BT UC-NRLF B M Sflfi ^m 5. *>^. V? /:.6.>' t^^j- ii '"'"' v"*, !r >,;.5:: LIBRARY University of California. RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE Class Ztc 'dinivcxeit^ of Cbicaao FOUNDBD BY ]OHN D. ROCKXFELLKR THE VIRGIN BIRTH A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of theology) BY ALLAN HOBEN CHICAGO 1903 Ube THntverstti? of Cbtcaao FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLEK THE VIRGIN BIRTH A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of theology) BY ALLAN HOBEN CHICAGO 1903 37"3/7 //6 / PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS PREFACE. This work is purely an historical essay. Taking the story of the Virgin Birth as found in the New Testament, it aims to trace the his- tory of its interpretation and use throughout the ante-Nicene period. The bearing of the study upon the historical criticism of the New Tes- tament and theology proper is not discussed. 5] 186633 TABLE OF CONTENTS. I. PAGE The New Testament 9 The Virgin Birth has a double attestation. The relation of the canonical story to the Gospel of James. Interpretation of the canonical accounts. II. The Ante-Nicene Fathers \^ Ignatius ; Aristides ; Justin Martyr ; Tatian ; Melito ; Irenaeus ; Ter- tullian ; Clement of Alexandria; Origen ; Hippolytus; Cyprian; Novatian ; Malchion ; Archelaus ; Arnobius ; Lactantius ; Methodius ; Victorinus ; Peter of Alexandria ; Alexander of Alexandria ; Conclu- sion. III. The New Testament Apocrypha 8i Differentiated from the New Testament. Their theological purpose. Old Testament models. Index 86 7] THE VIRGIN BIRTH. I. THE NEW TESTAMENT. This essay aims to trace the history and use of the story of the virgin birth of Jesus in the ante-Nicene Christian literature. In doing this, special attention is paid to the patristic field, which has not hitherto been thoroughly investigated with such a purpose in view. What is here offered on the New Testament material is introductory to the main body of the essay, and, as a prerequisite to tracing the use and effects of the New Testament stories in the subsequent Christian litera- ture, aims to determine whether these narratives in reality represent a double or only a single attestation of the virgin birth, and also to ascertain what is their exact meaning.' The question whether the account of the virgin birth has in the New Testament a single or a double attestation is, broadly speaking, the question of the common origin or independence of the infancy sections of Matthew and Luke. Resch^ holds that Matthew and Luke used a pre-canonical child history, which had been translated from Hebrew into Greek, and that, if we had that history, it would be a har- mony of the infancy stories of the first and third gospels. Conrady' thinks that the protevangelium of James is that pre-canonical source which both Matthew and Luke used, and that, moreover, Luke had access to Matthew's account. Whether the infancy stories are more independent than these theories would imply can be ascertained only by a comparative examination of the material. The genealogies. Matt. 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, may be first considered in such a comparison. The generations prior to Abraham are peculiar to Luke, and, while favoring the independence of the two tables, are probably more significant as indicating Luke's understanding of the virgin birth, as will be pointed out later. Between Abraham and David the two tables, having access to the Old Testament material, 'The pseudonymous and fictitious material which falls within the ante-Nicene period and is usually included under the title of the New Testament apocrypha will be briefly treated in an appendix, for the purpose of supplementing the study of the ante-Nicene Fathers. ' Kindhettsevangelium nack Lucas und Matthaeus. ^ Die Quelle der kanoniscken Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu, 9J 9 10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES are in harmony, but between David and Joseph, where one would expect them to be precise in proving the Davidic descent of Jesus, they are, with the possible exception of two names,* wholly at variance. Thus the genealogical tables as a whole make against the theory of a common source.^ The explanation that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary is not substantiated or adequate. Continuing this comparison, the question of the common depend- ence or the interdependence of the infancy sections can be better appreciated, perhaps, by a tabulation showing the material in either account. MATTHEW. LUKE. Birth of John the Baptist promised, i : 5-25 Annunciation to Mary, i : 20-38 Annunciation to Joseph, i : 18-25 Mary's visit to Elizabeth, i : 39-56 Birth of John the Baptist, i : 57-80 Birth of Jesus, 2:1-7 The angels and the shepherds, 2 : 8-20 The circumcision, 2:21 Presentation in the temple, 2: 22-39 The magi, 2:1-12 Flight into Egypt and return to Nazareth, 2 : 13-23 Childhood at Nazareth, 2 : 23 Childhood at Nazareth, 2 : 39, 40 Incident in the temple, 2:41-50 Eighteen years at Nazareth, 2:51,52 It will be seen from the foregoing that Matthew and Luke are in agreement as to the birth-place, the parents' names, a residence in Nazareth after the birth, the Davidic descent, and the virgin birth. But all of these facts, except the last, are derivable from the gospels proper, or, as in the case of the Bethlehem birth, from such informa- tion as may easily be supposed to have been common Christian tradi- * Shealtiel and Jerubbabel, Matt, i : 12 ; Luke 3 : 27. sin connection with Matt, i : 16 it should be brought to notice that, although all the Greek uncials and nearly all the minuscules have " Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ," the Curetonian Syriac, the Armenian, two Greek minuscules (346 and 556), and most of the old Latin versions have, "Joseph to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed begat Jesus who is called Christ," while the Sinaitic Syriac has, " And Joseph to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed begat Jesus Christ." The reading of the MS. recently discovered at Oxyrhynchus agrees with the Greek uncials. 10 THE VIRGIN BIRTH 11 tion (John 7 :42).*' On the other hand, Matthew represents Bethlehem as the home of Joseph and Mary prior to their flight into Egypt, while Luke knows of no home for the sacred family except that of Nazareth, and is silent concerning the annunciation to Joseph, the star, the magi, the slaughter of the innocents, and the flight into Egypt. Matthew omits completely the story of John the Baptist, thus causing his gospel proper to begin with needless abruptness, were he in possession of the source used by Luke. Moreover, Matthew says nothing of the annunciation to Mary, or of Mary's visit to Elizabeth ; nothing of the angels and the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation in the temple, the incident in the temple at the age of twelve, and the youth spent in Nazareth. Now, if we take a section from the gospel where Matthew and Luke are evidently dependent upon their common source, Mark, we can the better determine whether a similar dependence exists here. Taking the record of the second northern- journey for retirement, beginning with Matt. 16:13 and Luke 9:18, the order of events is as follows : 1. Peter's confession 2. Death and resurrection foretold 3. Transfiguration - - - - 4. The demoniac boy - - - - 5. Death and resurrection again foretold 6. The shekel in the fish's mouth - - 24-27 (Matthaean addition to common source) 7. Discourse on humility and forgiveness - chap. 18 46-50 Comparing the substantial nature of this harmony of events with the comparative relation of events in the infancy sections, the evidence is against a common source in the latter case. Having made this survey, it may be well to take up the two accounts of the virgin birth in order to ascertain whether there is evidence of a common source in this particular part of the infancy sections. This involves a comparison of Matt, i : 18-25 with Luke i : 26-38 and 2 : 6, 7 ; and, at the same time, of both with the parallel material of the gospel of James, in order to ascertain the value of the theory which makes it the common source of the canonical stories. * This passage also indicates that the Bethlehem birth was not known in the life- time of Jesus, but that it was a commonly accepted fact in the apostolic age. On the other hand, one must admit the possibility that the information presented in John 7 : 42 may be derived from the infancy story itself. 1 Vs. 21 expunged as an interpolation. 11 MATTHEW. LUKE. 16: 13-20 9: 18-21 21-28 22-27 17:1-13 28-36 14-20' 37-43« 22, 23 43M5 12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES Matthew and Luke are in harmony in their statement of the chief fact, that Mary was Joseph's betrothed, and prior to any sexual intercourse on their part conceived a son by the Spirit of God, and that such a conception was predictive of the child's future greatness. But in Luke the angel who announces this wonderful fact and names the unborn child is sent to Mary in Nazareth, while in Matthew the angel comes in a dream to Joseph, presumably in Bethlehem. The particular task of the one to be born is represented in Luke as ruling on the throne of David forever, and in Matthew as saving his people from their sins. In Luke his manner of birth warrants the epithet "God's Son," and in Matthew, "Immanuel." The limits of the present article do not permit the insertion of the Greek text of these three accounts in such a way as to make clear all corresponding material, but from such an examination we are con- vinced that Conrady's thesis is untenable. The following extract from the gospel of James may be compared with the Lucan and Matthaean accounts, the verbal correspondence to Luke being roughly designated by italics, that to Matthew by capitals, and that to both by spaced type: II. And she took the pitcher and went out to fill it with water. And behold a voice saying: Hail, thou who hast received grace ; the Lord is with thee ; blessed art thou among women (Luke i : 42). And she looked around on the right hand and on the left to see whence this voice came. And she went away trembling to her house, and put down the pitcher ; and taking the purple she sat down on her seat and drew it out. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before her, saying : Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor before the Lord of all, and thou shall conceive according to his word. And she hearing reasoned with herself, saying : Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God ? and shall I bring forth as every woman brings forth ? (Luke I : 34). And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary : for the power of the Lord shall overshadow thee : wherefore also that holy thing that shall be born oi thee shall be called the son of the yiosi High. And thou shalt call his name Jesus, FOR HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS. And Mary said: Behold the servant of the Lord before his face ; let it be unto me according to thy word. 13. And she was in her sixth month ; and behold, JOSEPH came back from his building, and entering into his house he DISCOVERED that she was big WITH CHILD. And he smote his face and threw himself upon the ground upon the sackcloth, and wept bitterly, saying : With what face shall I look upon the Lord my God, and what prayer shall I make about this maiden ? because I received her a virgin out of the temple of the Lord, and I have not watched over her. Who is it that has hunted me (her) down? 12 THE VIRGIN BIRTH 13 Who has done this evil thing in my house and has defiled the virgin ? Has not the history of Adam been repeated in me ? For just as Adam was in the hour of his singing praise, and the serpent came and found Eve alone and completely deceived her, so it has happened to me also. And Joseph stood up from the sackcloth and called Mary and said unto her : Oh, thou who hast been cared for by God, why hast thou done this and forgotten the Lord thy God ? Why hast thou brought low thy soul, thou who wast brought up in the holy of holies and that didst receive food from the hand of an angel ? And she wept bitterly, saying : I am innocent, and have known no man. And Joseph said to her: Whence then is that which is in thy womb? And she said : As the Lord my God liveth, I do not know whence it is to me. 14. And Joseph was greatly afraid, and retired from her, and considered what he should do in regard to her. And Joseph said : If I conceal her sin, I find myself fighting against the law of the Lord ; and if I expose her to the sons of Israel, I am afraid lest that which is in her be from an angel, and I shall be found giving up innocent blood to the doom of death. What then shall I do with her? I will put her away from me secretly. (Matt, i : 19.) And night came upon him; and BEHOLD, AN ANGEL OF THE LORD APPEARS TO HIM IN A DREAM, SAYING : BE NOT AFRAID for this maiden, FOR THAT WHICH IS IN HER IS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND SHE SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, FOR HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS. AND JOSEPH AROSE FROM SLEEP and glorified the God of Israel who had given him this grace ; and he kept her 19. And I said : I am seeking a Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me : Art thou of Israel ? And I said unto her : Yes. And she said : And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave ? * And I said : A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me : Is she not thy wife ? And I said to her: It is Mary who was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has con- ceived OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. (Matt, i : 18, 25.) And the midwife said to him : Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold, a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said : My soul has been magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen strange things — because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. (Luke 1:46, 68 ff.) And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave and a great light shone in the cave so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased until the infant appeared and went and took the breast from his mother Mary.' And the midwife cried out and said : *The gospel of James represents this cave as being within three miles of Bethle- hem. 9 Contrast Luke 2 : 6, 7. 13 14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES This is a great day to me because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave and Salome met her. And she said to her : Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee : A virgin has brought forth — a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome : As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth. 20. And the midwife went in and said to Mary : Show thyself, for no small controversy has arisen about thee. And Salome put in her finger and cried out and said : Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God ; and behold my hand is dropping off as if burned by fire. Anyone who is acquainted with the story-making habit, the extrava- gant characteristics of the apocryphal literature as a whole, or even with the tendency in New Testament interpolation, cannot hold Matthew and Luke to be deductions from this gospel of James. The gospel of James seems rather to be the fanciful working out of the canonical stories ; and, while it is difficult to account for the placing of the birth in a cave near Bethlehem, this may be a creation of fancy, the better to set off the miraculous illumination at the time of birth; or the invention may have been favored by the Septuagint translation of Isa. 33 : i6.'° Contrast with the above extract such samples of verbal dependence" as Matt. 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9, or Matt. 12:43-45 and Luke II : 24-26 ; or take the threefold account of Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees," Matt. 21 : 23-27, Luke 20 : 1-8, derived from Mark 11:27- 33, and judge whether there is sufficient ground in the canonical stories of the virgin birth for supposing them to be dependent upon each other or upon the prolix vulgarity of the gospel of James. Indeed, the instances cited, together with such passages as Mark 12:13-27, 13:5-9, and parallels, serve to indicate the true nature of verbal dependence, and, taken with the comparison of the narratives as a whole, to warrant the conclusion that where the virgin-birth story first appears it is attested by two witnesses which betray no certain sign of dependence of one upon the other or of both upon a common source. "See Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, p. 102, note 7. "See HucK, Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, p. 17, where out of the 147 words composing the two accounts 130 are identical and arranged in the same order. For the second example see HucK, p. 54, where out of the 126 words of the two accounts 104 are identical and in the same order. Also Rushbrook, Synopticon, pp. 136, 159. " See HucK, pp. iiS ff., where of some 356 words composing the three accounts about 200 are identical and in the same order. See also Rushbrook, Synopticon, p. 81. 14 THE VIRGIN BIRTH 15 It is now necessary, before proceeding to trace the influence of the narratives of the virgin birth on the subsequent Christian literature, to get as clear an idea as possible of the meaning of the story in the earliest forms preserved to us. Matthew's thought seems to be that the wonder-working Spirit of God, exclusive of human agency, caused Mary to conceive ; that, by reason of this fact, she was innocent of any wrong such as that the suspicion of which had troubled Joseph; and that at the same time such a birth, being in accord with the Immanuel prophecy, marked the child to be born as the Messiah, the Savior of his people, as the one spoken of in Isa., chaps. 7 and 8, to be the deliverer of his nation in the impending war. Thus the application of the prophetic and symbolic expression "Immanuel" was not for the purpose of designating the nature of the child, but rather his work, which was to be national and messianic. The result of the nation's sins was always the withdrawal of God ; but the Messiah would lead them in righteousness and save them from that abandoning by God which was at the same time the result of their sins and the cause of their impotence and subjection. The term "Immanuel," then, is the prophetic and symbolic designation for Savior; but that it soon came to be used as designating the divine nature of Christ will appear from the study of the patristic literature. The meaning of Luke's account of the virgin birth is not so clear, perhaps, but, like Matthew's, is destitute of any attempt to explain the divine nature of Jesus upon the basis that God, and not a human father, was his begetter. In reply to Mary's question (i : 34), the angel says : " Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and power of Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the begotten thing shall be called holy. Son of God." In other words, the pure Spirit of God will cause Mary to conceive miraculously, and thus, in contrast to the polluted offspring of any human begetter, who would be a sinful descendant of Adam, the child shall be/«r^as the begetting Spirit is pure. This is one element in the angel's annunciation — the purity of the child through the action of the Holy Spirit and the breaking of the line of sinful Adam's descent. The other is that the creative power of God is to act directly in this creation, as it did in that of Adam, the first man, who because of his direct creation by God is called God's son (cf. 3 : 38, "the son of Adam, the son of God "). In like manner shall this one, whose holiness is secured by the breaking of the sinful Adamic descent, be termed Son of God because directly created by divine power. This is undoubtedly the basis for the use of the term " Son of God " 15 16 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES in this passage ; but has the term no larger content than that which applies equally to Adam ? There are two other possibilities : first, that it is equivalent to "Messiah ;" and, second, that it designates moral like- ness to God. In support of the former contention it can be pointed out that this passage in Luke is clearly messianic, as is seen in vss. 32 and 33, and also in the psalms interspersed throughout the narrative. Moreover, the probable use of the term " Son of God " as a messianic title can be appealed to in Matt. 16 : 16 (but not in Mark 3:11; 5:7; 1 5 : 39 ; nor in Luke 3:22; 4:3, 9; 9: 35). For the view that it designates moral likeness to God it can be shown that the thought is thus made parallel to the preceding thought of purity and is brought into harmony with the Jewish conception of the original purity of Adam, avoiding at the same time a use of the term " Son of God " which cannot with certainty be attributed to any part of the New Testament except its latest elements. Adopting any one of these three possible interpretations, however, there is in the passage no explanation of the divine nature of Jesus on the basis of divine parentage, but at most only a statement and partial explanation of his purity (in Matthew more specifically an exoneration of the purity of Mary's conception, and in Luke of the purity of Jesus from the hereditary Adamic sin), and a prophecy of his greatness as the theocratic representative. Both accounts have the national mes- sianic coloring, but in neither of them is there represented an incar- nation of a pre-existent being, such as is set forth in the prologue to John's gospel. The natural deductions made from the terms "Immanuel" and "Son of God" by the subsequent Christian litera- ture, and the embarrassing attempts to harmonize the synoptists with the prologue of the fourth gospel, will be pointed out in the next section. Passing from the infancy sections, we find no use of them (unless possibly John 7 : 42) or of the virgin birth prior to Ignatius, in the second decade of the second century. The narrative of the virgin birth, if in existence, made no impression upon the exponents of Christianity prior to the formation and crystallization of the preaching gospel, or, indeed, within the period in which the New Testament books — most of them, at least — arose. There is no trace of it in Peter's preaching, as preserved to us ; and Paul, though it would seem that he could have made occasional good use of the teaching,'' pre- serves a significant silence; Matthew's gospel, from 3 : i on, depending '3£'. g., I Cor. 15:45 ff.; 2 Cor. 5:21 ; Rom. 5:12 ff.; 8:3; Phil. 2:6 ff.; et al. 16 THE VIRGIN BIRTH 17 upon Mark, is also silent ; and that portion of the gospel of Luke which, as we judge from i : 2 and Acts i : 21, 22, constituted for him the gospel proper, viz., that which began, like Mark, with the public ministry of Jesus as inaugurated by John the Baptist, is likewise desti- tute of any trace of the virgin-birth story. The gospel of John is also silent.'" What these facts signify as to the source of the story and the time of its rise is not the task of this essay, which passes to consider the history of the thought as traceable in the patristic literature. II. THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. In entering upon a study of the ante-Nicene Fathers in their treat- ment of the virgin birth, we are interested to know what sources they used, what was the influence of extra-canonical sources upon their views, and the time when this influence becomes discoverable. It is also desirable to ascertain what sources the so-called heretical teachers and writers used, and what various theories of the virgin birth were advanced by them ; and also to determine what the Fathers understood the virgin birth to mean, and what theological purpose they made it serve. With a view to answering these questions, and conscious of the fact that in the absence of any New Testament interpretation, save the meager hints of the infancy sections themselves, the interpretation of the Fathers became and remained the interpretation of the church at large, the study of this vast and not always interesting field is under- taken. I, Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch,'^ martyred between 107 and 117 A.D., is the first and sole apostolic Father to leave us any material on the miraculous generation of Jesus. Not only so, but all the apos- tolic Fathers, save Ignatius and Aristides, in the Syriac version of his Apology, maintain a uniform and notable silence concerning the story of the birth and infancy of Jesus. In Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Barnabas, the Didache, the Epistle to Diognetus, and the Shepherd of Hermas we look in vain for any reference either to the miraculous conception itself or to the infancy story of which the miraculous con- ception was the most striking feature. It is true that in Clement, Epistles, i : 32, there is an obscure refer- ence to the descent of Jesus Christ from Jacob (?) according to the '^That the gospel narratives are quite oblivious to the fact of the virgin birth is most obvious in such passages as Matt. 13 : 54-58 = Mark 6 : 1-6; Luke 4:22; John I : 45 ; 6 : 42 ; 7 : 5, 27; while at the same time the infancy section itself does not present an apparently uniform statement, Luke 2 : 33, 41, 43, 48. 'SEusEBius, Church History, Books III, XXII, and XXXVI. 17 18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES flesh, but the obscurity of the passage and its probable derivation from Rom. 9 : 5 leave the writings of Clement destitute of any reference to the infancy sections. Moreover, it is not as if the apostolic Fathers had no occasion to use the story of the virgin birth of Jesus ; for Polycarp in his Epistle, chap. 7, quotes i John 4 : 3, "Whosoever does not con- fess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is Anti-Christ," and in chap. 12 he maintains that Jesus is the Son of God ; yet in both these places, where it would be natural and in keeping with the custom of so many of the ante-Nicene writers to refer to the infancy story, he is silent. Likewise in Barnabas, chap. 6, while there is a reference to the fact and purpose of the incarnation, a similar silence is maintained. "The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view, that he might bring to a head the sum of their sins who had persecuted his (their) prophets to the death." The same is true of Diognetus, chap. 7, where there is a statement of how and for what purpose God sent his Son, and in chaps. 10 and 11, where John's doctrine of the Word and mention of the only-begotten Son appear, but without reference to the infancy story. The Shepherd has no reference to Matthew's gospel prior to the Sermon on the Mount, and none to Luke's prior to the eleventh chapter. Neither has the Didache any reference to Matthew prior to chap. 5, or to Luke prior to chap. 6. Ignatius has nothing to say about gospels, but mentions only the gospel which is an account of Jesus Christ, whom he accepts in place of all that is ancient and authoritative {Philad., chap. 8), and which, with one exception (Rom., chap. 7, referring to John 6:51), seems to coincide with the gospel as we have it in Matthew. The Ignatian controversy,'* extending from 1495 to the present time, has succeeded in thoroughly discrediting the longer Greek recen- sion with the eight additional epistles, including the three in Latin. It has also pointed toward the conclusion that the Syriac version of the epistles to Polycarp, Ephesians, and Romans is but an imperfect series of extracts from the shorter Greek form of the seven usually accepted epistles ; and that the genuineness of this shorter Greek form itself is not in every respect beyond question. The free tampering with the text which makes against the high valuation of the later Fathers as textual evidence, necessarily discounts to some degree the patristic '*LlGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers, S. Ignatius and 5. Polycarp, Vol. I, pp. 315-414; Theodosius Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien. For bibliography see SCHAFK, History of Christian Church, Vol. II, pp. 652, 653. 18 THE VIRGIN BIRTH 19 writings which deal with the supernatural birth. But to just what degree is difficult to ascertain. In the shorter Greek version, however, Ignatius awakens little or no suspicion of reflecting the thought of a later time ; he rather exhibits the pre-theological naivete natural to his time and his teaching, if he were a disciple of Paul or Peter or John. His reference to the supernatural birth of Christ is that of unquestioning and unphilosophic statement. In Eph., chap. 7 (I, 52),'^ he says that Jesus Christ is "of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate — (son) both of Mary and of God.'"^ In chap. 18 (I, 57) he says: "For our God," Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary, according to a dispensation of God, of the seed of David, but also of the Holy Spirit ; "^° and in chap. 19 (I, 57) : " And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child- bearing."^' In the same chapter the incarnation is regarded as " God himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life,'"" and in chap. 20 the manner of Christ's generation is taken to explain his being Son of man and Son of God.'^ In Smyrn., chap. I (I, 86), there is perhaps as full a statement as any: "He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God. He was truly born of a vir- gin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be ful- filled by him."** From Magnesians, chap. 1 1, we learn that the birth, passion, and res- *7 The citations in parentheses refer to the American reprint of the Edinburgh edi- tion of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, revised by A. C. CoxE, D.D. New York : Scribner, 1899. '• Ignatius, Ephesians, VII, 2 : Efj larpbs iffnv capKiKbs re koI ir veu/xar ik4i, yevvTf- rhi Kal dy4vvT]T0Sj iv op^0rj inri Mop/ai kot' olKovofilav OeoO iK ffvipfiaroi pAv Aa^ld, irveijp.aTOi di aylov "Ibid., XIX, I : Kai tXadev rbv ipxovra tov alQvos Toirov 17 nap6evla Maplas Kal d TOKerbs airrrjs k. t. X. "Ibid., XIX, 3: GeoO avdpwirlvui