02 - Lecture 02
LECTURE II The Gospel Witnesses-Genuineness and Integrity of the Records An inquiry into the historical reality of the Virgin Birth naturally begins with the documents from which the knowledge of the Virgin Birth is derived. These are, as every one knows, the two Gospels of Matthew and Luke—the opening chapters in each, with part of the third chapter of Luke, containing the genealogy. 1 I shall afterwards have to deal with the objection that the other two Gospels, Mark and John, do not furnish such narratives. Perfectly good reasons, I think, can be given for the omission; but this is a question to be investigated by itself. At present we are concerned, not with the silence of the New Testament, but with its speech; and here the salient fact before us is, that in two of our Gospels out of the four—the only two that narrate the birth of Jesus at all—we do have this circumstantial testimony regarding Christ’s human origin, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. This is a weighty fact, if there were no ___________________________________ 1. Matthew 1:1-25, Matthew 2:2-23; Luke 1:1-80, Luke 2:1-52; Luke 3:23-28. Luke 3:30. other, and we do well to consider it closely and care-fully. My starting-point, then, is this, that we have these narratives of the two Gospels, both bearing witness that our Lord was born of a Virgin. To set this fact of the witness of the Gospels in its true light, there are certain things which it is important to notice regarding it.
1. I would ask you to observe, what I have just noted, that this is the only account of Christ’s birth we possess. You may think you see indications in other parts of the Gospels that our Lord was not born as these opening chapters describe: that can be discussed after. What I wish at present to impress is that, if this account which the Evangelists give is parted with, you have no narrative at all of how or where Christ was born, or of anything about Him prior to His baptism. You read, e. g., in books like Pfleiderer’s Christian Origins, or in " modern " Lives of Jesus like Bousset’s or Oscar Holtzmann’s, that Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, was born at Nazareth. 1 But there is no historical corroboration for that categorical statement. The Gospels are our only authorities on the subject, and the same Evangelists who tell us that Jesus was " brought up " 2 with Joseph and Mary at Nazareth, ____________________________________________ 1 Pfleiderer, p. 83; Bousset’s Jesus, p. 2; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 68. Cf. Renan, quoted above, p. 5.
2 Luke 4:16. tell us that He was not born at Nazareth, but was born at Bethlehem, and that it was after His birth that Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth. It is made a contradiction between Matthew and Luke that Matthew is said to know nothing of Joseph and Mary’s previous residence in Nazareth, which Luke, on the other hand, relates. 1 But Luke is as explicit as Matthew that it was not at Nazareth, but at Bethlehem, that Jesus was born. As it is with the place, so it is with the time of Christ’s birth. It is usual to say that Jesus was born shortly before the death of Herod the Great (4 b.c.); but, if the birth-narratives are rejected, there are, as Wellhausen seems to admit,2 no reliable data on which to found so precise an assertion.
It may be argued, indeed, that, because parts of the narratives are rejected, we are not bound to reject the whole; some true elements of tradition may be preserved in them. One writer—the only one I know— who tried this plan was Beyschlag. Beyschlag thought he could pick and choose; take some parts and leave others. He very justly argued that, at the time when Matthew and Mark wrote, any free invention of the stories of the Infancy would have met with instant contradiction from the family of Jesus. He sought, therefore, to save some fragments of the narratives—the birth at Bethlehem, the visit of the shepherds, etc.—
_________________________________________________ 1. Luke 1:26; Luke 2:4. See below, pp. 34, 99. 2 Das Evang. Lucae, p. 6. while rejecting the fact which is the kernel of the whole, the Virgin Birth. 1 It is agreed on all hands, however, that this arbitrary procedure of Beyschlag’s is quite inadmissible. The cycle of narration in both Evangelists is too firmly connected to be thus broken up; and the authority for one part of the story, as we shall immediately see, is the same as the authority for the rest. I repeat, then, that, if these narratives are rejected, we really know nothing of the circumstances of Christ’s birth at all.
2. The only accounts of the birth of Jesus we have declare that He was born of a Virgin. My next point is that we have two such accounts, and that the accounts are independent. There are two evangelical witnesses, not one; and, as the most cursory inspection of the narratives shows, their testimony is independently given. Attempts have been made, I know, by one or two scholars to show some kind of dependence of one narrative on the other, or of both on some common source. 2 These isolated attempts have met with no _________________________________________ 1. Leben Jesu, I, pp. 159ff (3d Ed.). See below, p. 76.
2 E. g., the writer Conrady (Die Quellen der kanonischen Kind-heitsgeschichte Jesu) seeks to derive the narratives from the apocryphal Protevangelium of James (the relation is really the reverse); another writer, Reitzenstein, derives from an earlier Gospel supposed to be indicated by a poorly preserved Egyptian fragment of the 6th cent.; Resch (Texte und Unters., 10:5; p. 208) derives from a purely imaginary Book of the Generations of Jesus Christ, etc. See a good account of these and cognate theories in papers by J. Gresham Machen, in The Princeton Theol. Review for Oct., 1905, pp. 648-9; Jan., 1906, pp. 39-42. favour, and need not here detain us. The favourite method of dealing with the narratives is rather to seek to discredit their trustworthiness by pitting one against the other, and declaring them to be divergent and contradictory. I shall immediately endeavour to show that the two narratives, so far from being contradictory, in reality remarkably corroborate and supplement each other. In proof that the alleged discrepancies are not really serious, I might appeal to one of the latest of these critical writers, Oscar Holtzmann, who, in his recently published Life of Jesus, tells us: "A contradiction between these narratives of Matthew and Luke does not exist; even in regard to the places of residence there is no need for assuming one." 1 The difficulty about the places of residence has already been referred to. Matthew does not mention the former residence of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth, and speaks as if, after Christ’s birth, they went to Nazareth for the first time. 2 Suppose, however, that Matthew did not know of this earlier residence, but, in writing his Gospel, kept faithfully to the information he had, without adding or inventing—is this a contradiction, or a reason for distrust? But I do not think we need assume even this. A writer like Soltau, indeed, permits himself to say: " We learn from Matthew that Bethlehem was the real native place of Joseph and Mary." 3 But there is not an atom of foundation for this statement.
_________________________________________ 1. Leben Jesu, p. 65.
2. Matthew 2:23.
3 Op. cit., p. 30 (E. T.).
Matthew says nothing in his first chapter as to where the events he narrates happened; it is not till the second chapter that he mentions Bethlehem of Judaea as the place where Christ was born. When, therefore, he tells of the withdrawal of Joseph and Mary to Nazareth after the return from Egypt, he naturally names the place for the first time.
There is, therefore, no necessity for assuming real contradiction; but the point I would urge, as it has often been urged before, is, that the very existence of these so-called discrepancies is a proof of the entire independence of the narratives. It is the complete independence of the accounts, in truth, which is the cause of any superficial appearance of discrepancy which they present. They tell their story from different points of view—what these are will be seen afterwards; they group their facts from a different motive, and for a different purpose. They evidently have different sources. Yet in the great central fact, viz.: that Jesus, conceived by the Holy Ghost, was born of Mary, a Virgin betrothed to Joseph, with his full knowledge of the cause—in this they are altogether at one: this stands out sun-clear in the narratives, and was never, so far as we know, challenged in the Church from the time it was made public, save by the insignificant Ebionitic fraction already mentioned. 1.
_____________________________________________ 1 On the fewness of the Ebionitcs, cf. Salmon, Introd. to N. T., p. 173 (2d Ed.).
3. The independence of the narratives is a guarantee of their worth. It shows that they are not inventions of either of the Evangelists, but are drawn from an outside source—nay, from two sources, which are distinct, yet agree in their testimony to the essential fact. I desire now to take a further step, and to show that the narratives are not only not contradictory, but in a singular degree are mutually corroborative and complementary. This is evidently a point affecting closely the value of their testimony. The critics speak of the discrepancies of the narratives. Much more remarkable, it seems to me, are their agreements, and the subtle harmonies that pervade them. The agreements, if we study them carefully, prove to be far more numerous than may at first strike us. Here, e. g., is a list of twelve points, which lie really on the surface of the narratives, yet give very nearly the gist of the whole story. (1) Jesus was born in the last days of Herod. 1 (2) He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. 2 (3) His mother was a Virgin. 3 (4) She was betrothed to Joseph. 4 (5) Joseph was of the house and lineage of David. 5 (6) Jesus wasJborn at Bethlehem. 6 (7) By divine direction He was called Jesus. 7 (8) He was declared to be a Saviour. 8 (9) Joseph knew beforehand of Mary’s condition and its ______________________________________________ 1 Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:13; Luke 1:5.
2 Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35.
3 Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27, Luke 1:34.
4 Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:27; Luke 2:5.
5 Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:27; Matthew 2:4.
6. Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4, Luke 2:6.
8 Matthew 1:21; Luke 2:11. cause. 1 (10) Nevertheless he took Mary to wife, and assumed full paternal responsibilities for her child—’ was from the first in loco parentis to Jesus. 2 (11) The Annunciation and birth were attended by revelations and visions. 3 (12) After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Nazareth. 4.
This, however, is not the whole. For here a fact emerges about these narratives to which we cannot give too much attention. There is this common basis of agreement of which I have spoken. But careful inspection of the narratives shows that, even in the respects in which they are divergent, so far from being discrepant, they are really, in a singular way, complementary) that where a careless glance suggests contrariety, there is really deep and beautiful harmony. The full illustration of this belongs to a later stage; 5 but, at the risk of anticipating what is to come after, let me take a single crucial example. Is it not strange that Luke’s Gospel, while giving us such full accounts about Mary, should tell us next to nothing about Joseph, and specially about his state of mind when he first learned of the situation of his betrothed wife? ’It is implied in Luke’s narrative, as in Matthew’s, that ___________________________________________________ 1. Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 2:5.
2 Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:24-25; Luke 2:5 Jf.
3 Matthew 1:20; etc.; Luke 1:27-28, etc.
4. Matthew 2:23; Luke 2:39.
5 See below, pp. 83ff It will be found that Matthew’s narrative is told throughout from the standpoint of Joseph; Luke’s from that of Mary.
Joseph came to know that Mary was about to become a mother, and, when he did know it, the fact must have profoundly staggered him. Yet in Luke, as in Matthew, he appears later with Mary at Bethlehem, takes Mary to wife, and assumes parental responsibilities for Mary’s babe. What had happened in the interval to clear his mind of any doubts or perplexities he had entertained, and to induce him to act as he did? Luke has not a syllable in explanation, but Matthew tells it all. Matthew, again, tells us fully of Joseph’s difficulties and perplexities. But what of Mary? What did she say or think of this wonderful thing that had happened to her? How did she come to learn the truth about herself? Matthew has not a word on this subject, but Luke tells it all. In a most real sense, therefore, the narratives are shown to be complementary. Neither is complete in itself; both are needed to tell the whole story. And subtler harmonies still will reveal themselves when we come to look more closely into the character of the narratives.
This, then, is my first fact—the existence of two distinct, yet mutually complementary narratives of the Virgin Birth of our Lord. I come now to discuss a second—closely connected with the foregoing—the evidence we have for the genuineness and integrity of these narratives as parts of the Gospels to which they belong. This is a question which I must argue with some care, for it has been contested. It is evident that if, from dislike of miracle, or any other cause, these records containing the story of our Lord’s birth are to be got rid of, it is necessary in some way to break down their credit as early and authentic productions. If these sections are really genuine parts of the original Gospels of Matthew and Luke—assuming the latter, as I here do provisionally, to be themselves genuine documents of the Apostolic Age—most will feel that a long step is taken to establish the historical truth of the Virgin Birth which they narrate. It is, therefore, almost a vital point for the opponents to disprove their original and authentic character. Can this be done? I am here to affirm with some confidence that it cannot. My second fact—as I call it—which I oppose to their contention is, that these chapters containing the narratives of the Virgin Birth are attested by all available evidence as indubitably genuine parts of their respective Gospels.
What are the means of proof which it is usual to apply in such cases ? A first source of evidence is Manuscripts. It is here to be remembered that the wealth of MS. authority for the Gospels, as for the New Testament generally, is without a parallel in literature. We can see this most easily by comparison with the MS. authority for the works we call the classics. Of some important classical works only one MS. is in existence—Nestle reminds us, for instance, that all we possess of Sophocles depends on a single MS. of the eighth or ninth century; 1 ten or fifteen is thought a large number for others; and few of these go beyond the tenth century, or are even so old. In contrast with this, the MSS. of the Gospels, whole or parts, are reckoned by scores; if you include cursives, by hundreds; and some of these, as is well known, are of great age and authority. The great Uncials, e. g., go back to the fourth and fifth centuries, with, as their peculiarities show, a long textual history behind. Another chief source of evidence is Versions, to which have to be added quotations, and all the other indirect means by which the existence and genuineness of a book can be ascertained. The net result of the application of these tests in the present case can be readily stated. Is there a single unmutilated MS. of the Gospels—older or younger—from which these chapters in Matthew and Luke are absent? Not one. Are these sections absent from any of the Versions? So far as our evidence goes—No. The case, however, is too important to be thus summarily dismissed, and I propose to take up the evidence under these heads more particularly.
1. I have said that the opening chapters of our two Gospels are found in all unmutilated MSS. That broad fact will not be disputed. But let me try to _____________________________________________ 1. Textual Criticism, p. 33 (E. T.) emphasise the moral of the fact by contrast. You are aware of the doubt which attaches to the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel. In the margin of the R. V., you will find this note opposite ver. 8: " The two oldest Greek MSS., and some other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel." Here is very strong evidence that these last verses did not belong to the original Gospel, but were supplied to take the place of the lost original ending. So again with the episode of the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53 to John 8:11. These verses are bracketed in the E-. V., and the note is added that most of the ancient authorities omit them. But there is no lacuna or omission of a similar kind in regard to the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. Take the oldest Uncials. The Sinaitic MS. —the chapters are there. The Alexandrian MS. [A] —this is mutilated down as far as Matthew 25:1-46, but Luke 1:1-80, Luke 2:1-52, are there, and nobody doubts that the first chapters of Matthew were there also. The Vatican MS. [B]—there. The Codex Ephraemi [C]—there. The Codex Bezae [D], representing an independent (Western) text—there. Uncials and cursives generally —there in all.
2. That is MSS.: glance now at Versions. It was very early in the history of the Church that translations of the Gospels and of other New Testament writings began to be made into the languages of the countries into which Christianity had spread. Hence, beginning with the second century, we have the rise of Syriac, Latin, Egyptian, and other Versions, the MSS. remains of which throw light on the kind of Scriptures circulating in these sections of the Church. And what do they tell us? The chapters containing the birth-narratives are as little absent from the Versions as they are from the Greek MSS. They are there in all the Latin Versions; in the Vulgate of Jerome, of course, but also in the Old Latin Versions, going back as far as the days of Tertullian. They are there in all the Syriac Versions—in the Peshitta, in the Cure-tonian, in that very old Syriac Version discovered by Mrs. Lewis in the convent at Mt. Sinai in 1892. They are there in all the Egyptian (Coptic) Versions—in a word, are there in all. In that famous old Syriac Harmony of the Four Gospels made by Tatian about 160 or 170—the Diatessaron—recently so strikingly recovered, the chapters are present, though the genealogies are dropped, probably as unsuitable for the author’s purpose. The Harmony is now translated, and any one can consult the book, and read the narratives for himself. Other sources of evidence yield the same result. The quotations and allusions in Justin Martyr, Tatian’s master, show that these chapters were in the " Gospels " or " Memoirs of the Apostles " which he tells us were read week by week in the assemblies of the Christians. 1 Even the Epicurean Celsus, the bitter _______________________________________________ 1 Apology, 66, 67; Dial, with Trypho, 10, 100, 103. heathen opponent of Christianity in the second century, draws freely in his attacks on the Gospels from the incidents in the birth-narratives—the genealogies, the star in the East, the flight into Egypt, the Virgin Birth itself. 1.
3. There are three special recensions of the Gospels, however, respecting which we have information, on which, in this connection, I must make a few remarks.
(1) There is the Gospel of the Hebrews, an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew in use among that more liberal section of the Jewish Christians whom Jerome calls Nazarenes—those who, while retaining their Jewish customs for themselves, accepted the mission of Paul, and did not seek to impose circumcision and the Jewish law upon the Gentiles. It was an idea formerly sometimes mooted—Jerome himself seems at first to have entertained it—that this Gospel of the Hebrews was the original of our present Gospel of Matthew. But that opinion has long since been abandoned. 2 The Gospel in question was dependent on our Matthew, not the original of it, and, while there must have been a general resemblance, it had a good many apocryphal additions. Unfortunately we only know it in extracts. The point of interest for us is that this Jewish-Christian Gospel likewise had the chapters re- __________________________________________________ 1 Origen, Against Celsus, 1:38-40; 2:32.
2 Cf. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, I, pp. 258ff. Meyer, Com. Introd.; Salmon, Introd. to N. T’., etc. cording the birth and infancy of Jesus. Harnack, I know, disputes this. But he stands almost alone in doing so, and the reasons against his opinion seem conclusive. We have the direct attestation of Eusebius that the section of Jewish Christians using this Gospel were distinguished by their accepting the Virgin Birth of our Lord. 1 We have the testimony of Epiphanius that the Gospel used by the Nazarenes was a complete one; 2 we can be certain that Jerome, who knew and translated the Gospel, would not have failed to mention so serious an omission, had it existed; finally, what appears decisive, we have actual allusions in Jerome to the contents of these early chapters in the Hebrew Gospel. Thus he notices that it had the peculiar reading " Bethlehem of Judah " for " Bethlehem of Judaaa " in Matthew 2:5; also the citations of prophecy, " Out of Egypt have I called my Son," and " He shall be called a Nazarene "—both unmistakably from Matthew 3:1-17.
(2) This, however, was not the only form of the Gospel of Matthew in circulation among the Hebrew Christians. There was a version in use among that narrower section known commonly as the Ebionites— the descendants, formerly alluded to,4 of those anti- ______________________________________________________ 1 Eusebius, 3:27; cf. Origen, Against Celsus,5:61.
2 Cf. Westcott, Introd. to Gospels, p. 465.
3 Cf. Stanton, op. cit., p. 258.
4 See above, pp. 11, 35. It should be noted that the name Ebionites was often given by the Fathers to all Jewish Christians. The different classes were then distinguished by their Christological and other peculiarities.
Pauline Judaizers we read of in the Acts and the Epistles, who contended for the imposition of the Mosaic law upon the Gentiles. These held Jesus to be merely a man, chosen by God on account of his legal piety. We do not know much about the Gospel used by this party—the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites—but it is described to us as not " entire and perfectly complete, but falsified and mutilated ’; 1 and we do know that it omitted the first two chapters of Matthew, and commenced : " It came to pass in the days of Herod, King of Judaea, that John came baptizing with a baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, who was said to be of the race of Aaron the priest, a son of Zachariah and Elisabeth, and all went out to him." 2 Of course, a Gospel of this kind, which puts the baptism of John in the days of Herod of Judaea, and otherwise falsifies its text, is absolutely worthless. But it will be observed how, even in rejecting the narratives of the Infancy, it is forced unwittingly to bear testimony to them; for where else does it get the date, " in the days of Herod, King of Judaea," 3 and the information about Zachariah and Elisabeth, the parents of ?John 4:1-54 Most probably the Gospel was simply a badly corrupted version of The Gospel of the Hebrews, with the first two chapters left out.
Why have I spent so much time on this obscure __________________________________________ 1 Westcott, op. cit., p. 467.
2 Ibid., p. 466.
3 Matthew 2:1; Luke 1:5.
4 Luke 1:5.
Gospel of a backward and reactionary sect? Simply because, as I hinted before, this is the solitary instance within the Church of any sort of party who rejected the narrative of the supernatural birth. I say within the Church, though we see from Justin Martyr that already by the middle of the second century this sect was coming to be regarded as hardly a part of the true Church. 1 Surely, however, it requires hardihood on the part of any one to hold that this reactionary party—this mere side-eddy in the stream of the Church’s development—represented the true, original Christianity, and that their Gospel was the genuine Gospel of the Hebrews, instead of being, as has always been believed, a corrupt and mutilated form of that Gospel. 2 In any case it is certain that it was not the original Gospel of Matthew, any more than the Gospel of the Hebrews itself was.
(3) I have to notice still a third non-canonical recension—the Gospel of Luke used by Marcion. Marcion was a Gnostic teacher (c. 140), who held that the God of the Old Testament was an inferior, imperfect Being, in contrast with the good God of the New Testament, and who believed in the essential evil of matter. He could not, therefore, in consistency with his principles, allow that Jesus was, I do not say supernaturally born, _______________________________________________ 1.Dial, with Trypho, 47; cf. Ritschl, Altkathol. Kirche (2d Ed.), p. 253.
2 Keim actually bases on this Gospel an argument for the omission of chs. i., ii. from the original Gospel of Matthew. but born at all. Marcion drew up for himself a Canon which included one Gospel—that of Luke—and ten Epistles of Paul. But his Gospel of Luke had not the first two chapters. It began at the third chapter: " In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius," then passed to Luke 4:31; "He came down [i. e., from heaven] to the Galilean city of Capernaum." 1 Here, again, the attempt was formerly made by certain writers to show that Marcion’s Gospel represented the original Luke. But the attempt met with no success. Ritschl, who at first advocated this view, afterwards gave it up. Dr. Sanday gave it its death-blow in England when revived by the author of the book called Supernatural Religion. I do not know of any scholar who now holds it. 2 The discussion on Marcion’s Gospel thus really turned round into a new evidence that the genuine Luke had these two chapters.
I have thus surveyed the field of MSS. and Versions, and have sought to show you how absolutely unbroken is the phalanx of evidence that these first chapters of Matthew and Luke are genuine parts of the Gospels in which they are found. Well, but, I have no doubt you are long ere this asking in surprise: If the facts are thus undeniable, what do the objectors say to them? How are they dealt with? One characteristic example _________________________________________________ 1 Cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:7.
2 Cf. Plummer, Luke, p. lxviii. of how they are dealt with may perhaps suffice. Here are two recent publications of the great Old Testament critic Wellhausen—The Gospel of Matthew, Translated and Explained, and The Gospel of Luke, Translated and Explained. 1 I take up his version of the Gospel of Matthew, and what do I find? It begins with Matthew 3:1. What has become of the first two chapters? They are simply dropped out. For what reason? There is not a word of note or comment to explain. The critic thinks they should not be there, so, MSS. and Versions notwithstanding, out they go. It is the same with the Gospel of Luke. I open it as before, and find it begins with Luke 3:1. Where have the first two chapters gone to? Again they are simply dropped out, and again without note or explanation. Here, however, is a third work from the same author—an Introduction to the First Three Gospels. Perhaps we shall find what we want there. But no. There is a minute and destructive criticism of the Gospels; much about Q, the alleged common source of Matthew and Luke; but not a word in explanation of why these chapters are dropped from what professes to be—and in the main is—a version of our existing Gospels. It is no doubt easy enough to get rid of the evidence for the Virgin Birth in this way. But is it scientific? Is it right? Would a similar treatment be tolerated of any classical work ?
__________________________________________ 1 Das Evangelium Matthaei, uebersetzt und erkldrt (1904). Das Evangelium Lucae, etc. (1904).
It is the case, then, that there is no external warrant for dropping these chapters out of the two Gospels. If they are rejected, it must be for some internal reason which the critic thinks justifies him in setting aside all this mass of external evidence. So it has been held by some—not by many—critics, that these chapters cannot be original parts of their Gospels, since—(1) They lie outside the limits of the original Apostolic preaching; and (2) show marks of being additions in their looseness of connection, and in their difference of character from the rest of the Gospels. I might almost be excused, in view of what has been advanced, from dealing with these subjective and arbitrary reasons for rejection, but, as they really, when fairly considered, redound to the strengthening of my position, I give them a brief consideration.
(1) The first objection turns on the limits of the oldest Apostolic tradition. That oldest tradition, assumed to be represented by the common parts of the first three Gospels, and thought to be preserved most nearly in the Gospel of Mark, had no narrative of the Nativity. It began, as we learn from Acts 1:22; with the baptism of John, and ended with the ascension. But, granting this, how can it prove that these two Evangelists—Matthew and Luke—may not have gone beyond the common tradition, if they felt that they had information enabling them to do so? Or how can it disprove the worth of their information? Matthew and Luke have both elsewhere large sections not found in Mark, and Luke has some six chapters wholly his own. Why should it not be so here? The facts about Christ’s birth and childhood, surely, were matters about which there would be a desire for information; why, if these Evangelists had the knowledge, should they not impart it? I cannot, therefore, allow that any weight attaches to this objection.
(2) The second objection, drawn from internal marks showing the narratives to be additions, is more to the purpose, if it can be made good, which, however, it certainly cannot be. Keim, e. g., among older writers, argued that the connection is loose between the first two chapters of Matthew and the third chapter. 1 It needs a keen vision to see the force of his arguments, but in any case the facts of the case are against him.’ Matthew 3:1-17 begins with the words—" In those days." What days? The very form of the expression points to something preceding. So Matthew 4:13 speaks of Jesus as " leaving Nazareth." But this has obvious reference to Matthew 2:23; the only place where Nazareth is previously mentioned—" He [Joseph] came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth."
It is futile to point in this connection, as Wellhausen does, to the genealogy in Luke 3:23 f. as proof of separate authorship,2 or, with others, to Matthew 13:53 or Luke 4:22; where Jesus is spoken of by the people _______________________________________________ 1 Jesus of Nazara, I, p. 82 (E. T.).
2. Das Evang. Lucae, p. 6. as Joseph’s son; for this in no way proves that the Evangelists held Jesus to be the son of Joseph, which certainly they did not. 1 On the other hand in such allusions as " John the son of Zacharias " in Luke 3:2; and " came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up"—mark the carefully chosen phrase " brought up " not " born " 2—in Luke 4:13 one cannot help seeing clear glances backward to the previous narratives (cf. Luke 1:5 f.; Luke 2:51). The clearest evidence, however, of the unity of these sections in Matthew and Luke with the rest of the Gospels is found in their stylistic character. As respects Matthew I simply quote the words of one of the latest and most learned writers on this subject, Mr. F. Crawford Burkitt, in his work on the Syriac Gospels. He says:
" The Greek style of Matthew is marked: he has a fondness for certain words and phrases, so that almost every passage of considerable length contains some of them. . . . When we come to Matt, i., ii., and ask ourselves whether these chapters belong to the rest of the Gospel, or whether they are to be regarded as a later insertion, we find that the internal literary character is extraordinarily strong in their favour. The two chapters contain no less than five of the Old Testa- _____________________________________________ 1 See below, pp. 99, 100.
2 Mr. Sweet, in his book on The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, remarks on the "skilfully chosen" character of this phrase (p. 195). ment quotations, accompanied by the regular Mat-thean formula,1 etc. . . . We may say, in fact, that if the Nativity story (Matthew 1:18-25
We may, therefore, rest with confidence in the view expressed by J. Weiss in a recent article, borne out by all the external evidence, that " there never were forms of Matthew and Luke without the Infancy narratives." 4. The genuineness of these chapters of the Gospels may be regarded as established, but there remains the _________________________________________________ 1 Cf. e. g., outside these chapters, Matthew 8:17; Matthew 12:17; Matthew 13:14, Matthew 13:35.
2 Evangelion Da Mepharreshe, pp. 258-9.
3 Cf. his Lukas der Arzt, p. 73, and Appendix II.
4 Theol. Rundschau, 1903, p. 208 (quoted by Machen). question of their integrity. If the chapters cannot be excised in whole, may they not be in part? To a sufficient degree, at least, to destroy the evidence of the Virgin Birth? The method of mutilation has seldom been attempted in Matthew 1:1-25 (the disputed reading in Matthew 1:16 will be referred to later 2) ; but it is attempted by a considerable number of recent scholars,3 including Prof. Harnack himself, in the case of Luke. Remove certain verses, it is ingeniously contended, from Luke’s narrative—principally Luke 1:34-35, the verses which record Mary’s question to the angel: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" and the angel’s answer: " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," etc.—and the evidence for the Virgin Birth disappears. The story becomes one of the promise of a son, like the promise of Isaac, or Samson, or Samuel, or John the Baptist, to be born in the ordinary way. So, mirabile dictu, it turns out that we have in Luke no story of a Virgin Birth at all!4.
_____________________________________________
1 On the theories of Schmiedel, who makes Matthew 1:18-25 later than Matthew 2:1-23, and of Charles, who makes the genealogy a later addition (against him F. C. Conybeare), see article by Machen in Princeton Theol. Review, Jan., 1906, p. 63.
2 See below, p. 102.
3 Thus, e.g., Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, Usener, Hillmann, J. Weiss, Cheyne, Conybeare, etc. Other critics, as Hilgenfeld, Clemen, Gunkel, and in part Wernle, Weinel, etc., oppose. See below, p. 56.
4 Wellhausen thinks there is no Virgin Birth in Luke 2:1-52, but sees it in Luke 1:1-80. On what grounds, we naturally ask, is this omission of Luke 1:34-35 made? First, it is emphatically to be said: On no good textual grounds. Here again the evidence of MSS. and Versions is decisive. Apart from a few various readings, such as occur in all texts, the chapters in Luke are vouched for as coming down to us in their original form, with Luke 1:34-35 as part of them. The only partial exception to this statement is that, for Luke 1:34 (Mary’s question), one Latin MS. (6), for an obvious reason, substitutes the words in the first part of Luke 1:38 : "Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it unto me according to thy word." For the excision of Luke 1:35—the crucial verse—there is no authority at all. The change, if made, has to be made wholly on internal grounds—as that the critic thinks that Luke 1:35 breaks the connection, is not consistent with the Davidic descent, is irreconcilable with Mary’s after behaviour, etc. 1 Even so, the Virgin Birth is implied in many ways in the context; so, to suit the theory, further changes have to be made. " Betrothed " in Luke 2:5; has to be altered into " wife "— a change which has some MS. support,2 though the overwhelming weight of authority is against it; above ______________________________________________________ 1 Harnack has ten such reasons.
2 The reading "wife" appears in two or three Latin and one Syriac MSS., and with "betrothed" or another word in several others. Nothing would be seriously affected even were the change into "wife" made, for Matthew, too, speaks of Joseph as the "husband" of Mary, and of Mary as his "wife" (Matthew 1:19-20), when as yet they were only "betrothed." all, Luke 1:27; which tells how the angel was sent " unto a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph," has to be disposed of—this time without any authority —by deleting the word " virgin," which occurs twice, and likewise the word " betrothed." The way is then open for Harnack to pronounce: " After these few and easy deletions, . . . the narrative is smooth, and nowhere presupposes the Virgin Birth "!1.
This, I submit, may be magnificent, but really it is not war. It is not serious criticism. Is any one so simple as to imagine that these changes would ever have been thought of, but for the previous desire to get rid of this particular feature of the Virgin Birth? Even then trouble is not over, for, as another critic—Usener—is quick enough to perceive, if these deletions are made, one would expect to find some notice of a marriage of Joseph and Mary. Usener, however, is equal to the occasion. It is naturally as easy to put in as to take out. So he courageously writes: " We are in a position to infer with certainty" [I always prick up my ears when one of these writers speaks of something he can "infer with certainty"; I am sure it will be something peculiarly doubtful] " from Luke 2:5 that in the original form of the narrative after Luke 1:38 stood the further statement, hardly to be dispensed with (even though judged inadmissible by the redactor who inter- __________________________________________ 1 Cf. his discussion in Zeitschrift fur die neutest. Wissenschaft, 1891, pp. 53ff polated Luke 1:34-35), that Mary was then taken to wife by Joseph, and that she conceived by him! " 1 Comment on such criticism is needless. A few other critics think they can get rid of the Virgin Birth by expunging Luke 1:34, without sacrificing Luke 1:35; 2 Gunkel more justly dismisses all these interpolation theories as baseless. 3 Dr. Chase says of them in a recent paper: " I cannot think there is a shadow of justification for regarding Luke 1:34-35 . . . as an addition to the original document, inserted either by St. Luke himself, or by some unknown interpolator, and for thus eliminating the idea of the Virgin Birth from the genuine Gospel. . . . The arguments brought forward against them are wholly subjective; and I hope that it is not arrogant to say that these arguments appear to me both far-fetched and mechanical." 4 This opinion J entirely endorse. How strange that MSS. should be so universally silent on these alleged interpolations; that no Father of the Church should ever have heard of them; that the whole Church should have understood the narrative of Luke in a way contrary to its real sense! The thing would be incredible enough, if Luke stood alone. But we have to remember that, when all is done, it is only one of the narratives that is got out of the way. The narrative of _______________________________________________ 1 Article "Nativity" in Ency. Biblica.
2 Thus, e.g., Kattenbusch, Weinel.
3 Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstandniss des N. T., p. 68. * Cambridge Theol. Essays, p. 409.
Matthew, which cannot be operated on in this fashion, remains as a second corroborative witness.
I come now to my last point in this part of the discussion. I am entitled to assume that these narratives of the Virgin Birth are genuine parts of their Gospels, and that they have come down to us in their integrity. But what of the Gospels themselves, and of their value as witnesses to such transcendent facts? The Gospels, we are told, are late; we do not know for certain who are their authors; they are at least far removed from the events which they relate. What credit, therefore, can be attached to them? The full answer to this question cannot be given here, for much depends on the internal evidence, which falls to be discussed in a succeeding lecture. Neither can I enter into the intricacies of what is called the Synoptical problem; but I may endeavour to show briefly how the question stands as regards external attestation, and what grounds we have for believing that our two Gospels are, as I have taken them to be, unquestionably genuine documents of the Apostolic Age. On this subject it will be generally admitted, I think, that we are in a better position for meeting objections than we have been for a long time. Of late years, as Harnack has been reminding us,1 we have been in _______________________________________________ 1 See the Preface to his work on Luke. a current moving strongly backward towards tradition, and there is coming to be very general agreement among sober-minded scholars that the first three Gospels lie well within the limits of the Apostolic Age, that Matthew is at least older than Luke, and that this Gospel is an undoubtedly genuine composition of Luke the physician, the companion of Paul. And this is nearly all I need to have admitted for my present purpose.
Take first Luke. The great bulk of scholarship in the Church has never seriously doubted the tradition which ascribed the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts to Luke, the companion of Paul. This has been the view defended by such writers as Keim, Beyschlag, Meyer, Godet, and most English scholars, though it has been strongly contested in the extremer critical schools. Now Harnack has thrown his powerful advocacy into the same scale in his work, Lukas der Arzt, and the authorship of Luke may be regarded as more firmly established to-day than it has ever been before. With what careful accuracy Luke went about his work, we know from his own prologue, Luke 1:1-3. As regards the date of the origin of the Gospel, more difference of opinion prevails. Harnack, in his dating of the Gospels, puts Mark between 67 and 70 a.d., Matthew between 70 and 75, and Luke between 78 and 93. But these dates, in the opinion of many, are still too late. Luke is put by not a few about 70. a.d. or earlier; 1 the late Prof. Blass put it as early as 59 or 60. 2 This is not the whole; for even those who give Luke the later dates agree that his Gospel is based on documents much older, and, in regard to chs. i. and ii., it is very generally recognised that the Evangelist uses an earlier Aramaic source. I return to this in next lecture. The Gospel of Matthew, though older than Luke, is in somewhat different case. The point of difficulty about Matthew is this: All ancient writers tell us that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew, i. e., in Aramaic; on the other hand, our existing Gospel of Matthew is in Greek, and bears no marks of being a translation. Moreover, from the fact that the oldest notice we have of the Gospel—that of Papias—speaks of the work which Matthew composed under the name of " Logia," or " Oracles," many have concluded that what Matthew wrote was not a Gospel in the strict sense, but a collection of Sayings or Discourses of the Lord, and they are confirmed in this view by noticing that Matthew and Luke evidently drew from a common source of this kind. On this theory, which is at present the prevailing one, our Greek Gospel of Matthew is not from Matthew’s own pen, but is based on Matthew’s " Logia," and, along with this, on the Gospel of Mark; the same is true of the Gospel of Luke. The _____________________________________________ 1 Cf. Plummer on dates for Luke, later and earlier.
2 Philology of the Gospels, p. 35. point of this, as it bears on our present discussion, can be readily seen. Matthew’s Gospel, it is urged, so far as it was based on Matthew’s " Logia,"—i. e., was really Matthew’s—had no birth-stories; so far, again, as it was based on Mark, it had no birth-stories. Chs. i. and ii. of our Gospel, therefore, are due to the Greek Evangelist, and have no Apostolic authority. This is the case against the historic worth of these chapters, from the point of view of criticism of the Gospels, and my reply to it is the very simple one that, supposing it all granted, the conclusion does not follow. It does not touch Luke, whose authorship we do know; but it does not really touch Matthew either; for the Greek Evangelist, whoever he was, was evidently a man who stood in closest relation with the Apostle as coadjutor or disciple,1 as is evident from the fact that his Gospel passed ever afterwards as Matthew’s Gospel—in any case, was a man possessed of full information, who wrote with a strong sense of responsibility, and with scrupulous care in the use of his materials, as can be proved by comparison with the corresponding sections in the other Gospels.
Harnack, as we saw, dates the Gospel of Matthew shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, but others, again, put it before that event. Even so critical a writer as Holtzmann put it about 68 a.d. ; 2 and the __________________________________________
1 Cf. Godet, Biblical Studies (N. T.), p. 20; and see article "Matthew" by Dr. V. Bartlet, in Hastings’ Diet, of Bible, III, p. 297.
2 Cf. Godet, Ibid., p. 22. great scholar Zahn puts the supposed original Aramaic Matthew, of which more immediately, as early as 61-6 6. 1 The sources, on the " Logia " theory, are, of course, earlier still.
I have thus stated the views currently held; but, having made this explanation, I desire now to say for myself—it is only due to myself that I should say it— that I am not at all personally convinced of the truth of this so-called " Two-Source " theory of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke 2:1-52 and see much reason for agreeing with those, including Zahn, who think that the Apostle Matthew’s connection with the First Gospel, not excepting the first two chapters, was much more direct than the prevailing theory assumes. I speak with diffidence, and must not unduly prolong the discussion. I would therefore only in closing draw attention to the following points, which seem to me of much weight:—
1. The tradition of the early Church was that " the Gospels containing the genealogies [i. e., Matthew and Luke] were written first," and that Matthew was the earliest of all. 3.
__________________________________________________ 1 Einleitung, II, p. 263.
2 It seems to me, e. g., in the highest degree improbable that Luke intended in his prologue to include the Gospel of Mark among the many attempts at composing Gospels which his own better-ordered work was to supersede. The difficulties of the theories of dependence are very great, and I prefer to think of the Gospels as drawing from more or less common sources, oral or written, but as independently originating.
3 Clem, of Alex., in Eusebius, 6:14; Keim, I, pp. 69, 97; Meyer, Matthew, I, p. 25; Zahn, Einleitung, II, pp. 177, 263, 322, etc.
2. The tendency has been increasingly to recognise in the so-called " Logia " of Matthew a modicum of narrative matter as well as discourses. This has been ably advocated by B. Weiss, Klostermann,1 and others. The " Logia "-Source thus approaches more nearly to the nature of a Gospel.
3. The testimony of the ancient Church is unanimous as to the identity of our existing Greek Gospel with the Gospel that Matthew wrote. The early Fathers knew no other Gospel of Matthew, and they attributed it unhesitatingly to the Apostle. It follows that, if an Aramaic Gospel ever existed, it must, as Meyer says, " apart from the language, have been, in contents and form, in whole and in part, substantially the same as our Greek Matthew 2:1-23.
4. The statement, first met with in Papias, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, must, in that case, be due either (1) to a confusion with the Gospel of the Hebrews, which Papias, no great judge, may easily, like others, have supposed to be the original of our Gospel; or (2) to the fact that Matthew did write his Gospel originally in Aramaic, and that this was subse- ____________________________________________________ 1 Godet, Luke, I, p. 44. See also Salmon’s newly published Human Element in the Gospels, pp. 70, 403.
2 Com. on Matt., I, p. 11; cf. p. 44. Westcott says: "All early writers agree that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. ... At the same time all equally agree in accepting the Gospel of Matthew without noticing the existence of any doubt as to its authenticity" (Introd. to Gospels, pp. 223-4). Cf. also Zahn, op. cit., II, p. 259. quently replaced, by his own hand, or that of another, by our Greek Gospel. This is the view of Zahn,1 as it was earlier that of Westcott, and of others. It is the view which commends itself to my own mind. There is nothing more wonderful in Matthew reproducing his Gospel in Greek, or having it done for him, than in Calvin, e. g., publishing his Institutes in Latin and in French.
5. Matthew’s Gospel, on this view, may have been produced shortly after 60 a.d. I strongly incline also to an early date for Luke. Luke’s Gospel was written before the Book of Acts, and it has always been borne in upon me that the latter must have been written before Paul’s death, else there would surely have been somewhere some allusion to that fact.
If these conclusions are just, we find in them new evidence of the early date, and, in Matthew’s case, direct Apostolic attestation, of the narratives of the Virgin Birth.
____________________________________________________________ 1 Com. on Matt., II, pp. 259, etc. Cf. Salmon, as above.