not stop
to even consider this view of the matter, but shall pass on to the
scholarly objectors and their views and thence to the Occult
Teachings.

In the first place, the theologians who favor the views of the Higher
Criticism object to the idea of the Virgin Birth upon several general
grounds, among which the following are the principal ones:

(1) That the story of the Divine Conception, that is the
conception by a woman of a child without a human father, and
by means of a miraculous act on the part of Deity, is one
found among the traditions, legends and beliefs of many
heathen and pagan nations. Nearly all of the old Oriental
religions, antedating Christianity by many centuries,
contain stories of this kind concerning their gods, prophets
and great leaders. The critics hold that the story of the
Virgin Birth and Divine Conception were borrowed outright
from these pagan legends and incorporated into the Christian
Writings after the death of Christ;

(2) that the idea of the Virgin Birth was not an original
Christian Doctrine, but was injected into the Teachings at a
date about one hundred years, or nearly so, after the
beginning of the Christian Era; this view being corroborated
by the fact that the New Testament Writings themselves
contain very little mention of the idea, the only mention of
it being in two of the Gospels, those of St. Matthew and St.
Luke--St. Mark and St. John containing no mention of the
matter, which would not likely be the case had it been an
accepted belief in the early days of Christianity--and no
mention being made of it in the Epistles, even Paul being
utterly silent on the question. They claim that the Virgin
Birth was unknown to the primitive Christians and was not
heard of until its "borrowing" from pagan beliefs many years
after. In support of their idea, as above stated, they call
attention to the fact that the New Testament writings, known
to Biblical students as the oldest and earliest, make no
mention of the idea; and that Paul ignores it completely, as
well as the other writers;

(3) that the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke bear
internal evidences of the introduction of the story at a
later date. This matter we shall now consider, from the
point of view of the Higher Criticism within the body of the