Virgin Birth of Christ

The dogma which teaches that the Blessed Mother of Jesus Christ was a virgin

before, during, and after the conception and birth of her Divine Son.

I. THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY

Councils and Creeds

The virginity of our Blessed Lady was defined under anathema in the third canon

of the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I, A.D. 649. The

Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, as recited in the Mass, expresses belief in

Christ "incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary"; the Apostles' Creed

professes that Jesus Christ "was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin

Mary"; the older form of the same creed uses the expression: "born of the Holy

Ghost and of the Virgin Mary". These professions show:

That the body of Jesus Christ was not sent down from Heaven, nor taken

from earth as was that of Adam, but that its matter was supplied by Mary;

that Mary co-operated in the formation of Christ's body as every other

mother co-operates in the formation of the body of her child, since

otherwise Christ could not be said to be born of Mary just as Eve cannot

be said to be born of Adam;

that the germ in whose development and growth into the Infant Jesus,

Mary co-operated, was fecundated not by any human action, but by the

Divine power attributed to the Holy Ghost;

that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of

Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary's integrity, but also causing

Christ's birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the

Father in this, that "the Light from Light" proceeded from his mother's

womb as a light shed on the world; that the "power of the Most High"

passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that "the body

of the Word" formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the

manner of spirits.

Church Fathers

The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief

not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words

of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by

St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, H.E., V, viii),

Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),

Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),

St. Justin (Dial. con. Tryph., 84),

St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);

St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),

Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),

Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),

St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be

the author of these two passages),

St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),

St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),

St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).

St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity

of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).

The contrary doctrine is called:

"madness and blasphemy" by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),

"madness" by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),

"sacrilege" by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),

"impiety and smacking of atheism" by Philostorgius (VI, 2),

"perfidy" by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),

"full of blasphemies" by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),

"perfidy of the Jews" by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),

"heresy" by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).

St. Epiphanius probably excels all others in his invectives against the opponents

of Our Lady's virginity (Hær., lxxviii, 1, 11, 23).

Sacred Scripture

There can be no doubt as to the Church's teaching and as to the existence of an

early Christian tradition maintaining the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady

and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The mystery of the virginal

conception is furthermore taught by the third Gospel and confirmed by the first.

According to St. Luke (1:34-35), "Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done,

because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost

shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.

And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of

God." The intercourse of man is excluded in the conception of Our Blessed Lord.

According to St. Matthew, St. Joseph, when perplexed by the pregnancy of

Mary, is told by the angel: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that

which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost" (1:20).

II. SOURCES OF THIS DOCTRINE

Whence did the Evangelists derive their information? As far as we know, only two

created beings were witnesses of the annunciation, the angel and the Blessed

Virgin. Later on the angel informed St. Joseph concerning the mystery. We do

not know whether Elizabeth, though "filled with the Holy Ghost", learned the full

truth supernaturally, but we may suppose that Mary confided the secret both to

her friend and her spouse, thus completing the partial revelation received by both.

Between these data and the story of the Evangelists there is a gap which cannot

be filled from any express clue furnished by either Scripture or tradition. If we

compare the narrative of the first Evangelist with that of the third, we find that St.

Matthew may have drawn his information from the knowledge of St. Joseph

independently of any information furnished by Mary. The first Gospel merely

states (1:18): "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they

came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost." St. Joseph could

supply these facts either from personal knowledge or from the words of the angel:

"That which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost." The narrative of St. Luke,

on the other hand, must ultimately be traced back to the testimony of Our

Blessed Lady, unless we are prepared to admit unnecessarily another

independent revelation. The evangelist himself points to Mary as the source of his

account of the infancy of Jesus, when he says that Mary kept all these words in

her heart (2:19, 51). Zahn [1] does not hesitate to say that Mary is pointed out by

these expressions as the bearer of the traditions in Luke 1 and 2.

A. How did St. Luke derive his account from the Blessed Virgin? It has been

supposed by some that he received his information from Mary herself. In the

Middle Ages he is at times called the "chaplain" of Mary [2]; J. Nirsch [3] calls

St. Luke the Evangelist of the Mother of God, believing that he wrote the history

of the infancy from her mouth and heart. Besides, there is the implied testimony

of the Evangelist, who assures us twice that Mary had kept all these words in her

heart. But this does not necessitate an immediate oral communication of the

history of the infancy on the part of Mary; it merely shows that Mary is the

ultimate source of the account. If St. Luke had received the history of the infancy

from the Blessed Virgin by way of oral communication, its presentation in the

third Gospel naturally would show the form and style of its Greek author. In point

of fact the history of the infancy as found in the third Gospel (1:5 to 2:52) betrays

in its contents, its language, and style a Jewish-Christian source. The whole

passage reads like a chapter from the First Book of Machabees; Jewish

customs, and laws, and peculiarities are introduced without any further

explanation; the "Magnificat", the "Benedictus", and the "Nunc dimittis" are filled

with national Jewish ideas. As to the style and language of the history of the

infancy, both are so thoroughly Semitic that the passage must be retranslated

into Hebrew or Aramaic in order to be properly appreciated. We must conclude,

then, that St. Luke's immediate source for the history of the infancy was not an

oral, but a written one.

B. It is hardly probable that Mary herself wrote the history of the infancy as was

supposed by A. Plummer [4]; it is more credible that the Evangelist used a

memoir written by a Jewish Christian, possibly a convert Jewish priest (cf. Acts

6:7), perhaps even a member or friend of Zachary's family [5]. But, whatever may

be the immediate source of St. Luke's account, the Evangelist knows that he has

"diligently attained to all things from the beginning", according to the testimony of

those "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word"

(Luke 1:2).

As to the original language of St. Luke's source, we may agree with the judgment

of Lagarde [6] that the first two chapters of St. Luke present a Hebrew rather than

a Greek or an Aramaic colouring. Writers have not been wanting who have tried

to prove that St. Luke's written source for his first two chapters was composed in

Hebrew [7]. But these proofs are not cogent; St. Luke's Hebraisms may have

their origin in an Aramaic source, or even in a Greek original composed in the

language of the Septuagint. Still, considering the fact that Aramaic was the

language commonly spoken in Palestine at that time, we must conclude that Our

Blessed Lady's secret was originally written in Aramaic, though it must have

been translated into Greek before St. Luke utilized it [8]. As the Greek of Luke

2:41-52 is more idiomatic than the language of Luke 1:4-2:40, it has been inferred

that the Evangelist's written source reached only to 2:40; but as in 2:51,

expressions are repeated which occur in 2:19, it may be safely inferred that both

passages were taken from the same source.

The Evangelist recast the source of the history of the infancy before incorporating

it into his Gospel; for the use of words and expressions in Luke 1 and 2 agrees

with the language in the following chapters [9]. Harnack [10] and Dalman [11]

suggest that St. Luke may be the original author of his first two chapters,

adopting the language and style of the Septuagint; but Vogel [12] and Zahn [13]

maintain that such a literary feat would be impossible for a Greek-speaking

writer. What has been said explains why it is quite impossible to reconstruct St.

Luke's original source; the attempt of Resch [14] to reconstruct the original

Gospel of the infancy or the source of the first two chapters of the first and third

Gospel and the basis of the prologue to the fourth, is a failure, in spite of its

ingenuity. Conrady [15] believed that he had found the common source of the

canonical history of the infancy in the so-called "Protevangelium Jacobi", which,

according to him, was written in Hebrew by an Egyptian Jew about A.D. 120, and

was soon after translated into Greek; it should be kept in mind, however, that the

Greek text is not a translation, but the original, and a mere compilation from the

canonical Gospels. All we can say therefore, concerning St. Luke's source for

his history of the infancy of Jesus is reduced to the scanty information that it

must have been a Greek translation of an Aramaic document based, in the last

instance, on the testimony of Our Blessed Lady.

III. THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN MODERN THEOLOGY

Modern theology adhering to the principle of historical development, and denying

the possibility of any miraculous intervention in the course of history, cannot

consistently admit the historical actuality of the virgin birth. According to modern

views, Jesus was really the son of Joseph and Mary and was endowed by an

admiring posterity with the halo of Divinity; the story of his virgin birth was in

keeping with the myths concerning the extraordinary births of the heroes of other

nations [16]; the original text of the Gospels knew nothing of the virgin birth [17].

Without insisting on the arbitrariness of the philosophical assumptions implied in

the position of modern theology, we shall briefly review its critical attitude

towards the text of the Gospels and its attempts to account for the early

Christian tradition concerning the virgin birth of Christ.

A. Integrity of the Gospel Text

Wellhausen [18] contended that the original text of the third Gospel began with

our present third chapter, the first two chapters being a later addition. But

Harnack seems to have foreseen this theory before it was proposed by

Wellhausen; for he showed that the two chapters in question belonged to the

author of the third Gospel and of the Acts [19]. Holtzmann [20] considers Luke

1:34-35 as a later addition; Hillmann [21] believes that the words hos enouizeto

of Luke 3:23 ought to be considered in the same light. Weinel [22] believes that

the removal of the words epei andra ou ginosko from Luke 1:34 leaves the third

Gospel without a cogent proof for the virgin birth; Harnack not only agrees with

the omissions of Holtzmann and Hillmann, but deletes also the word parthenos

from Luke 1:27 [23]. Other friends of modern theology are rather sceptical as to

the solidity of these text-critical theories; Hilgenfield [24], Clement [25], and

Gunkel [26] reject Harnack's arguments without reserve. Bardenhewer [27]

weighs them singly and finds them wanting.

In the light of the arguments for the genuineness of the portions of the third

Gospel rejected by the above named critics, it is hard to understand how they

can be omitted by any unprejudiced student of the sacred text.

They are found in all manuscripts, translations, and early Christian

citations, in all printed editions — in brief, in all the documents considered

by the critics as reliable witnesses for the genuineness of a text.

Furthermore, in the narrative of St. Luke, each verse is like a link in a

chain, so that no verse can be removed as an interpolation without

destroying the whole.

Moreover, verses 34 and 35 are in the Lucan history what the keystone is

in an arch, what a diamond is in its setting; the text of the Gospel without

these two verses resembles an unfinished arch, a setting bereft of its

precious stones [28].

Finally, the Lucan account left us by the critics is not in keeping with the

rest of the Evangelist's narrative. According to the critics, verses 26-33

and 36-38 relate the promise of the birth of the Messias, the son of

Joseph and Mary, just as the verses immediately preceding relate the

promise of the birth of the precursor, the son of Zachary and Elizabeth.

But there is a great difference: the precursor's story is filled with miracles

— as Zachary's sudden dumbness, John's wonderful conception — while

the account of Christ's conception offers nothing extraordinary; in the one

case the angel is sent to the child's father, Zachary, while in the other the

angel appears to Mary; in the one case Elizabeth is said to have

conceived "after those days", while there is nothing added about Mary's

conception [29]. The complete traditional text of the Gospel explains

these differences, but the critically mutilated text leaves them

inexplicable.

The friends of modern theology at first believed that they possessed a solid

foundation for denying the virgin birth in the Codex Syrus Sinaiticus discovered

by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson in 1892, more accurately investigated in 1893,

published in 1894, and supplemented in 1896. According to this codex, Matthew

1:16 reads: "Joseph to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin, begot Jesus who is

called Christ." Still, the Syriac translator cannot have been ignorant of the virgin

birth. Why did he leave the expression "the virgin" in the immediate context?

How did he understand verses 18, 20, and 25, if he did not know anything of the

virgin birth? Hence, either the Syriac text has been slightly altered by a

transcriber (only one letter had to be changed) or the translator understood the

word begot of conventional, not of carnal, fatherhood, a meaning it has in verses

8 and 12.

B. Non-historical Source of the Virgin Birth

The opponents of the historical actuality of the virgin birth grant that either the

Evangelists or the interpolators of the Gospels borrowed their material from an

early Christian tradition, but they endeavour to show that this tradition has no

solid historical foundation. About A.D. 153 St. Justin (Apol., I, xxi) told his pagan

readers that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ ought not to seem incredible to them,

since many of the most esteemed pagan writers spoke of a number of sons of

Zeus. About A.D. 178 the Platonic philosopher Celsus ridiculed the virgin birth of

Christ, comparing it with the Greek myths of Danae, Melanippe, and Antiope;

Origen (c. Cels. I, xxxvii) answered that Celsus wrote more like a buffoon than a

philosopher. But modern theologians again derive the virgin birth of Our Lord from

unhistorical sources, though their theories do not agree.

The Pagan Origin Theory

A first class of writers have recourse to pagan mythology in order to account for

the early Christian tradition concerning the virgin birth of Jesus. Usener [30]

argues that the early Gentile Christians must have attributed to Christ what their

pagan ancestors had attributed to their pagan heroes; hence the Divine sonship

of Christ is a product of the religious thought of Gentile Christians. Hillmann [31]

and Holtzmann [32] agree substantially with Usener's theory. Conrady [33] found

in the Virgin Mary a Christian imitation of the Egyptian goddess Isis, the mother

of Horus; but Holtzmann [34] declares that he cannot follow this "daring

construction without a feeling of fear and dizziness", and Usener [35] is afraid

that his friend Conrady moves on a precipitous track. Soltau [36] tries to transfer

the supernatural origin of Augustus to Jesus, but Lobstein [37] fears that Soltau's

attempt may throw discredit on science itself, and Kreyher [38] refutes the theory

more at length.

In general, the derivation of the virgin birth from pagan mythology through the

medium of Gentile Christians implies several inexplicable difficulties:

Why should the Christian recently converted from paganism revert to his

pagan superstitions in his conception of Christian doctrines?

How could the product of pagan thought find its way among Jewish

Christians without leaving as much as a vestige of opposition on the part

of the Jewish Christians?

How could this importation into Jewish Christianity be effected at an age

early enough to produce the Jewish Christian sources from which either

the Evangelists or the interpolators of the Gospels derived their material?

Why did not the relatives of Christ's parents protest against the novel

views concerning Christ's origin?

Besides, the very argument on which rests the importation of the virgin birth from

pagan myths into Christianity is fallacious, to say the least. Its major premise

assumes that similar phenomena not merely may, but must, spring from similar

causes; its minor premise contends that Christ's virgin birth and the mythical

divine sonships of the pagan world are similar phenomena, a contention false on

the face of it.

The Jewish Origin Theory (Isaias 7:14)

A second class of writers derive the early Christian tradition of the virgin birth

from Jewish Christian influence. Harnack [39] is of the opinion that the virgin birth

originated from Isaias 7:14; Lobstein [40] adds the "poetic traditions surrounding

the cradle of Isaac, Samson, and Samuel" as another source of the belief in the

virgin birth. Modern theology does not grant that Isaias 7:14, contains a real

prophecy fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ; it must maintain, therefore, that St.

Matthew misunderstood the passage when he said: "Now all this was done that

it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying; Behold a virgin

shall be with child, and bring forth a son," etc. (1:22-23). How do Harnack and

Lobstein explain such a misunderstanding on the part of the Evangelist? There is

no indication that the Jewish contemporaries of St. Matthew understood the

prophet's words in this sense. Hillmann [41] proves that belief in the virgin birth is

not contained in the Old Testament, and therefore cannot have been taken from

it. Dalman [42] maintains that the Jewish people never expected a fatherless

birth of the Messias, and that there exists no vestige of such a Jewish

interpretation of Isaias 7:14.

Those who derive the virgin birth from Isaias 7:14, must maintain that an

accidental misinterpretation of the Prophet by the Evangelist replaced historic

truth among the early Christians in spite of the better knowledge and the

testimony of the disciples and kindred of Jesus. Zahn [43] calls such a

supposition "altogether fantastic"; Usener [44] pronounce the attempt to make

Isaias 7:14 the origin of the virgin birth, instead of its seal, an inversion of the

natural order. Though Catholic exegesis endeavours to find in the Old Testament

prophetic indications of the virgin birth, still it grants that the Jewish Christians

arrived at the full meaning of Isaias 7:14, only through its accomplishment [45].

The Syncretic Theory

There is a third theory which endeavours to account for the prevalence of the

doctrine of the virgin birth among the early Jewish Christians. Gunkel [46] grants

that the idea of virgin birth is a pagan idea, wholly foreign to the Jewish

conception of God; but he also grants that this idea could not have found its way

into early Jewish Christianity through pagan influence. Hence he believes that the

idea had found its way among the Jews in pre-Christian times, so that the

Judaism which flowed directly into early Christianity had undergone a certain

amount of syncretism. Hilgenfeld [47] tries to derive the Christian teaching of the

virgin birth neither from classical paganism nor from pure Judaism, but from the

Essene depreciation of marriage. The theories of both Gunkel and Hilgenfeld are

based on airy combinations rather than historical evidence. Neither writer

produces any historical proof for his assertions. Gunkel, indeed, incidentally

draws attention to Parsee ideas, to the Buddha legend, and to Roman and Greek

fables. But the Romans and Greeks did not exert such a notable influence on

pre-Christian Judaism; and that the Buddha legend reached as far as Palestine

cannot be seriously maintained by Gunkel [48]. Even Harnack [49] regards the

theory that the idea of virgin birth penetrated among the Jews through Parsee

influence, as an unprovable assumption.

[1] "Einleitung in das Neue Testament", 2nd ed., II, 406, Leipzig, 1900

[2] cf. Du Cange, "Gloss. med. et inf. latinitatis", s.v. "Capellani"; ed. L. Favre

[3] "Das Grab der heiligen Jungfrau Maria", 51, Mainz, 1896

[4] "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke" in "The International Critical

Commentary", Edinburgh, 1896, p. 7

[5] cf. Blass, "Evangelium secundum Lucam", xxiii, Leipzig, 1897

[6] "Mitteilungen", III, 345, Göttingen, 1889

[7] cf. Gunkel, "Zum religions-geschichtl. Verständnis des Neuen Testaments", pp. 67 sq., Göttingen,

1903

[8] cf. Bardenhewer, "Maria Verkündigung" in "Biblische Studien", X, v, pp. 32 sq., Freiburg, 1905

[9] cf. Feine, "Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte",

Gotha, 1891, p. 19; Zimmermann, "Theol. Stud. und Krit.", 1903, 250 sqq.

[10] Sitzungsber. der Berliner Akad., 1900, pp. 547 sqq.

[11] "Die Worte Jesu", I, 31 sq., Leipzig, 1898

[12] "Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil", Leipzig, 1897, p. 33

[13] Einleitung, 2nd ed., ii, 406

[14] "Das Kindheitesevangelium nach Lukas und Matthäus" in "Texte und Untersuchungen zur

Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur", X, v, 319, Leipzig, 1897

[15] "Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte Jesus", Göttingen, 1900

[16] Gunkel, "Zum religionsgesch. Verst. des N.T.", p, 65, Göttingen, 1903

[17] Usener, "Geburt und Kindheit Christi" in "Zeitschrift für die neutest. Wissenschaft", IV, 1903, 8

[18] "Das Evangelium Lukä", Berlin, 1904

[19] Sitzungsberichte der Kgl. preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1900, 547

[20] "Handkommentar züm Neuen Testament", I, 31 sq., Freiburg, 1889

[21] "Die Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu nach Lukas kritisch untersucht" in "Jahrb. für protest. Theol.",

XVII, 225 sqq., 1891

[22] "Die Auslegung des apostolischen Bekenntnisses von F. Kattenbusch und die neut. Forschung"

in "Zeitschrift für d. n. t. Wissensch.", II, 37 sqq., 1901; cf. Kattenbusch, "Das apostolische Symbol",

II, 621, Leipzig, 1897-1900

[23] Zeitschrift für d. n. t. Wissensch., 53 sqq., 1901

[24] "Die Geburt Jesu aus der Jungfrau in dem Lukasevangelium" in "Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl.

Theologie", XLIV, 313 sqq., 1901

[25] Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1902, 299

[26] op. cit., p. 68

[27] "Maria Verkündigung", pp. 8-12, Freiburg, 1905

[28] cf. Feine, "Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung", 39, Gotha, 1891

[29] Bardenhewer, op. cit., 13 sqq.; Gunkel, op. cit., 68

[30] "Religionsgeschichtl. Untersuchungen", I, 69 sqq., Bonn, 1899; "Geburt und Kindheit Christi" in

"Zeitschrift für d. n. t. Wissensch.", IV, 1903, 15 sqq.

[31] Jahrb. f. protest. Theol., XVII, 1891, 231 sqq.

[32] "Lehrb. d. n. t. Theol.", I, 413 sqq., Freiburg, 1897

[33] "Die Quelle der kanonisch. Kindheitsgesch. Jesus", Göttingen, 1900, 278 sqq.

[34] Theol. Literaturzeit., 1901, p. 136

[35] Zeitschr. f. d. n. t. Wissensch., 1903, p. 8

[36] "Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu Christi", Leipzig, 1902, p. 24

[37] Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1902, p. 523

[38] "Die jungfräuliche Geburt des Herrn", Gutersloh, 1904

[39] "Lehrb. d. Dogmengesch.", 3rd ed., I, 95 sq., Freiburg, 1894

[40] "Die Lehre von der übernatürlichen Geburt Christi", 2nd ed., 28-31, Freiburg, 1896

[41] "Jahrb. f. protest. Theol.", 1891, XVII, 233 sqq., 1891

[42] Die Worte Jesu, I, Leipzig, 1898, 226

[43] "Das Evangelium des Matthäus ausgelegt", 2nd ed., Leipziig, 1905, pp. 83 sq.

[44] "Religionsgesch. Untersuch.", I, Bonn, 1889, 75

[45] Bardenhewer op. cit., 23; cf. Flunk, Zeitschrift f. kathol. Theol.", XXVIII, 1904, 663

[46] op. cit., 65 sqq.

[47] "Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol.", 1900, XLIII, 271; 1901, XLIV, 235

[48] cf. Oldenberg, "Theol. Literaturzeit.", 1905, 65 sq.

[49] "Dogmengesch.", 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1894, 96

Besides the works cited in the course of this article, we may draw attention to the dogmatic treatises

on the supernatural origin of the Humanity of Christ through the Holy Ghost from the Virgin Mary

especially: WILHELM AND SCANNELL, Manual of Catholic Theology, II (London and New York,

1898), 105 sqq.; 208 sqq.; HUNTER, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, II (New York, 1896), 567 sqq.;

also to the principal commentaries on Matt., i, ii; Luke, i, ii. Among Protestant writings we may

mention the tr. of LOBSTEIN, The Virgin Birth of Christ (London, 1903); BRIGGS, Criticism and the

Dogma of the Virgin Birth in North Am. Rev. (June, 1906); ALLEN in Interpreter (Febr., 1905), 115

sqq.; (Oct., 1905), 52 sqq.; CARR in Expository Times, XVIII, 522, 1907; USENER, s. v. Nativity in

Encyclo. Bibl., III, 3852; CHEYNE, Bible Problems (1905), 89 sqq.; CARPENTER, Bible in the

Nineteenth Century (1903), 491 sqq.; RANDOLPH, The Virgin Birth of Our Lord (1903).

A. J. Maas

Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter

Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV

Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org