show that the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus was
before 80 A.D. This conclusion may be shaken by internal considerations, but they must be considerations of great weight if they are to overcome such an array of external evidence.
2. Thus far we have exhibited the external evidence which goes to show that the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus was written at a time when authentic tradition as to the facts might still have been available. We now turn to the internal evidence bearing upon the trustworthiness of the account.
In the first place, it may be well to see if the account itself gives us any evidence which will enable us to penetrate beyond it. The most obvious fact in this connection is that we have two narratives of the birth of Jesus. What is the relation between them? The hypotheses that one is a source of the other, and that they have a common source, might seem to be out of the question, if we did not, as a matter of fact, have before us attempts to prove them. Pfleiderer,11 choosing the former position, believed at one time that Matthew used Luke's poetical composition and presupposed a knowledge of it on the part of his readers; and that Matthew was therefore able to take for granted the acceptance of the virgin birth, which Luke had been obliged laboriously to introduce and support; but that he changed Luke's material to suit his own purpose: thus, for example, the account of the Magi is a story invented to typify Luke 2:31 ("a light for revelation to the Gentiles"), /pg. 648/ the star especially being a sensible counterpart of Luke's indefinite "light." This whole theory is beset with such obvious difficulties that it is not at all surprising that Pfleiderer has himself abandoned it.12 Recently there have been several attempts to indicate a common source for the infancy narratives. One of these—that of Conrady—we need not consider at this point; for Conrady undertakes to show that both our accounts are derived from the so-called Protevangelium of James, which he thinks is a work of pure invention. His treatise, therefore, is an attempt to explain our narratives without the help of the facts, and so belongs to the second part of our discussion. At present we shall confine our discussion to an examination and criticism of the
view that the narratives are what they are, only because the facts were what they were. When we come to the other view of the narratives, we shall criticise that as well.13
The other attempt to exhibit a common source for the birth narratives of our Gospels is that of Resch.14 He thinks that this common source was a 2F5G9 ;M&J-A$&J; *F:&M3H %H/MI:E*(H, written originally in Hebrew after the plan of the Book of Ruth )and so provided with a genealogy(, and translated afterward into Greek; that from this family history, the first Evangelist took those portions which suited his purpose of exhibiting events as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy; that afterwards the third Evangelist made use of the rest of the book, but was pressed for space )owing to the exigencies of ancient book-making(, and so was obliged to omit what had already been narrated by the author of Matthew, as well as to condense what he was actually able to relate. The differences to be observed in Justin are due, in Resch's opinion, to Justin's use of a different recension of the source, while the prologue /pg. 649/ to the fourth Gospel, as well as even the apocryphal Gospels, are thought to preserve for us certain isolated readings of the original writing which but for them would be lost. In support of this theory Resch urges the following considerations:
(1) The title at the beginning of Matthew's account, $\$8@H (, <XF,TH, 0F@L$ OD4FJ@L$. A brief narrative of forty-two verses could not be called a "book," whereas if we put Luke 1, 2, and Matt. 1, 2, together we have a writing about the size of the Book of Ruth. This argument ignores the very probable view that $\$8@H refers merely to the genealogy—a view which the parallels in Genesis seem at least to suggest, even though, according to the usage there, this would be called the book of the generations of Abraham, rather than of Jesus. The noun in the genitive indicates the main purpose of the genealogy, hence, perhaps, the change in usage. In any case, it is extravagant to claim that we can say just how large a $\$8@H had to be. Furthermore, even though we could show that the title stood originally at the head of a larger work, it does not follow that the rest
of that work was occupied by the narrative at present contained in Luke.
(2) The character of the extra-canonical recensions.
To criticise the details of this argument would be too great a task for the present occasion, since Resch has amassed a great number of interesting citations from the early patristic literature and the apocryphal gospels; but in general it may be said that, in the first place, he attributes too much importance to variations which might well be due to careless citation, and in the second place, he has not shown with sufficient clearness why the phenomena must be due to just the particular cause which he assigns. It may be true, for example, that Justin used some extra-canonical source; but it has not been proved that that source was a recension of the hypothetical Book of the Generations of Jesus Christ.
(3) The points of contact, with regard to matter, between the two accounts. But these, so far as they go, might be explained by the basis of the two narratives in a common series of facts.
(4) The Johannine Prologue shows evidence of being a philosophical reflection on the original source, which was, however, used, in an extra-canonical recension. An examination of the supposed parallels (pp. 243ff.) will show the insufficiency of this argument. One of the most striking parallels is obtained only by means of the at least doubtful reading in John 1:13, ÔH…¦(,<<Z20.
(5) The habits of the two authors account for their choice of /pg. 650/ matter. But the purpose of Luke to give only what was left, and to give it as briefly as possible, will hardly account for the particular wording of 2:39.
(6) The two narratives exhibit linguistic affinities, and the differences may be accounted for by supposing that the first Evangelist broke in upon the original form of the source more than did the third Evangelist. But an examination of the linguistic parallels on pp. 26,
27, leads to the opposite result from that sought by Resch, for the parallels consist merely of commonplaces; and where anything more than a commonplace is observable the difference is far more noticeable than the similarity. In general, it may be said that the difference in character between the two narratives is enough to destroy Resch's hypothesis. Matthew is terse and prosaic in form even where the subject would naturally lead to a more elevated style, e.g., the story of the Magi. Luke, on the other hand, moves in a region of simple and fresh, but exalted poetry. It will not do to say that the original book was simple and dignified in the narrative portions, and flowing and poetical where poetry was demanded; for there are narrative portions in Luke's account, which yet exhibit the same contrast in style as against Matthew, as may be seen even in the Magnificat. On the whole, in view of the audacity of the attempt to reconstruct the original Hebrew of the source, and in view of the enormous weight of evidence which would be required to prove the contention, it is not at all surprising that Resch has remained the sole defender of his Hebrew Book of the Generations of Jesus Christ.
It seems, therefore, reasonably clear, on the hypothesis that the narratives are based upon historical traditions, that there was no common written source of the two widely diverging accounts. But we are not altogether debarred from attempting to trace a little further back the history of the ideas presented in our narratives. Zahn15 makes such an attempt, on the basis of Luke and Matthew taken separately. He says, in the first place, that Luke, writing to assist the faith of the Gentile Theophilus, would include in his Gospel only those things which were generally held throughout the Christian congregations—an argument which perhaps takes too much for granted for our present purpose. Zahn's argument with regard to Matthew16 is much more remarkable, although at the same time much more doubtful. He says it is clear that, as Matthew's /pg. 651/ purpose throughout his Gospel is distinctly apologetic and polemic (see especially Matt. 28:11–15), so it is polemic also in this first section—polemic against the Jewish slander to the effect that Jesus was a son of dishonor, silencing the slander, first, by the citation of
prophecy to show that what had given offense is really a holy work of God, and, secondly, by the fact that Joseph had openly recognized Mary as his wife before she bore her eldest son. The polemic character of these first two chapters appears, also, Zahn says, in the genealogy. The women so singularly mentioned have all something shameful about them, at least to a Jew, even Ruth being a Moabitess. Matthew's argument, therefore, according to Zahn, is that if the Jews did not take offense at these dark spots in the history of the house of David (admittedly the bearer of the promises), neither ought they to take offense at the stain upon the birth of Jesus, even admitting it to be a fact; Jesus might still be the Messiah. Now this polemic, Zahn argues, proves that the opposing view was widely spread among the Jews at the time when Matthew wrote; and as every one [except Haeckel] admits, that Jewish view was a caricature of the original Christian report about the supernatural conception, the view that the two opinions stood in the reverse relation being clearly excluded. But in order that there may be a caricature, the thing caricatured must be well known; therefore, in order to allow time for all this, the belief in the virgin birth must have been widely current long before our Matthew was written.
The argument is perhaps ingenious rather than sound. In the first place, it is very doubtful whether the author who had chosen the lofty way of refutation represented in 1:18–25 would ever have descended to admit, even for a moment, and for the sake of argument, that the mother of the Lord might have shared in the disgrace connected in the popular mind with such names as Tamar and Rahab. And then, it is very doubtful whether the women mentioned in the genealogy are mentioned because of the disgrace connected with them, rather than simply because their names called up something remarkable in the line of descent. Finally, and most important, it may be objected that Zahn's theory must always remain a mere supposition. For, according to Hilgenfeld, we have no mention of that Jewish slander against Christ supposed to be combated in Matthew until the year 130, and the reference there is extremely doubtful. Indeed, the story is not mentioned even in Justin Martyr, as we should certainly expect
(with Hilgenfeld) if Justin knew of it, and becomes prominent only in Celsus about /pg. 652/ 180 A.D.17 It seems, therefore, extremely unlikely that the slander arose in the period between the crucifixion and the composition of Matthew, especially since the doctrine of the virgin birth does not seem to have been part of the earliest Christian preaching and therefore could not have been caricatured so early by the Jews. We therefore reject the attempt of Zahn to show by this particular line of argument the existence of a general Christian belief in the virgin birth long before the composition of Matthew. But we do not therefore by any means weaken our opinion that the doctrine of the virgin birth must have originated at a very early date. For the very independence of the two narratives, coupled with their agreement in the essential fact, shows that the two lines of tradition —so far as we can judge from objective considerations—must have begun to diverge at a very early time. Indeed, the suggestion is not an unnatural one that the lines began to diverge at the facts themselves —the two narratives being based upon the accounts of different eyewitnesses. Thus far we have tried to trace back the accounts of the birth as far as possible, and then, merely from general considerations, to penetrate behind them to the tradition upon which they rest.18 But we have pursued the investigation just as we should in the case of any historical narrative—we have taken no account of difficulties arising from the peculiar content of the particular narrative now under discussion. We must now examine the narratives themselves more in detail. What objections are to be opposed to the external evidence already considered?
The first thing to be noticed is, naturally, the miraculous character of many of the events narrated—indeed, the very sum and substance of the whole account is a miracle. Now, of course, for probably the majority of those who deny the essential truth of the narratives, the presence of miracle settles the matter at the outset. A miracle cannot be true; the narratives are suffused with the miraculous; therefore the narratives are false, be the origin of the falsification easy or difficult to explain. Such a position we cannot now attempt to refute. For we freely admit that in order to prove that miracles are possible
and have actually occurred the virgin birth is not the place to begin. We are thoroughly in agreement with Peter and Paul, who began rather with what could be supported by direct and ample testimony— the Resurrection. The miraculous, furthermore, /pg. 653/ must be supported by an argument which far exceeds the limit of bare testimony. For there is a presumption against every miracle which hardly any testimony will overcome. One might not believe a hundred men of the highest character and intellect if they told him that a man had arisen from the dead. But it is different if they tell him that Christ has arisen from the dead. He knows he is a sinner; he knows there is a righteous God; he knows he needs a tremendous event to save him, for a tremendous cure is needed for a tremendous ill; Christ is offered as the, Saviour. That He should rise from the dead seems to be not impossible, for great as is the event, there is an adequate occasion for it. Our investigator is thus favorably disposed in this case for the reception of the direct testimony. It is only with men who at least see the force of some such reasoning that we now argue—men who are ready to accept a miracle, if the occasion and the testimony are sufficient, but who have some particular difficulties about the particular miracles contained in the accounts of the birth of Jesus.
These particular objections to the miracles of our narratives may be classified as occasioned either (1) by the angelic appearances or (2) by the virgin birth.19 (1) Against the angelic appearances it is urged that they exceed the limits which even supernatural revelation may allow itself. The extended conversations and especially the name "Gabriel" are objected to. Two lines of defense may be pursued. In the first place, we may say with B. Weiss that the form of the revelations is supplied by the author, who preserves, however, the essential truth. Or (with more reason as it seems to me) we may point to the conditions under which the revelations were made. It is perfectly true that angelic appearances in the twentieth century would be eminently out of place, and so, contradictory to the grave, unsensational spirit of revelation. But if we suppose, as is not unlikely, the existence in Israel just before the time of Christ of a
circle of pious BJTP@\ who were not contaminated by the prevailing formalism and corruption, but kept their faces turned steadily toward heaven in simple, childlike faith that Jehovah would yet fulfil His ancient promises; if there were really in Israel shepherds like the shepherds of Luke and saints like Symeon and Anna (and their existence seems presupposed by the later history), then the angels do not seem so unworthy of a God who adapts His revelations to the needs and capacities of His creatures.
Connected with the objection to the angels is the objection to /pg. 654/ the narrative of Luke because it is poetical. The fact we freely admit—indeed, even Conybeare credits the author with "a very pretty fancy" [!]—but we refuse to draw any derogatory inference. The narrative may well be both true and poetical—especially if, as we have just tried to show, the poetry is largely in the facts themselves. Indeed, Prof. Briggs, for example,20 suggests that the sources of the narratives were actually poems, and yet attributes to these sources a high degree of historic value.21
(2) The virgin birth is objected to (a) because it is not adequately attested, and (b) because, so far from there being any adequate occasion for it, it is positively detrimental to Christian doctrine.
To the second of these objections (referring to the occasion for the miracle) we cannot attribute so much weight as is sometimes done. True, the principle is a correct one, that the reality or nonreality of a miracle must be determined very largely by the occasion. But we must distinguish between the importance of the event and our understanding of its importance. If we admit that Christ was a supernatural person, we do not have to be able to explain the special reason for every one of His miracles in order to believe that the miracles really happened. The virgin birth, being connected with Christ, has an adequate occasion. The fact may well be enormously important—in view of our profound ignorance as to the origin of every human soul, to say nothing of the Incarnation of the Son of God—even though the futile physiological and psychological
speculations with regard to its exact meaning have not brought us any nearer to the truth. Surely the Incarnation, if it was real, was an event stupendous enough to give rise to even the greatest of miracles.
Yet the question cannot be dismissed without a few words, even in a purely historical discussion. For if it be shown that the Church has made a mistake in including the virgin birth in the Creed; if it be shown that the doctrine of the virgin birth is not one of the fundamental facts of Christianity, so that without it the Christian religion could exist unimpaired; then one argument for the doctrine has been removed. For there is a great weight of evidence from Christian experience which goes to show that Christianity is essentially true. The question is whether we have to run counter to all this evidence if we deny the fact of the miraculous conception. You cannot quite get rid of the theological question, therefore, even in discussing the question of history.
In order to show a proper occasion for the virgin birth, it is not /pg. 655/ necessary, as is so often assumed, to prove that this miracle was necessary to the divine Sonship of Christ in any sense that confuses His eternal Sonship with the conception by the Holy Ghost, or that it was necessary to His sinlessness. Indeed the derivation of the sinlessness of Christ from the virgin birth is, as has often been pointed out, inconsistent. For if the law of heredity could not be suspended by the Spirit of God, then the only logical result would have been the immediate creation of the human body of Christ independent of both parents; for if sin is necessarily handed down by the ordinary course of generation, then the human motherhood of Mary is enough to carry on the taint. Yet the virgin birth is a great doctrine for all that, its importance being exhibited by history from the second century on into the twentieth. For the account of the virgin birth is the great testimony to the absolute miraculousness of Jesus throughout His whole life. If the virgin birth is a fact, then Christ did not grow up into His divinity—He is divine in a far higher sense than that. This doctrine is therefore, the great obstacle in the way of the Adoptionists of all ages and of all shades of opinion; it is
something to be gotten rid of not only by Cerinthus but also by all his modern followers. Perhaps we cannot see but that Christ might have been a miraculous person even if He had been born outwardly in the ordinary way; but if He was born in the way described in Matthew and Luke, then He must have been a miraculous person.22
We have tried to show that, rightly considered, the virgin birth is of enormous importance to Christian faith, so that there is ample occasion for the miracle. It is next in order to consider the actual testimony, which we shall most conveniently do in connection with the general question of the trustworthiness of the whole account.
Since, however, we desire to be as fair-minded as possible in conducting the inquiry, it may be well, by way of preface, to make a few remarks in exposition of what we conceive fair-mindedness to be. For, strange as it may seem, there is apparently a good deal of confusion afloat with regard to the matter. For example, we object most strenuously to the identification—widely prevalent in some quarters—of "apologetic" with "unscientific" or even "dishonest," especially with regard to questions of harmony. If you have judged beforehand that any defense of a thing must necessarily be false, then the only truly scientific and impartial attitude would be to deny everything. If, however, you listen patiently to the /pg. 656/ defense of theories which destroy the trustworthiness of a narrative but stigmatize as necessarily untrue any defense of "harmony" or of what may be called the "conservative" position, then you have been anything but fair-minded. Again, fair-mindedness does not require or even permit us to regard our accounts of the birth as fallen from the air, to be judged solely according to the inherent likeliness or unlikeliness of the events narrated—a principle which is apparently ignored by Soltau,23 who seems to think he has made an important utterance when he says that "The murder of the infants at Bethlehem, as well as the strange appearance of the Magi on the scene, would certainly not have been believed if it had not been the Evangelical recorder who related them." Of course they would not, but then, as a matter of fact, it was the Evangelical recorder who
related them, and his testimony is worth more (on any critical view) than the testimony of a man, for example, who wrote ten centuries later. True impartiality does not consist in deciding every question in entire disregard of everything else. In order to judge impartially the narratives of the birth, we must keep in mind the results of related investigations. It is fully as great an offense against scientific method to refuse to hold presuppositions founded upon proven fact as it is to insist upon holding presuppositions founded upon fancy. Therefore, in discussing the trustworthiness of the accounts of the birth, we must remember that they are firmly united from an early time to two very ancient books which admittedly possess very considerable historical value. On such testimony we ought to be inclined to admit as historical many things which we should reject if the testimony were not so strong. This much we regard as justifiable presupposition. On the other hand we must regard as a false presupposition, based on theory rather than fact, the statement of Soltau that all records in the first and third Evangelists which are not derived from the "two definitely established sources are of eminently slighter trustworthiness." For (aside from the question of the truth or falsehood of the two-document hypothesis) it would be necessary for Soltau to demonstrate the unity of those portions of the gospels not derived from the two sources in order to involve the accounts of the birth in any supposed untrustworthiness attaching to the other fragments. On Soltau's theory, the Evangelists used some trustworthy documents as well some untrustworthy ones. We ought not to connect the accounts of the /pg. 657/ birth with the latter class, rather than with the former, until we have carefully examined the accounts themselves.
After these preliminary remarks, we proceed to examine the special objections which have been urged against the trustworthiness of our narratives. These objections may conveniently be classified as follows: (1) inconsistency with well-attested history; (2) inconsistency with the other New Testament literature; (3) inconsistency within the birth narratives themselves.