of the second century were based upon philosophical or dogmatic
The results of the foregoing investigation of the second-century testimony to the virgin birth may be summed up in two propositions: —
1. A firm and well-formulated belief in the virgin birth extends back to the early years of the second century.
2. The denials of the virgin birth which appeared after the beginning of the second century were based upon philosophical or dogmatic prepossession more probably than upon genuine historical tradition.
Matthew 1:16 and the Virgin Birth*
AN ancient manuscript of the Gospels in Syriac )a Semitic language which was spoken in the country to the east of Antioch( renders Matt. 1:16, as follows )the translations from the Syriac in the present article are taken from Burkitt, "Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe"(: "Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus that is called the Messiah." This interesting reading has recently been given considerable prominence in the newspapers, being used as though it constituted an important testimony against the supernatural conception of Jesus. A few words of explanation may therefore be in place. The manuscript in which the reading in question is found is the famous "Sinaitic Syriac," or "Lewis Syriac" which was discovered by two English ladies in the monastery of St. Catherine, on Mt. Sinai, in 1892. The Sinaitic Syriac is a "palimpsest"—that is, the vellum has been used a second time after the original writing had been partly obliterated. The upper writing, which treats of the lives of certain Syrian saints, was produced in the eighth century; the under writing, with which alone we are concerned, constitutes an ancient copy of the Gospels. This
under writing was probably produced about the beginning of the fifth century, or possibly a little earlier. It is not true, therefore, that the Sinaitic Syriac is our oldest copy of the Gospels, for two of the Greek manuscripts are to be dated earlier still. Nevertheless, it is very ancient, and deserves the most careful attention.
The Sinaitic Syriac displays a marked similarity to another Syriac manuscript of the Gospels, the so-called "Curetonian Syriac," which was probably produced a little later. The agreement of these two manuscripts is due, no doubt, to the fact that they are copies of the same translation of the Greek Gospels into Syriac, the Curetonian being a much less faithful copy than the Sinaitic. This translation, which is called the "Old Syriac," to distinguish it from the "Peshitta," the well-know Syriac translation of the early part of the fifth century, was probably made at least as early as A.D. 200. Another early form of the Gospels in Syriac was the Syriac form of the "Diatessaron" of Tatian; the Diatessaron, however, was not a translation of the four Gospels complete, but was a kind of Gospel harmony; Tatian pieced together the material of the four Gospels in such a way as to form a continuous life of Christ. Unfortunately, the original text of the Diatessaron can be reconstructed only very imperfectly. It seems clear that there is some direct relation between the Diatessaron and the Old Syriac, but it is not clear whether the Diatessaron used the Old Syriac, or the Old Syriac the Diatessaron. If the Diatessaron used the Old Syriac—that is, if the Old Syriac was produced first—then the production of the Old Syriac translation must be placed near the middle rather than at the close of the second century. The reverse relation, however, seems to be somewhat more probable.
In the light of what has just been said, it will be observed that, in order for a peculiar reading of the Sinaitic Syriac to be regarded as preserving the original text of a passage in the Gospels, the following assumptions, normally at least, must be made:
)1( In the first place, the Sinaitic Syriac must be supposed to reproduce accurately, at the point in question, the original Old Syriac
translation. Of course, this assumption is sometimes not in accord with the facts; we do not know how many copyings of the Old Syriac intervened before the production of our Sinaitic Syriac manuscript; undoubtedly there were opportunities for mistakes to be made.
)2( In the second place, supposing that the Sinaitic Syriac does represent accurately the original Old Syriac translation, it must further be assumed that that Old Syriac translation is a literal, and accurate translation, at the point in question, of the Greek manuscript from which it was taken. Unless it is a literal and accurate translation, a re-translation of it into Greek will not allow us to draw any inference as to the underlying Greek text, and it is just that underlying Greek text with which we are concerned.
)3( In the third place, supposing that the Sinaitic Syriac does represent accurately the original Old Syriac translation, and supposing that that Old Syriac translation does represent accurately the underlying Greek text, it must further be assumed that the underlying Greek text, at the point in question, has reproduced accurately the autograph of the New Testament book. The underlying Greek text from which the Old Syriac translation was taken was a text of about A.D. 150 to 200; we do not know how many copyings had intervened between the New Testament autographs and the manuscripts of that time; undoubtedly, within the interval there was abundant opportunity for error to creep in. Such, in general terms, is the character of the witness which the Sinaitic Syriac bears to the original Greek text of the Gospels. It remains to consider the particular problem of Matt. 1:16. This verse appears in the witnesses to the text of the New Testament in the following three forms, of which the second and third are, formally at least, very much alike: )1( "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ."
This reading is attested by almost all of the many hundreds of Greek manuscripts )including the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which are the two oldest and best(, and by all the
translations except the Old Latin and the Old Syriac. Such a consensus of testimony would show clearly that the reading is at least as early as the second century, /pg. 9/ and a quotation by Tertullian confirms that conclusion.
)2( "And Jacob begat Joseph, to whom having been betrothed the virgin Mary, bare Jesus who is called Christ."
This reading is attested by the so-called "Ferrar Group," consisting of a number of late Greek manuscripts )and in essentials( by the manuscripts of the Old Latin translation, which was made probably in the latter part of the second century in North Africa. The reading of the Curetonian Syriac is also very similar; Burkitt translates that reading as follows: "Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, she who bare Jesus the Messiah." )3( "Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus called the Messiah."
This reading is attested by the Sinaitic Syriac, and by it alone. Other evidence for a text containing the words, "Joseph…begat Jesus," is not only so late, but also so very problematical, as to be altogether without value. It should be observed that even the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac clearly implies the virgin birth of Christ, though it also contains an apparent contradiction of it.
If we had to choose simply between )1( and )2(, the choice would certainly fall upon )1(. In the first place, although both readings are ancient, the attestation of )1( is far stronger. The high estimate which Westcott and Hort placed upon our two oldest Greek manuscripts, relative to the other witnesses to the text, has at most been somewhat modified by subsequent investigation; it has certainly not been destroyed.
In the second place, the first reading looks in itself far more as though it were genuine than does the second. If the author of the Gospel had written )2( it is hard to see how any scribe would have
been led to substitute )1( for it; whereas, if )1( was genuine, it is easy to explain the substitution of )2(. It will be observed that )1( does not definitely refer to the virgin birth. Of course, when it is contrasted with the rest of the genealogy, and especially when it is taken in connection with Matt. 1:18–25, it is abundantly evident that whoever wrote it accepted the virgin birth; but the words themselves do not actually exclude the view that Jesus was in a physical sense the son of Joseph; indeed, Joseph is called without explanation the "husband" of Mary. Now, later readers of the Gospels were inclined to look askance upon any such even apparent ambiguity; they were inclined to avoid the word "husband," as applied to Joseph; they were inclined to emphasize the virginity of Mary at every point, leaving nothing to the intelligence of the readers. Matt. 1:16, therefore, in the form to which we are accustomed, would have given difficulty to some of the copyists. Most of them, fortunately, did not allow their own reflections to interfere with their duty as scribes; they simply copied the text faithfully, without asking questions. But evidently some one scribe in the second century proceeded in a different way; he apparently jumped at the conclusion that Matthew could not have written what stands in reading )1(, and therefore thought he was correcting some previous copyist's error when he substituted reading )2(. To us, this seems to be a very remarkable procedure, but it did not seem so to a certain class of ancient scribes; it is analogous to what can be observed elsewhere in the history of the New Testament text. From the faulty copy thus produced by a second-century scribe, the extant witnesses to reading )2( have descended; from the correct copies have come the great mass of our manuscripts.
Thus the first of the three readings will explain the origin of the second; but the second will not explain the origin of the first; the second, but not the first, can be explained as due to the mistake of a scribe. But if the first reading cannot be explained as due to the mistake of a scribe, it can be explained only as due to the author—in other words, as part of the original text. There is no difficulty whatever about such an explanation, for the first reading is admirably in accord with the context. Some unintelligent copyist
took offence because this reading represented Joseph, without explanation, as the "husband" of Mary; in reality, such a representation is exactly in accord with Matthew's purpose. In the whole of the first chapter, Matthew is interested, not only in showing that Jesus was not in a physical sense the son of Joseph, but also )and just as earnestly( in showing that Jesus was the legal heir of David and Abraham through Joseph. In order that this second point might be proved, it was necessary to show clearly that Joseph was Mary's husband at the time when Jesus was born. The second reading, therefore, is not only in its extreme clumsiness of sentenceconstruction out of accord with Matthew's style; it really obscures the main point of the genealogy. Thus from every point of view the first of our three readings is vastly more likely to be genuine than the second. The first looks unmistakably like the work of the original author, and the second looks unmistakably like the error of a scribe.
But how is it with the third reading, the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac? The answer is really very plain. This third reading is nothing in the world but a variety of the second reading, and therefore shares in the condemnation which has been passed upon the second reading. If the third reading were part of the original text of the Gospel, the origin of the second reading might be explained; but the origin of the first reading, for the reasons that have just been set forth, would at least be very puzzling. A scribe who, out of zeal for the virgin birth, set about changing the reading, "Joseph…begat Jesus," would not have been likely to remove the word "virgin," which already stood in that reading, and insert instead, without explanation, the word "husband." On the other hand, if the first reading was part of the original text, both the other readings may be explained as due to the mistakes of scribes. The second reading was derived from the first in the way which has been explained above; and as for the derivation of the third from the second, that may have happened in a number of ways.
Possibly, for example, the third reading may have /pg. 10/ been derived from the second by a mere careless blunder. There is a
striking monotony in the wording of the genealogy—"Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat…" The mistake of the scribe may have consisted simply in letting this monotony run away with him, in carrying it one step too far. It will be observed that every name in the genealogy up to Joseph is written twice in succession; what was more natural than for a careless scribe to write this name twice also, and thus be led to produce the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac? If the mistake had been made in the Greek transmission, we should be rather positive about this explanation; in Greek, the word used for "bare" in the reading of the Ferrar group is exactly the same as the word for "begat"; the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac reading, in Greek, would be derived from the reading of the Ferrar group by little more than the mere insertion of "and Joseph." In Syriac, the difference seems to be somewhat greater; but if a scribe had once made the initial mistake of repeating the "Joseph," he might naturally and half unconsciously proceed to any slight further changes that might be involved.
Another explanation—that of Burkitt—is that the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac was produced by a mistranslation in the original Old Syriac translation of about A.D. 200; and still other explanations have been proposed. Clearly, at any rate, the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac in one way or another, may be understood as a mere mistake in the transmission of the text. And if it may be so understood, surely it must be. It must always be remembered that the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac does not compete for our favor on anything like equal terms with the other readings. Both the other readings are widely attested; both of them must have originated at least as early as the second century. The reading of the Sinaitic Syriac, on the other hand, is not found at all in the original language of the New Testament, and it is entirely isolated, being found only in one manuscript. Such isolated readings must always be viewed with great suspicion; they may be due to the mere careless, uncorrected blunder of the scribe of the individual manuscript in question. If the reading of the Sinaitic had strong and early attestation, it might be a debatable question whether it was not part of the original text, and the other two
readings pious emendations made by orthodox scribes; but since, as a matter of fact, its attestation is not strong and early, and since it can be accounted for plausibly as arising simply by an ordinary blunder in the course of the transmission, this latter explanation of its origin is certainly to be accepted.
The view, therefore, that the Sinaitic Syriac at Matt. 1:16 represents the original text of the Gospel can be maintained only by textual criticism of the most adventurous and unscientific kind. The reading of the Sinaitic Syriac cannot with certainty be traced back of A.D. 400, whereas the common reading is clearly attested at the beginning of the third century; and certainly was present considerably before that time; the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac looks as though it may well be the mere mistake of a scribe or translator, whereas the common reading looks unmistakably like the work of the author of the Gospel, and defies any other explanation of its origin.
Our task, however, is not yet done. We have shown that the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac was not part of the original text of the Gospel; but even if so much should be granted, even if it should be granted that the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac is due not to the author, but to a copyist, it might still be maintained that that reading is historically valuable. How did a copyist come to introduce the startling sentence, "Joseph…begat Jesus"? Only, it has been said, because there was, lying back of the first chapter of Matthew, either a written source, or at any rate an oral tradition, which represented Jesus as in a physical sense the son of Joseph the scribe who produced the reading, "Joseph…begat Jesus," has caused the original representation of the birth of Jesus to appear even in a Gospel which itself contradicts that representation. But surely the evidence for such a view is exceedingly slender. The reading of the Sinaitic Syriac can be explained as due to the ordinary processes of textual corruption; what need is there, therefore, of resorting to so far-reaching an hypothesis? Indeed, the action of the hypothetical scribe who allowed himself to be influenced by the supposed tradition of the physical paternity of
Joseph is quite inconceivable. That scribe himself was surely convinced of the opposite view of the birth of Jesus, otherwise he would not have retained Matt. 1:18–25 in its present form—it should always be remembered that the Sinaitic Syriac narrates the virgin birth just as clearly as does any other manuscript—why, then, did he gratuitously introduce contradiction? It is unscientific to resort to a difficult and complicated explanation of a textual error when a perfectly simple explanation lies ready to hand. Evidently, therefore, the common reading at Matt. 1:16, represents correctly the original text of the Gospel, and the variants are to be explained as due to the ordinary processes of corruption. It should now be observed, in closing, that this textual question is not altogether so important as has sometimes, been maintained. Suppose we were quite wrong with regard to it, suppose that Matt. 1:16 originally contained the words attested by the Sinaitic Syriac, suppose even that the original text had simply "Joseph begat Jesus" )which, as a matter of fact, is found in no manuscript(, even then no conclusion derogatory to the virgin birth would necessarily follow. The word "begat" in the genealogy in Matthew is clearly not to be taken in the strict physical sense; as Burkitt very pertinently says, "the contemporaries of the Evangelist knew their Bible at least as well as we do," "they knew that there were more than fourteen generations between David and the Captivity, that Joram did not beget Uzziah, and that Joseph did not beget Jeconiah." The word "begat" in the genealogy means simply "had as a legal heir." At any rate, it certainly had that meaning to the Evangelist, if he wrote "Joseph begat Jesus," for certainly Matt. 1:18– 25 excludes the physical paternity of Joseph in the clearest possible terms. Of course, the case would be different if Matt. 1:18–25 were /pg. 11/ no original part of the Gospel of Matthew; but for such a view there is not a jot of manuscript evidence, and the section in question exhibits in a very striking way all the characteristics of the Gospel. Evidently, therefore, if the author of the Gospel wrote "Joseph begat Jesus," he meant nothing derogatory to the virgin birth, he used the word "begat" in a broad sense. Such a use of the word would have been far more natural among the Jews than it would be now; an adoptive relationship meant more to them than it
does to us; to the Jewish mind a son born of Joseph's wife and acknowledged by him was to all ordinary intents and purposes his son. The reading of the Sinaitic Syriac at Matt. 1:16 is accordingly without bearing upon the question of the historicity of the virgin birth; even if Matthew wrote "Joseph begat Jesus," he did not mean to deny the virgin birth. But this whole latter part of our discussion has been merely for the sake of the argument. As a matter of fact, Matthew did not write "Joseph begat Jesus," or any such thing—he wrote exactly what we find in our Bibles. Matthew was indeed very much interested in showing that Jesus was heir of David through Joseph. But he was just as much interested in showing that Jesus was not son of Joseph by ordinary generation. Jesus belonged indeed to the house of David; in him the promises were fulfilled. But he belonged to that house in a more wonderful way than could have been foreseen; he was a gift granted to the house of David by a mysterious act of God.
On the textual question, see Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. ii, pages 565–567; and Burkitt, "Evangelion DaMepharreshe," vol. ii, pages 258–266. A good brief description of the Syriac translations is given by Kenyon, in "Textual Criticism of the New Testament," second edition, pages 147–171.
-----
MONERGISM BOOKS
The Virgin Borth of Christ, by J. Gresham Machen, Copyright © 2021
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored
in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Monergism Books.
ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions May 2021. Requests for information should be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn, OR 97068