JESUS
CHRIST
of
angels
(28-"),
the
adoration
of
the
shepherds
(w.
16-20),
the
circumcision
(v.^i),
the
presentation
in
the
Temple
(vv.m-ss).
The
narratives
embody
two
ideas
which
are
singly
impressive,
and
in
conjunction
make
a
profound
appeal
to
the
feelings
and
the
imagination.
The
humiliation
of
the
Saviour
is
emphasized
by
one
set
of
events
—
the
lowly
parentage,
the
birth
in
a
stable,
the
rage
of
Herod,
the
flight
of
His
parents
to
a
distant
land.
The
other
series
shows
Him
as
honoured
and
accredited
by
heaven,
while
earth
also
agrees,
in
the
representatives
of
its
wealth
and
its
poverty,
its
wisdom
and
its
igno-rance,
to
do
Him
honour
at
His
coming.
'
A
halo
of
miracles
is
formed
around
the
central
miracle,
com-parable
to
the
rays
of
the
rising
sun'
(Lange,
Life
of
Christ,
Eng.
tr.
i.
257,
258).
At
this
point
the
influenceof
theological
standpoint
makes
itself
acutely
felt.
In
the
'
Lives
'
written
from
the
natural-istic
and
Unitarian
standpoints,
the
mass
of
the
material
is
described
as
mythical
or
legendary,
and
the
only
points
left
over
for
discussion
are
the
sources
of
invention,
and
the
date
at
which
thestories
were
incorporated
with
the
genuine
tradition.
The
residuum
of
historical
fact,
according
to
O.
Holtzmann,
is
that
'Jesus
was
bom
at
Nazareth
in
Galilee,
the
son
of
Joseph
and
Mary,
being
the
eldest
of
five
brothers
and
several
sisters,
and
there
He
grew
up'
(Life
of
JesiLS,
En^.
tr.
p.
89).
The
chief
grounds
on
which
the
negative
case
is
rested
may
be
briefly
considered.
(1)
The
narratives
of
the
Infancy
are
not
a
part
of
the
original
tradition,
since
they
are
known
to
only
two
of
the
Evangelists,
and
have
no
Bibhcal
support
outside
these
Gospels.
To
this
it
seems
a
sufficient
reply
that
additions
may
have
been
made
later
from
a
good
source,
and
that
there
were
obvious
reasons
why
some
at
leastof
the
incidents
should
have
been
treated
for
a
time
with
reserve.
(2)
The
two
Gospels
which
deal
with
the
Infancy
discredit
one
another
by
the
incompatibility
of
their
statements.
Mt.,
it
is
often
said,
supposes
that
Bethlehem
was
Joseph's
home
from
the
beginnmg;
Lk.
says
that
he
made
a
visit
to
Bethlehem
on
the
occasion
of
a
census.
According
to
Mt.,
the
birth
in
Bethlehem
was
followed
by
a
flight
into
Egypt:
according
to
Lk.,
they
visited
Jerusalem
and
then
returned
to
Nazareth.
But
the
difficulties
have
been
exaggerated.
"Though
it
is
quite
possible
that
Mt.
did
not
know
of
an
original
residence
in
Nazareth,
he
does
not
actually
deny
it.
And
although
neither
Evangelist
may
have
known
of
the
other'shistory,itisquite
possible,
without
excessive
harmo-nistic
zeal,
to
work
the
episodes
of
Mt.
into
Lk.'s
scheme.
'
The
accounts
may
be
combined
with
considerable
plausi-bility
if
we
suppose
that
Joseph
and
Mary
remained
a
full
year
in
Bethlehem,
during
which
the
presentation
in
the
Temple
took
place,
and
that
the
visit
of
the
Magi
was
much
later
than
the
adoration
of
the
shepherds'
(Gloag,
Inirod.
to
the
Synoptic
Gospels,
pp.
136,
137).
(3)
The
events
narratedaresaidtobeinconsistent
with
the
indirect
evidence
of
other
portions
of
the
Gospels.
If
they
really
occurred,
why
was
Mary
not
prepared
for
all
that
followed?
and
why
did
Jesus'
brethren
not
believe
in
Him?
(Mk
3''"'-,
Mt
12«-5»).
In
particular,
the
body
of
the
Gospels
contains,
it
is
said,
evidence
which
is
inconsistent
with
the
Virgin-birth,
"rhe
difficulty
is
a
real
one,
but
hardly
greater
than
the
difficulty
presented
in
the
fact
that
the
mighty
works
of
the
Ministry
did
not
overbear
doubt
and
disbelief
in
those
who
witnessed
them.
(4)
"The
narratives
in
question
are
also
said
to
have
had
their
origin
in
man's
illusory
ideas
as
to
the
proper
manner
of
the
coming
of
a
Divine
messenger.
The
history
of
the
founders
of
other
religions
—
e.fir.
Confucius
and
Gautama
—
shows
a
fond
predisposition
to
invest
the
birth
of
a
Saviour
or
a
mighty
prophet
with
a
miraculous
halo;
and
it
is
suggested
that
similar
stories
were
invented
about
Christ,
with
the
effect
of
obscuring
the
distinctive
thought
and
purpose
of
God.
'They
are
'
deforming
investitures,^
mis-placed,like
courtdressesonthespiritsof
thejust
'(Martineau,
Loss
and
Gain).
There
is
undeniable
force
in
this,
but
it
will
be
noticed
that
it
is
an
observation
which
would
make
an
end,
as
indeed
those
who
use
it
intend,
of
the
whole
miraculous
element
in
the
life.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
we
believe
that
the
life
of
Christ
was
supernatural,
it
is
easily
credible
that
the
rising
of
the
Sun
was
heralded,
in
Lange's
image,
by
rays
of
glory.
Of
the
events
of
the
glorious
cycle
which
have
the
joint
support
of
Mt.
and
Lk.
there
are
three
which
have
been
felt
to
have
religious
significance.
(1)
The
Davidic
descent.
—
It
was
an
article
of
common
JESUS
CHRIST
belief
In
the
primitive
Church
that
Jesus
was
descended
from
David
(Ro
1').
Mt.
and
Lk.
supply
genealogies
which
have
the
purpose
of
supporting
the
beUet,
but
do
not
strengthen
it
prima
fade,
as
one
traces
the
descent
through
Solomon
(Mt
1«),
the
other
through
a
son
of
David
called
Nathan
(Lk
3").
The
favourite
way
of
harmonizing
them
is
to
suppose
that
Mt.
gives
the
descent
through
Joseph,
Lk.
through
Mary,
while
others
think
that
Mt.
gives
the
list
of
heirs
to
the
Davidic
throne,
Lk.
the
actual
family-tree
of
Jesus.
It
may
well
be
believed
that
descendants
of
the
royal
house
treasured
the
record
of
their
origin;
and
on
the
other
hand
it
seems
unlikely
that
Jesus
could
have
been
accepted
as
Messiah
without
good
evidence
of
Davidic
origin,
or
that
a
late
fabrication
would
have
been
re-garded
as
such.
(2)
The
Virgin-birth
(cf.
Gore,
Dissertations
on
the
Incarnation,
1895;
Lobstein,
The
Virgin-Birth
of
Christ,
Eng.
tr.
1903).—
The
student
is
referred
for
a
full
statement
on
both
sides
to
the
works
above
cited,
but
a
remark
may
be
made
on
the
two
branches
of
the
evidence,
(a)
The
objections
based
on
historical
and
Uterary
grounds,
as
distinct
from
anti-dogmatic
prej-udice,
are
of
considerable
weight.
No
account
of
Mk.'s
purpose
satisfactorily
explains
his
omission
if
he
knew
of
it,
and
it
seems
Incredible
that,
if
known,
it
would
not
have
been
utilized
in
the
Pauline
theology.
Upon
this
it
can
only
be
said
that
It
may
have
been
a
fact,
although
it
had
not
yet
come
to
the
knowledge
of
Mk.
and
Paul.
Further,
Mt.
and
Lk.
themselves
raise
a
grave
difficulty,
since
the
whole
point
of
the
gene-alogies
seems
to
be
that
Jesus
was
descended
from
David
through
Joseph.
The
usual,
though
not
quite
convincing,
answer
is,
that
Jesus
was
legally
the
son
of
Joseph,
and
therefore
David's
heir.
It
must
probably
be
admitted
that
the
original
compilers
of
the
genealogies
shared
the
Ignorance
of
the
earliest
Gospel,
but
ignorance
or
silence
is
not
decisive
as
to
a
fact.
(&)
It
has
been
common
to
exaggerate
the
doctrinal
necessity
of
the
tenet.
It
is
usually
held
to
have
been
necessary
to
preserve
Jesus
from
the
taint
of
original
sin;
but
as
Mary
was
truly
His
mother,
an
additional
miracle
must
have
been
necessary
to
prevent
the
transmission
of
the
taint
through
her,
and
this
subsidiary
miracle
could
have
safeguarded
the
sirdessness
of
Jesus
without
the
miraculous
conception.
Nor
can
it
be
said
that
it
is
a
necessary
corollary
of
the
Eternal
Sonship
of
Christ;
since
it
is
found
in
the
Gospels
which
say
nothing
of
His
pre-existence,
and
is
absent
from
the
Gospel
which
places
this
in
the
forefront.
And
yet
it
would
be
rash
to
say
that
it
has
no
value
for
Christian
faith.
The
unique
character
of
Christ,
with
its
note
of
sinless
perfection,
cannot
be
explained
by
purely
natural
factors;
and
the
doctrine
of
the
Virgin-
birth
at
least
renders
the
service
of
affirming
the
operation
of
a
supernatural
causality
in
the
constitu-tion
of
that
character.
It
must
also
be
said
that
the
negation
is
generally
felt
to
be
a
phase
of
an
anti-
supernatural
campaign
to
which
the
overthrow
of
this
position
means
the
capture
of
an
outwork,
and
a
point
of
departure
for
a
more
critical
attack.
It
is
also
difficult
for
a
Christian
thinker
to
abandon
the
dogma
without
feeUng
puzzled
and
distressed
by
the
alternative
explanations
which
open
up.
(3)
The
Birth
at
Bethlehem
(cf,
Ramsay,
Was
Christ
born
at
Bethlehem?
1902).
—
For
the
birth
at
Bethlehem
we
have
the
statement
of
the
Gospels.
Lk.
seems
to
have
investigated
the
point
with
special
care,
and
explains
the
presence
of
Joseph
and
Mary
at
Bethlehem
as
due
to
a
census
which
had
been
ordered
by
Augustus
(Lk
2').
It
has
frequently
been
assumed
that
Lk.
has
blundered,
as
Quirinius
was
not
governor
of
Syria
until
A.D.
6,
when
he
made
an
enrolment;
and
the
impossible
date
to
which
we
are
thus
led
seems
to
discredit
the
whole
combination.
In
defence
of
Lk.
it
is
pointed
out
that
Quirinius
held
a
miUtary
appoint-
