CHAPTER V. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE FIRST GOSPEL

More than the other Synoptic Gospels, the First Gospel comes before us as an “official” document of the Christian Church. Our Third Gospel was somewhat of the nature of a “private venture”, and how inadequately the value of St. Mark’s Gospel was recognized in the first half of the second century appears in the fact that its survival seems almost accidental, all existing copies being derived from a single mutilated MS.(78) Whether, then, we can claim the authority and sanction of the First Gospel for the Virgin Birth tradition, is clearly a question of first‐rate importance. To some the question will appear determinative; but for those also, who feel that in any case the historical value of the witness would remain an open question, a conclusion as regards the problem is of very great significance, in view of its historical implications.

In the present chapter our purpose is to inquire how far the First Gospel bears witness to the Virgin Birth, and what the character of its witness is. Was the narrative, as we have it to‐day, present in the Gospel from the first? Is Mt. i, ii a later insertion, or is the passage i. 18‐25 an interpolation? Extremely interesting discussions have also arisen around the question of the Matthaean Genealogy and the true text of Mt. i. 16, and these call for notice. The question of the historical value of the tradition of Mt. i. 18‐25 must in the main be postponed, but the possibilities, and such positive facts as emerge, can be noted.

Perhaps the best method of approach is to consider first the character of the Genealogy, apart altogether from the question of its authorship. The details of the textual problem of Mt. i. 16 will be discussed in an Appendix to the chapter. The remaining points to be treated are the genuineness of cc. i, ii, the unity of these chapters, and lastly the sources and implications of the narrative, together with a survey of the results reached.

I. The Characteristics of the Genealogy

Among the features which mark the Genealogy we may note the following:

(1) _Its purpose_ is to show the Davidic descent of Jesus by tracing the royal line (cf. verse 6 “David the king”).

(2) _The structure is obviously artificial._(79) The Genealogy is arranged in three groups of fourteen generations, an arrangement to which the writer himself calls attention (verse 17). In order to secure this structure, the names of Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah are omitted (cf. 1 Chron. iii) and the third group covers a space of about six hundred years. “If any source of the schematism is wanted, the cabbalistic interpretation of דוד, whose three letters are equivalent by gematria to the number 14, is the most probable” (Moffatt, INT., p. 250 n.).

(3) The verb ἐγέννησεν is used throughout of legal, not physical, descent.(80) This inference is drawn from the artificial character of the Genealogy. Its omissions are obvious, and must have been so both to the compiler and his readers. “The contemporaries of the Evangelist knew their Bible at least as well as we do. They knew that there were more than fourteen generations between David and the Captivity, that Joram did not beget Uzziah, and that Josiah did not beget Jeconiah” (Burkitt, _Evan. Da‐ Meph._, ii, p. 260). If the passage Mt. i. 18‐25, as well as the Genealogy, comes from the hand of the Evangelist, the verb ἐγέννησεν must clearly indicate legal parentage; but there is sufficient ground for this view within the Genealogy itself.

(4) The references to women in the Genealogy are unique, and are best explained as due to an apologetic purpose. They cannot be so well explained as reflecting a universalistic interest (Heffern, quoted by Moffatt, INT., p. 251). In contrast to the Genealogy in the Third Gospel, that in Mt. traces the descent no farther back than to Abraham; it is fundamentally Jewish. There can be little doubt but that the writer’s purpose is to rebut Jewish slanders already current regarding the birth of Jesus. “Throughout the whole Genealogy the Evangelist appears to be telling us in an audible aside that the heir had often been born out of the direct line or irregularly. Thamar the daughter‐in‐law of Judah, Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Moabitess, and the unnamed wife of Uriah, are forced upon our attention, as if to prepare us for still greater irregularity in the last stage” (Burkitt).(81)

If these are the characteristic features of the Genealogy, it is clear that _from the first it was compiled with the Virgin Birth presupposed_. It is, in fact, an attempt to present that belief in connexion with the claim that Jesus was of Davidic descent, through the legal relationship in which He stood to Joseph.(82) Thus, the Matthaean Genealogy is unique; it differs altogether from that in Lk. If to us its form seems forced and unreal, that is because we fail to come to it from the historical point of view. From this standpoint we may ask, with W. C. Allen (ICC., St. Mt., p. 6): “If the editor simply tried to give expression to the two facts which had come down to him by tradition—the fact of Christ’s supernatural birth and the fact that He was the Davidic Messiah, and did not attempt a logical synthesis of them, who shall blame him?” We are not here concerned with the question of the truth of the Virgin Birth tradition, but simply with the view that the compiler of the Genealogy held that belief, and for this inference a high degree of probability can be claimed.

If this is the character of the Genealogy, it must follow that _the textual problem of Mt. i. 16_ differs considerably in importance from the thought of a quarter of a century ago. It is becoming increasingly recognized that, whatever the true text of Mt. i. 16 may be, it can make little difference to the character of the Genealogy as outlined above. Its interest is textual and literary rather than historical. The most interesting statement of this point of view is that of F. C. Burkitt in his _Evangelion Da‐Mepharreshe_ (1904, see vol. ii, pp. 258 ff.). On p. 258 Burkitt expresses a firm belief that no fresh light upon the historical events of the Nativity has been thrown either by the discovery of the Sinaitic Syriac MS. or by the publication of the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_. He says (p. 261) that even if the Genealogy had ended with the uncompromising statement “and Joseph begat Jesus”, it would not prove that its compiler believed that Joseph was the actual father of Jesus. In this connexion it is of great interest to note that Archdeacon Allen, who upholds the historical truth of the Virgin Birth, actually adopts in his commentary on Mt. (ICC., 1907) the reading implied by the Sin. Syr., as the true text of Mt. i. 16—“And Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was espoused Mary a virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ” (p. 5). Writing in 1916, Canon Box takes a different view of the textual problem, but is no less emphatic in his assertion that, “even if the reading _Joseph ... begat Jesus_ be correct, it need not imply a belief in the natural generation of Jesus” (_The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 15). Lastly, we may compare the judgement of Dr. James Moffatt (INT., 1918): “Such modifications as may be due to doctrinal presuppositions are designed to re‐set or to sharpen the reference of the original text to the virgin birth, not to insert the dogma in a passage which was originally free from it” (p. 251). These are great and honoured names, but the opinion is not one which cries out for the cloak of authority; it springs directly out of the character of the Genealogy itself. If ἐγέννησεν is used throughout of legal parentage, it would clearly be so in the last step, if it should be proved that this also contained the word ἐγέννησεν. Indeed, we should naturally expect to find that word in verse 16.

At the same time, it would not be right to regard the textual problem as one of merely academic interest. It gives a valuable sidelight upon the history of the exegesis of Mt. i, ii in the early Christian centuries. It enables us to see how the Matthaean narrative was viewed, the difficulties it raised, and the way in which they were met. Thus it throws into strong relief the unique character of the Genealogy. It also sheds a welcome light upon the treatment which the text of the Gospels received at the hands of their earliest readers before these writings had acquired the status of sacred books. Even then if we have finally to acquiesce in Dr. Moffatt’s statement: “The textual problem of i. 16 is not yet settled”, the question is one of absorbing and of fruitful interest.(83) For our immediate purpose it is enough to say that the results, so far as they go, strengthen rather than weaken our belief that the compiler of the Genealogy worked under the presupposition of the Virgin Birth.

II. The Genuineness of Mt. i, ii

This problem can no longer be regarded as a burning question. Few scholars of the present day would contend that the First Gospel ever circulated without these chapters. In style, in vocabulary, and in mode of treatment, they are of a piece with the rest of the book.

(1) The _literary style_ of the First Evangelist is not so marked as that of St. Luke, but it has nevertheless a distinct character of its own. As compared with that of St. Mark, it is “more prosaic and colourless”, but it is “more calm and balanced” (Milligan).(84) Prof. Burkitt describes it as follows: “I wish I could think of some other word than ‘formality’ by which to name the chief characteristic of the First Evangelist’s literary style. Formality suggests rigidity, generally with a certain measure of incapacity, and these are not among his defects. On the contrary, Matthew has great literary skill, as well as dignity. Everything that he says is put with admirable clearness and lucidity; what he writes down he has first understood himself. If there is an exception to be noted he notes it” (GHT., p. 186). Now this same style is manifest everywhere throughout the Gospel, in cc. i, ii, as well as elsewhere.(85) The theory therefore that these chapters are a later insertion labours under an immense initial disadvantage. It requires to be explained how it is that this characteristic literary style is just as manifest in cc. i, ii as in the rest of the Gospel, in spite of the fact that the subject‐matter of these chapters is peculiar and distinct.

(2) The _Vocabulary_ and constructional forms of cc. i, ii are also characteristic of the Gospel as a whole. Burkitt (_Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, p. 259) instances eight words from these chapters as “characteristic Matthaean words”. These words are given below. The statistics have been obtained by tracing the record of the words in Moulton and Geden’s _Concordance_ (doubtful cases and quotations being omitted).

Instances Instances Instances in Mt. i, in Mt. in the ii. iii‐ rest of xxviii. the NT. ἀναχωρεῖν 4 6 4 λεγόμενος (with 2 11 Mk. (1), names) Lk. (2), Jn. (8), Ac. (2), Pl. (4), Heb. (1). ὄναρ 5 1 0 πληροῦσθαι 4 8 13 ῥηθέν 4 8 0 σφόδρα 1 6 4 τότε 3 86 67 φαίνεσθαι 4 9 9

In addition to the list given by Burkitt, we may note also the following:

Instances Instances Mt, as in Mt. i, in Mt. compared ii. iii‐ with the xxviii. rest of the NT. παραλαμβάνειν 6 10 1/3 of NT. Record. προσκυνεῖν 3 9 1/4 of NT. προσφέρειν 1 13 1/3 of NT. συνάγειν 1 23 2/5 of NT. ὅριον 1 5 1/2 of NT. θησαυρός 1 8 1/2 of NT. δῶρον 1 8 1/2 of NT. ἐπάνω 1 7 2/5 of NT. χρυσός 1 4 1/2 of NT.

Other words which repay examination are κατοικεῖν, ὅπως, ἐνθυμέομαι, ἐξετάζω, τελευτάω.

The argument is not, of course, that no one but the First Evangelist could have used these words—that would be absurd; but that they are words which he uses frequently, and in nearly every case more frequently than any other New Testament writer.(86)

An interesting fact is instanced by W. C. Allen (op. cit., p. lxxxvi). He notes as a characteristic of the Gospel “a tendency to repeat a phrase or construction two or three times at short intervals”. Fifteen examples of this are given, one of which occurs in Mt. ii. This last is an instance in which the genitive absolute is followed in three cases by ἰδού (ii. 1, 13, 19). We may add that the same construction appears in i. 20. Sir J. C. Hawkins shows (HS., 2nd Ed., pp. 5, 31) that there are seven instances of this construction in the rest of Mt., as compared with a single case in Lk. One other detail of construction may be noted. More than half the New Testament record of ἕως ἄν with the subjunctive (which occurs in ii. 13) belongs to the First Gospel.

On the other side, we have to set down the fact that in Mt. i, ii there are some twenty‐eight words, exclusive of proper nouns, which do not occur in the rest of the Gospel.(87) But nearly half of these are accounted for by the subject‐matter. The remaining instances are not more numerous than we might naturally expect. On the other hand, if cc. i, ii are a later insertion, we could reasonably look for more.

So far, then, as the linguistic facts will take us, we may say that, considered as a whole, they support the view that Mt. i, ii are from the same hand as the rest of the Gospel.

(3) The _mode of treatment_ in these chapters is that of the First Evangelist. This writer is distinguished by the marked interest which he takes in describing the new faith as the true fulfilment of the old. This characteristic appears in the quotations which he makes from the Old Testament. Among these there are twelve which stand out distinct.(88) (i) In each case they are preceded by the words, “in order that that which was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled”, or words to that effect. (ii) With one exception (iii. 3), they are quoted in this Gospel alone. (iii) What is more important, most of them are based upon the Hebrew, whereas the remaining quotations in the Gospel (except xi. 10) are taken from the Septuagint.(89) For our present purpose the significant thing is that these characteristic quotations are distributed throughout the whole of the Gospel. No less than five of them occur in cc. i, ii, and it is not too much to say that their presence is a kind of water‐mark authenticating the genuineness of these chapters.

Combining the foregoing arguments we may justly claim that the hypothesis of interpolation is violent in the extreme. Dr. Moffatt sums up a very widely accepted view when he says: “Neither the style nor contents of 1‐2 afford valid evidence for suspecting that they are a later insertion in the gospel” (INT., p. 250).

III. The Unity of Mt. i, ii

The arguments used in the preceding section are sufficient to show that cc. i, ii, as a whole, come from the Evangelist’s hand. But this conclusion does not exclude the possibility that certain parts may be of later date. In particular, it could be said, and has in fact been claimed that the Genealogy, the passage i. 18‐25, or both, are interpolations; and that originally the First Gospel knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. These questions must now be treated.

There is not the same need for us to examine the section describing the visit of the Wise Men and its sequel (c. ii). This section is of great importance in a discussion of the Nativity narratives, but in relation to the Virgin Birth it is secondary as compared with the Genealogy and the passage i. 18‐25. The section is treated by Canon Box in _The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, pp. 19‐33.

1. The Genealogy

We are not concerned to ask at this point whether the Genealogy ever existed independently of the Gospel, and is thus a source which the Evangelist has worked up and incorporated in his own work. The question we have to consider is whether Mt. i. 1‐17 is a genuine part of the Gospel.

The case in favour of this view is overwhelmingly strong. Its weight lies in the fact that the peculiar characteristics of the Genealogy (p. 89 f.) are the peculiar characteristics of the rest of the Gospel.

(1) This is manifest in the strong interest taken in the Davidic Sonship. “The Gospel according to Matthew may be called _The Book of Jesus Christ, the Son of David_ ... The special aim of Matthew, in one word, is to represent our Lord as the legitimate Heir of the royal house of David” (Burkitt, _Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, p. 259). We may partially illustrate this claim by the New Testament record of the term “Son of David”. There are 8 instances in Mt. other than i. 1, and 6 in the rest of the New Testament (3 in Mk. and 3 in Lk.). The regal aspect of Christ’s Sonship is also illustrated in Mt. xix. 28, xxv. 34 (cf. Allen, op. cit., p. lxiv).

(2) As regards the artificial structure of the Genealogy, we may note that this too is characteristic of the First Evangelist’s manner. He is fond of arranging his material in groups of threes. Allen enumerates twenty‐three instances outside cc. i, ii (ib., p. lxv). Similarly the double seven reflects “the author’s penchant for that sacred number” (Moffatt, INT., p. 250, who notes four other examples (p. 257)).

(3) We are unable to illustrate from the rest of the Gospel the legal use of γεννάω, but where else save in the Genealogy could we expect to find it? It is the unique character of the Genealogy which requires that usage. On the other hand, the point of view which determines the usage is the point of view of cc. i, ii as a whole. As in i. 1‐17, so in i. 18‐ii. 23, the standpoint is that of a writer who desires to combine two diverse beliefs, the Virgin Birth and the Messiahship of Jesus.

(4) The apologetic motive manifest in the Genealogy is also characteristic of the First Gospel. Not only is the same motive present in every section of cc. i, ii, but in other connexions and in every part of the Gospel, the desire to defend and to interpret is evident; notably this is the case in the story of the Baptism, the account of the Guard at the Tomb and the Resurrection narratives.(90)

(5) The nature of the Genealogy leaves little room for the linguistic test. “Yet even here we have the characteristic λεγόμενος in _v._ 16, and the objective way that the writer speaks of ‘the Christ’ in _v._ 17 is quite in the manner of Mt. xi. 2” (Burkitt, op. cit., p. 259).

Taken together these arguments justify us in concluding that Mt. i. 1‐17 comes from the Evangelist’s pen.

2. The Passage Mt. i. 18‐25

It is this passage which leads us to the heart of the whole question, for here, in the angelic message to Joseph, the Virgin Birth is asserted unmistakably.

We should be justified in making use of the results we have already obtained. If the Genealogy comes from the hand of the Evangelist, and if it is of the character we have alleged, there can be no question but that Mt. i. 18‐25 is also a genuine part of the Gospel. In view, however, of the importance of the section, it may be well not to avail ourselves of this argument.

Schmiedel’s objections to the passage (EB., col. 2959 f.) may not unfairly be summarized as follows: (i) Mt. xiii. 55 (“Is not this the carpenter’s son?”) “directly contradicts the theory of the Virgin Birth”, (ii) Mt. ii can be understood without presupposing the story, (iii) Bethlehem is not mentioned until ii. 1, (iv) Mt. i. 18‐25 is not from the same hand as the Genealogy, which “could never have been drawn up after Joseph had ceased to be regarded as the real father of Jesus”.

Of these arguments the last arises out of Schmiedel’s view of the Genealogy, which is, that in its original form in the Gospel it asserted the physical paternity of Joseph (the Virgin Birth being a later insertion). Needless to say, on this view, Mt. i. 18‐25 must be rejected. We have already discussed the nature of the Genealogy, and have seen reason to take a totally different view of it. The Genealogy, as we understand it, furnishes no ground of objection to i. 18‐25, but rather the contrary. Nor do Schmiedel’s remaining objections carry the weight claimed.

(1) As we have observed on p. 31, Mt. xiii. 55 simply reflects the opinions of our Lord’s contemporaries. Unless we make the gratuitous assumption that the Evangelist would never have reflected a view which he did not himself share, we are not justified in raising an objection to i. 18‐25 from this particular passage.

(2) As regards c. ii, it is true that what is there related can, if necessary, be understood without presuming the story of i. 18‐25. Nevertheless, the chapter is quite congruous with what is told in that passage, and, indeed, agrees better with the presupposition of the Virgin Birth. In a narrative written from the standpoint of Joseph, we may note that, while Mary is spoken of no less than five times as the mother of Jesus (ii. 11, 13, 14, 20, 21), wherever Joseph is mentioned, we have invariably the quite neutral expression “the young child” (ii. 13, 14, 20, 21). Also the quotation, “Out of Egypt did I call my son” (ii. 15), by the very reason of its exegetical violence, is more intelligible if the Evangelist has already narrated the story of the supernatural birth. To have real weight, Schmiedel’s objection should be able to point to more than the fact that c. ii can be read “without the presupposition of the virgin birth”. If i. 18‐25 is an interpolation, we might reasonably expect statements in c. ii inconsistent with that passage. And, moreover, it would be gratuitous to say that they have been carefully suppressed, in view of those which survive in Lk. i, ii to which we have called attention in Chapter II.

(3) That Bethlehem is not mentioned until ii. 1 is true. But as an objection to i. 18‐25 this fact would be of significance, if the latter were simply a narrative of the birth of Jesus. But to assert this is to mistake its character, which is didactic and apologetic. Joseph rather than Jesus is the central figure of the section; the birth is not announced until the closing words. The reference to Bethlehem in ii. 1 is certainly abrupt, but it would have been quite as abrupt in i. 25. Nothing in i. 18‐25, if we have regard to its character, requires a reference to Bethlehem within the passage.

The onus of proof really rests upon those who deny the genuineness of i. 18‐25. It may not be without advantage, however, to set down reasons which lead us to believe that the passage comes from the Evangelist’s hand.

(a) As in the case of Lk. i. 34 f. there is _no textual authority for the omission of these verses_. While we recognize the free handling which the text of the Gospels may have received during the first half of the second century, it does not appear likely on general grounds that Mt. i. 18‐25 is an interpolation. The addition to the text of a saying of Christ, or of a comment, or even of an incident drawn from floating Christian tradition, we can understand, as well as a certain amount of stylistic alteration. “Doctrinal modifications”, however, of such a wholesale character as the present instance would be, if the passage is a later insertion of unknown origin, are quite another matter. That Mt. i. 18‐25 should have been inserted in a Gospel, which, on this theory, taught the physical paternity of Joseph, and should have been inserted without leaving traces in the literature of the early Christian centuries, is most improbable. The sole support from early Christian literature is the statement of Epiphanius that the text used by Cerinthus lacked the passage. Had we more information of this kind, there would be ground for the theory of interpolation; as it is, the basis is too slender and uncertain.(91)

(b) _The standpoint and mode of treatment in Mt. i. 18‐25 is that of cc. i, ii, and of the Evangelist._ As in the rest of cc. i, ii, it is the didactic and apologetic interest that is uppermost. Joseph is the central figure, and there is the same use of “the machinery of dreams” as in c. ii, and in the story of Pilate’s wife (xxvii. 19).

(c) _The same may be said of the vocabulary and the style._ Six words appear which are not found elsewhere in the Gospel,(92) but with the exception of one (μεθερμηνεύομαι), they are sufficiently explained by the peculiar subject‐matter. On the other hand, there are at least five “characteristic Matthaean words”,(93) while other features distinctive of the First Evangelist appear in the opening words of verse 20, the reference to Joseph as the “son of David”, the phrase “Behold, an angel of the Lord”, and especially the quotation of verse 23 with its introductory formula.

In view of these arguments, it is not too much to apply to Mt. i. 18‐25 what Burkitt says of Mt. i. 18‐ii. 23. If the passage “be not an integral part of the First Gospel, it must be counted one of the cleverest of literary adaptations, a verdict that is not likely to be passed on it by a sane criticism” (op. cit., ii. 259).

IV. Implications, Sources, and Results

(1) In the earlier sections of this chapter an attempt has been made to prove that the Virgin Birth is an original element in the First Gospel. The suggestion that it is a later insertion from an unknown hand breaks down on examination, and our conclusion is that the doctrine was taught by the First Evangelist. There is no need to raise the question whether the doctrine was a later element introduced by the Evangelist himself into a work which originally knew nothing of it, for there is absolutely no evidence pointing in that direction. In this respect the passage Mt. i. 18‐25 differs altogether from Lk. i. 34 f. Against the former passage no inconsistencies, either in the immediate context or in the Gospel as a whole, can be shown. From one end to the other the narrative is governed by the same presuppositions and reflects the same point of view.

Whether the Genealogy ever existed independently and in another form is a view for which little can be said. There are no grounds for this theory within the Genealogy as it stands, and the textual problem of Mt. i. 16 does not require the supposition (see pp. 105 ff.). The possibility cannot, of course, be excluded. If the Evangelist did make use of an existing Genealogy, it was probably one which implied the real paternity of Joseph. In that case he has completely transformed it, and must have done this either before, or at the time when he first wrote cc. i, ii. But the existence of such a source is pure speculation. It is more probable that the Genealogy is the Evangelist’s own composition, constructed not for historical but for didactic purposes.(94)

(2) The question of _the implications of Mt. i, ii_ is one of great interest. The narrative is very far from being an attempt to relate the story of the Virgin Birth for the first time. On the contrary, it is probable that the doctrine was already known to the readers of the First Gospel, and that it had become a subject of controversy. It is from this point of view that the Evangelist writes; it is for this reason that he tells the story from the standpoint of Joseph. It is not difficult to imagine the circumstances under which the Matthaean narrative came to be written. Once the story of the Virgin Birth had begun to circulate, interest must soon have been aroused in the position and attitude of Joseph. How were his natural fears allayed? What action did he take? What became of the Davidic descent? Such questions would press for answer. Outside the Christian community these difficulties would inevitably become the occasion of scandal, as the case was in later times. The Evangelist’s narrative is an attempt to meet these difficulties. His view, or the view he reflects, is that the fears of Joseph were allayed by a divine message. The subsequent action of Joseph, also under angelic direction, was to complete the legal act of wedlock before the child was born. The difficulty of the Davidic descent is the problem attacked in the Genealogy. According to several writers it is the same interest which governs the narratives of c. ii. “... the Nativity Story shows us the alarm of the usurper Herod, when he learns that the legitimate ruler has been born within his dominions. As Saul tried to kill David, so Herod tries to kill Jesus; and Jesus finds a refuge in Egypt, as David found a refuge among the Philistines” (Burkitt, op. cit., ii. 259; cf. Box, op. cit., p. 19).

(3) The question of _the source or sources_ from which the Evangelist obtained the narrative of Mt. i. 18‐25 cannot be adequately discussed in itself and in relation to the First Gospel alone. Nevertheless it is worth while to ask how far we can go within those limits. From the evidence supplied by the Gospel itself, we cannot say that the narrative rests on the testimony of Joseph. If the Virgin Birth is historically true, this view has much probability in its favour. But to urge such an origin for the Matthaean narrative, as part of the proof for the Virgin Birth, is not permissible, since obviously it begs the question. Many writers think that the narrative really does come from Joseph himself because it reflects his standpoint. Amongst others this is the opinion of Bishop Gore (_The New Theology and the Old Religion_, p. 126 f.), and of Dr. Orr (_The Virgin Birth of Christ_, pp. 83 ff.).(95) Such a conclusion travels beyond the facts of the case. That the narrative is written from Joseph’s standpoint is, of course, beyond question. It may be, however, that this fact is sufficiently accounted for by the apologetic character of the narrative. We do not say here that this is the case, but we do say that to claim more is to put an outside interpretation upon the narrative. Eventually this is, of course, inevitable; our final conclusion reacts upon our view of the earlier problems; but in the constructive stage this is a peril sedulously to be avoided.

The possibility has to be allowed that the narrative of Mt. i. 18‐25 may be the result of an inference which arose within the Christian community, and which has clothed itself in an imaginative and pictorial form. In answer to the question, How were the fears of Joseph allayed?, it would be natural to reply, By a divine message, and current beliefs would supply an explanation of the means and the method by which such a message would be conveyed. Angelic mediation would account for the one, just as revelation by a dream would explain the other.

The presence of _inference_ in the Synoptic narratives is perhaps not so widely recognized as it ought to be. Whether we ought to be so ready as we often are to suppose the existence of special information, documentary or oral, when the First Evangelist and St. Luke add details to the Markan narrative, or relate entirely new facts, is a pertinent question. In many cases there is much justice in the supposition. In other cases it may easily be that the new detail or narrative has been shaped by inferences playing upon difficulties or ambiguities left by earlier narratives and traditions.(96) This would be a perfectly natural circumstance, the existence of which would be more readily acknowledged if obsolete theories of Inspiration did not continue to exact unlawful tribute. In the case of the First Gospel this use of inference is sometimes manifest, especially in the accounts of the Burial and the Resurrection of Jesus.(97) Whatever judgement may be passed upon Prof. Kirsopp Lake’s brilliant examination of the Resurrection narratives, there can be little doubt but that he has shown that inference, as well as information, shaped the formation of early Christian tradition. This conclusion, even if accepted, would not justify us in supposing that the narratives of Mt. i, ii are nothing more than the inferential resolution of difficulties left by the story of the Virgin Birth. But it would suffice to make it probable that, to an extent which we may leave undefined, inference did play its part, either in the mind of the Evangelist or in the thought of the Christian community.

It is, indeed, quite possible to admit this view, and yet to hold that behind the narrative there is a nucleus of historic fact. Dr. Gore, who believes that the story goes back to Joseph, does not hesitate to say:

“... to suppose such angelic appearances ... to be imaginative outward representations of what were in fact real but inward communications of the ‘divine word’ to human souls, is both a possible course and one which is quite consistent with accepting the narrative as substantially historical and true” (_Dissertations_, p. 22 f.).

Canon Box expresses a similar view when he writes:

“To us [the narrative] seems to exhibit in a degree that can hardly be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament the characteristic features of Jewish Midrash and Haggada. It sets forth certain facts and beliefs in a fanciful and imaginative setting, specially calculated to appeal to Jews.... The task that confronts the critical student is to disentangle the facts and beliefs—the fundamental ground‐factors on which the narration is built—from their decorative embroidery” (op. cit., p. 12).

From what has been said above it will be seen that, if we restrict ourselves to the First Gospel, there are three theories possible regarding the source or sources employed in i. 18‐25. (i) The narrative, very much as it stands, may have come from Joseph himself. (ii) Inference and imagination may have played upon a nucleus of historic fact. (iii) The narrative may be a story without historic foundation, which has grown up, as the result of inference and imagination, in answer to difficulties arising out of a belief in the Virgin Birth antecedently held.

So long as we confine ourselves to the Gospel, it is not possible to choose between these views, unless we are prepared to assume that early Christian tradition cannot have been mistaken—an assumption which cuts the knot instead of untying it. As we are not ready to make that assumption, we have to be content to leave the possibilities open, and to regard the use of any one of them in the historical inquiry as illegitimate. In part this is a disappointing decision, but it is better to feel that we have solid ground beneath our feet.

(4) The positive results to which we have been led are (i) that _the First Evangelist knew of, and believed in, the story of the Virgin Birth_; and (ii) that _the belief was shared by his readers, and had been held sufficiently long for some of its problems to be raised_. Unquestionably, this is an important result, and its place in the historical problem will fall to be considered later.

Appendix To Chapter V. The Textual Problem of Mt. i. 16

I.

Important and well‐known discussions of the textual problem of Mt. i. 16 are those of Sanday (_Outlines_, pp. 197‐200); P. W. Schmiedel (EB., col. 2961 ff.); F. C. Burkitt (_Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, pp. 258‐66); W. C. Allen (ICC., _St. Mt._, p. 8); G. H. Box (_The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, pp. 215‐18).(98) For purposes of reference, the most important facts may be summarized as follows:

(A) First, we have the _text followed in the A V. and R V._, which reads: Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. This is the text of all extant uncials, very many minuscules, and many versions (Sanday). “It is definitely attested by Tertullian, _De Carne Christi_, § 20” (Burkitt).

(B) A different text is attested by the _“__Ferrar__”__ Group_. It is implied by a number of important MSS. of the _Old Latin Version_, by the _Armenian_, and by the _Curetonian Syriac_. This text is as follows: Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν.

(C) Thirdly, we have the _Sinaitic Syriac_. _Syr.‐Sin._ reads: “Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ,” and implies Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγ. τὸν Ἰωσήφ· Ἰωσὴφ [δὲ] ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα [ἦν] π. Μ. ἐγέννησεν Ἰ. τὸν λεγ. Χ. (Burkitt, p. 263). [The reading of the _Syr.‐Cur._ is: “Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, _she_ who bare Jesus the Messiah”.] We may also mention here the passage from the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ which Conybeare claims to be the true text of Mt. i. 16. The alleged quotation includes the text as given under (A) together with the words, “And Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ”.

II.

(1) Conybeare’s claim, mentioned above, has failed to win general acceptance. It is rejected by Schmiedel,(99) who justly asks, “How can we suppose that an evangelist deliberately added the second half to the first?” (col. 2961). Schmiedel’s view is that in the passage cited from the _Dialogue_ “it is precisely the youngest text and the oldest which have found a place peaceably side by side in one and the same line”. F. C. Burkitt’s theory probably gives the best explanation. He does not think that “_And Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ_” is meant to be a part of the quotation of Mt. i. 16, but is simply the inference of the Jew. “_The Jew quotes the Genealogy and then draws his inference, which is of course repudiated by the Christian disputant_” (p. 265). Accepting this view we may leave the supposed quotation outside our discussion. We may note, however, that, according to Burkitt, the second of two other quotations of Mt. i. 16 in the _Dialogue_ is interesting “as affording an actual proof that the phrase ‘_husband of Mary_’ was liable to change”. (p. 265).

(2) G. H. Box regards the _Curetonian Syriac_ as “an interpretation rather than a translation of the Greek text given us by the ‘Ferrar’ Group” (p. 216). Burkitt thinks it is “like an attempt to rewrite the text of _S_” (p. 263), but as he derives the _Syr.‐Sin._ from the same Group,(100) his opinion leads to the same result. Directly or indirectly _Syr.‐Cur._ is a witness for the text (B). As such its general character in Mt. i, ii needs to be taken into account. In i. 20 it has “thy betrothed” instead of “thy wife”. It omits “her husband” in i. 19. In i. 24 it substitutes “Mary” for “thy wife”. In i. 25 it shares with the _Diatessaron_ the reading “purely dwelling with her”, and it renders ἐκάλεσεν by “she called”. It is clear that its text is _dominated by a desire to assert unmistakably the historic fact of the Virgin Birth_.

(3) W. C. Allen takes the Greek text implied in the _Syr.‐Sin._ to be the true text of Mt. i. 16. Burkitt, as we have seen, derives it from (B). For the present it is important to consider _the __ character of the Syr.‐Sin. in relation to the Virgin Birth_. In i. 21, with the _Curetonian_, it adds the words, “to thee”. In i. 25 it omits “knew her not until”, and, as in the English versions, it renders ἐκάλεσεν by the masculine; in the same verse it also has the reading, “she bore him a son”. At first sight it would appear as if the tendency of the MS. is in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth; it is, however, very questionable if this is the case. It is not improbable that “he knew her not until” (omitted also by the Old Lat. _k_) is an interpolation in the First Gospel. Burkitt thinks that “to thee” in i. 21 appeared in the _Evangelion Da‐ Mepharreshe_, and that “him” is a “mere stylistic addition” in the _Syr.‐Sin._ When we add that this MS. includes Mt. i. 18‐25, and the parenthesis, “to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin”, in Mt. i. 16, it becomes impossible to suppose that its text is of “Ebionite origin”. Nor is it any more likely that it represents “the slip of a scribe”. It is too much of a piece with the entire representation of the MS., of which the most we can say is that it hardens the unique point of view which is characteristic of the Evangelist himself. Whether it represents the original ending of the Genealogy, in a form independent of, and earlier than, the First Gospel, is a point which may be left open, though the view is not one which otherwise finds support from the Genealogy, as it now appears in the Gospel.(101) In any case, _we ought very probably to reject the view that the Syr.‐Sin. in Mt. i. 16 asserts, or implies, the physical paternity of Joseph_. It clearly takes ᾧ to “refer to ἐγέννησεν as well as μνηστευθεῖσα” (Burkitt, p. 263), but, having regard to its character as a whole, the strong probability is that it interprets ἐγέννησεν in the same sense which it bears throughout the earlier links of the Genealogy, viz. of legal parentage (Allen, p. 8). _In this case the scribe who produced the Syr.‐Sin. has remained truer to the mind and spirit of the First Evangelist than any other early Christian writer we know._ Whether he has preserved the letter is more open to question.

(4) As regards the rendering (B), it is sufficient to say that the “Ferrar” Group and the Old Lat. MSS., while representing a text which differs from (A), _agree in affirming the Virgin Birth_. Some of them do so with emphasis (e.g. _c_ and _b_). All of them (except _q_) contain the word “Virgin”, but, with the exception of _c_ and _b_, the connexion between ᾧ (_cui_) and μνηστευθεῖσα (_desponsata_) is left ambiguous.

III.

We are left, then, with three readings, for each of which priority may be claimed (those we have indicated by (A) and (B), and that of the _Syr.‐Sin._ (C)). It is highly probable that (C) is derived from (B); but it may be well to leave this an open question, so as to have all the possibilities before us.

(1) _Can we, then, explain the textual facts already noticed, if we presume the originality of_ (A)?

It is certainly remarkable that, after using ἐγέννησεν in a legal sense throughout the earlier links of the Genealogy (Moffatt, Burkitt, Westcott, Box, Allen, Barnard, A. J. Maclean), the compiler should desert this practice, and use the verb of physical parentage (ἐγεννήθη) in the last link of the chain. The compiler, if we may say so, does not strike us as the kind of man who would have felt the need of this. It seems much more likely that, together with some qualifying clause in reference to Mary, he would have continued to employ ἐγέννησεν in the same sense to the end. This is conjecture; but (on the present theory) it is a conjecture supported by the procedure of the scribes who have produced (B). Their object (on the present supposition) will have been to remove the ambiguities of (A) in Mt. i. 16, so as to state the doctrine more clearly. We could understand, then, their objection to τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, and the change to ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα π. Μ. What is less easy to understand is the change from ἐγεννήθη to ἐγέννησεν. It is true that ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη is not without ambiguity, as the comment of the Jew in the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ shows.(102) But, if this was a ground of objection, why should the ambiguity be replaced by one that is much greater? As we have seen, the construction of (B) is singularly loose. It is this fact which has clearly invited the modifications represented in the _Syr.‐Cur._ and the Old Lat. MSS., and perhaps the _Syr.‐Sin._ itself. The reading (B) certainly does not commend itself as a doctrinal modification of (A). Further, the priority of (A) does not help us to account for (C). If, as we believe, (C) is derived from (B), it is needless to discuss the point. But apart from that theory of the origin of (C), our conclusion remains the same. We have seen how near in spirit the scribe of the _Syr.‐Sin._ was to the First Evangelist. Can we suppose, then, that he would have demurred to the words, τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας? It is very difficult to think so. For these reasons, in spite of its strong attestation, we find it impossible to presume the originality of (A).

(2) _We reach a similar conclusion, if we assume_ (B) _to be the true text of Mt. i. 16._ Its singular construction does not readily suggest the craftsmanship of the compiler of the Genealogy. It is true that we can give a very good account of (C) on the present assumption. We can adopt Burkitt’s suggestion, and regard it as a paraphrase of (B). But can we derive (A) from (B)? It would be reasonable to explain ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη as a correction of ἐγέννησεν by a believer who failed to understand the Evangelist’s point of view, and who desired a clearer reference to the Virgin Birth. But can we imagine a scribe, or an editor, motived in this way, replacing “to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary” by the words “the husband of Mary”? The question answers itself, and forbids the assumption of the priority of (B).

(3) _Can we, then_, accept Archdeacon Willoughby C. Allen’s view, and _find the true text in_ (C)?(103) It is quite possible, on this theory, to give a reasonable explanation of (B), but, as in the last case, the difficulty is to account for (A). We can follow the change from ἐγέννησεν to ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη, but the substitution of τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας for the parenthesis found in (C) remains as before an insuperable objection. At the same time Archdeacon Allen has laid down a true and a valuable principle when he writes: “The earliest Greek form was gradually altered from a desire to avoid words which, though in the intention of the writer they expressed legal parentage, not paternity, in fact, might be misunderstood by thoughtless readers” (p. 8).

Our results thus far are negative, but they are not barren. We have frankly to admit that _no extant reading, as a whole, commends itself as the original text of Mt. i. 16_. On the other hand, _we can form a reasonably good idea of what that text was like_. If we are to make any further advance, we must have recourse to _conjecture_. It is not at all impossible that future discoveries may enable us to travel upon firmer ground. Such a discovery as that of the _Syr.‐Sin._ MS. by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson in 1902 shows that this hope is not unreasonable. But meantime, unless we are content to acquiesce in a negative conclusion, we have no choice but to resort to conjecture. This does not mean a leap in the dark. It is in every way likely that parts of the true text are embedded in the extant readings, and it is by no means impossible that, taken together, these readings may contain the whole. _It may be, that is to say, that the true text of Mt. i. 16 has found its grave in the readings we possess._ Whether its resurrection can be accomplished is another question. But, in view of the general character of the true text, as indicated above, the attempt need not be foreclosed. Obviously, our results will be tentative, but they should be something more than dubious and uncertain in the extreme.

IV.

In attempting to reconstruct the true text of Mt. i. 16, we may venture the following suggestions:

(1) _We have very good ground for regarding_ τὸν. λ. Χ. _as part of the true text_ (though whether we read the nom. or the acc. depends upon whether we prefer ἐγεννήθη or ἐγέννησεν). Not only does this expression occur both in (A) and (B), but it is also one which we should naturally expect the Genealogy to contain. A Genealogy constructed to show the Messiahship of Jesus ends fittingly with the words “who is called Christ”.

(2) _It is very probable indeed that the original text included_ ἐγέννησεν and not ἐγεννήθη. (i) On this view, we can readily understand the misconceptions that would arise, and give a reasonable explanation of the textual variants which exist. (ii) As indicating legal parentage, the expression is not one from which we think the compiler would be likely to shrink. (iii) It is not easy to suppose that those who have employed ἐγέννησεν in the reading (B) would have used this form if they had not found it already in the text.

(3) _It is probable that Mt. i. 16 contained a reference to Mary._ This view is supported by the earlier references to women in the Genealogy. “It is inconceivable that the Evangelist, who thought it served the purpose that he had in hand to mention Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah’s wife, should leave the step containing Joseph bare” (Burkitt, p. 264).

(4) _Of the two qualifying clauses open to us_, τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας _is more likely to be the older_. (i) It is an expression such as we can easily suppose the First Evangelist would use (cf. Mt. i. 19). (ii) It safeguards the Virgin Birth; there would be no point in describing Joseph as “_the husband of Mary_” unless that expression bore some special meaning. (iii) In the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ we possess “actual proof” that the phrase was “liable to change” (Burkitt, quoted above, p. 106). (iv) The expression could easily be misunderstood at a time when the interest in the Davidic Sonship was no longer paramount. (v) In that case the phrase ᾧ μνηστ. π. Μ. would commend itself as a doctrinal modification. (vi) It would be altogether less easy to say this of τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας.

(5) _It is probable that Joseph was mentioned twice._ (i) This conclusion follows of necessity, if, as we have argued, ἐγέννησεν and not ἐγεννήθη is original. (ii) It is implied in the earlier steps of the Genealogy. (iii) It is attested by the _Syr.‐Sin._, and the omission of the second Ἰωσήφ in (A) and (B) is not difficult to explain (see later).

(6) _It is on the whole more probable that_ τὸν ἄνδρα Μ. _followed the first_ Ἰωσήφ _and not the second_. (i) This view is supported by the compiler’s method. “The practice of the writer is to interpose no words between the name and the verb ἐγέννησεν” (Burkitt, p. 263). (ii) This order enables us to give an explanation of the fact that both (A) and (B) omit the second Ἰωσήφ (see below).

Gathering together these several results, we obtain the following as the reconstructed text of Mt. i. 16:

Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας; Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν.

In addition to the reasons already given, we may also urge the fact that, with this text posited, we can give the simplest and least involved account of the origin of (A), (B), (C).

(1) The scribes who have produced (A) substituted the passive (ἐγεννήθη) for the active (ἐγέννησεν). This caused the second Ἰωσήφ to drop out, its place being taken by ἐξ ἧς “from whom” (fem.). Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγ. Χρ. followed as a grammatical change.

(2) All that the originators of (B) had to do was to substitute ᾧ μνηστ. π. Μ. for τὸν ἄνδρα Μ., and then, by omitting Ἰωσὴφ δέ, to leave Μ. as the subject of ἐγέννησεν.

(3) We may explain (C), with Burkitt, as derived from (B). The Syriac translator was not satisfied with the loose construction of (B). Taking ᾧ to refer to ἐγέννησεν as well as to μνηστευθεῖσα, he made the connexion clearer by inserting a second Ἰωσήφ as the subject of the verb. In taking this last step, he either returned unconsciously to part at least of the true reading, or had access to good Greek MSS. which we no longer possess.

It is of interest to compare the reading we have suggested as the original text of Mt. i. 16 with others which have been put forward. In discussing one of these possibilities, Sanday writes (_Outlines_, p. 200): “If we may suppose that the original text ran Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας ἣ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν, that would perhaps account for the two divergent lines of variants better than any other”. In spite of its advantages, this text suffers under two disadvantages from which the one we have preferred is free. (i) Not only is γεννάω used in a different sense from that which it has in the rest of the Genealogy, but it is _the very same form of the verb_ which is employed differently. (ii) The reading is too smooth and clear. Apart from the phrase τὸν ἄνδρα Μ. no loophole is left for misunderstanding, and so no sufficient starting‐point is provided for the subsequent textual variants.

Burkitt has instanced the reading we have preferred. In rejecting the view that the _Syr.‐Sin._ represents the true text, he writes (p. 264): “Had we such a text as Ἰακ. δὲ ἐγένν. τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας· Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ἐγέννησεν κτλ. the case would have been different”. In reference to this suggestion, however, Burkitt says, (i) the evidence does not point that way, (ii) in that case the _Syr.‐Sin._ would be further from the original than that of א B and Tertullian, (iii) _Syr.‐Sin._ and _k_ would “agree in a common corruption”, and we should have to speak of the “Western” text in the singular number.

The last point raises a large question which it is impossible to consider here. As regards the second objection, while in some respects (C) would be further from the original than (A), in other and more important respects it would be appreciably nearer. In its use of ἐγέννησεν it would be nearer to the original than any reading we possess. As regards the first objection, we have frankly to agree that the textual evidence does not point that way. We cannot point to a shred of MS. evidence to support the conjectured reading. A generation ago this would have been considered a fatal objection. But, in view of the freedom with which the text of the Gospels was handled during the first half of the second century, and which the textual variants illustrate, this objection can no longer be regarded as insuperable. So long as we restrict ourselves to the attested readings, the problem remains insoluble. If, then, we can reach a reasonable conclusion on other lines, we are free to do so. Doubtless, in default of attestation, we can describe our results as no more than tentative. But we have no desire to claim more. As the problem stands at present, the test to be applied is, What reading, conjectured or attested, furnishes the best explanation of the facts at our disposal?, it being remembered that these facts include, not only the textual variants, but also the unique character of the Genealogy itself. It may be, as we have suggested, that new discoveries await us. But, unless we have entirely misread the evidence we already possess, no discovery is to be expected which will completely transform the textual problem.

In conclusion, we may state certain propositions (apart from the question of the exact wording of the true text of Mt. i. 16) which have in their favour a high degree of probability.

(1) The readings which we have called (A) and (B) are independent attempts to alter the original text in the interests of the Virgin Birth; that is, they are “doctrinal modifications”.

(2) The reading of the Sinaitic Syriac is not unfavourable to the doctrine. It should no longer be spoken of as “the eccentric reading”, nor should we describe the translator as influenced by “heretical tendencies”.

(3) _The original text of Mt. i. 16 implied the Virgin Birth, but it was stated from the unique point of view reflected in the Genealogy itself._

(4) _The text was liable to misunderstanding, and the history of the textual variants is the history of that misunderstanding._