THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN THE SECOND CENTURY |
such fragments as the fragment in Origen which mentions the Holy Spirit as the mother of Jesus. This Greek Gospel according to the Hebrews has nothing whatever to do with the Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes; the two were kept quite separate by the early writers. Eusebius says of Hegesippus that he cited from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac (Gospel).'“* Here the two are placed clearly side by side. The common identification of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the Aramaic Matthew of the Nazarenes is due altogether to the combined stupidity and deceitfulness of Jerome. Despite what he says about his Greek and Latin translation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and about his opportunity of transcribing the Nazarene Gospel, he was not really familiar with either one. He saw the Aramaic Gospel in the library at Czsarea, but on account of his ignorance of Aramaic was not able to use it to any great extent. His knowledge of the Gospel according to the Hebrews was derived from Origen; his knowledge of the Aramaic Matthew from Apollinaris of Laodicea. Since he was ignorant of both Gospels, it was possible for him to confuse them. He interpreted “according to the Hebrews” in the title of the Gospel according to the Hebrews erroneously in a linguistic sense, and so was led to identify this Gospel with the Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes. His designations of the Aramaic Gospel according to the Hebrews vary according to his sources of information and according to the exigencies of the occasion. In the Commentary on Matthew, for example, he could not well designate a Gospel which he referred to only occasionally as the original of Matthew; for if the Gospel was the original of Matthew, it was absurd for him not to refer to it oftener. As a matter of fact, he could not refer to it oftener, for the simple reason that his knowledge of it was limited to the citations that had been made by Apollinaris.
Even such a brief summary as the foregoing may suffice to exhibit the revolutionary character of Schmidtke’s treatment of the Jewish Christian Gospels. The theory cannot here be examined critically. But such examination can be omitted with the better conscience because the importance of Schmidtke’s investigation for the question of the historicity of the virgin birth is not so great as might be supposed. If Schmidtke’s theory should prove to be correct, the second-century testimony to the virgin birth would not be weakened.
It is true that if Schmidtke is right the Nazarenes, who accepted the virgin birth, can no longer be regarded as a widespread sect, but become a local community at Bercea in Syria. It is true that the more orthodox “Ebienites,”
whom Origen and Eusebius represent as accepting the virgin birth, disappear from the pages of history.*® It is true that the Nazarene Gospel, which contained an account of the virgin birth, can no longer be regarded as embodying independent tradition, but becomes a mere free translation of Matthew with some employment of the other canonical Gospels. It is true that the Ebionites of Epiphanius, who denied the virgin birth, are cleared of the charge of unhistorical Gnostic speculations. It is true that the Gospel according to the Hebrews mentioned by Hegesippus and other early writers can no longer be regarded as containing an account of the virgin birth. These features of Schmidtke’s theory may appear to weaken the testimony to the virgin birth and enhance the value of the Jewish Christian denials of it.
But other features of the theory tend just as clearly in the opposite direction. In the first place, though the Nazarenes, on Schmidtke’s theory, shrink to the proportions of a local community, their primitive appearance remains. And they accepted the virgin birth. It was the mere chance of their separation from. their Gentile fellow-Christians that made them peculiar. Other Jewish Christians of similarly primitive character may be held simply to have been merged nermanently in the Catholic Church. In the second place, the Nazarene Gospel, though it ceases, on Schmidtke’s theory, to be a depository of independent tradition, becomes a valuable witness to the early acceptance of the Gospel of Matthew on the part of Jewish Christians. And the Gospel of Matthew contained an account of the virgin birth. In the third place, though the Ebionites, on Schmidtke’s theory, cease to be Gnostic, they cannot on that account lay claim to any special primitiveness. The language, for example, was Greek, not Aramaic. Finally, though by Schmidtke’s theory the Gospel according to the Hebrews is shown to have contained no account of the virgin birth, it is also shown to be utterly valueless. The only Gospel of these Jewish Christians who denied the virgin birth, the only Jewish Christian Gospel that did not contain the virgin birth, was a worthless Greek compilation based upon our Gospels of Matthew and Luke, a compilation which displays incidental dependence even upon those infancy sections that it omitted. The use of this Gospel by Hegesippus and the mention of it by Irenzus form simply further testimony to the early use of the canonical Gospels. And the employment of this Gospel, and of this Gospel only, by the Ebionites proves how entirely destitute they were of genuine historical tradition, except such as was embodied in the
145 Schmidtke (op. cit. p. 241) suggests that Origen’s mention of a more orthodox class of “Ebionites,” that accepted the virgin birth, is due simply to a false application of the name “Ebionites” to the Gnostic Jewish Christians, who, according to Schmidtke, accepted the virgin birth. It is the same confusion which Schmidtke sees in the connection which Epiphanius sets up between Elxai and the Ebionites. The suggestion is exceedingly bold.
canonical Gospels. Whatever the cause of their denial of the virgin birth, such denial was not based upon primitive tradition coming down from the time of Jesus. No sect whose sole Gospel was the one from which Epiphanius quotes in his chapter on the Ebionites has the slightest claim to be regarded as standing in any direct and peculiar relation to the primitive Jewish Church.
Schmidtke’s theory has been variously estimated by subsequent writers. But on the whole it may be said that certain rather solid results are emerging from the discussion.1*® We have come to see at least that the fixed elements in the whole problem are the “Nazarene Gospel” quoted by Jerome and the “Ebionite Gospel” quoted by Epiphanius. The character of each of these is fairly clear: the Nazarene Gospel was an Aramaic (or Hebrew) Gospel that was somewhat similar to our Matthew; the Ebionite Gospel was a compilation made by an author of vegetarian principles, and probably of syncretistic (if not Gnostic) views, on the basis of our Greek Gospels, Matthew and Luke.
The difficulty comes when we seek to determine the relationship of these two gospels to the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” quoted by Clement and Origen. The older view identified this Gospel according to the Hebrews with the Nazarene Gospel. This identification was rejected by Schmidtke, and he has been followed in this particular by Waitz and Moffatt, and (with reservations) by Findlay, in the works already cited.'*7 What then is to be done with the Gospel according to the Hebrews after it has thus been deprived of its identification with the Nazarene Gospel? Schmidtke identified it with the Ebionite Gospel, but that identification is generally rejected (and rightly so) by contemporary writers. Thus the Gospel according to the Hebrews is left hanging in the air, and we have at least three Jewish Christian Gospels instead of two.
What, then, is the bearing of this state of opinion upon the question of the virgin birth? Certainly it is by no means unfavorable to the historicity of the virgin-birth tradition.
are much indebted for his citation of the recent literature on the subject.
147 The identification of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the Nazarene Gospel has been maintained, against Schmidtke, by Lagrange (0p. cit.), and by Dunkerley (op. cit.). Findlay (op. cit., pp. 56 f.) suggests that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, though not the same as the Nazarene Gospel, may have had a good deal in common with it, so that the two may be regarded as different editions of the same book.
In the first place, it is now generally admitted that the Nazarene Gospel did contain an account of the virgin birth. The value of its testimony will of course depend largely upon what we think of that Gospel as a whole; but certainly the Gospel makes a far’ greater impression of primitiveness than is made by the only one of these Gospels that certainly omitted the virgin birth.
In the second place, the Ebionite Gospel, which omitted the virgin birth, though its compiler and users may be acquitted of actual Gnosticism, and though the date of it is often pushed farther back than was formerly done, retains its character as a distinctly secondary compilation based upon our Greek Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The identification of this Gospel with the “Gospel according to Matthew,” which Irenzus says was in use among the Ebionites whom he mentions, greatly diminishes the evidence for a conservative, Pharisaical, and purely Jewish rejection of the virgin birth among professing Christians of Jewish race. The Ebionites of Irenzus, formerly thought to be the custodians of primitive Palestinian tradition, turn out to be affected by more or less syncretistic ideas; and their “Gospel according to Matthew,” formerly thought to be of high importance, turns out to be a worthless compilation, dominated by a marked vegetarian tendency and based upon our Greek Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The earlier the date of this Gospel is placed,’** the greater is the evidence for the early use of those two of our canonical gospels that contain an account of the virgin birth, and the smaller is the likelihood of there having been any really independent tradition that made Jesus the son, by ordinary generation, of Joseph and Mary.
In the third place, the “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” properly so called, the Gospel mentioned under that title by Clement and Origen, being now deprived of its identification either with the Nazarene Gospel of Jerome or with the Ebionite Gospel of Epiphanius, is at least as likely as not to have contained an account of the virgin birth. If it is the same as the Gospel which is mentioned under the same title by Eusebius in the Church History,'*® then it probably did contain an account of the virgin birth; for it is assigned by Eusebius in that passage to those Ebionites who accepted the virgin birth tradition.’®° But even if it is regarded as different from that Gospel mentioned by Eusebius,’”* still there is at least no valid evidence that it did not contain an account of the virgin birth; and the respect with which it is treated by Clement
148 Waitz (0p. cit., pp. 127-130) is inclined to place it at the end of the first century.
181 So Waitz, op. cit., pp. 122 f. Against this view see Findlay, of. cit., pp. 50-52. Waitz thinks that the Gospel which Eusebius mentions in the passage cited was the Ebionite Gospel. Surely. in view of the character of the sect of which Eusebius is speaking, that view is unlikely.
and Origen points toward its agreement, in the matter of the birth of Jesus, with the doctrine of the main body of the Church.
Neither by the older reconstruction, therefore, nor by the newer views which have gained vogue since the appearance of Schmidtke’s book, has there really been found any Gospel of primitive appearance, in use among schismatic Jewish Christians, that ignored or denied the virgin birth of Christ.
It is now time to sum up the results of the preceding discussion concerning Jewish Christian denials of the virgin birth.
The virgin birth was denied, we have discovered, by the Gnostic or syncretistic Ebionites described by Epiphanius; but the character of this sect is such as to raise a very unfavorable presumption with regard to its traditions. These syncretistic Ebionites are as far removed as possible from all that primitive Jewish Christianity could possibly be conceived to have been. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they were united with Jesus or with His first disciples by a tradition which has elsewhere been lost. At any rate, the only Gospel which they are known to have used was a worthless compilation, which exhibits the most unscrupulous dogmatic alterations of the canonical material."®
The virgin birth has often been thought to have been denied also by certain Pharisaic Ebionites, who, aside from their humanitarian views about Jesus, differed from the Catholic Church merely by a strict insistence upon the Jewish law. If such Pharisaic Ebionites did exist, their denial of the virgin birth is not difficult to explain. They probably belonged to the stricter party of the Jewish Christians, which insisted upon the observance of the law by Gentiles as well as by Jews. They were more Jews than Christians; and to the orthodox Jew the virgin birth was an abomination.’ It seemed out of harmony with his pride in the marriage relation and the begetting of children. It might seem to him to make void God’s promise of a prince of David’s line. It contradicted the one-sided transcendentalism of his idea of God, and seemed to make Jehovah no better than Zeus.
But as a matter of fact it is doubtful whether such Pharisaic Ebionites really existed at all. Certainly the trend of recent investigation has tended to diminish the evidence for their existence. It is by no means impossible that all the denials of the virgin birth among schismatic Jewish Christians came from men of the type that is represented by the Ebionite Gospel quoted by Epiphanius.
At any rate, the Jewish Christian denials of the virgin birth, of whatever kind they were, are more than neutralized by Jewish Christian affirmation of it.
In the first place, the affirmation can be traced at least as far back as the denial. The denial appears for the first time in Justin Martyr, and it appears there in such a way as to suggest that it was by no means formidable. In the eyes of the non-Christian Jews, at any rate, it did not, apparently, loom very large; until corrected by Justin, the Jews seem to have been unaware that the Messiahship of Jesus could be accepted apart from the virgin birth. At the beginning of the second century, Ignatius, when arguing, apparently, against schismatic Jewish Christians, felt no need of correcting their view of the birth of Jesus. Let it not be said that this is due to indifference on the part of Ignatius, or to any lack of firmness in the way in which the virgin birth had been established at that time in the Church. Ignatius hardly yields to any later writer in the place he assigns to the virginity of Mary; it is to him one of the three great mysteries, the long-deferred revelation of which marks a new epoch in the history of the world, It is true, the argument from silence should be used with great caution. But the silence of Ignatius about Jewish Christian denial of the virgin birth is at least as significant as Justin’s silence *** about Jewish Christian acceptance of it. Furthermore, the Gospel according to the Hebrews is perhaps a direct witness to Jewish Christian belief in the virgin birth, from a time prior to that of Justin.’
In the second place, the character of those Jewish Christians who accepted the virgin birth raises a presumption in favor of their affirmation. Ritschl pointed out the close similarity between the views of the Nazarenes of Jerome and the view of the original apostles. Like the original apostles,°* the Nazarenes for their own part continued the observance of the Jewish law; but, again like the original apostles, they recognized the freedom of the Gentile Christians and approved the work of Paul. The stricter Ebionites, on the contrary, who sought to force the observance of the law upon the Gentile converts*’ and regarded Paul as an apostate, were the spiritual successors not of the apostles, who had stood nearest to Jesus, but of the Judaizing “false brethren privily
1847 has already been shown that this is hardly more than apparent silence.
155 Tt is not improbable that very early (and probably Jewish Christian) testimonies to the virgin birth are to be found (1) in the Ascension of Isaiah, (2) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and (3) in the recently discovered Odes of Solomon. The passage in the Ascension of
156 That is, in the early days of the apostolic Church. In the later days the original apostles may be beld to have adopted the same practice as the Gentile Christians.
157 For the distinction between the milder and the stricter party of the Jewish Christians, see Justin Martyr, dial., 47, a passage which was referred to above, p. 17.
brought in.” *®* In general, the Nazarenes, living in seclusion in the East and using their own ancient Gospel, produce an impression of conservatism and antiquity in marked contrast to the Ebionites of Epiphanius, with their doctrinal innovations and their worthless Gospel.
One fact deserves to be borne constantly in mind in the whole discussion— the fact, namely, that Jewish Christianity was not confined to the schismatic Jewish Christians included in lists of heresies. It has been shown above that even of the heretical Jewish Christians mentioned by Origen and others some accepted the virgin birth. But this whole discussion has left out of account the great numbers of Jewish Christians who in all probability simply became merged in the Catholic Church.*® And everything points to the hypothesis that these, and not the schismatics of whatever opinion, were in possession of the most primitive historical tradition with regard to the life of Jesus.
The results of the foregoing investigation of the second-century testimony to the virgin birth may be summed up in two propositions:
1. A firm and well-formulated belief in the virgin birth extends back to the early years of the second century.
2. The denials of the virgin birth which appear in that century were based upon philosophical or dogmatic prepossession, much more probably than upon genuine historical tradition.
188 Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 2te Aufl., 1857, pp. 152 ff. No doubt the evidence will not warrant the definite division of schismatic Jewish Christianity into two parties, the milder party accepting the virgin birth and the stricter party denying it (against this see Nitzsch, Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1870, pp. 42 ff.). But at any rate there is no evidence that any who held the milder view about the law, from the time of Justin to that of Jerome, denied the virgin birth, though a rather ambiguous passage in Eusebius (hist. eccl., III. xxvii. 3-6) seems to mean that those who accepted the virgin birth were of the stricter way of thinking.