Godet 
 accepts in such conciliatory spirit, Keim though without 
 knowing it, surrenders the vital point at issue and swings 
 bodily over to the historic position. 
 
 1 See discussion, Note E, end of volume. 
 See Lobstein, p. 133, note. 
 J P. 136. 
 
 s Cf. the acute observation of Martensen (Ckr. Dog., Eng. Trans., p. 
 276) on this theory which was also advocated by Schliermacher. 
 4 See the remarkable passage in Keim, vol. ii, p. 47. 
 
286 GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
 The statements of the first and third Evangelists stand 
 the test of critical examination, and the historic fact is 
 irreducible into legend or myth or dogma. The historical 
 fact each one must estimate and value for himself. At 
 least, we may, without ceasing to be intelligent and evan- 
 gelical Christians, hold to the historic faith and with sincere 
 and cordial assent repeat the words hallowed by ancient 
 use and melodious to the believing ear : I believe in Jesus 
 Christ, His only Son, our Lord ; Who was conceived by 
 the Holy Ghost, and Born of the Virgin Mary. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 NOTE A 
 
 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE DISCUSSION 
 
 There are certain features in the history of this discussion sufficiently 
 striking and important to demand some separate treatment. The general 
 trend of the discussion seems to have been widely misunderstood. The 
 confident tone of the negative criticism, the somewhat timid and indecisive 
 character of the defense, the weighty names which have been recorded 
 against the documents have contributed to the establishment of a wide- 
 spread conviction that the authority of the Infancy narrative has been finally 
 and completely shattered, and, that in all candor the church must submit 
 to the surrender of the documents and to the subtraction of the chief 
 statement contained in them from the sum of Christian beliefs. 
 
 On the contrary, we most seriously maintain that the critical assault 
 upon these sections is a failure, and that nothing more than a searching 
 review of the discussion thus far is necessary in order to exhibit the solid 
 basis for what must seem to many a most daring, not to say reckless, 
 statement. 
 
 At the outset, I should like to call attention to the suggestive fact that, 
 universally, tribute is paid to the beauty and sublimity of the Infancy nar- 
 ratives. 
 
 Even Soltau, who sneers at Luke as a historian, and makes of the Infancy 
 narratives as a whole a melange of pickings and stealings from all con- 
 ceivable sources, is constrained to speak of them as " those unique legends." 
 The attempt of Lobstein and others to save the narratives as Christian 
 poetry or doctrine having a high religious significance and permanent 
 spiritual worth though the product of the legendary temper, is a practical 
 admission of the same kind. It is difficult to understand, however, how 
 men can fail to see that the admission — that these narratives exhibit unique 
 moral and spiritual characteristics — inevitably modifies the problem which 
 they have to solve. The work which Cheyne makes in trying to account 
 for the transformation accomplished in the adaptation of the primitive 
 
 287 
 
288 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 legends as Christian narratives shows how difficult it is to maintain the 
 mythical hypothesis in view of the peculiar qualities exhibited by the docu- 
 ments. On the mythical hypothesis, they have undergone transformation at 
 the hands of men whose elevation above the moral atmosphere of heathen- 
 ism makes their susceptibility to heathen influence very hard to account for. 
 
 Moreover, concessions go a step farther than this. There is a wide- 
 spread tendency among negative critics to concede that the myth really 
 embodies a historic doctrinal truth. 1 Keim's theory that Jesus was really 
 supernaturally begotten though all the human agencies were present, which 
 was itself borrowed from Schliermacher, has been repeated under various 
 forms by several writers until it reached an ad absurdum climax in the 
 theory advanced by Mr. Eadham in the Academy for Nov. 17, 1S94. This 
 theory really involves the concession that the evangelists were right in the 
 fact which they state (*. e., that Jesus was supernaturally begotten), and 
 wrong in their statement of the method by which that result was accom- 
 plished. It is a curious vagary of opinion which would concede the New 
 Testament writers' ability to seize upon a transcendant fact which (upon 
 the mythical theory) was utterly beyond their reach save by some special 
 revelation or intuition, and at the same time attributes to them the weak- 
 ness of combining this fact with a puerile fancy of their own as to how it 
 was accomplished. It would seem that the same inspiration or intuition 
 which gave them the fact would also aid them in stating the mode of its 
 occurrence correctly. 
 
 These considerations, however, are comparatively unimportant. They 
 simply exhibit the difficulty involved in the supposition that these narratives 
 are of legendary origin. There is something of worth and reality in the 
 documents which negative criticism cannot get rid of and cannot account 
 for. 
 
 We pass to matters of larger moment. 
 
 Previous to the controversy over credal subscription, which was begun 
 in Germany in 1892, the criticism of the Infancy narratives was simply a 
 detail in the general attempt to reconstruct the history of the Christian 
 documents. It was one item in a general campaign. In this discussion it 
 cannot be said that the Infancy narratives suffered more severely at the 
 hands of the critics than other portions of the New Testament. The 
 general attitude of a critic toward the N. T. documents usually carried 
 with it a corresponding attitude toward the Infancy sections. 
 
 Strauss is quoted by Lobstein as the pioneer in the negative criticism of 
 the Infancy narratives, and this is correct. 
 
 But it is to be remembered that Strauss should not be quoted against 
 the Infancy section exclusively, insomuch as he was the assailant of every 
 cardinal fact in the New Testament narrative. It should be remembered, 
 1 Cf. W. P. Du Bose : The Gospel in the Gospels, 1906. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 289 
 
 also, that in the person of Strauss, Christian criticism committed suicide and 
 ceased to be Christian. The Tubingen theory of the origin of the New 
 Testament dealt impartially with all the documents, ranging them on the 
 one side or the other of the great Pauline-Petrine controversy according to 
 the alleged tendency of each. In this distribution, the Infancy documents 
 shared with the others, but suffered no more severely than they. 
 
 The great controversy over the strictness of credal obligations in 
 Germany concentrated the attention of critics upon the Infancy sections. 
 It cannot be said, however, that in the subsequent discussion the documents 
 really were given a fair chance. The struggle was for a freedom of belief 
 and doctrinal interpretation within churches adhering to the Apostles' 
 Creed, and the second clause was seized upon as a salient point of attack. 
 The feeiing engendered by this discussion was intense and the controversy 
 became exceedingly bitter. Soltau's book, in which he fiercely anathema- 
 tizes those who would make belief in the virgin birth a part of credal 
 obligation and denies the evangelical standing of those who accept the nar- 
 ratives in the historical sense, is a fair evidence of the state of mind of the 
 parties to this controversy. In such an atmosphere truth is bound to suffer. 
 Upon one who begins the study of this controversy without strong prejudice, 
 the impression that the Infancy narratives have been unfairly treated is 
 overwhelming. The genesis and the history of the controversy accounts 
 for the fact. The historicity and authority of the narratives, in which 
 occurs the statement of the virgin birth, were strategic points which must 
 be taken in the interest of an embattled liberalism. 
 
 Precisely analogous is the history of the discussion in England. The 
 controversy concerning the birth of Christ and the documents of the Infancy 
 was precipitated by the publication of the volume entitled, " Essays and 
 Reviews," by distinguished clergymen of the Church of England. This 
 book was a joint plea on the part of a number of men with advanced views 
 for a larger liberty in interpreting the historic creeds of the church. It will 
 be seen at once, I think, that in a controversy precipitated for the purpose 
 of gaining freedom from the pressure of over-tense credal obligation, the 
 document upon which is based the statement of the creed on the subject of 
 Christ's birth is in extreme clanger of not being treated on its merits. 
 
 Belief or nonbelief in the statement becomes the badge of a party. 
 Men come to the study with the strong bias engendered by a prolonged 
 and bitter controversy, and the tendency to follow other men without 
 reexamining the subject is very great. 
 
 In England, the controversy has been concerned not so much with the 
 historic trustworthiness as with the doctrinal importance of the statement. 
 The Contemporary Review for August, 1902, contains an admirable sum- 
 mary of the discussion in English church circles. The entire contention 
 of the article is that differences of opinion concerning the virgin birth are 
 19 
 
29O AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 compatible with loyalty to the Christian faith. This contention is supported 
 by citations from eminent thinkers of various shades of opinion as to the 
 importance, from a doctrinal point of view, of the historic statement. A 
 few quotations will bring the reader in touch with English thought on this 
 subject. 
 
 Dean Fremantle holds that the question concerning the mode of the 
 Incarnation is not of primary but of secondary importance. The Bishop 
 of Worcester, in a course of lectures on the Historic Trustworthiness of the 
 Gospels, says, concerning the virgin birth : " It was not a part of the 
 apostolic testimony, which was testimony to that which they had seen and 
 heard, beginning from the baptism of John until the Ascension." This 
 writer further contends that at no time was belief in the Incarnation asked 
 on the ground of the virgin birth. 
 
 Dr. Sanday says: "There is this difference between the virgin birth 
 and, for example, the Resurrection, that whereas the latter was fully 
 divulged and believed in by the church almost from the moment of its 
 occurrence, the former entered into the common faith slowly and by degrees, 
 and by a channel which was apparently private rather than public ; entered 
 into it we might say, by a side door (though as we believe by the express 
 appointment of the Master of the house) rather than by the broad public 
 entrance. If any one desires to claim the benefit of this difference, I 
 think we ought to let him ; only, on the other side when this is done, we 
 ought, I think, in strictness to set against the partial silence of the apostolic 
 age the very marked emphasis of the age that immediately followed that of 
 the apostles." These quotations might be multiplied indefinitely, but from 
 those already made the tenor of the whole discussion may be readily appre- 
 hended. There need be no hesitation in admitting the secondary importance 
 of the question of Christ's birth as compared with a central, all-embracing 
 doctrine such as the Incarnation, but that, with this concession freely made, 
 the historic statement of the Gospels is of greater importance than many 
 seem to think, is, to my mind, perfectly evident. With the utmost read- 
 iness to grant liberty of thought and interpretation within the church, 
 there are three considerations which should urge us to hesitate before yield- 
 ing to an attitude of indifference on the subject of Christ's birth. 
 
 The first consideration is the character of the criticism which has 
 resulted in such widespread repudiation of the Infancy narratives. It has 
 been said that the Infancy documents have not been fairly treated by 
 critics. I must refer the reader to the volume itself for extended evidence 
 for the truthfulness of this statement. At this point, I wish to call atten- 
 tion to just one item in the evidence. Much has been made on the negative 
 side of this question of the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke. 
 From Strauss to Gardner (in Contentio Veritatis) the two accounts have 
 been set against each other and forced into contradiction. 
 
author's notes 291 
 
 Now, let the reader suppose that, without any knowledge of a contro- 
 versy pending, he should come upon two brief documents occupying but a 
 few printed pages each, purporting to be the narratives of the same events, 
 but from different points of view. He finds upon examination that while 
 the two documents diverge in certain particulars, they converge upon six 
 chief statements of fact, upon which the significance of the entire series 
 of events depends. Then let him take up an attack upon 'the documents 
 such as Lobstein's, in which, first, all possible use is made of discrepan- 
 cies between the two narratives and then, second, the convergence upon 
 these chief statements is met by alleging that documents separately untrust- 
 worthy have little force in witness to common facts. What would be the 
 impression made upon his mind ? There could be but one, namely, the 
 impression made upon my mind by a wide review of the literature on the 
 negative side of this subject; that the documents have been unfairly treated. 
 What testimony to any great historic event could withstand the pressure of 
 such treatment ? What historic event, to which there is the testimony of 
 more than one witness, could be admitted ? It is my firm conviction, as 
 before expressed, that the same treatment which has been accorded to the 
 Infancy narratives would not only disintegrate the New Testament, but 
 leave most other historic documents a matter of shreds and patches. 
 
 This consideration is immeasurably strengthened by a second which I 
 would urge in demurrer to an attitude of indifference on this subject, 
 namely, the general critical position, in regard to the statements and docu- 
 ments of the New Testament, of those who plead for this larger liberty. 
 
 There is a delusion abroad in the land that many critics and scholars, 
 otherwise in harmony with the historic position of the church, occupy the 
 negative attitude toward this one item of traditional Christian belief. Who 
 are they, and where are their writings ? Personally, I do not know of one 
 conspicuous name which can be urged ■ against the miraculous birth alone 
 of the Christian statements. There may be and undoubtedly are some 
 English writers pleading for a liberty for others which they do not ask for 
 themselves, who agree, in occupying a negative position on this one 
 question. But in general, controversy over credal obligations both in 
 Germany and England involves not only the birth but the resurrection of 
 Christ. The men from Strauss onward, including Keim, Harnack, Lob- 
 stein, Soltau, Beyschlag, Cheyne, etc., who reject the miraculous birth, 
 reject also the doctrine of the preexistence, the physical resurrection, and 
 the ascension of Christ in the historic sense in which the church has always 
 held to these credal statements. The same criticism which has, in these 
 minds, discredited the Infancy documents has also broken down the testi- 
 mony to the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven. Let U3 
 see how the matter actually stands. 
 
 The Bishop of Ripon in his introduction to the Temple Bible under the 
 
292 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 head of Relation of Moral Supremacy to miraculous element, says : " Now, 
 in the common stock Gospel, the miraculous accessories connected with the 
 birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ do not find a place. These acces- 
 sories are found in the group of secondary witnesses, in narratives common 
 to two evangelists. Upon these, in the first instance, we have purposely 
 refused to lay stress ; our belief in Jesus Christ must be based upon moral 
 conviction not on physical wonder." 
 
 There is a good deal of confusion of thought in this statement, but the 
 general idea may, perhaps.be attained. It is, of course, true that rational 
 faith in Jesus Christ must be based upon moral conviction rather than 
 physical wonder ; but it is also true, that so far as the first disciples of the 
 faith were concerned, the moral conviction upon which their faith was based 
 was due in no small measure to the physical wonders through which the 
 moral qualities of love, compassion, and benevolence, which distinguished 
 the Christ were revealed, and I am not convinced that the case is materially 
 changed even now. The "common stock Gospel" theory has been 
 refuted often enough and need not detain us now. But there is still more 
 serious confusion to resolve. What does the Bishop mean by the "miracu- 
 lous accessories" of the birth and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which are 
 testified to by two evangelists? So far as the birth is concerned, the 
 miraculous birth itself must be meant, for that is supposedly testified to by 
 only two of the evangelists. But as to the Resurrection, the case is different. 
 The empty tomb is testified to by all four evangelists (Mark, ch. xvi. Mat- 
 thew, ch. xxviii; Luke xxiv, 1-3; John, ch. xx); the vision of the angels is 
 testified to by three witnesses (Matthew xxviii, 8-10 ; Mark xvi, 5-7 ; Luke 
 xxiv, 4-8) ; the meeting of Jesus and the women by two witnesses (Matthew 
 xxviii, S-10; Mark xvi, 9). The visit of Peter and John to the tomb by two 
 witnesses (John xx, 3-10; Luke xxiv, 12). The appearance of Jesus to 
 Mary Magdalene is supported by two witnesses (John xx , 11-18; Mark, ch. 
 xvi). The appearance of the Lord to Peter rests upon two evangelists and 
 Paul (Mark xvi, 12, 13; Luke xxiv, 13-35; I Cor. xv, 5). The appearance 
 in the midst of the apostles in the absence of Thomas is spoken of by three 
 evangelists (Mark xvi, 14-18; Luke xxiv, 36-49 ; John xx. 19-23). 
 
 The appearance to the apostles when Thomas was present is spoken of 
 by John only (John xx, 24-29). The appearance to seven at the Sea of 
 Tiberias is testified to by one evangelist, namely, John. Again, the meeting 
 with the apostles and the five hundred in the mountain of Galilee is testified 
 to by one evangelist and corroborated by Paul (Matthew xxviii, 16-20 ; I 
 Cor. xv, 6). 
 
 Now if by "miraculous accessories " the Bishop refers to the things 
 which are testified to by two evangelists or less, everything goes save the 
 empty tomb, the women's vision of the angels at the tomb and the appear- 
 ance to the apostles in the absence of Thomas. These statements seem to 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 293 
 
 belong to what is called " the common stock Gospel." Perhaps it is unfair 
 to draw inferences from statements so loose and inexact, but the general 
 impression made upon one's mind by the sentences is that the miraculous 
 birth and the miraculous physical resurrection are alike rejected as lacking 
 in confirmation at the hands of the evangelists. At least we are justified in 
 inferring that the Bishop is uncertain in his belief as to the reality of the 
 " physical " resurrection, — that, like the virgin birth, is a " miraculous acces- 
 sory." 
 
 Cheyne's general attitude toward the whole question is seen in his book 
 (P>ilde Problems) , in which he takes the four statements of the creed, the Virgin 
 Birth, the Descensus, the Ressurrection, and the Ascension, all done-over hea- 
 then myths. This scholar' s attitud e is also seen by the fact that the articles in the 
 Ency. Bib. (of which he is an editor) on the Gospels and on Mary were written 
 by Schmiedel, who holds that we have but five absolutely credible passages 
 about Jesus in general in the Synoptic Gospels. 1 Harnack denies the reality of 
 the physical resurrection and the preexistence of Christ in anything but an 
 ideal sense. Prof. Sanday (quoted above) and Rice (in Christian Faith in 
 an Age of Science, p. 358) hold that the miraculous birth and the Resur- 
 rection are not equally supported by evidence. That the arguments for the 
 Resurrection are so much stronger that the two statements do not belong in 
 the same class. One would expect, therefore, that in many instances the 
 reality of the Resurrection would be held by many who reject the narra- 
 tive of the birth. There may be such, but they are not sufficiently prominent 
 to have made any visible impress upon the literature of the subject. Gardner 
 in "A Historic View of the New Testament" maybe taken as a fairly 
 chosen exponent of the negative attitude toward the miraculous birth. 
 Taking up once more a passage, a part of which has been quoted already, 
 we find this statement: " In the early church the two views which dated 
 the divine origin of Christ, the one from His birth, the other from His 
 baptism, were rivals. It was only by degrees that the former was estab- 
 lished as orthodox, and the latter branded as heretical." Now, this 
 last statement should be qualified by another, that this conflict does not 
 appear in the New Testament, and that the church had no hesitation in 
 choosing between the rival theories from the moment that it appeared that 
 the dating of Christ's divine origin at the Baptism was due to notions which 
 denied any reality to the Incarnation. But the most significant statement is 
 to come. After having brought into artificial opposition the story of the birth 
 and the story of the Baptism, the writer coolly throws both of them aside. He 
 says : "In fact, both the tale of the miraculous birth and the tale of the 
 miraculous baptism are early and somewhat crude attempts of the Christian 
 Church to give embodiment to the great idea of the Incarnation." We are 
 not surprised to find after this that Professor Gardner holds a "continuous 
 spiritual presence" theory of the Resurrection, which denies any objective 
 ^ncy. Bib. pp. i88if. 
 
294 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 historic reality to the occurrence to which the disciples testify. If any one 
 supposes that the story of the miraculous birth is rejected by these men on 
 the ground solely of a lack of adequate testimony, Gardner's book alone 
 would be sufficient to dissipate that notion once and for all. He refers to 
 the oft-quoted statement of Mr. Huxley's, that on the basis of his scientific 
 experience he would be prepared to accept a partheno-genesis if adequately 
 supported by testimony, and then clearly intimates that the great scientist 
 has yielded to a momentary impulse to credulity which the writer could not 
 share nor sympathize with — in other words, that no amount of testimony 
 would convince him of the reality of the occurrence. This statement of 
 Gardner (which follows very closely the one quoted above) is conclusive 
 evidence of the fact that his attitude on the subject of the birth story is due 
 not to any specific weakness in the narrative itself but to a settled and 
 resolute attitude of dislike and incredulity toward the miraculous in general. 
 And what is true of Gardner is characteristic of the negative school as a 
 whole. The real underlying vital question is not whether the testimony to 
 the miraculous birth is on an equality with other statements of the New 
 Testament, but whether any testimony could be accepted as adequate for 
 the establishment of such an occurrence. So far as the Infancy naratives 
 are concerned, they have not been studied with an open mind, but under a 
 pre-judgment due to the influences of a comprehensive philosophical dogma. 
 It seems to me perfectly clear from the history of the discussion that the 
 critical principles which compel to the rejection of the Infancy narratives 
 would carry one to a negative position as to the trustworthiness of most of our 
 Christian documents. 
 
 Once more I urge as a demurrer against yielding to a position of indif- 
 ference on this question, the sacredness of a historic fact, all doctrinal 
 considerations apart. The English controversy has centered about the 
 question of the importance of the virgin birth in the realm of Christian 
 dogma. It has been asserted by the whole liberal school with vehement 
 asservation that whether fact or not, the mode of Christ's birth is a matter 
 of secondary importance. It is the whole question of the kernel and the 
 husk, the form and the essence of a Christian doctrine. There is undoubtedly 
 a distinction between the form and the essence of any human statement of 
 truth, but for the sake of clearness of thought, it is needful to ask ourselves 
 just how this distinction applies and to what sort of statements it is legiti- 
 mately applicable. It is certainly applicable to such a difference as exists 
 between the Atonement and Anselm' s theory of the Atonement or between the 
 Incarnation and Athanasius' or Godet's interpretation of it. The Atonement 
 is an eternal fact, the substitutionary or moral influence theory of it is form 
 But what possible application has this distinction to the question of the Lord's 
 birth ? This is a simple historical statement which is either true or false. 
 The distinction is made in the phrase " the Incarnation and the mode of it," 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 295 
 
 but the distinction does not hold. No matter how often the statement is 
 repeated there is no evidence to show that in the minds of the New 
 Testament writers, the virgin birth was a theory constructed to explain the 
 Incarnation, and hence, a temporary or provisional form of statement for an 
 essential truth. In point of fact, the statement of the Incarnation was a 
 subsequent development. The historical order was not, first, the conception 
 of the great fact of the Incarnation and then as a derivative and explanatory 
 notion of the virgin birth, but first the virgin birth along with the other facts 
 of Christ's life and, then, as a corollary and derivative from all these facts, 
 the doctrine of the Incarnation. The theory of the Incarnation was the 
 gathering together into one explanation of the whole substance and detail 
 of Christ's self-revelation. 
 
 Now, as a supposedly historic fact, based upon testimony, the virgin 
 birth has a different standing and a different relationship to the essence of 
 Christianity than any dogma however important. If we once get the right 
 point of view, this will at once become self-evident. President Rush 
 Rhees, of Rochester University, said, in a recent number of the Biblical 
 World, that we must in all candor admit that the virgin birth of Christ 
 " contains nothing essential to the loftiest Christology. " 
 
 Now, there is a point of view from which this contention urged by so 
 many is true, there is another from which it is utterly incorrect. From the 
 view point of a practical religion, it is true that a man may possess a lofty 
 Christology without so much as considering, let alone believing in the 
 virgin birth. A man may adore and follow Christ, in the fullest sense 
 accepting him as Lord, and thus be the possessor of the loftiest Christology, 
 who cannot give, to save his life, a connected account of one scene in the 
 earthly life of the heavenly Lord whom he loves and serves. The 
 absence from this man's mind of any one incident of the Lord's life may 
 not detract from the clearness or the splendor of the vision in which he 
 lives. I hold that there are many men — among them I do not scruple to 
 name Martineau — who follow the heavenly Christ even though they have 
 dealt severely and even savagely with the records of Christ's earthly life. It 
 cannot be too often emphasized in the interests of Christian charity that the 
 possession of the heavenly life is in a measure independent of the possession 
 of a reasoned theology. Life is first, reasoning upon it second. One may 
 have the first and never reach the second. 
 
 But there is another view-point than that of the plain religious man to 
 whom theology is naught, and it is worthy of careful consideration in this 
 connection : The view-point of the thoughtful theologian, to whom the 
 things of God form the subject of lifelong study. The scientific and 
 constructive student of the life of Christ ought not to be altogether over- 
 looked and from his point of view every ascertainable fact is sacred and 
 essential. Science has at least taught us that all fact is sacred. The 
 
296 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 number of quills in a bird's wing matters little to one who is rapt merely in 
 delighted contemplation of its flight, but to the scientist it is a matter of 
 vital moment ; whether ants have a queen or not means little to the 
 business man, but we know that the last hours of a dying scientist were 
 sweetened and consoled by the thought that he had discovered the long 
 hidden secret of ant life. 
 
 Whether Christ was born at Nazareth -or Bethlehem, conceived by the 
 Holy Ghost or brought into the world through the paternal agency of Joseph, 
 may seem to be a secondary matter from the view-point of religious senti- 
 ment, but to the careful student it is a question which he has no right to 
 leave until he has reached a firm conviction. The fact, whatever it may be, 
 is sacred and divine. Agassiz put the truth once for all when he said, " A 
 physical fact is as sacred as a moral principle." 
 
 And the connection between historic facts and the essence of Christianity 
 is a closer and more vital one than may at first sight appear. 
 
 Cheyne has a great deal to say about the relationship between form and 
 essence, and he quotes with hearty approval certain words of Baron von 
 Hiigel in his work, " Du Christ Eternal et de nos Christologies Successives," 
 (1904), from which I wish to take a few sentences for their bearing upon 
 the question now under review. "The idea of the Incarnation supposes 
 and contains, on the one hand, a limited series of historical phenomena, on 
 the other, an unlimited reality and power which can be reached and which 
 communicates itself to us across these phenomena." He further holds that 
 these phenomena are to be dealt with by historical methods. He continues, 
 and this is the expression with which we are especially interested : "Let 
 criticism do its work. Upon its completion there will still remain unde- 
 batable facts enough for the needs of religion." Ah, then, some facts are 
 needful for religion! There is an imaginable line, beyond which, if 
 criticism should carry us in denial of the "historic phenomena" of Chris- 
 tianity, religion would be no longer possible. 
 
 The one thing needful for religion is a Saviour who is adequate to the 
 task which our human sin and need put upon him. But how do we know 
 that Jesus is such a Saviour ? The " historic phenomena " form our warrant. 
 The Christian man has been in the habit of saying that the ground of our 
 faith in the Saviourhood of Christ is that he was such a being, as exhibited 
 in His birth, in His life, in His teaching, in His miracles, in His death, in His 
 resurrection, in His ascension, as could do for us what we need to have 
 done. But this warrant lies in the region of "historic phenomena," and 
 we must wait for criticism to do its work before we can be sure how many 
 facts we may have. Von Hiigel is sure that we shall have facts enough, 
 but we should like to know what the warrant of this confidence is. The 
 history of the negative criticism of the New Testament is no sufficient 
 guarantee of this happy issue. Had there been, during past years, noth- 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 297 
 
 ing but radical criticism presented to the world, Christianity would have 
 long since been bankrupt so far as "historic phenomena" are concerned. 
 To mention Strauss again, the critic left not enough " historic phenomena " 
 even for his own soul to find a resting place within the faith, and was 
 obliged to surrender the name of Christian. The author of Supernatural 
 Religion, who never had the courage to give a father to his attack upon the 
 faith of his countrymen, left not enough historic phenomena to form any 
 reasonable ground of assurance to one who would be a rational Christian. 
 Faith was saved, under God, by patient, learned scholars of the " Apologetic 
 Camp" such as Weiss, Tholuck, Godet, and Lightfoot who battled for the 
 Christian facts and gained them back one by one until, from the ruins that 
 Strauss left, we have come to the point that Harnack is constrained to 
 admit that in its main outlines the life of Christ is beyond the reach of 
 question. And the points at issue in much of this controversy are, to be 
 sure, historical phenomena, but phenomena with which essential Christianity 
 is bound up, for the historic phenomena form a part of the revelation of the 
 Son of God. What He is forms the vital essence of Christianity and what 
 He is these things help us to know. If we give up the miraculous birth, the 
 resurrection, the ascension of Christ, as nonessential to Christianity, have 
 we left creditable witness to the facts, adequate to bear the strain of a belief 
 in the Incarnation of the Son of God ? We might conceivably give up 
 one, but the critical principle which takes one of them will make a clean 
 sweep of them all. 
 
 But is not our contention justified, that the birth statement must be 
 studied first of all as a fact because if it is a fact, it is divine, and sacred, 
 and essential ? The loftiest Christology, be it always remembered, is that 
 which is true to all the facts. If this statement is correct, we are entitled 
 to call the specific critical assault upon the birth narratives a failure because 
 the critical presupposition which it demands carries the critic too far and 
 lands him in an attack upon the New Testament documents all along the line. 
 
 The bias under which this discussion has been conducted is well illustrated 
 by Lobstein. In the note appended to his book, in which he furnishes a guide 
 to the literature of the subject, he speaks of those who occupy the negative 
 position as the "historical and critical school," and of those who have 
 defended the documents as belonging to the "Apologetic Camp." He 
 does not say, but most clearly implies that it would be impossible for a 
 historical and scientific scholar to stray into the "Apologetic Camp." 
 
 There is no necessity of feeling hurt at such designations. Adjectives 
 are cheap. But I am anxious to reach a definite and satisfactory conclusion 
 as to what constitutes a historical and scientific criticism. It would seem, 
 on general principles, that a historical and scientific criticism would be a criti- 
 cism based upon documentary evidence, and candid and careful examination 
 of all the facts ; a criticism free from prejudice and leading to some definite 
 
298 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 conclusions. It was something of a surprise that a scholar, who has 
 reached favorable conclusions upon the authenticity and authority of the 
 Infancy is thereby necessarily excluded from the class of scientific and his- 
 torical critics and passes into the "Apologetic Camp," that expression mean- 
 ing, I suppose, that he is classed as a defender of the documents at any cost 
 to science and history. Such an arbitrary definition has its advantages, for 
 without it some opponents of the Infancy narratives might fail of recogni- 
 tion on any other basis than their negative position as scientific and 
 historical. Some of the theoretic vagaries indulged in by the negative 
 school on this question of the Infancy narratives almost surpass belief. 
 
 Is Soltau, for example, " scientific and historical " when he takes it for 
 granted that because in the year A. D., 66, Tiridates and certain Magians 
 came on a visit to the Emperor Nero, that therefore, of necessity, Matthew's 
 account was an adaptation of that incident ? 
 
 Is Schmiedel (See En. Bib., Art. Gospels) historical and scientific when 
 he cites the statement of Philo concerning the miraculous origin of the sons 
 of promise without calling attention to the fact that such statements were 
 purely and deliberately allegorical and so understood by all who were 
 intelligent enough to become acquainted with his writings : or when he 
 derives from the arguments of the apologist Justin with a Jew, in the 
 middle of the second century, after the connection of Christ's birth with 
 the Immanuel passage had become fully established in Christian thought 
 and the meaning of the passage had become the only disputed question, 
 a theory as to the origin of the virgin birth from the passage, which must 
 have taken place at least two generations earlier? 
 
 Is Lobstein himself historical and scientific when he deftly evades the 
 question of chronology which is the crucial difficulty of his whole theory of 
 the origin of the virgin birth statement ? 
 
 Is Beyschlag scientific when he admits a historic basis to the entire 
 nexus of events recorded in the Infancy narratives, and without any adequate 
 reason denies the reality of the miraculous birth itself, making of the 
 narrative sober history with one wretched bit of mythological tinsel embroid- 
 ered upon it? 
 
 Is Conrady scientific and historical when he not only makes the simple, 
 direct, straightforward, historical narratives of the first and third Gospels 
 an elaborate, subtle, Hebraized transformation, in every detail, of the Osiris- 
 Isis Egyptian myth, but also, in order to fortify this grotesque theory makes 
 the twofold Gospel narrative a derivative from the Protevangeliuni of James, 
 which, practically every one else who has ever read it recognizes to be 
 from one to two generations later ? 
 
 Is Reitzenstein historical and scientific when he takes a ragged bit of 
 Egyptian papyrus which cannot be traced farther back than the end of the 
 second century, with a corrupt text and meaningless narrative due evidently 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 299 
 
 to a complete doctrinal misunderstanding and makes it the immediate 
 derivative and representative of an older and more authentic document than 
 our Gospels ; and derives the canonical narrative from this nameless and 
 hypothetical document in the existence of which we have no sure ground 
 of believing at all ? 
 
 Is Cheyne scientific and historical when he repeatedly goes beyond the 
 documentary evidence in the support of his theories ? He claims a defi- 
 niteness for the Messianic expectation during the period immediately 
 before the coming of Christ (p. 73), for which there is a conspicuous lack 
 of documentary evidence, and he also alleges, in the absence of direct 
 evidence, the existence of myths which are needed to account for a biblical 
 statement in accordance with his theory. 
 
 Is Cheyne critical and historical when he seriously urges a parallel 
 like the following? (Cf. pp. 88 and 106) : " I will confine myself here to 
 mentioning one remarkable traditional story which cannot very well be passed 
 over, that of the Babylonian King Sargon of Agade, who flourished 
 about 3800 B. C ? It is a legend of mythic origin, and represents the great 
 king as having been born of a poor mother in secret, and as not know- 
 ing his father. There is reason to suspect that something similar was origi- 
 nally said by the Israelites of Moses, and would it be strange if a similar 
 account were given of the birth of Jesus Christ, the second Moses ? " (P. 86.) 
 
 This brilliant bit of parallelism suggests a question as to the necessity 
 of going so far afield for analogies. This may be scientific and historical 
 criticism, but to the uninitiated it looks far more like what Cheyne de- 
 scribes as a" substitute for history addressed to the pious imagination." 
 (P. 92.) 
 
 The imagination seems to have had a more important part in the forma- 
 tion of the theory than either the historical or scientific sense. 
 
 But, the negative criticism, as has been intimated before, is open to 
 attack in another way. It has issued in an inescapable tangle of mutual 
 contradictions. It is, of course, necessary to remember the limits to the 
 fair use of this argument. Bossuet's argument against the Reformation 
 drawn from the Variations of Protestantism and George Henry Lewes' s 
 argument from the History of Philosophy that philosophy is impossible, 
 are alike open to the objection that they ignore all positive results, and 
 treat only of differences of opinion without recognizing the solid element 
 of unanimity which underlies the variations both of philosophy and of 
 religion. But for the negative criticism of these documents we can make 
 no such allowance. The critics differ not merely as to the interpretation 
 of facts, but also as to the facts to be interpreted. They agree in nothing 
 save dislike and depreciation of the documents. Their theories are 
 mutually destructive. Let us take up a few details under this general 
 statement. 
 
300 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 One of the major arguments of the opponents of the narratives is that 
 the two are in contradiction. It is claimed that they cannot be reconciled. 
 Lobstein affirms that they differ in the very bond that unites them. I have 
 urged that this contradiction is forced and artificial, the result of hostility 
 to the documents, not the cause of it. 
 
 O. Holtzmann says : * " Between these two accounts of Matthew and 
 Luke, no contradiction exists, even with regard to the localities there is 
 no reason to suppose any." With one stroke of the pen in this sentence 
 the writer expunges the work of his predecessors in undermining the trust- 
 worthiness of these two narratives. If the narratives do not conflict, the 
 opposition to them receives a checkmate and here is a critic who denies the 
 authenticity of the narratives and does not believe in the miraculous birth, 
 but who denies the validity of the argument drawn from alleged discrepan- 
 cies. Beyschlag, as has already been stated, admits a historical basis to 
 the entire narrative of the Infancy, and Holtzmann admits that there is no 
 reason to question the substantial historicity of the narrative of the visit to 
 Jerusalem at the age of twelve, both without apparently recognizing the 
 logical implications of this admission as to the character of the documents 
 under discussion. 
 
 But, of course, these are mere opinions and somewhat arbitrary opinions 
 at that. The contradiction goes far deeper than this. It appears in 
 connection with Isa. vii, 14. This verse may be said to have played the 
 part of the protagonist in almost all the theories which have been built to 
 account for the rise of the Infancy narratives. It is not too much to say 
 that from Strauss to Hacker, who writes in the February (1906) number of 
 Hilgenfeld's Journal (Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie), that nine 
 out often of these theories 2 absolutely require the assistance of Isa. vii, 14 in 
 order to stand. 
 
 It is interesting, therefore, to discover that Cheyne absolutely rejects the 
 use which has been made of this text by his predecessors, including Prof. 
 Harnack, whom he mentions by name. He claims that not only does the 
 mistranslation (?) of Isa. vii, 14 fail to account for the idea of the virgin 
 birth, but is itself a phenomenon to be accounted for. 
 
 He urges that Isa. vii, 14 is useful for the purpose of accounting for the 
 idea of the miraculous birth only as the part of the general theory of a 
 Messianic " dogma," which controlled the apostolic interpretation of Jesus. 
 Of this more hereafter, but at this point I wish to call attention to Canon 
 Cheyne' s explanation of the use in Matt, i, 22 of the Immanuel passage. 
 He says : " As for the quotation in Matt, i, 22, it is perfectly well accounted 
 for as one of the subsidiary biblical proofs which were habitually sought 
 
 1 Life of Jesus, Eng. Trans., p. 85 . 
 
 2 As for example those of Keim, Lobstein, Soltau, Harnack, Conrady, 
 Beyschlag, etc. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 3OI 
 
 for by the evangelists. The real supports of their statements were traditions 
 of one kind and another, but their belief in the written word of prophecy 
 led them to look for a justification of these statements in the prophetic 
 Scriptures, and with this amount of justice, that sometimes the traditions 
 and the prophecies had a common origin." He quotes with approval 
 "another scholar" (Dr. A. Wright), who says : "We cannot allow that 
 this error gave rise to the doctrine. In this as in other cases where 
 quotations from the Old Testament are introduced. .... the quotation is 
 later than the context (Synopsis Introd., p. xli). " 1 
 
 By this sentence the vast majority of theories which the critics have 
 elaborated with such patience and learning are thrown into ruin. 
 
 Now let the reader place over against each other this statement of 
 Cheyne's, in which Isa. vii, 14 is thrown aside and Harnack's statement in 
 which the theory of heathen origin is dealt with in the same summary way, 
 and the deep and fatal line of cleavage which runs through all of these 
 explanations will be made manifest. 
 
 All conceivable theories which are made to account for the origin of 
 these narratives as legends are compelled to resort either to Hebrew 
 Messianism, or to Heathen Mythology. On the one hand, those whose eyes 
 are open to the intensely Hebraic character of the narratives are compelled 
 to reject at once the theory of heathen influence ; on the other hand those 
 who realize that such a myth could never have grown up on Jewish soil 
 are driven to heathenism for a probable source, while both theories are 
 broken on the facts. 
 
 Cheyne's theory attempts to close this chasm by alleging heathen 
 influences through Hebrew channels. He holds that the heathenism which 
 appears in these narratives has already for a matter of decades been domes- 
 ticated and Hebraized. This theory has its own difficulties as we have 
 already seen. It must be admitted, however, that Cheyne and the German 
 school whom he represents, notably Gunkel, are the only writers on the 
 negative side of this question, who seem to have any adequate realization 
 of the magnitude of the problem which they are attempting to solve. 
 The mythological schools are justly open to the charge of wholesale 
 credulity. The acceptance of much of their reasoning would compel one 
 to hold that there is a very close analogy between a comet and a fox, both 
 having long tails, but they do realize what they have to prove. And 
 the burden which rests upon them is to show this : That there was in 
 heathenism an "international myth" 2 which by adoption in Hebrew 
 Messianism, became a " Christological dogma," 3 having certain definite 
 features, such as supernatural birth, resurrection, ascension, etc., which 
 reappear in Christianity with the simple change of a personal application 
 to the historic Jesus of Nazareth, by whom the dogma is filled out. It 
 1 Cheyne, Bible Prob., pp. 194-5. 2 Cheyne. 3 Gunkel. 
 
302 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 seems to me to be necessary simply to rise above the details which are 
 urged in support of this extraordinary theory to a simple outline of the 
 theory itself in order to pronounce its final condemnation. In the first 
 place, supposing that conceivably, this international myth of a world 
 Redeemer with the startling detads of birth; resurrection, ascension, etc., 
 could be proved, so far from proving Christianity mythical it would simply 
 serve to make mythology Christian. Keeping in mind that the most 
 distinctive thing in Christianity is Christ Himself, not the things which hap- 
 pened to Him, which are secondary in so far as they are revelations of a 
 fact greater than themselves, it becomes at once evident that in this inter- 
 national myth we have a world-wide foreshadowing of Christ compared 
 with which, in vividness and power, the old theory of Messianic prophecy 
 would fade into dimness. 
 
 But the whole theory is beset with difficulties on all sides. It breaks, in 
 both aspects of it, upon the multiplicity of incidental and contradictory 
 details. The analytical genius of the great mycologists has been enabled 
 to evolve out of the chaos of heathen mythologies a certain underlying 
 unity, a system of far-reaching analogies. But is it conceivable that the 
 uncritical mythological ages had any such conception of great and massive 
 unities ? To the ordinary student, heathen mythology is one of the most 
 laborious and wearisome of all forms of study. Most readers of church 
 history, for example, skip many pages when they come to the subject of 
 Gnosticism. It takes a mind of a peculiar order to be a mythologist, with 
 patience to search for and hold and frame together remote resemblances. 
 What a commanding, intellectual genius must have been among the dis- 
 ciples, or their pupils, in order to choose out of the confusing welter of 
 ancient heathen mythology just the details suited to set forth the earthly 
 life of the Saviour of men ! To tell us that such a choice was made sponta- 
 neously, by naive and untutored men, is mere child's play. Taking for 
 example, the subject with which we are now dealing, the difficulty comes 
 before us in all its cogency. The alleged supernatural births of heathenism 
 are of all kinds and of all degrees, from the supernatural generation by the 
 power of the sun god Ra in Egyptian lore to the descent in the bosom of 
 a star of the posthumous heavenly child in Zoroastrianism. 
 
 By what subtle process of elimination and choice was the precise mode 
 of Jesus' birth attained ? The multiplicity of details brought forward in 
 support of this theory has destroyed it. And this is equally true of Hebrew 
 Messianism. The anxiety of Cheyne to postulate a development toward 
 definiteness in pre-Christian Jewish Messianism which is not justified by 
 the documentary evidence is explainable enough. He needs it for the sake 
 of his theory. But the evidence is against the theory. A reading of the 
 pre-Christian Jewish literature will convince any one not wedded to a 
 thesis that a definite, detailed Messianic expectation, with simple, uncon- 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 303 
 
 tradictory portrayal of a virgin mother and a divine child is not contained 
 therein. It would puzzle one to find anywhere aside from Isa. vii, 14 and 
 the verse in which the "growing up " of the branch in Isa., ch. 53 is described 
 any passage in which the Messiah is spoken of as a child at all. As a matter 
 of demonstrable fact, the current Messianic expectations of the Jews for a 
 century or more before Christ came, were inchoate and confused. We 
 have already dealt with this and need not take it up again. In a word 
 tins international myth, which is alleged to have been carried over into 
 Judaism has no such definiteness either in outline or detail as to make it 
 possible that it has created the Christian narrative. 
 
 But, even yet, we are not through with the difficulties connected with 
 this theory. On the basis of the theory as stated by its advocates there is a 
 synthesis to be made between the mythology and the Messianism before 
 anything consistent can be resolved. 
 
 According to the theory the basic idea of the definite Messianism 
 developed out of Dan. vii, 13, was the "Son of man." But the basic 
 notions of the original mythology was the Son of God or of the gods. 
 The supernaturally begotten beings were creatures in whom the divine, not 
 the human, was emphasized. Certainly in the Daniel passage — if the passage 
 refers to a person at all — the emphasis is upon the human element, — a being 
 like a son of man. The supernatural is not ignored, but thrown into the 
 background. Here, then, we have a transformation, which must be 
 accounted for. The notion, out of which the mythological interpretation 
 of Jesus, if such we must call it, grew, was a sense of His unique, supreme 
 divine significance. What value to such thought would Dan. vii, 13 have ? 
 In the Gospels themselves, the two ideas, Son of man, and Son of God, 
 appear, but in such peculiar relationship as to create one of the great 
 problems of New Testament interpretation. The title " Son of man " is the 
 favorite self-representation of Jesus, while the expression " Son of God " was 
 the expression used by the disciples. Now the histoiy of the interrelation 
 of these two expressions is very interesting. This expression is used in 
 Matthew thirty-two times, in Mark fifteen times, and in John twelve times. 
 Jesus used the title " Son of God " very seldom and then usually in speaking 
 of Himself as the Son, or accepting their designation and thus indirectly 
 claiming it. Now, it is evident that the disciples were not under the 
 influence of the passage from Daniel, else they would have used the title 
 " Son of man." Rather they drew the belief which they expressed in the 
 words "Son of God" from the way in which Jesus spoke of the Father 
 and from the general tone of His life. It is evident that while Jesus con- 
 stantly spoke of Himself as Son of man, making of it a Messianic title, the 
 disciples did not consider it fitting that they should use it, preferring the 
 emphasis upon His divinity given them by the title " Son of God." In other 
 words, an almost complete severance is maintained between the titles "Son 
 
304 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 of man" and "Son of God," and the disciples, supposedly under the 
 influence of Messianism created by the Daniel passage, do not use the 
 phrase based upon that passage ; while Jesus Himself, whose claims they 
 are supposed to have exaggerated in the title " Son of God," almost never 
 used that title. 
 
 The disciples then reached their conclusions as to the person of Christ, 
 not in obedience to any myth-making tendency, but as necessary inference 
 from what they saw in Jesus' life. Had they been myth-making in the 
 interests of His Divinity they would never have put on record, as coming 
 from Jesus Himself, a phrase so open to a doubtful construction as the " Son 
 of man," which, both to superficial thought and to deeper study, empha- 
 sizes the human element in His being. The transformation of the heathen 
 myth, if there was such a myth, in Daniel destroys its significance in 
 this study, for it is separated entirely from any formative influence in the 
 faith of the disciples. 
 
 The conclusion follows that if the heathen influence is not found in the 
 pre-Christian documents, it is not to be looked for in the New Testament. 
 The multiplication of instances of marvelous births among the heathen has 
 no significance unless a connection can be definitely established with the 
 authors of the Christian documents. The sea may be swarming with 
 strange creatures, but this matters little to him who stands upon the shore. 
 The fantasies of heathenism cannot explain documents written by men who 
 are not accessible to heathen influences. 
 
 In all these theories, the nexus between the heathen ideas and the nar- 
 ratives, which they are supposed to explain, is imaginary and not real. The 
 attempt to connect the two cycles of thought breaks down. The latest 
 advocate 1 of this Protean and slippery theory attempts to bring the heathen 
 birth-stories close to the New Testament through Philo's allegories and the 
 birth-wonders of the Old Testament. This is positively the nearest 
 approach of heathenism to the New Testament. Here, if anywhere, the 
 bridge is to be built. But in order to form the connection, Hacker is 
 forced to make a number of statements which not only cannot be proved, 
 but seem to me capable of emphatic disproof. 
 
 In the first place, after saying what is unquestionably true, that to pure 
 Jewish feeling the birth-relationships taught in the heathen myths were a 
 horror, he states that in the period immediately preceding the birth of 
 Christ there was no longer any pure Jewish feeling. I hold that this last 
 statement is as incorrect as the former statement is correct. That pure 
 Jewish feeling had wholly departed from Israel is surely a reckless state- 
 ment, which the history of the period fails to confirm. Most cogent 
 evidence against it is furnished by the Infancy documents themselves. 
 
 Where will you find, even in the Old Testament, more thorough and 
 1 Hacker, referred to above. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 305 
 
 genuine Jews than the group of people, who are brought together by the 
 Infancy narratives ; and where will you find purer Jewish feeling than 
 breathes in the narratives themselves? Every line of those beautiful 
 stories contradicts the statement that pure Jewish feelings had vanished 
 from Israel. 
 
 The second statement of Hacker's which is open to serious question is 
 that in the Messianic expectations of the Jewish Apocalyptic, this heathen 
 fantasy of supernatural birth played, " as it were, first violin." What is the 
 documentary foundation for this extraordinary statement ? After a careful 
 study of Apocalyptic literature, I have failed to find any other foundation 
 for it than some references to a sudden and miraculous manifestation of the 
 Messiah, but of a miraculous birth from a human mother, I find not so 
 much as a hint. Hacker refers to the Haggadic adornment of the life of 
 Moses and Philonian parables, both of which are useless for the purpose, 
 and then by an extraordinary exhibition of mental agility, he lands upon 
 the conclusion that it is very possible that the virgin birth was a Judaic 
 Messianic dogma. If this be so, Justin's argument with Trypho takes a 
 strange and unaccountable turn, for the question ought not to have been 
 whether the passage in Isaiah really means that the Messiah should be virgin 
 born, but the purely historical question whether Jesus was thus born or not. 
 Can any one, on the basis of this figment of a Messianic dogma of the 
 virgin birth, account for the comparative silence of the New Testament on 
 the subject? l 
 
 A third statement of Hacker's which is open to question is that the 
 transition from the birth-stories of the Sons of Promise to the virgin 
 birth was but a single step. This statement cannot be supported. The 
 difference between these two notions is not a step, great or small, but the 
 transition from one world of thought into another utterly different. It is 
 not a step, but a chasm. The gift of children in response to prayer, to two 
 parents who have hitherto been disappointed, is one thing ; the conception 
 of a child by the immediate creative activity of an unseen and spiritual God 
 is quite another. As we have hitherto contended, the disciples lacked the 
 initiative to pass over this great distance. Moreover, the motive for passing 
 it is lacking. There is no reason for supposing that the Jews would con- 
 sider birth from a virgin more honorable than birth from a married woman, 
 while they certainly could not be blind to the difficulty and danger of the 
 statement. 
 
 In short, Hacker's attempt to bridge the chasm between heathenism and 
 the New Testament is a rope of sand. It cannot bear its own weight, let 
 alone the weight of the theory which it is supposed to sustain. 
 
 Moreover, all these arguments aside, there is one further consideration 
 which ought to be very carefully canvassed. Is Christianity a syncretism ? 
 1 See Steele, Meth. R. Jan. 1892. 
 20 
 
306 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 In answering this question, I wish to quote no less an authority than 
 Fairbairn. In his great work on the Philosophy of the Christian Religion 
 (pp. 517 ff. ), he says: "Strictly speaking, religions are not made, they 
 grow ; for growth is the process which life follows when it builds up an 
 organism for its own inhabitation and enlargement. Opposed to growth is 
 the process we may call contrivance or manufacture, which is represented 
 in religion by syncretism, by the conscious selection and adjustment of old 
 materials to create a new cult or system. Now this process has been known 
 in both ancient and modern times, the age in which Christianity was born 
 being particularly familiar with it. There were Romans who affected to 
 think of the East as religious and wise, of Egypt as venerable and myste- 
 rious ; and it became a Roman fashion to seek from the strange deities and 
 rites of the Orient replenishment for the exhausted native sources of inspi- 
 ration. 
 
 " But Syncretism in religion, like eclecticism in philosophy, is a sign of 
 decadence, for it creates nothing that outlives the age or coterie that gave 
 it birth. It signifies that mind, fallen into conscious impotence and hope- 
 lessness, has turned its back upon the future and its face to the past ; and 
 despairing of producing or achieving anything, has begun to call upon 
 vanished men and systems for principles which may help it to live. The 
 mood is, as a rule, self-conscious and cynical as well as despondent, and so 
 the formulae it borrows, it builds usually to the music of a little disdainful 
 and finical criticism, into a house of consolation and amusement rather than 
 a temple of truth and worship. 
 
 " The last religion we could describe as a syncretism is the Christian, 
 and that for many reasons, though it will be enough to mention here two : 
 (a) Its founders were too completely ignorant of other theologies and 
 philosophies to be affected by them ; and (b) it was not an articulated 
 skeleton, but a living organism carrying within itself the principle of life. 
 
 " This does not mean that it was without relationship to the past, for 
 without the persons, ideas, customs and influences it inherited, it never 
 could have been ; nor that it was isolated from the present, for if it had 
 been untouched by living forces, it could not have reached living men. 
 But it means that it behaved as a living being behaves, who, while the issue 
 of a long ancestry, yet grows by transmuting into his own substance the 
 matter his own environment supplies. In other words, the religion grew 
 because it lived, and it lived because it carried within it an imminent and 
 architectonic idea, which governed it, and yet was essentially its own. 
 That idea was the belief it held concerning Jesus Christ, which double name 
 denoted at once the historical person who was the first Christian and the 
 transcendental ideal which had transformed God and religion, man and 
 history. ' ' 
 
 That syncretism is the evidence of religious decadence, the sign of the 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 307 
 
 closing of an era, not its beginning, is capable of the most abundant illus- 
 tration and proof. That Christianity, the most potent and revolutionary 
 faith that ever entered the world, should be touched at the very beginning 
 of its triumphant career with this mark of senility is unbelievable. The 
 story of the birth of Christ is no heathen notion adhering to the New 
 Testament, but a vital and consonant element in the portrayal of the unique 
 Person in whom Christianity consists. The miraculous conception, and 
 the normal birth and childhood of Jesus, indicated both His unity with 
 our humanity and His transcendence in it as the " ideal which has trans- 
 formed God and religion, man and history. " 
 
 We quote again from the same author a striking and truthful description 
 of the Infancy narrative and its relationship to the rest of the Gospel. 
 "They (the Evangelists) inherited an august conception of Deity, the 
 least anthropomorphic, the most untouched by human passion, weakness, 
 or mutability, known to antiquity ; and to represent this God as the Father 
 of Jesus, without degrading or undeifying Him, was a literary task of the 
 rarest delicacy and difficulty. In the mythical age of Greece, it had been 
 easy to imagine men as the sons of Zeus, and Zeus as the father of gods 
 and men ; but the more the mythical age receded, the more its crude images 
 and grotesque dogmas grew distasteful to the Greek intelligence, which 
 refined deity by making him too abstract to stand in real or concrete rela- 
 tions with men. 
 
 And what philosophy had done for Greece, the monotheistic passion did 
 for Israel ; with the result that the more Jehovah was exalted, the greater 
 became His distance from man, and the less could the sons of God be con- 
 ceived as mixing with the daughters of men. The sublimest things are 
 the most easily made ridiculous, the most sacred can be most utterly pro- 
 faned. And if any one had been asked beforehand to describe the 
 probable action of the idea of Jesus as the Son of the Most High on the 
 idea of God, would He not have drawn a dismal picture of Majesty low- 
 ered into dust, spiritually coarsened and materialized, and reason humbled 
 by being carried back into that twilight of intelligence when as yet gods 
 were indistinguishable from men ? But the result is exactly the opposite. 
 The supernatural birth is touched with a most delicate hand, and has no 
 essential feature in common with the mythical theogonies which earlier 
 ages had known. The marvelous thing is not that we have two birth 
 stories, but that we have only two * ; and that they occupy so small, so in- 
 cidental, so almost negligible a place in the New Testament as a whole." 2 
 From this statement, one can see how utterly impossible it is in view of its 
 1 The importance of this statement ought not to be overlooked. In all heroic 
 myths, birth wonders are multiplied in great numbers. See e. g., Jackson: 
 Life of Zoroaster, chap, iii, pp. 23-35. 
 
 2 Phil. Chr. Rel. , p. 348 f. The whole section ought to be read. 
 
308 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 spiritual value to separate the birth narrative from the rest of the New 
 Testament. It is inherently harmonious with the rest of the portrait ; it 
 was drawn under the same general influence and inspiration. 
 
 Once more, the attack upon the Infancy section is weak from the doc- 
 trinal point of view. I have tried to be very careful throughout this book 
 to lay no more stress upon the miraculous birth than belongs to it as one 
 of the historic facts in the earthly life of Jesus. It is one of the items in 
 the portraiture of Him which in its totality forms the basis of our faith. 
 
 In much of the controversial literature on this subject, the distinction is 
 sharply drawn between the primary importance of the great doctrine of 
 the Incarnation, and the secondary importance of the miraculous birth as 
 constituting merely the mode of its accomplishment. The Incarnation is 
 essential, the miraculous birth is non-essential. Now so long as one is 
 content to hold the Incarnation as a general fact and refuses to think upon 
 the question of the mode of its accomplishment, it is possible to treat the 
 birth as a negligible factor. But the instant one allows the mind to reflect 
 upon the question of the mode of the Incarnation, the importance of the 
 birth becomes at once apparent. As a matter of experience, it is impossible 
 to remain in a permanent condition of suspended judgement as to the mode 
 by which the Incarnation was accomplished. 
 
 Historically, there seem to be but two alternatives. The rejection of the 
 Infancy narratives and the miraculous birth with the implication that the 
 life of Jesus was miraculous throughout and that His sonship to God was 
 unique from the beginning seems, logically, or at least historically, to issue 
 in the dating of His Sonship and Divinity at the Baptism. This was the 
 view of Cerinthus. This also is the view of Soltau, and Prof. Corrsen has 
 given the opinion new currency by the astonishing theory that the first 
 appearance of the Logos was at the Baptism when Jesus was a grown man 
 thirty years of age and the Lord said : This day have I begotten thee. 1 
 
 Is it conceivable that the life of Jesus should be divided into two parts, 
 one of which should be non-miraculous throughout, the other inaugurated 
 and carried forward by miracle ? Is it conceivable that an absolutely new 
 beginning should be made in the life of Jesus at the Baptism? Is it con- 
 ceivable that such a career as that of Jesus between the Baptism and the 
 Ascension could have been accomplished without any foregleams, any 
 indications to Himself or to others of the career which was in store for 
 Him ? Did the voice from heaven fall upon ears altogether unprepared 
 by anything distinctive and peculiar in His previous experience and His 
 consciousness of relationship to God ? 
 
 But this is not the whole of the contradiction. This theory binds to- 
 gether in unnatural union a non-miraculous and a miraculous being, a 
 humanistic and a divine Christ. It is unscriptural, for it describes a man 
 x Corrsen in Gottingischegelehrte Anziegen, 1899, pp. 310 ff. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 309 
 
 becoming God, not God becoming a man. It is illogical because if Jesus 
 was the Son of God sent into the world at the Baptism, He was also the 
 Son of God sent into the world an hour or a year or thirty years before the 
 Baptism. He was the same person from the beginning to the end of His 
 life. The Messianic career of Jesus began at the birth ; the Messianic 
 consciousness of Jesus was a matter of continuous growth from the dawn 
 of consciousness to the full orbed glory of that dedicatory hour at the 
 Jordan ; the Messianic Person of Jesus was the same throughout His en- 
 tire life. Before the Baptism, Jesus was the Messiah, in preparation and 
 obscurity ; after the Baptism He was the Messiah acknowledged and at 
 work, but both before and after the Baptism, He was the Son of God set 
 apart by every implication of His being to the Messiahship. The tree is 
 in the germ. If we could have a complete life history of it, we should 
 see one phase of growth opening into another continuously— the unfolding 
 in a vital process of what was enfolded from the beginning. So it must 
 have been in the career of Jesus. His entire life from the beginning to 
 the close must have been one and the same. If He was the incarnation 
 of the Eternal Son of God, that incarnation must have been coterminous 
 with His life. If His person was ever miraculous, it must have been mi- 
 raculous throughout. The miracle was concealed until the manifestation 
 at the Jordan, but it was none the less real. The voice from heaven said 
 to Him, "Thou art my Son, in Whom I am well pleased." x Does anyone 
 seriously contend that at that moment Jesus became the Son of God? 
 Obviously the voice acknowledged the Sonship of Jesus tested by obedi- 
 ence and sacrifice through the hidden years. 
 
 In the narrative of the wedding at Cana, it is said : " This beginning of 
 His signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory"— that is, 
 unveiled His character. Is it believable that the divine quality of His life 
 thus manifested dates merely from the Baptism ? 
 
 My contention is that this theory which dates the divine origin of Jesus at 
 the Baptism divides His life into inconsistent sections and undermines the 
 entire doctrine of the Incarnation by giving us two different persons, and 
 two different lives, one before and one after the Baptism. 2 This is altogether 
 
 1 The variant reading, " This day have I begotten thee," is too obviously an 
 echo of Psa. ii, 7, to be of any authority. 
 
 2 " In the evolution of the doctrine of the Incarnation in early Christian The- 
 ology, it was made evident that the union of the preexistent Son of God 
 with humanity could not have taken place at any time after birth, whether at 
 the Baptism, the presentation in the temple, the birth itself, or at any other 
 conceivable time. It must have been before birth and in the conception 
 itself. . . . The philosophical difficulties which beset the doctrine of the vir- 
 gin birth do not concern the virgin birth in particular, but the Incarnation in 
 general. Indeed, the doctrine of the virgin birth seems the only way of over- 
 
3IO AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 unsatisfactory. The Messiahship of Jesus resides in His person. The per- 
 son was made known in the life. The life must have been one and the 
 same throughout. Whether one believes in the statements of the Infancy 
 narratives or not, something akin to their central affirmation must be pos- 
 tulated in harmony with the rest of His life. It is perfectly logical to deny 
 the miraculous in the life of Jesus as a whole, including birth, baptism, 
 resurrection, and ascension. 
 
 It is perfectly consistent and logical to say that concerning the period 
 anterior to the Baptism we have no authentic information, and must be con- 
 tent with what we know of the mature life of Jesus. 
 
 It is consistent and logical to hold the miraculous birth as the natural and 
 fitting inauguration of the miraculous life. It is neither consistent nor logical, 
 critical nor historical, to affirm an ordinary birth and childhood as constitu- 
 ting the person of One who carried forward a miraculous ministry. This is 
 one of the halfway positions with which history deals so severely. 1 
 
 In two ways the logical faculty has avenged itself. Many have been 
 driven to an abandonment of the miraculous altogether, combining under 
 one consistent mythical or allegorical category all delineations of the super- 
 human Messiah. Others have been compelled to adopt the theory of a 
 miraculous birth, though with the subsidiary agency of Joseph, to account 
 for the unique sanctity of Jesus. This theory, which has been referred to 
 several times in the text, labors under the double difficulty of affirming the 
 
 coming the chief difficulties. If the preexistent Son of God became incar- 
 nate by ordinary generation, we could not escape the conclusion that a human 
 individual person was begotten. The Incarnation would then not be a real in- 
 carnation, but an inhabitation of Jesus by the Son of God, with two distinct per- 
 sonalities, that of the preexistent Son of God, and that of the begotten son of 
 Joseph. Nestorianism could not be avoided. Such a merely external union 
 of the divine Son with a human individual could not accomplish human sal- 
 vation, as the Christian Church has always clearly seen. If the Son of God 
 only inhabited the man Jesus, He might save that man, but how could He 
 accomplish the salvation of the human race? Such an inhabitation of the Son 
 of God would not differ in principle from the indwelling of the divine Spirit in 
 a man. The man Jesus would be a prophet, a hero, a great exemplar, but 
 not the Saviour of mankind. He might be the last and greatest of the heroes 
 of faith, but not God incarnate. Only a God-man who had taken human 
 nature into organic union with Himself and so identified Himself with the 
 human race as to become the common man, the second Adam, the head of 
 the race, could redeem the race. The doctrine of the virgin birth gives such 
 a God-man. Natural generation could not possibly give us such a God-man. 
 Therefore, the doctrine of the virgin birth is essential to the integrity of the 
 Incarnation, as the Incarnation is to the doctrine of Christ and Christian 
 salvation." C. A. Briggs, N. A. Review, June, 1906. 
 1 See Orr, Chris. View of God and the World, p. 100. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 311 
 
 supernatural in Jesus' birth while running counter to the only documentary 
 evidence which we possess on the subject. It really amounts to the d priori 
 assumption that a miraculous birth could take place in one way only. It 
 also destroys the symbolic value of the event by making it a secret act of 
 God for which there can be no visible evidence. 
 
 But its real significance here lies in the fact that it constitutes a most 
 striking confession of weakness. It means that an adequate and historic 
 Christology which is true to all the facts cannot do without a miraculous 
 birth. In short, and this is the gist of the whole matter, in this controversy 
 concerning the birth of Christ, two fundamentally different Christologies are 
 grappling for supremacy. 
 
 According to one, a human Jesus of Nazareth, by some process of apothe- 
 osis, became the Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of the world. Accord- 
 ing to the other interpretation, the Eternal Son of God became incarnate by 
 birth of the virgin ; by a voluntary self-impoverishment entered the world 
 as a child and lived as the Son of man. 
 
 Which one of these two interpretations is that of the men of the New 
 Testament, there can be no question. 
 
 Since, therefore, the affirmative or negative position on the subject of the 
 birth of Christ involves so much of vital importance, the specific attack upon 
 the Infancy narrative, apart from the rest of the Gospel, must be pronounced 
 a failure. 
 
NOTE B 
 
 THE ORIGIN AND PUBLICATION OF THE INFANCY NARRATIVES 
 A COMPARATIVE STUDY 
 
 It is the purpose of this note to gather up and combine the scattered 
 items of evidence as to the origin and circulation of the birth narratives. Since 
 these narratives have been the object of specific assault our present task is 
 simply to exhibit their standing relative to other documents of the New 
 Testament. As there are many rival theories in the field as to the number, 
 character, and composition of these documents it is to be noted that the con- 
 clusions of this note are not bound up with any one of these theories. It 
 is purely a comparative study. To begin with, as has already been stated, 
 the textual standing of the narratives is unimpeachable. The attempts 
 which have been made to disintegrate the narratives or to separate them 
 from the rest of the Gospels has been a signal failure. In every main state- 
 ment they stand attested by the best manuscripts — with such unanimity that 
 we have a right to affirm that in their present form they belonged to the 
 written Gospels and were circulated with them from the beginning. 
 
 In addition to this, in style, point of view, and literary purpose both 
 narratives belong to the Gospels in which they are found. (See Weiss: In. 
 to N. T., Eng. Tr., 1S89, vol ii, p. 277, note.) It has been noted that even 
 in the matter of the Matthean genealogy the author has worked in accord- 
 ance with the ruling ideas of the Gospel (see H. B. D. , vol iii, p. 302 
 L. Cf. also Weiss above, p. 273). * 
 
 In the case of Luke, we note that almost every conspicuous feature of the 
 Gospel as a whole is exhibited in the Infancy section, (cf. Simcox, Writers 
 of N. T., pp. 19-22. See Plummer, Com. on Luke, \ 6, pp. xvi-lxvii. 
 We are thus led at once to the position that the Infancy narratives have a 
 right to share in the confidence extended to the Gospels in which they are 
 found. So far, there is not the slightest ground for questioning their authority 
 or value. 
 
 Passing now to the documents which are supposed to underlie the present 
 written Gospels of Matthew and Luke, we seek an answer to the question : 
 What are the standing, characteristics, and history of the documents "underly- 
 
 1 For a thorough study of the unity of the section see Machen, Pr. Rev., 
 Jan., 1906. 
 
 312 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 313 
 
 ing the narratives of the birth of Christ ? We are met at once with the state- 
 ment that the Infancy narratives were not contained in the " Primitive 
 Gospel"; i. e., the common document lying back of the three Synoptists. 
 Weiss gives only one reason for not placing the Infancy narratives in this 
 document. In the same note referred to above, he says: "That they 
 (chaps. I and II) cannot indeed belong to the Apostolic ground work of the 
 Gospel, since the author evidently did not know that the parents of Jesus 
 dwelt originally in Nazareth (ii, 22 ff.), was already perceived by Eich- 
 horn and Bertholdt." 
 
 The argument is, of course, that if the author of the section had access 
 to a primitive document of the Infancy he would have known (on the sup- 
 position that the document embraced the facts stated both by Matthew and 
 Luke) that the family of Joseph had lived formerly at Nazareth and returned 
 to their old home after the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. 
 
 The argument is far from convincing. As has already been pointed out, 
 what Matthew says about the cause for the return to Nazareth is in no 
 possible contradiction with a former residence in Galilee. The account 
 does not say that Joseph did not formerly reside in Nazareth. It does 
 imply, of course, that he did not return to Nazareth on account of that 
 former residence. 
 
 It does not come within the scope of his narrative to mention that former 
 residence. Indeed there is reason to suppose that the evangelist would 
 have preferred to omit reference to that fact if he could. Why it should be 
 inferred that he did not know about it, I fail utterly to see. The writer is 
 interested in the train of causes which brought about the permanent residence 
 of Jesus in Nazareth, and made Him known to His contemporaries as a 
 Nazarene. All the conditions of Matthew's narrative would be abundantly 
 fulfilled if an intention on the part of Joseph to settle at Bethlehem upon 
 his return from Egypt was thwarted by the warning which sent him to 
 Nazareth. This argument of Weiss is not sufficient to cut off the Infancy 
 narrative from the Primitive Gospel. 
 
 Another reason has been urged in favor of this idea which has far greater 
 cogency. It is said (by Wilkinson : Early Hist. Gospels, Mac, p. 14): "The 
 narrative of our Lord's birth would for obvious reasons be kept secret, and 
 the evidence seems to show that it had no place in the Logia." The 
 earlier part of this we shall consider more closely a little later. For the 
 present, let us take for granted that the statement concerning the absence of 
 the Infancy narrative from the primitive source is true. This being granted the 
 question arises : What was the nature of this document, and what did it con- 
 tain ? It is of course impossible to be perfectly certain as to the contents of 
 a document which we have never seen except in combination with other 
 documents, but by general consent we may safely consider certain conclu- 
 sions as reasonably assured. The Primitive Gospel (to take Dr. B. Weiss's 
 
314 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 interpretation of it) consisted of a loosely connected series of apostolic 
 memorabilia, beginning with the baptism of John and ending with the 
 word of Jesus concerning the woman who anointed Him in the house of 
 Simon the Leper. This document was drawn up, perhaps, by Matthew to 
 serve as an aid to memory, and perhaps as a manual of catechetical 
 instruction. The probability seems to be that it was written in Aramaic 
 and circulated from Jerusalem sometime in the sixties of the first century (see 
 Jolley, Synoptic Problem, Macmillan, 1893, for a convenient summary of 
 the subject. Jolley bases his work on Weiss and gives a restoration of the 
 P. G. Cf. Weiss, In. N. T., vol. ii, p. 227). 
 
 This document is supposed to be a common source from which all three 
 Synoptic Gospels are in part drawn. It is to be noted here with distinct 
 emphasis that this document did not contain any account of the birth, the 
 death, or the resurrection of Jesus. The purpose of the document was to 
 furnish inquiring Jews with evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus. The 
 aim was didactic and not biographical. The absence of any account of the 
 passion and resurrection is accounted for by the fact that such an omission 
 " is natural enough in a writing primarily intended for the Christians of 
 Judrea, some of them witnesses of the Crucifixion, and all, probably, familiar 
 with the incident of the Saviour's Judrean ministry, as well as with the 
 events immediately preceding and following the Passion, especially when 
 we remember that the author had no intention of writing a biography." 1 
 
 The total disappearance of this primitive Gospel as a separate document 
 is accounted for on the ground that a Gospel which contained no account 
 of the birth, death, or resurrection of the Saviour would possess little 
 interest for later generations of Christians (Jolley, Ibid, p. 89). So far, 
 then, the narratives of the Infancy stand upon precisely the same ground as 
 the narratives of the Passion and Resurrection. Both are lacking and 
 apparently much for the same reason (?'. e., being aside from the purpose of 
 the document) from the Primitive Gospel. 
 
 Jolley is the advocate of an elaborate documentary theory of the origin of 
 the Synoptic Gospels. He assigns the entire life of Chirst to various 
 sources, traditional information obtained by the author himself, Mark's 
 Gospel, the Primitive Gospel and the lost Ebionite Gospel. Jolley says : 
 " Such a scheme can at best be only approximately accurate, for the authors, 
 though often copying from, have usually modified the passages based in 
 their written sources, and have at times so combined their written sources 
 both with one another and with independent and, as it would seem, not 
 always trustworthy tradition, as to render a perfect analysis impossible 
 (p. 114) ." Had he added that a perfect analysis is unattainable also because 
 occasionally the critic's acumen fails, the above statement would have been 
 the gainer both in truth and modesty. 
 
 1 Jolley, Syn. Prob., p. 74. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 315 
 
 Taking as a working basis, Jolley's Analysis, our present task is to ascertain 
 the relative authority of the passages with which he classes the Infancy sec- 
 tions. Be it said at once that Luke's narrative (Lk. ii, 3-52) he assigns 
 to the " lost " Ebionite Gospel which he defines as a document " written for 
 Jewish-Christian readers, and presented traces of those doctrines which at a 
 later time and in a more developed form were called Ebionite." This 
 document he takes to be the primitive precursor of the second century 
 Apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews. It will thus be seen that Luke's narra- 
 tive goes back to a primitive Hebrew-Christian document. 
 
 Matthew's narrative is classed with passages due to the evangelist, and 
 gathered from traditional sources. These passages aggregate three hun- 
 dred and thirty-six verses, nearly one ninth of the entire Synoptic material. 
 Making an analysis of these we find (1) that in many instances the assign- 
 ment to a separate source cannot be allowed to stand. It destroys the sense, 
 breaks up the connection, and leaves both the passage removed and the con- 
 text without meaning. In order to test the validity of this criticism let the 
 reader examine Jolley's analysis of the fifth chapter: Verses 1 and 2 are 
 assigned to tradition ; 3-9 to the Primitive Gospel ; 10 to tradition; 11-22 
 to P. G.; 23, 24 to tradition; 25-28 to P. G. ; 29, 30 to tradition; 31-40 
 to P. G.; 41 to tradition; 42-48 to P. G. 
 
 Of these I and 2 are introductory and practically paralleled in Mark iii, 
 13, but may be allowed to stand as the evangelist's own note ; verses 3-9 
 are assigned to the Primitive Gospel while 10 goes to tradition and 11-22 
 to P. G. But verses 11-22 carry out the same idea as 10, and the state- 
 ments are paralleled in Luke vi, 20-23, which the author assigns to the 
 Primitive Gospel. It would not be unallowable to assign even disconnected 
 sentences in such aphoristic speech as this sermon to different documents 
 on the ground of the lack of immediate connection, but here he has separated 
 closely connected sentences. Take another instance. Verses 23 and 24 
 are cut off from what precedes and what follows, but verses 22 and 23 are 
 grammatically connected, and verse 25 is logically connected with 24. Cer- 
 tainly, whatever may be done with the rest of the verses, 24 and 25 ought 
 not to be separated. Again, verses 25 to 28 are assigned to the Primitive 
 Gospel, while 29 and 30, connected closely in thought with 28, are assigned 
 to tradition. In addition to this verse 25 and 26 join closely with 23 and 
 24, and are totally different in theme from the passage 27f. Verse 41 is 
 thrust in between two passages (31-40, and 42-48). It would be perfectly 
 safe to challenge any one to exhibit any dislocation of thought between 
 verses 40 and 41, and between 41 and 42f, such as for example is clearly 
 apparent between verses 37 and 38. Now it is not affirmed that these 
 verses do not come from separate sources, but attention is called to the fact 
 that the assignment is open to objection at every step. A careful study of 
 Jolley's whole scheme is enough to convince any one that the assignment 
 
316 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 to various documents is an exceedingly difficult and precarious undertaking 
 (cf. Mark iii, 13-17; iv, 12-16 with Jolley's scheme, p. 114). (2) In 
 many instances the passages are paralleled in Mark's Gospel as well as in 
 Luke's. In some instances the wording is slightly changed while the idea 
 is evidently derived from the common source. Cf. Matt, iv, 23-25 with 
 Mark i, 39 ; Matt, viii, 17 with Mark i, 32ff ; Matt, ix, 36 with Mark vi, 
 34; Matt, x, 17, 18 with Mark xiii, 9; Matt, x, 39 with Mark viii, 35 ; 
 Matt, xii, 31-37 with Mark iii, 22 in connection with Jolley's scheme. (3) 
 Most of the passages placed by Jolley in the class with the Infancy narra- 
 tive are self-authenticated by peculiarities of thought and style as belong- 
 ing to the genuine Gospel. See Matt, v, 25-28 ; ibid 41 ; vi, 1-6 ; xvi, 
 17-19; xviii, 16-22; xx, 1-19 ; xxi, 28-32; xxiii, 1-3. Concerning the 
 teachings and incidents recorded in these passages there is very little ques- 
 tion as to their validity and authority. 
 
 While we are upon this subject it might be well to compare with the In- 
 fancy narratives two really suspicious passages, the authenticity of which 
 has been seriously questioned. One of these is the ending of the Gospel 
 of Mark (xvi, 9-20), the other the account of the woman taken in adultery 
 and brought to Jesus (Jno. viii, 1-11). As to the former, it is well known 
 that there are two endings to the Gospel of Mark. The longer ending is 
 found in the regular versions — a shorter ending at the eighth verse in 
 many manuscripts. The external evidence is divided — the preponderance 
 of authority being against the passage. The internal evidence is also 
 rather unfavorable. It does not seem to fit the rest of Mark's Gospel. 
 As Dr. Hort put it : " It is a condensed fifth narrative of the Forty Days." 1 
 Nevertheless, it is quite impossible to throw this section out altogether. 
 
 As Jolley says (Syn. Prob., p. 1 1 2) " There is, however, a small but by 
 no means insignificant minority who maintain that they are an integral part 
 of the Gospel ; whether spurious or not the disputed verses are very 
 ancient. If not genuine, they must have been added early in the second 
 century, for they were certainly known to Irenaeus and probably to Justin 
 Martyr." 
 
 Contrast with this the standing of the Infancy narratives with textual 
 authority unanimously favorable and with a manifest history that puts them 
 well within the first century. 
 
 The other disputed passage is of a different kind. John viii, 1-11 is, 
 textually speaking, a floating passage. The place and order of this incident 
 present an unsolvable enigma. It is sometimes placed in the eighth chapter, 
 sometimes at the end of the Gospel, and sometimes in Luke's narrative. It 
 is evidently a fugitive piece. It is missing from some of the best manu- 
 scripts and ancient versions and was looked upon as suspicious from a very 
 
 ^ee H.B. £>., vol. iii, pp. 2Sif Art. Gos. of, Mark. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 317 
 
 eaply day. There are arguments on the other side, of course (see Farrar L. 
 C, vol. ii, p. 61, note), and it will always remain a problem. 
 
 Against the authenticity of the passage as a part of John's Gospel, Eders- 
 heim (L. and T. J. M., vol. ii, p. 163, note) presents an argument which 
 would seem to destroy the authority of the incident altogether as a part of 
 the authentic Gospel. He says: "That a woman taken in the act of 
 adultery should have been brought before Jesus (and apparently without the 
 witnesses to her crime) ; that such an utterly unjewish, as well as illegal 
 procedure should have been that of the ' Scribes and Pharisees ' ; that such 
 a breach of law, and of what Judaism would regard as decency, should 
 have been perpetrated to 'tempt' Him, or that the scribes should have 
 been so ignorant as to substitute stoning for strangulation as the punish- 
 ment for adultery ; lastly, that this scene should have been enacted in the 
 temple, presents a very climax of impossibilities." Nevertheless, in spite 
 of all these undoubtedly serious objections the passage in question has al- 
 ways held its own, and will probably continue to hold its own as a part] of 
 the Gospel narrative, for this simple reason. It presents a perfectly inimi- 
 table picture of the character and attitude of Christ. It may be that John 
 did not write it ; it may be that in some measure the narrative has become 
 confused and distorted, yet that it presents an authentic revelation of the 
 Lord, the vast majority of people will continue to believe. 
 
 Once more, making comparison, we see how strong and unassailable is 
 the standing of the Infancy narrative. If the story of the woman can 
 authenticate itself against such objections, external and internal, how much 
 more firm is the position of the Infancy narratives against which no such 
 arguments can be drawn. 
 
 Jolley's scheme represents one method of solving the Synoptic prob- 
 lem. We have found a place for the Infancy narrative among the 
 documents attributed to tradition, the vast majority of which are per- 
 fectly well authenticated portions of the narrative. In order to reach 
 some more definite conclusions, we shall next review briefly a totally 
 different method of accounting for the three Gospels. Dr. Arthur Wright 
 lays far greater emphasis upon oral teaching as a mode of preserving and 
 transmitting the Gospel tradition. In our judgment his work (Com. of Four 
 Gospels, Macmillan, 1S90) is nearer a correct representation Of the actual 
 facts than Jolley's. 
 
 As to the difference between the two theories on the subject of docu- 
 mentary and oral tradition, Plummer rightly calls attention to the fact that 
 " the difference between oral tradition and a document is not great when 
 the oral tradition has become stereotyped by frequent repetition." * 
 
 Nevertheless, the fact that much of the Gospel teaching was given for 
 
 1 Plummer, Com. on Luke, § 3, p. xxiii. 
 
318 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 some time in the form of oral memory lessons, must be given due weight in 
 accounting for the written Gospels. 
 
 In brief outline Wright's theory is as follows: Mark was a catechist 
 who wrote down, after Peter's death, the memoirs which he had been 
 teaching. After the separation of Paul and Barnabas, the latter with Mark 
 sailed to Cyprus where they lived and taught in retirement. They were 
 thus out of the reach of all later developments of doctrine. Peter's memoirs 
 were practically the sum of Mark's knowledge and teaching. 
 
 As Mark was the instructor of the Greek catechists, the author of the 
 First Gospel and Luke must have been his pupils. Mark's arrangement 
 of the memoirs was symmetrical rather than chronological. 
 
 The bulk of the Synoptic Gospels consists of three cycles of oral narra- 
 tives : (l) Peter's Memoirs, (2) Matthew's Utterances of the Lord, and (3) 
 Anonymous Gospel current only in Gentile churches, which ultimately 
 came to be written. Now passing over all details we come at once to the 
 question which is vital to our present inquiry — where do the Infancy narra- 
 tives come in, and what is their standing? 
 
 Wright classes Matthew's Infancy narrative (in its present form), which 
 he says may have been added to the tradition by Matthew himself or under 
 his direction, with certain fragments of oral gospel outside the cycles. 
 Of these fragments in general and especially those concerned with post- 
 resurrection incidents, he says : " There is nothing in the nature of things 
 to prevent these fragments from possessing the highest historical value. 
 Abundance of eyewitnesses must have existed in Jerusalem, who were 
 ready and anxious to tell what they knew about the events of Holy Week. 
 And it would be wanton incredulity to reject what they say. But still the 
 obscurity of the origin of these fragments and the late date at which they 
 were probably added to the tradition lead us to put them upon a lower 
 historical level than the Petrine memoirs." l 
 
 It will be seen that, while he classes the narrative of the first Gospel 
 with these fragments, he does not put them on the same historical level. 
 
 Prof. Wright denominates Luke's narrative of the Infancy as " non-oral " 
 — that is to say that it is based upon documentary sources. He holds 
 that Luke's first two chapters read like a direct translation from the Ara- 
 maic. He says: "They are far more Aramaic in form than even St. 
 Mark's Gospel. The reason of this we take to be the simple fact that they 
 never were in the hands of Greek catechists, who inevitably and uncon- 
 sciously Hellenized what they taught." 2 He also says of the Infancy 
 chapters that we can pretty confidently affirm that they were never in the 
 hands of the catechists, at least in their present Greek dress." 3 Of the 
 Infancy narratives in the first Gospel, he says: "They certainly were 
 taught orally, as is shown by the suitable length of the sections, by the 
 1 Page 102. 2 Page 145. 3 Page 112. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 319 
 
 division of the genealogy into three parts arranged into decatesserads to 
 assist the pupil's memory, and above all by the fact that they were present 
 in the Gospel according to the Hebrews as well as in our first Gospel." l 
 
 At this point a strikingly interesting fact emerges. According to Jolley, 
 Luke's Infancy narrative goes back to the Ebionite Gospel (see Syn. Prob., 
 Appendix D, p. 115). 
 
 According to Wright (see also Wilkinson Hist. Gospels, p. 22 — with this 
 also arguments of Prof. Chase agree) the Infancy narrative was contained in 
 the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In the nomenclature of the two books, 
 these documents are practically the same. The Ebionite Gospel (according 
 to Jolley) was the predecessor of the second century Gospel of the Hebrews. 
 In the particular of the Lord's birth they were the same. If these con- 
 clusions are correct, we have traced the twofold narrative back into a com- 
 mon document lying behind the present Gospels, which incorporated them 
 both. Prof. Wright thus summarizes the whole question as to the origin of 
 these narratives : "It is important to observe that though St. Luke's 
 account of the mystery of the Incarnation (the Lord's birth) is entirely 
 distinct from that in the first Gospel and has no reference either direct or 
 implied to Isaiah's prophecy, yet both evangelists attest the same fact. The 
 Incarnation, like the Crucifixion and Resurrection, presents one of the very 
 few cases in the Gospels, in which we really have the testimony of two 
 men. Nay, more, its presence in the first Gospel declares it to have been 
 accepted in the East ; its presence in St. Luke proves its acceptance in the 
 West. The fact itself transcends human experience and must always 
 remain a matter of faith. Still to admit it is easier than to deny it, for with- 
 out it the very existence of the Gospels and of Christianity is inexplicable. 
 St. Peter's memoirs imply quite as much as St. John's Gospel records, 'that 
 the word became flesh and dwelt among us.' " 
 
 The judgment of any New Testament passage as to its integrity with 
 references to the document in which it is found and its authenticity as coming 
 from an alleged author should be conducted with regard to three cardinal 
 facts : — 
 
 1. Its bulk and importance. 
 
 2. Its relationship to other facts of Christ' s life. 
 
 3. The opportunities of its authors or editors to gain access to reliable 
 sources of information. 
 
 It is self-evident that the larger sections of the New Testament, impor- 
 tant actions and episodes of the narrative, the story of a great miracle or 
 parable, an extensive passage of the teaching are much less likely to gain 
 unauthorized entrance into the tradition than minor passages and details. A 
 verse is more easily added than a chapter, a chapter than a book, a detail 
 of description than a connected narrative. In general it may be said that 
 
 1 Page 113. 
 
320 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 the scrutiny of the authors or editors of the Gospel narrative was directly 
 proportioned to the importance of the passage under consideration. As a 
 matter of unquestionable fact, modifications which the evangelic tradition 
 has undergone in the process of teaching and recording it consist largely in 
 the addition or subtraction of details. A careful study of the variations of 
 the various strata of the evangelic narrative will show that most of them 
 are small, verbal changes in details. It seems to me utterly impossible that 
 the entire nexus of events contained in the twofold Infancy narrative 
 should have been an accretion. A part of it might have been a mythological 
 addition, but that so vital a subject as the birth and early life of the 
 Redeemer should have been left to the careless and haphazard gathering 
 together of loose, unauthorized mythological fragments is altogether too 
 large an assumption. It is inherently improbable, and fails utterly of any 
 reasonable degree of demonstration. 
 
 The second testing principle is the relationship — the harmony or dis- 
 harmony of the questioned passage with the remainder of the Gospel, and 
 with the nature of the facts dealt with. Dr. Edersheim's argument against 
 John viii, I-ii proceeds on this basis. No one has successfully maintained 
 any incongruity between the Infancy narratives and the rest of the narrative. 
 We have dealt with this question at length and need not return to the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 This leaves us at liberty to turn directly to that aspect of the question 
 which more immediately concerns our present inquiry — the opportunities 
 of the authors to gain reliable information on the subject. This is really 
 from the viewpoint of evidence, the crucial question. 
 
 According to Jolley (Syn. Prob., pp. 105, 6), Luke's narrative of the 
 Infancy was taken from the Ebionite Gospel. This narrative he holds to 
 have been the work of a Jewish-Christian writer, who was himself in pos- 
 session of the primitive Gospel. We have then for all the essentials of 
 Luke's narrative a documentary basis going well back into the Apostolic 
 Age. Now Luke claims (in the prologue to the Gospel i, 1-5) for his 
 narrative in general, and especially for the additions which he makes to the 
 commonly received narrative, the authority of the eyewitnesses. In the 
 case of the Infancy narrative, the eyewitnesses could mean one group of 
 individuals only ; i. e., the immediate family of Jesus. The alternative to 
 this origin for the narrative must be very sharply drawn. The stories must 
 be either very close to the fountain-head of authority or very far away. It 
 is altogether improbable, that any one would venture to write a fictitious nar- 
 rative involving the private history of a prominent family while members of 
 it were still living and known — certainly not without prompt and public 
 rebuke. If the narrative is apocryphal and legendary, it must have come 
 into existence at a very late date, after the family had ceased to exist or be 
 known. We are logically compelled to put the account late enough for the 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 32 1 
 
 immediate family of Jesus to have disappeared from among the brethren, 
 and for the early life of Jesus, and even the family traditions to have become 
 hopelessly obscured. The very fact that the narrative is Lucan, is evidence 
 enough that this supposition cannot possibly be true. In addition to the 
 undersigned and most significant internal evidences of direct authority, we 
 have convincing external proof that Luke actually came into contact with 
 the very persons who were in a position to know the facts. 
 
 In the year 5S (on the evidence of Acts xxi, 17 ff.) we are assured that 
 Luke went with Paul to Jerusalem and then made the acquaintance of 
 James, the Lord's brother who was the head of that church. I hold it to 
 be absolutely incredible that one who was thus brought into intimate fel- 
 lowship with a Jewish-Christian group at Jerusalem, of whom a blood-rel- 
 ative of Jesus was a prominent member, would have accepted any impor- 
 tant item concerning His life without confirmation from the lips of James, 
 and I am equally certain that such a statement on the part of Luke would 
 never have been tolerated by the Church had he been willing to offer it. 
 
 The chain of arguments is complete. On the one hand, the responsi- 
 bility of Luke for the Infancy section is beyond question ; on the other, his 
 acquaintance with the family of the Lord is fairly beyond successful con- 
 tradiction. Every item of available evidence, therefore, points to approxi- 
 mately first-hand narration. 
 
 Dr. Sanday 1 and Prof. Ramsay 2 differ slightly as to nearness of Luke's 
 narration to the original story. Both recognize the presence of first-hand 
 elements, and also literary modification in the story — the only question is 
 as to the number of intermediaries. We have only to imagine that the 
 story told by Mary had been put into an Aramaic narrative with the outline 
 of events, the messages and the songs, to satisfy all the conditions of the 
 problem. How much Luke worked over his materials it is, of course, 
 impossible to say. There are characteristic Lucan expressions, together 
 with undoubted Aramaic reminiscences, in almost the same sentence. It 
 is not necessary to suppose more than one document between Luke's 
 finished narrative, and Mary's artless story. 
 
 At this point, let me call attention to another contrast. Among the 
 fragments of oral Gospel outside the cycles with which Prof. Wright classes, 
 for convenience's sake, the Infancy narrative of the first Gospel, occurs one 
 incident, to the unreliability of which he calls attention. In Acts i, 1 8, 19, 
 Luke gives us an account of the way in which the field which was con- 
 nected with the tragedy of Judas gained its name. This narrative seems 
 to be in fatal collision with Matthew's account of the same thing. (See 
 Matt, xxvii, 5-8.) Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 368) has " no hesitation in accept- 
 ing the vivid and detailed description which Matthew gives of this incident." 
 
 Conceding the contradiction, we can see at once — (1) that there existed 
 
 1 H. B. D., vol. ii, 644. 2 Was Christ Bom at Beth.? Chap. iv. 
 
 21 
 
322 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 in connection with the catastrophe of Judas, which occurred during the 
 most confused period of the disciples' entire experience and was in itself a 
 thing of horror unsafe to inquire very much about, no considerable opportunity 
 to obtain reliable information 5(2) that in spite of the contradiction there is 
 a certain residuum of historic fact. There was undeniably a tragedy con- 
 nected with Judas, and in some way a parcel of ground had become associ- 
 ated with that tragedy. In striking contrast with this, is the evident care- 
 fulness of the Infancy narrative of Luke, and the historic proofs of his close- 
 ness to the sources of authority. 
 
 Descending now to details, it is necessary to exhibit some of the reasons 
 for the opinions heretofore expressed concerning Luke's narrative. 
 
 The expression "Holy Spirit" is used by Luke fifty-three times, twelve 
 times in the Gospel, six times in the Infancy section. (Luke i, 15, 35, 67 ; 
 ii, 25, 26, 27.) 
 
 In the Infancy narrative the word nvev/na is used without the article, 
 except in the 26th and 27th verses. In the 15th verse this omission is due 
 to the influence of "an Aramaic origin in which the genitive which follows 
 would justify the omission." The other instances are due, according to 
 Plummer, to the fact that the Spirit is regarded impersonally as the creative 
 power of God. 1 It is interesting to note that the exceptions to this usage 
 are in verses 26 and 27 — the reference is manifestly to the Spirit as a Per- 
 son, and to His influence as a personal influence. In verse 25, the order of 
 the words calls attention to the fact that Trvev/na refers to the spirit abstractly 
 as a mood or influence. Plummer calls it "prophetic impulse." This 
 usage throughout is strictly Hebraic. We are on the border line of trans- 
 ition from the Old Testament view of the Holy Spirit as " the power of God 
 in action," to the New Testament idea of Him as a Divine Person. The 
 former conception was in the original documents of the Infancy — the latter 
 was Luke's own conception. That Luke had in mind the two usages is 
 evident from the transition in verses 26 and 27. Since we find the same 
 usage in Matthew, Swete (H. B. D., vol. ii, p. 405) is fully justified when 
 he says : " Both contexts are conceived in the Spirit of the Old Testament, 
 and belong to the earliest age of Christianity, when the fullest teaching of 
 the Gospel had not yet been assimilated." 
 
 In the nth verse of chapter ii, we have an expression which, so far as 
 the form of words is concerned, is thoroughly Lucan and probably Pauline. 
 But we find the familiar thought which was the center of the apostolic 
 teaching from the earliest time (the very word cutt/p being used by Peter 
 in his great sermon, Acts v, 31) in a strange and unfamiliar environment. 
 There is no hint of sacrifice or substitution in the work of the newborn 
 Redeemer. The words translated in harmony with the context show the 
 meaning of the phrase : " There is born to you this day, a Deliverer, who 
 1 Plummer, Com. on Luke, ad. loc. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 323 
 
 is Anointed Lord, in the city of David." The absence of the article seems 
 to indicate that xpiordg is used as an adjective — at any rate, it is used in 
 the appellative sense, and not as a proper name. When the phrase, " In 
 the city of David," is added it becomes perfectly clear that we are still in 
 the region of pre-Christian Messianic ideas. 
 
 If it be true that Luke supplied the words ourr/p and nvpiog (of which we 
 cannot be at all certain, see Plummer, Com. on Luke, ad. loc.) — words which 
 in other parts of the New Testament are fraught with the deepest meaning 
 by reason of the Cross and the open grave, he has refrained from adding 
 to them the least hint of the later richness of meaning. The angels simply tell 
 the shepherds that the long expected Deliverer has come — that the King of 
 the line of David has been born in the city of David, according to the promise. 
 
 The expression x(> ia ~°S Kvpcog is unique in the New Testament, and very 
 possibly may have been a pre-Christian Messianic formula (see Plummer, 
 ibid.). 
 
 Next, attention should be called to the fact emphasized both by Plum- 
 mer 1 and Briggs 2 that the manifestation of God to Mary is described under 
 the ancient form of theophany. So far, we are in a purely Jewish atmos- 
 phere. We are in company with those who had been waiting for the con- 
 solation of Israel, and to whom the birth of Jesus was the fulfillment of long 
 cherished hopes. 
 
 We come more definitely into the Christian region in the expression, " Son 
 of God," which is peculiar to Luke's account. What is the history and 
 significance of this phrase ? The question is of vital moment in the study 
 of the document. 
 
 Stalker says (Christology of Jesus, Armstrongs, 1900, p. 95) : "In the 
 first chapter of St. Luke, the angel of the Annunciation calls the child to be 
 born of Mary by this name, not because He is to be the Messiah, but for the 
 reason stated in these words : ' The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and 
 the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore also that holy 
 thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.' The 
 derivation of His human nature by the special creative act of God is here 
 the reason of the name — a reason akin to that on account of which it is also 
 given by St. Luke to Adam." Bringing these two passages together is 
 most illuminating, but Dr. Stalker does not seem to have enjoyed the light 
 which he himself has evoked, for he goes on to say, " I do not remember 
 any other place in Scripture where this precise point of view recurs." 
 
 In the first place, it is to be remembered that the sentence from Luke 
 quoted above was spoken in reply to Mary's question, "How can these 
 things be ? " In the 32d verse he says of Mary's Son, " He shall be great, 
 and shall be called the Son of the Most High," etc. In this verse, the son- 
 
 1 Com. on Luke, ad. loc. 2 See note above, p. 131. 
 
324 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 ship is not connected with the mode of His conception at all — it is con- 
 nected with the greatness of His character. 
 
 In the second place, the passage occupies the consistent viewpoint of a 
 dominant part of the New Testament, so far as the derivation of the Lord's 
 human nature is concerned. Bringing these two passages (Luke i, 35, and 
 iii, 38) together, incidentally demolishes Lobstein's " physical -filiation " 
 theory and also leads out into large New Testament truth. Luke is evi- 
 dently conscious of a parallel between Adam and Christ, but the point of 
 connection is not the mode of Christ's conception, for Adam was not con- 
 ceived at all, but in the special creative act of God. Adam was the son of 
 God by immediate creation, so also was Christ in His human nature. But 
 this brings at once to mind the Pauline conception of Christ as the second 
 Adam. It is certain that the miraculous birth as interpreted by Luke is the 
 exact corollary of Paul's doctrine of the heavenly man or the second Adam. 
 It would puzzle any one to interpret the origin of Christ's human nature on 
 the basis of Paul's doctrine by any other process than a miraculous birth. 
 
 Where did Paul obtain this conception of the second Adam ? It is evident 
 from his use of the parallel that it appealed to him chiefly from the side of 
 anthropology rather than theology. 
 
 Adam was the head or representative of fallen humanity — Christ the 
 head of redeemed humanity. It is evident, however, that implicit in Paul's 
 whole conception is the same thought which Luke expresses, that Jesus was 
 the Son of God by a process of bringing into the world analogous to the 
 creation of Adam. 
 
 It is altogether probable that both Paul and Luke derived the conception 
 from their Jewish-Christian teachers. In accordance with the purposes and 
 interests of each, the fundamental idea of Christ's divine Sonship through 
 creation according to the similitude of Adam is developed in different 
 directions. Paul uses it to emphasize and illustrate his doctrine of sin and 
 redemption, Luke to adorn and interpret his belief in Christ as the universal 
 Saviour. 1 
 
 As Knowling (testimony of St. Paul to Christ, p. 44) 2 puts it : " If St. 
 Paul had interpreted this title, ' Son of God,' in a way different from that in 
 use among his brother apostles ; if in associating the Person who bore it so 
 closely and intimately with God the Father, he had been guilty of placing 
 himself in opposition to the beliefs of the Jerusalem Church ; if in other 
 words, the deification of Christ was due to St. Paul, how is it that we do 
 
 1 In the very earliest intimation we have of St. Paul's teaching, he proclaimed 
 Jesus as the Son of God (Acts ix, 20). This account follows his conversion 
 and acquaintance with the brethren at Damascus (cf. Acts vii, 59 ; Gal. i, 16 ; 
 ii, 20). We are thus led for an explanation of the phrase, " Son of God," to 
 the earliest stratum of apostolic teaching. 
 
 2 Cf. also Sanday, H. B. D., vol. iv, p. 277, note. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 325 
 
 not hear of any such opposition, of any violation of Jewish feeling and 
 belief? " There can be no answer to this question, for Paul and the other 
 leaders of the early church were in complete harmony on the fundamental 
 doctrine of the person of Christ. 
 
 We have, therefore, a strong chain of evidence which connects the In- 
 fancy narrative of the third Gospel on the one hand with Luke the com- 
 panion of Paul, and on the other with some such group of Jewish-Christian 
 believers as were at Jerusalem at the time when the apostle and his friend 
 visited the Holy City. The document which Luke translates and embodies 
 in his narrative must have been composed from personal memoirs some 
 time previous to the year A. D. 58. All the evidence tends to show that in 
 it we have genuine reminiscences of the time before the Messianic con- 
 ception was transformed by the death and resurrection of Christ. 
 
 Prof. Chase makes a fair and moderate statement of the case when he 
 says {Cam. Theo. Essays, pp. 408, 9): "There are, I believe, very strong 
 critical reasons for accepting the tradition that the Acts and consequently 
 also the third Gospel were the work of St. Luke. The Acts evidence, as 
 we have already seen, that the writer spent some time in Jerusalem and in 
 Palestine, and further that he was known to James, the brother of the Lord. 
 It is not an extravagant conjecture that he derived his knowledge of the 
 Birth and Infancy of our Lord from St. James and other members of the 
 Holy Family. As regards St. Luke's story, therefore, the inference that it 
 is ultimately derived from the Lord's mother is in agreement with what we 
 independently infer from a study of the other Lucan document as to the 
 sources of information open to the evangelist." In view of all the facts, it 
 is not extravagant to say that there are few documents coming down to us 
 from antiquity which are so well attested as the preliminary section of the 
 third Gospel. 
 
 Turning now to the corresponding section of the first Gospel, we find the 
 case somewhat different. In the first place, as Prof. "Wright says, the docu- 
 ment shows unmistakable evidences of having been in the hands of the 
 catechists and used for oral teaching. This being so, the conclusion is 
 inevitable that whatever primitive material the section contains has under- 
 gone certain modifications in the course of its transmission. This latter 
 consideration is of primary importance, for it affords a reason for the dis- 
 crepancies which we find between the two narratives. Coming as the 
 primitive element in the narrative much from practically the same source 
 as Luke's, it would be difficult to understand how such discrepancies as 
 that concerning the previous residence at Nazareth could arise. But if the 
 primitive document or oral narrative had been in the hands of catechists, 
 many of whom had no knowledge of any other story of the Infancy, we could 
 understand that in the process of teaching and transmission, the account would 
 tend to become a closed cycle, complete in itself ; and lose all signs of con- 
 
326 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 nection with the other story. The search for primitive matter in the nar- 
 rative would naturally lead us at the outset to the passage. Matt, i, 18-25. I 
 hold it to be self-evident that such an incident could not have been an 
 imaginative creation — the only conceivable way in which such a story 
 could have risen as a late production would have been as an offset to Jewish 
 or heathen calumnies — that is, after the publication of the virgin birth 
 had given rise to calumniation among the opponents of Christianity. As we 
 have no evidence of such calumnies until the second century, the narrative, 
 on this supposition, must have been very late. This hypothesis is incapable 
 of successful defense. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitable that we have 
 a very early narrative coming more or less directly from the family itself. 
 
 In the following chapter, the visit of the Magi and connected events are 
 also undoubtedly primitive and more or less direct. As has already been 
 noted, it is a homogeneous, self-consistent, and interdependent narrative. The 
 coming of the Magi gave a dangerous publicity to the child's birth and 
 brought about the flight and the massacre. It is consistent with itself 
 and also with the preceding narrative. The tie which binds these two 
 apparently disconnected narratives together is the prominence ascribed to 
 Joseph. And in this very fact, we have an evidence of the primitive char- 
 acter of the original document. What conceivable motive could there be 
 for a late exploiting of Joseph ? What scanty evidence we have, seems to 
 point to his death before the ministry of Jesus began. Why then should any 
 late believer wish to invent incidents in which he is prominent? To be 
 invented at all requires a late date for the passage — at such a date the motive 
 for invention had ceased to exist. Apart from the application of prophecy 
 to the incidents, a much controverted topic which will be alluded to a little 
 later, there are not a few indications of an early date. 
 
 1. The impersonal use of the term, " Holy Spirit." The significance of 
 this has already been commented upon. 
 
 2. Use of the phrase, "Herod the King." This is a slight but significant 
 indication of date. We find from Josephus (Ant. xviii, 5, 3) that after Herod' s 
 death, he came to be called "Great" in distinction from the other members 
 of the Herodian family who succeeded him and were the reverse of great. 
 In the first and third Gospels, he is called "The King." The narratives 
 while written after Herod's death occupy, perhaps unconsciously, but none 
 the less certainly, the contemporary viewpoint. This would have been 
 impossible for a late writer. 
 
 3. The conception of salvation in the section (i, 22) is Messianic rather 
 than Christian, and like that of the prophets, social rather than individual. 
 "He shall save His people from their sins." The phrase rbv labv avrov is a 
 distinct echo of the "peculiar people"' promise of the Old Testament. 
 The sins are those which would interfere with the establishment of the 
 Messianic age. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES $2? 
 
 4. The expression and idea of ayyeT^oq Kvpiov (ii, 13) is purely Hebraic. 
 
 These four items of evidence are certainly adequate proof that we have 
 no late document — if not late, it cannot well be mythical. 
 
 Weiss (B. ) In. N. T., vol. ii, p. 274, note 28 claims that the form of the 
 word Jerusalem found in Matt, ii, I belongs to the evangelist, and not to 
 the source. 
 
 It is not a vital question, for no one denies that the document has been 
 through the hands of the evangelist. I should like to think that Weiss is 
 correct in this supposition because it is so favorable to the primitive character 
 of Luke's narrative, but I fear that I must forego whatever advantage 
 it involves, for the evidence is against it. The ending (^Vf 1 ) attributed to 
 the source is used in Matthew but once out of a total of twelve instances. 
 It is used not at all in Mark, and all but three times in Luke. In the In- 
 fancy section of the latter it is used six times out of seven. It is evidently 
 an individual peculiarity with no documentary significance. 
 
 At this point, a question arises concerning the origin of the specific appli- 
 cations of prophecy of which the first Gospel has eleven, four occurring 
 in the Infancy section. Prof. Wright argues strenuously against the Mattha- 
 ean origin of these passages, but the arguments to the contrary adduced by 
 Weiss, and Bartlett (H. B. D.,vol. hi, p. 297b) seem tome conclusive. This 
 is not the vital question, however, for the historical investigation. The 
 legitimacy of the applications of prophecy is one question, the historicity 
 of the incidents with which the prophetic passages are connected is quite 
 another. It is with the latter that we are now concerned. Taking up 
 these passages which occur outside the Infancy narrative, we have the 
 following : — 
 
 (1) Matt, iv, 15-16 connected with Isa. ix, 1; 
 
 (*) 
 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 (7) 
 
 xii, 18-21 " " Isa. xlii, 1-4; 
 
 xii, 40 " " Jonah i, 17; 
 
 xiii, 14-15 " " Isa. vi, 9, IO; 
 
 xiii, 35 " " Psa. lxxviii, 2; 
 
 xxi, 5 " " Zech. ix, 9; and Isa. lxii, II; 
 
 xxvii, 9, 10 ** " Zech. xi, 13. 
 
 The analysis of these instances leads to the following results : — 
 
 1. The prophecy is connected with the transition of Jesus from Nazareth 
 to Capernaum as a place of residence. It is a perfectly natural and cer- 
 tainly historical event — one of the undisputed events of the narrative. 
 
 2. The prophecy in this passage is connected with one of the instances 
 in which Jesus is represented as having cautioned the people whom he had 
 healed from indiscriminate publication of the miracle. There is no reason 
 whatever to suspect the historicity of the incident — it finds abundant con- 
 firmation elsewhere. 
 
328 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 3. The passage from Jonah is applied figuratively to the Resurrection 
 which is assuredly historical, if any cardinal event of the Gospel narrative is. 
 
 4. The prophetic passage quoted here is applied to the statement of Jesus 
 in which He explains to them the hidden meaning of the parable which He 
 had spoken to the people. There is no reason to suspect the reality of the 
 statement. It is one of the characteristic utterances of Jesus which no one 
 thinks of disputing. 
 
 5. The prophetic passage is quoted here also in connection with the 
 habit of Jesus of speaking in parables. There is no reason to suspect the 
 saying. 
 
 6. The prophetic sentences from Zechariah and Isaiah quoted in this pas- 
 sage relate to the triumphal entry — an undisputed incident in the career of 
 Jesus, confirmed both by Mark and Luke. 
 
 7. This prophecy is brought into connection with the betrayal, and finds 
 a hint of the sum received for the deed. That Judas actually received 
 the money is not seriously questioned. 
 
 Now, in studying these prophecies it becomes evident that the person who 
 is responsible for them is not attempting to fit events to prophecies, but to fit 
 prophecies to events. His inventiveness and imaginativeness are exercised 
 in searching for prophecies to illustrate the events with which he is familiar. 
 By far the larger part of these seven instances are familiar, general, 
 thoroughly-accredited incidents, and not one of them is under suspicion. 
 Now, if the same person is responsible for the prophetic applications in the 
 Infancy section as is most probable — indeed practically certain — the inference 
 is certainly reasonable that the same motive operated in producing all the 
 quotations. Why should we suppose that out of eleven instances four 
 should be pure inventions, in toto, out of nothing, and seven simply well- 
 accredited historic instances? The reasonable conclusion is that in the 
 four instances as in the seven the author took accredited incidents and made 
 the applications of prophecy to them. 
 
 We have thus reached the conclusion that the foundation document of 
 the Infancy narrative of the first Gospel was a history of Joseph's part in 
 the events which preceded and followed the birth cf Jesus. That such a 
 document was in existence and in safe keeping for future preservation 
 seems almost a certainty. The registration of circumstances surrounding 
 the birth of a firstborn son in an Eastern family is not ordinarily left to 
 chance. Certainly, in a house of the lineage of David, at a time when the 
 Messianic hope was particularly vivid, the birth of a son would be an 
 important event. If there were any wonderful incidents connected with it, 
 they would unquestionably be put into a record. If Joseph had any 
 experiences out of the ordinary, he would undoubtedly see to it that a care- 
 ful narrative of his experiences was preserved. He would guard the 
 honor of his home after his death as he had done in his life. It is my 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 329 
 
 conviction, deepened by every hour of study which I have been able 
 to put upon the document that in the Infancy section of the first Gospel, 
 aside from the prophetic applications, we have the personal story of Joseph's 
 relationship to Christ — an apologia pro vita sua — the enduring memorial of 
 a good man's life. This document is all the more significant and pathetic, 
 if it be true that he was early removed from the scene, and did not live to 
 witness the career of his unique foster Son. 
 
 I may also record the conviction to which (though the evidence may 
 seem too slight to warrant the conclusion) I have gradually come in the 
 course of this study — that the two narratives of Matthew and Luke are 
 fragments of one common narrative. To be sure, Dr. Briggs finds in 
 Matthew a part of a poem in the same meter as one in Luke, but I base my 
 conviction more upon a certain underlying unity of thought, 1 viewpoint, 
 feeling, and atmosphere which, in spite of superficial differences, seems to 
 point to a common document. Might there not easily have come into the 
 possession of the Jerusalem church a document containing the personal 
 reminiscences of the Holy Family which might be called, " The Memoirs 
 of Joseph and Mary " ? 
 
 The publication of the documents presents a slightly different problem. 
 The histoiy contained in these documents must for a long time have been 
 kept secret, and for this reason, the evidence for the history of the docu- 
 ments is scanty. 
 
 Prof. Chase maintains that the interpretation of the documents as 
 unhistorical is beset with difficulties, and while he admits that the posi- 
 tive documentary evidence is comparatively slight, asks this significant and 
 unanswerable question : "Can we, if the truth of the history is assumed, 
 conceive of the evidence being essentially different from what it is? We 
 keep our birthdays ; we veil all that concerns the first beginning of our 
 physical life in reverent silence. It cannot have been otherwise in the 
 Holy Family. The story, if true, must have rested ultimately on the word 
 
 1 Prof. Bacon's contention (quoted by Dr. Riggs in the Introduction 
 from Biblical "World ) that the virgin birth is a compromise or amalgamation 
 between the primitive doctrine of Messiahship by descent from David, and 
 the Hellenistic, of Messiahship by Incarnation, etc., seems to miss certain 
 fundamental facts of the problem. 1. The statement concerning the virgin 
 birth is not a derivative of Paul's or John's doctrine : it is one of the facts from 
 which their doctrine was derived, and is just as primitive as the theory of the 
 Davidic descent. It does not go back of the Christian era, but it stands as 
 primary fact in that era. It is not secondary nor derivative and, emphatically, 
 it is not conceived in the Hellenistic spirit nor expressed in the Hellenistic 
 form. 2. The Incarnation is a summary of the Christian facts under one com- 
 prehensive designation. It is a growth, the roots of which strike back to the 
 facts of Jesus' life. 
 
330 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 of the Lord's mother. It can only have been known to very few, and 
 their lips must long have been sealed." 
 
 Holtzmann puts the problem very suggestively. He says (L. J. Eng. Tr.): 
 "All these open manifestations of joy (referring to Luke's narrative) at the 
 birth of the Messiah would have betrayed to the world, prematurely, the 
 secret which Jesus, at the time of Peter's confession, declares had never 
 yet been uttered by human lips, and which even at that comparatively late 
 period He still does not allow even His own disciples to mention to any one 
 (Matt, xvi, 17, 20 ; Mark viii, 29)." This is a manifest overstatement, but 
 it certainly expresses an important truth, and is worthy of careful exami- 
 nation. There are two questions to which Holtzmann' s objections give rise : 
 "How great publicity is involved in Luke's narrative? What bearing has 
 the secrecy which Jesus enjoined upon His disciples upon the subject we are 
 now studying? " 
 
 As to the publicity implied in the narrative, it is evident that there is an 
 inclination to exaggerate it. It is said (Luke i, 65, according to our ver- 
 sion) that the incidents connected with the birth of John were carried abroad 
 throughout all the hill country of Judaea, and, again (ii, 17), that the shep- 
 herds made known abroad the saying which had been told them concerning 
 the child. In both cases, the translation unduly emphasizes the element of 
 publicity and wide proclamation. At the most, nothing could have occurred 
 but country-side gossip and perhaps a nine-days' local wonder. Moreover, 
 Luke intimates most significantly that the family did not talk. This means 
 that the spread of gossip concerning the birth must have been checked by 
 the blank unresponsiveness of those who were most closely concerned. The 
 emphasis with which Luke states the attitude of Mary carries with it the 
 implication that he considered the matter of great importance (cf. verses 17 
 and 18 with 19). 
 
 But, even so, as Holtzmann suggests, it was dangerous ; and the narrative 
 of the first Gospel comes in to show us how dangerous it was. The talk 
 occasioned by the birth of John, and the interest aroused by the story of the 
 shepherds, died away without coming to the ears of the authorities. It was 
 provincial, local, and temporary, so that Herod's many spies heard 
 nothing of it. 
 
 Not so the coming of the Magi. They journeyed at once to Jerusalem, 
 and made public inquiry, with a naive frankness which shows that they 
 were better acquainted with the religious hopes than with the political 
 situation of Israel. Their inquiry was heard by some of Herod's spies, and 
 at once reported to him. This resulted in a disturbance at the palace in 
 which all official Jerusalem shared ; and since the Jewish authorities were 
 consulted, the excitement was doubtless widespread. It resulted in the 
 blind attack upon Jesus, and the murder of the children at Bethlehem. 
 Thenceforward the Messiahship of Jesus was kept a profound secret among 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 331 
 
 His own people ; and one might perhaps safely say, after the death of 
 Joseph with His own mother, until at His ministry it was brought forward 
 under new conditions. Holtzmann's criticism, which would be entirely 
 justified if the facts were just as he states them, serves to bring out the 
 striking truthfulness of the narrative. It is true to the times, the conditions, 
 and the circumstances, under which He was born. 
 
 Now, as to the second question. It would seem from the passages 
 referred toby Holtzmann (Matt.xvi, 20; Markviii,30; Luke ix, 21) that the 
 Messianic secret was, in a sense, continued throughout our Lord's ministry. 
 Why did He so strongly prohibit the public proclamation of His Messiah- 
 ship? The reason is to be sought for in the context on each occasion when 
 it occurs. 
 
 In the account of the great confession (Matt, xvi, 16-20), the prohibition 
 is placed immediately before the statement that He then began to teach 
 them of His coming death. The connection is most significant. They 
 could not intelligently proclaim His Messiahship because they did not 
 understand it. They had not yet brought into their conception of the 
 Messiah the cardinal fact of His death and Resurrection. In the next 
 chapter, the meaning of the prohibition is clearly brought out. Coming 
 down from the Mount of Transfiguration, the Lord said to His companions, 
 " Tell the vision to no man until the Son of man be risen again from the dead." 
 Their illumination as preachers of the Messiah lay still in the future. They 
 were not yet fitted for their task. It was one thing to believe that Jesus 
 was the Messiah — quite another to understand what kind of a Messiah He 
 was to be. The evidence seems clear that Jesus did not proclaim His 
 Messiahship except in answer to faith. He repelled mere idle curiosity. 
 He resolutely sifted His loose following by parables and hard sayings, and 
 kept His clearer teachings for those who exhibited spiritual aptitude and 
 discernment. As time went on and the opposition to Him deepened, He 
 turned more and more to His disciples, to whom He made the most intimate 
 disclosures of truth. There was, therefore, always something esoteric about 
 Christian teaching. The inner and more spiritual truths were made known 
 to seekers for the truth. 
 
 The message of the disciples during Jesus' life was the kingdom and the 
 deeds and the words of Jesus, who had come to proclaim and establish the 
 kingdom. Jesus Himself left His Messiahship to be a matter of inference 
 from His person and work rather than a direct proclamation. 
 
 We find, as Lumby shows, that this same kind of secrecy was maintained 
 in the sub-apostolic age concerning the statements of the creed. Professor 
 Wright holds that much of Matthew's Gospel was esoteric doctrine ; that is, 
 taught to His disciples in an intimate, personal way. We have then some 
 light upon the publication of the Infancy narratives. They occupy the 
 purely Messianic viewpoint. They would, therefore, occupy a position 
 
332 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 secondary and auxiliary to the proclamation of the Passion and Resurrection. 
 Their interest is primarily biographical, secondarily doctrinal, and chiefly of 
 interest to those who had come to be believers in Jesus. The story of 
 Christ's birth would naturally not be disclosed until a firm basis for faith in 
 Him had been laid in the proclamation of His passion and resurrection. It 
 would be a part of the arcana of Christianity, until the truth had gained 
 sufficient scope and power to gain for the mystery of the miraculous birth a 
 respectful hearing on the part of those already convinced of the Messiah- 
 ship of Jesus. 
 
 So far as the publication of Mary's story is concerned, it seems to me that 
 Prof. Steele has struck the exact truth when he says x : " For, then (the 
 publication of the fact of His virgin birth) there appears before His exaltation 
 no moment when Mary's regard for modesty or for personal safety would 
 have dared whisper it, or when faith could have grasped it." 
 
 So far as Luke's narrative is concerned (and the history of Matthew's 
 might be just as clear, had we the facts as well in hand), it seems that we 
 have some indications which point toward the truth. The evidence seems 
 to indicate that Luke's narrative was published directly from the documents 
 of the Jerusalem church. How long it was kept as a secret possession, we 
 have no means of knowing, but probably from some time very near the 
 Ascension to A. D. 58. 
 
 Prof. Chase holds that the book of the Acts was written or at least planned 
 before the third Gospel. 2 On the basis of that supposition, he reasons thus : 
 "It seems probable that when St. Luke wrote Acts i, 1, the plan of the 
 Gospel had formed itself in his mind, and that he intended to follow his 
 source (z. e. the Markan Gospel), and begin the history with the baptism of 
 John. The fact that there is absolutely no textual evidence against Luke 
 iii (contrast case of [Mark] xvi, 9 ff . ) at once negatives the possible sugges- 
 tion that the two chapters were added in a second edition of the Gospel. 
 We conclude that before the Gospel was published, one of two things had 
 happened : Either the evangelist had received information as to the Lord's 
 birth which he had not possessed before, or he had for some reason become 
 free to use information which he already possessed but might not disclose." 
 If we but knew the date of Mary's death, the final missing clew as to this 
 process might be put in our hands. At any rate we have come near to the 
 actual time and circumstances of publication. 
 
 1 Meth. Review, vol. viii, p. 22. 
 a Cam. Theol. Essays, p. 406, note. 
 
NOTE C 
 
 A SUMMARY AND ESTIMATE OF DR. RAMSAY'S ARGUMENT IN 
 " WAS CHRIST BORN AT BETHLEHEM ? " WITH SOME RE- 
 MARKS ON THE CENSUS QUESTION 
 
 Dr. Ramsay's book begins with a statement as to Luke's claim for his 
 history. "While he was not an eyewitness of the remarkable events which 
 he is proceeding to record (page Ii), he was one of the second generation 
 to whom the information had been communicated by those "who from the 
 beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." He thus claims 
 the very highest authority for his narrative as a whole. 
 
 Luke also claims to have given especial attention to the order and sequence 
 of events, and the genesis and growth of them. His statement implies that, 
 since he had in his possession the materials for a comprehensive and trust- 
 worthy narrative, he felt it a duty to supplement accounts already in existence 
 with one more complete. The whole tone of the preface, as well as the 
 words, calls attention to the new material contained in the Gospel, and 
 especially to the Infaqcy narrative as constituting the most considerable 
 addition which he makes to the narrative. 
 
 In view of this claim made by Luke on behalf of his narrative, the ques- 
 tion involved in his statement, which dates the birth of Christ in an enroll- 
 ment, assumes a position of critical importance (pages 21, 22). If this state- 
 ment be a blunder, the entire story must be relegated to the realm of myth- 
 ology, and the writer who mistakes fable for fact, and tries to prop up his 
 mistake by another error of the grossest kind, can retain no credit as an 
 historical authority ; for, though a historian may make a slip in some detail 
 without losing claim to be trustworthy, he must not found his reasoning 
 upon the error. In the present instance, the error forms the very life-blood 
 of the work. 
 
 The design of Luke's history as a whole is to relate the beginnings of 
 Christian history with the administration of the Roman Empire. A blunder 
 so serious as to place the birth of Christ at the time of a census, which took 
 place several years afterwards, impairs the integrity of the entire account in 
 which it is found. 
 
 The progress of knowledge in the methods of Roman administration in 
 the provinces has shown that many statements of Luke's, formerly looked 
 
 333 
 
334 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 upon as unquestionable blunders, are strictly correct. Luke exhibits " mar- 
 velous accuracy and great power of conceiving and setting before the reader 
 a lifelike picture of what actually occurred." This lends great credibility 
 to other statements of his thus far lacking corroboration, for "he that shows 
 the historic faculty in part of his work has it as a permanent possession." 
 
 The general character of Luke's work throws doubt upon the supposition 
 that in the matter of the enrollment he has made a blunder (page 52). 
 
 Luke's view of the Roman Empire was essentially Greek, and his state- 
 ments must be estimated as coming from one who speaks of things Roman 
 as they appeared to a Greek. 
 
 Luke interprets Paul, therefore, as a Hebrew or Grseco-Roman. For a 
 Greek he was unusually accurate in his statements concerning Roman 
 persons and events, but he never altogether frees himself from the Greek 
 viewpoint. 
 
 The internal evidence seems to prove that Theophilus was a citizen of 
 Rome (page 65). It would seem, therefore, that a document addressed to 
 a Roman citizen and intended to relate Christianity to the general life of 
 the Empire would be susceptible of exposure on the part of the person to 
 whom it was addressed. 
 
 " How, then, does it happen that, while the circumstances of the birth 
 of Christ were closely scrutinized by the opponents of Christianity and sub- 
 jected to much misrepresentation and many charges of falsification, no one 
 in Roman times seems ever to have discovered the inaccuracies, which many 
 modern inquirers imagine to themselves? " (Pages 70, 71.) 
 
 Luke ascribes the utmost importance to the story of Christ's birth. This 
 is shown by the space given to it, by the elaboration of the account, and by 
 the emphasis which he places upon the incidental statements concerning his 
 authority contained in the account (page 74 ff.). 
 
 The statement is made that the census forming the hinge upon which 
 Luke's narrative turns is unhistorical and that the statement concerning it 
 involves the transfer of a census and valuation made under Quirinius about 
 A. D. 6—7 to a different period nine or twelve years earlier. There are five 
 considerations which are urged against the correctness of Luke's account. 
 
 1 . It is declared to be a demonstrated fact that Augustus never ordered any 
 general " enrollment " or census to be made of the whole Roman world. 
 
 2. If Augustus had ordered a census to be made of the whole empire, 
 it is maintained that such a census would not have extended to Palestine, 
 which was an independent kingdom and not subject to the orders of 
 Augustus. 
 
 3. Even if a census had been held in Palestine, it is asserted that there 
 would have been no necessity for Joseph and Mary to go up from Nazareth 
 to the city of Bethlehem, inasmuch as a Roman census would be made 
 according to the existing political and social facts, and would not require 
 
author's notes 335 
 
 that persons should be enrolled according to their place of birth or origin. 
 
 4. It is maintained that no census was ever held in Judaja until A. D. 
 6-7, on the ground that the "great census" (Acts v, 37) is described by 
 Josephus as something novel and unheard of, rousing popular indignation 
 and rebellion on that account. 
 
 5. It is affirmed that Quirinius never governed Syria during the life of 
 Herod, for Herod died in 4 B. C, and Quirinius was governor of Syria later 
 than 3 B. C. and probably in 2 or I B. C. Therefore, a census taken in the 
 time of Quirinius could not be associated with the binh of a child in the 
 days of Herod, King of Judaea. 
 
 In reply to each of these arguments Prof. Ramsay has something to say. 
 
 In regard to the first there is evidence in corroboration of Luke's state- 
 ment. This is the chief argument of the book. 
 
 In reply to the second argument, it is to be said that Judaea was not an 
 independent kingdom. Moreover, Luke does not state that the census was 
 made according to the Roman plan or by Roman officials. 
 
 The third argument against Luke rests upon the same false foundation. 
 Luke's statement implies that Herod carried out the census of Augustus 
 according to Hebrew methods, making it tribal and therefore less repugnant 
 to Jewish feeling. 
 
 In reply to argument four, attention is called to the fact that undoubtedly 
 the earliest valuation and census of property made after the Roman fashion 
 in Palestine took place, as Josephus says, in A. D. 7. This aroused indig- 
 nation and rebellion. The census of Herod was tribal and Hebraic, not 
 anti-national. It had no connection with Roman taxation, and aroused no 
 great national feeling. 
 
 These four arguments rest on a false interpretation of Luke's statement. 
 A correct view of what Luke really means to state does much to overthrow 
 all these arguments. 
 
 In regard to the governorship of Quirinius (Arg. 5), it is to be remembered 
 that (according to the best authorities) Quirinius was governor of Syria 
 twice. The balance of evidence is in favor of his having held office the 
 first time prior to Herod's death (page 1 10). 
 
 The author maintains that the positions which the book advocates are the 
 "most probable issue of the scanty evidence, and that some of them rest on 
 testimony outside of Luke's writings, which in ordinary historical criticism 
 is reckoned sufficient justification, while the others are in themselves quite 
 natural, and there is practically no evidence against them, so that Luke's 
 authority should be reckoned as sufficient to establish them." 
 
 Possible views on the questions involved seem to be three : — 
 
 1st. The story of the birth of Christ as given by Luke, is so suspicious 
 and encumbered with so many difficulties that it is as a whole incredible. 
 
 2d. The story is true. 
 
336 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 3d. The main part of the story is true, but the reference to Quirinius is 
 wrong (page m). 
 
 The third supposition is incredible so that we are practically reduced to 
 the two. If the story is not correct, the statement was introduced in order 
 to give plausibility to a fiction. 
 
 Luke's statement implies that Judssa, as a part of the Roman world, was 
 involved in the enrollment. Luke's conception of the affair is this: 
 Augustus ordered a systematic numbering to be made in the empire. This 
 system of numbering went on for a time or more probably permanently, and 
 hence the "first" of the series is here defined as the occasion on which the 
 story turns. Luke does not say that it was actually put in force throughout 
 the empire, but that the principle was laid down by Augustus. From Luke's 
 account, the notion would be drawn that during the first century a system 
 of numbering the population at periodic intervals prevailed. 
 
 It is evident that Luke did not confuse the enrollment in connection with 
 which Christ was born, and the later one A. D. 7, for he calls the former 
 "the first census " 1 and the latter " the census, or great census." 2 
 
 Clement thus understood Luke for he speaks of the occasion " when first 
 they ordered enrollments to be made." Clement seems clearly to have 
 known of periodic enrollments in Egypt, and supposed that the same pro- 
 cedure was carried on in Palestine. Clement expressly states that the sys- 
 tem began with the one at which the birth of Christ occurred (page 129). 
 
 It has been discovered by three independent scholars that the system of 
 periodic enrollments existed in Egypt under the Roman Empire, and that 
 the period was fourteen years. 
 
 It has been proved that enrollments were made for the years A. D. 90, 
 104, 118, 132, and so on till 230. 
 
 This would make periodic years 23 B. C, 9 B. C, A. D. 6, 20, 34, 48, 62, 
 etc. In every case the actual enumeration began after the periodic year 
 was ended. When did this system begin ? In all probability, Augustus 
 inaugurated the system. He was the emperor who was most systematic in 
 his administration of the provinces (page 139, seq.). 
 
 The documents bring out two facts : — 
 
 1. In some parts, at least, of the empire, the enrollment and numbering 
 of the population according to their households was a distinct and separate 
 process from the census and valuation, which previously was considered to 
 be the only proper Roman kind of census. 
 
 2. The enrollment of households took place periodically, in accordance 
 with a cycle arranged according to the years of the reign of Augustus in 
 Imperial, but not in Egyptian reckoning (page 148). Probably this system 
 was introduced later than 18 B. C. 
 
 The fact thus resting upon documentary evidence, that Augustus inaugu- 
 1 Luke ii, 2. 2 Acts v, 37. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 337 
 
 rated a series of periodic enrollments in Egypt, puts a new face upon 
 Luke's statement concerning the enrollment in Palestine. If Luke has 
 blundered, it has been by extending to the entire Roman world a practice 
 which was actually confined to Egypt. Other considerations lend confirm- 
 ation to the view that he has not blundered, for there is evidence to show 
 that the practice was not confined to Egypt — witness the Apamean stone, 
 (page 151), the statements of Suidas, and Josephus who mentions census fig- 
 ures. Moreover, there is positive evidence that enrollments according to the 
 fourteen-year cycle were made in Syria and elsewhere. 
 
 According to Luke, the first enrollment took place a few years B. c. in 
 the unknown year of Jesus' birth. 
 
 According to the system which obtained in Egypt, the year 9 B. c. would 
 be the beginning of the second period. This would make the date 8 B. C, 
 as the census was intended to include the children born 9 B. c. Tertullian 
 declares that an enrollment was made by Sentius Saturninus, who was gov- 
 ernor of Syria 9 to 7 B. C. Tertullian' s statement was not based upon Luke, 
 for it differs from Luke' sand cannot be easily reconciled with it. Tertullian 
 adhered to his secular authority. He is an independent witness to a census 
 in the neighborhood of 9-7 B. C. The facts in regard to the census were 
 within reach, so that citizens even of small towns could be identified. Ter- 
 tullian's variant statement shows existence of strong and independent 
 authority. 
 
 In the same year, 8 B. c, in which enrollments seem to have been made 
 in Syria and Egypt, Augustus made a census and found the total number of 
 Roman citizens 4,233,000. A marked year in Roman administration 
 was 8 B. c. The next periodic year was A. D. 6; census taken A. D. 7. 
 Quirinius was governor for the second time in A. D. 6 and he held a great 
 census and valuation of Palestine. 
 
 Judaea was at this time incorporated in the empire under a procurator 
 and connected with the province Syria. The great enrollment might be 
 explained as due to necessities of a newly-organized part of the empire, but 
 the coincidence with the new cycle is significant. 
 
 The natural inference from known facts is that two operations, one 
 corresponding to the Egyptian periodic enrollment, and one corresponding 
 to the Egyptian annual census and valuation, took place in Palestine in A.D. 7. 
 
 The later period was not observed by Augustus, probably on account of 
 increasing feebleness, until Tiberius was associated with him in A. D. 14. 
 In A. D. 20 the census was omitted probably on account of the one held in 
 14. In 34 carried on as usual, as evidenced by the action of Archelaos in 
 Cilicia Tracheia. This time it created a disturbance in Cilicia. The next 
 period came in 48, and Claudius made the census. 
 
 On this series of facts, rests the presumption that the Egyptian fourteen- 
 year cycle has its roots in a principle of wider application. This brings us 
 22 
 
338 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 very near to Luke's statement that Augustus laid down a general principle 
 for the whole Roman world. On the contrary, Luke provides a key state- 
 ment, which holds together and explains and makes consistent all the rest 
 of the evidence. When Luke's evidence is held correct, the others fall into 
 line with it and are seen to be the working out of one general principle. 
 The recorded facts show a clear tendency to confirm the cycle. 
 
 The most important fact is that we have clear evidence, quite independent 
 of Luke, that the first, second, and fourth periodic enrollments were observed 
 in the province Syria ; 1st in Tertullian, 2nd on the Apamean stone, 3rd in 
 Tacitus. The occurrences are enough to show law of recurrence. 
 
 The conclusion is inevitable that " there was a system of periodic enroll- 
 ment in the province Syria, according to a fourteen-year cycle ( 14 in the 
 modern expression, 15 in Roman form), and the first enrollment took place 
 in the year 8 B. c. (Strictly Syrian year beginning in the spring of year, 
 8 b. c.) 
 
 Justin Martyr in his Apol. ( 1 : 34 ) appeals to registers in support of 
 Luke. 
 
 Herod's position in Judaea, was a difficult and delicate one. He was to 
 keep order and Hellenize the nation under his control. These two tasks, 
 well-nigh incompatible, he performed with great skill, and a fair amount 
 of success. He conformed so far as he could to Jewish prejudices. He kept 
 up the pretense of maintaining Jewish feelings. He maintained heathen 
 practices for the heathen. He left the Jews free. Between the years 8 and 
 7 B. C, Herod fell into disgrace with Augustus. The Judsean king's admin- 
 istration was much embarrassed too, by his loss of favor. If Luke's evidence 
 is to be taken, Herod for one thing was compelled to take the census. At 
 this time probably, is to be dated the incident of forcing people to take oath 
 of allegiance to Augustus, which six thousand Pharisees refused. Herod 
 would naturally try to avoid the humiliation of this new oath and census, and 
 would ask for delay and would ask of Saturninus permission to postpone the 
 numbering until he had heard from Rome. 
 
 The message from Rome was unfavorable and Herod was ordered to go 
 ahead with the census. A second embassy was sent and received more 
 favorably, but still Augustus was obdurate and the enrollment had to go on. 
 These negotiations would bring the date of the enrollment down this side 
 of the year ending April 17, 7 B. C. 
 
 Another consideration would cause some delay, viz. ; Herod's desire to 
 give the enrollment a tribal, Jewish character. This would be in accord 
 with his general policy and would make the task much easier to perform. 
 All who claimed to be Jews should go to their tribal cities ; all others would 
 be enrolled in their places of residence. The probability is that a date for 
 the enrollment was fixed. The most probable date would be late summer 
 of 7 or 6 B. c. There is little to choose so far as extra Biblical information 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 339 
 
 is concerned, but Luke's data make it more probable that the year 6 is cor- 
 rect. With this the general calculation of the conjunction of Jupiter and 
 Saturn in Pisces agrees. If this coincidence, to say the least, has a sound 
 basis, it unites all the indications of the subject, unites Matthew and Luke 
 and brings the birth of Jesus in the year 7-6 b. c. 
 
 The last serious difficulty in the Lukan narrative is the mention of 
 Quirinius. Tabular evidence points to a previous governorship of Quirinius 
 under Augustus (pages 227-8). 
 
 According to Mommsen, the most probable date for this previous gov^ 
 ernorship of Quirinius is 3-1 B. C. This date doubly conflicts with Luke. 
 
 1. Herod was dead before it. 
 
 2. The enrollment could not have been postponed so long. 
 
 Luke does not specify the office held by Quirinius at the time of the 
 Lord's birth. The word ( — i/yefiovevovTog, etc.) with its equivalents is used 
 for procurator, and even for imperial authority in a province. Hence the 
 word employed by Luke might be applied to any Roman official holding a 
 leading position of authority in a province. It might denote some special 
 mission. Some authorities have argued that Luke in assigning the date 
 mentions Quirinius who was at the time on a special mission of conspicuous 
 importance in the province. There are but four certain dates in the life of 
 Quirinius. 
 
 (1) Consulship, 12 B. c. 
 
 (2) Second Governorship of Syria, beginning A. D. 6. 
 
 (3) Prosecution of his wife, A. D. 20. 
 
 (4) Death and funeral, A. D. 21. 
 Between (1) and (2) occur certain events. 
 
 (a) He held office in Syria and carried on war with the Homona- 
 denses, a mountain tribe between Phrygia, Cilicia, and Lycaonia. This 
 was a conspicuous service for which high honors were paid him at 
 Rome. 
 
 (b) He governed Asia after his first administration of Syria. For this we 
 have only the years 5-4 or 3-2 b. c, or a. d. 4-5 or 5-6. The probabili- 
 ties are that the year 4-3 B. c, is the latest that he could have spent in 
 Syria. 
 
 The whole career of Quirinius is difficult and elusive. The general 
 probabilities based upon his marriage and divorce bring the date of his 
 administration in Asia to 5-3 B. c, and perhaps earlier. The difficulty pre- 
 sented by the governorship of Varus, who ruled Syria from 7-4 B. c, can be 
 solved only by supposing that Quirinius was put in charge of the military 
 force of Asia for the subjugation of the Homonadenses, while the civil 
 administration was left to Saturninus and Varus. This temporary division 
 of duties in a province is in accordance with historic analogy (page 238). 
 
 The whole argument is this : — 
 
340 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 About 8-5 B. c, Augustus made a great effort to pacify the dangerous and 
 troublesome mountaineers of Taurus, in order to prevent the continual plun- 
 dering, which they practiced on their peaceable neighbors. This required 
 the cooperation of all officials in the region affected. Military road systems 
 were established, and comprehensive operations began among the moun- 
 taineers. 
 
 The leader of this work was Quirinius as established by Josephus and 
 Strabo. The probability is that in 7 b. c, when Varus came to govern Syria, 
 Augustus, in view of the great task before him, sent a special officer with the 
 usual title, Lieutenant of Augustus (Legatus Augusti), to direct military 
 operations. Thus Quirinius conducted the war pretty certainly in 6 B. C, 
 varying a little either way. The enrollment of Syria was delayed until 
 6 B. C. This brought it about that Christ was born under the double gov- 
 ernorship, military and civil, of Quirinius and Varus. 
 
 This explains the contradiction between Luke and Tertullian who are 
 both in a way correct. Luke's expression concerning the Hegemonia of 
 Quirinius is correct and accurate. Thus the history stands assured. 
 
 In examining the argument of Trof. Ramsay, one cannot withhold a 
 tribute of admiration for the achievement. The book is a brilliant tour de 
 force of scholarship and logical acumen. 
 
 But we wish to assure ourselves as to the cogency of the argument as an 
 argument, entirely aside from our admiration for the work. Certain facts 
 are very clear. 
 
 I. The argument does not amount to a demonstration. The author would 
 be the first to acknowledge this — indeed, if we remember correctly, he 
 expressly states this fact. 
 
 The interpretation of Luke's meaning and purpose, the setting forth of 
 the internal evidences of care and accuracy, are very strong and satisfactory. 
 It appears at once, however, that the chain of external evidence upon which 
 the whole argument rests is at best only probable — in some cases hardly 
 more than possible. The strongest link in the chain is the evidence for a 
 periodic enrollment throughout the Roman world — one periodic year of 
 which was the year 8 B. C. 
 
 From this point on, the problem of adjustment becomes veiy difficult. 
 
 Luke's statement involves: — 
 
 (i) The birth of Jesus under Herod. 
 
 (2) Under Quirinius. 
 
 (3) In Bethlehem because of an enrollment ordered by Augustus. 
 
 (4) Carried out by Herod. 
 
 To begin with, we have to suppose a delay for a year or more in Herod's 
 compliance with this order of Augustus. To me the most unsubstantial 
 part of the whole argument is the reasoning to account for this delay on 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 34 1 
 
 Herod's part. 1 2 Next, taking it for granted that the dates may be adjusted, 
 Quirinius must be brought into action. This can be done only by postulat- 
 ing two governorships for Quirinius (one of which is seriously questioned), 
 and in addition for the first one a joint hegemony with Varus so that the 
 contradictory references may be reconciled. All this must be pronounced 
 problematical. It exhibits a distinct possibility, but little more. 
 
 2. Dr. Ramsay has demolished completely the self-confident dogma- 
 tism which hitherto has so flippantly discounted Luke, offhand. His 
 argument has done one thing with thoroughness if nothing more. He has 
 gone over the ground with such painstaking care and picked up every shred 
 of evidence with such keenness of vision that he has exhibited with rare 
 vividness the extreme difficulty of arriving at certain conclusions concerning 
 details of provincial government during the era of Augustus. One might as 
 well be dogmatic on the social conditions of the opposite side of the moon. 
 
 Prof. Ramsay has certainly made tenable the position taken in the text, 
 that Luke's account shows indubitable evidence of the presence of the his- 
 toric spirit ; that he meant to write history with care and accuracy ; that he 
 made the statement of the Gospel, concerning the circumstances under 
 which Jesus was born, on the basis of authority which he had good reason 
 to trust. 
 
 One may believe, if he chooses, that the statement involves an error, but 
 the case is by no means clear and we cannot be accused of credulity if 
 we loyally accept his statements as historically trustworthy. 3 
 
 We agree with Bishop Gore when he says : " It seems to me especially in 
 view of the deficiency of historical authorities for the period, that we dis- 
 play an exaggerated skepticism if we deny that so well-informed a writer as 
 St. Luke may have been quite correct in ascribing the movement to Bethle- 
 hem of Joseph and Mary to some necessity connected with a 'census' of 
 Juda:a which Herod was supplying at the demand of Augustus." (Gore: 
 Dissertations, p. 21 ; see also note on same page.) 
 
 The vexed problem of the census is an exceedingly tempting subject. It 
 
 1 Such a delay in the carrying out of a decree is not, however, without historic 
 parallel. The royal decree for the secularization of the California Missions was 
 passed Sept. 13, 1813, but was not published in California until Jan. 20, 1821. 
 See James: The Old Afissions of California, p. 88. 
 
 2 Ramsay himself realizes this weakness in his argument, and in the Ex- 
 positor, vol. iv, pp. 321-328 he meets it. His last word is not yet spoken on 
 the subject. 
 
 3 It is interesting to note that reviewers of Prof. Ramsay's book are practi- 
 cally a unit in holding that, while he has not demonstrated his point, he 
 certainly has advanced the whole discussion to a new stage and made the 
 historical accuracy of Luke much more probable (see review by Shailer 
 Mathews in Biblical World, vol. xiii, p. 282). 
 
342 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 is sufficiently obscure to be fascinating. The literature is vast and learned, 
 and the scholars who have contended on both sides many and great. It 
 seems to me clearly possible to overestimate the importance of the question. 
 If Luke made a mistake in connecting the birth of Jesus with the enroll- 
 ment, it might affect one's estimate of Luke's general standing as an his- 
 torian, but it does not touch the particular point of the place of Christ's 
 birth, and the seriousness of the question is materially lessened when we 
 realize that there are degrees in the mistake which is to be attributed to 
 Luke. Unless it is proved that the census statement as a whole is a pure 
 invention, in order to change the place of birth to Bethlehem, the historical 
 trustworthiness of the narrative will not seriously be impaired (Machen, 
 P. R., Oct., 1905, Jan., 1906). The same writer is clearly right when he 
 says : " It is just this that has not been proved. On the contrary, it seems 
 unlikely that the author should have put all this imperial machinery in 
 motion, and thus exposed himself to easy refutation, in order to accomplish 
 what might have been easily accomplished by a simpler expedient and one 
 which would have been less ignominious to the Messianic King." He 
 says also and truly : " If the note about the census be conceived of as the 
 result of a mere blunder, we need not necessarily give up the general trust- 
 •worthiness of the account. It all depends upon the nature of the blunder." 
 
 That this opens up an interesting field of speculation will be seen from 
 the following citations: Schmiedel says, "Quirinius was governor of 
 Syria A. D. 6, ten years after this time. The most plausible explanation 
 suggested is, perhaps, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, but there 
 is no direct and scarcely any indirect evidence to justify the belief. There 
 is no proof that Mary's presence was obligatory. 1 That St. Luke invented 
 such an enrollment is impossible, but that he antedated it is highly probable. 
 
 " Making or revising a compilation toward the close of the first century, he 
 might consider that the enrollment supplied an answer to the difficult 
 question : ' How came the parents of Jesus to Bethlehem at the time of 
 the birth? ' " This carries us a definite stage forward. Luke did not invent 
 the enrollment — he simply misplaced it. If he did not invent the enroll- 
 ment, in all probability, he did not invent the incident of the Bethlehem 
 birth. He certainly would not invent an incident, which presented him 
 with so difficult a question that he had to invent a second incident to account 
 for the incident he had just invented. Nay more, he would not have lightly 
 accepted an incident which thrust a difficult question upon him. If he could 
 have denied the incident involving so serious a difficulty, he would have done 
 so rather than resort to such a desperate expedient as inventing or perverting 
 an historic event to account for it. It is impossible to put forward a motive 
 which would induce Luke to accept a loosely accredited fable involving a 
 serious difficulty, which he had to meet and satisfy. The more we empha- 
 1 Does Luke say that it was ? See Ramsay on the argument. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 343 
 
 size the "blunder" involved in the reference to the enrollment, the more 
 certain we make it that the incident in Jesus' life which he records must 
 have had good backing. This is more clearly brought out by Holtzmann 
 (L. J. Eng. Tr., p. 87). He holds that there is no escape from the Quirinius 
 difficulty. He says : " Luke's purpose in introducing the census of Quirinius 
 is, of course, perfectly plain. He knew that Jesus' parents belonged to 
 Nazareth, and he is seeking for some reason which might occasion the 
 journey to Bethlehem. But, in point of fact, he could use it for this purpose 
 only because he associated with it an entirely false conception as to the 
 course of Roman procedure on such occasions." Admitting this last state- 
 ment, we have this fact before us. Luke knew that the family of Jesus 
 came from Nazareth, and that He was known commonly as a Nazarene. 
 Knowing this he must have believed, unless he had definite information to 
 the contrary, that Jesus was born where He lived. With this belief in his 
 mind, he must have had especially authoritative information to make him 
 change his mind and become so strongly convinced of the Bethlehem birth 
 that he even undertook to move the machinery of the Roman Empire to 
 bring about the event. To take so much trouble, he must have been deeply 
 convinced of the occurrence — such a mental condition could not have been 
 brought about by any unauthenticated rumor. It must have been excellent 
 authority. Whether Luke blundered or not in his historical reference, there 
 is every reason to believe that the event occurred as he said that it occurred. 
 The burden of proof lies with those who deny, and the burden is no light one. 
 They must prove the historical blunder first — and then the biographical 
 next. The two are not one. The first does not involve the second. 
 
NOTE D 
 Christ's birth and the messianic hope 
 
 The Messianic Hope of the Jews has been treated recently in a novel and 
 interesting way by Prof. Shailer Mathews of the Chicago University. Prof. 
 Mathews states the essential conclusions to which his investigations have 
 led in the following words : " An impartial comparison of the New Testa- 
 ment literature with the contemporary and immediately preceding literature 
 of Judaism shows an essential identity in the general scheme of the 
 Messianic Hope .... The New Testament literature modifies this 
 general scheme only as it is compelled so to do by the actual events con- 
 nected with the life of Jesus. 
 
 " Thus it recognizes that the Christ has suffered and died, and that His 
 death is vicarious. Its belief in the Resurrection is no longer a theory, but a 
 generalization of the fact in Jesus' own career. Its understanding of a per- 
 sonal Christ is now supplemented by a knowledge of the historical career of 
 Jesus as a preacher and exponent of divine love as well as sovereignty. 
 The new Christianity also magnifies the Spirit — the actual interpenetration 
 of the divine and human personalities." (Page 317. ) 
 
 Taking it for granted that the author is correct in his exposition of the 
 relationship between the old and the new in the New Testament faith, the 
 place of the birth of Christ (although the author does not treat it systemati- 
 cally) in the historical process which he unfolds, is very evident. The 
 mode of the Messiah's entrance into the world, and the method by which 
 His organic connection with the race was accomplished would constitute a 
 problem for solution along with the other facts of His life, such as His suffer- 
 ings, death, and resurrection. In the Gospels, we have the historic facts of 
 His death and resurrection stated without comment, in the one case other 
 than the prophetic words of Jesus pointing to a deep and hidden significance 
 in His coming death ; and in the other, the profound relief and joy of the dis- 
 ciples at finding Him alive after His passion. In neither case is the full 
 doctrinal significance of the historic fact worked out in the Gospels. In the 
 Apostolic preaching recorded at the beginning of the Acts, we have the 
 Resurrection historically considered as a vindication of Christ's Messiahship, 
 and a divine confounding of the counsels of wicked men ; but even yet the 
 doctrinal implication of the death and resurrection are not fully unfolded. It 
 344 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 345 
 
 is only when we come to the Epistles of Peter and Paul that we find that the 
 death of Christ has become the foundation of a doctrine of the Atonement; 
 and the Resurrection, the corner stone of positive teaching concerning the 
 last things. We are thus enabled to see the gradual process by which the 
 great historic facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus were finally 
 wrought into the structure of faith, modifying the inherited Messianism of 
 the disciples so vitally that it became practically a new religion. 1 
 
 In the first and third Gospels, the mode of Christ's birth is stated as a 
 historical fact and in that simple form of narrative statement it is allowed to 
 stand. The real problem in connection with the whole matter of Christ's 
 birth is not the form of the historic statement, but the lack of doctrinal 
 unfolding in the rest of the New Testament. 
 
 It is clearly evident that an authoritative statement concerning the cir- 
 cumstances of the Saviour's birth, would at some time become inevitable. 
 One of the mooted questions of the time was : '* How should the Messiah 
 come, and in what form should He be manifested? " 
 
 It is also evident that the actual historical mode of the Saviour's appear- 
 ance would be likely to modify the inherited Messianism of the disciples 
 quite as much, proportionately, as any other of the facts for which they had 
 to make room in their scheme. 
 
 It is also to be noticed that one tenacious feature of contemporary Jewish 
 expectation was that the Messiah should be manifested suddenly and 
 unexpectedly, in some striking and spectacular way. In the passage from 
 John ( vii, 27 ) already commented upon, we have the most unmistakable 
 evidence of this contemporary interest in the mode of the Saviour's birth. 
 Certain of the Jews were always troubled by the fact that Jesus belonged to 
 the household of Joseph and Mary, and acknowledged them as parents. It 
 thus becomes certain that sooner or later the writers of the life of Christ 
 would be compelled to make clear and definite answer to the question con- 
 cerning the manner of His birth. And being compelled to this by the 
 thrust of actual controversy, they would naturally be at great pains to have 
 the facts well in hand. Indeed, it would seem that in view of the universal 
 interest in the cardinal question of the Messiah's advent, greater pains would 
 be taken in this portion of His life than almost any other. Moreover, it 
 would seem to be equally clear that the inherited notions of the disciples 
 would be molded as in other cases by the impact upon their minds of the 
 actual facts of Jesus' life. Inherited conceptions, at least among the Jews, 
 are too strongly held to be set aside at the bidding of loosely accredited 
 myths or fables. There is no reason to suppose that the expectations of 
 the disciples would differ greatly from those of their contemporaries who, 
 
 1 The Epistles of Paul were, of course, in point of composition, earlier than 
 the Synoptic Gospels as we have them ; but they represent a maturer phase of 
 doctrine. 
 
346 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 looking for a glorious Messiah, looked also for His glorious advent in 
 dignity and power. They were expecting a Messiah who should appear 
 suddenly in a blaze of splendor, and whose origin should be veiled in 
 mystery. At the very least, they would expect the circumstances of His 
 coming to be in harmony with the exalted character of His personality, and 
 the dignity of His divine mission. 
 
 In the absence of authoritative information, the unrestrained fancy of the 
 disciples might easily have run along some such line as that of the men 
 who said : "When Messiah cometh, no one knoweth whence He is." It 
 may be said that this tendency would have been restrained by the evident 
 fact that He had belonged to a Galilaean household, and that there had been 
 about Him people who claimed to be His kinsfolk ; besides, the Messiah 
 was to be the son of David. All this is true, but it would have been per- 
 fectly easy in the absence of authoritative information and in an atmosphere 
 of vagueness and uncertainty, which must be postulated as the basis of any 
 legendary interpretation of the narrative, to state that Jesus did not really 
 belong to the family of Nazareth ; that His origin was wholly miraculous, 
 and that both Joseph and Mary were His foster parents. It would have 
 been in harmony with current expectations to say: "The real kinships of 
 the Messiah are in heaven. He is to be manifested, not born." Why was 
 it necessary to imply a birth at all ? The conception of a virgin birth is a com- 
 plicated invention compared with the simple device of a totally miraculous 
 origin. To this reasoning, there is but one satisfactory answer — that there 
 were at hand, when the narratives were written, so many who knew that 
 Jesus was born of Mary and had grown up in her home from childhood that 
 such an invention would have been impossible. This answer is fatal to the 
 negative position in general ; for the person or persons who knew so much 
 were close enough to reliable sources of information to know whether the 
 narrative of Jesus' conception and birth, as related in the Gospels, was fact 
 or fiction. The wholesale invention of a completely miraculous entrance 
 into the world, without the embarrassing circumstances of birth and infancy, 
 would have been more natural to Jewish Messianists than the miraculous 
 birth from Mary ; and the statement of this belief with the skill and grace 
 which mark the Infancy narratives of the Gospel would, with many people, 
 have lent tremendous force to the argument for the Messiahship of Jesus 
 drawn from His lofty and mysterious origin. The claim of Davidic descent, 
 which itself involved a controversial question of no little difficulty, 1 might 
 have rested, then as now, upon the foster fatherhood of Joseph, or upon a 
 spiritual interpretation of the promise. 
 
 In contradistinction to all this, the narrative as it now exists in its totality 
 — virgin birth and all, in spirit, atmosphere, and details is the very last thing 
 that an imaginative Jewish Messianist would have invented. The story in 
 1 See Matt, xxii, 41-46. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 347 
 
 both sections implies such weakness, poverty, and obscurity on the part 
 of the family that the further fact stated that the child had been miraculously 
 conceived, which in the form given to it had its own peculiar element of 
 offense, could afford very little relief. 
 
 We are thus logically forced, in the absence of a paramount motive for 
 their invention, to the position that in the statements of the first and third 
 Gospels we have, as in the other statements concerning the teaching, death, 
 and resurrection of Christ, the inherited Messianic conceptions of the dis- 
 ciples modified by contact with the actual facts in the life of the historic 
 Jesus. 
 
 But, this being so, why did the fact receive no doctrinal unfolding such 
 as was accorded to the death and resurrection of Jesus? In the light of 
 the actual experience of the disciples, this problem solves itself. At the 
 beginning of their ministry, after the Resurrection had taken place, the 
 Resurrection itself was the supreme fact of their entire lives. Their first 
 preaching was "Jesus and the Resurrection" — the supreme Personality 
 and the incident in His career, which had done most to make Him as such 
 known to them. Then, step by step, they were led back from the Resur- 
 rection to the death that preceded it ; from the death to the life of which it 
 was the issue. Chronologically first — the birth of Jesus, logically, in the 
 unfolding of their thought, came last. The origin of the Messiah was one 
 problem among others, and not the most immediately pressing. It was only 
 when the life, as a life, was being written that the necessity of stating the 
 facts as to the origin of Jesus became urgent. 
 
 It is also true that the doctrinal implications of the miraculous birth are 
 not so evident nor so far reaching as those of His death and resurrection. 
 It was the peculiar controversial situation in the second century which gave 
 such doctrinal importance to the question of Jesus' origin. 
 
 Paul's peculiar experience led him to place such emphasis upon the 
 resurrection of Christ and upon His death as connected therewith, as well- 
 nigh to eclipse all other facts in the life of Jesus. Besides, his career as a 
 theologian was in all probability cut short by the catastrophe of His martyr- 
 dom. 
 
 In the case of John, the center of controversy had shifted. The compre- 
 hensive and vital question of the Incarnation was at stake; and in the general 
 battle for the reality of the Lord's life in the flesh, which involved the his- 
 toric faith as a whole, all minor questions of faith under the general con- 
 tention were lost sight of. The question of the miraculous birth does not 
 definitely arise. 
 
 We are thus enabled to see why the historic fact stated in the first and 
 third Gospels was not doctrinally developed in the later New Testament. 
 This was not due to the disbelief of the disciples in it. The silence of the 
 writers of the other New Testament books is evidence enough of this. 
 
 S 
 
348 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 None of the men of the New Testament ever hesitated to antagonize beliefs 
 which they did not share. Had the question of the Lord's birth become 
 a controversial one in the time of John or Paul, an authoritative statement, 
 other than those of Matthew and Luke which carried the assent of the 
 teachers of the church, would have been issued by some one of them. Had 
 there been any authorized teaching opposed to Matthew and Luke it would 
 inevitably have been appealed to in subsequent controversy. Nor was it 
 because they did not know it. The relationship between Paul and Luke 
 makes it practically impossible to believe that he was not aware of a cardinal 
 fact in the life of Jesus which Luke took so seriously. The argument from 
 silence is useless when, as in the present instance, a good reason for the 
 omission of statements can be adduced. 
 
 The entire logical outcome of Prof. Mathews' studies, so far as they bear 
 on our theme, is to reinforce our faith that the Infancy narratives are an 
 integral and congruous part of the New Testament history. 
 
NOTE E 
 
 THE APOSTLES' CREED 
 
 The controversy concerning the Apostles' Creed, which is really responsible 
 for recent interest in the Infancy narratives, is full of interest for the student 
 of early Christian history and involves many questions of vital import. 
 
 Prof. Harnack's work, "The Apostles' Creed," 1892 (Eng. Tr.) was 
 met and in many important points answered by Prof. Swete of Cambridge 
 (the Apostles' Creed). The results of the controversy and of other studies 
 of the subject are seen in an interesting way in a thoughtful volume by 
 Prof. McGiffert of Union Theological Seminary on the "Apostles' Creed, Its 
 Origin, Its Purpose, and Its Historical Interpretation." 1 
 
 Certain aspects of Prof. McGiffert's discussion have, of course, a bearing 
 upon the question of Jesus' birth. 
 
 According to the author, the Old Roman Symbol of which our creed is a 
 modified version, took its rise in the last quarter of the second century, and 
 was framed to meet certain specific difficulties and errors which were then 
 current. The assertion which it contains, that Jesus Christ was born of a 
 woman, was crucified, dead, and buried, and rose again, and that it was the 
 crucified One who ascended into heaven, repudiates the entire docetic con- 
 ception which made a phantom of Christ's human life. 
 
 The origin of the symbol in this controversy accounts for the emphasis 
 which it places upon the virgin birth, and its corresponding neglect of the 
 Baptism. The docetic teachers laid great emphasis upon the baptism of 
 Jesus, not only as the formal inauguration of His ministry, but also as the 
 definite moment when the eternal Christ came down upon the man Jesus 
 in the temporary union which they imagined to have subsisted during His 
 ministry. The orthodox teachers met this attack by minimizing the Baptism, 
 which consequently appears in no early symbol, and giving corresponding 
 emphasis to the virgin birth. 
 
 So far as the framer of the symbol is concerned, the dominant interest in 
 the statement concerning the birth of Jesus lay in its reality rather than in its 
 miraculousness. 
 
 This statement serves to bring out clearly the fact elsewhere insisted upon, 
 
 1 Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902. 
 
 349 
 
350 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 that the first attacks upon the Infancy documents were due quite as much to 
 a bias against their emphasis upon the human element in the origin of 
 Christ as to their insistence and emphasis upon the divine. 
 
 Prof. McGiffert's conclusions as to the date of the belief in the virgin 
 birth are interesting. " The belief in the virgin birth, though certainly not 
 common in the earliest days, had become widespread before the end of the 
 first century, as is shown by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and the 
 Epistles of Ignatius, and was a part of the general faith of the church before 
 the Old Roman Symbol was framed." 
 
 What the author means by the "earliest times" will appear from the 
 following statement : " It contains the virgin birth, which was believed at 
 a comparatively early day, to be sure, but certainly did not constitute a part 
 of the original preaching of the disciples." 
 
 That the virgin birth did not form a part of the early preaching of the 
 disciples is probably correct, but it ought clearly to be recognized that the 
 evidence is by no means conclusive, and that the bearing of the fact upon 
 the general argument is by no means what is often claimed for it. 
 
 The evidence supplied by the Gospel of Mark and the discourses in the 
 first part of the Acts is too scanty to base anything but the most general 
 conclusions upon. We are still a long way from certainty on the details of 
 the disciples' preaching. 
 
 Moreover, the preaching of the disciples is not decisive testimony as to 
 their beliefs. There was much in their early faith that was only gradually 
 unfolded in their teaching. The belief in the virgin birth emerges into the 
 sub-apostolic age with the marks of authority strongly upon it. 1 So far as 
 we can judge, only a few heretics contested it, and they upon doctrinal and 
 not historical grounds. 2 
 
 Prof. McGiffert says also: "The early stages of the belief we cannot 
 trace. It can hardly have originated with Matthew or Luke, upon the basis 
 of whose statements it became a part of the faith of the church — for it does 
 not dominate nor does it even color their story of Christ's life. In fact it 
 stands entirely isolated in both Gospels." 
 
 With some modification, this statement stands, and the bearing of the fact 
 upon the general argument should not be overlooked. It clearly demon- 
 strates that at the time of the formation of the documents, and in the minds 
 of the persons responsible for them, there was no dogmatic bias which could 
 account for the invention of the story. That the evangelists made no doc- 
 trinal use of the fact shows that their interest in it was predominantly his- 
 toric. It seems perfectly clear that the evangelists did not altogether 
 recognize the bearing of the fact, which they had stated concerning Christ's 
 birth, upon Christian doctrine, and did not know exactly what to do with it. 
 
 1 See Gore, Dissert., pp. 41-54. 
 
 2 Nash : Hist. Criticism of N. T., p. 30. 
 
A UTHOR ' S NO TES 3 5 I 
 
 In fact, it required the controversies of a later age to bring out the sig- 
 nificance of the historic fact of Christ's supernatural birth. 
 
 In the second century, the Infancy narrative formed one of the chief bul- 
 warks against heresies which might easily have overwhelmed the church. 
 The inestimable value of the Infancy narratives in these later controversies 
 may be seen in a very simple and graphic way. 
 
 Prof. McGiffert calls attention to the evident fact that while the prepo- 
 sition £K was used in the Old Roman Symbol and by Ignatius, did was 
 used by Justin Martyr and e/c again by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Either 
 preposition might be used to represent the fact stated in the Gospels that 
 Jesus was begotten by the agency of the Holy Spirit. The change, how- 
 ever, from the one to the other, shows clearly the progress of the controversy. 
 The statements of the Roman Symbol were carefully made to combat the 
 teachings of the docetists who denied the reality of the Lord's earthly 
 and physical life. Hence they used etc to emphasize the reality of Jesus' 
 physical derivation from Mary. Justin Martyr, however, was interested in 
 emphasizing the Deity and the preexistence of Christ. He therefore used 
 the preposition did to indicate the character of Mary's mediative agency in 
 bringing into the world the divine and preexistent Christ. 
 
 In Tertullian' s time, the teaching of Marcion, who also phantomized the 
 Lord's human life, had become a menace to the faith. He, therefore, refuses 
 to use did and returns to ek. The broad and simple statements of the Gos- 
 pels were so admirably adapted to the defense of the faith against attacks 
 either upon the deity or the humanity of the Lord, that it is difficult to 
 see how the church could have met those subtle attacks from both sides 
 without them. 
 
 In one point, I am compelled to differ seriously from the author's view. 
 In supporting the statement, which is certainly demonstrable on other 
 grounds, that the Infancy narrative and the Logos doctrine had a different 
 origin, he says: "For what we have in Matthew and Luke is not the 
 incarnation of a preexistent being, but the origin of a new being. It is 
 not that the Holy Spirit (or the Logos) passes through the womb of Mary 
 and thus becomes man, but that the Holy Spirit unites with Mary in pro- 
 ducing a new person, Jesus Christ." This statement of an alleged contra- 
 diction between the belief in the miraculous birth of the Infancy narratives 
 and the belief in the Incarnation of the preexistent Logos of John involves 
 a fundamental misunderstanding of both doctrines. 
 
 Incidentally, it should be said that the confusion or identification of the 
 Logos and the Holy Spirit is an ancient heresy, and is in line neither with 
 the Infancy documents (whose use of the Holy Spirit is impersonal), nor 
 with John who clearly distinguishes between Christ (Logos Incarnate) and 
 the Holy Spirit who came upon Him with power at the Baptism. 
 
 Furthermore, the doctrine of the Incarnation of the preexistent Christ, as 
 
352 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 taught by John and accepted by Paul, does not mean that the Logos simply 
 passed through the womb of Mary without undergoing radical and perma- 
 nent change by that experience. The phrase of John, "Becoming flesh," 
 means far more than a mere passing through in order to become man. Also, 
 and with special emphasis, the doctrine of the miraculous birth does not 
 mean that the Holy Spirit united with Mary in producing a new person. 
 Nor did the authors of the Infancy sections mean to affirm any such thing. 
 Combine Matthew's use of the Immanuel passage and his interpretation of 
 the realization of ancient theocratic hopes in the newborn king (especially 
 his quotation from Micah in which the Ruler is spoken of, whose goings 
 forth have been of old, from eternity), with the words put by Luke into 
 the mouths of the angels that the Child was Christ the Lord, who should 
 be called the Son of the Highest; and we have a conception of the dignity 
 and greatness of the Babe, the implication of which carries us well on 
 toward the idea of the preexistent Lord of John and Paul. The Chris- 
 tology of the Infancy sections is Jewish and undeveloped, but it involves far 
 more than the origination of a new person by whatever agency. 
 
 One distinguished scholar thinks that this is just the vital point of differ- 
 ence between the theory of natural generation and the historic theory of 
 supernatural generation; viz., that the former involves the origination of a 
 new person in distinction to the creation of a new nature. He says : " Do 
 not we inevitably associate with the ordinary process of generation the 
 production of a new personality ? Must not the denial of the virgin birth 
 involve the position that Jesus was simply a new human person in whatever 
 specially intimate relations with God ? " 1 
 
 However this may be, the Infancy documents do not teach the creation 
 of a new person. 
 
 The special implication of these documents is that the human nature of 
 Jesus was a special, divine creation mediated through the maternal agency 
 of Mary. It is certainly true that Matthew and Luke held to a belief in a 
 real birth and beginning of life to the historical Being whom they knew as 
 Jesus the Christ. They must have done so, for whatever theory one holds 
 as to the person of Christ, it is historically true that the person known as 
 Jesus Christ began to be in embryo at His conception and actually at His 
 birth. 
 
 The Gospel narratives affirm that this beginning was due to a special crea- 
 tive act. Matthew and Luke imply that by the agency of God through the 
 virgin Mary, a new beginning was made in Jesus Who was born at Bethle- 
 hem. 
 
 But so also and no less do John and Paul imply a new beginning in Jesus. 
 For, when John says that the preexistent Word became flesh and dwelt 
 among us, and when Paul says that the exalted Lord was made of a woman, 
 1 Gore, Dissert., pp. 64, 5. 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 353 
 
 both imply a change on the part of the one becoming and being made, a 
 birth, a beginning in humanity. So far, they are in harmony with the 
 authors of the Infancy sections ; but they go one step farther and affirm that 
 this birth, this new beginning in time, was a part of the experience of one 
 who had had an exalted career in eternity. 
 
 But that the coming into the world of the preexistent one did not involve 
 mysterious and radical change in condition, state, and relationship, the 
 assumption of a nature not hitherto possessed, and of limitations not hitherto 
 undergone, totally ignores the Scriptural teaching on the humiliation of 
 Christ, and logically involves a denial of reality of the Incarnation alto- 
 gether. A complete doctrine of the Incarnation is that at the moment of 
 conception a divinely created human nature began to be and was united to 
 the eternal Christ by the agency of the Holy Spirit. The advent of Jesus 
 Christ means, therefore, the manifestation of a specially created humanity 
 in vital union with the Christ, who had consented to yield Himself to the 
 same limitations even to the extent of being born in obedience to the same 
 creative act. 1 
 
 It was in this sense that we may broadly affirm that Christ was born at 
 Bethlehem, meaning thereby not as some have thought, that Jesus was thus 
 born Who afterwards became the Christ. The very Christ was actually born 
 of Mary. This is the essence of the Christmas message. 
 
 Historically, however, we are probably not to suppose that the whole of 
 this majestic truth was revealed to the disciples at once. In all probability, 
 they rose gradually to the lofty faith that Jesus was not only a divinely 
 created man, but also the Incarnation of the eternal Son of the Father. 
 
 Viewed thus, there is no contradiction nor even inconsistency in these two 
 modes of Christological interpretation. They lay hold of two aspects of 
 one and the same historic act, and are two parts of one majestic conception. 
 
 The true implication of the twofold truth is that Christ's manhood was 
 peculiarly divine in that it was a special creation of God, and that His deity 
 had become human in that He was, even through the process of conception 
 and birth, the Christ, the Son of God. 
 1 See Stevens : Johannine Theol., p. 95, also Godet, Comm. on John, ad. loc. 
 23 
 
NOTE F 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 I. Lives of Christ. 
 
 A. The Negative Position is supported in the following works : — 
 Keim : Life of Jesus of Nazara (Eng. Tr., Williams and Norgate, 2nd 
 
 edition). 
 Beyschlag : Leben Jesu, Vol I. 
 
 O. Holtzmann: Life of Jesus (Eng. Tr., A. and C. Black, 1904). 
 Strauss : Life of Jesus. (Eng. Tr. by Marian Evans.) 
 
 B. The Traditional Position is advocated by 
 
 Weiss: Life of Jesus (Eng. Tr., T. and T. Clark, 1S83). 
 
 This is both learned and logical. The major contentions of this 
 book have never been successfully met. 
 Lange : Life of the Lord Jesus Christ (Eng. Tr. by Taylor and Ryland, 
 
 Smith, English & Co., Phila.). 
 Sanday: Outlines of Life of Christ (Scribner's, reprinted from H.B.D.). 
 The other standard lives of Christ in English, especially Andrews 
 for chronology, Edersheim for Jewish characteristics, etc. 
 
 II. Commentaries and Introductions. 
 
 A. Negative. 
 
 H. J. Holtzmann : Synoptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursprung und 
 Geschichtlichen Charakter, sees. 12 and 13, and various German 
 commentaries, such as Meyer, De Wette, Reuss, etc. 
 
 B. The Traditional Position has been advocated by 
 
 Godet : Commentary on Luke's Gospel. (American Standard Edi- 
 tion, 1 881, F. and W.) 
 Plummer: Com. on Luke. (International Critical Commentaries.) 
 This work is by far the most satisfactory study of the third Gospel. 
 It is scholarly, sane, and moderate. 
 Weiss (B. ): Introduction to New Testament (Eng. Tr., two vols., Funk 
 
 and Wagnalls). 
 Salmon: Introduction to N. T. (4th edition, Murray, 1889). 
 Zahn: Einleitung, etc. (Eng. translation about to be issued by Charles 
 Scribner's Sons). 
 
 This is the most learned work on the conservative side of the New 
 Testament controversy. 
 354 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 355 
 
 For an able and succinct discussion of the Infancy narratives, espe- 
 cially the genealogies, see Ebrard (J. H.) : Gospel History 
 (Eng. Tr. ) Div. II., pp. 149 f. 
 
 III. Monographs on Virgin Birth. 
 
 A. Negative. 
 
 Soltau W.: Birth of Jesus Christ (A. and C. Black, 1903). 
 
 Lobstein P.: Virgin Birth of Christ (Putnam, 1903). 
 
 Sydow: Die Wunderbare Geburt Jesu (Berlin, 1873). 
 
 Hillmann : Die Kindheitgeschichte Jesu nach Lukas (Jahrbucher fur 
 
 protestantische Theologie, 1891, pp. 192-261). 
 Usener: Religionsgeschichte Untersuchungen, Band I (Bonn, 1899). 
 Rohrbach : Geboren von der Jungfrau (Berlin, 1898). 
 
 B. Conservative. 
 
 Steinmeyer: Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn, U. S. W. , 1 873. 
 Nebe : Die Kindheitsgeschichte des Herrn nach Mathaiis und Lukas, 
 
 l8 9 3- 
 
 Berthout (A.) : La naissance miraculeuse, etc. (papers published in 
 author's posthumous Conferences Apologetiques, Paris, 1900). 
 
 Resch : Das Kindheits Evangelium ( Gebhardt-Harnack Texten). 
 
 Gore: Dissertations on subjects connected with the Incarnation, 
 Diss. I. 
 
 Ramsay: Was Christ born at Bethlehem? Putnam, 1898. (Inci- 
 dental support.) 
 
 IV. The Credal Controversy. 
 
 A. Negative. 
 
 Harnack : The Apostles' Creed, 1892. 
 
 Herrmann: Worum handelt an sich im Streit um das Apostolicum, 
 
 Leipzig, 1893. 
 Bornemann : Der Streit um das Apostolicum, Leipzig, 1893. 
 Harnack : History of Dogma, Vol. I. 
 Holtzmann : Lehrbuch der neues testamentlichen Theologie, 1S97, 
 
 vol. i, pp. 409 seq. 
 
 B. Conservative. 
 
 Wohlenburg : Empfangen von Heiligen Geist, u. s. w., Leipzig, 1S93. 
 Haussleiter : Zur Vorgeschichte des Apostolischen Glaubens bekennt- 
 
 niss, Miinchen, 1893. 
 Cremer : Zum Kampf um das Apostolicum. 
 Zahn (Th.) : Das Apostolische Symbolum (Erlangen und Leipzig). 
 
 The student who does not read German may make himself thor- 
 oughly conversant with the merits of this controversy by reading 
 the following books : — 
 Harnack: The Apostles' Creed (Eng. Tr.). 
 Swete : The Apostles' Creed (C. J. Clay & Son, 1894). 
 
356 AUTHOR'S NOTES 
 
 Zahn : The Articles of the Apostles' Creed (Eng. Tr., Hodder and 
 S tough ton, 1889). 
 
 McGiffert : The Apostles' Creed, etc., Scribner's, 1902. 
 
 Swete answers Harnack, and does it with great effectiveness as will be 
 seen by reading the two books and then comparing them with Prof. 
 McGiffert' s later work. The latter writer by no means holds with 
 all the contentions of Harnack. A popular and interesting discus- 
 sion of the subject is Stimson's Apostles' Creed (Pilgrim Press, 
 1898). In the investigation of the antiquity of the Creed, the 
 student should give careful heed to the evidence supplied by the 
 recovered Apology of Aristides translated and edited by J. Ren- 
 dell Harris (in Studies and Texts, edited by J. A. Robinson, Cam. 
 Un. Press). Cf. new vol. Ante-Nicene Fathers (T. and T. Clark, 
 1897) pp. 259 seq. On the origin of the New Testament in 
 addition to books already cited : The Study of the Gospels by J. 
 A. Robinson (Longmans, 1902), and Stanton's Gospels as 
 Historical Documents, Pt. I (Un. Cam. Press, 1903), will be found 
 particularly useful. 
 
 V. The Census Question. 
 
 The strongest statement of the case against Luke is made by 
 Schurer (Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, En. Tr. 
 from 2d Ger. Ed.) whose work is the thesaurus of German 
 literature on both sides of the question. Ramsay's argument in 
 " Was Christ born at Bethlehem? " was constructed with especial 
 reference to Schurer. The latter in the latest edition of his work, 
 the first volume of which was issued in 1 901, makes rejoinder to 
 Ramsay. 
 
 VI. Heathen Influence. 
 
 In addition to works cited in the text, Cheyne's earlier work, Jewish 
 Rel. Life after the Exile (Putnam, 1S98) is a good corrective to 
 his later vagaries on this subject, see especially pp. 216-261. 
 The following special articles in English and American Reviews 
 should be consulted : — 
 
 Birth and Infancy of Christ. Kitto's Mag Vol. 12, p. 351 
 
 Ibid " 13, p. 420 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen on Birth and Infancy of Christ. 
 
 Meth. Mag " 55, p. 844 
 
 A. P. Peabody in Unitarian R " 9, p. 226 
 
 Wieseler's Chronology. Bibliotheca Sacra " 3, p. 166, 653 
 
 Chronology of Christ's Birth. Bibliotheca Sacra ... " 27, p. 290 
 Birthplace and Chronology. Methodist Quarterly ..." 32, p. 216 
 Life of Jesus and Legends of Buddha. Brit, and For. 
 
 Ev. Rev " 31, p. 728 
 
AUTHOR'S NOTES 357 
 
 Jesus at 12 years old. Sunday Mag Vol. 18, p. 130 
 
 Birth of Christ. Was it Supernatural? (Cook) One day " 6, p. 443 
 
 Flight into Egypt (van Dyke). Harper " 80, p. 44 
 
 Christ prior to His Public Ministry (Godet). Christ. Lit. " 13, p. 92 
 Miraculous Conception and Virgin Birth of Christ 
 
 (Ropes) Andover R " 19, p. 695 
 
 Miraculous Birth (Terry) Meth. R " 61, p. 891 
 
 Legendary Story of Childhood (Potter) New World . . " 8, p. 645 
 Liberal Movement in Church of Eng. ( J. Verschoyle). 
 
 Contem. Rev " 84, p. 233 
 
 Magi and Their Quest. Chautauquan " 36, p. 299 seq. 
 
 Ancestry and Parentage. Bib. World " 26, p. 195 
 
 Philo's Doctrine of the Divine Father and Virgin Mother. 
 
 Am. Journ. of Theol " 9, p. 518 
 
 Gospel Stories of the Virgin Birth. Independent ... " 55, p. 3036 
 Supernatural Birth of Jesus. Am. Journ. of Theol. . . " 10, p. 1-30 
 Birth of Christ. (W. S. Steele.) Meth. R., Jan., 1892. 
 New Testament Accounts of the Birth of Christ. (Machen.) 
 
 Two Articles. Princeton Rev. Oct., 1905, Jan., 1906. 
 St. Luke and the Incarnation. Expos. Times .... " 12, p. 222 
 
 In Support of Ramsay. Ibid " 14, p. 296 
 
 Marriage of Joseph and Mary " 5, p. 127 
 
 Divine Activity in Birth of Christ " 5, p. 132 
 
 Virgin Birth of our Lord. Christian World Pulpit. Feb., 4, 
 
 1903. 
 Historical Crit. and Dogma of Virgin Birth. C. A. 
 
 Briggs, N. A. Review, June, 1906. 
 
 Additional remarks : — 
 
 Of the above articles, three deserve especial mention : That by Ropes for 
 its able grasp of the general significance of the subject ; that by Steele for 
 its treatment of the question concerning the prophecies ; that by Machen 
 for its searching treatment of minute and difficult textual questions. 
 
 For the discussion of the related problems of Christian theology and his- 
 tory, nothing could be more satisfactory than the volume of Cambridge 
 Theological Essays (Macmillan and Co.). For a study of the general 
 implications of the so-called liberal position on this and other themes, the 
 clearest statement is to be found in Gardner : Hist. View of the New Testa- 
 ment, A. and C. Black. The student should make constant use of the 
 articles in the Hastings Bib. Diet, to which frequent references have been 
 made. 
 
 For the conservative trend of recent criticism see new edition Hauck- 
 Hertzog, Real-encyclopaedia: Article, "Jesus Christ" by ZSchler. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abraham, promise to, 38, 4°-43> 
 75- 76. 
 
 Abbott, Dr. Lyman, 272. 
 
 Ahaz and the Messiah, 37. 
 
 Alford, Dean, 125. 
 
 Ambrose, saying of, 159. 
 
 Amenhotep III., birth according 
 to legend, 1 70 ; birth according 
 to fact, 172-3. 
 
 Angelology, of Luke 189 ; of 
 Matthew, 326. 
 
 Angels, agency of, 255, 256 n. 
 
 Antinomies in the Gospels, 251 
 seq. ; in Infancy Narratives, 
 254 ; problem of, 255, 256 note. 
 
 Antioch, synod of, statement, 
 284 note. 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, persecu- 
 tion of, 144. 
 
 Apocalyptic (Jewish), Messianic 
 expectations of, 305. 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels, Keim's use 
 of, 59, 62, 63, 64 ; character 
 of, 138. 
 
 Apostles' Creed, origin of, 349. 
 
 Aramaic, 136. 
 
 Archelaus, 2. 
 
 Astrology, Matthew's attitude to- 
 ward, 128. 
 
 Augustus (Emperor), 340. 
 
 Babylonian myths, 177-180. 
 
 Bacon, B. W., 207, 216, 329. 
 
 Badham, 288. 
 
 Baptism of Christ, importance of, 
 308 ; and His Messianic con- 
 sciousness, 56, note at end of 
 chap, iv, 258. 
 
 Bartlet, J. V., 327. 
 
 Beecher, Dr. W. J., 32, 33, 38, 
 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 53, 54, 
 69, 265. 
 
 Benecke, P. V. M., 189. 
 
 Berthout, A., 358. 
 
 Best, I. O., 153-4. 
 
 Bethlehem, 11, 17, 27, 28, 29, 52, 
 53, 60, 87, 89, 128, 194, 195, 
 219, 222. 
 
 Beyschlag, 263, 291, 298, 354. 
 
 Birth of Christ, importance of, 12; 
 natural, alleged tradition of, 6, 
 200-201; twofold significance 
 of, 203; contemporary interest 
 in, 345; according to Luke, 
 
 334- 
 
 Bissell, E. C, 145. 
 
 Bornemann, 355. 
 
 Bossuet (Bp.), 299. 
 
 Breasted, J. H., 174. 
 
 Briggs, Dr. C. A., 92; quoted, 
 96-100; on conception of 
 Christ 131 note 4; 229-233, 
 247 note 2; 309 note, 323, 
 
 329. 357- 
 
 359 
 
360 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Bruce, A. B., i8, 42, 45, 47, 60, 
 239, 244, 248, 252. 
 
 Bruckner, M., 234. 
 
 Brugsch, 174. 
 
 Buddhism, birth stories of, 162 seq. 
 
 Buddhist legends and Chris- 
 tianity, 165. 
 
 Bushnell, Dr. H., 245. 
 
 Cambridge Theological Essays, 
 
 357- 
 Census question, the, 330 seq. 
 Cerinthus, theory of, 230, 308. 
 Chase, F. H., 233-4, 319, 325, 
 
 329. 332. 
 
 Cheyne, T. K., 144, 171, 175 
 seq., 185, 287-291, 293, 296, 
 299, 301, 302, 356. 
 
 Christ, greatness of, 239 seq. ; 
 mystery of, 240; as leader, 169, 
 241; as teacher, 244; as ideal, 
 244-5 "- self-consciousness of, 
 246; as mediator, 246; descrip- 
 tion of, in Gospels, 248 seq. ; 
 and John the Baptist, 260 seq. ; 
 significance of, in Christianity, 
 156. 
 
 Christianity, originality of, 157; 
 not a syncretism, 306-7. 
 
 Christmas message, the, 10, 353. 
 
 Christology, involved in discus- 
 sion, 10, 297. 
 
 Chrysostom, 189. 
 
 Conrady, 298. 
 
 Conservatism of Jews, 61. 
 
 Controversies in early church, 
 114. 
 
 Conybeare, F. C, 149. 
 
 Corrsen, 308. 
 
 Cremer, H., 355. 
 Curtiss, S. I., 150. 
 
 David (King), 1, 33, 38, 41, 42, 
 43- 53. 75- 76, 87, 205, 207, 
 208, 210, 214. 
 
 Davidic origin of Jesus, impor- 
 tance of, in eyes of Jews, 217; 
 spiritual meaning of, 218. 
 
 Davidson, 189. 
 
 Dawson, J. W., 265. 
 
 Death of Christ, relation of, to 
 Messianic problem, 1 10 seq. 
 
 Deity of Christ, basis of belief 
 in, 279. 
 
 Denney, J., 109. 
 
 Divine and human in mythology 
 and Christianity, 307. 
 
 Dogma, alleged Christological, 
 301 seq. 
 
 Dorner, J. A., 279 seq. 
 
 Du Bose, W. P., 288. 
 
 Ebionites, 13-15, 217; Gospel 
 of, 319-320. 
 
 Ebrard, J. H., 355. 
 
 Edersheim, Alfred, 23, 36, 50, 
 53, 133, 145, 317-320. 
 
 Edmunds, A. J., 161 note. 
 
 Egypt, flight into, 4, 17, 26, 151; 
 birth legends of, 169 seq.; en- 
 rollments in, 336 seq. 
 
 Elkesaites, 184. 
 
 Essenes, relation to Jews, 146; 
 unorthodox, 145; system of, 
 148-9. 
 
 Eusebius, 284. 
 
 Facts, sacredness of, 296. 
 
INDEX 
 
 361 
 
 Fairbairn, A. M., 48, 95, 140, 
 157, 230, 240, 244, 256, 306. 
 Farrar, F. W., 122, 123, 317. 
 Fiske, Jno., 155, 271. 
 Forrest, D. W., 244, 245. 
 Fremantle, W. H., 271, 290. 
 
 Gabriel, significance of name, 
 
 190. 
 Gardner, Prof. P., 82 seq., 290, 
 
 293, 357- 
 
 Genealogies, difficulties in, 12 
 seq. ; origin of, according to 
 Lobstein, 115; secondary im- 
 portance of, 206; of Matthew 
 and Luke, not the same, 208; 
 relation to birth of Christ, 6; 
 significance of, 96. 
 
 Genesis, 25. 
 
 Gesenius, 68. 
 
 Gloag, P. G., 73, 222, 223. 
 
 Gnostics and Gnosticism, 13, 3. 
 
 Godet, F., 210, 213, 218, 219, 
 285, 297, 353, 354. 
 
 Gore, Bp. C, 81, 82, 112, 135, 
 181, 272, 341, 350, 355, 357. 
 
 Gospels, circumstances of origin, 
 114. 
 
 Gotama, 166, 167, 168. 
 
 Grieve, Rev. Alex., 191. 
 
 Gunkel, 128, 301. 
 
 Haecker, 300; criticised, 304. 
 Haeckel, E., 272. 
 Hamack, A., 21, 34, 72, 143, 
 168, 252, 291, 300, 301, 355. 
 Harris, J. R., 356. 
 Hartland, Sidney, 152. 
 Haussleiter, 355. 
 
 Heathen influence in Infancy 
 Narratives, logical implications 
 of, 149; denied by Lobstein, 
 1 12. 
 
 Heathen myths, significance of, 
 156; moral character of, 184-5; 
 and Dan. vii., 13, 304; and 
 New Testament, 304. 
 
 Heathenism, contact of Jews 
 with, 181; and Christianity, 
 amalgamation of, 184-5. 
 
 Hellenism among Jews, 144 seq. 
 
 Herod (1st), 26; character of, 
 121-3, 124, 145; " the King," 
 significance of phrase, 326, 
 335-8; true portrait of, in In. 
 sect., 125, 220, 221, 222, 339. 
 
 Herrmann, 355. 
 
 Hillmann, 355. 
 
 "Historic phenomena" and 
 Christianity, 296 seq. 
 
 History, importance of, 48, 49, 
 1 20, 294 seq. ; philosophy of, 
 in N. T., 44, 45, 51; in light 
 of after events, 1 30. 
 
 Holtzmann, H. J., 354, 355. 
 
 Holtzmann, O., I note, 4, 209 
 seq., 300, 331, 343, 354. 
 
 Hoit, F. J. A., 316. 
 
 Huxley, T. H., 272, 294. 
 
 Ignatius, Epistles of, date, 77, 
 78; testimony, 78, 79. 
 
 Immanuel, use of term, 36. 
 
 Incarnation, place of, in Ethnic 
 faith, 153 seq.; longing for, 
 156; and Birth of Christ, 295, 
 351; a derivative conception, 
 329- 
 
362 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Infancy Narratives, arguments 
 against, 1-7; date of, accd. to 
 Keim, 58, 59,61; according to 
 Soltau, 89; importance of, 8- 
 11, 13, 14, 17; source of, accd. 
 to Briggs, 97 seq. ; Jewish- 
 Christian, 61, 71, 72, 150; re- 
 lation to Matthew' s Gospel, 71, 
 72; no evidence for late date, 
 74; source of Luke's, 85; his- 
 torical value, 99, 100; poetical, 
 not unhistorical, 119; claim to 
 historicity, 119, 120; subjec- 
 tive element in, 131; consist- 
 ency of, 132 seq., 225; super- 
 natural in, 137 seq.; Mess, 
 ideas of, 136; truthful descrip- 
 tions of, 138; delicacy of, 139; 
 textual standing, 312; internal 
 harmony of, 206; Luke's, 220; 
 Matthew's, 221 ; unity with 
 rest of Gospel, 256, 7; and 
 Tubingen hypothesis, 289; 
 genuine Jewish feeling of, 304; 
 and heathen myths, 307. 
 
 Inspiration, 8. 
 
 Interpolation, Keim's use of un- 
 tenable, 65, 66. 
 
 Interpolator, Keim's description 
 of, 66, 67. 
 
 Jackson, A. V. W., 307. 
 
 James, 341. 
 
 Jechoniah, 210. 
 
 Jeremiah, 24. 
 
 Jerusalem, 128, 223; church of, 
 
 81-82. 
 Jesus, self-consciousness of, 13; 
 
 new creation, 262. 
 
 John, Apostle, 60; attitude to vir- 
 gin birth, 201, 231, 316-17; 
 attitude to Davidic origin of 
 Jesus, 211; Gospel of, 96. 
 
 John the Baptist, 216. 
 
 Jolley, 222, 314, 315 seq., 316, 
 317, 319, 320. 
 
 Joseph (of Nazareth), 2, 4, 6, 7, 
 10, 12, 134, 196, 197, 202, 
 203, 204, 213, 214, 215, 328, 
 
 329- 
 Joseph and Mary, marriage of, 
 
 12, 204; possibly akin, 214. 
 Judas, death, accd. to Mt. and 
 
 Lk., 321. 
 Justin Martyr, 32, 79, 80, 189, 
 
 216, 338, 351. 
 
 Keim, 4. 27, 55 seq., 62, 139, 
 258, 285, 288, 291, 354; the- 
 ory of, untenable, 61, 81. 
 
 Kent, C. F., 144, 180, 190. 
 
 Kingdom of God, 44. 
 
 Knowling, J. R., 235, 237, 324. 
 
 Kurtz, Prof., 183. 
 
 Lange, J. P., 9, 14-16, 196, 202, 
 
 207, 213, 225, 231, 354. 
 
 Lessing (quoted by Briggs), 248. 
 
 Lewes, G. H., 299. 
 
 Lightfoot, Bp., 72, 189. 
 
 Lobstein, 6, 10, 81, 102, 226, 
 277, 287, 288, 291, 297; the- 
 ory criticised, 104 seq. ; self- 
 contradictory, 104; contradicts 
 early Ch. history, 108 ; in- 
 herently impossible, 112 seq. ; 
 
 356. 
 Luke, and Keim's interpolator, 
 
INDEX 
 
 363 
 
 66; narrative of, origin, 315, 
 319, 320, 321, 322 seq. ; visit 
 to Jerusalem, 321, 325; use of 
 virgin b., 324; and Paul, 334; 
 truth and poetry in his narra- 
 tive, 129; truthfulness of de- 
 scriptions, 138. 
 Machen, J. G., 117, 312, 342, 
 
 357- 
 
 Magi, origin of, 4, 70, 88, 93, 
 219, 326, 330; historical ar. for, 
 125-129; character of account, 
 188. 
 
 Marcion, 351. 
 
 Martensen, Bp. H., 285 note. 
 
 Martineau, J., 46-48. 
 
 Mark, Gospel of, omission of Inf. 
 Narr. from explained, 96; ori- 
 gin of, 318. 
 
 Mary, mother of Jesus, 3, 7, 1 33, 
 196, 197, 212; Messianism of, 
 200, 202, 203; character of, 
 264 seq. 
 
 Mason, A. J., 160, 168. 
 
 Maspero, 144. 
 
 Mathews, S., 49 n., 50 n., 95, 
 341 n. ; Messianic hope in N. 
 T. discussed, 344 seq. 
 
 Matthew, Evan., understanding 
 of Jewish feeling, 11 5-1 17. 
 
 Matthew, Gospel of, O. T. in, 
 22 seq. ; unity of, 57, 71, 
 204 ; purpose of, 204 ; prim, 
 element in In. sect., 326; use 
 of Hebrew and Sept. in, 58 
 seq. 
 
 McGiffert, 349, 353. 
 
 Messiah, 43-52; Jesus certified 
 as, 151, 274, 275, 277. 
 
 Messiahship of Jesus, grounds of 
 belief in, 34; difficulty of be- 
 lief in, no; continuous, 309. 
 
 Messianic con. of Jesus, begin- 
 ning of, 259; ideal, Jesus' 
 inter, of, 46; hope, 50, 52; not 
 definite in details, 302 seq. ; 
 promise, 40, 41, 42; Jesus be- 
 lieved in, 45; secret, 330^^.; 
 texts, 26, 30, 50. 
 
 Messianism in N. T. , 344 seq. ; 
 and birth of Christ, 345; dis- 
 ciples, 345. 
 
 Meyer, 2, 119. 
 
 Micah, 27. 
 
 Milligan, W., 182. 
 
 Miracles, relation of to Gospel 
 narr., 225, 250. 
 
 Miraculous and moral element 
 in Gospels, 292; births of 
 heathenism, various, 302. 
 
 Moffatt, J., 66, 72. 
 
 Mohammed, secret of his power, 
 
 243- 
 Mommsen, Th., 339. 
 Mozley, J. B., 243. 
 
 Nash, H. S., 350. 
 
 Nathanael, question of, 28. 
 
 Nazarene, 35. 
 
 Nazareth, 2, 4, 12, 57, 87, 194, 
 195, 199, 223, 234; residence 
 of Joseph and Mary in, 313, 
 
 343- 346. 
 Neander, A., 112, 194. 
 Nebe, 355. 
 New Testament, In. Narr. in, 3; 
 
 credit involved in discussion, 
 
 18, 20, 291, 207. 
 
3 6 4 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Old Testament, 4. 21, 22, 40, 42, 
 
 58, 70; in the New, 23. 
 Orr, J., 245. 
 Ottley, R. L., 159. 
 
 Paul, Apostle, 138; relationship 
 with Luke, important, 231 ; rela- 
 tion to facts of Christ's life, 235 
 seq. ; Christian experience of, 
 235; biographical material in 
 writings, 236; use of words, 
 
 237. 
 
 Peabody, A. P., 356. 
 
 Peter, Apostle, Memoirs of, 318. 
 
 Peyton, W. W., 271. 
 
 Pharaohs, worship of, 171. 
 
 Philo, system of, 146. 
 
 Primitive Gospel, In. Narr. not 
 in, 310; character of, 31 seq. 
 
 Prophetic passages in Mt. ana- 
 lyzed, 327 seq. 
 
 Rachel, weeping of, 24, 25, 35. 
 
 Ramah, 265, 266. 
 
 Ramsay, W. M., 72, 136, 140, 
 141, 196, 231, 232, 233 seq., 
 354-356; ar. discussed, 340^^. 
 
 Rappoport, 144. 
 
 Rawlinson, H., 174. 
 
 Resch, 355. 
 
 Resurrection of Christ, impor- 
 tance of, 228; narrative of, 250; 
 place in thought of disciples, 
 347; connection with question 
 of birth, 292. 
 
 Reitzenstein, 298. 
 
 Reynolds, H. R., 260. 
 
 Rhees, Dr. R., in. 
 
 Riggs, Dr. J. S., 122, 144, 180. 
 
 Ripon, Bp. of, 291. 
 
 Rohrbach, 355. 
 
 Ryle (and James), yy. 
 
 Sabatier, P. (quoted by Lob- 
 stein), 284. 
 
 Salmon, 66, 354. 
 
 Salvation, conception of, in Mt.'s 
 Narr. of In., 325. 
 
 Sanday W., 85, 153, 290, 324, 
 
 354- 
 
 Sanday and Headlam (Com. on 
 Romans), 237. 
 
 Sargon (of Agade), myth of, 299. 
 
 Sayce, A. H., 169, 172, 173, 185, 
 321. 
 
 Schliermacher, 249, 288. 
 
 Schmiedel, 211, 293, 298, 342. 
 
 Schiirer, E., 50, 144, 356. 
 
 Scrymgeour, W. , 214. 
 
 Servant (title of Messiah), 43. 
 
 Shepherds, visit of, 133. 
 
 Simcox, 312. 
 
 Simeon, address of, 75, 76. 
 
 Smith, G. A., 36, 41, 130. 
 
 Soltau, W. , 18, S6 seq.; theory 
 stated, 86-89; criticized, 89 
 seq. ; untenable, 94, 151, 202, 
 229, 274, 277, 287, 291, 298, 
 
 355- 
 Son of God, 43, 303 seq., 323. 
 Son of Man, 303 seq. 
 Songs in Luke, significance of, 
 
 151. 
 Sons of Promise and Virgin 
 
 Birth, 305. 
 Spirit, use of, in Lk.'s In. Narr., 
 
 322; in Mt.'s, 326; relation of, 
 
 to Jesus, 56. 
 
INDEX 
 
 365 
 
 Stalker, J., 244. 
 
 Star of Magi, note at end of 
 
 Chap. vi. 
 Steele, W. S., 305, 332. 
 Steinmeyer, 355. 
 Stevens, G. B., 232, 235, 353. 
 Stimson, H. B., 356. 
 Storm, Miracle of calming, 252. 
 Strauss, 47 n., 60 n., 202, 288, 
 
 291, 354- 
 Sydow, 355. 
 Syncretism, Christianity not a, 
 
 3°5- 
 
 Tammuz (Istar), cult of, 184. 
 Tatian, 222. 
 Tertullian, 351. 
 Thayer, J. H., 232. 
 Theology and Life, 295. 
 Theophilus, 189. 
 Tholuck, A., 297. 
 Transfiguration, 252. 
 Trench, R. C.,248. 
 Triumphal entry, 54. 
 Tubingen theory, relation of, to 
 In. Narr., 289. 
 
 Universalism, Christian, not in 
 
 Mt.'s In. Narr., 41. 
 Usener, 152, 355. 
 
 Van Dyke, H., 156, 272. 
 
 Van Oosterzee, 249. 
 
 Virgin Birth, congruous with rest 
 of Gospel, 250; and Humanity 
 of Christ, 273; and human life, 
 275; doctrinal significance of, 
 279 seq., 308 seg., 347; place 
 
 in history of doctrine, 281 seq.; 
 and Incarnation, 274, 351; and 
 preexistence, 351-3; negative 
 criticism on, 311; no motive 
 for invention, 347; relation to 
 other biographical facts, 347; 
 date of belief in, 81, 82, 350; 
 and early preaching of disci- 
 ples, 350; and Nicene Creed, 
 284; .religious sig. of, 266; 
 scientific aspects of, 270 seq., 
 271 n. ; and uniqueness of Jesus, 
 261; silence of Jesus on, 195; 
 unknown in lifetime of Jesus, 
 197; attitude of John and Paul 
 to, 201. 
 
 Virgin Births, unknown to hea- 
 thenism, 188. 
 
 Von Hligel (quoted by Cheyne), 
 296. 
 
 Vos, Geerhardus, 234. 
 
 Weiss, B., 31, 196-203, 209, 
 297, 312, quoted 313, 314, 
 
 327. 353- 354- 
 Wilkinson, 184, 313, 319. 
 Wohlenburg, 355. 
 Woods, F. H., 66, 69. 
 Woman, place in history of race, 
 
 264; in Bible, 264 seq. 
 Worcester, Bp. of, 290. 
 Word, the, 16. 
 Wright, A., 301, 317, 318, 319, 
 
 321, 325, 327. 
 
 Zahn, Th., 117, 354. 355. 356. 
 Zockler, 357. 
 

 
 . — *-"~*"j^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 w\ 
 
 r 1 
 

 ■ 
 
 < I 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 -r.W) .. 1 1 
 
 H 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^^^^H 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 .-•,,,'■•' jus 
 
 ■ 
 
 E89 
 
 ■ : tf 
 
 ^^H 
 
 
 ■ . ; v. :#••:;££&-«?;$