REI e
seas
dy
ae
ates
Se
arias
nw
*
a
Fs 4 Senennereiay sha By as
a Rea é
Rea
Fai)
4043 28
Rite ne aus sia I
sitet eas, is *
4
ae
- * 2
Shee se
Sp st 4 t hee
fit
, we
‘ <i
orisha a Sees
ye ey
i . :
ee
ee
coe veh > ~ et
gl mu
re
2 4
~e
a
Orford
HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
ote a Ge6ou |
DISSERTATIONS
meeps ECTS CONNECTED WITH:
THE INCARNATION »
BY
CHARLES GORE, M&*.
CANON OF WESTMINSTER
OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE RESURRECTION, RADLEY
Neque sit mihi inutilis pugna verborum
sed incunctantis fidei constans professio §1802
LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET |
1895
LIBRARY ST. MARY'S COLLEGE
a Fish | FRATRI ADMODUM DILECTO
Ss RICARDO RACKHAM he BENEVOLENTISSIMO LABORUM ADIUTORI IN VERITATE EXPLORANDA CURIOSISSIMO x Fe. | ‘~ a i < = oe > s : .
PREraAacCce
THESE dissertations are the fulfilment, after a much longer delay than | anticipated, of an intention expressed in the preface to the Bampton Lectures ot 1891 to prepare a supplementary volume addressed to a more strictly theological public. Circumstances however have now led to the selection of a set of subjects not altogether identical with those then indicated. The amount of discussion which arose in connexion with my lectures as to our Lord’s human consciousness has rendered necessary a prolonged treatment of the theology of the New Testament and of the Church on this subject. A dis- sertation on the rise of the transubstantiation dogma followed naturally from this special treatment of the theology of the Incarnation ; and recent controversy has rendered desirable a more elaborate discussion
viii Preface.
of our Lord’s birth of a virgin. Under these circum- stances ‘the early Greek theology of the supernatural in its relation to nature’ and ‘the relation of Ebion- ism and Gnosticism to the theology of the New Testament and of the second century’ only come in for incidental treatment.
In the first dissertation—on our Lord’s birth of a virgin—I have tried to give the first place to the presentation of the positive case for this article of the Christian creed, and only the second to resolving objections or considering possible rival theories. Hence I have said nothing about such a theory as that of Holtzmann’, of different documents used by St. Luke in his first two chapters and of interpo- lations and alterations made in the use of them— a theory which seems to rest on purely a priori grounds. It seems to me that, to justify a distinction of various ‘sources’ used by a compiler, we need either very distinct evidences of style (such as the difference between St. Luke’s own style, i. 1-4, and that of his ‘source’ beginning at i. 5), or very violent inconsistencies, or phenomena _ apparent over a large area, as in the case of the Hexateuch. If the area is small, the difference of style not plain, and the narrative fairly self-consistent, the proposed distinction becomes at once arbitrary. Critics of
+ Handcommentar zum N. T. (Freiburg, 1889) bd. i. pp. 13, 46.
Preface. : ix
documents, especially biblical documents, appear to me very seldom to know where to stop in their analysis.
I owe to the Rev. G. A. Cooke, of Magdalen, the substance of the note on pp. 39-40. His diligent investigation of the sources of a statement current in modern apologetic literature has, I fear, decisively pricked a small but somewhat interesting bubble.
In the second dissertation—on our Lord’s con- ~ sciousness as man—my excuse for so much quotation lies in the necessity for bringing under the eye of the reader the inadequacy 7 one respect of much of the patristic and all the mediaeval theology. There has not hitherto existed any adequate ca/ena of theologians on this subject. I hope I shall be pardoned if a lack of complete consistency is noticed in regard to the translation of patristic passages. In any case I have produced all important passages or phrases in the original language. I cannot but hope that in this dissertation I shall have satisfied one or two of those whose approval I am most anxious to keep or to regain.
In regard to the third essay, I have thought that the lack of sufficiently exact histories of eucharistic doctrine justified a detailed statement of the rise of the theory and dogma of transubstantiation. But I must ask that it should be remembered that, if information outside the period professedly covered is
x Preface.
incidentally given, I do not profess to cover more in detail than the period from a.p. 800 to 1215. | In the preparation of these dissertations for the press I owe thanks for help to my brothers, the Rev. Thomas Barnes and the Rev. Richard Rackham. To the latter [ owe more than I can well express, and particularly the appended note on the Codex Sinatticus and the preparation of the Table of Con- tents and of the indices of scriptural passages and of names. He has added to the latter a few dates which © will, it is hoped, increase its usefulness.
C.t%
RADLEY VICARAGE, St. James’ Day, 1895.
i ay
CONTENTS
THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF OUR LORD
Subject and aim § 1. The silence of St. Mark, St. jah, — St. Paul St. Mark ‘ , : : St. John St. Paul § 2. The narrative of St. Luke its origin and trustworthiness objections: (1) the census (2) angelic appearances .
§ 3. The narrative of St. Matthew its origin ; ; : ; objections: (1) massacre of the innocents (2) influence of prophecy
§ 4. The relation of the two narratives (1) the historical outline (2) the genealogies § 5. The tradition of the churches importance of tradition consensus of tradition found in Irenaeus Justin Ignatius Aristides ; Alexandrians non-Catholic writings discordant teaching found in Cerinthus Ebionism .
§ 6. The theory of legend the miraculous birth not due to legendary tendency . a repetition of O. T. incident derived from Philo’s language
PAGE
Xil
§ 7.
Contents.
The connexion of doctrine and fact is inevitable (a) birth and personality : ; (8) the Second Adam and a new creation.
Conclusion
and its relation to church authority .
THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR LORD IN HIS
MORTAL LIFE
The subject
ee
§ 2.
§ 3.
its relation to Chvictiast faith spirit in which it should be studied (Hilary)
I.
THE VIEW OF OUR LORD’S CONSCIOUSNESS DURING HIS HUMAN AND MORTAL LIFE WHICH IS PRESENTED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The evidence of the Gospels picture of a human growth with assertion of divine sonship and infallibility but evidence of a limitation of knowledge (1) human experiences— interrogation, prayer (2) St. Matt. xxiv. 36 meither the Son. (3) testimony of St. John’s Gospel (4) argument from silence . The language of St. Paul self-emptying (Phil ii. 5-11) self-beggary (2 Cor. viii. 9) An absolute xévwors not affirmed in the N. T. the eternal Word in St. John, St. Paul, the Hebrews silence as to an arrest of the Word’s divine functions
. Provisional conclusion
the Incarnation involves a real limitation . as opposed to dogmatical repudiation of ignorance . humanitarian assertion of fallibility
PAGE
63 64 65
67
71 72 73
95 95
ar >
§ 5.
§ 6.
Contents.
7.
THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN OPINION OUTSIDE THE CANON ON THE SUBJECT OF OUR LORD’S HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.
. Preliminary. On the permanence in the Incarnation of
the Godhead of Christ as taught by Irenaeus Origen . Eusebius Athanasius Proclus .
. Early tradition and speculation on the special subject of
the human consciousness of Christ tradition not definite on the subject . doctrine of Irenaeus . : Clement of Alexandria . Origen
. The anti-Arian writers who admit a human ignorance
Trinitarian controversies doctrine of Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen Basil ix Ambrose
. Anti-Arian writers, especially of the west
tendency of anti-Arian theology protest of Theodoret . doctrine of Hilary Jerome . Augustine The Apollinarian controversy lack of interest among Catholics doctrine of Gregory Nyssen The Nestorian controversy Theodore of Mopsuestia . zealous repudiation of Nestorianism . doctrine of Hilary . , ; , ‘ Cyr.’ ‘ : < : :
PAGE
98 100 100 103 104
106 108 113 114
122 123 126 127 127
130 131 133
135 136
138 140
144 145 147 149
xiv Contents.
§ 7. The Monophysite controversy (1) vindication of the manhood not fruitful in result the Agnoetae and Leontius Eulogius Gregory. John Damascene Agobard and the ‘Adoianists 4 in Pb. west (2) the Definition of Chalcedon leaves the two natures in simple juxtaposition
§ 8. Mediaeval and scholastic theology determined against a real ignorance . refinements of Thomas Aquinas qualifications (1) hesitation as to what is de fide (2) decisions only as to matter of fact scholastic theology (1) mistaken in its use of church dogmas . (2) based on one-sided metaphysical idea of God derived from Greek philosophy through Dionysius Areop. and Erigena resulting in nihilianism as expressed in Peter Lombard
§ 9. The theology of the Reformation a return to Scripture . theories of Luther
the Reformed modern views
(1) absolute kenotic— Godet. (2) partial kenotic— Fairbairn (3) double life— Martensen .
(4) gradual incarnation—Dorner
§ 10. Anglican theology its characteristics utterances of Hooker Andrewes Jeremy Taylor Bull Beveridge Waterland modern authorities Church Westcott Bright
PAGE
154 155 158 159 160 161
162
166 168
169 169
170 171 173 173 175 175
179 181 182
184 189 192 193
196
196 198
199
Contents.
ITT.
THE CONCLUSION OF THIS INQUIRY: THE RELATION OF THIS CONCLUSION TO CHURCH AUTHORITY: ITS RATIONALITY.
§ 1. Conclusion from our inquiry a real self-limitation in the Incarnation : without abandonment of the divine functions in another sphere ; ‘ ; fourfold appeal to opponents
§ 2. The relation of our conclusion to ecclesiastical authority its consistence with ecumenical decrees in particular those of Nicaea Chalcedon athe CP y III reasons for defectiveness in patristic and scholastic theology . ats
§ 3. The rationality of our conclusion (1) the inconceivable not necessarily the irrational (2) the power of sympathy. . (3) difference between divine and human coainitae (4) modern view of God’s relation to His creation
TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND NIHILIANISM
Subject and aim I. The growth of the doctrine of transubstantiation S. Vili in the east, John of Damascus in the west retarding influence of Augustine reflected in Caroline theologians s.ix Paschasius Radbert’s teaching Rabanus Maurus opposes it Ratramn a“ Hincmar, Haimo support it s. xi the Berengarian controversy . Berengar’s position Humbert’s decree (A. D. sis)
xXV
PAGE
202
206 205
207 208 210
213 216 218
220 222
229
xvi Contents. PAGE Lanfranc and Hugh of Langres_ . : : . “aan Witmund ; ; ; , ; ‘ ; - a Durandus of Troarn : ; ; ; j . 205 S. xl Alger. ‘ Hz : ; ; ; . 264 Gregory of Reruns ; : ; : 205 Hildebert ‘ : ; : : ; : . 266 Peter Lombard . : ; $ : ; 5 Oy A.D. 1215 the Lateran decree ; é é ; : . 268
1]. The metaphysical theory and philosophical principle involved three objections
(1) no scriptural or primitive authority. : . 269 (2) metaphysical difficulty. ; : ‘ . 70 not the same with the omoousion docetnk ee doctrinal outcome of materialistic conception . 271
(3) it violates the principle of the Incarnation . ~ 72 as stated by Irenaeus ; : P : ; re Leontius : : F : . ae
III. Nihilianism the background of the theory of transubstantiation
nihilianism prevalent in early middle ages . ; « (379 =transubstantiation in relation to the Incarnation . 281 the dogmatic barriers of the Incarnation doctrine
were wanting in the case of the eucharist . . . 283 reasons for not accepting transubstantiation
even inarefined sense. ; : ‘ } . 284
APPENDED NOTES
A. Supposed Jewish expectation of the iat birth d . 289 B. The readings of Codex Sinaiticus . ‘ . 292 C. On the patristic interpretation of St. jibe vi. 63 ; « 303
D. Tertullian’s doctrine of the eucharist ; ; : . 308
THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF OUR LORD
AMONG subjects of present controversy not the least important is the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. It is not only that naturalistic writers frequently speak as if it were unmistakeably a fable; but writers who do in some sense believe in the Incarnation are found at times to imply that, while the Resurrection must be held to, the Virgin Birth had better be discarded from the position of an historical fact. And even writers of a more orthodox character are occasionally found to speak of it with some considerable degree of doubt or disparagement?. Such rejection or doubt is in part based upon the silence, or presumed silence, on the subject of two of the evangelists, St. Mark and St. John, also of the apostolic epistles, especially those of St. Paul. In part it is held to be justified by discrepancies between the accounts of the birth
1 See, as examples of these classes, Renan, Les Zvangiles (Paris, 1877) pp. 188 ff., 278 ff.; Meyer, Commentary on St. Matthew, i. 18 (Clark’s trans.); Zhe Kernel and the Husk (Macmillan, 1886) pp. 267 ff.; Dr. A. Harnack, Das Apost. Glaubensbekenntniss (Berlin, 1892) pp. 35 ff. This pamphlet is part of a considerable agitation in Germany, and repre- sents a widespread tendency in that country. The tendency is certainly
abroad among Christians at home, though perhaps at present more in conversation than in literature.
B2
4 Dissertations.
in St. Matthew and St. Luke; and by circumstances which are supposed to render those accounts unworthy of the credit of serious critics. At the same time it is often maintained that the belief in the Incarnation is not bound up with the belief in the virginity of Mary: and that, even if this latter point were rejected or held an open question, we could still believe Jesus Christ to be not as other men, but the Son of God incarnate’. This latter belief in the person of Christ is, it is maintained, legitimate as warranted by His claims, His miracles, His resurrection, His kingdom; but it does not therefore follow that legend may not have gathered around the circumstances of His birth. There is analogy, it is suggested, for such an accretion in the birth-stories of innumerable heroes, both Jewish and Gentile, from Buddha, Zoroaster, and Samson downwards to Augustus and John the Baptist.
In view of this tendency of thought, I will endea- vour—
(1) to account for the silence of St. Mark, St. John, and St. Paul, so far as it is a fact, while at the same time indicating evidence which goes to show that these writers did in reality recognize the fact of the Virgin Birth ;
(2) to justify the claim of Luke i-ii to contain serious history ;
(3) to do the same for Matt. i-ii taken by itself;
(4) to indicate the relation of the two accounts ;
* See quotations in Dr. A. B. Bruce’s Afologetics (Clark, 1892) pp. 408, . 409; and cf, Dr. Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology (Hodder & Stoughton, 1893) pp. 346, 347. I do not understand Dr. Fairbairn to express any doubt as to the fact of the virgin birth.
The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 5
(5) to show cause for believing that the Virgin Birth has in Christian tradition from the first been held insepar- able from the truth of the Incarnation ;
(6) to deal with the argument derived from the birth-legends of heroes ;
(7) to show cause for believing that the doctrine of the person of Christ is in reality inseparable from the fact of His birth of a virgin.
First however it is necessary to make plain the point -at which this argument begins, and the class of persons towards whom it is addressed. I am assuming the substantial historical truth of the evangelical narrative common to the three synoptists and supplemented by St. John: I am assuming the reality of the physical resurrection and, accordingly, the possibility of miracles and their credibility on evidence: I am assuming that Jesus Christ really was the Son of God incarnate. One who entertains doubts on these matters must satisfy him- self by considerations preliminary to our present under- taking ', just as in the beginning of Christianity the belief in Jesus as the Son of God was, as will be presently explained, prior to the knowledge of His Virgin Birth. The question now is,—granted the miraculous personality of Christ and His resurrection, granted the idea of the Incarnation to be the right interpretation of His person, is there still reason to doubt the historical character of the miracle of the birth, and is it reasonable to imagine that such doubt will be compatible with a prolonged hold on the belief in the Incarnation itself ?
* Such considerations I have endeavoured to present in summary in the Lampton Lectures for 1891 (Murray) lect. i, ii, iii.
6 Dissertations.
£4, The silence of St. Mark, St. John, and St. Paul.
The original function of the apostles was mainly that of eye-witnesses. It was therefore necessarily limited by the period of the public ministry of our Lord, during which period alone they had ‘ companied with him,’ i.e. from the days of John the Baptist till the time when He was taken up into heaven!. To have allowed their original preaching to go behind the limit of this period would have been to abandon a real principle of Christianity, the principle that it was to rest upon the personal testimony of men who in company with one another had passed through a prolonged experience of the words and works of Jesus of Nazareth, of the circumstances of His death and the reality of His resurrection. To have gone outside this period of personal witness would have been, I say, to abandon a principle; and there can therefore be no question that the original ‘teaching of the apostles’ did not and could not include the Virgin Birth. If we accept the trustworthy tradition which
1 See Acts i. 8, 21, ii. 32, iii. 15, x. 39; St. Luke i. 2; St. John i. 14, xv. 27, xxi. 24; Hebr. ii. 3.
2 It is plain that Joseph and Mary must have kept this event secret from the world and their neighbours. When it was known through Christian preaching, it led to slander, disagreeable even to think of, but widely current in the second century. See Renan, Les Evangiles, p. 189 ‘La fable —
grossiére inventée par les adversaires du christianisme, qui faisait naitre Jésus d’une aventure scandaleuse avec le soldat Panthére (Acta Pilati,
The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 7
makes St. Mark’s Gospel represent the preaching of Peter —the part of his experience which he embodied in his primary instruction—we shall see at once why the Gospel of Mark does not carry us behind the preaching of John the Baptist. It needs to be remarked, over and above this, that St. Mark in one passage exhibits a notice- able difference as compared with St. Matthew and St. Luke. Where St. Matthew has ‘Is not this the carpenters son?’ and St. Luke ‘Is not this the son of Joseph ?’ St. Mark writes ‘Is not this the carpenter?’ It is probable that of these two expressions, St. Mat- thew’s (as corroborated by St. Luke) is primary, and St. Mark’s secondary; and that the alteration in St. Mark must be attributed to an unwillingness to suggest —even in the surprised questioning of the Jews—the proper parentage of Joseph, where nothing had been previously given to prevent misunderstanding, as in St. Matthew's and St. Luke’s Gospels”.
As to St. John, it seems to me quite impossible to
A. 2; Celse, dans Origéne, Contre Celse, i. 28, 32; Talm. de Jér. Schad- bath, xiv. 4; Aboda zara, ii, 2; Midrasch Koh. x. 5, &c.), sortit sans trop d’effort du récit chrétien, récit qui présentait 4 l’imagination le tableau choquant d’une naissance ou le peére n’avait qu’un réle apparent. Cette fable ne se montre clairement qu’au II® siécle; des le Ie", cependant, les juifs paraissent avoir malignement présenté la naissance de Jésus comme illégitime.’ It appears that Panthera is only in fact an anagram for Parthenos: see Rendel Harris, Zexts and Studies (Cambridge, 1891), vol. i. no. i. p. 25.
1 St. Matt. xiii. 55 ; St. Mark vi. 3 ; St. Luke iv. 22.
? So Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Bleek, quoted by Weiss, Handbuch diber Evang. Markus und Lukas, on Mark vi. 3. St. Luke (ii. 48) allows a parallel expression, ‘Thy father and I,’ where it is liable to no misconception. So also St. John (i. 45 ‘ Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’), writing at a later period, when, I believe, the common teaching of the Church was well established.
8 Dissertations.
believe that he was ignorant of the Virgin Birth of our Lord. Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch in Syria a very few years after the writing of the fourth Gospel, calls the virginity of Mary a ‘mystery of loud procla- mation’ in the Church!: it could not have been other- wise considering the currency which the first and third Gospels, and still more the materials of those Gospels, had already obtained., More than this: we know on very high authority (that of Polycarp, John’s disciple, as quoted by Irenaeus?) that St. John was in sharp opposition to the gnostic teacher, Cerinthus. Cerinthus, like all Gnostics, denied the real Incarnation. He distinguished between the higher being, the spiritual Christ, and the human Jesus. He supposed the man Jesus to have been born in the ordinary way of Joseph and Mary, and to have been the most perfect of all men ; he supposed the divine Christ to have descended upon him after his baptism and to have left him before his passion ®. Cerinthus thus denied both the real Incar- nation and the miraculous birth. St. John’s whole force is thrown into the affirmation of the real Incarnation. He cannot have been ignorant that the denial of the Incarnation was associated with the denial of the miraculous birth. We may ask then, (1) Was he indifferent to this latter? (2) If not, does he give any indications that he believed in it? (3) Why did he not narrate it at length? I should answer thus: (1) He was not indifferent to it, but, as in the case of the institution of baptism and of the eucharist*, he supplies the justifying
1 See below, p. 46. * con. Haer. iii. 3. 4. 3 Tren. con. Haer. i. 26. 1. * St. John iii. 3-8, vi. 53-65.
The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 9
principle—in this case the principle of the Incarnation— without supplying what was already current and well known, the record of the fact. The denial of the fact had been but the result of the denial of the principle. Granted the principle, the belief in the fact would follow in- evitably. (2) He does give indications that he recognized the fact. Inthe scene of the marriage-supper at Cana, before the first miracle had yet been wrought, he shows Mary, our Lord’s mother, manifestly expecting of her son miraculous action, manifestly regarding Him as a miraculous person’. There is no such natural expla- nation of this as that St. John regarded her as conscious from the first of His miraculous origin and nature. Once more: St. John’s mind is full of the correspondence between ‘the Son’ and the other ‘sons’ of God, be- tween Christ and the Church. One main motive of his Apocalypse is to exhibit the Church passing through the phases of the life of Christ. Like Him it is born, suffers, dies, rises, ascends”. When St. John then gives us the picture of ‘a woman arrayed with the sun and the moon under her feet, who brings forth ‘a son, a male thing, and other ‘seed’ besides *, he is probably presenting the idea of the true Jerusalem, ‘the mother of us all,’ bringing forth into the world the Christ and His people. But there is a retrospect, or depend- ence, which can hardly be disputed, upon Mary the actual mother of Jesus, the Christ!’ The more sure one feels of this, and the more one dwells upon the parallelism exhibited throughout these chapters between the Head
St. John ii. 3-5. * Rev. xii. 5,17, xi. 7-12. * Rey. xii. 1, 5, 17.
10 Dissertations.
and His body, the more disposed one is to see in the picture of the dragon who watches to destroy the new- born child and the flight of the woman into the wilderness! a mystically-worded? retrospect upon the hostile action of Herod who sought the young child’s life to destroy him, i.e. a recognition of the history of the nativity as given in St. Matthew. (3) It would have been impossible for St. John, consistently with the main purpose of his Gospel, to have recorded the Virgin Birth, for his Gospel is, before all else, a personal testimony. It is the old man’s witness to what he saw and heard when he was young, and had brooded and meditated upon through his long life. This witness he now leaves on record, at the earnest request of those about him, and for the necessities of the Church. Such a Gospel must have begun where personal experience began.
Once more with regard to St. Paul—it is a well- known fact that his epistles are almost exclusively oceupied in contending for Christian principles, not in recalling facts of our Lord’s life. His function was that of the theologian rather than that of the witness. One conclusion from this might be that St. Paul was ignorant of, or indifferent to, the facts of our Lord’s life. But we are restrained from this conclusion by the evidence which
1 Rev. xii. 13, 14.
? It should be noticed that the account of the death, resurrection, &c. of the ‘ two witnesses’ who represent the Church in xi. 7-12 contains many points of difference from the actual history of the parallel events in our Lord’s case, as well as many points of similarity. The relation of the ‘mystical’ and actual accounts of the death and resurrection is similar to | the relation of the two accounts of the birth and early persecution.
3 St. Matt. ii. 13.
The Virgin Birth of our Lord. I
he gives at least on two occasions when his argument compels him to recall to the Corinthians his first preaching and he recalls it each time in the form of an evangelical narrative’. We learn from this that St. Paul’s first preaching contained at least a considerable element of evangelical narrative. Of all the contents of this narrative we cannot be sure: it is not impossible that it made reference to the miraculous birth of Jesus. But it would be foolish to maintain this in the absence of direct evidence. What we can maintain, with great boldness, is that St. Paul’s conception of the ‘ Second Adam’ postulates His miraculous birth. ‘Born of a woman, ‘born of the seed of David according to the flesh?” He was yet ‘from heaven *’: born of a woman, He was yet a new head of the race, sinless, free from Adam’s sin ; a new starting-point for humanity *. Now considering how strongly St. Paul expresses the idea of the solidarity of man by natural descent, and the con- sequent implication of the whole human race in Adam’s fall°, his belief in the sinless Second Adam seems to me to postulate the fact of His Virgin Birth ; the fact, that is, that He was born in such a way that His birth was a new creative act of God. On this connexion of ideas,
+ 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, xv. 3-8. 2 Gal. iv. 4; Rom. i. 3.
3 1 Cor. xv. 47. 6 devrepos avOpwros é£ ovpavod has been interpreted of Christ at His second coming. But it describes the or7g7z of the second man, being parallel to ‘the first man is of the earth earthy,’ and must therefore be referred to His first coming.
* 2 Cor. v. 21; Rom. v. 12-213; 1 Tim. ii. 5.
° Rom. y. 12-21, especially the phrase éf’ @ mavres fjuaprov. Cf. Acts XVli. 26 éoincev ef évds wav €Ovos dvOpwmav : 1 Cor. xv. 48 olos 6 xoiKds, ToovTa Kal of xoxo: Eph. iv. 22, and Col. iii. g 6 madasds dvOpwros, which is morally corrupt.
12 Drssertations.
however, more will need to be said when we come to deal with the relation of the Virgin Birth to the idea of the Incarnation.
The ‘argument from silence’ then, so far as it is based on the facts, appears to be a weak argument, because it gains its strength from ignoring the character and conditions of the ‘silent’ records. At least their silence suggests no presumption against the veracity of the records that are not silent, supposing that they present valid credentials, considered in themselves. Ac- cordingly we proceed to the consideration of these records, that is, the narratives of the Virgin Birth in the first two chapters of the first and third Gospels.
§ 2. The narrative of St. Luke.
Suppose a Christian of the earliest period instructed, like Theophilus, in the primitive oral ‘ tradition’ of the Christian society ; suppose him familiar with the sort of narrative that is presented to us in St. Mark’s Gospel of the words and deeds of Jesus, and convinced of His Messiahship and divine sonship,—such an one would — beyond all question have become inquisitive about the circumstances of the Master’s birth. The inquiry must have been general and must have arisen very speedily. Let us transfer ourselves in imagination to that earliest
The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 13
period, of not less than about five years, before the perse- cution which arose about the death of Stephen, when the band of Christians in Jerusalem were continuing steadfastly and quietly in the ‘apostles’ teaching,’ and constant repetition was forming the oral Gospel which underlies the earliest evangelical documents ; we cannot conceive that period passing without inquiry, systematic inquiry, into the circumstances of our Lord's birth. Now at the beginning of that period the Mother was with the apostolic company. She may well—for all we know—have continued with them to the end of it. The Lord’s ‘ brethren’ too were there’. There was no difficulty, then, in obtaining trustworthy information. Joseph and Mary mus¢ have been silent originally as to the conditions of the birth of Jesus, for reasons obvious enough. They could only have ‘kept the things and pondered them in their hearts.’ But in the apostolic circle, in the circle of witnesses and believers, the reasons for silence were gone: Mary would have told the tale of His birth.
Now in St. Luke’s Gospel—to take that Gospel first— we are presented with an obviously early and Jewish narrative containing an account of the birth of Jesus, incorporated and used by St. Luke. If then St. Luke is believed to be trustworthy in his use of documents, if the account given is credible considered in itself, there is no difficulty at all in perceiving from what source
1 There is, however, nothing improbable in the hypothesis that the ‘brethren’ did not originally share the secret of Joseph and Mary as to the virgin birth. (The more probable view, as it seems to me, is that which
makes the ‘ brethren’ half-brothers of our Lord, children of Joseph by a former marriage.)
14 Dissertations.
originally it could have been derived and from what epoch its information could date.
Now when we examine the opening chapters of St. Luke, almost the first thing that strikes us is the contrast | in style between the elaborate preface of the evangelist’s own writing and the narrative to which he immediately passes. There can be no doubt that in the narrative of the nativity, St. Luke—writing, shall we say with Dr. Sanday, about A.D. 801—is using an Aramaic document”. But is St. Luke trustworthy in his use of early documents? The ground on which we can best test this is the Acts of the Apostles. I assume—what I think is the only reasonable view—that St. Luke wrote the Acts as a whole: that he is the fellow- traveller of St. Paul in the later portion *, and that for the earlier portion, the Jerusalem period, he has been dependent upon information and documents supplied by others—probably by Philip the Evangelist and by some one—possibly Manaen or Joanna the wife of Chuza— connected with the court of the Herods*. Has he then
* See Sanday, Bampton Lectures for 1893 (Longmans) pp. 277 ff.; Book by Book (Isbister, 1892) pp. 366, 404.
2 See Weiss, Markus und Lukas, p. 239 ‘Die hebraisirende Diction der Vorgeschichte sticht gegen das classische Griechisch des Vorworts so augenfallig ab, dass hier die Benutzung einer schriftlichen Quelle kaum ‘geleugnet werden kann.’ Godet, Saiuzt Luc, i. 85 ‘Il travaille sur des documents antiques, dont il tient 4 conserver aussi fidelement que pos- sible le coloris araméen.’ Sanday, Book by Book, p. 399. Cf. also Ryle and James, Psalms of Solomon (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1891), p. lx ‘The writings which, in our opinion, most nearly approach our Psalms in style and character are the hymns preserved in the early chapters of St. Luke’s Gospel, which in point of date of composition probably stand nearer to the Psalms of Solomon (B.C. 70-40) than any other portion of the New Testament.’ 8 Acts xvi. 10-18, xx. 6 to the end.
* Cf. Sanday, Book by Book, p. 399 ‘Most of the occasions on which
The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 15
shown himself in this collection and use of documents a trustworthy historian? This question we answer with a very emphatic affirmative. If Prof. Ramsay has ‘summed up the verdict of recent inquiry as to the his- torical trustworthiness of the Pauline period of the Acts, not less certainly does it seem to me that recent inquiry has gone to confirm the historical worth of the early chapters. The situation of the first Christians in Jeru- salem: their preoccupation, not with the questions of Pauline or Johannine theology, but simply with Jesus as Messiah, and as fulfilling in His death and resurrection the prophecies of the Messiah: the moral brilliancy and yet simplicity of the first development of the Church: the exact relation in which Pharisees with their zeal for the law, and Sadducees in their hostility to a resurrection doctrine, and their preoccupation with the political situation, would stand to the new movement!:
we hear of St. Luke have their scene at a distance from Palestine ; but at one time he would seem to have been for fully two years within the limits of the Roman province which bore that name. He accompanied St. Paul on his last recorded journey to Jerusalem, stayed with him for some time at the house of Philip the “ Evangelist” at Caesarea, went up with him to Jerusalem, and, as we infer, remained not far away from his person during the time of his later confinement at Caesarea.’ Philip the Evangelist—one of the Seven—must have had an intimate acquaintance with the events of the early period of the Jerusalem Church. Again, ‘St. Luke displays a special knowledge of matters relating to the court of the Herods. He mentions by name a woman whom none of the other evangelists mentions, “‘ Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward ” [Luke viii. 3], and in like manner in the Acts he speaks of Manaen, “‘ foster-brother of Herod” [Acts xiii. 1, one of the “ prophets” or “‘ teachers” at Antioch]. Here we have a glimpse of a circle from which St. Luke probably got his account of’ events connected with the Herods.
* See, for the Sadducees, Acts iv. 1, v. 17, 24; for the Pharisees, with the scribes and common people, v. 34, vi. 12 f., vii. 54 ff.; for both together, ix. 1; for their divergence, xxiii, 6 ff.
16 Dissertations.
the circumstances out of which arose the appointment of the Seven: the personality, work, and speech of Stephen—all this is represented in such a way as guarantees the faithful correspondence of the narrative with the actual situation ; in other words, in such a way as guarantees that St. Luke is trustworthy in his use of © his information and his documents. The study of the Acts, then, sends us back to the Gospel with a greatly invigorated belief in St. Luke’s trustworthiness in his use of documents. We examine further the document of the nativity, and we find not only that it is Aramaic, but that it breathes the spirit of the Messianic hope, before it had received the rude and crushing blow involved in the rejection of the Messiah. The Fore- runner is ‘to make ready a people prepared for the Lord!’ The Child is to have ‘the throne of his father David, and. to ‘reign over the house of Jacob for ever.’ God hath ‘holpen Israel his servant, that he might remember mercy (as he spake unto our fathers) toward Abraham and his seed for ever®.’ He hath ‘ visited and wrought fedemption for his people, and hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us*.’ It is the hope of ‘ the redemption of Jerusalem®’ that is to be gratified. Now all this language of prophecy does indeed admit of interpretation in the light of subsequent facts. St. Paul could justify to the Jews the actual result out of their own Scriptures®. But it is not the sort of language that early Jewish Christians
Gd, 38, Ae oft 8A, ae Pay ee * i, 68-71. ais gS. 6 Romans ix-xi.
The Virgin Birth of our Lord. 17
would have invented after the rejection of the Christ. It contrasts very markedly with the language of St. Peter’s speeches in the Acts!, or of St. Stephen *, or of St. Paul’, or of St. James4, or of St. John®. No doubt in the language of Simeon the coming of the Christ is ‘a light for revelation to the Gentiles,” as well as ‘the glory of God's people Israel.’ He too alone among the speakers of these opening chapters sees that the crisis is to be anxious and searching. He ‘said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the falling and rising up of many in Israel; and fora sign which is spoken against ; yea and asword shall pierce through thine’ own soul ; | that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed °.’ But these are notes so often struck in the Old Testament that they must have found some echo in the immediate anticipation of the work of the Child. They are like the warnings of John the Baptist‘. But they do not. anticipate the disastrous result. They do not forecast wholesale rejection ; they only just interpose a note of moral anxiety in the general tone of hopeful exaltation. - Nor is it unnecessary to observe that the conception of the person of our Lord in these chapters is purely Mes- sianic®’. He is to ‘be great, and shall be called the Son of
1 See iii, 12-26, iv. 11, 25-28. 2 Acts vii. 51, 52.
* Acts xiii. 46; 1 Thess. ii. 14-16.
* St. James v. 6. 5 St. John xii. 37-43. 6 St. Luke ii. 31-35. 7 St. Luke iii. 8.
* The distinction however between the Messianic and the divine con- ception of our Lord must not be pressed too far. It is true that the Jewish thought of our Lord’s time did not anticipate a divine Messiah. The Messianic king of the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon (c. 60 B.C.) does not rise above the human limit: and the ‘Son of Man’ coming in glory as