EACH of the four Evangelists represents the public ministry of Jesus as preceded by that of John the Baptist; but it is peculiar to Luke to make the Baptist the precursor of the Messiah in reference also to the event of his birth. This account finds a legitimate place in a work devoted exclusively to the consideration of the life of Jesus, firstly, on account of the intimate connection it shows as subsisting from the beginning between the life of John and the life of Jesus; and secondly, because it constitutes a valuable contribution, aiding essentially towards the formation of a correct estimate of the general character of the gospel narratives. The opinion that the two first chapters of Luke, of which this particular history forms a portion, are a subsequent and unauthentic addition, is the uncritical assumption of a class of theologians who felt that the story of the childhood of Jesus seemed to require a mythical interpretation, but yet demurred to apply the comparatively modern mythical view to the remainder of the Gospel.

A pious sacerdotal pair had lived and grown old in the cherished, but unrealised hope, of becoming parents, when, on a certain day, ^{P.78} as the priest is offering incense in the sanctuary, the angel Gabriel appears to him, and promises him a son, who shall live consecrated to God, and who shall be the harbinger of the Messiah, to prepare his way when he shall visit and redeem his people. Zechariah, however, is incredulous, and doubts the prediction on account of his own advanced age and that of his wife; whereupon the angel, both as a sign and as a punishment, strikes him dumb until the time of its accomplishment; an infliction which endures until the day of the circumcision of the actually born son, when the father, being called upon to assign to the child the name predetermined by the angel, suddenly recovers his speech, and with the regained powers of utterance, breaks forth in a hymn of praise. (Luke i. 5-25. 57-80.)

It is evidently the object of this gospel account to represent a series of external and miraculous occurrences. The announcement of the birth of the forerunner of the Messiah is divinely communicated by the apparition of a celestial spirit; the conception takes place under the particular and preternatural blessing of God; and the infliction and removal of dumbness are effected by extraordinary means. But it is quite another question, whether we can accede to the view of the author, or can feel convinced that the birth of the Baptist was in fact preceded by such a series of miraculous events.

The first offence against our modern notions in this narrative is the appearance of the angel, the event contemplated in itself, as well as the peculiar circumstances of the apparition. With respect to the latter, the angel announces himself to be Gabriel that stands in the presence of God. Now it is inconceivable that the constitution of the celestial hierarchy should actually correspond with the notions entertained by the Jews subsequent to the exile; and that the names given to the angels should be in the language of this people. Here the supranaturalist finds himself in a dilemma, even upon his own ground. Had the belief in celestial beings, occupying a particular station in the court of heaven, and distinguished by particular names, originated from the revealed religion of the Hebrews,-had such a belief been established by Moses, or some later prophet,-then, according to the views of the supranaturalist, they might, indeed they must, be admitted to be correct. But it is in the Maccabean Daniel and in the apocryphal Tobit that this doctrine of angels, in its more precise form, first appears; and it is evidently a product of the influence of the Zend religion of the Persians on the Jewish mind. We have the testimony of the Jews themselves, that they brought the names of the angels with them from Babylon.

^{P.79} Hence arises a series of questions extremely perplexing to the supranaturalist. Was the doctrine false so long as it continued to be the exclusive possession of the heathens, but true as soon as it became adopted by the Jews? or was it at all times equally true, and was an important truth discovered by an idolatrous nation sooner than by the people of God? If nations shut out from a particular and divine revelation, arrived at truth by the light of reason alone, sooner than the Jews who were guided by that revelation, then either the revelation was superfluous, or its influence was merely negative, that is, it operated as a check to the premature acquisition of knowledge. If, in order to escape this consequence, it be contended that truths were revealed by the divine influence to other people besides the Israelites, the supranaturalistic point of view is annihilated; and, since all things contained in religions which contradict each other cannot have been revealed, we are compelled to exercise a critical discrimination. Thus, we find it to be by no means in harmony with an elevated conception of God to represent him as an earthly monarch, surrounded by his court, and when an appeal is made, in behalf of the reality of angels standing round the throne, to the reasonable belief in a graduated scale of created intelligences, the Jewish representation is not thereby justified, but merely a modern conception substituted for it. We should, thus, be driven to the expedient of supposing an accommodation on the part of God, that he sent a celestial spirit with the command to simulate a rank and title which did not belong to him, in order that, by this conformity to Jewish notions, he might insure the belief of the father of the Baptist. Since however it appears that Zechariah did not believe the angel, but was first convinced by the result, the accommodation proved fruitless, and consequently could not have been a divine arrangement. With regard to the name of the angel, and the improbability that a celestial being should bear a Hebrew name, it has been remarked that the word Gabriel, taken appellatively in the sense of Man of God, very appropriately designates the nature of the heavenly visitant; and since it may be rendered with this signification into every different language, the name cannot be said to be restricted to the Hebrew. This explanation however leaves the difficulty quite unsolved, since it converts into a simple appellative a name evidently employed as a proper name. In this case likewise an accommodation must be supposed, namely, that the angel, in order to indicate his real nature, appropriated a name which he did not actually bear, an accommodation already judged in the foregoing remarks.

But it is not only the name and the alleged station of the angel which shock our modern ideas, we also feel his discourse and his conduct to be unworthy. Paulus indeed suggests that none but a Levitical priest, and not an angel of the Lord, could have conceived it ^{P.80} necessary that the boy should live in Nazirite abstemiousness, but to this it may be answered that the angel also might have known that under this form John would obtain greater influence with the people. But there is a more important difficulty. When Zechariah, overcome by surprise, doubts the promise and asks for a sign, this natural incredulity is regarded by the angel as a crime, and immediately punished with dumbness. Though some may not coincide with Paulus that a real angel would have lauded the spirit of inquiry evinced by the priest, yet all will agree in the remark, that conduct so imperious is less in character with a truly celestial being than with the notions the Jews of that time entertained of such. Moreover we do not find in the whole province of supranaturalism a parallel severity.

The instance, cited by Paulus, of the Lord's far milder treatment of Abraham, who asks precisely the same question unreproved, Gen. xv. 8, is refuted by Olshausen, because he considers the words of Abraham, chap. v. 6, an evidence of his faith; but this observation does not apply to chap. xviii. 12, where the greater incredulity of Sarah, in a similar case, remains unpunished; nor to chap. xvii. 17, where Abraham himself is not even blamed, though the divine promise appears to him so incredible as to excite laughter. The example of Mary is yet closer, who (Luke i. 34.) in regard to a still greater improbability, but one which was similarly declared by a special divine messenger to be no impossibility, puts exactly the same question as Zechariah; so that we must agree with Paulus that such inconsistency certainly cannot belong to the conduct of God or of a celestial being, but merely to the Jewish representation of them. Feeling the objectionableness of the representation in its existing form, orthodox theologians have invented various motives to justify this infliction of dumbness. Hess has attempted to screen it from the reproach of an arbitrary procedure by regarding it as the only means of keeping secret, even against the will of the priest, an event, the premature proclamation of which might have been followed by disastrous consequences, similar to those which attended the announcement by the wise men of the birth of the child Jesus. But, in the first place, the angel says nothing of such an object, he inflicts the dumbness but as a sign and punishment; secondly, the loss of speech did not hinder Zechariah from communicating, at any rate to his wife, the main features of the apparition, since we see that she was acquainted with the destined name of the child before appeal was made to the father. Thirdly, what end did it serve thus to render difficult the communication of the miraculous annunciation of the unborn babe, since no sooner was it born than it was at once exposed to all the dreaded dangers, as the father's sudden recovery of speech, and the extraordinary scene at the circumcision excited attention and became noised abroad in all the country. ^{P.81} Olshausen's view of the thing is more admissible. He regards the whole proceeding, and especially the dumbness, as a moral training destined to teach Zechariah to know and conquer his want of faith.

But however worthy of God we might grant the conduct of his messenger to have been, still many of the present day will find an angelic apparition, as such, incredible. Bauer insists that wherever angels appear, both in the New Testament and in the Old, the narrative is mythical. Even admitting the existence of angels, we cannot suppose them capable of manifesting themselves to human beings, since they belong to the invisible world, and spiritual existences are not cognisable by the organs of sense; so that it is always advisable to refer their pretended apparitions to the imagination. It is not probable, it is added, that God should make use of them according to the popular notion, for these apparitions have no apparent adequate object, they serve generally only to gratify curiosity, or to encourage man's disposition passively to leave his affairs in higher hands. It is also remarkable that in the old world these celestial beings show themselves active upon the smallest occasions, while in modern times they remain idle even during the most important occurrences.

But to deny their appearance and agency among men is to call in question their very being, because it is precisely this occupation which is a main object of their existence. (Heb. i, 14.) According to Schleiermacher, we cannot indeed actually disprove the existence of angels, yet the conception is one which could not have originated in our time, but belongs wholly to the ancient ideas of the world. The belief in angels has a twofold root or source, the one the natural desire of the mind to presuppose a larger amount of intelligence in the universe than is realized in the human race. We who live in these days find this desire satisfied in the conviction that other worlds exist besides our own, and are peopled by intelligent beings; and thus the first source of the belief in angels is destroyed. The other source, namely, the representation of God as an earthly monarch surrounded by his court, contradicts all enlightened conceptions of Deity; and further, the phenomena in the natural world and the transitions in human life, which were formerly thought to be wrought by God himself through ministering angels, we are now able to explain by natural causes; so that the belief in angels is without a link by which it can attach itself to rightly apprehended modern ideas; and it exists only as a lifeless tradition. The result is the same if, with one of the latest writers on the doctrine of angels, we consider as the origin of this representation, ^{P.82} man's desire to separate the two sides of his moral nature, and to contemplate, as beings existing external to himself, angels and devils. For, the origin of both representations remains merely subjective, the angel being simply the ideal of created perfection, which, as it was formed from the subordinate point of view of a fanciful imagination, disappears from the higher and more comprehensive observation of the intellect.

Olshausen, on the other hand, seeks to deduce a positive argument in favour of the reality of the apparition in question, from those very reasonings of the present day which, in fact, negative the existence of angels; and he does so by viewing the subject on its speculative side. He is of opinion that the gospel narrative does not contradict just views of the world, since God is immanent in the universe and moves it by his breath. But if it be true that God is immanent in the world, precisely on that account is the intervention of angels superfluous. It is only a Deity who dwells apart, throned in heaven, who requires to send down his angels to fulfil his purposes on earth. It would excite surprise to find Olshausen arguing thus, did we not perceive from the manner in which this interpreter constantly treats of angelology and demonology, that he does not consider angels to be independent personal entities; but regards them rather as divine powers, transitory emanations and fulgurations of the Divine Being. Thus Olshausen's conception of angels, in their relation to God, seems to correspond with the Sabellian doctrine of the Trinity; but as his is not the representation of the Bible, as also the arguments in favour of the former prove nothing in relation to the latter, it is useless to enter into further explanation. The reasoning of this same theologian, that we must not require the ordinariness of every day life for the most pregnant epochs in the life of the human race; that the incarnation of the eternal word was accompanied by extraordinary manifestations from the world of spirits, uncalled for in times less rich in momentous results, rests upon a misapprehension. For the ordinary course of every day life is interrupted in such moments, by the very fact that exalted beings like the Baptist are born into the world, and it would be puerile to designate as ordinary those times and circumstances which gave birth and maturity to a John, because they were unembellished by angelic apparitions. That which the spiritual world does for ours at such periods is to send extraordinary human intelligences, not to cause angels, to ascend and descend.

Finally, if, in vindication of this narrative, it be stated that such an exhibition by the angel, of the plan of education for the unborn child, was necessary in order to make him the man whom he should become, the assumption includes too much; namely, that all great men, in order by their education to become such, must have been introduced into the world in like manner, or cause must be shown ^{P.83} why that which was unnecessary in the case of great men of other ages and countries was indispensable for the Baptist. Again, the assumption attaches too much importance to external training, too little to the internal development of the mind. But in conclusion, many of the circumstances in the life of the Baptist, instead of serving to confirm a belief in the truth of the miraculous history, are on the contrary, as has been justly maintained, altogether irreconcilable with the supposition, that his birth was attended by these wonderful occurrences. If it were indeed true, that John was from the first distinctly and miraculously announced as the forerunner of the Messiah, it is inconceivable that he should have had no acquaintance with Jesus prior to his baptism; and that, even subsequent to that event, he should have felt perplexed concerning his Messiahship. (John i, 30 ; Matth. xi, 2.)

Consequently the negative conclusion of the rationalist criticism and controversy must, we think, be admitted, namely, that the birth of the Baptist could not have been preceded and attended by these supernatural occurrences. The question now arises, what positive view of the matter is to replace the rejected literal orthodox explanation?

IN treating the narrative before us according to the rationalist method, which requires the separation of the pure fact from the opinion of interested persons, the simplest alteration is this, to retain the two leading facts, the apparition and the dumbness, as actual external occurrences; but to account for them in a natural manner. This were possible with respect to the apparition, by supposing that a man, mistaken by Zechariah for a divine messenger, really appeared to him, and addressed to him the words he believed he heard. But this explanation viewed in connection with the attendant circumstances, being too improbable, it became necessary to go a step further, and to transform the event from an external to an internal one ; to remove the occurrence out of the physical into the psychological world. To this view the opinion of Bahrdt, that a flash of lightning was perhaps mistaken by Zechariah for an angel, forms a transition; since he attributes the greater part of the scene to Zechariah's imagination. But that any man, in an ordinary state of mind, could have created so long and consecutive a dialogue out of a flash of lightning is incredible. A peculiar mental state must be supposed; whether it be a swoon, the effect of fright occasioned by the lightning, but of this there is no trace in the text; (no falling down as in Acts ix, 4.); or, abandoning the notion of the lightning, a dream, which, however, could scarcely ^{P.84} occur while burning incense in the temple. Hence, it has been found necessary, with Paulus, to call to mind that there are waking visions or ecstasies, in which the imagination confounds internal images with external occurrences. Such ecstasies, it is true, are not common; but says Paulus, in Zechariah's case many circumstances combined to produce so unusual a state of mind. The exciting causes were, firstly, the long-cherished desire to have a posterity; secondly, the exalted vocation of administering in the Holy Place, offering up with the incense the prayers of the people to the throne of the Lord, which seemed to Zechariah to foretoken the acceptance of his own prayer; and thirdly, perhaps an exhortation from his wife as he left his house, similar to that of Rachel to Jacob. Gen. xxx, I. (!) In this highly excited state of mind, as he prays in the dimly-lighted sanctuary, he thinks of his most ardent wish, and expecting that now or never his prayer shall be heard, he is prepared to discern a sign of its acceptance in the slightest occurrence. As the glimmer of the lamps falls upon the ascending cloud of incense, and shapes it into varying forms, the priest imagines he perceives the figure of an angel. The apparition at first alarms him; but he soon regards it as an assurance from God that his prayer is heard. No sooner does a transient doubt cross his mind, than the sensitively pious priest looks upon himself as sinful, believes himself reproved by the angel, and-here two explanations are possible-either an apoplectic seizure actually deprives him of speech, which he receives as the just punishment of his incredulity, till the excessive joy he experiences at the circumcision of his son restores the power of utterance, so that the dumbness is retained as an external, physical, though not miraculous, occurrence; or the proceeding is psychologically understood, namely, that Zechariah, in accordance with a Jewish superstition, for a time denied himself the use of the offending member. Re-animated in other respects by the extraordinary event, the priest returns home to his wife, and she becomes a second Sarah.

With regard to this account of the angelic apparition given by Paulus,, and the other explanations are either of essentially similar character, or are so manifestly untenable, as not to need refutation-it may be observed that the object so laboriously striven after is not attained. Paulus fails to free the narrative of the marvellous; for by his own admission, the majority of men have no experience of the kind of vision here supposed. If such a state of ecstasy occur in particular cases, it must result either from a predisposition in the individual, of which we find no sign in Zechariah, and which his advanced age must have rendered highly improbable; or it must have been induced by some peculiar circumstances, which totally fail in the present instance. A hope which has been long indulged ^{P.85} is inadequate to the production of ecstatic vehemence, and the act of burning incense is insufficient to cause so extraordinary an excitement, in a priest who has grown old in the service of the temple. Thus Paulus has in fact substituted a miracle of chance for a miracle of God. Should it be said that to God nothing is impossible, or to chance nothing is impossible, both explanations are equally precarious and unscientific.

Indeed, the dumbness of Zechariah as explained from this point of view is very unsatisfactory. For had it been, as according to one explanation, the result of apoplexy; admitting Paulus's reference to Lev. xxi, 16, to be set aside by the contrary remark of Lightfoot, still, we must join with Schleiermacher in wondering how Zechariah, notwithstanding this apoplectic seizure, returned home in other respects healthy and vigorous; and that in spite of partial paralysis his general strength was unimpaired, and his long-cherished hope fulfilled. It must also be regarded as a strange coincidence, that the father's tongue should have been loosed exactly at the time of the circumcision; for if the recovery of speech is to be considered as the effect of joy, surely the father must have been far more elated at the birth of the earnestly-desired son, than at the circumcision; for by that time he would have become accustomed to the possession of his child.

The other explanation, that Zechariah's silence was not from any physical impediment, but from a notion, to be psychologically explained, that he ought not to speak, is in direct contradiction to the words of Luke. What do all the passages, collected by Paulus to show that ou) dunamai may signify not only a positive non posse, but likewise a mere non sustinere, prove against the clear meaning of the passage and its context? If perhaps the narrative phrase, (v. 22.) ou)k h)dunato lalesai au)toij might be forced to bear this sense, yet certainly in the supposed vision of Zechariah, had the angel only forbidden him to speak, instead of depriving him of the power of speech, he would not have said kai e)sh siwpwn, mh dunamenoj lalhsai, but i)sqi siwpwn mhd' e)pixeirhshj lalhsai. The words diemene kwfoj (v. 21.) also most naturally mean actual dumbness. This view assumes, and indeed necessarily so, that the gospel history is a correct report of the account given by Zechariah himself; if then it be denied that the dumbness was actual, as Zechariah affirms that actual dumbness was announced to him by the angel, it must be admitted that, though perfectly able to speak, he believed himself to be dumb; which leads to the conclusion that he was mad, an imputation not to be laid upon the father of the Baptist without compulsory evidence in the text.

Again, the natural explanation makes too light of the incredibly accurate fulfilment of a prediction originating, as it supposes, in an ^{P.86} unnatural, over-excited state of mind. In no other province of inquiry would the realization of a prediction which owed its birth to a vision be found credible, even by the Rationalist. If Dr. Paulus were to read that a somnambulist, in a state of ecstasy, had foretold the birth of a child, under circumstances in the highest degree improbable; and not only of a child, but of a boy; and had moreover, with accurate minuteness, predicted his future mode of life, character, and position in history; and that each particular had been exactly verified by the result, would he find such a coincidence credible? Most assuredly to no human being, under any conditions whatsoever, would he concede the power thus to penetrate the most mysterious workings of nature; on the contrary he would complain of the outrage on human free-will, which is annihilated by the admission that a man's entire intellectual and moral development may be predetermined like the movements of a clock. And he would on this very ground complain of the inaccuracy of observation, and untrustworthiness of the report, which represented, as matters of fact, things in their very nature impossible. Why does he not follow the same rule with respect to the New Testament narrative? Why admit in the one case what he rejects in the other? Is biblical history to be judged by one set of laws, and profane history by another? An assumption which the Rationalist is compelled to make, if he admits as credible in the Gospels that which he rejects as unworthy of credit in every other history which is in fact to fall back on the supernaturalist point of view, since the assumption, that the natural laws which govern in every other province are not applicable to sacred history, is the very essential of supranaturalism.

No other rescue from this self annihilation remains to the anti-supernatural mode of explanation, than to question the verbal accuracy of the story. This is the simplest expedient, felt to be such by Paulus himself, who remarks, that his efforts may be deemed superfluous to give a natural explanation of a narrative, which is nothing more than one of those stories invented either after the death or even during the lifetime of every distinguished man to embellish his early history. Paulus, however, after an impartial examination, is of opinion that the analogy, in the present instance, is not applicable. The principal ground for this opinion is the too short interval between the birth of the Baptist, and the composition of the Gospel of Luke. We, on the contrary, in harmony with the observations in the introduction, would reverse the question and inquire of the interpreter, how he would render it credible, that the story of the birth of a man so famed as the Baptist should have been transmitted, in an age of great excitement, through a period of more than sixty years, in all its primitive accuracy of detail? Paulus's answer is ready, an answer approved by others (Heidenreich, Olshausen), the passage inserted by Luke (i. 5; ii. 39.) ^{P.87} was possibly a family record, which circulated among the relatives of the Baptist and of Jesus; and of which Zechariah was probably the author.

K. Ch. L. Schmidt controverts this hypothesis with the remark, that it is impossible that a narrative so disfigured, (we should rather say, so embellished,) could have been a family record; and that, if it does not belong altogether to the class of legends, its historical basis, if such there be, is no longer to be distinguished. It is further maintained, that the narrative presents certain features which no poet would have conceived, and which prove it to be a direct impression of facts; for instance, the Messianic expectations expressed by the different personages introduced by Luke (chap. i. and ii.) correspond exactly with the situation and relation of each individual. But these distinctions are by no means so striking as Paulus represents; they are only the characteristics of a history which goes into details, making a transition from generalities to particulars, which is natural alike to the poet and to the popular legend; besides, the peculiar Judaical phraseology in which the Messianic expectations are expressed, and which it is contended confirm the opinion that this narrative was written, or received its fixed form, before the death of Jesus, continued to be used after that event. Moreover we must agree with Schleiermacher when he saysthat least of all is it possible to regard these utterances as strictly historical; or to maintain that Zechariah, in the moment that he recovered his speech, employed it in a song of praise, uninterrupted by the exultation and wonder of the company, sentiments which the narrator interrupts himself to indulge. It must, at all events, be admitted, that the author has made additions of his own, and has enriched the story by the lyric effusions of his muse. Kuin l supposes that Zechariah composed and wrote down the canticle subsequent to the occasion; but this strange surmise contradicts the text. There are some other features which, it is contended, belong not to the creations of the poet; such as, the signs made to the father, the debate in the family, the position of the angel on the right hand of the altar. But this criticism is merely a proof that these interpreters have, or determine to have, no just conception of poetry or popular legend; for the genuine characteristic of poetry and myth is natural and pictorial representation of details.

The above exposition of the necessity, and lastly, of the possibility of doubting the historical fidelity of the gospel narrative, ^{P.88} has led many theologians to explain the account of the birth of the Baptist as a poetical composition; suggested, by the importance attributed by the Christians to the forerunner of Jesus, and by the recollection of some of the Old Testament histories, in which the births of Ishmael, Isaac, Samuel, and especially of Samson, are related to have been similarly announced. Still the matter was not allowed to be altogether invented. It may have been historically true that Zechariah and Elizabeth lived long without offspring; that, on one occasion while in the temple, the old man's tongue was suddenly paralyzed; but that soon afterwards his aged wife bore him a son, and he, in his joy at the event, recovered the power of speech. At that time, but still more when John became a remarkable man, the story excited attention, and out of it the existing legend grew.

It is surprising to find an explanation almost identical with the natural one we have criticised above, again brought forward under a new title; so that the admission of the possibility of an admixture of subsequent legends in the narrative has little influence on the view of the matter itself. As the mode of explanation we are now advocating denies all confidence in the historical authenticity of the record, all the details must be in themselves equally problematic; and whether historical validity can be retained for this or that particular incident, can be determined only by its being either less improbable than the rest, or else less in harmony with the spirit, interest, and design of the poetic legend, so as to make it probable that it had a distinct origin. The barrenness of Elizabeth and the sudden dumbness of Zechariah are here retained as incidents of this character, so that only the appearing and prediction of the angel are given up. But by taking away the angelic apparition, the sudden infliction and as sudden removal of the dumbness loses its only adequate supernatural cause, so that all difficulties which beset the natural interpretation remain in full force, a dilemma into which these theologians are, most unnecessarily, brought by their own inconsequence; for the moment we enter upon mythical ground, all obligation to hold fast the assumed historical fidelity of the account ceases to exist. Besides, that which they propose to retain as historical fact, namely, the long barrenness of the parents of the Baptist, is so strictly in harmony with the spirit and character of Hebrew legendary poetry, that of this incident the mythical origin is least to be mistaken. How confused has this misapprehension made, for example, the reasoning of Bauer! It was a prevailing opinion, says he, consonant with Jewish ideas, that all children born of aged parents who had previously been childless became distinguished personages. John was the child of aged parents, and became a notable preacher of repentance; consequently it was thought justifiable to infer that his birth was predicted by an angel. What an illogical ^{P.89} conclusion! for which he has no other ground than the assumption that John was the son of aged parents. Let this be made a settled point, and the conclusion follows without difficulty. It was readily believed, he proceeds, of remarkable men that they were born of aged parents and that their birth, no longer in the ordinary course of nature to be expected, was announced by a heavenly messenger; John was a great man and a prophet; consequently, the legend represented him to have been born of an aged couple, and his birth to have been proclaimed by an angel.

Seeing that this explanation of the narrative before us, as a half (so called historical) myth, is encumbered with all the difficulties of a half measure, Gabler has treated it as a pure philosophical, or dogmatical myth. Horst likewise considers it, and indeed the entire two first chapters of Luke of which it forms a part, as an ingenious fiction, in which the birth of the Messiah, together with that of his precursor, and the predictions concerning the character and ministry of the latter, framed after the event, are set forth; it being precisely the loquacious circumstantiality of the narration which betrays the poet. Schleiermacher likewise explains the first chapter as a little poem, similar in character to many of the Jewish poems which we meet with in their apocrypha. He does not however consider it altogether a fabrication. It might have had a foundation in fact, and in a wide spread tradition; but the poet has allowed himself so full a license in arranging, and combining, in moulding and embodying the vague and fluctuating representations of tradition, that the attempt to detect the purely historical in such narratives, must prove a fruitless and useless effort. Horst goes so far as to suppose the author of the piece to have been a Judaising Christian; while Schleiermacher imagines it to have been composed by a Christian of the famed Jewish school, at a period when it comprised some who still continued strict disciples of John; and whom it was the object of the narrative to bring over to Christianity, by exhibiting the relationship of John to the Christ as his peculiar and highest destiny; and also by holding out the expectation of a state of temporal greatness for the Jewish people at the re-appearance of Christ.

An attentive consideration of the Old Testament histories, to which, as most interpreters admit, the narrative of the annunciation and birth of the Baptist bears a striking affinity, will render it ^{P.90} abundantly evident that this is the only just view of the passage in question. But it must not here be imagined, as is now so readily affirmed in the confutation of the mythical view of this passage, that the author of our narrative first made a collection from the Old Testament of its individual traits; much rather had the scattered traits respecting the late birth of different distinguished men, as recorded in the Old Testament, blended themselves into a compound image in the mind of their reader, from which he selected the features most appropriate to his present subject of the children born of aged parents Isaac is the most ancient prototype. As it is said of Zechariah and Elizabeth "they both were advanced in their days" (v. 7.) so Abraham and Sarah "were advanced in their days" (Ba'im bayamim) (Gen. xviii; LXX, probebhkotej h(merwn), when they were promised a son. It is likewise from this history that the incredulity of the father, on account of the advanced age of both parents, and the demand of a sign, are borrowed in our narrative. As Abraham, when the Lord promises him he shall have a son and a numerous posterity who shall inherit the land of Canaan, doubtingly inquires "Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" kata ti gnwsomai, oti klhronomhsw authn; (Gen xv. 8. LXX), so "Whereby shall I know this?" kata ti gnwsomai touto; (v. 18.) The incredulity of Sarah is not made use of for Elizabeth; but she is said to be of the daughters of Aaron, and the name Elizabeth may perhaps have been suggested by that of Aaron's wife. (Exod. vi. 23. LXX.) The incident of the angel announcing the birth of the Baptist is taken from the story of another late-born child, Samson. In our narrative indeed, the angel appears first to the father in the temple, whereas in the story of Samson he shows himself first to the mother, and afterwards to the father in the field. This, however, is an alteration arising naturally out of the different situations of the respective parents. (Judges xiii.) According to popular Jewish notions it was no unusual occurrence for the priest to be visited by angels and divine apparitions while offering incense in the temple. The command which before his birth predestined the Baptist-whose later ascetic mode of life was known-to be a Nazirite, is taken from the same source. As, to Samson's mother during her pregnancy, wine, strong drink, and unclean food, were forbidden, so a similar diet is prescribed for her son, adding, as in the case of John, that the child shall be consecrated to God from the womb. The blessings ^{P.91} which it is predicted that these two men shall realize for the people of Israel are similar, (comp. Luke i. 16, 17, with Judges xiii. 5.) and each narrative concludes with the same expression respecting the hopeful growth of the child. It may be too bold to derive the Levitical descent of the Baptist from a third Old Testament history of a late-born son from the story of Samuel; (compare 1 Sam. i. 1; Chron. vii. 27.) but the lyric effusions in the first chapter of Luke are imitations of this history. As Samuel's mother, when consigning him to the care of the high priests, breaks forth into a hymn, (1 Sam. ii. 1.) so the father of John does the same at the circumcision; though the particular expressions in the Canticle uttered by Mary of which we shall have to speak hereafter - have a closer resemblance to Hannah's song of praise than that of Zechariah. The significant appellation "John" predetermined by the angel, had its precedent in the announcements of the names of Ishmael and Isaac; but the ground of its selection was the apparently providential coincidence between the signification of the name and the historical destination of the man. The remark, that the name of John was not in the family, (v. 61.) only brought its celestial origin more fully into view. The tablet upon which the father wrote the name (v. 63.) was necessary on account of his incapacity to speak ; but it also had its type in the Old Testament. Isaiah was commanded to write the significant names of the child Maher-shalal-hash-baz upon a tablet. (Isaiah viii. 1, ff.) The only supernatural incident of the narrative, of which the Old Testament may seem to offer no precise analogy, is the dumbness; and this is the point fixed upon by those who contest the mythical view. But if it be borne in mind that the asking and receiving a sign from heaven in confirmation of a promise or prophecy was usual among the Hebrews (comp. Isaiah vii. 11, ff.); that the temporary loss of one of the senses was the peculiar punishment inflicted after a heavenly vision (Acts ix. 8, 17, ff.); that Daniel became dumb while the angel was talking with him, and did not recover his speech till the angel had touched his lips and opened his mouth, (Dan. x. 15, f.) the origin of this incident also will be found in the legend and not in historical fact. of two ordinary and subordinate features of the narrative, the one, the righteousness of the parents of the Baptist, (v. 6.) is merely a conclusion founded upon the belief that to a pious couple alone would the blessing of such a son be vouchsafed, and consequently is void of all historical worth; ^{P.92} the other, the statement that John was born in the reign of Herod (the Great) (v. 5.) is without doubt a correct calculation.

So that we stand here upon purely mythical-poetical ground; the only historical reality which we can hold fast as positive matter of fact being this: the impression made by John the Baptist, by virtue of his ministry and his relation to Jesus, was so powerful as to lead to the subsequent glorification of his birth in connection with the birth of the Messiah in the Christian legend.

IN the story of the birth of the Baptist we had the single account of Luke; but regarding the genealogical descent of Jesus we have also that of Matthew; so that in this case the mutual control of two narrators in some respects multiplies, while in others it lightens, our critical labour. It is indeed true that the authenticity of the two first chapters of Matthew, which contain the story of the birth and childhood of Jesus, as well as that of the parallel section of Luke, has been questioned, but as in both cases the question has originated merely in a prejudiced view of the subject, the doubt has been silenced by a decisive refutation.

Each of these two Gospels contains a genealogical table designed to exhibit the Davidic descent of Jesus, the Messiah. That of Matthew (i. 1-17.) precedes, that of Luke (iii. 23-38.) follows, the story of the announcement and birth of Jesus. These two tables, considered each in itself, or both compared together, afford so important a key to the character of the evangelic records in this section, as to render a close examination of them imperative. We shall first consider each separately, and then each, but particularly that of Matthew, in comparison with the passages in the Old Testament to which it is parallel.

In the Genealogy given by the author of the first Gospel, there is a comparison of the account with itself which is important as it gives a result, a sum at its conclusion, whose correctness may be proved by comparing it with the previous statements. ^{P.93} In the summing up it is said, that from Abraham to Christ there are three divisions .of fourteen generations each, the first from Abraham to David, the second from David to the Babylonian exile, the third from the exile to Christ. Now if we compute the number of names for ourselves, we find the first fourteen from Abraham to David, both included, complete (2-5.); also that from Solomon to Jechoniah, after whom the Babylonian exile is mentioned (6-11.); but from Jechoniah to Jesus, even reckoning the latter as one, we can discover only thirteen. (12-16.) How shall we explain this discrepancy? The supposition that one of the names has escaped from the third division by an error of a transcriber, is in the highest degree improbable, since the deficiency is mentioned so early as by Porphyry. The insertion, in some manuscripts and versions, of the name Jehoiachim between Josiah and Jechoniah, does not supply the deficiency of the third division; it only adds a superfluous generation to the second division which was already complete. As also there is no doubt that this deficiency originated with the author of the genealogy, the question arises: in what manner did he reckon so as to count fourteen generations for his third series? Truly it is possible to count in various ways, if an arbitrary inclusion and exclusion of the first and last members of the several series be permitted. It might indeed have been presupposed, that a generation already included in one division was necessarily excluded from another; but the compiler of the genealogy may perhaps have thought otherwise; and since David is twice mentioned in the table, it is possible that the author counted him twice, namely, at the end of the first series, and again at the beginning of the second. This would not indeed, any more than the insertion of Jehoiakim, fill up the deficiency in the third division, but give too many to the second; so that we must, with some commentators, conclude the second series not with Jechoniah, as is usually done, but with his predecessor Josiah, and now, by means of the double enumeration of David, Jechoniah, who was superfluous in the second division, being available for the third, the last series, including Jesus, has its fourteen members complete. But it seems very arbitrary to reckon the concluding member of the first series twice, and not also that of the second; - to avoid which inconsistency some interpreters have proposed to count Josiah twice, as well as David, and thus complete the fourteen members of the third series without Jesus.

But while this computation escapes one blunder it falls into another; namely, that whereas the expression "from Abraham to David" is supposed to include the latter, the latter is excluded. This difficulty may be avoided by counting Jechoniah twice instead of Josiah, which gives us fourteen names for the third division, including Jesus; but then, in order not to have too many in the second, we must drop the double enumeration of David, and thus be liable to the same charge of inconsistency as in the former case, since the double enumeration is made between the second and third divisions, and not between the first and second. Perhaps De Wette has found the right clue when he remarks, that in v. 17, in both transitions some member of the series is mentioned twice, but in the first case only that member is a person (David), and therefore to be twice reckoned. In the second case it is the Babylonian captivity occurring between Josiah and Jechoniah, which latter, since he had reigned only three months in Jerusalem, (the greater part of his life having passed after the carrying away to Babylon,) was mentioned indeed at the conclusion of the second series for the sake of connection, but was to be reckoned only at the beginning of the third.

If we now compare the genealogy of Matthew, (still without reference to that of Luke,) with the corresponding passages of the Old Testament, we shall also find discrepancy, and in this case of a nature exactly the reverse of the preceding; for as the table considered in itself required the duplication of one member in order to complete its scheme, so when compared with the Old Testament, we find that many of the names there recorded have been omitted, in order that the number fourteen might not be exceeded. That is to say, the Old Testament affords data for comparison with this genealogical table as the famed pedigree of the royal race of David, from Abraham to Zorobabel and his sons; after whom the Davidic line begins to retire into obscurity, and from the silence of the Old Testament the genealogy of Matthew ceases to be under any control. The series of generations from Abraham to Judah, Pharez, and Hezron, is sufficiently well known from Genesis; from Pharez to David we find it in the conclusion of the book of Ruth, and in the 2nd chapter of the 1st Chronicles; that from David to Zerubbabel in the 3rd chapter of the same book; besides passages that are parallel with separate portions of the series.

To complete the comparison, we find the line from Abraham to David, that is, the whole first division of fourteen in our genealogy, in exact accordance with the names of men given in the Old Testament, leaving out however the names of some women, one of which makes a difficulty. It is said v. 5 that Rahab was the mother of Boaz. Not only is this without confirmation in the Old Testament, Tout even if she be made the great grandmother of Jesse, the father of David, there are too few generations between her time and that of David (from about 1450 to 1050 B.C.) that is, counting either Rahab or David as one, four for 400 years. Yet this error falls Lack upon the Old Testament genealogy itself, in so far as Jesse's great grandfather Salmon, whom Matthew calls the husband of Rahab, is said by Ruth iv. 20, as well as by Matthew, to be the son of a Nahson, who according to Numbers i. 7, lived in the time of the ^{P.95} march through the wilderness, from which circumstance the idea was naturally suggested, to marry his son with that Rahab who saved the Israelite spies, and thus to introduce a woman for whom the Israelites had an especial regard (compare James ii. 25, Heb. xi. 31) into the lineage of David and the Messiah.

Many discrepancies are found in the second division from David to Zorababel and his son, as well as in the beginning of the third. Firstly, it is said (v. 8) Joram begat Osias; whereas we know from 1 Chron. iii. 11, 12, that Uzziah was not the son, but the grandson of the son of Joram, and that three kings occur between them, namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, after whom comes Uzziah, (2 Chron. xxvi. 1, or as he is called 1 Chron. iii. 12, and 2 Kings xiv. 21, Azariah.) Secondly, our genealogy says v. 11, Josiah begat Jechoniah and as brethren. But we find from 1 Chron. iii. 16, that the son and successor of Josiah was called Jehoiakim, after whom came his son and successor Jechoniah or Jehoiachin. Moreover brethren are ascribed to Jechoniah, whereas the Old Testament mentions none. Jehoiakim, however, had brothers, so that the mention of the brethren of Jechoniah in Matthew appears to have originated in an exchange of these two persons. A third discrepancy relates to Zerubbabel. He is here called, v. 12, a son of Salathiel; while in 1 Chron. iii. 19, he is descended from Jechoniah, not through Shealtiel, but through his brother Pedaiah. In Ezra v. 2, and Haggai i. 1, however, Zerubbabel is designated, as here, the son of Shealtiel. In the last place, Abiud, who is here called the son of Zorobabel, is not to be found amongst the children of Zerubbabel mentioned 1 Chron. iii. 19 f., perhaps because Abiud was only a surname derived from a son of one of those there mentioned.

The second and third of these discrepancies may have crept in without evil intention, and without any great degree of carelessness, for the omission of Jehoiakim may have arisen from the similar sound of the names and which accounts also for the transposition of the brothers of Jechoniah; while respecting Zorobabel the reference to the Old Testament is partly adverse, partly favourable. But the first discrepancy we have adduced, namely, the omission of three known kings, is not so easily to be set aside. It has indeed been held that the similarity of names may here also have led the author to pass unintentionally from Joram to Ozias, instead of to the similar sounding Ahaziah, (in the LXX Ochozias.) But this omission falls in so happily with the author's design of the threefold fourteen, (admitting the double enumeration of David,) that we cannot avoid believing, with Jerome, that the oversight was made on purpose with a view to it. From ^{P.96} Abraham to David, where the first division presented itself, having found fourteen members, he seems to have wished that those of the following divisions should correspond in number. In the whole remaining series the Babylonian exile offered itself as the natural point of separation. But as the second division from David to the exile gave him four supernumerary members, therefore he omitted four of the names. For what reason these particular four were chosen would be difficult to determine, at least for the three last mentioned.

The cause of the compiler's laying so much stress on the threefold equal numbers, may have been simply, that by this adoption of the Oriental custom of division into equal sections, the genealogy might be more easily committed to memory, but with this motive a mystical idea was probably combined. The question arises whether this is to be sought in the number which is three times repeated, or whether it consists in the threefold repetition? Fourteen is the double of the sacred number seven; but it is improbable that it was selected for this reason, because otherwise the seven would scarcely have been so completely lost sight of in the fourteen. Still more improbable is the conjecture of Olshausen, that the number fourteen was specially chosen as being the numeric value of the name of David; for puerilities of this kind, appropriate to the rabbinical gematria, are to be found in no other part of the Gospels. It is more likely that the object of the genealogists consisted merely in the repetition of an equal number by retaining the fourteen which had first accidentally presented itself: since it was a notion of the Jews that signal divine visitations, whether of prosperity or adversity, recurred at regular periodical intervals. Thus, as fourteen generations had intervened between Abraham, the founder of the holy people, and David the king after God's own heart, so fourteen generations must intervene between the re-establishment of the kingdom and the coming of the son of David, the Messiah. The most ancient genealogies in Genesis exhibit the very same uniformity.

De Wette has already called attention to the tendency ^{P.97} of Oriental genealogists to indulge themselves in similar license; for when an author presents us with a pedigree expressly declaring that all the generations during a space of time were fourteen, whereas, through accident, or intention, many members are wanting, be betrays an arbitrariness and want of critical accuracy, which must shake our confidence in the certainty of his whole genealogy.

The genealogy of Luke, considered separately, does not present so many defects as that of Matthew. It has no concluding statement of the number of generations comprised in the genealogy, to act as a check upon itself, neither can it be tested, to much extent, by a comparison with the Old Testament. For, from David to Nathan, the line traced by Luke has no correspondence, with any Old Testament genealogy, excepting in two of its members, Salathiel and Zorobabel; and even with respect to these two, there is a contradiction between the statement of Luke and that of 1 Chron. iii. 17. 19. f.: for the former calls Salathiel a son of Neri, while according to the latter, he was the son of Jechoniah. Luke also mentions one Resa as the son of Zorobabel, a name which does not appear amongst the children of Zerubbabel in 1 Chron. iii. 17. 19. Also, in the series before Abraham, Luke inserts a Cainan, who is not to be found in the Hebrew text, Gen. x. 24; xi.12ff, but who was however already inserted by the LXX. In fact the original text has this name in its first series as the third from Adam, and thence the translation appears to have transplanted him to the corresponding place in the second series as the third from Noah.

if we compare the genealogies of Matthew and Luke together, we become aware of still more striking discrepancies. Some of these differences indeed are unimportant, as the opposite direction of the two tables, the line of Matthew descending from Abraham to Jesus, that of Luke ascending from Jesus to his ancestors. Also the greater extent of the line of Luke; Matthew deriving it no further than from Abraham, while Luke (perhaps lengthening some existing document in order to make it more consonant with the universalism of the doctrines of Paul; ) carries it back to Adam and to God himself. More important is the considerable difference in the number of generations for equal periods, Luke having 41 between David and Jesus, while Matthew has only 26. The main difficulty, however, lies in this; that in some parts of the genealogy, in Luke totally different individuals are made the ancestors of Jesus from those in Matthew. It is true, both writers agree in deriving the lineage of Jesus through Joseph from David and Abraham, and that the names of the individual members of the series ^{P.98} correspond from Abraham to David, as well as two of the names in the subsequent portion: those of Salathiel and Zorobabel. But the difficulty becomes desperate when we find that, with these two exceptions about midway, the whole of the names from David to the foster-father of Jesus are totally different in Matthew and in Luke.

In Matthew, the father of Joseph is called Jacob; in Luke, Heli. In Matthew, the son of David through whom Joseph descended from that king is Solomon; in Luke, Nathan: and so on, the line descends, in Matthew, through the race of known kings; in Luke, through an unknown collateral branch, coinciding only with respect to Salathiel and Zorobabel, while they still differ in the names of the father of Salathiel and the son of Zorobabel. Since this difference appears to offer a complete contradiction, the most industrious efforts have been made at all times to reconcile the two. Passing in silence explanations evidently unsatisfactory, such as a mystical signification, or an arbitrary change of names, we shall consider two pairs of hypotheses which have been most conspicuous, and are mutually supported, or at least bear affinity to one another.

The first pair is formed upon the presupposition of Augustine, that Joseph was an adopted son, and that one evangelist gave the name of his real, the other that of his adopted father; and the opinion of the old chronologist Julius Africanus, that a Levirate marriage had taken place between the parents of Joseph, and that the one genealogy belonged to the natural, the other to the legal, father of Joseph, by the one of whom he was descended from David through Solomon, by the other through Nathan. The further question: to which father do the respective genealogies belong? is open to two species of criticism, the one founded upon literal expressions, the other upon the spirit and character of each gospel: and which lead to opposite conclusions. Augustine as well as Africanus, has observed, that Matthew makes use of an expression in describing the relationship between Joseph and his so-called father, which more definitely points out the natural filial relationship than that of Luke: for the former says I)akwb e)ggenhsen ton I)wshf while the expression of the latter, I)wshf tou H)li, appears equally applicable to a son by adoption, or by virtue of a Levirate marriage. But since the very object of a Levirate marriage was to maintain the name and race of a deceased childless brother, it was the Jewish custom to inscribe the firstborn son of such a marriage, not on the family register of his natural father, as Matthew has done here, but on that of his legal father, as Luke has done on the above supposition.

Now that a person so entirely imbued with Jewish opinions as the author of the first gospel, should have made a mistake of this kind, cannot be held probable. Accordingly, Schleiermacher and others conceive themselves bound by the spirit of the two Gospels to admit that Matthew, in spite of his e)ggenhse, must have given the lineage of the legal father, according to Jewish custom: while- Luke, who perhaps was not born a Jew, and was less familiar with Jewish habits, might have fallen upon the genealogy of the younger brothers of Joseph, who were not, like the firstborn, inscribed amongst the family of the deceased legal father, but with that of their natural father, and might have taken this for the genealogical table of the first-born Joseph, while it really belonged to him only by natural descent, to which Jewish genealogists paid no regard. But, besides the fact which we shall show hereafter, that the genealogy of Luke can with difficulty be proved to be the work of the author of that gospel in which case the little acquaintance of Luke with Jewish customs ceases to afford any clue to the meaning of this genealogy it is also to be objected, that the genealogist of the first gospel could not have written his account thus without any addition, if he was thinking of a mere legal paternity. Wherefore these two views of the genealogical relationship are equally difficult.

However, this hypothesis, which we have hitherto considered only in general, requires a more detailed examination in order to judge of its admissibility. In considering the proposition of a Levirate marriage, the argument is essentially the same if, with Augustine and Africanus, we ascribe the naming of the natural father to Matthew, or with Schleiermacher, to Luke. As an example we shall adopt the former statement; the rather because Eusebius, according to Africanus, has left us a minute account of it. According to this representation, then, the mother of Joseph was first married to that person whom Luke calls the father of Joseph, namely Heli.

But since Heli died without children, by virtue of the Levirate law, his brother, called by Matthew "Jacob the father of Joseph," married the widow, and by her begot Joseph, who was legally regarded as the son of the deceased Heli, and so described by Luke, while naturally he was the son of his brother Jacob, and thus described by Matthew.

But, merely thus far, the hypothesis is by no means adequate. For if the two fathers of Joseph were real brothers, sons of the same father, they had one and the same lineage, and the two genealogies would have differed only in the father of Joseph, all the preceding portion being in agreement. In order to explain how the discordance extends so far back as to David, we must have recourse to the second proposition of Africanus, that the fathers of Joseph were only half-brothers, having the same mother, but not the same father.

We must also suppose that this mother of the two fathers of Joseph, had twice married; once with the Matthan of Matthew, who was descended from David through Solomon and the line of kings, and to whom she bore Jacob; and also, either before or after, with the ^{P.100} Matthan of Luke, the offspring of which marriage was Hell: which Heli, having married and died childless, his half-brother Jacob married his widow, and begot for the deceased his legal child Joseph.

This hypothesis of so complicated a marriage in two successive generations, to which we are forced by the discrepancy of the two genealogies, must be acknowledged to be in no way impossible, but still highly improbable: and the difficulty is doubled by the untoward agreement already noticed, which occurs midway in the discordant series, in the two members Salathiel and Zorobabel. For to explain how Neri in Luke, and Jechoniah in Matthew, are both called the father of Salathiel, who was the father of Zorobabel not only must the supposition of the Levirate marriage be repeated, but also that the two brothers who successively married the same wife, were brothers only on the mother's side. The difficulty id not diminished by the remark, that any nearest blood-relation, not only a brother, might succeed in a. Levirate marriage, that is to say, though not obligatory, it was at least open to his choice. (Ruth iii. 12 f. iv. 4 f.) .For since even in the case of two cousins, the concurrence of the two branches must take place much earlier than here for Jacob and Heli, and for Jechoniah and Neri, we are still obliged to have recourse to the hypothesis of half-brothers; the only amelioration in this hypothesis over the other being, that these two very peculiar marriages do not take place in immediately consecutive generations. Now that this extraordinary double incident should not only have been twice repeated, but that the genealogists should twice have made the same selection in their statements respecting the natural and the legal father, and without any explanation, is so improbable, that even the hypothesis of an adoption which is burdened with only one-half of these difficulties, has still more than it can bear. For in the case of adoption, since no fraternal or other relationship is required, between the natural and adopting fathers, the recurrence to a twice-repeated half-brotherhood is dispensed with; leaving only the necessity for twice supposing a relationship by adoption, and twice the peculiar circumstance, that the one genealogist from want of acquaintance with Jewish customs was ignorant of the fact, and the other, although he took account of it, was silent respecting it.

It has been thought by later critics that the knot may be loosed in a much easier way, by supposing that in one gospel we have the genealogy of Joseph, in the other that of Mary, in which case there would be no contradiction in the disagreement: to which they are pleased to add the assumption that Mary was an heiress. The opinion that Mary was of the race of David as well as Joseph has been long held. Following indeed the idea, that the Messiah, as a second Melchizedec, ought to unite in his person the priestly with ^{P.101} the kingly dignity, and guided by the relationship of Mary with Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron (Luke i. 36); already in early times it was not only held by many that the races of Judah and Levi were blended in the family of Joseph; but also the opinion was not rare that Jesus, deriving his royal lineage from Joseph, descended also from the priestly race through Mary. The opinion of Mary's descent from David, soon however, became the more prevailing. Many apocryphal writers clearly state this opinion, as well as Justin Martyr, whose expression, that the virgin was of the race of David, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, may be considered an indication that he applied to Mary one of our genealogies, which are both traced back to Abraham through David.

On inquiring which of these two genealogies is to be held that of Mary, we are stopped by an apparently insurmountable obstacle, since each is distinctly announced as the genealogy of Joseph. Here also, however, the e)ggenhse of Matthew is more definite than the tou of Luke, which according to those interpreters may mean just as well a son-in-law or grandson; so that the genitive of Luke in iii. 23 was either intended to express that Jesus was in common estimation a son of Joseph, who was the sonin-law of Heli, the father of Mary, or else, that Jesus was, as was believed, a son of Joseph and was through Mary a grandson of Heli.

As it may here be objected, that the Jews in their genealogies were accustomed to take no account of the female line, a further hypothesis is had recourse to, namely, that Mary was an heiress, i.e. the daughter of a father without sons; and that in this case, according to Numbers xxxvi. 6, and Nehemiah vii. 63, Jewish custom required that the person who married her should not only be of the same race with herself, but that he should henceforth sink his own family in hers, and take her ancestors as his own. But the first point only is proved by the reference to Numbers; and the passage in Nehemiah, compared with several similar ones, (Ezra ii. 61; Numbers xxxii.41; comp. with 1 Chron. ii. 21 f.) shows only that sometimes, by way of exception, a man took the name of his maternal ancestors.

This difficulty with regard to Jewish customs, however, is cast into shade by one much more important. Although undeniably the genitive case used by Luke, expressing simply derivation in a general ^{P.102} sense, may signify any degree of relationship, and consequently that of son-in-law or grandson; yet this interpretation destroys the consistency of the whole passage. In the thirty-four preceding members, which are well known to us from the Old Testament, this genitive demonstrably indicates throughout the precise relationship of a son; likewise when it occurs between Salathiel and Zorobabel: how could it be intended in the one instance of Joseph to indicate that of son-in-law? or, according to the other interpretation, supposing the nominative iw? to govern the whole series, how can we suppose it to change its signification from son to grandson, great-grandson, and so on to the end? If it be said the phrase Adam tou Qeou is a proof that the genitive does not necessarily indicate a son in the proper sense of the word, we may reply that it bears a signification with regard to the imediate Author of existence equally inapplicable to either father-in-law or grandfather.

A further difficulty is encountered by this explanation of the two genealogies in common with the former one, in the concurrence of the two names of Salathiel and Zorobabel. The supposition of a Levirate marriage is as applicable to this explanation as the other, but the interpreters we are now examining prefer for the most part to suppose, that these similar names in the different genealogies belong to different persons. When Luke however, in the twenty-first and twenty-second generations from David, gives the very same names that Matthew (including the four omitted generations,) gives in the nineteenth and twentieth, one of these names being of great notoriety, it is certainly impossible to doubt that they refer to the same persons.

Moreover, in no other part of the New Testament is there any trace to be found of the Davidical descent of Mary: on the contrary, some passages are directly opposed to it. In Luke i. 27, the expression oi)kou Dauid refers only to the immediately preceding a)ndri w( o)noma I)wshf not to the more remote parqenon mnhsteuomenhn.

And more pointed still is the turn of the sentence Luke ii. 4, "he went up... since he was of the house and family of David" where "they" might so easily have been written instead of "he," if the author had any thought of including Mary in the descent from David. These expressions fill to overflowing the measure of proof already adduced, that it is impossible to apply the genealogy of the third Evangelist to Mary.

A consideration of the insurmountable difficulties, which unavoidably embarrass every attempt to bring these two genealogies into harmony with one another, will lead us to despair of reconciling them, and will incline us to acknowledge, with the more free-thinking class of critics, that they are mutually contradictory. ^{P.103} Consequently they cannot both be true: if, therefore, one is to be preferred before the other, several circumstances would seem to decide in favour of the genealogy of Luke, rather than that of Matthew. It does not exhibit an arbitrary adherence to a fixed form and to equal periods; and while the ascribing of twenty generations to the space of time from David to Jechoniah, in Luke, is at least not more offensive to probability, than the omission of four generations in Matthew to historical truth; Luke's allotment of twenty-two generations for the period from Jechoniah (born 617 B.C.) to Jesus, i.e. about 600 years, forming an average of twenty-seven years and a half to each generation, is more consonant with natural events, particularly amongst eastern nations, than the thirteen generations of Matthew, which make an average of forty-two years for each. Besides the genealogy of Luke is less liable than that of Matthew to the suspicion of having been written with a design to glorify Jesus, since it contents itself with ascribing to Jesus a descent from David, without tracing that descent through the royal line. On the other hand, however, it is more improbable that the genealogy of the comparatively insignificant family of Nathan should have been preserved, than that of the royal branch. Added to which, the frequent recurrence of the same names is an indication that the genealogy of Luke is fictitious.

In fact, then, neither table has any advantage over the other. If the one is unhistorical, so also is the other, since it is very improbable that the genealogy of an obscure family like that of Joseph, extending through so long a series of generations, should have been preserved during all the confusion of the exile, and the disturbed period that followed. Yet, it may be said, although we recognize in both, so far as they are not copied from the Old Testament, an unrestrained play of the imagination, or arbitrary applications of other genealogies to Jesus, we may still retain as an historical basis that Jesus was descended from David, and that only the intermediate members of the line of descent were variously filled up by different writers. But the one event on which this historical basis is mainly supported, namely, the journey of the parents of Jesus to Bethlehem in order to be taxed, so far from sufficing to prove them to be of the house and lineage of David, is itself, as we shall presently show, by no means established as matter of history.

Of more weight is the other ground, namely, that Jesus is universally represented in the New Testament, without any contradiction from his adversaries, as the descendant of David. Yet even the phrase ui(oj Dauid may have been applied to Jesus, not on historical, but on dogmatical grounds. According to the ^{P.104} prophecies, the Messiah could only spring from David. When therefore a Galilean, whose lineage was utterly unknown, and of whom consequently no one could prove that he was not descended from David, had acquired the reputation of being the Messiah; what more natural than that tradition should under different forms have early ascribed to him a Davidical descent, and that genealogical tables, corresponding with this tradition should have been formed? Which, however, as they were constructed upon no certain data, would necessarily exhibit such differences and contradictions as we find actually existing between the genealogies in Matthew and in Luke.

If, in conclusion, it be asked, what historical result is to be deduced from these genealogies, we reply: a conviction, (arrived at also from other sources,) that Jesus, either in his own person or through his disciples, acting upon minds strongly imbued with Jewish notions and expectations, left among his followers so firm a conviction of his Messiahship, that they did not hesitate to attribute to him the prophetical characteristic of Davidical descent, and more than one pen was put in action, in order, by means of a genealogy which should authenticate that descent, to justify his recognition as the Messiah.

There is a striking gradation in the different representations of the conception and birth of Jesus given in the canonical and in the apocryphal Gospels. They exhibit the various steps, from a simple statement of a natural occurrence, to a minute and miraculously embellished history, in which the event is traced back to its very earliest date. Mark and John presuppose the fact of the birth of Jesus, and content themselves with the incidental mention of Mary as the mother ^{P.105} (Mark vi. 3), and of Joseph as the father of Jesus (John i.46).

Matthew and Luke go further back, since they state the particular circumstances attending the conception as well as the birth of the Messiah. But of these two evangelists Luke mounts a step higher than Matthew. According to the latter when Mary, the betrothed of Joseph, is found with child, Joseph is offended and determines to put her away; but the angel of the Lord visits him in a dream, and assures him of the divine origin and exalted destiny of Mary's offspring; the result of which is that Joseph takes his wife to himself: but knows her not till she has brought forth her first-born son. (Matt. i. 18-25.) Here the pregnancy is discovered in the first place, and then afterwards justified by the angel; but in Luke the pregnancy is prefaced and announced by a celestial apparition. The same Gabriel, who had predicted the birth of John to Zechariah, appears to Mary, the betrothed of Joseph, and tells her that she shall conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost: whereupon the destined mother of the Messiah pays a visit full of holy import to the already pregnant mother of his forerunner; upon which occasion both Mary and Elizabeth pour forth their emotions to one another in the form of a hymn, (Luke i. 26-56). Matthew and Luke are content to presuppose the connection between Mary and Joseph; but the apocryphal Gospels, the Protevangelium Jacobi, and the Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae (books with the contents of which the Fathers partially agree), seek to represent the origin of this connection; indeed they go back to the birth of Mary, and describe it to have been preceded, equally with that of the Messiah and the Baptist, by a divine annunciation. As the description of the birth of John in Luke is principally borrowed from the Old Testament accounts of Samuel and of Samson, so this history of the birth of Mary is an imitation of the story in Luke, and of the Old Testament histories.

Joachim, so says the apocryphal narrative, and Anna (the name of Samuel's mother) are unhappy on account of their long childless marriage (as were the parents of the Baptist); when an angel appears to them both (so in the story of Samson) at different places, and promises them a child, who shall be the mother of God, and commands that this child shall live the life of a Nazirite (like the Baptist). In early childhood Mary is brought by her parents to the temple (like Samuel); where she continues till her twelfth year, visited and fed by angels and honoured by divine visions.

Arrived at womanhood she has to quit the temple, her future provision and destiny being revealed by the oracle to the high priest. In conformity with the prophecy of Isaiah, xi. 1 f. "a shoot shall spring from the root of Jesse" this oracle commanded, according to one apocryphal gospel, that all the unmarried men of the house of David, according to the other, that all the widowers among the people, should bring their rods and that he on whose rod a sign should appear (like the rod of Aaron, Numb. xvii), namely the sign predicted in the prophecy, should take Mary to himself. This sign was manifested upon Joseph's rod; for, in exact accordance with the oracle, it put forth a blossom and a dove lighted upon it. The apocryphal Gospels and the fathers agree in representing Joseph as an old man; but the narrative is somewhat differently told in the two apocryphal Gospels. According to the Evang. de nativ. Mariae, notwithstanding Mary's alleged vow of chastity, and the refusal of Joseph on account of his great age, betrothment took place at the command of the priest, and subsequently a marriage (which marriage, however, the author evidently means to represent also as chaste). According to the Protevang. Jacobi, on the contrary, neither betrothment nor marriage are mentioned, but Joseph is regarded merely as the chosen protector of the young virgin; and Joseph on the journey to Bethlehem doubts whether he shall describe Mary as his wife or as his daughter; fearing to bring ridicule upon himself, on account of his age, if he called her his wife. Again, where in Matthew Mary is called h( gunh of Joseph, the apocryphal gospel carefully designates her merely as h( paij, and even avoids using the term paralabein or substitutes diafulaxai, with which many of the Fathers concur. In the Proteuangelion it is further related that Mary, having been received into Joseph's house, was charged, together with other young women, with the fabrication of the veil for the temple, and that it fell to her lot to spin the true purple. But. while Joseph was absent on business Mary was visited by an angel, and Joseph on his return found her with child and called her to account, not as a husband, but as the guardian of her honour. Mary, however, had forgotten the words of the angel and protested her ignorance of the cause of her pregnancy. Joseph was perplexed and determined to remove her secretly from under his protection; but an angel appeared to him in a dream and reassured hiin by his explanation. The matter was then brought before the priest, and both Joseph and Mary being charged with incontinence were condemned to drink the "bitter water," but as they remained uninjured by it, they were declared innocent. Then follows the account of the taxing and of the birth of Jesus. ^{P.107}

Since these apocryphal narratives were for a long period held as historical by the Church, and were explained, equally with those of the canonical accounts, from the supernaturalistic point of view as miraculous, they were entitled in modern times to share with the New Testament histories the benefit of the natural explanation. If, on the one hand, the belief in the marvellous was so superabundantly strong in the ancient Church, that it reached beyond the limits of the New Testament even to the embracing of the apocryphal narratives, blinding the eye to the perception of their manifestly unhistorical character; so, on the other hand, the positive rationalism of some of the heralds of the modern modes of explanation was so overstrong that they believed it adequate to expound even the apocryphal miracles.

Of this we have an example in the author of the natural history of the great Prophet of Nazareth; who does not hesitate to include the stories of the lineage and early years of Mary within the circle of his representations, and to give them a natural explanation. If we in our day, with a perception of the fabulous character of such narratives, look down alike upon the Fathers of the Church and upon these naturalistic interpreters, we are certainly so far in the right, as it is only by gross ignorance that this character of the apocryphal accounts is here to be mistaken; more closely considered, however, the difference between the apocryphal and the canonical narratives concerning the early history of the Baptist and of Jesus, is seen to be merely a difference of form: they have sprung, as we shall hereafter find, from the same root, though the one is a fresh and healthy sprout, and the other an artificially nurtured and weak aftergrowth.

Still, the Fathers of the Church and these naturalistic interpreters had this superiority over most of the theologians of our own time; that they did not allow themselves to be deceived respecting the inherent similarity by the difference of form, but interpreted the kindred narratives by the same method; treating both as miraculous or both as natural; and not, as is now usual, the one as fiction and the other as history.

AFTER the foregoing general sketch, we now proceed to examine the external circumstances which, according to our Gospels, attended the first comniimication of the future birth of Jesus to Mary and Joseph. Leaving out of sight, for the present, the special import of the annunciation, namely, that Jesus should be supernaturally begotten of the Holy Ghost, we shall, in the first place, consider merely the form of the announcement; by whom, when, and in what manner it was made.

As the birth of the Baptist was previously announced by an angel, so the conception of Jesus was, according to the gospel ^{P.108} histories, proclaimed after the same fashion. But while in the one case, we have but one history of the apparition, that of Luke; in the other we have two accounts, accounts however which do not correspond, and which we must now compare. Apart from the essential signification the two accounts exhibit the following differences.

1. The individual who appears is called in Matthew by the indefinite appellation, angel of t!ie Lord, in Luke by name, the angel Gabriel.
2. The person to whom the angel appears is, according to Matthew, Joseph, according to Luke, Mary.
3. In Matthew the apparition is seen in a dream, in Luke while awake.
4. There is a disagreement in relation to the time at which the apparition took place according to Matthew, Joseph receives the heavenly communication after Mary was already pregnant: according to Luke it is made to Mary prior to her pregnancy.
5. Lastly, both the purpose of the apparition and the effect produced are different; it was designed, according to Matthew, to comfort Joseph, who was troubledon account of the pregnancy of his betrothed: according to Luke to prevent, by a previous announcement, all possibility of offence.

Where the discrepancies are so great and so essential, it may, at first sight, appear altogether superfluous to inquire whether the two Evangelists record one and the same occurrence, though with considerable disagreement; or whether they record distinct occurrences, so that the two accounts can be blended together, and the one be made to amplify the other? The first supposition cannot be admitted without impeaching the historical validity of the narrative; for which reason most of our theologians, indeed all who see in the narrative a true history, whether miraculous or natural, have decided in favour of the second supposition. Maintaining, and justly, that the silence of one Evangelist concerning an event which is narrated by the other, is not a negation of the event, they blend the two accounts together in the following manner:
1, First, the angel makes known to Mary her approaching pregnancy (Luke);
2, she then journeys to Elizabeth (the same gospel);
3, after her return her situation being discovered, Joseph takes offence (Matthew); whereupon,
4, he likewise is visited by an angelic apparition.

But this arrangement of the incidents is, as Schleiermacher has already remarked, full of difficulty -; and it seems that what is related by one Evangelist is not only not presupposed, but excluded, by the other. For, in the first place, the conduct of the angel who appears to Joseph is not csisily explained, if the same or another angel had previously appeared to Mary. The angel (in Matthew) speaks altogether as if his communication were the first in this affair: he neither refers to the message previously received by Mary, nor reproaches Joseph because he had not believed it; but more ^{P.109} than all, the informing Joseph of the name of the expected child, and the giving him a full detail of the reasons why he should be so called, (Matt. i. 21.) would have been wholly superfluous had the angel (according to Luke i. 31.) already indicated this name to Mary.

Still more incomprehensible is the conduct of the betrothed parties according to this arrangement of events. Had Mary been visited by an angel, who had made known to her an approaching supernatural pregnancy, would not the first impulse of a delicate woman have been, to hasten to impart to her betrothed the import of the divine message, and by this means to anticipate the humiliating discovery of her situation, and an injurious suspicion on the part of her affianced husband. But exactly this discovery Mary allows Joseph to make from others, and thus excites suspicions; for it is evident that the expression "she was found to be with child" (Matth. i. 18.) signifies a discovery made independent of any communication on Mary's part, and it is equally clear that in this manner only does Joseph obtain the knowledge of her situation, since his conduct is represented as the result of that discovery (eu(reqh).

The apocryphal Protevangdmm Jacobi felt how enigmatical Mary's conduct must appear, and sought to solve the difficulty in a manner which, contemplated from the supernaturalistic point of view, is, perhaps the most consistent. Had Mary retained a recollection of the import of the heavenly message-upon this point the whole ingenious representation of the apocryphal gospel rests; she ought to have imparted it to Joseph; but since it is obvious from Joseph's demeanour that she did not acquaint him with it, the only remaining alternative is, to admit that the mysterious communication made to Mary had, owing to her excited state of mind, escaped her memory, and that she was herself ignorant of the true cause of her pregnancy. In fact, nothing is left to supernaturalists in the present case but to seek refuge in the miraculous and the incomprehensible.

The attempts which the modern theologians of this class have made to explain Mary's silence, and even to find in it an admirable trait in her character, are so many rash and abortive efforts to make a virtue of necessity. According to them, it must have cost Mary much self-denial to have concealed the communication of the angel from Joseph; and this reserve, in a matter known only to herself and to God, must be regarded as a proof of her firm trust in God.

Without doubt Mary communed thus with herself: "It is not without a purpose that this apparition has been made to me alone, had it been intended that Joseph should have participated in the communication, the angel would have appeared to him also (if each individual favoured with a divine revelation were of this opinion, how many special revelations would it not require?); besides it is an affair of ^{P.110} God alone, consequently it becomes me to leave it with him to convince Joseph" (the argument of indolence). Olshausen concurs, and adds his favourite general remark, that in relation to events so extraordinary the measure of the ordinary occurrences of the world is not applicable: a category under which, in this instance, the highly essential considerations of delicacy and propriety are included.

More in accordance with the views of the natural interpreters, the Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae and subsequently some later writers, for example, the author of the natural history of the great prophet of Nazareth, have sought to explain Mary's silence, by supposing Joseph to have been at a distance from the abode of his affianced bride at the time of the heavenly communication. According to them Mary was of Nazareth, Joseph of Bethlehem; to which latter place Joseph departed after the betrothing, and did not return to Mary until the expiration of three months; when he discovered the pregnancy which had taken place in the interim. But since the assumption that Mary and Joseph resided in different localities has no foundation, as will presently be seen, in the canonical Gospels, the whole explanation falls to the ground. Without such an assumption, Mary's silence towards Joseph might, perhaps, have been accounted for from the point of view of the naturalistic interpreters, By imagining her to have been held back through modesty from. confessing a situation so liable to excite suspicion. But one who, like Mary, was so fully convinced of the divine agency in the matter, and had shown so ready a comprehension of her mysterious destination (Luke i. 38.) could not possibly have been tongue-tied by petty considerations of false shame.

Consequently, in order to rescue Mary's character, without bringing reproach upon Joseph's, and at the same time to render his unbelief intelligible, interpreters have been compelled to assume that a communication, though a tardy one, was actually made by Mary, to Joseph. Like the last-named apocryphal gospel, they introduce a journey, not of Joseph, but of Mary, the visit to Elizabeth mentioned in Luke, to account, for the postponement of the communication. It is probable, says Paulus, that Mary did not open her heart to Joseph before this journey, because she wished first to consult with her older friend as to the mode of making the disclosure to him, and whether she, as the mother of the Messiah, ought to marry.

It was not till after her return, and then most likely through the medium of others, that she made Joseph acquainted with her situation, and with the promises she had received. But Joseph's mind was not properly attuned and prepared for such a disclosure; he became haunted by all kinds of thoughts; and vacillated between suspicion and hope till a length a dream decided him. But in the first place a motive is here given to Mary's journey which is foreign to the account in Luke. Mary sets off to Elizabeth, not ^{P.111} to take counsel of her, but to assure herself regarding the sign appointed by the angel. No uneasiness which the friend is to dissipate, but a proud joy, unalloyed by the smallest anxiety, is expressed in her salutation to the future mother of the Baptist. But besides, a confession so tardily made can in no way justify Mary.

What behaviour on the part of an affianced bride-after having received a divine communication, so nearly concerning her future husband, and in a matter so delicate, to travel miles away, to absent herself for three months, and then to permit her betrothed to learn through third persons that which could no longer be concealed!

Those, therefore, who do not impute to Mary a line of conduct which certainly our Evangelists do not impute to her, must allow that she imparted the message of the angel to her future husband as soon as it had been revealed to her; but that he did not believe her. But now let us see how Joseph's character is to be dealt with! Even less is of opinion that, since Joseph was acquainted with Mary, he had no cause to doubt her word, when she told him of the apparition she had had. this scepticism presupposes a mistrust of his betrothed which is incompatible with his character as a just man (Matt. i. 19.) and an incredulity respectino- the marvellous which is difficult to reconcile with a readiness on other occasions to believe in angelic apparitions; nor, in any case, would this want of faith have escaped the censure of the angel who subsequently appeared to himself.

Since then, to suppose that the two accounts are parallel, and complete one another, leads unavoidably to results inconsistent with the sense of the Gospels, in so far as they evidently meant to represent the characters of Joseph and Mary as free from blemish; the supposition cannot be admitted, but the accounts mutually exclude cadi other. An angel did not appear, first to Mary, and also afterwards to Joseph; he can only have appeared either to the one or to the other. Consequently, it is only the ore or the other relation which can be, regarded as historical. And here different considerations would conduct to opposite decisions. The story in Matthew might appear the more probable from the rationalist point of view, because it is more easy to interpret naturally an apparition in a dream; while that in Luke might be preferred by the supernaturalistic, because the manner in which the suspicion cast upon the holy virgin is refuted is more worthy of God. But in fact, a. nearer examination proves, that neither has any essential claim to be advanced before the other. Both contain an angelic apparition, and both are therefore encumbered with all the difficulties which, as was stated above in relation to the annunciation of the birth of the Baptist, oppose the belief in angels and apparitions. Again, in both narrations the import of the angelic message is, as we shall presently see, an impossibility.. Thus every criterion which might determine the adoption of the one, and the rejection of the other, dis- lation which can be, regarded as historical. ^{P.112} appears; and we find ourselves, in reference to both accounts, driven Tback by necessity to the mythical view.

From this point of view, all the various explanations, which the Rationalists have attempted to give of the two apparitions, vanish of them selves. Paulus explains the apparition in Matthew as a natural dream, occasioned Tby Mary's previous communication of the announcement which had been made to her; and with which Joseph must have been acquainted, because this alone can account for his having heard the same words in his dream, which the angel had beforehand addressed to Mary: but much rather, is it precisely this similarity in the language of the presumed second angel to that of the first, with the absence of all reference by the latter to the former, which proves that the words of the first angel were not presupposed by the second. Besides, the natural explanation is annihilated the moment the narratives are shown to be mythical. The same remark applies to the explanation, expressed guardedly indeed by Paulus, but openly by the author of the "Natural history of the great prophet of Nazareth," namely, that the angel who visited Mary (in Luke) was a human being; of which we must speak hereafter.

According to all that has been said, the following is the only judgment we can form of the origin of the two narratives of the angelic apparitions. The conception of Jesus through the power of the Holy Ghost ought not to be grounded upon a mere uncertain suspicion; it must have been clearly and positively asserted; and to this end a messenger from heaven was required, since theocratic decorum seemed to demand it far more in relation to the birth of the Messiah, than of a Samson or a John. Also the words which the angels use, correspond in part with the Old Testament annunciations of extraordinary children. The appearing of the angel in the one narrative beforehand to Mary, but in the other at a later period to Joseph, is to be regarded as a variation in the legend or in the composition, which finds an explanatory counterpart in the story of the annunciation of Isaac. the Lord (Gen. xvii. 15.) promises Abraham a son by Sarah, upon which the Patriarch cannot refrain from laughing; but he receives a repetition of the assurance; the Lord (Gen. xviii. 1, ff.) makes this promise under the Terebinth tree at Mamre, and Sarah laughs as if it were something altogether novel and unheard of by her; lastly, according to Gen. ^{P.113} xxi.5ff. it is first after Isaac's birth that Sarah mentions the laughing of the people, which is said to have been the occasion of his name; whereby it appears that this last history does not presuppose the existence of the two other accounts of the annunciation of the birth of Isaac. As in relation to the birth of Isaac, different; legends or poems were formed without reference to one another, some simpler, some more embellished: so we have two discordant narratives concerning the birth of Jesus. of these the narrative in Matthewf is the simpler and ruder style of composition, since it does not avoid, though it be but by a transient suspicion on the part of Joseph, the throwing a shade over the character of Mary which is only subsequently removed; that in Luke, on the contrary, is a more refined and artistical representation, exhibiting Mary from the first in the pure light of a bride of heaven.

ACCORDING to Luke, the angel who appears to Mary, in the first place informs her only that she shall become pregnant, without specifying after what manner: that she shall bring forth a son and call his name Jesus; he shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest (i'(oc vipia-ov): and God shall give to him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever. The subject, the Messiah, is here treated precisely in the language common to the Jews, and even the term Son of t!ie Highest, if nothing further followed, must be taken in the same sense; as according to 2 Sam. vii. 14. PS. ii. 7. an ordinary king of Israel might be so named; still more, therefore, the greatest of these kings, the Messiah, even considered merely as a man. This Jewish language reflects in addition a new light upon the question of the historic validity of the angelic apparition; for we must agree with Schleiermacher that the real angel Gabriel would hardly have proclaimed the advent of the Messiah in a phraseology so strictly Jewish: for which reason we are inclined to coincide with this theologian, and to ascribe this particular portion of the story, as also that which precedes and relates to the Baptist, to one and the same Jewish-christian author. It is not till Mary opposes the fact of her ^{P.114} virginity to the promises of a son, that the angel defines the nature of the conception: that it shall be by the Holy Ghost, by the power of the Highest; after which the appellation vioc; vli-i-ov receives a more precise metaphysical sense. As a confirmatory sign that a matter of this kind is no way impossible to God, Mary is referred to that which had occurred to her relative Elizabeth: whereupon, she resigns herself in faith to the divine determination respecting her.

In Matthew, where the main point is to dissipate Joseph's anxiety, the angel begins at once with the communication, that the child conceived by Mary is, (as the Evangelist had already stated of his own accord, chap. i. 18), of the Holy Ghost (rrvEvfia S,yiov; and hereupon the Messianic destination of Jesus is first pointed out by tire expression, he shall save his people from their sins. This language may seem to sound less Jewish than that by which the Messianic station of the child who should be born, is set forth in Luke; it is however to be observed, that under the term sins is comprehended the punishment of those sins, namely, the subjection of the people to a foreign yoke; so that here also the Jewish element is not wanting; as neither in Luke, on the other hand, is the higher destination of the Messiah left wholly out of sight, since under the term to reign basileuein, the rule over an obedient and regenerated people is included. Next is subjoined by the angel, or more probably by the narrator, an oracle from the Old Testament, introduced by the often recurring phrase, all this teas done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken, of the Lord by the prophet, (v. 22.). It is the prophecy from Isaiah, (chap. vii. 14.) which the conception of Jesus after this manner should accomplish: "namely, a virgin shall be with child, and shall briny forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmaniel-God-with-us."

The original sense of this passage in Isaiah is, according to modern research, this. The prophet is desirous of giving Ahaz, who, through fear of the kings of Syria and Israel, was disposed to make a treaty with Assyria, a lively assurance of the speedy destruction of his much dreaded enemies; and he therefore says to him: suppose that an unmarried woman now on the point of becoming a wifef shall conceive; or categorically: a certain young woman is, or is about to be with child; (perhaps the prophet's own wife); now, before this child is born, the political aspect of affairs shall be so much improved, that a name of good omen shall be given to the child; and before he shall be old enough to use his reason, the power of these enemies shall be completely annihilated. That is to say, prosaically expressed; before nine months shall have ^{P.115} passed awav, the condition of the kingdom shall be amended, and within about three years the danger shall have disappeared. Thus much, at all events, is demonstrated by modern criticism, that, under the circumstances stated by Isaiah in the introduction to the oracle, it is only a sign having reference to the actual moment and the near future, which could have any meaning. How ill chosen, according to Hengstenberg's interpretation, is the prophet's language: As certainly as the day shall arrive when, in fulfilment of the covenant, the Messiah shall be born, so impossible is it that the people among whom he shall arise, or the family from which he shall spring, shall pass away. How ill-judged, on the part of the prophet, to endeavour to make the improbability of a speedy deliverance appear less improbable, by an appeal to a yet greater improbability in the far distant future And then the given limit of a few years!

The overthrow of the two kingdoms, such is Hengstenberg's explanation, shall take place-not in the immediately succeeding years, before the child specified shall have acquired the use of his reason but-within such a space of time, as in the far future will elapse between the birth of the Messiah and the first development of his mental powers; therefore in about three years. What a monstrous confounding of times! A child is to be born in the distant future, and that which shall happen before this child shall know how to use his reason, is to take place in the nearest present time.

Thus Paulus and his party are decidedly right in opposing to Hengstenberg and his party, that the prophecy of Isaiah has relation, in its original local signification, to the then existing circumstances, and not to the future Messiah, still less to Jesus. Hengstenberg, on the other hand, is equally in the right, when in opposition to Paulus he maintains, that the passage from Isaiah is adopted by Matthew as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus of a virgin. While the orthodox commentators explain the often recurring "that it might be fulfilled" and similar expressions as signifying: this happened by divine arrangement, in order that the Old Testament prophecy, which in its very origin had reference to the New Testament occurrence, might be fulfilled the rationalist interpreters, on the contrary understand merely: this took place after such a manner, that it was so constituted, that the Old Testament words, which, originally indeed, had relation to something different, should admit of being so applied; and in such application alone, do they receive their full verification. In the first explanation, the relation between the Old Testament passage and the New Testament occurrence is objective, arranged by God himself: in the last it is only subjective, a relation perceived by the later author; according to the former it is a relationship at once precise and essential: according to the latter both inexact and adventitious. But opposed to this latter interpretation of New Testament passages, which point out an Old Testament prophecy as ^{P.116} fulfilled, is the language, and equally so the spirit of the New Testament writers. The language: for neither can plhrousqai signify in such connection any thing than ratum fieri, eventu comprobari, nor i(na opwj any thing than eo consilio ut, while the extensive adoption of i(na ekbatikon has arisen only from dogmatic perplexity.

But such an interpretation is altogether at variance with the Judaical spirit of the authors of the Gospels. Paulus maintains that the Orientalist does not seriously believe that the ancient prophecy was designedly spoken, or was accomplished by God, precisely in order that it should prefigure a modern event, and vice versa; but this is to carry over our sober European modes of thought into the imaginative life of the Orientals. When however Paulus adds; much rather did the coincidence of a later event with an earlier prophecy assume only the form of a designed coincidence in the mind of the Oriental: he thus, at once, annuls his previous assertion; for this is to admit, that, what in our view is mere coincidence, appeared to the oriental mind the result of design; and we must acknowledge this to be the meaning of an oriental representation, if we would interpret it according to its original signification. It is well known that the later Jews found prophecies, of the time being and of the future, everywhere in the Old Testament; and that they constructed a complete image of the future Messiah, out of various, and in part falsely interpreted, Old Testament passages. And the Jew believed he saw in the application he gave to the Scripture, however perverted it might be, an actual fulnlment of the prophecy. In the words of Olshausen: it is a mere dogmatic prejudice to attribute to this formula, which used by the New Testament writers, an altogether different sense from that which it habitually bears among their countrymen; and this solely with the view to acquit them of the sin of falsely interpreting the Scripture.

Many theologians of the present day are sufficiently impartial to admit, with regard to the Old Testament, in opposition to the ancient orthodox interpretation, that many of the prophecies originally referred to near events; but they are not sufficiently rash, with regard to the New Testament, to side with the rationalist commentators, and to deny the decidedly Messianic application which the New Testament writers make of these prophecies; they are still too prejudiced to allow, that here and there the New Testament hag falsely interpreted the Old. Consequently, they have recourse to the expedient of distinguishing a double sense in the prophecy; the one relating to a near and minor occurrence, the other to a future and more important event; and thus they neither offend against the plain grammatical and historical sense of the Old Testament passage on the one hand, nor distort or deny the signification of the New Testament passage on the other. Tims, in the prophecy of Isaiah under consideration, the spirit of prophecy, they contend, had a double intention: to announce a near occurrence, the delivery of the affianced bride of the prophet, and also a distinct event in the far distant future, namely the birth of the Messiah of a vira-in. But a double sense so monstrous owes its origin to dogmatic perplexity alone. It has been adopted, as Olshausen himself remarks, in order to avoid the offensive admission that the New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, did not interpret the Old Testament rightly, or, more properly speaking, according to modern principles of exegesis, but explained it after the manner of their own age, which was not the most correct. But so little does this offence exist for the unprejudiced, that the reverse would be the greater difficulty, that is, if. contrary to all the laws of historical and national development, the New Testament writers had elevated themselves completely above the modes of interpretation common to their ago and nation.

Consequently, with regard to the prophecies brought forward in the New Testament, we may admit, according to circumstances, without further argument, that they are frequently interpreted and applied by the evangelists, in a sense which is totally different from that they originally bore.

We have, here in fact a complete table of all the four possible views on this point: two extreme and two conciliatory; one false and'one, it is to be hoped, correct.

1. Orthodox view: Such Old Testament passages had in their very origin an exclusive prophetic reference to Christ, for the New Testament writers so understand them; and they must be in the right even should human reason be confounded.

2. Rationalist view (Paulus and others): The New Testament writers do not assign a strictly Messianic sense to the Old Testament prophecies, for this reference to Christ is foreign to the original signification of these prophecies viewed by the light of reason; and the New Testament writinn's must accord with reason, whatever ancient beliefs may say to the contrary.

3. Mystical conciliatory view (Olshausen and others): The Old Testament passages originally embody both the deeper signification ascribed to them by the New Testament writers, and that more proximate meaning which common sense obliges us to recognize: thus sound reason and the ancient faith are reconcileable.

4. Decision of criticism: Very many of the Old Testament prophecies had, originally, only an immediate reference to events belonging to the time: but they came to be regarded by the men oi' the New Testament as actual predictions of Jesus as the Messiah, .because the intelligence of these men was limited, by the manner of thinking of their nation, a fact recognized neither by Rationalism nor the ancient faith. ^{P.118}

Accordingly we shall not hesitate for a moment to allow, in relation to the prophecy in question, that the reference to Jesus is obtruded upon it by the Evangelists. Whether the actual birth of Jesus of a virgin gave rise to this application of the prophecy, or whether this prophecy, interpreted beforehand as referring to the Messiah, originated the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, remains to be determined.

The statement of Matthew and of Luke concerning the mode of Jesus's conception has, in every age, received the following interpretation by the Church; that Jesus was conceived in Mary not by a human father, but by the Holy Ghost, And really the gospel expressions seem, at first sight, to justify this interpretation; since the words "with child by the Holy Spirit" (Matth. i. 18.) and "since I am a virgin" (Luke i. 34.) preclude the participation of Joseph or any other man in the conception of the child in question. Nevertheless the terms Pneuma a(gion do not represent the Holy Ghost in the sense of the Church, as the third person in the Godhead, but rather the Ruah Elohim as used in the Old Testament: God in his agency upon the world, and especially upon man. In short the words "found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" in Matthew, and "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" in Luke, express with sufficient clearness that the absence of human agency was supplied not physically after the manner of heathen representations but by the divine creative energy.

Though this seems to be the representation intended by the evangelists in the passages referred to concerning the origin of the life of Jesus, still it cannot be completed without considerable difficulties. We may separate what we may term the physico-theological from the historical-exegetical difficulties.

The physiological difficulties amount to this, that such a conception would be, a most remarkable deviation from all natural laws. However obscure the physiology of the fact, it is proved by an exceptionless experience that only by the concurrence of the two sexea is a new human being generated; on which account, Plutarch's remark, "a woman is never said to generate a child without congress with a man" ^{P.119} and Cerinthus's "impossibile" become applicable. It is only among the lowest species of the animal kingdom that generation takes place without the union of sexes: so that regarding the matter purely physiologically, what Origen says, in the supernaturalistic sense, would indeed be true of a man of the like origin; namely, that the words in Ps. xxii, 7, I am a worm and no man is a prophecy of Jesus in the above respect. But to the merely physical consideration a theological one is subjoined by the angel (Luke i. 37), when he appeals to the divine omnipotence to which nothing is impossible. But since the divine omnipotence, by virtue of its unity with divine wisdom, is never exerted in the absence of an adequate motive, the existence of such, in the present instance, must be demonstrated. But nothing less than an object worthy of the Deity, and at the same time necessarily unattainable except by a deviation from the ordinary course of nature, could constitute a sufficient cause for the suspension by God of a natural law which he had established. Only here, it is said, the end, the redemption of mankind required impeccability on the part of Jesus; and in order to render him exempt frcin sin, a divinely wrought conception, which excluded the participation of a sinful father, and severed Jesus from all connection with original sin, was necessary. To which it has been answered by others, (and Schleiermacher has recently most decisively argued this side of the question,) that the exclusion of the paternal participation is insufficient, unless, indeed, the inheritance of original sin, on the maternal side, be obviated by the adoption of the Valentinian assertion, that Jesus only passed through the body of Mary. But that the gospel histories represent an actual maternal participation is undeniable; consequently a divine intervention which should sanctify the participation of the sinful human mother in the conception of Jesus must be supposed in order to maintain his assumed necessary impeccability. But if God determined on such a purification of the maternal participation, it had been easier to do the same with respect to that of the father, than by his total exclusion, to violate the natural law in so unprecedented a manner; and consequently, a fatherless conception cannot be insisted upon as the necessary means of compassing the impeccability of Jesus.

But he who thinks to escape the difficulties already specified, by enveloping himself in a supernaturalism, inaccessible to arguments based on reason and the laws of nature, must nevertheless admit the force of the exegetical-historical difficulties meeting him upon his own ground, which likewise beset the view of the supernatural conception of Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament is such an origin ^{P.120} ascribed to Jesus, or even distinctly alluded to, except in these two accounts of his infancy in Matthew and in Luke. The story of the conception is omitted not only by Mark, but also by John, the supposed author of the fourth gospel and an alleged inmate with the mother of Jesus subsequent to his death, who therefore would have been the most accurately informed concerning these occurences. It is said that John sought rather to record the heavenly than the earthly origin of Jesus; but the question arises, whether the doctrine which he sets forth in his prologue, of a divine hypostasis actually becoming flesh and remaining immanent in Jesus, is reconcileable with the view given in the passages before us, of a simple divine operation determining the conception of Jesus; whether therefore John could have presupposed the story of the conception contained in Matthew and Luke? This objection, however, loses its conclusive force, if in the progress of our investigation the apostolic origin of the fourth gospel is not established. The most important consideration therefore is, that no retrospective allusion to this mode of conception occurs throughout the four Gospels; not only neither in John nor in Mark, but also neither in Matthew nor in Luke. Not only does Mary herself designate Joseph simply as the father of Jesus (Luke ii. 48), and the Evangelist speak of both as his parents, goneij (Luke ii. 41), an appellation which could only have been used in a wider sense by one who had just related the miraculous conception, but all his contemporaries in general, according to our Evangelists, regarded him as a son of Joseph, a fact which was not unfrequently alluded to contemptuously and by way of reproach in his presence (Matt. xiii. 55; Luke iv. 22; John vi. 42), thus affording him an opportunity of making a decisive appeal to his miraculous conception, of which, however, he says not a single word. Should it, be answered, that he did not desire to convince respecting the divinity of his person by this external evidence, and that he could have no hopc of making an impression by such means on those who were in heart his opponents, it must also be remembered, that, according to the testimony of the fourth gospel, His own disciples, though they admitted him to be the son of God, still regarded him as the actual son of Joseph. Philip introduces Jesus to Nathaniel as the son of Joseph (John i. 46), manifestly in the same sense of real paternity which the Jews attached to the designation; and nowhere is this represented as an erroneous or imperfect notion which these Apostles had subsequently to relinquish; much rather does the whole sense of the narrative, which is not to be mistaken, exhibit the Apostles as having a right belief on this point. The enigmatical presupposition, with which, at the marriage in Cana, Mary ^{P.121} addressed herself to Jesus, is far too vague to prove a recollection of his miraculous conception on the part of the mother; at all events this feature is counterbalanced by the opposing one that the family of Jesus, and, as appears from Matt. xii.46ff. compared with Mark iii.21ff, his mother also were, at a later time, in error respecting Jlis aims; which is scarcely explicable, even of his brothers, supposing them to have had such recollections.

Just as little as in the Gospels, is any thing in confirmation of the view of the supernatural conception of Jesus, to be found in the remaining New Testament writings. For when the Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus as made of a woman (Gal. iv. 4), this expression is not to be understood as an. exclusion of parternal participation; since the addition made under the law, clearly allows that he would here indicate (in the form which is frequent in the Old and New Testament, for example Job xiv. 1; Matt. xi. 11.) human nature with all its conditions. When Paul (Rom. i. 3. 4. compared with ix. 5.) makes Christ according to the flesh, kata sarka, descend from David, but declares him to be the son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness, Kata pneumati a(giosunhj, no one will here identify the antithesis flesh and spirit with the maternal human participation, and the divine energy superseding the paternal participation in the conception of Jesus. Finally when in the Epistle to the Hebrews (vii. 3.) Melchidezek is compared with the son of God, ui(on qeou, because "without father," the application of the literally interpreted a)pathr to Jesus, as he appeared upon earth, is forbidden by the addition "without mother," which agrees as little with him as the immediately following "without descent."

The most conclusive exegetical ground of decision against the supernatural conception of Jesus, which bears more closely on the point than all the hitherto adduced passages, is found in the two genealogies previously considered. Even the Manlchaian Faustus asserted that it is impossible without contradiction to trace the descent of Jesus from David through Joseph, as is done by our two genealogists, and yet assume that Joseph was not the father of Jesus; and Augustine had nothing convincing to answer when he remarked that it was necessary, on account of the superior dignity of the masculine gender, to carry the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was Mary's husband if not by a natural by a spiritual alliance, In modern times also the construction of the genealogical tables in Matthew and in Luke has led many theologians to observe, that these authors considered Jesus as the actual son of Joseph, the ^{P.122} very design of these tables is to prove Jesus to be of the lineage of David through Joseph; but what do they prove, if indeed Joseph was not the lather of Jesus? The assertion that Jesus was the son of David, which in Matthew (i.1) prefaces the genealogy and announces its object, is altogether annulled by the subsequent denial of his conception by means of the Davidical Joseph. It is impossible, therefore, to think it probable that the genealogy and the story of the birth of Jesus emanate from the same author; and we must concur with the theologians previously cited, that the genealogies are taken from a different source. Scarcely could it satisfy to oppose the remark, that as Joseph doubtlessly adopted Jesus, the genealogical table of the former became fully valid for the latter.

For adoption might indeed suffice to secure to the adopted son the reversion of certain external family rights and inheritances; but such a relationship could in no way lend a claim to the Messianic dignity, which was attached to the true blood and lineage of David. He, therefore, who had regarded Joseph as nothing more than the adopted father of Jesus, would hardly have given himself the trouble to seek out the Davidical descent of Joseph; but if indeed, besides the established belief that Jesns was the son of God, it still remained important to represent him as the son of David, the pedigree of Mary would have been preferred for this purpose; for, however contrary to custom, the maternal genealogy must have been admitted in a case where a human father did not exist. Least of all is it to be believed, that several authors would have engaged in the compilation of a genealogical table for Jesus which traced his descent through Joseph, so that two different genealogies of this kind are still preserved to us, if a closer relationship between Jeshua and Joseph had not been admitted at the time of their composition.

Consequently, the decision of the learned theologians who agree that these genealogies were composed in the belief that Jesus was the actual son of Joseph and Mary, can hardly be disputed; but the authors or compilers of our Gospels, notwithstanding their own conviction of the divine origin of Jesus, received them among their materials; only that Matthew (i. 16.) changed the original "Joseph begat Jesus of Mary" (comp. verses 3. 5. 6) according to his own view; and so likewise Luke (iii. 23.) instead of commencing his genealogy simply with "Jesus the son of Joseph."

Let it not be objected that the view for which we contend, namely, that the genealogies could not have been composed under the notion that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, leaves no conceivable motive for incorporating them into our present Gospels. The original construction of a genealogy of Jesus, even though in the case before us is consisted simply in the adapting of foreign already ^{P.123} existing genealogical tables to Jesus, required a powerful and direct inducement: this was the hope thereby to gain the corporeal descent of Jesus from Joseph being presupposed a main support to the belief in his Messiahship; while, on the other hand, a less powerful inducement was sufficient to incite to the admission of the previously constructed genealogies: the expectation that, notwithstanding the non-existence of any real relationship between Joseph and Jesus, they might nevertheless serve to link Jesus to David. Thus we find, that in the histories of the birth both in Matthew and in Luke, though they cadi decidedly exclude Joseph from the conception, great stress is laid upon the Davidical descent of Joseph (Matt. i. 20, Luke i. 27, ii. 4); that which in fact had no real significance, except in connection with the earlier opinion, is retained even after the point of view is changed.

Since, in this way, we discover both the genealogies to be memorials belonging to the time and circle of the primitive Church, in which Jesus was still regarded as a naturally begotten man, the sect of the Ebionites cannot fail to occur to us; as we are told concerning them, that they held this view of the person of Christ at this early period We should therefore have expected, more especially, to have found these genealogies in the old Ebionie Gospels, of which we have still knowledge, and are not a little surprised to learn that precisely in these Gospels the genealogies were wanting. It is true Epiphanius states that the Gospel of the Ebionites commenced with the public appearance of the Baptist; accordingly, by the genealogies, which they are said to have cut away, might have been meant, those histories of the birth and infancy comprised in the two first chapters of Matthew; which they could not have adopted in their present form, since they contained the fatherless conception of Jesus, which was denied by the Ebionites: genealogies, might have and it might also have been conjectured that this section which was in opposition to their system had alone perhaps been wanting in their gospel; and that the genealogy which was in harmony with their view might nevertheless have been somewhere inserted. But this supposition vanishes as soon as we find that Epiphanius in reference to the Nazarcnes, defines the genealogies, (of which he is ignorant whether they possessed them or not, as reaching from Abraham to Christ; consequently by the genealogies which were wanting to some heretics, he evidently understood the genealogical tables, though, in relation to the Ebionites, he might likewise have included under this expression the story of the birth.

How is the strange phenomenon, that these genealogies are not found among that very sect of Christians who retained the particular opinion upon which they were constructed, to be explained? A modern investigator has advanced the supposition, that the ^{P.124} Jewish-Christians omitted the genealogical tables from prudential motives, in order not to facilitate or augment the persecution which, under Domitian, and perhaps even earlier, threatened the family of David.

But explanations, having no inherent connection with the subject, derived from circumstances in themselves of doubtful historical validity, are admissible only as a last refuge, when no possible solution of the questionable phenomenon is to be found in the thing itself, as here in the principles of the Ebionite system.

But in this case the matter is by no means so difficult. It is known that the Fathers speak of two classes of Ebionites, of which the one, besides strenuously maintaining the obligation of the Mosaic law, held Jesus to be the naturally begotten Son of Joseph and Mary; the other, from that time called also Nazarenes, admitted with the orthodox Church the conception by the Holy Ghost. But besides this distinction there existed yet another. The most ancient ecclesiastic writers, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus for example, are acquainted with those Ebionites only, who regarded Jesus as a naturally born man first endowed with divine powers at his baptism.

In Epiphanius and the Clementine Homilies, on the other hand, we meet with Ebionites who had imbibed an element of speculative Gnosticism. This tendency, which according to Epiphanius is to be dated from one Elxai, has been ascribed to Essene influence, and traces of the same have been discovered in the heresies referred to in the Epistle to the Colossians; whereas the first class of Ebionites evidently proceeded from Common Judaism. Which form of opinion was the earlier and which the later developed is not so easily determined; with reference to the last detailed difference, it might seem, since the speculative Ebionites are mentioned first by the Clementines and Epiphanius, while Ebionites holding a simpler view are spoken of by Justin and by Ireneus, that the latter were the earlier; nevertheless as Tertullian already notices in his time the Gnosticising tendency of the opinions of the Ebionites respecting Christ, and as the germ of such views existed among the Essenes in the time of Jesus, the more probable assumption is, that both opinions arose side by side about the same period. As little can it be proved with regard to the other difference, that the views concerning Christ held by the Nazarenes became first, at a later period, lowered to those of the Ebionites; since the notices, partly confused and partly of late date, of the ecclesiastical writers, may be naturally explained as arising out of what may be called an optical delusion of the Church, which, while she in fact made ^{P.125} continual advances in the glorification of Christ, but a part of the Jewish Christians remained stationary, made it appear to her as if she herself remained stationary, while the others fell back into heresy.

By thus distinguishing the simple and the speculative Ebionites, so much is gained, that the failure of the genealogies among the latter class, mentioned by Epiphanius, does not prove them to have been also wanting among the former. And the less if we should be able to make it appear probable, that the grounds of their aversion to the genealogical table, and the grounds of distinction between them and the other class of Ebionites, were identical. One of these grounds was evidently the unfavourable opinion, which the Ebionites of Epiphanius and of the Clementine Homilies had of David, from whom the genealogy traces the descent of Jesus. It is well known that they distinguished in the Old Testament a twofold prophecy, male and female, pure and impure, of which the former only promised things heavenly and true, the latter things earthly and delusive; that proceeding from Adam and Abel, this from Eve and Cain; and both constituted an under-current through the whole history of the revelation. It was only the pious men from Adam to Joshua whom they acknowledged as true prophets: the later prophets and men of God, among whom David and Solomon are named, were not only not recognized, but abhorred, We even find positive indications that David was an object of their particular aversion. There were many things which created in them a detestation of David (and Solomon). David was a bloody warrior; but to shed blood was, according to the doctrines of these Ebionites, one of the greatest of sins; David was known to have committed adultery, (Solomon to have been a voluptuary); and adultery was even more detested by this sect than murder. David was a performer on stringed instruments; this art, the invention of the Canaanites (Gen. iv. 21), was held by these Ebionites to be a sign of false prophecy; finally, the prophecies announced by David and those connected with him, (and Solomon,) had reference to the kingdoms of this world, of which the Gnosticising Ebionites desired to know nothing. Now the Ebionites who had sprung from common Judaism could not have shared this ground of aversion to the genealogies; since to the orthodox Jew David was an object of the highest veneration.

Concerning a second point the notices are not so lucid and accordant as they should be; namely, whether it was a further development of the general Ebionite doctrine concerning the person ^{P.126} of the Christ, which led these Ebionites to reject the genealogies.

According to Epiphanius, they fully recognizecl the Gnostic distinction between Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary, and the Christ who descended upon him;'" and consequently might have been withheld from referring the genealogy to Jesus only perhaps by their abhorrence of David. On the other hand, from the whole tenor of the Clementines, and from one passage in particular, it has recently been inferred, and not without apparent reason, that the author of these writings had himself abandoned the view of a natural conception, and even birth of Jesus; whereby it is yet more manifest that the ground of the rejection of the genealogies by this sect was peculiar to it, and not common to the other Ebionites.

Moreover positive indications, that the Ebionites who proceeded from Judaism possessed the genealogies, do not entirely fail. While the Ebionites of Epiphanius and of the Clementines called Jesus only Son of God, but rejected the appellation Son of David, as belonging to the common opinion of the Jews; other Ebionites were censured by the Fathers for recognizing Jesus only as the Son of David, to whom he is traced in the genealogies, and not likewise as the Son of Grod. Further, Epiphanius relates of the earliest Judaising Gnostics Cerinthus and Carpocrates, that they used a gospel the same in other respects indeed as the Ebionites, but that they adduced the genealogies, which they therefore read in the same, in attestation of the human conception of Jesus by Joseph.

Also the a)pomnhmoneumata cited by Justin, and which originated upon Judaeo-christian ground, appear to have contained a genealogy similar to that in our Matthew; since Justin as well as Matthew speaks, in relation to Jesus, of a genoj tou Dabid kai A)braam, of a sperma e)c I)akwb dia Iou)da, kai Farej kai I)essai kai Dabid katerxomenon; only that at the time, and in the circle of Justin, the opinion of a supernatural conception of Jesus had already suggested the reference of the genealogy to Mary, instead of to Joseph.

Hence it appears that we have in the genealogies a memorial, agreeing with indications from other sources, of the fact that in the very earliest Christian age, in Palestine, a body of Christians, numerous enough to establish upon distinct fundamental opinions two different Messianic tables of descent, considered Jesus to have been a naturally conceived human being. And no proof is furnished to us in the apostolic writings, that the Apostles would have declared ^{P.127} this doctrine to be unchristian: it appeared so first from the point of view adopted by the authors of the histories of the birth in the first and third Gospels: notwithstanding which however, it is treated with surprising lenity by the Fathers of the Church.

IF, as appears from the foregoing statements, so many weighty difficulties, philosophical as well as exegetical, beset the supernaturalistic explanation, it is worth examining whether it be not possible to give an interpretation of the gospel history which shall obviate these objections. Recourse has been had to the natural explanation, and the two narratives singly and coniointly have been successively subjected to the rationalist mode of interpretation.

In the first place, the account in Matthew seemed susceptible of such an interpretation. Numerous rabbinical passages were cited to demonstrate, that it was consonant with Jewish notions to consider a son of pious parents to be conceived by the divine co-operation, and that he should be called the son of the Holy Spirit, without its being ever imagined that paternal participation was thereby excluded. It was consequently contended, that the section in Matthew represented merely the intention of the angel to inform Joseph, not indeed that Mary had become pregnant in the absence of all human intercourse, but that notwithstanding her pregnancy she was to be regarded as pure, not as one fallen from virtue. It was maintained that the exclusion of paternal participation, which is an embellishment of the original representation, occurs first in Luke in the words a)ndra ou) ginwskw (i. 34.) When however this view was justly opposed by the remark, that the expression prin h) sunelqeinin Matthew (i. 18) decidedly excludes the participation of the only individual in question, namely Joseph; it was then thought possible to prove that even in Luke the paternal exclusion was not so positive: but truly this could be done only by an unexegetical subversion of the clear sense of the words, or else by uncritically throwing suspicion on a part of a well-connected narrative. The first expedient is to interpret Mary's inquiry of the angel i. 34, thus: "Can I who am already betrothed and married give birth to the Messiah, for as the mother of the Messiah I must have no husband?" whereupon the angel replies that God, through his power, could make something distinguished even of the child conceived of her and Joseph. The other proceeding is no less arbitrary. Mary's inquiry of the angel is explained as an unnatural interruption of his communication, which being abstracted, the ^{P.128} passage is found to contain no decided intimation of the supernatural conception.

Consequently, the difficulty of the natural explanation of the two accounts be equally great, still, with respect to both it must be alike attempted or rejected; and for the consistent Rationalist, a Paulus for example, the latter is the only course. This commentator considers the participation of Joseph indeed excluded by Matt. i. 18, but by no means that of every other man; neither can he find a supernatural divine intervention in the expression of Luke i. 35. The Holy Ghost pneuma a(gion is not with him objective, an external influence operating upon Mary, but her own pious imagination. The power of the Most High is not the immediate divine omnipotence, but everv natural power employed in a manner pleasing to God may be so called. Consequently, according to Paulus, the meaning of the angelic announcement is simply this: prior to her union with Joseph, Mary, under the influence of a pure enthusiasm in sacred things on the one hand, and by a human co-operation pleasing to God on the other, became the mother of a child who on account of this holy origin was to be called a son of God.

Let us examine rather more accurately the view which this representative of rationalist interpretation takes of the particulars of the conception of Jesus. He begins with Elizabeth, the patriotic and wise daughter of Aaron, as he styles her. She, having conceived the hope that she might give birth to one of God's prophets, naturally desired moreover that he might be the first of prophets, the forerunner of the Messiah; and that the latter also might speedily be born. Now there was among her own kinsfolk a person suited in every respect for the mother of the Messiah, Mary, a young virgin, a descendant of David; nothing more was needful than to inspire her likewise with such a special hope. While these intimations prepare us to anticipate a cleverly concerted plan on the part of Elizabeth in reference to her young relative, in which we hope to become initiated; Paulus here suddenly lets fall the curtain, and remarks, that the exact manner in which Mary was convinced that she should become the mother of the Messiah must be left historically undetermined; thus much only is certain, that Mary remained pure, for she could not with a clear conscience have stationed herself, as she afterwards did, under the Cross of her Son, had she felt that a reproach rested on her concerning the origin of the hopes she had entertained of him.

The following is the only hint subsequently given of the particular view held by Paulus. It is probable, he thinks, that the angelic messenger visited Mary in the evening or even at night; indeed according to the correct reading of Luke i. 28, which has not the word angel, the evangelist here speaks only of some one who had come in Paulus adds: that this visitant was the angel Gabriel was the subsequent suggestion of Mary's own mind, after she had heard of the vision of Zechariah.

Gabler in a review of Paulus's Commentary has fully exposed with commensurate plainness of speech, the transaction which lies concealed under this explanation. It is impossible, says he, to imagine any other interpretation of Paulus's view than that some one passed himself off for the angel Gabriel, and as the pretended Messenger of God remained with Mary in order that she might become the mother of the Messiah. "What!" asks Gabler, "Is Mary, at the very time she is betrothed, to become pregnant by another and is this to be called an innocent holy action, pleasing to God and irreprochable? Mary is here pourtrayed as a pious visionary, and the pretended messenger of heaven as a deceiver, or he too is a gross fanatic. The reviewer most justly considers such an assertion as revolting, if contemplated from the Christian point of view; if from the scientific, as at variance, both with the principles of interpretation and of criticism.

The author of the "Natural Plistory of the Great Prophet of Nazareth" is, in this instance, to be considered as the most worthy interpreter of Paulus; for though the former could not, in this part of his work, have made use of Paulus's Commentary, yet, in exactly the same spirit, he unreservedly avows what the latter carefully veils. He brings into comparison a story in Josephus, according to which, in the very time of Jesus, a Roman knight won the chaste wife of a Roman noble to his wishes, by causing her to be invited by a priest of Isis into the temple of the Goddess, under the pretext that the god Anubis desired to embrace her. In innocence and faith, the woman resigned herself, and would perhaps afterwards have believed she had given birth to the child of a god, had not the intriguer, with bitter scorn, soon after discovered to her the true state of the case. It is the opinion of the author that Mary, the betrothed bride of the aged Joseph, was in like manner deceived by some amorous and fanatic young man (in the sequel to the story he represents him to be Joseph of Arimathea), and that she on her part, in perfect innocence, continued to deceive others. It is evident that this interpretation does not differ from the ancient Jewish blasphemy, which we find in Celsus and in the Talmud; that Jesus falsely represented himself as born of a pure virgin, whereas, in fact, he was the offspring of the adultery of Mary with a certain Panthera.

This whole view, of which the culminating point is in the cal- ^{P.130} umny of the Jews, cannot be better judged than in the words of Origen. If, says this author, they wished to substitute something else in the place of the story of the supernatural conception of Jesus, they should at any rate have made it happen in a more probable manner; they ought not, as it were against their "will, to admit that Mary knew not Joseph, but they might have denied this feature, and yet have allowed Jesus to have been born of an ordinary human marriage: whereas, the forced and extravagant character of their hypothesis betrays its falsehood. Is not this as much as to say, that if once some particular features of a marvellous narrative are doubted, it is inconsequent to allow others to remain unquestioned? each part of such an account ought to be subjected to critical examination. The correct view of the narrative before us is to be found, that is indirectly, in Origen. For when at one time he places together, as of the same kind, the miraculous conception of Jesus and the story of Plato's conception by Apollo (though here, indeed, the meaning is that only ill-disposed persons could doubt such things, and when at another time he says of the story concerning Plato, that it belongs to those myths by which it was sought to exhibit the distinguished wisdom and power of great men (but here he does not include the narrative of Jesus's conception), he in fact states the two premises, namely, the similarity of the two narratives and the mythical character of the one; from which the inference of the merely mythical worth of the narrative of the conception of Jesus follows; a conclusion which can never indeed have occurred to his own mind.

IF, says Gabler in his review of the Commentary of Paulus, we must relinquish the supernatural origin of Jesus, in order to escape the ridicule of our contemporaries, and if, on the other hand, the natural explanation leads to conclusions not only extravagant, but revolting; the adoption of the myth, by which all these difficulties are obviated, is to be preferred. In the world of mythology many great men had extraordinary births, and were sons of the gods.

Jesus himself spoke of his heavenly origin, and called God his father; besides, his title as Messiah was-Son of God. From Matthew i. 22, it is further evident that the passage of Isaiah, vii. 14. was referred to Jesus by the early Christian Church. In conformity with this passage the belief prevailed that, Jesus, as the Messiah, should be born of a virgin by means of divine agency; it was therefore taken for granted that what was to be actually did occur; and thus originated a philosophical (dogmatical) myth concerning the birth of Jesus. But according to historical truth, Jesus was the offspring of an ordinary marriage, between Joseph and Mary; an ^{P.131} explanation which, it has been justly remarked, maintains at once the dignity of Jesus and the respect due to his mother."

The proneness of the ancient world to represent the great men and benefactors of their race as the sons of the gods, has therefore been referred to, in order to explain the origin of such a myth.

Our theologians have accumulated examples from the Greco-Roman mythology and history. They have cited Hercules, and the Dioscuri; Romulus, and Alexander; but above all Pythagoras, and Plato. of the latter philosopher Jerome speaks in a manner quite applicable to Jesus: "sapientia principem non aliter arbitrantur, nisi de partu virginis editum."

From these examples it migrht have been inferred that the narratives of the supernatural conception had possibly orglnated in a similar tendency, and had no foundation in history. Here Iiowevci the orthodox and the rationalists are unanimous in denying, though indeed upon different grounds, the validity of the analogy. Origen, from a perception of the identical character of the two classes of narratives, is not far from regarding the heathen legends of the sons of the gods as true supernatural histories. Paulus on his side is more decided, and is so logical as to explain both classes of narratives in the same manner, as natural, but still as true histories. At least he says of the narrative concerning Plato: it cannot be affirmed that the groundwork of the history was a subsequent creation; it is far more probable that his mother believed herself to be pregnant by one of her gods. The fact that her son became a Plato might indeed have served to confirm that belief, but not to have originated it.

Thol ck invites attention to the important distinction that the myths concerning Romulus and others were formed many centuries after the lifetime of these men: the myths concerning Jesus, on the contrary, must have existed shortly after his death. He cleverly fails to remember the narrative of Plato's birth, since he is well aware that precisely in that particular, it is a dangerous point. Others approach the subject with much pathos, and affirm that Plato's apotheosis as son of Apollo did not exist till several centuries after him, whereas in fact Plato's sister's son speaks of it as a prevailing legend in Athens. Olshausen, with whom Neander coincides, refuses to draw any detrimental inference from this analogy of the mythical sons of the gods; remarking that though these narratives are unhistorical, they evince a general anticipation and desire ^{P.132} of such a fact, and therefore guarantee its reality, at least in one historical manifestation. Certainly, a general anticipation and representation must have truth for its basis; Tout the truth does not consist in any one individual fact, presenting an accurate correspondence with that notion, but in an idea which realizes itself in a series of facts, which often bear no resemblance to the general notion.

The widely spread notion of a golden age does not prove the existence of a golden age: so the notion of divine conceptions does not prove that some one individual was thus produced. The truth which is the basis of this notion is something quite different.

A more essential objection to the analogy is, that the representations of the heathen world prove nothing with respect to the isolated Jews; and that the idea of sons of the gods, belonging to polytheism, could not have exerted an influence on the rigidly monotheistic notion of the Messiah. At all events such an inference must not be too hastily drawn from the expression "sons of God,'' found likewise among the Jews, which as applied in the Old Testament to magistrates, (Ps. Ixxxii. 6, or to theocratic kings, 2 8am. vii. 14, Ps. ii. 7), indicates only a theocratic, and not a physical or metaphysical relation. Still less is importance to be attached to the language of flattery used by a Roman, in Josephus, who calls beautiful children of the Jewish princes children of God. It was, however, a notion among the Jews, as was remarked in a former section, that the Holy Spirit co-operated in the conception of pious individuals; moreover, that God's choicest instruments were conceived by divine assistance of parents, who could not have had a cluld according to the natural course of things. And if, according to the believed representation, the extinct capability on both sides was renewed by divine intervention (Rom. iv. 19), it was only one step further to the belief that in the case of the conception of the most distinguished of all God's agents, the Messiah, the total absence of participation on the one side was compensated by a more complete super-added capability on the other. The latter is scarcely" a degree more marvellous than the former. And thus must it have appeared to the author of Luke i, since he dissipates Mary's doubts by the same reply with which the Lord repelled Sara's incredulity. Neither the Jewish reverence for marriage, nor the prevalent representation of the Messiah as a human being, could prevent the advance to this climax; to which, on the other hand, the ascetic estimation of celibacy, and the idea, derived from Daniel, of the Christ as a superhuman being, contributed. But decided impulse to the development of the representations embodied in our histories of the birth, consisted partly in the title, iSon of God, at one time usually given to the Messiah. For it is the nature of such originally figurative expressions, after a while to come to be interpreted according ^{P.133} to their more precise and literal signification; and it was a daily occurrence, especially among the later Jews, to attach a sensible, signification to that which originally had merely a spiritual or fifigurative meaning. this natural disposition to understand the Messianic title Son of God more and more literally, was fostered by the expression in the Psalms (ii. 7), interpreted of the Messiah: You are my son; this day have I begotten you: words which can scarcely fail to suggest a physical relation; it was also nurtured by the prophecy of Isaiah respecting the virgin who should be with child, which it appears was applied to the Messiah; as were so many other prophecies of which the immediate signification had become obscure. this application may be seen in the Greek word chosen by the Scptuagint, -naiOivw;, a pure unspotted virgin, whereas by Aquila and other Greek translators the word veavi(; is used.

Tims did the notions of a son of (rod and a son of a virgin complete one another, till at last the divine agency was substituted for human paternal participation. Wettstein indeed affirms that no Jew ever applied the prophecy of Isaiah to the Messiah; and it was with extreme labour that Schoetten collected traces of the notion that the Messiah should be the son of a virgin from the Rabbinical writings. this however, considering the paucity of records of the Mi'ssianic ideas of that age, proves nothing in opposition to the presumption that a notion then prevailed, of which we have the groundwork in the Old Testament, and an inference hardly to be mistaken in the New.

One objection yet remains, which I can no longer designate as peculiar to Olshausen, since other theologians have shown themselves solicitous of sharing the fame. The objection is, that the mythical interpretation of the gospel narrative is especially dangerous, it being only too well fitted to engender, obscurely indeed, false and blasphemous notions concerning the origin of Jesus; since it cannot fail to favour an opinion destructive of the belief in a Redeemer, namely, that Jesus came into being through unholy means; since, in fact, at the time of her pregnancy Mary was not married. In Olshausen's first edition of his work, he adds that he willingly allows that these interpreters know not what they do: it is therefore but just to give him the advantage of the same concession, since he certainly appears not to know what mythical interpretation means.

How otherwise would he say, that the mythical interpretation is fitted only to favour a blasphemous opinion; therefore that all who understand thenarrative mythically, are disposed to commit the absurdity with which Origen reproaches the Jewish calumniators; the retaining one solitary incident, namely, that Mary was not married, while the remainder of the narrative is held to be unhistorical; a particular incident which evidently serves only as a support ^{P.134} to the other, that Jesus was conceived without human paternal participation, and with it, therefore, stands or falls. No one among the interpreters who, in this narrative, recognise a myth in the full signification of that term, has been thus blind and inconsistent; all have supposed a legitimate marriage between Joseph and Mary; and Olshausen merely paints the mythical mode of interpretation in caricature, in order the more easily to set it aside; for he confesses that in relation to this portion of the gospel in particular, it has much that is dazzling.

OUR Gospels, in the true spirit of the ancient legend, find it unbecoming to allow the mother of Jesus, so long as she bore the heavenly germ, to be approached or profaned by an earthly husband. Consequently Luke (ii. 5.) represents the connection between Joseph and Mary, prior to the birth of Jesus, as a betrothment merely. And, as it is stated respecting the father of Plato, after his wife had become pregnant by Apollo: so likewise it is remarked of Joseph in Matthew (i. 25.) kai ou)k e)ginwsken au)thn e(wj ou( e)teke ton ui(on au)thj ton prwtotokon. In each of these kindred passages the Greek word ewj (till) must evidently receive the same. interpretation. Now in the first quotation the meaning is incontestably this: that till the time of Plato's birth his father abstained from intercourse with his wife, but subsequently assumed his conjugal rights, since we hear of Plato's brothers. In reference, therefore, to the parents of Jesus, the ewj cannot have a different signification; in any case it indicates precisely the same limitation. So again the expression prwtotokoj (firstborn) used in reference to Jesus in both Gospels (Matt. i. 25, Luke ii. 7.) supposes that Mary had other children, for as Lucian says: e)i men prwtoj, ou) monoj.ei) de monoj, ou) prwtoj. Even in the same Gospels (Matt. xiii. 55, Luke viii. 19.) mention is made of "brothers of Jesus." But this did not continue to satisfy the orthodox: as the veneration for Mary rose even higher, she who had once become fruitful by divine agency was not subsequently to be profaned by the common relations of life. The opinion that Mary after the birth of Jesus became the wife of Joseph, was early ranked among the heresies, and the orthodox Fathers sought every means to escape from it and to combat ^{P.135} it. They contended that according to the exegetical interpretation of e(wj ou(, it sometimes affirmed or denied a thing, not merely up to a certain limit, but beyond that limitation and for ever; and that the words of Matthew ou)k e)gnwken au)ton excluded a matrimonial connection between Joseph and Mary for all time.

In like manner it was asserted of the term e(wj prin that it did not necessarily include the subsequent birth of other children, but that it merely excluded' any previous birth. But in order to banish the thought of a matrimonial connection between Mary and Joseph, not only grammatically but physiologically, they represented Joseph as a very old man, under whom Mary was placed for control and protection only; and the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament they regarded as the children of Joseph by a former marriage, But this was not all; soon it was insisted not only that Mary never became the wife of Joseph, but that in giving birth to Jesus she did not lose her virginity. But even the conservation of Mary's virginity did not long continue to satisfy: perpetual virginity was likewise required on the part of Joseph. It was not enough that he had no connection with Mary; it was also necessary that His entire life should be one of celibacy. Accordingly, though Epiphanius allows that Joseph had sons by a former marriage, Jerome rejects the supposition as an impious and audacious invention; and from that time the brothers of Jesus were degraded to the rank of cousins.

Some modern theologians agree with the Fathers of the Church in maintaining that no matrimonial connection subsisted at any time between Joseph and Mary, and believe themselves able to explain the gospel expressions which appear to assert the contrary. In reference to the term first born, Olshausen contends that it signifies an only son: no less than the eldest of several. Paulus allows that here he is right, and Clemens and Fritzsche seek in vain to demonstrate the impossibility of this signification. For when it is said in Exod. xiii. 2, prwtotokon prwtogenej (LXX) it was not merely a firstborn followed by others subsequently born, who was sanctified to the Lord, but the fruit of the body of that mother of whom no other child had previously been born. Therefore the term prwtotokoj must bear also this signification. Truly however we must confess with Winer and others, on the other side, that if a narrator who was acquainted with the whole sequel of the story used that expression, we should be tempted to understand it in its primitive sense; since had the author intended to exclude other children, he would rather have ^{P.136} used the word monogenhj or would have connected it with prwtotokoj. If this be not quite decisive, the reasoning of Fritzsche in reference to the e(wj ou( etc., is more convincing. He rejects the citations adduced in support of the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, proving that this expression according to its primitive signification affirms only to a given limit, and beyond that limit supposes the logical opposite of the affirmation to take place; a signification which it loses only when the context shows clearly that the opposite is impossible in the nature of things. For example, if it is said "he knew her not until she died," it is self-evident that the negation, during the time elapsed till death, cannot be transformed after death into an affirmation; but when it is said, as in Matthew, "he knew her not until she brought forth," the giving birth to the divine fruit opposes no impossibility to the establishment of the conjugal relations; on the contrary it renders it possible i.e. suitable for them now to take place.

Olshausen, impelled by the same doctrinal motives which influenced the Fathers, is led in this instance to contradict both the evidence of grammar and of logic. He thinks that Joseph, without wishing to impair the sanctity of marriage, must have concluded from his experience that his marriage with Mary had "another object than the production of children; besides it was but natural in the last descendant of the house of David, and of that particular branch from which the Messiah should come forth, to terminate her race in this last and eternal offshoot."

A curious ladder may be formed of these different beliefs and superstitions in relation to the connection between Mary and Joseph.

1. Contemporaries of Jesus and composers of the genealogies: Joseph and Mary man and wife Jesus the offspring of their marriage.

2. The age and authors of our histories of the birth of Jesus: Mary and Joseph betrothed only; Joseph having no participation in the conception of the child, and previous to its birth no conjugal connection with Mary.

3. Olshausen and others: subsequent to the birth of Jesus, Joseph, though then the husband of Mary, relinquishes his matrimonial rights.

4. Epiphanius, Protevangelium Jacobi and others: Joseph a decrepit, old man, no longer to be thought of as a husband; the children attributed to him are of a former marriage. More especially it is not as a bride and wife that he receives Mary; he takes her merely under his guardianship.

5. Protevang., Chrysostom and others: Mary's virginity was not only not destroyed by any subsequent births of children by Joseph but was not in the slightest degree impaired by the birth of Jesus.. . . . ''.

6. Jerome: not Mary only but Joseph also observed an absolute virginity, and the pretended brothers of Jesus were not his sons but merely cousins to Jesus. .

The opinion that the a)delfoi (brothers) and a)delfai (sisters of Jesus) mentioned in the New Testament, were merely half brothers or indeed cousins, appears in its origin, as shown above, together with the notion that no matrimonial connection ever subsisted between Joseph and Mary, as the mere invention of superstition, a circumstance highly prejudicial to such an opinion. It is however no less true that purely exegetical grounds exist, in virtue of which theologians who were free from prejudice have decided, that the opinion that Jesus actually had brothers is untenable.

Had we merely the following passages, Matth. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3, where the people of Nazareth astonished at the wisdom of their countryman, in order to mark his well known origin, immediately after having spoken of tektwn (the carpenter) his father, and His mother Mary, mention by name his brothers: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, together with his sisters whose names are not given; again Matth. xii. 4G, Luke viii. 19, when His mother and his brethren come to Jesus; John ii. 12, where Jesus journeys with his mother and his brethren to Capernaum; Acts i. 14, where they are mentioned in immediate connection with his mother if we had these passages only, we could not for a moment hesitate to recognize here real brothers of Jesus at least on the mother's side, children of Joseph and Mary; not only on account of the proper signification of the word a)delfoj, but also in consequence of its continual conjunction with Mary and Joseph. Even the passages in which it is remarked that his brethren did not believe on Jesus, John vii.5, and Mark iii. 21, compared with 31, where according to the most probable explanation, the brothers of Jesus with his mother went out to lay hold of him as one beside himself furnish no adequate grounds for relinquishing the proper signification of a)delfoj.

Many theologians have interpreted a)delfoi I)hsou. in the last cited passage half brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage, alleging that the real brothers of Jesus must have believed in him, but this is a mere assumption. The difficulty seems greater when we read in John xix. 26 f. that Jesus on the cross, enjoined John to be a son to his mother; an injunction it is not easy to regard as suitable,,under the supposition that Mary had other children, except indeed these were half brothers and unfriendly to Jesus. Nevertheless we can imagine the existence both of external circumstances and of individual feelings which might have influenced Jesus to confide his mother to John rather than to his brothers. That these brothers appeared in company with His Apostles after the ascension (Acts i. 14,) is no proof that they must have believed in Jesus at the time of his death.

The real perplexity in the matter, however, originates in this: that besides the James and Joses spoken of as the brothers of Jesus, two men of the same name are mentioned as the sons of another Mary (Mark xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1, Matt. xxvii. 56,) without doubt that Mary who is designated, John xix. 25, as the sister of the mother of Jesus, and the wife of Cleophas: so that we have a James and a Joses not only among the children of Mary the mother of Jesus, but again among her sister's children. We meet with several others among those immediately connected with Jesus, whose names are identical. In the lists of the Apostles (Matth. x.2ff, Luke vi. 14 ff.) we have two more of the name of James: that is four, the brother and cousin of Jesus included; two more of the name of Judas: that is three, the brother of Jesus included; two of the name of Simon, also making three with the brother of Jesus of the sime name. The question naturally arises, whether the same individual is not here taken as distinct persons? The suspicion is almost unavoidable in reference to James. As James the son of Alpheus is, in the list of the Apostles, introduced after the son of Zebedee, as the second, perhaps the younger; and as James the cousin of Jesus is called "the less" (Mark. xv. 40;) and since by comparing John xix. 25, we find that the latter is called the son of Cleophas, it is possible that the name Cleophas given to the husband of Mary's sister, and the name Alpheus given to the father of the apostle, may be only different forms of the Hebrew? Thus would the second James enumerated among the Apostles and the cousin of Jesus of that name be identical, and there would remain besides him only the son of Zebedee and the brother of Jesus. Now in the Acts (xv. 13) a James appears who takes a prominent part in the so-called apostolic council, and as, according to Acts xil. 2, the son of Zebedee had previously been put to death, and as in the foregoing portion of the book of the Acts no mention is made of any other James besides the son of Alpheus (i. 13) so this James, of whom (Acts xv. 13,) no more precise description is given, can be no other than the son of Alpheus. iiut Paul speaks of a James (Gal. i. 19) the .Lord's brother, whom he saw at Jerusalem, and it, is doubtless he of whom he speaks in connection with Cephas and John as the "pillars" of the Church-for this is precisely in character with the (Apostle) James as he appeared at the apostolic council-so that this James may be considered as identical with the Lord's brother, and the rather as the expression "but other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal. i. 19,) makes it appear as if the Lord's brother were a recognised member of the Church. Also the ancient tradition ^{P.139} which represents James the Just, a brother of Jesus, as the first head of the Church at Jerusalem, agrees. But admitting the James of the Acts to be identical with the distinguished Apostle of that name, then is he the son of Alpheus, and not the son of Joseph; consequently if he be at the same time a)delfoj Kuriou, then a)delfoj cannot signify a brother. Now if Alpheus and Cleophas are admitted to be the same individual, the husband of the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, it is obvious that a)delfoj, used to denote the relationship of his son to Jesus, must be taken in the signification, cousin. If, after this manner, James the Apostle the son of Alpheus be identified with the cousin, and the cousin be identified with the brother of Jesus of the same name, it is obvious that I)oudaj I)akwbou in the catalogue of the Apostles in Luke (Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13,) must be translated brother of Joses (son of Alpheus); and this Apostle Jude must be held as identical with the Jude a)delfoj I)hsou, that is, with the cousin of the Lord and son of Mary Cleophas; (though the name of Jude is never mentioned in connection with this Mary.) If the Epistle of Jude in our canon be authentic, it is confirmatory of the above deduction, that the author (verse 1) designates himself as the a)delfoj (brother of James). Some moreover have identified the Apostle Simon with the Simon enumerated among the brothers of Jesus (Mark vi. 3,) and who according to a tradition of the Church succeeded James as head of the Church at Jerusalem; so that Joses alone appears without further designation or appellative.

If, accordingly, those spoken of as a)delfoi I)hsou were merely cousins, and three of these were Apostles, it must excite surprise that not only in the Acts, (i. 14,) after an enumeration of the Apostles, the brothers of Jesus are separately particularized, but that also (1 Cor. ix. 5.) they appear to be a class distinct from the Apostles.

Perhaps, also, the passage Gal. 1.19 ought to be understood as indicating that James, the Lord's brother, was not an Apostle. It therefore, the a)delfoi seem thus to be extruded from the number of the Apostles, it is yet more difficult to regard them merely as the cousins of Jesus, since they appear in so many places immediately associated with the mother of Jesus, and in two or three passages only are two men bearing the same names mentioned in connection with the other Mary, who accordingly would be their real mother. The Greek word a)delfoj, may indeed signify, in language which pretends not to precision, as well as the Hebrew ah a more distant relative; but as it is repeatedly used to express the relationship of these persons to Jesus, and is in no instance replaced by a)neyioj a word which is not foreign to the New Testament language when the relationship of cousin is to be denoted (Col. iv. 10.) it cannot well be taken in any other than its proper signification. Further, it need only be pointed out that the highest degree of un- ^{P.140} certainty exists respecting not only the identity of the names Alphaeus and Cleophas, upon which the identity of James the cousin of Jesus and of the Apostle James the Less rests, lint also regarding the translation of Ioudaj Iakwbou by the brother of James; and likewise respecting the assumed identity of the author of the last Catholic Epistle with the Apostle Jude.

Thus the web of this identification gives way at all points, and we are forced back to the position from which we set out; so that we have again real brothers of Jesus, also two cousins distinct from these brothers, though bearing the same names with two of them, besides some Apostles of the same names with both brothers and cousins.

To find two pairs of sons of the same names in a family is, indeed, not so uncommon as to become a source of objection. It is, however, remarkable that the same James who in the Epistle to the Galatians is designated a)delfoj Kuriou (the Lord's brother), must unquestionably, according to the Acts of the Apostles, be regarded as the son of Alplieus; which he could not be if this expression signified a brother. So that there is perplexity on every side, which can be solved only (and then, indeed, but negatively and without historical result) by admitting the existence of obscurity and error on this point in the New Testament writers, and even in the very earliest Christian traditions; error which, in matters of involved relationships and family names, is far more easily fallen into than avoided. We have consequently no ground for denying that the mother of Jesus bore her husband several other children besides Jesus, younger, and perhaps also older; the latter, because the representation in the New Testament that Jesus was the first-born may belong no less to the myth than the representation of the Fathers that he was an only son.

The angel who announced to Mary her own approaching pregnancy, at the same time informed her (Luke i. 36.) of that of her relative Elizabeth, with whom it was already the sixth month.

Hereupon Mary immediately set out on a journey to her cousin, a visit which was attended by extraordinary occurrences; for when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb for joy; she also became inspired, and in her exultation poured torth an address to Mary as the future mother of the Messiah, to which Mary responded by a hymn of praise (Luke i. 39-56).

The rationalist interpreter believes it to be an easy matter to give a natural explanation of this narrative of the Gospel of Luke. He is of opinion that the unknown individual who excited such peculiar anticipations in Mary, had at the same time acquainted her with the similar situation of her cousin Elizabeth. This it was ^{P.141} which impelled Mary the more strongly to confer on the subject with her older relative. Arrived at her cousin's dwelling, she first of all made known what had happened to herself; but upon this the narrator is silent, not wishing to repeat what he had just before described. And here, the Rationalist not only supposes the address of Elizabeth to have been preceded by some communication from Mary, but imagines Mary to have related her history piecemeal, so as to allow Elizabeth to throw in sentences during the intervals.

The excitement of Elizabeth such is the continuation of the rationalist explanation communicated itself, according to natural laws, to the child, who, as is usual with an embryo of six months, made a movement, which -was first regarded by the mother as significant, and as the consequence of the salutation, after Mary's further communications. Just as natural does it appear to the Rationalist that Mary should have given utterance to her Messianic expectations, confirmed as they were by Elizabeth, in a kind of psalmodic recitative, composed of reminiscences borrowed from various parts of the Old Testament.

But there is much in this explanation which positively contradicts the text. In the first place, that Elizabeth should have learned the heavenly message imparted to Mary from Mary herself. There is no trace in the narrative either of any communication preceding Elizabeth's address, or of interruptions occasioned by further explanations on the part of Mary. On the contrary, as it is a supernatural revelation, which acquaints Mary with the pregnancy of Elizabeth, so also it is to a revelation that Elizabeth's immediate recognition of Mary, as the chosen mother of the Messiah, is attributed. As little will the other feature of this narrative that the entrance of the mother of the Messiah occasioned a responsive movement in his mother's womb on the part of his forerunner-bear a natural explanation. In modern times indeed even orthodox interpreters have inclined to this explanation, but with the modification, that Elizabeth in the first place received a revelation, in which however the child, owing to the mother's excitement, a. matter to be physiologically explained, likewise took part. But the record does not represent the thing as if the excitement of the mother were the determining cause of the movement of the child; on the contrary (v. 41.) the emotion of the mother follows the movement of the child, and Elizabeth's own account states, that it was the salutation of Mary (v. 44. not indeed from its particular signification, but merely as the voice, of the mother of the Messiah, which produced the movement of the unborn babe: undeniably assuming something supernatural. But even herein the supernaturalistic view of this miracle is not free from objection, even on its own ground; and hence the anxiety of the above mentioned modern orthodox interpreters to evade it. It may be possible to conceive the human ^{P.142} mind immediately acted upon by the divine mind, to whinch it is related, but how solve the difficulty of an immediate communication of the divine mind to an uninteligent embryo? And if we inquire the object of so strange a miracle, none which is worthy presents itself. Should it be referred to the necessity that, the Baptist should receive the earliest possible intimation of the work to which he was destined; still we know not how such an impression could have been made upon an embryo. Should the purpose be supposed to centre in the other individuals, in Mary or Elizabeth; they had been the recipients of far higher revelations, and were consequently already possessed of an adequate measure of insight and faith.

No fewer difficulties oppose the rationalist than the supernaturalistic explanation of the hymn pronounced by Mary. For though it is not, like the Canticle of Zacharlas (v, G7.) and the address of Elizabeth (v. 41.) introduced by the formula "she was filled with the Holy Spirit", still the similarity of these utterances is so great, that the omission cannot be adduced as a proof that the narrator did not, intend to represent this, equally with the other two, as the operation of the Pneuma (spirit). But apart from the intention of the narrator, can it be thought natural that two friends visiting one another should, even in the midst of the most extraordinary occurrences, break forth into long hymns, and that their conversation should entirely lose the character of dialogue, the natural form on such occasions'? By a supernatural influence alone could the minds of the two friends be attuned to a state of elevation, so foreign to their every day life. But if indeed Mary's hymn is to be understood as the work of the Holy Spirit, it is surprisina: that a speech emanating immediately from the divine source of inspiration should not be, more striking for its originality, but should be so interlarded with reminiscences from the Old Testament, borrowed from the song of praise spoken by the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. ii.) under analogous circumstances. Accordingly we must admit that the compilation of this hymn, consisting of recollections from the Old Testament, was put together in a natural way; but allowing its composition toJiave been perfectly natural, it cannot be ascribed to the artless Mary, but to him who poetically wrought out the tradition in circulation respecting the scene in question.

Since then we find all the principal incidents of this visit inconceivable according to the supernatural interpretation; also that they will not bear a natural explanation; we are led to seek a mythical exposition of this as well as the preceding portions of the gospel history. this path has already been entered upon by others. The view of this narrative given by the anonymous E. F. in Henke's Magazine is, that it does not portray events as they actually did ^{P.143} occur, but as they might have occurred; that much which the sequel taught of the destiny of their sons was carried back into the speeches of these women, which were also enriched by other features gleaned from tradition; that a true fact however lies at the bottom, namely an actual visit of Mary to Elizabeth, a joyous conversation, and the expression of gratitude to God; all which might have happened. solely in virtue of the high importance attached by Orientals to the joys of maternity, even though the two mothers had been at that time ignorant of the destination of their children. This author is of opinion that Mary, when pondering over at a later period the remarkable life of her son, may often have related the happy meeting With her cousin and their mutual expressions of thankfulness to God, and that thus the story gained currency. Horst also, who has a just conception of the fictitious nature of this section in Luke, and ably refutes the natural mode of explanation, yet himself slides unawares half-way back into it. He thinks it not improbable that Mary during her pregnancy, which was in many respects a painful one, should have visited her older and more experienced cousin, and that Elizabeth should during this visit have felt the first movement of her child; ah occurrence which as it was afterwards regarded as ominous, was preserved by the oral tradition.

These are further examples of the uncritical proceeding which pretends to disengage the mythical and poetical from the narrative, by plucking away a few twigs and blossoms of that growth, while it leaves the very root of the myth undisturbed as purely historical. In our narrative the principal mythical feature (the remainder forms only its adjuncts) is precisely that which the above mentioned authors, in their pretended mythical explanations, retain as historical: namely the visit of Mary to the pregnant Elizabeth. For, as we have already seen, the main tendency of the first chapter of Luke is to magnify Jesus by connecting the Baptist with him from the earliest possible point in a relation of inferiority. Now this object could not be better attained than by brinc'ln"' about a meetin"," not in the first instance of the sons, but of the mothers in reference to their sons, during their pregnancy, at. which meeting some occurrence which should prefigure the future relative positions of these two men should take place. Now the more apparent the existence of a dogmatical motive as the origin of this visit, the less probability is there that it had an historical foundation. With this principal feature the other details are connected in the following order:

The visit of the two which must be represented as possible and probable by the feature of family relationship between Mary and Elizabeth (v. 36), which would also give a greater suitability to the subsequent connection of the sons. Further a visit, so full of import, made precisely at that time, must have taken place by special divine appointment; therefore, it is an angel who refers Mary to her cousin. At the visit the subservient position of the Baptist to Jesus ^{P.144} is to be particularly exhibited this could have been effected by the mother as indeed it is in her address to Mary, but it were better if possible that the future Baptist himself should give a sign. The mutual relation of Esau and Jacob had been prefigured by their struggles and position in their mother's womb. (Gen. xxv. 22. ff.)

But, without too violent an offence against the laws of probability an ominous movement would not be attributed to the child prior to that period of her pregnancy at which the motion of the foetus is felt; hence the necessity that Elizabeth should be in the sixth month of her pregnancy when Mary, in consequence of the communication of the angel, set out to visit her cousin (v. 36.). Thus as Schleiermacher remarks the whole arrangemept of times had reference to the particular circumstance the author desired to contrivethe jovous responsive movement of the child in his mother's womb at the moment of Mary's entrance. To this end only must Mary's visit be delayed till after the fifth month; and the angel not appear to her before that period.

Thus not only does the visit of Mary to Elizabeth with all the attendant circumstances disappear from the page of history, but the historical validity of the further details-that John was only half a year older than Jesus; that the two mothers were related; that an intimacy subsisted between the families cannot be affirmed on the testimony of Luke, unsupported by other authorities: indeed, the contrary rather will be found substantiated in the course of our critical investigations.

WITH Respect to the birth of Jesus, Matthew and Luke agree in representing it as taking place at Bethlehem; but while the latter enters into a minute derail of all the attendant circumstances, the former merely mentions the event as it were incidentally, referring to it once in an appended sentence as the sequel to what had gone before, (i. 25.) and again as a presupposed occurrence, (ii. 1.) The one Evangelist seems to assume that Bethlehem was the habitual residence of the parents; but according to the other they are led there by very particular circumstances. This point of difference between the Evangelists however can only be discussed after ^{P.145} we shall have collected more data; we will therefore leave it for the present, and turn our attention to an error into which Luke, when compared with himself and with dates otherwise ascertained seems to have fallen. This is the statement, that the census, decreed by Augustus at the time when Cyrenius (Quirinus) was governor of Syria, was the occasion of the journey of the parents of Jesus, who usually resided at Nazareth, to Bethlehem where Jesus was born (Luke ii. 1. ff.)

The first difficulty is that the inscription (a)pogafh) of the name and amount of property in order to facilitate the taxation) commanded by Augustus, is extended to "all the world." This expression, in its common acceptation at that time, would denote the orbis Romanus. But ancient authors mention no such general census decreed by Augustus; they speak only of the assessment of single provinces decreed at different times. Consequently, it was said Luke meant to indicate by oi)koumenh merely the land of Judea, and not the Roman world according to its ordinary signification. Examples were forthwith collected in proof of the possibility of such an interpretation, but they in fact prove nothing. For supposing it could not be shown that in all these citations from the Scptuagint, Josephus, and the -New Testament, the expression really does signify, in the extravagant sense of these writers, the whole known world; still in the instance in question where the subject is a decree of the Roman emperor, pasa h( oi)koumenh must necessarily be understood of the regions which he governed, and therefore of the orbis Romanus. This is the reason that latterly the opposite side has been taken up, and it has been maintained, upon the authority of Savigny, that in the time of Augustus a census of the whole empire was actually undertaken, This is positively affirmed by late Christian writers; but the statement is rendered suspicious by the absence of all more ancient testimony and it is even contradicted by the fact, that for a considerable lapse of time an equal assessment throughout the empire was not achieved. Finally, the very expressions of these writers show that their testimony rests upon that of Luke. But, if is said, Augustus at all events attempted an equal assessment of the empire by means of an universal census; and he began the carrying out his project by an assessment of individual provinces, but he left the further execution and completion to his successors. Admit that the gospel term dogma (decree) may be interpreted as a mere design, or, as Hoffmann thinks, an undetermined project expressed in an imperial decree; ^{P.146} still the fulfilment of this project in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus was impossible.

Matthew places the Birth of Jesus shortly before the death of Herod the Great, whom he represents (ii. 19.) as dying during the abode of Jesus in Egypt. Luke says the same indirectly, for when speaking of the announcement of the Birth of the Baptist, he refers it to the days of Herod the Great, and he places the birth of Jesus precisely six months later; so that according to Luke, also, Jesus was born, if not, like John, previous to the death of Herod I, shortly after that event. Now, after the death of Herod the country of Judea fell to his son Archelaus, (Matt. ii. 22.) who, after a reign of something less than ten years, was deposed and Lanished by Augustus, at which time Judca was first consituted a Roman province, and began to be ruled by Roman functionaries. Thus the Roman census in question must have been made either under Herod the Great, or at the beginning of the reign of Archelaus. This is in the highest degree improbable, for in those countries which were not reduced in formam provincue, but were governed by regibus sociis, the taxes were levied by these princes, who paid a tribute to the Romans; and this was the state of things in Judea prior to the deposition of Archelaus. It has been the object of much research to make it appear probable that Augustus decreed a census, as an extraordinary measure, in Palestine under Herod. Attention has been directed to the circumstance that the breviarium imperii, which Augustus left behind him, contained the financial state of the whole empire, and it has been suggested that, in order to ascertain the financial condition of Palestine, he caused a statement to be prepared by Herod.Reference has been made first to the record of Josephus, that on account of some disturbance of the relations between Herod and Augustus, the latter threatened for the future to make hini feel his subjection; secondly, also to the oath of allegiance to Augustus which, according to Josephus, the Jews were forced to take even during the lifetime of Herod.er From which it is inferred that Augustus, since he had it in contemplation after the death of Herod to restrict the power of his sons, was very likely to have commanded a census in the last years of that prince. But ^{P.147} It seems more probable that it took place shortly after the death of Herod, from the circumstance that Archelaus went to Rome concerning the matter of succession, and that during his absence, the Roman procurator Sabinus occupied Jerusalem, and oppressed the Jews by every possible means.

The Evangelist relieves us from a further inquiry into this more or less historical or arbitrary combination by adding, that this taxing was first made when Cyrinus (Quirinus) was governor of Syria, for it is an authenticated point that the assessment of Quirinus did not take place either under Herod or early in the reign of Archelaus, the period at which, according to Luke, Jesus was born. Quirinus was not at that time governor of Syria, a situation held during the last years of Herod by Septim. Saturninus, and after him by Quintilius Varus; and it was not till long after the death of Herod that Quirinus was appointed governor of Syria. That Quirinus undertook a census of Judea we know certainly from Josephus, who, however, remarks that he was sent to execute this measure about ten years after the time at which, according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus must have been born.

Yet commentators have supposed it possible to reconcile this apparently undeniable contradiction between Luke and history. The most dauntless explain the whole of the second verse as a gloss, which was early incorporated into the text. Some change the reading of the verse; either of the nomen proprium, by substituting the name of Saturninus or Quintilius, according to the example of Tertullian, who ascribed the census to the former; or of the other words, by various additions and modifications. Paulus's alteration is the most simple. He reads, au)th instead of au(th, and concludes, from the reasons stated above, that Augustus actually gave orders for a census during the reign of Herod I, and that the order was so far carried out as to occasion the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem; but that Augustus being afterwards conciliated, the measure was abandoned, and was only carried into effect a considerable time later, by Quirinus. Trifling as this alteration, which leaves the letters unchanged, may appear, in order to render it, admissible it must be supported by the context. The reverse, however, is the fact. For if one sentence narrates a command issued by a prince, and the very next sentence its execution, it is not probable that a space of ten years intervened. But chiefly, according to this view the Evangelist speaks, verse 1, of the decree of the emperor; verse 2, of the census made ten years later; but verse 3, without any remark, again of a journey performed at the ^{P.148} time the command was issued; which, in a rational narrative, is impossible.

Opposed to such arbitrary conjectures, and always to be ranked above them, are the attempts to solve a difficulty by legitimate methods of interpretation. Truly, however, to take prwth in this connection for protera, and h(gemoneuontoj K. not for a genitive absolute, but for a genitive governed by a comparative, and thus to understand an enrolment before that of Quirinus, is to do violence to grammatical construction; and to insert pro thj after prwth is no less uncritical. As little is it to be admitted that some preliminary measure, in which Quirinus was not employed, perhaps the already mentioned oath of allegiance, took place during the lifetime of Herod, in reference to the census subsequently made by Quirinus; and that this preliminary step and the census were afterwards comprised under the same name. In order in some degree to account for this appellation, Quirinus is said to have been sent into Judea, in Herod's time, as an extraordinary tax-commissioner; but this interpretation of the word h(gemoneuontoj is rendered impossible by the addition of the word Suriaj, in combination with which the expression can denote only the province of Syria.

Thus at the time at which Jesus, according to Matthew and Luke, was born, the census of which Luke ii. 1 f. speaks could not have taken place; so that if the former statements are correct, the latter must be false. But may not the reverse be the fact, and Jesus have been born after the banishment of Archelaus, and at the time of the census of Quirinus? Apart from the difficulties in which this hypothesis would involve us in relation to the chronology of the future life of Jesus, a Roman census, subsequent to the banishment of Archelaus, would not have taken the parents of Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea. For Judea only, and what otherwise belonged to the portion of Archelaus, became a Roman province and subjected to the census. In Galilee Herod Antipas continued to reign as an allied prince, and none of his subjects dwelling at Nazareth could have been called to Bethlehem by the census. The Evangelist therefore, in order to get a census, must have conceived the condition of things such as they were after the deposition of Archelaus; but in order to get a census extending to Galilee, he must have imagined the kingdom to have continued undivided, as in the time of Herod the Great. Thus he deals in manifest contradictions; or rather he has an exceedingly sorry acquaintance with the political relations of that, period; for he extends the census not only to the whole of Palestine, but also, (which we must not forget,) to the whole Roman world.

Still these chronological incongruities do not exhaust the difficulties which beset this statement of Luke. His representation of the manner in which the census was made is subject to objection. ^{P.149} In the first place it is said, the taxing took Joseph to Bethlehem, Because he was of the house and lineage of David, and likewise every one had to go to his own city, i.e. according to the context, to the place from which his family had originally sprung. Now, that every individual should be registered in his own city was required in all Jewish inscriptions, because among the Jews the organization of families and tribes constituted the very basis of the state. The Romans, on the contrary, were in the habit of taking the census at the residences, and at the principal cities in the district. They conformed to the usages of the conquered countries only in so far as they did not interfere with their own objects. In the present instance it would have been directly contrary to their design, had they removed individuals, Joseph for example, to a great distance, where the amount of their property was not known, and their statement concerning it could not be checked. The view of Schleiermacher is the more admissible, that the real occasion which took the parents to Bethlehem was a sacerdotal inscription, which the Evangelist confounded with the better known census of Quirinus. But this concession does not obviate the contradiction in this dubious statement of Luke. He allows Mary to be inscribed with Joseph, but according to Jewish customs inscriptions had relation to men only. Thus, at all events, it is an inaccuracy to represent Mary as undertaking the journey, in order to be inscribed with her betrothed in his own city. Or, if with Paulus we remove this inaccuracy by a forced construction of the sentence, we can no longer perceive what inducement, could have instigated Mary, in her particular situation, to make so long a journey, since, unless we adopt the airy hypothesis of Olshausen and others, that Mary was the heiress of property in Bethlehem, she had nothing to do there.

The Evangelist, however, knew perfectly well what she had to do there; namely, to fulfil the prophecy of Micali (v. 1), by giving birth, in the city of David, to the Messiah. Now as he set out with the supposition that the habitual abode of the parents of Jesus was Nazareth, so he sought after a lever which should set them in motion towards Bethlehem, at the time of the birth of Jesus, far and wide nothing presented itself but the celebrated census; he seized it the more unhesitatingly because the obscurity of his own view of the historical relations of that time, veiled from him the many difficulties connected with such a combination. If this be the true history of the statement in Luke, we must agree with K. L.Schmidt when he says, that to attempt to reconcile the statement of Luke concerning the census with chronology, would be to do the narrator too much honour; he wished to place Mary in Bethlehem, and therefore times and circumstances were to accommodate themselves to his pleasure. ^{P.150}

Thus we have here neither a fixed point for the date of the birth of Jesus, nor an explanation of the occasion which led to his being born precisely at Bethlehem. If then, it may justly he said, no other reason why Jesus should have been born at Bethlehem can be adduced than that given by Luke, we have absolutely no guarantee that Bethlehem was his birth-place.

The basis of the narrative, the arrival of Joseph and Mary as strangers in Bethlehem on account of the census, being once chosen by Luke, the further details are consistently built upon it. In consequence of the influx of strangers brought to Bethlehem by the census, there is no room for the travellers in the inn, and they are compelled to put up with the accommodation of a stable where Mary is forthwith delivered of her first-born. But the child, who upon earth comes into being in so humble an abode, is highly regarded in heaven. A celestial messenger announces the birth of the Messiah, to shepherds who are guarding their flocks in the fields by night, and directs them to the child in the manger. A choir of the heavenly host singing hymns of praise next appears to them, after which they seek and find the child. (Luke ii. 6-20.)

The apocryphal Gospels and the traditions of the Fathers still further embellished the birth of Jesus. According to the Protevangelium Jacobi Joseph conducts Mary on an ass to Bethlehem to be taxed. As they approach the city she begins to make now mournful, now joyous gestures, and upon inquiry explains that, (as once in Rebecca's womb the two hostile nations struggled, Gen. xxv.), she sees two people before her, the one weeping, the other laughing: i.e. according to one explanation, the two portions of Israel, to one of whom the advent of Jesus was set (Luke ii. 34) for the fall, to the other for the rising again. According to another interpretation, the two people were the Jews who should reject Jesus, and the heathens who should accept him. Soon, however, while still without the city, as appears from the context and the reading of several MSS, Mary is seized with the pains of child-bearing, and Joseph brings her into a cave situated by the road side, where veiled by a cloud of light, all nature pausing in celebration of the event, she brings her child into the world, and after her delivery is found, by women called to her assistance, still a virgin. The legend of the birth of Jesus in a cave was known to Justin and to Origen, who, in order to reconcile it with the account in Luke that he was laid in a manger, suppose a manger situated within the cave. Many modern commentators agree with them;' while others prefer to consider the cave itself as fatnh, in the sense of foddering-stall. For the birth of Jesus in a cave, Justin appeals to the prophecy in Isaiah xxviii. 16: "He shall dwell in the highest cave of a strong rock" - ou(toj (the righteous) oi)khsei e)n u(yhlw sphlaiw petraj i)sxuraj. In like manner, for the statement that on the third day the child Jesus, when brought from the cave into the stable, was worshipped by the oxen and the asses, the Historia de Nativitate Mariae. etc. refers to Isaiah i. 3: "The ox knows its owner and the ass its master's cradle. In several apocryphas, between the Magi and the women who assist at the birth, the shepherds are forgotten; but they are mentioned in the Evangelium Infantiae Arabicum where it says that when they arrived at the cave, and had kindled a fire of rejoicing, the heavenly host appeared to them.

If we take the circumstances attending the birth of Jesus, narrated by Luke, in a supernaturalistic sense, many difficulties occur. First, it may reasonably be asked, to what end the angelic apparition? The most obvious answer is, to make known the birth of Jesus; but so little did it make it known that, in the neighbouring city of Jerusalem, it is the Magi who give the first information of the new-born king of the Jews; and in the future history of Jesus, no trace of any such occurrence at his birth is to be found. Consequently, the object of that extraordinary phenomenon was not to give a wide-spreading intimation of the fact; for if so, God failed in his object. Must we then agree with Schleiermacher, that the aim was limited to an immediate operation upon the shepherds?

Then we must also suppose with him, that the shepherds, equally with Simeon, were filled with Messianic expectations, and that God designed by this apparition to reward and confirm their pious belief.

This narrative however says nothing of this heavenly frame of mind, neither does it mention any abiding effects produced upon these men.

According to the whole tenor of the representation, the apparition seems to have had reference, not to the shepherds, but exclusively to the glorification and the proclaiming of the birth of Jesus, as the Messiah. But as before observed, the latter aim was not accomplished, and the former, by itself, like every mere empty display, is an object unworthy of God. So that this circumstance in itself presents no inconsiderable obstacle to the supernaturalistic conception of the story. If, to the above considerations, we add those already stated which oppose the belief in apparitions and the existence of angels in general, it is easy to understand that with respect to this narrative also refuge has been sought in a natural explanation.

This results of the first attempts at a natural explanation were certainly sufficiently rude. Thus Eck regarded the angel as a messenger from Bethlehem, who carried a light which caught the eye of the shepherds, and the song of the heavenly host as the merry tones of a party accompanying the messenger. Paulus has woven together ^{P.152} a more refined and matter of fact explanation. Mary, who had met with a hospitable reception in a herdsman's family, and who was naturally elated with the hope of giving birth to the Messiah, told her expectations to the members of this family; to whom as inhabitants of the city of David the communication could not have been indifferent. These shepherds therefore on perceiving while in the fields by night, a luminous appearance in the air, a phenomenon which travellers say is not uncommon in those regions, they interpret it as a divine intimation that the stranger in their foddering-stall is delivered of the Messiah: and as the meteoric light extends and moves to and fro, they take it for a choir of angels chanting hymns of praise. Returning home they find their anticipations confirmed by the event, and that which at first they merely conjectured to be the sense and interpretation of the phenomenon, they now, after the manner of the East, represent as words actually spoken.

This explanation rests altogether on the assumption, that the shepherds were previously acquainted with Mary's expectation that she should give birth to the Messiah. How otherwise should they have been led to consider the sign as referring particularly to the birth of the Messiah in their manger? Yet this very assumption is the most direct contradiction of the gospel account. For, in the first place, the Evangelist evidently does not suppose the manger to belong to the shepherds: since after he has narrated the delivery of Mary in the manger, he then goes on to speak of the shepherds as a new and distinct, subject, not at all connected with the manger.

His words are: "and there were in, the same country shepherds." If this explanation were correct he would, at all events, have said, "the shepherds" etc.; besides he would not have been wholly silent, respecting the comings and goings of these shepherds during the day, and their departure to guard the flock at the approach of night. But, grant these presupposed circumstances, is it consistent in Paulus to represent Mary, at first so reserved concerning her pregnancy as to conceal it even from Joseph, and then so communicative that, just arrived among strangers, she parades the whole history of her expectations? Again the sequel of the narrative contradicts the assumption that the shepherds were informed of the matter by Mary herself, before her delivery. For, according to the gospel history, the shepherds receive the first intelligence of the birth of the Saviour au-i'ip from the angel who appears to them, and who tells them, as a sign of the truth of his communication, that they shall find the babe lying in a manger. Had they already heard from Mary of the approaching birth of the Messiah, the meteoric appearance would have been a confirmation to them of Mary's words, and not the finding of the child a proof of the truth of the apparition. Finally, may we so far confide in the investigations already made as to ^{P.153} inquire, where, if neither a miraculous announcement nor a supernatural conception actually occurred, could Mary have derived the confident anticipation that she should give birth to the Messiah?

In opposition to this natural explanation, so full of difficulties on every side, Bauer announced his adoption of the mythical view; in fact, however, he did not advance one step beyond the interpretation of the Rationalists, but actually repeated Paulus's exposition point, for point. To this mixed mythical explanation Gabler justly objected that, it, equally with the natural interpretation, multiplies improbabilities: by the adoption of the pure, dogmatic myth, every thing appears simpler; thereby, at the same time, greater harmony is introduced into the early Christian history, all the preceding narratives of which ought equally to be interpreted as pure myths. Gabler, accordingly, explained the narrative as the product of the ideas of the age, which demanded the assistance of angels at the birth of the Messiah. Now had it been known that Mary was delivered in a dwelling belonging to shepherds, it would also have been concluded that angels must have brought the tidings to these good shepherds that the Messiah was born in their manger; and the angels, who cease not praising God, must have sung a hymn of praise on the occasion. Gabler thinks it impossible, that a Jewish Christian who should have known some of the data of the birth of Jesus, could have thought of it otherwise than as here depicted.

This explanation of Gabler shows, in a remarkable manner, how difficult it is entirely to extricate oneself from the natural explanation, and to rise completely to the mythical; for while this theologian believes he treads on pure mythical ground, he still stands with one foot upon that of the natural interpretation. He selects from the account of Luke one incident as historical which, by its connection with other unhistorical statements and its conformity to the spirit of the primitive Christian legend, is proved to be merely mythical; namely, that Jesus was really born in a shepherd's dwelling. He also borrows an assumption from the natural explanation, which the mythical needs not to obtrude on the text: that the sheplierds to whom it is alleged the angels appeared, were the possessors of the manger in which Mary was delivered. The first detail, upon which the second is built, belongs to the same machinery by which Luke, with the help of the census, transported the parents of Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Now we know what is the fact respecting the census; it crumbles away inevitably before criticism, and with it the datum built entirely upon it, that Jesus was born in a manger. For had not the parents of Jesus been strangers, and had they not come to Bethlehem in company with so large a concourse of strangers as the census might have occasioned, the ^{P.154} cause which obliged Mary to accept a stable for her place of delivery would no longer have existed. But, on the other hand, the incident, that Jesus was born in a stable and saluted in the first instance by shepherds, is so completely in accordance with the spirit, of the ancient legend, that it is evident the narrative may have been derived purely from this source. Theophylact, in his time, pointed out its true character, when he says: the angels did not appear to the scribes and pharisees of Jerusalem who wore full of all malice, but to the shepherds, in the fields, on account of their simplicity and innocence, and because they by their mode of life were the successors of the patriarchs. It was in the field by the flocks that Moses was visited by a heavenly apparition (Exod. iii.1ff.); and God took David, the forefather of the Messiah, from his sheepfolds to be the shepherd of his people. Psalm Ixxviii. 70. (comp.1 Sam. xvi. 11.). The myths of the ancient world more generally ascribed divine apparitions to countrymen and shepherds; the sons of the gods, and of great men were frequently brought up among slicplicrds. In the same spirit of the ancient legend is the apocryphal invention that Jesus was born in a cave, and we are at once reminded of the cave of Jupiter and of the other gods; even though the misunderstood passage of Isaiah xxxiii. 1G. may have been the immediate occasion of this incident.ll Moreover the night, in which the scene is laid, (unless one refers here to the rabbinical representations, according to which, the deliverance by means of the Messiah, like the deliverance from Egypt, should take place by night, forms the obscure background against which the manifested glory of the Lord shinc so much the more brilliantly, which, as it is said to have glorified the birth of Moses, could not have been absent from that of the Messiah, his exalted antitype.

The mythical interpretation of this section of the gospel history has found an opponent in Schleiermacher. He thinks it improbable that this beginning of the second chapter of Luke is a continuation of the first, written by the same author; because the frequent opportunities of introducing lyrical effusions, as for example, wheu the shepherds returned glorifying and praising God, v. 20, are not, taken advantage of as in the first chapter; and here indeed we can in some measure agree with him. But when he adds that a decidedly poetical character cannot be ascribed to this narrative, since a poetical composition would oi' necessity have contained more of the lyrical, this only proves that Schleiermacher has not justly apprehended the notion of that kind of poetry of which he here treats, namely, the poetry of the myth. In a word, mythical poetry is objective: the poetical exists in the substance of ^{P.155} the narrative, and may therefore appear in the plainest form, free from all the adornments oflvrical effusions; which latter are rather only the subsequent additions of a more intelligent and artificially elaborated subjective poetry. Undoubtedly this section seems to have been preserved to us more nearly in its original legendary form, while the narratives of the first chapter in Luke bear rather the stamp of having been re-wrought by some poetical individual; but historical truth is not on that account to be sought here any more than there. Consequently the obligation which Schleiermacher further imposes upon himself, to trace out the source of this narrative in the Gospel of Luke, can only be regarded as an exercise of ingenuity. He refuses to recognize that source in Mary, though a reference to her might have been found in the observation, v. 19, she kept all these sayings in, her heart; wherein indeed he is the more right, since that observation (a fact to which Schleiermacher does not advert) is merely a phrase borrowed from the story of Jacob and his son Joseph, For as the narrative in Genesis relates of Jacob, the father of Joseph, that child of miracle, that, when the latter told his significant dreams, and his brethren envied him, his father observed the saying: so the narrative in Luke, both here and at verse 51, relates of Mary, that she, while others gave utterance aloud to their admiration at the extraordinary occurrences which happened to her child, Iwpt all these things and pondered them in her heart. But the above named theologian points out the shepherds instead of Mary as the source of our narrative, alleging that all the details are given, not from Mary's point of view, but from that of the shepherds. More truly however is the point of view that of the legend which supersedes both. If Schleiermacher finds it impossible to believe that this narrative is an air bubble conglomerated out of nothing; he must include under the word nothing the Jewish and early Christian ideas, concerning Bethlehem, as the necessary birthplace of the Messiah; concerning the condition of the shepherd, as being peculiarly favoured by communications from heaven; conccrnin"' angels, as the intermediate agents in such communications, notions, we on our side cannot possibly hold in so little estimation, but we find it easy to conceive that something similar to our narrative might have formed itself out of them. Finally, when he finds an adventitious or designed invention impossible, because the Christians of that district might easily have inquired of Mary or of the disciples concerning the truth of the matter: he speaks too nearly the language of the ancient apologists, and ^{P.156} presupposes the ubiquity of these persons, already alluded to in the Introduction, who however could not possibly have been in all places rectifying the tendency to form Christian legends, wherever it manifested itself.

The notice of the circumcision of Jesus (Luke ii. 21), evidently proceeds from a narrator who had no real advice of the fact, but who assumed as a certainty that, according to Jewish custom, the ceremony took place on the eighth day, and who was desirous of commemorating this important event in the life of an Israelite boy; in like manner as Paul (Phil. iii. 5.) records his circumcision on the eighth day. The contrast however between the fullness of detail with which this point is elaborated and coloured in the life of the Baptist, and the barrenness and brevity with which it is stated in" reference to Jesus, is striking, and may justify an agreement with the remark of Schleiermacher, that here, at least the author of the first chapter is no longer the originator. Such being the state of the case, this statement furnishes nothing for our object, which we might not already have known; only we have till now had no opportunity of observing, distinctly, that the pretended appointment of the name of Jesus before his birth likewise belongs merely to the mythical dress of the narrative. When it is said his name was called Emmanuel, Jesus was so named by the angel before he was conceived in the wornb, the importance attached to the circumstance is a clear sign, that, a dogmatic interest lies at the bottom of this feature in the narrative; which interest can be no other than that which gave rise to the statement, in the Old Testament concerning an Isaac and Ishmael, and in the New Testament concerning a John that the names of these children were, respectively, revealed to their parents prior to their birth, and on account of which interest the rabbis in particular, expected that the same thing should occur in relation to the name of the Messiah. Without doubt there were likewise other far more natural reasons which induced the parents of Jesus to give him this name - an abbreviation of Jeho-shua, a name which was very common among his countrymen; but because this name agreed in a remarkable manner with the path of life subsequently chosen by him as Messiah and it was not thought possible that this coincidence could have been accidental.

Besides it seemed more appropriate that the name of the Messiah should have been determined by divine command than by human arbitration, and consequently the appointment of the name was ascribed to the same angel who had announced, the conception of Jesus. ^{P.157}

IN the Gospel of Matthew also we have a narrative of the Messiah's entrance into the world; it differs considerably in detail from that of Luke, which we have just examined, but in the former part of the two accounts there is a general similarity (Matt. ii. 1 ff.).

The object of both narratives is to describe the solemn introduction of the Messianic infant, the heralding of his birth undertaken by heaven itself, and his first reception among men. In both, attention is called to the new-born Messiah by a celestial phenomenon; according to Luke, it is an angel clothed in brightness, according to Matthew, it is a star. As the apparitions are different, so accordingly are the recipients; the angel addresses simple shepherds; the star is discovered by eastern magi, who are able to interpret for themselves the voiceless sign. Both parties are directed to Bethlehem; the shepherds by the words of the angel, the magi by the instructions they obtain in Jerusalem; and both do homage to the infant; the poor shepherds by singing hymns of praise, the magi by costly presents from their native country. But from this point the two narratives begin to diverge widely. In Luke all proceeds happily; the shepherds return with gladness in their hearts, the child experiences no molestation, he is presented in the temple on the appointed day, thrives and grows up in tranquillity. In Matthew, on the contrary, affairs take a tragical turn. The inquiry of the wise men in Jerusalem concerning the new-born King of the Jews, is the occasion of a murderous decree on the part of Herod against the children of Bethlehem, a danger from which the infant Jesus is rescued only by a sudden flight into Egypt, from which he and his parents do not return to the Holy Land till after the death of Herod.

Thus we have here a. double proclamation of the Messianic child: we might, however, suppose that the one by the angel, in Luke, would announce the birth of the Messiah to" the immediate neighbourhood; the other, by means of the star, to distant lands. But as according to Matthew, the birth of Jesus became known at Jerusalem, which was in the immediate vicinity, by means of the star; if this representation be historical, that of Luke, according to which the shepherds were the first to spread abroad with praises to God (v. 17, 20), that which had been communicated to them as glad tidings for all people (v. 10), cannot possibly be correct. So, on the other hand, if it be true that the birth of Jesus was made known in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem as Luke states, by an angelic communication to the shepherds, Matthew must be in error when he represents the first intelligence of the event as subsequently brought to Jerusalem (which is only from two to three hours distant from Bethlehem) by the magi. But as we have recognized many indications of the unhistorical character of the announcement by the ^{P.158} shepherds given in Luke, the ground is left clear for that of Matthew, which must be judged of according to its inherent credibility.

Our narrative commences as if it were an admitted fact, that astrologers possessed the power of recognizing a star announcing the birth of the Messiah. That eastern magi should have knowledge of a King of the Jews to whom they owed religions homage might indeed excite our surprise; but contenting ourselves here with rein ark ing, that seventy years later an expectation did prevail in the east that a ruler of the world would arise from among the Jewish people, we pass on to a yet more weighty difficulty. According to this narrative it appears, that astrology is right when it asserts that the birth of great men and important revolutions in human affairs are indicated by astral phenomena; an opinion long since consigned to the region of superstition. It ig therefore to be explained, how this deceptive science could in this solitary instance prove true, though in no other case are its inferences to be relied on.

This most obvious explanation, from the orthodox point of view, is an appeal to the supernatural intervention of God; who, in this particular instance, in order to bring the distant magi to Jesus, accommodated himself to their astrological notions, and caused the anticipated star to appear. But the adoption of this expedient involves very serious consequences. For the coincidence of the remarkable sequel with the astrological prognostic could not fail to strengthen the belief, not only of the magi and their fellow-countrymen, but also of the Jews and Christians who were acquainted with the circumstances, in the spurious science of astrology, thereby creating incalculable error and mischief. 1f therefore it be 'inadvisable to admit an extraordinary divine intervention, and if the position that in the ordinary course of nature, important occurrences on this earth are attended by changes in the heavenly bodies, be abandoned, the only remaining explanation lies in the supposition of an accidental coincidence. But to appeal to chance is in fact either to say nothing, or to renounce the supernaturalistic point of view.

But the orthodox view of this account not only sanctions the false science of astrology, but also confirms the false interpretation of a passage in the prophets. For as the magi, following their star, proceed in the rig-lit direction, so the chief priests and scribes of Jerusalem whom Herod, on learning the arrival and object of the magi, summons before him and questions concerning the birth-place of the King of the Jews, interpret the passage in Micah v. 1. as signifying that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem; and to this signification the event corresponds. Now such an application of the above ^{P.159} passage can only be made by forcing the words from their true meaning and from all relation with the context, according to the well-known practice of the rabbis. For independently of the question whether or not under the word '3'ia in the passage cited, the Messiah be intended, the entire context shows the meaning to be, not that the expected governor who was to come forth out of Bethlehem would actually be born in that city, but only that he would be a descendant of David, whose family sprang from Bethlehem.

THus allowing the magi to have been rightly directed by means of the rabbinical exegesis of the oracle, a false interpretation must hayc hit on the truth, either by means of divine intervention and accommodation, or by accident. The judgment pronounced in the case of the star is applicable here also.

After receiving the above answer from the Sanhedrin, Herod summons the magi before him, and his first question concerns the time at which the star appeared (v. 7.). Why did he wish to know this? The 16th verse tells us; that he might thereby calculate the age of the Messianic child, and thus ascertain up to what age it would be necessary for him to put to death the children of Bethlehem, so as not to miss the one announced by the star. But this plan of murdering all the children of Bethlehem up to a certain age, that he might destroy the one likely to prove fatal to the interests of his family, was not conceived by Herod until after the magi had disappointed his expectation that they would return to Jerusalem; a deception which, if we may )udge from his violent anger on account of it (v. 16) Herod had by no means anticipated. Prior to this, according to v. 8, it had been his intention to obtain from the magi, on their return, so close a description of the child, his dwelling and circumstances, that it would be easy for him to remove his infantine rival without sacrificing any other life. It was not until he had discovered the stratagem of the magi, that he was obliged to have recourse to the more violent measure for the execution of which it was necessary for him to know the time of the star's appearance.

How fortunate for him, then, that he had ascertained this time before he had decided on the plan that made the information important; but how inconceivable that he should make a point which was only indirectly connected with his original project, the subject of his first and most eager interrogation (v. 7.)!

Herod, in the second place, commissions the magi to acquaint. themselves accurately with all that concerns the royal infant, and to impart their knowledge to him on their return, that he also may go and tender his homage to the child, that is, according to his real meaning, take sure measures for putting him to death (v. 8.). Such ^{P.160} a proceeding on the part of an astute monarch like Herod has long been held improbable. Even if he hoped to deceive the magi, while in conference with them, by adopting this friendly mask, he must necessarily foresee that others would presently awaken them to the probability that he harboured evil designs against the child, and thus prevent them from returning according to his injunction.

He min;ht conjecture that the parents oflhe child on hearing of the ominous interest taken in him. by the king, would seek his safety by flight, and finally, that those inhabitants of Bethlehem and its environs who cherished Messianic expectations, would be not a little confirmed in them by the arrival of the magi. On all these grounds, Herod's only prudent measure would have been either to detain the magi in Jerusalem, and in the meantime by means of secret emissaries to dispatch the child to whom such peculiar hopes were attached, and who must have been easy of discovery in the little village of Bethlehem: or to have given the magi companions who, so soon as the child was found, might at once have put an end to his existence. Even Olshausen thinks that these strictures are not groundless, and his best defence against them is the observation that the histories of all ages present unaccountable instances of forgetfulness, a proof that the course of human events is guided by a supreme hand. When the supernaturalist invokes the supreme hand in the case before us, he must suppose that God himself blinded Herod to the surest means of attaining his object, in order to save the Messianic child from a premature death. But the other side of this divine contrivance is, that instead of the one child, many others must die. There would be nothing to object against such a substitution in this particular case, if it could be proved that there was no other possible mode of rescuing Jesus from a fate inconsistent with the scheme of human redemption. But if it be once admitted, that God interposed snpernaturally to blind the mind of Herod and to suggest to the magi that they should not return to Jerusalem, we are constrained to ask, why did not God in the first instance inspire the magi to shun Jerusalem and proceed directly to Bethlehem, whither Herod's attention would not then have been so immediately attracted, and thus the disastrous sequel perhaps have been altogether avoided? The supernaturalist has no answer to this question but the old-fashioned argument that it was good for the infants to die, because they were thus freed by transient suffering from much misery, and more especially from the danger of sinning against Jesus with the unbelieving Jews; whereas now they had the honour of losing their lives for the sake of Jesus, and thus of ranking as martyrs, and so forth. ^{P.161}

The magi leave Jerusalem by night, the favourite time for travelling in the cast. The star, which they seem to have lost sight of since their departure from home, again appears and goes before them on the road to Bethlehem, until at length it remains stationary over the house that contains the wondrous child and its parents.

The way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem lies southward; now the true path of erratic stars is either from west to east, as that of the planets and of some comets, or from east to west, as that of other comets; the orbits of many comets do indeed tend from north to south, but the true motion of all these bodies is so ereativ surpassed by their apparent motion from east to west produced by the rotation of the earth on its axis, that it is imperceptible except at considerable intervals. Even the diurnal movement of the heavenly bodies, however, is less obvious on a short journey than the merely optical one, arising from the observer's own change of place, in consequence of which a star that he sees before him seems, as long as he moves forward, to pass on in the same direction through infinite space; it cannot therefore stand still over a particular house and thus induce a traveller to halt there also; on. the contrary, the traveller himself must halt before the star will appear stationary. The star of the magi could not then be an ordinary, natural star, but must have been one created by God for that particular exigency, and impressed .by him with a peculiar law of motion and rest. Again, this could not have been a true star, moving among the systems of our firmament, for such an one, however impelled and arrested, could never, according to optical laws, appear to pause over a particular house.

It must therefore have been something lower, hovering over the earth's surface: hence some of the Fathers and apocryphal writers! supposed it to have been an angel, which, doubtless, might fly before the magi in the form of a star, and take its station at a moderate lieight above the house of Mary in Bethlehem; more modem theologians have conjectured that the phenomenon was a meteor. Both these explanations are opposed to the text of Matthew: the former, because it is out of keeping with the style of our Gospels to designate any thing purely' supernatural, such as an anp-clic appearance, by an expression that implies a merely iiatural object, as darflp (a star); the latter, because a mere meteor would not last for so long a time as must have elapsed between the departure of the magi from their remote home and their arrival in Bethlehem. Perhaps, however, it will be contended that God created one meteor for the first monition, and another for the second.

Many, even of the orthodox expositors, have found these difficulties in relation to the star so pressing, that they have striven to escape at any cost from the admission that, it preceded the magi in their way towards Bethlehem, and took its station directly over a ^{P.162} particular house. According to Suskind, whose explanation has been much approved, the verb "went before" (v. 9) which is in the imperfect tense, does not signify that the star visibly led the magi on their way, but is equivalent to the pluperfect, which would imply that the star had been invisibly transferred to the destination of the magi before their arrival, so that the Evangelist intends to say: the star which the magi had seen in the east and subsequently lost sight of, suddenly made its appearance to them in Bethlehem above the house they were seeking; it had therefore preceded them. But this is a transplantation of rationalist artifice into the soil of orthodox exegesis. Not only the word prohgen, but the less flexible expressions "till it came," denotes that the transit of the star was not an already completed phenomenon, but one brought to pass under the observation of the magi. Expositors who persist in denying this must, to be consistent, go still further, and reduce the entire narrative to the standard of merely natural events. So when Olshausen admits that the position of a star could not possibly indicate a single house, that hence the magi must have inquired for the infant's dwelling, and only with child-like simplicity referred the issue as well as the beginning of their journey to a, heavenly guide: he deserts his own point of view for that of the rationalist?, and interlines the text with explanatory particulars, an expedient which he elsewhere justly condemns in Paulus and others.

The magi then enter the house, offer their adoration to the infant, and present to him gifts, the productions of their native country.

One might wonder that there is no notice of the astonishment which it must have excited in these men to find, instead of the expected prince, a child in quite ordinary, perhaps indigent circumstances.

It is not fair, however, to heighten the contrast by supposing, accordin"' to the common notion, that the magi discovered the child in a stable lying in the manger; for this representation is peculiar to Luke, and is altogether unknown to Matthew, who merely speaks of a "house" in which the child was found. Then follows (v. 10.) the warning given to the magi in a dream, concerning which, as before remarked, it were only to he wished that it had been vouchsafed earlier, so as to avert the steps of the magi from Jerusalem, and thus perchance prevent the whole subsequent massacre.

While Herod awaits the return of the magi, Joseph is admonished by an angelic apparition in a dream to rice with the Messianic child and its mother into Egypt for security (v. 13-15.).

Adopting the evangelist's point of view, this is not attended with any difiiculty: it is otherwise, however, with the prophecy which the above event is said to fulfil, Hosea, xi. 1. In this passage the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, says: When Israel was a child, then. I loved him, and called His son out of Egypt.

We may venture to attribute, even to the most orthodox expositor, ^{P.163} enough clear-sightedness to perceive that the subject of the first half of the sentence is also the object of the second, namely the poepic of Israel, who here, as elsewhere, (e. g. Exod. iv. 22. Sirach xxxvi, 14.) are collectively called the Son of God, and whose past deliverance under Moses out of their Egyptian bondage is the fact referred to: that consequently, the prophet was not contemplating either the Messiah or his sojourn in Egypt. Nevertheless as our evangelist says, v. 15. that the flight of Jesus into Egypt took place expressly that the above words of Hosea, might be fulnlted, he must have understood them as a prophecy relating to Christ, must therefore have misunderstood them. It has been pretended that the passage has a twofold application, and, though referring primarily to the Israelite people, is not the less a prophecy relative to Christ, because the destiny of Israel "after the flesh" was a type of the destiny of Jesus. But this convenient method of interpretation is not applicable here, for the analogy would, in the present case, he altogether external and inane, since the only parallel consists in the bare fact in both instances of a sojourn in Egypt, the circumstances under which the Israel ite people and the child Jesus sojourned there being altogether diverse.

When the return of the magi has been delayed long enough for Herod to become aware that they have no intention to keep faith with him, he decrees the death of all the male children in Bethlehem and its environs up to the age of two years, that being, according to the statements of the magi as to the tune of the star's appearance, the utmost interval that could have elapsed since the birth of the Messianic child. (16-18.) Tin's was, beyond all question, an act of the blindest fury, for Herod might easily have informed himself whether a child who had received rare and costly presents was yet to be found in Bethlehem: but even granting it not inconsistent with the disposition of the aged tvrant to the extent that Schleiermacher supposed, it were in any case to be expected that so unprecedented and revolting a massacre would be noticed by other historians than Matthew, But neither Josephus, who is very minute in his account of Herod, nor the rabbis, who were assiduous in blackening his memory, give the silghte.st hint of this decree. The latter do, indeed, connect, the flight of Jesus into Egypt with a murderous scene, the author of which, however, is not Herod but King Jannaeus, and the victims not children, but rabbis. Their story is evidently founded on a confusion of the occurrence gathered from the Christian history, with an earlier event; for Alexander Jannseus died 40 years before the birth of Christ. Macrobius, who lived in the fourth century, is the only author who notices the slaughter of the infants, and he introduces it obliquely in a passage which loses all credit by confounding the execution of Antipater, who was so far ^{P.164} from a child that he complained of his grey hairs, with the murder of the infants, renowned among the Christians. Commentators have attempted to diminish our surprise at, the remarkable silence in question, by reminding us that the number of children of the given age in the petty village of Bethlehem, must have been small, and by remarking that among the numerous deeds of cruelty by which the life of Herod was stained, this one would be lost sight of as a drop in the ocean. But in these observations the specific atrocity of murdering innocent children, however few, is overlooked; and it is this that must have prevented the deed, if really perpetrated, from being forgotten.Here also the evangelist cites (v. 17, 18) a prophetic passage (Jerem. xxxi. 15), as having been fulfilled by the murder of the infants; whereas it originally referred to something quite different, namely the transportation of the Jews to Babylon, and had no kind of reference to an event lying in remote futurity.

While Jesus and his parents are in Egypt, Herod the Great dies, and Joseph is instructed by an angel, who appears to him in a dream, to return to his native country; but as Archelaus, Herod's successor in Judasa, was to be feared, he has more precise directions in a second oracular dream, in obedience to which he fixes his abode at Nazareth in Galilee, under the milder government of Herod Antipas. (19-23.) Thus in the compass of this single chapter, we have five extraordinary interpositions of God; an anomalous star, and four visions. For the star and the first vision, we have already remarked, one miracle might have been substituted, not only without detriment, but with advantage; either the star or the vision might from the beginning have deterred the magi from going to Jerusalem, and by this means perhaps have averted the massacre ordained by Herod. But that the two last visions are not united in one is a mere superfluity; for the direction to Joseph to proceed to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, which is made the object of a special vision, might just as well have been included in the first. Such a disregard, even to prodigality, of the lex parsimonies in relation to the miraculous, one is tempted to refer to human imagination rather than to divine providence.

The false interpretations of Old Testament passages in this chapter are crowned by the last verse, where it is said that by the settlement of the parents of Jesus at Nazareth was fulfilled the saying of the prophets: he shall be called a Jfazarene. Now this passage is not to be found in the Old Testament, and unless expositors, losing courage, take refuge in darkness by supposing that it is extracted from a canonical or apocryphal'( book now lost, they must ^{P.165} admit the conditional validity of one or other of the following charges against the evangelist.. If, as it has been alleged, he intended to compress the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah would be despised, into the oracular sentence, He shall be called a Nazarene, i.e. the citizen of a despised city, we must accuse him of the most arbitrary mode of expression; or, if he be supposed to give a modification of "nasir" we must tax him with the moat violent, transformation of the word and the grossest perversion of its meaning, for even if, contrary to the fact, this epithet were applied to the Messiah in the Old Testament, it could only mean either that he would be a Nazirite, which Jesus never was, or that he would be crowned, as Joseph Gen. xlix. 26, in no case that he would be brought up in the petty town of Nazareth. The most probable interpretation of this passage, and that which has the sanction of the Jewish Christians questioned on the subject by Jerome, is, that the evangelist here alludes to Isa. xi. 1. where the Messiah is called a Shoot of Jesse, as elsewhere. But in every case there is the same violence done to the word by attaching to a mere appellative of the Messiah, an entirely fictitious relation to the name of the city of Nazareth.

To avoid the many difficulties which beset us at every step in interpreting this chapter after .the manner of the supernaturalists, it is quite worth our while to seek for another exposition which may suffice to explain the whole according to physical and psychological laws, without any admixture of supernaturalism. Such an exposition has been the most successfully attempted by Paulus.

How could heathen magi, in a remote country of the east, know any thing of a Jewish king about to be born? this is the first difficulty, and it is removed on the above system of interpretation by supposing that the magi were expatriated Jews. But this, apparently, is not the idea of the evangelist. For the question which he puts into the mouth of the magi, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" distinguishes them from that people, and as regards the tendency of the entire narrative, the Church seems to have apprehended it more correctly than Paulus thinks, in representing the visit of the magi as the first manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles. Nevertheless, as we have above remarked, this difficulty may be cleared away without having recourse to the supposition of Paulus.

Further, according to the natural explanation, the real object of the journey of these men was not to see the new-born king, nor was its cause the star which. they had observed in the East; but they happened to be travelling to Jerusalem perhaps with mercantile views, and hearing far iind wide in the land of a new-born king, a celestial phenomenon which Pliny had recently observed occured to their remembrance, and they earnestly desired to see the child in question. By this means, it is true, the difficulty arising from the sanction given to astrology by the usual conception of the story is diminished, but only at the expense of unprejudiced interpretation.

For even if it were admissible uncerimoniously to transform magi fzayov into merchants, their purpose in this journey cannot have been a commercial one, for their first inquiry on arriving at Jerusalem is after the new-born king, and they forthwith mention a star, seen by them in the cast, as the cause not only of their question, but also of their present journey, the object of which they aver to be the presentation of their homage to the new-born child. (v. 2.)

The aster (star) becomes, on this method of interpretation, a natural meteor, or a. comet, or finally, a constellation, that is, a conjunction of planets. The last idea was put, forth by Kepler, and has been approved by several astronomers and theologians. Is it more easy, on any one of theac suppositions, to conceive that the star could precede the magi on their way, and remain stationary over a particular housc, according to the representation of the text? We have already examined the two first hypotheses; if we adopt the third, we must either suppose the verb "rising" (v. 9) to signify the disjunction of the planets, previously in apparent union, though the text does not imply a partition "but a forward movement of the entire phenomenon; or we must call Suskind's pluperfect to our aid, and imagine that the constellation, which the magi could no longer see in the valley between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, again burst on their view over the place where the child dwelt. For the expression, "ou( h)n to paidion" (v. 9), denotes merely the place of abode, not the particular dwelling of the child and his parents. this we grant; but when the evangelist proceeds thus: kai e)lqontej ei)j thn oi)kian (v. 11.) he gives to the more general expression the precise meaning of dwelling-house, so that this explanation is clearly a vain effort to abate the marvcllousneds of the Gospel narrative.

The most remarkable supposition adopted by those who regard "aster" as a conjunction of planets, is that they had hereby obtain a fixed point in accredited history, to which the narrative of Matthew may he attached. According to Kepler's calculation, there occurred, three years before the death of Herod, in the year of Rome 747, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign Places. The conjunction of these planets is repeated in the above sign, to which astrologers attribute a special relation to Palestine, about every 500 years, and according to the computation of the Jew Abarbanel it took place three years before the birth of Moses; hence it is probable enough that the hope of the second. great deliverer of the nation would be associated with the recurrence of this conjunction in the time of Herod, and that when the phenomenon was actually observed, it would occasion inquiry on the part of Babylonian Jews. But that the star mentioned by Matthew was this particular planetary conjunction, is, from our uncertainty as to the year of Christ's birth, and also as to the period of the above astrological calculation, an extremely precarious conjecture; and as, besides, there are certain particulars in the Gospel text, for instance, the words prohgen and e(sth, which do not accord with such an explanation, so soon as another, more congruous with Matthew's narrative, presents itself, we are justified in giving it the preference.

The difficulties connected with the erroneous interpretations of passages from the Old Testament are, from the natural point of view, eluded by denying that the writers of the New Testament are responsible for the falsity of these interpretations. It is said that the prophecy of Micah is applied to the Messiah and his birth in Bethlehem by the Sanhedrin alone, and that Matthew has not committed himself to their interpretation by one word of approval. But when the evangelist proceeds to narrate how the issue corresponded with the interpretation, he sanctions it by the authoritative seal of fact. In relation to the passage from Hosea, Paulus and Steudcl concur in resorting to a singular expedient. Matthew, say they, wished to guard against the offence which it might possibly give to the Jews of Palestine to learn that the Messiah had once left the Holy Land; he therefore called attention to the fact that Israel, in one sense the rirst-born of Ciod, had been called out of Egypt, for which reason, he would imply, no one ought to be astonished that the Messiah, the son of Clod in a higher sense, had also visited a profane land. But throughout the passage there is no tracef of such a negative, precautionary intention on the part of the evangelist in adducing this prophecy; on the contrary, all his quotations seem to have the positive object to confirm the Messiahship of Jesus by showing that in him the Old Testament prophecies had their fulfilment. It has been attempted with reference to the two other prophecies cited in this chapter, to reduce the signification of the verb to that of mere similitude or applicability; but the futility of the effort needs no exposure.

The various directions conveyed to the persons of our narrative by means of visions are, from the same point of view, all explained psychologically, as effects of waking inquiries and reflections. this appears, indeed, to he indicated by the text itself, v. 22, according to which Joseph, hearing that Archelaus was master of Judea, feared to go there, and not until then did he receive an intimation from a higher source in a dream. Nevertheless, on a closer examination we find that the communication given in the dream was something. new, not a mere repetition of intelligence received in waking moments. Only a negative conclusion, that on account of Archelaus it was not advisable to settle at Bethlehem, was attained by Joseph when awake; the positive injunction to proceed to Nazareth was superadded in his dream. To explain the other visions in the above way is a direct interpolation of the text, for this represents both the hostility and death of Herod as being first made known to Joseph by dreams; in like manner, the magi have no distrust of Herod until a dream warns them against his treachery.

Thus, on the one hand, the sense of the narrative in Matt. ii. is opposed to the conception of its occurrence as natural: on the other hand, this narrative, taken in its original sense, carries the supernatural into the extravagant, the improbable into the impossible.

We are therefore led to doubt the historical character of the narrative, and to conjecture that we have before us something mythical.

The first propounders of this opinion were so unsuccessful in its illustration, that they never liberated themselves from the sphere of the natural interpretation, which they sought to transcend. Arabian merchants (thinks Krug, for example) coming by chance to Bethlehem, met with the parents of Jesus, and learning that they were strangers in distress, (according to Matthew the parents of Jesus were not strangers in Bethlehem,) made them presents, uttered many good wishes for their child, and pursued their journey. When subsequently, Jesus was reputed to be the Messiah, the incident was remembered and embellished with a star, visions, and believing homage. To these were added the flight into Egypt and the infanticide; the latter, because the above incident was supposed to have had some effect on Herod, who, on other grounds than those alleged in the text, had caused some families in Bethlehem to be put to death; the former, probably because Jesus had with some unknown object, actually visited Egypt at a later period.

In this as in the purely naturalistic interpretation, there remain as so many garb, the arrival of some oriental travellers, the flight into Egypt, and the massacre in Bethlehem; divested, however, of the marvellous garb with which they are enveloped in the evangelical narrative. In this unadorned form, these occurrences are held to be intelligible and such as might very probably happen, but in point of fact they are more incomprehensible even than when viewed through the medium of orthodoxy, for with their supernatural embellishments vanishes the entire basis on which they rest. Matthew's narrative adequately accounts for the relations between the men of the east and the parents of Jesus; this attempt at mythical exposition reduces them to a wonderful chance. The massacre at Bethlehem has, in the Gospel narrative, a definite cause; here, we are at a loss to understand how Herod came to ordain such an enormity; so, the journey into Egypt which had so urgent a motive according to Matthew, is on this scheme of interpretation, totally inexplicable. It may indeed be said: these events had their adequate causes in accordance with the regular course of things, but Matthew has withheld this natural sequence and given a miraculous one in its stead. But if the writer or legend be capable of environing occurrences with fictitious motives and accessory circumstances, either the one or the other is also capable of fabricating the occurrences themselves, and this fabrication is the more probable, the more clearly we can show that the legend had an interest in depicting such occurrences, though they had never actually taken place.

This argument is equally valid against the attempt, lately made from the supernaturalistic point of view, to separate the true from the false in the Gospel narrative. In a narrative like this, says Ncander, we must carefully distinguish the kernel from the shell, the main fact from immaterial circumstances, and not demand the same degree of certitude for all its particulars. That the magi by their astrological researches were led to anticipate the birth of a Saviour in Judea, and hence journeyed to Jerusalem that they might offer him their homage, is, according to him, the only essential and certain part of the narrative. But how, when arrived in Jerusalem, did they learn that the child was to be born in Bethlehem? From Herod, or by some other means? On this point Ncander is not equally willing to guarantee the veracity of Matthew's statements, and he regards it as unessential. The magi, he continues, in so inconsiderable a place as Bethlehem, might be guided to the child's dwelling by many providential arrangements in the ordinary course of events; for example, by meeting with the shepherds or other devout persons who had participated in the great event. When however they had once entered the house, they might represent the circumstances in the astrological guise with which their minds were the most familiar. Ncander awards to historical character to the flight into Egypt'and the infanticide. By this explanation of the narrative, only its heaviest difficulty, namely, that the star preceded the magi on their way and paused above a single house, is in reality thrown overboard; the other difficulties remain. But Ncander has renounced unlimited confidence in the veracity of the evangelist, and admitted that a part of his narrative is unhistorical. If it be asked how tar this unhistorical portion extends, and what is its kindwhether the nucleus around which legend has deposited its crystallizations be historical or ideal, it is easy to show that the few and vague data which a le;s lenient criticism than that of Neander can admit as historical, are far less adapted to give birth to our narrative, than the very precise circle of ideas and types which we are about to exhibit. ^{P.170}

SEVERAL Fathers of the Church indicated the true key to the narrative concerning the magi when, in order to explain from what source those heathen astrologers could gather any knowledge of a Messianic star, they put forth the conjecture that this knowledge inight have been drawn from the prophecies of the heathen Balaam, recorded in the Book of Numbers. K. Ch. L. Sclnuidt justly considers it a deficiency in the exposition of Paulus, that it takes no notice of the Jewish expectation that a star would become visible at the appearance of the Messiah; and yet, he adds, this is the only thread to guide us to the true origin of this narrativc. The prophecy of Balaam (Num. xxlv. 17.) A star shall come out of Jacob, was the cause-not indeed, as the Fathers supposed, that magi actually recognized a newly-kindled star as that of the Messiah, and hence journeyed to Jerusalem, but, that legend represented a star to have appeared at the birth of Jesus, and to have been recognized by astrologers as the star of the Messiah. The prophecy attributed to Balaam originally referred to sonic fortunate and victorious ruler of Israel; but it seems to have early received a Messianic interpretation. Even if the translation in the Targum of Onkelos, "surget rex ex Jacobo et Messias ungetur ex Israele," prove nothing, because here the word 'unctus', is synonymous with 'rex' and might signify an ordinary king, it is yet worthy of notice that, according to the testimony of Aben Ezra; and the passages cited by Wetstein and Schocttgen, many rabbis applied the prophecy to the Messiah. The name Bar-Cochba, assumed by a noted pseudo-Messiah under Hadrian, was chosen with reference to the Messianic interpretation of Balaam's prophecy.

It is true that the passage in question, taken in its original sense, does not speak of a real star, but merely compares to a star the future prince of Israel, and this is the interpretation given to it in the Targum above quoted. But the growing belief in astrology, according to which every important event was signalized by sidereal changes, soon caused the prophecy of Balaam to be understood no longer figuratively, but literally, as referring to a star which was to appear contemporaneously with the Messiah. We have various proofs that a belief in astrology was prevalent in the time of Jesus. The future greatness of Mithridates was thought to bo prognosticated by the appearance of a comet in the year of his birth, and in that of his accession to the throne; and a comet observed shortly alter the death of Julius Csrsar, was supposed to have a. close relation to that event. These ideas were not without influence on the Jews; at ^{P.171} least we find traces of them in Jewish writings of a later period, in which it is said that a remarkable star appeared at the birth of Abraham. When such ideas were afloat, it was easy to imagine that the birth of the Messiah must be announced by a star, especially as, according to the common interpretation of Balaam's prophecy, a star was there made the symbol of the Messiah. It is certain that the Jewish mind effected this combination; for it is a rabbinical idea that at the time of the Messiah's birth, a star will appear in the east and remain for a long time visible. The narrative of Matthew is sillied to this simpler Jewish idea; the apocryphal descriptions of the star that announced the birth of Jesus, to the extravagant fictions about the star said to have appeared in the time of Abraham. We may therefore state the opinion of K. Ch. L. Schmidt, recently approved by Fritzsche and De Wette, as the nearest approach to truth on the subject of Matthew's star in the cast. In the time of Jesus it was the general belief that stars were always the forerunners of great events; hence the Jews of that period thought that the birth of the Messiah would necessarily be announced by a star, and this supposition had a specific sanction in Num. xxiv. 17. The early converted Jewish Christians could confirm their faith in Jesus, and justify it in the eyes of others, only by labouring to prove that in him were realized all the attributes lent to the Messiah by the Jewish notions of their age-a proposition that might be urged the more inoffensively and with the less chance of refutation, the more remote lay the age of Jesus, and the more completely the story of his childhood was shrouded in darkness. Hence it soon ceased to be matter of doubt that the anticipated appearance of a star was really coincident with the birth of Jesus. this being once presupposed, it followed as a matter of course that the observers of this appearance were eastern magi; first, because none could better interpret the sign than astrologers, and the cast was supposed to be the native region of their science; and secondly, because it must have seemed fitting that the Messianic star which had been seen by the spiritual eye of the ancient magus Balaam, should, on its actual appearance be first recognized by the bodily eyes of later magi.

This particular, however, as well as the journey of the magi into Judea, and their costly presents to the child, bear a relation to other passages in the Old Testament. In the description of the happier future, given in Isaiah, chap. lx, the prophet foretels that, at that time, the most remote people and kings will come to Jerusalem to worship Jeliovah, with offerings of gold and incense and all acceptable gifts. If in this passage the Messianic times alone are spoken of, while the Messiah himself is wanting, in Psalm Ixxii. we read of a king who is to be feared as long as the sun and moon endure, in whose times the righteous shall nourish, and whom all nations shall call blessed; this king might, easily be regarded as the Messiah, and the Psalm says of him nearly in the words of Isai. lx, that foreign kings shall bring him gold and other presents. To this it may be added, that the pilgrimage of foreign people to Jerusalem is connected with a risen lia'ht,+ which mio'ht suggest the star of Balaam. What was more natural, when on the one hand was presented Balaam's Messianic star out of Jacob, (for the observation of which magian astrologers were the best adapted,) on the other, a light which was to arise on Jerusalem, and to which distant nations would come, bringing gifts, than to combine the two images and to say: In conse.quen.cc of the star which had risen over Jerusalem, astrologers came from a distant land with presents for the Messiah whom the star announced? But when the imagination once had possession of the star, and of travellers attracted by it from a distance, there was an inducement to make the star the immediate guide of their course, and the torch to light them on their way. This was a favourite idea of antiquity: according to Virgil, a star marked out the way of Aeneas from the shores of Troy to the west; Thrasybulus and Timoleon were led by celestial fires; and a star was said to have guided Abraham on his way to Moriah. Besides, in the prophetic passage itself, the heavenly light seems to be associated with the pilgrimage of the offerers as the guide of their course; at all events the originally figurative language of the prophet would probably, at a latter period, be understood literally, in accordance with the rabbinical spirit of interpretation. The magi are not conducted by the star directly to Bethlehem where Jesus was; they first proceed to Jerusalem.

One reason for this might be, that the prophetic passage connects the risen light and the offerers with Jerusalem; but the chief reason lies in the fact, that in Jerusalem Herod was to be found; for ^{P.173} what was better adapted to instigate Herod to his murderous decree, than the alarming tidings of the magi, that they had seen the star of the great Jewish king?

To represent a murderous decree as having been directed by Herod against Jesus, was the interest of the primitive Christian legend. In all times legend has glorified the infancy of great men by persecutions and attempts on their life; the greater the danger that hovered over them, the higher seems their value; the more unexpectedly their deliverance is wrought, the more evident is the esteem in which they are held by heaven. Hence in the story of the childhood of Cyrus in Herodotus, of Romulus in Livy, and even later of Augustus in Suetonius, we find this trait; neither has the Hebrew legend neglected to assign such a distinction to Moses. One point of analogy between the narrative in Exod. i. ii, and that in Matthew, is that in both cases the murderous decree does not refer specially to the one dangerous child, but generally to a certain class of children; in the former, to all new-born males, in the latter to all of and under the age of two years. It is true that, according to the narrative in .Exodus, the murderous decree is determined on without any reference to Moses, of whose 'birth Pharaoh is not supposed to have 'had any presentiment, and who is therefore only by accident implicated in its consequences.

But this representation did not sufficiently mark out Moses as the object of hostile design to satisfy the spirit of Hebrew tradition, and by the time of Josephus it had been so modified as to resemble more nearly the legends concerning Cyrus and Augustus, and above all the narrative of Matthew. According to the later legend, Pharaoh was incited to issue his murderous decree by a communication from his interpreters of the sacred writings, who announced to hiin the birth of an infant destined to succour the Israelites and humble the Egyptians. The interpreters of the sacred writings here play the same part as the interpreters of dreams in Herodotus, and the astrologers in Matthew. Legend was not content with thus signalizing the infancy of the lawgiver alone-it soon extended the same distinction to the great progenitor of the Israelite nation, Abraham, whom it represented as being in peril of his life from the murderous attempt of a. jealous tyrant, immediately after his birth.

Moses was opposed to Pharaoh as an enemy and oppressor; Abraham held the same position with respect to Nimrod. This monarch was forewarned by his sages, whose attention had been exited by a remarkable star, that Sarah would have a son from whom a powerful nation would descend. Apprehensive of rivalry, Nimrod immediately issues a murderous command, which, however, Abraham happily escapes. What wonder, then, that, as the great progenitor and the lawgiver of the nation had their Nimrod and Pharaoh, a corresponding persecutor was found for the restorer of the nation, the Messiah, in the person of Herod that this tyrant was said to have been apprised of the Messiah's birth by wise men, and to have laid snares against his life, from which, howevcr, he happily escapes? The apocryphal legend, indeed, has introduced an imitation of this trait after its own style, into the story of the Fore-runner; he, too, is endangered by Herod's decree, a mountain is miraculously cleft asunder to receive him and his mother, but his father, refusing to point out the boy's hidingplace, is put to death.

Jesus escapes from the hostile attempts of Herod by other means than those by which Moses, according to the mosaic history, and Abraham, according to the Jewish legend, chide the decree issued against them; namely, by a flight out of his native land, into Egypt.

In the life. of Moses also there occurs a night into a foreign land; not, however, during his childhood, but after he had slain the Egyptian, whe.n, fearing the vengeance of Pharaoh, he takes refuge in Midian (Exod. il. 15.). That reference was made to this night of the first God in that of the second, our text expressly shows, for the words, which it attributes to the angel, who encourages Joseph to return out of Egypt into Palestine, are those by which Moses is induced to return out of Midian into Egypt The choice of Egypt as a place of refuge for Jesus, may be explained in the simplest manner: the young Messiah could not, like Moses, come from Egypt; however, that his history might not be destitute of so significant a feature as a connection with Egypt, that ancient retreat of the patriarchs, the relation was reversed, and he was made to flee into Egypt, which, besides, from its vicinity, was the most appropriate asylum for a fugitive from Judea. The prophetic passage which the evangelist cites from Hosea xi. 1. "Out of .Egypt have I called my son" is less available for the clucid'.ition of this particular in our narrative.

Against this mythical derivation of the narrative, two objections have been recently urged. First, if the story of the star originated in Balaam's prophecy, why, it is asked, does not Matthew, fond as he is of showing the fulfilment of Old Testament predictions in the life of Jesus, make, the slightest allusion to that prophecy? Because it was not he who -wove this history out of the materials furnished in the Old Testament; he received it, already fashioned, from others, who did not communicate to him its real origin. For the very reason that many narratives were transmitted to him without their appropriate keys, he sometimes tries false ones; as in our narrative, in relation to the Bethlehem massacre, he quotes, under a total misconception of the passage, Jeremiah's image of Rachel weeping for her children, The other objection is this: how could the communities of Jewish Christians, from which this pretended myth must have sprung, ascribe so high an importance to the heathen as is implied in the star of the magi?

As if the prophets had not, in such passages as we have, quoted, already ascribed to them this importance, which, in fact, consists but in their rendering homage and submission to the Messiah, a relation that must be allowed to correspond with the ideas of the Jewish Christians, not to speak of the particular conditions on which the heathen were to be admitted into the kingdom of the Messiah.

We must therefore abide by the mythical interpretation of our narrative, and content ourselves with gathering from it no particular fact in the life of Jesus, but only a new proof how strong was the impression of his Messiahship left by Jesus on the minds of his contemporaries, since even the story of his childhood received a Messianic form.

Let us now revert to the narrative of Luke, chap. ii, so far as it runs parallel with that of Matthew. We have seen that the narrative of Matthew does not allow us to presuppose that of Luke as a series of prior incidents: still less can the converse be true, namely, that the magi arrived before the shepherds: it remains then to be asked, whether the two narratives do not aim to represent the same fact, though they have given it a different garb? From the older orthodox opinion that the star in Matthew was an angel, it was an easy step to identify that apparition with the angel in Luke, and to suppose that the angels, who appeared to the shepherds of Bethlehem on the night of the birth of Jesus, were taken by the distant magi for a star vertical to Judea, so that. both the accounts might be essentially correct. Of late, only one of the Evangelists ^{P.176} has been supposed, to give the true circumstances, and Luke has had the preference, Matthew's narrative being regarded as an embellished edition.

According to this opinion, the angel clothed, in heavenly brightness, in Luke, became a star in the tradition recorded by Matthew, the ideas of angels and stars being confounded in the higher Jewish theology; the shepherds were exalted, into royal magi, kings being in antiquity called the shepherds of their people. This derivation.. is too elaborate to be probable, even were it true, as it is here assumed, that Luke's narrative bears the stamp of historical credibility. As, however, we conceive that we have proved the contrary, and as, consequently, we have before us two equally unhistorical narratives, there is no reason for preferring a forced and unnatural derivation of Matthew's narrative from that of Luke, to the very simple derivation which may bo traced, through Old Testament passages and Jewish notions. These two descriptions of the introduction of Jesus into the world, are, therefore, two variations on the same theme, composed, however, quite independently of each other.

IT has been already remarked, that the narratives of Matthew and Luke above considered at first run tolerably parallel, but afterwards widely diverge; for instead of the tragical catastrophe of the massacre and flight, Luke has preserved to us the peaceful scene of the presentation of the child Jesus in the temple. Let us for the present shut our eyes to the result of the preceding inquiry-the purely mythical character of Matthew's narrative, and ask: In what chronological relation could the presentation in the temple stand, to the visit of the magi and the flight into Egypt?

Of these occurrences the only one that has a precise date is the presentation in the temple, of which it is said that it took place at the expiration of the period appointed by the law for the purification of a mother, that is, according to Levit. xii. 2-4, forty days after the birth of the child (Luke ii. 22). The time of the other incidents is not fixed with the same exactness; it is merely said that the magi came to Jerusalem, (Matt. ii. 1) how long after the birth the Evangelist does not decide. As, however, the participle connects the visit of the magi with the birth of the child, if not immediately, at least so closely that nothing of importance can be supposed to have intervened, some expositors have been led to the opinion that the visit ought to be regarded as prior to the presentation in the temple, Admitting this arrangement we ^{P.177} have to reconcile it with one of two alternatives: either the flight into Egypt also preceded the presentation in the temple; or, while the visit of the magi preceded, the flight followed that event. If we adopt the latter alternative, and thrust the presentation in the temple between the visit of the magi and the flight, we come into collision at once with the text of Matthew and the mutual relation of the facts. The evangelist connects the command to flee into Egypt with the return of the magi, by a participii'.l construction (v. 13) similar to that by which he connects the arrival of the oriental sages with the birth of Jesus; hence those, who in the one instance hold such a construction to be a reason for placing the events which it associates in close succession, must in the other instance be withheld by it from inserting a third occurrence between the visit and the flight. As regards the mutual relation of the facts, it can hardly be considered probable, that at the very point of time in which Joseph received a divine intimation, that he was no longer safe in Bethlehem from the designs of Herod he should be permitted to take a journey to Jerusalem, and thus to rush directly into the hon's mouth. At all events, the strictest precautions must have been enjoined on all who were privy to the presence of the Messianic child in Jerusalem, lest a rumour of the fact should get abroad. But there is no trace of this solicitous incognito in Luke's narrative; on the contrary, not only does Simeon call attention to Jesus in the temple, unchecked either by the Holy Spirit or by the parents, but Anna also thinks she is serving the good cause, by publishing as widely as possible the tiding's of the Messiah's birth (Luke ii,28ff.38). It is true that she is said to have confined her communications to those who were like-minded with herself (e)lalei peri au)tou pasin toij prosdexomenoij lutrwsin I(erousalhm), but this could not hinder them from reaching the ears of the Herodian party, for the greater the excitement produced by such news on the minds of those who looked for redemption, the more would the vigilance of the government be aroused, so that Jesus would inevitably fall into the hands of the tyrant who was lying in wait.

Thus in any case, they who place the presentation in the temple after the visit of the magi, must also determine to postpone it until after the return from Egypt. But even this arrangement clashes with the Gospel statement; for it requires us to insert, between the birth of Jesus and his presentation in the temple, the following events: the arrival of the magi, the flight into Egypt, the Bethlehem massacre, the death of Herod, and the return of the parents of Jesus out of Egypt obviously too much to be included in the space of forty days. It must therefore be supposed, that the presentation of the child, and the first appearance of the mother in the temple, were procrastinated beyond the time appointed by the law. This expedient, however, runs counter to the narrative of Luke, who expressly says, that the visit to the temple took place at the legal time.

Thus the dilemma above stated remains, and were we compelled to choose under it, we should, in the present stage of our inquiry, on no account decide in favour of Matthew's narrative, and against that of Luke; on the contrary, as we have recognized the mythical character of the former, we should have no resource but to adhere, with our modern critics, to the narrative of Luke, and surrender that of Matthew. But is not Luke's narrative of the same nature as that of Matthew, and instead of having to choose between the ^{P.180} two, must we not deny to both an historical character? The answer to this question will be found in the succeeding examination.

The narrative of the presentation of Jesus in the temple (Luke ii. 22 seems, at the first glance, to bear a thoroughly historical stamp. A double law, on the one hand prescribing to the mother an offering of purification, on the other, requiring the redemption of the first-born son, leads the parents of Jesus to Jerusalem and to the temple. Here they meet with a devout man, absorbed in the expectation of the Messiah, named Simeon. Many expositors hold this Simeon to be the same with the Rabbi Simeon, the son of Hillel, his successor as president of the Sanhedrin, and the father of Oamaliel; some even identify him with the Sameas of Josephus, and attach importance to his pretended descent from David, because this descent makes him a relative of Jesus, and helps to explain the following scene naturally; but this hypothesis is improbable, for Luke would hardly have introduced so celebrated a personage by the meagre designation, a)nqrwpoj tij (a certain man.) Without this hypothesis, however, the scene between the parents of Jesus and Simeon, as also the part played by Anna the prophetess, seems to admit of a very natural explanation. There is no necessity for supposing, with the author of the Natural History, that Simeon was previously aware of the hope cherished by Mary that she was about to give birth to the Messiah; we need only, with Paulus and others, conceive the facts in the following manner. Animated, like many of that period, with the hope of the speedy advent of the Messiah, Situen receives, probably in a dream, the assurance that before his death he will be permitted to see the expected deliverer of his nation. One day, in obedience to an irresistible impulse, he visited the temple, and on this very day Mary brought there her child, whose beauty at once attracted his notice; on learning the child's descent from David, the attention and interest of Simeon were excited to a degree that induced Mary to disclose to him the hopes which were reposed on this scion of ancient royalty, with the extraordinary occurrences by which they had been called into existence.

These hopes Simeon embraced with confidence, and in enthusiastic language gave utterance to his Messianic expectations and forebodings, under the conviction that they would be fulfilled in this child.

Still less do we need the supposition of the author of the Natural History with respect to Anna, namely, that she was one of the women who assisted at the birth of the infant Jesus, and was thus acquainted beforehand with the marvels and the hopes that had clustered round his cradle she had heard the words of Simeon, ^{P.181} and being animated by the same sentiments, she gave them her approval. .

Simple as this explanation appears, it is not less arbitrary than we have already found other specimens of natural interpretation. The evangelist nowhere says, that the parents of Jesus had communicated anything concerning their extraordinary hopes to Simeon, before he poured forth his inspired words; on the contrary, the point of his entire narrative consists in the idea that the aged saint had, by virtue of the spirit with which he was filled, instantaneously discerned in Jesus the Messianic child, and the reason why the co-operation of the Holy Spirit is' insisted on, is to make it evident how Simeon was enabled, without any previous information, to recognise in Jesus the promised child, and at the same time to foretel the course of his destiny. Our canonical Gospel refers Simeon's recognition of Jesus to a supernatural principle resident in Simeon himself; the Evangelium infantice arabicum refers it to something objective in the appearance of Jesus-far more in the spirit of the original narrative than the natural interpretation, for it retains the miraculous element. But, apart from the general reasons against the credibility of miracles, the admission of a miracle in this instance is attended with a special difficulty, because no worthv object for an extraordinary manifestation of divine power is discoverable. For, that the above occurrence during the infancy of Jesus served to disseminate and establish in more distant circles the persuasion of his Messiahship, there is no indication; we must therefore, with the evangelist, limit the object of these supernatural communications to Simeon and Anna, to whose devout hopcs was vouchsafed the special reward of having their eyes enlightened to discern the Messianic child.

But that miracles should be ordained for such occasional and isolated objects, is not reconcileable with just ideas of divine providence.

Thus here again we find reason to doubt the historical character of the narrative, especially as we have found by a previous investigation that it is annexed to narratives purely mythical. Simeon's real expressions, say some commentators, were probably these:

Would that I might yet behold the newborn Messiah, even as I now bear this child in my arms !-a simple wish which was transformed ex eventu by tradition, into the positive enunciations now read in Lukef. But this explanation is incomplete, for the reason why such stories became current concerning Jesus, must be shown in the relative position of this portion of the Gospel narrative, and in the interest of the primitive Christian legend. As to the former, this scene at the presentation of Jesus in the temple is obviously parallel with that at the circumcision of the Baptist, narrated by the same evangelist; for on both occasions, at the inspiration ^{P.182} of the Holy Spirit, God is praised, for the birth of a national deliverer, and the future destiny of the child is prophetically announced, in the one case by the father, in the other by a devout stranger. That this scene is in the former instance connected with the circumcision, in the latter with the presentation in the temple, seems to be accidental; when however the legend had once, in relation to Jesus, so profusely adorned the presentation in the temple, the circumcision must be left, as we have above found it, without embellishment.

As to the second spring in the formation of our narrative, namely, the interest of the Christian legend, it is easy to conceive how this would act. He who, as a man, so clearly proved himself to be the Messiah, must also, it was thought, even as a child have been recognisable in his true character to an eye rendered acute by the Holy Spirit; he who at a later period, by his powerful words and deeds, manifested himself to be the Son of God, must surely, even before he could speak or move with freedom, have borne the stamp of divinity. Moreover if men, moved by the Spirit of God, so early pressed Jesus with love and reverence in their arms, then was the spirit that animated him not an impious one, as his enemies alleged; and if a holy seer had predicted, along with the high destiny of Jesus, the conflict which he had to undergo, and the anguish which his fate would cause his mother, then it was assuredly no chance, but a divine plan, that led him into the dcplits of abasement on the way to His ultimate exaltation.

This view of the narrative is thus countenanced positively by the nature of the fact, and negatively by the difficulties attending any other explanation. One cannot but wonder, therefore, how Schleiermacher can be influenced against it by an observation which did not prevent him from taking a similar view of the history of the Baptist's birth, namely, that the narrative is too natural to have been fabricated; and how Ncander can argue against it, from exaggerated ideas of the more imposing traits which the myth would have substituted for our narrative. Far from allowing a purincation for the mother of Jesus, and a redemption for himself, to take place in the ordinary manner, Neander thinks the inythus would have depicted an angelic appearance, intended to deter Mary or the priest from an observance inconsistent with the dignity of Jesus. As though even the Christianity of Paul did not maintain that Christ was born "under the law" (Gal. iv. 4.); how much more then the Judaic Christianity from which these narratives are derived. As though Jesus himself had not, agreeably to this view of his position, submitted to baptism, and according to the Evangelist ^{P.183} whose narrative is in question, without any previous expostulation on the part of the Baptist! of more weight is Schleiermacher's other observation, that supposing this narrative to be merely a poetical creation, its author would scarcely have placed by the side of Simeon Anna, of whom he makes no poetical use, still less would he have characterized her with minuteness, after designating his principal personage with comparative negligence. But to represent the dignity of the child Jesus as being proclaimed by the mouth of two witnesses, and especially to associate a prophetess with the prophet.-this is just the symmetrical grouping that the legend loves. The detailed description of Anna may have been taken from a real person who, at the time when our narrative originated, was yet held in remembrance for her distinguished piety. As to the Evangelist's omission to assign her any particular speech, it is to be observed that her office is to spread abroad the glad news, while that of Simeon is to welcome Jesus into the temple: hence as the part of the prophetess was to be performed behind the scenes, her precise words could not be given. As in a former instance Schleiermacher supposes the Evangelist to have received his history from the lips of the shepherds, so here he conceives him to have been indebted to Anna, of whose person he has so vivid a recollection; Ncander approves this opinion-not the only straw thrown out by Schleiermacher, to which this theologian has clung in the emergencies of modern criticism.

At this point also, where Luke's narrative leaves Jesus for a series of years, there is a concluding sentence on the prosperous growth of the child (v. 40); a similar sentence occurs at the corresponding period in the life of the Baptist, and both recall the analogous form of expression found in the story of Sampson (Judg. xiii. 24 f.).

IN the foregoing examinations we have called in question the historical credibility of the Gospel narratives concerning the genealogy, birth, and childhood of Jesus, on two grounds: first, because the narratives taken separately contain much that will not bear an historical interpretation; and secondly, because the parallel narratives of Matthew and Luke exclude each other, so that it is impossible for both to be true, and one must necessarily be false; this imputation however may attach to either, and consequently to both.

One of the contradictions between the two narratives extends from the beginning of the story of the childhood to the point we have now reached; it has therefore often come in our way, but we have been unable hitherto to give it our consideration, because only now that we have completely reviewed the scenes in which it figures, ^{P.184} consequences. We refer to the divergency that exists between Matthew and Luke, in relation to the original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus.

Luke, from the very beginning of his history, gives Nazareth as the abode of Joseph and Mary; here the angel seeks Mary (i. 26); here we must suppose Mary's house to be situated (i. 56); from hence the parents of Jesus journey to Bethlehem on account of the census (ii. 4); and hither, when circumstances permit, they return as to their own city (v. 39). Thus in Luke, Nazareth is evidently the proper residence of the parents of Jesus, and they only visit Bethlehem for a short time, owing to a casual circumstance.

In Matthew, it is not stated in the first instance -where Joseph and Mary resided. According to ii. 1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and since no extraordinary circumstances are said to have led his parents: there, it appears as if Matthew supposed them to have been originally resident in Bethlehem. Here he makes the parents with the child receive the visit of the magi; then follows the flight into Egypt, on returning from -which Joseph is only deterred from again seeking Judea by a special divine admonition, which directs him to Nazareth in Gralilee (ii. 22). This last particular renders certain what had before seemed probable, namely, that Matthew did not with Luke suppose Nazareth, but Bethlehem, to have been the original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus, and that he conceived their final settlement at Nazareth to have been the result of unforeseen circumstances.

This contradiction is generally glided over without suspicion.

The reason of this lies in the peculiar character of Matthew's Gospel, a character on which a modern writer has built the assertion that this Evana'elist does not contradict Luke concerning the original residence of the parents of Jesus, for he says nothing at all on the subject, troubling himself as little about topographical as chronological accuracy, he mentions the later abode of Joseph and Mary, and the birth-place of Jesus, solely because it was possible to connect with them Old Testament prophecies; as the abode of the parents of Jesus prior to his birth furnished no opportunity for a similar quotation, Matthew has left it entirely unnoticed, an omission which however, in his style of narration, is no proof that he was ignorant of their abode, or that he supposed it to have been Bethlehem. But even admitting that the silence of Matthew on the earlier residence of the parents of Jesus in Nazareth, and on the peculiar circumstances that caused Bethlehem to be his birth-place, proves nothing; yet the above supposition requires that the exchange of Bethlehem for Nazareth should be so represented as to give some intimation, or at least to leave a possibility, that we should understand the former to be a merely temporary abode, and the journey to the latter a return homeward. Such an intimation would have ^{P.185} been given, had Matthew attributed to the angelic vision, that determined Joseph's settlement in Nazareth after his return from Egypt, such communications as the following: Return now into the land of Israel and into your native city Nazareth, for there is no further need of your presence in Bethlehem, since the prophecy that your Messianic child should be born in that place is already fulfilled. But as Matthew is alleged to be generally indifferent about localities, we will be moderate, and demand no positive intimation from him, but simply make the negative requisition, that he should not absolutely exclude the idea, that. Nazareth was the original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus. This requisition would be met if, instead of a special cause being assigned for the choice of Nazareth as a residence, it had been merely said that the parents of Jesus returned by divine direction into the land of Israel and betook themselves to Nazareth. It would certainly seem abrupt enough, if without any preamble Nazareth were all at once named instead of Bethlehem: of this our narrator was conscious, and for this reason he has detailed the causes that led to' the change (ii. 22). But instead of doing this, as we have shown that he must have done it, had he, with Luke, known Nazareth to be the original dwellingplace of the parents of Jesus, his .account has precisely the opposite bearing, which undeniably proves that his supposition was the reverse of Luke's. For when Matthew represents Joseph on his return from Egypt as being prevented from going to Judea solely by his fear of Archelaus, he ascribes to him an inclination to proceed to that province an inclination which is unaccountable if the affair of the census alone had taken him to Bethlehem, and which is only to be explained by the supposition that he had formerly dwelt there.

On the other hand as Matthew makes the danger from Archelaus (together with the fulfilment of a prophecy) the sole cause of the settlement of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth, he cannot have supposed that this was their original home, for in that case there would have been an independently decisive cause which would have rendered any other superfluous.

Thus the difficulty of reconciling Matthew with Luke, in the present instance, turns upon the impossibility of conceiving how the parents of Jesus could, on their return from Egypt, have it in contemplation to proceed a second time to Bethlehem unless this place had formerly been their home. The efforts of commentators have accordingly been chiefly applied to the task of finding other reasons for the existence of such an inclination in Joseph and Mary.

^{P.186} Such efforts are of a very early date. Justin Martyr, holding by Luke, who, while he decidedly states Nazareth to be, the dwellingplace of the parents of Jesus, yet does not represent Joseph as a complete stranger in Bethlehem, (for he makes it the place from which he lineally sprang,) seems to suppose that Nazareth was the dwelling-place, and Bethlehem the birth-place of Joseph, and Credner thinks that this passage of Justin points out the source, and presents the reconciliation of the divergent statements of our two evangelists. But. it is far from presenting a reconciliation. For as Nazareth is still supposed to be the place which Joseph had chosen as his home, no reason appears why, on his return from Egypt, he should all at once desire to exchange his former residence for his birth-place, especially as, according to Justin himself, the cause of his former journey to Bethlehem had not been a plan of settling there, but simply the census-a cause which, after the flight, no longer existed. Thus the statement of Justin leans to the side of Luke and does not suffice to bring him into harmony with Matthew. That it was the source of our two Gospel accounts is still less credible; for how could the narrative of Matthew, which mentions neither Nazareth as a dwelling-place, nor the census as the cause of a journey to Bethlehem, originate in the statement of Justin, to which these facts are essential? Arguing generally, where on the one hand, there are two diverging statements, on the Other, an insufficient attempt to combine them, it is certain that the latter is not the parent and the two former its offspring, but vice versa. Moreover, in this department of attempting reconciliations, we have already, in connection with the genealogies, learned to estimate Justin or his authorities.

A more thorough attempt at reconciliation is made in the Evangelium de nativitate Marice, and has met with much approval from modern theologians. According to this apocryphal book, the house of Mary's parents was at Nazareth, and although she was brought up in the temple at Jerusalem and there espoused to Joseph, she returned after this occurence to her parents in Gahlee. Joseph, on the contrary, was not only born at Bethlehem, as Justin seems to intimate, but also lived there, and there brought home his betrothed. But this mode of conciliation, unlike the other, is favourable to Matthew and disadvantageous to Luke. For the census with its attendant circumstances is left out, and necessarily so, because if Joseph were at home in Bethlehem, and only went to Nazareth to fetch his bride, the census could not be represented as the reason why he returned to Bethlehem, for he would have done so in the ordinary course of things, after a few days' absence. Above all, had Bethlehem been his home, he would not on his arrival have sought an inn where there was no room for him, but would have taken Mary under his own roof. Hence modern expositors who wish to avail themselves of the outlet presented by the apocryphal book, and yet to save the census of Luke from rejection, maintain that Joseph did indeed dwell, and carry on his trade, in ^{P.187} Bethlehem, but that he possessed no house of his own in that place, and the census recalling him there sooner than he had anticipated, he had not yet provided one. But Luke makes it appear, not only that the parents of Jesus were not yet settled in Bethlehem, but (hat they were not even desirous of settling there; that, on the contrary, it was their intention to depart after the shortest possible stay. This opinion supposes great proverty on the part of Joseph and Mary; Olshausen, on the other hand, prefers enriching them, for the sake of conciliating the difference in question. He supposes that they had property both in Bethlehem and Nazareth, and could therefore have settled in either place, but unknown circumstances inclined them, on their return from Egypt, to fix upon Bethlehem, until the divine warning came as a preventive. Thus Olshausen dechnes particularizing the reason why it appeared desirable to the parents of Jesus to settle in Bethlehem; but Heydenreich and others have supplied his omission, by assuming that it must have seemed to them most fitting for him, who was pre-eminently the Son of David, to be brought up in David's own city.

Here, however, theologians would do well to take for their model the honesty of Neander, and to confess with him that of this intention on the part of Joseph and Mary to settle at Bethlehem, and of the motives which induced them to give up the plan, Luke knows nothing, and that they rest on the authority of Matthew alone. But what reason does Matthew present for this alleged change of place?

The visit of the magi, the massacre of the infants, visions in dreams-events whose evidently unhistorical character quite disqualifies them from serving as proofs of a change of residence on the part of the parents of Jesus. On the other hand Neander, while confessing that the author of the first Gospel was probably ignorant of the particular circumstances which, according to Luke, led to the journey to Bethlehem, and hence took Bethlehem to be the original residence of the parents of Jesus, maintains that there may be an essential agreement between the two accounts though that agreement did not exist in the consciousness of the writers, But, once more, what cause does Luke assign for the journey to Bethlehem?

The census, which our previous investigations have shown to be. as frail a support for this statement, as the infanticide and its consequences for that of Matthew. Hence here again it is not possible by admitting the inacquaintance of the one narrator with what the other presents to vindicate the statements of both; since each has against him, not only the ignorance of the other, but the improbability of his own narrative.

But we must distinguish more exactly the respective aspects and elements of the two accounts. As, according to the above observations, the change of residence on the part of the parents of Jesus, is in Matthew so linked with the unhistorical data of the infanticide ^{P.188} and the flight into Egypt, that. without these every cause for the migration disappears, we turn to Luke's account, which makes the parents of Jesus resident in the same place, both after and before the birth of Jesus. But in Luke, the circumstance of Jesus being born in another place than where his parents dwelt, is made to depend on an event as unhistorical as the marvels of Matthew, namely the census. If this be surrendered, no motive remains that could induce the parents of Jesus to take a formidable journey at so critical a period for Mary, and in this view of the case Matthew's representation seems the more probable one, that Jesus was born in the home of his parents and not in a strange place. Hitherto, however, we have ordy obtained the negative result, that the Gospel statements, according to which the parents of Jesus lived at first in another place than that in which they subsequently settled, and Jesus was born elsewhere than in the home of his parents, are destitute of any guarantee; we have yet to seek for a positive conclusion by inquiring what was really the place of his birth.

On this point we are drawn in two opposite directions. In both Gospels we find Bethlehem stated to be the birth-place of Jesus, and there is, as we have'seen, no impediment to our supposing that it was the habitual residence of his parents; on the other hand, the two Gospels again concur in representing Nazareth as the ultimate dwelling-place of Joseph and his family, and it is only an unsupported statement that forbids us to regard it as their original residence, and consequently as the birth-place of Jesus. It would be impossible to decide between these contradictory probabilities were both equally strong, but as soon as the slightest inequality between them is discovered, we are wan-anted to form a conclusion.

Let us first test the opinion, that the Galilean city Nazareth was the final residence of Jesus. This is not supported barely by the passages immediately under consideration, in the 2nd chapters of Matthew and Luke it rests on an uninterrupted series of data drawn from the Gospels and from the earliest Church history. The Galilean, the Nazarene-were the epiplicts constantly applied to Jesus.

As Jesus of Nazareth he was introduced by Philip to Nathaniel, whose responsive question was, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Nazareth is described, not only as the place whore he was brought, up, ov v TeOpaKvoc; (Luke iv. 16 f.), but also as his country, Tra-pic (Matt. xii. 34, Mark vi. 1.). He was known among the populace as Jesus of Nazareth (Luke xvili. 37), and invoked under this name by the demons (Mark i. 24.). The inscription on the cross stvles him a Nazarene (John xix. 19), and after his resurrection his apostles everywhere proclaimed him as Jesus of Nazareth (Acts ii. 22.) and worked miracles in his name (Acts iii. 6.) His disciples too were long called Nazarenes, and it was not until a late period that this name was exclusively applied to a heretical sect.

This a-Ducllation proves, if not that Jesus was born in Nazareth, at ^{P.189} least that he resided in that place for a considerable time; and as, according to a probable tradition (Luke iv. 16 f. parall), Jesus, during his public life, paid but transient visits to Nazareth, this prolonged residence must be referred to the earlier part of his life, which he passed in the bosom of his family. Thus his family, at least his parents, must have lived in Nazareth during his childhood; and if it be admitted that they once dwelt there, it follows that they dwelt there always, for we have no historical grounds for supposing a change of residence: so that this one of the two contradictory propositions has as much certainty as we can expect, in a fact belonging to so remote and obscure a period.

Neither does the other proposition, however, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, rest solely on the statement of our Gospels; it is sanctioned by an expectation, originating in a prophetic passage, that the Messiah would be born at Bethlehem. (Comp. with Matt. ii. 5. f, John vii. 42). But this is a dangerous support, which they who wish to retain as historical the gospel statement, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, will do well to renounce. For wherever we find a narrative which recounts the accomplishment of a long-expected event, a strong suspicion must arise, that the narrative owes its origin solely to the pre-existent belief that that event would be accomplished. But our suspicion is converted into certainty when we find this belief to be groundless; and this is the case here, for the alleged issue must have confirmed a false interpretation of a prophetic passage. Thus this proplietic evidence of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, deprives the historical evidence, which lies in the 2nd chapters of Matthew and Luke, of its value, since the latter seems' to be built on the former, and consequently shares its fall. Any other voucher for this fact is however sought in vain. Nowhere else in the New Testament is the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem mentioned; nowhere does he appear in any relation with his alleged birth-place, or pay it the honour of a visit, which he yet does not deny to the unworthy Nazareth; nowhere does he appeal to the fact as a concomitant proof of his Messiahship, although he had the most direct inducements to do so, for many were repelled from him by his Galilean origin, and defended their prejudice by referring to the necessity that the Messiah should come out of Bethlehem, the city of David (John vn. 42). John does not, it is true, say that these objections were uttered in the presence of Jesus; but as, immediatly before, he had annexed to a discourse of Jesus a comment of his own, to the effect that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, so here he might very suitably have added, in explanation of the doubts expressed by the people, that they did not yet know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Such an observation will be thought too superficial and trivial for an apostle like John; thus much however must be admitted: he had occasion repeatedly to mention the popular notion that Jesus ^{P.190} was a native of Nazareth, and the consequent prejudice against him; had he then known otherwise, he must have added a corrective remark, if he wished to avoid leaving the false impression, that he also believed Jesus to be a Nazarene. As it is, we find Nathanael, John i. 46, alleging this objection, without having his opinion rectified either mediately or immediately, for he nowhere learns that the good thing did not really come out of Nazareth, and the conclusion he is left to draw is, that even out of Nazareth something good can come.

In general, if Jesus were really born in Bethlehem, though but fortuitously, (according to Luke's representation,) it is incomprehensible, considering the importance of this fact to the article of his measiahship, that even his own adherents should always call him the Nazarene, instead of opposing to this epithet, pronounced by his opponents with polemical emphasis, the honourable title of the Bethlehemite.

Thus the Gospel statement that Jesus was born at Bethlehem is destitute of all valid historical evidence; indeed, it is contravened by positive historical facts. We have seen reason to conclude that the parents of Jesus lived at Nazareth, not. only after the birth of Jesus, but also, as we have no counter evidence, prior to that event, and that, no credible testimony to the contrary existing, Jesus was probably not born at any other place than the home of his parents. With this twofold conclusion, the supposition that Jesus was born at Bethlehem is irreconcileable: it, can therefore cost us no further effort to decide that Jesus was born, not in Bethlehem, but, as we have no trustworthy indications that point elsewhere, in all probability at Nazareth.

The relative position of the tvo evangelists on this point may be thus stated. Each of their accounts is partly correct, and partly incorrect; Luke is right in maintaining the Identity of the earlier with the later residence of the parents of Jesus, and herein Matthew is wrong; again, Matthew is right in maintaining the identity of the birth-place of Jesus with the dwelling-place of his parents, and here the error is on the side of Luke. Further, Luke is entirely correct in making the parents of Jesus reside in Nazareth before, as well as after, the birth of Jesus, while Matthew has only half the truth, namely, that they were established there after his birth; but in the statement that Jesus was born at Bethlehem both are decidedly wrong. The source of all the error of their narratives, is the Jewish opinion with which they fell in, that the Messiah must be born at Bethlehem; the source of all their truth, is the fact which lay before them, that he always passed for a Nazarene; finally, the cause of the various admixture of the true and the false in both, and the preponderance of the latter in 'Matthew, is the different position held by the two writers in relation to the above data. Two particulars were to be reconciled-the historical fact that Jesus was universally known as a Nazarene, and the prophetic requisition that, as ^{P.191} Messiah, he should be born in Bethlehem. Matthew, or the legend which he followed, influenced by the ruling tendency to apply the prophecies, observable in his Gospel, effected the desired reconciliation in such a manner, that the greatest prominence was given to Bethlehem, the locality pointed out by the prophet; this was represented as the original home of the parents of Jesus, and Nazareth merely as a place of refuge, recommended by a subsequent turn of events. Luke, on the contrary, more bent on historic detail, either adopted or created that form of the legend, which attaches the greatest importance to Nazareth, making it the original dwellingplace of the parents of Jesus, and regarding the sojourn in Bethlehem as a temporary one, the consequence of a casual occurrence.

Such being the state of the case, no one, we imagine, will be inclined either with Schleiermacher, to leave the question concerning the relation of the two narratives to the real facts undecided, or with Sieffert, to pronounce exclusively in favour of Luke.

The Gospel of Matthew passes in silence over the entire period from the return of the parents of Jesus out of Egypt, to the baptism of Jesus by John; and even Luke has nothing to tell us of the long interval between the early childhood of Jesus and his maturity, beyond a single incident his demeanour on a visit to the temple in his twelfth year (ii. 41-52). This story, out of the early youth of Jesus is, as Hess has truly remarked,? distinguished from the narratives hitherto considered, belonging to his childhood, by the circumstance that Jesus no longer, a,s in the latter, holds a merely passive position, but presents an active proof of his high destination; a proof which has always been especially valued, as indicating the moment in which the consciousness of that destination was kindled in Jesus.

In his twelfth year, the period at which, according to Jewish ^{P.192} usage, the boy became capable of an independent participation in the sacred rites, the parents of Jesus, as this narrative informs us, took him for the first time to the Passover. At the expiration of the feast, the parents bent their way homewards; that their son was missing gave them no immediate anxiety, because they supposed him to be among their travelling companions, and it was not until after they had accomplished a day's journey, and in vain sought their son among their kinsfolk and acquaintance, that they turned back to Jerusalem to look for him there. This conduct on the part of the parents of Jesus may with reason excite surprise. It seems inconsistent with the carefulness which it has been thought incumbent on us to attribute to them, that they should have allowed the divine child entrusted to their keeping, to remain so long out of their sight; and hence they have on many sides been accused of neglect and a dereliction of duty, in the instance before us. It has been urged, as a general consideration in vindication of Joseph and Mary, that the greater freedom permitted to the boy is easily conceivable as part of a liberal method of education; but even according to our modern ideas, it would seem more than liberal for parents to let a boy of twelve years remain out of their sight during so long an interval as our narrative supposes; how far less reconcilable must it then be with the more rigid views of education held by the ancients, not excepting the Jews? It is remarked however, that viewing the case as an extraordinary one, the parents of Jesus knew their child, and they could therefore very well confide in his understanding and character, so far as to be in no fear that any danger would accrue to him from his unusual freedom; but we can perceive from their subsequent anxiety, that they were not so entirely at ease on that head. Thus their conduct must be admitted to be such as we should not have anticipated: but it is not consequently incredible, nor does it suffice to render the entire narrative improbable, for the parents of Jesus are no saints to us, that we should not impute to them any fault.

Returned to Jerusalem, they find their son on the third day in the temple, doubtless in one of the outer halls, in the midst of an assembly of doctors, engaged in a conversation with them, and exciting universal astonishment (v. 45 f.) From some indications it would seem that Jesus held a higher position in the presence of the doctors, than could belong to a boy of twelve years. The word kaqezomenon (sitting) has excited scruples, for according to Jewish records, it was not until after the death of the Rabbi Gamaliel, an event long subsequent to the one described in our narrative, that the pupils of the rabbis sat, they having previously been required to stand when in the school; but this Jewish tradition is of doubtful authority. It has also been thought a difficulty, that Jesus does ^{P.193} not merely hear the doctors, but also asks them questions, thus appearing to assume the position of their teacher. Such is indeed the representation of the apocryphal Gospels, for in them Jesus, before he is twelve years old, perplexes all the doctors by his questions, and reveals to his instructor in the alphabet the mystical significance of the characters; while at the above visit to the temple he proposes controversial questions, such as that touching the Messiah's being at once David's Son and Lord, (Matth. xxii. 41) and proceeds to throw light on all departments of knowledge. If the expressions e)rwtan and a)pokrinesqai implied that Jesus played the part of a teacher in this scene, so unnatural a feature in the Gospel narrative would render the whole suspicious. But there is nothing to render this interpretation of the words necessary, for according to Jewish custom, rabbinical teaching was of such a kind that not only did the masters interrogate the pupils, but the pupils interrogated the masters, when they wished for explanations on any point. We may with the more probability suppose that the writer intended to attribute to Jesus such questions as suited a boy, because he, apparently not without design, refers the astonishment of the doctors, not to his questions, but to that in which he could best show himself in the light of an intelligent pupil, namely, to his answers. A more formidable difficulty is the statement, that the boy Jesus sat in the midst of the doctors. For we learn from Paul (Acts xxii. 3.) the position that became a pupil, when he says that he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel: it being the custom for the rabbis to be placed on chairs, while their pupils sat on the ground, and did not take their places among their masters. It has indeed been thought that the phrase e)n mesw might be so explained as to signify, either that Jesus sat between the doctors, who are supposed to have been elevated on chairs, while Jesus and the other pupils are pictured as sitting on the ground between them, or merely that he was in the company of doctors, that is, in the synagogue but according to the strict sense of the words, the expression kaqezesqai e)n mesw tinwn appears to signify, if not as Schottgen believes, in majorem Jesu gloriam, a place of preeminent honour, at least a position of equal dignity with that occupied by the rest. It need only be asked, would it harmonize with the spirit of our narrative to substitute "sitting at the feet of" (the doctors) for "sitting in their midst"? the answer will certainly be in the negative, and it will then be inevitable to admit, that our narrative places Jesus in another relation to the doctors than that of a learner, though the latter is the only natural one for a boy of twelve, however highly gifted. For Olshausen's ^{P.194} position, that in Jesus nothing was formed from without, by the instrumentality of another's wisdom, because this would be inconsistent with the character of the Messiah, as absolutely self-determined, contradicts a dogma of the Church which he himself advances, namely, that Jesus in his manifestation as man, followed the regular course of human development. For not only is it in the nature of this development to be gradual, but also, and still more essentially, to be dependent, whether it be mental or physical, on the interchange of reception and influence.

To deny this in relation to the physical life of Jesus to say, for example, that the food which he took did not serve for the nourishment and growth of his body by real assimilation, but merely furnished occasion for him to reproduce himself from within, would strike every one as Docetism; and if the analogous proposition in relation to his spiritual development, namely, that he appropriated nothing from without, and used what he heard from others merely as a voice to evoke one truth after another from the recesses of his own mind-is this anything else than a more refined Docetism? Truly, if we attempt to form a conception of the conversation of Jesus with the doctors in the temple according to this theory, we make anything but a natural scene of it. It is not to be supposed that he taught, nor properly speaking that he was taught, but that the discourse of the doctors merely gave an impetus to his power of teaching himself, and was the occasion for an ever-brightening light to rise upon him, especially on the subject of his own destination. But in that case he would certainly have given utterance to his newly acquired knowledge; so that the position of a teacher on the part of the boy would return upon us, a position which Olshausen himself pronounces to be preposterous. At least such an indirect mode of teaching is involved as Ness subscribes to, when he supposes that Jesus, even thus early, made the first attempt to combat the prejudices which dominated in the synagogue, exposing to the doctors, by means of good-humoured questions and requests for explanation, such as are willingly permitted to a boy, the weakness of many of their dogmas. But even such a position on the part of a boy of twelve, is inconsistent with the true process of human development, through which it behoved the God-Man himself to pass. Discourse of this kind from a boy must, we grant, have excited the astonishment of all the hearers; nevertheless the expression Ecistanto pantej oi( a)kouontej au)tou (v. 47), looks too much like a panegyrical formula.

The narrative proceeds to tell us how the mother of Jesus reproached her son when she had found him thus, asking him why he had not spared his parents the anguish of their sorrowful search? ^{P.195} To this Jesus returns an answer which forms the point of the entire narrative; he asks whether they might not have known that he was to be sought nowhere else than in the house of his Father, in the temple? (v. 48 f.) One might be inclined to understand this designation of God generally, as implying that God was the Father of all men, and only in this sense the Father of Jesus. But ths interpretation is forbidden, not only by the addition of the pronoun mou, the above sense requiring h(mwn (as in Matt. vi. 9), but still more absolutely by the circumstance that the parents of Jesus did not understand these words (v. 50), a decided indication that they must have a special meaning, which can here be no other than the mystery of the Messiahship of Jesus, who as Messiah, was ui(oj qeou in a peculiar sense. But that Jesus in his twelfth year had already the consciousness of his Messiahship is a position which, although it may be consistently adopted from the orthodox point of view, and although it is not opposed to the regular human form of the development of Jesus, which even orthodoxy maintains, we are not here bound to examine. So also the natural explanation, which retains the above narrative as a history, though void of the miraculous, and which accordingly supposes the parents of Jesus, owing to a particular combination of circumstances, to have come even before his birth to a conviction of his Messiahship, and to have instilled this conviction into their son from his earliest childhood, this too may make it plain how Jesus could be so clear as to his Messianic relation to God; but it can only do so by the hypothesis of an unprecedented coincidence of extraordinary accidents. We, on the contrary, who have renounced the previous incidents as historical, either in the supernatural or the natural sense, are unable to comprehend how the consciousness of his Messianic destination could be so early developed in Jesus. For though the consciousness of a more subjective vocation, as that of a poet or an artist, which is dependent solely on the internal gifts of the individual, (gifts which cannot long remain latent,) may possibly be awakened very early; an objective vocation, in which the conditions of external reality are a chief co-operator, as the vocation of the statesman, the general, the reformer of religion, can hardly be so early evident to the most highly endowed individual, because for this a knowledge of contemporary circumstances would be requisite, which only long observation and mature experience can confer. of the latter kind is the vocation of the Messiah, and if this is implied in the words by which Jesus in his twelfth year justified his lingering in the temple, he cannot have uttered the words at that period.

^{P.196} In another point of view also, it is worthy of notice that the parents of Jesus are said (v. 50) not to have understood the words which he addressed to them. What did these words signify? That God was his Father, in whose house it behoved him to be. But that her son would have a peculiar relation to the temple she might infer, both from the above title, and from the striking reception which he had met with at his first presentation in the temple, when yet an infant. The parents of Jesus, or at least Mary, of whom it is repeatedly noticed that she carefully kept in her heart the extraordinary communications concerning her son, ought not to have been in the dark a single moment as to the meaning of his language on this occasion. But even at the presentation in the temple, we are told that the parents of Jesus marvelled at the discourse of Simeon (v. 33), which is merely saying in other words that they did not understand him. And their wonder is not referred to the declaration of Simeon that their boy would be a cause not only of the rising again, but of the fall of many in Israel, and that a sword would pierce through the heart of his mother (an aspect of his vocation and destiny on which nothing had previously been communicated to the parents of Jesus, and at which therefore they might naturally wonder); for these disclosures are not made by Simeon until after the wonder of the parents, which is caused only by Simeon's expressions of joy at the sight of the Saviour, who would be the glory of Israel, and a light even to the Gentiles. And here again there is no intimation that the wonder was excited by the idea that Jesus would bear this relation to the heathens, which indeed it could not well be, since this more extended destination of the Messiah had been predicted in the Old Testament.

There remains therefore as a reason for the wonder in question, merely the fact of the child's Messiahship, declared by Simeon; a fact which had been long ago announced to them by angels, and which was acknowledged by Mary in her song of praise. We have just a parallel difficulty in the present case, it being as inconceivable that the parents of Jesus should not understand his allusion to his Messianic character, as that they should wonder at the declaration of it by Simeon. We must therefore draw this conclusion: if the parents of Jesus did not understand these expressions of their son when twelve years old, those earlier communications cannot have happened; or, if the earlier communications really occurred, the subsequent expressions of Jesus cannot have remained incomprehensible to them. Having done away with those earlier incidents as historical, we might content ourselves with this later want of comprehension, were it not fair to mistrust the whole of a narrative whose later portions agree so ill with the preceding. For it is the character not of an historical record, but of a marvellous legend, to represent its personages as so permanently in a state of wonder, that they not only at the first appearance of the extraordinary, but even at the second, third, tenth repetition, when one would expect them to be familiarized with it, continually are astonished and do not understand- obviously with the view of exalting the more highly the divine impartation by this lasting incomprehensibleness. So, to draw an example from the later history of Jesus, the divine decree of his suffering ^{P.197} and death is set forth in all its loftiness in the Gospel narratives by the circumstance, that even the repeated, explicit disclosures of Jesus on this subject, remain throughout incomprehensible to the disciples; as here the mystery of the Messiahship of Jesus is exalted by the circumstance, that his parents, often as it has been announced to them, at every fresh word on the subject are astonished anew and do not understand.

The twofold form of conclusion, that the mother of Jesus kept all these sayings in her heart (v. 51), and that the boy grew in wisdom and stature, and so forth, we have already recognised as a favourite form of conclusion and transition in the heroic legend of the Hebrews; in particular, that which relates to the growth of the boy is almost verbally parallel with a passage relating to Samuel, as in two former instances similar expressions appeared to have been borrowed from the story of Samson.

THUS here again we must acknowledge the influence of the legend; but as the main part of the incident is thoroughly natural, we might in this instance prefer the middle course, and after disengaging the mythical, seek to preserve a residue of history. We might suppose that the parents of Jesus really took their son to Jerusalem in his early youth, and that after having lost sight of him, (probably before their departure,) they found him in the temple where, eager for instruction, he sat at the feet of the rabbis. When called to account, he declared that his favourite abode was in the house of God; a sentiment which rejoiced his parents, and won the approbation of the bystanders. The rest of the story we might suppose to have been added by the aggrandizing legend, after Jesus was acknowledged as the Messiah. Here all the difficulties in our narrative, the idea of the boy sitting in the midst of the doctors, his claiming God as his father in a special sense, and the departure of the parents without their sou, would be rejected; but the journey of Jesus when twelve years old, the eagerness for knowledge then manifested by him, and his attachment to the temple, are retained.

To these particulars there is nothing to object negatively, for they contain nothing improbable in itself; but their historical truth must become doubtful if we can show, positively, a strong interest of the legend, out of which the entire narrative, and especially these intrinsically not improbable particulars, might have arisen.

That in the case of great men who in their riper age have been distinguished by mental superiority, the very first presaging ^{P.198} movements of their mind are eagerly gleaned, and if they are not to be ascertained historically, are invented under the guidance of probability, is well known. In the Hebrew history and legend especially, we find manifold proofs of this tendency. Thus of Samuel it is said in the Old Testament itself, that even as a boy he received a divine revelation and the gift of prophecy (1 Sam. iii), and with respect to Moses, on whose boyish years the Old Testament narrative is silent, a subsequent tradition, followed by Josephus and Philo, had .striking proofs to relate of his early development. As in the narrative before us Jesus shews himself wise beyond his years; so this tradition attributes a like precocity to Moses; as Jesus turning away from the idle tumult of the city in all the excitement of festival tune, finds his favourite entertainment in the temple among the doctors; so the boy Moses was not attracted by childish sports, but by serious occupation, and very early it was necessary to give him tutors, whom, however, like Jesus in his twelfth year, he quickly surpassed, f

According to Jewish custom and opinion, the twelfth year formed an epoch in development to which especial proofs of awakening genius were the rather attached, because in the twelfth year, as with us in the fourteenth, the boy was regarded as having outgrown the period of childhood. Accordingly it was believed of Moses, that in his twelfth year he left the house of his father, to become an independent organ of the divine revelations. The Old Testament leaves it uncertain how early the gift of prophecy was imparted to Samuel, but he was said by a later tradition to have prophesied from his twelfth year: and in like manner the wise judgments of Solomon and Daniel (1 Kings iii.23ff.) were supposed to have been given when they were only twelve.

It in the case of these Old Testament heroes, the spirit that impelled them manifested itself according to common opinion so early as in their twelfth year, it was argued that it could not have remained longer concealed in Jesus; and if Samuel and David showed themselves at that age in their later capacity of divinely inspired seers, Solomon in that of a wise ruler, so Jesus at the corresponding period in his life must have shown himself in the character to which he subsequently established his claim, that namely, of the Son of God and Teacher of Mankind. It is, in fact, the obvious aim of Luke to pass over no epoch in the early life of Jesus, without surrounding him with divine radiance, with significant prognostics of the future; in this style he treats his birth, mentions the circumcision at least emphatically, but above all avails himself of the presentation in the temple. There yet remained according to Jewish manners one epoch, the twelfth year, -with the first journey to the Passover; how could he do otherwise than, following the legend, adorn this point in the development of Jesus as we find that he has done in his narrative? and how could we do otherwise than regard his narrative as a legendary embellishment of this period in the life of Jesus, from which we learn nothing of his real development, but merely something of the exalted notions which were entertained in the primitive Church of the early ripened mind of Jesus?

^{P.199} But how this story can be numbered among myths is found by some altogether inconceivable. It bears, thinks Heydenreich, a thoroughly historical character (this is the very point to be proved) and the stamp of the highest simplicity (like every popular legend in its original form); it contains no tincture of the miraculous, wherein the primary characteristic of a myth (but not of every myth) is held to consist; it is so remote from all embellishment that there is not the slightest detail of the conversation of Jesus with the doctors (the legend was satisfied with the dramatic trait, sitting in the midst of the doctors: as a dictum, v. 49. was alone important, and towards this the narrator hastens without delay); indeed, even the conversation between Jesus and his mother is only given in a fragmentary aphoristic manner (there is no trace of an omission); finally, the inventor of a legend would have made Jesus speak differently to his mother, instead of putting into his mouth words which might be construed into irreverence and indifference.

In this last observation Heydenreich agrees with Schleiermacher, who finds in the behaviour of Jesus to his mother, liable as it is to be misinterpreted, a sure guarantee that the whole history was not invented to supply something remarkable concerning Jesus, in connection with the period at which the holy things of the temple and the law were first opened to him.

In combating the assertion, that an inventor would scarcely have attributed to Jesus so much apparent harshness towards his mother, we need not appeal to the apocryphal Evangelium Thomae, which ^{P.200} makes the boy Jesus say to his foster-father Joseph: insipientissime fecisti; for even in the legend or history of the canonical Gospels, corresponding traits are to be found. In the narrative of the wedding at Cana, we find this rough address to his mother: "woman, what concern is that to you and to me?" (John ii. 4); and in the account of the visit paid to Jesus by his mother and brethren, the striking circumstance that he apparently wishes to take no notice of his relatives (Matt. xii. 46). If these are real incidents, then the legend had an historical precedent to warrant the introduction of a similar feature, even into the early youth of Jesus; if, on the other hand, they are only legends, they are the most vivid proofs that an inducement was not wanting for the invention of such features. Where this inducement lay, it is easy to see. The figure of Jesus would stand in the higher relief from the obscure background of his contracted family relations, if it were often seen that his parents were unable to comprehend his elevated mind, and if even he himself sometimes made them feel his superiority-so far as this could happen without detriment to his filial obedience, which, it should be observed, our narrative expressly preserves.

WHAT were the external conditions under which Jesus lived, from the scene just considered up to the time of his public appearance? On this subject our canonical Gospels give scarcely an indication.

First, as to his place of residence, all that we learn explicitly is this: that both at the beginning and at the end of this obscure period he dwelt at Nazareth. According to Luke ii. 51, Jesus when twelve years old returned there with his parents, and according to Matthew iii. 13. (Mark i. 9), he, when thirty years old (comp. Luke iii. 23), came from thence to be baptized by John. Thus our evangelists appear to suppose, that Jesus had in the interim resided in Galilee, and, more particularly, in Nazareth. this supposition, however, does not exclude journeys, such as those to the feasts in Jerusalem.

The employment of Jesus during the years of his boyhood and youth seems, from an intimation in our Gospels, to have been determined by the trade of his father, who is there called a tektwn (Matt. xiii. 55.). This Greek word, used to designate the trade of Joseph, is generally understood in the sense of faber lignarius (carpenter); a few only, on mystical grounds, discover in it a faber ferrarius (blacksmith), aurarius (goldsmith), or caementarius (mason). The works in wood which he executed are held of different magnitude by different authors: according to Justin and the Evangelium Thomae, they were ploughs and yokes, and in that case he would be what we call a wheelwright: according to the Evangelium Infantiae Arabicum, they were doors, milkvessels, sieves and coffers, and once Joseph makes a throne for the king; so that here he is represented partly as a cabinet-maker and partly as a cooper. The Protevangelium Jacobi, on the other hand, makes him work at buildings, without doubt as a carpenter. In these labours of the father Jesus appears to have shared, according to an expression of Mark, who makes the Nazarenes ask concerning Jesus, not merely as in the parallel passage of Matthew: Is not this the carpenter's son? but Is not this the carpenter? (vi. 3.) It is true that in replying to the taunt of Celsus that the teacher of the Christians was a carpenter by trade, Origen says, he must have forgotten that in none of the Gospels received by the churches is Jesus himself called a carpenter. The above passage in Mark has in fact a various reading, which Origen must have taken, unless he be supposed altogether to have overlooked the passage, and which is preferred by some modern critics. But here Beza has justly remarked that "fortasse, mutuvit aliquis, existimans, hanc artem Christi majestati parum convenire;" whereas there could hardly be an interest which would render the contrary alteration desirable. Moreover Fathers of the Church and apocryphal writings represent Jesus, in accordance with the more generally accepted reading, as following the trade of his father. Justin attaches especial importance to the fact that Jesus made ploughs and yokes or scales, as symbols of active life and of justice. In the Evangelium Infantiae, Jesus goes about with Joseph to the places where the latter has work, to help him in such a manner that if Joseph made anything too long or too short, Jesus, by a touch or by merely stretching out his hand, gave to the object its rig-lit size; an assistance which was very useful to his foster-father, because, as the apocryphal text naively remarks: "nec admodum peritus erat artis fabrilis."

Apart from the apocryphal descriptions, there are many reasons for believing that the above intimation as to the youthful employment of Jesus is correct. In the first place, it accords with the Jewish custom which prescribed, even for one destined for a learned career, or in general to any spiritual occupation, the acquisition of some handicraft; thus Paul, the pupil of the rabbis, was also a tent-maker (Acts xviii. 3). Next, as our previous examinations have shown that we know nothing historical

of extraordinary plans or expectations on the part of Jesus' parents in relation to their son, so nothing is more natural that to suppose that Jesus early practised the trade of his father. Further, the Christian must have had interest in denying rather than inventing this opinion as to their Messiah's youthful occupation, since it often drew down on them the ridicule of their opponents. Thus Celsus could not abstain from a reflection on this subject, for which reason Origen will know nothing of any designation of Jesus as a tektwn in the New Testament; and everyone knows the scoffing question of Libanius about the carpenter's son, a question which seems to have been provided with so striking an answer, only ex eventu.