VIRGIN
450
VIRGIN
Theol.", XVII, 225 sqq., 1891) believes that the
words 01! ivovl^cTo of Luke, iii, 23, ought to be con-
sidered in the same light. Weinel ("Die Auslegung
des apostolischen Bekenntnisses von F. Kattenbusch
und die neut. Forschung" in "Zeitschrift fiir d. n. t.
Wissensch.", II, 37 sqq., 1901 ;cf. Kattenbusch, "Das
apostoUsche Symbol", II, 621, Leipzig, 1897-1900)
believes that the removal of the words ivel ivSpa ov
■yivuaKu from Luke, i, 34, leaves the third Gospel
without a cogent proof for the virgin birth; Harnack
not only agrees with the omissions of Holtzmann and
Hilhnann, but deletes also the word Tvap${voi from
Luke, i, 27 (Zeitsclirift fiir d. n. t. Wissensch., 53
sqq., 1901). Other friends of modern theology are
rather sceptical as to the solidity of these text-critical
theories; Hilgenfield ("Die Geburt Jesu aus der Jung-
frau in dem Lukasevangelium " in "Zeitschr. fiir
wissenschaftl. Theologie", XLIV, 313 sqq., 1901),
Clement (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1902, 299), and
Gunkel (op. cit., p. 68) reject Harnack's arguments
without reserve. Bardenhewer ("Maria Verkiindi-
gung", pp. 8-12, Freiburg, 1905) weighs them singly
and finds them wanting.
In the light of the arguments for the genuineness of the portionsof the third Gospel rejected by the above- named critics, it is hard to understand how they can be omitted by any unprejudiced student of the sacred text. They are found in all manuscripts, translations, and early Christian citations, in all printed editions — in brief, in all the documents considered by the critics as reliable witnesses for the genuineness of a text. Furthermore, in the narrative of St. Luke, each verse is like a link in a chain, so that no verse can be removed as an interpolation without destroying the whole. Moreover, verses 34 and 35 are in the Lucan history what the keystone is in an arch, what a diamond is in its setting; the text of the Gospel with- out these two verses resembles an unfinished arch, a setting bereft of its precious stones (cf. Feine, "Eine vorkanonische UeberUeferung", 39, Gotha, 1891). Finally, the Lucan account left us by the critics is not in keeping with the rest of the Evangelist's narra- tive. According to the critics, verses 26-33 and 36- 38 relate the promise of the birth of the Messias, the son of Joseph and Mary, just as the verses immedi- ately preceding relate the promise of the birth of the precursor, the son of Zachary and Elizabeth. But there is a great difference: the precursor's story is filled with miracles — as Zachary's sudden dumbness, John's wonderful conception — while the account of Christ's conception offers nothing extraordinary; in the one case the angel is sent to the child's father, Zachary, while in the other the angel appears to Mary; in the one case Elizabeth is said to have conceived "after those days", while there is nothing added about Mary's conception (Bardenhewer, op. cit., 13 sqq.; Gunkel, op. cit., 68). The complete traditional text of the Gospel explains these differences, but the critically mutilated text leaves them inexplicable.
The friends of modern theology at first believed that they possessed a solid foundation for denying the virgin birth in the Codex Syrus Sinaiticus discovered by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson in 1892, more accu- rately investigated in 1893, published in 1894, and supplemented in 1896. According to this codex, Matt., i, 16, reads: "Joseph to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin, begot Jesus who is called Christ." Still, the Syriac translator cannot have been igno- rant of the virgin birth. Why did he leave the expression "the virgin" in the immediate context? How did he understand verses 18, 20, and 25, if he did not know anything of the virgin birth? Hence, either the SjTiac text has been slightly altered by a transcriber (only one letter had to be changed) or the translator understood the word hegol of conventional, not of carnal, fatherhood, a meaning it has in verses 8 and 12.
B. Non-historical Source of the Virgin Birth. —
The opponents of the historical actuality of the virgin
birth grant that either the Evangelists or the inter-
polators of the Gospels borrowed their material from
an early Christian tradition, but they endeavour to
show that this tradition has no sohd historical founda-
tion. About A. D. 153 St. Justin (ApoL, I, xxi) told
his pagan readers that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
ought not to seem incredible to them, since many of
the most esteemed pagan writers spoke of a number of
sons of Zeus. About a. d. 178 the Platonic philosopher
Celsus ridiculed the virgin birth of Christ, comparing
it with the Greek myths of Danae, Melauippe, and
Antiope; Origen (c. Cels. I, x.x.xvii) answered that
Celsus WTote more Uke a buffoon than a philosopher.
But modern theologians again derive the virgin birth
of Our Lord from unhistorical sources, though their
theories do not agree.
A first class of writers have recourse to pagan myth- ology in order to account for the early Christian tradition concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Usener ("ReUgionsgeschichtl. Untersuehungen", I, 69 sqq., Bonn, 1899; "Geburt und Kindheit Christi" in "Zeitschrift fiird. n.t. Wissensch.", IV, 1903, 15 sqq.) argues that the early Gentile Christians must have attributed to Christ what their pagan ancestors had attributed to their pagan heroes; hence the Divine sonship of Christ is a product of the religious thought of Gentile Christians. Hillmann (Jahrb. f. protest. Theol., XVII, 1891, 231 sqq.) and Holtzmann (Lehrb. d. n. t. Theol.", I, 413 sqq., Freiburg, 1897) agree sub- stantially with Usener's theory. Conrady ("Die Quelle der kanonisch. Kindheitsgesch. Jesus", Gdt- tingen, 1900, 278 sqq.) found in the Virgin Mary a Christian imitation of the Egj^ptian goddess Isis, the mother of Horus; but Holtzmann (Theol. Literatur- zeit., 1901, p. 136) declares that he cannot follow this "daring construction without a feeling of fear and dizziness", and LTsener (Zeitschr. f. d. n. t. Wissensch., 1903, p. 8) is afraid that his friend Conrady moves on a precipitous track. Soltau ("Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu Christi ", Leipzig, 1902, p. 24) tries to transfer the supernatural origin of Augustus to Jesus, but Lob- stein (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1902, p. 523) fears that Soltau's attempt may throw discredit on science itself, and Kreyher ("Die jungfriiuhche Geburt des Herrn", Gutersloh, 1904) refutes the theory more at length.
In general, the derivation of the virgin birth from pagan mythology through the medium of Gentile Christians implies several inex-plicable difficulties: Why should the Christian recently converted from paganism revert to his pagan superstitions in his con- ception of Christian doctrines? How could the product of pagan thought find its way among Jewish Christians without lea\'ing as much as a vestige of opposition on the part of the Jewish Christians? How could this importation into Jewish Christianity be effected at an age early enough to produce the Jewish Christ ian sources from which either the Evan- gehsts or the interpolators of the Gospels derived their material? Why did not the relatives of Christ's parents protest against the novel views concerning Christ's origin? Besides, the very argvmient on which rests the importation of the virgin birth from pagan myths into Christianity is fallacious, to say the least. Its major premise assimies that similar phenomena not merely may, but must, spring from similar causes; its minor premise contends that Christ's virgin birth and the mythical divine sonships of the pagan world are similar phenomena, a contention false on the face of it.
A second class of writers derive the early Christian tradition of the virgin birth from Jewish Christian in- fluence. Harnack (" Lehrb.d. Dogmengesch.", 3rded., I, 95 sq., Freiburg, 1894) is of the opinion that the belief in the virgin birth originated from Isa., vii, 14; Lobstein (" Die Lehre von der iibernatUrlichcn Geburt
