VIRGIL; ver'jil: Bishop of Salzburg; b. in Ireland, probably in the first or second decade of the eighth century; d. at Salzburg Nov. 27, 784. After having risen to be abbot of tfie monastery of Aghaboe (in the modern County Queens), he joined the court of Pippin in 743, who sent him to Odilo, duke of Bavaria, in 745. Between 746 and 748 he was appointed bishop of Salzburg, but having scruples about receiving consecration, he administered only the temporal affairs of the diocese. Virgil's relations with his archbishop, the famous Bonifarx, soon became strained. Boniface directed Virgil and his colleague Sidonius, later bishop of Passau, to rebaptise all who had been baptised by a Bavarian priest because the latter had been un-
|
201 |
Bibliography: Consult the literature under Salzburg, Archdiocese of; the Vita in MGH, Script., xi (1854), 86-95, and in ASM, III., ii. 309-318; Rettberg, KD, ii. 223 sqq.; Hauck, KD, i. 568-569; F. J. Buss, Winfrid-Bonifacius, ed. R. Ritter von Scherer, pp. 293 sqq., Graz, 1880; KL, xii. 1002-05.
The doctrine that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary through the operation of the Holy Ghost received its first authoritatively formulated state ment in the earliest Roman Creed, not later,than 150 a.d., and probably earlier (in its earliest form dated by Harnack about 140, by Zahn about 120, and by Kattenbusch about 100; cf. Apostles' Creed). So far as its Scriptural basis is concerned, this rests exclusively on the narratives in Matthew and Luke, and a consideration of it involves an inquiry concerning (1) the nature and origin of the narratives as they appear in those gospels; (2) their relation to the rest of the New Testament; (3) the position of early church writers; (4) supernatural birth stories in comparative religion; (5) and dogmatic bearings of the subject.
The traditional doctrine of the Church is found
in the great confessions, e.g., in the Apostles' Creed,
"I believe 202
von der Jungfrau Maria, 1893; and J. Hausleiter,
Zur Vorgeschichte des apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses,
Munich, 1893. In opposition were
A. Harnack, Das Apostolicum, Leipsic, 1892; W.
Herrmann, Worum handelt es um das Apostolikum?
Magdeburg, 1893; and F. H. Kattenbusch, Das
apostolische Symbol, Leipsic, 1894 (3d ed., 1900).
Aside from the particular discussions referred to, two or three conditions of present-day thought have made necessary a reopening of the question of the virgin birth, with presuppositions different from those which were possible to earlier scholarship. There is, first, the scientific spirit with its evolutionary view of the world, its deeper 2 study of biology and the processes of life, and its conviction that all events are related to one another by a law of uniform and concomitant variation. Secondly, the historical spirit subjects all alleged facts to far more searching scrutiny than was hitherto possible, as a result of which many events previously supposed to have been supernaturally caused are brought within the range of human historical explanation; and the hope is expressed that all will ultimately be drawn into the same category. In addition, many special disciplines have focused attention on this subject, such as New-Testament criticism and comparative religion. Two other impressive facts have secured recognition in recent times, and these have profoundly influenced Christian thinking. One is, that this doctrine formed no part of the original preaching or message of Christ or his apostles; the other, that nowhere else in the New Testament, outside of the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, is there any use of this doctrine, or direct or even indirect reference to it. These omissions in themselves constitute no valid objection to the fact of the virgin birth; this fact must stand or fall according as it is authenticated by the narratives in which it is embedded. On the ground that the Scriptures as a whole and in every part are inerrant and infallible, a question might indeed arise, but it would be concerned, not with the virgin birth as a fact, but with the exposition and defense of the nature and basis of the alleged inerrancy. With this position, however, this article is not concerned.
Since, then, this article of the Creed rests on the narratives in Matthew and Luke, attention must first be directed to them. It may be laid down as a safe proposition that these narratives are an integral part of the First and Third Gospels (cf. J. Weiss," There were never forms of Matthew and Luke without the Infancy narratives," Theologische Rundschau, 1903, p. 208). In every one of the early complete manuscripts of the Gospels the chapters containing these narratives are 3 present. The oldest uncials, such as the Sinaitic, the Vatican, Codex Ephraemi, and Codex Bezæ, include these chapters; the Alexandrian, mutilated in the first part of Matthew, has Luke i. and ii. The same is true of the versions--the Latin in Tertullian's time, the Syriac, Peshito, Curetonian, Egyptian (Coptic), and the one discovered at Mt. Sinai in 1892, and also Tatian's Diatesseron (with the exception of the genealogies). The Gospel of the Ebionites, depending upon the Gospel of the Hebrews, which in turn depended upon our Matthew, omitted the first two chapters (cf. B. F. Westeott, Introduction to the Gospels, p. 465, London, 1895), and the Gnostic Marcion began his Gospel according to Luke with the third chapter. From certain characteristics of style this argument is confirmed, for in Matthew a comparison of i. 22, ii. 5-6, 15, 17, 23, with his frequent reference to fulfilment of Old-Testament prophecy betrays the same use of the Scripture throughout (cf. F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, pp. 258-259, Cambridge, 1904). In Luke also the author's peculiar Greek style, which is everywhere evident in this Gospel and in the Acts, shines through in the first two chapters (cf. A. Plummer, Commentary on Luke, New York, 1896; A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, p. 73, Leipsic, 1906, and Appendix ii.).
A further question arises, however, whether every
part of the narrative is equally attested or integrally
related to the whole, and at two points this question
becomes critical.
|
203 |
With reference to the narrative in Luke, the testimony
of the manuscripts is even more decisive in
favor of the virgin birth than it is in Matthew, since
no manuscript can be cited which radically conflicts
with the Gospel as we now have it. The suggestion
is, however, made to eliminate
With reference to the genealogies,
Concerning the relation of the nativity stories to
Joseph and Mary, it has been customary to associate
Matthew with Joseph and Luke with Mary, as the
respective source of each. The main reason for
connecting Matthew with Joseph is found in
|
204 |
gave such a document to Mary as a protection of her good name, that she passed this on to the family of
Joseph, sad that from them it came 7. The into the hand of the First Evangelist Accounts to be worked over by him according to is Relation his purpose is an interesting conjec-
to Joseph tore, but is nothing more (cf. C. Gore, and Mary. ut sup., pp. 28-29). If this were true,
it is inconceivable that both Peter and
Paul, in their contact with the chief persons of the
church at Jerusalem, heard nothing of it. An indication that the nativity story of Matthew was
employed by catechists appears perhaps in the division of the sections and the length of these to aid
the memory of pupils (cf. A. Wright,
Commentary
on the Fourth. Gospel, p.
113, New York, 1890).
That Mary is the center of interest in Luke's narrative of the infancy is true (cf. i. 27, 36, 40f14, 5657, ii. 48, 50-51), and this has led to the surmise
that the final source of the story was a woman.
It is characteristic of Luke, as compared with the
other synoptists and with John, to introduce and
emphasize the place and ministry of women in relation to the Gospel (cf. vii. 37 sqq., viii. 2-3, x. 38,
xxiii. 27, 29, 55), and the same feature marks the
Acts. This fact might of itself be enough to account
for the large part that Mary plays in the infancy narrative. Out of the traditional material at his disposal, the author was especially attracted to that
portion which centered in Elizabeth and Mary, and
he has preserved this interest in the record. Nowhere else in the entire Gospel is there disclosed a
more delicate reserve or a rarer literary skill than
in the handling of the details of this story. The
particular content and form of the narrative have,
however, led to the opinion that it is to be traced
to a woman. W. M. Ramsay identifies her with
Mary (Orr,
Virgin Birth of Christ, pp.
244, 246,
New York, 1907), while W. Sanday deems it more
likely that Joanna, Chuza's wife
(
A further question is closely connected with that just raised, whether Luke availed himself of a written or of an oral source.. The almost universal judgment has been that he used a document or documents of Aramaic or Hebrew origin, perhaps about 80 A.D. or earlier, the general view advocated by Weiss, Godet, Ryle, and James (Psalms of Solo mon, London, 1891), Sanday (Book by Book, London, 1892), and Gore (ut sup., p. 14). In support
of this position, reference is made to various features-the Hebraic diction as compared with classic
Greek,, the archaic quality, the coloring 8. Problem of Jewish national hopes, Judeo-Chris-
of Oral or tian sentiment, similarity to the Psalms Written of Solomon (70-40 a.o.), use of" Spirit" Sources. as prophetic impulse or impersonal
power of God, the theophany to Mary
corresponding to Old-Testament divine manifestations, and the naive simplicity of the story in
contrast with the prologue and the remainder of
the Gospel. It is thus maintained that these stories
-of the infancy of John and of Jesus-appear to be
more primitive than anything else in the New Testament, except parts of the book of Revelation.
They arose in a Jewish circle and were first circulated in a restricted Jewish-Christian community
in the sixties; their background was far removed
from Greek influences, which, passing away in that
early period, never recurred. Sanday assigns the
forties as the more probable date of their appearance (in Orr, ut sup., pp. 440 sqq.); G. H. Box
proposes " as early as the middle of the first century " (DCG, art. " Virgin Birth "); and J. Weiss,
who allows to them no historical value, places them
ten years later
(Schriften des Neuen Testaments, p.
383, Göttingen, 1906). The last seems the earliest
possible date far the story becoming public; and the
fact that Paul, although a close companion of Luke,
was to the last ignorant of it goes to show that
Luke was himself not cognizant of it earlier than
the sixties. Another surmise is that there was .no
written story of the infancy of which Luke availed
himself, but only a number of Hebrew (not Aramaic)
poems concerning events associated with the infancy, from which the Evangelist selected such as
suited his purpose
(
That there are legendary elements in the nativity stories has been alleged. The angelic appearances to
|
205 |
the same reserve in respect to the g. The miraculous which characterises the Angelic Ap- highest moments of the Old-Testament
pearaacea. prophetic idealism. But the refer-
ence to Gabriel
(
With reference to the Magi and Herod's slaughter of children in Bethlehem, there is no improbability in the historical supposition of these, irrespective of other records, as containing a basis of fact. Astrologers of the East, whether from Arabia, Persia, Babylonia, or even Egypt, in their reading of the stars may have believed that they saw signs which pointed to the coming of a Jewish Messiah, and may have journeyed to Jerusalem to verify their prognostications. The Jewish Scriptures were widely circulated among cultivated Jews everywhere, and in the ferment of theosophical speculation, of political unrest, and of religious mysteries and dreams of a world-deliverer, symptoms of deep,
unsatisfied longing, the spirit of truest ro. The sincerity and of most brilliant hope,
Magi sad centered in the prophetic promise of Herod. the Jewish people. This spirit had
widely penetrated and powerfully
moved many inquiring minds, and the Magi may
have been among those thus influenced. But, allowing for a basis of fast here, has this basis been
built upon by legend?
Since the first century, this
has certainly been the case. According to Ignatius
(Eph. x.; about 110
A.D.),
the star gives light to
sun, moon, and stare, which circle around it as a
choir. The Magi (in reliance ~ upon
Christ, p.
38, London, 1903). It was a universal
custom to come into the presence of .princes with
presents (Gen. AM . 11; I. Kings
x.
2), and the Jews
expected that the greatest of those outside
of Israel
would offer both themselves and their gifts
to
the
Messiah (Ira. xlia. 7, lx. 1-10; Rev. xsi. 24). What
part these and other familiar and intensely active
religious ideas played in the final form of the narrative it is impossible to say. Soltau believes
that he has come upon the real source of the story
in the journey of Tiridates, a Parthiau king, in
the
yeas 66
A.D.,
accompanied by Magi to offer homage
to Nero (ut sup., pp. 39-41, 72-73). As to Herod's
part in the story, the indiscriminate slaughter of
twenty children would be quite in accord with his
known character and deeds. It is, however, significant that Josephus, who reports other seta of cruelty, does not mentidn this (cf.
Ant., xv. 7-8,' icvi. 11,
xvii. 2); and it is hard to understand why one with
the distrustful, jealous, and bloodthirsty
spirit
of
Herod should risk defeat either by suffering strangers to ascertain for him a fact which he deemed
to be the most serious menace to his ambition, or
by delaying to put into execution an effective
plan for thwarting Jewish expectation (see
Innocents, Feast of the Holy).
The journey into
Egypt, which in Matthew is indissolubly bound up
with this event, is- simply unhistorical, if Luke's
narrative is
trustworthy: Jesus had long since arrived in Nazareth when the visit of the Magi to
Bethlehem sad the slaughter of the infants sae alleged to have taken place (cf.
If the theory of legend were altogether excluded from the nativity stories, one would have to accept the contradictory supposition, that the narratives, are wholly historical. A third hypothesis is conceivable, that a husk of legend contains a'ketnel of fact: In this latter case, the legendary
ri. Fact aspect may lee assigned to Greek and
Contained other foreign influences or to the Jewin Legend. iah spirit. If it is a mark of legend
that events occurred, not in the way
they are described, but with other accompaniments
than those which
time has associated with ·them,
then there is no reasonable doubt that the nativity
stories contain legendary accretions. This legendary
material has been found, not in Greek or other
out
side influences, but in the circle o_ Jewish ideas. In
addition to considerations already proposed in this
paragraph, attention may be directed to the birthstories of great men in the Old Testament, as Isaac
(
|
206 |
the women involved were virgins, but, in the case
of the first, the utter natural impossibility alleged,
and in the case of the last two the improbability
that they should give birth to a child. The
New
Testament contains a story like that of Samuel in
the birth of John
(
The relation of
hand, Orr holds that Matthew already iz. Relation knew of Jesus' birth from a virgin, and of Isa. rightly discovered in this passage its
vii. 14. Messianic import (J. Orr, ut sup., pp.
131 sqq.; cf. W. J. Beecher,
Prophets
and Promise, p.
334, note, New York, 1905; L. M.
Sweet,
The Birth and Infancy of Christ, p. 70,
Philadelphia, 1906). The crucial word in the verse
under
consideration
is `admah,
which by both parties is
accepted as meaning "a young woman of marriageable age." There is another Hebrew word,
bethula,
which signifies "virgin" in the strict sense. The
first question, then, is whether
`almah
(LXX.,
parthenos)
is to be translated "virgin," as in the
R. V., or, according to the margin, "maiden." In
the other passages where the word occurs, the R. V.
renders the word in
exposition of this passage as signifying "virgin,"
or of an expectation that the Messiah was to be
miraculously conceived (cf. V. H. Stanton,
Jewish
and Christian Messiah, p.
377, London, 1887).
Jews
contemporary
with Justin, Tertullian, and Jerome
interpreted
`abmah
in
According to Lobstein, the idea of the person of Christ as the Son of God underwent a development in the early Christian community (see Son of God).
The first stage was the ethical or theoi3. Devel- cratic sonship which is the common opment of presentation of the Synoptic Gospels.
Sonship The term " Son " is equivalent to " Son
Idea. of God,'. and that in the Messianic
sense (cf.
|
207 |
The attitude of the inner circle of the disciples is
of interest. They apparently regarded Jesus as
the son of Joseph and Mary
(
subject, since it had never presented iti4. Atti- self to them as a problem. There may fade of the be a wide difference between an attitude
Disciples. and a mature judgment. A given at titude may represent only a traditional and unreflective aspect of feeling or action; a ma ture judgment is the result of critical inquiry, and rests on reasons more or less explicit and well founded. No one would claim that Jesus' followers had in this respect any other attitude toward him in relation to Joseph and Mary than they had toward his brothers. Even Peter, in his great con fession at Cæsarea Philippi (Concerning the virgin birth the remainder of the New Testament is silent. Mark, the oldest Gospel, makes no allusion to it, and apparently knows nothing of it. This silence is, however, explained on the hypothesis that the infancy narrative lay outside the scope of his design, which was to report the common apostolic testimony from the beginning of the Baptist's ministry to the ascension (Swete, ut sup., p. 48; Orr, ut sup., pp. 106 sqq.), so that it is implied that Ma;k had knowledge of the fact, although the aim of his writing precluded any report of it. That his home was in Jerusalem, that the
church met in his mother's house (Acts 15. No xii. 12), and that he often saw Jesus' References mother contain no presumptions of
in Mark value on this subject. Paul is our or Paul. earliest witness to the tendency of the early Church to arrive at an explana tion of the deeper origin of the person of Christ. In his conception are two elements which he has made no attempt to coordinate or fathom. First, of the concrete person of Jesus he affirms all the moral qualities which constitute true and perfect human ity. Secondly, he alleges that a superhuman, pre earthly being became incarnate, who thus lived and died under the identical conditions in which hu man life is passed (
evidence in the same direction (Swete, ut sup., pp.
54-55; cf. Orr, ut sup., p. 116). On the contrary,
birth from a woman and under the law signifies that
Christ was real man,
subject to the conditions of
flesh and the discipline of law (cf.
The Gospel of John is also silent as to the virgin birth. In his prologue John is occupied with two ideas: first, the essential, eternal divine nature of the being who became incarnate, secondly the true humanity of the Word in the earthly life. Several reasons are alleged to show that John, who is thus supposed to be the author of the Fourth Gospel, was not ignorant of the virgin birth: (1) he wrote
at a time when this was generally ber6. Silence lieved in the Christian community; of the Rest (2) he must have been acquainted of the New with the other Gospels containing the Testament. nativity stories, and must have silently
accepted, perhaps presupposed, them;
(3) in his residence at Ephesus he was a contemporary and antagonist of Cerinthus, who taught that
Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary; (4)
Mary, whom
Jesus entrusted to the care of John,
probably lived in his house until her death (Orr, ut
sup., p. 109); (5) in his Gospel John accords Mary
special prominence, probably due to his knowledge
of her supreme privilege (Swete, ut sup., p. 48); ((i)
|
208 |
The infancy narratives have been traced to prejudice in favor of virginity. Attention is drawn to preference of celibacy to marriage in the Apocryphal books, in Paul's epistles (I Cor, vii.),
xq. Ascetic and in Revelation (xiv. 4), and also
Influence. among the Essenes, and in Philo-a
spirit which early became influential
in the Church (cf. W. Baldensperger,
Das Selbstbewvsstsean
Jesu, p.
117, Strasburg, 1888, for legend
concerning the virginity of Moses' mother). It is
to be admitted that there are ascetic elements in
the Gospel of Luke which have apparently colored
some of the words of Jesus in comparison with Matthew and Mark (yet see
The history of the doctrine of the virgin birth can not here be fully sketched, but only indicated for two centuries after its appearance. With the exception of the Ebionites and certain of the Gnostics, by the middle of the second century, and probably by the close of the first, this belief was nearly universal (cf. Harnack, Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 24, Berlin, 1896). Jewish Ebionites (cf. the Gospel of the Ebionites, a corruption of the Gospel to the Hebrews)-the only ones in the Christian Church who rejected the first two
18. Views chapters of Matthew-held that Jesus of Ebionites, was naturally born of Joseph and Mary,
Ignatius, and became Messiah in virtue of hisAristides, legal piety. Yet among Jewish Chrisand Justin. tians this rejection was not universal, for the Nazarenes acknowledged the virgin birth of the Messiah, and the remainder of the old Ebionites seem later to have shared this view (A. Hering, ZKT, v. 67). Others, such as Valentinus, Basilides, and the Docetw described by Hippolytus, Hær., vi. 35, vii. 26, viii. 9 (ANF, vol. v.) based their acceptance of the virgin birth on the Gospel of Luke. The first mention of this belief is in Ignatius, though Polycarp (a contemporary of Ignatius), Hermes, and Barnabas are silent concerning it. Ignatius says that Jesus was " truly born of a Virgin," one of the three mysteries of renown wrought in the silence of God, but now proclaimed to the world (Ad Smyrnceos, i.; Ad Ephesios, xix., cf. also vii., xviii.; Ad Trallianos, ix.; all in ANF, vol. i., cf. also Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, i. 315-414, London, j 1885). In the newly recovered Apology of Aristides (126-140 A.D., ed. J. Rendell Harris in TS, i.; cf. Harnack, Litteratur, i. 96), we read of Jesus Christ that, "born of a Virgin, . . . he took flesh" (ii.), and Harris adds that early in the second century "the virginity of Mary was a part of the formulated Christian belief" (ib. p. 25). With Justin Martyr the virgin birth is a subject of frequent reference (cf. Apol., i. 32, 46, 63; Dialogue, xxiii., xlv., c., cv., cxiii., cxxvii., in ANF, vol. i.). It was a second presentment of God to be born of a virgin; hagion pneuma is not the Holy Spirit, but the Logos. He connects this with the crea-
tion story of
Gnostics, he refers to the divine agency as and causing birth from a Virgin (ib. III.,
Tertullian. xvi. 3; cf. xxii. 1), and on John 113
as denying human agency in Jesus'
birth (ib. III., xix. 2). Prophecy was also appealed to
(
|
209 |
He appeals to prophecy, Isa. vii. 14 (Adv. Judmos, ix.; De carne Christi, xvi.; Adv. Mareionem, iv. 10, iii. 12); Ise. xi. 1-2 (cf. Adv. Judieos, ix.; De came Christi, xxi.; Adv. Marcionem, iii. 20); Isa. liii. (Adv. Judceos, xiii.); Ps. cx. 3 (LXX.), and xxii. 9-10. In his use of the New Testament he relies first on Mark and John, and then on Matthew and Luke (Adv. Marcione»z, iv. 2). The story of Eve is analogous to the birth from Mary (De carne Christi, xvii.; cf. xvi.)-a new order of birth, the divine Word entering the earthly body, even as at first the earthly part of Adam was quickened by the breath of God. He bases an argument on the veracity of Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of Man, and, since God was his Father, human fatherhood was precluded (Adv. Marcionem, iv. 10). This is connected with the doctrine that " a god is born of a god " (Ad Nationes, ii. 3; cf. Apol., xxi.; De carne Christi, v. 18). Luke ii. 23, " every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord," referring to Jesus, could only signify that, since he opened the womb, his mother was a virgin (ib. xxiii.). Tertullian knew of no salvation to one who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (Adv. Marcionem, iv. 36). He attempts no analysis of the human nature, which is thus derived from his mother apart from a human father.
Clement of Alexandria taught unequivocally the
virgin birth-the only virgin mother (Podtgogus,
i. 6)-and appears inclined to the notion of a miraculous birth as well as a miraculous conception
(Strom., vii.
16; Eng. transl. in
ANF, vol. ii.).
He uses as prophecy
the ~ body which Jesus received from zo. Clement the Virgin by divine conception and
of Alexan- birth, a fact confirmed by the babe dria, Origen, leaping in Elizabeth's womb. His
and virgin birth showed him to be more
Hippolytus. than a man (commentary on John, i.
34), and he also seems to attribute
credibility to the Gospels of Peter and James, which
allege that the brethren
of Jesus were sons of Joseph
by a former wife, in order to preserve the honor of
Mary in virginity to the end, i.e., that she might
not know intercourse with man after the Holy
Ghost came upon her. Jesus was thus the first fruit
of virginity (commentary on Matt., x. 17, 23). This
doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was advanced a further stage by Origen, whose principal
discussion of the virgin birth appears in reply to
Celaus, who had assailed this doctrine. First, he
refutes the charge of Celsus that Jesus was an illegitimate son of Mary and a soldier named Panthers,
and that as a result of this infidelity Mary, being
driven out by Joseph, wandered into Egypt and
there brought up her son to learn the art of miracleworking
(Adv. Celsum, i. 28,
32; Eng. transl. in
ANF, vol. iv.;
cf.' Pseudo-Matt., xix.-xxiv.).
Secondly, he finds an analogy.of the virgin birth
of Jesus in that of animals, especially the female
vulture, which preserves succession of its race
without sexual intercourse (ib. i. 37). Thirdly, he argues that the Greeks themselves hold to
the origination of the human species as such from
the spermatic elements in the earth (ib. i. 37).
Fourthly, he,appeals to the legend that Plato was
the son of Apollo before Ariston had had marital
relations with his mother, as explained by the fact
that persons of transcendent wisdom and power
were naturally referred to a divine paternity (ib. i.
37). Finally, when Celsus scouts the notion of a
virgin birth, comparing it to the incredible myths
of Dance, Melanippe, Auge, and Antiope, Origen
replies that this is the language of a buffoon (ib. i.
37). Origen, moreover, suggested that birth from
a virgin would correspond with the burial of Jesus
in a new tomb (ib. i. 39). Hippolytus maintained
the perfect purity and perpetual virginity of Mary
(Adv. Veronem),
and his theory of the incarnation
alleged that God, by undefiled conception in the
Virgin, incorporated .with himself a rational soul
and sensible body, who thus became perfect God
and perfect man. His reliance on Scripture was
inconsiderable, and though in the Old Testament he
used Ps. cix. or ex.; .
Over against the theory of the virgin birth as a trustworthy historical event is a hypothesis which for the past seventy-five years, since Strauss, has attracted to itself an increasing number of advocates-the mythical or legendary view. Several conditions have been favorable to the development of this idea, among which are-(l) the modern
view of the world, which finds no place zi. Legen- for miracles in the traditional sense; dart' or (2) the significance of Christ, sought
Mythical not in any physical basis or metaphys- Theory. ical substratum of his. being; but inthe moral and spiritual character of his. personality; (3) the history of all people, and especially comparative religion, showing that myth and legend have sprung up in connection with the beginning of every great religion, and (4) historical and textual criticism, laying bare not only different strata of composition in the writings of the New Testament, but also the presence of material which, if not foreign to, is at least derived from other than the essential Gospel sources.
The legendary theory seeks in one or more of
several directions for its material and justification.
(1) In prophecy and the Old Testament, i.e., in
a purely Jewish circle. It has been shown that
Harnack and others find the source of the doctrine
that Christ was born of a virgin in the prophecy of
|
210 |
zz. Argu- of the birth-story of Samson and Sam meats from uel is that of John; and inasmuch as the Old Jesus, both in his work and his con
Testament. sciousnesa, was greater than John, his conception moat be referred to a more immediate and marvelous divine agency. That the passage in Isaiah had not before received the in terpretation which the narrator gives to it is held to be no objection to the legendary theory; for neither the Evangelist nor other early Christians
were bound by rules of scientific exegesis. If, con
trary to all precedent, parthenos (`almah) may have
been interpreted as "virgin" as foretelling an actual
virgin birth, then it is not impossible that some
Christian thinker, seeing an explanation of the di vine character of Christ, hit upon this passage, and found in it a suggestion which at once gave rise to
a new idea of the origin of his earthly existence.
Two classes of objection are urged against this posi tion. On the one hand, the peculiar character of the nativity stories renders it improbable that such
a legend arose on Jewish soil; (1) there is an utter
absence of foreign elements-oriental thought or
Greek pantheism; the story is intensely Jewish;
(2) Jewish monotheism is in the highest degree transcendental, involving the separateness and total unlikeness of God and man; (3) asceticism, i.e., marriage and virginity, is foreign to the Jewish re ligion, and is not found either in the Gospels or the infancy stories; (4) since prophecy was so applied only after the event, it could not have been the
cause of the belief; (5) "Son of God" had only an ethical or official (Messianic) reference in the First and Third Gospels, and could not, therefore, be
defined by metaphysical or physical qualities (cf.
C. J. H. Ropes, "Born of the Virgin Mary," An
dover Review, Nov., 1893). These objections are not, however, wholly convincing, for while the coloring is intensely Jewish, the event itself is ab solutely unique in Jewish history. The legend may contain foreign elements which lie unnoticed, but
far back and deep down in the past of Israel's re
ligious contact with other peoples. Moreover, God's creative activity in forming man may be again called into play for the miraculous generation of the man from heaven. It is also objected that more time is required for the formation of legend than the docu
ments of the New Testament appear to warrant.
This is met by the reply, first, that there is, beyond contradiction, mythical material in the story in its existing form, without doubt much older than the manuscripts of the First and Third Gospels, and that it is arbitrary to draw the line short of the
central event itself, if the evidence looks that way.
Secondly, the formation of myths is a relative affair, depending upon enthusiasm, poetic imagi nation, and other conditions, the presence or ab sence of which, and the degree of their activity, will hasten or retard legendary growth. Finally, in the
absence of compelling proof for the data as to the
time at which the nativity stories originated-and
expert judgment may be cited for both an early and
a late origin-it is inept to declare that, if a myth
were in process of formation in any important section of the Church, Paul must have heard of it.
For the same difficulty arises concerning his ignorance of the birth-story as a fact. A mystery of a
similar kind concerns the origination and extension
of the baptismal formula in
(2) In the stories of classical antiquity parallels are sought which religious faith has only to paraphrase in reference to Christ. In an early narrative of the Buddha we read: " the knowledge of his birth was made known by rejoicing
23. Argu- deities to a hermit named Aaita, who meats from thereon repaired to Suddhana's pal-
Classical ace, saw the child in his glory sur- Antiquity. rounded by deities, etc., and announced to the Sakyans that the child was to be a Buddha " (Coppleaton, Buddhism, p. 34, London, 1892). The journey of the Armenian king, Tiridates, accompanied by Magi, to Rome to initi ate Nero into the mysteries of the Mithraa-meal, with beaded knee and lifted hands calling him Lord and worshiping him even as Mithras, finds its par allel in the Matthew story (cf. Pliny, Hist. nat., xxx. 6; Dio Cassius, xxxii. 1 sqq., xliii. 1=2, 5, 7). The birth of Amenophis III. of Egypt is described on the walls of the temple of Luxor as from a virgin and the god of Thebes, i.e., Ammon-Ra (cf. A. H. Sayee, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, p. 45, Edinburgh, 1902). Asshurbanipal is described as one whom the gods Asshur and Sin formed in the midst of his mother (cf. Records of the Past, lat series, i. 57; cf. Nebuchadrezzar: " When the god of gods made me, Marduk, he prepared well my birth in the mother," i.e., mother's womb, ib. v. 113; see Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. 235-236, London, 1904). The story of King Sargon of Agade, about 2,800 s.c., relates of himself that he was of a vestal mother (Cheyne, ut sup., p. 86; Grützmacher, ut sup., pp. 57 58). Among the Greeks Speusip pus related how Plato owed his birth to a union of his mother Perictione and the phantasm of Apollo (cf. Diogenes Laertius, De Vitis PhilosoPhorum; also Jerome, Adv. Jovinianum, i. 42). Alexander|
211 |
was desirous that he be known, not as the natural had become current in Jewish-Christian circles, and, son of Philip, but as the son of Zeus, as announced transforming it in the interest of Judo-Christian in the temple of Jupiter-Ammon, begotten by a set- Messianism, had applied it to Christ's virgin birth. pent cohabiting with his mother Olympian (Soltau, ut sup., p. 46; Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 2d ed., Cambridge, 1908). Pythagoras is reported as a son of Apollo; Apollonius of Tyana as a son of Zeus (Usenet,, ut sup., i. 70 sqq.). Others who were alleged to have been born in this way were lEsculapius, Dionysus, Hercules, and Hermes; while one may also refer to the fabled Antiope, Auge, Dance, and Melanippe. These births are assigned to intercourse with a god who assumed various forms-an ox, a bird, a serpent, a lover, or a god who appeared in a shower of gold (Tertullian, Apol., xxi.). The Church Fathers were not unwilling to use these legends in their apologetic, and even found them of value in recommending strange and miraculous things to their hearers (cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogus, lxvii., lxx.; Apol., i. 21, 22, 54, 64; Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 37; Tertullian, APoI., xii. 15). Turning to Roman antiquity, there is found the tradition of Romulus and Remus descended from a vestal virgin, having the god Mars for their father. The Emperor Augustus gave out that he was the son of Apollo, since his mother, Atia, having fallen asleep in the temple of Apollo, was visited by the god in the form of a serpent, and her son, born in the tenth month, was held to be son of Apollo (Suetonius, Augustus, xciv.). A similar story appears concerning Scipio Africanus (Gel fius, Noct. Att., vi.). In respect to these instances it is to be noted that the mother is not always claimed as a virgin; in some cases she is already a mother of other children for whom no supernatural conception is alleged. Yet it is equally to be noted (a) that a divine paternity is affirmed-a god has taken the place of the human father; and (b) the generative act on the part of the god was always physical, sometimes the fabled deed of an animal, often phantastic, and always impossible. The wide-spread belief of divine paternity is, however, more significant than even the form of the conception.
(3) The legendary theory of the virgin birth seeks in ancient, international redemptive ideas a source of the Christian belief. Harnack has declared that Christian tradition is "free from heathen myths, so far as these had not already been received by wide circles of Jews" (cf. Dogma, i. 100, note); and he holds that this does not apply to the virgin birth. The theory in question believes that this statement is true, and, in opposition
2¢. Argu- to Harnack, claims that it does not meats from apply to the virgin birth. It assumes ',
Ancient a primitive mythological tradition of 'i Messianic a world-wide Redeemer, which had I Longings. become international, to be traced ultimately to a Babylonian source. It assumes among the Jews an intense Messianism long before the Christian era, which was far more absorbing and definite than is ordinarily supposed, of which
The myth in question appears in its Judo-Christian
dress in
(4) The legendary theory seeks still deeper in folk-lore for the source of its suggestion, where one discovers a fusion of religious, social, and physiological elements. It is now recognized that "stories of supernatural birth may be. said to have a currency as wide as the world" (E. S. Hartland, Stories of Primitive Paternity, i. 1, London, 1909; cf. J. E. Carpenter, The Bible in the Nineteenth Century, p. 490, London, 1903). The heroes of all nations have had an extraordinary entrance upon earthly life,
from which masculine agency is essenzg. Argu- tially excluded. Conception is attribmeats from uted to every cause but the actual one.
Folk-lore. It is referred to the forces of nature,such as the sun, wind, rain, wells, fires; to contact with magical substances, such as amulets, images, vestments, and stones; to vegetable substances, such as mandrake, or to animal substances, such as absorption of a portion of s
t ~f I I?_ ~ 7: i~ 3'.t ;, i I I r i I I fi I~:.,, G I i I _ ,I ;I~'i.' I ~, s I I[;", ~ ,, y I I:~. ii i ~~ t ~.:, i I ~ r i ~~ i N " r ' ~ a 'a' i l ,. ~ . ~i j l I i I I i f' i t i~ ~ i I I(:: ,ill ~I I ., ,_ ~' s.e i u I P ~ .I: ~I h , I lit, ai i , I j ~ o l : I!-i I I I, i .; ,i ~I ~I' I !: ;i r i ; ;. I Ih ~i,,,: f: i ~ , I i? ~. i il I i S 4 ~ ;,I~ ! ~ - i ', I V: ii F. t ~ I i 1 '~ i :Ii. I . I' i~ j, . I i I ~ I ~', I, , ;!~ n I li , i. r _ i: I I ii a I I. i I 11: s ? ,I, I I -, I I , i i I i, t: v i:; i i, I i I ~ I Ir w 111 3,;: ~, r ,. i ~ ~ ~ ~ i,. 1 n 1 ,. I r s: II ' i I ' I I i ". ` ,:; I. . !" i|
212 |
The legendary theory has a vast background and makes an impressive showing. The point is not so much that birth from a virgin is alleged-this is seldom the case-as that the conception is supernatural. That the stories are some-
a6. Criti- times gross signifies that they are an cism of the integral part of the religions in which
Legendary they are found; a spiritual religion Theory. would transform the supernatural agency into forms of action worthy of a spiritual being. The most vigorous advocates of this theory do not, however, claim that they have more than presumptive evidence for their view; the historical connection between the universal myth of supernatural birth and the stories of the New Testament loss not yet been traced. It remains to consider the dogmatic bearings of the virgin birth. To the tenet of the Lutheran church of Germany, " that the Son of God ` con ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary' is the foundation of Christianity," Harnaok replies: " It is a dangerous but fallacious dilemma that the idea of the God-man stands or falls with the virgin birth " (Des. aloostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 39), and he adds, " If this were the case, ill would fare Mark, ill Paul, ill John, ill Christianity." Ropes (ut sup., p. 695) declares that " Good Christian men may take opposite sides of this question, without giving up that which is vital and cardinal to the faith." It formed no part of the preaching or mes ~ sage of the apostles, and no doctrinalzy Is the use is made of it in the New Testament. Dogma On the supposition that the writers of
Essential the New Testament outside of the First to Chris- and Third Gospel knew of the virgin tianity? birth, they never availed themselves of it in the formulation of .any duo trine. Other theories of the person of Christ were both suggested, and were more or leas constitutive in the earliest Christian teaching (see Sort op Gon). The divine element in Christ has been explained as an endowment conferred at his baptism. Paul, John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews make very significant use of both the fact and the nature of the preexistent element in Christ's per son. It has been contended that between preexist ence and the nativity account in Matthew and Luke there is an irreconcilable contradiction, since both of these Gospels speak as if, by the action of the Spirit of God, a new individual in all respects came into being (cf. A. Rwille, Histoire du dogme de la divinitk de Jesus-Christ, p. 30, Paris, 1869; Orr, ut sup., pp. 208 sqq.). It is true that the Kenosis theories (see Cmtraxoroay, KErrosra) have bin proposed, and with elaborate and ingenious re finement have been made to serve as mediators be tween the Pauline and Johannean conscious pre existence, on the one hand, and on the other, the narratives of the infancy and the development of Jesus; . but instead of elucidating, they have made still more perplexing the profound mystery of the ,person of Christ, and are falling into disfavor.The dogmatic use of the virgin birth involves two considerations-sinlessness and incarnation. Its bearing on sinlessnes.s rests on two postulates, that contamination derived fromAdam'a sin through natural generation is inevitable, and that there was in Jesus Christ a divine, preexistent element which is not in us; hence his human nature
28. Dog- differed from ours, and, accordingly, matic Bear- he was not affected by Adam's. sin.
ing on In the position that einlessness deSiniessneas. pended upon the virgin birth, there is
assumed the Augustinian doctrine of
the fall of man, and also the invariable hereditary
taint of sin
transmitted through ordinary processes
of human birth. Of this basis of sinlessnesa the
New Testament knows nothing. Paul finds the
secret of Jesus' character in the peculiar nature of
his person in relation to preexistence (cf.
|
213 |
tier preaching, the clue to the perfect fulfilment of both the royal and the prophetic hopes of Israel in a person of divine excellence is found in the divine designation of Jesus as the Messiah. Schleiermacher suggested that the exclusion of Joseph from participation in the conception of Jesus does not relieve the difficulty (Der christliche Glaube, § 97, 7th ed., Gotha, 1889; cf. Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, i. 153-154, Tübingen, 1835), for Mary was likewise subject to original sin, and must have contributed of her sinful principle to Jesus. Moreover, Schultz has shown that the Scriptures represent woman as weaker and more susceptible to temptation than is man (Die Lehre von der Gottheit Jesu, p. 593, Gotha, 1881). To avoid this general conclusion, different positions have been taken: (1) that in the conception Mary was wholly passive; hence no sinful impulse was communicated from her to the new life; (2) Jesus was born not of (ek) but through (die) Mary, a docetic position of certain Gnostics (cf. Tel Adv. Valentinum, sxvii., ANF, Vol. iii.); (3) by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (q.v.), Mary, although born of a human father and mother, was herself miraculously preserved from both hereditary and actual sinfulness. Yet from the common Protestant point of view it is objected that the assumptions underlying these positions are invalid; the laws of natural generation are themselves ordained by God, and, accordingly, are not sinful. Even if the conception was as alleged, still during the period of gestation her influence was normal with the unborn child (Lobstein, ut sup., pp. 84 sqq.). Calvin maintained that Jesus was perfectly immaculate, not because man had no part in his conception, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit so that his generation was as pure and holy as it would have been before Adam's fall (Institutes, II., xiii. 3-4).
A further dogmatic use of the virgin birth ground$ the incarnation on it. While one can not a priori affirm that such a birth was a necessary form of divine action, nor that the doctrine of the incarnation is historically traced to such a birth, yet this would seem the more congruous to the event (cf. W. N. Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology, pp. 289 sqq., New York, 1898). The affirmation is further made that, given an eternal preexisting being who is born without changing
ag. Dog- or taking a new personality, but merematic Bear- ly by assuming a new nature and ening on tering new conditions of experience, incarnation. this can not be thought of as occurring by the ordinary process of generation, since this involves the beginning of a new personality. Denial of the virgin birth, therefore, is tantamount to the reduction of Jesus to the rank of a purely human personality, however intimate his relation with God (cf. Gore, Dissertations, pp. 6465). In addition it is maintained that the spiritual miracle in the person of Christ requires a corresponding physical miracle, and since this goes down to the ultimate ground of Mary's nature, a second miracle of the same sort with reference to Joseph would be unnecessary; while the mode of the event symbolizes the unique character of the person (Orr, ut sup., pp. 223 sqq.). On the other hand, many of
Virgin Birththose who deny the virgin birth deny not only the virgin life (cf. A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, p. 410, New York, 1892), but also the traditional theory of the incarnation; the latter, however, not because of denial of the virgin birth. The Nicene Creed connected the incarnation with the virgin birth, but this was for the sake, not of basing the incarnation on the birth of Christ, but of showing its reality, i.e., the reality of his human nature as against Gnostic interpretations and tendencies (cf. A. C. McGiffert, Apostles' Creed, New York, 1902). That view of the incarnation which seeks the proof of Christ's divinity in his ethical and spiritual revelation of God naturally lays less stress upon the virgin birth than upon the character of his consciousness and the impression he makes upon men.
It has been urged that in the doctrine of the virgin birth the divinity of Christ is lowered from a spiritual to a natural basis, his full humanity sacrificed, and an illusory wall reared between the natural and supernatural (cf. Lobstein, ut sup., pp. 106 sqq.). Those who hold that the idea of the virgin birth is an amalgamation of Jewish Messianism and Hellenistic Logos doctrine, or who maintain that the most exalted Christology owes nothing to this tradition, have no dogmatic interest in this question (cf. Biblical World, x. 1 sqq.). One may ignore the inquiry into origins, or may declare this to be a secret hidden in the personality of Jesus (cf. A. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung and Vers6hrcung,.iii. 426, Bonn, 1874; A. Harnack, What is Christianity Q 3d ed., London, 1904).
The conclusions may be thus summarized: (1) The first and third Gospels are our sole authority for the virgin birth of Jesus. (2) The stories as they appear in these Gospels are independent of each other and
are from different sources, but whether 30. Sum- they were written or oral, and whether mary. Matthew's account is dependent on Joseph and Luke's on Mary, does not appear. (3) The writings of Paul and John contain no indisputable reference to these stories-they neither presuppose, nor contradict, nor draw con clusions from them; they do, however, involve a superhuman and pre-earthly being who became in carnate in Jesus. (4) With unimportant exceptions the entire early Church in the interest of Jesus' real humanity and divine nature acknowledged the vir gin birth. (5) The connection proposed between the story of the virgin birth and stories of supernat ural births in the Old Testament, in classic antiq uity, in the wide-spread hope of a world Redeemer, and in folk-lore, has not been established. (6) The doctrine has important bearings on the incarnation and sinlessness of Jesus, but it is not essential either to these or to Christian experience. (7) The story itself, in comparison with all other stories of super natural births, is one of unique and incomparable beauty, befitting the creative entrance of Jesus into our earthly lot, to live the life of God under human conditions; he who knows the mystery of the be ginnings of life, and remembers with what meaning this story has been invested by men of deepest in sight through the Christian centuries, will not tear it from the Gospels, but will with the holy Catholic Church confess, " I believe in . . . Jesus Christ,|
214 |
Bibliography: The following may be added to the very abundant literature noted in the text: A. Hoben, The Virgin Birth, Chicago, 1903; B. W. Randolph, The Vir gin-Birth of Our Lord, London, 1903; The Virgin-Birth one of the Principal Foundations of the Christian Faith . by a Bibliophile (Edinburgh), 1905; Doetrina pa trum de incarnations Verbi. Bin grtechisches Flordlegium aus . . . 7. and 8. Jahrhunderten, Münster, 1907; E. R. Hendrix, The Religion of the Incarnation. New York, 1907; R. J. T;;nowling, Our Lord's Virgin Birth and the Criticism of To-day, 3d ed., London, 1907; G. Krüger, Das Dogma von der Dreieinigkeit and Gottmenschheit, Tübingen. 1905; F. Weston, The One Christ, an Inquiry into the Manner of the Incarnation, London, 1907; T. J.. Thorburn, A Crit ical Examination of the Evidences for the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth, ib. 1908; E. Petersen, Die wunderbare Ge burt des Heilandes, Tübingen, 1909; G. S. Streatfield, The Incarnation, New York, 1910; J. J. Lamer, The Church Universal, ib. 1911; D. Volter, Die eroangelische ErzBhlung von der Geburt and Ifindheit Jesu (1911).
1 1. Historical Outline of Attitude Toward the Doctrine.
2 2. Modern Demand for Reopening the Discussion.
3 3. Infancy Narratives Integral in the Gospels.
4 4. The Evidence in Matthew.
5 5. The Evidence in Luke.
6 6. The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL. |  |