CHAPTER III. ANNOUNCEMENT OP THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARA CTEB- VISIT OP MARY TO ELIZABETH. § 23. SKETCH OF THE DIFFERENT CANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL ACCOUNTS. THERE ia a striking gradation in the different representations of the conception and birth of Jesus given in the canonical and in the apocryphal gospels. They exhibit the various steps, from a simple statement of a natural occurrence, to a minute and miraculously em- bellished history, in which the event is traced back to its very earliest date. Mark and John presuppose the fact of the birth of Jesus, and * See DC Wettn, hill. Dogm. and cxeg. Handbuch 1,1, S. 14 ; Hasa. I,. J, Eusdiius gives a not improbable explanation of this disagreement (ad. Steph. qn^st. iii. pointed out by Crediirr, 1, p. GS f.) that besides the notion amongst the Jews, that the Messiah must. spring from the royal line. of David, another had arisen, tliat this line having become pol- luted and declared ui-nvorthy of continuing on the throne of ••David, (Jcreni. xxii. 30,) by tile 'wickedness of its later reigning members, a line more pure though less famed "WPS to lie pi-rfrrred to it. + The farther considerations on the origin and import of these gene.'il- oiries. whn-h •";- "••,"'! their connexion "with the account of the miraculous birth of Jesus, CONCEPTION OF JESUS--ITS SUPEENATURAL CHARACTER. 105 content themselves with the incidental mention of Mary as the mother (Mark vi. 3), and of Joseph as the father of Jesus (John i. 46). Matthew and Luke go further back, since tlicy state the par- ticular circumstances attending tlie conception as well as tlie birth of tlie Messiah. But of these two evangelists Luke •mounts a step higher than Matthew. According to tlie latter Mary, the betrothed of Joscpli, being found -with child, Joseph is offended and deter- mines to put her away; but the angel of the Lord visits him in a dream, and assures him of the divine origin and exalted destiny of Mary's offspring; tlie result of which is tliat Joscpli takes unto him his wife: but knows her not till slie lias brought forth her first-born son. (Matt. i. 18-25.) Here the pregnancy is discovered in the first place, and then afterwards justified by tlie angel; but in Luke tlie pregnancy is prefaced and announced by a celestial apparition. The same Gabriel, who had predicted tlie birth of John to Zaclia- rias, appears to Mary, tlie betrothed of Joseph, and tells her that she sliall conceive by tlie power of the Holy Ghost: whereupon tlie destined mother of tlie Messiah pays a visit full of holy import to the already pregnant mother of Ills forerunner ; upon which occasion botli Mary and Llizabeth pour forth their emotions to one another in the form of a hymn, (Luke i. 26-56). Matthew and Luke are content to presuppose tlie connexion between Mary and Josepli; but the apocryphal gospels, tlie ProtevawJdium Jucubi, and tlie Evwi- gelium de .N'litlcitatti Iflaruie* (books with tlie contents of which tlie Fathers partially agree), seek to represent the origin of this con- nexion ; indeed tlicy go back to tlie birtli of Mary, and describe it to have been preceded, equally with that of the Messiah and tlie Baptist, by a divine annunciation. As the description of tlie birth of Jolin in Luke is principally borrowed from tlie Old Testament accounts of Samuel and of Samson, so this history of the birth of Mary is an imitation of the history in Luke, and of the Old Testa- ment histories. Joachim, so says tlie apocryphal narrative, and Anna (tlie name of Samuel's mothcrf) arc unhappy on account of their long childless marriage (as were tlie parents of the Baptist); when an angel appears to them both (so in tlie history of Samson) at different places, and promises them a child, who sliall be the mother of God, and com- mands tliat this cliild shall live the life of a Nazarite (like the Bap- tist). In early childhood Mary is brought by her parents to tlie temple (like Samuel); where she continues till licr twelfth year, vis- ited and fed by angels and honoured by divine visions. Arrived at wo'manliood she is to quit tlie temple, her future provision and des- tiny lacing revealed by the oracle to tlie liigli priest. In conformity with the prophecy of Isaiah, xi. 1 f.: egredietur virga de radios * Fabricius, Codex apocryplms N. T. 1, p. 19 ff. GO ff.; Tliilo, 1, p. 1G1 ff. 319 ff. •f Gregory of Xyssa or his interpolator ia reminded of this mother of Samuel by the apocryphal A.nna when lie says of her : MtyittTat Toivvv Kal avTTi ru ircpi n/c pjT-poc TOV 2a^of?//l SiTjyf/fMra K. r. \. Fabricius 1, p. u. THE LITE OF JESUS. 106 Jesse, ct flos de radice ejus ascended, et reyuiescet super sum spi- ritzis Domini; tins oracle commanded, according to one gospel*, that all tlie unmarried men of tlic house of David,-according to the other,! that all the widowers among the people,-should bring their rods and that he on wliose rod a sign should appear (like the rod of Aaron, Numb. xvii.), namely tlie siq-n predicted in the prophecy, should take Alary unto himself. Tills sign was manifested upon Joseph's rod; for, in exact accordance witli tlic oracle, it put forth a blossom and a dove liglitcd upon it4 The apocryphal gospels and tlie fathers agree in representing Joseph as an old man :§ but tlie narrative is somewhat differently told in the two apocryphal gospels. According to the Evang, de, nativ. Mariae, notwithstanding Mary's alleged vow of chastity, and the refusal of Joseph on account of his great age, bctrothment took place at tlie command of tlic priest, and subsequently a marriage-(which marriage, however, tlic author evi- dently means to represent also as chaste). According to tlie Prot- evany. Jacobi, on tlie contrary, neither betrothnicnt nor marriage are mentioned, but Joseph is regarded merely as tlic chosen protector of tlic young virgin,|] and Joseph on the journey to Bethlehem doubts whether lie aliall describe his charge as his wife or as Ills daughter; fearing to bring ridicule upon himself, on account of his age, if lie called her Ins wife. Again, where in Matthew Mary is called f] yvvfj of Josepli, tlie apocryphal gospel carefully designates lier merely as ij -raZc, and even avoids using tlie term 7rapo/l(ij3e7v or substitutes rfca^vAa^ot, with wliicli many of the Fathers concur. ^ In tlic Prot- eva'/iyrlicilm it is farther related tliat Mary, having been received into Joseph's house, was charged, together witli other young women, with tlic fabrication of tlic veil for tlic temple, and tliat it fell to her lot to spin tlie true purple. But. wliilst Joseph was absent on business Mary was visited by an angel, and Josepli on his return found her witli child and called licr to account, not as a husband, but as tlie. guardian of her honour. Mary, however, liad forgotten tlic words of tlic angel and protested her ignorance of the cause of her preg- nancy. Josepli was perplexed and determined to remove her secretly from under his protection; but an angel appeared to him in a dream and reassured liiin by Ills explanation. Tlic matter was then brought before tlie priest, and botli Josepli and Mary being charged witli .in- continence were condemned to drink the "bitter water,'"**" vSuip -//c e/ley^iuc, but as they remained uninjured by it, they were declared innocent. Then follows tlic account of tlic taxing and of the birth of Jesus.ft * Evang. dc nativ. Mar. c. 7: ruitctns de d'nna et fnnulvi J)nvid nvptiii hnWes, non cavj-iigittns. f I'rotcv. Jac. c. 8: T0!'lc• OTperovras' Tor ^aoi). \ It is thus in the Evang. de nativ. Mariae vii. and viii.; but rather different in the I'rotiiv. Jac. c. ix. § I'rotuv. c. 9: wpECTiji'T';;?. EvaiiK. ile nativ. Mar, S.: granilacvus. Epiphan. adv. haeres. 7S, S: ^a/i/3tt- vn ri/v Map/'av ^//poc- KCITU^W f^idav Trfpt TTOD oyfiof/KovTa e-ur nal 7-puffd) 6 ury/p. ]1 lla- oa^aftf ai'ri/v ui; T^JIIJOLV mtWTo. c. ix. Compare with Evun^. de nativ. Mar. viii. ard x. *[ See tin-' variations in 7'fiiio p. 227. and the ({notations from tlic Fathers at p. 3G;'> not. ** Niunli. v. IS. tt I'rotcv. J. x-xvi. Tlii.' account in the Evang. de nativ. Mar. ia ^ a CONCEPTION OF JESUS--ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 107 Since these apocryphal narratives were for a long period held as historical by the church, and were explained, equally with those of the canonical accounts, from the supranaturalistic point of view as miraculous, they were entitled in modern times to share witli tlie New Testament histories tlie benefit of tlie natural explanation. If, on the one hand, tlie belief in tlic marvellous was so superabundantly strong in tlie ancient church, tliat it readied beyond tlie limits of the New Testament even to tlic embracing of the apocryphal narratives, blinding tlic eye to tlic perception of their manifestly unhistorical character; so, on the other hand, tlic positive rationalism of some of the heralds of the modern modes of explanation was so ovcrstrong tliat tlicv believed it adequate to explain even tlie apocryphal mira- cles. Of tills we have an example in the author of the natural his- tory of tlic great Prophet of Nazareth ;* wlio docs not hesitate to include tlie &-torics of tlie lineage and early years of Mary witliin tlie circle of Ills representations, and to give them a natural explanation. If we in our day, with a perception of tlie fabulous character of such narratives, look down alike upon tlic Fathers of tlic church and upon these naturalistic interpreters, we arc certainly so far in tlic right, as it is only by gross ignorance tliat tills character of (lie, apocryphal accounts is here to be mistaken ; more closely considered, however, the difference between tlie apocryphal and tlie canonical narratives concerning the early history of tlic Baptist and of Jesus, is seen to be merely a difference of form : they have sprung, as wo sliall here- after find, from tlie same root, though tlie one is a fresh and healthy sprout, and tlic other an artilicLilly nurtured and weak aftcrgrowtli. Still, tlic Fathers of the church and these naturalistic interpreters had this superiority over most of tlic theologians of our own time; tliat they did not allow themselves to be deceived respecting the inherent similarity by tlie difference of form, but interpreted the kindred narratives by the same method; treating both as miraculous or both as natural; and not, as is now usual, tlie one as fiction and the other as history. § 24. DISAGREEMENTS OF THE CANONICAL GOSPELS IN RELATION TO THE FORM OF THE ANNUNCIATION. AFTER the foregoing general sketch, we now proceed to examine the external circumstances which, according to our gospels, attended tlie first comniimication of the future birth of Jesus to Mary and Josepli. Leaving out of siglit, for tlie present, the special import of tlie annunciation, namely, that Jesus should be supernaturally begotten of tlie Holy Ghost, w^e shall, in tlie first place, consider merely tlic form of tlic announcement; by whom, when, and in what manner it was made. As tlic birth of the Baptist was previously announced by an angel, so tlic conception of Jesus was, according to the gospel his- 108 THE LIFE OF JESUS. •tones, proclaimed after the same fashion. But whilst in tlie one case, we have l>ut one history of the apparition, tliat of Luke; in tlie other we have two accounts, accounts however wliicli do not cor- respond, and which we must now compare. Apart from tlie essential signification the two accounts exhibit the following differences. 1. The individual wlio appears is called in Matthew by the indefinite appella- tion, angd of t!ie .Lord, ay-ye/loc Kvplov: in Luke by name, the angel Gabriel, b ayye/lo? ra,3p(?;/l. 2. Tlie person to whom the angel appears is, according to Matthew, Joseph, according to Luke, Mary. 3. In Matthew tlie apparation is seen in a dream, in Luke whilst awake. 4. There is a disagreement in relation to the time at which the appari- tion took place : according to Matthew, Joseph receives tlie heavenly communication after Mary was already pregnant: according to Luke it is made to Mary prior to her pregnancy. 5. Lastly, Loth the pur- pose of tlie apparition and the effect produced arc different; it was de- signed, according to Matthew, to comfort Joseph, who was troubled- on account of tlie pregnancy of his betrothed: according to Luke to prevent, by a previous announcement, all possibility of offence. Where tlie discrepancies are so great and so essential, it may, at first siglit, appear altogether superfluous to inquire whether tlie two Evangelists record one and tlie same occurrence, though with considerable disagreement; or whether they record distinct occur- rences, so tliat tlie two accounts can be blended togetlicr, and the one be made to amplify tlie other ? The first supposition cannot be admitted witliout impeaching the historical validity of the narrative ; for which reason most of our theologians, indeed all who see in tlie narrative a true history, wlietlier miraculous or natural, have de- cided in favour of tlie second supposition. Maintaining, and justly, that tlie silence of one Evangelist concerning an event wliicli is nar- rated by tlie other, is not a negation of the event,* they blend tlie two accounts together in the following manner: 1, First, the angct makes known to Mary her approaching pregnancy (Luke); 2, slic then journeys to Elizabeth (tlie same gospel); 3, after her return her situation being discovered, Joscpli takes offence (Matthew); whereupon, 4, he likewise is visited by an angelic apparition (tlie same gospel, f) But tills arrangement of the incidents is, as Schlcicrmachcr lias already remarked, full of difficulty -;f and it seems that what is re- lated by one Evangelist is not only not presupposed, but excluded, by tlie 'other. For, in the first place, tlie conduct of the angel wlio appears to Joseph is not csisily explained, if tlie same or another angel liad previously appeared to Mary. The angel (in Matthew) speaks altogether as if his communication were tlie first in tins affair: he neither refers to the message previously received by Mary, nor reproaches Joseph because he had not believed it; but more * Augustiu, de coasens. enangtiist, U. 5. •)• Paulas, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Coiiim. in Tu'-tn, „ r.i; + r'nnin do Wct.t.K'a exes*. IIandbuch i. 1, S. lt>. S-irhltiicrinaclier uber .CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 109 tlian all, the informing Joseph of the name of the expected child, and the giving him a full detail of the reasons wdly he should be so called, (Matt. i. 21.) would have been wholly superfluous liad the an- gel (according to Luke i. 31.) already indicated this name to Mary. Still more incomprehensible is the conduct of the betrothed parties according to this arrangement of events. Had Mary been visited by an angel, who had made known to her an approaching supernatural pregnancy, would not tlie first impulse of a delicate woman liave been, to hasten to impart to her betrothed the import of the divine message, and by tills means to anticipate the humiliat- ing discovery of her situation, and an injurious suspicion on the part of her affianced husband. But exactly this discovery Mary allows Joseph to make from others, and thus excites suspicions ; for it is evident that the expression evpiOrj ev •yocr-p't g^owo (Matth. i. 18.) signifies a discovery made independent of any communication oh Mary's part, and it is equally clear that in this manner only does Joseph obtain the knowledge of her situation, since his conduct is represented as the result of that discovery (evpiaKsoOai\. The apo- cryphal Protevangdmm Jacobi felt how enigmatical Mary's conduct must appear, and sought to solve the difficulty in a manner wdiich, contemplated from the supranaturalistic point of view, is, perhaps the most consistent. Had Mary retained a recollection of the im- port of the heavenly message-upon this point the whole ingenious representation of the apocryphal gospel rests-she ought to liave imparted it to Joseph; but since it is obvious from Joseph's de- meanour that she did not acquaint him with it, the only remaining alternative is, to admit tliat tlie mysterious communication made to Mary had, owing to her excited state of mind, escaped her memory, and that she was herself ignorant of the true cause of her preg- nancy.* In fact, nothing is left to supranaturalisra in the present case but to seek refuge in the miraculous and the incomprehensible. Tlie attempts which the modern theologians of this class have made to explain Mary's silence, and even to find in it an admirable trait in her character, are so many rash and abortive efforts to make a virtue of necessity. According to liessf it must have cost Mary much self-denial to have concealed the communication of the angel •from Joseph; and this reserve, in a matter known only to herself and to God, must be regarded as a proof of lier firm trust in God. Without doubt Mary communed thus with herself: It is not without a purpose tliat this apparition has been made to me alone, liad it been intended that Josepli sliould liave participated in tlie communi- cation, the angel would have appeared to him also (if each individual favoured with a divine revelation were of this opinion, how many special revelations would it not require?); besides it is an affair of * Protev. Jac. c. 12 : Map(U|U St. i-iTcAai^ero TUV ^varftp'MV uv sl^e irpof avrrjv Ta- "pt%3.. Wliun questioned by Josepli she assures him with tears: ou yivuaw, wfliv earl TOVTO T-A iv rg yaorpt fiov. c. 13. f. Geschichte dur drci letzten Lebeuajalire Jesu u. a. w. 110 THE LIFE OF JESUS. God alone, consequently it becomes me to leave it witli him to con- vince Joseph (tlie argument of indolence). Olshauscn concurs, and adds his favourite general remark, tliat in relation to events so extra- ordinary tlic measure of the ordinary occurrences of tlie world is not applicable: a category under which, in tins instance, the highly essential considerations of delicacy and propriety arc included. More in accordance with tlie views of tlic natural interpreters, the Evanydimn de nativitate Marm* and subsequently some later writers, for example, tlic author of tlic natural history of tlic great prophet of Nazareth, have sought to explain Mary's silence, by sup- posin0' Joseph to have been at a distance from tlie abode of his at- lianccd bride at tlic time of the heavenly communication. Accord- in"- to them Mary was of Nazareth, Joseph of Bethlehem ; to which latter place Joseph departed after tlie betrothing, and did not return to Mary until tlic expiration of three months; when lie discovered the pregnancy which had taken place in the interim. But since tlic assumption that Mary and Joseph resided in different localities lias no foundation, as will presently be seen, in tlic canonical gospels, tlie whole explanation falls to tlie ground. Without such an as- sumption, Mary's silence towards Joseph miglit, perhaps, liave been accounted for from tlic point of view of tlic naturalistic interpreters, Ly imagining her to have been held back through modesty from. confessing a situation so liable to excite suspicion. But one wlio, like Mary, was so fully convinced of the divine agency in tlic mat- ter, and liad shown so ready a comprehension of her mysterious des- tination (Luke i. 38.) could not possibly have been tongue-tied by petty considerations of false shame. Consequently, ir order to rescue Mary's character, without 'bring- in"- reproach upon Joseph's, and at the same time to render his un- belief intelligible, interpreters have been compelled to assume that a communication, though a tardy one, was actually made by Mary, to Joscpli. Like tlie last-named apocryphal gospel, they introduce a journey, not of Josepli, but of Mary-tlic visit to Elizabeth men- tioned in Luke-to account, for tlic postponement of tlic communi- cation. It is probable, says Paulus, that Mary did not open her heart to Joscpli before this journey, because she wished rirst to consult "with her older friend as to tlie mode of making tlie dis- closure to him, and whether she, as tlie. mother of the Messiah, ouglit to marry. It \vas not till after her return, and tlicn most likely through the medium of others, tliat slie made Joscpli acquainted witli her situation, and with the promises she liad received. But Joseph's mind was not properly attuned and prepared for such a disclosure; he became haunted by all kinds of thoughts; and vacillated be- tween suspicion and hope till a length a dream, (lecidod him.t But in tlie nrst place a motive is here given to Mary's journey which is forei"-n to tlie account in Luke. Mary sets off to Elizabeth, not CONCEPTION OF JESUS--ITS SUPEENATUEAL CHAEACTEE. Ill to take counsel of her, but to assure herself regarding the sign ap- pointed by tlie angel. No uneasiness which the friend is to dissi- pate, but a proud joy, unalloyed by the smallest anxiety, is ex- pressed in her salutation to the future mother of tlic Baptist. But besides, a confession so tardily made can in nowise justify Mary. What behaviour on tlie part of an affianced bride-after having re- ceived a 'divine communication, so nearly concerning her future hus- band, and in a matter so delicate-to travel miles away, to absent herself for three months, and tlien to permit her betrothed to learn through third persons that which could no longer be concealed! Those, therefore, wdio do not impute to Mary a line of conduct which ccrtaiiily our Evangelists do not impute to her, must allow tliat. slie imparted tlie message of the angel to her future husband as soon as it liad been revealed to her; but tliat lie did not believe her.* But now let us sec how Joscpli's character is to be dealt witli! Even lless is of opinion tliat, since Joseph was acquainted with Mary, lie liad no cause to doubt her word, when slie told him of the apparition she liad liad. Tills scepticism presupposes a mis- trust of his betrothed wliicli is incompatible witli his character as a just man (Matt. i. 19.) and an incredulity respcctino- the marvel- lous wliicli is difficult to reconcile with a readiness on other occa- sions to believe in angelic apparitions; nor, in any case, would this want of faith have escaped the censure of tlie angel who subse- quently appeared to himself. Since then, to suppose tliat tlie two accounts are parallel, and complete one another, leads unavoidably to results inconsistent with tlie sense of the Gospels, in so far as they evidently meant to re- present tlic characters of Joseph and Mary as free from blemish; tlic supposition cannot be admitted, but the accounts mutually ex- clude cadi other. An angel did not appear, first to Mary, and also afterwards to Josepli; he can only have appeared either to tlie one or to tlic oilier. Consequently, it is only tlic ore or tlie other re- lation wliicli can be, regarded as historical. And here different con- siderations would conduct to opposite decisions. The history in Matthew miglit appear tlic more probable from tlic rationalistic point of view, because it is more easy to interpret naturally an apparition in a dream; whilst that in Luke miglit be preferred by the supra- naturalistic, because the manner in wliicli tlic suspicion cast upon the holy virgin is refuted is more worthy of God. But in fact, a. nearer examination proves, tliat neither lias any essential claim to be advanced before tlie other. Botli contain an angelic apparition, and both are therefore encumbered witli all tlic difficulties wliicli, as was stated above in relation to the annunciation of the birth of tlio Baptist, oppose tlie belief in angels and apparitions. Again, in. both narrations the import of tlie angelic message is, as v/e sliall pres- ently see, an impossibility. . Thus every criterion wliicli might de- termine the adoption of the one, and the rejection of tlie other, dis- lation wliicli can be, regarded as historical. 112 THE LIFE OF JE8US. appears; and we find ourselves, in reference to both accounts, driven Tback by necessity to the mythical view. From this point of view, all the various explanations, which the Rationalists have attempted to give of the two apparitions, vanish of them selves. Paulus explains the apparition in Matthew as a natural dream, occasioned Tby Mary's previous communication of the. announcement which liad been made to her; and witli wliicli Joseph must have been acquainted, because this alone can account for Ills having heard tlie same words in his dream, which tlic angel had beforehand addressed to Mary: but much rather, is it precisely tins similarity in the language of tlie presumed second angel to tliat of the first, witli the absence of all reference by tlic latter to the for- mer, which proves that the words of tlie first angel were not pre- supposed by tlie second. Besides, tlie natural explanation is annihi- lated the moment tlic narratives are shown to be mythical. The same remark applies to the explanation, expressed guardedly indeed by Paulas, but openly by the author of the "Natural history of the great prophet of Nazareth," namely, that the angel who visited Mary (in Luke) was a human being; of which we must speak hereafter. According to all tliat has been said, the following is the only judgment we can form of the origin of tlie two narratives of the angelic apparitions. Tlie conception of Jesus through tlie power of the Holy Ghost ought not to be grounded upon a mere uncertain suspicion; it must have been clearly and positively asserted; and to flits end a messenger from heaven was required, since theocratic decorum seemed to demand it far more in relation to the birth of the Messiali, than of a Samson or a John. Also the words which the angels use, correspond in part witli tlie Old Testament annun- ciations of extraordinary children.* The appearing of tlie angel in tlic one narrative beforehand to Mary, but in the other at a later period to Joseph, is to be regarded as a variation in tlie legend or in the composition, which finds an explanatory counterpart in the history of tlie annunciation of Isaac. Jehovah (Gen. xvii. 15.) promises Abraham a son by Sarah, upon which tlie Patriarch can- not refrain from laughing; but he receives a repetition of the assur- ance ; Jehovah (Gen. xviii. 1, ft.) makes this promise under the Terebinth tree at Mamre, and Sarah laughs as if it were something altogether novel and unheard of by her; lastly, according to Gen. * Gen. xvii. 19; LXX. (Annunciation of Matth. i. 21 Isaac) : (w o0l)Sij(; •^aoa'ha3dv Mapiuvt Tyv ymal- iSov SuAAo il •JWTI own TE^eTdt cm vlov, KQ? na am - ) TS^STCH OE vlov, Kal na^eaeif r& KOAECEl-f; TO ovoua QVTOV 'loatlK. ovoua (IVTOV 'l^frovv CUTOC yap cuaet. TOY ^.a- Judg. xiii. 5. (Annunciation of Sam- : or avTov u,v0 TUV u^apnuv HVTUV, son): KO.I aiiTo(; uoiferot auacu ror 'looa^l in ;[ctpof ^VAiOTUp.. Gen. xvi. 11 ff. (Annunciation of Ish- Luke i. 10 ff. mael): toi elvev 6 i'/yE^oc airy ISov cv^vfrg iv Ka ECT ev air^ o u-j'yc'Aol: Kuotoi) iSov ai' b> -yaarpt, itai ri^f vim, nai Kakiwcs T& ovo/icr •yacrpi c^EtC- Kal TE$T? vlov KCU KaAErretf T^ ai'rov 'ITJOOVV OVTCK; ^orcii, CONCEPTION OP JESUS-ITS SUPEENATUEAL CHAEACTER. 113 xxi. 5 ff. it is first after Isaac's birth that Sarah mentions tlie laughing of the people, which is said to have been the occasion of his name; whereby it appears tliat this last history docs not pre- suppose tlie existence of the two other accounts of the annunciation of tlie birth of Isaac.* As in relation to the birth of Isaac, different; legends or poems were formed without reference to one another, some simpler, some more embellished: so we have two discordant narratives concerning tlie birth of Jesus. Of these tlie narrative in Matthewf is tlie simpler and ruder style of composition, since it docs not avoid, tliougli it be but by a transient suspicion on the part of Joseph, tlie throwing a shade over the character of Mary wliich is only subsequently removed; tliat in Luke, on the contrary, is a more refined and artistical representation, exhibiting Mary from the first in tlic pure light of a bride of heaven. { § 25. IMPORT OF THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE--FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY OF ISAIAH. ACCORDING to Luke, the angel who appears to Mary, in the first place informs her only that she shall become pregnant, without spe- cifying after what manner: that she shall bring forth a son and call his name Jesus; he sliall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest (i'(oc vipia-ov): and God sliall give unto him the throne of his father David, and lie shall reign over tlie house of Jacob for ever. The subject, the Messiah, is liere treated precisely in the language common to the Jews, and even the term Son of t!ie Highest, if nothing further followed, must be taken in the same sense; as according to 2 Sam. vii. 14. PS. ii. 7. an ordinary king of Israel might be so named; still more, tlicrefore, the greatest of these kings, the Messiali, even considered merely as a man. This Jewish lan- guage reflects in addition a new light upon the question of the his- toric validity of the angelic apparition; for we must agree with Schleicrmacher that the real angel Gabriel would liardly have pro- claimed tlie advent of the Messiali in a phraseology so strictly Jewish :§ for which reason we are inclined to coincide witli this the- ologian, and to ascribe this particular portion of tlie history, as also tliat which precedes and relates to tlie Baptist, to one and the same Jewish-christian author. It is not till Mary opposes the fiict of her * Comp. de Wett'e, Kritik der mosaischen Gcschichte, S. 86 ffi •(• The vision, which according to Matthew, Joseph had in his sleep, had besides a kind of typ.,; in the "vi^on by which, according to the Jewish tradition related by Jo- sephus, tlie father of Moses was comforted under similar circumstances, when suffering anxiety concerning the pregnancy of hi? wife, although for a ditferent reason. Joseph. Antiq. I[, ix., 3. " A man "whose name was Amram, one of the nobler sort of Hebrews, was afraid for, his whole nation, rest it should fail, by the want of young men to be brought up hereafter, and was very uneasy at it, his wife being then with child, and he knew not •what to do. Hereupon he betook himself to prayer to God i , i Accordingly God had mercy on him, and was moved by his supplication. He stood by him in his sleep, and exhorted him not to despair of his future favours, i i For this child of thine shall deliver the Hebrew nation from the distress they are under from tha Egyptians. His memory sliall lie famous while the world lasts." j: Compare Ammon, Furtbildung des Pin.;..+,,,,H>,..*^ ; U OnU p S TT.-il,,,,. ,1;,> t.'.^rli'tnr, .111- T nl-.lo S; 9 •I 114 THE LIFE OF JESUS. virginity to the promises of a son, tliat the angel defines the nature of the conception: tliat it sliall Le by the IIolv Ghost, by tlie power of tlie Highest; after which the appellation vioc; v^li-i-ov receives a more precise metaphysical sense. As a confirmatory sign that a matter ot tins kind is nowise impossible to God, Mary is referred to tliat wliicli liad occurred to her relative Elizabeth: whereupon, slie resigns herself in faith to tlie divine determination respecting her. In Matthew, where the main point is to dissipate Joseph's anx- iety, the angel begins at once witli tlie communication, that tlie cliild conceived by Mary is, (as tlie Evangelist liad already stated of his own accord, chap. i. 18.), of the Holy Ghost (rrvEvfia S,yiov\; and hereupon the Messianic destination of Jesus is first pointed out by tire expression, lie shall save his people from their sins. This language may seem to sound less Jcwisli than that by which tlie Messianic station of the cliild who should be born, is set forth in Luke; it is however to be observed, tliat under the term sins (afiap- Tta(c) is comprehended the punishment of tliose sins, namely, the subjection of the people to a foreign yoke; so that here also the Jcw- isli element is not wanting; as neither in Luke, on tlie other hand, is tlie higher destination of the Messiah left wliolly out of siglit, since under tlie term to reign ftauiAEVEiv, tlie rule over an obedient and regenerated people is included. Next is subjoined by the aii- gel, or more probably by the narrator, an oracle from the Old Tes- tament, introduced by tlie often recurring phrase, all this teas done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken, of the J^ord by the prophet, [v. 22.]. It is the prophecy .from Isaiah, (chap. vii. 14.) which tlie conception of Jesus after this manner should accomplish: •namely, a virgin shall be u'ith child, and shall briny forth a son, and they shall call his name .Emmamiel-God-with-us. The original sense of this passage in Isaiah is, according to modern research,* this. The prophet is desirous of giving Ahaz, wlio, through fear of tlie kings of Syria and Israel, was disposed to make a treaty witli Assyria, a lively assurance of the speedy des- truction of Ills much dreaded enemies; and lie therefore says to him: suppose tliat an unmarried woman now on the point of be- coming a wifef sliall conceive; or categorically: a certain young woman is, or is about to be with cliild; (perhaps tlie prophet's own •wife); now, before tills child is born, the political aspect of affairs shall be so mucli improved, tliat a name of good omen sliall be given to tlie cliild; and before he sliall be old enough to use his reason, •the power of tlicse enemies shall be completely annihilated. Tliat is to say, prosaically expressed; before nine months sliall have * Compare Gcsenius und Hitzi^. Commentatoren xurn Jesaia ; uber (Ue Geburt de8 Iiumanuel dureli elm' .1 unyt'rau, in den theologischen Stnditin u. Kntiken, 1830, 3. Heft, S. 541 ft'. \ 'lllis explanation does away with the importance of controversy respecting the •word r\V^S, Moreover it ought to 1)C decided by the fart that tlie word does not signify an iniiiiaculate, but a marriageable yonng wom;u], (see (i<'scn'tms\ So early aa CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 115 passed awav, the condition of the kingdom shall be amended, and within about three years the danger sliall have disappeared. Thus much, at all events, is demonstrated by modern criticism, that, un- der tlie circumstances stated by Isaiah in the introduction to tlie oracle, it is only a sign having reference to tlie actual moment and the near future, wliicli could liave any meaning. How ill chosen, according to IIengstenberg's* interpretation, is tlie prophet's lan- guage : As certainly as tlie day shall arrive when, in fulfilment of tlie covenant, the Messiah sliall be born, so impossible is it that the people among whom lie shall arise, or the family whence lie shall spring, shall pass away. How ill-judged, on the part of tlie prophet, to endeavour to make tlie improbability of a speedy deliverance ap- pear less improbable, by an appeal to a yet greater improbability in the far distant future!-And tlien tlie given limit of a few years! The overthrow of tlie two kingdoms, such is Hengstcnberg's expla- nation, sliall take place-not in the immediately succeeding years, before the cliild specified shall have acquired tlie use of his reason but-within such a space of time, as in tlie far future will elapse between tlie birth of tlie Messiah and the first development of hia mental powers ; therefore in about three years. What a monstrous confounding of times! A. child is to be born in tlie distant future, and that which sliall happen before this cliild sliall know how to use his reason, is to take place in the nearest present time. Thus Panlus and his party are decidedly right in opposing to Hengstenberg and Ins party, tliat tlie prophecy of Isaiah has rela- tion, in its original local signification, to the then existing circum- stances, and not to tlie future Messiah, still less to Jesus. Heng- stenberg, on tlie other hand, is equally in the right, when in op- position to Paulus he maintains, that tlie passage from Isaiah is adopted by Mattlicw as a prophecy of tlie birth of Jesus of a vir- gin. Whilst tlie ortliodox commentators explain the often recurring that it might be fulfilled (t'va 'rr/l^piyi')^), and similar expressions as signifying: tills happened by divine arrangement, in order tliat the Old Testament prophecy, wliicli in its very origin had refer- ence to the New Testament occurrence, might be fulfilled;-the rationalistic interpreters, on tlie contrary understand merely: this took place after such a manner, that it was so constituted, that the Old Testament words, which, originally indeed, had relation to something different, should admit of being so applied; and in such application alone, do they receive their full verification. In the first explanation, the relation between the Old Testament pas- sage afed the New Testament occurrence is objective, arranged by God himself: in tlie last it is only subjective, a relation perceived by tlie later author; according to the former it is a relationship at once precise and essential: according to the latter both inexact and adventitious. But opposed'to this latter interpretation of New Tes- tament passages, wliicli point out an Old Testament prophecy as 116 THE LIFE 01' JESCS. fulfilled, is the language, and equally so the spirit of the New Tes- tament writers. The language: for neither can 'rr^fjpoWa.i signify in such connexion any tiling than ratum fieri, eventu comprobari, nor iva OTWC any tiling than. eo consilio ut, whilst tlic extensive adop- tion of Iva KK.[3a~i.K.w has arisen only from dogmatic perplexity.* But such an interpretation ia altogether at variance witli the Judaical spirit of the authors of the gospels. Paulus maintains that the Orientalist does not seriously believe that tlie ancient prophecy was designedly spoken, or was accomplished by God, precisely in order that it should prefigure a modern event, and vice versa ; but this is to carry over our sober European modes of thought into the imagina- tive life of the Orientals. When however Paulus adds; much rather did tlie coincidence of a later event with an earlier prophecy assume only tlie form of a designed coincidence in the mind of the Oriental: he thus, at once, annuls his previous assertion; for this ia to admit, that, wdiat in our view is mere coincidence, appeared to the oriental mind tlie result of design; and we must acknowledge this to be the meaning of an oriental representation, if we would interpret it according to its original signification. It is well known that tlic later Jews found prophecies, of the time being and of the future, everywhere in tlie Old Testament; and tliat thev constructed a complete image of the future Messiah, out of various, and in part falsely interpreted, Old Testament passages.! And tlic Jew be- lieved lie saw in tlie application lie gave to tlie Scripture, however perverted it might be, an actual fulnlment of tlic prophecy. In tlie words of Olshausen: it is a mere dogmatic prejudice to attribute to this formula, wdicn used by the New Testament writers, an alto- gether different sense from that which it habitually bears among their countrymen; and this solely with the view to acquit them of the sin of falsely interpreting tlie Scripture. Many theologians of tlic present day are sufficiently impartial to admit, witli regard to tlic Old Testament, in opposition to tlic an- cient orthodox interpretation, tliat many of tlie prophecies originally referred to near events; but they are not sufficiently rash, with re- gard to the New Testament, to side witli tlie rationalistic commen- tators, and to deny the decidedly Messianic application which the New Testament writers make of these prophecies ; they are still too prejudiced to allow, tliat here and there the New Testament hag falsely interpreted the Old. Consequently, they have recourse to the expedient of distinguishing a double sense in tlic prophecy ; tlie one relating to a near and minor occurrence, the other to a future and more important event; and thus they neither offend against the plain grammatical and historical sense of tlie Old Testament passage on the one hand, nor distort or deny the signification of the New Testament passage on tlie other. ^ Tims, in tlie prophecy of Isaiah * Sec Wincr, Grammatik des neutest. Sprachidioms, 3te Aufl. S. 382 ff. Fritzsche, Conim. in Matth. p. 49. 317 und Excurs. 1, pi 83(i ff. •j' See the Introduction, § 14. CONCEPTION OF JESL'S-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 117 •under consideration, tlie spirit of prophecy, they contend, had a double intention : to announce a near occurrence, the delivery of the affianced bride of tlic prophet, and also a distinct event in the far distant future, namely tlic birth of tlie Messiah of a vira-in. But a ' */ '"i double sense so monstrous owes its origin to dogmatic perplexity alone. It lias been adopted, as Olshausen himself remarks, in or- der to avoid tlie offensive admission that tlie New Testament wri- ters, and Jesus himself, did not interpret tlic Old Testament rightly, or, more properly speaking, according to modern principles of exe- gesis, but explained it after tlic manner of their own age, which was not tlic most correct. But so little does this offence exist for the unprejudiced, that tlie reverse would be the greater difficulty, that is, if. contrary to all tlic laws of historical and national development, tlie New Testament writers liad elevated themselves completely above the modes of interpretation common to their ago and nation. Consequently, witli regard to tlio prophecies brought forward in the New Testament, we may admit, according to circumstances, with- out further argument, that they arc frequently interpreted and ap- plied by tlie evangelists, in a sense which is totally different from tliat they originally bore. We have, here in fact a complete table of all tlie four possible views on tills point: two extreme and two conciliatory; one false and'one, it is to be liopcd, correct. 1. Oi'thodox view (IIengstcnbcrg and others): Such Old Tes- tament passages liad in their very origin an exclusive prophetic ref- erence to Christ, for the New Testament writers so understand them; and tlicy must be in tlie right even should human reason be con- founded. 2. nationalistic view (Paulus and others): Tlic New Testament writers do not assign a strictly Messianic sense to tlie Old Testament prophecies, for this reference to Christ is foreign to tlie original sig- nification of tlicsc prophecies viewed by the liglit of reason ; and tlie New Testament writinn's must accord witli reason, whatever ancient beliefs may say to tlic contrary. 3. J\fystical conciliatory view (Olshausen and others): Tlie Old Testament passages originally embody both the deeper signification ascribed to them bv tlie New Testament writers, and that more proximate meaning which common sense obliges us to recognize: thus sound reason and tlic ancient faith are reconcileable. 4. Decision of criticism: Very many of the Old Testament prophecies liad, originally, only an immediate reference to events belonging to tlie time: but they came to be regarded by tlie men oi' the New Testament as actual predictions of Jesus as tlic Messiah, .because tlie intelligence of tlicsc men was limited, by the manner of thinking of their nation, a fact recognized neither by Rationalism nor tlic ancient faith.* 's The wliole rationalistic interpretation of Scripture rests upon a sufficiently palpable THE LIFE OF JESUS. 118 Accordingly we shall not hesitate for a moment to allow, in re- lation to tlie prophecy in question, that the reference to Jesus is ob- truded upon it by tlie Evangelists. Whether tlie actual birth of Jesus of a virgin gave rise to this application of the prophecy, or whether tins prophecy, interpreted beforehand as referring to tlie Messiah, originated the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, re- mains to be determined. §. 2G. JESUS BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST--CRISTICISM OF THE ORTHODOX OPINION. THE statement of Matthew and of Luke concerning tlie mode of Jesus's conception lias, in every age, received the following inter- pretation by tlie church; that Jesus was conceived in Mary not by a human father, but by the Holy Ghost, And fc-uly tlie gospel expressions seem, at first siglit, to justify this interpretation ; since the words ~^fiv 2) avveX-SKlv ai-ovf (Matth. i. 18.) and KTK'I a'rdpffl ov Jt.vuoiid) (Luke i. 34.) preclude tlie participation of Joscpli or any other man in tlie conception of tlie cliild in question. Nevertheless the terms •nvEv^ia aylov and Svvafuc v-ip'ia-ov do not represent tlie Holy Ghost in tlie sense of the Church, as tlie third person in the God- head, but rather the t"^ ""'"i Spii'iias J)id as used in the Old Testament: God in his agency upon tlie world, and especially upon man. In short tlie words t'r yao-pi 'K^ovoa EK TTVSV^CI,-O<; ayiov in Matthew, and wm\ia aywv i-ne/.evae-cn ml OK K. -. t. in Luke, ex- press with sufficient clearness that tlie absence of human agency was supplied-not physically after tlie manner of heathen representa- tions-but by tlie divine creative energy. Though tills seems to be tlie representation intended by the evan- gelists in tlie passages referred to concerning tlie origin of the life of Jesus, still it cannot be completed witliout considerable difficul- ties. We may separate what we may term tlie physico-theological from tlie liistorical^cxeyetlval difficulties. The physiological difficulties amount to this, that such a con- ception would be, a most remarkable deviation from all natural laws. However obscure tlie physiology of the tact, it is proved by an ex- ceptionless experience that only by the concurrence of tlie two scxea is a new human being generated; on which account, Plutarch's re- mark, "mudtov ovSefzia TTO-K yvvff ^e-ye-at •rroiTjaat 6l^a KotvuvicK; Tlie New Testament authors are not to be interpreted as if they saiil something irra- tional (certainly not something contrary to their own modes of thinking), Now according to a particular interpretation their assertions are irrational (tliat is, contrary to our modus of thinking). Consequently tlie interpretation cannot give the original sense, and a dinerent inter- pretation must be given, Wlio does not here perceive tile quateraio termiwrum and tlie fatiil inconsequence, when nationalism takes its stand upon tlie same ground with s-upcrnatiiralisiii; that, namely, whilst with regard to all other men tile lirst point to be examined is wlietlier they «ne;il; or write what is .iust'and true, to tlie New Testament "writers the prerogative ia CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPEENATUEAL CIIAEACTEB. 119 ttvdpoc,"* and Cerinthus's "impossihile" become applicable, f It is only among tlie lowest species of tlie animal kingdom that generation takes place without tlie union of sexes :^ so tliat regarding tlie matter purely physiologically, what Origen says, in tlie supranaturalistic sense, would indeed be true of a man of the like origin; namely, that tlie words in Ps. xxii, 7, I am a worm and no rnan is a prophecy of Jesus in tlie above respect.§ But to tlie merely physi- cal consideration a tlieological one is subjoined by tlie angel (Luke i. 37.), when he appeals to the divine omnipotence to which nothing is impossible. But since the divine omnipotence, bv virtue of its unity witli divine wisdom, is never exerted in the absence of an adequate motive, tlie existence of sucli, in the present instance, must be de- monstrated. But nothing less than an object worthy of the Deity, and at tlie same time necessarily unattainable except by a deviation from tlie ordinary course of nature, could constitute a sufficient cause for tlie suspension by God of a natural law which he had established. Only here, it is said, the end, tlie redemption of man- kind required impeccability on the part of Jesus; and in order to render him exempt frcin sin, a divinely wrought conception, which excluded tlie participation of a sinful father, and severed Jesus from all connexion with original sin, was necessary. || To wliicli it lias been answered by others,®! (and Schlciermacher has recently most decisively argued this side of tlie question,**) that the exclusion of the paternal participation is insufficient, unless, indeed, the inheri- tance of original sin, on the maternal side, be obviated by tlie adop- tion of tlie Valentinian assertion, tliat Jesus only passed through the body of Mary. But that tlie gospel histories represent an actual maternal participation is undeniable; consequently a divine inter- vention which should sanctify tlie participation of tlie sinful human mother in tlie conception of Jesus must be supposed in order to main- tain Ills assumed necessary impeccability. But if God determined on such a purification of tlie maternal participation, it had been easier to do tlie same witli respect to tliat of tlie father, than by his total exclusion, to violate tlie natural law in so unprecedented a manner; and consequently, a fatherless conception cannot be insisted upon as the necessary means of compassing tlie impeccability of Jesus. ; EVCH lie who thinks to escape the difficulties already specified, by enveloping himself in a supranaturalism, inaccessible to arguments based on reason 01 the laws of nature, must nevertheless admit tlie force of tlie exegetwal-Jwtorical difficulties meeting him upon his own ground, which likewise beset tlie view of tlie supernatural con- ception of Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament is such an origin * Conjugial, prascept. Opp. ed. Hiitten, Vol. 7. S. 428. \ Irenaus adv. haer, 1, 26: Cerintlius Jesmn suujecit non ex virgine natum, impossibile enim hoc ei visum est. ^ In Hcrike's neuem Magazin iii. 3, S. 3(;'J. § Homil. in Lucam xiv. Comp. my Streit- Bchrit'ten i. 2, S. 72 i. || Ulshausen liiiil, Comm. S, 49. Neander, L. J. Ch,, S. 1G f. *\ e. g. by Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N. T. 1. Bd. S. 407. 120 THE LIFE OF JESUS. ascribed to Jesus, or even distinctly alluded to, except in these two accounts of Ills infancy in Matthew and in Luke.* The history of the conccprion is omitted not only by Mark, but also by John, tlie supposed author of tlie fourth gospel and an alleged inmate with tlic mother of Jesus subsequent to Ilia death, wlio therefore would liave been the most accurately informed concerning tliese occurences. It is said that John sought rather to record tlie heavenly than tlie earthly origin of Jcsua ; but tlie question arises, whether tlie doctrine which he sets forth in his prologue, of a divine hypostasis actually becom- ing flesh and remaining immanent in Jesus, is rcconcilcable witli the view given in the passages before us, of a simple divine operation de- termining the conception of Jesus; whether therefore John could have presupposed the history of the conception contained in Matthew and Luke ? This objection, however, loses its conclusive force, if in tlie progress of our investigation the apostolic origin of tlic fourth gospel is not established. The most important consideration therefore is, that no retrospective allusion to this mode of conception occurs throughout tlie four gospels; not only neither in John nor in Mark, but also neither in "Matthew nor in Luke. Not only does Mary herself designate Joscpli simply as tlie fatlicr of Jesus (Luke ii. 48.), and the Evangelist speak of both as his parents, yoveic; (Luke ii. 41.),-an appellation which could only have been used in a wider sense by one who liad just related tlic miraculous conception,-but all his contemporaries in general, according to our Evangelists, re- garded him as a son of Joseph, a fact wliicli was not unfrcqucntly alluded to contemptuously and by way of reproach in his presence (Matt. xiii. 55; Luke iv. 22 ; John vi. 42.), thus affording him an opportunity of making a decisive appeal to his miraculous conception, of wliicli, however, lie says not a single word. Should it, be answered, tliat lie did not desire to convince respecting tlie divinity of his per- son by this external evidence, and that he could have no liopc of making an impression by such means on those wlio were in heart his opponents,-it must also be remembered, that, according to tlic testi- mony of the fourth gospel, Ins own disciples, though tlicy admitted him to be the son of God, still regarded him as tlie actual son of Joseph. Pliilip introduces Jesus to Nathaniel as the. son of Joseph, 'ITJUOVV -w vim '\vimffi (John i. 46.), manifestly in tlie same sense of real paternity wliicli tlie Jews attached to tlie designation; and nowhere is tills represented as an erroneous or imperfect notion wliicli tliese Apostles liad subsequently to relinquish ; much rather does the whole sense of the narrative, wliicli is not to be mistaken, ex- hibit tlie Apostles as having a right belief on this point. Tlic enig- matical presupposition, with which, at the marriage in Gana, Mary ,& view * This side is particulary considered in der Skiagraphie des Dogma's von Jrsii Iiher- natiirliclier Geburt, in Sciiimrlt's Bililiotlirk i. 3, S. 400 fi',; in den lii'merkiiiigcn uber den Olaiibciisiiiinkt: Cliristu.-. i,»t einpf'.inyn voni hcil. Geiat, in Ik'nku's nriiriii Ma;,'.i- „;.. ;,; •.i "i;-> ir . ;„ K,.i^.-'a liilil. 'i'ln.ul. 1. S. :i31 {,: De Wutlr's Lilil. Duc-mutik, CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPEEXATUEAL CHAEACTEE. 121 addressed herself to Jesus,* is far too vague to prove a recollection of his miraculous conception on tlie part of tlie mother; at all events this feature is counterbalanced by the opposing one that tlie family of Jesus, and, as appears from Matt. xii. 46 ff. compared with Mark iii. 21 ff., his mother also were, at a later time, in error respecting Jlis aims ; wliicli is scarcely explicable, even of his brothers, sup- posing them to have had such recollections. Just as little as in tlic Gospels, is any tiling in confirmation of the view of tlie supernatural conception of Jesus, to be found in the remaining New Testament writings. For when tlic Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus as made of a woman, yevoi.iEvov (:K yvvainb^ (Gal. iv. 4.), tills expression is not to be understood as an. exclusion of partcrnal participation; since tlic addition inade zinder the law, •ysvofiEvov v-rb v6[iov, clearly allows tliat lie would here indicate (in tlie form wliicli is frequent in tlie Old and New Testament, for ex- ample Job xiv. 1; Matt. xi. 11.) human nature with all its condi- tions. When Paul (Rom. i. 3. 4. compared with ix. 5.) makes Christ according to the flesh, KaTaadpica, descend from David, but declares him to be tlic son of God according to the Spirit of Holi- ness, Kara TTVEV^ICI dywavv^c;; no one will here identify the antithesis flesh and spirit witli tlie maternal human participation, and tlie di- vine energy superseding tlic paternal participation in tlic conception of Jesus. Finally when in the Epistle to tlic Hebrews (vii. 3.) Mcl- cinsedec is compared witli the son of God, vw(; -ov OEOV, because n'ithout father, d-rdrup, tlic application of tlic literally interpreted d-rdrwp to Jesus, as lie appeared upon earth, is forbidden by tlie addition without mother dft'q-wfi, wliicli agrees as little witli him as the immediately following without descent, d~yeveaXoyi]-og. § 27. EETEOSPECT OF THE GENEALOGIES. THE most conclusive excgctical ground of decision against the supernatural conception of Jesus, which bears more closely on the point than all tlie hitherto adduced passages, is found in tlie two genealogies previously considered. Even tlie Manlchaian Faustus asserted tliat it is impossible witliout contradiction to trace the des- cent of Jesus from David through Josepli, as is done by our two genealogists, and yet assume that Josepli was not tlic fatlicr of Jesus; and Augustine liad nothing convincing to answer when lie remarked tliat it was necessary, on account of the superior dignity of tlie mas- culine gender, to carry tlic genealogy of Jesus through" Joseph, who was Mary's husband if not by a natural by a spiritual alliance, f In modern times also tlie construction of tlie genealogical tables in Matthew and in Luke has led many theologians to observe, tliat these authors considered Jesus as tlie actual son of Joseph, t The _ * liron^lit to bear upon this point by Neander L. J. Cli., S. 12. Aue-ustinus contra FaustiimM.inidiaeiiin L. 23. 3. 4. 8. f'See Schmidt, ydileicrmafher, and Wegscheider, 122 THE LIFE OF JESUS. very design of tlicse tables is to prove Jesus to be of tlie lineage of David through Joseph ; but what do they prove, if indeed Josepli was not tlie lather of Jesus ? The assertion tliat Jesus was the son of David, nof ^av'iS, which in Matthew (i. 1.) prefaces the genealogy and announces its object, is altogether annulled by tlie subsequent denial of his conception by means of tlie Davidical Joseph. It is impossible, therefore, to think it probable tliat the genealogy and the history of tlie birth of Jesus emanate from tlie same author;* and we must concur with the theologians previously cited, tliat the genealogies arc taken from a dincrent source. Scarcely could it sat- isfy to oppose the remark, tliat as Joseph doubtlessly adopted Jesus, the genealogical table of tlie former became fully valid for tlie latter. Eor adoption might indeed suffice to secure to the adopted son tho reversion of certain external family rights and inheritances; but such a relationship could in no wise lend a claim to tlie Messianic dignity, which was attached to tlie true blood and lineage of David. lie, therefore, wlio liad regarded Joseph as nothing more than tlie adopted father of Jesus, would hardly liave given himself the trouble to seek out tlie Davidical descent of Josepli; but if indeed, besides tlie cstablislied belief that Jesns was tlie son of Crod, it still remained important to represent him as tlie son of David, tlie pedigree of Mary would have been preferred tor this purpose ; for, however contrary to custom, tlie maternal genealogy must have been admitted in a case where a human father did not exist. Least of all i.s it to be be- lieved, that several authors would have engaged in tlie compilation of a genealogical table for Jesus which traced his descent through. 0 0 0 Joseph, so tliat two different genealogies of this kind are still pre- served to us, if a closer relationship between Jesua and Joseph had not been admitted at tlie time of their composition. Conseduently, tlie decision of the learned theologians who agree that these genealogies were composed in tlie belief tliat Jesus was the actual son of Josepli and Mary, can hardly be disputed; but the authors or compilers of our gospels, notwithstanding their own conviction of the divine origin of Jesus, received them among their materials; only tliat Mattliew (i. 1G.) changed the original Joseph begat Jesus of Mary-'IMO/)^) de ly&vvrjOE ~bv '\i]<5mv KK. -;yc ^ii.piag (comp. verses 3. 5. (i.) according to his own view; and so likewise Luke (iii. 23.) instead of commencing his genealogy simply with, Jesus-tlie son of Jw:-p!t-'\i]awc; v'wc; 'Iw!^, inserts being as w(is Supposed^ UV, d)(; KVOfU^KTO K. T. /L. Let it not be objected that tlie view for which ~WQ contend, namely, tliat the genealogies could not have been composed under tlie notion tliat Josepli was not tlie father of Jesus, leaves no con- ceivable motive for incorporating them into our present gospels. Tlie original construction of a genealogy of Jesus, even though in tlie case before us is consisted simply in tlie adapting' of foreign already cx- * F.iiilihorn thinks this probable, Einl. in (las N. T, i. S. 425, De Wette possible, COXCEPTIOX OF JESL'S-ITS SLTEEX.VTURAL CIIAEACTEE. 123 isting genealogical tables to Jesus, required a powerful and direct inducement: this was the hope thereby to gain-the corporeal de- scent of Jesus from Joseph being presupposed- a main support to the belief in his Messiahship ; whilst, on tlie other hand, a less pow- erful inducement was sufficient to incite to tlie admission of tlie pre- viously constructed genealogies : the expectation tliat, notwithstand- ing the non-existence of any real relationship between Josepli and Jesus, they might nevertheless serve to link Jesus to David. Thus we find, tliat in the histories of the birth botli in Mattliew and in Luke, tliougli tlicy cadi decidedly exclude Joseph from the conception, great stress is laid upon the Davidical descent of Joseph (M-att. i. 20, Luke i. 27, ii. 4); tliat which in fact Lad no'real significance, except in connexion with tlie earlier opinion, is retained even after the point of view is changed. Since, in this way, we discover both the genealogies to be me- morials belonging to tlie time and circle of tlie primitive church, in which Jesus was still regarded as a naturally begotten man, the sect of tlie Ebionites cannot fail to occur to us ; as we are told concern- ing them, tliat they held this view of the person of Christ at this early period * We should therefore liave expected, more especially, to have found tlicse genealogies in the old Ebionitish gospels, of which we liave still knowledge, and arc not a little surprised to learn that precisely in tlicse gospels tlie genealogies were wanting. It is true Epiphanius states that tlie gospel of tlie Ebionites commenced witli tlie public appearance of tlie Baptist; f accordingly, by the genealogies, y&wa/loyfaic, wliicli tlicy are said to have cut away, might liave been meant, tliosc histories of tlie birth and infancy comprised in tlie two first chapters of Matthew; wliicli tlicy could not liave adopted in their present form, since they contained tlie fa- therless conception of Jesus, wliicli was denied by the Ebionites: genealogies, might liave and it might also have been conjectured that tills section which was in opposition to their system had alone perhaps been wanting in tlicir gospel; and tliat tlie genealogy wliieli was in harmony with tlieir view might nevertheless liave been somewhere inserted. But tills supposition vanishes as soon as we find that Epiphanius in reference to the Nazarcncs, defines the genealogies, (of wliicli he is ignorant whether tlicy possessed them or not, as reachiizg from Abraham to CVt/'isf, Ta<; aTo TOV'A.[3paw we; Xpi.iwr]iJ,oveviJ,a-a cited by Justin, and which originated upon JudaM-christian ground, appear to have contained a genealogy simi- lar to that in our Matthew; since Justin as well as Mattliew speaks, in relation to Jesus, of a yevoi; -rov i\aftl6 K.OA. 'A,3pa£Ut, of a (JTEpf.ia f^ 'Icu£G);3, S'LO, 'lov6a, K.al ape^ sal 'leava'i nw, Aa;31d na-ep^ofiEvov ;** only that at tlie time, and in the circle of Justin, tlie opinion of a super- natural conception of Jesus had already suggested tlie reference of the genealogy to Mary, instead of to Josepli. Hence it appears that we have in tlie genealogies a memorial, agreeing with indications from other sources, of the fact that in the very earliest Christian age, in Palestine, a body of Christians, nu- merous enough to establish upon distinct fundamental opinions two different Messianic tables of descent, considered Jesus to have been a naturally conceived human being. And no proof is furnished to us in tlie apostolic writings, that the Apostles would have declared * Epiphan, IIaer, 30, 14. 16. 34, f IIomil, 3, 17, t Sclmeckenburger, iilier das Evangelium der Aegypter, S. 7; Bauer, christlk'hc Gnosis, S. 7ti0 ft'. See on tlie other side Crcdner und IIott'niann. § Orig. Comm. in Matth. T. 16. 13. Tertullian, 1)^ carne Christi, 14, S. Amn. 13 (a passage in which indeed the speculative and ordinary Ehion- ites are mingled together). || Clement, homil. IS, 13. They referred the words of Mattli. xi. 27 : ovSc'i^ ?yvu rov irarcpa, el fiff 6 vlAc t. T. 'k. to rat's naTEpa vop.i!,ovTaf Xpiarov rOv ^aptS, Kal auTov (^ rov ^pc-^rov vlov ovra^ /cat vlov 'Oeov f^ e^i-'u/vorar, and cumplaiiu-d that alri TOV •Scov rov Aa,3«i vu.vrc.i; c^eyov. ^ Hacres, 30, 14-: o ft'sv yup V.i/pivf)o(; Kal Kap- TTOKpaf TU avT(-> ;t'p6/2fi'cii irap' avTOlf; (TO(C 'E/3iui-'aioif) cva-y-fellu, UTTO rf/s ap.vc TOU KarH " / ^ i-..--. _..„,.„„,, ^ n^rit)nnrcir 'l(.)(T7'/ffl KO.I Ma- CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 127 this doctrine to be unchristian: it appeared so first from the point of view adopted by the authors of the histories of the birth in the first and third Gospels: notwithstanding which however, it is treated with surprising lenity by the Fathers of tlie church. § 28. NATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTION. IF, as appears from the foregoing statements, so many weighty difficulties, philosophical as well as exegetical, beset the supranatura- listic explanation, it is well worth while to examine whether it be not possible to give an interpretation of the gospel history which shall obviate these objections. Recourse lias been had to tlie natural explanation, and tlie two narratives singly and coniointly have been successively subjected to the rationalistic mode of interpretation. In the first place, tlie account in Matthew seemed susceptible of sucli an interpretation. Numerous rabbinical passages were cited to demonstrate, tliat it was consonant witli Jewish notions to con- sider a son of pious parents to be conceived by the divine co-opera- tion, and tliat he should be called the son of tlie Holy Spirit, without its being ever imagined that paternal participation was thereby excluded. It was consequently contended, that tlie section in Matthew represented merely the intention of tlie angel to inform Joseph, not indeed tliat Mary had become pregnant in the absence of all human intercourse, but that notwithstanding her pregnancy she was to be regarded as pure, not as one fallen from virtue. It was maintained that the exclusion of paternal participation-which is an embellishment of the original representation-occurs first in Luke in the words dviSpa ov ywuaub) (i. 34.)'" When however tills view was justly opposed by the remark, tliat the expression Trp'iv ^ ovve.\Q€w dv-ova in Matthew (i. 18) decidedly excludes tlie partici- pation of the only individual in question, namely Joseph; it was then thought possible to prove that even in Luke the paternal ex- clusion was not so positive: but truly this could be done only by an unexegetical subversion of'the clear sense of the words, or else by uncritically tin-owing suspicion on a part of a well-connected nar- rative. The first expedient is to interpret Mary's inquiry of tlie angel i. 34, thus: Can I who am already betrothed and married give birth to tlie Messiah, for as tlie mother of tlie Messiah I must have no husband? whereupon the angel replies, tliat God, through his power, could make something distinguished even of the cliild con- ceived of her and Joseph.f The other proceeding is no less arbi- trary. Mary's inquiry of the angel is explained as an unnatural interruption of his communication, which being abstracted, the pas- * Br . . ., die Nachricht, dass Jesus durch den heil. Gcist und von einer Jungfrau geboten sci, aus Zcitbegrift'en eriautert. In Schmidt's Bibl. 1, 1. S. 101 ft'.-Horst, in Henkc's Museum 1, 4, 497 ft'., uber die beiden ersten Kapitel in Evang. Lukas. f Be- nierkungen iibcr den Glaubcnspunkt: Christus ist empt'angen vom heil. Geist. In Henke's THE LIFE OF JESUS. 128 sage is found to contain no decided ihtimation of the su.pematu.ral conception.* It" consequently, the difficulty of the natural explanation of the two accounts be equally great, still, with respect to both it must be alike attempted or rejected; and for the consistent Rationalist, a Paulus for example, tlic latter is tlie only course. Tins commentator considers the participation of Josepli indeed excluded by Matt. i. 18, but by no means that of every oilier man ; neither can lie find a su- pernatural divine intervention in tlie expression of Luke i. 35. The. JIoly Ghost ~rvEvT]a aytov is not with him objective, an external influence operating upon Mary, but her own pious imagination. Tlie power of the Highest-Swap.^ v^iarov is not tlie immediate divine omnipotence, but everv natural power employed in a manner pleasing to God may be so called. Consequently, according to Paulus, the meaning of tlic angelic announcement is simply tills: prior to her union with Joseph, Mary, under the influence of a pure enthusiasm in sacred things on tlie one hand, and by a human co-operation pleasing to God on the other, became the mother of a cliild who on account of tills holy origin was to be called a son of God. Let us examine rather more accurately the view which this representative of rationalistic interpretation takes of tlie particulars of the conception of Jesus. He begins with Elizabetli, tlie patriotic and wise daughter of Aaron, as he styles her. She, having con- ceived the hope that slie might give birth to one of God's prophets, naturally desired moreover that he might be the first of prophets, the forerunner of the Messiah; and that the latter also might speedily be bom. Now there was among lier own kinsfolk a person suited in every respect for the mother of the Messiah, Mary, a young vir- gin, a descendant of David; nothing more was needful than to inspire her likewise with such a special hope. Whilst these intimations prepare us to anticipate a cleverly concerted plan on the part of Elizabeth in reference to her young relative, in which we hope to become initiated; Paulus here suddenly lets fall tlie curtain, and remarks, that the exact manner in which Mary was convinced that she should become the mother of the Messiah must be left histori- cally undetermined; thus much only is certain, that Mary remained pure, for slic could not with a clear conscience have stationed her- self, as she afterwards did, under tlie Cross of her Son, had slie felt that a reproach rested on her concerning the origin of the hopes she had entertained of him. The following is the only hint subsequently given of the particular view held by Paulus. It is probable, he thinks, that the angelic messenger visited Mary in the evening or even at night; indeed according to tlie correct reading of Luke i. 28, which has not the word angel, ical elae^Ouv Trpbg MTTJV elwe, without 6 cy-yg/loc, the evangelist here speaks only of some one who had come in. (As if in this case, the participle elae^Ow must not ncces- ---.-----'i i..,.T-5/.. m. in the absence of tlic pronoun be CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. . 12!) referred to the subject, the angel Gabriel-6 ayyeXw; Taftpi^X, v. 26.!) Paulus adds: tliat this visitant was the angel Gabriel was the suli- sequcnt suggestion of Mary's own mind, after slic had lieard of the vision of Zacharias. G abler in a review of Paulus's Commentary* lias fully exposed. •with commensurate plainness of speech, tlie transaction which lies concealed under tins explanation. It is impossible, says lie, to im- agine any other interpretation of Paulus's view than tliat some one passed himself off for the angel Gabriel, and as tlic pretended Mes- senger of God remained witli Mary in order that slie might become the mother of tlic Messiah. What! asks Gabler, Is Mary, at tlie very time slic is betrothed, to become pregnant by another and is tills to be called an innocent holy action, pleasing to God and irrc- prochable ? Mary is here pourtrayed as a pious visionary, and tlie pretended messenger of heaven as a deceiver, or lie too is a gross fanatic. Tlic reviewer most justly considers such an assertion as revolting, if contemplated from tlie Christian point of view7; if from the scientific, as at variance, both with the principles of interpreta- tion and of criticism. Tlie author of the "Natural Plistory of the Great Prophet of Nazareth" is, in flits instance, to be considered as tlie most worthy interpreter of Paulus; for though tlie former could not, in tills part of his work, have made use of Paulus's Commentary, yet, in ex- actly tlie same spirit, he unreservedly avows wliat tlie latter care- fully veils. He brings into comparison a story in Josephus,f ac- cording to which, in the very time of Jesus, a Roman knight won the chaste wife of a Roman noble to his wishes, by causing her to be invited by a priest of Isis into the temple of the Godde'-s, under the pretext tliat tlie god Anubis desired to embrace her. In innocence and faith, the woman resigned herself, and would perhaps afterwards have believed slie had given birth to the cliild of a god, liad not the intriguer, witli bitter scorn, soon after discovered to her the true state of tlie case. It is the opinion of tlie author tliat M.ary, tlic betrothed bride of the aged Josepli, was in like manner deceived by some amorous and fanatic young man (in the sequel to tlie history lie represents liirn to be Joseph of Arimathea), and that she on her part, in perfect innocence, continued to deceive others.:): It is evi- dent that this interpretation does not differ from tlie ancient Jewisli blasphemy, which we find in Celsus and in the Talmud; that Jesus falsely represented himself as born of a pure virgin, whereas, in fact, he was tlie offspring of the adultery of Mary with a certain Panthera.§ This wliole view, of which the culminating point is in the cal- * Im neuesten tlieol. Journal 7. Bd. 4.. St. 8. 407 {. f Antiq. xviii. 3, 4. ^ Iter Thei], S. 140 ft'. § The legend lias undergone various modifications, Lut tlie name of Puntlttra or Pandira has been uniformly retained. Vid. Origenes c. Cris. 1, 28. 32. Scliott^eii, Horas 2, (;93 ff, aus Tract., Sanhedrin u. A,; Eisenmenger, entdf-cktes Juden- thum, 1, S. 10.') ft, aus der Sehmilhsclirift: Toledoth Jesehu; Thilo, cod. apocr. S. 528. Comp. my Alihandlung tibcr die Namen Panther, Panthcras, Pandera, in judischen und THE LIFE OP JESUS. 130 iimny of the Jews, cannot be Letter judged than in the words of Origen. If, says tills author, they wished to substitute something else in tlic place of tlic liistory of the supernatural conception of Jesus, they should at any rate have made it happen in a more prob- able manner; they ought not, as it were against tlieir "will, to admit tliat Mary knew not Josepli, but they might have denied this feat- ure, and yet have allowed Jesus to have been born of an ordinary human marriage: whereas, tlie forced and extravagant character of 0 ' ' c5 tlieir hypothesis betrays its falsehood.* Is not flits as much as to say, that if once some particular features o.f a marvellous narrative arc doubted, it is inconsequent to allow7 others to remain unques- tioned ? eacli part of such an account ought to be subjected to criti- cal examination. Tlic correct view of the narrative before us is to be found, tliat is indirectly, in Origen. For wlien at one time he places togctlier, as of tlic same kind, tlie miraculous conception of Jesus and the story of Plato's conception by Apollo (though here, indeed, tlic meaning is tliat only ill-disposed persons could doubt such tilings f), and when at another time lie savs of the story concerning Plato, that it belongs to tliosc mythi by which it was sought to ex- hibit tlie distinguished wisdom and power of great men (but here lie does not include tlic narrative of Jesus's conception), lie in fact states tlie two premises, namely, tlie similarity of the two narratives and tlie mythical character of the one ;t from which the inference of the merely mythical worth of tlic narrative of tlie conception of Jesus follows; a conclusion wliicli can never indeed have occurred to his own mind. § 29. HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS VIEWED AS A MYTIIUS. IF, says Gabler in his review of the Commentary of Paulus, we must relinquish tlie supernatural origin of Jesus, in order to escape the ridicule of our contemporaries, and if, on the oilier hand, the natural explanation leads to conclusions not only extravagant, but revolting; tlie adoption of the mytlius, by which all tliesc difficul- ties arc obviated, is to be preferred. In tlic world of mythology many great men had extraordinary births, and were sons of tlie gods. Jesus himself spoke of his heavenly origin, and called God his fa- ther ; besides, his title as Messiah was-Son of God. From Mat- thew i. 22., it is further evident that the passage of Isaiah, vii. 14. was referred to Jesus by the early Christian Church. In conformity with tills passage the belief prevailed that, Jesus, as tlie Messiah, should be born of a virgin by means of divine agency ; it was there- fore taken for granted tliat wliat was to be actually did occur; and thus originated a pliilosopliical (dogmatical) mytlius concerning tlie birth of Jesus. But according to historical truth, Jesus was tlie offspring of an ordinary marriage, between Joseph and Mary; an CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPEENATUEAL CHARACTER. 131 explanation which, it has been justly remarked, maintains at once tlie dignity of Jesus and tlic respect due to his mother."* The pronencss of tlic ancient world to represent the great men and benefactors of tlieir race as the sons of tlie gods, lias therefore been referred to, in order to explain tlic origin of such a mytlius. Our theologians have accumulated examples from tlie Greco-Roman mythology and history. They have cited Hercules, and tlic Di- oscuri; Romulus, and Alexander; but above all Pythagoras,! and Plato. Of the latter philosopher Jerome speaks in a manner quite applicable to Jesus : sapientia' principem non ahtcr arbitrantur, nisi de partu virginis editum.^: From these examples it misrht have been inferred tliat the nar- ratives of tlie supernatural conception liad possibly orglnated in a similar tendency, and had no foundation in liistory. Here Iiowevci tlie orthodox and tlic rationalists arc unanimous in denying, though indeed upon different grounds, the, validity of tlie analogy. Origen, from a perception of tlie identical character of the two classes of narratives, is not far from regarding tlie heathen legends of the sons of tlie, gods as true supernatural histories. Paulus on Ills side is more decided, and is so logical as to explain botli classes of narra- tives in tin; same manner, as natural, but still as true histories. At least lie says of tlic narrative concerning Plato: it cannot be affirmed that tlie groundwork of tlie liistory was a subsequent creation ; it is far more probable tliat Perictionc believed herself to be pregnant by one of her gods. Tlie. fact that her son became a Plato might indeed have served to confirm that belief, but not to have originated it. Tholuck invites attention to the important distinction that tlie mythi concerning Romulus and others were formed many centuries after tlie lifetime of these men: tlie mythi concerning Jesus, on the con- trary, must have existed shortly after Ills death. § He cleverly fails to remember tlie narrative of Plato's birth, since he is well aware tliat precisely in tliat particular, it is a dangerous point. Oaiander however approaches tlie subject with much patlios, and affirms that Plato's apotlieosis as son of Apollo did not exist till several centuries after him: [] whereas in fact Plato's sister's son speaks of it as a pre- vailing legend in Athens. I Olshauscn, with whom Neander coin- cides, refuses to draw any detrimental inference from this analogy of the mythical sons of tlie gods; remarking tliat though these narra- tives are unhistorical, they evince a general anticipation and desire * Gabler, in seinem neucsten theol. Journal, 7, 3. S. 408 f; Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. 1, S. 428 f; Bauer, hebr. Mythol, 1, 192 e. fl'; Kaiser, bibl. Theologie, 1, i". 231 f; Weg?choider, Inatit. § 123; Ue Wette, bibl. Doginat, § 281, und exeg. Hand- •"lA 1, 1, S. 18 f; Ammoii, Fortbildung des Christenth. S. 201 ft'; Hase, L. J. § 33; Fritzaclie, Comment, in Matth. S. .">(;. Tlie latter justly remarks in tlie title to the first chapter: nun milus ille, (Jesus) lib J'vrimt dactorum Jiuiaicorum de Messia sententice, pairem fiabet spiritum divliium, mutrein rtryiiiem. •)• Jamblicli, vita Pythagoras, cap, 2, Ml. Ku.ssling. t Adv. Jovin. 1, 2(i. Diog. Lacrt, 3, 1, 2. § Glaubwiirdigkeit S. 64, || Apologie des L. .1. S. 1>2, ^ Diog. Lacrt. a, a, 0.: 2"rfi'ffi7r7TOf (Sororis Pintunis jilius,. Hit-ron,) if iv TU e7r^/pa^if/[i£V(fi n?,uT(JVf)C TT^pSEiTrvu K-al K'^ap^oc £V TO II^arfJVos' EryKU- 132 THE LIFE OF JESUS. of such a fact, and therefore guarantee its reality, at least in one historical manifestation. Certainly, a general anticipation and re- presentation must have truth for its basis; Tout tlie truth does not consist in any one individual fact, presenting an accurate correspond- ence with tliat notion, Lut in an idea which realizes itself in a se- ries of facts, which often bear no resemblance to the general notion. The widely spread notion of a golden age does not prove tlie exist- ence of a golden age: so the notion of divine conceptions does not prove that some one individual was thus produced. The truth which is tlie basis of this notion is something quite different. A more essential objection* to tlie analogy is, that. the represen- tations of tlie heathen world prove nothing with respect to tlie is- olated Jews; and that tlie idea of sons of the gods, belonging to polytheism, could not have exerted an influence on tlie rigidly mon- otheistic notion of the Messiah. At all events sucli an inference must not be too hastily drawn from the expression "sons of God,'' found likewise among the Jews, w-liicli as applied in tlie Old Testa- ment to magistrates, (Ps. Ixxxii. 6., or to theocratic kings, 2 8am. vii. 14, Ps. ii. 7.), indicates only a theocratic, and not a physical or metaphysical relation. Still less is importance to be attaclied to tlie language of flattery used by a Roman, in Joscphus, who calls beau- tiful children of the Jewisli princes children of God.f It was, how- ever, a notion among tlie Jews, as was remarked in a former section, tliat the Holy Spirit co-operated in tlie conception of pious individ- uals; moreover, tliat God's choicest instruments were conceived by divine assistance of parents, wlio could not liave liad a cluld accord- ing to the natural course of tilings. And if, according to tlie be- lieved representation, the extinct capability on both sides was re- newed by divine intervention (Rom. iv. 19.), it was only one step further to tlie belief that in the case of the conception of tlie most distinguished of all God's agents, the Messiah, tlie total absence of participation on the one side was compensated by a more complete super-added capability on the other. Tlie latter is scarcely" a degree more marvellous than the former. And thus must it have appeared to the autlior of Luke i., since lie dissipates Mary's doubts by the same reply with which Jehovah repelled Sara's incredulity. :j: Nei- ther the Jewish reverence for marriage, nor tlie prevalent represen- tation of tlio Mcssiali as a human being, could prevent the advance to this climax; to which, on the other hand, tlie ascetic estimation of celibacy, and the idea, derived from Daniel, of the Christ as a superhuman being, contributed. But decided impulse to tlie de- velopment of the representations embodied in our histories of the birth, consisted partly in tlie title, iSon of God, at one time usually given to the Messiah. For it is the nature of such originally figu- rative expressions, after a wliile to come to be interpreted according * Ncander, L. J. Cli. 8. 10. f Ant- 10' 2- 6" CONCEPTION OF JESL-S-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 133 to their more precise and literal signification; and it was a daily occurrence, especially among tlie later Jews, to attacli a sensible, signification to that which originally had merely a spiritual or fif'u- rativc meaning. Tills natural disposition to understand the Messi- anic title Son of God more and more literally, was fostered by the expression in tlie Psalms (ii. 7.), interpreted of tlie Messiah: Thou art my son ; this day have I begotten thee : words which can scarcely fail to suggest a physical relation; it was also nurtured by the prophecy of Isaiah respecting the virgin wlio should be with cliild, which it appears was applied to tlie Messiali; as were so many other prophecies of which the immediate signification liad be- come obscure. Tills application may be seen in tlie Greek word chosen by tlie Scptuagint, -na^iOivw;, a pure unspotted virgin, whereas by Aquila and other Greek translators tlie word veavi(; is used.* Tims did tlie notions of a son of (rod and a son of a virgin com- plete one another, till at last the divine agency was substituted for human paternal participation. Wctstcin indeed affirms tliat no Jew ever applied tlie prophecy of Isaiah to tlie Messiali; and it was with extreme labour that Schoett^en collected traces of the notion that the Messiali should be tlie son of a virgin from the Rabbinical writ- ings. Tills however, considering tlie paucity of records of tlie Mi's- sianic ideas of tliat age,f proves notliing in opposition to the pre- sumption tliat a notion tlien prevailed, of which we have the ground- work in tlie Old Testament, and an inference hardly to be mistaken in the New. One objection yet remains, which I can no longer designate as peculiar to Olshauscn, since other theoloa'iana have shown them- selves solicitous of sharing the fame. Tlie objection is, that. the mythical interpretation of tlie gospel narrative is especially danger- ous, it being only too well fitted to engender, obscurely indeed, pro- ianc and blasphemous notions concerning tlie origin of Jesus ; since it cannot fail to favour an opinion destructive of tlie belief in a Re- deemer,-namely, tliat Jesus came into being through unholy means; since, in fact, at tlie time of licr pregnancy Mary was not marricd.t In Olshauscn's first edition of his work, he adds tliat lie willingly allows tliat these interpreters know not wdiat they do: it is there- fore hut just to give linn tlie advantage of the same concession, since lie certainly appears not to know what mythical interpretation means. How otherwise would lie say, tliat tlie mythical interpretation is fit- ted only to favour a blasphemous opinion; therefore that all wlio understand thenarrative mytliically, are disposed to commit tlie absurdity with which Origcn reproaches the Jewisli calumniators; the retaining one solitary incident, namely, that Mary was not mar- ried, whilst tlie remainder of the narrative is held to be unhistori- cal; a particular incident wliicli evidently serves only as a support * 1)].: Wi'tto, Exg, HaiiiHi., 1, I", S. 1 7. -t '1 IIHV are to be fouiul howrvcr in tlie more roo'lmi Kaliliiiis, s. .Milttliai. lii.lisioiis!.;!. dor Apostrl •i, a, IS. ,•>.•>;•) ,fl; \ lill.l. Comm. i, THE LIFE OF JESL'S. 134 to the other, that Jesus was concelvcil without human paternal par- ticipation, and with it, therefore, stands or falls. No one among the interpreters wlio, in tills narrative, recognise a mythus in tlie full signification of tliat tcriTi, lias been thus blind and inconsistent; all have supposed a legitimate marriage between Josepli and Mary ; and Olshausen merely paints tlie mythical mode of interpretation in cari- cature, in order the more easily to set it aside; for he confesses tliat in relation to tills portion of tlie gospel in particular, it lias much tliat is dazzling. § 30. RELATION OF JOSEPH TO MARY-BROTHERS OF JESUS. OUR Gospels, in tlie true spirit of the ancient legend, find it un- becoming to allow tlie mother of Jesus, so long as slic bore the licav- o '0 enly germ, to be approached or profaned by an earthly husband. Consequently Luke (il. 5.) represents tlie connexion between Joseph and Mary, prior to tlie birth of Jesus, as a bctrothment merely. And, as it is stated respecting the father of Plato, after Ills wife had become pregnant by Apollo: 'uOc.v KaOapav ylflov (pvAa^cit M^ rrj(; d-roTO/owc,'* so likewise it is remarked of Josepli in Matthew (i. 25.): Ka'i OVK kylvwKev avTi'jv (~'/)v yvviilna avrov) 'Ktix^ ov KTKKK ~ov viw av- -^c ~'uv tpu-oroKov. In each of these kindred passages the Greek word KU<; (till) must evidently receive the same. interpretation. Now in the tirst quotation tlie meaning is incontcstably this:-that till "the time of Plato's birth his father abstained from intercourse with his wife, but subsequently assumed his conjugal rights, since wo hear of Plato's brothers. In reference, therefore, to tlie parents of Jesns, the 'w; cannot have a different signification; in cadi case it indicates precisely tlie same limitation. So again tlie expression -poTuTOKoi; (firstborn) used in reference to Jesus in both tlie (Jospela (Matt. i. 25, Luke ii. 7.) supposes tliat Mary had other children, for as Lueian says: e( per TTp&Toc;, ov puvog ti 6c /wi'oc, ov 7Tp£iro<;.^ Fvcn in tlie same Gospels (Matt. xiii. 55, Luke viii. 19.) mention is made of dSe/^o^ 'lijow, (f./ie brothers of Jesns.') In the words of Fritz- sclic: J^i^'iittss'tine post Jesu nataUs Mariam concessit Matt/mus (Luke does the same) ii.roivm Jowp/w, in /we ww occuputus, ne )(• ov, it sometimes affirmed or denied a thing, not merely up to a certain limit, but beyond that limitation and for ever; and that tlie words of Mattliew ovv eyivwitev avrifv {.w(; m i-ens K.. r. 1. excluded a matrimonial connexion between Joseph and Mary for all time.* In like manner it was asserted of the term -rpo-o-o/coc, tliat it did not necessarily include tlie subsequent birth of other children, but tliat it merely excluded' any previous birtli.f But in order to ban- ish the thought of a matrimonial connexion between Mary and Jo- seph, not only grammatically but physiologically, they represented Josepli as a very old man, under whom Mary was placed for control and protection only ; and tlie brothers of Jesus mentioned in tlie New Testament they regarded as the children of Josepli by a former marriage, f But this was not all; soon it was insisted not only tliat Mary never became the wife of Josepli, but tliat in giving birth to Jesus slic did not lose her virginity.§ But even tlie conservation of Gary's virginity did not long continue to satisfy: perpetual vir- ginity was likewise required on tlie part of Joseph. It was not cnou°'h tliat lie had no connexion witli Mary; it was also necessary tliat Ins entire life should be one of celibacy. Accordingly, though Epiphanius allows tliat Josepli liad sons by a former marriage, Je- rome rejects tlie supposition as an impious and audacious invention ; and from tliat time tlie brothers of Jesus were degraded to tlie rank of cousins. || Some modern theologians agree with tlie Fathers of tlie Church in maintaining tliat no matrimonial connexion subsisted at any time between Joseph and Mary, and believe themselves able to explain tlie gospel expressions which appear to assert tlie contrary. In ref- erence to tlie term first born, (Jlshauscn contends that it signifies an only son : no less than tlie eldest of several. Paulus allows that here lie is right, and Clemcnl and Fritzsche seek in vain to demon- strate tlie impossibility of this signification. For when it is said in Exod. xiii. 2, BIT-T^B ••;;a ^'isa-iss •^•wp (TTpu~6~oicov TrpuToyevs^ LXXX.) it was not merely a firstborn followed by others subse- quently born, wlio was sanctified to Jehovah, but tlie fruit of the body of that mother of whom no other cliild liad previously been born. Therefore the term -pu-o-o/i-or must of iicccssitY bear also tins signification Truly however we must confess with Winer** and others, on the other side, that if a narrator who was acquainted witli tlie whole sequel of tlie history used tliat expression, we should be tciiipt.e.d to understand it in its primitive sense; since had the author intended to exclude other children, lie would rather have em- * Ccnip. Hu.rnii. adY, Helv. 6, 7, Tlieophylact and Suulaa in Suierr, 1, s. v, Sn^f, Fol. 1-J'U t, t HiiTon. z, d. St. f Scu Urig, in Mattli, Toin, 10, 17; Epiphan. ha.'i-i..-,. 7t>, 7; llistoria J 5. Protevang., Chrysostom and others: Mary's virginity was not only not destroyed by any subsequent births of children by Jo- * Comment, in Muttll. S. 53 ff., vgl. auch S. 83."). •(• Olshausen is exceedingly 1111- Iiiippy m the example fbosen by him in support of Ills interpretation of wf ov. Fur wlicn it i-' s^id, ir<- ir.iitr'l fill •iiuiluiijkt f'nf nu orie CHHK^ certiiiniy this liy no menus implies that .'ft. r .,.;,ii.i..lit sunn- out' dill mine, but it dors imply that after midnight we waited no CONCEPTION OF JESUS--ITS SUPERNATURAL CHAKACTEI;. 137 scph, it" was not in. the slighest degree impaired by the birth of Jesus.. . . . ''. 6. Jerome: not Mary only but Joseph also observed an abso- lute virginity, and tlie pretended brothers of Jesus were not his sons but merely cousins to Jesus. . Tlic opinion tliat tlie aSs^ol. (brothers) and a^eXal 'lifmv (sis- ters of Jesus) mentioned in tlie New Testament, were merely half brothers or indeed cousins, appears in its origin, as shown above, together witli tlie notion tliat no matrimonial connexion ever sub- sisted between Joseph and Mary, as tlic mere invention of super- stition, a circumstance highly prejudicial to such an opinion. It is however no less true tliat purely cxegctical grounds exist, in virtue of which theologians wlio were free from prejudice have decided, that tlie opinion tliat Jesus actually liad brothers is untenable.* Had we merely the following passages-Matth. xiil. 55, Mark vi. 3, where the people of Nazareth astonished at tlie wisdom of their coun- tryman, in order to mark his well known origin, immediately after having spoken of TEKTW (the carpenter) Ills father, and Ins mother Mary, mention by name his drfe/li^twc ^brothers) James, Joscs, Si- mon, and Judas, together witli his sisters wliosc names arc not given;! again Mattli. xii. 4G, Luke viii. 19, when Ins mother and his brethren come to Jesus ; John ii. 12, where Jesus journcvs with his mother and his brethren to Capernaum; Acts i. 14, where they are mentioned in immediate connexion with Ills mother-if we liad these passages only, we could not for a moment hesitate to recog- nize here real brothers of Jesus at least on tlic mother's side, chil- dren of Josepli and Mary; not only on account of tlic proper signi- fication of tlic word dde/u^oc, but also in consequence of its continual conjunction wi'th Mary and Josepli. Even tlic passages-John vii. 5, in wliicli it is remarked tliat his brethren did not believe on Jesus, and Mark iii. 21, compared with 31, where according to the most probable explanation, tlic brothers of Jesus witli his mother •went out to lay liold of him as one beside himself-furnish no ade- quate grounds for relinquishing tlie proper signification of dde/l^oc. Many theologians have interpreted d6eX(f>ov<; 'Irfaov in tlic last cited passage half brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage, al- leging tliat tlic real brothers of Jesus must have believed on him, but tins is a mere assumption. Tlic difficulty seems greater wlien we read in John xix. 26 f. tliat Jesus on tlie cross, enjoined John to be a son to his mother; an injunction it is not easy to regard as suitable,,under tlic supposition tliat Mary liad other children, except indeed these were half brothers and unfriendly to Jesus. Never- theless we can imagine tlic existence both of external circumstances and of individual feelings wliicli might have influenced Jesus to con- On this subject compare in particular Clemen, die Brudt'r Jesu, in Winer's Zcit- schrift fur wissensch. Theol. 1, 3, S. S'-iy 11;; Paulus, exeg, Handbueh 1 Bd, S. .'>."»7 ff.i Fritzche, a. a. 0. S. 4SO ft'.; Wincr'bibl. llealwurterbuch, in den A. A.: Jesus, Jacobua, Apostrl. •I- See (In. dill'urcnt names assigned them in the legend in Thilo, Codex apocry- plius N. T.. 1 S- XliS iii,tr. THE LIFE OF JESLS. 13S fide his mother to John rather than to his brothers. That tliese brothers appeared in company with Ins Apostles after the ascension (Acts i. 14,) is no proof that they must liave believed on Jesus at the time of his death. The real perplexity in the matter, however, originates in this: that besides the James and Joscs spoken of as the brothers of Jesus, two men of the same name are mentioned as tlie sons of another Mary (Mark xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1, Matt. xxvii. 56,) witliout doubt tliat Mary who is designated, John xix. 25, as the sister of the mother of Jesus, and tlie wife of Cicophas: so that we liave a James and a Joscs not. only among tlie children of Mary tlie mother of Jesus, but again among her sister's childcrn. We meet with several others among those immediately connected with Jesus, whose names are identical. In the lists of tlie Apostles (Matth. x. 2 ff., Luke vi. 14 ft.) we have two more of tlie name of James: that is four, tlie bro- ther and cousin of Jesus included; two more oftlic name of Judas: tliat is three, tlie brother of Jesus included; two of the name of Simon, also making three with tlie brother of Jesus of tlie sime name. Tlie question naturally arises, wlictlicr tlie same individual is not here taken as distinct persons ? Tlie suspicion is almost un- avoidable in reference to James. As James tlie son of Alpheus is, in the list of tlie Apostles, introduced after tlie son of Zebcdcc, as tlie second, perhaps tlie younger; and. as James tlie cousin of Jesus is called 6 pinpoc; ("the less") Mark. xv. 40; and since by compar- ing John xix. 25, we find tliat tlie latter is called tlie son of Cleo- plias, it is possible tliat tlie name K^co-rac (Cicophas) given to tlie husband of Mary's sister, and tlie name 'A-^olo^ (Alpheus) given to tlie father of tlie apostle, may be onlv different forms of tlie Hebrew ?a";"]i. Thus would tlie second James enumerated among tlie Apos- tles and tlie cousin of Jesus of tliat name be identical, and there would remain besides him only tlie son of Zebcdcc and the brother of Jesus. Now in tlie Acts (xv. 13) a James appears wlio takes a prominent part in tlie so-called apostolic council, and as, according to Acts xil. 2, tlie son of Zcbcdce had previously been put to death, and as in the foregoing portion of the book of tlie Acts no mention is made of any other James besides tlie son of Alpheus (i. 13) so this James, of whom (Acts xv. 13,) no more precise description is given, can be no other than tlie son of Alpheus. iiut Paul speaks of a James (Gal. i. 19) the, .Lord's brother, whom lie saw at Jerusa- lem, and it, is doubtless lie of whom lie speaks in connexion with Ceplias and John as the arv^ot (pillars) of tlie church-for this is precisely in character witli tlie (Apostle) James as he appeared at tlie apostolic council-so tliat this James may be considered as iden- tical with the Lord's brother, and tlie rather as tlie expression e-cpor 6s -fair aTrooro^uv OVK Etdov, d fitf 'Idnuftov ~uv aSsX^ov rov K-vpiov (but other of the apostles saio I none, save •Tames the .Lord's brother. Gal. i. 19,) makes it appear as if tlie Lord's brother were i i --,.,„ 4.1,., ,.,^.,iinc,. •uritl, wliipli ;ilso tlie ancient tradition CONCEPTION OF JESL-S--ITS SCPEEyATCEAL CHARACTER. 139 which represents James tlie Just, a brother of Jesus, as the first head of tlie church at Jerusalem, agrees.* But admitting tlie James of tlie Acts to be identical with the distinguished Apostle of that name, then is lie tlie son of Alpheus, and not tlie son of Joseph; consequently if lie be at tlie same time a6eX(^o<; rov 'K.vpiov, then d6e^(f)oc cannot signify a brother. Now if Alpheus and Cleophas are admitted to be tlie same individual, the husband of the sister of Mary tlie mother of Jesus, it is obvious that dJc/l^bc, used to denote tlie relationship of his son to Jesus, must be taken in the signifi- cation, cousin. If, 'after tills manner, James tlie Apostle tlie son of Alpheus be identified with the cousin, and the cousin be identified witli tlie brother of Jesus of tlie same name, it is obvious that 'lov- 6a(; 'laiM^ov in tlie catalogue of tlie Apostles in Luke (Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13,) must be translated brother of Jnines (son of Alpheus); and tins Apostle Jude must be lield as identical witli tlie Jude a6eA.(ft)g 'ITJOOV, tliat is, witli tlie cousin of the Lord and son of Mary Cicophas ; (though tlie name of Jnde is never mentioned in connex- ion with tins Mary.) If the Epistle of Jude in our canon be au- thentic, it is confirmatory of tlie above deduction, that tlie author (verse 1) designates himself as tlie d6eXipb(; 'laKupov (brother of James). Some moreover have identified tlie Apostle Simon 6 i,r]Xw- TT]<; or K.avavirrj(; (Zeiotes or the Cannanitc) witli tlie Simon enumer- ated among the brothers of Jesus (Mark vi. 3,) and who according to a tradition of tlie church succeeded James as licad of tlie church at Jerusalem;! so that Joscs alone appears witliout further desig- nation or appellative. If, accordingly, those spoken of as aOEAffiol 'I^oov were merely cousins, and tin-ee of these were Apostles, it must excite surprise that not only in tlie Acts, (i. 14,) after an enumeration of tlie Apos- tles, tlie brothers of Jesus are separately particularized, but that also (1 Cor. ix. 5.) they appear to be a class distinct from tlie Apostles. Perhaps, also, tlie passage Gal. 1. 19 ought to be understood as in- dicating that James, tlie Lord's brother, was not an Apostle.^ It therefore, tlio dSeX(j)ol 'I'i]aov seem thus to be extruded from the number of tlie Apostles, it is yet more difficult to regard them merely as tlie cousins of Jesus, since they appear in so many places immediately associated witli tlie mother of Jesus, and in two or three passages only are two men bearing tlie same names mentioned in connexion with tlie other Mary, wlio accordingly would be their real mother. The Greek word d(5e/t0oc, may indeed signify, in lan- guage which pretends not to precision, as well as the Hebrew nx a more distant relative; but as it is repeatedly used to express the relationship of tliese persons to Jesus, and is in no instance replaced by dveiptbi;-a word wliicli is not foreign to tlie New Testament lan- guage when the relationship of cousin is to be denoted (Col. iv. 10.) it cannot well be" taken in any oilier than its proper signification. I'urther, it need only be pointed out that tlie highest degree of un- H 1 + T7,,a, TT T1 H + 1;'r;t»e,.ht in MatHl. n .tRI 140 THE LIFE OF JESUS. certainty exists respecting not only the identity of tlie names Al- pliCTis anil Cicophas, •upon which the identity of James tlic cousin of Jesus and of tlie Apostle James tlie Less rests, lint also regard- ing the translation of 'lovSac; 'laicu^ov by tlie brother of James ; and likewise respecting the assumed identity -of the author of the last Catholic Epistle with tlic Apostle Jude. Thus tlie web of tills identification gives way at all points, and we are forced back to the position whence we set out; so that we have again real brothers of Jesus, also two cousins distinct from these brothers, though bearing the same names with two of them, besides some Apostles of the same names with both brothers and cousins. To find two pairs of sons of tlic same names in a family is, indeed, not so uncommon as to become a source of objection. It is, how- ever, remarkable that tlie same James wlio in the Epistle to tlie G-alatians is designated aSe^'w Kvpibv (the Lord's brother'), must unquestionably, according to the Acts of tlie Apostles, be regarded as tlie son of Alplieus; which lie could not be if this expression signified a brother. So that there is perplexity on every side, which can be solved only (and tlien, indeed, but negatively and without historical result) by admitting tlic existence of obscurity and error on tilis point in the New Testament writers, and even in the very earliest Christian traditions; error which, in matters of involved relationships and family names, is far more easily fallen into than avoided.* A\"e have consequently no ground for denying tliat the mother of Jesus bore her husband several other children besides Jesus, younger, and perhaps also older; the latter, because the representa- tion in the New Testament that Jesus was the first-born may belong no less to tlic mythus tlian the representation of the Fathers that lie was an only son. § 31. VISIT OF MAKY TO ELIZABETH. THE angel who announced to Mary her own approaching preg- nancy, at tlie same time informed her (Luke i. 36.) of that of her relative Elizabeth, witli whom it was" already the sixth month. Hereupon Mary immediately set out on a journey to her cousin, a visit which was attended by extraordinary occurrences; for when Elizabetli heard tlic salutation of Mary, tlie babe leaped in her womb for joy; slic also became inspired, and in her exultation poured torth an address to Mary as the future mother of the Messiah, to which Mary responded by a hymn of praise (Luke i. 39-56). The rationalistic interpreter believes it to be an easy matter to Sive a natural explanation of tills narrative of tlie Gospel of Luke. Ie is of opinion f tliat tlic unknown individual wlio excited such peculiar anticipations in Mary, had at tlic same time acquainted her with tlie similar situation of her cousin Elizabetli. Tilis it was VISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH. 141 which impelled Mary the more strongly to confer on the subject with her older relative. Arrived at her cousin's dwelling, she first of all made known wliat liad liappened to herself; but upon this the nar- rator is silent, not wishing to repeat what he had just before de- scribed. And here, tlic Rationalist not only supposes the address of Elizabeth to have been preceded by some communication from Mary, but imagines Mary to have related lier history piecemeal, so as to allow Elizabeth to throw in sentences during the intervals. The excitement of Elizabetli-such is tlie continuation of the ratio- nalistic explanation-communicated itself, according to natural laws, to the cliild, who, as is usual witli an embryo of six months, made a movement, which -was first regarded by tlic mother as significant, and as the consequence of tlie salutation, after Mary's farther com- munications. Just as natural does it appear to the Rationalist that Mary should have given utterance to licr Messianic expectations, confirmed as they were by Elizabetli, in a kind of psalmodic recita- tive, composed of reminiscences borrowed from various parts of the Old Testament. But there is much in tilis explanation which positively contra- dicts tlie text. In the first place, tliat Elizabetli should have learned tlie heavenly message imparted to Stary from Mary herself. There is no trace in tlie narrative cither of any communication preceding Elizabetli's address, or of interruptions occasioned by farther ex- planations on tlie part of Mary. On tlie contrary, as it is a super- natural revelation, which acquaints Mary witli tlic pregnancy of Elizabetli, so also it is to a revelation that Elizabetli's immediate recognition of Mary, as the chosen mother of the Messiah, is attrib- uted.* As little will tlie other feature of tilis narrative-that the entrance of tlie mother of tlie Messiah occasioned a responsive move- ment in liis mother's womb on the part of Ilia forerunner-bear a natural explanation. In modern times indeed even orthodox inter- preters have inclined to tilis explanation, but with tlie modification, tliat Elizabetli in tlie first place received a revelation, in which how- ever tlie cliild, owing to tlic mother's excitement, a. matter to be physiologically explained, likewise took part.f But tlie record does not represent tlie tiling as if tlic excitement of tlie mother were tlie determining cause of the movement of tlie cliild; on tlie contrary (v. 41.) tlie emotion of the mother follows tlie movement of the, cliild, and Elizabetli's own account states, that it was the saluta- tion of Mary (v. 44.'i, not indeed from its particular signification, but merely as the voice, of the mother of tlic Messiah, which pro- duced tlie movement of tlic unborn babe: undeniably assuming some- thing supernatural. But even herein tlic supranaturalistic view of tilis miracle is not free from objection, even on its own ground; .3 utcd.* and hence tlie anxiety of tlie above mentioned modern orthodox interpreters to evade it. It may be possible to conceive tlie human • S. Olshausen und de Wette, z. d. St. + Hess, Geschichto Jesu, 1, S. 26; Ols. 142 THE LIFE OF JESS'S. mind immediately acted upon by tlic divine inind, to winch it is related, but how solve tlic diniculty of an immediate communication of the divine mind to an uniiitclliscnt, embryo? And if we inquire tlie object of so strange a miracle, none which is worthy presents itself. 'Should it be referred to tlic necessity that, tlie Baptist should receive the earliest possible intimation of tlic work to which lie was destined; still we know not how such an. impression could have been made upon an embryo. Should tlic purpose be supposed to centre in tlic other individuals, in Mary or Elizabeth ; they had been tlic recipients of far higher revelations, and were consequently al- ready possessed of an adequate measure of insight and faith. No fewer difficulties oppose the rationalistic tlian the suprana- turalistic explanation of tlic hymn pronounced by Mary. For though it is not, like tlic Canticle of Zacliarlas (v, G7.) and tlic address of Elizabeth (v. 41.) introduced by tlie formula E-lfpOr] -vevwTOf dyiov she. was filUd with the JIoly Ghost, still tlio similarity of these utterances is so great, tliat tlie omission cannot be adduced as a pro3f that the narrator did not, intend to represent tills, equally witii tlic other two, as the operation of tlie TTvevpa (spirit). But apart from the intention of tlic narrator, can it be thought natural tliat two friends visiting one another should, even in tlic midst of the most extraordinary occurrences, break forth into long hymns, and that. their conversation should entirely lose tlic character of dia- logue, the natural form on such occasions'? By a supernatural influ- ence alone could tlic minds of tlic two friends be attuned to a state of elevation, so foreign to their every day life. But if indeed Mary's hymn is to be understood as tlie work of tlie Holy Spirit, it is sur- prisina: tliat a speech emanating immediately from tlic divine source of inspiration should not be, more striking for its originality, but should be so interlarded with reminiscences from the Old Testament, borrowed from tlic song of praise spoken by the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. ii.) under analogous circumstances.'* Accordingly we must admit that tlic compilation of tills hymn, consisting of recollections from tlie Old Testament, was put together in a natural way; but allowinc its composition toJiavc been perfectly natural, it cannot be ascribed to tlic artless Mary, but to him wlio poetically wrought out tlic tradition in circulation respecting tlic scene in question. Since then we tind all tlic principal incidents of this visit in- conceivable according to tlic supernatural interpretation ; also that they will not bear a natural explanation ; we arc led to seek a mythi- cal exposition of this as well as tlic preceding portions of the gospel history. Tills path lias already been entered upon by others. Tlic view of this narrative given by tlie anonymous E. F. in Hcnkc's Ma2;azinc,t is, tliat it docs not pourtray events as they actually did * Compare Luke i. 47 wi:li 1 Sam. ii. 1. Particularly Luke i. 4S with 1 Sam, i. 11. i. 41) ii. 2. Compare Luke i. ,'iO with l)>'ut. vii. 9. i. .'»1 ii. 3, -1-. i. •">^ Erclesiasticua x. 14. i- .">2 ii. 8. i. fU P^a. xcviii. 3. 143 VISIT OF MART TO ELIZABETH. occur, but as they might have occurred; that much which the sequel taught of the destiny of tlieir sons was carried back into the speeches of these women, which were also enriched by other features gleaned from tradition; tliat a true fact however lies at the bottom, namely an actual visit of Mary to Elizabeth, a joyous conversation, and the expression of gratitude to God; all which might have happened. solely in virtue of tlie high importance attaclicd by Orientals to the joys of maternity, even though tlic two mothers had been at tliat time ignorant of tlie destination of tlieir children. This author is of opinion that Mary, when pondering over at a later period the re- markable life of her son, may often have related the happy meeting With her cousin and their mutual expressions of thankfulness to God, and tliat thus tlie history gained currency. Horst also, who has a just conception of the fictitious nature of this section in Luke, and ably refutes tlic natural mode of explanation, yet himself slides unawares half-way back into it. He thinks it not improbable that Mary during her pregnancy, which was in many respects a painful one, should liave visited her older and more experienced cousin, and tliat Elizabeth sliould during tills visit have felt the first movement of lier child; ah occurrence which as it was afterwards regarded as ominous, was preserved by the oral tradition.* These are farther examples of the uncritical proceeding which pretends to disengage tlie mythical and poetical from tlie narrative, by plucking away a few twigs and blossoms of tliat growth, whilst it leaves tlic very root of tlie mythus undisturbed as purely histori- cal. In our narrative tlie principal mythical feature (the remainder forms only its adjuncts) is precisely tliat which the above mentioned authors, in tlieir pretended mythical explanations, retain as histori- cal : namely tlie visit of Mary to the, pregnant Elizabeth. For, as we have already seen, tlic main tendency of tlie first cliapter of Luke is to magnify Jesus by connecting tlie Baptist with him from the earliest possible point in a relation of inferiority. Now this object could not be better attained than by brinc'ln"' about a meetin"", not . , •/ 0 0 &' in tlie first instance of tlic sons, but of the mothers in reference to tlieir sons, during tlieir pregnancy, at. wliicli meeting some occur- rence which should prefigure the future relative positions of these two men sliould take place. Now tlie more apparent tlie existence ot a dogmatical motive as the origin of this visit, tlie less proba- bility is there tliat it liad an liistorical foundation. With this prin- cipal feature the other details are connected in the following order:- Tlie visit of tlie two w^n.cn must be represented as possible and probable by tlie feature of family relationship between Mary and Elizabeth (v. 36.), which would also give a greater suitability to the subsequent connexion of tlie sons. Further a visit, so full of im- port, made precisely at tliat time, must liave taken place by special divine appointment; therefore, it is an angel who refers Mary to her cousin. At tlic visit the subservient position of the Baptist to Jesus 144 THE LIFE OF JESCS. is to be particularly exhibited;-this could have been effected by the mother as indeed it is in her address to Mary, but it were better if possible tliat the future Baptist himself should give a sign. The mutual relation of Esau and Jacob liad been prefigured by their struggles and position in their mother's womb. (Gen. xxv. 22. ft.) But, without too violent an offence against the laws of probability an ominous movement would not be attributed to the cliild prior to tliat period of her pregnancy at which tlie motion of tlie foetus is felt; hence the necessity that Elizabeth should be in the sixth month of her pregnancy when Mary, in consequence of tlie commu- nication of tlie angel, set out to visit her cousin (v. 36.). Thus as Schleiermacher remarks* tlie whole arrangemept of times had refer- ence to tlie particular circumstance tlie author desired to contrive- tlie jovous responsive movement of the cliild in his mother's womb at the moment of Mary's entrance. To this end only must Mary's visit be delayed till after tlio fifth month; and tlie angel not appear to her before that period. Thus not only does tlie visit of Mary to Elizabetli with all the attendant circumstances disappear from the page of history, but the historical validity of the further details-that John was only half a year older than Jesus ; tliat tlio two mothers were related; that an intimacy subsisted between the families;-cannot be affirmed on tlie testimony of Luke, unsupported by other authorities: indeed, tlie contrary rather will be found substantiated in the course of our critical investigations.