The
Virgin Birth of Christ
BEING LECTURES DELIVERED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE BIBLE TEACHERS’ TRAINING SCHOOL
NEW YORK, APRIL 1907
by
by J. Gresham Machen
Professor of apologetics and systematic theology
in the United Free Church College
GLASCOW SCOTLAND
WITH APPENDIX
GIVING OPINIONS OF LIVING SCHOLARS
“Thou didn’t not abhor the Virgin’s womb.”
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
NEW YORK ...... 1907
COPYRIGHT 1907
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
______
Published September, 1907
Table of Contents
Preface
Introduction
I. The Virgin Birth in the Second Century
II. The Birth Narrative an Original Part of the Third Gospel
III. Characteristics of the Lucan Narrative
IV. The Hymns of the First Chapter of Luke
V. The Origin and Transmission of the Lucan Narrative
VI. The Integrity of the Lucan Narrative
VII. The Narrative in Matthew
VIII. The Relation Between the Narratives
IX. The Inherent Credibility of the Narratives
X. The Birth Narratives and Secular History
XI. The Birth Narratives and the Rest of the New Testament
XII. Alternative Theories: Preliminary Considerations
XIII. The Theory of Jewish Derivation
XIV. The Theory of Pagan Derivation
XV. Conclusion and Consequences Index
APPENDIX
APPENDIX II
The Hymns of the First Chapter of Luke
The Origin of the First Two Chapters of Luke
The Virgin Birth in the Second Century
Matthew 1:16 and the Virgin Birth
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
This book may be regarded as containing in substance, though not in form, the Thomas Smyth Lectures which the author had the honor of delivering at Columbia Theological Seminary in the spring of 1927. The subject is here treated with much greater fullness than was possible in the lectures as they were delivered, and use is made of certain special studies which have been published from time to time in The Princeton Theological Review—particularly "The Virgin Birth in the Second Century," "The Hymns of the First Chapter of Luke," and "The Origin of the First Two Chapters of Luke," which appeared in 1912, and "The Integrity of the Lucan Narrative of the Annunciation," which appeared in 1927. The author is greatly indebted to John E. Meeter, Th.M., to whose careful scrutiny of the proof and correction of references and quotations the book owes much of whatever accuracy it may have attained. Profit has been received from Mr. Meeter's suggestions at many points. J. G. M. 1930.1
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
In this second edition, typographical errors have been corrected; additional references to recent discussion have been inserted here and there; and a number of other slight changes have been made. Page 121 has been partly re-written. The author is grateful to his brother, Arthur W. Machen, Jr., and to others who have made helpful suggestions.
It is impossible to comment here in any detail upon the way in which the book has been received; but in general it may be said that even those reviewers who disagree sharply with the author's position have for the most part been generous in according to the book at least some value as a compendium of information. The author is encouraged by such recognition, since he believes that truth is furthered by full and open debate.
If the book presents any distinctive feature, it is to be found, perhaps, in the argument for the integrity of the Lucan narrative which is contained in Chapter VI. That argument cannot, indeed, advance any particular claim to originality: even the stress which it lays upon the parallelism between the [[@Page:viii]] accounts of the annunciations to Zacharias and to Mary has been anticipated, as is indicated on pp. 152, 158, by other writers; and to the references there made should be added V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, ii, 1909, p. 226. But the somewhat comprehensive presentation of the argument may, we hope, produce a certain cumulative effect.
At any rate, whatever distinctiveness there may be or may not be in this presentation of the argument, we do not think that the argument has been successfully answered. A careful literary criticism does, we think, in an extraordinarily decisive way, show that the belief in the virgin birth is an integral part of the Palestinian narrative underlying Lk. 1:5–2:52; and this fact has an important bearing upon the ultimate historical question as to the origin of the belief.
Our argument at this point has, indeed, been subjected to an able and extended criticism by Ferd. Kattenbusch, in an article entitled "Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu als Haggada der Urchristologie (Zu J. Gr. Machen, The virgin birth of Christ)", in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, cii, 1930, pp. 454–474. The distinguished church historian, after certain bibliographical suggestions which we have found very useful in the preparation of the present edition, and after an exceedingly sympathetic and generous treatment of the book as a whole (despite disagreement with its main thesis), has here given renewed expression to essentially the same view as that which he adumbrated in 1900 in his comprehensive monograph on the Apostles' Creed. Two stages, he still maintains, are to be distinguished in the formation of the Lucan birth narrative. In the former stage, there was still no thought of a birth without human father, but the Spirit of God was regarded merely as connected with the very being of Jesus the Messiah in a peculiarly intimate way that could not be predicated of the Spirit's connection with any prophet. In the later stage, which appears with clearness only in the words, "seeing I know not a man," in Lk. 1:34b, there was at least a suggestion of the virgin birth.
In reply to this article, the reader may still be referred to pp. 156–160, 317–319, below. Some parts of these pages would no doubt have to be re-written if the later rather than the earlier presentation of Dr. Kattenbusch's hypothesis were in view. For example, what is said on p. 318 regarding the doctrine of the preëxistence of Jesus does not apply to the recent article; and it should be observed also that Dr. Kattenbusch now suggests that in the formation of the idea of the virgin birth pagan stories of supernatural births, in addition to Is. 7:14, may have had a part, though only in providing a stimulus by way of contrast and not in providing anything like genuine models for the [[@Page:ix]] Christian story. But, in the first place, the earlier form of the hypothesis is still interesting, both in itself and because of its effects upon subsequent criticism; and, in the second place, the main outlines of our objections to Dr. Kattenbusch's view remain as they were before. Particularly unconvincing, we are compelled to think, is what he says (on pp. 464f.) regarding the relation between the account of the birth of John the Baptist and that of the birth of Jesus in Lk. 1:5–2:52. He thinks it significant that the relation is not represented more clearly than it is, as a relation between a lesser wonder and a greater one. But, as a matter of fact, it is difficult to see how anything could be clearer than Lk. 1:36. According to Dr. Kattenbusch's theory, the angel ought to have been represented as saying to Mary: "And, behold, thy kinswoman Elisabeth, she also hath conceived a son who will be filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb; understand, therefore, that thy Son will be connected with the Spirit in an even more intimate way." As a matter of fact, what the angel did say, according to the narrative, is: "And, behold, thy kinswoman Elisabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age." Evidently the meaning is that the wonder in the case of Mary, though far greater, is analogous to the wonder in the case of Elisabeth in that it has to do with the physical fact of the conception of the child in the womb.
It is encouraging to observe that R. Bultmann (Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2te Aufl., 1931, p. 322) expresses agreement with our insistence upon the intimate connection between Lk. 1:34f. (including, of course, Lk. 1:34b) and Lk. 1:36f.; but his own hypothesis—that Lk. 1:34–37 was composed by the author of the Gospel in imitation of Lk. 1:18–20—is faced by serious special objections (which are set forth on pp. 138, 148, below) in addition to the objections that apply equally to all forms of the interpolation hypothesis. The book has been criticized by a number of writers (for example, in The Times Literary Supplement, London, for April 10, 1930) on the ground that it weakens its case by attempting to prove too much—by attempting to establish a thoroughgoing trustworthiness for the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, instead of admitting the presence of a "midrashic" element as does G. H. Box.
In reply to this criticism, the author desires to say how very highly he values the work of Canon Box (whose important book on the virgin birth has recently been supplemented, in a very interesting way, by two articles entitled "The Virgin Birth, A Survey of Some Recent Literature," in Laudate, ix, 1931, pp. 77–88, 147–155); and he also desires to say how sharply he distinguishes [[@Page:x]] the view of this scholar, who accepts as historical the central miracle in the birth narratives and rejects details, from the views of those who accept only details and reject the central miracle. The author has taken occasion, moreover, to say (in British Weekly, for August 21, 1930), in reply to a very sympathetic review by H. R. Mackintosh (in the same journal, for July 17, 1930), that he does not adopt the apologetic principle of "all or nothing," and that he rejoices in the large measure of agreement regarding the birth narratives that unites him with scholars like Canon Box and the late Bishop Gore, who reject many things in the Bible that he regards as true. Nevertheless, the author still believes that a thoroughgoing apologetic is the strongest apologetic in the end; and, in particular, he thinks that when the objections to the supernatural have once been overcome, there are removed with them, in a much more far-reaching way than is sometimes supposed, the objections to the birth narratives as a whole.
Finally, the author desires to say how greatly encouraged he has been by the manner in which the book has been received by Roman Catholic scholars—for example, by the learned Abbot of Downside, Dom Chapman (in The Dublin Review, xcv, 1931, pp. 150–153), to whom students of the New Testament and of patristics have long been deeply indebted. The author is not, indeed, inclined to accept the dictum of John Herman Randall and John Herman Randall, Jr., when, from the point of view of those opposed to all traditional Christianity, they say (Religion and the Modern World, 1929, p. 136): "Evangelical orthodoxy thrives on ignorance and is undermined by education; Catholic orthodoxy is based on conviction, and has an imposing educational system of its own." He makes bold to think that the scholarly tradition of the Protestant Church is not altogether dead even in our day, and he looks for a glorious revival of it when the narrowness of our metallic age gives place to a new Renaissance. But if he disagrees with what these writers say about Protestantism, he agrees to the full with their high estimate of the Roman Catholic Church; and he rejoices greatly in the important contributions made by Roman Catholic scholars to the subject dealt with in the present book.
J. G. M.
INTRODUCTION
According to a universal belief of the historic Christian Church, Jesus of Nazareth was born without human father, being conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary. It is the purpose of the following discussion to investigate the origin of this belief. Whatever may be thought of the virgin birth itself, the belief of the Church in the virgin birth is a fact of history which no one denies. How is that fact to be explained?
Two explanations are possible.
In the first place, it may be held that the Church came to believe in the virgin birth for the simple reason that the virgin birth was a fact; the reason why the creed came to say that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary is that He was actually so conceived and so born.
In the second place, it may be held that the virgin birth was not a fact, but that the Church came to accept it as a fact through some sort of error. This second explanation, obviously, is capable of many subdivisions. If the idea of the virgin birth is not founded on fact, how did that idea originate? Whatever the final answer to this question may be, the question itself must certainly be raised by everyone who denies the historicity of the virgin birth. If the virgin birth of Christ was not a fact, the idea of the virgin birth certainly was; and as a fact it requires some explanation.
The former of the two hypotheses—the hypothesis that the belief in the virgin birth was founded upon fact—will be considered in Chapters I–XI; the latter, in Chapters XII–XIV. The consideration of the former hypothesis consists essentially in an examination of the positive testimony to the virgin birth and of the objections that have been raised against it; the consideration of the latter hypothesis consists in an examination of the alternative theories that have been proposed to explain the origin of the idea of the virgin birth on the supposition that it was not founded upon fact.
CHAPTER I: THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN THE SECOND CENTURY1
The examination of the testimony to the virgin birth will deal principally, of course, with the New Testament. But a consideration of the patristic evidence is not altogether without value. Can we be certain that the belief of the Church in the virgin birth came exclusively from the New Testament? May there not in the early period have been a tradition as to the birth of Jesus that was independent of Matthew and Luke? The question cannot be answered offhand. Certainly it is quite conceivable that belief in the virgin birth existed prior to the time when it was put into writing in our First and Third Gospels, and conceivably that oral tradition may still have made itself felt to some extent even after our Gospels appeared. So long as such a possibility exists, whether it may or may not be discovered finally to be in accordance with the facts, we shall not be treating our subject fairly unless we prefix to our consideration of the New Testament evidence some consideration of the other testimony of the early Church. Indeed, that testimony would be important even if it should prove to be altogether based upon the New Testament; for in that case it might at least serve to establish the early date and wide acceptance of the New Testament narratives and the absence of any alternative story of the birth of Jesus that could raise effective opposition to those narratives. From various points of view, therefore, it is important to investigate the attitude toward the virgin birth of Christ which was assumed by the Christian Church in the period immediately subsequent to the time when the Gospels were written.
In such an investigation, the natural starting-point may be found in the great Christian writers of the close of the second century. At that time, when extant Christian literature (outside of the New Testament) first becomes abundant, the virgin birth may easily be shown to have had as firm a place in the belief of the Church as it had at any subsequent time. The doctrine was indeed denied by isolated sects—and such denials, with their roots in the preceding decades, will be considered at some length in the discussion that follows—but [[@Page:3]] those sects that denied the virgin birth were at any rate altogether excluded from the main body of the Church. Irenæus (who lived in his youth in Asia Minor and listened there to the teaching of the aged Polycarp), Clement of Alexandria in Egypt, and Tertullian in North Africa, all not merely attest their own belief in the virgin birth, but treat it as one of the essential facts about Christ which had a firm place in even the briefest summaries of the Christian faith.
There can be no doubt, then, that at the close of the second century the virgin birth of Christ was regarded as an absolutely essential part of Christian belief by the Christian Church in all parts of the known world. So much is admitted by everyone. But far more than this must be admitted so soon as there is any closer examination of the facts.
In the first place, even if there were no earlier testimonies, the very fact that at the close of the second century there was such a remarkable consensus among all parts of the Church would show that the doctrine was no new thing, but must have originated long before. But as a matter of fact there are earlier testimonies of a very important kind. Among these earlier testimonies should, no doubt, be reckoned the so-called "Apostles' Creed."2 The form of that creed which we use today was produced in Gaul in the fifth or sixth century, but this Gallican form is based upon an old Roman baptismal confession, from which it differs for the most part only in minor details. The virgin birth appears as clearly in the older form of the creed as in the Gallican form.3 The Roman confession, which was written originally in Greek, must be dated at least as early as A.D. 200, because it is the ancestor not only of our Gallican creed, but also of the many creeds used in various parts of the Western Church.4 The use of the creed by Tertullian (North Africa) and Irenæus (Asia Minor and Gaul) pushes the date well back toward the middle of the second century. At that time, therefore, the virgin birth was part of the creed of the Roman Church; belief in it was solemnly confessed by every convert before baptism. [[@Page:4/