The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1917-02-24

OAl%IICu US oily OluuCuL
OF the sacred text. They are found in
all the earliest manuscripts and trans
latlons. They are part Of the first
Christian citation and all printed edi-
lions OF the New Testament. The gen.
uineness OF these texts is proved by
the arguments that Biblical critics con-
slider reliable witnesses. If the OBJ
jections to these chapters stand one
would have to reject the entire Cos
pei of st. Luke. The narrative is
complete chain, and the links are so
woven toget Their that if you remove one
the whole chain is destroyed. The
Gospel can be understood only when
we read the complete traditional text.
The mutilated text of the modern
critic is unintelligible and presents
difficulties which are inexplicable
Some modern theologians believe
that they found solid foundation for
denying the virgin birth of Christ in
a Syrian Code discovered in 1892. Ac-
cording to this code the Gospel of ST.
Matthew reads: Joseph, to whom
was espoused Mary, the virgin, begot
Jesus, Who is called Christ" The
Syrian translator must have known of
the virgin birth or he would have had
no reason fer placing the expression
the virgin in the immediate context.
One is forced to believe either that
the Syriac text was altered or the
translator used the word "begot" in
a conventional way and did not refer
to carnal fatherhood.
The historian actuality of the virgin
birth is attested by the most ancient
Christian tradition. AS early as the
year 1913 st. Justin told his Pagan
hearers that the virgin birth of Christ
ought not to seem so strange to them
as it fitted in with many stories of
their mythology. The Platonic phios-
opher CELSIUS, about the year 10, ridi-
culed the virgin birth of Christ and
said that it was on a par with the
Greek myths. He was answered by
Origen, who said that CELSIUS wrote
more like a buffoon than philoso-
pher.
Pagan Mythology.
A certain class of modern theo-
logians who would deny the virgin.
birth have recourse to pagan mythOl-
ogy to account for the early Christian
tradition. This implies several diff
culties that cannot be explained.
There is no reason that Christian
converted from Paganism should re-
vert back to Pagan superstition for his
conception of Christian doctrine 1t
is impossible to believe that Pagan
superstitions could have influenced
early Christianity without a protest.
1t may be we'll believed that if Christ
had brothers or sisters there would
have been a protest from His relatives
against the strange and novel teach
ing of the virgin birth.
Other writer's observe that the early
Christian tradition of the virgin birth
was taken from Jewish sources. They
argue that though the idea of virgin
birth is Pagan and wholly foreign to
the Jewish conception of God it found
it's way among the Jews in pre-Chris-
tian times. There is no historical evil
dence to support this theory. In fact,
those who most firmly assert it do not
even attempt to bring historical proof
for their a assertions. The theory that
the idea o. virgin birth penetrated
among the Jews through Pagan influ-
ence is an improbable assumption.
Judged by the criteria by which we
judge any part of history the virgin
birth is an historical actuality. The
verses of the Gospel of ST. Luke which
relate it have been authenticated by
the same arguments that authenticate
the rest of the Gospel. The constant
tradition of the Church and the plain
testimony of the early fathers are
unanimous in proclaiming the perpet-
ual virginity of the Mother of Christ.
The only case brought against it is
an unproven hypothesis.