CHAPTER I. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE NEW TESTAMENT OUTSIDE THE FIRST AND

THIRD GOSPELS

Outside the First and Third Gospels there is no direct reference to the Virgin Birth in the New Testament. There are passages which have been said to imply a knowledge of the doctrine, but, for particularity of statement, none of them can be compared with Mt. i. 18‐25 and Lk. i. 34 f. This fact must be our justification in the present chapter for treating together the New Testament Books outside these two Gospels.

The inquiry is mainly a study in silence; it is for that reason both difficult and complicated.

Dr. Sanday has expressed considerable distrust in the argument from silence (cf. _The Criticism, of the Fourth Gospel_, pp. 33‐41). He quotes a striking passage from Dr. Drummond’s _Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (p. 157 f.), in which reference is made to Theophilus of Antioch, who, in a defence of Christianity, relates nothing about Christ Himself, and maintains a remarkable silence concerning the Gospels. The quotation ends with the words: “We may learn from these curious facts that it is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things, simply because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing: or even because he does not mention them when his subject would seem naturally to lead him to do so.” Dr. Sanday has two main objections to the way in which the argument from silence is often handled.

“(1) The critic does not ask himself _what_ is silent—what extent of material.... And (2) experience shows that the argument is often most fallacious” (op. cit., p. 35).

Nothing can be lost in considering this opinion at the outset of our inquiry. In the connexion in which it is urged, it has very great justification. Dr. Sanday is referring to the paucity of references to the Gospels in the second century previous to 170 A.D. The real question is, he says, “What is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the whole body of that which once existed, and how far can we trust the inferences drawn from it?” The available literature is confessedly small. “If we take the whole extant Christian literature between the years 130 and 170 A.D., it would not fill more than a thin octavo volume, and by far the greater part of that is taken up with external controversy” (ib., p. 39).

The caution suggested by these words is distinctly healthy. It may be questioned, however, whether Dr. Sanday’s point of view would apply quite so well as regards the alleged silence of so many New Testament Books with reference to the Virgin Birth. There are good reasons for this opinion.

(1) The existing New Testament Writings represent the best Christian literature of the period which they cover. No one would compare them in this respect with the extant works of the first seven decades of the second century.

(2) While not exhaustive in their treatment, the Gospels are faithful to the outstanding events in the life of Jesus.

(3) The Epistles are rich in doctrinal teaching. Occasional in point of origin, they impinge again and again upon the great doctrines of the Christian Faith. The Incarnation and the Person of Christ especially are central.

If, then, very many New Testament Writings are found to be silent as regards the Virgin Birth, the silence is not one which can be ignored. It may in part be explained, but it must not be explained away. If it exists, it is not a silence which can be regarded with equanimity; it must be significant, and no pains can be spared in trying to understand that significance.

We believe, then, that the _argumentum ex silentio_ has a valid place in our inquiry. All the more, therefore, must we consider what the possibilities of silence are. Obviously, silence may be consistent with knowledge of a fact or lack of knowledge. But that is not all. If it implies knowledge, it may mean tacit acceptance of the fact, tacit rejection, or comparative indifference. Lack of knowledge, on the other hand, may be explained by special circumstances, or by the view that the alleged fact is untrue.

In treating the New Testament Books outside the First and Third Gospels, our first task must be to determine whether their silence is complete. Where this is the case, we have to try, so far as we can, to interpret the silence. Each stage is, however, a further step into the unknown, and must therefore be taken with increasing care and caution.

I. St. Paul

We begin with ST. PAUL, the earliest New Testament writer, and the author of ten, if not thirteen, Epistles. Several passages have been quoted from his writings, in support of the view that the Virgin Birth tradition was known to him. Among these are Gal. iv. 4, Rom. i. 3, and passages in which St. Paul speaks of Christ as the Second Adam, notably Rom. v. 12‐15 and 1 Cor. xv. 47.

Gal. iv. 4 f. reads as follows: _But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons_. It is most improbable that there is here any reference to the Virgin Birth, or even any indication that the doctrine is known to St. Paul. The phrase “_born of a woman_” is one that is used naturally of an ordinary human birth (cf. Job xiv. 1; and Mt. xi. 11 (Lk. vii. 28) “among them that are born of women”). The determining consideration is, however, the argument of Gal. iv. 1‐7. St. Paul is there working out the figure of the heir who is yet a minor (verses 1, 2). While we were children, he argues, we were in bondage (verse 3). But, when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son to redeem men from the law. To accomplish this purpose, the Son must needs make Himself one with those He came to deliver. Like them He must be “born under the law”; like them He must be “born of a woman”. The one clause asserts His position as a child of the Jewish race; the other declares the reality of His humanity. There is not the slightest suggestion of a miraculous birth.(1) Indeed, the more natural impression made by the words is that of a birth common to all the sons of men. If St. Paul had wished to avoid giving that impression, he could have done so with ease, since he was perfectly familiar with the distinction between γυνή (woman) and παρθένος (virgin) (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 34).

Rom. i. 3 f. reads: “... _his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead_.” Here the thought of the Virgin Birth is said to lie implicit in the opening words of the passage (cf. Orr, _The Virgin Birth of Christ_, pp. 119 ff.; also Knowling, _Testimony of St. Paul to Christ_, p. 313; and Sweet, _The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ_, p. 237 n.). Again, the exegesis cannot be allowed. St. Paul’s words state an antithesis; they speak of the Son from two standpoints, that of the body and that of the spirit (SH., Rom., p. 7). “According to the flesh”, He was “born (γενομένον) of the seed of David”, but, “according to the spirit of holiness”, He was designated (ὁρισθέντος) Son of God “by the resurrection of the dead”. It is very difficult to think that the antithesis would have been stated in this way, if the Apostle had been thinking of the Virgin Birth. “Born of the seed of David” contains no reference to the doctrine. The Divine Sonship, indeed, is not mentioned until the following clause, and there it is said to be predicated, not in the Virgin Birth, but in the Resurrection. Without pressing the view that “according to the flesh born of the seed of David” implies an ordinary human birth, we may certainly claim that the Miraculous Conception is a thought entirely foreign to the passage.

A further implication of the doctrine has been found in St. Paul’s thought of _the Second Adam_ (Rom. v. 12‐21, 1 Cor. xv. 44‐9). In _Dissertations_ (new ed., p. 11), Dr. Gore writes: “What we can maintain, with great boldness, is that St. Paul’s conception of the ‘Second Adam’ postulates His miraculous birth” (cf. Box, _The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 150). In a question of this kind, we must distinguish between what the doctrine of the “Second Adam” may or may not “postulate” in our own minds, and what St. Paul’s thoughts may have been. Certainly he gives us no reason to suppose that the Virgin Birth was in the background of his mind when he wrote Rom. v. 12‐21.(2) There would be as much justification, if not more, for the contrary suggestion. So far as 1 Cor. xv. 44‐9 is concerned—(verse 47 reads: “_The second man is of heaven_”)—the reference is to the Resurrection, not the Incarnation.(3)

None of these passages is sufficient to show that St. Paul was acquainted with the Virgin Birth tradition, nor can any others be cited. This fact is the more remarkable when we call to mind the great Pauline passages which bear upon the Incarnation. With the closest scrutiny, not one of them gives us reason to think that the Apostle knew of the Virgin Birth. This is true of the great Christological passage of Phil. ii. 5‐11, and also of the well‐known words of 2 Cor. viii. 9. Most significant in this connexion are Phil. ii. 7 (“_Being made in the likeness of man_”) and Rom. viii. 3 (which speaks of the Son as sent “_in the likeness of sinful flesh_”). These passages are important because they clearly imply a difference between the humanity of Christ and ordinary humanity. This difference—indicated by the word “likeness” (ὁμοίωμα)—is certainly not a difference in mode of origin. Its character is manifest in Rom. viii. 3; it lies in the sinlessness and moral perfection of Jesus.(4) There is no indication that the Apostle is thinking of anything further, and the same is true of Phil. ii. 7. Viewing the passages as a whole, we must conclude that, not only is St. Paul completely silent as to the Virgin Birth, but that he is silent just where his silence is most difficult to understand, if he knew of the tradition.

Can we go further, and say that St. Paul did not know of the doctrine? Short of a hard and fast conclusion, we are at liberty to state what would seem to be the probabilities of the case; and as regards these we can have little hesitation. It is reasonable to urge that St. Paul would have phrased his references to the Incarnation somewhat differently, if he had known of the Virgin Birth, and that, on the whole, his words are best explained by presuming his ignorance of the tradition.

W. C. Allen has suggested that St. Paul’s silence may have been due to reasons of prudence. He may have thought that the tradition would prove “a great stumbling‐block to the progress of Christianity, and a continual source of wounded feeling for the reverence of Christians for the Person of their Master” (ICC., St. Mt., p. 20). It is possible that this argument might go some way to explain the absence of direct allusions to the Virgin Birth in St. Paul’s writings. It might cover his failure to employ the tradition as “an argument for Christianity in his preaching to the Gentiles”. But, assuredly, the theory is stretched to breaking‐point, if it is made to cover the absence of the slightest indication that the doctrine was present to St. Paul’s mind. For the most part, St. Paul’s Epistles were not public manifestoes, but private letters, written to Christian communities. Moreover, they are intensely self‐revealing. They permit us to appreciate how much St. Paul knew of the words and deeds of Jesus, and of the events of His earthly life. That they reveal no knowledge of the Virgin Birth is hardly to be explained by a policy of silence. Unless, on other grounds, it can be shown that the tradition was known in Apostolic circles during St. Paul’s lifetime, his silence must be interpreted to mean lack of knowledge concerning it.

This conclusion, if established, would not, of course, be fatal to the historical value of the Virgin Birth tradition. Special reasons might be forthcoming to account for the later spread of the belief. The importance of St. Paul’s silence is that it furnishes help in deciding when the belief became current.

A further inference, of considerable theological importance, is that the Apostle could build up a mature and consistent Christology, without any reference to, and apparently, thought of the Miraculous Conception.

II. Q

Q (Quelle, “source”) is the symbol used to denote the main documentary source, upon which the First and Third Evangelists drew, in addition to St. Mark’s Gospel. As regards its character, there is difference of opinion. Some scholars identify it with the Matthaean Logia of which Papias speaks; others regard the latter as an independent collection of Messianic proof‐texts. By some it is thought to have been a Gospel; by others it is looked upon as a collection of the Sayings of Jesus, with a certain element of narrative. Wellhausen dates it later than Mk., but most scholars think that it is earlier, and date it from the sixties and in some cases from the fifties.(5)

As regards the Virgin Birth, it is almost certain that Q did not contain the tradition. Harnack thinks that Q’s narrative of the Baptism, with its use of Ps. ii. 7, “excludes all ideas of pre‐existence and miraculous birth” (_Sayings of Jesus_, p. 235), and J. M. Thompson, who quotes this opinion, finds in the Baptist’s question, “Art thou he that cometh?”,(6) a passage which it is “hard to reconcile ... with Lk.’s story of the Birth, as generally interpreted” (_Miracles_, p. 140). What is more important than either of these arguments, is the fact that neither the First nor the Third Evangelist drew a Virgin Birth tradition from Q. The presumption is that Q was silent as regards the Virgin Birth,(7) but in view of the fact that it probably contained only a small element of narrative, we ought not to say more.(8)

III. St. Mark’s Gospel

In treating ST. MARK’S GOSPEL, our first task is to ask if its silence is complete. This leads at once to a discussion of Mk. vi. 3: “_Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary...?_”

Parentage among the Jews was traced on the father’s side. The passage may therefore imply that Joseph was already dead. Archdeacon Allen thinks that “son of Mary” is “more naturally an allusion to the supernatural circumstances of the birth of Jesus” (ICC., St. Mt., p. 156).(9) Without going so far as this, Canon Box thinks that there is something “decidedly remarkable and unusual” in the phrase, and suggests that it is probably contemptuous (op. cit., p. 139).

However we explain the phrase, we ought not to interpret Mk. vi. 3 as implying a knowledge of the Virgin Birth on the part of the people of Nazareth. Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22 directly exclude this view.(10) “Who would allude to the miraculous birth of somebody _as a reason for not believing in him_?” (Thompson, ib., p. 138 n.).

But did the Evangelist know of the Virgin Birth? Has a knowledge of the doctrine shaped his phrasing in Mk. vi. 3? The question is complicated by critical considerations. It is suggested by several scholars that the passage, in whole or in part, is a later addition to the Second Gospel.(11) There is much to be said for this view, but, so far as our immediate purpose is concerned, we have no need to discuss it in detail. On either view—that of the critical theory just mentioned, or that which attributes the passage to the Evangelist—it is improbable that St. Mark intended to refer to the Virgin Birth, or was influenced by the doctrine. On the interpolation‐hypothesis, this is obvious enough, but it is also true if Mk. vi. 3 is original. The suggestions that Joseph was already dead, and that a certain contempt breathes in the words, have great force. We may also note that the passage goes on to refer to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, with no suggestion that the relationship was other than full and complete. But what is most telling of all is the fact that, if Mk. vi. 3 does imply St. Mark’s knowledge of the Virgin Birth, both St. “Matthew” and St. Luke, in their own narratives, have destroyed the reference. This is all the more remarkable if the First Evangelist’s treatment of Mk. vi. 3 is motived by reverence for the Person of Jesus.(12) Finally, can we suppose that St. Mark would have placed his sole reference to the Virgin Birth in the lips of unbelieving Jews who speak with thinly veiled contempt? For these reasons, we find it impossible to discover in Mk. vi. 3 a reference to the Virgin Birth by St. Mark; the Evangelist’s silence is unbroken.

Was, then, the tradition unknown to St. Mark?

Several passages have been cited in support of the contention that St. Mark had no knowledge of the doctrine. Among these is Mk. iii. 21, 31‐5 (cf. Mt. xii. 46‐50; Lk. viii. 19‐21). The story of Mk. iii. 31‐5 is that of the coming of Mary and of the brothers of Jesus, while our Lord is surrounded by a crowd, apparently in a house. When Jesus is informed that they are without seeking Him, He says, “Who is my mother and my brethren?”, and looking round upon the assembled company, He continues, “Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother”. The account in Mt. is almost identical, and St. Luke’s story, while much briefer, is substantially the same. But St. Mark’s narrative must be read in the light of Mk. iii. 21 (cf. Gould, ICC., St. Mk., pp. 61, 67)—a passage which is omitted in Mt. and in Lk. There, we are told that the friends of Jesus (οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, probably “His kinsmen”) went out to lay hold on Him, in the belief that He was mad. This fact must unquestionably be held to explain the action of the family of Jesus in the incident of Mk. iii. 31‐5, and the question arises, Did Mary share in the fears and intentions of the rest?(13)

A second passage is Mk. vi. 4, where Jesus declares that a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. The phrase “_among his own kin_”, which both Mt. (xiii. 57) and Lk. (iv. 24) omit, is said to point in the same direction as Mk. iii. 21, 31‐5.(14) A third incident adduced is that recorded in Mk. xii. 35‐7 (Mt. xxii. 41‐6; Lk. xx. 41‐4), where Jesus raises the question, how the Messiah can be at once David’s Son and David’s Lord. “Here again”, writes Mr. Thompson, “Jesus assumes the reality of that human parentage on which His Davidic descent relies.... Thus it appears that on three separate occasions (and there are no others) when Jesus, according to the earliest Gospel, spoke about His birth, He used language naturally compatible with human parentage, and not naturally compatible with anything else” (op. cit., p. 138).

It will be seen that these passages raise more than the question whether St. Mark knew of the Virgin Birth. They raise the question of the knowledge of Jesus, and indeed the whole question of the historical character of the Miraculous Conception.

Clearly, the question of the knowledge of Jesus is a determinative consideration. Few indeed will care to argue for the Virgin Birth tradition, if it can be proved that Jesus knew nothing of it, but believed Himself to be the son of Joseph. Just for this very reason we ought to be scrupulously careful in treating the question. A scientific inquiry will hesitate to draw an inference which makes further research superfluous. And in the present case hesitation is amply justified. We cannot share Mr. Thompson’s conviction that the words of Jesus acknowledge a natural parentage. (1) Such exegesis must suffer an obvious discount if we find that the _Evangelist_ knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. (2) We cannot be certain that Mary shared the fears and intentions of her children. (3) We do not know the tone in which Jesus spoke, nor can we be sure that He intended to repudiate His family. It may be so; but our opinion on these matters must rest upon what we believe about the Virgin Birth; the evidence is too uncertain to reverse the process.

As regards the Evangelist, we may say at once that we could account much more easily for the passages cited, if St. Mark did not know of the doctrine. But it is doubtful if we can say more, so long as we confine ourselves to what St. Mark has actually written.

There is little difficulty in the third passage (Mk. xii. 35‐7), since both Mt. and Lk. repeat it without material variation. Nor is there the force claimed in the phrase “among his own kin” (Mk. vi. 4). In any case Mt. has the words “in his own house”, and probably the omission of the former phrase is sufficiently explained by the writer’s tendency to remove redundant expressions in Mk.(15) While in the case of St. Luke, we have to remember that abbreviation is a common feature in his use of Markan material.

The real difficulty lies in Mk. iii. 21, 31‐5. Something more than a desire for brevity must account for the later Evangelists’ treatment of this story. Mary’s position and attitude are certainly left very ambiguous in the light of Mk. iii. 21. In the subsequent story St. Mark does not distinguish her from the rest (iii. 31‐5). In short, he leaves her open to the charge of having thought her Son distraught and in need of restraint. Ought we to find in this proof that St. Mark had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth? Our hesitation in drawing this conclusion arises out of the “objectivity” of St. Mark’s writing. Frequently, he does not hesitate to introduce details, to which, for various reasons, St. “Matthew” and St. Luke took exception. He does not appear to feel the difficulties which the later writers felt. We could not, therefore, attach the same significance to an “inconsistency” in Mk., as in Lk., or in Mt. For this reason, we think that, while Mk. iii. 21, 31‐5 raises very great difficulties, the passage is not sufficient in itself to prove that St. Mark knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. We may say that the passage points in this direction, but that the inference requires further confirmation. Can this be found? We believe that it can be found in the broad fact of St. Mark’s silence.

There is much greater significance in St. Mark’s silence than is sometimes allowed. Why should he, as an Evangelist, remain silent about the Virgin Birth, if he knew of it, and believed in it? The deep interest which he takes in the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism, and his evident intention to describe this event as a crucial moment in the life of Jesus, set up a strong presumption that, had he known of the Miraculous Conception, he would have introduced it into his narrative. There is no sufficient analogy in his silence about other events in the life of Jesus which later writers record; no omission can be compared with this. Nor will reasons of prudence account for his silence; the Second Gospel is probably too late for this argument to have weight. There is still less force in the suggestion that St. Mark’s intention was to describe only the public ministry of Jesus. This solution evades the difficulty, and comes perilously near to saying that St. Mark does not record the Virgin Birth tradition because he does not record it! The Second Gospel describes not only the death and burial of Jesus, but also the visit of the women to the tomb, and probably, in its original ending, some of the Post‐Resurrection Appearances of Jesus. These facts are enough to show how inadequate it would be to describe the Gospel as an account of the public ministry of Jesus.

Having regard to all the facts of the case, the probability is that St. Mark’s silence must be explained on the ground that the Evangelist had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition. The further implication is that it formed no part of Apostolic preaching, and was unknown in the circles in which St. Mark moved. These conclusions cannot, of course, be hardened into certainties; they move in the realms of what is probable. Instead of being capable of refuting other considerations which might arise, they themselves require further confirmation.

IV. Acts

There is no reference to the Virgin Birth, either direct of indirect, in THE ACTS. The presumption is that the doctrine had no place in Apostolic preaching.(16) This view is suggested, not only by the silence of Acts, but also by the character of its Christology.

Christ is spoken of as Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by mighty works and wonders and signs (ii. 22), and as one who was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit, and with power, who went about doing good (x. 38). He is the Holy and Righteous One (iii. 14), the Prince of Life (iii. 15), whom God made both Lord and Christ (ii. 36). He is exalted to the right hand of God, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins (v. 31).

In all this, the main ground of appeal is to the Resurrection (ii. 24, 32, iii. 15, iv. 10).(17) The reference to the miracles of Jesus (ii. 22, x. 38) is “the only direct and concrete allusion to the events of His earthly life”.(18) Even where the Davidic descent is mentioned (ii. 25 f., xiii. 23, 33), there is no suggestion other than that of direct physical lineage (“Of this man’s seed hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus”, xiii. 23).

Does the silence of Acts permit us to draw any inferences concerning St. Luke’s knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition? The question ought to be considered apart altogether from Lk. i, ii. Having regard to the character of the work we do not think that any one conclusion can safely be drawn. The Acts obviously differs from the Gospels, and we cannot, as in the case of the Pauline Epistles, look to it for any sufficient account of the writer’s Christology. It would therefore be unsafe to say that the silence of Acts implies that its author had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth.(19) If the doctrine was not a subject of Apostolic preaching, St. Luke must have known this: his silence may therefore be due to a sound historical sense. If, at the time when he wrote the Acts, his knowledge of the tradition had not long been gained, he would be still less likely to perpetrate what would have been an historical anachronism. On the other hand, we cannot, on the evidence of the Acts alone, show that he did know of the doctrine, and that the possibilities just stated represent the facts. The case is one in which the _argumentum ex silentio_ would be untrustworthy in either direction. It should be emphasized that this view springs entirely out of the character of the book, and in no way affects the use of the argument we have made in the case of Mk. and the Epistles of St. Paul.

V. The Epistle to the Hebrews

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS claims attention because of the developed character of its doctrine of the Person of Christ, and because its writer, while not an eye‐witness (ii. 3), has a vivid knowledge of many events in the earthly life of Jesus. As regards the Virgin Birth, the Epistle is completely silent. In the comparison with Melchizedek (vii. 1‐3), no stress can be laid on the fact that the latter is described as “without father”; he is also “without mother” and “without genealogy”. The reference to the descent of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (vii. 14) is left quite bare. Even the statements concerning the sinlessness of Christ (iv. 15, vii. 26), and the lofty characterization of the Son as “the effulgence” of God’s glory and “the very impress of his substance” (i. 3), are made without a word as to the method of the Incarnation. It is difficult to read the Epistle without feeling that the writer’s thought is nowhere influenced by the Virgin Birth. Especially is this the case in such passages as ii. 14 (“_Since then the children are sharers_ (κεκοινώνηκεν) _in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of_ (μετέσχεν) _the same_”),(20) and ii. 17 (“_It behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren_”). Two considerations forbid, however, the drawing of this conclusion. We have no certain knowledge of the writer’s identity, and we have no other work from his pen with which to compare the Epistle. Its significance is therefore mainly theological; it is an instance of an elaborate doctrinal writing,(21) coming possibly from the seventh decade of the first century, or, more probably, from about the year 80 A.D., in which no reference of any kind is made to the Miraculous Conception. This fact, however it is explained, cannot be ignored, and the later we date the Epistle the more important it becomes.

VI. The Fourth Gospel

The silence of THE FOURTH GOSPEL regarding the Virgin Birth is now generally admitted;(22) the only question being whether there is not a passing reference to the doctrine in Jn. i. 13.(23)

What the writer’s silence means is one of the most difficult problems in the question of the Virgin Birth. The case is different from any we have yet considered. For the doctrine of the Virgin Birth must have been perfectly well known to the Fourth Evangelist. He was well acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels,(24) and there can be little doubt but that he read Lk. i, ii, and Mt. i, ii, in the form in which we have them to‐day. That he knew of the tradition is further confirmed by the fact that, so early probably as _c._ 110 A.D., the Epistles of Ignatius contain several references to the doctrine (Eph. xviii. 2; xix. 1; Magn. 11; Tr. ix). The difficulty is further increased by the freedom with which the Evangelist treats the Synoptics. “On the one hand their contents are very largely assumed; and on the other hand the author does not hesitate, where he thinks it necessary, to correct them.... The author evidently felt himself at liberty to select just those incidents which suited his purpose” (Sanday, _The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_, p. 71).

As the problem is usually treated, the silence of the Fourth Gospel is said to mean either “tacit rejection” or “tacit acceptance” of the tradition. It may be questioned, however, if these alternatives sufficiently cover the possibilities of the case. “Tacit rejection” under any circumstances means repudiation of the doctrine. But “tacit acceptance” may mean anything from comparative indifference to whole‐ hearted assent.

As containing the sharper issue, the case for “tacit rejection” may be considered first. Among the arguments in favour of this view, we may note the following:—

(1) Certain passages seem to require this position. In i. 45 Jesus is described by Philip as “_the son of Joseph_”, and in vi. 42 the Jews at Capernaum ask the question: “_Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?_” Three times, moreover, controversy turns on the question of the birthplace of Jesus. The Jews look for the birthplace of the Messiah at Bethlehem (“Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem?”, vii. 42), or they regard it as unknown (“When the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is”, vii. 27), and the objection is raised that Jesus is of Galilee (i. 45, vii. 41 f., 52). Nowhere does the Evangelist expose the futility of the controversy by a reference to Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. On the contrary (it is said), he himself believed Nazareth to be the birthplace, and must thus have rejected the tradition of Mt. i, ii.

(2) Instead of directly repudiating a particular Synoptic narrative, the Fourth Evangelist’s method is silently to set it aside by preferring another tradition or view. Is not his preference for his own Incarnation theory a tacit repudiation of the Virgin Birth tradition?

Of these arguments the second can be allowed only if we can show that the Evangelist looked upon the two doctrines, that of the Virgin Birth and that of the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, as contradictory and mutually exclusive. It is not possible, however, to prove this, and to assume it is to beg the question. The stronger argument is the first. It is certainly difficult to show that the language of i. 45 and vi. 42 is that of Philip and the Jews respectively, and that it does not reflect the Evangelist’s point of view. In the Fourth Gospel we are often unable to assume that the writer intends to give the _ipsissima verba_ of those who speak. Are i. 45 and vi. 42 cases in point, or are they exceptions? The question is not an easy one to decide, unless, of course, we have satisfied ourselves that the Fourth Gospel is an entirely unhistorical work. In this case, i. 45 and vi. 42 will represent the Evangelist’s opinions. But, on this view, we have largely forfeited our right to appeal to the Fourth Gospel in treating the question of the Virgin Birth on its historical side. We cannot have it both ways. If the Fourth Gospel shows a pronounced disregard of history, it is not permissible to draw historical arguments from it. It will have (on this view) an important bearing on the historical question from the theological side; but, as a primary historical authority, it must disappear. If, on the other hand, we admit—as we have good reason to admit—the presence of a considerable element of valuable historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel, it is by no means certain that i. 45 and vi. 42 represent the Evangelist’s views. As in the case of Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22, these passages may indicate contemporary opinions and no more. This view is less easy to hold in the case of i. 45 and vi. 42 than it is in respect of the Synoptic passages; but it is a possibility not lightly to be set aside. And if this is so, we cannot with confidence urge that in i. 45 and vi. 42 the Fourth Evangelist repudiates the Virgin Birth.

As regards the passages which connect Jesus with Nazareth and Galilee, it is not necessary to infer that the writer looked upon the town as the birthplace of our Lord. His silence regarding Bethlehem is strange, but it does not compel us to conclude that he is rejecting the tradition bound up with Mt. i, ii, as Mr. Thompson thinks (op. cit., p. 158).(25) The more important fact is that the Evangelist does not name _any town_, not even Nazareth, as the birthplace of the Eternal Word.

The view that the Fourth Evangelist tacitly rejects the Virgin Birth fails to justify itself on internal grounds. It is also opposed by considerations of an _external_ character. It is from the locality in which probably the Fourth Gospel arose, that we have the earliest references to the Virgin Birth outside the New Testament. Ignatius, according to Dr. Moffatt (INT., p. 211), seems “to fuse the Johannine idea of the incarnation with the synoptic birth‐stories”. If this is so, the fact does not compel us to suppose that the Fourth Evangelist would have done the same; but it raises a strong presumption against the view that he explicitly rejected the tradition.

Must we then suppose that the Evangelist’s silence means “tacit acceptance” of the doctrine? Obviously, the failure to prove “tacit rejection” tells so far in the opposite direction. But, as we have seen, “tacit acceptance” is a very elastic term; it calls, therefore, for closer consideration.

It can scarcely be shown that the Fourth Evangelist accepts the Virgin Birth in the same way in which it is held in Mt. i, ii. There is no sufficient answer to this assertion in the plea that the story had been already told, and that the Evangelist’s purpose was to supplement the Synoptic narratives. This is a view of the Fourth Gospel which cannot be carried through. It is better to suppose that the Evangelist’s omission of the Virgin Birth tradition has a more definite meaning, even though we reject the view that its significance is silent repudiation of the doctrine. We have also to find a place in our solution of the problem for the difficulties left over in i. 45 and vi. 42, and in the Evangelist’s failure to name the birthplace of Jesus. In other words, arguments insufficient to prove “tacit rejection” cannot on that account be ignored. They must rather be held to condition the sense in which we speak of “tacit acceptance”.

The Evangelist’s silence regarding the Virgin Birth can only be understood when it is considered along with his other notable “omissions”. It is one of “a whole series of episodes, cardinal to the Synoptic story” (Scott, _Fourth Gospel_, p. 42). This series includes the Genealogy, the Virgin Birth, the Baptism, the Temptation, the Transfiguration, the Supper, the Agony, the Ascension. The true explanation is probably that given by Dr. E. F. Scott: “These remarkable omissions ... cannot be due to oversight or to the leaving out of what was non‐essential. Without doubt they have been made deliberately, in view of certain theories and presuppositions with which the writer approached his subject” (ib., p. 42 f.). These words set us on the right track. The Evangelist’s silence does not mean that he rejected the Virgin Birth tradition. The Synoptic birth‐stories were more probably accepted by him “as a part of the orthodox tradition, in which, as a member of the Church, he acquiesced” (ib., p. 188). His doctrinal sympathies, however, lay in another direction. It may be that at the time when he first heard of the Virgin Birth tradition, his doctrine of the Incarnate Word had already shaped itself in his mind. Jesus Christ was the Eternal Son of God, the Word made flesh, who became incarnate by His own voluntary act. The fact that his own theological scheme was already developed, together with its specific character,(26) may well account for his neglect of the Virgin Birth. _He does not deny the story, but his own Christology has superior spiritual attractions._

It will be seen that this theory leaves little room for difficulties arising from such passages as i. 45 and vi. 42, and explains at once the Evangelist’s attitude to the question of the birthplace of Jesus. On the one hand, the doctrinal presuppositions of the Virgin Birth were not operative in his mind; on the other hand, in the light of his doctrine of the Logos, the difficulties mentioned would scarcely be felt. The Jewish controversies must have seemed to him so much playing with words. What did it matter where the Word became flesh? What did it matter if men called Him Joseph’s son?

Our conclusion, then, is that the Fourth Evangelist tacitly accepts the Virgin Birth, but gives it no place in his doctrinal system. With the theological significance of this result we are not now concerned. Our present interest is rather in its historical implications. On the positive side, it yields little; on the negative side, its importance is greater. It is not permissible to argue against the Virgin Birth tradition on the ground that the Fourth Evangelist rejected it. We may go further and say that, having regard to his evident preoccupation with the Logos‐doctrine, it may not even be safe to make too much of the fact that he ignored the tradition.

VII. The Pastoral and the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse

Of the New Testament Writings, other than the First and Third Gospels, there remain THE PASTORAL AND THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE. Whether _the Pastoral Epistles_ are the work of St. Paul or not, their silence regarding the Virgin Birth cannot be pressed. 1 Tim. iii. 16 (probably a fragment from an early Christian hymn) may or may not be significant in its silence; but, in either direction, the inference would be unsafe. These writings are much too brief and restricted in subject‐ matter to leave room for the argument from silence. The same view is also true of _the Catholic Epistles_. _The Apocalypse_ contains one passage (xii) which has been thought to indicate the writer’s knowledge of the doctrine,(27) but the inference is far from being certain, and, in any case, in view of the date of the Book, it would add nothing to our knowledge which cannot be learnt more clearly elsewhere.

VIII. Summary

We may summarize the historical results reached in the present chapter as follows:—

1. _There is no certain instance of a New Testament writer who knew of the Virgin Birth tradition, and yet repudiated it._ It is more than doubtful if an exception can be found even in the case of the Fourth Gospel, though the Evangelist makes no doctrinal use of the tradition. If the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews knew of the doctrine, the same is probably true of that writer also.

2. _The doctrine had no place in the subject‐matter of Apostolic preaching._ This view is supported by all the available evidence. The silence of the Pauline Epistles, of the Acts, and of the Second Gospel can be explained in no other way.

3. _The tradition was not a matter of public knowledge during the period covered in common by the Pauline Epistles, the Second Gospel, and Q._

4. _It is also probable that the same conclusion should be extended to the period covered by the Second Gospel alone, if this Book is dated later than St. Paul’s lifetime, as it usually is._

Until we have examined the Virgin Birth tradition reflected in the First and Third Gospels, it would not be right to discuss these results further, except to say that an historical argument against the Virgin Birth based on these conclusions alone would be precarious. The chief importance of the results reached is the help they furnish in deciding when belief in the Virgin Birth first became current.