10 - Appendix 01

I The Rev. Prof. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Oxford Dr. Sanday’s valuable paper discusses the origin and character of the first two chapters of Luke. He observes: In regard to the first two chapters of St. Luke, the one conclusion that impresses itself upon me most strongly is that, whatever the date at which the chapters were first set down in writing—and the question of date is secondary rather than primary—in any case the contents of the chapters are the most archaic things in the whole New Testament. I am quite prepared to assume Harnack’s date for the composition of St. Luke’s two historical writings, viz., that they were begun and finished somewhere in the fifteen years between 78 and 93 a.d.—I should myself be inclined to say, more probably in the earlier part of that period than the later, but that is a trifle. I shall also venture to assume what has been consistently maintained by all the leading English scholars who have dealt with the subject and has now received the powerful and, as I believe, decisive support of Professor Harnack, that it was really St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, who edited and gave to the world the Third Gospel and the Acts as they now stand.

He examines the view of Harnack that "the substance of the chapters reached St Luke in the form of oral tradition, and was first committed to writing by him," and indicates his preference for the alternative, " that he received them already in writing and reproduced this document as he reproduced others with a certain amount of freedom." On the latter point he says:

Whatever may be true as to the linguistic clothing of the narrative, I am prepared to maintain, as against Harnack, that in any case the chapters are not a free composition of St. Luke’s, but that there is some definite authority to which he closely adhered behind them. ... The whole mental attitude of the narrator is different from St. Luke’s and much more primitive. ... I think we may say that the real author of these first two chapters was a Jew, a Jew by birth, and a Jew by all his antecedents and interests.

Illustration and argument follow. The deeply interesting conclusions reached are thus stated:

I submit that these varied observations taken together go far to justify the proposition with which I started, that the substance of these two chapters not only differs materially from all that we know of the character and standpoint of St. Luke, but that it is really an example of a type of thought and feeling fundamentally older than anything else in the New Testament. Nowhere else is the novel element in Christianity so little disengaged from the conditions out of which it arose. We should say, I think, looking at the broad phenomena of these chapters, that they were the product of a circle like that which the author introduces to us, the circle of Zacharias and Elisabeth, of Joseph and Mary, of Simeon and Anna. They are pious folk, brought up in the spirit of the older dispensation, but looking out beyond it—looking out so far as to catch sight of the coming " redemption of Israel," but hardly as yet the salvation of the world, at least in the sense in which it was empirically realised. The ancient prophets indeed looked forward to a time when the knowledge of the Lord should cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, but it was all to be through the medium of Israel. In that the author of these chapters agreed with them. But neither they nor he seem to have anticipated such a throwing open of the gates to the Gentiles as actually took place, while the children of the kingdom were cast out.

Johannes Weiss has expressed the opinion that the narratives of these chapters may have begun to circulate among the Jewish-Christian communities of Judaea " in the sixties" (Schriften d. Ν. T., p. 383). He is careful to add that, in doing this, he does not attribute to them a higher historical value than other critics. That is a point that we reserve for the present. But in the meantime we may ask whether even so early a date as the beginning of the sixties satisfies the conditions. Perhaps it may. Perhaps it is possible that by this time people had begun to slip back into the old mode of speech according to which " Herod, king of Judaea " was understood to mean Herod the Great. But it would be even more in keeping with the contents of the chapters if they had been written down as much as twenty years earlier. It is always possible, especially in a secluded district or a secluded household, to be behind the times. But I very much doubt whether there is anything in the chapters that would not be even more vividly natural if they had taken their first shape before the great missionary successes of St. Paul. That hypothesis I must leave as a matter of speculation. . . . But the ground on which I would take my stand is that the substance of the chapters is, in all essential characteristics, older than anything else in the whole New Testament. The paper closes with the paragraphs:

There is just one more inference that I think we may draw. In his book Harnack has called attention to "the womanly element" in the Third Gospel, of which he proceeds to enumerate fourteen examples. (Lukas der Azrt p. 109ff. In this he believes himself to be putting forward something new; but it is rather curious that in this country the observation goes back at least more than twenty years (Farrar, The Messages of the Books, 1884, p. 81, " the Gospel of womanhood "); and in recent years it has become almost a commonplace.

But, if this is true of the Gospel as a whole, it is true pre-eminently of the first two chapters. Here we may speak more strongly, and say that the whole story is told from a woman’s point of view. Observe especially the notes of time in 1:24, 26, 36, 56, 57; also the description w. 40-44, and the stress that is laid on the thoughts of the Virgin Mary, 2:9, 48, 50, 51. It is not too much to say that the whole story is told from the point of view of a woman, and more particularly of Mary. Impressions of this kind cannot perhaps be insisted upon; but for myself I believe that the last link in the chain by which the substance of the chapters reached St. Luke—and I should not be surprised if the first link too—was a woman.

II Sir William M. Ramsay, D.C.L., D.D., Aberdeen, Scotland Sir Wm. Ramsay, like Dr. Sanday, discusses Luke’s narrative. His paper opens with a striking declaration: That in the man Jesus Christ the Divine nature was incarnate, is an essential and fundamental part of the Christian religion: " the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." This fundamental principle is common to all the four Gospels and to the New Testament as a whole. If you try to eliminate it, there remains practically nothing: that is the result clearly demonstrated in many attempts which have been made to cut out the superhuman and Divine from the life of Jesus as set forth in the Gospels. Some scholars who have made the attempt leave a slight trifling remainder; others frankly confess that there is nothing worth notice left; others again substitute a fanciful romance elaborated out of their own inner consciousness and unsupported by ancient authority for the narrative of the Gospels. That Jesus was not merely human, but truly superhuman and Divine is the Christian teaching and faith and belief, and to deny that is to separate one’s self from Christianity.

Prof. Ramsay thinks " it is different when we approach the question how the Divine nature came to be in the man, and how the superhuman was brought into relation with the human," and contends that the answer to this question is not " of the essence of Christianity."

" All the four Gospels and Paul agree in regarding the exact circumstances and manner of the birth of Christ as a matter only of historic and moral interest, not an essential and necessary part of the f aith.,, 1.

He nevertheless holds that Luke’s narrative is true, resting ultimately on the authority of Mary.

They [the facts] came ultimately to Luke’s knowledge in some way which he does not explain precisely; but he suggests in his own fashion that Mary was his ultimate authority. He knew what was kept hid in her heart. He tells us that no one knew the facts but herself, and explains that Elisabeth told Mary her inmost heart, but not that Mary told even Elisabeth; yet he claims that he was able to impart information with certainty. This is as much as to declare that in this matter the knowledge came to him from her either directly or through a trustworthy intermediary.

" Two general questions," he says, " must suggest themselves: viz., as to the authority and credibility of the story, and as to whether Luke used a written or an oral authority." In opposition to Harnack, he lays stress on Luke’s high rank as an historian: The facts mark out Luke in my estimation as a great and judicious historian, and his narrative as entitled to high rank in respect of authoritativeness. Reasons for this opinion cannot be stated here, for they depend on a survey of his history as a whole. 2 But, except for those who invoke ________________________________________ 1I have indicated my dissent from this view, p. 234.

2 The question is discussed in St. Paul the Traveller, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem, and Pauline and other Studies. superhuman agency, his credibility must rest on his sources of information and his critical sense in distinguishing between good and inferior sources. In Luke 1:3-4; he claims to have excellent sources and to set forth what is certain. Those who hold, like Prof. Harnack, that he was the companion and coadjutor of Paul, must admit that he had access to first-rate authorities, if he chose to use them. . . . What reason is there to think either on the one hand that Luke’s narrative was here affected by popular report (which inevitably carries legend with it), or on the other hand that lie used mainly or exclusively a good authority? The only good ultimate authority was Mary herself, and, as we have seen, the expression is skilfully calculated to suggest that the writer relied on her. . . . The story has not the character of legend. It is precise, clear, definite, whereas legend is vague, fluid, intangible. While the words are Luke’s,1 the facts breathe a different personality, and that not a man’s, but a woman’s and mother’s. Only the child’s mother noted and remembered his growth at every stage—Luke 2:40, Luke 2:52. Contrast the warm love that breathes through these sayings with the kindly affection that records the growth of John—Luke 1:80. The maternal feeling is too strong to have been created by Luke in a popular report, as any person possessed of literary capacity will recognise if he reads the story with this object and from this point of view. The song of Mary is not Luke’s composition (as Prof. Harnack argues); it is the Biblical rapture of a mind fed on the Old Testament from infancy, and expressing its emotion in its only language of exalted emotion (but Luke was a Hellene and a convert from paganism, to whom Biblical language could never and did never become the inevitable organ of expression during _____________________________________ l This has been brought out clearly by Prof. Harnack in his Lukas der Arzt, with much of whose reasoning everyone must agree though it is too verbal to carry complete conviction. I have argued to the same effect on grounds of fact, Christ Born at Bethlehem, ch. iv. rapture). Luke translated and perhaps gave a more marked lyrical form, but he did not and could not invent the hymns of this story. They are the expression of the Jewish mind; he was a Greek, as incapable of inventing them as he was of inventing the character of Jesus. . . . We must, I think, conclude that Luke’s account rested ultimately on the witness of the best authority, viz., Mary herself. This raises the question of the intermediary: The character of the narrative, the womanly and motherly feeling that breathes through it, gives the assurance that it reached Luke not after passing through several intermediaries, but through the report of some person who had been intimate with Mary in her later years, " who knew her heart and could give him what was almost as good as her own immediate account." Further, " one may venture to state the impression that the intermediary is more likely to have been a woman than a man. There is a womanly spirit in the whole narrative, which seems inconsistent with the transmission from man to man," and which (one may add) could not have been preserved in the narrative of Luke even after hearing it from a woman unless he had had a strong natural sympathy with women; and that he had this is proved clearly by the marked prominence which he gives them (alone of all writers of the New Testament) in history. So much stands written in my book, Christ Born at Bethlehem, ch. iv.

Prof. Ramsay adopts as probable Prof. Sanday’s suggestion that the intermediary was Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (Luke 8:3); but differs from Dr. Sanday in holding that Luke did not use a written source. As respects credibility, he thinks that in one or two points—as in the reference to the angel—there may have been misapprehension on the part of Luke, or of his informant, but is strong in his affirmation of the substantial truth of the narrative: That the narrative, though perhaps containing certain misapprehensions, is substantially a true account resting on Mary’s authority, seems to me beyond question; and I should take the hymns of Mary and Zachariah to be the truest, because the most perfectly Biblical parts. There is one consideration which must lead us to regard the misapprehensions as unimportant. The compelling power of everything connected with the life of the Saviour was the greatest force in history. It was this force that produced the Gospels, driving the facts into the minds of men so that they could not but speak the things which they had seen and heard, and impressing the image of Jesus on their imagination so deeply that it shines with almost undiminished brilliance through the Gospels, although they were written so many years after his death and are not unaffected by the time and circumstances in which they were composed. This compelling power is the reality that underlies the unfortunate and misleading name, "verbal inspiration," and the revolt from that term should not blind us to the great truth of which it is a misconception. This compelling power operated both on the intermediary and on Luke in this narrative.

Prof. Ramsay differs from most in declaring: " I am quite unable to accept the view that Matthew states Joseph’s view as Luke states Mary’s. There seems no real, only a fancied analogy." 1.

_________________________________________________ l I venture to dissent, see pp. 83-4.

III The Rev. George Box, M.A., Vicar of Linton, Herefordshire, England

It is impossible to do justice to this long and able paper by extracts, but certain points may be noted. The paper seeks to establish, as against the new school of comparative mythology, the Jewish-Christian origin of the narratives of both Matthew and Luke. On Matthew 1:11 the author says: The first impression produced by the perusal of Matthew’s narrative is, undoubtedly, that we have here a genuine product of the Jewish spirit. In spirit as well as in letter and substance it reflects the characteristic features of Jewish habits of thought and expression. How strong this impression is—and how well founded—may be gathered from the remarks of so unprejudiced an observer as Prof. S. Schechter. " The impression," he says, " conveyed to the Rabbinic student by the perusal of the New Testament is in many parts like that gained by reading an old Rabbinic homily. On the very threshold of the New Testament he is confronted by a genealogical table, a feature not uncommon in the later Rabbinical versions of the Old Testament, which are rather fond of providing Biblical heroes with long pedigrees.

Illustrations follow.

I conclude, then, that the whole narrative embodied in the first two chapters of the First Gospel is thoroughly Jewish in form and general conception, and that while Hellenistic colouring is unmistakably present in the story, it shows decisive indications of the influence of Palestine, and is, in fact, addressed to a circle of Hellenistic Jews who were under Palestinian influence. The integrity of the narrative is upheld against those who would separate the genealogy from ch. 1:18—2:23.

Mr. Box finds " Midrashic " elements in Matthew’s narration:

What, then, is the character and historical significance of Matthew’s narration (Matthew i. and ii.) ? To the present writer it seems to exhibit in a degree that can hardly be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament the characteristic features of-Jewish Midrash or Haggada. ... It sets forth certain facts and beliefs in a fanciful and imaginative setting specially calculated to appeal to Jews. The justification for this procedure lies in the peculiar character and idiosyncrasy of the readers to whom it is addressed. . . . 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. What then are these fundamental data ? The fundamental fact which underlies the genealogy of the First Gospel, and to which it bears witness, is the Davidic descent of the family of Joseph to which Jesus belonged. Its artificial form merely serves to disguise a genuine family tradition, which may have been embodied in a real birth-register. May it not be a sort of Midrashic commentary, in genealogical terms, on the real genealogy which is more correctly preserved in the Third Gospel? On the Virgin Birth and the citation from Isaiah: In the narrative that follows (1:18-25) we are confronted by similar phenomena—the underlying fact accompanied by explanation. The fact assumed and explicitly stated is the Virgin Birth, which is supported (in the compiler’s characteristic manner) by a citation from Scripture, viz., the LXX. version of Isaiah 7:14.

Now it is generally agreed that the narrative cannot have been suggested by the citation. It is certainly remarkable that Isaiah 7:14; is the only passage in the LXX. (with one exception, viz., Genesis 24:43) where the Hebrew word ’almah, which means a young woman of marriageable age, is rendered παρθένος. In the overwhelming majority of instances παρθένος (= Virgin) corresponds to its proper Hebrew equivalent bethula. Moreover, of any Messianic application among the Jews of these words concerning the Virgin’s Son there is not elsewhere, we are assured on the high authority of Prof. Dalman, even a "trace" (The Words of Jesus, Ε. T., p. 270. . . . Badham’s attempt (Academy, June 8, 1895) to show that the belief that the Messiah was to be born of a Virgin was current among Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews rests upon highly precarious and uncertain evidence—mostly quotations from Martini and others from Midrashic texts which cannot be verified. In some cases they look like Christian interpolations. Consequently we are justified in the conclusion that the narrative was not suggested by the citation, but the citation by the assumed fact of the narrative. In the second part of the paper the Jewish-Christian origin and the integrity of Luke i., ii., are considered and defended. Considerations which seem to the author " decisive " are adduced against the theory of interpolation of vers. 34, 35 of ch. i. On the origin of the narrative, the view of Lagarde, Resch, and Dalman is approved that (in Dalman’s words) these chapters " have throughout a colouring distinctly Hebrew, not Aramaic, and not Greek." The author agrees with Dr. Briggs that the language of the (mainly poetic) sources of Luke’s narrative was probably " not Aramaic, but Hebrew." On the important point of the relation of the two narratives we have the following: That the Nativity-narratives in the First and Third Gospels are essentially independent has already been indicated. The fundamental facts on which they agree and on which they revolve may very well have been derived from a common source, viz., the early Jewish-Christian community of Palestine. The meagre historical content of Matthew’s narrative is explained by the apologetic and polemical purpose that dominates it. He selects and uses only such material as is immediately useful for the practical purpose he has in view, and in view of this it is surely unsafe to argue from his silence that he was unacquainted with other traditional incidents which were treasured in the Palestinian circle. And in fact there is, I believe, one direct point of contact between the two narratives which suggests that Matthew was not unacquainted with the Hebrew hymns and poetical pieces which are so striking a feature of the Lucan account. I refer to the annunciation by an angel to Joseph set forth in Matthew 1:20-21 [passage cited]. . . . Matthew is here using and translating from a poetical piece in Hebrew, derived doubtless like the hymns in Luke from the Palestinian community; and this conclusion is confirmed by the explanation of the name Jesus, which, as already mentioned, can only be elucidated by a play upon words in Hebrew. The theories of pagan origin (Soltau, Schmiedel, Usener, Gunkel) are acutely discussed, and the final result is reached: The conclusion is forced upon us, therefore, that if the story of the Virgin Birth is a legend it must have grown up within the Jewish-Christian community of Palestine, and must represent a primitive Christological dogma expressing the idea of the perfect moral and spiritual purity of Jesus as Son of God. The Christian consciousness it might be urged, working on such a passage as " Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Psalms 2:7), together with the Scriptural promise of the fulness of the Spirit that should rest upon the Messiah (Isaiah 11:2) may have been led to transfer these ideas to the physical beginnings of Jesus’ life. But in the absence of any analogous developments in the Christian consciousness elsewhere this is hard to believe. Why did the Christological process assume just this form, and in this (a priori most unlikely) quarter? The impulse must have been given from without. But unless the idea came from heathen sources—which to the present writer seems inconceivable in so strictly Jewish a circle—then it must have grown out of a conviction, cherished within a limited Palestinian circle of believers, that the traditional belief among them was based upon facts of which some members of this community had been the original depositories and witnesses. When subjected to the criteria properly applicable to it, and when the evidence is weighed in the light of the considerations advanced above, such a tradition, it seems to the present writer, has high claims to historical credibility. The alternative explanations only serve to raise more difficulties than they profess to solve. In any case the hypothesis of pagan mythological influence is to be ruled out.

IV The Rev. Prof. W. E. Addis, M.A., Oxford

Well known as a radical critic of the Old Testament, Prof. Addis is nevertheless, like Dr. Briggs, a convinced defender of the Virgin Birth. In his paper, " Why do I believe in the Virgin Birth ?" he first clears the ground by setting aside reasons which fail to convince him. Among these is the prophecy in Is. vii., which, on the usual grounds that the sign was for Isaiah’s contemporaries, that the Hebrew word ’almah does not mean " virgin " in the strict sense, etc., he thinks is not applicable to the Virgin Birth. He is careful to distinguish between "belief in the Incarnation, and belief that the Incarnation was effected in a human body and soul of a pure Virgin," and says: " It is certain that some who do not accept the story of the Virgin Birth do accept the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation." 1 He believes that the evidence for the Virgin Birth is " strong enough for rational acceptance," but admits that it could conceivably be much stronger than it is. He rejects any aid from " parthenogenesis." On the positive side his argument is lucid and convincing. The main portions are here reproduced.

____________________________________________________________ 1I have stated in the lectures that I have had difficulty in discovering them; they are certainly few.

Granting that " a previous judgment already disposing us to believe " is necessary, he says:

Now, I think this prejudgment reasonable, and I should be inclined to state the case thus. The word of His supposed parents, however high their repute, would never convince me that an ordinary child had been born without having any man for his father. My point is that Christ was not an ordinary man. I confess that He is in a sense absolutely unique and incommunicable the Son of God, free from the least taint of sin, the head of a redeemed and renewed humanity. That being so, the Virgin Birth is no longer a difficulty to me; on the contrary, it is what I should expect, and any other hypothesis would present to my mind far more serious obstacles. I freely admit that such a birth involves a miracle; only the whole being and work of Christ is to me a miracle. I cannot look upon Him as a mere man; I do not set out with the assumption that He, through whom all things were made, was subject either in His birth or resurrection to the laws of the material universe. Of course a priori reasoning of this kind is not enough. It does not follow that a thing actually happened, because it appears to us likely and becoming that it should happen. Still the grounds just mentioned create a rational presumption. This presumption is clinched by the evidence of the Gospels and of the early Church, and is thus elevated into positive faith. The careful study of the Synoptic Gospels creates several definite impressions in the mind. We feel that no man could have invented the story of Christ’s life and character. On the one hand the picture drawn is natural, consistent, unique in its originality and attractive power; on the other hand, Christ towers high above the heads of His reporters, and is assuredly no creation of theirs. Nor are we left in any doubt that Christ was in the fullest sense man. He was hungry and weary; He was moved like other men by personal love and grief and even by anger. He drained the chalice of suffering, and it was said of Him that while He saved others, He could not save Himself. Still in one respect He stands by Himself. Never once does He make the faintest approach to confession of sin or moral imperfection. He who was so lowly of heart reveals no consciousness of sin, and though He poured forth His thanks to God, the Father of all, He expresses no gratitude for personal sin pardoned or even averted. He did indeed submit to a baptism, principally designed for the remission of sins. Nevertheless the revelation imparted to Him there was a declaration, not that any sin of His had been washed away, but rather He was the beloved Son in whom the Father was well pleased. True, He acknowledged that God alone is good. The distinction, however, between the progressive goodness of a Son who " learned obedience " and the divine goodness, absolute and infinite from all eternity, does not imply the least taint of personal fault or shortcoming in the Son of Man. We ask, therefore, how it was that our Lord in His human nature was free from the tendencies to evil which are the sad inheritance of the human race. To this, belief in the Virgin Birth offers the easiest and simplest answer: the Son of God became Man. He did not " shrink from the Virgin womb," yet He did not enter the human life by the common road. Being man " of the substance of His mother " He purified the flesh which He took by the very act of uniting it to His Divine Person. I do not question the fact that God was able in other ways to ensure the spotless sanctity of Christ’s human nature. I contend, however, that the Virgin Birth provides, so far as I can see, the most natural and simple way of doing so; any other means which we can imagine would, I think, be more, not less, miraculous. From miracle of some kind we cannot escape, so long as we hold fast to the faith explicitly stated by St. Paul and implied in the New Testament throughout that our blessed Lord "knew no sin." Hence Dr. Martineau, rejecting the miraculous element altogether, is driven, reverent and religious as he is, to the conclusion that Christ was morally defective, a supremely good man, but still not perfectly good. (Seat of Authority, p. 651, where Dr. Martineau says that the words "without sin" must not be pressed beyond their relative significance.)

We may follow the same idea along another line of thought. St. Paul speaks of our Lord as the " Second Adam." We may put this in morfe modern language by considering Christ as the beginning of a redeemed humanity, as one who makes " all things new." Explain it as we will, the fact is surely patent enough that we are "very far gone from original righteousness." Even the most sceptical historian will scarcely refuse to admit that Christ introduced a new era, compared with which all other changes grow pale and insignificant, in the history of the human race. It was then in every way most fitting that He should enter the world in a new manner, breaking the long chain of birth which had transmitted sinful inclination from age to age, and inaugurating a new order. A first start had to be made, and He who was untouched by carnal passion was to raise us from " the death of sin to the life of righteousness." . . . And just as Christ’s sinlessness is a miracle, so but in a much higher degree is His Incarnation. We may, if we please, dismiss miracles and believe that God is incarnate in collective humanity and reveals Himself in the progress of the race. But we are playing with words if we try to hold fast the faith that God was incarnate in the man Christ Jesus and made the perfect revelation of His character and will in Him, unless we are prepared to accept this as a stupendous miracle. Apart from miracle, we cannot worship Christ as the " very image of God’s substance." A man more perfect than He may come in the slow progress of evolution. We have still to " look for another." This, of course, is tantamount to the absolute abandonment of Christianity.

Such are the reasons a priori which prepare the way, and may well incline us to believe that our Lord was born of a pure Virgin. This being so, what positive evidence have we for the traditional belief? We have the narrative by St. Luke at the beginning of his Gospel. Recent criticism has enabled me to appreciate more clearly the worth of the evidence given in the Third Gospel. Harnack, following in the line of Sir John Hawkins and Mr. Hobart, has produced an accumulation of evidence which makes it difficult to doubt that our Third Gospel really was written by Luke, the beloved physician and companion of St. Paul. Now Luke spent two years with St. Paul at Csesarea, and had ample means of intercourse with Christians of Jewish race who had listened to our Lord and known His mother and His brethren. We turn next to the First Gospel; certainly the story told there is hard to reconcile even in important details with the history as given by St. Luke. One thing, however, is plain as noonday: the accounts in the Third and First Gospels are independent of each other, so that to the witness of St. Luke written down at latest about 80 a.d., we may confidently add the testimony of the first Evangelist derived from another source.

Reference follows to the witness of the early Church:

" Moreover there is really nothing to be said on the other side* For proof of this I must refer the reader to Mr. Allen’s masterly review of the whole question in the Interpreter for 1905." . . . "And how did the idea of Christ’s Virgin Birth arise ? It is far too ancient to be explained by the influence of Greek ideas, and besides the stories of birth from a divine and human parent are not stories of Virgin Birth at all, but something quite different. The early chapters of Luke, as well as Matthew, are intensely Hebraic in thought and style. But of Virgin Birth, as of any notion that virginity was more honourable than marriage, the Old Testament says nothing. Its leaning is all the other way. We do not forget the words in the text, "Behold a virgin shall conceive," etc. But to these words St. Luke does not refer at all. St. Matthew adduces them as a prediction of a fact accepted on other grounds.